 Management of various water projects like the Lower Owens River Project, responsible for the water now flowing in this stretch of river between Independence and Manzanar, is governed by various, separate agreements and court orders. However, the county lacks a single, overall plan that covers its goals and visions for water management in the entire county. Photo by Jon Klusmire Water director floats idea of integrated management plan to cover goals, vision for entire county
By Jon Klusmire
Register Staff
Despite all the angst, time and money consumed by water issues in Inyo County, there is no clear, overriding vision of the guiding principles and main goals the county would like to achieve with its water policy.
There are plenty of scraps and bits and pieces. Most, if not all, of those guiding principles, however, came as the result of lawsuits that set out in black and white what were legal and illegal actions and set limits, solidified definitions and created legally binding guidelines concerning a large number of water matters (from the Hillside Decree for the Bishop Cone to the current Lower Owens River lawsuit). Then there are agreements achieved through negotiations between politicians seeking a deal they could all live with, such as the Long-Term Water Agreement, which was basically a way to settle a string of lawsuits out of court, or even the recent Interim Management Plan on groundwater pumping totals.
The ongoing water debate is shrouded in almost a paranoid atmosphere where the county is often afraid to go out on a limb or take a chance or make a change. Those chances and changes might be seen as a sign of weakness or could backfire and end up not as simply a good suggestion or idea, but something that a lawyer could turn into an obligation and a duty.
Crafting a new, Integrated Regional Water Management Plan could be one way to start getting past the present assortment of legal restrictions, court orders and negotiated agreements that shape the Owen’s Valley’s water debate, according to Inyo County Water Department Director Tom Brooks.
“It’s better to have a plan than a contract,” said Brooks, because “a plan equals vision.”
The county does have the LTWA with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, but Brooks noted that the county’s water issues are not simply issues between the county and LADWP.
“We don’t have a vehicle to put forward a vision” of what the county wants to see happen when it comes to all aspects of water-related issues facing the county, he said.
For example, the county could probably benefit from a more finely crafted plan for agricultural water use than what has been created through agreements and lawsuits, he said. In addition, the LTWA does not discuss in any depth the interconnectedness of surface water and groundwater, an area of great concern to the county, Brooks added.
Nor does the agreement cover the entire county, being limited to the Owens Valley, noted First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius. The issues the county might face with developers trying to use groundwater for sprawling residential development in Sandy Valley or Charleston View areas in Southeast Inyo are completely different than anything addressed in the LTWA, she pointed out.
Taking a regional approach would get all the “stakeholders” at the table to simply plan, discuss and outline ideas, directions and goals, Brooks noted. A regional plan would not be constrained by political boundaries, he noted. That would allow the City of Bishop and federal land managers, to name just the most obvious, to come to the table with ideas and possibly resources.
When talking about protecting watershed and water, it’s hard to leave out the role played by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, on whose land the Sierra snowpack falls and then runs through to get to the valley, for example.
Other parties that should be included in any water debates are local Indian tribes that already play a significant role in local water issues, and who have water rights that need to be protected and which could possibly be developed.
Brooks admitted the list of stakeholders would be large, and not limited to just governments, since private citizens and businesses could also be contributors to any plan.
But there are also some extremely solid, practical reasons for undertaking what appears to be a massive planning effort. Brooks pointed out that there are plenty of state programs that offer grants, but many of those grants are tied to regional approaches to natural resource issues. If Inyo County had a regional water plan to combine with its pressing needs and compelling water history, some of those grants might be easier to come by. Brooks mentioned potential grant funding for the Lower Owens River Project – “that’s tailor-made for state funds” – from Prop 84 money, for example, and also possible grants for other water-related projects from Prop 12 or Prop 50, as well.
Arcularius agreed, noting that in many cases “you need a regional plan to get state money and grants,” especially from the specific pools of funds created by voter-approved ballot measures, such as the three Brooks mentioned.
The key to any regional plan is to actually implement the resource strategies that eventually end up in the plan, Brooks said.
And that is where a potential regional water plan could dovetail with current work being undertaken by the county and LADWP.
Brooks made sure to stress that the LTWA, the Green Book and all other existing agreements and court rulings governing LADWP’s water management in the Owens Valley would remain in place and would continue to carry their current full legal weight and legitimacy. “An agreement and a plan are two different animals,” he assured the supervisors.
But there is also a different approach to making a plan than to creating a legal agreement, he pointed out. The plan, in general, starts with what is possible and incorporates the best ideas to make the possible a reality.
Again, looking at the practical application, Brooks said that if the county could craft a regional water plan that was consistent with its current, general water policies, “it could be a second vehicle to move forward with LADWP on a policy level.”
The ongoing Green Book revision, for example, could fit nicely into a long-term, regional set of goals, and vice versa, he said. In the future, having a broad set of ideals and goals laid out in a regional water plan, that LADWP watched, if not helped come in to being, will benefit the interactions between the two entities, he said.
The board was a tad skeptical.
Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu said it sounded like the plan would create another “layer” of management, and wondered, as did Second District Supervisor Susan Cash, who would do the work on the plan, and who would pay for that work. Cash said the Green Book revisions would come first, in her mind, before a larger, regional planning effort was undertaken.
Brooks said planning grants could be sought to get started, but Water Department staff would have to devote considerable time to the effort, which could take as long as five years to complete.
The supervisors said they had plenty of questions, and Brooks will present the idea in more detail and with more material at a future board meeting.
As if to underscore the current dicey status of any change to anything related to water, Cash said she didn’t want to take a chance that anything presented as “conceptual and non-binding” could end up in court as a statement. “I hope not to get hung out to dry later.”
Brooks stated, again, “plans are not binding agreements, they only contain goals, directions and vision.”
Which when it comes to water in Inyo County, represents a pretty big “only.”
|
