The agenda includes only informational items and updates of ongoing projects, but the discussion about those projects could provide hints about how much value and importance the Standing Committee will be given by the officials from Inyo County, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power who make up the group.

The most interesting item on the agenda involves a discussion on the various mitigation projects suggested by the ad hoc committee, an informal group whose project suggestions for the Hines Spring mitigation plan, in some cases, don’t fit with previous efforts and suggestions on how to use 1,600 square feet of water for Hines Spring and several other re-greening projects.
That little chat will come after an agenda item titled “Standing Committee Responsibilities.”
How the group defines itself and then goes about looking at some “new” mitigation projects that have the backing of everyone involved, but are not part of the existing, “official” Owens Valley legal and negotiated water plans, could set the tone for how the Standing Committee proceeds, or doesn’t, in the coming years.  
Taken together, the group’s discussion of those two topics could reveal whether it feels the Long-Term Water Agreement is “a living document” that should be altered and improved over time, or whether its strictures and guidelines should be followed to the letter.
After not meeting for several years, the Standing Committee resumed regular meetings in 2006. The current Board of Water and Power Commissioners and Inyo County Board of Supervisors have both committed to at least four Standing Committee meetings a year. But the somewhat fuzzy status of the committee’s actual power to make binding decisions already caused one ruckus, when the Los Angeles group pressed for the ability to make quick and final decisions at the meetings.
Inyo County Water Department Director Tom Brooks pointed out recently that the general role and responsibilities of the Standing Committee are not spelled out in detail beyond several specific tasks assigned to the group in the Long Term Water Agreement. “No single document outlines the Standing Committee’s duties,” Brooks said.
That makes the Standing Committee probably one of the few parts of the Owens Valley water puzzle without an exhaustively detailed outline of what it can and cannot do.
Since the membership of the committee changes fairly frequently, Brooks said it might be a good idea to at least sketch out the group’s goals and responsibilities.
The dust-up over the seemingly toothless nature of the Standing Committee arose when representatives from the LADWP commission said they were willing to commit to an action at the Standing Committee level, and then go back to their full board and get approval for the action. In essence, the full board of Water and Power Commissioners had delegated the decision-making authority to its representatives on the Standing Committee.  
Meanwhile, Inyo County’s two supervisors on the committee said they could not commit the county to any final decisions, and only the full board could make final decisions.
That different approach to the Standing Committee could be taken as a hint about the different approaches taken by both bodies concerning the Owens Valley. Inyo County and its residents and politicians are completely consumed by every drop of every water issue, since it has been the overriding county issue for the past 100 years. The LADWP board, overseeing a budget of more than $3.2 billion and thousands of employees, has plenty on its plate, and feels comfortable with two members presenting LADWP’s policies, and making “routine” decisions about the Owens Valley, which is a critical part of LADWP’s operations, but represents only one of many critical parts of LADWP’s operations. 
However, the current crop of LADWP commissioners has made it a priority to improve relationships with the residents of the Owens Valley, and there have been some encouraging signs the board is serious about that effort. Those signs include the symbolic – Board Chairman David Nahai riding in the Mule Days Parade and appearing at other Owens Valley functions – and substantive – working on a promised long-term lease for the Bishop airport and agreeing to an Interim Management Plan to set groundwater pumping levels so staffs from both LADWP and the county can work to revise the Green Book.
 As for what the staffs from Inyo County and LADWP think the Standing Committee should be doing, “we’ve got some ideas,” said Brooks. More than likely, there are plenty of ideas about what the committee should and shouldn’t do that will be presented at the Monday Standing Committee meeting, which gets under way at 1 p.m. at the Tri-County Fairgrounds in Bishop.
The public will also be able to comment on each agenda item, or speak about other issues to the committee.
The Green Book revisions will be on top of the agenda. Work to revise the Green Book, which contains the technical guidelines and protocols for groundwater management in the valley, has begun after years of both LADWP and the county saying the current guidelines don’t work too well for either side.
Progress on the Lower Owens River Project will also be reviewed. This spring, LADWP petitioned the courts with evidence that it had achieved the mandated flows of 40 cubic feet per second in the 62 river miles of the Lower Owens. However, there was more to Judge Lee Cooper’s LORP ruling than just putting water in the river, so LADWP is still working to comply with the court order. It’s also paying a fine of $5,000 a day. The deadline for completion of the LORP is July 25.
The LORP also created several specific tasks the Standing Committee must complete. Those include determining, based on yearly runoff, the amount of flooding of the Blackrock Water Fowl area and setting the amount of the seasonal, “pulse flows” in the LORP (after this winter’s mandatory 200 c.f.s. initial flow).
Another clear role of the Standing Committee is that it is  supposed to function as somewhat of a judge when it comes to technical matters. If staffs from LADWP and the county cannot agree in the Technical Group about a process or water project, or if the decision requires a policy decision, not just a technical fix, the issue gets kicked up to the Standing Committee. If the Standing Committee also deadlocks, then mediation and possibly litigation take place.
How far the committee will stretch itself and its authority could be determined by how it reacts to the recommendations by the ad-hoc committee regarding Hines Spring and a handful of other mitigation projects.
The ad hoc group met unofficially and informally, and included all the major players ­– from local ranchers to LADWP and the county to state agencies to the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee. Judge Cooper encouraged  the group, and reviewed, on the ground, its recommendations.
However, some of those recommended projects are not mentioned in existing agreements and court rulings about how LADWP must use 1,600 a.f. of water to revive Hines Spring and other mitigation, re-greening projects.
The Standing Committee, after it talks about its role and responsibilities, will get a chance to review the ad hoc group’s suggested projects.
The discussion about how far to stray from existing, documented water guidelines when different, and most agree better alternatives are present, could be instructive.
Implementation of the LTWA has been going on for the past 10 years. Already, the technical foundation of the agreement – the Green Book – has been found lacking and a revision is under way. If the group seems to favor the suggestions of the ad hoc group, some significant changes in lawsuits, the LTWA and environmental documents will have to be initiated and approved.
Thus, the undercurrent of Monday’s discussion will involve whether the Standing Committee  views past agreements and court rulings as unchangeable, or whether it wants to undertake the large task of making changes to those previous agreements when the consensus points to the need for a change.