Bishop - Supes size up water plan area

Inyo County has a rough idea what the area of its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan will look like, and the next step in the development of the plan is to decide which member-agency will be acting as the plan’s regional fiscal sponsor.
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors decided by consensus on Tuesday to include Inyo County, Death Valley and Mono County in the water management plan, and exclude parts of Nevada and Kern and San Bernardino counties.
The supervisors didn’t come to that decision lightly, and spent more than two hours discussing the plan, with the board split on the idea of including Mono County.
By developing a regional water management plan that includes multiple stakeholders, such as water departments, government agencies or non-profits, the member-agencies will be eligible for a portion of the $1.5 billion in bond funding allocated for water-related projects dealing with water supply, water quality, habitat and environment.

Specifically, Inyo County Water Director Dr. Bob Harrington said the money could be used in Inyo County for work on the Lower Owens River recreation plan.

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors approved inclusion of Mono, Kern and San Bernardino counties into its proposed integrated regional water management plan. The board opted to exclude the “areas of interest” located in Nevada. Photo courtesy Inyo County Water Department

Harrington brought the board a map with the areas he recommended to include in the water management plan.
Harrington’s map included three major water tables in the Eastern Sierra – Inyo and Mono counties, a smaller water table in northeastern Mono County and the Death Valley water table in southeastern Inyo. Because the Walker water table (in northeastern Mono) and Death Valley water table both flow into Nevada, Harrington included parts of the state as “areas of interest” in his proposed map. He included a portion of San Bernardino and Kern counties as well, as they are part of the Death Valley water table.
The board immediately agreed not to cross state boundaries in the water management plan, and asked Harrington those sections from the proposal.
Even with the areas of Nevada excluded from the regional water plan, the board agreed that the area was too large to manage as a regional plan, and expressed concerns of possible conflicts of interest from other members, namely Mono County.
“I think it’s too large, this is really two seperate watersheds,” First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius said. “A large region makes it less local.”
Third District Supervisor Beverly Brown along with Bilyeu said working with Mono County could become problematic.
Brown said that, with Mono County on board with the regional water management plan, decision-making “is going to be very environmentally, and very wilderness driven.” She added that, when Harrington first presented the map she liked the idea of including Inyo and Mono counties in the regional water plan, “but then I thought of IMACA (Inyo Mono Advocates for Community Action) and ESTA (Eastern Sierra Transit Authority), and it sent shivers down my spine.”
The Inyo and Mono boards of supervisors have oversight over IIMACA and ESTA.
Fifth District Supervisor Richard Cervantes said he wanted to include all of Inyo County and the parts of Kern and San Bernardino counties Harrington included in the map, but “not Mono County. There’s nothing but bad news from those people.” Cervantes also said he did not want to include Nevada in the regional plan.
Bilyeu, the only board member who ultimately decided the plan should include Inyo County alone, said, “I see no advantage to having Mono County involved in anything.”
Supervisor Arcularius said she felt Inyo and Mono could work effectively together on the regional water management plan.
Even with a large water management area, Harrington said, “the implementation of projects can be relatively small and relatively local.” He added that a larger area would provide the water management region with more opportunities to harness Prop 84 funding to protect the watershed.
The downside, he said, is that there will be several agencies prioritizing projects for the Prop 84 monies, which is what the Board of Supervisors feared.
After a long, circular discussion, in which the board expressed the pros and cons of creating such a large water management area, the board voted to approve Harrington’s map, excluding the Nevada regions.
The next step in the development of an integrated regional water management plan is to designate a fiscal sponsor from the member agencies.
The fiscal sponsor within the board-approved region can be any governmental agency such as the Inyo or Mono Board of Supervisors, Bureau of Land Management or a non-profit group.
A joint powers authority can also be created to act as fiscal manager for the plan.
The fiscal manager for the regional water plan may be required to front project money for its area, and wait for Prop 84 reimbursements.
“I’m not ready to commit to being a fiscal sponsor until we know more,” Arcularius said, noting that the administration end of the work is manageable for the county, but she is not comfortable with the idea of fronting money for water management projects unless she is sure there will be a reimbursement.
The board decided to table the fiscal sponsor discussion until a later date.
Inyo County is funding the regional water management plan through a pre-planning grant from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
Once the member agencies such as Mono County and the Death Valley Water District are on board, the agencies must develop a Memorandum of Understanding and select a fiscal officer.
From there the group will apply for a state planning grant in the order of a half million dollars to organize and finalize the water management plan.
When that is complete, the member agencies will begin discussing plans for water conservation and protection projects, and apply for Prop 84 monies to complete work on those projects.