The County of Inyo and the City of Los Angeles, after years of disputes and legal battles, have agreed upon a cooperative and unique groundwater and surface water management plan for the Owens Valley. It is unique in that groundwater management is based upon protection of the environment of the Owens Valley. This paper provides a brief history of the events that preceded the agreement on groundwater management and a description of the components of the management plan and its current status.
Most of the Owens Valley is located in Inyo County. It is situated between the Sierra Nevada and the Inyo/White mountains, approximately 250 miles north of the City of Los Angeles. The peaks of these mountain ranges tower on each side of the valley to more than 10,000 feet above the 4,000 foot elevation of the valley floor. The Owens Valley is approximately 100 miles long and varies in width from 6 to 15 miles.
The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the west creates a rain shadow over the Owens Valley. The valley receives an average annual precipitation of only four to six inches; however, snow melt runoff from the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada creates riparian and wetland environments and high groundwater tables that contrast with the otherwise high desert environment caused by the valley's arid climate.
There are five towns in the Owens Valley: Bishop, Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine, and Olancha/Cartago. The total population of Inyo County is 18,441. There is very little development outside of the towns. The predominant land uses in the Owens Valley are recreation and ranching. Most of the valley floor is used as rangeland for cattle and livestock. There are approximately 12,000 irrigated acres, including approximately 2,800 acres of alfalfa.
Los Angeles owns virtually all of the land on the valley floor outside of the towns. Los Angeles leases these lands for grazing and irrigated agriculture. The alluvial slopes of the Sierra and Inyo/White mountains are managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management, and the mountain ranges themselves are included in the Inyo National Forest. Approximately 99 percent of Inyo County's land is owned by the federal government, the state, or the City of Los Angeles.
In 1913, the City of Los Angeles completed an aqueduct from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles. This aqueduct had a capacity of approximately 480 cubic feet per second (300,000 acre-feet/year [AFY]) and was primarily filled with surface water diverted from the Owens Valley. (After 1941, surface water also was diverted from the Mono Basin to the Owens River and the aqueduct by Los Angeles.) In 1970, a second aqueduct with a capacity of 300 cfs (200,000 AFY) was completed by Los Angeles, bringing the total capacity of the aqueduct system to about 780 cfs (570,000 AFY). The second aqueduct was to be supplied from three sources: increased surface water diversion from the Owens Valley and Mono Basin; reduced irrigated acreage of Los Angeles-owned lands in Mono and Inyo Counties; and increased pumping of groundwater in the Owens Valley. Figure 1 shows the location of the Owens Valley, Mono Basin, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct system.
Los Angeles' activities over the last eighty years have had many adverse and some beneficial effects on the environment, economy, and way of life in the Owens Valley. Its surface water operations have resulted in the diversion of flow from over 50 miles of the Owens River and portions of its tributary streams with the destruction of the associated riparian vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife habitats. These diversions also have lead to the drying up of the 100 square mile Owens Lake, which has created conditions where blowing dust from the dry lake threatens the health of over 40,000 people. Its groundwater pumping has dried up an extensive spring and marsh system with the destruction of the associated vegetation and wildlife habitats, caused the reduction of diversity and density of groundwater dependent vegetation over large areas, and lowered water levels in privately owned domestic and irrigation wells. Its land and water management activities have resulted in the purchase of almost all private land (approximately 250,000 acres) and all water rights, thereby limiting and disrupting population and economic opportunities. On the other hand, Los Angeles' land management practices have prevented most urban development with the result that the pollution and the destruction of habitats caused by such development have been avoided in the Owens Valley.
In 1902, the Reclamation Act was enacted by Congress and a Reclamation Service was created to implement it. The purpose of the act was to open new lands in the West for settlement through irrigation and an irrigation system in the Owens Valley was one of the first projects considered. Surveys conducted in 1904, indicated that as many as 185,000 acres could be brought into production if irrigation and drainage systems were constructed. Land withdrawals and other initial steps were commenced by the Reclamation Service toward an Owens Valley project.
As planning for the reclamation project progressed, others were making separate plans. Surveys made in 1885 and 1891, had shown that it would be feasible to construct a gravity flow aqueduct from the Owens River to Los Angeles. By 1904, it had become evident to Los Angeles' water planners that water sources closer to Los Angeles were either inadequate or the water rights to sources of sufficient size were unavailable. As a result, in 1905, the Los Angeles Water Commission approved a plan for an aqueduct from the Owens Valley. Thereafter, Los Angeles began acquisition of the rights to the land wad water in the Owens Valley necessary to build an aqueduct. The Reclamation Service subsequently abandoned its plans for an irrigation project in the Owens Valley.
Construction of the first aqueduct commenced in 1908, and export of water from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles began in 1913. The Owens River rises in Long Valley in Mono County and flows south for over 100 miles to its natural terminus at Owens Lake. Virtually the entire flow of the river was diverted into the aqueduct at an intake dam located at approximately the midpoint of the Owens Valley. Spring flow and occasional releases in wet years was the only water that remained in the 50 miles of the river channel downstream of the intake dam. As a result, by 1924, Owens Lake was dry.
Confronted by the prolonged drought which commenced in the 1920's, a growing demand for water, and increased diversion by the Owens Valley users upstream of the aqueduct intake dam, in 1924, Los Angeles commenced a program to acquire the land and water rights that it had not already purchased. Prior to these purchases, the citizens of the Owens Valley had been led to believe that Los Angeles would only export water surplus to the needs of farmers and ranchers upstream of the intake dam. However, land and water rights purchases upstream of the intake dam made it clear that this was not to be Los Angeles' policy. Consequently, valley farmers and other residents banded together to oppose Los Angeles and a period of sometimes violent conflict began.
Despite the conflict, by the early 1930's Los Angeles had purchased about 211,665 acres in the Owens Valley. Although Los Angeles leased most of these lands to ranchers and farmers, the leases provided for a water supply that could be interrupted without prior notification if Los Angeles needed the water, or if runoff was not sufficient to meet both in-valley irrigation and Los Angeles demand.
Under Los Angeles' land ownership, irrigated acreage declined from approximately 75,000 in 1920, to 30,000 acres in 1960, to approximately 12,000 acres today. Acquisitions of valley floor lands by Los Angeles reduced the County's tax base and led to growing unemployment and decreasing population.
Los Angeles' purchase of most of the land on the Owens Valley floor, and the reduction in irrigated agriculture caused businesses to decline. Valley merchants demanded reparations. Instead of reparations, in 1929, Los Angeles announced that it would purchase all remaining agricultural and commercial private property in the valley offered for sale to Los Angeles. By 1933, Los Angeles had purchased 85 percent of the residential and commercial town properties and 95 percent of all farm and ranch land. The town commercial properties were leased by Los Angeles to the valley's merchants with a maximum lease of five years. In 1938, in response to the Owens Valley residents' unhappiness over Los Angeles' ownership of so much residential and commercial property, Los Angeles began selling its town properties. Although Los Angeles disposed of these properties, it retained the associated water rights.
During the 1920's and 1930's the population of Los Angeles continued to expand. In response, Los Angeles made plans to extend its aqueduct system into Mono Basin and to divert the streams tributary to Mono Lake into the system. Construction of this extension was started in 1934, and was completed in 1940. The new facilities included an 11-mile underground tunnel connecting the Mono Basin with the Owens River in Long Valley.
In the initial decades after the completion of the aqueduct, Los Angeles had obtained much more water than it needed or than it could deliver to Los Angeles through the first Owens Valley aqueduct. However, as its population continued to grow, Los Angeles made plans to construct a second parallel aqueduct. The plans for this aqueduct were announced in the late 1950's and were approved in 1963.
The second aqueduct was designed to increase by 50 percent the amount of water Los Angeles could export from the Eastern Sierra. It was to be filled by three sources: increased surface water diversion from the Mono Basin and the Owens Valley; reduced irrigation of Los Angeles-owned lands in Inyo and Mono Counties; and increased groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley.
The second Los Angeles Aqueduct began operation in June 1970. In November 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted. Among other things, CEQA requires agencies to consider means of reducing or avoiding significant environmental damage that could result from projects undertaken or approved by such agencies.
In 1972, LADWP announced its plan to permanently reduce the amount of acreage that would be supplied with irrigation water in the Owens Valley and to permanently increase groundwater pumping above the amounts Los Angeles had announced prior to and during construction of the second aqueduct. In response to Los Angeles' announcement, and to environmental damage in the Owens Valley already caused by increased pumping since 1970, Inyo County filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles in November 1972. This litigation claimed that Los Angeles had failed to comply with CEQA with regard to its second aqueduct. (This litigation is chronicled in six decisions from the Third District Court of Appeal)
Inyo County's initial complaint sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to halt the pumping of groundwater and the increased export of surface water from the Owens Valley until Los Angeles had prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as required by CEQA.
A motion by Los Angeles for a change of venue from Inyo County was granted in accordance with state law. Ultimately, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento assumed and has retained original jurisdiction over the litigation.
In 1973, the court found that, even though the second aqueduct was operative before the effective date of CEQA, the supply of water to supply the second aqueduct was a project separate and divisible from the aqueduct and, therefore, an EIR was required on this supply. Further, after lengthy litigation, in 1976, the court ordered that until Los Angeles completed a legally adequate EIR, its groundwater pumping was to be limited to an average annual rate of 149.56 cubic feet per second (about one-half of its pumping capacity) for each successive 12 month period beginning April 1, 1977. Except for an increase approved by the court during the 1976-1977 drought, the pumping limit remained in effect until it was modified by the interim agreement between Inyo County and Los Angeles that was approved by the Court in 1984.
In accordance with the court's order, Los Angeles prepared an EIR in 1976; however, the court ruled in 1977, that the EIR was legally inadequate. In 1979, Los Angeles again completed an EIR; but, in 1981, the court once again found the EIR legally inadequate.
In 1980, while the court review of the 1979 EIR was pending, Inyo County voters passed a groundwater ordinance that would regulate groundwater pumping in the valley through a groundwater management plan to be implemented through a groundwater pumping permit procedure. The ordinance created a county water department to prepare, and a water commission to approve, the groundwater management plan. The ordinance called for a water management program consistent with the health and welfare of Inyo County's citizens and maintenance of the groundwater table at a depth that would support natural vegetation and wildlife and that would minimize air pollution from blowing dust. The ordinance empowered the Inyo County Board of Supervisors to impose fees for the administration of the groundwater extraction permit system.
After failing in a lawsuit to enjoin Inyo County citizens from voting the proposed ordinance, Los Angeles commenced new litigation challenging the legality of the ordinance. In one of Los Angeles' challenges, Inyo County was ordered to prepare an EIR before implementing the ordinance.
In a second lawsuit brought against the ordinance by Los Angeles, a superior court issued a tentative decision in 1983, that the County's ordinance was unconstitutional and preempted by state law. However, before a final judgment was issued, Inyo County and Los Angeles, who had been working together since 1982 to resolve their disputes, achieved an interim agreement which provided, among other things, that a final judgment would not be issued by the trial court.
In 1982, a Memorandum of Understanding was adopted by Inyo County and Los Angeles. This document expressed a mutual intent to work together in identifying and recommending methods to meet the water needs of the Owens Valley and of Los Angeles. It also called for a groundwater study of the Owens Valley to be made by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). A Technical Group and a Standing Committee, including representatives of both parties, also were formed.
As a result of this agreement, certain cooperative studies investigating the relationship between groundwater pumping and its impact on native vegetation were commenced in 1983, by Inyo County, Los Angeles, and USGS. Through these cooperative studies, extensive information on the geohydrology, water budget, soils, and vegetation of the Owens Valley was developed.
Following these initial steps to resolve their ongoing disputes, in 1983, after the trial court's tentative decision on Inyo County's groundwater ordinance, Inyo County and Los Angeles began negotiations to determine whether further progress could be made toward achieving an acceptable groundwater management plan. As a result, in April 1984, the governing bodies of Inyo County and Los Angeles approved a five-year interim agreement. In this agreement, the two parties agreed to:
- Settle ongoing property tax litigation between Inyo County and Los Angeles;
- Temporarily suspend Inyo County's appeal of the court's decision invalidating its groundwater ordinance;
- Temporarily suspend litigation on Inyo County's environmental suit and court-imposed pumping restrictions by substituting jointly developed annual pumping program;
- Lease the Owens Valley town water systems owned by Los Angeles to Inyo County, which would lead to a reduction in water rates;
- Continue cooperative studies together with impartial third parties, including USGS;
- Implement certain enhancement/mitigation projects;
- Attempt to negotiate a long-term groundwater management plan;
- Provide financial assistance to Inyo County from Los Angeles to cover costs of various studies; and
- Resume litigation if the parties did not develop and adopt a long-term joint groundwater management plan for the Owens Valley.
Inyo County and Los Angeles returned to the Court of Appeal in 1984, seeking approval of this agreement. The court initially denied the motion for approval of the five-year agreement, but in December 1984, the court modified its writ to include the agreement. The agreement was originally to terminate in February 1989, but the court, at the request of Inyo County and Los Angeles, extended the termination date to October 21, 1991. Under the court's order, Los Angeles is required to submit an EIR to the court by that date. The court order allows the EIR to be submitted in conjunction with a long-term management plan for the Owens Valley developed jointly by Inyo County and Los Angeles.
Following approval of the five-year agreement, work progressed on the cooperative studies, on the implementation of several projects to mitigate past impacts, and on enhancing the environment. Inyo County and Los Angeles began to jointly manage annual groundwater pumping. Beginning in 1988, the county and the city commenced negotiations on a long-term management plan for the Owens Valley. After two years of effort, Inyo County and Los Angeles reached preliminary agreement on such a plan based upon the results of the cooperative studies undertaken by the city, the county, and USGS.
After Inyo County and Los Angeles each had given approval to this preliminary agreement in August 1989, work was begun on the preparation of the EIR required by the court. A Draft EIR prepared by the environmental consulting firm with assistance from Los Angeles and Inyo County was released for public review and comment in September 1990. The Draft EIR analyzes all water management practices and facilities implemented or constructed in the Owens Valley to supply water to the second aqueduct, together with projects and water management practices contained in the agreement. The Draft EIR is unique in that it describes the impacts of a project that was begun 20 years ago in the context as if it were written in early 1970. This perspective of the EIR is necessary to satisfy the legal requirements of CEQA and the court.
As one may expect, given Los Angeles' history in the Owens Valley, the city is disliked and distrusted by a large number of Inyo County's citizens. In August 1990, the legacy of Los Angeles' past activities in the Owens Valley surfaced in the form of a recall dive against three of the county's five supervisors. The recall proponents opposed approval of the agreement in the belief that it inadequately protected the Owens Valley. The recall proponents sought to attain a majority of the Inyo Board and to use this control to reject the proposed agreement and to return all issues to the courts. After a heated and divisive campaign, the recall of each of the three supervisors was defeated by an approximate 60-40 margin in the November 1990 election.
The agreement between Los Angeles and Inyo County provides for management of groundwater pumping and surface water. The primary goals of the agreement are to avoid causing significant decreases in the live cover of groundwater dependent vegetation, significant changes in vegetation type, groundwater mining and other significant adverse effects in the Owens Valley.
The agreement also provides that, except in periods of water shortage when otherwise agreed, Los Angeles-owned land that has been irrigated or supplied with water since 1981, will continue to be irrigated or supplied with water in the future. Another management goal of the agreement is to avoid changes and decreases in areas of riparian vegetation dependent on springs and flowing wells, stands of tree willows and cottonwoods, and in rare or endangered species.
Vegetation conditions documented during a 1984-87 vegetation inventory serve as the base for comparison for determining whether vegetation decreases and changes have occurred. The complexity of the ecological system and the unique management goal for maintaining baseline vegetation cover have resulted in a commitment to maintain a comprehensive monitoring program and continuing scientific investigations to perfect the monitoring techniques to better understand the biological responses to hydrologic management.
The monitoring system consists of a series of permanent vegetation transects with soil water measuring equipment located both within and outside of well fields. Monitoring sites outside of well fields with the water table unaffected by pumping, are used as "controls" to examine vegetation response due to climatic and other influences not related to groundwater extractions. Monitoring data is used to evaluate plant-available soil water and to project the water requirements of vegetation through the current or following growing season. If soil water deficit is projected for a monitoring site, wells linked to that site are turned off to permit water table recovery. This approach to groundwater management is unique because it must accommodate reasonable levels of uncertainty in both the amount of groundwater pumping and export and in the large and complex Owens Valley ecosystem.
During the first two years of the current prolonged drought, groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley occurred a relatively high rates. In the fall of 1988, with the development of the monitoring system and management based upon plant-available soil water, the rate of groundwater pumping was substantially reduced.
Groundwater pumping was further reduced to an amount equal to invalley water uses in April 1990, as a result of a "Drought Recovery Policy" adopted by Inyo County and Los Angeles. This policy governs groundwater management during the current extended drought and a period of recovery following the drought. The policy suspends management based solely by plant-available soil water and requires groundwater pumping to be managed in an "environmentally conservative manner" in consideration of conditions including plant-available soil water, depth to water table, potential for water table recovery, soil type, vegetation conditions, study results, and the environmental protection goals of the agreement.
In addition to environmentally based management, the agreement also provides for the implementation or construction of certain projects. These projects include rewatering 53 miles of the dry channel of the Lower Owens River, including the establishment of off-stream ponds and wetlands, releases of Los Angeles-owned lands for public and private use, permanent transfers of the Owens Valley water systems from Los Angeles to local entities, control of an invasive plant called salt cedar, and other environmentally oriented projects. In addition, it calls for Los Angeles to provide more the $2,000,000 a year to Inyo County to implement the agreement and to conduct water and environmentally related activities, as well as to offset Inyo County's reduced tax base due to the ownership of lands by Los Angeles. Also, the agreement provides that Los Angeles cannot expand its current aqueduct capacity from the Owens Valley.
The agreement has binding mediation and arbitration provisions, as well as procedures for expedited court resolution of any disputes. If approved, the agreement will become a final court judgment.
Inyo County and Los Angeles intend that the provisions of the agreement remain in effect, regardless of uncertainties in Los Angeles' future water supply. Consequently, the agreement states that reductions in diversions from the Mono Basin, contamination of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin, uncertainty in supplies from the State Water Project and from the Colorado River, and reasonably foreseeable population growth in Los Angeles and California cannot be a basis for an involuntary termination of the agreement.
A Final EIR was released for a two month public review in August 1991. This EIR and the agreement were approved by Inyo County and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on October 15,1991, and by the Los Angeles City Council on October 18, 1991. The Final EIR was submitted to the Third District Court of Appeal on October 21, 1991.
If the Final EIR is approved by the Appellate Court, a stipulation and order for judgment, which sets forth the agreement, will be filed in Inyo County Superior Court. Upon approval by that court, the agreement will become a final judgment. If the Appellate Court does not approve the Final EIR, that Court will decide whether or not the agreement or any portion of it can be implemented pending completion of yet another EIR.
Since the Final EIR was filed with the Appellate Court, several groups have voiced concern over its legal adequacy. The Appellate Court has granted permission to the Sierra Club, the Owens Valley Committee, the Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, and to the California Attorney General on behalf of both the California Department of Fish and Game and the California State Lands Commission to file "friend of the court" briefs setting forth their views as to the adequacy of the Final EIR.
The fate of the agreement between Inyo County and the City of Los Angeles on groundwater and surface water management in the Owens Valley thus remains with the court that issued the original decision in 1972, that opened the door to the development of the agreement.