In 1968 a concept was developed that has become widely accepted in ecological restoration describing the "tragedy of the commons" (Hardin 1968). The tragedy of the commons is a theme based on the destruction of grazing resources on the village commons due to the local society’s failure to limit and ration access. Hardin argued persuasively, that "if the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation...demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality".
Over 20 years later there is a plea to "rethink the tragedy of the commons" (Herring 1990). The revised argument gives value to social learning and small-scale institutional ideas in the face of commons problems, and it offers hope for small-scale solutions to be assessed equally with the "over-arching authority represented by the state, which may be as much a part of the problem as of the solution" (Herring 1990). By focusing simply upon narrow economic, technological, and political interests as driving solutions, we slight the rich world of alternative concepts and solutions offered by stakeholders, special interest groups, and the place of humans in the Lower Owens River ecosystem.
The Lower Owens River ecosystem has been impacted by human activity for thousands of years. Since the mid-1800's it has been severely impacted by intense mining, agriculture, large-scale crop production, hydroelectric dams and diversions, groundwater pumping, and diversion of surface flows into the Los Angeles aqueduct. The river channel has been essentially dry in most years since the mid-1950's, leaving the ecosystem devoid of the lifeblood essential for a healthy functioning ecosystem. Despite the anthropogenic impacts that have robbed the river of much of its water, human use, activity, and value for the resources is still vital to the Owens Valley stakeholders who consider the valley a "commons" resource after 50 years of open access.
The current Lower Owens River ecosystem restoration and management plan (LORP) by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Inyo County will focus upon stakeholder values, participation, and suggestions for solutions to regenerate the Lower Owens ecosystem as strongly as it focuses on economic, technological, legal and political solutions.
Currently the economic base of southern Owens valley is dependent upon tourism revenues, and the wages of hundreds of employees of federal, state, and county agencies, researchers from university and environmental organizations, LADWP employees, and mining, agricultural, and grazing stakeholders--all people involved in and heavily dependent upon aspects of extraction, study, use, and management of sustainable natural resources in the Owens Valley. No one stakeholder’s interests would be served by a management plan that would close access to the resources. Nor would a plan that excluded the input of all stakeholders of the Owens Valley be effective, feasible, or likely to succeed to meet its expanded goal: ". . . .sustainable development. . . .that incorporates all resource values. . . .for the benefit of biodiversity, threatened and endangered species, recreational opportunities, and user groups" (Hill and Platts 1995).
LADWP is primarily responsible for supplying the city of Los Angeles with a reliable water supply, and is the landowner of most of the Owens Valley. Yet LADWP leases large parcels to grazing, mining, and irrigating stakeholders, and allows relatively open access to the resources for recreational use; they are therefore also responsible for the multiple-use management of many natural resources in the Owens Valley.
LADWP and Inyo County have decided (in the water agreement, MOU 1997) to use a holistic ecosystem approach to effectively plan for and manage the multiple resources and sometimes divergent uses of the Lower Owens River resources. Inherent in the holistic planning and management of the Lower Owens River Valley ecosystem restoration project (LORP) will be the promotion of sustainable biodiversity and sustainable multiple uses.
Anglers, botanists, hunters, hikers, birders, boaters, swimmers, ranchers, agriculturalists, bikers, the Paiute people’s concerns with artifacts, sacred sites and plants, miners, naturalists, civic and business leaders, tourists, picnickers, conservationists, neo-environmentalists, historians, educators, researchers, political and natural resource agency leaders, and LADWP employees are all stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley with common goals. They may, and at times do differ in the means, or objectives, to reach those goals, but in most areas of disagreement among stakeholders I found a great deal of common ground for compromise toward reaching the goal of a sustainable ecosystem in the Lower Owens River Valley. The final section of this memorandum will offer conclusions reached in extensive interviews with a sizable sample of stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley, and suggestions to surmount areas of greatest disagreement between stakeholders (many suggestions emerge from those offered by stakeholders).
This memorandum will summarize the findings of the user group (stakeholder) interviews conducted in July and August, 1997, report on the commonalities of concerns and interests among stakeholders, the points of conflict and potential conflict between and within groups, areas of compromise between stakeholders, and offer some suggestions for resolving conflicts that could prohibit integration of human values--a process that could lead to mutual benefits for all stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley.
Since 1993 detailed ecological studies of the Lower Owens River (Hill et al. 1994), which cover approximately 65 miles of river channel and adjacent wetland habitat, have recognized and concluded that the original goal of simply achieving a healthy fishery and improving wetland habitat was too narrow. The ongoing studies show that an extremely unique opportunity is available to restore a functioning riverine ecosystem throughout the Lower Owens River that will provide substantial ecological enhancement, constant water flows, and sustainable development for grazing, mining, agriculture, and recreation. The LORP also provides a much needed opportunity for a restorative social, legal and political process for the stakeholders and communities of Inyo County after decades of litigation and debate.
The litigious nature of the debate over the perceived threats and opportunities associated with the LORP has increased the tendencies toward intractable and polarized positions in some Lower Owens River Valley stakeholders. The water agreement (MOU 1997) stipulates inclusion of all of the human values in the restoration of the Lower Owens River ecosystem and employs adaptive management as the tool to ensure an agreed upon means for modifying planning and management of the LORP, which also ensures the project’s successful implementation. The MOU defines ecosystem as "an interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment," which includes all of the stakeholders using the Lower Owens River environment, "taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors" (MOU 1997). Finally, the water agreement emphasizes that holistic management of the natural resources is the superordinate goal of the LORP to restore the Lower Owens River ecosystem--that means the "management of ecosystems, including the human, financial and biological resources, to produce a desired goal of a healthy ecosystem" (MOU 1997).
As part of the LORP objectives (Hill & Platts 1995), the purpose of the user group interviews is to identify and describe existing and potential user groups. Two of the three tasks under that objective are (1) the identification and description of recreational users and (2) the identification and description of non-government organizations and special interest groups. The third task, that of identifying and describing range lessees and irrigation stakeholders, will be conducted in more depth at a later time in the development of LORP land management plans; also included in the future survey will be consultation with government agencies responsible for the management of the Lower Owens River resources.
In July and August, 1997, I conducted approximately 65 face-to-face interviews with individuals who live and work in the Owens Valley (from the communities of Bishop, Big Pine, Independence, and Lone Pine, and surrounding area) and have a stake in the LORP. I also conducted three focus groups on specific issues of concern to organized groups of stakeholders. Specifics of the method I used and rationale for support of the interviewing method can be found in Technical Memorandum #2 (Hill,S. 1997).
The original list of interview contacts was provided by Inyo County and LADWP. I sent letters of contact and made extensive telephone contacts with individuals who were associated with recreational and/or special interest groups. I then used a snowball sampling technique (Coleman 1958) and conducted face-to-face interviews with most of the individuals on the initial list. Snowball sampling is an approach of first interviewing a designated sample of persons, then asking these persons who else they know who is interested and willing to be interviewed, then asking those individuals their associates, interviewing these, and so on. In this way, the sampling plan follows the chains of social relations in the Owens Valley communities. This method enables me to not only sample the attitudes and values of a sizable population of individuals with interests in the implementation of the LORP, but also to gain knowledge of the relations among stakeholders.
A small percentage of individuals contacted were unwilling to be interviewed (14 from 126 listed, or 11% of the total contact list), and only three interviews were conducted by telephone. Some individuals were not interviewed due to: (1) a conflict of interest; (2) work for a government agency; (3) duplication; (4) their name was given to me after the deadline for the initial set of interviews was completed on August 31, 1997; or (5) I was unable to contact.
Interviews were all conducted in July and August, 1997 in three separate trips to the Owens Valley. The first week was split between Bishop and Big Pine regions of Inyo county, and Independence and Lone Pine regions. Second and third week interviews were conducted with those individuals who were not available in the first week, or whose names were given to me in the snowball sampling method.
Sample questions of the type used in the open interviews are provided in Technical Memorandum #2, and are only representative of the type of questions used to elicit responses from the interviewees about their knowledge, their feelings, their concerns and attitudes for the LORP and restoring the Lower Owens River.
Three focus groups were conducted during the interviewing process: two groups of warmwater fisherfolk (one from Lone Pine and one from Independence) met with principal scientist, Mark Hill and socio-culturalist, Susan A. Hill to discuss their concerns about the LORP and to have some of their questions answered; a third focus group was conducted with the Bishop band of the Paiute tribe about their concerns and interests in participation in the LORP.
All interviews were conducted in confidence, though most participants stated that they had no reservations about being identified or quoted directly. For purposes of this portion of the user group survey analysis, however, a summary of the findings, areas of agreement and disagreement about project goals and objectives, and points of conflict between stakeholders’ interests are reported. All direct quotes and words used by interviewees to describe their feelings, attitudes or values are cited anonymously. Suggestions for public involvement, continuing public input on project objectives, public information, and avenues for stakeholders to resolve conflicts and disagreements on the LORP are made in the conclusions section of this memorandum.
Kranzberg’s law states that technology is neither good nor bad. Nor is it neutral (Freudenberg 1986).
Social impact assessment (SIA) is an offspring of science and politics that has emerged in response to society’s increased concern with environmental degradation and the social implications of technology (Freudenberg 1986). SIA looks at a broad range of impacts that are likely to be experienced by a broad range of social groups as a result of some course of action. Under most definitions SIA is a planning tool, projecting rather than looking back, in an attempt to foresee consequences, and therefore to avoid or minimize unwanted social effects. SIA’s major role in environmental sociology, human ecology, and ecological restoration projects is to provide information and analysis to be taken into account by political and technological decision-makers. An SIA can also provide recommendations to involve the public in the decision-making process.
Under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) a federal agency must first prepare a balanced, interdisciplinary, and publicly available assessment of the action’s likely impacts before it is allowed to take any action, and to make "integrated use of the natural and social sciences in decision making which may have an impact on man’s environment" (Freudenberg 1986). Today SIA essentially refers to an interdisciplinary social science effort that is inclusive of noneconomic, or sociocultural variables that need to be assessed in development project planning.
There is increasing agreement among socioculturalists that a key SIA variable is "quality of life." Burdge (Freudenburg 1986) defines SIA in terms of this one question: "The purpose of social impact studies is to answer the following question: Will there be a measurable difference in the quality of life in the community as a result of what the proposed project is doing or might do in the future?"
Though the LORP is not being planned or implemented by a federal agency, LADWP and Inyo County have taken the responsibility to see that a broad-based and accurate social impact assessment is conducted and that results guide their decisions on implementation of the LORP. One of the key variables assessed in each user group interview conducted was each person’s feelings about changes in the quality of life in the southern part of the Owens River Valley as a result of the LORP.
Most SIAs focus on the relatively brief development or implementation stage of a project, but significant social changes can and do take place before and after the phases of most intense physical activity associated with any project (Freudenberg and Gramling 1992). Within the human environment measurable effects begin as soon as there are changes in social conditions--often from the time when information about a project first becomes available (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992).
To effectively assess sociocultural impacts of the LORP I organized interview findings with a longitudinal approach (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992) which assesses impacts across time (before and after the LORP has been implemented), and across potentially affected systems of the human environment. This approach allows me to report findings and draw conclusions that minimize bias, while also allowing us to anticipate predictable and significant human/stakeholder impacts that are often missed in SIA’s that are excessively narrow in focus.
For example, one individual I interviewed is a rancher who is also active in his southern Inyo County community and involved in local politics. But he is a quiet man who does not participate in protest marches. He worries about how re-watering the Lower Owens River might affect his way of life, the environment where he and his family live, and where they depend upon access to the Owens Valley resources for their livelihood and for the sustainability of their traditional ranching quality of life. He has attended numerous public hearings on the topic and recently he took time away from his work to take visiting biologists out to his lease holdings on the river--trying to show them, rather than to tell them about what might be jeopardized by a management plan for the Lower Owens River that would overlook his grazing and quality of life needs.
Another interviewee is an artist who lives a rural life just outside one of the communities of the Lower Owens River. She describes herself as "the kind of person who has never been involved in environmental activism before," but she now spends most of her time attending meetings, hearings, reading technical documents and agency policy procedures. She has invested so much time in dealing with the long litigation process prior to the signing of the water agreement that the development of her artistic career has come to a halt, and her relationships with her family and her quality of life have suffered because of the focus of attention on environmental legislation and process.
Another Lower Owens stakeholder is so angry and saddened by the lack of attention and respect given to artifacts from her Paiute heritage that she is ready to give up entirely the battle to gain the support of the public or the decision-makers. She told me that it is such a common weekend activity for many people to hunt for Paiute baskets, arrowheads, and pots in the Lower Owens River valley that most people don’t even know that it is against federal law. Even if pot-hunters do know they are breaking the law, it is rarely (or hardly ever) enforced. She feels "burned out" with the effort to preserve remnants of her Paiute quality of life. She told me that a tourist approached her when she was on an archeological dig recently to let her know that if she was pot-hunting, the tourist could show her a much better place to dig where she has taken "a lot of stuff for a long time." The tourist wasn’t at all aware that she had been pot-hunting illegally; moreover, she exhibited enormous cultural insensitivity.
What do these three people have in common? At least three things: (1) they have all felt the influence of significant psychological, cultural, social, political/legal, and economic impacts before the onset of implementation of the LORP; (2) they appear to have a lot of company in the Owens Valley; and (3) they have felt impacts that, at least in the project planning to date, are largely treated as if they do not exist. Individual stakeholders and communities are affected by what will happen during the implementation phase of a project when visible changes occur in the physical environment, and they are also affected by what happens before and after (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992).
LORP-related impacts are following paths that are social as well as physical. Social systems and individuals of the Lower Owens River valley are adapting to the potential for physical disturbances and to the opportunities and threats of earlier adaptations and experiences. The social and economic impacts characterized by this pre-development phase come from the efforts of stakeholders to identify, to define socially, and to respond to the anticipated changes in their quality of life.
It is useful to discuss the summary of the interviews’ findings in terms of five systems (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992) that are relevant for understanding the relationships between stakeholders and their broader ecological environment: (1)biophysical; (2) cultural; (3)social/psychological; (4)legal/political; and (5) economic systems.
Physical impacts can occur in the Lower Owens River valley as stakeholders engage in activities that alter the physical environment in anticipation of the LORP, and to the its anticipated benefits and consequences. These can and do include the anticipated renovation of transportation routes and facilities, the development of private and public tourist/recreational facilities, and the upgrading of community infrastructure and social services. Improvements to the physical environment that will directly enhance the natural beauty and quality of life are anticipated by the stakeholders of the Lower Owens River valley as a result of the LORP.
Media attention to the proposed LORP’s ecological benefits are appearing in regional and national newspapers and periodicals. Local media have begun to show an interest in covering the LORP’s controversies now that the long-term water agreement has been approved by the courts. Government grants to assist Inyo County with costs related to the development of the LORP have already been promised or are in serious consideration. And interest in developing improved educational, cultural and employment benefits are beginning to affect the communities of southern Owens Valley.
The most dramatic and obvious physical change in the Lower Owens River valley in the last 100 years occurred as the Lower Owens River was gradually de-watered to provide water to the city of Los Angeles. Re-watering of the Lower Owens River will begin in the next 5 years and will be the most pronounced change in the physical environment since de-watering began 50 years ago. As a result of the water agreement that produced the LORP, the stakeholders of the Lower Owens River valley are now in debate (after 25 years of environmental litigation) about plans to re-water the Lower Owens River; most disagreement centers upon the objectives, not the goals, and the changes that may occur in the ecosystem as a result.
At opposite ends of the spectrum of public attitude are those stakeholders who would change nothing in the Lower Owens River valley, would leave the river exactly as it is, and want no rules or regulations to alter their current use or access to the resources--their attitude is exemplified by the remark, "if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it."
At the other end are those stakeholders who would like to see the entire southern Owens River Valley a wilderness area with very limited anthropogenic use and access to the resources, and would like to see all of the river flow unhindered back to the dry Owens Lake bed--their attitude is exemplified by the remark, "if we don’t get the water back to the lake, we’ll see you in court."
Despite this extreme polarization in worldview by a handful of interviewees, the majority of interviewees see the project as good to very good in terms of benefits, and few, if any, negative consequences. All (100%) of stakeholders interviewed see the LORP as very good to extremely beneficial and positive to the overall quality of life for the residents of the Lower Owens Valley.
Most interviewees felt that the LORP would be especially beneficial to the quality of life in southern Inyo county, where it is perceived that fewer benefits and more negative impacts have occurred to the environment and the economy over the last 50 years. With few exceptions, stakeholders interviewed expressed the view that the problems, technological as well as social and economic, were "surmountable." Most also expressed concerns about the overall goals as well as the details (objectives) of the LORP management plan and how the Lower Owens River would be managed long-term. One interviewee expressed the attitude of many by saying, "We all need more opportunities for prosperity in the Lower Owens Valley, but we want the valley to essentially stay as it is now--the south end of the valley is very fortunate to have this project."
The question asked most often by interviewees is, "What is the plan to restore the Lower Owens River?" The debate about what constitutes restoration, and the detailed plans of the LORP to "restore" the Lower Owens River Valley are at the heart of this oft-asked question. For some restoration means returning the river valley to the days before the LA aqueduct when ranching, mining and agriculture were the main economic and social activities of the valley. For others restoration means returning the valley to open hunting, fishing, and unlimited access before agriculture and mining came to the Owens Valley. And for others restoration means returning the valley to a pristine condition before any human activity and use of the resources. And for still others restoration means opening the resources to even greater extraction, exploitation, and commercial and tourism development to enhance the economic vitality of the Lower Owens River Valley.
But all of the above versions of restoration represent minority views. Over 95% of the interviewees expressed a deeply held value for "their river" and the natural, uninhibited and undeveloped aspects of the valley. Nearly all of the stakeholders acknowledge a need for a "multi-purpose regeneration" (rather than restoration to some historical condition) plan that would include the needs of the physical ecosystem, the needs of all the stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley, and the need to have contained growth of tourism and commercial development in southern Inyo County.
Nearly all interviewees agreed that they want continued access to the Lower Owens River resources, but also acknowledged a desire to see improved changes in grazing practices, water allocation, and high-impact recreation, as well better management of the resources. Everyone interviewed agreed that they wanted very limited change to the physical environment--they want only enhancement of the natural beauty and functioning of the ecosystem--with very limited private land sales or swaps and very little growth in commercial, tourism, or recreational use development. All stakeholders were adamant that they value the quality of life much as it is now, and do not want the Lower Owens Valley to become "like the San Fernando Valley."
What most of the stakeholders interviewed expressed was a desire to see the Lower Owens River water flowing again, a mature riparian habitat of native plants that provides habitat for birds, fish and wildlife, few roads or established recreational facilities, access limited only to certain areas or certain seasons, and mutual respect by stakeholders for the many diverse uses of the Lower Owens River resources.
Because of the relatively isolated and small population of stakeholders in the Lower Owens River valley, diverse and multiple use of the resources has not become a major social or legal problem in any respect. I was told of occasional and isolated conflicts between various groups or individuals in the Owens Valley, but on the whole there are no problems that are not manageable between parties or by local law enforcement and LADWP. Some areas of the Owens Valley receive more recreational impact than most of the valley does currently, and a recreational plan for high-use areas will be developed for the LORP. LADWP lands allow day use and fairly unrestricted access--even grazing lessees cannot restrict to open public access more than 25% (except for irrigated pasture or cultivated lands) of their lease holding. Currently their are few abuses of the accessibility or use of the resources of the Owens Valley, but all of the stakeholders in the Owens Valley do view the resources as common property, an attitude that has not been denied them by LADWP.
Most of the Owens Valley is currently used primarily by grazing stakeholders and low-impact recreationists. But if unrestricted tourism is allowed to be promoted as part of the LORP, and additional recreational facilities are developed to encourage greater recreational use of the Owens Valley, social, legal, political, and economic conflicts can certainly increase. Most of those interviewed were ambivalent about tourism in the Lower Owens River area, recognizing that the economy is heavily dependent upon tourist revenues yet reluctant to encourage a large increase in tourism in most of the 65-miles of the Lower Owens River Valley.
In only five years, as a result of the LORP to re-water the Lower Owens River, the valley will have a 65-mile navigable river, greatly enhanced hiking, fishing, swimming, bird-watching, hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities, and it is a relatively short drive from one of the largest urban areas in the U.S. Even though some stakeholders felt that most visitors would continue to pass through southern Inyo County to recreate in the Sierra mountains, most feel it would be naive to assume that there will not be some increase in tourism and recreational use of the Lower Owens River Valley as a result of the LORP. In anticipation of the possible increase, LADWP and other Lower Owens River communities will want to identify more fully how they want to establish rules for access, develop tourism and commercial interests, and will need to carefully develop a recreation plan that anticipates and plans for increased recreational interest in the Lower Owens River Valley.
As one interviewee told me, "We are very conservative people," expressing the widely held view that people live and work in the Lower Owens River Valley because they like the rural lifestyle with easy access to the wildlife opportunities. Without exception, stakeholders do not want their values for a distinct rural quality of life to be disturbed by the influx of much tourism, recreational use, or commercial growth. Though many stakeholders would welcome an improvement in the economic stability of southern Inyo County, most are not willing to trade their rustic and slow-paced quality of life for greater economic opportunities.
One final note on biophysical systems’ impacts as a result of the LORP is in order. Three interviewees advocated strongly for mechanical (heavy equipment) and physical interventions on the LORP prior to actual re-watering, primarily as a means to remove unwanted and invasive vegetation (i.e. tules and salt cedar), excess debris and muck, and to improve the channel’s capacity to allow water to flow unhampered to the dry Owens Lake. Most interviewees would like to see Lower Owens River water flowing as soon as possible, some saying, "why not just start putting the water in and let’s see what happens?"
But most of those interviewed stated that they understand that re-watering of the Lower Owens River is very complicated after so many years of being dry; they communicated an understanding that a mechanical and rapid re-watering might have more harmful impacts to other stakeholders’ concerns and could do more environmental damage than restoration. While most stakeholders are impatient for Lower Owens River re-watering, most realize that for the Lower Owens River valley to become a viable and sustainable ecosystem again, the process will necessarily have to be slow, patient, and carefully managed. Several stakeholders even acknowledged that the biggest problems in the Lower Owens River ecosystem (besides a lack of water) are invasive plants and birds that occur in greatest numbers in areas of greatest physical disturbance to the ecosystem.
Most development projects obviously affect indigenous and native cultures (Gramling & Freudenburg 1992), especially in the western U.S. Despite its benefits to plant, fish and wildlife values that are so integral to the five bands of Paiutes in the Lower Owens River area, the LORP affects specific Paiute cultural values that require assessment.
Mainstream cultural systems in the Lower Owens River Valley are also culturally threatened more by the potential for increased tourism and commercial development than by the economic opportunities that might emerge from the LORP, and also require assessment. During the planning phase of the LORP, leaders of mainstream organizations and elders/tribal leaders of the Paiute bands can find themselves again powerless to oppose unwanted cultural impacts and the potential for further erosion of a traditional quality of life.
In both native and mainstream cultural systems conflicts over land and water management plans and implementation of the LORP can threaten stakeholders’ views of how the world ought to work, "particularly with respect to expected and actual actions of governmental and other authorities" (Gramling & Freudenburg 1992). On the other hand the LORP can provide opportunities to secure improved funding for activities to preserve or increase appreciation for both mainstream and native cultural systems. Government officials and other community leaders have an opportunity to carry out their responsibilities to reinforce and regenerate community norms about expected, sensitive, and appropriate behaviors that do no harm to any other stakeholders’ interests (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992).
The most pressing and widely held concerns in regards to the LORP are what one Paiute elder termed "mushroom growth." Several mainstream stakeholders also expressed concerns and distaste for rapid and/or uncontained growth. A few stakeholders stated that they don’t expect tremendous growth in tourism or commercial development, but most stakeholders interviewed felt that a carefully conceived plan for tourist access and facilities, as well as a cap for growth is a necessary part of plans for the LORP. Otherwise the rural quality and open access to resources of the Lower Owens River will be overwhelmed beyond the capacity of the physical environment, the cultural environment, or the legal and social environment to absorb and sustain the demand for access and/or use.
Most of those interviewed, whether Paiute or mainstream culture, expressed a distaste for high-impact activities in the Lower Owens River such as: use of ATV’s; an increase in roads; motorized water recreation vehicles; litter and trash; trampling or taking of sensitive native vegetation; unregulated shooting activities (including hunting in sensitive areas, at breeding times, or in areas where shooting activities would conflict with and be dangerous to human activity, i.e. plinking); unregulated woodcutting; unmanaged grazing practices; excessive use of roads in the Lower Owens River area that creates a dust problem; excessive use of pesticides and herbicides; mechanized intervention for LORP implementation; and the introduction of any non-native species. One Paiute elder commented, "Give nature back its forces, and allow the natural ecosystem to re-build to the extent possible with the water that has come out of the agreement." Over 80% of stakeholders interviewed do not support an increase in high-impact activities in the LORP area, and they would like to see better management of current activity that is harmful to the natural environment.
An increase in tourist use of the Lower Owens River Valley may be inevitable whether the Lower Owens River area is actively promoted or not. Tourist and local use of the resources needs to be assessed carefully in LORP planning and implementation for rules of access, overnight camping, hunting, motorized vehicle access and areas, day use activities and areas of appropriate use, and enforcement of rules and regulations for access and use of the resources. "There is no way that people won’t use (the LORP)," a teacher from southern Inyo County told me. "There are over 31 million people in California, and 18 million more are expected in the next 25 years...it is inevitable, and for this project to be sustainable we need to look at it carefully."
Another interviewee, a business leader in southern Inyo County, doesn’t expect a huge increase in tourism, yet he did acknowledge that close to 15 million people live in southern California and within easy driving distance to the Lower Owens River Valley. Overwhelmingly, the interview respondents advocated keeping the Lower Owens River Valley rural and only allowing access for low-impact and/or eco-tourism recreational activities. LADWP’s primary responsibility will continue to be the provision of water to the city of Los Angeles, and as private property owners of the resources so highly valued in the Lower Owens River Valley they will also in the future have to carefully consider the costs and responsibilities of management, access, and enforcement of rules for the multiple uses of the Lower Owens River Valley resources.
The second cultural system issue of greatest concern is the widespread recreational practice of "pot-hunting" for Native American Indian tribal artifacts and sacred sites. In an interview with local county law enforcement I was told that the biggest problem in law enforcement in Inyo County is illegal use and trespassing on DWP lands, but that local law enforcement and government agencies are currently able to handle with minimal problem the occasional abuse of the resources by local people. What they are not able to police, due to lack of manpower and budget as well as a widespread disregard for the illegality of these acts, is the taking of Paiute artifacts (i.e. baskets, arrowheads, pots, etc.) from the Lower Owens River Valley.
The collection of Native American Indian artifacts is a widely enjoyed recreational activity by many stakeholders from mainstream culture, but there is a federal law against such collection which is rarely , if ever, enforced. There is no county or state law prohibiting collection of artifacts or disturbing sacred and/or ceremonial sites. Very few mainstream stakeholders interviewed were aware of the federal law banning pot-hunting, and only two stakeholders from mainstream culture mentioned preserving archeological and Native American sites and artifacts as something they would like to see as part of the LORP.
One Paiute elder articulated the emotional and cultural disrespect and damage she and others feel about illegal pot-hunting: "Artifact collection is a major issue for us - the Paiutes have a history of over 8,000 years of archeological resources in the valley - it hurts us when other people take them from their natural places and display them - it is a violation at a soul level."
The five Paiute tribal bands currently have no enforcement system within the tribal bands, but they are working to develop an enforcement policy and procedure which would work cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies to stop this culturally abusive and illegal practice. Another mainstream stakeholder suggested that the major issue to address is not necessarily enforcement of the federal law against pot-hunting, but an education/information campaign for mainstream culture and visitors to the area that would dissuade people from this "major recreational event in the valley for generations."
The last cultural system issue concerns the identification and protection of traditional, sacred, ceremonial and historical native plants of the Lower Owens River lands. The protection and conservation of native plants is important culturally to the Paiute tribal bands (i.e. taboose, willow, tules, sages and berries) for nutritional, medicinal, ceremonial and cultural uses, but it is a concern of over half of mainstream stakeholders as well. The major concerns expressed to me by several stakeholders is: (1) will there be enough water in the LORP to make a difference to benefit the growth of native plants? (2) will there be a natural riparian area in the Lower Owens River that restores native vegetation for birds, animals, and fish? and (3) will there be educational and enforcement efforts to protect native plants and animals from insensitive tourists and other local users of the Lower Owens River?
In the Paiute culture, nature is an important "part of the circle of life," but to most mainstream stakeholders there is also a high cultural value for the natural resources and native plants and animals of the Lower Owens River Valley. The only point of conflict between the two cultural systems is with those stakeholders who would hunt, fish, or remove plants, and artifacts from the Lower Owens River ecosystem in disregard for the interests and values of other stakeholders. For example, tules seem to be regarded by most of the mainstream local stakeholders as an intrusive and nuisance weed (except for most warmwater fisherfolk who recognize its value in creating fish habitat) that needs mechanical removal, but I learned that the Paiutes value the tules in many ways--to make mats, sweat houses, and even aesthetically for flower arrangements.
One other issue that crosses into biophysical systems assessment as well as cultural systems conflicts is the ongoing social and cultural disagreements within and between the five bands of Paiutes in the Owens Valley. The Owens Valley Indian Water Commission (OVIWC) is currently the only governing body of the Paiute tribes that has representation by all five bands. Within that body representatives work closely and cooperatively on issues related to environment and health, but I was told that all other cultural and tribal issues are handled within the separate bands to "maintain their own tribal perspective." When it comes to deciding upon plans for land and water use, wildlife and native plant preservation for cultural reasons, archeological and artifact values, and involvement in the LORP, each band of the Lower Owens River Valley may have separate concerns, especially the Ft. Independence and Lone Pine bands who primarily reside in the southern part of Inyo County. Despite those differences, all Paiute stakeholders interviewed felt strongly that the quality of life would improve for everybody as a result of the LORP, and that the LORP was "very important to the Paiutes."
Social and psychological impacts occur as interest groups form or redirect their energies to promote or oppose (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992) the LORP and engage in attempts to define the LORP as involving opportunities or threats. Interaction patterns change, old friendships are lost and new ones created, deterioration in the sense of community occurs as threats are identified to the social system that are frequently ignored by decision-makers, but are often highly prized by local, rural Lower Owens River stakeholders, such as a slow-paced, peaceful, and interactive community where everybody knows everybody else. As a result, potential for such impacts becomes part of the social impact assessment process of the LORP.
It is an analytical convenience to separate the five systems, but they are highly interdependent in practice (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992). For example, the LORP offers primarily only enhancement to the biophysical environment, traditional mainstream and native cultures, and quality of life, but poses a threat to traditional economic, political, and rural social systems in some regards. These factors might, and often do, lead to significant social and psychological conflicts; the communities of the Lower Owens River most significant psychological disruptions might ultimately result not just from the threat of increased use of the resources by "outsiders," but from the past and current intensity of social conflicts and antagonisms that the LORP potential for development creates in what most "insiders" desire, a relatively cohesive, cooperative and rural community that wants to be finished with court battles.
On the other hand, by assessing the social and psychological conflicts in terms of their commonalities, areas of compromise, and points of open disagreement, we are able to offer suggestions and opportunities to minimize or even remove many of the conflicts and antagonisms from the past that are still current in the Lower Owens River Valley. An example of such suggestions is the interpretation of nearly all local residents interviewed that the slow-paced rural lifestyle and quality of life is considered so valuable that even business/commercial and government agencies concerned with the economic vitality of southern Inyo county will not want to promote the LORP in anyway that would endanger the natural environment or increase high-impact recreational or commercial activities. The LORP offers the potential to regenerate a socially and psychologically less divisive and more cooperative and involved rural community.
A report done for the Bishop Chamber of Commerce on tourism (CURES 1995) shows that nearly 70% of visitors to the Lower Owens River Valley come for rest and relaxation, hiking and backpacking, fishing, biking, and visiting friends and family--all low-impact and eco-friendly tourism. And in a draft park plan for Inyo county (County of Inyo Parks Master Plan draft 1990) general observations were:
The survey also indicated that most "outsiders" preferred relaxed and self-directed activities like fishing, hiking, walking, swimming and picnicking, with one third to one half of the park users also visiting historic sites in the valley (County of Inyo Master Parks Plan draft 1990). Despite common concerns that increased tourism will threaten a quality of life in the Lower Owens River Valley, it appears that most tourists appreciate the same qualities of life as local residents. One stakeholder said, "you wouldn’t believe how many visitors stop at my ranch home to ask if they can take pictures of my rural home."
Even the business stakeholders who said "if it’s (LORP) going to increase recreation and the tourism base, I have no concerns," also indicated strongly that they only wanted to promote eco-tourism. One business leader said that "99% of visitors don’t go off road" and he would like to see the LORP have preservation and conservation areas; he also said that "LADWP has been portrayed as the ‘Evil Empire’ landlords of the valley by some, but having LADWP as the owners or the Lower Owens River Valley lands has been a godsend--if they weren’t here we could be the San Fernando Valley."
The most evident and divisive conflict among stakeholders in the Lower Owens River valley is between some members of environmental advocacy groups--those with a strong preservation value, and stakeholders who advocate total open access to use all Lower Owens River resources--those with a strong exploitation value. The difference lies in deeply held values by both polarized groups for the Lower Owens River resources. But preservationists would have the LORP lock up the resources as a preservation/conservation area and all of the Lower Owens River flow returned to the dry Owens Lake. Exploitationists would "restore" the Lower Owens River valley to open mining, agriculture, grazing, hunting, and fishing without any agency regulation or intervention limiting access or use, or any "confinement" of the resources. But the stakeholders interviewed who expressed these polarized views represent a distinct minority--6% extreme preservationist, and 12% extreme exploitationist--of all stakeholders interviewed in the Lower Owens River Valley.
Eight-two percent (82%) of stakeholders, representing diverse groups of environmental advocates, grazing stakeholders, Paiutes, legal and political leaders, hunters, anglers, tourism interests, business and civic leaders, and law enforcement in the Lower Owens River Valley were much more conciliatory and moderate in their attitudes toward other stakeholder values. Most suggested varied solutions toward a compromise on LORP restoration plans and sustainable multiple use resources for all stakeholders. (Many of those suggestions will be offered in the final section of this memorandum.)
Of the over 65 stakeholders interviewed, only 4 (6%) individuals expressed uncompromising preservationist values, and 8 (12%) individuals expressed uncompromising exploitationist values--for a total of 18% of stakeholders interviewed who hold a polarized, conflicting, and uncompromising view. The remaining 82% of those interviewed expressed a willingness to participate cooperatively with other groups to resolve disagreements over the means (objectives) to plan for, manage, and sustain the multiple resources of the Lower Owens River Valley, and an open acknowledgment and support of the values held by other stakeholders. All stakeholders interviewed (100%) agree completely with the goals of the LORP and see no need to change the holistic and adaptive approach to restoring the Lower Owens River ecosystem.
For example, extreme preservationists stated: "Heavy equipment is useful and may be necessary to make active interventions in the channel and streams feeding into the Owens River. There is a need for much more intense, active physical intervention on the LORP plans to alter channels, undercut banks, reintroduce plants, block off areas, ream out the channel, remove tules, muck and debris that interferes with water flow to the Owens Lake. I am not that interested in the Lower Owens River - mostly only in terms of how it ties to getting water to Owens Lake."
Preservationists also stated that "We are not interested in butting heads with anybody in particular, but grazers are opposed to environmental issues of interest to us. I am a political realist to some extent, but I feel we have parity of power with LADWP on these issues due to the backing of environmental laws and the courts, which are on our side."
Yet another individual representing a polarized preservationist stake stated that if his group’s desires to see "no constraints on releasing water to the dry lake were not met, they would consider that the terms of the MOU are not being met by the restoration plan (LORP) and his group would sue LADWP and Inyo county."
Yet even after stating the intractable and litigious position of the group he represents, he acknowledged that personally he sees the LORP as habitat improvement, and the personal concerns he feels are primarily for fisheries and water flow values. He is not opposed to the development of a bass fishery in the Lower Owens River and would like to see efforts made to control "the growth of tamarisk, or the introduction of any exotic species like the wild turkey," and that the LORP should favor native species of animal and plant life. He also stated that the LORP should have good economic benefit to the valley, especially the development of a warm-water fishery, and that the project was "a good project overall--the best opportunity to see something good happen to improve habitat - a real plus in the Lower Owens River Valley." The only conflicts he forsees are the same as the majority of stakeholders--that if the Lower Owens River resources are used by too many people it could have negative impacts to the quality of life. He "would just as well keep the valley rural and doesn’t welcome development that would bring in a greater influx of newcomers to live, work, or recreate in the valley."
The other two stakeholders representing preservationist values were primarily concerned with excessive groundwater pumping and grazing practices that impact rare and endangered plants and wildlife, native vegetation, and allows the invasion of pepperweed, which is "getting out of control," and salt cedar. These stakeholders also conceded that the LORP "could be good to restore lost habitat" if it is properly monitored and regulated.
From the extreme exploitationists’ point of view, the problem with the LORP is "everybody compromises, everybody gets bought off one way or another." They are angry and in open conflict with preservationist groups. They are also adamant that the resources of the LORP should not become biodiversity zoos where their rights to fish, hunt, hike, boat and swim are "sold down the drain" to the demands of environmental advocacy groups who are willing to threaten lawsuits if they don’t get their demands met. I was told that they feel they get no response from agencies, or they get different answers from everybody in a decision-making role. They don’t believe that the LORP will allow them access to their favorite fishing, hunting, and/or swimming places in the Lower Owens River, or that they will be asked to make sacrifices now for hollow promises down the road.
Extreme exploitationist stakeholders are frustrated and feeling powerless to fight preservationist groups and agencies who they believe want to control the resources and have all the power of decision-making about the LORP. Some are considering abandoning the Lower Owens River Valley and seeking a better quality of life elsewhere. They are adamantly opposed to those who are opposed to hunting or the introduction of new hunting/fishing species. One stakeholder told me that "the bottom line is already decided, and I can’t prove it, but I believe that if we fight the environmentalists on this we’ll lose everything--a lot of people have given up."
Another big concern of extreme exploitationist groups, but one that is shared by a sizable number of more moderate stakeholders, is the USFWS plan to re-establish threatened and endangered fish in the LORP area, then restrict access and use policy to protect T&E species. They express a desire for the LORP "to be a go" but definitely want to maintain access to the warmwater fishery, and are "adamantly opposed to the introduction of any new species" of fish that is not currently in the LORP area. They also feel very strongly that they do not want a smallmouth bass fishery promoted over largemouth bass, saying that the habitats are similar, but not the same. Smallmouth bass prefer colder, rockier, faster-moving water, and they are concerned that the LORP could negatively affect the largemouth bass fishery they now enjoy.
Other issues of concern to the extreme exploitationist groups, but again issues that are shared by a majority of Lower Owens River stakeholders, are related to grazing and land management plans, eradication of beavers, and eradication of tules. They want management of grazing and eradication/control plans for tules and beavers, but don’t want total eradication. Eradication of tules and beavers would "ruin water quality and habitat" preferred by largemouth bass, and current grazing practices don’t interfere with their use of the resources. Despite their vocal criticisms of other groups concerned with the LORP, all exploitationist groups I interviewed voiced the belief that LADWP "has kept this valley from being overly developed like the San Fernando Valley," and that is something that they do not want to change with the LORP.
Another common issue for all the exploitationist stakeholders, who refer to themselves as "neo-environmentalists," is a complete rejection of the USFWS multi-species restoration plan for the Owens Valley; these stakeholders believe that the plan unduly restricts access to the resources and leaves them "losers again." They believe that LADWP decision-makers in L.A., USFWS, BLM, CDFG, and all environmental advocacy groups are not only a "menace to the local economy," but every plan the decison-makers offer leaves the human element out of the formula. They are adamantly opposed to any LORP plan that would lock up the Owens Valley resources as wilderness or protected areas, "strangling us a piece at a time," and committing a "cardinal sin" to ranchers and mining interests.
By advocating severe restrictions and access to the Lower Owens River, environmental advocacy groups are accused of being "selfish and wanting to keep all of the resources to themselves." As one stakeholder told me, "older people and the disabled can’t get to wilderness areas, only the young and physically fit can use them" and benefit from Lower Owens River resources, "and the rest of us are robbed."
Eighty-two percent (82%) of stakeholders interviewed expressed moderate and compromising views--they are multiple use proponents and hold multiple use values for the Lower Owens River resources. They jointly express the attitude that the LORP offers an opportunity to recover the physical ecosystem as well as the social ecosystem of the Owens Valley. The following are examples of the attitudes conveyed by the majority of stakeholders interviewed toward the social and psychological impacts of the LORP:
Other commonalities expressed by the multiple use proponent stakeholders concern: (1) wanting information, especially in the form of receiving technical memorandum as they come out on the development of LORP plans, and wanting continuuing input to LORP plans; (2) wanting to be involved in the project to regenerate their ecosystem and communities; (3) concerns about the amount of groundwater pumping that will continue with the LORP; (4) concerns about the costs involved to taxpayers of Inyo County of the pumpback station that is part of the LORP; (5) a widespread attitude that LADWP and Inyo County have an obligation to resolve the dust problem at the dry Owens Lake in an economical and practical fashion to abate dust and restore wildfowl habitat; and (6) a widely expressed feeling that some areas of the LORP need special recreational management plans to allow popular areas to continue to be used and enjoyed by local residents of the Lower Owens River Valley. All of these issues will be addressed in the conclusions section of this memorandum.
Most contentious of all impacts often come through the debates, litigation, and arguments that surround legal and political activities that are in favor of or opposed to a development project or activity (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992). The recent settlement (MOU 1997) between LADWP, Inyo County, CDFG, Sierra Club, Owens Valley Committee, and the State Lands Commission has resulted in the LORP, after several years of negotiation between the stakeholders. The litigious nature of the debate about perceived opportunities and threats with the LORP has greatly increased intractable positions by several parties who have signed the MOU. Six individuals, one representing each of the six signing parties, currently make up the signatory group for the MOU. Their primary responsibility is to monitor the terms of the MOU and see that its stipulations. The signatory groups’ authority does not extend to setting goals, objectives, or reviewing technical information toward revising or making recommendations for the LORP plans--their "sole authority is to ensure that promises made in the MOU are carried out," according to G. James, Inyo County Water Department director (Lukins 1997).
Gramling and Freudenburg (1992), leaders in the field of social impact assessment, write:
A strategy among the two polarized stakeholder groups of the LORP (representing 18% of all stakeholders), "while often legally and politically successful, is also one that can be socially stressful, worsening some of the key social, environmental, economic, and psychological benefits" to the overall quality of life offered by the project (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992). Government agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and neo-environmental groups may characterize the project as "intended for the public good," but they may also "attempt to dismiss or to delegitimate, rather than to deal with, any concerns that are expressed by their opponents or other stakeholders as being selfish, ill-informed, or irrational" (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992).
Although these legal/political actions and characterizations have not received much recognition in the past, such actions actually constitute a key part of the LORP process of social negotiation and construction of LORP plans. As Freudenburg and Gramling (1992) state:
The following are comments from Lower Owens River stakeholders that reflect legal and political commonalities among the multiple use proponent majority (82%) of those interviewed:
In the area of economic systems the LORP can lead to increases in property values and potential opportunities for business leaders, particularly for those whose prosperity is linked in part to the intensity of land use (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992). But the LORP might also threaten the livelihood of others, particularly cattle ranchers and mining interests with lease holdings in the Lower Owens River Valley. The LORP might also impact stakeholders whose prosperity depends directly or indirectly on an unspoiled environment, as in the case of fishing, hunting, and tourism, government agencies, and environmental research industries. For those stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley who are more dependent upon preservation than on extraction and exploitation of the Lower Owens River resources, the LORP poses some threat if it is sustained as a multiple use ecosystem regeneration project.
But those stakeholders of the Lower Owens River Valley who are seldom heard from are those who are living on fixed or low incomes, and who could be threatened by rising costs or higher taxes that could accompany an influx of newcomers (tourism or residents) attracted to the quality of life in the Lower Owens River Valley after the implementation of the LORP.
There are many stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley, from groups as diverse as environmental advocacy groups to civic groups and cattle ranching families, who are in favor of developing a warm-water fishery that would be an economic benefit to the valley, and that the southern part of Inyo County deserves to benefit the greatest from additional fishermen. But all of those interviewed agreed that too much development that would encourage too much use by too many people would be a negative impact to the quality of life in southern Owens Valley.
Most of those interviewed agreed that a primary issue of the LORP should be management of grazing, not only for sensitive plants and water quality, but for continued open access to LADWP land that "means more to people here than anything else."
Only 12% of those interviewed would want to see uncapped economic development--by far most people want steady, not huge, growth to the economy that can be sustained in the fragile Lower Owens River Valley ecosystem.
Law enforcement officials said that an increase in tourism will also lead to an increase in tax dollars that need to be allocated for possible increases in search and rescue efforts, enforcement of rules and regulations in the use of LADWP lands, and policing of Inyo County campgrounds and tourist facilities. And if high recreational impact areas are to be improved and developed for safer use and more regulated use by local people, law enforcement also needs more financial resources to police those areas.
By far, the biggest economic concern voiced by stakeholders is the water agreement by Inyo County and LADWP that requires Inyo County taxpayers to pay a portion of the LORP. The MOU agrees that Inyo County is responsible for the over $3 million cost of building the pumpback station below Lone Pine. Most stakeholders interviewed voiced that they had no objections to the pumpback station per se, as long as some water is allocated to restore seeps and springs lost and to abate dust at Owens Lake, but at least half of those interviewed asked "why should the county pay half the costs (of the LORP)?" Several of those interviewed expressed that negative media coverage of the LORP had planted the idea in many people’s minds that Inyo County had "sold out the valley" to LADWP by agreeing to pass the cost of the pumpback station on to the county taxpayers.
For about one-third of respondents the LORP is a concern because they are disturbed that the county has agreed to share the cost, believing that LADWP de-watered the valley, so they should now pay for the entire LORP, including the building and maintenance of the pumpback station. Many are opposed to the county paying for the pumback station in any way, but agree that if the federal government helps out with grants, the pumpback station offers possibilities to mitigate dust at the Owens Lake and it may work. But the feeling of most is that the cost of the pumpback station should not be on the backs of the already economically stressed residents of Inyo County. It was suggested several times that the LORP should be looking at economically feasible ways to tie the LORP and the pumpback station to the dust abatement needs at Owens Lake.
Most interviewees are pleased that the water agreement with LADWP has given $100,000 yearly to Inyo County for park improvement and development to enhance tourism facilities, but are concerned about long-term funding for parks and the pumpback station beyond the time-frame of the water agreement. There are some minor disagreements among stakeholders about how and where to allocate park/campground funds for the most benefit to Inyo County stakeholders.
Yet at least half of those interviewed agree with one interviewee who said, "We reached a very fair agreement with the city of L.A., and the amount of money from LADWP over time more than offsets the $3 l/2 million for a pumpback station. The state and federal governments should also help offset the costs to county taxpayers, and the project overall will create greater prosperity for the residents of Lower Owens River Valley, improve tourism revenues, offer greater employment opportunities, and will guarantee the rights of cattlemen. We need to stop arguing about the costs and learn to cooperate among ourselves so that we don’t postpone the LORP anymore."
To echo that sentiment, another interviewee said, "The LORP is of great economic benefit to Inyo County--it will offer a recreation boon, which is the primary economic base and industry of this valley, but I want to see slow sustainable development of tourism and recreational opportunities."
Examples and quotations from interviews with a significant number of stakeholders in the Lower Owens River Valley and Inyo County do not deal with expected impacts, but with actual social impacts--significant, empirically verifiable changes that would not be taking place but for the water agreement and announcement of the LORP.
In the planning phase of the LORP and negotiations to monitor the water agreement, project proponents and relevant government agencies are far from being impartial observers--in fact they are key participants and stakeholders. Their behavior as well as the behavior of Lower Owens River residents can have a considerable influence on the type and extent of beneficial and negative impacts associated with the LORP.
The five systems of assessment I use for this memorandum are clearly not distinct, but they do provide a convenient way to organize the findings from stakeholder interviews on their knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about the LORP. It does offer information that can provide better decision-making, and it is information that deals with the full range of social impacts that are significant in their human consequences to the people of the Lower Owens River Valley. I offer the following conclusions from the interviews and suggestions for approaching the management of human impacts for the LORP in the planning and implementation stages of the project. It is my hope that the data presented in this memorandum will offer principal input to the development of LORP plans, and that principal benefits of the LORP will go to local communities and stakeholders of the Lower Owens River Valley.
Ecological restoration literature describes five tendencies that appear to influence individual, organizational, and institutional decision-making on environmental issues. The "implications for these biases" on the part of all of the stakeholders involved in the planning of the LORP can form and implement environmental, social, and economic policy, the management of the Lower Owens River Valley resources, and "can lead to policy impasses and poor choices" (Yaffee 1997):
(1) Short-term rationality outcompetes long-term rationality: a tendency to make decisions that are rational and effective in the short term, yet are counterproductive, divisive, and ineffective over the long term.
(2) Competitive behavior drives out cooperative behavior: a tendency to promote competitive behavior at the expense of cooperative actions, yet often cooperation is necessary to find good, inclusive and effective solutions.
(3) Fragmentation of interests and values: a tendency to split the different elements of a society, avoiding the integration of interests and values necessary to create effective courses of action.
(4) Fragmentation of responsibilities and authorities: a tendency to divide those responsible for resource management, diminishing accountability, and ensuring that management strategies are often piecemeal solutions to cross-cutting problems.
(5) Fragmentation of information and knowledge: a tendency to fragment what is known about a situation and its context so decision-makers make poor choices because they are operating with inadequate or biased information.
A general theme voiced in the stakeholder interviews for the LORP is a call to decision-makers to decide upon rational, effective, and economical solutions in the planning and implementation stages that are also fashioned with an eye to the long-term management of the Lower Owens River resources. Variants of this dynamic are described in the opening paragraph of this memorandum, the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968), where group decisions appear to be rational and effective for short-term "fixes" for the commons, but can lead to social and environmental failure in the long term if the commons doesn’t ration access and use.
The Lower Owens River Valley has become a commons area through 50 years of open access and continuous use by local stakeholders, even though everyone acknowledges that LADWP is the landowner and manager of the resources. Most people of the Lower Owens River Valley, and even many visitors to the area, would like to see a LORP that allows continued open access to the common resources. Most are willing to cooperatively develop LORP land and water use management plans and to live with an increase in rules and regulations of use, set asides for T&E species, and closures of sensitive areas during critical seasons. Most stakeholders agree that multiple use of the resources, including grazing, mining, water diversion, and recreational use should continue, but with attention given to low-impact and managed use so that the natural environment is not adversely affected.
That means that most people are willing to compromise their special interests and use of the Lower Owens River resources so that no stakeholder loses use or access to the commons. Most stakeholders are concerned about ATVs, more roads, motorized water craft, littering, trampling or taking of sensitive or native plants, woodcutting, shooting and hunting activities, more dust from existing roads, pesticide and/or herbicide use, physical interventions to remove tules, salt cedar, beaver dams, or the removal of muck and debris in the dry channel prior to re-watering. It also means that most people support a slow, steady, careful and patient re-watering of the Lower Owens River, not just because they recognize that a rapid re-watering might cause environmental damage, but also because they don’t support any rapid or unmanaged change or growth in the physical, social, cultural, or economic environment of the Lower Owens River valley. Most of those interviewed regard rapid change as anti-ethical to their rural and slow-paced quality of life. They are impatient for the return of the Lower Owens River Valley ecosystem to a healthy riparian ecosystem, but are willing to wait for a carefully conceived LORP plan that is holistic and considers the needs of the people as well as the physical environment. The long-term sustainability of their river and environment is of much more concern than a quick fix.
Cooperative behaviors by all of the stakeholders assume a win-win decision-making model, where the gains of one group might not be achieved at the expense of another party (Yaffee 1997). Suggestions to minimize polarized positions and to reduce competition in the LORP include sharing of information and collaborative decision-making processes that seek to satisfy, to the extent possible, all stakeholders’ concerns. Without exception, all of those interviewed for the user group survey expressed a strong interest in receiving technical information on LORP, and most would also be willing and would like to participate in some appropriate way in the development of plans and implementation/monitoring of the LORP.
It is suggested that the LORP develop decision-making and management processes that promote sharing of information and develop trust and transparent relationships between disputing stakeholders in order to promote collaborative problem-solving. Mechanisms need to be offered for all stakeholders with an interest to receive information, to respond to any concerns they may have in the technical and decision-making plans, and to have focus groups to have questions answered and resolve misunderstandings and disputes in the plans.
Nearly all of the stakeholders of the Lower Owens River Valley agree that both the restoration and conservation of the natural environment, as well as enhanced economic and cultural stability are the goals of the LORP, but when disagreeing groups focus on a special interest values that exclude another groups’ values, the ultimate beneficial goals of the project get lost. Most stakeholders agreed that they are willing to compromise, they want to see no one’s interests excluded, and they feel problems are surmountable if all parties remember to not take an adversarial stance and demand that their personal interests should take precedence over others. Nearly all (over 95%) of those interviewed said that they are tired of arguing, debating, litigating--they are pleased with the MOU and feel that the LORP offers tremendous potential to southern Owens Valley--they want no more delays with such a beneficial project.
The remaining three behavioral tendencies deal with the tendency of stakeholders and decision-makers to break things apart, and hold them apart, when effective decision-making requires integration (Yaffee 1997).
There are several suggestions to resolve this fragmentation of interests and values: (1) create processes that promote discourse between those who hold different interests and values to build shared understanding of what is at stake and to promote transparency; (2) have round-table discussions, focus groups, computer access to project information, educational displays and programs in the community; and (3) generate decison-making approaches and opportunities for stakeholder involvement that allow different groups to understand what values they hold in common and the compromises they would make for the good of the implementation of the LORP.
Finally, the fragmentation of information and knowledge between professional disciplines, economic sectors, government agencies, organizations and social groups can hinder successful implementation of the LORP. Fragmentation of information is reinforced by stakeholder behaviors that bias their information to past problems and to reflect specific organizational needs (Yaffee 1997). All stakeholders expressed that they would be very interested in receiving factual information on the development of plans for the LORP. Many also expressed a desire to see the LORP include more education and information for local residents as well as visitors on the value and uniqueness of the Lower Owens River Valley resources and rules for its multiple uses. It is also highly valued by most stakeholders to have public/community as well as formal education on native plants, animals, and the Paiute tribes cultural and environmental contributions to the Lower Owens River Valley.
Coleman, James S. 1958. Relational Analysis: The Study of Social Organizations with Survey Methods, Human Organization, Vol. 17.
County of Inyo Parks Master Plan (draft). April 1990. Dangermond & Associates, Inyo County.
CURES (Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra), Summer 1995, Evans-Klages, Inc., Bishop Chamber of Commerce.
Freudenburg, William R. and R. Gramling. June 1992. Toward a Longitudinal Perspective, Social Forces, 70(4).
Freudenberg, William R. 1986. Social Impact Assessment, Annual Review Sociology, Vol. 12
Gramling, Robert and W.R. Freudenburg. 1992. Opportunity-Threat , Development, and Adaptation: Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Social Impact Assessment, Rural Sociology, 57(2).
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162.
Herring, Ronald J. Spring 1990. Rethinking the Commons, Agriculture and Human Values.
Hill, M.T., W.S. Platts, and G. Ahlborn. 1994. Data base and modeling results for the LORProject. Los Angeles Dept. Water and Power, Bishop, CA.
Hill, Mark and William Platts. 1995. Lower Owens River Watershed Ecosystem Management Plan, Action Plan and Concept Document, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Inyo County.
Hill, Mark and William Platts. 1995. Ecosystem Management for Multiple Resource Benefits in the Lower Owens River, California, Ecosystem Sciences.
Hill, Susan. 1997. LORProject Technical Memorandum #2, Initiation of Resource User Group/Recreation Plan-LORP, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Inyo County Water Department.
Lukins, Julian. Sept. 20-21, 1997. The Inyo Register. Commission questions water pact enforcement. Bishop, CA.
MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). 1997. Between Inyo County and City of Los Angeles et al. In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appelate District, Sacramento, CA.
Yaffee, Steven L. April 1997. Why Environmental Policy Nightmares Recur, Conservation Biology, Vol 11, No.2.