Letters to the Editor
DWP Lite
Dear Editor:
The interview with Inyo County Water Department Director Bob Harrington (Jan. 11) is a good example of why Inyo County so often comes up short in its dealings with DWP. Director Harrington stated, correctly, that water tables have generally never recovered to their mid-1980’s levels, but then failed to mention that without such a recovery it is impossible to attain the environmental protection goals of the Inyo-LA Long Term Water Agreement (and the protection of shallow wells). He cited an example from the record-breaking over-pumping in the late 1980’s, but mentioned neither the Drought Recovery Policy, (specifically designed to insure recovery from this over-pumping) nor DWP’s unilateral termination of the Drought Recovery Policy, nor Inyo’s failure to challenge DWP’s unilateral termination. Harrington argued that, because water tables do not decline every year, DWP is not pumping the valley dry. In other words, because it is possible to imagine scenarios where pumping is even more excessive than it already is, the status quo must be okay. These are some of the reasons I say the Inyo County Water Department has become “DWP Lite.”
Daniel Pritchett
Bishop
What do U really know?
Dear Editor:
Most Town voters are unaware of the proposal to use Measure U and Measure R funds to fund a new recreation organization known as MLR (“Mammoth Lakes Recreation”).
At the MLR Steering Committee’s Jan. 6 meeting, SMG consultants presented a draft report proposing to use up to 25% of those dedicated tax funds for “overhead” for the new organization. The report offered vague “strategies” for MLR to take on Measures U, R, Trails, Special Events and other responsibilities currently managed by the Town’s Recreation Department.
Mayor Wood’s visual diagram of responsibilities, which may be included in the final draft, provided the most detail as to what MLR would do. The most specific detail in the report, however, was the intended use of Measure R and U tax funds to provide organizational support. The MLR Steering Committee will discuss the final report at its meeting next Monday, Jan. 27, and the Recreation Commission will discuss it on Feb. 4.
Since passage of the measures, administrative costs have been limited to 4% to manage the accounts. At the previous meeting, the Town Attorney’s written advice was given to the steering committee, stating: “Although administrative costs are legitimate expenditures under both R and U, my understanding of the intent of both measures has always been that they were meant to fund tangible facilities and programs. If a significant portion of every R and U dollar given to MLR ends up being spent on administration, I think the public might be justified in feeling as though the Town wasn’t following the spirit of R and U, and maybe not the letter of R and U.”
I concur with his advice, as I and many others voted to tax ourselves to construct and operate tangible, physical facilities and programs, including Arts and Culture, not to provide an organization’s overhead. However, if a reputable (and self-supporting) non-profit were to step forward and have as its fundraising mission to complement and match Measure U and R funds dedicated to construct tangible recreation facilities and programs, I am sure that there are many like me who would support that approach.
Sandy Hogan
Mammoth Lakes
