LORP Summit in Bishop overall success
Two day discussion of Lower Owens River Project reinforces need to experiment with river flows.
Despite the dustup created by the Owens Valley Committee (OVC) prior to the two-and-a-half day Lower Owens River Project Summit in Bishop last week over its unilateral decision to invite the public to attend (which did not happen), the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at the meeting appeared to be optimistic that the meeting went well and that there is momentum going forward for flexibility in experimenting with varying river flows for a healthier river system.
The meeting last week that began on July 29 included the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Inyo County, Water Commissioners, Sierra Club, California Department of Fish and Wildlife staff; LORP consultants, Ecosystem Scientists; and three lessees.
And of course there were consultants and attorneys from several of the groups attending, as LORP operates under a court-ordered MOU.
An initial report from the Owens Valley Committee noted that over the seven years that the project has been in place, conditions have generally improved, but that there is continued concern over the overabundance of tules which are a blessing or a problem, depending on where on the river they are found.
OVC President Mary Roper wrote The Sheet that OVC will be discussing the LORP Summit at its Board meeting on August 21. The OVC sent Nancy Masters, Harry Williams, Sally Manning (the OVC MOU science representative) and Roper herself to the meetings.
Roper’s understanding is that a request for a temporary waiver to the MOU requirements is being crafted, asking that all parties to the MOU agree to a temporary two year waiver in 2015 and 2016 to allow greater flexibility to experiment with rate flows in the river. She noted that they are looking closely at the language in that waiver.
According to Roper, the waiver would not mean that the LADWP would be installing a higher capacity pump back station, however they would be able to increase the pumping above the 50 cubic feet per second (cfs), using the existing size pumps during the periods when the higher habitat or flushing flows are going down the river.
MOU parties also requested an accurate “water budget” for the LORP, with backup as to how that water budget is calculated. The MOU group wants to know how much water will be available to work with in adjusting the flows in the river.
Roper went on to say that the MOU parties want data collected on water quality and also a myriad of other studies done.
All of the parties acknowledge that LORP is a great experiment, and that it is the only river restoration of its kind in the entire United States. They want to find out if adjusting the flow regime is going to make any difference in the water quality. Costs were also brought up in the summit in regards to getting rid of the areas in the river which are obstructed with tules and other debris. Inyo County has to split the cost with DWP 50/50.
“People joked about giving (rancher) Scott (Kemp) a shovel or an excavator. I have no idea what the DWP or the County think the cost would be,” Roper said.
Others contacted by The Sheet were also optimistic. Mike Prather, with the Inyo County Water Commission, attended the meetings and thought they were informative and reinforced the need to experiment with river flows. He had some concern that if only one MOU party decides to not go along with it, it could affect the future of the project’s success.
Dr. Bob Harrington, Director of the Inyo County Water Department, noted that the crux of the meeting was the discussion over whether or not the river flows need to be changed. “Los Angeles,” he said, based on their consultants, would like to increase capacity of the pumpback station at the end of the river.” OVC opposes the idea, saying LADWP cannot be trusted, although DWP says it would only be used to recover the addition higher capacity flows and not used to justify new wells or export additional water.
County LORP manager Larry Freilich said that “I just don’t see how L.A. could increase their export of water through the pumpback station under the MOU process. All the water is accounted for and they cannot pump back more than 50 cfs.” Right now the pumpback station takes most of the water and pumps it back either into the Aqueduct or out to the Owens Lake Dust Control project, mostly for shallow flood areas.
Dr. Harrington’s opinion is the same as Freilich’s. “Right now there is a legal cap on the amount of water that Los Angeles can export through the MOU and subsequent court orders,” he said.
The concern that several parties to the MOU have is that not allowing some flexibility in water flows endangers the adaptive management that all parties appear to agree is needed for LORP to succeed in the long term.
“The Sierra Club and OVC don’t want the river to just become a conveyance for water from a new well field on the east side of the river,” said Dr. Harrington. But, he added, “More water quality work and data, along with flexible flow management, will help to determine if the principle solution to flushing organic material and other flocculent and muck from the river system with higher flows will work.”
It is also hoped that low flows might help with tree growth along the river, which has been disappointing so far.
Dr. Harrington will be presenting a detailed memorandum on the results of the Summit to the Inyo Supervisors and it will be posted online at the County website, available to the public. There are plans for another meeting later in the year.
