WE HEAR YOU … SORTA

“We appreciate your input and this presentation; we have listened to your concerns and ideas and we hear you. We can’t do anything right now, but we’ll get back to you to start the ‘conversation’ about what we can and cant’s do about your issues. Thank you.”

That, in a paraphrased nutshell, was the gist of the response from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Board of Commissioners on July 9 after listening to public comments and a presentation by the Owens Valley Indian Water Commission outlining major issues between the tribes and LADWP and possible actions that could lead to renewed talks and possible solutions. 

While members of the public asked the commission to essentially overhaul its entire approach to land and water management in the Owens Valley, the OVIWC’s Teri Red Owl’s presentation focused on restarting negotiations to transfer water rights that were promised to three Owens Valley tribes when their reservations were created in 1939. She also stressed the need for more adjoining LADWP land to be provided to each reservation. 

Alluding to longstanding legal and political realities in Los Angeles that have vexed Owens Valley residents for decades, the commissioners made no promises past being willing to listen and restart a dialogue with each individual tribe. 

The LADWP commissioners noted it was rare for them to host a presentation by an “outside group,” such as the OVIWC, so just being on the official agenda and in the commission meeting room could be considered a success. 

But the response from the commission fell far short of the more far-reaching demands, requests and pleas made by members of the public. Numerous speakers said the newly seated LADWP commissioners had a historic opportunity to reset the relationship between the Owens Valley tribes and LADWP. Indeed, several speakers said, the agency had a moral obligation to try and right historic wrongs created by its purchase of land and water rights in the Owens Valley, construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct and continued export of the valley’s water to Los Angeles. 

In broader terms, speakers said the LADWP should adopt more sustainable environmental policies and procedures in the Owens Valley and eventually phase out water exports from the Owens Valley in favor of “local sources” of water in the LA region from groundwater basins, stricter conservation measures, recycling water and wastewater and other measures. 

Many of those talking points were outlined in a fairly aggressive social media outreach effort by the OVIWC, the Friends of the Inyo and other environmental and tribal advocates and organizations. The PR campaign turned out a group of mostly Los Angeles and Southern California advocates backing the OVIWC. There were three Ph.D. candidates, representatives of SoCal tribes, speakers from such groups as Heal the Bay, LA Water Keepers, and two documentary filmmakers whose work includes Owens Valley water issues, among others. Additional comments were submitted digitally, but not read at the meeting. 

None of the speakers, however, mentioned how to implement any of those goals by changing or altering court approved, legally binding Long Term Water Agreement and its various environmental documents and mitigation measures. Nor did anyone mention how to bring the groups with a legal “voice” in the agreement, Inyo County, the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee (MOU members), into any revamp of the agreement. 

Red Owl did provide a history lesson on why the local tribes (as government entities) did not obtain legal standing to continue to participate on the ongoing implementation of the water agreement or changes to the agreement on the same legal footing as those three “MOU members.” During the protracted legal battle over the LTWA in the 1980s and 1990s, the Owens Valley tribes dropped their stance opposing LADWP and siding with the county in lawsuits as “friends of the court.” In return LADWP promised to reopen negotiations about providing legal water rights for the tribes as promised when the three reservations were created in 1939. Thus, the tribes did not have “a seat at the table” during the finalization of the water agreement or in the resulting monitoring and negotiations between LADWP and the county. 

Red Owl asked the commission to, once again, restart talks to fulfill the promised transfer of water rights. That promise was made in 1939 when Congress approved a land swap that sent 3,000 acres of federal land in the Owens Valley to LADWP in return for LADWP providing land for three tribal reservations: 875 acres for Bishop; 279 acres for Big Pine; and 237 acres for Lone Pine.   

As part of that deal, the federal water rights in various ditch companies serving the federal land were supposed to be transferred to the tribes. The land transfer occurred first, but since the LA City Charter makes it virtually impossible to transfer city water rights, that never happened, Red Owl said. Water was delivered to the “edges” of the reservations and is still used for irrigation and other needs, she added. 

In the 1990s, the tribes and LADWP tried again. But the “deal” offered by LADWP would have the tribes going to the former federal land to tap the water rights, with no money or approvals for moving the water. It was unworkable, and Red Owl said it was obvious that LADWP did not want to accomplish the transfer. 

Now, Red Owl said the tribes want to, once again, “re-engage in good faith” with LADWP and undertake “meaningful negotiations” about how the tribes can secure the long-promised water rights.  

The same approach to negotiations is also called for to address the tribes’ need for more land to be added to the reservations, Red Owl said. The tribes are “land poor,” and don’t have the land to even accommodate the existing numbers of tribal members. She noted that such land deals would fit with the current “land back” movement that seeks to have tribal lands and especially sacred sites returned to tribes.  

LADWP Commissioner Wilma Pinder summed up the political roadblocks faced by the tribes and LADWP when it comes to transferring any land or water from the city to the tribes. “Los Angeles is two hands clapping,” she said in reference to the need for both the LA City Council and the LADWP commission to work together and eventually agree to any land and water deals. 

Noting the past unpleasant history between LADWP and the tribes, Pinder said, “we are here today,” of the current board members. “We hear you.” 

Commission Vice Chair George McGraw said it was important for the board to understand “the painful but important histories” involving LADWP, the Owens Valley and the tribes. The commission has a “Tribal Engagement Committee,” he noted, and just brought on board a “tribal liaison” who will be working with SoCal and Owens Valley tribes. The commission will be working in good faith to improve the “government to government” relationship with each of the valley’s tribes, he added. 

However, McGraw included a word of caution when he noted there are state and federal laws and the city charter that “govern and limit” the LADWP board’s actions. 

However, new LADWP General Manager Janisse Quinones, who has already toured the Owens Valley with commissioner McGraw, said she believed “the right people are at the table” in both the mayor’s office and LADWP to make progress on the tribes’ issues. 

Red Owl asked that the commission and LADWP staff inform the city council and LA Mayor’s office of the concerns raised during the meeting. Several commissioners said they would be sending council members and the mayor’s office information regarding the tribes’ concerns and issues. Red Owl asked if there was a time line for more communication or maybe a plan to form a “water rights task force.”

Commission chair Richard Katz replied: “We’ll get back to you, and quicker than in the past. Which I know is a low bar.” 

Jon Klusmire of Bishop hopes no one is sitting by the phone waiting for the call from LADWP.