INYO WANTS A PUMP SLUMP
This story was originally published in the May 3, 2025 Issue.
Finally, there’s a good reason for meetings that seem to drag on and on.
During two long meetings over two days, Inyo County’s official “recommended” amount of groundwater pumping in the coming year kept going lower and lower the longer Inyo County officials and the public pondered the pumping planned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in 2025-26.
The Inyo County Water Department made the first stab at politely informing LADWP to cut back on its plans to pump between 67,860 to 88,560-acre feet (AF). The high-end number was essentially dismissed as unrealistic. The county Water Department suggested LADWP only pump 61,660 AF.
The Inyo County Water Commission met on Monday, April 28 and after plenty of public comment and some brainstorming by commission members, decided to get a bit more “aggressive,” and suggested a pumping total of just 51,470 AF, which was what the county recommendation last year.
That recommendation was presented to the Inyo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, April 29. More discussion, public comment and questions ensued. The board said it liked the 51,470 AF number but asked for a breakdown by wellfield. “We did the math,” said Inyo County Water Department Director Holly Alpert, and that math led to total of 48,720 AF. She noted that was almost the same amount of actual pumping LADWP completed in the 2024-25 water year.
Good enough, the supervisors declared, and that became the final county recommendation that will be forwarded to LADWP.
The public, Water Commission and Supervisors also pointed to underlying issues with the Inyo-LA Long-Term Water Agreement (LTWA) which would warrant changes and/or modifications. Whether any of those long-term efforts will be undertaken was not addressed.
Recommending that LADWP reduce its planned pumping by 19,140 AF satisfied one of the general themes that emerged during both meetings. That being instead of suggesting small, incremental changes, the county should make some bold statements about what it thinks is a pumping level that will keep aquifers from dropping and keep vegetation cover from shrinking.
Since “LADWP never listens” to the county’s suggestions on pumping plans and hasn’t changed its initial, planned pumping totals regardless of what the county recommends, “why not be aggressive,” said Water Commissioner Randy Keller on Monday.
Commission chair Teri Red Owl pointed out that under LADWP’s plan, groundwater levels in the Owens Valley would drop an average of 1.2 to 2 feet, with the Laws wellfield seeing drops in the 3.3 to 4.5 foot range. “Any decrease is really alarming,” she said. Public comments were unanimous at the commission meeting that after three wet years, the county should do all it can to maintain aquifer levels instead of approving any plan that would result in a drop in groundwater. The county pumping recommendation should at least avoid any groundwater decreases and instead be geared to bringing vegetation and other conditions up to baseline levels, Red Owl said.
Alpert told the commission that after one massive water year followed by two “average” years, vegetation cover is “relatively high” and groundwater is “overall above baseline.” (Note: after the record snow year in 2022-23 and massive water “spreading,” groundwater levels in the Owens Valley jumped between 3 and 5 feet.) Alpert told the supervisors on Tuesday the goal should be to maintain those gains in both groundwater and vegetation cover. Vegetation cover is a critical measurement since it helps determine if LADWP pumps can be shut off, as described in the LTWA and its technical partner, the Green Book. The agreement does not include “depth-to-water” or other groundwater measurements as critical to decision-making around pumping.
The Big Ideas then took center stage.
The 1984 “baseline” figures for water tables and vegetation represent a “damaged” environment after a decade of large-scale pumping while limiting irrigation, noted Lynn Boulton of the local Sierra Club. Lauren Kelly of Friends of the Inyo called the baselines “compromised.” Revisiting the baseline numbers so they reflect a level to create healthy aquifers and vegetation should be considered.
Several speakers also noted that 33 wells are “exempt” from pumping restrictions and it is time to review if years of pumping from those wells has had a negative impact. Nine of those wells provide water for town water systems, five pump water into two fish hatcheries and others provide “sole source” water for irrigation or mitigation measures.
The various monitoring techniques in the LTWA are getting a tad musty and could be outdated, so new approaches, ranging from satellite images, remote monitoring and other high-tech monitoring should be considered.
The big picture was also addressed.
The area’s “water system is broken,” because of LADWP, said Santeena Pugliese of Big Pine. The county should not consent to LADWP’s plans until all 64 mitigation measures in the LTWA are complete and successful, and tribal water rights are restored and secured, among other issues. The county needs to “take serious action and a stronger stance” regarding all aspects of LADWP’s water operations.
The county won’t see meaningful positive changes to the environment as long as it continues to abide by “this beat up old jalopy of a plan,” said Sally Manning, Big Pine Tribe environmental director, in reference to the LTWA.
Supervisor Trina Orrill said the county needs to get ahead of water issues with “forward thinking” that will address some of the nagging, reoccurring issues with LADWP and the LTWA.
Supervisor Jennifer Roeser (whose ranch is on a LADWP lease) said “the Green Book is not helping” in some cases, and the LTWA has its “flaws” and is an “old” document. But she also added the county faces a “balancing act” with LADWP since it also is negotiating land releases, changes in lease terms and other conflicts with the utility.
Alpert responded to questions about updating or revising water-related documents by saying the county would need to pick “specific issues” to address before approaching LADWP about any changes.
Keller, who retired from the Inyo County Counsel’s office, pointed out at the commission meeting that any changes to the LTWA have to be approved by both Inyo County and LADWP. So if LADWP thinks it’s doing fine with the current agreement, it would be unlikely to undertake any overhauls or even small changes to the agreement.
To recap some of the prominent details of the LADWP 2025-26 Operations Plan: Eastern Sierra snowpack measured 84% of normal on April 1, with runoff hitting 92% of normal. Exports via the Los Angeles Aqueduct are estimated to total 269,000 AF from the Eastern Sierra, which will represent about 55% of the city’s needs. In-valley water uses on LA owned land will total about 95,100 AF, which does not include the approx. 60,000-acre feet a year going to the dust mitigation/wildlife habitat project on Owens Lake.
The county comments will be presented at the Inyo/LA Technical Group, Wednesday, May 7, at 3 p.m., LADWP Conference Room, 300 Mandich St., Bishop. Public comment is welcome.
Jon Klusmire of Bishop is glad to see more folks dipping their toes in the never-ending water tussle.
