This dust and clean-up demands have led to money from LADWP and a new clean air program.
In Sacramento today, the California Air Resources Board planned to hear an appeal by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The agency opposes an order from the Air Pollution Control District here to clean up more dust at the Owens Dry Lake Bed.
Under a state plan which LADWP signed, APCD Director Ted Schade determined that in order to meet federal air quality standards DWP needed to clean up 2.9 square miles more at the Dry Lake. In earlier years, DWP had admitted causing the Owens Lake to dry up because of water diversions to the aqueduct.
DWP attorneys appealed Ted Schade’s order, claiming that the APCD considers itself “above the law.” Appeal briefs point to the possible clean-up cost of $440 million and says it’s “not cost effective.” LA also argues that the State Lands Commission, owners of the lake bed, are the ones who should address Clean Air Act issues.
Ted Schade has repeatedly pointed out that the APCD does not dictate which measures LADWP has to use to clean up the dust pollution. The Air Resources Board staff had issued a report to say that the APCD used reasonable methods and decisions to order more dust clean-up. The ARB staff said LADWP did not prove otherwise.
Discover more from Sierra Wave: Eastern Sierra News - The Community's News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the resent past I read that LADWP cost to export 1 acre foot of Eastern Sierra water to LA was 100 dollars for that 1 acre foot of water.
And for LADWP to purchase the same from the Metropolitan Water District would be 700 dollars for that 1 acre foot of water.
LADWP exports about 330,000 to 350,000 acre feet a year from the Eastern Sierra. So the difference is 210,000,000 million a year saved.
That is why they take all they can from here “cost effective”.
This also saves LADWP lots of money to pay for cleaning up the dust they caused so they can keep their cheep source.
Wow!!
Thanks for sharing that good info.
What gets me is they have this 330,000 – 350,000 set amount that has no regards to weak runoff years or the static water level in our aquifers.
With that kind of savings they should be able to look out for our best interest (oh wait?) hahahahahaha, I forgot we are talking about a immoral entity. I guess it wouldnt be a savings unless they had to pay that high amount to begin with. For about 100 years now they have been conditioned to think they own all of us along with the valley.
If it keeps money in there pocket why would they want to think any other way?
WHO thinks they are above the law? It looks like the pot calling the kettle black to turn attention away from the DWP ignoring what it has agreed to in signed documents.