City of LA and LADWP reassure Inyo County

By Deb Murphy

Whatever disconnect popped up between Inyo County and the City of Los Angeles over the City’s emergency declaration and the department’s commitment to work with Inyo to prevent flood damage during this year’s unprecedented runoff popped back down last Friday.

Following a special closed session meeting of the Board of Supervisors, LADWP’s Chief Operation Officer Marty Adams, Director of Water Operations Anselmo Collins and LA’s Director of Infrastructure Ted Bardacke reassured the County, dispelling a sense Inyo was on its own in preparing for a potential flood disaster.

A major disconnect involved LA Mayor Eric Garcetti’s declaration of emergency covering Los Angeles and the length of the aqueduct. The fear was the declaration could throw up more red tape for Inyo’s efforts to deal with threats to life and property. “The declaration was not meant to complicate things,” Bardacke said. “The primary purpose was to reduce the impact on this region” as well as points south.

Adams filled in a lot of the blanks on what the department is doing and will do to manage twice as much water as the valley and the department have seen since 1983.

Adams explained the normal end point for all that water would have been the Owens Lake. “The lake would rise seven feet if we do nothing,” he said. That level of water would wipe out much of the infrastructure designed to prevent emissions. The department’s goal is to keep as much water as possible out of the river and away from the lake.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District control officer Phill Kiddoo, who was involved in the department’s efforts to use less water on the lake, outlined the collaborative efforts to increase water on the lake without wiping out berms, roads and other assets.

Department efforts include prepping valley infrastructure, diversions, monitoring stations and sand traps. Adams provided a breakdown of equipment and personnel with staging areas from Lee Vining to Olancha. Collins passed out inundation maps, showing where water would go in the event of flooding.

Other members of the emergency operations group, the Sheriff’s Department and Public Works, asked for advance notice when water levels were raised along the river and when areas were targeted for extensive spreading operations.

, , ,

6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fake Gnus
Fake Gnus
5 years ago

You may have a point there, Daris; your questions are legitimate.

I was only addressing the closed session issue.

Fake Gnus
Fake Gnus
5 years ago

Daris and Earl: Based on the way this article is written, I understand your objections: the article insinuates that the Board met in closed session on LADWP’s preparedness for flooding. But that didn’t happen – the Board conducted a public workshop on that matter. The closed sessions didn’t have anything… Read more »

Daris
Daris
5 years ago
Reply to  Fake Gnus

I never saw any notice of a public workshop. Where and when was this posted? I thought by the Brown Act in order to have more than 2 supervisors at a meeting it had to be advertised and posted.

Earl Duran
Earl Duran
5 years ago

why closed meetings?

Daris
Daris
5 years ago

Why was this discussed in a close session? I think that this should have been in and open and public meeting or is this just another example of Inyo Co. letting DWP do what ever it says is best for Inyo Co. The plans and results of the meeting may… Read more »

Fake Gnus
Fake Gnus
5 years ago

Speaking of disconnect: In this article KSRW fails to explain the connection between the Board of Supervisors’ “special closed session meeting” during its special April 7 meeting and LADWP’s subsequent public assurances about its preparedness for flooding This is probably because there is no connection: the only “closed sessions” on… Read more »