photo by Jim Stroh
The Inyo Supervisors recently sent in comments of concern for environmental impacts from the Department of Water and Power’s proposed solar project, and now everyone can continue to comment through November 4th. DWP extended their comment deadline.
It is DWP that will complete an Environmental Impact Report on the Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch Project planned for 1200 acres southeast of Independence, across from the Manzanar Historic Site and east of the Owens River. DWP plans to build the one million solar-paneled, 200 megawatt project next year.
Inyo County comments, compiled by the Planning Department, point to potential dust pollution, visual impacts, lack of a reclamation plan, failure to consider the Long-Term Water Agreement regarding two new wells, failure to comply with the County Geneal Plan, housing impacts, and impacts to the Lower Owens River Project.
The County also raises the concern that if the solar project impacts animal and bird habitat, other agencies may require that DWP buy more land to offset the habitat destruction. The County points out that DWP already owns 98% of private land and has continued to buy up more. Inyo officials say this erodes the County tax base and related services.
The County’s comments are online at www.inyoplanning.org. The Draft EIR is available at all Inyo libraries and the DWP office in Bishop. See it online at www.ladwp.com. Mail your comments to:
Ms. Nadia Parker
Environmental Planning and Assessment
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street, Room 1044
Los Angeles, California 90012
Or email to [email protected] or [email protected]
I put my comments in but they look stupid next to Phillips.
Thank God for Phillip.
The dumbing down DWP notification dated Oct 7, 2013 extending the deadline for comments, sent to my place in Bishop arrived on Oct 16. I guess this is their mitigation measure for not providing a legitimate (maybe a legal) CEQA process with a Scoping and a proper Notice of Preparation… Read more »
PA, Some very good points. Though DWP owning it’s own power plants has been mostly well worth the investment. They avoided Enron manipulations etc. Saying,”DWP is not ever able to do the right thing on their own, even if they want to.” Is specious and possibly disingenuous. It weakens or… Read more »
Hey ED, Don’t you really think that a discussion about LADWP “not ever able to get things right” is a discussion that should have occurred between LADWP and the Owen’s Valley decades ago. This discussion should have been initiated by some far sighted Manager of the DWP, who would be… Read more »
PA, I am mostly in agreement with your letters and concerns. I have criticized your language sometimes because I think it undermines your position as one of our best spokesmen. I really do support you. I think it is important to remember that the issue of “stealing resources legally” is… Read more »
Why is DWP exempt from water law? A water right is a legal entitlement authorizing water to be diverted from a specified source and put to beneficial, nonwasteful use. Water rights are property rights, but their holders do not own the water itself. They possess the right to use it.… Read more »
Numerous other areas of the Owens Valley have also been dried up – flowing springs, flowing artesian wells, wellfields.
Benett Kessler
Mongo, I am no water law expert, but believe DWP’s water rights predate current law. Laws were changed to prevent what happened in Owens Valley and elsewhere in the West, but are not retroactive. You would have to research the specific situation in OV.
LA maintains it’s water rights precisely because it’s water is put to continuous beneficial use. In fact the second aquaduct pipe is there precisely to protect LA’s water rights. Into the 1960’s Lost Angeles did not use the full allocation of water LA claimed water rights to. Under Western Water… Read more »
Isn’t DWP in violation of anti trust monopoly law by owning 98% of private land and continuing to buy up more to monopolize the country’s water? Isn’t the erosion of the County tax base and related services an anti competitive monopoly practice similar to the one that broke up ATT?… Read more »
Thanks, Mongo. I added [email protected]. I can’t answer your other questions except that DWP is the “lead agency” on the EIR.
BK
SW, accurate and truthful figures are important for the focus needed in this important discussion. DWP does not own 98% of private land in Inyo County. More like 65%. If you and/or County mean 98% of Owens Valley then state so. Mongo’s counting on you. And we are counting on… Read more »
According to Inyo County, DWP does own 98% of private land. 2% is owned by individuals.
BK
Land in Federal Ownership 92.0%
Land in State Ownership 2.4%
Land in City of Los Angeles Ownership 3.9%
Land in Private Ownership 1.7%
Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
inyomonoagriculture.com
You are looking at total land ownership. The 98% figure is of privately held land. Call Inyo County. LA owns 98% of PRIVATE LAND. Citizens own the other 2%. This private land borders Highway 395.
BK
(Dwp + private) 3.9 + 1.7 = 5.6
3.9 divided by 5.6 = 69.64%
I stand by my information.
BK
Those numbers are on the County’s website home page also, and I stand by the math. The County is giving one of us bad information. 98% of Owens Valley is believable, but not entire county. Not all private land borders 395 as you state. Shoshone and outskirts of Trona are… Read more »
Go to the Water Department and look at their map. LA owns all the land around all of our towns and in the towns. They own the land under the businesses on Main Street, the land under county and city parks, the land under ball fields, churches, homes. They have… Read more »
Bennet and others, it is not privately held land if it is owned by any level of government. LADWPs land is not private land.
LADWP likes to consider itself a private agency – also not regulated by PUC. Give it up – LA owns most of the land around our towns and controls our destiny, to a large extent.
BK
Just asked to clear up ambiguity of article and whether 98% applied to County or Owens Valley. Simple question.
Benett,
Why can’t Inyo county or one of the towns there use eminent domain to “take” some DWP land? They could then lease it out for local use. Maybe this could break the stranglehold the DWP seems to have on the land there.
Ask the Supervisors.
BK
DWP did put up several parcels for sale at auction and few sold. Maybe if DWP, local government, non-profits, banks, etc., could set up loans and grants for local individuals to buy and develop these properties it would be a start.