DWP’s request to dismiss Mono lawsuit overruled

By Deb Murphy
Mono County hasn’t won the war, but it did win the first battle in its lawsuit against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s decision to withdraw water allotments to its Long Valley area grazing leases.
Last Friday, the Alameda County civil court indicated LADWP’s request to dismiss the suit was overruled. According to Mono County Council Stacey Simon, “there is no written decision. Just one word on the website that says ‘overruled’ next to the docket entry.”
The County’s Writ of Mandate asks that LADWP be required to provide irrigation water to its grazing leases until the analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act has been completed. The department, in turn, asked the Alameda civil court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the existing leases contained the provision that water allotments could be reduced to zero under any circumstances.
The County’s argument against dismissal: the new proposed, waterless leases were outside that provision since it represented a larger action, a shift in water policies by the department.
“The court thought there was enough there to proceed to the hearing on the merits of the case,” Simon stated via e-mail.

, , , ,

7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Philip Anaya
Philip Anaya
2 years ago

I hope I am still alive in 2042 to see the Non-Adjudicated portions of the Owens Basin achieve sustainability with regards to groundwater extractions. The DWP will play their part in this with the sustainable management of the Adjudicated Non-Adjudicated boundary in the Basin . The best way forward for… Read more »

Tom Bluethumb
Tom Bluethumb
2 years ago

You’re right John.

If LADWP left, the Owens and Long Valleys would look like Lancaster/Palmdale.

Our local “leaders” would sell us and the land out faster than you can say Chinatown.

Tom Tuttle
Tom Tuttle
2 years ago

I hope I am still alive when LADWP no longer needs their water from their legally owned land and water rights up in the Owens valley, leaving the area high and dry with no services, tax revenues and local economical financial support. I want to see the area towns and… Read more »

John
John
2 years ago
Reply to  Tom Tuttle

If LADWP left because they no longer needed the water, the land would be available for development. This area would be a boom town with stores, housing, warehouses, recreation centers, etc. The tax base would be more than sufficient to support this area.

Stacy Corless
Stacy Corless
2 years ago
Reply to  Tom Tuttle

There’s nothing frivolous about protecting a watershed–so far, in cases from Mono Lake to Owens Lake, the courts have agreed, and have compelled LA to restore or to mitigate the environmental damage caused by water export. I still hope that the city will do the right thing in this case,… Read more »

sugarmags
sugarmags
2 years ago
Reply to  Tom Tuttle

I won’t deny that LADWP owning a large portion of the Owens Valley hasn’t been beneficial. That benefit, however, came through limiting development. Otherwise the Owens Valley would look like the Central Valley. But, by limiting development, and the areas ability to provide for itself, LADWP took on an obligation… Read more »

Charles O. Jones
Charles O. Jones
2 years ago
Reply to  Tom Tuttle

I hope I’m still alive when people like Mr. Tuttle finally come to the realization that owning a piece of land doesn’t include the unrestricted right to whatever you please. There are laws that must be respected and followed by all property owners. I’m not an LADWP hater, but they… Read more »