LADWP launches legal attacks to avoid air clean-up


The current Los Angeles Department of Water and Power regime has gone back to what local officials call bullying, suing and ignoring old rules.  Their recent actions in the Eastern Sierra point to DWP’s quest for more water and more money.

In an effort to avoid any more expense on cleaning up Owens Dry Lake dust, LADWP refused an order from the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District to add 2.9 square miles to the clean-up list.  LADWP spent one day in mandatory mediation with APCD and then said mediation wouldn’t work.  DWP then appealed the order to the California Air Resources Board.  That Board issued a process for the appeal, and DWP then sued them over the process.

Next, DWP filed suit against the local air pollution control district because they don’t want to pay attorneys fees even though the state air board said they should.  The APCD board had issued an assessment for LA to pay $250,000 in attorneys fees.  DWP said, no, get it out of APCD’s reserve.

APCD Director Ted Schade issued a notice of violation for failure to pay with daily fines of $7500. DWP then filed a suit against the District order to pay attorneys fees and the notice of violation. This hard ball, sue at every turn approach has Inyo and Mono officials baffled and concerned.

Director Schade said that the agreements reached with LADWP six years ago spelled out the process for determining the completeness of the dry lake dust clean-up.  Schade said he has followed the process and issued orders to make air quality at the lake comply with mandatory standards.

DWP apparently doesn’t want to play by the rules set down. Schade said DWP has “pulled out all the stops.  They’ve decided they’ve spent enough money and put enough water on the lake bed, and they don’t want to do any more.” On the other side are air quality laws.  “We have one goal,” said Schade, “to meet air quality standards.  We’re done when the air is clean.”

Schade, who has tenaciously stood up for air quality, said DWP refuses to sit down with him to talk about the issues.  “There are no face to face meetings.  No communication among staff.  If they would sit down and talk about real needs on both sides, we could craft something,” said Schade.

Meanwhile, APCD has to defend itself.  “We aren’t a wealthy district,” said Schade.  He concluded that LADWP is trying to “starve us out,” he said.  Schade pointed to the fact that LADWP has hired eight or nine different attorneys.  He said they paid one firm $1.4 million just to deal with Owens Dry Lake issues.

At an earlier meeting, APCD Board Chair Mono Supervisor Larry Johnston asked DWP Manager Ron Nichols why spend all the money on legal fees when it could be spent on dust mitigation. Nichols said, “Legal fees pale in comparison to dust controls.”

At this point, DWP has almost finished with dust clean-up, but they’ve dug in their heels in front of a few more square miles of mitigation.

, , , ,

118 Responses to LADWP launches legal attacks to avoid air clean-up

  1. inyoindian March 5, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Not to mention the natural balence of our valley, to me it seems like if you keep lowering the water table further and further down, due to all these culverts and concreted canals which emliminates the chance for recharge to our aquifers, also all the private and municipal water wells, and the big one, all of DWP wells which pump to supply agueduct. You would think it would be leaving a air pocket in between the impervious material which seperates our aquifers from eachother. the the next big earthquake our whole valley would collapse our just reshape. Maybe not but to think LADWP is not doing any harm or not having any affect on the plants and animals in the valley, you deserve a wake up slap in the face!!!!

    • MJA March 8, 2012 at 10:57 am #

      The DWP has created another diversion, no pun intended, for a reason.
      By focusing everyones attention on rewatering a small piece of the the lake,
      They are stealing all of the rest.


  2. MJA March 4, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    No one has suggested LADWP stop getting water. For, I hope, the final time, I am saying they need to obey laws,
    agreements and promises. End of story. Benett

    I would suggest LADWP should stop getting the Owens Valley water and allow the Owens Valley to be naturally alive again, or simply free.


  3. Sock Monkey March 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Part of the problem is that Inyo County is always on the defensive…we are constantly reacting to DWP’s latest maneuvers instead of looking ahead like they do. For instance, back in 1968 Los Angeles was instrumental in amending the California Constitution to prohibit Inyo county from taxing the export of water. This was done in anticipation of the water mining that has been underway for over 40 years. Water is a resource, even more precious than gold or silver, as potable water becomes even more scarce world wide with climate change and impacts on the environment and underground aquifers by human activities. Now DWP is planning for the anticipated reduction in Sierra snow pack (projected at 10 % of normal by the year 2100). Ponder for a moment what has been happening in our County. Not only is most of the surface water exported 200 miles south to Los Angeles, but they are pumping the underground aquifers. Water in those aquifers doesn’t instantaneously drip down from the snow pack. It takes hundreds of years for the snow melt to be deposited in those ancient aquifers. What on earth have we allowed? No EIR could have ever provided adequate mitigation for this kind of underground decimation – no wonder LA DWP could never produce an adequate EIR! There isn’t a hydrographer in the world that could give a guarantee that the “straws” (e.g. DWP’s pumps) won’t suck the aquifers dry. Why doesn’t Inyo become more proactive? Heck, why don’t we propose an amendment to the California Constitution to tax that liquid gold going south. That might make DWP think twice about pumping and diverting most of Inyo’s waters. What was amended once can be amended again. Frankly, I don’t think Inyo has the will or the smarts to go on the offensive. It is discouraging to watch.

  4. entire tribe March 3, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    How many licks from Bennett does it take for the Owens to flow?

  5. Big AL March 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    I’ve read some of the history Wayne, very cool history there. The clampers set a historical marker there to commemorate that story in part with the history of Cartego’s role in the mining history. Which was, by the way, stolen, chiseled out of the dolomite rock it was set in. And was recently replaced.

  6. Ken Warner March 2, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    Here’s some history about the Bessie Brady — the steam ferry that operated on Owens Lake.

  7. hisierragal March 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Dear FifesWife,
    re: toxic or particulate?
    (definitions from New Oxford Dictionary)
    toxic – poisonous
    so define poisonous
    if speaking of a substance: causing or capable of causing death or illness if taken into the body
    so particulate pollution is toxic as it is capable of causing illness
    And to Barney,
    I know someone who owns a home downwind of the lake. Exactly when was he offered monetary compensation for his “suffering” and the opportunity to sell his home to anyone?

    • Barney Fife March 2, 2012 at 10:53 am #

      I have inside knowledge that these offers were made a long time ago. If your friend owned the house say 20 years ago and says there were no discussions, he probably has a faulty memory. In current times, that solution is off the table for political reasons, although I still think it is a reasonable way to proceed.

    • FifesWife March 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

      Spoken like a true layman. Particulate pollution is not toxic, it causes damage by virtue of its size. It is possible to have toxic particulate, but not all particulate is toxic. Cigarette smoke is a particulate, and full of toxic substances, yet, smoking does not DIRECTLY kill people. If so, a couple of puffs and that would be all she wrote.
      I have been exposed to a significant amount of Owens Lake dust, 28 years worth, and I smoked cigarettes in my younger days, and I get tested yearly for lung function. I have above average lung capacity.
      Additionally I was tested for arsenic exposure, and came up negative.
      So BOO.
      If you don’t bellieve me call the EPA and ask them to explain it to you.

      • Benett Kessler March 4, 2012 at 10:16 am #

        Good for you. Not everyone may be so lucky with particulate matter that does include arsenic and other unhealthy substances. What’s up with you, FifesWife. Sounds like you either have an axe to grind with the APCD or maybe you someone close to you works for LADWP. An open mind to consider harm done to countless humans, trees, animals, birds and other creatures might be worthy of your consideration instead of angry insistence to the contrary.
        Benett Kessler

  8. Kat March 1, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Fife’s Wife, I have to disagree with a comment in your post:

    “Are you one of those people who thinks the valley had a significantly different look back in the day? Granted, there were more riparian areas and meadows, and the sagebrush was taller and thicker, but it was still mostly sagebrush, or to be more correct, Great basin sage scrub.”

    The Owen’s Valley was reffered to as “The Switzerland of California”!!

    The only reason it is now a dusty landscape, not even a shadow of it’s previous beauty, is because of LADWP’s William Mullhuland’s deception.

    Read up on it…and get some education in your back pocket on a subject you are severly lacking knowledge in.

    • FifesWife March 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

      Please go to the Eastern Sierra Museum and look at the pictures. The only reason the Valley was referred to as Switzerland was because of the high and close mountains. That is where any resemblance to Switzerland ended.
      Thank you, but I choose not to read propaganda. But believe me I do have an extensive knowledge of “THE SUBJECT”, far more extensive than people like you that simply listen to the blather of ignorant fools who simply repeat each others statements.

      • Benett Kessler March 4, 2012 at 10:13 am #

        Fifes spouse, We who have researched the former state of the Owens Valley know what it used to be like. I have interviewed many people
        first hand who saw what it was like and have read many accounts. Changes have continued since I moved here 37 years ago. Benett

        • Barney Fife March 5, 2012 at 8:43 am #

          perhaps if you all want nothing to ever change, you should join the Republican party. I thought progressives were for changing anything and everything…

          • Benett Kessler March 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

            We are clearly not communicating. BK

  9. MJA March 1, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    I remember when there were rabbits living in the Owens Valley,
    When there was water in the Valley,
    That was before the DWP pumped it all and drained it all,
    And killed it all.
    Hey, where’s the canary?


    • Big AL March 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

      MJA just look on any road, you will see evidence of rabbits living in the valley, even though they may seem scarce, there’s plenty of them ..

      there is still water here, but it is getting scarcer. It sure isn’t the same green valley it once was.

      I think there are plenty of rabbits around, as I said just look at how many of them commit suicide on the roads and how many seem to come out of the wood work to eat your lawn.

  10. Wayne Deja February 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    I live down in this area…and can tell you the ONLY way to stop the dust is to fill the lake with water…which will never happen…The procedures they got to fix the problem does not,and will never fix the problem.The dust is as bad as it was in 2001..LADWP paying contractors $30.00 an hour to drive around and fix sprinklers ain’t doing it…what it’s doing is jacking all our power bills sky high.

    • Big AL February 29, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

      You’re right Wayne, their current fix is not stopping the dust problem, sure is funny, how they can spend huge amounts of money to mitigate this problem in the fashion they choose to do.
      And the simple fix would to re hydrate the lake, but water is gold to them. The metropolis of LA is very thirsty, they will loose too much money if they let it spill out on the lake bottom.
      The claim is that even if they hydrated the lake, they would loose too much water to evaporation and ground absorption.
      I think they finally are coming to grips the the reality of their decision to choose the route of mitigation that they have agreed to. That they are having to spend greater amounts of money than they feel they want to spend, to mitigate their actions.

      They feel they have done all that they can or should have to do. Now with the posibility that they have to do further efforts, they feel they don’t need to do anything further.

    • Ted Schade March 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

      Wayne – The dust is not as bad as it was 10 years ago. Great Basin’s many, many (millions in fact) measurements show that dust emissions are down about 88 to 90 percent. This is confirmed by simply looking at the peak 24-hr PM10 levels. The high value in 2003 was at Dirty Socks Spring – 15,000 ug/m3. The peak in 2011 was about 1500. Ten times less, or a 90 percent reduction. But, 1500 is still 10 times higher than the federal standard of 150. We have just a bit more to take care of.

      • Wayne Deja March 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

        Ted….On a day when the wind is blowing north-west,come to Lone Pine,or better yet,take a drive on Owenyo Road or to Keeler to take in the sights there…and then tell all of us down here there has been a 90% reduction in emissions since 2000.The measurements on machines say one thing…our eyes and lungs say another.

        • inyoindian March 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

          Thats right Wayne let them toot thier own horn and act like the next man couldnt have done any better.

        • Ted Schade March 5, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

          Wayne – All I can say is what the very accurate machines report. I would argue that the monitors are more accurate than our eyes. The fact that 90 percent of the area we mapped as emissive is covered with water, plants or gravel would lead one to conclude that something like 90 percent of the problem must be taken care of. But, most importantly, you are correct in your observation that your eyes and lungs are still subjected to unhealthy levels of air pollution – in fact, 10 times higher than allowed by law. The DWP is not done cleaning up after themselves.

          • MJA March 6, 2012 at 6:47 am #

            Unless of course the dust problem area is much bigger than the 90%.
            Isn’t the entire Owens Valley now a dust problem, not only the lake?


          • Ken Warner March 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

            I’m not trying to pick a fight Ted but plants, gravel and even water are not 100% effective in preventing dust.

            Let’s talk about water. It the wind is blowing really hard, it can atomize the surface of the water and carry the particles in those small drops into the atmosphere. That’s how salt spreads in a marine environment and Owens Lake is quite similar except with a lot more salt.

            So even if Owens Lake was 100% covered with water a foot deep, still particulate emission could occur — although at a greatly reduced level.

          • Sock Monkey March 7, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

            I know that the GBAPCD is concentrating on Owens Lake, but I agree with the comment by MJA about the increased problem of dust blowing in areas where the water table has been lowered to the point where the vegetation has completely disappeared. When will that problem be addressed? The dust is a direct result of the underground pumping over the last forty years by LA DWP. Is the GBAPCD concerned about that dust pollution also?

          • Ted Schade March 8, 2012 at 11:05 am #

            SM – You are correct, there are other areas in the Valley with dust problems, most of them on DWP lands. Great Basin is working with the DWP and their lessees on a number of other emissive areas in the Valley. For example, the Laws area has two parcels that need controls. On moderately windy days these fields are the only lands in the northern Owens Valley that emit visible dust. We try to prioritize our efforts on the sources that directly impact people and public roadways.

          • MJA March 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

            “Great Basin is working with the DWP and their lessees on a number of other emissive areas in the Valley. For example, the Laws area…”

            Your not driving the car are ya?


  11. Clyde A. February 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    How about a class action lawsuit from the people of Inyo and Mono county’s. Lets kick them out of the Eastern Sierra’s! The uncontrolled distruction of our lands are not justifyed by the water needs of Los Angeles.

    • FifesWife March 1, 2012 at 10:55 am #

      What uncontrolled destruction? Are you one of those people who thinks the valley had a significantly different look back in the day? Granted, there were more riparian areas and meadows, and the sagebrush was taller and thicker, but it was still mostly sagebrush, or to be more correct, Great basin sage scrub.
      Plus, lest you forget, it is not “your lands” it belongs to DWP. Look at a map of the valley that has property ownership.
      I I should say that I do not believe DWP should get away with overpumping the valley or diverting too much out of the streams, but I do believe thay have done a heroic job on the Dry Lake and I agree that perhaps it is time to rethink any further controls. DWP made some stupid mistakes when they agreed to certain facets of the control strategies.

      • Benett Kessler March 1, 2012 at 11:44 am #

        Those aren’t the only stupid mistakes.
        I have a magazine from 1912 that shows photos of the Owens Valley – a lush, green farm land of trees,
        farms, gardens and flowing water. It appears the difference is stark. I have also interviewed old timers
        who gave similar accounts. Check out the book, “Dry Ditches” by the Parchers. No need to reinvent
        history to assuage LADWP’s conscience. They have none. Now, the only question is will they abide by the law and honor the source of a great deal of water and power for their utility and will Owens Valley citizens support those officials who are willing to stand up for the law and for agreements to which they gave their word.
        Benett Kessler

        • Ken Warner March 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

          Benett, when you let it out you can be really pointed and forceful. I’d like to see more of that.

        • FifesWife March 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

          Benett, I don’t disagree, but you are talking about farms, gardens, and flowing water that was manipulated by settlers, this was not the natural landscape.

        • Kat March 1, 2012 at 4:07 pm #


          I would love to see those pictures.

        • Bob Loblaw March 2, 2012 at 9:34 am #

          Then inherent problem with your post about “a lush, green farm land of trees, farms, gardens and flowing water” is that it was like that due to irrigation. Specifically irrigation that was already a severe detriment to the Owens River flows.
          On a personal note, DWP irritates me as much as anyone else, but unless we find some middle ground we can all live with, we will surely end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

          • Benett Kessler March 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

            The fact that farmers created irrigation canals does not invalidate my post. The point was,
            the water was here and it made things very green. DWP has no interest in middle ground. But,
            the only thing they need to do is keep their word, live up to signed agreements and promises.
            That’s the ethical requirement for solid human beings. Benett Kessler

          • Barney Fife March 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

            here here! I agree Bob.

            It is way past time that we find a way to close this chapter in environmental history. Mitigate the storms as best we can while recognizing no one will get everything they want, preserve the Owens Valley as the world class outdoor place that it is, and get on with our lives.

            Too many people have been making a living on this one for way too long.

          • Big AL March 2, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

            No Benett, I say your wrong on the point of the valley being greener, the water was here and is still here, not as much as it should be, as it was before and during the first half of the last century.

            The valley was made greener through the irrigation efforts put forth throughout the valley.

            And yes the river did suffer for it, for all of the diverted water did not make it to the river like it normally would have if it wasn’t diverted to water crops. The water table was higher, of course.

            They (DWP) do need to make good their efforts to mitigate the dust problems, they did cause this to happen with their diversion of water from the streams and river within the Owens Valley.

          • Benett Kessler March 2, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

            The water is not here. LADWP diverts all of our stream and river water. They even pump back into the aqueduct
            the water in the Lower Owens River. Plus, they pump the underground to fill their second aqueduct.

          • Big AL March 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

            I agree with Barney about this going on for so long and some individuals making a large amount of money off of it.

          • Big AL March 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

            No Benett what your not seeing here is that yes the water is going south, but it went south back then as well.
            For all water that drains from the eastern side of the Sierras, drains to the river naturally. The river drains it from the valley, south. where it draines into Owens lake.
            So you see, the water was here, but then drained, whether mother nature drained it or man did.

          • Benett Kessler March 3, 2012 at 10:43 am #

            The water did flow into the river, but first it fed the underground and countless acres all around the streams. For heaven’s sake, there’s a huge
            difference between putting it all in a concrete lined aqueduct and shipping it out. Previously people were able to divert streams onto property and grow things. The atmosphere was entirely different. It was moist! And, as someone suggested, seemed to attract more moisture. Why are you so eager to prove LADWP came in like fairies and spirited away water with no impact on the land and people here? The Owens Valley used to be filled with marshlands created from free flowing water. Omie Mairs, the founder of Mairs Market in Independence, told me stories about the marshlands around town and the many birds and animals it fed. This was true up and down the Valley.

            Don’t believe me? Check with Mr. Stan Matlick in Bishop. His family went to court and won an injunction, the Hillside Decree, that has to this day at least kept LADWP from pumping water in the Bishop area for export. Matlick is intimately familiar with the impacts of the City of Los Angeles here.

            Now, all that aside – it won’t change right now, and what we should do as a region is stand up, to the best of our ability, against broken promises, broken agreements and violations of the law by the LADWP, just as we would any other person or entity.
            Benett Kessler

          • Reality Bites March 2, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

            Big Al, You are not taking into account Ground Water Pumping that has lowered the water table resulting in the deaths of trees and deep rooted bushes.

          • Ken Warner March 3, 2012 at 11:03 am #

            Another thing that Big Al is forgetting is the seasonal floods during the Spring thaw. And the occasional flood from a thunder storm.

            Without the dams at Grant and The lakes in the Mammoth Lakes Basin and Crowley and Pleasant Valley and other places farther down the valley, the spring floods would wash away the tulies and flood the riparian zone with nutrients and wash away the salts from the previous Summer’s evaporation. Also, those floods provide a leveling effect with the deposits they carry and cause the stream or creek to meander (over time) across the entire flood plain, Those deposits are now trapped behind the dams.

            If you walk through some of the few remaining meadows up here in Mammoth during the Spring thaw, you’d see the effect on the riparian zone around the creek that moistens the ground quite some distance away from the source.

            The dams and diversions have created an entirely different ecosystem in the Owens Valley.

            Those Spring floods are essential for a healthy ecosystem. And none of your arguments even mention the diversion of the streams and creeks in the Mono Basin which is a whole other story.

          • Benett Kessler March 3, 2012 at 11:23 am #

            Yes. I was just thinking about the other patterns of water flow that LADWP disrupted. As you point out – the spring floods and the dams. And, many more streams and streamlets flowed out of the mountains and down to the Valley floor creating what Mr. Mairs called marshlands and feeding all manner of greenery. DWP diverted and channeled streams to more efficiently go to the aqueduct.

            This doesn’t even address groundwater pumping which began in the mid to late 60s to feed their SECOND aqueduct. Inyo County filed one of the first lawsuits under the new California Environmental Quality Act to try to make LA prove groundwater pumping didn’t impact the environment. They could never prove it in EIR after EIR ordered by the courts. Finally, Inyo signed an agreement which has left our county with misery ever since. LA will not even agree to the fact that the depth of the water table is the judge of when to turn off pumps to save the environment. I could go on, but hopefully this lays it out. Benett Kessler

          • Big AL March 3, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

            LOL I think people think I support LADWP, no I don’t, I continue to post my feelings about what they have done, I don’t dispute what they have done, I only point out some things that I see as not making any sense in making a case against them.
            My thoughts about what DWP has done seems to have gotten drowned out by people thinking I am defending them. I don’t jump on any wagon load of pitch forks and torches.
            I do support efforts to make sure DWP does what they need to do, to mitigate their mess they have created here in the Owens Valley and adjacent areas.
            I would like to see all of the water grabbing cease. I don’t think that would happen any time soon, but it would be nice if it did.

            So um .. where did this come from Benett?

            ” Why are you so eager to prove LADWP came in like fairies and spirited away water with no impact on the land and people here?”

            What kind of a grab is that? I did not mean to invalidate your post, I was pointing out something I see people are missing when they make statements about this issue.

            I did comment on the fact that the previous the amount of water here did attract more moisture, and it did attract more birds, namely water fowl. There are less marshes and wet areas, that is true, I don’t have to ask anyone that, I understand all of that, that the area has changed.

          • Benett Kessler March 4, 2012 at 10:09 am #

            Thanks, Big Al. Also, I prefer a computer keyboard to pitch forks and torches.

          • Big AL March 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

            Yes Ken, ideally without all of the dams and such, it would be different, I could say something about all of that too .. damming creeks and rivers to store water for hydro electric power, or irrigation. but then it might be construed as an argument against DWP, lol.

          • Big AL March 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

            Ground water pumping will eventually cause serious consequences to the environment. If you pump the water out in excess of what the natural hydration can recharge, it will cause a cone of depression, where the water table will drop.
            It can also cause voids, that can cause depressions and sink holes. The whole scam about how much water can be pumped before it causes environmental damage. It doesn’t take much thought to know that it would not take much pumping to cause problems right away. Especially when the ground water is not allowed to adsorb and recharge the ground water table.
            We can look at the Ogallala aquifer in the great plains, and the aquifer under Mexico city. Ground water depletion have led to inability of the Yellow river in China to reach the ocean for periods of time.
            One might say .. the problem with the court cases over the ground water pumping, is that Inyo County could not muster enough green money to support their cause, LA had a lot more political clout and money to buy their case.

      • Ken Warner March 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

        FifesWife —

        Your tactic of pretending to be one of us and then argue in support of LADWP is both clever and typical of the duplicity of LADWP. And really, talent that good is wasted as an amateur troll. You should get a job doing what you are doing.

        And WRT: uncontrolled destruction. When the aqueduct was completed in 1913, Owens Lake was deep enough to be navigable by freight carrying ferries from Cartago to Keeler which was on the shores of a clear, blue lake. By 1926, Owens Lake was dry.

        I’d say that fits the definition of uncontrolled destruction.

        • Big AL March 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

          Yes it would have taken some time …. way longer than a few hundred years for it to have dried up. But you’re right Wayne, it was killed before its time.

          The only thing that saved Mono lake, first of all .. LADWP was using it for a catch basin, which they were draining with the first section of the aqueduct. So they were killing it slowly.

      • Big AL March 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

        I don’t see there efforts on the Owens lake as heroic, how do you substantiate
        that claim.

        Actually, historically in pre-settlement days (when settlers came to the valley) All of the water that shed from the mountains and into the basin and drained away naturally in a southerly direction, did just as LA is doing now, for the most part.

        But, the water table of the valley was much higher then, and there was more water above ground in areas such as the Owens lake. This also attracted more precipitation to the valley.

        Now when people came and settled in the valley, they used the water, they diverted it, they dammed it, and they made extensive irrigation systems to carry water to areas where they planted crops. The evidence of this is seen almost everywhere you go in the valley.
        Prior to late 20’s early 30’s when DWP started buying up land and water rights and diverting water themselves. There were hundreds of farms and ranches around the valley, crops were numerous and plentiful.

        So DWP isn’t doing much more, in general than nature didn’t already do, and not too different from what ranchers and farmers did, only the ranchers and farmers used the water to grow crops and sustain themselves and made a living of off the water before it drained down the valley.
        Riparian concentration probably was not a whole lot more than now, except along the river.

        i’m not not defending them .. because, I feel through their diversion of water, they have created problems and have changed the way the valley effects the weather as it moves across the valley, inhibiting its ability to attract and extract more moisture out of the storms.
        I’m just pointing out some other historical facts in this matter.

        • Rob March 2, 2012 at 9:45 am #

          Riparian concentration probably was not a whole lot more than now, except along the river.???

          Never the less, The most obvious human-caused changes in the Owens River riparian woodland have stemmed from diversion of the river by the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

    • Bob Loblaw March 2, 2012 at 9:30 am #

      Yes! Let’s kick DWP out, and fence everything off so nobody can do anything here! Or, we can think for just a moment, and come to terms with the fact that this peculiar standoff between LADWP and (For lack of a better word) Us is why we have so much accessible country to enjoy! On a personal note, If it all belonged to me, I would fence it off and lock it up to avoid problems with the inconsiderate leaving gates open, and the lazy dropping their garbage wherever it pleases them. Realistically, we could have worse neighbors.

      • Benett Kessler March 2, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

        Bob, This comment sounds like a victim trying to make the best of his abuser. Just because we
        all like the open land and low population doesn’t justify LADWP breaking ethical laws, man made
        laws, and signed agreements. No one has said LA should get out. LA should simply do what the
        rest of us are expected to do – obey laws and agreements and treat other people like neighbors.
        They invaded us. We deserve better. Benett Kessler

        • Barney Fife March 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

          Invaded? Who twisted those poor farmers arms and made them sell? It is your (literal or figurative) ancestors that took money and sold their rights and set the whole thing up so LA could “invade”.

          Bottom line is that one of the best things that came out of this environmental happening is that LA is in LA rather than in the Owens Valley.

          • Benett Kessler March 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

            Dear Barney, Tiresome as it is, here goes another response. My point is ethics. Your point seems to be to defend LA
            at all turns. Best of luck. Benett Kessler

          • Big AL March 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

            There was no invasion, your right, and people, at first willingly sold their land for the money, they saw as being a good price for the times. Times were very hard, and the money being offered was irristiable.
            But then when people realized that Los Angeles was taking the water, people began to change their minds, and wouldn’t sell to LA agents.
            LA resorted to hiring people to pose as buyers not connected to LA, but it wasn’t long before people figured that one out too.

            Mulholland, said to the board of members, “There it is. Take it.” The words are said to be “the five most famous words in the city’s history”.

          • Reality Bites March 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

            Barney is what is called in the business a “Good Little Nazi”

          • Barney Fife March 5, 2012 at 8:40 am #

            This one cracks me up – when you can’t argue intelligently, call them a nazi. Oh, now I am definitely on your side…

        • Bob Loblaw March 3, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

          Benett, my “kick DWP out” remark was more aimed (sarcasm and all) at Clyde A’s remark. Again, my sincerest hope is that we can all find some sort of middle ground. If LADWP stops getting water from here, there is no need for them to keep all this land, which puts it squarely in private hands, which leads inevitably to it being shut off from the public.
          On a second note, Barney, DWP twisted those poor farmers arms. When they didn’t want to sell they were often “persuaded”.

          • Benett Kessler March 3, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

            No one has suggested LADWP stop getting water. For, I hope, the final time, I am saying they need to obey laws,
            agreements and promises. End of story. Benett

          • Barney Fife March 5, 2012 at 8:42 am #

            I like this one too – I was “persuaded”. That way, I can keep the money and pretend I did not really sell out.

      • Big AL March 2, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

        Good point too Bob, there is truth there, people can go just about anywhere on dept. land and just about do anything they want. That would not be true if it was govt. land or private land, govt. land would be well regulated or fenced off largely, private land would just be fenced off and posted.

        DWP still needs to mitigate their mess!

        • Ken Warner March 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

          You are assuming that LADWP’s public land goes immediately into the private sector without reverting to it’s status as Federal land as much of it was prior to LADWP’s acquisitions.

        • Trouble March 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

          Anybody know what kind of agreements Inyo County has with DWP?

          • Benett Kessler March 4, 2012 at 10:39 am #

            Back in the 80s when LADWP had failed three times to produce an adequate Environmental Impact Report on groundwater pumping, they began to negotiate with the Inyo Supervisors. Much to the dismay of most citizens, except for some ranchers who have done DWP’s bidding as lessees, the Supervisors declared that the agreement was the end of the water wars and the answer to our problems. Credible individuals, including former Administrator John K. Smith, attorney Barrett McInerney (who won the DFG case to open up the Gorge), and many other hard working, sensible people found the Water Agreement to be full of wishy washy words through which one could drive trucks and through which LADWP has avoided real protection of the Valley. One of the Appeals Court judges actually wrote to Inyo County warning them that the Water Agreement did not offer the protections of the California Environmental Quality Act under which Inyo had filed suit. The Agreement contains a provision ironically called “The Green Book” which spells out how groundwater pumps will be managed – mostly by soil moisture. The Agreement went into temporary effect in the early 90s and was signed in 1997. Both sides eventually agreed that The Green Book wasn’t working. Damage to the Valley continued. This on top of brutal pumping in the 80s – pumping that virtually destroyed areas in Laws and elsewhere. The Supervisors also let LADWP get away with all the damage they did from the 60s through 1987, making that the baseline year. And, only because of citizens who insisted on the re-watering of the Lower Owens River did that happen. The Water Agreement has a dispute process that takes forever and benefits LA. They pump and export while disputes go on. 20 years after the Agreement began to be used, LA has still not committed to the meaning of what they think the goal of the Agreement is. Inyo believes it is to prevent damage. LA insists they can do damage if they can then mitigate. You get the picture. Benett Kessler

  12. FifesWife February 29, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    I take issue with Mr. Schade’s statement that “we aren’t a wealthy district” Great Basin has a ton of money, its just that the majority of that cash comes from DWP. One should be able to visit the California Air Resources Board’s website to gain information on the relative size and budget of the California air districts, and you can see that for a small (population wise) district with very little industry Great Basin is very well-heeled and staffed.

    • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

      FifesWife, I believe Mr. Schade meant in comparison with the funds LADWP holds (generated from sales of water and power), APCD’s litigation budget is a mere speck.


      • Ted Schade March 2, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

        In comparison to DWP, we are indeed a mere speck. We had a court hearing in LA yesterday. DWP had 5 attorneys in the courtroom, Great Basin had one. Great Basin prevailed.

  13. Trouble February 29, 2012 at 6:29 am #

    Barney- Benett gets mad when I call people names- so I got nothing left to say to you.

    • Barney Fife February 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

      I assume that is because much of what you might say would have no thoughtful basis but would in fact just be the rhetorical equivalent of nananananana – picture a person with fingers in their ears who does not want to hear opposing views

      • Trouble February 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

        No Barney- it’s due to how much I oppose your views on the way DWP treats this county . You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to actually believe DWP has done all it could to cut down on the pollution.

        • Big AL February 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

          LOL Trouble, I didn’t think you could hold your breath that long, not being a smart ass but making a funny comment.

          Seriously though, opinions can be expressed, but they can also be expressed in a positive way without all of the junk such as defamatory slurs and covered up expletives.

          • Trouble February 29, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

            Big Al- Your probably correct, but I quite enjoy being allowed to anonymously voice my smart ass comments.

          • Big AL March 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

            hehe yeah it’s ok to be a smart ass Trouble .. but you know what I mean .. right on.

        • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 9:23 am #

          No matter what we talk about, someone always could have done “more”. We can all be better people than we are, treat our kids better than we do, love our friends more than we do etc.

          I will never argue that LADWP has done all it can and I will support the arguments that LADWP has dragged its corporate feet, obfuscated, and done a lot of other things to delay progress, but so have the folks on the other side. This is not a case of angels vs devils, as much as you are trying to portray it that way.

          My argument is that on the arc of the great pendulum of life, we are too far in your direction right now.

          • Benett Kessler March 1, 2012 at 9:45 am #

            Mr. Fife, Care to be more specific? What have “the folks on the other side” done to
            stand in the way of progress?
            Benett Kessler

          • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 10:13 am #

            Good post, and worthy of comment! I will give the other side, but tend to agree with you on many of your points.

            1- Decades of bullying…

            I agree – but the other side wants to spend billions of dollars on untested and unproven technologies to provide uncertain benefit and when those efforts fail, they say lets spend billions more on some more of the same. A billion here and there and it starts to be real money and wasting money is not a good idea when we have a problem to solve.

            2- The fact that LADWP gives, as a gift, every year millions of dollars to the City of LA general fund…

            Again, I agree but that is not a “gift” it is merely a transfer of wealth from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, which has an overlap of 90% plus. This money does not magically appear, it is first extracted from the ratepayer. I am not sure how this is relevant to fixing the lake but it is a fact I agree with.

            3- The fact, presented in a recent news post here, that LA has a hefty surplus of water, even for drought years…

            Utilities always like to have a surplus so they can meet demand. How much of a surplus is OK? I don’t know, let’s discuss and to the extent we agree the surplus can be used to fix the lake, lets do it.

            Are you calling me huffy? LOL

          • Benett Kessler March 1, 2012 at 11:39 am #

            You have left out the law. There are state and federal laws to protect air quality so citizens do not become
            ill or are forced to live under intolerable conditions. LA agreed to its responsibility for the huge dust
            pollution. The APCD proposed three clean-up methods. LADWP is free to come up with other methods. They
            have not succeeded in creating effective alternatives. After all, there are just so many ways to keep dust
            down. It’s not a process of “a billion here and there”. It’s a legal process spelled out and approved by
            the California Air Resources Board and agreed to by LADWP. In a civilized society, powerful entities (who
            want to turn a desert into an oasis for real estate purposes) have to pay a price and there are laws.

            As for the approximately $190 million a year that LADWP gives to the City of LA, they need to spend some of
            that on their obligations as a utility. If they destroy environment to get water for people in LA, they need
            to make it right, according to the law, and, I would say, according to ethical behavior. In 35 years, as I have
            checked in with the LA City Planning Department, they have never considered a limitation on water as a reason
            to limit growth. That would likely upset the real estate and business community. Perhaps you can relate to
            paying for the cost of doing business. LA wants us to bear its cost. That’s not ethical.
            Benett Kessler

  14. Barney Fife February 28, 2012 at 9:53 am #

    Over compliance at any cost is what the enviros want in most situations. Money is limited in our society and we need to make appropriate decisions as to where it goes.

    This is a classic case of the enviros flexing political muscle to get at a perceived bottomless pit of money at LADWP for all their pet projects and real and percieved issues. I am glad to see LADWP has had enough of it and is growing a backbone.

    • Reality Bites February 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

      WTF!!! LADWP diverted the water form flowing into the lake and as a result they dried up the Owens Valley Lake creating the biggest toxic dust hazard in North America and creating a huge health hazard for southern Inyo County. This is not about some wako enviros. This is about real people who live there and suffer because of what LADWP did. Name anywhere in the nation where city such as LA could go into another county and create such a diaster.

      Barney you are clearly a dis-information agent for LADWP. How much are they paying you to be an ass-clown?

      • FifesWife February 29, 2012 at 11:25 am #

        Did you miss the last 2 words in Reality Bites’ post? Remember about having a little civility in these blogs? That is really pretty rude.

        • Inyoite February 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

          I completely agree that civility is lacking, and I’m not understanding the point of having “moderated” comments that allow namecalling. However, you may want to practice what you preach….

          Or is it okay to call people thugs?

          • Inyoite February 29, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

            Or, rather, “slugs”. Either way, Pot – meet Kettle.

          • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

            I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Would you care to be more specific?

          • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

            I don’t get your thug comment.

          • FifesWife February 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

            you read too fast. The word I used was SLUG. A slug is a slimy, slow moving mollusc without a shell that lives in your garden and eats plants. Last time I checked slug was not a nasty word, although those government workers who I refer to as slugs may not like the analogy.

          • FifesWife February 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

            I don’t know what world you live in, but the difference between A..s clown and slug is miles apart. I could use a lot of dirty words in this blog, especially to some of the annoying and ignorant that write in, but I don’t. When I referred to Government workers as slugs, I was calling no one in particular a name, if the shoe fits I can’t help it.
            Reality Bites specifically called another poster a name.

          • Big AL February 29, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

            Bennet, I think he is referring to a comment you made in regard to LADWP, calling them thugs and bullying people, while isn’t as bad as other’s comments, it still is name calling.

            I believe this particular comment was in regard to some name calling that was going on with an earlier post about the battle of LADWP V MML, and the surface water right issue.

          • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

            I actually did not call LADWP thugs, darn it. I should’ve thought of that.

          • Big AL February 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

            hehe ok Benett I will give you the benefit of doubt with my bad memory. I can’t find the post, OK I will go with the bullying comment.

          • Desert Tortoise December 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

            My father, a City of LA Burea of Engineers career employee, always called them the Department of Water and Parasites, complaining that there were too many of them hanging on a shovel handle while being paid more than employees of other city departments for the same, or often lower quality, work. I think his name for them is most appropriate, colorful while not being outright name calling. If you use if for current City of LA Employees it never fails to elicit a chuckle.
            If you ever wanted to have to deal with a slippery character, I can think of none slipperier than their old head of the water section, Duane Jorgenson. When the Van Norman dam almost collapsed on us in the 1971 quake it was like water boarding a Taliban to get a straight answer out of him. Never trust the DWP.

      • Barney Fife February 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

        The language and tone employed in this response is typical of the person who does not want to address the issues and resorts to name calling instead of considering facts.

        Lakes and rivers have been drying up for millennia without mans help and some believe that this one is a combination of man made and natural processes. That it creates air quality issues is unarguable. What we should do about it IS arguable and should be carefully thought out and measured.

        Careful thought and measured response is usually not the turf of environmental whackos like reality bites. They prefer violence, name calling and intimidation to discussion, compromise, and reasonable action that folks can actually afford.

        • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

          I will note that the current set up of pollution clean-up plans and procedures was negotiated and agreed to be LADWP
          in 2006. These are all LA and APCD officials, functioning under state and federal air quality laws and procedures.

          • Barney Fife February 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

            Not True Benett. The currently deployed options were agreed to and they have been deployed as agreed.

            The current argument is about how to move forward and if moving forward is warranted. If all we were talking about was continuing to do the same thing we have done up to now, there would be no controversy.

          • Benett Kessler February 29, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

            LADWP is now contesting part of the original agreement – the regular re-assessment process to determine
            if additional areas need to be cleaned up.

        • Ken Warner February 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

          …and yet you employ the tactics you decry while implying that you don’t!

          “Careful thought and measured response is usually not the turf of environmental whackos like reality bites. They prefer violence, name calling and intimidation to discussion, compromise, and reasonable action that folks can actually afford.”

        • Rob February 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

          Barney Fife – we’re not talking about Lake Manley here, we’re speaking specifically about Owen’s Lake.


        • Big AL February 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

          I do agree that there is two causes Barney, like you say, the natural process of the lake evaporating, it is a left over puddle from an ancient inland sea. The desert is strewn with these dry lakes, you see them all over, when ever you drive in the desert
          Mono Lakes is another one. The difference with Mono Lake, is that it gets more water to help sustain it more than some others, this just slows the natural process of evaporation.
          With Owens Lake, as with Mono Lake, the diversion of water has only served to greatly increase the evaporation process.

          And yes you’re right, certain radical people in the green community do get carried away with blaming things such things solely on man. This event though, is mostly man made. That can not be disputed and LADWP needs to take responsibility for it.

          • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 8:46 am #

            Wow – finally an enviro (like me) who sees things clearly. I agree that man should always take responsibility for what man does. Now we have to figure out what man has done here that he needs to take responsibility for. Anyone who thinks that is an easy question to answer is fooling themselves.

            Part of the challenge is grappling with “greater good” questions when we figure out how to deal with things. Anyone who thinks it is good for LA or the Owens valley for LA to stop taking the water, cap the aqueduct, and let LA go dry is just not living in reality. Likewise, anyone who thinks LA can do whatever it wants to do is suffering the same delusion.

            None of us created this problem but we have to find a solution that works for the greatest amount of people. Stealing all of LA’s money and making them do endless work is just as unfair as doing nothing. Personally, I think a strong argument can be made for leaving things where they are. The lake is creating very few dust storms relative to the past and the only people who are really taking it in the shorts are the folks who physically live close to the lake during the storms. These folks have refused to move and refused monetary compensation for their suffering. If I were one of them and was fair minded, I would take a bunch of money, sell my property to a conservancy dedicated to keeping the space open and keeping people out of harms way and start over somewhere else. Then the rest of us would be able to live in peace, enjoy the Owens Valley for the beautiful place it is while avoiding the nasty areas during dust storms, and move on to the next huge problem we need to solve.

          • FifesWife March 1, 2012 at 10:46 am #

            And the radicals in the “Green” community use emotion and opinions to back up their statements and when you don’t agree resort to name calling.In fact, they make up stuff to support their positions.
            All I want to see is some good science and rational thought. Actually, calling the dust that comes off the Owens Lake and the valley TOXIC, is not quite true either. If it were, it would be classified under the air toxics rules. It is particulate pollution.

          • Benett Kessler March 1, 2012 at 10:51 am #

            Do I detect a bit of personal bias here?

          • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 11:34 am #

            Of course! Don’t we all have personal biases based on our view of things? I like to back my personal biases with reasoned judgments and if yours are better than mine, I will change my personal bias and come closer to your way of looking at things.

            Of one thing I am fairly certain – a lot of folks are personally and emotionally invested in this issue at a depth that affects their judgement. I do not believe I am one of them but hey – I could be wrong.

          • Ted Schade March 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

            Owens Lake would not be significantly drying naturally. Great Basin did not just randomly pick a lake level and require DWP to control to that elevation. In the mid-90s we developed a model which clearly shows that if not for DWP’s diversions, the lake would be essentially as full as it was 100 years ago, with a somewhat bigger lake during wet years and a smaller one during dry years. But, Owens Lake looks like it does today and emits dust like it does today because of water diversions to the City of Los Angeles. Why shouldn’t DWP be responsible for cleaning up ALL the air pollution it causes? It agreed to do so in 1998 and again in 2006. The only thing that has changed is it’s leadership.

        • Reality Bites February 29, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

          Barney, when you totally mis-represent the facts, you will get the well deserved treatment. Your spin is so out of line, it deserves a strong response with some well chosen words. How about you just tell the truth.

          Your own words convict you as being a tool for LADWP.

          • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 9:16 am #

            Just because someone sees facts differently does not mean they are mis-representing them.

            People like you seem to see the world as “us” and “them” and “they” can’t possibly have a decent or moral bone in their bodies and everything “they” say or write can be dismissed because “we” know “they” are wrong.

            I have an opinion just like you. I “spin” just like you. I think I am a reasonable and likable person just like you. I enjoy the outdoors just like you. If you and I were drinking in a bar or sitting next to each other in the bleachers while our kids played baseball, you might never know we differ on this issue.

            My grandfather used to say that when you run out of arguments and intellect, you resort to (intimidation, names and) bad language. This leads to making unnecessary enemies and never solves problems.

            I believe you are the type of person that only wants to solve problems in your own favor and you have no compassion for those you hurt in the process. LADWP is not a big faceless company with no heart (well it kinda is), it is a company that takes money from LA citizens to bring them water and power. When you take money from LADWP, you are taking money from the poorest Angelinos as well as the richest ones. You probably justify this because you know none of them and even if you did, you don’t care.

            Spare me your self righteous tone, I have dealt with folks like you my whole life and you are part of the problem, not the solution.

          • Benett Kessler March 1, 2012 at 9:50 am #

            Sir, I suppose, from a factual point of view, some may agree with you if you presented all of the facts such as:

            1- Decades of bullying, condescension and selfish taking at the expense of the Eastern Sierra. I know I’ve witnessed
            it at countless public meetings over the years and in numerous investigations.

            2- The fact that LADWP gives, as a gift, every year millions of dollars to the City of LA general fund. Not sure
            how many millions right now. 30 years ago, it was $15 million a year. After that it doubled and may be more now.
            I’ll have to check.

            3- The fact, presented in a recent news post here, that LA has a hefty surplus of water, even for drought years. This
            according to the LA Urban Water Management Plan shared by MCWD Manager Greg Norby.

            4- The fact that LADWP did sign an agreement with APCD for lake dust clean-up, accepting responsibility for it. Now, the City wants to escape its agreed upon commitment.

            Name calling and huffiness aside, these are things to consider.

            Benett Kessler

          • Ken Warner March 1, 2012 at 11:06 am #

            This Barney Fife guy is really good. Pulls all the sympathy strings and the “I’m like you” arguments and then tries to tell us that “…really, LADWP aren’t so bad….” when LADWP has been misrepresenting themselves and manipulating the people of OV since the time Eaton and his agents duped the farmers in the OV by suggesting that they were selling their land so it could be used in a government sponsored Reclamation Project that would develop an agricultural irrigation system in the valley.

            It’s been one lie after another since 1905 and now Barney Fife wants us to believe him when he says, “… greater good…” which is exactly the argument that LADWP has been using since they started their land grab.

            And bringing water to the citizens of L.A. was never the primary goal of the aqueduct. The primary goal of the aqueduct was to create arable land in the San Fernando Valley that people like Huntington, Hearst, Otis and a cadre of railroad barons had bought up cheap prior to the start of the construction of the aqueduct and would later sell as small farms for huge profits.

            That group had the land, the railroads to bring the people and the water to make the land in the San Fernando Valley a gold mine.

            And the really beautiful part of the scam was that they convinced the then current residents of L.A. to pay for the aqueduct by scaring them with “facts” that they would run out of water — much like the “facts” Barney Fife is presenting here.

            No Barney — you are not like us…..

        • Durrell Coleman February 29, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

          Hey Fife,

          Maybe you can convince Gomer and Goober, but the rest of us aren’t impressed.
          Ted Schade is a man of honor and integrity. He only wants to see the law upheld to protect the Eastern Sierra and all its inhabitants. He only flexes his muscles when a rich powerful agency refuses to cooperate, and continues to pollute at 10 times the National Air Quality Standard.

          • Barney Fife March 1, 2012 at 9:17 am #

            See my response above. People of honor and integrity differ on issues and assuming both of them have honor and integrity, they will come to a reasonable solution. I have great faith in that.

        • Durrell Coleman February 29, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

          Okay, let’s test your “facts.” Release all the water back into the valley and the lake, then we’ll see what portion was caused by man.
          Great Basin has thought, listened, discussed, cooperated, compromised, and continues to be reasonable with the City. The City refused mediation and requests to meet and discuss the issues. What’s more intimidating and violent than litigation initiated by this powerful, wealthy weasel?

          • Rob March 1, 2012 at 8:07 am #

            yeah right, it would never happen

  15. MJA February 26, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    If David wants to slay Golieth in our inequitable system of unjustice, he best learn how to sling a rock!

  16. Reality Bites February 24, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    Same as the last century. “Might makes right”.

  17. Reg Reagan February 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    The bias in this string of news “stories” is comical…

  18. Deb February 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    It’s disgusting !! I have said it before….LADWP is an addict that is addicted to our water and they will do ANYTHING to get it. I wish they would wise up and just build their desalination plant and be done with it.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.