River flow stymied

High public interest in tule-ridden river.

High public interest in tule-ridden river.

by Charles James

The Lower Owens River Project continues to garner much interest with local groups. At the packed public meeting held in Bishop on January 13th at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Conference Room, the room was literally packed to capacity with more than 4 dozen local residents, and representatives from various local agencies, including 4 of the 5 Inyo County Supervisors.

The term “adaptive management” was heard repeatedly during the scheduled two-hour meeting that, due to the high interest and lively discussions, turned into  three hours. The main gist of the meeting was that adjusting water flows in the Lower Owens River using existing flow restrictions codified in the Long Term Water Agreement was not effective at either improving water quality or controlling invasive tules, which are constricting the river flow. The result is a river less appealing for fishing, kayaking, canoeing, and grazing, along with a host of other potential recreational uses. The need to have “flexibility to manage the river flows” was considered critical to LORP’s long-term success.

The meeting was kicked off with a presentation by Inyo County Water Department’s Mitigation Manager Larry Freilich giving an overview and inventory on the health of the river and surrounding environment. Overall it was a positive report, but he noted that the overgrowth of tules in the river channel is creating bottlenecks and making the river unnavigable.

There was discussion on how best to go about getting everyone involved in the Water Agreement’s Memorandum of Understanding to reach a consensus allowing greater flexibility in deciding when and how much flow can be implemented, basing the success of the change over the next few years to see if it works. One thing that everyone seemed to agree on was that the current situation has not been successful in achieving the original lofty goals of LORP; neither meeting the needs of water quality, water flow, hoped-for environmental improvements, needs of ranchers, or recreational opportunities

Monday’s meeting was in sharp contrast to the LORP report of 2011, which seemed to indicate a degree of public satisfaction, mostly given the lack of objections. Over time, the results of existing methods of river flow have proved far less effective in achieving the goals.

Consultant Bill Platts said the goal remains the same for the LORP and the adaptive management of monitoring the vegetation, river flows, and environment needed to result in a healthy habitat needs to be tweaked, noting that, “If it were not for the restrictions in the current Water Agreement, we could save water and have a much better river.”

The Agreement calls for LADWP to maintain a consistent 40 cfs flow throughout the river with no more than a maximum seasonal flow of 200 cfs. To maintain that standard, LADWP Watershed Resources Manager Brian Tillemans said that during the summer they have to release as much as 90 cfs to maintain that standard. Consultant Mark Hill noted that “the water flow was a legal requirement and not a biologic one,” adding further that “it isn’t working”, a point on which most in the room appeared to be in agreement.

Platts Consulting says that variable water flow would not have deleterious effect on the flow of the water going south, which is currently moving along at approximately 41,000 acre-feet per years. It was pointed out that the Owens River is essentially a “desert river” and, unlike most other types of rivers, its river flows are “seasonally upside down from where they should be.”

As the meeting progressed, the issue of tules overgrowth was discussed. Although there are several ways to control tules from herbicides to drowning them or by desiccation, i.e. dry them out, there are also mechanical methods of removing tules. Just such an effective effort was led during the summer through the Inyo County Water Department by Freilich as an experiment using volunteers along approximately a 1-1/2 mile stretch of the Lower Owens.

While tules do provide a great habitat for fish, when overgrown they make it difficult to navigate the river and allow access for fishing. Too many tules also diminishes the flow of water.  No thought is given to completely eradicating tules, although it was said that the “old Owens River had very few tules because of natural flow.” Tules provide a healthy fishery, clean the water, and provide nesting areas for local wildlife.

“The huge biomass,” said Platt, “of the tules (which is how they spread out into the river channel) can greatly reduce the level of oxygen in the water and result in fish kills.” This appears to be what happened in late-July during seasonal thunderstorms which resulted in a “fish kill” along the Lower Owens. That brought Sally Manning with the Big Pine Tribe to the floor to state that she thought the recent fish kill as a result of water sent into the river channel from the Alabama Gates spillway should be a part of the annual report and that, in her opinion, it was the result of poor management. LADWP disputed the accusation saying that official findings on the incident found that the problem was the result of low dissolved oxygen and high turbidity levels in the river and combined with the “unpredictability of summer storms” that can happen anywhere along the Eastern Sierra is what proved lethal to the warm-water fishery.

A mention of the proposed solar power ranch across from Manzanar was brought up by Mary Roper of Independence, contending that the project was in violation of LADWP’s own mitigation obligations as it is adjacent to the river.

Between the “fish kill” discussion and the solar power ranch, the meeting went well into its third hour, and most agreed with County Supervisor Linda Arcularius when she stated the discussion was going off subject. The meeting was back on track with a suggestion by retired Bureau of Land Management Biologist Terry Russi, that “Every project should be looked upon as an experiment” and that, “you have to realize that you will never reach the project goals.”

Russi went on to suggest what he called “outside the box” thinking on how to most effectively remove tule biomass: Blow it up! Apparently using a special form of explosive, this method had proven very effective in his experience when working for BLM in clearing a waterway and it resulted in little damage to fish or other biologicals found in the water. It was an interesting end to the meeting. In a sense, the meeting ended with a bang.

To find a copy of the LORP Report with recommendations, visit the Inyo County Water Department’s website at: www.inyowater.org. The public comment period ends on January 28 and can be sent to the Water Department to be included in the final drafting of the annual LORP Report. For more information, call Larry Freilich at (760) 878-0011 or send your questions and comments to his email address at [email protected]

, , ,

10 Responses to River flow stymied

  1. chris January 21, 2014 at 8:28 pm #

    Bennett, I heard a rumor yesterday that LADWP is considering draining Crowley and letting the River return to its channel because they need the water from the lake. This, from somone who said he’d heard it from two different people. I’ve no idea what they’d do about the dam, but thought this might be something you’d want to look into.

  2. JeremiahJoseph January 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

    On the “fish kill”, I remember when the Alabama gates were open, and seeing the turbid water flowing, was the “fish kill” and turbid water into the river a direct effect from flood damage that happened at division creek during that time? http://thesheetnews.com/2013/08/14/inyo-county-flash-floods-and-fish-kills/ … did we ever get a official response from LADWP about the fish kill?
    Why does it seem some supervisors don’t take it seriously to fight for our valley? Y’all are leaders of Inyo County! NOT business partners with LADWP!

    • Philip Anaya January 21, 2014 at 10:14 pm #

      When bad things happen like the events that led to the “fish kill” and the need to fog Independence and Lone Pine for Mosquito abatement, those issues should be addressed again and again when the events need not have happened in the first place.
      These issues need to be discussed not denied and attributed to an act of God.
      “We had good preplanning but you can’t plan for flash floods” Mr. Tillemans quote to the Board of Supervisors was inaccurate. If you have good preplanning why wouldn’t you schedule maintenance during the springtime not during the predictable monsoonal moisture period of July and while you are at it, coordinate Aqueduct maintenance with a seasonal habitat flow that the LORP has been needing so badly for so long. If you had good preplanning why would you not inform the Inyo County Water Dept and the Inyo County Mosquito Abatement of your preplanned releases from the Alabama Gates?
      When bad things happen, there should be knowledge gained and then the next opportunity to address the events should include a discussion on how, when and what will happen the next time there is the opportunity to combine the needs of the LORP with the needs for maintenance on the Aqueduct. It is up to the Manager of the Aqueduct to be forthwith and honest about mistakes and then to commit into a plan, commit into a procedure contained in the Green Book which still needs to be worked on and completed.
      Mr. Yannotta ,you have said more than once that “the DWP will do what it is required of you to do”. Lets get on with some proper management of the DWP operations in the Valley. We need it now more than ever and there is a long list of requirements that DWP needs to address.

  3. Wayne Deja January 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm #

    Here’s one to ponder….I was talking to a long-time LADWP employee the other day,and he told me something hard to believe…and can’t think of a reason he’d be fabricating what he was saying…He said starting this year,LADWP employee’s have the “authority” to check fishermen fishing in waters leading into the aquaduct for valid fishing licenses……I asked if they were bringing in “LADWP Law Enforcement officers” to be doing this,and he said no,that ANY LADWP employee has the authority to check for valid California state issued freshwater fishing licences for anyone fishing the creeks leading to the aquaduct….. AND check for fish limits in ice boxes,not only along the creek,but in campgrounds that are along the creeks..with the authority to issue citations….HUH????….Does this mean,at the end of the day,when I’m sitting in front of my campfire IN A CAMPGROUND,there is a chance of a LDWP employee pulling up ,parking,and asking to look into my cooler to check to see if I went over my trout limit while I was fishing earlier that morning ?….or being asked to produce a valid fishing license if a LADWP employee asks to see it WHILE I’m fishing ?….PLEASE tell me this guy was joking or trying to pull my chains !!!

    • Benett Kessler January 21, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

      Sounds like a chain pulling, but we’ll check.

      • Charles James January 21, 2014 at 5:49 pm #

        Benett, I agree that someone is likely either incredibly misinformed or extremely gullible. A LADWP worker would be more likely ask if you brought your own bottled water while fishing than for a fishing license.

    • JeremiahJoseph January 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm #

      Holy moly Mr. Deja, that’s one to ponder right there, be nice to see if we can confirm that or not, I mean, reinforce my feelings of a “police state” why don’t you…lol.
      But it does sound like a “fish story” and at the same time believable where the privatization of finite resources is very much acceptable.

    • Desert Tortoise January 21, 2014 at 8:57 pm #

      Sounds like a fish story and you were reeled, but Benett will get to the bottom of this.

    • Benett Kessler January 22, 2014 at 11:35 am #

      Wayne, DWP will not turn into CDFW. Here is a response from Chris Plakos, DWP Public Relations:

      “LADWP employees do not check for fishing licenses, limits, or anything else similar; that’s the responsibility of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If LADWP employees notice anything that looks illegal or out of the ordinary they are to notify their supervisor and/or the appropriate authorities such as law enforcement, CDFW, fire, etc. The responsibility of all employees is to first and foremost consider safety. LADWP employees do have the right to speak with people and notify their supervisor and/or the appropriate authorities to protect the watershed if they notice people engaged in something illegal or out of the ordinary such as having fires, leaving trash, damaging resources or facilities, etc.”

      • Wayne Deja January 22, 2014 at 2:27 pm #

        Thanks Benett….I’ll now enjoy my fishing and camping trips more not having to look over my shoulder for a truck full of LADWP employees jumping out of their vehicle,much like a SWAT team does, and combing through a campground looking into ice chests and asking questions….I kinda figured this LADWP employee I know wasn’t serious when I ,again,talked to him the next day about what he had said,and he added that if they were to find an over-the-limit-count in the ice box,or fishing without a valid license,if you were a local,instead of issueing a citation,what they would do is add an extra $300.00 or so to your next utility bill…..to be paid in full within 21 days….and then as I drove off,saw him laughing uncontrollably with his buddies.


Leave a Reply

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