My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00133
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00133
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2010 8:58:18 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:22:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1990
Title
Western Water Transfers: Public Interest Impacts
CWCB Section
Interstate & Federal
Author
Larry Morandi
Description
Examination of the public interest impacts of western water transfers
Publications - Doc Type
Historical
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />_....,.=.:=:O-=~..._--,-- <br />" , <br />--~-- --.~- ------ <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Pay the county $750,000 annually "to assist the county in funding water <br />and environmentally related services...6 <br /> <br />The preliminary agreement ran into strong local opposition in the Owens Valley in <br />May 1989, however, forcing the lnyo County Board of Supervisors to reopen negotiations <br />with Los Angeles on a revised agreement. The basis for objections was not a lack of <br />sufficient financial compensation, but inadequate protection of the environment (which <br />suggests that certain impacts are not compensable).7 A revised agreement was concluded <br />in July 1989, and approved by the lnyo County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles in <br />August. The final settlement requires additional groundwater monitoring and closer <br />examination of the effects of pumping on vegetation, and applies the program throughout <br />the Owens Valley, not just lnyo County. The city also agreed not to expand the capacity of <br />its water conveyance facilities leaving the valley for Los Angeles.8 <br /> <br />An interesting political evaluation of the rural county's handling of the negotiations <br />was rendered in the November 1990 elections. Three lnyo County supervisors who <br />supported the final agreement were placed on the ballot for recall. All three retained their <br />seats, however, by substantial margins (the votes in support of the recall efforts ranged <br />from 39 to 42 percent).9 The electorate's ratification of the agreement is significant in that <br />it may dispel fears among other community leaders that negotiating water transfer <br />settlements that are in the best interests of the community will not automatically result in <br />political retribution. The lnyo County jLos Angeles example suggests that local public <br />interest values--as defined by a package of environmental protection and mitigation <br />measures, and reasonable water supply levels--can be incorporated into water reallocation <br />decisions to the satisfaction of both parties. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.