OWENS VALLEY PLAN NEEDS CAREFUL REVIEW EASEMENT MUST NOT HINDER DWP FROM RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT.

Byline: Tom LaBonge Local View

THE Owens Valley conservation easement proposed by Mayor James Hahn espouses to protect the Eastern Sierra from harmful development while protecting Los Angeles' water rights. While this goal of environmental protection for the Owens Valley is widely shared, the method to achieve this should be fully discussed and carefully considered.

William Mulholland's vision and leadership in obtaining water and constructing the Los Angeles Aqueduct early in the last century enabled Los Angeles to become the modern metropolis it is today. Although the purchase of Owens Valley lands by Los Angeles remains controversial, by any measure, Los Angeles has carefully protected and preserved this area, which is why these lands are so attractive and valued today.

There are countless numbers of people, like myself, who have experienced the grandeur of the area firsthand, some by hiking Mount Whitney, others by driving Highway 395 to Mammoth Lakes and still others who fish at any number of the lakes along the route.

My love and appreciation of Owens Valley can be traced to a childhood family vacation and grew even more through the years with repeated visits as a Boy Scout, a council deputy interested in all things Los Angeles, and ultimately as director of community relations for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which manages 330,000 acres of this vast region for the city and its residents.

The fact is, the Eastern Sierra remains the primary source of drinking water for the nearly 4 million residents of the city of Los Angeles. It is important to note that while Los Angeles has maintained its historic water rights, it has lost over one-third of its water supply in the Eastern Sierra to environmental restoration measures. This includes preserving Mono Lake, eliminating dust emissions at Owens Lake, rewatering the lower Owens River and numerous other environmental restoration and enhancement projects.

A conservation easement must not hinder the DWP from responsible management of Eastern Sierra lands. For example, the DWP has occasionally performed limited land swaps with the federal government to provide mutual public benefits. The creation of the historically significant Manzanar National Historic Site, formerly Los Angeles property, is one such example. The establishment of this national historic site, so valued as a reminder of the unjust internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, would not be possible under rigid property restrictions.

Potential restrictions of land-use activities under a conservation easement need to be thoroughly reviewed in an open forum. The DWP ensures open access to the bulk of its property for recreation, civic events, scientific research and other uses. This long-established open-lands policy is very highly valued by Eastern Sierra residents and visitors alike. Recreational opportunities remain central to the Eastern Sierra lifestyle and economy. Hiking, fishing, hunting and rock climbing are cherished activities for scores of people.

Myriad agreements and regulatory requirements currently ensure that Los Angeles will continue to manage the Eastern Sierra property to protect the environment and historic land uses. Ranch lessees provide additional oversight and protection to preserve the properties from unwelcome development. The DWP routinely interacts with nearly 100 federal, state and local governmental agencies, American Indian tribes and interest groups in the management of its lands. A narrowly conceived conservation easement could upset this delicate balance and leave many stakeholders' needs unaddressed.

I am pleased that recent statements by Mayor Hahn indicate he will examine all options more closely after touring DWP lands and meeting with various stakeholders in the Owens Valley. Nothing can equal the experience of being on site to experience the place and its people for oneself.

Los Angeles has protected the Owens Valley for the past 100 years from unwanted and unnecessary development. Hastily implemented perpetual restrictions could disenfranchise those who currently enjoy the benefits of these open lands. The establishment of permanent land restrictions should be carefully thought out to ensure that existing and future generations' access to and enjoyment of those lands is not lost.