Inyo County water managers urge conservative pumping; Water Commission recommends returning to last year’s lower limit

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors received a workshop update April 29 on the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s draft 2025–26 annual operating plan and the County Water Department’s response, with the Inyo County Water Commission urging the board to endorse a lower pumping ceiling to protect vegetation and groundwater.

Water Department staff presented data showing LADWP’s proposed pumping for the Owens Valley at about 68,000 to 88,000 acre‑feet for 2025–26, compared with LADWP’s actual pumping of 48,678 acre‑feet in 2024. Holly Alpert of the Inyo County Water Department said runoff this year is forecast at 92% of normal and snowpack at 84%, and that her office’s modeling shows the department’s recommended pumping (about 61,000 acre‑feet valley‑wide) would produce an average groundwater decline of roughly 1.3 feet valley‑wide. “We’re proposing minimal DWP pumping in all well fields but to boost Aberdeen where we took it down a bit farther,” Alpert said, explaining the department’s focus on using water for in‑valley uses rather than export.

The Water Commission, which met the evening prior, recommended a lower ceiling—returning to last year’s lower plan of 51,470 acre‑feet—and urged the board to adopt that recommendation. Terry Red Owl, speaking as a member of the public and the commission chair at the workshop, said county indicator wells showed a year‑over‑year decline of about 1.5 feet last year even though LADWP pumped less than its planned minimum. “Even with a higher runoff year last year and less pumping than what’s being proposed this year, we still saw a decline in the water tables and we have not seen the plants recover,” Red Owl said.

Commissioner Vicky Glinski reiterated the commission’s position and underscored vegetation impacts: about one‑third of monitored wells declined more than two feet and 14 vegetation parcels have remained below baseline grass cover for five or more years. “We need to be more proactive versus reactive and to honor the goal, original goal of the water agreement,” Glinski said, urging work this year to prepare a pumping plan focused specifically on plant rooting‑zone recovery.

Several public speakers, including Paul Hewitt (Big Pine) and Sally Manning (Big Pine Paiute Tribe, environmental director), called on the board to adopt the commission’s lower recommendation and to press LADWP harder on mitigation and monitoring. Multiple commenters asked the board to include explicit, specific objections to certain proposed well activities in the county’s formal comment letter—wells cited during public comment included proposed or tested wells identified as 385/386 (Fish Slough/5 Bridges), 416 (Lone Pine area), 429 (Bishop), and Bishop replacement/operational wells B2 and B5.

Board discussion balanced scientific caution with practical constraints. Supervisors and staff noted the green book/long‑term water agreement sets the legal framework and that any change requires careful, evidence‑based steps; several supervisors nevertheless signaled willingness to mirror the Water Commission’s requested lower pumping ceiling when the Board’s formal response is drafted. Staff said the county plans to include concerns about proposed well testing and construction in its comment letter and to confirm technical details with project agencies (for example, California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding recent engineering at Fish Slough mitigation sites).

Discussion versus decision: the meeting recorded no final board vote on a formal pumping number. The board moved the water items on the agenda so supervisors would receive the Water Commission workshop before taking any formal direction; prior to lunch the board announced it would “receive the pumping plan from staff and then hold off on providing direction until we hear from the workshop.” The matter remains in the discussion and direction‑for‑staff stage; a formal county comment letter to LADWP is expected to follow and may include the Water Commission’s 51,470 acre‑foot recommendation and explicit objections to specific well activities.

Clarifying details from the presentation and the workshop: LADWP reported 2024 actual pumping of 48,678 acre‑feet; LADWP’s operations plan listed a lower minimum figure near 51,000 acre‑feet but did not include March totals when the plan went to print. The county reported 46 indicator wells measured in spring; average last‑year groundwater declines were about 1.5–1.8 feet, with 14 parcels below grass‑cover baseline for five or more years. LADWP’s projected total export from the Eastern Sierra (Owens Valley, Long Valley, Mono Basin) was shown as 269,000 acre‑feet; county staff estimated about 95,000 acre‑feet would be applied to in‑valley uses (irrigation, mitigation, stock water, recreation, Lower Owens River Project) and noted LADWP does not plan water spreading in 2025. Several speakers emphasized invasive perennial pepperweed’s expansion after wet years (2023) and its effects on native vegetation.

Why it matters: groundwater declines and vegetation type‑shifts (grass → shrub) are central triggers in the county’s long‑term water agreement with LADWP; the county and commission said more conservative pumping this year would increase chances for plant recovery and reduce risk of irreversible type changes. The decision will affect irrigation, mitigation projects, habitat and tribal cultural resources, and the volume of water exported to Los Angeles.

Next steps: staff said it will draft the county’s formal comment letter to LADWP, incorporate the Water Commission’s recommendation and specific concerns about individual wells if the board directs, and continue technical follow‑up with state agencies. The county and commission also discussed scheduling a legal workshop to review the long‑term water agreement’s statutes and implementation mechanisms, which commissioners said would be useful for clarifying enforcement options and remedies.

Ending note: Supervisors emphasized the need to balance local ecological protections, mitigation obligations, and the operational realities of a multi‑decade water agreement; several board members asked staff to return language for the comment letter that includes the commission’s lower recommendation and explicit technical objections to proposed well tests and equipping of certain wells.