A state appellate court has overturned a judge’s ruling requiring the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to continue providing water to ranchers and wildlife habitats until the agency completes an environmental review before negotiating new leases with ranchers in Mono County.
For nearly a century, LADWP has leased 6,100 acres in Long Valley and Little Round Valley, located in the eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono County, to ranchers who used the excess water for irrigation.
Background
In 2010, LADWP considered its leases exempt from environmental review, as they used water structures already constructed with little to no expansion of use.
According to court documents, the leases contained provisions stating a water supply is “given upon and subject to the paramount rights of (Los Angeles) with respect to all water and water rights” and that Los Angeles reserves “all water and water rights … together with the right to develop, take, transport, control, regulate, and use all such water and water rights.”
The lease states that the lessee acknowledges and agrees that any water is subject to the rights of Los Angeles and that there shall be no claim upon the city.
Leases would be divided into irrigated and nonirrigated acres, with ranchers paying more for their lease on irrigated acres. Ranchers would be allotted up to 5 acre-feet per acre per irrigation season (an acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons), depending on water availability, snowpack levels and weather conditions.
In the 2015 and 2016 drought, ranchers were allocated zero and 0.7 acre-feet, respectively. Court documents show Mono County sent a letter to LADWP in 2016 objecting to the agency’s intent to provide less than 5 acre-feet and asked the agency to provide 2 acre-feet “to avoid economic losses to the lessees and damage to the environment of Mono County, including the distinct bi-state population of greater sage grouse that lived in the area.”
In 2018, LADWP proposed new leases that essentially cut off water to lessees for irrigation purposes. LADWP reversed course a month later and said the 2010 leases would be in effect while the agency was “performing an environmental evaluation.” After completion of the environmental review, LADWP informed its lessees that it would provide 4,200 acre-feet (or 0.71 acre-feet per acre).
Mono County filed suit, with the Sierra Club intervening, challenging LADWP’s decision to drastically reduce irrigation water it had previously delivered to wetlands, meadows and rangelands, stating the agency failed to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Mark Lacey, owner of Lacey Livestock and past president of the California Cattlemen’s Association, told WLJ that ranchers in Inyo County, which lies south of Mono County, asked Mono County to get involved because the leases are an integral portion of their operations. Ranchers use Mono County for their summer grazing.
Lacey said prior to the lawsuit, ranchers had a good relationship with LADWP until they allocated limited or no water during the drought of 2015 and 2016. Lacey continued that LADWP said by “giving us water,” the utility was getting little to no return of water, which Lacey believes was a fallacy.
The trial court ruled that LADWP committed to a new project without CEQA review when it proposed the new leases in 2018. Alameda County Judge Evelio Grillo ordered the LADWP to continue providing lessees with about 3.2 acre-feet of water per acre per year until an environmental review was completed.
LADWP stated the ruling had “set an impossible standard” for meeting the needs of Los Angeles ratepayers and balancing environmental requirements amid climate change.
In June, the appellate court reversed the ruling, stating the 2018 proposed lease was part of the 2010 lease, and “because the 2010 leases were in holdover status, an ongoing leasehold relationship governed it,” court documents show. As a result, lessees were beholden to the rights of Los Angeles regarding water allocation.
The court also ruled that since the 2018 water allocation and new leases were part of the 2010 leases, the suit brought by Mono County exceeded the statute of limitations. The longest period applicable to a CEQA claim is 180 days from project approval or, if there was no formal approval, 180 days from the commencement of construction.
Reaction
LADWP told the Los Angeles Times the reversal ensures the agency “will continue to have the flexibility required to balance the state’s strained water resources with the needs of people and the environment,” said Anselmo Collins, LADWP’s senior assistant general manager of water systems.
The ruling did affirm that changes to the leases would require a CEQA review, and the utility cannot divert all the water.
“During the course of the appeal, (LADWP) repeatedly represented to the court that it would not dry out lands in Long Valley and Little Round Valley without performing the required environmental review,” Mono County counsel Stacey Simon told the Record-Courier. “In other words, LADWP conceded that it must conduct an environmental review prior to drying out these valleys.”
Lacey leases pasture from LADWP and has not heard from the utility on its future plans. Lacey said the most significant problem for the utility is the bi-state sage grouse population, located where the leases are and where LADWP diverts water.
Lacey said he doesn’t know if the ruling requires LADWP to perform a CEQA analysis, whether he will be provided with a new five-year lease or what else might happen. For now, Lacey said he will continue to hold the leases, stock them lightly and operate as he has in previous drought years.
Matt McClain, a member of Keep Long Valley Green, told WLJthe organization is conducting outreach to ratepayers in Los Angeles and throughout the state.
“It is important to note that the litigation filed by Mono County and the Sierra Club is just one facet of the Keep Long Valley Green campaign,” McClain said. “Our coalition’s efforts to rally both local residents and LADWP ratepayers to pressure Los Angeles city officials are equally as important and potentially more effective.”
Mono County Board of Supervisors Chair Bob Gardner stated the county would continue to work with LADWP to ensure water resources preserve the economic and environmental needs of everybody.
“However, if further litigation becomes necessary due to LADWP’s disregard for the appellate court’s ruling and repudiation of its own statements to that court, then Mono County is prepared to take further legal action to protect its valuable natural and economic resources,” Gardner said. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
