A state Court of Appeal panel late Wednesday gave Los Angeles a strong push to move ahead on restoring a 62-mile stretch of the Lower Owens River by upholding a court order that would ban the city from using a key aqueduct if it continues delaying the project.
The ruling in the years-long legal dispute was hailed as a victory for Owens Valley residents, environmental groups and state officials fed up with the city Department of Water and Power's failure to comply with a legal agreement to restore the once-vibrant Inyo County river. The restoration effort would be one of the largest ever attempted in the country.
"This may be the final salvo in the longest-running fight over an environmental impact report in California history," said Gordon Burns, deputy solicitor general for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer. "Now, everybody is holding tight and hoping the city will do what it is supposed to do."
Laurens H. Silver, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the Lower Owens River Project "should have been implemented four or five years ago, and is mitigation for the long-term damage that the city has done by way of its ground water pumping" from the Owens Valley.
The ruling has implications for the river as well as Owens Lake, which "was almost totally dewatered by the city's exports" of water from the area, he said.
The Court of Appeal upheld, on narrow grounds, last year's ruling imposing sanctions against Los Angeles. It said the city and the DWP forfeited their ability to appeal "by failing to object or request modifications" earlier, in trial court.
Specifically, the city did not object when the trial court announced its intended ruling from the bench, did not request a continuance to file a supplemental brief and did not file a motion for reconsideration, the appellate court said.
It also rejected the city's assertion that raising an objection at the trial court level would have been futile. "In fact, the trial court appeared to invite input on the appropriateness of the sanctions," the ruling declared.
At the same time, the ruling rejected a bid by the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee to find that the city's appeal was frivolous and to award them legal fees, costs and damages. "This case does not meet the highly egregious standard that would justify the imposition of sanctions," ruled a 4th Appellate District panel based in Riverside.
