**4.4 Post-aqueduct policies – Collaboration with external regions**

Subsequent to completion of their respective aqueduct systems, both cities began to face a series of water-related environmental quality challenges which, unlike the efforts to initially acquire water, required unprecedented levels of regional collaboration to resolve. In Los Angeles' case, this collaboration emerged after a series of litigious actions resulting from adverse ecological and tribal-equity issues. In New York, they came about through harsh economic realities brought to the fore by a severe federal regulatory challenge.

As far back as 1913, the virtual draining of Owens Lake as a result of the opening of the first Los Angeles Aqueduct exposed the alkali lake bed to winds that lofted toxic dust clouds containing selenium, cadmium, arsenic and other elements throughout the region. Airborne particulates were often suspended for days during excessively dry periods – and have long posed a health hazard to local residents. They have even posed risks to communities further to the South. In the 1970s, the siphoning off of additional flows following completion of a second and larger aqueduct worsened the problem – igniting further protest.

These environmental impacts to Owens Lake - and to other, smaller watersheds within the Owens Basin (e.g., Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Creeks) - dovetailed with concerns

Cities and Water – Dilemmas of Collaboration in Los Angeles and New York City 331

year - reducing Los Angeles' reliance on the Owens Valley from some 35% of its total imported supply to approximately 18-20% (Linder, 2006; Hundley, 2001). As important as these changes in policy outcome may prove to be, of at least equal if not greater significance is the change in decision-making process by which they are being implemented. A Collaborative Aqueduct Modernization and Management Plan, or CAMMP, led by LADWP, the California Department of Fish and Game, and two environmental groups - California Trout and the Mono Lake Committee - has been undertaken to determine the means by which aqueduct operations can best be modified to facilitate changes in streamflowthat can satisfy environmental restoration needs on the one hand, while continuing to provide water to Los Angeles. Thus far, extensive data gathering, analysis, and drafting of prescriptions have been conducted, and the effort has entailed far more coperation among protagonists

While these environmental resotration activities involve consultation among intervenor groups, elected decisionmakers, and regulators, another collaborative effort has been conducted, off-and-on, regarding Native American water rights in the Owens Valley. Several Paiute Indian tribes lost their land and water rights in the region following white settlement in the mid-19th Century - and well-before the aqueduct was built. A partial restoration of water rights occurred in 1908 following a pivotal Supreme Court case – Winters vs. U.S. - which "explicitly affirmed water rights on Indian Reservations" by, in

An Owens Valley Indian Water Commission – comprised of representatives of the Bishop, Big Pine, and Lone Pine Paiute tribes – are negotiating with LADWP to ensure they receive the water they are entitled to. While a final settlement has yet to be reached, when completed it will set relations regarding water use between Los Angeles and its surrounding

One of the notable benefits of New York's acquisition of much of the Catskill and Croton watersheds during the 19th Century was the opportunity to, in effect, ensure a virtually pristine source-water strategy. The storage reservoirs built by the city are surrounded by hardwood and evergreen forests that naturally filter water and retard erosion, thus averting sedimentation that would otherwise reduce drinking water quality. This asset also saves New York City billions of dollars in water treatment costs, according to the World Bank; has averted water-borne diseases; and, facilitates New York's distinction as the nation's largest

effect, setting aside correlative water rights on these reserved lands (Burton, 1991).

region on another new footing (Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, 2009).

city *without* a drinking water treatment plant (American Planning Association, 2011).

Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010b).

In the 1970s, water quality in these watersheds began to deteriorate as a result of contamination from sewage outfalls, leaky residential septic systems, agricultural runoff, and land cleared for residential development. The most significant issues that arose were: 1) sediment problems or turbidity within the Catskill Watershed, which can transport pathogens and interfere with the effectiveness of water filtration and disinfection; and, 2) excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The former can generate algae blooms that cause serious odor, taste and color issues, while excess phosphorus can cause eutrophic water conditions and increase carbon. Moreover, this water, mixed with chlorine, can result in the formation of "disinfection byproducts"suspected of being carcinogenic (New York State

than in the past (McQuilkin, 2011).

regarding water management in Los Angeles itself, beginning in the 1970s. Continuing drought and unrelenting population growth compelled the city to embrace a more adaptive approach to water management reliant on conservation, drought management, and a balance between augmenting supplies while providing incentives to lower demands: a method termed *integrated resource management.* This approach came to rely on non-structural, incentive-based, and education-driven methods to reduce water use and has been facilitated in part by concerns over climate change as well as the stresses and strains felt throughout its water importing regions (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2010a).

Fig. 2. City of Los Angeles' Water Supply System

These issues came to a head in the 1990s through public protest, litigation, and federal intervention. In 1994, a settlement was reached between Los Angeles, Inyo and Mono Counties, and the U.S. EPA, and was enforced - in part - through a series of massive fines levied upon the LADWP. The settlement forced the agency to restore 62 miles of the lower Owens River, to "re-water" portions of Owens Lake and to allow the return of flows through Owens Gorge, and to restock bluegill, largemouth bass, fingerling trout, and other aquatic species.

Over time, native fauna are expected to return in significant numbers. In exchange, LADWP will receive 18,503 fewer cubic meters (15,000 fewer acre-feet) of Owens Valley water each

regarding water management in Los Angeles itself, beginning in the 1970s. Continuing drought and unrelenting population growth compelled the city to embrace a more adaptive approach to water management reliant on conservation, drought management, and a balance between augmenting supplies while providing incentives to lower demands: a method termed *integrated resource management.* This approach came to rely on non-structural, incentive-based, and education-driven methods to reduce water use and has been facilitated in part by concerns over climate change as well as the stresses and strains felt throughout its water importing regions (Los Angeles Department of Water and

These issues came to a head in the 1990s through public protest, litigation, and federal intervention. In 1994, a settlement was reached between Los Angeles, Inyo and Mono Counties, and the U.S. EPA, and was enforced - in part - through a series of massive fines levied upon the LADWP. The settlement forced the agency to restore 62 miles of the lower Owens River, to "re-water" portions of Owens Lake and to allow the return of flows through Owens Gorge, and to restock bluegill, largemouth bass, fingerling trout, and other

Over time, native fauna are expected to return in significant numbers. In exchange, LADWP will receive 18,503 fewer cubic meters (15,000 fewer acre-feet) of Owens Valley water each

Power, 2010a).

aquatic species.

Fig. 2. City of Los Angeles' Water Supply System

year - reducing Los Angeles' reliance on the Owens Valley from some 35% of its total imported supply to approximately 18-20% (Linder, 2006; Hundley, 2001). As important as these changes in policy outcome may prove to be, of at least equal if not greater significance is the change in decision-making process by which they are being implemented. A Collaborative Aqueduct Modernization and Management Plan, or CAMMP, led by LADWP, the California Department of Fish and Game, and two environmental groups - California Trout and the Mono Lake Committee - has been undertaken to determine the means by which aqueduct operations can best be modified to facilitate changes in streamflowthat can satisfy environmental restoration needs on the one hand, while continuing to provide water to Los Angeles. Thus far, extensive data gathering, analysis, and drafting of prescriptions have been conducted, and the effort has entailed far more coperation among protagonists than in the past (McQuilkin, 2011).

While these environmental resotration activities involve consultation among intervenor groups, elected decisionmakers, and regulators, another collaborative effort has been conducted, off-and-on, regarding Native American water rights in the Owens Valley. Several Paiute Indian tribes lost their land and water rights in the region following white settlement in the mid-19th Century - and well-before the aqueduct was built. A partial restoration of water rights occurred in 1908 following a pivotal Supreme Court case – Winters vs. U.S. - which "explicitly affirmed water rights on Indian Reservations" by, in effect, setting aside correlative water rights on these reserved lands (Burton, 1991).

An Owens Valley Indian Water Commission – comprised of representatives of the Bishop, Big Pine, and Lone Pine Paiute tribes – are negotiating with LADWP to ensure they receive the water they are entitled to. While a final settlement has yet to be reached, when completed it will set relations regarding water use between Los Angeles and its surrounding region on another new footing (Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, 2009).

One of the notable benefits of New York's acquisition of much of the Catskill and Croton watersheds during the 19th Century was the opportunity to, in effect, ensure a virtually pristine source-water strategy. The storage reservoirs built by the city are surrounded by hardwood and evergreen forests that naturally filter water and retard erosion, thus averting sedimentation that would otherwise reduce drinking water quality. This asset also saves New York City billions of dollars in water treatment costs, according to the World Bank; has averted water-borne diseases; and, facilitates New York's distinction as the nation's largest city *without* a drinking water treatment plant (American Planning Association, 2011).

In the 1970s, water quality in these watersheds began to deteriorate as a result of contamination from sewage outfalls, leaky residential septic systems, agricultural runoff, and land cleared for residential development. The most significant issues that arose were: 1) sediment problems or turbidity within the Catskill Watershed, which can transport pathogens and interfere with the effectiveness of water filtration and disinfection; and, 2) excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The former can generate algae blooms that cause serious odor, taste and color issues, while excess phosphorus can cause eutrophic water conditions and increase carbon. Moreover, this water, mixed with chlorine, can result in the formation of "disinfection byproducts"suspected of being carcinogenic (New York State Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010b).

Cities and Water – Dilemmas of Collaboration in Los Angeles and New York City 333

to be completed in 2012. It has also continued to acquire sensitive lands in the Catskills/ Delaware watersheds to further buffer their reservoirs from contamination, and thus, to remain in compliance with the state/EPA approved FAD agreement (New York City

In sum, for both Los Angeles and New York City, local collaboration was abetted to some degree by federal and state government action. For the former, EPA intervention forced Los Angeles to rectify the condition of Owens Lake (and thus, indirectly, also improve the condition of other valley watersheds affected by adverse flows). Ironically, violation of the Clean Air Act (not the Clean Water Act) forced the city to work with state agencies, local valley officials and intervenor groups. For New York City, it was the *threat* of EPA (and state regulatory) intervention under the Safe Drinking Water Act (the Croton and Catskills are, after all, potable water sources) which compelled the city and its neighbors to collaborate to

avert further sewage and non-point runoff contamination of the region's reservoirs.

noted) is: what can other megacities learn from these cities'experiences?

Two fundamental questions are prompted by our discussion of Los Angeles' and New York City's diversion of water from their surrounding regions. The first is: why the absence of overt political conflict in the latter case as compared with the former? The second (as earlier

Taking the first of these questions – the attenuation of conflict in New York, and its intensity in Los Angeles, it is important to parse the question somewhat. An often assumed difference in the two cases is socio-economic: the Croton and Catskill watersheds are closer to New York City than the Owens Valley is to Los Angeles, and far better integrated into the former's economy. In the present-era, for example, evidence of the strong integration of the Croton Watershed's economy with that of New York City's five boroughs is offered by commuter traffic patterns - some 17,000 Croton Watershed workers commute from New York City daily - nearly 40% of the region's workforce, while some 18,000 workers living in the watershed commute to the city daily (about 35% of the workforce - see Westchester

However, this explanation is a bit trickier than might at first appear. New York and Los Angeles share profound socio-economic contrasts with their importing watersheds, which remain highly rural in character. While this is obvious with regards to the Owens Valley - a rural region initially dependent on farming and ranching before Los Angeles diverted its water - it is just as true for the Croton and Catskill watersheds. When initially settled, the upper Croton watershed, for example, was a remote and economically self-reliant region. Its residents developed separate and distinct ways of life initially dependent on dairy and crop farming (Westchester County Department of Planning, 2009: 2-26). Only in the late 19th Century, after completion of the aqueduct system, did the region's economy become more

A better explanation for the seeming absence of inter-regional conflict in the Croton and Catskill watersheds is the fact that New York's efforts to develop the water resources of these basins were, by comparison with those of Los Angeles in the Owens Valley, far more transparent and politically above-board. There is no evidence that the former sought to buy

Department of Environmental Protection, 2010).

County Department of Planning, 2009: 2-27, 8).

closely integrated with that of New York City.

**5. Conclusion** 

After years of study, environmental protection officials in New York City – and state officials representing the Department of Environmental Conservation – concluded that there were two feasible options to forestall threats of federal intervention, by EPA, to institute more strenuous remedial measures. The first was to build an artificial filtration plant, the city's first, at an estimated cost of between \$8-10 billion, with an annual operating expense in the vicinity of some \$360 million. The second option was to restore the Catskill/Croton watersheds through a combination of land purchases, compensation of existing private property owners for growth restrictions (e.g., conservation easements), and subsidies for septic system and other improvements. The city chose this much less-expensive option (at a total cost of approximately \$200 million) – paid for through the sale of municipal bonds (NewYork State Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010b).

The second option - now known as the *New York City Watershed Protection Plan,* has been effective in complying with federal drinking water standards and delaying the need for a filtration plant. It is based on explicit, legally binding agreements – a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) agreement, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), concluded in January 1997 between several federal, state, New York county and city agencies, as well as various educational and non-profit organizations and watershed coalitions to provide regulatory oversight, perform environmental monitoring, protect water quality, educate the public, communicate about issues pertaining to pollution and watershed stewardship, and provide funding and other assistance to watershed communities (Westchester County Department of Planning, 2009: 2-26).

This partnership acknowledges the common interest of both public and private entities - in the city and within the two watersheds - in abating pollution through working together, especially given the limited power of any single entity to abate non-point pollution. Unlike the Los Angeles case, where collaboration on environmental quality issues initially emanated from an adversarial clash of interests, this partnership came about more amicably, while its composition has been similarly diverse. Members include New York City agencies, upstate communities in the twin watersheds, the U.S. EPA and other federal agencies, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) other state agencies, and various environmental groups.

One explanation for this comparatively amicable partnership is political realism: most watershed communities would have been adversely affected had New York City been forced to build a drinking water filtration system. This is so for two reasons: 1) the plant would have been paid for by all water users (and, in all likelihood, by regional taxpayers); and, 2) the state - if not the City itself as eminent domain tenant - would have been forced to impose more onerous land-use controls over the watershed if a partnership had not been formed. In effect, the indirect threat of having to pay for a water filtration plant was exactly the incentive needed to collaborate. Moreover, the choice of a multi-party partnership best suited the goals of all protagonists. It offered a viable, effective solution at manageable cost and through largely voluntary action (Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition, 2009). However, given continued growth in rural areas throughout the region, and continued problems with turbidity, it has been necessary to revisit this plan.

In 2004, the city began construction of a \$2 billion underground filtration plan in Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx designed to filter water from the Croton system, which is scheduled to be completed in 2012. It has also continued to acquire sensitive lands in the Catskills/ Delaware watersheds to further buffer their reservoirs from contamination, and thus, to remain in compliance with the state/EPA approved FAD agreement (New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2010).

In sum, for both Los Angeles and New York City, local collaboration was abetted to some degree by federal and state government action. For the former, EPA intervention forced Los Angeles to rectify the condition of Owens Lake (and thus, indirectly, also improve the condition of other valley watersheds affected by adverse flows). Ironically, violation of the Clean Air Act (not the Clean Water Act) forced the city to work with state agencies, local valley officials and intervenor groups. For New York City, it was the *threat* of EPA (and state regulatory) intervention under the Safe Drinking Water Act (the Croton and Catskills are, after all, potable water sources) which compelled the city and its neighbors to collaborate to avert further sewage and non-point runoff contamination of the region's reservoirs.
