It doesn't require any valiance to recognize the repetitive exaggerations of events and the misleading manipulations of quotations. In my previous post I clearly painted the two towns equally. If I spent more time responding to misrepresentations and manipulations about LA it is because the misrepresenters and manipulaters haven't been giving Mammoth equal time so I've had no reason to.
LA's actions have been misrepresented as a one act play: The ploy, the sales, and then the water diversion. Those who have followed the links Bob West has provided know that the farmers continued to sell land to LA decades after the water started to flow because they knew what was going on and were intent on holding out for more money. In later decades, farmers in the Mono basin continued to sell land and water rights to La.
As to PR effects, for LA to have lost any PR value there would have to exist some body of people that LA cared about the feelings of who would also be able to be influenced favorably by LA's yielding water rights. I know of no group that would be so influenced. And where would you think to find a group the LA you describe would care about?
The trout issues in San Diego are the same as the issues in the Mammoth Creek drainage. The same laws are being applied. And the laws are applicable to Mammoth Creek in part because of the trout that have been planted there (although they were native in San Diego).
The Town of Mammoth Lakes has subsidiary water rights in Mammoth Creek dating back 60 years. They may be allowed to divert water after water bypass for fish health, etc. and all senior water rights have been satisfied. LA and others have senior water rights in Mammoth Creek going back to the 1800s. One of the factors complicating the determination of allowed diversions has been that Mammoth's ground water pumping influences the in-stream flows for fish. Shows similarity to the history of LA in the Owens Valley doesn't it?
Dale B. Dalrymple
