DWP, U.S. Snag Blocks Monument : World War II: Dispute over water rights stalls plan for Manzanar, home of internment camp for Japanese-Americans, to become historic site.

A squabble between federal officials and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power over water rights and land costs could threaten plans to establish a national historic site at Manzanar, the barren Eastern Sierra desert home of one of the first World War II internment camps for Japanese-Americans.

Two members of the California delegation, Reps. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) and Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose), recently introduced legislation to acquire the isolated 550-acre property from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and preserve it as a memorial. The bill was endorsed by the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service at a House subcommittee hearing last month.

However, Mike Gage, president of the DWP board of commissioners, said Wednesday that the DWP is unwilling to part with the scrubland unless there is adequate language in Levine’s bill stating that the deal would have no adverse impact on the DWP’s water rights on that property or elsewhere in the Mono Basin area. Gage said Levine’s staff has balked at inserting a clause in the legislation forbidding the federal government from interfering “in any manner in the city’s water gathering operations.”

“The concern here is that it’s not just the 500 acres but a substantial expanse of the valley that gets called into play,” Gage said. “This is sort of what happened at Mono Lake. First the (federal government) owned a little piece of the lake, then they studied the area around it and they determined it to be in their parameters. That study and the determinations have been used in every lawsuit against DWP since it came out.”

Last April, for example, an El Dorado County Superior Court judge ruled that the city of Los Angeles would have to stop draining the lake for an indefinite time to protect its delicate ecosystem.

Levine said Wednesday that he was “baffled” by Gage’s concerns since “the (Manzanar) bill has nothing to do with water rights.”

“It’s always been my intent the city will retain its water rights,” he said.

Gage accused Levine’s staff of “quietly thugging us” to agree to give the land without cost to the federal government.

“We do not have authority to give away the city’s property,” said Gage. “We’re more than happy to cooperate but cooperation is a two-way street. We’re happy to sell or trade the property or lease it at a nominal rate.

“Why in the world should the city of Los Angeles carry the federal government on its back? Los Angeles didn’t make the (relocation) law, which I find a blight on our history. The feds did.”

Levine responded that Gage’s remarks about his staff “are just crazy--I don’t know where he comes off.”

Levine said Congress is concerned about paying another government body for the land because it would “set a bad precedent.” Besides, he said, the site is worth only $80,000.

“We’re talking about $80,000 worth of compensation,” Levine said. “The issue is if Manzanar will become a federal park for important historical purposes. (Gage) is standing in the way of Manzanar becoming a park.”

The DWP has not yet decided how much it would ask for the Manzanar site. “It very simply can be figured out by an appraisal,” Gage said.

As a result of the dispute, a House subcommittee vote on the bill has been postponed from today until next week, Levine said.

The snag was blasted Wednesday by officials of a Japanese-American citizens’ group that led the successful fight to win reparations for the 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry detained from 1942 to 1945 in Manzanar and nine other internments camps in Western states.

“We’re not concerned with water rights, we’re concerned with a monument there to make sure that people don’t forget history,” said Bert Nakano, spokesman for the National Coalition for Redress and Reparations. “We’re talking about a desert piece of land that I don’t think anybody wants. There’s no river or anything on that site. There should be no reason the DWP should be trying to stop this kind of thing.”