Bradley Supports Increased Water Flow Into Mono Lake

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, moving to strengthen his environmental movement support, said Wednesday that he favors increasing the flow of water into Mono Lake to stabilize the level of the million-year-old desert lake.

“I believe Los Angeles is ready to do its part to preserve Mono Lake,” Bradley, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, said in a statement.

“It appears this goal may best be addressed by increasing and regulating flows into Mono Lake so that the lake can be stabilized in a healthy environmental state.” He added, however, that replacement water supplies could cost millions, that Los Angeles will retain its rights to Mono Lake supplies in dry years and that the means for carrying out his preservation pledge remain to be worked out.

“I think the mayor should be praised for his leadership in shifting the city’s position,” said Martha Davis of the Mono Lake Committee, an environmental organization active in trying to preserve the lake, located in the high desert east of Yosemite National Park. “This is the first time the city has acknowledged that its water diversions have damaged Mono Lake or ackowledged Mono Lake is a rare environmental jewel.”

The mayor has been pursuing environmental backing in his campaign against Republican Gov. George Deukmejian. He scored points with his strong advocacy of a toxic control initiative that is on the November ballot. But some environmentalists remained unhappy with his position on the lake, which has become a symbol to the Mono Lake Committee and others concerned with preservation of California’s resources and beauty. Bradley’s statement represented the continuation of a shift away from long-established city policy.

For years, statewide environmentalists and local interests have battled the city, which since 1941 has diverted water from four of the five streams that feed the lake, using the water for its own municipal supply. That water, combined with water from the Owens Valley, south of the lake, is sent to Los Angeles by aqueduct and constitutes the bulk of the city’s water supply.

The stream diversions lowered the level of the lake over the years, threatening brine shrimp in the lake and the California gulls that feed on them, although recent wet years have raised the level.

Mono Lake advocates demanded that 70,000 acre feet of the city’s 100,000 acre feet Mono Basin supply be diverted to the lake. (An acre foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre to a depth of a foot, roughly the amount of water consumed by a family of four in a year)

In the past, Bradley, the City Council and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have opposed environmentalist demands that more water from the Sierra streams be allowed to flow into the lake, saying the water was needed for Los Angeles and that finding a replacement for it would be too expensive.

However, after losing its argument in lawsuits brought by environmentalists, the city has gradually softened its position. In fact, the DWP, the environmentalists and Bradley’s deputy mayor, Tom Houston, have been engaged in discussions aimed at solving the dispute for the past few months.

In May, Mono Lake Committee supporters demanded support from the mayor during a campaign appearance at a Sierra Club meeting in Visalia. He left them unsatisfied when he declined to make a firm commitment on the lake level.

In his statement Thursday, the mayor, while pledging to maintain the level of the lake, said any final settlement must allow “Los Angeles full access to its water rights in dry years.” He called for details to be ironed out in talks between the city, environmentalists, Mono County interests and state and federal water officials, who would have to supply water to Los Angeles to make up for additional amounts shifted to Mono Lake.

Long-Term Solution

“For a long-term solution to Mono Lake to be found, a means must be found to finance and secure significant amounts of replacement water for the city,” he said.

Bradley indicated that the state and federal governments would have to help Los Angeles purchase replacement water. “The city by itself is simply incapable of providing the replacement water and/or the millions of dollars needed each year to purchase alternative water,” he said.

Bradley said more water would have to come from the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies Colorado River and far Northern California water to much of Southern California, and from the federal Central Valley project, as well as from other areas.

Earlier this year, Duane Georgeson, assistant general manager of the DWP, said the replacement for the Sierra water would probably come from the Metropolitan Water District.

He said it would cost $17 million a year to buy the water needed to replace the 70,000 acre feet sought by Mono Lake advocates. In addition, the city would have to replace the power generated by that water as it travels through hydroelectric plants on its way to Los Angeles. It would cost $15 million a year to replace the power for a total $32-million annual price tag, Georgeson said.

Increase in Bills

He estimated that the action would increase city ratepayers’ water and power bills by about $50 a year. Bradley generally agreed with that estimate in his statement, fixing the total cost at $28 million a year.

“In short, all three entities--the city, state and federal government-- must cooperate in contributing the necessary water and financial resources required to address the Mono Lake issue,” he said in a statement.

Bradley also outlined his proposal in letters to Dale Duvall, commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in charge of federal water supplies, and to David Kennedy, director of the state Department of Water Resources. Duvall and Kennedy were unavailable for comment.

Bradley said replacement water could also come from storage of water from wet years in underground basins and from areas with surplus water.