Mono Lake Plan Could Slash L.A. Water Supply

A long-awaited state report on the future of Mono Lake recommends that the water level of the environmentally fragile lake be restored to a high elevation, a move that could dramatically slash the amount of water that will flow to Los Angeles.

The recommendation, contained in an environmental impact statement prepared by the staff of the state Water Resources Control Board, was hailed by environmentalists, who have fought for 15 years to protect the lake from being drained. But officials in Los Angeles called it a major blow to their efforts to retain an important source of drinking water for the city’s 3 million residents.

If the proposal is enacted by the board, the salt lake on the eastern edge of Yosemite National Park and its wildlife would be permanently protected. The plan is scheduled for a vote by the water board Sept. 28 and approval is widely expected because Gov. Pete Wilson has expressed support after pushing for Mono Lake protection.

Although barred by a court order from pumping water from the Mono Basin since 1989, Los Angeles drew as much as 15% of its water from the lake region’s mountain streams in prior years.

Under the report released Friday, the city could gradually resume taking small quantities from the basin when water levels rise at least two feet above current levels. But the report says it could take decades before the city starts pumping significant amounts.

If the persistent drought plaguing the Sierra Nevada continues, “it could mean there is no water taken out of the Mono Basin for 30 years,” said James Wickser, assistant general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

In the report, the water resources staff said their “preferred alternative” is to raise Mono Lake to an average elevation of 6,392 feet--the level environmentalists have long advocated. Los Angeles had wanted the average elevation set 15 feet lower.

Today, the lake hovers around 6,375 feet. State water officials project it will take 20 years to reach the recommended elevation, explaining it takes that long for sufficient snowmelt to flow from the slopes of the eastern Sierra Nevada to replenish the lake.

But under the proposal, Los Angeles would be allowed to pump limited amounts as soon as the lake reaches 6,377 feet--which could take years, depending on drought conditions. At that time, the city could pump about 5% of the amount it once took. If the elevation rises three feet more, the amount increases to 16%.

“The effects of the preferred alternative on Los Angeles will be greatest in the early years when Mono Basin diversions are most severely restricted,” the board’s report says.

At its peak, the Mono Basin supplied 95,000 acre-feet of water--equivalent to 18% of the city’s current consumption, Wickser said.

Wickser said Los Angeles residents spend about $38 million a year to replace the lost Mono water with increased purchases from the Metropolitan Water District, which collects and imports water from the San Joaquin River Delta and the Colorado River.

Although environmentalists said they were encouraged by Friday’s environmental impact statement, they are still awaiting crucial details such as implementation during drought years and whether the city must restore damaged trout streams. That information will be released Tuesday in the state staff’s full proposal.

“Next week is really the important moment where we find out exactly what the board is proposing. But this certainly is encouraging,” said Martha Davis, executive director of the Mono Lake Committee, an environmental group.

Known for its unusual, craggy tufa formations, Mono Lake has been a subject of long, bitter conflict between the city defending its water rights and environmentalists and High Sierra residents trying to protect migratory birds, endangered aquatic life such as brine shrimp and lake-fed trout streams.

After numerous lawsuits by environmentalists charging that Los Angeles had been illegally draining the basin for years, state courts in a series of rulings over the past decade invalidated the city’s long-held claim to Mono Lake’s water. The state water board was ordered to devise new rules for the basin.

Protecting the Mono Basin “is important to this state because our river systems and their water quality are the vein of the health of this state,” said Jim Edmondson of CalTrout, a statewide fishing and environmental group that sued the city to stem the flow of water.

“The city of Los Angeles is now given the opportunity to be a good neighbor to the state’s environment and to the fish and wildlife that environment supports and lastly to the rural counties who depend upon a high-quality environment for their tourism and economy.”

Anticipating that the city would lose a substantial amount of Mono Lake water permanently, the state Legislature in June allocated the first $9 million toward $36 million in reclaimed water projects for Los Angeles.

“These water projects are right here in our own back yard and they are much more reliable supplies,” Davis said. “We’re building a more secure water future for Los Angeles.”

Los Angeles officials said all Southern Californians could be hurt if the water board approves the recommendation. If Los Angeles must buy more water from MWD, less is available for other counties and cities.

Southern California also stands to lose water from another major source--the San Joaquin delta--soon because new environmental standards have been proposed there as well.

“It’s not just a city of L.A. issue because of the interconnection between us and the Metropolitan Water District and all of Southern California,” Wickser said. “Los Angeles will pay the money for the replacement water, but the entire southern part of the state will feel the impacts of shortfalls of water.”

Wickser said Los Angeles residents have cut their water consumption through conservation and reclaimed water use, but that unused supply was to have accommodated anticipated population growth.

“We’re now going to have to use what we set aside for future growth because of what we will lose at the Mono Basin,” Wickser said.

“We have almost 20 years of history where the lake has been at or below that elevation and the brine shrimp and birds are at higher numbers than ever recorded in the past.”

Edmondson, however, said the higher water level is needed to protect four trout streams.