Q&A: L.A. will not increase Mono Lake diversions this year

Interview with the Mono Lake Committee's Geoff McQuilkin.

May 29, 2024

Good morning, and welcome to Western Water Notes.

To get all my posts in your inbox, click the button to subscribe below. This newsletter is free, but if you find my work valuable and want to support it, please consider the monthly or yearly subscription plans below. You can also support my independent journalism by sharing these posts with friends or on social media. As always, drop me a line with feedback or suggestions.

Tucked beneath the steep mountains of the Sierra, Mono Lake sits on the western edge of the Great Basin. Unlike many of the largest rivers on Earth, streams flowing into Mono Lake have no connection to the ocean. Water flowing to the lake, ends at the lake. Scientists call these watersheds “endorheic.” Its etymology is within + flow.

Mono Lake is among the most well-known endorheic basins in the Western U.S. But many similar lakes scattered dot the Basin and Range landscape, which extends from Mono Lake’s shores in eastern California to the shores of the Great Salt Lake, another large endorheic basin. Endorheic basins exist across the Western Hemisphere, and are connected by the migratory patterns of birds. Mar Chiquita. Laguna de Los Pozuelos.

Today, the Mono Basin is well-known, in part, because of where water goes.

Since the 1940s, the city of Los Angeles (300+ miles away) has diverted streams for its municipal water supply. Diversions for Los Angeles meant less water for Mono Lake.

By the 1970s, environmentalists were sounding the alarm about the ecological costs of exporting water to the growing city. Lake levels were declining and salinity was on the rise. Such rapid habitat changes meant cascading effects for an interconnected food web that supports migratory birds. A coalition of environmental groups went to court, and in 1983, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that provided the lake with a path toward greater protections. The decision, National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, rested on an old legal framework known as the public trust doctrine.

The court ruled that the state had a responsibility to protect, or minimize harm, “so far as feasible,” to public trust interests when issuing water rights. Interests such as protecting ecosystems for future generations and preserving recreation. Notably, the court ruled that state regulators could reconsider past water rights decision in light of the public trust doctrine. Eventually, this is what happened with L.A. and Mono Lake.

State regulators would establish a minimum lake level in the 1990s. But meeting that goals has been challenging. To get a sense of where things stand, I recently spoke to Geoff McQuilkin, the executive director of the Mono Lake Committee, about the group’s work. We talked about where Mono Lake fits into the Great Basin landscape (many other endorheic basins face similar challenges), the future of L.A. diversions, the role of the public trust doctrine, and more. I interviewed McQuilkin the same day that the group shared news that Los Angeles would not increase diversions from the lake this year, even though the city could do so under the existing operating rules.

That decision is a “big deal,” McQuilkin’s said.

“It’s the first time that the kind of auto-pilot, operational planning for Mono Lake has gotten some scrutiny and some thinking about the environmental obligations here,” McQuilkin added. “So in other words, for the past 30 years, there’s a legal limitation under the water rights, and every year the plan is we’ll just take the maximum.”

Could you give me an overview of where things are right now for the lake and what the committee is engaged in and what issues you’re following? In the current day, we have a 30-year-old State Water Board water rights decision that says, ‘Hey, here’s the management level for Mono Lake that will provide some water for Los Angeles but be healthy for the lake.

It was supposed to be done and implemented by 2014. And we’re only halfway to that management level, which means the recovery is going slower than expected. That’s hydrology for you in the West. Things don’t play out like you might expect. But the State Water Board did have a time expectation. They said, ‘If it’s not recovered to our management level, which is not the natural level, by 2014, they would have a hearing.’

So we’re now looking at this hearing coming up and we’re talking about different ways to manage the diversions to Los Angeles, which do continue, because that’s the knob that you can turn. It is making an impact on the lake. If we had not had those diversions during this 30 year period, we’d be seeing the lake much closer to the management level.

When you look at the management level, what sort of restoration does that level provide for the lake? The State Water Board looked at a variety of factors — public trust resources — that were imperiled by the lake going down. The increasing salinity and exposure of emissive lands. They kind of did the science on all of them.

So they probably had a dozen different things that were on their roster that went into identifying this 6,392-foot level. The big picture of that was a salinity range that was good for ecosystem health [to] ultimately support the migratory bird populations and so on. There were some physical factors, like the land bridge would be submerged and stay submerged even during a multi-year drought. Air quality was a big one… Things like visitor experience. scenic values and so on also got consideration in there as well.

And to be honest, the water supply for Los Angeles [was considered]. They actually considered an option where you just sort of stopped diversions and and let the lake go even higher, but they were balancing important to that water for urban users too.

I’ll just ask about the news. How big of a deal do you think that decision was from L.A. [not to increase diversions this year]? What does it signal to you, if anything, about what the future looks like? I’d say it’s a big deal. It’s the first time that the kind of auto-pilot, operational planning for Mono Lake has gotten some scrutiny and some thinking about the environmental obligations here. So in other words, for the past 30 years, there’s a legal limitation under the water rights, and every year the plan is we’ll just take the maximum. And that’s what has happened.

We've definitely been doing a lot of background work talking with folks in L.A. to draw attention to this. Maybe the hearing being out there is part of the calculation.

Any one year for Mono Lake or any of the salt lakes that are in trouble is important, but you kind of got to have a multi-year plan. The change will be about three inches of Mono Lake. Mono Lake is twice the size of San Francisco — 45,000 acres. That's a lot of water.

This all comes back to the public trust doctrine case, to a degree. How do you view that case? Did it fix everything, for lack of a better term, or was it more of a starting point for your organization? Very much a starting point. [It was] a great change in outlook, and I think it gave Mono Lake or the environment a seat at the table, you might say… Implementing those protections is what we've learned is a long journey.

And I think our organization 30 years ago went through a moment [where] the water board decision seemed like a tremendous implementation of the public trust and moment to say, ‘Hey, great, we want to save the lake. Well, now the rules say, that's going to happen. Are we even needed anymore?’ We really quickly realized ‘Well, it says it on paper, but we'd really like to see it happen in the landscape. Let's keep track of this.’ And then here we are, of course, headed back into a hearing.

Other states or other closed lakes have tried to use or are trying to use the public trust doctrine. Walker Lake in Nevada, there was a case. I know there’s a case at the Great Salt Lake too. How do you view the public trust doctrine as a tool in managing some of these unique ecosystems? It’s a really important policy goal and statement: the state of California, in water rights, will make sure that something sustainable is happening so future generations can have the ecosystem values, the clean air, the wildlife. It’s almost so big picture that then the question is, so you you really need it but how do you implement it? What do you do with that?

Looking back more than 100 years after the aqueduct came online, what obligation do you think L.A. has to communities, ecosystems and the economy of the eastern Sierra when you are having discussions about water? The modern [L.A. Department of Water and Power] will say exactly what they should say: ‘We try to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner and we're thinking about the Eastern Sierra and the source areas as well as communities in Los Angeles and the environment in L.A.’ And there are often leaders there with good intent, who are on that.

I think the history is that the environmental obligations in the eastern Sierra are pretty much all won in court or through an agency process like Mono Lake. That's part of the reason [Los Angeles] Mayor [Karen] Bass’ decision on Mono Lake this year is so notable because it's actually just a decision. It's not a court-compelled action, which most often is the case. Whether that has to do with the Owens Lake dust control, which was litigated extensively by DWP trying to get out of that obligation. Or groundwater issues in the Owens Valley. Et cetera.

I guess my bigger point is what you kind of see over time is is the Department of Water and Power going from a time when they were fully in control, and they didn't have those environmental obligations, to a world where there are obligations and figuring out how to deal with that. I think the opportunity is that the more local supply that they have in L.A., the more flexibility they have to not extract every last drop from the eastern Sierra and make choices that are showing that stewardship part of things.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

A related thing

Southern California is actively working to boost its local water supplies. Yesterday, the federal government announced new funding for projects in Southern California, including a regional recycling plant for treating wastewater to recharge groundwater and increase local drinking water supplies. In addition to funding a regional water recycling facility, the federal government is also committing funds to a wastewater recycling project focused in the city of Los Angeles, the L.A. Times Ian James reports.

That’s all for now.

Until next time,

Daniel