• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

MONO LAKE N E W S L E T T E R Fall 2010 21st Century Aqueduct? Lee Vining Airport Solutions Dust Violations Continue Fall Catalog he combination of fall color and thunderstorms has made for unprecedented leaf-peeping of late. Wind your way up into the elbow of a Tmoraine colonized by aspens and it’s dripping with color. Sometimes it’ll stop you in your tracks and your eyes jump around through the colors as if looking for a way to believe they’re real. Yellow, orange, red, washed clean by the rain and electric against dark skies. Mono Lake Offi ce Speaking of disbelief, you hold in your hands the very Information Center & Bookstore fi rst Mono Lake Newsletter on 100% post-consumer waste Highway 395 at Third Street recycled paper. It has been the goal of many Newsletter Post Offi ce Box 29 Lee Vining, California 93541 editors before me, and I can hardly believe it myself. (760) 647-6595 When recycled paper was fi rst available for our printing [email protected] needs it came at a very high price—one the Mono Lake monolake.org Committee couldn’t afford. Ever-hopeful, we would check monobasinresearch.org each year—could we do it? Meanwhile, on other fronts, progress was being made: we got a recycling service for Los Angeles Offi ce 1718 Wellesley Avenue the offi ce, we switched to 100% recycled paper for the Los Angeles, California 90025-3634 copy machine. And then, in this year’s annual paper check we were surprised to fi nd that, with some stretching, we could make it work. Staff Executive Director........................... Geoffrey McQuilkin The new paper is just one small example of the Committee’s approach to the Eastern Sierra Policy Director ...................Lisa Cutting challenges we face in protecting Mono Lake. We take things one step at a time, Education Director ....................................Bartshé Miller Communications Director ...............Arya Degenhardt sticking with it, and making our way carefully to a balanced outcome. You’ll fi nd it Offi ce Director ......................................Erika Obedzinski throughout the pages that follow … from realizing the vision of the synthesis report Membership Coordinator ............................. Ellen King Information Specialist...................................... Greg Reis to righting the airport snafu to the invasive plant removal project, and even when Sacramento Policy Associate ........... Betsy Reifsnider hiking with the Outdoor Experiences program … it’s just one step at a time. Outdoor Experiences Mgr ..........Santiago Escruceria LA Education Coordinator...........Herley Jim Bowling So, check out the nifty eco-audit above—and then take a step outside into an aspen LA Outreach Education Coord ...........Jennifer Odum Communications Coordinator .....................Elin Ljung grove and take a moment to believe those trees. Info Center & Bookstore Mgr .............. Rosanne Catron Book & Map Buyer .......................................Laura Walker —Arya Degenhardt, Communications Director Bookkeeper ......................................Donnette Huselton Outdoor Education Lead Inst ..........Michael Clausen Outdoor Education Instructor ......................Rosa Brey Project Specialists .......Morgan Lindsay, Julia Runcie Board of Directors Sally Gaines, Mammoth Lakes, Chair Tom Soto, Santa Monica, Secretary David Kanner, Redwood City, Treasurer ROBBHIRSCHPHOTO.COM Vireo Gaines, Bishop Martha Davis, Riverside Richard Lehman, Fresno Sherryl Taylor, Mammoth Lakes Doug Virtue, San Pedro GEOFF MCQUILKIN Directors Emeriti COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF ROBB HIRSCH, COVER PHOTO COURTESY Helen Green • Ed Grosswiler Genny Smith Brent Coeur-Barron, Corporate Counsel In October the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA brought a prototype Mars rover to Mono Founded by David Gaines in 1978 Lake to fi eld test its rock-sampling procedures and equipment. MONO LAKE NEWSLETTER Mono Lake Committee Mission Fall 2010 The Mono Lake Committee is a non-profi t citizens’ group dedicated to protecting Volume XXXII, Number 1 The Mono Lake Newsletter is a quarterly publication of the and restoring the Mono Basin ecosystem, educating the public about Mono Mono Lake Committee. Written material contained in this Lake and the impacts on the environment of excessive water use, and promoting newsletter may be quoted or reproduced for review, reporting, educational purposes, or related non-profi t uses; a copy of the cooperative solutions that protect Mono Lake and meet real water needs without publication is requested. Reproduction or quotation for other purposes may be approved upon written request. transferring environmental problems to other areas. ISSN #0275-6633. Copyright © 2010 Mono Lake Committee. Printed on 100% recycled paper. 2 Mono Lake Newsletter – Fall 2010 Looking for a 21st century aqueduct by Geoffrey McQuilkin he Los Angeles Aqueduct is a fi xture in the Mono My favorite example: one way of releasing water to Rush Basin, and few can remember a time before it Creek requires draining the aqueduct pipe, then having DWP Texisted. Over 70 years old, the aqueduct itself—and employees climb into the aqueduct conduit and barricade its physical limitations—is now at the center of Mono Lake the inside of the pipe, then refi lling the pipe so it overfl ows Committee policy work with the Los Angeles Department of out a nearby bypass gate, then draining it again, then having Water & Power (DWP). employees return to remove Of course, the aqueduct the barricade materials. has always been a rather Obviously a modern structure important focus, but in years would have a release valve past the issue was how much built in—probably one water was inside that buried that could be operated and concrete pipeline to Los monitored remotely from Angeles—and how much DWP offi ces in Bishop. remained in the Mono Basin The feasibility analysis for the lake and streams. submitted by DWP in July is That was settled with the fundamentally based on what 1994 State Water Board the aqueduct physically can decision, which established GEOFF MCQUILKIN do, can’t do, and reasonably a long-term ecologically could do (see page 4). It’s the sound management level for “what could it reasonably do” the lake, the creation of a part where the Committee restoration program for the is in disagreement with desiccated streams, and the DWP, largely because Structural upgrades on the Lee Vining Creek diversion facility allow provision for export of water this important topic went DWP to better meet State Water Board restoration requirements. beyond these amounts. unaddressed in the analysis. But now, with the expert stream scientists’ After 70 years, it’s time to look a little further down the recommendations in hand, the physical aqueduct infrastructure road. Sure, it’s tough to use the current aqueduct to deliver has become the focal issue of the day. Can the pipes, dams, the high Rush Creek fl ows that are so critical to restoring the ditches, structures, and valves release water to the streams stream channel, but what does DWP need to do anyway— in an ecologically benefi cial way? Are they an obstacle to regardless of stream restoration—to make these facilities work achieving the promise of restoration? And if they are, what can reliably and effectively for the future? We’re confi dent that be done about it? solutions for stream restoration, such as modern water release Two big factors are at work. First, the aqueduct was not facilities, are also solutions that meet challenges facing Los designed or built to routinely allow water to pass down Angeles, such as assuring compliance with State Water Board Mono’s tributaries in an ecologically sound manner. It was requirements and reliably exporting the millions of dollars’ designed to capture the full fl ow of the tributaries, which it worth of Mono Basin water allocated to the city. did for decades. Since then, stream restoration and the fl ow There’s already an example of how this type of solution can of water to the lake have depended on the use of spillways, have benefi ts all around, and it is called the Lee Vining Creek bypass valves, and return ditches. No one would construct the diversion facility. Several years ago an entire section of the system that way today—it’s just what has been inherited from dam was removed and a modern real-time adjustable gate was a bygone era. installed. This gate assured that state-mandated streamfl ow Second, the aqueduct is well maintained, but it is getting requirements were delivered and that restoration requirements old. Forget restoration for a moment—major facilities such as passing sediment and peak fl ows were accomplished. questions are looming for DWP. There are questions about And the benefi ts for DWP? They gained certainty that facility reliability, about structural integrity, about the amount streamfl ow requirements would be met, allowing greater of time invested in operations and maintenance, and about confi dence in the export of water, as allowed, from the creek. operational protocols. DWP can keep maintaining the system This is why the Mono Lake Committee will be focusing on it has piece by piece, or it can invest in facilities that meet the aqueduct in the months ahead—and the question of what their modern day mandates—that now include the needs of the could be done with it, here in the 21st century, to meet stream lake and streams—for the decades ahead. restoration, Mono Lake level, and DWP goals simultaneously. Fall 2010 – Mono Lake Newsletter 3 Synthesis report charts course for restoration success But will DWP agree on feasibility?

Load more

  28

Copy Link