Mono @20 continued from page 9
Three main goals were established by D1631: 1) maintain minimum flows in the four tributaries to keep fish in good condition below the dams, 2) provide higher flows periodically to develop and maintain the stream channels, and 3) develop a water diversion formula that would eventually restore Mono Lake to a level of 6,392 feet. The decision also called for regenerating a healthy riparian habitat, eliminating livestock grazing, and restricting vehicle access in the vicinity of the streams.
LADWP initially objected to the recommendations in the Synthesis Report, raising the specter of more lawsuits and delays. But, rather than see the process bogged down in litigation, CalTrout's Eastern Sierra Regional Manager, Dr. Mark Drew, along with partners, engaged LADWP in a facilitated mediation process that, after three years, resulted in a significant settlement. The 2013 settlement establishes a comprehensive set of restoration activities providing for Mother Nature to return Rush and Lee Vining Creeks to the world-class fisheries Field and Stream magazine claims they were in the 1930s.
Let the Work Begin
One of the Synthesis Report’s key recommendations for the recovery of Rush Creek calls for periodic releases of high volumes of water to mimic natural snowmelt runoff conditions. This will not only maintain stream channels, but also create deeper pools in the creek which are needed to promote better growth rates in brown trout and winter holding habitat. The report also makes recommendations about how to promote riparian recovery and provide for cooler water releases from Grant Lake into Rush Creek.
It's worth recalling that there were no trout in Rush Creek and the other feeder streams prior to the 1870s when early European settlers introduced trout in the local streams. The main goal of the restoration efforts is to approximate the ecological conditions that existed in Rush Creek and the other feeder streams prior to the water diversions that began in the 1940s, providing the basis for a thriving trout population.
When asked about the prospects for Rush Creek recovery, Mark Drew expressed optimism. "I think we are on a good recovery trajectory now. The science and research that has taken place over the last twelve years will help to accelerate the recovery of the broader ecosystem. It's going to take some time, and we all need to be patient, but the framework and the tools are in place."
Mark also described CalTrout's role in the next phase of recovery. "The terms of the settlement agreement have been incorporated into the LADWP water license, and the parties are going before the Water Board to finalize the amended license terms. CalTrout's primary role will be as a member of the monitoring and administration team that is tasked with ensuring that the terms of the agreement are
implemented and modified, as needed, based on changes to the ecosystem caused by increased flows and other aspects of the restoration recommendations included in the Synthesis Report."
Statewide Implications
One of the main questions posed at the Mono @ 20 Symposium was whether the lessons of the Mono Basin case could be applied to other water recovery projects in the state. Felicia Marcus, the Chair of the
SWRCB, told attendees in her opening remarks that the dialog on water rights in other parts of the state is often too polarized: fish vs. farmers, urban needs vs. wildlife, etc. She encouraged an approach that recognizes the historical context in water negotiations. For example, it should be acknowledged that farmers have built a livelihood and a critical agricultural component of our economy over the past century or more based on an assumed level of water supply for irrigation. Felicia granted that certain water rights might need to be adjusted to strike a better balance for fish and the environment, but she encouraged the parties in a water dispute to engage in a collaborative approach that ensures that everyone's needs are considered as part of the overall solution.
Mark Del Piero, who was the hearing officer for the SWRCB during the proceedings that resulted in D1631, echoed Felicia's sentiments and noted that a key factor in the Mono Lake success story was the active involvement of advocates in assisting LADWP to replace the lost water supply. Members of the Mono Lake Committee worked hand-in-hand with LADWP to establish water recycling, storm capture, and similar programs that provided for reliable local sources of water for Los Angeles.
Later in the symposium, Martha Davis, who was the leader of the Mono Committee during the 1980s, described how she and other members of the Committee engaged in a grass roots campaign in Los Angeles to ensure that the water needs of the people would be met. She and other committee members attended Los Angeles city council meetings, engaged young people in lower income areas in door-to-door campaigning for water conservation, and took other steps that built trust and a feeling of shared responsibility in forging a solution that was acceptable to both sides. Martha also described how the Mono Lake Committee was instrumental in securing state and federal funding to help the city to forge ahead with water reclamation.
Marty Adams, the General Manager of LADWP's water systems, provided an update on his city's ambitious goals for reducing per capita water usage. Through conservation and development of local water sources, LADWP has dramatically reduced its purchase of water from other systems. It is quite remarkable how Los Angeles, within a period of a few decades, has gone from a position of feeling entitled
Partners in the Mono Basin Agreements speak at the 2013 celebration.
to every drop of water in Rush Creek to being one of the leaders in urban water conservation and reclamation.
During one of the panel discussions, CalTrout's Mark Drew stressed a similar theme by highlighting the importance of parties finding common ground in water disputes. In addition, Mark pointed out that there needs to be sufficient funding for scientific studies, restoration work, and ongoing monitoring. Mark and several other panelists noted that there needs to be a long-term commitment to restoration work that can take several decades or more to achieve its objectives. Several speakers pointed out that the initial goals of a watershed restoration project will most likely need to be adjusted over time based on how the ecosystem responds to factors such as increased flows, droughts, global warming, and other variables. In some sense, a restoration project (such as the one for Mono Basin) never ends, requiring tweaks and adjustments based on our changing climate and the evolving ecosystem. (story continued on next page)
"The process that has taken place in the Mono Basin is a model that can be replicated in other places." Mark Drew, Sierras Manager
Mark has played an insturmental role in the Mono Basin Agreements, facilitating the discussion and ultimate resolution between all parties.