• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
N 
 
E
 
W
 
S
 
L
 
E
 
T
 
T
 
E
 
R
Fall 2010
M
ONO
L
AKE
21
st
Century Aqueduct? Lee Vining Airport Solutions Dust Violations Continue Fall Catalog
 
    C    O    V    E    R     P    H    O    T    O     C    O    U    R    T    E    S    Y     O    F    R    O    B    B     H    I    R    S    C    H ,
     R      O     B     B     H     I     R      S      C     H     P     H      O     T      O .      C      O     M
 G E   O F  F  M  C  Q  U I   L  K  I   N 
 The
Mono Lake Newsletter 
is a quarterly publication of theMono Lake Committee. Written material contained in thisnewsletter may be quoted or reproduced for review, reporting,educational purposes, or related non-profit uses; a copy of thepublication is requested. Reproduction or quotation for otherpurposes may be approved upon written request.ISSN #0275-6633. Copyright © 2010 Mono Lake Committee.Printed on 100% recycled paper.
Directors Emeriti
Helen Green • Ed GrosswilerGenny SmithBrent Coeur-Barron, Corporate CounselFounded by David Gaines in 1978
Staff 
Executive Director...........................Geoffrey McQuilkinEastern Sierra Policy Director ...................Lisa CuttingEducation Director ....................................Bartshé MillerCommunications Director...............Arya DegenhardtOffice Director ......................................Erika ObedzinskiMembership Coordinator .............................Ellen KingInformation Specialist......................................Greg ReisSacramento Policy Associate ...........Betsy ReifsniderOutdoor Experiences Mgr ..........Santiago EscruceriaLA Education Coordinator...........Herley Jim BowlingLA Outreach Education Coord ...........Jennifer OdumCommunications Coordinator .....................Elin LjungInfo Center & Bookstore Mgr ..............Rosanne CatronBook & Map Buyer .......................................Laura WalkerBookkeeper ......................................Donnette HuseltonOutdoor Education Lead Inst ..........Michael ClausenOutdoor Education Instructor ......................Rosa BreyProject Specialists .......Morgan Lindsay, Julia Runcie
Mono Lake OfficeInformation Center & Bookstore
Highway 395 at Third StreetPost Office Box 29Lee Vining, California 93541(760) 647-6595
Mono Lake Committee Mission
The Mono Lake Committee is a non-pro
fi
t citizens’ group dedicated to protectingand restoring the Mono Basin ecosystem, educating the public about MonoLake and the impacts on the environment of excessive water use, and promotingcooperative solutions that protect Mono Lake and meet real water needs withouttransferring environmental problems to other areas.
2
Mono Lake Newsletter – Fall 2010
Board of Directors
Sally Gaines, Mammoth Lakes, Chair Tom Soto, Santa Monica, SecretaryDavid Kanner, Redwood City, TreasurerVireo Gaines, BishopMartha Davis, RiversideRichard Lehman, FresnoSherryl Taylor, Mammoth LakesDoug Virtue, San Pedro
info@monolake.orgmonolake.orgmonobasinresearch.org
M
ONO
L
AKE
NEWSLETTER
Fall 2010Volume XXXII, Number 1
Los Angeles Office
1718 Wellesley AvenueLos Angeles, California 90025-3634
T
he combination of fall color and thunderstorms has made forunprecedented leaf-peeping of late. Wind your way up into the elbow of amoraine colonized by aspens and it’s dripping with color. Sometimes it’llstop you in your tracks and your eyes jump around through the colors as if lookingfor a way to believe they’re real. Yellow, orange, red, washed clean by the rain andelectric against dark skies.Speaking of disbelief, you hold in your hands the very
fi
rst
 Mono Lake Newsletter 
on 100% post-consumer wasterecycled paper. It has been the goal of many
 Newsletter 
 editors before me, and I can hardly believe it myself.When recycled paper was
fi
rst available for our printingneeds it came at a very high price—one the Mono LakeCommittee couldn’t afford. Ever-hopeful, we would check each year—could we do it? Meanwhile, on other fronts,progress was being made: we got a recycling service forthe of 
fi
ce, we switched to 100% recycled paper for thecopy machine. And then, in this year’s annual paper check we were surprised to
fi
nd that, with some stretching, wecould make it work.The new paper is just one small example of the Committee’s approach to thechallenges we face in protecting Mono Lake. We take things one step at a time,sticking with it, and making our way carefully to a balanced outcome. You’ll
fi
nd itthroughout the pages that follow … from realizing the vision of the synthesis reportto righting the airport snafu to the invasive plant removal project, and even whenhiking with the Outdoor Experiences program … it’s just one step at a time.So, check out the nifty eco-audit above—and then take a step outside into an aspengrove and take a moment to believe those trees.—Arya Degenhardt, Communications Director
In October the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA brought a prototype Mars rover to MonoLake to field test its rock-sampling procedures and equipment.
 
Fall 2010 – Mono Lake Newsletter
3
Looking for a 21
st
century aqueduct
by Geoffrey McQuilkin
T
he Los Angeles Aqueduct is a
fi
xture in the MonoBasin, and few can remember a time before itexisted. Over 70 years old, the aqueduct itself—andits physical limitations—is now at the center of Mono LakeCommittee policy work with the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP).Of course, the aqueducthas always been a ratherimportant focus, but in yearspast the issue was how muchwater was inside that buriedconcrete pipeline to LosAngeles—and how muchremained in the Mono Basinfor the lake and streams.That was settled with the1994 State Water Boarddecision, which establisheda long-term ecologicallysound management level forthe lake, the creation of arestoration program for thedesiccated streams, and theprovision for export of waterbeyond these amounts.But now, with the expert stream scientists’recommendations in hand, the physical aqueduct infrastructurehas become the focal issue of the day. Can the pipes, dams,ditches, structures, and valves release water to the streamsin an ecologically bene
fi
cial way? Are they an obstacle toachieving the promise of restoration? And if they are, what canbe done about it?Two big factors are at work. First, the aqueduct was notdesigned or built to routinely allow water to pass downMono’s tributaries in an ecologically sound manner. It wasdesigned to capture the full
fl
ow of the tributaries, which itdid for decades. Since then, stream restoration and the
fl
owof water to the lake have depended on the use of spillways,bypass valves, and return ditches. No one would construct thesystem that way today—it’s just what has been inherited froma bygone era.Second, the aqueduct is well maintained, but it is gettingold. Forget restoration for a moment—major facilitiesquestions are looming for DWP. There are questions aboutfacility reliability, about structural integrity, about the amountof time invested in operations and maintenance, and aboutoperational protocols. DWP can keep maintaining the systemit has piece by piece, or it can invest in facilities that meettheir modern day mandates—that now include the needs of thelake and streams—for the decades ahead.My favorite example: one way of releasing water to RushCreek requires draining the aqueduct pipe, then having DWPemployees climb into the aqueduct conduit and barricadethe inside of the pipe, then re
fi
lling the pipe so it over
fl
owsout a nearby bypass gate, then draining it again, then havingemployees return to removethe barricade materials.Obviously a modern structurewould have a release valvebuilt in—probably onethat could be operated andmonitored remotely fromDWP of 
fi
ces in Bishop.The feasibility analysissubmitted by DWP in July isfundamentally based on whatthe aqueduct physically cando, can’t do, and reasonablycould do (see page 4). It’s the“what could it reasonably do”part where the Committeeis in disagreement withDWP, largely becausethis important topic wentunaddressed in the analysis.After 70 years, it’s time to look a little further down theroad. Sure, it’s tough to use the current aqueduct to deliverthe high Rush Creek 
fl
ows that are so critical to restoring thestream channel, but what does DWP need to do anyway—regardless of stream restoration—to make these facilities work reliably and effectively for the future? We’re con
fi
dent thatsolutions for stream restoration, such as modern water releasefacilities, are also solutions that meet challenges facing LosAngeles, such as assuring compliance with State Water Boardrequirements and reliably exporting the millions of dollars’worth of Mono Basin water allocated to the city.There’s already an example of how this type of solution canhave bene
fi
ts all around, and it is called the Lee Vining Creek diversion facility. Several years ago an entire section of thedam was removed and a modern real-time adjustable gate wasinstalled. This gate assured that state-mandated stream
fl
owrequirements were delivered and that restoration requirementssuch as passing sediment and peak 
fl
ows were accomplished.And the bene
fi
ts for DWP? They gained certainty thatstream
fl
ow requirements would be met, allowing greatercon
fi
dence in the export of water, as allowed, from the creek.This is why the Mono Lake Committee will be focusing onthe aqueduct in the months ahead—and the question of whatcould be done with it, here in the 21
st
century, to meet streamrestoration, Mono Lake level, and DWP goals simultaneously.
Structural upgrades on the Lee Vining Creek diversion facility allow DWP to better meet State Water Board restoration requirements.
 G E   O F  F  M  C  Q  U I   L  K  I   N 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...