MONO LAKE ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Dana Kelly

Watershed Hydrology (ENVL 3434)

Fall 2020
Stockton University
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND GEOLOGY PROGRAM
Instructor: Dr. Emma Witt
 Table of Contents

1. Abstract 2

2. Introduction 3

2.1 Background 3

2.2 Lake Characteristics 7

3. Ecology 10

4. Impact to Consider 12

4.1 The Importance of Mono Lake 12

4.2 Human Impact 12

5. Project Assessment 17

5.1 Background 17

5.2 Method Suggestions 17

5.3 Conclusion 20

Bibliography 22
 1. Abstract
Located east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and not far from the eastern edge of
Yosemite National Park resides one of North America’s oldest lakes: Mono Lake (Funkhouser,
2013.) Mono Lake has a volume of 2,400,000 ac-ft, a surface area of 42,300 ac, and an average
depth volume of 56 feet with a maximum depth of 158 feet (Mono Lake Committee, 2020d). The
Mono Lake managers want to establish a water surface elevation of 6,392 feet above seal level
(asl) as the future management level; prior to diversions of Mono's tributary streams, the lake
level was 6417 feet asl whereas the current lake level is 6378 feet asl (Mono Lake Committee,
2020b). Current projections show that reaching a lake level of 6,392 ft. asl will take about 20
years, under the assumption the current project continues without process change (Mono Lake
Committee, 2020d). Once it reaches 6392 ft. asl, Lake Mono is expected to fluctuate about 6
feet in elevation, occasionally rise as high as 6400 ft. asl, and during extreme drought, drop as
low as 6382' (Mono Lake Committee, 2020d). In addition to the various inputs and outputs
pivotal for considerations, the managers will additionally have to take into account things such as
but not limited to; the effects of surrounding landscapes on Mono Lake; the complex ecosystems
of Mono Lake; the effects of climate change on Mono Lake.
 2. Introduction
The Mono Lake managers want to establish a water surface elevation of 6,392 feet as the
future management level. However, the lake has a complex history and ecosystem to be
understood and established prior to reaching that goal. This is due partly to intense past human
impact to the lake that has left remnants of degradation to this day. Continuing, varying biotic
and abiotic factors play a role in the lake's surface elevation and need consideration in the
project's goal as well.
2.1 Background
Mono Lake located in Mono County, California was formed by the same geologic
processes that shaped the Nevada and Eastern Sierra landscape over the past several million
years (Abplanalp, 2015). In short, these processes can be explained first as the pulling apart of
the Earth’s crust created the north/south trending mountain ranges flanked by deep, long valleys.
Later, volcanism poured thick accumulations of molten rock into the valleys, shaping the
landscape and creating natural dams. The divots left are known as basins, and water sourced
from melting ice sheets located on the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountains flowed
downslope and was captured by the basin that is now known as Lake Mono. Specifically, Mono
Lake is what geologists refer to as an endorheic basin, meaning that water flows into the lake,
but the lake has no outflow (Abplanalp, 2015). While Lake Mono’s ranking as one of North
America’s oldest lakes is confirmed, it’s actual age estimation varies greatly. It’s at least 760,000
years old, possibly as old as 3 million years (Funkhouser, 2013).
Human relationships with the lake are dated to have first begun when the Kutzedikaa
moved up to the mountain meadows west of Mono Lake each summer but human impact began
shortly after (Mono Basin Historical Society, 2016). During the gold rush, not much of
California was left untouched and the area of Mono Lake was no different. In 1859 migrant
prospectors discovered placer gold along the northwest shores of Mono Lake, leading to the
Mono Basin area reaching peak residents as gold was mined (Abplanalp, 2015). Any influx in
population is unusual to the area, as observed in Table 2.1.1. While gold mining itself wasn’t a
threat to the lake, a practice common during the gold rush known as hydraulic mining was.
Hydraulic mining refers to a variety of techniques used to expedite the gold mining process, such
as creating dams to then drain hundreds of gallons of water into the hills. It helped miners
quickly rend the hillside into a pile of gravel and provided plenty of pay dirt from which to
separate gold, making it a popular method during the gold rush (Foothill College, 2010).
However, it was extremely harmful to nearby waterways due to the excess sediment it created
and amounts of water diverted. In the early 1860s, a 12 to 14 mile long ditch and sluice network
was constructed in the Mono Lake to provide water for mining and water from Virginia Creek
was transported to the arid Monoville area for large-scale hydraulic mining (Abplanalp, 2015).
Table 2.1.1

Mono County Population Over the Years

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2018

2,115 2,213 4,016 8,600 10,007 14,250

Note. While Mono County’s first recorded population was in 1950, Los Angeles, CA already had
a recorded population of 319,198 by 1910. Furthermore, as of 2020 Los Angeles, CA has a
population in the millions, while in 2018 Mono County recorded a population wide number of
only 14,250 (WETMAAP, n.d.). While a population influx of 4,584 in ten years may not be
drastic for some regions, it doubled Mono Counties population and thereby development, which
impacts waterways as well.
However, the biggest threat to Mono Lake didn’t come forth until 1941 when the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power began diverting Mono Lake's tributary streams 350
miles south to meet the growing water demands of Los Angeles. Shortly after, 18,000 acres of
former lake bottom were exposed due to the receding water level (WETMAAP, n.d.). The lake’s
salvation came first in 1978 when David Gaines formed the Mono Lake Committee with the
intent to stabilize Mono Lake. The Committee grew to 20,000 members and gained legal and
legislative recognition for Mono Lake (Mono Lake Committee, 2020b). To further protect the
Lake, Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve was established in 1982 to preserve the spectacular
tufa formations and natural features, with California State Parks and the U.S. Forest Service
working cooperatively to manage the public lands around Mono Lake. Finally, the Mono Basin
National Forest Scenic Area, encompassing 116,000 acres, was established by Congress in 1984
to protect the natural, cultural, and scenic resources of the Mono Basin (CA State Parks, 2018).
Progress made since human intervention can be observed in Figure 2.1.2.
Figure 2.1.1
Changes in Mono Lake Surface Area Following the 1941 Diversion

Figure 2.1.2
Mono Lakes Level in Context

(Mono Lake Committee, 2020d)

2.2 Lake Characteristics
As stated, Mono Lake is an endorheic basin meaning that water flows into the lake but
the lake has no outflow. Nevertheless, inputs and outputs exist. Five major streams, plus a
number of small streams originating in the Sierra Nevada, Bodie Hills, Cowtrac Mountains, and
Mono Craters uplift drain into Mono Lake. These streams pump in chlorides, carbonates and
sulfates, making Mono Lake more than twice as salty as the ocean and highly alkaline, with a pH
of about 10 (Funkhouser, 2013). Snowmelt begins in April and continues through June with
maximum runoff in May and June and is highly seasonal; approximately 40 % of the total annual
flow occurs in the late spring and early summer (WETMAAP, n.d.).
The inputs to Mono Lake are
● 150,000 ac-ft/year runoff from gauged streams,
● 37,000 ac-ft/year ungauged runoff and groundwater inflow, and
● 28214 ac-ft/year of direct precipitation.
Thunderstorms, some of which may be intense and localized, are the primary source of summer
rainfall with the Mono Basin (WETMAAP, n.d.). As there’s no natural outlet, Mono Lake is
more so sensitive to changes in precipitation and evaporation than average lakes (Funkhouser,
2013). Outputs that directly result from human intervention are mostly obsolete as a result of the
protections on the land; on September 28, 1994, after 16 years of court battles, research, and
hearings, the State Water Resources Control Board issued an order to protect Mono Lake and its
tributary streams (CA State Parks, 2018). Therefore, outputs are
● 158625 ac-ft/year of evaporation and
● 85,000 ac-ft/year still diverted.
This makes evaporation approximately 50 % of the total lake water loss. Overall, the inputs
make up for 215214 ac-ft/year , while the outputs account for 243625 ac-ft/year. These numbers
suggest that Mono Lake’s surface level is still falling, and this can be confirmed with Table
2.2.1.
Table 2.2.1
Recently Recorded Mono Lake Levels (Post 2015)

Date Level asl

November 1, 2019 6382.5

October 1, 2020 6381.5

November 1, 2020 6381.2

Note. While the level asl isn’t significantly dropping, it’s also not rising, meaning the goal of
6,392 ft asl hasn’t gotten closer to being achieved over the past year; instead it’s gotten further
(Mono Lake Committee, 2020d).
In Mono County, California, Mono Lake is surrounded on all sides by mountains. To the
west is the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Mt. Warren. To the north The Bodie Hills reside and to
the east Cowtrac Mountains surround Mono Lake; both the remains of earlier volcanic activity
that occurred before Mono Lake existed. The Mono Craters are south of the lake with the highest
of the plug domes over 9000 feet in elevation (WETMAAP, n.d.). When Mono Lake first formed
it was one of the many lakes that were prevalent within these mountains, but the majority of
these lakes have disappeared mainly due to climatic changes that have occurred in the last 15,000
years (WETMAAP, n.d.). Mono Lake is the saline remnant of one of these no longer prevalent
lakes, specifically a much larger Pleistocene fresh-water lake known as Lake Russell. Due to
both the runoff sources and location history, the Mono Lake is currently about twice the salinity
of ocean water (USGS, 2020).
The combination of the naturally present salt as well as the chlorides, carbonates and
sulfates received from stream runoff by the lake combine to create some of the most popular
features of Mono Lake; the tufa, protected within Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve. This
process begins from the bottom of the lake where calcium-rich freshwater springs seep up and
mix with the carbonates present in the lake water. As the calcium comes in contact with the
carbonates in the lake, a chemical reaction occurs, resulting in calcium carbonate, or limestone.
The calcium carbonate precipitates around the spring over the course of decades to centuries, and
eventually tufa tower will grow, potentially to heights of over 30 feet underwater (Mono Lake
Committee, 2020a). In short, Mono Lake water (carbonates) + freshwater springs (calcium) =
Tufa (calcium carbonate). Today, the tufa are exposed as a result of the low lake levels, making
them unable to grow further and susceptible to erosion. Tufa towers are not the only form of tufa
at Mono Lake though. Calcium carbonate crystals will also precipitate out of lake water far from
springs and coat lake bottom surfaces like pumice boulders, dead vegetation, and anything else
that might end up in the lake creating almost ‘instant fossils’ (Mono Lake Committee, 2020a).
Figure 2.2.1
Visual Aid of Tufa Formations at Mono Lake

Note. Sometimes Osprey nest on exposed Tufa at Mono Lake. (CA State Parks, 2018)
 3. Ecology

It’s been assessed that today Mono Lake is popular as both a natural reserve and scenic
area, and is also viewed as a lake worth restoring. However, these outlooks of the lake weren’t
always prevalent. Mark Twain wrote of Mono Lake, “Its sluggish waters are so strong with alkali
that if you only dip the most hopelessly soiled garment into them once or twice, and wring it out,
it will be found as clean as if it had been through the ablest of washerwoman's hands,” further
calling it, “a lifeless desert…..the Dead Sea of the West (CA State Parks, 2018).” This perception
of Mono Lake comes as no shock as few organisms can tolerate Mono’s salty, alkaline water.
Historically Mono Lake contained numerous types of wetland habitats to support the large
numbers of migratory waterfowl that used the lake (WETMAAP, n.d.). Today the wetland
habitats of the pre-diversion days have declined or changed because declining water levels have
caused the degradation and loss of large areas of wetlands. Nevertheless, the lake is actually
bounding with life - the few species present thrive in astronomical numbers (CA State Parks,
2018).
Figure 3.3.1

Simplified Food Chain within Mono Lake

(CA State Parks, 2018.)

The food chain begins with a microscopic one-celled plant known as green algae that
uses decayed organic matter, specifically the desert bacteria of this lake, and sunlight to grow
(CA State Parks, 2018). Two groups of algae in Mono Lake are phytoplankton, primarily single
celled organisms suspended in the water, and benthic algae, larger organisms residing on the lake
floor. Two animals feast on the algae—the brine shrimp and the alkali fly. The brine shrimp, of
the species Artemia monica, are unique to the lake in that they’re found nowhere else in the
world. with an estimated six trillion brine shrimp feeding on it’s seasonal algae (CA State Parks,
2018). The alkali fly, Ephydra hians, spends three of their four life stages entirely underwater.
The larval and pupal life stages develop within the lake and when the adult fly is ready to emerge
from the pupa case, the fly emerges to float to the surface where it then begins its adult life cycle
(Mono Lake Committee, 2020a).
The brine shrimp and flies provide food supply for more than 80 species of migratory
birds that visit the lake each spring and summer. Mono Lake is a critical stopover site for
millions of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and the variety of surrounding ecosystems
attract a wide diversity of over 300 resident and migrant songbirds, raptors, and more. Alkali
flies provide more fat and protein for hungry birds than the brine shrimp, making them the
principal food that phalaropes use to grow new feathers and then migrate 3,000 miles non-stop to
South America (Mono Lake Committee, 2020). From 80,000 to 100,000 phalaropes visit Mono
Lake in July and August. Other notable bird species include two migrants; Wilson’s and eared
grebes; and two nesting species; California gulls and western snowy plovers (CA State Parks,
2018). An estimated 1.5 million eared grebes are present during fall migration from August
through October and can be seen diving for food in the lake; they are never seen on land, as their
legs are only designed for swimming.
Mono’s gull colony is one of the largest in California as well as one of the largest and
most important in the world with nearly 50,000 adult California gulls nesting in the area (CA
State Parks, 2018). Historically most California Gulls at Mono Lake nested on Negit Island, until
1977 whenwater diversions had lowered the lake level to a point where a landbridge emerged
and connected Negit Island with the mainland. This resulted in hungry coyotes crossing the
landbridge and gull chicks were made easy prey, which ultimately caused the gulls to abandon
Negit. The threats to the population didn’t end, with hinderments to its success including a
prolonged drought which brought back the danger of coyote predation and an invasive weed
which reduced critical nesting habitat on Mono Lake’s islets. In response to these threats, the
Mono Lake Committee took swift action to protect the colony (Mono Lake Committee, 2020b).
Another species with similar importance is the approximately 100 endangered western snowy
plovers that nest along the windswept alkali flats of Mono Lake’s eastern shore.
 4. Impact to Consider

4.1 The Importance of Mono Lake

In spite of Mono Lake’s astounding age and surrounding landscape of rigid geological
formations, the water body is still considered fragile. From the ecosystem to the different
formations, threats are prevailing that further effect the characteristics of Mono Lake. All of
these are significant to the level of Mono Lake, as it was mentioned that its especially sensitive
to changes in precipitation and evaporation, and the changing of ecosystems and formations can
alter these patterns with climate change.
Further, when water levels continue to drop the outcome is an increase in salinity levels.
This can ultimately change a significant aspect in regards to research - the known composition of
the lake. For these reasons, the outside impacts on Mono Lake are important to consider when
attempting to raise the lake level. To elaborate, while the lake itself maintains individual inputs
and outputs, all of these are affected by several outside sources that also need to be considered to
assure that once the goal level is reached it can be maintained. The threats to Mono Lake include
human impact, drought, and air pollution.

4.2 Human Impact

In Section 2 various diversions of Mono Lake were discussed as well as the 1994 order to
protect Mono Lake and it’s tributary streams issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Though progress was made following the protection order, it served only to limit the amount of
water that could be taken rather than ending the diversion in the area entirely. Initially this
decision was enough to allow Mono Lake some revival and with water from its feeder streams
now flowing into the lake, levels rose steadily, peaking in 2007 at 6,384.8ft (Little, 2016). Things
quickly changed however for a reason most are now all too familiar with; precipitation levels in
California dropped as they entered a drought that would last for years (Bartshe, 2015). It was
first in 2008 that precipitation levels declined, sending levels almost back to their starting point
(Little, 2016).
By 2015, California had suffered four consecutive years of below-normal precipitation
and above-normal temperatures and every watershed in the state was stressed. The Mono Basin
was also suffering from extraordinary drought. In April 2016, as the drought continued the
snowpack that acts as a majority of runoff to Lake Mono was 84 percent of the average levels
(Little, 2016). As a result, a mandatory 25% water reduction was in effect for residents and urban
areas had begun rationing supplies as water levels in lakes and reservoirs around the state fell
well-below normal. To further makeup for the extreme losses to Mono Lake, the city also
adopted aggressive water conservation measures, increased local supplies of recycled and
captured storm water, and boosted its purchases of water from the State Water Project and
Colorado River (Bartshe, 2015).
 These recovery efforts are pivotal due to the heavy reliance Lake Mono has on runoff
from nearby streams and runoff as well as the detrimental effects faced by low lake levels.
However, one other danger to lakes brought forth by humans is that of contaminated runoff. As
California continues to develop, impervious surfaces are implemented. These surfaces collect
sediment and contaminants before carrying them to nearby waterways where accelerated erosion
as well as pollution can occur. Though Mono County still remains an area with a relatively small
population, development around the area can pose a risk for these reasons and needs to be
considered in efforts to increase runoff rates.
Figure 4.2.1
Example of a Major Roadway Along Mono Lake

Note. Roadways are especially prone to creating contaminated stormwater runoff, as cars can
leak oil, gas, and other harmful toxins that then enter the waterways.
4.3 Drought
As the drought that occurred in California had devastating effects on the water supply,
simultaneously Mono Lake and it’s surrounding landscapes were experiencing their own
devastating effects. While species have survived current salinity levels, they haven’t gone
unaffected. As the salinity levels increase and lake levels drop, it affects the production of brine
shrimp, which then affects the birds. Mono Lake’s unique combination of algae, brine shrimp
and alkali flies make it one of the most productive ecosystems in the world, and losses in
population could result in loss of an ecosystem (Bartshe, 2015). Extreme drought year types are
expected to increase in frequency and since 1979, there have been zero years with runoff
95–115% of average (Reis, 2018). The low levels of snowpack found in 2016 aren’t expected to
be an isolated incident either, with Figure 4.3.1 exhibiting future projections. In addition to
decreasing overall runoff, loss in snowpack causes the runoff to occur much earlier and to be a
lot flashier which can lead to accelerated erosion (Reis, 2018).
Figure 4.3.1
Sierra Nevada Snowpack Depletion Scenarios, Mid- and End-of-Century

(Reis, 2018)
Knowing tufa grows only underwater and has been exposed by past drought, it makes
sense that ongoing drought exposes further tufa. While one negative implication is that exposed
tufa becomes vulnerable to advanced erosion, recent droughts have created a new issue revolving
exposed Tufa. The retreating lake has exposed shallow lakebottom and tufa shoals, making it
possible to approach Negit and its satellite islets by foot (Reis, 2018). These islands are home to
46% of the lake's nesting California Gull population, along with a handful of nesting
Black-crowned Night Herons and Caspian Terns. Due to the lower elevation, coyotes can explore
the landbridge and easily see these birds, disrupting nesting birds on Negit or any other islet, and
thereby potentially harming endangered populations (Bartshe, 2015). One attempt to divert the
coyote with an electric fence has already failed.
Figure 4.3.2
View of Landbridge That Poses Potential Threat to Bird Populations of Mono Lake

(Bartshe, 2015)

4.4 Air Quality

Nesting birds aren’t the only species exposed to threats as a result of exposed lakebed, as
human health has the potential to be impacted as well. Newly-exposed lakebottom is a source for
salt and other minerals that take flight during windy days. The particulate matter (PM10)
produced by these alkali flats is very small, ten microns or less in diameter and is easily inhaled
deep into the lungs, causing respiratory problems (Bartshe, 2015). It’s exposed shoreline is the
largest source of powder-fine air pollution in the United States (Jose, 2018). One method for
prevention noted was snow, but this fix comes with the issues of drought discussed. Today, Great
Basin enforces air quality requirements under the federal Clean Air Act and operates two
monitoring stations at Mono Lake (USGS, 2020).
However, Mono Lake remains out of compliance with federal air quality health standards
due to the frequent and intense dust storms that originate from the exposed lakebed. These events
have been up to 43 times higher than federal standards for particulate density (Reis, 2018). The
positive to this is that with monitoring the source of air pollution can be identified and decreases
in air quality can assess whether or not remediation methods are working.
 5. Project Assessment

5.1 Background

The Mono Lake managers want to establish a water surface elevation of 6,392 feet as the
future management level. Today, the lake is 6,378 feet asl a result of diversion and drought and is
continuing to slowly fall over the years. While about 50% of the lake's outputs come directly
from evaporation, as Mono Lake’s home state of California continues to experience raising
temperatures as a result of global warming, lowering of this number would be difficult if not
impossible. Being an endorheic basin with no natural outflow, the only other output from the
lake is that which is diverted for human use. Diversion levels have been cut previously; in 2015,
what was previously 1.8% of Los Angeles total water supply was banned for taking in effort to
save the lake (Bartshe, 2015).
Further diversion prevention measures could restore the lake at rates faster than the
twenty year outlook. However, the cut would have to be far larger than the previous 25% cut,
which equaled out to a reduction of 11,500 ac-ft/yr previously directed water from Mono Lake
and a loss of 1.8% of Los Angeles total water supply (Bartshe, 2015). This is because currently
the total inputs are 215214 ac-ft/year and the total outputs are 243625 ac-ft/year, creating a
difference of 28,411 ac-ft that suggest the lake level is falling. With such a large difference, it
would require lowering the diversion rates at least ~34% to even add 489 ac-ft/yr to the late,
which would overall bring the lake to equilibrium within ~10.7 years.
Problems arise when the needed diversion level is this high. The Mono Lake area
contributes one third of Los Angeles water supply, or 430,000 gallons of water. (USC, 2020).
Other than this contribution, Los Angeles main water supplies include sources from Northern
California and groundwater. With water supply mainly being outsourced in regards to LA’s water
supply in a state that faces constant drought, clean water supply is already spread thin in the
state. Additionally, allowing water diversion creates a beneficial relationship with the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, who have spent around $260 million spent on
environmental mitigation projects, including many that are dedicated to public recreation as well
as assisted in creek restoration in Mono Basin following 30 years of intensive rehabilitation and
scientific examination (LADWP, 2020).
5.2 Method Suggestions

As lowering lake levels bring forward risks for air quality, decrease in species population,
and ecosystem degradation it might seem that protecting Mono Lake holds importance over
allowing diversion. Yet that could cost important relationships with the LADWP and leave more
California residents without clean drinking water. Already more than a million Californians do
not have clean water to bathe in or drink, over 1.1 million acres of California farmland have been
lost since 2012 due to drought, and an estimated 93 million people are affected by drought
conditions in the U.S. (Nichols, 2019). Also, while in 1941 diversions were the main cause for
Mono Lake’s surface area decline, today the same can’t be said. Snowpack, a significant source
of runoff, is declining yearly and simultaneously temperatures in California are rising, leading to
greater evaporation rates which account for much of the lake's output. Raising Mono Lake’s
surface elevation can’t come at the cost of available clean water for residents, suggesting the
answer is forming a cohesive relationship between urban and natural California.
Figure 5.2.1
Decline in Rainfall In California Over Time

Note. Precipitation levels in some areas are expected to continue to fall and remain in drought
conditions, including the area of Mono Lake. However, this affects the entire State, including
diversion needs (Wiremedia, 2020).
The issues faced by both the natural and urban landscapes that create California are found
to have similar sources. While climate change has already been discussed, other side effects of
development greatly affect supply as well. Though outside sources like Mono Lake are now
relied on heavily, the Los Angeles River was once a main source of the city’s water. This lasted
until 1940 when concerns about flooding were raised as a result of excess water that was present
for a variety of reasons, including dams and accelerated runoff rates from construction. To
remove the threat of flooding, the river was restructured as a drainage system; water that was
once usable began to be diverted into the ocean and the city lost a source of its drinking water
(USC, 2020). Today, the effects of this are water loss from the long diversion systems now
needed to supply LA; water leaks and evaporation in the water transport system occur when
water moves from areas like Mono Lake, and significant amounts of water can be lost as a result
of the long journey. The river isn’t the only source of water that now runs into the ocean either.
When rain does occur, with no significant way to collect that water and reuse it, about 80% of
rainfall gets dumped into the ocean (USC, 2020).
Therefore, the most effective way to assure Mono Lake both reaches and remains at it’s
goal of 6,392 ft asl, better infrastructure would be the most valuable asset. In late 2015, the city
of Los Angeles implemented “Shade Balls” to its reservoirs where water was often lost due to
long travel lengths and saved 300 million gallons of water per year from evaporation (USC,
2020). Greater potential is possible though. According to NRDC (2020),
● through stormwater capture California could harvest .4-.6 million ac-ft of water per year,
● through water reuse California could harvest 1.2-1.8 million ac-ft of water per year, and
● through urban efficiency California could save 2.9-5.2 million ac-ft of water per year.
In regards to what would best help Mono Lake, both water reuse and stormwater capture would
allow for the urban and natural system to begin to build themselves, and their water supply, back
up together. Water reuse includes methods such as installing greywater systems to water lawns
and flush toilets in homes and businesses as well as recharging groundwater with recycling
water. Stormwater capture refers to the installation of infrastructure such as rain barrels and
cisterns. Rain barrels and cisterns have similar uses as they’re both systems designed to collect
stormwater rather than allowing it to become runoff, with the major difference being cisterns are
often larger in size. One iconic cistern that already aids LA has a capacity of 216,000 gallons, is
8 feet deep, and 70 feet in diameter, and supplies water to the Los Angeles River following rain
events. There are several options to explore when it comes to the use of rain collection to restore
Mono Lake.
As reviewed in Figure 4.2.1, Mono Lake is adjacent to Highway 395 and maintains its
own visitor center. Running through a variety of California scenery, Highway 395 isn’t only a
scenic road trip but a source of excess runoff. This creates an ideal location for larger cisterns
that could be used to contribute to Mono Lake. Further, ½ inch of rain from a 200 sq ft roof
equates to 60 gallons of water in runoff within a day, meaning rain barrels below the visitor
center could make a major contribution to the lake overtime. Lastly, with relationships already
formed in the urban area of Los Angeles, rain barrels and cisterns in that area could not only
further reduce any flood risk but also be used to restore Mono Lake. Alternatively, Los Angeles
could use some collected non-potable water for water reuse in office buildings and other places.
Table 5.2.1 shows how long different combinations of rain collection and diversion reduction
would take to restore Mono Lake to it’s goal level.
Table 2.5.1
Scenarios of Diversion Reduction & Rain Collection Being Used As Mono Lake’s Management

Rain Collection Ac-ft of Input Years Until Goal

Diversion Reduction Contribution in Added Per Year Level Reached
ac-ft as Result

34% 28,900 ac-ft 0 489 10.6

34% 28,900 ac-ft 1,000 1,489 3.5

30% 25,500 ac-ft 3,500 589 8.8

20% 17,000 ac-ft 13,000 1,589 3.2

Note. The time needed to account for infrastructure installation isn’t included in years until the
goal is reached.
The rain collection methods can vary as well as be paired with water used reduction
through water recycling methods. The distribution of infrastructure can be altered from Mono
County to Los Angeles as needed as well. After implementation, not only would Mono Lake
reach its intended goal level but future evaporation would be less of a concern as well; when the
lake no longers needs the intensive help of water collection, this water can be stored for future
droughts and used for non-potable applications, creating an everlasting safety net.
5.3 Conclusion

The Mono Lake managers want to establish a water surface elevation of 6,392 feet above
sea level (asl) as the future management level. Current projections show that reaching a lake
level of 6,392 ft. asl will take about 20 years, under the assumption the current project continues
without process change (Mono Lake Committee, 2020d). Located in Mono County, California
the lake is threatened by the same forces affecting much of California - climate change, drought,
and demand for water supply. Containing its own ecosystem as well as being surrounded by the
Sierra Nevadas, allowing the lake to become obsolete would be a loss of both ecology and
history.
Nevertheless, according to NRDC (2020),
● through stormwater capture California could harvest .4-.6 million ac-ft of water per year,
● through water reuse California could harvest 1.2-1.8 million ac-ft of water per year, and
● through urban efficiency California could save 2.9-5.2 million ac-ft of water per year.
Various studies have shown that a major consideration of Mono Lake’s falling level is runoff
reduction as precipitation patterns change with the warming planet. While diversion contributes
to lake level as well, reducing diversion percentages extensively would be difficult due to the
reliance placed on it; many areas of California already struggle with lack of fresh water
resources. Therefore, the optimal solution for Mono Lake is creating a balance within the urban
and natural environment through rain collection. Excess runoff from Los Angeles as well as
major highways can make up for what cuts to diversion can’t, as well as protect the environment
long after restoration is complete.
 Bibliography

Abplanalp, J. (2015, March 12). THE GEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF MONO LAKE.

Mammoth Lakes California.

https://www.visitmammoth.com/blogs/geology-and-history-mono-lake/

Bartshe. (2015, June 9). Mono Lake Mired in Drought. Mono Lake Committee.

http://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lake-mired-in-drought/

CA State Parks. (2018). Mono Lake Tufa National Reserve / Mono Basin National Scenic Forest.

California State Parks.

https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/514/files/MonoLakeFinalWebLayout2018.pdf

Foothill College. (2010). Hydraulic Mining in California. History Engine.

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/courses/view/51

Funkhouser, D. (2013, December 6). Climate Change and the Future of Mono Lake. State of the

Planet.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/12/06/mining-mono-lakes-rich-store-of-climate-histor

y/

Little, J. B. (2016, April 27). Mono Lake Facing Another Crisis. The New Humanitarian.

https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/articles/2016/04/27/mono-lake-facing-anoth

er-crisis

Mono Basin Historical Society. (2016). Mono Basin History Overview. Mono Basin History

Museum. https://www.monobasinhistory.org/history

Mono Lake Committee. (2020). The Mono Lake Story. About Mono Lake.

https://www.monolake.org/about/story
Mono Lake Committee. (2020). Quick Facts. About Mono Lake. Retrieved October 21, 2020,

from https://www.monolake.org/about/stats

Mono Lake Committee. (2020). State of the Lake. Monolake.

http://www.monolake.org/learn/stateofthelake/

Mono Lake Committee. (2020). The unusual rock formations that grace Mono Lake’s shores are

known as tufa. Tufa. http://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/naturalhistory/tufa/

Reis, G. (2018). Mono Lake likely to drop less than a foot this year. Mono Lake News Letter.

http://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lake-mired-in-drought/

USGS. (2020). Long Valley Caldera Field Guide - Mono Lake. Science For a Changing World.

https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/long-valley-caldera/long-valley-caldera-field-guide-mon

o-lake

WETMAAP. (n.d.). Mono Lake Background Information. Educational Information.

http://www.wetmaap.org/Mono_Lake/Supplement/ml_background.html