East Shore Stories

There are many interesting stories like this, some unintentional consequences of a lake on the rise, a few anecdotal, one very significant, with great implications for the future of water use in California. Twenty years ago as the struggle to protect Mono Lake began, no one could have imagined that Los Angeles would emerge as one of the most savvy urban water users in the entire United States.

With the national average for residential water consumption standing at 180 gallons per person per day--indoor and outdoor use combined--Los Angeles citizens are some of the most efficient water users in the state. According to Department of Water and Power figures, Los Angeles residents use 135 gallons per person per day. With the recent wet years (which often allow people to become more casual about water use) this is an impressive statistic. The City's water use is perhaps the lowest among California's major urban populations, edging out per capita water consumption in many Bay Area communities while staying well below cities like Fresno and Sacramento.

This amazing accomplishment has as much to do with the struggle to protect Mono Lake as the lessons of the last drought. The Mono Lake Committee helped provide replacement water for past Mono Basin diversions, and public relations, adept lobbying, astute strategizing, and education became important water conservation tools.

Drought demonstrated just how much the City could save through conservation efforts. In 1990, during the height of the 1988Ð1993 drought, the Department of Water and Power launched mandatory water rationing. The city cut water use up to 30% in 1991 with simple water conservation. With ongoing conservation efforts, like the continued distribution of ultra low-flush toilets (ULFTs) and other institutional efforts, the water saved during future droughts could be even more substantial. Even now, total residential use is nearly 20% lower than it was in the 1980s, and with the constantly increasing population of LA, this is an amazing statistic. You can still occasionally spot people hosing off sidewalks and driveways, but this is far less common than it once was, and odds are, it's an indication of who has moved to LA since the last drought.

Saving water through water reclamation is another consequence of the Mono Lake success. A deal struck between the State, the City of Los Angeles, and the Mono Lake Committee in 1993 targeted state funds to develop a water reclamation plant in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. The East Valley water reclamation plant will soon return 35,000 acre feet of recycled water a year to the local aquifer, replenishing groundwater supplies. And Central and West Basin's existing water reclamation facility in El Segundo already recycles 50 million gallons of tertiary-treated wastewater from Los Angeles' Hyperion plant. Each day, water from the El Segundo plant is available for groundwater recharge and commercial and industrial use, replacing traditional uses of fresh water. These projects and others coming on line make Southern California the national leader in water reclamation. Not only is water reclamation offsetting diversions from the Mono Basin, but it is reducing the amount of treated sewage being dumped into the Santa Monica Bay.

Los Angeles, and in fact all of Southern California, has dramatically reduced consumption compared to twenty years ago when efforts to protect Mono Lake were just beginning. The distribution of ULFTs, development of water reclamation facilities, and the water industry's increasing realization that conservation and reclamation actually work have grown from the struggle to protect Mono Lake and the hard lessons of drought.

The southern third of the state is often blamed for a host of modern frustrations, inefficient water use among them; however, Los Angeles' reputation as a careless watermonger is no longer valid.

The recent history of Mono Lake and Los Angeles holds a valuable lesson for the future of water in California and the West: conservation and reclamation do work. We now have the opportunity to meet urban water needs while reducing impact on their watersheds.

In all cases this makes good sense, and in some it is the legal requirement. The California Supreme Court's 1983 Public Trust ruling established that the water rights of Los Angeles could be modified to protect the Public Trust values of Mono Lake. No longer could California cities sequester new supplies of water with disregard to the Public Trust values of healthy ecosystems, recreation, and aesthetics. Some people will point out that the landmark Public Trust decision is what really guarantees Mono Lake's protection. To a large degree they are correct; however the decision contains some very interesting wording: "before state courts and agencies approve water diversions they should consider the effect of such diversions upon interests protected by the public trust, and attempt, so far as feasible, to avoid or minimize any harm to those interests."

This conjures up deeper questions. What is feasible? The fight to protect Mono Lake precipitated institutional changes in the Southern California water industry that today more than compensate for past Mono Basin diversions. But have these changes gone far enough? Is it possible for water conservation and reclamation to go further? Are there other alternatives that minimize impacts on watersheds? The water industry claims that conservation and reclamation cannot keep pace with population growth and increasing demand, and argues that it is already doing all that can be done. The history of water in the West demonstrates that "so far as feasible" is a question of perspective and priority.

With an estimated 49 million people in California by the year 2020, and the threat of drought further limiting an already limited fresh water supply, one could make a gloomy educated guess about the future of California's water. But our understanding of the future can now be enlightened by our past, for Mono Lake has demonstrated that with singular dedication, feasible solutions can appear where none were before. Mono Lake does not have to be the exception in the history of California water.

In the late 1970s, when efforts on behalf of Mono Lake gathered momentum, no one envisioned sections of boardwalks floating on the lake's rising waters or the transformation of water use in Los Angeles. These are the unforeseen consequences of two decades of hard work on behalf of a remote saline lake and on behalf of the City of Los Angeles. Mono Lake is a catalyst, where the water needs of people can finally be balanced with the water needed to sustain healthy watersheds. The water problems facing California today are much bigger and more complicated than Mono Lake, but the solutions may be similar. With the fate of the Bay-Delta, climatic uncertainties, and substantial population growth looming ahead, the lesson of Mono Lake becomes increasingly relevant.