The International Symposium on Terminus Lakes has a subtitle on the program: “preserving endangered lakes through research.” Gathering reliable information really is the first step in saving a lake—with Mono Lake, the 1976 ecological study laid the groundwork for the formation of the Mono Lake Committee and its early work, and the fight to save the lake over the years benefited from the many other studies of the ecosystem.
With the Walker Lake watershed north of Mono Lake, this need for data is being filled by $10-20 million of federally funded studies leading up to this symposium. On Tuesday October 27, 2009, the symposium at the University of Nevada Reno featured the Walker Basin Project. 13 studies in the basin were presented in 20-minute presentations. As the day continued with presentation after presentation, I found myself marveling that the Walker Basin was getting so much attention—finally. In my 14 years in the Mono Basin, I had never seen so much attention focused on Walker Lake. But I also had a familiar feeling that I have had in the past when sitting through presentations on Walker Lake—where is the outrage? Where is the passion? Where is the Mono Lake Committee-style advocacy that galvanized the public, swayed decision makers, and captured hearts and imaginations?
In listening to scientific presentations on Walker Lake, I sometimes have this feeling as projects, methodology, results, and conclusions are dispassionately presented—but so little is said about the perpetrators of the problems. Instead of “excessive diversions,” posters talk about water “not routed to the lake.” They seem like euphemisms that tiptoe around difficult politics. I desperately want someone to stand up and give us the straight news, the bad news, show some outrage and disgust at what we’ve allowed to happen to this magical marvel in the desert. A few speakers do that.
Walker Lake, Nevada, is a terminal lake at the end of an over-allocated watershed. Excessive water diversions from the Walker River in Bridgeport, Antelope, Smith, and Mason Valleys began causing Walker Lake to drop beginning in the 1860s. Now, it is 150 feet lower, with less than half its former surface area and 1/5 of the volume and about 5 times higher salinity. The Walker River in most years dries up before reaching the lake. The fishery is collapsing. And century-old water rights seem to some people to be politically untouchable, even if the lake must die. It is the same story as the Klamath River, without as much press. Luckily Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid secured funding to obtain water rights for the lake, and an Environmental Impact Statement on the project was recently completed (and the Mono Lake Committee commented on it, sharing our experience and advocating for the same solutions that saved Mono Lake). This is hopefully not too little, too late.
There were ten more presentations the following day, but today the thirteen presentations started with looking at the Walker River—documenting incision, erosion, and sedimentation—all familiar problems like we have in the Mono Basin where streams meet Mono Lake. Then three presentations focused on the benthic macroinvertebrates and algae in the Walker River—again, a refreshing look at a too-long ignored and very much impaired river system.
After lunch, Sudeep Chandra talked about Walker Lake’s ecology in general terms. He showed modeling results that indicate 120,000 acre-feet per year is needed to stabilize the lake and 140,000 acre-feet per year to increase the lake level. His presentation was followed by Thomas Dilts discussing a study that documented the vegetation change in the basin between settlement and today based on General Land Office maps and notes, and on a 1905 US Bureau of Reclamation survey. Ironically, the basin now contains 19 times the cottonwoods that it did a century ago (in the irrigated areas), although there has been a 56% loss on the lower portion of the river.
Next was a study that used fiber optic cables to detect soil temperature and derive soil moisture. It was followed by a study on Lepidium latifolium’s use of soil water, then three studies on agricultural economics of various crops that use less water than alfalfa, which makes up 70% of the irrigated acreage. Then there was a model for analyzing the effect of water rights acquisitions. It seems like all the tools are falling into place to make good decisions about which water rights to buy first, and where to implement efficiency measures. But time is running out, as the next presenter emphasized.
The final presenter of the day was Dave Herbst, who in the past studied and testified about the Mono Lake alkali fly and is now working on Walker Lake’s benthic invertebrates. Much like he studied the effect of different salinities on Mono Lake’s alkali fly, he presented similar information for two midges and a damselfly in Walker Lake. He also documented the absence of organisms that have disappeared during the last decade of increasing salinity, as well as the presence of some rare invertebrates—including Mono Lake’s alkali fly, which will become more common if the salinity continues to rise.
At current salinities many organisms are near thresholds and will die out if the lake loses another 25% of its volume—even though the damselfly is at peak abundance right now because the fish that predate on it are being wiped out by the long term sustained water mismanagement in the watershed.
Visit the Walker Lake Project Website.
Coming Soon: Terminus Lakes Symposium Part 4—Mono Lake’s far flung friends and lake-effect snow and mergansers