LADWP Hosts Mono Basin Presentation at Pacific Palisades Community Council Meeting

By SARAH SHMERLING | Editor-in-Chief

Pacific Palisades Community Council hosted a presentation on Thursday, March 9, by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power regarding the State Water Resources Control Board’s upcoming decision on whether or not the agency can continue to divert up to 16,000 acre-feet of water from the Mono Basin each year.

The Mono Lake Committee sent a letter on December 16, 2022, to the State Water Resources Control Board, requesting an “emergency action to protect Mono Lake and its public trust resources.”

“A combination of drought and continuing climate disruptions is imposing severe impacts on all of us—in Los Angeles, here in the Eastern Sierra and throughout California,” the letter read. “For Mono Lake, which is already artificially low due to decades of water diversions by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the most urgent and immediate threat is to the California Gull population.”

On February 15, State Water Board hosted a workshop to discuss a potential emergency action to protect the gulls. The Mono Lake Committee was joined by the Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, according to its website.

“This year the lake has dropped so low that coyotes can access nesting islands that support one of the world’s largest nesting California Gull populations, creating a high risk of colony depredation and disruption,” according to the Mono Lake Committee. “Gulls are considered leading indicators of the overall health of the lake ecosystem.”

Clint Kautsky, a civil engineer speaking on behalf of LADWP, attended the March 9 PPCC meeting to deliver a presentation on Mono Lake—one of the “critical sources of water for citizens of LA,” according to LADWP.

“We don’t have our own water source,” Kautsky explained of LA’s water supply. “We bring water in from three separate sources, like three straws drinking out of the pool.”

Two of the three sources—California State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct—are made available to the city through Metropolitan Water District, which is a water broker.

“Anytime we pick water from these sources,” Kautsky explained, “this is what’s called ‘purchase water.’”

The third source, the city-owned LA Aqueduct, gathers water from “all along the Eastern Sierras,” through the “northern-most source in Mono Basin.” LA receives anywhere from 10 to 50% of its supplies from the Eastern Sierra through the LA Aqueduct, according to Kautsky’s presentation, which is based on snowpacks. This includes up to 16,000 acre-feet of supplies from the Mono Basin, depending on annual lake levels—LA’s “most cost-effective water source.”

Water from the LA Aqueduct is about $75 per acre-foot—“a football field with the end-zones about a foot deep in water,” Kautsky explained—compared to about $1,200 per acre-foot from the California State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct.

The amount of water LADWP takes from Mono Basin each year depends on the water elevation of the lake, Kautsky explained, a threshold that was set in 1994. The agency currently takes about 4,500 acre-feet, according to the LA Times.

“Part of that is also the thresholds that are set for protection of the lake,” Kautsky continued, “and its resources and its habitat.”

“There are no emergency conditions, and the gulls are not in danger,” according to LADWP. “Lake levels are nearly four feet higher than the SWRCB threshold.”

Kautsky reported during the meeting that the lake, with a depth of 150 feet, is sitting at an elevation of 6,380 feet, while 6,375 feet is when the landbridge to Negit Island would appear. The “aspirational target” for the lake elevation is 6,391.

PPCC Vice-Chair Jenny Li posed a question during the meeting about how long it would take to reach the aspirational level if diverting water was halted, which Kautsky explained is “a very complicated question,” due to variables.

“The current models that we have predicted anywhere from 20 to 40 years to refill the lake if we were to stop taking our diversions,” Kautsky said. “Even if we do keep our diversions … it doesn’t change how quickly the lake fills back up, the model says the same.”

Replacing the missing water could cost Los Angeles ratepayers between $18 and $44 million per year by 2045, according to LADWP, depending on the year. LADWP also generates electricity off of the water to power about 179,000 residents for the year.

“LADWP is doing everything possible to expand local supplies and reduce reliance on imports,” according to Kautsky’s presentation, including conservation, water recycling, stormwater projects and increasing groundwater storage capacity.

Kautsky explained that “imported water”—including from the LA Aqueduct, State Water Project and Colorado River—constitute “foundational supplies” to “keep local supply projects running smoothly.”

“Without LA Aqueduct supplies, LA’s entire water system would be less stable,” according to the presentation. “We would have less water to store, recycle and conserve.”

The PPCC Board voted at the end of the discussion in favor of a motion to support LADWP’s efforts.

“Los Angeles residents have a human right to safe, clean, affordable and reliable water,” the motion read. “Water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct is the city’s most cost-effective water supply and is the backbone of the city’s water system. Revoking LADWP’s ability to utilize the Mono Basin rights belonging to Angelenos … will jeopardize our community’s access to water and further burden low-income Los Angeles ratepayers.”

The motion explained that the “cost of sustainability” in the city has “long fallen on the backs of ratepayers,” which residents have “taken in stride because it has meant creating a more water-resilient future.” But “no amount of conservation” will allow LA to be “fully independent of water supplies,” so losing supplies from “LA Aqueduct will only force” LA to receive water from other sources.

“Many in our community are already struggling to meet their basic needs,” the motion concluded. “With as many as 50% of Los Angeles residents living in disadvantaged communities, we cannot afford to shoulder an additional expense nor risk reliable access to clean water from our taps. Therefore, we oppose the restriction placed on LADWP.”

State Water Board staff will be accepting written comments on the workshop from individual rate payers through March 17 at 4 p.m. They can be sent to monolake@waterboards.ca.gov.

“The Mono Lake Committee does not submit this emergency request lightly,” the December letter read. “We understand that the drought has caused serious shortages for water users in many parts of the state, and that LADWP is rightfully concerned about where it will get water to replace the 4,500 acre-feet (less than 1% of the city’s supply) the emergency regulation would require to remain at Mono Lake. We see this ecological crisis—imposed on all of us—as an opportunity for further collaboration, a new generation of cooperation and, working together, successful joint investment in contemporary solutions.”