Decades ago, L.A. was ordered to take less water to save Mono Lake. But the city remains far from a key goal – Los Angeles Times

Report on the Ecological Status and Sustainable Management of Mono Lake

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

This report examines the ongoing environmental challenges at Mono Lake, California, focusing on the failure to meet mandated water levels due to diversions by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). The situation presents a critical case study in the conflict between urban water needs and environmental preservation, touching upon several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The core issue is the non-compliance with a 1994 State Water Resources Control Board decision requiring the lake to be raised to a specific level to ensure its ecological health. This failure has direct implications for biodiversity, public health, and the integrity of governance, challenging the principles of sustainable development.

2.0 Ecological Degradation and Implications for SDG 14 & SDG 15

2.1 Ecosystem Profile

• Mono Lake is a saline terminal lake, replenished by creeks from the Sierra Nevada.
• It serves as a vital habitat and stopover point for over 300 species of migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway, which depend on its brine shrimp and alkali flies. This directly relates to the protection of biodiversity as outlined in SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• The lake’s unique saline ecosystem also falls under the purview of SDG 14 (Life Below Water), which aims to conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas, and marine resources.

2.2 Current Status and Environmental Stressors

1. Water Level Deficit: A 1994 state mandate required the DWP to take steps to raise the lake level by 17 feet to an elevation of 6,392 feet. Over 30 years later, the lake remains approximately 9 feet below this target, indicating a systemic failure in environmental restoration.
2. Impact on Biodiversity (SDG 15): The low water levels are linked to a significant decline in bird populations. Biologists have observed a major nesting failure among California gulls, with a sharp drop in chick survival. The overall gull population has reportedly halved, indicating severe stress on the ecosystem and a failure to protect life on land.
3. Aquatic Ecosystem Health (SDG 14): Environmental advocates report that the lake suffers from “systemic illness.” Persistently low water levels increase salinity, which can harm the brine shrimp and alkali fly populations that form the base of the lake’s food web, threatening the entire aquatic ecosystem.

3.0 Water Management, Urban Needs, and SDG 6

3.1 Historical Context of Water Diversion

• Since 1941, the DWP has diverted water from creeks feeding Mono Lake via the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This gravity-fed system has historically been Los Angeles’s most economical water supply.
• This long-standing practice highlights the central challenge of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), which involves ensuring water availability and sustainable management for all, including the needs of both urban centers and the natural environments from which water is sourced.

3.2 Conflict Between Urban Supply and Environmental Mandates

• The DWP maintains that its management represents a “balanced approach” and that the ecosystem is relatively healthy, attributing lake level fluctuations primarily to wet and dry climate cycles.
• Conversely, environmental groups and local stakeholders argue that DWP’s continued diversions actively prevent the lake’s recovery and undermine the progress made during wet years.
• Advocates propose that Los Angeles must accelerate its transition to sustainable local water sources to achieve SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). This includes greater investment in:
  • Wastewater recycling
  • Stormwater capture
  • Contaminated groundwater cleanup

4.0 Community, Public Health, and Cultural Impacts (SDG 3 & SDG 11)

4.1 Air Quality and Public Health (SDG 3)

• The low lake level has exposed approximately two square miles of salt-encrusted lakebed.
• On windy days, this exposed area emits hazardous dust pollution, compromising regional air quality. This poses a direct threat to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
• The Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District identifies raising the lake level as the most feasible solution to this public health hazard.

4.2 Impact on Local and Indigenous Communities (SDG 11)

• Local residents in Lee Vining express strong sentiment that water should be left in the basin to allow nature to recover.
• The diminished lake and creek flows have impacted the cultural heritage of the Mono Lake Kootzaduka’a Tribe, which has traditionally harvested alkali fly pupae (kootzabe) from the shoreline. The degradation of these lands represents a loss of cultural practice and connection to place.
• These impacts underscore the need for water management to support inclusive and resilient communities, a key target of SDG 11.

5.0 Governance and Institutional Responsibility (SDG 16)

5.1 The 1994 State Water Board Decision

• The 1994 ruling was a landmark decision based on the public trust doctrine, which mandates the preservation of natural resources for public use.
• The decision set a clear target for the lake’s restoration and included a provision for a follow-up hearing if the target was not met by 2014.

5.2 Call for Renewed Regulatory Action

• The mandated hearing is now long overdue, representing a significant lapse in regulatory oversight.
• Environmental advocates and local officials are urging the State Water Resources Control Board to hold a hearing and set new, stricter rules to limit DWP’s diversions.
• This situation is a critical test for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to enforce laws and protect public and environmental rights. The failure to achieve the mandated lake level demonstrates a weakness in the implementation of established environmental protections.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Mono Lake Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The core of the article revolves around the management of freshwater resources, specifically the diversion of water from creeks feeding Mono Lake to supply Los Angeles. This directly engages with issues of water scarcity, sustainable water management, and the health of water-related ecosystems.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article highlights the environmental impact of a large city, Los Angeles, on a distant ecosystem to meet its water demands. It also touches upon the resulting air pollution from the exposed lakebed, which affects the health and well-being of the local community in Lee Vining.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The degradation of the Mono Lake ecosystem is a central theme. The article details the negative impacts on biodiversity, including the decline of migratory bird populations like the California gulls, and the overall “systemic illness in the lake,” which falls squarely under the protection of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The conflict involves multiple stakeholders—environmental groups, a city utility (DWP), local residents, and an Indigenous tribe—and relies on legal and regulatory bodies like the State Water Resources Control Board for resolution. The landmark 1994 decision and the ongoing calls for a new hearing exemplify the need for effective and just institutions to manage environmental disputes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.4: “By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater…” The article discusses L.A.’s need to “lessen reliance on water from the Mono Basin” and mentions alternative strategies like “recycling wastewater, capturing stormwater runoff and cleaning up contaminated groundwater,” which are all methods to increase water-use efficiency and ensure sustainable withdrawals.
   • Target 6.5: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels…” The ongoing debate between the DWP, the Mono Lake Committee, and the State Water Resources Control Board is a direct example of the challenges and necessity of integrated management to balance urban needs with environmental protection.
   • Target 6.6: “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including… lakes.” The entire article is premised on the failure to meet the 1994 commitment to restore the Mono Lake ecosystem by raising its water level. Environmental advocates state the lake “needs more water to recover to full health and vitality.”

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.5: “By 2030, significantly reduce… the number of people affected… caused by disasters…” The article mentions that windy days “kick up dust along exposed stretches of lake bottom, bringing hazardous levels of air pollution.” This dust is an environmental hazard affecting the local population.
   • Target 11.6: “By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality…” The diversion of water by Los Angeles is a direct adverse environmental impact of the city. The resulting dust pollution is a specific air quality issue mentioned, with officials noting it leaves “exposed about 2 square miles of dust-spewing lakebed.”

3. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of… inland freshwater ecosystems…” The central conflict is about restoring the Mono Lake ecosystem. The 1994 state decision set a specific lake level target to achieve this restoration, a goal that the article states is “far from meeting its obligation.”
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity…” The article provides clear evidence of habitat degradation and biodiversity loss. It notes that “ecological conditions are worsening and some bird populations have declined,” specifically citing a “major nesting failure” among California gulls and a long-term population decline where there are “half as many gulls as there used to be.”

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article describes a long-running conflict and the legal process intended to resolve it. The 1994 state water board decision was a result of this process, and the current call for the board to “hold a hearing to ‘determine if any further revisions’ to DWP’s license were necessary” is a demand for responsive and participatory decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Ecosystem Health (Targets 6.6, 15.1)

   • Lake Water Level: This is the primary quantitative indicator used throughout the article. Specific measurements are provided, such as the target level of “6,392 feet above sea level,” the fact that the lake is “still about 9 feet below the required level,” and the recent 5-foot rise due to Sierra Nevada runoff.
   • Lake Salinity: The article mentions the lake is “two and a half times saltier than the ocean” and that its salinity is a key scientific point to be examined in a future state hearing, implying it is a monitored indicator of ecosystem health.

2. For Biodiversity (Target 15.5)

   • Bird Population and Survival Rates: The article provides specific numbers for the California gull population, which serves as a key indicator species. It states that in one year, “researchers found just 324 chicks survived” from over “20,000 adult birds,” and that the overall population is half of what it used to be.

3. For Air Quality (Targets 11.5, 11.6)

   • Area of Exposed Lakebed: Progress in reducing air pollution can be measured by the area of exposed lakebed. The article quantifies this, stating the current water shortfall “leaves exposed about 2 square miles of dust-spewing lakebed.”
   • Air Pollution Levels: The article refers to “hazardous levels of air pollution” being monitored by the “Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District,” implying that data on particulate matter (dust) during wind events is a measurable indicator.

4. For Sustainable Water Use (Target 6.4)

   • Volume of Water Diversions: The amount of water L.A. diverts from the Mono Basin creeks is a direct indicator of the pressure on the ecosystem. The article notes that DWP “ended up diverting a significantly larger quantity of water” than initially planned in the past year.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: latimes.com