Hubbry Logo
Mono LakeMono LakeMain
Open search
Mono Lake
Community hub
Mono Lake
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mono Lake
Mono Lake
Mono Lake
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mono Lake (/ˈmoʊnoʊ/ MOH-noh) is a saline soda lake in Mono County, California, formed at least 760,000 years ago as a terminal lake in an endorheic basin. The lack of an outlet causes high levels of salts to accumulate in the lake which make its water alkaline.[3]

Key Information

The desert lake has an unusually productive ecosystem based on brine shrimp, which thrive in its waters, and provides critical habitat for two million annual migratory birds that feed on the shrimp and alkali flies (Ephydra hians).[4][5] Historically, the native Kutzadika'a people ate the alkali flies' pupae, which live in the shallow waters around the edge of the lake.[6]

When the city of Los Angeles diverted water from the freshwater streams flowing into the lake, the lake level dropped, imperiling the migratory birds. The Mono Lake Committee formed in response and won a legal battle that forced Los Angeles to partially replenish the lake level.[7]

Geology

[edit]

Mono Lake lies within the Mono Basin, an endorheic basin with no outlet to the ocean. Dissolved salts in the runoff thus remain in the lake, raising the water's pH and salt concentration. The tributaries of Mono Lake include Lee Vining Creek, Rush Creek and Mill Creek which flows through Lundy Canyon.[8]

Geological forces formed the basin over the last five million years: basin and range crustal stretching and associated volcanism and faulting at the base of the Sierra Nevada.[9]: 45 

Image of Mono Lake from space, 1985

From 4.5 to 2.6 million years ago, large volumes of basalt were extruded around what is now Cowtrack Mountain (east and south of Mono Basin); eventually covering 300 square miles (780 km2) and reaching a maximum thickness of 600 feet (180 m).[9]: 45  Later volcanism in the area occurred 3.8 million to 250,000 years ago.[9]: 46  This activity was northwest of Mono Basin and included the formation of Aurora Crater, Beauty Peak, Cedar Hill (later an island in the highest stands of Mono Lake), and Mount Hicks.[citation needed]

Lake Russell was the prehistoric predecessor to Mono Lake, during the Pleistocene. Its shoreline reached the modern-day elevation of 7,480 feet (2,280 m), about 1,100 feet (330 m) higher than the present-day lake. As of 1.6 million years ago, Lake Russell discharged to the northeast, into the Walker River drainage. After the Long Valley Caldera eruption 760,000 years ago, Lake Russell discharged into Adobe Lake to the southeast, then into the Owens River, and eventually into Lake Manly in Death Valley.[10] Prominent shore lines of Lake Russell, called strandlines by geologists, can be seen west of Mono Lake.[11]

The area around Mono Lake is currently geologically active. Volcanic activity is related to the Mono–Inyo Craters: the most recent eruption occurred 350 years ago, resulting in the formation of Paoha Island.[12] Panum Crater (on the south shore of the lake) is an example of a combined rhyolite dome and cinder cone.[13]

Map of the Mono Lake area, showing geological features
Map of the Mono Lake area showing geological features
Map showing the system of once-interconnected Pleistocene lakes in eastern California
Map showing the system of once-interconnected Pleistocene lakes
Relief map of Mono Lake and the surrounding area
Relief map of Mono Lake and the surrounding area

Tufa towers

[edit]

Many columns of limestone rise above the surface of Mono Lake. These limestone towers consist primarily of calcium carbonate minerals such as calcite (CaCO3). This type of limestone rock is called tufa, a term for limestone that forms at low to moderate temperatures.[14]

Tufa tower formation

[edit]

Mono Lake is a highly alkaline lake, or soda lake. Alkalinity is a measure of how many bases are in a solution, and how well the solution can neutralize acids. Carbonate (CO32-) and bicarbonate (HCO3−) are both bases. Hence, Mono Lake has a very high content of dissolved inorganic carbon. Through supply of calcium ions (Ca2+), the water will precipitate carbonate-minerals such as calcite (CaCO3). Subsurface waters enter the bottom of Mono Lake through small springs. High concentrations of dissolved calcium ions in these subsurface waters cause huge amounts of calcite to precipitate around the spring orifices.[15]

The tufa originally formed at the bottom of the lake. It took many decades, or even centuries, to form the well-known tufa towers. When lake levels fell, the tufa towers rose above the water surface and stand as the pillars seen today (see Mono lake#Lake Level History for more information).[16]

Tufa morphology

[edit]
These are original sketches of thinolite made by Edward S. Dana from his book from 1884: Crystallographic Study of the Thinolite of Lake Lahontan.[17]

Description of the Mono Lake tufa dates back to the 1880s, when Edward S. Dana and Israel C. Russell made the first systematic descriptions of the Mono Lake tufa.[18][17] The tufa occurs as "modern" tufa towers. There are tufa sections from old shorelines, when the lake levels were higher. These pioneering works on tufa morphology are cited by researchers and were confirmed by James R. Dunn in 1953. The tufa types can roughly be divided into three main categories based on morphology:[15][19]

  • Lithoid tufa - massive and porous with a rock-like appearance
  • Dendritic tufa - branching structures that look similar to small shrubs
  • Thinolitic tufa - large, well-formed crystals of several centimeters

Over time, many hypotheses have been developed regarding the formation of the large thinolite crystals (also referred to as glendonite) in thinolitic tufa. It was relatively clear that the thinolites represented a calcite pseudomorph after some unknown original crystal.[17] The original crystal was only determined when the mineral ikaite was discovered in 1963.[20] Ikaite, or hexahydrated CaCO3, is metastable and only crystallizes at near-freezing temperatures. It is also believed that calcite crystallization inhibitors, such as phosphate, magnesium, and organic carbon, may help stabilize ikaite.[21] When heated, ikaite breaks down and becomes replaced by smaller crystals of calcite.[22][23] In the Ikka Fjord of Greenland, ikaite was also observed to grow in columns similar to the tufa towers of Mono Lake.[24] This has led scientists to believe that thinolitic tufa is an indicator of past climates in Mono Lake because they reflect very cold temperatures.[25]

Tufa chemistry

[edit]

Russell (1883) studied the chemical composition of the different tufa types in Lake Lahontan, a large Pleistocene system of multiple lakes in California, Nevada, and Oregon. Not surprisingly, it was found that the tufas consisted primarily of CaO and CO2. However, they also contain minor constituents of MgO (~2 wt%), Fe/Al-oxides (.25-1.29 wt%), and PO5 (0.3 wt%).[citation needed]

Climate

[edit]
Climate data for Mono Lake, CA
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 66
(19) 		68
(20) 		72
(22) 		80
(27) 		87
(31) 		96
(36) 		97
(36) 		95
(35) 		91
(33) 		85
(29) 		74
(23) 		65
(18) 		97
(36)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 40.4
(4.7) 		44.5
(6.9) 		50.5
(10.3) 		58.4
(14.7) 		67.6
(19.8) 		76.6
(24.8) 		83.8
(28.8) 		82.7
(28.2) 		75.9
(24.4) 		65.5
(18.6) 		51.7
(10.9) 		42.2
(5.7) 		61.7
(16.5)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 19.7
(−6.8) 		21.5
(−5.8) 		24.8
(−4.0) 		29.5
(−1.4) 		36.4
(2.4) 		43.2
(6.2) 		49.6
(9.8) 		49.0
(9.4) 		42.8
(6.0) 		34.6
(1.4) 		27.3
(−2.6) 		21.8
(−5.7) 		33.4
(0.7)
Record low °F (°C) −14
(−26) 		−9
(−23) 		1
(−17) 		12
(−11) 		16
(−9) 		25
(−4) 		27
(−3) 		32
(0) 		18
(−8) 		8
(−13) 		2
(−17) 		−8
(−22) 		−14
(−26)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 2.17
(55) 		2.21
(56) 		1.38
(35) 		0.66
(17) 		0.57
(14) 		0.36
(9.1) 		0.55
(14) 		0.45
(11) 		0.63
(16) 		0.64
(16) 		1.96
(50) 		2.32
(59) 		13.9
(352.1)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 15.5
(39) 		15.3
(39) 		11.4
(29) 		3.1
(7.9) 		0.4
(1.0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0.7
(1.8) 		7.6
(19) 		12.0
(30) 		66
(166.7)
Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5779

Limnology

[edit]
Mono Lake's "South Tufa" area.

The limnology of the lake shows that it contains approximately 280 million tons of dissolved salts, with salinity varying with the amount of water in the lake at any given time. Before 1941, average salinity was approximately 50 grams per liter (g/L) (compared to a value of 31.5 g/L for the world's oceans). In January 1982, when the lake reached its lowest level of 1,942 metres (6,372 ft), the salinity had nearly doubled to 99 g/L. In 2002, it was measured at 78 g/L and is expected to stabilize at an average of 69 g/L as the lake replenishes over the next 20 years.[26]

An unintended consequence of ending the water diversions was the onset of a period of "meromixis" in Mono Lake.[27] In the time before this, Mono Lake was typically "monomictic"; which means that at least once each year the deeper waters and the shallower waters of the lake mixed thoroughly, thus bringing oxygen and other nutrients to the deep waters. In meromictic lakes, the deeper waters do not undergo this mixing; the deeper layers are more saline than the water near the surface, and are typically nearly devoid of oxygen. As a result, becoming meromictic greatly changes a lake's ecology.[28]

Mono Lake has experienced meromictic periods in the past; the most recent episode of meromixis, brought on by the end of water diversions, commenced in 1994 and ended by 2004.[29]

Lake-level history

[edit]

An essential characteristic of Mono Lake is that it is a closed lake, meaning it has no outflow. Water can only escape the lake if it evaporates or is lost to groundwater. This may cause closed lakes to become very saline. The reconstruction of historical Mono Lake levels using carbon and oxygen isotopes has also revealed a correlation with well-documented changes in climate.[30]

In the recent past, Earth experienced periods of increased glaciation known as ice ages. This geological period of ice ages is known as the Pleistocene, which lasted until ~11 ka. Lake levels in Mono Lake can reveal how the climate fluctuated. For example, during the Pleistocene, when the climate was colder, the lake level was higher because there was less evaporation and more precipitation. Following the Pleistocene, the lake level was generally lower due to increased evaporation and decreased precipitation associated with a warmer climate.[30]

The lake level has fluctuated during the Holocene, since the end of the ice ages. The Holocene high point is at elevation 6,499 feet (1,980.8 m), reached in approximately 1820 BCE.[31] The low point before modern diversions is at elevation 6,368 feet (1,940.9 m), reached in 143 CE.[31] The lowest modern level due to diversions is at 6,372.0 feet (1,942.2 m), reached in 1980.[32]

Ecology

[edit]
See also: Ecology of California

Aquatic life

[edit]
Large numbers of alkali flies at Mono Lake.
Artemia monica, the Mono Lake brine shrimp.

The hypersalinity and high alkalinity (pH=10 or equivalent to 4 milligrams of NaOH per liter of water) of the lake mean that no fish are native to the lake.[33] An attempt by the California Department of Fish and Game to stock the lake failed.[34]

The whole food chain of the lake is based on the high population of single-celled planktonic algae present in the photic zone of the lake. These algae reproduce rapidly during winter and early spring after winter runoff brings nutrients to the surface layer of water. By March, the lake is "as green as pea soup" with photosynthesizing algae.[35]

The lake is famous for the Mono Lake brine shrimp, Artemia monica, a tiny species of brine shrimp, no bigger than a thumbnail, that is endemic to the lake. During the warmer summer months, an estimated 4–6 trillion brine shrimp inhabit the lake. Brine shrimp have no nutritional value for humans but are a staple for birds in the region. The brine shrimp feed on microscopic algae.[36]

Alkali flies, Ephydra hians, live along the lake's shores and swim underwater, encased in small air bubbles, to graze and lay eggs. These flies are an important food source for migratory and nesting birds.[37]

Eight nematode species were found living in the littoral sediment:[38]

Birds

[edit]
A female Audubon's warbler on tufa in the "South Tufa" area.

Mono Lake is a vital resting and eating stop for migratory shorebirds and has been recognized as a site of international importance by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.[39] Nearly 2,000,000 waterbirds, including 35 species of shorebirds, use Mono Lake to rest and eat for at least part of the year. Some shorebirds that depend on the resources of Mono Lake include American avocets, killdeer, and sandpipers. One to two million eared grebes and phalaropes use Mono Lake during their long migrations.[40]

Late every summer, tens of thousands of Wilson's phalaropes and red-necked phalaropes arrive from their nesting grounds, and feed until they continue their migration to South America or the tropical oceans, respectively.[4]

In addition to migratory birds, a few species spend several months nesting at Mono Lake. Mono Lake has the second largest nesting population of California gulls, Larus californicus, second only to the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Since abandoning the landbridged Negit Island in the late 1970s, California gulls have moved to some nearby islets and have established new, if less protected, nesting sites. Cornell University and Point Blue Conservation Science have continued the study of nesting populations in Mono Lake that began 35 years ago. Snowy plovers also arrive at Mono Lake each spring to nest along the northern and eastern shores.[41]

History

[edit]
Exposed tufa towers in Mono Lake; South Tufa (1981).

Native Americans

[edit]
Further information: Population of Native California

The indigenous people of Mono Lake are from a band of the Northern Paiute, called the Kutzadika'a.[42] They speak the Northern Paiute language.[43] The Kutzadika'a traditionally forage alkali fly pupae, called kutsavi in their language.

The term "Mono" is derived from "Monachi", a Yokuts term for the tribes that live on both the east and west side of the Sierra Nevada.[44]

During early contact, the first known Mono Lake Paiute chief was Captain John.[45]

The Mono tribe has two bands: Eastern and Western. The Eastern Mono joined the Western Mono bands' villages annually at Hetch Hetchy Valley, Yosemite Valley, and along the Merced River to gather acorns, different plant species, and to trade. The Western Mono and Eastern Mono traditionally lived in the south-central Sierra Nevada foothills, including Historical Yosemite Valley.[46]

Present day Mono Reservations are currently located in Big Pine, Bishop, and several in Madera County and Fresno County, California.[citation needed]

Conservation efforts

[edit]
Mono Lake viewed from the summit of Mount Dana. Note near-landbridge at left, almost connecting Negit Island with the mainland shoreline.
Aerial view of Mono Lake in May 2019, with generous snow pack promising a good summer for the lake.
Further information: California Water Wars

The city of Los Angeles diverted water from the Owens River into the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913. In 1941, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power extended the Los Angeles Aqueduct system farther northward into the Mono Basin with the completion of the Mono Craters Tunnel[47] between the Grant Lake Reservoir on Rush Creek and the Upper Owens River. So much water was diverted that evaporation soon exceeded inflow and the surface level of Mono Lake fell rapidly. By 1982, the lake was reduced to 37,688 acres (15,252 ha), 69 percent of its 1941 surface area. By 1990, the lake had dropped 45 vertical feet and had lost half its volume relative to the 1941 pre-diversion water level.[48] As a result, alkaline sands and formerly submerged tufa towers became exposed, the water salinity doubled, and Negit Island became a peninsula, exposing the nests of California gulls to predators (such as coyotes), and forcing the gull colony to abandon this site.[49]

In 1974, ecologist David Gaines and his student David Winkler studied the Mono Lake ecosystem and became instrumental in alerting the public of the effects of the lower water level with Winkler's 1976 ecological inventory of the Mono Basin.[50] The National Science Foundation funded the first comprehensive ecological study of Mono Lake, conducted by Gaines and undergraduate students. In June 1977, the Davis Institute of Ecology at the University of California published a report, "An Ecological Study of Mono Lake, California," which alerted California to the ecological dangers posed by the diversion of water from the lake for municipal use.[50]

Gaines formed the Mono Lake Committee in 1978. He and Sally Judy, a UC Davis student, led the committee and pursued an informational tour of California. They joined the Audubon Society in a now-famous court battle, National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, to protect Mono Lake through state public trust laws.[50] While these efforts have resulted in positive change, the surface level is still below historical levels, and exposed shorelines are a source of significant alkaline dust during periods of high winds.[51]

Owens Lake, the once-navigable terminus of the Owens River, which had sustained a healthy ecosystem, is now a dry lakebed during dry years due to water diversions beginning in the 1920s. Mono Lake was spared this fate when the California State Water Resources Control Board (after over a decade of litigation) issued an order (SWRCB Decision 1631) to protect Mono Lake and its tributary streams on September 28, 1994.[52] SWRCB Board Vice-chair Marc Del Piero was the sole Hearing Officer (see D-1631). In 1941 the surface level was at 6,417 feet (1,956 m) above sea level.[32] As of October 2022, Mono Lake was at 6,378.7 feet (1,944 m) above sea level.[32] The lake level of 6,392 feet (1,948 m) above sea level is the goal, designed to ensure that the lake would be able to reach and sustain a minimum surface level that is generally agreed to be the minimum for keeping the ecosystem healthy.[53] It has been more difficult during years of drought in the American West.[54]

Mono Lake as seen from California State Route 120 (Mono Mills Road) on south
[edit]
"South Tufa, Mono Lake" (2013).

Artwork

[edit]

In 1968, the artist Robert Smithson made Mono Lake Non-Site (Cinders near Black Point)[55] using pumice collected while visiting Mono on July 27, 1968, with his wife Nancy Holt and Michael Heizer (both prominent visual artists). In 2004, Nancy Holt made a short film entitled Mono Lake using Super 8 footage and photographs of this trip. An audio recording by Smithson and Heizer, two songs by Waylon Jennings, and Michel Legrand's Le Jeu, the main theme of Jacques Demy's film Bay of Angels (1963), were used for the soundtrack.[56]

The Diver, a photo taken by Aubrey Powell of Hipgnosis for Pink Floyd's album Wish You Were Here (1975), features what appears to be a man diving into a lake, creating no ripples. The photo was taken at Mono Lake, and the tufa towers are a prominent part of the landscape. The effect was actually created when the diver performed a handstand underwater until the ripples dissipated.[57]

In print

[edit]

Mark Twain's Roughing It, published in 1872, provides an informative early description of Mono Lake in its natural condition in the 1860s.[58][59] Twain found the lake to be lying "in a lifeless, treeless, hideous desert... the loneliest place on earth."[60][61]

In film

[edit]

A scene featuring a volcano in the film Fair Wind to Java (1953) was shot at Mono Lake.[62]

Most of the film High Plains Drifter (1973) by Clint Eastwood was shot on the southern shores of Mono Lake in the 1970s. An entire town was built here for the film, and later removed when shooting was complete.[63]

In music

[edit]

The music video for glam metal band Cinderella's 1988 power ballad "Don't Know What You Got ('Till It's Gone)" was filmed by the lake.[64]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mono Lake

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Mono Lake is a large, shallow, hypersaline soda lake in Mono County, eastern California, formed at least 760,000 years ago as the terminal remnant of a much larger Pleistocene freshwater body known as Lake Russell in an endorheic basin at the eastern base of the Sierra Nevada. Its waters, with salinity approximately twice that of seawater and a pH around 9.8, support a distinctive ecosystem lacking fish but dominated by trillions of endemic brine shrimp (Artemia monica) and alkali flies (Ephydra hians), which form dense swarms and serve as primary food for millions of migratory birds, including eared grebes and phalaropes. The lake is also characterized by prominent tufa towers—calcium carbonate spires formed by interaction of underwater springs with lake chemistry—that were largely submerged until modern hydrological changes exposed them. Geologically, Mono Lake lies within an active volcanic field, with islands like Paoha and Negit formed by recent eruptions and uplifts, contributing to its dynamic basin setting amid surrounding craters and calderas. Ecologically, its closed-basin nature concentrates dissolved minerals, including high arsenic levels cycled by microbes, underscoring adaptations in its prokaryotic communities that influence carbon fixation. Significant controversy arose from mid-20th-century diversions of tributary streams by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power starting in 1941, which lowered the lake level by over a third, exposing lakebed dust sources, eroding tufa, and endangering bird habitats, prompting a successful public trust doctrine lawsuit by the National Audubon Society that reached the California Supreme Court and led to State Water Resources Control Board mandates for minimum levels and stream restoration to preserve the lake's viability. Restoration efforts continue amid climate variability and water demands, with ongoing debates over diversion limits to balance urban needs against ecological integrity.

Physical Characteristics

Geological Formation and Setting


Mono Lake lies within the Mono Basin, a north-south elongated tectonic depression in the western Basin and Range Province of eastern California, formed primarily through extensional faulting and subsidence along normal faults. This structural setting arises from the broader tectonic regime of the Walker Lane belt, a domain of dextral shear and localized extension that accommodates part of the relative motion between the Pacific and North American plates, with activity intensifying since the Miocene. The basin's boundaries are defined by range-front faults, such as those along the Sierra Nevada to the west and the Bodie Hills to the east, which have facilitated down-dropping of the basin floor relative to adjacent uplands, creating a closed endorheic system that traps precipitation and runoff. Volcanic processes have significantly shaped the Mono Basin's evolution, with mafic eruptions initiating around 3.6 million years ago, producing trachybasalt and trachyandesite flows that blanketed approximately 3,900 km². Subsequent rhyolitic activity, linked to the adjacent Long Valley Caldera—formed 760,000 years ago by the cataclysmic eruption of over 300 km³ of Bishop Tuff—deposited thick ignimbrites and influenced basin subsidence through associated magma withdrawal. The Mono-Inyo Craters, a 45-km chain of vents extending northwest from the caldera into Mono Lake, record episodic explosive and effusive rhyolitic eruptions from approximately 40,000 years ago to as recently as 600 years ago, forming domes, coulees, and obsidian flows that locally obstructed drainages and contributed to the basin's volcanic stratigraphy. The lake itself represents a shrunken remnant of Pleistocene Lake Russell, a much larger pluvial body that occupied the basin during wetter interglacial periods, reaching depths up to 200 m and connecting hydrologically with adjacent paleolakes like those in Owens Valley. Basin floor lithologies comprise interlayered Quaternary alluvial, lacustrine, and volcanic sediments, with seismic profiles revealing sub-lake topography shaped by pre-existing volcanic constructs and fault scarps overlain by flocculated silts and clays. Sublacustrine volcanism has further modified the setting, as evidenced by the formation of Negit Island around 1,300 years ago and Paoha Island about 250 years ago through rhyodacitic dome extrusion and minor phreatic explosions beneath the lake surface. This ongoing interplay of extension, magmatism, and sedimentation underscores the basin's active geotectonic character.

Tufa Towers and Morphology

Tufa towers at Mono Lake are calcium carbonate structures formed through the interaction of calcium-rich freshwater springs emerging from the lakebed with the carbonate-laden, alkaline lake water, resulting in the precipitation of calcite. These formations develop underwater around spring vents on the lake floor sediments, creating clusters of pinnacles, spires, and knobs that can reach heights of up to 30 feet (9 meters). The primary mineral is calcite, often pseudomorphs after ikaite (CaCO₃·6H₂O), known locally as thinolite, which forms in cold, alkaline conditions before transforming upon exposure. The towers exhibit diverse morphologies, including towering spires, conical mounds, ridges, and intricate sand tufa variants ranging from 6 to 18 inches in height, shaped by localized spring discharge and sediment interactions. Formation occurs exclusively within the lake, ceasing upon exposure to air, as the chemical reaction requires submersion in the hypersaline environment. Significant exposure of these subaqueous structures began in the mid-20th century due to a approximately 40-foot (12-meter) decline in lake level from 1941 to the 1980s, primarily caused by upstream water diversions for export, revealing formations previously hidden beneath the surface. Mono Lake's basin morphology reflects its origin as a volcano-tectonic depression in the Mono Basin, a broad graben-like structure formed by fault subsidence east of the Sierra Nevada, spanning about 2,070 square kilometers (800 square miles). The lake itself occupies a shallow, closed-basin floor with an average depth of around 18 meters (60 feet) historically, though current depths vary due to level fluctuations, featuring irregular contours, two principal volcanic islands (Paoha and Negit), and numerous islets that influence tufa distribution along fault-controlled shorelines. Bathymetric profiles indicate deeper central areas transitioning to shallower margins conducive to spring-fed tufa growth, underscoring the interplay between tectonic setting and hydrological processes in shaping the lake's distinctive landforms.

Climatic Influences

Mono Lake lies within a high-elevation semi-arid climate regime, with annual liquid precipitation averaging 11 inches, predominantly falling as winter snow that melts in spring to feed tributary streams. Mean monthly temperatures exhibit strong seasonality, ranging from an average high of 40.5°F and low of 19.7°F in January to highs near 84°F in July, fostering thermal stratification in summer that limits vertical mixing until disrupted by winter winds and cooling. This climatic pattern results in evaporation rates exceeding 1 meter per year, far outpacing direct precipitation on the lake surface and driving net water loss that concentrates dissolved salts and minerals. Over the Holocene epoch, climatic oscillations have profoundly shaped lake levels, with fluctuations exceeding 40 meters in vertical range over the past 3,800 years, attributed to variations in effective moisture balance between inflows from Sierra Nevada snowpack and evaporative losses. Lower lake elevations prevailed during the early to middle Holocene, linked to drier conditions and reduced precipitation, while wetter phases post-dating the Pleistocene supported higher stands through enhanced runoff. These historical shifts underscore the basin's sensitivity to regional aridity, where even modest changes in temperature or storm tracks amplify imbalances in the closed hydrologic system. In recent decades, observed declines in precipitation—approximately 20% at nearby monitoring stations compared to historical baselines—coupled with projected rises in evaporation from warming temperatures, have constrained natural recovery of lake volume following anthropogenic diversions. Such trends, driven by broader Sierra Nevada hydroclimatic drying, reduce snowmelt contributions and exacerbate salinity through volume contraction, with each meter of level drop roughly doubling salt concentrations absent dilution. Seasonal extremes, including multi-year droughts, further intensify these effects by curtailing inflows while sustaining high summer evaporation.

Hydrology and Limnology

Water Balance and Level Fluctuations

Mono Lake maintains its water balance as an endorheic system, with inflows comprising direct precipitation on the lake surface (typically 5-10 inches annually), surface runoff from tributaries including Lee Vining Creek, Rush Creek, and Mill Creek (historically averaging 100,000-150,000 acre-feet per year pre-diversions), and unmeasured groundwater seepage estimated at 20,000-50,000 acre-feet annually. Outflows occur almost exclusively through evaporation, calculated via Class A pan measurements adjusted for lake area, salinity, and fetch effects, yielding equivalent depths of 3-4 feet per year and comprising 80-90% of total losses, with minor groundwater discharge to adjacent basins. This balance renders the lake hypersensitive to climatic variability and anthropogenic alterations in inflow, as volume changes directly alter surface area and evaporation rates via nonlinear feedbacks. Pre-1941 levels oscillated naturally between approximately 6,414 and 6,417 feet above sea level, driven by multi-decadal precipitation cycles in the Sierra Nevada, with wetter periods like the early 20th century sustaining higher elevations and drier intervals causing modest declines of 5-10 feet. Beginning in 1941, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) diversions captured up to 90% of tributary flows for export via the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct, reducing net inflows by 50,000-100,000 acre-feet annually and inducing a disequilibrium that lowered the lake by 45 feet to a record low of 6,372 feet in 1982. This decline halved the lake's volume from roughly 5 cubic miles to 2.5 cubic miles and exposed over 14 square miles of lakebed, amplifying dust emissions and eroding tufa towers through desiccation and wave undercutting. The 1983 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court litigation culminated in the California State Water Resources Control Board's 1994 Water Right Decision 1631, mandating a public trust target elevation of 6,392 feet to reconnect protective islets like Negit Island and preserve shoreline ecosystems, while capping diversions at sustainable yields tied to hydrologic conditions. Post-1994, reduced exports (averaging 10,000-20,000 acre-feet in wet years, curtailed in dry) enabled partial rebound, with levels peaking near 6,382 feet in 2000 and 2012 amid above-average Sierra runoff. However, persistent droughts, notably 2007-2009 and 2012-2016, combined with modeled underestimations of evaporation increases from climate warming (potentially 10-20% higher than 20th-century baselines), have slowed recovery, maintaining levels below 6,380 feet through 2025. Contemporary fluctuations reflect compounded drivers: diversion policies mitigate but do not eliminate inflow deficits during low-precipitation years, while basin-wide aridity—evidenced by 30-50% reductions in streamflow since the 1980s—exacerbates declines independent of exports. Water balance models, such as those developed by Vorster (1985) and refined by LADWP and state agencies, project that achieving 6,392 feet requires 200,000-300,000 acre-feet of cumulative surplus inflows over baseline evaporation, a threshold unmet amid ongoing variability. Empirical monitoring via USGS gauges and LADWP surveys underscores that without further adaptation to drought-amplified evaporation and runoff losses, stable recovery remains contingent on multi-year wet cycles.

Chemical Composition and Salinity

Mono Lake exhibits hypersaline conditions with total dissolved solids typically ranging from 70 to 90 grams per liter, approximately three times the salinity of seawater, and averaging around 81 grams per liter in recent measurements. The lake's alkalinity is pronounced, with a pH of approximately 9.8, classifying it as a soda lake dominated by sodium carbonate and bicarbonate systems. The chemical composition features high concentrations of sodium as the primary cation, alongside significant levels of chloride, sulfate, carbonate, and bicarbonate anions, which are roughly evenly distributed among the major anions. Sulfate concentrations reach about 105 millimolar in the water column, while calcium is present only in trace amounts due to precipitation as carbonates, resulting in a bicarbonate-to-calcium ratio of 2 to 4. The lake also contains elevated dissolved inorganic arsenic at around 200 micromolar, sourced from hydrothermal inputs, alongside other elements like boron at 406 milligrams per liter. Historically, salinity has fluctuated, increasing from about 50 grams per liter in 1941 to nearly 90 grams per liter by the late 20th century due to upstream water diversions reducing inflow, though recent data indicate a slight 5% decrease over the past 50 years as levels stabilize. These variations influence ion balances, with carbonate alkalinity playing a key role in maintaining the high pH and enabling unique geochemical processes, such as the formation of tufa towers through calcium carbonate precipitation when lake water mixes with calcium-rich spring water.

Hydrological Inputs and Outputs

The primary hydrological inputs to Mono Lake derive from surface runoff via tributary streams draining the adjacent Sierra Nevada mountains, supplemented by direct precipitation on the lake surface and limited groundwater discharge. The major streams—Lee Vining Creek, Rush Creek, Mill Creek, Walker Creek, and Parker Creek—supply the bulk of inflows, dominated by snowmelt, with a long-term average annual streamflow of approximately 187,000 acre-feet based on basin runoff records. These streams exhibit high seasonal variability, with peak flows exceeding 800 cubic feet per second during spring melt on the largest tributary. Direct precipitation over the lake accounts for about 18% of total annual inflows, or roughly 41,000 acre-feet under average conditions, reflecting the arid regional climate with annual totals around 8 inches at lake elevation. Groundwater contributions are minor, mainly from springs along the western shore, comprising a small fraction of the overall 82% runoff component (streamflow plus subsurface flow) in the natural water balance. As a closed-basin endorheic lake lacking any surface outlet, Mono Lake's hydrological outputs occur almost exclusively through evaporation from its surface, with negligible groundwater outflow under typical conditions. Evaporation rates average 45 inches (3.75 feet) annually, driven by high solar radiation, low humidity, and winds in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada, yielding losses equivalent to total natural inflows of about 230,000 acre-feet per year in equilibrium. This process concentrates salts and minerals, as no dilution via outflow occurs, and rates can increase during droughts or heatwaves, with recent extreme conditions causing up to 150,000 acre-feet of loss in a single year. Salinity modestly suppresses evaporation by 3-5% compared to freshwater estimates, but the effect is minor relative to climatic drivers. In the absence of diversions, these inputs and outputs historically maintained a quasi-stable level, though interannual fluctuations from variable snowpack and precipitation routinely alter the balance by tens of thousands of acre-feet.

Ecology

Invertebrate Populations

![Ephydra hians mono Lake brine fly.jpg][float-right] The invertebrate populations of Mono Lake are dominated by two hypersaline-adapted species: the endemic Artemia monica and the alkali fly Ephydra hians. These organisms form the base of the lake's , sustaining massive avian migrations through their high and seasonal . A. monica exhibits two generations annually, with nauplii hatching from overwintering cysts in spring and rapid reproduction under favorable conditions, producing live young or dormant cysts in response to environmental stress. Populations of A. monica reach 4–6 trillion individuals during summer peaks, concentrated in nearshore and pelagic zones, where they graze on unicellular algae such as Picocystis strains. Salinity levels above 159–179 g/L impair shrimp growth, reducing adult size, brood sizes, and survival while increasing reproductive mortality; historical dilution events have correlated with abundance fluctuations. Annual cyst production supports recruitment, with oviparous output estimated at key periods from 1983–1987 studies. ![Artemia_monica.jpg][center] The alkali fly E. hians completes its lifecycle in the lake's benthic algal mats, with eggs laid submerged by females that exploit superhydrophobic surfaces to dive without wetting. Larvae develop rapidly in the hypersaline environment, emerging as short-lived adults (3–5 days) that feed on algae and contribute to shoreline swarms numbering in the millions. Productivity of E. hians declines with elevated salinity and receding shorelines, as observed in recent assessments linking low lake levels to reduced larval habitats and overall biomass. These dynamics underscore the sensitivity of Mono Lake's invertebrate community to hydrological changes, with lower total dissolved solids (e.g., from 90 to 80 g/L) historically boosting fly abundances.

Avian and Migratory Wildlife

Mono Lake functions as a vital for numerous migratory waterbirds, particularly during fall migrations, where the lake's hypersaline waters support dense populations of (Artemia monica) and alkali flies (Ephydra hians), serving as primary food sources. These enable birds to rapidly accumulate fat reserves for long-distance flights to wintering grounds in and beyond. Annual aerial surveys have documented 1.5 to 1.8 million birds utilizing the lake in fall, representing a substantial portion of North American populations for certain species. The eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) exemplifies this dependency, with nearly the entire North American population—estimated in the millions—congregating at Mono Lake from late summer to fall to forage on brine shrimp. These grebes consume 60 to 100 tons of shrimp during their stay, more than doubling their body weight through continuous diving and surface feeding, which also provides incidental freshwater intake via the shrimp's physiology. This hyperphagia supports post-breeding molt and southward migration, though low lake levels in the late 20th century reduced shrimp availability and contributed to mass die-offs. Wilson's phalaropes (Phalaropus tricolor) and red-necked phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus) also rely heavily on Mono Lake as a stopover, switching between alkali flies near shorelines and free-swimming brine shrimp in open water based on prey density. Ground surveys have recorded peak counts exceeding 30,000 red-necked phalaropes in single late-August events, with total seasonal throughput potentially much higher due to brief residency times. These shorebirds spin in tight circles to stir up prey, demonstrating adaptive foraging that sustains their circumpolar migrations. Resident breeding populations include California gulls (Larus californicus), which maintain one of the world's largest colonies at Mono Lake's islands, though nest success has declined from an average of over 1 chick fledged per nest in the 1980s to below 0.5 by 2024, correlating with increased predation and regional food shortages. Despite fluctuations, the colony supports thousands of pairs annually, with gulls commuting to nearby freshwater sources for drinking while exploiting lake invertebrates. Other species, such as American avocets and black-necked stilts, nest on shores and feed opportunistically, underscoring the lake's role in regional avian productivity.

Ecosystem Dynamics and Productivity

Mono Lake's ecosystem exhibits a streamlined trophic structure with elevated productivity sustained by primary production from planktonic algae, particularly the green alga Picocystis sp., which dominates the photic zone. Annual primary productivity measures 340–540 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹, indicative of eutrophic conditions adapted to hypersalinity and alkalinity. Broader estimates range from 269 to 1060 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹, reflecting variability tied to nutrient availability and stratification regimes. In the pelagic habitat, endemic brine shrimp (Artemia monica) function as primary consumers, filtering phytoplankton and achieving densities of 19,000–31,000 individuals m⁻² during peak periods, thereby channeling algal production into biomass accessible to migratory birds like eared grebes (Podiceps nigricollis). Littoral dynamics center on alkali flies (Ephydra hians), which graze benthic algae and microbial mats, attaining densities up to 45,000 m⁻² on exposed mudflats and supporting avian species such as phalaropes. This partitioning minimizes competition, enhancing energy transfer efficiency across the food web. Productivity dynamics hinge on internal nutrient cycling and physical processes; brine shrimp grazing suppresses phytoplankton blooms, while meromixis restricts vertical mixing, mitigated partially by benthic boundary layer transport that supplies 11% of photic zone nitrogen via ammonium flux, boosting primary production by 6%. Salinity thresholds critically modulate these interactions, with algal growth and invertebrate reproduction declining beyond 175 g L⁻¹, as higher concentrations impair filtration and cyst hatching. Seasonal cycles amplify productivity: spring hatching of shrimp cysts coincides with algal peaks, fostering rapid biomass accrual that peaks in summer before cyst formation in autumn. Overall, these mechanisms yield a resilient yet sensitive system, channeling high photosynthetic output through few trophic levels to sustain annual avian influxes exceeding 700,000 eared grebes and substantial breeding gull populations.

Human Interactions

Indigenous Use and Cultural Significance

The Kootzaduka'a, the southernmost band of the Northern Paiute (Numu) people speaking the Numu Yadooana dialect, have occupied the Mono Basin encompassing Mono Lake since time immemorial, with the lake serving as a core element of their subsistence economy and cultural identity. Their ethnonym, translating to "those who eat the pupae," reflects the centrality of harvesting alkali fly (Ephydra hians) pupae—termed kootzabe or kutsavi—from the lake's shoreline, a high-calorie resource gathered primarily by women during spring camps along inflows like Rush Creek. These pupae were collected, dried, and stored as a preserved food source, complementing seasonal patterns of resource exploitation that included autumn pinyon pine nut gatherings in dedicated camps, consumption of Pandora moth larvae (piagi), foraging of roots and berries such as blazing star and goosefoot, and hunting of game through communal rabbit drives or pronghorn pursuits, alongside waterfowl from the lake. Winter provisions relied on these stored staples, enabling year-round sustenance in the arid basin environment. The Kootzaduka'a maintained extensive trade networks, exchanging lake-derived goods and obsidian tools along routes extending to Yosemite Valley for acorns and shell beads, underscoring the lake's role in regional economic interconnections. Culturally, Mono Lake embodied a profound sustaining force, nurturing the people's physical and spiritual continuity through practices like basketry for gathering and winnowing, with the basin's resources integral to their worldview as a provider of life amid harsh conditions. This dependence fostered traditional ecological knowledge, including seasonal migrations and resource stewardship, though Euro-American encroachment from the mid-19th century disrupted these patterns, leading to displacement and loss of access.

European Exploration and Early Settlement

Lieutenant Tredwell Moore, leading a U.S. Army detachment in pursuit of Yosemite Chief Tenaya, entered the Mono Basin in 1852 and became the first documented European American to reach the area around Mono Lake, where he noted deposits of gold and minerals near Bloody Canyon. Earlier claims attribute the first sighting of the lake to fur trapper Joseph R. Walker during his 1833 expedition across the Sierra Nevada, potentially via Mono Pass, though some analyses dispute whether his party directly observed the lake itself. Prospectors followed Moore's reports, with Leroy Vining and others arriving in fall 1852 to mine placer gold along streams entering the basin. By 1857, further gold discoveries at Virginia and Dog Creeks spurred the establishment of Dogtown, an early mining camp. The most significant rush began in 1859 when placer gold was found along Mono Lake's northwest shores, leading to the founding of Monoville, a boomtown that grew to an estimated population of 900 to 3,000 within a year. Settlement expanded with silver strikes in fall 1860 near the lake's northern edge, prompting the creation of Aurora, which peaked at over 5,000 residents by 1863 and briefly housed figures like Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) before declining sharply by 1865. Mono County was officially organized on November 19, 1861, encompassing the basin, with early economic activity centered on mining in sites like Lundy Canyon (May-Lundy Mine, started 1879) and Lee Vining Canyon (Bennettville, 1880s). Ranching emerged as a complementary pursuit, with families like the DeChambes homesteading in 1880 and the Curries arriving in 1885 to graze cattle and supply timber and provisions to mining towns such as Bodie, which boomed to 5,000 inhabitants by 1878. Infrastructure followed, including the 32-mile Bodie Railway built in 1881–1882 to Mono Mills for lumber transport. By 1877, the county's overall population had dipped below 1,000 amid fluctuating mineral yields, reflecting the transient nature of these early outposts.

20th-Century Infrastructure Development

In the early 1930s, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) initiated plans to expand water supplies beyond the Owens Valley by acquiring lands and water rights in the Mono Basin to support the city's growing population. This effort culminated in the Mono Basin Extension of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, a 105-mile addition that connected tributary streams north of the original 1913 aqueduct, extending the system's total length to approximately 338 miles. Construction involved building diversion intakes, canals, and pipelines on key streams such as Lee Vining, Rush, Walker, and Parker Creeks to capture surface runoff and groundwater, directing it southward via gravity flow. Diversions commenced in 1941 following the extension's completion, with LADWP obtaining state water permits to export flows from the four primary Mono Lake tributaries, initially capturing seasonal runoff that previously sustained the lake's water balance. Infrastructure included concrete diversion dams and screened intakes designed to minimize sediment while maximizing yield, supplemented by groundwater pumping wells installed in the basin's alluvial fans during the 1940s and 1950s to augment surface captures during dry periods. By the mid-20th century, annual exports from the Mono Basin reached up to 130,000 acre-feet, representing nearly all natural inflows to Mono Lake and causing an initial lake level decline of about 10 feet by 1960. To accommodate rising demand, LADWP constructed the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct between 1965 and 1970, a parallel 137-mile conduit with a capacity of 1 billion gallons per day that enhanced delivery from northern sources, including increased Mono Basin diversions through upgraded pumping stations and larger channels. This expansion incorporated additional infrastructure such as the Grant Lake Reservoir enhancements, where the existing dam was raised in the 1940s and further modified to store up to 45,000 acre-feet for regulated releases into the aqueduct system. These developments prioritized urban water security but relied on riparian and appropriative rights dating to the 1930s, enabling exports that exceeded sustainable basin yields during wet years while depleting reserves in droughts.

Water Management Controversies

Origins and Scale of Diversions

Diversions of water from the Mono Basin to Los Angeles originated in 1941, when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) extended the Los Angeles Aqueduct northward following completion of the Mono Craters Tunnel and Long Valley Dam. This infrastructure enabled the diversion of surface flows from four principal tributaries—Rush Creek, Lee Vining Creek, Walker Creek, and Parker Creek—that historically fed Mono Lake, marking the first systematic exports from the basin to supplement Los Angeles' growing urban water demands after earlier acquisitions in the Owens Valley. State Water Resources Control Board permits issued that year authorized these appropriations, prioritizing beneficial use in the city over in-basin retention. From 1941 through the early 1980s, LADWP diversions averaged around 100,000 acre-feet annually, capturing up to 80-100% of the basin's streamflows during dry periods and representing roughly half of Mono Lake's typical annual inflow of 100,000-200,000 acre-feet. These exports, conveyed via the aqueduct without pumping due to gravity flow, dewatered stream channels below diversion points and reduced lake inflows, causing the water level to decline by approximately 45 feet between 1941 and 1982—from about 6,417 feet above sea level to 6,372 feet—halving the lake's volume and concentrating its salinity threefold. Peak diversions in wet years exceeded 130,000 acre-feet, while groundwater pumping supplemented surface exports, further straining the terminal lake's balance in this endorheic system.

Environmental Degradation Claims

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's (LADWP) diversions of tributary streams commencing in 1941 caused Mono Lake's water level to drop by 45 feet by 1982, halving the lake's volume, reducing its surface area by 30 percent, and doubling its salinity from approximately 75 g/L to 150 g/L. These hydrological changes exposed vast expanses of lakebed, leading to claims of ecosystem disruption through altered aquatic habitats, shoreline reconfiguration, and increased vulnerability of shoreline-dependent species. A primary concern was the formation of land bridges connecting the mainland to islands like Negit Island, which prior to diversions had served as predator-free nesting sites for California gull colonies numbering up to 45,000 pairs in the 1970s. By the mid-1980s, such bridges enabled coyotes and other terrestrial predators to access nests, contributing to documented declines in gull reproductive success and overall population stability, with predation events wiping out significant portions of chicks in affected years. Additionally, the bridges facilitated the intrusion of hypersaline lake water into adjacent freshwater streams, elevating stream salinities and degrading riparian habitats critical for macroinvertebrates and introduced fish species like trout, thereby disrupting tributary food webs. Exposed tufa towers, previously submerged and actively forming via calcium carbonate precipitation from mixing of lake and spring waters, underwent rapid erosion upon aerial exposure, with claims that this not only halted tufa growth but also diminished submerged habitat complexity for nesting birds and altered shoreline geomorphology. The desiccation of lakebed sediments generated recurrent dust storms laden with fine alkaline particulates, which by the 1980s posed documented risks to air quality and human respiratory health in the Mono Basin, prompting federal recognition of the site as a non-attainment area for particulate matter under the Clean Air Act. Environmental advocates, including the Mono Lake Committee, argued that these combined effects threatened the lake's productivity, particularly the brine shrimp (Artemia monica) and alkali fly (Ephydra hians) populations that underpin the food chain for millions of migratory eared grebes and phalaropes, though empirical data indicated resilience in invertebrate densities despite volume losses. Critics of the degradation narrative, including some LADWP representatives, contended that the lake's endorheic nature and natural variability predating diversions—evidenced by paleolimnological records of prior level fluctuations—mitigated claims of irreversible collapse, attributing observed changes partly to climatic drought cycles rather than solely anthropogenic extractions. Nonetheless, the 1994 State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1631 substantiated diversion-induced harms through hydrological modeling and field observations, mandating reduced exports to restore levels above 6,392 feet elevation to avert further bridge formation and dust mobilization. In 1983, the National Audubon Society and the Mono Lake Committee filed suit in California Superior Court against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), seeking to enjoin further stream diversions into Mono Lake on the grounds that they violated the public trust doctrine by impairing the lake's ecological integrity, navigability, and public uses such as bird habitat and scenic values. The plaintiffs argued that Mono Lake, as a navigable body of water, fell under the doctrine's protection, which traditionally safeguards tidelands, navigable waters, and underlying lands for purposes including navigation, commerce, and fisheries, and which imposes a continuing affirmative duty on the state to prevent substantial impairment of these interests. The suit highlighted how LADWP's appropriations, permitted since 1940, had lowered the lake's surface by approximately 45 vertical feet since 1941, exposing lakebed soils to wind erosion, increasing salinity, and threatening endemic species and migratory bird populations. The California Supreme Court, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (33 Cal. 3d 419, 1983), unanimously held that the public trust doctrine applies to Mono Lake and constrains the state's water allocation authority, even for pre-existing appropriative rights. The Court reasoned from first principles of sovereign ownership over navigable waters, extending protection beyond traditional uses to include modern ecological concerns like wildlife preservation when they bear "a substantial relation to the interests protected by the trust," such as maintaining the lake's productivity for supported species. It rejected absolute reliance on prior administrative permits, affirming the state's ongoing duty to reexamine and modify allocations if public trust harms outweigh benefits, without requiring a showing of "unreasonable use" under separate water law standards. This decision marked the first major judicial application of the public trust to inland non-tidal waters in California, setting precedent for balancing vested private water rights against evolving public interests in environmental protection. Following remand, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) assumed jurisdiction in 1984 to reassess LADWP's Mono Basin permits under dual public trust and reasonable use analyses. After extensive hearings involving 125 witnesses and scientific testimony on hydrology, ecology, and economics, the SWRCB issued Water Right Decision 1631 on September 28, 1994, mandating minimum instream flows totaling 40 cubic feet per second across four tributaries (Rush Creek, Lee Vining Creek, Parker Creek, and Walker Creek) during peak seasons and establishing a target lake elevation of 6,377 feet above mean sea level to restore tufa towers, reduce alkalinity, and protect brine shrimp and fly populations essential for avian foraging. The decision required LADWP to release up to 45,000 acre-feet annually from reservoirs and curtail diversions by about 20,000 acre-feet per year on average, reflecting a compromise that preserved urban water supplies while prioritizing trust-protected lake functions over full historical diversions. Subsequent challenges tested the decision's implementation, including LADWP appeals and federal litigation over water rights reliability, but courts upheld the SWRCB's authority, affirming the public trust's role in adaptive management amid climate variability and competing demands. By 2023, the lake had risen to about 6,380 feet, exceeding targets, though ongoing monitoring addresses dust mitigation and groundwater interactions not fully resolved in 1994. Critics, including LADWP representatives, have contended that the doctrine's expansion overrides legislatively granted appropriative priorities, potentially discouraging infrastructure investment, but empirical outcomes demonstrate restored ecological thresholds without catastrophic urban shortages, as Los Angeles adapted through conservation and alternative sourcing.

Economic Tradeoffs and Criticisms

The diversion of tributary streams from the Mono Basin by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has supplied approximately 1-3% of Los Angeles' total water needs, varying by hydrologic conditions, with annual exports typically ranging from 4,500 to 16,000 acre-feet in wet years prior to restrictions. This water, conveyed via the Los Angeles Aqueduct since the 1940s, supports urban demands in a region facing chronic shortages, where alternative sources like groundwater pumping or imported Colorado River water entail higher energy use and costs estimated in the tens of millions annually for replacement. Critics of restrictions, including LADWP officials, argue that curtailing these exports—reduced by about 80% since 1994 under court mandates—forces reliance on less efficient supplies, potentially increasing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year if substituted with pumped imports. Restoration efforts mandated by the 1983 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court decision and subsequent State Water Resources Control Board orders (e.g., Decision 1631 in 1994) have imposed significant costs on LADWP ratepayers, totaling nearly $50 million in ecosystem enhancements, stream rehabilitation, and water releases by 2025 to elevate lake levels from historic lows of 6,372 feet in 1982 toward a target of 6,392 feet. Economic analyses, such as those balancing public trust resources, estimate annual preservation costs at around $26.2 million, weighing against localized benefits like sustained tourism revenue in the Mono Basin, which the State Water Board projected could diminish without protections but lacks comprehensive quantification beyond recreational use. LADWP has criticized these mandates for prioritizing ecological recovery over reliable urban supply, noting that Mono Basin water constitutes a negligible fraction of total imports yet triggers litigation-driven volatility, as evidenced by 2025 decisions to maximize exports during dry conditions despite calls for voluntary reductions. Environmental advocates, led by the Mono Lake Committee, counter that unchecked diversions caused irreversible damage, including a 45-foot lake level drop from 1941 to 1982, and dismiss economic hardship claims given Los Angeles' diversified portfolio and low dependence on the basin. They attribute ongoing disputes to LADWP's resistance to full compliance, such as exporting 11,000 acre-feet in the 2024-2025 runoff year—250% over promised minimum releases—arguing that public trust doctrine requires subordinating appropriative rights to navigable water body protection without undue economic deference. Independent analyses, including from the Hoover Institution, critique the litigation-heavy approach as inefficient compared to water markets, which could allocate resources via pricing signals rather than judicial fiat, potentially averting protracted conflicts that delay both restoration and supply security. These tradeoffs highlight tensions between short-term urban utility benefits and long-term ecological stability, with empirical data showing partial lake rebound but persistent criticisms of unbalanced regulatory burdens on water exporters.

Current Status and Future Prospects

Restoration Measures and Outcomes

Following the 1994 California Supreme Court decision applying the public trust doctrine to Mono Lake and the State Water Resources Control Board's Decision 1631, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) implemented reduced water exports to restore the lake's level to 6,392 feet above mean sea level. This target was selected to protect tufa towers, nesting islands for California gulls, and overall ecosystem health by mitigating hypersalinity and dust storms. Export limits were set dynamically based on lake elevation, for instance capping diversions at 16,000 acre-feet per year when levels are between 6,380 and 6,391 feet. Final flow releases to support this restoration began in 1993. Stream and habitat restoration efforts complemented water level management, focusing on tributary creeks degraded by diversions. The 2021 settlement agreement, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board as Order WR 2021-0086, involved the Mono Lake Committee, LADWP, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Trout, aiming to rehabilitate 20 miles of streams including Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek. Key measures included establishing instream flows mimicking natural Sierra Nevada snowmelt patterns, ending diversions from Walker and Parker Creeks, and modernizing the Grant Lake Reservoir Dam spillway for improved water release control. LADWP also pursued wetlands enhancement across 1,100–1,200 acres to restore riparian and aquatic habitats, alongside ongoing Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek projects emphasizing adaptive flow management and monitoring. Outcomes for lake level restoration have been partial, with the surface elevation reaching 6,382.4 feet as of October 1, 2025, approximately 9.6 feet below the target—higher than the 1980s low of around 6,375 feet but not advancing on the projected schedule. Exports have been reduced by more than 80% from historical maxima exceeding 100,000 acre-feet annually, yet the lake's rise has lagged due to a 20% decline in basin precipitation, 2% less Sierra runoff, potential increases in evaporation, and LADWP utilizing maximum allowable diversions, such as 11,000 acre-feet in the 2024 runoff year. During droughts, such as the 2025 dry winter, LADWP extracted its full allotment through March, further delaying progress. Ecological recovery reflects these hydrological improvements but remains incomplete without attaining the target elevation. Stream restorations have yielded significant enhancements in channel structure, riparian vegetation, and trout populations, bolstering resilience to climate stressors like drought and warming temperatures. Reduced dust emissions and partial tufa submersion have improved air quality and preserved iconic formations, while elevated levels support brine shrimp and fly populations critical for migratory birds. However, persistent hypersalinity hampers full rebound of gull nesting sites and other biota, with wet years like 2023 accelerating localized habitat gains but underscoring the need for sustained higher inflows amid variable climate conditions.

Ongoing Monitoring and Challenges

The Mono Lake Committee conducts continuous monitoring of lake elevation, salinity, and biological indicators, including populations of brine shrimp (Artemia monica) and alkali flies (Ephydra hians), which form the base of the ecosystem supporting migratory birds. These efforts track progress toward the State Water Resources Control Board's target elevation of 6,392 feet above sea level, established under Decision 1631 to mitigate hypersalinity and enable ecosystem recovery. Stream monitoring programs evaluate tributary restoration, including fisheries habitats in creeks like Lee Vining and Rush, with data collection on flow, temperature, groundwater, and waterfowl usage to verify compliance with restoration agreements. The California State Water Resources Control Board oversees a broader Stream Restoration and Monitoring Program, requiring annual reports on approximately 20 miles of restored creek habitats and associated wetlands, with independent verification to ensure ecological improvements from reduced diversions. Long-term avian monitoring, ongoing since 1983 through partnerships like the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, assesses bird populations dependent on the lake's productivity. Air quality surveillance by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District addresses dust from exposed lakebed sediments, a legacy of prior level declines. Persistent challenges include incomplete hydrological recovery, as current elevations remain below levels needed to dilute salinity sufficiently for optimal brine shrimp and fly reproduction, threatening the food web's resilience amid variable precipitation. Ongoing diversions by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, balanced against urban demands, limit inflow during droughts, exacerbating systemic ecosystem stress and delaying full vitality. Geological hazards, such as seismic activity in the volcanically active basin, necessitate supplementary monitoring, though water management remains the primary constraint on long-term stability.

Recent Developments (2020–2025)

In 2020, Mono Lake's surface elevation stood at approximately 6,382 feet above sea level, reflecting gradual recovery from decades of diversions but remaining well below the court-mandated target of 6,391 feet established in 1994 by the California State Water Resources Control Board. By April 1, 2023, the level had risen to about 6,382.5 feet, aided by above-average precipitation in prior years, though projections indicated only modest gains of around 4 feet over the 2023–2024 water year due to variable inflows from tributary streams. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) continued exports within legal limits, drawing up to 16,000 acre-feet annually when levels permitted, prioritizing urban supply amid ongoing drought concerns in the region. A series of wet winters, particularly in 2022–2023, temporarily accelerated inflows, elevating the lake to roughly 6,383 feet by April 2024 and altering its chemistry through dilution of salts, which experts linked to shifts in microbial and invertebrate populations supporting the food web. However, the subsequent dry winter of 2024–2025 stalled progress, with the April 1, 2025, measurement registering 6,383.3 feet—stable but 7.7 feet shy of the target—prompting LADWP to announce full utilization of its 16,000 acre-foot export allowance through March 2026. Environmental groups, including the Mono Lake Committee, criticized this as a missed opportunity for voluntary reductions, arguing that LADWP's reliance on Mono Basin streams—constituting about 2% of Los Angeles' supply—exacerbates delays in reaching ecological thresholds for tufa protection and habitat stability. Ecological monitoring revealed mixed outcomes, with brine shrimp and fly populations rebounding from chemical shifts but avian species like California gulls showing potential declines, possibly due to altered nesting substrates post-fires and floods. Restoration efforts, such as controlled burns to enhance gull habitats, yielded short-term nest increases (e.g., 3,000 additional nests in 2024 following a 2023 burn), but overall biodiversity recovery hinged on sustained higher levels. Advocacy intensified in 2025, with calls for LADWP to diversify sources like recycled water or conservation to accelerate inflows, as the lake's projected 2025–2026 level remained flat at around 6,383 feet amid forecasts of neutral precipitation. Despite these challenges, compliance with the 1994 Water Board decision persisted, with no major legal escalations reported by late 2025, though critics noted that climate variability and fixed export caps have extended full restoration timelines beyond initial estimates.

References

  1. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mono-lake-mount-dana-california-united-states
  2. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/long-valley-caldera/science/long-valley-caldera-field-guide-mono-lake
  3. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70184533
  4. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/naturalhistory/alkaliflies/
  5. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/
  6. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mono-lake-volcanic-field/science/geology-and-history-mono-lake-volcanic-field
  7. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/general/docs/monolake_wr_dec1631_a.pdf
  8. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-08-04/mono-lake-la-water
  9. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/long-valley-caldera/science/geologic-history-long-valley-mono-basin-region
  10. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3318/downloads/SIM3318_Pamphlet.pdf
  11. https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/mono-lake-vol-field
  12. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/long-valley-caldera
  13. https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-81/GeologicalMaps/ScannedMap/Bailey_1989.pdf
  14. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/78/5/583/6188/age-and-origin-of-topography-beneath-mono-lake-a
  15. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1983/0747/report.pdf
  16. https://www.geologyin.com/2014/07/lake-monos-tufas.html
  17. http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Geo....21..971C/abstract
  18. https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/514/files/MonoLakeFinalWebLayout2018.pdf
  19. https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/514/files/MonoLakeFinalWebLayout2015.pdf
  20. https://www.monolake.org/today/the-terrific-tufa-of-mono-lake/
  21. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/geophysical-investigation-mono-basin-california
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219307485
  23. https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2002/2393/mf2393.pdf
  24. https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2002/2393/
  25. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/data/climate.php
  26. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?camono+nca
  27. https://data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/data/USGS:5f3abd6a82ce8df5b6c407a5
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003101829090221R
  29. https://www.monolake.org/learn/stateofthelake/
  30. https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/papers/ficklin_climate_mono_cc_onlinefirst_2012.pdf
  31. https://www.monolake.org/today/charting-weather-extremes-and-understanding-climate-change-impacts/
  32. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/images/vorster/ch2.pdf
  33. https://people.wou.edu/~taylors/es476_hydro/monolake.pdf
  34. https://www.monolake.org/today/raising-mono-lake-requires-a-new-plan/
  35. https://www.ladwp.com/sites/default/files/documents/Appendix_E_WC_Memo_Oct_2020.pdf
  36. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6782
  37. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/data/levelyearly.php
  38. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/mono_lake/
  39. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/mono_lake/docs/2023-mono-lake-fact-sheet.pdf
  40. https://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lake-2025-2026-lake-level-forecast-report/
  41. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/data/mbrtdframes.htm
  42. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/naturalhistory/chemistry/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8359280/
  44. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/632/2/022043
  45. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/123/11-12/2320/125621/High-resolution-chemostratigraphic-record-of-late
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC126446/
  47. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AGU/31ea296c-2c70-4dad-92ef-c4681bc6a288/UploadedImages/Neumann_et_al-1995-Water_Resources_Research.pdf
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001670379190144T
  49. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/95WR02109
  50. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/mono_lake/docs/monolakedecision_presentation.pdf
  51. https://www.monolake.org/today/peak-flows-on-mono-lakes-tributary-streams/
  52. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/6_009_MonoValley.pdf
  53. https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.1994.39.5.1141
  54. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/images/mbeir/dappendix/app-a-text.pdf
  55. https://www.monolake.org/today/new-project-to-understand-the-role-of-evaporation-at-mono-lake/
  56. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-15/l-a-gets-less-water-from-mono-lake-due-to-declining-levels
  57. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/images/mbeir/dappendix/app-j-text.pdf
  58. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1714874114
  59. https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article-abstract/6/6/967/1490794
  60. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113938/Artemia_monica
  61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00026275
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28311791/
  63. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00026953
  64. https://www.kcbx.org/environment-and-energy/2023-05-31/ucsb-research-shows-brine-flies-in-decline-at-mono-lake-threatening-shorebirds-food-source
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226114620_Comparative_population_ecology_of_Ephydra_hians_Say_Diptera_Ephydridae_at_Mono_Lake_California_and_Abert_Lake_Oregon
  66. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/naturalhistory/birds/
  67. https://whsrn.org/whsrn_sites/mono-lake/
  68. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Eared_Grebe/overview
  69. https://www.aba.org/birding_archive_files/v39n3p34.pdf
  70. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15594491.2025.2463742?src=exp-la
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006320794901643
  72. https://www.monolake.org/today/tracking-phalaropes-at-mono-and-beyond/
  73. https://www.oikonos.org/es/publicaciones-archivo/phalarope-surveys-at-mono-lake-2019-report
  74. https://www.oikonos.org/wp-content/uploads/Mono-Lake-phalarope-report-2020.pdf
  75. https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/108/1/82/5563654
  76. https://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lake-may-be-losing-its-california-gulls/
  77. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/images/gulls/2024.pdf
  78. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23379
  79. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1007/chapter/6
  80. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/onlinereports/1976study/ecologicalstudyofmonolake.pdf
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2535590/
  82. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/humanhistory/kootzadukaapeople/
  83. https://www.monolake.org/today/historic-designation-of-tribal-beneficial-uses-for-mono-lake-in-sight/
  84. https://sierranevadaalliance.org/sna-blog-mono-lake-kootzaduka/
  85. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-05-29/congressman-plans-legislation-to-recognize-struggling-native-american-tribe-in-mono-lake-basin
  86. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/humanhistory/pioneersandminers/
  87. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/joseph-reddeford-walker
  88. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/ks65hd201
  89. https://www.visitmammoth.com/blogs/geology-and-history-mono-lake/
  90. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/d1600_d1649/wrd1631.pdf
  91. https://waterandpower.org/museum/A_Second_Aqueduct.html
  92. https://www.ladwp.com/sites/default/files/documents/Final_Mono_Basin_WR_Licenses_IS.pdf
  93. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/article/2023/08/debate-centers-on-diversions-from-californias-mono-lake-basin
  94. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/mono-lake-los-angeles-water/
  95. https://www.inyowater.org/documents/reports/owens-valley-water-history-chronology/
  96. https://www.c-win.org/mono-lake
  97. https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2023/05/mono-lake-water-diversion/
  98. https://www.monolake.org/today/calmatters-publishes-feature-article-on-mono-lake-diversions/
  99. http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/stories/Los_Angeles_Department_of_Water_and_Power_Operations_in_the_Mono_Basin.pdf
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27759296/
  101. https://herbstlab.msi.ucsb.edu/pdfs/Herbst.2014_LakeLine.Mono.pdf
  102. https://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-mono-drought-20150625-story.html
  103. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/water-loss-mono-lake
  104. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/33/419.html
  105. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/national-audubon-society-v-superior-court-30644
  106. https://www.monolake.org/learn/aboutmonolake/savingmonolake/publictrust/
  107. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/610/
  108. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/timelines/d1631.php
  109. https://mavensnotebook.com/2024/10/03/press-release-30th-anniversary-of-the-historic-water-board-decision-to-protect-mono-lake-shows-that-additional-action-is-needed/
  110. https://www.calmatters.org/environment/water/2025/01/los-angeles-water-mono-lake/
  111. https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/dry-winter-la-water-mono-lake
  112. https://www.ladwpnews.com/ladwp-celebrates-second-annual-mono-lake-day-with-continued-commitment-to-environmental-stewardship/
  113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251434669_Balancing_Public_Trust_Resources_of_Mono_Lake_and_Los_Angeles%27_Water_Right_An_Economic_Approach
  114. https://www.monolake.org/today/the-state-water-board-decision-at-20/
  115. https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2025/01/los-angeles-water-mono-lake/
  116. https://www.monolake.org/today/dwp-plans-to-maximize-water-export-and-impacts-to-mono-lake-again/
  117. https://www.monolake.org/today/this-years-water-exports-to-conclude-march-31/
  118. https://www.hoover.org/research/battle-over-mono-lake
  119. https://www.monolake.org/today/the-mono-lake-decision-turns-30/
  120. https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/water-system/los-angeles-aqueduct/watershed-management
  121. https://www.monolake.org/today/state-water-board-launches-new-era-of-stream-restoration-at-mono-lake/
  122. https://www.ladwpnews.com/la-department-of-water-and-power-continues-to-advance-landmark-mono-basin-restoration-project/
  123. https://caltrout.org/news/major-milestone-met-to-protect-mono-basin-ecosystem
  124. https://www.monolake.org/today/category/restoration/page/2/
  125. https://www.monolake.org/whatwedo/restoration/streams/streamrestorationagreement/
  126. https://www.monolake.org/today/a-summer-on-the-streams/
  127. https://www.monobasinresearch.org/onlinereports/
  128. https://www.monolake.org/today/the-los-angeles-department-of-water-power-prepares-to-fight/
  129. https://www.monolake.org/today/lowering-salinity-by-raising-mono-lake-is-key-to-ecosystem-health/
  130. https://phys.org/news/2025-08-boosting-mono-lake-easing-la.html
  131. https://issuu.com/monolake/docs/2023_summer_mono_lake_newsletter?fr=sZDMyMDQ5MTk2OTY
  132. https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/mono-lake-weather-birds-20763762.php
  133. https://www.ladwpnews.com/ladwp-reports-annual-mono-lake-level-reading-marking-end-of-2024-25-runoff-year/
  134. https://desertreport.org/mono-lake-still-needs-saving/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.