Laserfiche WebLink
-12- <br />to achieve its goal of capturing virtually all the water flowing in those streams for its <br />water supply needs. <br />When Los Angeles first applied for its Mono Lake water rights nearly 50 years <br />ago, local conservationists vehemently opposed the diversions. They argued that the <br />delicate ecological balance of the lake would be upset if its tributaries were cut off. <br />Though five freshwater streams feed Mono Lake, the waterbody has no outlet, and its <br />deep waters are saline. While no fish live in the salty lake, its waters teem with brine <br />shrimp which feed vast numbers of nesting and migratory birds. The most notable bird <br />is the California gull whose rookery is located on islands in the middle of the lake. <br />Ninety-five percent of California's gull population (and 25 percent of the worldwide <br />population) nests on these islands. <br />Conservationists' prediction that the city's planned diversions would damage the <br />scenic beauty and ecological value the lake proved devastatingly true. Since 1940, the <br />water level in the lake has dropped forty-three feet, and the lake's surface area has <br />shrunk by one-third, from 85 square miles to 60 square miles). Salts concentrated in <br />the shrunken water body threaten the lake's algae and the brine shrimp and brine flies <br />which feed on it. The increased salinity also interferes with the birds' ability to <br />maintain osmotic equilibrium with their environment, forcing them to spend more time <br />seeking fresh water to drink. Eighteen thousand acres of dry lakebed, now exposed to <br />the air, have become a source of windborne alkali and other minerals which irritate the <br />mucous membranes and respiratory systems of humans and other animals. <br />In 1979, the lake level dropped so low that Negrit Island, one of the lake's two <br />principle islands, was transformed into a peninsula. As a result, nesting gulls and <br />their chicks became easy prey for coyotes and other predators; ultimately the gulls <br />totally abandoned the former island. Although the lake's devastation was foreseen in <br />1940, the California Division of Water Resources (as it was then known) which allocated <br />the state's waters declared that it was powerless to deny Los Angeles' diversion <br />application: "It is indeed unfortunate that the City's proposed development will result <br />in decreasing the aesthetic advantages of Mono Basin but there is apparently nothing <br />that this office can do to prevent it."4° <br />Nearly four decades later, the National Audubon Society brought suit in state <br />court90 to halt Los Angeles from continuing its diversions. The Audubon Society <br />charged that the waters of Mono Lake were impressed with a "public trust"-the same <br />public protection which the U.S. Supreme Court found applied to the shore of Lake <br />Michigan. Audubon's argument was simple: Waters held in trust for the people cannot <br />be conveyed by the state for uses that are inconsistent with trust purposes, and the <br />courts can enforce that trust for the benefit of the people of California at any time. <br />The California Supreme Court81 ultimately agreed with the Audubon Society--at <br />least in principle. The court declared that the public trust doctrine was a part of <br />California's water law and announced that public trust purposes must be taken into <br />acxount in reexA*niILn~ Los Angeles' water rights. <br />The court's authority to reevaluate a city's water rights may sound dramatic or <br />even Draconian. But the principle is no different from that applied in the law of <br />private trusts. When a private citizen places money or property into a trust for the <br />benefit of another, the trustee is always subject to court supervision. If the trustee <br />"Calif: Division of Water Resources Decisions at 7053 (Apr. 11, 1940). <br />'0r1'he case has bounced bac)< and forth between federal and state court. See footnote 32. <br />"Los Angeles sought review by the United States Supreme Court, but their request was denied. <br />City of Los Aneeles Debt. of Water & Power v. Nat'l Audubon Socie~-, 464 U.S. 977 (1983). <br />