Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lake would be an important part of the economic analysis of the water allocation decision. <br /> <br /> <br />The consulting firm hired to prepare the Environmental Impact Report was required to <br /> <br /> <br />perform a more detailed contingent valuation survey. The survey involved use of <br /> <br /> <br />photosimulation of what the lake would look like at alternative lake levels as well as detailed <br /> <br /> <br />information about effects on different bird species. In addition, this study cast the decision as <br /> <br /> <br />a referenda on Mono Lake. The study also used a phone interview of people who where <br /> <br /> <br />mailed a information booklet with the maps and photosimulations. This study also showed <br /> <br /> <br />that the benefits of a moderately high (but not the highest) lake level, were greater than the <br /> <br /> <br />costs (Jones and Stokes Associates, 1993). While one cannot claim the economic analysis <br /> <br /> <br />was a deciding factor, the California Water Resources Control Board, did reduce Los <br /> <br /> <br />Angeles' water right in half, from 100,000 acre feet to about 50,000 acre feet so as to allow <br /> <br /> <br />more flows into Mono Lake (Loomis, 1995). <br /> <br />Water over the Falls? <br />Typical of many Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing decisions, was <br />the issue of how much water to require the utility company to allow to flow over the falls at <br />a recreation area versus how much to divert through the penstocks. The previous license <br />required only 50 cfs as a minimum instream flow. This reduced the flow over the falls to <br />literally a trickle. Increasing the flows over the falls had a direct opportunity cost in terms of <br />hydropower foregone. As always the key question was just how much water over the falls is <br />justified. <br /> <br />12 <br />