After a period of time, the SWRCB granted water rights to a certain body and this is exactly what happened to Mono Lake as well (Mono Basin EIR, 1993). It took a long battle to overturn this amendment and this law posed serious legal problems for the Mono Lake conservationists. Actions taken

The actions taken by the Mono Lake Committee and other environmental bodies helped to save the Mono Lake. The ruling by the Water Board was expected to lower the salinity levels of the lake and improve the ecology of the area. The Mono Lake Committee strongly believed that the best way to restore the lake was to encourage natural processes that will automatically lead to improvements in the area. They began with boosting the flow of water in the creeks that lead to Mono Lake because the additional water will help to fill the lake in a natural way. This was considered to be a way better option that trying to put all the water on the lake as this could further affect the natural balance. They also worked towards opening smaller channels to feed more water to the lake. Besides boosting water levels, the Committee began planting plants that were native to the region along the banks of the lake in an effort to restore the flora of the region (Monolake.org, 2012).

Recently, the Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve faced closure and this was averted, thanks to an environmental group called the Bodie Foundation. This foundation agreed to collect the fees required to keep the reserve functioning and so, this park was taken off the list of park closures (Fimrite, 2011).

Ramifications of the case

The ruling by the board meant that LA had to put in place extensive measures towards water conservation and reuse. In response, the city cut back about 15% to 20% of its water usage to make up for the loss of water from the Mono lake (Strong-Aufhauser, 1995). When the water rises to the proposed levels, it is hoped that the ecology of the area will be restored, the salinity of the lake will drop and the health hazards it posed to humans in the way of increased dust storms...

The victory in this case was big for environmentalists and this has boosted their confidence levels in a big way.
The ruling in this case enforced two legal doctrines that are being extensively used in other similar cases and they are the Roman legal principle that protects all navigable bodies of water for the benefit of all people and the second is the state fish and dam code that forbids the destruction of fisheries by dams. Also, besides navigation, fishing, recreation, aesthetic beauty and ecology were considered a part of the public trust for the first time ever. (Sneider, 1996).

Recommendations

The actions taken by the Committee have given good results during the last few years. It is best to contain the water levels that would make the tufa towers visible to visitors. This will boost the tourism and in turn, it will get the funds necessary to operate the surrounding facilities. Moreover, the appropriate water levels will maintain the ecology of the area.

This case should be an eye-opener for environmentalists, Government officials and the public at large. Prevention is always better than restoration and this is evident in the hard and long struggles that the Mono lake Committee had to endure to restore the region. It is best to address an environmental problem at its earliest stage.

References

Strong-Aufhauser, Lisa. (October 1995). The Mono Lake Water War. Earth. Vol 4(5). p50.

Sneider, Daniel. (8/1/1996). Mono Lake's resurrection is a model for watershed battles. Christian Science Monitor. Vol 88(173). p3.

Fimtire, peter. (12/2/2011). Non-profit saves Mono Lake from park closures list. San Francisco Chronicle. PA22.

Jones & Stokes Associates. (May 1993). Appendix R: Legal History of the Mono Lake Controversy. Mono Basin EIR. 549.

Monolake Committee. (2012). Retrieved from: monolake.org.

Kahrl, William. (1983). Water and Power: The Conflict Over Los Angeles Water Supply in the Owens Valley. California: University of California Press.