He assures the Mono Lake Committee that the Department has no intention of seeking any change to the Water Board decision at this time; and he requested we meet in September to develop a plan for regular communication on restoration and other issues of mutual interest. Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

The 1994 Water Board decision to protect the public trust in the Mono Basin is not a law. It is a decision based on a lengthy hearing about the complex environmental concerns of many organizations and agencies.

In October 1997 Mono Lake Committee members were surprised to hear DWP's lead counsel for the Water Board hearings express the sentiment that Los Angeles might ask the State Water Board to modify the decision. Our surprise was followed with dismay when we learned that DWP staff wrote to the California Air Resources Board May 28, 1998--with copies to Los Angeles City Hall, US Environment Protection Agency, and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District--stating that it "would like to work towards having the [Mono Basin] area re-designated as an attainment area." Such a redesignation would undermine the air quality reasons for raising Mono Lake, and this is the first step we have seen DWP take towards building a case for modifying the 1994 Water Board decision.

As you may remember, the Water Board set a restoration target level for Mono Lake of 6392 feet above sea level based on several factors. One of the factors was the need to comply with the Clean Air Act by limiting dust storms from Mono's exposed lakebed. Other reasons included restoring stream and waterfowl habitats in the Mono Basin, inundating the landbridge to the gull nesting sites, reducing the lake's salinity to protect the ecosystem, and keeping the tufa formations visible.

Since 1994, the lake has risen ten feet to an elevation of 6384. And many of the changes sought by the Water Board are beginning to occur. Air quality has improved in the Mono Basin. The streambanks are sporting new cottonwood and willow saplings. Trout are returning to the streams. The landbridge is now known as Gaines Island.

We learned about DWP's May 28 letter late in June. We also learned that Great Basin produced a "Reasonable Further Progress Report for the Mono Basin" in response to the letter. It concluded a re-designation was premature.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power countered with criticism of both Great Basin's monitoring program and its proposals to establish additional monitoring sites.

Mono Lake Committee members and staff have received a wake-up call. The points on which the Water Board based its decision can be challenged prematurely. The Mono Basin is not "in attainment" of Clean Air standards. Significant progress--exactly what was predicted with a rising lake level--is being made, notably at Simis Ranch. However dust plumes continue to rise from areas not yet covered by water. There are ample photographs of the plumes taken this spring.

The Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District proposes to focus its monitoring on the remaining problem areas. We must get real answers to the questions, not guesses or wishful thinking. The Committee must redouble its efforts to stay abreast of what all the agencies and groups concerned with Mono Lake and the Mono Basin are doing.