Sonoma County Water News

Sonoma County Water Agency 

NEWS Update

January 2012

Bring on the rain!
The weather forecast for next week includes rain! Water Agency officials are cautiously optimistic that next week's rainfall will help keep tributaries to the Russian River flowing. Water supply levels at Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino, our two primary water supply reservoirs, are approximately 80 percent of water supply capacity. Both Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino rely primarily on rainfall to fill. Lake Sonoma is large enough to store a few years worth of rainfall, but Lake Mendocino is about one third the size of Lake Sonoma and highly dependent on year-by-year rainfall to fill. 

Read more »

Read article »

Petaluma Flood Control Projects Meeting

Petaluma Flood 
Control Projects

The Flood Zone 2A Advisory Committee is holding a meeting to discuss projects in the upper Petaluma River Watershed that could provide flood control and other benefits, like groundwater recharge, improvements to water quality and ecosystem enhancements. The meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, December 8 at the Lucchesi Community Center in Petaluma (details below).

Read more »

Read article »

Sonoma County Water Quality Objectives

Public Workshops for the Proposed 

Water Quality Objectives Update Amendment

Below is the Public Notice for the workshops on the scope of the proposed Water Quality Objectives Update Amendment currently being developed by staff from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.  The first workshop will be held at the Regional Water Board's regularly scheduled November 3, 2011 meeting in Santa Rosa.  The second  workshop will be held on November 8, 2011 in Weaverville.

The Staff Report and proposed Basin Plan amendment language will be released in early November. Once the document is released,  a Notice of Availability announcing the opening of the public comment period for these documents will be announced.

More information on this project can be found on the North Coast Regional Water Board's website located at:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/ 

Read more »

Read article »

Russian River Water Supply TOUR

Tour the Source for

 600,000 Water Users

Saturday, September 17 & Saturday, October 15, 9am - Noon

The Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) invites the public to attend one of two FREE half day tours of the Russian River water supply system. Tour participants will visit Water Agency facilities that divert, pump and treat the drinking water delivered to more than 600,000 residents in portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. These facilities will include the inflatable rubber dam on the Russian River, fish ladders, infiltration ponds and groundwater pumping plants.

“Turning on the tap will never be the same after attending the Water Agency’s water supply tour,” said Water Agency Chairman Efren Carrillo. “The tour offers a behind the scenes look into how our drinking water supply relies on a unique system of reservoirs, creeks and one of the largest groundwater pumping plants in the world.”


Space on the tour is limited and will be reserved on a first-come-first-served basis. To reserve a seat, complete the online tour registration form at www.sonomacountywater.org/tours.
For more information, please contact Brad Sherwood at 707-547-1927 or sherwood@scwa.ca.gov.

Sonoma County Water Agency provides water supply, flood protection and sanitation services for portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Visit us on the Web at www.sonomacountywater.org.

Read article »

Water Wars by the Bay

 By David Kenly

It takes little for Sonoma County residents to recognize the abundance of water shortage problems, whether along the Russian River, out toward Sonoma in the Valley of the Moon, or north and south in the notoriously water-strapped coastal communities.  With continuing viticultural and residential growth in an atmosphere of growing environmental awareness, the need for careful planning is vital.

Read more »

Read article »

Sanitary Sewer Overflows Impact

RRWA Environmental Column

Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Are you aware of their impact?

Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
Sanitary sewer systems collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into them from homes and businesses to permitted wastewater treatment facilities, which are typically Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These discharges, called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), are defined as any overflow, spill, release, discharge or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogens, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oil and grease.

What causes SSOs?
Discharges of untreated sewage from SSOs often occur due to blockages from build-up of fats, rags, oils, grease (FROG) and other debris, or from structural, mechanical and electrical failures. Infiltration of groundwater or surface water entering the sanitary sewer systems can also contribute to SSOs because these additional flows often exceed the capacity of the collection piping. Aging sewer collection infrastructure potentially increases the occurrence and severity of overflows.

What health risks and environmental impacts do SSOs present?
SSOs can pollute surface and ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. Typical consequences of SSOs include closure of beaches and other recreational areas, inundated properties, and polluted rivers and streams.

How to identify an SSO
SSOs can be a very noticeable gushing of water from a manhole or a slow leak that may take time to be noticed. Don’t dismiss unaccounted-for or out of the ordinary wet areas.
Look for:
• Drain backups inside a building
• Wet ground and water leaking around manhole lids
• Leaking water from sewer cleanouts or sewer drains around your home or office
• Unusual foul-smelling wet areas adjacent to sidewalks, external walls or landscaping.

What should you do when you identify an SSO?
Make sure that people are kept away from the area of the overflow. This is especially important for children and pets that may play near the overflow area (streets, public parks or local streams). Report the overflow immediately to appropriate authorities. Remediation can then be undertaken to reduce risk of public exposure to raw sewage by monitoring the impact of the overflow and ensuring proper cleanup.

What to do if you experience a sewer backup
POTWs are committed to building and maintaining a safe, efficient sewer system. Citizens should report any SSOs they see or experience to their POTW or contact their County Sheriff. When a sewer line from your home to the sewer main becomes plugged or causes backups in your home, it’s best to first call a plumber to investigate the cause of the backup. If the plumber finds a problem in the line from your home to the main sewer line in the street, the repair is your responsibility. If the plumber determines the problem is in the sewer main call your POTW.

You are responsible for your lines
You are responsible for a sewage spill caused by a blockage or break in your sewer line. Time is of the essence in dealing with sewage spills. If a sewage overflow occurs due to a problem in your lines, you are required to:
• Control and minimize the spill. Keep spills contained on private property and out of gutters, storm drains, and public waterways by shutting off or not using the water.
• Use sandbags, dirt and/or plastic sheeting to prevent sewage from entering the storm drain system.
• Clear the sewer blockage. Always wear gloves and wash your hands. It is recommended that a plumbing professional be called for clearing blockages and making necessary repairs.
• Always notify your POTW if a sewage spill occurs or if the spill enters the storm drain.

How to start the cleanup process
For professional help in cleaning up after a backup indoors, look in the yellow pages under carpet cleaning and related services. If you begin the cleanup yourself, remember to take basic precautions because bacteria is present in sewage and poses a health hazard.

If You See a Sanitary Sewer Overflow

Notify Your Publicly Owned Treatment Works

IMMEDIATELY

This article was authored by Ryan Kirchner of the City of Healdsburg, on behalf of RRWA. RRWA (www.rrwatershed.org) is an association of local public agencies in the Russian River Watershed that have come together to coordinate regional programs for clean water, fisheries restoration, and watershed enhancement.

Read article »

Computer-Controlled Russian River

By Brenda Adelman
Our beautiful Russian River provides solace for recreationists on lazy summer days, even though essentially controlled by computer models during most of the vacation season. The flows gently rocking kayaks and canoes are managed by the Sonoma County Water Agency, the State Water Board, the National Marine Fisheries Service and correspondingly, State and Federal Water Law. Right now, thanks to late spring rains, the river is still flowing high, and for a little while “mother nature” will remain in charge.

Our river is for sale….
Agency employees are usually good people; they want the best for all of us. But they have legally designated responsibilities and their focus is on meeting their obligations. Although they might deny it, preservation of our beautiful and popular lower Russian River is not usually at the top of their priority list. Their main job is to maintain the water delivery system for their contractors. (Water Agency operations are upstream of Forestville at Wohler and they generally address few downstream concerns.)

As for the Biological Opinion, that Federal document requiring the implementation of “low flow”, in its enthusiasm to promote a closed agoon at the mouth of the river, it fails to consider the potential negative impacts of doing so.

Urban Water Management Plan guarantees water supply to 2035…..
This same inattention to the lower river environment was evident in the Urban Water Management Plan, authorized recently by the Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Board of Supervisors). The document’s top priority was to predict water availability to meet summer demands of their water contractors (Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma, North Marin Water District, Marin Municipal Water District, Sonoma, Valley of the Moon, and Windsor).

Each contractor with 3000 connections or more was required by the State to project their water demands based on their General Plan population projections for the next 25 years. (These projections become self-fulfilling prophesies since they assure that adequate water exists for new development which can then be approved because it has been declared that there is adequate water.) In the past, the Agency did one plan for everyone. Since the major lawsuit on the 2005 Plan, all contractors but Valley of the Moon contrived their own demand projections for their respective districts and most wrote separate plans. This strategy made it much more difficult to file a legal challenge, if one were to occur.

Santa Rosa inflates demand projections for 2015…..
 As an example, Santa Rosa’s projections for the next five years greatly inflated the demand by about 4% annually even though their growth rate for several years has been under 1%. (In 2010, they had requests for about four building permits.) When the UWMP assures that it has enough water to meet contractor demands, contractors are given free rein to use more water. The city’s justification for the big increase is that they saved so much water in 2009-2010 due to water shortages, and the economy and housing market has caused unusual lowered water demand, that they are now allowed to catch up and go beyond what they had used previously.

The responsibility of the Water Agency’s UWMP is to determine water supply reliability under various flow scenarios for all contractors, and they use computer models to make those projections. The outcome is seven different documents using different input assumptions and methods for demand and the County Plan that analyzes water supply. The idea of models is supposedly to predict the future based on past events. But the future is really unknown, so guessing is permitted. And guessing leads to fantasy and wishful thinking. While many of their projections are based on past realities, nevertheless, there is plenty of room to fudge the data and secure the outcome they want.

Computer model validity relies on integrity and assumptions….
There’s a saying, “garbage in and garbage out”. That means that if you don’t use valid assumptions and accurate, meaningful data appropriately, you get “garbage” information. This is quite common. Unfortunately, most people generally have no way of knowing the value of the information. In fact, there are only a few people at each Agency who have deep knowledge about how these models function and whether appropriate information has been fed into it.

So here are some of the assumptions fed into the Water Agency’s model that determined there was enough water for everyone in four back-to-back dry years until 2035:

• They assumed no earthquakes or major disasters would occur and dams would remain intact;

• They assumed that the State Water Board would adopt changes to Decision 1610 (low flow) without modification;

• They assumed that the Potter Valley Project run by PGE would continue to provide the same diversions from the Eel River that currently occur;

• They assumed that PGE would not dismantle or earthquakes destroy the dilapidated structure even though it is in a very poor condition and almost not generating enough energy to make it PGE’s while to continue;

• They assumed that global warming would not cause 3-4 back-to-back drought years equal to 1977;

• They assumed that a pipeline could be financed (about $140 million) and built if habitat enhancement projects in Dry Creek did not satisfy needs of Biological Opinion and projected flows would continue;

• They assumed no dam failures resulting from aging infrastructure;

• Worst of all, they assumed that the water saved by the successful implementation of Decision 1610 WILL BECOME AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USERS.

In regard to the last assumption, it is intriguing that in one section of the document it states that implementation of D1610 will mean they don’t have to send as much water to the lower river from Lake Sonoma. In another section, they said that water saved from lowering stream flow will be stored in Lake Mendocino and can be utilized by other water users. Furthermore, they fail to clearly demonstrate how those water users will be affected by the required lower flows in the upper river (185 cfs to 125 cfs) in trying to obtain that extra water. Water Agency staff have assured us that this has all been calculated by the Model, yet nowhere in the document was the amount of water to be saved and the estimated flows necessary over what period of time was needed to save that water.

Are these assumptions reasonable? You be the judge!

Brenda is the Chair of Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, and may be contacted at rrwpc@comcast.net.

Read article »

Your Watershed - July 2011

Checking up on our Russian River Watershed Smarts!

Every year community groups, public agencies, and individuals invest time, money, and ingenuity to take care of the Russian River Watershed. Most of these efforts target water quality and habitat improvement, and annually cost thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Read more »

Read article »

Sonoma County Water Agency Updates

State Water Board approves temporary flow changes

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on June 1, 2011 issued an Order approving the Sonoma County Water Agency's Temporary Urgency Change Petition to temporarily reduce minimum flow requirements in the Russian River until October 15, 2011.

A Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2008 requires the Water Agency to annually ask the State Board to reduce flow requirements in the Russian River. Slowing the velocity of water during the summer improves conditions for young steelhead that live in the Russian River before migrating to the ocean.

The order allows the Water Agency to reduce flows in the upper Russian River from 185 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) to 125 cfs and in the lower Russian River from 125 cfs to 70 cfs. The Water Agency must maintain approximately 85 cfs at the Hacienda gage as practicably feasible.
Read the State Board's Order
Learn more about the Russian River Biological Opinion and the Water Agency's Petition. 

Public review begins for Dry Creek Demonstration Project study update
The public has until 5 p.m. on July 18, 2011 to comment on the Sonoma County Water Agency's (Water Agency) Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study) for the proposed Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Demonstration Project (Project). The Project would implement habitat enhancement projects within the first one-mile section of Dry Creek near Lambert Bridge as required by the Russian River Biological Opinion - a federally mandated 15-year blueprint to save endangered ?fish and ensure water supply. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate to regulators, landowners, and local decision makers the feasibility of Dry Creek habitat enhancements. The project will help demonstrate how habitat enhancements may be constructed, what they may look like, and how effective they are.

An electronic copy of the Initial Study is available at www.sonomacountywater.org. Hard copies of the Initial Study are available for purchase by request at david.cuneo@scwa.ca.gov or at the Water Agency's Administrative Office (404 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa).

Hard copies are also available for public viewing at the following locations:

- Healdsburg Regional Library: 139 Piper Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448

- Windsor Regional Library: 9291 Old Redwood Hwy., Bldg. 100, Windsor, CA 95492

Agencies and interested members of the public are invited to review and comment on the Initial Study. Please include a name, address, and telephone number of a contact person in your agency for all future correspondence on this subject.

Please send your comments to:

David Cuneo
Sonoma County Water Agency
404 Aviation Blvd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
david.cuneo@scwa.ca.gov

For questions regarding obtaining copies of this document, you may contact David Cuneo at 707-547-1935. Read More…

Department of Fish and Game awards $250,000 Grant for Mirabel Fish Ladder
The Department of Fish and Game has awarded the Sonoma County Water Agency with a $250,000 Fisheries Restoration Grant to help fund the design of the Mirabel Fish Ladder Replacement Project (Project). The Project will replace an existing fish ladder located at the Water Agency's Mirabel inflatable dam near the town of Forestville, CA in order to provide unimpeded passage of salmonids, eliminating the need to alter dam inflation to accommodate fish passage, and enhance opportunities for fish migration monitoring. The Project will also allow the public to view fish migrating through the fish ladder with the installation of an observation chamber and window. The Project's design work is expected to cost $500,000 and construction is slated to begin in 2013.

View the fish ladder design.

Learn more about the fish ladder design and the Russian River Biological Opinion. 

Monitoring well construction begins in Sonoma Valley
Drilling preparations for two specially designed 500-foot deep groundwater monitoring wells in the Sonoma Valley basin commenced Tuesday, May 31, 2011 as a part of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP). The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Monitoring Wells Project (Project) is managed by the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) with oversight from the Basin Advisory Panel of the SVGMP. The Basin Advisory Panel is a collaborative group of Sonoma Valley stakeholders representing varied groundwater interests formed in 2006 to develop and adopt the SVGMP. The Project is slated for completion by mid-July.

http://www.scwa.ca.gov/lower.php?url=press-releases&article=drilling-of-sonoma-valley-groundwater-monitoring-wells-commences-2011-06-02.

Sewer main, recycled water pipeline projects in Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District
Preparation work has begun in the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation (District) for two pipeline construction projects - replacement of a 5,700 foot section of the District's main sewer trunk and the installation of a recycled water pipeline for the North Bay Water Reuse Authority's (Authority) North Bay Water Recycling Program.

The District's sewer replacement project is a component of its capital improvement plan to replace aging and structurally deficient pipes that collect wastewater and deliver it to the District's treatment plant. The replacement project is taking place between Watmaugh Road East (east of Shainsky Road) and the District's wastewater treatment plant located at 22675 8th Street East. The 50-year-old existing sewer, constructed of reinforced concrete pipe, will be replaced with new PVC pipe material ranging in size from 30 inches to 42 inches in diameter. Construction activities will include open-cut trenching and trenchless construction methods under a portion of Schell Creek. Construction activities will take place on 16 private properties. Construction is slated to be completed by November 1, 2011. The total cost of the replacement project is approximately $1.8 million and was included in the District's FY 2010/2011 Capital Replacement Budget.

The installation of a recycled water main pipe for the Authority will parallel the District's main sewer trunk replacement project. The two pipes are being installed at the same time to save money for both the District and Authority. Construction for both pipeline projects will be performed under contract with Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc., a San Francisco pipeline construction firm, for the contract amount of $2,337,197. The project is being funded in part with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. In May 2010, the Authority was awarded $7.3 million by the ARRA towards the construction of projects that will expand recycled water use in the region.

Learn more. Read More…

Sanitation tours scheduled
Public tours of the Russian River and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Districts' wastewater treatment plants have been scheduled. Registration is required to attend and space is reserved on a first-come-first-served basis. Space is limited. Each tour will include a guided walking tour of the treatment plant and staff will discuss current and future capital improvement projects.

Russian River County Sanitation District tour:

Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011
Time: 10 a.m.
Location: 18400 Neeley Road, Guerneville, CA 95446
Register: Call Brad Sherwood at (707) 547-1927 or e-mail him at sherwood@scwa.ca.gov and provide your full name, street address and e-mail.

Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District tour:

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: 22675 8th Street East, Sonoma, CA 95476
Register: Call Carly Cabrera at (707) 547-1966 or e-mail her at carly.cabrera@scwa.ca.gov and provide your full name, street address and e-mail. Read More…

Water supply report
As of 6/07/11

Lake Sonoma
98% of water supply capacity
Storage: 240,427 acre-feet (Water Supply Capacity: 245,000 acre-feet)
Rate of Release: 101 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs)
Required Dry Creek Flow Rate: 80 cfs

Lake Mendocino
77% of water supply capacity
Storage: 85,829 acre-feet (Water Supply Pool Capacity: 111,000 acre feet)
Rate of Release: 183 cfs
Required Upper Russian River Flow Rate: 125 cfs

Lake Pillsbury (PG&E Facility)
Reservoir is currently 96% full (Storage: 71,903 acre-feet)
Rate of Release: 1,530 cfs
Cumulative inflow: 534,129 acre-feet

Lake Van Arsdale (PG&E Facility)
Potter Valley Diversion: 129 cfs
Eel River Release: 1,656 cfs

Hacienda Bridge
Rate of Flow: 946 cfs
Required Lower Russian River Flow Rate: 70 cfs

For more water supply information, please visit www.sonomacountywater.org. Read More…

Public meetings, notices
Public Meetings:

Board of Directors

The Water Agency's Board of Directors welcomes you to its meetings which are regularly scheduled each Tuesday. View the current agenda.

Location: Supervisors' Chambers
Sonoma County Administration Bldg.
575 Administration Dr., Room 102A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Contact: Phone 707-565-2241



Water Advisory Committee

Location: City of Santa Rosa, Utilities Field Operation Building 35 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa
Time: 9-11:30 a.m.
Date: August 1, November 7, 2011



Technical Advisory Committee
Location: City of Santa Rosa, Utilities Field Operation Building 35 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa
Time: 9-11:30 a.m.
Date: July 11, August 1, September 12, October 3, November 7, December 5, 2011 


Learn More...

Read article »

Sonoma County Urban Water Management Plans

By Brenda Adelman
The hot topic among Sonoma County water wonks is the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This is the water use plan required of all California utilities that provide water to over 3000 people or utilize over 3000 acre feet of water each year (one acre foot is about 325,000 gallons). It’s like the General Plan for water availability and projected need within the districts of each water utility.

UWMP documents are officially referred to as the 2010 Plan, although the submission deadline has been extended to July 1, 2011. The 2010 Plan projects water use and availability out to 2035, but new Plans and projections will be written every five years. The next one is due at the end of 2015.

It’s important to realize that Plans include projections which are based on past events but often utilize intuition, along with scientific guesstimates. Computers are used to make the graphs and charts, but human assumptions form the basis for the analysis and as such, are subject to human error. Yet important development decisions about the availability of water are based on those assumptions.

2005 Plan legally challenged by environmentalists……
The 2005 Plan, authored by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), was legally challenged by 15 environmental groups for making contractual commitments to water deliveries for which rights had not yet been obtained. This was referred to as “paper water”. The lower court ruled that the Agency had inadequately defined the source of supply, and Judge Gary Nadler deemed the 2005 Plan inadequate.

This 2005 Plan was predicated on the assumption that the State would increase their water rights from 75,000 acre feet per year (afy) to 101,000 afy. The State told the Agency that new permits would NOT be granted until Biological Opinion requirements, including permanent changes to river flow (Decision 1610 revision) were fully implemented, and that was not due to be complete until about 2018.

The Superior Court ruling was appealed by SCWA and was subsequently heard by the State Appellate Court. Appellate judges were of a different mind than the lower court and they reversed the decision. The groups tried to get the matter heard by the State Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear arguments against the ruling. The original suit had challenged the veracity of the information contained in the UWMP, but the Appellate Court ruled that SCWA had the expertise to determine whether the supply was adequate and that the legal challenge providing contrary information by other experts, was no more valid than that of the Agency’s. Obviously, many of us felt this was not a good ruling for the river environment, but events move on.

Current Plans broken into pieces….
In the current round, tasks have been split apart, with contractors composing their own Plans for projected water demand and SCWA focusing on water availability. The Agency’s water supply Plan has numerous components, including the Potter Valley Project, Lake Mendocino and Coyote Dam, Lake Sonoma and Warm Springs Dam, water supply, ground water, recycled water, conservation, Decision 1610, etc.


During dry periods, when supplies are greatly limited, contractors are informed that they cannot rely on the river as a source for water and must utilize their own local sources. These sources include local groundwater wells, accelerated conservation, use of wastewater for landscape irrigation, etc. Each entity is responsible for developing their own Plan. (The eight major contractors are Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Valley of the Moon, Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, North Marin Water District, and Windsor. Marin Municipal has an agreement to take off-peak water supplies.)

We will be examining Santa Rosa’s 380-page Plan in the near future. Outside experts were hired to analyze the needs of the system in great detail. Their UWMP can be found at: www.srcity.org/2010UWMP The Water Agency’s Plan can be found at: www.scwa.ca.gov/water-supply/ Plans for the other contractors should be available on their individual websites. We cannot track them all.

SCWA lowers expectations for water diversions….and hearings….
Each of these plans makes certain assumptions and contains certain goals. The Water Agency’s current Plan assumes that by 2035 (the life of the Plan) their projected water need will be just below 80,000 afy. The current water rights supply of 75,000 afy won’t be exceeded until 2027. (In the 2005 Plan, SCWA anticipated needing 101,000 afy by 2020.)


On Tuesday, May 24th, the Hearing on the Agency’s Plan took place before the Directors of the Water Agency (Board of Supervisors), and everyone (including water activists) praised the Agency for pulling far back on water supply projections. Santa Rosa’s Hearing before their City Council for their Plan will be June 14, 2011 at or after 5 pm in City Council Chambers at 100 Santa Rosa Ave. Other contractors will have their own plans and hearings. Check their websites for specific information.

Lower river loses out….again…..
It is not possible to go into more detail in this article, but there is one issue in the Agency’s Plan that we would like to emphasize. Many people in the lower river have questioned whether we are getting the short end of the supply through the implementation of “low flow”. We discovered a statement in the Water Agency’s Plan, which seems to indicate that this is the case. But first, we can say that the really low flows will generally occur just in water-short summers when the reservoirs are not full and a hot summer causes supplies to be considerably drawn. In that case, there will probably be shortages for everyone. In cool, wet years, water levels will probably be normal for most of the summer.

The Agency’s Plan states on page 2-6:
“…for normal water supply conditions, because minimum instream flow requirements below the confluence of Dry Creek and the Russian River are (and under the proposed reduced Biological Opinion flows will continue to be) lower than the instream flow requirements in the Russian River above Dry Creek, the Water Agency is not required to release water from Warm Springs Dam to meet instream flow requirements in the Russian River below Dry Creek. To this extent, water stored in Lake Mendocino provides an incidental water supply benefit to the Water Agency’s transmission system customers.”

This statement says it all! The Water Agency sees “low flow” as being advantageous to their water delivery role. RRWPC will be watching closely.


Brenda Adelman is chair of Russian River Watershed Protection Committee. She can be reached with questions at rrwpc@comcast.net

Read article »

RRWA Environmental Column – May 2011

Sheet Mulching your Lawn Away

Sheet mulching allows you to compost existing vegetation in place, be it lawn or weeds, while keeping the existing soil intact.  This helps suppress weeds, retain soil moisture, and eliminates the need to strip the lawn or apply herbicides in preparation of your new beautiful water conserving garden.  Sheet mulching saves time, money, organic matter and topsoil, and helps create thriving new landscapes.

Read more »

Read article »

Sonoma County Energy Policy and Community Choice

Board Approves Energy Policy 

and Community Choice 

Aggregation Program Feasibility Study

The Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors today approved funding for the development of a feasibility study to develop a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program in Sonoma County. The action came at the same time the Board approved and authorized the Water Agency to implement its new Energy Policy.

In 2002, the California Legislature enacted legislation permitting the creation of CCA programs. Under the legislation, a city, county, or Joint Powers Agency (two or more cities and counties) may implement a CCA program. Once formed, residents within the CCA service area can opt out of the CCA and continue to receive power from the utility (e.g., PG&E). Those that do not opt out will have their power supplied by the CCA entity. The utility continues to provide and bill CCA customers for power transmission and other services (e.g., meter reading, billing, etc.). Only the electricity generation portion of electricity service is provided by the CCA entity. A similar program, Marin Clean Energy, is operating in Marin County.

The Water Agency’s CCA feasibility study will examine whether such a program provides Sonoma County residents with renewable, locally-produced power at a reasonable and stable cost. The study will be coordinated by a steering committee composed of the Water Agency, the Regional Climate Protection Authority, the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, the County’s Auditor and General Services departments, city representatives and community stakeholders.

“The financial impact and economics involved in implementing such a program could be significant. The ability to invest power revenues locally while creating green jobs for County residents is attractive and this study will be looking at these opportunities,” said Water Agency Board Chair and Supervisor Efren Carrillo.

Implementing a CCA in Sonoma County could have multiple benefits, including increased local control over power generation and rates, a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, local economic benefits, and the opportunity to increase local energy efficiency and conservation efforts, as well as potential integration of carbon sequestration programs.

“The County has been a trail blazer through numerous sustainable energy initiatives in the past, and thanks to the Water Agency’s hard work, this feasibility study lays the foundation for a bright future. This Energy Policy will allow us to reinvest into our local economy while doing the right thing for the environment,” said Water Agency Director and Supervisor Mike McGuire.

The Water Agency has a unique interest in energy matters, arising from three factors. First, the Water Agency is a large consumer of electrical energy. Second, the Water Agency is a producer of electricity. Third, the Water Agency has been a leader in climate change mitigation activities, and is pursuing and has pursued numerous renewable energy projects.

The Water Agency currently operates 4.4 MW of renewable solar and hydropower facilities, and has up to 22.4 MW in renewable energy projects in development. The County of Sonoma operates two solar systems totaling 820 kW and a 1.4 MW fuel cell. An additional 5-6 MW is generated through capture of methane gas at the County’s landfill.

In 2005 the Water Agency’s Board authorized the General Manager/Chief Engineer to finalize an Energy Policy. The 2005 Policy established guidelines for Water Agency employees in the purchase of materials, design and construction of projects, and the operation and maintenance of Water Agency facilities. Since 2005 there have been many changes and new challenges. The new Energy Policy provides the Water Agency with direction in two general areas:

1. Carbon Free Water – For several years, the Water Agency has been pursuing a goal of achieving a net carbon neutral power supply for all its operations. This program has been titled Carbon Free Water by 2015 and includes the following programs:

a. Develop Renewable Energy Sources – The Water Agency continues to develop renewable energy projects to supply offset its energy demands rather than meeting these demands with conventional carbon based sources.

b. Water Conservation – The Water Agency is a regional leader in water conservation. Because water conservation reduces the amount of water the Water Agency must pump and deliver, the conservation of water has a direct impact on its energy use. The Water Agency will continue to promote water conservation.

c.  System Efficiency – The Water Agency continues to reduce its energy use by implementing efficiencies in its water transmission system.

2.  Projects of Regional Benefit – The new policy directs the Water Agency to seek opportunities for broader regional benefits in terms of energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, and development of local renewable energy sources. Under the new policy, the Water Agency will increase its efforts to seek collaborations and partnerships with other agencies and stakeholders in developing regional community initiatives.

The Agency will implement the Energy Policy in coordination with Strategy Seven of its 2010 Water Supply Strategies Action Plan, under which the Water Agency will take advantage of the synergies between water and energy.

To learn more about the Water Agency’s Energy Policy and CCA feasibility study, visit www.scwa.ca.gov/carbon-free-water/.

Sonoma County Water Agency provides water supply, flood protection and sanitation services for portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Visit us on the Web at www.sonomacountywater.org.

Read article »

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee UPDATES

River friends:

For many years RRWPC has been submitting comments to the State Water Board and the Regional Board expressing concerns about their Water Recycling Policy that allows "incidental runoff" by wastewater irrigators.   In the State's development of the Policy a few years ago, the legalization of incidental runoff caused the greatest controversy.  A committee representing many interests was appointed to negotiate the controversy, and they compromised by agreeing to establish a "blue ribbon" scientific panel to determine how to monitor the unregulated chemicals, including personal care products and pharmaceuticals, etc., also referred to as "chemicals of emerging concern" (CECs).

These chemicals have a strong potential for getting into the waterways through wastewater irrigation runoff.  (Tertiary treated wastewater does not remove all contaminants.)  it has been well documented that they can cause potential birth defects, cancer, endocrine disruption, etc. in humans and wildlife. The special committee did not even consider impacts on wildlife.

The recent preliminary findings of the scientific panel are that no additional monitoring of unregulated contaminants is necessary for urban irrigation projects. (Monitoring is only regulated for approximately 150 constituents. Many thousands are not regulated.)

We question their findings because they did not look at chemical compounds, but only a relatively few select individual constituents.  They did not look at synergistic or cumulative effects of multiple exposures of either the same chemical exposure or a range of chemicals.  They made no attempt to address impacts from most of the 80,000 chemicals currently being produced.

They did not look at impacts from bioaccumulation in soils, nor the potential for impacting groundwater quality.  (They assumed that wastewater would be applied in such a way so as to not seep into groundwater.) They considered, but did not fully address the impacts of these chemicals on infants and young people, elderly people and those with compromised immune systems.

We are extremely concerned that irrigation runoff will also carry other chemicals used to treat the soil and kill the bugs and weeds, such as soil amendments, pesticides and herbicides, off the site and into our impaired and highly utilized waterways.  This runoff might occur in the summer when flows are low, assimilation  poor, and human contact high, not to mention the prospect of further reductions in Russian River flow imminent as a result of proposed changes to Decision 1610.

To top things off, we have recently learned about a new and very serious issue. (See attachments) Thyroid cancer patients are often given a radio-active "cocktail" to destroy remaining thyroid cancer cells in their blood stream. In Europe patients having these cocktails remain in isolation in hospitals for several days while they are "radio active" and until the material fully leaves their system.  This was also done in the United States at least through the 1970's, if not longer.  It appears that the insurance companies lobbied to change this rule in the 1990's because of the high cost.

Patients normally remained in almost full isolation for about three days.  All body fluids, all water the patient came in contact with, including toilet and bath water, all food utensils and all materials in the room were placed into protected storage for about 50 years, the time it would take to de-contaminate the material.  Nothing left the room without being checked by a geiger counter and anything contaminated went into long term storage.  The attached letter goes into further detail. (RRWPC/Basin Plan Amend/2-15-11)  I can personally attest to this practice.

Currently, people are either sent home or go to hotels.  Their water waste is flushed into the sewer system.  We have never seen this issue addressed and it is not even addressed in the Markey letter to the Atomic Energy Commission included above.  Representative Markey was primarily concerned about the risk to public health by allowing people to reside in hotels and motels until the radiation wears off, thereby exposing large numbers of the public to excessive radiation.  As far as we know, nobody addressed the impacts to the environment from flushing radio-active waste.

In the meantime, the State authorized the Water Recycling Policy and our local Regional Water Board included the authorization of "low threat" discharges, including incidental runoff as part of their new Storm Water Permit.  They also authorized a Basin Plan Amendment that allowed for this practice to occur locally.  Throughout the process, we pleaded for better definition of how incidental runoff would be regulated.  We believe that it is far too vague.  In effect, this new policy allows summer discharge under certain circumstances into a waterway that is already highly impaired for nutrients, other conventional pollutants and who knows what else?

Dr. Dave Smith, Managing Director of the WateReuse California (and 25 year consultant to the City of Santa Rosa)  provided comments to support the Regional Board's approval of this policy and the amendment. He also played a lead role in setting up the committee and its agenda at the State level.  At Regional Board meetings on this issue, he was called on to speak after RRWPC comments were complete and he minimized, if not dismissed every one of our concerns to the Board.  Not one Regional Board member expressed any support for any of the concerns we raised.

Incidental runoff is very loosely defined in the new regulations and policy. In the Healdsburg permit it relies on self reporting by the irrigator (up to 1000 gallons on ag parcels in Healdsburg's NPDES permit).  Healdsburg worked hard and successfully to loosen up the new provisions, since vineyard owners were saying that they will not take the water if they have to follow all the regulations.

The Basin Plan Amendment is very vague and somewhat ambiguous about what will happen if a spill should occur.  Supposedly the irrigator is responsible to report runoff to the permit holder (for example, the City of Healdsburg), who then is responsible to report to the Regional Board.  This Policy does not apply to ag irrigation, but the ability to self-report up to 1000 gallons is a hint of how the policy will be defined.

We are particularly concerned that the Regional Board has been losing manpower who cannot be replaced and they will be relying on the dischargers to provide the critical resources needed to regulate these activities (and others as well).   The fox will be in charge of the chicken house and potential for abuse of this program, to the detriment of water quality, will be of great concern.

The Basin Plan Amendment waited for State Board approval for over a year.  They finally noticed a comment period that happened at almost the same time as the Estuary Project (Did someone plan it that way?).  We were unable to get notices out because we were afraid the public would get confused if we tried to cover two issues.  Comments were due two days after the due date for the Estuary Project.  We managed to get the attached letter in, but could not solicit other letters.  They acknowledged that they received our letter, but no one responded to our comments.

Now there is a State Board meeting on this on Amendment approval on March 15th. We don't know if we can attend and we think it is a slam dunk anyway.  The State is determined to spread this WASTEwater far and wide!  I hate to sound pessimistic, but I don't think we stand a chance on this one.  I just wanted to inform you of this issue.  We will continue to track this and ask your help by reporting to us ANY over-irrigation you see this summer time. (rrwpc@comcast.net)  Potable water is not supposed to be over-irrigated either.  Any wet spots on sidewalks and streets are not allowed.  Ponding on landscape is not allowed.  If you can take a picture, please do.  Also note the exact date, time, and location.  We will be watching!  If you want to pick a spot to watch on a regular basis, we will try to set that up.  We have found pictures of polluting activities to be enormously effective is getting them to stop the practice.  Please help us.

Finally, we have attached a series of definitions of the Precautionary Principle and references that supports the idea that polluting activities should not be allowed until they are proven fully safe, NOT allowed until they are proved fully unsafe, as it is done now!

We felt this was important material to spread around.  Please pass on to friends and other interested parties.

Sincerely,
Brenda Adelman
Russian River Watershed Protection Committee

Definitions of Precautionary Principle on the Web:
• The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

• Assumption of the worst case scenario with respect to actions whose outcomes are uncertain.
www.environment.gov.za/Enviro-Info/sote/nsoer/general/glossary.htm

• The concept that precautionary action can be taken to mitigate a perceived risk. Action may be justified even if the probability of that risk occurring is small, because the outcome might be very adverse. www.dfpni.gov.uk/eag-glossary

• The view that when science has not yet determined whether a new product or process is safe or unsafe, policy should prohibit or restrict its use until it is known to be safe. Applied to trade, this has been used as the basis for prohibiting imports of GMOs, for example.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/p.html

• This principle establishes that a lack of information does not justify the absence of management measures. On the contrary, management measures should be established in order to maintain the conservation of the resources. ...
www.fao.org/docrep/006/X8498E/x8498e04.htm

• Where significant environmental damage may occur, but the knowledge on the matter is incomplete, decisions made and measures implemented should err on the site of caution.
www.kentbap.org.uk/glossary/

• where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
localplan.westoxon.gov.uk/document.aspx

• a moral principle used to guide decisionmaking and prevent harm: When there is an activity or product that could threaten human health or the environment, precaution should be taken, even before there is scientific proof that the activity or product is harmful. ...
www.womenshealthmatters.ca/centres/environmental/Glossary.html

• The obligation to take preventive action when a chemical is suspected of causing harm to human health and/or the environment in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence in order to ensure a high level of environmental protection and of human, animal and plant health.
www.chemicalshealthmonitor.org/spip.php

• It is a fundamental component of the concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) and has been defined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio, 1992 (the "Rio Declaration"): Where there are threats of serious or ...
www.vcc.vic.gov.au/2008vcs/glossary.htm

• The best environmental policy is to protect the environmental systems as a priority, in particular where the results of an action/procedure are unknown.
www.tipperarynorth.ie/countydevelopmentplan/glo.html

• Taking action now to avoid possible environmental damage when the scientific evidence for acting is inconclusive but the potential damage could be great.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/glossary/p

• an approach to the management of risk when scientific knowledge is incomplete.
www.croplifeasia.org/biotechnology-glossary.html

• The principle that when information about potential risks is incomplete, decisions about the future policies should be based on a preference for avoiding unnecessary environmental or health risks.
www.sinauer.com/groom/article.php

• The approach whereby any possible risk associated with the introduction of a new technology is avoided, until a full understanding of its impact on health, environment etc. is available. ...
www.bioportal.gc.ca/English/View.asp

Read article »

Santa Rosa Graywater Worksho[

The City of Santa Rosa is encouraging people to take advantage of Sonoma County's Graywater use laws by providing a FREE workshop. Learn the dos and don'ts of graywater use, as well as how to install your own system. March 4th & 5th.

Day One: Participants will gain an understanding of the dos and dont's of graywater use, and will have designed a system for their own yards.

Day Two: Participants will install their own systems and experienced professionals will be available for trouble-shooting advice.

INCENTIVES: Attendees receive a $75 voucher for the necessary plumbing and irrigation parts - or - be eligible for a $75 rebate upon installation of the graywater system.

Participants - come prepared with a bag lunch...leave the rest to us!
 
CONTACT: Water-Use Efficiency Hotline to sign up at 707-543-3985 or e-mail wue@srcity.org.

March 4 & 5
8am to 7pm
Transit Operations Building
45 Stony Point Rd., Santa Rosa

Read article »

Russian River Water and Fisheries Public Meeting

Public Meeting Scheduled on 15-year Plan for

Russian River Fisheries, Water Supply

A 15-year blueprint to help endangered and threatened fish while maintaining the region’s primary water supply is the subject of a meeting scheduled 9 a.m. – 12 p.m., Monday, December 13, at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa

The Russian River Biological Opinion was released by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in September 2008. This 15-year plan requires the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to modify Russian River water supply and flood control operations to prevent harm to endangered coho salmon and threatened steelhead trout. The Public Policy Facilitating Committee (PPFC) – comprised of elected and appointed officials from public agencies throughout the region – meets annually to review progress.

“The Water Agency has made significant progress over the past year in an effort to comply with the Biological Opinion, spending significant resources to improve fisheries habitat,” said PPFC Chairman Paul Kelley, a Water Agency Director and a member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. “It is not business as usual for the Water Agency and the delivery of water to 600,000 people -- given the Biological Opinion. The PPFC meeting will be a venue for the public to get up to speed on this progress and meet face-to-face with Russian River Biological Opinion stakeholders.”

The Biological Opinion requirements include reducing minimum summertime flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek (known as the “Fish Flow Project”); changing the way the sandbar is breached at the estuary in Jenner between May 15 and October 15; and enhancing habitat in Dry Creek.

Representatives from the Water Agency, the USACOE, NMFS and California Department of Fish & Game will make presentations on the Fish Flow, Estuary and Dry Creek projects. The public will have an opportunity to comment.

For additional information, please contact Ann DuBay, (707) 524-8378 or ann.dubay@scwa.ca.gov.

Sonoma County Water Agency provides water supply, flood protection and sanitation services for portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Visit us on the Web at http://www.sonomacountywater.org

Read article »

Urban Water Management Plans for Sonoma County's Future

Court Gives Direction 

on Urban Water Management Plans 

That Rely on Future Supplies

The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to prepare and update every five years an Urban Water Management Plan addressing water supply and demand over the following 20 years. The Act specifies a broad range of matters relating to water usage, supply reliability, programs for increasing supplies, demand management and shortage contingency planning that each plan must address. In Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency (October 8, 2010), the First District Court of Appeal provided clear guidance on the information an urban water management plan must contain and the standards for legal adequacy.

The Sonoma County Water Agency adopted a plan in 2005, which was challenged by organizations opposed to the agency’s program for increasing its supplies. The trial court found the plan legally deficient, ruling that it:
(1) failed to adequately consider how environmental concerns might hamper the agency’s efforts to expand its supplies and should have described alternatives for expanding supplies given the potential difficulties;
(2) did not adequately address the potential for future groundwater contamination; (3) lacked enough specific data about the effect of demand management measures for addressing future supply shortfalls; and
(4) should have been prepared in coordination with state and federal agencies.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the plan fully identified the assumptions underlying its projections, acknowledged the uncertainties involved, and relied on relevant facts and expert analysis. The opinion gives specific direction on several key elements of urban water management plans:

• Description of programs to increase supplies. The assumptions underlying plans for expanding water supplies should be described, and those assumptions must be grounded on supporting evidence. Certainty about future supplies is not required, since “long-term water planning involves expectations and not certainties.” Further, a plan need not include proposals for replacing anticipated future supplies that might not be fully realized with an alternative supply that would be “at least equally uncertain.”

• Description of water quality problems. Plans should include information about how water quality problems affect supply reliability and water management, but need not address hypothetical future threats to water quality. The requirement that plans be updated every five years is sufficient to ensure that risks to water supplies that do develop over time are addressed.

• Description of water conservation measures. A supplier that is a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council may satisfy the requirement that plans estimate water savings attributable to conservation programs by attaching the activity reports it submits to the Council identifying water demand management measures. It need not quantify the expected reduction in water demand, or provide a separate description and evaluation of demand management activities.

• Compliance with statutory coordination requirement. The statute requires water suppliers to coordinate “to the extent practicable” with “water suppliers that share a common source” and “water management agencies” that are “in the area,” and provides that they may consult with other “relevant” agencies when preparing a plan. This language gives water suppliers discretion to determine what agencies to include in their planning. They are not required to circulate a draft plan for review and comment by federal or state agencies merely because those agencies have regulatory authority that could affect water supplies in some way.

This alert was authored by Geoffrey Robinson, Stephen Kostka and Marie Cooper, each of whom represented Sonoma County Water Agency on the appeal in this case.

Read article »

Clear Cutting of Trees along Bay Area Streams

Bay Area Streams to be Clear Cut 

under New Federal Policy

Community and Local Officials join together to send a message to the Feds, Save Our Trees

On Monday, October 11, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. at Wildcat Creek, Bay Area community leaders and elected officials including Congressman George Miller and Congressman John Garamendi will join together at a press conference to protest the largest federally mandated clear cutting of trees and vegetation in the Bay Area and California’s history. Recently released Army Corps of Engineer guidelines require that federally constructed levees along streams and rivers be free of all trees and shrubs based on a new National Levee Safety Program. Of the 3,000 miles of streams and rivers affected in California, more than 100 miles are pegged to be clear cut in the Bay Area. Local officials will refute the new policy and echo the community’s request to save the trees and shrubs, protect recreation and preserve habitat for endangered species.

The site of the press conference is a graphic example of the clear cutting policy which has already stripped a portion of Wildcat Creek marsh in western Contra Costa County from its wildlife habitat. A tour of the barren levee and nearby riparian forest slated for clear cutting will be provided immediately following the press conference.


Who: Congressman George Miller; Congressman John Garamendi; John Gioia, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board; Chuck Armor, Regional Manager, Department of Fish and Game; Witney Dotson, North Richmond Shoreline Open Space Alliance; Mitch Avalon, Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies; Mark Cowin from the State Department of Water Resources, East Bay Regional Park District and Bay Area Watershed Network

What: Press conference to speak out against federal clear cutting policy to remove more than 100 miles of trees and shrubs along Bay Area streams

When: Monday, October 11, 2011
Press conference starts at 11:00 a.m.
Tour of Wildcat Creek immediately following press conference

Where: Wildcat Creek, 2135 Richmond Parkway, Richmond, CA 94801 (map below)

Contact: Mitch Avalon, 925-260-5329, Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies

Driving Directions:

From North
-On I-80 Westbound, exit Richmond Parkway
-Travel 4.5 miles on Richmond Parkway (west and south)
-One block past Pittsburg Ave, turn right into the driveway before the bridge

From South
-Take I-80 Eastbound, exit 580 West
-On 580 westbound, exit Richmond Parkway
-Travel 3 miles on Richmond Parkway (north)
-Make a U-turn at Pittsburg Ave. signal
-One block past Pittsburg Ave, turn right into the driveway before the bridge

Press Conference
Wildcat Creek Trail Staging Area
2135 Richmond Parkway, Richmond
Parking reserved for media in lot

Read article »

Protecting Our Watershed 
During the Fall Months

Falling leaves, changing landscapes, periodic rainfall, and shorter days – just a few of the many things we associate with the fall season. Unfortunately, this time of the year can also mean over irrigation, water waste and pollution of our local creeks and the Russian River. As we enter into the fall months and the rainy season approaches, it is important to remember that the water needs of landscape plants change, and that anything that winds up on the sidewalk or street, including water from over-irrigation, can eventually find its way into our local waterways.

Even when the temperature is hot, the shorter days of fall mean fewer hours of sunlight, which means our garden plants need less water. In an average year in Sonoma and Mendocino counties, plants need the most water in July. By October, plants need approximately 40% of the water that they needed during the month of July. It is important to adjust your irrigation controller regularly and to reduce the irrigation run times to avoid over watering this time of year. Some other simple ways to reduce your irrigation use and prevent over watering your plants include using repeat start times and short run times for each irrigation station to allow more water to soak into the ground and reduce runoff, and checking and adjusting your irrigation sprinklers and drip emitters while they are running to make sure they are watering the intended target.

Fall is a great time to consider making changes to your landscape, such as installing new low-water use plants, tuning up your irrigation system, installing a rainwater harvesting system, or upgrading to a SMART irrigation controller which automatically adjusts the amount of time your irrigation system runs based on weather conditions. Many water utilities offer technical advice and rebates that will assist you in making changes that will reduce your outdoor water use all year. Call your local water utility or check their web site to find out what rebates they offer and how they may be able to assist you.

Fall is also the beginning of the rainy season which means paying extra attention to outdoor “housekeeping.” Storm water can carry things such as fallen leaves, litter, fertilizers and pesticides from lawns or gardens, and other pollutants into storm drains. Anything that flows into a storm drain enters our local creeks, streams and rivers without any treatment. These pollutants can have a harmful effect on fish and wildlife that live in local waterways. A few simple ways you can prepare for the rainy season include raking up and recycling fallen leaves; picking up and disposing of litter around your yard; correctly covering and storing paints, chemicals, cleaning agents, and other potential pollutants that are stored in areas affected by weather conditions; sweeping up dirt and other debris from sidewalks and driveways; preventing leaks and promptly cleaning up spills when they occur; and reducing irrigation water use to prevent runoff.

For additional information on ways to reduce stormwater pollution in Russian River watershed, visit the Russian River Watershed Association’s Stormwater web page at: www.rrwatershed.org/stormwater.html

By improving your irrigation efficiency, adjusting your watering based on the needs of plants, properly disposing of litter, leaves, dirt and other materials, and preparing for the rainy season, you can save water and help protect our local creeks and the Russian River.

This article was authored by Jennifer Burke, Senior Water Resources Planner, with the City of Santa Rosa on behalf of the Russian River Watershed Association. RRWA is an association of local public agencies in the Russian River Watershed that have come together to coordinate regional programs for clean water, fisheries restoration, and watershed enhancement.

Read article »

Laguna de Santa Rosa Observations

Do you think about that body of water you cross over on the Hwy. 12 bridge on your way into or out of Sebastopol? You should, as it is a very important and unique natural resource to our area. Stretching 14 miles from its beginning in Cotati, to where it empties into the Russian River in Forestville, the Laguna is a wetland complex that is very important to wildlife and humans alike.

Home to river otter, bald eagle, bobcat, coyote, steelhead trout and more than 200 species of birds, the Laguna is a nationally recognized biodiversity “hot spot,” and a key stop for birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway. But it is our home, too! Sonoma County residents benefit not only from the wildlife it sustains but from the flood control it provides and the green vistas it weaves between our cities.

The Laguna ecosystem has been heavily impacted by human use, especially in the last 150 years. Riparian (streamside) forests have been cleared, channels have been straightened, waters have been polluted and invasive species have gained significant toeholds. The Laguna Foundation was founded in 1989 with the mission of preserving, protecting, restoring and educating the public about this magnificent resource.

I’ll be writing this column seasonally to let you know what is going on in the natural world of the Laguna as well as to tell you activities that we at the Foundation are doing that you might like to be involved in. This has been a great winter for the Laguna! The rainfall we have had, combined with when it fell, has kept water levels in the Laguna at nice, high, but not flood, levels. I have been out there several times on kayaks and seen river otter, big carp, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, osprey, white pelicans, and, unheard of for this area, a black hawk (native to the desert southwest) that has taken up residence in the Laguna.

You can get out and see some of this natural beauty by joining one of our outings or volunteer events. See our web site for regular updates but May 1st we will be having docent led walks at Santa Rosa’s Delta Pond to see a very productive great egret, double crested cormorant, and great blue heron rookery. On June 19th we’ll be doing a Santa Rosa Plain bike and hike in conjunction with Landpaths. And on May 8th we’ll be having a volunteer work day along the eastern bank of the Laguna removing irrigation hardware from a planting we did on the Balletto conservation easement three years ago.

Love the Laguna and like what the Laguna Foundation does? Become a member by visiting lagunafoundation.org!

Read article »

Water Agency Separates Low Flow and Estuary Projects

Divided
SoCo Water Agency Separates Low Flow & Estuary Projects

Very Important Meetings…

Healdsburg - June 3 at 6:30 pm
Healdsburg Community Center, 1557 Healdsburg Ave.

Ukiah - June 3 at 6:30 pm
Ukiah City hall, 300 Seminary Ave.

Guerneville on June 9th at 6:30 pm
at Odd Fellows Hall, just up the street from the Vets Building.

By Brenda Adelman

Low Flow Back Again….
Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma are the fullest they have been in years and everyone is sighing relief at the expectation of having normal water supplies this year. Folks are grateful that this will be a summer when gardens can be watered without guilt. But sorry, the lower river is expected to get low flow again anyway!

This article is being written as the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) waits to hear from the State Water Board about their Temporary Emergency Petition to lower flows between May 1 and October 15, 2010. The Biological Opinion (BO) required filing the Petition. In fact, the BO requires that they file for a temporary petition every year until the permanent change to Decision 1610 is approved, which may be seven or more years from now. SCWA had filed “emergency” petitions in 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009.

Very Important Meeting…
Expecting to hear soon, the Water Agency scheduled a very important meeting in Guerneville on June 9th (Wednesday) at 6:30 pm at Odd Fellows Hall, just up the street from the Vets Building. SCWA will explain to the community the necessity for the temporary, but annual, low flow petition, which encourages flows to stay around 70 cubic feet per second (cfs) but will vary as high as 85 cfs. They hovered around 70 cfs most of last summer.

The intent is to allow the mouth of the Russian River to remain closed all summer while not flooding any properties in Jenner. The Agency anticipates that a closed lagoon will create conditions that will nurture threatened juvenile steelhead.

Because of the “emergency” status, there is no requirement for environmental review or examination of environmental impacts. In fact, the Emergency Petition boldly asserts that low flows will occur, “…without injury to any lawful user of water”, and, “…..without unreasonable effect upon fish, wildlife, and other instream beneficial uses.”

In other words, they claim that increased bioaccumulation of toxins in the low and slow moving river will not cause any harm; all of the nutrients and pathogens will not proliferate in heated waters, no recreationists and/or their children and pets will get sick or harmed as a result, and no significant impact on either water quality or public health will occur.

Unintended consequences….
Last year, many canoeists complained of fixed and floating, black and green and blue-green algae pervasive in the river last summer. (RRWPC has many pictures of this algae.) Large outcroppings of invasive Ludwigia were widely evident. We heard numerous reports of people and pets getting ill from playing in the river and have concerns that this is not being adequately considered in this process.

According to Regional Board staff, nutrient monitoring conducted by SCWA last summer was substantially inadequate due to excessive detection limits, that the Regional Board is gearing up to study nutrients in the Laguna and river, set numerical standards, seek a 303(d) listing under the Clean Water Act, and eventually change the Basin Plan to address the new standards.

Estuary Meeting in Jenner…
A recent Water Agency meeting in Jenner was promoted as an opportunity to learn about the Estuary Project and also serve as an environmental impact scoping meeting. Scoping meetings are meant to provide an opportunity for the public to express their concerns about the project and have their questions recorded by the lead Agency for later response. There is no requirement that the lead Agency hold a scoping meeting, but certainly if one occurs, there should be a record of the questions asked. While the Agency asked people to write questions on cards, there was no recording of their verbal comments. Furthermore, they had displays set up around the room and they expected people to walk around to various booths and talk to staff about the project. We learned that here would be no recording of their questions or comments while at these booths. Many citizens who attended this meeting described it as a “dog and pony” show.

At that meeting we learned that impacts resulting from mouth closure and the low flows required to facilitate it, would be considered in separate environmental documents, even though lower flows were essential for the project to occur. This is illegal according to our understanding of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Agencies explained that the permanent change to Decision 1610 that governs river flows will take too long and therefore they have to consider the EIR for the permanent change separately. This may be more convenient for them, but not the way things are supposed to be done.

Mistake Correction…
For the record, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee (RRWPC) recently sent out a mailer where we stated that the lower river was the ONLY section to get a decrease in stream flow. At the meeting, it was mentioned that the upper part of the river would be reduced from 185 cfs and 150 cfs to 125 cfs and not remain the same as we had stated. Nevertheless, we believe that 125 cfs flow does far less damage to water quality and recreation than the 70 cfs we will probably experience. These cuts represent a 32% and 17% cut for the upper river, and about a 45% cut for the lower.

Letters to send to Agencies…
RRWPC has developed new letters about this to send to State Water Board and Water Agency that you can find on the this web site below. Please copy and paste them into your own document, sign, and send in as addressed on the letter. It would be very helpful if you could write your personal river stories on the back.

Brenda Adelman is chair of RRWPC and can be reached at rrwpc@comcast.net. Donations to RRWPC can be made via PayPal at their website: www.rrwpc.org

LETTER TEMPLATES TO HELP YOU SUBMIT YOUR OPINION - Copy & paste what you need:

Victoria Whitney
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

Dear Ms. Whitney:
I am writing to you concerning the Sonoma County Water Agency’s (SCWA) Petition for a Temporary Urgency Change—Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 : April 4, 2010.

I (we) wish to express concern regarding the modification of summer flows in the lower Russian River from 125 cfs to 70 cfs for this year: May 1 through October 15th. I utilize the Russian River in the following way(s): property owner, business owner, recreationist and/or tourist, for artistic expression, for spiritual well being, for exercise and personal health, fishing, swimming, and/or_______________________________________________.

I am concerned that water quality will deteriorate from greatly lowered flows, including possible additional pollution from nutrients, regulated and emerging toxins, bacteria, temperature, invasive species, blue-green algae, etc. Lowering the flows to 70 cfs will seriously impede my enjoyment of the river and may impact my health and well-being. This action could also put children, pet dogs, and wildlife at great risk as well.

I believe the overall health of the watershed has greatly deteriorated, including impacts to other species besides salmonids, such as amphibians, sea birds, seals, unlisted fish and other aquatic life, etc. I wonder why the Biological Opinion, which requires that SCWA apply for this flow change, did not first require addressing other problems in the river that harm fish including excess sediments, temperature, and nutrient pollution? Can lower flows this summer cause bigger floods next winter given full reservoirs?

I understand that north of the river’s confluence with Dry Creek, flows will only be reduced by 32% or less, while the lower river will experience much greater reductions, even though the reservoirs are full. The purpose of the reduction would be to experiment with a closed Estuary at the mouth of the Russian River in order to help Steelhead fish. While we would like to see Steelhead saved, I/we are concerned that the collateral damage to water quality and ecosystem integrity may be too great.

Please see other side and/or attached letter for some of my experiences and why I am concerned that this change could cause adverse impacts to my use of the Russian River.

Sincerely,


---------------

Grant Davis: General Manager
Sonoma County Water Agency
P.O. Box 11628
Santa Rosa, CA 95406

Dear Mr. Davis:
I am writing to you concerning your Agency’s Petition for a Temporary Urgency Change—Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 , dated April 4, 2010.

I (we) wish to express concern regarding the modification of summer flows in the lower Russian River from 125 cfs to 70 cfs for this year: May 1 through October 15th. I utilize the Russian River in the following way(s): property owner, business owner, recreationist and/or tourist, for artistic expression, for spiritual well being, for exercise and personal health, fishing, swimming, and/or_______________________________________________.

I am concerned that water quality will deteriorate further from greatly lowered flows, including possible additional pollution from nutrients, regulated and emerging toxins, bacteria, temperature, invasive species, blue-green algae, etc. Lowering flows to 70 cfs will seriously impede my enjoyment of the river and may impact my health and well-being. This action could also put children, pet dogs, and wildlife at great risk as well.

I believe the overall health of the watershed has already greatly deteriorated, including cumulative impacts to other species besides salmonids, such as amphibians, sea birds, seals, unlisted fish and other aquatic life, etc. I am disappointed that the Biological Opinion, which requires that SCWA apply for this flow change, did not first require addressing other problems in the river that harm fish including excess sediments, temperature, and nutrient pollution. I wonder if lower flows this summer could exacerbate greater jeopardy from flooding next winter in the lower river?

I understand that north of the river’s confluence with Dry Creek, flows will only be reduced by 32% or less, while the lower river will experience much greater reductions, even though the reservoirs are full. The purpose of the reduction would be to experiment with a closed Estuary at the mouth of the Russian River in order to help Steelhead fish. While we would like to see Steelhead saved, I/we are concerned that the collateral damage to water quality and ecosystem integrity may be too great.

Please see other side and/or attached letter for some of my experiences and why I am concerned that this change could cause adverse impacts to my use of the Russian River.
Sincerely,

-------------------
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INPUT OPPORTUNITIES:

Order WR 2010-0018-DWR Approving Sonoma County Water Agency Temporary Urgency Change Petition -- Mendocino and Sonoma Counties

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Sonoma County Water Agency filed a petition for temporary urgency change on water right Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). On May 24, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights issued Order WR 2010-0018-DWR approving the petition. The Order approves the temporary reduction in minimum instream flow requirements for the Russian River as mandated by the National Marine Fisheries Service Russian River Biological Opinion for the improvement of juvenile salmonid habitat. The Order affects flows in the Russian River in both Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.

To view the order or project information, please visit the Division of Water

Rights website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/transfers_tu_notices/index.shtml

If you have any questions, please call 916-552-9286 or email scwatucp@waterboards.ca.gov and a member of the Division of Water Rights staff will respond.

Read article »