3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

Hello,
SRF has two exciting events this summer: the 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium and the 11th Annual Coho Confab. I have pasted our event announcements below. Please feel free -  even encouraged! -  to share these PSAs with your co-workers, constituents, list-serves, Events calendars, or other organizations you think might find these events useful and enjoyable.

Thank you for your help in spreading the word!

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium
July 10-12, Nevada City, CA

The Salmonid Restoration Federation’s 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium will be held in Nevada City on July 10 followed by field tours on the Yuba River and Butte Creek on July 11 & 12. Symposium speakers include UC Davis Fisheries Professor Peter Moyle who will address Ecological Perspectives on Spring-run Chinook salmon. Session topics will highlight status of populations and specific recovery opportunities for Central Valley Rivers, and recovery challenges including FERC relicensing, climate change, and resurrecting the Klamath run. Afternoon panels will representatives from DFG, NOAA Fisheries, SYRCL, State Water Board and Conservation Groups will discuss recovery through habitat expansion, water supply, and water quality improvements. Field tours will include a Yuba River float, site visits to the Bear-River Feather Set-back Project by way of the Lower Yuba, a Restoration thru Relicensing Driving Tour, Snorkeling Investigations of the South Yuba River, and a Butte Creek tour of Spring-run Fish Populations. Symposium and field tour costs are $105-135 depending on advanced registration which closes on June 15. To access the registration form, please go to: http://calsalmon.org/pdf/RegForm_8X11_050808_hi%20res.pdf

11th Annual Coho Confab
September 26-28 on the Smith River

SRF, Trees Foundation, Smith River Advisory Council, and the Smith River Alliance will host the 11th Annual Coho Confab featuring tours of Mill Creek restoration projects, erosion control and fish passage projects, underwater fish identification, macro-invertebrate sampling, networking, great music and food. Fee $100-125 includes all food and lodging. Limited scholarships and work trade positions are available.

For more info, please call 707 923-7501 or visit the SRF web site.

I hope you are having a great Spring!
Heather Reese
Project Coordinator
Salmonid Restoration Federation
PO Box 784
Redway, California 95560
(707) 923-7501
heather@calsalmon.org

Appeal for Action on Syar Mining Hearing–July 8th at 2:10 pm

Rescheduled Syar Phase VI Pit Mining hearing July 8th - 2:10pm**

Please help defend one of the biggest victories for the River that our
Supervisors are prepared to reverse - the 10-year limit of Open Pit strip
mining of our aquifer!

Urge the Supervisors to Vote NO on the permit and uphold the 10-year limit
to protect our aquifer and farmland!
This project, if approved, will open the door to continued mining beyond
this permit by breaking the ARM plan regulation that all open pit mining
will end in 2006, increase greenhouse gas emissions, expose our community
and wildlife to toxic levels of Mercury for gravel the market is already
well supplied with.

Please write a letter or attend the hearing on July 8th at 2:10pm!

For US post letters use the following address and subject line:

Chairman Kerns and Members of the Board
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Suite 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing

For E-mail letters please use the following addresses and subject line:

mkerns@sonoma-county.org
vbrown@sonoma-county.org
tsmith@sonoma-county.org
pkelley@sonoma-county.org
mreilly@sonoma-county.org
CC: KELLISON@sonoma-county.org
CSEPPELE@sonoma-county.org

Subject line: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing PLP05-0108

POINTS TO MAKE TO SONOMA CO SUPERVISORS

The 10-year limit was strict mitigation and can’t be undone
The April 2006 phase-out of open pit mining was a HUGE compromise by
conservation community and was mitigation in recognition of the widely
recognized environmental degradation to our floodplains, aquifer and
permanent loss of valuable farmland. The 1-year limit was mitigation for
the cumulative impacts from Open Pit mining and to continue beyond 10
years requires new mitigation and the EIR has no mitigation for the
cumulative impact from continued mining.

Water is more valuable than gravel to our community
Open Pit mining permanently destroys a portion of the Middle Reach zone of
the Santa Rosa aquifer for a year or two of gravel supply compromising
future sustainable water sources the county will require as our population
grows.

Syar’s Air Quality Study is Flawed and will lead to unacceptable cancer
risks from Equipment emissions
A June 2008 study by Atmospheric Dynamics shows that Syar’s reports
understated the cancer risks by not accounting for particulate emissions
by using outdated information on particulates, properly age equipment by
assuming all equipment was brand new with modern emission controls and by
not accounting for higher emissions from off-road equipment. The
independent report shows that the real cancer risk is 2-3 times higher
than Syar’s reports and push the risk above legal thresholds.

Continued Open Pit mining exposes our community and wildlife to high
levels of Mercury

Syar’s own data shows their process water slurry to contain toxic levels
of Mercury. Syar and other mining operations have dumped this toxic stew
into the former mining pits contaminating them with mercury. The Syar
processing plant located next to the River and the Phase VI pit will end
up with toxic levels of mercury if Phase VI is allowed to proceed. Syar’s
testing data from groundwater monitoring wells and former pits has a
detection limit 20 times the significant threshold levels set by the
USEPA, the Clean Water Act and Proposition 65.
Due to the failure to test for Mercury at levels required by the USEPA,
the FEIR should NOT be approved until Mercury testing is performed at
levels consistent with the law.

Sonoma County already has adequate gravel supplies
There is no public need served as imported gravel is able to supply entire
Sonoma market with lower Greenhouse gas emissions and much lower
environmental impact to source areas and no sacrifice of farmlands.

Most gravel use is NOT in north county
The EIR completely omits the existing Northern Sonoma County gravel
sources from bar skimming in claiming a "need" for local high quality
aggregate. The truth is that the majority of gravel use is easily served
by imported sources in Petaluma. This is demonstrated via a 2003 Whitlock
& Weinberger Transportation traffic study.

Thank You for opposing the Syar permit and protecting our River and
groundwaters!

**- Since the June 10th hearing was a last minute cancellation and many
showed up so if you want to confirm the hearing before you drive over you
can call our office at 433-1958 or the Clerk of the Board at 565-2241 to
confirm the hearing time after 10am on July 8th! We do not believe this
hearing will be postponed but check-in to be sure!

—————————
Don McEnhill
Russian Riverkeeper
PO Box 1335
Healdsburg, CA 95448
ph: 707-433-1958
fx: 707-433-1989
cel: 707-217-4762
www.russianriverkeeper.org

Regarding the Syar Gravel Permit Extension

(Note: The decision on Syar’s permit extension before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on June 10 was postponed until Tuesday, June 8, at 2:10 pm.)

It will be very interesting to see today how the Board of Supervisors addresses the issues around the requested Syar gravel mining extension as it relates to water supply and filtration.

In conversation yesterday evening with Pam Jeane (SCWA Asst. Managing Engineer) and their fisheries biologist (David Manning) in their Guerneville SCWA public meeting on water shortages, the question came up of whether SCWA would be providing comments to the Supervisors on the impacts of gravel mining on water supply. They stated explicitly that they have not been asked to do so by their boss(es), and so would not be providing any comments.

This is very odd and unfortunate, since it is a hydrological and geological reality that the gravels and sands of a river aquifer are porous. In the Russian River, these 25-40% voids within the gravel bed are filled with water, naturally and for free, every winter. This is a huge reservoir within the gravel bed aquifer of the Russian River.

So, removal of a cubic yard of gravel to aggregate mining removes approximately ~1/3 cu. yd. (about 9 cu. ft, or 68 gallons) of water stored within that gravel and sand. Gravel mining leads directly to lessened water stored within the aquifer, and directly results in lower flows within the river, as those stored waters are slowly released during the dry months as the “base flow” of the river. This is a very significant part of our water supply (and critical fish habitat) during the dry months, as well as for all the other users who are drafting water from the river for agriculture and municipal uses and for swimming and boating. This base flow is supplemented by the releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino to meet the state mandated minimum flows for fish and recreation. So, the less water stored within the aquifer, the more water has to be released from the reservoirs to maintain the flows. This is all compounded by the overdrafting of the river (”over-allocation”) during the summer, with more water taken out of the river than naturally is flowing in it.

(For literally a ‘text book’ examples, discussing the Russian River and other western rivers, see:
Jeffrey Mount [Chair, Geology Dept, UCD], California Rivers and Streams, the conflict between fluvial process and land use, UC Press, 1995, Chapter 11, Mining and the Rivers of California; also,
Thomas Dunne and Luna Leopold, Water in Environmental Planning, W.H.Freeman and Co, 1978, Groundwater storage, p.198+ )

As you well know, in addition, the state Dept. of Health 1949 permit for SCWA’s pumping of water from the river without any filtration (and no treatment required except chlorination for possible in-pipe contamination) is premised on the spectacular abilities of our aquifer to filter our water for cleanliness.

It is very unfortunate that the institutional conflicts between governance roles of the Sonoma Co. Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors SCWA leaves this critical information off the table for their informed consideration of river gravel mining. What we need is for the Board of Directors to instruct their senior staff to provide this kind of data to the Board of Supervisors.

Any help you can provide to get this done would be most welcome.

Thanks for your ear on this. If you’d like to discuss these issues further, please let me know - I’d be happy to sit down with you.

David

Water Scarcity: The Real Food Crisis

By Fred Pearce, Yale Environment, June 2008.

In the discussion of the global food emergency, one underlying factor is barely mentioned: The world is running out of freshwater.

After decades in the doldrums, food prices have been soaring this year, causing more misery for the world’s poor than any credit crunch. The geopolitical shockwaves have spread round the world, with food riots in Haiti, strikes over rice shortages in Bangladesh, tortilla wars in Mexico, and protests over bread prices in Egypt.

The immediate cause is declining grain stocks, which have encouraged speculators, hoarders, and panic-buyers. But what are the underlying trends that have sown the seeds for this perfect food storm?

Biofuels are part of it, clearly. A quarter of U.S. corn is now converted to ethanol, powering vehicles rather than filling stomachs or fattening livestock. And the rising oil prices that encouraged the biofuels boom are also raising food prices by making fertilizer, pesticides, and transport more expensive.

But there is something else going on that has hardly been mentioned, and that some believe is the great slow-burning, and hopelessly underreported, resource crisis of the 21st century: water.

Climate change, overconsumption and the alarmingly inefficient use of this most basic raw material are all to blame. I wrote a book three years ago titled When The Rivers Run Dry. It probed why the Yellow River in China, the Rio Grande and Colorado in the United States, the Nile in Egypt, the Indus in Pakistan, the Amu Darya in Central Asia, and many others are all running on empty. The confident blue lines in a million atlases simply do not tell the truth about rivers sucked dry, for the most part, to irrigate food crops.

We are using these rivers to death. And we are also pumping out underground water reserves almost everywhere in the world. With two-thirds of the water abstracted from nature going to irrigate crops — a figure that rises above 90 percent in many arid countries — water shortages equal food shortages.

Consider the two underlying causes of the current crisis over world food prices: falling supplies from some of the major agricultural regions that supply world markets, and rising demand in booming economies like China and India.

Why falling supplies? Farm yields per hectare have been stagnating in many countries for a while now. The green revolution that caused yields to soar 20 years ago may be faltering. But the immediate trigger, according to most analysts, has been droughts, particularly in Australia, one of the world’s largest grain exporters, but also in some other major suppliers, like Ukraine. Australia’s wheat exports were 60 percent down last year; its rice exports were 90 percent down.

Why rising demand? China has received most of the blame here — its growing wealth is certainly raising demand, especially as richer citizens eat more meat. But China traditionally has always fed itself — what’s different now is that the world’s most populous country is no longer able to produce all its own food.

A few years ago, the American agronomist and environmentalist Lester Brown wrote a book called Who Will Feed China?: Wake Up Call for a Small Planet. It predicted just this. China can no longer feed itself largely because demand is rising sharply at a time when every last drop of water in the north of the country, its major breadbasket, is already taken. The Yellow River, which drains most of the region, now rarely reaches the sea, except for the short monsoon season.

Some press reports have recently suggested that China is being sucked dry to provide water for the Beijing Olympics. Would that it were so simple. The Olympics will require only trivial amounts of water. China’s water shortages are deep-seated, escalating, and tied to agriculture. Even hugely expensive plans to bring water from the wetter south to the arid north will only provide marginal relief.

The same is true of India, the world’s second most populous country. Forty years ago, India was a basket case. Millions died in famines. The green revolution then turned India into a food exporter. Its neighbor Bangladesh came to rely on India for rice. But Indian food production has stagnated recently, even as demand from richer residents has soared. And the main reason is water.

With river water fully used, Indian farmers have been trying to increase supplies by tapping underground reserves. In the last 15 years, they have bought a staggering 20 million Yamaha pumps to suck water from beneath their fields. Tushaar Shah, director of the International Water Management Institute’s groundwater research station in Gujarat, estimates those farmers are pumping annually to the surface 100 cubic kilometers more water than the monsoon rains replace. Water tables are plunging, and in many places water supplies are giving out.

“We are living hand-to-mouth,” says D.P. Singh, president of the All India Grain Exporters Association, who blames water shortages for faltering grain production. Last year India began to import rice, notably from Australia. This year, it stopped supplying its densely populated neighbor Bangladesh, triggering a crisis there too.

More and more countries are up against the limits of food production because they are up against the limits of water supply. Most of the Middle East reached this point years ago. In Egypt, where bread riots occurred this spring, the Nile River no longer reaches the sea because all its water is taken for irrigation.

A map of world food trade increasingly looks like a map of the water haves and have-nots, because in recent years the global food trade has become almost a proxy trade in water — or rather, the water needed to grow food. “Virtual water,” some economists call it. The trade has kept the hungry in dry lands fed. But now that system is breaking down, because there are too many buyers and not enough sellers.

According to estimates by UNESCO’s hydrology institute, the world’s largest net supplier of virtual water until recently was Australia. It exported a staggering 70 cubic kilometers of water a year in the form of crops, mainly food. With the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s main farming zone, virtually dry for the past two years, that figure has been cut in half.

The largest gross exporter of virtual water is the United States, but its exports have also slumped as corn is diverted to domestic biofuels, and because of continuing drought in the American West.

The current water shortages should not mark an absolute limit to food production around the world. But it should do three things. It should encourage a rethinking of biofuels, which are themselves major water guzzlers. It should prompt an expanding trade in food exported from countries that remain in water surplus, such as Brazil. And it should trigger much greater efforts everywhere to use water more efficiently.

On a trip to Australia in the midst of the 2006 drought, I was staggered to see that farmers even in the most arid areas still irrigate their fields mostly by flooding them. Until the water runs out, that is. Few have adopted much more efficient drip irrigation systems, where water is delivered down pipes and discharged close to roots. And, while many farmers are expert at collecting any rain that falls on their land, they sometimes allow half of that water to evaporate from the surfaces of their farm reservoirs.

For too long, we have seen water as a cheap and unlimited resource. Those days are coming to an end — not just in dry places, but everywhere. For if the current world food crisis shows anything, it is that in an era of global trade in “virtual water,” local water shortages can reverberate throughout the world — creating higher food prices and food shortages everywhere.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He is an environment consultant for New Scientist magazine and author of recent books “When The Rivers Run Dry” and “With Speed and Violence” (Beacon Press).

Life, Liberty, Water

Maude Barlow, YES! Magazine, June 2008

As climate change and worldwide shortages loom, will people fight over water or join together to protect it? A global water justice movement is demanding a change in international law to ensure the universal right to clean water for all.

It’s a colossal failure of political foresight that water has not emerged as an important issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign. The links between oil, war, and U.S. foreign policy are well known. But water - whether we treat it as a public good or as a commodity that can be bought and sold - will in large part determine whether our future is peaceful or perilous.

Americans use water even more wastefully than oil. The U.S relies on non-renewable groundwater for 50 percent of its daily use, and 36 states now face serious water shortages, some verging on crisis.

Meanwhile, dwindling freshwater supplies around the world, inequitable access to water, and corporate control of water, together with impending climate change from fossil fuel emissions, have created a life-or-death situation across the planet.

Both Democrats and Republicans have emphasized loosening U.S. dependence on nonrenewable energy resources in their platforms, but neither party gives significant air time to the threats posed by water shortages.

This is not to say that no one is paying attention. In fact, water has become a key strategic security and foreign policy priority for the United States government.

Cut Deals, Carry Water

Corporate interests have pursued schemes to privatize, commodify, and export water for decades. We have seen how this plays out in Canada. For instance, in the late 1990s, Sun Belt Water, Inc., sued the Canadian government under NAFTA because British Columbia banned water exports, preventing a deal that would have sent B.C. water to California. Corporations have also made attempts to ship Canadian water as far as Asia and the Middle East, proposals that fizzled after fierce opposition from public citizens who were beginning to understand the dangers of permanently removing water from local ecosystems and placing it under corporate control.

Now the Pentagon, as well as various U.S. security think tanks, have decided that water supplies, like energy supplies, must be secured if the United States is to maintain its current economic and military power in the world. And the United States is exerting pressure to access Canadian water, despite Canada’s own shortages.

Under the name, “North American Future 2025 Project,” the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) brought together high level government officials and business executives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico for a series of six meetings to discuss a wide range of issues related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a controversial and tightly guarded set of negotiations to expand NAFTA.
“As … globalization continues and the balance of power potentially shifts, and risks to global security evolve, it is only prudent for Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. policymakers to contemplate a North American security architecture that could effectively deal with security threats that can be foreseen in 2025,” said a leaked copy of a CSIS backgrounder.

On the agenda for one of two meetings in Calgary were, “water consumption, water transfers, and artificial diversions of bulk water” with the aim of achieving “joint optimum utilization of the available water.”

The water and security connection deepens with the fact that Sandia National Laboratories, a vital partner with CSIS in its Global Water Futures Project, also plays a major role in military security in the United States. While Sandia is technically owned by the U.S. government, and reports to the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, its management is contracted out to Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer.

Ralph Pentland, water consultant and primary author of the Canadian government’s Federal Water Policy in 1987, believes that the purpose of these cross-border discussions is to secure sufficient water for Alberta tar sands production in order to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies to the United States. Energy extraction would be far more attractive if a new source of water - potentially from northern Canada - could be brought to the tar sands through pipelines or other diversions. As long as the water doesn’t cross the international border, it is within Alberta’s power to do this.

These schemes to displace water from one ecosystem to another in the service of corporate profit are an environmental problem for the entire planet, which is another reason why water must form a crucial part of any progressive discussion around U.S. dependence on foreign energy resources.

Corporate interests understand the connection and are using it to make their case for private solutions to the water crisis. In language that will be familiar to critics who argued that the United States invaded Iraq not for democracy but for access to oil and profits for corporations, a 2005 report from CSIS’s Global Water Futures project had this to say about water:

“Water issues are critical to U.S. national security and integral to upholding American values of humanitarianism and democratic development. Moreover, engagement with international water issues guarantees business opportunity for the U.S. private sector, which is well positioned to contribute to development and reap economic reward.”

Water for All

Clearly, the powers that be in the United States have decided that water is not a public good but a private resource that must be secured by whatever means.

But there are alternatives.

North Americans must learn to live within our means, by conserving water in agriculture and in the home. We could learn from the many examples here and beyond our borders-from the New Mexican “Acequia” system that uses an ancient natural ditch irrigation tradition to distribute water in arid lands to the International Rainwater Harvesting Alliance in Geneva, that works globally to promote sustainable rainwater harvesting programs.

Conservation strategies would undermine the massive investment now going into corporate technological and infrastructure solutions, such as desalination, wastewater reuse, and water transfer projects. And conservation would be many times cheaper, a boon to the public but not to the corporate interests that are currently driving international water agreements.

At the grassroots, a global water justice movement is demanding a change in international law to settle once and for all the question of who controls water, and whether responses to the water crisis will ensure water for the public or profits for corporations. Ricardo Petrella has led a movement in Italy to recognize access to water as a basic human right, which has support among politicians at every level. The Coalition in Defense of Public Water in Ecuador is demanding that the government amend the constitution to recognize the right to water. The Coalition Against Water Privatization in South Africa is challenging the practice of water metering before the Johannesburg High Court on the basis that it violates the human rights of Soweto’s citizens. Dozens of groups in Mexico have joined COMDA, the Coalition of Mexican Organizations for the Right to Water, a national campaign for a constitutional guarantee of water for the public.

The U.S. and Canada are the only two countries actively blocking international attempts to recognize water as a human right. But movements in both countries are working to change that. A large network of human rights, faith-based, labor, and environmental groups in Canada has formed Canadian Friends of the Right to Water to get the Canadian government to support a U.N. right-to-water covenant. And a network in the United States led by Food and Water Watch is calling for a national water trust to ensure safekeeping of the nation’s water assets and a change of government policy on the right to water.

Such campaigns may have a fight ahead of them, but the vision is within reach: a United Nations covenant that recognizes the right of the Earth and other species to clean water, pledges to protect and conserve the world’s water supplies, and forms an agreement between those countries who have water and those who don’t to work toward local - not corporate - control of water. We must acknowledge water as a fundamental human right for all.

Maude Barlow wrote this article as part of “A Just Foreign Policy,” the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine . Maude is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and author of “Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.” —From truthout.org

Sonoma County Water and Lake Sonoma

It was envisioned and built to support and encourage regional growth.

And 25 years later, there’s plenty of water in Lake Sonoma.

The problem is getting it to the Russian River, near Wohler Bridge; taking it out again; and distributing it.

A 6/22 PD story said,

“The dam created a lake that when filled covers 3,600 acres and has a 73-mile shoreline. Its Dry Creek arm is nine miles long and its Warm Springs arm four miles. It holds a water supply of 212,000 acre-feet and a flood pool of 130,000 acre-feet.”

“The Sonoma County Water Agency has rights to 75,000 acre-feet each year for the 600,000 residents it serves in the major cities and districts from Windsor to San Rafael. The problem, however, is how to get that water to the Russian River, where the Water Agency has its pumps and ponds.

It now depends on the flow down Dry Creek, which is too fast for the steelhead and salmon that populate the creek, said Dave Manning, the Water Agency’s senior environmental specialist.
While the agency, state and federal agencies study what the optimum flow should be, the Water Agency has already begun a study to build a pipeline down Dry Creek or West Dry Creek roads to the agency’s ponds near Wohler Bridge.”

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080622/NEWS/806220379

The SC Supes are also the directors of the SC Water Agency; and in a PD Close To Home piece yesterday, Supes Mike Kerns and Mike Reilly wrote:

“While there is plenty of water in the lake to meet our needs, there are new challenges in getting that water to local residents and businesses.” “If communities grow as planned, more water will be needed. With increased conservation, there should be plenty in Lake Sonoma to meet demands. Again, the problem is getting it out of the lake and into faucets. At the behest of the six cities and two water districts that are its customers, the Water Agency has developed a draft plan to meet these needs. On Tuesday, the Water Agency board voted to consider releasing the plan to the public in October, after the county general plan is complete and the biological opinion has been released.”

–http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080627/OPINION05/806270329

Kerns and Reilly said:

“If communities grow as planned, more water will be needed.”

And the Supes voted to “consider” telling us how they plan to provide that water–but not until October, “after the county general plan is complete”. They make it sound easy; and they don’t mention the huge expense of building a new Dry Creek aqueduct. But more important, I don’t see how the Supes can adopt a Sonoma County General Plan consistent with state law, unless it either:

1) demonstrates that the County can and will provide Lake Sonoma water, so its communities can grow as they plan;
or,
2) makes clear that the County can’t guarantee to accomodate the water requirements of that growth.
And if the County tells the nine cities it can’t provide the water for their growth, they’ll have three choices:

1) find more water somewhere else, maybe ground water;
2) adopt extreme conservation measures;
and/or,
3) reduce the planned growth in their own general plans.

Geoff

Regarding Water Supply from Lake Sonoma

Hi–

Another issue, as Terry reminds us, is the siltation rate — how fast is the reservoir silting in?? And what is the rate of evaporation (going up with average temperatures).

Jane
Regarding the Water Supply Update from the City that said we have enough water to support continuing development, meaning, I guess Lake Sonoma. Is this a true statement? I would not say that it is an unequivically true statement.

Yes ! There is some supply available from Lake Sonoma.

In the end it all depends on:

How litigation turns out with the Legal challenge to SCWA’s UWMP.

Condition of groundwater levels-and related impacts. ( the City is doing a
lot of pumping)

If it ever rains again. (Just got back from Avila Beach - it was 116 in the
shade - next day it cooled down to 106).

Other Factors like:

Ability to handle wastewater load

Ability to develop functional Stormwater Runoff plan

Alan

Water Catchment Article and Discussion

Hi David & Bob,

I totally agree with both of your points. The issues of “watergy” (water & energy - elec pumping and Natural Gas heating) & the benefits to mitigating GHG’s from on-site localized capture, storage and use and in reuse for irrigation of greywater have not been lost in my vernacular with the policy makers!

As we (SCWC tech session) were told by the Santa Rosa staff folks, a 55 gallon drum under your downspout with a garden hose on it and no connection to the municipal plumbing is still considered an “auxiliary” water supply, like an old well, and thus necessitates the purchase and installation of a several hundred dollar double back flow prevention device at the street, annual inspection of it for $60 to $100 and a $60 permit fee. Talk about lack of incentives!! Yet as long as Santa Rosa and the other cities continue to see their water as super cheap per gallon, since they are not paying the true cost of it for destroying the Eel and parts of the Russian as well as local groundwater, the numbers $ for an install of a urban roofwater system just don’t ‘pencil’ out!

In contrast, New Mexico is giving back money as “buy-down” incentives for roofwater systems. And Texas is going big on this…check the attached link for the Texas Rainwater guidelines from their legislative study.

Towards several of David’s points - I can’t remember if I have sent this group my rainwater harvesting policy/ordinance document as of yet? I have attached just to make sure. I put this resource together explicitly for politicians, policy makers and health department type folks as an easy reference document to have a look out in the world at what folks are doing from Australia to Texas & New Mexico!

I will keep you all more informed on these issues as they proceed, but I am have been actively engaged with Marin Municipal on rainwater harvesting. SPAWN received a grant to do education, public talks ( I will do one in July) and they install a couple demo systems in San Geronimo valley. OAEC’s WATER Institute with the Salmon Creek Watershed Council & Prunuske Chatham were funded by the Costal Conservancy to do a water conservation program, which will have a roofwater education and hopefully with other funds (NCIRWMP) we can support the install of some systems as demonstrations in the town of Bodega. Also, I am into talks with the director of the Mendocino County Water Agency and Redwood Valley Water and will be doing a public talk for them targeted to public officials and water system managers in July as well. And, although it is very early on - an initial meeting with Sonoma County Health, PRMD & SCWA folks is in the making on the topics of greywater and roofwater systems.

So we shall see where it all goes. In the meantime busy busy busy…If we see little rain this winter – well then…! As they say - “planning is best done in advance” and in this rainwater harvesting world it is better to “save it on a rainy day” - so pray for rain to harvest this winter, but ya gotta have your systems in place in advance to capture it or else!!!

Mostly Water,
Brock

Brock,
In addition to allowing Rain Water Capture, it would be nice if the county reframed from discouraging it. Currently such a storage tank would be taxed as an improvement instead of being subsidized as a way of increasing water availability and reducing the carbon footprint by eliminating pumping costs.

Bob Rawson

It would be great to get model ordinances from this group that are workable or existing under California law, and that can be adopted within municipalities of our Sonoma cities’ sizes, as well as by the county.

This means clearing Dept of Health, building departments, and zoning/land use scrutiny, plumbing and building codes, along with enough examples of existing legal catchment systems and legislation to give our politicians the cover and rationale and format they need to put this in place.

If we can provide this as a package, along with the best messaging for why this should be legal public policy, we’ll have a much easier time of getting this practice adopted and built.

thanks!

David

FYI!!! Brock

WATER – THE NEW CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH

Educational Conference and Membership Meeting of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association

http://www.arcsa.org/

September 15 -18, 2008 Sheraton Delfina Hotel 530 W. Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405

Rainwater catchment or “harvesting” is an ancient practice now enjoying a revival as an alternate water supply. The practice involved collecting rainwater from a roof or other surface before it reaches the ground and storing it for future use.

ARCSA promotes rainwater catchment systems in the United States through educational opportunities and the exchange of information at our Web site and through our workshops. Our membership consists of professionals working in city, state, and federal government, academia, manufacturers and suppliers of rainwater harvesting equipment, consultants, and other interested individuals. Membership is not limited to the US, and we encourage all rainwater harvesting enthusiasts to join our organization

Optional Accreditation Workshop Day/Sponsor Exhibit Set-Up Monday, September 15, 2008 8 am – 5 pm The Basics of Rainwater Harvesting All-day workshop for the general public and ARCSA members who are pursuing accreditation. Individuals seeking accreditation must apply through the ARCSA website and be approved for the course. Test must be turned in within 90 days.

ARCSA. American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association 919 Congress Ave., Suite 460 Austin, TX 78701 T: (512) 477-5445 F: (512) 477-9490 www.ARCSA.org

County Eyes Water Rules and Cutbacks

by Sandi Hansen INDEX-TRIBUNE
June 9, 2008

The battle between water demands for endangered fish and the ongoing needs of urban-water users in the North Bay rages on. Somewhere in between lie the Sonoma County Water Agency and some 600,000 water customers in Sonoma, North Marin and Mendocino counties.

This week, Valley of the Moon Water District directors heard predictions of a 15 percent voluntary water reduction for customers of the water agency. That would affect the City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon unincorporated residents, businesses, and agricultural users who rely on water purchased from the county. Sonoma County Water Agency Deputy Chief Engineer Pam Jeane, speaking at the district board meeting Tuesday, outlined the agency’s current plan for its minimum flow requirements on the Russian River, which impacts the Valley’s available water supply. “There’s been a significant change in the amount of diversion into Lake Mendocino (which feeds the Russian River),” Jeane said. “We’re just flat out not getting as much water as we used to.”

Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, both reservoirs, were built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Water is released from Lake Mendocino into the Russian River north of Santa Rosa, which makes its way to the Valley through an aqueduct. The county is charged with supplying adequate water distribution to numerous municipalities and districts in the North Bay where customer water demands keep increasing. On the heels of that increase however, is a 1986 ruling by the State Water Resources Control Board - Decision 1610 - that requires the maintenance of minimum flows on the Russian River between Lake Mendocino and Healdsburg. Those flows are required to protect the endangered salmon and steelhead fishery, and are becoming increasingly difficult to meet due to California’s drought conditions and record dry spring.

“We’re predicting very low water this year. Our current projection is 12,000 acre-feet in Lake Mendocino,” Jeane said. A water level that low causes real concern for the fall months of October through November when the Chinook salmon start migrating up the Russian River to spawn. “We’d like to preserve water in Lake Mendocino for that,” added Jeane.

She said the water agency has started down the path of creating an environmental impact statement in hopes of changing Decision 1610 so the county has more leeway in dealing with the situation. It will take a couple of years before documents will be available to support the request for a change, Jeane said. Currently, the state water board can only change policy in stream flows for 90 days at a time. Jeane emphasized that the state makes the decision on how much water to store and release. The county water agency dictates how much water it sells. Jeane said this year’s water agency conservation campaign slogan is “Less is More,” and it’s hoped that customers will see the need and importance of reaching the 15-percent water-reduction target throughout the Valley and the county.

Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced this week what many North Bay and Northern California residents already know, that the state is in the midst of a drought causing numerous communities to either mandate water conservation or call for rationing. In a press release on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said, “For the areas in Northern California that supply most of our water, this March, April and May have been the driest ever in our recorded history. As a result, some local governments are rationing water, developments can’t proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle. We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face, so I am signing an Executive Order proclaiming a statewide drought and directing my Department of Water Resources and other entities to take immediate action to address the situation.”

In the meantime, local water officials in Sonoma County and Valley have already put in place conservation efforts and have been doing so for years. Last year’s call by the Sonoma County Water Agency for a 15 percent water-use reduction resulted in an overall 20 percent decline county-wide by residents and businesses.

Brad Sherwood, water agency spokesman, said the local impact of the governor’s announcement is twofold.

“It brings more attention that not just our region is experiencing water problems, but the entire state is as a whole. Also, now we may see more legislative support and infrastructure projects especially to meet our future water needs.”

Where Have All the Salmon Gone?

Students help address salmon crisis; group’s leader blames state water policy for rapid decline in chinook.

Petaluma River Map

by DAN JOHNSON ARGUS-COURIER
Jun 5, 2008

Typically, each spring members of Casa Grande High School’s United Anglers group find between 40 and 60 chinook salmon in the portion of the Petaluma River near Payran Street to raise and then release.

The fish are wandering strays that have made their way up the Petaluma River in search of something, but got lost.

“But this year, we only found three of them,” said Tom Furrer, the wildlife biology teacher at Casa Grande, as well as coordinator of the Adobe Creek Restoration Project. “The fall run didn’t exist, and the spring run isn’t there, either.

“This could soon become another animal on the endangered species list, and some difficult decisions will need to be made if it is going to survive.”

Federal government researchers have predicted that only 58,000 chinook salmon will reach the Sacramento area and its tributaries to spawn this year, compared with 800,000 in 2002. This rapid decline in the salmon population could result in economic losses of $290 million and the loss of 4,200 jobs, said the governors of California, Oregon and Washington.

Furrer says that the decline is due to several reasons, but largely can be attributed to water vital to the Sacramento River Delta and San Francisco Bay ecosystems being pumped to cities and farms in Southern California.

“California’s water policy needs to change because too much water is being sent down south, and the animal doesn’t have a safe place to breed,” he said. “Also, most chinook salmon come from hatcheries, and have difficulty surviving because of the way the food chain has been affected: They starve, because they don’t have enough to eat.”

And true to their spirit, the students in Furrer’s United Anglers group want to do something to address the situation.

The students will be spending all summer feeding, cleaning and otherwise maintaining salmon at the Feather River State Fish Hatchery and the Tiburon Salmon Institute.

“The kids want to make a difference,” Furrer said. “They can’t tolerate society’s apathy: They are frustrated with it, and want to do something about it.”

After growing up in Petaluma, Furrer returned in 1981 to teach at Casa Grande. Two years later, he formed the United Anglers, and since then it has worked to conserve a fish habitat on Adobe Creek and raised $1.5 million, to create, develop and maintain a fish hatchery, among other things.

When the hatchery opened on April 25, 1993, members of United Anglers held a banner that read, “Together We Stand. Together We Dream. Together We Will Change the World.”

“Each year, our students raise 25,000 to 50,000 fish, and then cut them loose in October,” Furrer said. “This is a drop in the bucket compared to some other places that raise millions of fish, but to me, it’s not about the numbers: It’s about demonstrating to kids how to care about the fish.

“And this hands-on experience gives the kids a 10- to 15-year advance over many others going into the field.”

Original article at arguscourier.com