Archive for January, 2007

Comments to Riparian and Wetland Protection Policy Basin Plan Amendment

Included below and attached is:

Riparian and Wetland Protection Policy Basin Plan Amendment - Initial Comments by the Coast Action Group

This Basin Plan amendment is crucial for riparian protection on north coast rivers. Concerned parties should get involved in the Regional Board Process.

This process can eventually provide assurance of the maintenance of the Threatened and Impaired Rules - currently in the Forest Practice Rules (threatened with change or removal) and some aspects of the Coho Recovery Guidelines may be applied.

cag_cmmnts_strmswtlnds.pdf

Transfer Of Water Violates Clean Water Act

By Alfred E. Smith, II

In a decision of significant importance to water suppliers throughout the country, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently ruled that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (”NPDES”) permits are required for water transfers that add a pollutant to the receiving water body, even where the transfer introduced no new pollutants to the water being diverted.

The case was filed by environmental groups, including Friends of the Everglades and Fisherman Against Destruction of the Environment. These plaintiffs sued the South Florida Water Management District claiming that the District violated the Clean Water Act by using three pump stations to convey water from several canals to the southern end of Lake Okeechobee. A number of parties intervened in the action, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The United States maintained it had a compelling interest in the litigation because for decades the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a network of levees, water storage areas, pumps and canal improvements in the area; and the pump stations at issue play an important role in flood control, water supply and water management efforts.

The court’s decision is at odds with the proposed rule adopted by EPA finding that water transfers do not require NPDES permits. The court ruled that an NPDES permit is required, even though the opinion acknowledged that the “diversions at issue transfer water without subjecting the water to any intervening industrial, municipal or commercial use;” and even though “the pump stations do not introduce anything to the water as it moves through the stations.”

The court deferred final judgment pending further proceedings to consider plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. The opinion notes it is “unclear” what relief could be granted to Plaintiffs, noting that shutting down the pump stations would result in “massive flooding.”

The decision could have significant implications on the cost and treatment requirements for water transfers, particularly in the arid western states where engineered diversions among water bodies are longstanding, necessary practices. Noting the Wallop Amendment and the historic deference given to States and local authorities in matters of water use and allocation, the court did, however, acknowledge that its decision was limited to the facts before it. The court stated that requiring permits for “analogous activities could potentially cripple water management activities throughout the country, particularly in the West;” and that “[n]othing in the Court’s decision will preclude parties who represent other states’ water interests from pursuing their day in court.”

Stormwater Issues and Designs

Hi folks concerned and involved with stormwater quality & quantity issues and better development designs.

I found the following article in Stormwater Journal very interesting and informative in a more detailed manner. They used a number of different approaches, some for sandy soils, clay soils, slope limited sites where they appropriately elongated out with contour strips, etc!

I think that for us locally in Sonoma County we could really use some very explicit stormwater bio-filtering/infiltration monitoring and public educational demonstration sites!

While many projects are being built, to my knowledge none are actually designed to be accessible and educational- while producing scientific data on the efficacy of different designs based on our unique local conditions. If people know of local projects that are designed to do this please let me know.

I have not looked at it enough yet, but does anyone have an opinion of the new landscaping makeover in front of the Board of Supes Office? Is it just a traditional “xeri-scaping” plan or did they actually do anything to harvest all that roof water?

Thanks to Paola of SPAWN for alerting me to this article!

In the mitigation of cerebral imperviousness I strive to percolate,
Brock

Stormwater: The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals
Monitoring the Success of Infiltration Requirement: Combining regulation with outreach and demonstration sites by Paul E. Moline

Alternative stormwater techniques are becoming more widely used in jurisdictions around the country as local, state, and federal regulations increase. Infiltration, filtration, and bioretention practices are being considered more often as an option or a supplement to more traditional wet-pond treatments. These alternatives are not always easily implemented, however, due to resistance from the development community, skepticism from the planning and engineering community, lack of regulation, climate, soil conditions, and inexperience in construction. Implementation in suburban Minnesota has been slow to progress. Carver County, MN, a rapidly developing Twin Cities suburban area, has been working on this implementation since 2002 and has learned that a combination of uniform regulation, flexible techniques, demonstration, monitoring, and a willingness to evolve has proved successful.

This article covers the results of monitoring; the methods used in outreach to the stormwater management audience (developers, engineers, contractors, and landowners); and the types of practices installed, including the use of “pond shelves.” The approach of combining regulations with outreach, technical assistance, stakeholder input, and demonstration sites has led to successful implementation of innovative stormwater practices and has applicability to other jurisdictions…

Read the full article including data tables, charts and some pictures at:
http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0701_monitoring.html

SCWA’s Draft Strategic Plan

Attached is SCWA’s draft Strategic Plan, as of Oct. 2006.
It is being reviewed now by the contractors cities/agency council/boards for final adoption by SCWA Bd of Dir. in Feb or early March.

Take a look particularly at the Mission, Vision, Value and Policy Statements, as well as the project priority lists.

Do advise your local city councils and water agency boards of your recommendations asap.

David

David Keller
Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel River

scwa-strategicplan-oct2006draft.pdf

GPU Water Resource Element Changes

The attached just came my way.

Will be reviewed by Planning Commission [Monday, January 30, 6pm--See RW Calendar]

Please send comments to me asap.

Thanks.

BTW: I’m mystified why a doc dated 12/6 took five weeks to surface.

Stephen

[SCWC]

gpuwrechanges.pdf

“Paper Water” and OWL Foundation’s Legal Action

[On Rohnert Park's Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and EIR which is what the WSA is supposed to be based on] Here’s some more background. This EIR was presented to the RP city council the very day before we were supposed to go to court. I asked RP City Council to delay certification until the court handed down a decision; they refused and approved the EIR. When they lost in court, our lawyers instantly demanded that they de-certify the EIR because the EIR requires by law a valid WSA; they refused again. This recalcitrance forced us to file a CEQA suit against the EIR, which we did immediately. This suit is also pending. The City and the developers have stipulated that the CEQA suit against the EIR will rise or fall with the appeals case on the WSA, in effect placing the CEQA suit in suspension.

LAFCO told us that without a court injunction they are free to vote an what they like. They are absolutely correct. City councils, LAFCOs or any legal institution can vote, stamp papers, dance a jig, paint their faces, perform whatever legal behavior they wish and no court would ever issue an injunction against them. But—and this is important—the University District Project is still barred from building. If they dared to break ground (and they frequently have boasted that they will, court ruling notwithstanding) then a judge would indeed stop them with a court order. This because they do not have a legally valid EIR. The WSA they produced for that EIR was ruled legally invalid by a trial court and the EIR requires a valid WSA.

LAFCO, in the person of Tim Smith, announced that it would be “spooky” to have to wait for a court to decide on the validity of documents that LAFCO can still legally approve of or disapprove. The problem with this is that If the WSA ruling is upheld on appeal, then LAFCO will have wasted everyone’s time on December 13th when it could have been doing something useful. Moreover, and this is where LAFCO failed to do its job, O.W.L. has raised sufficient and credible doubts about the accuracy, even the veracity, of the WSA that, if nothing else, prudence would demand waiting until a final decision emerges. Why approve of a document that is missing a required component? And why approve of a document that stands alone, among a myriad of other studies, in claiming sufficient water supplies? That right there should raise eyebrows. Rushing ahead is stark evidence that none of these people want to do the right thing. “Spooky” indeed.

O.W.L.’s attorneys have been served with opening briefs in the appeals process. We file our opposition brief by the end of January. RP and the UDP have until March 5th to respond. The court will pick a date after that, so the earliest would be sometime in April (?), could be later depending on the schedules of the three judges involved.

The outcome of this case is important. Will the appellate court really tell the State of California that from here on out, planning major projects with “paper water” is legally acceptable? Or are they going to provide SB 610 with teeth and give citizens a tool with which to rescue our damaged water resources?

HR

Response to PD Article and Editorial

Dear all -

Thanks to you for the excellent article and editorial that begins to address the county’s problems with balancing water supply and demands.

Still not answered, however, is the important question of how the Water Agency squares its position on water supply assumptions of the UWMP with the directly contradicting assumptions used in preparing the county’s General Plan and DEIR.

This has led, on the one hand, the Supervisors and Sonoma County Planning Dept and GP consultants to the conclusion that we do not have enough assured water supplies for the next 20 years growth, while, wearing their other hats, the Sonoma County Water Agency Directors and SCWA staff and consultants blandly reassure all the cities that there are enough assured water supplies for the next 20 years, given some voluntary, untargeted and unmandated Best Management Practices by contractors to make up the differences.

So- where is the urgent request from the PD Editors for SCWA and SoCo. Planning staffs to clear up this conundrum? Of course, their responses should be presented in public, and with supporting documentation.

This is especially important because the conclusions of the SCWA UWMP becomes the (non-CEQA reviewed) assumptions for all the cities growth and development plans, including new city General Plans.

It’s also remarkable that, as Bleys Rose reported, “This is the first time we have really tried to look at the water-use picture that includes conservation, recycled water, Russian River water and ground water,” said Jay Jasperse, the water agency’s deputy chief engineer.”

What were they doing in previous water supply assumptions?

Paper water, indeed!

Best wishes,

David

David Keller
Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River

Regarding SCWA’s Conservation in Water Plan

The SCWA says they have looked at conservation and reuse, yet their projected water use of 101,000 ac-ft did not decrease at all.

Len Holt

Comment on SCWA’s Water Plan

Wow you gotta love it that after 50+ years as a major metropolitan supplier
of water that “This is the first time we have really tried to look at the
water-use picture that includes conservation, recycled water, Russian River
water and ground water,” said Jay Jasperse, the water agency’s deputy
chief engineer.

Also, how many people does SCWA really supply through contracts? 500,000 or
is it 600,000 - I mean really which is it? In the papers these numbers for
the past almost decade seem to me to have been interchangeably used. Often,
if the reporter or SCWA wants to look important it is 600,000. If it has to
do with downplaying issues like wastewater discharge or… It seems to be
500,000? What up with that? How any people are actually being served by
SCWA?

Brock

Quenching Sonoma County’s Thirst

by Bleys Rose
Press Democrat
January 2007

Sonoma County will have enough water for the next two decades except in critically dry years - if it can secure a 35 percent increase in the amount of water it can draw from reservoirs.

That is the key conclusion of a long-term forecast that environmentalists have criticized as overly optimistic.

The assumption that the Sonoma County Water Agency will win state approval to increase annual water rights from 75,000 to 101,000 acre- feet by 2016 underpins the county’s latest Urban Water Management Plan, a document that gets revised twice a decade.

Unlike several previous revisions, this plan carries extra heft because it details how cities will deal with water shortages and tackles the touchy issue of future water sources.

“This is the first time we have really tried to look at the water-use picture that includes conservation, recycled water, Russian River water and ground water,” said Jay Jasperse, the water agency’s deputy chief engineer.

In the event of drastic shortage, the water agency figures it will be able to meet only 85 percent of demand.

County officials are betting water conservation measures, their drought-tolerant allocation formulas and their attempts to comply with Endangered Species protections for salmon and steelhead trout will sway the state Water Resources Control Board.

The state agency has the power to free additional reservoir water that would flow into the Russian River, and then to pumps that would carry it into the delivery system serving Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and Petaluma.

A significant component of the plan is the projection that the added water will be enough to meet needs “for the next 20-plus years,” said Paul Kelley, chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

A key element in the state water board’s decision will be a determination by the National Marine Fisheries Service whether the amount of water in the Russian River and Dry Creek already is too high for endangered fish to thrive. The report concedes a biological assessment already has determined flows “may be higher than optimal for the listed species.”

Some leading environmentalists and watershed protection activists say that and other hurdles are yet to be surmounted.

There’s also a movement afoot to restore fisheries by knocking down dams, such as Yreka’s Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River. If that’s viewed as a solution for endangered salmon on the Russian River, which is fed in part by diversions from the Eel River, then water-use projections could be seriously askew.

“There are a lot of assumptions that will not necessarily play out as you wish them to,” said Brenda Adelman of the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee. “This is really an important document.”

Environmental groups criticize the report for being unrealistically optimistic about Sonoma County’s ability to increase its rights to draw water out of the Warm Springs and Coyote dams and for ignoring contrary evidence of diminishing water supplies.

“It is a promise of nothing but paper water,” said David Keller, director of Friends of the Eel River group. “The problem is that the construction in the cities and the demand will go as if we really do have this water.”

Keller said the report’s water supply predictions contradict others contained in the county’s draft Environmental Impact Review on the General Plan. The EIR says uncertainties surround future water supply calculations, which make planning for growth difficult.

Keller and other water resource advocates, like Adelman and H.R. Downs of the OWL Foundation, contend ground water in the Santa Rosa Plain already is disappearing faster than it’s being replenished and the county can’t cope with several years of drought.

The 284-page report, available at the water agency Web site, www.scwa.ca.gov, will form the basis for most Sonoma County cities to determine how much water they can expect to receive through 2030 and what kind of development can be accommodated with that water.

The water agency supplies about 600,000 people through contracts with 13 entities including Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Rohnert Park and Windsor.

Kelley said getting those jurisdictions to agree to water conservation measures, as well as allocations in the event of shortages, was pivotal in making accurate predictions on usage.

“Working together with the contractors on water-use targets, conservation goals and expansion of the system means we will have enough water in our service area,” Kelley said.

The report notes that water agency contractors agree to encourage customers to implement about two dozen conservation measures that include lawn irrigation controllers and more efficient toilets, dishwashers, clothes washers and showerheads.

Supervisor Tim Smith acknowledged that all the plan’s projections for nearly three decades may not come about.

“It is safe to say this is a work in progress with a lot of variables,” Smith said.