Monthly Archive for January, 2007

Paper Water?

Published
by
Larry
on January 15, 2007
in Groundwater
. 0 Comments

Press Democrat Editorial
Jan 9, 2007

Water, water everywhere - and not 35 percent more to drink. This could be the epilogue of Sonoma County’s recently released Urban Water Management Plan which already is attracting its critics for some major assumptions it makes about the future.

The report, in brief, states that the county will have sufficient water supplies for the next 20 years - as long as it is allowed to get 35 percent more from its reservoirs. Anyone who understands water politics in the North Bay knows that this is a big “if.”

To do this, the Water Agency will have to persuade the state Water Resources Control Board that it has done enough in the way of encouraging water conservation, complying with the Endangered Species Act and other measures to justify an increase in its annual water rights from 75,000 to 101,000 acre-feet.

There’s no question that there’s enough water behind Warm Springs and Coyote dams to meet this increase. The question is whether the conditions will exist for the Water Agency to get permission to take it and deliver it to its retail customers in Sonoma and Marin counties by way of the Russian River. The National Marine Fisheries Service has already indicated that water levels in the Russian River are too high for the health of endangered fish. As part of the report, the Water Agency also assumes that there will be no changes to the Potter Valley diversion of water from the Eel River watershed into the Russian River over the next 20 years. This, too, is a political leap of faith.

Some critics are already lining up, saying these assumptions are far fetched. One called it “nothing but paper water.” Maybe so. There are enough uncertainties about the future of water to make projecting the county’s long-term needs next to impossible. No one will argue that the county needs to do more in the way of conservation, encouraging the use of reclaimed water, etc. But even with all of these things in place - along with existing growth controls - some amount of growth will likely occur in the county over the next 20 years, enough to necessitate some increase in water supply. To say otherwise may be the most unrealistic assumption of all.

All dried up

Published
by
Larry
on January 15, 2007
in Groundwater
. 0 Comments

Press Democrat Editorial
Jan 14, 2007

Fear of well monitoring is understandable, but now what?

No one welcomes intrusions by a government agency, whether that agency is listening to phone calls, opening “suspicious” mail or monitoring groundwater use - as Sonoma County was considering doing.

Around 200 people showed up at a Planning Commission meeting on Thursday to express displeasure at a proposal that would have required all wells to be monitored. Setting aside the fact that the idea had been dropped months ago, the protests were understandable: Who wants the county coming onto their property to see how much water is being used?

Still, these property owners might one day regret their opposition to monitoring. Sonoma County has the second largest number of wells in California (40,000), but no reliable way to determine how new wells might affect neighboring property owners.

Monitoring would have provided useful data about water levels, quality and flow. The county still plans to get this information from new wells. Hopefully, the Board of Supervisors will also create a voluntary monitoring program for existing well owners.

The only thing worse than government intrusion is turning on the faucet and realizing that the well is dry.

First Western Forum on Energy & Water Sustainability

Published
by
Larry
on January 11, 2007
in Groundwater, Logging Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

Hello

Bob Goldstein of EPRI our co-chair has asked me to pass on this information.

First Western Forum on Energy & Water Sustainability, at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, March 22, 2007. While the focus of the forum will be on the west, there are many issues in common with other parts of the country.

David Berry
1200 N. Nash Street # 1132
Arlington VA 22209
703-741-0791

6 Rue Creveaux, 3rd Floor
Paris, 75116 France

RW and CAG Petition Regarding SR Wastewater

Published
by
Larry
on January 11, 2007
in Groundwater, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

Attached is the document Alan sent to me that I promised to distribute.

Stephen finalsantarosapetition.pdf

New Year’s Water Prediction

Published
by
Larry
on January 8, 2007
in Groundwater, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

I’d say this is a safe bet.

Jane

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT: Chris Coursey

Jan 3, 2007

Readers wrote Monday’s column, providing predictions for some of the stories we’re likely to see in the coming year. Today, it’s my turn to give my take on what’s coming down the pike in 2007.
Before I drift off into fantasy land, which is much more fun than reality-based column writing, I have one serious prediction. I believe 2007 will be a watershed year for water in Sonoma County, both the kind we drink and the kind we flush down the toilet. Fresh water will be acknowledged as a finite, dwindling resource in the coming months, forcing policymakers to make hard choices regarding future development. Conversely, wastewater will continue to be produced in quantities too large to dispose of without making some painful choices of a different kind.

Another View of RW Enforcement of City Ordinance

Published
by
Larry
on January 8, 2007
in Groundwater and Waste Discharge
. 1 Comment

I helped negotiate the sewer lateral inspection ordinance, and hope to negotiate many more of them. I certainly respect Mary Grace Pawson, and Cathy Hayes, however, the real estate interests have no case and are just trying to delay and throw up a study and weaken the ordinance. They have no reasonable excuses for attempting to obstruct this obviously needed ordinance.

The ordinance will not interfere with the supply or demand for housing in any measurable way. It will not interfere with the timing of a sale. Compare its impact to something like the $70,000 permit costs for new home construction for low cost housing mitigation, and you see that a requirement to perform a several hundred dollar inspection is not a significant economic issue that Realtors should be worried about. What about the mold inspection, the termite inspection, title search etc? Why should a seller be allowed to sell a defective structure without disclosure of its most likely defects? I guess the real estate industry just wants to shield their buyers eyes from future problems. I thought that they were supposed to represent buyers interests also? Hiding a repair that might cost 5 thousand dollars is not in the interests of a buyer. It might be nice if they also represented the public interest ahead of expedient profit.

Lateral inspection goes a long way to quickly correcting infiltration problems that are not being addressed in most communities. Infiltration is responsible for a great deal of the raw sewerage overflows that contaminate our land, surface water and drinking water wells. It also provides a preferential pathway to contaminate large areas. For example, a lateral connected to a drycleaner or leaking underground storage tank can follow such a preferential pathway to a drinking water well or stream or another sewer lateral.

Cathy’s concern that the lines are very deep is a red herring. There are technologies that slip line the lateral without excavation or damage to landscape. These do not require digging in the street. It is most cost efficient and creates a better repair to do the lateral from house to the sewer main.

Realtors don’t even recognize their own self-interest in this issue. Lower sewer rates are a selling point. An improvement to a home is a selling point. The value they add in helping the buyer and seller with this inspection issue provides greater justification for their commission. All they need to do is have an inspection scheduled and completed, just like the termite or septic pump inspection. This is an identical condition to that which is now already required for every home with a septic tank. The escrow can close in the same time period, with repairs accomplished with a bond that secures funds needed to accomplish those needed repairs.

The state is gong to require this in the near future in its NPDES permits in order to be in compliance with the intentions of the Clean Water Act, as they should. River Watch has had to prod local municipalities that universally want this ordinance because Realtors coerce and threaten the local political officials. If homes turn over at 3% per year, then 1/3 of the infiltration can be repaired in 10 years instead of never. Imagine the increased capacity and reduced sewer rates that this provides existing communities.

Bob Rawson (Bob Rawson is plant manager for the Graton Wastewater Sanitation Plant)

River Watch Requires Enforcement of City Ordinance

Published
by
Larry
on January 8, 2007
in Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

By KATIE MINTZ Ukiah Daily Journal

Beginning Jan. 17, the city of Ukiah will start to enforce part of an ordinance that’s been on the books since 2004, according to City Attorney David Rapport.

The Sewer Lateral Inspection Ordinance, required by a consent decree in the settling of a lawsuit filed against the city by Northern California River Watch, mandates that when any property with a sewer hook-up is sold, the pipes — called the sewer lateral — that connect the building to the city’s sewer main be inspected for leakage at the point of sale.

City Manager Candace Horsley said the ordinance was drafted following the filing of the suit that alleged raw sewage was being discharged from the city’s collection system and infiltrating the Russian River. However, because the original ordinance did not have much public input, it was never effectively implemented by former Director of Public Utilities Bernie Ziemianek.

Now, with the deadline for implementation set at Jan. 17, Rapport said the city needs to comply with the consent decree.

But, while the consent decree also specifies that repair or replacement of sewer laterals should proceed if a need is indicated by an inspection, Rapport said it is not specific as to when the repairs have to be made.

“We’re going to take some steps to inform the real estate community that the city is going to expect at least the inspection to be conducted for escrows that open on real estate transactions after Jan. 17,” Rapport said.

He noted that the city is working to amend its ordinance in a way that makes repairs and replacements to the sewer laterals, which are the sole responsibility of the property owner (including the portion that lies beyond the owner’s property line in the public right-of-way), more easily implemented and equitable to property owners.

On Wednesday, the Ukiah City Council heard a presentation from Mary Grace Pawson of consulting engineer firm Winzler & Kelly. Pawson, hired by the city to assist in revising and implementing the Sewer Lateral Ordinance, has met several times with members of the real estate community, plumbing contractors, two city councilmembers and other interested parties to develop a list of issues and possible alternatives to be taken into account in the ordinance’s revision.

The City Council, led by Councilman Doug Crane, who has been highly involved with the working group, gave direction to Pawson based on the 10 issues presented.

Those issues included that a point-of-sale requirement for inspection would not be as effective as one based geographically in reducing infiltration and inflow, that repairs to the portion of the laterals in the public right-of-way would be expensive and difficult to obtain permits for, that point-of-sale requirements place new liability on Realtors, that requirement for repair prior to final sale could slow transactions and that re-inspections could be unnecessarily frequent if the property quickly changes hands.

According to Kathy Hayes of the North Bay Association of Realtors, in some areas of the city, sewer laterals can be buried as deep as 20 feet and cost from $12,000 to $15,000 to repair.

“We continue to be concerned about the process and concerned about the impact to homeowners and to the real estate industry in Ukiah,” Hayes said, addressing the council during public comment.

Many took issue with Ukiah’s policy that the entire lateral belongs to property owner even beyond the line.

“I can understand going to the property line,” Sharron Hatfield of Beverly Sanders Realty Co. said, “but let’s say there is a problem but it’s not on the building side, it’s in the street — maybe there’s a tree that belongs to the public…that’s gotten into the lateral. I don’t think it’s fair to ask the property owners to pay for that.”

Pawson is expected to return to the council next year with more information on the issue of ownership and with a refined ordinance for possible approval.

EPA Considering Not Regulating Drinking Water

Published
by
Larry
on January 4, 2007
in Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Dear Brock,

I share your indignation. EPA abandoned its responsibility for clean ground water at least 10 years ago and retreated to well head treatment as a strategy. They are now abandoning that position and handing off their responsibility to the private for profit sector. We know the Republican Bush agenda has always been to make government as incompetent as it says it is and then privatize anything profitable, and keep the rest in dysfunction. The incompetent private contract suppliers of water to the troops in Iraq have proven the failure of this strategy, but the gigantic profit presented by monopolizing the essence of life has attracted the largest multinational corporations. Some corporations own the entire water supply of countries. We can’t fix the problem unless we dismantle the cause of the problem. Or we could just be another third world country.

Bob Rawson

Wow!

“Bottled water as an alternative compliance option for chronic contaminants”

This is unbelievable, this can’t be happening? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying it will not protect and in doing so passing on the need for protecting such a fundamental human need to the bottled water industry? If I read this correctly, they are pushing this country into - excuse the expression, third world status? This is pushing the externaities of water to the private sector so they can profit from the corruption of water, this is beyond any rational relationship to the reality of the needs of humanity let along nature. So is nature suppose to go out and buy bottled water?

What is going on? If this isn’t one of the top “political issue” for the coming year - What Is?

Brock

Greetings Water Friends,

As many of you may know, the US Environmental Protection Agency held a listening session yesterday on the topic of bottled water as an alternative compliance option for chronic contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The announcement about that session is pasted in below.

We are very concerned about the impact this could have on the long-term solutions for improving and maintaining our public water systems. Our organizer, Zandra Rice, attended the meeting along with Sister Sharon Dillon, the Executive Director of the Franciscan Federation of the United States and shared the statement below at the meeting. There were also a few other NGO and representatives of communities there that were raising concerns about this prospect.

We will prepare a brief report on the meeting that we can share with all of you. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any specific questions.

Onward,

Gigi

**********************************************************************

For Immediate Release:
December 12, 2006

Contact:
Bryan Hirsch, Corporate Accountability International
(617) 695-2525

STATEMENT BY SHARON DILLON AT EPA SESSION ON BOTTLED WATER
ON BEHALF OF THE FRANCISCAN FEDERATION
AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL

EPA Listening Session
Washington, D.C.
December 12, 2006

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Listening Session on Exploring Bottled Water as an Alternative Compliance Option in Limited Situations for Non-Transient, Non- Community Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a listening session on the viability of bottled water as an alternative compliance option for chronic contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The purpose of this meeting is to identify information and data needed for EPA to evaluate the efficacy of bottled water as an alternative compliance option for non-transient, non- community water systems. At the request of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), EPA is convening a meeting to discuss information needed to explore whether and in what limited situations bottled water may be a safe and effective alternative compliance option to treatment technology and point-of-use devices.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will take place at RESOLVE, Inc., 1255 23rd St., NW., Suite 275, Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested participants from the public should contact Jennifer Moller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Drinking Water Protection Division (Mail Code 4606M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Contact Moller.Jennifer@epa.gov or call 202-564-3891 to receive additional details.

Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

Environmental Groups Sue US EPA for Deregulating Pesticide Spraying

Published
by
Larry
on January 3, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Environmental Groups Sue US EPA for Deregulating Pesticide Spraying

Today, environmental groups sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a decision that spraying of pesticides into the nation’s waters should no longer be regulated by the Clean Water Act. Baykeeper, along with five other groups, filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the new rule, which re-defines the word “pollutant” to exclude pesticides.

Of particular concern are certain types of aerial spraying and other direct applications of pesticides that contaminate creeks, rivers and wetlands. Pesticide contamination of waterways from such sources would be allowed without agency oversight under the new rule. Pesticides are known to cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive damage, liver and kidney damage and central nervous system disorders. EPA’s rule completely contradicts prior agency positions and represents a departure from their duties under the Clean Water Act.

“Congress was quite clear in directing EPA to regulate pesticide pollution,” said Deb Self, Executive Director of Baykeeper. “Rather than enforcing laws as Congress wrote them, once again the Bush administration has simply interpreted the law to suit its purposes.”

“For EPA to say that pesticides are not pollutants is like saying poison is good for you,” said Charlie Tebbutt of the Western Environmental Law center, lead counsel for the petitioners. “EPA is ignoring the requirements of the Clean Water Act and cannot go unchallenged.” The groups claim that EPA’s rule, if left in place, would put our waters, fish, wildlife and human populations at greater risk without the opportunity for local input into specific polluting projects and by eliminating monitoring and reporting requirements. “This is not what the Clean Water Act intended,” continued Tebbutt.

Joining Baykeeper in its challenge are Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, Oregon Wild, and Saint John’s Organic Farm. The groups, which represent a farm in Idaho and a cross section of environmental groups from Californian and Oregon, are asking the court to find that EPA’s rule violates the Clean Water Act.

Founded in 1989, Baykeeper is a non-profit environmental advocacy group dedicated to protecting the water quality of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and its tributaries for the benefit of its ecosystems and human communities.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs) was founded in 1982 by community groups from throughout northern California to provide a regional resource center for information and action about hazardous chemicals, especially pesticides, and to promote alternatives to toxic chemicals.

The Western Environmental Law Center is the West’s leading public interest environmental law firm and uses litigation and advocacy skills on behalf of conservation organizations to protect the natural environmental and way of life of the West.