Monthly Archive for June, 2007

RE: Turning water into wine, Chronicle article

This is a great article, and it ties together some of the water, fishery and watershed/groundwater management problems in current viticultural practices and our region.

Unfortunately, local reservoir and pond storage, usually built along small and ephemeral creeks, seeps, springs and streams on ranch properties, significantly interrupt normal flows and runoff from these sub-watersheds. As a result, there are in fact frequently unregulated but significant damages to those creeks, the streams they feed, and the Russian River (or other waterways) downstream.

This is the subject of a very heated debate at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) going on right now, which compounds and intersects with the problems that you’ve read about with the SoCo Water Agency’s recently granted petition for “urgency low flows” in the Russian River. It’s not just low water levels in Lake Mendocino that are problematic. These mostly unregulated diversions of surface water for storage or direct irrigation, have proven to be a major cumulative problem for the Russian River. Trout Unlimited and Peregrine Audubon Society have petitioned SWRCB to get control of an out-of-control situation on North Coast rivers and streams. Under the California constitution, you cannot ‘own’ water but can only have rights to ‘reasonable and beneficial’ use of it; the SWRCB is the legal entity that regulates any one’s rights to use water, so clearing up this mess is up to this agency.

Right now, parts of the upper and mid- Russian River are “fully appropriated” (meaning all the legal water that can be taken is already granted); however, this is made worse by illegal and unpermitted diversions, leaving the Russian River ‘over-appropriated’ during the late spring through fall, when the rains start again. The Eel River diversions (through PG&E’s Potter Valley Project to the Russian River via Lake Mendocino) are used to subsidize and mask this overdrafting of the Russian River, to the detriment of the Eel River, its resources and population. The SWRCB’s task is to find and eliminate the illegal diversions, and they are ill-equipped to do that, and with many ranchers not wanting them to do anything at all. Thus, the upcoming public hearings at SWRCB on what to do, if they should do it, and how to do it, coming up on June 19th. Revised Notice of Public Workshop

The collective interruption and storage of the runoff by agricultural ponds and reservoirs means that the downstream flows are reduced. Part of the significant problems with the Russian River is a result of all these impoundments: they reduce tributary flows, which then damage spawning tributary streams (very important), the Russian River, and downstream legal water rights holders, and of course, salmon and steelhead during migration and juvenile stages and other public trust and instream uses.

In the Russian River basin there are many illegal and legal local reservoirs, and more unprocessed water permit applications than in any other river in the state. These small agricultural reservoirs, frequently not overseen by any regulators, also fill up with gravel and sediments that would otherwise flow downstream during storms, and as a result “starve” the lower waterways from receiving new gravels and cleaning the existing gravel beds necessary for fish spawning and rearing habitat. These sediment deprived runoff waters produce “hungry water” flows which then erode the banks and beds of these creeks as they flow downstream in storms.

“Hungry water” is water moving downstream that has lost, or is deprived of, its sediment loads. Since moving sediment takes energy from the flowing water, the resulting ‘clear water’ has more energy to erode banks and lands downstream, picking up sediments and debris from the banks and beds as it flows downstream.

Part of what happens in the Russian and Petaluma Rivers is a result of just that, and can be seen as downcutting and bank erosion of both the tributary streams and the river itself. Bad for fish, water quality, riparian habitat and groundwater. Most all urbanized streams and many tributaries of the Russian and other western rivers show these consequences.

The resulting erosion also causes loss of valuable topsoil, and the riparian trees along the banks that provide critical shade and nutrients for the creeks and streams. The erosion also cuts the stream beds down to a lower elevation, which then start to drain the associated groundwater into the lowered creek bed and result in lowered groundwater tables nearby. The reduced runoff also reduces the ability to recharge downstream groundwater basins’ permeable gravels, sands, soils and fractured rock.

Another issue with ranch storage is the water taken from streams, springs and creeks for “frost protection” for crops, in addition to water for irrigation. This water is also frequently unregulated and unpermitted, and contributes to the degradation of these streams and have all the downstream impacts noted above.

The consequence of all of these practices, in combination a host of other problems, such as water diverted for municipal and industrial purposes, gravel mining (of the very gravels and sands of the Russian River aquifer which store and cleanse the storm waters), polluted urban and road runoff, sewage discharges, clear cutting of forested slopes, loss of riparian trees and shrubs, high temperatures and a few other human-caused problems have led to the decimation of salmon and steelhead in the Russian and Eel Rivers.

So, enjoy that wine, but be aware that there are consequences of what methods are used to produce them, and that there are choices made by different vineyards as to what role they will play in either continuing damages, or in their role in the path to restoration of these precious and irreplaceable watersheds. We don’t get another watershed to live within. Ever.

David Keller
Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel River

On SWRCB’s Enforcement Workshop June 19th

Greetings all,
I’m writing to second David Keller’s request that we write and attend the upcoming SWRCB meetings this month.  My focus here is on the meeting on June 19th - the workshop to receive policy direction on Water Right Enforcement.  The Notice on this meeting states the their are currently 500 pending water rights applications, many for existing unpermitted uses.

The company that I work for has recently been contracted to assist a Hydrologist conducting Water Availability Analysis for several Water Appropriation Applications ( both acronyms WAA - just to keep things confusing) for tributaries connecting to the Russian River.

This may be old information for some of you - but I just recently learned about this:  Apparently SWRCB occasionally does fly-overs and notes any visible reservoirs that the State does not show permits for, then contacts the property  owner to “request” they file an application to appropriate.  Interestingly enough, because these water bodies are existing reservoirs, the State is encouraging a Categorical exemption from CEQA analysis (Section 15301)  and seems to be seeking only to find out how much water is being taken, and stored -  The point being than ANY surface flows are part of the watershed that is being diverted from a stream somewhere.  Therefore any reservoir must be permitted and show the water taken is not adversely affecting downstream flows, thus public trust doctrine comes into play and this is where folks like Trout Unlimited come in and protest water applications.

If you are not already on the mailing list - you can sign up to recieve notification of the applications here:

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/application/default.htm

It is  always interesting to see who in the neighborhood is applying for the already over-appropriated Russian River water!

The reservoirs that I happen to be looking at currently are small, and are probably not effecting streamflow to the Russian River directly, but when you have large vineyards diverting water, or any large agricultural use for that matter, it SHOULD be questioned how much water is being taken.  I know - I am preaching to the choir here - Technically any reservoir could act as a means of replenishing the local aquifer. Whether ag is using reservoirs or groundwater - there is a TON of it being sucked up - no coincidence that So. Co is also looking at using reclaimed water instead - there is just not enough to go around for ag and residential and still leave enough for the fish.

I’m glad that SWRCB is actually attempting to monitor and assess how  much water is being diverted, but this is just the first stage of a long process, because as we all know, governments may be very good at making rules, but without any enforcement process behind those rules, no change will occur.  My concern is that without CEQA being a part of the process, which requires mitigation to occur and a monitoring plan (thereby SOME kind of enforcement), I feel the agency is remiss in not looking at the whole picture.  This whole thing is so new, there are only 3 CEQA docs posted on the Water Rights site, Initial Studies with Mitigated Neg Decs.

I’ve been working on writing a letter from the perspective of an environmental planner, but I am still new to this and could use help from those of you who may have already been doing this for a while.
Comments for this meeting are due 6/6 by noon.  PLEASE HELP!
Thanks!
Joni

More Comments on SCWA’s Ag Reuse Project

Hi Everyone!

For your information, here are my comments on the North Sonoma County Ag
Reclamation Project plus a list of attachments. I submitted a lot more than
I originally intended, but the more I read this document the more horrible
the whole project looked. Feel free to pass them around.

All the other comments I saw were great. Thanks to everyone who
participated.

Brenda

sc-ag-reuse-project.doc

attachments_nscar.doc

Comment on SCWA’s Agriculture Reuse Project

The letter attached and pasted below was emailed and mailed today.

Thanks for all the input.

Stephen

Sonoma County Water Agency
P.O. Box 11628
Santa Rosa, CA 95406

May 17, 2007

Re: NSCARP DEIR/DEIS Comment for the Public Record

The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC) includes 32 organizations representing more than 27,000 concerned citizens.

SCWC believes that the proposed North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project (NSCARP) may not meet the long-term water management needs of Sonoma County, and, if approved and implemented, will require significant mitigation to avoid severe environment impacts.

Recycled Water Availability:

Recycled water streams intended for the NSCARP may, in the future, be redirected and treated to higher levels, either by advanced biological processes, microfiltration, reverse osmosis, or some other comparable technology, and used to recharge groundwater or to offset potable water demand in the urban areas served by contractors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). It is therefore essential that the NSCARP make no long-term commitments to agricultural users of project wastewater. It might also make better use of public funds and energy resources if they were to be redirected, from the start, to the development of these advanced treatment processes.

Additionally, existing recycled water streams from most SCWA contractor service areas are now fully committed to the Geysers, to existing agricultural users and to existing potable water offsets. Additional recycled water streams will be available for the NSCARP only if the proposed Water, Supply, Transmission and Reliability Project (the Water Project) is implemented. Since this is not likely to happen within the next 8 to 10 years, it would be premature to proceed with NSCARP so far in advance of the Water Project

To allow the public and other agencies to properly evaluate the NSCARP, this DEIR/DEIS must therefore explicitly identify:

1. Where the water for the NSCARP will come from?
2. What agreements will be made for delivery in very wet, wet, average, dry and very dry water years, as identified in the Russian River watershed and in the upper Eel River watershed, which serves as a source for Lake Mendocino, and in conjunction with Decision 1610 releases to the Russian River?
3. How much water is proposed to be delivered each month of the water year?
4. How will these water deliveries affect the current (or future) SCWA proposed Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in the Agency’s water right permits with the State Water Resources Control Board to request lower minimum flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek?
5. What will be the contractual consequences for failure to deliver water quantities committed?
6. What will be the direct and indirect linkages between the NSCARP water budget and the promised improvement in the flows of the Russian River and its tributaries under varying delivery scenarios?
7. What will be the effect on groundwater levels in basins within in the NSCARP project area?
8. What monitoring and testing does SCWA propose to make of the water used, the groundwater where irrigation takes place, and on any crops grown on such land, to determine if any regulated or unsafe contaminants are present?

Impact on Source Waters:
The DEIR/DEIS fails to address impacts to the source waters from which the discharged wastewater presumed to be used in the NSCARP originate: Russian River, Eel River and Sonoma County groundwater basins. This analysis, impact assessment and proposals to avoid, lessen or mitigate damages must be compliant with CEQA, NEPA, and at least the standards established in the recent Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. Rancho Cordova, and Friends of the Eel River v. SCWA court decisions.

Cumulative Impacts within SCWA Service Area:
The DEIR/DEIS must address cumulative impacts arising from this proposed export of waters from the SCWA service area, including the waters that are proposed to be exported from the service area through the Napa Sonoma Baylands Marsh Restoration Project, currently the subject of proposed Bureau of Reclamation and funding through H.R.236 (Thompson). All waters that would not be available to displace current and/or future potable water demands must be accounted for, and their impacts addressed explicitly, along with programs to reduce or eliminate any adverse impacts to the already overdrafted and stressed watersheds of the Eel and Russian Rivers, and the overdrafted groundwater basins of Sonoma County.

Impact on Water Supply and Demand Balance:
The DEIR/DEIS must explain how recycled water use intended for this project will affect the water supply and demand balance proposed in the recently adopted (and now legally challenged) Sonoma County Urban Water Management Plan 2005, as well as in the UWMPs for any particular city or agency that is proposed for supplying the treated wastewater for the NSCARP.

Impact on Potable Water Demand:
The DEIR/DEIS must address how the diversion of the treated wastewater to the NSCARP and to the Napa Sonoma Baylands Marsh Restoration Project will reduce or eliminate opportunities to offset potable water demands in the service areas of SCWA contractors and other municipal suppliers of water.

Consistency with draft Sonoma County General Plan Update and DEIR:
The DEIR/DEIS must address inconsistencies between the NSCARP and the draft Sonoma County General Plan Update and the General Plan Update DEIR that states that there currently is not sufficient water for the next 20 years’ growth in Sonoma County.

Accumulation of Endocrine Disruptors in Soil:
Tertiary-treated wastewater is intended to be applied at rates in excess of 150,000 gallons per acre within the project area. Detectable levels of endocrine-disrupting personal care products, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants in this tertiary-treated wastewater will accumulate in soils. The DEIR/DEIS quotes the Monterey Study from 1987 to downplay this risk. However, the Monterey Study was conducted before the availability of modern detection equipment. The project must therefore include an ongoing and rigorous program of soil testing monitor these pollutants in order to assess and manage this impact.

Accumulation of Endocrine Disruptors in Groundwater:
Tertiary-treated wastewater is intended to be applied at rates in excess of 150,000 gallons per acre within the project area. Detectable levels of endocrine-disrupting personal care products, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants in this tertiary-treated wastewater will accumulate in groundwater. The DEIR/DEIS quotes the Monterey Study from 1987 to downplay this risk. However, the Monterey Study was conducted before the availability of modern detection equipment. The project must therefore include an ongoing and rigorous program of groundwater testing to monitor these pollutants in order to assess and manage this impact.

Incidental Run-off:
Tertiary-treated wastewater to be applied in the project area cannot reliably meet Basin Plan discharge requirements for wetlands or instream flows. Application rates of tertiary-treated wastewater may exceed the ability of soils to absorb and plants to transpire all wastewater applied. This may result in incidental run-off to rivers and creeks. The project must therefore include a third-party monitoring program to assess and prevent this impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
The DEIR/DEIS must also address greenhouse gas emissions produced directly and indirectly by the various alternatives, and a demonstrable, valid and measurable program for reducing or eliminating any new greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this project. (See, for example, California Attorney General v. City of Bakersfield, for guidance in how to address this.)

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and await your responses in due course.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fuller-Rowell
Sonoma County Water Coalition

On Water Rights Enforcement Workshop vs. Conservation

Dear Water folk:

Please read the note attached below from Trout Unlimited (Brian Johnson) regarding the Water Rights Enforcement workshop. The SWRCB is considering if, how and under what conditions it will enforce water rights and unlawful diversions, as required under AB2121, and is seeking public input.

Friends of the Eel River is vitally interested in how this works out.

At the very least, failure to enforce water rights and failure to prevent unlawful diversion of water in the Russian River basin directly affects not only the conditions and health of the Russian River, but also the perceived or politically declared “needs” for continued or increased diversions from the Eel River through the Potter Valley Project, as well as for more local groundwater pumping. Anything that can be done to reduce the demands on the Russian River and reduce the unlawful diversions concurrently helps us on our path to recovering the Eel River’s water and fisheries and also reduces demands for more groundwater. Our efforts, of course, support the drive to have the water engineering and political communities learn to live within the water they have in their own watersheds, rather than continually ramping up demands for diversions and transfers.

The upcoming SWRCB workshop is scheduled for June 6, in response to the (already granted) SCWA petition for reduced flows this summer in the Russian R. The intent is to ‘bank’ unused water in L. Mendocino for release as higher flows later in the year for migrating chinook in the Russian R.

It is extremely disturbing and ironic that these 2 workshops are happening this month. It is disturbing, in that SWRCB has granted the urgency low flow petition to SCWA, yet has taken NO actions to reduce unlawful diversions upstream which directly affect the remaining flows this summer. In addition, there were no orders for mandatory conservation for any upstream users, water agencies or irrigation districts.

In essence, the releases of water stored in Lake Mendocino was viewed as the only variable to be regulated here.

“6.2 No Injury to Any Other Lawful User of Water
The SCWA is required to maintain specific flows at various locations in the Russian River from its most upstream point of diversion to the river’s confluence with the ocean. Therefore, SCWA must compensate for the diversion of water by both lawful and unlawful water users. It is anticipated that all of the SCWA water contractors and other legal users of water will receive the water to which they are entitled during the reduced flows specified in this Order.”

SWRCB Workshop
June 5, 2007, after 11.00am,
Cal-EPA Bldg, 1001 I St., Sacramento
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/workshops/enforcement/revpn_workshop061907.pdf
Regarding Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, 16596 - Reduction of instream flow requirements for the Russian River, May 1- Oct. 28, 2007:
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/application/TempUrg/docs/12919a_workshop_pn.pdf (SWRCB notice of public workshop, with location map)
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/application/TempUrg/docs/12919a_notice.pdf (SWRCB notice/background)
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/application/TempUrg/docs/12919a_order.pdf (SWRCB order granting petition)

The irony here is that the information that will be developed in the workshop to discuss the water rights enforcement policies should have come before the urgency petition was heard and granted. In my thinking, if SWRCB was compelling compliance with legal permit terms and enforcing removal of unlawful diversions, the flows and fisheries in the Russian River and its tributaries would be much better than they are, and the downstream users would not be bearing the brunt of the low flow regime.

Further, the short and long term pressures on the Eel River for diversions at PVP would be reduced.

Please plan to attend both hearings: the public needs to have their voice at the table, not just the water agencies and county supervisors.

Sincerely,
David Keller

Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel River
1327 I St.
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 763-9336

Brian Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

As you probably know, the SWRCB is hosting a workshop on its potential water right enforcement policy on June 19. Comments are due on June 6.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/workshops/enforcement/revpn_workshop061907.pdf

As the notice states, the motivation to develop a water right enforcement policy comes from AB 2121 (Kuehl) enacted in 2004. Trout Unlimited was the primary champion of this bill and to the extent any of you are planning comments I would love to talk with you. It would be great to have a host of NGO comments, even if it’s only to answer the first two questions posed in the affirmative. (”Should there be a water rights enforcement policy” in the AB 2121 area and/or statewide?) If you have not been planning comments but might consider signing on to others’, let me know.

Background: AB 2121 requires the State Board to adopt a policy for maintaining instream flows as it administers water rights in the area between San Francisco Bay and the Mattole River, by the end of this year. It authorizes the Board to adopt such a policy elsewhere. The AB 2121 policy is due a the end of the year, and everyone has been assuming it will include an enforcement element. While the policy has been in development (there is not yet a draft) SWRCB staff have been considering whether there should also be a statewide water right enforcement policy. At the same time, many water users have started to push back on the notion that there would be an enforcement policy anywhere - even in the AB 2121 area. Hence, this workshop.

Brian

Hydrological Connectivity of Headwaters to Downstream Waters

By Tracie-Lynn Nadeau and Mark C. Rains, Lead Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds; and Assistant Professor, University of South Florida, Department of Geology from the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA).

In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC). The SWANCC case presented the Court with two issues: (1) whether an isolated water could be considered part of the “waters of the United States,” protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) – and thus subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) regulatory authority under Section 404 of the CWA – solely based on its use by migratory birds; and, if so, (2) whether Congress had the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to include these as waters of the United States. In particular, the Court considered the Corps’ Migratory Bird Rule – which deemed waters of the United States to include isolated intrastate waters that provide habitat for migratory birds. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that the Migratory Bird Rule exceeded the Corps’ authority under the CWA [531 U.S., 159 (2001)], and held that the CWA is not intended to protect isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. While the Court’s decision did not create a bright line test for what Congress intended to regulate under the CWA, the Court’s reasoning implies that the CWA intended some “connection” to navigability, and that isolated waters need a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to be jurisdictional.

The SWANCC decision has had profound implications on the legal status of so-called isolated waters – those lacking a surface water connection to other bodies of water. Furthermore, that decision affects all CWA programs – including Section 303 water quality standards, Section 311 oil spill prevention and clean-up, Section 401 water quality certification, and Section 402 pollution discharge permits – not just Section 404, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S, including wetlands. Initially following the SWANCC decision, much of the regulatory debate was focused on so-called isolated wetlands, while the debate in the courts focused on the jurisdictional status of tributaries, including headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams. These case law and regulatory debates made apparent that the emerging issue is “what is the extent of the tributary system,” with a focus on headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams and the connectivity, or “significant nexus,” of these waters to navigable waters. The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance in January 2003 indicating that field staff were to continue to assert jurisdiction over tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, and that formal headquarters approval should be obtained prior to asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters based solely on links to interstate commerce [68 Fed. Reg. 1995, 1998 (January 15, 2003)]. During that same time period, a significant majority of courts, including 17 appellate court decisions, concluded that SWANCC was narrowly focused on isolated waters, and did not change the jurisdictional status of tributaries or adjacent wetlands.

On October 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review two cases related to SWANCC, the John A. Rapanos etal. v. United States (U.S., No. 04-1034, 2005) and June Carabell etal. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S., No. 04-1384, 2005) decisions from the Sixth Circuit. By granting review of these appellate court decisions, the Supreme Court increased uncertainty about the extent to which the CWA protected tributaries, and the jurisdictional status of headwater, ephemeral and intermittent streams. The consolidated cases were heard on February 21, 2006. The petitioners argued that CWA jurisdiction extends only to wetlands that actually abut navigable-in-fact waters, and that if the CWA extends to any other wetlands, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause authority. The petitioners also argued that CWA jurisdiction does not extend to non-navigable tributaries. As this JAWRA featured collection was under review, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in these consolidated cases in five separate opinions, none of which had a majority of five votes, 126 S. Ct. 2008 (2006) (Rapanos). The 4-1-4 decision is extremely complex, and has left many questions, some highly technical in nature, regarding CWA jurisdiction over headwater, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.

Given the debate over non-navigable waters and the regulatory turmoil caused by the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, as well as the scientific, legal, and political complexities of CWA jurisdiction, now is an opportune time to review the state of our scientific understanding of the contributions of headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams to the integrity of downstream waters. This featured collection of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association provides such a review. One motivation for this featured collection is that scientific information will be useful for on-going policymaking, at the federal, state, and local level. Another primary motivation for the featured collection is the need to address the more basic questions of hydrological and ecological connectivity of headwaters, how such connectivity contributes to the integrity of downstream waters, and to assess our knowledge of the processes that occur in these waters and the impacts they have on the larger aquatic ecosystem. This featured collection is based on an invited special session exploring the roles played by headwaters in maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters in lower watershed positions, held at the American Water Resources Association Annual Conference in Seattle, Washington in November, 2005. Participants were asked to address several key topics in preparing their presentations, and subsequent manuscripts, focused on the roles played by headwater streams in maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of downstream waters, the roles played by headwater streams in maintaining the integrity of the larger stream network, the spatial and temporal scales over which this hydrological connectivity is relevant, and the relative roles of surface water and ground-water flow paths.

Click here for the collection of articles

The Role of Ground Water in Generating Streamflow in Headwater Areas and in Maintaining Base Flow

Thomas C. Winter* *Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Paper No. J06016 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA).

Water flow diagram

Abstract: The volume and sustainability of streamflow from headwaters to downstream reaches commonly depend on contributions from ground water. Streams that begin in extensive aquifers generally have a stable point of origin and substantial discharge in their headwaters. In contrast, streams that begin as discharge from rocks or sediments having low permeability have a point of origin that moves up and down the channel seasonally, have small incipient discharge, and commonly go dry. Nearly all streams need to have some contribution from ground water in order to provide reliable habitat for aquatic organisms. Natural processes and human activities can have a substantial effect on the flow of streams between their headwaters and downstream reaches. Streams lose water to ground water when and where their head is higher than the contiguous water table. Although very common in arid regions, loss of stream water to ground water also is relatively common in humid regions. Evaporation, as well as transpiration from riparian vegetation, causing ground-water levels to decline also can cause loss of stream water. Human withdrawal of ground water commonly causes streamflow to decline, and in some regions has caused streams to cease flowing.

Click here for the full text

Water Board Workshop on Water Rights Enforcement

FYI–Workshop is on June 19 but written comments are due June 6. See below on more details for both ways of commenting.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) will hear comments that will inform its policy direction on water right enforcement, including enforcement for violation of water right permit terms and conditions and for unauthorized diversion or use of water.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION IN THE WORKSHOP
The purpose of the workshop is to receive comments from water right stakeholders concerning the Division’s water right enforcement program. The following issues are identified to focus comments and discussions on water right enforcement.
• Should the State Water Board adopt enforcement provisions in its AB 2121 policy?
• Should the State Water Board adopt an enforcement policy for areas of the state that are outside the mandated geographic scope of the AB 2121 policy? If the State Water Board adopts an enforcement policy that applies to other areas of the state, should it contain the same enforcement provisions as the AB 2121 policy?
• How should the State Water Board set enforcement priorities? What factors should it consider in setting enforcement priorities?
• Currently the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights (Division) identifies one or more watersheds per year in which it will conduct compliance inspections. In the past, watersheds have been selected after consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the California Department of Fish and Game, and federal fishery agencies. The Division selects the watershed(s) on which it will focus its enforcement resources based on potential impacts to water quality and aquatic resources. The Division then conducts both investigations of unauthorized diversions and compliance inspections of permitted and licensed water supply projects within the selected watershed(s). Should the State Water Board continue to focus its water right enforcement resources on specific watersheds? If so, how should those watersheds be selected? If not, what other basis should be used?
• Should the State Water Board provide an opportunity for voluntary compliance or corrective actions before initiating formal enforcement actions and, if so, under what circumstances? How long a time should the State Water Board allow for voluntary compliance?
• The State Water Board has pending over 500 water right applications. Many of these applications were filed to seek authorization for existing, but unauthorized, water supply projects. Should the State Water Board initiate enforcement against existing applicants that are diverting water without authorization? Under what conditions should the State Water Board initiate enforcement actions against these applicants?
• The State Water Board has pending over 600 petitions to change existing water right permits or licenses. Many of these petitions were filed to seek authorization for changes in place or purpose of use or point of diversion that have already taken place without seeking the required prior approval of the change from the State Water Board. Should the State Water Board initiate enforcement against existing petitioners that are diverting water in violation of the conditions of their water right permits or licenses? Under what conditions should the State Water Board initiate enforcement actions against these petitioners?
• The State Water Board has four potential formal enforcement options available: (1) issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, (2) issuance of an Administrative Civil Liability (monetary penalty), (3) referral of the matter to the Attorney General for fines or injunction or both, and (4) revocation of a permit or license. In some cases, a violation may result in only one type of action, and in other cases, a violation could result in more than one type of action. What conditions should be present before the State Water Board considers imposing each of the potential enforcement options?
• If a Cease and Desist Order is determined to be appropriate, should the State Water Board provide an opportunity in the Cease and Desist Order for the recipient of the order to continue to divert water while coming into compliance? If so, what conditions and time schedule for compliance should the State Water Board impose? What other factors should the State Water Board consider in determining a reasonable time schedule for compliance to be included in any Cease and Desist Order?
• Under what circumstances, if any, should a Cease and Desist Order require the permanent removal of an illegal diversion facility?
• The State Water Board has the authority to issue Administrative Civil Liability (ACL) of up to $500 per day of unauthorized diversion and use or up to $1000 per day for violation of a Cease and Desist Order. If an ACL complaint is deemed appropriate, how should the monetary penalty be calculated in order to ensure that the monetary penalty is effective in compelling compliance with water right law? What factors should the State Water Board consider in setting the amount of the monetary penalty?
• What factors should the State Water Board consider when determining whether to refer a violation to the Office of the Attorney General for prosecution?
• What factors should the State Water Board consider when determining whether to revoke a water right permit or license as a result of violation of permit or license terms?
• The State Water Board has the authority to revoke water right permits and licenses if the water right fees due on the permit or license are not paid for five or more years. Should the State Water Board consider revoking water right permits and licenses for failure to pay water right fees? If so, under what conditions should the permit or license be revoked?
• The State Water Board has authority to cancel a pending application if the applicant does not diligently act to acquire a permit. Should the State Water Board cancel an illegal water supply project for lack of diligence by the applicant? Under what conditions should the State Water Board cancel a pending application for an illegal water supply project?
• Are there any other factors that the State Water Board should consider in regard to water right enforcement?
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The workshop will be informal. There will be no sworn testimony or cross-examination of participants, but the State Water Board and its staff may ask clarifying questions.
Participants should submit written comments prior to the workshop. At the workshop, participants will be given an opportunity to summarize and supplement their written materials with oral presentations. To ensure a productive and efficient workshop, and to ensure that all participants have an opportunity to participate, oral presentations may be given time limits. Participants with similar comments are requested to make joint presentations.
Workshop to Receive Information Regarding Policy Direction on Water Right Enforcement Tuesday, June 19, 2007 at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled Board Meeting and no sooner than 1:00 p.m.
Joe Serna, Jr./Cal-EPA Building
Coastal Hearing Room
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California
Participants are requested to provide written comments by 12:00 noon on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. When submitting preliminary comments, the State Water Board requests that an original and ten hard copies, plus one electronic copy be sent to:
Song Her, Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Written comments and electronic presentations are to be submitted to the Clerk to the Board via email at commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov. Please indicate in the subject line: “Water Right Enforcement Workshop.”

Awakening the Dreamer Symposium, June 2

Here is an upcoming symposium for bringing out the potential in environmental activism.

“Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream” Symposium
A one-day symposium presented by community volunteers

• Come together with a like-hearted empowered community.
• Understand how simple yet profound changes to the dream of the modern industrial world will change our future for the good.
• Learn that healing the planet goes well beyond environmental issues to include social justice and spiritual fulfillment for each of us.

Through facilitated discussion throughout the day, you will also:

How You Can Help

Please register! We can be better prepared for you! (Drop-ins okay). Doors open at 9:30am. To register, go to: http://democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/pachamama/event/index.jsp?event_KEY=27030&t=

June 2, at the Masonic Hall in Sebastopol, California

• Discover easy ways of being engaged in sustainable community.
• Encounter local organizations available to support the needs of fulfillment.
• Connect and engage with others—bring your business cards and personal information to share.

COST: $15-30 sliding scale. Free for local non-profit presenters. No one turned away for lack of funds. Staff is all volunteers. Monies go to expenses, rentals. Please, no children under 12.

LUNCH: Bringing your lunch will enhance your experience. There are restaurants nearby as an alternate option. Some light snacks and beverages will be served throughout the symposium.

WATCH COMPELLING VIDEOS FROM INSPIRING LEADERS

You will see video excerpts from interviews of over a dozen engaging leaders in the Symposium. Here are a few of them.

Paul Hawken, Author

Paul Hawken is an environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and best-selling author. He started several ecological businesses, writes and teaches about the impact of commerce upon the environment, and consults with governments and corporations on economic development, industrial ecology, and environmental policy.

“There is another super power here on earth; it is an unnamed movement; it is far different and bigger and more unique than anything we have ever seen; it flies under the radar…this movement is humanity’s immune response to resist and heal political disease, economic infection, and ecological corruption caused by ideologies.”

Van Jones
Executive Director & Attorney
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Van Jones is the founding director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Founded in 1996 and named for an unsung civil rights heroine, the Center seeks to replace the US incarceration industry with youth opportunities and community-based solutions. In 2002, the Center’s “Books Not Bars” campaign helped stop the construction of a costly and controversial “Super-Jail” for Oakland’s youth.

“We don’t need any hero on a white horse. We’re the people we’ve been waiting for. You already have within you enough love to save the planet.”

For more information, go to: http://www.awakeningthedreamer.org/