Archive for August, 2007

Wastewater Drug Sampling

Published
by
Larry
on August 30, 2007
in Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

This was an interesting article that I received from a friend on the EPA Decentralized list serve. There’s a lot more than endocrine disruptors to sample. Did you notice that the SCWA published a sewer lateral inspection ordinance?

Bob Rawson

Teaspoon of sewage is whole city’s drug test

By SETH BORENSTEIN, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Researchers have figured out how to give an entire community a drug test using just a teaspoon of wastewater from a city’s sewer plant.

The test wouldn’t be used to finger any single person as a drug user. But it would help federal law-enforcement and other agencies track the spread of dangerous drugs, such as methamphetamines, across the country.

Oregon State University scientists tested 10 unnamed American cities for remnants of drugs, both legal and illegal, from wastewater streams. They were able to show that they could get a good snapshot of what people are taking.

“It’s a community urinalysis,” said Caleb Banta-Green, a University of Washington drug-abuse researcher who was part of the Oregon State team. The scientists presented their results Tuesday at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston.

Two federal agencies have taken samples from U.S. waterways to see if drug testing a whole city is feasible, but they haven’t gotten as far as the Oregon researchers.

One of the early results of the new study showed big differences in methamphetamine use from city to city. One urban area with a gambling industry had meth levels more than five times higher than other cities. Yet methamphetamine levels were virtually nonexistent in some smaller Midwestern locales, said Jennifer Field, the lead researcher and a professor of environmental toxicology at Oregon State.

The ingredient Americans consume and excrete the most was caffeine, Field said.

Cities in the experiment ranged from 17,000 to 600,000 in population, but Field declined to identify them, saying that could harm her relationship with the sewage-plant operators.

She plans to start a survey for drugs in the wastewater of at least 40 Oregon communities.

The science behind the testing is simple. Nearly every drug — legal and illicit — that people take leaves the body. That waste goes into toilets and then into wastewater-treatment plants.

“Wastewater facilities are wonderful places to understand what humans consume and excrete,” Field said.

In the study presented Tuesday, one teaspoon of untreated sewage water from each of the cities was tested for 15 different drugs.

Field said researchers can’t calculate how many people in a town are using drugs.

She said that one fairly affluent community scored low for illicit drugs except for cocaine. Cocaine and Ecstasy tended to peak on weekends and drop on weekdays, she said, while methamphetamine and prescription drugs were steady throughout the week.

Field said her study suggests that a key tool currently used by drug abuse researchers — self-reported drug questionnaires — underestimates drug use.

David Murray, chief scientist for U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the idea interests his agency.

Murray said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is testing federal wastewater samples just to see if that’s a good method for monitoring drug use.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Talking Points on Water for General Plan Update Hearings

Published
by
Larry
on August 27, 2007
in Groundwater, Logging Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

Draft Talking Points for Supervisors’ Hearings on Water Aspects of the General Plan Update:

Open Space and Resource Conservation Element (including riparian corridors): Wednesday, August 29, at 6:00 pm in the Glaser Center, and Thursday, August 30, at 1:30 pm in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers.

Introduction

Sonoma County residents support a General Plan that protects our quality of life: clean air and water, other natural resources, and our world-renowned landscapes.

Water was a high priority for many who spoke at packed General Plan scoping meetings six years ago. Concerns have only grown, because of concerns that our quality of life will worsen unless we effectively plan and manage growth in balance with our water resources. We can and must adopt policies that will reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to our water resources and water-dependent habitats.

Please show up and express your support for the platform of the Greenbelt Alliance coalition on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Water and Land Use.

Then express your support for the policies proposed by the Sonoma County Water Coalition.

Water Policies We Need (pick the ones you can speak about with passion)

1. A comprehensive water management plan for Sonoma County. We cannot continue deciding to take more and more surface water from our rivers and withdraw more and more groundwater, while disposing of wastewater, or reusing it, without considering the connections between natural resources and our wastes.

2. Protect Sonoma County’s groundwater recharge areas. Protection must extend into all policies that govern land uses. In particular it must be incorporated into building codes. Our aquifers are the biggest and least expensive places for storing winter rainfall. We cannot continue paving over the groundwater recharge areas, which provide the resource for aquifer storage.

3. Seriously examine the cumulative impact of Sonoma County’s reputed 40,000 (probably more) wells. Recent studies have shown that groundwater levels are dropping in every part of Sonoma County that has come under investigation. We cannot continue deepening wells and using ever increasing amounts of energy to pump water up from deeper and deeper aquifers, incidentally producing additional greenhouse gas emissions (see 10).

4. Establish policies to deal with groundwater overdraft in areas where declines have been documented. We cannot keep supporting studies and writing reports; eventually something has to be done to address the problem and limit groundwater withdrawals.

5. Strengthen General Plan language to control water exports from Sonoma County. Threats to our water resources include demands from commercial interests and other counties. We cannot depend upon our State representatives to rescue us from the next scheme to ship our water south.

6. Give higher priority to water conservation, efficiency, and reuse than to developing new water sources. Every day, the local press carries letters pointing out that calls to conserve water are pointless if the saved water will be used simply to support new developments and not benefit the environment. We must find ways to dedicate most of the water saved to the environment, by leaving it untapped in groundwater and surface water sources.

7. Pay more attention to water quality. No longer can we assume that our wastes are safely disposed of. Many unregulated drugs and household/farm chemicals pass through our wastewater treatment plants unchanged. So-called solutions, such as modular package treatment plants, will require costly removal or replacement when they reach the end of their intended service life, often at ratepayer expense. We need to establish a Citizens’ Advisory Committee which will conduct reviews of wastewater issues, with particular emphasis on emerging and unregulated contaminants, and issue periodic public reports.

8. Protect our fresh water supply by protecting the land beside our rivers and creeks, which also support fish and wildlife. Our riparian corridors are important sites for groundwater recharge in Sonoma County, especially where they support healthy native vegetation. We must become aware that our habitat is just as fragile as that of other creatures with whom we share this planet, and that in many cases the health of our habitat depends on the health of theirs.

9. Design public education programs to obtain buy-in from every water user. The General Plan needs to include public education policies to raise the awareness of critical water supply limitations, and the connection between what we flush down the toilet/kitchen sink and the appearance of pollutants in our water supplies.

10. Recognize the connection between water use and energy use/greenhouse gas emissions. Generating the energy that public utilities, agriculture, and homeowners use to pump and treat water and wastewater, is a major contributor to heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Declining groundwater levels and ever increasing water consumption will result in significantly increased energy consumption and emissions (see 3), preventing attainment of local and global goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion

We will not have another chance to update the County’s General Plan for fifteen to twenty years, and will have to live with what the Board of Supervisors approves. It is therefore essential that you attend the hearings and let them know how important sound water management and water protection policies are to you.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Criminal Penalties for Modification of Intermittent Stream

Published
by
Larry
on August 27, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

August 22, 2007
By Leslie Z. Walker and Janell M. Bogue

Admonishing appellant for 20 years of blatant disregard for the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the Ninth Circuit upheld the Idaho district court’s verdict finding appellant criminally liable for violations of the Clean Water Act in U.S. v. Moses (Aug. 3, 2007, No. 06-30379) ___U.S. ___ [2007 U.S.App.LEXIS 18483].

Teton Creek (“Creek”) is a tributary of the Teton River, which flows into the Snake River. In 1970, appellant Moses began working on a development next to Teton Creek. During the majority of the year, water does not flow in the Creek adjacent to the development because of an irrigation diversion upstream. In the spring however, water surges through the Creek next to the development. Water flows continuously year-round in the Creek above the diversion and below the development.

In 1980, Moses began reshaping the Creek to better handle the seasonal flow. He hired heavy equipment operators to recontour and redeposit material to convert the original three channels of the Creek into one broader and deeper channel. The Corps repeatedly warned Moses that the stream alteration work required a CWA permit. From 1982-2002, the Corps issued at least five warnings, including a cease and desist order, a warning that failure to obtain a permit could result in civil or criminal penalties, and a notice of violation. Moses ignored the Corps’ warning and continued to pursue work on the Creek. In 2003, the EPA issued an administrative compliance order directing Moses to immediately cease unauthorized discharges. Moses did not respond and continued to work.

In March 2005, a federal grand jury indicted Moses for “felonious violation of the CWA for knowingly discharging, and causing to be discharged, pollutants from a point source or point sources into waters of the United States without a permit.” The district court sentenced Moses to 18 months imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and imposed over $9,000 in fines and special assessments. Moses appealed, asserting insufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Moses claimed that the portion of the Creek that he manipulated does not constitute a water of the United States for the purposes of the CWA, and even if it did, the evidence did not show that he had made a discharge into that water for the purposes of the CWA. He further claimed that even if he had made a discharge into waters of the United States, the discharge did not require a permit.

Waters of the United States

The court first visited the purpose of the CWA, explaining that it was enacted in order to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The Clean Water Act outlaws the unauthorized “discharge of any pollutant by any person” into the “waters of the United States.” Pollutant means “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sledge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.”

The court went on to demonstrate that the part of Teton Creek next to Moses’ property was a water of the United States and therefore subject to the CWA and the Corps’ jurisdiction. Absent the diversion, Teton Creek would be a water of the United States because it flowed interstate and emptied into the Teton River, which itself emptied into the Snake River. The court held that a mere man-made diversion could not convert what was a part of the waters of the United States into something else and, thus, eliminate it from national concern. Further, the court held that the seasonal nature of the Creek could not prevent it from being a water of the United States, referring to Rapanos v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), wherein the four justice plurality, the four justice dissent, as well as Justice Kennedy’s concurrence all found that “intermittent streams can be waters of the United States.”

Discharge

Moses claimed that even if the Creek near his development was a water of the United States, he did not need a permit because he worked on the Creek when it was dry, and the movement of material was only incidental fallback. The court rejected Moses’ claim because such an interpretation of the CWA would “countenance significant pollution of the waters of the United States as long as the polluter dumped the materials at a place where no water was actually touching them at the time.”

The court also rejected Moses’ incidental fallback argument, and said that incidental fallback is defined by the regulations as “the redeposit of small volumes of dredged material that is incidental to excavation activity in waters of the United States when such material falls back to substantially the same place as the initial removal. The court opined that the “massive movement and redistribution of materials within Teton Creek” could only be defined as incidental fallback by “a mind committed to a predetermined answer.”

No Permit Needed

Moses attempted two final arguments. First, he claimed that he did not need a permit because he was merely maintaining a currently serviceable structure, an act exempted from the permit requirement by 33 U.S.C. section 1344 suvdiv. (f)(1)(B). Exceptions from the CWA must be “analyzed in light of the Act’s purposes” and narrowly construed. Here the changes to the Creek were not changes to a structure and thus the exception did not apply. United States v. Akers, 785 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1986).

Finally, Moses claimed that his activities were permitted by Nationwide Permit No. 3, authorizing the maintenance of previously authorized, currently serviceable structure or fill. However, the court found that the Nationwide Permit was issued under the Rivers and Harbor, 33 U.S.C. section 403 act and therefore did not apply to activities covered by the CWA, and even if it did, at least a large portion of the work done on Teton Creek was completed after the Corps asserted jurisdiction.

The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

The Importance of Protecting Vulnerable Streams and Wetlands

Published
by
Larry
on August 27, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

US Stream Miles Map

Karen Cappiella and Lisa Fraley-McNeal
Center for Watershed Protection

Introduction

Over the past 30 years, the primary authority protecting our nation’s water bodies from being filled, polluted, or otherwise degraded has been the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Many states, tribes, and local governments rely solely on this federal authority to protect their local wetland resources. Over the past six years, controversial court decisions have eroded this federal authority, potentially restricting the scope of the CWA by significantly reducing the types of streams and wetlands that can now be federally regulated. This includes the very smallest streams and wetlands that do not have a permanent surface water connection to larger waterbodies, yet are still vital parts of the ecosystem. To fill these gaps, states, tribes, and local governments, particularly in areas with extensive vulnerable streams and wetlands, will need to improve their regulatory and non-regulatory efforts.

This article makes the case for why expanded state and local protection of vulnerable streams and wetlands is critical to maintain the important ecologic, hydrologic, water quality and biodiversity functions that our small streams and wetlands provide. It first defines and examines the extent of vulnerable streams and wetlands across the country, and summarizes research on the benefits they provide. Next, it evaluates what makes these streams and wetlands vulnerable – specifically, erosion of federal protection due to recent court rulings, and threats and impacts from land development. Finally, it summarizes the various approaches states are taking to enhance protection and outlines some local strategies for protection of these resources. Articles 2, 3, and 4 of this series provide additional tools that local governments can use to protect all types of wetlands from the impacts of land development in their watersheds.

The full article can downloaded for reading

Center for Watershed Protection website

Finite Resource: Connections of Groundwater and Surface Water

Published
by
Larry
on August 24, 2007
in Groundwater and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Finite resource

EDITOR: Congratulations to Staff Writer Bleys Rose and The Press Democrat for Tuesday’s story on pumping groundwater from previously inactive wells so that cities dependent on Russian River water do not have to really conserve. They reduce Russian River (water use by replacing it with groundwater. It may look like conservation, but what of the local groundwater resource? All of us who depend primarily on groundwater wells for our water were wondering when someone would point out that our annual rainfall replenishes our aquifers.

But the casual reader might have missed the important point that rivers and streams also replenish groundwater aquifers. When we over pump aquifers, water can be taken out of feeder streams to replenish the groundwater. Nothing can be done to stop that reaction to over pumping.

For example, from its study of the Sonoma Valley Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey reported in 2003 that a reach of Sonoma Creek, north of Kenwood, was feeding water into the ground. The effects of surface waters and groundwater are interactive. Abuse one and they both suffer.

And what about the effects of wells pumping ever more water from the already overdrafted Santa Rosa Plain? Could that have a draining effect on the Russian River? This possibility is unknown, and the U.S.G.S. report on the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater probably won’t be out until 2010.

So we have to stop acting as though there is unlimited water in our future. There is a tomorrow, and it might come in the form of another dry year. What will we do then?

KATHY PONS

Member, Sonoma Valley Basin Advisory

303(d) Listings Posted for Laguna and Other Water Bodies

Published
by
Larry
on August 22, 2007
in Groundwater, Logging Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

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

The SWRCB just posted the 303(d) listings for Laguna and other water bodies in our northcoast region. Click on the link to see the data.

–Larry

The USEPA-approved section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments has been posted at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists2006approved.html

If you have any questions about the final list, please call Craig J Wilson at (916) 341-5560.

Letter by LCV to Cities Regarding Water Conservation

Published
by
Larry
on August 22, 2007
in Groundwater, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

To: City Manager (Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sonoma, Coati, Rohnert Park, Windsor, Healdsburg, Sebastopol), or,
To: District Manager (Valley of the Moon, North Marin Water District, Marin Municipal Water District)

The League of Women Voters would like to be provided with the following information about water consumption in your city or district this year, compared to the usage in 2004. These information, important to our members, is critical to understanding how our county’s water users and suppliers are responding to the State Water Resources Control Board mandated 15% reduction in diversions from the Russian River from July 1 to October 28, 2007. This will help us in formulating future water policy recommendations regarding the effectiveness of conservation efforts.

Please supply us with the following information for your city or district, preferably measured in acre feet.

1. What were your 2004 metered water deliveries from SCWA and also from local well production or other local sources (please specify if not from wells), on a monthly basis from January to November 2004 (the base year for comparison).

2. What were your total potable water deliveries to your customers in each month of 2007, January through July.

3. Please break down your monthly water deliveries in 2007 as follows:

a. What were your 2007 metered water deliveries from SCWA during each month of 2007, January through July.

b. During each month of 2007, please specify how much of your potable water demand was supplied from local production (wells)

c. During each month of 2007, please specify how much of your potable water demand was offset by or replaced with recycled water

d. Please note if there were any significant losses in your delivery systems due to pipeline breaks, leaks or other causes.

Thank you very much for your timely assistance with this important information.
—————–

Regionalizing Sewer in West Sonoma County?

Published
by
Larry
on August 20, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

Hi everyone!

I want to call to your attention an article in today’s Press Democrat about
a “Strategic Plan” being led by Mike Reilly and Tim Smith.  Hearings will be
held around the County in September (see below for partial schedule).  The
basic idea is to examine County priorities in light of limited funding.
Things like social services and infrastructure improvements will need to be
prioritized because funds are inadequate to do it all. No one has been
talking about this and  I wonder if anyone has heard about this before now?
Apparently “The Results Group” was paid $43,000 to study the situation (with
County and other Agency staff) and develop a list of issues.  They are now
going to hold hearings to take public input.

I just found two reports on this among my papers that went before the Sups
on Aug. 7th.  There’s about 40 pages of material.  Lot’s of fancy words that
boil down to getting the public to accept intense future growth and a
probable ratcheting down of services, while building UP of
structures…literally.  For instance, centralize services in County
Facility, with buildings going much higher and redevelop or sell valuable
commercial properties (some of Vets Buildings for instance).  The
consultants repeat the need for citizen involvement, but no citizen
involvement seemed to go into these reports BEFORE they were written.  I get
concerned that the process will be manipulated so as to give the APPEARANCE
of citizen input.  Please attend the meetings next month and let your voice
be heard.

In skimming the reports, I see a lot of concern about interrelationships
between City, County, State, etc.  One very interesting quote, “There are
five “complex issues” where local municipalities want greater control: water
resources, transportation, land use policies, solid waste, and maximizing
resources.”

Meetings on the Strategic Plan will be held from 7 to 9 PM at the following:
Sept. 12, Villa Chanticleer in Healdsburg, Sept. 17, SR Vets Bldg, Sept.
20th Seb. Vets. Bldg. Sept. 25th Sonoma Community Center, Sept. 27th Pet.
Vets Hall

Please come  to express your concerns.  THE WEST COUNTY AND THIS WHOLE
COUNTY IS STILL A JEWEL.  PLEASE HELP US PRESERVE THIS INCREDIBLE
ENVIRONMENT.  IF WE COULD ONLY TRADE SOME OF THE ENGINEERS FOR HONEST
GEOLOGISTS AND BIOLOGISTS, WE’D BE MUCH BETTER OFF.  Please make your voice
heard on these issues.

Finally, the County is so concerned about infrastructure operation and
maintenance costs, but every time there is a Board meeting on water or
wastewater issues, SCWA brings at least 5 to 8 staff people to the meeting.
They sit there for at least an hour and sometimes more.  The SCWA offers
$60,000 to new employees just a year out of college.  We need to start
hitting on the way SCWA manages ITS funds!

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

As a separate (but not REALLY separate) issue, it has also come to my
attention that the Regionalization of the Russian River County Sanitation
District (RRCSD) is not only slated to become the Centralized Treatment
Plant to serve Occidental and Camp Meeker (OCC/CM), but to possibly hook up
all parcels now using septic on the pipeline route between those
communities.  This could include thousands of parcels, including 750
identified on a boundary expansion map for RRCSD developed by SCWA in 1998.
This would make all undeveloped parcels in between and adjacent ripe for
development.  This could also mean hook up in Monte Rio and a greatly
expanded sewer district for that community.  This could also mean using the
proposed irrigation pipeline down River Rd. towards Forestville and Graton
for sewage collection in all those communities and thereby increasing
development opportunities.

It is interesting that there have been no definitive studies on whether
septic systems are really failing and to what extent. (The OCC/CM EIR relied
on a study done in 1989.  Yet just the other day, the Board of Sups had an
item that allowed for loosening up on house repairs in the CM area which is
in a Waiver Prohibition Area.)  There has been little interest of the County
to study alternative solutions to problem systems.  They just want to build
big expensive sewer pipelines that crack and allow intrusion of potable
water which then has to receive expensive treatment that only partially
eliminates pollutants.

I mention this, because it was mentioned by Regional Board staff in their
comments on the OCC/CM pipeline project for sewage treatment. They felt that
sewer would become more “affordable” if more people were forced to hook up
to it.  (Of course, it may become much more affordable for a few major users
in Occidental and much more UN-affordable to low to mid income people in
Camp Meeker and the rest of the west county.)

We are looking at a new world here folks, a world of raw sewage pipelines
traversing the whole west county.  It can open up unlimited new
opportunities for expansive growth in an environmentally fragile area that
is subject to landslides, floods, and a treatment plant that breaks down
regularly.  The RRCSD system has inadequate storage, disinfection,
irrigation areas and can barely serve current residents in the winter time,
when half the residences aren’t even inhabited.  They want to expand this to
serve a lot more people, but we believe it will be impossible to do in an
environmentally safe way.  THE CURE IS GOING TO BE FAR WORSE THAN THE
DISEASE.

The County has bifurcated the CEQA process to put four small projects that
are part of the one Regionalization Project that is part of one EIR.  The
two EIRs we have commented on so far are grossly inadequate. In the process
of studying these documents, we discovered that the pipeline currently used
to transport irrigation water to the Northwood golf course would be used to
transport OCC/CM raw sewage to the treatment plant.  This would eliminate
the possibility of using that pipe to extend badly needed summer irrigation
in the local area: AFFORDABLY!!

No, instead they want to build a big 32 mile pipeline that they say is for
irrigation, but I believe may be partly for collecting more raw sewage.
Half the pipeline is from the Treatment Plant to the Graton area down River
Rd. and the other goes from the Treatment Plant down Hwy. 116. Originally
they were only going to do one of the pipelines for irrigation.  Then all of
a sudden, they want to do two.  There is a very good chance that it’s really
a plan to sewer the whole area.

Brenda

Large, New Water Diversions

Published
by
Larry
on August 20, 2007
in Groundwater and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

This is an application for over 600 af/yr new water diversions (pumping
“underflow” by wells) from the Russian River near Talmadge, Mendocino
Co, for grape irrigation by the Rogina Water Company.
I’m hoping that there will be a protest from TU et al - maybe even
SCWA??? - on this application.
We shall see.
David

Subject: Application to Divert Water - Mendocino County

Please be advised that Rogina Water Company has filed two applications
(Applications 31553 and 31554) to divert water from the Russian River
(subterranean stream) in Mendocino County. Copies of the applications
and notice are attached below. To view project map and pictures, please
visit the Division of Water Rights website
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/application/ApplNot.htm

Does the New County General Plan Hold Water?

Published
by
Larry
on August 17, 2007
in Groundwater and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

by Veronica Jacobi and Stephen Fuller-Rowell – Sonoma County Water Coalition Co-Founders

Sonoma County residents want a General Plan that protects our quality of life, which depends on a reliable supply of clean water.

Water was a high priority for many who spoke at packed General Plan scoping meetings six years ago. If we want sound water management, it’s time to get active again. The upcoming Board of Supervisors hearings will be the last chance to demand a stronger Water Resources Element before the General Plan Update is approved.

What are the big issues?

Sonoma County needs a comprehensive water management plan. We cannot continue making decisions about the use of surface water from our rivers, or the groundwater from beneath our land, or on wastewater disposal and reuse, without considering the connections between all water.

Sonoma County’s groundwater recharge areas must be protected. Protection should extend to all land use polices and also be incorporated into building codes. Our aquifers are the biggest and least expensive place to store winter rainfall. We cannot continue paving over the groundwater recharge areas that fill our aquifers.

Groundwater levels are dropping in every area in Sonoma County that’s been studied. It’s time to seriously examine the combined impacts of Sonoma County’s 40,000 wells and stop wasting our money deepening wells, using more and more energy to pump water up from deeper and deeper levels.

We need policies to correct groundwater overdrafts. We cannot keep doing studies and writing reports. We must address the problem and limit groundwater withdrawals.

Threats to our water resources also come from outside the County, and the General Plan needs stronger language to control water exports. We cannot depend upon our State representatives to rescue us from every scheme to ship our water south or east.

We need to give higher priority to water conservation, efficiency and reuse, than to developing new water sources. Ratepayers will save money. More public education on water issues is needed to obtain water user buy-in on conservation programs. Nearly every day, another letter to the editor indicates that water conservation will be a hard sell if all the water we save is used for new construction, and not to benefit the environment. We must find ways to leave most of the water we save in the ground, rivers and streams.

We must also pay more attention to water quality, and no longer assume that someone else will take care of our wastes. Too many drugs, household chemicals and pesticides pass right through our wastewater treatment plants. Solutions such as modular package treatment plants will require costly removal or replacement when they reach the end of their intended service life, often at ratepayer expense. We need to establish a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to review wastewater issues, and publish periodic reports.

To protect our fresh water supplies and health, we must protect the land beside our rivers and creeks, which also support fish and wildlife. Our riparian corridors are an important source of groundwater recharge, especially where they support healthy native vegetation. We must realize that our habitat is just as fragile as that of the other creatures with whom we share this planet.

Most crucially, water use and global climate change are interconnected. Water pumping and sewage treatment are among the largest energy users, and thus increase the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Continued groundwater declines and ever-increasing water consumption will significantly increase energy consumption and these greenhouse gas emissions. We must therefore protect groundwater levels and conserve water to achieve our local and global greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

We will not have another chance to update the County’s General Plan for fifteen to twenty years. In the meantime, we will have to live with what the Board of Supervisors approves. It’s up to all of us toattend these hearings and let the Supervisors know we want sound water management.

Sidebar

The proposed Water Resource Element will be the subject of a Board of Supervisors’ public hearing on Monday, August 27, in the Glaser Center at 547 Mendocino Avenue in Santa Rosa There will be two sessions, starting at 1:30 pm and resuming again at 6:00 pm.

The public hearing on the Open Space and Resource Conservation Element, including riparian protection for our rivers and creeks, will start on Wednesday, August 29, at 6:00 pm in the Glaser Center then resume on Thursday, August 30, at 1:30 pm in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers at 575 Administration Drive in Santa Rosa.