Archive for March, 2008

Lake Mendocino’s Water Level to be Raised

By Glenda Anderson
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
March 5, 2008

Lake Mendocino

The Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to raise Lake Mendocino’s maximum level in an attempt to blunt the impacts of dry weather that last year forced cuts in water use and reduced the lake to mud flats.

“Hallelujah. This is good news,” said Don Butow, chairman of the Redwood Valley water district, which was forced to curtail water use 50 percent last year when the lake dropped to near record lows.

The change, requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency, potentially could increase the lake’s summertime depth by almost 14 feet, adding about 25,000 acre-feet to the reservoir, said Mike Dillabough, the Army Corps’ chief of operations and readiness for the San Francisco district.

The reservoir, which serves both flood control and water storage functions, dropped to such a low level last year that the state mandated water conservation in the North Bay.

Diversions from the Russian River were cut 15 percent between July and October to maintain water levels in the lake for the fall salmon run.

A combination of conservation measures and increased pumping of ground water allowed the Sonoma County Water Agency to cut diversions from the river 21.6 percent compared with 2004, officials said.

If Lake Mendocino actually rises to the maximum level, it will affect access to the boat ramps and to some of the lake’s almost 300 camp sites, Dillabough said. He said the potential impacts of higher water levels are still being evaluated.

Because the increase is dependant on more rainfall and, therefore, unreliable, it will not create the opportunity for additional water rights to lake water, said Barbara Spazek, executive director of the Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District, which holds Mendocino County’s 8,000 acre-foot right to the lake’s water.

Sonoma County owns the bulk of the lake’s water rights.

It also manages water flows outside of the rainy season and is responsible for releasing sufficient amounts of water for spawning and migrating fish downstream of the dam.

In addition to drier springs, lake water levels have been affected by mandated downstream flow increases to benefit fish and a 33 percent cutback in the Eel River diversion into the Russian River, which feeds Lake Mendocino.

The management change does two things: It alters the maximum amount of water allowed to be stored in the lake once the rainy season subsides, and it changes the estimated date of the rainy season from the end of March to March 1, Dillabough said.

Normally, the summertime lake level maximum is 748 feet, measured from sea level. Maximum will now be 761.8 feet, Dillabough said.

The lake level was at 745.5 feet on Tuesday. The lake bottom near the dam is at about 637 feet above sea level.

The Corps’ operational change moves by one month the date at which the Corps begins holding more water in the lake in preparation for switching from flood control management to water conservation.

The Sonoma County Water Agency requested the date be changed because it appears there is less rainfall in the spring than there once was, said Pam Jeane, the agency’s deputy chief engineer.

During most of the winter, when storms are expected, the Corps holds the level at 737.5 feet, although heavy rains may temporarily raise the water much higher. It would gradually begin increasing the amount of water in the lake at the end of March, Dillabough said.

While the water level boost promises to combat drought-like conditions, whether it materializes depends on Mother Nature, Dillabough said.

The lake will likely reach the higher level only if there is mild but steady rainfall during the next two months, he said.

“If we get anywhere close to that (new maximum), I’ll be surprised,” Dillabough said.

An increase also could be hampered by a heavy storm, which would force the Corps to again release water from the dam when levels reach 737.5 feet to prevent potential flooding, its primary charge.

Dam Raising?

Actually, there is absolutely no dam raising happening. This is a change in water levels behind the existing and unchanged Coyote Dam. There is no fish passage around Coyote Dam either. While Mendocino Co. supes are ’studying’ the feasibility of raising Coyote Dam, today’s PD story isn’t about that.

The changes are regulatory changes:

Right now, the flood control storage operating rule curve for water levels behind Coyote Dam require that the water level does not exceed 737.5′ elevation. This means that under the current rules, there must be water releases in anticipation of storm water inflows until April 1st, so as to not exceed that level with storm water inflows. Since the dam was supposedly built primarily as a flood control structure, the first priority during the rainy season is to have enough capacity to hold significant rainfall back. “reign in the rain runoff”, so to speak.

Under the existing rules, after April 1 the reservoir can be managed for water supply, and the water levels can go up to a maximum of 748′ elevation. In the past, this has been filled with late spring rains, even after the flood control levels are maintained as the maximum height until April 1.

However, Sonoma County Water Agency is noting that in the past few years (10+?), significant spring rains have not materialized to fill this water supply pool. Climate change? So, for instance, last year, the Corps of Engineers discharged some 10,000acre feet of water in late winter, in anticipation of spring storms which never materialized, leaving L. Mendocino water levels significantly low. Hence the foundation for last year’s ‘drought’.

What SCWA wants now (and has been lobbying for in D.C. and elsewhere), and is apparently getting with a very quick change in rules by USACE, is to end the rainy season mandate for 737.5′ elevation on March 1st, a full month earlier than the existing rule. This will hopefully allow March rains to be used to help fill the water supply pool (which would now go up to an elevation of 761.8′, rather than the current 748′ max.).

The expectation is that this will allow more water supply storage space earlier in the season, provide more actual supply storage going into the dry season, and increase the ability to store enough water for fall-run Chinook without the kind of release and diversion restrictions imposed by the state regional water board we saw last year.

One of the issues for the Army Corps, however, is that the campgrounds on the lake are among their most popular sites of any USACE reservoir facility in the west. The higher water levels would flood a bunch of them and perhaps some access roads. USACE is very unhappy about that.

Also, the Redwood Valley Water District, which buys ’surplus’ water from SCWA’s storage in L. Mendocino, has an inlet pipe that cannot be reached by water when the lake drops significantly, as it did last year. Bad design. So they are very happy with this increase in storage elevation levels.

It will be very interesting to see what happens to the geology in the area: There is apparently a significant increase in earthquakes caused by excess weight of water when the lake is raised higher than the existing summertime 748′ elevation.

As far as fish passage beyond Coyote Dam further up the East Branch Russian River, nothing is changed. The fish either have to grow wings, or make do with what they have. Or sit at the base of the dam and become food for pikeminnow.

FOER continues to advocate that Lake Mendocino fill on its own watershed, and that the PVP diversions cease. Southern Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin will just have to do a better job of using what they’ve got, without depending on the annual bailout of the overappropriated Russian River with Eel River subsidies. Fish passage up to the Potter Valley would be great.

David Keller
FOER

Comment on the Wastewater Project SEIR Certification

Comment on the Wastewater Project SEIR Certification:

Camp Meeker/Occidental
Wastewater Project final SEIR Certification
RRWPC Comments on Transmittal and Resolution
February 26, 2008 (Item #50)
Submitted by Brenda Adelman for RRWPC

The proposed resolution noted above, directs certification of an SEIR for a pipeline project, already declared “inadequate” by the lead agency (CM R&PD), and of which there is no intention of constructing. (P. B-2: “District staff want to emphasize that the District does not intend to pursue the project identified in the Final SEIR, and recommend certification to stop the District and its ratepayers from receiving additional fines.”) It also orders that a NEW economically feasible alternative be developed that would satisfy the conditions of the Regional Board’s Cease and Desist Order, now requiring EIR certification to prevent fines and penalties of $1000 a day (OCSD Cease & Desist Order # R1-2005-0086) to begin about February 1st for the Occidental County Sanitation District (OCSD).

This will be the third EIR certified for projects (since 1997) intended to address failures in the Occidental County Sanitation District, badly out of compliance with their NPDES permit since at least the mid 1990’s. The first EIR contained a selection of land-based projects developed by consultants Winzler and Kelly. (Transmittal claims that the contract was with Brelje & Race, which is incorrect.) This EIR was certified by Directors of the Occidental County Sanitation District (Board of Supervisors) on February 15, 2000, although no project was selected. (The certification in 2000 is not noted in the current transmittal for some reason.)
Subsequently Regional Board staff determined, AFTER the EIR was certified, that the preferred project in that EIR could not be permitted by that Agency. It has always puzzled us as to why there was never any attempt by either Regional Board staff or the OCSD to find some way to tweak the project so that it could address concerns of the Agency? It is our understanding that the leach-field project would have worked under all but the most extreme conditions. We wonder why some storage, or other means, could not have been proposed to equalize the extreme flows?

After this first EIR was effectively disqualified, the Camp Meeker Rec and Park District agreed to take the lead in developing a joint project with Occidental utilizing and upgrading the Occidental Treatment Plant. In this instance, SCWA served in the capacity of “responsible” Agency under CEQA. This was a viable but ultimately expensive project and SCWA was never able to obtain funding for it. (The Transmittal claims that the agreement with BRELJE & RACE for the first EIR was “amended” to produce the second one. This is incorrect. As previously mentioned, OCSD contracted with Winzler & Kelly for the first EIR, and CM R&P District, as lead agency, contracted with B&R for the second.)

Finally, in December, 2006, SCWA approached CM R&P District with a draft contract to be the lead agency for a supplemental EIR (later termed a “subsequent” EIR) that would study a raw sewage pipeline project from Occidental to Russian River County Sanitation District (RRCSD). They offered to pay $165,189 to pay for the EIR consultant (later raised a bit), “cooperate” in the defense of any lawsuit connected to the EIR, and confer with the District regarding any issues connected to the EIR that arise. NOWHERE did the contract state that SCWA would also be the co-decision maker or play a “responsible” agency role in regards to EIR certification. One of the selling points made by SCWA to the District, was assurances that the pipeline project was bound to be a much cheaper alternative.

Considerable pressure was put on the CM R&P District to take this project on. They were reluctant to do it, but eventually, in April, 2006, the agreement was signed. We must add that representatives from the Occidental community were also attending meetings and putting a great deal of pressure on the District to move forward with this joint project. Occidental’s goal was to meet the Dec. 2007 time deadline set by the Regional Board for having a certified EIR that would provide a long-range project to deal with their wastewater discharges.

The Engineer’s report for this project, released in late 2007, determined that the cost would come to about $22 million for both Occidental and Camp Meeker (similar to the cost for the second project). Directors of the Camp Meeker Board were very upset about this, but it was not the basis for the decision to reject this EIR, as stated in the Transmittal (Page B-2: “…the CMRPD Board neither certified the Final SEIR nor approved the project, due to escalating costs of implementation.”)

I was in attendance at that meeting and I distinctly recall the Chair, who voted against the project, stating that she read every word of all the EIR documents, and she believed that the EIR was inadequate and should not be certified. She had written her comments out and read them into the record. Another board member supported her view.

In speaking with John Short of the Regional Board recently, he mentioned that three possible future paths were recently discussed and OCSD certification of the rejected EIR was determined to be the least desirable path. The others included using one of the other two EIRs, or request relief from the Regional Board from penalties and take steps to develop a less expensive local alternative. John indicated support for the third option. Regional Board staff, are now saying that they would like to see a local, affordable remedy for Occidental alone. Down the road Camp Meeker would deal with its own situation.

RRWPC believes that local, affordable remedies are much preferred. We urge the community to find some workable version of the first EIR that addresses the concerns of the Regional Board. Furthermore, if there is no intent to construct the pipeline project, we urge the Board to apply for an extension of the deadline. We have never heard of an EIR’s certification with the express exclusive intent of avoiding a fine and never attempting the project.

Brenda

Instream Flow Maintenance

Instream flow Maintenance

Instream Flow - AB 2121 - Interested Parties As you know this policy is out for comment. The comment period has been extended to May 1 CAG is working in comments - this is tedious as the policy is long, complex, and frought with issue. It will be several weeks before CAG gets any product out. There is time. CAG is joining with others (EPIC, Sierra Club?, and other groups) to hire Patrick Higgins to do expert testimony - which would include other limiting factors related to flows - including aggredation and sedimentation effects not considered by the policy. Patrick is currently studying the peer reviews - which are good.

Alan

Kellar’s opinion of “Channeling Mulholland”

This new LA Times editorial, “Channeling Mulholland,” signals the change of water policies that we need in California and the arid West - and that we have been asking the Sonoma County Water Agency and all its contractors to do for years. There is no way to get to stable and reasonably predictable current and future water supplies if SCWA and other North Coast water supplies and cities continue on the trajectory we are on now.

If we really want to see significant disruption of our economy and our way of living - as well as a collapse of our watersheds and all their fisheries and recreational attractions, and also our groundwater supplies and agriculture - we need only do as we’ve done for the past 50 years: act as if there is always more water to take and deliver to a thirsty growing population. It won’t work. Western water has hit its limits, and all the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at it to build larger projects and longer pipelines with bigger pumps and bigger dams are not the answer.

There are models for getting there. L.A.’s Metropolitan Water District, East Bay MUD, Marin Municipal WD and soon, Petaluma, are pointing the way to a sustainable future for the next 150 years. It’s past time to support their leads, and get serious about instituting these practices throughout our region, in every water district and city. We can do even better than these models, as proposed by the LA Times, but that will require policy makers point their engineering staff in the right directions.

A quick primer: FOER links to additional information on Western and local water policies for our future.

Wringing More Water out of the Arid West
http://www.eelriver.org/cgi-bin/Publications.pl?
function=article&page_id=150

Water for the Next 150 Years
http://www.eelriver.org/cgi-bin/Publications.pl?
function=article&page_id=27

RE: Turning water into wine, SF Chronicle article, June 1, 2007
http://www.eelriver.org/engine.php?
bit=vineyard2_June07

Turning water into wine To water grapevines or not — the roots of the wine industry’s next great controversy
Alice Feiring, Special to The SF Chronicle
http://www.eelriver.org/engine.php?
bit=vineyard_june07

Proposed alternatives to Restructured Agreement for Water Supply, Section 2.4, Potter Valley Project acquisition
http://www.eelriver.org/engine.php?
bit=restructure

David Keller
Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel River

Channeling Mulholland

The Times launches an editorial series on water and water policy in California and around the world.

February 25, 2008

The early history of Los Angeles was defined by its struggle to get water wherever, and whenever, it could. William Mulholland and his colleagues did such a good job of securing water supplies during the early 20th century — building the 223-mile-long, gravity-fed Los Angeles Aqueduct, which imports water from the Owens Valley; establishing the Metropolitan Water District, which brings in water from the Colorado River and Northern California — that those of us living here today take for granted our lush gardens and year-round blooms. They appear a native bounty when they are, in fact, a work of man. We offer pious lip service to the notion that water is scarce when the weather is dry, only to forget our concerns at the fall of the first raindrop. Implicitly, we behave as if water will always be available and unlimited.

Continue reading ‘Channeling Mulholland’

Comment on Salmon Coalition’s Involvement in WAC Meetings

To All,

It appears that the City of Santa Rosa, through participation in the Water Advisory Committee, is (unknowingly) participating in a process related to position take by a group called the “Salmon Coalition” - where this process is not only detrimental to watercourses in Sonoma County, the process is in direct competition with the water needs of the City of Santa Rosa.

THERE IS A VOTE ON THIS ITEM AT THE WAC (Water Advisory Committee) MEETING MARCH 3 - WHERE CITY OF SANTA ROSA REPRESENTATIVES WILL ATTEND

If you would take the time to pay attention to information in this document - and - read on, you will understand the implications of this complicated relationship.

1) The “Salmon Coalition” is engaged in, with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Fish and Game, and hired biologists, assessment of stream conditions in the Dry Creek Valley, Alexander Valley, and Knights Valley. No conditions for stream protection, or related standards for same, are on the table as of yet. Stream assessment shows a number of limiting factors which include, numerous unauthorized diversions limiting critical stream flow for fish, impaired near stream environment, lack of shade, fish blockage, and impaired hydrologic conditions.

2) The State Water Board has proffered new proposed policy for the maintenance of instream flows and to deal with the hundreds of unauthorized and un-permitted diversions in the areas noted above, and thousands of same in the north coast region. This action was mandated by AB 2121.

3) Salmon Coalition members and those who went to Washington DC to support the Salmon Coalitin position that the State proposed policy to Maintain Instream Flows should go away or be altered to in effect by unenforceable (as many state programs to protect streams are).

4) Though the owners of these unauthorized and un-permitted dams and diversion want their water and are not inclined to support instream flow policy, such policy is to the benefit of the City of Santa Rosa. Hundreds and hundreds of cumulative and unauthorized diversions make less water available to the City of Santa Rosa. Thus, the City, in effect, is support the “Salmon Coalition” to the detriment of its own water needs and the needs of salmon and other aquatic life.

5) The City of Santa Rosa should get on the ball and not support those who can not fallow the law and who would actively and illegally take water away from streams that are tributaries of the Russian River. The City of Santa Rosa should widthdaw any support of the “Salmon Coalition” policy that does not support instream flows. Supporting a process that de-waters streams that flow into the Russian River seem a little counter intuitive.

Alan

Instream Flow - AB 2121

Instream Flow - AB 2121 - Interested Parties

As you know this policy is out for comment. The comment period has been extended to May 1

CAG is working in comments - this is tedious as the policy is long, complex, and frought with issue. It will be several weeks before CAG gets any product out. There is time.

CAG is joining with others (EPIC, Sierra Club?, and other groups) to hire Patrick Higgins to do expert testimony - which would include other limiting factors related to flows - including aggredation and sedimentation effects not considered by the policy.

Patrick is currently studying the peer reviews - which are good. See message from Pat, below - with link to the peer review file.

You can find the Band report in that file.

You might want to look at some of this stuff.

Hi Alan,

You sent me NMFS/CDFG Central Coast Guidelines (which I have), but I was hoping you were in possession of Moyle and Kondolf paper weighing in on policy options. Do you have that?

Attached is the Dr. Lawrence Band peer review paper, which really dials how diversions act synergistically.

See http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs.html for more peer review papers. I recommend Lang, Gearheart and McMahon.

Patrick