Monthly Archive for June, 2008

Water Catchment Article and Discussion

Published on June 26, 2008 in Water Conservation. 0 Comments

Hi David & Bob,

I totally agree with both of your points. The issues of “watergy” (water & energy – elec pumping and Natural Gas heating) & the benefits to mitigating GHG’s from on-site localized capture, storage and use and in reuse for irrigation of greywater have not been lost in my vernacular with the policy makers!

As we (SCWC tech session) were told by the Santa Rosa staff folks, a 55 gallon drum under your downspout with a garden hose on it and no connection to the municipal plumbing is still considered an “auxiliary” water supply, like an old well, and thus necessitates the purchase and installation of a several hundred dollar double back flow prevention device at the street, annual inspection of it for $60 to $100 and a $60 permit fee. Talk about lack of incentives!! Yet as long as Santa Rosa and the other cities continue to see their water as super cheap per gallon, since they are not paying the true cost of it for destroying the Eel and parts of the Russian as well as local groundwater, the numbers $ for an install of a urban roofwater system just don’t ‘pencil’ out!

In contrast, New Mexico is giving back money as “buy-down” incentives for roofwater systems. And Texas is going big on this…check the attached link for the Texas Rainwater guidelines from their legislative study.

Towards several of David’s points – I can’t remember if I have sent this group my rainwater harvesting policy/ordinance document as of yet? I have attached just to make sure. I put this resource together explicitly for politicians, policy makers and health department type folks as an easy reference document to have a look out in the world at what folks are doing from Australia to Texas & New Mexico!

I will keep you all more informed on these issues as they proceed, but I am have been actively engaged with Marin Municipal on rainwater harvesting. SPAWN received a grant to do education, public talks ( I will do one in July) and they install a couple demo systems in San Geronimo valley. OAEC’s WATER Institute with the Salmon Creek Watershed Council & Prunuske Chatham were funded by the Costal Conservancy to do a water conservation program, which will have a roofwater education and hopefully with other funds (NCIRWMP) we can support the install of some systems as demonstrations in the town of Bodega. Also, I am into talks with the director of the Mendocino County Water Agency and Redwood Valley Water and will be doing a public talk for them targeted to public officials and water system managers in July as well. And, although it is very early on – an initial meeting with Sonoma County Health, PRMD & SCWA folks is in the making on the topics of greywater and roofwater systems.

So we shall see where it all goes. In the meantime busy busy busy…If we see little rain this winter – well then…! As they say – “planning is best done in advance” and in this rainwater harvesting world it is better to “save it on a rainy day” – so pray for rain to harvest this winter, but ya gotta have your systems in place in advance to capture it or else!!!

Mostly Water,
Brock

Brock,
In addition to allowing Rain Water Capture, it would be nice if the county reframed from discouraging it. Currently such a storage tank would be taxed as an improvement instead of being subsidized as a way of increasing water availability and reducing the carbon footprint by eliminating pumping costs.

Bob Rawson

It would be great to get model ordinances from this group that are workable or existing under California law, and that can be adopted within municipalities of our Sonoma cities’ sizes, as well as by the county.

This means clearing Dept of Health, building departments, and zoning/land use scrutiny, plumbing and building codes, along with enough examples of existing legal catchment systems and legislation to give our politicians the cover and rationale and format they need to put this in place.

If we can provide this as a package, along with the best messaging for why this should be legal public policy, we’ll have a much easier time of getting this practice adopted and built.

thanks!

David

FYI!!! Brock

WATER – THE NEW CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH

Educational Conference and Membership Meeting of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association

http://www.arcsa.org/

September 15 -18, 2008 Sheraton Delfina Hotel 530 W. Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405

Rainwater catchment or “harvesting” is an ancient practice now enjoying a revival as an alternate water supply. The practice involved collecting rainwater from a roof or other surface before it reaches the ground and storing it for future use.

ARCSA promotes rainwater catchment systems in the United States through educational opportunities and the exchange of information at our Web site and through our workshops. Our membership consists of professionals working in city, state, and federal government, academia, manufacturers and suppliers of rainwater harvesting equipment, consultants, and other interested individuals. Membership is not limited to the US, and we encourage all rainwater harvesting enthusiasts to join our organization

Optional Accreditation Workshop Day/Sponsor Exhibit Set-Up Monday, September 15, 2008 8 am – 5 pm The Basics of Rainwater Harvesting All-day workshop for the general public and ARCSA members who are pursuing accreditation. Individuals seeking accreditation must apply through the ARCSA website and be approved for the course. Test must be turned in within 90 days.

ARCSA. American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association 919 Congress Ave., Suite 460 Austin, TX 78701 T: (512) 477-5445 F: (512) 477-9490 www.ARCSA.org

County Eyes Water Rules and Cutbacks

Published on June 25, 2008 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

by Sandi Hansen INDEX-TRIBUNE
June 9, 2008

The battle between water demands for endangered fish and the ongoing needs of urban-water users in the North Bay rages on. Somewhere in between lie the Sonoma County Water Agency and some 600,000 water customers in Sonoma, North Marin and Mendocino counties.

This week, Valley of the Moon Water District directors heard predictions of a 15 percent voluntary water reduction for customers of the water agency. That would affect the City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon unincorporated residents, businesses, and agricultural users who rely on water purchased from the county. Sonoma County Water Agency Deputy Chief Engineer Pam Jeane, speaking at the district board meeting Tuesday, outlined the agency’s current plan for its minimum flow requirements on the Russian River, which impacts the Valley’s available water supply. “There’s been a significant change in the amount of diversion into Lake Mendocino (which feeds the Russian River),” Jeane said. “We’re just flat out not getting as much water as we used to.”

Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, both reservoirs, were built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Water is released from Lake Mendocino into the Russian River north of Santa Rosa, which makes its way to the Valley through an aqueduct. The county is charged with supplying adequate water distribution to numerous municipalities and districts in the North Bay where customer water demands keep increasing. On the heels of that increase however, is a 1986 ruling by the State Water Resources Control Board – Decision 1610 – that requires the maintenance of minimum flows on the Russian River between Lake Mendocino and Healdsburg. Those flows are required to protect the endangered salmon and steelhead fishery, and are becoming increasingly difficult to meet due to California’s drought conditions and record dry spring.

“We’re predicting very low water this year. Our current projection is 12,000 acre-feet in Lake Mendocino,” Jeane said. A water level that low causes real concern for the fall months of October through November when the Chinook salmon start migrating up the Russian River to spawn. “We’d like to preserve water in Lake Mendocino for that,” added Jeane.

She said the water agency has started down the path of creating an environmental impact statement in hopes of changing Decision 1610 so the county has more leeway in dealing with the situation. It will take a couple of years before documents will be available to support the request for a change, Jeane said. Currently, the state water board can only change policy in stream flows for 90 days at a time. Jeane emphasized that the state makes the decision on how much water to store and release. The county water agency dictates how much water it sells. Jeane said this year’s water agency conservation campaign slogan is “Less is More,” and it’s hoped that customers will see the need and importance of reaching the 15-percent water-reduction target throughout the Valley and the county.

Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced this week what many North Bay and Northern California residents already know, that the state is in the midst of a drought causing numerous communities to either mandate water conservation or call for rationing. In a press release on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said, “For the areas in Northern California that supply most of our water, this March, April and May have been the driest ever in our recorded history. As a result, some local governments are rationing water, developments can’t proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle. We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face, so I am signing an Executive Order proclaiming a statewide drought and directing my Department of Water Resources and other entities to take immediate action to address the situation.”

In the meantime, local water officials in Sonoma County and Valley have already put in place conservation efforts and have been doing so for years. Last year’s call by the Sonoma County Water Agency for a 15 percent water-use reduction resulted in an overall 20 percent decline county-wide by residents and businesses.

Brad Sherwood, water agency spokesman, said the local impact of the governor’s announcement is twofold.

“It brings more attention that not just our region is experiencing water problems, but the entire state is as a whole. Also, now we may see more legislative support and infrastructure projects especially to meet our future water needs.”

Where Have All the Salmon Gone?

Published on June 25, 2008 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts. 0 Comments

Students help address salmon crisis; group’s leader blames state water policy for rapid decline in chinook.

Petaluma River Map

by DAN JOHNSON ARGUS-COURIER
Jun 5, 2008

Typically, each spring members of Casa Grande High School’s United Anglers group find between 40 and 60 chinook salmon in the portion of the Petaluma River near Payran Street to raise and then release.

The fish are wandering strays that have made their way up the Petaluma River in search of something, but got lost.

“But this year, we only found three of them,” said Tom Furrer, the wildlife biology teacher at Casa Grande, as well as coordinator of the Adobe Creek Restoration Project. “The fall run didn’t exist, and the spring run isn’t there, either.

“This could soon become another animal on the endangered species list, and some difficult decisions will need to be made if it is going to survive.”

Federal government researchers have predicted that only 58,000 chinook salmon will reach the Sacramento area and its tributaries to spawn this year, compared with 800,000 in 2002. This rapid decline in the salmon population could result in economic losses of $290 million and the loss of 4,200 jobs, said the governors of California, Oregon and Washington.

Furrer says that the decline is due to several reasons, but largely can be attributed to water vital to the Sacramento River Delta and San Francisco Bay ecosystems being pumped to cities and farms in Southern California.

“California’s water policy needs to change because too much water is being sent down south, and the animal doesn’t have a safe place to breed,” he said. “Also, most chinook salmon come from hatcheries, and have difficulty surviving because of the way the food chain has been affected: They starve, because they don’t have enough to eat.”

And true to their spirit, the students in Furrer’s United Anglers group want to do something to address the situation.

The students will be spending all summer feeding, cleaning and otherwise maintaining salmon at the Feather River State Fish Hatchery and the Tiburon Salmon Institute.

“The kids want to make a difference,” Furrer said. “They can’t tolerate society’s apathy: They are frustrated with it, and want to do something about it.”

After growing up in Petaluma, Furrer returned in 1981 to teach at Casa Grande. Two years later, he formed the United Anglers, and since then it has worked to conserve a fish habitat on Adobe Creek and raised $1.5 million, to create, develop and maintain a fish hatchery, among other things.

When the hatchery opened on April 25, 1993, members of United Anglers held a banner that read, “Together We Stand. Together We Dream. Together We Will Change the World.”

“Each year, our students raise 25,000 to 50,000 fish, and then cut them loose in October,” Furrer said. “This is a drop in the bucket compared to some other places that raise millions of fish, but to me, it’s not about the numbers: It’s about demonstrating to kids how to care about the fish.

“And this hands-on experience gives the kids a 10- to 15-year advance over many others going into the field.”

Original article at arguscourier.com

Excavation in Wetlands–Action Sought

Published on June 24, 2008 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

On Friday morning, June 20th, neighbors living near the Atascadero (Graton) Wetlands just south of the town of Graton heard and saw an excavator operating in an area of undeveloped wetlands adjacent to Atascadero Creek. Neighbors, who reportedly spoke with the operator, were told that a trench was being excavated for the purpose of draining the wetlands to Atascadero Creek. Concerned citizens immediately contacted local and State agencies. The work was finally stopped some time later by County PRMD staff. Photos of the trenching in the wetlands are posted at:

http://www.atascaderogreenvalleywatershed.net/desecration.htm

Cal Dept of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Board and Sonoma County PRMD have been notified and are working to investigate the incident and evaluate the damage.

If you are concerned about this incident, please contact 5th District Supervisor Mike Reilly at :
mreilly@sonoma-county.org

or by phone at 707 565-2241

Express your concerns and ask Supervisor Reilly to support a full investigation.

For more information about the Atascadero wetlands, attached is a description prepared in 2006 when a number of local citizens tried unsuccessfully to find a conservation buyer to save and protect this sensitive area.

New Website from the EPA for Water Information

Published on June 24, 2008 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

EPA recently released a new Web site where water quality managers and the public can go to view a wide range of water quality information reported by the states under sections 305(b) (water quality assessment information) and 303(d) (impaired waters information). This Web site, known as ATTAINS, allows the user to view dynamic, continuously updated tables and charts that summarize state-reported information for the nation as a whole, for individual states and waters, and for the ten EPA regions, giving the “full story” showing which waters have been assessed, which are impaired, and which are being (or have been) restored.

Registration for this Watershed Academy Web cast opened June 6.  You must register in advance to participate.  To register, visit www.clu-in.org/live.  The Webcast will be a Web-based slide presentation with a companion audio portion.  For more info on this and other Webcasts, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/webcasts/

Questions:  visit www.clu-in.org/live or contact Helen Siverling at helen.siverling@tetratech-ffx.com or 703-385-6000.

Comments and Article on Governor’s Drought Plan

Published on June 24, 2008 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Since Ag is 80% of total water useage in the State, and domestic use is less than 10%:
Out of 100 acre feet supply:
A 10% savings on domestic use would yield a one acre foot saving A 20% savings on domestic use would yield a two acre foot saving

Where with Ag use:
A 10% savings on Ag use would yield a 8 acre foot saving A 20% savings on Ag use would yield a 16 acre foot saving

A 10% savings on Ag use would double the supply available for domestic use

Do you thing there is at least 10% waste in Ag use – maybe 20% waste?

To dam or not to dam? Sorry, Arnold, that’s not even the question. We have to manage our water resources and watersheds as if we had to drink from them for at least the next 150 years. Minimizing our water demands, protecting our water’s quality, restoring fish and wildlife habitat and populations, increasing efficiencies and creating regionally working solutions are essential to our future. The governor’s plan won’t do this.

Let the governor and your legislators know that we need to do better. We can’t afford not to.

Thank you,
David Keller /Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River/

The Planning and Conservation League

*NEWS RELEASE*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy McIntyre, 916 541-8825 June 4, 2008
* *

*Planning and Conservation League Issues Statement on Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought*

(SACRAMENTO) – The Planning and Conservation League, a leading statewide conservation advocacy coalition, today issued the following statement from Executive Director Traci Sheehan Van Thull regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation:
“Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation offers up a challenge – and an opportunity – for all Californians to conserve water and to work together to find new solutions to solve our water problems.

“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve. We encourage the Governor to embrace measures that will allow California to grow without increasing demand on already over-allocated water sources. We need strong policies that can decrease water demand, provide climate-resilient water supplies, and truly provide relief for the communities, fisherman, businesses and ecosystems that are suffering from lack of reliable water.

“More and more residents and businesses are facing severe water rationing in California, while water demands and communities continue to grow. While the Governor’s proclamation references the need to provide water for our growth, his executive order relies heavily on the same sources of water that are now in decline.”

“Measures such as Assembly Member Krekorian’s /Water Efficiency Security Act/, co-sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would help prevent rationing by ensuring growing California communities have the water they need without further increasing water demand on over-burdened water resources. However, despite a groundswell of support from local water agencies, to city councils, community groups and conservation organizations, this pivotal measure failed to gain traction in the State Assembly.

“Ensuring that new growth in California will not lead to increased rationing and exacerbate the pending water crisis is a critical step to solving California’s water crisis. The Planning and Conservation League has a 43-year history of working toward ensuring there is enough water for all Californians, and we pledge to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to ensure that California’s water supply meets the needs for all communities, businesses and the environment – for today and the future.”

Water Board Workshop in Ukiah on Stream Temperatures

Published on June 19, 2008 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Hi Alan–

Do you have more info on this for the SCWC Agenda — place, time??

Thanks,

Jane

Please Review this message to the SWRCB on the above subject

Reminder – Workshop on this in Ukiah on June 26

Contact Gita Kapahi  to reserve a spot.

The contact for signing up for the workshop on listings of rivers
should be:

gkapahi@waterboards.ca.gov

916 341-5501
————– This message sent to the SWRCB on the above subject

Dear Board Members:

The following is a inside view of the Stillwater Temperature  Potential "Model" (idea) that will be presented and considered in a Workshop in the near future. This is a good short synopsis of the issue for your reference to consider for he Board Workshop on this issue.

Temperature Potential Model – History and Analysis

As a reaction to the listing of Ten Mile River (and other North Coast Rivers) for the pollutant, Temperature, and the listing procedure, science, and number of hits showing instances (MWAT – Mean Weakly Average Temperature) of severe temperature loading (detrimental/stressful and/or near lethal to coho) incidence, Campbell Hawthorne commissioned Stillwater Sciences to develop a model the would indicate "alternative" listing criteria (alternative meaning changing WQS).

The Model

Campbell/Hawthorne and Stillwater argue that new "reach specific" standards should be adopted.  These new Water Quality Standards would reflect existing conditions, they say more accurately, and these new WQS would be more capable of attainment and thus delisting for temperature impairment (or not being listed temperature impaired in the first place).

As noted above, new site specific Water Quality Standards would need to be adopted by the Regional Board (and SWRCB). This is problematic as the existing standards have a well grounded science base (more on this below).

The Stillwater model is proprietary. There is no public, or agency input. Availability of date is limited from public and agency review.

The Stillwater model only works with huge amounts of data. In part, the Stillwater Temperature Potential model needs would include the necessity for data on flow levels, an a large temporal scale, for every reach considered – inclusive of upstream and down stream date at the junction of all tributaries.

Changing Water Quality Standards

Campbell/Hawthorne may be right. It may, now, be impossible to attain the current water quality standards. This may be good logic, you do not like the current WQS so you hire out some science to come up with new standards. This is happening all over the State in the form of Use Attainability Analysis.  You don’t like the Water Quality Standards, so you fix it by changing the WQS.

It is not like the elevated temperature hits throughout the watershed were borderline. The great preponderance of elevated hits, spatially and temporally, were well above the concern level and the coho absence level.

Argument for and/or Against Use of the Stillwater Model

In the not to distant past the current WQS were being met on Ten Mile River. Stream Temperatures were lower (way lower) and salmon, including coho, were abundant. What happened? Land use, logging, has altered stream temperatures. The riparian climate zones (that have big responsibility for temperature control) are vastly diminished. And, up slope conditions have changed. Forests that were occupied with in excess of 100,000 board feet of standing merchantable conifers now have about 10,000 board feet of the same. Weather conditions and the ability to hold moisture have been changed by land use.

The EPA has a very good paper on Temperature standards and needs to support north coast rivers – cold water fisheries.

Is this a reasonable argument for changing Water Quality Standards?  I hope not.

Get on with TMDLs and fixing the rivers – Check out the Garcia !!!!!!!
Alan Levine

Free Webcast: Monitoring Watershed Program Effective

Published on June 19, 2008 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

fyi

T Yarish

Free Webcast: Monitoring Watershed Program Effective

Monitoring Watershed Program Effectiveness
Thursday April 10, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. Eastern

This EPA sponsored Watershed Academy webcast will address evaluating the
results of our efforts to control nonpoint source pollution on a
watershed basis.

Three types of data are needed to evaluate watershed management
projects: administrative, social, and environmental. Effectiveness
monitoring is designed to measure the actual impact of management
decisions, such as implementation of nutrient management practies
(administrative, social) and resulting impacts of nutrient levels
(environmental) in the waterbody. Instructors will preesent an overview
of watershed monitoring, three watershed effectiveness monitoring
designs, and identify issues to be considered when developing
effectiveness monitoring programs.

Instructors: Steven A. Dressing and Donald W. Meals, senior scientists,
Tetra Tech, inc.

Registration opens April 3. You must register in advance to
participate. To register, visit www.clu-in.org/live. Upon
registration, you will receive complete participation instructions.

After the webcast, an audio version will be available; visit
www.epa.gov/watershedwebcasts for more information.

This message was forwarded by:

Erick Burres
Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
SWRCB- Clean Water Team

Visit the Clean Water Team at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/nps/volunteer.html

You can self-subscribe to the Clean Water Team’s E-Mailing List. To subscribe visit
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lyrisforms/swrcb_subscribe.html and check the box marked
Citizen Monitoring Program/Clean Water Team.

Contact me at:
Desk (213) 576-6788
Cell (213) 712-6862
Fax (213) 576-6686

LA-RWQCB
320 West 4th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA

Judge Tells Regulators to Reconsider Klamath algae

Published on June 17, 2008 in Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

By JEFF BARNARD / Associated Press
06/17/2008

A judge has ordered California water regulators to reconsider whether they have the power to regulate toxic algae coming from behind hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

Iron Gate Dam

Indian tribes, salmon fishermen and the group Klamath Riverkeeper have been campaigning to force Portland-based utility PacifiCorp to remove the dams to help struggling salmon runs. One of their arguments is that toxic algae growing in reservoirs behind the dams is bad for fish as well as people.

The Karuk Tribe, Klamath Riverkeeper and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations had petitioned the North Coast Water Quality Control Board in Santa Rosa, Calif., to control the algae as a toxic waste, but the board turned them down, saying federal dam regulators considering a new license for the dams had authority over the issue.

Sonoma County Superior Judge Elaine Rushing ruled Thursday that the water board must reconsider in light of the Clean Water Act, which generally gives states enforcement authority over water quality, and recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings applying state law to federal hydroelectric projects.

Catherine Kuhlman, executive officer of the water board, said they would do the additional legal analysis.

Kuhlman said if the state of California agreed to demand that PacifiCorp get a permit to allow toxic algae to flow out of the reservoirs, it could ultimately lead to a finding the dams have to come out, for lack of any other effective way of dealing with the pollution.

Michael Lozeau, attorney for the river groups, said they felt the board could impose some conditions on PacifiCorp to limit algae growth without running up against the Federal Power Act.

PacifiCorp, which is seeking a new operating license for the dams, has maintained that the algae has been in the river a long time, occurs elsewhere, and they are funding studies to better understand and control it.

Kuhlman said the water board has found that while the algae is fed by the high levels of nutrients from volcanic soils and agricultural runoff in the water, the dams are a factor in producing the elevated levels.

The algae is Microcystis aeruginosa, which has been found blooming in the Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs near the Oregon border each summer since 2001.

The algae commonly blooms in warm, slow-moving waters where there is a lot of phosphorus and nitrogen. The toxin affects the liver and can harm people and animals that come in contact with it.

“We believe the state inherently has and always has that right, and in this case the obligation, to protect public health and lower-river fisheries,” said Glen Spain of the fishermen’s group.

CA Court Sides With Tribes, Fishermen, Conservationists On Clean Water Case

Published on June 17, 2008 in Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Judge Orders CA Water Board to Reconsider Regulation of Toxic Waste in Klamath River

PRESS ADVISORY
June 16, 2008

Santa Rosa, CA – In a recent ruling that may have broad implications for dams throughout California, Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing has invited the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to exercise its congressionally mandated authority to regulate water quality.

The ruling stems from a suit filed by Klamath Riverkeeper, the Karuk Tribe, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations against California’s North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The groups filed suit last August after the Board rejected their petition to regulate toxic waste discharges from PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams. PacifiCorp is owned by billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

In 2004, the Karuk Tribe found that the massive blooms of blue-green algae behind PacifiCorp’s Iron Gate and Copco dams was indeed the toxic algae Microcystis aeruginosa. This algae secretes a potent liver toxin known as microcystin. Levels of the toxin can exceed water quality standards set by the World Health by as much as 4,000 fold. When no agency took responsibility to regulate the toxin, the Karuk, PCFFA, and Klamath Riverkeeper took action.

“We will not sit idly by and let Buffett’s dams poison the Klamath River, while California does nothing to protect the people of the Klamath from this toxic pollution,” said Regina Chichizola, Klamath Riverkeeper.

The groups first petitioned the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to regulate the toxic discharge from the dams into the river citing California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. The Board argued that they were pre-empted by the Federal Power Act from taking such an action. The groups then challenged the board’s argument in Superior Court.

According to the groups’ attorney Michael Lozeau, “with this ruling the court invites the Board to rethink its assertion that it is powerless to regulate water quality and protect the public from PacifiCorp’s toxic pollution of the Klamath River.”

The discovery of Microcystis aeruginosa has led regulatory agencies to post signs warning the public to not contact the Klamath River for over 200 miles from Copco Reservoir to the ocean. The warnings come when the blooms are at their zenith during the heat of summer. Unfortunately, this is the time when the public most wants to use the river.

“The state is warning people to not contact the Klamath River during the height of fishing season and during our most important ceremonies. However, our medicine men are obligated to bathe in the Klamath River in late summer in preparation for our World Renewal Ceremonies,” according to Karuk ceremonial leader and Vice-chairman Leaf Hillman.

The judge’s ruling gives the Board 90 days to reconsider the groups’ petition and act. A decision is expected late this summer. If the board accepts the petition and acts to regulate PacifiCorp’s toxic discharge, the ruling could result in the Regional Board’s issuance of water quality requirements and enforcement orders requiring PacifiCorps to take immediate steps to reduce its extreme toxic pollution of the Klamath, as well as its harmful temperature and oxygen-depleted releases.

“It’s high time that somebody stood up to PacifiCorp and held them accountable for their destruction of our river. The Water Board should use its clear authority to protect the public now,” concludes Chichizola.

The EPA recently listed PacifiCorp’s reservoirs on the Klamath River as impaired due to toxic algae and have committed to creating pollution clean up plan, or TMDL to deal with the algae issue.

Glen Spain, Regional Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations – 541-689-2000