Monthly Archive for November, 2008

New Riparian Setbacks Needed where 3 fish-killing Chemicals Used

Published on November 25, 2008 in Agriculture Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

New riparian setbacks needed where 3 fish-killing chemicals are used.

Chlorpyrofos (Lorsban, Dursban) has been used against glassy-winged sharpshooters in Southern CA, and of course those of us who lived in Santa Clara Valley in the 1980s got malathion dumped on us. One official supposedly drank a glass of it (in water) to show how safe it was.

Lorsban was phased out of residential use starting in 2001 or so, and diazinon started leaving store shelves in 2004. Both are now restricted to professional pest control operator use, but this still threatens salmon.

Jane

News item in Press Democrat, 11/19/08

New Protections for Salmon

Farms and orchards that continue to use three pesticides that harm salmon will have to greatly expand buffer zones around their fields so the chemicals don’t reach streams, federal biologists ruled Tuesday.

Acting under terms of a lawsuit brought by anti-pesticide groups and salmon fishermen, NOAA Fisheries Service issued findings under the Endangered Species Act that chemicals malathion, diazinon and chlorpyrifos jeopardize the survival of all 28 species of Pacific salmon listed as threatened or endangered in the West.

The chemicals, found by the U.S. Geological Survey to contaminate rivers throughout the West, interfere with salmon’s sense of smell, making it harder to avoid predators, locate food and even find their native spawning streams and reproduce. At higher concentrations, they kill fish outright.

“Dead Zone” Report Calls for Greater Protection of Wetlands and Streams

Published on November 24, 2008 in Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Clean Water Act Enforcement A Key To Mitigating Pollution in Mississippi River Basin

October 2008

Wetlands and streams in the Mississippi River Basin are at increased risk of pollution and destruction, according to a new report released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Many of these bodies of water were historically covered under the Clean Water Act, but a series of misguided Supreme Court decisions have left them facing increased threats from pollutants including those that cause “dead zones.”

“Congress must take immediate action to restore protection to roughly 20 million acres of America’s wetlands and thousands of headwater streams,” said Jon Devine, senior attorney in NRDC’s Water Program. “The health of one of America’s greatest natural resources, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf Coast depends on restoring safeguards to stop pollution.”

Each summer, enormous quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus flow down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. These pollutants contribute to the formation of a “dead zone” in the Gulf, an area where the bottom layer of water is so oxygen-depleted that most aquatic life cannot survive. Typically, the Gulf “dead zone” stretches west from where the Mississippi River enters the Gulf towards Texas, making it the largest in the U.S. and the second largest in the world. In 2007, it grew, covering an area roughly the size of New Jersey.

According to the report, “Missing Protection: Polluting the Mississippi River Basin’s Small Streams and Wetlands,”countless streams, rivers, lakes and other waterways are in danger of pollution and destruction. Two recent Supreme Court rulings, along with policy directives from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have raised questions about whether the Clean Water Act’s protections extend to a host of “non-navigable” and “isolated” waterways. This loophole is particularly troubling in relation to the problem of nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River Basin.

Small waterways such as wetlands and streams have important roles both as conduits and as sinks for this nutrient pollution. Evidence shows that while many of the nutrient pollution that reaches the Gulf comes from runoff that enters headwater streams, small streams and wetlands can also intercept and remove nutrients from the water before they get to major river systems and the Gulf. They also provide drinking water, prevent floods, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and filter out other pollutants.

According to NRDC, Congress must pass the broadly-supported Clean Water Restoration Act, a bill that will re-establish protections for the nation’s water bodies by:

(1) Reaffirming the historic understanding of the Clean Water Act that the law extends beyond traditionally navigable waters;

(2) Ensuring the law’s protections apply to all of the waters of the United States that had been covered by the agencies’ longstanding regulations; and,

(3) Explaining why Congress has ample constitutional authority over the nation’s waters, as defined in the Act, including so-called “isolated” waters, headwater streams, small rivers, ponds, lakes and wetlands.

To help limit the damage until Congress can fix the law, the report also urges that the EPA and the Army Corps must immediately enforce the existing law to the fullest extent that the Supreme Court’s decisions allow.

Click here for the full text of the report

Click here to see a fact sheet about the Clean Water Restoration Act

Floating to save the L.A. River

Published on November 24, 2008 in Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

An Army Corps of Engineers biologist who took part in a kayak trip to show the waterway is navigable may face dismissal for her actions.

Heather Wylie, Los Angeles Times October 2008

Kayak trip on the LA river

A kayak trip I took this summer may cost me my job.

I am a civilian biologist working for the Army Corps of Engineers. On my personal time, I joined a trip down the Los Angeles River to protest actions by my own agency to undermine the Clean Water Act.

My superiors scoured the Internet for proof and found two photos of me on a blog. Claiming that my “participation undermined [its] authority,” the corps has proposed suspending me for 30 days, a punishment one step below termination. More than two months after advocating this penalty, it has yet to make a decision.

In July, a dozen kayakers took a three-day journey down the 52-mile L.A. River; I joined them for 20 miles. The purpose of our regatta was to show that the entire river is “navigable-in-fact” — a classification that is crucial to preventing the rollback of Clean Water Act protections throughout the watershed — and to highlight similar threats facing waterways across the nation.

More than 30 years after its enactment, the Clean Water Act is now in legal turmoil. A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Rapanos vs. United States, first muddied the waters. The court held that to continue to regulate pollution under the Clean Water Act, the government has to prove there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands in question and “navigable-in-fact” waters.

The term “navigable-in-fact” comes from 140 years’ worth of court rulings. Waterways that have or can generate interstate or foreign commerce through boating (including seasonal, hazardous or solely recreational use) are navigable-in-fact and thus subject to the provisions of the Clean Water Act. So our kayak trip was meant to underscore that the L.A. River — and all the streams that feed into it — deserve protection under that law.

Last year, in response to the court ruling, the corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency put together a document spelling out new, more restrictive methods for analyzing which waters will continue to be subject to the law. With a big assist from the Bush administration, developers and industry successfully lobbied the agencies to use the new guidebook as an opportunity to push the majority of our nation’s streams and wetlands out of reach of the Clean Water Act.

In the view of many, the restrictive standards cripple the Clean Water Act. In a memo released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), the top EPA enforcement official complained that the change has blocked the majority of Clean Water Act prosecutions.

Fortunately, the corps’ shenanigans and the attention our protest and that of others drew to the issue triggered an unusual countermove: The EPA permanently stripped the corps of any further responsibility for determining the status of the L.A. River and Arizona’s Santa Cruz River.

Still, scores of other watersheds across the nation remain in jeopardy. A navigability analysis of the Gila River in Arizona has just been completed, designating only 6.9 miles as navigable-in-fact. This has enormous implications; the Gila River flows hundreds of miles across the width of Arizona, and its watershed covers vast areas of the state. The analysis focuses on a small section of the Gila near the site of a proposed development where lobbyists are pushing for relaxation of environmental protections. In response, the corps has proposed removing Clean Water Act coverage from several creeks at the site. If the EPA doesn’t overturn it by Tuesday, these rollbacks will become final and set a detrimental precedent.

Legislation to restore the Clean Water Act and protect our rivers from being polluted, or our wetlands from being drained for development, is still pending in Congress. It needs to be a top priority.

I picked up a paddle to make a point about protecting the integrity of our waters, including the much-abused L.A. River, and to protest the leadership of my own agency. The Army Corps of Engineers, all the way down to the Los Angeles District, has chosen to subvert the Clean Water Act, which the agency — like myself — has sworn to uphold. To me, protecting our waters, our greatest public-trust resource, is not just our job; it is our patriotic duty.

As a federal employee, I did not forfeit my 1st Amendment rights to speak out or to petition my government to redress wrongs — on my own time. To my surprise, my demonstration about the Clean Water Act has turned into a fight about the extent to which public servants will be allowed to serve the public, our true employers, while off-duty. I stand by my actions, and I have not put my paddle away.

Heather Wylie is a biologist with the regulatory division of the L.A. District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The opinions expressed are her own and do not reflect the official views of the corps.

Discussion on the Value of Fish and Game

Published on November 23, 2008 in Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Larry:

Working with DFG biologists and staff on projects is not worthless.  On CEQA based projects (including THPs and County Ord) getting good biologic opinion in the file  helps immensely.

With DFG staff it is important to develop working relationships with field staff and then management. The management part is to assure field work does not get overturned by politics.

Alan,
Thanks, Alan, that is helpful. I’ve personally had some dealings with DFG regarding THPs some years back and it seemed those assigned to this were worthless, although once in awhile a pesky newcomer would believe the mission statement and cause trouble for the agency. Kimberly has had some good responses from one or two key biologists on ESA and other issues, one of them having just retired. I’ll include the response from PRMD on DFG’s official comments on the grading ordinance when I send it out.

–Larry

Decisions made by DFG on policy are made by the Fish and Game Commission.

One new policy that may have impact on the Russian and other north coast
rivers is the approved DFG Coho Recovery Strategy (assessment and
reccomendations for Russian and other river) – found at the DFG web site.
I noticed Kimberly and Jonathan on this because they make statement on
grading ord for SoCo.

Biologic assessment and violations are accomlished under DFG responsible
agency permitting, DFG 1600 Stream Alteration Permits, and comments on
projects (i.e. SoCo Grading Ord). You need to know you local DFG
biologists and managers.  They will send you copy and do investigations -
provoked.

Alan

Sonoma County Sued in Gravel Pit Excavation

Published on November 17, 2008 in Gravel Mining Impacts. 0 Comments

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
November 11, 2008

Sonoma County Gravel Mining

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Sonoma County Superior Court against the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Syar Industries, charges that the Napa gravel company is threatening the county’s most valuable natural resource – its groundwater.

Gravel mining also removes from use valuable streamside farmland, the suit said.

The suit asks that a three-year permit the county granted Syar last month be placed on hold while the county conducts a full environmental review of possible damage to an enormous aquifer that lies in the alluvial gravels of the middle reach of the Russian River.

Plaintiffs include the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Russian Riverkeeper and several individuals. The suit doesn’t deal with removing gravel in the river.

Dennis Hill, 58, who grows wine grapes on family land near Healdsburg, said, “Even when I was a kid, there was digging.” His parents fought the gravel mining, too. The activity has “left huge lakes along the river,” he said.

Syar officials were not available for comment on the suit Monday.

After public hearings and debate, the county Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to grant the permit for a 28-acre pit up to 90 feet deep. The pit lies downstream of the confluence of the Russian River and Dry Creek, west of Highway 101. The Sonoma County Planning Commission had denied the permit request in April.

In approving the measure, the board changed a decade-old policy that promised to end nearly all streamside gravel mining by 2006. The original policy had been adopted to preserve rich farmland and laid out restrictions on interim mining, including the size and number of pits and their distance from the river.

Supervisor Paul Kelley, who voted for the permit, said the project “wasn’t adding any more land to be mined. It was finishing an area that had already started to get mined. We needed to make sure reclamation would occur on the site.”

Instead of giving Syar the five years to finish the job that the company had requested, the board approved a permit extension for three years. The board also required reclamation of the pit.

The county had completed an environmental review, said Jeff Brax, deputy county counsel. The board asked for independent scientific evaluation, which showed that Syar’s former pits hadn’t reduced groundwater levels by more than 1 foot on adjacent properties, he said.

But Stephan Volker, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the pit is only one-third dug and could be restored to its original state and used for agriculture.

The environmental review completed by the county was inadequate, he said. His experts sharply criticized the methodology and data on which the county had relied.

Studies show that removing deep gravel beds that lie on the river’s streamside terraces above the aquifer can seal the soils and affect the groundwater levels, Volker said.

The gravels and fine sediments along the river make up “a natural system and act like a sponge. When the river runs high, it recharges the groundwater. When the river runs low, the groundwater recharges the river,” Volker said.

Gravel mines cause a barrier that blocks the flow of groundwater, he said, which sometimes causes problems for grape growers.

Fine varietals require a low water table in the late summer and fall. If the water table remains high because groundwater flow toward the river is blocked by the pits, soil in the root zone remains saturated, preventing proper maturation of the grapes, Volker said.

Legislative Report Calls for Water Changes

Published on November 17, 2008 in Groundwater. 0 Comments

Groundwater supply not sustainable, needs permitting
Capital Press – 11/3/08
By Hank Shaw

The state Legislature’s top analyst has released a report on California’s water supply that could add new life to two perennial issues – regulating groundwater supplies and rewriting the state’s water-rights laws.

The Legislative Analyst report notes that California is one of just two Western states – the other is Texas – that does not have a state-run groundwater permitting law. The report also suggested that lawmakers revise the legal definition of “reasonable use” when it comes to water rights. Neither proposal sits well with the farming and ranching community.

Staffers who deal with water legislation acknowledge that the proposals make sense from a broad view, but they shook their collective heads at the potential legislative war that would ensue should lawmakers take on the issues seriously when they convene in Sacramento this January.

“This’d go over real well with the aggies,” one staffer said, recounting a multi-year row over a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would only assess groundwater levels, not regulate its use.

Catherine Freeman, the author of the report, said groundwater permitting just makes sense. “We think it’s time we come along with other states,” she said.

Texas, the other state without permitting, has so severely overdrafted its Ogallala Aquifer that some small towns have had to be abandoned.

Freeman’s report shows that groundwater makes up nearly 40 percent of the state’s water supply in dry years, a level that many experts do not believe is sustainable. Groundwater pumping makes up only 21 percent of the state’s water supply in wet years.

“In a lot of areas of the state, groundwater is relatively unknown,” said Freeman, who noted that much of Southern California already requires permits to pump groundwater. “We don’t have a sense of how much the groundwater is holding and what is the quality of that water.”

Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition says statewide permitting isn’t needed. “Local water districts and regions do manage groundwater and have done so for decades,” he said.

Farmers and ranchers have traditionally opposed government interference in their use of groundwater because permitting and regulation would likely cost them money – and it may even ban them from growing what they want.

Indeed, Freeman’s report includes a section on how much water the same crops use in different areas. This could lead to policymakers declaring that growing a certain crop in a certain area does not qualify as a “reasonable use” of water, essentially banning it.

Alfalfa is one of the main villains for this point of view. California is a leading alfalfa producer and alfalfa hay is a main feed source for the state’s livestock – especially its largest-in-the-nation dairy herd.

Alfalfa requires a lot of water, and critics say that valuable California farmland would be better used growing higher-dollar crops such as grapes or almonds.

“That we should not grow alfalfa in California is a complete falsehood,” said Wade of the Farm Water Coalition. “The dairy industry, the beef industry, the horse industry are all highly dependent on alfalfa and if we didn’t grow here, we’d have to ship it in from somewhere else.”

Freeman’s report does not single out alfalfa, but it does include a look at “pasture” grown in the Colorado River basin, the area in and around San Joaquin County, as well as the Central Coast.

Her report shows that growing pasture in the Colorado River basin requires more than double the amount of water needed to grow it on the Central Coast and nearly double that needed around San Joaquin. She showed similar results for orchard and tomato crops. Wade said economics can trump water costs.

“Although it may take more water to grow a tomato in the Imperial Valley, we’re growing tomatoes during a time of year when tomatoes won’t grow in the San Joaquin Valley,” he said.

Freeman’s report also suggests tinkering with water-rights definitions to reflect modern water needs. This has been tried before in the Legislature and agriculture has opposed it as a water-grab by urban dwellers aimed at rural California.

The possibilities of much of the report becoming law appear dim – unless the makeup of the Legislature radically changes after Election Day.

Republicans have historically opposed any changes to water-rights law and have consistently voted against groundwater legislation. But Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the Assembly and possibly in the Senate; some are even talking about a two-thirds majority, which would eliminate the need for Republican votes on constitutional amendments or tax increases. Still, rural Democrats in the Central Valley could still block changes.

“I know that there are people in the Legislature who will use this to say we don’t need new resources, that we need to reallocate existing resources,” Wade said. “It throws farmers under the bus.”

Some Garcia River History

Published on November 15, 2008 in Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

The effort in the Garcia has a lot of history. John Hooper summarizes – below. I worked on FrOGs Board and with CAG. CAG did the TMDL litigation and has continued with water issues that the somewhat retired FrOGgies are just learning about. The process goes on – as it never ends. Some day I will retire.

From John:

Dear Editor: Thank you for Peter Fimrite’s encouraging front page story about evidence of coho salmon recovery in the Garcia River: “Scientists thrilled by surprising find of fish”; Saturday, November 1, 2008.

While improved logging in large parts of the watershed now being practiced by the Conservation Fund, Mendocino Redwood Company, and other landowners is greatly helping restore the Garcia’s fishery, it would be a misunderstanding to view the recovery of the coho population as a trend which began when the Conservation Fund and the Nature Conservancy got involved in Garcia River restoration. This is an important point because river restoration efforts (and associated long-term funding) need to be understood and developed as twenty, thirty, even fifty year programs. And the Garcia River restoration effort is well over 20 years old.

Serious fishery restoration started in the Garcia River in the 1980s when Friends of the Garcia (FROG) became concerned about instream gravel mining in the river blocking fish passage and heating up the river. The group eventually forced two gravel mining companies out of the river.

The Coastal Conservancy then funded a study which resulted in the 1992 Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan, the basic blueprint which has been used to guide restoration efforts ever since. FROG was soon joined by Coast Action Group, Cal Trout and other committed neighbors to force EPA, through successful litigation, to complete a TMDL study ( a sediment budget, in effect) on the Garcia River, the first such study done in California and a lawsuit which resulted in the establishment of schedules for completion of TMDL studies on 17 coastal salmon streams.

During those contentious years, FROG also fought to have the Garcia River recognized as navigable, assuring that the public has the right to canoe and kayak in the river and hike along its banks. FROG also fought keep the riverbed from being overrun by joyriding all-terrain vehicles during the summer months.

In the early 1990s, typically, timber harvest plans covering 5000 acres were filed in the watershed every year. Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia Pacific and Coastal Forestlands were removing practically every conifer over 12 inches in diameter on their extensive properties. During most of the 1990s, through continuing efforts commenting on logging plans and mapping the cumulative impacts of logging, FROG, Coast Action group and others eventually reduced that logged acreage by 90% to only about 500 acres per year.

Currently, FROG views the greatest threat to the Garcia River’s fishery to be over-pumping the river for agricultural, development and residential purposes. There are several proposals pending in the watershed which, taken together, could require more water use than the river can provide. FROG has petitioned the State Water Resources Control Board to have the Garcia declared fully appropriated to insure that adequate water is safeguarded in the river for fish and wildlife during low flow months.

FROG and other local groups and residents look forward to continue working closely with the Conservation fund, The Nature Conservancy and Mendocino Redwood Co. on ongoing threats to the river.

Sincerely,

John Hooper

Judge Rejects Sonoma County Water Agency Plan

Published on November 13, 2008 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

Environmentalists, community groups’ suit alleged agency’s water estimates were overly optimistic

DEREK J. MOORE, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

November 1, 2008

A judge’s ruling this week against the Sonoma County Water Agency could profoundly affect future development on the North Coast, as well as the protection of endangered species and conservation efforts.

The case involves the Urban Water Management Plan, a crucial document that forms the basis for most Sonoma County cities to determine how much water they can expect to receive through 2030 and if it will be enough for future business and housing growth.

County Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler ruled in his 48-page decision that Water Agency officials failed to provide “substantial evidence” to support their findings, and he essentially ordered them to start anew.

The ruling is a victory for a coalition of 14 environmental and community groups that last year sued the Water Agency, charging the agency’s water estimates were inflated and failed to adequately address environmental concerns.

“The court has issued a landmark ruling requiring the Water Agency to grapple with the harsh reality that water demand will soon outstrip water supply in Sonoma County,” said Oakland attorney Stephan Volker, who represented the coalition.

Jay Jasperse, deputy chief engineer for the Water Agency, declined comment Friday, saying officials had yet to review the ruling and discuss it with the board of directors.

Santa Rosa attorney Steve Mitchell, who assisted the county with its defense, did not return several messages seeking comment.

The Water Agency’s management plan, required every five years by state law, projected that the county will have enough water for the next 20 years if it can secure state approval for a 35 percent increase in the amount of water that can be drawn from reservoirs.

State regulators would agree to these increases, county planners argued, as long as the county undertakes water conservation measures, devises formulas for water use by customers and makes an effort to replenish endangered fish.

But coalition members said the estimates are overly optimistic because they don’t take into account other factors, such as climate changes indicating less rainfall and more drought in the future, as well as political and legal constraints on water use.

“The Water Agency has blithely assumed that it will obtain state water board approval for an additional 26,000 acre-feet of water annually, which represents a 33 percent increase in its existing diversions from the Russian River,” Volker said.

He said the county’s plan also assumes that the federal government will not cut diversions of water from the Eel River to the Russian River and that the National Marine Fisheries Service will not reduce diversions from the Russian River to protect three endangered salmon species.

Nadler took issue with the scope of the Water Agency’s report.

Agency officials had argued they met a requirement in the water management plan to consult with agencies “in the area” before reaching any conclusions.

But Nadler stated that these consultations were limited to the Water Agency’s contractors, two counties and several local wastewater agencies. He said the agency also should have sought input from the Fisheries Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The Water Agency never secured the input of “the very agencies whose review is essential to an informed assessment of potential restrictions on SCWA’s future planned diversions of water,” Nadler wrote.

The judge found the management plan lacking in four other key areas, saying it:

Lacks specificity.

Fails to adequately consider environmental factors, including the effect of changed water flows on salmon species.

Fails to adequately address the effect of recycled ground water on the availability of water supply in the future.

Fails to quantify the scope of conservation measures during water shortfalls.

Nadler sent the plan back to Water Agency officials with an order to “comply with statutory requirements.”

You can reach Staff Writer Derek J. Moore at 521-5336 or derek.moore@pressdemocrat.com.

Sonoma County Superior Court Overturns Sonoma County Water Agency Management Plan

Published on November 13, 2008 in Water Conservation. 0 Comments

Sonoma County Water Coalition Press Release

Santa Rosa – Today a broad coalition of community organizations representing conservationists, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and recreationists announced that Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler has ruled in their favor and struck down the Sonoma County Water Agency’s (SCWA’s) recently-adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Judge Nadler agreed with the Water Coalition that the Water Agency’s UWMP was deficient in five fundamental respects. California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) requires major urban water purveyors such as SCWA to prepare a UWMP every five years to assess available ground and surface water supplies and determine whether they are sufficient to meet projected water demands. The Act declares that “[a] long term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect the productivity of California’s business and economic climate” as well as its environmental quality. SCWA’s most recent UWMP claims that Sonoma County has adequate ground and surface water supplies for substantial urban growth.

Judge Nadler rejected SCWA’s claim, pointing out that SCWA’s proposal to increase diversions from the Russian River potentially conflicts with protection of this river for fish and wildlife, recreation, and existing agricultural and domestic uses. The superior court therefore set aside SCWA’s UWMP, and directed SCWA to acknowledge and address the potential water shortages facing Sonoma County before unsustainable urban growth deprives existing and future agricultural, urban, and recreational uses of essential water supplies.

Judge Nadler ruled that SCWA’s UWMP ignores or understates many severe constraints on future water supply, and that SCWA violated the UWMPA in the following respects:

(1) The SCWA failed to coordinate with relevant agencies as required by the Act;

(2) The Plan fails to include the degree of specificity required by the Act;

(3) The Plan fails to adequately consider environmental factors, specifically, the effect of changed water flows during period of water shortfalls on the salmonids, and other potential implications of the Endangered Species Act;

(4) The Plan fails to adequately address the effect of recycled groundwater on the availability of water supply in the future; and

(5) The Plan fails to quantify with reasonable specificity the scope of water demand management measures which are relied upon to address the anticipated water shortfalls.

The lawsuit was brought by fourteen community organizations including the Sonoma County Water Coalition, the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Coast Action Group, the O.W.L. Foundation, the Sebastopol Water Information Group, and the North Coast Rivers Alliance, among others.

Stephan Volker, attorney for the plaintiffs, praised them for persevering, through two years of challenging litigation, and lauded Judge Nadler for his extraordinary effort in reviewing hundreds of pages of briefs and a 71,000-page court record, preparatory to issuing his detailed and scholarly 46-page ruling. “We are pleased that the Court has vindicated our concerns by ruling in our favor on virtually every issue,” stated Mr. Volker. “We look forward to working with Sonoma County Water Agency to develop a sensible and lawful water management plan that assures that water supplies are adequate to protect not only our cities and farmers, but also our fish and wildlife, for now and for future generations,” added Mr. Volker.

The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC), founded in 2004, is a forum for more than thirty local groups to share information and concerns about water, and to take action to improve management of this vital resource in Sonoma County. The combined membership of its member groups is more than 25,000 concerned citizens.

The Russian River Watershed Protection Committee (RRWPC), founded in 1980, has 1,400 supporters, and works to protect the health of the Russian River, representing mostly property owners along the lower Russian River and recreationists.

The Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) is a statewide organization of family farmers that works to develop local community food systems, to create environmentally sustainable farming methods, and to enact state and local policies to support these efforts.

The Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA) is an organization of farmers and residents that engages in public education and advocacy to promote the protection and restoration of agricultural lands and uses on the west side of the Middle Reach of the Russian River near Healdsburg.

The O.W.L. Foundation comprises concerned citizens dependent on groundwater resources from the Santa Rosa plain that is dedicated to educating the public and elected officials about the severity of the current water crisis in Sonoma County, and the technical methods available to resolve the crisis.

The Sebastopol Water Information Group (SWiG) is a community organization whose members include experts in the water sciences who monitor groundwater contamination and well water levels, and provide information to well owners.

The North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA) is an environmental organization that works to protect the Russian River and other rivers of California’s north coast from the adverse effects of excessive water diversions, ill-planned urban development, and harmful resource extraction, pollution, and other forms of degradation.

Friends of the Eel River (FOER) is a regional organization of concerned citizens dedicated to the restoration of both the Eel and Russian Rivers, their watersheds and their fish and wildlife.

View copy of Judge Nadler’s Decision Granting Writ of Mandate here.

Meetings on the Russian’s Biological Opinion

Published on November 8, 2008 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Coastal Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

For the full story – please visit my web site – there are several articles on this subject – you can go to the ENVIRONMENT category for the full collection. And please pass along this information so we can get many people attending these important meetings! Thank you!

http://www.westcountygazette.com/blog/2008/11/sonoma-county-water-meetings-biological.html

We have a lot of meetings to attend to make sure our water issues are taken care of with our environmental and social priorities. Please read below and attend these very important meetings. Thanks for your involvement in the maintenance of our home.
Biological Opinion Community meetings:
November 5 – Dry Creek habitat restoration
Healdsburg, Villa Chanticleer, 1248 N. Fitch Mountain Road
November 6 – Flow Changes
Guerneville – Veteran’s Memorial Hall, 1st & Church Streets
November 13 – Flow changes
Ukiah, Board of Supervisors chambers, County Admin. Center, 501 Low Gap Road
November 19 – Estuary adaptive management
Jenner – Community hall, 10432 Highway 1, (park across the street from the gas station – walk behind the gas station over the foot bridge)

Information and updates: www.sonmacountywater.org – Russian River Instream Flow and Restoration – or call Ann DuBay at 707-524-8378
BPU Study Session re: Project Selection – November 6, 2008
BPU has a study session at their regular meeting. They will probably take public comments at this meeting as well, but no decision would be made at this meeting.
1:30 PM City Council Chambers 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa
SR Council Review Study Session Results – November 18, 2008 (about 5 PM) This discussion with probably have time for the public to speak. No decision would be made here. Study Session on project selection for river discharge; joint meeting with City Council to review study session results: Nov. 18, 2008 in City Council Chambers (not sure of time/call city to check) 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa
BPU Project Selection/Approval – December 4, 2008 This is the meeting where they will select a project. This is the last chance for comments and public testimony. 1:30 PM City Council Chambers, 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa (This is VERY important meeting to decide river discharge option. We hope a lot of people will plan to be there.)

Vesta Copestakes
West County Gazette

http://www.westcountygazette.com/

VESTA Publishing, LLC
6490 Front Street #300
Forestville, CA 95436