Activist's Corner » Groundwater Impacts

DWR’s online groundwater information system

Larry — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:40:03 +0000

DWR’s online groundwater information system

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/geotracker_gama.shtml

GeoTracker GAMA is an online groundwater information system that gives you access to water quality data and connects you to groundwater basics and protection information. This online database integrates groundwater quality data from multiple sources, which are searchable by chemical or location with results displayed on an interactive Google maps interface. To access GeoTracker GAMA, click here and enter an address in the search box .

SEARCH BY ADDRESS: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/

GeoTracker GAMA has data from over 200,000 discrete well locations, including over 100 million analytical results, well logs and water levels – since quality and quantity are both important factors in evaluating the state of our groundwater resources.

A - SHALLOW WELLS: Typically placed in first encountered groundwater – such as monitoring wells at regulated cleanup sites, or private domestic wells (GAMA Domestic Well Project).B - INTERMEDIATE WELLS: Deeper than shallow wells, and typically tap deeper aquifers – such as water supply wells (GAMA Domestic Well Project, GAMA Special Studies Project (LLNL), DPR and DWR).

C- DEEP WELLS: Typically hundreds to thousands of feet deep, pumping large volumes of water from deeper aquifers – such as water supply wells used for public supply (GAMA Priority Basin Project (USGS), CA Dept of Public Health, DWR, GAMA Special Studies (LLNL), DPR), and irrigation wells used for agricultural purposes.

Note: Monitoring of public drinking water quality is the responsibility of the California Department of Public Health. The State of California does not regulate water quality in private domestic wells.

GeoTracker GAMA currently integrates data from State and Regional Water Boards, California Department of Public Health, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Water Resources, US Geological Survey, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Letter to Supervisor: Hobbs is Not One Bad Apple

Larry — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:12:37 +0000

October 27, 2011

Supervisor Efren Carrillo Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Dr. Rm. 100A Santa Rosa CA 95403

RE: Paul Hobbs, Henry Cornell, and the Public Trust

Dear Efren,

Many thanks for your recent candid and accurate public comments concerning Paul Hobbs’ desecration of Highway 116 corridor trees and beauty. To many Sonoma County residents, Hobbs’ interaction with John Jenkel in taking Jenkel’s property was felonious misconduct. His disregard for the well being of our environment is nothing short of shocking to reasonable persons; he is the poster-child for reckless disregard, selfishness and mindless destruction.

Unfortunately, there are many other environment destroyers in Sonoma County who operate under the public’s radar by being less brazen and in your face than Hobbs. You and Supervisors Zane and Maguire have all visited the 122 acre Doerksen property (Ranchero Mark West) on Mark West Creek (MWC) and witnessed first hand the resource degradation caused by lower profile environmental wreckers at the headwaters of MWC. The most egregious offender upstream from Doerksens is, of course, Cornell Farms, owned by Goldman-Sach’s managing director Henry Cornell of New York City. Among the MWC resource scalps on Cornell’s belt are:

97% of the summertime flow of MWC is gone and so are our massive runs of steelhead and salmon with numerous fish strandings and a total fish kill for two consecutive years.

Slides and continuous erosion from the very steep newly planted vineyards are silting up the remaining spawning beds on MWC.

The North fork of the MWC went dry in late Sept. 2008 and early June 2011 with above average rainfall. This is what the many straws in the aquifer are doing.

A complaint has just been filed with the State on a stranding and killing of juvenile steelhead just below the Cornell vineyards.

All of these facts are well documented by experts and residents and have been provided to county planners by others and ourselves. In the case of the Cornell vineyards, the owner has blatantly removed the timber two times without any repercussions. The NCRWQCB recommended fines but that never happened. They also indicated that this area was too steep for vineyards and would result in slides and erosion. It occurred with 10,000 cubic yards of dirt sliding into, and ruining the North Fork of MWC. They also said (as did CDFG & NOAA Fisheries) that wells for irrigating the vineyards could cause serious damage to the creek with resulting loss of water, killing salmonids and damaging the wildlife. And it has.

While some of the environmental destruction of the Henry Cornells can be attributed to their efforts to operate covertly, Sonoma County’s Permit Resource Management Dept. (PRMD) and Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA; members appointed by Supervisors), have earned a significant portion of the blame by repeatedly and consistently ignoring opposition’s expert scientist reports of environmental harm, instead accepting the often illogical opinions of the developers’ retained project consultants. This dereliction of their duties to protect and enhance the public trust, public resources and environmental health is evidenced by the repeated judicial reversals of PRMD, BZA and, in fact, Board of Supervisor development approvals.

The MWC environmental crisis is soon to come to a head with Mr. Cornell, his vineyards (26 acres producing at this time), and his proposed winery. The project has already caused potentially lethal and irreversible damage to MWC, all in violation of federal laws, state laws, county regulations and our County’s General Plan. The PMRD has approved Cornell’s operations, allowing massive clearing of forests, aquifer depletion to zero (they will never recover), neighbors’ wells having gone dry, noisy water trucks hauling water daily to local vineyards gone dry and a dry MWC incapable of sustaining fish life. The time has come to realistically address projects such as Cornell and to recognize that not all of the land in our county is suitable for grapes and wineries.

Again, thank you for your leadership role in bringing focus to Mr. Hobbs’ indefensible destruction activities in the west county. Please remember we in the eastern county have similar problems caused by similar persons.

Most sincerely,

JIM DOERKSEN, Co-Chair, Save Mark West Creek

STEPHEN KRIMEL, Co-Chair, Save Mark West Creek

Cc: Supervisor Shirlee Zane

Supervisor Valerie Brown

Supervisor David Rabbitt

Supervisor Mike Maguire

Paul C. Gullixson, Editorial Director

Meetings and Issues Announcements from NCRWQCB

Larry — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:47:26 +0000

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Petition for Congress to Protect Clean Water

Larry — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:38:17 +0000

Friends–

Tomorrow marks the 39th Anniversary since the signing of the Clean Water Act and it is currently under attack by big polluters and their cronies in Congress. We need your help!

Please take a moment to sign the following petition demanding that Congress take action to protect clean water, and the health of our communities, from these attacks and work support swimmable, drinkable, and fishable waters for all as mandated by this historic legislation.

http://www.change.org/petition s/stop-the-attacks-on-the-clea n-water-act-in-congress

Also, stay tuned for Waterkeeper Alliance’s Clean Water Act 40 (CWA 40) Campaign which we will be rolling out as celebration of clean water in 2012!

Thanks for taking the time and please forward on to your lists.

–pete

****************************
Pete Nichols

Western Regional Director
Waterkeeper Alliance
707.845.0832

www.waterkeeper.org

Waterkeeper Alliance: The voice for clean water

RWB Requests Information for Developing Plan for Irrigated Lands

Larry — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:14 +0000

To All,

This email is being sent on behalf of Catherine Kuhlman, Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board).

Regional Water Board staff is developing a Water Quality Compliance Program for Discharges from Irrigated Lands in the North Coast Region (Program). More information on the Program is available online at:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/irrigated_lands/.

The Center for Collaborative Policy is assisting the Regional Water Board with public outreach and the design of a stakeholder process to support development of the Program. The proposed process includes the formation of a Stakeholder Advisory Group and smaller, ‘sub-regional’ groups (subsets of the larger group) to receive more detailed input on local issues.

As you are likely aware, Survey #1 was e-mailed on August 23, 2001. We received a very good response to this survey and want to thank those of you who took the time to fill it out. The first survey helped Board staff develop the Advisory Group options described in Survey #2. For your information, a summary of the results from the first survey is attached.

To further refine the Advisory Group structure, we would again appreciate your thoughts on the proposed outreach strategy and initial comments about the Program itself. Please take a few moments to respond to Survey #2 by clicking on the link below and completing it by Friday, October 14. This second survey will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete.

SURVEY LINK: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JBJSFVL

We appreciate your continued commitment to the Program development process. Please contact me directly with questions regarding the survey(s). For questions about the Program generally, please contact Ben Zabinsky at bzabinsky@waterboards.ca.gov. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Sam Magill

Associate Mediator

Center for Collaborative Policy

Phone: 916.445.2079

Fax: 916.445.2087

Agricultural water Security and Instream Flows for Endangered Species

admin — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:14:18 +0000

American Journal of Agricultural Economics Advance Access published July 15, 2011

DAVID A. NEWBURN, NICHOLAS BROZOVIC, AND MARIANO MEZZATESTA Conclusion and Policy Implications

We analyze the potential effects of ESA listing on the joint decision of land use and water management using parcel-level data in coastal California. Our empirical results are distinct from the perverse effects of ESA listing found in earlier studies that focus exclusively on land use and emphasize preemptive habitat destruction by landowners (List,Margolis,and Osgood 2006;Lueck and Michael 2003).

In the period after stricter regulations, our results suggest that agricultural producers may have shifted the timing of their water use away from winter storage of surface water toward summer groundwater pumping and riparian use during periods of peak demand. Such an inter seasonal shift has important implications for instream flows, particularly in upland watersheds with seasonal streams.

Given the hydrologic flow regime typical of seasonal streams (figure 2), both groundwater pumping adjacent to streams and summer diversions with riparian rights can cause significant impact to juvenile rearing areas for endangered fish. Whereas the intent of the California SWRCB has been to reduce stream flow impacts on winter adult migration by restricting on-site reservoir construction, our results suggest that this policy may have negative consequences on summer instream flows that are also required for juvenile survival.

Water management policies must be appropriately tailored to agricultural producers in upland watersheds versus agricultural areas with water supplies from dam releases. In the period prior to species listing, vineyard landowners in upland watersheds were the most reliant on water security from on-site storage. Because these landowners were topographically isolated from water released by major dam projects, the stricter regulations created an incentive for a shift from on-site storage to groundwater pumping and summer diversion to maintain water security.

Rather than discouraging storage, this study suggests that in some parts of the region, it may be desirable to allow on-site storage as a way to preserve flows during the summer drought period.

Downloaded from ajae.oxfordjournals.org at Texas A&M University Evans Library on July 16, 2011 16 Amer. J. Agr. Econ.

Grapevines or Redwoods?

Larry — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:25:22 +0000

I thought you might be interested. Now there are blogs discussing western Sonoma County in the LA Times. Have a glorious summer week,

Rue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Photo: Environmental activist Chris Poelhman wears a costume to protest plans to convert nearly 2,000 acres of coastal Sonoma County redwood forests into vineyards. Credit: Louis Sahagun / Los Angeles Times

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dailydish/2011/08/grapevines-or-redwoods.html

Daily Dish
The inside scoop on food in Los Angeles

Grapevines or redwoods?
Sonoma County may have to choose

August 25, 2011 | 10:31 am

The Pacific coast of Sonoma County is one of the hottest wine regions in California (popularity-wise, that is). It’s cool nights and afternoon sunshine are perfect for growing Pinot Noir. But the area is also home to some of the most magnificent old-growth redwood stands in the state. Which gets preference? That’s what’s being fought out now, as reported in this story by P.J. Huffstutter and Louis Sahagun.

Fracking and Water

Larry — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:10:48 +0000

Hi All,

I am sure you have noticed alot of commercials on TV telling us how great the natural gas companies are. They are on a campaign to obscure the facts of how destructive this practice is. The shale extends from Monterrey to LA. A Federal judge in Wyoming (I sent this out last week) just gave the okay to drill anywhere previous well sites exist, that means California will be hit hard. When they have destroyed the water for Central and Southern California, we will have to supply those areas or have severe food shortages. With Jerry Brown on board for the peripheral canal, we need this law on the books now.

Here are just a few facts about this process.

Uses 1 to 5 million gallons of water per well…or minimum of 200 water tankers per well…Averages 50,000 gallons of chemical per well

Process is supposed to recover the chemicals but 25-60% remains

Known carcinogens used: benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xlyene, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers just to name a few.

Here is your chance to sign on to a petition to support our right to know what toxins they are polluting our aquifers with.

Thanks, Janus

Public Meeting on Groundwater

Larry — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:19:45 +0000

Public Meeting

Voluntary Groundwater Level Monitoring

Graton Community Club

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

6:30 p.m.— 8:00 p.m.

The Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District and the Sonoma County Water Agency are working to implement the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program, designed to collect groundwater elevations so we can better manage our water resources. This meeting will explain the program and speak with private well owners about how they can participate.

Participation in the program is confidential and at no cost to the landowner.

For more information, please contact:

Noelle Johnson

Conservation Planner

Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District

Noelle@GoldRidgeRCD.org

In Response to BLM’s Leasing of 2,600 Acres in CA for Fracking

Larry — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:14:23 +0000

Hi all–

I want to note that the rocks in these areas are known to have been petroleum source rocks, but they have never been heavily exploited for oil or gas production. This means that petroleum formed in the rocks but apparently migrated elsewhere, perhaps during recent events of faulting and folding.

This means that whatever petroleum is in the rocks is widely distributed, as granular coatings, and pore and crack fillings (at best). It has to be released by human agency. The new move to develop the areas for oil and gas certainly requires fracking. It’s a sign that we have entered the desperation phase of domestic oil and gas production, which will end when the energy required for these extraction processes is equivalent to the energy content of what is extracted — or we might even go beyond that “break-even” point before it all ends.

Jane