Archive for the 'Lakes and Resevoirs' Category

Response to Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought

Published
by
Larry
on August 15, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

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

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“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve.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.”

###

The Planning and Conservation League, www.pcl.org, partners with hundreds of California environmental organizations to provide a voice in Sacramento for sound planning and responsible environmental policy.

North Bay Water Recycling Program

Published
by
Larry
on August 13, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472. They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP. The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them. They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma. The proposed date and time is: Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined)
Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability. In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important. This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects. USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:• This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county. We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere.
• This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping.
• The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs.
• Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

• As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast. We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

Scoping Meeting on North Bay Water Reuse, Petaluma

Published
by
Larry
on August 5, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

The special scoping session for our comments on the Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Reuse Program will be tomorrow:

Wednesday, 8/6, 10am - 11.30am

ESA Consultants Office  (preparers of the EIR/EIS)
1425 N. McDowell Blvd, Suite 105 (Redwood Business Park)
Petaluma, 94954
Phone: 707/ 795-0900

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%221425+n.+mcdowell,+petaluma%22&ie=UTF8&ll=38.277203,-122.666345&spn=0.016104,0.026608&t=h&z=15

To All,

This is our opportunity to provide comments on what we believe should be included in the scope of review in the Draft EIR/EIS.

For instance:

- What alternatives should be included in their documentation, beyond their current 3 project options, “big, bigger and biggest”?
- What impacts, primary and secondary, should be examined?
- Are there better uses for this treated wastewater?
- How important is it for the Draft EIR/EIS to address impacts on the source waters (Russian R, Eel R, groundwater basins)?
- Should NWBRA member sanitary districts (and SCWA) be working to reduce through-put of water/wastewater before trying to build a system to recycle and use as much as possible, in Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties?  Are there incentives to reduce potable water demands in the first place, or is this a vehicle to find long-term, new customers for more water usage?
- Who should pay for storage and distribution costs?
- Should this EIR/EIS be addressing ways to reach zero carbon footprint?  reduced GHG emissions?  lessened horsepower for pumping?

Please take the time to come to this important scoping session - if it’s not suggested, don’t expect SCWA and NBWRA to include your ideas.

See you tomorrow morning.  Thanks again for all your help and interest.

Sincerely,
David Keller

Want Fish? Workshop on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Published
by
Larry
on August 4, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

*SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies*

Tues 8/5, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center Wed. 8/6, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water NOTE: THE REGIONAL BOARD, CAG, PATRICK HIGGINS AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION HAVE GOOD Board’s website at:/ COMMENTS ON FILE

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html
.

Please tell them:- Talking Points Streams are in terrible shape - lower rainfall and unlawful diversion are the problem - the salmon fishery is on the ropes

Legal Framework (AB 2121 - State Water Code ) - puts responsibility on the State Water Board to solve the problem

The State Board must develop policy to support minimum by-pass flows to support fish survival

No new instream diversion should be permitted that would diminish adequate flows for fish survival

Existing illegal diversions and instream impoundments should be curtailed/removed

RECOMMENDATIONS - SHORT LIST

Apart from suggestions and discussion from above, the following summarized suggestions are made:

Proposed policy needs to be reworked to make it more understandable and enforceable

Adhering to the original Joint CDFG/NMFS Guidelines might simplify policy and related implications.

All origins of water use should be considered in Watershed Analysis and setting diversion limitations.

Watershed Analysis and condition setting for permits and license shall be consistent with all State Code (including CEQA, Water Code, and CDFG 1600 permitting) - this includes group actions.

All unauthorized onstream dams and storage facilities that block fish habitat shall be considered for removal on a prioritized basis.

Season of Diversion should be no greater than January through March.

Funding to support permitting and monitoring programs shall be developed through permit fee schedules.

A functional enforcement system shall be developed and employed.

Alan Levine

Water Board’s Workshops on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Published
by
Larry
on August 2, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

Be there, or be ignored.

SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies

Tues 8/6, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center
Wed. 8/7, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The final date for submittal of written comments on the draft policy and its associated environmental document and scientific report was May 1, 2008.
The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water Board’s website at:

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html.

See you there.
David Keller

Scoping Meeting for North Bay Reuse, Aug. 6, 10-11:30

Published
by
Larry
on August 1, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the NBay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472.  They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP.  The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them.  They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma.  The proposed date and time is:
Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined) Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability.  In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important.  This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects.  USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:
This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county.  We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere. This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping. The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs. Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast.  We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

Letter to Editor Regarding Syar’s Permit Extension

Published
by
Larry
on July 31, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

FYI,

Mining moonscape

EDITOR: It’s wonderful to see The Press Democrat editorial get it right on
an important Russian River issue (”Flashback”).

Gravel mining below Healdsburg has removed millions of tons of gravel from
the riparian corridor. Much of the middle reach of the river beyond a thin
veil of vegetation has been reduced to virtually a moonscape. If you have
the pleasure of seeing this wonderful stretch of river, walk beyond the
10-foot fringe of trees and take a look at the mess gravel mining has left
us.

The gravel remaining filters our drinking water, which is pumped from the
river not far downstream. The destruction of our aquifer, woodland and
riparian habitat was a bad idea decades ago and a worse one today,
considering the increasing scarcity of quality water, not to mention
habitat. Should our Board of Supervisors have a problem ending gravel
mining on the river at the Aug. 19 hearing, one must question the
integrity of the decision-making process.

The passage of the Aggregate Management Plan gave Syar Industries more
than 10 years notice. The board should be having hearings to determine how
Syar is going to restore the moonscape it has left us in the middle reach
of the Russian River.

DAVID HERR

–Larry

Phosphorous Nailed as Culprit U of A’s Schindler studied lake algae for 37 years

Published
by
admin
on July 28, 2008
in Lakes and Resevoirs and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Ed Struzik, The Edmonton Journal 2008

EDMONTON - This is the time of year every cottage owner in Alberta both loves and loathes.

The love affair is with the lakeside cabin that offers refuge from the hustle and bustle and incessant noise of city life.

The loathing comes when the lake cottagers hope to swim in or sail on turns into a dead zone of blue-green algae that kills fish and other bottom-dwelling life forms.

After a remarkable 37-year experiment, University of Alberta scientist David Schindler and his colleagues have a definitive answer for this vexing problem that plagues not only western Canada’s shallow lakes, but also thousands of freshwater and coastal ecosystems around the world.

By pumping various pollutants into Lake 227, a small pristine lake in the Experimental Lakes region of northern Ontario, they pinned down which of the chemical nutrients were key to triggering the blooms that can also make drinking water extremely toxic.

“Phosphorous really is the key to eutrophication,” says Schindler, whose study is highlighted prominently in the U.S. based Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

“Here in Alberta, it is especially important because the phosphorous content in the soil is naturally high, so you don’t have to add a lot to create a serious problem.”

Fifty years ago, no one knew what exactly caused algal blooms to appear on lakes and rivers.

Continue reading ‘Phosphorous Nailed as Culprit U of A’s Schindler studied lake algae for 37 years’

Regarding the Syar Gravel Permit Extension

Published
by
Larry
on July 4, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 1 Comment

(Note: The decision on Syar’s permit extension before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on June 10 was postponed until Tuesday, June 8, at 2:10 pm.)

It will be very interesting to see today how the Board of Supervisors addresses the issues around the requested Syar gravel mining extension as it relates to water supply and filtration.

In conversation yesterday evening with Pam Jeane (SCWA Asst. Managing Engineer) and their fisheries biologist (David Manning) in their Guerneville SCWA public meeting on water shortages, the question came up of whether SCWA would be providing comments to the Supervisors on the impacts of gravel mining on water supply. They stated explicitly that they have not been asked to do so by their boss(es), and so would not be providing any comments.

This is very odd and unfortunate, since it is a hydrological and geological reality that the gravels and sands of a river aquifer are porous. In the Russian River, these 25-40% voids within the gravel bed are filled with water, naturally and for free, every winter. This is a huge reservoir within the gravel bed aquifer of the Russian River.

So, removal of a cubic yard of gravel to aggregate mining removes approximately ~1/3 cu. yd. (about 9 cu. ft, or 68 gallons) of water stored within that gravel and sand. Gravel mining leads directly to lessened water stored within the aquifer, and directly results in lower flows within the river, as those stored waters are slowly released during the dry months as the “base flow” of the river. This is a very significant part of our water supply (and critical fish habitat) during the dry months, as well as for all the other users who are drafting water from the river for agriculture and municipal uses and for swimming and boating. This base flow is supplemented by the releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino to meet the state mandated minimum flows for fish and recreation. So, the less water stored within the aquifer, the more water has to be released from the reservoirs to maintain the flows. This is all compounded by the overdrafting of the river (”over-allocation”) during the summer, with more water taken out of the river than naturally is flowing in it.

(For literally a ‘text book’ examples, discussing the Russian River and other western rivers, see:
Jeffrey Mount [Chair, Geology Dept, UCD], California Rivers and Streams, the conflict between fluvial process and land use, UC Press, 1995, Chapter 11, Mining and the Rivers of California; also,
Thomas Dunne and Luna Leopold, Water in Environmental Planning, W.H.Freeman and Co, 1978, Groundwater storage, p.198+ )

As you well know, in addition, the state Dept. of Health 1949 permit for SCWA’s pumping of water from the river without any filtration (and no treatment required except chlorination for possible in-pipe contamination) is premised on the spectacular abilities of our aquifer to filter our water for cleanliness.

It is very unfortunate that the institutional conflicts between governance roles of the Sonoma Co. Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors SCWA leaves this critical information off the table for their informed consideration of river gravel mining. What we need is for the Board of Directors to instruct their senior staff to provide this kind of data to the Board of Supervisors.

Any help you can provide to get this done would be most welcome.

Thanks for your ear on this. If you’d like to discuss these issues further, please let me know - I’d be happy to sit down with you.

David

Regarding Water Supply from Lake Sonoma

Published
by
Larry
on July 2, 2008
in Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Hi–

Another issue, as Terry reminds us, is the siltation rate — how fast is the reservoir silting in?? And what is the rate of evaporation (going up with average temperatures).

Jane
Regarding the Water Supply Update from the City that said we have enough water to support continuing development, meaning, I guess Lake Sonoma. Is this a true statement? I would not say that it is an unequivically true statement.

Yes ! There is some supply available from Lake Sonoma.

In the end it all depends on:

How litigation turns out with the Legal challenge to SCWA’s UWMP.

Condition of groundwater levels-and related impacts. ( the City is doing a
lot of pumping)

If it ever rains again. (Just got back from Avila Beach - it was 116 in the
shade - next day it cooled down to 106).

Other Factors like:

Ability to handle wastewater load

Ability to develop functional Stormwater Runoff plan

Alan