Archive for the 'Lakes and Resevoirs' Category

New Book, “Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide”

FYI…From the perspective of ‘life-long-learning’ this new book looks interesting, especially for those of us directly working on such related efforts?

I have ordered it, but not yet had it in hand…

Brock

Completion and publication of a layperson’s guide to watershed hydrology and groundwater hydrology.

The book, entitled “Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide” is geared towards a relatively broad audience with a varied interest in water and groundwater.

The book will be useful for folks participating in watershed and groundwater interest groups; for stakeholder groups in industry, agriculture, environmental organizations, and NGOs; and for water district, irrigation district, and water utilities personnel without formal college-level background in hydrology.

It is also useful as a reference in an introductory undergraduate class.

The full-color book is available through UC ANR Communications at http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/3497.aspx

The book can previewed through Google Books at http://books.google.com/books/p/anr_publications?id=qfvlzm1A1vMC

The Endowment supported the production of the book with a contribution of $10,000, which enabled us to print the softcover book in full color, while keeping the sales prices extremely affordable
($40).

Katy

Toxic Waters: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.

CHARLES DUHIGG and JANET ROBERTS
February 28, 2010

Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.

View: Toxic Creek

As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising.

Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.

Continue reading ‘Toxic Waters: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.’

Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide

FYI…From the perspective of ‘life-long-learning’ this new book looks
interesting, especially for those of us directly working on such related
efforts?

I have ordered it, but not yet had it in hand…
Brock

Completion and publication of a layperson’s guide to watershed
hydrology and groundwater hydrology.

The book, entitled “Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical
Guide” is geared towards a relatively broad audience with a varied interest
in water and groundwater.

The book will be useful for folks participating in watershed and groundwater
interest groups; for stakeholder groups in industry, agriculture,
environmental organizations, and NGOs; and for water district, irrigation
district, and water utilities personnel without formal college-level
background in hydrology.

It is also useful as a reference in an introductory undergraduate class.

The full-color book is available through UC ANR Communications at
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/3497.aspx

The book can previewed through Google Books at
http://books.google.com/books/p/anr_publications?id=qfvlzm1A1vMC

The Endowment supported the production of the book with a
contribution of $10,000, which enabled us to print the softcover book
in full color, while keeping the sales prices extremely affordable
($40).

Katy Mamen
Ag Innovations Network
101 Morris St., Suite 212
Sebastopol, CA 95473
Tel: 707.823.6111
Fax: 707.823.6113
katy@aginnovations.org
www.aginnovations.org

Healdsburg Wild Steelhead Festival: Feb.5-7

Healdsburg Wild Steelhead Festival Gala Dinner Hotel Healdsburg, Friday February 5, 6:00 PM
Dinner Speaker:
Jim Lichatowich, the author of Salmon Without Rivers will be this year’s special guest speaker at the Gala Dinner the Friday night of the Healdsburg Wild Steelhead Festival. Jim’s other works include the landmark article in Trout magazine, “Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads” which predicted the issues we are faced with today with our Pacific salmon and steelhead fisheries.
Jim also contributed to the Trout Unlimited special report, “A Blueprint for Hatchery Reform” and has been one of the West Coast’s leading advocates for watershed and habitat restoration to bring back our wild populations of salmon and steelhead. on a sustainable basis.
Jim’s presentation is mesmerizing in its evolutionary sweep of Pacific Salmon history and the landscapes that have supported this magnificent species through the centuries.
The dinner will be at the elegant Hotel Healdsburg on the square.  Dinner will be provided by the renown Dry Creek Kitchen which has received world wide attention for it’s cuisine.
Join us before the dinner in the Healdsburg Hotel lobby to meet the author and enjoy some of the Russian River’s finest wines from our local fish-friendly wineries and vineyards.
Gala Dinner Ticket Info Please contact:
Liz Keeley, Festival Coordinator (707) 484-6438 liz@healdsburgsteelheadfest.org Healdsburg Wild Steelhead Festival

Healdsburg Wild Steelhead Festival Gala Dinner Hotel Healdsburg, Friday February 5, 6:00 PM
Dinner Speaker:Jim Lichatowich, author of Salmon Without Rivers

Comments on Debunking CA’s Water Myths

Hi Janus–
I very much disagree with aspects of the PPIC report. Everything it says is correct as far as that goes, then comes a big BUT -
The Webinar that I reported on last meeting emphasized that states which do not recognize the interconnectedness of ground and surface waters tend to overappropriate water supplies.  California is one of those, and its water supplies are, indeed, overappropriated.  CA’s legal framework on water rights actually promotes overappropriation,as does its politics.  Jared Huffman is right that water conservation should be the major focus because it is the cheapest alternative.
All technological “fixes” are extremely expensive in this era of climbing energy costs and GHG emissions. PPIC didn’t even mention the GHG aspect — I wonder why!
Fish need a healthy ecosystem but above all they need streams with water in them and fewer destructive pumps!
Jane

Debunking California’s Water Myths

Monday 21 December 2009

by: Rick Cabral, t r u t h o u t | Report

www.truthout.org/2539B6FC.jpg
(Image: brothergrimm / flickr)

Myths have been surfacing in recent months about California’s water crisis, becoming so serious that the state’s Public Policy Institute (PPIC) was forced to address the issue in a new report, “California Water Myths,” where the agency tackles eight of the most common misperceptions.

Though not as titillating as a Bigfoot sighting, the PPIC report seeks to “rebuild public policy discussions on myth-free foundations” while improving the collection, analysis, synthesis and use of accurate information about the state’s water system. The Public Policy Institute of California is an independent, nonpartisan organization, and the central message of its report is the state must improve the flow of existing information among the key stakeholders.

Topping the myth list is “California is running out of water.” In fact, the PPIC report explains, the Golden State no longer can expect abundantly cheap sources of water and will need to adapt to greater scarcity in the decades ahead.

The report’s other myths (followed by the “realities”) include:

1. [Insert villain here] is responsible for California’s water problems.

There is no true villain in California water policy, but opportunities exist for all sectors to better use and manage water.

2. We can build our way out of California’s water problems.

New infrastructure can contribute to California’s water supply solutions, but it is not a cure-all.

3. We can conserve our way out of California’s water problems.

Water conservation is important, but its effectiveness is often overstated.

4. Healthy aquatic ecosystems conflict with a healthy economy.

Healthy ecosystems provide significant value to the California economy, and many opportunities exist for mutually beneficial water management.

5. More water will lead to healthy fish populations.

Fish need more than water to thrive.

6. California’s water rights laws impede reform and sustainable management.

The legal tools for reform are already present in California’s water rights laws; we just need to start using them.

7. We can find a consensus that will keep all parties happy.

Tough tradeoffs mean that consensus is not achievable on all water issues; higher levels of government will need to assert leadership.

Although the report would appear to point fingers at the California Legislature’s lack of leadership, Ellen Hanak, director of research at PPIC, is quick to credit the state’s governing body for passing its historic legislation. The California Legislature last month passed The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which included an $11.14 billion general obligation bond proposal that would provide funding for California’s aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to address the state’s ecosystem and water supply issues. “It’s a good first start in addressing a wide range of water management problems in California.”

She noted than an early draft of the water legislation included more stringent measures for monitoring groundwater storage levels. “In a modern water system,” Hanak said, “if we’re not able to accurately measure and monitor water use, it puts us in such a difficult position to make the kind of sophisticated judgments and decisions on how we want to manage that use. We’ve got to do better.”

She and her seven co-writers suggested looking at surface storage, underground storage, conservation and recycling as a “combined system” rather than as separate entities.

Assembly member Jared Huffman, chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and a key figure in the passage of the Delta water legislation, found the PPIC report useful and provocative. But he challenged its criticism of California’s conservation efforts, saying the authors made it appear the effectiveness and potential for conservation was overstated. “I completely disagree with that.”

Huffman points to the multiple benefits of water conservation – reduced energy usage, reduction in waste water discharges and cost savings – as a key tool in the overall water management tool belt. “I think the PPIC was so determined to knock down all the perspectives a few notches they went too far on this one.”

State Sen. Lois Wolk, who represents four of the five counties in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, was harsher in her assessment. “They left out the biggest myth – that the Delta can be fixed without the participation and support of the people who live, work and recreate there. I am hopeful that the federal government will get involved and make certain that the Delta counties will be at the table, and be guaranteed enough water and funding to protect the largest estuary in the Western Hemisphere.” Wolk, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Delta Stewardship and Sustainability, opposed the series of water bills passed last month.

Hanak said the PPIC report is the first installment in a team project looking at sustainable water management in the 21st century, and sets the stage for what they’re planning down the road.

Two key areas deserve more study, she noted: Ecosystem management and managing flow for fish, and integrating more efficient water management actions.

“It’s good if the broader public policy discourse can move beyond the myth, to a more nuanced discussion of things,” she said.

Added Huffman: “They’ve certainly been trying to push us – the Legislature and the State as a whole – to take on some of these bigger challenges and move beyond our parochial trenches. We do need to take a broader and bigger look at water in California and we need to do it quickly.”

The California Water Myth report was supported with funding from S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, along with several other groups.

Which suggests that if foundations with vast resources wish to debunk a myth, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility.

--
Jane E. Nielson, Ph.D.
Geologist

(707) 829-9393

More on Western US land use, resource depletion, and wastes:
www.theamericanwestatrisk.com

Where does the world’s garbage go? Look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVQTp-m74wA

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Integrated Regional Water Management Final Recommendations

To All,

Regional Acceptance Process The Director of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has approved the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program Region Acceptance Process (RAP) final recommendations.  DWR received 46 RAP proposals, approved 36 regions, and conditionally approved 10 regions.  Please see the attached announcement. The region acceptance process is a component of the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program Guidelines and will be used to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into the IRWM grant program.  It is not a grant funding application, however, acceptance and approval of the composition of an IRWM region into the IRWM grant program will be required before any region can submit an application for IRWM grant funds.  DWR has not previously reviewed and accepted any region, therefore, this process applies to all IRWM regions, both existing and developing. The final RAP recommendations and associated materials (review summaries, individual RAP documents,and maps) are posted on the following DWR IRWM Program website:http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/integregio_rap2.cfm If you have questions about the IRWMP grant program and the RAP, please contact: Trevor Joseph

Senior Engineering Geologist

California Department of Water Resources

Online Interactive Water Quality Violations Map!

California Coastkeeper Alliance Releases Online Interactive Water Quality Violations Map! Inbox X
Reply
Tom Lyons show details Dec 10 (5 days ago) California Coastkeeper Alliance (CCKA) has developed an online interactive map to help the public and state agencies track and improve compliance with water quality laws. This tool maps all dischargers within California’s six coastal Regional Water Boards that have been issued mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) since 2000, when the laws setting these minimum penalties took effect. MMPs are issued for “serious” and “multiple chronic” water quality violations. Using the interactive map, you can select your Regional Water Board and click on facilities to learn more about their violation records since 2000. The map also highlights facilities that have not violated in recent years. The MMP Map complements CCKA’s regular work to improve the level, targeting, and transparency of state law enforcement activities. Firm, equitable enforcement both improves water quality and ensures fairness to businesses that follow the law. Violations related to sewage releases, industrial wastes, and contaminated groundwater most frequently caused the issuance of MMPs statewide.
Please feel free to forward this email widely and to share this tool with your colleagues.  Your feedback is welcome and always appreciated.
Best Regards,
Tom
Tom Lyons Program Coordinator Cartographic Analyst California Coastkeeper Alliance (415) 810-2960

California Coastkeeper Alliance Releases Online Interactive Water Quality Violations Map!

California Coastkeeper Alliance (CCKA) has developed an online interactive map to help the public and state agencies track and improve compliance with water quality laws.

This tool maps all dischargers within California’s six coastal Regional Water Boards that have been issued mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) since 2000, when the laws setting these minimum penalties took effect.

MMPs are issued for “serious” and “multiple chronic” water quality violations.

Using the interactive map, you can select your Regional Water Board and click on facilities to learn more about their violation records since 2000.

The map also highlights facilities that have not violated in recent years. The MMP Map complements CCKA’s regular work to improve the level, targeting, and transparency of state law enforcement activities.

Firm, equitable enforcement both improves water quality and ensures fairness to businesses that follow the law. Violations related to sewage releases, industrial wastes, and contaminated groundwater most frequently caused the issuance of MMPs statewide.

Please feel free to forward this email widely and to share this tool with your colleagues.  Your feedback is welcome and always appreciated.

Best Regards,

Tom

Tom Lyons Program Coordinator Cartographic Analyst California Coastkeeper Alliance (415) 810-2960

Boondogle Water Project Will Waste Water, Energy

I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.
If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.
Stephen
In a message dated 11/28/2009 10:48:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dkeller@eelriver.org writes:
Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?
The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.
Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.  This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.  While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.
Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.
Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?  Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers? Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?  With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.
The timeline for your comments is very short:
SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:
Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.

If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.

Stephen

Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.

Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.

This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.

While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.

Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.

Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?

Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers?

Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?

With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.

The timeline for your comments is very short:

SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:

Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

Restoration Project in Dry Creek for Lake Sonoma Water

nderstood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg
—– Original Message—–
From: Alan Levine [mailto:alevine@mcn.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:36 PM
To: Adina Merenlender; ‘Carolyn Wasem’; ‘Al Cadd’; ‘Al Nelson’; ‘Alea’;
b. andersson@comcast.net; ‘Bill Cox’; ‘Bill Hearn’; ‘Bob Coey’; ‘Bob Klamt’; ‘Brenda Adelman’; ‘Brian Johnson’; ‘Charlette R.R. Epifanio’; ‘Chuck Bonham’; ‘Colleen Fernald’; ‘Darcy Aston’; ‘David Lewis’; ‘David Manning’; ‘David Ripple’; ‘Dick Butler’; ‘Eric Larson’; ‘Fred Euphrat’; ‘Gail Davis’; ‘Glen Wright’; ‘Jake Mackenzie’; ‘Jane Nielson’; jcollins@kjmail.com; ‘Jennifer Barrett’; ‘Jeremy Sarrow’; ‘John Perry’; ‘Joseph Dillon’; ‘Kara Heckert’; ‘Kate Symonds’; ‘katie Rump’; ‘keith woods’; ‘Lex McCorvey’; ‘Lisa Hulette’; ‘Luana Kiger’; ‘Marc Kelley’; ‘Mary Ann King’; ‘Matt’; ‘Matt Deitch’; ‘Michael Bowen’; ‘Michael D. Corrigan’; ‘Michael Dillabough’; ‘mike B’; ‘Mike Ban’; ‘Nick Frey’; pdowns@kjmail.com; ‘Pete Dayton’; ‘Peter Kiel’; ‘Rachel Golden’; ‘Ralph Locke’; ‘Richard Roos Collins’; ‘Roger Foote’; ‘Ron Rolleri’; ‘S Canter’; ‘Scott Wilson’; ‘Stephen’; ‘Susan Gorin’; ‘Thomas Moore’; ‘Tom Eakin’; ‘Valerie Termini’; ‘Walt Ryan’; ‘Zukowski’ Cc: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com; rrkeeper@sonic.net; jonathan.birdsong@mail.house.gov Subject: Re: restoration outcomes follow up
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
At 05:26 PM 10/30/2009, Adina Merenlender wrote:
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Alan,
Understood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg

State Water Budget?

Say for instance we had a practical realistic state water budget, would it be prudent to plug in a reasonable metric or estimate of what illegal water users are using in order to get a handle on water usage and projected uses?

For instance if a well capitalized business drills 2 separate but close 24 inch bores 600 feet deep within a declining aquifer in a “race to the bottom” and pumps 200 GPM each for commercial use, this adds up to about 2.3 billion gallons a year.

You can’t even begin to figure this problem out in light of other miss-reported or illegal uses with-in the same complex basin. Since the aquifer is misunderstood and comprised of complex sub-alluvial fan deposits it is unlikely that the true damage of the abusive extraction will ever be quantified or modeled properly. (I am talking about the Rohnert Park Graton Rancheria Casino appendix – Y : water well construction description).

So what’s a understaffed regulatory agency to do? I know that the USGS in Palo Alto wishes it got more love. It seems like the problem needs a lot of positive solutions from a lot of different angles.

Lloyd