Archive

Sonoma County Water Coalition’s Comment Regarding Water Plan

Published
by
admin
on August 6, 2008
in Conservation and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Dear Chairman Bingaman and Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC) includes 32 organizations representing more than 25,000 citizens in Sonoma County, California. The unifying momentum behind this coalition is a shared concern for the water resources of Sonoma County.

We urge you to defeat this defective bill (S.1472 North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007 Companion Bill, H.R.236) in its present form, and we offer our assistance in rewriting it in the next session to address our concerns.

SCWC has steadfastly worked since 2004 to get public policies in place to protect and restore our beleaguered water resources. This includes both the Russian River and the Eel River, which each provide home to three threatened species of federally listed salmonids, as well as overdrafted and declining groundwater basins throughout the county. Our county’s primary public water provider, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), has recently been subject to California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) mandatory 15% cutbacks in withdrawals from the Russian River to protect Fall-run Chinook in the Russian River. SWRCB has also asked SCWA to come up with plans that involve no increases in demands for water pumped from the Russian River to supply future growth.

The necessity to plan for the long term future of reliable water supplies in our region, while protecting and restoring our natural public trust resources, has required a shift in public policy. We are working hard with public policy makers, agricultural interests, and commercial and residential ratepayers to reduce demands for potable water, to maximize water efficiencies and conservation (saving energy and greenhouse gas emissions, too), as well as supporting appropriate reuse of highly treated wastewater within the SCWA service areas to displace potable water demands, and eliminate exports of SCWA water to other regions.

We are now seeing water planning that incorporates some of the best thinking in the nation, allowing at least one city (Petaluma) to plan for its next 20 years’ growth with a zero-increment in potable water demand. This example follows the lead of other municipal water suppliers in California (including Los Angeles, East Bay Municipal Utility District and Marin Municipal Water District) which have proven that intelligent use of all water resources is not only feasible, but a requisite tool for the arid West’s future.

Unfortunately, our review of the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007 (”Project”) S.1472 (Feinstein, Boxer) and H.R.236 (Thompson, Woolsey) brings us to strongly oppose this legislation.

The bill fails to set any priority that the recycled water be used to offset and reduce local potable water demands first. Instead, it provides for tens of thousands of acres of new and expanded agricultural irrigation using treated municipal wastewater derived from SCWA customers. While some of this wastewater is currently discharged into San Pablo Bay, reuse of the water to substantially reduce demands on the already overtaxed SCWA water supply system should come first.

The bill fails to set any limits on exporting water, or to mandate addressing the impacts of those withdrawals of water pumped from SCWA sources from the Russian and Eel Rivers and Sonoma county groundwater to regions outside the SCWA service area in both Sonoma and Napa counties, primarily in different watersheds.

The bill fails to provide limits on the quantities of water to be used for expanded agricultural irrigation and environmental restoration in the proposed Project areas.

The bill fails to provide limits on how far the pipelines and pumps may be built.

The bill fails to provide limits on future use of the pipelines, particularly the plumbing that would serve the Napa-Sonoma Marsh Restoration Project at the tail end of the Project pipeline.

Continue reading ‘Sonoma County Water Coalition’s Comment Regarding Water Plan’

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

ON THE Russian RIVER: Oh, no! It’s Low-Flow…. again!

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

by Don McEnhill

GROSS! - Low flow in the River, with a concentration of runoff nutrients our yard loves (such as nitrogen and phosphorous), is heaven for algae.

Russian River

Here we go, it’s deja-vu all over again this summer with another low year for Lake Mendocino in Ukiah making an impact on flow levels in the Russian River. Our office has been taking calls from River users since the first week of June when the River flows were substantially below mandated minimum flows of 125 cubic feet per second at USGS Flow Gauge near Hacienda Bridge in Forestville.

After those calls on low-flows, we started getting calls about a massive algae bloom below the Monte Rio Bridge on the lower River. The locals told us they had never seen such a major bloom even in the lower water years such as last year and 2004. Those prior years’ lower flows resulted in impacts to boaters but less impacts to water quality.

Lower flows negatively affect water quality by increasing water temperatures and concentrating pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorous, which are nutrients that plants in our yards need to grow. One of the common responses to these conditions is algae blooms. Algae likes warm and nutrient rich water, and lowered flows on the Russian create these conditions. Algae blooms can trigger human reactions from annoyance to disgust.

Of course, when I was a kid, our reaction was to heave those hunks of the green slimey stuff at our sisters! The desired reaction was predictable, screaming horror. If fish could scream, they would when confronted by massive algae blooms. When water quality favors plant growth - such as an algae bloom - it is devastating to aquatic life like salmon or steelhead juveniles.

Algae, being a plant, produces oxygen in the water by day. However, at night, plants consume oxygen, competing with fish that need oxygen to breathe. So when we have major algae blooms, we have major crashes in oxygen levels just before sunrise, when the sun starts off a new day of photosynthesis and plants again create oxygen.

If you were a juvenile steelhead, this is like being strangled each morning by the lowered oxygen levels, and even if it doesn’t kill you, it can weaken you enough to make you easy prey for a smallmouth bass or pike minnow. Makes getting hit by an algae toss not so gross, doesn’t it? What can we do about algae blooms and lack of flows?

Algae bloom Solving the “more water in the River” part is up to our community; homeowners, businesses, farmers and government all using less water, which leads to less taken out of the River! On nutrient reduction we can all play a part as well: making sure pet waste is cleaned up - especially when at the River! - not using too much fertilizer on landscaping, and preventing sediment or dirt from getting in the River all reduce nutrient loading.

We can all benefit from more water and less nutrients in our River, whether we’re a fish or a sister.

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’

Schwarzenegger Pushes to Build New Dams While an Unlikely Coalition Battles to Tear Down Existing Ones

Published
by
admin
on July 21, 2008
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

By Dan Bacher

Illustration by Jed Alexander

Illustration by Jed Alexander

A silent storm sweeping across Northern California has figuratively turned gravity on its head lately as an unlikely coalition of commercial fishermen, American Indian tribes, environmentalists and farmers battle billionaire Warren Buffett in an effort to tear down four dams on the Klamath River. A bit further south, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has just declared a drought and is once again calling for construction of new dams in the Central Valley and a peripheral canal in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The governor has attempted to revive the long-stalled plans to build the new dams and the canal ever since he was elected, but like the declining number of salmon returning up the Sacramento River from the sea, he has found himself swimming against the current.

Continue reading ‘Schwarzenegger Pushes to Build New Dams While an Unlikely Coalition Battles to Tear Down Existing Ones’

Kayaking the Klamath while dodging the dams

Published
by
admin
on July 21, 2008
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Writers on the Range - by Tyler Williams

The Klamath is a 300-mile-long waterway traveling from Oregon’s Cascade Mountains to the Pacific Ocean in Northern California. Once, it was the third-most productive salmon fishing river in North America.

Today, Klamath River salmon are approaching extinction, thanks mainly to six dams that span the upper river. But things might change dramatically if the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement becomes reality — four of the Klamath dams could be slated for removal. It would be a river-restoration project unprecedented in scale, and environmental groups are ecstatic at the possibility.

To see the unfolding Klamath story first-hand, I decided to kayak the entire length of the river, starting at the aptly named Spring Creek where boiling pots of sand danced on the bottom of the creek. Water gushed into the stream from below, clean and beautiful. But several hours later, the scene had changed when I arrived at a fixture of the southern Oregon landscape — Klamath Lake. A rank odor wafted on the air, and billions of tiny green algae flecks floated on the surface of the water. I had only paddled 10 miles, but I was already a world away from the bubbling purity of Spring Creek.

Paddling was not always possible. I stood in astonished silence, wondering how I would make it downstream on a tiny spout of water that emanated from one of the Klamath River’s dams. The flow was reminiscent of a desert watercourse in my home of Arizona, not a major river in the Pacific Northwest. Yet this — and not Spring Creek – better describes today’s Klamath River.

It is a river serving many masters: Farmers demand water for irrigation, Indians fight for their share of the dwindling salmon, and we all flip light switches from the dam-supported power grid. The Klamath embodies all that is at stake regarding water issues in the West.

Over the next week, I came to see the Klamath as a tamed, utilitarian river. I drifted past the A Canal, where roughly half the river is siphoned into a massive plumbing project that brings water to 240,000 acres of farmland. I rode returned irrigation effluent through whitewater canyons, and saw the river vanish into reservoirs four different times. Once, it even disappeared into a steel grate, leaving me with a rain-gutter trickle.

During a re-supply stop, I asked an old-timer in a coffee shop what he thought of the dams coming down. Not surprisingly, he said, “It’s not a good idea.” But, he added, “If the fish don’t get their water, they’ll die, so they need it. But a man who has to water his hay, he needs it, too.” Many in this region are now fourth-generation farmers. To them, watering the hay is as inextricably linked to the rhythms of life as swimming upstream is for the salmon.

Two days from the river mouth, I saw the other side of the issue. “Hello, there,” a Yurok Indian called out from the captain’s chair of his fishing boat. “Hello,” I replied, as I paddled near. The man asked me where I’d been, and where I was going. Then he quickly jumped to dam politics.

“There’s a meeting tonight. We’re trying to get those dams outta there,” he said. “Us and the farmers, we’re working side by side right now,” he said. “We told them we wouldn’t sue them, so they’re with us. They don’t like the word sue.” Then he reached the heart of the matter. “They say they’ll go bankrupt without water, but this river — it’s all we’ve got.”

He repeated the same chorus I’ve heard from fisherman on rivers throughout the West Coast: “I only caught 50 fish this spring.” I waited. “Fifty fish!” he repeated. “That’s not many — I have to feed a lot of people.”

As I shoved back into the current, I wished him good luck with the fall salmon run. “Oh, they’ll come back,” he reassured me. I was less optimistic, dams or no dams.

Fish die and go extinct for many reasons, but on the lower Klamath, warm water temperatures are often tagged as the main problem. Warmer water allows for more bacterial pathogens to develop, thus increasing the chances that disease will break out in the fish. Then there are the dams that block fish from reaching their historic spawning beds upriver. This time, there may be a real chance that the Klamath dams will come down. The question for the salmon is whether it will be too late.

Tyler Williams is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He lives and writes in Flagstaff, Arizona.