Local consequences: Policy Recommendations

WATER CRISIS IN SONOMA COUNTY

TOWARDS A WATERSHED PARADIGM?

PART ONE HERE

Jenny Blaker

December 10, 2004

 

"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives."
- Native American saying

 

Water issues in Sonoma County are enormously complicated, because the quality and amount of fresh water available is affected by so many factors from geology and hydrology, to land use and other aspects of human behavior, to the complex jurisdictional and political issues surrounding the control, regulation, and demand for water. 

As discussed in my previous paper, Local Consequences: Policy Analysis – Water Crisis in Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) is the main agency charged with supplying water to consumers in Sonoma County, but there are many other state and regional agencies and cities that are involved in some way with the regulation, supply, quality and distribution of water.  The League of Women Voters’ report, Water Watch in Sonoma County (2004), lists 12 such federal, state, and county agencies, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to the Sonoma County Water Agency itself, and this does not include the cities (Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Rohnert Park and so on) which act as contractors to customers all over the county. 

In addition, many non-profits, environmental organizations and citizens’ groups are involved.  On September 12, 2004, the Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC) released a position statement on water.  The Coalition now has 27 participating organizations, including:

Members: Atascadero/Green Valley Creek Watershed Council * Coalition for Unincorporated Sonoma County * Community Clean Water Institute  * O.W.L. Foundation * SWiG (Sebastopol Water information Group) * Valley of the Moon Alliance * Supporting Organizations: Action Against the Casino * Blucher Creek Watershed Council * Coalition for a Better Sonoma County * Coast Action Group * Coastal Forest Alliance * Community Alliance with Family Farmers (N.Coast Chapter) * Earth Elders of Sonoma County * Forest Unlimited * Forestville Citizens for Sensible Growth * Friends of the Eel River * Friends of the Gualala River * League of Women Voters of Sonoma County * Madrone Audubon Society * Mark West Watershed Alliance * Occidental Arts and Ecology * Petaluma River Council * Russian River Chamber of Commerce * Russian River No Low Flow Committee * Sierra Club (Sonoma County Group) * Sonoma County Conservation Action * Western Sonoma County Rural Alliance

(from the SCWC letterhead)

Clearly, a large number of groups and individuals are hard at work on the issue of water policy recommendations in Sonoma County.  Some of their work has been encapsulated in the League of Women Voters’ report, Water Watch in Sonoma County, published in October 2004; in the Grand Jury report, Got Water? published in July, 2004; and in the SCWC position statement of September 12, 2004.

Therefore, my approach here will be to summarize some of the main recommendations that are common to most of these groups: adding a water element to the Sonoma County General Plan; instituting a county-wide Groundwater Management Plan; educating for conservation; and changing the composition of the SCWA Board of Directors.   Then I will touch on some other recommendations for watershed management and on some innovative approaches to water conservation which have been successful in other areas and which may be equally applicable to Sonoma County. 

The primary recommendation of most of the environmental and citizens’ groups has been for a water element to be included in the County General Plan for the first time.  The Grand Jury recommended that: “The county and each of its cities should adopt or amend a sustainable water element as part of their general plan …” (Sonoma County Grand Jury, 2004, 5).   

The Board of Directors of the SCWA has responded that:  “The recommendation will be implemented.  Adoption of the County’s General Plan update is currently projected to occur in mid-2005.  The Board of Supervisors has already directed that a Water Resources Element be included in the General Plan update” (Sonoma County Superior Court, 2004).

The broad purpose of the Sonoma County General Plan is “to express policies which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and conservation of resources through 2020 in a manner consistent with the goals and quality of life desired by the county's residents” (Permit & Resource Management Department, 2004, 3).  The water element “includes objectives and policies to: protect the quality of surface and groundwater resources; assure that there is sufficient groundwater for all new development; protect the natural environment; assure that public water supplies manage groundwater to meet future growth” (S.C. Grand Jury, 2004, 4).   In the less specific and more bureaucratic language of the Plan itself, the purpose of the water element is “to ensure that Sonoma County’s water resources are sustained and protected. To achieve this purpose, water resource management will be in an integrated manner throughout all jurisdictions in the County and be on a sustainable yield and quality protection basis which considers the amount of quality water that can be used over the long term without exceeding the replenishment rates over time or causing long term declines or degradation in available surface water or groundwater resources” (PRMD, 2004, 191).

However, some groups are already suggesting that the water element may have been diluted on its way through the bureaucratic process, and are calling for more stringent measures, including the adoption of a Groundwater Management Plan.

The Grand Jury recommended that the county and each of its cities “should adopt and develop a comprehensive groundwater management plan such as that set forth in AB 3030. The information from the existing groundwater studies should be used to provide a bank of information upon which to initiate a groundwater management plan.”  “In 1992 the California State Legislature adopted the Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030) which is set forth in the State Water Code: Sections 10750-10755. This provides a framework for groundwater management plans which may be adopted by any agency, city or county that provides water service.  Approximately 170 public water supply agencies and several California counties have adopted a groundwater management plan.”  Santa Clara County, which is “often cited as a benchmark for its progressive groundwater management and regulation,” (although others have criticized the Santa Clara plan for prioritizing urban and industrial growth at the expense of most other objectives), “successfully established a similar plan more than fifty years ago in response to severe water subsidence of their groundwater basin.  Currently Sonoma County has no such plan” (S.C. Grand Jury, 2004, 4).   

The Groundwater Management Act [Sections 10750-10756 of the California Water Code (AB 3030)] provides systematic procedures for an existing local agency to develop a groundwater management plan.  The Water Code contains a “procedural component” covering, for example, the publishing of notices for public hearings, conducting public hearings, publishing and adopting a resolution of intention, preparing a groundwater management plan within two years, and considering protests.  It also contains a “technical component” which determines that a groundwater management program may include, among others: the control of saline water intrusion; identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas; regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater; administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program; replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers; monitoring of groundwater levels and storage; well construction policies; groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects; development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies; review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities which create a risk of groundwater contamination (Department of Water Resources, 2004).

The SCWA Board of Directors has responded to calls for a groundwater management plan: “The recommendation is not warranted at this time and will not be implemented” and that further groundwater studies are needed and are underway (Superior Court, 2004).  Opponents say this is an unfounded objection, because a groundwater management plan can begin with available current research, and that ongoing studies can be included as part of the program.  What is more, generous government funding is available to support agencies and cities which sign onto a groundwater management plan (OWL Foundation, 2004; S. Fuller-Rowell, personal communication, 2004).  However, one key feature of AB3030 is its requirement that all stakeholders be represented. Anyone using water in a basin is considered a stake-holder, which perhaps explains the reluctance of SCWA to adopt AB3030.

In my previous paper, I mentioned that there has been criticism and concern that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors are made up of the same individuals, despite potential conflicts of interest. 

“The Board of Supervisors must manage water as a resource for the county and plan for the availability of water for its population.  However, as Directors of the Water Agency, they also have a mandate to serve the contractors of the agency and run the agency independently.  These dual roles mesh both policymaking and oversight and implementation responsibilities.  The Board of Supervisors’ political responsibilities to both rural and urban development could affect their land use decisions on urban growth that may lead to possible water supply shortages in the rural areas.  Perhaps there are efficiencies inherent in this system, but there are no checks and balances in the decision-making process” (League of Women Voters, 2004).

The Sonoma County Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors “should establish an independent Regional Water Resources Management Board that takes a long term regional vision of all water issues facing this county, emphasizing sustainability. This new board would have authority over all water matters in the county. It would have its own funding sources and enforcement powers and would be the coordinating body for all the county’s water issues” (S.C. Grand Jury, 2004, 5).  

The response from the Board has been that “the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.  It is not within the Board of Supervisors’ authority to establish such a broadly empowered entity.  The Board believes that the Sonoma County Water Agency effectively and ably manages the water resources within its control, without the need for a separate governing board.  The Board of Supervisors further believes that the new General Plan Water Resources Element will be the most appropriate mechanism to address water resource issues that are under the Board’s jurisdiction”  (Superior Court, 2004). 

The cities’ responses to the Grand Jury recommendations have been varied.   The City of Sebastopol has been praised by water advocacy groups for its progressive stance.  The City of Rohnert Park has recently stated that there are ample supplies of water for construction and development, but “longtime critics of Rohnert Park's water use said the study is too optimistic and point to other studies that show the ground water is being pumped faster than it can be recharged” (Mason, 2004).  Groundwater issues are complex and not fully understood.  One of the problems seems to be that pumping in one area can cause depletion in another. Some studies by USGS have been completed, others are underway.  All involved seem to agree that these studies are necessary.  Stephen Fuller-Rowell, co-founder of the Sonoma County Water Coalition, emphasizes that a groundwater management plan needs to be countywide, not piecemeal.   Because groundwater basins are linked underground, over-pumping in one area can lead to depletion in another.  Therefore piecemeal studies which only look at one groundwater basin in isolation from another can be misleading and any such study needs to be comprehensive (personal communication, November 30, 2004).

SCWC calls for “Systematic and comprehensive groundwater basin studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, such as now underway and proposed, and collection of groundwater data by neighborhood associations under expert guidance, with full integration of local, state, and federal resources and consideration of all stakeholder interests, including those of domestic well-owners in unincorporated areas.”  Apparently the Chief Hydrologist at the Department of Water Resources agrees that one component of a groundwater plan can be to continue to gather further information.  Therefore a lack of information need not stop the process (S. Fuller-Rowell, 2004). 

Another objective on which all can agree is that there should be an emphasis on public education and awareness-raising to increase conservation measures:  “For centuries, groundwater has been viewed as an endlessly renewable natural resource that is individually owned by the property owner. The most radical and necessary change for Sonoma County residents is to think of groundwater, not as an individual property right, but as a communal resource or commodity that must be intentionally managed and protected in order to assure its availability for today and sustainability for future generations...It is everyone’s individual responsibility to educate themselves on water conservation and the resources available, and practice and integrate conservation into their daily living for the benefit of their community today and into the future” (S.C. Grand Jury, 2004).  

There is much that can be done to use water more efficiently in homes and landscaping.  The city of Los Angeles has grown enormously over the last 20 years, yet its water consumption has not changed (D. Keller, October 2, 2004).  If this can be achieved in Los Angeles, similar increases in efficiency can surely be achieved in Sonoma County.  Some of the more obvious water conservation methods include: low-flow toilets, shower heads, and faucets, and water-efficient appliances; use of water-conserving natural landscapes and construction design; use of recycled water on golf courses and by agri-business and other heavy demand areas that do not require potable water.  Over 50% of water used in Sonoma County is for irrigation for landscaping and golf courses – including through overhead sprinklers on hot days.  This is one of the largest potential areas for water savings (D. Keller, North Bay Ecofest, October 2, 2004).   “Purple piping” could be built into all new homes for gray water plumbing systems; compost toilets could be encouraged. 

However, there is a wariness that water conserved in some areas may be used to further growth and development in others.  According to SWiG, approximately 28% of all SCWA water is currently sold to Marin. (SWiG, 2004).  The Grand Jury report concludes “Increased population, agricultural expansion and new construction, without implementation of a groundwater management plan, will put the future economic and personal well being of all Sonoma County residents at risk. The threat of out–of–county interests in Sonoma County water resources can be expected to escalate” (Grand Jury, 2004).  SCWC highlights that “Water saved by conservation, efficiency and reuse should be dedicated to the environment by being left untapped in the source groundwater and surface water” (SCWC, 2004). Ideally, eventually there would be no import or export of water to or from the Russian River Watershed - the sale of water to Marin, and the water diversion from the Eel River to the Russian River, would cease.

As I pointed out in my previous paper, water cannot be isolated from activities over the entire watershed – forestry and agricultural practices, gravel mining, industry, and construction of buildings and other impervious surfaces, all have an impact on the quality and quantity of runoff.   This is recognized in the draft General Plan, in that water-related topics are addressed in other sections of the Plan. “Water availability as a factor in land use plan map densities is addressed in the Land Use Element. The Open Space and Resource Conservation Element addresses riparian corridors, wetlands, wildlife protection, tree protection, fishery resources and other biotic resources, water-oriented recreation, soil erosion, forestry, and mineral resources, the Public Facilities and Services Element addresses connections to public water systems. The Public Safety Element addresses flood hazards, fire suppression, and hazardous materials. The Agricultural Resources Element addresses aquaculture (PRMD, 191-2).

To quote an example on Biotic Resources from the Water Element: “Trees and other natural vegetation are dependent on water, but their presence also supports the long-term quality and quantity of water resources in several ways.  The natural vegetation found around wetlands, streams and lakes benefits water quality by filtering out sediment and pollutants from runoff before it enters surface water bodies. Vegetation can also increase the retention of storm water, thereby recharging groundwater, absorbing pollutants, and slowing down and diminishing flood peak levels.  Vegetation on stream banks reduces bank erosion as a source of sediment.  Trees and shrubs provide shade which lowers the temperature of the water and thus increases its value as fishery habitat…. Trees and other vegetation help maintain year round water levels in streams and groundwater… Trees in exposed foggy areas reportedly increase precipitation…. Trees in any location provide shade which cools the ground surface and reduces evaporation.  Plants add moisture to the air through transpiration of water from their leaves. Natural vegetation can also increase the retention of storm water and recharge of groundwater and slow the passage of flood peaks” (PRMD, 2004). 

1975 DWR map of Sonoma County's recharge areas. (click to enlarge)

Recharge areas need to be protected.  “Natural recharge does not happen everywhere.  The areas where recharge rocks appear at the surface are water-collection areas for groundwater supplies.  Natural recharge areas are determined by geology: if soils and rocks exposed at or near the surface cannot absorb and hold water, and also transmit water, they cannot recharge underlying aquifers over short time periods” (Nielson, 2004).  SCWC recommends “proactive measures … to reduce negative impacts of impervious surfaces and encourage land use practices that increase natural groundwater recharge” to be incorporated into County building codes.

The SCWC and Greenbelt Alliance are calling for the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD) to include aquifer recharge areas in their priority acquisition plan.  Brock Dolman of the WATER Institute, based at the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, emphasizes the need for a “rehydration model.”  Instead of water being rushed off the land as fast as possible through ditches, drains, and channelization, it needs to be allowed to percolate through the soil and be retained in the land – preventing flooding and soil erosion, and allowing the gradual recharge of aquifers over time.   Permaculture includes techniques such as creating earthen berms and swales to slow overland flow, diverting water to basins, terraces, and other planted areas. Water not needed for plant growth is recharged to underground aquifers or released slowly through subsurface flow to a nearby creek or river (Schalau, 1999).  Some vineyards in Sonoma County, notably Gallo, have been criticized for clear-cutting on slopes, thereby causing soil erosion, flooding, and sedimentation of waterways.  Others, such as Bynum, Fetzer, and Benziger, have used innovative permaculture or biodynamic methods, planting along rather than down slopes, and planting between rows with wildflowers which encourages beneficial insects and pollinators as well as avoiding soil erosion; some, like Clos du Bois, are involved with creek restoration projects.   There are alternatives!

With the Groundwater Management Act in place, and funding and resources available from the Calfornia Department of Resources, it seems that legislation is in place which, even though it is currently voluntary, should influence the SCWA in a positive direction, but clearly the grassroots pressure from lobby groups needs to be maintained.   I am puzzled, however, that although the damaging effect of mining tons of gravel from the Russian River is widely acknowledged, this issue does not seem to be mentioned in the draft General Plan or in any of the water advocacy groups’ recommendations.

“SCWA is planning to construct a huge $1 billion-plus water filtration plant at ratepayer expense, which will be necessary if further compromise of the natural filtration system occurs, requiring the taking of more water from Lake Sonoma. Ironically, the concrete for construction of a filtration plant would use gravel mined from the aquifer” (Keller, 2004).  Why could not Sonoma County follow the example of New York, by valuing the role of nature’s free services?              The watershed of the Catskill Mountains used to provide New York City with water ranked among the best in the nation. When it became overwhelmed by agricultural and sewage runoff, and the water quality standards fell, the City investigated the cost of installing an artificial filtration plant. “The estimated price tag for this new facility was six to eight billion dollars, plus annual operating costs of 300 million dollars - a high price to pay for what once was free. New York City decided instead to invest a fraction of that cost ($660 million) in restoring the natural capital it had in the Catskills watershed” (Ecological Society of America, 2000).

Closer to home, Arcata’s constructed marsh uses nature as a model:  “A regional wastewater treatment was proposed by the Humboldt Bay Wastewater Authority in 1975 that was estimated to cost $25 million (Dale, 1993). Since the area was no longer allowed to release effluent into the bay, the plan of action was to create a pipeline that ran across the Humboldt Bay, dumping the regional communities' sewage directly into the ocean. Arcata didn't agree with this solution.”  In 1981, under a grant from the Coastal Conservancy, the degraded marshes were reconstructed.  Now, Arcata boasts the Arcata Marsha and Wildlife Sanctuary, “an innovative wetland system built as a cost-effective and environmentally sound wastewater treatment solution. In addition to effectively fulfilling wastewater treatment needs, Arcata's innovative wetland system has provided an inspiring bay view window to the benefits of integrated wetland enhancement and wastewater treatment. Today Arcata's waterfront has been transformed into 100 acres of freshwater and saltwater marshes, brackish ponds, tidal slough and estuaries. As a home or rest stop for over 200 species of birds, the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary has developed a reputation as one of the best birding sites along the Pacific North Coast” (Arcata City Hall, 2004).

John Todd’s “living machines”, which treat and purify wastewater using plants and other live organisms, are being used in schools, factories, and towns, and have been built or are under construction in Scotland, England, Czechoslovakia, India, Brazil, Australia, the United States and Canada. “Todd's ‘machines’ cost about half as much to install as traditional treatment plants laden with concrete and plumbing. Some treat municipal waste, others industrial… a food processing plant in Australia can handle 100,000 gallons of waste per day, about as much as a town of 2,000 people would produce.  Todd is also working on developing an Eco-Industrial Park for the City of Burlington. The park's small farmers will produce food year round in a 1 1/2 acre greenhouse warmed by waste heat from the city's wood-fired electrical generating plant. Among other projects, he's also planning for the creation of ‘ecological malls’ where communities can produce food, generate energy and recycle wastes in a biologically propelled loop” (Inventor of the Week Archive, 2001).  In Brazil, a city of 40,000 people now gets its clean drinking water from the largest model to date of one of John Todd's Living Machines (Schaefer, 1999). 

The Rocky Mountain Institute is “an entrepreneurial nonprofit organization that fosters the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining.”  It does this by “inspiring business, civil society, and government to design integrative solutions that create true wealth”.  Its website, and that of the Water Stewards Network, contain comprehensive resources for creative innovations and conservation strategies. 

 In rural Bodega, one couple has built a home rainwater harvesting system.  Water is collected from the metal roofs of the house and outbuildings, which have been painted with non-toxic paints.  It is then filtered, and stored in a 27,000 gallon tank.  During the first year, they have been able to supply all their own domestic water needs from rainwater.  Although expensive and not for everyone, this shows what one household can do to pioneer a model which could have a wider application.  Ironically, the most difficult and time-consuming part of the whole project was obtaining the requisite permits from PRMD!  (Alistair Bleifuss, Blucher Creek Watershed Council meeting, September 8, 2004).   So one policy recommendation would be to encourage, rather than discourage, such individual, pioneering, enterprises in the county, viewing them as steps towards creatively solving ecological problems.

I would like to end with an insight from one of the water advocates in Sonoma County, which perhaps helps to explain why, although the goals may be obvious for environmentalists and sustainability enthusiasts, water sustainability is such a controversial and difficult issue:  “There are two worldviews about water.  The engineers’ worldview is that the problems can be solved by building more pipes, that a grid can be built to Alaska, or desalination plants can be constructed, to supply water to cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas.  The other view is that we have a duty to live in balance with our environment and we can only do that by developing within locally available resources and using them more efficiently.  The solution is to manage our resources for the long term, sustainably within watersheds and groundwater basins” (local water advocate, anonymous, personal communication, 2004).

For water advocates, who see the need for “limits to growth”, it is an immense uphill battle to try to change the mindset of those who believe that pipes will solve the problem.  But, from grassroots citizens to the California Department of Water Resources, enormous strides have been made from the universal 1950’s “pave it and pipe it” approach, towards creating a holistic, integrated, even visionary, approach to watersheds, and this movement can surely only grow as time goes on.

---

Jenny Blaker is currently taking a Master’s degree program “Action for a Viable Future” at Sonoma State University.  She is involved with the Cotati Creek Critters, doing habitat restoration work along the Laguna de Santa Rosa in Cotati; with the Northern California Earth Institute study circles, which are about examining and transforming personal values and habits, accepting responsibility for the earth, and acting on that commitment; and with other local environmental and sustainability issues.