Responses to the Sonoma County Water Coalition questionnaire have been received from Tom Lynch (TL), Dan Kahane (DK), Maddy Hirshfield (MH), Rue Furch (RF) and Jim Maresca (JM) in the 5th District. We may post other responses if they are received.

  1.   Please outline your concept of a sustainable water policy for Sonoma County, which would guarantee clean water for future generations?

(TL) I don’t think we can guarantee clean water for the future by building an 8’ diameter pipe from Warm Springs Dam to the mouth of Dry Creek in the Russian River or beyond as proposed by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Of course we need to conserve but we also need to reuse; utilizing old and new technologies. I would like to see more recycling of household grey water for home irrigation and for flushing toilets. We also need to resolve concerns with trace pharmaceuticals with respect to large scale reclamation. Providing wastewater for irrigation allows for less diversion of water from our streams and waterways helping our fisheries and helping re-establish riparian corridors along the banks. Wastewater for irrigation also reduces the use of potable water used for irrigation. Long-term sustainability of water resource will also entail 'smart growth', city centered with care we do not overdraft our ground water. Additional growth needs to substantiate that water is available in a sustainable way; contrary to what Rohnert Park and other communities are trying to do issuing a piece of paper and saying yes we have water doesn't cut it. If we cannot document that additional growth reduces our impact on the environment then we need to reign it in as in is not being done in a sustainable way; i.e. less water consumption, wastewater, carbon emissions, etc.

(DK) Groundwater, surface water, recycled water and water conservation are all essential components of our water supply and will be in the future. Urban water conservation motivated by public awareness has proven to be a highly effective method of reducing demand for potable water and will become a way of life. Securing a reliable source for the future will require collaborative efforts. Effective research along with integrated regional water use planning is assisting us and can continue to assist us in preparing for what may or may not be a water scarce future.

Watersheds and riparian habitats in particular are the environmental armor that protects our local supply of high quality naturally filtered water. We must work together to prevent any further degradation of this natural protection. I have seen the power of conservation education and enthusiastically support the fine local programs that help children and adults alike to understand that in order to secure a sustainable water supply, we must protect our watersheds and we must steward our rivers, creeks and streams, we need to understand how sewers and storm drains work, and we need know that every drop of water counts and that together we can accomplish more.

(MH) A sustainable water policy for the county must take into account not just the current population but also the likely growth the county is to experience.

According to estimates, the population of Sonoma County is projected to grow by at least 130,000 to more than 600,000 over the next approximately 20 years. This increase will put a serious strain on demand and compete with commercial and agricultural users for water. I believe we need to get serious about assessing our current water supply as a first step in guaranteeing clean water for future generations.

Under our current water use practices there is not a sufficient supply to meet increased demand. Additionally, the current sources and methods of providing our water are under threat. Issues of climate change and drought impact the water available from our rivers. Evidence of overdrafts on our aquifers has increased and the extent to which groundwater will be a reliable future source is not known.

Despite increases in demand and clear and growing evidence of shortages, there is a lack of comprehensive research about our groundwater resources and no integrated plan to manage our overall resources and protect the sensitive Russian River watershed. For example, the County issues up to 500 new well permits a year with little to no consideration given to the impact on the existing groundwater and current wells.

To make sure that we have a sufficient supply of water for the future and to meet the needs of all stakeholders, including wildlife, my policy requires that we do the following:

a. Undertake the necessary research to identify the status of our groundwater basins -- how much water they contain, how much is being used and how much is being replenished.

b. Develop a comprehensive resource management plan -- one that includes groundwater resources as well as others.

c. Implement and strengthen policies that will protect our water resources. This includes the Russian River and Laguna de Santa Rosa. For many years, I have stood firm against wastewater discharge in the Russian River. The Russian River is a sensitive ecosystem, fishery, and a valuable source for drinking water and recreation. We must take a firm stand against shortsighted development interests that are all too willing to sacrifice our environment and way of life here in the West County to earn a buck. I also believe we need to work together to improve the quality of water within the Laguna de Santa Rosa which will ensure its ecosystem will continue to thrive for years to come. I will also push back against any proposal for gravel mining opportunities in or around the Russian River and its watershed.

e. Adopt and implement policies toward future development which include water management as a key element. I believe all future development should have a 'show-me-the water' component attached. Each new development, commercial, residential or industrial, should complete an evaluation on its water usage and its overall impact on our current infrastructure and environment.

f. The County implemented mandatory water conservation with the goal of reducing water use by 15% of 2004 levels. For the most part, we’ve been fairly successful reaching that goal. I have two thoughts about this. One, I like to think of water conservation rather as water 'preservation.' I know this is just a word but in my line of work, words can be very important. As we 'conserve' water, we’re saving it, keeping it, and hopefully using it wisely. However, the word 'preserve' seems to point more toward what we are saving this water for and I want that to be part of the discussion as it relates to 'water conservation.' Are we using less water so that we can build and grow more, or are we saving the water to preserve, protect, and enhance our quality of life as we know it here in Sonoma County? Small point but important if we are going to see a paradigm shift in how we think about water as the precious resource that it is.

We also should not lose sight of the opportunities for additional reductions. Recent estimates done by the Pacific Institute show that when all the savings achievable using existing technology are combined, water use in the year 2030 could be 20% below current levels, and there is much more to be done.

These opportunities could include, for example, using composting toilets, collection of rainwater runoff, incentives to purchase water saving appliances like washing machines (which account for as much as 14% of domestic water use), and incentives for businesses to take water saving steps. I would encourage exploring incentives to store winter flow and curtail summer use. For example, this could come in the form of subsidies for storage tanks. Additionally we could offer water conservation easements. Similar to conservation easements, these would provide for tax write offs in return for giving up the right to use water in the summer. As a supervisor I would work to better educate our citizens on the opportunities to save and to develop economic incentives to encourage people to adopt water saving technologies.

There are also new and exciting technologies out there that I believe we should start investigating in light of the fact that water is a finite resource. We simply must be open to new ways of doing things. For instance, there’s a company in Texas experimenting with something called 'vertical growing.' This system has been growing and harvesting green leafy vegetables and other foods producing many times more than can be produced in the fields and with possibly 5% of the water used to grow the same crops with traditional farming. They also claim this system maintains more of the nutritional value. I honestly don’t know if this system is affordable or doable here, I just suggest that we need to be looking toward new technologies as we move forward toward a future of diminishing natural resources.

g. The other part of the discussion must include water reuse. It isn’t enough to simply use less, we need to be creative in our thinking about how we 'reuse' water. We will not achieve a balance of use and growth without including reuse in the equation. I would work to develop and implement a comprehensive urban wastewater reuse plan. As the county’s drinking water reserves become more scarce, we must look at alternatives that will allow for the use of highly treated wastewater on landscaping and parks. I would work with Sonoma County’s cities to incorporate the use of highly treated wastewater on all new commercial and industrial development, landscaping plans and all large swaths of community green space within parks. Additionally I would look to include individual gray water systems for residential homes. We also must continue to research the best and most efficient ways to treat our water so that it is the safest it can possibly be.

I am very supportive of SB 966 (Simitian) as a first step in ridding our waterways of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. I preferred SB 966 in its original incarnation when it had more teeth than what was ultimately passed, but having worked in the Legislature as long as I have, I’ve come to understand that this is often how it goes with legislation. However, I’m very supportive of the drop off locations for unused meds in Rohnert Park and Guerneville and look forward to having more 'take back' events throughout the county. This is just the tip of the iceberg though and much more research is needed in the area of chemicals in our water.

(RF) In order to create a sustainable water budget, Sonoma County must collect, compile and analyze all relevant data regarding water quality, supply and demand including potential impacts of climate change. A 'comprehensive' plan must address and reconcile surface and ground water basin management, account for the needs of existing beneficial uses, and stop the race to the bottom relative to overdrafting.

(JM) First, the path we are on now is unsustainable. The combination of the county general plan and the general plans of the incorporated cities, extrapolated to full build-out and under the assumption that water is used as it is now being used, requires more water than there is. Three things have to be done to change that: conservation, reuse, and a radical scaling back of growth. In addition, environmentally responsible access to the water behind Warm Springs Dam could help a little.

  2.   If you support comprehensive water management planning in Sonoma County, how would you implement that policy as County Supervisor? Assuming you do support such a policy, how soon after election would you propose a groundwater ordinance, and what would such an ordinance look like?

(TL) I think support for comprehensive water management plan is a rhetorical question; everyone can support that one. The devil is in the details. How do we implement these policies is the question. As always there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions that we need to educate people on. A comprehensive management plan is not a bunch of government thugs wearing jackboots coming onto people’s property at their leisure.

What we are trying to achieve is to determine to what extent our existing ground water supplies are and how much is being drawn by whom and is this over drafting our ground water in an unsustainable manner. If so we need to remedy this situation and figure out the best way to do it. Of course agriculture and some of our cities are among the main sources of overdrafting and as stakeholders we need to get them to realize that a water management plan is ultimately in the long term interest of ALL. In addition to ground water we have serious issues with water use from the Russian River and how this resource is being managed by the Sonoma County Water Agency.

All of the above needs to be reviewed and managed in a better way. I am excited with the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan and look forward to seeing how this may work County wide. I think the Sonoma County Water Coalition deserves credit for pushing this forward.

I would begin work on a comprehensive water management plan upon being sworn in as fifth district supervisor. We need more meetings among the stakeholders and should contract with a firm to help us try to find 'the third way' toward a consensus on sustainable water use. If 'the third way' doesn't work I am not opposed to the old 2 x 4 upside the head of the mule to get him to plow a straight furrow approach. I will not sit idly by and try to 'educate' four other supervisors if they disagree with me on something that has a tremendous affect on the future of our lives and our environment. I am prepared to move the agenda with demonstrated leadership and bold initiatives. I am an activist and sometimes I become impatient with the powers that be.

(DK) I support 'integrated' regional water management planning both in Sonoma County and at the regional level. I strongly support ongoing planning to locally manage, enhance and protect groundwater resources in a sustainable environment for generations to come. We need to learn through unbiased research, plan intelligently, and then, and only then, act. Ignorance is not a useful tool in water management.

(MH) As presented above, a comprehensive water management plan is central to the policy I would look to implement. I would make it a priority to get the research on our groundwater resources, which is needed for the plan to be credible, underway immediately. The implementation of the plan would, in no small part, depend on and evolve out of the plan itself. In the interim I would work to put in an ordinance that delays or severely limits the number of new wells the county approves until the research is completed and a plan put in place.

(RF) I certainly support a comprehensive water management plan and as a Planning Commissioner I advocated for a countywide master plan in the General Plan update. I would begin to work with the cities, the SCWA and other agencies to outline a plan of action that would begin the process necessary to have such a management plan as one of my first actions as Supervisor. Since we do not know if such a policy will exist in the current General Plan update, I will work on getting implementations into the Ordinances. However, I will not wait until the Ordinance update begins. Some of the steps necessary to create a comprehensive plan would include:

(JM) Sonoma County needs a comprehensive water management plan. Like any good planning process for a finite resource, we must consider the entire resource and its capacity to sustainably support the uses to which it is being put. Surface water, underground water, and wastewater reuse all need to be included in the plan.

We need to give higher priority to water conservation and reuse. More public education on water issues is needed to generate strong public support for conservation and reuse. And it is important that we do not allow all of the water we save to be used to support further growth. Resource restoration needs to be a higher priority than growth.

Groundwater levels are dropping in every area in Sonoma County that has been studied. Sonoma County's groundwater recharge areas must be protected. Protection should extend to all land use polices and also be incorporated into building codes. Our aquifers are the biggest and least expensive place to store winter rainfall. Impermeable paved surfaces both inhibit aquifer recharge and cause pollutants to flow into the river and streams. Paved surfaces need to be limited, and, where they are necessary, new permeable technologies need to be used. We also need policies to correct groundwater overdrafts.

To protect our fresh water supplies and health, we must protect the land beside our rivers and creeks, which also support fish and wildlife. Our riparian corridors are an important source of groundwater recharge, especially where they support healthy native vegetation. We must realize that our habitat is just as fragile as that of the other creatures who share our planet.

Water quality is also an important component of the plan. We need to move to treatment technologies that filter out drugs, household chemicals, and pesticides to keep these chemicals out of our rivers and streams.

Finally, we must be cognizant of the connection between water consumption and energy consumption. Pumping and treatment use energy and create greenhouse gases. We must strive for maximum efficiency to minimize global climate impacts.

I would begin work on an ordinance in my first month in office.

  3.   In February 2005, the State Water Resources Control Board directed SCWA to provide "a detailed plan of water conservation efforts which will result in no increase in Russian River diversions." What methods would you support to ensure "no increase in Russian River diversions?"

(TL) As mentioned I am a bit old school with liking to see wastewater used for irrigation rather than potable water from the River or ground water. Again let’s get to the bottom of concerns with the quality of the wastewater; but if we can agree -- then let’s irrigate. Night time irrigation; drip over spray irrigation; encourage xeroscaping -- there are 100’s of ways we can all reduce our water use but part of the incentive is for County and City governments to enforce rules and establish policies that provide people with incentives to conserve.

(DK) Current efforts by ratepayers along with increased use of groundwater have led to a more than 20 percent reduction in Russian River diversions. This successful campaign has allowed recreation and tourism to thrive while at the same time maintaining water levels in Lake Mendocino in order to release water in the fall that allows the threatened Chinook salmon to migrate to their main stem spawning grounds. We should continue to encourage and educate the public regarding the importance of wise water use.

Illegal diverters of Russian River water should be held accountable by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office.

I strongly support programs that reimburse homeowners that remove water thirsty lawns and replace them with attractive, low water use alternatives wherever and whenever it is feasible and makes sense. I also endorse ongoing efforts to install water efficient appliances. All new development should consider dual plumbing, which again allows recycled water to replace potable water, thereby putting less pressure on our drinking water supply.

As a statewide and nationally recognized environmental educator, I am a staunch advocate of public 'conservation education.' There are a number of Sonoma County based organizations including and especially SCWA that do an excellent job connecting the public at large and particularly school age students to the world outside of the classroom and to their water supply systems, as well as to our watersheds, and riparian habitats. These programs deserve continued funding and recognition.

(MH) The methods I would employ to make sure there is no increase in Russian River diversions parallel the items I outlined as part of my policy. In my view, other than in an extreme emergency, if we do the right things regarding protecting our resources, focus on efficient use of water, water preservation, and reuse we should not have to be concerned about the need to increase diversions. This includes:

* Focusing on our water use and defining and implementing methods for increased water conservation/preservation.
* Implementing water reuse, beginning with urban reuse programs.
* Requiring all new development to have a 'show-me-the-water' component.
* Implementing policies for new building which require efficient water use.

(RF) I support expanded use of conservation, and have advocated measures that would reduce waste for many years. (Refer to answers of other Questions) The Dept. of Water Resources has begun aerial photography of the Eel and Russian Rivers to map illegal diversions. Those diversions need to be cut, while alternatives to water supply are developed such as off-stream collection ponds during major storm events for use during dry months. If increased groundwater use is assumed to provide a buffer against drought periods, there must be a counter-balancing effort to ensure active recharge during normal or wet years. Agricultural uses need to employ drip irrigation and other water conserving irrigation methods. Sonoma County should not expand its exportation of water beyond our boundaries until local needs (current and future) are demonstrated to be met.

The SCWA has several permits that may be duplicative of other water rights. These duplications should be investigated and a determination relative to water rights must be made.

(JM) I was a leader of the group that convinced the SWRCB to make that ruling over the objections of the SCWA. I support strong water allocation limits that force the water districts to live within water budgets.

 4.   What water-production and distribution policies should the County develop to both curb the growth of greenhouse emissions and eventually reduce them to levels that natural systems can handle?

(TL) Again and again we need to encourage and facilitate innovative and creative ways toward conservation, reuse and reclamation. With respect to greenhouse emissions we need to work toward strengthening local agriculture as a food source; most people don’t realize that the food for the average meal came from over 1500 miles away. That’s a lot of greenhouse gas emitted getting that food here. Our water-production and distribution to benefit local sustainable agriculture helps reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Less water use = less energy expended. Also irrigating soft wood forests and fields increases the amount of carbon absorbed by plants.

(DK) The Sonoma County Water Agency is on track to be providing 'zero-carbon' water in less than 10 years. Our County should be a leader in clean enviro-technology. We should continue to create ‘green-collar’ jobs to complement the growth in the alternative energy sector. By implementing state-of-the-art technology, we can help curb the disastrous growth of green house emissions and ultimately reduce them to sustainable levels. Much of the County’s fleet now consists of fuel-efficient vehicles and we will strive to make it 100%.

The North American Climate Initiative currently being promoted by our County is a model of sustainable practices for public agencies. The Sonoma County Water Agency is now generating 8 megawatts of energy roughly half of what is needed to pump and distribute our naturally filtered water.

(MH) Nearly 71% of all of the Green House Gas emissions generated by the SCWA are attributable to water supply pumping, and, statewide, between 20 and 30 percent of our energy generation -- a key source of emissions -- goes to moving water. Santa Rosa alone produces over 14,000 tons of GHGs per year from its water and wastewater operations. Unfortunately for Sonoma County, much of our water infrastructure is older and was built at a time when energy efficiency was not a primary concern. As a result less efficient systems were built to reduce initial capital costs. Additionally, our historical practice has been to meet increases in demand for water through additions to infrastructure, requiring more energy use to move water greater distances.

Not surprisingly, a primary way to address this problem, and the most cost effective way, is to reduce our consumption of water. Under our current practices we are likely to see increases in GHG emissions of up to 60% by 2020. Recent studies have shown that by using existing, off-the-shelf water conservation technologies and practices the savings in water use and the resulting savings in energy use are significant. When conservation efforts are combined with modest increases in the efficiencies of our plants we could realize GHG reductions of over 40%. More aggressive measures could result in reducing GHG emissions by as much as 70%.

With this in mind, the policies likely to have the greatest impact are those focused on reducing our water use. I would look to shift our thinking away from adding infrastructure to instead saving water, and to shift money budgeted for infrastructure to programs focused on reducing water use. Additionally, I would look to implement policies for all new building, requiring that the most efficient water systems available, including water reuse, be used.

(RF) I was able to insert new language into the updated General Plan to consider the energy used any time water is distributed/pumped in Sonoma County. We should also find ways to insure that water supply is closely proximate to its uses. Gravity should be used as a method for moving water whenever possible. Other sources of clean energy can also be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I grew up with windmills and waterfalls as energy producers. Given the large number of rural wells in Sonoma County (for residential and agricultural uses), I believe the County must do more to find opportunities and create incentives for solar power to offset energy demand.

(JM) This is one area where SCWA has actually done a decent job. I would favor a policy that required all distribution systems to be 'carbon neutral.'

  5.   SCWA staff and consultants have stated explicitly that water diverted from the Eel River through the Potter Valley Project to the Russian River is not needed to supply agency customers in the long term. What is your position on this diversion?

(TL) I agree but I don’t trust the Water Agency; I think they would make a bargain with the devil if they could figure out a way to keep taking Eel River water and bringing it to the Russian River watershed. I am opposed to 'out of watershed' import or export of water resources. We need to realize part of 'sustainable development' entails living within our means within our watersheds. With water -- we live with what we have in a sustainable manner; not by towing icebergs from the Arctic or diverting the Eel. Likewise for garbage -- we should be dealing with our problems locally.

(DK) Fundamentally, Eel River water belongs in the Eel River Watershed. That said, there is an entire economy and community of people in Mendocino County that has been built around this piped in water. We ought not to simply cut off our neighbors' life-giving water supply. Education will be a key to water conservation efforts which should allow us to wean ourselves from this 'foreign' supply of water. Conservation can greatly enhance our existing supplies of groundwater, surface water and recycled water and allow us to share our water resource such that we can live, work and play while we take pride in our community’s ability to make every drop of water count. Through effective public outreach, everyone will become aware that there is no water to waste, and that so-called wastewater is a treasure not a pollutant. With carefully planned, effective, integrated water use we have our best chance to ensure a reliable source of freshwater within the Russian River Watershed communities north and south, now and in the future.

(MH) The diversions from the Eel River are to be phased out so it is incumbent on us to come up with ways to manage our water resources without the benefit of those diversions. Additionally, in the long run it is appropriate for the health of the Eel River and the watershed that the diversions end. As indicated in my answers to questions 1 and 3, if we are serious in how we manage our resources, we will be able to do this and will not (and should not) need to depend on these diversions.

(RF) The assumption seems to be that the water in Lake Sonoma will supply future water demand. Given the unknown future of water supply from the Eel River due to external forces such as: an administration change in the EPA, the Mendocino Board of Supervisor’s shifts relative to their own supply needs and proposal to raise the dam, the potential for PG&E to reconsider its commitment to the Potter Valley Project -- I am not confident that water from the north is permanently reliable. Therefore, my position is to move toward a sustainable water future for Sonoma County that relies on our own resources and phases out use of our northern neighbor’s water.

That given, I am not secure with the water supply estimates the SCWA projects from Lake Sonoma. I would require an analysis of the actual capacity of Lake Sonoma with projections for future sedimentation over the life of the 'project'. Climate change implications include potentially significant increases in evaporation loss from reservoir storage, as well as a need to increase the amount of storage capacity allocated to flood control purposes (given anticipated more extreme storm events in northern California). This should be factored in to any plans to run pipe through the Dry Creek Valley and/or build a very expensive treatment facility by assessments analyzed in a conservative cost / benefit analysis. The economic impacts on the Dry Creek area would also be considered, just as we insisted be done when Santa Rosa was considering running a wastewater pipe through downtown Sebastopol to the ocean.

It will be necessary in any sustainable water supply discussion to maximize conservation, reuse where safe and appropriate, slow the flow of water for increased recharge to our groundwater basins, among other proven tactics. We must take full advantage of methodologies for recharge as groundwater is extracted to solve more of the water supply needs that cannot be met by surface water supply.

No water should be exported beyond our current contracts until we have our own water supply covered. This must include the SCWA’s contracts (cities and Districts), plus the people and agriculture in Sonoma County who rely on wells. Other beneficial users' needs must also be met.

(JM) We need to wean ourselves completely off Eel river water in single digit number of years so restoration of the Eel can proceed.

 6.   Will you support wastewater reuse for irrigation only if it does not result in incidental runoff? What methods would you support to prevent irrigation runoff?

(TL) Incidental run-off is part of the old saying, "it’s always the few who spoil it for the many." Our waterways and in particular the Laguna are seriously impaired from too many nutrients in the water; incidental run-off among them. If there is a need to irrigate to maintain a riparian buffer it should be done with potable water or wastewater treated with reverse osmosis (the technology is becoming more affordable with cheaper filters). We should be using wastewater irrigation as a carrot or incentive to get the cows out of the Laguna as well as encouraging wider riparian corridors. Of course there needs to be better oversight and monitoring; not only by the fox watching the chicken coop (i.e. Santa Rosa plant operators) but maybe provide money for Riverkeeper or Russian River Watershed Protection Committee to help monitor where wastewater is used for irrigation.

(DK) It is time to view treated recycled water as a treasure rather than a pollutant. Secondary and tertiary treated wastewater has been used for decades to irrigate crops in California. It has been a safe substitute for potable water. Proper application methods and standard mitigation to contain runoff are appropriate measures to alleviate so called incidental runoff.

(MH) The first priority in addressing our water needs is to focus on use. That includes implementing policies that will require new development to be built using the most efficient water systems and low water use landscaping. That having been said, water reuse presents a significant and realistic opportunity to help meet our current and future water needs. I would focus my efforts on the county’s urban centers and not within our agricultural regions. I would mandate the linking of reuse of highly treated wastewater with future development. We should begin with opportunities to reuse water, such as with purple plumbing for toilets, where the risk associated with remaining contaminants and runoff is minimal. However, we will need to go further with reuse. It’s ridiculous to think our cities and county continue to irrigate both residential and commercial properties with hundreds of millions of gallons of potable water every year. I would promote, through the Water Agency, mandatory reuse standards on all new development which would greatly reduce the amount of potable water we waste on commercial and residential landscaping and on municipal landscaping such as playing fields and parks. Related to this, we need to identify the most effective ways to clean our wastewater. This should include tracking the progress of reverse osmosis as a technology, which is costly now but potentially effective when the costs come down. Finally we need to have the management processes in place that will limit the risk of runoff and a program of monitoring irrigation practices. This would include restricting wastewater reuse in highly sensitive areas.

(RF) There is no good reason to support wastewater irrigation if it results in runoff. Wastewater reuse has seemed a good idea for many years, but mounting evidence shows that this type of reuse can have serious lasting health implications. Incidental runoff adds to the potential for harmful side effects and creates un-necessary burdens on our rivers and streams which impact the quality of our waters for people and critters.

Irrigation should only be applied to the benefit of the crop being grown so the amount (and quality) of water should serve the acreage and the crop need therefore eliminating over watering. Irrigation should never be applied when the soils are already saturated. This is not only reasonable for the purposes of controlling incidental runoff -- it also limits the potential for erosion or sedimentation, and the potential of reclaimed water entering the groundwater supply via percolation (without necessarily producing above ground runoff).

(JM) Runoff is waste. Prevention of runoff is not complicated and does not require advanced technology, it simple requires an attitude change that recognizes water as a valuable resource and arranges to capture it for future use rather than let it run wastefully into the rivers and streams.

 7.  Do you support the concept of building large regional wastewater treatment systems in environmentally-sensitive areas, such as those proposed to serve Camp Meeker, Occidental, and Guerneville, as opposed to more local solutions? What are your ideas for resolving the Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Laguna, and Russian River winter discharge and water quality problems?

(TL) I think much of the problems with the Regional Treatment Plant and the Laguna have been resolved with a combination of geysers and agriculture reuse of the wastewater. In 1985 90% of Santa Rosa’s secondarily treated wastewater was being dumped into the River through the Laguna with 10% reused. Twenty-two years later after one of the longest and most difficult environmental battles in Sonoma County history we see 90% of the tertiary wastewater is reused and 10% is discharged during high wintertime flows. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer. Presently the Santa Rosa treatment system is one of the best for it’s size in the world!! Many of us helped them achieve this milestone through a long struggle.

I am totally opposed to building pipelines to the moon i.e. building a pipeline from Occidental and Camp Meeker to Guerneville treatment plant and then on to Forestville to irrigate grapes. To be fair the county was tasked by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to study ALL options to solve Occidental Camp Meeker and Guerneville’s problems. One solution the Water Agency studied was the pipeline to the moon option that upset a lot of us out here.

I have toured the Occidental treatment plant with Water Agency staff and have met and discussed this issue with many friends in Camp Meeker and beyond. I think a local solution can be found for Occidental and Camp Meeker. Perhaps a STEPP (septic tank effluent pumping and piping) system where we have each home continue to be served with a septic tank that separates out most of the solids and oils. Then we have 10-15 homes wastewater go to small aerobic treatment plants (I have installed several of these systems -- they are very effective if properly maintained). From there the water would be pumped to irrigate forests and fodder crops. This in concert with water conservation and re-use of grey water for home irrigation. There are examples of smaller community STEPP systems at Oddfellows along the Russian River and in Weott in Humboldt county.

The days of large government subsidies to underwrite capital intensive sewer systems is over (Camp Meeker estimate $50,000/household). Our government is approaching bankruptcy with unfunded wars and promises. We're talking about household poop, not hospitals and industry mixed into the waste stream. For the Regional Water Quality Control Board to require a solution too expensive for a small community means we continue with the status quo; a 'no project' alternative that puts people and the environment more at risk than if we pursue a more creative and innovative local solution.

With respect to Guerneville treatment plant -- we need more land to irrigate. The Water Agency staff couldn't find willing takers in the Guerneville area but found farmers interested near Forestville. Let’s design a $50 million dollar pipeline to Forestville. The Water Agency is not good at finding people willing to irrigate their land. They should probably hire someone that understands how to work with landowners better. In September I gave staff from the Water Agency a tour of 400 additional acres of land where the landowners were interested in wastewater irrigation. The land is on top of Pool Ridge near Guerneville -- much closer that Forestville.

I think similar solutions can be found for Monte Rio as well should the Sheridan Ranch property fall through. The County should never have threatened condemnation to obtain this property from the Callahans. Their heavy handed approach in future may be seen as one of the main reasons that doomed a potentially good project for Monte Rio. If the Monte Rio sewer system fails to happen maybe we tie Monte Rio into an expanded Guerneville system or devise something similar to what may happen in Camp Meeker.

(DK) Discharge of septic waste into the Russian River is unacceptable. It is not beyond our skills to solve this problem without creating further damage. I do not support building anything in environmentally sensitive areas. We have plenty of land that has been previously altered and can support our infrastructure needs.

The City of Santa Rosa is "getting out of the winter discharge business."

(MH) I am a supporter of local control so I would always look for ways to make that possible. I would only support a large regional system if we have exhausted all of the other possibilities and I do not believe we have come close to doing that. However, when we keep it local we are more likely to have the community take responsibility for finding a solution that works for them. And we are more likely to develop creative solutions. Additionally, large regional responses and programs tend to be engineer driven and costly. I believe that the SCWA can be a resource and a facilitator of the solutions. However, they do not need to and should not supplant local control. We need to focus on finding solutions that fit the local problem. I believe they are out there and we have examples such as Graton where, by taking the needs of the community into account along with the particular circumstances, an environmentally sound, affordable system was put in place. Graton is a working example of where a CSD was put in place as a way of addressing the situation. I worked with Graton to make this happen and would, in my role as supervisor, work to facilitate the process in other communities.

We should be examining highly improved septic systems and innovative systems such as "A Living Machine" which are exceptionally environmentally friendly, affordable, and work well on a small scale (all the way down to individual residences). However, since nothing is perfect, we need to fully investigate the practicality of Living Machines for our use here in Sonoma County. Once again, my point is that we can't just keep doing things the way we've been doing them. It's time to be creative and explore new ideas and how they might apply to us here locally.

As I indicated in my answer to question 1, I am firmly against wastewater discharge in the Russian River. The Russian River is a sensitive ecosystem, fishery, and a valuable source for drinking water and recreation. We must take a firm stand against shortsighted development interests that are all too willing to sacrifice our environment and way of life here in the West County. I also believe we need to work together to improve the quality of water within the Laguna de Santa Rosa which will ensure its ecosystem will continue to thrive for years to come.

(RF) I support a community based decision making process that will lead to locally acceptable wastewater treatment systems for each of the villages in question. I have spoken with the lead staff members with Sonoma County’s Planning and Resource Management Department (PRMD), the North Coast Water Quality Control Board (NCWQCB) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) asking for staff support to this end. They are now meeting monthly with citizens. There are many alternatives to large regional treatment systems and they have the advantage of versatility to meet each village's unique needs and circumstances. The numbers of users, the types of use, the stream or river proximity, the geology and geography of each community should be met with an appropriate and affordable solution. I doubt a regional solution will fit these disparate needs. Over the years, I’ve been involved in bringing experts from other parts of the nation to Sonoma County and/or tapping into their knowledge. We know that there are solutions that have not been realistically explored for local use and that the NCWQCB and PRMD are receptive to alternatives that once were not considered viable. I’ll make sure we continue to pursue these solutions.

As to the Subregional System, the priority must continue to be shifting from a discharge mentality (ocean/river/Laguna) to a conservation and reuse dominated strategy. Unlike the more local systems being considered along the River, the Subregional System is already built and represents a significant public infrastructure investment. So I do not see an early retreat from that to the more local options outlined above. But I think a much better effort can be made to transition toward increasing reuse and conservation in the basin of origin, including gray water plumbing in new construction. The other complication is that the County has relative little direct control over the Treatment system operations, but can and should deal with it indirectly with issues of discharge, new storage or conveyance facilities, resulting water quality, etc.

(JM) I support a subregional plan, but not a subregional facility. I would like to see very localized systems modeled after the successful systems in Graton and Bohemian Grove.

 8.  As County Supervisor what would be your position on continuing to build housing and commercial development in flood plains?

(TL) I think there should be no development in 'floodway' i.e. where there is too swift a current. The county presently allows development in 'floodplain' i.e. not subject to strong current during flooding. What people should understand is that if there were no development in the 'floodplain' hundreds of homes and businesses along the Russian River would be gone. If homes are 'raised' with their living area above the highest flood, or businesses are built to sustain flooding (like Country Tire in Guerneville); there is little damage caused by flooding.

Russian River Redevelopment recently loaned Burbank Housing $900,000 toward building low-cost housing near downtown Guerneville. The project will be in the 'floodplain' with the living area of up to 50 apartments 15’ feet above ground. The units will be built in such a way that after a flood all one needs to do is hose off the lower walls to clean off the flood mud. As a builder living in Guerneville for 27 years I am no stranger to the issue of building in the flood plain ;0).

(DK) I am opposed to building in flood plains. Flood plains are just that. They serve an important groundwater recharge function and should be left to do so. Failing to work in harmony with nature by building and rebuilding in the flood plain is foolish and costly to all of us.

(MH) As much as possible we need to look for alternatives to building in floodplains. There are serious reasons to be concerned about this. First and most obviously, is flooding. Floods represent the hazard that occurs most frequently in the county. The Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan notes that the county has the highest number of repetitive flood loss properties west of the Rockies, and that 5 percent of the acreage of the county is located in the 100 Yr. Floodplain. Building in these areas invites economic loss and displacement and the potential for injury and loss of life. Second, a likely consequence of building in the flood plain could have the effect of simply aggravating the problem. Development may result in a reduction of the capacity to hold water, increase the intensity of runoff and simply move the problem downstream with the likely consequence of more severe flooding.

That said, if building in the floodplain does occur we need to employ environmentally sound approaches to minimize impacts through landscaping and alternative building materials and techniques, such as bioswale drainage and permeable surfaces. But for the most part this type of development needs to be extremely limited and carefully scrutinized.

(RF) As a Planning Commissioner I have not been in favor of building in flood plains, and this will not change. The county has an on-site no net fill requirement that disallows an increase in building or soils that would push floodwaters elsewhere, and I continue to support that standard. The implications for existing structures and erosion problems can be quite devastating. Existing homes should, however, be allowed to rebuild and in cases where safety is addressed -- they should be allowed some expansion capacity. The county has a legal liability relative to building in repeat flooding areas. The legal responsibility is also a moral one because in extreme flood events, lives can be threatened. FEMA is in the process of creating more accurate flood maps that will help the county plan for future development. Hopefully, the new maps will take into account the change in storm events that have increased the impacts of more frequent 'flashier' storms.

The County can make all the proper and prudent decisions, but upstream decisions by cities or special districts can increase flooding problems downstream in the County. The pieces of the puzzle include preserving flood storage capacity in the Laguna and other basins, slowing runoff from urban areas during storm events, controlling upstream siltation and more. So a complete floodplain management strategy will have to include the upstream jurisdictions that may have little or no land in the floodplain per se. The SCWA could exert influence in these arenas.

(JM) This hits literally very close to home because we live right next to a flood plain. Development in flood plains is generally a bad idea. With limited carrying capacity for any kind of growth, it makes sense to choose other locations for the little growth we can still accommodate.

 9.   What is your position on allowing gravel mining to continue in and beside the Russian River?

(TL) I am opposed to the current gravel extraction along the Russian River. We need aggregate from hard rock sources and extraction that is done in a way that enhances the environment. Homer and Tim Canellis, owners of Austin Creek Readi-Mix along Austin Creek win environmental awards and are lauded by the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) fisheries biologists for their work in helping restore the anadromous fish migrations in Austin Creek near Cazadero through their gravel extraction. There are ways to enhance our fisheries but it ain't being done anywhere along the Russian River to my knowledge so we need to shut 'em down.

(DK) I am opposed to commercial gravel mining in and beside the Russian, with the possible exception of isolated skimming in order to alleviate flooding, improve stream hydraulics or to support riparian restoration.

(MH) I am adamantly opposed to gravel mining, open pit (terrace mining) and in-stream, along and within the Russian River, and have long been on record as being so. Open pit gravel mining, the most common form along the Russian River, has several negative impacts. First, during floods sediment-laden water overflows and is captured in the pits. This prevents the channel from forming and maintaining its natural condition. It is one of the factors that have contributed to erosion of the channel bed by as much as 30 feet.

Another issue with pit or terrace mining I've recently learned is that there are large, naturally occurring deposits of mercury which are disturbed when mining takes place. This is an issue because much of the leftover soil from the mining operation has a high amount of mercury in it and is spread around the land surrounding the pit. This mercury then leaches its way into the river and surrounding agricultural land, which obviously affects the human population as well as the Russian River ecosystem.

This type of mining often results in salmon being captured in the pits and stranded. Further, the 'levees' separating the river from the pits are not engineered -- they are simply strips of unmined land. This land is subject to collapse causing damage to the river. These mines also remove thousands of acre-feet of aquifer waters.

The other 'downstream', if you will, issue to be considered when looking at the effects of gravel mining and using gravel as a resource is that gravel is the main ingredient for cement and this is where most gravel is bound. In doing some research for Assemblywoman Berg when AB 32 (Pavely's Global Warming bill) was going through the Legislature I was surprised to learn that the manufacturing of cement is one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2006, 47.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere as a result of cement manufacturing. Other than fossil fuel consumption, this is the largest source of GHG emissions in the nation. Yet another reason to be very weary of gravel mining operations.

(RF) The ARM plan stipulates that the county will not allow terrace gravel mining in the Russian River at the end of a 10 year cycle -- which has passed. I was on the Planning Commission when the ARM plan was drafted and sent to the Board of Supervisors. The goal of ending our reliance on gravel from the River was good then and it is even more important now. We must stop mining the gravel that provides the filtration for our drinking water. That includes gravel that is both in and next to the river channel. During the ARM plan process, I asked that the plan require mining to leave a strata of gravel at the bottom of all the pits in order to retain the cross flow and filtration of water. This was not supported by the county officials. There may be localized situations were a clear argument can be made for limited in stream skimming of bars for the protection of bridge footings, roads, etc., but those issues should not be used as a rationale for doing more instream mining than is necessary to protect that specific public good.

The Phase 6 Syar FEIR is due out shortly and I hope many people will read it and appear at the hearing.

(JM) I would favor not renewing the Syar permit. Limited environmentally responsible gravel mining in specific areas may be helpful in restoring fish habitat. I would seek the opinion of independent fish biologists to select those limited areas.

 10.   Do you support changes in the governance and mandate of the Sonoma County Water Agency SCWA? If so, what changes would you support?

(TL) I think it is unbelievable the lack of oversight given the SCWA by the people of Sonoma County. The Board of Supervisors has too much on their plate to adequately supervise the Agency. An example is the Agency spent a million dollars on a cockamamie scheme to 'reduce the flow' of the Russian River to help the fish. As chairman of the Russian River Redevelopment Committee we authorized $50,000 toward additional studies recommended by Riverkeeper Don McEnhil to refute the Water Agency's poor science. We need to have at the very least a 10-20 member board appointed by the Supervisors to oversee and advise; to observe and report on the Water Agency. We need more transparency and more open involvement.

(DK) I am open to new ideas as regards the governance of SCWA but I would not tend to favor adding additional layers of bureaucracy in our County Government. I think SCWA is doing a fine job, and there is always room for improvement. The Sonoma County Water Agency has emerged as a regional leader in integrated water use planning and a national leader in applying green technology in order to reduce the enormous carbon footprint of water production thus helping us to meet our low emissions targets. SCWA is now considered to be among the 'greenest' water agencies in California. The Agency is faced with the challenge of maintaining the aging infrastructure of our Water Supply and Transmission System on very stretched and limited budget. So far, the water is reaching our homes and schools and businesses every hour of every day and is perfectly potable. I won't second guess management, but it might not be a bad idea for the Agency to get out of the sanitation business at some point. Interesting options are available. Let's learn, plan and the act, together!

(MH) I do support changes in the governance of the SCWA.

A major problem with the current governance of the SCWA is the appearance of and the potential for a conflict of interest. A 2004 Grand Jury report, Got Water, highlights the issue. It states in its findings:

"F1. Since 1949, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors have been made up of exactly the same members. Testimony given to the grand jury indicated a perception that a conflict of interest exists due to the Board of Supervisors' political responsibilities to both rural and urban growth development which could affect their land use decisions to favor urban growth without regard to possible water supply shortages in the rural areas. Additional concerns were that each supervisor necessarily represents a specific geographical area, but not the entire county; and that the Board of Supervisors lacks technical expertise regarding water issues."

I agree with the Grand Jury’s recommendation that:

There really isn't anymore that needs to be said beyond what the Grand Jury has so eloquently pointed out. It sums it up nicely and I have nothing to add other than that I agree.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Sonoma County Water Coalition's issues of concern. These are all issues of great importance to our county and will have a strong impact on our future.

(RF) The SCWA’s governance structure and mandate comes from the State. It was created by the Legislature in 1949 to address both water supply and flood control for future development of the urban areas of the County, with the Board of Supervisors as Directors. Following the completion of Lake Mendocino in 1959, the Agency signed contracts first with the City of Santa Rosa (1959) and later Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sonoma, and Water Districts serving North Marin, the Valley of the Moon, and Forestville. No responsibility or authority over any other water supply (surface or groundwater) was given to the Agency. However, no other agency or department has the authority or expertise to deal with issues of groundwater management or protecting the water supply interests of all County residents.

Conceptually, it may have made sense at the time, but the mandate and the authority do not function as envisioned. I would support a change in both the mandate and the governance structure. A change in State law would be required to implement the revised governance structure. I will advocate at the State level that the Agency broaden its governing body to be more like LAFCO, with stakeholders in a position of meaningful authority including county officials -- and also including well owners (private citizens, Ag irrigators and others), contractors (cities and Districts) and people who live in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. A broader representation will advocate for currently unrepresented water users. I will also advocate for a different mandate that includes the current responsibilities of serving contractors, flood control, -- and adds meaningful responsibility for clean water supply to all users. The county should be seriously studying the future of water supply and developing a water budget. We must know how much water we have in storage (surface and ground water) - how much we project to use, and where. Pumping water is going to be increasingly expensive so water use should be as close to a source as possible.

(JM) This is tricky. In theory, it is inappropriate to have the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in the inherent conflict position of also being the Board of the Water Agency. However, we have fought for years to have a progressive majority on the Board of Supervisors, and now that we are on the verge of that I would not want to give the advocates of excessive growth another board that the could 'buy.' I would favor the SCWA board becoming independent as long as we are very careful in how we do it.