A response to the Sonoma County Water Coalition questionnaire was received from one of the candidates in the 5th District run-off: Rue Furch (RF). We will post responses from Efren Carrillo if he responds. If you are in contact with him, please encourage him to give time and attention to this.

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

(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.

  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?

(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:

  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?"

(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.

 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?

(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.

  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?

(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.

 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?

(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).

 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?

(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.

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

(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.

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

(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.

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

(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.