Responses to the Sonoma County Water Coalition questionnaire have been received from three of the candidates for Santa Rosa City Council: Michael Allen (MA), Carol Dean (CD) and Gary Wysocky (GW). If you are in contact with other candidates, please encourage them to give time and attention to this very important topic.

  1.   Please outline your concept of a sustainable water policy, both for Santa Rosa and Sonoma County generally, which will guarantee adequate clean water for future generations.

(MA) A sustainable water policy for Santa Rosa can be successful if we are able to cooperate with the jurisdictions that draw upon the water resources of this region. As a City Council member I would push very hard for a comprehensive surface and groundwater study in order to establish baseline information and measurables for future conservation and planning purposes for just not Santa Rosa, but the entire North Bay Watershed.

My concept of a sustainable water policy is that the beneficial use of water for human endeavors such as residential and commercial development, and agriculture that must be balanced against the needs of wildlife and fisheries. A balance that does not preserve and restore fragile eco systems is short sighted and not sustainable. I prefer that we ask every sector of our economy to develop plans for a long term reduction of water use that entails conservation, and responsible reuse of water whenever possible.

(CD) My concept of a sustainable water policy includes a surface water management plan, a ground water management plan, and urban reuse where feasible and safe. We must ascertain how much ground water is available, how it is being used and how quickly it is being replenished. Santa Rosa purchases its water from the Sonoma County Water Agency and supplements its purchases during dry weather with its Farmers Lane wells. Last year at the end of the voluntary water conservation in October, the Farmers Lane wells returned to artesian status very quickly, but that does not tell us what is going on in other areas of the basin. Santa Rosa has implemented all 14 of the Best Management Practices and is looking at additional ways to conserve. Only Rohnert Park has a smaller per capita user rate.

(GW) Conserve, conserve, conserve. Like Australia and other arid regions of our planet, we must begin reusing grey water and installing rainwater catch basins. We must insist upon bioswails to recharge our groundwater. We must use proven methods (slow the flow) to capture floodwaters for groundwater recharge. We also must preserve the gravel bed of the Russian River. The natural filtration is priceless.

  2.   In February 2005, the State Water Resources Control Board directed the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to provide "a detailed plan of water conservation efforts which will result in no increase in Russian River diversions." What methods do you support to ensure that the demands of Santa Rosa, a prime SCWA contractor, will not increase Russian River diversions?

(MA)It is my understanding that Santa Rosa is making requests for increased water allocations in anticipation of future growth and development; although this may be viewed by some as necessary and prudent, I would prefer an emphasis on reduction of current water use, and urban reuse of water when deemed appropriate and safe. Obviously over irrigation and incidental runoff needs to be identified and remedied. As chair of the Accountable Development Coalition I have advocated for not only a much stronger build it green program, but I have also submitted proposals to the City of Santa Rosa for financing the retrofitting of existing residential and commercial structures.

Another method to reduce Santa Rosa Water demand is to replace the 100 year old water pipes that have very high rates of leakage. I have been told that Santa Rosa is slowly replacing the old water delivery infrastructure, but it would be less expensive long term to accelerate that program. Another method of reducing water usage is a more steeply tiered progressive water rate structure, coupled with education and short term subsidies for those businesses such as restaurants that are high users of water. We do not want to punish or drive anyone out of business, but we must adopt a psychology of realism that water is both expensive and precious.

(CD) It will take many different options to achieve the goal of no increased water allotments. Santa Rosa will have to look at building and landscape practices, additional conservation, and urban reuse. ABAG has already told Santa Rosa that it needs to produce approximately 6300 new housing units in the next seven years. City Center growth has less water demands than new subdivisions. So not only how we build, but where we build will be an issue.

(GW) Requiring all new material projects to have purple piping infrastructure and bioswails is essential. The water Santa Rosa doesn’t take from the river will come from city wells so we must look for recharge of ground water. I would be supportive of city recharge ponds to capture flood waters. I would support the continuation of city policy discouraging ornamental lawns. Better water use planning must be a prerequisite for all future development projects as well.

  3.   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?

(MA) I do not support the diversion of Eel River Water as either a short term or long term solution to augment our water supply. I also have grave concerns about spending huge amounts of tax dollars to enlarge existing reservoirs, or running a pipe line out of Lake Sonoma. I was a member of the Sierra Club Legal Team that fought Lake Sonoma, because we did not believe the pretext that "the dam was for flood control purposes". If that truly were the case the dam has failed miserably. Environmentalists believed at the time that Lake Sonoma was to be utilized for future growth and development. I do believe the best use of public tax money is for wide ranging and effective conservation efforts that encourage industry and the public to conserve and reuse. Expensive dam engineering projects need to be scrutinized closely as a last resort, because of dam siltation problems, and the promotion of the notion that we can engineer more water supplies without serious negative environmental and economic repercussions.

(CD) Mendocino County currently depends on the Eel River diversions and there are many illegal agricultural diversions along the path to the Rainy Collectors. I don’t believe that we have much influence on the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and they may in fact not support any plan to stop diversions. I believe with a good water management plan for all cities and the county will negate the need for the diversion. However, PG&E and the State Water Board will ultimately give us the time line. I believe that Santa Rosa can meet the challenge.

(GW) Eel River diversion is uncertain for a number of reasons, among them Mendocino County Board of Supervisors changing their policy to address their needs, PG&E’s uncertain support for the Potter Valley project, and the harm of the diversion to the Eel River itself. If this is the staff/expert conclusion, I would likely be supportive, but where is the replacement water coming from? If Lake Sonoma is being considered, there is a serious obstacle: the cost of transporting and filtering that water is estimated at a minimum of $500 million. I would also like to see staff assumptions re: evaporation and sediment filling of the lake bed. Finally, no water should be exported beyond SCWA current commitments, and illegal diversions of river water must be stopped.

 4.   If you support integrated surface and groundwater management planning, how could the Santa Rosa City Council best contribute to attaining that goal?

(MA) As the largest City in Santa Rosa the City Council can play a very positive role in encouraging the County and Cities of this region to participate in an integrated surface and groundwater planning process that would begin by funding the necessary studies to establish our existing water supply baselines. Early adoption of a study and integrated plan for Santa Rosa would be leadership by example, which is a powerful influence upon others.

Ultimately we need regional baseline water data and integrated planning because Santa Rosa has a wonderful opportunity to work with the entire community and region to develop standards and best practices that can influence both state and national policy and planning.

(CD) Santa Rosa is currently working on a groundwater management plan and as a former Board of Public Utility member I always voted for funding for an integrated water plan. As a City Council Member I would also vote for funding an integrated water plan as well as a storm water management plan. It is important to select an appointee to the BPU who shares the goal of an integrated surface and groundwater management plan.

(GW) Please see my answer to #2 above.

  5.   Do you favor increasing local water supplies through residential and commercial rainwater harvesting? If so, what new policies and ordinances would Santa Rosa need to establish a standard program for using harvested rainwater?

(MA) Water supplies could and should be augmented by rainwater harvesting. I would study the best practices of governments that have instituted extensive rain water harvesting policies such as Bermuda where all new residential construction requires rain water collection cisterns and collectors. In an urban setting permeable pavement in parking lots, catchments basins, and gardening practices can greatly enhance the recharging of aquifers. We must also be mindful that we have to be much more thoughtful about runoff as global warming has increased the intensity of storms and their duration. I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, but I would be willing and open to this very simple low tech method of increasing our water supply.

(CD) I have a neighbor who is an engineer and has actually installed underground tanks in other localities in California. He says is easy to ensure that the harvested water will not get into your house water line by installing a back-flow device. He has helped residents apply to the city for an above ground tank that were not located next to the homes in order to qualify. I know that the utility director can approve the application, but it is not well know nor encouraged, but that can be changes. There are personal responsibilities that go along with the installation of such a system and it is hard to regulate that folks will take that responsibility.

(GW) Yes, I favor increasing water supplies with these methods. Polices and ordinances will be needed to ensure that the safety of our drinking water delivery system is not compromised and that any harvested rainwater is used in the appropriate manner.

 6.   What is your position on restricting reused wastewater irrigation projects under the Santa Rosa IRWP, so that they do not produce incidental runoff? What methods would you support for preventing irrigation runoff?

(MA) It is my understanding that there is a very wide variety of soil types that influence whether waste water can be safely used for irrigation. At present we have pollution from pharmaceuticals, cosmetic, and household sources that are not removed by tertiary treatment. Irrigation and Bio Remediation may be suitable for certain soil types, but more extensive treatment of water for irrigation may require reverse osmosis treatment and treatment for PH. I would support measures that restrict incidental runoff such as reduction of irrigation, if the soil types do not support the volume of irrigation. Purple plumbing and appropriate urban reuse could also reduce the need for excessive irrigation and runoff. We also need to educate and encourage the public regarding residential incidental water runoff.

(CD) Santa Rosa’s plan is for commercial and apartment complex irrigation. I think until the definition of incidental runoff is determined by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa will not proceed to build its pilot project. Some people consider a few drops of water on a sidewalk as "incidental", others if it goes over the curb and other say it is if it reaches the storm drain. Until the Regional Board rules on this issue I will not vote for implementation and expose the City to third party lawsuits. It is irresponsible to "over irrigate" regardless of the water source. Bio swales and berms might be appropriate for some areas to control possible runoff.

(GW) Reused wastewater for irrigation is a good idea only if there are no harmful side effects. It should not be allowed when the ground is too saturated to absorb, and the amount allowed should only serve the immediate plants.

 7.  What are your ideas for resolving water quality problems due to winter Sub-regional Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to the Laguna and Russian River?

(MA) Frankly I would like to set a goal of no discharges into the Laguna and Russian River by reducing total consumption and use of every safe urban reuse strategy that we can develop. If that goal cannot be obtained (I am not willing to concede on this point) then any water discharged must be pristine using reverse osmosis, which makes me wonder if we could have a closed circle with highly treated water being used for aquifer recharge or other eco system friendly use. I understand that reverse osmosis technology is expensive and very energy intensive, and there are disposal issues associated with the brine residue. My first choice would be an aggressive conservation program coupled with local consumer education programs concerning pharmaceuticals, and other household pollutants. I would support a state or federal tax on the producers of these products to recoup the tremendous public cost of the removal of the pollutants from the environment.

(CD) This past winter the Laguna Treatment Plant (LTP) discharged less treated wastewater to the River via the Laguna than did the City of Ukiah or the City of Healdsburg having discharged less than two weeks out the discharge season of October - March. In 2007 the LTP treated 6.6 billion gallons and directly reused 97% with 2.3 billon gallons used on 6,366 acres of agricultural land, golf courses and urban areas in Rohnert Park and the remainder going to Calpine. Santa Rosa’s goal is not to have any river discharge and appears to be well on its way.

(GW) The reason such discharges have happened is due to a lack of diversion of flood waters. We need to capture these for groundwater recharge, and these waters could also be useful for the Geysers steam-fields as well.

 8.  What water-production and distribution policies should the City of Santa Rosa develop to both curb the growth of greenhouse emissions and eventually help reduce them to levels that local natural systems can handle?

(MA) It has been estimated that 40% of the total state energy consumption and green house gas emissions is due to the pumping of water from source to consumer. Urban and Suburban land use policies that promote sprawl and continue this reckless pattern of land development need to come to and end. Urban infill and mixed use redevelopment that concentrates development near public transit sites is highly desirable to reduce GHG emissions. Previously discussed conservation and encouragement of rain harvesting all reduce stress on local natural systems.

(CD) The movement of water is the greatest generator of greenhouse gas emissions in Santa Rosa, as it is throughout the state. The collection of wastewater is handled primarily by gravity, but potable water is pumped. So again conservation is key. As an older city in the County, Santa Rosa has a policy of replacing old pipe on both the water and wastewater side. This reduces I&I on the treatment side, and water loss on the water side. City Center growth will also reduce the need for pumping long distances. Land use and building practices will play a significant part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all areas.

(GW) I would think gravity is being utilized whenever possible and that ‘source’ and ‘use’ are matched as closely as possible to minimize transportation energy required. I am a strong supporter of solar power (installing a PV grid on my residence) and would be supportive of polices to encourage/require Wind or PV to power wells.

 9.   In your view, what impacts does gravel mining have on Santa Rosa's water supply and how do you feel about its continuation?

(MA) Gravel mining destroys fish habitat, and destroys the natural capacity of the river bed to cleanse and filter our water supply. Mining in active river channels typically results in erosion upstream of the mine and downstream (by sediment starvation). This damage may cause undermining of structures, lowering of alluvial water tables, channel destabilization and widening, and loss of aquatic and riparian habitat. I oppose an extension or continuation of this past practice. I understand that there may be difficulties in finding appropriate Quarry sites, but less destructive and sustainable methods must be found to satisfy the need for building materials. I have been told that we are now shipping aggregate from British Columbia, and that this is a sustainable practice, but I find that assertion questionable.

(CD) Gravel is the river’s natural filtration system. If we strip the river of gravel, we will diminish the quality of our water which is not acceptable. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Board has implemented a gravel mining permit plan for Mendocino County which looks at all the beneficial interests and seems to be successful. Perhaps it is something that Sonoma County should look at as well. My recollection is that some of the permits are about to or have expired.

(GW) As previously mentioned, I feel gravel mining is a major threat to the purity of our water. The river level has lowered considerably due to its effect as well. As Shamrock has begun to import gravel from British Columbia via the Petaluma River, there is no compelling reason to allow river gravel mining to continue.

 10.   Do you see a need for changing the governance and mandate of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA)? If so, what changes would you support?

(MA) Yes, Governance should not remain with the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County who are already overburdened with oversight in a multiplicity of areas. I would be open to a more inclusive type of regional governance with a Board composed in equal measure of municipal customers and citizens elected at large. The Water Agency mandate should be broadened to emphasize conservation and sustainability. I have read that the Water Agency is thinking of committing to a goal of being carbon neutral by 2015, and is interested in alternative energy technology, I see these developments as positive movement in the right direction, but does not change my view that both governance and mandate should be reexamined for a sustainable future.

(CD) I don’t believe the Board of Supervisors is the proper governance oversight of the SCWA. The issues are so complex and the other duties are incompatible. I would recommend a structure like LAFCO or MTC. In the alternative, there would a system like Santa Rosa’s with the Board of Public Utilities as the policy making body and the city council as the fiscal agent.

(GW) Yes, I believe the governance should change. The governance and mandate was created by the State over 50 years ago to cover water supply and flood control for Sonoma County. We can all agree times are materially different now. As groundwater is increasingly more important, it should be included in the Agency’s mandate. We should be focusing on where our future supply is coming from. The idea of a broader governing board to include more stakeholders such as cities and districts as well as well owners and agricultural irrigators makes sense.