storytemplate

Russian River Watershed Protection
By Brenda Adleman, update from the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee
We are living in a period when telling the truth does not seem to carry the same importance as in earlier times. People “spin” the truth to twist and turn it in such a way that it appears as though the truth is told, when in truth, it may bear no resemblance to it. Unfortunately, in our battle for a clean Russian River, we are forced to regularly confront this circumstance.
Santa Rosa narrows discharge studies
In November 2007, Santa Rosa released its Draft Screening Report for the “Discharge Compliance Project.” The main purpose of this document was to determine which options should be studied in an environmental impact report (EIR). In other words, this was a way of de-selecting certain options on the basis of their supposed infeasibility. The main focus of this report addressed whether to continue studying four direct river discharges, continued Laguna discharge, and three indirect discharges.
The three indirect and one of the direct discharges are all north of Healdsburg, one direct is south of Healdsburg, one near Windsor, and one at Forestville. The Sonoma County Water Agency wrote a strong letter to the City emphasizing the hazards of discharging wastewater near a drinking water facility, and lo and behold, the City found a reason to take the Windsor site (just upstream of the water facility) out of consideration. The “spin” was that stream banks would erode, and if they conducted further studies, it would take too long and cost too much. (Normally, this issue would have been identified at an earlier stage of the process.)
The Draft Screening Report also recommended removing the indirect discharge options from consideration. Dr. Dave Smith, consultant for the City, told City officials that the Regional Board would never approve indirect project permits. We discussed this with Regional Board staff and learned that Santa Rosa was told no such thing. Staff merely stated that a full discharge permit would be necessary and in fact, they supported the study of indirect discharge. City officials had been hoping to bypass this permit.
In early December 2006, at a joint meeting of Santa Rosa’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU) and City Council, in an unusual reversal, it was decided to continue studying two of the three indirect discharges for a cost of about $200,000. It was felt that more options were desirable. Then in January, the BPU brought this up again and decided to eliminate the option on the basis of water quality concerns.
For the last 26 years, RRWPC and our supporters have been concerned about the risks involved in wastewater discharge to all drinking water supplies. We agreed there was cause for concern about the safety of these discharges into groundwater, but that the same concern should be demonstrated for surface water as well. Ironically, after it was determined that the City would continue to study direct river discharge, their consultant, Dr. Smith, gave a compelling presentation on the problems to aquatic life from copper, which will soon have to meet more stringent discharge standards.
The City plans to utilize “mixing zones” to address the copper issue. Mixing zones are areas in the water where pollution is allowed. You can see where “spin” is alive and well in City wastewater plans. The adage, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, does not apply here. RRWPC has believed all along Santa Rosa’s favored options are discharge at Healdsburg or Forestville and they don’t want to study the rest. This greatly narrows choices and allows for pre-selection of options before EIR study.
Update on water supply and low flow issues
The issue of low flows has become a very complicated subject, but we will attempt to address it here. We start by reporting that Randy Poole, chief engineer of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), stated at a recent meeting that “low flow” would not be considered in the Biological Opinion due out from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) soon. The issue is far from dead, however, and will probably be revisited in the environmental impact process for SCWA’s long-term water acquisition plans, which include an increased water diversion from 75,000 acre-feet a year (AFY) to 101,000 AFY. That is when alteration of minimum summer flows could be considered.
The Biological Opinion will analyze operational impacts of the current water system on threatened and endangered fish species in the Russian River. One of the major concerns is controlling releases from Warm Springs Dam down Dry Creek. If too much water is released, habitat conditions are such that the fish can’t survive. Since the Water Agency needs to release enough water to ensure adequate water supplies for their contractors, they will probably study an expensive pipeline to the Russian River, and possibly a water treatment system that could cost $500,000,000 or more.
In the meantime, the Federal Government determined that PG&E releases at the Potter Valley Project have been excessive, and much more water (33%) needs to be reserved for the Eel River, from which the water came. Yet, as Sonoma County cities grow, SCWA needs to be able to access more water for their increased demand. Simultaneously, there is a greater demand for groundwater, and people are very concerned about drawing down local aquifers as well.
Agriculture also uses a great deal of groundwater, sometimes illegally, and no one has a good handle on how much water is being used and who is using it. Well owners have been very opposed to the well monitoring called for in the Water Resources Element of the Sonoma County General Plan, basically because they see it as an invasion of their privacy. In truth, as things are now, a large agricultural operation can move in, dig a deep well, and bye-bye water supply. In fact, SCWA has deep wells in the Laguna that have been depleting water supplies in the Sebastopol area. Groundwater management is necessary to ensure that water supplies are equitably distributed and managed.
RRWPC needs your support
Numerous environmental impact reports are being released in the near future. It will take considerable effort responding to these documents including analysis by our attorney Ellison Folk of the San Francisco firm Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger. RRWPC relies on individual donations from our supporters to carry on our work and we would very much appreciate extra financial support at this time. Contact Brenda at
rrwpc-1@comcast.net.