Volunteers Needed to Plant Redwood Trees

Volunteers are needed to help plant on beautiful Sonoma County
lands on January 9th & 10th

This January, Forest Unlimited will be planting approximately 1,500 two-year old bare root redwood seedlings for reforestation and erosion control at Sunset Beach Regional Park, Steelhead Beach Regional Park, Shone Farm (the agricultural educational facility of SRJC), and St. Dorothy's Rest above Camp Meeker. The only thing we are in short supply of are volunteers to help plant the trees. Supervised children are welcome.

The planting dates are on Friday, January 9th and Saturday, January 10th. On each day, we will rendezvous at 8:30 a.m. The morning session will end at around 12:30 and the afternoon session will end around 4:30 p.m. We could use your help, even if you can plant for only half of one day. All equipment and a free indoor lunch, including drinks and snacks, will be provided. Vegetarian food will also be available.

The seedlings average about 18-inches in height and are not difficult to plant.
These trees will be “forever protected.”

To sign up and/or to ask any questions:
Carl Wahl, Project Manager, at 874-9268 or mcwahl@poetworld.net,
Bob Nelson at 874-1740 or at ebnelson@sonic.net,
Rick Coates, Forest Unlimited Executive Director, at 632-6070 or rcoates@sonic.net, and
Larry Hanson, Forest Unlimited Board President, at 887-7433 or kimlarry2@comcast.net.

For further information regarding rendezvous locations, appropriate attire, etc., please read the “Supplemental Volunteer Information” sheet below.

Thank you - and please pass this message along to anyone interested in helping. This is an excellent educational experience as well as a great opportunity to be part of the envoironmental solution for generations to come.

Town Hall Coalition
6741 Sebastopol Ave. Suite 140
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-824-4371
www.townhallcoalition.org


Forest Unlimited is a 13-year old 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation headquartered in Cazadero. Its mission is to protect, enhance, and restore the forests and watersheds of Sonoma County. Please visit our website at www.forestunlimited.org.
Please tell your friends, and thanks.

Redwood Seedling Reforestation Project
Supplemental Volunteer Information

On behalf of Forest Unlimited, thank you so much for volunteering to help with this season’s redwood seedling planting event.

We will be planting on two dates—Friday, January 9th and Saturday, January 10th. If you have not yet done so, please contact either Carl at mcwahl@poetworld.net or 874-9268 or Bob at ebnelson@sonic.net or 874-1740 with your date preference(s).

On Friday, we will rendezvous in the parking lot in front of the Union Hotel restaurant in Occidental at 8:30 a.m. We’ll explain the day’s itinerary, form car pools, and depart for the day’s planting site near Camp Meeker by around 9:15. We will have lunch in the dining hall at St. Dorothy’s Rest.

On Saturday, we will rendezvous just inside the entry gate to Shone Farm (located about 1-mile north of River Road at the intersection of East Side Road and Trenton Healdsburg Road) at 8:30 a.m. We will then divide into two groups with one group going to the nearby county parks on the Russian River and the other to the campground area at Shone Farm. We will all meet at the Dutton Pavilion at Shone Farm for lunch.

Please dress for the occasion. The county parks will have considerable exposure. Dress warm, consider layered clothing, use sunscreen, bring a cap, and wear comfortable boots. Waterproof boots (or slipover boots) will probably be a plus. Due to unpredictable weather, prepare to bring raingear. Consider bringing an additional pair shoes to wear in your car. Disposable latex gloves will be available. Bring work gloves if you prefer not using latex gloves.

Narrow trenching shovels and plastic buckets will be available. Most people will work in teams of two, and each team will be issued a kneeling pad. The terrain on Friday will, in general, be moderately sloped. The terrain on Saturday will be flat to slightly sloped.

In addition to improving the environment, we want you to have a good time. Preparation and proper attire are the keys to an enjoyable and rewarding experience—especially when planting in January.

Please contact us if there are any other questions and/or concerns. We need to keep a volunteer tally. If you cannot make the date, or wish to change dates, please let us know. Thanks again.

Sincerely yours,
Carl Wahl & Bob Nelson
Project Managers

Read article »

Environmental Awareness Promotes Water Conservation

Making the connection between the health of our environment and our water supply is essential if we, as humans, are to survive in concert with the critters. Every life form is dependent upon water. If we are to thrive, they too, must thrive.

By Vesta Copestakes
Over the years I have published this newspaper I have attended countless meetings about fresh water, wastewater, air pollution, potential developments, Timber Harvest Plans, etc. I listen to government officials, scientists & biologists, politicians and environmental enthusiasts, each with their own point of view and personal agenda. I want to be compassionate toward those whose opinions differ from mine. It’s not always easy.

I am in love with life itself and every little critter, every sunny, foggy or rainy day, the rustle of wind in trees…it all thrills my heart that I am alive and can bask in the beauty that surrounds us. I would love it if everyone who is responsible for this planet felt the same way.

Just the other day I attended a meeting where we came away feeling that we had saved something precious to us…Steelhead Beach Regional Park and the waters of the Russian River. There will be no pipeline of treated wastewater coming from Santa Rosa to dump directly into our river. Sigh of relief.

But I came home to a message that Sheephouse Creek Watershed* is about to be logged…again…and the most challenging part of the two plans proposed is that with all the budget cuts in our state government, there are no longer authorities in place to oversee the analysis of these Timber Harvest Plans. These in combination with previous harvests mean that 40% of the land in this vital watershed will have been logged.

That hurts, but what’s more important is that Sheephouse is in a vital watershed area that feeds not only the town of Jenner, but creeks in this area are where biologists are working to save endangered fish. Are the people in charge of all these projects talking with each other? Does one side know what the other side is doing? We can celebrate the acquisition of Jenner Headlands as now protected land, but what about further up stream?

After 11 years, Sonoma County has published the Biological Opinion (see WCG Extra! on westcountygazette.com for previous articles on this subject) and there is a small army of biologists studying the impact of river flow, etc. on numerous fish species. These scientists are literally out in boats on the river sampling water and counting fish.

They care for two reasons. One is because the Environmental Protection Agency has mandated that several endangered fish must be saved no matter what! And the other is because 600,000 people depend upon the water supply that works its way down the Russian River Watershed to the sea. The very water these fish depend upon for life.

When the Sonoma County Water Agency tells people they need to conserve water, they think about their lovely green lawns and how much money they have invested in landscaping. They think about their cars that need to be shiny and clean. They think about nice long, hot showers, clean laundry, etc. Fish just aren’t part of the equation to these water users.

But they are! Fish, rivers, trees, deer, birds, the very clouds in the sky…every miniscule aspect of life on planet earth depends upon water. So these biologists are out there trying to save endangered fish at the same time they are trying to preserve water for our cities and towns who depend upon this watershed when they turn on their faucets.

How do we get water users to CARE about the land, the fish, the birds and trees?

Fiction writers know that the number one rule for getting readers involved in their stories is to make the reader CARE about the characters in the story. The same goes for movies. You have to love them, hate them, feel sorry for them, relate to them, etc. etc. People are easy subjects to engage in emotionally. WE are people. We relate to other’s experiences. Been there, done that…know what that feels like.

How do we get people to see the connection we have with critters who depend upon our water supply. How do we get water users to CARE so much that they change the way they live?
In studies on how people eat, researchers have discovered that children who visit farms, see and touch the plants that grow their vegetables and fruits, have a higher interest in eating these healthy foods. It’s the personal experience connection. Would more people be vegetarians if they spent time in feed lots and slaughter houses? Some yes, others no. There’s no universal truth on how to connect with a person’s heart.

Since so much about caring and empathy has to do with personal experience, any outreach is bound to capture at least a few hearts. School garden programs give children a sense of wonder about the origins of their food. Field trips to parks and wildlife refuges instill a sense of awe about nature. Taking a canoe out on a river or lake makes water experiences intimate.

So many times when we want to make major changes we look to our children as the source of those changes into the future. Right now the future is too far away. Our children are not the only ones who need to care. We adults need to pay attention to our connections with endangered fish and how water that flows from our faucets is the same water in which they live. Both us humans and the fish are depending upon the very same water source for our survival.

Recently the World Conservation Congress revealed that 25 percent of the planet’s mammal species and one out of eight birds are close to extinction. These are not exotic animals in remote places. They are rabbits, deer, cardinals and turtledoves. Critters that we take for granted. Those trees on the hills we see in the distance are our connection to our water supply as well as homes for living beings struggling to survive.

It’s not us OR the fish…it’s us AND the fish. The sooner we experience that connection, the better our chance for survival. Us…right now…our children into the future…and those critters on the brink of extinction.

The moment of extinction is generally considered to be
the death of the last individual of that species

A recent study reports that nearly 40 percent of freshwater fish species
in North America are in trouble.

The study, published by the American Fisheries Society,
found that 457 species might already be extinct.

* See other WCG Extra! stories on the Sheephouse Creek Watershed Timber Harvest Plans under the ENVIRONMENT Category.

AND - check our this Documentary on KRCB Television 22
on January 11th at 10:30pm

A looming crisis under our feet....
KRCB Television 22 presents Liquid Assets: The Story of Our Water Infrastructure

How many times each day do you count on there being abundant, clear water?
How would your life change if water were neither abundant nor clear?

Essential to all life on earth, water is the provenance of civilization. Throughout history, thriving cities have had in common the presence of a water infrastructure. Much of the original American infrastructure is unchanged and still in use today. There are risks associated with neglecting our buried assets. Liquid Assets focuses on the natural cycle of our water supply and addresses the health and environmental hazards that our cities face when industrial and residential districts unsustainably interface with the water cycle.

This ninety-minute documentary tells the story of essential infrastructure systems: water, wastewater, and stormwater. These systems - some in the ground for more than 150 years - provide a critical public health function and are essential for economic development and growth. Largely out of sight and out of mind, these aging systems have not been maintained, and some estimates suggest this is the single largest public works endeavor in our nation's history. Exploring the history, engineering challenges, and political and economic realities in urban and rural locations, the documentary provides an understanding of the hidden assets that support our way of life.

Read article »

Eco-Tourism in Sonoma County

Sonoma County prepares for Eco-Tourism

Several years ago a group of people in the Sonoma County tourist industry realized that they needed to do something to extend tourism year-round so that our town's economy wouldn't rise and fall with the summer season…to have jobs extend throughout the year so the local economy could be more stable. Knowing that our greatest asset is the beauty of our land and sea and that our population is ecologically conscious and concerned, they created EcoRing, to encourage Eco-Tourism as a solution to both economic needs as well as environmental concerns.

By Dawn E. Bell

One of the things that separates Sonoma County from other California counties is the endless variety of experiences that can be had in these 1,768 square miles. The ones that we are most known for – vineyards, coastline and redwoods – continue to attract attention from throngs of tourists. Among these 7.4 million annual visitors, many claim an unforgettable first impression of our environment. The first impactful view of the wild Sonoma Coastline is an awesome encounter for many. The first walk through ancient redwoods can change the way one views the world there after. And a drive through the changing colors of hillside vineyards causes more shutters to click than a herd of paparazzi faced with their favorite celebrity. We who live here are not only privileged to live with these beauties on a daily basis, but also with the responsibility to care for them.

There are many organizations here whose purpose is to protect Sonoma County’s treasures. Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, Daily Acts, for example, focus on protecting and caring for our environment; offering natural docent tours, sustainable activities and education. But one organization is blending the best of stewardship with tourism and is poised to help create economic growth through ecotourism: EcoRing. “This is where the river meets the sea and where a kayaker can float up to a seal pupping area, view the great blue heron or watch an Osprey hunt for dinner in its natural habitat” said Toni Tacoma, President of EcoRing. “All of these elements lend themselves to the heart of eco-tourism: responsible travel that sustains the local population. EcoRing expects to be a big part of the ecotourism market for many years to come and to help lead Sonoma County in conservation and tourism”.

Many countries around the world have focused their tourism dollars on eco-tourism. Countries like Costa Rica, Kenya and Australia where people can enjoy any number of protected natural environments. Countries where tourists can also find activities related to the great outdoor experience through “eco-adventures”. Whether it’s free diving off the coast of Australia, going on a photo-safari in Kenya or spotting rare birds in a Costa Rican rainforest, all Eco-Adventures are designed to promote tourism while protecting the environment.

But you don’t have to go to Australia to experience an exotic EcoAdventure. To international and domestic travelers alike Sonoma County is exotic and exciting. To many travelers Sonoma County is a wild place, filled with lush growth, fine weather, rolling hills and vistas unmatched in the world. Sonoma County will become an ecotourism destination famous for its conservation practices, the warmth of its people and the variety of activity. And EcoRing is leading the way to ensure exciting and safe adventure travel and opportunities.

According to a study by The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), 70% of British and Australian travelers would willingly pay up to an additional $150 per week to stay somewhere with a “responsible environmental attitude”. The TIES study also reports ecotourism has been growing 20%-34% per year since the 1990s. TIES analysts predict there will be a boom to eco-resorts and hotels and other nature (eco) tourism businesses in the coming year. “All of this is good news for eco-tourism and therefore, great news for Sonoma County”, said Tacoma.

A big part of EcoRing’s mission is to increase ecotoursim in order to positively impact local commerce and to help create new jobs through this effort. “By marketing eco-adventures, green stays and other environmentally important aspects of travel, EcoRing is poised to bring a lot of responsible travel to Sonoma County in the coming year”, said Tacoma. By working with nearly one hundred and fifty local adventure providers (hot air balloon rides, kayak companies, horseback riding, etc.), the EcoRing website (ecoring.org) provides a way for interested eco-travelers to find and book their green vacations, find out about the region and learn practical tips to being a green tourist.

EcoRing will continue to work with its affiliates like Stewards and Daily Acts to market all types of eco adventures. EcoRing will also oversee the sale of group tours and activities through work with outside contractors like travel agents, meeting planners and other hospitality and travel related industry professionals. Through these collaborative relationships, EcoRing believes its goals will be met and that success to this already popular region will increase in the coming years with the added benefit of new and extended employment and an environment that is maintained through thoughtful visitors.


ecoring.org
daily-acts.org
stewardsofthecoastandredwoods.org

Read article »

Recycling Paper, Holiday Trees and Electronic Wastes in Sonoma County

Your Watershed: When the Holidays are Over - Recycling Paper, Holiday Trees and Electronic Wastes in Sonoma County


After the holidays, you’ll likely be left with some cleanup—wrapping
paper and packaging—not to mention the tree itself. If your gifts include new electronic devices, such as a new flatscreen TV, laptop or digital camera, you might find yourself with the challenge of properly disposing of your old equipment. Luckily, there are many opportunities in Sonoma County to easily recycle your wastes.

Wrapping paper--- Recyclable paper makes up a large portion, 27%, of what’s going into our garbage in Sonoma County. Remember to recycle all non-reusable wrapping paper, carton and cardboard packaging in your single-stream curbside recycling cart. Only foil-backed and plastic wrapping paper cannot be recycled.

Packaging---If you accumulate packing peanuts and bubble wrap over the holidays, many local packaging stores, such as UPS Stores, are glad to accept these items for reuse.

Veggie food scraps--Compost your veggies! Fruits, vegetables, peels and seeds can be composted at home or put in the curbside yard waste carts for the municipal composting program. In fact about 35% of residential garbage is food waste, totaling nearly 800 tons a week in Sonoma County--a resource that could be used instead of landfilled.

Christmas trees--- Christmas trees can be recycled into compost and mulch. Your tree needs to be free of flocking, tinsel, decorations and its stand for recycling.

For curbside pick up and drop-off options, call the Sonoma County Eco-Desk at
565-3375 or visit www.recyclenow.org

Electronics---Under a State mandate, electronics cannot be put in the garbage. An electronic device is anything with a circuit board. Look for devices with digital displays or programmable features. Examples include computers, TVs, laptops, printers, answering machines, CD & DVD players, stereos and cell phones.

You have three options for proper disposal of electronics:
1. bulky item pickup
2. curbside recycling, and
3. drop-off recycling

1. Bulky item pickup is available by appointment for residential garbage customers in Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Windsor. To schedule a home pickup, call your garbage company.

2. Curbside recycling for household electronics, not larger than 2 feet in any dimension, is available for garbage customers in Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Petaluma, Rohnert Park and in unincorporated areas. Devices with screens (such as TV’s, computer monitors and laptops) and batteries are not accepted curbside.

3. Drop-off recycling for non-working and working electronics is available at all County Refuse Disposal Sites, at Goodwill Industries of the Redwood Empire donation centers, Salvation Army and at other businesses in Sonoma County. For a complete list, call the Sonoma County Eco-Desk at 565-3375 or visit www.recyclenow.org

Batteries---Batteries should not be placed in the trash. Batteries are recycled by different processes than electronic equipment and should be removed from electronic equipment prior to recycling. By law, retailers selling rechargeable batteries are required to take back used rechargeable batteries from their customers. It is often more convenient, however, to use local recycling programs rather than to take rechargeable batteries back to the store from which they were purchased.

Dispose off all kinds of batteries, including alkaline and rechargeable batteries, through Sonoma County’s Household Toxics Program. Call the Sonoma County Eco-Desk at 565-DESK(3375) or visit www.recyclenow.org for more information.

More Recycling Information---For additional questions about recycling and disposal options in Sonoma County, see the Sonoma County Recycling Guide printed in the AT&T phone book Yellow Pages under Recycling, call the Sonoma County Eco-Desk at 565-DESK(3375) or visit www.recyclenow.org

The Sonoma County Eco-Desk is a project of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, a joint powers authority of the nine incorporated cities and the County of Sonoma. The specific focus of the Agency’s efforts is waste diversion required by State law AB939 in the following categories: wood waste, yard waste, household hazardous waste, education, diversion and planning.

This article was authored by Karina Chilcott of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency on behalf of RRWA. RRWA (www.rrwatershed.org) is an association of local public agencies in the Russian River Watershed that have come together to coordinate regional programs for clean water, fisheries restoration, and watershed enhancement.

Read article »

Santa Rosa Settles on Laguna Wastewater Discharge

It took many years to get to this place, but the City of Santa Rosa has decided that the best way to dispose of their highly treated wastewater is also the least harmful to the environment as well as the least expensive. The pipeline to the Geysers takes care of the vast majority of wastewater disposal - 100% during dry years to 90% during wet years - and when needed, the rest can be discharged into the Laguna de Santa Rosa from Delta Pond. This is a tremendous environmental victory for everyone who opposed the alternatives.

Report from Brenda Adelman of the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee.

Well, it's official! Santa Rosa's Board of Public Utilities formally voted today to select the enhanced Laguna discharge project instead of either the Healdsburg discharge or Steelhead Beach. The City will also create nutrient offset programs (under the watch of the Regional Board and subject to public review) to meet their requirement of no net increase of nutrients to the
Laguna.

What this means is that most of Santa Rosa's wastewater will go to the Geysers, no discharge is expected in dry to normal years, and only in heavy rain years will up to 5% of the total winter flow be discharged to the Laguna. (For eight years now, I've been presenting data that showed the project to be unnecessary. Instead they spent $12 to $15 million on studies and documents.)

In his presentation to the BPU, City consultant Dave Smith said that zero discharge was probable in most years. Up to a few months ago, he was insisting that the City needed 26 million gallons a day (mgd) capacity, even though current dry weather flows are at 15 mgd and have been in that range for many, many years.

The Laguna project will cost the City about $6.5 million whereas Steelhead Beach would have cost up to $265 million. Of course, when they started this process eight years ago, Steelhead came in at $30 million. The prices seems to go up as interest in the project goes down. Nevertheless, the current economy helped turn this around.

At the meeting today, on behalf of Russian River Watershed Protection Committee and Friends of Steelhead Beach, I submitted 5206 signatures into the record, thanks to the dedicated work of community members, Steelhead Beach lovers, RRWPC supporters, local business people, and many more who helped collect signatures. We also submitted a letter asking that the
petition be entered into the record and that all people be contacted if the City ever revisits that project.

It's been a long road, but we are thrilled with the direction the City has taken. We thank all of you who helped with this effort. Next year, we will be dedicating ourselves to the "low flow" and "incidental runoff" issues which are already heating up.

Read article »

Protecting Sheephouse Creek Watershed, Sonoma County

If you do a Google Search on Sheephouse Creek you learn that it is one of three streams designated for restoration in order to save the threatened and endangered salmon that call Sonoma County “home.” That’s important information when you know that this area is also being considered for a major Timber Harvest Plan on Ricioli Ranch (NTMP #1-08NTMP-004SON), as well as Willig Gulch THP #1-08-025SON, which is close to approval. Both properties are located within the Sheephouse Creek Watershed.


On one side we have the California Department of Fish and Game conducting stream inventory reports on Sheephouse Creek for its reintroduction program for coho slamon, the Sonoma County Water Agency studying how to restore habitat for endangered fish that use this vital watershed, a CalFlora report “What grows here…” on the Sheephouse Creek watershed, a Sonoma Land Trust report on the importance of protecting this watershed for fish as well as for the water supply to the town of Jenner at the mouth of the Russian River – AND a petition to SAVE Sheephouse Creek.

There’s something terribly out of sync if all these organizations see the importance of saving what they consider to be a vital watershed and at the same time a Timber Harvest Plan is being considered. Trees and watersheds work together to protect land, provide habitat, catch water and feed it into the ground, keep streams clean by holding earth in place, etc. It’s a system that will not function well without the trees – or – with only some of the trees. Even carefully designed timber harvests disrupt this system.

If the watershed were healthy in all ways, fish were safe here and reproducing at normal levels, water was plentiful and clean…perhaps there would be good reasons to consider cutting down trees for timber. But the current reality is that this watershed is fragile, the fish that depend upon it are even more fragile and many scientists, biologists and environmentalist consider this watershed to be extremely important to the survival of endangered fish. While the biologists want to restore the watershed, Ricioli Ranch wants to harvest its trees. Is the timber from these trees more important than fish, wildlife and plant life, and water?

Many of us who are not scientists but are people who care about protecting fragile eco-systems are very concerned. Any harm that comes to this watershed will only contribute to the demise of fragile fish species, degenerate the water supply to Jenner and haste the destruction of a valuable watershed. We ask that government entities who are in charge of making decisions about harvesting timber, do so with protecting this watershed in mind. Not harvesting its trees.

By Vesta Copestakes

---------------------

PS.: You may be interested to know that the adjacent neighbor on the west side of Sheephouse Creek has filed Willig Gulch THP #1-08-025SON, which is close to approval. Between these two property owners, they own a large portion of Sheephouse Creek’s watershed. In the last nine years, approximately 25% of the watershed area for Sheephouse Creek has been harvested. The combination of these two harvest plans equals 412 acres total. This represents 20% of the total watershed area (412 logging acres divided by 2,176 watershed acres). The total logged over the last ten years and that to be harvested in the near future equals 45% + of the total watershed area. CDF only looks at the impacts of each plan and does not assess the cumulative effects of multiple plans in the same watershed. CDF did a stream survey in 1996 and some restoration work in Sheephouse Creek in 1997-1998. This means that no one has been checking the stream and banks for soil erosion, turbidity, contaminants,... etc since this period and certainly not since the Coho captive broodstock program has been initiated. This should be brought to the review teams attention.

Wouldn’t it be prudent to look at the combined impacts of these recent THPs as well as the other five previous THP’s in this area’s watershed, during the upcoming pre-harvest inspection of the Ricioli Ranch NTMP? Please submit letters of concern to CDF c/o 135 Ridgeway Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA. 95402

ALSO: a note to Charlotte Ambrose c/o NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA. 95404-6528 or e-mail to: Charlotte.A.Ambrose@noaa.gov, asking that NMFS review these THP's in order to protect the species and aid in their recovery. It appears that they are very close to making a determination to review the Ricioli Ranch NTMP, which would be precedent setting for our area, and your letters may be enough to tip the scales in our favor.

Thank you, Mike Keller
"Friends of Sheephouse Creek"

Read article »

Sonoma County's Steelhead Beach SAVED!

For the last several months a group of dedicated volunteers met every month to work toward saving Sonoma County Regional Park's Steelhead Beach from becoming a wastewater discharge site for the City of Santa Rosa. They collected more than 4,000 signatures on petitions for the purpose of showing public support. In the end - both this very public effort, spear-headed by Brenda Adelman of the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, and the efforts of this group of volunteers, succeeded, in part because of them, and in part, because the City decided this alternative would be too expensive. Bottom line - Steelhead Beach is saved!


Steelhead beach SAVED!
RRWPC Appeals Santa Rosa’s Decision on Discharge EIR
By Brenda Adelman

Santa Rosa’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU) certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its direct discharge alternatives (including Steelhead Beach) on October 2nd, only ten days after its release. At their November 6th Meeting, the BPU informally recommended to the City Council that continued, but improved Laguna discharge was their favored option. The final decision will be made at the Dec. 4th BPU meeting (1:30 PM at City Council Chambers). Local West County citizens played an important role in that recommendation.

Consultants had made numerous last minute changes to the Final EIR, which included changing the pipeline route one half mile down River Rd. What they didn’t do was provide the required analysis to reveal and examine the impacts from this change. Neither did they allow meaningful public review of this action.

Furthermore, they had changed the pipeline entry to Steelhead Beach to the west end of the park, which would cause a huge impact on access to Children’s Beach. In fact, it probably would have closed off beach access for as long as 18 months.

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee (RRWPC) decided to appeal the decision to the City Council, an action never taken before, in order to get the City to re-circulate the EIR so the new issues could receive public review. We submitted the appeal on October 16th. The Appeal was based on the recent changes. Several days later, we got a call from City staff asking if we would like to negotiate an agreement? If we did not, the appeal would be heard by the City Council at their regular meeting on Nov. 4th (election day).

It was extremely likely that the Council would have supported the BPU's certification decision. At that point we would have been forced to file a legal challenge on the entire EIR, or do nothing. To honor the strong public opposition to this project, we felt to do nothing was unacceptable. After all, about 4500 people had signed the petition opposing the project.

On October 29th, RRWPC came to an agreement with the City of Santa Rosa. The City promised to provide supplemental environmental review of the D1 Alternative (Steelhead Beach) should it be selected, and to assure further consultation with the concerned agencies and public as part of the supplemental review. Our appeal to the City Council to reconsider the BPU's certification decision would be dropped, but RRWPC reserved the right to legally challenge the Supplemental EIR, including all changes made to the document since the draft EIR, should it become necessary.

We gave up our ability to file suit on the total EIR. We struggled with this decision and for numerous reasons, determined that challenging this document would be extremely difficult:

The EIR was filled with huge amounts of data and analysis developed by expert consultants, and it would have been prohibitively expensive to challenge this in court.

The City had spent about $12 million or more over a period of about eight years making sure this EIR was litigation proof. The project record alone, including pages and pages of document references, would probably cost over $50,000 to reproduce for litigation.

The response to comments was fairly thorough. Although we didn't care for many of their responses, the sheer volume of their effort would impress any court. Our chance to prevail would be slim.

To seriously challenge the content of the EIR and the responses to comments would take an army of experts and would also be prohibitively expensive.

All of these issues were taken into careful consideration in making this decision.

City negotiators assured RRWPC that Steelhead Beach would probably not be selected for financial reasons. We know there are many economic constraints at this time. For instance, municipal bonds have either been frozen or the interest rates are much higher and obtaining affordable financing for this project will be very difficult.

The Steelhead Beach Project would cost as much as $265 million and could not be phased in. The City all but admitted that they don't need the project for current flows anyway (We have been saying that for the last four or more years.)

The Laguna option would cost them about $6 million and can be phased in. (The EIR for the project cost the City almost twice as much!) It makes complete sense that this would be the project of choice in today's economic environment. Also, many of the earlier anticipated regulatory constraints have been resolved since this process began and are no longer an issue.

RRWPC doesn’t like the Laguna discharge either and we intend to continue our battle to get the City to move towards zero discharge, a goal we’ve had for many years. Each year they are getting closer to reaching that goal.

Finally, the City is VERY aware that a very active and effective group of citizens have come together to fight the Steelhead Beach option (Friends of Steelhead Beach). They also know that we have had enormous success with the petition which will be turned in during the project selection phase on Dec. 4th. We believe that the effort of the community was a major underlying motivation for the City to come to this agreement.

RRWPC consulted and conferred with numerous people familiar with this situation before signing the final agreement. All agreed that this was probably the best way to go considering all the circumstances.

Read article »

Chinook Salmon Return to the Russian River

Every year we anxiously await our salmon's fall return to our rivers, and hope that there is enough water left to aid their journey home to spawning grounds. This year we have been blessed with rain at just the right time. Is it enough rain? Probably not -but something is better then nothing.

The following report comes in from the Sonoma County Water Agency who monitor our fish and the flow of the Russian River. This summer they asked Sonoma County residents to conserve water so there would be enough water in our reservoir lakes to release this fall for the salmon's return. Here's is what they have learned this year and the story so far.


Chinook Salmon in the Russian River

2008 Chinook/ Wild Steelhead Migration Count:

11/03/08 - 576 Chinook

11/03/08 - 1 Wild Steelhead

The 2008-09 spawning season has begun. Thanks to two underwater video cameras located in fish ladders adjacent to the Agency's rubber dam on the Russian River, we are able to count the amount of Chinook, coho and steelhead migrating. Over the 2005-2006 spawning season, more than 2,563 Chinook salmon were counted swimming through the Agency's fish ladder, which allows the migrating salmon to bypass the rubber dam.

Each year as the seasons change from summer to fall, Chinook salmon begin their annual migration up the Russian River to their natal spawning habitat. However, until quite recently, the Chinook run in the Russian was relatively unknown. Few people knew that Chinook inhabited the Russian and no one knew how many returned to the river annually. This all changed when the Sonoma County Water Agency began conducting research on the effects of its water diversion facilities on fish, and more importantly, ways to avoid impacting fish in the Russian River Basin. Much of this research stems from our Section 7 consultations (Endangered Species Act requirements) that the Agency has participated in with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. This research has significantly increased our knowledge of Chinook salmon inhabiting the Russian River.

We reviewed historical documents on salmon and steelhead populations in the Russian River from 1880 to the present to try and determine if Chinook were native to the Russian River. The oldest report mentioning Chinook salmon in the Russian River were stocking records from 1881. We also found reports from the late 1880's describing an in-river commercial fishery for "salmon" on the Russian River. However, the reports that specifically identified the catch as occurring in the river did not include Chinook salmon jumping up the Agency's Mirabel Inflatable Damthe species captured (referring to the fish as "salmon"), and those that identified the fish as Chinook salmon did not specifically refer to the location of capture as the Russian River. The time of year that the commercial fishery operated was mentioned only once, when the fishery occurred between October and March. This time period overlaps the time of year when Chinook, coho, and steelhead are migrating in the river. Thus, all three of these species could have been captured in the fishery.

During the 1940's and 50's, CA Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) documents indicated that the general consensus among local biologists was that few Chinook inhabited the river, and those that did were the results of stocking activities. Chinook salmon were first stocked in the river in 1881, and stocking efforts continued sporadically until 1982, when CDFG began a serious, but largely unsuccessful effort to establish a run at the Warm Springs Fish Hatchery. Approximately 8 million fry and 5 million smolts were released from the hatchery between 1982 and 1996. Adult returns to the hatchery ranged between 0 and 304 fish during this time. CDFG ended its Chinook hatchery program in 1996.

Against the historical backdrop, in 1999 we began studying fish populations in the Russian River with the general mindset that Chinook salmon were present in the basin at very low numbers. Surprisingly, the most abundant fish captured in our downstream migrant traps that year (and every year since) were juvenile Chinook salmon. This discovery ran counter to the historical documents that we had reviewed.

Our monitoring program consists of five interrelated studies assessing adult and juvenile salmonid passage around the Agency's inflatable dam, spawning habitat distribution, seasonal water temperature conditions in the study area, and predator populations above the dam. Here we report on the results of the upstream adult monitoring program and spawner surveys.

Adult fish passage is provided at the inflatable dam in the form of two Denil style fish ladders. Although the ladders have been in place since the dam was installed, their effectiveness had not been assessed. We installed a video system consisting of ultra-high resolution monochrome video cameras with wide-angle lenses housed in waterproof cases at the upstream end of each fish ladder. Images are recorded on two time-lapse videocassette recorders. The Chinook salmon swimming through the Agency's fish laddercameras are operated continuously 24 hours a day from at least mid-August until the dam was deflated (mid-November through mid-January, depending on the water year). Videotapes are reviewed on high quality VCRs having a wide range of slow motion and freeze frame capabilities. Video cameras have been operated from 1999 until the present.

The video cameras provide fairly high quality images under most flow conditions (see image at right). The image quality is significantly degraded during periods of high turbidity associated with rain events. Another factor limiting counts is the cameras are only operational when the dam is in place. The dam is deflated during high flow periods which have ranged from mid November to mid January, depending on rainfall patterns in the basin. In addition, some Chinook salmon spawning has been reported in tributaries located downstream of the dam. Thus the results of our video counts reflect a minimum number of Chinook salmon in the Russian River.

An often-asked question is: why is it that when most salmon and steelhead populations are decreasing across their range that the Chinook salmon in the Russian River appear to be increased over historical populations? We truly have no satisfying explanation. One possibility is that the populations could have built up since the advent of the Potter Valley Project began discharging a stable flow into the river. The stable flow conditions during the fall months could have allowed the population to enter into the river each year and spawn. This sounds like a reasonable explanation except that these flows were present in the 1940's and 1950's when CDFG reports suggested that few Chinook inhabited the river. A second possibility is that access along the Russian is poor over a large section of the river, particularly during the 1940's and 1950's, and that the fish were just missed. It is true that there were no definitive studies conducted in the river to determine the presence or absence of Chinook salmon during this time period. While this is certainly plausible, the Russian River is (and was) a popular steelhead stream. Chinook are a large fish that would have been hard to miss by steelhead fisherman. A third possibility is that the current run of Chinook salmon are strays from other river systems or that they are remnants of the Warm Springs Fish Hatchery. However, genetics work conducted by the Bodega Bay Marine Lab reported that these fish are not related to populations in Central Valley rivers, the Eel River, or from the Warm Springs Hatchery.

So, while many aspects of Chinook in the Russian remain unresolved, what we currently know is positive: the river currently supports a fairly large population of Chinook; and that these fish appear to be native to the river. We are hopeful that continued research will help us better understand these fish, and help with the recovery of this fishery.

For the complete story with all the graphs and links - please go to the Sonoma County Water Agency web site: http://www.sonomacountywater.org/environment/natural_resources/chinook_salmon.php

Read article »

Sonoma County Water - Biological Opinion Meetings

The meetings for public input from our community on the Biological Opinion are about to end. The last meeting is at the mouth of the Russian River where it flows into the Pacific Ocean - Jenner. The meeting is on November 19th - please start assembling at 6:30 - the meeting is scheduled to begin at 7pm.


Wednesday, November 19
Jenner
Community Hall
10432 Highway 1
(Park across the street from gas station, walk behind gas station and across foot bridge)

Open House: 6:30 p.m.
Presentations, Q&A: 7-9 p.m.

Focus: Estuary adaptive management

For additional information and updates, go to www.sonomacountywater.org and
click the “Russian River Instream Flow and Restoration” button
or call Ann DuBay, public information officer, at 707.524-8378.

BACKGROUND:
On Wednesday, October 1, a public meeting wase held in Santa Rosa to discuss a 15-year plan, called a Biological Opinion, aimed at helping restore endangered coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Russian River and Dry Creek. The Biological Opinion, which was released by National Marine Fisheries Service on Friday, September 26, mandates sweeping changes to the way local and federal agencies operate Russian River water supply and flood control projects.

The Biological Opinion was issued by NMFS and received by the Sonoma County Water Agency, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the California Department of Fish and Game and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District. The process leading up to the Biological Opinion – known as a “Section 7 consultation” – began in 1998 after the three fish species were listed on state and federal endangered species lists.

“We began this long process to help save salmon and steelhead and to guarantee our current water supply,” said Water Agency Director Tim Smith, who also serves as chairman of the PPFC.

“While the Biological Opinion is ultimately a federal mandate on local operations, we believe it will help us meet both these goals.”

“We believe the measures will allow us to continue ensuring public safety while enhancing the environment,” said Lt. Col. Laurence Farrell, who is commander of the San Francisco district. “The Corps is committed to meeting the conditions spelled out in the Biological Opinion.”
In issuing the Biological Opinion, NMFS found that some water supply and flood control activities jeopardize threatened fish. The Biological Opinion calls on the Water Agency and the Corps to eliminate or reduce these impacts through a set of measures called “reasonable and prudent alternatives,” including:

• Extensive monitoring of both habitat and fish in Dry Creek, the estuary and the river;

• Eliminating impediments to fish migration and improving habitat on several streams;

• Enhancing the existing coho recovery hatchery program at Warm Springs Dam.

• Restoring up to six miles of habitat in Dry Creek;

• Requesting the States Water Resources Control Board to reduce summertime flows in the river, beginning in 2010;

• Creating a freshwater lagoon in the estuary at the mouth of the Russian River during the summer months.

In winter, the Corps manages releases of water from Warm Springs Dam (at Lake Sonoma) into Dry Creek to reduce risk of flooding in the lower river near Guerneville and Monte Rio. In summer, the Water Agency releases water into the creek to meet water supply needs of 600,000 people.

Although the water released from the dam is cold and clean, the Biological Opinion finds that summertime flows are too high for the juvenile steelhead and salmon that live in the creek. Juvenile salmon and steelhead spend one to two years in freshwater before heading downstream to the ocean. Slowing the speed of the water in the stream will improve their growth and survival. Habitat restoration projects in Dry Creek specified in the Biological Opinion would create slow-moving pools during summer and quiet water areas where fish can escape high winter flows.

The Biological Opinion requires the Water Agency to ask the State Water Resources Control Board to lower minimum summertime flows in Dry Creek and the Russian River, beginning with a request for temporary changes in flow requirements in 2010. The reduction in flows require extensive environmental documentation and public input – a process that could take several years.

“In many ways the Russian River defines the region,” Smith said. “In addition to being critical for the fishery, it’s critical for recreation, for agriculture and it’s an incredible natural resource.
All these things will be taken into account in the environmental documentation that the water Agency will provide to the state water board.”

The Biological Opinion acknowledges a need for balance and flexibility by noting that “SCWA may find alternative minimum flow requirements that meet the goals of restoring functional salmonid rearing habitat . . .while promoting water conservation and limiting adverse effects on other in-stream resources.”

NMFS biologists believe that lower flows create a better environment for juvenile salmon and steelhead. Current minimum summer flows are based on weather conditions, and range from 125 cubic feet per second (during a normal year, as measured at Hacienda Bridge in Guerneville) to 85 cfs (dry year). Under the terms of the Biological Opinion, minimum flows would be dropped to 70 cfs (with an additional 15 cfs to maintain system flexibility for a total flow of 85 cfs) in both normal and dry years. In the upper Russian River, current flow requirements range from 185 cfs (between June 1 and August 31) to 150 cfs between September 1 and October 31. Under the terms of the Biological Opinion, minimum flows would be dropped to 125 cfs from June 1 through October 31.

The complete text of the Biological Opinion can be downloaded form the Sonoma County Water Agency website. Please educate yourselves before attending these meetings.

http://www.sonomacountywater.org/projects/

Read article »

Sonoma County Water Meetings: Biological Opinion

We have a lot of meetings to attend to make sure our water issues are taken care of with our environmental and social priorities. Please read below and attend these very important meetings. Thanks for your involvement in the maintenance of our home.


Biological Opinion Community meetings:

November 5 – Dry Creek habitat restoration
Healdsburg, Villa Chanticleer, 1248 N. Fitch Mountain Road

November 6 – Flow Changes
Guerneville – Veteran’s Memorial Hall, 1st & Church Streets

November 13 – Flow changes
Ukiah, Board of Supervisors chambers, County Admin. Center, 501 Low Gap Road

November 19 – Estuary adaptive management
Jenner – Community hall, 10432 Highway 1, (park across the street from the gas station – walk behind the gas station over the foot bridge)

Information and updates: www.sonmacountywater.org - Russian River Instream Flow and Restoration – or call Ann DuBay at 707-524-8378


BPU Study Session re: Project Selection - November 6, 2008
BPU has a study session at their regular meeting. They will probably take public comments at this meeting as well, but no decision would be made at this meeting.
1:30 PM City Council Chambers 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa

SR Council Review Study Session Results - November 18, 2008 (about 5 PM) This discussion with probably have time for the public to speak. No decision would be made here. Study Session on project selection for river discharge; joint meeting with City Council to review study session results: Nov. 18, 2008 in City Council Chambers (not sure of time/call city to check) 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa

BPU Project Selection/Approval - December 4, 2008 This is the meeting where they will select a project. This is the last chance for comments and public testimony. 1:30 PM City Council Chambers, 100 SR Ave., Santa Rosa (This is VERY important meeting to decide river discharge option. We hope a lot of people will plan to be there.)

What Is the Biological Opinion?

The biological opinion is a 15-year recovery plan to implement the mandates of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as they relate to threatened and endangered fish in the Russian River and its tributaries.

The Problem The Russian River and its tributaries are home to three species of fish that are considered endangered or threatened under federal and state endangered species acts: steelhead, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon. The Russian River is also the source of drinking water for 600,000 people and is prone to severe flooding.

The biological opinion issued by the NMFS is the culmination of more than a decade of studies analyzing the impacts of Russian River water supply and flood control projects on these fish.

The studies found that high summer flows in the upper Russian River and Dry Creek are too high for optimal juvenile salmon habitat. Another potential impact is the breaching of the sandbar that builds up at the mouth of the river. Studies suggest that it might be better for young salmon to keep the sandbar closed to allow for the formation of a summertime lagoon in the estuary.

The Solution To help the fish, the biological opinion proposes that summertime flows in the Russian River be reduced. Lower flows could also eliminate the need to breach the sandbar at the river mouth and may improve freshwater habitat in the estuary.

Reducing summertime flows would mean less water is available to people, however. The biological opinion addresses this problem through “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that would allow the same amount of water to fl ow from Lake Sonoma via Dry Creek to the Russian River but would protect the fish by restoring habitat and naturalizing 6 miles of the creek channel.

Keeping the sandbar closed at the mouth of the river could potentially result in flooding in Jenner and adjacent lands, so the biological opinion proposes “adaptive management” of the estuary that will result in the formation of a summertime lagoon while managing water levels to minimize the risk of flooding. The biological opinion also allows the sandbar to be breached if flooding is imminent.

The Implementation The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) has created the Russian River
Instream Flow and Restoration (RRIFR) Project to implement the 15-year biological opinion. In the early years, it’s likely that SCWA and NMFS will ask the State Water Resources Control Board for interim changes in summertime flows. In the meantime, with help from state and federal partners, SCWA will work on an application to make long-term changes in summertime flows. This will require an environmental impact report, which will address the potential effects of the following activities:

◼ Changing flows in the Russian River
◼ Restoring habitat in Dry Creek
◼ Using a Dry Creek bypass pipeline as an alternative to habitat restoration
◼ Changing estuary management
◼ Developing a regional restoration hatchery at Warm Springs Dam

In addition, the RRIFR Project will include several smaller but significant changes, including improvements to fi sh screens and restoration work in key Dry Creek tributaries.
For more information visit www.sonomacountywater.org.

Read article »

Sonoma County Court Overturns Water Ruling

SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OVERTURNS SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Santa Rosa - Today a broad coalition of community organizations representing conservationists, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and recreationists announced that Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler has ruled in their favor and struck down the Sonoma County Water Agency's (SCWA's) recently-adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

Judge Nadler agreed with the Water Coalition that the Water Agency's UWMP was deficient in five fundamental respects. California's Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) requires major urban water purveyors such as SCWA to prepare a UWMP every five years to assess available ground and surface water supplies and determine whether they are sufficient to meet projected water demands. The Act declares that "[a] long term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect the productivity of California's business and economic climate" as well as its environmental quality. SCWA's most recent UWMP claims that Sonoma County has adequate ground and surface water supplies for substantial urban growth.

Judge Nadler rejected SCWA's claim, pointing out that SCWA's proposal to increase diversions from the Russian River potentially conflicts with protection of this river for fish and wildlife, recreation, and existing agricultural and domestic uses. The superior court therefore set aside SCWA's UWMP, and directed SCWA to acknowledge and address the potential water shortages facing Sonoma County before unsustainable urban growth deprives existing and future agricultural, urban, and recreational uses of essential water supplies.

Judge Nadler ruled that SCWA's UWMP ignores or understates many severe constraints on future water supply, and that SCWA violated the UWMPA in the following respects:

(1) The SCWA failed to coordinate with relevant agencies as required by the Act;
(2) The Plan fails to include the degree of specificity required by the Act;
(3) The Plan fails to adequately consider environmental factors, specifically, the effect of changed water flows during period of water shortfalls on the salmonids, and other potential implications of the Endangered Species Act;
(4) The Plan fails to adequately address the effect of recycled groundwater on the availability of water supply in the future; and
(5) The Plan fails to quantify with reasonable specificity the scope of water demand management measures which are relied upon to address the anticipated water shortfalls.

The lawsuit was brought by fourteen community organizations including the Sonoma County Water Coalition, the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Coast Action Group, the O.W.L. Foundation, the Sebastopol Water Information Group, and the North Coast Rivers Alliance, among others.

Stephan Volker, attorney for the plaintiffs, praised them for persevering, through two years of challenging litigation, and lauded Judge Nadler for his extraordinary effort in reviewing hundreds of pages of briefs and a 71,000-page court record, preparatory to issuing his detailed and scholarly 46-page ruling. "We are pleased that the Court has vindicated our concerns by ruling in our favor on virtually every issue," stated Mr. Volker. "We look forward to working with Sonoma County Water Agency to develop a sensible and lawful water management plan that assures that water supplies are adequate to protect not only our cities and farmers, but also our fish and wildlife, for now and for future generations," added Mr. Volker.

The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC), founded in 2004, is a forum for more than thirty local groups to share information and concerns about water, and to take action to improve management of this vital resource in Sonoma County. The combined membership of its member groups is more than 25,000 concerned citizens.

The Russian River Watershed Protection Committee (RRWPC), founded in 1980, has 1,400 supporters, and works to protect the health of the Russian River, representing mostly property owners along the lower Russian River and recreationists.

The Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) is a statewide organization of family farmers that works to develop local community food systems, to create environmentally sustainable farming methods, and to enact state and local policies to support these efforts.

The Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA) is an organization of farmers and residents that engages in public education and advocacy to promote the protection and restoration of agricultural lands and uses on the west side of the Middle Reach of the Russian River near Healdsburg.

The O.W.L. Foundation comprises concerned citizens dependent on groundwater resources from the Santa Rosa plain that is dedicated to educating the public and elected officials about the severity of the current water crisis in Sonoma County, and the technical methods available to resolve the crisis.

The Sebastopol Water Information Group (SWiG) is a community organization whose members include experts in the water sciences who monitor groundwater contamination and well water levels, and provide information to well owners.

The North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA) is an environmental organization that works to protect the Russian River and other rivers of California's north coast from the adverse effects of excessive water diversions, ill-planned urban development, and harmful resource extraction, pollution, and other forms of degradation.

Friends of the Eel River (FOER) is a regional organization of concerned citizens dedicated to the restoration of both the Eel and Russian Rivers, their watersheds and their fish and wildlife.

For more information:
Sonoma County Water Coalition: Jane Nielson (707) 829-9393, jenielson@comcast.net

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee: Brenda Adelman (707) 869-0410, rrwpc-1@comcast.net

O.W.L. Foundation: H.R. Downs (707) 769-2008, owl@owlfoundation.net

Friends of the Eel River: David Keller (707) 763-9336, dkeller@eelriver.org

Attorney: Stephan Volker (510) 496-0600, svolker@volkerlaw.com

Read article »

Voter Guide to Water Issues

Here's a look at the stands of presidential candidates on water issues.
- Jane Nielson, Water Coalition, Sebastopol

Obama vs. McCain: Progressive Voter Guide to Water Issues

See how Obama and McCain compare on eight water issues from privatization to pollution.

Download this Voter Guide as a .PDF, plus connecting links at:
http://www.alternet.org/water/102091?page=entire

Water is our most important resource and is necessary to sustain life on this planet. Currently we face a water crisis that encompasses water quantity, quality and infrastructure. More and more states are finding they are running short on drinking water, with an estimated 36 states facing scarcity in the next 10 years. This shortfall has been coupled by a 66 percent drop in federal funding in the last 15 years to help states protect their water. As a result, private companies are swooping in to buy public water systems, threatening the democratic control of water and causing rates to increase and services to diminish.

Despite these vast problems, water issues have largely been absent from the public debate and have barely been mentioned by either the Obama or the McCain campaigns. While their energy policies are hotly debated, little is known about where the candidates stand on protecting clean water and what they will do to face a water crisis in the United States and abroad.

We've checked their voting records, and the Obama campaign responded to our inquiries on his water policies. But there are still significant gaps in what the public needs to know about how these candidates are planning to help protect our most important resource. Below is a primer to get your feet wet, as we continue to press both the Obama and McCain camps for more answers.

1. SCARCITY

Thirty-six U.S. states are facing water stress and scarcity in the coming decade, with Western states such as California, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada already experiencing water stress. Last year, the southeast, including the Atlanta area, nearly ran out of drinking water completely.
* Solution: We need to cut down on our consumption of water and employ conservation practices in our homes as well as in industry and agriculture. We need public education about conservation practices, incentives for reducing consumption and increasing efficiency, and new regulations for agriculture and industry. We also need regulations to protect against the pollution and overpumping of groundwater.

* Obama's position: Obama says he believes we need to take preparatory measures to ensureour water supplies are used efficiently and equitably. He supports the development of a national water conservation strategy, in coordination with states and municipalities. He plans to create policies to encourage communities to develop voluntary water banks, wastewater treatment and other market-based measures. He will also work to improve technology for water conservation and efficiency, and remove institutional barriers to increase cooperation and collaboration among federal, state and private organizations. Obama wants to help farmers deploy water conservation measures, including irrigation techniques that save energy and water and small reservoirs that farmers can use to capture rainfall.

* McCain's position: While in Congress, McCain cast 10 votes against clean water, which also were against drinking water protection and enforcement, controlling microbes in water, and money for water pollution control.

* Learn more: OAEC's WATER Institute, Pacific Institute, Global Water Policy Project

2. POLLUTION

Our waterways are being polluted by industrial, agricultural and domestic runoff, as well as sewage overflows and untreated waste.
* Solution: Support community right-to-know legislation that warns people when sewage is dumped into waterways. Begin work with governments, developers and homeowners to implement new storm water management techniques, natural water treatment systems, and protection of wetlands to reduce pollutants and protect watersheds.

* Obama's position: Obama introduced legislation to provide $37.5 million over five years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts. He voted yes on an amendment that would include $900 million over six years to manage flooding and pollution caused by runoff from roads and highways.

* McCain's position: While in Congress, McCain supported delaying funds for leaking underground storage tanks and allowing municipalities to set their own standards for toxic waste.

* Learn more: American Rivers, OEAC'S WATER Institute, Riverkeeper


3. PRIVATIZATION

Municipal water supplies are being targeted by for-profit companies for privatization because federal funding to help support public water systems has fallen drastically in the last few decades. Unfortunately, privatization of public water has been disastrous: Studies show that under privatization, rates go up and services go down. Private companies that care only about their bottom line are also more interested in having people use more water, instead of conserving, which is clearly problematic as areas run short on water.
* Solution: We need a clean water trust fund that is a dedicated source of money from the federal government to protect safe drinking water.
* Obama's position: Obama's campaign says he will "work with Congress, governors and clean water experts across the nation to determine the best way to protect our water." But he has not taken a position on a federal trust for clean water.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Food and Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International, Polaris Institute


4. BOTTLED WATER

Growing bottled water consumption is causing environmental harm from the production and shipping of, as well as the waste from, plastic bottles. Two of the leading companies pushing their bottled water, which is really repackaged tap water, are Coke and Pepsi. Other companies, like Nestle, are mining groundwater and spring water from rural communities for bottled water, causing ecological damage.
* Solution: Stop drinking bottled water at home and on the go. Work to end bottled water contracts for cities, restaurants and businesses and at events. Support the rights of communities to prevent bottled water companies from mining rural groundwater and spring water sources.
* Obama's position: Many mayors have canceled their cities' bottled water contracts to promote public water systems and save taxpayer money. Obama "defers to municipalities' and states' authority to determine the best policy for local governments" but has not offered any endorsement of canceling bottled water contracts nor proposed any plan to do so at the federal level.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Food and Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International, Polaris Institute


5. RIGHT TO WATER

There is a growing global struggle between those who see water as a commodity and those who see water as a part of the public trust to be shared by everyone.
* Solution: Support a United Nations treaty that recognizes the right to water internationally and to have water declared a human right so that it cannot be bought and sold for profit.
* Obama's position: Obama believes access to clean, fresh water for all must be a critical priority for international development organizations and national governments, and for U.S. overseas assistance policy, but he has not stated whether he would support a UN treaty to ensure clean water for everyone.
* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Blue Planet Project, Right to Water, Food and Water Watch

6. CLEAN WATER

The Clean Water Act of 1977 was amended in 1992 to allow the "fills" from mountaintop removal (MTR) mining to be dumped onto waterways, burying them with debris and chemicals, contaminating drinking water and destroying watersheds.

* Solution: Support the passage of the Clean Water Protection Act, HR2169, to protect our waters and end MTR mining, which is devastating communities and watersheds in Appalachia.
* Obama's position: Obama says he will support and sign into law legislation that effectively restores the historical scope of the Clean Water Act and advances environmental protection, community values and public health objectives. But Obama is in favor of so-called "clean coal" and other clean technologies that would continue destructive coal mining practices like MTR.
* McCain's position: McCain has no known position on this legislation but supports furthering coal production, including "clean coal" and coal gasification, which would mean more MTR mining in Appalachia.

* Learn more: Appalachian Voices, Coal River Mountain Watch, ILoveMountains.org


7. CLIMATE CHANGE

Global warming is closely linked with the world's water crisis. Increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are melting glaciers, decreasing snowpack and resulting in less water in streams and rivers that feed drinking water sources and freshwater species.
* Solution: Support the passage of a comprehensive bill on climate change to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050, and push for the United States to actively engage with the international community on solutions.

* Obama's position: Obama supports an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama voted yes on an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill that would require the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the long- and short-term effects of global climate change and to use the best available modern climate science in planning water projects.
* McCain's position: McCain supports a 60 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain did not show up to vote for an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill that would require the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the long- and short-term effects of global climate change and to use the best available modern climate science in planning water projects.

* Learn more: 1Sky, 350.org, Rainforest Action Network


8. OCEANS

The health of our oceans is threatened by a number of factors. There is an increase in oxygen-free "dead zones," where runoff from fertilizers, industrial agriculture and fossil fuels is killing huge swaths of sea life. Poor fisheries management has resulted in one-quarter of fish stocks being overfished; another 50 percent are fished to full capacity. And our oceans have become a dumping ground: A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is twice the size of the continental United States and growing.

* Solution: We need to reduce and more efficiently use fertilizer, prevent human and animal waste from entering rivers, replant vegetation on riverbanks and restore wetlands. We also need to reduce nitrogen emissions from vehicles and factories, develop alternative energy sources not based on fossil fuels, and ensure that the National Marines Fisheries Service and other regional councils comply with federal laws protecting marine species.

* Obama's position: Obama voted for an amendment that would include $900 million for flood management and pollution caused by runoff from roads.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Pew Charitable Trusts, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana

Read article »

YOUR WATERSHED by Russian River Watershed Association

The Russian River Watershed Association writes a monthly column on what you can do to protect our home and water systems. This month's subject is how to safely dispose of unused and out-dated medications.

No Drugs Down the Drain!

Are unused and expired medications filling up your medicine cabinet? Don’t flush them down the drain or throw them in the trash. Help protect your family and the environment by taking your unwanted medication to a take-back location. This fall, in conjunction with the “No Drugs Down the Drain” statewide campaign, the Russian River Watershed Association and the Mendocino County Solid Waste Management Agency are adding additional take back locations where you can properly dispose of your unused medications.

Recent studies show that pharmaceuticals in rivers and streams, if present at high enough concentrations, can harm aquatic wildlife. When flushed down the drain, some medications are not completely removed by wastewater treatment plants and are discharged to surface waters. Proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals can help protect the environment.

To minimize the amount of pharmaceuticals in local rivers and streams, the Russian River Watershed Association and the Mendocino County Solid Waste Management Agency are partnering with local agencies, pharmacies and law enforcement offices to provide additional safe medicine disposal locations in Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, and Ukiah. This effort expands programs sponsored by the Sonoma County Water Agency & the City of Santa Rosa.

The Safe Medicine Disposal Program will provide a FREE and convenient option for correctly disposing of expired and unused medications. Proper disposal of expired and unused medications can help avoid dosing errors and self-medication; reduce the risk of accidental poisoning; reduce the potential of abuse of medicines; and reduce the amount of medicine incorrectly disposed of in household garbage and flushed down drains.

Locations:

Cloverdale:
Cloverdale Pharmacy, 117 Broad St.

Cotati:
Walgreens, 7800 Old Redwood Hwy.

Guerneville:
Safeway Pharmacy, 16405 River Rd.
Lark’s Drugs, 16251 Main St.
Sonoma County Sheriff, 1st & Church

Healdsburg:
Longs Drugs, 455 Center St.
Healdsburg Police, 438 Center St.

Santa Rosa:
Costco, 1900 Santa Rosa Ave.
Creekside Pharm., 95 Montgomery Dr.
Dollar Drug, 1055 W. College Ave.
Longs Drugs, 2771 4th St.
Longs Drugs, 2075 Mendocino Ave.
Longs Drugs, 463 Stony Point Rd.
Medicine Shoppe, 990 Sonoma Ave.
Tuttles Pharmacy, 4731 Hoen Ave.
Tuttles Doyle Park Pharmacy, 1220 Sonoma Ave.
Walgreens Drugs, 4610 Sonoma Hwy.

Sebastopol:
Longs, 788 Gravenstein Hwy North
Safeway, 406 N. Main St.

Rohnert Park:
Costco Pharmacy, 5901 Redwood Dr.
Longs Drugs, 6378 Commerce Blvd.

Windsor:
Health First Pharm., 9070 Windsor Rd.
Longs Drugs, 9030 Brooks Rd. South

Sonoma:
Rite Aid/ Maxwell Village Shopping Center, 19205 Sonoma Hwy.
Safeway Pharmacy, 477 West Napa St.
Longs Drugs, 201 West Napa St.
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department Valley Substation, 810 Grove St., El Verano
Sonoma Police Department, 175 1st St. West.

Ukiah:
Walgreens Pharmacy, 308 E Perkins St.


For more information on this program, please call the Russian River Watershed Association at 707-833-2553 or visit: www.rrwatershed.org/safemeds. For additional disposal sites in the Russian River Watershed please visit: www.scwasafemeds.org; www.srcity.org/safemed; for Mendocino County, please visit: www.mendorecycle.org; for Sonoma County, please visit: www.recyclenow.org; and for sites in the rest of the state visit: www.NoDrugsDownTheDrain.org.

Read article »

Great Sources for Environmental Info

In this monthly column, Patricia Dines compassionately answers readers' questions about how to live an environmentally-responsible life. Her goal is to inspire and empower the eco-hero in everyone! For archives of previous columns, click on the Ask EcoGirl category on the right and in Previous Editions found on the WCG Home Page. Feel free to e-mail EcoGirl with your questions to EcoGirl@AskEcoGirl.info



Ask EcoGirl
By Patricia Dines
EcoGirl@AskEcoGirl.info

Great Sources for Environmental Info

Dear EcoGirl: I want to learn more about environmental issues, so that I can take effective action for the earth. What information sources do you recommend? Signed, Caring in Cazadero

Dear Caring: Your question reminds me of a delightful little moment in the classic film Casablanca. As they sit at a café, Captain Renault asks Humphrey Bogart’s Rick how he came to this remote north African spot. Rick answers, “My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.” “The waters? What waters?” protests Renault. “We’re in the desert!” Rick shrugs, “I was misinformed.”

Beyond the smile that this scene brings, it’s also a reminder that information can either guide us wisely or lead us astray. Simple words become ideas then decisions and actions in the very real world.

Nowhere is quality information more vital than with environmental issues, where the fate of our world is literally at stake.

However, as the environmental topic has moved from our culture’s fringes onto the main stage, it has too often received the mainstream media treatment. This includes full-page celebrity photo spreads, dramatic stories that generate despair not informed action, inaccurate collapsing of complex issues into standard stereotypes, product pitches that continue promoting consumerism, and parroting of half-baked answers that ignore root causes.

This can leave us all feeling misinformed, and hungry for something better.

However, there is quality information available that can help us take wise actions for a better world.

How to Improve Your Eco-Info Stream
• Be intentional about your eco-info consumption. Passivity makes us vulnerable to manipulation by powerful interests.
• Determine what information you most want, then look for it. What topics or solutions especially resonate with you?
• Seek quality information, and support those creating it. This is vital for nurturing intelligent decision-making.
• Identify your approach to assessing information. Some things I look for: Does the author focus more on being dramatic and hip than on issues and solutions? Do they just repeat others’ ideas, or think independently? Are they willing to question mainstream notions, and do so responsibly, based on facts and logic?
• Read varied perspectives, including opposing ones, to gather key facts and sift out biases and blindspots.

Where to Find Wonderful Eco-Info
You can find eco-information in many convenient formats, including: magazines, books, books-on-tape, websites, newsletters, e-letters, action alerts, podcasts, documentaries, courses, conferences, and radio and TV shows.

• MAGAZINES. For keeping informed on a wide range of issues, I love E - The Environmental Magazine www.emagazine.com. Also, the quarterly Yes! magazine reports on solutions for a better world www.yesmagazine.org. Find other options at magazine stores; subscribe to your favorites.

• BOOKS. Discover wonderful green books at publisher Chelsea Green’s site www.chelseagreen.com. Peruse more choices online or at local bookstores.

• INFORMATION HUBS. A wide variety of eco-info is on EnviroLink, a nonprofit grassroots information clearinghouse www.envirolink.org. Many community actions and e-lists are gathered at Care2 www.care2.com. Rachel’s Health & Environmental News is a free e-newsletter with powerful information and perspectives www.rachel.org. For insightful analysis and remedies, explore the esteemed Lester Brown’s Earth Policy Institute www.earthpolicy.org and book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.

• COURSES & EVENTS. If you prefer in-person learning, check out the always-inspiring Bioneers Conference, which brings together leading eco-change agents, from scientists to activists to native elders. This October San Rafael event sells out early. They also offer information