Supervisors recently conducted hearings on the Sonoma County General Plan, a critically important document that lays out goals and policies governing issues related to County growth until the year 2020. In essence, it predicts what our County will look like in 13 years and how we are going to accomplish such goals as protecting water resources for future generations.

This was originally intended to be a 20-year plan, but it's been in the making for over six years now. Initially, the representative Citizen's Advisory Committee reviewed early drafts with a great deal of input from the public. The Planning Commission then made recommendations after further public input, and now the Plan is in the hands of the Board of Supervisors for a final decision. Important public hearings by the Supervisors will be over by the time this article is published, and the Board of Supervisors will begin final deliberations late in September. However, written comments about the proposed General Plan can be submitted until September 28th at 5 pm.

The most controversial issue has been over riparian setbacks. The General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies to protect stream bank vegetation.

Riparian vegetation provides many necessary protections for water quality, water quantity, and other beneficial uses and includes:

• bank stabilization measures that protect against erosion, land loss, and structural damage during high velocity flows, including protection to downstream property owners;
• diminishing of flood damage by slowing water velocity and allowing it to soak in the ground, thereby also allowing greater aquifer recharge which is greatly needed for summer water supply;
• conservation of natural riparian areas which in turn diminishes the need for expensive storage reservoirs and levees;
• protection against heated water temperatures, which in turn protects threatened and endangered fish species and other aquatic life;
• protection from the proliferation of invasive plant species that cause health and safety concerns for both humans and wildlife;
• provision of habitat (clean water and food) for fish and wildlife;
• filtration of both sediments and toxic pollutants that harm humans, aquatic, and wildlife by polluting our streams and spoiling our limited water supply for future generations.

At least half of the public speakers, many of whom had been previously misinformed by property rights advocates about the meaning of the General Plan riparian protection language, spoke out against having any protections at all and voiced preference for keeping things as they were in the 1989 plan. It appeared as though many were citing views however, that would go against their own best interests, such as stream bank protection and water supply. Yet, it is easy to sympathize with many of the speakers, who simply did not understand how the new policies, which are not actual regulations, would affect the future interests of both themselves and their downstream neighbors.

Staff had provided some explanation of the new language in their issue summary, where they stated:

"The Commission also recommended protection for all USGS (United States Geological Survey) streams in the unincorporated area with streamside conservation areas extending from top of bank along both sides of these streams. However, these areas would vary from 50 feet to 200 feet. Uses in these areas would also be subject to standards that protect the riparian functions, but they are less detailed and more flexible than the CAC (Citizen's Advisory Committee) model. Agricultural cultivation would be allowed a 50% setback reduction along the Russian River and along streams in flat terrain."

The purpose of the protection policies was to avoid uses that negatively affect the above-mentioned functions. Actual development standards, to be established at a later time, would allow agricultural cultivation in the outer half of the conservation area, except in upland terrain. Streamside maintenance, fire fuel management, stream restoration and pest management would be allowed as would road, street, and utility line crossings. Grading, vegetation removal, new structures, etc., would be prohibited, unless necessary for an allowed use. However, exceptions to the prohibition could be approved under certain circumstances.

The Planning Commission had been reluctant to impose truly protective measures in light of the huge public outcry against Citizen Advisory Committee proposals, which many environmentalists declared were not protective enough to assure future clean water supplies. For the most part, they stayed with the 1989 policies. We recommend that people write and request Supervisors to support Citizen Advisory Committee language on riparian protection.

If you are deeply concerned about this issue, please write the Supervisors to also ask for 100 and 200 foot setbacks on all 3000+ USGS streams in Sonoma County. This would apply only to NEW development and new agricultural plantings. You can send comments to Board of Supervisors Chair, Valerie Brown, 575 Administration Dr., Santa Rosa, CA 95403.