Water and Wastewater Issues

By Tom "Manure Man" Lynch

Answers to Sonoma Count Water Coalition Water Questions for County Supervisor Candidates.

I don't think we can guarantee clean water for the future by building an 8' diameter pipe from Warm Springs Dam to the mouth of Dry Creek in the Russian River or beyond as proposed by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Of course we need to conserve but we also need to reuse; utilizing old and new technologies. I would like to see more recycling of household grey water for home irrigation and for flushing toilets. We also need to resolve concerns with trace pharmaceuticals with respect to large scale ag-irrigation. Providing wastewater for irrigation allows for less diversion of water from our streams and waterways helping our fisheries and helping re-establish riparian corridors along the banks. Wastewater for irrigation also reduces the use of potable water used for irrigation. Long-term sustainability of water resource will also entail "smart growth" , city centered with care we do not overdraft our ground water. Additional growth needs to substantiate that water is available in a sustainable way; contrary to what Rohnert Park and other communities are trying to do issuing a piece of paper and saying yes we have water doesn't cut it. If we cannot document that additional growth reduces our impact on the environment then we need to reign it in as in is not being done in a sustainable way; i.e. less water consumption, wastewater, carbon emissions, etc...

Q. If you support comprehensive water management planning in Sonoma County, how would you implement that policy as County Supervisor? Assuming you do support such a policy, how soon after election would you propose a groundwater ordinance, and what would such an ordinance look like?

I think support for comprehensive water management plan is a rhetorical question; everyone can support that one. The devil is in the details. How do we implement these policies is the question. As always there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions that we need to educate people on. A comprehensive management plan is not a bunch of government thugs wearing jackboots coming onto people's property at their leisure.

What we are trying to achieve is to determine to what extent our existing ground water supplies are and how much is being drawn by whom and is this overdrafting our ground water in an unsustainable manner. If so we need to remedy this situation and figure out the best way to do it. Of course agriculture and some of our cities are among the main sources of overdrafting and as stakeholders we need to get them to realize that a water management plan is ultimately in the long term interest of ALL. In addition to ground water we have serious issues with water use from the Russian River and how this resource is being managed by the Sonoma County Water Agency.

All of the above needs to be reviewed and managed in a better way. I am excited with the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan and look forward to seeing how this may work County wide. I think the Sonoma County Water Coalition deserves credit for pushing this forward.

I would begin work on a comprehensive water management plan upon being sworn in as fifth district supervisor. We need more meetings among the stakeholders and should contract with a firm to help us try to find "the third way" toward a consensus on sustainable water use. If "the third way" doesn't work I am not opposed to the old 2"x4" upside the head of the mule to get him to plow a straight furrow approach. I will not sit idly by and try to "educate" four other supervisors if they disagree with me on something that has a tremendous affect on the future of our lives and our environment. I am prepared to move the agenda with demonstrated leadership and bold initiatives. I am an activist and sometimes I become impatient with the powers that be...

3. In February 2005, the State Water Resources Control Board directed SCWA to provide "a detailed plan of water conservation efforts which will result in no increase in Russian River diversions." What methods would you support to ensure "no increase in Russian River diversions?"

As mentioned I am a bit old school with liking to see wastewater used for irrigation rather than potable water from the River or ground water. Again let's get to the bottom of concerns with the quality of the wastewater; but if we can agree...then let's irrigate. Night time irrigation; drip over spray irrigation; encourage xeroscaping...there are 100's of ways we can all reduce our water use but part of the incentive is for County and City governments to enforce rules and establish policies that provide people with incentives to conserve.

Q. What water-production and distribution policies should the County develop to both curb the growth of greenhouse emissions and eventually reduce them to levels that natural systems can handle?

Again and again we need to encourage and facilitate innovative and creative ways toward conservation, reuse and reclamation. With respect to greenhouse emissions we need to work toward strengthening local agriculture as a food source; most people don't realize that the food for the average meal came from over 1500 miles away. That's a lot of greenhouse gas emitted getting that food here. Our water-production and distribution to benefit local sustainable agriculture helps reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Less water use = less energy expended. Also irrigating forests (redwood, fir not oak ;0) and fields increases the amount of carbon absorbed by plants.

Q. SCWA staff and consultants have stated explicitly that water diverted from the Eel River through the Potter Valley Project to the Russian River is not needed to supply agency customers in the long term. What is your position on this diversion?

I agree but I don't trust the Water Agency; I think they would make a bargain with the devil if they could figure out a way to keep taking Eel River water and bringing it to the Russian River watershed. I am opposed to "out of watershed" import or export of water resources. We need to realize part of "sustainable development" entails living within our means within our watersheds. With water...we live with what we have in a sustainable manner; not by towing icebergs from the Arctic or diverting the Eel. Likewise for garbage ... we should be dealing with our problems locally.

Q. Will you support wastewater reuse for irrigation only if it does not result in incidental runoff? What methods would you support to prevent irrigation runoff?

Incidental run-off is part of the old saying, "...it's always the few who spoil it for the many." Our waterways and in particular the Laguna are seriously impaired from too many nutrients in the water; incidental run-off among them. If there is a need to irrigate to maintain a riparian buffer it should be done with potable water or wastewater treated with reverse osmosis (the technology is becoming more affordable with cheaper filters). We should be using wastewater irrigation as a carrot or incentive to get the cows out of the Laguna as well as encouraging wider riparian corridors. Of course there needs to be better oversight and monitoring; not only by the fox watching the chicken coop (i.e. Santa Rosa plant operators) but maybe provide money for Riverkeeper or Russian River Watershed Protection Committee to help monitor where wastewater is used for irrigation.

Q. Do you support the concept of building large regional wastewater treatment systems in environmentally-sensitive areas, such as those proposed to serve Camp Meeker, Occidental, and Guerneville, as opposed to more local solutions? What are your ideas for resolving the Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Laguna, and Russian River winter discharge and water quality problems?

I think much of the problems with the Regional Treatment Plant and the Laguna have been resolved with a combination of geysers and agriculture reuse of the wastewater. In 1985 90% of Santa Rosa's secondarily treated wastewater was being dumped into the River through the Laguna with 10% reused. Twenty-two years later after one of the longest and most difficult environmental battles in Sonoma County history we see 90% of the tertiary wastewater is reused and 10% is discharged during high wintertime flows. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer. Presently the Santa Rosa treatment system is one of the best for it's size in the world!! Many of us helped them achieve this milestone through a long struggle.

I am totally opposed to building pipelines to the moon...i.e. building a pipeline from Occidental and Camp Meeker to Guerneville treatment plant and then on to Forestville to irrigate grapes. To be fair the county was tasked by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to study ALL options to solve Occidental Camp Meeker and Guerneville's problems. One solution the Water Agency studied was the pipeline to the moon option that upset a lot of us out here.

I have toured the Occidental treatment plant with Water Agency staff and have met and discussed this issue with many friends in Camp Meeker and beyond. I think a local solution can be found for Occidental and Camp Meeker. Perhaps stepped systems where we have each home continue to be served with a septic tank that separates out most of the solids and oils. Then we have 10-15 homes wastewater go to small aerobic treatment plants (I have installed several of these systems...they are very effective if properly maintained). From there the water would be pumped to irrigate forests and fodder crops. This in concert with water conservation and re-use of grey water for home irrigation. There are examples of smaller community stepped systems at Oddfellows along the Russian River and in Weott in Humbolt county.

The days of large government subsidies to underwrite capital intensive sewer systems is over (Camp Meeker estimate $50,000/household). Our government is approaching bankruptcy with unfunded wars and promises. We're talking about household poop, not hospitals and industry mixed into the waste stream. For the Regional Water Quality Control Board to require a solution too expensive for a small community means we continue with the status quo; a "no project" alternative that puts people and the environment more at risk than if we pursue a more creative and innovative local solution.

With respect to Guerneville treatment plant...we need more land to irrigate. The Water Agency staff couldn't find willing takers in the Guerneville area but found farmers interested near Forestville. Let's design a $50 million dollar pipeline to Forestville. The Water Agency is not good at finding people willing to irrigate their land. They should probably hire someone that understands how to work with landowners better. In September I gave staff from the Water Agency a tour of 400 additional acres of land where the landowners were interested in wastewater irrigation. The land is on top of Pool Ridge near Guerneville...much closer that Forestville.

I think similar solutions can be found for Monte Rio as well should the Sheridan Ranch property fall through. The County should never have threatened condemnation to obtain this property from the Callahans. Their heavy handed approach in future may be seen as one of the main reasons that doomed a potentially good project for Monte Rio. If the Monte Rio sewer system fails to happen maybe we tie Monte Rio into an expanded Guerneville system or devise something similar to what may happen in Camp Meeker.

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

I think there should be no development in "floodway" i.e. where there is too swift a current. The county presently allows development in "floodplain" i.e. not subject to strong current during flooding. What people should understand is that if there were no development in the "floodplain" hundreds of homes and businesses along the Russian River would be gone. If homes are "raised" with their living area above the highest flood, or businesses are built to sustain flooding (like Country Tire in Guerneville); there is little damage caused by flooding.

Russian River Redevelopment recently loaned Burbank Housing $900,000 toward building low-cost housing near downtown Guerneville. The project will be in the "floodplain" with the living area of up to 50 apartments 15' feet above ground. The units will be built in such a way that after a flood all one needs to do is hose off the lower walls to clean off the flood mud. As a builder living in Guerneville for 27 years I am no stranger to the issue of building in the flood plain ;0).

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

I am opposed to the current gravel extraction along the Russian River. We need aggregate from hard rock sources and extraction that is done in a way that enhances the environment. What? That's right ... Homer and Tim Canellis, owners of Austin Creek Readi-Mix along Austin Creek win environmental awards and are lauded by the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) fisheries biologists for their work in helping restore the anadromous fish migrations in Austin Creek near Cazadero through their gravel extraction. There are ways to enhance our fisheries but it ain't being done anywhere along the Russian River to my knowledge so we need to shut'em down.

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

I think it is unbelievable the lack of oversight given the SCWA by the people of Sonoma County. The Board of Supervisors has too much on their plate to adequately supervise the Agency. An example is the Agency spent a million dollars on a cockamamey scheme to "reduce the flow" of the Russian River to help the fish. As chairman of the Russian River Redevelopment Committee we authorized $50,000 toward additional studies recommended by Riverkeeper Don McEnhil to refute the Water Agencies poor science. We need to have at the very least a 10-20 member board appointed by the Supervisors to oversee and advise; to observe and report on the Water Agency. We need more transparency and more open involvement.