2. What are your views on permanently changing Decision 1610 to lower minimum summer flows as measured at the Hacienda Bridge? (Please describe various current flows, when they are used, and how they are determined.) What actions would you take to protect current minimums or implement those you propose?

-I am totally opposed to codifying any sort of reduced summertime flows. Of course historically sometimes the River would run dry in the summertime but there were still holes that sustained the fish. With increased sedimentation I think it is important that “normal flows” are sustained unless dry years require a reduced flow for the fall fish run.

3. Do you believe that new development should be allowed as a result of water conservation savings? What could you do as Supervisor to assure that new development not only verifies that adequate water supplies are available, but also demonstrate how they might greatly minimize their demand?

I do not believe new development should be allowed because of water conservation savings…will it happen anyway? Probably… As Supervisor I would aspire to do exactly that as mentioned; any new development has to substantiate a reduced impact on the environment with not only water but energy use and helping fund transportation, parks, wastewater, etc…

I would require new development to meet stringent designs toward water conservation. I would also like to see a comprehensive water management plan for Sonoma County that assures any future development is not allowed without first documenting that we have the water resource available to serve their needs.

4. What are other means of conservation that could result in significant savings by current users of the surface water supply?

As mentioned above there are a number of methods that agriculture could utilize to reduce water use and also what individual households could do. I agree that with conservation there are great savings to be reaped. Also with reuse if done in a best practices type of method.


Santa Rosa’s Wastewater Discharges:

1. Santa Rosa wants a Basin Plan Amendment to allow “incidental” discharges of wastewater from summer irrigation. How do you feel about this if it results in the following:

• Cumulatively small, but significant sources of pollution (such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, and nutrients, etc.) running off into impaired streams such as the Laguna de Santa Rosa that are already in dire straits,

I do not want to see wastewater going into our waterways…there are too many nutrients. I would also like to work to weigh the issues of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. If need be the Geysers could take ALL the wastewater in Sonoma County but is this really for the best? Do we lose reclamation completely if it is shown that reverse osmosis is too expensive and it’s cheaper to just utilize all of our water resources to make “zero GHG energy with geothermal’?

• Changing from a “point” source to a “non-point” source discharge, effectively eliminating the right of citizens to sue if there is environmental harm. Would you oppose such an “incidental runoff” Basin Plan Amendment? Would you support continuation of the Summer Discharge Prohibition of wastewater discharges? What actions might you take as Supervisor to protect the water ways from “incidental” discharges?

I oppose “incidental runoff” Basin Plan Amendment. I support continuation of Summer discharge prohibition. I think we need a lot better monitoring of our waterways year-round. As Supervisor I would support more resource to private and volunteer groups to monitor “point” and “non-point” source pollution.

2. Do you oppose Santa Rosa’s placing a direct discharge at Forestville or Healdsburg in the Russian River? Do you think it is necessary? What might you do to oppose one or all discharge points? If you support one and not others, please elaborate your reasons.

I would sooner have a direct discharge above SCWA intake valves than I would have continuing discharge through the Laguna. The Laguna is more heavily impacted with the nutrients and higher discharge percentages than the River would be with “normal flows”…and it seems “below normal” flows would see increased water to the Geysers. I think discharge point above the SCWA intake valves would encourage more thoughtful treatment and monitoring. However ideally I would like to see 100% reuse with Geysers and reclamation.

1.There is a hazard where much of County water supply is piped through fine alluvial soils subject to liquefaction. A major quake may disrupt water supplies for an extended period. We need to encourage everyone to have at least a weeks supply of water (and food) and identify methods to provide water being tanked in from other areas.

2.There is a hazard with thousands of homes being damaged on the Santa Rosa plain…after all the SR plain is an old lake bed of fine alluvial soil that could make it so homes are like grains of sand on a drum. The County has plans in the event of a major quake but I think they need to be updated and residents need to understand they are going to be on there own for an extended period of time; we can no longer trust our Federal Gov’t in the event of a major disaster i.e. look at the Federal response with Katrina in New Orleans.

3.There is a hazard with wastewater and sewer lines throughout the watershed in particular the pipeline to the Geysers. Provisions need to be made with a plan to address massive disruption of our sewer systems and how to best reduce the risks to ourselves and the environment.

I think one of the failures of the Monte Rio system was not keeping the CAG Citizens Advisory Group intact to address community concerns. Also the County mishandled the whole project trying to “waterboard” it down everyone’s throat and condemn the Sheridan Meadow. The County refused to pay the Fitzgeralds the $1.4 million for the meadow and instead said they can’t give more than $910,000 or it would be a gift of public funds. So we lose $12 million dollars in grants over a $500K difference. Unfortunate; sadly perhaps the only solution is upgrades of existing systems with bottomless sand filter or aerobic systems at $25-35,000/unit with no prospect of revitalizing the downtown.

• What role would you have SCWA play in the process? What other governance might be possible for proposed solutions? Do you support local control? How might you help that happen?

I would support local control with Sweetwater Springs if this were agreeable to the directors and if the County would provide the umbrella liability coverage. The Water Agency should be the one that oversees this rather than PRMD (another failure) but they have to much sway with the Supervisors. Local control would certainly be cheaper…notice the SCWA doesn’t want to have anything to do with Monte Rio sewer but they love the Russian River plant because they make money there. Ask them if they would give us the Guerneville plant and they say no way. I think if we had a local control like Forestville and Graton we could do some really cool stuff.

Do you support regionalizing the Russian River County Sanitation District? Why or why not? How does being near the flood plain impact the system? What are the major issues with the system?

I do not support regionalizing…we can’t afford to build pipelines all over Forestville from Occidental via Guerneville…ridiculous. If in order to reduce the contaminants from failing septic systems we tie Occidental, Camp Meeker and Monte Rio into Guerneville I would support this but only with a broad community consensus achieved through numerous meetings with all the stakeholders. I would support using redevelopment funds toward this goal.

To what extent might new sewers fuel growth in West County? How do you feel about that? What measures might you take to expand and/or control it?

I think with Monte Rio 13 homes/year and a revitalized business community is ecological and serves the interest of the entire town. Many of our communities are dying due to a gentrification of real estate and an aging population. If one looks at the census data one can see that many of the West County villages are losing population. We have fewer registered voters than in 1996, schools are closing or at risk of closure because we’ve lost 25% of our young people since 1990 ( I can document this). I am not so much in favor of more mcmansions or housing for older wealthy people…I would like to see affordable housing for local people that would like to remain in our communities.

I am totally in favor of open, transparent, participatory solutions. As Supervisor I would love to have CAG Citizen Advisory Groups or Citizen Action Groups all over the place. I think we could also address some of our local problems with infrastructure with PBIG Public Business Improvement Districts. We could have local people oversee the bid and construction process. I will send you a couple attachements.

Questions developed by Brenda Adelman
RRWPC Email: rrwpc-1@comcast.net