 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Complaints and CommentsOn
this page: About Complaints CCWI can help you with your water quality problem by referring you to the appropriate regulatory agency or watershed group in your area, sending you factsheets and other information regarding water quality issues and water pollution, and, in certain cases, arranging for water testing and monitoring of representative polluted areas. Click
here to go to the CCWI Complaint Form
to submit a complaint CCWI also makes Public Comments to agencies or organizations which make decisions affecting water quality. Below are selected letters and comments submitted for the public record. For background information on the issues discussed, please contact the CCWI office. - - - - - - - Attn: Mr.
Ben Zabinsky SUBJECT: Regional Board and State Board Policy - Total Maximum Daily Loads - Water Pollution Cleanup Plans for the Klamath and its Tributaries - Scott, Shasta and Lost Rivers Dear Regional Water Quality Control Board: Please accept these comments regarding the TMDL program. In Region 5, Agricultural interests have appeared to be effective in disturbing the Waste Discharge Reporting program recently adopted and on the verge of implementation. In Region I, Agricultural and timber interests are working hard to gut pollution cleanup plans (TMDLs) in the Klamath River Basin. This includes inappropriate actions and misrepresentations of the TMDL process and actions taken by the Regional Board staff. These inappropriate actions/statements were passed on to your office. I would like to take opportunity do discuss these actions and their implications and the status of TMDLs in general and the currently in process Scott River TMDL and Action Plan. TMDLs and Action Plan - How They Work TMDLs are
assessments of the conditions related to the impaired status of a waterbody.
The waterbody is determined as impaired by pollutants and put on a list
for study and action - where the pollutants that are addressed in the
TMDL. A study is done to determine the sources of State water law says that an implementation plan must contain a description of the nature of specific actions that are needed to achieve the water quality objectives, a time schedule and a plan for monitoring compliance (State Water Code Section 13242). Thus the Action Plan must be adopted into the Basin Plan (Water Quality Control Plan for the Region). Currently the Scott River TMDL Action Plan is totally voluntary. As you can see by the above noted Water Code Section, this is both unreasonable and illegal - unless voluntary are found to be equal to or better than other enforceable criteria for meeting Water Quality Standards. Of course voluntary actions comp should (and are) held open as options for attaining targets and to meet Water Quality Standards. . This is the case with the Garcia TMDL Action Plan for sediment, where landowners have 3 years to assess their property for significant sediment sources, and where they have 30 to 40 years to comply with sediment source reduction by choosing Regional Board stated options or through voluntary ranch plans. Currently 60% of the land base of the Garcia River Watershed is undergoing evaluation and Implementation Planning. Most of these actions are on a voluntary basis (though enforceable guidelines exist). Through this process the Garcia Watershed is demonstrating significant progress towards recovery. Scott River TMDL For over 30 years water quality in the Scott, Shasta and Lost River have been degraded. This is mostly the result of non-point pollution The loss of beneficial uses - especially salmon and steelhead fisheries - translates into millions of dollars in lost fisheries and recreation as the water from the Scott flows down through Scott Canyon and then the Klamath River. Actions that have lead to the degradation of the Scott River are: illegal diversion water, lack of conservation planning for water use, elevated water temperatures due to diminished stream flows and lack of near stream shading, elevated nutrients leading to depleted oxygen, clearcutting over streams and on steep, unstable, slopes that accelerates erosion and inundates streams and rivers with sediment. Timber and agricultural interests are, in this case, responsible for degradation of the states waters and have taken the livelihoods of those who depend on salmon and steelhead - the downstream tribes, fishing-dependent river and coastal communities and those who make their living via river-based recreation. With the
Scott River TMDL, and as with the Garcia TMDL, Agricultural and Timber
interests worked hard against adoption and implementation of enforceable
standards that, even though flexible, push landowners in the direction
of taking action that would reduce pollutant inputs over It is time that agriculture and timber interests finally step up and do their part to restore water quality and the communities which depend on clean water and cold water fisheries. The TMDLs and their Implementation Plans are the means to do this. Please do not let this opportunity slip away. Support the staff of the NCRWQCB and resist lobbying by agriculture, timber interests and others who are working to gut the cleanup plans. Impaired Listings for California Salmon Streams The listing
of nearly all short run salmonid producing streams in California as impaired
by pollutants (sediment, temperature, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen
- EPA 305 (b) report, 303 (d) list) is testimony to the State's failure
in the control of waste discharge from timber harvesting, All of these streams will be subject to Total Maximum Daily Load non-point - pollution control programs to be administered by the Regional Board (North Coast) and the EPA. Clearly the State anti-degradation policy, and implementation of same, in Basin Plan(s), the Forest Practice Act (and Forest Practice Rules), and the State of California Fish and Game Code is not effective in protecting beneficial uses. Conclusion TMDLs and TMDL Action (Implementation) Plans have proven to be effective in addressing and finding reasonable solution to conditions existing in impaired water bodies.
Paul Dabbs
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD Dear Mr. Dabbs, On behalf of Community Clean Water Institute, a citizen action organization based in Sonoma County, California, I would like to provide comments on the California Water Plan Update 2005. I would like to commend the Plan for incorporating three foundational concepts into the plan: 1. Use water
efficiently These three concepts are excellent choices for a Plan that will allow for a state water policy based on sustainable development. Regarding
Water Privatization and the Public Trust Regarding
Climate Change I commend the Plan for taking a proactive approach to this issue, rather than a wait-and-see approach. It is of the utmost importance for the State of California to take action on this issue, and not to wait for others to act first. Global climate change is one of the greatest threats to water resources and ecosystems over the next century. Climate change is expected to impact U.S. water resources and water availability in the western United States, including the following: decreased snowfall and snowmelt, a major source of drinking water for much of California; rising sea levels threatening coastal aquifers and water supplies; increases in lake and stream temperatures threatening fish, water species, and critical habitats such as wetlands. Although the U.S. population represents approximately 5 percent of the world's total, it accounts for over 25 percent of the emissions that cause global climate change. Not only does it behoove DWR and other State agencies to look at climate change, consider its impacts, and research adaptation measures for the coming decades, but they should also look at active mitigation of the greenhouse gases created in moving water around the state, and provide incentives for local water agencies to reduce their greenhouse gases. Two examples of this are the Marin Municipal Water District passed a resolution to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (mainly through reduction of fossil fuel use in their fleets, pumps, buildings and operations and through water use reduction over time). The resolution is, based on a resolution for local governments proposed by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (www.iclei.org/us), based in Berkeley, CA, and which has been passed by hundreds of local governments including all 10 in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Water Agency will be passing a similar resolution in the next few months. These water agencies are looking at promoting energy efficiency on the supply and demand side. We have held workshops for their staff to look at "Watergy" a supply-demand integrated approach to water and energy efficiency from the Alliance to Save Energy (www.watergy.org). Please feel free to contact me for more information on this topic. Water Quality
Matching Citizen Monitoring Conclusion Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike Sandler Board of
Supervisors Re: Appeal of UPE 03-0092; June 7, 2005; Henry Cornell Winery Dear Supervisors: I am writing to ask you to reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and require that a legally adequate EIR be completed for a project proposed by Henry Cornell Winery in the upper Mark West Creek watershed. Community Clean Water Institute has been conducting water quality monitoring in Mark West Creek for the past 3 years. We are concerned about the decreasing quantity of water in the creek during the summer. We have received complaints from residents of the watershed who have monitored water levels in the creek for several decades. Water levels have been decreasing over the past 5 years to the point where the creek dries up at its headwaters. We feel this is due to groundwater pumping by the vineyards which were installed in the late 1990's. Also, the decreased water retention due to lack of forested land on the ridgetops of the watershed. Henry Cornell Winery's project will likely impact this situation, and therefore merits a full EIR. The proposed project is located where groundwater availability is, according to the County, marginal. Mark West Creek has experienced dramatic reductions in summertime flows over approximately the past five years. The watershed is arguably already significantly impacted by both sedimentation of the creek and its vital spawning and rearing habitat and by huge increases in summertime groundwater demands of late. We have been notified of grading violations associated with the Cornell Project, one of which occurred in the fall of 2000 on steep slopes above Mark West Creek. The property owner was cited for "bull dozing a road and major earth movement". These activities should raise concerns, and we advise County staff to give this project additional scrutiny. Breaking a larger project into smaller projects, which has the effect of minimizing the appearance of impacts, has been recognized by the Courts as antithetical to the intent of CEQA, and it is not permitted. The project should be reviewed by way on a legally adequate EIR. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inadequate. The author of the MND is not a geologist. At least four other landowners are currently clearing land or already have relatively new agricultural ventures in the immediate vicinity of the proposed winery in this marginal groundwater area. Mark West Creek is drying up, unable to maintain a base flow or critical summertime pools. On behalf of watershed members who have expressed concerns over the superficial environmental review to which this project has been subjected, I request that the Board reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and require that a legally adequate EIR be prepared on the winery, caves, library, and forest conversion. Sincerely,
For the Public Record Ms. Debbie
Irvin, Clerk to the Board Re: Petition submitted by Trout Unlimited and the Peregrine Chapter of the National Audubon Society concerning minimum streamflows To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of Community Clean Water Institute, I am writing in response to a petition submitted by Trout Unlimited and the Peregrine Chapter of the National Audubon Society encouraging the State Water Board's adoption of principles and guidelines for maintaining instream flows for North Coast rivers and streams. In 2002 and 2003, Community Clean Water Institute worked with numerous watershed groups to raise public awareness to prevent a proposed water diversion which would have infringed on the public trust and set a dangerous precedent whereby public resources are stolen (appropriated without public consent) for private profit. Due to public outcry, and the actions of several elected officials who recognized the threat posed, the applicant, Ric Davidge of Alaska, withdrew the applications. We considered this a victory for the commons. This was a rare example of a positive outcome for the public trust. However, are we any better off now than then? What if another application came forward, from the numerous aggressive corporations looking to privatize public assets? In the age of Enron and WorldCom, the threats to the public trust have never been greater. Protections must be enhanced, codified in law, and public processes must be used to ensure openness and enforcement. The public trust aspect of Water Law must be adhered to, and corporations should not be given extraordinary rights. We support the petitioners in encouraging the State Water Board to adopt principles and guidelines for maintaining instream flows in coastal streams and to protect the public trust, including the rights of endangered species such as salmon and steelhead. We agree with the petition in asserting that in order to protect steelhead and coho salmon fisheries and other public trust values, reform of the water rights system is necessary. We concur with the petition's assessment that the State Water Board and the other State agencies named in the petition have not adopted adequate procedures for coordinated environmental review of water right permit applications and related permit applications. The applications are processed by "rubber stamp." That is why when an outrageous application such as on the Gualala and Albion Rivers by Aqueous Corporation proposed a large scale water export, residents and others were terrified. A rubber stamp for water diversions may have worked in the past, but not in the 21st century. We concur with the petition's assessment that the State Water Board does not have an adequate procedure for consultation with responsible agencies in the preparation of environmental documents for its action on water right permit applications. Considering endangered steelhead and salmon's struggle with dewatered coastal streams, the Water Board should consult with agencies such as NOAA Fisheries and others. Considering the difficulty of knowing the specific watershed constraints, it is vital to include the County in such decisions. For example, the Sonoma County Permit and Resources Department is responsible for enforcing riparian setbacks in the County General Plan. Exemptions from environmental review of cumulative impacts for small domestic water uses and stockponds have a negative effect on watersheds. As large-scale industrial vineyards proliferate, dewatering creeks has become commonplace. We concur with the petition's assessment that the State Water Board does not have adequate guidelines to determine the existing diversions from coastal streams. Landowners have a disincentive to notify the Water Rights division when a creek is dewatered because they fear the creek would be named fully appropriated, and their property value would decline. Complaints are often made by neighbors who are exceptionally committed to the public trust. It is a case of the tragedy of the commons, but it can be mitigated by creating institutions which allow for shared ownership of the commons, and stakeholder communication. For more information on public trust ownership solutions, I recommend the book "Who Owns the Sky" by Peter Barnes. We concur with the petition's assessment that the State Water Board does not have adequate guidelines to establish water right permit conditions that protect and restore coho and steelhead fisheries in good condition. There should be caveats in water rights to preserve instream flows. Over time, if conditions change, then rights should be modified to preserve the overall ecological integrity of the stream and watershed. Everyone loses when situations of scarcity are brought on by actions taken for short term gain. There should be a hierarchy of actions taken, for example, landscape irrigation efficiency, followed by urban use efficiency (toilets and washing machines), followed by many of the efficiency measures described by the Pacific Institute (www.pacinst.org). We support
the petitioners in encouraging the State Water Board does not take adequate
enforcement actions to prevent or correct unauthorized diversions. Community
Clean Water Institute has notified the Water Rights division of potentially
unlawful water diversions along riparian corridors and creeks which are
routinely dewatered by agricultural and landscape irrigation practices
which are inappropriate to water scarce areas. We have notified Department
of Fish and Game staff who have supported citizens who have complained.
However, the Department of Water Rights usually responds by placing the
burden of proof on the complainant, and looks for any reason to close
investigations before they have begun. In short, there is very little
enforcement taken, and a seeming culture of doing the bare minimum to
wait out the complaints and hope they just go away, rather than taking
enforcement actions. As Senator Kuehl recommended, an open process to develop these procedures incorporating public and stakeholder comment will result in a positive outcome. Sincerely, Mike Sandler CC: Mr. Richard
Roos-Collins Mr. Charlton
H. Bonham Attn: Regional
Water Quality Control Board Re: Mixing Zones Policy I am writing to you on behalf of the Community Clean Water Institute, a citizen action group based in Sonoma County, which has citizen monitors collecting water quality data in rivers and streams throughout Region 1. We are concerned with the Mixing Zone policy, and believe that it would be detrimental to water quality. Mixing zones would negatively impact fisheries, drinking water sources (particularly in the Russian River), and constitute a loophole for dischargers who are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and California Toxics Rule. There is
an obvious reason for dischargers to lobby for a Mixing Zone policy, but
it is unclear how Mixing Zones benefit the public in any way whatsoever.
Since it is your duty, as representatives of the public, to protect water
quality, it seems clear that the Mixing Zone policy should be rejected,
and the CWA and CTR be implemented without loopholes. Thank you for your
consideration. Regarding the Russian River Low Flow proposals: Community Clean Water Institute urges the Sonoma County Water Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board to consider climate change as a factor in the recent petition to reclassify 2004 as a "dry" year, and to develop adaptation measures which take such changes into account. CCWI recommends that SCWA form a Climate Change Task Force which could review flow regimes and expected climate changes in the context of growing demand, and propose adaptation and mitigation measures, and changes to SCWA management procedures, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions which cause global climate change. If you support this idea, let the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors know. To: Santa Rosa City Council Re: Tiger Salamander comments: In most of my environmental work I tell people that the trade off between economics and the environment is a false choice. It doesn't have to be either/or. You can have both jobs and the environment. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other. I believe that if we use our noggins, we can find solutions where we don't need to ruin the environment to make a buck, and where nature and the species don't prevent us from having a strong growing economy which provides for us humans. CCWI opposes the proposed changes (to the City permit approval process in areas which are potential Tiger Salamander habitat) because they decrease protection for the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) by allowing local approvals to be issued before other federal environmental review processes have been completed. The people and resources of Santa Rosa, including, the CTS, benefit from the most thorough and complete environmental review possible. The regulated community that these changes are designed to benefit are a very small minority of the Santa Rosa constituency, and they should not be benefited at the public's expense. Also, if
the proposed changes do not in fact protect the CTS from take, the City
of Santa Rosa will be liable for civil and criminal penalties. The (City
staff report) implies that city should not be concerned with the enforcement
of state and federal laws. However, the City should respect those laws.
The City's support for the endangered species act is not inconsequential,
nor irrelevant. The city is part of the permitting process which affects
endangered species. The city should work with the permitting agencies,
not preemptively make approve projects which could later be reversed by
other agencies, which would have negative impacts on the permit applicants. The City should do more than the bare minimum. Why? Because the City supports the salamander. The council should not give the impression to staff that the city permit is just a rubber stamp, and that the city has no interest in what becomes of the tiger salamander. As forces in Washington try to undermine the federal agencies implementing the endangered species act, the city should rise to support endangered species. Finally,
I do not believe there are many salamanders living at the corner of 4th
and Mendocino. The City should start looking vertically for its growth
needs. And you will have a small, spotted, slimy constituency which supports
that move towards mixed use zoning, infill, and smart growth. They are
residents of Santa Rosa too. Sincerely, Michael Sandler January 7, 2004 Attn: Santa
Rosa City Council, BPU Re: Santa Rosa IRWP Master Plan Comments Dear Councilmembers and Members of the Board of the Public Utilities, On behalf
of Community Clean Water Institute, I would like to submit additional
comments regarding Santa Rosa's IRWP Master Plan. At the Board meeting
January 6, an employee of Merritt Smith Consulting stated to the Board
that with all conservation actions in the State's Best Practices, the
maximum offset would be 300 MG. Much more is possible through urban conservation.
With a combination of "Waste Not Want Not" and "Hold the
Flow" policies, it could be possible to offset all anticipated growth
through conservation and efficiency. This is worth further study. The
two main reports are: "Waste Not Want Not" by the Pacific Institute,
available at www.pacinst.org, and
"Hold the Flow" by Pacific Technology Associates (also doing
business as Resource Performance Partners) available by contacting www.resourceperform.com. Comments on Agricultural Reuse- Redwood Plantations East of Rohnert Park As you may know, several groups have spoken in support of an agricultural reuse component which includes subsurface irrigation of redwoods. In contrast to direct discharge, subsurface irrigation of redwoods makes use of soil microbes and has the potential to provide several economic and environmental benefits to the city. In addition to the areas adjacent to the Laguna Treatment Plant, East of Rohnert Park is perhaps the first place to consider subsurface redwood irrigation. It is also near Sonoma State University, which has passed a resolution to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. A joint venture with SSU to plant redwood trees irrigated with wastewater as a local solution to global climate change has benefits from all sides. We recommend
a set of criteria for agricultural reuse including low energy use (less
pumping, less capital expenditure on miles of pipes into the hills. This
would favor the area East of Rohnert Park), greater water retention per
acre (favoring redwood tree plantations), keeping rates low for already
strained low-income ratepayers, and other environmental and economic criteria. Background on Redwood Trees as Wastewater Treatment A study sponsored by the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma State University has found that a single mature redwood tree transpires 500 gal of water in a day, and as few as nine mature redwood trees can consume as much water as 1 acre of grassland. A plantation of redwoods with the easily supportable density of 200 trees/ac have the transpiration potential of 100 000 gal/ac/d, 2000% higher than the top rate achievable by pasture irrigation. Please note on page 9 of Memorandum 5 on Agricultural Reuse that the total range of annual irrigation volume for vineyards, assuming all reuse was for viticulture would be between 9.3 and 13.7 MG. The minimum value for redwood plantation would be 61 MG, with a maximum of 119 MG, a greater value, which will also carry aesthetic, economic, and environmental benefits. A side benefit of the subsurface irrigation of redwoods option is the possibility for a real revenue stream in the future for the city, or its subcontractor, via sustainably harvesting the redwood trees. A program which works cooperatively with landowners who are interested to assist them in planting redwoods in exchange for increased flows of recycled water to their property would both increase property values for those landowners, and assist the City in meeting its wastewater recycling needs. A project which collaborates with Sonoma State University which is located in the East Rohnert Park, one of the proposed ag reuse areas, makes perfect sense. Subsurface
irrigation of redwoods also benefits air quality and protects the climate.
CCWI has enthusiastically supported the City of Santa Rosa's endorsement
of the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. The City Council has shown
great leadership in pledging to reduce their greenhouse gas emission over
the next 10 to 20 years. CCWI would like to emphasize the importance of
considering the impacts to climate change of the alternatives proposed.
In many cases, the option with the fewest greenhouse gas emissions will
most likely be the most efficient from a cost perspective as well. Subsurface
irrigation of redwoods can result in "carbon sequestration,"
taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, resulting in carbon credits, and taking
Santa Rosa and the other cities which are also part of the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign closer to their stated goals of reducing their
impact on the climate. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael Sandler Mr. Michael
Contreras RE: 363:MC:262.0(49-14-07)
This is a
follow up with evidence to my letter faxed to your office on October 2,
2003. There are three points to my original complaint that have not been
adequately addressed by Mr. Miller's submittal of a Small Domestic Use
Registration. First, my complaint cannot be closed or fully addressed
until a legal right is granted to Mr. Miller for the non-riparian use
of water upon his Joy Road property. Second is the issue of interrupting
flow on the perennial headwater stream of Salmon Creek. The third regards
the appropriateness of a Small Domestic Use Registration in this case. I have included chronological photographs of Salmon Creek's flow fluctuating from September 21 through October 2 of this year. The photographs were taken on the downstream side of the Bittner Road Bridge, where Community Clean Water Institute has a water quality and flow monitoring site. The diversion is located on the other side of this bridge, with the natural flow traveling over the cement bottom of the bridge. The flow disruption and pool shrinkage documented corresponds with times of heavy pump use by Mr. Miller. If the evidence thus far presented is inadequate, please inform me as to what else is required. There is a neighbor and Riparian user willing to discuss further details and share more evidence with you on condition of anonymity. Please contact me with questions. Sincerely,
April 5, 2002 To: Janice
Hutton, Permitting Coordinator at Airfield Development Re: SFO expansion options Dear Ms. Hutton, As you are
aware, many environmental groups are concerned with the Filling the
Bay for an additional runway is akin to widening freeways. Here is an
alternative which would fit the category of "smart growth": Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael Sandler Cc: Steve
Moore, Chief of Planning, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Ida Clayton Road- Water Right Complaint The following letter was sent by CCWI to multiple permitting and regulatory agencies on April 10, 2002. CCWI also filed a formal complaint with the State Department of Water Rights. It has come to the attention Community Clean Water Institute that an 85 acre-foot pond had been installed at Peter Michael Winery/Sugar Loaf Farming on 12400 Ida Clayton Road Knight's Valley, CA 94515. The application for a permit to divert water from a local stream to fill of this pond has been challenged by Trout Unlimited, USFWS, NMFS, Beringer Winery Estate, and California Sports Protection Alliance. These groups, and local residents are concerned about impacts of water takes on fish and wildlife, including endangered salmon along Rattlesnake and Kellogg Creek which are tributaries to the Russian River. It is our understanding that a permit was applied for by Peter Michael Winery/Sugar Loaf Farming to the California Department of Water Resources' Water Rights Division to fill the 85 acre-foot pond (Application #030745 filed August 7th, 1998). As of today, the permit is still under review, and has not been approved. In the meantime, citizens neighboring the pond have reported that the pond is being filled at night, despite the lack of a permit to do so. The Winery's expectation of a rubberstamped permit has apparently led them to believe they may take water from this watershed in advance of the permitting agency's approval. This undermines the permitting process, and the authority of permitting agencies to review and make water allocation decisions on a case by case basis according to the public interest. When similar complaints have been filed in the past, the California Department of Fish & Game has responded to the effect that "this happens all the time," confirming that more investigations are needed, and that enforcement is required when violations are found. Community Clean Water Institute has filed a formal complaint on behalf of local citizens with the Cal. Department of Water Resources and urges all interested parties to undertake an investigation into this unpermitted taking of water by Peter Michael Winery/Sugar Loaf Farming. Permitting agencies are urged to inspect before approving permits for water takes, especially when endangered species such as salmon are involved. Regulatory agencies are urged to enforce laws requiring permits before taking water, which appears to be the case when a pond is filled while permits are still in process. Vine Hill School Road- Groundwater Testing CCWI was contacted in September, 2001, by a group of concerned homeowners in the Vine Hill School Road Area of Sonoma County. Homeowners were concerned about pesticide use from a nearby vineyard, and the impact on groundwater quality. CCWI collected sample data, a list of pesticides used in the area from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and consulted with CCWI technical advisors. Upon the advice from technical advisors, and upon the request of the homeowner's group, CCWI conducted groundwater testing at a homeowner's well in an area which was considered representative of the area. With the help of Analytical Sciences, based in Petaluma, CA, CCWI oversaw testing for Organochlorine, Organophosphorus, and Organonitrogen chemicals (EPA Method 8081, persistent organochlorine pesticides; EPA Method 8141, organonitrogen/organophosphorus herbicides and pesticides). Results came up negative for the pesticides tested for. Porter Creek: Gallo Incorportated- Erosion Complaint In December 2001, Community Clean Water Institute (CCWI), received water quality complaints of contamination and destruction of fish spawning grounds in Porter Creek, near Healdsburg, California, due to industrial vineyard development by Gallo Incorporated. Observers reported massive grading activity, forest conversions, faulty temporary stream crossings, and contouring of hills, which appeared to have caused severe erosion of hillsides, destruction of fish spawning grounds, siltation and sedimentation of the waters of the once pristine Porter Creek. According to recent studies, Porter Creek has been a spawning stream full of steelhead fish and clean pure water. According to County records, Gallo Incorporated recently converted redwood forest and grazing land to industrial vineyards at the old Fred McMurry Ranch on Westside Road in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California. CCWI conducted research into the area. The redwood forest region in Northern Sonoma County normally receives between 70-90 inches of annual rainfall. The autumn rains in October and November, 2001 arrived shortly after intensive grading, stream alterations and removal of forest and vegetation on hundreds of acres causing landslides, erosion and contamination of the water of Porter Creek. Downstream residents of the creek expressed concern about the potential long-term impacts to their land caused by clogged culverts, changes in watercourses and the availability of water next year. Upon consultation
with CCWI Board of Directors,
CCWI filed a complaint with National Marine Fisheries, California Department
of Fish and Game, California Water Quality Control Board, Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner and the
Sonoma County Planning Department regarding the contamination of Porter
Creek and possible violations of federal, state, and local regulations
which make it illegal to destroy water quality, fish spawning grounds
and habitat for endangered species. About Us | Resources | Programs | Events | Contact
|
|
 |
|