Google, unaccountable

I recently made a fun Google map but discovered I cannot share this map with anyone who does not have a Google account. Upon trying to contact Google to ask why I found that Google is impossible to contact, in spite of having a webpage that says “contact us”.  There is no way to get through, no link, nothing, unless you are willing to be put on hold for 9 years on the phone and then be put off some other way.

My impressions from this and other similar incidents leads me to believe that Google is above accountability. With these modern tech behemoths, privacy and accountability are gone and there is no avenue of recourse. Your only choice is at the point of entry, to join or not.

Google talks about Google “culture”, Google “values” but these terms are used in ways unintelligible to the English language. The basic culture and values is giving a free carrot and then harvesting all personal info for profit. A bottomless pit of FAQ links and chat pages masquerades as ‘customer service’. Who is serving who?

As the human touch inexorably disappears behind slavish digital obsessions and tech inertia, we find ourselves shoe-horned into situations where we cannot share our online world if we do not join the same digital tribe. So much for the information superhighway; it has devolved into tribal parochialism. Human nature wins out, the medium is not the message; the message is we are the same exploitive species we were beforehand.

Sonoma Valley-wide water district

Suggestion for Sonoma Valley-wide Water District

Groundwater depletion is the core problem for Sonoma Valley water management. Sonoma Valley is a geographic unit: groundwater, surface water, flood hazard, recharge, supply infrastructure, wells, riparian ecosystems, open space, agriculture, housing, are all integrated valley-level factors relevant not only to 10,000 people in the city or to ratepayers in the VOM water district.

Pubic water issues should be addressed to the entire population, not only SCWA contractors. In reality everyone is a stakeholder; make all stakeholders pay their fair share by creating one valley wide water district.

Governmental fragmentation of services inhibits valley-wide solutions. The city and county work many times at cross-purposes. I suggest a joint powers agreement to create a valley-wide water district. This will provide regional continuity and make actual stakeholders pay and be accountable for their use. Groundwater use accountability is exactly what is needed.  Voluntary efforts are not working. Groundwater depletion is increasing.

Recharge is great but with a valley-wide water district, greater conservation gains can be made up front through same-team efforts gained by wide-net management of the watershed. In exchange for the security of coming under the umbrella of the SCWA and one water district, valley well owners will have to agree to well monitoring terms, in service of the greater good of the watershed.

Adoption of a full cost accounting method will insure that the interests of all stakeholders are equally represented.

The SCWA, Basin Advisory Panel, SVGWMP, the city of Sonoma, the VOM Water District and Sonoma County are the entities with the resources and expertise to get behind regional solutions. It only makes sense to get the ball rolling this way by adopting a goal of the creation of a joint powers valley wide water district.

The county wine industry has recently announced a plan to become certifiably sustainable in 5 years time. If this is to be more than ‘greenwashing’, a unified water district aimed precisely at sustainable groundwater management is just the ticket. Residents want in, now vineyards have no plausible excuse to opt out.

What is s True Cedar?

What is a true cedar?

Trees commonly called cedars are members of the cypress family, including among others redwood, sequoia, incense cedar, cypress, juniper, arborvitae and cryptomeria.

‘True cedars’, Cedrus, are in the pine family. Local examples of true cedars include the Atlas cedar (far east side of Plaza just north of tourist bureau sidewalk) and deodar cedar (just north of the Atlas cedar). True cedars::pine family; false cedars:: cypress family. 

To further muddy the cedar water, a mahogany, Cedrela odorata is called cigar box cedar; the tamarisk is called saltcedar and Torreya taxifolia, in the yew family is called ‘stinking cedar’. Areas of cypress and juniper badlands are called cedar breaks or cedar roughs. There’s plenty of room for confusion.

Cypress family trees commonly referred to as ‘cedar’, the false cedars, include: Western redcedar, Eastern white-cedar, Port Orford cedar, Atlantic white-cedar, Alaska cedar, Incense cedar, Japanese cedar and Eastern redcedar. In order to tell these and other ‘cedars’ apart you have to know the characteristics of the following cypress family genera: Thuja, Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, Calocedrus, Cryptomeria and Juniperus. It takes time and effort to learn these differences and since these trees have many similarities it’s easy to just call them cedars. Keep in mind there is no formal classification of simply ‘cedars’ in the cypress family.

Thuja or Northern white-cedar has over 300 cultivars and is planted locally, mostly as a yard hedge or street tree. These small trees have a yellow tinge to the foliage. Calocedrus or Incense cedar appears similar to sequoia but with flat, broad needle sprays. Just west of Newcomb on the Fryer Creek trail there’s a nice big Incense cedar. There are many local Cupressus, particularly Italian and Monterey cypress. See Watmaugh Road west of Broadway for a nice row of Monterey cypress. The tall, skinny ones are the Italian cypress ‘stricta’ variety. Italian cypress is also known as ‘graveyard cypress’, see the myth of Cyparissus. Hollywood juniper, a Chinese juniper cultivar, is fairly common in town, see a nice planting in front of the development on Blue Wing Drive, north side. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana or Port Orford cedar has many cultivars and is sold as a live Christmas tree at Sonoma Market. Cryptomeria or Japanese cedar is rare in Sonoma. None of the above are native to the North Bay. The urban landscape has many introduced trees.

‘Cedar’ has become a catch-all term for many different cypress family trees because there really is a fundamental similarity. This similarity is: general tree shape and branching pattern, vertical stringy bark texture, wood with a pleasant odor and many times, a flattened, segmented needle profile. When you hear people say ‘cedar’ you are in all likelihood dealing with certain cypress family trees called false cedars. Furthermore, within this false cedar category, cedar could refer to any number of typical Cupressacae or cypress family genera: juniper, cypress, arborvitae (Thuja), Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis) or Incense cedar (Calocedrus).

Wine tasting in Sonoma

It feels good to have a certain clarity about who you are. Sonoma is in a Mediterranean climate of which there are only a handful in the world. These places are good for growing grapes. Any crop is grown where the climate is best. This is true for corn, wheat, coffee, bananas etc. It makes sense then that wine is big here, as the climate is perfect. You would expect this here.

Wine is a luxury agricultural product, not necessary for anything but highly traditional in that the human race demands the ability to get intoxicated. People won't be blue-lawed out of drugs and alcohol; they have to have to have it. Intoxicants are represented also on a class basis. You have Budweiser and Milwaukee's Best for the working class and wine for yuppies on up.

HIgh-end wine therefore comes along with a lot of pretension; it gussies up getting intoxicated and makes it appear respectable, put some expensive cheese around it, a leg of lamb, some nice glasses and a tablecloth and voila, you are not a drunk but a wine taster!  All the boutique corollary agricultural producers depend on this latter equation. The whole tourist scene in wine country here in CA is about getting juiced. It feels good. Getting intoxicated is fun! The Plaza makes the whole scene a gas! Right? Hopefully pot will be next, just think of the dining on the Plaza when everyone has the bad ass munchies! Imagine Uncle Bob getting a ‘shotgun’ on the Plaza, taking a sip of wine and then getting some wicked good dinner! But I digress...

I agree with Danny Fay, a certain embrace of the wine scene is only realistic. It would be stupid to plant all figs and apples now when so many more millions are there for grapes. Wine is here to stay until the bubble pops for one reason or another, drought, disease, recession, depression.  There’s too much money there to stop it. The economy of Sonoma County is like an aircraft carrier, can’t stop it, can’t turn it, just have to wait until it runs aground.

There was New Yorker cover during the 2008 real estate bubble crisis showing the little guys cutting off the end of the boat where the fat cat banker was, the irony: you get rid of the fat guy, you sink too. Sometimes Fate sticks you in a boat with somebody you don't like, just like the Plaza, it's not for locals, but locals have to suck it up on a daily basis, yet the Plaza pays for city services etc; the wine is like an addiction for running the city, you need it but don't really want it. Some kind of peace has to be made with the fat cat in the other end of the boat.

Why can’t we all just get along? Well, the fat cat took all the marbles. Those who drink the wine Kool Aid hook line and sinker should realize there is a legitimate tension with folks who do not like such a one-sided monoculture tourist facade as being their town. The whole thing is associated with greed just like any other run for the money. Who is a town for? Well, there are legitimate opinions and points to be made all around. We’re all in this same boat and like it or not, have to deal with each other.

Yes, Plaza rents are ridiculously high and owners jack rents as high as possible. The whole wine and consumer scene on the Plaza is basically out of reach for any working class locals (if there are any left), or working class tourists. It is the BMW driving tourists who come in and can pay for the $100 dinner and buy all the lujo knick knacks, and so in the end I think it boils down to a class issue, and the Plaza is just so in your face expensive it is basically like giving the finger to anyone who can't go in and just start spending.

Montini Higher Use rationale

Higher Use Rationale to Keep the Montini Trail Free of Dogs

Hikers feel like they are the highest use and to back up this claim there is the US Park Service, wilderness areas and CA State Parks among others where the management philosophy is to provide quality space for people to enjoy and be inspired by nature. Dogs and other multiple uses are not permitted. John Muir, H. D. Thoreau, Aldo Leopold and Edward Abbey, Edward O. Wilson are among people providing high-level philosophical justification to appreciate land and nature for its own sake. The land is set aside to let nature be what it is, for people to enjoy and appreciate. What people bring to these landscapes is minimal. People don’t bring town and all their domesticity to nature and then expect to find anything special.

In contrast there is Gifford Pinchot and the multiple use philosophy of the Forest Service and the BLM. On these lands you are likely to find logging, livestock grazing, mining, commercial use, many motorized uses, hunting and dogs. Hikers (people) notice immediately these differences when entering multiple use land; it is not as pristine; the common denominator is lower. Hikers see these uses as degrading the potential of the natural land to inspire, provide solitude, peace and quiet. Hikers see dogs on trails as lowering the quality of the hiking experience.

This is how hikers see dogs on Montini. Dogs dilute the experience by disturbing wildlife in multiple ways, by threatening people, crowding hikers off the trail, threatening other dogs, jumping up, leaving waste, running off leash, and being generally antithetical to the conservation values described in the first paragraph. Dog use on the Montini Preserve stands in contradiction to the explicit Conservation Values explicitly stated in the primary controlling document of Montini Preserve land use, the Conservation Easement, where the same motto used by the Park Service is invoked, “preserve and protect”.

That dogs are nice, fun animals that people love is a separate issue. Dogs are just not appropriate in many contexts. In fact, almost all public contexts prohibit dogs: stores, theaters, concerts, work, meeting halls, village greens and on and on. Why? Because enough people fail to control their animals that dogs in public contexts are a known problem. These same problems extend to trail use as well.

All public land users feel they have a right. Because mountain bikes and motorcycles exist people want to use them and demand lands for such use. Because people have dogs they feel these animals have land use rights. Battle after battle gets fought between hierarchies of user groups who feel they have superior, intrinsic, higher rights than others.

Yet there are “higher” uses and purposes and these are justified by the existence of such agencies as the Park Service and California State Parks where these higher uses are specifically set aside. Dog free public lands are an existing precedent with a wide body of supporting evidence. Other uses are limited on these public lands so that people can maximize the salubrious effects of unspoiled nature. This higher quality feeling is noticeable immediately on entering protected lands.

Is it even possible to argue that dogs are congruent with low impact use? No. The best dog users can do is to postulate there is no problem. If this same argument doesn’t hold water in other cases, why would it now? This is not to say that dog owners and dogs don’t deserve a dog park. In Sonoma they already have nature trails and hills to go to with Bartholomew and Maxwell Parks.

.

The Montini-Overlook trail system has a chance to reflect a mini-version of Park Service type land use values and attributes. Yes there are cattle, as a sign of Sonoma’s agricultural roots, but they will only be there 3 weeks a year when the trail is closed to people. And since there are cattle for 3 weeks is that then justification to allow all other uses as well? If the common denominator is lowered does that then justify a race to the bottom? If dogs why not bicycles and horses?

I hope the powers that be who will decide this issue, will focus on what the primary users, people, hikers on foot, can gain from limited use land and that this is a separate issue from any fairness or justice for dog lovers who are lacking a nice dog park in Sonoma. The highest and best use for public land as a nature, open space preserve, is to reserve use for people on foot only. To have land of this quality, and the Montini preserve is very nice land, immediately adjacent to the center of Sonoma will be a special and great benefit to many generations.

Dog Free Montini points

Points for a Dog Free Montini Preserve

Off-leash troubles

-0ne, 50% leash non-compliance is normal in Marin County parks, Rich Gibson, recently retired ranger

-Two, “The main problems have been with people allowing their dogs to run off-leash at the parks.” From the 4/10/13 Press Democrat, Derek Moore article about volunteer groups managing Jack London and Sugar Loaf State Parks:

-Three, these above points are constantly proven by dogs off leash in Bartholomew Park

-Four, off-leash dogs in the Mountain Cemetery are common, the signs have no effect

-Five, police have leash violation calls at lowest priority,

- Management Plan and Initial Study 11/2008

p.29 “The wildlife value of the Preserve is bolstered by its adjacency to the undeveloped Mountain Cemetery.”

-SOT to east, Mountain Cemetery to east, State Park to south, all prohibit dogs, allowing dogs is just asking for trouble

-Why introduce a situation known to cause a high percentage of problems? Why have laws that will have trouble being enforced, for situations already known to be problematic? The above cluster of points I’ve made seems to de facto relegate leash restriction rules as meaningless. The meaninglessness is supported by the dog guardians website as much saying that rules won’t be enforced so go ahead and walk them wherever anyway. I submit that if off leash violations cannot be managed properly, the allowing of dogs on Montini should not be allowed until these issues are effectively addressed.

Conservation Values

-the Conservaton Easement emphasizes preserving the natural environment over and over again; in the Easement, preserving natural resources takes priority over scenic values and recreation, recreation specifically comes in as the third priority

- the point of the Preserve is to emphasize natural values, not bring domestic values from home, the trail is not supposed to be an extension of town

- Issue of purpose of a nature preserve is not so that any coyotes won’t be disturbed, this is willful misreading of the point; the whole point of the preserve is for people to experience natural values; not allowing dogs is managing for qualities of solitude, quiet, chance to observe nature, which could just as well be wind, clouds, rustling grass.  

Environmental review by city

-since the Management Plan has to be consistent with the Conservation Easement, and it is the Management Plan that is being amended, too much contradiction with  Conservation Values stated in the Easement means logically that the Easement itself would have to be changed as well

-the Montini Vision Statement, Management Plan and Conservation Easement all assert Conservation Values clearly antithetical to allowing dogs

 -dog use does not reconcile with the language in the Conservation Easement

-dogs are a inappropriate land use not in line with Conservation Values principles laid out in above documents,

-all those Conservation Values cannot be defined and espoused and then mitigated, that would be blatant hypocrisy

Dogs disturb wildlife

-prey species are disturbed in particular, literature supports this

-fawning beds are noted as a special habitat on the Preserve

-ground nesting bird sites are also noted as special habitat on the Preserve

Dog waste

-no one wants it

-easier for people to leave it if it is hidden in high grass

-odor of dog waste disturbs prey animals

Low enforcement priority for police

-since off-leash issues are so prevalent and at the same time a low enforcement priority, it does not seem a wise planning choice to allow such a problematic situation to exist

-Tolay Lake, one strike and you are out, for off-leash violations

The Preserve is not a park

-the #1 priority in the Easement is protection of natural resources

-Dogs themselves are not users in the sense of land management, dogs don’t have rights to use like people do

-a preserve is a higher type of land use than a park

Montini Adjoins SOT, Mountain Cemetery and Vallejo Home State Park where dogs are already prohibited

-SOT was privately funded, to change conditions would be breach of trust with the founders, donors and stewards

-dogs are not allowed in any cemetery, see ‘dog waste’

-it makes sense to keep the whole Montini/ SOT trail system dog free, it is an easier management solution than trying to go half and half and then get into enforcement issues

-need for new signage; excess signage would detract from natural values of trails

Safe passage

-Montini trail not constructed for multiple use capacity, too narrow to permit safe passage of dogs and people without dogs

Risks and liabilities to hikers and joggers

- the city will  have increased risk by allowing dogs

Multiple use vs. Park Service level use

-dogs not allowed in national and state parks, dogs are allowed on multiple sue land; to what standard will OSD adhere? Highest or lowest?

-Conservation Easement Values seem to weight in on the high side

-If dogs allowed on trail, multiple use fudging and mitigating can give local dog owners their dog park as well

-see accompanying Multiple Use position paper

Compatibility Determination from Montini Management Plan Appendix D

-p. 40 “Hiking, nature observation and photography, interpretation, stewardship and environmental education are the only allowable public uses of the Preserve. Other public uses could be considered using a compatibility determination. (Appendix D)

-in Appendix D there nothing about dogs being a possible compatible use

- if dog use is inherently low impact, as dog users assert, why was it not considered as a possible compatible use in the first place?

Montini Preserve Conservation Easement

Why Allowing Dogs Does Not Fit With the Conservation Easement

Below is a verbatim copy of selected items from the Montini Preserve Conservation Easement. The Conservation Easement is the primary document setting forth the basic rules governing the use of the property. Underlined and bold emphasis are for the purpose of noting how the primary Conservation Values are in fundamental conflict with amending the agreement to allow dogs on the trail. It would be a major stretch of interpretation to conclude that allowing dogs on the trail would be consistent with the stated Conservation Values. The environmental review proposed by the city would have to somehow redefine Conservation Values to include the presence of domestic animals, which are plainly antithetical to the Conservation Values in the first place.

Conservation Easement for the Montini Preserve

EASEMENT PART ONE: GRANT OF EASEMENT

1.      Grant and Acceptance of Conservation Easement and Assignment of Development Rights. Pursuant to the common and statutory law of the State of California including the provisions of Civil Code sections 815 to 816, inclusive, GRANTOR hereby grants to DISTRICT and DISTRICT accepts a conservation easement in the Property in perpetuity under the terms and conditions set forth herein (“the Easement”). GRANTOR hereby irrevocably assigns to DISTRICT all development rights associated with the Property, except those rights which are specifically reserved by GRANTOR through this Easement.

2.    Conservation Values. The Property, approximately 98 acres in size, is located in and adjacent to the City of Sonoma. The Property consists of a diversity of vegetation communities including oak woodland, Montane hardwood and grassland. Critical resources on the Property (collectively, “the Conservation Values”), include the following:

2.1    Natural Resources.    The Property provides habitat for important plant and animal species integral to preserving the natural character of Sonoma County. Native plant communities include blue oak foothill pine, blue oak woodland, montane hardwood, and wet meadow. Native plant species on the Property currently include coast live oak, black oak, blue oak, California bay, California buckeye, manzanita, and other woodland and grassland plant species. This Conservation Easement intends to protect special-status species on the Property, and at the time this Easement is executed, three special-status plant species (Franciscan onion, narrow-anthered brodeia, and bristly leptosiphon) are known to exist on the Property. The Property’s plant communities provide largely undisturbed habitat for a number of native birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and mammal species. In addition, the Property provides notable fawning habitat for deer and provides important nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds. The Property is located within a major groundwater basin area. The subsurface water and its drainage patterns on the land protect the biological integrity of the natural resources and habitats, providing a healthful and attractive outdoor environment. GRANTOR and DISTRICT recognize that the Property is an evolving eco-system and that the specific composition of plant and animal species on the Property may naturally shift over time due to natural forces beyond GRANTOR’s control.

2.2    Scenic Resources.      The Property’s open space character includes one of the distinctive ridgelines that surround the City of Sonoma and that is visible from the Highway 12 Scenic Corridor and other public vantage points. The Property provides a central scenic backdrop to the City of Sonoma and its openness and natural condition contribute to the overall rural character and natural setting of the City of Sonoma. For residents and visitors on the Property, the Property offers unobstructed views of Sonoma Valley and beyond to San Pablo Bay.

2.3    Urban Open Space.    The Property is adjacent to dense urban residential development. Protection of the Property will provide opportunities for residents and visitors of Sonoma County to access and enjoy the natural environment and public open space.

2.4    Recreation. The Property will be established by the City of Sonoma as the “Montini Open Space Preserve (“the Preserve”), providing opportunities for low-intensity public outdoor recreation, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study and bird watching. The trails on the Property will link to the Sonoma Overlook Trail. The Property offers enjoyment of its natural features to residents and visitors of Sonoma County.

3.     Conservation Purpose. It is the purpose of this Easement to preserve and protect forever the Conservation Values of the Property, as described in Section 2. This purpose shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Conservation Purpose of this Easement.” GRANTOR and DISTRICT intend that this Easement will confine the use of the Property to activities that are consistent with the Conservation Purpose of this Easement and will prohibit and prevent any use of the Property that will materially impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. GRANTOR and DISTRICT intend that all Conservation Values of the Property will be fully preserved and protected in perpetuity. In the event, however, that the preservation and protection of one Conservation Value becomes irreconcilably inconsistent with the preservation and protection of another Conservation Value, the following priorities shall be followed: preservation and protection of natural resources shall be the first priority, preservation and protection of scenic and open space resources shall be the second priority, and preservation and protection of recreational and educational uses shall be the third priority.

5.1    General Requirements for All Uses.

5.1.2 Compliance with Terms, Conditions and Conservation Purpose of this Easement.    All activities and uses on the Property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the terms, conditions and Conservation Purpose of this Easement.

5.1.3 Protection of Conservation Values. All activities and uses on the Property shall be undertaken in a manner reasonably designed to protect and preserve the

Conservation Values.

5.2    Land Uses. Use of the Property is restricted solely to natural resource protection, habitat restoration and enhancement, and low-intensity public recreational and educational uses as defined in this Section 5.2. Residential, commercial, or industrial use of or activity on the Property is prohibited except for commercial use as reserved in Section 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Natural Resource Protection. GRANTOR may take all actions necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the natural resources of the Property in accordance with sound, generally accepted conservation practices. GRANTOR and DISTRICT acknowledge that the Property and its natural features are protected by this Easement and shall not be available to mitigate for the environmental impacts of projects located offsite.

5.2.3 Recreational and Educational Use. GRANTOR shall make the Property available to the public for low-intensity public outdoor recreational and educational purposes except as set forth in Section 5.6. Such uses may include, but are not limited to, hiking, picnicking, nature study, habitat restoration training and workshops, outdoor public education programs, and other such uses similar in nature and intensity, and as allowed in the Management Plan. In consideration of the natural resources on the Property and impacts for trail maintenance, bicycling and horseback riding shall not be allowed on the Property.

5.5       Land and Resource Management. All land and resource management activities shall be designed and implemented in accordance with sound, generally accepted conservation practices.

5.5.8    Native Animal Removal. Killing, hunting, trapping, injuring or removing native animals is prohibited except (i) under imminent threat to human life or safety; and (ii) as reasonably necessary to promote or sustain biodiversity in accordance with restoration and enhancement activities in connection with Section 5.5.5, using selective control techniques consistent with the policies of the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner and other governmental entities having jurisdiction.

6.1    Approval of Management Plan. For purposes of this Easement, it is agreed that the Montini Open Space Preserve Management Plan (“Management Plan”) as adopted on October 6, 2009 is deemed to be consistent with the Conservation Purpose of this Easement.

6.1.1 Amendments, Revisions and Updates. The Management Plan may be amended, revised or updated (Revised Plan) from time to time. GRANTOR shall use the following procedure to obtain DISTRICT’s approval of the Revised Plan. GRANTOR may, at its discretion, at any time, submit a Revised Plan to DISTRICT for its review and approval. If the Revised Plan proposes substantial changes to the use, activities and/or management of the Property, then the Revised Plan must identify (a) all major components of the use of the Preserve, including recreational, educational, and resource management; (b) the nature of each proposed use and its intended location; (c) all proposed structures and improvements; and (d) all actions to be taken to protect natural resources. DISTRICT’s approval of the Revised Plan shall be based solely upon the Revised Plan’s consistency with the terms, conditions and Conservation Purpose of this Easement. DISTRICT shall have forty-five (45) days from the receipt of the Revised Plan, plus fourteen (14) days from any subsequent or follow up submittal, to review the Revised Plan, and either approve the Revised Plan or notify GRANTOR of any objection thereto. DISTRICT’s response, whether approval or objection, shall be in writing and delivered to GRANTOR in accordance with Section 19. If DISTRICT has any objections to the Revised Plan, it shall state such objections in sufficient detail to enable GRANTOR to modify the Revised Plan, so as to bring it into compliance with the terms, conditions and Conservation Purpose of this Easement.

Making local food affordable

Make locally grown food at Farmer’s Markets in Sonoma Valley more affordable to lower and middle-income consumers.

Justifying rationale:

Keeping a balanced triple bottom line of economic development, environmental sustainability and social equity. This strategy satisfies multiple criteria; it’s a wide, inclusive net.

Local food is good:

The customer base has to include more than well-off upper crust Sonomans. There will never be a balanced local food producing economy if people at the bottom can’t afford to participate.

How to make prices affordable?

-reduce taxes and fees on small growers locally precisely to make the food more affordable to lower and middle-income consumers. Incentives can be provided to give local small producers a tax/ fee break; these breaks have to be quantifiable in terms of lowering the price of produce to an affordable range for low-income consumers.

What is working against affordable local food?

-An upward spiral of inflated value resulting from dominance of a luxury wine economy and a concentration of wealthy people able to pay higher prices. This is part of a US growing inequality, which is especially evident in Sonoma.

-too much land devoted to vineyards and not enough to mixed agriculture

-the luxury end of the wine market has pushed agricultural land values through the roof

-a luxury economy drives up prices overall: land, taxes, rents, housing, gas, consumer goods

-small food producers see they can charge more because there are enough well-off people that can pay the higher price

-in Sonoma the market for food is cornered, like an airport, people have to drive to the 101 corridor or Napa to find decent prices on consumer goods

Solution A:

-find ways to chip away at locally grown food producer’s regulatory and tax costs with the specific goal of lowering prices and making locally grown food affordable for all, not just the wealthy.

-incentivize the use of agricultural land for local food production vs. vineyards and stipulate these incentives are contingent on affordability for lower and middle income consumers

-rezone food producing agricultural land so its fee and tax structure reflects equitable social values

Solution B:

-anyone receiving state or county economic assistance of any kind should have an ID and thus be already vetted as bone fide deserving of lower prices; this ID card can be shown to Farmer’s Markets and these low income consumers receive a meaningful discount that the grower then redeems for tax credits

-this same system could be used at supermarkets as well

Wine tasting on the Plaza

Public review of wine tasting on the Plaza is good. The longer it takes, the more interested parties can connect the dots and figure out what the issues are. The Planning Commission has been tasked to find solutions to unregulated growth of wine tasting and drinking venues. So far this has resulted in the definition of three different types of wine tasting facilities, two of which, wine bars and expanded tasting rooms, will be (or are already) required to pass a permit threshold. Requiring a permit review is where limitation and control of numbers and proportions can take place.

For the third type of tasting room, a basic tasting room, the parameters of the situation are more complicated. Apparently a winery or a vineyard can get a Type 2 permit and ‘by right’ provide tasting of their own products only. When they start to offer other wines and intensifying hours, events and food, then they will cross a threshold where they will need a use permit. As things stand now, the basic tasting facility needs no special permit review apropos of drinking and is treated as a regular business.

The Planning Commission has established some parameters for basic tasting rooms: they keep normal business hours, have 1000 square feet or less, have a proscribed number of events, can serve only prepackaged food. At issue is whether or not to allow expanded seasonal hours. Three out four commissioners are against expanded seasonal hours. These and the above parameters are now forwarded to the city council as the solution asked for many months ago.   

Meanwhile seemingly every new vacant storefront has wine tasting moving in. The proliferation problem has not abated. A wine industry representative has been intensively lobbying the Planning Department to dilute limitations as much as possible. The premise that there is no problem is still the standard industry line.

I’ve followed this issue closely and the specifics are difficult to master. The process seems to be stuck in the details and I really can’t tell if the overall effect of the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be to limit proliferation of tasting rooms or not. If I’m way off base in my analysis here it would be great if a commissioner or two would publicly articulate where things stand before the city council vote.

An additional issue is that small, local tasting facilities are in a market where Plaza rents run well over $100,000 a year. Mega-corporate interests could easily come in, run all the fun local guys out and the Plaza be left with only a façade of indigenous character. This is a real possibility. Would these mega-wine conglomerates be ‘formula’ stores?

Trying to get a handle on managing the town square is a complex business. Issues of intensified tourism, wine dominance and mono-economy are still at stake here with the current proxy battle concerning the flavor of the heart of town.  

Water conservation and regressive policy

In a drought people should save water no matter what yet ways are found to resist this common effort. Why? Simply put, values differences have led us apart, citizens are not on the same team in a time of increasing inequality.

What we have with water conservation is a regressive situation. The smallest users suffer the most, just like they do economically with wages and taxes. The economy and water are similar common pools where those with the least power have a tendency to get the worst deal.

The only way conservation works is for people to feel they are on the same team pulling for the same goals. In the current era of increasing inequality, little guys subsidize big guys all the while getting a smaller slice of the pie. A vicious cycle of resource depletion and increasing inequality progressively destroys incentives to participate in good faith.

Why should I conserve to subsidize large users who then run off with all the marbles? Why should I save water to see new irrigated yards, pools and hobby vineyards? I want to see my efforts go to environmental water and equitable distribution.

.

When people see that their conservation efforts clearly plug into an overall public good they will willingly participate. When the hidden agenda is just more business as usual, which has led to growth and expansion being out of proportion with sharing and conservation, then it’s a vicious cycle where top heavy selfish interests destroy the common ground we all need to stand on.

Conserving scare water in a drought is the common sense right thing to do no matter what. People will be watching to see that government and economic development play their fair role. If ‘growth’ is necessary, provide a sensible rationale for why increasing demand is OK in a time of scarcity. In order to create a virtuous cycle or a same team approach, I’d say economic forces have to be brought back in balance with environmental sustainability and social equity. Looking at the state of the world around us demands this kind of approach.

Triple Bottom Line

Many folks have expressed concern about the trajectory and tone of local public policy discussion. How do we include, acknowledge and integrate the diversity of community stakeholders in Sonoma?

A framework can be found in the principles of full cost accounting. The critical idea here is of a triple bottom line that includes and equally weights economic, social and environmental factors. The TBL approach is a tactic, a strategy, not an ideological position. To me it makes too much sense; three legs of a stool have to balance.

Too often public discourse ends up in positional conflicts where critical and legitimate interests (legs of the stool) end up talking past each other. Human endeavors are full of conflict, everyone with their own locked-in narrative and isolated sets of facts. Looking at this bellicose landscape we imagine ways we could be smarter, a way to collectively go forward with eyes open. I submit here: if we want to be smart, pragmatic, and do the best we can with the hand we’re dealt, let’s step back from all or nothing zero sum games and move to a triple bottom line. TBL gives everyone a seat at the table and a framework for balancing how policy moves forward.

I suggest for people who find their values to be primarily economic, environmental or social, that they seriously look into how working with a triple bottom line can open the field and create a context for more productive dialogue. The TBL framework can be applied to groundwater, zoning, labor, business practice, government, anything we do. Most importantly it provides a compelling context for the interests of all parties to be heard and fairly considered.

We can’t go on as if whatever one leg of our common stool can have priority over the others; that just doesn’t work. If everyone wants to claim justice and sustainable principles, the triple bottom line is the road map. With a TBL approach, getting all the power and majority rule is not the object. The object is a balanced pragmatism, working a package of economic health, social equity and environmental sustainability as the combined, triple bottom line.  

Arroyo Seco Watershed overview

Analysis of Arroyo Seco Watershed  Draft 1/13/14

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zqtAzF05htcg.kMydXmUk8VTI

Introduction

Arroyo Seco marks the original eastern boundary of the town of Sonoma. It is an 11.4 square mile watershed that empties into the Napa-Sonoma Marsh. The watershed has potentially serious supply issues: groundwater depletion, dry wells, arsenic contamination and saltwater intrusion. These problems are made worse by drought and a current development boom bringing new wells and higher demand.

Limited supply and increasing demand in a small watershed named ‘Dry Creek’ in Spanish, could spell trouble. The hoped for outcome of this analysis is to spur collective action to properly manage and conserve water, a critical common pool resource.

Collective action involves interplay of local actors, one of which, vineyard and winery owners, represent billions of dollars worth of property value in this watershed. See the following link

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/99999999/multimedia/131119775

This represents an obvious power and influence differential with small property owners and renters.

Physical Description of Watershed

General description: Arroyo Seco is oriented on a north/ south axis.  Alluvial fans run into the main channel from the northeast off of the Mayacamas mountains and Arrowhead Mountain. The lower portions of the watershed are very close to sea level. Contours around the Burndale residential area are 20’ above sea level. Contour lines on the upper alluvial fan in front of Arrowhead Mtn. and over to Buena Vista are at 80’ – 100’ above sea level. Water comes out of the mountains onto the alluvial fans and infiltrates through porous creek bed gravels and then resurfaces farther downstream where groundwater is at an adequate level to support stream flow.

Watershed boundaries: 8^th Street East and Castle Road make up the western boundary of the watershed. The Nathanson Creek watershed is directly to the west. The old railroad berm as it curves around from the northern terminus of 8^th Street East to 7^th Street East, forms the watershed break on a line southwest from Castle Road. The Mayacamas Mountains are the northern boundary. The eastern boundary is generally Hwy 12/121 from just past Stornetta corners to Ramal Rd.

The southern boundary starts at the Arroyo Seco bridge, just east of 8^th Street East on Hwy 12/ 121 and extends southeast along the railroad tracks past Millerick Lane, past southern Burndale Rd. and then along Ramal Road to the border of Napa County just before Duhig Road. South of this area is where the watersheds of Schell Creek, Fowler Creek, Sonoma Creek and the Napa River get mixed in the Napa-Sonoma Marsh. The lower Sonoma Valley watershed is a story I won’t even try to address here.  

Specific watershed description: The main channel of Arroyo Seco comes out of the Mayacamas Mountains just upstream of Buena Vista winery. Upstream from here two forks split around the northern, private portion of Castle Road and these forks go up to Hogback Mountain ridge. The Lovall Valley fork of Arroyo Seco starts at the Napa County line in Lovall Valley. The majority of Lovall Valley drains to Huichica Creek etc. and into Napa County. The Lovall Valley fork comes into the main channel right at Buena Vista winery.

A low grade on Lovall Valley Road just before it turns the corner to meet Thornsberry is a drainage break; to the east water flows into the Haraszthy Creek fork, to the west, to the Arroyo Seco main channel.

Arrowhead Mountain is behind Thornsberry and Wood Valley Roads. The run-off from this ridge is the sole supply for shallow well and surface water users directly below. The Haraszthy Creek fork of Arroyo Seco comes off Arrowhead Mountain, crosses lower Thornsberry and then out onto the flats where it meets Arroyo Seco on Denmark Street just west of the Gundlach Bundschu vineyards.

Parts of the Buena Vista neighborhood around 8^th Street East and E. Napa Street are in a small catchment area on the western border of the watershed. Upstream flows tend to infiltrate through here.  These factors: small catchment area and infiltration, decrease chances for natural recharge and increase the potential for seasonally dry shallow wells for those not on city water.

A good physical description of the Sonoma Valley watershed can be found in:

DWR Bulletin 118-4 Eval of groundwater, vol. 4 Sonoma Valley   1982

Demographic Description of Watershed

The Arroyo Seco watershed area has a mixed demographic. Rural-residential, agricultural and industrial are the main groups of water users.

Rural-residential: There are three rural-residential concentrations, one centered in the historic Buena Vista neighborhood, one in the Burndale Road area and the last a diffuse spread of upscale housing in the foothills. Buena Vista is close to the foothills and has a mix of older, retired, fixed income people, small vineyards and upscale new housing. Buena Vista has some tract housing developments mixed in with larger size lots. Burndale is out on the flats south of Denmark and borders agricultural areas and also reclaimed land to the south towards San Pablo Bay. In both Buena Vista and Burndale there is agricultural use interspersed with large residential lots, with mixes of older, newer and upscale housing. Foothills residential areas are lower in density but much higher in property value.

The 2008 real estate bubble set back momentum for building construction and economic development but now in 2013 a real boom is happening in the watershed.  Many new homes and remodeling projects are now going in.

Agriculture: Large vineyards are located on the alluvial fan below Arrowhead Mountain and also in the hills east of the Burndale residential area. Vineyards are also out in the flat alluvial fans and in the foothills from Arrowhead Mountain across to above Buena Vista. Vineyards and agriculture surround the Burndale residential area. Moderate to small size vineyards are mixed into all rural-residential areas, more so in Buena Vista. The Burndale area has a higher percentage of hay farming and horse keeping. Some of the mixed rural-residential small agricultural use is hobby, some for profit, in many cases it is hard to tell the difference.

There is more and more hay farming as the watershed gets closer to San Pablo Bay. Water issues are substantially different in these more southerly areas of the watershed, with flooding and saltwater intrusion being primary concerns. The railroad tracks form a conspicuous border between hay farming in the sloughs to the south and vineyards to the north.

There is large hay farming area directly east of the Burndale rural-residential area, south of Napa Road and just below the old Nicholas Turkey facility. Beef cattle are grazed here. Immediately southeast of this hay farming area is an apparent old drainage channel that went through the Burndale area.

Southwest of Burndale is the Mulas Ranch with dairy cattle and vineyards.

Agricultural land use in the Arroyo Seco watershed is easily 60% and above.

Industrial uses: are concentrated along 8^th Street East, mostly on the east side of the street. Large parcels of land wait for development along this strip.

Groundwater, surface water and demography

One easy observation is that vineyards and agricultural uses, being concentrated up against the foothills and the heads of alluvial fans, get first dibs on the water before it gets to the two rural-residential concentration areas, Buena Vista and Burndale. Foothills residents also have first opportunity and more resources to take first dibs on water. In an overall watershed conservation effort these users would presumably be the first expected to conserve as the majority of people are downstream.

Vineyards have adopted drip irrigation methods and generally use less water than other forms of agriculture. On an individual basis, vineyards conserve well; it is the overall aggregate use that makes vineyard irrigation such a large percentage of watershed usage totals.

A substantial portion of the Buena Vista residential concentration is on city water. A map of city water lines and connections shows the Nut Tree lane development, the Lovall Valley Court development, Old Winery Road to north past Lovall Valley Rd, parts of Lovall Valley Road east of Old Winery Road, most all of Thornsberry Road and the 8^th Street East industrial area north of MacArthur to all be on city water.

Given this patchwork nature of the City’s Zone 2 water system area, it would make sense for the City to become the water district of the area with existing city water infrastructure.

Dry wells: At the confluence of Haraszthy Creek and Arroyo Seco, on Denmark just as you get to Gundlach Bundschu, the current Springtime shallow well depletion is 80’ below sea level. This location is 60’ above sea level. Got salt? This groundwater depletion area is not surprising given that surface flow only comes off Arrowhead Mountain ridge and, there is major agricultural use on one side and a rural-residential concentration on the other. Sonoma County Water Agency maps show the area is at the leading edge of saltwater intrusion.

The intersection of 8^th Street East and E. Napa Street is one of the highest deep well groundwater depletion areas in Sonoma Valley. There is lots of residential and agricultural use upstream plus industrial use to the south. Shallow wells here are also depleted. There is just not much surface catchment area for this part of the Buena Vista residential area and with infiltration, shallow wells tend to go dry. The whole strip between 8^th Street East and the main channel of Arroyo Seco, would presumably have trouble with shallow well depletion for similar reasons.

This may be why city water is grandfathered in to much of the Buena Vista area, residents there in the past had the foresight to know they would need help.

Water delivery: Four water companies deliver water to the Buena Vista area, with approximately 25 customers each, giving a rough estimate of 100 seasonally dry wells centered around the 8^th St. E.-Napa St. intersection. A load of water is 3500 gallons and costs approximately $160.00. This water is Russian River water these delivery companies buy from either Sonoma or Petaluma city water sources.

Arsenic: Naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater is a Buena Vista/ 8^th Street East area issue and in other Sonoma Valley areas as well. Information on the extent of arsenic in private wells is hard to come by. The EPA cited a number of local water companies along 8^th Street East in 2008 for having too high an arsenic level for safe drinking water. A city deep well on 7^th Street East and Denmark is not suitable for drinking water.

Private wells, not cited by the EPA, on 8th Street East and surrounding areas have levels of arsenic unsafe for drinking. Private wells have no public oversight as to arsenic, an unfair situation for renters.

Private parties who have arsenic issues and choose to mitigate have to have drinking water delivered or buy expensive filter systems. The Alhambra company delivers water all the way from Sacramento. Private well owners would not know if they had dangerous levels of arsenic unless they tested for it. Systems to clean arsenic cost between $25,000 and $35,000 dollars and there is no guarantee they will work for the long run.

Arsenic has the potential to be a serious public health issue. In the absence of public information as to the number of contaminated wells, the extent of this issue remains pertinent yet unknown.

The upshot of seasonally dry wells, arsenic and water delivery is: property owners have to pay a lot to obtain safe drinking water or water at all. This cost could just as well be paid to a regional water district that would ensure one, a more reliable supply and two a more comprehensive collective approach to water resource management.

Rental units

Renters may suffer second-class citizenship in that they are not considered legitimate stakeholders in common pool resource issues. Landowners are perhaps seen as ‘more equal’ than renters. Renters are one step removed from decisions concerning their access to clean and affordable water. It’s true landowners do have more at stake yet there are 6,600 Sonoma Valley rental units compared to 10,600 owner-occupied units. Renters are paying a fair share and make up a fair proportion of the valley populace. Renters deserve some equitable consideration for their water interests as citizens of the valley.

In terms of being a stakeholder, any interested party can be one.  A renter is stakeholder if they care to participate. A landowner is a stakeholder who owns land. Renters and landowners have one vote each as citizens and each pay rates and fees that antes them up as local players in the water game. 

Russian River water

95% of the city of Sonoma’s water is Russian River water, which is controlled by the Sonoma County Water Agency in a fixed allotment. The city along with Valley of the Moon Water District are the only Sonoma Valley contractors for SCWA water. The SCWA has a Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program but thus is centered on the city itself and the areas of highest population, i.e. on areas with ratepayers. City water lines serve the industrial area of 8^th Street East north of MacArthur and also up Old Winery Road, Napa Street East, Nut Tree Lane, Lovall Valley, Lovall Valley Court and Thornsberry Roads. Access to city water outside city limits is a patchwork of connections. Some connections and areas outside the city, like the Thornsberry Assessment District, are grandfathered in.

In an area of limited water resources, on the face of it, it doesn’t seem fair that some have city water and the neighbors do not. Having Russian River water delivered by truck when city water lines with Russian River water are right across the street is somehow out of whack. This Zone 2 area, and Thornsberry Assessment District, are  prime candidates to become entirely part of the city water system or to create a new larger local water district.

Flooding issues in Schellville

Flooding in Schellville at the Schell-Vista fire station area is a result of one, tides and two, upstream flow plus tides. Schellville has no water assessment district, they decided that in the 1950s. They have a problem but there is no money; they are not organized. This could be instructive to the Arroyo Seco watershed and the Sonoma Valley in general; without some collective response to common problems, unincorporated stakeholders could be hung out to dry. How to effectively mobilize and enfranchise water users?

Current anti-tax, anti-government sentiments are a problem in this regard. This is a nationwide issue applicable also to health care and climate change: how to deal with collective problems when a persistent individual rights ethos prevents necessary cooperation?  

Recharge project potential

Arroyo Seco is channelized along its run, in some places 6’ to 15’ deep or more. This contributes to faster run-off and less natural recharge. The channelization is a natural consequence of building out all around the watercourse and then the consequent protecting of properties from flooding. Channelization is also made worse by surrounding hardscape. Buena Vista and Burndale have a higher percentage of hardscape. Thus the areas in most need of recharge probably have the most channelized run-off; they don’t get the water; it goes right by.

The more development, ensuing private domains, hardscape and channelization, the less land available for public catch basins and the worse the recharge potential. The best land for recharge is also the most valuable for vineyards, i.e. too expensive to convert for recharge purposes. Bottom line, there is apparently not enough land currently available to make large, meaningful recharge projects in the Arroyo Seco watershed.

The most appropriate and effective land for natural and artificial recharge is right along the stream channel yet in Arroyo Seco/ Haraszthy Creek, these areas are locked up by vineyards where as mentioned, the land values are beyond access to convert to recharge.

One possible recharge area is the empty field north of Denmark and east of 8^th Street East. This area drains straight east along the north Denmark ditch to Arroyo Seco. This field area could be a natural wetland or it could be the result of upstream users shooting their run-off here. The ditches around this field have cattails; there is enough water here that it stays for a while. That there is water means there could be clay that is inhibiting absorption and thus not so good for recharge.

Another field, at the bend of Lovall Valley Road and Lovall Valley Court, has a city water line right across the street and could be flooded with Russian River water.

A city water main goes over an Arroyo Seco bridge on Lovall Valley Road just west of Old Winery Road. In wet years excess water could be let right into the channel of the creek if it was dry.

Values

Stakeholders are all gong to bring values to the table. Everyone has values and makes judgments, no way around that.  The clearest way is to so say what the values are up front. Then we all know what we’re dealing with. The water discussion will be clearer the more explicit values statements are. Overt, honest statements go a long way.

What values will be used as baseline assumptions for public policy, a utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number principal? The primacy of private interests over public good? Ag vs. residential use? Whatever the values are, lay them out so people can see what they are dealing with.

From my own values standpoint I’m assuming that SCWA water data will be generally accepted and that water conservation is a good idea for everybody. I’m coming from a left of center position but with pragmatism and real-politic mixed in.

I advocate a Full Cost Accounting method with a triple bottom line of environment, society and economy taken as critical factors to be included in any decision making process.  

As I see it, factors working against a public good, common purpose, same team watershed approach include:

-political polarization and habitual ideological purity arguments

-economic interests out of proportion with social equity and environmental sustainability

-water conservation subsidizing a growth model vs. a conservation model

-legal system/ private property inertia counter to collective management of water as a common pool resource

-county and city administration at cross purposes for meaningful geographic water use planning, regional solutions limited/prevented by a patchwork of competing gov’t jurisdictions

-county representation not adequate, in Sonoma Valley: 1 rep for 31,000 people vs. 5 reps for 11,000 in the city of Sonoma

Observations

Micro-stakeholders: There are micro-areas within the overall Arroyo Seco watershed where water supply sources are separated by intra-watershed geographic boundaries. Thus, there are micro-stakeholders whose incentives to participate in watershed-wide issues are proscribed by smaller horizons. Even though the overall watershed is unified, various subsections and water users are not.

Micro-stakeholders are also defined as those users who already have private deep wells with no restrictions on volume of use. These users do not want in to any new water district that would monitor and limit use. Some users may have both city water and private wells.

This brings up one watershed truism: stakeholders are concerned with their own access and freedoms first.  Stakeholders always care most who is upstream not who is downstream. To provide some incentive for watershed-wide participation, each stakeholder has to be able to see themselves as at once a receiver and a beneficiary.

Macro-stakeholders: Those with the most to gain from a macro-approach to water use will be rural-residential users. These people will want in to any expanded water district as membership would collectivize supply and demand. Those with the most to lose will be agricultural users who now have unlimited, unregulated use.

How to divvy up water between rural-residential, agricultural and industrial users will be a matter for advanced mediation specialists. Some formula will have to be arrived at that sets fair limits for use.

Conflicts between municipal entities and public/private conflicts: The Sonoma Valley and the Arroyo Seco watershed are unified geographic units yet they are administered by a patchwork of competing municipal entities each with their own proprietary interests. The city of Sonoma protects it’s own water supply while county residents next door are left on their own. Meaningful geographic water use planning and regional water solutions are limited and prevented by a patchwork of competing government jurisdictions. Water resources are common to all people and to the environment. It only makes sense to administer such a critical common pool resource with the widest net possible. 

There is a fundamental conflict between growth and conservation. Municipalities value growth for the taxes and income it creates. Stakeholders already here are looking to conserve and don’t want to see their efforts go to subsidize growth.

To what extent growth is actually necessary for a healthy economy is debatable; the practical aspects of this question need to be addressed in a pragmatic and non-ideological manner. What compelling rationale can government, regulatory agencies and the private sector use to justify growth that will have an onus on conservation as well? At the very least existing residential users need to be guaranteed a water supply in return for conserving to subsidize growth.

Perhaps to allay fears of growth countermanding conservation, water can be managed and administered separately from growth with a conservation boundary. Implicit in a situation with shrinking supply is that demand, i.e. growth be limited and brought under control. A Full Cost Accounting approach with a triple bottom line seems like a great starting place; it makes a lot of sense.

With no meaningful limits placed on growth more and more users will be sharing a smaller and smaller pie. In this type of short-term formula, maintaining a sustainable groundwater level is deprioritized; there is nothing banked for environmental water. Too bad for the fish and the valley oaks.

Arsenic: If arsenic contamination of drinking water is a widespread phenomenon in the Arroyo Seco watershed what kinds of public action might be expected? Is this an every dog for himself problem or like in a number of instances, will municipalities annex areas with contaminated wells and put them on Russian River water? Will water districts enlarge their boundaries to include more customers? It would seem reasonable that before new development was permitted to take more Russian River water in Sonoma County, that the county would seek to take care of residents already here and in need of safe drinking water. Additionally, if the county is looking for ways to reduce its carbon footprint, having drinking water delivered from Sacramento is nearly crazy. City water lines exist into Buena Vista already. That county residents get city water versus arsenic contaminated water only makes sense, especially where water lines are already in place.    

Solutions

One water district: Make the Arroyo Seco watershed and/or all of Sonoma Valley one water district.  This would make sense in terms of regional planning.  This must be done in such a manner that regional water supply is not seen as a green light for more growth. The whole purpose of a regional and/or watershed–based water district is to become more efficient for conservation purposes, not to make it easier for new development.

The administration of this water district will have to transcend current political boundaries and have the ability to assess fees independently of the city or county. By working at the level of whole watersheds, resource conservation issues will be brought to meaningful and effective geographic levels.

Another possible solution is annexation. This would have to wait until 2020 when the Sonoma growth boundary initiative expires. Some beginning steps in this regard would be for the city to expand its sphere of influence to the old Arroyo Seco town boundary.