Analysis of Arroyo Seco Watershed Draft 1/13/14
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
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: 8th 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 8th Street East to 7th
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 8th 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 8th
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 8th
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 8th 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 8th 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 8th 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 8th 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/ 8th 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 8th
Street East in 2008 for having too high an arsenic level for safe drinking
water. A city deep well on 7th 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 8th 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 8th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment