DOCSLIB.ORG

Fendants and Appellants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Reproduced by California Resources Agency with the permission of LexisNexis. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. No copyright is claimed as to any portion of the original work prepared by a government officer or employee as part of that person's official duties. SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY et al., De- fendants and Appellants. A124556 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE 189 Cal. App. 4th 33; 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616; 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1745 October 8, 2010, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2056 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Nov. 2, 2010) Review denied by Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 2010 Cal. LEXIS 13556 (Cal., Dec. 21, 2010) PRIOR-HISTORY: Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV-240367, Gary Nadler, Judge Page 2 COUNSEL: Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel, Steven S. Shupe and Cory Wurtzel O'Donnell, Deputy County Counsel; Bingham McCutchen, Stephen L. Kostka, Geoffrey L. Robinson and Ma- rie A. Cooper for Defendants and Appellants. Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard, Eric N. Robinson and Andrew P. Tauriainen for the As- sociation of California Water Agencies, League of California Cities, and California State Associa- tion of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Joshua A.H. Harris and Bridget A. Roberts for Plaintiffs and Respondents. JUDGES: Opinion by Bruiniers, J., with Jones, P. J., and Simons, J., concurring. OPINION BY: Bruiniers OPINION BRUINIERS, J.--The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Wat. Code, § 10610 et seq.; the Act or UWMPA) 1 requires water suppliers in urban areas to adopt water management plans every five years. The Sonoma County Water Agency (the Agency or SCWA) is a water supplier subject to UWMPA. At issue here is the legal adequacy of the Agency's 2005 Urban Water Man- agement Plan (the Plan). Respondents Sonoma County Water Coalition et al. (Coalition) 2 unsuc- cessfully challenged elements of the Plan before the Agency, and then sought a writ of mandate Page 3 from the Sonoma Superior Court seeking to enjoin the Agency from adopting or implementing the Plan, and directing the Agency to adopt a legally adequate plan. 1 All further statutory references are to the Water Code and its appendix unless otherwise indicated. 2 In addition to one named individual, respondents include 14 citizen organizations: Sono- ma County Water Coalition, the North Coast Rivers Alliance, Westside Association to Save Agriculture, Atascadero Creek Green Valley Creek Watershed Council, O.W.L. Foundation, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, Bellevue Township, Sebastopol Water In- formation Group, Friends of the Eel River, Petaluma River Council, Coast Action Group, Blucher Creek Watershed Council, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, and Forest Unlimited. The lower court granted the writ on the basis that the Plan (1) failed to provide the detailed wa- ter supply information required by UWMPA and (2) was not coordinated with other water supply regulators. The Agency appeals, contending that the trial court failed to accord deference to the ex- pertise and discretion of the Agency, improperly made de novo determinations, and imposed re- quirements not found in the Act. 3 We agree with the Agency and reverse. 3 On March 29, 2010, we granted the joint application of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the League of California Cities (the League) and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to file an amici curiae brief in support of the position of the Agency. ACWA is a voluntary nonprofit statewide organization comprised of public agencies that provide water service to most of California's residents. The League is an associ- Page 4 ation of 474 California cities. CSAC is a nonprofit corporation whose membership consists of California's 58 counties. We refer to these parties collectively as Amici Curiae. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 4 We caution the reader that the multiplicity of federal, state and local agencies, and over- lapping regulatory environments, referenced in this opinion results in our necessary use of a bewildering array of abbreviations and acronyms. We therefore attach a "rosetta stone" ap- pendix to assist in deciphering these references. (See appen. A, post, at p. 64.) The Agency is a public entity created by special legislation enacted in 1949. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 1, p. 1793, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen. (1999 ed.) § 53-1 et seq., p. 131) It is a water whole- saler to eight public agency water contractors and other retail water suppliers, which use water from the Agency, augmented in some cases by their own local supplies, to provide water service to customers within their service areas. The Agency's water service area covers a large part of Sonoma County and the northern portion of Marin County. It provides potable water to approximately 600,000 people. The Agency's customers include the Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District, City of Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, Town of Windsor, City of Cotati, Forestville Water District, and the California American Water Company. Its source of supply is the Russian River watershed. The Agency serves water to its customers pursuant to a restructured agreement for water supply (Agreement), which was entered into in 2006 and extends to 2040. This Agreement sets the maxi- mum amounts of water the Agency is obligated to supply to its customers, and describes the me- thodology for allocating supplies in times of shortage. The Agency's powers and duties include Page 5 flood control, wastewater treatment, and power generation. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 3, p. 1794, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen., supra, § 53-3, p. 132.) The Agency also maintains watershed and fi- shery enhancement programs that include riparian restoration projects. An urban water management plan (UWMP) is prepared and/or updated every five years and ad- dresses the supply of water over the following 20 years. (§§ 10620, 10621, subd. (a), 10631, subd. (a).) The Agency retained the engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell to assist in the preparation of the Plan. 5 5 The credentials, qualifications and experience of the registered professional engineers who prepared the Plan are set forth in the administrative record. The project manager, Paul Selsky, P.E., is identified as having prepared or directed more than 60 urban water manage- ment plans. Coalition makes no challenge to the experience or qualifications of the Agency's retained experts. A draft plan was made available for public review on October 30, 2006. The Agency held a no- ticed public hearing on the Plan on December 5, 2006. (§ 10642.) Comments were submitted by Coalition, among others, challenging several elements of the Plan and contending that it contained "major deficiencies." The Agency's board of directors 6 adopted the Plan on December 12, 2006. As required by law, the Agency submitted its adopted Plan to California's Department of Water Re- sources for review (§ 10644), which accepted the Plan as complete. 6 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors serves as the Agency's ex officio board. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 4, p. 1791, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen., supra, § 53-4, p. 137.) Page 6 Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate on March 19, 2007. The case was heard based solely upon the administrative record and the pleadings. 7 The trial court issued its decision on Oc- tober 29, 2008, and granted the peremptory writ. In a comprehensive and detailed written opinion, the court determined that the Plan was not supported by substantial evidence, and failed to comply with statutory requirements. More specifically, the court found the Plan to be deficient in that (1) the Agency "failed to coordinate with relevant agencies" as required by UWMPA; (2) the Plan failed to include the degree of specificity required by UWMPA; (3) the Plan failed to adequately consider certain environmental factors (specifically environmental impacts on endangered salmonid species); (4) the Plan failed to adequately address the effect of recycled groundwater on the future water supply; and (5) the Plan failed to quantify with reasonable specificity the scope of demand management measures relied upon to address anticipated water shortfalls. Judgment was entered on November 26, 2008. The Agency filed a timely notice of appeal. 7 The court also received evidence on a standing issue not raised in this appeal. II. DISCUSSION A. UWMPA "In 1983, the Legislature adopted [UWMPA] to promote the active management of urban water demands and efficient water usage in order to protect the people of the state and their water re- sources. ((Stats. 1983, ch. 1009, § 1.)" (Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625] (Friends of the Santa Clara River).) In UWMPA, the Legislature declared that "[t]he conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies Page 7 are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level." (§ 10610.2, subd. (a)(2).) "To achieve the goal of water conservation and efficient use, [local] urban water suppliers are required to develop water manage- ment plans that include long-range planning to ensure adequate water supplies to serve existing customers and future demands for water. (§ 10610.2, subds. (d) & (e).)" (Friends of the Santa Clara River, at p. 8.) A plan is intended to function as a planning tool to guide broad-perspective deci- sionmaking by the management of water suppliers.
Recommended publications
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012

    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012

    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea

    Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea

    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000

    MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000

    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
  • Chapter 7: Sustaining Our Water Resources

    Chapter 7: Sustaining Our Water Resources

    SUSTAINING OUR WATER RESOURCES Watersheds are nested drainages, incorporating the entire land surface that collects water flowing to a geographic point. Different maps and planning documents refer to the Laguna channel and the Laguna watershed in dif- ferent ways, sometimes splitting off the Santa Rosa and Mark West Creeks as separate drainages. Within this plan, we define the Laguna watershed as the area that incorporates all these sub-basins, and when this definition needs to be underscored the phrase “greater Laguna watershed” is applied. This watershed definition is more ecologically appropriate, reflecting the biological and physical properties of the system. However, for regulatory purposes, the Laguna, Santa Rosa Creek and Mark West Creeks are split into separate drainages, as discussed below. Water quality concerns in the Laguna cannot be easily separated from the issues related to the Laguna’s hydrology and water dynamics. Restoring the Laguna’s water resources will require integrated research, planning and collaboration. HYDROLOGY The Laguna watershed has a complex and diverse hydrology—cool-water high-gradient creeks in the upper watershed flow down the hillsides to High gradient creeks, vernal pools, slow moving the broad, flat, vernal pool-dotted Santa Rosa Plain, meeting the warm, channel slow-moving Laguna main channel, that flows northward to join the Rus- sian River. During very large storms, the Russian River backs up into the Laguna’s low-gradient basin near Windsor and Mark West Creeks: this alleviates flooding in the lower Russian River valley, and strongly affects the Laguna ecosystem. In part because of these back flows, and in part Backflow, sediment retention, disconnected because of localized topographic constrictions, the Laguna does not have ponds scouring floods, and retains much sediment within its channels and flood- plains.
  • NPDES Water Bodies

    NPDES Water Bodies

    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
  • Biological Assessment

    Biological Assessment

    CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region 15000 Aviation Blvd. Hawthorne, California 90250 Submitted by: Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B-100 Santa Rosa, California 95403 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. MHN530 March 24, 2006 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT MARCH 2006 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...........................................................1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA..........................................................................1 1.3 NOMENCLATURE..............................................................................................................6 2.0 SPECIES ADDRESSED .................................................................................................................7 2.1 LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................7 2.2 OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES .............................................................................10 2.3 CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS........................................................................................10
  • Recovery Plan for the California Freshwater Shrimp

    Recovery Plan for the California Freshwater Shrimp

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan forthe California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pw~jflca Holmes 1895) Total Postorbital Length Carapace Length Rostrum Length CL RL First Antenna Pleopod I (PerelopodI) Second Antenna Figure 1. The California freshwater shrimp, Syncaris pac~fiCa. CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispac~fica Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Manager, Califo~~~i’evada Operations Office Region 1, U.S. wish and Wildlife Service Date: CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispa~flca Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regionai Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.
  • California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris Pacifica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

    California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris Pacifica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

    California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo: Larry Serpa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California September 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
  • Green Valley & Dutch Bill

    Green Valley & Dutch Bill

    Green Valley & Dutch Bill Watershed Update Green Valley & Dutch Bill Watershed Update Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Study for Watershed Restoration Planning Background The Dutch Bill and Green Valley/Atascadero Creek watersheds provide some of the best remaining habitat for endangered coho salmon in the greater Russian River watershed. Low stream flows during the summer months are an important factor affecting the survival and recovery of the species. Salmon require sufficient water in the creeks for migrating in from the ocean to their breeding habitat, spawning, developing eggs, rearing young, and migrating back out of the streams to the ocean. Juvenile coho salmon live in creeks for over a year before migrating to the ocean, so they must survive through the summer dur- ing periods of low stream flow (Figure 1). In light of recent drought conditions, ongoing climate change, and an increasing demand for water, developing strategies to protect and increase stream flows while having enough water to meet human needs is critically im- portant for sustaining coho in these watersheds. A four-year scientific study has been completed by the Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District and O'Connor Environmental to gain a better understanding of how stream flows vary across the watersheds and over time, how various natural and man-made factors in- fluence these flows, and what actions can be taken to improve flows and habitat condi- tions for coho. The study provides a wealth of information and tools for understanding watershed conditions and assisting local stakeholders in sustainably managing water re- sources and restoring coho populations.
  • Community Clean Water Institute ANNUAL REPORT 2006

    Community Clean Water Institute ANNUAL REPORT 2006

    ANNUAL REPORT 2006 Community Clean Water Institute Community Clean Water Institute is dedicated to promoting and protecting clean water and public health by identify- ing water pollution, advocating for sound water policies, and providing information to the public. Dear Friends, Board of Directors Sonoma County is one of the most beautiful places in the world as far as nature is concerned. Our rivers, streams, springs, and forested watersheds provide life-giving Nels Worden abundant pure water that helps to sustain life on the planet. Community Clean Water Judith Olney Institute would like to thank our team of volunteer water monitors who have been test- Don Frank ing the quality of water in our creeks Lynn Hamilton and streams for over 7 years. Margaret Howe 2006 started out with the Russian River reminding us of both its power and vulnerability. It was a wild time here on the Laguna where we sampled Staff sewage over-flows as they passed by Sarah Shaeffer our office in Sebastopol. This picture Program Director shows a sunnier, cleaner testing ses- Robert Wilson sion on the Laguna this past summer. SSU Intern We are delighted to announce the return of Sarah Shaeffer as the new Director of CCWI. Sarah received her Sarah’s first day back at water monitoring this July at the summer bridge on the Laguna de Santa Rosa with Master of Public Health from Emory summer intern Andra Stoddard. Technical Advisors University, focusing on Global Environmental Health. Sarah brings knowledge and experience from her studies and Nels Worden research in Micronesia where she learned of the immense tragedies in public health due Stephen Fuller-Rowell to contaminated water and poor wastewater management in much of the developing world.
  • Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark West Creek

    Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark West Creek

    ABSTRACT Mark West Creek is an important stream for the recovery of salmon in the Russian River watershed. One of the principal challenges to recovering these fishes is maintaining sufficient flowing water through the summer dry season, when human water demands can result in reduced flow during a time when it is naturally very low. Analyses of rainfall dynamics, streamflow dynamics, and human development indicate that there is sufficient water on an annual scale to meet existing human and environmental water needs; but diverting water from aquifers, springs, and streams has likely contributed to less water in upper portions of Mark West Creek than would be present naturally. Agricultural needs and residential needs are similar in magnitude, and if water is stored in winter to meet these needs rather than obtained during the dry season, these management changes could have a meaningful benefit on streamflow during the dry season. Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration West Creek November 14, 2014 (updated January 28, 2015) Cover photo: Mark West Creek downstream of Neal Creek, Summer 2013. Contents Report on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Mark West Creek.......................................................... 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Rainfall .......................................................................................................................................
  • Annual Report 2010

    Annual Report 2010

    ANNUAL REPORT 2010 Community Clean Water Institute Community Clean Water Institute is dedicated to promoting and protecting clean water and public health by identifying water pollution, advocating for sound water policies, and providing information to the public. Dear Friends, Board of Directors Community Clean Water Institute has now reached its 10th year of protecting watershed Nels Worden health through our extensive volunteer water quality monitoring program. Thank you to eve- Don Frank ryone for making this decade such a success! Lynn Hamilton By providing one-on-one training in the use of field testing equipment, CCWI helps to empower citizens to engage in the scientific collection of water quality data, using Califor- Margaret Howe nia’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) protocols, enabling our data to Sarah Shaeffer be used by government agencies in decision-making processes. Through the hard work and Robert Pennington dedication of so many people over these years, we have continued to provide reliable data Kandis Gilmore on over 100 monitoring sites in Sonoma County. In celebration of our accomplishments, and as a culmination of our efforts to get the Staff knowledge into the hands of the people, we have been working diligently to create an online interactive database that is easy to use and gives instant visual information on water quality Ingrid Stearns for all of our monitoring sites. To that end, we have been working with Marc Sloop of Pyxis Program Director Web Design to design the site. We released this in its “beta” form in 2010, and have been Jim Lowrie working on adding in additional features including maps of site locations by stream and pho- Field Coordinator tos of our most common testing sites.