Meet the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Those of you on a well may have already got your invitation to a Meeting at the Finley Center on Jan.30th.
6-8 pm. So this is what I intend to say at the meeting and would like others to show up also at this meeting.

A long time ago when we were electing our County Supervisor there was a lot of excitement about paying attention to how the vineyards and other agriculture users were not paying a cent for all the ground water they suck out.of our groundwater and getting them to meter it. But Norene didn't get elected and Linda did...and all of sudden someone has created an agency, that now is asking for money for anyone that uses a well.

But where is the charge for the water used in the vinyards, potfarms, and other agriculture that takes a huge amount of our water supply? Could this have something to do with Linda Hopkins being elected because of the money she took from wineries?

So the card quotes "Local agencies paid the start up costs, but the GSA now needs its own funding source". WE need a way to pay for day to day operations and a groundwater sustainability fee is being considered. For homeowners with a well that is used for drinking and landscaping $8 to$13 is being considered. I think this is just more B.S and would like others veiwpoint. Who created this agency? and why?

I am so glad that you have been paying close attention to this. I thought I smelled something very fishy about this "new agency". Who is behind this forming? And is there any part of this will mean that the agriculture usage ie wineries will be metered?

Also, a friend pointed out that the Graton Casino takes much water..

Is there any implementation on education of grey-water systems for toilets, irrigation, compost toilets, and minimizing what we use in cities such as Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park?

I would definately like to cut this down before it grows into something that everyone just takes for granted that they must pay.

I get an anti government tone to your post.

Is is there any truth to that?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MikeH:

I have been following this intently from the beginning and have attended almost every meeting. I hope there is a huge turnout for this meeting of residential well users who express their outrage. The $13 would be just the beginning; and could go up greatly from there. The agency budget could be $2 million and you'd get billed for "your share." And if they decide to fund "recharge projects" you'd be paying a share of that too....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

I get an anti government tone to your post.

Is is there any truth to that?

---

I certainly haven't heard any specific reasons that make this a bad idea. Laissez-faire goundwater management doesn't sound like a good idea since it's inherently a shared resource. I'd prefer that industrial users pay more per unit than residential users, but I'm not adamant about it. I understand the motivations for giving large-scale users a discount since in absolute terms they're paying more. As MikeH points out, the water's not accurately metered anyway so it's an artificially set tax.

So, is the point that we don't want the government touching my medicare (oops, sorry) water supply?? Or is it just a knee-jerk feeling that the gummint will screw us somehow? I'd rather focus the energy on making sure that this is well managed and fair. But that's a broad political philosophy that obviously is not widely shared. The libertarian/right-wing default is to strangle government in its bed, as one deep-thinking political savant once said. There seems to be real difficulty in finding a constituency whose goal is to make it run efficiently and appreciates its role.

There is no reason why commercial water users should pay less than than private citizens. Private parties should get a break. Citizens should pay less. Politicians often defer commercial interests.
Joe Hogan

If you're making money using local groundwater by exporting it (labelled as water, beer, cider, wine, eggs, bacon, milk or anything else), you should be paying full dollar for it. It's leaving our local ecosystem for your financial benefit and I don't believe giving you a break for it regardless of metrics.

The USGS study of the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater basin can be dowloaded here:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5118/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I certainly haven't heard any specific reasons that make this a bad idea. Laissez-faire goundwater management doesn't sound like a good idea since it's inherently a shared resource. I'd prefer that industrial users pay more per unit than residential users, but I'm not adamant about it. I understand the motivations for giving large-scale users a discount since in absolute terms they're paying more. As MikeH points out, the water's not accurately metered anyway so it's an artificially set tax.

So, is the point that we don't want the government touching my medicare (oops, sorry) water supply?? Or is it just a knee-jerk feeling that the gummint will screw us somehow? I'd rather focus the energy on making sure that this is well managed and fair. But that's a broad political philosophy that obviously is not widely shared. The libertarian/right-wing default is to strangle government in its bed, as one deep-thinking political savant once said. There seems to be real difficulty in finding a constituency whose goal is to make it run efficiently and appreciates its role.

---

Does this GSA have any Staff? Advisors from Public or Ag?

Dig in folks:

https://santarosaplaingroundwater.org/

I do note that the Board Advisor
Marlene Soiland, whose family owns four Rock Quarry's, an Asphalt Plant and Industrial Composting facility(Grab n' Grow) is listed as a "Rural Residential Well Owner" Advisor.
It is wonderful that folks are willing to put in the time to help guide public officials, but it would also be wonderful if they clearly displayed ALL the interests they may be representing, not just "Well Owner".

The Board and Advisors seem Ag Heavy and Commercial Heavy(Cities, Growth) from just a quick glance.

Which of these Board of Directors below do NOT represent commercial interests?


Directors
Joe Dutton, Director since 2001, President (Vineyards)
Torrey Olson, Director since Jan 2015, Treasurer (Orchardist)
Ann Cassidy, Director since 2008, Secretary (Land Trusts etc)
Richard Hughes, Director since 2011, Vice President (Dairy)
Mel Sanchietti, Director since 2016 (Vineyards)

I do see Herbicide use on Sanchetti's Vineyard along Hwy 12 just West of Water Trough, and on Dutton Properties along Hwy 116.

Perhaps it's time we banned all herbicide applications in our watersheds?
Perhaps herbicide applicators should not be planning and directing water policy?

The gsa so far has been funded and staffed by the water agency, which is appropriate because groundwater and surface water are so connected. The water agency has floated aquifer storage, injecting in the winter and pumping out in the summer, to get through peak summer flows given the dry creek limitation on delivery of lake sonoma water too the river. That is also why the agency got the Fed fish department to cut summer flow requirements on the river.

At this point I imagine the water agency/gsa has put on hold plans for computer modeling of the Santa Rosa plain groundwater basin, the assumptions in the usgs analysis are too basic and untested to be useful and the well data is very clear. When combined with climate data and the history of reservoir fill and use it's easy to figure out how to direct more water for human use. So far we will only have problems if there are several years of significantly less than average rain. So the gsa effort now is about creating additional revenue for the water agency. The bos loves funneling money and work thru the water agency because there is less oversight over the funds. They are even starting to do roadworks!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kane:

Does this GSA have any Staff? Advisors from Public or Ag?

Dig in folks:

https://santarosaplaingroundwater.org/...

---

Wow, that thing of Ms. Soiland being part of it and listed that way is TERRIBLE. Especially when you think about how Sonoma Compost got in trouble for its leachate going into their local creek- brings up the question of any potential leaching from Grab n Grow. I wonder how much of what goes into the water table up that way flows down from the Laguna... that piece of information needs to be spread far and wide.

I think it would be impossible to enforce a ban on herbicide applications, especially since their use can't always be seen from roads. But can you imagine the number of vineyards that would go out of business? But yeah, it would be great if everyone would just stop using them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kane:

...I do note that the Board Advisor
Marlene Soiland, whose family owns four Rock Quarry's, an Asphalt Plant and Industrial Composting facility(Grab n' Grow) is listed as a "Rural Residential Well Owner" Advisor.
It is wonderful that folks are willing to put in the time to help guide public officials, but it would also be wonderful if they clearly displayed ALL the interests they may be representing, not just "Well Owner"....

---