St. Helena site for water rules hearing

Proposed state rules to regulate how much water can be pumped from streams in Napa and along the North Coast have drawn fire over the past few months from farmers and environmentalists alike.

The new rules, which critics such as the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Napa Farm Bureau said are flawed and unworkable, will be discussed before state officials Wednesday in St. Helena.
Dorothy Rice, executive director of the State Water Resources Control Board, the agency that released the draft policy on Dec. 28 for public review, will be among the speakers at the joint hearing of the Assembly Select Committee on Wine and the Senate Select Committee on California’s Wine Industry.

The policy will implement AB 2121, a law passed in 2004 to protect fish by regulating water flows in streams in Napa, Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt counties.
 “There is a lot of confusion about the policy and how it could impact the wine industry,” said in an e-mail Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, who scheduled the hearing with state Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa. “This is fueling fears about what lies ahead,” Evans said.

“The hearing will provide a chance to learn about the draft policy from those who wrote it and hear different perspectives on how we can strike a balance between maintaining fish habitat and preserving agriculture,” Evans said.
Evans chairs the Assembly Select Committee on Wine, and Wiggins chairs the Senate Select Committee on California’s Wine Industry.

Napa County Farm Bureau this spring urged the state to reject the proposed rules.

On Friday, Jim Lincoln, a vineyard manager at Beckstoffer Vineyards and a director with the Napa County Farm Bureau, hopes to persuade the State Water Resources Board to study an alternative policy.

 “We’re encouraging our members to attend (Wednesday’s) hearing and spend a short time speaking to the flaws of the draft policy,” said Lincoln, who expects members of the public will be allowed 3 minutes or less at Wednesday’s hearing.

Under the draft policy, Lincoln said, farmers will be required to leave so much water flowing in the streams that they may not be able to have enough of it to farm.

One issue, Lincoln explained, is that the proposed rules did not take into consideration the climate differences in the region. For instance, the draft policy ignores creeks that go dry during the summer months in Napa County.

“It was not written for a Mediterranean climate,” Lincoln said, referring to Napa County’s climate. “We know there are tremendous differences between Napa and Humboldt.”

Napa County officials, too, have questioned the proposed rules in written comments to state officials.

In a letter sent in April to state regulators, the Napa County Board of Supervisors asked for more analysis of local water flows.

The board told the state that the proposed policy does not address secondary impacts of the increased use of ground water. The policy should recognize the link between surface and ground water, the board said.

The Napa County Resource Conservation District also raised concerns to the state officials.

“In our opinion, this difficulty in obtaining water will encourage water rights holders to alter their diversion practices in ways which might have serious negative consequences for the fish, in effect doing more harm than good,” Napa County RCD board president Clinton Pridmore wrote state officials.

Arcata biologist Patrick Higgins, who wrote state officials on behalf of the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club, has argued the proposed rules will not protect the fish.

In a letter to state water officials dated April 2, Higgins said the proposed draft policy to implement A.B. 2121 does not address “long-recognized water supply problems.”

Among the shortcomings, Higgins said, is the state’s lack of consideration for the effects of ground water pumping. The draft policy, he also said, does not evaluate summer and fall water flows when young fish grow, or the effects of land use on the watershed.

Higgins also questioned the state’s willingness to enforce existing regulations.

There are more than 600 points of water diversion in Napa County, including more than 300 that have not been approved by the state, according to Higgins.

The state, Higgins wrote in April, “refuses to enforce water law and to provide a disincentive for unpermitted water use, creating an epidemic problem of illegal diversions.”

Trout Unlimited, an Oakland-based group that supported AB 2121 in 2004, has proposed a collaborative approach among property owners whose lands drain in the same creek or river, to figure how much water can be diverted without damaging fish habitat.

Lincoln said the Farm Bureau supports a watershed approach to protect the fish while allowing farmers to continue to farm.

That would entail allowing property owners to pool resources to pay for the required studies to determine the levels of water to protect the fish.

The implementation of AB 2121 should be put on hold while a new policy is developed, he said.

“I hope this hearing will direct the state board to open their eyes to an alternative that is useful to fish and farm,” Lincoln said.

The State Water Resources Control Board has scheduled workshops on the new policy on Aug. 5 and 6 in Ukiah and Santa Rosa.

Judie Panneton, a spokeswoman for the State Water Resources Control Board, said in an e-mail that the agency’s staff is reviewing written comments on the draft policy and will consider comments it receives at the two August workshops.

“After that, staff will be making appropriate changes to the draft policy and will respond to comments on environmental impacts,” Panneton said.

“A revised draft will be considered by the board at the beginning of next year. However the schedule depends on the changes that may be necessary,” she said.