Comments on Water District concerns about riparian protection

(We submitted the comments below on attempts to fight poor implementation of riparian protection policies in Santa Clara County.  -Brian) 

October 25, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

            Re:  Agenda Item 12, BMR-10-0064 regarding exceptions to riparian ordinances

Dear Chair Santos and District Board Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills agrees with the Staff recommendation that the two options that Staff identified for performance evaluations of riparian protections would likely be unproductive for the cost involved.  However, it may be productive to broaden the BMR to consider more generally whether land use agencies have provided the adequate riparian protection that was the necessary counterpart to revoking Water District Ordinance 83-2 as well as the decision to desis from expanding the District's permit authority to a 150-foot buffer.  The BMR might also consider whether the District could do more to assist in the application of adequate riparian protection policies.

I would encourage consideration of specific examples to see whether the protection the District sought through expanding Ordinance 83-2 has been achieved under present conditions.  Several examples that immediately spring to mind include:

·         Los Altos Hills, with a 25-foot riparian buffer policy.

·         Los Gatos and the development recently proposed along Ross Creek.

·         San Jose and the relatively recent development projects on Duckett Way and Guadalupe Mines Road.

In each case the District might analyze whether it could help with riparian protection under current policies.  For example, in the case of the Guadalupe Mines Road project, the District submitted a useful comment letter prior to the initiation of CEQA review for the project, but the District did not comment on the CEQA document itself and did not provide comments when the project approval was appealed by environmental groups and another governmental agency, the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District.

We believe that more can be done to improve riparian protection.  Because we are aware of interest in different cities for improving policies (for example, San Jose's proposed Draft General Plan revision to reduce exceptions to its 100-foot buffer policy), we think this could be advanced in a way that shows the District's concern but is still productive and cooperative.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Comments on Water District Ends Policy Workshop

(Yesterday I attended the Water District Board workshop on changing its overall guidance policies. In addition to attending, I spoke at the meeting and submitted the letter below.  It might help to read the Board materials for October 20, 2010 and Agenda Item 4 to understand the letter I submitted. We did get some action on one item, but the others will have to wait another day. -Brian)

October 20, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

            Re:  Agenda Item 4, Ends Policy Workshop and Recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee

Dear Chair Santos and Board Members;

I submit the following comments on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills regarding the Ends Policies recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee.  We thank District Staff for their work with the EAC and other committees, and for Staff's support of the large majority of Ends Policy changes that the EAC has recommended in recent years.  In some cases discussed below we disagree with staff on certain recommendations, and in others we believe that staff misunderstood the purpose of the recommendations.

My comments refer to Attachment 2, Advisory Committee Recommendations:

Policy 1 E-2, language regarding change in winter storms from a mix of rain and snow to mostly rain.  The staff response misunderstands this recommendation to deal with water supply, possibly considering it a reference to Sierra snowpack changes.  It actually concerned our local hydrology, where winter storms that currently deliver snow at high elevations will increasingly switch to rain throughout, with a possible increase to flood risk.  While Executive Limitation EL7.7 on understanding climate change impacts might apply here, the EAC hasn't been informed that flooding forecasts have actually been analyzed to consider this issue.

Policy 2 E-2, language on policies for geographic areas outside of the District.  Staff misunderstands this recommendation to refer to adequate supplies of imported water.  It actually referred to the environmental impacts the District doubtless has on geographic areas through our imported water use and other potential effects (examples may include downstream flooding on the Pajaro and operation of the San Luis Reservoir).  The idea is that the District's interest in minimizing its environmental impact extends beyond District boundaries.

Policy 7 E-4, language regarding habitat conservation plans.  We may need more specifics on this recommendation from the EAC's July 2010 meeting.

Policy 10 E-4.1.3, recommending a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore the natural physical stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams."   Staff disagree with this recommendation for two reasons.  First they say (correctly) that the concepts are considered at Staff level.  While true, the question is whether Objectives set by the Board provide sufficient direction for Staff to execute the Board Policies.  The existing Objective most closely related to this issue is E-4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources."  (See Attachment 6, page 1.)  The opinion that EAC members and subcommittee members have expressed is that Objective 4.1.2 does not provide adequate direction.  While details done at Staff level are helpful, they do not make up for inadequate direction given at the Board level in the Objectives.

The second objection raised by staff is that many factors need to be balanced for District projects.  The EAC concurs and raises no objection to existing Objective 4.1.1, "Balance water supply, flood protection, and environmental stewardship functions."  The proposed Objective no more conflicts with this balancing provision than does existing Objective 4.1.2 to improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources.

Policy 11 E-4.1.4, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key species indicative watershed health." The same issue arises here as above, that Staff interpretation does not remove the need for adequate Board direction, and Objective 4.1.2 is too general to provide adequate direction.

Staff also state that restoring habitat is better wording than restoring species.  If the Board agrees with Staff, then the solution here would be to reword this Objective rather than reject it outright.

Policy 12 E-4.1.5, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore riparian and in-stream and tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health, including diked historical bay land wetlands and former salt ponds."  Same issues as with the previous two Objectives, that existing Objective 4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources," does not provide real direction to Staff.

We appreciate Staff's support for Policies 14 and 15, as well as Staff support for many EAC policy recommendations that have already been incorporated into Board policies.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Guest Post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts

(CGF Intern Anthony Aerts gave us this final write-up about his time with us this summer.  Thanks for all the help, Anthony!  -Brian)

                                                                                                           8/31/10

My Time at CGF

Today was the final day of my summer internship with CGF. It’s hard to believe that ten weeks can go by so quickly. During my time here, I was fortunate to be given the responsibility and independence to complete three diverse projects. I was also lucky to be able to work and learn from both Brian and Cynthia on a one-on-one basis. For ten weeks, I felt not like a grunt worker, but a part of the CGF team.

            

Some of my earliest work consisted of researching the current hillside development regulations in place for various jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. I collected data from the each jurisdiction’s zoning code for relevant regulatory measures. These measures included green building standards, house size limits, building height limits, light reflectance values, and transferable development credits. As a final product, I combined these findings into a forward-looking project proposal for future hillside development research to combat urban sprawl in the Bay Area.

Second, I worked closely with Cynthia to develop a write-up on the historical ecology of the San Francisquito Creek watershed. This watershed will face many biologic and jurisdictional challenges in the years to come, and CGF may have a role to play. My summary was used to compliment the more extensive cultural study done on the Creek’s lower watershed by co-intern, Annika Christensen. Hopefully this project can be of use to the debate and planning around one of Santa Clara’s most valuable natural resources.

Finally, the project which required most of my time involved creating, with Brian’s help, a position statement on subsidized water for urban edge farms. While subsidies are normally discouraged by environmentalists when they lead to waste, we had reason to believe that this label may not necessarily be appropriate for urban edge farms who engage in water conservation practices. CGF considers all farms in Santa Clara County to be urban edge. As such, they provide many environmental benefits as buffers to urban sprawl and preservers of cultural/historic values. I was fortunate enough to conduct informational interviews with five farmers in the region, and the testimony I collected formed a supporting document to the position statement. We concluded that water subsidies do play a role in helping these urban edge farms stay economically viability and continue to provide the above mentioned environmental benefits. This project was an important exercise in unifying the visions of the farming and environmental communities; something that will be increasingly important for both sides going forward.

I appreciate all that I have learned here at CGF and all of you who I met this summer. 

Happy trails -- Anthony

Good news from the Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee

Yesterday, the Environmental Advisory Committee of the Santa Clara Valley Water District approved five policy recommendations made by a subcommittee that I chair, all designed to improve the District's handling of erosion and the impact on streams and habitats.  Three of the recommendations were somewhat controversial as District staff felt they were too specific for the higher level policy recommendations, but in the end the Committee agreed with all five.  They'll now get passed on to the Water District Board for its final decision.

The new recommended policies are these:

Policy Objectives

4.1.3 Protect, enhance and restore the natural physical

     stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams.

4.1.4  Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key    

     species indicative of watershed health.

4.1.5    Protect, enhance and restore riparian and in stream and

                   tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health,  

including diked historical bayland wetlands and former salt ponds. 

Strategies

4.1.2.3      Develop ecologically based habitat goals and levels of

service for use in planning and implementation.” (P & C)

4.1.2.4            Develop Stream Restoration Plans in collaboration with

                  municipal governments (C) 

-Brian Schmidt

Fixing the mercury problem here at home and throughout California - a guest post

(Below is a guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts, completed today on his first day on the job.  We expect that we'll be seeing more over the summer.  -Brian Schmidt)

Due to its unique mining history of being the main source of mercury used in vast quantities for gold processing during California's Gold rush, Santa Clara County suffers from large concentrations of mercury pollution. In high enough amounts, mercury can prove harmful to humans, especially to children and pregnant women, by causing neurological defects. A recent Mercury News article detailed the severity of this problem by reporting on a survey conducted by the State Water Resource Control Board. The survey found that five Santa Clara County lakes and reservoirs rank in the top 15 statewide for mercury contamination, with concentrations well above the consumption-safe level. Almaden Lake, near San Jose, has the highest mercury concentration in California.

 Several policy options should be considered for reversing this contamination. These policies function as variations of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a standard pollution-control concept which holds the original producers of a pollutant responsible for the recovery and disposal costs throughout the entire life of their product. In Germany, EPR is applied through the Green Dot System whereby a product is awarded a distinguishing symbol if its manufacturer helps to fund the recovery and recycling of the product’s packaging waste.

One solution here in California would be a new state law making the original mercury producers responsible for funding the removal of the mercury that they have introduced into California's economy. These would be the earliest in time, "upstream" producers of the mercury, who would be responsible for solutions at least as much as the later consumers who may have less knowledge of the problem or only deal with tiny amounts.  The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC)  works on similar EPR concepts that shift costs of waste management from publicly-funded entities to private manufacturers.

  Depending on the product, some waste materials are difficult or impossible to recover. Applying EPR may work best when manufacturers can recover the same kind of waste even if it’s  not tracking and recovering the specific waste they released.  From a cost-efficiency standpoint, it may be cheaper to allow manufacturers of mercury-related products the option of participating in the removal of the mercury waste of others. For example, several old mine sites have large concentrations of mercury and do not present the same clean-up challenges as tracking and disposing of mercury-related products distributed over a large area . Cleanup of mercury in “fixed” locations, however, may provide fewer environmental benefits because that mercury has less outlets to enter the ecosystem. In order to compensate, producers who choose this option should have to clean up much more mercury than they actually emit thorough their own product.

A third potential solution is to focus not on the physical removal of the mercury, but rather on mitigating its toxic effects. These measures include installing devices which might pump oxygen into lakes to prevent mercury from being chemically converted into its harmful form and working to isolate old mercury deposits.

CGF will continue to track this issue and cooperate with the with other organizations looking for opportunities to help create the significant legislative and regulatory changes needed to combat the severe problem of mercury contamination in Santa Clara County waters.

(UPDATE:  Anthony has revised the text above to clarify some of the concepts.  We thank readers for the suggestions.)

Good news for improving environmental funding by the Water District

A potential environmental victory may be in the works at the Water District, fixing a defect in the current Clean Safe Creeks measure, if the measure gets renewed.

The current CSC funding is supposed to dedicate 14% of the parcel tax to environmental enhancement, while most of the remainder is dedicated to flood control.  While that 14% of course should be good news, included in the allowable activities for that 14% is removing vegetation from flood channels.  The argument is that much of the removed vegetation are non-native plants, but really it's not about getting rid of non-natives, it's about improving flood conveyance.

At a recent workshop about a potential renewed CSC measure (the current one expires in 2016), I raised this issue and said vegetation removal from channels should be charged to flood control, not to environmental enhancement.  Water District staff agreed with me, and said they'd been thinking along the same lines.

While that might not sound like a huge victory (and it's not a victory at all unless and until a new parcel tax measure is written with the right language and passes), it could be bigger than it sounds.  In effect, it boosts the amount spent on actual environmental enhancement, and will help make Santa Clara County watersheds that much better off.

-Brian Schmidt

Good news - Water District to support Extended Producer Responsibility

On Tuesday, the Santa Clara Valley Water District reconsidered a recommendation to pull sponsorship and funding from the California Product Stewardship Council.  Several environmental leaders wrote into the District to ask them to continue their support.  I went to the budget meeting on Tuesday and pointed out that Extended Producer Responsibility - the idea that producers of toxins and other wastes are responsible for removing them from the environment - could help the cleanup of the many local areas affected by mercury. The Water District Board unanimously chose to continue sponsorship.

Congrats to the Water District for its decision, and hopefully we can make progress on the mercury cleanup.

-Brian Schmidt

Accomplishments of the Environmental Advisory Committee for the Water District

On Tuesday, I presented an accomplishment report for the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), where I've been the chair for the last two years.  You can hear (and possibly see) the proceedings here at their webcast archive.  My portion starts at 1:17:30, which you can find by scrolling down to Item 3 directly below the video and clicking, which occurred on the agenda out of order, after Item 13.  I didn't discuss much of the accomplishment report, but you can read it by clicking the different Item 3, just to the left of the video (hope that's not too confusing!).

Anyway, the Board of Directors had very nice things to say about our work.  Director Kamei and Director Mann said that we got a lot accomplished, and Director Santos complimented me for my work on behalf of CGF, "taking a stand" that has a significant influence in the County.

Director Wilson had a compliment for the entire EAC that I transcribed below:

This Commitee is one that has really learned how to bring about real change through its efforts and to understand the policy process that we have to go through and we've made real changes that I think you're going to see more, based on input from the Environmental Advisory Committee.  I don't know of any committee that's had a greater impact in the last three or four years.  Thank you very much.

The whole thing's about six minutes.

-Brian

Comments to Water District about environmental recommendations

(CGF sent the following memo to the Water District Board of Directors to encourage environmental improvements related to erosion and habitat issues. -Brian)


Memorandum

Date: September 21, 2009

To: Water District Board of Directors

From: Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills

Re: Suggestions for Agenda Item #9: EAC recommendations and staff response


The Committee for Green Foothills has the following suggestions for the Board concerning staff responses to the EAC recommendations. The staff responses are at Attachment 3 of Item 9, on page 1 of 5.

1. Joint EAC/Staff recommendation on ends policies: staff now recommends this be incorporated into broader revisions of ends policies in the fall or winter.

CGF response: no objection. In addition, however, we request that the Board direct or authorize staff to release portions of the staff-proposed revisions for the workshop as soon as practicable prior to the workshop, so EAC members can review how the joint recommendations have been revised by staff.

2. EAC suggestion that the Board increase the priority and funding for environmental enhancement related to erosive forces: staff recommends consideration during the forthcoming budget process.

CGF response: we request a decision to take some kind of action on this recommendation. We are concerned that the staff recommendation may lead to no action ever being taken on this recommendation, to either support or reject it. The issues raised by funding are also broader than the budget of any single year. Please see the addendum for more information.

3. EAC recommendation that staff prepare a Stream Restoration Strategy following completion of the Habitat Plans: staff recommends the Board request a proposal for strategy preparations following completion of the two Habitat Plans.

CGF response: we support the staff proposal. In addition, however, we request the Board direct staff to consider the ideas and recommendations of the EAC Erosive Forces Subcommittee report, "Technical Support Document for Recommendations Re: Erosive Forces in Streams and Stream Restoration", dated March 20, 2009.


Addendum: reasons for increased budgeting for environmental enhancement and erosive forces.

There are three reasons for increased budgeting for environmental enhancement in the context of erosive forces. First, the environmental enhancement pillar of the Water District's work has been underfunded compared to the older, better-financed pillars of flood control and water supply. Second, a future reauthorization of the Clean Safe Creeks bond or similar action would need to draw upon a broader base of public support that environmental enhancements can appeal to.

Third, the staff response to earlier and more detailed versions of erosive forces programmatic recommendations is that budgetary limits constrain their adoption, and decisions on those issues fall to the District Board:

• Staff response to recommendation for more data gathering: "The level of data gathering and analysis and other future programmatic activities will be dependent on budgetary capacities."

• Response to recommendation for creating detailed habitat goals: "Future investments [in habitat goals] will be tempered by fiscal capacities and willingness of other partners to help fund…."

• Response to recommendation for new approaches to easement/land acquisition: "to fully implement [easement recommendations] would likely require a large up-front investment….possible when funding is available."

• Response to recommendation for more hydrological monitoring: "….activities will be dependent on budgetary capacities."


The District Board's budgetary constraints on these programmatic suggestions requires Board action. We encourage the Board to support increased funding, even if it is not feasible in the next year or two.