Stream proposal stokes debate

Creating protection zones around more streams traversing Sonoma County is seen as a curse by landowners who fear loss of property rights, but viewed as a blessing by environmentalists who see expansion as salvation for waterways.

That much was made pretty clear during nearly three hours of public testimony Wednesday evening before Sonoma County supervisors considering changes to the 1989 General Plan.

The 1989 plan protects about 500 miles of "riparian corridors" with buffer zones ranging from 25 to 100 feet, depending whether they are upland or flatland streams. Proposals in the 2020 General Plan would place protection zones along 3,000 miles of streams, which is largely why about 150 residents turned out for the hearing at the Glaser Center in Santa Rosa.

Doug Beretta, an organic dairy farmer and Sonoma County Farm Bureau president, said he stands to lose about 75 acres of his 400-acre farm on Llano Road because a man-made channel would become a protected waterway.

"We would lose feed grass for our cattle, and it would cost us $125,000 to replace it," he said.

Sheep rancher Joe Pozzi said he feared expanding stream protection zones would "set back (farmers' and ranchers') cooperation by decades if you put in more regulations."

Pozzi said voluntary participation by farmers and ranchers in resource conservation districts has proven effective.

However, Terry Harrison, a Westside Road rancher and member of the North Coast Alliance of Family Farmers, said property owners could benefit by stream restoration if they work at sculpting banks on their land and planting native vegetation.

And Carla Noyes of Sonoma said her Brookview Drive home "should not have been built in the 1950s" because it is too close to the creek, and that's why she would support 100-foot setbacks.

Greg Carr, the county's comprehensive planning manager, said two-thirds of inquiries from residents about all proposals in the new general plan deal with the question of riparian corridor protection zones on their property.

Supervisors will hold another hearing today on the same topic, along with other topics such as community separators, biotic habitat, scenic landscape areas and open space, all of which received considerably less comment Wednesday.

The Board of Supervisors is to conclude public hearings on the plan Sept. 20, then debate policy changes and vote on a final version in the spring.

At Wednesday's hearing, Orlean Koehle, president of the Sonoma County Land Rights Coalition, said increasing stream setbacks will prevent people from developing property.

"Environmentalists are setting these ambiguous rules when there is no scientific basis for it," she said.

Caitlin Cornwall of the Sonoma Ecology Center disagreed, saying "a stream is not a single property owner's issue . . . It is not just about the bunnies and the bees."

She said the regulations are aimed at halting harmful agricultural activities and do not apply to existing uses.

You can reach Staff Writer Bleys W. Rose at 521-5431 or bleys.rose@pressdemocrat.com.