Battle brews over ridge reservoirs

MENDOCINO COUNTY – State water regulators allege that reservoirs in a 162-acre mountaintop vineyard property on the Mendocino coast need permits from the agency, but a statewide farming trade group asserts this is a test case to expand agency authority beyond defined waterways.

The California Farm Bureau Federation plans to testify at an April 20 public hearing in Sacramento before the State Water Resources Control Board involving allegedly unauthorized reservoirs at Manchester Ridge Coast Mountain Vineyards. The federation worries a negative ruling will set a precedent for expanded state water board jurisdiction over what are called sheet-flow reservoirs, according to Jack Rice, an attorney for the Sacramento-based group.

“I think this is an attempt by staff of the board to clarify or expand their jurisdiction,” he said.

A public hearing before the State Water Resources Control Board is set for April 20 on a draft cease-and-desist order and administrative civil liability complaint involving Manchester Ridge Coast Mountain Vineyards located on flat-topped Adams Ridge east of Point Arena on the Mendocino coast.

Board staff recommended a fine of $23,870, according to the complaint, filed last July. The maximum penalty allowed is $500 a day, or $547,500 for the three years water board staff allege problems.

Named in the complaint are Manchester Ridge property owners Harriet Jean Piper, William Piper, Matthew Piper, Carole Canaveri and Kathleen Stornetta as well as vineyard operator Manchester Ridge LLC.

They and their attorneys at Ellison Schneider & Harris in Sacramento declined to comment for this story.

“Sheet flow” is rain water that flows over the ground across a wide area, rather than in a defined waterway. The state farm bureau is worried that this action could expand state regulation to sheet-flow reservoirs created from damming swales, low spots in fields or depressions in hillsides, according to Mr. Rice.

“No one really knows the number of ponds this would affect,” said Mendocino County Farm Bureau Executive Director Devon Jones. “There are a number out there.”

Water board staff disagree that this is an expansion of jurisdiction. Rather, this is part of agency regulation of surface water, according to a spokesman.

“We believe two of those reservoirs have a streambed and bank,” said spokesman David Clegern. “The irony is that part of the evidence came off their own Web site.”

Mentioned in the complaint is an aerial photograph of the vineyard, dated August 2006 that shows water in reservoir No. 1, which holds 30 acre-feet of water, and in the area to be occupied by planned reservoir No. 3.

The water board filing alleges that these ponds “have reduced the amount of water available for downstream diverters,” referring to other growers and property owners that would be tapping water from the Alder Creek system. Also, the complaint said that unauthorized diversions of water from that watershed contribute to a cumulative impact on habitat of federally protected steelhead trout and Coho salmon.

The farming groups are making it clear they are involved with the Manchester Ridge case strictly for the sheet-flow reservoir issue and not about whether the previous vineyard manager followed proper permitting procedure. State forestry officials inspecting the second phase of the vineyard project alerted water board staff to four ponds on the property, two of which the staff claims are part of waterways. The 30-acre third phase of the vineyard project along with reservoir No. 3 were never started.

Manchester Ridge in November 2003 submitted a wetland-delineation study that noted that stream channels leading to the Alder Creek watershed begin where groundwater comes to the surface downhill from the reservoirs in question, according to the complaint. Vineyard manager at the time Chris Stone, who left in 2004, asserted in that letter that the wetland survey showed the reservoirs weren’t under the board’s jurisdiction.

Water board staff in early 2004 reiterated their original opinion after reviewing the wetland study, according to the complaint.

For more information about the Manchester Ridge case, visit www.waterrights.ca.gov/hearings/manchester_ridge.html.