Sonoma County landowners fed up with what they see as heavy-handed government regulations
There?s a rural revolt unfolding among land owners in Sonoma County opposed to government having its way with their water wells, their septic tanks and their stream banks.
This pastoral uprising has been fomented by land owners frustrated by a wave of environmental rules they consider out of touch with lifestyles close to the earth, and ready to turn out by the hundreds to public hearings at a moment?s e-mail notice.
?It?s our Fourth Amendment freedom to be left alone on our property,? said Gloria Ball, a Knights Valley resident and an organizer of the Sonoma County Land Rights Coalition. ?When governments try to impose rules on our water and our land, it amounts to a taking of our property.?
While most of Sonoma County?s half-million residents live in one of nine cities, 130,000 live in rural, unincorporated areas. About 45,000 households, almost all of them in the country, rely on septic systems to flush their waste and wells to supply their water.
When the State Water Resources Board tried to hold a hearing on new septic tank regulations in Santa Rosa last month, the board had to close down the meeting when the 400-seat auditorium couldn?t hold everyone who showed up.
Much the same thing happened in fall 2007, when the Sonoma County planning commission held separate hearings on General Plan proposals on water well monitoring, biotic habitat and riparian setbacks.
The Land Rights Coalition that Ball heads is just one of several groups that spreads the word about perceived property threats through e-mail, postal mail and phone trees. The coalition often joins forces with the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the North Coast Builders Exchange and the North Bay Realtors Association.
?Of all the issues I deal with, I get more outraged phone calls from people who are infuriated with more big government trickling down with rules that don?t make sense,? said Lex McCorvey, the Farm Bureau?s executive director. ?People understand the need for maintaining water quality, but they don?t trust government when those rules mean they bear the hidden costs.?
Packed public hearings
The property advocates have geared up members, activists and sympathizers for the state water board?s redo Monday of the canceled septic tank hearing. This time, the board has reserved the 1,600-seat main theater at the center and the session will be from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m., with a break between
5 and 7 p.m.
These organizations have ripped pages out of the playbooks of environmental and community groups that, for decades, have churned political action with clarion calls to pack public hearings.
Environmentalists and neighborhood activists were largely responsible for the crowd of about 300 people who turned out for last Tuesday?s supervisors hearing on a controversial asphalt plant near Petaluma and for the 100 people, mostly in opposition, at a hearing on a disputed winery development in Knights Valley.
Philosophical divide
Environmental concerns about the quality of ground water and river water were at the heart of the Legislature?s passage in 2000 of AB 885, which puts the onus on septic systems users to monitor their systems. Sampling of about 1,000 residential wells in five counties found that about a quarter of them experienced water quality problems, a result cited by regulators as evidence that preventive maintenance is in the public health interest.
Denny Rosatti, executive director of Conservation Action, the county?s most influential environmental group, views the competition as usually well-intentioned but often misinformed.
?It is the postcard and the fear that gets them to turn out when people hear there are threats to their property,? Rosatti said. ?They don?t give people the whole story.?
He credits the opponents of water well monitoring and septic tank regulation with ?having plenty of passion with their opinions.? However, he feels Conservation Action?s person-to-person contact results in better informed residents appearing at public hearings.
?You want to go with the facts and point out the other side, that the waterways of the state need to be kept clean, that species need protection and that public health in rural areas can be compromised by leaking septic systems and polluted wells,? Rosatti said.
But Eric Koenigshofer, former county supervisor and now an attorney on land use issues, said the rural revolt ?is not as simple as old-fashioned property-rights conservatism.?
Koenigshofer sees an increasingly broad philosophical divide between rural residents and suburban dwellers who rely on sewers and wells, yet have no idea how a septic tank and leach field work.
?There is broad public support for preventing stream pollution and insuring water quality, but you also find there are residents who don?t want these suburban attitudes or gentrification and they are pushing back on regulations from the outside the envelope,? he said. ?People in rural areas have lived there for a long time so the idea that they need to be closely watched, that they need somebody traipsing around their property and that they need to pay for that regulation is abhorrent.?
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: