Thousands of rural Sonoma County residents miss deadline for water regulations

Rural residents within the watersheds of four Russian River tributaries that provide habitat for imperiled fish species have only partially complied with controversial drought regulations handed down last summer to preserve dwindling stream flows.

That’s the word from state water managers, who have resorted to aerial photography in remote areas to detect lawns that are being watered when they should not be, officials said.

In a progress report on the conservation regime presented this week, a representative for the State Water Resources Control Board said “quite a few” properties appeared to be benefiting from turf irrigation in violation of the regulations, though so far only 23 inspection cases have been opened and 14 warnings issued, officials said.

In addition, only half of more than 10,000 landowners in the four affected watersheds had met October deadlines for mandatory reports detailing their use of surface and groundwater - despite the threat of hefty fines for those who fail to submit the information, state water regulators said.

Residents in the areas of Mill Creek west of Healdsburg, Mark West Creek north of Santa Rosa, and Green Valley and Dutch Bill creeks in west Sonoma County are subject to fines up to $500 for each day they miss the deadline for producing information the state water board considers crucial to stream and habitat management.

“Moving forward, that is essential information,” said Erin Ragazzi, assistant deputy director of the water board.

The conservation and reporting measures are part of a multipronged effort to prevent the extinction of Russian River coho salmon, whose population already was marginal when consecutive years of drought further threatened their survival.

The tributaries serve as nurseries for young coho and steelhead trout, and low flows left many fish to perish in disconnected pools of warm, poorly oxygenated water this past summer, officials said.

Water officials concede their haste in developing the rules amid the escalating crisis contributed to confusion and even landowner resistance that may have affected compliance levels. But they also said they hoped information gathered from landowners would prevent a similar scramble next year.

Reminder letters sent to more than 5,000 landowners last week, for instance, produced a flurry of emails and phone calls from would-be responders, suggesting some people just needed prodding, Ragazzi said. Some just need help with the online reporting system, she said.

But “because of the emergency nature, we had a very abbreviated time frame for public comment” on the regulation, Dorene D’Adamo, a state water board member, told about 80 people gathered for an update on the watershed measures Monday night. “And once we rolled it out - because we were moving so quickly, in an effort to protect the coho salmon - we had some bumps in the road.”

But Sonoma County Supervisor James Gore, who took part in the Monday night update, said the regulation came down to a determination “that imperfect action was better than perfect inaction.”

“We were dealing with ground zero for the future of the coho, Central Coast coho, in this watershed, and imperfect action was the way to go,” Gore said.

The regulatory package, which took effect July 6 and is set to expire April 1, had two primary components. It defined what are called “enhanced conservation measures” that included a ban on irrigation of ornamental turf and a variety of other restrictions on use of potable water drawn from the watershed.

So far, only those who own property in what are deemed “critical areas” in the upper reaches of the four watersheds must abide by the enhanced measures, which do not apply to vineyards. About 3,750 parcels are affected.

The second pillar of the regulation is a requirement that the owners of all 13,000 designated parcels in the watersheds, including vineyards and other agricultural properties, report within 30 days of notification the number and type of water sources they depend on, their estimated water use by month and what they use it for.

Reminder letters sent out last week said the water board would begin issuing penalties to those who did not respond in good faith by Nov. 13.

Discussion during the Monday meeting revealed continuing bitterness about the regulations, in large part from residents who have complained for months that they were being unfairly burdened and that more should be done to force conservation upon the wine grape industry.

Speakers during the meeting also blamed recent decades of development and population growth for exceeding the carrying capacity of the local water supply.?But Russ Messana, a Rincon Valley grape grower, stood alone to represent the industry and said the top topic among growers was how to cut back on water use. In his case, such cuts have resulted in smaller harvests and lost income from his 20 acres, he said.

“Two years ago, I farmed 86 tons off my acres,” he said. “This last year, I got 36 tons because I’ve cut back my water so much.”

You can reach Staff Writer Mary Callahan at 521-5249 or mary.callahan@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MaryCallahanB.