Skip to content

Dry Creek Valley Association

  • Increase font size
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
Home News & Views
The News
Gravel Wars are Over! Print E-mail

COURT HALTS RUSSIAN RIVER GRAVEL MINING

For more information:
Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA):  Marc Bommersbach (415) 860-2116, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Russian Riverkeeper:  Don McEnhill (707) 217-4762, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA):  Frank Egger (415) 456-6356, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Attorney:  Stephan Volker (510) 496-0600, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Santa Rosa – Today a coalition of community organizations representing conservationists, farmers, fishermen and recreationists announced their victory in Sonoma County Superior Court overturning the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ approval of Syar Industries’ proposal to resume terrace gravel mining of a 36-acre site west of the Russian River for three more years.  Terrace gravel mining by Syar and other companies over the past 40 years has devastated the Middle Reach of the Russian River.  Gravel mining has transformed this once verdant, fertile valley of vast vineyards, oak woodlands, and riparian forests towering above the Russian River into a barren landscape pockmarked with deep stagnant pools incapable of any form of agricultural production.  Excavation of gravel pits, which reach 90 feet in depth, has substantially depleted the storage capacity of the Russian River’s Middle Reach aquifer.  The resulting loss of agricultural production and aquifer storage capacity is permanent and irreparable.

 

In a 12-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd agreed with WASA, Russian Riverkeeper and NCRA that Sonoma County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.

 

Syar’s gravel mining project had been approved by a bare 3-2 majority of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.  The two Board members who voted against the project, Supervisors Mike Reilly and Valerie Brown, opposed it because the County had agreed in 1994 to end terrace gravel mining along the Russian River by April 2006.  Judge Boyd upheld their position that the April 2006 deadline for halting gravel mining could not be changed without substantial further environmental review.  The Board’s approval of the project violates the commitment previously made by the County to move to less environmentally harmful sources of gravel.

 

Stephan Volker, attorney for the plaintiffs, explained that the lawsuit was only brought as a last resort.  “These community organizations have pleaded with the Board of Supervisors for nearly a decade to persuade them to honor their solemn commitment to terminate terrace gravel mining along the Russian River because of its severe environmental impacts.  Although two members of the Board of Supervisors agreed that the County must move to other less harmful and readily available sources of gravel, unfortunately the gravel mining industry still held sway over the other three supervisors,” explained Mr. Volker.  “We are gratified that Judge Boyd has ruled that the County’s approval violated the law.  We hope that with this ruling the County will finally take seriously the environmental community’s resolve to end this extremely damaging and completely unnecessary method of supplying the County with gravel.  We look forward to the day when the County will work with us to develop the alternative sources of gravel that would spare the Russian River further damage and provide adequately for the County’s construction needs,” added Mr. Volker.

 

Plaintiff Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA) is a community organization formed to promote stewardship of the land and to protect both agricultural uses and natural resources of the Middle Reach of the Russian River. 

 

Plaintiff Russian Riverkeeper was formed in 1993 to preserve, restore, and enhance the natural systems of the Russian River through citizen action, scientific research, and expert advocacy.  It has hundreds of members residing throughout Sonoma County.

 

Plaintiff North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA) is an environmental organization that works to protect the Russian River and other rivers of California’s north coast from the adverse effects of excessive water diversions, ill-planned urban development, harmful resource extraction, pollution, and other forms of degradation.

 
Do You Own Land Along Dry Creek? Print E-mail

Options for Responding to County’s "Permit to Enter" Requests

            Those of you who own land with frontage along Dry Creek have probably been asked to sign a document entitled “PERMIT TO ENTER” from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA).  This entry permit relates to the significant Biological Opinion (“BO”) regarding threatened salmon and steelhead species in Dry Creek, which opinion was released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in September 2008.  The BO has two important components that significantly affect Dry Creek:

 

Read more...
 
County Pulls Plug on NSCARP! Print E-mail

EIR Certification Shelved

In a surprise move at the Board of Supervisors hearing on May 12, 2009, David Cuneo, Sonoma County Water Agency engineer, announced that his Agency was withdrawing its request that the controversial NSCARP Final EIR be certified at this time.  Cuneo stated, “There are issues of funding and firm commitments to use of this water, and because of the remaining issues, our recommendation is to take no action at this time.”

Read more...
 
AB 885 Update Print E-mail

May 2009 Update on Proposed Septic Regulations

After holding a public “workshop” in Santa Rosa in February, the state Water Board returned to Sacramento to rewrite their septic system regulations for the fourth time. Several critics who spoke at this meeting came away unconvinced that the Water Board staff was up to the task of writing a publicly acceptable and constitutionally defensible set of regulations.  Representatives from the Farm Bureau, the Builders Exchange, the California Association of Realtors, and Sonoma County Land Rights Coalition met with local legislative aides to discuss their concerns and to urge Assembly members Chesbro and Evans together with Senators Wiggins and Leno to repeal AB 885 altogether.

While none of our local legislators took up this challenge, Assemblyman Gaines of Roseville introduced AB 268, which would have repealed AB 885.  AB 268 was recently heard in a committee chaired by Wes Chesbro, Assemblyman for the 1st AD, which includes northern Sonoma County.  On April 14, Chesbro’s Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee voted along party lines not to allow the repeal measure to advance during this legislative session.

Chesbro expressed the hope that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) would do a better job on their next rewrite, and he invited SWRCB staff members to the same hearing to report on the progress they are making in writing new regulations. After the hearing, Chesbro announced, “Water Board representatives made it clear that they have torn up the onerous regulations proposed last year and are willing to start over with a clean slate.” Chesbro went on, “This time the Water Board needs to make sure the process is more transparent.  This committee, on a bipartisan basis will be monitoring the process. I have asked the Water Board to return late this summer for a progress report.”

Submitted by Richard Conrad 

 
Wastewater Options Print E-mail

Wastewater Disposal Options in Sonoma County

The Federal government considers tertiary treated wastewater too contaminated to put in the ocean, and the State Water Quality Control Board wants the pollutants out of the river – so why is Sonoma County proposing to dispose of wastewater in its own drinking water supply?

At a time when other California counties are spending billions to clean up their water supplies, a more sensible solution is to treat the tertiary wastewater to groundwater recharge standards.  Sonoma County can choose a different path - one that protects, not degrades, its clean water supply

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 5

News Update

If you are interested in our work sign up here and we'll send you our news updates by email. You don't have to be a member to receive this news service.


DCVA News Update


Receive HTML?