From left to right: Caryl Hart, Vickie Mulas, Rand Dericco, Gayle Goldstone, Don Marquardt (eclipsed), Dick Fogg, Rick Savel, Tamara Boultbee, Dick Osborn and Craig Harrington. Out of frame to the left: Dan Fein, Tony Korman and Andy Rodgers.Absent: Bob Marshal, Steve Butler, Donna Mazzucchi.

The date was March 20, 2003. It was a Thursday night. The full Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) convened in the PRMD Hearing Room to examine the remainder of a controversial Water Resources Element (WRE) slated for inclusion in the General Plan Update for 2020.

Before the meeting a rancher named John King gave copies of Santa Barbara's Groundwater Plan to each CAC member. This document is the equivalent of Sonoma County's Water Resources Element.

The full 15-member CAC looked at the Santa Barbara Plan, then they looked at the Sonoma County Plan. Uh-ho. Something seemed terribly out-of-whack.

H.R. Downs explains.

The Night of the Women

Last Thursday night, March 20th, women rose up and dominated the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. The clear and powerful voices of Tamara Boultbee, Caryl Hart and Vickie Mulas demanded that emphatic language replace the wishy-washy language crafted by the three-man WRE Subcommittee. For example, the women frequently demanded that phrases like “should consider” be replaced with “shall”. The word “shall” carries legal weight and compels that something must be done. In effect, the women on the CAC insisted that “teeth” be put into Sonoma County’s water policy and that it be bolstered by passages from the California Water Code for extra reinforcement. The obvious goal is to create a sustainable groundwater resource.

The three-man subcommittee that produced the proposed WRE came up with a decidedly limp document that would easily permit water-wasters to continue squandering water. The women would have none of it. In fact, other CAC members seemed emboldened by the female charge and chimed in with several useful suggestions. Dan Fein and Rick Savel both urged stronger language be included to protect water resources. Rand Dericco and Tony Korman wanted to know why the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) pumps scarce Sonoma County groundwater and sells it to Marin County. But the women were clearly leading the charge and seemed to grasp the fundamental problems and understand the solutions to those problems better than any of the men.

Appealing to Saint Barbara

Prior to the meeting, John King handed each CAC member a copy of Santa Barbara’s water element. This document is highly regarded by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a nearly perfect water policy. Surprise, surprise, it looks nothing at all like the existing water element drafted by Sonoma County’s three-man team.

As anyone who has been following this comic opera knows, the three-man, Supervisor-appointed team that drafted the Water Resources Element all have links to giant water wasters. Craig Harrington, for example, is a land investor and developer with Quaker Hill Development. His firm intends to build upon land already identified by the State of California as “prime groundwater recharge areas”. Mr. Harrington has voted not to adopt countywide policies that would protect identified groundwater recharge lands.

Another member, Steve Butler heads Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy’s Land Use department. As a lawyer, Mr. Butler represents national and local developers, and others, in land use matters and procures County and State approvals for shopping centers, wineries, multi- and single-family residential projects, golf courses, surface mining operations and other business ventures—all of which, you may notice, are huge consumers of water. In over a year of work devoted to drafting the present WRE, Mr. Butler managed to overlook SB 610 and SB 221, as well as other legislation intended to protect water resources.

The third and last member is Andy Rodgers. Mr. Rodgers is an intelligent, personable man and a professional geologist. He is also the Chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee. His company, ECON, “is proud to have provided a variety of services” to: the City of Santa Rosa, the City of Petaluma, the City of Healdsburg, as well as—and you might want to sit down for this—the City of Rohnert Park, the County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Such is the make up of this Mr. Rodger’s neighborhood

Rohnert Park is currently enmeshed in lawsuits focused on water profligacy. The County of Sonoma’s Supervisors appointed these developer-linked men to the Subcommittee in the first place. County officials have consistently attempted to advance a water policy without “teeth”—an eventuality that would permit developers to continue despoiling natural resources.

The men who make up the three-man Subcommittee are not bad guys, they are not criminals and they have not done anything “wrong”—they are simply tainted by strong associations with interests that run contrary to a balanced water policy. It is inappropriate to have them sit on a Subcommittee deciding the fate of water resources. It’s like this: it may be inappropriate to elect a fox to guard a henhouse, but that certainly does not mean that foxes are bad. Foxes are wonderful and have their place. They simply don’t belong inside a henhouse.

The Ole Boys Club

In a previous CAC meeting on March 6, while scrutinizing the current WRE, Vickie Mulas suggested that perhaps a moratorium on building might be in order until the County solves the water crisis. The suggestion was met with nervous laughs, winks and nods by Don Marquardt, Greg Carr, Dick Fogg and some others. The obvious dismissal of Ms. Mulas’ suggestion smacked to many in the audience as plainly sexist. It’s hard to imagine that these men would have reacted in such a demeaning way had the suggestion been proffered by a man. That was then. Last Thursdays’ meeting, on March 20th, had a completely different tone. When a moratorium on building came up this time, nobody was laughing.

Look, if you are driving down the road and a tire blows out, what do you do? Do you keep driving on the rim and just ignore it? Or do you come to a complete stop, get out and fix the darn thing? Fixing our water crisis is not brain surgery folks.

Casey at bat

One reason nobody was laughing and winking and nodding at the March 20th meeting was due in part to the presence of Mr. Ed Casey, a water lawyer from Los Angeles. John King and various other landowners have retained Mr. Casey who spoke twice at the March, 20 meeting. After introducing himself to the room, Mr. Casey painted in broad strokes a picture of the torment and agony suffered by southern Californians who have been forced down the road of water adjudication. This process, which can take over decade in court time and cost $10 million or more, benefits no one but lawyers. Mr. Casey pointed out that Sonoma County was in the favorable position of being able to avoid all such future legal trouble and to protect and restore water resources by simply getting on the right track now. You could hear a pin drop during his address.

Later in the meeting, as Ms. Hart continued to read through the Santa Barbara WRE, she wanted to know the law regarding the County’s power over cities. She asked Mr. Casey to explain. To the surprise of many in the audience, Mr. Casey explained that the County has considerable leverage in influencing cities regarding water, including the exercise of its police powers to enforce compliance. Of course, this is not at all what the audience has been led to believe if they listened to County Staff members who claim to be powerless in the face of cities and their wants.

Oddly, the current WRE actually states this openly. On page four we read: “The courts have held that cities and counties may regulate groundwater use under their police powers to protect public health, safety and welfare” Yet despite this unconcealed declaration, County Staff members have insisted that the County has no power at all.

What about this Santa Barbara water policy?

Ms. Hart, who apparently grew up in Santa Barbara, wanted to know more. Why, for example, does the Santa Barbara document differ so greatly from the Sonoma County document? Mr. Rodgers who claimed that he and his Subcommittee had reviewed the Santa Barbara document (as well as some water policies from other counties) said that his Subcommittee wanted to make the Sonoma County WRE more "Sonoma County specific”.

John King has suggested that to make the Santa Barbara policy "Sonoma County specific", all they (the CAC) would have to do is substitute the name “Sonoma County” for each instance of “Santa Barbara”, and replace every instance of “water resources” with “Lake Sonoma”. Everything else that Sonoma County needs (or could possibly hope for if it is to have a sound and equitable water policy) is identified in the Santa Barbara document—and it’s been publicly available since 1994.The Santa Barbara Water Resources Element is superior to the existing draft Sonoma County Water Resources Element.

What makes the Santa Barbara document superior is the lack of political interference.

By the end of the evening the political manipulation of water policy became painfully obvious and you could almost hear the steam hissing off the women on the panel as they boiled at evidence of such “good ole boys” shenanigans.