NOW Questionnaire Responses

By Margot M. (Kramer) Biehle

Some Responses to Questionnaire provided to National Organization of Women.

The major issue the Water Board handles is how to provide a safe, secure and reliable water supply to the rate payers without sacrificing the environment. Within this context my priorities are to reach out and work with other local and county agencies, NGOs and the public to: (a) help the Board determine how to create additional water supply in the District; (b) reduce energy demand by the district through exploration of renewable energy sources; (c) protect the watershed and its inhabitants from fire, environmental degradation and human harm; and (d) keep rates reasonable, especially for the lower tiers. I have been endorsed by two members of the current Water Board, Jack Gibson and Alex Forman, and have a strong working relationship from my days at NRDC with Jared Huffman, the other remaining water board member after this election. These relationships will allow me to move seamlessly into the current work of the Board, and to accomplish my goals with the Board members' support.

(a) Supply.

Water supply options in the Marin watershed must be viewed through the lens of conservation. Most in Marin view the supply choice to be between Russian River water and a desalination plant. This is not a real choice. I think it's time to repaint the dilemma not as a choice between two remedies fraught with their own problems, but as pieces of a larger puzzle that must be solved. Creative conservation is a necessary piece of that puzzle.

The Pipeline

The Russian River pipeline, while approved by the voters in 1992 as Measure V (after first being defeated as Measure W), has become an unviable option for several reasons. The Russian River doesn't have the supply to support the water needs of Sonoma County and Marin County without neglecting the riparian habitat that is home to listed species (endangered or threatened) including Coho, Chinook and steelhead salmon. The Eel River, also home to several listed species loses 95% of its summer flows to cover for the Russian River's diminishing supplies, and there has been new and ongoing litigation over both Rivers' water transfers (under CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, to name just a few), the latest having been filed just last month in the 9th Circuit.

Even if the pipeline were built, at a cost of approximately $30-40 million dollars, Sonoma County Water Agency has given no indication that water will be available. SCWA recently reported that it had to do another biological assessment, thus delaying the potential of any additional water transfer south by 3 years, in addition to the 7-10 that were originally suggested. Marin cannot wait 13 years for water that may never appear.

The Desal Plant

The proposed desalination plant does not have the same transfer issues and consequent environmental problems. However, such a plant raises four alarm bells with me: (a) energy use; (b) environmental factors; (c) cost; and (d) perception of availability.

With respect to energy, my first priority would be to go to LAFCO to create and implement a countywide energy task force. MMWD is already the largest power user in the county (costing $3.6m per year). A 10 mgd desal plant will increase the energy consumption of the MMWD by 70% in a normal year, and up to 250% in a drought. MMWD staff say energy could be generated in the plant from the salt extraction process, which might reduce the energy consumption by up to one third. I believe we need to push hard for renewable energy sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc) whether or not a desal plant is built. This would require cooperation with the Board of Supervisors and other county and local agencies. I have spoken with Supervisor Susan Adams, who has already invested staff time in researching tidal and other renewable energy sources, and Supervisor Hal Brown, who has endorsed me, as well as Richard Rubin, of LAFCO. I believe each of these individuals would support a county energy task force.

Environmental factors also make me cautious about a desal plant: effect on aquatic life both near the intake and the outfall areas; disposal of brine/salt; impact on the land during building and operations. Some responses to these questions include estimates of very low disruption to aquatic life near intake; impact at outfall is within 10% of regulatory limits; new micro filters allow us to extract far beyond what is required; brine extract can be exported as sludge to cover landfill; salt may be added to the Central Marin Sanitary Agency plant's outfall to minimize that plant's impact on marine life; minerals and some chemicals may be added to the final product to prevent pipe disintegration, etc. etc. But a desal plant has never been built on this San Francisco Bay, whose marine life has already been severely compromised due to years of pollution, pesticide runoff, building, dumping and dredging.

The cost for a desal plant would be significant. Estimates reach approximately $100m including construction and infrastructure. There are ways to prevent this huge financial burden from falling entirely on the shoulders of the rate payers. The MMWD has a reserve of over $40m. The plant would be eligible for money from Prop 50 (if MMWD lobbies hard enough and moves quickly--my days at NRDC have taught me this is no simple exercise, and Prop 50 funds are quickly becoming spoken for). Two bills going through the House and the Senate, if passed, would provide federal funding for studies of desalination plants at national labs and could make funds available for municipal projects like this one. But ultimately, some of the financial burden will rest on Marin ratepayers.

Finally, I can't help but think that if we have a desalination plant and therefore a steady supply of water, will it create the perception that we have an endless supply of water and thereby discourage conservation? MMWD has to consider this and work with other agencies and the Board of Supervisors to ensure that a desal plant is not a blank check to build, nor a license to leave the taps running.

I support the pilot desal project as an important fact-gathering microcosm of the serious undertaking that the MMWD is considering and a real opportunity to learn and make an informed calculated decision. I will look very carefully at the EIR and other studies to ensure that I am comfortable with the resolution on the issues mentioned above before I would vote to support a desal plant.

Conservation

One cannot look at increasing supply without also making efforts at reducing demand and protecting the County's resources. I am one of the few folks in Marin that thinks that there are other creative options to conserve water. If elected, I would investigate and implement four projects that would focus on conservation in a new way: (a) a large-scale public outreach and education campaign; (b) a water audit; (c) a financial incentive program for water-wise technology; and (d) a strong push to work with sanitary districts to develop more reclaimed water systems such as that at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District.

Public outreach and education are essential whether the District aims to push conservation or to support going forward with a desal plant. What I have discovered from living in Marin and from speaking with many people both before and during my campaign thus far is that the public is largely unaware that any water supply issues exist. The public does not understand that we currently operate at a 3,000 afa deficit of operational yield, or that estimates for a drought year raise that number to nearly 10,000afa. Therefore, no matter what conservation measures the MMWD can come up with (currently ultra low flow toilets, front loading washing machines, flow-restricted shower heads etc), they won't have any impact if the public does not perceive a need to take advantage of them. The MMWD has a budget review coming up in Spring of 2005 and if elected, I will advocate to reserve enough money in the budget for a large scale public outreach and education campaign.

Such a campaign would necessarily include working with local city councils, planning commissions, local agencies and NGOs. The campaign would include education of rate payers, both residential and commercial, about the current deficit in water supply, the potential for a drought, and the many ways rate payers can help. For example, repair, maintenance and use scheduling for a landscape irrigation system typically reduces water use of the system by 20%. The District staff is also working with two companies that make evapotranspiration systems, irrigation monitors that change the amount of water going through an irrigation system daily based on humidity, temperature and other external measures. These "ET" systems hopefully would be marketed to the public with a District subsidy, such as the low-flow toilet program. The campaign would also include a change in the look of and information provided on water bills. The new bills that just came out do show some metrics of how much water the individual used compared through the seasons and compared to other users in their district. These metrics should be expanded to include a comparison with the recommendations for water usage made by the Water District that are currently found on the website and updated weekly, as well as how many gallons of conservation it would take to reduce consumption to the lower tier, with examples of ways to conserve. This information should be highlighted on the bill in a way that is easy to view and hard to miss. MMWD should also be working with local planning commissions and cities to enforce the requirements that new landscape plans must be approved by MMWD. New landscape plans are supposed to be approved by MMWD, but this requirement is rarely enforced.

I would also advocate for money to hire independent auditors to audit the current water use in the watershed. My experience at NRDC with respect to the San Joaquin and other rivers is that water is over-appropriated as time passes; usage exceeds the amount contracted for and anticipated by the respective water authority. For example, on San Geronimo Creek there are apparently several ranches that illegally pull water directly from the Creek, which causes the in-stream flows in the watershed to be reduced, and thereby reduce the amount of water in the reservoirs available for use. Other creeks and areas likely experience the same water poaching. Moreover, it is estimated that perhaps as much as 60% of the water from the Russian River system is pulled by contractors who are taking more than their contractual allotment. In light of AB 2121, a new bill sitting on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk as of August 30, which would mandate in-stream flow requirements before any new water permits could be approved by the state water board, MMWD will be under considerable pressure to meet these in-stream flow requirements, and an audit would be particularly helpful in this regard.

To get people personally invested in the idea of conservation, I would advocate for the adoption of a loan program or business incentive program for businesses (both public and private) and larger water users to invest in water-efficient technology (gray water systems, water efficient devices such as ET mentioned above, etc). Individuals and businesses interested in this program would get a loan guarantee or low-interest loan coordinated through the MMWD to make the capital outlays or other purchases required to maximize the reduction of water use in their businesses/schools/homes. The water bill would reflect the amortization of the loan and perhaps credit any water savings made through their investment. Rate-payers could see on their bill how their water savings are benefiting the community. In 1990, the Water District initiated a bill that created a revolving fund for low-interest loans to fund water recycling projects. We need to expand that idea to all water-efficient technology and publicize the program.

Finally, we need to do much more to develop reclaimed water capability with the eleven sanitary districts in the County. Las Gallinas Valley stands as a great example of collaboration between MMWD and a local sanitary district to use reclaimed water for the largest users of non-potable water such as golf courses and other large irrigation facilities. There may have been some resistance around this in the past because of the cost of laying pipe; however, I have queried the current Directors, most of whom have replied that yes, there is definitely room for continued exploration there and we could do more.

Marin's history in responding to water shortages shows it has the potential to lead the west in conservation. The MMWD has supported and initiated legislation throughout the late 80s and 90s that enabled utilities to authorize and encourage dual plumbing systems in businesses, schools, etc. The Marin County Jail is the first jail to use recycled water in its toilets. And MMWD is beginning to retrofit the toilets at San Quentin with ultra low-flow toilets. We have lost this momentum and the focus on these projects because the droughts are too far in the past. These are ideas that will work, with the right support and the right community outreach.

(c) Protection of watershed from fire, environmental degradation & human harm.

Fire & Environmental degradation

Proliferation of fuel due to hot summers, invasive non-native plant species, sudden oak death and several decades, if not a century, since the last fire in most areas, as well as global warming, all contribute to the high fire danger in the County.

It is imperative that the MMWD continue to reach out to other agencies and stakeholders to manage fire danger. The Board of Supervisors has an extensive fire management plan and MMWD must step up and be a key party in ongoing discussions about fire management in the County. With 20,000 acres of land to manage, most of it contiguous with Open Space, State Park or National Park, MMWD's fire management plan must be consistent with and match or exceed the efforts of the other stakeholders.

MMWD did reach out to local fire districts. After the recent bond passed to replace existing pipes and lay new ones for fire flow, MMWD worked with local fire districts in identifying what pipes need to be replaced and prioritizing geographical areas. This is a great example of what can happen when agencies work together. We need to continue the work done so far, as well as work with MCOSD, the County, NPS and other stakeholders to control fuel proliferation through vegetation management and control of non-native species (notably French & Scotch broom and Yellow Star Thistle), maintaining fuel breaks and encouraging the growth of native plants.

Human Harm - Peace Officers

The peace officer issue must be resolved with regard for the safety of the water supply, the watershed, the public and the rangers. The local court ruled recently that the enabling legislation of the Water District does not specifically allow for peace officers, therefore rangers may not carry firearms.

I have spoken with Kris Organ, head of the SEIU, to understand the position of the rangers on this issue. Their experience has been that the sheriff is slow to respond to calls for assistance, does not know the territory, and has no incentive + financial or otherwise + to work with the rangers. The crimes that the rangers are most concerned about relate to sexual assault/aggravated assault, drugs and threats to the water supply.

My original position on this when asked about it last year was that firearms worn are firearms discharged, and I feared that firearms would increase the use of force on the watershed and potentially further endanger the public. Moreover, for most recreational users on the watershed, the sight of a ranger carrying a gun is particularly jarring.

Since then I have learned three things that make me second guess this position: first, the rangers (there are only seven) would feel more safe patrolling the watershed with firearms, not necessarily because they could discharge them, but because the mere presence of a gun in certain situations is sometimes enough; second, the rangers patrolling the GGNRA and the PRNS carry guns; third, rangers have a unique understanding and familiarity with the watershed that any third party responding to calls for aid simply do not have, thereby significantly delaying response time. Additionally, we live in increasingly chaotic and dangerous times, in which water supply can be a target for widespread public harm.

Currently there are no guidelines or procedure in place for the rangers to follow. If the District establishes very clear, very detailed procedures that must be followed, including allowing use/discharge only in a life-threatening emergency, and backs up those guidelines with severe penalties (termination, prosecution) for failure to follow them, I would consider supporting legislation permitting rangers to carry firearms.

(d) Rates

I have spoken at length with Anne Layzer, chair of both Rate Structure Committees, from the 80's and the most recent years, to understand the background behind the formation of the committee and the consensus that was formed in arriving at the current rate structure.

I support the change in rate structure in the District from a cost-based structure to the use of rates as a conservation device. Using rates to promote conservation is a nationally recognized best management practice. With the newly implemented system of four tiers, at multiples of x, 2x, 4x and 6x, the higher water users see the most dramatic rise in their rates in the summer as they use more water for irrigation. It is still a bit early to tell what effect the new rates have had on conservation as only one billing cycle has occurred during this summer, although preliminary reports have shown that there has been significant response from those in the higher tiers.

The higher tier users may complain that their bills do not reflect the actual cost to supply the water to them. While this may be true + even though supplying water from the Russian River and/or the outlying reservoirs is more expensive than supplying that which is in steady use in the county + these users' intense draw on the water supply increases the District's cost indirectly by putting pressure on the district to explore new supplies and requiring new investments.

In spite of my support for the use of rates as a conservation mechanism, I am concerned about and committed to keeping Tier 1 as low as possible to be able to support an economically diverse population in the county. This is difficult as the costs of operation are fixed, while the usage in the county has dropped approximately 25% since the late eighties, and the population is growing quite slowly. Therefore we have a smaller base over which to spread costs of increasingly expensive water. The question then becomes how to raise revenue, or reduce operating costs, in order to keep the Tier 1 rate low.

I believe there are opportunities to share costs with other water districts such as NMWD. For example, the District must conduct new testing under federal and state guidelines. This led to the construction of the new lab, and will likely lead to a rise in costs as engineers need to be trained, etc. Could we engage in a technology and labor share with NMWD and other water districts to reduce the direct costs to the MMWD? Apparently there has only ever been one meeting between NMWD and MMWD - to discuss which district would supply Hamilton Field. I have spoken with Rick Freitas, a Director of NMWD and one of my endorsers, about the possibility of having the water districts work more closely together, and even perhaps having a joint directors meeting on a regular basis. He supports the idea and would work with me to make it happen. Costs, as with so many other issues facing the MMWD, are facing water districts and counties all over the west and we must continue to explore partnerships in whatever categories we can - technology, labor, policy, etc.

With some cost-sharing and other creative programs in which MMWD works with outside public agencies, governmental bodies and individuals to reduce its operating costs, perhaps the rate for Tier 1 can remain static.

Finally, I believe that rate structure should be revisited on an annual or bi-annual basis.