Introduction

Governance represents the ways in which rules, norms, and actions are produced, reproduced and regulated throughout a system (Darby, 2010). Consequently, ‘governance’ should not be confined to a mere understanding of decision-making processes, but extended into the realm of normative and customary practice as well. The global scale sets the precedent/the ideal for how we should conceptualize water as a resource, which in turn informs how we might conserve it for the future. Although naturally, water-related issues are spread across time and space, which poses particular challenges for different regions and communities around the world (UN-Water, 2014). If we are to analyze water supply and management trends in Sonoma County, California, we must assess the normative standards that are constitutive of regional and state-regulatory bodies, the key decision makers over water resources related to this case study.

Water management in California represents a complex bureaucratic web of laws, policies, and institutions. What follows is a brief overview of the main regulatory agencies and relevant legislation/policies that oversee water-management and supply. It is important to note that this summary deliberately focuses on the state and regional policy regime because these levels of governance dominate the governance framework (based on research).

A Governance Framework Dominated by Policy 

At the global scale, the United Nations (UN) addresses water-related issues. UN-Water, an inter-agency within the UN, defines itself as a “coordinating mechanism” for issues related to freshwater, including; water quality, quantity, development, assessment, management and monitoring, use, sanitation, and water-related disasters (UN-Water, 2014). While management practices are not officially mandated by the UN, UN-Water, with the help of activities carried forth by member and partner organizations, seeks to help states reach Millennium Development Goals by pushing for an integration of water-related issues into regional development plans, for example (UN-Water Work Programme, 2015). Growing concerns over water scarcity, access to sanitation, integrated water resources management etc., as outlined in the 2015 UN-Water Governance Report, highlight the international stake in securing water resources.

At the federal level, U.S. water concerns are overseen by federal agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The primary federal law governing water pollution is the Clean Water Act (CWA). The act establishes the basic structure for regulating “quality standards for surface waters,” while the EPA enforces requirements under the act by working with federal and state regulatory partners to monitor compliance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). The governance framework for water management is divided between federal and state levels to an extent, but State-controlled agencies appear to lie at the apex of the system. Where some widespread legislation related to water is written/codified at the national level (e.g. Clean Water Act), regulatory compliance is typically carried out by individual states.

The California state government is organized into large cabinet-level agencies. Those pertaining to water management, use, regulation, and supply, include: The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). CalEPA’s stated aim is to “restore, protect and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality and economic vitality,” whereas CNRA’s mission is to “restore, protect and manage the state’s natural, historical and cultural resources for current and future generations…” (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2015; California Natural Resources Agency, 2015). Various boards and departments also exist within both parent agencies, to account for the oversight of different resources and/or a niche area. Out of eight CNRA departments, The Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Department of Water Resources, and The Department of Conservation, have the greatest stake in protecting state waters and the wildlife that depends on it. The most relevant department within CalEPA is the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which alongside regional sub-boards has joint authority over the allocation of water, the protection of water quality, and the administration of water rights (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). The SWRCB is of significant interest to the case study because “the amount of water actually used by water rights holders is poorly tracked and highly uncertain” according to Grantham (2014, p. 3). Grantham’s study further argues that the largest roadblock to water management involves the lack of accurate measure of water use. While the legislative skeleton and regulatory body (SWRCB) is clearly present, regulation has been made more difficult because water supplies are not being tracked, recorded and monitored efficiently.

A variety of different acts, policies, and regulations are also outlined by the aforementioned agencies. For instance, the Department of Fish and Wildlife as the name states, manages and protects wildlife through its enforcement of state laws related to hunting, fishing, pollution, wildlife destruction, and endangered species as outlined in California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA). Another related development is Decision 1610, a requirement to maintain minimum streamflows. Both the CESA and Decision 1610 are significant because they support the ongoing survival of threatened steelhead trout and endangered salmon in Sonoma County (Sonoma County Water Agency, 2015). Another important act of legislation is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a “self-executing statute” that requires the state and local agencies to identify, and within measure mitigate, any significant environmental impacts that may result from their actions (California Natural Resources Agency, 2014). CEQA is significant because any proposal for physical development (like those relating to agricultural development) within the state of California is subject to a level of discretionary approval set forth by the legislation (California Natural Resources Agency, 2014). One critique is the lack of consideration for cumulative impact for the individual projects/proposed projects.

Evidently, there are numerous state agencies and counterpart departments that have a stake in managing California waters. In order to further enforce state legislature, 58 State counties act as formal legal subdivisions, representing the local bodies of control. The Sonoma County Water Agency is by far the most important local agency. The Water Agency, for short, exists as a separate legal entity from the County of Sonoma and was officially created by State law to provide separate flood protection, water supply and sanitation services (Sonoma County Water Agency, 2015). The Water Agency is also responsible to comply with the aforementioned federal and state regulations if it is to implement any water-related project. As outlined on their website, the Agency must comply with CEQA, the National Environmental Act (NEPA) if the project has federal jurisdiction, Section 404 permits outlined by the US Army Corps of Engineer’s wetlands regulatory program, streambed alternation agreements and permit regulations as set by the DFW, and any regulators regarding potential impacts on endangered species under the EPA for example (Sonoma County Water Agency, 2015).

Some of the more informal non-governmental stakeholders involved in water-related issues in Sonoma (beginning at a national level and working down) include: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Westcoast Watershed, Environment California, the California Landsteward Institute, and the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission. While these organizations might work alongside some of the state and regional agencies, they appear to have less holding power.

Governance Practices: Analyzing Sonoma County Water Agency 

I will use Darby’s (2010) framework for governance practice to analyze transparency, accountability, and participation on behalf of one of the main agencies involved in the case study. From the outside looking in, the SCWA upholds relatively good levels of participation and accountability, but a seemingly pseudo-level of transparency.

Transparency

Transparency is defined as the “clear disclosure of information, rules, plans, processes and actions” and is legitimated by the provision of public, accessible, relevant, timely, and accurate information (Darby, 2010, p. 9). SCWA’s website has dedicated itself to outlining numerous projects, initiatives and studies that are working towards the effective management of regional water resources. External links are provided for pages outlining “projects in progress”, “recently completed projects”, “regulatory compliance standards”, “environmental documents” etc. Information, rules, and plans are clearly demarcated, organized, and made accessible to a public audience. However, there seems to be a lack of information and explicit regard for processes, and especially the relationships that bind the SCWA and wine industry stakeholders in particular development projects (a relationship which has been recorded as prevalent in other sources and anecdotal accounts).

 Accountability

Accountability refers to the process of holding actors responsible for their actions (Darby, 2010). The SCWA has done a good job at setting expectations and criteria for behavior. In fact, the SCWA Community and Governmental Affairs Group is responsible for conducting community outreach programming, which primarily focuses on education and awareness, but also involves the deployment of public opinion surveys to assess the performance of state SCWA services (Sonoma County Water Agency, 2015).  To make up for a lack of answerability in the investigative style survey process, the SCWA has made an effort to publicly assess the success of their current initiatives and create new strategies to secure water supply. This information can be found in the Water Supply Strategies Action Plan (Sonoma County Water Agency, 2015). I think this initiative displays a responsibility to take action when methods are not serving the public in the way that the Agency’s mission has mandated.

Participation

Participation can either be understood as consultative or empowered, depending on the level of public participation in the making of power/influence (Darby, 2010). Within the SCWA, Public Affairs staff, who manage water education and conservation, governmental affairs, and public outreach are available to meet with the community to discuss Water Agency projects. Other formal opportunities have also been created for public comment. Yet, there is little guarantee that the consultation, commentary, or opinion will be “heeded” (Darby, 2010, p. 9).

Conclusion

Overall I think the biggest concern lies with the highly structured (and dominant) nature of the state policy regime. Understanding that the decentralization of power and decision-making is largely to facilitate a functioning relationship between federal jurisdiction and localized enforcement over water, we must be weary of the bureaucratic trickle down effect. The fragmentation of some of the regulatory functions of the State and County have contributed to a discrepancy between water rights and water allocation. Grantham’s (2014) study analyses the current California water rights system, which lies at the heart of the regulation schema, and has concluded that “inaccurate water use accounting” and an over allocation of available water supplies have handicapped water policy and management in the region (p. 3-6). The inefficiency of water regulation, coupled with changing climate conditions (namely drought) has perpetuated a staggering uncertainty of water use and withdrawal. The key to improving the State and County’s joint capacity to properly enforce the legislation that has been created, is to create a more cohesive dynamic between the two entities, and to also improve the quantification, measurement, and regulation of important regulatory functions (i.e. water rights).

 

Bibliography 

Darby, S. (2010). Natural resource governance: new frontiers in transparency and accountability. London. Accessed 26 October 2015 at http://www.transparency-initiative.org/reports/natural-resource-governance-new-frontiers-in-transparency-and-accountability

Department of water resources (DWR). (2014). Water planning. Accessed 27 October 2015 at http://www.water.ca.gov/planning/

Gleick, P, H. (2003). Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302 1524–8

Grantham, T., & Viers, J. (2014). 100 years of california’s water rights system: Patterns, trends and uncertainty. Environmental Research Letters, 9(8) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084012

Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J.. . Thompson, B.(2011). Managing california’s water: From conflict to reconciliation. (San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California)

Lall, U. (2013). Why aren’t we getting our money’s worth from our water infrastructure. Growing blue. Accessed 27 October 2015 at http://growingblue.com/blog/future/why-arent-we-getting-our-moneys-worth-from-our-water-infrastructure/

Littleworth, A, L., Garner, E, L. (2007). California water II. (Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books)

Sonoma county water agency. (2015). Current Projects. Accessed 25 October 2015 at http://www.scwa.ca.gov/compliance/

United states environmental protection agency (EPA). (2015). Water enforcement: Clean water act compliance monitoring and assistance. Accessed 26 October 2015 at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/water-enforcement#cwacompliance

United states environmental protection agency (EPA). (2015). Summary of the clean water act. Accessed 26 October 2015 at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

UN-Water Work Programme 2014-2015. (2015). UN-Water Governance. Accessed 29 October 2015 at http://www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/unwater_new/docs/UN-Water_Work_Programme_2014-2015.pdf

UN-Water Strategy 2014-2020. (2014). UN-Water Governance. Accessed 29 October 2015 at http://www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/unwater_new/docs/UN-Water_Strategy_2014-2020.pdf

U.S. fish and wildlife service: Endagered species. (2013). Federal agencies programs. Accessed 27 October 2015 at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/federal-agency-programs.html

Water board (State water resources control board). (2014). The water rights process. Accessed 29 October 2015 at waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.shtml

General Agency Websites (see above for specific articles):

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/

http://www.californialandstewardshipinstitute.org/

http://www.cawg.org/

http://environmentcalifornia.org/cae/about

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/index.html

http://www.nfwf.org/whoweare/Pages/home.aspx#.Vi1TphCrSHo

http://resources.ca.gov/

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/about_us/

http://www.water.ca.gov/

http://www.westcoastwatershed.com/

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/overview

Theme

Out of the 6 major themes developed amongst group members, I have decided to pursue the impact of winery practices on regional water supplies in Sonoma County. I have attempted to find sources that outline; costs (monetary, environmental, social etc.) associated with water management schemes, general agricultural trends and viticulture practices, current societal debates surrounding vineyard water-use, and sustainable alternatives.

Grey Lit

Bland, Alastair. “The wrath of grapes.” Bohemian. N.p., 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Bohemian is a local Californian newspaper distributed in Sonoma County. Bland’s article is interested in the political implications of the wine industry’s stronghold in the region and how its preferential relationship with the County has enabled unregulated water withdrawal from local streams and rivers. The newspaper article draws attention to the corruption of the legal system, arguing that certain vineyard owners have proceeded with environmentally questionable development plans by skirting much of the law. Often times the lack of regulation for proposed wineries has included the omission of environmental impact reports or the proper assessment of environmental risks. The article illuminates the intersection between a legal framework and corporate stakeholder interests by discussing how gains of the wine industry have promoted the mismanagement of regional water supplies and stressed the current water shortage.

Parrish, Will. “Feature: Coho vs. pinot – pacific Sun.” Pacific Sun. N.p., 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

The newspaper article explores the threat of local Sonoma vineyard water use practices/schemes (namely irrigation) on the survival of endangered salmon and at-risk trout populations. As discussed, a commonly employed protective practice called “frost-guarding” uses overhead sprinklers to form a protective layer of ice to cover budding grapes during the winter months. The large water intake necessary for the protective practice is coupled with the unregulated implementation of pumps by wineries, which do not align with the jurisdictional requirements of the California State Water Code. The environmental, political, and economic trends as outlined by Parrish, are useful for a holistic understanding of the threatening relationship between salmon populations and water-misuse by local vineyards.

Peer Review

Newburn, D. A., Brozovic, N., & Mezzatesta, M. (2011). Agricultural water security and instream flows for endangered species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(4), 1212-1228. doi:10.1093/ajae/aar039

In their peer review study, Grantham et al. (2011) explore the relationship between agricultural water security and the implementation of environmental flow protections in the eastern portion of the Russian River basin in Sonoma County. They argue that restrictive environmental policies are linked with larger impacts for water users (greatest loss in water storage), and particularly vineyards, which “represent the dominant agricultural use in the region” (p. 316). Using GIS- based models, the study seeks to quantify the “tradeoffs” between flow protections in the river basin and water security for agricultural use, which includes; availability and demand, agricultural needs, and level of flow requirements. The research does provide significant insight into the topic thus far, highlighting a current gap in the research. Many anecdotal and scientific sources have so far  focused their attention on the risk of agricultural water use on threatened fish populations, but Grantham et al. make a direct link and claim about the 2 key stakeholders by arguing that environmental security indeed implicates agricultural water use as well. To their note, “the ecological benefit of the environmental flow policies (i.e. protection of bypass flow days) was not always proportional to their water security impacts)” (325).

Deitch, M. J., Kondolf, G. M., & Merenlender, A. M. (2009). Hydrologic impacts of small-scale instream diversions for frost and heat protection in the california wine country. River Research and Applications, 25(2), 118-134. doi:10.1002/rra.1100

The study takes place in eastern Sonoma County, where streamflows were monitored at 7 different locations within sub-catchments of the Maacama and Franz Creek. The project aims to fill a gap in the current research on flow regimes, examining the effects of smaller-scale water projects and diversions on streamflow. Manipulating flows by way of smaller, individual, and more dispersed diversions (as opposed to large-scale, centralized water projects like dams) may not have large individual impacts, but cumulative ones. In Sonoma County, where “virtually all agricultural water needs are met individually and locally” (Deitch et al., 2009, p. 119), water withdrawals tend to parallel individual needs, which typically occur when streamflow is already low/more vulnerable (i.e. in the dry season/summer months). This finding is significant because agricultural water diversions made for both frost protection (“frost-guarding”) and heat protection practices used by vineyards are heavily dependent on weather conditions and consequently of relevance to our case study when observed from the perspective of current regional drought conditions. Furthermore, the study addresses another current consensus that small, individual diversions, especially when they are dispersed over time and space, post particular challenges for measurement. The research thus provides some insight into how management practices may be able to deter particular ecological consequences if coupled with a more continuous and regulatory monitoring process.

Buelow, M. C., Steenwerth, K., Silva, L. C. R., & Parikh, S. J. (2015). Characterization of winery wastewater for reuse in california. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 66(3), 302-310. doi:10.5344/ajev.2015.14110

Buelow et al.’s study is contextualized within a larger discussion about the increasing demand for fresh water sources. As a result, the research was interested in the usability of treated winery wastewater (WWW) as a management alternative to fresh water sources for viticulture practices (ex. for irrigation and landscaping). The research objective was to identify WWW treatment options and to assess the hazards of salinity levels of WWW. In order to test this, samples from 18 wineries were first gathered by winery employees and then assessed at UC Davis’s Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resources lab for a variety of chemical characteristics, including acidity levels (i.e. pH, electrical conductivity, the concentration of cation and anions, levels of organic carbon, and biological oxygen demand). As a result, “the study strongly suggests that WWW has great potential for onsite reuse” (Buelow et al., 2015, p. 309). The evidence is quite remarkable considering it presents “the first data set of its kind to support California growers and vintners in the reuse of treated winery wastewater (WWW)” according to United States Department of Agriculture. The study is particularly useful because it highlights an alternative solution to a problem (lack of fresh water) that has plagued Sonoma County. Irrigation practices have currently exhausted the existing regional water shortage, so anything that can potentially alleviate the burden proves progressive.

Moran, T. C. (2012). Water into wine. Boom, 2(1), 78. doi:10.1525/boom.2012.2.1.78

Water into Wine is not centered on any main argument in particular, but rather comprehensively outlines the human development  in Sonoma County, fish and current endangered statuses, hopes for reconciliation, and future prospects. Moran names the current regional water conditions as the “extinction vortex”, claiming that annual peaks in human demands for water, and location of human development, prove incompatible with natural flow patterns and water supply in the different catchments of the Russian River. Furthermore, the author addresses a future habitat modification model that could re-shape the creek bed (Dry Creek) in order to make it more suitable for juvenile coho Salmon. Although costly in its own right, the system is cheaper than many alternatives and the “outcome could be very important to the recovery of protected fish” according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Moran, 2012, p. 85). The source is useful for the case study project  because it outlines the history of river planning in Sonoma County, providing context for the transformation of Dry Creek Valley into a vineyard monoculture,  while also making general claims about human development’s impact on native fish and wildlife’s capacity to survive in the Russian River. Although the work may not be as extensively cited as others, or with a specific research objective in mind,  it is noteworthy because it draws information from many useful local sources, including state and federal agencies like NMFS.

Raw Data

North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project- Executive Summary

The document (March 2009) is a project proposal put forth by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The executive summary for the project outlines the purpose/objective of the project, background information, public and agency involvement, while mainly focusing on environmental impacts and available mitigation measures of the project itself. The SCWA is responsible for regulating the flow of the Russian River, supplying water to cities and public agencies, flood control, and providing wastewater management services throughout Sonoma County. The project emerged in the context of current regional and federal concerns regarding agricultural practices and their impacts on fisheries resources and habitat within the Russian River and its tributaries. As stated, the SCWA “believes the use of recycled water to offset surface and groundwater sources used by agricultural entities in the Russian River […] could benefit fisheries in the Russian River 
watershed” (p. 3). The goal of the reuse project is to ultimately provide a sustainable and reliable water supply for agricultural use, while reducing the use of surface water in Sonoma County. The proposal is useful because it reveals attempts (even if just proposed) by the County to counter some of the ecological impacts of extensive agricultural water use.

USDA California Agricultural Statistics Crop Yield (2013)

The Crop Year Status report was a joint project conducted between the United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service, and California Pacific Regional Field Office. The report was compiled for the 2013 year and distributed on April 2015. It can be gathered that next to almonds, grapes remained California’s third agricultural crop in 2013, and U.S.’s number one. Hence why California grapes accounted for over 90% of utilized grape production in the U.S. (2013) (p. 43). In addition, over 820,000 acres of area were harvested in the 2013 calendar year, a value almost unmatched by any other fruit, nut, or vegetable crop (see below for commentary).

Sonoma County Crop Report (2014) 

The Crop Report for Sonoma County (2014) was produced under the Agricultural Commissioner for the Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. The report outlines the gross production values for regional agricultural production including; winegrapes, apples, nursery, livestock etc. As outlined by the report, although the 2014 calendar year represented the 3^rd consecutive year of “severe drought […] the conditions did not have a significant impact on the county’s main crop, winegrapes” (p. 2). The report also notes the total bearing acreage for major crops, their tons per acre, total tons, and subsequently $ per ton. In 2014, the total gross production value for winegrapes equaled $596,972,000, a significantly higher value than any other crop in the region.

Both the local and federal (USDA and Sonoma County) reports above contextualize the dominance of viticulture in Sonoma County, corresponding to claims found in other reports and academic sources that conclude that the industry’s extensive presence in the region ultimately influences the County’s supply of water.

 

Framing Complex Problems in Sonoma County

Defining “wicked problem”

A wicked problem can be defined as a problem that involves a high level of scientific and social/value uncertainty. The degree of scientific certainty is based on how complex and complete the knowledge is on the issue, whereas the degree of social uncertainty is influenced by the complexity of varying values, which further determines goals, interests, and the acceptability of risk. Not only can defining the problem become a problem in itself, but evaluating and developing potential solutions to the issue typically involves contested and varying criteria, plus resistance in the face of multiple values, goals and interests. When the knowledge and confidence in the information on the issue, probability of outcomes, and number of alternatives is low, degree of conflict and number of stakeholders high, than you are facing a wicked and ill-structured problem.

How is water complex?

In the presence of a record-breaking period of drought, California’s Sonoma County offers insight into the complex and interdependent relationship between the region’s supply of water, wine, and fish, and ultimately it’s management. However, scientific knowledge remains contested and stakeholders determined. Both the availability and (mis)management of water have spurred soured sentiments and debates between vineyard developers/winery owners, the residential community, law-enforcement/regulating authorities, and environmental agencies and advocates.

Scientific uncertainty has been introduced due to challenges faced in measuring cumulative effects of stream and water withdrawal in the region, but knowledge regarding the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem, for instance, also remains complex. Additionally, varying stakeholder interests introduce value uncertainties. The local residential community remains resentful towards the County’s preferential treatment of wine-growers (i.e. lack of monitoring of water-use by vineyards), arguing that both $ and “political muscle” have safeguarded the industry against legal authorizations. In contrast, many vineyard owners are opposed to regulation (to secure their business), often questioning the ‘legality’ and scientific claims about the environmental impacts of water-use. The incompatibilities of stakeholder interests, coupled with inconsistencies in knowledge and confidence about the future of water in Sonoma, make this issue wicked.

Drawing connections

Elements of mindmap:

constraints, society, aquatic ecosystem, legal framework, stakeholders, current debates

Many connections can be drawn between each area of the mindmap. Let’s discuss a few of them. The supply of water in the region is heavily stressed by agricultural practice and mis-use (namely the drawing of water from local streams to fund irrigation measures and off-site water storage), but also exacerbated by the ongoing drought. At the centre of the struggle lie native coho salmon and steelhead trout populations, whose livelihoods and seasonal habitats are threatened by dangerously low water levels, agricultural development, local dams, and climate change/increasing temperatures. Federally endangered coho salmon spend their first half of their life in fresh water and small streams, eventually migrating to the Pacific Ocean, only to return to their place of birth to spawn. Minimal water levels in many of the tributaries, coupled with the run-off of sedimentation from agricultural development and increasing erosion of the river’s watershed, have threatened appropriate conditions for spawning and migration. A leading developer in the region has been the wine industry, raising questions and debates about (all kinds of) anthropogenic stressors and threats to the regional water supply and ecosystem. Other constrains and debates surround the legal measures (or lack their of) in the management of regional water-use.

Note: I understand that the scope of the “water” problem reaches beyond disputes involving regional wineries and fish populations, I have just decided to highlight the connection here because of its prevalence in the media and contemporary research.

Salmon Life Cycle:

Bibliography- Assignment 1