Back in 2009, when the State Water Board told Russian River Grape Growers — of which 1st District Supervisor Glenn McGourty is one — that they would have to prepare their own frost protection water plans to prevent them from turning on all their frost protection pumps at the same time thus stranding endangered fish in what’s left of public rivers and streams, the Mendo wine mob screamed bloody murder at having to prepare their own plans to coordinate their pumping, first sending a contingent of Richard Shoemaker, John McCowen, Glenn McGourty and an extremely aggrieved local grape grower who actually shouted his comments to Sacramento to screech at the Water Board for their outrageous imposition on the poor grape growers. The nerve, asking the wine gentry to cooperate just a little in the public interest!
The Water Board held firm in their position.
The still outraged Mendo Grape Mob then sued in Mendo Superior Court and got Judge Ann Moorman to issue a restraining order on the Water Board’s ruling. That was later overturned on appeal, of course — the appeal being considered outside of Wine County — and the yowling grape babies had to prepare a few plans, which they have since done without complaint since even these whining kulaks recognize that it was obviously not much to ask, especially in lieu of real regulation.
Fast forward to Drought 2021. Yesterday we saw the following quote from Russian River Flood Control District Manager Elizabeth Salamone in yesterday’s report by the Ukiah Daily Journal’s Justine Frederiksen about the ongoing overdraft of the Russian River while the River and Lake Mendocino are in an unprecedented drought:
Frederiksen: “ ‘We were losing about 220 acre feet a day,’ Salomone said on Friday, explaining that late last week before the long-expected curtailments were imposed, ‘there was a big draw down on the river,’ which she said was likely due to people taking out as much water as they could before their rights were terminated.”
“People”? Which “people”?
Since most of the water rights holders in the Russian River are grape growers, those “people” are clearly the aforementioned self-entitled wine people.
This was in spite of the Water Board’s earlier but still belated call for voluntary reductions of a piddling 15% (which should have been mandatory 50% restrictions in April when it was obvious how bad the drought was). The Supervisors, lead by their water point person and longstanding member of the “people” in question, conspicuously avoided discussing, much less imposing, any local water restrictions even though they had declared a water emergency.
Note also here that Ms. Salamone was referring to water rights holders, not pot outlaws. Not only did the grape growing water rights holders in the upper Russian River watershed NOT reduce their pumping from the River, they INCREASED it at the rate of a whopping 220 acre feet PER DAY!
One acre-foot is about 325,000 gallons. Your average water truck carries up to 2500 gallons, and 325,000 gallons times 225 = about 30,000 trucks worth of water PER DAY. That’s water that local non-wine people are paying $400-$500 per truckload for — if they can get it.
And this was after the Water Board sent out notices in advance — essentially encouraging the wine mob to hurry up and pump every drop — that the Board was about to curtail their rights (but not necessarily their actual water because the Water Board seldom enforces their edicts).
The point? We were reminded of that embarassing 2009 water agency whine episode when among other dumb statements made by the local wine mob representatives, then UC-Ag Extension wine advisor, now Supervisor, Glenn McGourty, told the Water Board: “Regulations never work. Look at marijuana. It’s illegal as heck and yet we have marijuana all over northern California and our county in particular. So people don’t necessarily go along with regulation.” (Nevermind that asking grape growers to prepare their own water pumping plans barely amounts to “regulation” at all.)
The “people” McGourty’s was referring to were his grape growing buddies along the Russian River, the people he continues to represent as Supervisor, the people who brazenly take more water from the Russian River after being asked to cut back due to the drought, the people he indirectly helps by making sure that Mendo delays imposing any water restrictions on for as long as possible so they can take as much of what’s left as they can while they can.
Oh, but you non-wine schmucks? You’re supposed to abandon your gardens and take shorter showers and turn the water off while brushing your teeth. We’re short on water. You might want to consider brushing your teeth with a nice bottle of chardonnay.
* * *
John McCowen Writes:
You wrote: “Back in 2009, when the State Water Board told Russian River Grape Growers…they would have to prepare their own frost protection water plans to prevent them from turning on all their frost protection pumps at the same time thus stranding endangered fish in what’s left of public rivers and streams, the Mendo wine mob screamed bloody murder at having to prepare their own plans to coordinate their pumping….”
In fact, frost protection plans that protected fish were successfully implemented prior to the hearing you describe. Following a single instance of stranding, the upper Russian River water diverters, under the umbrella of the Upper Russian River Stewardship Alliance (URSA) quickly agreed on protocols for staggered diversions coordinated with releases from the dam. The dispute had more to do with the Water Board targeting frost water, a recognized beneficial use, regardless of the source of the water.
The comment that upper Russian River grape growers diverted 220 acre feet a day is also inaccurate. That was the total released, a good portion of which is required to meet instream flow requirements of 25 cfs at the Healdsburg gauge. In addition to Ag use, several cities have approved diversions for municipal uses. Evaporation and evapotranspiration, although relatively minor, also play a part.
The previous curtailment order only affected appropriative water rights. The most recent one applies to riparian and pre-1914 water rights. Then there’s the issue of surface water vs. percolated groundwater. It’s tempting to boil water rights issues down to soundbites but reality is far more complex.
* * *
Mark Scaramella replies: If “frost protection plans that protected fish were successfully implemented prior to the hearing,” why did the Mendo wine contingent go to screech at the Water Board in Sacramento? And why did they later sue to put a stop to it? Then you add that “the dispute had more to do with the Water Board targeting frost water.” Which is what you said was already in place. Sounds contradictory.
“A single fish stranding” — fails to address the fact that the grape growers would not allow Fish & Wildlife biologists onto the upper reaches and tributaries of the Russian River watershed without a warrant. That “single” stranding was the only one they could document — they had anecdotal reports that there were more during that cold snap. — a standard that is so high that it’s nearly impossible to enforce.
As to the 220 acre feet per day being “inaccurate” because “a good portion” was for fish flow: How much of that release made it to Healdsburg? We don’t know because the grape growers will not allow metering of instream and underflow pumps — never have. Yes, some downstream cities received some of that water, but as you euphemistically say, we know that a lot of it was for “ag use” and the cities didn’t have empty ponds to fill in the rush to beat the cut-off deadline.
Your attempt to muddy the water with hairsplitting about what kind of rights and which kind of water doesn’t change the fact that the Wine People rushed to grab as much as they could.
PS. Don’t get me started on the state’s contorted definition of “beneficial use.”
Be First to Comment