LAKEPORT >> About 75 people filled the Lakeport City Council chamber Monday for a public hearing on what to do about a state water agency’s failure to meet its own deadline to reduce the amount of phosphorus that flows into Clear Lake.
The hearing was conducted by three staff members of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and was designed to get public comments on extending the compliance date for the Clear Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Waste Load Allocations to reduce harmful phosphorus runoff into the lake.
Phosphorus is a common ingredient in fertilizers and promotes toxic blue-green algae blooms (cyanobacteria) and fish die-offs in Clear Lake. It also occurs naturally in soil throughout Lake County.
In 2007, the water board adopted the Clear Lake Nutrient Control Program to decrease the incidence of lake algae bloom. The 10-year deadline of the TMDL expired in June.
Several dozen people at the hearing asked questions and offered suggestions to the staff following a 20-minute presentation on some of the issues involved in phosphorus reduction.
The three water board staffers who spoke at the hearing received dozens of comments that they promised to take back to their superiors. Many of the comments were critical of the proposed 10-20-year delay in implementing the TMDL.
“The only reason we’re here is to get your comments,” said Michelle Wood, water board project manager of the Clear Lake Nutrient Control Program.
At one point in the hearing, Wood said, “Clear Lake is a priority for the state.”
By the end of the more than two-hour hearing, the staffers — that included Holly Grover and Taran Sahota — had heard plenty of comments.
“The answers shouldn’t be coming from us, they should be coming from scientists,” said one man in the audience.
A woman in the audience suggested that there be a moratorium on any new vineyards in the county. Agricultural runoff is a big contributor to phosphorus in the lake.
Another audience member said, following the staff presentation, that they talked a lot about cannabis but not about wineries, in relation to what agricultural uses contribute to phosphorus in the lake.
Wood responded, “Let us know what your concerns are” regarding which wineries might be contributing to the phosphorus problem.
This prompted some in the audience to shout, “All of them.”
Audience member Joan Moss added, “Wineries are just as important to monitor as cannabis. I don’t believe the wineries should be unchecked and unregulated.”
Betsy Cawn suggested that there should be more enforcement of water quality permits. She added, “There are a lot of ordinances that are not enforced by the county.”
Peter Windrem talked about the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project that staff said is about 50 percent complete. It is the central component of the TMDL reduction effort.
It’s stalled by the inability to acquire the remaining 50 percent of the land needed to complete the wetland restoration project. Wetlands and tules are natural pollution filters for the lake.
“Money is the issue,”Windrem said, adding it will take $15.2 million to purchase the remaining properties needed for the project.
“Help us get that $15 million,” he told the water board staffers.
Audience member Harry Lyons, a biology professor, said the water board needs to help the county get the funds. He also urged the board to put additional monitoring stations around the lake. Currently, there is one monitoring station.
However, audience member Mike Dunlap said the Middle Creek project is “never going to happen” because eminent domain can’t be used to acquire the needed lands.
“Middle Creek is dead in the water,” he added. Of the staff presentation, he said,”You’re giving us no reason at all to support this.”
Audience member Tom Smythe said that the TMDL is based on modeling studies that are “not reliable.”
He said the regional water board needs to continue erosion control and restoration of wetlands and tules.
Sarah Ryan said she is concerned that there is only one monitoring station on the lake that monitors irrigated agriculture pollution that enters Clear Lake.
“It’s not okay anymore to have the status quo,” she said. “We’re seeing low oxygen (levels) in multiple areas of the lake.”
Low oxygen levels can fuel toxic algae bloom.
Ryan said to the staffers of the now-expired TMDL and the possibility of an extension by the water board, “You’ve not accomplished very much in the last 10 years.”
She added, “People here get to suffer because the people in charge are not making the hard decisions.”
Audience member Bill Wetmore expressed concern about water quality, in wake of recent fish die-offs and swimming advisories. He also said he worries about the consequences of delaying addressing the problems another 10-20 years.
“The water is not drinkable,” he said of Clear Lake. “The economy of the county depends on taking care of the lake. I moved here 12 years ago and the lake seemed a lot cleaner.”
Hearing attendee Ricky DeHerrera, a local bass fisherman, asked, “How long do we want to kick the can down the road?”
He said his top concerns regarding the lake are public safety, the environment and fishing, including die-offs of catfish and bluegill.
“It’s imperative we enforce what (regulations) we have now,” DeHerrera said.
He also criticized the hearing being conducted on a weekday afternoon when many people are at work or school. Several other audience members complained about the timing of the meeting.
DeHerrera moved to Lake County in 1998. He said after the meeting that he was at the hearing officially as a private citizen and unofficially to represent bass fishermen.
“The fish populations in the lake are in dire jeopardy,” he said.
“The meeting went well because so many people showed up,” he said. “But it seems they (hearing organizers) went out of their way to make it hard for people to attend.”
He added, “I’m proud of the community for showing up today despite the ridiculous time.”
No one at the meeting spoke in favor of extending the TMDL deadline by 10 or 20 years.
The regional water board is expected to make a final decision on what to do next with the TMDL, such as extending the deadline to 2027 or 2037, by the end of 2019. Additional public hearings will be conducted before a final decision is made, according to the water board staffers.
