Explanation of Solutions

Dry Farming:

"In dry farming, farmers may irrigate their crops when the plants are young. However, the idea is to train the plants to set deep roots that can access underground moisture all year, eliminating dependency on irrigation. Dry farming is not possible everywhere, especially in extremely dry regions or on high slopes from which water drains quickly. Dry farming also generally results in smaller yields, though some people claim dry-farmed apples, tomatoes and grapes, since they are less diluted by water, taste better. In the Sonoma and Napa valleys, where groundwater is just several feet down in places, some grape growers dry-farm their vines" (Bland, 2017).

Cap and Trade Program:

"California’s cap-and-trade program, established by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, promotes the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The program created one of the largest carbon credit markets in the world and one of two in the United States. It sets a collective emissions cap on about 450 of the state’s largest polluters, including power generators, refineries and cement plants, which emit more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year, and requires them to obtain an allowance or a carbon offset for their emissions. The cap and the pool of allowances decline each year, while offsets — based on projects that sequester carbon in forests, for example — can cover up to 8 percent of their emissions. The program also sets up a complex protocol for forest owners to establish offsets they can sell to polluters subject to the cap. Each offset represents 1 metric ton of greenhouse gas removed from the atmosphere by trees, which must be sustained for 100 years" (Kovner, 2016).

Mitigations:

Usually worthless attempts on behalf of the converters to restore some paltry parts of the land they intend to use. The Walt Ranch’s mitigation measures, outlined in the EIR, include collecting then planting the seeds of several adult walnut trees before cutting them down and permanently protecting 524 acres of land. Nancy Tamarisk, the vice-chair of the Sierra Club’s Redwood Chapter, says "this preservation pledge is an empty gesture, since the land that would be saved is too steep and treacherous, she says, ever to be developed anyway" (Bland, 2017). The Cornell Winery’s proposed mitigation is to take offline a large neighboring house which he purchased several years ago. "The thing is," according to Doerksen and other neighbors, "the house has served only as a barn and storage shed for years with little or no use of the area's water. Only after proposing to take the house offline to save water did Cornell bring tenants into the house to begin using water. Now, when Cornell removes the tenants, it will appear that water is being saved" (Bland, 2011).

Recycling Water and Power/Habitat Restoration:

Installing drip irrigation (a low-pressure, low-volume watering system, keeping roots moist but not soaked), tapping recycled water (reclaiming laundry or shower water after use), and using wind machines instead of the water out of creeks or groundwater wells for frost protection. Building bunkers to store wine which eliminates the fuel cost of transporting wine to a storage company. Using solar energy to power homes and wineries. Eliminating waste from the water cycle entirely and utilizing a composting toilet. Using your own waste (urine and feces) as nitrogen fertilizer for the soil. Selective cutting rather than clear-cutting to preserve native vegetation and habitats. Restoring fish habitats along Dry Creek (Sonoma County Winegrowers’ 3rd Annual Sustainability Report, 2017).

What isn't being done:

"Better regulations on tree removal/VESCO reform: Environmentalists say that VESCO’s measures are inadequate and that projects should require review under CEQA. But growers convinced the Board of Supervisors that filing Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for CEQA would be too expensive and time consuming. Many felt such regulation was unnecessary, as most operations were already environmentally conscientious. Then-Agricultural Commissioner John Westoby said that it was in the interest of vineyards to maximize soil retention, and that the industry should not be characterized by the projects of a few newcomers lacking knowledge of the landscape. But VESCO also fails to address tree removal. The county’s recent attempts to regulate tree removal—a drafted ordinance by the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner, submitted in April—would regulate tree removal on slopes of 15 percent or more if the parcel is over half an acre in size. Removal would only be prohibited if on slopes of 40 percent or more. Sonoma County does not regulate tree removal. Dave Jordan says that these regulations, if ministerial, would be essentially toothless" (Dimson, 2012).

Google Sites

Report abuse