Logging in a watershed can increase the amount of turbidity in drinking water supplies. The following article in the New York Times highlights the problems New York City is facing as a result of turbidity. The article makes mention of the fact that San Francisco, Seattle and Portland are major cities that do not need to filter their drinking water. Not coincidently, these cities also forbid commercial logging in their watershed.

 

New York’s Water Supply May Need Filtering

New Yorkers are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them bragging about the city’s water — so pure it doesn’t need to be filtered, so delicious it is better than bottled.

So it may surprise, perhaps even insult, proud residents to hear that federal officials are worried that the fabled water — coming from the largest unfiltered system in the country — is getting muddier and may have to be completely filtered, at a cost of billions of dollars, if it cannot be kept clean.

For much of the last year, the century-old water system that delivers 1.3 billion gallons a day to the city has been clouded by particles of clay, washed into upstate reservoirs by violent storms in quantities that make the water look like chocolate Yoo-hoo.

To keep the tap water running clear, the city has been dumping 16 tons of chemicals a day, on average, into the water supply as an emergency measure to meet federal water quality standards. The treatment does not change the taste of the water, but the city cannot rely on this stopgap approach forever.

Turbidity — the condition that makes water cloudy and interferes with chlorination to eliminate contaminants — appears to be getting worse because of changing weather patterns and increasing runoff from land development upstate.

If the city cannot find a permanent solution to the silt, it may not be able to avoid building a huge filtration plant that could cost about $8 billion.

Because its water has historically been so pure, New York has largely been exempt from federal rules created in the late 1980’s that require all water systems to be filtered. (A small part of the system, in Westchester, will be filtered in a few years.)

But as federal officials review the city’s five-year exemption, which expires at the end of this year, they have openly expressed concern about the water quality.

“The single most important item we’re looking at, and the one that could be a problem for the city, is turbidity,” Walter Mugdan, a local director of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified at a City Council hearing this spring. His office, the Division of Environmental Protection and Planning, will decide early next year whether the city’s water is clean and clear enough to avoid filtration for another five years. (Only four other major cities — Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore. — are also exempt.)

The city is confident that it will win renewal. Emily Lloyd, commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, said that the department was working on plans to reduce turbidity without chemicals, particularly in two big reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains.

Steven C. Schindler, director of the department’s division of drinking water quality control, said, “I don’t consider turbidity a serious problem as long as we are able to operate the system the way it was designed.”

The city’s early engineers designed a system that only on rare occasions would have to rely on a chemical, aluminum sulfate, to reduce turbidity. Alum, as it is called, is used in most public drinking water systems in the United States to keep water clear because it draws together small particles, causing them to clump up and settle before the water enters the distribution system.

But some people see the prolonged use of alum as a sign that turbidity has become more severe. James M. Tierney, an assistant state attorney general who has special responsibility over the city’s 2,000-square-mile upstate watershed, has criticized the city for waiting too long to correct the problem.

In a letter to state environmental officials in April, Mr. Tierney said the continued use of alum “would appear to indicate seriously deficient conditions in the Catskill portion of the New York City Watershed.”

Mr. Tierney also said in the letter that the city’s alum use violated state water quality standards and effectively turned one of its reservoirs, where the alum clumps accumulate, into “a chemical sludge settling pond” that smothered aquatic life and would at some point need to be dredged at considerable expense.

Ms. Lloyd said the city had used alum from time to time over the last century without any impact on water quality. Mr. Tierney has called on the city to limit alum use and to hasten its efforts to reduce murkiness in the upstate reservoirs.

The city’s complex system — with 19 reservoirs bringing mountain water to New York from as far as 125 miles away through a gravity-fed web of aqueducts — is divided into three separate segments. In the 1990’s, the city agreed to filter the water coming from the Croton segment, the oldest and smallest section, which sits in Westchester and Putnam Counties, because it would be impossible to meet clean-water standards there. A $1.2 billion filtration plant is under construction in the Bronx.

The second oldest is the Catskill segment. In the early years of the 20th century, the city — with the help of special state laws — condemned thousands of acres in the eastern Catskills to build two reservoirs that more than doubled the city’s capacity.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the city expanded again, tapping the east and west branches of the Delaware River and other tributaries to create the newest and largest of its three segments.

The turbidity problem stems largely from conditions that have been present in the Catskill system from the beginning. Engineering studies in 1903 recognized that the clay of the steeply sloped Eastern Catskills turned the sweet waters of the Schoharie and Esopus Creeks into mudholes after storms.

Engineers decided to go ahead anyway, devising a two-reservoir system with built-in turbidity controls. Water from the farthest of the 19 reservoirs, the Schoharie, flows 18 miles through a tunnel under a mountain into the Esopus Creek, which then winds its way into the west end of the gigantic Ashokan Reservoir, 12 miles long and up to a mile wide.

The Ashokan is actually two reservoirs, separated by a dam, or weir. The turbid water from the Schoharie enters the west basin and is kept there until, in theory, the sediments drop. Then a gate in the dividing weir is lowered, allowing the cleanest surface water to flow into the east basin, where it is kept for several weeks longer to settle before making the long trip to New York City.

The system worked well for decades, with alum being used only rarely. But over the century, development in the Catskills, the building of roads, clearing of land and paving over of ground, all increased soil erosion, contributing to more runoff, federal officials said.

Water quality standards also got tougher; scientists have found that the clay particles hampered purification by providing nutrients for microbial pathogens and shielding them from decontaminants. Weather patterns over the last decade have brought more frequent and heavier rain. And the city has been draining murky water from the Schoharie Reservoir in order to repair its dam.

In 1998, water from the Schoharie Reservoir had become so muddy that environmental and fishing groups sued the city, claiming the sediment violated the Clean Water Act and impaired trout fishing along Esopus Creek, which is famous for it. A federal court ruled against the city in 2003, and in June an appeals court upheld the decision and the $5 million fine.

Federal officials raised concerns about turbidity in granting the filtration avoidance permit in 2002.

Since then, the city has studied several engineering and operational options for restoring the city’s water supply to its former glory.

Among the most likely fixes is the construction of a multilevel intake at the Schoharie Reservoir. Like a huge straw with openings at different levels, the new intake, which would cost more than $100 million according to city officials, would allow operators to draw off the clearer surface water, while giving the turbid waters at lower depths more time to clear. Right now, the Schoharie is equipped with a single valve on the bottom of the reservoir, which acts like a bathtub drain, allowing the lowest-quality water to exit first.

Other options include raising the weir at the Ashokan dam by five feet. This would increase its capacity by five billion gallons, and give turbid water flowing into the west basin more time to decant.

Another option is to build a baffle around the intake in the east basin to slow down the water before it enters the aqueduct to New York. Ms. Lloyd said cost estimates for these projects had not yet been prepared.

To avoid being forced to build a filtration plant for the Catskill and Delaware systems — which supply up to 90 percent of the city’s water — New York will also have to undertake other projects.

As part of its latest filtration avoidance permit, it agreed to build a new plant in Westchester County that will use ultraviolet light to purify water.

The project, under construction in Mount Pleasant and Greenburgh, will be the largest in the world when completed in 2010.

However, turbidity in the water would reduce its effectiveness because sediment deflects ultraviolet rays.

The city will also have to continue protecting stream banks and controlling development, and buy additional land in the watershed.

Over the last decade, the city has bought 70,000 acres at a cost of $168 million, and it expects to match that over the next decade. The property tax bill for upstate land costs the city over $100 million a year.

Which raises the question of whether building a filtration plant is inevitable in the long run, and if so, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply go ahead and build it now?

City, state and federal officials don’t think so. Mr. Mugdan, the federal official, calculates that the city has spent about $1 billion over the last decade to protect the water supply, compared with $6 billion to $8 billion to build a plant, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in operating costs.

“Even if, 75 years from now, some accountant asks how much has it cost the city to avoid filtration versus how much we would have spent to build it,” Mr. Mugdan said, “we’ll still be ahead.”

 

Please click on the link below and read an informative article entitled Tree, Tree Again, appearing in the July 12, 2006 San Jose Metro.  The article was written by reporter Vrinda Normand and contains statements from NAIL Steering Committee members.

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.12.06/fly-0628.html

 

Please click here to read the details of an important science article on sfgate.com (San Francisco Chronicle)

EXTINCTION CRISIS FOR AMPHIBIANS
Frogs, toads and other species dying off -- new fungus magnifies environmental problems

 

Please go to the site listed below for an informative article regarding a decision handed down this week by the California State Supreme Court.  The decision puts restrictions on loggers such as Big Creek Lumber and gives local municipalites more leeway in passing laws and ordinances regarding logging in their midst.

http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/1191122750075937384833993704620877369426

 
 

Please read the attached document outlining concerns expressed by the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the NTMP submission by San Jose Water Company.

The concerns were expressed as part of the standard first review cycle in the NTMP approval process.  Note DFG's assertion that the NTMP should have been rejected on the basis of  the errors it contains. 

 NAIL Steering Committee
 

 

San Jose Water Company Plans To
Log The Los Gatos Creek Watershed

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What’s going on?

The San Jose Water Company (SJWC) has resubmitted a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) for 1,000 acres of redwood forest along 6 miles of the Los Gatos Creek Watershed stretching from Lexington Reservoir past Lake Elsman to Williams Reservoir. Additional logging will occur off  Thompson Road on the east side of Hiway 17. The plan, should it be approved, will allow for logging to occur in perpetuity – no matter who owns the land and who does the logging.  Citizens of Santa Clara County will be facing the repercussions of this decision for many decades. Community opposition has been very strong.  As of  late June, nearly 4,000 citizens have signed petitions in opposition to the plan. A citizens group, Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) has been formed to fight the plan. Additional information about NAIL and the logging can be found at www.mountainresource.org

 
Q: How many trees will be cut?

40% of the trees greater than 24” in diameter will be harvested according to the SJWC. The average redwood or Douglas Fir in the logging zone is 31” in diameter. Trees as large as 6 feet in diameter are planned to be cut.  However, the type of permit they are requesting allows them to cut 60% of the trees 18” or more in diameter. The plan allows for changes in the number of trees to be cut – without further public review. The logging will occur in perpetuity, so the number of trees cut could be different – within a year – or within 50 years.

 
Q: What about protecting the water?

Good question. According to SJWC documents, 100,000 people in Los Gatos, Campbell, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and San Jose obtain drinking water from intakes in Los Gatos Creek within the logging zone. This is in addition to residents of Chemeketa Park and Aldercroft Heights who also draw water from the creek. Commercial logging of this type is so incompatible with protection of drinking water that the largest municipalities on the west coast – San Francisco, Marin, the East Bay (EBMUD), Santa Cruz, Portland and Seattle forbid such activities. Here are the facts drawn from published sources:

EBMUD:"Charles Hardy, spokesman for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, says logging is a "big no-no" on its watersheds for "obvious reasons." Uprooting trees loosens the soil and results in more runoff into water systems when it rains. The only tree-removal activities his company engages in are to clear paths for fire trucks and clean out the underbrush to maintain trails."
San Jose Metro. 12.7.05
Marin Municipal Water District:"The Marin Municipal Water District manages 22,000 acres of watershed land and does not allow logging, in order to the keep the area as pristine as possible. The last time it removed any trees was in 1997. That was a small population of nonnative pine trees that infringed upon the native ecosystem. Spokesman Michael Swezy puts it simply: "An undisturbed watershed is going to yield better-quality water." San Jose Metro 12.7.05
San Francisco Public Utilities District: "Critics of the logging plan say the company (SJWC) can reduce the fire risk by thinning trees instead of logging the forest. That is how the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission handles fire suppression in the 23,000-acre watershed around Crystal Springs Reservoir, said spokesman Tony Winnicker. "We do an annual survey of our lands, and selectively thin vegetation, especially in areas that are close to urban centers or homes and businesses," he said. "We selectively and strategically eliminate trees and clean some of the ground cover. That tends to be brush and eucalyptus trees, which are rapidly growing and extremely combustible." San Francisco Chronicle. 12.11.05

City of Seattle: "The Cedar River Watershed east of Seattle is a forested area of 90,346 acres. It’s been the region’s primary water supply for longer than a century, providing much of the clean water to more than 1.3 million residents of Seattle, Bellevue and other areas of King County in Washington State. The 50-year HCP, signed in April 2000, established the entire watershed as no-logging forest reserves. Commercial timber harvesting is barred and 40 percent of the area’s logging roads will be removed."
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Northwest Regional Office website
City of Portland Oregon: In 1996, The United States Senate adopted the Oregon Resources Conservation Act (ORCA), S.1662, which outlaws logging in the 100-square mile area around the Bull Run Reservoir, the chief source of drinking water for Portland's 800,000 residents. US Congressional Record

Q. What about Lexington Reservoir – how will it be affected?

This NTMP proposes building many miles of new roads and skid trails and using tractors on unstable areas and highly erodable hillsides with slopes over 50%. Such actions will lead to increased erosion with more sediment entering waterways. This means that more sediment will flow into Lexington Reservoir – diminishing its capacity to store water in the future.  The reservoir has lost 1,000 acre feet of capacity in just the past 10 years. This trend will be accelerated by logging. Increased sediment will flow into Lexington for decades to come, reducing water capacity and flood control capability for future generations. Expenses related to decreased water availability or ongoing dredging of the reservoir will be passed on to consumers.

Q. What about fire danger?

Simply put, cutting the largest trees in a forest and leaving slash (essentially dried, stacked kindling) on the forest floor presents a large fire hazard. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has studied this NTMP and has made the following comment in their official response to the California Department of Forestry. "The opening of a forest for light and regrowth will promote new ground and mid-canopy growth that leads to ladder fuel jumps into upper canopy catastrophic fire, which is not a desired effect for fire hazard reduction."

 Of note is the fact that in this NTMP SJWC has not stated any fire mitigation plans for the thousands of acres of fire-prone chaparral that they own adjacent to the redwood forest.

Q. What happens to the logging slash (debris)?

According to the NTMP, dried branches and twigs (slash) will not have to be reduced in height until April 1. That means that acres of forest will have piles of slash many feet high on the ground through the fire season. After April 1, 12 inches of slash will remain on the ground throughout the logging area. This 12” covering of twigs and branches will not be removed from the forest floor - ever. While SJWC plans to reduce slash within 200’ of adjacent homes (before the following April 1), new growth of flammable underbrush due to loss of canopy from harvested trees will grow up between harvests.

Q: Will logging take place all at once?

Not according to what is in the current plan. The logging zone is divided into 9 separate units averaging approximately 100 acres each. SJWC has stated that they will only log one unit at a time, every other year – however, this NTMP allows them the option to log in more than one unit at a time. The deposition of increased sediment and organic materials into the water supply as well as increased fire danger adjacent to homes, schools and businesses will be present 12 months a year in perpetuity.

Q. Will logging take place in the winter?

SJWC has requested special permission from the California Department of Forestry to perform logging operations (including the falling of trees and hauling adjacent to streams and on county roads) during the wintertime.

Q. How close will logging be to my property?

Logging will occur within 100 feet of the homes of hundreds of residents. Schools, day care centers and churches are also adjacent to the logging zone. The Chemeketa Park playground is even within the logging boundary. Logging will take place 300 yards from Loma Prieta Elementary School and 230 yards from the Building Blocks Pre-School located on Summit Road. A GoogleEarth depiction of the logging zone is available at www.mountainresource.org.  Residents can see their individual streets and homes and precisely measure the distance to the logging zone.

Q. How much noise is generated by logging?

The SJWC included a noise study in their NTMP. From as far as 1,000 feet away, chainsaws in the study generated a sustained level 52-58 decibels, a noise that exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance of 50 decibels. From 200 feet away, chain saws in this study generated sustained levels of 66-68 decibels which, according to the NTMP, is louder than a noisy freeway heard from 100 yards away. The NTMP document even concedes that during logging operations trucks, tractors, loaders and other equipment will add to the noise generated by chainsaws. The study just measured the sound of a ‘revving’ chainsaw and did not measure the much louder sound a chainsaw generates when cutting down a tree.

Q. What about helicopter logging? How close will helicopter landing zones be to my property?

Helicopter logging is proposed on 25% of the land alongside Los Gatos Creek.  However, there is little to stop them from logging most of the property using helicopters, without notifying the public of such a change.  Large Chinook Helicopters will be used. According to the NTMP document, these helicopters generate 78-92 decibels from 600 feet away. According to the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), prolonged exposure to 90 decibels or more can lead to gradual hearing loss.  The NTMP states that some residences will be as close as 150 feet away from helicopter operations. One landing zone will be within 200 feet of Loma Prieta Avenue. Another will be 750 yards from the Building Blocks Day Care Center.

Q. How close can these helicopters fly to my house?

Helicopters can fly within 500 feet of homes in sparsely populated areas according to the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA regulation 91.119d).

Q. What about property values?

Home sellers will be obligated to disclose to potential buyers the existence of the NTMP and the presence of a logging operation on adjacent properties. The potential effect on property values could be quite large.

Q. What routes will be used for hauling logs from the logging zone?

Some of the logs harvested will be transported via log trucks through the property on the lower portion of Wright’s Station Road onto a seasonal road on SJWC property to Morrill Road, and then on Summit Road to Highway 17 South. Log trucks from 2 harvest areas will travel on Old Santa Cruz Highway to State Highway 17 or from Aldercroft Heights Road across the Alma Bridge and onto Old Santa Cruz Highway. The logs from the Briggs Creek harvest area will be hauled onto lower Thompson Road to (R) on Black Road and then to State Highway 17. Loma Prieta Avenue to Summit Road and onto State Highway 17 may also be utilized as a haul route during the time of helicopter yarding operations. Approximately 8-12 loads will be hauled on any given day. Including return trips, there will be an average of one log truck on the road every twenty minutes to half hour during an eight hour day.

 Q: Will the log trucks damage the roads?

One 80,000 lb. loaded log truck is equivalent to about 9,000 automobile trips. Heavy load hauling during wet, saturated winter conditions are known to cause extra road damage.  Even SJWC admits that road surfaces are more “vulnerable to damage that occurs during wet weather traffic”.  Yet, the plan allows for hauling logs during the Winter Period between October 15 – April 15.

Q. Will log truck traffic be a risk to schoolchildren?

The NTMP includes a winter operating plan, including log hauling.  While SJWC claims that hauling is unlikely when school is in session, the plan allows for logging and hauling year round.  There is no mention in the plan that log hauling would be prohibited during school bus hours.  Rather we found the following, “Though each public segment of the haul route bears the potential for traffic problems, these traffic problems will likely occur most often during the morning and evening commute hours.”

Q. What times will the logging occur?

Logging will commence at 8:00AM within 100 yards from a residence and at 7:00AM further than 100 yards from homes and continue till 7:00pm. It is common practice for CDF to allow a change in hours of operation without any public review.  If neighbors complain, then CDF may require the operator to change back.

 Q. Won’t logging cause landslides?

The bulk of the logging zone is located along the notoriously active San Andreas Fault Zone.  According to the NTMP, on-the-ground conditions consist of extremely unstable slopes, steep “inner gorge” areas along seven tributaries, and numerous active landslides, including a 6+ acre slide below the Chemeketa Park neighborhood.  The plan notes large channel bank failure, watercourse flow already constricted by slide movement undercutting stream banks, recent bank failure in other locations, and notes that ‘future movement’ of some slides is very likely even during moderate storms.  Logging will be allowed on most of the slide areas, and tractor operations are also proposed on unstable areas and steep, highly erodable slopes with a gradient over 50%.  Skid trails often concentrate run-off leading to increased erosion and sometimes landsliding. Removal of canopy can reduce rainfall interception and increase runoff on landslides and steep slopes as well.

Q. Won’t the logging affect endangered species?

The biological assessment in the NTMP is seriously deficient.  Sensitive species known to live in the biological assessment area (BAA) are not noted as such. The endangered Red-legged frog is known to exist in the watershed, and mitigations are proposed.  The plan also notes the existence of at east three osprey nests in the assessment area. However, many species of mammals and birds that are known to inhabit the BAA are not identified, and it is unclear whether the broad variety of wildlife species in the vicinity will be adequately protected.
 

The following article presents a look at some of the difficult history of San Jose Water operations in the mountains.  It is interesting to note the references to water pollution, erosion, tree-cutting and locked gates barring residents a safe egress from communities sharing boundaries with SJWC - problems still existing today.

 The late Joan Barriga was a mountain resident who spent a great deal of time researching and writing about Santa Cruz Mountain history.

 
Reprinted from the Mountain Network News, May/June 1995 and September/October 1995.  www.mnn.net

In the early 1900s Edward E. Cothran, a prominent San Jose attorney, bought 500 acres high in the Santa Cruz Mountains from Mercedes Demoro.

Mercedes’ late husband, Rafael, had been a Spanish sea captain who owned seven sailing ships. Rafael made his fortune transporting Chinese workers from Hong Kong and Shanghai to San Francisco in the early 1850s.
On top of a ridge overlooking the Demoro property stood a large white cross. When Cothran acquired the land, one of the deed requirements was that the new owner preserve the wooden cross. It was an agreement kept by two generations of Cothrans.

Cothran and his sons, Shelley and Ralph, operated a small sawmill at the ranch. They bought their supplies and picked up their mail at Wrights, a nearby settlement that had grown up with the coming of the South Pacific Coast Railroad.

After World War I, Wrights slowly declined. Neighboring San Jose, down in the valley, was beginning to experience minor growing pains. Still largely agricultural, San Jose had begun attracting more industry and the population was growing. Water consumption increased and deeper wells had to be drilled. Sites for dams and reservoirs were explored in order to impound the new sources of water needed in the valley.

San Jose Water Works (SJWW), the water supplier since 1866, began quietly acquiring land in the Santa Cruz Mountains. By the early 1930s the Cothran property was surrounded by SJWW land, and the trouble began.
The Cothran-SJWW feud started in 1933 when Ed Cothran cut a couple of redwoods on his property. The water company claimed that he had muddied Los Gatos Creek. They sued him for $10,000.

As an experienced attorney, Cothran fought the suit in court. He argued that the trees were on his property and the water company was trying to prevent him from doing anything profitable with his land.

Shelley and Ralph carried on their father’s legal battle after his death. Although Shelley’s formal education had ended with the fourth grade, he was undeterred by the fact that he never went to law school or took the bar exam. He studied his father’s law books and read Shakespeare until his command of the English language was “awesome,” according to a newspaper account.

In 1936 SJWW bought Wrights, “lock, stock and barrel.” A brochure, A Wealth of Good Water, published by the water company at the time gives an idea of the company’s attitude:
“The town [Wrights] consisted of 125 acres of land. All that remained of the village itself were fourteen buildings—two or three homes in good condition, and several moldy old structures that were falling to ruin. The company purchased outright both the land and the buildings. It tore down all the buildings except the houses and the structure that once served as a hotel, restaurant, and Post Office building. In one end of this ancient building the U.S. Government still maintains a Post Office for residents of the surrounding area.” The Wrights Post Office was officially closed November 16, 1937.
 
At this time, SJWW employed men on foot and on horseback—“riders”—to give “special protection against contamination of the creek at this point.” The special protection included armed deputy sheriffs who patrolled the land on horseback along Los Gatos Creek “from Los Gatos practically to the headwaters near Mt. Loma Prieta.”

Rights-of-way were granted to land-locked property owners to enable them to reach their homes; but the roads, once public property and paid for with public tax monies, were now on the water company’s property.

Early in December 1936, Shelley and Deputy Sheriff William Hughes, a SJWW rider, met on a road near Wrights and got into a scuffle when Hughes thought Cothran was going to reach for his gun leaning against a nearby tree. Judge Bell found Hughes not guilty (even though Hughes admitted he had struck Cothran “lightly” several times). Judge Bell warned Hughes about using excessive force in carrying out his duties.
Less than a year later, on May 13, 1937, Ralph went to collect the mail at Wrights Post Office. He was challenged to a fight by another rider, Deputy A. E. Waibel, “a water company employee who was armed.”
To even the odds, Ralph went home and got his own gun. He returned to the Post Office and was promptly arrested. Deputy Waibel charged that Cothran threatened him with a firearm and was “hallucinating.” The Los-Gatos Times-Observer (June 25, 1939) reported on the trial: “Cothran is suing both the water company and Waibel on grounds that he was jailed maliciously on an affidavit of insanity—a charge on which he was later acquitted by a jury. He claims that the company had him imprisoned as a part of an attempt to get control of the land owned by himself and his brother, adjoining Water Company holdings at Wrights.”

After Cothran’s acquittal on the insanity charge, Waibel then charged him with attempted murder. Ralph spent an additional five months in county jail because he refused to post a $2,000 peace bond.
By now, what had started with a charge of “muddying” Los Gatos Creek had grown into charges of insanity and attempted murder. There was no end in sight.

In January 1938, Shelley and Ralph were returning home when their car skidded on a muddy road and stalled. They were cutting some saplings beside the road to extricate the car when Deputy Hughes came along. Hughes ordered them off water works property and emphasized his order by firing a couple of shots. The Cothrans left the car where it was and walked home. The next morning they swore out a warrant for Hughes’ arrest. The $500 bail was promptly paid and Hughes claimed “there wasn’t a shot fired.” Hughes added an interesting complaint: after the Cothrans filed charges against him, they later appeared at his place—after dark—and “were pulling up ferns near his water tank.” (Malicious mischief? Hallucinations?)

Up to this point the battle had been about control of land, water, and property access rights. Property owners felt that they literally were living in an armed camp. They looked upon Shelley Cothran as their spokesman against the water company’s lawyers, and he relished the job.

Cantankerous, bombastic, and hard-drinking, Shelley provided entertainment for the courts, copy for the newspapers, and hope for his neighbors. The battle was about to expand.

In 1949 the San Jose Water Works closed Wrights Station Road. Shelley took on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

With the end of rail service in March 1940 and the closure of Wrights Station Road nine years later, area residents found their only way out was by Summit Road. This added miles to their travel.

This was not only inconvenient, but posed a very real danger of being trapped by forest fire. Difficult access by emergency vehicles slowed response time. The Santa Clara County board of supervisors had sold a portion of the road to a private company (San Jose Water Works) which only added fuel to the fire.
In April 1962 Shelley headed a group of petitioners. They appeared before the supervisors to demand that Wrights Station Road be reopened “in the interest of fire protection and safety.”

A ten-day fire at Austrian Gulch in 1961 also made this a matter of concern to residents. “If the road had been open during the Austrian Gulch fire last year,” said Bruce Franks, chairman of the Alma Fire District, “firefighters would have been able to reach the fire an hour sooner.”

Other petitioners accused the supervisors of ignoring their pleas for years. Shelley grimly forecast a fire of “destructive proportions” if Wrights Station Road remained closed. The matter was referred to attorneys for further study.

Seven months later, the supervisors came back with their decision: The Public Works Department had their permission to build an emergency fire trail. It would be secured at either end with chained and padlocked gates since it passed through private (Water Works) property.

Cothran wasn’t at all satisfied by the outcome. He wanted the original road reopened year-round, but the board voted 3-2 against spending the $25,000 to reopen the mile-long stretch of road.

Supervisor Della Maggiore argued that the road was not the county’s responsibility, despite residents’ claims that they had seen county crews working on it. The supervisor conceded that county road crews had worked on the road, but it did not mean the road belonged to the county. Anyway, he added, the Water Works gates could always be knocked down in case of an emergency.

Such a narrow defeat, after 28 years of struggle, would discourage most people, but Shelley wasn’t most people. Shelley was “(A) man of commanding voice and presence,” said one newspaper article. The article described how Shelley would stop by the newspaper office after a day in court to regale the staff with stories and explain legal intricacies to them.

A friend recalled that “Mr. Cothran enjoyed a bit of brandy before his court appearances.” When a judge once asked Shelley if he smelled liquor on his breath, Shelley turned the question to his advantage: “… If the Court’s sense of honor is a keen as the Court’s sense of smell, then you will see the folly of the Water Works’ position.”

Shelley was a consummate showman in court, acting as attorney, litigant, witness, executor of his father’s estate, and heir. “He was a cantankerous son of a gun,” said longtime friend Connie Kidwell.
She attended a number of his court appearances and described one: “He would stand tall and dignified while firing questions at an empty witness chair. Then he would sit in the witness chair and answer those same questions in a meek and humble tone.”

Judges enjoyed the bombastic language and colorful presentations, often coming up to shake hands with him before a case.

But the lawsuits dragged on year after year. Shelley decided to bring matters to a head in March 1973.
On the day before spring, he and a few friends finished planting the last of some Douglas fir seedlings; he was 83 and knew that he’d never live to see them grow tall, but he remarked that others would enjoy them.
The next day Shelley made up his mind to file a $1.5 million suit in Superior Court against the county supervisors, the Department of Public Works, and the San Jose Water Works. He charged that they had attempted to confiscate his land with a grading ordinance that threatened him with six months jail and heavy fines for “maintaining the family cemetery, firebreaks, dams, and existing roadways.”

On Monday, March 19, he left the courthouse at noon and stopped off to visit friends near Holy City. At 3 o’clock he returned to his cabin to find it in flames.

Devastation
Shelley first attempted to put out the fire himself, filling buckets of water from the sink. He soon realized that it was useless, so he went outside to call for help. His closest neighbors, renters who lived in a nearby cabin, were not at home. By then the fire had made too much headway to be stopped. “There’s nothing but ashes now,” he told the deputy fire marshal in an interview the next day.

Shelley knew that he had made a lot of enemies over the years and believed that the fire had been deliberately set. Not only was his home destroyed, but his law books, legal papers and mementoes accumulated over an 80-year period were gone. He was left with only the clothes on his back.

The county fire marshal investigated and concluded that there were “very suspicious circumstances” surrounding the fire. Shelley’s dog, locked in the cabin when he left, was found outside when he returned. A gas can was found in the driveway. Specific threats recently had been made in the presence of witnesses. The fire had originated in two rather questionable locations: the bathroom and the living room. The marshal concluded that there was lack of evidence of arson.

Rebirth
The ashes had barely cooled before Shelley’s friends began constructing his new cabin. It was built with logs from his own property. Nine months later, a few months after this 84th birthday, he held a “Great Fandango” to celebrate the completion of the new home on the site of the original. The occasion was noted in the newspapers with photographs and articles.

Shelley continued to make court appearances. He used his increasing deafness as an excuse to ignore the judges’ admonitions. When he broke his hip at age 90, it marked the end of his courtroom career.The broken hip also forced Shelley to move in with friends, where he stayed until his death four years later in May 1985.

Longtime friend Connie Kidwell remarked that his illness and dependency “softened his demeanor,” but not entirely. He managed to muddy Los Gatos Creek one final time. His ashes were scattered over his property and eventually found their way into SJWW’s protected stream.

Perhaps his best obituary appeared in a local newspaper, perhaps the one he stopped by after appearances in court. It read: “He was never dull.”

Sources
“A Wealth of Good Water,” San Jose Water Works, Los Gatos Times-Observer
Shelley Cothran, autobiographical notes
Reprinted from the Mountain Network News, May/June 1995 and September/October 1995

Please go to the website: http://www.commondreams.org/ and learn about the increasing problems some California resident water users are having with private water companies that take over their systems.  Click on the headline "Small Towns Tell a Cautionary Tale of the Privatization of Water" to read the detailed story.

This information published in the L.A. Times focuses on a problem springing up all over the state and is relevant to Santa Cruz Mountain residents supported by small,local systems that are attractive takeover targets for larger, private water companies such as San Jose Water Co. 

With a heavy for-profit emphasis that could put the cost of water beyond the reach of low-income households.  Privatization of water in the growing trend can pose a threat to important watershed land stewardship  with conservation responsibilities reverting to large multi-national corporations.

 SJWC is mentioned in the article.