November 2024 Election 2024 Marin Water Board of Directors Candidate Questionnaire
As a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, Marin County Bicycle Coalition cannot endorse candidates for public office, but we are able to share information so that you can arrive at your own conclusion. Below are Marin Water candidates’ responses to our questionnaire on bicycling in Marin. We have made no content changes. Thanks to the candidates for their time and thoughtful answers.
Candidates’ campaign websites may be accessed by clicking on those with a highlighted name. Those who did not provide a campaign website are not highlighted.
Division BouNdaries and Candidates
Here are the candidates on the November ballot for Marin Water Board of Directors:
Division II
Includes all areas of incorporated San Rafael except Terra Linda and portions of San Rafael around Highway 101 in the Lincoln Avenue and Dominican areas, unincorporated areas of San Rafael contiguous with San Pedro Road, and the unincorporated area of the easternmost portion of North San Pedro Road.
-
Jack Kenney – Did not respond to our questionnaire
Division V
Includes Corte Madera, portions of Larkspur south of Corte Madera Creek and east of Highway 101, San Quentin, Strawberry, Tiburon, and surrounding unincorporated areas, and Belvedere.

Marin Municipal Water Board Divisions
Do you ride a bicycle? If so, for what purpose and how often?
DIVISION II
Diana Maier:
Yes and it varies depending on what I’m doing. I did the Ironman several years ago, so rode like crazy that year, and lately I have been riding sporadically, road or mountain, when time allows. I try to keep up my bike fitness by using the peloton in the meantime and then use biking events to get me back in the real saddle. Like last year I did a biking fundraiser for Moms Demand Action. It was only 25 miles but got me out for some longer rides to train.
Robert Sandoval:
I would like to experience rides with the community to better understand the needs and interests of MCBC members.
Division V
Dave Keatley:
My kids are avid mountain bikers, so we often ride as a family. Our favorite ride is riding downhill on Dias Ridge to get lunch at Pelican Inn. We also like to ride at China Camp and around Lake Lagunitas. We’ve had a family e-bike that we’ve shuttled the kids around in for years, but now that they’re getting big it’s time for an upgrade! We love both the trail and bike path access that we have nearby.
Dawn Matheson:
I “can” ride a bicycle. I own a bicycle. That being said I am no recreational bike rider.
Larry Russell:
Yes, every other day for fitness and recreation.
Do you support the Pilot Program recently approved by the Board to allow class one e-bikes on the watershed and open some singletrack trails for bikes? What will you be looking for to consider it a success? Will you support the expansion of the program?
DIVISION II
Diana Maier:
I am a strong supporter of the MMWD pilot program. The program will give us important data about how to allocate resources in the way that is inclusive of all communities wishing to use the watershed in a responsible manner. For it to be a success, the program will need to provide data on how the watershed can be sustainably shared by hikers, bikers, and equestrians, and in what form that sharing should occur to keep trails safe and ease conflict between stakeholder groups wanting to use the watershed. I do support the program’s expansion though, admittedly, I imagine some trails aren’t ideal for biking access, or perhaps any recreational access, and should be retired due to the need for erosion control, etc., while other more sustainable trails could be used or even constructed in their place. Being flexible about how and where the program is expanded will give us the best shot for finding a safe environment to roll out greater access to the mountain while being sure not to regress into infighting among various interest groups.
Robert Sandoval:
Yes I do support the pilot programs recently approved by the Board and will be looking at whether we can maintain a safe, resilient water supply, protect the watershed, and the safety of others who use the trails. If we can show that the pilots are successful in these ways I would support the expansion of recreational access on the watershed.
Division V
Dave Keatley:
The district has also provided generations with recreational opportunities in the watershed. The new pilot study to evaluate expanded trail access permitted for bikes and class 1 e-bikes is an incremental step that Is consistent with our stewardship objectives. I support this gradual approach as it responds to public demand for increased recreational opportunities without losing the focus on stewarding district lands and protecting our water source. The data on user ship and trail impact that is gathered during the study will be critical for evaluating expansion of the program in the future.
Dawn Matheson:
I’m not in support of the way the pilot program was constructed. Had it been designed by me, I would have put signs up in the parking lots and along proposed routes soliciting comments on day 1, as well as querying ratepayers (through snail mail) as to whether this is something that is of interest to them (i.e. let them know the different proposals and estimated costs – in context with other current recreational programs). My friends who hike in the watershed multiple times a week were surprised by it when I queried them recently, and they were very unhappy…even the avid mountain bikers. I admire your group for its effectiveness in getting what it wants, but if it really wants public buy-in, it should have worked a little harder to get it; now, the other stakeholders feel like you got one past them, which is not a way to make friends. If the majority of ratepayers want to expand recreational use and are willing to pay for it, I’m all in. I am totally agnostic as I enjoy nature from a distance. I literally get hives just driving by it sometimes. I am highly allergic to some local plant. I’ve already had two skin cancers, so I avoid the sun as much as possible. I have all my life. And my son is so allergic to grass he has to carry an epi-pen. But many studies have shown exposure to nature for most people is very good for mental health, and I love and support mental health. My point being that I know this kind of recreation has great value to the public. However, the primary mission of the MMWD is a clean, resilient water supply. They write it at the start of every report. The primary mission of parks and recreation is parks and recreation. They have different budgets and different sources of those budgets, so I would recommend the ratepayers have the last word as many of them are struggling with their bills, especially after the recent rate raises.
Larry Russell:
I voted yes on the pilot program – primary issue is user safety and environmental compatibility – when the pilot data is available – I will make my decision regarding the future.
What is your vision for the future of recreational opportunities on the Mt Tam Watershed? What challenges face Marin Water, and how would you address them?
DIVISION II
Diana Maier:
I think Tam’s recreational options should continue to expand, granting access to all who wish to be on the watershed in a manner that honors and preserves its habitats and beauty. That can be done by being more inclusive in terms of who gets access to the mountain, with a corresponding commitment from user groups to do watershed education and maintenance events frequently. I think Mt. Tam has opened the door for a lot of people to get out in nature and experience the natural world in a new way, especially on the world-class trails of Marin County. I also think it can be a great way to engage in community — I joined Moxi Chix a few years ago, and more recently A4B for this purpose: to connect with like-minded people who enjoy a fun workout while connecting with nature, and appreciating the natural world as a forum for doing so, given the gifts that interacting with nature allows (as compared to working out at a gym). I’d like to see more and more of these opportunities be provided to all three user groups: hikers, bikers, and equestrians. However, a big challenge to future recreational opportunities on Mt. Tam is the long-standing conflict between hikers and bikers. Using that kind of energy toward working on common goals is a badly needed and long overdue state-of-affairs. In some ways, I think that will most likely occur once some trails are either integrated for bike use, or become bike only, and other groups can see that they still have access to much of the mountain and that bikers are doing their part to preserve the mountain just as hikers are (in some cases, even more). I also think cyclists will need to do self-policing so that a few careless cyclists do not ruin opportunities for others by creating a negative perception of cyclists and their commitment to the environment.
Robert Sandoval:
My perspective on trail access and conservation is deeply personal. Growing up in LA County, I remember smog brown skies, ash from foothill fires canceling school, and in general having less access to the outdoors (clean air, water, and green spaces) except through school field trips and activities like Boy Scouts. When my wife and I first moved to the Bay Area, we quickly fell in love with Mt. Tam, and chose to move to Marin to start our family. I even proposed to my wife on Mt. Tam, and it will always be special to me. Precisely because I wasn’t privileged to be born and raised here in Marin, I better understand the privilege I now have with Mt. Tam in my backyard. I’ve spent countless hours enjoying our many parks and trails, and truly appreciate the physical and mental benefits of outdoor recreation. As the generations change with time, so might their preferred recreational activities. We need to manage our watershed and should encourage recreation that meets the needs of our community. Access to the trails should reflect the actual interests of our community members. I’m dedicated to protecting Marin’s outdoor spaces and biodiversity, while promoting access and enjoyment of outdoor activities for all.
In terms of challenges facing Marin Water, first and foremost I want to make sure that we are making progress expanding our water supply so that are adequately prepared for the next drought or extreme weather event. In 2021, the district almost ran out of water and money. We saw firsthand that conserving water alone was not enough. With the newer Board after the 2022 election year, we are currently considering options like increasing storage, improving our infrastructure to bring more winter water from the Russian River, water reuse, and desalination. We are approaching time to make tough decisions about our future, and we need someone who can work with the Board, MMWD staff, and stakeholders collaboratively and transparently. I am committed to that responsibility and to thinking creatively about how to ensure we have a reliable supply for the next generation.
Division V
Dave Keatley:
In addition to balancing demands for changing recreational opportunities with the district’s legacy of stewardship, there are a number of challenges facing the Water District. Priority one is ensuring that we have an affordable, resilient long-term water supply. The last drought showed us that we have some work to do to prepare for multi-year droughts and impacts of climate change. If elected, I will bring a new approach to these challenges and ensure that we are building the water supply that we need and adapting to the changing future ahead of us.
Dawn Matheson:
As far as recreational use, I think we have some pretty serious enforcement problems now. I would want to address and improve those before considering user expansion. Enforcement is not my area of expertise but I’ve read about several strategies that don’t sound like they’re being employed at the moment. I already know the signage is deficient. I also want to go over the emergency operational planning and mandate it’s review yearly. Once I feel the current users are mostly behaving and safe (finally picking up their bags of dog poo and keeping dogs on leash, bikers in allowed areas, etc.) then I would feel more comfortable about expansion. From reports I’ve gotten, we are not there yet. If the bikers feel they could help remedy the undesirable behaviors, I am all ears.
Other major problems for MMWD:
The predictability of the water supply is the most pressing problem and will be for the foreseeable future. This has always been the case, but that variation continues to shift due to climate change and the decreasing population-to-storage capacity ratio. From The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022:
Average annual precipitation varies across the drainage basins above the reservoirs from about 60 inches above Kent Lake to 28 inches on Walker Creek, according to rainfall records maintained by the District since its inception. Average annual net runoff on the watershed lands is more than 75,000 acre-feet. That runoff, however, can vary greatly from year-to-year. For example, the District measured record runoff of 213,000 acre-feet in 1982-83, compared with a low of 3,000 acre-feet in 1976-77.
Luckily for us, we’ve always had a long dry season, so long-term storage is a familiar problem, unlike, say, in the Bahamas, where they rely on weekly rains to fill front and backyard cisterns for their water needs. We also don’t rely on out-of-sight, out-of-mind aquifers, which is good because you don’t have to convince the public it’s a problem. But twenty-two percent of our water comes from outside sources that are NOT guaranteed. Over ninety-five percent of these sources are drought-vulnerable. I think the only logical answer is potable, recycled water. Our district would not even have to be an early adopter. The EPA published a compendium in 2017, and the State of California Office of Administrative Law approved regulations for this kind of system, effective October 1, 2024, and is offering grants to districts that implement these systems. It would be a predictable source of water that would be far cheaper and environmentally friendly than desalination, reservoir expansion, or the recycled water program the district is currently implementing, which requires double the infrastructure (two sets of pipes). That is not feasible in most applications and only serves to increase building costs at a time when it is particularly critical that we streamline and encourage housing construction. I spoke to the General Manager of MMWD, Ben Horenstein, and it was fascinating. He outlined the design challenges but he also said it was the brass ring of water management so I think we should definitely be laying the groundwork for this as a solution. And thinking more on it, we might even be able to get a grant to do a more ambitious, synergistic project with MCE given our natural landscape. In Europe they are constructing large water “batteries,” I could see how this could be incorporated to overcome some of the constraints we discussed. Given the tepid residential conservation gains, even though Marin is an award-winner in conservation, I don’t think this is a viable, cost-effective solution. What I think if we keep pushing in this direction is that the people who can afford to will not conserve, and the people who feel the cost of their monthly water bills more acutely will be the ones forced to do without. I don’t see us getting to the point of Mexico City, but that’s the extreme if you keep counting on conservation to be your savior. Ross is the worst at conservation. One only needs to look at the use map from the water efficiency program update presented on August 21, 2024, to see the proof of this. Ross being the worst at conservation.
One calculation I would like to know is how much the district spends per acre/ft of water conserved. I would further break that down into how much was saved in the months we really needed water saved as opposed to the months the district itself is letting out water through the spillways due to excess supply. For instance, a cistern program makes no sense in our area unless you have room and the capital to buy and store a whole lot of barrels because of our long dry season. I did the calculations when I was considering installing a cistern to replace our old swimming pool. There was no way to even come close to having a cistern pay for itself. Cisterns work great in the Bahamas, but not so much here. Here, at worst, they encourage mosquitoes if not fastidiously maintained. They do have the benefit of doubling as earthquake readiness, so there might be a little added value there. We’ve been working on conservation since the 1950s. We should not waste water, but conserving what you don’t have means you’re getting into the have’s and have-not’s territory. It’s also hard to conserve when you drive down Hwy 5 and see farms still squirting water into the air, but that’s out of our jurisdiction. My point is that there are diminishing returns with conservation, and it doesn’t work past the point of pain for the most affluent; we need to assess where we are at with these programs because it sure looks like we’re paying a lot for meager gains at this point. It could be the money will have a better return if invested in the larger system which can take advantage of the incentives the state is offering for recycled water projects.
Fire is another big issue obviously. And the technologies used to address this risk seem so crude. Not that they don’t have merit, but I would be on the lookout for new ideas about addressing these risks. The water district is looking at modeling the movement of fire, which is an excellent place to start as is their Fire Flow Improvement Program. What I would like to game out in the near future is our plan if there is a fire. Fire can do a real number on the water supply. Debris get deposited into the water, including fire retardants, which have been found to have adverse health effects. Infrastructure gets melted and burned trees block water flow. A lot of catastrophic failures can happen in the water delivery system. I’ve been a block captain in the Neighborhood Response Group for a few years now. We actually drill twice a year and come up with contingency plans in case of a natural disaster. I think we need to talk about redundancy and spend some time gaming out what we would do in the event of a major fire, and that plan needs to be revisited once or twice a year (which needs to be made mandatory) just to make sure we can coordinate with the county response plan. In addition, I asked about whether the district currently had a way to “gate” certain areas to limit contamination. There seems to be some low hanging fruit as one examines the watershed that contains many small tributaries. I would want to consider a way to automatically block those off in the event of a fire to limit contamination, much like the idea of shutting the water off to your house after an earthquake so you can use the water in your water heater tank as an uncontaminated source until water quality can be assured.
A third big problem facing the district is the lack of talent available to complete approved district contracts. Part of this is the Biden Infrastructure Bill. We now have to compete against many other projects which lengthens timeframes and increases costs. The other contributing factor is that most of this infrastructure was built in the 30s and 40s and has exceeded its design life and now is teetering on its safety factors. I’m wondering if we should consider bringing some of these contracts in-house. I’m also wondering about setting up an internship program that takes advantage of all of the California-produced civil engineering talent. What I do know is that MMWD recently put out to four different engineering firms for the pump project in Fairfax and only received one costly bid back. The other companies didn’t even bother to bid on the project. That is not sustainable. They’re also having a hard time getting the contracts they have fulfilled in a timely manner. We need to consider options. We have a long-term, predictable capital improvement plan. In-house talent would have plenty to do. Finally, we HAVE to increase the diversity of our technical talent. One woman out of fifty for on-site workers is pathetic. As a woman, used to those odds in my workplace, I have some ideas to try and improve those numbers but the best way to help is from the top and right now the leadership is less diversified than one out of fifty. Only the voters can decide if this is important to them but it’s why I’m running for this particular office, because it’s important to me, and because I have the training most people value in water management.
Larry Russell:
The watershed is foremost a water supply source for the environment and for MMWD. Recreational benefits are frosting on the cake. Challenges include minimizing environmental impact of recreational users on the watershed and ensuring users safety for all user types.
Members make it happen!
We’re fighting for a more bike-friendly future in Marin. Are you with us? Join Marin County Bicycle Coalition today.