The Russian River Watershed Council (RRWC) was formed in 1998 (under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers) as a citizen-based panel to monitor the uses of both the Russian river and the funds designated for its protection and restoration. The council has 54 members representing environmental, economic and public interests. After a year of often contentious debate, the permanent council was finally seated in May of this year.
The stated mission of the council is "to protect, restore, and enhance the biological health of the Russian River and its watershed through a community-based process which facilitates communication and collaboration among all interested parties." Its primary goals are:
1) To ensure the recovery of the Russian River and its watershed to a condition such that the native, wild, anadromous fishery recovers to a healthy and sustainable level;
2) To ensure a strong, healthy and diverse economy in the Russian River region;
3) To promote stewardship of the Russian River and its watershed by developing an informed and engaged citizenry.
The RRWC will be addressing such issues as water quality, water supply (including dam operations and flood control), habitat protection and restoration (including Steelhead and Coho fisheries), economic uses (including agriculture and gravel mining), and recreational access. It meets every other month in Cloverdale.
The Mendocino Environmental Center and the Willits Environmental Center are both permanent members of the council and can provide a complete list of members, along with information about upcoming meetings and opportunities for public involvement. Our participation is crucial now, since the council appears to favor Sonoma County interests. Some say that it will be no more than a rubber stamp for the Corps of Engineers and business interests. Let them know how you feel about the Russian River.
The second governmental group, organized in 1994, is the Eel-Russian River Commission, made up of county supervisors from Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Sonoma counties. As an advisory body, it strives to form a consensus among the members and provide a forum for the public. At its spring meeting, for example, the supervisors heard testimony that encouraged both the raising of the dams at Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino and, conversely, the total removal of those dams along the Eel, along with the elimination of the water diversion into Potter Valley.
The Summer meeting was held July 9 in Ukiah. Once again, the Potter Valley diversion was the main topic. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided a preliminary summary of its data, which included:
1) the controlled flow of the upper Eel at Van Arsdale Dam provides 30-70% of the summer flow of the lower Eel;
2) ocean conditions do not affect the need for increased freshwater flow to restore the fisheries;
3) the summer flow of the Russian River, with the diversion, is currently so high as to be detrimental to that river's fisheries.
NMFS concluded that the diversion must be reduced so that the controlled summer flow into the Eel is increased from five cubic feet per second (cfs) to 25 cfs. Predictably, this brought criticism and demands for more data from commission members.
The commission also deals with issues such as rebuilding county roads and culverts to avoid erosion and siltation. The massive bridge project currently underway in Potter Valley is a good topic for public input to these Supervisors. Who is that bridge being built for? Surely not for the tiny population of Potter Valley!
The Commission usually meets about once every quarter, rotating among the four counties. Minutes and agendas can be obtained from the board of supervisors in each county, or from the MEC.
The third governmental group is headed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Its sole concern is the amount of water diverted from the Eel to the Russian River. It includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Fish and Game Service, and PGandE, which owns the diverting dam and powerhouse. This group has received the most attention in the mainstream (no pun intended) press, and its decisions influence the work of the other groups. It will probably support a 15-18% reduction in the amount of water diverted from the Eel. Since this is an average, there may be dry years where the diversion is reduced by over 50%. This could significantly impact the local and downstream economies.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gone so far as to caution water users in the upper Russian River watershed to begin planning for no diversion at all for future economic uses. (The draft environmental impact statement and other information gathered by FERC over the years is available at the MEC.) Because of the intense public interest and new data, FERC will likely issue a new draft EIS, which will give all of us the opportunity to make further public comments.
Several non-governmental organizations work to protect our inland rivers. Besides the Mendocino Environmental Center and the Willits Environmental Center, the Friends of the Eel River (FOER) has significantly expanded its activism, perhaps in response to the increased efforts of the Sonoma County Water Agency to secure additional Eel River water rights for southern Sonoma and Marin County developers.
FOER's goals include complete restoration of the Eel, the state's third-largest river, to its natural habitat, and the creation of fisheries and other natural resources to support a sustainable, community-based economy. By shutting down the diversion, summer flows in the Eel would return to their historical rate of 35 to 55 cfs, depending on rainfall totals. FOER's recent
statement highlights the EPA study, and can
be obtained from their web site at www.eelriver.org.
NMFS has recently released a study that finds the summer flow of the Russian river to be three times greater than is required for residential and agricultural needs. This is detrimental to the life cycle of the anadromous fish in the Russian river fisheries.
People can make their voices heard on this important issue by contacting the above-mentioned agencies and groups. Water, fish, farms and friends downstream are all on the chopping block. We need to solve this problem as a community, and remember that the political needs and pressures from our neighbors to the south should not overwhelm our responsibilities to the rivers of our bioregion.
NoteÑfor another opinion, see Richard Leamon's letter on page 17.
Photos on this page are by Geoff Bugby, except for the 1905 photo of the Eel River diversion, which was obtained from the Mendocino Historical Society.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1999
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited