The Eel River diversion and the overall role of the Sonoma County Water Agency were the two main subjects concerning the Russian River this past quarter. Various agencies weighed in and a state assemblywoman issued a challenge for the future. Through it all, the river continued to flow.
The Eel-Russian River Commission met in September in Fortuna, primarily to pick apart the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) report recommending a greater cutback in the diversion of Eel River water. Mendocino supervisor Mike Delbar and his Sonoma counterpart Tim Smith led the effort to find some reason for the decline of the fish habitat other than the massive diversion of water above Potter Valley. Mr. Delbar seems particularly anxious to blame the decline on the seals at the mouth of the river, apparently concluding that since he cannot address all the contributing factors, he will not address any of them. The commission's makeup, one supervisor each from Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties, makes it unlikely to be a force for change until Mendocino District 1, including Potter Valley, elects someone prepared to make tough choices and work toward alternatives to the dams.
A copy of the commission's minutes and agenda can be obtained from the Mendocino County Water Agency at the Courthouse in Ukiah (463-4589). The next meeting will be February 16, 10:00 a.m., at City Hall in Healdsburg. The five months between meetings further indicates a commission intent on doing nothing in the public interest.
Since that meeting, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which has ultimate jurisdiction because of the power plant that is fed by the diversion, has adopted the 15% average reduction plan favored by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), the Potter Valley Irrigation District, and PGandE. The greater reduction had the support of NMFS and the Round Valley Indian nation. The accompanying chart compares lake storage scenarios in a critically dry year under the proposed plans. (Source: FERC, Potter Valley Project Final Environmental Impact Statement)
The long-range future of the diversion will be significantly affected by the upcoming sale of the power plant by PGandE, including the dams and lakes on the Eel River that support it. The state Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over the sale, and is considering how different types of new owners would use the land. For example, would a water agency be pressured to release more water to satisfy customers downstream? The SCWA has already expressed a desire to purchase it all. However, the current state energy crisis has rekindled the movement for state ownership of such an essential infrastructure. State ownership would ensure that a broad range of concerns are addressed before one watershed is used to bail out another, while providing a foil to the energy monopolies who are getting fat off our higher rates. Comments on the sale should be sent to the California Public Utilities Commission, 101 The Embarcadero, Suite 210, San Francisco, 94105; fax (415)291-8943; e-mail cpuc-pgehydro @pamsf.com.
On January 13, The Russian River Watershed Council held its bi-monthly meeting in Cloverdale. The Council continued to move toward becoming a regional grant dispenser while considering incorporating as a non-profit corporation. The mission and scope of the Council and its role in the fabric of watershed stewardship is in question. A particular concern is the type of projects that should be supported. At the November meeting, a restoration project was rushed through to meet a separate deadline, yet some opponents, such as Ellen Faulkner of Earth First! and Anne Maurice of the Ad Hoc Committee for Clean Water, stated that a fuller review would have revealed that the project was just a cover for another logging and gravel operation. Indeed, when two more groups came forward seeking support at the recent meeting, the Council narrowly voted to deny it until they either brought more information through committees or the Council established ongoing standards.
Work is continuing in both directions to make sure that worthy projects, often by newly-involved activists, are not frustrated, while trying to weed out phony "greening" efforts of more established interests. Even at its best, however, the Council will not be a counterbalance to the SCWA, as it will not even consider the Eel River diversion, apparently because it is technically outside the watershed.
The octopus tendencies of the SCWA have come under the scrutiny of Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin. Although dismissed by some as political infighting, her proposal for a regional water agency to replace or supplement SCWA could reverse the decades of imbalance created when Sonoma County bought the water rights to much of the upper Russian River. A regional agency that stretched from Alexander Valley in the south to Round Valley in the north, for example, would encompass the shared interests and stewardship of those most dependent on the upper Russian and Eel rivers. Those interested in such an agency should contact the assemblywoman, or this author at the MEC.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2001
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited