Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to matthewplafever@gmail.com. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of MendoFever nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
To the Editor:
Regarding the Jan. 17 letter to the editor by Chris Coulombe, I must say how unfortunate it is that the important issue of Scott Dam has become mired in election-year politics.
We should be celebrating the fact that water agencies, native tribes and environmentalists, after years of hard work, have found a way to ditch the seismically challenged dam and help the Eel River’s salmon thrive while maintaining water flows into the Russian River.
Instead, we have Republican Chris Coulombe, eager to score points in his quest to replace Jared Huffman, declaring that the District 2 representative is “promoting the destruction of our regional water infrastructure.”
Two things can be true at the same time: Water storage is good, and Scott Dam is near the end of its useful life. We can acknowledge the latter without denying the former.
It may be that Coulombe, who announced last year that preserving Lake Pillsbury was a “critical” issue and one of his campaign’s top four priorities, feels that he has no choice now but to double down, even though the rest of the world has moved on.
I’m not going into the details of this saga here. If you are interested, you can read my op-ed on my website.
The destruction of old, small dams has been a fact of life in this country for many years. In 2022, 65 dams were removed, according to the nonprofit group American Rivers. Four dams are being destroyed on the Klamath River.
There are two ironies here.
One irony is that Coulombe is demanding the preservation of Lake Pillsbury at the exact moment that almost all parties have agreed, after years of debate, on a plan that includes the elimination of the lake.
The other irony is that Coulombe is blaming Huffman for something for which Huffman is trying to take credit.
The new plan isn’t Huffman’s; he had an older plan that failed. Perhaps because that older plan generated some good foundational work on the Scott Dam problem, the wily Democrat is seeking kudos for the new plan, known as the New Eel-Russian Facility.
Many details are still to be worked out. If we lose Lake Pillsbury, that will be a shame. But we cannot ask PG&E to maintain a 100-year-old dam forever just for the sake of the lake.
I want to thank everyone who has worked on this issue over the years. Fish advocates, tribes and water agencies all have different priorities. We owe them a debt of gratitude for reaching this historic compromise.
–Tief Gibbs is a Republican District 2 congressional candidate who will be on the ballot in the March 5 primary running against Jared Huffman. She can be reached at tief@tief4congress.com.
Agreed
If only it was that simple, but it’s not. Modernizing Scott Dam was never studied. The impacts on the County of Lake and the Lake Pillsbury property owners, businesses and wildlife were never studied. The New Eel Russian Authority intends to divert water from the Eel to the Russian River during “high flows” (whatever that means) to meet their needs, but what happens in multiple year droughts. Will the Eel fishery and Russian water dependents get their needs met?
Removal of dams in California should not be permitted for any reason. Water security for people is more important than the potential benefit to a fish population. Also, how have the issues caused to current wildlife populations in the area been addressed when their habitat or water supply is changed?
It is a black or white situation and the reality is it boils down to finding or the lack of it by. There has been no advocacy by the elected officials at the state or federal level for that funding, they have failed their constituents.
I was trying to figure out how to respond to Coulombe’s self-serving letter and now Tief Gibbs has hit the nail squarely on the head. Bravo!
Generally I think Tief is right about the conversation on dam removal having moved on from “if” to “when”, but I do have one correction. While Congressman Huffman gets full credit for branding the “two basin solution” and bringing a wide range of stakeholders to the table at his Ad Hoc Committee meetings starting in 2017 (where by the way, they did study somewhat extensively options for keeping both dams), he was not a part of the five parties who branched off to form the Two Basin Partners and had the failed attempt to take over the project. Those parties, Sonoma Water, Mendo IWPC, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Cal Trout, and Humboldt County, didn’t let him or other stakeholder in on what they were working on for quite some time.
It’s all history at this point, and it does appear that a win-win solution is within reach after all.
As most Mendo politicians agree, tear down all dams, let them drink and shower in Napa Champagne.