The Eel Russian Project Authority convened its second Board meeting on March 19, 2024, addressing the debate surrounding the fate of Scott Dam and the future of water diversion along the Russian River. Held at the Board of Supervisors Chambers in Ukiah on March 19, the meeting saw arguments from residents and stakeholders, highlighting deep divisions over whether to preserve the dam or pursue alternative solutions. Amidst calls for preserving water storage and concerns over the impact on fisheries, the Board ultimately voted to advance alternative E-2, the Pumping Station, signaling a pivotal moment in the ongoing saga of water management in the region.
Board Chair David Rabbit opened the meeting by asking for public comments. Alexander Valley resident Frank Lynch, who owns property at Lake Pillsbury, and is a member of the Lake Pillsbury Alliance, an organization devoted to saving Scott Dam, said he appreciated the effort to secure water for all the downstream users, but there hasn’t been a lot done to find alternative water sources. Lynch said that the dam at Lake Pillsbury is not the only cause for decline of the fish. Lynch asked for a cost-benefit analysis of what it would take to renovate Scott Dam and put in a new fish passage, versus tearing down the dam and rebuilding a diversion alternative.
The next speaker was David Fanucci, an elderly rancher from Alexander Valley. He said this “is probably the most severe damaging thing done to Potter Valley,” and other towns downstream. “Taking the dam down is the most ridiculous thing. We need water storage.” He advocated for preserving the dams and putting in a new fish ladder.
Next up was an angry elderly man, who did not give his name. He ranted that, “The salmon industry had been destroyed by ‘the Japs’ in the 1990s.” He also blamed the Koreans and Russians for overfishing, saying their huge nets 200 miles off the coast “took everything in the damn water. The salmon should’ve been saved back in the 90s.” He urged the Board to save Lake Pillsbury for flood control, citing the disastrous flood of 1964, when Scott Dam could not prevent flooding downstream. Lake Pillsbury should be given to the Indians, “let them put in campgrounds, housing, and resorts.” He ended with, “Our grandparents built dams, they knew what they were doing. I think we need to mobilize a militia and destroy the damn machines that are going to take the dams out.”
Potter Valley resident Bruce Maclennan lives on the Russian River. “The salmon industry was ruined a long time ago. We can fix it with a fish ladder.” There are three hydroelectric plants in Potter Valley, two smaller plants in addition to the large PG&E plant, that should be used to generate energy.
Pam Jeane, of Sonoma Water, reported on the status of negotiations with PG&E. PG&E management submitted a letter to the editor of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on March 14, 2024, reaffirming PG&E’s commitment to work with ERPA on parts of its proposal that will not cause delay of the dam removal, as it prepares its license surrender application to FERC. Director James Russ cautioned that PG&E has changed its stance in the past. Consultant Tom Johnson said “FERC is not a problem solving entity.” FERC will take comments from the public and it is hoped that the agency will direct PG&E to respond with something acceptable to everybody.
Sonoma Water’s David Manning spoke about the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Grant from the US Bureau of Reclamation. The grant award will be for 60% design of the new diversion facility. An announcement of funding is expected in May. The design work will probably take 2 1/2 years. The grant is $2 million of federal money with local cost sharing.
David Manning, Tom Johnson, and Sonoma Water’s Grant Davis presented the results of the Technical Advisory Group review of the two proposed designs for the diversion facilities at Cape Horn Dam. The two alternatives are labeled “E-2” (the pumping station) and “E-3” (the roughened channel).
The TAG met 10 times over the past nine months. The 30% design report on the two alternatives was funded by a California Department of Water Resources grant. The TAG reviewed fish passage methods, as PG&E will be responsible for dismantling the dams. Alternative E-2 would involve removing the Van Arsdale dam face, leaving a concrete sill at the bottom. Water would enter the tunnel in the same way that it currently does, with the water flow stabilized by the concrete sill. A pumphouse would pump water to the tunnel.
Alternative E-3 would be a boulder-filled roughened channel that would have no pump house. The water would be diverted at the existing diversion. Fish would swim upstream through the boulders and gravity flow of water. It would be an engineered cascade with deliberately placed large boulders. During the review meetings, it became clear to the TAG that E-3 would be more difficult to design. Johnson said there is not enough money to do the extensive modeling required for a roughened channel, which are mainly used for smaller passages, not for the main stem of a river.
The TAG ranked each alternative on various criteria, and after analysis, the TAG preferred alternative E-2, the Pumping Station. A final report with details is coming.
Grant Davis of Sonoma Water reported that the Steering Committee recognizes that E-2 is the lower risk alternative for water supply and a superior method for fish passage. Board Member Glenn McGourty asked if it was possible to estimate costs of pumping, as McGourty had sketched out some back of the envelope estimates, but he wanted input from experts. The costs to build and operate are not yet finalized.
Board Member Janet Pauli mentioned that at the TAG meetings the engineers estimated that during high water flows, gravity could possibly move the carefully placed boulders downhill.
Alternative E-2 seems less risky, with less sediment generated. If the roughened channel were to fail during high water, repairs would have to wait for low flows. David Rabbit said “E-2 is a known commodity.”
When compared to the recent dam removal on the Klamath River, Manning said the Eel, with highly variable flows, is called a “flashy” river and is not similar to the Klamath. The decision to remove the dams rests with PG&E. ERPA’s goal is to figure out how to keep the diversion and fish passage.
The Board voted to select alternative E-2 Pumping Station, and will inform PG&E of that decision.
Still to be discussed are: the amount and timing of diverted water from the planned facility, sediment transport modeling, water allocation and water rights.
Future ERPA meetings will be scheduled every other month, rotating between Ukiah and Santa Rosa, with video participation available. The next meeting will be in Santa Rosa, check the ERPA webpage for the meeting date and time, and for links to view the slides and video recording of the March 19 meeting.
Providing Eel River water to the tunnel by either means after the removal of the current dams would only work during period of high winter flows in both rivers.
This plan might be good for Lake Mendocino, Redwood Valley, Ukiah and points south, but would be the ruin of Potter Valley, which has used summer flows for 100 years to irrigate crops and maintain the water table for wells that serve households and gardens.
It would be a serious assault on almost everyone who lives there.