A Seat at the Table: Effort to Untangle the Eel From the Potter Valley Project Left Some Tribes Feeling Unheard
Scott Dam which is part of the Potter Valley Project. [Photo cropped from one by PG&E]
Currently, tribes in the Eel River are working to make certain all the people in the Eel River have a voice on Congressman Huffman’s ad hoc committee in the wake of PG&E abandoning its license to operate the Potter Valley Project (PVP) while regional groups including Sonoma County Water, Inland Water and Power Commission, Humboldt County and California Trout are building a coalition to file Notice to apply for the license.
On July 20th, after the June 17th ad hoc committee meeting, the Round Valley Indian Tribes, Wiyot Tribe, and Bear River Rancheria issued a press release that began,
Last month, Humboldt County, Sonoma County Water and Power Agency, Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, and California Trout took steps to take over PG&E’s orphaned Eel River dams and diversion to the Russian River (Potter Valley Project or PVP). Absent from this effort are the people who have served as stewards of the Eel River for time-immemorial – the Round Valley Indian Tribes, the Wiyot Tribe, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria. In response, the tribes have formed a Coalition to support dam removal and demand a seat at the table with counties and conservation groups on this issue. On June 17, 2019 the Wiyot Tribe and Round Valley Indian Tribes walked out of an ad hoc committee meeting in solidarity with the Bear River after Bear River, a federally recognized tribe, was asked to leave by Congressman Huffman’s staff.
This took Congressman Huffman and most of the ad hoc committee participants by surprise. At the meeting, the significance of subtle signs had not been made clear to those in attendance. In an interview in July, just after the press release was published, Huffman said, “Representatives from both the Wiyot and the Round Valley Tribes did stay and participate in that meeting.”
Wiyot Tribal Chairman Hernandez and Tribal Administrator Michelle Vassel came into the KMUD Newsroom last week and explained what led up to that press release. They acknowledged their staff stayed so the tribes would remain informed of the meeting’s events, but said the leadership left with Mr. Smith.
Hernandez and Vassil said they needed to show solidarity with Bear River Rancheria because the Wiyot had invited Chairman Smith to join them in attending the June 17th ad hoc committee meeting.
Vassel explained why they invited him,
We have been there, and Round Valley has attended all the meetings as well, but we werent seeing Bear River, and Bear River has a different aboriginal territory on the Eel River than the Wiyot Tribe does. Ours is more toward the mouth and theirs is more up the river. And then Round Valley is further [upstream.]
And Chairman Hernandez described what happened when they arrived for the meeting.
Congressman Huffman’s staff asked to speak to Ed. And when Ed came back [into the room,] he was getting his stuff. I walked out with Ed and I asked him what was going on and he said ‘We were asked to leave.’ and I go ‘oh no, that’s not right.’ so I got the Chairman of Round Valley [Tribes,] and we all came to agreement that they aren’t going to ask our sister tribe to leave, and if they are we are going to follow suit and we are going to support them because we invited them here.
Vassil said Bear River hadn’t been invited to join the ad hoc committee. Congressman Huffman had countered that in our conversation back in June. He said,
The only tribes we heard from [when we formed the ad hoc committee] we gave a seat at the table. On the Eel River side the Wiyot and the Round Valley Tribes have been there from the beginning. On the Russian River side we heard from the Coyote Valley Tribe. We didn’t hear from any other tribes [at the beginning.]
Another reason Huffman expressed surprise about the July 20th press release was that he and the tribes had already held a conference call after the June 17th meeting by the time it was released. Huffman said he thought they had a solution that would work in which the three tribes from the Eel River would share the two seats already assigned to tribes in the Eel River.
Huffman explained the need to maintain balance between the two basins. He feels if a seat is opened on the Eel River side, even for a sovereign tribe, there will be pressure for more seats on the Russian River side. Huffman acknowledged there are already more voices from the Russian River watershed.
Hernandez said when Huffman asked Wiyot Tribe to share a seat with Bear River Rancheria, Hernandez and Smith took it to their respective councils and both agreed, but Hernandez emphasizes that it is less than satisfactory. He said,
You cannot dismiss [the Bear River] government over a County or a non-profit [who have seats at the table.] Sooner or later, it’s going to come back to us.
Vassil explained the Wiyot feel its better to allow all the impacted sovereign tribes into the conversation earlier in the process than later. She said,
Its better to get the consultation out of the way on the front end ….For the benefit of us all, if we are going to come together and work together, we should all put our interests on the table first and work toward a solution that’s [agreeable] and not trucking fish up a road. Let’s talk about…what everyone can agree on, a starting point that we are all on. [However,] if you don’t have [everyone] at the table then you don’t know what those interests are until the last minute.
Hernandez explained that each Tribe is its own sovereign nation and each must be consulted with separately and equally.
You are going to have to do the 106 consultation with each tribe individually, so why not put them in a seat right now and let them have their say?
In an email, Congressman Huffman expressed his happiness that Bear River will now be participating and that tribal consultation is part of the official FERC process separate from the ad hoc committee. He wrote,
Sec. 106 consultation is the jurisdiction of FERC, not the ad hoc committee. Regardless of what the ad hoc committee does, FERC maintains regulatory authority and must still consult with tribes under the National Historic Preservation Act. Nothing the ad hoc committee does can change that.
In our phone conversation, Huffman explained that he has a delicate job to “maintain equity and balance” in the representation from each watershed.
And at that time, Congressman Huffman explained that all participants of the ad hoc committee have their own interests to advocate for but that membership in the group is premised on a commitment to the ‘two-basin solution’ which seeks to maintain a safe, reliable water supply for residents and farmers in the Russian River basin and restoration of the imperiled Eel River. The precise language of the goals reads:
- Improve fish passage and habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of naturally reproducing, self-sustaining and harvestable native anadromous fish populations including migratory access upstream and downstream at current project dam locations; and
- Minimize or avoid adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality and recreation in the Russian River and Eel River basins
Huffman said that to a member everyone has expressed commitment to these goals, but the topic has to be revisited periodically as pressures for self interest grow. As recently as June the Lake County Board of Supervisors had Resolved it was thoroughly opposed to removing Scott Dam and losing Lake Pillsbury. Lake Pillsbury is an important recreation resource to Lake County and its absence would likely impact property values for the residents who live around it.
In our phone conversation, Congressman Huffman said it’s not the first time one of the parties in the ad hoc group has taken a position that has seemed very categorical and absolute. A year or so ago the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that seemed to be drawing a line in the sand against any changes at all in the project, but that’s not where they’ve been since then, he said.
And now, just this Thursday morning, the Lake County Record-Bee reported that the Lake County Board of Supervisors has voted to join the coalition applying to FERC for license #77 for the Potter Valley Project.
In July, before Lake County made that decision, Huffman said being a partner would benefit Lake County even if Scott Dam were completely removed because in these negotiations, when there is a loss of value to a party, mitigation dollars can be built into the project budget.
He explained,
Even if you had full dam removal, there’s a way to do that to send a lot of benefits to Lake County….It’s pretty straight forward. If there are economic impacts to [an entity,] it is not unusual to provide mitigation funds. When you look at the Klamath Dam removal as an example. There was a great interest by the stakeholders that were moving forward with the Klamath Dam removal to actually provide a whole bunch of economic mitigation to Siskiyou County. Siskiyou at the end of the day decided they didn’t want it. They just wanted to put their foot down and oppose dam removal and that is where they have been ever since. And so it’s been somewhat of an adversarial position instead of a partnership, and that dam removal is going to happen anyway.
And today, Friday the 23rd of August, the public Eel Russian River Commission discusses most of the material in an open forum and they will meet in Ukiah tomorrow, August 23rd in the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers.
Resource Pages
- ERRC webpage
- Huffman’s ad hoc committee
- Mendocino County Resolution
- Sonoma County Resolution (resolution starts on page 4)
- Lake County Resolution
- Humboldt County Resolution
- Mendocino Farm Bureau page on the PVP re-licensing
- Potter Valley Irrigation District has a PhD of data on the PVP
- Friends of the Eel River page on the PVP
- Ride the Eel in 1914 (reference of midsummer flows before Scott Dam)
- Save Lake Pillsbury
Earlier Chapters:
- Humboldt County Residents’ Input Not Actively Sought by FERC in PVP Relicensing Studies Open for Comment
- PG&E Announces It May Sell or Abandon the PVP
- Huffman Comments on PG&E’s Plans for the PVP
- Hot Potato: PG&E Offered PVP to the ERRC
- Eel River Forum Hears Science Research on Steelhead
- A Deeper Look at PG&E’s Auctioning of PVP
- KMUD News on Potter Valley Project
- PG&E Abandons PVP License
- Friends of the Eel River Respond to PG&E’s Abandoning of PVP License
- PG&E Orphaned the Potter Valley Project: What’s happened & What Comes Next?
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Remember Huff lives in Marin co.
He does not live here or give a shit about our county or our fish
We all have opinions, and the following is my opinion, but I think it’s a fairly informed one.
the statement that our congressman “Does not give a S*** about the fish” does not appear to be true. He appears to be a person who loves the fish and the natural world in general.
I watch the action pretty closely, and there is a tremendous amount of economic and political pressure to keep that water going south. There is no doubt about that.
However, it would be easy for a politician to simply cater to that political power, but the Congressman has made certain that the scientists, who understand the needs of the salmonids and other endangered species, have a big voice in the decision. Really read and understand the two part goals toward the end of the article above.
The tribes are saying, in my understanding, that they have an apriori voice in what happens to the waters of the Eel River, and that it would be best if they were all seated. Mr. Huffman is saying, that it is politically challenging to make changes two years into this group’s work. primarily because of the stronger political pressure in the Russian.
Mr. Smith of the Bear River Band was not the Tribal Chairman when the ad hoc committee formed. Mr. Smith is pursuing it now. As a result there is an issue that has to be worked out.
With regard to the two basin solution, It appears to me the Eel River gains as much as it stands to lose by being committed to a two basin solution because the science favors the Eel River’s needs quite strongly.
Members of the Eel River communities do need to be proactive and organized. Something Ms. Vassel said that didnt get included addressed that concept. She said the groups and interests in the Russian River watershed are far more organized that those in the Eel River. She indicated that is something people on this should pay more attention to.
Great article Kelley. Please compare a) Huffman’s treatment of farmers in Siskiyou and Klamath counties in the context of the Klamath Rivers dams removal with; b) Huffman’s treatment of wine grape growers and sprawling development in Sonoma and Mendocino counties.
If it’s good enough for the Klamath then it should be good enough for the Eel. Huffman cares about $$$
Membership in the group SHOULD NOT BE premised on a commitment to the ‘two-basin solution’. Two basin solution is code for the southerners continuing to steal our water and harm our fish.
Here I fixed this for them;
Restore to full health the fish passage and habitat on the Eel River to support recovery of naturally reproducing, self-sustaining, and harvestable native anadromous fish populations including dam removal at current project dam locations.
Cut them off by 25% the first year, then reduce the remaining diversion by 10% per year. 7.5 years should be enough time for them to move/sell/change as needed. Completely remove the dam. Pay them nothing in mitigation, but forgive the vast fortune they should be paying us in mitigation.
‘In our phone conversation, Huffman explained that he has a delicate job to “maintain equity and balance” in the representation . . . .’
Which “equity and balance” is he trying to maintain:
Those with environmental concerns versus those with monetary concerns. If someone has both (such as tribes) do they count as one of both and therefore not need balancing? How about some environmental groups from the Russian, at least half of which would favor ending the diversion?
How about public state chartered entities versus non-profits?
How about majority culture organizations versus minority communities?
I’d like to see a balance equalizing tribal and non-tribal participation. How about a two-culture solution in which the tribes and Huffman have to mutually agree to the composition of the committee. Or better yet each sovereign government gets to appoint an equal number (3 for the USA, 3 for the Round Valley Indian Tribes, 3 for Bear River, 3 for Wiyot).
Balance is a pliable concept and the Congressman conflates interests that are convenient for him to consider the same.
This back room dealing is illegally circumventing the open public process and debate that is required by the Law in the FERC setting. Huffmans meetings should be open to the public for viewing and for public comments. The whole thing should be video recorded. It’s a sham and totally illegal to be conducting these meetings behind closed doors by invite only. Send your comments to FERC and US Attorneys office voicing your opposition to Huffmans little circle.
This calls for a Hayduke remedy. About two cases of TNT should do it.
👍
While the emotional advantages of “blowing the dam” are obvious, the real result of such an action amplify the need to remove the dams carefully. Both dams are vulnerable to deterioration or earthquake caused blow out. If Lake Pillsbury were full, the scouring of the Main Stem from there to Fortuna and through the Eel bar would be disastrous for creatures, the river and people. Both dams have huge sediment loads behind them and either one could be compromised by a strong shaking of the wet mass of mud and water; the sediment would continue to impact the river for decades if simply dumped into the river system. VanArsdale Dam filled with sediment in the first few years after its construction. Lake Pillsbury is nearly 1/3 full of sediment, with an odd shaped elbow in the dam structure(you can see it in the picture) that might make a vulnerability to failure if dynamic forces in an earthquake focused there.
Just a note to all of you with ponds throughout the Eel. For sure if only your pond failed, only a few miles at most of your tributary would be harmed. However, if on a rainy February night with the entire watershed saturated and churning, another big downpour or a good shaking of the ground caused half of the thousands of ponds in the basin to let loose, a similar scale of watershed destruction could ensue. So please, monitor/manage/repair/remove your own dam. And to keep down the non native bullfrogs that eat everything else in the neighborhood, drain your pond into your storage tank in late August so that the bullfrog’s reproduction is reduced and the things that eat them can get an extra meal (bullfrog’s legs for dinner, anyone?). Free fish passage may mean you.
Please keep your reasonableness to yourself.
Thats nonsense. When the dam on the Elwha was removed, the watershed quickly recovered and filled up with salmonids.
Perhaps my point of view was unclear.
The Elwha Dam was removed carefully along with the sediment in crucial areas of the channel. It was not blown up or blown out. What nonsense are you sensing? I’m making a case for careful removal. Blowing the dams up is only a little worse than leaving these somewhat dangerous dams in place.
To be blunt: leave the water in the Eel and fuck you southern wino yuppies who have become accustomed to stealing the Eel’s water.
Have you noticed how the rich say fuck you to the common people?
LMAO….
Through their Government representatives.
What’s the matter with sending it south to turn into piss, puke, bmw’s, and fake boobs? It would otherwise just be wasted on weed, cold slimey fish, or lost altogether into the Pacific. The decent thing to do is let the rich get richer, no?
I didn’t think of it that way. You’re right: water for fake boobs! That’s a great slogan.
The needs of the Eel should have an absolute priority over the needs of all else. But Huffman will NEVER acknowledge that. He is tied to the south and is a phoney representative of what is best for the Eel and mushes on about the need for a joint resolution. That approach will never be in the best interests of the Eel and its watershed, because it guarantees the dam will stay and diversions to the south will continue. Cal Trout has sold us out already by joining with him on this.
Agreed on Cal Trout. Semi-agree on Huffman’s position on this. Political advantage (“reality” especially in the minds of some of his staff) and the desire to improve the environment rather than restore the River seem to rule the Huffman team. I think they are trying to split the difference within the realm of political advantage.
The most environmental solution possible would be complete removal of all of this diversion infrastructure. It would need to be combined with restoration work of streams to improve stream structure and of landscapes to return summer base flows and smooth out winter peak flows in both watersheds . Hopefully Huffman’s political maneuvering is designed to create the political will for serious restoration.
The political difficulty with a zero-diversion solution is the issue of so-called water rights in the Russian watershed. We would encounter some ferocious resistance from the Southern California water cartels if simply cutting off the flow to the Russian were seriously proposed. There’s a reason that PG&E was running an operation that lost them $7 million a year. I suspect that they were getting a payoff from the state through some other sweetheart deal. The Sonoma County Water Agency’s political, financial and organizational resources would look paltry if the proposal to fix the environment involved rendering water rights worthless. I doubt that Huffman wants to find out if his airplane might accidentally crash if he tries to take that one on. I would hope that he would at least look at the desired compromise as beginning with no Eel impoundments and a non impounding winter diversion that allowed the Russian “water rights” to be exercised.
Looking for compromise between the most environmentally positive and the most politically positive option would be a good start. I sense that Huffman and his staff are instead aiming for the most politically advantageous compromise between the politically feasible options. So I think you are right, Huffman is not defending the environment, he’s trying to keep it less unhealthy in its bondage.
I think it’s right to call that out and take the environmentally optimal position.
However, I think that we might actually be endangering the environment if we tried to force a solution that rankled the water cartels. They are destroying environments all over California to maintain their water rights (private property). Humans are part of the environment. When I consider the likely human response I am cautious. When proposing revolution I consider whether we can sustain it. I don’t think we are ready to take on the ignorance of Sonoma County citizens, let alone So Cal citizens, and the corrupt greed of the water oligarchy. Perhaps we all need to communicate with the citizens of So Cal and of Sonoma County about the costs of the origins of “their water.”
” Hopefully Huffman’s political maneuvering is designed to create the political will for serious restoration.” … This. Yes.
It’s easy to just throw bombs on this process (and folks in Humboldt that want to see dam removal need to start speaking up publically), but something needs to happen here and it’s going to cost a sh*tton of money. Water users can’t do nothing, so having the enviro groups at the table is critical.
HAHA — HERES MY POTTER VALLEY PROJECT — WE HAD A COMMUNE THERE IN 1970 — R CRUMB LIVED ACROSS THE STREET — IT WASNT ACTUALLY IN POTTER VALLEY , IT WAS ON THE EEL RIVER RIGHT OVER THE HILL — YES THERE WERE EELS IN THE EEL RIVER — MY MORON BROTHER IN LAW WOULD CATCH THEM AND FEED THEM TO THE DOGS — THEY WERE REALLY SEA-GOING LAMPREY — SUCKER FISH — R CRUMB WOULD STAY IN HIS HOUSE ALL DAY AND WORK ON HIS PREVERTED COMIX — THEN FINALLY THE SHERIFF BUSTED EVERYBODY !! — FINIS — BYE BYE POTTER VALLEY !!
“THEY WERE REALLY SEA-GOING LAMPREY”
~so the Eel River is really the Lamprey River. Just as i thought.