County Notes: Is Potter Valley About To ‘Go Dry’?

Lame duck 72-year old Supervisor Glenn McGourty doesn’t get excited about much these days. In fact, the only subject that still energizes him is water for grapes. So we were not surprised that he sounded the alarm at last Tuesday’s board meeting, albeit tepidly, about the very real possibility that Potter Valley’s Eel River water supplement is about to be reduced if not eliminated. That could put Potter Valley back to pre-diversion water sources which at this point would mainly be some percentage of Lake Mendocino (if it’s full) or their private shallow wells. 

In the few instances when McGourty has something to “report,” he doesn’t bother with written reports or on-line posts so we have transcribed his remarks and the responses from his Board colleagues for the record.

McGourty: “I had a meeting with Congressman Mike Thompson to discuss the future of Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury. It's an area that he [Thompson] represents. We had people in attendance from Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties trying to figure out what's going to happen with the [Scott] dam [upstream of Lake Mendocino which forms Lake Pillsbury]. As you may be aware there was a seismic study done that indicated that what was previously thought was a 1 in 10,000 chance that the dam would fall down if we had a 7.0 earthquake, they have moved back to a 1 in 900 chance. The media and PG&E went with that. So PG&E is not going to fill the dam this year completely. They have gates that normally brings the water level up another six feet and they are not going to do that. So it's questionable how much flow they are going to get through the Potter Valley Project to Lake Mendocino with the possibility that we will again have water curtailments by the end of the season, depending on what happens with irrigation and weather. Subsequent to that Congressman Thompson brought up the issue about whether this was going to be a long-term plan, and what we are finding out now is that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has said that they need to do some additional studies before they can automatically make this a permanent decision. Meanwhile PG&E is moving very rapidly. They want to have a decommissioning plan [for Scott Dam] in place by 2025 and they want to take both dams down, the Cape Horn dam where the Potter Valley water is diverted as well as the Scott Dam. This indicates they kind of want to walk on the project. But by the same token they have to come up with a decommission plan that addresses all the environmental issues associated with it. So there was a discussion to kind of see where people were. Lake County wants the dam to remain. Sonoma County said that given the risk they can't see how they can come up with a new organization that would take water from the Eel River and how they could justify the risk and pay for keeping the dam in place. My point was that Mendocino County has not completely decided. We want to be assured that should Scott Dam come down we still have water for agriculture [mainly grapes] and Potter Valley and the Russian River system. So it was an interesting discussion. We also met with Congressman Huffman this week. Supervisor Mulheren and I were with him. His comment was that things were starting to move quickly. We have to be kind of be prepared to make a decision for Mendocino County where we want to be on this. We are moving forward with a water forum and the next step is to have a more engaged group that is going to discuss what kind of an economic structure could be put in place, a joint powers authority or a special district, how fees could be monetized and how things would be governed. All I can say is that things are moving more quickly than we thought for the Potter Valley project’s future and the discussions are going on.”

That wasn’t the only grape grower water problem McGourty wanted to mention. This one required some annotation.

McGourty: “Also, there is a proposal by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to finally move through with their agriculture waivers program for discharge permits. I was wondering, what the heck is that? If you are discharging water from your property and you own a vineyard [especially if you own a vineyard like McGourty does] you will have to meet certain requirements that they are proposing. Their initial requirements all had to do with how much suspended particles are in the water. Of course, the problem with that is that we [we? We who? McGourty himself? McGourty and his vineyard owning friends? Certainly not the County, although to McGourty grapes and the County are all one big unit] are surrounded by water that comes into our [vineyard owners’] property which is loaded with sediment. We [vineyard owners] have no control of it. So the initial plan doesn't make any sense. There are different ways that it could be handled. So I talked yesterday with the Board and with Beryl Markeson at Fish Friendly Farming [a greenwashing grape grower front group], kind of advocating for an approach that has something more than just expensive monitoring [oh dear no, no one can ask grapes growers to pay for anything] but also has some cause and effect where we take a sediment inventory of how much sediment is coming off the property and then mitigate it. [I.e., delay and delay as much as possible.] That is what Napa Valley has done. They are in a different water region. We [who? McGourty?] are kind of advocating for the same thing. So that's another unfunded mandate coming down to local agriculture that is on top of our groundwater sustainability agency. And it's impactful.”

McGourty is chair of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency. All they’ve done in their many years of existence is talk about groundwater and study groundwater and develop groundwater flow models. McGourty has never previously described that Agency as “an unfunded mandate” because it’s not. State grants cover their costs. They have certainly not mandated a single thing that might impact McGourty and his inland grape growers. And the Water Quality Board imposing requirements on grape growers has nothing to do with “unfunded mandates” because that term only applies to local government entities.

Supervisor Haschak jumped on board. 

Haschak: “Thank you. It seems like that [the Potter Valley diversion] is such a critical infrastructure project, a water project for our county that we should have a special meeting, a workshop or something where we can really find out about it. The whole board can have a discussion of where we are and what we need to be doing or do we need to be doing something at this point? If things are moving quickly then the Board needs to have that information.”

McGourty: “I agree 100%. Everything from local to federal. One other point that Sonoma County told us was that, if we accept that Lake Mendocino needs more storage then Mendocino County should be the leader. Which is something that I haven't thought about.”

McGourty hasn’t even thought about Mendo taking the lead on increasing Lake Mendocino storage? If true, that sounds like dereliction of duty!

McGourty: “They [the Sonoma County Water Agency] kind of feel like Lake Sonoma — they are not so concerned about whether or not there's more storage in Lake Mendocino. They would like to see the water continue coming from the Eel River but they don't care if we have more storage. So that is something Congressman Huffman’s been working on. I think we should have maybe a two-hour workshop where we can all be updated and aware because there are so many moving parts to this and they are moving quickly.”

Haschak: “That would be good.”

Supervisors Ted Williams: “I support the workshop. But I wonder if we could encourage our federal partner to host it. I'm afraid of the impression it gives when the county is hosting. I've been watching this and I don't think we have the authority, any real authority, and I don't think we have the funds even if we had the authority, we couldn't afford to do anything. So I don't want to give the public the impression that we are deciding how to react and what we should do. I don't think the County of Mendocino has much say in this. We could have a seat at the table and we should be advocating and basically begging the government to make sure that we don't go completely dry. But whatever they decide, it doesn't seem like we are really a deciding voice. Am I wrong?”

McGourty: “No, you are not. The moving parts are — the Feds are interested in water diversions for generating power, that's what the Federal Energy, FERC, that's what they do. The energy regulatory commission. So that's the first step. When PG&E steps away it will be up to the state water board to make a decision whether or not to continue the diversion and how the water will be allocated. Mendocino is way down on the list of who gets to decide, other than at some point we have to incur debt to pay for new facilities, and lawyers, and we will have to pay for the water and that is something that could be decided on a local basis.”

County Counsel Christian Curtis told Williams and McGourty that there might be some areas where the County has some authority.

Williams: “It would be great if those could come back with an explanation of what authority we have and what next steps. I imagine Supervisor McGourty would take the lead.”

McGourty: “I can. I can help set this up and try to figure out who should be at the table.”

Supervisor Dan Gjerde: “If our congressman could be there and his staff and the Sonoma County counterpart because they are working on a two-county proposal. My point that I would obviously raise is that I think those who consume the water should pay for it. And any liability if there is any that's created should be borne by the people who are using the water not the people who don't.”

Supervisor Mulheren: “I'm not sure that a workshop would be productive at this point. There is a lot of information and we could provide links to websites that provide information about where we are now. There is currently a new committee that's being developed, kind of a watershed users forum. There are still a lot of moving parts and I don't think that at this point a workshop would be productive. I think more information is helpful. I provide information. Supervisor McGourty provides information. We had a presentation to our LAFCO board that took maybe 15 or 20 minutes. I think a two-hour workshop at this point probably wouldn't provide the board with any more information than they could find with a Google search. I understand the need but I am a little concerned that it would not be an efficient use of time.”

McGourty: “I disagree. Our future is going to be based on this. The next 100 years of what happens to Mendocino County. We are at a point where there is a transition. The water supply that we have probably relied on since the 1800s is about to go away! [The diversion tunnel was dug by Chinese labor in the early 1900s.] Whether you live in this area or not, it is still an important part of the Mendocino County economy and it does affect us. So I, uh, you know, it, it… Without getting into a very emotional rant here (laughs nervously) I think it's important for the board to be informed because this is among the most, you know, changing things that's going to happen for not only this board but subsequent boards for a probably good 30 years.”

Williams: “I think Carre Brown would point out the farm gate multiplier. It probably affects other people in the ways they don't recognize. Supervisor McGourty, when you bring this back in a workshop or other format, I'm not impartial [sic], could you include a component separate from the diversion and Lake Mendocino? If there are properties that are going to go dry, farms that may not have water depending on these actions which we can't control, what's another route to get water flowing? Is there a plan B that doesn't involve the diversion? What would the funding requirement be? How would it be self-funded? I think Supervisor Gjerde has never missed a beat here on pointing out that folks on the north coast probably are not going to pay for a water subsidy for people who go dry after losing the diversion. It needs to be realistic and it needs to be self-funded. The people that are benefiting from it need to be the ones— what does that look like? I'm just asking that the agenda item you bring back at a future date include a component about a plan B, if relying on the state and federal government is non-viable.”

McGourty: “Okay. We can do that.”

And that was where it was left. No dates, no specifics, no committees? Someday if McGourty feels like getting around to it, he might try to figure out “who should be at the table.”

Of course there are options and “plan Bs.” Private pond expansion, renegotiation of water arrangements with the Russian River Flood Control District or the City of Ukiah, conservation, and leak reduction… (Potter Valley’s aging canal water distribution system is known to be quite porous.) Not that McGourty and Co will raise these options because they would cost the inland cheap water mafia money — they prefer to let the government pay for it (or just hand over more cheap water which there’s less and less of). But not so much lately, as Gjerde’s and Williams’s remarks indicate. 

It would be easy to dismiss McGourty’s “emotional rant” as his normal grape water supply paranoia. But we understand from other people well-informed on inland water that this is becoming a real possibility. Whoever replaces McGourty in January of 2025 will probably be faced with a bucketful of water questions and will need to do more than decide who should be at the table.

* * *

ADAM GASKA (Candidate for First District Supervisor, on the possibility of Potter Valley going dry…)

“I am the agricultural representative on the UVBGSA [Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency]. The GSA was initially funded with state money to develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). The Ukiah Valley was deemed a basin of moderate concern so the primary requirement was to develop a plan to monitor and set thresh holds. That plan has been submitted to DWR and awaits approval. The state is no longer funding the GSA. It is being funded by URRWA and the City of Ukiah. The Upper Russian River Water Agency is a JPA made up of Redwood Valley, Calpella, Millview, and Willow Water Districts along with the Ukiah Sanitation District. We are going to be interviewing firms to do a rate study soon to figure out who gets to foot the bill in the future. We hired West Yost to manage the GSA. They contract out the monitoring and fulfill the requirements. They are also looking and applying for grants to do projects like increased monitoring, groundwater recharge, etc.

“And yes, Potter Valley could run dry if the diversion ends. PG&E is ready to abandon the project because it loses them money. Pacificorp has laid a template with the decommissioning of the four dams on the Klamath. No diversion and we lose 60,000 AF a year on average going into Lake Mendocino. PVID loses around 20,000 AF. Potter Valley’s aquifer is very shallow and not high yielding. It is getting recharged by the leaky canal system. According to the state, its max annual yield is 450 AF for a community of 650. They may be able to squeak by with drinking water but some wells would likely go dry. Even Ukiah’s aquifer can only provide 10,000 AF more than it does now on an annual basis. Ukiah having water doesn’t do Potter Valley much good though, unless we want to start driving trucks there like we did the coast.

“I am working on the white paper laying out the issues and there will be a suggested plan of action.

“PS. Yes, any vineyard over five acres is getting hit with water discharge requirements (WDR). SWRCB regulates water rights, ensures water is being put to beneficial use and ensures said water is not being harmed. The Fish Friendly Farming program through the California Land Stewardship Institute is one third party that verifies you are meeting the requirements by developing a farm plan which includes mapping your property, seeing where you may have problems, then prescribing corrective action plans. They do follow through with monitoring. Developing the plan initially is the costly part. Currently there are grants available to offset the cost but the owner must continue to monitor and follow through with whatever corrective measures are necessary. Our farms are certified FFF. I think it is a good program.”

* * *

Rumors & Reserves

Saying he was “trying to dispel rumors” that the Board might not honor last year’s Board resolution to allocate all Measure P revenues to local fire agencies according to the resolution, Supervisor John Haschak recommended that the Board add that commitment to the Board’s list of budget objectives on Tuesday.

No one asked, “How could anyone think we might not honor our own resolution?”

We understand that referring to the AVA by name in the Board chambers is considered bad form. But we are the only possible source of those “rumors” based on our oft-stated position (including recently) that 1) there’s been no mention of Measure P in the budget discussions so far, and 2) the Board has scrupulously failed to honor all previous voter approved measures and that there was a good chance they’d backslide on Measure P too, citing their alleged budget squeeze for the next fiscal year.

All four of Haschak’s colleagues agreed. Good for Haschak, at least he got them to reaffirm their commitment. Now all we need to see is a specific line item in next year’s (July 2023-June 2024) budget showing exactly how much Measure P revenue is expected and realized, and exactly when that money will show up in the coffers of underfunded local fire services.

* * *

Another Budget Item of note on Tuesday, was the recent discovery that the County could have been using “realignment funds” to cover the historically tight in-home support services wages going all the way back to 1992, but hasn’t. Instead they’ve been funding those essential services out of the General Fund and being stingy about it in the process. Staff is looking into the problem to see how much General Fund money might have been wasted and might be saved in the future. 

* * *

A Reserves chart showing County Reserves, General Fund and Non-General Fund, was in Tuesday’s Board Packet Budget Presentation, put there by CEO Darcie Antle’s budget staffers. The chart went unmentioned by the Board, of course.

Not only does the chart appear to confirm that former CEO Carmel Angelo did indeed leave the County with well over a $20 million reserve when she retired last March, but it also shows that she had been building it up on the backs of across the board vacancies for years going back to 2008 when Angelo was hired as CEO. The Chart also shows that despite the Board’s constant complaining about not having last year’s general fund carryforward amount from Auditor Chamisse Cubbison, the budget staff has been quite capable of determining how much is in reserve and how much carryforward from each year to put into reserves (apparently without a formal Board vote). 

If Mendo has almost $28 million in General Fund reserves as the chart shows for this year — a higher percentage than most County’s carry — why aren’t they using it to fill budget gaps (and asking staff for a reserve plan to either maintain or set aside future amounts to sustain a certain reserve amount)?

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop Board Chair Glenn McGourty from complaining about Cubbison again on Tuesday in response to SEUI president Julie Beardsley’s request that the Board do more to staff up and pay competitive wages. McGourty replied that Ms. Beardsley should take her requests to the Auditor! Will this board ever take any responsibility for their own budget mismanagement?