Siskiyou County extends emergency declaration as officials weigh water, wells and road risks

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on March 18 voted to extend an existing emergency declaration for 60 days while county staff continue water-quality monitoring, track newly drilled wells and develop a separate declaration addressing roads and flooding if necessary.

The board’s action came after presentations from county emergency staff and legal counsel about recent water testing and floodplain and road concerns. Brian Schoeney, director of emergency services, told the board the “biggest concern was the water testing,” adding that “the last 2 tests, 2 rounds of tests indicated, your metals were below drinking water standards” and that a contractor (KRC) has agreed to continue delivery of emergency water until April 15 and the county is requesting delivery through May.

The nut graf: supervisors said they remain cautious because some community wells have shown elevated arsenic and because floodplain mapping from FEMA is still pending. County counsel and staff recommended extending the current declaration while drafting any separate proclamation tied specifically to roads, wells and flooding.

Board members and staff outlined the specifics staff will monitor while the extension is in effect. County counsel (Natalie) summarized the proposal that would continue the existing proclamation with updated facts and return to the board within 60 days. Schoeney described two high peak flows earlier in the year — Feb. 27 and March 16 — that “saw really significant flows, but no impact flooding in the infrastructure.” He also noted the county has had multiple rounds of sampling; the last three rounds for heavy metals were reported below drinking-water standards, while other summer concerns (algae or biochemical oxygen demand) remain untested.

Supervisors pressed staff about arsenic in a newly drilled community well; emergency staff said the community well had “twice the level of arsenic,” and that a treatment facility is in place and samples were at the lab awaiting results. Supervisors also discussed whether continuing heavy‑metal sampling was beneficial; emergency staff said the most recent rounds were below standards and that additional sampling for other summer-specific parameters might be more relevant.

County counsel explained that an emergency can be continued with updated facts and that the county may draft a separate, new emergency declaration if circumstances differ materially (for example, adding roads as a distinct emergency). Staff said the separate declaration would create a cleaner administrative path and avoid mixing different funding or program eligibility.

A supervisor moved to continue the existing declaration for the 60‑day statutory period while county staff draft a new proclamation addressing roads, wells and flooding if needed; the motion was seconded. The board recorded the following votes on the continuation: Supervisor Helt — yes; Supervisor Harris — yes; Supervisor Copsett — yes; Supervisor O’Brien — yes. Supervisor Valenzuela was recorded as not present for the roll call. The chair directed staff to return the matter within 60 days, at which point the board may terminate or replace the proclamation.

Ending: With the extension in place, county staff will continue well and river monitoring through the summer, await FEMA floodplain mapping and lab results for the community well, and prepare a separate draft declaration for road/well/flooding issues if new facts warrant it. The board will reconsider the proclamation within 60 days.