Board approves MOU to advance diversion agreement tied to Potter Valley dam decommissioning

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a memorandum of understanding on Feb. 11 to advance a water-diversion agreement tied to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s planned decommissioning of the Potter Valley hydroelectric project on the Upper Eel River. The board approved staff’s recommendation by vote, and the MOU will guide a more detailed agreement due to the parties for review in July.

Why it matters: The Potter Valley project currently diverts water from the Eel to the Russian River; the MOU proposes a new intake and rules for seasonal diversions while also advancing dam removal on the Eel. Supporters said the framework protects fisheries, restores water-right ownership to a tribal entity based in the Eel watershed, and will generate a predictable restoration fund. Opponents warned the MOU leaves potential for future diversion unless terms are strictly enforced.

The MOU’s key terms and mechanics - Water-rights transfer and lease: The draft MOU calls for PG&E’s appropriative water rights used for the project to be transferred to the Round Valley Indian Tribes and then leased back to a joint‑powers entity that would construct and operate a new diversion facility. The Round Valley Indian Tribes would therefore hold the water-right title while leasing diversion use to the Russian‑Eel authority. - Governance and implementing entity: The Eel–Russian Project Authority, formed as a joint powers authority that includes Sonoma Water, the Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission and Round Valley Indian Tribes, would be the likely owner/operator of the new diversion infrastructure and the entity that applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for any use of PG&E lands and facilities. - Facility design and capacity: The MOU describes a run‑of‑river style intake at the former Cape Horn/Cape Horn Dam area, with conveyance to the existing tunnel; engineering shown in public materials assumes the diverted flow could be conveyed at up to roughly 300 cubic feet per second (cfs). The design would remove the former dam elements and leave a low-profile control structure in the channel rather than a storage reservoir. - Diversion rules: A science-based diversion schedule would govern when diversions are allowed. Applied River Sciences’ draft recommendations, accepted by the negotiating parties, specify seasonal minimum flows below which diversions would stop (examples cited by staff: fall ~300 cfs, winter ~250 cfs, spring ~125 cfs, summer ~35 cfs) and seasonal limits on the share of unimpaired flow that may be removed from the river (percentages higher in winter when flows are large; winter ranges discussed up to about 30% in wet periods, with lower percentages in spring and summer). The schedule includes provisions limiting how rapidly diversion rates may change and triggers for adaptive adjustments based on monitoring and performance metrics. - Restoration funding and tribal payments: The draft MOU establishes two recurring payments tied to operations: a use charge and a restoration payment. The minimum restoration payment would be $750,000 per year to the Round Valley Indian Tribes (with a separate $1,000,000 use‑charge figure mentioned for the lease), with a possible increase to $1,000,000 if substantial public funding is secured for construction. The MOU also anticipates additional state and federal grant fundraising and directs parties to pursue joint funding opportunities, with a stated preference to split certain award proceeds between basins. - Term and renewal: The proposed agreement would have an initial 30‑year term and a conditional 20‑year renewal if five renewal conditions are met, including: documented need for continued diversions, substantial compliance with diversion and payment provisions, demonstration that diversions are not expected to impede fish recovery, and progress toward water independence for the Russian River basin. If the terms are not met, the MOU provides for termination and eventual removal of diversion facilities.

What staff and consultants said Hank Seaman, Humboldt County deputy director of public works, told the board the MOU is “a strategic opportunity to accelerate restoration of the Eel River and recovery of fisheries” while providing protections for the river, including transfer of water rights to an entity in the Eel watershed and limits on diversions. He framed the MOU as the document that will allow the parties to negotiate a complete, enforceable agreement by July and said PG&E is expected to submit a final surrender and decommissioning plan to FERC later this year.

Scott McBain, a consultant with Applied River Sciences who helped develop the diversion schedule, described the technical approach: calculate the flows needed for river processes and salmonid life stages, set seasonal protective minimums below which diversions are not allowed, and cap the percent of unimpaired flow that may be taken, with tighter protections in low‑flow months. McBain showed modeled results indicating the proposed schedule would reduce long‑term average diversions compared with historic averages and that, by the time flows reach lower river gauges such as Scotia, the diverted share would be a small fraction of unimpaired flow because of tributary contributions.

Supporters, concerns and public comments - Tribal and environmental groups: Representatives from the Round Valley Indian Tribes took part in negotiations; the Wiyot Tribe’s council sent a letter read to the board expressing “strong support” for the MOU and for the restoration funding and tribal participation it envisions. The Round Valley tribe member who spoke at public comment said the tribe’s leaders negotiated intensely and urged better compensation than what some members consider modest payments.

- Conservation NGOs: California Trout, Trout Unlimited and Friends of the Eel River all spoke to the board in favor of the MOU as a path to timely dam removal, sustained restoration funding, and a flows framework based on ecological need. “This MOU is important to help transition diversions,” said Charlie Schneider of California Trout, noting it creates a mechanism for “timely dam removal” and basin‑based funding for restoration. Trout Unlimited emphasized enforcement and the need for a reliable in‑stream schedule to enable recovery. Friends of the Eel River urged attention to summer steelhead and said the agreement “disarms opponents of dam removal and commits critical stakeholders to supporting dam removal in a timely fashion.”

- County and federal partners: John Driscoll, staff for U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, said the congressman supports the work and the ad hoc framework that led to the MOU.

- Opposition and skepticism: Several public commenters urged the county to reject any diversion plan and said the river should be left to flow without further infrastructure. Others pressed the board for stronger assurances that the annual tribal payments are not too small, and that the restoration fund governance will put money where it can be most effective. A Round Valley tribal member who spoke said $1 million a year is not adequate to represent the tribe’s historical loss.

Board discussion and next steps Board members pressed for clarity about the restoration-fund governance and how local funds would be distributed and defended. Supervisors and staff said the MOU is a framework document that will be followed by a full agreement to be circulated for decision by July. Staff and advocates said the committed annual restoration amount, even if modest, is intended to leverage additional state and federal funds; conservation groups said unrestricted, predictable money is often the key to attracting large grants.

The board approved the staff recommendation to sign the MOU and continue to the detailed agreement stage. Staff and consultants told supervisors that FERC action, engineering design, permitting and construction could still take several years. Supporters said the MOU creates incentives for dam removal and an enforceable path for restoration resources; critics said any diversion option risks future expansion and urged strict enforcement and careful water‑rights drafting.

Votes and formal action The board voted to approve the memorandum of understanding; the board’s roll‑call showed approval and staff recorded the motion as carried in open session.

Ending note Staff said the MOU is a step toward finalizing a negotiated agreement in July and that the county and technical partners will continue work on monitoring metrics, adaptive management triggers, and the governance structure for restoration funds.