Lake County appeals denial of state mussel‑prevention grant; board approves interim cannabis funds, letters and lobby support

Lake County officials said on July 29 they have submitted a formal appeal after the Division of Boating and Waterways declined the county's 2025 grant application for the Clear Lake Mussel Prevention Project. The application sought $399,520 to sustain ramp monitoring and inspection staff that screen watercraft for dreissenid mussels.

Water Resources Director Pawan Upadhyay told the Board of Supervisors the agency was informed the grant was denied because of a clerical oversight rather than any substantive deficiency. He said staff filed a formal appeal with the Division on July 24 and requested the board take three additional steps: authorize letters to Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders asking the state to intervene, retain the county's state legislative advocacy firm to press the case, and allocate interim county funds so inspection staff can continue work while the appeal and any reapplication proceed.

Upadhyay and staff said loss of monitoring would raise the risk that invasive mussels would establish in Clear Lake; once established, dreissenid mussels (zebra or quagga) can permanently alter lake ecology, damage infrastructure and block water intakes. "Remaining vigilant is essential to the health of the ecosystem surrounding the county's defining geographic feature," Upadhyay said. Earlier public comment and a written submission from former county invasive species staff underscored the program's role as the first line of defense: ramp monitors often detect and stop contaminated boats before they launch.

The board acted on the staff recommendations and took these steps: it affirmed continuation of the formal appeal process; it authorized staff and the board chair to send letters to Governor Newsom, Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly leadership urging reconsideration; it authorized the county to partner with the county's state lobbying firm (Nielsen Mercsimer) for assistance; and it approved a budget resolution to provide interim funding while the appeal process proceeds. The board voted unanimously on the formal actions.

On the budget item, staff recommended drawing $266,445.86 from an unallocated cannabis‑related county fund balance and $75,000 from an economic development allocation for a total interim amount of $341,445.86 to maintain ramp inspections until the next grant cycle or until the appeal is resolved. During discussion board members asked staff to split the interim allocation across the two cannabis‑related subaccounts; the board amended the technical recitals to show an even split of $170,722.93 to reconcile accounting detail while preserving total interim funding.

Motions on the appeal and the use of interim funds passed with unanimous votes. The board also asked staff to finalize letter wording with input from the county's lobbyists before sending the letters, and to bring back any formal change in grant status to the board as soon as it is known.