Mendocino supervisors debate whether to weigh in on AB 263 to extend emergency flow rules for Scott and Shasta rivers

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors heard a lengthy public discussion on Assembly Bill 263 (AB 263) and did not take a position at the meeting.

Supervisor Williams introduced the item as a request to transmit a letter of support for AB 263, saying the bill aims to protect minimum in‑stream flows on the Scott and Shasta rivers to safeguard salmon runs and tribal cultural practices. "When minimum water flows are not protected, salmon die," Williams said, adding that the issue touches tribal heritage and local economies.

Public commenters and organizational representatives presented competing views. Adam Gaska of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau urged the board to oppose the bill, saying AB 263 would circumvent the State Water Resources Control Board’s existing rule‑making and public process for setting in‑stream flows. "This process allows different interests, stakeholders, and the public at large to weigh in," Gaska said. Frost Polling argued the bill sets a precedent that could be applied to other California rivers and urged the board not to endorse the measure.

Speakers supporting AB 263 emphasized the role of the bill in protecting salmon and tribal practices while freeing State Water Board staff to focus on long‑term rules. Alex Bloomer, representing a sponsoring coalition that included the Yurok Tribe, said the bill responds to unique and urgent circumstances and noted the Scott and Shasta rivers are identified in the governor’s salmon strategy. "These are critical tributaries to the Klamath," Bloomer said, and added that emergency regulations have consumed staff time that could be directed toward permanent rule‑making.

Elizabeth Salomone, general manager of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District, urged caution. She said the Association of California Water Agencies opposes AB 263 because it could set a precedent for extending emergency rules beyond their intended purpose and might disrupt established processes and local public engagement.

Supervisors debated process and principles as much as policy. Supervisor Cline said she was concerned about the board weighing in on legislation that primarily affects other counties, noting Siskiyou County — the most directly affected — opposes the bill. Supervisor Mulhern said local legislative involvement in out‑of‑county water disputes sets a precedent the board should avoid unless it is directly tied to Mendocino County interests. Supervisor Norvell said he arrived at the meeting leaning toward support but became less certain after public comments and concerns about local impacts and precedent.

A representative from the author’s office, Scott Alonzo, noted that AB 263 was scheduled for the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on April 8, which is the deadline window for organizations to submit position letters.

The board did not adopt a formal position at the meeting. Some supervisors suggested a "watch" posture while staff and the board follow the bill’s committee process. The item may return to the board for a formal position if the language or stakeholder positions change.

Why it matters: AB 263 would extend emergency in‑stream flow regulations for specified watersheds until permanent rules are adopted. Supporters say it protects salmon and tribal practices and allows state staff to focus on long‑term regulation; opponents say it circumvents public rule‑making and could set a statewide precedent affecting local control.

The board may revisit the matter after the bill’s committee hearing and as stakeholders refine positions.