Middle Creek restoration committee outlines acquisition progress, costs and federal design hurdles; board asks for purchase options and risk analysis

The Middle Creek Restoration Committee and county staff provided the board with a detailed status update and asked for direction on property-acquisition strategy and related infrastructure costs.

Data and restoration benefits: Presenters summarized UC Davis hydrologic and sediment modeling showing Middle Creek contributes the largest volumes of phosphorus-laden sediment entering Clear Lake. Committee members summarized published modeling and USDA work indicating that de‑channelizing flow and adding vegetation could substantially reduce sediment loads; staff said the modeled restoration could reduce sediment inputs by tens of thousands of metric tons per year.

Property-acquisition status: The committee reported 62% of target properties have been purchased. Another roughly 5% have offers approved by the state and the board and are pending owners' decisions, and about 12% are tribal-owned and engaged as partners. The committee described a group of unwilling sellers (including a parcel held by the "10,000 Buddhas" organization) and cited one large parcel historically listed at $1.8 million with an appraised per‑acre rate that would place its estimated appraisal at about $1.44 million.

Finances and funding status: Staff said pending approvals to acquire properties total about $3.075 million and that the county currently has slightly more than $2 million available in acquisition funding plus contingency funds of approximately $1,975,000 that could be redirected to acquisitions. Committee members said that if undecided parcels remain unsold and unwilling sellers refuse to sell, acquisition needs could rise and the county may need to identify additional resources; staff estimated an acquisition shortfall could grow toward several million dollars in that scenario.

Army Corps and project-design constraints: The committee described recent Army Corps guidance that projects require a 35% design to proceed and that projects pursued by the Corps must be feasible within three years and cost under $3 million. The Middle Creek project as currently scoped exceeds those thresholds. Corps staff indicated some county work (highway 20 design, PG&E pole mitigation design, land acquisition and bridge design) could help bridge the gap to the Corps’ 35% design requirement. The committee stressed the "chicken-and-egg" nature of design work—designing elements such as bridge alignment depends on completed validation surveys and geotechnical data.

Utilities and mitigation costs: Staff outlined mitigation and utility-control issues, noting two approaches with PG&E—constructing BMS (barriers?) around poles or raising pole bases—and cited an engineer's high-level estimate of five to seven million dollars to address six transmission poles and roughly $2 million to address distribution poles (transmission lines estimated at $5–7 million total, distribution mitigation about $2 million total). County staff said they have set aside $200,000 for PG&E design and $800,000 for design work that represents the county's share under an expected non‑federal match.

Options on unwilling sellers: Presenters and counsel outlined three options: continue negotiated offers, find additional matching funds to meet counteroffers (as was done in a prior case), or pursue eminent domain. Staff said eminent‑domain work requires realistic appraisals and legal expenses; right‑of‑way professionals advised adding an estimated $100,000 per property owner to cover legal fees and litigation costs in a condemnation scenario.

Maintenance Area 17 (MA17) and the DWR pumping plant: Water Resources staff described MA17 as a state-maintained maintenance area whose budget has increased sharply: staff cited prior budgets in the low hundreds of thousands and a proposed 2026–27 budget of about $576,870 (figures supplied in the presentation). Staff said the DWR pumping plant serving the area has not operated at full efficiency for roughly 19 years and that DWR is pressing to perform needed rehabilitation. DWR supplied a letter saying if the county takes over MA17 and dissolves the maintenance area, any unused MA17 funds would be returned after accounting; DWR staff indicated willingness to meet and discuss the dissolution process. County staff said dissolving MA17 could reduce assessments levied by the state and allow the county to administer levies at a pace aligned with local conditions, but recommended the board request a short legal and a longer-term fiscal risk analysis before assuming full responsibility.

Board direction and public comment: Public commenters asked about timing for converting purchased parcels to conservation easements and potential restoration of Scots Creek watershed. The board broadly supported staff returning options for negotiating with unwilling sellers and evaluating eminent domain as a last resort. Supervisors asked staff to prepare a legal risk analysis (estimated 1–2 weeks to scope) and a long-term fiscal analysis before the board makes a final decision on assuming MA17 responsibilities. The board requested the county follow up by email on next steps and to return with the requested analyses before taking irreversible actions.