PG&E’s Hesitation Casts Shadow on Eel-Russian River Diversion Plan
February 14, 2024
Mendocino County News
In this recent article from Mendocino County News, Downey Brand partner and water law attorney Scott Shapiro comments on a diversion proposal to redirect water from the Eel River to the Russian River after removing the Potter Valley dams, and the setback caused by PG&E’s opposition to the proposed permitting strategy. The article discusses the debate between PG&E and proponents of the diversion plan, two diversion alternatives that are being considered, and concerns about delays in the diversion project due to the permitting process.
Last week, at a meeting of the IWPC, outside counsel Scott Shapiro told anxious water users that he doesn’t think this is the end of the line for the diversion proposal.
“The meeting with PG&E has been characterized by some as the end of the earth, and I don’t think that’s what it is,” he opined. “What PG&E determined was that there were aspects of our proposal which did not align with their goals of timing. In particular they were concerned that the non-power license mechanism would ultimately slow down the permitting for their dam removal. For that reason they don’t want to include the non-power license in their proposal…They still want to collaborate with us on permitting. But they don’t want the non-power license to be part of their proposal,” possibly because it is more complicated for the utility to pass costs along to ratepayers without a direct order from FERC.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter Drier Future mentions the removal of the Eel River dams, saying, “Dam removal could reopen hundreds of stream miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat.” It also mentions the diversion plan, which is backed by CDFW, California Trout, Humboldt County, Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Trout Unlimited. While the report focuses on restoring habitat for salmon, Schapiro found encouragement for Russian River water users, as well, because he thinks the governor’s plan includes preserving salmon in the Russian River as well as the Eel.
But he said that under the permitting pathway now under consideration, proponents of the diversion will have to seek permits from state agencies, which he fears could result in a delay between PG&E taking out the dams and proponents building the diversion. He presented a scenario.
“The simplest way to do this project, not the best for us, but the simplest, is that PG&E gets permission from FERC to decommission the project completely,” he told the assembled members of small water districts. “FERC gives a series of rules on how that’s done and what the end conditions have to be. PG&E takes that order to the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission), and says here’s what we’re going to do. Please make sure we can collect money from our ratepayers. The PUC says OK. PG&E then goes and does all the work…Then step two, we come in, and we apply to all of the state agencies that we need to get permits from to build our project. That’s the easiest way. It doesn’t involve us having to touch anything until PG&E is done. We’re not involved in any federal permitting. The problem is, it creates a lot of space between PGE& taking its facilities out and us having our facilities. It also subjects us to a permitting process that could be a year or ten years, or state regulators who never approve our permits, and as a result, the diversion never starts up again.”
Access the full article here.