600,000 Residents Could Lose Water Under Potential Dam Removal in California | Chris Coulombe

There's a potential to remove two dams in Potter Valley area in Northern California. With the removal of these dams, the water supply for the surrounding communities, the agriculture and the residential could get impacted. Our guest today is Chris Coulombe, who's a community leader from Sonoma County who grew up in this area. Chris is here to tell us why this proposal has come about and what's the potential impact. And are there any other solutions that could change the outcome? I'm Siamak Kourami, welcome to California Insider. Chris, it's great to have you and welcome. Thank you for having me. There are a number of dams that are getting removed in Potter Valley area where you're close by. Can you tell us what's happening? Yes, the dam has really been a project that's existed for roughly 115 years. They originally built it as a way to help generate hydroelectric power. And from that, we've watched a major population center arise. So the dam at Lake Pillsbury, which is Scott Dam, then feeds into the Eel River, which then has a second dam, which is Van Arsdale and Cape Horn Dam. That allows for the diversion of water from the Eel River into the Russian River, which then feeds Sonoma County and part of Marin County. And so from that, we've really watched a major population center of roughly 600,000 people plus a world-class wine-growing region evolve and sprout up. And without this water source, we're going to watch much of this region suffer significant economic damage. So these dams, they provide electricity and water. So they originally were licensed only as a hydroelectric dam. And only recently, PG&E has ceased operating this because they say that the cost of maintenance is too high and that they're losing money on this project, on this facility. And my understanding is, though, that they've never actually upgraded the hydroelectric turbines that are in there. So ostensibly, the turbines that are in this facility are approximately 100 years old. So there's a lot of opportunity for growth, but at present, they're not generating any electricity at the choice of PG&E. And the water, how do the region use this water? Well, there's two different pathways. One, again, goes down the Eel River onto Humboldt County, and then the other one makes its way south into Lake Mendocino and then into the Russian River. And as many people know, Sonoma County is a world-class grape region. So not only do we have amazing wineries and vineyards, but we also have a great deal of hospitality, plus many of the businesses that all cities need to sustain. All of us rely on this water. It doesn't matter where you're from. It doesn't matter what you do. Each and every single one of us needs this water, even just for our basics. So the proposal to remove this, when did it came about and when is it gonna go to effect? So it was brought about by PG&E in approximately 2019. That's when they came forward officially and said that they had the intention of decommissioning the dam. Now, because of that intent from PG&E, one of the things that they have to do is go to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and inform them of their intent to no longer use the facility. One of the requirements is that they return the dam or return the river back to its original condition. And so that basically will warrant an approximately half a billion dollar expense that the taxpayers and rate payers are going to be required to carry. So basically, once PG&E has determined that they no longer want that project and they no longer want the facility, it's either up to them to try and sell the project, sell the facility, or they will be required to decommission it. And as recent, we don't have anybody that's really championing the sale of this project or of this facility. Normally, you would have somebody that sits in a very high political position that would be someone that champions such an endeavor that says, hey, I know that this region is wholly reliant on the water supply produced by this facility, and I'm here to try and make a deal. You're aware that we have the Infrastructure Improvement Act which allocated roughly $550 billion specifically for infrastructure improvement. And I believe over 50 billion of that is specifically for water infrastructure improvement. And what we would need is somebody to advocate for us in, say, Congress that would go and get that federal monies that could then help us either improve or incentivize another party to come in and purchase this facility. Because as of right now, according to PG&E, they're losing somewhere between $6 million and $9 million a year. Just holding on to this debt? Just, yes. And I believe it's because also in 2021, they ceased generating hydroelectric power from it. So they're no longer even producing energy. So it's now basically a- It's just a loss on a regular basis. Yeah, they're just carrying it. As a private entity, if they're done with the asset, then it's their right to exit the asset. But there's also a moral obligation, both as a business and as members of the community, to ensure that we protect the future, that we have some sort of resource availability that we pass on to the next generation. And so there's a very large growing movement of people that are realizing the significance of such a loss of this type of infrastructure. Who is now in charge of it? Well, you have one group that is led by the local congressperson, and they are championing the decommissioning process. And this has entailed working with our local water agency, Sonoma Water, and also the same agency for Mendocino County. But they've largely removed a lot of the other, or not allowed many of the other stakeholders into the conversation. And so what's now taking place is, again, the community is realizing that this conversation has not been fully transparent. And we have a kind of growing grassroots movement that is bringing the awareness to the community at large about exactly what's happening. Because what we've learned is that easily 70% of the people in the region are not aware what's happening with their water supply and why it's happening. The Indian tribes are for this, right? Only one. So there's one tribe that has been brought in to be a part of the negotiation. But there have been several others that have been excluded or removed from any of the negotiations. There's a gentleman by the name of E.J. Crandall, who's a supervisor from Lake County, and he's also one of the tribal leaders. My understanding is that many of them have attempted to be a part of these negotiations, these discussions about what's gonna take place in the region with our water supply. And they have been excluded or removed from the working groups in any of the discourse with many of the local people. What's the outcome? My analysis tells me that at least Healdsburg North, if this dam is removed, at least Healdsburg North will experience significant economic collapse due to the lack of water availability. So we will have towns in north of Sonoma County and most of Mendocino County where they will experience economic collapse. And this is because of the increasing costs of all things here in California. You've also reported on the increasing costs of insurance. If we don't have sufficient water available, the cost of firefighting is going to go up. The cost of insurance is going to go up. The cost of food production is going to go up. We lose an electric generation facility or electricity generation facility. If all of these things happen, your cost of living in these regions, which are already economically devastated. I think Mendocino County alone is experiencing a negative 1.5% economic decline year over year for the next four years. That's before their water supply disappears. So the outcome that we see is economic devastation, which I expect we will see another exodus from this region. Over, I think it was in 2023, Sonoma County lost population in every single city with the exception of one. And that one city only increased by 0.1%. That's before we lose our water supply. So the outcome is a decrease in population, an increase in cost of living, an increase in fire risk, and an increase in overall cost of living that I believe makes it so that the next generation doesn't even really have an opportunity to make a family, make a home here. Some of you may be wondering, why are we talking about Shen Yun on California Insider? It's a dance about China, but ancient China. I'm a big fan of Shen Yun. I've been to it 14 times. Every year I go. The first time I went to Shen Yun, it was so amazing. It was so uplifting. The colors, the energy, they put you into scenes of thousands of years ago and you feel like how the ancient people lived and you get to appreciate the history of humanity. There is a lot more to this show. It's gonna be here in Southern California and I wanna make sure you guys go see it. You don't wanna miss this show. You have to see it at least once and make sure to tell us what you think afterwards. It was spectacular. So beautiful. I thought I was going to heaven. Oh, it was electric. I'm getting chills talking about it. It gets a 10 from me, that's for sure. It was that good. Absolutely marvelous. Hands down the best show I've ever seen. Now, Chris, when you mentioned 600,000 people are losing the supply of water, is it their drinking water? Is it the water that they're consuming as individuals or is it farming water? What kind of water are we talking about? All of it. So if you look at Sonoma County, you'll see that the Russian River predominantly works its way through the middle of the county and then roughly midpoint, it makes its way west out to the coast. And so what you have is a very large plain that is fed by this major river. And so you have, whether it be vineyards or cattle, any of the agricultural producers, they rely on the water supply that's provided through this river to everyone. It also provides for aquifer recharge, which is where many of our municipalities pull their water supply from. So it impacts everything from the commercial and industrial interests all the way down to the individual interests as well. So the river would still flow, right? So according to the studies that were commissioned by PG&E and by Sonoma Water, no less than five years out of 10, water in Lake Mendocino will go dry. And that is the last storage facility before the Russian River. So ostensibly, the water in the Russian River will disappear five years out of 10. Which means- Because there is no storage, right? Half the time, our county will not have water. And this impacts all the way down to Marin County, which is a very affluent county. They, and most of them, aren't even aware, but Marin County at large receives roughly 25% of their water from Sonoma County. And Nevada, which is one of the northernmost cities in Marin County, receives approximately 75% of its water from Sonoma County. So you have arguably a three-county spread that relies on this water source that will lose half of their water supply. And that's not including drought conditions. When they lose this water supply, mainly municipalities will still have water, but the cost probably will go up, right? Correct. But then the agriculture would completely get cut off, right? Or to some level. It eventually will become too cost-prohibitive for them to produce any goods at a cost that is reasonable to the average consumer. So as their costs go up, the cost that they have to sell their goods at will then go up, driving up the cost of consumer goods. But we can't guarantee that there will be sufficient water for the municipalities either. Right now, most municipalities have about two years of water storage on hand. But as we've seen in California, we have a tendency to get exposed to extended drought conditions. In the preceding decade and a half, we had several years in a row where we had back-to-back drought conditions where Lake Pillsbury went dry, and Lake Mendocino went dry, and Lake Sonoma almost went dry. And these are at the periods of the season in which we need the water the most, particularly for firefighting. We've experienced some significant fire events up there, historic, some say. 2017, we had the Tubbs Fire. If we don't have water in any of our water reservoirs, where is it that we're going to get the water to fight these fires? And that's one of the points that is kind of looked over by a lot of the people that are advocating for the removal is that we haven't had that many significant fires, but we haven't had them because we had local water availability that allowed us to stop the fires before they got large. And we've had several of the fire chiefs in the region come out and say that this is a dangerous situation that's being created by the removal of this dam. They say that's not a plan, it's a disaster. And I support that statement, and I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. So for these dams to be kept, somebody has to champion them. Correct. Essentially, there needs to be a new owner. Correct. Otherwise, they'll be gone, despite the effort of this group or lawsuits. Correct. And the outcome will be, from what you're saying, is these rivers will flow, there would be storage, right? There will be some sort of storage or no storage at all? There will be minimal storage. So the current proposal basically removes both of the dams. It removes Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam, and it turns Cape Horn Dam into basically a way for a very low dam. And so what happens is it reduces the level in which the water is stored for diversion. And what would take place is that only in wintertime flows, when the water flow is the highest, will there actually be sufficient water for the water to get diverted into the Russian River. And so at the time in which we need the water the least is where we will have the water. And even by their own studies, the water won't be available after roughly August in the Russian River. So from August until the rains start again, there's no water available in Lake Mendocino or the Russian River. And again, by their own estimates, five years out of 10, there will be no water at all in Lake Mendocino regardless. Now there's conversation about increasing the height of Lake Mendocino, but that doesn't matter if there's not sufficient water to be diverted at the right time of the year. So their whole thing is you're still gonna get 30 to 40,000 acre feet per year, but instead of you getting 30 to 40,000 acre feet over a 12 month period, you're gonna get it in a roughly three to four month period. And when it's gone, it's gone. So their idea is they will remove these two dams and the water would get stored in Lake Mendocino eventually. But your thoughts is that you're saying that that water would only be available for a certain period of time in Lake Mendocino. And their analysis proves that, that it would not be available after at least August. And once we get into September and October, that's when we run into fire season. And we've seen repeatedly that we have a very high likelihood and we're now assessed formally as an extreme fire risk region because we don't have sufficient water to make sure that we have the firefighting capabilities. So the argument about keeping water in Lake Mendocino is kind of a red herring. It doesn't actually provide sufficient water flow throughout the year. Because when they're gonna have enough water to divert it into Lake Mendocino, Lake Mendocino will already be overflowing because of the rainy season. So we don't have sufficient water to offset the loss of the roughly 26 billion gallons of fresh water that Lake Pillsbury provides for us. So what you're saying is that the Lake Mendocino is not big enough. Correct. So when it gets full, then it's too full. And then when the time comes in August, it will be dry. And it's not designed to be. Yeah, and it's not designed to be big enough either. It's designed to be a complimentary function to a much larger project. And the issue that we run into is that a lot of these people that are leading the destruction of the dam projects are trying to argue that these other reservoirs will be enough to offset, but they're not designed to be sufficient. What will happen is if we don't experience sufficient rain across an annual basis, all of the reservoirs will continue to deplete and eventually they're all going to go empty. And even with Lake Pillsbury, we've already watched these reservoirs go empty, go dry. And so if we know that it can happen with the total storage capacity of the larger project, then if we remove the larger project, we know that the water storage of the rest of these reservoir systems, we know it's not sufficient. So what we're doing here is we're taking a very significant risk that cannot be reversed for decades. And we're assuming that we can offset the loss of this water storage facility. When in fact, the most prudent path is for us to ensure that we have sufficient water storage capacity before we try and remove any of these projects. And all of the studies show that we do not have sufficient water storage capacity, even today. Now for the farmers, when do they use this water? Throughout the year. I mean, their water is predominantly, they're in most need throughout the dry season. So as we get into October and then on until the rains begin in the fall. So this will severely impact the farmers. Absolutely. They'll have to either truck the water in or they'll have to shift what it is that they produce. I mean, I expect and I believe that the Sonoma County Farm Bureau has done an economic impact report. And they say that even if we lose 10% of the water storage capacity that we have currently, that we're going to experience roughly 50 to $60 million in economic loss, just in the agricultural community. And that's, you know, somewhere to the tune of 200 to 250 jobs that will disappear just with a 10% loss of water storage capacity. And so it's costs in, costs out. If your cost of business increases, your cost of goods must go up as well. And so right now, I think most people can agree that our cost of living, our ability to purchase food, our food costs are always going up. And now if we're going to knowingly create greater expense for the producer of that food, we're then going to knowingly increase the cost of our food on the table. How much of a storage are we going to lose if we lose this dam? So Lake Pillsbury holds roughly 26 billion gallons of fresh water. And I believe that that's enough water by itself for every single person in a district, in a congressional district, for approximately nine months. So just that one dam is nine months worth of storage for approximately 700,000 people for a year, excuse me, for nine months. But what about the other one? Both of the dams have lakes, Lake Pillsbury, or do they? So really, Van Arsdale is just a, kind of a small holding pond. And it just, it creates a reservoir, but it's not really a storage reservoir. I think it's maybe 10 to 20 acre feet. So there's losses on Lake Pillsbury, right? And then what about Lake Mendocino? There are some gains, right? They want to raise the level of it. How much gains? What's the comparison? I think it's negligible. And they're still working through what it is that they will be able to actually raise it up to. So there has to be more studies. I think they just allocated roughly $2 million to do the study to determine exactly how much storage it could actually facilitate. So I'm not sure that there's a working number right now. That, I mean, this is all within the last, they just announced it, I think, Thursday of last week, where they have now funded a study of $2 million to figure out what can be done. Because the issue that we run into with Lake Mendocino is that it sits right next to Ukiah, the city of Ukiah. So if you're in Ukiah, you can look up and see Coyote Dam. It's right there. So if you raise it, if it's too much water. Yeah, then you create a very significant public safety event. So there's considerations at hand. Whereas even if the dam at Lake Pillsbury were to fail, the lead time that you would have before it hit major population centers is very significant. You're talking maybe up to an hour of lead time. So even if this seismically unsound dam were to go, the total human risk there is significantly lower than that of, say, Lake Mendocino. Whereas you have a whole city of maybe 20,000 people, it's right below the dam. Now, the argument is that there's potential seismic. Is there cost to fix it? There's probably a number in there somewhere. But the fact is that it's been there for 117 years and there's been a lot of earthquakes since then. And I don't believe that the seismic risk is that far above whatever any other average dam is going to experience. I think the situation with the dam is more about letting a private operator exit an asset and achieve a particular environmental outcome rather than the actual seismic issue. I think, again, we have between 50 and $550 billion available to make the upgrades for the dam. You mentioned you need a champion to save these dams. Right. And then there's others that don't agree with you guys. They think we should not have these dams. Right. So what's the likelihood of finding this champion and what does it look like? The best case scenario is that we see President Trump and the Trump administration get involved. This is, we're at a scenario now where I think there's not going to be significant support inside of the state of California to facilitate any type of solution that's going to save the region from economic devastation. So one of the proposals at hand is that the Bureau of, excuse me, the Department of the Interior takes over the facility and they use the Stafford Act, which would allow them to take over a private asset. They can purchase it. And then again, we use either the Inflation Reduction Act monies or the Infrastructure Improvement Act monies as a way to upgrade the facilities, then allowing a much more efficient power generation operation, which could then turn it into a profitable endeavor while still facilitating the water supply necessary for the region and potentially generating a profit for the government. Is that legal? Can they do that legally? Yes. And I mean, there's several acts that have to be considered, but particularly when you have a private operator who is ready to forfeit an asset, because right now PG&E is on the hook to spend a half a billion dollars to remove the dam. Whereas if the federal government came in via the Department of the Interior and took over the asset, that would relieve not only PG&E, but then indirectly the taxpayers from footing at least a half a billion dollar bill to reduce their water supply. So yeah, there are mechanisms available. So PG&E is on the hook to spend this 500 million? Correct. But why is it on the taxpayers? It would be on the rate payer. So what we've seen with PG&E is that they've gone back to the CPUC regularly. I believe in 2024, they went to the CPUC six times for six different rate increase approvals. And they've already gone back for another two, I believe, this year. And so this is another justification for PG&E to go back to the CPUC for yet another tax rate, excuse me, a rate increase. So essentially the rate payers are gonna pay for this. Correct. And that's assuming how much PG&E is going to have to cover, plus whatever it is that the taxpayers at large are going to have to cover when we see the state of California and or the federal government also kick in money. Because what we know is that most of these project proposals or estimates are generally a little bit short. On the low side of things. So half a billion dollars plus interest, plus whatever overruns are going to occur. Your thoughts and some of the community members, the people that agree with you is, it's better to keep these dams, get the federal government to come in and buy it from the private operator and actually use it in a sense. Yeah. So the thought is that if we have them step in, there is already money, congressionally approved money available. They can make the upgrades, which the current operator doesn't appear to be willing to do and turn it into a facility, which then allows it not only to be profitable, but to continue to provide the existential resource that we all need. And at present, we're all sitting at great risk. Because if we don't do this, we will lose our water supply. And there's not really anything, I mean, you can dance and jump up and down. And the risk is, we're basically making a huge bet that we'll have enough water. But the consequence of realizing that we don't have sufficient water after the fact is significant. What is the likelihood of you guys working with the other group that is seeking their removal of these dams? I think it's very high. I mean, the main claim, excuse me, the main claim that many of the nonprofits are arguing is that they want to facilitate the flow of fish. And my understanding is that the estimates for a fish ladder to be installed at these facilities was approximately $20 million. But right now, what it appears is that because of the supply, or excuse me, because of the source of money, PG&E is not willing to foot the bill to develop a fish ladder, because that would have to come out of their own money. Whereas this $500 million is allowed, they are allowed to go to the rate payer for that money, but they're not allowed to go to the rate payer for maintenance improvements. So the other group is happy as long as the fish can flow. One of the proposals that's been put forward is that there's a fish ladder that allows the fish to then bypass these dams or the dam facilities. And some of the original proposal costs were roughly around $20 million. But what we've determined is that the reason why that wasn't a viable proposal in the eyes of PG&E was because that expense was going to have to come from their pockets, that that's not a expense that they're allowed to pass on. They're not able to pass. Right, so they'd have to take it out of their own budget, rather than if they went to the CPUC in order to find more funding via the taxpayer or the rate payer, that the CPUC would actually approve this cost insofar as removing the dam and the $500 million. That's a more viable proposal that the CPUC can get behind. So it's just where your money stream comes from is what they're really looking at. Does it come out of their pocket or does it get passed on to the rate payer? Why did you get involved? This is my home. I'm raised in a way that you have to take care of the future. Somebody took care of us to get us where we are. It's a duty of every citizen. It's an obligation of every person to make sure that we look to the future. I have nieces and nephews and I know that at some point, I'm gonna have to look them in the eye and tell them that what I'm handing them, I'm proud of. And at present, I can't do that. And that's why I believe so many people are involved in this today, is because they know that if this goes away, the impact to future generations is going to be significant and severe. And if we do this, the amount of time it's going to take to turn this decision around will be far too long. And my background comes from the DOD and analyzing kind of macro situations, macro regional issues. And I realized that we were looking at a macro regional issue if this dam disappeared. And that's really what caused me to launch my campaign for Congress. I wasn't interested in running for Congress, but I knew that this was the only way for me to get the word out on a broad level. And so the campaign wasn't seeking issues. This issue drove the campaign. And so I had to do this. I had to get the word out to people because if nothing else, people needed to know that there was a decision that they were facing that was going to impact not only their way of life, but their children's way of life. And if nothing else, I had to let them know that that decision was in front of them. For people that are concerned about this in the Northern California area, what can people do? The thing in which I encourage people to do is to write to the president, to write to the White House, and to explain to them that we need to keep these dams, that we, whether it's Northern California, the North Coast, anywhere here, before we start removing any dams, we need to make sure that there's sufficient water supply for the population. I believe that there should be a moratorium on any dam removal in the state of California because if we don't have sufficient water, it's gonna take us decades to replace that supply. So write to your congressman, write to the White House, and tell them that we must have water, that we must have sufficient water supply, and we cannot destroy our water sources before we know where our water's going to come from. Chris Coulombe, community leader from Sonoma County. It was great to have you on California Insider. Thank you very much for having me. Let us know what you think of these dam removal projects. You can always email us at ciamacatcaliforniansider.com or comment. We read all of your emails and comments. This is Ciamac Coramie with California Insider, and we'll see you next time.