PG&E has proven over and over again that it doesn't give a dam(n) about us, the customer. There are some evil people in politics and at PG&E here in California.
All over America, corporate interests (and NGOs) are taking away land and water. Is there a national coalition? We're having a big fight against a 66,000 acre reservoir in east Texas. Dallas, 150 miles away, wants to flood farms and ranches to support AI data centers and water parks.
How does water rights work in a situation like this? Logic tells me PG&E can't remove your water without buying your water rights? If they removed your water, they should have to pay fair market value for the land they ruined. You could then move out of Commie California to a free state.
Unfortunately the way is paved for them by Gavin Newsom and local representative Jared Huffman. It seems they've already secured some kind of arrangement whereby ratepayers/taxpayers will foot the cost of dam removal.
Does the Endangered Species Act supersede agricultural water rights? If not, does the government owe the water rights holder compensation for a taking? In 300 words
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not categorically supersede agricultural water rights, but it can significantly impact their exercise. Under the ESA, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize listed species or their critical habitats. This mandate can lead to restrictions on water diversions or usage if such actions harm protected species, like the delta smelt in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Water rights, typically governed by state law under doctrines like prior appropriation, grant holders legal entitlements to use water, but these rights are not absolute and can be subject to federal regulation when endangered species are at stake.
Courts have consistently held that ESA compliance can override state water rights to protect species. For example, in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (2008), the Federal Circuit ruled that ESA-driven restrictions on water diversions could constitute a regulatory taking if they deprive holders of beneficial use. However, whether compensation is owed depends on the nature of the restriction. If the government physically diverts water (a per se taking), compensation is likely owed, as seen in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States (2001), where farmers received compensation for water reallocations. Regulatory restrictions, like reduced allocations, are analyzed under the Penn Central framework, balancing economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Compensation is less certain here, as courts often find ESA restrictions serve a public good, mitigating takings claims.
In practice, the ESA can limit water rights without always triggering compensation, especially if restrictions are temporary or partial. Water rights holders may face reduced deliveries but must prove significant economic loss for a takings claim. Collaboration, like voluntary agreements or habitat conservation plans, often mitigates conflicts, reducing the need for litigation.
Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you.
Did you notice Huffman claiming to be "against" Sonoma County's "Measure J" to ban all horse & livestock farms? It's the very type of legislation he would write. But this bill is too blatant & would destroy him & his party if passed.
And any word on identifying who sent the death threat email to Sonoma Farm Bureau because it was against Measure J? It should be traceable since it was sent by email.
In a semi arid state like CA, it is simply crazy to be reducing water storage. I love to fly fish, but putting that as a priority over people is insane. Southern California is completely dependent on the State Water Project to allow the population that exists in that region to live. Urban attitudes are a huge problem because the residents simply believe that food and water appears as if by magic. A very limited appreciation of the complexity of providing these essential resources.
Well said. And for the record, this won't help the fish in any way.
As evidenced by the fact that PG&E requested FERC grant these flows out of Pillsbury to support fish populations. While simultaneously telling us that ending all flows out of Lake Pillsbury in perpetuity is essential to restore fish populations.
Blatant lies to serve the greenwashed bona fides of some very ambitious California politicians.
In any FERC hydroelectric or any dam for that matter that holds a FERC license, there is a process that must be adhered to, and the article has this writer quite confused. PG&E cannot arbitrarily draw down the impoundment behind the dam without FERC approval. It sounds like PG&E began the process without approval while the surrender of the license was under review, and then asked for forgiveness which FERC apparently has granted. Normally, in any license surrender and decommissioning there is a process which allows “intervenors” to petition FERC and be part of the process. The residents of the Scott Dam area, need to get a very good lawyer, and start first petitioning FERC for intervenor status and then begin suing FERC, the State of California and PG&E. In fact they should be suing to have the flood and control gates on the dam closed immediately and see if there are grounds for damages to the aquatic life in the upstream and downstream zones. Further, loss of property and or life is part of any FERC hydropower license and it sounds like damage or loss of property and or life has occurred. Someone needs to get busy, the more litigation the slower PG&E will be able to move. They are a regulated public utility, they also have share holders, the more miserable their lives in the “C suite” the more the big bosses will listen. If it is possible they are bigger cowards and bigger liars than Gavin Newsom, and will fold tents faster than a Carnival Show, in a hurry to leave town after getting caught doing something horribly illegal. Good luck. Hope you get busy and find counsel. Remember, if you think the Trump or any administration. Is coming to save you, than you will be disappointed. The community needs to take the matter on and hope the Trump administration can help, nit the other way around. By the way once the dam is removed the community will be on the hook to manage the areas that the dam once occupied. Sounds like 100’s of thousands of dollar a year will be needed to be spent so 5 Pacific Salomon can swim upstream and spawn and die. Details matter….
Does anyone know if the draining of Lake Pillsbury has affected the springs on Cobb Mountain? Mountain Fresh Springwater sells and delivers this water to customers, including me.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
PG&E wants these businesses to fail. They want people to move away. They want to make it impossible to live in that area. Then there’s less people fighting them on the issue.
PG&E filed a Flow Variance with FERC in February 2025 to manage flow releases from Lake Pillsbury because the lake is 20,000 acre feet short of normal storage because they can't close the top gates to fill it anymore. It took FERC six months to approve this Variance, normal is 60 days, why??? When approved on Aug 4th PG&E went to the bottom of the scale and cut the EBRR flows to 5 cubic feet per second from the normal of 75 within 24 hours with no notice to anyone except PVID. It took them 5 days to adjust. This is completely unacceptable and everyone available should let them know it on August 11, at the PG&E TownHall Meeting!
Their actions are consistant with their blantant disregard for the water needs or rights belonging to those of us on the Russian River by our fderal and state agencies including our representatives. This includes those NGO's connected with the National Marine Fisheries that dictate to PG&E exactaly what to do and when....
They seem to forget they are using our stored water to benifit fish habitat but want the stored water to go away with the removal of Scott Dam???
Can't say that this filthy little trick comes as much of a shock, all things considered.
It was imperative that something definitive, something destructive, be imposed before all of the careful back-room planning and manipulation leading to dam removal came to naught as the opposition's profile began to emerge from the shade thrown on it.
There's a little something in this for everyone but the ranchers and local residents.
Watch what happens to the land after the long-term owners are forced out. Potter Valley is a hidden gem and various interests have been scheming and drooling over it for many a year.
Look at the zoning in maps 35 and 48; the AG40 would make lovely estate properties, and the RL is only restricted by the designation; it's not salamander-protected, so it can be converted with a few well-placed "contributions."
The pattern is tediously familiar to anyone attentive enough (and, perhaps, old enough) to have followed this sort of money trail through California's history.
Nice little rural communities ya have there, be a real shame if anything were to happen to them.
Well.... we're watching "anything" happen, right now.
PG&E has proven over and over again that it doesn't give a dam(n) about us, the customer. There are some evil people in politics and at PG&E here in California.
The history of CPUC and the power companies it "regulates" is truly as sordid a political story as it gets.
Hi Keely, Lew Rockwell posted your story on his LRC website this morning:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/pge-starts-draining-lake-pillsbury-shuts-off-water-to-farmers-ranchers/
I hope the publicity helps the ranchers, farmers, and residents of our area.
Thank you Timmy!!
Lew posted the link to your article under the Political Theatre heading.
All over America, corporate interests (and NGOs) are taking away land and water. Is there a national coalition? We're having a big fight against a 66,000 acre reservoir in east Texas. Dallas, 150 miles away, wants to flood farms and ranches to support AI data centers and water parks.
Ellen Leyrer, www.PropertyRightsandFreedom.substack.com.
How does water rights work in a situation like this? Logic tells me PG&E can't remove your water without buying your water rights? If they removed your water, they should have to pay fair market value for the land they ruined. You could then move out of Commie California to a free state.
Unfortunately the way is paved for them by Gavin Newsom and local representative Jared Huffman. It seems they've already secured some kind of arrangement whereby ratepayers/taxpayers will foot the cost of dam removal.
They are living cautionary tales, personifying everything wrong with California government.
Just when one thinks they have reached "peak despicable," one of them says "here... hold my beer."
I asked AI Grok
Does the Endangered Species Act supersede agricultural water rights? If not, does the government owe the water rights holder compensation for a taking? In 300 words
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not categorically supersede agricultural water rights, but it can significantly impact their exercise. Under the ESA, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize listed species or their critical habitats. This mandate can lead to restrictions on water diversions or usage if such actions harm protected species, like the delta smelt in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Water rights, typically governed by state law under doctrines like prior appropriation, grant holders legal entitlements to use water, but these rights are not absolute and can be subject to federal regulation when endangered species are at stake.
Courts have consistently held that ESA compliance can override state water rights to protect species. For example, in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (2008), the Federal Circuit ruled that ESA-driven restrictions on water diversions could constitute a regulatory taking if they deprive holders of beneficial use. However, whether compensation is owed depends on the nature of the restriction. If the government physically diverts water (a per se taking), compensation is likely owed, as seen in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States (2001), where farmers received compensation for water reallocations. Regulatory restrictions, like reduced allocations, are analyzed under the Penn Central framework, balancing economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Compensation is less certain here, as courts often find ESA restrictions serve a public good, mitigating takings claims.
In practice, the ESA can limit water rights without always triggering compensation, especially if restrictions are temporary or partial. Water rights holders may face reduced deliveries but must prove significant economic loss for a takings claim. Collaboration, like voluntary agreements or habitat conservation plans, often mitigates conflicts, reducing the need for litigation.
Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you.
Did you notice Huffman claiming to be "against" Sonoma County's "Measure J" to ban all horse & livestock farms? It's the very type of legislation he would write. But this bill is too blatant & would destroy him & his party if passed.
And any word on identifying who sent the death threat email to Sonoma Farm Bureau because it was against Measure J? It should be traceable since it was sent by email.
In a semi arid state like CA, it is simply crazy to be reducing water storage. I love to fly fish, but putting that as a priority over people is insane. Southern California is completely dependent on the State Water Project to allow the population that exists in that region to live. Urban attitudes are a huge problem because the residents simply believe that food and water appears as if by magic. A very limited appreciation of the complexity of providing these essential resources.
Well said. And for the record, this won't help the fish in any way.
As evidenced by the fact that PG&E requested FERC grant these flows out of Pillsbury to support fish populations. While simultaneously telling us that ending all flows out of Lake Pillsbury in perpetuity is essential to restore fish populations.
Blatant lies to serve the greenwashed bona fides of some very ambitious California politicians.
More on this by a local expert:
https://www.americaunwon.com/p/what-really-happened-to-the-salmon
Right. At least LA bought the water rights in Owens Valley and just didn't steal them.
In any FERC hydroelectric or any dam for that matter that holds a FERC license, there is a process that must be adhered to, and the article has this writer quite confused. PG&E cannot arbitrarily draw down the impoundment behind the dam without FERC approval. It sounds like PG&E began the process without approval while the surrender of the license was under review, and then asked for forgiveness which FERC apparently has granted. Normally, in any license surrender and decommissioning there is a process which allows “intervenors” to petition FERC and be part of the process. The residents of the Scott Dam area, need to get a very good lawyer, and start first petitioning FERC for intervenor status and then begin suing FERC, the State of California and PG&E. In fact they should be suing to have the flood and control gates on the dam closed immediately and see if there are grounds for damages to the aquatic life in the upstream and downstream zones. Further, loss of property and or life is part of any FERC hydropower license and it sounds like damage or loss of property and or life has occurred. Someone needs to get busy, the more litigation the slower PG&E will be able to move. They are a regulated public utility, they also have share holders, the more miserable their lives in the “C suite” the more the big bosses will listen. If it is possible they are bigger cowards and bigger liars than Gavin Newsom, and will fold tents faster than a Carnival Show, in a hurry to leave town after getting caught doing something horribly illegal. Good luck. Hope you get busy and find counsel. Remember, if you think the Trump or any administration. Is coming to save you, than you will be disappointed. The community needs to take the matter on and hope the Trump administration can help, nit the other way around. By the way once the dam is removed the community will be on the hook to manage the areas that the dam once occupied. Sounds like 100’s of thousands of dollar a year will be needed to be spent so 5 Pacific Salomon can swim upstream and spawn and die. Details matter….
Does anyone know if the draining of Lake Pillsbury has affected the springs on Cobb Mountain? Mountain Fresh Springwater sells and delivers this water to customers, including me.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
Seems to me, these fine people need to exercise their first amendment right to seek address from a tyrannical government. Filling that, they might want to choose what options exist under the second amendment.
PG&E wants these businesses to fail. They want people to move away. They want to make it impossible to live in that area. Then there’s less people fighting them on the issue.
Hello Everyone,
PG&E filed a Flow Variance with FERC in February 2025 to manage flow releases from Lake Pillsbury because the lake is 20,000 acre feet short of normal storage because they can't close the top gates to fill it anymore. It took FERC six months to approve this Variance, normal is 60 days, why??? When approved on Aug 4th PG&E went to the bottom of the scale and cut the EBRR flows to 5 cubic feet per second from the normal of 75 within 24 hours with no notice to anyone except PVID. It took them 5 days to adjust. This is completely unacceptable and everyone available should let them know it on August 11, at the PG&E TownHall Meeting!
Their actions are consistant with their blantant disregard for the water needs or rights belonging to those of us on the Russian River by our fderal and state agencies including our representatives. This includes those NGO's connected with the National Marine Fisheries that dictate to PG&E exactaly what to do and when....
They seem to forget they are using our stored water to benifit fish habitat but want the stored water to go away with the removal of Scott Dam???
Steve
This sounds like an opening for criminal and civil lawsuits - both PG&E and Newsom.
Lawsuits have become a bad joke. Look at what happened to the Paradise fire victims.
Can't say that this filthy little trick comes as much of a shock, all things considered.
It was imperative that something definitive, something destructive, be imposed before all of the careful back-room planning and manipulation leading to dam removal came to naught as the opposition's profile began to emerge from the shade thrown on it.
There's a little something in this for everyone but the ranchers and local residents.
Watch what happens to the land after the long-term owners are forced out. Potter Valley is a hidden gem and various interests have been scheming and drooling over it for many a year.
Look at the zoning in maps 35 and 48; the AG40 would make lovely estate properties, and the RL is only restricted by the designation; it's not salamander-protected, so it can be converted with a few well-placed "contributions."
The pattern is tediously familiar to anyone attentive enough (and, perhaps, old enough) to have followed this sort of money trail through California's history.
Nice little rural communities ya have there, be a real shame if anything were to happen to them.
Well.... we're watching "anything" happen, right now.