Lake County supervisors approve nonbinding Clear Lake co‑management agreement, authorize CAO to sign

The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a nonbinding co‑management memorandum of understanding for the Clear Lake watershed and authorized County Administrative Officer Susan Parker to sign the agreement on the county’s behalf.

Terry Logsdon, chief climate resiliency officer and tribal liaison, told the board the agreement implements provisions of AB 1284, the state law directing the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to enter co‑management agreements with federally recognized tribes. Logsdon said the draft was developed with local tribes, cities, county staff and multiple CNRA departments and that the agreement is intended to improve coordination on projects affecting Clear Lake.

“The legislation requires CNRA to work with federally recognized tribes in areas for co‑management of land and waters,” Logsdon said in presenting the draft and a corrected version of the appendix that adds the Big Valley signatory omitted from the posted agenda.

Why it matters: supporters said the MOU creates a formal framework for partners to coordinate on large projects and grant applications. Roberta McIntyre of Hidden Valley Lake said a written agreement helps collaborators “get to the table” and increases the chances of securing multimillion‑dollar grants. Sarah Ryan, environmental director for the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, emphasized tribal roles in monitoring, invasive‑species work and cyanotoxin response and noted that tribes can set water quality standards for Clear Lake, a power the county does not have.

Concerns raised: several supervisors and members of the public pressed for Yolo County Flood Control District’s involvement. One board member said Yolo holds much of the water rights above Rumsey, controls the dam and has previously filed complaints about stream diversions and algae impacts; the board member urged the county to “hold their feet to the fire” and bring Yolo into the process. Logsdon replied that Yolo Flood Control was discussed during negotiations and that, because it is a special district, the initial strategy was to sign now and use the agreement to encourage Yolo’s participation.

Board members also sought clarity about whether the MOU would cede county authority. Supervisor Hahn asked whether the agreement would create new bureaucracy or require residents to relinquish rights. Logsdon and other supervisors pointed to a provision in the draft (section 6(l)) stating that “the parties each retain all rights, responsibilities and authorities provided for by law” and said the agreement is nonbinding and intended to facilitate collaboration, not transfer or extinguish statutory authorities.

Legal and drafting notes: county counsel advised the board that although the agreement is characterized as nonbinding it contains dispute‑resolution and meet‑and‑confer provisions that create expectations of annual collaboration and raised a drafting correction: section 6(c) cross‑references a nonexistent section 7(n) and should be amended to refer to section 6. The board agreed to approve the document with amendments to correct drafting errors and to ensure references use the correct agency names (for example, “Lake County Watershed Protection District” rather than a global replace that produced inconsistent phrasing).

Vote and next steps: the board approved the MOU as amended and authorized CAO Susan Parker to sign. The motion carried with three affirmative votes and one abstention. Logsdon said a signing ceremony is tentatively scheduled in Lake County on Sept. 11; exact time and location were not yet finalized. He also committed to conveying the board’s request that staff pursue engagement with Yolo County Flood Control District following the initial signings.

What remains unresolved: members of the public and at least one supervisor asked whether nongovernmental parties to the agreement would be subject to the California Public Records Act or Brown Act requirements and whether the agreement’s nonbinding status would limit enforceability. County counsel flagged those issues for the record; the agreement, as approved, remains nonbinding and preserves the legal rights and authorities of signatory parties.