Lake County Board reopens agenda items so supervisor can explain abstention on Clear Lake co‑management agreement

The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted to reopen agenda items 6.3 and 6.4 so a supervisor could explain an earlier abstention on a draft co‑management agreement for the Clear Lake watershed. The motion to reopen passed on a voice vote announced as 4–0, with one member noted as not present; after Supervisor Owen explained his abstention the board closed the items and continued to the next business.

County counsel read the staff request and cited county policies (Rule 6, Section 3, Chapter 1) as the basis for reopening, saying the board should receive an explanation for the prior abstention and that public comment would then apply to the underlying items. The motion language read by county counsel described agenda item 6.3 as “consideration of a presentation and discussion of draft co‑management of the Clear Lake Watershed Global Agreement; provide feedback to staff on amending; and authorize Susan Parker, County Administrative Officer, to sign,” and said item 6.4—on which the board sits as the Lake County Watershed Protection District board—contained parallel authorization for Pawan O'Pagier, director of the Lake County Water Resources Department, to sign.

During the public comment period, Janet Fester said she could not form an opinion on reopening without first hearing the abstaining member’s reason. “I personally would not know which way to vote…until I’ve heard what the reason for the abstention [is],” she said. Board member Sterling also urged reopening, saying transparency would help the public understand what the board had voted on.

After the motion was moved and seconded and the chair called the vote, the board reopened the two items. County counsel then invited the abstaining supervisor to explain his vote. Supervisor Owen said he abstained because he viewed parts of the proposed co‑management arrangement as possibly “nonbinding” and characterized it as “feel‑good bureaucracy” that may not effectuate enforceable changes. He also said he was uneasy the agreement did not include Yolo County and that he was wary of potential overreach, citing past concerns about requirements to monitor private wells. “I felt we were treading on people’s rights when we started requiring the monitoring of personal wells,” Owen said, while adding that he also saw potential positives and cooperation emerging from tribal contributions and blue‑ribbon committee work.

County counsel confirmed that the explanation for the abstention satisfied the procedural requirement; the chair then closed items 6.3 and 6.4 and the board proceeded to the next agenda item. The record shows the motion to reopen carried by the announced voice vote; the transcript identifies one member, EJ, as not present at the time.