The Lake County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday directed county staff to develop a draft co-management agreement for Clear Lake and to consider creation of a work group to help craft the terms, giving that direction by consensus.

Supervisors said the agreement would be a nonbinding mutual pledge among the county, local tribal governments and state agencies and would not, at this stage, cede county authority over the lake. Supervisor Brad (first name only in transcript) told colleagues the draft would help “have a pledge and a written agreement on how we're gonna work together to manage the resource that is Clear Lake and the other ... the whole watershed of Clear Lake.”

The request follows state-level moves under AB 1284 encouraging co-management arrangements between state agencies and tribal governments for natural resources. Terry Logsdon, Lake County’s Chief Climate Resiliency Officer and Tribal Liaison, read comments from Geneva E. B. Thompson, Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs at the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), who said CNRA “warmly welcome[s] the opportunity to closely partner with the county in these conversations” and sees “a lot of value in developing meaningful and durable co management agreements and relationships.”

Why this matters: Supervisors and tribal speakers framed Clear Lake as both an ecological and economic asset whose health affects fisheries, water uses and local businesses. Several tribal speakers urged that co-management include earlier and meaningful tribal engagement, protection of tributaries and attention to invasive species and fish habitat.

Board discussion and public comment

Vice Chair Rasmussen and Supervisor Brad jointly put the item forward, saying the idea grew from last year’s intergovernmental meetings including cities, county departments, tribes and state agencies. Supervisor Sabatier said she supported the effort but urged a lean initial department list to avoid overburdening staff, suggesting water resources and the county tribal liaison start the work and consult other departments as needed. “If our lake is healthy, if our lake is well managed, not only does the ecology do well, but our economy does well with it,” Sabatier said.

Pawan Upadhyay, Lake County Water Resources Director, told the board, “I think that's definitely a step in the right direction,” and indicated water resources would be an appropriate lead alongside the tribal liaison.

Public commenters included tribal elders and tribal staff who urged inclusion of tribal ecological knowledge and respect for tribal sovereignty. An elder who identified himself as a member of the Rock people (locally called the Mission rancheria off Soda Bay Road) said, “Kabat'en, big water, is me. I'm that lake,” and pressed the county to focus on creeks and tributaries that feed Clear Lake. Sarah Ryan, environmental director for the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, said tribes “continue to use the land, the water, the birds ... on a very regular basis and need it to be healthy.” Several other residents and stakeholders voiced support and asked that co-management reach across the Clear Lake watershed, not just the shoreline.

Scope and next steps

County staff and CNRA representatives referenced AB 1284’s definition of co-management: “a collaborative effort established through an agreement in which 2 or more sovereigns mutually negotiate, define, and allocate amongst themselves the sharing of management functions and responsibilities for a given territory, area, or set of natural resources.” Supervisors clarified the board intends “watershed” scope — i.e., tributaries and creeks that feed Clear Lake — not only the lake surface.

The board gave consensus direction (no formal roll-call vote recorded) for staff to: develop a draft co-management agreement; consider forming a work group to assist drafting; start the work with Lake County Water Resources and the county tribal liaison as primary leads; and return to the board with a proposed draft and recommended next steps. The timeline and funding sources for drafting and any subsequent agreement were not specified.

What was not decided

The board did not adopt a binding agreement, set a timeline for adoption, or identify funding for implementation. Several supervisors emphasized the draft would be a starting point and that consultation with tribes and other agencies would continue. County Counsel (Lloyd, first name not specified in the transcript) indicated the item could be handled by consensus direction rather than a formal motion and vote.

Ending

Supervisors said they expect staff to consult with tribal governments, CNRA and other potentially impacted county departments and to return with a draft for board consideration. Members of the public and tribal representatives asked that future engagement include both elected tribal leaders and elders or knowledge keepers to ensure decision-makers and traditional stewards both participate.