Is Dam Removal Always a Win for Water?
California is in the middle of a growing movement to reimagine its aging water infrastructure. As part of that shift, a major project is now underway in Mendocino County: the proposed removal of Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam on the Eel River, which together form the century-old Potter Valley Project.
The goal? Restore natural flows and reconnect one of California’s most historically abundant salmon runs.
But for residents near Lake Pillsbury, this isn’t just an environmental story – it’s personal. Draining the 2,000-acre reservoir could mean the loss of a beloved recreational hub, damage to the local economy, and heightened concerns about wildfire response. What’s being framed by many as ecological progress is, for others, a potentially devastating rupture.
A River in Recovery
For decades, the Eel River has been a cautionary tale of what happens when fish are cut off from their spawning grounds. Both Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam have blocked hundreds of miles of habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout – species once central to the region’s biodiversity and cultural heritage.
Environmental organizations, state wildlife officials, and tribal governments have long advocated for the river’s restoration. With PG&E stepping away from the unprofitable hydroelectric project, the time seemed ripe for change.
Removing the dams could significantly improve river health. Cold-water sources from high-elevation tributaries would once again flow freely, helping to stabilize water temperatures in the face of a warming climate. Sediment and gravel, essential for healthy spawning grounds, could move downstream without obstruction. For native fish populations on the brink, this could be the lifeline they need.
A Community in Crisis
But with ecological gains come hard human consequences. Lake Pillsbury isn’t just a reservoir – it’s a place where families boat, fish, and vacation. For many, it’s home.
Local business owners, property holders, and emergency planners are raising red flags. They worry about a sharp decline in tourism. They fear that fire response will suffer without access to the lake’s water supply. And they question what will happen to the dry lakebed that’s left behind – whether it will become a source of windblown dust, invasive plants, or worse.
In public hearings, community members have voiced frustration over what they see as a top-down decision that doesn’t adequately address local needs. While many understand the environmental motivations, they argue that the people who’ve built lives around the lake deserve a seat at the table.
What Comes Next
As of now, the dam removal is in the planning and permitting phase. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must still approve the decommissioning plan, and environmental assessments are ongoing. If all goes forward, removal could begin as soon as 2028.
State agencies are working with stakeholders to explore ways to mitigate the impacts. These include rethinking fire suppression strategies and studying how to stabilize the exposed lakebed. But many locals remain skeptical—and for good reason. Promises of transition support often sound great on paper, but in rural communities, implementation is rarely straightforward.
Looking Ahead
The story of the Eel River is bigger than one lake, one town, or even one river. It’s a preview of the kinds of water decisions California will face more frequently in the decades to come.
Rewilding rivers and retiring old infrastructure will almost always bring ecological benefits. But if we’re serious about equity and resilience, we have to match those gains with concrete support for the people impacted by change. That means more than public meetings – it means co-creating solutions, investing in new economic pathways, and being honest about what’s being asked of communities on the frontlines.
Curious how this change might affect your region or your work? Reach out to BCG Water to learn more about what this transition means for local water systems, planning, and resilience.
