The Settlement Agreement is a Watered-down Version of the Original Recreation Plan, and it isn’t even in effect yet.
Below are four public claims recently made by Department of Water Resources (DWR) Deputy Director, John Yarbrough, to the media, reviewed against official records and the settlement agreement.
The Bottom Line:
The State has repeatedly failed to deliver on promised community benefits while misrepresenting both its track record and the value of the pending settlement agreement.
The "1994 plan" was actually a FERC order admonishing DWR for failing to build the recreation facilities. The approved plan remains the original (Bulletin 117-6), as the Settlement Agreement doesn’t take effect until a new license is issued.
The "$1 billion" figure is not supported by the Settlement Agreement documents.
While DWR says the County "participated but didn't sign," they omit that the County was sidelined in negotiations, and that our concerns about local financial impacts were ignored even after DWR's own research confirmed them.
DWR’s quotes below are pulled from KRCR’s article, which can be found here: Butte County leaders urging state to deliver promised Oroville Dam benefits
“Recreation development has followed a plan approved in 1994 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which included campgrounds, boat launches, parking, trails and floating campsites.”
False: The 1994 FERC Order was not an approval; it was the result of a 1989 investigation finding that DWR had failed to complete the required recreation facilities. DWR conceded noncompliance and submitted a revised plan in 1990 proposing no new facilities, citing "lower demand than projected."
The order required DWR to develop a new plan with community input. That process led to the 2006 Settlement Agreement, which is still not in effect because no new license has been issued. The original Bulletin 117-6 Recreation Plan remains the only approved and executed plan under DWR's license.
“A proposed settlement tied to the pending license could bring more than $1 billion in additional investment, including environmental restoration and recreation improvements.”
False: The settlement documents specify explicitly capped amounts, none of which come close to $1 billion, even accounting for inflation escalators over a 50-year license term:
Project Supplemental Benefits Fund: Established for up to $61.3M
Facilities Modification(s) for Fish Habitat: The capital cost for these modifications, aimed at addressing temperature needs for anadromous fish, is estimated not to exceed $60M (in 2005 dollars)
Habitat Expansion Agreement: The agreement establishes a decision point for the licensees if the net present value of the life-cycle cost of implementing habitat expansion actions exceeds $15M
Riparian and Floodplain Improvement Program: The total cost for this program is capped at $5M
Annual Operational and Management Funding: The agreement specifies various annual payments for ongoing programs, such as approximately $350K for Oroville Wildlife Area (OWA) staff resources and $170K for wildlife protection activities
Small-Scale Habitat and Monitoring Programs: Numerous articles list smaller caps, such as $450K for the first five years of invasive plant management and $920K for the construction of waterfowl brood ponds
The total investment explicitly described in the settlement does not come close to $1 billion, even with inflation escalators applied over the full license term. Moreover, the investment funds in the Agreement are primarily allocated to operations and maintenance, solely to ensure continued water deliveries. The Agreement, once again, overlooks the State's responsibility to invest in future recreational opportunities
“Butte County participated in earlier relicensing negotiations but did not sign the agreement.”
Technically true, but critically incomplete. While other negotiating parties were given 20–30 hours to present their cases, Butte County, the largest public entity at the table, was limited to just 30 minutes.
DWR and FERC's own research confirmed that Butte County's finances were negatively impacted by the project. That research stalled immediately upon reaching that conclusion. The County's concerns about local financial impacts were never acknowledged, and its requests were never addressed.
Framing the County's non-signature as a choice, rather than a consequence of being sidelined, misrepresents what happened.
“The department has spent nearly $200 million on recreation projects in the Oroville area since 1994 and continues to provide flood protection to Butte County, the city of Oroville and downstream communities.”
False: The flood protection claim omits critical context. The 2017 Oroville Dam spillway incident, which forced the evacuation of nearly 200,000 people, was the direct result of DWR's own failures. The Independent Forensic Team's report found:
“The Oroville Dam spillway incident was caused by a long-term systemic failure of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), regulatory, and general industry practices to recognize and address inherent spillway design and construction weaknesses, poor bedrock quality, and deteriorated service spillway chute conditions… There were many opportunities to intervene and prevent the incident, but the overall system of interconnected factors operated in a way that these opportunities were missed. Numerous human, organizational, and industry factors led to the physical factors not being recognized and properly addressed... The resulting decisions, made without a full understanding of relative uncertainties and consequences, allowed the reservoir level to rise above the emergency spillway weir for the first time in the project’s history, leading to severe and rapid erosion downstream of the weir and, ultimately, the evacuation order.” Independent Forensic Report of the Oroville Spillway Incident
Citing flood protection as a benefit while omitting the largest dam safety failure in California history is a significant omission.