The Sonoma City Council on Oct. 15 voted 4-0 to direct the city’s representative to the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to vote in support of a contractors’ statement of interest concerning the decommissioning of the Potter Valley Project and the proposed new Eel–Russian diversion facility.

The statement of interest, prepared jointly by Sonoma water contractors and Sonoma County Water Agency staff, asks that any changes preserve a reliable water supply for wholesale contractors, allocate costs proportionally to benefit, provide transparent evaluation of long-term water-supply and environmental solutions, and protect the city’s existing purchase agreements.

Public Works staff summarized the Potter Valley history for the council, noting the diversion was built in the early 1900s and has not generated power since 2021. The staff presentation described the basic flow: water conveyed from the Eel River basin through the diversion to Lake Mendocino and then downstream to Lake Sonoma, where Sonoma water contractors draw supply. The presentation said PG&E has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to decommission the Potter Valley Project and that the decommissioning and any replacement diversion could be a multi-year (potentially decade-long) effort.

“Tonight we’re here to present this item and answer any questions,” the Public Works Director said, summarizing the statement’s goals and the timeline for WAC consideration. Staff said the Technical Advisory Committee unanimously recommended forwarding the statement to the WAC at its October meeting and that the WAC would take up the statement for a vote in early November (meeting dates referenced in the discussion included both Nov. 3 and Nov. 5 in different comments in the record).

In public comment, Julian Mackey, who identified himself as a graduate student at UC Berkeley, said the proposal would restore a free-flowing Eel River and could benefit salmon populations, while also observing the proposed diversion would reduce the amount of water moved compared with historical levels. “I don’t know the exact unit, cubic acre feet, down from 40,000, which is what it is today,” Mackey said, adding the proposed amount would be lower (he referenced “30,000” as a figure discussed by stakeholders).

Council members questioned staff about potential effects on North County users such as Cloverdale and on agricultural users north of Lake Sonoma. Staff said users north of Lake Sonoma are more directly affected by any reduction in the diversion because they rely on flows above Lake Sonoma and Lake Pillsbury, which would be altered if Scotts Valley/Pillsbury Dam removal proceeds as part of decommissioning. Staff emphasized that regulatory review and environmental documents (including FERC processes) and IRPA/NRF planning will evaluate those impacts.

After questions and public comment, a council member moved to instruct the city’s WAC representative to vote in support of the statement of interest. The motion passed on roll call 4-0 (Council member Dean: Aye; Council member Gurney: Yes; Council member Low: Aye; Vice Mayor Ron Wellander: Yes).

The city’s staff presentation and the contractors’ statement emphasize coordination among multiple parties (PG&E, IRPA/NRF entities, Sonoma County Water Agency, county representatives and other stakeholders) and seek to fix principles — reliability, proportional cost-sharing and transparency — to guide the complex decommissioning and replacement process over the coming years.