Santa Rosa Water reports strong carryover storage, updates statement of interest on Eel‑Russian diversion

The Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities received a water and recycled‑water supply briefing on multiple storage and operations issues and an updated statement of interest tied to the Eel‑Russian facility and recent water diversion agreement.

Peter Martin, deputy director of water resources, told the board that recent rains brought about 3.5 inches in the area (roughly 128% of normal for October) and reported current storage estimates of about 27,000 acre‑feet in Lake Pillsbury, roughly 58,000 acre‑feet in Lake Mendocino and about 222,000 acre‑feet in Lake Sonoma. Martin said the lower Lake Pillsbury level has left only minimal inflows from the project and that PG&E’s variance for diversions through the Upper Russian/East Fork remains in effect until Pillsbury storage reaches about 36,000 acre‑feet.

Martin also reported that Sonoma Water filed a temporary security change petition on its 180‑day schedule to tie minimum and streamflow hydrologic indices to Lake Mendocino storage rather than cumulative inflow to Lake Pillsbury. He described milestone work on ‘‘forecast‑informed reservoir operations’’ with the Army Corps and Sonoma Water that would allow limited, piloted encroachment into the flood‑control pool to hold additional water in storage; Martin cited pilot deviations of 11,650 acre‑feet at Lake Mendocino and a roughly 19,000 acre‑foot operational increment tested at Lake Sonoma.

Martin summarized an updated Water Advisory Committee statement of interest about the new Eel‑Russian facility (referred to in the meeting as NERF) and the water diversion agreement signed by the Eel‑Russian Project Authority (IRPA). The update, he said, is intended to ensure the interests of water contractors served by Sonoma Water—such as Santa Rosa Water—are represented as the project proceeds. The statement reiterates support for continued participation and communication with IRPA, for evaluating alternatives to continued diversion, and for outcomes that maintain water‑supply reliability.

The statement emphasizes concerns the board said include: the expected lease payments to tribes when new project water rights transfer, uncertain funding for ongoing capital and decommissioning costs, and the need for any costs borne by water contractors to be proportionate to the benefits they receive. Martin and Director Burke told the board they do not support reopening the 2006 restructured agreement absent cause and want future decisions to remain consistent with that agreement.

Director Burke added that staff will continue to track related filings and opportunities to provide the contractors’ technical and policy feedback through the technical advisory committee and the Water Advisory Committee.

No public comment was offered on the water briefing during the meeting.