Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE CITY'S WATER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBER ON THE WATER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
STATEMENT OF INTERESTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
NEW EEL-RUSSIAN FACILITY AND THE ASSOCIATED
WATER DIVERSION AGREEMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE
EEL RUSSIAN PROJECT AUTHORITY
Date: October 28, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council provide direction to the City’s Water Advisory Committee member supporting the Statement of Interests related to the proposed New Eel-Russian Facility and the associated Water Diversion Agreement undertaken by the Eel Russian Project Authority
Background
The City receives wholesale water from Sonoma Water and is represented on the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC meets monthly and the WAC every other month and receives reports on Sonoma Water planning, management, and operating activities. These activities are to ensure the continued reliable delivery of safe drinking water that meets all applicable regulatory and permitting requirements.
One effort of Sonoma Water which is concerning for the WAC/TAC is its involvement in the Eel Russian Project Authority and commitments that agency has and is making to continue Potter Valley Project Diversions. The TAC has drafted a Statement of Interest on these efforts and is to be considered by the WAC at its November 3rd, 2025 meeting.
In response to PG&E’s decision to decommission the Potter Valley Project (PVP), the Eel Russian Project Authority (ERPA) was formed and consists of the following agencies: Round Valley Indian Tribe, Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Sonoma County, and Sonoma Water. ERPA is a Joint Powers Authority to manage the purchase agreement of water rights and facilities related to the PVP and the future of water diversions from the Eel River to the Russian River following the decommissioning of the PVP by PG&E. A New EelRussian Facility (NERF) has been planned by ERPA and ERPA has entered into a Water Diversion Agreement which commits that agency to making very large payments for the rights to use the water and mitigation efforts of the Eel River.
Analysis/Discussion
The Draft Statement of Interests (SOI) has been drafted by the TAC for consideration of approval by the WAC at their meeting on November 3rd, 2025. The SOI is attached and is a statement from the WAC to Sonoma Water of the WAC’s interests related to the proposed New Eel-Russian Facility (NERF) and the Associated Water Diversion Agreement undertaken by the Eel Russian Project Authority (ERPA).
Arguably the questions of most concern to the Water Contractors is how the tens of millions of dollar commitment for the continued diversions will be paid for and by whom, and the amount of water that will actually be allowed to be diverted and will it be of benefit to those customers south of the Russian River confluence with Dry Creek. The draft Statement of Interests addresses the very large cost commitments of the WDA with several provisions (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17). In addition to the funding question, the SOI emphasizes the importance of continued reliability, that significant investments of the Contractors of the Russian River supply and ecosystem is maintained, and decisions regarding the PVP and NERF are consistent with the 2006 Restructured Agreement (water supply agreement between Sonoma Water and its Contractors).
Statements 9, 10 and 11 make the point there are many parties signatory to the WDA and the Water Contractors are not one of them and therefore the WDA does not bind them. Also, the Water Contractors have many State-mandated obligations to provide continuous high quality drinking water and the State Constitution requires a nexus between what the water contractors charge customers and the benefit received.
In addition to the funding commitments by ERPA, the Water Diversion Agreement define strict limitations on when and how much water can be diverted through the tunnel and these restrictions, along with funding commitments by ERPA, are defined in the recently executed Water Diversion Agreement. However, it is an open question on what if any water will be available during times when it can be stored in Lake Mendocino and during drought years when it is needed the most. There are scenarios when no water would be allowed to be diverted in a given year if the hydrologic conditions meet certain criteria. The diversions have historically helped fill Lake Mendocino in late Spring as demands are ramping up and natural stream flows drop off. However, the limitations are very narrow for allowing diversions during this time.
Sonoma Water makes the case that continued flows would reduce the amount of water needed to be released from Lake Sonoma to maintain regulatory minimum summer flows in the lower river. A calculation of this amount of water over the years with these restrictions has not been provided but would be helpful in determining an estimated benefit to water users in the Russian River basin.
Attached to this staff report is a letter sent in by Neil Hancock, who requested that it be attached to this item when it is published.
Financial Considerations
The action of providing direction to the City’s WAC member does not in itself have a financial impact on the City but does help define the City’s position, as a Water Contractor, in future discussions with Sonoma Water on how the NERF and WDA costs will be paid for. Although only one of several members of ERPA, Sonoma Water has been providing the vast majority of the resources for the Authority. To the extent these costs have been passed on to the Water Contractors is not explicitly known but, as they are not directly related to the Transmission System fund, it should not be borne by the Water Contractors but by other Sonoma Water funding sources.
Environmental Issues
The proposed action of providing direction on the Statement of Interest to its Water Advisory Committee member, where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.