2005 Urban Water Management Plan - Sonoma County Water ...

Sonoma County Water Agency
2005 Urban Water Management Plan
Page 1-5
importance of the PVP diversions to Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, both in its Environmental
Impact Statement in the recent proceeding, and in its orders concluding the proceeding. 1
In addition, having a sufficient supply of water in Lake Mendocino in the fall is of critical
importance to the salmonid species in the Russian River that are listed as threatened under the
federal Endangered Species Act. For example, the State Water Resources Control Board approved a
request by the Agency to temporarily reduce flows in the Russian River above Healdsburg to
conserve water in Lake Mendocino for benefit of the listed Russian River salmonid species. In
approving the Agency’s request, the State Board noted that “[t]he proposed change will help
conserve cold water in Lake Mendocino so that it can be released for listed Russian River salmonid
fisheries present in the Russian River during the late summer and fall months. It is in the public
interest to preserve water supplies for these beneficial uses when hydrologic circumstances intervene
to cause dangerous reductions in these water supplies.” (State Water Resources Control Board
Water Right Order 2004-0035 at 8.)
Given the importance of the PVP diversions to the agricultural, commercial, and industrial economy
in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, as well as the importance of a sufficient water supply in Lake
Mendocino to the threatened Chinook salmon in the Russian River watershed, it is reasonable to
assume that decisions about the extent of PVP diversions into the Russian River watershed made in
any future proceedings at FERC (or by any other regulatory agencies potentially having jurisdiction
over PVP flows) will recognize the importance of those diversions to Mendocino and Sonoma
Counties and the Russian River fishery.
Moreover, even in the unlikely event of a significant reduction of PVP flows into the Russian River
watershed (or even a complete cessation, in the unlikely event of a collapse of the diversion tunnel),
it is reasonable to assume that the Agency could take actions that would mitigate the impact of the
reduction. The Agency’s water rights permits, for example, state that the State Water Resources
Control Board “reserves jurisdiction” over the permits to “modify, delete, or add minimum flow
requirements” in the event of any FERC action modifying PVP flows. Depending upon the extent
of the reduction, a reduction in minimum instream flow requirements in the Russian River
1 See Order on Rehearing (June 2, 2004) at 16 (“The Tribes and the Eel River Groups object to the fact that the EIS includes a detailed analysis of the
potential economic impacts of the various alternatives on Russian River interests, but does not include a comparable analysis of economic impacts on
Eel River Basin interests. As the January 28 Order explained, this is because the alternatives have direct and substantial effects on the Russian River
Basin economy, which has strong agricultural and consumptive urban components.”)
P:\27000\127280 - Sonoma County Water Agency\UWMPs\SonomaCWA\Tech Reviewed Chapters\SCWA Master 12-08-06.doc