Decision 1610 (D1610), is State water law passed in the mid-eighties governing Russian River flows. The Biological Opinion (BO), published in September, 2008, required the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to petition the State Board for changes to the law. Requested decreases of summer flows from Dry Creek confluence to Jenner would go from 125 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 70 cfs, a 44% decrease. The EIR will be released around August, 2012 and adoption of new flows are expected to be adopted about a year after that (2013).
Permanent Change to D1610 and Fish Flow Project
- Water Project DEIR: submitted March 10, 2009 Comments submitted March 10, 2009 This was extensive, multi-volume EIR released in December, 2008, that assumed an increase of water rights to 101,000 AFY. The document had been in the making for about 20 years.
In August, 2009, SCWA decided to shelve the complicated document and comments submitted were never responded to. Subsequently SCWA also dropped pursuit of the increased water rights, primarily because of needing to focus their attention on implementation of the Biological Opinion (BO). They have since focused a great deal more on conservation and other means to stretch the water supply. Read More >> - RRWPC Protest of Permanent Changes to D1610. SCWA had submitted Petition to Change D1610 in Sept., 2009 as required by BO. The State then proceeded to hold a “protest” period, which ended May 13, 2010. List of Attachments backing up this document are included at end of document.
- Fish Flow Project NOP: Fish Flow Project is SCWA’s name for project to permanently change D1610; NOP is Notice of Preparation {of EIR}. Scoping Comments by RRWPC indicate our concerns about the project and are similar to those we submitted to the State in prior document just above. Comments were submitted to SCWA after Scoping meeting in response to project description in the NOP. (submitted 11-15-10) Read More >>
- RRWPC Response SWRCB Certified Letter: Received around March 18th, 2011 and comments sent March 30, 2011. Approximately 375 protesters of permanent changes to D1610 received a certified letter from the State informing them of their rights and obligations as a protester. RRWPC’s response to the State describes RRWPC concerns and action taken in regard to this letter and the protest process.Read More >>
Temporary Urgency Change Petitions (TUCP): The Biological Opinion requires SCWA to apply for yearly Temporary Permits to lower flows in the Russian River at Coyote Dam, at the confluence with Dry Creek, and at the Hacienda Bridge (sometimes known as the Guerneville gauge). These permits have been regularly granted by the State Water Board and include various requirements. Environmental review is not required for the TUCPs. They are effective between May 15th and October 15th and require that minimum flows meet 70 cfs (formerly 125 cfs) in the lower river. RRWPC comments on the Temporary Urgency Change Petitions/Orders include:
- RRWPC Comments on 2009 Temporary Urgency Change Petition: April 10, 2009: Concern about summer flows Read More >>
- Comments on approved Temporary Urgency Change Order authorized by State. It expresses concern about impacts to lower river from greatly diminished flows. Read More >>
- D1610 Urgency Change Petition Comments: 6-23-10. Further comments on D1610 Urgency Change Petition Read More >>
- Response to Bill Hearn Article on Biological Opinion and low flow in Sonoma County Gazette issue June 3, 2010. Dr. Hearn was prime author of Biological Opinion. Read More >>
- Email Series on 2011 TUCP: May, 2011: This series of letters expresses our concerns about the 2011 temporary change process. The Biological Opinion requires that the Water Agency petition the State Board annually for low flow. Read More >>
FOER Complaint and RRWPC Response
- FOER SWRCB Water Rights Petition & Complaint PGE-PVP 3-1-10 was submitted to State Board in February, 2010 and essentially called for the cessation of Eel River diversions by the Potter Valley Project into the Russian River. Read More >>
- RRWPC Complaint Response: Respectful response from RRWPC noted several inaccuracies and some misinformation in Complaint, which are refuted. The response calls for corrections by FOER. It is RRWPC’s view that far less water is being diverted from the Eel River at this time and that FOER’s case was over stated.Read More >>