Eel River Case To Court Of Appeal

by Friends of the Eel River

Since 1922, over 90 percent of the Eel River's summer flows have been diverted to the Russian River, resulting in the virtual extinction of the Eel's formerly world-class runs of chinook and coho salmon, and steelhead trout. In an effort to curtail these devastating diversions, Friends of the Eel River filed a lawsuit in January 1999 to compel the Sonoma County Water Agency (the principle consumer of the diverted waters) to disclose its reliance on Eel River water in an environmental impact report concerning a proposed increase draw upon Russian River waters. On August 25, following a one-week trial, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Antolini refused to order the Water Agency to disclose these impacts, on the grounds that its draw from the Russian River had no relationship to the diversions from the Eel River.

FOER attorney Stephan Volker announced on September 1 that Judge Antolini's ruling would be appealed to the California Court of Appeals on the following grounds:

1. Most of the Russian River's summer flows are supplied through the Potter Valley Project's diversion of over 160,000 acre feet annually frpm the Eel River. The Sonoma County Water Agency currently draws 75,000 acre feet of water from the Russian River each year, and proposes to increase the draw to 101,000 acre feet annually.

2. The Water Agency's claims that all of the water it diverts from the Russian River has its source in Lake Sonoma rather than the Eel River are wrong. The Eel River actually supplies more water to the Russian River than does Lake Sonoma.

3. The Water Agency, in order to maintain the minimum Russian River flows mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board, uses the Eel River diversions as a replacement for waters released from Lake Sonoma and drawn out down river. The Water Agency's proposal to draw more water thus increases its dependency on the Eel River diversions.

4. The Water Agency's proposal to increase its draw conflicts with restoration of the Eel River. If the Water Agency proceeds with its proposal to commit 92 percent of Lake Sonoma's storage for urban growth, it will be unable to offset any future reduction of the Eel River diversion. The Water Agency failed to disclose this conflict in its EIR.

5. The Water Agency's EIR also failed to disclose that its proposed increased draw will prompt explosive urban sprawl throughout Sonoma and Marin Counties, creating an irrevocable dependency on Eel River diversions that conflicts sharply with state and federal laws requiring restoration of the Eel River and its Salmonid fishery.

[Return to Index for This Issue]
[Return to Mendocino Environmental Center Home Page]

Webmeister: MEC staff
Email: Mendocino Environmental Center
Last Update: 11/24/00