FirstAlerts

Small Earthquake Shakes Area North of Santa Rosa

A minor earthquake struck near Larkfield-Wikiup, with conflicting reports on magnitude, depth, and time.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 3, 2026, 4:08 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterUpdated Sep 3, 2026, 7:25 p.m. ET
A small struck , according to reports from ABC7 News and The Press Democrat. Reports conflict on the quake's magnitude, depth, and time. ABC7 News reported a magnitude of 3.5, while The Press Democrat reported 3.3. The Press Democrat said the magnitude was . The depth was reported as by ABC7 News and as 4.6 miles below the surface by The Press Democrat. The time was reported as 10:33 a.m. local time on January 1, 2026, by ABC7 News, and as 10:30 a.m. local time on September 3, 2026, by The Press Democrat. The cause of the has not been determined.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 3, 2026, 4:08 p.m. ETFirst report

    Magnitude 3.5 Earthquake Strikes North of Santa Rosa

    A magnitude 3.5 earthquake struck north of Santa Rosa on January 1, 2026, at approximately 10:33 a.m. local time, according to ABC7 News. The quake occurred at a depth of 7.4 kilometers, the outlet reported.

    The event is still developing, and further details have not yet been released.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 23 Sept 2026, 23:25current

    Updated to reflect conflicting reports on magnitude, depth, and time, and added statement that cause has not been determined.

  2. Version 13 Sept 2026, 20:08current

    First published.

  3. Version 13 Sept 2026, 20:11

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.