OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
February 3, 2022, through February 15, 2022
Date Received From Subject
February 3, 2022 Dave Warner General Manager Herrera’s Letter to the CAL EPA & CNR secretaries
February 4, 2022 Peter Drekmeier The Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment Offers Promising
Results
February 5, 2022 Paul Sheng Crystal Springs Cross Country Access
February 7, 2022 Aileen Boken TID lands $20 million grant to see if placing solar panels atop canals
makes sense
February 9, 2022 Tim Ramirez Peninsula Watershed Historical Ecology Final Report
February 10, 2022 Peter Drekmeier San Francisco Business Times Article
February 15, 2022 Peter Drekmeier San Diego Water Rates Aileen Boken This New Device Can Deliver Clean
Drinking Water for Just $4
Weekly Media Clips
• January 28, 2022 to February 4, 2022
• February 5, 2022 to February 14, 2022
February 1, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via email
Re: General Manager Herrera’s Letter to the CAL EPA & CNR secretaries
Dear President Moran and Commissioners,
General Manager Herrera’s letter to Secretaries Blumenfeld and Crowfoot dated January 14, 2022 (copy attached) regarding voluntary agreement negotiations didn’t seem to reflect the collaborative and educational examples you, as a commission, has set through your workshops. Would one of you consider checking in with Mr. Herrera to better understand his thinking behind the letter and if there’s an opportunity to get him to be more collaborative, more responsive to data, and use different talents for leading such an important negotiation?
To be fair to Mr. Herrera, it was good of him to respond to Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot’s letter of October 21, 2021 (copy attached) and good to express interest in continuing negotiations. And Mr.
Herrera comes with a powerful legal background which his letter demonstrates. But legal positioning should not be the primary objective now. Mr. Herrera’s letter did not address Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot’s concerns nor give hope that negotiations could become productive. I don’t know how Mr.
Herrera’s letter would cause positive action to occur. If his letter had offered some chance of improving negotiations, it could have been a win-win moment for all.
My interpretation of Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot’s letter of October 21, 2021 is that it was a call for help, that negotiations are stuck and that for the moment it’s a waste of time to continue. At least for me, the VA negotiations are crucial for finding a win-win way out of the Bay Delta Plan conflict. We need to un-stick them.
Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot used three paragraphs in their letter to express their concern that decisions made by the VA need to be scientifically defensible. Mr. Herrera didn’t respond to these concerns and instead stated, “the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement not only meets but well exceeds the benefits to fish and wildlife than that would be provided by the Plan Amendment.” I do not believe that statement is new information to Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot.
An example of a possible offer: Mr. Herrera was not around for the two science workshops nor the demand workshop that followed. It would be good for Mr. Herrera to be briefed on those workshops.
Not only would he come to understand that the science behind the TRVA isn’t ironclad, but also might find a reason for hope that he could give Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot.
Towards the end of the demand workshop1, when asked about the path forward by Commissioner H
arrington, Commissioner Moran refers to the two science workshops and the question of whether or not the TRVA will work. He makes the statement, “instead of asking the experts, let’s ask the fish.” His meaning was that the SFPUC can afford the water that is required by the TRVA, so let’s get started now with the TRVA’s actions (and not wait for it to be approved) and see how the fish respond. If Mr.
Herrera had offered something like this idea in his letter, it might have been viewed as a step forward, or at least reaching out to try to move negotiations forward. And certainly Mr. Moran was already in favor of it.
A better letter might have
1) acknowledged Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot’s stated scientific basis concern, 2) identified key differences in viewpoints, and
3) offered something new or a good reason why meeting again won’t be just more of the same.
Doing item 3 above might have required first working with irrigation districts in order to offer something. Doing so would also have been a good demonstration of collaboration and leadership.
Mr. Herrera holds the most important water position in the Bay Area and one that’s visible to water managers and other stakeholders around the world. He has a wonderful opportunity in front of him and a world class set of commissioners at his disposal. And he represents you. Please see if there’s an opportunity to shift which of his talents he applies to VA negotiations and bring his leadership style closer to yours.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
Attachments:
General Manager Herrera’s letter to Secretaries Blumenfeld and Crowfoot dated January 14, 2022 Messrs. Blumenfeld and Crowfoot’s letter of October 21, 2021
CC: General Manager Dennis Herrera
1 Demand workshop held on March 26, 2021. Mr. Moran’s comments can be heard on the video recording of the w
orkshop between times 2:35:15 and 2:36:20.
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
January 14, 2022
Hon. Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary for Environmental Protection [email protected]
Hon.
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary of Natural Resources
[email protected]
Re: October 20, 2021 Letter Terminating Negotiations with Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries
Dear Secretary Blumenfeld and Secretary Crowfoot:
We write to a) provide a response to your October 20, 2021 letter where you indicated your intent to unilaterally terminate voluntary agreement negotiations with all Lower San Joaquin River negotiating parties, and b) to request your help in creating a path forward to reach a successful outcome to these negotiations.
As an initial point, we disagree with the conclusory determination in your October 20, 2021 letter that the voluntary agreement terms we have proposed are inadequate. As you are aware, in its Resolution No. 2018-0059 (“Resolution”) adopting the Phase 1 amendment to the Bay- Delta Plan (“Plan Amendment”), the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) encouraged adoption of voluntary agreements as an alternative means of achieving the goals of the Plan Amendment. In the Resolution, the State Water Board declared that it would consider voluntary agreements for this purpose where such agreements could be demonstrated to “meet or exceed” the protections to fish and wildlife beneficial uses the Plan Amendment objectives were designed to provide.
In March 2019, in response to this directive from the State Water Board and following substantial negotiations, the California Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Water Resources submitted the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement to the State Water Board. As further demonstrated in the March 2019 submittal, the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement not only meets but well exceeds the benefits to fish and wildlife than that would be provided by the Plan Amendment.
To date, your agencies have never evaluated the technical merits of the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement in comparison to the Plan Hon. Jared Blumenfeld and Wade Crowfoot
Jan
uary 14, 2022
Re: October 20, 2021 Letter Terminating Negotiations with Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries
Amendment. With this backdrop, the conclusory determination offered in your October 20, 2021 letter fails to explain why the March 2019 Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement could not serve as an alternative means of achieving the desired outcomes of the Plan Amendment and, thus, satisfy this directive of the State Water Board’s Resolution.
Instead of comparing the benefits of the March 2019 Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement to those offered by the Plan Amendment, as the State Water Board has directed, you have recently indicated that one of your primary goals in voluntary agreement negotiations is to rebalance water rights in the State of California. Specifically, you have stated your intent is to use these negotiations to shift primary responsibility for water quality in the Bay Delta from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources as operators of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (“Projects”), respectively, to more senior water rights holders, such as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and its partners the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (“Districts”). This would obligate the SFPUC and the Districts – without due process – to assume the environmental responsibilities that the Projects currently have to maintain the water quality balance in the Bay Delta, relieving the Projects of their environmental requirements and allowing them to divert water at current or expanded levels.
Likewise, your October 20, 2021 letter was sent in an apparent response to the recipients’ inability to agree to “refill” criteria that would have required the SFPUC and the Districts to mitigate the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources Projects’ operations. The proposed refill criteria would have prevented the SFPUC and the Districts, as senior water rights holders, from diverting water to storage until the effects of the water used by the Projects, junior rights holders, had been mitigated. The refill criteria fall well outside of the comparability demonstration that the State Water Board requested in its Resolution. There is no legal or technical basis for including a refill criteria in the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement, and its inclusion constitutes an improper use of these negotiations to serve policy goals unrelated to those set forth by the Plan Amendment and Resolution. In addition to the refill term, there are other critical terms that require resolution including, but not limited to, dry and critical year relief and habitat restoration.
Hon. Jared Blumenfeld and Wade Crowfoot
Jan
uary 14, 2022
Re: October 20, 2021 Letter Terminating Negotiations with Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries
Despite the above objections and concerns about the state’s approach here, we seek your cooperation in creating a workable path forward. As the providers of urban and agricultural water supplies to millions of California businesses and residents and to hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland, the SFPUC will not walk away from the negotiating table. The onerous flow requirements of the Plan Amendment would be devastating to the millions of businesses and residents in the Bay Area and Central Valley who rely on these water supplies.
We are determined to find a solution that meets the health, safety and economic needs of our customers while also providing adequate protections for the environment. We look forward to your continued cooperation in these upcoming negotiation discussions, and to working together to reach settlement on the key terms of a Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement.
Very truly yours,
Denn
is J. Herrera
General Manager
Gavin Newsom
Governor
2ctober 20, 2021
Michael Carlin, Acting General Manager and Chief Operating Officer San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue (at Polk St.)
San Francisco, CA 94102
Steve Knell, General Manager
Oakdale Irrigation District
1205 East F Street
Oakdale, CA 95361
Michelle Reimers, General Manager
Turlock Irrigation District
333 East Canal Drive
P.O. Box 949
Turlock, CA 95381
Peter Reitkerk, General Manager
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
P.O. Box 747
Ripon, CA 95366
Bill Schwandt, General Manager
Modesto Irrigation District
1231 11th Street
Modesto, CA 95352
John Sweigard, General Manager
Merced Irrigation District
744 W. 20th Street
Merced, CA 95340
Dear water district leaders,
Thank you for your engagement over the last several years to develop a Voluntary Agreement (VA) to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its major rivers, through a commitment to create habitat and increase flows while providing regulatory certainty to water users. Your collaboration and hard work have been truly appreciated.
We all recognize that a successful VA among water users and state and federal agencies must withstand legal and scientific scrutiny. This VA will be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) as a proposed pathway to implement its update to the San Water District Leaders
October 20, 2021
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Control Plan (Bay-Delta Plan). In that process, the VA will be subject to third-party scientific peer review and environmental analysis pursuant to the Water Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. The public will also have the opportunity to participate through the State Water Board’s public proceedings.
Given the need for a strong, durable VA, our state team has worked together with waters users to secure certain thresholds of increased water flows and habitat improvements necessary to make a VA scientifically defensible. Meeting these thresholds is essential to enable a VA that can be approved by the State Water Board as a pathway to implement the Bay-Delta Plan.
These thresholds of needed flow and habitat have been clearly communicated over the last two years by our state team, and we have worked together with you to explore how these thresholds can be met. In fact, we paused discussions among all parties during this summer and early fall to allow for more time for the proposals by the San Joaquin River tributaries to develop. However, at this point it is clear that despite considerable efforts, proposed voluntary actions by water agencies on the San Joaquin River tributaries have fallen short of needed flow and habitat improvements, and viable proposals are not being offered at this time.
Accordingly, at this point, we will focus our efforts on advancing a VA with the Sacramento River basin water users and water agencies who contract with the State and Federal water projects. On a dual track, we will ask the State Water Board to resume all activities necessary to implement the flow objectives established by the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan for the Lower San Joaquin River and its three major tributaries, the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers.
We continue to believe that collaboration, adaptive management, and voluntary agreements are the best way to ensure water resilience for California’s communities, economy, and environment.
Accordingly, we maintain hope that water agencies that utilize the San Joaquin River and its tributaries can become part of the VA. Specifically, we are including a provision in the VA to enable additional water agencies to join the agreement at a later date if they propose necessary levels of additional water flows and habitat. We stand ready and eager to collaborate with you on this important effort.
Sincerely,
_______________________________ ________________________________ Jared Blumenfeld Wade Crowfoot
Secretary Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency California Natural Resources Agency ______________________________________________________________________________________ Wade Crowfoot
Secretary
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance • Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods • Friends of the River • Golden West Women Flyfishers Institute for Fisheries Resources • Northern California Council, Fly Fishers International • Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations San Francisco League of Conservation Voters • Save California Salmon • Sierra Club California • Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Tuolumne River Trust • Wholly H2O
February 4, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via email
Re: The Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment Offers Promising Results.
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
While the SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) is an impressive document that includes a lot of useful information, it falls short on providing clear answers to questions you may have regarding the practicality of the Design Drought. However, information can be extrapolated from the Study that clearly demonstrates the SFPUC could manage the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan instream flow requirements without risking running out of water.
Following are some of our findings.
Even with Inflated Water Demand Figures, the SFPUC’s Water Supply Is Not in Jeopardy
The LTVA states, “In summary, water delivery reliability is more sensitive to demand change than to change in temperature and precipitation.”
1 Yet the LTVA used a baseline demand of 227
mgd, which is 16% higher than the actual current demand of 195 mgd. Given the importance of demand in water supply planning, we find it surprising and disappointing the LTVA didn’t include any scenarios using current demand.
In fact, the six figures used to represent water demand in the LTVA are between 16% and 71% higher than current demand. Our requests to include current demand went unanswered.
1 SFPUC Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment, p. 172.
2 At your January 7, 2022 budget workshop, there once again was discussion about the large disparity in demand projections between the SFPUC’s financial and water supply divisions. We appreciated Commissioner Ajami’s request that staff produce a graph showing both sets of projections together, and compared to actual demand.
You have yet to receive this graph, but we’ve done our own analysis based on Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projections and the five most recent 10-Year Financial Plan projections (we’re still waiting to receive the earlier plans). We found that the financial projections were extremely close to the actuals, whereas projections for 2020 demand in the 2000 through 2015 UWMPs ranged from 19% to 47% greater than actual demand.
The most recent 10-Year Financial Plan forecasts water sales will remain flat over the coming decade. But even with the inflated demand figures used in the LTVA, the chance of the SFPUC running out of water as a result of the Bay Delta Plan instream flow requirements is very small, as explained below.
Annual Mean Precipitation is Unlikely to Change
The LTVA offers a much better understanding of how climate change will likely affect precipitation. It found that annual mean precipitation is unlikely to change, and is slightly more likely to increase than decrease. The Study states:
According to climate projections and expert elicitations, there is a central tendency of warming of +2°C and +4°C by 2040 and 2070 (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP]
3 8.5), respectively, with no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation over the planning horizon.2
And:
The Upcountry region and East Bay and Peninsula regions are in the positive precipitation domain for the winter season in 2070, and thus are somewhat more likely to see positive than negative precipitation in the near future.
3 The Bay Delta Plan Will Not Cause the SFPUC to Run Out of Water
Despite our repeated requests, the LTVA does not include scenarios incorporating the Bay Delta Plan instream flow requirements (IFR) to allow for an easy comparison with the current flow regime. However, it does provide information that can be used to deduce the Bay Delta Plan’s potential impact on water supply. For example, the Study states:
The RWS [Regional Water System] is particularly vulnerable to the state-adopted new IFR below Don Pedro Dam (State WQCP), which represents a significant reduction in water available. At a demand of 227 mgd, the effect of state-amended WQCP under current conditions is equivalent to a reduction in mean annual precipitation of about 15% in terms of the water delivery reliability (reliability around 85%, rationing in 1 out of 6.5 years on average).
4 The following graph demonstrates that even with a 20% reduction in precipitation, and at 227 mgd demand, the SFPUC remains in the safe zone (green) when it comes to water supply reliability. A 20% decrease in precipitation is greater than the 15% decrease that would be comparable to the Bay Delta Plan IFR. Using actual current demand (195 mgd), the impact of the IFR would move closer to the vertical line above 0% decrease in precipitation.
2 Ibid, p. xxii.
3 Ibid, p. 26.
4 Ibid, p. xxii.
4 Source: LTVA webinar, 1/27/22
The graph below5 illustrates the potential impact of precipitation change on water supply, using the 227 mgd baseline and a 20% decrease in precipitation. Substituting the Bay Delta Plan IFR (the equivalent of 15% precipitation loss), it demonstrates that the SFPUC is unlikely to run out of water. Using actual current demand would further improve the calculus.
The Design Drought is Extremely Unlikely to Occur
The following table
6 predicts how likely the severity of past droughts is to reoccur under two scenarios – demand of 240 mgd (Threshold: 269 TAF) and demand of 326 mgd (Threshold: 365 TAF). In other words, at 240 mgd demand, a two-year drought with an impact on water supply
5 Ibid, p. 176.
6 Ibid, p. 81.
5 as severe as the 1976/77 drought would be expected to occur once in 98 years. A drought as severe as 1987-92 would be expected to occur once in 772 years.
Despite our repeated requests, the SFPUC has failed to produce similar return periods for the Design Drought and the Design Drought minus one year. When flipping a coin, the odds of getting heads is 50%. The odds of getting heads twice in a row is 50% times 50%, or 25%. If this same methodology applies to droughts, the chances of the Design Drought occurring are miniscule.
Earlier Runoff Will Benefit the SFPUC’s Water Entitlements in Dry Years
The Study found that runoff is expected to come earlier in the season as a result of a diminished snowpack and more precipitation arriving as rain instead of snow. It states:
Therefore, an increase in temperature would result in less snowpack accumulation during winter season, as more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow, leading to 1) a reduced spring runoff volume and magnitude and 2) an increase in winter flows. The spring runoff is also expected to occur earlier in the season (Figure 5-2). 7 And:
A +2°C warming leads to a spring runoff arrival 10 days prior to the baseline temperature conditions. Median of projections estimate warming around +2°C by 2040 with most projections and elicitations between +1°C and +4°C. At +4°C, the shift in timing would be closer to 20 days prior to baseline conditions. By 2070 RCP8.5, warming could reach around +4°C with most projections and elicitations between +3°C and +6°C. 8 Our analysis of historic data suggests that if the Design Drought were to repeat, but runoff came three weeks earlier, the SFPUC would pick up an additional 237 thousand acre-feet (211 mgd) of water – enough to add more than a year’s-worth of water to SFPUC storage. This is because the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts are entitled to the first 2,400 cubic feet
7 Ibid, p. 147
8 Ibid, p. 147
6 per second (cfs) of runoff for most of the year. But between mid-April and mid-June (time of peak runoff), the Irrigation Districts are entitled to the first 4,000 cfs of runoff. Runoff between 2,400 and 4,000 cfs that shifts from mid-April-to-mid-June into the earlier season is water the SFPUC picks up. Runoff between 2,400 and 4,000 cfs that shifts from post-mid-June into the mid-April-to-mid-June period is water the Irrigation Districts pick up.
According to our calculations, the shift in water entitlements for the eight years that constitute the Design Drought would produce the following additions to SFPUC water supply (figures in thousand acre-feet).
Conclusion
If the SFPUC were to use reasonable demand projections, remove one year from the Design Drought, and consider the increase in “Water Available to the City” as a result of earlier runoff, it would significantly change the risk analysis. The following table is based on 200 mgd demand, includes the Bay Delta Plan instream flow requirements, and incorporates the additional water available to the SFPUC as a result of earlier runoff.
7 Source: Tuolumne River Trust
The results shown in the above table are extremely encouraging. Within the planning exercise that the Design Drought actually is, the SFPUC could manage a 7.5-year Design Drought and still retain positive storage, without developing any new alternative water supplies. The SFPUC could maintain positive storage over an eight-year Design Drought by developing 4,000 acre feet (3.8 mgd) of alternative annual water supplies.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our analysis of the LTVA. We look forward to working with you to implement decisions that will benefit the Tuolumne River ecosystem while also protecting the SFPUC’s water supply. We encourage you to schedule a discussion on the Design Drought as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
Chris Shutes
FERC Projects Director
CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance
8 Ashley Overhouse
Resilient Rivers Director
Friends of the River
Cindy Charles
Conservation Chairperson
Golden West Women Flyfishers
Mark Rockwell
President
Northern California Council, Fly Fishers
International
Mike Conroy
Executive Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s
Associations
Institute for Fisheries Resources
Regina Chichizola
Co-Director
Save California Salmon
Eileen Boken
Eileen Boken
State and Federal Legislative Liaison
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Molly Culton
Conservation Organizer
Sierra Club California
Chance Cutrano
Chapter Chair
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
Kristina Pappas
President
San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Dave Warner
Member
SF Mayor’s Water Supply Stakeholder
Group
Bill Martin
Member
SF Mayor’s Water Supply Stakeholder
Group
Paul Collacchi
Member
SF Mayor’s Water Supply Stakeholder
Group
9 Elizabeth Dougherty
Elizabeth Dougherty
Executive Director
Wholly H20
Iris Stewart-Frey
Professor
Santa Clara University
From: Paul Sheng
To: Commission
Subject: Crystal Springs Cross Country access
Date: Saturday, February 5, 2022 6:14:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commission,
I am a member of the Waterdog Open Space Stewards, a local community group that advocates for equitable, inclusive, and sustainable access to outdoor resources in Belmont. You are probably already aware of this, but both the Belmont City Council and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have both passed resolutions in favor of the cross country course permit being renewed. We have written a couple of articles on the cross-country course on our website, which may be of interest to you.
The first article has some background information on the handful of homeowners who seek to limit access to the course, and how they do not represent the wishes of their neighborhood or community.
BHCIA Threatens Another
Treasured Local Resource — Waterdog Open Space Stewards The second article is about the recent resolutions passed by Belmont City Council and the SMC Board of Supervisors, and includes links to the SMC resolution, as well as a link to an article in our local high school newspaper.
Public
Officials Show Strong Support for Crystal Springs Cross Country Course Access — Waterdog Open Space Stewards (Our article doesn't have the link for the Belmont resolution, so it's here: https://legistarweb- production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1148747/Crystal_Springs_Cross_Country_Course_Resolution_- _Resolution.pdf )
Thank you,
BHCIA Threatens Another Treasured Local
Resource — Waterdog Open Space S...
The Belmont Heights Civic Improvement Association (BHCIA)—a group whose leadership has been threatening recreati...
Public Officials Show Strong Support for Crystal
Springs Cross Country C...
The tide is turning against the handful of people who seek to cut off high school athletes’ access to the Crysta...
Paul Sheng
From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: Editorial from SF Business Times
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2022 1:19:27 PM
Attachments: McNellis - Is S.F."s Approach to the Drought all wet.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
I noticed in your most recent Correspondence Log that there was a link to an editorial in the SF Business Times titled “SF’s drought response is all wet.” Unfortunately, you need a subscription to access the article, so I’m guessing most of you didn’t get a chance to read it.
It’s an interesting perspective from a developer, so I’m attaching it here.
Thank you.
-Peter
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
[email protected]
(415) 882-7252
January 14, 2022
By John McNellis
Is our Approach to the Drought all wet?
Drought: (noun) 1. A prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water
Despite our spectacular rainy season thus far, California fits within the first half of the definition of a drought: We are in a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall.
But what about our shortage of water? Is it that critical? Must water must be rationed? Should we be fined for showering alone? Not in San Francisco.
Statewide, California’s water reserves are low: Our reservoirs are collectively at 43 percent of their total capacity. But beyond scaring water consumers into rationing,
statewide numbers aren’t all that useful because California doesn’t have a single unified water system. Rather we have six separate but interconnected major water systems and literally scores of smaller ones. In fact, we have over 1500 reservoirs in the state. These systems do cooperate with one another— a small ocean is annually shipped from northern to southern California— but no governmental authority exists to compel, say, Marin County to pipe its excess water (its reservoirs are 93 percent full today) to the Isabella reservoir in Kern County which stands at only 10 percent.
Our six major water systems are unique, each at least somewhat dependent on local rainfall and each with its own issues. But they do have certain traits in common, principally the hoarding of water. According to the Pacific Institute, a non-profit devoted to solving the world’s water problems, our largest suppliers of urban water persistently over-estimate their users’ future water demands. Why? Engineers would tell you that the water mavens are using bad data: old numbers that reflect wasteful consumption patterns from decades past and population growth projections that are too robust. Cynics would simply say that’s what bureaucrats do: They cling tenaciously to whatever it is they should be distributing, be it tax refunds, insurance proceeds or water.
That brings us to San Francisco’s water system— the Tuolumne River/Hetch Hetchy System of ten reservoirs. Peter Drekmeier, former Palo Alto mayor and policy director of the Tuolumne River Trust, explains that when this system is at peak capacity, San Francisco has six years’ worth of water without needing to ration a single drop. This bears repeating: Once our dams are topped off, we have a six year water supply. Climatologists know from tree ring measurements that, in the past 1100 years, California has never gone six years without rain. And today, despite two consecutive drought years, the Hetch Hetchy System is already back to 76.1 percent of its total capacity, meaning San Francisco has roughly a 4 ½ year supply of water with no need of rationing.
Yet the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the agency that regulates our water still wants to impose rationing and is resisting state efforts to increase the Tuolumne’s unimpaired flow for the benefit of riparian flora and fauna, notably our wild salmon. The SFPUC justifies its parsimony in two ways: first, it inflates future water demand projections despite the fact that, thanks to widely
adopted conservation efforts, San Francisco’s customers are using thirty percent less water than they did thirty-five years ago; second, according to Drekmeier, the agency bases its rationing requirements on a theoretical drought scenario that hasn’t occurred in measurable history, an 8.5 year mega-drought comprised of the worst drought we’ve ever had (the 6 years from 1987 through 1992) plus the two driest years on record (1976-77). Figures don’t lie, but assumptions do.
But what’s wrong with keeping every bucketful behind a dam? Isn’t stored water money in the bank? Yes and no. To oversimplify this: Our reservoirs can’t be near capacity during the rainy season; until July 1 st of each year, they need sufficient remaining capacity to accept new rains and snowmelt without fear of flooding. And since we have a wildly outsized rainy season every four or five years, this means that the thrifty water agencies must wrench open the flood gates and do a massive water dump in that fourth or fifth year. Drekmeier insists that we would all be far better off— especially the Tuolumne’s riparian dependents— if the SFPUC used realistic rainfall and usage numbers and released more water on a consistent basis.
An analogy to business is imperfect, but it might illustrate the point. If you’re too cautious in deal-making— if you lard every pro-forma with nightmare contingencies— your new projects will never pencil out and you’re out of business.
If we’re too cautious with water, if we hold it back against an eternity of dry days, we’re also out of business. We hand those who would stop development a rallying cry— “How can you propose another subdivision when there isn’t enough water for our existing residents?” And, worse, we seriously threaten the flora and fauna downstream from our reservoirs.
Come to think of it, water is a bit like money: Rather than hoard it, far better to spread water around and do some good with it.
This essay first appeared in the San Francisco Business Times. All of John's essays may be viewed at McNellis.com
Copyright © 2022 McNellis Partners, All rights reserved.
From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: San Diego Water Rates
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:46:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Commissioners,
Given the presentation you received at last year’s water supply workshop from folks in San Diego, I thought this article might be of interest. San Diego has a challenge similar to the SFPUC’s — rising water rates have led to greater efficiency and conservation, leading to increased water rates to cover fixed costs.
Why the cost of water in San Diego has blown past L.A., according to a new report https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/story/2022-02-12/water-cost-san-diego -Peter
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
[email protected]
(415) 882-7252
From: aeboken
To: aeboken
Subject: This New Device Can Deliver Clean Drinking Water for Just $4 Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:16:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
https://news.yahoo.com/device-deliver-clean-drinking-water-203150693.html Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Earned Media Clips
January 28, 2022 – February 4, 2022
Date Outlet Story
2/1/22 CalCCA CleanPowerSF Signs New Storage Contract
at Solar Site to Support Grid Reliability for its
385,000 Customers and the State of
California
2/1/22 Marina Times Despite years of ethical missteps and ties to corruption, the city keeps giving him millions
2/3/22 SF Examiner S.F. leaders want to cut ties with PG&E— again
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Earned Media Clips
February 4, 2022 – February 14, 2022
Date Outlet Story
2/3/2022 Nob Hill Gazette Spirits of The Bay: The Pulgas Water Temple • The Nob Hill Gazette
2/8/22 NPR Infrastructure funds will help prepare cities for rain. But how much rain is coming? NPR
2/9/22 San Francisco
Chronicle
S.F. City Hall corruption scandal: Union
alleges retaliation for whistle-blowing in
lawsuit (sfchronicle.com) (article also below)
2/9/22 ABC 7 News Labor union alleges retaliation for
whistleblowing in San Francisco public
corruption scandal - ABC7 San Francisco
(abc7news.com)
2/14/22 NPR Study finds Western megadrought is the
worst in 1,200 years