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
July 7, 2022 through July 31, 2022
Date Received From Subject
July 7, 2022 Jeff Miller Alameda Creek Alliance Comments on July 12 Agenda Item 12, Determination
for Limited Public Fishing Access at
Calaveras
Sarah Kupferberg Determination for Limited Public Fishing Access at Calaveras Reservoir (item 12,
July 12, 2022 Agenda)
July 11, 2022 Peter Drekmeier &
Dave Warner
Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau
Water Demand Projections (Item 6g
July 12, 2022 Agenda)
July 13, 2022 Taylor Hogan Water Quality Report - GGP Irrigation Water Quality
July 31, 2022 Dick Allen What is the position of the SFPUC? Going forward, what is Nature's role in
this proposal?
From: Alameda Creek
To: Commission; Ramirez, Tim
Subject: ACA Comments on July 12 Agenda Item 12, Determination for Limited Public Fishing Access at Calaveras Reservoir
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 1:28:31 PM
Attachments: ACA Letter Calaveras Fishing Regs - Item 12.pdf ACA 2021 petition to CFGC for regulatory change.pdf
April 2021 agency letter to CFGC on Alameda Creek fishing regulations.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.
Attached are the comments of the Alameda Creek Alliance regarding the SFPUC’s determination whether there should be limited public fishing access at Calaveras Reservoir.
These are formal comments on the July 12 meeting, agenda item 12. --
Jeff Miller
Director
Alameda Creek Alliance
(510) 499-9185
www.alamedacreek.org
Alameda Creek Alliance
P.O. Box 2626 • Niles, CA • 94536
Phone: (510) 499-9185
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.alamedacreek.org
July 7, 2022
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]
Re: July 12 Agenda Item 12, Determination for Limited Public Fishing Access at Calaveras Reservoir
Dear Commissioners:
These are the comments of the Alameda Creek Alliance regarding the SFPUC’s determination whether there should be limited public fishing access at Calaveras Reservoir.
The Alameda Creek Alliance, local and state flyfishing groups, and multiple water and land management agencies in the Alameda Creek watershed, including the SFPUC, have been working cooperatively for 23 years as the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup, to restore steelhead trout in the Alameda Creek watershed. We are aware of the Alameda County Superior Court order for the SFPUC to make a determination whether allowing public fishing at Calaveras Reservoir will affect drinking water quality, and have read the SFPUC staff report for agenda item 12.
We ask that you consider the potential impacts of allowing fishing in Calaveras Reservoir on the most genetically valuable populations of steelhead/rainbow trout in the Alameda Creek watershed. Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs are refuges for trout populations which are the descendants of the original migratory steelhead run in Alameda Creek. These reservoir trout represent the best native gene pool for restoring a migratory steelhead run below the dams.
There has been extensive evaluation of the genetic legacy and conservation importance of these fish, which have regional restoration significance for the entire Bay Area.
The stakeholders in the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup were dismayed when they learned that the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) had unilaterally approved new freshwater sport fishing regulations for 2021-2022 that opened up catch-and-release fishing of landlocked steelhead trout populations in San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs. The CFGC did not consult with the SFPUC or any other stakeholders in the Alameda Creek watershed before changing these regulations.
Thus in April 2021, the Alameda Creek Alliance submitted a formal petition to the CFGC to revise the regulations to make them consistent with the rest of the Alameda Creek watershed, which is closed to fishing of native trout and steelhead. Please see the attached petition from ACA to the CFGC. We are still awaiting promised discussions with the CGFG and watershed stakeholders regarding the state fishing regulations, but feel confident that the state’s opening of Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs to trout fishing will be rescinded.
All of the major management agencies in the watershed – the SPFUC, Alameda County Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, and East Bay Regional Park District - supported the petitioned action to close the reservoirs to fishing. Please see the attached April 2021 letter from your
agencies to the CFGC. In addition, numerous Bay Area and California flyfishing organizations supported the petition and advocated for keeping the reservoirs closed to fishing, including Northern California Council Fly Fishers International, Diablo Valley Fly Fishing Club, and John Muir Chapter of Trout Unlimited. The very user groups this fishing access is supposed to benefit do not support opening these reservoirs to fishing.
We urge the SFPUC not to open either of the reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed to public fishing at this time. The CFGC is likely to eventually amend the state fishing regulations, to close Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs to trout fishing to protect the landlocked trout populations.
We understand the SFPUC is between a rock and a hard place due to the lawsuit and court order, and that the state sets fishing regulations, as far a species that can be fished for, season, gear, and bag limits. But the SFPUC absolutely has the authority to manage natural resources in these reservoirs and safeguard public health. And the SFPUC has committed to do so under its adopted Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy, which states: "We will proactively manage the watersheds under its responsibility in a manner that maintains the integrity of the natural resources, restores habitats for native species, and enhances ecosystem function" and "It is our policy to operate the water system in a manner that protects and restores native fish and wildlife downstream of our dams and water diversions, within reservoirs, and on our watershed lands." [emphasis added]
If there is going to be fishing at Calaveras Reservoir, we ask that it be extremely limited, in terms of access, supervision, species that can be fished, and gear. We understand your staff is recommending shoreline fishing only, with a reservation required, and limited location and hours of access.
There should be no fishing allowed for the landlocked trout in the reservoirs, even catch and release. Catch and release can cause mortality, injuries, and stress to fish, and the reservoir populations of these rare trout are very small (per SFPUC fisheries monitoring reports). Fishing should be allowed for non-native fish species only, such as bass, in the reservoir. This would actually help the native trout population by removing predatory invasive species.
In order to properly manage access and activities, fishing should be limited to a few days a month, and weekdays only, at times when SFPUC staff are on site. Set fishing days should require the presence of a SFPUC watershed keeper, warden or other SFPUC staff at the reservoir to prevent poaching and enforce fishing limits. Anglers should be required to check in with the SFPUC before fishing, and also register any fish caught in the reservoir at the SFPUC fisheries office afterwards. The SFPUC should monitor fishing use, gear, and take of fish species.
No lead fishing tackle (weights, sinkers, jigs, etc.) should be allowed for use in Calaveras Reservoir. Lead is a highly toxic substance with lethal properties and numerous pathological effects on living organisms. Lost and discarded lead fishing tackle can accumulate in aquatic habitats, where animals encounter and ingest small lead items. Discarded lead fishing tackle routinely causes poisoning deaths of waterfowl, which could be a pathway for toxic lead exposure to the bald eagles that live near Calaveras Reservoir and catch fish and waterfowl in the lake. Lead also has no place in a human drinking water source. There is a wide variety of non-lead, nontoxic fishing tackle available for anglers to use.
If the SFPUC does decide to go through the process of opening Calaveras Reservoir to fishing, it will face a lot of hurdles. It would require amending the watershed plan and the drinking water permit. There would need to be an evaluation of the impacts under CEQA, and likely formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and maybe the National Marine Fisheries Service) for potential impacts on listed species. Any fishing program would have to comply with state fishing regulations (which are likely to be revised) and the federal Endangered Species Act. The SFPUC will need to evaluate whether endangered species habitat would be impacted by construction of parking and restrooms and the upgrade of the access road, as well as impacts anglers would have on shoreline and aquatic habitats, nesting bald eagles, and other wildlife.
Again, the Alameda Creek Alliance is absolutely opposed to any fishing (including catch and release) of landlocked trout in the SFPUC reservoirs. We could potentially support a limited fishing program that targets non-native fish species, but if the SFPUC tried to implement a fishing plan that had adverse impacts to the landlocked reservoir trout, we would likely litigate and challenge such a plan. The Alameda Creek Alliance would also consider petitioning the National Marine Fisheries Service to revise the Endangered Species Act listing of Central California Coast Steelhead Trout ESU to include federal ESA protections for the reservoir trout.
It's clearly time to start considering whether the SFPUC's upper Alameda Creek watershed should be designated as a wildlife refuge, similar to Crystal Springs on the Peninsula. The upper Alameda Creek watershed supports unique and irreplaceable natural ecosystems and multiple endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, such as steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey, foothill-yellow legged frog, California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander, bald eagle, and tule elk, and the pressure for public access and utilization is only going to increase.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Jeff Miller
Director
Alameda Creek Alliance
agencies to the CFGC. In addition, numerous Bay Area and California flyfishing organizations supported the petition and advocated for keeping the reservoirs closed to fishing, including Northern California Council Fly Fishers International, Diablo Valley Fly Fishing Club, and John Muir Chapter of Trout Unlimited. The very user groups this fishing access is supposed to benefit do not support opening these reservoirs to fishing.
We urge the SFPUC not to open either of the reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed to public fishing at this time. The CFGC is likely to eventually amend the state fishing regulations, to close Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs to trout fishing to protect the landlocked trout populations.
We understand the SFPUC is between a rock and a hard place due to the lawsuit and court order, and that the state sets fishing regulations, as far a species that can be fished for, season, gear, and bag limits. But the SFPUC absolutely has the authority to manage natural resources in these reservoirs and safeguard public health. And the SFPUC has committed to do so under its adopted Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy, which states: "We will proactively manage the watersheds under its responsibility in a manner that maintains the integrity of the natural resources, restores habitats for native species, and enhances ecosystem function" and "It is our policy to operate the water system in a manner that protects and restores native fish and wildlife downstream of our dams and water diversions, within reservoirs, and on our watershed lands." [emphasis added]
If there is going to be fishing at Calaveras Reservoir, we ask that it be extremely limited, in terms of access, supervision, species that can be fished, and gear. We understand your staff is recommending shoreline fishing only, with a reservation required, and limited location and hours of access.
There should be no fishing allowed for the landlocked trout in the reservoirs, even catch and release. Catch and release can cause mortality, injuries, and stress to fish, and the reservoir populations of these rare trout are very small (per SFPUC fisheries monitoring reports). Fishing should be allowed for non-native fish species only, such as bass, in the reservoir. This would actually help the native trout population by removing predatory invasive species.
In order to properly manage access and activities, fishing should be limited to a few days a month, and weekdays only, at times when SFPUC staff are on site. Set fishing days should require the presence of a SFPUC watershed keeper, warden or other SFPUC staff at the reservoir to prevent poaching and enforce fishing limits. Anglers should be required to check in with the SFPUC before fishing, and also register any fish caught in the reservoir at the SFPUC fisheries office afterwards. The SFPUC should monitor fishing use, gear, and take of fish species.
No lead fishing tackle (weights, sinkers, jigs, etc.) should be allowed for use in Calaveras Reservoir. Lead is a highly toxic substance with lethal properties and numerous pathological effects on living organisms. Lost and discarded lead fishing tackle can accumulate in aquatic habitats, where animals encounter and ingest small lead items. Discarded lead fishing tackle routinely causes poisoning deaths of waterfowl, which could be a pathway for toxic lead exposure to the bald eagles that live near Calaveras Reservoir and catch fish and waterfowl in the lake. Lead also has no place in a human drinking water source. There is a wide variety of non-lead, nontoxic fishing tackle available for anglers to use.
If the SFPUC does decide to go through the process of opening Calaveras Reservoir to fishing, it will face a lot of hurdles. It would require amending the watershed plan and the drinking water permit. There would need to be an evaluation of the impacts under CEQA, and likely formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and maybe the National Marine Fisheries Service) for potential impacts on listed species. Any fishing program would have to comply with state fishing regulations (which are likely to be revised) and the federal Endangered Species Act. The SFPUC will need to evaluate whether endangered species habitat would be impacted by construction of parking and restrooms and the upgrade of the access road, as well as impacts anglers would have on shoreline and aquatic habitats, nesting bald eagles, and other wildlife.
Again, the Alameda Creek Alliance is absolutely opposed to any fishing (including catch and release) of landlocked trout in the SFPUC reservoirs. We could potentially support a limited fishing program that targets non-native fish species, but if the SFPUC tried to implement a fishing plan that had adverse impacts to the landlocked reservoir trout, we would likely litigate and challenge such a plan. The Alameda Creek Alliance would also consider petitioning the National Marine Fisheries Service to revise the Endangered Species Act listing of Central California Coast Steelhead Trout ESU to include federal ESA protections for the reservoir trout.
It's clearly time to start considering whether the SFPUC's upper Alameda Creek watershed should be designated as a wildlife refuge, similar to Crystal Springs on the Peninsula. The upper Alameda Creek watershed supports unique and irreplaceable natural ecosystems and multiple endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, such as steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey, foothill-yellow legged frog, California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander, bald eagle, and tule elk, and the pressure for public access and utilization is only going to increase.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Jeff Miller
Director
Alameda Creek Alliance
April 23, 2021
Melissa Miller-Henson, Executive Director
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Re: Request to Amend Fishing Regulations for Alameda Creek
We are writing in support of the request made by the Alameda Creek Alliance (please see attached letter dated April 15, 2021) to amend the existing fishing regulations for Alameda Creek to be closed to all fishing all year. As members of the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup (Workgroup), we were disappointed to learn that the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) approved new freshwater sport fishing regulations for 2021- 2022 that specifically identify San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs as open for catch-and- release fishing of landlocked steelhead trout populations. This change in regulations was made with no notification or engagement of the multiple stakeholders who have been working for 22 years to restore steelhead trout in the Alameda Creek watershed, including our agencies. We believe this change in regulations was approved without evaluating the potential impacts on the most genetically valuable populations of rainbow trout in the Alameda Creek watershed and steelhead populations with regional restoration significance for the entire Bay Area.
Starting in 2009 the Commission implemented a year-round closure on all fishing in Alameda Creek and its tributaries downstream of the major reservoirs to protect federally-listed steelhead trout and remnant populations of native rainbow trout. These regulations were developed with the full support and engagement of the Workgroup. Unfortunately, the new regulations under CCR T-14 section 7.50(b)(2)(B) and (C) introduce catch-and-release fishing with artificial lures with barbless hooks of adfluvial trout in San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs year-round. The regulations also continue catch-and-release fishing of trout in Alameda Creek tributaries upstream of San Antonio and Calaveras reservoirs, from late May through September. We request both of these sections be revised so that they are consistent with CCR T-14 7.50(b)(A) to read “closed to all fishing all year.” The closure to fishing below the major dams in the Alameda Creek watershed starting in 2009 continues in these new regulations, and we support this closure.
The new regulations in the Alameda Creek watershed were a surprise to the members of the Workgroup, the multi-agency stakeholder forum that has been working since 1999 to restore steelhead trout in Alameda Creek. The Workgroup is composed of 15 federal, state, and local agencies, as well as numerous conservation and fishing groups. In addition to our four agencies, the Workgroup includes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Coastal Conservancy, Alameda County Flood Control District, Alameda County Resource Conservation District, Alameda Creek
Alliance, Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, and numerous Bay Area flyfishing groups. It’s particularly surprising that NMFS and CDFW staff participating in the Workgroup were not contacted during development of these new regulations, which have potential implications for the success of Alameda Creek steelhead restoration efforts.
The Commission developed the new regulations without any notification, coordination or input from the SFPUC, which manages both San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs and approximately 38,000 acres of watershed lands upstream and downstream of these reservoirs.
The SFPUC adopted its Alameda Watershed Management Plan over 20 years ago, which does not currently allow public access or fishing in these reservoirs due to safety, poaching, and liability concerns, potential drinking water quality impacts, and to protect sensitive habitat and genetically unique fisheries resources.
The landlocked trout populations in and above San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs are thought to be the descendants of the original migratory steelhead run in Alameda Creek and represent the best native gene pool for restoring a migratory steelhead run below the dams.
There has been extensive evaluation of the genetic legacy and conservation importance of these fish (see the Alameda Creek Alliance letter referenced above for details), and this work continues under commitments made by the SFPUC in their permit conditions with NMFS for the recent completion of the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project. As far back as 2002 the Workgroup called out the unique genetic legacy and conservation significance of the adfluvial trout in and above the San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs in a steelhead restoration plan for the watershed outlining their possible role in increasing the size and genetic diversity of the future steelhead run. The Workgroup is currently evaluating whether to use these adfluvial trout from the reservoirs to help jump-start a steelhead trout run in the ocean-accessible portions of Alameda Creek and its tributaries.
While we respect the right to fish at appropriate locations in the watershed, we also believe the waters in and above San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs should be protected given the conservation and restoration significance of the adfluvial populations until NMFS, CDFW, and the Workgroup members have assessed recovery efforts. The SFPUC staff have previously estimated the landlocked trout populations to be less than 500 adult fish in each reservoir, and these numbers support a conservative approach.
Enormous efforts have been undertaken by Workgroup members and watershed stakeholders to restore anadromous steelhead and native rainbow trout populations in the Alameda Creek watershed over the last 20 years. Collectively our agencies have removed dams, built fish ladders and fish screens, and dedicated water releases to support the recovery of steelhead in the Alameda Creek watershed. Alameda Creek has also been identified by NMFS as an ‘anchor watershed’ for steelhead trout restoration in the Bay Area. These projects will make up to 20 miles of Alameda Creek and its tributaries accessible to ocean-run fish for the first time in over half a century starting next winter. We believe it is premature to introduce any type of fishing pressure to the existing trout population in Alameda Creek that might jeopardize the success of these restoration investments.
We respectfully ask that the Commission amend the existing fishing regulations to protect steelhead recovery efforts in Alameda Creek.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Robert Shaver, General Manager
Alameda County Water Agency
Valeria Pryor, General Manager
Zone 7 Water Agency
Sabrina Landreth, General Manager
East Bay Regional Park District
Cc: Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup members
From: Sarah Kupferberg
To: Commission
Subject: July 12 2022 Agenda Item 12, Determination for Limited Public Fishing Access at Calaveras Reservoir Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 3:47:24 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.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in regard to the SFPUC’s determination about whether there should be limited public fishing access at Calaveras Reservoir. I am an aquatic biologist who has conducted investigations in the upper Alameda Creek watershed (Kupferberg et al. 2011, 2012), including the disease ecology of the amphibians dwelling there (Adams et al. 2017, Kupferberg et al. 2021).
I ask that you consider the potential impacts of allowing fishing in Calaveras Reservoir on the spread of zoonotic diseases as well as the unintentional introduction of non-native invasive species.
People who fish often travel among several different aquatic environments and thus can be vectors of disease organisms and parasites infecting fish and aquatic wildlife. Via their boots, waders, and other fishing gear, people can also inadvertently introduce propagules of nuisance
invasive species. In our region of California such aquatic species include include molluscs like New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), and diatoms like Didymosphenia geminata, a.k.a. rock snot).
Two protected amphibian species could be harmed by waterborne disease as an unintended consequence of allowing fishing at Calaveras Reservoir. The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Central Coast clade of the Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) is listed as endangered under the California ESA.
A recent (Dec. 2021) proposed ruling by the USFWS
states that Central Coast clade R. boylii will also be listed as endangered under the federal ESA. Both species are vulnerable to the lethal effects of the disease caused by the amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, Bd hereafter (Adams et al. 2020, Kupferberg et al. 2021). Spores of Bd can easily be spread on gear if items are not properly disinfected by soaking in a bleach solution
.
Therefore it would be crucial that the boots, nets, and other gear of people coming to Calaveras Reservoir be decontaminated to prevent introduction of different (and potentially more virulent) strains of Bd than the strain(s) already present in the vicinity (Adams et al. 2017). That would create an added task for the SFPUC staff supervising the fishing, ensuring proper decontamination both upon arrival of visitors and prior to departure. The last piece is important since previous sampling (at the upstream end of Calaveras Reservoir, and immediately downstream at the confluence btn Calaveras Ck and Alameda Creek) detected chytrid infections in the amphibians present (Adams et al. 2017). To avoid the unintended consequence of chytrid being transported to the next place the fishing public will visit,
disinfection should happen before people pack up and leave since there is no way of ensuring that people would decontaminate once they departed. Because Alameda Creek is one of the two places where there have been Bd related die-offs of Rana boylii (Kupferberg et al. 2021), caution is warranted to prevent spread of the type of Bd found in the upper Alameda Creek watershed. Even though R. boylii, which prefers flowing water, is not likely to occur along the shoreline where people would be fishing, other species that also host Bd prefer lentic habitats and would be shedding zoospores (the free-swimming life stage of the fungus) into the water. These taxa include bullfrogs, treefrogs, and crayfish.
Other waterborne pathogens of amphibians (e.g. Ranavirus) can be passed on gear that has not been properly de-contaminated, and cross over to infect fish.
Disease transmission could
pose a threat to conservation of the native fish in the reservoir as well as the amphibians. I suggest consulting a fish disease expert to evaluate this concern.
In our Covid-19 pandemic era of heightened awareness about the spread of human pathogens, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to consider wildlife disease when making a decision about granting fishing access to Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoir.
I urge the SFPUC not
to open either of these reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed to public fishing at this time.
Fishing will need to be evaluated under CEQA and ESA for the potential impacts of disease transmission on listed species.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Kupferberg, Ph.D.
Independent Scholar and
Consulting Ecologist | cell
References Cited
Adams, A.J., Kupferberg, S.J., Wilber, M.Q., Pessier, A.P., Grefsrud, M., Bobzien, S., Vredenburg, V.T. and Briggs, C.J., 2017. Extreme drought, host density, sex, and bullfrogs influence fungal pathogen infection in a declining lotic amphibian.
Ecosphere, 8(3), p.e01740.
Adams, A.J., Pessier, A., Cranston, P. and Grasso, R.L., 2020. Chytridiomycosis-induced mortality in a threatened anuran.
PloS one, 15(11), p.e0241119.
Kupferberg, S.J., Lind, A.J., Thill, V. and Yarnell, S.M., 2011. Water velocity tolerance in tadpoles of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): swimming performance, growth, and survival.
Copeia, 2011(1),
pp.141-152.
Kupferberg, S.J., Palen, W.J., Lind, A.J., Bobzien, S., Catenazzi, A., Drennan, J.O.E. and Power, M.E., 2012. Effects of flow regimes altered by dams on survival, population declines, and range‐wide losses of California river‐
breeding frogs. Conservation Biology, 26(3), pp.513-524.
Kupferberg, S.J., Moidu, H., Adams, A.J., Catenazzi, A., Grefsrud, M., Bobzien, S., Leidy, R. and Carlson, S.M., 2021. Seasonal drought and its effects on frog population dynamics and amphibian disease in intermittent streams.
Ecohydrology, p.e2395.
OFFICES
San Francisco
Modesto
Sonora
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3727
Sonora, CA 95370
Phone
(415) 882-7252
Website
www.tuolumne.org
BOARD MEMBERS
John Kreiter, Chair
Harrison “Hap” Dunning,
Vice Chair
Cindy Charles, Treasurer
Kerstyn Crumb, Secretary
Eric Heitz,
Chair Emeritus
Jose Borroel
Eddie Corwin
Bob Hackamack
Camille King
Marty McDonnell
Homero Mejia
John Nimmons
Eric Riemer
Marek Robinson
Bart Westcott
July 11, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
SFPUC
525 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via Email
Re: Item 6g on the July 12, 2022 SFPUC agenda – Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections.
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
We are pleased that staff has released a report comparing demand projections produced by the Water Enterprise for Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) with those produced by the Finance Bureau for the SFPUC’s 10-Year Financial Plans (10YFP). There’s a lot of useful information in the report.
We found Figures 1 and 2 to be a little bit difficult to decipher because the horizontal axes are condensed and the wholesale projections are separated from the retail projections, making it challenging to see the full picture. To better highlight the differences between the two sets of projections, we produced the graph on page 2 of this letter.
While both the Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau have over-projected water demand, the Finance Bureau has been much closer to the actuals. The Water Enterprise has over-projected considerably.
While the staff report notes, “the SFPUC did not publish 10-year Financial Plan Sales Projections before 2015,” between 2012 and 2014 the Plans began assuming demand would remain flat, based on the observed trend. For example, the 2014 Plan states, “68 MGD retail & 145 MGD wholesale sales projected flat from FY2014-15 onward compared to projected FY2013-14 sales of 68.6 MGD retail and 149.6 MGD wholesale.”
The current staff report includes the following statements:
"It [UWMP Act] was not intended to establish the projected water demands that would be used for all operational and planning purposes.”
"…the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the next 25 years...These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected.”
216
195
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MGD
SFPUC Combined Retail and Wholesale Projections
Comparison*
Actual 2000 UWMP 2005 UWMP
2010 UWMP 2015 UWMP 2020 UWMP
2015 ~FP 2020 FP
*Comparison is between the UWMP projections (dashed lines) and the finance department sales projections (dotted lines) where 6 mgd of projected water loss (non-revenue) has been added to the finance department figures. 2015 finance department projections were visually estimated from the charts in General Manager Herrera's letter to commissioners dated July 5, 2022.
"By contrast, for the purpose of financial planning and for short term water system management, we estimate the demand that we are likely to experience. For budgeting and rate setting we use demand projections that are as close to actual as we can make them.”
From the above statements you can see on the chart that 2030 RWS demand is expected to fall between 195 mgd and 216 mgd with the expected result being closer to 195 mgd.
Combining these statements and the approach the SFPUC is taking in the Alternative Water Supply process of “planning for obligations but building for demands,” we request that the following graphic be updated to include a third (more likely) column based on Finance Bureau sales projections and labeled “Lower Demand Projections.” The column that is currently labeled “Demands” should be changed to “Upper Demand Projections.” With a decision on the length of the design drought expected on August 23, we encourage the creation of a similar graph based on a 7.5-year design drought.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our observations and requests.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier Dave Warner
Policy Director TRT Volunteer
From: Taylor Hogan
To: Commission
Subject: Water Quality Report - GGP Irrigation Water Quality Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:05:53 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.
Good evening,
Thank you for publishing the 2021 Annual Water Quality Report! I was just reviewing it with my partner and was excited to learn about the introduction of highly treated wastewater for irrigating Golden Gate Park. However, we were surprised to see the photographed sign: "Do not drink!"
Is this water really not drinkable? I thought that communities around the world have been drinking highly treated wastewater without issue - are our wastewater treatment capabilities more limited?
Thank you so much,
Taylor Hogan
From: Richard B. Allen
To: Peder Jones; Morten; Frank Noto; Commission; [email protected]; MelgarStaff (BOS) Cc: Peter Drekmeier; Sara Moore; Tom Allen; Richard B. Allen Subject: Fwd:
Date: Sunday, July 31, 2022 8:24:21 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.
What is the position of the SFPUC? Going forward, what is Nature's role in this proposal? Dick Allen, San Francisco.
Sacramento’s tunnel vision will destroy the Delta
Dennis Wyatt
DENNIS WYATT
Turlock Journal
Published: Jul 30, 2022, 2:11 PM
Tulare Lake. Gone.
Owens Lake. On a resuscitator but near death.
Mono Lake: Its life hangs in the balance.
They — and many more California lakes and rivers — were the victim of defying Mother Nature
and sucking massive amounts of water from one basin to another.
Bypassing a massive amount of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecological system by tunneling under it — what could possibly go wrong? It is why Wednesday’s latest reincarnation of Los Angeles’s not-to-secret plan to destroy the Delta along with their partners-in-crime on the western side of Kern County is pure tunnel vision.
For starters, let’s go back to the original sin committed after the State Water Project that brought us the California Aqueduct was authorized by the legislature and approved by the voters.
It was supposed to make existing farming at the time sustainable and to reduce the draft on groundwater that has made the Southern San Joaquin Valley the global poster child for subsidence.
Instead, land speculators were able to work with bureaucrats to use a loophole to send water to the desert lands of western Kern County.
Mega-corporations along with family-owned concerns whose “farmhouses” were mansions in Beverly Hills were able to get water to an area even lacking in groundwater to grow almonds, pistachios, and cotton.
We need to be clear on this point. Farming is essential for our survival. It is a key part of the California economy. Our exports also help feed the rest of the country and the world.
That said, all farmers are not created equal.
The tunnel will benefit only a handful of “farmers” that are more at home dickering with hedge funds than they are at trimming a hedge.
They have corporate deep pockets. They are farming land that was un-farmable before the State Water Project came along.
They were the last to stick their straws into California’s intricate water storage and conveyance system.
They are draining water away from other farmers including those on the Westside and deep in the San Joaquin Valley that the State Water Project was meant to stabilize.
Instead, the sleight of hand that converted desert land into farmland via companies with the money to outspend family farms with ease has been able to commandeer water courtesy of the state’s bureaucracy to become immensely rich.
Then we have the other primary benefactor of the tunnel project — the Metropolitan Water District that includes Los Angeles and a large swath of Southern California.
The tunnel, they claim, won’t increase their share of water, not a single drop.
Instead, it will simply stabilize flows and protect them against earthquakes toppling levees, court orders mandating fish flows, and the ravages of drought.
This should scare the holy LA out of you if you are in Northern California, the Delta, or reside in the collective basins of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers.
Who do you think will pay the price?
It won’t be
Stewart and Lynda Resnick who are the owners of the privately held $5 billion agri- conglomerate that includes Wonderful Pistachios and Wonderful Almonds and live in Beverly Hills. Nor will it be developers in Los Angeles building more homes and swimming pools in a basin that lacks the water naturally to sustain what is already is in place.
The courts — or more precisely the state — will need to get water from somewhere to protect the already fragile Delta and fish as well as keep salt water at bay.
San Francisco has been paying $30,000 a year for the right to destroy a segment of Yosemite National Park and bypass the Delta with a massive pipe that runs beneath Modesto to divert much of the flow of the Tuolumne River and prevent it from benefitting the Delta ecological system before it reaches faucets in the Bay Area.
As a result, San Francisco has avoided impacts on their water supply from court-imposed flows for fish and even most state-imposed drought cutbacks.
It’s the same sweetheart deal Los Angeles is after with the Delta tunnel.
Even so, that is just a Trojan horse,
The real prize is excessive runoff from winter storms and such that flows into the Pacific Ocean.
The backers in LA tipped their hands this time emphasizing that the tunnel would only divert water when there is extraordinary runoff from massive winter storms.
Then call it what it is.
The tunnel is the Metropolitan Water District’s plan to beat everyone to capturing excess water beyond what the current storage system can handle.
The state and local jurisdictions are now doing much wiser planning such as off-stream reservoirs and looking to do massive groundwater recharge projects.
But if Los Angeles and western Kern County can squirrel away that excess flow first via the tunnel they can recharge the massive water bank created at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley before anyone else captures one excess drop of water.
They could easily capture enough excess precipitation that current reservoirs can’t capture that would be the equivalent of a Shasta Lake.
Not a bad trick for a tunnel that won’t bring “even one additional drop of water” to Southern California from north state water basins.
Of course, backers now say water diversion will only take place in times of excess precipitation and higher than average river flows.
But after the sleight of hand, Los Angeles did destroy Owens Valley, which is naive enough to believe that once a tunnel is in place it won’t be used at some point during normal water years to rob the Delta of life-giving water.
And let’s not forget the damages the tunnel will do to the Delta and San Joaquin County where most of the Delta land mass and waterways lie.
Saltwater intrusion
will slowly kill off the ecological system as it spreads further west on a more routine basis.
At the same time, less seepage in the Delta means the aquifer under it will also be a victim of more saltwater intrusion.
Back in the 1989 drought, salt water was detected in deep wells as far east as Jack Tone Road.
Imagine the tunnel implications to the groundwater drinking supplies for Manteca, Tracy, Lathrop Stockton, and Ripon.
It will hurt fish. It will hurt Delta farming. And — if the state is correct in what its plans are to exclusively use the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers instead of touching the Sacramento River flow that Los Angles sucks up to protect the endangered Chinook salmon — it will severely hurt San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties.
By the state’s own admission, their plan to increase water flows would perhaps increase the number of Chinook salmon on the three rivers by 1,103 more fish. In exchange, a study the state conducted indicated that 4,000 jobs would be lost in the Northern San Joaquín Valley, 130,000 acres of farmland would be valued and the regional economy would take a $12.9 billion hit.
What’s not to like about the Delta tunnel plan if you are a Beverly Hills farmer worth $5 billion or a Southern California homeowner eager to add a swimming pool you can fill with water diverted from flowing into the Delta?
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
August 2, 2022 through August 11, 2022
Date Received From Subject
August 2, 2022 Nancy Johnsen Concerns of the Girl Scouts of San Francisco
August 10, 2022 Eileen Boken Can San Mateo County's water supply withstand a major
earthquake? New report raises
concerns
Thomas Schwertscharf Tuolumne River
Stand Up Freedom Wastewater Shenanigans
August 11, 2022 Eileen Boken With California expected to lose 10% of its water within 20 years,
Newsom calls for urgent action
Eileen Boken Bulk of money in state’s plan to
buy water rights directed at
northern California watersheds
From: Nancy Johnsen
To: Commission
Subject: How may I contact commissioners
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 1:00:16 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.
I would like to alert the commissioners to the concerns of the Girl Scouts of San Francisco regarding the proposed shared property use at 1100 Lake Merced Blvd. How should I contact them?
Girl Scouts of Northern California have been operating a camp facility on this Water Dept. property since 1973.
It is now proposed that a portion of the camp be used by the PUC for a Green Waste Area. We have many privacy, safety and program concerns about this shared use and we would like to bring those to the attention of the commissioners. What is the proper and best way to do this?
Thank you for your assistance
Nancy Johnsen
Girl Scout Camp Ida Smith
From:
To: Commission
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:50:57 AM
Attachments: text 0.txt
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.
My name is Thomas Schwertscharf. I have past cerifications as a Registered Environmental Health Specialist, Water Quality Analyst Grade 3, and Water Treatment Operator Grade 3. I am writing today in regards to the Tuolumne River. I have come to realize the boards decisions on flow regimes, water usage, and climate change come from an entirely different viewpoint than my own beliefs about the river. The board doesn't seem to understand that the river is truly greater than the sum of it's parts. It is not just a commodity. A fine day of rafting, the satisfaction of walking the Water Wheel Falls, the twinge of exhaustion from back back straps, the joy of seeing a meadow with wildflowers, seeing healthy trout beneath a pristine water surface, wildlife and their tracks (a bear wondered on through our campsite), the mountain peaks with alpine glow, or the pink snow from dinoflagellates (red algae) the magnificent forests and the beauty of the riparian corridor the river in it's totality is nature's gift to us. I am completely convinced that rivers are indispensable for human life. The archetype for beginning and ending, the baptismal pool, and being everywhere at once. I don't think it is an exaggeration that if the rivers go so will the humans just as the Nayive Americans believe if the salmon go so will "the people." I am grateful and happy to see the river in it's beauty and not something that should be dammed, degraded, and monetized. I hope you will realize that the Tuolumne River should not be wasted on water guzzling crops like pasture land, nut trees, and alfalfa but that the river should be used in the public trust and for future generations. Thomas Schwertscharf
From: Stand up Freedom
To: [email protected]; Carlin, Michael (PUC); Commission Subject: Wastewater shenanigans
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 6:17:46 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.
I have sat down with a reporter to expose the madness I have shared with you all thru many emails.
From the sexual harassment, favoritism, hostile work environment, racism, and more.
No one wanted to correct this problem we have been having since worked at the facility.
It’s so much to expose and it should have been corrected a long time ago. is still mistreating employees and is not permanent.
is allowed to have mental fits and call people all types of names because is part of all this was silent for years due to promising
a better position.
is not fit to be anyone supervisor as promotes drug use and domestic violence with spouse. has not followed many protocols including leaving early why working overtime on weekend, Not following PUC rules, even shows favoritism to elder laborers because they talk about drug use.. and allowed a laborer who was close friend to work
so much over time
made 100,000 in one year check the records.
This labored was sent on special assignments for example the fire close to hetchy. No other laborers were allowed to work overtime but and this laborer specifically were assigned to get overtime.
This individual got so many privileges that management keep under the rug.
All I asked is for you to be fair and seek out justice.
Management is taking advantage of the lack of accountability that HR is not enforcing.
Not to mention the exemptions that were denied and also claimed that were not Recieved.
Many workers were let go no exemptions were used as we were bullied due to fear.
This is gonna be shown in the light because it’s time to be accountable.
Our city is in pieces due to negligent people who place fear over order! Why is the cement mixer paid with city money to be used fraudulently still hiding at the PUC warehouse where and places it out of peoples eyes?
Why is the plant operating the way it is?
Why is Oceanside and southeast having so many problems? Management that’s why..
They are unfit to do the jobs most of them are acting including Hr employees.
If your acting you can’t take your job serious hence the trouble we are in today..
Clean it up asap!!
We have a city to rebuild…
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
July 2022 Form Letter Log
“Tell San Francisco to do its part to save salmon and heal the environment’
Date
Received From City
July 14, 2022 Karen Kirschling San Francisco
Lauren Abrams San Francisco
L. Diaz San Francisco
July 15, 2022 Dan Feldman San Francisco
July 19, 2022 Andy Gillis San Francisco
Mary Ricci San Francisco
July 25, 2022 Kathryn MacDonald San Francisco
Corinne Levy San Francisco
Bruce Johnson San Francisco
July 28, 2022 C. Martin San Francisco
Naomi Lochner San Francisco
July 29, 2022 Dale Riehart San Francisco
Kaylah Sterling Emeryville
Martin Horwitz San Francisco
Gregory Stevens San Francisco
Robert Brown San Francisco
Emanuel Schongut San Francisco
Nic Griffin San Francisco
Pauline Babcock San Francisco
Lydia B. Fedulow San Francisco
Barbara Byrne San Francisco
Hollis Grant San Francisco
R. Zierikzee San Francisco
Suzanne Bushnell San Francisco
Jim Van Buskirk San Francisco
Mary Ricci San Francisco
Balfour Gerber San Francisco
Alison Geballe San Francisco
Wandralee Lindtzie San Francisco
Richard Price San Francisco
Jeff Pekrul San Francisco
Scott Simons San Francisco
Linda Goldstone San Francisco
Warren Jackson San Francisco
Eric Mar San Francisco
Nora Lapin San Francisco
Monica Leavitt San Francisco
Charles Lewis III Daly City
Andrea Coombes San Francisco
Karen Shulkin San Francisco
James Geppert San Francisco
Ebbe Roe Yovino-Smith San Francisco
Jessica Finn San Francisco
Patricia Higa San Francisco
Robert Gamboa San Francisco
Larisa Pedroncelli San Francisco
Linda Crane San Francisco
Tsipora Peskin Berkeley
Susan Blankman San Francisco
Esther Marks San Francisco
Susan Vaughn San Francisco
Blair Sandler San Francisco
Jon Cortelyou San Francisco
John Anges San Francisco
Mary Moycik San Francisco
Constance Walter San Francisco
Raymond Pisano Oakland
Gary Conroy San Francisco
Bill Hsu San Francisco
Fred Levinson San Francisco
Brian Kemp San Francisco
Keith Raskin San Francisco
Amy Brody San Diego
Jeffrey Seegers San Francisco
Robert Schuricht San Francisco
Hernan Cortez San Francisco
Mary-Anna Rae Montara
Eric Kohler San Francisco
Michael Bordenave Fresno
Peter Menchini San Francisco
Julián Delgado Lopera San Francisco
Terry Hawkins San Francisco
Barbara Berman San Francisco
David Ferguson San Francisco
Janice Altobelli San Francisco
Rasa Moss San Francisco
Roy Jordan Cambria
Galen Abbott San Francisco
Susan Witka San Francisco
William Grimes San Francisco
Rhona McLean San Francisco
Shelby Herman San Francisco
Kerri Pidnow San Francisco
Rebeka Rodriguez San Francisco
Dominic Barile San Francisco
Lance Carnes San Francisco
Lynn McArdle San Francisco
Lauri Fried-Lee San Francisco
Mary Novsic San Francisco
Jennifer Harvie-Watt San Francisco
Lisa Kellman San Francisco
Evelyn Posamentier San Francisco
Elizabeth Bell San Francisco
Toune Harner San Francisco
Orlando Galvez San Francisco
Eric Theise San Francisco
L. Diaz San Francisco
Marria Evbuoma San Francisco
Margaret Monahay San Francisco
Cynthia Wood San Francisco
Usha Korinthias San Francisco
Hilda Schmelling Oakland
Karen Kirschling San Francisco
Mike Pincus San Francisco
Ethel Mays San Francisco
Deborah May San Francisco
Dan Feldman San Francisco
Mickey Darius San Francisco
Joe Britz San Francisco
Brittany Smail San Francisco
Robert Stine San Francisco
Chris Gilbert Berkeley
Elizabeth Donoghue San Francisco
Susan Spencer San Francisco
Joyce Lavey San Francisco
Alan Snitow Berkeley
Jim Iwersen San Francisco
David Romano San Francisco
Marianne Yusavage San Francisco
Michael Kemper San Francisco
Katherine Roberts San Francisco
Iris Biblowitz San Francisco
Lenore Chinn San Francisco
Garrett Murphy Oakland
Beth McGreevy San Francisco
Eric Sosa San Francisco
Sean Karlin San Francisco
Andrea Moore San Francisco
Victor Vuyas San Francisco
Rosalina Verbrugghe San Francisco
Kim Leong San Francisco
Pat Brooks Berkeley
Glen Peckman San Francisco
Cindy Charles San Francisco
Juan Antonio Torres Jimenez Novato
Glen Helfanc Oakland
John Carnahan Berkeley
C. Martin San Francisco
Karen Elcaness San Francisco
Is Beigel San Francisco
Deborah Garfinkle San Francisco
Michael Marrelli San Francisco
Lynn Pearce San Francisco
Mary McFadden San Francisco
Eric Imperiale San Francisco
Pamela Strong San Francisco
Tim Ison San Francisco
Valerie Sky Felton
Frederick Cavallaro San Francisco
Pauline Kahney San Francisco
Anne Batmale San Francisco
Ozzie Rohm San Francisco
Jill Ellefsen San Francisco
David James San Francisco
Pamela Cotton Sonora
S. Polk San Francisco
Graham Connah San Francisco
Rch Waller San Francisco
Alanna Greenham San Francisco
Clayton Barnett San Francisco
Licia De Meo San Francisco
Tes Wellborn San Francisco
Zachary Kramer San Francisco
Lorraine Bader San Francisco
Andrew Yeung Berkeley
Querido Galdo Oakland
Rhonda & Frank Kingman San Francisco
Jori Rillera Berkeley
Linda Hegenbarth San Francisco
Katja Irvin San Jose
Kathy Kleinhans San Francisco
Fred Rinne San Francisco
Merle Goldstone San Francisco
Barbara Bagot-Lopez San Francisco
Karin Wikstrom San Francisco
Michael Tomczyszyn San Francisco
Mara Rivera San Francisco
Sherrie Rosenberg San Francisco
Lucy Blake San Francisco
July 30, 2022 Peter Lee San Francisco
Corey Weinstein San Francisco
Laura Ayala Moraga
Flo Kelly San Francisco
Brittny Oconnor San Francisco
Judy Doane San Francisco
Gabrielle Dahms San Francisco
Viniita Moran San Francisco
Linda Sudak San Francisco
Larry Jarvis San Francisco
Jaina Davis San Francisco
Christiane Renck Alameda
Bruce Baker Alameda
Denis Mosgofian San Francisco
Marie Mika San Francisco
Katrina Gummere San Francisco
William Schwartz San Francisco
Andrew Donahue San Francisco
Terrance Amsler San Francisco
Lisa Patton San Francisco
Linda Acton San Francisco
Peter Nasatir San Francisco
July 31, 2022 Hene Kelly San Francisco
Monica Berini San Francisco
Carol Fields Berkeley
Nora Roman San Francisco
Alice Mosley San Francisco
Stephen Martin Berkeley
Victoria Weste San Francisco
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
August 2022 Form Letter Log
“Tell San Francisco to do its part to save salmon and heal the environment’
Date Received From City
August 1, 2022 James Rust Ben Lomond
Kelly Burlingham San Francisco
Charlotte Parsons San Francisco
Roger Underhill San Francisco
Richard Girling San Francisco
August 2, 2022 Kelly Lecoy San Francisco
Yael Chanoff San Francisco
Martha Goldin San Francisco
Kris Gamayo San Francisco
August 3, 2022 Harry Billington Alameda
August 5, 2022 Richard Deutman San Francisco
August 6, 2022 Dorothy Kidd San Francisco
August 8, 2022 Sara Sacks Columbia, CA
August 9, 2022 J.W. Oman Oakland
Thomas Weber San Francisco
Alex Sheldon San Francisco
Benjamin Campbell Sonora
August 10, 2022 Cynthia Wood San Francisco
Chauncey Graves San Francisco
From: Karen Kirschling
To: Commission
Subject: Tell San Francisco to do its part to save salmon and heal the environment Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:58:16 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.
Dear San Francisco Water,
Dear Mayor London Breed,
I am writing to urge you to appoint a strong environmentalist to the open seat on the SFPUC. The SFPUC must change its position and embrace science-based environmental protections for the Tuolumne River, the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and our declining salmon runs. This is urgent because SFPUC staff is fighting efforts to heal the river and the Bay and Delta it flows into. Because of water diversions by the SFPUC and other diverters, salmon have fared more poorly on the Tuolumne than on any other salmon river in the Central Valley. Those same diversions are causing great damage to the Bay-Delta ecosystem and San Francisco’s salmon fishing industry.
I addition, the SFPUC is far behind communities like Orange County when it comes to reducing reliance on water diversions by investing in modern water management tools like water recycling.
The SFPUC’s position needs to change to reflect the strong commitment San Franciscans have to protecting the environment. That must start by ensuring that the Commission itself reflects those values.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Kirschling
SF, CA 94117