SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
City and County of San Francisco
London N. Breed
Mayor
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
1:30 PM
(Approved September 13, 2022)
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Commissioners
Anson Moran, President
Newsha Ajami, Vice President
Sophie Maxwell
Tim Paulson
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager
Donna Hood
Secretary
1. Call to Order
President Moran called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present: Moran, Maxwell, and Paulson; Vice President Ajami arrived at 1:33 PM.
The Commission Secretary announced that item 10a was removed from the agenda.
3. Adopt renewed findings under State Urgency Legislation to allow hybrid in-person meetings during the COVID-19 Emergency and direct the Commission Secretary to agendize a similar resolution at a Commission Meeting within the next 30 days. (Resolution 22-0136)
No public comment.
On Motion to approve item 3:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
4. Approval of the Minutes of July 12, 2022
No public comment.
On Motion to approve the Minutes of July 12, 2022:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
5. General Public Comment
• Francisco DaCosta requested a progress report on the digesters. He stated the SFPUC has failed community benefits. He stated nothing has been learned from the investigations.
• Martin Gothberg stated he expected to see the drought update on the agenda.
• Aleta Dupree stated the SFPUC’s first priority should be the reliability and quality of water, sewer, and power. She stated that CleanPowerSF should have more website engagement.
• John Rosapepe expressed disappointment that the workshop is not being held separately. He discussed the Bay Delta Plan and stated dialogue is needed. He asked that the lawsuit against the state be dropped.
6. Communications
a) Advance Calendar
b) Contract Advertisement Report
c) Correspondence Log
d) Capital Budgeting and Planning – Update on Project Deliverability Assessment e) CleanPowerSF 2022 Integrated Resource Plan, Communications and Outreach Plan
f) Contaminants of Emerging Concern in San Francisco Drinking Water, 2022 Draft Report
g) O’Shaughnessy Dam Reservation Quarterly Report
h) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee Resolution in Support of Electric Grid Reliability on Treasure Island i) Water System Improvement Program Status of Construction Change Orders Public Comment
• Aleta Dupree discussed item 6e and indicated an embedded link was broken.
She discussed item 6h and her experiences with outages on Treasure Island. • Spreck Rosekrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy, questioned who has access to the O’Shaughnessy Dam facilities.
Vice President (VP) Ajami thanked staff for the comprehensive report for item 6f, Contaminants of Emerging Concern in SF Drinking Water, 2022.
7. Workshop on Planning for Drought: The SFPUC Design Drought as a Stress Test for the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System
President Moran introduced the item and stated the primary purpose of the workshop was to provide the status of the Design Drought. He announced that interested parties may provide written comment to the Commission via email at [email protected].
He indicated no action would be taken.
Presentations were made first by Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director, Tuolumne River Trust, followed by Steve Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager (AGM), Water Enterprise.
Mr. Drekmeier discussed the goal of the Bay Delta Plan and stated the San Francisco Bay-Delta is in an ecosystem in crisis. He indicated the Design Drought was created in response to the 1987-92 drought and the subsequent two-year dry period. He stated the SFPUC has the longest drought scenario of California’s major water districts, and that much has changed since the Design Drought was conceived. He indicated water demand peaked in 1987 at 290 mgd and has been under 200 mgd for the past eight years. He stated that in response to the 1987-92 drought the SFPUC adopted the “Water First” Policy. He discussed the SFPUC’s plan for higher demand and provided thoughts on why the length of drought planning matters.
Mr. Drekmeier stated the Design Drought is too conservative and indicated the Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) indicates “no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation over the planning horizon”. He reviewed questions from the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) sent via previous letters to the SFPUC. Mr.
Drekmeier discussed LTVA demand figures, emphasizing LTVA baseline and threshold figures.
Mr. Drekmeier stated that the Design Drought is more severe than any known drought, and that the LTVA’s most severe drought used 1,200 total acre-feet of storage. He reviewed drought return periods and compared the 1976-1977 and 1987-1992 drought events. He discussed the drought probability chart from the LTVA; drought severity; and drought return periods (linear scale). He discussed the probability of droughts beginning in any given year. He indicated that runoff would come earlier in the season and that in dry years SFPUC entitlements will improve (unimpaired flow at LaGrange). He discussed data results with a three-week shift in runoff. Mr. Drekmeier reviewed water supply obligation and demand needs – 2045 (drought year mgd).
Mr. Drekmeier concluded with a chart displaying the differences in Design Drought length, demand (mgd), earlier run-off (mgd) and deficit (mgd). He stated his recommendation is to shorten the Design Drought by one year.
AGM Ritchie began his presentation with a review of Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Supply System, noting: (1) The SFPUC almost exclusively relies on Tuolumne River and local surface water supplies, (2) Junior water rights on Tuolumne mean diversion of plenty of water in wet years, but little to none in dry years, (3) Storage reduces the impact of multi-year droughts, and (4) Some wholesale customers, such as the Alameda County Water District (ACWD), have substantial groundwater and other surface water supplies available, and some do not.
AGM Ritchie offered a refresher on the Hetch Hetchy system and how it works with the Irrigation Districts. He emphasized that releases to the Tuolumne River below Don Pedro Reservoir to the San Joaquin River and the Delta belong to the Irrigation Districts and the SFPUC cannot dictate what happens to that water.
Mr. Ritchie reviewed environmental obligations and commitments: (1) Stipulations with federal agencies exist as related to releases from Cherry, Eleanor, and O’Shaughnessy Dams in the Sierra Nevada; (2) Permit conditions (Lower Crystal Springs and Calaveras) and voluntary commitments (Pilarcitos) exist as related to releases from Bay Area dams; (3) Downstream of Hetch Hetchy project facilities the SFPUC co-created and committed to the Upper Tuolumne River Ecosystem Program with the National Park Service (NPS) and other stakeholders; (4) The SFPUC was a founder of the Alameda Creek Fisheries Work Group, which has led to dam removals, fish passage improvements, and instream objectives for the benefits of fisheries; (5) Below Don Pedro Dam environmental obligations exist through the Irrigation Districts’ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Don Pedro license; (6) The State Water Board’s Bay-Delta Plan Amendments would increase flow obligations substantially with no requirements for flow measures; (7) San Francisco and the Irrigation Districts have proposed a Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement with flow and non-flow measures which is being negotiated with the State as an alternative to the Bay-Delta Plan Amendments; and (8) The SFUC’s and the District’s investment in habitat and the commitment of increased flows to the Lower Tuolumne River will occur.
AGM Ritchie reviewed the purpose of the Design Drought and indicated it is not a prediction, but rather a stress test to examine the system under stress so water managers can make informed decisions including consideration of all obligations, water supply and environmental. He stated that the consequences of being wrong and running out of water for water supply and/or the environment are enormous; recurrence intervals are descriptive, not predictive, and are not useful for water management during a drought; and it doesn’t pay to assume the next year or two will be wet, and it should be assumed they will be dry. He stated the Design Drought stress test was not chosen based on the likelihood of occurrence.
AGM Ritchie discussed drought planning, which came from the 1987-1992 drought and was the worst on record. He stated that extreme two-year droughts can happen at any time and planning for a six-year drought, with a two-year cushion for operational decisions, better prepare for surviving the next six-year drought, or more. He stated that no one will step in to help San Francisco in an extreme drought. He stated that it is possible to be protected from an extended drought and still provide benefits to the Lower Tuolumne River fishery, but the Irrigation Districts must be involved because all water from the upcountry system flows into Don Pedro, which is their dam and reservoir.
He indicated at all times the SFPUC maintains flows downstream of SFPUC dams and invests in ecological studies, projects, and programs to support native species and the environment, and that because of uncertainty, it cannot be assumed existing supplies will be sufficient. He stated there must be continually planning for Alternative Water Supplies and to implement them prudently.
AGM Ritchie reviewed graphs of Water Bank operations through a drought 2012-16 and 2020 forward. He reviewed the timing and volume of Tuolumne River runoff, noting that climate change will change runoff, and, in some years, it will increase, and in some decrease. He stated the State is warning of a 10% reduction in water supply by 2040.
Mr. Ritchie indicated the Regional Water system relies on storage and not direct diversions due to water entitlements. He noted an uncertain future with unpredictability and that prudent planning is needed, hence, the 8.5-year design drought. He stated regardless of the length of any drought, operationally need to plan for the subsequent two years to be dry. With the existence of the design drought and operational planning approach, the SFPUC can fulfill responsibilities to customers and the environment. At the same time, the SFPUC must continue to plan for alternative water supplies and be prepared to implement them.
In response to a question from VP Ajami regarding the slides on water bank operations AGM Ritchie discussed history and indicated each sequence is going to be different and lessons have been learned.
In response to a question from Commissioner Maxwell, AGM Ritchie discussed what was put into place after 2014, including buying water from the Irrigation Districts, accelerate systemwide conservation efforts, and continue to work with partner agencies.
President Moran discussed the slide containing his quote and indicated it was part of testimony he provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He commented on the SFPUC’s Water First policy.
President Moran stated the situation can always get worse and that using history as a guide for water supply planning can be humbling. He stated water supply planning protects water supplies among other things. He stated the Design Drought and planning process prevents oversubscribing the Tuolumne River, which is unlike planning in the rest of the state. He stated the SFPUC obligations are taken seriously to protect all. In response to comments made by Mr. Drekmeier during his presentation, President Moran stated that the Design Drought decision was not arbitrary and was hard-earned.
He stated the State and other water districts attempted to help but limited water supply and “plumbing” made it difficult to do so.
Public Comment
• Adriane Covert, Bay Area Council, Bay Area Water Stewards (BAWS) Working Group, expressed with disagreement with another member of the BAWS Working Group’s characterization that reducing and shortening the Design Drought is good for housing development and stated that it is not their position or perspective. He discussed the LTVA and new science. He noted uncertainty with multiple factors and that conservation is necessary.
• Tom Francis, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, read comments which were provided to the Commission about the SFPUC’s obligations to provide a reliable supply of high-quality water at a fair price to its Wholesale customers in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. He indicated is not evident to BAWSC that any change to the Design Drought is warranted at this time and any changes must be approached with caution.
• Jan (Inaudible), Friends of the River, stated the Tuolumne River and the downstream Bay Delta watershed need adequate water supply to sustain the environment and ecosystem and population. Current assumption in the Design Drought makes balancing difficult and asked that direct staff to present model with updated assumptions.
• Francisco DaCosta stated public comments should be heard after each presentation. He stated the First People should be included in the discussion for holistic considerations. He stated the snowpack will diminish and trade winds will play important role in diminishing rain.
• Chris Shutes, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, addressed three policy related to the Design Drought – lack of consistent use of the Design Drought in planning decisions; characterization of Design Drought as a stress test; and effects of Design Drought on demand.
• Ed Stevenson, General Manager, Alameda County Water District (ACWD), stated the ACWD is fortunate to have several sources of supply, including from the San Francisco Regional Water System, which makes up 20% of their supply portfolio).
He discussed stressors and stated that historically, the ACWD has relied more heavily on the SFPUC supply during dry conditions and drought. • Spreck Rosekrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy (RHH), stated RHH understands the SFPUC’s responsibility to manage water supply. He discussed the characterization of the Design Drought as a “stress test” and asked that the Commission explain what they would do if there is a repeat of the 87-92 drought. He said that the Fourth Agreement that governs the management of Don Pedro is archaic. • Dave Warner discussed AGM Ritchie’s discussion regarding water bank and stated that there is storage as well as flow from the Tuolumne available. He made comments regarding the LTVA’s executive summary.
• Eileen Boken spoke in favor of the Tuolumne River Trust’s Design Drought proposal. • Martin Gothberg stated that 24 individuals have signed a letter that will be provided to the Commission regarding the ecological state of the Tuolumne River and asked that the SFPUC drop opposition to the Bay Delta Plan.
• Paul (inaudible), Redwood City, agree with previous callers that an independent, deeper dive of the Design Drought. He expressed agreement with Mr. Drekmeier regarding different ways to manage for storage capacity. He discussed the LTVA and recurrence rate of Design Drought.
• Norma Wallace, Chochenyo Ohlone, requested respectful, timely action on behalf of all creation and not only humans. She noted the mutually beneficial interrelationships between native people and surroundings that span 10,000 years.
She discussed the destruction of habitat.
• Mark (inaudible) stated that a stress test in not a predictor of a situation. He stated the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan has years of research and a compromise exists allowing for lower flows than is deemed necessary. He stated the compromise is done and it is time to implement the plan.
• Unidentified caller expressed support for the Tuolumne River Trust proposal and requested that one year be removed from the Design Drought. He concurred with comments made by other presenters.
• Unidentified caller discussed the time that has been taken on the workshops and the data presented by scientists. Speaker stated that information requested is not provided and there is arrogance.
• Doug Obegi, Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, stated it is important to plan for drought and the Design Drought is one policy to help prepare. He expressed frustration with inaction in investing in local and regional water supplies to adapt to a future with the Bay Delta Plan implemented. He stated the Design Drought must be used in an even-handed manner.
• Written comments that were submitted are attached.
President Moran provided closing comments, stating much has been learned during the past 30 years regarding demand. He stated climate is changing, and that 100-year events are becoming common. He indicated the LTVA was not designed to answer questions that are now being asked, and that it a long and complicated document and that its conclusions must viewed in the whole to not take it out of context. He discussed “return period” and indicated it is not predictive or determinative. He stated the Design Drought is a judgment based on experience.
President Moran thanked the presenters and the comments received. He expressed appreciation to staff for the informative documents that were included with the agenda item. President Moran discussed proposed next steps.
Commissioner Paulson thanked President Moran for his leadership and expertise on the issues.
VP Ajami expressed the need to rethink and revisit demand planning and forecasting.
She stated that none of the discussion indicate that the SFPUC should not be considering alternative water supply, and that they should be carefully considered, including reuse and recycle at every scale, and stormwater capture and management and to think strategically.
8. Report of the General Manager
a) Quarterly Audit and Performance Review Report
Irella Blackwood, Audit Bureau Director, indicated there have been 40 audits and assessments year-to-date with 45% complete (18), 38% in progress (15), and 17% (7) upcoming. She stated the following audits were completed and reports have been issued: (1) CleanPowerSF Privacy Audit; (2) FY 2021-22 Cybersecurity Maturity Assessment; (3) 2021 Green-e Energy Verification Audit; and (4) FY2022-21 Single Audit. She indicated that management concurred with the audit recommendations.
Director Blackwood reviewed Open City Services Audits and recommendations and provided a FY2022-23 fourth quarter outlook of audits that are completing and those that are upcoming.
No public comment.
b) Quarterly Budget Status Report
Laura Busch, Budget Director, indicated there were positive operating results projected for Power and CleanPowerSF, and operating shortfalls projected for Water, and Wastewater: (1) Water and Wastewater: lower revenues resulting from the impacts of water conservation efforts due to drought, offset by 5% drought surcharge effective April 2022; and delayed economic recovery from COVID-19 negatively impacting volumes vs. projection; (2) CleanPowerSF:
budget increased by $42M during the year, projecting year-end results to come in close to revised budget; (3) Power: revenues projected to exceed budget due to higher energy prices; and (4) year-end financial results projected to meet-or-exceed policy targets.
Director Busch reviewed FY 2021-22 budget variances (sources and uses) for (1) Water: Net operating results ($8.3M). Total sources down ($20.4M) offset by $1.2M in cost savings; (2) Wastewater: Net operating results ($14.7M). Total sources ($27.3M) offset by $12.6M in cost savings; (3) Power: Net operating result $35.9M.
Total sources $18.5M, and $17.3M in cost savings; and (4) CleanPowerSF: Net operating result $2.7M. Total sources down ($1.8M), and costs increased by $4.5M in cost savings.
Director Busch reviewed key financial ratios for Water, Wastewater, Hetchy and CleanPowerSF and indicated they are on target.
No public comment.
c) Water Enterprise Capital Improvement (WECIP) Quarterly Report Katie Miller, Director Water Capital Programs, reviewed the WECIP Program status noting expenditures of $987M, with 35% completion.
Director Miller provided detail on the Regional WECIP Projects and provided updates on the following: (1) WECIP cost summary; (2) Regional WECIP projects; (3) Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Ozone update; (4) Sunol Long Term Improvements Watershed Center (Contract B); (5) Turner Dam and Reservoir Improvements, & San Andreas Dam Facility Improvements.
Director Miller provided detail on the Local WECIP Projects and provided updates on the following: (1) San Francisco Westside Recycled Water (Treatment Facility (Contract A), Pump Station (Contract B), and Irrigation System Retrofit (Contract D); and (2) College Hill Reservoir.
No public comment.
d) Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) Quarterly Report Director Miller reviewed the Regional WSIP cost summary and cost and schedule forecast, stating $3,708 has been expended and is 99% complete. She presented the Regional WSIP Cost Summary.
Director Miller provided updates for the following projects: (1) Alameda Creek Recapture Project; and (2) Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project.
Public Comment
• Francisco DaCosta questioned how many miles of water pipes have been replaced.
e) Report on Recent San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Activities, Events and Announcements
None.
9. New Commission Business
None.
The Commission Secretary re-announced that item 10a was removed from the agenda.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
a) Approve the novation of Contract HH-1000R, Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project; and authorize the General Manager to execute a Novation Agreement for the existing Contract from Michels Tunneling to Michels Trenchless, Inc. b) Approve the plans and specifications, and award Contract No. HH-1006, San Joaquin Pipeline Valve and Safe Entry Improvements Phase 1B, in the amount of $11,801,808, and with a duration of 675 consecutive calendar days to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid, Mountain Cascade, Inc., to replace 78-inch and 90-inch diameter butterfly valves on San Joaquin Pipeline Number 3 and 4 (SJPL 3 & 4) at Tesla Valvehouse with new, higher-pressure-rated butterfly valves, and; install removable spool pieces and new vaults for SJPL 3 & 4 at Tesla Portal, P4J Tie-In, and Oakdale Portal. (Resolution 22-0137) c) Award Job Order Contract No. JOC-90, General Engineering (A-License) Construction, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $5,000,000 with a minimum guaranteed task-order opportunity amount of $50,000 and a duration of two years, to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, GSW Construction, Inc., to perform general engineering work in San Francisco Public Utilities Commission systems and operations around the Bay Area. (Resolution 22-0138) d) Approve an increase of 100 calendar days to the contract duration contingency for Contract No. WD-2616, 8-Inch Ductile Iron Water Main Replacement on Baker Street from Geary Boulevard to Broadway Street and on Sutter Street from Divisadero Street to Presidio Avenue, with M Squared Construction, Inc. (“M Square”); and authorize the General Manager to approve future modifications to the contract for a total contract duration of up to 677 consecutive calendar days, with no change to contract amount. (Resolution 22-0139) e) Accept work performed by M Squared Construction, Inc., under Contract No. WD-2693, 8-Inch and 12-Inch Ductile Iron Water Main Replacement on 21st, Bryant, Ford, Hancock, and Cumberland Streets, for a final contract amount of $4,187,755, and a final contract duration of 585 consecutive calendar days; and authorize final payment to the contractor. (Resolution 22-0140)
f) Approve the novation of Contract WD-2851(I), 525 Golden Gate Avenue As-needed Mechanical Systems Inspection, Maintenance, and Repairs (2019-2021); and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute a Novation Agreement for the existing contract from Envise to Southland Industries. (Resolution 22-0141)
g) Approve an increase of 280 consecutive calendar days to the contract duration contingency for Contract No. WD-2861, Auxiliary Water Supply System Clarendon Supply 2019, with Mitchell Engineering; and authorize the General Manager to approve future modifications to the contract for a total contract duration of up to 879 consecutive calendar days, with no change to contract amount. (Resolution 22- 0142)
h) Approve an increase of 165 calendar days to the contract duration contingency for Contract No. WW-665, Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant 042-Seismic Retrofit and Rehabilitation, with Western Water Constructors; and authorize the General Manager to approve future modifications to the contract for a total contract duration of up to 1,118 consecutive calendar days (approximately three years and one month), with no change to contract amount. (Resolution 22-0143) i) Approve the plans and specifications and award Contract No. WW-731, Various Locations Brick Sewer Improvements, in the amount of $10,542,103, and with a duration of 420 consecutive calendar days (approximately one year and two months), to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, Cratus Inc. to rehabilitate brick sewers located in the Chinatown, North Beach, Tenderloin, Nob Hill, and Cow Hollow Districts. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the Project analyzed in the statutory exemption under San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2022.002008ENV for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The Planning Department has determined that this action is exempt from the CEQA. If the item is approved, the Commission will rely on that determination to make its decision. (Resolution 22-0144) j) Approve the novation of existing “Agreement Maintenance and Repair and Upgrades of Sentinel UV Disinfection System” from current contractor Calgon Carbon UV Technologies to De Nora Water Technologies; and authorize the General Manager to execute the novation agreement. (Resolution 22-0145) No public comment.
On Motion to approve item 10 – Consent Calendar 10b through 10j:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
11. Authorize the General Manager to execute, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, a Joint Funding Agreement with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for an amount contributed by the SFPUC not-to-exceed $ 2,837,770 and with a duration of six years, starting October 1, 2021 and ending September 30, 2027, which will allow the SFPUC and USGS to continue a cooperative Water Resource Investigations Program for hydrologic monitoring and stream and reservoir gauge maintenance in the Alameda and Peninsula Watersheds. (Resolution 22-0146) Tim Ramirez, Natural Resources Manager, introduced the item and requested approval.
No public comment.
On Motion to approve item 11:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
12. Approve the General Manager’s July 27, 2022 determination under San Francisco Administrative Code Section 6.23(c)(3) that negotiations with the responsible bidder submitting the sole responsive bid or any other qualified contractor are warranted because (1) the qualifications for bidders were not too onerous; (2) the non-responsive bid received cannot be easily cured; and (3) rebidding the contract would likely not result in more than one responsive bid by responsible bidders at bid prices substantially lower than the bid price received for Contract No. DB-132, New Treasure Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Project; and authorize the General Manager to negotiate an agreement with the sole responsible bidder or any qualified contractor, and if such negotiations are successful, to return to the Commission for award of the contract. (Resolution 22-0147)
Jignesh Desai, Senior Project Manager, provided a background on the New Treasure Island Treatment Plant, including treatment plant design capacity and projected recycled water demand. He provided an overview of the procurement effort for Request for Qualifications (RFQ), indicating on August 5, 2022 the SFPUC advertised for RFQ and on September 22, 2020 received responses from MWH Constructors & Webcor Builders (MWH/Webcor), and PCL Construction and Stantec Consulting Services (PCL/Stantec). He stated on December 27, 2021 the SFPUC advertised Request for Proposal (RFP) with proposals received on May 24, 2022. He stated the RFP contained Technical Bridging Documents, performance design criteria, and fixed budget limited for the project. Mr. Desai indicated that the SPUC determined that MWH/Webcor submitted a materially non-responsive bid, leaving PCL/Stantec as the sole responsive bidder.
Project Manager Desai responded to a question from Commissioner Paulson as to what made the bid “non-responsive”, stating bids that exceed 110% of the Fixed Bid Budget limit are materially non-responsive to the RFP, and the non-responsive bid came in over the Fixed Bid Budget.
In response to a question from VP Ajami as to whether the Treasure Island Treatment Plant is a combined system, Project Manager Desai indicated it is not. Brief discussion ensued regarding stormwater capture, management, and reuse. Brief discussion ensued.
Public Comment
• Unidentified caller stated if all responsive bids were over 100%, the budget would be wrong. She suggested that the project be rebid for fair competition.
On Motion to approve item 12:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
13. Approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the General Manager to execute license agreements granting Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Cinnabar Video Productions, and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe rights to distribute and publicly screen the documentary film entitled Time Has Many Voices for a term of five years for non-profit use only at no cost. (Resolution 22-0148) Kim Stern-Liddell, Environmental Construction and Compliance Manager, stated the film “Time Has Many Voices” documented the archeological work during the implementation of the Alameda Creek Watershed Center. She stated the film was a collaborative effort with the San Francisco Planning Department, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Far West Anthropological Research Group, and Cinnabar Video Productions. She indicated the film fulfills the required cultural mitigation requirements for public outreach and interpretation and meets a mitigation goal with the film being broadly distributed within the Bay Area. She stated the film was selected by Vision Maker Media, a Native American non-profit funded by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), for nationwide broadcasting this fall. She indicated the Commission is being asked to approve a license to distribute the film to PBS. She indicated the SPUC communications team is working with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and others on a film roll-out plan. She stated the film will be available for viewing at the Alameda Creek Watershed Center. She displayed and discussed several screenshots of the film.
Ms. Stern-Liddell responded to a question from Commissioner Maxwell as to the availability of the film and photos of the artifacts at the new Southeast Facility, indicating every effort will be made to ensure access.
VP Ajami congratulated everyone involved with the film.
Public Comment
• Francisco DaCosta, representing the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in San Francisco, thanked the SFPUC for supporting the project.
On Motion to approve item 13:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
14. Public comment on the matter to be addressed during Closed Session.
None.
15. Motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matter listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel
On Motion to assert attorney-client privilege regarding the matter listed as Conference with Legal Counsel:
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
The Commission entered Closed Session at 4:23 PM.
Present in Closed Session: Commissioners: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson; Deputy City Attorney: Sheryl Bregman; Dennis Herrera, General Manager; Ron Flynn, Deputy General Manager; Steve Ritchie, Assistant General Manager Water Enterprise; Ellen Levin, Deputy Assistant General Manager, Water Enterprise; and Donna Hood, Commission Secretary.
16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL regarding existing litigation as plaintiff/ petitioner (Government Code §54956.9, Administrative Code §67.10(d)(1)): In the Matter of Initial Orders Imposing Water Right Curtailment and Reporting Requirements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Watershed on Water Right Nos. S002635, S002636, S002638, S002637, S014379, S015858, S018734, and S018735 (State Water Resources Control Board Administrative Proceeding) filed September 20, 2021; San Joaquin Tributaries Authority v. State Water Resources Control Board (Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 21CECG02632), filed September 2, 2021; City and County of San Francisco v. California State Water Resources Control Board, et al. (Tuolumne County Superior Court Case No. CV 63828), filed May 14, 2021; San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, et al. v. California State Water Resources Control Board (Tuolumne County Superior Court Case No. CV 62094), filed January 10, 2019, coordinated as State Water Board Cases by order filed May 13, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court, Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceeding No. 5013.
The Commission exited Closed Session at 5:19 PM.
17. Announcement following Closed Session
President Moran announced that no action was taken during Closed Session.
18. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a)
On Motion not to disclose the discussions during Closed Session pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a):
Ayes: Moran, Ajami, Maxwell, and Paulson
19. Adjournment
President Moran adjourned the meeting at 5:20 PM.
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 23, 2022 Commission Meeting
Written Comment Received
Item #7 – Design Drought Workshop
Date Received From Comment Summary
August 22, 2022 Steve Lawrence Pay attention and choose prudently Tom Francis,
BAWSCA
Obligations to Provide a Reliable Supply
of High-Quality Water at a Fair Price to
its Wholesale Customers in Alameda,
San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties
Chris Shutes Three policy issues related to Design
Drought
Ed Hillard:
Tuolumne River
Trust Statement
Please modify the Design Drought to be
scientifically valid and drop your lawsuit
against the Bay Delta Plan
Denise Louie I urge you to withdraw the PUC from
lawsuits blocking implementation of the
Plan now
Mark Moulton Re-evaluate the design drought and
drop the lawsuit
August 25, 2022 Crumpton Family SFPUC Design Drought
Patricia Becker Take care of our precious water and
salmon
Julie McKee H20
Jennifer Normoyle Design Drought
David Schrom Design Drought, Bay-Delta Plan
Lawsuit, and Tuolumne River
Unimpeded Flows
Dan Silver Tuolumne River
Laura Allen Design drought and river flows
Geri McGilvary 35 gallon a day to waste
Pat McGuire Stop Stalling! The Rivers Need Water
Martin Gothberg Recent Workshop Feedback
August 28, 2022 Ron Beltramo SFPUC - Planning for Long Term Drought
August 29, 2022 Barry Fike Please take better care of the Tuolumne River!
August 31, 2022 Gregg Wrisley Design Drought Plans
Lesley Stansfield Water is gold for everyone
Rae Collins Drought Scenario is too long
From: Steve Lawrence
To: Commission
Subject: design drought
Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:00:37 AM
Attachments: Outlook-ws2wrgvq
Outlook-hxfhlln3
Outlook-2zfjh4tk
Outlook-iq44srey
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.
Hon. President & fellow Commissioners:
What the proper design drought is I can't say, but I urge caution. Climate change seems upon us earlier and with greater impact than expected.
Environmentalist will urge you to constrict the design drought. Much of this is sincere; I respect Peter Drekmeier. But it is organized. As one who has long subscribed to Nature News, I have received exhortation to lobby this Commission on behalf of, and coached by, Tuolumne River Trust. By all means pay attention to their arguments, but know the single source. Choose prudently, as best you can.
Steve Lawrence
What I received August 10:
SFPUC Design Drought workshop
On the afternoon of Tuesday, August 23, the SFPUC will hold a workshop on their Design Drought. It will be really important for us to turn out our troops for this online meeting to demonstrate public support for restoring the Tuolumne River and Bay-Delta. Might you be able to join us?
The Design Drought is a planning scenario that combines the worst drought on record (1987-92) with the driest two-year period on record (1976/77). By using such a conservative scenario (the likelihood of the Design Drought occurring is infinitesimally small), potential water rationing gets jacked way up, and the SFPUC uses this as justification for their lawsuit against the Bay Delta Plan. We’re encouraging them to reduce the Design Drought by one year, which would still leave it by far the most conservative planning scenario in the region. A recent SFPUC climate change study supports our conclusion that the Design Drought is way too conservative.
We’re also encouraging the SFPUC to adopt reasonable water demand projections. Their projections have always been off by 20-30%, yet they continue to assume demand will increase until it reaches their sales cap of 265 million gallons per day (mgd) — demand has been under 200 mgd for the past eight years. In fact, current demand is half of what some previous studies projected.
Using reasonable demand projections would reduce potential rationing dramatically.
If you’re interested in digging into these issues a little deeper, you can read a couple of recent letters we submitted on the climate change study and demand projections (warning: they’re a little wonky).
Please let me know if you might be able to attend the workshop on August 23, and I’ll be sure to keep you in the loop. We’ll likely have a brief training in advance, but you won’t be expected to prepare any sophisticated comments (we’ll provide talking points). The important thing is for the Commissioners to know you care enough to take a little time out of your schedule to participate in the workshop.
Tuolumne River Trust
[email protected]
(415) 882-7252
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org Statement from Tom Francis, Acting Chief Executive Officer, to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), about the Design Drought and San Francisco’s Obligations to Provide a Reliable Supply of High-Quality Water at a Fair Price to its Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties August 23, 2022
Good afternoon, President Moran and Members of the Commission. My name is Tom Francis and I’m here today on behalf of BAWSCA’s 26 member agencies. BAWSCA is pleased to offer the following comments in response to the Commission’s workshop today on the Design Drought.
San Francisco has existing legal and contractual obligations to provide a reliable supply of high-quality water at a fair price to the BAWSCA member agencies and their customers. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is also responsible for environmental expenditures related to its operations on the Tuolumne River and bay area watersheds and moreover has faithfully incorporated environmental stewardship elements into their management of the regional water system.
Since its inception in 1992, the Design Drought has been the backbone of effective system operations ensuring that the San Francisco Regional Water System operates in a manner that provides a reliable water supply. Its defined length and breadth is a determining factor that influences long-term water supply planning and operations. When environmental documents, such as the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water System Improvements Program were prepared, or when urban water management plans were crafted, the Design Drought was a key factor in their development. BAWSCA agencies also incorporated the Design Drought into their long term planning efforts.
It is not evident to BAWSCA that a change to the Design Drought is warranted at this time.
However, BAWSCA will not oppose a review of the Design Drought if the process includes a robust, independent, and documented analysis performed by experts in this field and further if BAWSCA is actively engaged in the process.
The Design Drought is an important planning tool that has been used successfully by the SFPUC for 30 years as part of its long-term system planning and operations. Any change to such a critical component must be must be approached cautiously. #####
From: Chris Shutes
To: Hood, Donna; Commission
Subject: CSPA comments to Design Drought workshop 082322, Agenda Item 7 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:20:51 PM
Attachments: CSPA comments SFPUC Design Drought wrkshp 082322.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.
Good afternoon Ms. Hood:
Attached please find a written copy of my comments today regarding policy issues relative to the Design Drought.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you again to the Commission for conducting this workshop.
Yours,
Chris Shutes
Chris Shutes
FERC Projects Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
(510) 421-2405
Oral Comments of Chris Shutes to the August 23, 2022 Workshop on the Design Drought of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Good afternoon,
Chris Shutes with the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. I am sorry I was not able to attend in person today.
I would like to call your attention to three policy issues related to the Design Drought. 1) I don’t see consistent use of the Design Drought in planning decisions. What I see is use of the Design Drought to support extreme risk aversion when it comes to flows, and much less risk aversion when it comes to alternative water supplies.
The decision not to create alternative water supplies, including infrastructure to accommodate transfers, is a policy choice. It is a policy choice to prioritize not spending money over the environment. The SFPUC should consider its policy choices in this context.
2) SFPUC staff characterizes the Design Drought as a “stress test.” It is not a risk analysis. The length and details of the Design Drought go rather to the potential consequences of worst case planning. You don’t refuse to build because under a certain level of earthquake risk a building might fall down. You look at a stress test for failure in earthquake and you make a policy decision about how much risk is acceptable. Then you design and build to that risk. Contrary to Staff, policy choices about using the Design Drought do need to consider the recurrence level, or level of risk.
3) The effects of the Design Drought or any actual drought vary with demand.
Demand is a much more controllable factor than precipitation or runoff. The Commission should require staff to analyze scenarios under current levels of demand, and make public the results when analyzing any planning scenario. The Commission, and BAWSCA for that matter, should also adopt a general policy of seeking to maintain or reduce existing levels of demand.
Thank you.
From: Ed Hillard
To: Commission
Subject: Toulumne River Trust Statement to SFPUC, August 23, 2022 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:40:54 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.
To: President Anson Moran and SFPUC Commissioners
From: Concerned Citizens
Re:
SFPUC Design Drought
Date:
August 23, 2022
24 of us who are tuned into this workshop understand that you have a very full agenda, so we have drafted a statement that one of us will read on behalf of the group to save you time.
We are deeply troubled by the poor ecological state of the Tuolumne River and San Francisco Bay-Delta. The Tuolumne is worse off than any other Central Valley river, those managed by other water districts. We encourage the SFPUC to represent the strong environmental values of San Francisco and Bay Area residents and drop your opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
The Design Drought which drives SFPUC water supply decisions doesn’t represent good science yet is at the heart of the agency’s poor environmental track record. For many decades, the Tuolumne has been starved of adequate instream flows, and populations of fish and wildlife have plummeted. The life of the river is at risk. We learned from the Klamath in 2005: Once you kill the salmon the fisheries never come back. Don’t let the Tuolumne die.
A scientifically informed Design Drought would include new information that has become available over the past few decades. You heard much of this information today. You have heard it in past workshops. Little evidence has been presented to support the validity of the Design Drought in its current form.
When thinking about risks to water supply, you must also think about risks to the Tuolumne River and Bay-Delta ecosystems. The risk of running out of salmon is far, far greater than the risk of running out of water and is foreseeable under current management by the SFPUC.
Please modify the Design Drought to be scientifically valid and drop your lawsuit against the Bay Delta Plan.
Delivering this statement are:
Brad Wurtz
Christina Bertea
David Lewis Ryther
Dick Allen
Ed Hillard
Friederike Buelow
Jeff Brown
Jennifer Bulka
Jo Coffey
Julianne Adams Frizzell
Lawrence Garwin
Libby Higgs
Margaret MacNiven
Mark Moulton
Mary Butterwick
Martin Gothberg
Patti Regehr
Rebecca Wu
Robert Naumann
Sara Sacks
Scott Webb
Shannon Rose McEntee
Tom Schwertscharf
William L. Martin
Thank you.
From: Denise Louie
To: Commission
Cc: Peter Drekmeier
Subject: Designing for Drought
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:02:41 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.
Hi President Moran and Commissioners,
Regarding SFPUC discussions of Designing for Drought, I urge you to seriously consider comments made or to be made by Peter Drekmeier of the Tuolumne River Trust, including his presentation for August 24, 2022. I am writing instead of speaking, to save your time, with respect for your long agenda.
The goals should be to resolve the standoff with the State’s Bay Delta Conservation Plan and to find a way to help salmon survive along the Tuolumne River before they become functionally extinct, i.e., unable to rebound from their steep decline.
As a member of the Center for Biological Diversity, I am particularly concerned about threatened species in the Bay Delta and along the Tuolumne, their ecological roles, as well as ecosystem-wide functions. Time is of the essence. I urge you to move forward expeditiously.
I urge you to withdraw the PUC from lawsuits blocking implementation of the Plan now.
Thank you,
Denise Louie
SFPUC customer
Member, CBD
From: Mark Moulton
To: Commission
Subject: Re-evaluate the design drought and drop the lawsuit Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 2:47:35 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,
Ultimately we will not be able to supply urban water if we destroy the ecology of our rivers like the Tuolumne. I urge you to make a long-term strategy and to drop the lawsuit on the Bay Delta plan.
Thank you,
Mark
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Moulton | cell/text
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From: CRUMPTON FAMILY
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC DESIGN DROUGHT
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 10:59:58 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. encouraging you to value science and become environmental stewards of the Tuolumne River by dropping any lawsuits against the State Water Board.
Thomas Crumpton
Crumpton Family
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Patricia Becker
To: Commission
Subject: Take care of our precious water and salmon
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:32:50 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.
Please value science and become environmental stewards of the Tuolumne River by dropping their lawsuits against the State Water Board.
Patricia Becker
Palo Alto, CA
From: julie mckee
To: Commission
Subject: H2O
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:10:03 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.
Value SCIENCE and the invaluable Tuolumne and DROP your lawsuit against the state water commission,
Julie Mckee
Janesville, ca 96114
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
To: Commission
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:45:19 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.
Please sirs and madams, please value evidence-based science and become better environmental stewards of the Tuolumne River. Drop your lawsuit against the State Water Board.
Jennifer Normoyle
Hillsborough, California
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Magic
To: Commission
Subject: Design Drought, Bay-Delta Plan Lawsuit, and Tuolomne River Unimpeded Flows Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:46:58 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,
After witnessing the recent workshop on the Design Drought I wondered what will be necessary for us to recognize the value of nature and alter our behavior to protect it. Having nearly extirpated salmon from the Tuolomne with resultant adverse repercussions throughout ecosystems from the Sierra to the Bay, we're now, in the face of scientific evidence contradicting their bases, pursuing policies destined to extend and exacerbate these negative impacts.
I am one of your customers. I've been reducing my water use for decades and can reduce it further to protect our common natural inheritance. Please stop listening to people who want to plan for events estimated to occur once every 70,000 years. Drop your lawsuit against the Bay-Delta Plan. Plan for the 100-year drought. Price water to increase conservation, reclamation, and reuse.
Thank you for considering these views.
Sincerely,
David Schrom
From: Dan Silver
To: Commission
Subject: Tuolumne River
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:19:10 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:
Endangered Habitats League calls on you to drop litigation against the State Water Board and become responsible stewards. Your actions are contrary to long term public interest and do not reflect the best science.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver, Executive Director
Endangered Habitats League
8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite A 592
Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267
213-804-2750
[email protected]
https://ehleague.org
From: laura allen
To: Commission
Subject: Design drought and river flows
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 2:18:29 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 about the issue with the design drought being overly severe which is negatively impacting the Tuolumne River flows and all the living things in the river.
I encourage you to use science and evidence from the LTVA to update the design drought to make more realistic drought predictions. There is enough water for people and the river and I encourage you to be stewards of the river as well as protecting the water supply.
There is much more opportunity for local onsite water to be reused as another source of water.
Residential greywater is one example of an underutilized water resource that could be used for nonpotable needs.
Kind regards,
Laura Allen
Co-founder Greywater Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Allen
Greywater Action
Author: Greywater, Green Landscape: How to Install Simple Water-Saving Irrigation Systems in Your Yard and
The Water-Wise Home: How to Conserve, Capture, and Reuse Water in Your Home and Landscape
From: Geri
To: Commission
Subject: 35 gallant a day to waste
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 5:25:31 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 SFPUC,
PLEASE DROP YOUR LAWSUIT
against our State Water Board,
Revere the science, and conserve in a way that protects all fish, foul and humans.
If you can read the fictional OVERSTORY, the dr. WESTFIELD CHAPTER SHEDS A LIGHT on the crucial interconnection of ALL things
EVERYWHERE. And, it’s fun reading.
Thank you very much,
Geri McGilvray,
Every day safety and Walkability
Palo Alto, California
Www.geriart.net
Aka: Geri Sigler McGilvray
Sent from my iPhone?
From: Pat McGuire
To: Commission
Subject: Stop Stalling! The Rivers Need Water
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 10:20:52 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.
If your studies continue to be inadequate, we'll know, so please think of the whole ecosystem.
Then maybe we can all survive this 1500-yr drought event.
How can that be a bad idea? Thanks for your service.
--
pat
From: Martin Gothberg
To: Commission
Cc: Hood, Donna
Subject: Recent Workshop Feedback
Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 2:19:56 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.
President Anson Moran and SFPUC Commissioners,
Thank you for allowing the presentations at the 8/23/2022 Public Hearing. I’d like to offer my thoughts on the workshop.
1.It appears that the Commission’s collective mind is made up in terms of the length of the design drought and therefore SFPUC staff policy on water management.
Contrary to what was expressed by the Commission, the 8.5-year design drought is indeed arbitrary. Stating ‘we thought about it a lot’ can still be ‘arbitrary’ when real data is essentially dismissed.
2. Why not take the State mandated 6-year drought (5+1) planning scenario and simply double it? Surely, we will never run out of water if you were to do so, right? Of course, we all see the absurdity in that assumption. Probabilities matter and simply adding time without considering fiscal and environmental impacts is irresponsible.
3.Stating you are just being 'conservative' when you are responsible for managing water supply sounds prudent. Yet if you are overly aggressive on water diversions to storage, the risk of extinction of a salmon-based ecosystem becomes far, far greater than the risk of running out of water.
4.Even at the peak of 'worst drought' the amount of water in storage never dipped below three years and with no extraordinary measures taken. As I walked around my neighborhood early this morning, I counted five houses with timed sprinklers running full blast. We have enough water to allow for greater than 20% unimpaired flow down the Tuolumne.
5.Rather than fighting the Bay Delta Plan by citing ‘there is no one out there to help us’ (among other arguments), make the case for the need for helpful infrastructure over a shorter time frame. This is an emergency!
6.You have a strong case to make for protecting the water supply AND the Tuolumne River ecosystem. Become the environmental advocate for the Tuolumne that your stewardship of the river requires. The public will listen if you lead.
Sincerely,
Martin J. Gothberg
Santa Clara, CA 95051
From: Ron Beltramo
To: Commission
Cc: "Peter Drekmeier"
Subject: SFPUC - Planning for Long Term Drought
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 6:17:59 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.
SFPUC: Please exercise reason in planning for long-term drought conditions, taking into consideration the points that have been consistently raised by Tuolumne River Trust (and other organizations) and carefully consider the following changes to the current SFPUC planning policy:
·
Take into consideration recent & current water usage (usage of 200 Million Gallons/Day) versus the extremely conservative drought scenario SFPUC projection at 265 Million Gallons/Day. Make the adjustment to the lower usage level. ·
Reduce the Design Drought time horizon from 8.5 years to 7.5 years (which is considerably longer than any drought experienced to date).
Obviously it is important to balance the water usage needs and conservation measures and I urge careful consideration of what is appropriate action moving forward (specifically outlined above).
Thank you for your consideration.
Ron Beltramo
Board Member – Northern California Council/Fly Fishers International From: Barry Fike
To: Commission
Subject: Please take better care of the Tuolumne River! Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:40:53 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 SFPUC,
Your Design Drought is WAY too conservative and harming our environment in so many ways. Please value the science and take better care of the Tuolumne River by dropping your lawsuits against the State Water Board.
Sincerely,
Barry Fike
Berkeley Ca 94703
From: Gregg Wrisley
To: Commission
Subject: Design Drought Plans
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 1:16:58 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.
The commission's bad policies are needlessly harming the Tuolumne River and Bay-Delta. Without a healthy environment, Water for people means nothing.
Gregg Wrisley
From: Simon Hebeler
To: Commission
Subject: Tuolumne River and Bay-Delta projects.
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 1:20:10 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 afternoon Commissioners,
It would appear that in addition to the insanity of considering a tunnel under the Delta to deliver water to south of Sacramento to support more growth in that area you are also completely miss-understanding the calculations that have been presented to you in several meetings & submitted to you for the Tuolumne River.
I find it extraordinary that in this age of drought and failing reservoirs that you are unable to understand that there is insufficient water in California to support the growth in buildings and the existing in-efficient agricultural irrigation practices.
Please enact policies that restrict the growth in building sprawl and impose enforceable restrictions on the use of water for residential & agricultural irrigation.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Hebeler.
------------------------------
Simon Hebeler,
=================================
From: Lesley Stansfield
To: Commission
Subject: Water is gold for everyone!
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:20:46 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.
Drought Plan Means Full Lake, Empty River! Not god for fish or in the long range people either! Please take some time listening to the Tuolumne River Trust and stop focusing on erroneous “drought plan” of SFPUC!
From: Rae
To: Commission
Subject: Drought scenario too long
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:42:41 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 attended the Design Drought workshop and the prior 4 workshops. According to the data I saw in the presentations, an 8.5 year drought scenario isn't based in fact. If, in your judgement, the 8.5 year cannot be reduced to 7.5, then it appears that it's not good judgment because it's too heavily influenced by fear.
Respectfully,
Rae Collins
Ordinary customer