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
October 19, 2022 through October 28, 2022
Date Received From Subject
October 19, 2022 Dave Warner Still No Salmon, 10+ years of water available
October 20, 2022 David Hopper on
behalf of Solutions
Not Sandbags
General Public Comment: Oct.
24, 2022 Meeting
October 21, 2022 Anonymoose Refer Herrera & Kelly to Attorney General for defying SOTF order
20084 Anonymous v Kelly and
PUC
October 24, 2022 Jo Coffey Comments for today's SF Public Utilities Commission Meeting,
Item #6
October 27, 2022 James Hua Questions about Bay Area Water Sustainability from a Student
October 28, 2022 Katie Weber Please continue to support the Crystal Springs Cross-Country
Course!
1 of 2
October 19, 2022
Re: Still No Salmon, 10+ years of water available
Dear Commissioners,
Here’s an update on this season’s Tuolumne salmon count along with noting the remarkable amount of water we have available to us during this drought.
So far no Tuolumne salmon (and it’s late): As of October 16 th Fishbio has not yet counted any salmon
on the Tuolumne. From the data provided since 2009, it has never been this long for the first salmon to be counted. Here is an update to the chart provided previously.
Well more than 10 years of water at our disposal: When considering both storage and SFPUC’s water rights during a drought, there is a lot of water available to us. As of July 5th we had 1,046 thousand acre feet (TAF) of water in storage. But when looking at the design drought, which is a combination of the driest 6 years (the 1987-1992 drought) since Tuolumne flows were measured and the driest two years (the 1976-77 drought), the SFPUC was able to capture an average of 124 TAF per year during those 8 years
1. 1 Data used for water captured during the design drought model years from both the Tuolumne and Bay Area watersheds, amounts in TAF (data should be checked by staff): 1987: 89. 1988: 34. 1989: 396. 1990: 68. 1991:
296. 1992: 75. 1977: 30. 1978: 8. Water captured over the 8 years totals 996 TAF, averaging 124 TAF/yr. 3,072
2,123
1,061
579
6,072
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar
Chinook Salmon Fish Passage as of 10/16/2022
Source: FISHBIO
Stanislaus 2021
Tuolumne 2021
Tuolumne 2020
Tuolumne 2019
Tuolumne 2018
Tuolumne 2022
(red solid line)
0to date
S
tanislaus 2022
(red dotted line)
122 to date
2 of 2
The reason so many years of water are available to us is that the design drought contemplated demand of 297 TAF/year, not 224 TAF/year2 that’s closer to actual demand. To calculate how long our water will last, on the supply side the amount of water in storage is combined with the amount of water that is expected to come from the river during the design drought. As of July 5th, there was 1,046 TAF in storage. If our annual demand is 224 TAF and we’re getting 124 TAF from the river each year during the drought, then only 100 additional TAF needs to come from storage. And with 1,046 TAF in storage, then our supply will last more than 10 years. Note that this is before any rationing as contemplated by the design drought model. If design drought rationing plans were added, there would be more than 14 years of water available as of July 5
th. Given that we are two years into a drought, this means we’re positioned to survive a 16 year drought before any implementation of the Bay Delta Plan. The point is that we have much more water in storage than we need, thanks to demand levels being so far below the 265 mgd (297 TAF/year) as contemplated by the design drought.
As a quick reminder, the SFPUC’s recent Long Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA), using 1100 years of tree ring data and 25,000 years of stochastic data, found no drought as severe as the design drought model and in fact found that the design drought model minus 1 year only occurred in the range of once in 10,000 years
3. Please find a way to get some of our 10 to 14 years of water back to the Tuolumne before we lose the salmon.
Best regards,
Dave Warner
2 224 TAF equates to 200 million gallons per day (mgd). Preliminary demand for our last water year through June 30th, was 190 mgd.
3 Probability derived from figure 5-11 of the LTVA.
From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco
To: Commission
Subject: For General Public Comment: Oct. 24, 2022 Meeting Date: Thursday, October 20, 2022 12:05:52 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.
For General Public Comment: Oct. 24, 2022 Meeting
Dear SFPUC Commissioners Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy, October 24th marks the one-year anniversary of the Marina Boulevard sewer-flooding debacle of 2021. We are writing, once again, to request that you do everything possible to prioritize and fund the solution to this problem. This means re-opening the Pierce Street sewer outflow so it won't happen again.
We also want to remind you that the undersized sewer near Alemany/Farmer's Market has not yet been fixed. Since this is what causes the sewer-flooding on Cayuga Avenue we strongly encourage you to keep this long-standing problem at the top of your list of concerns. Asking Kelley Omran to create an Upper Islais Creek Watershed
study might have been a fun project
for your staff to work on but it in no way addresses the problem.
Please fix the undersized and plugged-up sewers as they are creating both a public health hazard and a human equity issue for the city of San Francisco.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter and please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David Hooper on behalf of Solutions Not Sandbags
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website:
SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
From: Anonymoose
To: Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara; SOTF, (BOS); Herrera, Dennis J; Feitelberg, Brittany K; Commission Cc: Matt Yankee
Subject: Re: Refer Herrera & Kelly to Attorney General for defying SOTF order 20084 Anonymous v Kelly and PUC Date: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:50:20 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
signature.asc
ATT00001.txt
ATT00002.htm
Dear SOTF,
Further information for your compliance review of your order to the PUC re File 20084:
I requested the internal communications about how PUC handled this request in 20084 from GM Dennis Herrera and PUC to determine exactly what they knew, when, and how, and if they are now unlawfully withholding records after
you ruled against them and issued an order. They now
refuse to produce those records in the legal deadline by purporting to invoke the rule of reason:
"Please note that this request garnered a voluminous amount of responsive records that require careful review to protect privacy and privilege. Accordingly, reviewing the responsive records is burdensome, time-consuming, and demands consulting other City departments. Therefore, we are invoking the rule of reason to produce additional responsive records as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or rolling basis."
Remember, this is a request for records about a specific prior request - a very narrow
scope. This cannot possibly be a valid invocation of the Rule of Reason. Moreover, the reasons they cite are not actually valid reasons under the court case that created the rule of reason.
Instead, to be valid, the request would have to be so voluminous so as to prevent the PUC from performing its non-Sunshine duties. As you know, the rule of reason has been (validly) invoked in prior requests from me to the City such as: all police misconduct records ever created. But it is inconceivable that a single records request caused a comparable volume of internal communications that they cannot be timely provided.
Mere volume or burden is not the same as
rule of reason.
Instead, they are simply obstructing my ability to determine exactly what they did with my own request, in order to delay SOTF's ability to judge the lawfulness of their subsequent actions.
I will also show how Herrera has previously stated in writing that he would restrict my timely access to public records in a letter
specifically citing my filing of complaints (which has no legal bearing on his requirement to produce records). Which is to say, Herrera is retaliating against me for filing and winning complaints against him. And I have written evidence of this improper purpose in restricting my access to records.
This is further evidence of the willfulness of Dennis Herrera's actions in defying your order.
Regards,
Anonymoose
twitter.com/journo_anon
2022 Society of Professional Journalists James Madison Freedom of Information Award Winner, Northern California
I'm not a lawyer; nothing herein is legal advice. If you are a public official, I may publish any of your communications regardless of any notice you send to me.
------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, October 15th, 2022 at 9:11 AM, Anonymoose
wrote:
Dear SOTF,
as a public communication, also to SFPUC commissioners
Please schedule this complaint and order in 20084 Anonymous v. Harlan Kelly and SFPUC for a compliance review. The response of the PUC does not comply with the broad scope of the Order made by SOTF.
The mover Member Schmidt very carefully stated that *any and all* attachments (in PUC's possession, responsive to my request) must be provided.
It is on the
tape and in the written communication from the Administrator. Please schedule the hearing(s) and refer Dennis Herrera (current PUC dept head and ultimately responsible for their current production), Harlan Kelly Jr., and SFPUC to enforcement authorities.
Given that the request and records
concern local corruption and that the Ethics Commission remains incapable or unwilling to confront City officials for violating the Sunshine Ordinance, in this case, a notification to the Attorney General under Admin Code
67.21(e) is required
by law of SOTF ("If the custodian refuses or fails to
comply with any such order within 5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.").
Unlike the Ethics Commission, there is less reason to
believe the Attorney General will simply bury your referral. And having the AG be aware of what happened in this request is important.
1. PUC states: "In response to this last part of the Order, the SFPUC produced to the Complainant all non-exempt attachments – these records are available at this link.
However, regarding the text exchange that is the subject of this Complaint, the SFPUC does not possess, and has never possessed, the “attachments,” including the images, videos or audio files, mentioned in the text exchange between Mr.
Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mr. Walter Wong." (emphasis mine)
The PUC argues it has provided all non-exempt attachments - i.e. attachments that PUC believes in their own judgement are non-exempt. But the PUC's chance to argue attachments were exempt has already occurred - and they have lost. The SOTF's order is very clear - "any and all" is expansive language almost never heard in SOTF motions, but it is was specifically chosen in the order in my favor. If PUC now refuses to provide any and all attachments to the emails and texts responsive to my request, claiming their own exemption judgement takes priority over SOTF's, PUC is defying SOTF's order.
2. PUC further states: "The SFPUC has never possessed a copy of this record that makes the images, videos, and audio files attached to text messages exchanged between Mr.Kelly and Mr. Wong accessible, and SFPUC has no means of now gaining possession of these records to review or produce them."
This is also false. As the City Attorney's office has stated to SOTF in response to the SOTF's recent orders in my favor regarding the former Redistricting Task Force members, former public officials remain obligated to comply with sunshine requests remaining outstanding at the time of their leaving public office.
As you know, I filed
the request and the complaint long before Kelly resigned. Therefore, PUC can simply go to Kelly and demand the records from him, and then provide those to me - in order to complete my request.
Why hasn't PUC reached out to Kelly demanding
the records?
Furthermore - this is an Immediate Disclosure Request to Dennis Herrera (current dept head of PUC) and the PUC for (1) all records, in whole or in part, of archives, databases, or backups of Harlan Kelly Jr's mobile phones or text messages on them - and (2) the full
names of such files, in whole or in part, in
the constructive possession of PUC. Be certain to check iTunes and anywhere else on Kelly's former workstations or network drives. Such archives would contain the attachments at issue in the Order. You must minimally withhold. Further complaints will be filed at 12:01am Oct 19 if Herrera does not comply.
3. PUC finally cites a supervisor of records petition response denying my petition in their response. But this response to your order is not a chance for PUC to get another shot at arguing their case. They lost.
Most importantly, this means Herrera is citing himself (he was the Supervisor of Records at the time, and the SoR letter is signed under his name) to defy your order.
His own arguments about why he is correct have no relevance.
Regards,
Anonymous
twitter.com/journo_anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal Freedom of Information Award Winner
-------- Original Message --------
On Oct 14, 2022, 5:10 PM, Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara <
[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ms. Leger and Complainant,
Please find attached SFPUC’s response and supporting document.
Thanks,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst, External Affairs
Cell: 415-680-6683
Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:58 PM
To: Anonymous
Cc: Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Revised action of item 9, File No. 20084
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 Parties: Below is a revised version of the action taken at the Sunshine Task Force hearing of October 5, 2022.
Item 9, File No. 20084: Moved by Member Schmidt, seconded by Member Stein, to find that Harlen Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission violated Administrative Code, Sunshine Ordinance, Section(s) 67.21(b) by failing to respond to the records request in a timely and/or complete manner;
67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to provide a specific justification for withholdings and California Public Records Act (CPRA), Section(s) 6253(b), by failing to provide responsive records in a timely and complete manner,
6253(d)(3) by failing to identify
the name and title of all persons responsible for denying access to the records. In addition, the SOTF orders the Public Unities Commission to produce any and all attachments to the emails and text records that were sought in the Petitioner’s (Anonymous’) request.
I will be on vacation beginning October 17, 2022, returning October 24, 2022.
Should you have a question regarding the Sunshine Task Force, please contact Victor Young at [email protected]. Thank you.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
[email protected]
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org
Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted.
Members of the public are not required to provide
personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: Jo Coffey
To: Commission
Subject: Comments for today"s SF Public Utilities Commission Meeting, Item #6 Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24:38 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 the SFPUC Secretary,
I had intended to make a comment at today’s Public Utilities Commission Meeting, Item #6, but, though I called in, apparently I didn’t properly indicate that I wanted to speak. I’m very frustrated with myself, because this is the second time in the last month I’ve not followed the instructions properly, and have not been able to speak.
I’ve included below the comment I intended to make. It it’s possible to add it to the public comment, I’d appreciate it
Honorable SFPUC Commissioners,
My name is Jo Coffey, and I live in the Excelsior District in San Francisco.
Biologists have made amazing progress in understanding the origin and development of life on earth. The current consensus is that there is one ancestor for all living things, from bacteria to spiders to mammals like us. It’s not the earliest life form, but the last common ancestor, the earliest living being who is the ancestor to all the rest of us. It’s named LUCA, and dates from around 4 billion years ago, not that long after the earth itself was formed.
But even though we’re all related, something happened in the development of our civilization, what’s called western civilization. We western humans started believing we were special, a unique species - the conscious animal, to give a Greek expression of this; made in the image of God, to give a biblical one. We became blind to our true nature, the nature we share with all living things on earth. Mentally and emotionally, we’ve come to live in a human bubble.
Next year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Endangered Species act. This legislation has led to some dramatic recoveries. When I see flocks of brown pelicans flying along the shore, or across the Golden Gate Bridge, I think of the Endangered Species Act. But this act has certainly not stopped extinction. There is wide scientific agreement that we are in the midst of the sixth extinction, the first mass extinction since the one that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And this extinction is the result of human activity.
Things would have been worse without the Endangered Species act, but it’s clear that that act is not enough.
This commission is responsible for water policy. We’re one species, but only one, who need that water. In your deliberations, I urge you to think of those other species as the relatives they are.
Salmon lives matter.
Thank you.
Jo Coffey
From: James Hua
To: Commission
Subject: Questions about Bay Area Water Sustainability from a Student Date: Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:20:17 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 there,
My name is James Hua and I am an Interaction Design Masters student at the California College of the Arts. I am currently working on a project related to environmental awareness of wastewater pollution. I was inspired to take on this project because I am a Bay Area resident and I’m shocked by the environmental damage that our local ecosystems have suffered. I’m reaching out to you to get a better understanding of the field. The goal of my research is to identify Bay Area resident habits that have the potential to change and improve this crisis. I would really appreciate it if you could provide some of your wisdom to help me out.
Through some initial research, I discovered that the San Francisco Bay ecosystems have continuously been damaged by the output of many sources for the past century (agriculture, wastewater treatment, stormwater, etc.). Can you describe to me your understanding of the main sources of wastewater in the Bay Area? I’d love to educate myself on the variety of sources and the different types of pollutants they output into the bay. Is there a source that contributes specifically to a majority of the waste in the San Francisco Bay?
I also saw that narrowing the scope on wastewater treatment plants has potential to improve the situation.
It seems like agriculture is one of the biggest contributors, but I wonder if there is room for individuals to cut down water usage so that less water reaches the treatment plant in the first place? How can the public get involved in terms of wasteful water habits, purchasing habits or awareness? For example, do individual actions (like a shorter shower) truly help, or is this a government/policy issue? Do you think there are policy/government-agnostic ways in which the problem can be addressed? For example, could an environmental awareness campaign prove to be an effective strategy? I also noticed that the Bay Area lacks standardized water quality standards. I’m wondering if it is difficult in general to define these standards across counties, or are there other successful implementations of water quality standards? May I ask for your perspective on what metrics are most important to consider when determining water quality (dissolved oxygen, nitrogen content, etc.)? Thank you so much in advance for your time, I hope to learn a lot! James Hua
Katie Weber
Belmont, CA