Correspondence Log — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, February 13, 2024

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
January 23, 2024 through January 30, 2024

Date Received From Subject
January 23, 2024 Lalitha Visveswaran Concerns Regarding Incomplete CPRA Response and Potential Suppression of
Information by ACRCD
January 24, 2024 Dave Warner Affordability Impact of Proposed Budget Priorities
Spreck Rosekrans Proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS
January 29, 2024 Dave Warner Improving Language and Analysis on Affordability Risk
January 30, 2024 Jennifer Vataru Pierce Street Outfall Budget Follow-Up

From: Jellicles Farm
To: Commission
Cc: Dawson, Amy L; 1 Haubert; [email protected]; jellicles farm; Lalitha Visveswaran Subject: Concerns Regarding Incomplete CPRA Response and Potential Suppression of Information by ACRCD Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 11:35:48 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: SFPUC Commission
Subject: Concerns Regarding Incomplete CPRA Response and Potential Suppression of Information by ACRCD
I am writing to you as a former licensed farmer at Sunol AgPark, managed by the Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) under a lease with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).

For the past ten years, I have diligently worked at Sunol AgPark until my recent experience led to the non-renewal of my farming license, which I believe was influenced by discrimination and harassment following a period of medical leave post-surgery.

Despite my efforts to communicate, resolve, and seek mediation with ACRCD, all attempts have been unsuccessful, culminating in the unfortunate termination of my farming career.

The partial California Public Records Act (CPRA) results I received from ACRCD seem to deliberately omit critical communication, particularly the letter(sent by email and USPS) I sent
on October 20 2023, titled “Concerns for Future Retaliation, Evidence Request and Detailed Timeline.”

This email, along with other correspondences, appears to have been actively suppressed or not acknowledged by ACRCD. Furthermore, certified mail(dated November 09, 2023) containing grievance details was unclaimed and returned, suggesting an intent to ignore significant correspondence.

Additionally, evidence from the CPRA discovery indicates inquiries about these suppressed emails and unacknowledged mail, yet the trail abruptly ends, implying an incomplete disclosure of records.

This incomplete response and the absence of crucial text messages or meeting notes that led to the official emails and notices sent, raise serious questions about ACRCD's compliance with CPRA regulations.

The CPRA is designed to ensure transparency and accountability in public agencies. The inconsistencies and gaps in ACRCD’s response, coupled with the lack of disclosure of text messages and meeting notes, indicate a potential breach of these principles.

The missing information is critical to understanding the context and decision-making process that led to the non-renewal of my farming license at Sunol AgPark.

Given these concerns, it is my hope that through this investigation, any wrongs can be righted, and a fair resolution can be found for the significant losses I have suffered.

It is imperative to establish the full extent of the records pertaining to my communications with ACRCD and to ensure that all relevant and legally required information is disclosed.

There seems to be an alleged intent by ACRCD to suppress communication and create a false narrative to justify the non-renewal of my license.

Your intervention in investigating these irregularities and ensuring full compliance with CPRA requirements is crucial.

I am prepared to provide further details and documentation as necessary to assist in this process.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to your response and guidance.

Sincerely,
Lalitha Visveswaran
cc: Amy Dawson, SFPUC
Board of Supervisors, Alameda County, District 1

Page 1 of 3 ends

January 24, 2024
Re: Affordability Impact of Proposed Budget Priorities
Dear Commissioners, General Manager Herrera and Assistant General Manager Ritchie, Thank you for your patience with my letters. And thank you for the excellent discussion at Monday’s budget meeting. Below is a draft of a table that shows affordability risk associated with the proposed financial plans. It is clear staff has produced excellent and extensive work on the plans, but it is also important to show risk. The draft table below along with the debt service chart that follows, show how challenging the SFPUC’s situation is.

The crux of the problem is balancing capital needs against the risk of declining demand. 2045 Affordability Under Varying Levels of Demand and Capital Expenditure The table below shows what 2045 average retail monthly combined water and sewer bills would be at varying levels of demand and capital spending. The figures in this chart are crude estimates and I do not have a lot of confidence in them. But you need data like this. Staff should produce this chart or something similar in order for you to assess affordability risk prior to your decision on the plan on February 13th.

To
produce such a chart, one needs to consider 20 years of capital spending rather than just 10 (and clearly staff has done this). My starting assumption is that the 10 year CIP is $11.8 billion and that the total for years 11-20 is an additional $5 billion.

Each row in the chart shows a $1 billion reduction in the 10 year CIP plus a $0.5 billion reduction in the years 11-20 CIP. Each column shows different levels of demand for 2045. At lower levels of demand rates have to go up to keep the SFPUC solvent. The cells with red shading have monthly bills where the affordability limit has been exceeded. Yellow shading means that the cushion between the affordability limit and the bill is less than 20% and green means the cushion is 20% or greater.

10 Year CIP Year 11-20 CIP
Total 20 year
CIP reduction

23.8 mgd
(lower
bounds)

39.1 mgd
(Trend
result)

45.0 mgd
(15% below
2023)

52.6 mgd
(2023
demand)

54.1 mgd
(Prior 2045
est.)

61.1 mgd
(Current
2045 est.)
$11.8 billion $5.0 billion - 983 $ 63 2 $ 561 $ 492 $ 481 $ 436 $ $1

0.8 billion $4.5 billion ($1.5 billion) 902 $ 58 3 $ 518 $ 456 $ 446 $ 405 $ $9
.8 billion $4.0 billion ($3.0 billion) 821 $ 53 4 $ 476 $ 419 $ 41 0 $ 373 $ $8.8 billion $3.5 billion ($4.5 billion) 741 $ 48 5 $ 433 $ 38 3 $ 375 $ 342 $ $7
.8 billion $3.0 billion ($6.0 billion) 660 $ 43 6 $ 39 0 $ 347 $ 33 9 $ 310 $ $6.8 billion $2.5 billion ($7.5 billion) 580 $ 38 7 $ 34 8 $ 31 0 $ 304 $ 279 $ 2045 Affordability Limit: $440 average monthly bill.

Re
d Shading:

Yellow shading:

Green shading:
2045 Retail Demand Assumption (mgd)
Projected 2045 Average Retail Monthly Combined Water and Wastewater Bills Under Varying Demand and CIP Spending Levels
Assumption: $1 billion reduction in Retail CIP reduces retail fixed costs ~6%. Average retail monthly water bill calculation assumes 80% water and wastewater costs are fixed.

Above affordability limit
Less than 20% cushion to afforability limit
20% or greater cushion to affordability limit
CIP Assumption ($ billions)

Page 2 of 3 ends

For example, in the far right column at the top is a $436 average monthly bill at the current 2045 demand projection of 61.1 mgd with an $11.8 billion 10 year CIP. Even though the $436 average is slightly below the affordability threshold, there’s a good chance 2045 demand will come in below 61.1 mgd and the average monthly bill will be in the red zone to the left. If 2045 demand were to come in at 45 mgd and the 10 year CIP stayed at $11.8 billion, then the average monthly bill would be $561.

I’ve suggested that the planned average monthly bill should have a 20% cushion to the affordability limit and a prudent demand projection would be 15% below 2023 demand, given the large uncertainty of what demand will actually be in 2045. You can see that figure in the green box at the bottom of the 45.0 mgd column, an average monthly bill of $348 (20% below the affordability limit). Looking to the left, this would say that the 10 year CIP should be $6.8 billion (a shocking drop from $11.8 billion) and the years 11-20 CIP should be only $2.5 billion (another shocking drop). While it is likely impossible to reduce the CIP by these large amounts, it shows how difficult the SFPUC’s situation is.

And by the way, the 10 year CIP has no significant investment in alternative water supplies (AWS). If we want to do that, we should set aside space in the capital plan for that.

Not Much Ability to Spend More Until 2050 or Later

Through slides 56, 57 and 58 in the January 22nd overview, Finance provided a good summary of annual debt service costs. Debt eventually gets paid off, so the question becomes when will our debt service costs start declining and we get relief on affordability? The chart below answers this.

The chart aggregates debt service for water, wastewater and power. You can see that debt service costs don’t start declining until 2050, more than 25 years away. The hope was that debt service costs would start declining sooner so that we could put off some of our investments maybe just 10 years. But this chart says that any investment over the current proposal would have to be put off until 2050 or later so we don’t adversely affect rates. In other words, the SFPUC’s financial situation is highly constrained. We have to wait 20+ years before we can make more investments beyond what’s forecasted.

$-
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,600,000,000
$1,800,000,000
$2,000,000,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Combined Debt Service Projections
Wastewater Power Water
Debt service costs start to decline here

Page 3 of 3 ends

With an $11.8 billion capital plan there’s a high affordability risk, as shown in the table and our investment flexibility is extremely limited, as shown in the chart. At a high level this all makes sense. In an environment of declining demand we can’t keep spending $1 billion or more each year on new capital projects without running into affordability issues.

Decisions we make today will have consequences decades in the future potentially limiting our ability to adapt to changing situations without severe financial consequences. My bias would be to reduce our 10 year CIP plan until we have a better understanding of where demand will be in 2045.

Best regards,

Dave Warner
cc: SFPUC Citizens Advisory Commission
Nancy Hom, Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, Financial Planning Director

January 23, 2024
Tim Paulson, President
Re: proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS

Page 2 ends

January 24, 2024

Tim Paulson, President
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Re: Proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS
Dear President Paulson,
Restore Hetch Hetchy (“RHH”) would like to clarify the record with respect to the process for developing a revised Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) and the National Park Service (“NPS”), described as Contract No. CS-1413 and presented for approval at the SFPUC meeting yesterday (January 23, 2024).

On January 23, 2004 (yesterday), when approval of the proposed MOA was being considered by the SFPUC, Assistant General Manager Steve Ritchie responded to a query from Commissioner Ajami’s by stating that NPS is “responsible for public input” and that public input is “done under federal law”.

There was no opportunity for public input with NPS. We asked NPS orally on June 1, 2023, and both NPS and SFPUC in writing on June 19. Further discussion of the MOA process and its substance is included in the attached letter to Superintendent Muldoon.

We regret there was no opportunity to set the record straight at yesterday’s Commission meeting prior to the MOA’s approval.

Sincerely,

Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Roger Williams, Chair
Virginia Johannessen, Vice- Chair
Peter Van Kuran, Treasurer
Mark Palley, Secretary
Kathy Bowler
Mark Cederborg
James Fousekis
Ann Hayden
Lance Olson
Craig Reynolds
Lucho Rivera
Mecia Serafino
Melanie Webber

STAFF
Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director
Julene Freitas
Office Manager

3286 Adeline St. Suite 7
Berkeley, California 94703
510.893.3400

Tax ID # 77-0551533
January 24, 2024
Cicely Muldoon
Re: proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS

Page 2 ends

January 24, 2024

Cicely Muldoon, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
Re: Proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS
Dear Superintendent Muldoon,
Restore Hetch Hetchy (“RHH”) has reviewed the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) and the National Park Service (“NPS”), as presented for approval at the SFPUC meeting on January 23, 2024. We are pleased that SFPUC and NPS cooperate to apply provisions of the Raker Act that protect San Francisco’s water quality as well as the public’s right to enjoy the Hetch Hetchy area and Tuolumne River watershed within Yosemite National Park (“YNP”).

We find, however, that the proposed MOA, in its current form, does not accurately reflect the water quality protections of the Raker Act. Rather, the proposed MOA disregards Section (9)(a)(5) of the Raker Act in two ways:
• First, by implication and effectively in practice, SFPUC is asking for and NPS is granting water quality protections in addition to those listed in Sections (9)(a)(1-4) of the Raker Act, and • Second, the Raker Act requires that if SFPUC finds that the protections listed in sections (9)(a)(1-4) are “insufficient to protect the purity of the water supply, then the said grantee shall install a filtration plant or provide other means to guard the purity of the water”. NPS therefore has no business protecting SFPUC’s filtration avoidance beyond the Raker Act’s specific mandates and any other measures in place throughout Yosemite National Park and its wilderness areas.

We do recognize that there are important improvements to the text on page 2 of the proposed new MOA. The proposed MOA states that the “watershed protection program” (to avoid filtration) is a requirement for the SFPUC

STAFF
Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director
Julene Freitas
Office Manager

3286 Adeline St. Suite 7
Berkeley, California 94703
510.893.3400

Tax ID # 77-0551533
January 24, 2024
Cicely Muldoon
Re: proposed MOA between the SFPUC and the NPS

Page 2 ends

(and no longer describes it as a goal for both parties). Further, the proposed MOA no longer states that NPS “can control all human activities”, seemingly recognizing the Raker Act’s limitations. Restore Hetch Hetchy appreciates these changes.

The proposed MOA still states, however, that filtration avoidance regulations are “relevant” and are still included as Appendix B. NPS, however, bears no responsibility for protecting SFPUC’s filtration exemption and in fact is precluded by law from actively doing so. Why should NPS be party to a document emphasizing filtration avoidance?

Water quality provisions of the MOA should state plainly that the NPS objectives are limited to those either (1) expressly included in the Raker Act or (2) otherwise in place in Yosemite National Park and its wilderness areas.

Let’s be clear. RHH supports high quality water for all urban agencies and appreciates SFPUC’s commitment to provide high quality water for its customers. Requiring NPS to go beyond the provisions of the Raker Act, however, contravenes the Act and discriminates against park visitors, who have a right to enjoy the bounty of Yosemite National Park as provided by the Raker Act and other federal statutes.

During a meeting with NPS staff on June 1, 2023, Restore Hetch Hetchy sought unsuccessfully to discuss the revised MOA. On June 19, 2023, we renewed that request in writing, asking both NPS and SFPUC to release a draft MOA for public review. On September 26, we made recommendations in a Petition to NPS and DOI which included removal of the MOA’s Appendix B - Filtration Avoidance Regulations.

On January 23, 2004 (yesterday), when approval of the proposed MOA was being considered by the SFPUC, Assistant General Manager Steve Ritchie responded to Commissioner Ajami’s query by stating that NPS is “responsible for public input” and that public input is “done under federal law” (See attachment for transcript and video link). Mr. Ritchie’s statement that public input was NPS’s responsibility provides additional justification for our request to comment on the MOA while it is in draft form.

Restore Hetch Hetchy asks NPS to decline the MOA as proposed and to accept public input that will assure a robust final document which closely and clearly adheres to the provisions of the Raker Act.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director

Cc: President Tim Paulson, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission meeting (partial transcript) January 23, 2024
Video online at
https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/45260?view_id=22&redirect=true&h=e8b257eb3d6f7 a01d0dd1f96d1242066.

Portions included:
• 8:09 Restore Hetch Hetchy thanks Commission for work at Hetch Hetchy. • 1:22:03 Restore Hetch Hetchy asks SFPUC not to approve MOA (MOA begins at 1:11:40) 8:09
Spreck Rosekrans: President Paulson and Commissioners, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I’m Spreck Rosekrans talking for Restore Hetch Hetchy. I am here to thank the Commission for its support of projects around Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, including a new and safer Wapama Falls bridge.

If you’ve been there when the water is high, you can’t safely cross the bridge – people have been swept off it and have in fact died. If you try to see the waterfall when it is high, you can’t get there.

Thank you for repairing the boat ramp. Thank you for your project that you’ve approved to provide potable water to the campsite. People camp there they don’t like to have to walk almost a mile around the road to where the potable water is. And thank you also for working with the Park Service on interpretation around Hetch Hetchy. It is much appreciated. I included some of these things in a letter I wrote to you folks a year ago that I thought was supposed to be part of the MOA – I realize that was the wrong forum. Thank you very much.
1:22:03
Spreck Rosekrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy: Hi, Spreck Rosekrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy.

Commissioners, Restore Hetch Hetchy appreciates the partnership you have with the National Park Service and we also appreciate that the operative language in the document has changed in some important ways. But it still, we believe, does a poor job of describing the provisions of the Raker Act that speak to the visitors ability to explore the park and the water quality protections that are in the Raker Act and what is not in the Raker Act. As you know, there’s very specific water quality protection in the Raker Act – not much applies more than a mile outside Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.

And the Park Service also is precluded from any involvement in filtration avoidance. At best the document is confusing. We think it discriminates against park visitors and at worst it may in fact be illegal. So, we are asking you not to approve it, to rewrite some of these sections, and we will be asking the Park Service not to sign it as well. Thank you very much.

President Paulson: I would request a motion and a second to approve item 8.

Commissioner Stacy: move to approve
Commissioner Ajami: I have a question. This language – we work with the Park Service to put it together, right? So, they are fully in agreement?

Margaret Hannaford (Division Manager of Hetch Hetchy Water and Power): That is correct. And we are in compliance. Thank You.

Commissioner Maxwell: Has this gone through public process? Margaret Hannaford: It is an agreement. It is a process we worked on with the park Service.

Commissioner Maxwell: Has it had a public airing?
Hannaford: No
President Paulson: On the motion. Do I hear a second?
Commissioner Rivera: Second
President Paulson: Roll Call please
(All Commissioner vote aye.)
Commissioner Ajami: Can I have a follow-up question. I know this item is passed, but since we have you here. So, this is obviously very loosely defined language based on the agreements we have so if there is an input into the process, that can happen.

Hannaford: mm hmm (yes)
Commissioner Ajami: The public can engage with the Park Service and us to do things in a different way if needed?
Hannaford: I think we could have that discussion.

Ajami: My point is. This is an MOU. MOUs are not written in stone – they can be more flexible, right – based on my understanding of an MOU?
Ritchie (Assistant General Manager for Water): Again, Steve Ritchie. We follow the Park Service’s lead on development of the document. They are the ones who are responsible for public input on it.

We follow their processes so we would refer Mr. Rosekrans to the Park Service on this.

Commissioner Ajami: Since they are the ones who deploy the projects, they are the ones who engage the public?
Ritchie: And it is done under federal law.

Commissioner Ajami: Thank you.

Rosekrans (not at microphone): Can I speak to that:

President Paulson: No, you can’t thank you.

President Paulson: Let us go to item 9
(Rosekrans goes to podium anyway)
President Paulson: Public comment is over:

Commissioner Maxwell: public Comment is over
President Paulson: Thank you, Public comment is over:

Rosekrans (microphone turned off): The Park Service denied public input. We asked them in June.

Just so you know.

Page 1 of 4 ends

January 29, 2024
Re: Improving my Language and Analysis on Affordability Risk Dear Commissioners, General Manager Herrera and Assistant General Manager Ritchie, Of my three primary concerns about financial risks to the proposed financial plans:

1. The 1% cushion between average bills and the affordability limit is too small;

2. The massive spending makes the future highly constrained with little flexibility/adaptability; I should have described risk #3 differently:

3. Old, it was: Affordability risk increases with declining [per capita] demand New, it should be: Affordability risk increases with declining population growth.

My affordability risk and declining demand table needs to change to affordability risk and declining population growth. My apologies for not capturing this distinction sooner. Sadly, the correction likely does not reduce the substantial financial risk the proposed financial plans present. Risks #1 and #2 have not changed, and the new underlying independent variable for #3, population growth, still has considerable uncertainty.

Explaining the change in Risk #3
Thanks to a discussion with Laura Busch and Erin Corvinova, I now understand that drops in demand driven by gross per capita demand, as opposed to lower than expected population growth, have minimal impact on affordability given that such a large portion of the SFPUC’s water and sewer costs are fixed. Population projections are much more influential on affordability. My analysis should have taken this into account.

Please disregard the affordability table in my letter of January 24th. I have asked Mses. Busch and Corvinova for their population projections in order to provide an update to my affordability table.

The simplest explanation, taken from Ms. Corvinova, is that as per capita demand declines, per unit rates will go up proportionally so that average water and sewer bills stay the same. With the average bill staying the same, the SFPUC has the same amount of revenue and hence there is no impact to affordability with declining per capita demand. There might be some grousing similar to the drought surcharge grousing, but affordability stays the same.

However, if overall demand is lower due to lower population growth, that reduces the number of monthly bills, which would force the SFPUC to raise the average bill to make up for fewer customers than expected.

The table below shows how the average water bill changes if the actual 2044 population is different than projected. If the population comes in just 5% below the projection, the average water bill of $459 exceeds the affordability target of $440. The key point continues to be that there’s significant uncertainty on the 2044 affordability outcomes, but now this analysis presents population growth uncertainty as opposed to

70%
of target
80%
of target
90%
of target
95%
of target
Affordability
limit
At
target
125% of
target
Average
mon
thly bill 623 545 484 459 440 436 349
Green shading: 20% or greater cushion to affordability limit Yellow shading: Less than 20% cushion to afforability limit Red Shading:

Affordability at Various Percentages of Projected 2044 Population Above affordability limit

Page 2 of 4 ends

per capita demand uncertainty. And as you know, there’s been a large variance or uncertainty in population projections. The last urban water management plan estimated San Francisco’s 2045 population at 1.25 million while last summer the California Department of Finance projected 0.85 million, a large difference.

Highlighting Risk #1, the 1% cushion is too small.

The chart below1 shows how close the 2044 average combined monthly water and sewer bill will be to the affordability limit. It is difficult to achieve such forecast precision 20 years out. There are too many unknowns. Population is just one example of many.

Having such a narrow cushion also limits future adaptability and flexibility. Last year’s financial plans showed a 2043 cushion in the 40% range.2 Does it make sense to use up essentially all of our cushion with this current financial plan?
If we want to increase the cushion back
to 20% or more, the chart to the left
provides a strawman analysis. Staff
should produce its own version of this
table, but this strawman shows that the
$11.8 billion capital plan would need to
be reduced by ~$3 billion to increase the
affordability cushion from less than 1% to
better than 20%.

1 Taken from slide 45 of the January 22nd budget presentaTgFEUon to commissioners. Red circle and red text added. 2 Last year’s aﬀordability table showed an average combined monthly bill of $305 with the aﬀordability limit at ~$425, or $120 ab
ove the average bill. $120/$305 = a 39.3% cushion.
10 Year CIP Year 11-20 CIP
Total 20 year CIP
reduction
Average Monthly
Bill
Percent
cushion
$11.8 billion $5.0 billion - 436$ 0.9% $

10.8 billion $4.5 billion ($1.5 billion) 405$ 8% $

9.8 billion $4.0 billion ($3.0 billion) 373$ 15% $

8.8 billion $3.5 billion ($4.5 billion) 342$ 22% $

7.8 billion $3.0 billion ($6.0 billion) 310$ 29% 2 045 Affordability Limit: $440 average monthly bill.

Ye
llow shading:

Green shading:

Strawman estimates: SFPUC staff should provide its own calculations Projected 2045 Average Retail Monthly Combined Water and Wastewater Bills Under Varying CIP Spending Levels
Assumption: $1 billion reduction in Retail CIP reduces retail fixed costs ~6% CIP Assumption ($ billions)
Less than 20% cushion to afforability limit
20% or greater cushion to affordability limit
Affordability

Page 3 of 4 ends

Highlighting Risk #2, A highly constrained future with little flexibility/adaptability As a reminder, in addition to the affordability cushion being too small, there’s big risk associated with having used up most of our budget flexibility for the next 25+ years. This debt service projections chart, that was also in my prior letter, highlights how constrained we will be. We don’t start getting relief from debt service costs until after 2050, which severely limits our flexibility and adaptability. To put the amount of debt service in context, our 2044 debt service alone is projected larger than our entire, SFPUC-wide, 2023 operating budget.

How will we address capital needs that come up later, such as:
- The SFPUC’s Long Term Vulnerability Analysis (LTVA), projected approximately $6 billion of repair and replacement capital projects over 25 years just for water enterprise.3 Is this $6 billion in the projection? And this is just for the water enterprise. - The massive investment in advances for wastewater will drive the need for yet more repair and replacement capital projects.
- To my knowledge the projecTgFEUons include only $0.2 billion for alternaTgFEUve water supplies (AWS) while the AWS plan calls for as much as $19 billion in spending if the 92 mgd called for were built. This would decimate the capital plan and aﬀordability. However the need for such an increase is highly uncertain. The AWS plan should include a sensiTgFEUvity analysis showing both upper and lower bounds of what demand might be. Even if AWS needs were pared down to $2 to 4 billion, it’s not clear that aﬀordability wouldn’t sTgFEUll be decimated with just that amount.

Perhaps staﬀ could answer how much unallocated capital spending is available in the next 25 years.

3 Derived from the Long Term Vulnerability Assessment Technical Report 6: Finance Module, secTgFEUon 4.1 dated November 2019:
$300 m
illion capital budget, 55% used for Repair and Replacement, increasing 3% per year comes to ~$6 billion for 25 years.

Page 4 of 4 ends

I hope this letter provided a clarification on my affordability analysis and keeps it the context of the significant financial risks the proposed financial plans have. Thank you again for your patience with my letters.

Best regards,

Dave Warner

cc: SFPUC Citizens Advisory Commission
Nancy Hom, Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, Financial Planning Director

From: Jennifer Vataru
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]; The Marina 94123
Subject: Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 8:46:11 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.

Commissioners :

I appreciate you listening to my statement during the PUC wastewater budget meeting about the Pierce St Outfall. I felt the discussion regarding the Pierce St outfall repair was appropriate for the meeting. This is a budget issue that should identify the costs to fix the Pierce St outfall as well as the damage it has caused.

San Francisco water rate payers have been responsible for paying $600 million in repairs for other sewage backups that occurred throughout the city.

I believe Steven Robinson's statement "the flooding on Marina Blvd was caused by the storm" is mistaken, per the documents obtained thru the public records request.

Additionally, his statement did not identify which sewage backup he was referring to.

We have had two catastrophic sewage backups on Marina Blvd - Oct 2021 and Dec 2022 - within 15 months of decommissioning the Pierce St outfall. Neither of these storms was large enough to cause the backup events.

Commissioner Ajami and Maxwell: thank you for requesting that Steven Robinson
provide more specific details regarding the Pierce St outfall closure.

The commission has a responsibility to the community to correct this life and safety problem.

I've attached the text of my statement, below.

Thank you,
Jennifer Vataru
_______________________
Jennifer Vataru Personal Statement 1/26/24 PUC waste water budget meeting.

Hello, I am Jennifer Vataru, Marina resident and mother of a 2 year old daughter who stood before this commission last May.

I shared with you the devastation my family
and our community experienced in October 2021 and December 2022.

When a couple feet of sewage backed up on Marina Blvd for the second time, my 80 year old father was on his hands and knees trying to keep our home safe from toxins.

We called 9-1-1 because there was an elderly woman who was stuck in her car outside our house that needed to be rescued. First responders came to my door and told me NOT to open my door because there was sewage everywhere and that it was not rain water and thus not safe.

My family has been displaced since this second sewage incursion. Commissioner Ajami was quick to blame climate change and “1000 year storms”, but we know this is not the case as we had two sewage incursions within 15 months of closing the Pierce St outfall, and neither storm was a “1000 year storm”.

Further, if climate change is a
concern in San Francisco then the idea of closing the outfall should have been abandoned to allow the city to better handle storms.

Based on information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the PUC knew that the decision to close the outfall would cause a sewage backup on Marina Blvd.

Now my neighbors and my family live in fear of rain and have to sandbag our homes every time there is a threat of precipitation.

The commission has an opportunity to fix
the problem it created, before we have another catastrophic event similar to what happened in San Diego this past week.

I am asking the commission today to add the repair of the Pierce Street outfall to this year’s budget, for our community’s health and safety.

Thank you.

Jennifer

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
February 2, 2024 through February 6, 2024

Date Received From Subject
February 2, 2024 Solutions Not Sandbags Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up February 5, 2024 Jennifer Vataru Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up Solutions Not Sandbags Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up February 6, 2024 Spreck Rosekrans Hetch Hetchy Loop Road Martin Gothberg SFPUC Budget and Capital Plan
Stephen Rosenblum Proposed Budget

From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco
To: Commission
Cc: The Marina 94123; Jennifer Vataru; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Magnan, Eric@EPA; Sam Plummer; Daniel Kostek; SFPUC Citizens" Advisory Committee; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Neighbors Against Flooding; [email protected]; [email protected]; Peskin, Aaron (BOS); Safai, Ahsha (BOS); Stefani, Catherine (BOS); Jessica Wolfrom; [email protected]; [email protected]; St John Barned-Smith; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Mullaney; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Brekke; Ezra David Romero; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lorien Fono; [email protected]; Jeff Ruch; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up
Date: Friday, February 2, 2024 12:24:34 PM
Attachments: image.png
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.

February 2, 2024
Dear SF PUC Commissioners,
Thank you for listening to Jennifer Vataru's statement about the Marina Boulevard sewer- flooding and the Pierce Street outfall closure at your January 26th Budget Special Meeting (see below for her statement.)
We are following up on her comments because there are issues which need to be brought to the forefront and were passed over at the meeting.

In order to avoid ex parte communications
it's in the best interest of the entire community that all parties be made aware of these issues.

In addition, recent public statements by Mr. Stephen Robinson on behalf of the SFPUC have been misleading and incorrect. This only serves to complicate and distract from the real issues. (Please see the SFPUC's study below.)
Solutions Not Sandbags (SNS) is a community group that organized over ten years ago after sewage flooded our streets, sidewalks, homes, and businesses. Our goal is to bring attention to the failures of San Francisco's combined sewer system and to fix the problem. We have been working with Marina Boulevard neighbors since the flooding of October 2022. We have compiled our own report about this flooding based on documents obtained through public records requests.

Thank you to Commissioners Ajami and Maxwell for noting the budgetary impacts of the closing of the Pierce Street outfall which led to considerable damage to many homes. Please note that it was closed without approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB.) This has led to a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Previous and similar lawsuits have led to tens of millions of dollars in payouts by SFPUC to injured parties.

Please note that the cost to ratepayers for these lawsuits has not been well documented nor accounted for in the PUC's budget. This is why there is confusion about the impacts of these poor decisions. We believe the SFPUC needs to be open and transparent in their accounting of the costs of their payouts to both victims and attorneys—and to be clear about how this burdens its ratepayers.

The SFPUC is responsible for fixing the problems they have created through neglect or bad design or otherwise. For example, the $600 million settlement with the RWQCB required them to solve flooding in three separate neighborhoods—communities which suffered sewer- flooding because the big pipes upstream were easily overwhelmed by the small pipes downstream.

Based on the RWQCB's investigation we anticipate a similar action to correct the unapproved closure of the Pierce Street outfall. This closure has led to never-before-seen sewage geysers of feces, toilet paper, grease and dead rats along Marina Boulevard, greatly impacted SF's combined sewer system discharges, and has increased pollution in the bay.

The closure of the Pierce Street outfall was intended to protect the boats in the SF Marina. But in fact, the sewage has just been directed into the waters of Pier 39 (another protected marina) as well as into the bay near Crissy Field (already an EPA "impacted waterway" of concern.) Solutions Not Sandbags will publish an extensive technical report about these environmental impacts soon.

It is absolutely appropriate for you to evaluate this situation as it directly impacts the current budget and, most importantly, the ratepayers. Needless to say, ratepayers expect their monies to protect public health and safety and not to be used for attorneys' fees.

San Francisco has a long history of excellent engineering standards for urban drainage but unfortunately—we can no longer claim that is true. It's time for the SFPUC Commissioners and the SF Board of Supervisors to have a meaningful discussion about how to encourage the safe and proper engineering of our urban drainage for the benefit of all San Francisco residents and ratepayers.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

Sincerely,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:45 AM Jennifer Vataru <[email protected]> wrote:

Commissioners :

San Francisco water rate payers have been responsible for paying $600 million in repairs for other sewage backups that occurred throughout the city.

I believe Steven Robinson's statement "the flooding on Marina Blvd was caused by the storm" is mistaken, per the documents obtained thru the public records request.

Additionally, his statement did not identify which sewage backup he was referring to. We have had two catastrophic sewage backups on Marina Blvd - Oct 2021 and Dec 2022 - within 15 months of decommissioning the Pierce St outfall. Neither of these storms was large enough to cause the backup events.

Commissioner Ajami and Maxwell: thank you for requesting that Steven Robinson
provide more specific details regarding the Pierce St outfall closure.

The commission has a responsibility to the community to correct this life and safety problem.

I've attached the text of my statement, below.

Thank you,
Jennifer Vataru
_______________________
Jennifer Vataru Personal Statement 1/26/24 PUC waste water budget meeting. Hello, I am Jennifer Vataru, Marina resident and mother of a 2 year old daughter who stood before this commission last May.

I shared with you the devastation my
family and our community experienced in October 2021 and December 2022.

When a couple feet of sewage backed up on Marina Blvd for the second time, my 80 year old father was on his hands and knees trying to keep our home safe from toxins.

My family has been displaced since this second sewage incursion.

Commissioner
Ajami was quick to blame climate change and “1000 year storms”, but we know this is not the case as we had two sewage incursions within 15 months of closing the Pierce St outfall, and neither storm was a “1000 year storm”.

Further, if climate
change is a concern in San Francisco then the idea of closing the outfall should have been abandoned to allow the city to better handle storms.

Based on information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the PUC knew that the decision to close the outfall would cause a sewage backup on Marina Blvd.

Now my neighbors and my family live in fear of rain and have to sandbag our homes every time there is a threat of precipitation.

The commission has an
opportunity to fix the problem it created, before we have another catastrophic event similar to what happened in San Diego this past week.

I am asking the commission today to add the repair of the Pierce Street outfall to this year’s budget, for our community’s health and safety.

Thank you.

Jennifer
--

SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
From: Jennifer Vataru
To: Robinson, Stephen D
Cc: Commission; The Marina 94123; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Magnan, Eric@EPA; Sam Plummer; Daniel Kostek; SFPUC Citizens" Advisory Committee; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Neighbors Against Flooding; [email protected]; Peskin, Aaron (BOS); Safai, Ahsha (BOS); Stefani, Catherine (BOS); Jessica Wolfrom; [email protected]; St John Barned-Smith; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Mullaney; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Brekke; Ezra David Romero; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lorien Fono; [email protected]; Jeff Ruch; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ko, Albert (DPW); Save SF Marina Green; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 4:50:20 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 Mr. Robinson,
I am unclear as to which study you are referencing when you stated in the public meeting:
"...There was an extensive study that looked into the Pierce St. outfall and we did come to the conclusion that it did not contribute to the storm(sic) in that particular case..." So far, all the documents that I have seen appear to imply just the opposite, such as the image shown
here. The difference in the area affected and the depth of flooding in the image suggest that except for 1- 2 homes, all the homes (including mine) that were damaged in the 2 storms so far would not have had damages if the outfall were not closed. If I am reading this wrong, hopefully you have an extensive study that can show me otherwise so I can correct any misperceptions I have had from the information provided by SFPUC so far.

Under the California Public Records Act, could you please provide me with:

1. All documents, studies and reports provided to you to substantiate that claim. This includes all studies and reports following the Oct 2021 storm, and the Dec 2022 storm and other damages.

2. All emails, meeting minutes, phone logs and other
correspondences you have had with City Staff,
consultants, politicians and others regarding "Pierce St. Outfall"

3. All emails, meeting minutes, phone logs and other
correspondences you have had with City Staff,
consultants, politicians and others regarding outfall modifications and closures As you have referenced this document in a public meeting, it is no longer "a confidential communication".

Under California State rules of evidence, this removes any privilege that may have been implied by it having been previously shared with attorneys. Please do not use "Attorney Client Privilege" to hide communications which are no longer "confidential".
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/evidence-code/evid-sect-954/ Thank You
Jennifer Vataru
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:17 PM SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Commission Members, Regulators and Other Interested Parties:

We've been asked to provide links to some of the items referenced in this email:

All documents obtained by Solutions Not Sandbags and working with TheMarina94123 are available at these google drive locations:SF Sewer WikiLeaks - Documents Related to sewage discharges in San

Francisco, Marina Wikileaks

1. PUC Commision Meeting:

Jen's comments are at 1:39:43, in the video of the 1/26/2024 meeting:
https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/45285?
view_id=22&redirect=true&h=61ccae973bc1ecfd3d79f027c10e12ee Commissioner Ajami's comments at 1:42:17
Mr Robinson’s comments at 1:44:01:
"...There was an extensive study that looked into the Pierce St. outfall and we did come to the conclusion that it did not contribute to the storm(sic) in that particular case however of course we can go back and look at it again..."
[email protected]
past meeting videos are at:https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=22.

PUC commission upcoming meeting schedule and agenda at:Agendas-Minutes-Resolutions- Log

2. Study done after 10/24/2021 storm (note the considerable increase in flood depth and spread with the closure of Pierce St. outfall):10242021 Storm and System Response.pdf This report was provided by SFPUC following 2 Public Record Requests:
a.

Email PRA to PUC Marina Outfalls.pdf
b.

Request 23-3806 - TheMarina94123 request for Herrera backup material updated july

31.pdf

3. Code of Ethics | National Society of Professional Engineers.

4. Solutions Not Sandbags: 'It's Been a Fight for Our Homes': The Ongoing Saga to Fix San Francisco's Sewers | KQED.

5. Ex Parte Communications: Water Boards Ex Parte Communications Questions and Answers Document

6. SNS Report on Flooding Due to Pierce St. outfall Closure: 1.3-New Report on the Information obtained from SFPUC regarding the consequences of the closure of the Pierce St Outfall.pdf

7. Lawsuits, please note there is no clear report of final cost to settle and in all of the legal cases, no report on cost for City Attorney and legal consultants:
a.
2004 storm (settled in 2007):San Francisco ready to wrap up flooding lawsuit with $1.7M payout
b.
2014 storm (and others, settled in 2020) :SF to pay homeowners nearly $4.4M in settlements over raw sewage flooding | Archives | sfexaminer.com c.

Currently: Joe Montana played at Candlestick dump. He may live under similar conditions in S.F.
d.

SFPUC’s attempt to sue EPA to prevent enforcement of Clean Water Act:SF isn’t doing enough to prevent sewage pollution, court rules
[email protected]

8. SF Required to fix undersized sewers which caused sewage geyers:
a.

Cleanup and Abatement Order from Regional Water Quality Control Board(Regional Board) SFPUC Cleanup and Abatement Order

SFPUC Cleanup and Abatement Order Public Notice
c.

Millions of gallons of sewage are spilling into San Francisco Bay

9. Regional Boards Letter to SF to begin investigation into Pierce St. outfall:North Shore 13383 Directive-for signature.pdf

10. Smaller pipes downstream, Manning's equation: Shit Storm: Why won’t SF stop flooding homes with sewage? | Archives | sfweekly.com

11. Protect the yacht harbor:
a.

Assessment to Decommission Pierce CSD Memo.pdf:
b.

5. UWA Bayside Operations Evaluation Study TM (DRAFT).pdf Reports and emails provided under the Public Records Act requests specifically state that “Collection system staff request raising the weir…” NOT blocking it entirely. A considerably number of emails express considerable concern about even raising the weir slightly such as Mira Chokshi's concern:RE OF 10 and 13 Backflow Prevention Next Steps - RESPONSE

REQUIRED 2017-09-29.pdf

12. SF’s history of engineering:The Sewer System of San Francisco, and a Solution of the Stormwater Flow Problem | Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers | Vol 65, No 4 13.

Why were flooding projects removed from the SSIP? Smoking Gun - Harrington Explaining Why Flooding Projects Removed

From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco
To: Commission
Cc: The Marina 94123; Jennifer Vataru; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Magnan, Eric@EPA; Sam Plummer; Daniel Kostek; SFPUC Citizens" Advisory Committee; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Neighbors Against Flooding; [email protected]; Peskin, Aaron (BOS); Safai, Ahsha (BOS); Stefani, Catherine (BOS); Jessica Wolfrom; [email protected]; St John Barned-Smith; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Mullaney; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Brekke; Ezra David Romero; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lorien Fono; [email protected]; Jeff Ruch; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ko, Albert (DPW); Save SF Marina Green; [email protected]; Robinson, Stephen D
Subject: Re: Pierce Street Outfall Budget - Follow Up
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 2:17:31 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 Commission Members, Regulators and Other Interested Parties:

We've been asked to provide links to some of the items referenced in this email:

All documents obtained by Solutions Not Sandbags and working with TheMarina94123 are available at these google drive locations:SF Sewer WikiLeaks - Documents Related to sewage discharges in San

Francisco, Marina Wikileaks

1. PUC Commision Meeting:

PUC commission upcoming meeting schedule and agenda at:Agendas-Minutes-Resolutions-Log

Email PRA to PUC Marina Outfalls.pdf
b.

Request 23-3806 - TheMarina94123 request for Herrera backup material updated july

31.pdf

3. Code of Ethics | National Society of Professional Engineers.

4. Solutions Not Sandbags: 'It's Been a Fight for Our Homes': The Ongoing Saga to Fix San Francisco's Sewers | KQED.

5. Ex Parte Communications: Water Boards Ex Parte Communications Questions and Answers Document

6. SNS Report on Flooding Due to Pierce St. outfall Closure: 1.3-New Report on the Information obtained from SFPUC regarding the consequences of the closure of the Pierce St Outfall.pdf

Currently: Joe Montana played at Candlestick dump. He may live under similar conditions in S.F.
d.

SFPUC’s attempt to sue EPA to prevent enforcement of Clean Water Act:SF isn’t doing enough to prevent sewage pollution, court rules
[email protected]

8. SF Required to fix undersized sewers which caused sewage geyers:
a.

Cleanup and Abatement Order from Regional Water Quality Control Board(Regional Board) SFPUC Cleanup and Abatement Order
b.

SFPUC Cleanup and Abatement Order Public Notice
c.

Millions of gallons of sewage are spilling into San Francisco Bay

9. Regional Boards Letter to SF to begin investigation into Pierce St. outfall:North Shore 13383 Directive-for signature.pdf

10. Smaller pipes downstream, Manning's equation: Shit Storm: Why won’t SF stop flooding homes with sewage? | Archives | sfweekly.com

11. Protect the yacht harbor:
a.

Assessment to Decommission Pierce CSD Memo.pdf:
b.

2017-09-29.pdf

12. SF’s history of engineering:The Sewer System of San Francisco, and a Solution of the Stormwater Flow Problem | Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers | Vol 65, No 4

13. Why were flooding projects removed from the SSIP? Smoking Gun - Harrington Explaining Why Flooding Projects Removed

February 6, 2024
Cicely Muldoon, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
Re: Hetch Hetchy Loop Road

February 6, 2024
Cicely Muldoon, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
Re: Hetch Hetchy Loop Road
Dear Cicely:

Thank you once again for meeting with Restore Hetch Hetchy on January 16. We appreciate the time your staff took reviewing our requests for improvements at Hetch Hetchy. These improvements will encourage more visitors to go to Hetch Hetchy and enhance the overall experience of Yosemite National Park.

As we briefly discussed on January 16, one of the key factors leading to the relative paucity of visitors to Hetch Hetchy is that the “Hetch Hetchy Loop Road” was never built. (This road has also been called the Mather-White Wolf Road and the Mather- Harden Lake Road. Section 9(p) of the Raker Act prescribes this road (not a trail) as “along the southerly slope of Smiths Peak from Hog Ranch past Harden Lake to a junction with the old Tioga Road, in section four, township one south, range twenty- one east, Mount Diablo base and meridian”. Note Hog Ranch was renamed Mather after the Raker Act was passed.)
This failure to comply with the provisions of the Raker Act has rendered the Hetch Hetchy area less accessible to park visitors. Although we do not support building the Hetch Hetchy Loop Road (Highway 120 provides an alternative entrance to Yosemite National Park from the northwest), we contend that action is warranted to improve access to the Hetch Hetchy area as intended by the Raker Act.

While a trail may follow this general route, no “road” was ever built, as became evident in 2020 when Restore Hetch Hetchy was researching our Keeping Promises:

Providing Public Access to Hetch Hetchy Valley, Yosemite National Park report.

Anecdotally, we had heard that Stephen Mather and the City and County of San Francisco agreed to apply funds intended for this road to complete the Tioga Road.

This agreement, however, was found to violate the Raker Act. Some of the evidence to support this claim is found in the following (attached) documents:

STAFF
Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director
Julene Freitas
Office Manager

3286 Adeline St. Suite 7
Berkeley, California 94703
510.893.3400

Tax ID # 77-0551533
February 6, 2024
Cicely Muldoon, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
Re: Hetch Hetchy Loop Road

• Plans for the road (undated), wherein the name “Hetch Hetchy Loop Road” is used. • A letter, dated August 31, 1938 from the Comptroller General of the United States to the Secretary of Interior. On page 3, the Comptroller states that the road has not been constructed. The lengthy letter also explains that the Raker Act intended that it be used for automobiles and that the National Park Service’s decision to divert funds received from San Francisco to the Tioga Road was “illegal”. (Restore Hetch Hetchy mysteriously received a copy of this letter in an unmarked envelop, several weeks after making multiple inquiries through official NPS channels and generally being rebuffed.) • A letter, dated July 16, 1940, from Acting Secretary of Interior E. K. Burlew to Alva Adams, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. Mr. Burlew acknowledges the Comptroller’s finding, opines that both the Department of Interior and City of San Francisco violated the Raker Act, and asks for legislation to amend the Raker Act and to release San Francisco of further obligations. We do not believe such legislation was ever enacted. If we are incorrect, please let us know.

Restore Hetch Hetchy does not advocate for major new road construction in Yosemite National Park. Had this road been built, however, it would have substantially changed the visitor experience and appreciation for the spectacular Hetch Hetchy canyon and its environs. The diversion of funds away from the Hetch Hetchy Loop Road has also diverted visitors away from Hetch Hetchy, depriving them of full and complete enjoyment of Yosemite National Park Restore Hetch Hetchy, however, does advocate that funds for Raker Act-authorized projects be applied to the Hetch Hetchy area of Yosemite National Park. Such funds could be applied to (1) building a short trail to the top of Tueeulala Falls on the north rim of the Hetch Hetchy canyon and/or (2) a trail to Pate Valley and the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne on the south side of Rancheria Mountain. Either or both of these trails would provide considerable benefits to visitors to the Hetch Hetchy area.

We look forward to discussing this opportunity further.

Sincerely,

Spreck Rosekrans
Executive Director
CC: Joe Meyer, Chief of Staff
Ed Dunlavey, Hetch Hetchy Liaison
Jeff Webb, Deputy Chief Ranger
Mark Krebs, Mather District Ranger
Tim Paulson, President, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON
-440 s
o Hon rc.ble
I
Tee ecre~ary of the Interjor.

There ha been received your let ter of J '2'7. 1938,
"This will refer to your letter of Feb er; 10, 1937, an subsequent correspondence, requesting a report regar i ~he nerformance b the Cit and County of San Francisco of its obligations to construct and reaintain roads and trails 1.lllCfl. the Act of Congress ap roved December 19, 1913 (38 Stat. ) . "Your inquiry cover the following particule.r.,..:
11 1. The pa: ents reade by the City and Count of San
Francisco to the United states under section 7 oL
the Raker Act.
112. The obligations of the City and County of San ~ran cisco, under the Raker Act, with resrect to the uila
ing of roads and trails in the Retch Retch area.
11 3. The validity of any agreement or agree nts en ed
into by former Secrete.ry ilbur • h the c.:... and
County of San Francisco, purporting to relieve e
City and County from future performe.nce of certain
conditions stipul~ted in the Raker Act.
"4• Whether the funds derived from the City and County
of San Francisco pursuant to such agreements r
expended in the construction of the roads and ~ra·1s
specified, or contemplated by tr£ Raker Act, or re
diverted to other purposes.
"5• Whether the agreement or contracts ~~re subm:tted o the Office of the Comptroller General ror considera
tion, as required by law.

I
-2 -
11 '.i'he foregoini; subjects upon v,hich you de ire a reoort ~11 be taken up in the order of their presentation .
11 1. The records of' this Department disclose that the fir t pa~ment of 15,000 by the City and County of
San Francisco to the United States , under section 7
of the Raker Act , wa made on June 3, 1919, and
succeedinb payments , as provided therein, have been
made, as the became due, to the Fede r al Governnent .

The last payment of 20 , 000 was made on June 7, 1937.

It is anticipated that future remittances v. ·11 be
me.de by the Cit- of Se.n Francisco, as they become
due, to the Federal Government under section 7 of
the Act.
112. Subsection (p) of section 9 of the Raker Act prov.:.des for the construction of roads and trails by the Cit
and County of San Francisco, subject to the direction
and approval of the Secretary of the Interior, as
follows:
a. 'That the grantee shall canst ct on the
north side of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir
site a scenic road or trail , as the Secre
tar~ of the Interior may determine, above
and along the proposed lake to such point
as may be designated by the Secretary;
b. And also leading from said scenic road or
trail, a trail to the Tiltill Valley and
to Lake Vernon;
c. A road or trail to Lake Eleanor and Cherry
Valle via McGill eadow;
d. A wagon road from Hamilton or Smiths Station
along the most feasib l e route adjacent to
its proposed aqueduct from Gro eland to Portu
laca or Hog Ranch and into the Retch Hetchy
Dwn. site;
e . A road along the southerly slope of Smi-ths
Peak from Hog Ranch past Harden Lake to a
junc t ion with the old Tioga road, in sec
tion 4, township 1, South , range 21, East,
Mount Diablo base and meridian .
r.
- 3 -
and such roads and trails ma e nece war
by this grant , as y be pr scribe y th
ocrete..ry o the Interior.•
has "The extent that the Cit and County of San Franc.:. ... ~o erformed its obligations to construct the roads . and tra_l, ; ecificall e erated under subsection (p), is as follc 1:
s
a.
b .
c.
d.
e.

Th gre.ntee has constr cted a see ·c tra·1
on e north i o e e ch e c
Reserv ir site above and a_cng the pro.osed
site t Rancheri Fa 1, the point deeignated
b the Secretary of the Interior .

The grantee has also constructed a tr ·1
from the f irst descr:bed trail to Til~i l
Valley and to Lake Eleanor .

The grantee has constructed a road from
Retch Hetchy Reserv ir to Lake Eleanor :a
cGill '1eadow.
'The wagon road from Hamilton or Smiths
station along the most feasible route
adjacent to its proposed aqueduct fr~
Groveland, Portulaca. or - ot; Rane an izn:o
the Retch Hetchy D site 1 is t e roa n
referred to as the Mather - Retch He"tic1 road
valued at 399.,000 and built at the e~._en<"e
of the Citj and County of San F anc sco.
'The road a ong he
"th Peak from Hog
to a junction of the
as the Mather - Harden
const cted.
o r • e o
Ranch past Hare
old Tioga road 1 .,
!Ake road, has not
"Since subsection (p) or section 9 of the Raker Act spec· f ically designates the construction of a road or tre.il rom !.ake E anor to C rry ;alley the agreement of December 8, 1950, t be reg arded as ineffectual in so far as it att mnts to release the City and County of San Francisco of its obligation of pro i _ ing funds for .. he con:::truction of that road o trail ,'hen ca:le d upon b this Department . The Raker Act would a pee.r to au or_ze the Secr etary of "the Interior to ct as arbiter in deter· ·n the t • .e 1hen con ·r ction rork on the roa in q H:.stion ·ould be ture
- 4 -
o th Feder Government in th p
d truct • on for Yos e
etenti on o the Ch rr V lley area in a
in conformity ·th Departmental policy, necessit te
evelo ent of t part of the park t mini
plat db t e ationa.l P k Service , h • v r, in.
il rogr for the par, tha eventually a trail ·1 b
in the Cherry Vall y area, •1hen there i a. pu lie d
rt construe ion 10 ld require onl a nominal expend.i
i not needed t the present time .
'The provi ion of the agree ent of December 8, 1930, .mere b. the Seer t r of the Interior a reed tc accept a wnt of 75 ,000 in lieu of the City and County's obligation to con- ct the ather - arden Lake road, :as ·n confo ·ty ·t e.n ding arrived at bet een the City and the Count -d
he seer tar· o the Interior as to at sum, in his jud
ould con truct road of the character desired by the
p Se ice b· le Bureau of Public ad in its in er- e u
ith this De e.rtment on road construction int e
nation l per s . The Secret r of the Interior sad: ed b he Solicitor in an o inion deted December 14, 1927, t
h d control over the character of the roads to be cons c ed der the . e.l'"er .ct t t uld meet the ark requir ents . I ·s, accordingl, the of thi Dep trr~n ha the agree-
m tin o far a it provided for the pa ent o 750,000
Cit d County of San Francisco in lieu of actuall conatr ing the the r-Rarden Le.'ke road, subste.ntially conformed tc r g irements or the Ra er ct rith r to that oad.
'The investi ation b this Dep rtme t disclo ed, h
t t e sum o 75 ic 1&. na e c ...

County of er Francisco to the ational Park Service for the construction of the ther - arden Lak road was not or
t t p ~ G, but s expended on the Tioga road . In our
letter of ebru ry l, 1937, you que ion the a thority of d Department to
' di ert the funds collected fr the Public Uti • ti 8
C . sion, Clty and County of en rEt.noisco, to the
building of o her ro da tlan tho esp cifi 11
enumer ted in section 9, ub ction ( ) o said
Act. 1
- 5 -
"It mdoubtedl • ret; ded by this D partment at the time Tioi; d s under conte pl tion for construction, that
..... ht o.d in that loc ion s more nee s a.ry, in the intere~t of the r elinf; p blio i Yosemi ·e I ational Pe..r1"',. than the c . s "ru tion of the J;ather -Harden Lake road for. which funds vrere t · uted y the Cit• and Co nt of San Francisco . e feel c n ri 1 . .t. • f th th t the action taken in t.1is regard and the app 1.ca 1,1.on o funds c ntribtted to the construction of the Tioga road er& c nr.:... e ed. at t1.at time, solel from the ste..n point of a 0 1 · . that ouln e to the bes interest of the Federal Gov The tr s·tion from hor e-drawn vehicles to motor - dri
vel ~ cle has disclosed that the cons ruction of the • a~,;he - en Le.lee roa would be a colossal mi take and would cau ea scar on the lE.ndscape that ould require centuries to erase. The con struction of that road in accordance rith present accepted standards for motor trn.nsporta~ion would cost approximately 750,000 and, when completed, would be of ver • little service in the park, with a high maintenance cost, constituting an unjust ifie.ble expenditure of funds . Thi situation undoubtedl - was t .. e reason for the diversion of the $750 , 000 contril::uted b tr~e Cit· and County of San Francisco for the construction of the ~ather -Earden Lake road to the construction of the Tioga road. "In this connection it is apoarent that the former officials of this Department acted upon the assump tion that under the te of the Raker Act the - were permitted to use the funds for the con st ction of such roads as, in an exercise of their discretion, the deemed necessar and desirable . In all probability the use of funds contributed for the ther-Harden Lake road in the con struction of the Tioga road should have been brought a.bout by legislation since the .:a.ther- Harden Lake road was specifically euUI:1erated in subsection (p) supra, as one of the roads to be constructed by the City and County of San Francisco . But , as previously stated, the former administrative offici~ls of this e a.rtn.ent ap ar n be ieved thats oh action was ·thin 'the ree..llil of authorized adn1inistrative dircretion.
·1e the provision in the agreement for the pa:,ntent by the City and County of San Francisco of 500,000 for the construc tion of a road from the Mather - Harden Lake road to Crane Flat may be considered objectionable, it would appear that such objec tion would be only on technical grounds . This road i not specif ically required by subsection (p) supra . But the City and Count is obl:ig ated under the Act, to construct such roads and trails made necesse.ry by this grant, that may be prescribed by the Secrete.ry of the Interior.' And, presumably, the road to Crane Flat was found necessary and was prescribed by the SecreLa . ~fuile it must be assumed that the sum of 500,000 agreed to be paid by the City and County, ras adequa e to meet the cost of /
- 6 -
cc p
s e rtn nt dis cl os
Cit Co
nt of 250,
ction
0 t itu
d County . But the
hes nts
t s d
ap tl
nterior purs to
ct . I 1oul ern, re-
rc: e of his cretion,
ent rod to be co st cted
o accept said a ent for
could r prevent
xe ci i d • cretion.
pp y the fir t nt o
n of whe road fir ibed b
no obj ction on th p
the a·d note
he Raker Act or in ace
agr nt. pl ti
b is D t . T
s funds f or t he c n of
• g dispo itio n of 0, 0
i y and simpli nt of
e
lso for the p ose of more clearl d t'in-
~ion oft Ci the tional Park
a ea, supple ee nt
sign d t tie of e
8 retarv ctober 27 1932.
g , t 'the Cit of
ntain any roads or tra·1 ithin
s no • t nd d to
the Act •to reini1
l cot o inten
the Uni t ed st t e
ubs ct·on (q) of sec-
t of the it n of
- 7 -
/
le
e hope ha. ...
ter d e.n ap ropriation
tran depos·t
by t at · ona.1
of S o, Calio
4871 aneous rTrust
8037) , ha -.
ion 1
T ct of D c ber 19, 1913, r ferred to as ct
re.Dte to th C ty d Co tv o Fr co 0
, 1·c
l p k u t·o l or t.,
th ose t • ti nal k ., h s u ti 1 0 t
nd th bl c land n the Stat of C i or or the
gran th c·t.y Count 0 s Fr cisco r
th of de elopin C rt n tor p r d n o.r
C rt pec·fied ro d and n C "I other ro d and t
nee by r t, and yb p c ibed b S ret
In ior ' •
ho c1fic provisions of he statut s ro ~ding the develo
.t 0 r po er e.nd the is OS 1 of elect i 1 en r y the
C s r tion of cer desi ne.ted roads and tr 11s n.re sti s 0 ini tr tive discr tion .
ether tl e const ction o a articular road specified in the /
tut os is o is not s. "colossal mistak " is a matter olel for C e io th ongress .
,it r ferenoe to t.e construction of certa· roads, it ou d ape e mntter of payments ade to the ation k Se ice
y the City d County o San Francisco , pursuant to the provi n 0 ecti 9, subsect·on (p) , of the act of De ember 19. 1913, 38 • 242 ich question as been raised as o et r
funds eceived for a p ticul purpo e had been im roper y iverted to another) , mvol o separate situ tions as fo lows :
(a) yments ountin to 750,000 hue been accepted lieu
of the obli ation of the Cit· and County of Son Franci5co to o a ro dei'initely specified lll the aot, supra, rhich p
t C 0 r
ut oriz. tion of e Congross for such diversio • and
oft
a ro
(b) ountin to 500 , 000 have been accepted in lieu
obligation of the Ci y and County of en rancisco to co ct rm:i t e t,er - H de Lake Roa to Crane Fl~t , pre cribed r Seer ta.ry of the Int rior s no es ory ,
al o inten ed to be use in the con truotion o
ich p ~
h T·o Road.

The x ditur by ho tion 1 arl· e ice of 75 • UO •
r c iv d (n t donn I ro the rant e (the C ty and County of F c co) forte con--truction oft e 11 road lo the southerly sloe o S "ths Peak from Hog Ranch pant Hr n Lake to a. junction tho old Tio a Roaa ', speci 1ed in su nectio (p of sec ion 9 of he ct, upr, for the construction oft e io a oa, can not e view d oth n i e t 1a.n s an ill gal expen itur • The question s to cost of a road of t e standard or c s.:r cter des·red by t 1 tion 1 Service is not here involved and the op· ion of the Solicitor, dated ecember 14, 1927, that tne Seer tar, of th terior 1ad control over the ch cter of the roads to be constructed d r the" er Act" may not be constrl.led a ju ifyir. Cl' the former Secrete. 's entering into an agreement with the grantee for the ac ce tance on behalf of the United States of a definite l p sum , 1·eu of the cost of the road as specified in the act , nor gi ing to t .ormer Secretary oi' the Interior or his successors, uthority for u ing t10 sums so rece ived on
r ied in the act .
road different from thats eci -
If t De artment concluded that the const ction of the speci - fied ro d :rould b colo 1 1st e, the fund r cei r t e
r t e or th t pur ose hould ave b en deposited • to t e T en pe din ubmission of the situation to the Con res for
ration.
it re rence to (b) , the di ersion of 500 , 000 received rom h Ci ·y and ty of San Francisco to cover the cost of a p l.OU - 1 road (pr ribe b t1e orm r Secret of the Interior d
r
.o
C
it
0 :ve b
Co
st d t at
rs
C
ro (
d o
e
r ti t e x
2co, 0 "th re ec
1 er ti n of the Co ro , no f'u
r quir d by tris 01 :c t tni ... t
Cit· to
e
o Yo
11 e
an t at 1
cis o t e efor. I ti c
off· ce 0
e i o iti 1
f rr d to i
1 •
ER!OP.
r 8 , 1938
f Cl rk.
o ) 1
0 er
0 ro
0 From: Martin Gothberg
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC Budget and Capital Plan
Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5:46:51 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: SFPUC Commissioners
RE: SFPUC Budget and Capital Plan Comments

Key Points:

1. The SFPUC Budget and Capital Plan is unreasonably out of control and will triple the average water/sewer bill over 20 years

2. The Alternative Water Supply Plan will unnecessarily double the extreme SFPUC Budget due to the arbitrary 8.5 year ‘Design Drought’ and excessive water demand projections

3. Continued water sales decline needs to be addressed.

4. THERE IS HUGE RISK to ratepayers in the Budget and Capital Plan as presented.

The decision-making process at the SFPUC has, in many ways, been corrupted. This is especially true with respect to the ‘Design Drought’. I am not certain how it came to be but having read and listened to discussions around water management, it appears to be that fear and concern are primary emotions.

Nobody wants to be the one who allowed water reserves to become dangerously low. But combining two of the worst drought years separated by 10 years and using a demand projection of 265 mgd, when we have consistently been below 200 mgd causes many of us to believe that the ‘Design Drought’ is completely arbitrary and at the heart of a corrupt decision-making process for all that follows.

Why stop at the two worst recent droughts? There have been stand-alone below average years in between droughts. Shouldn’t we add a couple of those to the total? Better yet, why not be really conservative and double the 2020 UWMP + the resilience planning year and just make it a 12-year drought?
We will never run out of water if we plan for 12 years of drought, right? Of course, that is absurd. But it is no less arbitrary than your 8.5 year ‘Design Drought’.

The more conservative you make your assumptions the more cost ramifications accrue to ratepayers.

Since the Design Drought workshop more than a year ago when the science and probabilities using modeling and real data were presented, nothing has changed. SFPUC is still stuck on their 8.5-year drought planning number. This will drive billions in cost for new storage over decades. Continued reliance on an overly conservative decision-making process at the operating level will drive operational budgets that will only harm ratepayers.

Meeting expectations for water delivery and the Bay Delta Plan can be largely dealt with by reducing the Design Drought to 7.5 years reducing CAPEX, debt servicing, and operational cost.

And while you are at it, why not save budget by dropping your lawsuit over the Bay Delta Plan? From: [email protected]
To: Commission
Subject: Proposed Budget
Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 8:32:24 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 of the SFPUC,

As a customer of the SFPUC I am appalled by the budget projections staff has proposed which suggest average bill increases of 8% per year leading to a tripling of water and sewer bills by 2044.

This is not supportable for working people. After clean air, water is next most important necessity for life. It should be provided at an affordable cost.

The staff projections for water needs are based on the expectation of an 8 year long design drought which has not occurred in recorded history, and on water consumption of 265 MGD, which is far above the present demand of about 190 MGD. Consumption has declined significantly over the last decade as people have responded to drought by reducing consumption. In addition, the staff projections assume significant population growth. This is not in agreement with California State predictions of low to little growth in San Francisco population in the coming decades.

The Commissioners need to be careful to avoid committing San Francisco’s ratepayers to a huge bond finance burden that will be used to develop alternative water supplies that are unlikely to be needed.

Please do not accept the ruinous staff plan. Rather, the staff should be required to carry out a sensitivity analysis that includes low, medium, and high water demand in order to clearly define the risks and costs of the different responses.

Sincerely,
Stephen Rosenblum

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionFebruary 13, 2024

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
February 13, 2024