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
May 11, 2024 through May 24, 2024
Date Received From Subject
May 12, 2024 Jellicles Farm /
Lalitha Visveswaran
Hypothetical Illustration of Critical Issues at
Sunol Agpark
May 13, 2024 Dave Warner Water Enterprise - Astonishing Growth in the Price of Water
May 13, 2024 Michael Cy Tsang Against rate hike
May 14, 2024 Jennifer Vataru Pierce St Outfall Public comments 5/14/24 May 16, 2024 Glenn Rogers Despite water Surplus SFPUC pushes drought scenario
May 22, 2024 Richard Tarlov Seeking assistance identifying a pipe
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Jellicles Farm
To: 1 Haubert; Commission
Cc: Dawson, Amy L; [email protected]; jellicles farm; Lalitha Visveswaran Subject: Hypothetical Illustration of Critical Issues at Sunol Agpark Date: Sunday, May 12, 2024 5:50:32 PM
To: SFPUC Commission and Board of Supervisors,
I am reaching out to present a hypothetical scenario that mirrors the injustices and discrimination I have faced as a farmer at the Sunol Agpark, managed by ACRCD.
Imagine if the SFPUC decided to close the Sunol Agpark on December 31, 2024, with the announcement coming just on November 7, 2024 to the farmers.
This would give the farmers at the Agpark only seven weeks, amid the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, to vacate their fields, restoring them to their original condition without any alternative farming arrangements despite their significant investments over the years.
I firmly believe that if such a scenario were to occur, ACRCD would not treat favored farms, such as Happy Acre Farm, Feral Heart Farm, or Jamal Watani's farm, in this manner. They would likely receive support and accommodation to mitigate such unreasonable demands.
However, this hypothetical scenario reflects precisely what has transpired for me.
Despite meeting all obligations and requirements, even after two medical procedures and substantial personal financial sacrifices, I was abruptly and arbitrarily forced out with minimal notice during the holiday season.
One year ago on May 11, 2023, I informed ACRCD of a ten-day absence due to surgery, not realizing this would trigger what now seems to be a premeditated campaign of discrimination and collusion. Since then, it has become evident that the Sunol Agpark, under its current management, operates on a basis of nepotism, promoting harassment and discrimination, particularly against those vulnerable, such as individuals recovering from illness.
As a 49-year-old immigrant and solo female farmer who has dedicated ten years to the Sunol Agpark, I am profoundly disillusioned to find the management corrupt and discriminatory.
Given these circumstances, I seek compensation for the various wrongs committed against me.
This matter warrants close attention as it occurred on SFPUC property within Alameda County District 1.
I urge an immediate investigation into ACRCD’s practices and call for your intervention to ensure the Sunol Agpark fosters a fair, equitable, and supportive environment.
Please consider reevaluating the competence of ACRCD’s management of the Sunol Agpark and implementing safeguards to prevent future occurrences of injustice. Please strive to establish a new Agpark where all farmers, regardless of their background, can prosper free from fear of harassment or discrimination.
Thank you for your attention to this grave matter. I look forward to your swift actions to rectify these issues and to help rebuild the Sunol Agpark.
Sincerely
Lalitha Visveswaran
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Dave Warner
To: Commission
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Hom, Nancy; Busch, Laura; Corvinova, Erin E Subject: Water Enterprise - Astonishing Growth in the Price of Water Date: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:47:55 AM
Attachments: Water Enterprise - Astonishing Growth in the Price of Water.pdf Hi Cirilo,
Thanks for being our new Commission meeting administrator! Would you forward the attached letter to the commissioners? I've included here in the cc's those SFPUC employees listed in the cc section of my letter.
Best regards,
Dave
May 13, 2024
Re: Water Enterprise Drives Astonishing Growth in the Price of Water Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
The SFPUC’s water enterprise division con/gff(Hnues to drive astonishing increases in the price of water through its con/gff(Hnued massive capital investments.
The chart below shows cumula/gff(Hve compound annual water rate increases since 1980 and projected through 2044 as compared to historical and projected infla/gff(Hon rates.1 The chart shows that not only have water rates been rapidly climbing well above the infla/gff(Hon rate for the last 20 years, but they are projected to con/gff(Hnue to do so for most of the next 20 years.
Rates are likely to go even higher as the red do/gff)Hed line shows if single family housing growth rates are lower than projected.
As men/gff(Honed in an earlier le/gff)Her,
2 when combined with increases in sewer rates, the projected rates (blue dashed line) come within 1% of the SFPUC’s affordability policy limit, erasing what
1 Historical water rates determined from CCSF public records request 24-2552. Projected water rates determined from CCSF public records request 24-1528. Lower housing growth rates were calculated also from public records request 24-1528. Historical infla/gff(Hon data taken from Investopedia ar/gff(Hcle, “U.S. Infla/gff(Hon Rate by Year: 1929 to 2024 by Haranmayi Srinivasan updated May 2, 2024. Projected infla/gff(Hon rates taken from Sta/gff(Hsta Research Department, “Projected annual infla/gff(Hon rate 2010-2028” dated November 30, 2023. 2 See a/gff)Hached le/gff)Her dated February 12, 2024.
3812%
4165%
586%
0%
500%
1000%
1500%
2000%
2500%
3000%
3500%
4000%
4500%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 204 0 Cumulative Percentage Increase
Cumulative Increases in San Francisco Residential Water Rates Single family homes based on 5 ccf usage per month
Actual Projected
Water Rate Increases
Per20 Year Plan
Lowerhousing growth
would push rates even higher
Inflation
today is about a 40% cushion between rates and affordability limits. Should rates follow the red do/gff)Hed line, the affordability policy limit will be exceeded.
Water Enterprise is the Biggest Contributor to the Jump in the 10 Year Capital Plan While much a/gff)Hen/gff(Hon has been given to the $3 billion jump from last year’s 10 year capital plan (now projected to be $11.8 billion) and how sewer enterprise projects are cri/gff(Hcally needed including denitrifica/gff(Hon, much less has been discussed regarding the big one year jump in the water enterprise capital plan.
The table to the le/g%%) shows that
Water Enterprise’s year over year
jump in the 10 year plan was bigger
dollar-wise than Wastewater’s
increase and on a percentage basis
much bigger than Wastewater’s
increase (38% versus 24%).
With Wastewater we know that
denitrifica/gff(Hon driven by regulatory requirements is a primary driver of the jump, perhaps accoun/gff(Hng for more than 80% of the increase. The reasons for Water Enterprise’s plan needing to jump so much this year are less clear. Should some of the Water Enterprise projects be deferred or reduced in size? That would take some pressure off the sustained large rate increases.
Water Enterprise’s Capital Plan Makes Alternabg4’ffive Water Supplies More Difficult With li/gff)Hle investment in Alterna/gff(Hve Water Supplies (AWS) in the 10 year capital plan and with rates already increasing at an alarming rate, there’s li/gff)Hle ability to invest in AWS in the next 10 years without causing rates to jump even further. While it is accepted that AWS such as potable reuse are a reliable water supply, the SFPUC is constrained in its ability to adapt and produce more AWS.
Debt Exacerbates the Problem
Increasing levels of debt is driven by the capital plan. As previously men/gff(Honed in the a/gff)Hached le/gff)Her, by 2044 SFPUC debt service costs alone will exceed the en/gff(Hre SFPUC-wide 2023 opera/gff(Hng budget. In less than 10 years debt service costs will make up more than half of Water Enterprise’s annual opera/gff(Hng budget. Of course the $4.8 billion Water System Improvement Plan (WSIP) was and is needed which started the growth in debt, but imagine if the debt service costs didn’t exist.
Water rates would be less than half of what’s projected today.
It appears that an unintended consequence to the WSIP was the SFPUC becoming addicted to debt. An analogy might be auto loans for consumers. Once a consumer has a car loan, perhaps out of a need for a car for work, it can become a never-ending cycle of paying for cars with increasing levels of debt. A good financial planner would say to build personal finances to a place where one day a car loan won’t be needed. Perhaps the SFPUC should take such advice for its debt. The first step is to reduce how much addi/gff(Honal debt is needed.
2024 2025
Yr/yr
Increase
Percent
increase
Water 3,241 $ 4,489 $ 1,248 $ 38%
Wastewater 4,879$ 6,040 $ 1,161 $ 24% Power 669 $ 1,283$
Total 8,788 $ 11,812$
10 Yer Capital Plan ($ millions)
The Water Enterprise 10 Year Capital Plan Needs to be Revisited Ways need to be found to reduce the size of the Water Enterprise 10 year capital plan.
Opportuni/gff(Hes to explore:
1) Is the regional water system designed to provide more water than needed? Would reducing the volumes carried in the RWS reduce the size and urgency of the proposed projects? In the long term, as demand may con/gff(Hnue to decline, the cost of maintaining a massive system to import water from the Tuolumne will increase on a per unit basis.
Developing a strategy now to right size the RWS will save ratepayers for decades into the future.
2) How can we leverage inves/gff(Hng in AWS now to reduce the need for some of the capital investment in the 10 year capital plan? What projects could be deferred under the assump/gff(Hon that AWS will take up the slack?
3) The design drought is a once in 25,000 year event, even when factoring in scien/gff(Hsts’ best es/gff(Hmates of the impact of climate change (per the SFPUC’s Long Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA)). How can adjus/gff(Hng the design drought to a more reasonable level of risk help reduce the need for capital investment?
The projected astonishing retail water rate increases are an example of how staff hasn’t developed a vision other than more of the same for the 21st century. The LTVA warned us about the risk of excep/gff(Honally high water rates.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager, Water Enterprise Nancy Hom, SFPUC Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, SFPUC Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, SFPUC Financial Planning Director
SF Board of Supervisors
Bay Area Water Stewards
SFPUC Ci/gff(Hzen’s Advisory Commi/gff)Hee
SFPUC Rate Fairness Board
SFPUC Revenue Bond Oversight Commi/gff)Hee
A/gff)Hachment
February 12, 2024
Re: Proposed Budget has Significant Issues and Risks, Mostly to Ratepayers Dear SFPUC Commissioners, Bay Area Water Stewards participants and Citizens Advisory Committee members,
The massive proposed budget and financial plan you are being asked to approve has significant risks and issues that mostly affect ratepayers. This letter provides a summary that not only covers concerns raised before but adds others, including a hidden rate increase without public input, and suggesting another revenue source that would both reduce pressure on rates and reduce the regressive nature of having stormwater related investments charged to ratepayers.
As much as
not approving the budget will put the budget calendar into disarray, it is much better than subjecting ratepayers to the risks the budget and financial plan presents. Please choose to NOT approve either the proposed budget or financial plan. Many good things will come out of doing so.
Issue 1: Uncertainty – The 1% Affordability Cushion is Too Small If the pandemic has taught us anything, it would be that it is difficult to predict the future. San Francisco’s population, median income and water use all declined. For example, in its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the SFPUC projected that in 2025 San Francisco’s population would be
1.0 million. As of the end of 2023 the population was 848,000 1. It’s unlikely the population will grow by 150,000 in less than two years. Making accurate projections 20 years from now is even more difficult.
Projecting average water and sewer bills coming in 1% below the affordability limit 20 years from now, as the chart below shows, is highly unlikely. If the population or housing units grow less than projected, average monthly bills will need to go higher. If we need to make unplanned
1 As reported by the California Department of Finance.
investments, average monthly bills will go higher. For enterprises with relatively fixed water and sewer usage, their bills will increase even more as per capita demand declines.
Issue 2: A highly constrained future with little flexibility/adaptability Having the affordability cushion as small as 1% is a demonstration of how the SFPUC is severely impacting its flexibility and adaptability for decades with this budget and financial plan . Worse is the impact that the 10 year financial plan has on debt service costs (annual interest and principal payments needed to pay for debt). By 2044 debt service costs alone will exceed the entire, SFPUC- wide, 2023 operating budget.
The chart below shows how highly constrained we will be. Debt service costs don’t start to decline until after 2050, which limits our ability to make additional investments for the next 25+ years compounded by the fact that combined water and sewer bills will be bumping up against affordability limits.
Issue 3: Affordability Risk Increases When Projections are Overestimated The size of average combined water and sewer bills is highly dependent on the amount of new housing built. If less housing is built than projected, there are fewer customers, hence combined bills need to increase further to offset the associated revenue shortfall.
Issue 4: Projecting Additional Rate Increases Without Public Input The above slide shows the combined monthly bill impact averaging 8.1% per year over the next 10 years, for a cumulative 10 year impact of 117%. One needs to go back to the February 2023 budget presentation to see that the combined monthly bill impact was then projected to average
6.6% per year for a cumulative 10 year impact of 90%.
There should have been a slide calling out
the rise so that commissioners and the public clearly understand that another rate increase is being considered as part of these financial plans.
$-
$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
One might argue that public input isn’t needed, as the rates for years 3 through 10 are not being formally approved. The argument seems disrespectful, as approval of the underlying financial plans requires the additional increases to water and sewer rates. Look at last May’s rate hearings as an example. The rates approved were the same rates shown in the February 2023 budget hearings.
Issue 5: Need to Understand Alternative Water Supply Plan Risk The final Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan is expected to be presented soon, perhaps this month. The draft called for needs of additional supply of 92 mgd more in the next 20 years. But the 10-Year Financial Plan has no significant investment in AWS. How should decision makers and the public think about this? Is it expected that some AWS investment will be needed? If so, how will AWS investments affect the projections and affordability? A $5 billion investment in AWS, even if two thirds is borne by BAWSCA, would have a significant impact on affordability, and further constrain any remaining flexibility.
Remember Proposition H and the Ratepayer Revolt of 1998 In 1998, San Francisco voters passed proposition H, which froze rates for a number of years. This was a big contributor to where we are today – the need to make infrastructure investments that should have been done years ago. We certainly don’t want that to happen again. At what point will ratepayers revolt again?
Consider Another Revenue Source for Stormwater and other Public Good investments Property value based parcel tax assessments can be a more progressive way to fund needed improvements in that the residents with more expensive properties pay more. Stormwater related investments are good candidates for such a revenue stream given that all parties benefit independent of water use. There is also time to get such a measure on the November ballot. You likely know that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has done this as recently as November 2020 with their measure S approved by voters by a wide margin. They use the funds for a range of projects including pipeline restoration, seismic retrofits and flood control. And they have issued bonds against the property tax revenue stream to access funds sooner. The SFPUC doing similarly would take pressure off affordability, low income households and businesses.
Saying No Has Many Good Benefits
Not approving the budget and financial plan has many positive benefits. Two big benefits are that you are saying that affordability and the ability to be flexible are important. Saying no will require staff to take a harder look at priori3g)%-zing and searching for innova3g)%-ve ways to do more with less and consider funding some investments through other revenue sources such as parcel taxes.
You’re not saying that we can’t invest. You are instead saying we can’t invest as fast as we’d like using ratepayer sourced funding.
Saying no is also not telling staff that they have done a bad job. Instead, staff has done a remarkable job in understanding needed investment priorities in our challenging situation of years of underinvestment. But you are telling them to sharpen their pencils. Come back with a
plan that puts less risk on ratepayers. In my experience as a CFO, being a backstop that says no, that we can’t afford this, can have exceptional results.
Consider Getting Board of Supervisors Input Before Making a Decision It may be worthwhile to speak to one or more of the Board of Supervisors to get their perspectives on the challenging situation prior to making a decision. If you were to approve the budget and the Board of Supervisors later does not approve, it could be viewed that the commission is not doing its fiduciary duty to the public and raise questions about the effectiveness of the commission as an independent oversight body. Of course if the Board of Supervisors supports your decision, it is a job well done. This is a particularly challenging budget situation.
Recommendations to Commissioners
Please consider asking General Manager Herrera and his staff to:
1)
Come back with a plan that reduces risk to ratepayers and gives us be3g)H-er flexibility and adaptability.
2) Come back with an affordability cushion that is more appropriate for a 20 year projec3g)%-on. 3) Call out specifically, in one or more slides, any poten3g)%-al changes in 10 year rate projec3g)%-ons over last year.
4) Call out specifically, in one or more slides, of how we should think about AWS investments and numerically how they might affect financial planning going forward. 5) Please provide a quan3g)%-fied risk analysis in one or more slides. What are key underlying es3g)%-mates for 20 year projec3g)%-ons, and how would affordability be impacted if these es3g)%-mates are overly op3g)%-mis3g)%-c? It isn’t a fault that such informa3g)%-on wasn’t provided before, but in this environment where we want to make big investments and with 3g)%-ght limits to our ability to invest, we should understand underlying risks. 6) Provide an ini3g)%-al evalua3g)%-on of other funding sources, such as property valua3g)%-on based parcel taxes and how rates could be favorably affected.
Yes, you will be exercising your team and causing disarray to the schedule, but it’s a capable team that should be able to take it. The beginning of the next fiscal year is more than 4 months away.
An example of the Long Term Impact
Given the large debt financed investments recently made and along with those contemplated in the financial plan, combined with the fact that debt obliga3g)%-ons can’t easily be unwound, this budget as proposed will affect San Franciscans for decades. Slide 11, from Tuesday’s upcoming budget presenta3g)%-on, shown below, already demonstrates the loss of flexibility due to prior capital commitments.
The slide shows that the budget is
growing 18% over the next two
years, but only 1.5% is from new
proposals contemplated by this
budget. In other words, the budget
is already growing 16.5% over two
years and there is li3g)H-le that can be
done to reduce that growth. While
the slide men3g)%-ons that power
purchases are partly responsible for
the growth, the majority is from
capital commitments already made.
You don’t have an easy decision. San Francisco has needs that this financial plan wants to address.
Is it the right thing to pursue such an increase in investment and 3g)%-e up our future this way for decades to come? Are the risks, par3g)%-cularly to ratepayers, fully understood? Have all op3g)%-ons been adequately explored including other revenue streams? For such a consequen3g)%-al budget and financial plan it is worth direc3g)%-ng staff to take another pass at it.
KInd regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Nancy Hom, SFPUC Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, SFPUC Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, SFPUC Financial Planning Director
SF Board of Supervisors
SF Capital Planning Commi3g)H-ee
Mayor London Breed
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Michael CY Tsang
To: Commission
Subject: against rate hike
Date: Monday, May 13, 2024 5:35:40 PM
Dear Commission:
We are low income as it is with rate hike it burdens us who are on fixed income. sincerely
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Jennifer Vataru
To: Commission
Cc: The Marina 94123
Subject: Pierce St Outfall Public comments 5/14/24
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:22:07 PM
This is the content of what I shared during public comments in today's PUC meeting (May 14, 2024). ___________
My name is Jennifer Vataru, I’m a Marina resident. I’ve come before this commission multiple times over the last year to discuss the damage caused by the closure of the Pierce Street outfall. There has been no response to any of my inquiries about this outfall. Mr. Herrera has never provided any documentation that he committed to provide regarding this closure a year ago, and now I am reading that the EPA is suing the city for sewage incursions into our homes. I have yet to hear anything from this commission regarding an action plan to correct the problem. It is your responsibility to address this, as commissioners, before we have another catastrophic event.
Jennifer
On Apr 23, 2024, at 4:25 PM, Jennifer Vataru <[email protected]> wrote:
This is the content of what I shared during public comments in today's PUC meeting (April 23, 2024).
___________
Hello Commissioners:
My name is Jennifer Vataru. I spoke at the SFPUC meeting last month on March 26, regarding the Pierce St outfall. The meeting adjourned before I could respond to the claim Mr Herrera made to Commissioner Ajami about my unresponsiveness to Mr Robinson's supposed outreach. This is simply not true. I actually have NOT heard from Mr Robinson outside of a single email he sent almost a year ago May 23, 2023 at 5:55pm. I quote Mr Robinson: “I have connected with our Wastewater Enterprise communications team and they will be adding you to mailing lists that are used to send info on resources to get rain ready."
Commissioners - this is the only communication I have received; being added to mailing lists.
Mr Robinson has been unresponsive to all my requests for information that Mr. Herrera said he would provide me in the PUC meeting in May 2023. I have been to several PUC meetings as you know, I have sent emails to the commission and Mr Robinson, plus I have made public record requests. I have NOT received any information despite my numerous requests.
I would appreciate your help getting the report that Mr Herrera claims to have regarding the Pierce St Outfall to both me and you the commission so there is no confusion. Thank you.
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Glenn Rogers
To: Commission; Info; CSB Retail Services; Customer Service Subject: Despite water Surplus SFPUC pushes drought scenario Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:13:26 AM
Hello,
Please, forward to each Commissioner. I want them to be informed of the public’s opinion of their management. I promised them an article in my public comment on April 23,2024.
Thank you,
Glenn Rogers, RLA
Landscape Architect
License 3223
https://westsideobserver.com/24/5-despite-water-surplus-sfpuc-continues- designing-for-drought.php
While lakes and rivers overfow
SFPUC persiss
by Glenn Rogers
SFPUC: Designing for Drought
• • • • • • • May 2024 • • • • • • •
For the second year, the SFPUC has canceled salmon fshing on the Tuolumne River and throughout California. That will cause hardship for thousands of local fshermen at Fishermen’s Wharf and indigenous people. On April 23, the SFPUC met to discuss water policy. In the audience were members of the Tuolumne River Trus, the Sierra Club, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, and a representative of the indigenous peoples.
DESIGN DROUGHT
The SFPUC, which curtails the amount of water released into the Tuolumne River, designed the Design Drought plan — a plan that is so far-reaching that it projects a scenario — a drought that las happened 25,000 years ago. (Discovered by research into a Public Records Act.) It unnecessarily curtails water to fshermen while releasing water to farmers at 4 of every 5 gallons. (See the crops below for excessive water-consuming ofenders). SFPUC’s plan for this scheme is similar to anticipating the snowfall in the Ice Age which lased roughly 11,700 years ago. This plan is folly.
Despite a surplus of water in our reservoirs sufcient to withsand a drought for four years, the SFPUC has imposed a drought surcharge on San Francisco ratepayers! The SFPUC is myopically planning for an increase in water use even though the demand in San Francisco has declined in the las three decades.”
MUIR WOODS IN CONTRAST
Redwood Creek in Muir Woods has Chinook Salmon. It also has a program to encourage salmon to return every year. The number of people who visit Muir Woods is limited to control trafc, and the parking lot is not overcrowded. Refuse pickup is determined by limiting overfow of trash into the creek. Safe to say, all park activities are guided by the overarching principle of fosering salmon return. Wouldn’t it be ideal if the SFPUC had a similar principle for the the Tuolumne River?
WRONG CROPS IN SAN JOAQUIN V ALLEY
Almonds, pisachios, walnuts, oranges and apricot trees are part of the problem of a lis of crops growing in the San Joaquin Valley.
These trees require year-round water; otherwise, they perish. Having the feld go fallow is not a water-saving solution for these crops.
Alfalfa is a crop for cattle that requires copious amounts of water.
One walnut—not the whole tree—requires 5 gallons of water, for example. These crops should not be grown there because of their intense water use. The salmon, which also require water, should win this fght for resources, in the opinion of many Californians.
WHO ARE OUR SFPUC COMMISSIONERS?
The SFPUC Commissioners are Tim Paulson, Anthony Rivera, Newsha Ajami, Kate Stacy, Dennis Herrera, Sophie Maxwell and Donna Hood. Commissioners Sophie Maxwell and Donna Hood are retiring. Both will be missed, since they voted mos judiciously about the water needs for San Francisco and the Tuolumne River. Let’s hope the Mayor picks good sewards of the environment as replacement Commissioners.
SFPUC HAS BLIND STEWARDSHIP
Despite a surplus of water in our reservoirs sufcient to withsand a drought for four years, the SFPUC has imposed a drought surcharge on San Francisco ratepayers! The SFPUC is myopically planning for an increase in water use even though the demand in San Francisco has declined in the las three decades. For example, Parkmerced has a 13% vacancy rate, and now, even worse, the business sector in San Francisco has a 36% vacancy rate! To prepare for these imagined demands for water, the SFPUC has designed a plan to pump groundwater from the wes side of San Francisco’s underground aquifers. All of this planning, building, extraction, pumping and disribution of underground water is expensive and unnecessary and will raise the cos of water for San Francisco residents.
WATER USE IN THE SFPUC SERVICE AREA
The State has recently asked the City of San Francisco to resrict the water it takes from the Tuolumne River. This efort is part of a larger plan to limit the water use of thousands of long-time users. At the April 23rd meeting, several audience members requesed that the SFPUC accept the new water plan rather than challenge it in court.
BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERV ATION AGENCY
REPORT (BAWSCA)
In the year 2022 /2023, residents used, as an aggregate, 55 gallons of water per day—a hisoric low—despite a population increase of 34% during the same time frame. Only 4% of the population uses 100 gallons of water daily. The mos signifcant ofender in the water use category is Purissima Hills at over 180 gallons of water per day.
BAWSCA anticipates a new downward trend in water use.
Unfortunately, this discussion did not include agricultural water savings, which uses 80% of water in the San Joaquin Valley. For example, farmers could increase drip irrigation and sop the waseful use of food irrigation.
We can only hope the SFPUC will manage water use honesly.
Glenn Rogers, RLA
Landscape Architect / License 3223
May 2024
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Richard Tarlov
To: Commission
Subject: Seeking assistance identifying a pipe
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 6:26:39 PM
Hello Commissioners,
I apologize for bothering you with this matter but I've exhausted my other options. I am looking for help identifying a pipe that I've discovered during the course of digging retaining walls. I have reached out by phone or email to Tomio Takeshita, Tommy Moala and Tullah Carter, but none has responded. These are all people I have emails for from a commercial issue I dealt with some years ago at my business. Since this pipe is either a water or sewer pipe, in my estimation, I thought these folks would be a good starting point because I know they have access to the underground pipe maps.
The pipe runs along the back of several neighbors' yards, which is an unusual place for a pipe. My concern is that we have a chronic issue with water seeping into our yard and garage, due maybe to a spring, but possibly from a break in this ~8" cast iron pipe. It would be nice to know if it's active.
Many thanks,
Richard
--
Richard Tarlov
Founder
CANYON MARKET
2815 Diamond St. SF CA 94131
415-519-5241