Correspondence Log — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, September 9, 2025

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.

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

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
July 14, 2025 through August 26, 2025
(Page 1 of 2)

Date Received From Subject
July 14, 2025 Lourdes Enriquez REVISED Agenda for July 17th BAWSCA Board of Directors Special Meeting (email and
attachment)
July 15, 2025 Mary Rodriguez Gaval Open Letter from SF SSC Regarding Devaluation of Local Solar Energy (email and attachment)
July 16, 2025 Robert Hall Public comment: Regulate SFRPD microplastics July 21, 2025 Dave Warner Update to last fall’s intro letter (email and attachment)
August 7, 2025 Julie Moore, SF Planning Availability of Addendum to Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement Project EIR (email and
attachment)
August 7, 2025 Tom Francis Notice of Meeting Cancellation - BAWSCA August 13th BPC Meeting (email and attachments)
August 8, 2025 Katherine Villegas Re: OTPG Accounting Meter No. Confirmation for Start of Service (email and attachments)
August 10, 2025 Phyllis Van Hagen Service acct #697XXXXXXX August 13, 2025 Sewer System Improvement
Project (SSIP)
Construction Update; Westside Pump Station

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

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
July 14, 2025 through August 26, 2025
(Page 2 of 2)

Date Received From Subject
August 13, 2025 Sewer System Improvement
Project (SSIP)
Clarification - Construction Update Westside
Pump Station
August 13, 2025 Wesley Saunders Crocker Amazon Park/ Artificial turf August 15, 2025 Brian Browne SFPUC - Federal Oversight needed? August 18, 2025 SOLUTIONS NOT

SANDBAGS
Re: Balboa Reservoir Project / Ocean Avenue
Flood Concerns
August 22, 2025 MahmoodStaff Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5
August 25, 2025 Stanislaus County Department
of Planning and Community
Development
Stanislaus County CEQA Early Consultation
Referral - PLN2025-0007 - Mid Valley Power -
Please Respond by September 12, 2025 (email &
attachment)
August 25, 2025 E. Rochell Southeast Community Facility Commission Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2025 (email &
attachment)
August 26, 2025 Padric McCaig Serious Concerns | Geary Blvd. Construction Project

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Lourdes Enriquez
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Christiane Barth
Subject: REVISED Agenda for July 17th BAWSCA Board of Directors Special Meeting Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 4:21:01 PM
Attachments: 25_BAWSCA_July17_Agenda_Final_Revised.pdf
Attached is a Revised Agenda for the BAWSCA Board of Directors Special meeting on Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 6:30pm.

The Revised Agenda reflects a second Board Member participating by teleconference in accordance with the traditional Brown Act Rules. Agenda items remain the same.

The meeting is a Special Meeting due to a different meeting location than usual. The meeting will be held at:

David J. Chetcuti Room, Millbrae
450 Poplar Ave. Millbrae
Click here to download a complete copy of the agenda and attachments for this meeting from our website, or go to: http://bawsca.org/about/board/agendas

If you have questions, please call (650) 349-3000.

Thank you,
Lourdes Enriquez

Lourdes Verzosa-Enriquez
Assistant to the CEO/General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, #650
San Mateo, CA 94402
650-349-3000
www.bawsca.org

2190242.1

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
July 17, 2025
6:30 p.m.

At a different location:

Chetcuti Room – Millbrae – 450 Poplar Ave, Millbrae, CA 94030

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
(Two members of the Board will participate in this meeting by Teleconference. Locations shall be • 114 Austin Ct. Lincoln, CA 95648,
• 402 North High St. Columbus, Ohio 43215
When any member of the board participates by teleconference, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote.)
AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Salute to Flag (Chambers)

2. Comments by the Chair (Chambers)

3. Board Policy Committee Report (Attachment) (Hardy) Pg 3

4. Consent Calendar (Attachments) (Chambers)
A. Approve Minutes of the May 15, 2025 Meeting
B. Receive and File Budget Status Report – As of May 31, 2025 C. Receive and File Investment Report – As of May 31, 2025 Pg 11
Pg 19
Pg 21

5. SFPUC Report (Corvinova)
A. SFPUC Affordability Efforts

6. Water Management Representatives (WMR) Report (Flegel)

7. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda (Chambers) Members of the public may address the Board on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the Agency. Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the Board is considering each item.

Each speaker is allowed a maximum of two (2) minutes.

8. Reports and Discussions
A. BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy 2050 (Attachment) (Ashoori) B. BAWSCA’s 2021-2023 Drought Report (Attachment) (Francis) Pg 23
Pg 33
July 17, 2025 BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet Page 1

2190242.1

9. CEO Reports
A. Update on New Tier 2 and WSA Amendment Adoption Process (McPherson)) B. FERC/Bay Delta Plan Update (Smegal)
C. CEO/General Manager Performance Evaluation (Chambers) D. CEO/General Manager’s Letter (Attachment)
E. Board Policy Calendar (Attachment)
F. Correspondence Packet (Under Separate Cover)

Pg 35
Pg 37

10. Closed Session (Schutte)
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final License Application Proceedings for Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, P-2299-082, and La Grange Hydroelectric Project, P-14581-002.

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - State Water Board Cases (Third Appellate District Court, Case No.

C101232).

11. Report after Closed Session (Schutte)

12. Additional Time for Public Comments (As Time Permits) (Chambers) Members of the public may address the Board on any issues that are within the purview of the Agency.

13. Directors’ Discussion: Comments, Questions and Agenda Requests (Chambers)

14. Date, Time and Location of Future Meetings (Chambers) (See attached schedule of meetings)

15. Adjourn to next meeting scheduled for September 18, 2025 at 6:30 pm (Chambers)

Pg 39

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
Upon request, BAWSCA will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings.

Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 650-349-3000. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

July 17, 2025 BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet Page 2 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Mary Rodriguez Gaval
To: Gallotta, Peter K; CleanPowerSF; Randazzo, Jacqueline (Jackie); Bevington, Andrew S; Nakasone, Ross; Commission; SFPUC Citizens" Advisory Committee
Cc: cadams albionpower.com; Jeanine Cotter; Greg Kennedy; JP Rapagnani Subject: Open Letter from SF SSC Regarding Devaluation of Local Solar Energy Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:48:17 AM
Attachments: SF SSC opposes CCA Devaluation of Local Solar Energy .pdf Dear CleanPowerSF,

Please see attached open letter from the San Francisco Solar and Storage Coalition regarding the proposed devaluation of local solar energy.

This letter will be shared with the Mayor’s Office, Board of Supervisors, and local media. It provides the perspective of local industry and the Main Street economy regarding Community Choice Aggregation.

We look forward to working with you on a rate structure that accounts for the benefits of locally produced San Francisco energy. Thank you.

Thank you,

Mary Rodriguez-Gaval
Operations Manager

Albion Power Company
218 Pierce St. San Francisco, CA 94117
O: 415.558.1786 |C: 415.900.7585 |Fax: 415.723.7294
[email protected]
| www.albionpower.com
Lic.# 878027 | General B | C-10 | C-46
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any attachments may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

San Francisco Solar and Storage Coalition Open Letter: CleanPowerSF Devaluation of Local Solar July 9, 2025 San Francisco Solar and Storage Coalition (SF SSC) opposes CCA CleanPowerSF efforts to reduce the solar credit rate provided for local solar generation placed onto the grid to a marginal cost of energy, inclusive of fossil fuels and environmentally damaging solar farms. Such a rate excludes the economic, environmental, and social benefits of rooftop solar and undervalues the energy solar generators put back onto the local grid. CleanPowerSF was created to provide residents and businesses with clean energy options and promote local renewable energy development. Such a rate undermines this premise. Simply imitating the rates of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is counter to the CCA model. CleanPowerSF was created as a community response to the practices of PG&E. A community choice aggregator is intended to promote clean energy in the San Francisco community and SFPUC should consider all of the benefits of that energy. Now, CleanPowerSF proposes to replicate the very model it was intended to disrupt. CleanPowerSF’s use of the avoided cost calculator (ACC) would be a betrayal of the formation of San Francisco’s CCA. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prejudicially authorized unnecessary distribution spending into the ACC, essentially eliminating the value of local generation. These actions manipulate the ACC calculator to assume centralized power plants and transmission to devalue rooftop solar. Utilities, as investor-owned entities, earn a guaranteed 10% return on capital investments, which incentivizes overspending at a cost to ratepayers. Guaranteed “cost plus 10%” on billions of dollars of infrastructure has corrupted California policy against energy efficiency, environmental conservation, and local generation. This has transformed SB 100, intended to decarbonize the economy, into an entrenched-interest infrastructure bill. The ACC is antithetical to everything CCAs are intended to achieve and defend locally. Rooftop solar is differentiated by its ability to generate electricity at the point of consumption. Rather than transmitting power over long distances from centralized power plants, rooftop solar uses existing infrastructure and San Francisco resident investment to benefit the local grid and society. This creates benefits central to Community Choice Aggregation that cannot be Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 calculated using models for distant power generation - such as the CPUC avoided cost calculator. All CCA rooftop solar generation is on the San Francisco side of the substation using existing infrastructure (roof, structural framing, electrical service) existing wires, poles, producing clean generation, load reduction, and a smaller grid. Rooftop solar benefits include: • 100% local clean energy from community aggregation • 100% local job creation, local tax revenue • Containment of load growth and “plug load” on the local distribution system • Reduced peak demand on the local distribution system • Reduced dependency on transmission and need for new long-distance power lines • Reduced carbon emissions • Reduced future wildfire ignition risk from the need for new long-distance power lines • Reduced ecosystem, wildlife, and habitat destruction from solar farms and long-distance transmission. Nature is the most significant asset that we have. None of these values are “zero” and excluding them undermines CleanPower SF as a CCA. Residents creating local, clean energy must be the provider of choice for any CleanPowerSF "Green" and "SuperGreen" option. The benefits that they create must be accounted for in the tariff they receive for energy created using their own monies and infrastructure. Another goal of AB 117 in creating CCAs was local job and business creation. Local economies promote local jobs, local tax revenue, increased wages, decreased inequality, and lower levels of poverty. The City of San Francisco allocates millions of dollars annually to local job creation. Rooftop solar creates a local economy funded by San Francisco residents without burdening the City’s general fund. It is curious that San Francisco government would create policies against City residents contributing to the local economy. It is important for the City of San Francisco to understand that when rooftop solar energy is not put to direct use in a home or stored in a battery, it simply enters the grid and is used by the Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 nearest available load (i.e. neighboring San Francisco property). Citing the local benefits above, this is significantly different for community energy aggregation than cap-and-trade market manipulation or credits purchased from distant power production requiring infrastructure investment. While devaluing and obstructing local solar, CleanPowerSF has chosen an energy transition outside of the City that many see as environmentally catastrophic. An example being in Livermore Valley where CleanPowerSF is set to be the primary buyer from the Aromas solar farm, a project destroying the Bay Area’s last undeveloped valley; the area being permanently destroyed consists of wildlife habitat and prime soil for farmland. Only 26 % of California’s land remains protected and only 23 % of the world’s wilderness remains.1 Climate change and environmental degradation are interconnected processes. Rooftop solar mitigates environmental damage and reduces load on the grid.

Figure 1- Energy produced in San Francisco stays in San Francisco Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 Other projects are hundreds of miles away on the eastern side of the Sierra, particularly Kern County. Due to a lack of transmission, a significant amount of solar farm energy is being curtailed or being sent to other states like Arizona at low or negative prices. The overall effect of solar farm curtailment is that Californians are paying for power capacity they cannot use. It is not local rooftop solar that is responsible for the “duck curve” but over building of solar farms that have millions of mega-watt (MW) hours curtailed or sold at a loss to ratepayers.2 Building new transmission infrastructure in California contributes to increased wildfire risk. Since 1992, over 3,600 wildfires in California have been linked to power generation, transmission, and distribution, according to the U.S. Forest Service.3 In 2018, transmission fires, including the transmission-caused Camp Fire, eliminated 18 years of California carbon emission reductions.4 Rooftop solar contributes to a smaller, less stressed grid.

Figure 2 - From left to right, Livermore Valley today and tomorrow Figure 3 - Not if but when – maximizing transmission is a roadmap to maximizing future transmission-caused wildﬁres.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 NREL studies indicate a potential for rooftop solar power up to 50% of estimated consumption in San Francisco. Nearly 40% of the state's solar power comes from customer-owned systems, all without long distance transmission or destroying nature.5 Assuming that Golden Gate Park and the Presidio are off limits, using the rooftops of the residents is the only way community aggregation can occur locally. The western ¾ of the City is replete with houses perfect for solar generation. This was intended as part of San Francisco’s leadership in CCA formation. San Franciscans should be encouraged to use their properties to be part of the climate solution; certainly, they should be compensated in their export rate for the benefits they provide, Instead, San Franciscans are seeing efforts to devalue rooftop solar benefits compounded by unfeasible energy storage building codes. San Francisco is now failing local clean energy implementation. CleanPowerSF must involve local stakeholders and diversify evaluation criteria away from vested interests in a larger grid (including Berkeley Energy Institute at Haas). Such analytical bias suggests regulatory capture. The result has been that CleanPowerSF is eliminating the San Francisco main street economy from community choice aggregation. This is a mistake. San Francisco Solar and Storage Coalition insists CleanPowerSF must account for and credit the clean, local benefits of rooftop solar and environmental preservation to residents who contribute to local generation. This is not a subsidy nor a rebate, but a crediting of the true benefits of local rooftop generation per unit of energy as community aggregation. The benefits are essential to both climate and the local economy.

Figure 4 - Local energy, if valued.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 The San Francisco Solar and Storage Coalition Charles Adams; CEO & Founder Albion Power Company ___________________________ Jeanine Cotter; CEO & Co-Founder Luminalt ___________________________ Greg Kennedy; CEO & Founder Occidental Power ___________________________ John-Paolo Rapagnani; Co-CEO & Founder Sutro Power ___________________________ Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3

FOOTNOTES 1 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-than-a-10th-of-earths-wilderness-lost-since-the-1990s-study/# 2 https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-24/california-has-so-much-solar-power-that-increasingly-it-goes-to-waste 3 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/13/us/los-angeles-fires-cause.html 4 https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/ucla-led-study-finds-californias-greenhouse-gas-reductions-could-be-wiped-out-2020 5 https://environmentamerica.org/california/center/articles/rooftop-solar-is-a-win-win-protecting-the-environment-and-saving-all-ratepayers-money/ Docusign Envelope ID: 7FB97E1D-ECD0-4048-B2C9-2AACB05774F3 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Robert Hall
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment: Regulate SFRPD microplastics
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 8:16:24 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to weigh-in on the proposed installation of five artificial turf baseball fields at Crocker Amazon Park and to encourage San Francisco Recreation and Park to pause any further approvals of plastic turf across our public parks.

If approved, these new fields would push the total acreage of artificial turf managed by San Francisco Recreation and Park beyond 60 acres—not even counting rubberized playgrounds or synthetic dog runs. This would represent a troubling escalation in the City’s reliance on synthetic materials in our outdoor recreation areas—spaces that should instead support public health, biodiversity, and ecological resilience. This doesn’t even take into account that Rec/Park, taxpayers or its donors will have to replace worn plastic fields with even more plastic every 10 years.

The evidence against plastic turf continues to mount:

A recent study of human brain tissue revealed microplastics embedded in every sample tested, equivalent to the mass of a plastic spoon—raising serious questions about the long-term health effects of chronic microplastic exposure (CNN, Feb 2025).

Local scientists at the San Francisco Estuary Institute found microplastic pollution in every part of San Francisco Bay, with urban stormwater runoff identified as a major contributor. Artificial turf fields—comprised of synthetic blades and crumb rubber infill —are widely known to shed plastic particles that are easily mobilized by rainfall and runoff (SFEI Microplastics Project
).

A 2023 study published on Phys.org identified artificial turf fragments as an important source of aquatic pollution, noting how turf debris travels from parks and sports fields into storm drains, rivers, and coastal waters (Phys.org, Oct 2023 ).

Beyond pollution, artificial turf fields absorb and radiate excessive heat, increase the risk of athlete injuries, contain PFAS and other hazardous chemicals, and eliminate habitat for birds and pollinators. By contrast, natural grass cools the environment, sequesters carbon, supports biodiversity, and can be maintained with regenerative practices that align with the city’s environmental values.

San Francisco has been a leader in banning plastic bags, plastic straws, and PFAS in foodware.

It is inconsistent—and irresponsible—for our park system to expand the use of plastic turf while these same materials are contaminating our waters, our air, and even our bodies.

I urge you to reconsider this direction. Please weigh-in on the Crocker Amazon turf proposal and encourage SFRPD to place a moratorium on further artificial turf installations in San Francisco parks. Our health, our ecosystems, and our children deserve better.

Sincerely,
Bob Hall
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Dave Warner
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Hom, Nancy; Busch, Laura; Corvinova, Erin E Subject: Update to last fall"s intro letter
Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:35:25 PM
Attachments: Update to last fall"s Intro letter 2025-07-21.pdf Hi Tiffany,
Thank you for all of your work at the SFPUC! Would you forward the attached letter to the commissioners? I've cc'd here the SFPUC people on my cc list.

Best regards,
Dave

Page 1 of 3 ends

July 21, 2025
Re: Update to October 2024 Intro Letter
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your service!
When three of you joined the commission last fall, I sent the attached letter highlighting some of the issues you as commissioners face. I hope you will re- read the letter considering these updates nine months later.

Outreach
Not mentioned in the letter but starting on a high note: President Stacy has been terriﬁc about meeting with constituents. Vice President Arce has taken it a step further, not only attending citizens advisory committee meetings but also participating in a Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Board meeting. General Manager Herrera continues to hold regular Bay Area Water Stewards (BAWS) meetings, including a presentation by a San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Director reviewing what led up to their current diNgzAﬁicult ﬁnancial situation that is eerily similar to the SFPUC’s. 1 Projections now show a/g431ordability thresholds being exceeded Last fall’s letter mentioned that there was a good chance retail water rates would exceed aNgzAﬁordability thresholds. Perhaps faster than expected, but the latest ﬁnancial plan approved by commissioners in February now projects water rates to exceed aNgzAﬁordability thresholds by 2037. The projections still exclude any investment in alternative water supplies and are based on demand increasing over the projected time horizon. Should demand not increase, water rates will have to go higher still.

Governance: You weren’t given much choice
When the latest set of ﬁnancial plans were presented, including aNgzAﬁordability thresholds being exceeded, you didn’t have much of a choice but to approve

1 Also attached is a copy of a March 24, 2025 letter relating to the SDCWA presentation.

Page 2 of 3 ends

the plans. Despite staNgzAﬁ preparing the updated projections for more than six months, the ﬁrst time you had a chance to review the projections was at the end of the staNgzAﬁ’s preparation process. Much better would have been for you to have a say at the start of the development process before ﬁgures are ﬁnalized. You weren’t able to do much about it for your 2.7 million constituents.

Perhaps another highlight
Too early to tell, but for the ﬁscal year ending June 30, 2024, Water Enterprise capital spending had been $600 million or 20% over budget. The budget was reset to actual spending July 1 and at least through April 30 th the projects
haven’t varied from their revised budget ﬁgures.

Little else has changed
Projections continue to show demand increasing.
2 In fact, in table 3 for the
Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Freedom West 2.0 Project (agenda item 7 in Tuesday’s meeting), you can see that the SFPUC is projecting demand to rise to 81.1 mgd in 2045 compared to 57.7 mgd as of June 30th 2024.3
StaNgzAﬁ continues to state that the Regional Water System (RWS) needs alternative water supplies. The identiﬁed projects continue to be exceptionally costly compared to other projects elsewhere in the state.4 Costs continue to climb. The SFPUC’s debt load continues to climb. The SFPUC continues to have a dated, expensive drought planning model and despite a signiﬁcantly diNgzAﬁerent operating environment from 20 years ago, continues to refuse to update the model or perform any probability analysis and doesn’t acknowledge the value of available data. The Tuolumne ecosystem, as measured by salmon counts, continues to be in a severe state of collapse.

2 In contrast, note how the SDCWA has substantially decreased its demand projections, now showing declines as mentioned in the attached letter dated March 24, 2025. 3 57.7 mgd was calculated from 51.7 mgd of retail water sales plus 6.0 mgd of water loss. 4 RWS alternative water supplies are also projected to be much more expensive than in-city recycling projects that would not be part of the RWS.

Page 3 of 3 ends

I hope you will contemplate improvements that can be made in the next nine months.

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
Tom Smegal, BAWSCA CEO

Enclosures

Page 1 of 6 ends

October 18, 2024

Re: An Intro to Some Water Issues
Dear Commissioners,
Welcome new commissioners! Thank you all for your service. As Commissioner Stacy knows, I’ve been following water related commission issues and commented at commission meeEgRUﬀngs for many years. I’m a private industry Chief Financial Oﬃcer by trade, having worked extensively with CEO’s and Boards of Directors.

You represent 2.7 million Stakeholders
As you know, you represent the SFPUC’s stakeholders which are primarily the 2.7 million customers that rely on the SFPUC for water and a smaller number for wastewater and power.

You May Not Have Much Time to Make a Diﬀerence
Also as you know, three commissioners were not reappointed to their posiEgRUﬀons this year. The implicaEgRUﬀon is that your EgRUﬀme here may be limited. Please make the most of your EgRUﬀme on the Commission.

Your Team Has Potenwg;jEal
The SFPUC has many talented people and a strong depth of experEgRUﬀse.

The SFPUC is Falling Behind
However, from a water perspecEgRUﬀve the SFPUC is mired in past thinking and pracEgRUﬀces and has not been adapEgRUﬀng well to a changing world. Demand is declining. Costs are skyrockeEgRUﬀng. Water rates are skyrockeEgRUﬀng. The Tuolumne River ecosystem conEgRUﬀnues to suﬀer. And yet the SFPUC has not responded to these changes in a construcEgRUﬀve way.

Governance: SFPUC Pracwg;jEces Make Your Oversight Diﬃcult The SFPUC has a number of deeply insEgRUﬀlled pracEgRUﬀces and tradiEgRUﬀons that make your ability to provide oversight diﬃcult, as outline below.

Page 2 of 6 ends

Governance: Commissioners Aren’t Given Real Choices
Staﬀ has a pracEgRUﬀce of providing materials for commissioner approval, but without giving commissioners a choice other than to not approve. OEgHH7en by the EgRUﬀme the materials are submiEgR7ﬀed to commissioners, there’s no EgRUﬀme to revise them should commissioners not approve.

For example: Water rates and ﬁnancial plans are inEgRUﬀmately related. However, commissioners are given liEgR7ﬀle opportunity to inﬂuence either ﬁnancial plans or water rate increases. The pracEgRUﬀce is for staﬀ to present in January, for all pracEgRUﬀcal purposes, “ﬁnal” ﬁnancial plans for approval with no ability to change the ﬁnancial plans nor understand how a change to the ﬁnancial plans might aﬀect water rates. A beEgR7ﬀer pracEgRUﬀce would be to give commissioners choices earlier in the ﬁnancial planning process and show how choices of ﬁnancial plans aﬀect water rates.

Governance: Commissioners Aren’t Provided with Real Transparency From a water perspecEgRUﬀve, staﬀ will provide a biased perspecEgRUﬀve on key issues.

They should be unbiased or at least fully disclose any bias. Unfortunately, there are many examples. A simple one is the AlternaEgRUﬀve Water Supply Plan (AWS) which states that 92 million gallons per day (mgd) of addiEgRUﬀonal supply are needed.

However I doubt anyone would say that we need to start building 92 mgd of AWS.

While the Plan acknowledges in smaller print that the full 92 mgd might not be needed, the overall message is misleading to the uninformed reader.

Transparency means providing a full, unbiased perspecEgRUﬀve to the commissioners as a group. Providing informaEgRUﬀon to individual commissioners or responding privately to individual commissioners deprives the commission as a whole (and the public) of an ability to have a rich discourse.

Governance: Staﬀ Have a History of Poor Responsiveness to Commissioners In comparison with Boards of Directors, I ﬁnd that, with a couple of excepEgRUﬀons, SFPUC commissioners were mostly disregarded on major items. The excepEgRUﬀons were commissioners Anson Moran and Ed Harrington, both of whom were former SFPUC General Managers.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Former Commissioner Ajami asked for a sensiEgRUﬀvity analysis on demand and water rates. Never provided. At one EgRUﬀme the Commissioners passed a resoluEgRUﬀon requiring that any voluntary agreement that the SFPUC proposes related to the Bay Delta Plan includes an adapEgRUﬀve management feature. Never implemented.

I’ve come to understand that staﬀ is not required to respond to individual commissioner requests, but that they are required to respond to commissioner resoluEgRUﬀons. Despite the above example, it probably makes sense to propose a resoluEgRUﬀon if you want a signiﬁcant acEgRUﬀon from staﬀ.

Demand: The SFPUC Has Only Projected Increasing Demand Despite a Long-Term Decline
While demand has declined substanEgRUﬀally over the last 30 years, the SFPUC has only projected that demand will increase. Demand is fundamental to just about all aspects of the SFPUC’s Water Enterprise business. At a minimum, the SFPUC should be fully prepared for declining demand scenarios, sharing detailed conEgRUﬀngency plans including projected water rates, debt raEgRUﬀng impacts, and cash management plans.

Water Rates: The SFPUC’s Wholesale Water Rates are the Highest in the State; Retail Rates Will Likely Exceed the Aﬀordability Threshold The SFPUC already has the highest wholesale water rates of any major water agency in the State, and they are expected to increase by large amounts, even under the SFPUC’s projecEgRUﬀon of increasing demand. Should demand not increase but instead decline, meaning the SFPUC will not sell as much water as projected, water rates will need to go up beyond projecEgRUﬀons. The SFPUC’s water rate projec/g415ons do not include the cost of AWS should the projec/g415ons materialize.

Regarding retail water rates, today rates are 30% below the aﬀordability threshold. SFPUC projecEgRUﬀons show that in 20 years there will only be a 1% cushion below the threshold. Given that the projecEgRUﬀons are based on increasing demand and for other uncertainEgRUﬀes, including the lack of any signiﬁcant AWS in the ﬁnancial projecEgRUﬀons, there is a signiﬁcant chance that aﬀordability thresholds will be exceeded.

Alternawg;jEve Water Supplies: The Proposed Projects Are Among the Most Expensive in the State

Page 4 of 6 ends

The proposed AWS projects in the latest AWS plan document have an average capital cost in the range of $200 million per million gallons of water per day (mgd) of supply. Projects in Los Angeles and San Diego are currently projected to have a capital cost in the range of $50 million per mgd. Even if LA’s and San Diego’s projecEgRUﬀons are opEgRUﬀmisEgRUﬀc, they would sEgRUﬀll be well below the SFPUC’s costs.

Project Management: Water Enterprise Has a Poor Track Record of Managing Capital Project Costs
The water enterprise capital projects currently underway were budgeted at approximately $3 billion. Current projecEgRUﬀons have the costs for the projects coming in 20% higher, at $3.6 billion. Such overages put further upward pressure on water rates
Finance: Cost Projecwg;jEons Are Skyrockewg;jEng
The 2024/25 ﬁnancial plans had a massive jump in the 10 year capital spending plan. Water Enterprise’s 10 year projecEgRUﬀon increased 38% or $1.25 billion in just the last year. This seems foolhardy in the SFPUC’s current ﬁnancial environment.

Finance: The SFPUC Has a Stunning Debt Load
50% of the water revenue the SFPUC collects goes to debt service costs. And the jump in the 10-year capital plan is primarily ﬁnanced by more debt. Los Angeles DWP, the San Diego County Water Authority and Valley Water all have debt loads less than half that of the SFPUC (on a percent of water revenue basis).

The Wastewater Enterprise has already seen a “negaEgRUﬀve outlook” issued by one of the raEgRUﬀng agencies for its debt. The San Diego County Water Authority had a similar negaEgRUﬀve outlook issued and esEgRUﬀmated its debt service costs would increase by $95 million. Should that happen to the SFPUC Water Enterprise, the impact would be much larger.

A best pracEgRUﬀce would be for the SFPUC to work down and eliminate its debt load over EgRUﬀme and start building a cash reserve for infrastructure replacement costs.

While this seems unfathomable in the SFPUC’s current situaEgRUﬀon, at least we should start moving in this direcEgRUﬀon.

Finance: The SFPUC has a Costly Drought Model

Page 5 of 6 ends

The SFPUC has an 8.5 year drought model. The SFPUC refuses to quanEgRUﬀfy the risk of such a drought occurring. The SFPUC’s own Long Term Vulnerability Assessment from 2021 (LTVA) found no drought of such severity in 1100 years of tree ring data nor 25,000 years of stochasEgRUﬀc data. The LTVA also found that precipitaEgRUﬀon totals would not be adversely aﬀected by climate change through 2070, and instead found that drought return periods lengthened.

If the drought model were reduced by roughly a year, it would free up roughly 25 mgd of supply per year, reducing the need for alternaEgRUﬀve water supplies. If the capital cost of AWS were $50 million/mgd supply, this would save $1.25 billion. If the capital cost of AWS were $200 million, as was the average in the AWS plan, the savings would be $5 billion.

No other major water agency in California has such a drought model. CompleEgRUﬀng a risk analysis on the drought model and adjusEgRUﬀng the return period could reduce further upward pressure on both water rates and debt load while sEgRUﬀll having a acceptable drought model.

Environment: The SFPUC Gets Most of Its Water from a Devastated Ecosystem Up unEgRUﬀl early this century, the lower Tuolumne River had annual salmon counts in the tens of thousands, ﬂuctuaEgRUﬀng with drought cycles. However, since 2005 most annual salmon counts have been below 1,000 and none above 2,000. Clearly the Tuolumne ecosystem is in desperate shape.

The SFPUC has been liEgRUﬀgaEgRUﬀng against the Bay Delta Plan jointly with the Turlock and Modesto IrrigaEgRUﬀon Districts. The three have put forth a proposed voluntary agreement with a very limited increase in ﬂows and, despite a Commission resoluEgRUﬀon, with no adapEgRUﬀve management feature similar to what the Bay Delta Plan has.

The SFPUC has made modest investments in habitat restoraEgRUﬀon, but amongst the scienEgRUﬀﬁc community there’s liEgR7ﬀle consensus that habitat restoraEgRUﬀon will work without increased ﬂows.

Your consEgRUﬀtuents are concerned about the environment. There are many examples to cite, but a well-known one is 2016’s measure AA, which funded the San Francisco Bay RestoraEgRUﬀon Authority. It passed with 70% approval across the region.

Page 6 of 6 ends

What Does the SFPUC of the Future Look Like?
Today the next 20 years look bleak: Commissioners’ inﬂuence limited. Demand overesEgRUﬀmated. Stunning water rates. Huge debt loads. Project overruns.

Perhaps this will lead to another ratepayer revolt like what happened in 1998, which might even lead to bankruptcy. And ecological devastaEgRUﬀon on the lower Tuolumne conEgRUﬀnues.

Please put us on a path to a beEgR7ﬀer future. Many of us would be excited to help! The good news is that there’s lots of opportunity and good people to work with.

Kind regards,

Dave Warner

Page 1 of 6 ends

March 24, 2025
Re: Learning from the San Diego County Water Authority
Dear Commissioners,
As you may know, General Manager Herrera hosts regular meeSgI.zngs on various topics with a number of NGO’s including the Tuolumne River Trust and the Bay Area Council (referred to as Bay Area Water Stewards (BAWS) meeSgI.zngs).

At last week’s meeSgI.zng Jeﬀ Stephenson, Director of Water Resources at the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
provided a review of events that led up
to their current ﬁnancial challenges and mulUg9~Eple years of large past and projected annual water rate increases. The popular press (and I) had characterized the problem as them having built the Carlsbad desal plant while demand fell oﬀ, leading to big rate increases and ﬁnancial problems. But he provided a more insighSgI.Iul bigger picture. There are some remarkable similariSgI.zes to SDCWA’s experiences and with what the future might hold for the SFPUC.

What led to the SDCWA’s current situaUg9~Eon
The SDCWA is a wholesale water supplier to 22 retail agencies that serve 3 million residents.

Mr. Stephenson started with their 1991 drought situaSgI.zon where the region came close to running out of water and there was a massive cry across the region for “never again,” and included wanSgI.zng to have independence from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The SDCWA started making a series of investments, including dams and lining canals that eventually included the Carlsbad desal plant. In the meanSgI.zme, other local agencies started pursuing other supplies. They all were forecasSgI.zng increasing demand as they had done for years.

But demand declined. Not only did they see gross per capita demand (GPCD) decline but two agencies dropped out and others reduced their purchases. Jeﬀ described that for the last several years they’ve had major annual rate increases (he menSgI.zoned in the 14% range). Not stated by Jeﬀ but ﬁnancially SDCWA reserves and a number of metrics have fallen below their policy minimum thresholds along with going through budget cuts. It’s also worth noSgI.zng that the San Diego mayor objected to a proposed 18% rate increase that was later scaled

Page 2 of 6 ends

back to 14%. The latest ﬁnancial plan has a number of years projected with 10% rate increases and projects declining demand.

Mr. Stephenson’s recommended learnings
Things he recommended learning from SDCWA’s experiences:
- CollaboraSgI.zon with other water agencies. If they had collaborated beSgIJzer, they as a group might have been able to beSgIJzer manage regional investments.

This is relevant to the SFPUC and BAWSCA. For example, the SFPUC is looking at a 30+ mgd local recycled water project within San Francisco (project leveraging the Southeast PolluSgI.zon Control Plant, not a part of the regional water system (RWS) alternaSgI.zve water supply (AWS) plan). Should this happen, this could cause a major drop in demand on the RWS, causing a further jump in water rates, which at some point could cause a ratepayer revolt.
- Be nimble. Jeﬀ emphasized that there were so many unknowns that came along, that just weren’t predictable. Be nimble to be able to adapt to changes.

The SFPUC is anything but nimble. Its costs are at least 95% ﬁxed in part due to the large debt loads it is carrying (on a percentage of budget basis, more than double SDCWA’s load). And while SDCWA’s debt is mostly declining, the SFPUC’s debt is substanSgI.zally increasing.
- Look carefully at your demand forecast. Jeﬀ thought maybe ﬂat line (perhaps a poor choice of words) despite populaSgI.zon growth.

While the SFPUC’s ﬁnance department’s demand projecSgI.zons are close to ﬂat for retail, BAWSCA’s sSgI.zll show substanSgI.zal increases. Should these increases not occur, as San Diego experienced, rates will need to increase more than projected.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Remarkable similariUg9~Ees in demand projecUg9~Eons

The two charts in ﬁgure 1 show how both the SDCWA (chart on the leSgﬀﬀJ) and SFPUC (chart on the right) have been projecSgI.zng increasing demand since 2000 while demand has declined. Since 2020
the SFPUC’s ﬁnance department made
somewhat more conservaSgI.zve projecSgI.zons.

The SDCWA ﬁve year ﬁnancial forecast
now projects a 24% decline in demand as
shown as shown in ﬁgure 2 while the
SFPUC conSgI.znues to project increasing
demand.

Figure 1: Past history of demand projecSgI.zons compared to actual demand. SDCWA (on the leSgﬀﬀJ) and the SFPUC on the right are remarkably similar. Both projected
increasing demand against a trend of long term declines.

216
195
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MGD
SFPUC Combined Retail and Wholesale Projections
Comparison to Actual Demand*
Actual 2000 UWMP 2005 UWMP
2010 UWMP 2015 UWMP 2020 UWMP
2015 ~FP 2020 FP
*Comparison is between the UWMP projections(dashed lines) and the finance department sales projections (dotted lines) where 6 mgd of projected water loss (non-revenue) has been added to the finance department figures. 2015 finance department projections were visually estimated from the charts in General Manager Herrera's letter to commissioners dated July 5, 2022.
~190

Figure 2: Comparison of SFPUC and SDCWA
demand projecSgI.zons to 2030. The SDCWA is
now projecSgI.zng declining demand.
217 223
182 193
334
254
150
200
250
300
350
2025 2030
MGD
2030 Demand Projection
Comparison
Water Enterprise
Finance Bureau
SDCWA

Page 4 of 6 ends

The SFPUC’s larger debt service means reduced ability to meet unknowns As shown in ﬁgure 3, SFPUC has signiﬁcantly higher debt service costs than the SDCWA, which means higher ﬁxed costs both in the short term and long term along with higher overall costs. It reduces the ability to address unknowns and adapt to changes in both the short term and for long term trends. It also increases exposure to adverse changes in capital markets parSgI.zcularly with increases in debt issuances in the next 10 years.

For 2025 the SFPUC’s debt service costs are 49% of water sales. By 2030 that is expected to grow to 54% of water sales, which during that SgI.zmeframe water sales are expected to grow from ~$700 million to ~$900 million, meaning that debt service costs are growing faster than water sales, a troubling trend.

Figure 3: The SFPUC’s water enterprise has much higher debt service costs than the SDCWA. Note that the SFPUC’s debt service costs are increasing while SDCWA debt service costs are declining. $339
$440
$160
$80
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
$ millions
Debt Service Costs: SFPUC & SDCWA Comparison
SFPUC Water SDCWA

Page 5 of 6 ends

For the SDCWA, 2025 debt service costs are 21% of water sales and by 2030 debt service costs are expected to decline to 17% of water sales.

The SDCWA has a current debt/cash funding mix of 35%/65% compared to the SFPUC’s 71%/29% (which is an improvement from last year’s 78%/22%).

The SFPUC’s higher ﬁxed costs also reduces adaptability While the SDCWA was able to miSgI.zgate a porSgI.zon of its declining demand with reduced water purchases, the SFPUC does not have such an ability. The vast majority of the SFPUC’s water enterprise costs do not vary with water sales. This means that the SFPUC has liSgIJzle ability to address unexpected downturns in demand.

The SDCWA has also been trying to miSgI.zgate its downturn in demand by selling excess supply to the other agencies. Mr. Stephenson did not report success with that approach although he remains hopeful.

Possible AcUg9~Eons
1) Both Mr. Herrera (despite a health issue) and Mr. Ritchie were in the meeSgI.zng. Please ask them for their views on what the SFPUC should take from the discussion.
2) Consider starSgI.zng the process to be prepared for a downside scenario. It’s hard to image demand declining by 24% by 2030 but ask to see a downside ﬁnancial scenario, perhaps using a decline in demand in the 8-10% range in ﬁve years, consistent with the SFPUC’s long term trend since 1990. What would retail and wholesale rates look like? What would aﬀordability look like? What would the SFPUC’s policy metrics look like? Understanding the scenario is a ﬁrst step towards being prepared.
3) Check that Mr. Ritchie and the execuSgI.zve team have all the ﬁnancial tools they need in order to assess the cost/beneﬁt tradeoﬀs for all contemplated and in-process capital projects. For example, do he and the team have at their ﬁngerSgI.zps how speciﬁc projects aﬀect water rates along with how the SgI.zming of those projects aﬀect rates? Do he and the team also have an understanding of debt implicaSgI.zons of each project?

Page 6 of 6 ends

4) Consider asking for recommendaSgI.zons on how SFPUC’s operaSgI.zng costs could be reduced.

Hopefully SDCWA’s experiences will help the SFPUC avoid similar problems, or at least be beSgIJzer prepared.

Kind regards,

Dave Warner

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Moore, Julie (CPC)
To: Moore, Julie (CPC)
Subject: Availability of Addendum to Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement Project EIR Date: Thursday, August 7, 2025 10:07:52 AM
Attachments: Notice of Availability of Addendum to EIR_Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2.pdf The San Francisco Planning Department has published an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisco Public Utilities System’s Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Reach 5 Lining Replacement Project, which extends through the cities of Millbrae, San Bruno, and South San Francisco, and unincorporated San Mateo County. The Notice of Availability is attached; the addendum and environmental impact report are available for download at SF Planning’s website:

Environmental Review Documents | SF Planning
.

You are receiving this notice either because you (or an individual formerly in your department) commented on the Draft EIR for the project, or because the project is located within your jurisdiction. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Julie Moore, MS
Principal Environmental Planner
Environmental Planning Division
San Francisco Planning
49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: 628.652.7566 | www.sfplanning.org
San Francisco Property Information Map

AVAILABILITY OF addendum 1 to
environmental Impact Report

PROJECT INFORMATION
Date: August 6, 2025
Project Title: Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2
Reach 5 Lining Replacement Project
Address: Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno,
Millbrae, and unincorporated San Mateo
County
Case No.: 2005-0963ENV-03

Project Sponsor:

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Hannah Young (415) 551-4558
[email protected]
Environmental Case Coordinator:

San Francisco Planning Department
Julie Moore (628) 652-7566
[email protected]

The San Francisco Planning Department has prepared an addendum to an environmental impact report in connection with this project. The report is available for public review on the Planning Department’s environmental review documents web page (http://www.sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs). Paper copies are available upon request to the environmental case coordinator listed above.

On September 30, 2010, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 (CSPL2) Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and on October 15, 2010, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) approved the project. The approved project included pipeline rehabilitation and improvement activities for CSPL2, an approximately 19-mile-long water transmission pipeline with a capacity of 52 million gallons per day that transports water from Crystal Springs Pump Station at the base of Lower Crystal Springs Dam to the University Mound Reservoir in San Francisco.

CSPL2 has eight sections, or “reaches.” The approved project included work across various portions of seven reaches (Reaches 2 through 8) of CSPL2 as well as a variety of staging areas in close proximity to the pipeline. The work included pipeline rehabilitation and seismic retrofit activities, pipeline replacements and relocation, slip lining, general improvements, retrofitting pipe bridge piers, and installation of cathodic protection equipment and insulated flange joints (electrical isolation). The approved project alignment crosses unincorporated San Mateo County, the Town of Hillsborough, and the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Brisbane, and Daly City before it terminates in San Francisco on right-of way that either is owned in fee title by the SFPUC or for which the SFPUC has easements.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Availability of Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 2 Since completion of construction of the approved project in 2013, SFPUC has conducted a condition assessment that indicates other portions of Reach 5 that were not included in the approved project are currently in need of rehabilitation and relining. The SFPUC proposes to reline and rehabilitate Reach 5 of CSPL2, which extends through the cities of Millbrae, San Bruno, and South San Francisco, and unincorporated San Mateo County to provide pipe corrosion protection, improve water quality and taste, as well as modernize the pipe for maintenance. The proposed project includes the following: relining approximately 3.84 miles of pipeline, accessed from about 25 temporary access pits; replacement of pipe segments at access pits and other locations along the pipeline; installation, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or abandonment of approximately 40 blowoff and air valves and 40 manholes; replacement and upgrade of equipment at 10 service connection sites; installation of approximately 8 corrosion test stations and 10 isolation valves.

The San Francisco Planning Department has concluded that the conclusions reached in the EIR certified on September 30, 2010 remain valid. The proposed revisions to the project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the EIR or substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Tom Francis
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Lourdes Enriquez
Subject: Notice of Meeting Cancellation - BAWSCA August 13th BPC Meeting Date: Thursday, August 7, 2025 12:35:33 PM
Attachments: 25_BPC_August13_CEO Letter_Final.pdf
25_BPC_August13_Correspondence Packet_Final.pdf
25_BPC_August13_Notice of Cancellation BPC Meeting.pdf
Dear BAWSCA Water Management Representatives and interested parties,

This email transmits a Notice of Meeting Cancellation for the August 13, 2025, BAWSCA Board Policy Committee (BPC) Meeting.

Although the meeting has been cancelled, BAWSCA has produced a CEO Letter and compiled a correspondence packet, both of which have been provided to the BAWSCA Board. Those documents are attached to this email as a FYI.

Regards,

Tom Francis
Water Resources Manager

_________________________________________________________________

Tom Francis
Water Resources Manager
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, California 94402
Ph: (510) 944-4392 (cell)
Fx: (650) 349-8395
Email: [email protected]

August 13, 2025

155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, California 94402
(650) 349-3000 tel. (650) 349-8395 fax

MEMORANDUM
TO: BAWSCA Board of Directors
FROM: Tom Smegal, CEO/General Manager
DATE: August 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Chief Executive Officer/General Manager’s Letter State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) DRAFT Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Watershed:

On July 24, the State Board released for public review and comment a revised draft of potential updates to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Watershed (Bay-Delta Plan). The proposed changes are focused on the portions of the plan relevant to the Sacramento River watershed, Delta eastside tributaries (including the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne Rivers), and Delta (Sacramento/Delta) (Phase 2) for the reasonable protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses. The State Board will receive public comments on the July 2025 revised draft updates both in writing by September 10, 2025, and orally at a hearing on September 8 and 9, 2025.

Although the Tuolumne River is part of Phase 1 of the Bay-Delta Plan, both BAWSCA and the SFPUC are tracking the progress of Phase 2 and will keep the BAWSCA Board apprised as it moves through the public review process.

State Board Correspondence on FERC Relicensing Process:

On June 27, the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (collectively "Districts") provided notice that they have prepared a Draft CEQA Supplemental Analysis Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Don Pedro and La Grange Hydroelectric Projects FERC Licensing. That notice included a 30-day public review period, with written comments due by close-of-business July 27, 2025.

Neither BAWSCA nor the SFPUC provided comments. However, a number of comments were submitted, including those from the State Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and miscellaneous Conservation Groups (including the Tuolumne River Trust). Those comment letters all asked that the CEQA analysis used to make the MND determination be expanded to also consider the ability for the proposed Project to meet the Bay-Delta Plan Phase 1 flows (40% unimpaired flow) as adopted by the State Board in 2018.

BAWSCA will continue to monitor the FERC proceedings and track how the Districts address the public comments received.

BAWSCA Request for Qualification (RFQ) for Water Use Efficiency Workshops:

As an element of BAWSCA’s FY 2025-26 Work Plan, BAWSCA committed to supporting member agencies on their ongoing efforts to comply with new regulations related to water use efficiency. Those

August 13, 2025
regulations continue to be developed by the State Board. In consultation with BAWSCA agencies, it was determined that support could best be provided by hosting a series of water use efficiency regulation workshops (workshops) in FY 2025-26. BAWSCA requires consulting support to plan for and assist in such hosting.

An RFQ seeking consultant assistance was published by BAWSCA on August 22, 2025 (Website link = https://bawsca.org/about/jobs/rfp). Individual emails were also sent to BAWSCA contacts at 18 firms notifying them of the opportunity.

The selected consultant will facilitate a series of workshops focused on new water use efficiency regulations. 12 workshops are assumed for cost estimate purposes (at least 1 in-person), beginning in October 2025 and running through the close of FY 2025-26.

Consultant costs would be split between BAWSCA and Valley Water. An MOU between BAWSCA and Valley Water detailing the cost share has been developed and will be executed by mid-August.

Workshops will serve BAWSCA member agencies and Valley Water’s retail water agencies.

Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) are due by 5:00 PM PDT on Friday August 22, 2025. BAWSCA desires to have a consultant recommendation to provide to the BAWSCA Board for approval at the September 18th meeting.

Note that this work item was included in BAWSCA’s FY 2025-26 Budget.

SFPUC Hetch Hetchy Tour:

BAWSCA is pleased to announce a second tour of the San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS), including Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, on September 30 – October 1, 2025.

The tour to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir involves extensive coordination on the part of both the SFPUC and BAWSCA. The SFPUC will provide accommodation for attendees at their facilities adjacent to the Reservoir. Travel is provided by the SFPUC, with the tour departing the morning of September 30th from BAWSCA office in San Mateo and returning late in the afternoon of October 1st. Space, as always, is limited.

BAWSCA highly encourages Board Members’ participation in the tour as it provides valuable information essential to representing the interests of water users in the BAWSCA region. Participation in the tour is on a first-come first served basis, with priority being given to new Directors, and Directors who have never participated in the tour.

Please let BAWSCA’s Assistant to the CEO/General Manager, Lourdes Enriquez, know prior to Friday, August 29th of your interest in attending the tour. Additional information and confirmation will be sent at least two weeks prior to the date of the tour.

# # #
August 13, 2025

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
August 7, 2025
Correspondence and media coverage of interest between July 24, 2025 and August 7, 2025 Press Release
From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom
Date: July 24, 2025
Subject: California advances Bay-Delta Plan Update to restore ecosystem health and Improve water supply reliability
From: State Water Resources Control Board
Date: July 24, 2025
Subject: State Water Board releases proposed updates to Sacramento/Delta portions of Bay-Delta Plan
Water Policy:

Date: July 24, 2025
Source: Los Angeles Times
Article: Newsom’s plan to give water agencies more leeway in meeting rules moves forward
Date: July 24, 2025
Source: California Farm Water Coalition
Article: Will the Bay-Delta Plan Succeed? I Has a Good Chance if the Healthy Rivers And Landscapes Alternative is Allowed to Work
Water Supply Management
Date: July 25, 2025
Source: ProPublica
Article: The Drying Planet
Water Infrastructure:

Date: August 1, 2025
Source: EarthDay.org
Article: From Sewage to Clean Water: What Three Global Cities Teach us About Climate Ingenuity
(This page was intentionally left blank)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 24, 2025
Governor's Press Office: (916) 445-4571

California advances Bay-Delta Plan Update to restore ecosystem health and improve water supply reliability

Governor Newsom praises the State Water Board for incorporating the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program into the Bay-Delta Plan

What you need to know: The Newsom Administration’s innovative Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, which improves environmental conditions and provides more water supply certainty for California’s communities, farms, and businesses, is moving forward for consideration in the Bay-Delta Plan. This comes alongside a recent legislative proposal to streamline the adoption of water quality plans through new CEQA exemptions.

SACRAMENTO – Today, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) proposed an update to its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan that will help protect the Sacramento River, the Delta and associated tributaries (Sacramento/Delta) for generations to come and safeguard water supplies for millions of Californians. The new plan update will help maintain a strong balance between protecting precious ecosystems and ensuring the state can meet the needs of Californians. If adopted, the plan will update environmental science, restore tens of thousands of acres of habitat, and incorporate a groundbreaking program developed by the Newsom administration, creating voluntary agreements with water users, including municipal water agencies, agriculture, and other water rights holders. Advancing California’s Abundance Agenda, the Governor is also introducing a legislative proposal through a separate trailer bill to create new CEQA exemptions for water quality plans.

“I am proud to see the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program represented in this plan update — it’s a testament to California’s commitment to a collaborative, science-driven approach to managing our water for the benefit of our communities, economy, and fish and wildlife. However, our work is not yet done — I have proposed legislation to create a CEQA exemption for all Water Quality Control Plans that would accelerate the time it takes to get these critical plans done by removing unnecessary and redundant process requirements. We’re done with barriers and obstacles to our state’s success. We must work together to protect our natural resources for the benefit of the habitats and people of our state.” Governor Gavin Newsom

The Newsom Administration, along with state, federal, and local leaders, developed the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (HRL) Program as an innovative alternate approach to traditional regulatory requirements to improve environmental conditions while providing more water supply certainty to communities, farms, and businesses throughout California. Now, the program has advanced to the State Water Board for consideration as an implementation pathway in the Bay- Delta Plan.

"The State Water Board's draft plan update marks a crucial step toward safeguarding the Bay Delta’s water quality,” said California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Yana Garcia. “By embracing collaborative, science-driven solutions, the board is actively ensuring a more sustainable water future for communities, ecosystems, and generations to come.”

The Bay-Delta Plan update now includes two regulatory pathways for water users:
• A comprehensive Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, which would produce ecosystem benefits through a combination of flow and habitat projects. • A flow-only approach for those who are not parties to the HRL program.

Following a public comment period, the plan will advance before the State Water Board for final consideration. The plan, developed with extensive public input, including public water agencies, environmental nonprofits, tribal partners, and local governments, is a win for all Californians.

Streamlining Government to Work Better
The Bay-Delta Plan for the Sacramento/Delta has not been meaningfully updated since 1995.

Continuing to operate under a plan that does not reflect the most current science, a growing population, or a changing climate is a disservice to California’s communities and ecosystems. In 2022, Governor Newsom brought together local, state, and federal partners to submit an actionable framework for the Voluntary Agreements, later named the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, to the State Water Board.

If adopted by the State Water Board, the HRL program would dedicate a large quantity of water to the environment and restore more than 45,000 acres of aquatic habitat for fish and other animals. In addition, Governor Newsom secured funding commitments totalling $2.9 billion to implement the HRL program over the next 8 years.

“This program will improve the health of our rivers by both restoring river flows and revitalizing habitat,” said California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot. “After all, fish and wildlife need both to thrive. It also improves coordination and collaboration among public agencies charged with improving river conditions and will enable real-time, science-based decision making that we desperately need to better manage our river systems.”

“The Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program will allow for a more collaborative and scientifically sound way to balance conflicting demands for water in an extremely complex watershed. We’re grateful to the State Water Board for embracing this approach as a potential pathway within their regulatory framework,” said California Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth. “Working together, we will find new solutions to the old problem of balancing the needs of ecosystems and economies.”

“The inclusion of voluntary agreements in the development of this plan will be a big win for California, and will help provide more opportunities for our partners across the state to support California’s irreplaceable fish populations and habitats,” said California Department Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton H. Bonham. “By focusing on the science of restoration, and prioritizing additional flows to support healthy habitats, we can ensure the best possible outcomes for California’s precious natural resources, now and in years to come.”

Furthering the administration’s agenda to reduce barriers to progress and move projects that Californians need forward, Governor Newsom has also introduced trailer bill language to streamline the adoption of water quality control plans and create new exemptions for water projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This would expedite the potential adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan and the ecosystem benefits it would provide, while still allowing for vital public process and input.

More information about the proposed Bay-Delta Plan update is available on the State Water Board’s website.

# # #

(This page was intentionally left blank)
Press Release: State Water Board releases proposed updates to Sacramento/Delta portions of Bay-Delta Plan
Proposal incorporates both voluntary agreements and a regulatory pathway Maven | July 24, 2025 | From the State Water Resources Control Board

Continuing the state’s work to protect the ecosystem of the Sacramento River and Delta watershed while balancing the need to protect water supply, the State Water Resources Control Board today announced important proposed updates to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Watershed (Bay-Delta Plan).

The announcement begins a public review and comment period on the proposal that would update measures in the Bay-Delta Plan to protect the Sacramento River, the Delta and associated tributaries (Sacramento/Delta).

The State Water Board’s proposed updates include two distinct pathways for water users and agencies to comply with water quality requirements: one that incorporates voluntary agreements (VAs) proposed by some state and federal agencies and other water users, known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, and a regulatory pathway for those who are not parties to approved VAs. Both pathways will create legally enforceable requirements.

The proposal also incorporates tribal beneficial uses and formally designates Tribal Tradition and Culture beneficial uses in the watershed in recognition of the intrinsic connection between native fish populations—including salmon—and tribal tradition and culture.

“The proposed updates to the Bay-Delta Plan would improve conditions for fish and wildlife through a combination of flow and habitat measures while considering the needs of cities, towns and farms,” said State Water Board Executive Director Eric Oppenheimer. “It reflects a holistic approach to the Bay-Delta that leverages cooperation to advance ecosystem benefits as soon as possible.”

The Bay-Delta Plan, which was first adopted by the board in 1978, identifies beneficial uses of water in the Delta watershed, water quality and flow objectives to protect those uses, and an implementation program that includes monitoring and reporting requirements.

To address changing environmental conditions, including the increasing intensity and frequency of drought, the board periodically reviews the plan and considers updated protective measures.

In December 2018, the board adopted new flow objectives and an implementation program in the Lower San Joaquin River and its three salmon-bearing tributaries (Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers) and also outlined a framework for revisions to the plan’s Sacramento/Delta requirements.

The proposed updates to those requirements released today are based on the September 2023 staff report and the October 2024 draft plan; they are also informed by extensive public input gathered across 11 topic-specific meetings, a multi-day hearing, a multi-day workshop, consultation with independent subject matter experts and a comprehensive scientific basis report, which was written collaboratively by board staff, the California Department of Water Resources and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Specifically, the proposal includes new narrative Sacramento/Delta inflow, cold water habitat, Delta outflow, interior Delta flow, and fish viability objectives. The board will implement these objectives via new requirements on water right holders, through either the VA or regulatory pathway.

The board is accepting written comments on the proposed updates through September 10. It will hold a public hearing to receive oral comments on September 8, with the potential to extend the hearing to September 9 if needed. The board will consider adopting the proposal at a future date.

Voluntary Agreement Pathway
The voluntary agreement pathway allows water right holders who are parties to the VAs to implement Bay-Delta Plan requirements, including water quality objectives, through a combination of flow and habitat restoration commitments that would be documented through accounting provisions and periodic review by the board.

Key elements of the VAs include the following: a combination of additive flows occurring largely during the ecologically important January-June period; habitat restoration commitments; substantial funding for habitat restoration and water purchases; a science program to test benefits of flow and habitat for native fish; annual reports and triennial reviews to demonstrate compliance and evaluate ecosystem benefits; and monitoring, accounting and reporting to ensure flow and habitat commitments materialize.

The VAs have the potential to bring habitat, flows and resulting benefits more quickly than the regulatory approach. However, if the VA parties fail to adhere to flow and habitat commitments, or the board determines after eight years that the benefits are insufficient, the board could initiate a process to compel compliance through the regulatory pathway.

Regulatory Pathway
The proposed regulatory pathway provisions would apply in the absence of approved VAs and for water right holders who are not parties to approved VAs. This pathway would direct water right holders to implement new water quality objectives largely through an approach requiring a percentage of the unimpaired flow to remain instream. This approach is consistent with the board’s efforts in 2018 on the Lower San Joaquin River tributaries.

Since the October 2024 draft, the regulatory pathway provisions have been refined to include flow measures, called water supply adjustments, that create a more dynamic unimpaired flow requirement. The new adjustments take dry and wet conditions into account (requiring higher flows during wet periods and lower during dry) and allow for reductions of required inflows from 55% of unimpaired flow down to 45% and 35%, as well as offramps to inflow requirements during extreme conditions on specific tributaries.

The adjustments provide for greater adaptive management and are designed to reduce potential water supply impacts to agriculture, municipal water service and hydropower production, while maintaining reasonably protective flows and preserving cold water in reservoirs for fish downstream.

More information about the proposed Bay-Delta Plan update is available on the board’s website.

Click Here for the Draft Report
# # #
(This page was intentionally left blank)
Newsom’s plan to give water agencies more leeway in meeting rules moves forward
Los Angeles Times | July 24, 2025 | Ian James

Aerial view of an oceangoing grain ship transiting the deep water channel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta between the Port of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay.(Getty Images)

• California water officials have released a new proposed water plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, backing an approach supported by Gov.

Gavin Newsom.
• Newsom calls it a “collaborative, science-driven approach to managing our water.” Environmental groups argue the approach would harm the Delta’s native fish populations, which have been declining.

California regulators are supporting a controversial plan backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — and opposed by environmental groups — that would give water agencies more leeway in how they comply with water quality rules.

The Newsom-backed approach is included as part of a proposed water plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, released by the State Water Resources Control Board on Thursday.

The plan would give water agencies two potential pathways to comply with water quality goals — either a traditional regulatory approach based on limiting water withdrawals to maintain certain river flow levels, or an alternative approach supported by the governor in which water agencies, under negotiated agreements, would make certain water flow commitments while contributing funding for wetland habitat restoration projects and other measures.

The proposed plan is intended to protect native fish species and the ecosystem through water quality standards and flow objectives for the Delta and San Francisco Bay.

Major water agencies have lined up to support these so-called voluntary agreements, which Newsom and his administration have touted as a solution to break away from the traditional conflict-ridden regulatory approach and improve the Delta’s ecological health.

Newsom called the plan “a testament to California’s commitment to a collaborative, science-driven approach to managing our water for the benefit of our communities, economy, and fish and wildlife.”
The proposed plan, developed by the state agency’s staff, will now go through a public comment process, and will eventually go before the five-member state water board for a decision on adoption. Members of the board are appointed by the governor.

Environmental and fishing groups, as well as leaders in Delta communities, have argued that the voluntary approach would harm the estuary’s deteriorating ecosystem and fish species that have suffered dramatic declines.

The Delta draws together rivers from a vast watershed and flows toward the San Francisco Bay. On the south side of the Delta, pumps operated by the state and federal governments send water flowing to cities and farms.

Eric Oppenheimer, executive director of the state water board, said the proposed update of the water quality plan would “improve conditions for fish and wildlife through a combination of flow and habitat measures while considering the needs of cities, towns and farms.”
Oppenheimer noted that the state water board would track agencies’ commitments under the voluntary agreements, which have also been called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program.

Under the draft plan, state officials would review the voluntary agreements after eight years to determine if they should be extended, modified or terminated. The board could decide to return water agencies to the traditional regulatory approach if they determine the voluntary agreements haven’t achieved the desired results. “We included the voluntary agreement pathway because we think the voluntary agreements have merit,” Oppenheimer told reporters during a briefing. “The basic concept behind these voluntary agreements is that by combining both flow and habitat, we think we can achieve significant ecosystem improvements, and we think it can be done with a lower water supply impact.”
Oppenheimer said state officials believe this approach will “engender a high degree of cooperation and buy-in from the water users.”
Environmental and fishing groups have condemned the agencies’ proposed voluntary agreements as backroom deals struck without input from Native tribes, Delta communities or conservation advocates. They have said that by failing to protect existing flows, the agreements are aimed at setting the stage for massive additional water diversions.

Newsom and his administration are pushing for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project, seeking to build a 45-mile water tunnel beneath the Delta, and are also moving ahead with plans to build Sites Reservoir, the state’s first new major reservoir in decades, in a valley north of Sacramento.

Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, said she is very concerned about the state board’s approach. “This is just the latest attempt by the Newsom administration to promote the woefully inadequate and inequitable voluntary agreements, undercutting bare minimum protections,” Overhouse said. “The proposal to cut freshwater flows through the Delta during wet and dry years will be devastating for species and the overall health of the estuary.”
Overhouse and other environmental advocates argue that the voluntary deals struck by major water suppliers would be disastrous for threatened and endangered fish, including salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt and Delta smelt. They have called for more stringent flow requirements to help populations recover.

This year, populations of Chinook salmon were so low that regulators shut down the commercial fishing season along the coast for a third straight year, though limited recreational fishing was allowed.

The state water board “seems to be collapsing under pressure from the governor to approve the fatally flawed voluntary agreements,” said Scott Artis, executive director of Golden State Salmon Assn., a nonprofit group that represents fishing communities.

Artis said the voluntary approach would worsen the environmental crisis in the Delta and set the stage for “even more damaging diversions by the massive Delta tunnel.” His group has also criticized the $2.9 billion in proposed funding that would be needed to carry out the agreements, much of it from state and federal funds. The group has called it a “shell game” and a “taxpayer rip-off.”
The update of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan has been years in the making.

The last substantial changes in water quality and flow requirements were adopted in 1995 for much of the watershed. In 2018, the State Water Board released new standards to increase flows in the San Joaquin River.

The pending update will set rules for the Sacramento River watershed and the rest of the Delta.

The State Water Resources Control Board plans to hold a public hearing on the draft plan Sept. 8-9, and will be accepting written comments until Sept. 10. A date for a decision by the board has not been set.

The proposal also calls for establishing tribal “beneficial uses” of water in recognition of the connections between Native tribes and fish populations. There are over 100 tribes in the Bay-Delta watershed. State officials say this designation would not guarantee tribes a certain volume of water but would ensure that cultural uses of water, including for fish species, have protections under the plan.

Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources secretary, said the approach outlined under the plan will “improve the health of our rivers by both restoring river flows and revitalizing habitat.”
Newsom noted that he has also proposed legislation to create an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act for all such water quality plans. The governor said this would “accelerate the time it takes to get these critical plans done by removing unnecessary and redundant process requirements.”
# # #

(This page was intentionally left blank)
Will the Bay-Delta Plan Succeed? It Has a Good Chance if the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Alternative is Allowed to Work
California Farm Water Coalition | July 24, 2025 |

On July 24, 2025, the State Water Resources Control Board released an updated Bay-Delta Water Plan, a critical framework designed to protect the ecological health of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta while addressing California’s diverse water demands. The plan outlines two primary approaches—the Unimpaired Flow Alternative and the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (or Voluntary Agreements) alternative, to balance water quality, ecosystem restoration, and water supply needs. So, what are the key differences between these approaches? How is their success evaluated? And what is the unimpaired flow alternative water users may have to adopt? A dive into the Plan helps answer those questions, and more.

Key Differences Between Approaches
The Bay-Delta Water Plan presents two distinct strategies for managing water quality and ecosystem health in the Delta. The Unimpaired Flow Alternative focuses on maintaining a specific percentage of natural river flows, typically set at 55% but adjustable between 45% and 65% depending on water year types (e.g., wet or dry conditions). This approach prioritizes flow as the primary mechanism to support water quality and habitats for native species, such as salmonids and Delta smelt. In contrast, the HRL program integrates water flow with non-flow measures, such as restoring spawning grounds, rearing habitats, and floodplains. This pathway provides greater flexibility, allowing water users to adjust flow releases and construct habitat projects to meet specific needs according to local conditions. The unimpaired flow alternative relies on regulatory enforcement through water right curtailments whereas Healthy Rivers and Landscapes emphasizes collaborative agreements and adaptive management, enabling water users to adjust strategies based on real-time ecological data and adaptive management.

Measuring Success
The plan outlines distinct criteria for evaluating the success of each approach. For the unimpaired flow alternative, success hinges on maintaining the required instream flow and achieving biological goals, which has been the way much of the system has been managed for several decades while fish populations continue to decline. The goal of increasing the “abundance, productivity, genetic diversity, and spatial distribution of native fish populations” seems unattainable without a new, more comprehensive restoration effort.

Regular monitoring and annual reports track compliance and ecological outcomes, which would be demonstrated by increased fish populations and improved water quality, including meeting salmon doubling objectives. For the HRL program, success is measured by fulfilling flow commitments above baseline conditions, completing habitat restoration projects within its planned eight-year term, and evaluating success on the quality of improved habitat and the benefits it provides species that depend on the system. Regular reporting on flow and habitat benefits will demonstrate whether or not the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes alternative will be successful. I believe it will because fish need more than just more water to thrive, they need a healthy place to live and that’s what HRL is all about.

Compliance with Unimpaired Flow Rules
The Water Quality Control Plan specifies when water users must comply with unimpaired flow rules. Water users on certain tributaries, such as the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and other Sacramento/Delta tributaries, are subject to these rules if they are not part of an approved HRL plan. If a water user under this alternative fails to meet flow, habitat, or monitoring commitments, the State Water Board may terminate their participation in the alternative HRL plan, requiring compliance with unimpaired flow rules. The Board may also enforce these rules if water users fail to protect beneficial uses, jeopardize native fish survival, or if they violate water quality or temperature objectives.

During water scarcity, junior water rights holders may face curtailments to meet flow objectives.

Additionally, according to the Bay-Delta Plan, applicants for new water rights or changes to existing rights may need to adhere to unimpaired flow rules as a condition of approval. These rules automatically apply to specified tributaries unless a water user is in an approved HRL Landscapes plan or qualifies for an exception, such as minimal diversions.

The Bay-Delta Water Plan’s dual approaches offer distinct paths to address the Delta’s ecological challenges. The unimpaired flow alternative continues to lean on the failed, flow- centric strategy that has led to the near total demise of the Delta smelt and lackluster salmon recovery. On the other hand, Health Rivers and Landscapes creates collaboration and flexibility, combining flows with habitat restoration and a better chance at succeeding in species recovery.

Both approaches rely on robust monitoring and adaptive management, but their quantifying success differs, with unimpaired flows focusing on flow compliance and biological outcomes, and HRL emphasizing integrated ecosystem recovery.

The State Water Board retains its authority to enforce unimpaired flow rules to ensure compliance with Bay-Delta Plan objectives, particularly if the HRL alternative falls short, which is unlikely, based on the success of similar efforts already underway throughout the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River watersheds.

Comment on the Draft Plan
The public comment period is open until September 10, 2025. The water user community and the public have a critical opportunity to provide input, shaping the plan’s implementation to safeguard the Delta’s ecosystem while meeting California’s water needs, hopefully through the implementation of sensible, science-driven projects.
# # #
To read or comment on the Bay-Delta Plan, visit:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/d ocs/notice-baydeltaplanupdates-07-2025-en.pdf
The Drying Planet
As the climate warms, new data shows huge swaths of land across the globe are quickly drying, threatening humanity’s supply of fresh water
ProPublica | July 25, 2025 | Abrahm Lustgarten

In the far north, the detected loss is due largely to glaciers melting and subarctic lakes drying.

But farther south — where most people live — it is largely the race to suck groundwater from aquifers that is removing the water from the continents.

So much groundwater is now being pumped that it is filling the oceans as it drains off land, becoming one of the largest drivers of global sea level rise.

As the planet gets hotter and its reservoirs shrink and its glaciers melt, people have increasingly drilled into a largely ungoverned, invisible cache of fresh water: the vast, hidden pools found deep underground.

Now, a new study that examines the world’s total supply of fresh water — accounting for its rivers and rain, ice and aquifers together — warns that Earth’s most essential resource is quickly disappearing, signaling what the paper’s authors describe as “a critical, emerging threat to humanity.” The landmasses of the planet are drying. In most places there is less precipitation even as moisture evaporates from the soil faster. More than anything, Earth is being slowly dehydrated by the unmitigated mining of groundwater, which underlies vast proportions of every continent. Nearly 6

billion people, or three quarters of humanity, live in the 101 countries that the study identified as confronting a net decline in water supply — portending enormous challenges for food production and a heightening risk of conflict and instability.

The paper “provides a glimpse of what the future is going to be,” said Hrishikesh Chandanpurkar, an earth systems scientist working with Arizona State University and the lead author of the study. “We are already dipping from a trust fund. We don’t actually know how much the account has.”

The research, published on Friday in the journal Science Advances, confirms not just that droughts and precipitation are growing more extreme but reports that drying regions are fast expanding. It also found that while parts of the planet are getting wetter, those areas are shrinking. The study, which excludes the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, concludes not only that Earth is suffering a pandemic of “continental drying” in lower latitudes, but that it is the uninhibited pumping of groundwater by farmers, cities and corporations around the world that now accounts for 68% of the total loss of fresh water in those areas, which generally don’t have glaciers.

Groundwater is ubiquitous across the globe, but its quality and depth vary, as does its potential to be replenished by rainfall. Major groundwater basins — the deep and often high-quality aquifers — underlie roughly one-third of the planet, including roughly half of Africa, Europe and South America.

But many of those aquifers took millions of years to form and might take thousands of years to refill.

Instead, a significant portion of the water taken from underground flows off the land through rivers and on to the oceans.

The researchers were surprised to find that the loss of water on the continents has grown so dramatically that it has become one of the largest causes of global sea level rise. Moisture lost to evaporation and drought, plus runoff from pumped groundwater, now outpaces the melting of glaciers and the ice sheets of either Antarctica or Greenland as the largest contributor of water to the oceans.

Water From Land Has Become a Leading Driver of Sea Level Rise

Most of the water lost from drying regions is from groundwater pumping, which ultimately shifts fresh water from aquifers into the oceans.

Note: Glaciers refer to the parts
of the continents covered in
glaciers but excludes the ice
sheets of Greenland and
Antarctica. Drying land and
aquifers refer to the water lost by
the continents in areas not
covered by glaciers, including
river flow and evaporation.

Groundwater loss accounts for
68% of the drying in those
places.

The study examines 22 years of observational data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, satellites, which measure changes in the mass of the earth and have been applied to estimate its water content. The technique was groundbreaking two decades ago when the study’s co-author, Jay Famiglietti, who was then a professor at the University of California, at Irvine, used it to pinpoint where aquifers were in decline. Since then, he and others have published dozens of papers using GRACE data, but the question has always lingered: What does the groundwater loss mean in the context of all of the water available on the continents? So Famiglietti, now a professor at Arizona State University, set out to inventory all the land-based water contained in glaciers, rivers and aquifers and see what was changing. The answer: everything, and quickly.

Since 2002, the GRACE sensors have detected a rapid shift in water loss patterns around the planet.

Around 2014, though, the pace of drying appears to have accelerated, the authors found, and is now growing by an area twice the size of California each year. “It’s like this sort of creeping disaster that has taken over the continents in ways that no one was really anticipating,” Famiglietti said. (Six other researchers also contributed to the study.) The parts of the world drying most acutely are becoming interconnected, forming what the study’s authors describe as “mega” regions spreading across the earth’s mid-latitudes. One of those regions covers almost the whole of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia.

The Drying of the Earth Accelerated in Recent Years
The dramatic depletion of groundwater and surface water plus the melting of glaciers between 2014- 24 has connected once-separate arid places, forming “mega-drying” regions that stretch across whole continents.

In the American Southwest and California, groundwater loss is a familiar story, but over the past two decades that hot spot has also spread dramatically. It now extends through Texas and up through the southern High Plains, where the Ogallala aquifer is depended on for agriculture, and it spreads south, stretching throughout Mexico and into Central America. These regions are connected not because they rely on the same water sources — in most cases they don’t — but because their populations will face the same perils of water stress: the most likely, a food crisis that could ultimately displace millions of people.

“This has to serve as a wake-up call,” said Aaron Salzberg, a former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the former director of the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina, who was not involved with the study.

Research has long established that people take more water from underground when climate-driven heat and drought are at their worst. For example, during droughts when California has enforced restrictions on delivery of surface water to its farmers — which the state regulates — the enormous agriculture enterprises that dominate the Central Valley have drilled deeper and pumped harder, depleting the aquifer — which the state regulates less precisely — even more.

For the most part, such withdrawals have remained invisible. Even with the GRACE data, scientists cannot measure the exact levels or know when an aquifer will be exhausted. But there is one foolproof sign that groundwater is disappearing: The earth above it collapses as the ground compresses like a drying sponge. The visible signs of such subsidence around the world appear to match what the GRACE data says. Mexico City is sinking as its groundwater aquifers are drained, as are large parts China, Indonesia, Spain and Iran, to name a few. A recent study by researchers at Virginia Tech in the journal Nature Cities found that 28 cities across the United States are sinking — New York, Houston and Denver, among them — threatening havoc for everything from building safety to transit. In the Central Valley, the ground surface is nearly 30 vertical feet lower than it was in the first part of the 20th century.

Ground subsidence around the world is one of the clearest ways to identify where groundwater is overdrawn.

When so much water is pumped, it has to drain somewhere.

Just like rivers and streams fed by rainfall, much of the used groundwater makes its way into the ocean. The study pinpoints a remarkable shift: Groundwater drilled by people, used for agriculture or urban supplies and then discarded into drainages now contributes more water to the oceans than melting from each of the world’s largest ice caps.

People aren’t just misusing groundwater, they are flooding their own coasts and cities in the process, Famiglietti warns. That means they are also imperiling some of the world’s most important food-producing lowlands in the Nile and Mekong deltas and cities from Shanghai to New York. Once in the oceans, of course, groundwater will never again be suitable for drinking and human use without expensive and energy-sucking treatment or through the natural cycle of evaporating and precipitating as rain. But even then, it may no longer fall where it is needed most. Groundwater “is an intergenerational resource that is being poorly managed, if managed at all,” the study states, “at tremendous and exceptionally undervalued cost to future generations.”

That such rapid and substantial overuse of groundwater is also causing coastal flooding underscores the compounding threat of rising temperatures and aridity. It means that water scarcity and some of the most disruptive effects of climate change are now inextricably intertwined. And here, the study’s authors implore leaders to find a policy solution: Improve water management and reduce groundwater use now, and the world has a tool to slow the rate of sea level rise. Fail to adjust the governance and use of groundwater around the world, and humanity risks surrendering parts of its coastal cities while pouring out finite reserves it will sorely need as the other effects of climate change take hold.

How Groundwater Becomes Ocean Water
The process starts when deep underground aquifers are tapped to make up for a lack of water from rainfall and rivers.

Worldwide, 70% of fresh water is used
for growing crops, with more of it coming
from groundwater as droughts grow
more extreme. Only a small amount of
that water seeps back into aquifers.

Instead, most of the water runs off the
land into streams, eventually flowing into
rivers.

The rivers ultimately drain into the
ocean, where fresh water becomes salt
water. For that water to be usable again,
it must either be industrially treated or
return to the land as rain. But with
climate change, these same drying
regions are seeing less rainfall.

If the drying continues — and the
researchers warn that it is now nearly
impossible to reverse “on human
timescales” — it heralds “potentially
staggering” and cascading risks for
global order. The majority of the earth’s
population lives in the 101 countries that the study identified as losing fresh water, making up not just North America, Europe and North Africa but also much of Asia, the Middle East and South America.

This suggests the middle band of Earth is becoming less habitable. It also correlates closely with the places that a separate body of climate research has already identified as a shrinking environmental niche that has suited civilization for the past 6,000 years. Combined, these findings all point to the likelihood of widespread famine, the migration of large numbers of people seeking a more stable environment and the carry-on impact of geopolitical disorder.

Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, lauded the new report for confirming trends that were once theoretical. The ramifications, he said, could be profoundly destabilizing. “The massive overpumping of groundwater,” Gleick said, “poses enormous risk to food production.” And food, he pointed out, is the foundation for stability. The water science center he co- founded, the Pacific Institute, has tracked more than 1,900 incidents in which water supplies were either the casualty of, a tool for or the cause of violence. In Syria, beginning in 2011, drought and groundwater depletion drove rural unrest that contributed to the civil war, which displaced millions of people. In Ghana, in 2017, protesters rioted as wells ran dry. And in Ukraine, whose wheat supports much of the world, water infrastructure has been a frequent target of Russian attacks.

“Water is being used as a strategic and political tool,” said Salzberg, who spent nearly two decades analyzing water security issues as the special director for water resources at the State Department. “We should expect to see that more often as the water supply crisis is exacerbated.”

India, for example, recently weaponized water against Pakistan. In April, following terrorist attacks in Kashmir, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suspended his country’s participation in the Indus Waters Treaty, a river-sharing agreement between the two nuclear powers that was negotiated in 1960. The Indus system flows northwest out of Tibet into India, before turning southward into Pakistan. Pakistan has severely depleted its groundwater reserves — the region is facing one of the world’s most urgent water emergencies according to the Science Advances paper. The Indus has only become more essential as a supply of fresh water for its 252 million people. Allowing that water to cross the border would be “prejudicial to India’s interests,” Modi said. In this case, he wasn’t attempting to recoup water supply for his country, Salzberg said, but was leveraging its scarcity to win a strategic advantage over his country’s principal rival.

What’s needed most is governance of water that recognizes it as a crucial resource that determines both sovereignty and progress, Salzberg added. Yet there is no international framework for water management, and only a handful of countries have national water policies of their own.

The United States has taken stabs at regulating its groundwater use, but in some cases those attempts appear to be failing. In 2014, California passed what seemed to many a revolutionary groundwater management act that required communities to assess their total water supply and budget its long-term use. But the act doesn’t take full effect until 2040, which has allowed many groundwater districts to continue to draw heavily from aquifers even as they complete their plans to conserve those resources. Chandanpurkar and Famiglietti’s research underscores the consequences for such a slow approach.

Arizona pioneered groundwater regulations in 1980, creating what it called active management areas where extraction would be limited and surface waters would be used to replenish aquifers. But it only chose to manage the water in metropolitan areas, leaving vast, unregulated swaths of the state where investors, farmers and industry have all pounced on the availability of free water for profit. In recent years, Saudi investors have pumped rural water to grow feed for cattle exported back to the Arabian Peninsula, and hedge funds are competing to pump and sell water to towns near Phoenix. Meanwhile, four out of the original five active management areas are failing to meet the state’s own targets.

“They like to say, ‘Oh, the management’s doing well,’” Famiglietti said, but looking out over the next century, the trends suggest the aquifers will continue to empty out. “No one talks about that. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say it’s an existential issue for cities like Phoenix.”

Appeals Court Overturns Murder and Kidnapping Conviction in Etan Patz Disappearance Both California and Arizona grow significant portions of America’s fruits and vegetables. Something has to give. “If you want to grow food in a place like California,” Famiglietti asked, “do you just bring in water? If we deplete that groundwater, I don’t think there’s enough water to really replace what we’re doing there.” The United States might not have much choice, he added, but to move California’s agriculture production somewhere far away and retire the land.

Chandanpurkar, Famiglietti and the report’s other authors suggest there are ready solutions to the problems they have identified, because unlike so many aspects of the climate crisis, the human decisions that lead to the overuse of water can be speedily corrected. Agriculture, which uses the vast majority of the world’s fresh water, can deploy well-tested technologies like drip irrigation, as Israel has, that sharply cut use by as much as 50%. When California farms reduced their take of Colorado River water in 2023 and 2024, the water levels in Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, jumped by 16 vertical feet as some 390 billion gallons were saved by 2025. Individuals can reduce water waste by changing simple routines: shortening showers or removing lawns. And cities can look to recycle more of the water they use, as San Diego has.

A national policy that establishes rules around water practices but also prioritizes the use of water resources for national security and a collective interest could counterbalance the forces of habit and special interests, Salzberg said. Every country needs such a policy, and if the United States were to lead, it might offer an advantage. But “the U.S. doesn’t have a national water strategy,” he said, referring to a disjointed patchwork of state and court oversight. “We don’t even have a national water institution. We haven’t thought as a country about how we would even protect our own water resources for our own national interests, and we’re a mess.”

# # #

Correction
July 25, 2025: This story originally included a quote from Jay Famiglietti characterizing Arizona’s water supply as facing total depletion by the end of the century. Famiglietti communicated a correction to that assertion to ProPublica, which failed to incorporate it before the story was published. The quote has been adjusted to reflect Famiglietti’s view that Arizona’s water supply will be diminished but may not disappear.

(This page was intentionally left blank)
From Sewage to Clean Water: What Three Global Cities Teach us About Climate Ingenuity EarthDay.org | August 1, 2025

August is National Water Quality Month, established to emphasize the importance of water for humanity, ecology, and economy. It is a great time to appreciate and take stock of our clean water resources. With climate change and human overuse triggering more frequent droughts, water is becoming an even more precious commodity, and researchers are being forced to find solutions in unusual places. So, could the answer to our water needs be running through our sewers?

The Solution in Our Sewage
Some regions are being hit harder than others. Since the year 2000, the Southwestern United States has been experiencing a megadrought: over two decades of high intensity drought. Its severity rivals the most severe droughts of the late 1500s. Exacerbated by climate change, this drought is considered the worst the region has faced in over a thousand years.

Water levels in rivers and lakes are dropping due to a combination of intensely dry weather and continued human overuse of the water that remains. Towns and cities in the region are scrambling for a solution.

Enter wastewater reclamation: the process of cleaning and reusing water which has already been used — be it from our kitchen sinks or even our toilets!

Several countries already use wastewater. Facilities like the Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant in Namibia and Changi Water Reclamation Plant in Singapore have been hugely successful in using advanced water treatment technologies to transform wastewater into high- quality, safe water.

The US could benefit from following their example. Southwestern cities across California, Arizona, and Nevada, are already viewing wastewater reclamation as a solution to their water needs. Expanding wastewater reclamation efforts to wider areas could be massively beneficial for climate resilience.

Let’s take a deeper dive into three global cities that showcase the ingenuity of wastewater reclamation.

Windhoek, Namibia, Africa
Namibia is no stranger to water scarcity. As one of the driest countries south of the Sahara, it has long sought ways to increase and make the most of its limited water supply. In 1968, it opened the Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP) in its capital city, Windhoek.

Goreangab was the first facility in the world to engage in Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) — filtering and disinfecting sewage to extremely high standards before it is reintroduced into the drinking supply. Goreangab’s success set a precedent, and Windhoek is still a shining example to the rest of the world. In 2002, GWRP was replaced by the New Goreangab Wastewater Reclamation Plant (NGWRP), which now provides 21 million liters daily — over a third of the area’s drinking water.

The idea of drinking purified water that was once sewage is unthinkable to many, but Goreangab employs an intensive 10-step process, including several layers of filtration and disinfection, even using bacteria to help remove organic matter in the water. This ensures that the water Goreangab produces meets Namibia’s own rigorous water quality standards as well as those of the World Health Organization (WHO). And it works: the facility has never been the cause of waterborne disease.

But DPR is not the only method of water reclamation. Most places that reclaim their water for drinking follow Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR). IPR involves mixing reclaimed water with unused water in an “environmental buffer” such as a lake before treating it again to make it safe to drink.

Orange County in California, for instance, has long used IPR, and many perceive it more positively than DPR despite its higher energy costs and longer turnaround times.

Singapore, Southeast Asia
One of the most famous IPR facilities in the world is Singapore’s Changi Water Reclamation Plant. With a processing capacity of 920 million liters of purified water per day, Changi is more than 40 times bigger than Goreangab.

Changi is also unique in that it sits below another facility: the Sembcorp NEWater Plant, which further purifies the water processed at Changi into “NEWater.” The final ultra-clean product is mostly used in Singapore’s many factories, but some is added to drinking water reservoirs, especially during the country’s hot summers.

The Changi plant was recognized at the Global Water Awards 2024, along with Singapore’s desalination plant, which turns seawater into drinking water. Together, these two facilities allow Singapore to maintain access to clean water despite its lack of abundant freshwater sources like rivers or lakes.

St. George, Utah, United States
Windhoek and Singapore are both large cities, but in the American West, water shortages are severe enough that even St. George, a small city of only 200,000 people, has decided to commit to the high financial costs of water reclamation. The project will cost about a billion dollars in total.

St. George has many programs in place to conserve water, including paying residents to tear up their lawns and replace them with water-efficient landscaping. Limits on outdoor irrigation further reduce water use. Residents are even subsidized to replace old toilets with more efficient models.

The new water reclamation plant, with 60 miles of new pipeline, and advanced wastewater treatment technology will enable them to stretch their resources even further.

The St. George facility is not yet completed, but by the end of 2025, it will be several times the size of Goreangab and serve surrounding towns as well. The initial plan is to use the water on fields and lawns to free up drinking water for locals. They will likely switch to DPR within 20 years.

While there are no active DPR facilities up and running in the United States right now, El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California are both considering DPR projects for the future. And diminishing regional water sources mean that we will likely see more water reclamation projects in the coming years across the Southwestern U.S.

Looking to the Future
As global temperatures continue to rise and our need for water increases, droughts are likely to worsen in frequency and severity. To ensure that everyone has water access in the decades to come, drought-prone areas must use it as efficiently as possible. That means conserving water, but it can also mean recycling our wastewater to be used more than once.

Don’t look down on wastewater reclamation, particularly DPR — thanks to the strict standards it is held to, it is entirely safe. This National Water Quality Month, think about how we can best conserve our fragile water resources. Wastewater reclamation has proven its value several times over; it could soon become a much more widespread strategy for water conservation.

To stay up to date on stories like this one, click the “join us” button and get updates on the top environmental news.
# # #

155 Bovet Road, Suite 302, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
of the

BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

The regular meeting of the BAWSCA Board Policy Committee scheduled for August 13, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
is CANCELLED.

If you have any questions, please call the
BAWSCA office at (650) 349-3000.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Katherine Villegas
To: Customer Service; CleanPowerSF; Info; Commission
Cc: David Paz; Steve Pagones; Mike Pagones; Briana Webster Subject: Re: OTPG Accounting Meter No.Confirmation for Start of Service Date: Friday, August 8, 2025 9:08:11 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
1000007866.jpg
1000007862.jpg
Importance: High
Good Morning SF Water Team,
I’m writing again to express my growing concern regarding the matter I initially reported on July 30th , 2025. It has now been over a week, and I have yet to receive any acknowledgment or update from your office.

This delay is not acceptable, and I need this issue addressed immediately. Please confirm that this email has been received and advise on the next steps and timeline for resolution.

Attached are two images related to the water service at 25–29 Pleasant St, San Francisco. We are trying to determine which account corresponds to Unit 25 and which to Unit 29. The current account number we have on file is 1871765097. Could you please confirm which unit this account is associated with?
Serial Number: 68118196M and Number: 68110564M
Best Regards,
Katherine Villegas
Oak Tree Property Group
Maintenance: (510) 571-2272
Office: (510) 255-2265
Email: [email protected]
CA License # 02077996

***Reminder: Our office is open by Appointment Only. All Appointments need to be scheduled in advance, call/text 510.255.2265***
For Maintenance requests, please send them to:

[email protected]
[email protected]

For Vendor Invoice and Accounts Payable, please send it to:
[email protected]
For Rental Payment, please send it to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
For Rentals. showings, applications, please send it to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
For tenant relations, complaints, please send them to:
[email protected]
[email protected]

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

From: Briana Webster <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:30 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: David Paz <[email protected]>; Katherine Villegas <[email protected]>; Steve Pagones <[email protected]>; Mike Pagones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OTPG Accounting Meter No.Confirmation for Start of Service

Hello,
I’m following up on my previous messages, as I’ve been trying to reach you via phone and email without success.

I would appreciate it if you could get back to me at your earliest convenience, Thank you.

Best Regards,
Briana Webster
Oak Tree Property Group
Maintenance: (510) 571-2272
Office: (510) 255-2265
Email: T
[email protected]
CA License # 02077996

***Reminder: Our office is open by Appointment Only. All Appointments need to be scheduled in advance, call/text 510.255.2265***

For Maintenance requests, please send them to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
For Vendor Invoice and Accounts Payable, please send it to:
[email protected]
For Rental Payment, please send it to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
For Rentals. showings, applications, please send it to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
For tenant relations, complaints, please send them to:
[email protected]
[email protected]

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

From: Briana Webster <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 3:24 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: David Paz <[email protected]>; Katherine Villegas <[email protected]> Subject: OTPG Accounting Meter No.Confirmation for Start of Service

Hello,
My name is Briana from Oak Tree Property Group. I’ve been trying to reach your customer service team by phone but haven’t been able to speak with a representative.

Attached are two images related to the water service at 25–29 Pleasant St, San Francisco. We are trying to determine which account corresponds to Unit 25 and which to Unit 29. The current account number we have on file is 1871765097. Could you please confirm which unit this account is associated with?
Serial Number: 68118196M and Number: 68110564M
Both units are currently occupied, and the tenants need to activate their water service.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt response so we can assist them accordingly.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Best Regards,
Briana Webster

Oak Tree Property Group
Maintenance: (510) 571-2272
Office: (510) 255-2265
Email: T
[email protected]
CA License # 02077996
***Reminder: Our office is open by Appointment Only. All Appointments need to be scheduled in advance, call/text 510.255.2265***

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious ‌
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Phyllis Van Hagen
Commission
Service acct #697XXXXXXX
Sunday, August 10, 2025 12:10:23 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

We are homeowners in SF for almost 50 years and thus have been customers of SF Water for that time. We have never missed a monthly payment.

On July 19, we received a manila envelope from SF Water ( enclosed were 14 pages of water bills all printed on 7/16/25) indicating our balance due was $2153.34 A new meter had been installed in April 2024, our autopay was cancelled by SF Water resulting in a 14 month delay in bills sent to us. Allegedly, a letter was sent to us notifying us of the cancellation but it was never received. The letter did not request any confirmation of receipt. For 14 months I assumed our bill had been processed through autopay. After several very angry phone calls to customer service, the bill has been paid.

I am appalled that a major city department is so grossly incompetent and disorganized. How is it possible that 14 months elapsed before we were billed? This level of incompetence should not be tolerated.

We are fortunate to have the resources to settle the bill. Are there other homeowners in SF who are not in the position to reconcile this much less understand how this happened? I am at a total loss.

Please respond.

Phyllis Van Hagen
Sent from my iPad
1 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 12:02 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Construction Update; Westside Pump Station
August 2025
Dear Neighbor,
Upgrades continue at the Westside Pump Station, our all-weather facility that pumps the sanitary and stormwater flow from the west side of the City to the Oceanside Treatment Plant. The WSS and associated facilities have been in service for numerous decades in the harsh marine environment. The aging mechanical and electrical infrastructure must operate daily to maintain water quality requirements.

Construction Update:

Construction activities at the Pump Station will require a traffic detour on Great Highway northbound between Skyline Boulevard and Sloat Boulevard.

When: The anticipated start for this traffic detour is the third week of August 2025, and will be
continuously in effect through Fall 2026, 7 days a week, 24 hours daily.

Where: Construction activities will occur between Skyline Boulevard and Sloat Boulevard on Great Highway northbound.

When: Workdays and hours (weather permitting) are Monday – Friday, and occasional Saturdays, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[email protected]
2 Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

View this email online.
525 Golden Gate Ave | San Francisco, CA 94102 US

This email was sent to [email protected].

To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.

1 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 3:09 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Clarification - Construction Update Westside Pump Station August 2025
Dear Neighbor,
To clarify impacts to the roadway and traffic detours, please see the map image below. Northbound traffic along the Great Highway located south of Sloat Boulevard will be maintained.

Upgrades continue at the Westside Pump Station, our all-weather facility that pumps the sanitary and stormwater flow from the west side of the City to the Oceanside Treatment Plant. The WSS and associated facilities have been in service for numerous decades in the harsh marine environment. The aging mechanical and electrical infrastructure must operate daily to maintain water quality requirements.

Construction Update:
2 Construction activities at the Pump Station will require a traffic detour on Great Highway northbound between Skyline Boulevard and Sloat Boulevard.

When: The anticipated start for this traffic detour is the third week of August 2025, and will be
continuously in effect through Fall 2026, 7 days a week, 24 hours daily.

Where: Construction activities will occur between Skyline Boulevard and Sloat Boulevard on Great Highway northbound.

When: Workdays and hours (weather permitting) are Monday – Friday, and occasional Saturdays, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[email protected]

Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

View this email online.
525 Golden Gate Ave | San Francisco, CA 94102 US

This email was sent to [email protected].

To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Wes
To: Commission
Subject: Crocker Amazon Park/ Artificial turf
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:35:38 PM
Hello,
Can you tell me if the commission will be holding a hearing on the issue of artificial turf at Crocker Amazon? SFRPD is looking to add more plastic to the park. If not how might that be made to happen?
Thank you,
Wesley Saunders
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Brian Browne
To: Brian Browne
Subject: SFPUC - Federal Oversight needed?
Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 10:16:56 AM
Subject: Urgent: SFPUC/Hetch Hetchy – Regulatory Collapse & Federal Oversight Risk
Colleagues,
The Hetch Hetchy water and power system is now in a state of regulatory freefall.

This is not an opinion — it’s the result of systemic breaches of state and federal requirements that threaten billions in public funds, voter mandates, and the integrity of the system itself.

Unlike investor-owned utilities in California, which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), municipal utilities like the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) regulate themselves. In practice, self-regulation has proven to be no regulation at all. Without independent oversight, the SFPUC has drifted into practices that violate both the letter and spirit of the California Constitution and the public mandate entrusted to it.

The 1913 Raker Act granted San Francisco the right to dam and transport large volumes of Tuolumne River water to serve the public. In a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court decision, prompted by San Francisco’s operational irregularities, the Court explicitly noted that consideration should be given to stripping San Francisco of its Raker Act privileges. This was due to a lack of fidelity to the Act’s public-benefit obligations.

Today, the current dysfunction of the SFPUC — which operates the Hetch Hetchy system — must catalyze that question to be raised again.

In 2002, voters passed Proposition P to create a Revenue Bond Oversight Committee (RBOC) — intended to act as a “mini-CPUC” to provide independent oversight of the SFPUC. Instead, the RBOC was hijacked and transformed into a lapdog of the SFPUC, following an illegal Memorandum of Understanding with the City Controller that stripped it of independence. This structural sabotage eliminated the very oversight voters mandated and reduced the RBOC to a rubber stamp for SFPUC decisions.

This collapse of oversight coincided with the SFPUC’s 2009 abandonment of the long-standing Utility Method of calculating debt service in favor of the Cash Method.

That change severs the link between actual utility costs and rates charged, making Proposition 218 (California Constitution, Articles XIII C and XIII D) compliance impossible.

The result: billions of dollars in ratepayer funds are at risk of misallocation, with no functioning independent oversight. This is precisely the regulatory vacuum that federal law and the Raker Act were designed to prevent. If San Francisco will not restore lawful oversight and accounting, then federal intervention — as upheld by the 1940 Supreme Court decision — may be the only way to protect the public interest.

I have reached out to the Mayor of San Francisco and was told to “have a nice day.” I stand ready to meet and present the facts as I understand them. The Mayor of San Francisco is the Commander-in-Chief of the Hetch Hetchy system. The duty to ensure compliance with state and federal law, and to restore credible, independent oversight, rests at City Hall. Inaction will not only deepen the system’s dysfunction but may invite a federal takeover.

Action Requested:

Immediate public response from City Hall regarding SFPUC’s compliance with Proposition 218 and Proposition P, with safeguards against future capture.

Restoration of the RBOC’s independence and statutory authority.

Reinstatement of lawful cost-of-service accounting.

This email is being sent to city, state, and federal officials, press, and public interest organizations.

Sincerely,
Brian Browne
Economist SF Mayor's Infrastructure Task Force
Coauthor of 2002 Proposition P (mini CPUC)
Tow term member of the RBOC
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: MahmoodStaff
To: Ariana Roviello
Cc: Commission
Subject: Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5 Date: Friday, August 22, 2025 5:25:51 PM
Hi Ariana,
Thanks again for your patience and for continuing to raise these important concerns, it’s clear how critical laundromats like Laundré are to neighborhood life in District 5.

I wanted to follow up based on our recent outreach to the Office of Small Business. They confirmed that for issues related to utility costs and rate concerns, the appropriate channels would be the SFPUC Commission, the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and/or the Rate Fairness Board. Here’s a link with more information for contacting them: SFPUC Boards & Commissions
The commission oversees the city’s water system improvements and can address questions about rates and fairness. While we unfortunately don’t have the ability to directly adjust utility costs, connecting with these bodies is likely the most effective way to have your concerns formally reviewed. I'll work on looking for a direct contact in addition to address I have cc'd to this email.

In the meantime, we’ll continue to flag your outreach internally and track any broader opportunities for support. Your persistence and leadership on this issue help underscore why laundromats must remain part of the city’s small business and infrastructure conversations.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you need guidance navigating the SFPUC process, happy to help wherever we can.

Best,
Will
Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
[email protected] | (415) 554-7630
Join Our District 5 Newsletter
From: MahmoodStaff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 3:31 PM
To: Ariana Roviello <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Hi Ariana,
Thank you again for following up and for continuing to raise these important concerns. I completely understand how discouraging it must feel to reach out multiple times without a response, especially given how critical laundromats are to neighborhood life in San Francisco.

I’ll check in on the best point of contact regarding this issue and circle back once I’ve confirmed who would be most appropriate for you to connect with. In the meantime, I’ll also flag your outreach internally so we can track any broader opportunities for support as we continue these conversations around essential neighborhood services.

I appreciate your persistence and leadership on this front, it really helps underscore why laundromats need to be part of the city’s small business and infrastructure discussions.

Best,
Will
Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
[email protected] | (415) 554-7630
Join Our District 5 Newsletter
From: Ariana Roviello <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 2:09 PM
To: MahmoodStaff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Hi Supervisor Mahmood,
I hope you’re well. I wanted to reach out again because, despite now contacting the Mayor’s office six times over the past two months — via email and social channels — I still haven’t received any kind of response.

As you know, my request is to schedule a meeting to discuss how rising utility costs are impacting laundromats in San Francisco, including my business, Laundré. Given how critical these services are to many neighborhoods (including our own), I’m eager to speak with someone from the Mayor’s team about possible solutions or support pathways.

Is there someone on Mayor Lurie’s team you could connect me with directly — or someone you’d recommend I reach out to who may be more responsive? I would greatly appreciate your help in getting this issue in front of the right people.

Thank you,
Ariana
On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 5:42 PM MahmoodStaff <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Ariana,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful follow-up and for sharing more about the challenges you're facing at Laundré. I completely understand how frustrating it must be to invest in high-efficiency equipment and still face rising utility costs, especially when the rebate programs have such strict deadlines. Unfortunately, there aren’t any exceptions or appeals available for the 90-day purchase window for the SFPUC rebate programs. That said, I’m more than happy to continue exploring alternative ways we can support your business.

I also understand how discouraging it can be when your water bills continue to rise despite no clear cause identified through the leak inspection. It’s an issue we’ve heard about from other businesses in the area, and Supervisor Mahmood is committed to finding solutions that address the systemic pressures on small businesses like yours.

You’ve raised a critical point about the importance of laundromats in San Francisco, especially for working families and those without in-unit machines. The impact of rising operational costs, particularly utility expenses, threatens essential services like yours, and I’m grateful for your leadership in trying to keep this vital service going.

Thanks again for all you do in the District and I am looking forward to continuing to keep this conversation going together to ensure laundromats and other essential businesses continue to thrive in our neighborhoods.

Best,
Will

Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
[email protected]
| (415) 554-7630
Join Our District 5 Newsletter

From: Ariana Roviello <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 2:52 PM
To: MahmoodStaff <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Hi Will,
Thanks again for getting back to me and for taking the time to connect with the Office of Small Business — I really appreciate your responsiveness and the resources you shared.

Unfortunately, we don’t qualify for the SFPUC rebate programs due to the 90-day purchase window, which is frustrating given that we’ve invested in top-of-the-line, high-efficiency commercial equipment. That kind of support would make a real difference for us. Are there any exceptions or appeals available for businesses that missed the window but would otherwise qualify?
We also had SFPUC conduct a leak inspection and “Water Wise Evaluation,” but they didn’t find any issues or offer actionable recommendations. Our water usage has remained consistent, yet our bills have risen dramatically — far beyond what volume alone would explain. It feels as though the city is setting utility rates without fully considering the real impact on small businesses like ours.

I’ve been a District 5 resident for over 15 years, and I care deeply about being able to operate sustainably in the neighborhood I call home. As I mentioned during our call, laundromats play a vital role in San Francisco’s infrastructure — especially in dense, renter- heavy areas — and yet they’re disappearing. Without meaningful support, we risk losing a service that many residents rely on daily, not just for convenience, but for basic quality of life.

I’d really appreciate the opportunity to keep this conversation going and to work together to explore more meaningful, long-term support for laundromats and other essential service providers. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if there’s a city contact or policy avenue worth pursuing further.

Thanks again,
Ariana

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 1:29 PM MahmoodStaff <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Ariana,

I was able to get in touch with the Office of Small Business, and while there unfortunately aren’t any grants currently available that cover operational costs or utilities relief, they did share a number of resources that might be helpful:

SFPUC Rebate Programs
If you’ve made purchases of commercial washers or other qualifying equipment, you may be eligible for rebates:
(I believe you mentioned becoming aware of this too late over the phone but wanted to send it just in case)

Commercial Washer Rebate

Commercial Equipment Rebate

Water Bill Support
For overdue or unusually high water bills, SFPUC has several programs:

Overdue Bills Resources

High Bill Help – General Customer Service

· Phone: (415) 551-3000

· Email: [email protected] (I’ve gone ahead and Cc’d them to this email, please remind me if you already reached out to them and need me to elevate separately)

If your water bill is significantly higher than usual, you might consider checking for leaks.

SFPUC has a Leak Allowance Program, which provides a credit based on excess water use from leaks. This applies to residential and non-residential accounts. They assess eligibility and determine the credit based on typical consumption and the type of leak.

PG&E Business Support
PG&E offers several programs for small and medium businesses, including payment support and efficiency assistance:

Payment Support Programs for Businesses

PG&E Small and Medium Business Resources

I know this might not fully address the broader challenges you’re facing with operating costs, but I hope these resources offer at least some immediate relief or savings. I’m continuing to explore longer-term options and policy solutions and will keep you in the loop.

Best,
Will

Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
[email protected]
| (415) 554-7630
Join Our District 5 Newsletter

From: Ariana Roviello <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 2:32 PM
To: MahmoodStaff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Thanks Will - much appreciated.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:52 PM MahmoodStaff <[email protected] > wrote:

Hai Ariana,

Thanks for your patience on this. Let me check in on this for you.

Best,

William Macfie | they/them | Legislative Aide
Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
(415) 554-7687
Join Our District 5 Newsletter

From: MahmoodStaff
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:31 PM
To: 'Ariana Roviello' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Hi Ariana,

Thank you so much for reaching out and for sharing more about Laundré’s work in District 5. We really appreciate the role you play in providing a clean, welcoming, and community-oriented laundromat experience—especially at a time when so many essential neighborhood services are under pressure.

We hear you on the challenges around rising operational costs, particularly utilities. It's something we’ve been hearing from other small businesses as well, and it’s a priority for Supervisor Mahmood to explore how the City can better support local, community- serving businesses like yours—especially those filling a vital need.

I’d be happy to set up a time for you to connect and talk more about your experience and ideas. We’re also looking into possible avenues for relief, whether through existing small business programs or new policy opportunities.

Let me know if you’re available for a phone call tomorrow between 2-3 PM and the best number to reach you at.

Thanks again for your thoughtful message and for all you’re doing in the neighborhood.

Best,

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Will

Office of Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5
City Hall, Room 272
[email protected]
| (415) 554-7630
Join Our District 5 Newsletter

From: Ariana Roviello <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:12 PM
To: MahmoodStaff <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Laundromats and Essential Services in District 5

Dear Supervisor Mahmood,
I hope this note finds you well. My name is Ariana Roviello, and I’m the founder of Laundré, a female-owned laundry business that has operated in San Francisco since 2017. We currently run two locations in the city, including one in District 5, where we’ve worked hard to build a modern, efficient, and community-focused laundromat experience.

As you know, laundromats play an essential role in San Francisco—especially for renters, working families, and those without in-unit machines. Unfortunately, we’re seeing laundromats close at an alarming rate due to rising rent, labor, and utility costs.

Despite investing in top-of-the-line energy- and water-efficient equipment, our utility bills now exceed $15,000 per month. It's become one of our top three expenses and a major threat to our sustainability.

We’ve made it through the pandemic, but remaining viable as a for-profit laundry business in San Francisco is becoming increasingly difficult. I’m reaching out to see if there might be opportunities to explore creative city-supported solutions—whether in the form of utility relief programs, small business initiatives, or other supportive measures—to help keep essential services like ours running.

I’d be grateful for the chance to speak with you or someone on your team about these challenges and potential paths forward. And of course, I’d love to invite you to visit our Divisadero location anytime—it would be an honor to show you firsthand what we’ve built here in the neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to our district.

Warmly,
Ariana

ARIANA ROVIELLO
OWNER

[PH] 415.948.8361
[E] [email protected]

LAUNDRE.CO

ARIANA ROVIELLO
OWNER

[PH] 415.948.8361
[E] [email protected]

LAUNDRE.CO

ARIANA ROVIELLO
OWNER

[PH] 415.948.8361
[E] [email protected]

LAUNDRE.CO
--

ARIANA ROVIELLO
OWNER
[PH] 415.948.8361
[E] [email protected]
LAUNDRE.CO
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Planning
Cc: Angela Freitas; Kristin Doud; Emily DeAnda; Angelica Duenas; Patricia Sanchez; Serena Baca; Kristen Anaya Subject: Stanislaus County CEQA Early Consultation Referral - PLN2025-0007 - Mid Valley Power - Please Respond by September 12, 2025
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 3:17:54 PM
Attachments: PLN2025-0007 - Early Consultation.pdf
Importance: High
Good afternoon,

The CEQA Early Consultation Referral for Use Permit Application No. PLN2025-0007 – Mid Valley Power is now available for your review and comments.

To view the item, please visit the Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department Active Projects web page (https://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/act- projects.shtm).

Please note that responses are due by September 12, 2025.

Thank you,
Angelica Duenas
Confidential Assistant IV
Stanislaus County
Department of Planning and Community Development

“Due to high volume, appointments are strongly recommended and will be given priority over walk-ins. For information on how to schedule an appointment please go to http://www.stancounty.com/planning/contacts.shtm
”

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Rochell
To: Vaughn, Carla; Commission
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Evangela; [email protected] Subject: Re: Southeast Community Facility Commission Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2025 Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:01:20 PM
Attachments: Chairman Posey Letter.pdf
Good evening Secretary Vaughn and SFPUC Advisory Board Commission. Please see attached letter from the Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council Board. Please forgive me for sending this email out so late and thank you for all your support and collaboration.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:50 PM Rochell <[email protected] > wrote:

Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council
1550

Evans

Avenue

–

Potrero

Hill

Room,

2nd

Floor

San

Francisco,

94124

August 25, 2025
Chairman Damien Posey
Southeast

Community

Facility

Commission

Dear Chairman Posey,
On behalf of the Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council, I extend my deepest gratitude for your

acknowledgement

our

request

address

the

Commission

the

upcoming

full

session

meeting.

Your

recognition

reflects

not

only

respect

for

our

Council’s

role

community

body,

but

also

your

own

commitment

ensuring

that

voices

from

Bayview

Hunters

Point

are

heard

within

the

civic

process.

It is from this spirit of gratitude that I raise a matter of procedural concern. Our Secretary recently

conferred

with

the

Executive

Director

and

was

informed

that

the

Council

would

not,

fact,

permitted

speak.

Respectfully,

this

development

presents

conflict

with

established

parliamentary

authority.

As outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition) , the Chair, once having acknowledged

request,

has

rendered

ruling

that

governs

the

assembly

(see

RONR

§24,

§47).

That

decision,

once

entered

into

the

public

record,

may

only

rescinded

amended

action

the

assembly

itself

—

not

staff

administrative

directive.

The

Executive

Director,

while

vital

operational

matters,

does

not

possess

the

authority

overturn

alter

the

Chair’s

ruling

this

regard.

Our Council raises this not in contention, but in affirmation of the integrity of due process. To allow

administrative

revision

the

Chair’s

decision

would,

respectfully,

erode

the

parliamentary

order

that

safeguards

equity

and

ensures

every

participant

treated

fairly.

We are confident in your stewardship, Chairman Posey, and in your commitment to upholding the

integrity

the

Commission’s

public

record.

With

deep

respect,

look

forward

participating

the

full

session

meeting

accordance

with

your

acknowledgement.

With highest regard,
Sincerely,

Kenisha Roach
President

Bayview

Hunters

Point

Coordinating

Council

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious ‌
From: Padric McCaig
To: Commission; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Geary Upgrades Subject: Serious Concerns | Geary Blvd. Construction Project Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 8:27:28 PM
Hi,
I'm a resident whose apartment is located on Geary Blvd. between 17th and 18th Avenues and witnessing the construction project in progress. I have some serious concerns about the impact of this project on residents, not just businesses, on Geary Blvd. I also have very serious concerns about the quality of the work that is being done on this project due to issues that have crept up over the weeks of living with this construction. I understand the necessity of this project, I'm all for it and support it 100%.

However, I have experienced various issues first hand which cause me pause on the quality of the work being put into this project. These are a lack of checks and balances and oversight of the actual construction work being done. I have contacted 311 five times and submitted requests for steel plates to be repaired and I'd be surprised if other tenants and residents aren't doing the same. These steel plates, as they are being driven over by buses, trucks and heavy vehicles result in loud noises and excessive vibrations of the building I live in, so much so that I'm being woken up in the dead of night, while having a white noise machine on, which never happened prior to this project commencing. I am having objects on my walls starting to move in ways that an earthquake would cause. I have concerns that this is causing foundation issues along the corridor that will eventually lead to lawsuits filed by building owners and property management companies.

I had received one call back after threatening to put in a request to stop this project so that all the various parts of it can be reviewed and it can move forward in a safe manner for all the stakeholders, including residents...this was my third attempt at getting some action and with words of frustration that resulted in the content of the request being attended to; previous requests went unanswered. The official who called me back informed me that the welds on the temporary steel plates in the initial complaint had been broken and that the contractor would re-weld them the next day. Sure enough, this happened and everything was fine...until a few days ago with another set of steel plates directly in front of the apartment building I live in on the north side of Geary Blvd. between 17th and 18th Avenues broke apart and continues to cause the issue that I have indicated earlier and I'm on day three of this issue. I submitted two complaints via the 311 app and they have gone unresponded to. I noticed this morning that the welds were also broken on the steel plates and seeing this, my concerns are raised about the quality of the construction that is taking place. If welds are breaking on steel plates on the surface, what are welds on the buried water and sewer pipes and the electric conduit all along the length of this project going to like in the event of an earthquake or just in the everyday roadway vibrations once the project is completed? Is this a sign of a failure to come? How can we as citizens, district residents, be reassured that this project will provide what it's supposed to do, to ensure continuity of utility services in the event of a natural disaster that will happen at some point, not if.

I am concerned that if these issues are surfacing this early in the second phase of this project with just standard steel plates, how can we know that these aren't issues with the contractors' quality of work?
I know that the goal is always to be as safe and cause the least negative impact on businesses and residents as possible; however, I am deeply concerned that issues and details are being ignored or they are not going to surface until these underground utilities fail way before the end of their anticipated lifespans.

Who are the leaders that ensure quality control of all the steps that are taking place on a daily basis? Who inspects the day's work? Who are the individuals accountable when failures such as steel plates are happening and who will know what will happen to the infrastructure once it is completely buried and out of sight? At this point, given my experience with the lack of attention to these details and the failures of welding joints on these steel plates, there will be additional issues that won't be known until after an earthquake or disaster.

This is a huge financial commitment by the government and with what seems like no oversight over the project details like these, the city is at risk of lawsuits and additional project costs when it comes to repairs and impact on private buildings. I would like to request that the project be paused and all parts of the project that have been done to date be reviewed for compliance with standard welding, underground utility construction and equipment placement to ensure that these issues that are already surfacing don't reflect overall poor construction quality issues and result in utility placement failures that will impact us in the Richmond District.

I respectfully ask that you please consider taking these steps so you can instill a sense of confidence in Geary Blvd. residents and businesses that this project will move forward with the high level of attention to details and quality construction that currently seem to be lacking.

I would hope that with our precious and limited public funding dollars that require exceptional stewardship, that stronger oversight be taken to ensure a successful project and confidence of work quality for local stakeholders.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Padric J. McCaig
Geary Blvd. Resident

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionSeptember 9, 2025

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
September 9, 2025