From: Kathryn Hug
To: Council, City
Subject: UWMP
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:24:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please make the Urban Water Management Plan as strong as possible by considering and including Commissioner Gupta's suggestions. This is a critical time for forwarding a plan that secures one of our most vital resources. I know that the Council has many important decisions to deal with in today's session. I wish you the courage, energy, and knowledge to come to Item 13 on the agenda and approve the best UWMP possible.
Thank you.
Kathryn H. Hug
391 Oxford Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Andie Reed
To: Council, City
Subject: Urban Water Management Plan, Item 13
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 6:55:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members,
Please accept and incorporate into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC.
The basis for the San Francisco PUC demand projections today, which are historically inflated, do not accurately reflect our current and future needs and instill fear in order to encourage rate hikes.
Valley Water, East Bay MUD, and the Sierra Club have all provided modeling that indicates there is sufficient supply for people and for the environment; the Bay Delta Plan should be heeded.
In the future, and long before these issues come to Council for a vote, please include the SFPUC in a study session to come to a transparent agreement.
Thank you for your hard work on this issue.
Andie Reed
--
Andie Reed
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
From: Phyllis Brown
To: Council, City
Subject: June 8 City Council meeting Item 13
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 5:50:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
I find the information in the Staff Report for item 13, the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, rather confusing, especially the fact that the Utility Advisory Commission submitted their recommendation but also allowed the submission of a memo from Commisioner Gupta with proposed edits to the Palo Alto UWMP. I have heard Commissioner Gupta explain the problems he sees with with SFPUC's water-supply reliability numbers, and I found his argument convincing. Therefore, I urge you to attend carefully to his arguments as you discuss the recommendation from the Utility Advisory Commission. Is it possible that the disaster drought modeling, which will result in rate hikes, is not in the best interests of our city? Would acceptance of the Water Management Plan as recommended by the Utility Advisory Commission undermine implementation of the Bay Delta Plan that the City of Palo Alto has voted to support?
I look forward to your thoughtful discussion of this issue at the meeting tomorrow evening, June 8, 2026.
Phyllis Brown
From: TC Rindfleisch
To: Council, City
Cc: Peter Drekmeier; Gupta, Ustav; Rebecca Sanders
Subject: Re: JUNE 8 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #13: Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:52:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
On 6/7/2026 4:49 PM, TC Rindfleisch wrote:
> Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers...
Sorry, make that "June 8"... Tom R.
From: TC Rindfleisch
To: Council, City
Cc: Peter Drekmeier; Gupta, Ustav; Rebecca Sanders
Subject: JULY 8 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #13: Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:49:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you incorporate in an appropriate way the concerns Utilities Advisory Commissioner Gupta has expressed in the form of proposed amendments to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Basically the issue is that there is strong evidence that the modeling of drought and water supply futures provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is excessively conservative, resulting in unnecessarily burdensome future rate hikes that will impact not only Palo Alto residents and businesses, but all of SFPUC’s customers. Adequate water supply management is clearly absolutely essential for the welfare of our communities in the face of the threat of serious droughts exacerbated by climate change. However, it is a matter of prudent public policy consensus to estimate the likelihood of future drought severity and duration as realistically as possible to drive the corresponding actions needed to ensure adequate supply, distribution, and conservation management. It appears that the SFPUC modeling and policy decisions on which the current UWMP is based are an excessively conservative upper bound on the threat/response strategy, and that there may be a conflict of interest in the underlying process that benefits SFPUC financially and that could result in higher water rates for the 26 member communities plus the City of San Francisco than are warranted.
I understand that the City is obligated to adopt the UWMP by July 1, 2026, and that time pressure does not allow for full consideration of the updated assessments of future criteria suggested by the UAC. In preparation for this submission however, to ensure that Palo Alto's concerns are on record, I strongly recommend that the current draft UWMP be updated with the edits UAC Commissioner Gupta has submitted. This will make clear that more realistic future projections of water supply/drought threats and attendant policy decisions can and should take place before the next UWMP is due.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas Rindfleisch
Crescent Park
From: Virginia Tincher
To: Council, City
Subject: June 8 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:35:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Regarding - Agenda Item 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
I am a life long resident of Palo Alto and the Bay Area. I care deeply about the health of our rivers, delta, the San Francisco Estuary and agricultural lands. Ensuring sufficient water flow throughout our waterways is critical for the health of the system and those of who depend upon it - the people, plants and animals.
Please incorporate the language provided by UAC Commissioner Gupta into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management Plan. His additions support moving forward towards a reasonable solution similar to EBMUD and Valley Water.
It’s also very important that the City of Palo Alto holds a study session on water rates and insists that the SFPUC participate to start the conversation.
Thank you,
Virginia Tincher Van Kuran
879 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From: Susan Kemp
To: Council, City
Subject: Agenda Item #13 on June 8, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 12:50:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
With regard to Agenda Item #13 on the June 8th schedule, Urban Water Management, I urge you to accept and incorporate into Palo Alto's Urban Water Management the amendments written by Utilities Advisory Commissioner Utsav Gupta. I am concerned about (1) environmental issues, especially the dismal Tuolumne River salmon counts over the past twenty years and (2) City of Palo Alto Utilities water rate increases escalating in the future based on SFPUC's poor management of the water and their overly cautious and unrealistic water use demand projections. Instead of being rewarded for reducing our collective water needs vs the past, we are being penalized with the prospect of increasingly higher rates. We have saved water by installing low flow toilets and showers, have replaced our lawns with less thirsty plantings, and other measures resulting in overall demand dropping 15% despite an 86% population increase. Please don't allow the SFPUC's Design Drought flawed modeling to persist and unnecessarily impact both our city water rates and the other twenty-five wholesale customers of the Hetch Hetchy water system. In the future, please hold a study session on water rates and insist that the SFPUC participate.
With regard to Consent Calendar Items relating to water management it is my understanding that the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission has had no input to the issue of the City of Palo Alto's Permanent Water Use Ordinance. If this is true, I urge you to postpone approval of this item until the UAC can review and weigh in on this important issue.
Thanks,
Susan Kemp
Ventura Neighborhood resident
From: John Guislin
To: Council, City
Subject: City Council Item 13 - June 8, 2026 - Palo Alto UWMP Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:26:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Our UAC Commissioner Gupta has done the hard work of analyzing the data provided by the SFPUC and finds the information deeply flawed.
Planning for a 1 in 8,000 year drought is beyond the reasonable capabilities of our government and will result in a series of unsustainable and unnecessary water rate increases. In my household of two, with reduced landscaping, the water bill is currently almost half of our total utility bill.
Please invest the time to carefully consider and adopt the amendments proposed by Commissioner Gupta. Failure to do so will put us on a path to ever-increasing water rates that will negatively impact Palo Altans and all the communities that make up the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA).
John Guislin
Crescent Park
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Annette Glanckopf
To: Council, City; City Clerk
Subject: June 8 agenda item 13 - Urban Water Management Plan Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:04:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As written the proposed Urban Water Management Plan on June 8th - Monday night’s agenda #13 will be a huge, and uncalled for, jump in the price Palo Altans and other communities pay for water. Many of us in Palo Alto can’t afford to pay more than a reasonable annual increase for our utilities, especially if such rates are not necessary in the first place.
Given the significant impact on rate hikes, I support the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC. Please accept and incorporate these amendments and refer it back to the Utilities Commission for a substantive discussion.
Having reviewed this material, I am convinced the information from SFPUC is wrong and will trigger unnecessary and huge rate hikes to all customers of SFPUC. Finally I support the Bay Delta Plan that you, the Palo Alto City Council, already voted to support.
Thank you.
Annette Glanckopf
Midtown
From: Sonya Bradski
To: Council, City
Subject: Subject Line - Item 13 - Palo Alto UWMP
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2026 7:53:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Please accept and incorporate into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC. Having reviewed this material, we are convinced the information from SFPUC is wrong and will trigger unnecessary and huge rate hikes to all customers of SFPUC.
Thank you.
Sonya Bradski
Greenmeadow Resident
From: Rebecca Sanders
To: Council, City
Subject: Council Meeting Monday June 8 - Item 13 - Palo Alto UWMP Date: Saturday, June 6, 2026 6:23:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Please incorporate UAC Commissioner Gupta’s suggested amendments to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. After reading materials and listening to some presentations, I am convinced that the information we are basing the plan on, data provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, is misleading, alarmist, is not aligned with Palo Alto’s values and is not in the best interest of residents and businesses. Accepting SFPUC disaster drought modeling will lead to unnecessary rate hikes that will be a burden not to just Palo Alto but to all of SFPUC’s customers.
I also personally support the Bay Delta Plan that Palo Alto City Council voted to support. SFPUC's numbers clearly undermine and would scuttle that important environmental measure.
Thank you for considering Commissioner Gupta’s verbiage and please incorporate it into the plan so that Palo Altans are not saddled with egregious and very REAL rate hikes based on SFPUC’s IMAGINARY, manufactured disaster scenario.
Thank you Councilmember Greer Stone for making Palo Alto’s voice heard at BAWSCA and beyond in this matter.
You have been a real champion for the City.
Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
From: Magic
To: Council, City
Subject: Urban Water Management Plan
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2026 5:58:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Councilmembers,
What a pleasure to write you about the Urban Water Management Plan! You've a remarkable opportunity to make evidence-based policy for common good.
Two years ago you, councilmembers Burt, Lauing, and Stone, and your former colleague councilmember Kou voted to appoint Utsav Gupta to the Utilities Advisory Commission. The wisdom of that vote is evident in Gupta's recent memo to you suggesting language to incorporate into the plan.
I respectfully request that you read the memo carefully and heed Gupta's recommendations. I congratulate you who appointed Gupta and I urge all of you to recognize in some public way his service in analyzing the issues and providing you precisely the kind of science-based policy guidance that is so valuable to decision makers.
The UWMP is a five-year commitment. We've already squandered more than half a million dollars on alarmist and baseless SFPUC claims. This time, let's follow the science rather than the dogma. Thank you for considering my views.
With appreciation,
David Schrom
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Council, City
Subject: YRA Comments - Item 13, Urban Water Management Plan Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 9:54:03 AM
Attachments: PA Urban Water Management Plan - Item 13.pdf PastedGraphic-1.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
Please see my attached letter regarding Item 13 on the June 8 Council meeting agenda — Urban Water Management Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]
1 June 4, 2026
Mayor Vicki Veenker and Council Members
Palo Alto City Council
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
On July 1, the cost of water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will increase 7.4% – just six months ago, the expectation was an increase of only 1%.
Skyrocketing water rates will be the norm for many years to come. Here’s why.
For decades, the SFPUC deferred maintenance on the Hetch Hetchy Water System, and it caught up with us. In 2008, the SFPUC embarked on the Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP) – a series of 80+ capital improvement projects costing $4.8 billion plus debt service. As a result, the cost of water has more than quadrupled (see Attachment A for background
slides).
The SFPUC has now identified another $10 billion in new capital projects over the next 30 years, but has produced very little analysis on how these new expenses will impact future rates.
The escalating cost of water has sent a price signal to consumers, triggering a decline in water demand and sales. The unit price has had to increase to cover fixed costs. This is known as a death spiral – as prices increases, sales decline and prices must increase even further.
The update of our Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is an opportunity to challenge SFPUC policies that harm both ratepayers and the environment.
2 What Can We Do to Address the Problem?
The first rule for getting out of a hole is to stop digging. The SFPUC is doing the exact opposite.
Their Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan1 suggests they might need to develop between 92 and 122 million gallons per day (mgd) of recycled water and other new supplies. The cost would be $17-$25 billion.
The AWS Plan is not based on reality. It’s a political document used to justify the SFPUC’s opposition to releasing much-needed water down the Tuolumne River (the source of Hetch Hetchy water) for environmental purposes. In 2018, the State Water Board adopted higher flows to support fish and wildlife and water quality, but the SFPUC sued, stalling implementation of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. You might recall that Palo Alto Council voted unanimously to support the Bay Delta Plan.
There are two major problems with the SFPUC’s policies and practices:
1) They’re planning for what they call the Design Drought. This manufactured drought combines the two worst droughts from the 20th Century to create an artificial megadrought that might be expected once-in-8,000 years. The Design Drought is 19 times less likely to occur than the six-year drought of record (1987-92), which is what Valley Water and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) plan for. For more background on the Design Drought, see Attachment B.
2) SFPUC water demand projections have always been inflated. Demand today is half what was projected in the 1980s. Over-projecting demand can lead to unnecessary investments in expensive alternative water supplies (AWS). Palo Alto learned this lesson the hard way, investing $559,000 in a One Water Plan that was rejected by our Utilities Advisory Commission because it was erroneously based on 50% rationing.
If the SFPUC used the same drought scenario as Valley Water and EBMUD, they could manage the Bay Delta Plan flow requirement without developing any new AWS or imposing water rationing any greater than what we’ve experienced in the past.
What Is the Design Drought?
The Design Drought was created by the SFPUC as a planning tool following the 1987-92 drought. It arbitrarily combines the 1987-92 drought with the 1976-77 drought. While adding
1 SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan, February 2024 – https://hetchhetchy.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/12/SFPUC-recent-demand.pdf
3 two years might not seem like a big deal, 1976-77 was the driest two-year period on record.
The impact of the 1976-77 drought on reservoir storage was 72% as severe as during the 1987- 92 drought. Drought return periods (likelihood of occurrence) are logarithmic (droughts become much less likely as they become more severe). The Design Drought is 19 times less likely to occur than the drought of record.
The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment2 (LTVA) used 100 years of observed data, 1,100 years of tree ring data and produced 25,000 years of model data, but did not produce a single drought as severe as the Design Drought.
All SFPUC water supply planning is run through the Design Drought model. In November 2021, when the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and asked everyone to conserve, they had 4.5 year’s-worth of water in storage. They never had less than 4 year’s-worth of water in storage during the entire 2020-22 drought. As a result of unnecessary rationing, the SFPUC experienced a $30 million revenue shortfall in FY 2023-24 (see Attachment C).
Inflated Water Demand and Sales Projections
You’ll see from the graph below that water demand projections included in the SFPUC and BAWSCA member agency Urban Water Management Plans have always been highly inflated.
Source: Sierra Club Drought-Demand Model (data from the SFPUC).
2 Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment, 2021 – https://www.sfpuc.gov/about-us/reports/long-term- vulnerability-assessment
4 Over-projecting water demand and sales has serious budget implications. You’ll see from the following slide from the SFPUC’s FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Report3 that water revenues were $22 million below projections.
Source: SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026
This is a major reason why wholesale water rates are increasing so much more than expected.
When the SFPUC sells less water, the price per CCF must increase.
SFPUC water sales projections used for budgetary purposes are produced by their Finance Bureau, whereas the demand projections included in the UWMPs are produced by their Water Enterprise and BAWSCA. The UWMP numbers are always considerably higher, but both departments have always over-projected.
An SFPUC report comparing Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau demand/sales projections4 described the differing figures as follows:
Water Enterprise
"…the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the next 25 years...These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected.”
3 SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/seb03a545f6ef4b8b8355977efeca86e2 4 SFPUC Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections, July 5, 2022 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa628ebe9c31e4326b84ffa2976f9f9a3
5 Finance Bureau
"By contrast, for the purpose of financial planning and for short term water system management, we estimate the demand that we are likely to experience. For budgeting and rate setting we use demand projections that are as close to actual as we can make them.”
The following table shows the UWMP demand projections.
Source: SFPUC
Attachment D shows the SFPUC’s Financial Plan sales projections. The following table shows the difference in Regional Water System (RWS) demand/sales between the two sets of projections.
The 2050 demand projection in the UWMPs is 11% greater than the SFPUC’s own Finance Bureau sales projection. The UWMP projections have been described as an “outside” envelope, yet they’re used for planning purposes.
6 Shockingly, the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan is based on the inflated Water Enterprise (UWMP) demand projections.
The UWMPs Unnecessarily Include Alarming Rationing Figures
As a water supplier, the SFPUC provides “common language” for inclusion in the Urban Water Management Plans. The following SFPUC table suggests supply could be reduced by 43% by 2050.
Source: SFPUC
The water supply and rationing figures provided by the SFPUC are based on the Design Drought and inflated demand projections.
Table 4g above is based on the SFPUC’s response to the Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) required for UWMPs. The Department of Water Resources’ UWMP Guidebook requires: “A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment.”
The SFPUC explains their methodology for addressing the Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment as follows:
“In each demand scenario for 2030 through 2050, the SFPUC estimated RWS deliveries using the standard SFPUC procedure, which includes adding increased levels of rationing as needed in dry years to balance the demands on the RWS with available water supply.
7 The five consecutive dry-year sequence shown in the tables below represent years 2 through 6 of the design drought.”
The rationing numbers provided by the SFPUC are extremely misleading because they don’t provide sufficient context for water managers to determine whether extreme rationing is justified. To be able to make an informed decision, one would need to know how much water remains in storage at the end of each year.
Table YRA-1 below puts things in greater perspective. It features the full eight years of the Design Drought and includes storage at the end of each year based on the rationing levels presented by the SFPUC.
To put the storage figures in perspective, water demand in the SFPUC service area has been under 200 (mgd) for the past 11 years. 200 mgd equals 224 thousand acre-feet (TAF). Using the SFPUC’s UWMP drought scenario, at the end of the driest consecutive five-year sequence the SFPUC would still have more than 600 TAF in storage – enough water to last 2.5 years, not including water entitlements that would accrue during those years.
Table YRA-1. 8-year Design Drought, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, using SFPUC 2050 demand projections, and including storage.
Design Drought Fiscal Years
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
• “RWS” is “Regional Water System” (includes all SFPUC customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties).
• Table starts with SFPUC 2050 UWMP baseline demand of 215.1 mgd in 1986-87, and assumes 32% rationing in Year 2, and 43% rationing in Years 3-8 (per SFPUC figures). Mgd is converted to thousand acre-feet (TAF) per year in the second row.
• Storage at the beginning of the Design Drought is 1,517 TAF (per the SFPUC). This storage level is higher than the maximum appearing in other documents because the SFPUC’s water bank at Don Pedro Reservoir is allowed to encroach into “flood storage” during the summer, but must be evacuated by October 1. This explains the high level of “Annual impact on storage” for 1986-87.
8 • “Annual impact on storage” is a calculation of SFPUC water entitlements, minus demand, minus other system losses (everything is accounted for).
• Fiscal Year 92-76 is where the two droughts that make up the Design Drought on blended. It includes the second half of 1992 and the first half of 1976.
Table YRA-2 below shows what the five consecutive dry year sequence would look like if the SFPUC followed the letter of the UWMP Guidebook and just looked at their driest consecutive five-year sequence. You’ll see that without any rationing, the SFPUC could manage the drought with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, and still have water remaining in storage. In fact, almost enough water in storage to last a sixth dry year.
Table YRA-2 – Regional Water System supply availability based on the six-year drought of record using the SFPUC’s 2050 baseline demand projection of 215.1 mgd. Table assumes the Bay Delta Plan is in effect. Table does not incorporate any rationing.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
After the driest five-year sequence on record, the SFPUC would still have 217 TAF of water in storage. Instead of showing 32% rationing in Year 1 and 43% rationing in Years 2 through 5, Palo Alto’s UWMP could show that 100% of demand could be met in all five years, and this is without any rationing.
Table YRA-3 is similar to Table YRA-2, except it assumes 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20% rationing in Years 5 and 6. Note that in this scenario the SFPUC can manage the driest consecutive six-year sequence (the drought of record), exceeding the UWMP requirement.
9 Table YRA-3 – SFPUC water supply based on the drought of record, using SFPUC 2050 UWMP demand projections, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect. 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20% rationing in Years 5 and 6.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
Thank you for the opportunity to share some background on our water situation. I hope it will help as you finalize our UWMP. I’d be happy to chat with anyone who’s interested.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
[email protected]
10 Attachment A
Slides Addressing Water Demand and Cost
Source: Mid-Peninsula Water District
The wholesale water rate in FY 2007-08 was $1.30 per CCF. The SFPUC just adopted a wholesale rate of $6.23 per CCF for FY 2026-27. Rates will have increased 479% in just 19 years.
Source: SFPUC
The increasing cost of water has played a major role in driving down demand and sales.
11 Source: SFPUC budget meeting, January 12, 2026
The SFPUC is carrying a huge debt load. As a result, the cost of water will continue to increase substantially for decades to come.
Source: SFPUC Wholesale Rate Presentation, April 28, 2026
The cost of water will increase much more in FY 2026-27 than previously projected. Due to the death spiral, this will likely become the norm.
12 Attachment B
Is the Design Drought Prudent?
While Valley Water, the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) and other large water agencies use the 1987-92 drought for planning purposes, the SFPUC has manufactured a Design Drought that is 72% more severe. The Design Drought arbitrarily combines the two worst droughts from the 20th Century – 1987-92 and 1976-77 -- to create an artificial megadrought.
The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA), along with related materials uncovered through a Public Records Act request, provide strong indications that the Design Drought is beyond conservative. You’ll see from Table 3-95 that the 1987-92 drought produces a deficit of 707 thousand acre-feet (TAF) while the 1976-77 drought produces a deficit of 510 TAF. Deficit is the difference between water entitlements and demand. It can be thought of as water that must come out of reservoir storage. To put this in perspective, total SFPUC storage is 1,471 TAF6, with 1,375 TAF being easily accessible.
5 L TVA, p. 70.
6 See SFPUC 2025 UWMP , Table 3-1.
13 Table 5-1 shows return periods (how often we might expect a drought) for the three main observed droughts. The LTVA found “no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation over the planning horizon,” which is why the first set of numbers is highlighted (red box added).
Note that these return periods are based on Regional Water System (RWS) demand of 269 thousand acre-feet (as is Table 3-9), which is 240 million gallons per day (mgd). Demand last year was 191 mgd.
Source: LTVA, p. 157
We’ve asked many times why the LTVA did not include a return period for the Design Drought, and have been told by SFPUC staff that such a calculation would be difficult to produce.
Through a Public Records Act request, we received the following table from a presentation given by the LTVA authors to SFPUC staff in December 2020 (one year prior to the release of the final LTVA). Note that the deficit for the Design Drought is 1,309 thousand acre feet (TAF), compared to significantly shorter return periods for the known droughts. Like the tables above, the figures are based on RWS demand of 240 mgd.
This table shows a return period for the Design Drought of 25,000 years.
14 SFPUC staff were quick to point out that the return periods in the draft table were adjusted downward significantly for the final LTVA (Table 5-1). Therefore, we adjusted the 25,293 figure proportionally. The following table shows the result.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance
The “2020 Report” column lists the numbers from the draft table, and “LTVA” lists the final numbers. “LTVA/2020” is the percentage of the original numbers that ended up in the final report. The combined Design Drought (1987-92 plus 1976-77) was reduced to 31% of the draft numbers. 31% of 25,293 years is 7,841 years, which is where the once-in-8,000 years return period for the Design Drought originates.
However, once-in-8,000 years is the very low end for the Design Drought return period. You’ll see from LTVA Figure 5-11 below that the relationship between Cumulative Deficit and Return Periods is logarithmic. As droughts get more severe, the return period becomes much greater.
The deficits for the known droughts were included on this graph. Superimposed on the graph is a line for the cumulative deficit for the Design Drought (1,309 TAF), which suggests a return period of once-in-70,000 years. As a side note, the red and blue lines reflecting higher temperatures expected from climate change are above the black line, meaning return periods get longer as temperatures increase.
15 Figure 5-11. Effect of Temperature Change on the Drought Severity Frequency
Source: LTVA, p. 157
Following is one more example of how the Design Drought is way too extreme and why it should be revised. The graph is based on 100 years of observed data, 1,100 years of tree ring data, and 25,000 years of simulated model data. The horizontal axis depicts drought deficits – the further to the right, the more severe the droughts. The vertical axis depicts the number of droughts. The red line was inserted to show the deficit for the Design Drought (1,309 TAF).
You’ll see that the LTVA did not identify or produce a single drought even close to the severity of the Design Drought.
16 Source: LTVA, p. 73
It’s obvious the SFPUC doesn’t want to address the return period for the Design Drought.
Reducing its severity even modestly would significantly undermine their extreme rationing scenario, which is their primary argument for opposing the Bay Delta Plan.
By using a drought model without an associated risk assessment, the SFPUC is failing its customers, particularly when well researched academic data is available. The SFPUC is misleading the public, claiming there’s a chance of 30%, 40% or greater rationing in the future.
The layperson will not know how artificial such rationing projections are, but will pay the price.
17 Attachment C
Irrational Fear of Water Shortages
Leads to Budget Deficits and Rate Increases
Example: SFPUC Water Shortage Emergency Declaration (2021)
November 2021: Following two dry years, the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and called for systemwide water use reductions. At the time of the declaration, the SFPUC had more than a million acre-feet of water in storage (see below) – enough to last 4.5 years.
April 2022: The SFPUC imposed a 5% drought surcharge on San Francisco retail customers to make up for lost sales. Wholesale customers enacted their own measures.
Early December 2022: SFPUC storage was at a drought low-point of 932 thousand acre-feet – still enough water to last 4 years.
January 2023: After extremely heavy precipitation in December and January, it was clear the SFPUC would achieve full storage. On January 17, storage was at 1.35 million acre-feet.
May 2023: The SFPUC finally lifted the drought surcharge, but not before it was built into their FY 2023- 24 budget. That budget experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a $5 million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 6, 2021.
18 SFPUC storage hit its lowest point of the drought in early December, 2022, but there was still enough water to last four years.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 5, 2022.
By mid-January 2023, SFPUC storage had already reached 92% of capacity and snowpack accumulation was on a record-setting pace. The drought was clearly over.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023.
19 Snowpack can be considered “water in the bank,” and it was clear there would be a tremendous amount of runoff in the spring to top off all the reservoirs with lots of water to spill.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023
The SFPUC Water Enterprise was headed toward a large budget deficit in FY 2023-24 – it ended up being $25 million in lost retail (San Francisco) revenues and $5 million in lost wholesale (BAWSCA) revenues.
Here’s how it was explained:
“Water and Wastewater: revenues are projected to be below budget. The budget was adopted assuming the drought surcharge would remain. It was removed May of 2023. Additionally, the wholesale water volumes are lower than expected.”7
Why did the SFPUC wait until May to lift the drought surcharge, and why did they assume it would remain in place for another year despite the extremely wet beginning to 2023?
How did the Water Supply Emergency and call for water conservation impact Palo Alto Utility finances and water rates?
Was it prudent for the SFPUC to declare a Water Supply Emergency when they had 4.5 year’s-worth of water in storage? The Design Drought suggests it was.
7 SFPUC FY 2023-24 1st Quarter Budget Report, December 12, 2023 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se1f88d7d5b3a41829939713649bc1802
20 Source: SFPUC FY 2023-24 4th Quarter Budget Report, September 24, 2024 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s297e2428d54946e5a39c984791d83b82
Based on the following graph, was it reasonable for the SFPUC to wait until May to lift their drought surcharge?
Source: SFPUC Water Supply Conditions Update, October 2, 2023 –
The SFPUC ended the water year entitled to enough water (2.77 million acre-feet) to refill all of their reservoirs almost twice.
21 Attachment D
SFPUC Financial Plan
From: Star Teachout
To: Council, City
Cc: Grand, Linda
Subject: Include Water Consumption comparisons in utility bills Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:53:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello council members,
I’m am commenting on item 13 for the June 8 city council meeting: • PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. CEQA Status: Exempt under Water Code Sec. 10652.
The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use of print and digital advertisements, utility bill inserts, social media, email newsletters, and dynamic content such as through videos. Palo Alto also regularly updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public workshops Our family operates as much as possible as if we were in a drought. We collect our shower water and use it to flush our toilets because it is not that inconvenient. We probably are in the lowest consumption category, and are motivated to do this so we can divert our water to our redwood and fruit trees. I understand that some people can’t be bothered and would rather just pay more for their water usage, but I do think more people would reduce their water consumption if given better information. Comparisons are very helpful in changing habits.
With many people using autopay/online for water bills, people often have no idea how many gallons they are using, and have no idea how their consumption compares to others. The bill is simply paid.
Here is a prior suggestion which may be more relevant with the current water supply issues we face:
To the utility bill, include examples:
- The avg 2-person household* in Palo Alto used __ gals this month. - The avg 4-person household in Palo Alto used __ gals this month. - The avg 2-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month. ** - The avg 4-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month. *It would be great to separate out apartment/townhouse dwellers from those in single family homes but not sure that information is available.
** Neighborhood could be defined as some radial distance, or by zip code.
Regards,
Star Teachout
Barron Park