tv BOS Public Safety and Neighborhood Services 3817 SFGTV March 11, 2017 10:00pm-11:46pm PST
committee, i'm supervisor ronen and to my left is heehy and fewer. and i would like to thank non-a and tom of sfgtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk do you have any announcements? yes, make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices completed card should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be appearing on the agenda unless others stated. will you kal item one? >>hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 48 on-sale general public premises liquor license to donegal all blacks, llc, dba harry harrington's pub, located at 456 larkin street (district 6), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco. >> hi.
good morning. good morning supervisors, i need to make one clarification on the report before we get started. on the original report i listed northern station as the approving station. but it is actually tender loin station. i spoke with the captain and she is in approval. >> okay, great. >> i did submit an amended report. >> okay great. so you have before you a pcn report for harry harrington's pub to extend the license to include, 456 larkin and if approved this will allow them to sell on sell beer and wine and distilled spirits. there are zero letters of protest and zero letters of report, they are in lot, 553, which is considered high crime area. they are in the county custody track, 124, which is considered
high sat ration area. >> approved with the following conditions that sell of alcoholic beverages for off sell consumption is strictly prohibited and number two, no noise shall be audible beyond the area of control of the licensee, as defined in abc 257 form. it should be noted that the applicant has agreed with the above listed recommended conditions. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions for the sergeant? >> i don't have questions for the sergeant. but i do just -- i do have concerns that planning held this up for a year. we are supposed to do these in 90 days. and it did not seem like there was any rational reason to hold up this for so long. so it makes it difficult for our small businesses because people hold leases for a year and they don't make any money and it relevant lip isn't a good
process. so you know, we are supposed to do these in 90 days and this took 14 months. i hope in the future planning will be more diligent. because otherwise that is why we have empty storefronts, right? >> thank you for that. i completely agree. i wanted to also call up peter friel of harry harrington's pub to speak if you would like to say a few words. >> good morning, thank you for your time. i would like to say that harry harrington's location of 460, has been since 1922 and the space next door back then was part of harry harrington's up until the 50s until the decline of the tender loin neighborhood and we just want to bring it back to where it was prior to you know the 50s and given that
half of a block is vacant for the last two years, we might want to revitalize the neighborhood and get the front stores and make it more of a meeting room than just a hard bar, you know? we would like to have the long where we can have private parties and you know like we have a few different parties coming in. and if shortly from the neighborhood the tender loin hospitality house is having a party next week. and it is really more of a community and revalue attize the neighborhood and i would like to thank you for your time. >> thank you so much. colleagues, does anyone have a question? >> no, i think that we are good. >> long process. >> thank you for sticking with it. >> okay. >> so i want to open it now to general public comment, if anyone would like to speak on this item now is your time. seeing no one, public comment is
closed. could i have a motion to send this item forward. >> i move to send this forward. >> without objections? the motion passes to send this item forward with recommendation. thank you. >> thank you. >> madam clerk could you call two? >>resolution authorizing adoption of the mental health services act annual update fy2016-2017. >> thank you very much. i understand that moma. is here from the department of public health to present this item? thank you. >> good morning members of the board let me say with a respect to for the resolution for that adoption of the mental health services act annual up date for 16, 17. this is the final up date to the original three year program and
>> overhead please? >> okay so the second slide shows the organizational chart and also this is also to describe that the mental health sources act program is within the bigger health services division of the department of public heling. just to give you a visual. >> the act also known as the proposition 63 was voted by
calhoun voters in passed in november of 2004, and was enacted generally, in 2005. it is a one percent tax on personal income of individuals that make over a million dollars. it is designed to help the mental health system to address the needs of individuals that are served or under served based on corporate and support innovation. the next slide. the image of the core principles include core competency, and client and family involvement and integrated services delivery as well as wellness and recovery. so programs that are designed in collaboration with the community to get an assessment of the needs and also to develop programs you know using a clabive effort to insure of the needs of the season are met. slide five the images of
brooklyn bound into five component and one is the support services and innovation, and intervention, and wellness and training and capitol and technology. the services and supports of programs designed to provide case management and support services for individuals experiencing serious mental illness. and the innovation component is designed to test new approaches and new strategies and new models on how we can improve the delivery of mental health services. early intervention known as vi, is known to increase, and reduce stigma and discrimination and increase access to the services and also to address to intervene on the early on set of a mental illness. the workforce training component is designed to give us and divide the workforce to make sh you are that it is multilingual.
and also to build the skills and core competencies of staff. the facilities is brick and mortar and so it is developing structures to where the services can be provided. and technology cal needs are around for the systems and for example, from having the bay and the health records and on the cal record. >> and in san francisco, these components were for the broken down into seven category and so you will see on slide six, those categories are recovered in the treatment services and again these are for individuals with serious mental illness and also the type of service provided and more and in the support services and case management. and also, to the peer to peer support services are designed the peer on and the peer to the peer on and to serve the population in need. the services are programmed to help on the consumers of secure
employment and the housing is for the clients of the service partnership client, and again these are individuals with high needs with serious and persist ant mental illness and many for the three service categories of pretty much the same as previously described in the previous slide. slide seven shows just what how well the mental health funding, and the mental health services act funding is because it is difficult to predict. you only know your actual end of the last part of the fiscal year. so we have to be very prudent in the way we plan services. and slide eight, which was the reason we are here today, every council instead of california is required to develop or program and the expenditure plan for the mental health access program. after the three year plan is developed, it's counter is required to develop a bid for the three year plan and so again, i am here today for the 6 and 7, which is an up date to
the original program and expenditure three year plan for 14, 15, 16, 17, which was previously adopted by this board. >> thank you so much. i can't tell you how important your work is always but right now in both of raging homeless crisis in san francisco where the issue of mental health is so enter twined with homelessness and certainly something that i am struggling with in my district where many people who don't have housing often because of mental illness are living in encampments on the streets. and we had a hearing yesterday at the board of supervisors to talk about police reform and that is another area where the mental health services in dph
are desperately needed so that we can present shootings and violence against people in the mental health crisis, but are interacting with the police department. but i was wondering if you could just tell us a little bit about your work on both of those issues, homelessness as well as working with the police to deescalate a crisis involving people in mental health crisis. >> okay, so in regard to homelessness, the inception of the mental health services act, excuse me. we have been able to develop supportive housing and we have our three units in the city and county and for the transitional housing for say which was transitional issues, we have about 56 units across the city and county, and also sros which is a single for the emergency stabilization, and we have around eleven units and there is a new bill, 1618, which -- the
bill that is a housing bond of 2 million dollars and what that does is to develop programs for individuals of homeless, and chronically homeless and at the risk of chronic homelessness. and so far it is still being developed, but a projection that we have is that in san francisco, we are projecting to have around 400 and 600 units build and it is not just for those individuals of homeless but how the criteria is for the individuals also experiencing serious mental illness. >> and what is the time period for those units to be built in san francisco? >> so again, this is being developed and particular lead on this project, near the department of homelessness and supportive housing but again, it has been developed on how they can apply as well as the implementation strategies however that is just for developing the units but we still have to come up with the forms to address and the supportive services component of
the program. >> so these funds that come through, the mental health services act don't fund the supportive housing. >> potentially it could, but again, to have and work with the work that is put in place in the collaboration with the department of homelessness and supportive housing or just to create a strategy plan of the supportive services components of the program. >> okay. >> i will say that i have seen sort of a projection of added supportive housing units that will come on line in san francisco and those 400 units are talking about over a several year period and i cannot tell you how much that we need those units today or yesterday. >> yes. >> so that something that concerns me quite a bit. and i look forward to working with you to speed up that time line and to add units to the mix as something that i have been talking to jessica about. and 400 units over several years added to our supportive housing system is just not sufficient and it is not addressing the crisis that we are experiencing.
so that is something that does not necessarily relate to approving this resolution, but it is something that is so related to your work and an issue that i am going to be working with you on. and wanting to give you a heads up with that. >> thank you. >> sure. >> in regard to the law enforcement who have the comprehensive crisis program, which involves the mobile crisis, so in collaboration with the crisis, and cold, and it does this one example of the various programs that we have. >> great and my understanding is that unit has not been fully staffed up. >> i think that if anything, we will be going, and continuously expand. so it is like i have to say, just in addressing the current needs and also looking at our current vresources, how can we leverage those to better meet the needs? >> so when an officer is interacting with an individual and mental health crisis, and
calls you know calls the dispatch. but they need some crisis intervention, but does that dispatch caller then contact this unit within the department of public health to send someone out from dph to the scene? >> again. the mental health intervention or the bigger health and response and there is an and that call is referred to the department of public health. and again, those are 24/7, for the mobile crisis units. >> okay. so the mobile crisis unit is different from the unit that is made up of five professionals that are going to respond to calls that the police are interactions the police are involved in dealing with people in mental health. that is different, that is a different hun it than the mobile crisis unit. >> i don't want to say specifically that it is different, because there is a
possibility that again, speaking of leveraging resources and there is a possibility that it is the same. >> interesting, colleagues do you have any other questions? >> i do want to kind of drill down on what supervisor ronen was talking about because it kind of relate to one of my issues which is you know i hear a lot from folks about people with obvious behavior issues that the people find very frightening. and you know, i see it when i go around town, and the response of the folks who is not really oh, my god we need to get the cops here and throw that person in jail for the most part and where is someone to do a health intervention and get the folks the care? even though the people are in the state of near terror?
with the use of force or near deadly force like we heard about yesterday, there is another group that comes out when folks are really very threatening mostly to themselves. i mean someone could get hurt. >> so is that what you are talking about? >> so we have a lot of programs kaud the assistant outpatient treatment program. this program was developed from laura's law, which is designed to provide court ordered assisted outpatient treatment to services however, the program, which is the outpatient treatment program is more the community based services and so the family members and the
friends and neighbors can call if this is someone might have a high need and a loved one could have a need and these group of individuals of professionals will have and go out to engage in this individual and work over a period of time to get them into services. and part of the criteria is individuals who have had the ongoing of the and however, what if it will go out and does an assessment and sees that it is a different need than they can know refer and link that individual to that corporate level of care. >> no i mean, i get that, that sounds great. that is important thing to know. but less say there is someone .
we know that ten to 14 percent of the people sometimes the numbers are higher, and just the guy here that is ten to 14 percent of the people in jail are really there for serious mental health reasons and should be treated for the mental health instead of issues and are there behave or health issues instead of being traumatized by being in jail. and i guess that when that point of contact is made, is there a mental health professional there to make sure that this individual is directed to the right source of facility. so that they can get the care that they need? >> so your question is does the law enforcement official have access to mental professionals outside? based on the scenario described which would need a mental health, which would warrant a mental health intervention, and who also has access to call.
and but there are no mental health or behavior professionals that are available at the point of contact. and so that individual who is exhibiting severe behavior health symptoms is going to first be contacted by law enforcement without the assistance of a behavior health professional? is there any plans to maybe make sure. >> look, and i think that there are a lot of calls that happen and i think that it is, it is a lot to ask law enforcement to be able to handle those situations and assess those situations. in a way that my best provide a trajectory for that individual to be able to receive and succeed in some sort of treatment? i think that the immediate experience would be fairly dramatic.
and probably it is not fairly traumatic for the law enforcement. so is there any thought to do something like that? >> yeah, it is for the services yes, but i think that the point that i was trying to raise was that if the first span of the you know the police station gets a call, the need is being routed to the law enforcement. so if they make the decision that this is, or this intervention is possibly bigger for the health row professional, however, we have the access line in which the individuals can call you know? and seek the services or ask for support to intervene in had the scenario that you just described. >> well, this and in my observation of seeing these situations handled, the first respond is law enforcement on the scene and then the second is usually an ambulance, or you know, the city emt, via the fire
department. the situation that i have seen, i have not seen unless they happen to be located in the emt units or within the police department. they have not been the folks who respond. >> so i could say, and that is for the coalition of services because those are strategies that we look at to address some of those unmet needs like the one that you just described having the first response be a first responder be a bigger health procedufessional. >> maybe that is something that you can look at. >> how do you smooth out your funding? >> smooth out? >> the funds but that rollover
and now we are at the point where we need to be prudent. you know? and so in partnership with the budget office and the projections from the state as well as looking at our past annual revenue, or an average revenue from the past start out with smoothing this out and then do eubank against that or do you come to us with the general fundal gageses. >> we come for the general, fundal gag, allegations, and sor we are in the good place and so the revenue has to come to the board.
>> and you access every year, and it is required of the legislation, and because as you recall, acted in one percent tax of the personal income of the individuals that make over 1 million dollars. so in the years where you have it dropping in the revenue, you have to have -- to admit the previous year, and the previous year or previous years. >> so what metrics do you use? >> so what is your, what is your base line need? kwha is your metrics for success? >> so, the annual ongoing, and the budget office, so i don't want to prematurely gauge a bench mark, but i would say that the average revenue has been around 20 percent. >> not revenue, actually. clinical need i hope that if i am getting the report i get the metrics what is your behavior health needs? how to what degree are you meeting them? i mean i -- to a large degree, i
feel like we are pretty not meeting at least everything that i hear, we are not meeting our behavior health needs in this city. so do you have any sense of what the need is and to what agree th degree that this funding and other funding are meeting that need, how many clients are there and how many are being treat and where they are, and because that is not here. >> so what we do in the different health system as a whole. we look at the medical population and we compute that to the beneficiaries served and those individuals within the medical population that need mental health services
>> so when will one expect this report to be located or to be analyzed within the general need within the city and county of san francisco for these services delivered by the department of public health? this just stands alone just for medical? >> and this right here, and this is specific to the mental sources act, which is just one funding source for the bigger health of services division of the county, and so for this report, it is looking at, you know, how this and what programs are based on legislation, because within the legislation, the programs would need to design and implement. however, if we needed to do a comparison with the other of the funding sources to determine how the mental health census act, supplements those programs, that will be another activity that we can definitely look into. >> it will be great to know how this fits within the context of the actual need and to what degree this is that serving that
need. >> i mean that context will be great. >> okay. and really, you know, some metrics would be great. >> for the project. >> yes. >> i will say as a point of interest, it is interesting that we had more millionaires in california in 2010, and 2011 than today. it does not feel that way in san francisco. it fascinating. supervisor fewer do you have any questions? >> no. >> okay. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> now, opening this up to public comment. if anyone would like to speak on this item now is your opportunity. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward? >> make a motion to forward. >> with a positive.
>> and take --. >> go ahead. >> is that the action we move this forward to the board? i am going to display some confusion. we are moving this forward to the board to just adopt this with a great report? >> well, my understanding is that this is a resolution that adopts the plan that is a requirement for the receipt of this money that is coming from the state. >> so this looks like a report, i didn't see a plan. >> the plan is included with the item. >> the plan is in the report. and i could just tell you offhand, so for there are no additional expenditures from the previously approved plan. what we need to monitor is the impact of the home bond because over because of the home bond would be paid back by mental health services act forms at a level and so that will impact
and our revenue and so these are the only plans and changes for this fiscal year. >> yes. >> so i will second. >> okay. thank you. >> so there has been a motion without objection, to move this item forward with positive recommendation. >> before you call item number three, madam clerk, i just wanted to make an announcement that we are going to temporarily what is the word? recess this hearing for ten minutes around 11:20. because supervisor fewer and i are joining a press conference out front recognizing a day without a women in celebration of international woman's day. so i just wanted to give everyone here a heads up that will be having a short recess at 11:20. and with that madam clerk, could you call item three? >> item three is hearing on the
proposed bay delta water quality control plan; and requesting the san francisco public utilities commission to report. >> colleagues, today we will be holding a hearing on the state water resources control board's aprosal to adopt new standards. the board's proposal is to boost the flow of california second longest river. the purpose of the plan is to restore water to the river to bring back endangered salmon and protect water quality. the river is the major supplier of bay area water for residential and commercial and agricultural purposes. currently it goes dry in places because farms and cities pump so much water out of it. and as required by federal law, the state water board must review water quality on the river but has not substantially updated it's plan for the river in 20 years. taking recent salmon declines
into account, the board is proposing that 40 percent of the river's flow be restored including the water flowing down the river's three tib tearies. if approved, san francisco and other bay area cities will be facing water supply cut backs. and potential impacts that alter other industries, however, the scale of these impacts is what is at ace you. in the past few weeks, i have met with representatives from the sfpuc as well as members of several environmental groups, who have presented startling different views on the amount of water that will be diverted from san francisco and what the resulting impacts would be. currently we as a body are being asked to support one side or the other in their advocacy before the state water resources control board. in the interest of providing this board with the best possible information, upon which to base the recommendation, supervisor peskin and ic, conve this hearing to hear from
puchopo, and environmental advocates and have the opportunity to ask all sides of the issue relevant questions. i will anow ask steven riche the general manager for the commission to present an overview of the bay delta water quality control plan and the san francisco water system we will give the public including representative frz groups involved in the process the opportunity to give comment thank you. >> mr. steven riche please? excuse me, thank you supervisors i'm steve riche, for the san francisco public utilities commission. i will give you background and what is covered by what supervisor fewer presented and talk about the water system and how we plan for the water supply in the future and the impact of the proposal and the biological impacts that are at issue and focused the end on the negotiated settlements and i guess going with the overhead
and could we get to the first slide, please? turn it over. okay. yeah the state water resources control board is charged with setting water quality objectivities to protect the beneficial uses of water in the delta, it is proposing to up date two elements of 2006, plan, and the river, flow objectives to protect the fish and water life, and in the proposal requires 40 percent of unimpaired flow from january to june on the river. and the comments are due on march 17th and state projects consideration of adoption of the plan in september of 2017. >> next slide shows an overview of the sacramento and the rivers and you can see the sacramento flows down from the north into the delta and out to the bay, and the river flows up from the south through the delta and into the bay, and then highlighted in red are these three river, and the river, and the toly river
and the merced river and the reservoir, part of the water supply is highlighted there on the river. next slide, is a view of the san francisco regional water system. where we could take the water from the sierra and the reservoir and in particular for the drinking water purposes and transport it through the power houses and across the valley into the bay area. whereas joined by the waters from the local reservoirs here in the bay area to supply the 2.6 million customers that we provide water to that is highlighted in the gull surrounding the area. the next slide shows the wholesale customers san francisco as well as most of the cities on the penensula as well as the city in the northern santa clara and including hey ward and the large white area is the water district which gets a portion of the supply from us as well. but it has other sources. but our 2.6 million customers
are all represented in the areas that are largely blue. the deeper the blue, the more water they depend on from us. the river does provide about 85 percent of our regional water system supply and now a few things about the river, the unimpaired flow that means no dams on the river is about 1.8 million per feet on average, and i will use the phrase aaverage a lot, it is one way to review, but averages are a good way to summarize things. >> we divert, 14 percent of the flow on average from the river, and the locking and the irrigation districts divert about 48 percent on average of the unimpaired flow. and the remaining of 38 percent of the unimpaired flow on average remains in the river that is how the river water is divided up. in addition on average, san francisco diverts about 0.7 percent of the unimpaired delta in flow. and so it is a very small
fraction of actually what flows down to the delta is what san francisco diverts. and san francisco residential daily per capita use is 41 gallons per person per day. and compared to the state wide average of 82 gallons and so basically san franciscans use little water, in the delta picture, we divert very little and we use it very efficiently. one of the things about san francisco deversion from the river is that they are really based on storing water in wet periods. and the next graph shows a series of peaks and valleys there, those are actual the amount of water available and in any given year starting back in 2011. the gray chunks down at the bottom are what the irrigation districts are entitled to and so they are entitled to the base flow of the river. the green peaks is when there is access water available, and that is what is available in san francisco, and that is enough water that we stored in our res
volunteer irand in our water bank, so that we can have the water to live through the dry years. as you can see, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 15 were dry years. that is when we relied on our storage to carry us through for the water supply for our system. >> so the of next slide really highlights our water supply planning process, and it is driven by drought conditions, there is plenty of water in dry years but they are a challenge for us as they are for the environment and everything that is when everybody is really challenged. we have been using the particular planning process since 1995, after the last major drop, 1987 to 92 droughts, and we have been using the particular planning process to plan for our water supply and we adopted that actually in 2008, as part of the water system improvement program and so it is basically to survive a specific, 8 and a half year drought, planning scenario. it is the 87 to 82 drought,
followed by two more dry year, 76, 77 because we know that there will be dryer year in the future because we need to plan prudently for having ample supply for living through that kind of experience. with no more than 20 percent rationing and that is for the total demand of 265 million gallons per day. that is 184 million per day that we owe by agreement to our wholesale customer and 8 is million per day for san franciscans. and these are the choices that were made lightly at all. these were deeply considered by the commission, and the next picture shows what it looked like in 1991, and this was still a year to go, in the drought. and you can see that the reservoir was drawn down very heavily, and there is an island there in the middle, which i never hope to see in my position but it was a very very desperate time for water supply. things have changed a lot since that time. but partly in part because we have done pretty aggressive water supply planning to make sure that we don't get ourselves
in that kind of a hole in the future. >> so i said the biggest challenge that we actually have is knowing when an extended drought will occur. so we need to plan for each year and as if it is the beginning of or a continuation of our drought planning scenario. we can't sit back and say, yeah we think that next year will be a good year. that would not be prudent at all. we need to make sure that we are thinking frankly pessimistically that we need to conserve our supplies. and so under existing conditions, with he project that we would have shortages about once in every ten years, that is when we will have to go to rationing and using this plan and approach it has served us well for the period of time 20 years. so that is the summary of how we plan and now looking at the impacts of the state's proposal on our system. their proposal is for 40 percent, unimpaired flows in the river, february, through june of every i couldn't year and that is very significant, and the requirements also talk about some variability between 30 or
50 percent and they say start at 40 percent is it is not clear if they will change from that. because of our potential obligations through the agreement with the irrigation of the district, and we would have to provide 52 percent of that flow and we would be facing increased rationing in the dry years and based on looking at the last 90 years of our history, we would probably be face 50 percent rationing at normal or contract level demands, and so the contract level is 265 mtd and the normal demand, free drought, was 223 million gallons per day, and so even at that level we will face up to 50 percent rationing to survive a long term drought. right now, we are at 175 million gallons per day. people have conserved a lot of water already. and so if we were able to maintain the very low level now, and that does not account for growth, we would have to do an additional 20 to 30 percent
rationing and the number of dry years and shortages instead of one of every ten year is more like two in two ten years or so it will be freesht frequent. >> the next few slides, summarize how the total falls during the design drought and so if you look at the time line across the bottom, and it starts in 87 and ends up with a 76, 77, 78 and so this is our synthetic drought, this is the drought that we used to think about how to plan for our supply. and so we have this that facing us, and the dark blue line is a total system storage and how it will go down over time at a demand of 265 million a day, and you can see the red line across the middle and it is called dead pool that is when you get to the bottom where there is a little bit of water left but you want pull it out, there is some in the reservoir but there is no way to take it out of the reservoir. >> the blue dash line is just a 40 percent unimpaired flow requirement that were put in
place and you can see how that line goes down more steeply than the blue line. so the blue line here for 265, assumes getting to the 20 percent rationing, and with the dashed blue line there, basically ends up going through the dead pool, and after about year four and a half or so. and so that in total we have a shortfall over that whole design drought of about 885,000 acre feed or about 93 million gallons per day. and the next two slides show a similar picture for 223 million gallons per day of demand. which has a 91 million per gallon day, of shortfall over the entire design drought and the last one shows a 175 million gallons per day demand, which shows a 50 million gallon per day shortfall over the design of the drought and so it is much less of an impact and it is still significant, and whichever demand level you look at and that is what concerns us. >> so the real question then is,
so what would we do about that? >> well, my job is to if we don't have the water to go and find the water in some way. to achieve the level of service objectives, 265 with no more than 20 percent rationing and one option would be to come up with 900,000 acre feed of more storage, which is two and a half times more. and that could be another water reservoir or two, ground water storage and that would be a big number to come up with in terms of having a storage based system like now. >> we are working on purified water projects basically we are using waste water for drinking water and they can produce some supply, but those are still uncertain in the out come and we have four potential projects and we are actually in the discussion stage right now, i would say that a pretty open question as to how fast or how large we would get there on that. and another potential investment would be de-salination plant, with 100,000 per day with the additional transmission, that will be twice the size of the
plant that was build in southern california. so there would be some big things to deal with. >> but one of the things that i took away from the editorial is that as likely as the water board to reduce the flows, we have to plan this way whether or not the state board takes an action. are we getting to that time where you have to? >> i was thinking maybe if you could wrap up your presentation, and then we will take the break. >> okay. >> actually i have several more slides, but they really can be boiled down to one thing. we think that the state board proposal is very fuzzy, not very clear on exactly what is going to accomplish and how it is going to accomplish. we have been working with the irrigation districts on the river, and doing over 200 studies in the last several years, at 25 million cost and we think that we understand pretty well what the river needs which is a portfolio of measures to improve and increase the populations. and by establishing functional flows, to plan tra strategically
and restoring the habitats with the gravel, and reducing and managing the weeds and, better managing hatcheries. >> and we can skip through the photographs, and cut to the agreements verses regulations and we have been working and putting a lot of energy of trying to get the state discussions going on not only on the river, but on the sacramento river and on the delta, about how can we come to a negotiated settlement? we think that the state board approach is not necessarily going to be the best way forget us there. we know there will be pain and costly and we will have to give up things, we are all going to be stuck in the same place, but in the absence of settlements i think that if the state board adopts this, the chances of litigation is high and that will restart any motion toward potential settlements at that time. but that will only happen after a couple of years of litigations. so in conclusion, our proposal is their proposal has
significant impacts on the water supply when are uncertain benefits for the river and we think that there are smart ways to do things, and we think that the negotiated settlements are a superior solution, and i will be available to answer any questions. >> thank you so much, i appreciate it. >> sure. >> so we are going to recess this meeting for about ten minutes. and until, is 1:1:30, so we will >> hello everyone and welcome back to the public safety to the public committee, and thank you for accommodating the recess, so that we could join the day without a woman's rally, it was really inspiring out there, i encourage you to go and check it out briefly, supervisor fewer if you want to return to the hearing? >> thank you very much. >>
>> so you touched on this briefly, so that if you could go into more detail, so the puc the sfpuchopo c provides water to the 2.6 people across the bay area, and can you talk about the different and what the impact for the unimpaired flow and the impact on these different groups that we serve, as a city? base sickly san francisco serves res denial and commercial the users and also for the supply. and the customers and the irrigation districts take off, but we do not supply the
irrigation customers per se, except for a couple of nurseries here and there. and so within that, during this last drought for example. and what they opened system wide was that was largely achieved at residential properties and commercial as well. and i think that outdoor irrigation in our service area really dropped off and so when you tend to see a peak in water use in the summer, in 2014, 15, it was a flat line in the summer and there was little outdoor irrigation, and that is where a lot of the reduction was absorbed in this last drought. in the sectors where they do not
appeal to have to achieve the greater reductions and so if we end up with the full requirements and we get to the higher levels of water use reduction that are necessary throughout the system, such as 50 percent during extreme drought and 20 or 30 percent on top of what we already saved this last time around, those could start to hit the commercial industrial sectors. we will have to put the effort into finding the supplies to support that base load and i think that the irrigation is the easiest one to hit and that hit quite a bit in this last drought. there is probably more that can be gained out there and eventually you run out of that, and you have to get in door use by commercial industrial users. >> following up on that point,
what would it take, whether it is the additional storage capacity or what would it take to get those projects up and running? so for the additional storage or for the desalination or use of the water in the pretty big ways such as drinking it, all of those would have to go through the permitting. i think that everybody has tried to grab the lowest in terms of the water supplies and so there are no easy projects left to do out there. so those would all have timing considerations on getting permits for example, the plan is by no means a slam dunk, there are a lot of concerns about it for example for energy use in potential effect on the bay or ocean waters. one possibility that we have worked on over the years, for
the transfers and during the last drought, we did approach all of the other irrigation districts and asked them if they have water available that we could purchase from them. and we would pay a premium for that water, be it a healthy urban area, than the agricultural area and they were all very clear, they were suffering the effects of the drought and they did not have any interest in transferring water to san francisco at that time. so, transfers are always a good idea. in these tighter times, people are less interested in giving up water and transferring it to a different user, rather than saving it for themselves for their own future. that is a big challenge as well. i love to sort of hear you address this issue straight on. for the river trust, argued that the in an op ed last year that
the sf puc could accommodate it's share of increased continues and could you respond to that directly? >> sure, and we have met with peter and the trust and other environmental groups, and one of the things that we have made clear policy decisions on is we believe that it is important to plan for the drought, and it is not prudent to do anything other than that, i think what peter has said, in the last drought, in the last few years, that was partly because people were coming back and partly because we planned our storage that way. in 2015, we got to a low point in the water bank which was a
big storage volume in the reservoir and we let that water go to the districts while we take the river water. so that keeps us whole. but that bank account goes down, it started at 770,000 acre feet, and and so another year of drought would have broken that bank account and we would have been basically able to take, you know no water off the river, >> and we would be scrambling and we would have had enough time to scramble to come up with alternative supplies, if we did not plan for this kind of situation, we would have been behind the eight ball, trying to find new supplies and that is what we try to avoid.
>> is there any suggestion that we are going to have drought control because of climate change. >> i am not expert, with he will have more extreme weather and deeper drought and more intense, and that was kind of the trust of the article. which was about the delta plan, and even if the state does not do anything, you, you the puc need to be planning for a dryer future, and i agree with that completely. and the real point of defense and concern is about protecting the population and it looks like there is a difference of opinion on the science of what level of flow is necessary to protect the population and what other interventions need to occur in
order to protect the species, so can you talk a little bit about those divisions and where the puc stands? >> yeah, a couple of thoughts, the state board did adopt what they called a tlefrl of flow in the delta for pro-teching the trust values in the delta and this was given to legislation in 2009 and it was designed for the protection of the delta. and it did have suggestions that the water comes from the river, but they were very clear on that. but that was an academic exercise because they are truly faced with the challenge of taking into account all of the existing needs andal locate, where it falls providing the flows chlts and how much flows that they can provide. they have done good balancing
and this is their answer. and we are not convinced that it is the right answer, my personal view is that reading their document they say, well, 40 percent is a good starting place, but it could be 40 or 50 and we will have to tinker ore time, but regular it is not a comfortable place to be. it is good to have certainty even on the rules of how you might tinker with it. and they have not done that, and so we would like to see something that is more definitive about what is going to be done for the rivers and that is where in our comments we are going to put forward some specific proposal on things that can be done we believe for the river and provide the benefit and can be doing it in a measurable way. the thing that we are most concerned about and many of the people are concerned about is that there will be a 40 percent of the flow requirement and somebody in the state will say, well it does not seem to be reacting as good as it should and, so why don't we pump it up to 50 percent next year or
something like that. that is a deep can earn for a lot of us, we think that we should be working with the flows, and the flows that have the purpose in mind and making sure that then we measure what they accomplish over an appropriate time period and then act accordingly from that, because believe me, we are concerned as well. and the steel head and the other species in the rivers. one of the things that we have questions about is for the delta isself. and what is going on there, and there are folks in the export in the water from the delta, one thing that is a non-starter for us, is that we are forced to give up the what urt with the environmental benefit to have to find alternatives so that the folks can export more water from the delta, that is not a position that we want to be in at all.
and then the final question, i am sure that you are presenting it in the settlement talks. >> we are starting that conversation there, and the comment period due nine days from now, on march 17th, and we will be putting a version of this forward in the written comments then and unless the comment period gets extended which we have suggested because we think that the negotiation process could yield more fruit, but we are assuming that it will not be extended so we are preparing the comments now. once those comments are complete we will share them with everybody, so that everybody can see what it is that we are proposing. >> okay. and what is the time line for this settlement discusses? there is not a time line, and they were starting to convene in january and there were parties that represent the non-gubernatorial organization and san francisco and the irrigation districts from the valley because they are the ones who are affected there. as well as state agencies.
like most negotiations go through a trust period, and it is still? the development of the trust period, and hopefully it will be soon and get into the discussions and but we have to, you know, plan for the fact that they might bear fruit, or they might not. and one person that i know said that i am getting a very low part and making sure that everyone shows up for the next one is a victory. keep it up. the people are showing up and they think that there may be something that could turn into fruit. i would agree if it is clear that if they are not going to produce anything, let's not waste our time doing that, let the process proceed and the ships will fall where they may. >> okay, thank you. >> supervisors do you have any questions? okay, why don't i proceed with public comment. >> so is albert here?
>> what is this to? >> i understood three. >> two minutes is standard. >> wow, okay, i'm rick, and i am with the sierra club and we have ten speakers from ten groups here today. i want to give you a high level overview of the points that they will try to speak to in more detail. so first of all serious deline, and due to the deversions to the bodies of water. and the quality plan are necessary and they are deck as overdue and cannot be longer delayed if we are to have the hope of restoring these
important eco systems. evidence that increased flows will improve the situation while you can never predict the future with certainty, that evidence is very strong. now non-flow actions habitat, restoration are also important, but they by themselves cannot restore these eco systems. if we don't have adequate fresh water in them. fresh water flows are a necessary part of the equation. now, all of the users he have water from the water shed should share the load in restoring the ecosystem and they should do it in proportion to the amount of water that they use. how would this effect the city? well, we think that the recent years have shown that the existing puc infrastructure is
adequate to handle a prolonged and a very severe drought while simultaneously supporting robust, economic and employment growth. and there are changes pending here and in other water districts that will make us more resilient to drought in the future. now the last i point and i think that this is really key, it is very important that the bay area take a leadership position on this issue to counter balance the very strong opposition that is coming from the big ag interest in the central valley. i have the deepest respect for farmers, they have been terrible ste wards of our water resources both ground water and surface water. >> thank you. >> richard roth man? >> >> good morning, supervisors,
i'm richard moth man and i don't represent any organization, and i'm at district one residents, but i read about this report last year, and i was very disturbed about it. i served a year on the civil grand jury. and we got to go up to see shauna and if you have not been up there, it is really a marvel to see. one of the things besides the beauty of the dam, i learned that we, that san francisco does not have -- we only have secondary rights to the water. i'm not an attorney, but this bothered me. but what bothers me more when i read this survey, is i don't see any discussion in this city about do we have enough water? do we have enough sewage capacity for all of this development that is going on? except for i think, scott weiner had a proposal a few years ago
about recycling water. but i think that there needs to be you know, the planning department, and the board of supervisors needs to talk about if they are going to divert water do we have the capacity for water and the sewage is the ground water, they didn't talk about the ground water as the ground water that the western half of the city is going to get? is this part of the plan here? i didn't hear that from puc. but i'm glad that we are having this hearing today. and i would like to see more robust discussion about this issue. and you know, because do we have the resources to support everybody? and all of these tall buildings that are coming in to our city? thank you. >> thank you. >> john rosenfield?
>> good afternoon, supervisors my name is i don't know and i am the lead scientist for the bay institute. and i will speak quickly because i thought that we had three minutes. revisions to the bay delta water quality control plan are necessary and can no longer be delayed. the bay delta biological resource and water quality are in crisis as a result of severely reduce td inflow from the central valleys rivers. the evidence of this is 6 endangered fish populations that inhabit the delta, salmon, populations that are in decline, low dissolved oxygen conditions in the lower river, and toxic bacteria in the southern delta, which the regional water boards recent scientific white paper shows in the effect of low flow in the south delta. the trib tarries are in bad shape. the tualamy gets 21 percent of
it's unimpaired flow, only one fifth of it's unimpaired flow, during the critical february, through june, juvenile salmon migration period. the evidence that increased fresh water flows will improve conditions on the tib tarries and in the lower river and delta is very strong. evidence from the 2010, public trust flow hearings supported 60 percent of the flow from the entire river basin, the current proposal is for 40 percent of flows from only a portion of that basin. scientists from agencies non-profit and researchers from the uc davis all presented evidence from that, that greater flows were necessary and greater recommendations were mostly presented in the form of functional flows and improved upon those flows approach by tieing the flow recommended for the rivers to the natural conditions or unimpaired flows, the evidence since the 2010,
hearings continues to show that increased flows and flow variability are necessary to restore the fisheries and the september, 2016, phase one, sed demonstrates that the flow is less than 50 percent will not reduce or result in temperatures that are cold enough for salmon during the months that they need it. and they will not lead to sufficient habitat to support the salmon populations. >> i have a few questions, is it okay? >> sure. >> are there measures other than increased flows that could restore the river in ecosystems? >> absolutely, and we support doing both. the flows are necessary but not sufficient on their own to restore our echo systems and so we support things like restoring flood plains that are necessary throughout the valley and the thing to keep in mind that if you restore habitat you need water to get on that habitat and the water quality and oxygen needs to be of a quality that
supports fish you can reduce the amount of water and you can do that by earth moving and we support that and it is expensive and the more water that is in the system the more likely that habitat will be to be functional. there are other things that are proposed to be done like predator removal like going out and catching large mouth bass and that is a joke in the scientific community, the federal government has spent billions trying to do that same thing in the columbia snake river it is a waste of billions of dla rz and i also have reports from tid and mid and the other water districts for the restoration projects that they have accomplished to reduce the predator pressure and they found that they failed to reduce the predator pressure, and finally a testimony that i can send to you electronic form, from dr. peter
moyle who is often a consultant and finding that predator control, and in the form that is being discussed for these rivers. and it is an unknown quantity and as likely to have negative effects as positive effects. so, you know, there are things that we can do for sure. and that is why frankly, our coalition and bay institute is only asking for 50 percent of the water in the river, and no one is asking for 100 percent of the water. i should also just add based on the comments that i heard about this great fear that san francisco will run out of water or something like that, and i understand the city does not, and the puc ee desire to plan for an 8 year drought such as we have never seen before and that makes sense to me, but realize that the state water boards tolerance for risk is not what the city is tolerance for risk is and so in the previous
drought years, they have waived their water quality regulations three of the five brought years because in order to increase and so the notion that anybody in san francisco is going to turn on their faucet and not have water as a result of regulations to protect the fish is far fetched. >> could it take the plays of the flows from february to june. >> no, and of course it depends on how you define the functional flows, what that means is how much do the fish need in this time period and let's turn on and open up the reservoir and let that exact amount of water flow and when we get to the end of that period we shut it off and so we get a very blocky hydrgraph, the amount of water flowing at any given time and it is you know, a flat level of flow and then it drops to a flat level of flow and increases based on what we think that the fish need. the problem with that approach, where we are using that approach
solely, is that what the fish are really adapted to is variability and river flow, if you look at, you know, the storm comes through and the river flow goes up, and the storm passes and the river flow goes down, and the snow melt goes down, and they are actually adapted to that kind of variability, whereas the non-native predators that the bass that the people want to eliminate are not adapted to that and do poorly in those kinds of conditions. and so with the mix of intell gept management of the water that we have, we are not going to have the entire river, with he know that, and tieing the flows that are in the river to natural conditions, that is the functional flow, and the variability that you get from tieing your flows to what is out there in the environment and what will be melting and you know, if it is raining there are storm clouds, right? it is a little cooler and those conditions combined, with run off from below the dam to make the better conditions, whereas just opening up the reservoir is not going to do that.
so as i said, the state board proposal took all sorts of testimony on functional flows, and actually rolled that into a much more functional proposal that included natural variability. >> okay, and then one last question, so the scientists, and the science says you need, 60 percent of unimpaired flows, you are saying, 50 percent. you are asking for 50 percent. so, is 40 percent then unimpaired flows, useless in >> i would not say that it is useless, i mean that we are talking about salmon populations here, salmon are among the easiery resources to restore. so, when we say that we have tried as hard as we can and looked at all of the various science and think that we can squeak by with 50 percent that means that 50 percent to get the legally required populations of salmon restored to these. 40 percent will not accomplish
that legal requirement. that is not to say that it will not have benefits there are water qualities in the delta and the bacteria and the desolved oxygen that i mentioned that may be partially addressed by this and the salmon populations may be seem to understand what the stay us quo is rapid decline, okay? and so increasing the conditions for improving the conditions for the fish, and making them decline to extinction a little more slowly is not really a benefit. but it is not that there is no benefit at all to 40 percent, it is just not really going to address this problem. i mean that we are talking about a river that has far less than half of it's water in it. it's really in miserable shape. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> i just have one question, is your organization participating in the settlement discussions? >> my organization is participating in the settlement conversations, those conversations have actually been going on, for approximately two years now and maybe a little longer.
they have sort of rebooted when the state brought in former secretary babbot to lead the conversations but these are ongoing conversations. and i just, i should add that if we made it very clear to the state water board that if the comment period is extended again, it has already been extended twice, this plan is already about ten years overdue. then we don't see any sign related to that continued conversations are going to get us anywhere. so we are trying to do our best and participate in good faith, but you know the river and the bay delta ecosystem will not wait forever. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> okay, next speaker? john? >> i think that it is still morning, the executive director of the golden gate salmon association. we represent the short and commercial salmon fisherman.
we are hoping that the board of supervisors will lead here in policy, we need to get more water back in the bay to restore our salmon runs and i just want to point out that i think that everybody here knows that salmon lives part of the life in fresh water and part in the so shen, i am here to tell you that the ocean is doing it's part. there is bet aout there to eat and, they are fine to get there, their problem is when they are two or three or four inches long and they are trying to get out of these fresh water systems that are starved of waur. i can report to you, that i mean, what is fisherman's wharf without the fisherman? part of what we are asking here today is to help us revitalize a part of the economy that is not just commercial, and sport, but also the seafood processors, the restaurants who are all demanding real honest to god, wild caught california salmon. i think that people in san francisco know the difference between foreign fish and i am
here to tell you that with restaurant demand, a lot of the businesses being lost to alaska. it does not have to be that way. we can rebuild our salmon runs here to a healthy level, it would not take a whole lot. i think that you probably know that in 2008 and 2009, we were completely shut down from fishing salmon out on the ocean. the reason why is because deversions from the delta shot up in the year, 2000 by about, 16 peshs and it took a bunch of litigation to get those deversions back almost in a reasonable limit. we saw our salmon run slightly rebuild along came the drought and commercial fisherman are looking at a very poor season this year. we are still suffering the hang over from the drought and next year we are more hopeful, 2019. should be a good one. and due to this flood that we are getting. but we are looking to you for leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.
>> cindy charles? >> hello, high mame is cindy charles and i am the conservation person for the last 16 years and a former chair for the california federation of fly fishers. i am here today to share my observations on why now the proposal by the state water board to increase the flows on the rivers is really our last best chance to attempt to restore these rivers. to let's see, it is really our last best chance. >> there should be no more delays in this process. the concept of a more balanced use of water in these three water sheds should not be considered a radical step, but a long overdue rebalancing of a public resource to a broader
beneficial use. i grew up in san francisco, drinking the water and learned to fish on salmon with on fishing trips with my father, my now adult son's fish fishing trip was near camp maeser, healthy salmon are a part of my family's life and history. i fear a feature without salmon to share with my grandchildren. >> i have fished the lower sections for 25 years, i have been a witness of the diminish quality of the resources and seen the habitat degraded over many seasons and water year types. >> three years after higher, flow years, salmon returned numbers show a large increase. these differences can be dramatic as in 1985, when 40,000 salmon returned. and in the fall, of 2015, the returns were sadly less than 1,000. the numbers of people seeking recreation and natural areas is
increasing annually. as the economic importance of those visitors. recreational fishing does have value as fisherman spend their dollars on guides, lodging food, and gas and often in are you rural communities, which depend upon the source of this income. we need the state water board to move forward now, on this proposal to increase the flow to support the restoration of the bay delta system. >> thank you. next speaker, darcy loose? >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you today. >> my name is darcy loose and i am here representing the friends, and a non-profit organization, bay area residents, clearly believe that the health of our environment should be a priority, in passed surveys 92 percent of the bay area voters have agreed that it is important for the reagain's economy to have a healthy and a
clean vibrant san francisco bay, we passed measure aa by over two-thirds vote, passing in all nine counties to fund the wet land restoration projects about you those projects will need vast quantities of settlement that come from large amounts, when we allow the fresh water flows to carry them from the river to the bay. >> our regional government and elected officials around the bay have echoed support for the bay and the state board's efforts multiple times and i can provide the supporting materials, electronically. in 2012, the association of the governments passed a resolution, urging that the protext of the restoration of the healthy echo system includes, the adequate water quality, and the water supply to support the water supplies. since then, similar resolutions have passed in 7 of the nine bay area counties, including the city and county of san francisco, in 2014. >> more recently abag received
it from the trust on phase one updates to the bay delta, control plan and voted to send a letter of supporting the state board's efforts. we can't afford to delay the completing of the water control plan up dates any longer, governor brown said in the letter to the state board last year, saying that the need to improve the eco systems is urgent, over 100 environmental organizations and 11 members of the bay area, agreed in their letters to the state board last year, urging expedited completing of the p dates, they do not preinclude the possibility of agreements to implement the plan, in fact, they have suppressed or expressed support to negotiated settlements among the shaek holders. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next, speaker ben ikenburg? good afternoon, supervisors my
name is stan and i am here on behalf of the san francisco bay keeper and more than 5,000 members of supporters in the bay area. the state board revisions to the bay delta water quality plan are necessary and should not be delayed. the bay delta is in crisis, and we get 50 percent of the natural flow as it is, and? years less than 35 percent, and reduced the flows from the bay are harmful to the birds and the fish and the marine animals and the smells are nearing extinction if not already there. the impact for the fishing tree, from these reduced flows of manifest and the industry for $267.8 million in 20153, and 215 in 20 is 4, and 2008 and 2009 the commercial fishing season was cancelled. and now the three under consideration by the state board have in the past accounted for 400,000 salmon. right now, there is zero salmon that is fishable in becoming out of those. and the state board has a legal
right and an obligation to issue the water quality standards that protect the state trust. so this is a negotiate and this is already a compromise that we are looking at. that is revisions to the water quality plan are necessary and should not longer be delayed. the bay area should be a leader, and the sfpuc should be a leader, the last up date was only 20 years ago, a plan from 1995, and the latest review from 2009 and there have no reviews even though they are required and standards are lord over the last two or three years by the urge change petitions and this process has dragged on too long and it is mentioned that the letters from the eleven legislators of eleven organizations expedited process, and voluntariary can fit, and we
need the state board standards to provide those standards, and the comment deadline should not be extended and we need no more delays and we have the science. >> i have one question. so essential valley agriculture interest, one or need more water diversions? how does that effect the agriculture and communities in the delta itself? >> the more water that is taken out by the state water project and the central valley project and that impacts the local communities because they have and they are related to the salt water intrusion and that is the water quality and so it is additional withdraw and so that is a function that the state water board has to analyze during it's when it evaluated whether people's rights will be impacted by additional withdraws, but i know that those communities are very concerned about additional withdraws. and additional flows help insure that those communities can stay healthy and have healthy high
water quality. >> thank you. >> next speaker, bill marlin? >> thank you very much. i would like to step back for just a moment look think about the plan itself. you go to the web page you supply mental environmental document. 24 chapters. 14 appendixes over 3,000 pages. these pages contain hundreds of graphs and tables as well as references to scientific studies and reports supporting the written comments. it has taken the board the state water board years to produce this. this is one example. chapter 19. analysis of the benefits to native fish from increased flows from february first to june 30th. this chapter alone is 120 pages. eleven of those pages is a list
of references used in just that one chapter. a second example appendix c. which is a technical report that provides the data for the writing of chapter 19. that appendix is 289 pages long. and it provides detailed information regarding what the background and the scientific back up for the plan as drafted. one example from appendix c, one of many, on page 3-21. there was a graph. and it shows the salmon escapement from these three tributaries from 1952 to 2010, when there is a period of high water flows, such as the late 1990s, you have a huge spike in salmon escapement.
folks, those are unimpaired flows. just like what we have flowing down that river right now today. is unimpaired flow. that is what the state board wants to produce. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker peter drucmeyer. >> good day, i am peter with the river trust. and i am going to go through these slides really quickly. first one it shows the direct correlation between unimpaired flow and hel yth salmon populations. second one shows just how much the tualami suffers in the drought of the dry year, critically dry for the fish and wild life down stream. >> page 2 top slide shows what 40 percent between february and
june would look like. an improvement and not the 60 percent, but that the science tell us is necessary. the bottom one focuses again on the idea of adapted management that we establish the biological goals and objectives and we can accomplish them with lower flows and it can go as long as the 30 percent, and you believe that it is strongly and habitat restoration would like that component and page 3, a lot of misinformation out there and this is an op ed signed by the general managers. and talking about jobs lost, and 49 billion in decreased sales. the slide right below that tells you about water use and how it is declined, we have done a great job at conservation. page 4 at the top, shows that we have reduced the water use, 30 percent in the last ten years. the next slide explains the flaws in the study. and then on page 5, it shows
what the two studies projected would be losses. and you would see 49 billion at the bottom under 2009. there are 2014 report did not have the loss and we had 30 percent and we did not get the 6.5 billion, and below that we did not get the job loss, on page 6, at the top. the jobs actually grew. and at the bottom, we each see that at the height of the drought we still are enough water in storage to last for three years. page 7, the last page, shows that in december, after a normal year last year, we had enough water in the last five years, and then in this bottom one, if you would like to ask me a question about it, i would like to explain to you. >> wow. >> could you explain this last slide. >> okay. >> so we created a little model that assumes that water demand rebounces to where it was before
the drought. and that there is the 40 percent unimpaired flow from february to june and the san francisco puc is responsible for half of the unimpaired flow. which is an established but that would be the very highest end. and we would survive the 6 year drought of record, 87 to 9 # 2, and where you get into the trouble is that you get into these year seven and eight, which is never occurred and we should plan for them, but there is a lot to we can do to plan for them. so the bottom line is that we cannot allow the bay delta, and the rivers to die because we are worried about a 7 or 8 year drought that has never happened, we need to work together to make sure that we have the insurance but we need to take action on the bay delta now. >> i have another question for you, one of what i think is a compelling and what worries me argument of the sfpuc is that even if we increased water flow, then it might be diverted by other interests in the area. could you respond to that? >> well, we share that concern, and we are we want to make sure
that the flow makes it all the way out into the bay. so that is going to be in the next phase of the bay delta plan. >> and i assure you the environmental community is united that we do not want noo he additional water pumped. and that is a big argument in the central valley and it is based on conjecture but that the governor wants to steal their water and send it down to la. i don't think that is the case. we are going to you know fight alongside with them to make sure that it makes it to the bay. >> okay. i will say that it is something that we worries me quite a bit. it makes it. >> yeah i have one question. >> yeah, so the sfpuc is working to establish a voluntariary settlement with other interested parties, should we just wait for that agreement to be concluded? >> well, you know, we have been in negotiations on it for about two and a half years. and you know it is a great opportunity to get to know each other and to hear each other's concerns or visions but we hit a
stalemate when it comes to flow, and i can't go into details because there is a confidentiality agreement. but what it really inspired more discussion is the release of the sed, on september 15th. and the original comment deadline was november, 15th and it was extended to january, 17th and extended again to march 17th, and so six months of comment. and that is not going to be end of settlement discussions. because a decision is not even going to be made until september, so if everyone comes together, and says, hey, we have a compromise, and it's you know, we don't all love it, but we can live with it. it will make the state water board decision a lot easier. and so the comment deadline is important to maintain as it is and it does not stop any settlement agreements but it gives us one more deadline to start working towards. and i will tell you we did have an official settlement agreement with the sfpuc, and i never described it that way, before. but in 2008, with the water system improvement program, we
supported the seismic up grades to the system but there was a plan there to divert up to 25 million gallons more. and we will cap the sales until 2018 and we will work together on our concerns. we felt that the potential for water conservation was under estimate and that the demand projections future demand were exaggerate and we all started working together and we were all on the same boat and we have been amazing work and 30 percent reduction in ten years, so you can see those figures, maybe i didn't include them. >> i guess that i didn't include those. >> so any way, i think that discussions are always a great idea. this settlement, this voluntariary agreement process is not moving quickly at all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, dave warner?
>> i am honored to be speaking, i am here representing myself. i am here to ask you to start the process of creating a water imports reduction goal. and i think that you might find this some what interesting. first of all though the benefits of reducing imports are huge in addition to the environmental benefits think of what it would mean to water reliability if we reduce by 20 percent, we would all of a sudden have saved a full year of water reserves which say huge amount. a full year, but the thing that i really want to point out are two amazing southern california cities, and your question, we in the los angeles water and power 2013, water plan, i was for it, i grew up in southern california, they were the big bad guy. they have set a goal to reduce their water imports from 85 percent today to 50 percent by 2040. now that is a long time.
but what a radical concept. and when you look at the numbers, i am off track here, but it works out to be reduce the use, and it is a huge thing. and the state water project, but aren't they going the right direction and shouldn't we be doing the same. >> the one other city is santa monica i am in shock. they said by 2020, we are going to reduce our water imports to zero. and that is just unbelievable and i think that they are right now, water imports are 45 percent down to 86. and the last thing that i will mention is orange county which you heard about this, this he have a wonderful water recycling water, 100 million going to 130 million, where that can represent that project alone and, 20 percent of the annual water use will come from recycled water. there are so many things that we can do that by starting out and
set to reach a goal is sort of make a whole discussion about the state water project moved. thank you very much. >> chris gilbert? hello, i am a volunteer with the sierra club and i think that i reflect the general population, and i don't have the expertise that the scientists and the activists have. >> i see the voluntariary agreement pushed as a way of delaying it. on the other hand, the sfpuc them schls have said that pursuing voluntariary agreements is not a stall tactic. exists previous settlement discussions have not had a driver at the state water board
proposal is a new driver, that is a true value of the straight water board proposal and it is compelling the parties to come to the negotiating table. so the sfpuc themselves said that the state water board's proposal is a moving force, and it should not be it should be supported. and another point is all of the valley water should share the load in protecting. and the third is evidence that increased water flows will improve conditions on the tributaries, in the lower san jose, valley and in the delta, and so the science is strong and we have shown that. and one person here cited from the actual document. finally, the bay area needs to lead on this issue to counter balance central valley interest. and the central valley, agriculture has been a poor ste ward and they have over used ground water and planted what
urt kro pz and used fake science to assert that water flows don't matter. and argue that they don't have enough water while at the same time planting new orchards. the bay area needs to be a leader with a week's notice we turned out 40 people at the sfpuc on meeting. >> we have 300 letters. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> last speaker, adrian covert? >> thank you. >> i am with the bay area council and i just want to mention that i think that the plan is good intentions. but there are significant details that are lacking that caused us to have some significant concerns about the plan. without any details about how the plan would be implemented. our concerns are mostly around the future of housing in the ability to provide affordable housing for a growing population, in san francisco. and in the bay area. sfpuchopo, estimates that it's
users could face cuts up to 50 percent during the droughts with the rationing beginning needily at the first sign of drought, this level of rationing could be avoided through a couple of ways, and one will be making billions of dla rz in investments and recycling and supplies, and those costs will be born on to the payers, and for which no planning of that magnitude has been considered. also, the other way around it would be to conserve at levels unheard of in the developed world. the bay area water users already use if they were their own regions, the less, and the least amount of water per person of any region in california. residents in the combined san francisco service area use just 54 gallons, per person per day over the last year, compared to the state wide average of 82 gallons, san francisco residents just used 41 gallons and a previous speaker and the great
investments that they are using and since they used 90 gallons per person per day, and in la use about 80. if the sed and the document were adopted it could up and end the general plans and this is where the big concern is, it could up end the general plans around the communities that already use the extremely low quantities of quart per person and some of the areas are the most housing impacted regions in the bay area, and including san francisco and a lot of places in the sil con valley and so we are concerned that if the plans are put into place without the proper, and without the properly done, it would force communities around the bay area to reexamine their housing supplies plans and could impact the region's ability to grow. so we could encourage the board respectfully to join with the bay area council and encouraging a voluntary tar settlement gret to safety these discussions. in ethank you very much. >> i think public comment is over. >> is there any other speaker
who would like to give public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor fewer would you like to make concluding remarks. >> i would like tocy thank you for coming out. i think that we have a lot to deliberate over, i think that the testimony was excellent and i think that i actually got a deeper understanding of what is what we are facing with this proposal and that i think that this is an item that i believe that will come before the full board at one time. if i'm correct, is that -- right? >> i think so. but any way, we thank you for coming out today. very informative. >> yeah. >> i would just end by thanking everyone who came out to educate us about this issue. it is incredibly complicated. you know, and intuively i would say that given the extremity of the climate change and the
extreme weather, that planning for an 8 year drought does not seem unreasonable to me. that the puc is taking those steps given you know, what we are seeing, and in our society, and in the fact that as we speak, the epa is being des mated and so at least in the immediate future, i don't, i don't see great change in the positive direction with regard to climate change. it was confusing to me as a policy maker, is the different science on what level of flow will actually solve the problem which needs to be solved. we need to protect the salmon and the bio diversity of their habitat. and i again, want to mention that i am worried that if the settlement is reached and we figure out what the appropriate flow is, that we need to make
sure that we work together to make sure that that flow remains in the river and is not diverted towards other sources. and while i understand that the advocate see the settlement discussions as delayed tack i can, i hope that they bear fruit and that we can come to some agreement. but i really thank everyone for their time coming out today. and educating us on those issues thank you so much. >> and supervisor so i would like to make a motion to file this hearing. >> okay. >> supervisor fewer has made a motion to file this hearing without objection, the hearing is filed. madam clerk are there any other matters? >> there is no further business. >> thank you so much, good afternoon, everyone. >> thank you very much.