tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 31, 2018 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
we want the sfpuc to base environmental decisions on environmental science, not development calculations. i urge you to support the staff report for the bay delta plan and the proposal for the level of 45% to 65% of unimpaired flow with -- to protect fish and wildlife and ensure the health of the delta and the bay. this is much more important to bay area residents than increasing office space and inviting ever more people. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. chris chutes. >> chris chutes with the california sport fishing protection alliance. in 2014, i came before you and recommended that you take a better approach to the water
control plan. part one would be to modify the board's framework and create special rules for flows. part two, to find an equitable division of responsibility between the city and the turlock and modesto units. you didn't do it. the technical staff provided me with a modify flow model of the tuolumne river. we thanked you for giving us a common tool to analyze flow options. we used the tool to create a proposal for the tuolumne and we filed that proposal with the regulatory commission. it will require more flow than the water flow in wet years and has special rules for dry years and sequences. there was a nod from staff that it was better than what others had proposed. that was it. we proposed the selection for
the responsibility for the city and the districts. again, there was a response from staff that was a nod that the numbers looked okay, but didn't have enough detail. in spite of political pressure, the water board will adopt flow objectives in november. the question now is whether you will work with them or keep trying to say no.
>> and why they rejected some of those reasons. they were specific and detailed explanations. i suggest you look at this and take it get check on where the board stands today and what they plan to do on november 9th. i would be glad to answer any questions. >> i have one question. what do you think is the most realistic option for augmenting the barrier water supply? >> the best option i would see is to add a point of diversion how the contra costa for the existing water rights.
and used -- direct other conveyance to use those existing water rights to augment water supply. that way some of the water could be run down the river and recaptured in the delta. not all of it because some of it is designed to improve delta outflow, but that would be a realistic approach. i recognized that would require significant water treatment. that is expensive. east bay mud did the same thing about ten years ago when they were considering expansion. there was a lawsuit and they lost the lawsuit. they reconsidered and they adopted some storage and they built a water treatment plant. i think you all could do the same thing and it would help provide you with a lot of options. it wouldn't necessarily be limited to your own water rights
, you could also use those kinds of facilities to purchase the transfer of water. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president kwon: next five, police. and clark to the podium. if the following would also line up. tom francis, tom schwarzkopf, nancy arbuckle and mr mark gonzales. let's start with ms. miss clark. welcome back. >> i will talk very fast. i am a member of the river trust advisory board. is a member of the nrdc. i am speaking for myself. the san francisco public utilities commission has violent critical decisions about the future of water decisions about the future of water, rivers, our economy in the city. on the state level, water, rivers and ecologies are essential to everyone and everything that lives. in california, we are witnessing difficult droughts, terrible
fires that have caused destruction, loss of lives, property throughout the state. we have seen the enormous amount of water throughout -- from rivers and reservoirs needed to fight the war against the destruction of homes pack forest lands and mountains. ecosystems and water are a lifeline and essential to our daily living, economies and the future. on the local level, i am a san francisco resident. in the last few years, san francisco and the bay area have changed in major ways. density, population, new buildings, homes, businesses, bumper-to-bumper traffic and congestion, and of course, all of this and the pretense of water being here forever. commuters from the peninsula and the east bay come to san francisco high-rises and offices and approximately eight to ten and spent eight to ten hours each day in san francisco and use san francisco water and sewage and park in our neighbourhoods for free when we have to get out of where we want
to go from our homes. since it no one is concerned about the state level and the local level. it is your level also. i urge the commission to establish two bay area committees as soon as possible. one, the san francisco bay area at river and water study committee and two, the san francisco bay area river and water supply committee. that includes the rivers. we need studies and statistics now and we need plans and actions. most of all, we need san francisco and the entire bay area, the entire area to work together to face the challenges ahead and the present and future of our most valuable assets. watcher, rivers and ecosystems. without immediate actions now, we face a future with little hope. thank you. >> thank you. mr tom francis. welcome.
>> thank you president and commissioners. my name is tom francis. i am the water resources manager to begin with, bosco represents the interests of 26 water agencies that purchased two thirds for the water produced by san francisco regional water system. i serve as a water resources manager but i want to mention that there's 20 different elected officials here today or a water management reps along with two of my staff. we are filling the back of the room. we support the alternative river management plan developed by the s.f. p.u.c. and irrigation districts. we also support the recent decision to delay action on the plan. it is our belief that the delay will give time for parties to start discussion of a voluntary negotiated settlement. i spent a lot of time between -- there's not a lot of time between now and november but we need to take advantage of it. we believe we can do that. we will take advantage.
the plan would seriously reduce water supply during the drought for our 1.8 million residents, 40,000 businesses and community agencies and in alameda, san mateo and santa clara counties that we serve. we may find it difficult, if not impossible to reach required customer water use levels. particularly, those agencies where a per person used level of 25 gallons per day or less must be achieved. frankly, that is not achievable. we have employed experts in our respective fields to develop the river management plan. mr ritchie shared a good bit of detail about those experts. they have specific knowledge of the river. i personally, as well as the organization believe that knowledge is -- it is necessary. the river management plan proposal is science based. it is an alternative that strikes a responsible and sustainable balance between water supply reliability and
increase the salmon populations in the river. we believe that the river management plan can be a platform for serious and responsible negotiations. i will read that sentence again. i think that's what i want you to take home today. we believe that the river management plan can be a platform for serious and responsible negotiations to reach a good settlement. finally, what i would like to say is that we do not support the board's plan. it would reduce the water supply for not just our organization but for the s.f. p.u.c. particularly when there is a better plan that exists. we believe the development of a voluntary negotiated settlement agreement is the appropriate path forward. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you, very much. next, please.
>> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. my background is in freshwater chemistry and biology. i support the water board's plan to increase water flows. i i recently attended the public hearings in increasing water flows in the rivers. the farming community irrigation district managers and political representatives had a strong presence at the hearing. they had three major concerns. it was mentioned they need more water. farmers have helped create the water shortage themselves by planting year-round crops in the driest places in the state, if not the world. in addition, they have over pumped groundwater. this has led to a chronic over realization of to a chronic over realization of our water supply. over pumping has caused areas to run dry. there are difficulties in recharging and resisting
aquaphor's aware layers have compacted. some areas are effecting affecting important infrastructure and landscape. despite despite the millions of pounds of chemicals that are killing fish and animals, there has been damaged damage to human health. secondly, i heard politicians and water suppliers say the lack of water would harm disadvantaged people in their areas. but they failed to elaborate on they are largely responsible for creating the disadvantage to these communities. farmers make up a large percentage of the disadvantage. low wages have caused generational poverty and homelessness. dehydration causing kidney failure and death has been noted and reported. exposure to pesticides, herbicides and fungicides take their toll. the mill workers are subjected to sexual harassment including sexual assault even when working working on the fields.
evidence for these conditions can be found at the centre for farmworker families website. farmworkers have been enslaved for many decades in california. there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers in california. they are good enough to harvest the crops and not good enough to be allowed to obtain her dignity and become u.s. citizens. they were shot out without realizing actual games and returned to the same difficult conditions. it came up how farmers felt reduced. commercial and sport fishing industries have already had their way of life or ruins. the salmon runs have crashed. the delta and san francisco bay have been treating like an unwanted stepchild for decades. balance must be restored. in this age of diminishing water resources and unsustainable farming practices must be phased
out and terminated. water is a public trust. it should include protecting san francisco bay. >> thank you. thank you. your time is up. thank you. all right. welcome. >> hello. my name is nancy arbuckle. i am a san francisco resident. i am a water drinker and i would like to speak on behalf of the fish today. but to do that, we need to use real words and not a euphemism. fish don't swim in hydrology. they don't spawn in adaptive management. they need water and so we need to talk about water. i believe we can restore our ecosystem and have a reliable water supply. to do that, i want to ask that you respect the strongly held values of your constituents. it is by working with the
environmental groups that you will be effective and we will all be effective. in fact, public opinion polls show the public respects of the opinion the opinion of environmental groups more than the p.u.c. i have data to back that up which i can leave with you. there have been a number of surveys done. environmental protection is the strongest motivator for people to conserve water. people conserve water, expecting their actions to benefit the environment. for instance, during the recent drought, this did not happen. the water we concert was held behind dams and had to be dumped during last year's storm. but if the bay delta plan had been in effect, the river and the ecosystem, our ecosystem would have benefited. and the s.f. p.u.c. would have been able to fill its reservoirs and much more. so i want to work together.
people want to conserve. they want to conserve for the environment. not to pave the way for more developments. the bay delta plan is a win-win we are looking for for the environment and for the water supply. thank you very much. >> thank you. next we have mr mark gonzales. welcome. >> hello. thank you for listening to my story. my family came to california on the european side in the 17 hundreds. we have been here for thousands of years. my ancestors were the first recorded indians and spaniard married. i just think of what the rivers were like at that time. we think about how complex they were. how they flew and how they were the veins of the whole state.
the current conditions are obviously not adequate and i did go to the hearing in sacramento. one of the water agency said we have been managing this water very well for 100 years. my comment was, if you have been doing so well, why are we here? obviously, there has been degradation in the habitat, the fish population. the land. the way to ask babs that and keep it is with encased flows. to think we have the hubris to manage nature and say, if we do this now, this now, it will all work, we have been saying that ever since we have been in this country. give some thought to increase flows. may be a general turn. it will help a lot of things. it will fledge the flood points. it will give more habitat. they say it will just go down the river. it will lower the temperatures. it will push out invasive
species. and also help the delta. it is a whole system. we are not just talking about one thing. we are trying to make the whole system work better. thank you you. >> president kwon: thank you. next five, please. we will start by calling these names. denise louis up to the podium. and if and if the fine folks will line up. welcome. >> hello. san francisco native and resident. i support the state water board plan because it is a trust issue so the p.u.c. and the water districts each protect their constituencies. thank you to the p.u.c. for watching out for my interest. because i am a p.u.c. customer. actually, my family and i
average 12 gallons per day, per person. i challenge the rest of us in this room to try it for 25 or less per day. please. it can be done. you know that the fish are important but it's not just about the fish. there are entire ecosystems at risk. we have already pushed numerous species to the brink of extinction what about the delta? it has to be on your radar somewhere. so business as usual is just unsustainable. we can't keep growing more in terms of business or population. it is just not reasonable to expect unlimited growth when our
resources are a finite, limited amount. so until we can actually grasp this reality, we are living in a dream world. let's just go to the state water board and to their plan. due to the uncertainties and other plans, you know, alternative plans are based on, assumptions and uncertain science, let's just go to the state water board and see what we can get from that. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. mr peter drift meyer. welcome back. >> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to comment. on the policy director for the river trust. i i think you have all heard the city council vote -- voted unanimously to support the bay delta plan. i wanted to fill you in a little
bit on that. and item took more than two hours. they were very thorough. a year and a half ago, apollo also was 16 agencies that sent the same form letter on the draft. that is the history that they are talking about. you heard a lot of them earlier today. they get repeated and maybe they will become the truth. but they did not buy that. the staff recommendation was to support this talking points of voluntary settlement and the s.f. p.u.c. alternative. we went in at a disadvantage.. they had a chance to%. -- present. after hearing public and asking questions. they deliberated and voted 9-0 to support the bay delta plan. some of the comments where that's the big environmental decisions are often controversial, but we always overcome the obstacles and we never regret them. and that the benefits of the
plan are great and the risks are very small. so we have repeated our comments about how we can get through the record with ten% rationing. we have three years worth of water and storage at the height of the drought. in an average year, we had the right to capture three times as much water. here is a new one for you. going into 2017, you needed 332 thousand acre-feet to fill up all of your storage. in 2017, you had the right to 3.1 million acre-feet. enough to fill all of your reservoirs more than twice. in 2017 had not happened to. and we skip from 2016 right to 2018, had the right to 662,000 acre-feet. all of the storage would have been full on july 1st of this year. i am running out of time here. i want to give you a quick historical perspective.
in 1879, striped bass were introduced into the delta ecosystem. a non-native predator. in 1893, dam was built the cut off 85% of the spawning habitat for salmon. then in -- the same time. , don pedro was built. the original resins of -- reservoir. in 1934, there were hundred 30,000 salmon spawning in the river. that was after la grange was cutting off all that habitat. let's not forget the gold rush in 1849 which degraded the environment. don pedro was built in 1960. at 2 million acre-feet. all of a sudden the ability to hold back all of this water and we saw the crash and population. >> president kwon: thanks. >> can i ask you a question about what happened to the city council in paulo alto? we have a letter here of them
supporting the p.u.c. plan. isn't it part of the organization agree. >> they are one of 26. >> they do not support this statement? >> it it does not pick that is correct. >> president kwon: but it was a utility staff that did support it by the council voted 9-0? >> they came to the council with a recommendation to support the position and the city rejected that. instead, embraced the bay delta plan as proposed by the state water board. >> not all of the members voted to support the plan? >> i am not aware of a single time that the board has had this item on their agenda, for the board agenda for public discussion. i know they have had it in closed session, dot, you know, the only times we have had a chance to comment is during public comment, at the beginning of the meeting. i have never heard them vote on it. i think they just follow the
staff recommendation. maybe in closed session they have votes, i don't know. >> ok. we have a statement here that says that they support the alternative management plan. but that is not the board. that is just the staff. >> i would guess -- i mean, if they say that, probably the board. i'm not aware of votes. i am just trying -- >> at their representative to the organization also spoke at the meeting last week in support of the plan. and council said no. we will support the bay delta plan. what happens is there is a groupthink. if we keep talking about these voluntary settlements, maybe they will magically work out. if we keep talking about the river management plan, may be able happen. if it doesn't, there is no fallback plan. that is a big difference between the states proposing and what s.f. p.u.c. are proposing. but if these nonslip measures work, if you go down to 30% of impaired flow.
there is a backup. it is all about getting results. our concern is that the s.f. p.u.c. alternative is about checking things off a list. and hay, gosh it did not work out. i'm sorry. >> i am interested in this conversation of negotiated settlements. i'm trying to understand -- i do believe there will be a time that has been granted by the board and be some time to have these conversations. i'm trying to get an understanding of where people stand, to see if there is a middle ground. i understand not everyone will be happy and there will be people you are going to stay in the camp of the state board's plan and some who will stay in the camp of the p.u.c. plan. but my hope is that we will be able to avoid litigation or regulatory mandates and come up with a negotiated settlement. my question is just to understand where people are right now. >> i think the best answer to that is to start soon and have
something between the ngos and s.f. p.u.c. it is tough when you bring in the irrigation district. they can be challenging and i think s.f. p.u.c. is more reasonable. there are these constraints for the agreements. that has made it very hard. i gave your stuff credit for trying to work through that. certainly, if we can avoid litigation, that would make a lot of sense. there are are ways that we can support some of the positions. for us, it is about results. water, we think will help produce some of those results, but the habitat rests -- restoration is important too. they agree that their feeling is that they cannot require habitat restoration and predator suppression, but they can incentivize it through this flexible and adaptive management >> in addition to the n.g.o. and the p.u.c., that is my question. it is really imperative, from our perspective, and i'm speaking on behalf of the
commission can't correct me if i am wrong, but the organization is also part of that conversation. i'm trying to get an understanding of what today's position as is. think you. >> president kwon: i understand the situation. i am part of an organization that represents 46 counties. there are nine affiliated local unions in a 46 counties. mine is san francisco. if i wanted wanted to have some influence, even though my entire organization would take a particular condition, it was highly likely i would be successful at influencing my own local union. was there additional additional influence that we had as a trust my concern is, if we don't start being honest about disclosure, we will have a campaign for and a campaign against.
everyone will be recording meetings. we have not gotten to that point yet. i rely on staff here at this agency. i don't think there's much better staff. that is tough to say. i don't disagree with them. i don't think i've ever seen a council capture commission, a board just completely flip like that. that is 824. they flipped on the organization and they flipped on their own staff. there is a back story there and it is fair that if anyone has additional influence, we be honest about what influence that is to be know exactly what we are dealing with. the key thing that we need to discuss, so that everything is out in the open. >> thank you. >> welcome back. >> good to be with you members
of the commission. i am the executive director of the pacific coast federation of fishermen's association, the longest organization of commercial fishermen on the west coast with members from santa barbara to the border. including two member organizations in san francisco. i'm also a resident of the city of san francisco. our organization does not support the water board's delta plan. that is because it is insufficiently protective of public trust resources and the fish resources that our members depend on for their living. the compromise plan that the board is putting forward in it's framework is already an extraordinary compromise by both definitions of the word on agency science that shows that 50-60% of instream flow must be put in place as a baseline requirement if we will restore these fish. forty%, with mitigation down to
30 or up to 50, as a board has proposed, is already an extraordinary deviation, resulting in hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in losses to our members if if it will be implemented. this is an extraordinary compromise. to hear your staff mischaracterize the amount of science that has been put into the process here, is extraordinary to me. i believe that you are being led down the garden path towards being on the wrong side of a flood of litigation, no matter how you approach this compromise and i believe that you will be on the wrong side of history. extinction is forever. both the extension of the salmon that occupied his rivers, as well as the extension of the livelihood. because if we continue on the course that we are on,
compromising the environment, in order to facilitate an sustainable economic growth, then our members will become extinct. and one of the most ancient and long-standing economic practices of this area will be gone. there were 450 commercial fishermen that are prosecuting the resource last year. forty years ago, there were 4500 we lost 90% of our workforce. don't let it become 100%. >> president kwon: thank you. mr john mcmanus? >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the president of the golden gate salmon association. i represent the sport and commercial fishermen and related businesses. it has been interesting to sit here today. i am wondering if i am in san
francisco or if i am in fresno. i have to tell you, it is disconcerting to hear staff, basically sounding like they are being led by the agricultural irrigation districts. i want to give you a point, to put a finer point on that. you are being asked to ignore the findings, the scientific findings of the department and fished out a fish and wildlife. i would argue they did a good job at looking at this issue and what they needed. you are told they looked at the wrong river and they do not know what they are talking about. they know quite a bit of what they're talking about. you're being asked to accept a science developed by a group called fish bio. they are well known in the central valley. the major agricultural grill ears in the sacramento valley tend not to use them. they argue -- they are using the san joaquin valley of the word on the street as you will get the response from fish bio. let me live in the conversation with that. i would encourage all of you to
do your own research. at other independent sources before you accept this notion that the science is bad and you can trust fish bios. you have heard others comments. that is part of why the state water board did not accept some of the comments it came from your staff. the signs that they had was different and i would argue it was probably better. you made that judgement. also, i want to point out that to hear that arguing that less water is better for salmon, as counterintuitive. most people can appreciate that. you heard an argument that more water would actually flush steelhead out of the system and they would be lost in the delta. you have heard others here point out that more water was spread out onto floodplains and create more rearing habitat. what that means is when you create rearing habitat, those juvenile steelhead or salmon will go out onto the floodplain and stay put. they will not get blasted down into the delta.
i am hearing things here that as a salmon person, i know just aren't correct. i hope that you would independently look into this yourself. i will not convince you today. if you have the opportunity to have a state scientist, man, that would be great. a final point i want to make. when they built the dam on the san joaquin river, they took out spring run salmon. 800,000 of them. extinct. gone forever. the difference here is that the extinction we are seeing in these tributaries is slower. but it is just as final. this group doesn't want to be responsible for extinction, i would think. as a native san franciscan, i hope you would choose the right thing here. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next is mr arthur feinstein. >> hello. nice nice to see you all again. i am chair of the sierra club
conservation committee. i am also a resident here. i am supporting the speakers you have heard before who urge you to reject your staff's proposal. and stay neutral but certainly do not support your staff's position. we would prefer you to be supporting the state water board 's position. when i was executive director 30 years ago, whatever it was, i get older and older, i lead a group of environmental organization suing the state water board over their water plant back in the nineties. we are pretty successful in that and ultimately the bay delta accord came out of that. we sued them because you were saying, you don't need water. the bay delta accord came out and they said, you do not need a lot of water. you need functional water, which i heard today. i was shocked to hear it. the salmon -- they knew when
salmon needed water but salmon did not listen to them. this idea that we can manage water, pick the right time, doesn't work. we have seen it. are we going to repeat history and follow that thing? we will leave it to their extinction pack we have seen what happens. habitat is great. it is essential. but what is fish habitat? it is water. gravel, all of that other stuff is part of that. that is what you get if you have enough water in a stream at a river system. those habitats develop because the water is there. if you just put in that stuff without the water, you are not going to be successful. i really urge you to take a step back. i have worked with your staff for a long time. i have known them for 20 years. they are great guys but they can make mistakes. they have this time. we know that because we have
seen what happens. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next five. i will call you up to the podium i will start with sonya. kendra stoltz, elizabeth dougherty and tim. welcome. >> good afternoon president and commissioners. i am speaking for the sierra club, california. we thank you for finally, after a year and a half, bringing this topic to a public agenda for discussion. the sierra club finds it extremely disturbing that san francisco is opposing the state water board's plan and feeling
the flames of opposition with a misleading campaign. it is alarming that the city is aligning itself with extreme anti- environmental voices and the trump administration which is moving on a bunch of friends to dismantle and disable california processability to manage his own water resources for its own residence. a big challenge here is we tend to look across the bay and the delta as we cross bridges and we see so much water out there. there is a lot of water here. what is the problem? the problem is that it is saltwater. as you no kak and estuary requires a very intricate blend of salt and fresh water. in the san francisco bay delta has not been getting the amount of fresh water that it needs.
the sierra club appreciates the enormous ecological, economic and cultural value of the services provided by the rivers, including the san francisco bay delta estuary. we have consistently made comments supporting 50% or above of the national -- natural runoff allowed to stay in the rivers. i i think it is time for san francisco to take a stand, support the board. this plan has been eight years in the making. there has been lots of time for discussion and for settlements. and san francisco has stumbled. has stonewalled the state board. let's get off the opposed position, the nonflow measures
proposal is a nonstarter. work within the 30 or 50% framework, which allows room for adaptive management. and work with the other stakeholders and the state board don't move this and push the store's litigation, which is where it is headed. that would be a lose lose for both the delta and to for san francisco. reclaim your reputation as a leader in water conservation. >> president kwon: thank you. >> thank you. >> president kwon: next is kendra schultz. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i and the energy and environment associate at the silicon valley leadership group. i am here on behalf of our 360 member companies who collectively provide nearly one of every three private sector jobs in silicon valley.
at contribute more than 3 trillion to the worldwide economy. we have serious concerns about the state water resources control board water quality control plan and to the negative economic impact that this would have on the millions of residents and all the businesses across the bay area who depend on this water. our member companies rely on this water, not just for their operations, but also for the day-to-day needs of their employees who live in the region that is why we are pleased to speak in support of the alternative plan developed and proposed by the p.u.c. which is based on 30 years of research and over 200 site specific studies. we believe this alternative plan will protect salmon and steelhead populations on the river, without compromising water supply for current water users. it would also ensure the area has a necessary resources to prepare, plan and adapt for future droughts in the face of a changing climate. our members are also pleased
that the state departments of water resources and fish and wildlife, as well as governor brown, have stated their support for a negotiated voluntary settlement. further, it is encouraging that the state water board has also postponed it's decision to allow more time for such a negotiated settlement. we too are urging all parties to work towards a negotiated settlement that will protect our endangered species, support the livelihood of the bay area residents, and most crucially, ensure we are prepared for a future where we can expect more and longer droughts. i appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and share concerns with the current bay delta plan and expressed support for negotiated settlements. on behalf of our members, i respectfully request the deferral continue until a voluntary settlement is negotiated. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next next is elizabeth dougherty welcome. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am the director of holy h2o on
the bay area water stewards. i am a member of the advisory committee for bay area regional reliability. i do want to be really upfront in saying that i have a three-bedroom house in oakland that i rent out two of the rooms to people from the east coast who are -- to people who are not generally watch her conservationist at heart. in our house, lee 17-20 gallons a day. that is with growing an enormous food garden, eight or ten fruit trees and whatnots. i guess if we were thrifty, we might be able to meet the mark of one of your residence here that is down to 12 gallons a day i will go home and crack the whip. [laughter] >> so, i keep hearing this conversation that is really putting fish on one side, and humans in economics on the other side. so i don't want to call it
exactly fake news, but perhaps a false dichotomy. in the sense that while we are specifically talking about salmon and smelts, there is something that those creatures do. they represent keystone species, meaning that when those species fail, and many other species that depends upon them fail as well. and so there is a great question , to bears poop in the woods? yes, they do. date poop fish emulsion, if there is any. what does that do? that causes the trees to be healthy. what does that do? that causes water to be filtered properly through soil. and through evapotranspiration. while we are talking about fish, i want to emphasize we're talking about something way beyond that. and that you cannot take 80% of the river out of the river watershed for years and years
and years, without experiencing the failings of that. without watching the watershed fail. which is what we are doing. because residents of that watershed ecosystem are no longer thriving. their populations are dropping. sometimes down to zero. that is what we are talking about here. if that watershed fails, what is the long-term prospect for healthy humans here in the bay area? what is a prospect for bolstering business in silicon valley? we have very little. if we do not do the right thing is to protect the watershed, and taking 80% of it out, 80% of the water out is not protecting the watershed. which is, in part, what they p.u.c. should be committed to, as protecting the watershed and not just selling their watersheds. thank you, very much. >> president kwon: thank you.
mr rosenkranz. welcome. >> thank you. i am the executive director of restore [indiscernible]. we have no position on this proposal but i have a few comments i would like to make about it. you are on record as saying you have your own proposal, and you and you will try and negotiate and people say that that doesn't work. maybe you litigate, but my suggestion is that this commission, directs staff to figure out what you guys are going to do if it does become law that a substantial amount of additional flow needs to go down the river. as you no, you have junior water rights on the river. they have the oldest irrigation districts in the state.
you agree to put the majority of any increase in flow down the river from your supply. even though they use four times as much water collectively as your regional system, you have to meet the majority of any increase that puts you guys in a tough spot. something the state board has no control over. i would like to say, are you just going to resist, or will you figure out how to comply if you do need to comply? i would like to read a statement that a commissioner made 18 months ago in this room with regard to respective plans. he said as a responsible public water agency, we would have to do everything we did to make sure that wouldn't happen. we would have to be obligated to make an investment. last week, there was a man of the state board talking about
additional water projects that we mention today that you might need to pursue. those take a long time. the state board initially came out with this proposal six years ago. they they hope to implement it in a front for years -- in four years. you spend a lot of time with your own plans to resist. maybe you will be successful resisting, but will you be meeting the needs of your customers? if i were in your shoes, i would direct staff to clear out what will happen and how you will operate your system if you do need to put much more in the river. >> president kwon: thank you. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners i work -- i live in san francisco and i am a taxpayer, and i was sitting there estimating how much money i've spent on property taxes in the
next -- in the last 34 years. i'm astounded i i even made that much money. i am here asking you to support the state water board process efforts. i served as council to the coastal commission previously and they taught at ocean coastal law for last 24 years. it can't survive or thrive without access to fresh water. an average, according to the state board, 60-80% of the fresh water is currently being drained during the spring from the lower san joaquin river. this is simply unsustainable. the state water board reports that the bay delta needs at least 60% of unimpaired flows. but is recommending only 40%. the p.u.c. should be supporting the flow.
they should be supporting 40% staff recommendation. you are joining forces with those to protect the fresh water that is flowing into it. and negotiated settlements is no replacement for freshwater. it won't work. it will not avoid litigation either. the estate plan is an adaptive management approach. it has a 30-50% flow. it is flexible, depending on conditions. these negotiated settlements are no replacement for adequate fresh water. thank you. >> next five.
teresa hardy, if you will come up. line up here. welcome. >> good afternoon. i am here as a representative of the san francisco bay chapter chapter water committee. i will reiterate the things that we have heard this afternoon. first off, i am really speaking for constituents. the residents of the counties deeply care about our environment. and they would like to see you reflect that position in what you vote on as far as water.
you are a pointed officials. you are not elected as an elected official. you, one would hope you would be aligned and to reflect the viewpoints of your constituents. and also, as a pointed officials , maybe you have an even greater need to really look at what everyone is saying. you have heard from the river trust, you've heard from the sierra club. you have heard from san francisco residents. you have heard from fisher people. and to really take some more time to look at what the water board is proposing. i am not an expert on water. i do know that tom spoke to you earlier and he is an expert on water. but i but i think you really need to be willing to look at the proposal by the state water board and supply it more water to our rivers. i do know, you know, the growth
in the bay area is projected for 2 million more people by 2014. that san francisco is planning to accommodate a rapid increase in commercial development for business people. you have heard from commercial. there was an article in the l.a. chronicle and it was titled letting california -- letting california rivers run is not a water grab. one might say it is an un- grab because that is a way of sustaining the complex ecology of our state. when i was at the water hearing on tuesday, there were several native american speakers and they spoke about what native americans have done throughout the history of living in california. and one of the things they spoke about was needs. i referred to it that i was in elementary school teacher and that one of -- i will just go to needs. we all can't get all the water we think we need. the question is neat need and we
need to look at what needs are and what your constituents want and that you really look at maintaining those freshwater flows that the state water board is trying to do. thank you. >> president kwon: welcome, mr joyce. >> thank you for the opportunity i i am a san francisco resident. i am a big fan of your work. i'm a proud and super green subscriber. i live here and i'm happy to see the rain gardens that have shown up recently. a shout out to the hummingbird farm as well. i am urging you to support the state's plan in its current form i believe that seeking equitable water management solutions meant serving the needs of a healthy san francisco while contributing to healthy regional ecosystems and i believe it strikes a balance and it reflects the values of our city. as you know know, the most complex and persistent problems
or housing, transportation and resource management and they continue to require regional approach if we want to find just solutions. san franciscans like myself reduced our water usage during the 2010-2016 drought. i i also witnessed continued economic growth. my understanding is we had plenty of water held in reserve at the end of that. and also some very fundamental conservation measures were only very recently being adopted using recycled water to irrigate our numerous golf courses, for instance. so i ask, very sincerely, are we planning for unprecedented droughts? or are we ensuring we can build more luxury hotels? at one point does prudence become over-the-top, and when does it become selfish? i have seen over the years the people of san francisco consistently embracing choices,
the support of sustainable future and healthy and vibrant ecosystems. i ask that you help us do our part to restore the bay delta, the rivers that feed it and the historic salmon runs. and with the state's plan we have a once in a generation opportunity to do just that. thank you for your time. >> president kwon: thank you. >> good afternoon. nice to see you. thank you for allowing me to speak. i am director of government affairs for the building owner. we represent high-rise building owners in the city. this is an organization that cares about water conservation. we work with the city on the water conservation coordinates. we also sent a lot of messages to our members during the most
recent drought to ensure they were voluntarily asking their tenants and the building owners themselves to reduce the water usage. we are very concerned about conserving the environment and especially water. our members do you want a secure water supply. that requires sensible planning for the foreseeable drought, as far as we can tell. protecting wildlife and the environment is very important to our members. but a severe reduction in water supply would affect all san franciscans and members and every single business that is housed within those buildings that you see that represent the county of san francisco. the s.f. p.u.c. plan promotes environmental sustainability and water reliability. we urge a negotiated settlement with state leaders with the p.u.c. to move forward. the bay area plan is something
that we are watching. we have not taken a position so we do ask you to continue working with the state leaders to find a solution. thank you for your time. >> hello. i am, my family came here during the dust bowl. we lived in stockton and fresno and i picked grapes. and now i live in palo alto. i can say i'm very proud to see how the city council voted. i i was in union organizer for city council to go against the staff, all the recommendations i am mixed because the city council voted because they looked at all the materials, and everything and they realize that the environment and our water usage and that was the best plan , the delta plan. i urge you all to look at the plan and you think about all the scientists, on all sides. i have been going to the state board meetings and i can tell
you that every position had a scientist backing their plan. we had farmers saying we need the water. we can't even take showers. it takes 1 gallon to produce a one element. 25 gallons is what we are saying that is 25 omens for the farmers who are saying they need water. i think the delta plan is a compromise and there are pistachio owners who say they will litigate too because they want the water. i urge you to realize there are many people in the delta plan. it is a compromise. they listen to every side of the story and they listen to all scientists on every side of the point. they thought their method was the best. i urge you to realize that they have put a lot of energy and listening and i want to thank you guys for having the opportunity to listen to us and build into the delta water plan and make your own decision. it is a compromise at some people think it is a lose lose and some people