tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 16, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
memoriam. >> for the record, mr. president, no actions were taken during the closed session. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory on behalf of supervisor brown for the late 64-year-old senior male who being homeless, was found passed away at corner of heys. on behalf of supervisor mainly y and for supervisor mandelman angus jay white and supervisor prespeskin cath lynn. >> that is the end of our agenda. is there any other further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today.
roll call, please? [roll call] >> we have a quorum. >> chairwoman: i'd like to announce for anybody in the audience who is interested in consent item 9f, that has been removed from the calendar. and i will announce that at some point we're going to take a 20-minute break for our lunch. we will decide that a little bit later. the next item, please? >> item three is a special election of officers, discussion and possible action to elect a commission president and vice president, each to assume a partial term in the beginning of october 2019. >> chairwoman: do we have a nomination for
president? >> madam vice president, it would be my honor and pleasure to nominate you as president. i also might say i'm dreadfully sorry for being late this morning. i have no excuse except to say that the mind is a terrible thing to waste. [laughter] >> chairwoman: well, thank you very much. so do i have a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: any public comment? any further discussion? all those in favor? >> yea. >> chairwoman: opposed? the motion carries. >> madam president, i would like to take the honor of nominating commissioner viajar for vice president. >> chairwoman: do i have a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: any public comment on the
nomination? >> does the commissioner accept? >> yes. i a accept your nomination gratefully. >> chairwoman: all in favor? >> yea. >> i call for a public nomination. >> chairwoman: moving out, the next item is the approval of the minutes of february 12th. >> i move for approval. >> i'll second. >> chairwoman: public comment on the minutes of the 12th? any further discussion? all those in favor? >> yea. >> yea. >> chairwoman: opposed? the motion carries. next item, please? >> item five is general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda? >> chairwoman: i don't have any speaker cards.
is there anyone who would like to speak? for any motion that is not on today's agenda? seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. >> item six is communications. >> chairwoman: commissioner, any comments on communications? >> no. >> i would just like to add there was -- [inaudible] >> chairwoman: let's see. one moment, please. there was communication with union -- local union 261. and we have responded to that, which will be in next week's -- the next
meeting, i should say. just for the record of that. next item, please. >> i call public comment. >> chairwoman: public comment on communications. seeing none, let's move on to item seven. >> item seven is other commission business. >> chairwoman: i would like to request, mr. kelly, that our next meeting enclosed session that we have a review of security. we have not had that for quite some time. >> will do. an>> chairwoman: any public comment on other commission business? seeing none, the next item, please. >> item eight is report of a general manager.
>> so the first item is clean power s.f. update, barbara hill. >> good afternoon, commissioners, barbara hail, assistant general manager for power. i'll provide the usual update on customer enrollment and service, and on our rates and the status of the 2018 anticipated changes. the current enrollment effort continues to move along successfully. the power opt-out rate, the program opt-out rate, picked up a little since my last report. we're at 3.3% since the program launched. so it went up .1%. our retention rate, that means, is 97%. our super green upgrade rate is 3.8% of our
costumers. this number, we anticipate, will decrease as we enroll such a large number of accounts in april. that means clean power s.f.has over 4,000 businesses and households in san francisco that have elected to receive 100% renewable electricity from clean power s.f. while operating the program, our staff has been very busy preparing for our major auto enrollment. we're enrolling approximately 280,000, mostly residential customer accounts, in april. an important part of that preparation is getting the word out. so the u.s. mail notifications are being sent out, and the team is busy engaging costumers at presentations and events, refreshing our mailings and our collateral preparing, partnering with the board of supervisors, and other city departments in getting our message out, and extending it to
limited english speaking communities. our team is preparing to welcome more than 250,000 costumers in april. we started sending the enrollment notices to those costumers in february. i think i reported before, we're sending about 65,000, 70,000 notices per week. and we'll continue to do that until the end of may. we anticipate sending over a million notices to costumers during this time period. but along with the noticing, importantly, we're seeing an uptake in customer calls and inquiries. we had almost 4,000 visits to our clean power s.f. website last week. that is up from about 1200 the week before. similarly, our call center has seen a significant increase in customer calls, increasing from about 240 two weeks ago to more than 1200 last week. so clearly the message is getting out. and that's what we want. costumers are engaged.
clean power s.f. will be increasingly visible own the coming weeks. this week you'll start seeing clean power s.f. ads on the muni buses. our staff will also be out throughout the city at various events, tabling, including the green business awards, the cal academy of sciences, family science night, and the public works arbor day echo fair. we're also seeing more super green upgrades, which is also good news. we had more than 300 sign-ups last week. so the message is getting out that we're ready to provide clean service, and costumers are taking us on for signing up for that upgrade. we saw a jump last week of about 7% in our clean power s.f. super green enrollment. i think that is really because our message is out there, active, and folks
are engaged. so that's all good news. now let's talk a little bit about the changes i pg&e rates. i've been discussing about the rate changes for 2019 and how they may impact clean power s.f., the rates you adopted in september. on february 21st, the california p.c. voted out what they call an alternate proposal in the energy resource and recovery account proceeding. that's where they evaluate pg&e's costs and set rates for a generation, and it also affects the exit fee charges. that decision paves the way for pg&e to set the 2019 exit fee and gen rate, and the outlook is more favorable than we thought when we presented to you in december. we estimate now that the expected 2019 exit fee will be reduced by about
5% on average. so that's good news relative to the bad news we were reporting in december. so it is, however, still expected to go up for commercial classes. and under the decision, pg&e has 30 days to file its actual rates. so the california commission has spoken, and pg&e will make a filing that implements that decision, and that's anticipated march 23rd, and until pg&e's 2019 rates are implemented, clean power s.f. rates remain the same. the clean power s.f. rates are currently set to provide costumers with a 2% savings against pg&e's generation costs, after accounting for the exit fee. so sign up for savings at cleanpowersf.org.
>> if i might, you said that the increase was down by 5%, is that 5% of the increase or -- >> it will be reduced by about 5% on average, on the 23rd we'll see what that really means for our costumers, and we'll be able to report to you what the actual is on a customer by customer basis. it is still going to go -- the exit fee is still going to go up, but not as much as we thought. >> by roughly? >> i can't tell you what the percents are per kilowatt hour. >> just percentage? >> i can't do that, either. i'll come back to you with that. i can report to the whole commission at the next meeting, if that's all right. >> so the april request will be the final, and that will be for everyone? >> yes. we'll have enrolled almost everyone.
i say "almost," commissioner because there are some large accounts that we want to have a one-on-one conversation with. we don't want to procure power, enroll them, and then have them opt out. we want to sit out with them, have the conversation, enroll them if they want to be enrolled, auto enroll them, and they'll opt out and we won't procure for them then, right? it is really a risk mitigation conversation for us, as well as an opportunity to explain more fully the service and whether it is advantageous to them. there are also some accounts that we have not enrolled in clean power s.f. because while they are currently served by pg&e, we are arguing with pg&e about them more properly being served by our atachi program. so we have refrained from enrolling those accounts as well. >> chairwoman: i see. okay.
>> but we do expect this to be our last major auto enrollment, yes. >> chairwoman: there was a very nice piece in the paper a couple of weeks ago, on the front page of the bay area, a section, that was very conducive to invite people to join into our system. >> yeah. it's great. it is good to get that media coverage to help amplify our message. thank you very much. >> a public comment on that. >> chairwoman: public comment. any public comment. comment on ms. hail's report? >> all right. the next item is the awss system upgrade, or update,
and this is john scarpula, who will give you a presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. let me get that power point up here. good afternoon. john scarula with awss. just to remind you all about the awss, it is a high pressure fire suppression water system. built after the 1906 earthquake. it was owned and operated by the san francisco fire department until 2010, at which time mayor newsom
transferred it. they are the end user of this system, and as such, system improvements and expansion are approved by three agencies together. so it is the fire department, the p.u.c., and public works, so all three agencies come together to make decisions on this system. additionally, until -- prior to 2010, robust hydraulic modeling wasn't used to make determination in terms of capital improvements for the awss. since we have taken over this system, we have implemented a hydraulic model to help guide this system. so when the system was originally transferred to p.u.c., the first thing we did was a condition assessment of that system. we completed a study. and one of the key findings from that study was we needed to improve the reliability of the water sources that feed into the awss. so they have primary water sources and secondary water sources. so the primary water
source is the twin peeks reservoir, the jones street, and it is total water that feeds into the tanks that then goes into the awss. the secondary source are two sea water pump stations. one located at the base of vavan nuys, and the other is located at the fire department headquarters on second street by the ballpark. so all five of those water sources needed some reliability improvements. that was one of the first things that we saw. and we were able to start completing projects on the awss system using what is called earthquake safety and emergency response bonds. we called them eserp bonds. and in 2014, we received about $54 million for capital projects. so what did we do do with
those initial funding sources? the first thing we saw was we really needed to shore up the water sources. we completed projects at twin peaks reservoir and jones street. and the fire department had planned 30 new cisterns, and we continued on that plan and actually implemented the plan they had come up with for the 30 new cisterns. 15 are on the west side and sunset district. and we installed remote capabilities for station number one, and we completed six pipeline and tunnel projects. so what are we looking at now? again, the first thing we had to do was shore up the water supply. i think a lot of folks, really when we took over the system, they wanted us to start installing pipe,
but before we could do that, we needed to shore up the water that runs into system. and now you'll see some key projects under construction now, and we're doing key sea water pump station number two, and the rest are all pipeline projects. we have some in the middle of the city, and then terry françois is done by the dog patch area. speaking of the dog patch area and the southeast side of the city, the large development projects that are largely in the southeast side of the city, must install new awss pipes within their development boundaries. so all of the projects listed below here are all installing awss pipes. and initially, the fire department talks with them
to bring the pipeline connection to these projects. we're getting additional reliability on the southeast, but we know we need to implement projects out there to supply and connect these new developments. so i'd like to talk a little about potential projects for future funding. so the board of supervisors may put a new eserp bond on the march 2020 ballot, and i say "may," because the process is the mayor's office would introduce an ordinance likely in spring that would go to the budget and finance committee. and the board and board of supervisors would have to approve that, and that's on the presidential primary ballot in 2020. in the 10-year capital plan, you can see there is a line in the water revenue section for $44 million. 44-782, and that is for the project i will get to
and explain to incoming slides. other potential projects that could be funded by the eac eserp line, there are additional projects adding new water sources to our high-pressure water system, but we really want to have an emphasis on the west side. so i'll move into discussing the west side portable awss. this project is designed to meet the robust standards by the fire department. they're the end user, so they really provide us guidance on the flow, the volumes, and what they need at specific locations to fight fires, and then we do the engineering to get them the water supply they need. it utilizes the same or better earthquake-resistant pipes, hydrants, and components utilized by the awss. there is new piping, for example. and there are new
technologies that we can look at and utilize to make it a better system than what has been installed. in addition, the system is ready to meet drinking water standards. during non-fires, we'll have minimum connections to the low-pressure water system by a sizable valve. if a fire occurs, these valves are colore closed and they're redundant pumps, and then the fire is put out. and after we bring the pressure down, and we open the valves back up. one of the maintaining benefits is if there is an earnz oearthquake on the west side, after the firefighting is done, the system will provide water to the city, even if there are breaks in the city's low pressure water distribution center. this is a set-up that has been used very similar to japan, which i has a very
similar seismic reliability concerns that we have. they have earthquakes in japan, like we do as well. what are the water sources for the west side portable awss? there are four connections to water sources at two locations. at sunset reservoir, we would have a pump section that connects with the north basin. and that contains 90 million gallons of water and can be isolated from the south basin. it went under seismic renovation and we spent about $40 million to seismicly update the north basin. and there is a main from the hatatchi water system. and we have a second location, lake merced. lake merced has about a
billion dollars worth of water in it, and we would connect directly to lake merced, and there is a transmission main that is 60 inches big that we would connect to there. so, again, two sources at that one pump. two pump stations, each have toog sources of water having two sources of water. this is a conceptional alignment. you'll see the lake merced station in the southwest, and the pump station in the middle east of the sunset district, with a loop system of varying sizes, with the largest pipes being in the south and getting smaller as we move north. so with that, i am happy to answer any questions the commissioners may have. >> i have a question. i'm a little fussy on this. but two or three years ago we saw a map of special
fire hydrants. and they were almost non-existent in the southwest portion. how does that all relate to what you just presented? >> correct. so -- thank you commissioner. so the awss has a different set of hydrants. they're bigger and they can handle more flow and more pressure. if we don't have the pipeline out there, then they wouldn't have the hydrants. so when we installed this new system, these high pressure lines, they'll get the high pressure hydrants every 500 feet. you will see the new, special hydrants that you referenced. >> so that's part of it? >> part of the project, yeah. >> okay. >> actually, part of the development, right, in the southeast? >> in the southwest. and, yes, in the southeast as well. they also have to put in the height drand hydrants in the
southeast side of the city. >> i think this is a great report, not just because i live on the west side, but it is a very complicated project. and the fact that you provided a great solution that semifinals multiple problems is applaudable. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: any public comment on this report? >> so with that, that concludes my report. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you, john. next item is the consent calendar. >> item nine, all matters under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no vote on these items unless so requested, and it will be removed from calendar and considered as a separate item. item 9f has been removed, as i announced earlier.
>> chairwoman: commissioners, are there any items you would like taken off the consent calendar? >> no. i'll move approval. >> second. >> chairwoman: discussion on this? all those in favor, yea. >> yea. >> chairwoman: next item, please. >> item 10 is discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution regarding the san francisco public utility commission's participation in negotiations with stake agencies and stakeholders, as an alternative to the amendment of the water control, quote, "plan., quote control quality plan. >> i'm the deputy manager for the water enterprise and the acting general manager for steve richie, who is taking a group of
irish men on a tour of our system. there is a proposed alternative resolution that has been put forward. i'm going to go ahead and give my presentation to provide context. i'll be going through the aspects of the resolution that was put in the packet that you have today, but will turn it over to you commissioners, ta about the alternate resolution that has been moved forward. >> okay, as a reminder, on december 12th of last year, the state water resources control board adopted the water quality plan amendment that had been proposed but made some important amendments. at that meeting, the california department of water resources and the california department of fish and wildlife presented updated information on voluntary agreements for the tawalmi
river as well as six another rivers, and included in over all framework agreement. and these are the tributaries that were included in the voluntary agreements that were put forward, and that framework of the river being in the red box there. so the state board action, as i mentioned, had some important additions to it. the state board directed staff to assist the california natural resources agency in completing a delta watershed-wide agreement, including potential flow and non-flow measures for the river no later than march 1st of this year. and to also incorporate the alternative as a future comprehensive plan with the goal that the update may be presented to the board for consideration as early as possible after december 1st of 2019. so the basic elements of what was presented to the board in december for the
tawalmi river included functional flows linked to non-flow actions, including variable flood plain inundatiion flows, and that would be funded and implemented with the $76 million capital expenditure, feasibility studies for water development projects, including additional water for the river. early implementation of experimental flow and non-flow measures that included in the voluntary agreement, and that would be with our partners on the river and irrigation district, and then developing and implementing an adaptive manage the for the tawalmi related to the function and biological responses to the non-flow and flow measures. our recent activities have been that we've been continuing to meet with state representatives, and
some new administration came in and quickly took up the voluntary agreement process. michael carlin is at one such meeting today, continuing to meet with the water agencies and n.g.o.s to further develop the details of the voluntary agreements. as i mentioned, we had a deadline of friday, march 1st, to put a voluntary agreement package together to the state board, and we did meet that deadline. a proposal by the water districts on the sanaflos river was also, and now we're not the only river owith a volunteer agreement. there is substantially more work to be done, but a commission resolution regarding the effort is timely and appropriate. i'll just go through what the re resolution that was put before you contained.
support for our participation in the ongoing negotiations process for the voluntary agreement for the tawalmi and delta watershed agree. they want to protect fish and wildlife species while also protecting water supply reliability. all should do their fair share to accomplish those goals. we should not bear a disproportionate burden in protecting the delta bay eco-system. and to continue to work with other local stakeholders in the voluntary agreement process. the final agreement should comport, as much as possible, with our water supply and sustainability levels of service goals, and objectives that the commission adopted under resolution 080200. at the p.u.c. contributions to flow under a voluntary agreement should not be
available for diversion by another party or result in reduced delta outflow obligation of another party, either directly or by inappropriate relaxation of the endangered species on restrictions to the delta. we would return to the commission to present the state's independent evaluation for the flow schedule for the tawalmi river. we would pursue planning and environmental review for early implementation of flow and non-flow measures for the river. and we would also work with m.i.t. and t.i. d. to develop a process using performance measures related to the functions and mechanisms of the flow and non-flow efforts, as part of a voluntary agreement for the tawalmi, and explore feasability alternative water, to meet our obligations, including
the offsetting of the flows in consultant with bosco. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chairwoman: i think before you entertain questions from the commissioningcommission, we woue public comment. >> okay. >> chairwoman: i have speaker cards here, and as you know, we have a three-minute limit on your discussion to us. the first speaker would be chris schultz. >> good afternoon members of the commission. chris schultz with the california fishing protection alliance. i came today to renew a theme that my colleagues and i brought to you and your staff a year ago, namely that you ordered the peer review of the don pedro fish population
models to support the tawalmi plan. it is for the new agreements proposed for the river. i came to ask that you review another model that supports the new agreement. so to start, i ask that you so order a peer review for these models. i'm going to provide you with more detailed comments on why it is important. having seen the alternative resolution, i'm going to change my comments a little bit as i speak to you. i also came to ask you to table the proposed resolution in support of negotiating voluntary agreements. and i came to ask that the commission change its business model in which staff announces a defense position before this commission, and the science that supports these positions. now there is an alternative resolution, and i still ask that you not act today. i will say i'm encouraged that the alternative
resolution represents the potential for a better way of doing business, and here is why: it represents a more hands-on approach at the commission level, and what the commission is putting its name to. some of my colleagues today will propose how it is not close to sufficient to achieve the salmon doubling goals adequately to restore the delta. this inadequacy is also clearly stated in an n.g.o. memo, written by n.g.o. groups inside the voluntary negotiations. my last act is that you ask staff to refrain from the promotion of the proposed tawalmi agreement while this commission evaluates and works to understand its details, and that the commission continue to develop a hands-on approach to the delta plan. i have copies of the
discussion of the modeling here for each member. thank you very much. with that, i'll take any questions. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. the next speaker is -- [inaudible] >> good morning. nicole sancula, first congratulations on your election, commissioner cane. i wanted to speak to you today in support of the resolution that staff that put before you. that was, again, what i was prepared to do. i think it is appropriate at this point for the commission to take such an act. i have looked at the resolution as well that you put on the table, and there are two things in particular from my perspective that are missing, that if you were
to move forward with that, i would encourage you to think to add. one is that in the staff proposal, there is language that references bosca's action to files intervened in your lawsuit. and i think from a perspective of your wholesale costumers, it is important as part of understanding our joint interests in resolving this, and our joint interests and responsibility for whatever gets resolved through this process. so that statement is, i believe, appropriate to put in the new resolution if you move forward. secondly, in the staff proposed resolution, there was a reference to the water supply level service goals that were adopted by this commission, resolution 080200, and the expectation that the terms of any voluntary agreement for the tawalmi river
would allow the p.u.c. to sustain water supply and sustainability levels as adopted by this commission with those goals. again, i think that is critically important from your wholesale costumers' perspectives. those are the assumptions and guarantees that we operate upon. and our expectation that any resolution through this process, the commission would continue to meet those level of service goals. so those would be two items that if you were to consider the revised resolution, i would ask that you amend into that. thank you. >> can i just ask one clarification question. that first item was to add bosca, if there is an amendment, as a co-join ner in the lawsuit language. in the current resolution? >> in the current resolution and the staff
resolution, it says "waas on january 10, 2018, the city of san francisco joined," and then it says "on february 14th, 2019, bosca filed a motion to intervene to protect its member agencies interests." to add that back in. >> thank you so much. >> chairwoman: the next speaker, i really can't decipher the last name. doug...111 sutter street. >> i want to thank the commission for taking the time to agendaize this today. one of the concerns that
the environmental groups has had is that the commission has not really engaged in its fiduciary role as providing oversight staff. i'm encouraged by the initial resolution, as well as the alternative resolution, that the commission is really engaging and starting to provide some oversight on staff. unfortunately, the voluntary settlement agreement for the tawalmi river negotiated thus far is wholly inadequate to protect and restore the health of the river. that's by conservation groups, those who signed the cover letter, and those outside the process, oppose it. and the groups who did sign that cover letter have authorized me to represent they do not support the proposal on the tawalmi. right now due to diversions by farms and cities, including san francisco, about 80% of the river's flow is diverted, in some years it is 90% or more. with the voluntary settlement agreement, we would still be seeing 80%
of the river being diverted in most years. rather than comment on the specifics of the resolutions because i do think it probably worth some more time by commissioners to weigh in, i want to ask a couple of questions i'm hoping you will think about as you weigh this. one is, the resolutions, both the alternative and the staff proposal, focus on negotiations in this process. and i guess the question for you and the question for staff is whether the negotiations are over or whether there are still negotiations about how much flow and habitat are needed to restore the health of the tawalmi. because i've heard through the grapevine that they said, we've cut our deal and we're not negotiating. so to the extent this resolution is directing staff to continue negotiating, i want to understand what negotiating really means in your view. as mr. schultz emphasized, we do believe that peer
review is important. they have references to the flow west model that has never boo been peer reviewed, but you have to look at what the state waterboard says because ultimately they're the decider here. and the staff resolution included some language about the delta and is trying to avoid the water that san francisco provides being diverted in the delta and going down to southern calgary and westlands. but unfortunately, the language in the re resolution doesn't work to accomplish that time, but i'm hoping to work with you to try to finesse that over time. one, we do have biological targets. two, i think setting the water supply... [buzzer] [inaudible question]
[inaudible] >> chairwoman: thank you for your comments. the next speaker is conrad fisher. >> on conrad fisher on behalf of water climate trust. i want to protect the water supplies and provides scientifically high probability for the recovery of salmon and other endangered and threatened species. and finally, that protects the human right to water for subassistant fishing. these are three maybe complicated goals, but we
can accomplish them. to the fish and the communities who depend on flow for cultural practices, money is no substitute for water. this resolution is taking us down the path that pretending that money can be a substitute for scientifically recommended flows. the recommended flows are developed after years of arduous struggles, and i think we need to comply with the scientists in this case as a base line. the flow standards are a starting point for the reasonable use doctrine, but they cannot be replaced with money for restoration, rather money for restoration should augment the flows. and i know maybe when some of you hear this, you're saying how do we guarantee the supplies of water for san francisco. i care about that very much as well. let's start by embracing the flow standards that comply to the dangered species and human rights, and pursue mechanism to
ensure water reliability mechanisms that do not threaten the future of salmon. let's do a little better job of doing the water math, tell the public how much storage we have and how much people consume. the prospect of an ag in the event of an emergency is high. to tell people san francisco may go without as it is flowing, the state board would step in in such a situation. and there are millions of dollars spent on water conservation and that conserved water is not earmarked necessarily. it is oftentimes spending taxpayer money to conserve, and not specifying where the water goes. i would urge san franciscans to step in and say let's ear mark some of that water for flows to san francisco so we don't have to lobby against the rights. they need to flood irrigate water for a lawn i don't ne. ineed.it is an example of waste
that should not allow us to pit ourselves against each other. peer review is good, but we need interim flow standards now. thank you. we must find a way that future generations have salmon swimming from goldengate bridge to sunset while protecting water supplies. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker is jim clark. >jim clark, are we here? okay. the next speaker, denise louis. >> good afternoon. my name is denise louis, and i'm a member of the center for biological
diversitiy. and i urge to reject the resolution, reject the alternative plan, and withdraw from any litigation against the state waterboard. the plan -- the alternative plan only delays protections for species other than our own. imagine your a baby salmon coming down the river, and the water's too warm. your chance of survival is not very good. the water's warm, so the baths are proliferating. they're non-native fish that eat baby salmon. your chances are even worse for survival. we need to increase the in-stream, unimpaired flows to keep the water cool enough to give the baby salmon better chances of surviving against all
odds, especially climate change. i urge you not to turn your backs to the process, the 10 years that it took the state waterboard to come to the plan it approved in december, which already was a compromise between the 60% that the scientists asked for and the 20%, which is the historic norm. the alternative plan that the p.u.c. promulgates is to keep the 20% historic norm. that's not sufficient to keep -- to protect the fish. so, please, don't turn your backs on the commercial interests, like the fishermen. don't turn your backs on the environmental groups, like the n.r.d.c. don't turn your backs on the process of having
>> i want to mention three things, first is peer review, which is a critical issue. we're all trying to learn the right decision for the ecosystem and second it's required by-law. if you want your work to be taken seriously by the state board, have a peer review. the same with the cvfw model. let's avoid delay. what would make the p.u.c. not
look good would be if the p.u.c. choses not to peer view its work. and then you you're told by the state water board, it must be peer reviewed. it would really not make the commission look good. these negotiations have been on going for about eight, pushing nine years. it's critical. we urge to you amend the resolution and say that while these negotiations move forward, the state board still move forward with its existing process in that delay. that's the second point. let's avoid further delay. the current standards in the ecosystem were adopted a quarter of a century ago and we're facing extinctions. it's critical we avoid further delay. third and finally, one of our concerns in the voluntary settlement agreement is not so much in your section but other sections of voluntary settlement agreement, there's very
extensive and deeply troubling double-counting of both water and habitat. frankly it raises real questions about whether the voluntary settlement agreement is a real package or smoke and mirrors. we've been raising that issue. that is not going to change until water users themselves in this process say, we need to scrub this package and get rid of the phony water and habitat. with those three -- >> thank you, mr. nelson. are there any other speakers that would -- i don't have any other speaker cards. is there anybody else that would like to speak to the item? seeing none. i'm going to turn it then to the commission. any discussion? >> thank you, madam chair. congratulations on your new
appointment. thank you very much to the public for your comments. proposed resolutions have been mentioned and i know that it was of the 11th hour that we brought forward another resolution. as such, i would like to request that we continue the item. i would like to make a few comments first. i would like to request if my fellow commissioners that we continue the item to the march 26th meeting in order to be able to review and incorporate comments from the public and any additional considerations that we might have. the alternative resolution, just to speak to it for a couple of minutes, and i'm not everyone looked at it or got it. i did feel that the current resolution that we have before us was inadequate in a couple of days. first and foremost, it did not clearly state the dire straits
and conditions of the bay delta. we are facing really, i believe, as a long-time environmentalist and in the environmental seat here at the commission, a real crisis of monumental proportions with the decline of the salmon. it is our responsibility, as a commission and as the protector of our water ecosystem, to take action as quickly as possible and to do something about it. i believe that this resolution did not adequately reflect that or state that. i am hoping that in an alternative version of the resolution, that we can clearly state the importance of moving this process forward and taking action for the health of the fish. i also understand and i'm very clear we need to maintain -- we have obligations to maintain our water supply for our residential commerce and our wholesale customers and our contractual obligations.