some of the water out permanently so there's no way that the salt balance could be the same over the long term. also, up front, when you suck the water out of the bay or ocean orest rarry, you're going to -- orest wary, you're going to take massive amounts of especially small living things -- if we were to go guard with a plan like this anywhere in the san francisco bay there would be a take of endangersed species and that is unavoidable. the reason that we're at this point is because of global warming, essentially and to use desalination as a strategy is very like some of these ideas to put particles up in the atmosphere to block some of the sun out.

at the beginning it sounds like maybe a clever idea but when you dell much -- dell have the impact it's going to have on the environments and specific -- specificly, on energy use, you can't leave that out. and specifically to the letter that you received -- and i was able to find outs this morning that not only our city, the group they represent, but also san francisco green party has agreed to sign on to that letter as well. i hope i'm not losing your support, commissioner. so the point here is that we haven't had a lot of new information on this since 2006 and that most enviros are opposed enough to this that that -- what we're seeking is to now engage a real open public process before we decide to spend $200,000 on a study.

because a lot of the questions being raised about environmental nps, emergency use, endangered species, grassroots organizations like the ones on the letters will be willing to let you know about those things without spending $200,000 and a lot of those things will convince you that a lot of the impacts are so extreme that we don't think you'll want to do this. so let's have that public dialogue before you decide whether or not to be the $200,000 into the study. commissioner torres: mr. brooks, before you leave, i can't resist take a little bit of a poke. i'm not going to ask you whether you would have diversions come out of the fish flows of alameda creek --

>> you can if you want. tress terse terse, but first of all -- commissioner torres: -- but first of all, welcome to the dance. i'm glad you're here. i'm glad you're focused. it should not be a surprise that this is an issue in this front of us. this is continuation of a long-standing project. we accomplish advance calendars so you can see it coming. you spend a lot of time in front of the commission so it should not be a surprise. that said, the issues that you raise i think are important ones for you to consider. i think the study and what follows from it is how those questions get answered appropriately and i will expect that we will stay engaged for some time. >> mind if i comment back? i think what came as a surprise is not that we're considering desalination but just since 2006 this has been on a low

boil. like the letter says we need some information about san francisco's water use that's very basic. so it's the action on the item itself that surprised everyone. everyone i spoke to about this that has been much more involved on water issues than i have, was surprised that this action item itself happened so quickly without any public vetting. yes, there's been a lot of discussion of desal but now it looks like we're getting ready to head towards a pilot project and that's what's scaring people. we want a little bit more time to have discussions with you and stakeholders discussions with your staff to make sure this is the right place to spend $200,000. thanks. >> thank you. my understanding is that this is study oaf all the issues. >> this is a study of all the issues that have been raised in

the letter and in the public setting so far and it's also to have a dialogue aamongst the five agencies with the public. it's not just san francisco. people need to hear what other people are commenting in other parts of the region as well. >> we could do a hearing for free. commissioner caen: the $200,000 figure, hosts that arrived at? >> it's in your package. some of it is for high dralic modeling. -- hydraulic mod moling. some of it is some technical information to present to the public. ours is $200,000 out of about a $1 million commitment. it will probably with less than that. it was up to $200,000. there's still some negotiation that needs to happen but we

wanted to have enough latitude to be able to ask -- answer all those questions that were raised. commissioner caen: mr. jensen? >> thank you. art jensen. certainly, it's never too late to join a dance. i think that reading the documents and the history -- a suggestion that it's premature to do a pilot study is a little bit late to the dance. the pilot study has been done by this commission. so i would hate to see on the one hand money spent go to waste. on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to throw good money after bad. >> why don't you indicate me. i'm new here. >> in terms of? >>? terms of prior expenditures. >> all this is in the staff memo. >> why don't you tell meny -- anyway for the people who don't

have the study in front of them. like the public. the may 2001-2011 cost sharing and payment. delta, 300,000. greenhouse analysis and reduction, 60,000. outreach to the public. zero. zero. >> through this project, that's true. the memo described -- you read it yourself. your memo described the study that was done. outreach to the public -- >> you made a comment that we would be wasting money that we've already spent. for the purposes of the television and the rate payers tell us how much, what it was done and what it was for. >> it's in your own staff memo. i'm not your staff. >> but you're a witness who made a comment and i was unindicated about that comment because i wasn't on the commission. >> i'm referring to the -- >> can someone on statue give

us an answer? >> i don't think mr. jensen was done. he was in the middle of talking about something. >> excuse me, commissioner, but i would like to have an answer to a very important question. i was not here. you've been here for a very long time. i have not. when someone says if we don't spend this money we'll have wasted all the money we spent before. i'd like to know what they're talking about. >> would you please respond? >> i'd be glad to answer the question. we paid 2/3 of how much you spent in 2009-2010. that was our share. >> and what did we get for that? >> do you recall what that money specifically went to? >> if i could make pun point in response to the question. it's an important question and one of the things they wanted

to get to and i hope you are watching my share of the clock. we are not a direct participant in the study. it's a regional study. we were participating through san francisco and paying san francisco representatives on this. we've been comfortable with that. we have sought at various times direct participation. the group was concerned about a number of things. we can'ted -- continued our participation through the p.u.c. i think the questions that you're asking, that the public is asking are just appropriate questions. i think doing any project in the delta is fraught with concerns about the impacts it will have on the environment, particularly this project, the greenhouse gases. all of those are relevant questions. the point i want to get to is if we're going to rely upon the p.u.c. to do work for us we would like to see that the work gets done or if you decide early on not to, this hasn't

been a ceqa project. it was mentioned in your p.e.r. it began work in 2005. this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. and the record is there for them to work -- looking a -- this project, that's fine too, but let us know. the worst thing we have to live with is the uncertainty in what san francisco is going to live with in the way of products. whether it be a study or water. thank you. >> thank you. >> in response to the question of how much san francisco has invested in this together with the other parties. san francisco has shared since 2003, 2 -- $283,000 on the projects -- excuse me, it was three agencies at the time. so the other three agencies each put in $283,000 plus two

prop 50 grants, totally approximately $1.2 million. for that funds we accomplished a prefeasibility study, done with the initial funding for the front, and then this is the pilot testing report for the mallard slew pilot project and the pilot engineering report done off that which cost in excess of a million dollars for this project. so that's been the investment over time by san francisco yawl qush equally with the other partners. >> referring back to the memo, the agency has received about $250,000 in state grant moneys. and then the feasibility study, which was completed in 2007, ranked three sites, correct? contra costa, bay bridge -- >> yes. >> i'm sorry to take the time

but i really feel it's important the public know what's in your staff memo. yes, i've read it. yes, i understand it but i think it's important for the rate pairs to understand what we read and the basis upon which we make a decision or at least on which i make a decision. the prop approved by the voters. for almost a million for a study to contra. following the testing, the study demonstrated the technical feasibility of di val nation at this location. so the $200,000 grant that we are being asked to approve today is the next step after these previous steps. >> that's right. >> and that step is, which is why some people are concerned is that we're actually going to being -- looking at hydraulics and other variables and what i'm concerned about is that

within this $200,000 grant, none of it deals with outreach to the public. >> that's because we're not hiring people to do that. that will be done by agency staff from the five agencies. >> i understand that but i think the public is owed some type of hearing before we approve the 00,000 to articulate the varnlse and -- variables and to have the environmental community -- i think perhaps it would be appropriate for the public to hear. simply because you've taken one, two, three, and four steps doesn't necessarily imply that you have to take step five. >> that's correct. >> thank you. more public comment, please? >> thank you. peter dre conversation meyer.

i'm an individual, feeling an obligation to comment on the human dilemma. when we have to start looking at things like desalination, we're living beyond the care and capacity of our region. just like when we do everything we can to conserve our water and we're still seeing a decline in the fish. i've been reading a lot of urban water management plans lately and they all talk about population growth and job growth, which drives population growth, and it's not ever questioned. and we're in a place now where the population of california is expected to grow from 38 million to 60 million by 2050. at the same time we're expecting a lot less snowpack. 12% to 50% reduction in that team period. so a lot more people, less available water.

in palo alto, we have more jobs than residents. we're the worst culprit. i try to bring it up and it's not a popular issue because communities see job growth as great. it provides jobs and revenue for the community. but we're in this cycle like a pyramid scheme where we have to keep growing. at some point we really need leaders to step up. that could come at any level but perhaps at some point the p.u.c. could bring up these issues that we're contrarianed by the -- constrained by the amount of water we have available and we have to think about whether we can sustain the population. it's a question of whether we're proactive or does nature do it for us. it's a challenge and everyone is making good commedgets.

i'm not sure where we go but i hope this is the beginning of a longer-term discussion about the real root of the problem here. thank you. >> further public comment? commissioners? commissioner torres: we have a bit of a dilemma, i think. my concern is that we have this consortium put together. we want to kind of continue the work going forward but i understand the comments being made here and perhaps what we can do is we will work with our other agencies and maybe run a workshop and invite folks to come to that workshop on the

project. some people are not aware of the project. i would make that sort of a condition of approval because we would like to show a commitment that we are going to move forward with our other colleague is. but before we extend any money we'd come back to you and give you a presentation of the outcome of the workshop and what people said. i offer that as one way to move it forward at this point in time. because it's important that we start collecting this additional information, i think, because otherwise -- we don't have enough information to tell you one way or the other whether this is a good project. >> one final question, if i may. in, in fact, -- if, in fact, all reads lead to this type of approach. and i was a strong supporter of this type of technology and approach when i was in the

legislature but i've had second thoughts. how much would a plant like this cost in terms of our share? >> zero. the question is how big are other people's shares and how big is your share? all the other agencies and their boards are sort of sitting there doing the same thing, so the information coming back to you will help us to formulate a proposal that might look promising. do you want to move forward? at that time you could say no or you could say yes and then we'd go into more discussions with the other agencies and we'd have a project and so forth. right now there's no commitment to a project and i think it's important that you have some additional information that it's qualified. how much energy? how big is the carbon foot print?

we know a lot of information about the delta. what if we did have this intake by the delta? contra costa, when the salinity is very low, they use it so it's an existing intake. >> i would support this as a reasonable compromise to get us going. commissioner caen: there are two ways to go. one might be to take this as a compromise where we vote on this and possibly pass it with the caveat that there is a public workshop. the other is maybe we put this off the agenda for the next meeting or next month and in the interim there is an outreach effort that happens wpt public and with potentially the other staff at the other agencies to make sure this study is tight and that all the community concerns are embedded into the study so that all the questions are answered that are outlined in the letter, as i believe they will be, but if

there's anything else to make sure the public has participated in the process but to make sure that even with a full agenda that it would happen in short order. so i guess i want to get a sense from other commissioners if there's a preference and direction there as far as that goes, especially commissioner torres because i do hear you. i know i have the same concerns about public participation and realize that hasn't been as participatory that it could be to make sure a study like this happens, that's -- that it's in the greater context of some of the things brought up. we have some real issues we're going to be facing on a regional and global level about meeting our water needs and if this can inform that. with the state of technology and what we know about the usage and the impacts on the

ecosystem. if we know in the next nine months that we can put desal to bed forever or move it forward -- but i want to make sure we do due process before we call the vote. commissioner torres, i'm looking forwards you. if you feel like there could be an interim step and ask we bring it back the next step for a vote -- tresstress -- commissioner torres: either alternative gnaw brought up would be fine for me. the rate pairs who are going to be watching this hearing. i value the dedication and commitment and service of the current commissioner here but there are many rate pairs who might know what we're talking about. another i would support that as

well that you've laid out. but clearly i think at least a hearing dedicated to this issue. because i think it is an important issue. commissioner caen: i agree. i would like to do that as well, unless there's objection from the other commissioners to make sure it's aagenda diesed for our other commission meeting. >> i guess i'm a little confused but go ahead. >> my only question was which version of that would make the public hearing more substantive. and if we're trying to rush a public hearing before our next meeting, that's one kind of public hearing. if we build it into a process this public has going forward, that may be a more substantive process. >> the latter. >> -- commissioner caen: and i agree. and what is the time something to get this running along so we don't want to derail something

with you also give it due process. is there an appropriate intermediary step? commissioner torres: if the answer was the second, is that an amendment to the current resolution that would get us there? >> that would be a substituted motion. >> going back to the proposed work plan going forward that. outreach process is part of the agreement among the agencies to do this. it's one of the four things that we expect to accomplish in this 18 months is to establish that initial and ongoing dialogue. i appreciate that there's $200,000 here but the investment on the plan would be something on the order of $20 million to $30 million. this is a small step to get

down the path towards that bigger issue. this is a very important step we need to do. and doing it as part of this is what i would recommend. commissioner caen: i don't see why we would be saying an outreach, because we don't have enough knowledge. and certainly the people that spoke today, i think all of the points are valid but what more would come out if we had an outreach besides the same things we just heard now? we don't know more about it. >> i don't know if we'd hear more about the validity of the project. i think some of the concerns are the dollar amount and making sure all the issues have been considered as part of the study. >> and i think you could have as part of like a meeting or something, have a little scoping so that people speaking out on this project understand it's not just san francisco rate pairs, it's contra costa rate pairs and so on.

so you're talking about six or seven million people in the bay area. that's one issue and the second is addressing commissioner caen's sort of question. there are things we don't know. can you go get us this information? yes, we can and here's what we propose to do it. that's what we were trying to lay out. i'm kind of caught in between but what i think i'd like to recommend is a substituted resident los angeles that would allow us to sign the m.i.u. so we can get that into play but having a workshop or greater meeting in the bay area for whoever is concerned about this. commissioner torres: the m.i.u. commits us to commit $200,000, now, correct?

>> we stiff have fiscal control on that. >> i would be a no on that. commissioner caen: so i would then elect to put this off until the next meeting, to have a public hearing on it. >> the next meeting is that the southeast community center, i just wanted to remind you have of that. so we have a very limited commissioner meeting at our next meeting. and when you say a public hearing i'm trying to envision what that means compared to what we had here today. >> have the other four approved? >> yes. >> if -- the other two have approved their portion? >> yes. >> just one vote here. if the three of you want to move forward, go for it. that's democracy. >> does it make sense for what comes -- i share the concern. we continued with this meeting

in part to have a public hearing and that's what we've been having. we could ask for this to come back with a very specific addition and that is an outreach program. it would be built into the new york annex structure of the study this. is something that provides ongoing opportunity for people who couldn't be here today to understand the projects and also for us to understand their concerns about it. that's a two-way street. but basically to ask it to come back and say m.o.u. plus a process to make sure that at the next step that we don't have the same apparent disconnect between what we're doing and what the public is anticipating. >> appendage d in your bind summer this was just brought to my attention. which addresses the outreach.

identify the key stakeholders, + develop an outreach plan. develop informational material. >> i'm sorry, this is legrande pump station number zphrvings that's what i have. >> 12 d or something. >> what about that? >> it's after the pink sheet. you'll see the things that are being -- the very last item is

the public outreach. commissioner torres: d is in dog? >> d as in dog. right before the sheet before the foldout chart. >> i just have the same concerns about the 200,000 that were raised. this public outreach piece feels like something that we should be doing anyway and that it shouldn't cost 200,000 -- >> it's not included be the -- in the budget. >> it's being done by staff. >> it's like what ann and i were talking about, the new emblem for stationer iny. there was nothing spent but the staff did it. it's still staff time. still money being extended. >> we've had so many