new, and possibly the final, phase of analysis of this project. we want to do hydraulic modeling, delta modeling, water supply modeling to find out the true environmental impacts, and also estimate the full costs to each agency. 94% of this new phase of work may be done by staff time. we are only going out to consultants 46% of the work. once the -- to consultants for 6% of the work. once the costs are known, our agencies will know whether to take this project to the next level. in these uncertain times, we are not really sure -- and no one can tell with certainty whether just recycling or conservation will be able to meet all our future water demands.

not only that, we do not know the true effects of climate change. i think we need to find out the environmental effects of this project to find out whether or not to proceed. thank you. president vietor: next speaker -- vice president moran: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is emily corwan, with contra costa water district. we approved the project in may of this year, and consider desalination the water supply option worthy of continued evaluation. the proposed regional approach represents an opportunity for bay area water suppliers to partner and make our region more

resilience during droughts or natural disaster. the tests are in themselves and valuable for emergency preparedness, whether or not a fall the selenite -- whether or not a full desalination facility is pursued. this will evaluate how our agencies can assist each other in the event of a disruption, emergency, drought, planned outages, and integrated water management plan as required by the state. the questions raised by environmental groups about potential diversion are excellent questions. these are the very questions these studies have been designed to answer. the information we collect during this coming phase will help all of our agencies make fully informed decisions about the potential benefits and consequences of pursuing a shared facility. the information will allow

decisions on if, when, and how in the next steps may be approached -- and the next steps may be approached. -- any next steps may be approached. they are immediately valuable for use in future emergencies, and planning integrated water management. the level of cooperation and joint study in this project is without precedent. we look forward to continuing with all the major water agencies in our region on this study. i also wanted to mention -- commissioner torres asked about other agencies that are examples of working together. on the santa cruz project, there is a joint project with the socal creek water district. they are currently working on their eir, but we are looking at

that closely to see how they craft their interagency agreements. what was the other agency? -- commissioner torres: what was the other agency? >> socal creek. >> we are a consumer advocacy group engaged with concerns about desalination. there are serious environmental implications for a plant on the san francisco bay. i think as word spreads, there will be more common. our salmon populations have been in serious peril, and this would be in the path of their spawning circles. we need to think about how we are spending in areas of limited

budget. that is why we are opposed. desalinization will represent a choice between different water supply options. we think it will undermine conservation options, decentralize options that are important in san francisco -- the urban agricultural movement, the use of groundwater and creeks. i would encourage sfpuc to become a leader to further those issues and work with the community to reinvest ratepayer dollars into the community. i think that would be more appropriate. we are seeing water demand declined all over california, and that is good. there are different reasons. it is important to work to keep water demand low. that needs to be worked out, insuring revenues are met.

we are selling our model. how can we do that, encourage conservation and keep demand low? it has been pretty flat in california over the last 25 years. los angeles uses the same amount as 25 years ago, and have english progress in their backyards. that is why we are opposed to this current project. we have seen so much excitement about desalinization all over the state, yet a single project has not been built in the last 20 years. the carlsbad project in san diego has been approved, but has not been built. i think there is only one facility in the united states, in florida, which was hampered by cost overruns and was four years late. that is the example in this country. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is eric brooks. i am with grass-roots group our city, and the chair for the san francisco green party. i will reiterate what i have said before. just as building fossil fuel power plants is an aggressive industrial greenhouse gas producing and expensive method of dealing with its effects, like water impact, building an expensive high energy use desalinization plant represents the same approach. we are building a major industrial facility that belongs in the 20th century when we should be using local approaches to localize our water savings and water supply to our

communities, doing things like installing permeable pavement, putting in bio soils, water collection, and gray water piping all over the city. we are talking about things that would create hundreds and thousands of jobs in a time when we need them, when the employment rate is still -- unemployment rate is still going up in san francisco. just on the environmental issues, clearly it is going to be something that is going to increase greenhouse gases. increasing greenhouse gases to solve the climate crisis is a contradiction in terms. we know that if this facility goes in there will be an impact on endangered species. that is a fact. it is vital that we stop using 20th-century approaches to solve 21st century problems.

there is very little justification for projection of water use increases. the numbers are going the other way. i go back to the fact that the economy is in trouble. we need jobs. we could be taking this $200,000 and hiring a crew of workers to install permeable pavement right now. that would put a few people to work. that is the kind of thing we need to be doing with $200,000 in the middle of the great recession, which many are climbing is over, but obviously is not. we need to pick people to work, -- put people to work, not do a study when scores of proposed desalinization projects in this country -- only one is going forward. that is because when environmentalists like myself come forward and make the case, we prove the case.

this is not an environmental way to solve our water and global warming problems. vice president moran: mr. brooks? >> you would concede there is a need in the central valley for more water, correct? it does not fit the model you were referencing earlier. where is permeable pavement used today? >> it is a fairly new process. if you have been walking down the sidewalk, where we have trees in our sidewalk, and see those little square bricks that have replaced the cement, that is an example of permeable pavement. >> my dog loves that. >> right. it is an example of another environmental benefit of permeable pavement. it allows water to soak into the water table instead of running down into the ocean. as to the central valley, if

they have issues, especially because agriculture is taking city drinking water in another direction, i think we all know agriculture still is not doing what it needs to do to conserve water. problems like that need to be handled in the regions where the problems are created. in agricultural areas, sometimes there is brackish water, we'll brackish water in a water table -- real brackish water in the water table, which could be used for water supply. that is not where san francisco is at. i do not understand why we would spend $200,000 on this one we could install permeable pavement with a handful of workers and give them some payment right now. vice president moran: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is rick wong. i am from the santa clara valley water district, the project manager, representing the district on this project. i would like to give you a brief explanation why we have tried to pursue this project for ourselves. santa clara valley water district serves 1.8 million people in the county, and it relies on state water projects, and also had ceci water from your agency. -- hetch hetchy water from your agency. half of our water supply is coming from groundwater. while we are investing heavily in conservation and recycled water, and still project a water short file in 2013 -- shortfall

in 2013. -- 2030. we think the salinization could be part of future water needs. we want to work with the other agencies. as they mentioned, we started since 2003. the district has committed resources along with four other agencies who are presenting their views in front of you. we ask you to continue to support this project, and to approve the funding necessary for yourself on this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.

my name is amara florence -- florez. i am the project manager for the bay area regional desalinization project, one of the partners. we support the regional approach to solving collective water management challenges. desalinization is an alternative worth fall consideration as a means to diversify our supplies to our customers in cities like more and dublin -- moore and dublin. we are committed to exploring the use of recycled water in our area. given our role as water research management -- resource management, we must evaluate all feasible possibilities to make well informed decisions for meeting the future needs of our

community. we hope you continue to support this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with bright line, and i want to join in asking that we do not fund the study. a lot of things have been said. i will add there is a good sense the plant will never get built. there is a reason they are not being built. commissioner torres talked about the need to address the underlying reasons why this is being studied. when you look at the studies from other counties like santa cruz, there are recent examples of jurisdictions that have studied these options for addressing the need for water desalinization and ruled it out. there are so many more ways to improve efficiency to accomplish

what wants to be accomplished -- permeable sidewalk, as mr. brooks mentioned, and many other ways to improve the water we do have. i just want to say that if we spend this money we are going to end up with something i think we are never going to build. i think we will find the alternatives create more jobs, more careers, rather than a short-term build a plant and walk from it. i would like to say we are not going to build thiso the extente resources and put them toward something we are going to do in terms of water efficiency, and realize these additional benefits -- that is what i would be in favor of instead of the study. >> additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks for the opportunity to address you.

i work for s.p.u.r. as sustainable project director. our advisory board had a discussion of desalinization and the bay area. we invited the puc, pacific institute, and others to talk to us and help us think about what we should do, putting it desalinization in proper context. first, i am not here to support desalinization or building any specific facility. it would be too preliminary to adjudicate that, and it is not the question at hand. we are talking about a feasibility study that can answer the remaining questions about the impact and opportunities of this water treatment. we think it is a responsible thing to do. not just that. it is good planning. we support the continued study of feasibility for desalinization at the east

contra costa site. this seems like it has been a bargain, with the grant funding as well as a great deal of regional cooperation and funding put together for this project, which in and of itself is a worthy pursuit, as other countries have mentioned. with 2 million more people moving to the area by 2040, we are going to need more water supply in the future. where are we going to get them? we need to know the alternatives in order to have that discussion. even in the retail area, it is true demand in california is going down, as it is here. we have a significant projected shortfall when we expect more people to be living in the bay area, competing for the same supply. we need to consider the options on the table for how to source of water, especially given the uncertain trajectory of climate change on water supply.

this kind of evaluation was recommended in our recent study on planning for climate change adaptation. we actually recommended in the report that bay area water suppliers a value with alternative options and the band management strategies, including conservation, recycled water, and others, in order to prioritize cost, reliability, and environmental for actors. we specifically included desalinization because of its invulnerability to drought, but we need to know the potential cost and benefit. there will be trade-offs on environmental benefits and revenues. that is true for desalinization, delta water, or diverting a river. we need to know what we are dealing with to make informed choices. continuing and completing the study is not picking a winner

right now. we urge you to look at all possible water supplies as part of good planning. that is what we are here to support. thank you. vice president moran: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> commissioners, what is your pleasure? commissioner courtney: not only did i find it compelling, but i appreciated everybody who showed up. the conversation enlightened me on a few different issues. i am hoping we can send a strong signal. while i take mr. brooks's comments to heart, i want to apply that kind of evaluation a little bit differently. rather than balancing the value

of applying to hundreds thousand dollars to a continuation -- $200,000 to a continuation of a study about which our partners are enthusiastic, balancing that with doing other things which would employ workers, which i made no secret that i represent workers -- i hope we would continue in the direction of studying the merits of the salinization, creating opportunities for the public, the stakeholders, staff, and everybody else to give us an exhaustive report. frankly, i do not disagree with mr. brooks. once we have that data available to us, that report, those recommendations, and everybody's

collaborative efforts, that will give us an opportunity -- certainly me, because i represent workers -- to evaluate whether it is beneficial to us to go ahead and build. we do like to build things, right? to go ahead and build it or find another way to engage in the conservation we know is necessary while we employ workers. it is all about jobs. i definitely wanted to thank you, mr. brooks, for talking about workers and jobs. i think we just have a slight disagreement about when we balance those interests. i am prepared, as we sit here now, to move forward with the staff recommendation. vice president moran: is that a motion? commissioner courtney: so moved. commissioner caen: i will

second. commissioner torres: i have a suggested wording change, if the commissioner would entertain that. in the fourth whereas, it talks about the puc interest in exporting gallons per day, it's a truck after the word needs, i would recommend putting in the phrase -- of its retail and wholesale customers. this is not just for the city itself. to get that on the record i think is a good idea. vice president moran: that is an amendment. do i have a motion for the amendment? and a second? discussion on the amendment? on the amendment, all those in favor? opposed? thank you. on the motion as amended? all those in favor?

ok. call the roll. vice president moran: aye. commissioner caen: aye. commissioner torres: no. commissioner courtney: aye. >> the motion passes 3-1. vice president moran: next item, please. >> the next item will be hour closed session. i will invite any public comment on closed session items, if there is any. vice president moran: do we have public comment on closed session items? there are none. >> could you entertain a motion to deal with the items listed below? threat to public services or facilities, consultation with agency chief of security, and conference with legal counsel

about property settlements in a san francisco superior court case, 436930, filed january 31, 2005. is there such a motion? vice president moran: moved and seconded. the motion carries. >> we will now go into a closed session. president vietor: the commission took no item -- action on item 16. could we have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. president vietor: all those in favor?

opposed? >> any other items before we adjourn? president vietor: seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.