resource and control board last year for consideration. they didn't just reject the plan , they didn't even consider it. in the meanwhile, it intends to move forward a plan based on studies that do not pertain to the river and would have our fish production and terrible impacts on our californians and our service area. we are proposing a win win solution that will offer best results for the river fish and residents. 's marcher planning for climate change and a stronger collaboration among stakeholders this is a strategic upload -- approach that will include releasing more water and additional habitat restoration efforts. our proposal strikes a balance between the needs of the residence and protecting the

essential habitats. at the same time, we have seen an attempt to make this fight between the p.u.c. and the environment. but that can't, or couldn't be further from the truth. the p.u.c. is the agency where a long sit -- where there is a long history for advocating responsible environmental policies and practices. we replace thousands of fixtures in toilets across san francisco over the past several years to help residents and businesses conserve water. this has been the result in san francisco having, amongst the lowest water use in the states. early this year, we broke ground on a new state-of-the-art recycled water treatment facility that went complete and is expected to save 2 million gallons of drinking water per day. while other cities across the country are wondering how to deal with collapsing

infrastructure in the face of climate change, we invested 4.8 lean dollars in the water system improvement program which is almost complete and we gave a presentation on it. last week, the state deferred a vote on a plan allowing us to continue working with the stakeholders on a voluntary negotiated dish -- negotiated settlements. this is a good way for us to talk about a solution that could be implemented. as general manager of the p.u.c. , i committed to implement a smart approach for a positive outcome for the fish and consider the needs of our customers. with that, i would like to turn over to steve ritchie who will give you the presentation of our plan. >> good afternoon. i am the assistant general

manager for water. can i can i have the slides, please? i will refer to the lower san joaquin quality control plan which is another name for the san francisco-based san joaquin and delta estuary water control plan, phase one. take your choice. we can also call it other things the agenda i will go through and talk about the background. our relationship to the irrigation districts which are important to how we approach this. a little bit about the 2008 with so planning and reduction in demand. i will talk about the proposal and the effect of the proposal on the river and our water supply. our proposal capturing now -- which we now refer to as our management plan, and highlight again the settlements that are superior to regulatory solution that will end in nonproductive litigation. first, this is a map of the

sacramento, san joaquin rivers that flow from the north and south, respectively up into the delta. the green area on the map. and then flow out through san francisco bay. the tributaries to the san joaquin river are shown in red on the right. i will circle on there for another river which also did not make the map. it was the base map that we put together simply -- and it is relatively small for the damned rims on the other side. one of things that is important to note is our relationship from the irrigation districts. it was really established with the enactment of the richter act in 1913 that laid out some of the terms and conditions for us to be able to build our facilities on federal land, but really structured our relationship with the districts relative to how their water rights were memorialized in the plan and how we had to deal with them in these situations. it really ties us tight to the

irrigation districts. in this family, we sometimes are happy together and sometimes we are less happy together, but we are stuck together in a long-term relationship with the irrigation district. a key element to that relationship is laid out in 1966 and the fourth agreement. it provided the construction of the dam. san francisco contributed 51.7% of the cost of constructing that damn. in exchange for that, the irrigation district stoned the dam and had the flood control responsibility on the river. we obtained the ability to have a water bank there a 570,000 acres. which is critical for ensuring that we have a relatively drought proof supply. it does also provide in the condition that if the districts are damaged by a decision, that requires additional fish loads, that san francisco would have to provide 51.7% of those mandated flows into those conditions.

so there are -- there is some give-and-take that we have to deal with as we look at any proposal that comes out. thirdly, there is a 1995 agreement which was developed in the last process. it provides for us to pave the area eerie patient districts -- paid the irrigation districts formula dollars a year and they provide to the instream flows downtown -- downstream. that agreement is limited to that license. once the license is issued, the agreement goes away and it does not affect any other process. it just affects our relationships with the district. lastly, referring to the current process, the final license application was submitted in october of 2017. it supersedes the san francisco alternative that we propose to the state back in march 2017. get elaborates more and includes

more things that are for the benefit of the fish in the river >> sorry, you can i stop you for that. what was submitted is different than what was proposed submitted to the state? is that what you said? >> it is different. it has been an evolution. it has moved along over time. we think it's an improved vision -- version of what we submitted back in march of 2017. we thought it was a good start then but, you know, while the state was busy looking at everything else, we evolve further along to something even better than what was there now and in play in the first process >> is their there opportunity to further amend that? if desired? >> it is going through the process now. there's a lot of stakeholders and public interaction. things can get changed as a result of that. >> when is that decision made? >> they expect to have a

decision made later this year, in the fall or december sometime something like that. it will start the real big public review process. >> thank you. >> also i want to highlight on the slides again, the 2,008 program planning. originally, it was planned for 300 million gallons per day. when the commission finally approved it, it reduce the amount of san francisco that was advised to $265 million -- gallons per day for the benefits of the river and the local creeks. customers conceded a lot of diversion at that time and things evolved over time. we want to note that we do have water rights in excess of 400 million gallons per day on the river. currently, -- 265 million

gallons per day. they issued a draft in september of 2016. the commission actually had two hearings on it in january and february 2017 and the board of supervisors committee held a hearing on march 8th of 2017. our comments were submitted to the state on march 17th along with all the other comments. then there were some local meetings, but nothing happened from then until july 6th when the state issued a revised water quality control plan which did not really make any changes at all. very, very minor changes were made in response to the comments that were made at that time. we were all greatly concerned about that. i just wanted to mention, the san francisco alternative, their conclusion was that this does not provide the flow that we wanted, therefore we will not look beyond that. they were simply leaked or simply measuring flow as opposed

to biological benefits. they never analysed that piece. it was a shortcoming on their part. >> there was a prior draft of the plan. is that correct? >> there was a prior draft in 2012 that was put out. >> that was the one where our comments, at that point, raised the issue of forced agreement problems and their response was wet? >> at that time, we raise the issue because they identified the affected areas and did not relate it to us. they said well, even though you put the line they are, it could relate to us because of our relationship on don pedro. you had to deal with that issue. that is one of the things that they dealt with now. >> that was when they occluded in the appendix on the river? >> they did in the 2016 version

but that was the result of our comments at that time. a set of modifications that were ultimately the 2016 version. >> and that appendix acknowledged the issues and suggested that we deal with it? >> yes. >> and it was noted the state board held two days of hearings last week which were heavily attended by lots of people, including san francisco raising many of the issues that we have already raised. and that some subacute social -- subsequent dates, they will take an action. that might be november 7th of this year. if we could have the slide again , please? the state proposed to modify the plan to require dramatically increased instream flows in the rivers.

to benefit salmon and steelhead fish. by the state process proposal is based on research of other systems. it is an approach of unimpaired flow. forty% unimpaired flow through february through june. that is their proposal. that is an approach that can be effective in a relatively unmodified systems for a heavily modified systems. a lot of the biology has changed substantially. it is not necessarily going to result in the benefit that one might hope for. it is different in other river systems. >> are you saying the state purpose --'s proposal was not based on the study of the actual river? >> no, not of the river itself. >> what other river systems? >> parts of the pacific northwest. >> ok. but not the actual river system? >> that is really an important point for us. we have invested about $25 million over the last 20 years and detailed studies on the river and none of that

information was utilized to the best of our observation. >> do you know why they do not study the actual river systems we are talking about? >> it is a challenging job that they have in terms of deciding what to do. they went through an effort to work look at what might be good for the bay and delta system. they came up with a number of 60 % unimpaired flow as a very simple and elemental kind of approach. and what they did with this proposal was say, we couldn't take into account water rights and other effects. so let's back off 60% somewhat and accept the effects and deal with it and call it good. i don't think they went beyond that. it is part of the challenge of being a statewide regulator. it is hard to get down to the details and get to the number of the issue in different places. >> thank you.

>> we think it would have limited benefits for the river and the fish. and would seriously reduce the water supply. i will talk about both those things. the effects that they might have and that what we might have if we use our approach for the river and on the water supply. this details that we presented an alternative to create more fishery benefits with less water release, based on the studies we've done and how they rejected our proposal without a detailed analysis. we think we have a better proposal now and we think that is where we can get serious traction in negotiating settlements to go forward. the river management plan includes the basic elements big strategically timed flow including functional flows and functional flows is a phrase we used a lot to make sure that you know what you are getting with the water. you know what you are producing. with unimpaired, you don't know what you are getting except water kick there are mechanisms

in place that you can study with functional flows that are important to differentiate from an overall flow regime. gravel augmentation, cleaning, habitat enhancement and debris, predator control, not eradication. we talked about this in a meeting last year. we are not proposing to eradicate them all. if we control at certain numbers at the right time, we can have a beneficial effect. potential restoration hatchery, that is always a controversial topic.. but that is what they do on other rivers.. they have a hatchery. they are paying for it to produce fish on the river and people are quite happy with that do we want to go to a hatchery? i am not so sure. it is a possibility. and adaptive management. i will spend a little time on that. briefly, these are real people and real experts who are working on it. this is noah who is a ph.d. in prevention of -- and professional engineer who has worked for it still water sciences for many years and one

of the key modellers in the systems here. andrea fuller has worked on the rivers for 20 years. she is the leader of the monetary effort to look at the fish and see what they are doing out there. and a professor at u.c. davis who is looking at the thermal suitability for omega on the river. these are folks who are working. they are professionals in their field and do very high quality work. they have been the core team working on this all along. i wanted to put faces with those there are a lot of words on there that people can look at their leisure about their backgrounds but they are very capable individuals. >> i'm glad you brought that up. i have heard some environmental groups state they are both -- there is bogus science behind this and the experts. can you speak to these folks'

knowledge about the river? what is their background? >> well, they have focused on the river for the last decade or so. particularly andrea who has worked on the river for 20 years she grew up in the area. she loves working there. we have high confidence in them. we do a lot of work with professionals. biologists, engineers, and others. you don't hire people to give you the answer that you hope for you hire people to give you good information that you can actually act on. that is what we believe we have been getting with these folks. >> thank you. >> i have some some comparison bar charts here. they will be two steps. this is for chinook salmon character there are three blue bars on their character left blue bar's current conditions of what goes down the river. the centre bar is of the

proposed estate plan. the right-hand bar is what would come under the river management plan. many times, averages do not matter, but it is hard to not do anything other than average is because it is a very complex and deep subject. this is smoke production. they are salmon who are ready to migrate out to sea and they have started to change their biology. you see a certain amount of fish produced there. those relates to the the number of female spawners and the development of female spawners. you see a certain amount of production in current conditions you see better production protection under the state proposed plan and under our plan which includes habitat modifications and strategic flows. you see much better production and we think that's why we are focusing on fish production. were not focusing on hydrology as the answer. this is similar for steelhead fish.

interestingly, you see a certain amount of production that occurred here. you actually see less production modelled under the state state's plan. that is partly because it is a large like a set of flow running february through june. in this case, they end up being pushed out into the san joaquin and predated before they can get past the year old stage. you do not see an increase here unless there is modification to the flow scenario. again, greater production for the river management plan. these are modelled results. i want to make sure that there are qualifiers there because that is one of the things about any plan. you use your best job for modelling. but then you need to implement it and monitor it and adaptively manage it. >> but you said it doesn't factor in hydrology? or it does factor in hydrology but it is not conclusive?

>> it doesn't focus on hydrology is not the goal. the goal is biological improvement for the river. there's lots of other things that could be dealt with in the system there going down through the delta, which is a big deal by itself. a lot of that is habitat related in in addition to flow. >> so if you go back for a minute, that is just one piece of the puzzle. their production. as you were just saying, you have to get them to the ocean. >> that's right. >> that is just one piece that we are looking at right there. >> yes. we are focusing on what we can control, which is the river. that is the important thing for us. there's lots that have to be done in the delta and that is much less in our control. i have a photo here of predation i want to show it just so people have a sense of big fish and little fish. little fish have to get big to avoid being eaten or not to be

there when pet -- predators are around. this is a chart and it is very detailed. this would take a long time to walk through this. i am putting it here for illustration purposes. these are the flow measures from the river management plan. you will notice in the second column, flow measure and purpose there is a purpose for each of the flow sequences in there that happen at different times of the year, for different hydrologic conditions. above normal, below normal, dry, and critical. we are looking at the upper boxes for habitats. maximizing flows on the bottom set of things were functional flows for things like fault flushing flows got fall run chinook outmigration pulse flows , time to put water down when he want the fish to move. you will not just let it move when it feels right but they will move when you think the

fish are ready to move. so there is a lot of different characteristics there. i will not go into the details but it is put together by folks who have looked at what will be the best thing for the fish. the last thing i want to talk about is adaptive management. this is something that i think it's really important here. we have not talked about it a lot because we have not gotten past step one in terms of looking at the alternative. there is uncertainty in any plan , including our proposed plan, including the state's plan the plan has been developed in a way that can be adaptively managed. it is important to know it is a process.. it is not trial and error. and it is definitely not over reactionary or a gut level reaction. they are treating every activity as a large-scale experiment. it is a structured and transparent process to collect and use monitoring data and analysis to periodically reevaluate the mechanisms of the

plan. this is mechanism oriented. we are looking at putting this gravel into here. let's monitor that and see what it produces as as opposed to just counting fish. it is either a yes or no on the whole thing. that is not the best way to manage the river. we are trying to find out, are they producing the expected results, and if not, why not? based on the results, we need to consider modifications to the plan that we anticipate will improve the results and can be further monitored and analysed. that it's one of the big responsibilities we have in taking on something like this. we have to back it up with the ability to monitor it, evaluate it and as time progresses, make changes. we make changes every year. will you make changes every five years? may be. it depends what the results show we can't just monitor one year and say oh, we have to change everything because it is not the way we thought. these things all take time, especially when you are looking

at migratory fish and their potential at migratory fish and their potential return. i want to move over to water supply impacts. this is a reservoir in january 1991. it set the bar for us. our level of service objective, we have used it since 1994 and was formally adopted in 2008 to survive a specific eight and a half year drought planning scenario. there was no more than 20% rationing from a total system demand of 265 million gallons per day. that is what we used for the water supply planning purposes as we go forward. it doesn't mean that that is what will happen. in fact, a lot worse could happen than that and we'll talk about that concept as well. it is a way to help manage the water supplies and know we can protect the supplies for our customers. this is that shone diagrammatically. total system storage is represented by the blue line.

started at the left. the full system storage which is 1.6 million acres. along the bottom are the fiscal years of 86 and 87 through 91 and 92 and 76-78 lined up after that. you can see storage gradually goes down and there are breadlines showing where we would need to start rationing at certain levels to make sure we did not run out of water over that life. it has ten% at the end of the second year, 20% at the end of the fourth year 25% at the end of the 60 year. using that hydrology, it gets the dead pool in the middle of the last year before it starts to recover. so that survival. and it is a modelled condition. it is a scenario we would use. will it ever get that bad? we do not know for sure. with climate change, i i'm betting it will. it may get worse than that. so one of the things that we are already doing, is planning for

alternative supplies now. we are not sitting around waiting to find out what will happen. we are looking at different alternative supplies. certainly the beginning of the sequence or even before dick we have been doing that. with the expectation that somewhere at the ends, somewhere in those last couple of years,, we must have those alternatives. if we do not have those alternative supplies and that line keeps going down, i will be on the street looking for a job. i definitely don't want that. [laughter] >> that is correct. [laughter] >> the other thing that is true about that, if you don't have alternative supplies at that time, there is nobody that is foolhardy enough or has the fortitude to decide that we will stay with 25%. if you knew that that was going to run you dry, you would have to increase that rate. that is what we did. >> yeah.

looking at the next slide that shows the same graph with the blue, but the green line is basically the total system storage if we use the rationing, plus the contribution to 40% unimpaired flow, using the 51.7% version. it takes us a well below dead pool. we need storage volume to make up for that if we are going to be a storage based system. but if it goes to simply rationing, this is the kind of rationing that you would have to achieve to get to the same results that we had for the 87 through 92 hydrology without the 40% unimpaired flow. forty% or 50% and 60% flow with the rationing. [please stand by]

-- both kind of say the same thing in slightly different

words, that whatever happens, climate change nature is something that we watch out for more than anything else, because we have to plan for a dryer future and we have to get with that program. so what have we been doing or what do we need to do if the plan were adopted? >> can i just -- before we leave drought, because i -- as we all do, concerns about drought in the changing climate that we're facing and the summit upon us, my understanding is that the state is now at five years for a drought plan scenario, correct? >> yes. people are now required to plan for at least a five-year drought. prior to that, people could plan for a three-year drought. we had moved beyond that, but others are starting to a up with this, because the state is mandating it statewide. >> and are we not only using our

historical records, as you showed us, but also looking at the climate science modelling? it feels like with the wildfires and the big droughts that we had and over the years that are increasing and the length of the years seem to be increasing, i mean, i just -- what is that sweet spot? is 8 1/2 years adequate? the state has upped their years. are they overcompensating? is there additional data we can look to? >> we're going to a work product right now, looking at vulnerabilities to the system from climate change and other factors and trying to figure out, are we using the right planning tools? are we worried about the right things in the right way? so we expect the results of that to come back in about -- about the end of next year. at that time, we may re-evaluate what we use for our drought

scenario what we're learning about climate change and other factors. >> commissioner vietor: when you talk about adaptive management, that's a factor that we may consider. if it comes out that we're planning for 10-year or 6-year may be adequate, understanding there's a lot of unknowns and the science will never be absolutely firm -- >> right. and temperatures will increase. a last the effects of the recent droughts have been not just the lack of precipitation but also the increasing temperatures and greater 7 -- evaporation of the forests. a lot of it is concerning. >> commissioner vietor: thank you. >> going back to the slides. so there are two elements to the side. what would it take to make up for water quality control plan proposal?

2 1/2 times hetch hetchy just by itself would be enough, assume weather could fill that. we're participating in discussions with the expansion of a reservoir in contra costa county and it looks like that project has great promise for us as a pet otential way. we're looking at possibilities of drinking water. and the last one is a desalination plant, capable of doing 100 million gallons per day. we're continuing discussion regarding the desalination project. i apologize. that's my phone and i turned off the ringer. [laughter]

it is calming, yes. it's called romance. [laughter] thank you. it's my doctor. and certainly in any projects, we identify what each one of those would have to be -- what we do in the future will be a combination of things. we've been pushing conservation so hard for so long, there is little left for us to do, but there is always more that can be done. we're looking alternatives moving forward. to wrap up, the state's proposal has significant impacts on the water supply. the benefits can be achieved using our proposal for smart, functional flows, combined with science-based measures other than flow. negotiated settlements will be a better solution than the

regulation that will end in litigation because then you go back to square one. people back away from the negotiation table once litigation starts. i will be happy to answer any further questions or as questions come up. happy to be available for those. >> with flow and nonflow measures, fish and game and wrote down department of water resources. they sent the letter to the water board? >> they sent a letter to the water board and said that they thought that they should modify the portion of the plan that allows for negotiated settlements. the board would have it approve a negotiated settlement and they said that they would have to be between 30 percent and 50% unimpaired flow. the language proposed by two

state agencies -- and i'mma i'm paraphrasing -- as long as they meet the recommendations by fish and wildlife, we can accept that as well without putting -- does it do the job? meaning that a combination of flow and nonflow measures, they think is a good way to go. >> the state agencies, would you say that fish and wildlife and water board, their goals and support is sfpuc approach, congruent? >> yes. we've had more discussions of nonflow measures, but haven't got into a real deep conversation with them.

we're hoping to do that soon. >> okay. thank you. >> may i ask a question about the negotiated settlements that we're talking about? i was relatively new at the commission when i came in. and i know there was a group that -- bay area water stewards? >> yes. >> that came together to it seems like engage in a similar stake holder-based conversation and the peir was one of the outcomes of that. is that sort of what we're talking about? >> sort of. that was -- that includes many of the people in this room but focused on san francisco's system and water system improvement program. the kind of discussions where we're going, where we may end up on a statewide basis, will probably affect all the water users in the state, except for

the north coast. for example, state water project and central valley project. we're in discussions last week. anything that happens with us will affect them and anything that happens with them will affect us. so the arena is larger when you look at things around and connected to the delta. >> commissioner vietor: one the goal is to get to -- >> to get to an agreement. >> commissioner vietor: that won't take us to litigation or be a regulatory result. >> and the way the state board is structured, they would like to make that result as a way to improve the negotiated settlement and look forward to what kind of adaptive management measures and what we can react and act on. that would be part of any package that comes together. >> commissioner vietor: i see. that's the goal. >> the goal -- it will be the

sacramento river, san joaquin river and delta exporters in a bigger fact project along with the n.g.o.s and state and federal agencies. the scale is much, much larger. >> commissioner vietor: okay. thank you. i get it. >> president kwon: commissioners, anything else? thank you. the most anticipated portion of the program, which is public comment. we have 32 public comment. you have a 3-minute limit. you can go up to 3 minutes. you don't have to. you will hear two chimes. one is a 30-second warning. and the last is when you end. so i ask that you please end yourself at the end chime or else we'll turn off your mike. we've are looking at 90 minutes of public comment. it's what we're here for, but be mindful of the time. i'm going to call them in the order i received each comment card. i will ask if four of you at a

time can line up against the wall to keep things moving. i will call five folks. if you will line up against the wall. mr. al mendel. ms. irene o'connell. mr. tom zigerman. and mr. bill martin. so first up, mr. mendel. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm al mendel, bawsca board of directors. as you know, we represent the agencies that produce in the water system. i have been chair since 2017. today i'm accompanied by other bawsca directors and staff from our member agencies. and we're here today to support the alternative tuolumne river

management plan. we also support the state board's recent decision to delay taking action on its plan, which allows time for parties to reach a voluntary, negotiated settlement. the plan would reduce the water supply from 1.8 million residents, 40,000 businesses and communities agencies in alameda, san matao and santa clara counties, whose water interests are represented. residents would have to reduce to 25 gallons per day in some portions of the service area, including heyward. that's simply an untenable level. the state board's proposal would threaten jobs, delay community development and thwart new housing construction, which is critically needed throughout the bay area.

bawsca understands the value of the ecosystem and that status quo is not sustainable. we're working to protect water quality for humans, fish, and wildlife. bawsca strongly supports the tuolumne river water plan proposal. it's a science-based alternative that strikes a responsible, sustainable balance between water supply reliability and fishery needs. bawsca believes that it can be the platform for serious, responsible negotiations to reach a good settlement. bawsca strongly supports a voluntary settlement to avoid the regulatory stalemate and litigation that could prove contentious, expensivexpensive, and produce an outcome that would one will like. i would like to thank the sfpuc

for this discussion and reiterate bawsca's commitment to work with all interested parties to reach a negotiated settlement. >> president kwon: thank you. ms. irene o'connell. >> thank you. i'm here today and i will keep this quick as a bawsca director to express my concerns with the proposal as presented in the state board's draft final bay delta plan upset -- update and support the tuolumne plan. i've been on the city council for san bruno for 20 years. i was appointed to the bawsca board of directors in 2003 when it started. i served in various capacities since that time including past chair. i would like to expand on reasons why the tuolumne river plan proposal is in the best

interest of the water agencies and the fishery. as was presented this afternoon by san francisco p.u.c. staff, the tuolumne river management plan includes elements to improve habitat, establish a fish hatchery and provide functional flows, which are releases of water into the river. time to match the needs. the elements serve as cornerstones needed to achieve the objectives of the state board plans of the bay delta many further, the tuolumne river management plan would continue to make water available to meet the needs. experts have been hired to develop the plan and they have specific knowledge regarding the river. the science-based alternative

can strike a responsible and sustainable balance between water supply reliability and increased populations on the tuolumne river. the city of san bruno supports a negotiated, voluntary settlement for this issue. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next, mr. tom zeigerman. is that right? >> zicterman. stanford purchases 100% of its potable water from the sfpuc and we've reduce our potable water demand despite campus growth through an aggressive water conservation program and new innovative energy plant that relies less on cooling towers. the achievements are fewer demand reductions without significant impacts to research and educational facilities. and the conserve supply is

dedicated to fuel you plan growth. stanford supports the sfpuc position. the state water resources control board's proposal to change and stream flow conditions for the tuolumne river would result insignificantly reduced surface water available for diversions and beneficial uses in the bay area. under drought conditions, stanford and other wholesale customers would be forced to rely on surface water supplies and groundwater, which would have other effects. stanford requests that the environmental and economic impacts of any shortage in the sfpuc water system be fully analyzed and recognized and that a voluntary agreement be pursued, that appropriately balances the various water needs. thank you.

>> president kwon: thank you very much. next, mr. bill martin. mr. martin, please. >> thank you. i support the state's plan. the fish need more water. the fisher with talking about are salmon. let's talk a moment -- there's been a lot of talk about habitat, habitat restoration. ill recently returned from alaska. i saw a lot of salmon. i saw a lot of salmon habitat. you can say, okay, well, alaska is full of wilderness. it doesn't apply here. there is good salmon habitat in downtown anchorage. what anchorage has done is what we need it do if we're going to have real habitat for salmon. you go out there and you look at the lower tuolumne, lower san joaquin, they're really canals. they're not rivers. they're constrained by levees.

when you look at real salmon habitat, it's a river that goes like this. it goes like this. it goes like this. there's a braid. there's a creek. if you think about what would need to happen to the lower tuolumne and lower san joaquin to create salmon habitat, you would have to move the boundaries to create the floodplains necessary for the habitat to actually support the fish. if you do that, then you have a habitat that actually would produce salmon. but not without water. go ahead and move the boundaries, create that plug plain. and in the middle of it, you get a trickle. i want to emphasize that the city of anchorage has done this.

what they've done is, where the prior development had constrained the movement of campbell creek, which is a salmon-bearing creek that flows through anchorage, they went t out, they bought property, to maintain the full floodplain necessary for salmon habitat in campbell creek. when everybody talks about habitat, restoration, what it really means. the farmland out there abutting the san joaquin and tuolumne rivers is productive and it will cost money to change the habitat. dropping a few boulders and a couple of trees in the middle of a canal may help, but it's not salmon habitat. thank you very much. >> president kwon: thank you.

next five. ms. cindy charles. ms. mary young. adrienne covert. and sharlene woodcock. one more, chris chutes. ms. cindy charles, welcome. >> good afternoon. i'm cindy charles and i'm the conservation chairperson for the golden west women fly-fishers. i grew up in san francisco and i currently live in san francisco and tuolumne county. i came out of the mountains this morning to come to the meeting because the tuolumne, i love it. and i spend countless hours fishing it. i was up at spillway lake at 10,000 feet. it's pristine. it was amazing to see a source of water that flows into the tuolumne out of the park. there were lots of wild fish in

the lake and in parker creek and in the dana fork of the tuolumne. that's not the case once you get out you the park, though. most people agree that the native fish populations are in serious decline of the argument is over how we can effectively address the crisis. they've pushed out the tuolumne river plan that focuses on nonflow measures. in the absence of adequate flows, the projects are destined to fail, as they have in the past. in 1995, the districts entered into a settlement agreement to improve the salmon fishery with agencies and groups. similar to the tuolumne management plan, the agreement focused on habitat restoration. despite the effort of the districts and others to improve

the habitat and river for salmon, the chinook salmon population has decreased since 1995. the 1995 agreement's emphasis on nonflow measures is the primary reason for this failure. the 1995 agreement provides a good message in this place. for example, near grier road, it was completed in 2001 and designed to produce predator habitat. it had been an excellent habitat for predator fish, primarily large-mouth bass. after spending $3 million, the project failed. by the district's own admission, one non-native predator with another small-mouth bass. in the absence of significant increases in flows, the tuolumne

river management plan will not work to restore the salmon fisheries or environmental conditions for other fish and wildlife in the shawn joaquin river and delta. as a san francisco resident, i'm disappointed that sfpuc is abusing the state water board's plan to balance out water usage and give the fisheries the flows they need for any chance of recovery. >> president kwon: thank you. ms. mary young. welcome. >> good evening. i'm manager of public policy. for business to thrive in our city, we have to create an environment rife with potential for sustainable, economic and environmental growth. we appreciate the challenging balance the state control board must maintain for consumers and environmentalists, we promote

the p.u.c. and believe that the plan as proposed is not the correct way forward. our concerns with the amendments on behalf of our 2,500 members are as follows the plan would reduce water supply throughout california requiring residents and businesses to achieve impossible targets. the flow proposals propose a direct threat from the tuolumne rivers among others. terrible droughts like what california experiences from 2012 to 2015 would propose a greater threat that would be less flexible and resilient than what we had today. it's unsustainable as droughts are common due to climate change. by reducing storage in wet and dry years, the proposed standards would lead to chronic water shortages which would harm human uses and escalate conflict among regions. under the proposed plan, investments and improvements

would become even greater the plan would cripple the region's critically needed ability to build housing and exacerbate the state's housing affordability and homelessness crisis, which we talk about all the time at the san francisco chamber. with the interest of local businesses and citizens in mind, the chamber of commerce opposes the p.u.c. a plan as proposed and push forward on the path that it's shared. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you very much. i have adrian covert. welcome. >> thank you. vice president of public policy at the bay area council. as expressed today, the bay area council has major concerns with the state water board's plan. most alarmingly, it has no guarantees that any flows provided by the bay area to the

tuolumne river will make it to the bay and not merely be diverted by downstream pumps by southern california water users. this would represent an unacceptable back door transfer to south of delta water users and negate any benefits to the eco systems in the estuary. assuming such guarantees could be put into place, there are other practical concerns, primarily that the plan would require the bay area to achieve impossible conservation goals during droughts. residents in san francisco public utilities commission combined the retail and wholesale service areas average 54 gallons per person, per day and the lowest per capita water usage if they were their own region in california. according to sfpuc, residents could be forced to achieve 20% to 30% reductions. and residents in daly city,

heyward, menlo park and redwood city would be forceded to ration less than 25 gallons per person per day. these are rates not seen anywhere in the developed world. such rationing could only be avoided with major investments in new supplies that have no certainty of being able to be procured, let alone being able to be procured by 2022, the date that the water board plans on beginning the state water plan. the bay area could be forced to live under extended rationing for years, which could inhibit our ability to build anything -- hospitals, schools or more affordable housing to parks. we have urged the state water board to take whatever measure is necessary to meet competing needs on the san joaquin and its tributaries laid out earlier today. thank you for consideration our views.

>> president kwon: thank you. sharlene woodcock. welcome. >> some have said we've reached the end of the possibilities of conservation is absurd until the state bans fracking, which uses huge amounts of water, agribusiness and plants such as almond orchards. while those are on the table, it's crazy to say we've reached the end. i'm sharlene woodcock, native of southern california and resident of the east bay for 51 years. i learned in childhood that

water is a natural resource that should be conserved and respected. the time has passed to lead to the intentions of developers to bring ever more people here. we've surpassed our caring power in terms of infrastructure and natural resources, especially water. instead, we need you to acknowledge sensible limits to growth and commit to the bay delta plan to increase freshwater flows into the bay and to recover the health of the delta. very important delta. it has continued to draw new people to the bay area and they're driving out long time residents, artisans and craftsmen. environmental protection is a strong motivator.

we love where we live and want to protect it from overdevelopment and degradation. the last drought proved we can conserve water. we want the tuolumne river, the delta, the bay and salmon fisheries restored to health and resiliency. this will not be achieved by plan bay area that focuses on accommodating even more people here against the best interests of all those that live here now. 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 flo