pistachio owners who say they will litigate too because they want the water. i urge you to realize there are many people in the delta plan. it is a compromise. they listen to every side of the story and they listen to all scientists on every side of the point. they thought their method was the best. i urge you to realize that they have put a lot of energy and listening and i want to thank you guys for having the opportunity to listen to us and build into the delta water plan and make your own decision. it is a compromise at some people think it is a lose lose and some people think it is a win-win. not any side. i. i think that if you vote, the state water board, he will not have -- i think it has become like blood water. people want it and it is -- everyone has their own interest and i would suggest it is a compromise. please look into it. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you.

dave, welcome. >> thank you. my name is dave warner. thank you for serving on the commission and thank you for having this topic on the agenda. the first one on the back story, i would say there is one major point and a minor point. if there is anything doubtful, peter was a former mayor quite a number of years ago. perhaps he has some access. the biggest thing was the fact that those were elected positions and we had a couple of them coming up for election and a couple of them looking to get a seat in the open space district. when one of the councilmen said i make this resolution, i think there were six of the others. that is to watch what that didn't that wanted a second of the motion. the key thing here was the councilmen said that she had a stack of papers this thick of e-mails from her constituents. that is what pushed all those

guys to say we need to go for this. it is the elected positions and the large response they got. my second point is in the past, i have commented on this socioeconomic analysis. our conclusion was carefully done but incomplete. it led leaders to misleading conclusions. we think the same is true with the rationing figures that you quote. those are under only one specific scenario. for example, there is no mitigation actions in that scenario. we think it is incomplete and the problem for you guys is without that information, there are at least five agencies today that refer to that information which means if they use that information to make their judgement, may have, you know, influence their decisions. on the five where the gentleman ahead of the board, the san francisco chamber of commerce, the bay area council and the

silicon valley leadership group. they they all referenced that information. and it is incomplete. my recommendation would have been, you need to go talk about each of these potential mitigating items and understand what their impact is and what the pros and cons are. i would also say that given we are in california, we should also comment on the broader california context including actions we are not taking. and other major water consumer. we do see water imports by 50%. it seems like an informed decision to address these things my last point is at the end of all this and you have been so patient including with me, what each of you mind taking a moment at the end of all of this to provide your perspective on the state water board's plan and your thoughts about the pop forward from here? thank you, very much. >> i have three remaining speaker cards. if you are a member of the general public and you have not spoken on this item, feel free

to fill out a card. judy irving up to the podium, followed by barry hermanson, and chris nicholson. please come up. welcome. >> it has been a long afternoon. thank you for your patience and thank you for having this hearing. this public hearing. i am a documentary filmmaker. i have made five films about the bay, delta and greenbelt over the last 30 years. i also made another film but that does not have to do with the water. in addition, i am a bay swimmer. i have been swimming in san francisco bay for 32 years. and i am very familiar with the bay delta system. i have been since the seventies. i am here to tell you that

negotiated settlements that have been made over the past 30 years have not worked. i produced a film about the san joaquin river which had so much water to get out of it, as you no kak that sections of it, literally run dry. i have been swimming in the bay and i can tell you that the bay itself is saltier than it used to be because we get less water flowing down from the rivers. i i urge you to support the state water board's plan because it is adaptive management. it is a compromise. it is science-based. and it will work to protect the environment and the cities. i have been sitting here for several hours listening to people's say things about your plan and it almost feels like,

if you say it often enough, it it will be true. but that is not the case. so i am kind of embarrassed as a san francisco resident that you are taking this position to try to thwart this plan that has been in the works for so many years. if you took a survey of san francisco residents, i am sure that we would be willing to conserve water, literally in non drought years. i am still conserving water just basic things that i learned during the drought. put the bucket under the top when you are warming up your bathwater, for instance. all of a sudden you have 4 gallons to water the plants. i still do it. we would happily do this to protect the fish. and to protect the habitats. so please don't embarrass us. i don't live in turlock.

i understand that you are constrained by older agreements that you have made with these greedy irrigation districts that take 80% of the state's walter. but you are san francisco. please do us proud. thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the time to speak. them also with the sierra club and i am a leader in the san francisco green party and california green party. we support the environment. other speakers from the sierra club have emphasize the points that i think you need to hear. i wanted to add some personal comments. the people all over the bay bay area are willing to conserve. i have been doing it for years. i really appreciate the bills that get sent out. the water bills, because they do tell me how much water i am

using per day. i live alone. i have been down during the winter it when i don't have to water my yard, 13-15, sometimes 18 gallons a day. this year, i had someone come and stay with me for about three and a health months. my bill went up to 28 gallons per day during the summer, i have to water a little more in my yard. i have about seven or eight fruit trees. i have garden boxes. i have a greenhouse. it's another 10 gallons a day. i keep buckets in my bathroom, in my kitchen a few years ago, younger brother came to stay with me for about six months. i was shocked because he would go in and take half an hour showers. claimed she could not do anything different.

you came from arizona, by the way, which has even less water than us. i went out immediately. i was appalled because i could not get him to change. i took out the two and a half gallon showerhead and installed a one and a half gallon. there is no difference. he did not notice any difference .. we should make that state law. reduce it statewide. i have installed a 1 gallon per flush toilets. not a 1.6 or 1.5. a 1 gallon. with the buckets that i am using to catch water while the water is getting hot and when i washing my dishes and all of that stuff, i literally use water to flush my toilet. i have installed grey water systems. i got rid of my top loading washing machine and put in a front loader. and there is grey water going out to the yard. there is grey water from a

shower, my sink at my bathroom and my tub. all going out to the yard. i think here, we have a lot of room to change what we are doing in california. i would love to see for household bills coming out, take advantage. if there's five people living in a house, here is your quantity of water that you get. thank you. i have come in from a colleague of mine. thank you. >> president kwon: bringing it home, chris. welcome. >> thank you. i am absolutely exhausted just listening to this today. i can only imagine how you all feel. in 2001, i was elected to my local water district in half moon bay. i was immediately appointed to the predecessor agency. i have been doing this for a

while. when people ask me about my years of public service, my response is, you know, i really like like it. this has been, i don't have a formal great education but this has been my informal education. i have been surrounded by other people. a fabulous learning experience. and people ask me, what is the hard part? i will tell you. the hard part is facing my customers every june and explained to them why i have to raise rates. i came away understanding the need. i knew the impact it would have on our rates. we were told 300 or 350%. i knew it was a necessary expense. i was able to sell that to my customers. then came the most recent drought. we had to learn a new match.

the less water we sold, the more we had to charge. that was a difficult meth to sell. -- that was a difficult mathematics to sell. i still struggle with it today.. why did you raise my rates? i want to thank mr ritchie for his presentation and to the potential cutbacks -- cutbacks we may see. if we are selling 30 or 40% less water, we will have to raise our rates. many of us in the area have great jobs. many of us will be able to absorb that expense. i have customers in the horticulture industry and customers on fixed incomes. we raised our rates two and a half% this year. we still hear from our fixed rate people. our fixed income people. i'm sorry. what will i tell them what i have to raise rates back into the double digits again? we talk about affordability is the bay area. we will drive more people out.

we will have the most expensive water in the state. and then to pass litigation costs onto my customers, i can't , in good conscience, do that. i am fully in support of a negotiated settlement. i would urge you to support the recommendations of the staff. thank you, very much. >> president kwon: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? all right. so, commissioners, do you have any comments? i want to add, mr warner said the commission's meeting is for the public, and the things that are on the agenda. i think that we have all heard various positions. we all care about increased fluid to fish and biodiversity preservation and the demands of the water customers. but any comments before we move forward? >> i have a comment. it may be appropriate for me to start, simply because i'm not

prepared, nor am i qualified to drill down as far as someone like staff who occupies professional positions with this or someone like francesca who i learn from every time i talk to her. i can't say from 30,000 plus perspective that if we will arrive at the best possible outcome, we will do that without being influenced by political considerations or special interests or anything else. what i mean by that is the decision that we make here shouldn't be connected to anybody's next election. it should not be connected to our, you know, tax or the chamber of commerce where the bay area council or any of those things. full disclosure, i represent the construction industry. we would love nothing more than to build that plane. and not only that, but the mandate that we have locally about building 5,000 new affordable units each and every

year. i personally love san francisco. i am a fifth generation native. the fact that we are still doing tracking makes no sense. i think we actually represent some of those people. i talked a lot about agriculture and how it really, really impacts the availability and the future availability of our precious resources. we got a little bit into dead zones. there were thoughtless speakers. whenever i see feinstein, i always listen. i want to be supportive of the sierra club. what i see in front of me, i stand corrected, i see environmentalists. i am just not totally convinced yet. i am convinced that the people who did the determination of the state water board did not actually have all of the considerations that we have here as an appointed official, it may be different than an elected

official. the people that know me, management, my family, my friends, there is nothing that will stop me from moving the ball. just like others, there is nothing that won't stop me from making sure that the workers are being taken care of and we have a responsible approach to workforce development. in my mind, francesca, i did talk to about it earlier. i am concerned that during my time here, we employ strategy that leads us down a fork in the road where we are in dire consequences and we have to make decisions based on desperation. i am still convinced in my conversations with harlan that our agency is still approaching this in a thoughtful and deliberate way that means that we are not going to find ourselves in a dire situation, giving global warning and being invented with droughts and given short timelines to build

alternative solutions. it is not about building more luxury condos or hotels or bringing more tech here or any of those things. i just feel that at this point in time, the obligation is to make sure we are never in a desperate situation, making dire decisions because we employed the wrong strategy. that is just where i am coming from. >> first of all. thank you to everybody who has stayed and has been part of this today. we had a prior meeting and express the idea that this kind of discussion would be useful and productive in part because, when it is done to public comment, we don't get a chance to talk much. and this is our chance.

the last speaker said could you share some of your thinkings about what the board has proposed? i will share a few things. first of all, what the state board has done,'s try to impose a one size fits all solution on the state. i understand why that's attractive. i also understand that one size is rarely fits all. and then that causes problems. in some places more than others. the combination of what they have proposed, and the contracts that we have, and we have talked about the payments specifically with the irrigation district, means that the impact on us is disproportionate. that the sacrifice being asked

of the san francisco and its rate payers and its water consumers is disproportionate to what is being asked of the state as a whole. and i guess, the fact is, while there are people who can do exceptional jobs with conservation, i think that that our record as a city, and as a region, is pretty amazing. and it means that what you can do and stay within the tolerance band of people who live here, is more limited than it might be somewhere else. i believe, and i know, that the combination of the board's's proposal and our existing contracts can create severe harm we have had some discussion about that.

i think the crux of the discussion is, does your past experience,, past history in water supply, is not a reliable basis for playing into the future? should you put to the well-being your service area on the line for that kind of thing? i think it's not a sound basis and for two sets of reasons. the first, is that, recorded history for water in the state is in the order of 100 years. in terms of natural resources,, 100 years is not much. even if we were in a totally stable environment, where the past would keep on repeating itself, the belief that that 100

years tells us what the extremes are, i think is just foolish. it is illogical. it ignores the fact that we have lived through what we know and it is a pretty wet. we know that there can be drier periods. we also know there could be wetter periods. so that is one reason. the other is that it is not a steady state situation. climate change is real. and we know that it will create more extreme events. dryer periods and wetter periods both. that is why i believe that it would not be responsible to limit our planning horizon to the years in the historical record. that is the way we used to do it i have lived through a drought

where we were running the system in that way. and when we came to the end of the drought. , -- drought. , we were close to running out. we had to increase the mandatory rationing to 45% for the whole region. not just for the city where things were cool and dry and not a lot of lawns, but the whole service area. fortunately, we never had to do that. it rained. it rained a lot. it rained in march. it is not supposed to rain in march. there was no knowledge of any natural system that said that it should have rained in that smart nobody did or could predict that it would rain in march.

and it was known as the miracle march. and i don't believe in miracles. i think there is probably a butterfly in bangladesh that flapped its wings and made it rained here. i don't know what the cause and effect is, but i know there probably was one. we don't understand it and we can't base our operations and base the water supply of this region on either the butterfly or a miracle. i just don't think that that is reasonable. now, i think there has been a fairly deaf ear on the part of the state board to dealing with realities for ourselves and for others where the one size might not fit. and it gets them into difficult territory. there is no doubt about that. is why they want to stay with a

one-size-fits-all. but it doesn't fit all. contracts are real. you have to honour them. we have contracts with our sorority customers. that controls how we deal with deficiency allocations and when the drought comes. who has to cut back how much. the impact on those folks is different. not all agencies get hit by a drought in the same way as others. so the hardship -- we adopt a policy and it may be ok for one agency, but it may be extraordinarily harmful to another agency and we have to be cognizant of that. is always, while i don't enjoy being quoted, i will take that.

i i think what we would do is a very important question. the fact is, i still believe that if we were required to give up the amount of water that the combination of the state board and our contracts would require us to do, we would do something about that. it would not be easy. it would not be cheap. it would not be quick. and it might take us places where most of the people in this room don't want to go. very frankly, and that kind of environment, some form of desalting would have to be part of the mix. i happen to believe the desalting and reclamation are kind of the same thing. the technology is the same. the power demands are very similar. the fact is you still have a stream that you have to do something about. you just have less salt or different salts or different particulates that you are taking out of the water stream. that is really hard to do.

and i don't no kak i guess my challenge to everyone would be, if we are having a conversation about what we would do in a different world, are you willing to talk about it? he is nodding yes. that would be a tremendously important thing. they did a study fairly recently about all of the options that they have to deal with the various water supply issues. they did that independent of us. in part because they didn't know if they would be able to count on us to meet their water supply that study led them to a conclusion that while there is a lot of things you can do, you can't do enough of them to avoid getting into the desalting worlds. i think that's true for us as well. one last observation, that is on the conservation. it was said that we have taken conservation off the table. i understand where that came from.

it is almost what steve said but it is not what steve said. what steve said is that conservation is something that we do. we will continue to do. we believe in the importance of it. because of our circumstances, it is less productive that it might be in other places. and i do believe that there is an awful lot that you can do in terms of the way in which you irrigate crops that you can do a lot more efficiently. there are opportunities if you are in a high use area. you have opportunity to do that. that is very much on the table. it is just i think there's a limit as to how much that will actually do. how much harm that would reduce if we had to live with the state board order. i promise that was the last thing but i will do one more.

that is, on the question of water purchases, during that drought that i had the responsibility of managing through, by the time we hit the 45% rationing, we had tried every place in the world that we could to buy water. that was not a new idea to ask. we told people to shower with friends. we said drink wine because that is somebody else's water. [laughter] we also went went out and tried to buy water from anybody that would talk to us. price was not a limiting factor on those discussions. the limiting factor was that they were not willing sellers. that was number 1. number 2, is that even where we might be able to buy it, we couldn't take the liberty of it. the plumbing just wasn't there.

alameda went through part of this last drought where they had water in the bank and they could not get it back because there wasn't enough flow in the water to dilute the streams. that is what it took. so we have -- we had to go out and trying to get water. we have not been able to make that happen. is not for lack of trying. i can tell you, that when water is tight, water purchases don't get easier. they get harder. it is kind of a tough plan b. if you can make this purchase is in good times, that would be better. but frankly, most people in the water business no better than to sell you their water in good times. they are pretty smart. i think it's a dilemma. we have a disproportionate amount of harm. that is part of what informs us

and trying to be very efficient with the use of water that we allocate to fish. our proposal does include more water. we are near the amount of water that the board is asking for but it is more water. and what we believe is an efficient use of that water. given the potential of paint that is out there, efficiency is called for. -- given the potential of pain that is out there, efficiency is called for. i'm glad we had the opportunity to talk about this and share our ideas. >> i will be brief because i know we are at the 5:00 hour and people have been sitting here a long time. first off, i would like to appreciate everybody being here and your comments. we actually are having this conversation. i'm a big believer in that having a public discourse and airing of thoughts and ideas and for us to hear as a governing

body for the p.u.c. and to be able to understand people, not only the feelings behind what is going on, but some of the data that is out there, i feel a little johnny-come-lately to the conversation. i want to be totally transparent about that. i feel like i have been running to learn and understand both the state plan and the p.u.c.'s plan and i must say, where i have landed today, after all the comments,, is still at this sense that climate is changing, water supply is going to be tight, and while i am an environmentalist, not only at heart, and by profession, and by lifestyle,, and on this commission, i also am concerned about the people.

so i question where the water supply will come from for the health of our ecosystems, and our finish, and to be able to provide adequate supply to our residents and fulfil our contracts. i don't know where i am landing right now. i appreciate that we have another two months to be able to have these conversations. that is why i, early on when we were opening up this workshop, i was asking a little bit more about the process. because i do feel like there was a movement into different corners of the rain. and people were pretty stuck in their ways. we were able, somehow, i don't know, you know, if it is a negotiated settlement or what the language is, i appreciate whoever called it like it is. i appreciate at that there were conversations and discussions and people were able to come to a place where they could agree.

not everybody was happy. the people were able to live with what we came up with. my hope, at this point in these conversations, is that we will be able to get there. i don't actually know what negotiated settlement means. i note that it hopefully means no lawsuits and it hopefully means no mandates. and it probably means that, like the pir, not everyone will be 100% happy. but but my wish and my desire, it is probably idealistic is that we will be able to be realistic about the changing climate and the water supply needs and the conservation that people will really be willing to step up. i appreciated the 12 gallons per day but i don't think that is realistic. and i am prioritizing the health of the fish. i think that is an imperative. i think, you know, the health of the salmon, and someone put it so eloquently how they were saying, it is all connected.

i love the idea that the bear pooping in the forest is pooping fish emulsion. i think that that's how we have to approach this. we are not separate from the fish. and that if we do not do something about that, it is all about our supply and making sure we can all manage it and live together with an outcome that we can live with moving into the future. i am interested in continuing this conversations and having more data put forward. we want to be digging deeper and asking for where it is a science on this that is really backing up the state position, that is backing up the p.u.c. plan. too early to understand it knowing that there isn't going to be a silver bullet or a specific outcome. that the scientists or the recommendations of the scientists will come forward with. and the top position that the state board is going to be and as the ultimate arbitrator. they will be the ones at the end of the day that say this is what we are going to do. i am hoping that in the next

couple of months, now that we have the gift of time, that we will be able to continue these conversations and get to a place that will protect the fish, and also ensure adequate supply for our residents. i feel like we can get there. i want to thank everybody for coming today and i look forward to continuing over the next couple of weeks and see where we land. >> thank you. >> one of my concerns is that there is still a question of fact. >> of what we. >> there is a dispute about facts presented on both sides. is it appropriate in your mind if if we request from staff a summary of which facts are being presented that are still under dispute? i think that is also causing me a bit of a dilemma. >> yeah.

i would also like to hear and understand from staff, you know, if november 7th is going to be the date of decision, call it. what is the process going to look like from now until then? that is a critical piece of the next two months. and what might be other opportunities for public input. i know we have a statement here about if there will be a working group that is set up to really be able to discuss and respond to these questions. i think that some direction like that in asking the staff or what the timeline leading up to the decision will be and what the process for engagement will be, you know, i would support that. >> and spending more time and not less on those engagements. not just checking the box, but making sure that we have had an exhaustive discussion. what is difficult for me is seeing a presentation, followed by another presentation saying they are both in conflict with one another.

be a judge. that is not what we do. we are not triers of fact. so that's causing me a lot of concern right now. >> well, you're a lawyer. we are probably not, i don't know if we are decided at this time. but we make decisions based on fact. or what their perception of fact is. truth seeking is an important part of our job. does that answer it? >> that was exactly what i was hoping he would say. [laughter] >> from staff, it has been alleged,, during today process hearing, that our agency is operating on some false facts. alternative facts. i just want to no kak if we are able to know from staff, what

those conflicts are. sooner rather than later. so that we can begin to flush those out. >> just to understand, my understanding of what a negotiated settlement entails, i don't really no kak i'm not a lawyer, is that there is a series of steps and conversations that happen. as peter said, between ngos and the staff and potentially with other staff and some of the other stakeholders that have a vested interest here, to get to some resolution or some outcome that then goes, the state board gets engaged at that level to see if they would be responsive to its. is it something like that? >> i would make a few brief comments. one, the negotiated supplements are really sponsored by the state at this point. and is covered by a nondisclosure agreement.

so talking about exactly what that process is going to be. i don't know exactly. and even if i did, i'm not sure i could talk about it publicly, it is part of the problem. because of the nondisclosure agreement. i think the conversations will have to include the other interest from the rivers which includes the irrigation districts. we depend on each other to get through this. yes, i think we will push in one direction, but they can't be left out. we can't cut a deal without them and the states. so there are big pieces of this. it relates to where things are going with the sacramento river and the california water fix as well. it is much bigger than what the city and county of san francisco thinks. that is a key thing to understand about that. there are profit meetings -- for meetings between now and the first of november.

i think the the identification of where the disagreements are here today and how those are supported or how framed, i think we can prepare a document like that that actually lays that out fairly clearly. it will not be the answer but it will at least provide, this is the framework for that. these are the things that seem to be in conflict. and part of that will be, as you will find through any of these things, there is lots of scientific opinions out there on different things. and science is a messy process getting to truth or whatever you think truth is until the next study comes out and then you find more information. i think we can at least clarify that so if there is a better or common understanding about what the real differences are, not the rhetorical differences, but the real differences. >> once those differences are identified, could some are identified, could some of those scientists come forward? or people who have put those positions, we have put this positions out there that the

different opinions are supporting, come forward to say this is why functional flow has higher production of fish, or some of these information items seem to be in dispute? >> we can gather a lot of information on that. getting them to come here and talk about their scientific opinions, are things that are usually done in long a long drawn out processes with peer reviews and debates in different settings. as opposed to coming here to give this commission the answer from their point if you. they won't even say that it is the answer. they will say, this is what i think about it based on these facts and the things that i've learned. and there are other possible hypotheses as well. i guess i am saying it will not be a satisfying discussion, i don't think. >> there might be some surrogate for that. the fact is, we have dealt with

those consultants for years. and we know what the argument is at least in terms of being able to understand why the difference of opinion is, or what the basis -- what the essence of their report was. you know that. >> yeah. >> and they have the extents that their appearance would give some legitimacy to that opinion. the fact that they signed their report does that. their reputation and they're issuing the report does that. that does not mean that they are the only scientists, but i think -- we can get there in terms of understanding what the crux of the disputes are. it may not get us to agreement,

but we should be at least be able to understand what the issues are. >> i do think that this question -- i know you have done work on this already, that was raised of , in the event of a mandate coming down, of 40%, call it, what do we do then? because i think that bringing light to, a little more light late to this idea that we night not have enough water supply in that area to do x., y., z-letter , would be helpful. a lot of people said it is the extra water that could have gone to development or luxury or townhouses or what not. but that wasn't what i understand from staff. what i understand is that that 40% would really, as you put it put us in harms way. so some clear understanding on what would happen and what would be the contingency plan if the mandate came down i think would be an interesting conversation, at least to hear a little bit.

and you put some money together at the mitigation piece that was in there -- >> we can put more of that together. it if the 40% becomes the requirement, as is the requirement, that is just another demand we have to meet. >> it does beg the question, let's say that we had a solution that was hundreds of millions of dollars and involved some form of reclamation or desalination, do we think that that is worth the payback? that if we made that investments and we were not facing that level of harm, do we think that that is something that we should do?

because we would like to support the board if we can. that becomes a question. it is not a bad question. >> we can frame that up easily. i can see that pretty clearly. >> president kwon: i would also want a little more insurance. forty% indeed would get us pretty darn close to a healthy ecosystem and a healthy salmon population. because i think it is on the cost-benefit analysis work that we would ask for. let's say they say 40%. that is cost that we would incur because we would have to meet the demand. what would that cost be. what does it look like we and will that get us to the outcome that they are proposing? >> that is a big question that many people are convinced. we are pretty unconvinced.

we can articulate that better. that difference. >> that is one side of the argument. >> there is a -- if you know, or believed, to the best of your knowledge that 40% was going to fix it for the fish and that we could apply our way out of the problem by some combination of actions, then that would be, may beat that would be tempting. i don't know. part of the problem is we don't know the 40%. we have had people here telling us that that is a severe compromise. it is really only 60%. the adaptive management plan that is built into the board's's proposal says that they can vary anywhere between 30 and 50. if it is not producing the fishery benefits that they want to, they can increase it to 50. so it is hard to make the

assessment that if we spend this , that we will have the benefit that it will get us out of trouble. >> we did see that one chart that showed that the p.u.c. plan potentially would have greater benefit for the fish. that is where it is not really quite adding up. if we could get a little more in the next meeting,, more information on both of those -- >> may be the next meeting or the second meeting in september, depending on what we could get done in the time. but certainly, no later than the second meeting in september, i think we can have more information packaged that articulates those differences. >> ok. all right. >> item number 11. [laughter] now is a good time. but you are welcome to say.

>> item 11 is a bay area conservation agency update. >> i am hoping that i can get somebody from the p.u.c. to load my slides. while they are doing that, i want to tell all of my member agencies to walk out on me. because they have heard all of this before. >> are you leaving? >> while these are being loaded park i will mention, one of the things, i have to thank you, francesca for some of your questions, because it teed up what i thought might be appropriate for us to present today. i will be really quick because i am happy to have a few guys are asleep. >> and i asked everyone to leave the room quietly? thank you. >> no one gives me much credit lately. >> what i will be talking about is a water resource activities that they are doing. a lot of those are with the p.u.c. as well.

they are our water supplemental supply efforts. they were part of the fiscal year 1819 work plan. had presented a similar side back in march to our board members as well to the water management members. if i could have somebody -- oh, you already have the slides teed up. that is a beautiful picture that i am sure one of your staff members took, by the way. our long-term supply efforts include a few key things that touch on types of projects that we hear would think about this 40% impaired flow issue came up. it is received occult -- recycled water to the level that you can drink it. it is a big reservoir. they are working to expand. part of the expansion would include partner member agencies. i will talk about that. they are doing pilot water transfer.

it is one way to get around flow requirements. the bay area region reliability, i believe you have been updated, and last but not least, conservation efforts. possible reuse, fancy term for it drinkable, recycled water, their two projects that they are working on. the san francisco p.u.c. is also partnering on the efforts. their prefeasibility efforts. they are early in the study phase. one is mateo county. it is called the prep project which stands for the possible reuse exploratory plan. multiple agencies, a lot of wastewater agencies are involved they are also looking at san mateo. there is a few more. they are partnering with the s.f. p.u.c. on its. in the range of maybe 16 projects. it involves multiple wastewater agencies. it is early in the effort.

frankly speaking, we would have to figure out someone to mix this highly treated wastewater. it might be crystal springs reservoir. it is early in the efforts. that is one project being reviewed. a second one is one that is being handled by santa clara water valley district. they have an advance purified water project that some of you might have visited. they want to look at expanding that in looking at ways to develop water supply. that would include other member agencies like san jose which has a large wastewater plant and palo alto which operates a regional plant. we are looking at that. is a little bit delayed. santa clara water valley district is doing a water master plan and will have to figure out how that plan would prioritize projects. this one point -- might be a priority. these are the projects that they are working on. i can say that san francisco has a seat at the table too.

this one got a lot of press recently because the water district received a little less than half a billion dollars from the state through proper one on the expansion. one of the things about lv, the way that they are selling it the way they got all the water is to show how they are partnering with many entities. they have around maybe 20 partner agencies. the s.f. p.u.c. are partners with contra costa, east bay, alameda county water district. they are a member and they are also a partner. may include many irrigation districts in the central valley. i could go down the list. there is a lot of partners. what that what do you, if they asked a band of the reservoir, as provide storage volume for all of us to utilize. all of us as partner agencies. we have identified how much we want to use. beyond that, we talked about the piping it it could create. there is a pipeline that would

link up that reservoir to the south bay aqueduct. it creates a new route to bring water and that could be routes that would come from storage that we would put an in and potentially water transfers that they could enter into with the sacramento river system customer to me, the plumbing is more important than the reservoir expansion. but that is the big efforts. this year it is early on in the process. they are looking at governance options. how would 15-20 agencies on a project? it is complicated. thankfully they have lawyers in the room helping with that. there was a lot of lawyers in that particular room talking about governance. pilot water transfer. this is one that they are doing. i used to work at east bay mod

and a and i know a lot of people on the river. they have water rights back upstream of the party reservoir. we approached one agency. we wanted a one time deal. a thousand acre foot we wanted to see how we can move the water through the mud system. they have the big intake and we would route it through to their service area. there are arrows on that charge that are showing it. we routed through to their service area and they treat the water. it would move through the distribution system to appoint where it would interconnect with the intertie that the p.u.c. operates with. we would take delivery and hayward would be the entity that would receive the water. the main purpose of this is to see how many -- how easy or how hard is this to do?

we don't know. there is a cost. we can identify the roadmaps and how we would go about it. the bar process that i talked about earlier, the regional reliability have a grant from the federal government to look at water marketing strategy and what we are trying to do, and we have agreement from the different bar agencies, we would actually try to put this project into bar so the water market strategy could evaluate at the same time as we are piloting its that has a lot of incentive and interest. >> i want to go on about all of these water conservation programs that they do, without is a big part of what we provide to our member agencies. like you folks this year, one of the issues we have had to face is making conservation a california a california way of life. we have done quite a bit of work

this past fiscal year in terms of identifying a roadmap for us and how we will member agencies through the new legislation. we have hired a consultant that will be doing water law studies for us. and member agencies and we have, through a subscription program, we are offering services to member agencies that need to estimate water loss and provide that estimate to the state is one of the requirements under the new legislation. >> in conclusion, i promised steve i would only take five minutes, and i am probably already over, but my conclusion, i think are pretty straightforward, which are generally that there is a lot of effort going on. they're doing a lot of effort and frankly your staff are doing a lot of efforts relative to water supply. the argument that we are waging or sitting on our hands while we see what happens with this new regulation isn't the case.

we are doing a lot of things. those efforts are just because of the nature of what happens nowadays. they are regional efforts. that is how you get a project built and how you develop it nowadays. it is not just a single member efforts. there are challenges. i i almost wish that your commissioner was here today because i worked at east bay and i know how much it took them to develop. it was 35 years. it started in 1970. i did google and i said what was happening in san francisco in the seventies? i looked up her late husband to see if there was some discussion there were funny quotes there but i figured i probably couldn't say them in this setting. i decided maybe look at the great pyramids. this certainly -- 35 years is not the length of the great periods but is the length of time that is associated with a pyramid in san francisco. by that's, i mean in 1970, the transamerica pyramid had a hole in the ground. it took from 19702 2015 for them

to develop it. that is pretty much the last major water project developed by a bay area agency. i think it is something all of us in the room, whether it is water agencies are elected bodies are the environmental's need to realize our projects just don't happen overnight. some of them don't happen in a decade. some of them take decades to do. we have to realize that if things happen to our water rights, if our supplies are contracted by a great extent, we could be looking at decades before we get something online. it is just a conclusion or a challenge that we have to face. not all of them are viable. certainly they come with a price and i think they will have to be regional projects in the future. we don't necessarily have that

here in the bay area. may be it is in the santa clara valley. you folks, i have to say you have a great groundwater project and you see local residents going out being worried about it we have to face those issues. environmental opposition would be -- i hear what you say about desalination being an option that we have to think about in the future. i can tell you when we worked at east bay mud we worked on a project and i heard plenty of concerns from the sierra club and others that don't want that project or that type of project in the bay area. we have to face this reality is as we as we think about marching forward. i i honestly do think that the agency are really forward thinking and looking when it comes to water supply. [please stand by]