for 49% of the wastewater enterprises biosolids project which is the largest project. the interest rate on the loan is 3.09%. it is an attractive rate. of the 12 loan selected, our loan was the fourth loan with the -- that the e.p.a. closed and it will be the largest loan. in conclusion, between the bonds and the loan, we are able to secure, over the course of a couple of weeks, $1.3 billion of what i believe is attractive long-term financing that will fund a significant portion of the wastewater enterprises capital program, particularly particularly the ssi -- ss ip. i am here to take any questions. >> thank you, very much. is there any public comment on this item? next item, please. >> clerk: the quarterly audit and performance review. nancy hong.

>> good afternoon. i'm the chief financial officer for financial purposes and internal controls. i'm here to present the fourth quarter audit and performance review report for fiscal year 17 and 18. can i have the slide, please? we finish 17 and 18 with 44 projects in total. seventeen were completed and 16 were in progress. we began six audits "-right-double-quote or it for as of the fiscal year. these include the annual inventory counts with wastewater being the enterprise where we

received 100 inventory counts. we began interim audits for all three enterprises including the s.f. car program. one audit was completed this past quarter. staff completed and internal follow-up of the city services of the 2012 power and inventory audit. the objective was to determine if they implanted recommendations by the city service auditor is part of their assessment. they did find that there were some inconsistencies within the maximum inventory system when compared to inventory counts on site. we have currently implemented a follow-up program between financial services and the power warehouse inventory team to ensure they are properly using the system, as well as correcting any injuries that went into the system incorrectly -- entries that went into the system incorrectly. this city services services auditor also issued a public -- published their annual work plan

for the current year, 2018, 2019 , audits in the current year for their plan that included a tea sleeve audit -- audit. and attest to determine risk and vulnerabilities in the network. and a real estate development audit and an improvement project called heme -- human resources services for the p.u.c. our current quarter outlook for quarter four is ending june the 30th of where we are expected to complete the audits for the citywide fleet management. audits, as well as the annual fiscal inventory count for the three enterprises. upcoming audits that come at this time of the year include the financial statement audits for fiscal year 17, 18, as well as upcoming comprehensive financial report and the popular annual financial report. lastly, this final piece highlights our performance within the outstanding audits and recommendations. in quarter four, we closed one

audit for the citywide construction safety audit. from this audit, at included eight recommendations that were close. in addition, age recommendations were close for the wastewater management divisional performance audit. as a result, there are now only 13 open audit recommendations remaining, representing open audit recommendations remaining, representing a 94% rate. we will continue to work on the remaining outstanding audits and recommendations. staff will continue to report to this body. our progress and result of the annual audit plan and with that, this concludes my update for today. thank you. >> president kwon: any comments? >> thank you. again, i am constantly pleased with the scope and depth of our audit program. i am not aware of any publications -- public agency, anywhere, that has this open a process of self-monitoring.

we sponsor it, but a lot of it is done by outside individuals. we requested that you provide information to us about closeouts, of audit recommendations. the other thing we ask for is for those things that do remain open, that there be a schedule for when we can expect it will come to closure. do you have that for these? or is that still a work in progress? >> the intent is to have newly issued audit recommendations closed within six months timeframe. for those that are outstanding, i do not have a timeline. i could provide that to the commission's. >> commissioner moran: there are times where you can't close that in six months. we recognize that. if that is the case, i think it is important to say, you know, what are the steps that need to be done? how long do we expect it to take so that it is something we can track as well.

thank you for doing a great job. >> thank you. is really hard work of staff that we have here. 's. >> commissioner moran: great. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you, very much. is there any public comment on this item? all right. the next two items i will call together as the water enterprise capital improvement program, and the water system improvement program quarterly report. dan waite will give an update. >> good afternoon commissioners and president. i am pleased to present on the first item here, which is the update on the water enterprise capital improvement program. in the interest of time and past quarters, i have gone over these advances that are associated with this particular program. i am happy to answer any

questions on the variances, but they are essentially the same as were reported in previous quarters. i will pass on that. if you have questions, i will be happy to answer them. the highlights for this current reporting. are listed here. rather than read them to you, i will just say that good progress is being made on each of these fronts. the last one i do want to say something about. that is the local water pipeline replacement program. during the fiscal year 2017 and 2018, we replaced about 9 miles of pipeline. as you are all aware, that is below the goal of 15 miles per year, which is our target. the reason for that, is primarily due to the association of some of our projects with these large multi- agency projects, including m.t.a. and public works, where our water pipelines are joined with these

very large projects that have encountered some difficulties and delays. we do anticipate that that mileage will be much larger next year. some of these projects are moving forward, and we get a lot of pipeline in the ground. i just want to acknowledge that that is below goal but we expect to see improvement next year. this is the largest of those projects. the van ness avenue improvements there is now about a mile of water pipeline installed in the ground. especially with this project, there is 3 miles to go. progress is being made. i think many of you have been on van ness and you know how difficult that construction is and how difficult the traffic is so that's just kind of a picture of what we are encountering. some other projects include the old yard long term improvements. this is the administration building.

you can see these buildings are being closed now. good progress is being made. this will be a huge improvement for operations staff out in the valley. so we look forward to that project moving forward expeditiously. that is in spite of some major obstacles that we had on that project where we encountered some native american burials that are anywhere from several hundreds of years old, to quite a bit older than that. those are very sensitive and we are carefully relocating those. so the work can advance. it has slowed down the project. we are glad to see that the work is moving forward. with that, -- actually, i want to show you one last picture. this is in the watershed, also in the valley. this is a nursery facility that is being constructed as part of a commitment to environmental stewardship on watershed lands.

this facility will be used to help propagate plants in the watershed. native plants that we can grow ourselves and not have to pay outside nurseries. i would be happy to answer any questions. especially about this program. >> president kwon: thank you. any public comment before we move on to his second segment? ok. >> the next item i would like to present an update on as the water insist -- assistant assistant prove -- improvement program. and the former -- former general manager will be glad to know that what she started is still going strong and we are 96% complete as shown on this slide. we do have about $400 million worth of work to do, but we are

making good progress. the largest of those projects has made excellent progress in this last quarter. as you may recall, last quarter we reported there was a winter shutdown for the construction of the embankment. at the end of this last quarter, we were nearly at full height of the embankment. in fact, since that time in july , we were leached a final hate -- height of the dam embankment. that is great news. this photo shows the embankment under construction in the, coming right up to the top of this bill way or the bridge will be able to connect to the road over the top of the dam. in july, the team was able to celebrate, placing the last truckload of clay core material in the embankment. we are looking forward to having

a celebration for the final project completion next spring. this does mean that we are now working with the california division of safety of dams on getting approval to start impounding water this fall. will be able to capture water even though there's other work that will be ongoing. the fish passage facility at the dam is also making very good progress. at the end of the quarter, the contractor was working on a lot of the building structures that are associated with the project, including the electrical building and other facilities. so we do expect this project to be done at the end of this calendar year. the storage and recovery project is a two phase project. phase one has been a construction. we are in the start up and testing phase of 12 while

stations. there's a 13th station that we finish during phase two. we also have test wells that are currently being installed so we can evaluate groundwater, both quantity and quality conditions for potential future wells to be installed, as part as the groundwater program. the last project that we look forward to seeing go to construction is the alameda? recapture project. as you know, we did certify, or the planning department certified the environmental impact report last fall. there was an appeal to that report that was upheld by the board of supervisors. we are now working through the updates to the e.i.r. and we expect to publish that early next year and hope to be able to obtain certification and go to construction next year for that

project. that is all i have to report. i would be happy to take any questions. >> commission -- >> president kwon: . commissioners, anything? any public comment on this item? thank you. item f. next item, please. >> clerk: that concludes my report. >> president kwon: ok. we will move on to item number 10. it is the update on the state water resources control board amendment to the water quality control plan for the san francisco bay, sacramento, san joaquin in the delta estuary. the a.g.m. will be be coming up. >> president kwon: five minutes for presentation. i know yours is 15. please go ahead and expect the questions from the commissioners >> all right. today we will we will provide you with an update on two important issues that we are focused on. improving the river fish

population and water supply planning to ensure that we have enough drinking water for 2.7 million bay area customers when the next drought happens. both issues are at the heart of our science-based proposal that we submitted to the state water 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