clear that we have been engaged and we will continue to engage on local, state and federal agencies, primarily career employees on river issues under both democratic and republican administration. that is our job. it is insulting that anyone would insinuate that we are pushing a partisan political agenda. at the state level, this falls -- the governor brown administration contained stakeholders to participate in a volunteer settlement negotiation in earnest. these negotiations are happening now. we were invited to participate. we don't decide who gets to participate. we are one of many stakeholders at the table, which include state agencies, water, utilities and irrigation districts. we have also engaged several

groups who aren't at the negotiating table but have a strong interest in the outcome. these groups include environmental groups, bay area community organizations, our wholesale customers and third-party experts. we have had public hearings at our commission meeting and had multiple one-on-one meetings with environmental organizations based on many conversations and third-party research, we are pushing for a responsible and sustainable path forward to help the fish and the people. san francisco is already setting aside water in dry use for fish and we are prepared to put more aside. but we feel that it must be done in a thoughtful way based on community understanding on the best available science. we spent $25 million studying the rivers, specifically to understand how best to increase

fish population in the river. we have developed a robust plan on actual studies on the river. the delta plan is based on, nor does it rely on site specific science studies on the river. so i just want to let folks know here in san francisco what is at stake right now. we must all come to the consensus on this issue or people and the fish will suffer. i would like to turn it over to michael to give an overview of the plan and how that affects the p.u.c. water supply. >> thank you. you just made a comment towards the end about how the study, i am guessing with the state, it is not based on the river.

can you expand on that a bit more. >> i can let michael with his presentation. >> sure. just answer your question, the state -- the population of the science not only california but from the pacific northwest and other places in the information that we have submitted to the state water board for consideration is site specific studies on the river. we participated in their studies with the modesto irrigation districts who are the senior water rights holders on the river to the tune of about $25 million. that is what we are basing our plan on. >> what is the state basing his information on? >> it is from other places in the state of california. it is not just on the river, but the pacific northwest and other places where they have done work on salmon and trout. >> ok. thank you. you can go on with your presentation. >> that's fine. as supervisor peskin said, i am the carlin in carlin, carlin and carlin.

i want to orient you. we deliver drinking water to 2.7 million customers every day. all the san francisco residences and businesses and we have 27 wholesale customers throughout the bay area. it is not just about san francisco. it is the entire service area that we serve. one of the things that comes up is how much water do our customers use. this is a graphic showing what s.f. customers currently use which is about 42 gallons per person per day. that is the lowest in the state. compared to our service area it is about $59 million per day. the average is 84. and the southern california average is 89 and those numbers are averages. there are higher and lower places in southern california. under the plan, if we have to go to receipt -- extreme rationing to 64%, our customers would be limited to 15 gallons per person per day. i am just trying to put this in

perspective as we go through this. to orient you to the bay delta, it includes the sacramento river his and what we are talking about is tributaries to the san joaquin river and there are three tributaries that are being addressed in the state board's plan. as you can see on the map, one is located on the upper end of the river. the bay delta has drinking water for 27 million people in california. that includes the bay area. one of the things that he mentioned was the 200 million gallons per day. when we translate that into how much water we actually divert, we divert less than one% of inflow going into the bay delta. yet we serve seven% of the population of california and all the businesses back such as those in silicon valley and other parts of the bay area. again to orient you, the

tributary of san joaquin, we divert water so it does not go down the river. is diverted at the reservoir. this represents about 85% of our water supply. amount of our water supply today. what you will be hearing about is the river in respect to the bay delta plan what is the plastically while we agree with the plan, we don't agree with the means of the plan and that is an important distinction we want to make. what we are trying to do is balance between the fish and wildlife uses and water supply or reliability. the means that were proposed by the state water board is 40% unprepared flow february through

june. even during times of drought. there is no relief. every year it is 40% of unimpaired flow. when he think about the system which is an acr based system with a snowpack, one just a snowmelt? i don't know if any of you are scarce but it melts in the february, march, april, may timeframe and we get inflow into our reservoirs. we are very dependent on that at this point in time. we want to improve flow conditions on the river and we are proposing more flow on the river and we want to pay that with -- prepare that was science -based measures to improve conditions on the river for the fish and we will talk about that in a little bit. what are the impacts of unimpaired flow? in this graphic, we have what we call our a and a half year drought planning scenario. it is a drought planning scenario. it is not how we operate with this is what we plan for the future in developing new water supplies. so the solid blue line represents what we would say is over an a and a half year period

where we would have a policy of trying not to have any more than 20% rationing in any given year during a drought. as you can see, we go to 25% later in the drought planning sequence. we are trying to develop projects to make that a 20% number as well. the green --dash line on the other hand represents what would happen with 40% unimpaired flow under the state water board plan as you can see in your five -- in year five, we run out of water if we were to stick to the 25% of rationing. this is a drought planning scenario that was developed in 1994 after the 1987 through 1992 drought and it adds onto the 1976 drought. white that is important is because we codify this policy when we did the water improvement program back in 2008 and we did an environmental impact report on this. this is a policy we have in place and have been operating on

for decades. is a very prudent policy to have in place given climate change and other things that are happening in the world. what are the consequences of the state plan? it is a supply shortfall. we would be short about one half of our total water supply during a drought. so we serve about 200 million gallons a day. we would have to make up about 100 million gallons. so we would have three options that we would look at to make up the difference. one is we would have the status quo and we have a five year drought and we run out of water in five years. the second option is to develop alternative supplies. the chart on the left breaks on the current supplies and the trite -- chart on the right shows the supplies we would have available to us under the state 's plan if we had to reduce by 50% or more. we have been developing supplies

but the magnitude requires more than just ground water and recycled. we are bringing about 4 million -- that amount of groundwater is useful but we have to provide an additional a million to 10 million gallons a day just to make up with groundwater. what are we doing to make up the shortfall? we can make up the shortfall by this list of projects that we have here. these are projects that we were working on right now and looking at these projects could produce up to 50 million gallons per day in a 10-30 year period. as supervisor peskin mentioned, reservoir expansion, we are involved as a partner in that in looking at the benefits to san francisco if the reservoir is expanded. we are also looking at a number of other expansion projects with recycled water, possible reuse, desalinization and even purified water treating waste water for drinking water purposes. this would be about 28-

50 million gallons per day cost about $2 million or more. it is very, very tough road to go down as far as regulatory and contractual obligations, financing and the reliability of these projects. there is a lot of gifts in these projects and developing a water supply project in california is very difficult. one of the other things i was mentioned about water supply is transfers. transfers are something we would go to and other water utilities and in this case, irrigation districts and we would purchase water from them. we have attempted this in the past and look for opportunities, mostly in the central valley of california. we have not been successful to date. the one thing you have to remember, when you want a water transfer during a drought, most other people don't have that much water they can sell. this is what the picture looks like for extreme rationing under the state plan. another option is we would change our rationing profile and

we would look at whether or not we can survive our a and a half year drought planning scenario. the first thing we notice is after the first year of the drought, you would be going from 40% conservation. one thing that you don't know is in the first year of a drought you don't know you're in a drought until you are hitting the second year. you can see a gets to be very extreme if we wanted to conserve the water supply. we would need to conserve up to 64% during the drought planning scenario. this is where the 12 billion gallons per day come in or 15 million gallons per day coming over the 42 we are using today. >> this is based on how many mpd >> this is based on 265. the total bill that which we have to take into consideration. >> so this whole scenario is based on 265 million gallons per day, which you wouldn't get too

until the middle of this eccentrically that is not anywhere close to what we use now. >> that is correct. we are at 195 now and we are at 223 prior to the drought. we see it going up. we also have to take into consideration every new development that comes into play and having an adequate supply developments come online. >> i don't want to litigate this matter here. the resolution is a resolution. i'm glad we came to an agreement on the language and i'm not to truncate this. but if you want to have an apples to apples comparison, you should really show that scenario at 195 million gallons per day. not at 265 which presumes like a another 20 years of bay area growth. just fyi, supervisors. >> is there a reason why we are using 195?

i mean, 265. >> we actually have those scenarios and we can supply those to you. we have 14175, 223 and it shows us running out of water in year five with a 40% unimpaired flow. i would be glad to supply those to the supervisors seem on part of this longest -- longer conversation is the whole notion of alternative supplies and innovation and whether its use of recycled water, purple pike, a million things that other cities are doing that could happen between now and mid century. >> since we are just on slide nine and diversified water supply and what supervisor peskin just said, i know we have run into this issue as we are talking about watering places like sunset boulevard which the department has been very intimately involved with the office on. but we came across a state provision where if you are deemed a recreational area, then you get to water during drought

years whereas lands that are not in recreational areas such as sunset boulevard, for example, than they are restricted during those drought years. at the end of the day, it is all water. we are using this and just because recreation and park has that land and it is deemed recreational doesn't mean we don't have a water supply issue during a drought year. can you go into that and what is it that we will do with some of these departments that essentially haven't had to tighten their belts on the water issue during those drought years simply because of the state provision regarding recreational areas. >> for a department like the recreation and park to -- department to, they like to conserve water as best as they can. we have been investing into their systems to make them more efficient and on the west side of san francisco, when we complete the water plant, we will be delivering recycled water to golden gate park in the long sunset boulevard.

they will become a potable water system and recut -- recycled water system. we are moving towards that just like other communities in california see when i would -- >> i would urge, i know you are doing projects and keep moving towards that direction. i very much look forward to the sunset boulevard project because otherwise we are spending 90,00, drinking water, every time we water for 15 minutes. hence it has been neglected. to the extent that we can really ramp those projects up is really important because i don't think there should be a distinction between whether it is a recreation area versus not. >> i absolutely agree. that is why we partner with daly city on projects. we are moving in that direction. we do not have -- for the projects of our size, we do not have that much area that we can actually use recycled water on. you are right.

damn sunset boulevard in golden gate park and moving across town to lincoln park, they are all projects we are working on currently. >> thank you. >> what are the current -- consequences of the state plan? one of the things we look at is if we are going to develop these other projects, there may be immediate and substantial right increases. -- rate increases. these would be because we already have rate increases in our long-term planning for projects that we have in our capital plan. these would be for additional water supply. the second blow on here about delay and potential construction moratorium, this happens to be in the california water code that if you 500 units or more, you have to have erectors reliable source of supply. we have been doing this supply assessment and we would continue to do them. it would put us in jeopardy of whether or not we would have a source of supply going forward. it doesn't stop the project

delays until we can actually identify and perhaps build that next increment of water supply. >> what are we proposing in the plan that will help fish and people? we have three major components of the plan that we are putting forward. one is predation control and another is habitat restoration and the other is functional flows. i will explain each one of these we propose to release more water than we do now but it will be less than what the state water board plan is. our plan aligns our releases to elicit a specific biological response. and we will talk a little bit about why that is important. we have studied the river and we have found the best way to attract the fish, have the fish spawn, rear of the fish, push them out into the ocean. is a combination of these measures that you just can't have flow but you have to have habitat for the fish to come back to.

one of the first thing this is predation control. we are not talking about completely eradicating the predators but suppressing their numbers and perhaps segregating them from where the fish would spawn. in this picture you have a striped bass which is in introduced species in the united states and those fish are salmon we have a problem because we see about 90% of the small salmon going out to the ocean that are eaten by predators. it is a fact. so we need to have some sort of predator control. the second thing is habitat restoration. as part of our plan we are looking at increasing the spawning gravel that are available for spawning and cleaning the gravels and putting in a wooded debris for the fish to hide in. this is an important element and we plan to do that over the next 12-15 years. we are also trying to control non-native vegetation and doing some floodplain habitat restoration.

all in the effort to increase the ability of these fish to spawn and to be born, to come out of the gravel, feed, grow, and go out to the ocean. >> have you been doing any of this planning in conjunction with the n.g.o. community that i encourage you and the general manager to work with? >> they know this is one of the elements of the plan and we have sat down with some of the n.g.o. , not all of them. as you mentioned, secretary babbitt has complete -- convened a group and some of that group is represented by the environmental defence fund, nature conservancy, american rivers, and others. we have been talking to them about this. >> you have a question as well. >> just to go back to the predator issue, this is a sensitive subject for fish and game folks that are involved at

state level. i know they have been partly responsible for information that i have gathered from allowing for the expansion of predators in the delta, particularly bad -- big mouth bass. they are one of the fishes that people like to catch as part of sports fishing. but they are also one of the main predators of salmon. can you talk about that for a minute and what conversations you have had to reduce -- i know you mentioned it briefly but i'm interested to hear specifically. >> so -- >> and what you believe in what the studies have shown of how they contribute to the reduction of salmon. >> they basically prey upon the small salmon as they migrate out to sea and they reduce the salmon population by 90% plus and this has been studies that have been released over the past decade or so. we have been working with the california department of fish and wildlife as part of this process to come up with -- control sounds different but it

is a suppression project. if we can suppress that bass bite ten% in the tuolumne river, especially when the salmon are there, they are spawning, they are laying their eggs and the small fish start to emerge from the gravel, if we could do that to, we can have a better return on the number of fish per female spawners that grow to the size that can out migrate. so while it is a touchy issue with the california department of fish and wildlife because you're talking about sports fishing and competing sports fishing interest, we are looking at working as perhaps of all of the talks were having an experiment to do part -- suppression. there is predator sit suppression being conducted and is about to be conducted on the river. we are looking to see what those results produce as we devise and develop our program. >> is that part of the conversation -- i understand this is about water flow, but

are these parallel conversations and how are they linked? how do we ensure that they are effectuated in terms of this conversation? i understand this as a preservation of the bay delta. this is about preservation of our sources of water and the lack of natural water flow contributes to the temperature rise in the bay. but it is also about the protection of a particular type of fish that is important to the area. i think there is unanimous agreement about that but i don't know how strong and robust the conversations are about predator control and what kind -- and how they have been infused in this conversation. >> they are part of the overall conversation because we are looking at a whole suite of measures and not just flow. we looking at measures such as predator depression, habitat restoration and all talked -- tied together on the outcome we have. it is all linked as one. >> will those be written and formalized agreements? >> yes. >> thank you.

>> the other thing that we look at is what we call functional flows versus unimpaired flows. the right amount of water at the right time to produce a result. for example, adult salmon around the ocean and how did they know that it's time to go upstream and spawn? and unfortunately die. it is when we put out a pulse flow in the october timeframe. how do we know that the small fish have emerged from the gravel and they need a -- need a place to feed with a nursery area so we push them onto a floodplain and we do a flow for that. when they grow out of the size, we know at certain times it is time to push them out into the ocean and that is when the migration happens. we have a flow schedule and an amount of water that we would -- that would achieve each one of those goals. this is an interesting graphic where it shows the female spawners and it gets to the question of how much water goes down the river in these different flow types and how many young fish are produced per female spawners.

so in our base case, what we have today is a number about six may be fish being produced for 216,000 acres per feet. the statewide plan limits three times the amount of water going down in that february through june time period and reproduced two more fish, two and a half more fish per female spawners. with our proposal with the functional flows spread out over time, we produce about 15.6 small fish per female spawners. i think that is an important thing. we are looking at targeting the flows to a biological response. >> i don't know if this is a question that you would like to answer as supervisor peskin, given this chart, especially, lies at the state -- the state is proposing such an increase flow when the p.u.c. studies are showing that we might actually be able to save more salmon with less flow?

>> if i were putting it nicely, there is a disagreement amongst experts. >> i think that is a fair statement. >> ok. >> where do we go from here? this is the real kicker. as mr kelly said, we basically are looking at trying to come up with a negotiated voluntary settlement. the settlement discussions were convened by the state of california's department of water resources and the state department of california fish and wildlife. and through the governor's office. as supervisor peskin mentioned, governor brown appointed bruce babbitt to help facilitate and mediate those meetings and we have been meeting with him and the state representatives for quite some time. we think that -- negotiated

settlement allows us to get the benefits we want and have the environmental certainty for the fish of the tuolumne and preserves the water supply reliability, even though we will go through jobs that are greater than the ones we have experience to date. one of the things that you should understand, if the waiver will be in structured, it is not a hard and fast thing. it will be a continuous improvement loop built into it. if things aren't working, we are trying to figure out how to come back and make things better. that is an important thing. the alternative point we have has functional flows, signed bait -- science-based nonflow measures and we think that a negotiated settlement is superior to the solutions we propose because we don't want it to get to litigation over this. we are trying to avoid that. we continue to negotiate on a practically daily basis with the

state. we will be negotiating with them this week as well. we have been pretty instrumental in getting other people to the table which is important. especially the irrigation districts. they look to us for leadership and trying to reach resolutions. you have to remember they have a lot more water than we do. as we go forward, i would be glad to keep you informed of the negotiated settlements and i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you for the presentation. >> i want to end it that we want to thank peskin's office because there was a gap between the original resolution and so we worked with them and we feel that we are at a place where we feel comfortable with the resolution. i think what's really important is the governor really wants to do this before his time is up and we have been working with

the stakeholders and i believe that we are very close. so that is why we felt that if it is acted upon and adopted, as long as we are able to finish our negotiations and put it in place, we are ok. this is a once-in-a-lifetime to make a big difference to help the fish and we are happy to be part of making that happen. >> thank you, very much. mr karlen, going back to page 11 of your presentation about development and the land use committee, we have a big item here. central soma coming up after you you did have a statement about affordable housing and other development that might stop before water supply is secured and you talked about this potential construction moratorium. is a benchmark for how much water supply we have on water?

>> under neurite -- normal conditions we have sufficient water to meet the development requirements in the city. but we are engaged in a conversation with the planning department with the state water board. what does it mean when we do our assessments and what will we have to say in those documents? so we are concerned about it and trying to think ahead about how we craft this document in the future and we are still looking at alternative water supplies so when it does come online to address or fill the rest of the bucket up so we can keep going ahead with some of these developments and especially the affordable housing development in san francisco. >> so it's mostly planning ahead is not that if we reach a certain level of our backup water supply that you would say we have to -- >> it all depends if the state board -- i'm sorry. i did not need to speak over you if the state where it goes forward and it is 40% unimpaired flow, we have to look at what that means to us as far as our

water supply is concerned when he fully implements the statewide plan. when we have a couple of years to do that. >> ok. >> i wanted to have a follow-up question. i just wanted to make sure on the slide and what you have said is based on what the state currently has proposed. >> that is correct. >> ok. i also heard that there is continuing negotiations. it sounds like there will be different proposals, potentially agreed-upon. if that is the case, than this particular slide will have less significance. >> that is correct. >> my follow-up question is, regardless of the negotiated settlements, it sounds like, going back to your slide, a and nine that talk about diversifying the water supply,

regardless of the negotiated settlement with the state, and hopefully you are all able to get their, are you pursuing these plans? >> yes. >> these additional 28- 50 million gallons per day are currently under -- are they funded? >> some of these are the preliminary stages of stages with potential partners and others are in the really early planning stages. we have not allocated any money for capital projects. >> no money has been allocated and they are in the preliminary discussion phases. >> right. >> again, are you pursuing additional sources to diversify the water supply? >> absolutely. that is what we need to do. >> it sounds like whatever negotiate a settlement you had to, it would go from planning to a requirement. it sounds like you guys will have to diversify the water supply to increase the amount of flow that we are able to release

into the delta. >> it is not just that. it is climate change. as we lose -- sorry, it gets a little geeky. as we lose the snowpack and as it retreats over time, we will have more rain and less snow and we use the snowpack as an additional reservoir to melt ours slowly and we can control it. we have a the junior water rights holder. we have to release water to them we are looking at the long-term picture here of what additional water supplies we could bring on in the next 30 years. >> ok. supervisor peskin, i know you have a question. >> isn't a will serve ledger a will serve ledger? what is the difference between market rate housing at affordable housing? >> there is no difference. it came out of a case with east bay mod of more than two decades ago for a development project where they said they didn't have any water to serve them and they change the legislation in the code says you have to have a

water supply assessment. and what it entails is do you have enough water? if you don't, give us your plan to supply enough water to serve the development. >> i get that but what does it have to do with affordable housing? >> nothing. it does not make any distinction that is the only point i was making. >> ok. >> ok. any other questions or comments? ok. with that, we will go to public comment first on item ten. any members of the public who wish to speak, please come on up >> you can start. >> thank you, very much for the opportunity to speak. i'm the executive director of -- we don't have the position on the state's planned but we've

san francisco's water agency closely. the p.u.c. is led by good people >> sorry. we will pause the time because we see the number of people and we have a large item after us. we will have to limit -- limit public comment for everyone to one minute or else we may lose coram later for a big issue. >> not a little issue like this one. i'm the executive director. we have no position on this. we think that the p.u.c. provides indispensable services. they are full of good people. but if you look at the water agencies across the state, you do not see them willingly giving up water. it is usually a policy decision made at a different level and fortunately,, most of the things i said, supervisor peskin said, agencies across the state have done all kinds of things to diversify their water supply, groundwater banking, transfer, local reservoirs, groundwater, recycling and so forth. san francisco can and should be

encouraged to do those things as well. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i make commissioning secretary for the b.c. and i'm here to read a letter from vice president and king who regrets she could not be here today. as commissioners sitting in the finance chair of the p.u.c. commission, it is my responsibility to ensure they are making smart and responsible investments in our water, sewer and power infrastructure. i have been serving for more than 20 years and have advocated for policies that include via environmental stewardship got reliable services for customers after -- while retaining rate fairness. we planned for the -- it would have detrimental impacts in our ability to keep rates affordable for all san franciscans. i agree that diversifying the water system is the right thing to do. it is why i have supported agency efforts to come up with projects.

i have a little bit more to go but i'm running out of time so i will leave you copies. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm the general manager during 87 and 93. i want to speak briefly about why it is that we have a conservative planning posture to our drought planning. the problem is droughts keep getting worse. the worst drought of record used to be 1929-1934. we did our planning accordingly. we have 76-77 and we had to do more conservative planning. we got surprised again at 48793 which is still worse and we had to change our water supply planning again. the big lesson that came out of

that is this historical record is not a good basis for doing water supply planning. you know that there are better and worst water years that are not represented in the 100 or so years that we have on board. we also know -- >> thank you, for your comments. next speaker, please. >> before we get started, i want to make this clear. this is unfortunate that you gave a man who spent probably 40 -50 years with this water system one minute. this is not good, ok? i want to make that clear. [applause] >> we are making a decision and we are making a decision that is so important. i will take my one minute and

respect its. i am here, first of all, i am a district town residents. i have worked for this city 35 years. i was a union representative for p.u.c. and i will make this quick. if this is going to impact -- and i know it will, if it will impact blue-collar workers, manufacturing, restaurant workers and construction jobs, i think that we need to make -- >> thank you. >> thank you i wanted to tell you i have 40 years too. [laughter] >> supervisors, i'm here with the bay area council in data rich conversations, context is important. there are 340 a water suppliers in california.

s.f. p.u.c. is the fifth lowest at 42 gallons per head. that has -- that is half the state average. san diego county has been mentioned as places we should try to emulate. anaheim use a hundred and 84 gallons per capita. the santa fe district of california uses 559 gallons per capita. the goal should not be to recycle the most but use the least. they should be more like san francisco. we should be less like them. thank you. >> by the way, that number is for san francisco and not necessarily all of the people that san francisco serves. >> the user district is about 6s well below the state average of over 80. >> hi. i am in support of the state water board's plan for increased fresh water flows in the delta. i i'm a san francisco resident since 94. i enjoyed extensively as most

people in the room have. hiking, kayaking, fishing, obviously the utmost importance. and what will we do when they're gone? san francisco needs to continue its support and leadership of positive environment of plans like this and strongly implement water reduction and greywater options. during drought years, there is will of the citizens. we can and we need to conserve water. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a conservation chairperson for the san francisco bay and west women fly fishers. you have received a letter dated october 25th asking the board of supervisors to adopt a resolution introduced by supervisor peskin. this letter is signed by 37 by mental fishing and tribal organizations and support of the resolution and regard the state water board's proposal to improve flow protections for the

bay delta. there were actually several more groups which agreed to sign onto the b. did not make the short deadline. given the length and breath of the list of organizations and is obvious how critically important we believe an immediate water board action is needed. san francisco is considerably -- is considered an environmental protection leader. representatives from groups have signed on a letter and will be following me with more specific comments on why the board of supervisors needs to adopt the resolution. i thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. i am president of the san francisco league of conservation voters. we represent san francisco voters who care deeply about the environmental impacts of our city policies. we believe the s.f. p.u.c. position is out of touch with the values of our city and our residents and i want to present

survey votes -- results to back this up. the tuolumne river trust commission on social science research centre surveyed san francisco voters on their attitudes towards us conservation. ninety-three% conserve water during the recent drought and 94 % said benefiting the environment was a mitigating factor. ninety-two% use this to protect and restore the river and we want to protect the bay. i will end here. san francisco -- we also value a healthy bay of fisheries and we don't believe we need to choose between them. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a senior attorney with the natural resources defence council which has 18,000 members and activists within the city and county of san francisco. we support this resolution in the water board to act. the situation is dire for fish and for that health of the bay

and for the human communities that depend on a healthy ecosystem. the board has not updated his standards and more than 20 years and the science is clear that increasing flows in the river which increase the production of salmon creating and sustaining thousands of fishing jobs. people -- i'm deeply disappointed but not surprised by the presentation by the utilities commission. they are misleading statistics on water use and the science around flows as part of their practice and pattern. i hope that we can continue to work together. the board to -- once it acts, they will have continued negotiations. at least before the trump administration took over. thank you. >> well, done for a minute. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the san francisco bay keeper. and a supervisor peskin pointed out and as our members believe as well, of the bay is

tremendously important to san franciscans. it is in crisis. the bay has been in a critical drought. it has been 400 years since salinity has been seen at these levels. increased flow will help with that and help with sediment. it will help with erosion and help with pollution. san francisco value speeches and i think this resolution is vital the political reality is san franciscans love san francisco bay and they don't want to see it harmed. the reality is san franciscans are ready to sacrifice and conserve to put more water into the tuolumne river for fish and fishermen who make their living off of them and the political reality is san franciscans are ready to put their money with their mouths are when it comes to my mental thank you. >> madam chair, supervisors, on the executive director of the pacific coast federation of

fishermen his associations representing 750 commercial fishermen on the california coast. fourteen port and marketing associations including two bays in san francisco. i am a resident in san francisco supervisor peskin, thank you for working with us and the p.u.c. on this resolution. it is incredibly necessary. it will bring about the survival of this industry which is weathering on the vine. it is without question a disaster for us. we have faced to federally declared fisheries disasters for the previous two years and this year was severely curtailed. if you want to see this industry thrive we must support the state water board strong action in this regard. we will lose pier 45 if we do not act. thank you for your leadership. i appreciate it. >> hello. my name is. and i am president of the golden gate chapter of travel limited. i represents -- represent

thousands of recreational anglers and conservationist friends in the bay area. we support the resolution. if supported, in supporting the state water board proposal, it is stepping up and acknowledging the importance of decades of scientific research that has been done. without enough flow, the water will get too warm and it will not have enough dissolved oxygen the floodplains will be insufficient and they will lose their sense of smell so they can't migrate back. it is important to know the state water board's current proposal is recommending 30-50% is already a compromise. in 2010, they said 60% is necessary. in 2013, they recommended at least 50% of unimpaired flow. habitat restoration is great but without adequate flows, it will not get the job done. my own organization works every day on habitat. thank you, very much.

>> good afternoon. i'm here with the california sportfishing protection alliance i told the full board a couple of weeks ago about a letter from the service that was sent to the federal energy commission october 1st. on that letter, they agreed that the. >> supervisor tang: flows proposed in the city and the irrigation districts. this was not the result of lobbying as usual of career agency staff. the career staff got rolled by the secretary of the interior. the s.f. p.u.c. was in meetings in which many of these -- this took place. i am hopeful that whatever comes out of resolving the language for the resolution that as we go forward, we will have a better way of doing business with the city and recreational and environmental groups. please move the resolution forward as written. thank you.

>> i am speaking today for the sierra club. i want to thank supervisor peskin and the other three supervisors that i haven't -- that have introduced this resolution. we strongly support the resolution. i want to say very briefly that i have heard amongst my friends and colleagues, but also in the press that s.f. p.u.c. and san francisco, they are siding with trump. they are doing trump hostess bidding here. is that hyperbole equally yes. of course, it is hyperbole. but when we make decisions instead of stepping up with what has to be done to preserve this river that we are so dependent on and say, know, that would be inconvenient, that would cause some money, then we are thinking in the same way as donald trump.

>> hello. i'm here with the tuolumne river trust. thank you supervisor peskin for taking the time to understand the issue and be up for being a leader. on that. >> supervisor tang: river, we had well over 100,000 salmon spawning every year. in the last few years it has been in the low thousands or hundreds. it is not just about salmon but a salmon based ecosystem. they bring nutrients to the ocean. they feed over 100 other species and they help fertilize. we modelled what would happen if the drought of record were to repeat with demand rebounding to where it was before the drought. we found that the p.u.c. could ban just manage the drought of record with an average of ten% per year rationing. they have a lot of different figures. i encourage you to tune in on wednesday at 9:00 am. we will be discussing the issue and get into a lot more depth. we will move beyond the he said she said.

they manipulate people right now with scare tactics. we hope you will further the resolution and bring it to the full board tomorrow. thank you, so much supervisor peskin. >> you will save a lot of time to be able to speak to the issues if you stop thinking me. [laughter] >> i can't help myself. thank you. >> it turns out it gives backbone in terms of negotiation this is a very complicated situation. and as we said earlier, the 40% is already a compromise number and i forgot to say i am from the tuolumne advisory board. the 40%, it already compromised. if you go into this and it becomes 30 and becomes 25, it is just not going to work. it is too important. the board took a strong stand in 1984 when they supported the city for the tuolumne river.

it is time for the board to stand strong again. thank you. >> thank you. i'm here with the golden gate salmon association to support the resolution and urge you to pass it on. you were -- you heard the p.u.c. talk about negotiations i would like to agree with that. there is an important context here. current standards were adopted 22 years ago. the state board has been actively working on the standards for nine years. there has been plenty of time for a negotiated solution. the problem is negotiations have stalled. the answer is for the state board to adopt their current proposal. it will still give several years for those negotiations to continue before the standards are implemented. it is absolutely key. that is what this situation and this resolution allows. the final point is simply that environmental leadership means finding what is hard and possible and doing that. that is what we as a regent did

to stop the bay fell and clean up sewage in the bay. we need to do it here with flows and we are here to move forward with the resolution. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a san francisco resident and taking some points from the sierra club. i will read them. the s.f. p.u.c. alternative focuses almost exclusively on nonflow measures such as habitat restoration and predator control this approach has been tried since 1995, but in the absence of adequate flows, it has failed and conditions have become worse , not better. .2, the loss of inundated floodplain habitat for juvenile fish is a leading cause of population decline, higher temperatures favour non-native species over native his. both issues could be addressed by increasing flows, but are not included in the s.f. p.u.c. alternative. last, they s.f. p.u.c.

alternative does not include adaptive management such as improving flow. in the case that nonflow measures fail to meet established goals and objectives in other words, if their proposal does not work, the river -- >> good afternoon. i am with the city of san jose. i'm a deputy director. a letter was mailed today to the board and is not in your packet but i brought copies to the clerk. we have been a customer as affect -- of s.f. p.u.c. for over 50 years. as discussed already, we are negotiating a science-based alternative. we encourage this committee on the board to delay action on a resolution while negotiations of a voluntary settlement continue. thank you.

>> members of the committee, and the director of water in santee -- in santa clara. while we support the goals of environmental stewardship including habitat and watershed protection, we joined the area agency and request the board of supervisors delay consideration of this resolution until negotiations currently underway are concluded next month with the hope that the settlement can be reached the balances these goals with the need of sustainable, long-term water supply for residents and businesses. a little bit about our system, we receive approximately 14% of our supply from s.f. p.u.c. but our portfolio includes 17% recycled water. we continue to innovate and bring a lot of new projects online this year and we have a lot in the pipeline. thank you for having us here today. >> i'm a resident of district two. thank you for the opportunity to speak. we can restore the ecosystem and have a reliable water supply. to do that, i want to ask you to

respect the values of your constituents and support supervisor peskin's resolution. people conserve water expecting their actions to benefit the environment, but during the recent drought, this didn't happen. the water we all conserved was held behind dams and had to be dumped during the storm last year. but if the bay delta plan had been in effect, the river and the ecosystem would have benefited and the p.u.c. would have been able to fill the root -- the reservoirs and so much more. people want to conserve capital for the environment. the bay delta plan is the win-win we are looking for for the environment and for the water supply. thank you. >> thank you. i am a district 11 san francisco resident and a customer of the s.f. p.u.c. i have examined the materials that the p.u.c. is used to made their statements and i have found them to mislead the public they use flawed analysis and reasoning and they do not represent the views of the customers and his constituents.

two examples. my handout provides several more the governor order the s.f. p.u.c. regional water supply to conserve a minimum of a%. the bay area was -- during the same. , economic growth was significant, very much in contrast to the s.f. p.u.c. predictions. secondly, the s.f. p.u.c. did not consider any mitigating actions which they might take to drought conditions and as an example, they have continually said that they cannot bite water from the districts because they have not tried to. thank you, very much.

>> we urge the board to delay able on th --success in on goiny sentence negotiated supported by governor brown, state board chair and several other state legislatures. the state board's draft plan under consideration could worse reduction in the

afternoon-per-person job water and community development in our agency. the voluntary settlement, however, can protect fish and the 1.8 million residents and 40,000 businesses and thousands of community agencies in our area who are depend on the water. we believe in negotiated settlement underway to meet the state board and your objectives and interest. i have a full copy of my statement here as well as a letter from the city of east palo alto who actually experienced the development. >> hell oh my name is chris gilbert. i'm a volunteer with the see era club and co-chair of the water club. the bay chapter and california sent a letter to all supervisors and the mayor in support of this resolution. i'd like to bring a little institutional memory back here. i read today harlan, the general

manager's letter to the editor saying that they will do alternative water supplies. only with the support and commitment of the san francisco people. i want to go back to 2007 and read fifth resolution by the board that says the board of supervisor urges it's sfpuc to explore and develop water supply option that's will not divert water from the walt river. they have the support and commitment of san francisco to develop alternate water supplies. thank you.