[ gavel ]. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the san francisco public utilities commission of november 13, 2018. madam secretary, will you please call the roll. [roll call] >>clerk: and we have a quorum. >> madam secretary, next item, please. >>clerk: item three is approval

of the minutes of october 23, 2018. >> colleagues? >> so moved. >> it's been moved. >> second. >> and seconded. is there any public comment on the meeting minutes of october 23, 2018, seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'll now call for a vote. all in favor? [voting] >> all opposed? [voting] >> madam secretary, item four, please. [agenda item read] >> thank you, donna, i have a number of speaker cards for item seven. is there any public comment today? hearing none, public comment is now closed. madam secretary. >> item five is communications. >> colleagues? commissioners? is there any public comment on communications, item number five? seeing none, public comment is

now closed. madam secretary, item six. >>clerk: item six is other commission business. >> colleagues, the holiday party announcements? is there any other commission business? hearing none, madam secretary, next item of business, please. >> item seven is report of the general manager. >> general manager kelly. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the first item on my report is cleanpowersf update. barbara hale. >> today's update will quickly cover customers and the up coming pg&e rate changes and our plan to cover those changes. first off, service to customers. we're continuing to successfully service our customers. we're actively serving about 109,000 accounts -- i should say we're serving 109 active service

accounts. we have an opt out percentage of 3.2%, and we have supergreen upgrade rate which continues to exceed that opt out rate of 6.3% of our customers. that means we have just under 4,800 businesses and households in san francisco that have chosen 100% renewable electricity from cleanpowersf. so with respect to the pg&e rate changes and our april enrollment, for the past year or so, we've been reporting on the california p.u.c.'s proceeding to adjust the pcia. that's the exit rate that california allows pg&e to recover for the unavoidable power supply commits.

c.c.a. -- commitments. these charges are leveed on cleanpowersf customers by pg&e. historically, these cleanpowersf generation rates have been set to absorb the impact on our customers of that charge from pg&e. we reported in october that the california p.u.c. decided on how to change the pcia cal indication, and particularly, the market value of pg&e's power supply commitments. we don't know for certain what the pcia will be for different customers until the end of december. we are expecting it to increase, though, by an average of about 20%, from zero to 50%, depending on the customer class.

in addition, pg&e's recent forecast indicates that it will be reducing its generation rates next year. the combination of a pcia increase and generation rate decrease will likely mean that customers will pay more for their service from cleanpowersf than they would from pg&e unless we take some action to address that additional cost pg&e is imposing on our customers. and you know we've been planning to enroll, have a major enrolment of residents in april 2019. almost 200,000 additional accounts would be enrolled in april. it's been the commission's policy that rates for a phase be projected at the time of that phase launch to be at or below pg&e rates at -- as the launch of that phase begins. so that's been our historic

practice. we want to ensure successful april enrollment and help our existing customers. so we're proposing that the commission consider a rate action at its next meeting in december. that's the december 11 meeting. the goal of the action would be to ensure that the cleanpowersf power can continue to offer a competitive rate to existing customers and for those new customers, those 280,000 additional customers that we'd be enrolling in april. we'd be taking a slightly different approach in this recommendation to you. rather than reducing our generation rate to absorb the impact, we'd be proposing to leave the generation rate the same, but include a new credit on cleanpowersf customer bills that would help absorb the difference between the cost to take service from pg&e and the cost to take service from

cleanpowersf. the credit would show up as a line item on a customer's bill so it's clear that the city has taken steps to protect customers from pg&e's pcia rate increases. other c.c.a.'s are taking similar actions. some are planning to reduce rates while others are putting in place credits or rebaits to absorb the anticipated pcia increases. when we come back to you on december 11 with this proposal, we will include, as we have with past actions, we will include updates on the financial projections for the program, an assessment on the proposed rate impactments. we'll also address how we're managing the program and power supply risks as we move forward with citywide enrollment. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions we may have.

>> thank you, a.g. hale. commissioner viator. >> so if there is action taken at the december meeting, we would proceed with the april enrollment plans. >> that's correct. >> so just so i understand the credit concept, that's a credit for -- to what? for costs inthat would then be rebaited? >> right. so what we're asking you to do is set a perkilowatt rate, and that would just help offset the charge on the pg&e side of the bill, so you'd see same generation rate times your volume, minus this credit, so on a bill basis, customers are protected as much as we can from

the pcia rate. our rate, just to be real clear -- our rate, our generation rate, is always below pg&e's. right now, customers are seeing a savings. the pcia change means that -- so they're seeing a savings on a bill basis, right? the bill credit that we're talking about, this credit, would help absorb that fee so that on a bill comparison basis, even though our generation is much lower than pg&e's generation rate, some of the savings aric at thatten up by this pcia charge. so we want to offset that so that we maintain savings to our customers as much as we can, right, through this bill credit. so we would be coming to you with a proposal to have a negative rate. >> right. and so we will then understand how that's going to affect that

overall by the next meeting. >> right. >> okay. thank you. >> and to the extent that we're running a very tight margin, right, that means we're going to have less money for other program areas, and we'll try to quantify that for you on december 11, as well, so you'll be able to see what the projected reserves are, projected funds for other kinds of programs. >> what are we going to call the credit? >> we're not decided. we want to make sure that we're doing this to help offset the pcia, but i'm happy to hear -- if you have an idea on what we should be calling this, commissioner, i'm open to suggestions. >> i think it should have a good title. i think it should be very direct. we have to find something that's short and hits home. >> yes. thank you. we agree with you.

>> yes. it's just an odd kind of item to have in additional right setting. >> well, we understand it's a volatile figure. our actual costs aren't changing that much, so our generation rate staying steady year or year makes a lot of sense to us. it demonstrates the stability of our program offering. the difficult to predict part of this is what pg&e's going to be charging, so sort of separating those two elements, i think, is helpful for our customer. it also helps them see the difference between what pg&e is charging them which shows up on their bill as the pcia charge, and what we're doing about it makes it more explicit. what we'll call it will matter,

will help, hopefully. okay. >> okay? colleagues? >> thank you. >> so we're actually absorbing the credit. >> we have historically, yes. and when we run the numbers, we're going to see how much of it we can absorb going forward. >> are we going to see that at the next meeting? >> yes. and again, these are numbers that are moving a lot. pg&e's numbers are moving a lot, so we're going to show you a projection. we're going to show you a sense of how much we've been moving, but we'll give you a projection, and we're probably going to need some room to maneuver, so when we see the final numbers that the california p.u.c. adopts, and the new rate hits on january 1, we'll be able to hit that target as much as possible for full absorption. okay? >> okay. thank you, miss hale. is there any public comment on the report of the general

manager, item eight. seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam secretary, next item -- general manager kelly. >> so the next item is the bay delta water quality control plan, and steve richie will give a presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. steve richie, assistant water manager. i'm going to provide a presentation where wear now and where we will be going forward regarding this. there's obviously been a lot of recent activity going on. october 30, the board of supervisors approved a resolution regarding the bay

delta water area control plan that was the subject of much discussion. on november 2, the mayor vetoed that resolution, which was a few days after that. and then, on november 6, governor brown and lieutenant governor new some sent a letter deferring action on the water quality control plan to december 12 with the purpose of hopefully providing additional guidance with the possible settlements. so in a short period of time, there was lots of discussion, but the ultimate action was the state water board elected to defer action and continue the item until december 12 in anticipation of further developments regarding negotiated settlements, and so those settlement discussions are going on now in different arenas. those are covered by nondisclosure agreements, so we

can't talk about those in any detail here, but there are active discussions going on. so i'd like to talk about what it is that we can and should be doing now, and, you know, we've had some discussion of this the last couple of sessions, but new actions for us would be starting to focus on water supplies to develop for a variety of eventualities. certainly instream and existing flow requirements. we already have requirements for san mateo creek and alameda creek that we need to deal with, and whatever comes out of the whole water quality plan discussion here there will be additional discussions for the tuolomne river that we need to take care of. in addition, we still have the unfinished business of dealing with san jose and santa clara as making them permanent customers. for all of those reasons and more, we need to deal with water

supply issues for san francisco. what we are going to be proposing workshops are definitely in 2018 to start to talk about these. it will have budget implications for the commission, so it'll be coming up towards the midcycle potential adjustment to our budget, so if we accelerate work on water supply projects, it will cost us money, and we can deal with that, but i just want to make sure the commission is clear that's going to be an important issue to deal with. so what i'm going to talk about for the rest of the presentation is the items that we're pushing forward to get ready to deal with these issues before us. >> i think you mean early 2019. >> i do mean early 2019. i have to confess, i was on vacation for two weeks, and

then, there was a long weekend, so i'm -- >> catching up. >> i thought about bringing slides of my vacation. it was really beautiful, but i decided against that. so some of the things that we're talking about, i want to highlight a variety of projects that i think are ripe for moving forward. some of them may still take a long time to develop, and one of the things that you will see as part of communications at our next agenda is our annual water resources conservation report, which covers all the advancements that we've made. i'm not going to focus on those things in here because we they real are the subject of a routine -- because they really are the subject of a routine report that we do every year. it will be on the agenda for our december meeting, and i encourage you to take a closer look at that.

but in terms of water supplies that we should be looking at, first is the daly city water expansion. the whole goal would be to free up groundwater that we can use for potable use. the cemeteries are using groundwater for that use, and it would be good to bring in nonpotable water for that purpose. [inaudible] >> -- which could be going to acwd, and they would forgo some of our fly or it could be put directly into our system. the second would be another part of the partnership with acwd and that would be acquisition of

water from contra costa water district from the south way aqueduct. this would not be new water, it would be potentially taking advantage of expansions and intakes. the fourth one, which is always, to some degree, controversial because it's desalination. it actually has advanced fairly far in terms of the technical analysis, but we really need to decide if we're going to go to the e.i.r. stage of that and do the financial analysis of that particular project. i think that's a pretty big question. next, there's been a lot of talk about los vaqueros water storage. we weren't actively involved

except in funding this so far, but lots of projects around the state looking for proposition one grant funding, and los vaqueros has come out very well, because a lot of it is for the environment, but a lot of it is used for augmenting water supply. it is stratjiekly locatesed because it can move water different ways. we think either to make the desalination water project or the -- [inaudible] >> number six, and i mention this had a few meetings ago, that maybe it felt a little premature. we haven't finished the dam yet, but it is time to talk about expanding calaveras reservoir.

i think it has some real potential, because if we get more precipitation rather than snow, we'll always had the snow pack to put it in. if the snow pack is not there, you have to have a place to put it, so calaveras expansion would be a very good candidate for that. next is potable use with the solkin treatment plan, which is the waste water management plan at redwood shores. we've done a little bit of feasibility with them, where we're talking about transporting that to crystal springs reservoir, treated at harry tracey water treatment plan, and then transported from there.

and finally, people have pushed us about this. there was a big push about this in the 1980, in the bay area recycling water program, irrespective of people's jurisdictional boundaries. lots of interest in talking about it at that time, not much interest in pursuing anything big. it was really saying people should do their own thing, so we've got the list basically here of all the other waste water treatment plants in our collective service area where we can again say time has passed, 20 years later. are you doing some things with your waste water? some are, some aren't. are there creative ways to do something with it that we haven't looked at in the past. and this is a preliminary list

of things that are most likely to go somewhere sooner rather than later, is innovate tiff technology program funding. we actually have through an add back money for several projects. basically looking at, you know, are there other things we can do here and there that will help out. all of these things very small and very low tech to very big and very high tech and everything in between that we can look at to conserve water. i think we could start talking about them and benefit from investment in the not-too-distant future. so in conclusion, actually, a lot of these conclusions haven't changed because they really are

where we continue to be, which is we have doubts about the water quality control plan proposal, and it harms our water plan. we do think we have a better proposal going forward, and we'd like to pursue that. we think negotiated proposals is the way to go. finally, regardless, we need to proceed with developing substantial additional water supplies to ensure we can meet our instream water supplies as well as obligations to our customers. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. commissioners? commissioner viator. >> thank you. i appreciate your presentation, and i appreciate you getting down to brass tacks on

diversefying our water supply. i think it's something we need to do. i would love to, at some point in the not-too-distant future take it to the next level as well, and take it to the next level before we have budget conversations in the spring, and even before the workshops, if possible. i don't quite know when those are going to be, and we can start from a policy and budgetary perexpespective seein what might be feasible. >> i think we have some of the that information now. we'll be developing in december,

early 2019 for me means january . >> okay. great. >> i think we actively need to have the conversations then, but maybe some preliminary conversations then, we can definitely start to put meat on these bones. >> great, because i think we need to move in due haste. one of the things that i've been think bg and i've heard a lot about is how much water we release into the bay, and i heard it's somewhere between 60 m.g.d.'s in dry weather, and i heard it can be as much as 500 m.g.d.'s in wet weather. some of the proposals that we saw could be pretty high cost, it seems like, both the low tech ones and the high tech ones, and i'm wondering if that could or should be an option, especially when we're thinking about the san jose and santa clara questions, about making them

permanent customers. it just leems like that's a lot of amount of water that we're wasting, if you will? and understanding pumping, but it would be great to understand if that could be a viable option. >> yeah. that's why that item that included basically all of the waste water treatment plants in the service area, and then, the southeast treatment plant was on that list, san francisco, as part of that. i think the challenge with wet weather flows in san francisco is you need storage, you need to have a place to put it to make it functional, and that's really hard to do because the storage we've created, of course, is the selection system, but once -- collection system, but once you've got a finished product or almost finished product, finding a place to put it is a bit of a challenge in san francisco. but that doesn't mean with that southeast plant and all the

other plants, there aren't possibilities there. take, for example, the southeast and alameda counties project. that could be a solution. the project doesn't need to be in their service of it for it could be in their area and be the beneficiary of it. so i think the other conversations we have to have is we can develop all of these thing is, and santa clara and san jose finds a solution that works for all of us. >> something just to call out that source of water that we need to be -- seem to be able to recapture. might be too high of a cost, but just to understand that would be helpful. >> yeah, sure, we can do that. >> commissioners? >> if i just might add to that that in addition to the stormwater releases that we make, we do have a lot of effluent from the treatment

plants that need to be part of the equation, as well, and a lot of folks in the area are make approximating inroads on direct, potable reuse, and you had some include index this presentation. they're also moving toward direct potable reuse and that. it does strike me with the one water principle that we had been talking about, and the ssip really being at its fairly early stages, that we need to be looking for opportunities to recapture, you know, some of that water for beneficial use. >> yeah, and i think that whole question of direct potable reuse, how fast we move since regulations aren't in place yet and aren't expected to be in place for several years, to actually deal with that. on the other hand, by adding it in now, we can probablily be in a bigger play area in

formulating those regulations. >> what you're talking about here is another plant, so the idea that regulations won't be in place for a couple years, it would still be compatible with that. thank you. >> colleagues, anything further? >> i have a question. >> vice president caen? >> something i'm curious about, is desal with brackish water be cheaper than sea water? >> yes. you have to use less energy because you're separating out less salt, so when we look at the possibilities, we looked at the western delta, we looked around the east bay mud out fall at the bay, and oceanside, and once you get into the ocean is where it gets very expensive and

very energy offensive. we look at the cast per-gallon developed. if it was ocean desalination, it would have been double at least if not more expensive. >> that's very interesting. >> and just on the desal option -- >> okay. mr. richie, if there's knox, i'll move to public comment. i've got a number of cards.

>> thank you. >> hello. >> my name is bill martin. i'm a san francisco resident, sfpuc customer. i strongly support the phase one proposal. it's the only path forward for the bay belt aeco system that has significant peer reviewed science backing it up. the board said the proposed tuolomne river management plan represents the irrigation river districted management assessment of their proposed action using their own models. however the validity of the models is highly uncertain and remains challenged by outstanding agency comments that were not resolved in the final study. these models have not been peer reviewed. perhaps a peer review could

resolve the still outstanding agency comments. also, the water board said, quote, california department fish and wildlife, u.s. fish and wildlife and water resource control product documented with multiple letters and comments and meetings regarding juvenile fish production models, and the district's predation study and report. agency criticisms of the district's biological models include, but are not limited to, concerns that the models do not recognize existing rearing and spawning habitat regulations. note the water board's words: highly uncertain, remains challenges. not resolved.

documented disagreements. do not accurately represent. the sfpuc has not responded with peer reviewed scientifically valid materials. the sign backing up phase -- science backing up phase one has been peer reviewed and is scientifically valid. please support the state water board's proposal. thank you. >> thank you, mr. martin, for your comment. next comment, dick allen. good afternoon, mr. allen. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dick allen, and i reside in district seven. my major certain, commissioners, are san francisco p.u.c. tuolomne river water policies compliant with the endangered species act? a federal law passed by congress in 1973. the american bar associations executive summary stated congress' plain intent when

enacting the endangered species act was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction at whatever the cost. in 2014, the 9th circuit kompl backed environmental restrictions on water deliveries, ruling against the west lands water district, stating water from the sacramento, san joaquin river is important, not just for people but also the fish that swim it, reversing a previous lower court's ruling. after attending meetings to hear our p.u.c. state their position on the bay delta plan involving

the tuolomne river, the endangered species act is not mentioned, and it seems that our p.u.c. recently gotten gauged in an effort to protect the tuolomne river eco system and habitat. why the long delay? sadly, recent challenges to the endangered species act are for real and backed by trump's statement to support central valley irrigation districts. he promises we're going to solve your water problem. it's so ridiculous where they're taking the water and shoving it out to sea. and then recently, after meeting with the p.u.c., our mayor, london breed declares the public utilities commission should not be handicapped by environmental concerns. what the p.u. kruchlt's say or

neglect to say to mayor breed that caused -- to go against the unanimous vote by the san francisco board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. allen. thank you for your comment. next speaker. good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you very much for having me hear today. nicole sancula. i wanted to share some comments on behalf of 140,000 residents, numerous businesses and counties that relie on your regional water system to meet their needs. couple things. first, i want to thank general kelly for his management and leadership in sending the letter to the board of supervisors. i believe that was helpful and a

significant leadership step. i also want to thank mayor breed for her forceful letter vetoing the decision. again, those steps are never easy. following her action actually chair al mendel send her a letter expressing similar sentiments, including her continuing -- [inaudible] >> -- as a way to achieve a good resolution, the most viable resolution that will meet the objectives without unproductive litigation to this issue. and lastly, i think -- and it's been interesting to watch this unfold, we're not alone in focusing on the voluntary settlements. mr. richie comments on it, but it was a pretty significant

letter from governor brown and lieutenant governor newsom. that's my focus, and i encourage everyone to engage in that to make some success. thank you. >> thank you very much for being here. comment? good afternoon. >> good afternoon. peter dreckmeyer with the tuolomne river trust. what went down a couple of weeks ago was incredibly depressing. on october 29, before the land use and transportation commission meeting, general kelly says i just want to end in we want to thank peskin's office because there was a gap in the original resolution because we worked with them and we feel we're at a place where we're comfortable with the resolution. the next day, the full board unanimously approved it, 11-0.

on november 1, two days later, general manager kelly sent a follow up letter to the supervisors saying, over the past week w i worked closely with the sponsor of the resolution urging the state to allow stakeholders, including sfpuc to continue important resolution negotiations. however, after further review, it is clear that the language in the resolution is counterproductive to our ongoing settlement negotiations as it does not accurately reflect sfpuc's position. total about face, and this is at the same time everyone's talking about negotiated settlements. how can we have any faith in negotiated settlements? it's interesting that the two bsca agency members that bicycle were san jose and santa clara,

the two interruptible customers. from what i've seen, whenever someone comes forward needing more water like this, it gets approved. but when there's water needed for the environment, there's not enough. i'll tell you, i've never seen bsca never do one single thing for the environment. they're good at conserving, but it's to help more growth. the state water board, th -- if sfpuc was really confident in its proposal, they would love that option. just drop it down to 30 is p. but again -- 30%. they just want a check list,

commit to do what they did, and it didn't work out. what i think is really outrage is the figures that staff put out there. commissioner moran, i would love to hear your thoughts offline about this idea that san francisco could drop-down to 15 gallons perperson perday. these figures of 40, 50, 60% rationing, they don't tell anyone that after five years, we have 566,000 acre-feet of storage, and that'll last two years. this is likely your last meeting before the state water board hearing because your november 27 meeting is cancelled. thank you. >> thank you, peter. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is jerilyn moran. i'm here today as an individual who lives on the peninsula, but

also representing with the universalalist union church of palo alto. i join many others in anger towards this commission's mode of operating. this one incredible bay eco system is dieing and you are essentially pushing it over the edge if you stay this course. over 500 species of wildlife are going to go down with it permanently. so what i want to hear from you is what or whom are you covering for. think carefully about what historyians are going to say about you now, the decisions you're making now and how you're making them. your constituents are conserving water, and i and others will continue, and all forms of water

efficiency are improving continuously. future generations will be nothing but grateful if you help and do the right thing. so in closing, i remind you this is a moral issue just as it is much a humor economic issue. the unitaran universalist's church say that same thing. i hope you will listen to that. >> thank you for being here. next speaker, starting with eric sklar, barry nelson, noah oppenheim, and barry warnington. >> my name is eric sklar. i'm the president of the california fish and game commission, but i'm here as an

individual today. in spite of a deep personal connection to this commission through my father, dick sklar, but a recently decision of the commission encouraged me to speak out. i was shocked by the p.u.c.'s public opposition to the bay delta plan. of course it's the commission's responsibility to provide an adequate water supply to the citizens of san francisco, but the commission's position is out of line with the deeply held values of those very same citizens. we must restore sufficient cold water flows to our river or we face the extinction of salmon and other species. years of greater flows exacerbated by climate change

has endangered the species. you can trace their effect all the way back to plant life on land that has been fertilized by the terrestrial creatures that have eaten those salmon, they're a critical species. while the commission should clearly work toward a solution as part of the ongoing negotiations, taking a stand against the ban is against san francisco's issues. mr. richie's numerous examples of what we can do are a little bit late. the recent actions of the commission and staff require a course correction.

i urge you to retract your public position while you continue to work hard on a negotiated settlement. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sklar, very much. mr. nelson. >> thank you very much. the timeline mr. richie just presented you is astonishing. on the 29th. he stood up and supported the resolution that he negotiated with mr. peskin. 37 organizations wrote a letter supporting that resolution. two days later, apparently, the staff changed their mind oand opposed the resolution that they had supported two days later. that led the state board ultimately to delay another resolution that your staff had

supported. urge the state board to act in november . apparently your staff is now working to undermine the resolution that they support. that's not acceptable behavior, it is not an acceptable way for your staff to treat your community, the community that you represent, the community groups that you represent, the bulk of the organizations that signed that letter are either located in san francisco or have members in san francisco. today, the p.u.c. is the leading voice opposing protections for the bay delta over the state board. we're on the brink of extinctions, and right now, the p.u.c. is the leading voice in slowing down that crisis. the p.u.c.'s position is giving cover to antienvironmental voices in the central valley and the trump administration. it's not news that the central valley farmers and the trump administration oppose this, but

it's sure news and sure persuasion when your staff does that. your staff is painting a doomsday nair joe. there's a dramatically different picture if you look at demand today, and just the tools you presented today, there is no shortage if the state board standards entered into it today. as mr. sklar just approximated the out, your organization is a decade or two behind most other organizations in the state when it comes to planning water supplies, and frankly, the p.u.c. is relying on lousy coins rather than peer reviewed science. we would step in and urge you to go in three directions: go to your state board, and urge them

to act in december. that would still give you a year or two, probably more, to reach a voluntary settlement. >> i'm going to let you go over just a little bit. >> second, make sure there's a settlement, it involves the n.g.o.'s. we urge your staff to make sure that you strive hard to that end. third, don't rely on the models that you're currently using. rely on the peer reviewed science. don't we lrely on that lousy science. finally, we're willing to work with your staff to invest in efforts, but it would strengthen that relationship if you made that commitment to the community. >> thank you for your comment. mr. oppenheim. good afternoon.

>> i'm the president of the pacific coast federations of fisherman's organizations. i represent two organizations that are based here in san francis francisco. what can be described as decisive leadership by some can be described as let downs by others. i'm ashamed to have stood in front of the city supervisors two weeks ago and commended them and your staff for working together to come to terms on a resolution supporting the state water board's proposal that was workable. what ensued in the subsequent days is shameful, and it's going

to, if perpetuated, destroy our industry. but more importantly, it's going to destroy the ethic that san franciscans have embraced for decades. i'm going to read part of a letter that our vice president sent to the mayor after her veto was made public. he's been a resident of the city for decades. he's loading crab pots today for the opener in two days. he writes mayor breed, our local fleet is a portfolio local business. we fish salmon, flcrappie, and halibut. 1 million new acres have been irrigated in the valley. the fish's water has been stolen, and with that theft, the jobs that went with 4300 boats. now there's a chance to right that wrong.

i can't tell you how much it distresses me that you would stand with west land's water district over your local salmon fleet. the letter goes on, but the gist is that right now, we're facing the loss of a home grown industry here in san francisco. our fleet has been shut out of the fishery for two years in the 11 and our seasons have been significantly occcurtailed. we will not survive if we don't make an about face. for many months, state agencies, water districts and others have been working chief to achieve volunteer agreements that would meet the requirements of the amendment set for adoption, the july 7 framework. the voluntary settlements that are being discussed with fully expected to supply with that 30

to 50% range. for this government and its administration to undermine negotiations pursuant to that goal is not only counterproductive, it flies completely in the face of what our true leaders in our state are aiming for. i urge you to make an about face now where it's too late. -- before it's too late. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for giving barry a little extra time. >> i'm liberal. >> thank you. it's very nice. second comment, i'll make to miss sanculla -- i've got some

tough things to talk about and then a nice thing. you likely received an unfortunate long e-mail from me on october 29. the e-mail lists a number of aremain laing, elitist or false statements that he made. i would -- alarming, elitist, or false statement that he made. i think you want the standard to be that th sfpuc is viewed as a trusted, unbiased source of information. okay. the good news. [inaudible] >> -- land use committee meeting, and the part that's really exciting here, and it's to say thank you for spending so much time today on the bay delta area plan, this slide is from a study sponsored by the tuolomne trust by administered by cal state fullerton, and it

basically says that -- it asked -- if these citywide proposals, what's your level of support for these different citywide proposals. you can see the top is protect, restore the bay. next is restore the tuolomne. and remarkably, the third is affordable housing. this is just pointing out that i think that it's well worth your time on that subject, and thank you for taking so much time on this subject. i thank you for your time, and thank you so much for doing so. >> thank you so much for your comment. mr. mcmannis. barry, did we -- sorry, barry. i just went right by it. good afternoon. >> john mcmannis. did you mean to call me? is it my turn? >> yes. >> okay. great. president, golden gait salmon

association. don't want to repeat points that i've made here last several times that we've spoken, but i think one thing that's become clear is no matter how this goes in front of the state board, there's a need to develop plan b with alternative water supplies. how you get there, how fast is going to be up to you guys, but it seems to me to be the sooner the better, and it seems to me there are alternatives that aren't being exercised. the water board, they made clear voluntary settlements can be brought to them after their framework is adopted. we hope that this group, you commissioners, will reverse the course of the staff and support the current amendment that is for phase one in front of the state water board. and i also want to report --

because i was at the water board meeting, that the water users down in the tuolomne area got up and made clear to the board that they're basically not near a settlement. now i hope i'm wrong, and i hope by december 11, 12, 13, but they indicated to the board that they're not, and they also expressed great frustration that their science had not been accepted and they stated aknew their rejection of the state's science. it doesn't sound like the parties are close. i hope i'm wrong, and i hope it comes about by december. i'm just saying, i don't think we're holding our breath that we're going to see a settlement. also, i got a letter from a linda corso, who's a san francisco resident. she's unable to be here today, but she'd like to join in those urging you to support the state water board's plan.

she says we have an administration in the white house that denies climate change, seems hell bent on destroying the e.p.a. and our environment. i urge you to work with golden gait salmon organization and others to come up with a plan that helps all stakeholders. our eco system has been changed by climate change. the only way for everyone to do that is to come together and compromise a little bit. so thank you for taking the time. >> thank you very much for being here, and i appreciate your comment. mr. hermannson. >> thank you. i really -- i've been appalled by the proceedings, and i've -- i've come and testified a couple of times before, and talked about my efforts to reduce water consumption.

on my last water bill, it was 13 gallons perday. one of you did mention after the public comment was over that it wasn't realistic to expect the average citizen here to actually be able to reduce their consumption that much, and i agree. average -- i really am appalled, again, as to how much we do actually waste water. water is life, and it really -- it needs to be -- we are a center of innovation here, and one of the editoryials that was written in the mercury news and the san francisco chronicle highlights that, in that we are not stepping up our game to invest in innovation, and how do we conserve? this needs to be priority number one, because