understand it and at least make some comments to that before tomorrow's vote, but unfortunately, we are able to do that. in the absence, as you've addressed -- in the absence of the v.s.a. or a final order or possible litigation, it is important that we as the sfpuc do the right thing authorize the fish while maintaining water reliability for our customers. i understand that the east bay mud has seen great consults with close to 20,000 salmon returning last year, the highest number since 1940 because of their successful flow regime. i also understand that the sfpuc believes that their flow regime will provide the better out comes for the fish than the 40% that the state is currently proposing. so regardless of what action is taken, we should begin to implement our regime to indeed show that it will work with all due haste and for the sake of the fish. i would like to better

understand how we can begin work on the river as quickly as possible and would like a resolution prepared for us to considerate january 's meeting regarding implementation plans that specifically commit to the following four items. [please stand by]

>> colleagues, there are not a lot of people that i respect and admire more than this commissioner. especially when it comes to these kinds of topics. thank you for your thoughtful comments and requesting an electronic version as we continue to go down this road. i hope people hurried to me. are we prepared to move into public comment? >> i just have one brief comment and then i will comment after the public comment. first of all, i appreciate your comments. i think she sets a high bar for what we need to do in fairly

short order and i appreciate that. i also want to point out as we move into public comment that there are three things that were mentioned several times in the comments that steve's presentation didn't get as excited about those threes things as i get. and those are three items that the commissioner touched on. one is early implementation that is easy for these kinds of programs to get bogged down in the various parts of implementation, and to get sidetracked by litigation, one of the things that screams out to me is that we recognize the need to go into something. and that is what we are talking about. no less significant is the commitment to outcomes.

in a regulatory environment to, it very common to negotiate terms and conditions, and then to hold yourself to meeting those terms and conditions. what you are hearing, i think it is a commitment to not just to terms and conditions but to be recognized that we need to adopt something. there is disagreement as to what may work the best, but we need to go on and prove that. so if it turns out that we are able to implement what has been negotiated and it turns out that is not working very well, this commission and the staff recognize the need to address that. and then the third item, whatever level of fishery obligation we assume, that will mandate a development of net water. that is both on the conservation side as well as the water development and reformation side we need to create some space between our yield and our

demands and how we can respond appropriately to demand needs, or two needs to step up the game on the fishery front. those are three things you are hearing. i think they're hugely significant. i think your comments go beyond the talking and say okay, how will we get this done? i wanted to lay this out before we get to public comment. i will probably come back with it. >> thank you, commissioners. any other comments before we move into public comment? we will move into public comment i will repeat myself at -- at the risk of losing the remaining friends i have appear, we will not reduce public comment from three minutes to two or even one everyone will have three minutes please refrain from phil at --

feeling obligated to use all three minutes, and if you have heard it said, would probably have heard it and it probably doesn't need to be said again. there are -- 16 or 17. >> seventeen. >> that is over half an hour of public comment. nothing wrong with that. let's do something with it. did you keep the rest? did you take them back. >> no, i didn't. i have a paperclip. >> forget everything i said. public comment is counselled. [laughter] [laughter] >> my fault. >> sorry. [laughter] >> thank you donna.

i will call the first five speakers. feel free to line up or remember your order. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is norma and i do support the bay delta water quality control plan as a compassionate and responsible action. i am a fourth-generation native san francisco and the, and i will be speaking to my personal family values and experiences in california. i have a great grandfather who was founding father of mariposa near the river in 1852. i have a great-grandmother who came around the horn as an orphan to san francisco around 1850. my parents were born in 1916 and were raised through the depression, so we were raised

with their depression era values this included most importantly living with by saving and not by wasting. we had one family car. my father walked from tank hill down to 19th avenue to take himself to work. we camped in the high sierra his spirit as a girl scout, i remember hauling water from the river to camp and learned the value of a drop of water. in the seventies, as kids, we learned that if it is yellow, let it mellow. if it is brown, flush it down. i can see smiles for the amount of knowledge there. our lawns were points of pride. i didn't hear any of this in any of the recent droughts and i wonder why, and i know there is room for more confirmation. the land and water have a carrying capacity and we must use the water we have as wisely as possible. we must conserve as much as

possible, not just during drought. we must conserve to refill the drain aquaphor his. spirit we must conserve because the fish cannot. i consider the native americans living here for thousands of years in harmony with nature and our previous speaker has so pointedly mentioned. we should be so conscientious. it is a finite planet. we are using too much of finite resources, fresh drinking water, san francisco needs to lead the way as usual in protecting the planet. thank you so much. >> thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> my name is gloria. thank you for the public comment portion. all of you are much more knowledgeable than i am or ever will be about all of this big huge area, and many factors

involved. i just wanted to remind you, it i would like to ask all of you to keep it in the forefront of your mind. to keep bouncing it off of everything else you do, that every civilization on the planet has gone under because they didn't pay attention to planet earth, and to the needs of everything else except people. and part of that is population and overpopulation. it seems to me that government agencies generally are trying to meet the needs of their citizens , or even the projected needs of their citizens, 20, 30 years in the future. i don't think that is a good way to look at anything. that is the backward way to look at it. you have to look at what is available, and how much of it is your fair share? do not have a concept of our fair share.

humanity is extremely greedy. they think they can have it all. if we take more than 40%, more than 30% for ourselves, not leaving 40% or 30% to the river, we are way overshooting our fair share. and when you do that, you go into in indebtedness to the ecosystems that cannot be resolved, cannot be ever overcome. we will suddenly find ourselves in a huge crash position, and our civilization and much of our population will be gone. if you think i am being extreme, look at syria, yemen, lebanon, look at bangladesh. look at all the places on earth where this is already happening. in south america, over 60% of native species are gone, extinct

and this is accumulating faster and faster with climate change. we must take a broader outlook and look at those demands first because those demands really are first. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is gail. i am here in support of the bay delta water quality plan and urge action taken immediately to support it. i am also a cochair of the social and economic justice task force and of my local chapter of democracy for america. a charter democratic club. when air quality in this area was terrible, authorities passed legislation that made it better. that was good. later, when considering the

proposal to fill in the bay, leaving only a small water channel for navigation, it took citizen action to stop that crazy plan. when considering water, we have to remember that 70-80% of it goes to agriculture and much of this goes to growing things for exports in giant things that are really plantations, not farms as we think of them. in california, the rule once was that water allotments had to be scaled back in time of permanent drought. however, in 1994, in a secret backroom meeting, there was an agreement known as the monterey agreement that removed that rule , and that is one of the reasons we are in so much trouble with water allotments. on paper, vast exceeding the amount of water that was ever

available in california. san francisco his have shown a remarkable ability to reduce water usage far below projected need to. when polled, they stated they are willing to do this for the environment but they are not willing to do it for more office buildings. i would note that water managers for both los angeles and san diego, when asked to support a massive project said no thanks. we are managing locally. we are adapting to climate change and we don't want any more water from the north. i think that san francisco could pull their leadership and do at least as well as san francisco in adapting and allowing at least 40% for the environment. that is the minimum. thank you so much for your time. i would like to continue to be proud of my native city. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> my name is dave warner. two subjects.

first one, you have given me an honour by taking seriously my tee last month regarding testimony to the land use committee of the board of supervisors on october 29th. this morning i received a detailed response to my letter. i have not had a chance to digest the letter, but i appreciate the attention that you have given to us. thank you again for the terrific attention. i cannot really speak for my environmentalist mentors, that but the proposal that the commissioner made seemed absolutely remarkable. i was going to spend time being critical of the river management plan, but i think your proposed points fully create -- address that issue and how you address them. i will not spend more time. i would say i support and endorse what you guys are saying thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. i am cindy charles. conservation chair for the west women flash fishers of bad board member of the trust. i i'm a native san franciscan as well. on monday, i was driving along the lower river outside of waterford and crossed over the roberts ferry bridge which you can see here. i have a photo. is it possible -- >> that is the view from the bridge. i was extremely fortunate to seat to watch what salmon spawning in the river right below the bridge. yea. this photo is -- the water was unusually murky. i don't know what is causing the water quality issue there, but you can see two salmon their

spawning. they are on the red. as i watch them spawn, i marvelled at how lucky i was to have survived the gauntlet of the river. these fish are enduring extremely poor low water flows, delta pumping, and poor water management. they join the few other survivors of the gauntlet to spawn in their home river. unfortunately, in today's world, which is experiencing unprecedented animal extinction, the river salmon are not an exception. your lack of support for an increase in flows for the rivers as outlined in the state water control plan will directly lead to salmon extinction. peer-reviewed science shows that fish need higher flows, unlike the river management plan, which would just continue the ineffective and failed methods of the past. the actions of the san francisco

p.u.c. are in conflict with the environmental values of the residents of san francisco. according to a trusted survey, the majority wants to see a healthy river which would result in a meaningful recovery of wild salmon populations before it is to be too late. the historical population of the spawning salmon may have exceeded 40,000 fish, and in many recent years, the numbers have plummeted to just a couple of thousands of fish. not just the commercial salmon fishery in california, but the entire salmon based ecosystem is on the brink of collapse. i witnessed what is being lost on the river, as it salmon populations continue to decline even with the ineffective half measures that have failed to restore populations. the san francisco p.u.c. should not ask for any further delays on the vote of the bay delta water quality plan which is happening tomorrow. the adoption of this plan is long overdue, in any delay such as suing the state water board would contribute to the extension of the wild salmon in the river. i asked the commission to pleas

respect the wishes of the majority of san franciscans who want the river protected. i'm asking the commission to do the right thing. >> thank you for your comments. next five speakers, please. good afternoon. >> thank you. i'm here on behalf of san francisco bay keeper, and more than 5,000 members and supporters here at the time has come for the water board to act on the bay delta plan. the s.f. p.u.c. should not support another delay. as a result of endless plan delays, the bay is in crisis care for bay is in a constant state of severe drought. the current average salinity has occurred only three times in the last 1,600 years. it has been a 400 years since salinity in the bay has been this high. low flow is concentrating pollution. these factors harm native fish

and encourage invasive species ending clue -- increase the resilience of the wetlands. this in turn slows the formation of new soil, which harms the bay 's ability to adapt to climate change. a lawsuit joining the district district answering the water board is not appropriate and does not serve the interest of the s.f. p.u.c. customers. instead a lawsuit aimed an attack -- over the clearly expressed priorities of san franciscans. san franciscans care about the recreational beauties. they care about the fish and birds who live in the bay. they care about their beaches, they care about orca his and whales, and they care about all of the other benefits the bay brings to the city. the fresh water flows are vital for all of these. they were salmon can't be found in local restaurants never sell locally caught seafood and it is hard to go to the beach, chaotic -- kayak category be in contact

with the water is a higher price than san franciscans are willing to pay for cheap tapwater. the s.f. p.u.c.'s position has been based on junk science. again, this is not appropriate and does not serve the interest of s.f. p.u.c. customers. any fish model relied on by the s.f. p.u.c. for decision-making should already be peer reviewed. he said that the goal of the s.f. p.u.c. is to keep its water supply unaffected while helping with fisheries. this impossible goal must be reassessed without interference from junk science and only tells us users what they want to hear. the political reality of san franciscans love san francisco bay and they don't want to see it harmed. the political reality is that san franciscans are willing to sacrifice and conserve in order to put more water back into the river for fish and for the fishermen who make their living off of them. and the political reality is that san franciscans are ready to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to environmental protection.

>> thank you. thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. good afternoon. >> thank you. i'm with the golden gate salmon association. one big picture of context here. the last time the board set standards on their own was 32 years ago. the standards that are in place today have allowed the collapse of the bay delta ecosystem to proceed for decades. for nine years, the state has been working on an inclusive science-based approach to setting new standards. that is where we are today. this is the most important vote in three decades. so tomorrow really is a critical day. a couple of things that you didn't hear in your staff presentation, late last week, all of the n.g.o. involved in

the voluntary settlement agreement -- can i pass us around? of the voluntary settlement agreement discussions sent a letter to the governor indicating we are nowhere near voluntary settlement agreements. nowhere near one that is acceptable to the environmental community, nowhere near one that is legally acceptable. my understanding is that as of the weekend, the n.g.o. that had been participating are no longer participating. a very clear statement of deep concern, and as i was sitting and waiting for this item to come up, i saw a press release making it very clear again. i just want to make sure you are very clear that we may see some sort of a sketchy framework tomorrow. it is not a voluntary settlement agreement. because there are no n.g.o.s at the table right now back and the only n.g.o.s who have seen this proposal -- i haven't seen the proposal. the only ones who have seen it have said it is clearly scientifically deficient spirit.

so with that in mind, five things that i hope you would keep in mind and your staff would keep in mind, the first is that if something is released tomorrow, it is not a voluntary settlement agreement. it may be an outline of a proposal by the trump and brown administration, but it is not a voluntary settlement agreement. none of us have seen it and there is zero n.g.o. support. we are concerned about the document. i will preserve judgement until i see the documents. but it will not be something that the state board can act upon tomorrow. second, we urge the staff to make sure the whole agreement is released. we understand, and i have very partial information here, that there are a lot of items under discussion. some of which may be linked to a state water board proposal. there may be other proposals attached to it that may include

relaxing other environmental standards. so if there is some proposal being discussed by hind -- behind closed doors and if the p.u.c. -- >> feel free to send us those comments and those points electronically. we are sticking with the three minutes. thank you very much for being here. next speaker, please. good afternoon. >> good afternoon president and commissioners. thank you for the opportunity. i'm with the pacific coast federation of fishermen association. i will not repeat what you have already heard. here we are. the vote is tomorrow. his is 11th hour and there are no vsa for public comment consideration. smoke and mirrors. whatever we will see tomorrow presented by the state as mr nelson just communicated to you is an unacceptable way to approach the public process.

certainly any public process, but one of this magnitude, it is an extraordinary thing to contemplate for someone relatively new to the public policy arena. hopefully not a model for the future. i strongly encourage you to avoid recommendations for a delay. and allow them to proceed with a vote on the july 7th framework i want to talk briefly about two items. adapted management and voluntary settlement agreements. very briefly, the california water code defines adaptive management as a framework and flexible decision-making process for ongoing knowledge, acquisition, monitoring and evaluation leading to continuous improvements in management planning and implementation of a project to achieve specified objectives. we set those objectives and then we move forward to achieving them based on -- and this is from rule-making interpretation, best available science.

so the organization that has the best available science in its hands is the state water board. their science is unequivocal. it is clear. sixty% of unimpaired flow is required to maximize fisheries benefits. the framework is compromised from that high bar, and the science that is being brought forward by your agency and your colleagues at the irrigation district is not the best available science. it has not been peer reviewed. thank you so much for your comments, which included the necessity of peer review before any sort of insistence on the framework and the model that the commission is putting forward should be considered in any serious manner by the water board. regarding voluntary settlement agreements, these are not -- they are most certainly exclusive, and organizations

that are in the room yet to determine the outcomes to the detriment of the public. but as mr nelson implied, the organizations, environmental organizations in the room have left. they are calling this out to be a sham. there are many other factors that are determining how these will be determined beyond just this item at the water board. the p.u.c. must support the board's -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. sonia? >> good afternoon, commissioners i am echoing many of the sentiments you have already heard. i really welcome commissioner's kaman his -- comments and willingness to try to revisit

some things and renegotiate some things and the willingness to look at more specific solutions. unfortunately, i think it is very late in the process. as we heard, it has been going on for years. this should have happened earlier. at this point, all these piecemeal possible solutions creates an overwhelmingly bleak picture for the rivers -- it is all part of a system. it is the entire san joaquin, the delta, the san francisco-based system. all of these paces are spaces pieces are supposed to sit together. i think we have to urge you tomorrow to support the basic fundamental base framework that the water board is proposing, and then work with in that to make it work.

you have worked with questionable demand numbers for the future. demand forecast. you have worked with questionable science so far. the real science says that the rivers, the delta, the bay, needs more freshwater and i think we need to -- it is time to step back from the alliances who would see us deplete and destroy the environment. it is time to reflect the will of your constituents in san francisco and in the bay area who care deeply about the resource that they draw their water from and please do not file lawsuits. please do not ask for further postponement. please support the water board in their efforts to balance the needs of humans and the environment tomorrow. thank you.

>> the first question i have is if the state water board is asked to delay a decision again, what message will that give to those negotiations voluntary settlements. why would parties settle if there are no consequences hanging over there heads and what is a reasonable deadline? as you know it went from august

to november to december. who knows what will happen tomorrow. my second question is, is the modeling that was produced by the turlock districts being used to support sfpuc staff proposal for non flow measures going to be peer reviewed. i heard someone say it would be. so if so, when? i'm worried that implementing this plan, without peer review, even by february of 2019, would years to see how things will play ut will condemn the salmon in those two depend on it. thirdly, why is this solution to increase and protect salmon populations that failed two decades ago? one that relied heavily on non flow measures, in particular predator habitat reduction being proposed again? i referred to a letter sent to you from the trust in july of this year detailing what happened then. number 4, should any water urban

agency be fifth lined with irrigation districts when there are different agendas. they're serving a single industry, agriculture, where sfpuc provides for basic human needs. they have a resource ex traction mentality and they have a conservation mentality. the valley water agencies provide water for profit making leaving out too many of the poor, whole towns have no water. san francisco is committed to providing water to everyone. this puts urban agencies in a bind when they're aligned with water directs like that. i know they're constraints with agreements, contracts, water rights but is it time to pursue rethinking those rather than using them as an excuse not to do the right thing? finally, last question, why is sfpuc not in the lead in such areas as recycling, reuse and alternate water sources? why spread out with all the -- >> please feel free to provide

us the rest of those comments through our commission secretary, donna hood. you can provide the rest of those comments so that the commissioners -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. i didn't call a speaker. elizabeth dorthy. regina morning star galley, peter alexander and john mcmannus. good afternoon.

>> today i brought a delegation of bear, mountain line. lion, there's an american eagle and other species out in the hall. really what i want is to encourage you to think about the entire watershed. the point being that it's not just fish that we're talking about here but an entire watershed. every ecosystem is built as a watershed ecosystem. as many of the great speakers here already today had pointed out, we have the watershed but that's just one watershed amongst and that is tied into a greater ecosystem tired into a greater watershed ecosystem that feeds into the bay. it is also part of a greater watershed ecosystem. and so, my encouragement is like many others, is to accept the water board's proposal to increase flows to 40 at the

minimum, 60, 70, 80% and to put -- even if we only care about humans. even if everybody in this room says you know what, forget it, i don't care about the bears or anything but us, the point is that you can't have an ongoing water supply without a healthy ecosystem. you are cut yourself off at the knees to provide science that is not really valuable science and peer-reviewed science. to base your decisions on that science that will in fact in the long-term cause you to not have a functional water supply and maybe that won't happen while you guys are still elected. somewhere down the road that will happen. so i'm, along with many other environmental groups here in the room encouraging you to finally

put down the sabres and to accept the water board's proposal as a good and healthy choice for your own ecosystem. thank you. next speaker. do you want me to call malcolm also? >> i probably won't need very much time. i'll do that just so we don't have to. i'm going to start with you. >> my name is regina. i'm here today with save california -- >> say the last name again? >> chick-a-zola and i'm here request save salmon. i'm asked to support the water board's bay delta plan in this situation, phase 1. and the people of san francisco want it. first of all, save california salmon represents people who

directly depend on salmon. we represent native people, fishermen, recreational businesses, people who make their living or their whole livelihood or culture depends on salmon. we're asking you one to support this not just for san francisco, not just for the bay delta but for all the people in california that rely on salmon. as you know, this is phase 1 but after phase 1, will come phase 2 and a lot of other rivers within the state depend on some flow measures that are going to come from the state water board and having a powerful city like san francisco fight flows for salmon is setting a bad example for the rest of the state and for the rest of the processes. so, we're asking you to support the people of san francisco and in the city that was built on fisheries and was built on salmon fishing, along with other industries. fishermen's warf isn't called divert water warf, for instance,

we're asking you to support the people of your city, who want to see salmon be restored but also to support the people in the rest of the state that want to see salmon restored. also, these flows are helpful to the water supply of other people in the state of california. as you know, the san jaoquin river feeds the south bay and delta and having more water coming into that system will dilute pollution and make it so more people have clean water. this isn't just the city of san francisco that is impacted by this plan. it's many, many people throughout the state. who will have cleaner water. the fish will have cleaner water. right now, the california salmon and water supply is facing a crisis. all the rivers that will not be use able and if pollution is not

dealt with help water supply and please help the rest of the state by no longer standing in the way of progress for our salmon, which are facing ex tingion in the state of california. it's just going to get worse with climate change. please do it for the fishermen, tribal people, the people of your city and the people who depend objec on the san jaoquin. >> malcolm, you are up. >> say something. do you want to say save the salmon. >> i don't want to say anything. >> malcolm testified to save the salmon in a lot of places. i am sure he would like to eat salmon too. >> we're going to put into the record malcolm's portrait of our general manager. [laughter] thank you, very much. >> i don't know if you can read it but it says save the salmon

in little kid -- >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is morning star galley, i am a band of pit river and the tribal water organizer for save california salmon. i'm here today to address how city and county agencies are choosing a path of destruction for our sacred water and fish over the protection of our environment and legacy. native peoples in northern california are salmon people. our abundant salmon has been devastated by dams and diversions owned and operated by city-states and the the federal. salmon runs that numbered in the millions return in the hundreds. we're on the brink of losing the loss and it would have health and economic and cultural impacts. some of california's native communities have a suicide rate

that is 12 times the national average and a diabetes and heart rate that are over three times the national average. there are no statistics that can stress what losing the salmon has done to oir culture and well-being in our communities. many experts have called the sudden loss of salmon to california native communities culture genocide. there's hope to right this terrible wrong right here in san francisco as we can still change this course. california tribes have been fighting to restore the salmon through dam removal, and fish projects yet in many cases the governor and san francisco's anti environmental lob owing is threatening our work. water projects such as the feinstine, reservoir impact native peoples land and rights and can ruin our chances to harvest salmon and restore our culture in our communities. the vote against a vital plan to restore flows to the san jaoquin river, and the san francisco

board of supervisors, passed a resolution to support this plan, however, this was vetoed recently by the mayor. after this vote, the board will work to restore the delta and bay inflows from the sacramento river and what happens today will impact the processes and related processes in rivers such as the he'll river. all of these rivers are critical to native people's diet and culture. there's need for san francisco to honor tribes and respect the wishes of its people by supporting the plan insteading continuing to impose it. san francisco should stop pressuring the federal to make anti environmental laws. taking these steps will benefit all californians. our fight for the salmon impacts all californians. and river flows and will also help dilute the population. a clean water supply is essential to both salmon and our people. salmon are a part of all san francisco's heritage and not just its native community. it's no mistake the city's tourist hub is fisherman's warf.

of the 95% improving the environment was a motivating factor. it means supporting the salmon. >> please feel free to submit the balance of your comments and thank you very much for being here. next speaker, please. mr. alexander. >> let us be open hearted and kind. without willful blindness and see what we find. let's be like 5-year-olds. those before me and those behind me. now, as 5-year-olds, would we poison the water? would we eat poisoned animals? charlie brown and the peanuts gang. charles shultz was a spiritual man and he portrayed them all 55 years to have something in

common with jesus, gandhi, einstein, see zar chavez, and thousands of others. they were all vegans. and the religions have done their job in lying to people for they have excluded the gospel both in the old testament and new. i invite anybody to spend a moment where jesus chastises religious leaders that ingest flesh and blood has having no capacity to know the kingdom let alone teach it. and people will say what about the fish and the loves? another deception. he cast out the bread. the truth. he reeled in the fish, the believers. water is life. yet most of the water truly, truly in the eyes of the creator almighty, most of this water is misused for the raising of

abused animals terrorized and slaughterhouse murdered. this is behind all the corruption. let's talk truthfully and this is part of a stage for the people. the political powers above you will make the decisions. and so the people behind me, with the 40-day strike, will release this parasite off ourselves and off you so you can actually operate as you truly portray yourselves to be. lieutenant colonel of rambo fame set the vets are one more hill to take, that's capitol hill. veterans, white, black, brown and red, time to strike the system into submission. good-bye to the i.r.s. and fed.

for those who in anyway cause issue with salmon, be serving the god agreed that maintain back gap on. i'm fishing for warriors to engage. taking the world stage. a lot of love and rage to turn the page. it's time to free the animals of their torture and the eyes of almighty there's no difference between us and them. and the true promise land is beneath our feet. >> thank you. please submit the balance of your comments and thank you for your comments about animal agriculture. next speaker, please. >> sir, please. you are out of order. thank you. next speaker, please. thank you mr. alexander. >> does the clock start now. >> john mcmannus, president

golden gate salmon association. you know, for the second bell you have, i can imagine a trapped door. [laughter] it could be kind of fun. i feel like i've been here a bunch before. this is the vote that will be taken tomorrow. if the state board votes to adopt the framework, which we hope they will, we hope that the sfpuc will not be party to any lawsuits challenging it. last time i was here, i commented on the science under pinning the river management plan and tried to warn that the scientific group, quote-unquote, that did that is a group called fish bioment they're well-known to us. we're working on salmon rivers and tributaries all up and down the central van'. not only on the san jaoquin area but the sacramento side. we see in the rivers what works and doesn't. the idea that salmon are limited in the tal amir river is

laughable. it's just not so. that's not what their problem is. in fact, the best science shows, and i implore you to look in this your self, we need you guys to do your due till against and oversee this staff the sfpuc. the best signs shows this adult salmon you just saw coming back in cindy charles' photo, actually was born on a hatchery not in the river. there are no salmon hatcheries. all the fish coming back there that are adults are born elsewhere. the reason why is they can successfully spawn there but the babies that are three and four inches long cannot successfully get out of that river right now. which is why we need some more flow. the fish that are coming back are getting lost, they were bon in the hatchery. they were bon in the merced hatchery and they're trained back up. it's also true on the stanosla. there's not a monopoly on that but we need water in the spring time to get these fish out. the best science shows it, i

don't know why your staff refuses to accept what the california department fish and wildlife and other salmon biologists have found and again i implore you to look into this your self. the staff needs some oversight. it's clear that t.i.d. and m. i.d. chose fish bio. had sfpuc been able to chose its own scientific body we might have a legitimate outcome but with fish bio we don't. thank you. >> thank you. next five speakers, please. >> peter, i want to thank commissioner for your comments earlier on the i hope those will turn into a motion. it gives me hope that we might get back to a place of working together. it's been a couple of years,

we've been opposing each other and that's not as fun as working together. we did have a lot of success back around the time of the water system improvement program. back in 2007, the demand projections for 2018 this year were 285 million gallons a day. and, ed harrington, the general manager at the time, suggested capping water sales at 265 and we are way below that. three years ago, we were down to 195 and two years ago 175, last year 180 and this year 196. projections for this year were 285 and we're way below that. and what we learned during the drought is there's a lot of room for conservation. a lot of people told me they cut back on their irrigation and nothing died. they realize they'd been over watering. people conserve water to protect the environment. our say have a showed people are three and a half times more

likely to conserve water if it benefits the environment than if it enables more development. development was vague. it could be housing or office. people want more office but not office space. three times more likely to support adding groundwater to drinking water if it benefits the environment than if it just encourages more development. steve richy had an idea to bring together different agency that's have a stake in the future of the bay area and water supply and other issues to really think about how we're developing. plan bay area, right now, is proposing a lot of development that people don't want to see. the problem with the development we've been seeing lately is in san francisco, we've been adding jobs six times as fast as housing. the housing crisis has gotten worse, we need to prioritize where we use our precious water. i also want to mention that a

few years ago, sfpuc contributed to the purchase of dos rios. that area has been restored. we're working on a petition to dedicate our water rights there to permanent and stream flow. we're trying do our peace. we'd love to partner with the sfpuc once again. we encourage you not to oppose the bay delta plan and ask for dease lays and not to sue and to move forward with suggestions that commissioner vitor had earlier today. you get my last six seconds. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is ryan camero. i'm a visual story telling activist. that is from the san jaoquin river. i'd like to have my comments

spoken while i try to portray this image right here. this is going to be hard. this doesn't go to my time. long story short, i'm going to pull this up. as a visual story telling educator for eight years i've been doing organizing around protecting the watershed that you folks will have decisions to make today. i represented the san jaoquin river at the u.n. climate negotiations in germany, ma rocco and during the paris agreement and i implore you, to first of all acknowledge the excess ability of these meetings. as a person of color, someone who grew up in one of the poorest cities and one of the most illiterate cities in the country, it's really, really important that these, the intellectual conversations that are happening include people that are directly effected by this process. myself being one of those people. i also would like to bring up some thoughts that, you folks, as the commission, and being

contextualized in the state of california, have a responsibility not only to steward resources in this community for future generations but also lead the way in global innovation as the climate crisis unfolds. here is looks like water issues. i like to bring up something actually with you all as the commissioner. you actually adopted the environmental justice policy with a goal to preventative tease on communities and all sfpuc service areas and ensure that public benefits are shared across all communities. so as a direct stakeholders, i implore you that understand the decision you make to lessen flows to those rivers are actual tangible impact that's will result in decreases public-health for communities in people that look like me. the destruction of species which this graphic was meant to portray that showcases stories ostoriesof the white sturgeon, l

crane, the delta smelt, the schnook salmon runs and all those species by refusing the flows you are contributing to the mass i. tankio extinction. i would really urge you to step on the right side of justice and history at this critical moment where a lot of the thoughts that i have about my nephew and my niece growing up in a place where i can't show them the natural beauty of this region that we all care about and love. i think it's incredibly important. i urge you to really think about the flows and the necessity of that for future generations and for our non human and human relatives. thank you. >> ryan. you mentioned access to the meetings? what did you mean? >> a lot of these meetings, you know, for people that don't have the economic means to come out here to be able to speak on these, a lot of communities that depend on the water flows that

we're talking about. live in communities along the delta with economic and social inabilities to come to these meetings. especially when they're placed on weekdays in the afternoons where folks aren't able to. future generations that do have actual impacts of these decisions, for better or for worse they're unable for folks to be able to show up and regard that. i am currently right now. i think especially where, you know, all these issues are tied together where the profit margins of these rivers being exploited to service large scale corporate agri businesses, those impacts are also the same type of dispose ability culture that results in people living low-wage jobs, having inability to actually come here and present to you with clarity and the way that i actually have thought to be able to do this from many ways growing up in stockton and being able to represent the delta has been a real difficulty and something that i fought to do and really want more communities and younger people to be able to

have that access. >> appreciate you taking the time to come out here today. thank you for your comment. next speaker. >> commissioners, i've been all over the world. i've been an environmentalist all of 40 years. i ask you, who speaks for the salmon? the first people lived here for over 15,000 years. in less than 150 years, even though they came here 400 years ago, the salmon has been adversely impacted. you don't need to be a rocket scientist. the salmon need to water that is

clean. what we did is, it polluted the water. adversely impacted the fro flow of the salmon by building dams. so today you've heard those who i say are spiritually touched to speak from their heart and one commissioner, who someone must have spoken to her or read something that has touched her to encourage your other commissioners to do the right thing. but you know, having served three generals, been all over the world, i don't trust legal ease. i don't trust lawyers who are liars. i trust the elders. when i speak to the elders they t m