addition to the great infrastructure piece. the first part. and then the second is kind of specific to the green infrastructure potential, because i know that that site in particular has a lot of challenges, and it's always struck me that if we even could do one piece of that as green infrastructure, not just for modeling, but since we've had such positive performance results from some of our green infrastructure sites, how that decision gets incorporating and/or implemented. sorry for the long question. >> very good question. in terms of green infrastructure, this project does have a lot of stability concerns with the original scope, and i think when we looked at it, we were concerned about some of that constructibility, so we did look at that and didn't think that was a good approach. with regard to the triple bottom

line, we can certainly look into that. >> i just wanted to say, we actually use the triple bottom line to identify the project, and, you know, we looked at what the costs, what the impact with the environment, and, you know, then also for, you know, the people, the community, and so -- but i guess the question is, that if it comes in over budget, what we normally would do is look at how can we bring it within budget, you know, the original budget that we assess when we use the triple bottom line, so i guess the question, do we assess the triple bottom line and maybe it's not worth doing the project? >> or you start to get greater impact or results now that it's costing an extra $14 million, does that then mean that you

might be able to realize additional benefits in one of those three categories? >> well, i mean, we can probably talk more offline, but, you know, when you, you know, evaluate the alternative projects, you consider costs as one of the features, and if you would have known that this would be $14.7 million more, it may not have been your -- one of your choices. and so -- but, you know, given the fact that you've, you know, went down this, you know, to identify this project, i think before we, you know, just totally not do it, we need to see, you know, what we can do as far as design or improve the, you know, the removal of, you know, flows out of our sewer system before we give up on the project. >> i wasn't proposing giving up

on the project. i was just proposing with $14.7 million variance, it's almost worth rescoping it. >> exactly, yeah, yeah. and that's something that we're -- >> we can certainly look into that. >> that would be good. and then, you know, on the green infrastructure, i think it would be great in the next -- i'm not going to be at the april 9 meeting, unfortunately, but possibly after that meeting it would be great to get an update where we are in the early implementation projects and what the strategy is to replicate, roll those out, expand those, some of the performance results, i don't think we've had an update lately on the chair. i think it would be great to get an update on that. >> sure. >> thank you. >> president caen: any other comments? >> can i also -- i just wanted to maybe bring this up. one of the things that i do find, feel that is important and gets to the triple bottom line is that, you know, we're in the

process of doing $2 billion in a community that we impacted, and one of the things that i feel pretty passionate about is that we want to make sure, you know, communities that have been impacted participate in building this system or this project, and so what i would like to do is, as part of our presentations in the future, i wanted to make sure that we identify how many local businesses in san francisco and the community have participated and what they are doing to make sure it's meaningful and that we're not giving things away, but they are actually making contributions. and then also the local residents, number of folks who live in there who are actually working on there to make sure we highlight that, because i'm letting all the project managers know that we need to do it in a way that is meaningful for the community, because the community has said that in so many ways

that they've been impacted and they want to make sure they participate in building it. the other thing that we're going to do more of is we're going to make sure that we provide information to anyone who, in the community, and so at 1800 oakdale, we're going to have an office there, where folks can go at any time to find out what's happening. we have a place that -- thank you, mark, that will help contractors and, you know, kind of get them ready for upcoming opportunities, but just folks wanting to know what's going on, especially not at the treatment plant, but also at 1550 evans, you know, what is the plan, chas the schedule, so we're going to make sure we highlight that and open it and make sure anyone in the community, if you want any

information about anything to do with these projects, that you can go there. so that's something that i really want to make sure that is out there so information can be provided to whomever would want that information. >> president caen: well, i don't know how my fellow commissioners think about this, but i'm very dismayed at this report, and it seems to me that we have not been really apprised of this information to date, and i would like perhaps more of a monthly, not as extensive as this, but a monthly report on where we are. starting on page 11, under the topic of "projects not within budget and/or scheduled." the ones you named, of course, they are all here, too, but i was really surprised at the

forecasts for a lot of the project schedules have been increased greatly. i understand more about the costs going up simply because of tariffs and so on and so forth now, but in terms of the project moving forward, it was very disappointing to see. so if we can somehow -- not as extensive as this, but i'd like to keep us more up to date. >> yeah, i totally agree that a quarterly report, you know, i think given the fact that, you know, i think you and i really want to make sure that this gets done, but these projects are very challenging, because it's not that you're in a new site, you know, and you're building something that -- i mean, you're actually operating the plant. probably the most complicated, because you have flows coming in while you're building the new

head works, and the digesters are a little easier, because you're building digesters in another location before you have to switch it over, so that's a little easier. i think head works is really complicated, so we would love to show you what the risks are, because they are -- both projects have their own risks, and what we're doing is trying to mitigate the risks, but, unfortunately, some of the risks we are unable to mitigate as much as we thought that we could, but we would love to sit down and go in a deeper dive and maybe do a risk assessment of what the risks are on these projects so that you know it's not really simple. there are risks associated with it, and it could be from material costs, to labor shortage, to community acceptance. one situation where we department have folks from the community and we tried to bring trailers in. the community pretty much, you know, stopped the contractor, because they didn't see folks out there. so that's why all this stuff is

really important that we integrate everything, so that we are able to deliver these projects. so what i would like to do is kind of come up with a monthly update on all the key areas that we feel that could impact the delivery of these projects. >> president caen: i would appreciate that. >> and i would love to take you down there once a month and revisit some of those, you know, lovely eateries out there, that we're hoping all the workers will support, as well. >> good. >> we have a date? great. >> president caen: thanks. >> perfect. >> thank you. >> president caen: thank you very much. is there any public comment on this? >> so to the people at home, i want to tell you all that this is a $10 billion project, and $10 billion is a lot of money that we, the constituents of san francisco, have to pay attention

to. so as you have heard today, when early on there was some delays within opinion in a very rude manner tried to be polite. when you are polite and when you let things go, and some people take advantage of the situation at hand. it pains my heart, and to you folks at home, that we have had astute workers like tony florence, tommy miola, karen cubic, mark harris, who came up the ranks, suget singh, who paid off all the project managers, they are no more with the sf p.u.c., so there are some people in the sf p.u.c. who think and maybe endorse that institutional

experience, memory, and help is not needed. so what happens when you bring newcomers onboard? it takes them a good three, four, five years to understand the situation at hand. and for the people in the bayview hunter's point, i have been working, trying to do my best, but i have to slow down, because after 40 years, i cannot do this a lot. so i cannot attend the meetings, because we used to come here, we used to plead, beg, and people don't listen. these are billions of dollars now that have to be expended because the price of steel has gone up by 25%, material, all sorts of material have gone up, and again, initially when you

scope, do the scoping, those are the people who have to do a lot of work, cannot come afterwards and say, oh, we need to do dewatering. we put the blame on the millennium tower because of dewatering and whatever. we have to do things in a proper manner with standards. initially, when everything settled down and people got the community benefits, somebody decided to send $200,000 for green for all. that tells you that gives you a type of mentality of how serious you are with the project. so thank you very much. >> president caen: thank you. any other public comment? does that conclude your report? >> did you -- you're finished? okay, yes, that concludes my report.

>> president caen: next item, please. >> clerk: item 8 is an sfgreascycle program update. >> good afternoon, president caen and commission. our assistant general manager of wastewater, greg norby, has asked me to come and speak to you for a few minutes about the success and sunsetting of the sfgreascycle program. my name is cary bing, the business services manager for the wastewater enterprise, and also have the privilege of founding and supporting the sfgreascycle program for its 12 years. the program is started by the sf p.u.c. back in 2007 as a response to restaurants complaining that they had no way of disposing of their cooking oil. operations crews were often diverted from preventive

maintenance and instead sent to reduce blockages in the sewer system from cooking oil ending up down the drain from residences and restaurants, so a program started to have city employees actually hand collect cooking oil from restaurants and residences and convert this cooking oil into biodiesel, which was then converted and brought back to san francisco city fleet for many years. we had over 1,100 restaurants participate in the program. we've collected over 3 million gallons of cooking oil for conversion, and in the process we've generated over $5 million in revenue from the sale of the cooking oil to local bio diesel manufacturers. so it's gained national recognition time and again as a very pro business, pro environment success story. during that same time, there are

a few other changes that have happened. one is san francisco has the fats, oils, and grace ordinance in 2012 regulating restaurants and working with restaurants to help them better manage their grease. inspectors now go out and work with restaurants to monitor and track the proper management of grease. the second is san francisco's fleets have shifted away from using 20% bio diesel to using 100% renewable diesel, and that's at a scale that local bio diesel companies could never provide for the needs of san francisco fleets. and then the third consideration is that through this effort there have born a number of small businesses in san francisco that are in the grease hauling business now, that are very responsible, very regulated, and they do collect and convert the cooking oil to bio diesel and other fuels, and

they've developed a long track record for this activity. so we found ourselves now competing with these very businesses that are doing the right thing and as in 2007, when we stepped in to address the marked failure in a pro business fashion, we're also now recognizing when we should step back and hand over these activities to the private sector. so we're intending on repurposing our vehicles for sewer operations crews, and repurposing crews for catch basin cleaning and other preventive maintenance activities, and i just personally want to say thank you very much to everyone on this commission for all the support. it's a really good story and it's good governance. i'll take any questions if you have them. >> president caen: question, so do these companies charge to

pick up the grease? >> they don't. they don't. and that, a lot has to do with the fact that there's now a market for this material that was once a waste. >> president caen: so the restaurant, there's no reason why a restaurant wouldn't participate? >> no reason. they have to pay for their large grease capturing device cleanings, but the cooking oil is often sold to local and regional producers, so they make money on the back end. >> president caen: i don't want them to revert back to just tossing them down the drain. >> neither do we, so we'll still be very closely working with the restaurants and also be continuing our residential program. >> i guess also from the environmental perspective express appreciation, because being able to create a market for waste, i believe, is one of the ways we really need to head for the future of the planet and our city, so i just want to

thank you for blazing the trail and creating such a successful program. so thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. >> the other thing i want to mention, we still have our inspectors, right, working with public health? >> yep. >> so by us not picking it up and depending on someone else to pick it up, we still have our inspectors to make sure that they have grease traps and things of that nature, right? >> yeah, thank you. we, in addition to our inspectors, we're also -- we've become very savvy at working upstream of blockages, handing out door hangers and talking to residences and businesses upstream about behavior change to prevent blockages at the source. thank you for your time. >> president caen: thank you for the presentation. do i have any public comment on this? next item, please. >> clerk: item 9 is a bay area

water supply and conservation agency update. >> good afternoon, commissioners, again, nicole sandkulla, basca ceo. so i wanted to take my time today to provide you an update on our efforts to secure long-term water supply, reliability for the wholesale commerce and their water commerce. as you know, your level of service goal, your commitment to them, is shortages of 20 -- no greater than 20% systemwide, and for the bawsca agencies, because of how we share those supplies during drought, that means a 26%

cutback to the bawsca agencies. early on after you adopted that level service goal, collectively they decided they wanted to investigate and invest in a greater level of reliability. that's really where this strategy effort comes from and its focus, and that dry year yield, when we released our report in 2015 to get to a 0% shortfall was 48,000-acre feet. obviously, that's 100% reliability, but it gave us some kind of target to start with. we also recognized back in 2015, as we have now become even clearer these days, there's a lot of unknowns, about climate change, demand, regulatory and environmental constraints, and all of those things are still with us today and things that we're working with. so the desires to continue to look at new supplemental supplies. i've talked to you about the demand study, so that's going to go ahead and address one of those unknowns, certainly, and you've heard from your staff about expansion and i've talked

about that, as well, we're participating that. i want to talk about the pilot water transfer that we've been working on. so in 2013, we released a report with east bay mud on a pilot water transfer plan partnership with them to implement a transfer that was going to test both the physical and institutional aspects of the transfer. this would be utilizing the existing intertie between the san francisco system and the east bay mud system in hayward. physically, that intertie existed, but using it for a pilot transfer hadn't been done before and wasn't anticipated as part of the project when it was developed, so this was a test of that to see if that obvious answer, which everybody was pointing to at that time, was actually feasible. we have found some very interesting things over the years in trying to work through this. most importantly is that during the drought we were prepared to have an agreement with a buyer

going in the middle of the drought, and the federal government, who owns a piece of the connection off of san francisco's south canal, the folsom south canal connection, said that they would not approve us using that facility during a drought, because we were not a bureau contractor, so that pretty much stopped that effort during the drought, but also an interesting lesson learned. so what are we doing now? how do we move on from this? we're continuing to talk with east bay mud. that component of the existing intertie in hayward is certainly very interesting, but east bay mud actually has access to multiple supplies, so we were thinking about this a little differently. when we were talking earlier in 2012, we were looking at taking water off the sacramento river at their freeport takeout, but the majority of their supply comes from the river, they have an upstream source like you do, primarily sierra sourced, and

upstream of east bay mud is amador water agency. their watershed coincides with east bay mud's, and they get water also off the mokelumne river, and they are interested in testing this concept. they have -- they retail to areas in amador county, and they have conserved water that they have proven a conservation for and the ability to transfer, so that's what we're trying to take advantage of here. so we are moving forward with them on a pilot water transfer. it would be for 1,000-acre feet. the point of delivery actually from amador, our point of delivery would be into east bay mud's party reservoir, so kind of their key facility where they get their water supply, and then the water would be transferred via east bay mud's facilities,

their mokelumne aqueducts into their service area and make its way all the way down to hayward. and then it would be delivered to the bawsca agencies via that hayward intertie. the delivery window, we're looking to time this with the next mountain -- actually hetch hetchy shutdown in november 2019. been working closely with your staff on that, and getting all the agreements associated with this, because there's certainly agreements with amador, agreements with east bay mud, you, and the city of hayward to make this work. and, you know, i've had to think back and kind of reconsider is this still worth it? obviously, it's been a significant effort, but the bawsca board and i remain committed to it. [ please stand by ]

>> it continues to raise a question of what our future demands will be and how that will be important to our future decision making. with that, that concludes my comments. >> thank you so much. i think the water transfer pilot is very exciting, and i'm all paying and believe we will be able to learn a lot from what you learn, and i know we are heading into further deeper conversations about water supply and i would hope that from the p.u.c.'s perspective, even as

you are undergoing your project and your learnings that we could deeply explore water transfer, and what we could do to really maximize both conservation and supply. i appreciate your bringing it to life, and if there's a way that we can at least have the conversation and explore the possibility of these water transfer mechanisms and understanding the differences in our situations, it could be very productive all the way around. >> what is the current status of that?

>> hayward has concerns, gratefully about the impact on their system in a nonemergency situation, however, they are supportive of the pilot and we are putting into place monitoring efforts with them, that will help them during the time of the pilot. they contest what is going on with their system pressures which is part of their concerns, and they had never done that before in prior use of the inter- tied for emergency purposes. this is going to allow them to more fully understand the impact on their system as well, and they are now supportive. >> you're welcome. >> any other comments or questions. >> thank you very much. >> any public comment?

>> thank you. i want to thank many for pursuing this effort, which must be frustrating to just move a little bit of water a little bit differently, there's always something changing in california water. we worry about fire sent earthquakes and environmental protection and all these things, it's great to be able to do things differently even when there are so many institutional constraints and so forth, so i hope you folks will work with them to make this happen, it doesn't mean any water transfer is a good idea, i'm always sensitive as environmentalist, do you really need the water, and that sort of stuff, but that aside, working with other parties, we will be working with others in the future on some bigger deals and can be of benefit to communities here in the bay area and the central valley as well. who does to them for pursuing

this. thank you. >> thank you. any other comments? next item, please. >> item ten is a consent calendar. all monitors -- matters listed are considered to be retained by the san francisco p.u.c. and will be acted upon by the commission. they will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commissioner of the public so requests, in which event, it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> are there any items you would like removed, commissioners? to the public? any item to be removed? may i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> further discussion? all those in favor? >> i. >> motion carries. next item. >> item 11 is discussion of possible action to adopt a resolution regarding the san francisco p.u.c.'s participation in negotiations with state

agencies and stakeholders for a voluntary agreement and an alternate to the amendment to the water quality control plant. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve ritchie, general manager for water. i don't have any slides to present today. we've talked about the state board's action, the bay delta plan several times, and unfortunately i wasn't here at the last meeting where there was a draft resolution for you and as i understand, an alternative resolution was brought forward that time, and so we worked on that in consultation with a couple members of the commission , and have a resolution that we are happy to recommend to you today for your consideration and adoption. i think it hits the mark of presenting the commission's feelings on multiple issues, but primarily that we are committed to environmental protection, there is no question about that

in my mind, as well as to the reliability of our water supply for our customers, i would be happy to take any questions on it. >> commissioners? >> i would like to hear the public comments before it comes to the commission. >> okay. >> the first speaker is konrad fisher. >> thank you. again, it is konrad on behalf of the water climate trust. it is clear to me from the draft resolution that you all care about the aquatic ecosystems and i commend you for holding up the biological metric as opposed to financial and physical. there's a cut above a lot of processes like this. however, i'm concerned that the resolution continues to assume that we must choose between a reliable municipal water supply and the flow regime that came

out of phase one of the bay delta plan, which is our best available science right now. the resolution before you today explains why the city and county of san francisco joined a lawsuit to oppose this regime. if i am allowed, can i ask who here believes that statement? is that a no or i'm not allowed to ask. >> you can speak to us, we can't really respond. >> okay. so i guess my ask of you today would be twofold. number 1, support a flow regime now based on the best available science rather then supporting further delay while we wait for minor studies on necessary lawsuits and very long settlement process, and the way

you can do this, i guess you would suggest that the sfpuc is in a great position to become a leader among california municipalities and support alternative ways rather than take a bite out of what scientists say the salmon needs. there is low hanging fruit. and i talked about this last time. such as soggy public parks doesn't alleviate the program -- the problem that we are here to talk about. on the supply side, there is municipal water transfers. there's also a possibility of legislation just for that, so that in the event of an emergency, there is a provision that would safeguard human right to water, municipal needs so

that cities don't have to try to take a bite out of the apple of what scientists say salmon needs this is not an easy task, but it is the only path to have the future of california that we want to where humans can coexist with our most iconic species like salmon and the orchitis that rely on them for food. >> thank you. nicole. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am pleased to speak in support of the resolution before you today. i appreciate the effort to incorporate the modifications that you had requested or asked last time. i actually do think this resolution goes a long way towards documenting what i believe is the region's commitment to protection of the resources in which it is entrusted, but also reflection of the need to figure out how to balance that with the water

reliability needs of the millions of customers that rely upon the system as well including silicon valley, all the businesses this entire area, that is not an easy job, but i appreciate the work and effort inputting this forward and i think it will be helpful as we continue our work on the discussions with the state. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. stanley mitchell? >> good afternoon. i work with the river trust. i would like to share some comments prepared by peter, she is attending the meetings. he writes, dear commissioners, thank you for your efforts, especially by commissioners to improve upon the draft resolution prepared by staff. we have appreciated the progress

, but still think there's room for improvement, i would like to comment on two items, peer review of the irrigation district his model, and adaptive management. the fish model upon which the sfpuc and irrigation district base their proposal is heavily dependent on manual predator suppression, however, the federal energy regulatory commission stated in its draft, environmental impact statement for the licensing that we do not recommend the permanent barrier accounting or implementing a predator control and suppression plan, because they would likely not be effective and could have adverse effects on federally listed steelhead. similar predator removal efforts by the california department of water resources did not noticeably reduce salmon mortality and the permanent barrier counting where it could act as a migration barrier to salmon. based on this assessment, peer review of the fish model is more important now than ever. we also believe the p.u.c.

resolution should reflect the need for a comprehensive adaptive management plan, including the implementation of higher instream flows should than on flow measures failed to achieve the desired bylaw and environmental goals and objectives. as you know, on december 12th, 2018. the water board adopted a flow regime of 30 top top 50% of unimpaired flow between february and june each year. this allows for a wide range within which the water agencies could work to identify the best combination of flow and nonflow measures. we hope the sfpuc will endorse the water board's approach to adaptive management. thank you for considering these comments. next speaker is teresa hardy.

>> i'm here for the san francisco bay water chapter and here with firmer comment -- further comments with the river trust. he did send a letter to the vice president and the commissioners any voluntary proposal for bay delta flows should meet the biological outcome goals being established that just nearly committing to making specific efforts without requiring actual outcomes is not adequate, and the other concern, which has already been addressed, but i

will briefly address it also is the importance of an independent peer review for any voluntary proposals that just coming up with a plan for one paid consultant does not make the plan valid, and in this letter that peter addressed, he did state that the trust is disappointed in the draft resolution and feels it does not adequately reflect commissioner requests. the draft resolution repeats false and misleading statements. it reaffirms sfpuc's commitment to plan for its design drought, however, the river trust believes it is time to reassess the design drought in light of the crisis facing the river and the bay delta ecosystems.

on december 12th, the commissioner did state that our draft voluntary settlement agreement does not really deal with what adaptive information looks like, and what the project objectives are, and we need to come to grips with that. the river trust supports the emphasis on setting of realistic objectives on an ongoing process to assess progress, and to take corrective action where that information is indicated. we encourage you to look at these comments, and also to take them in stride and address them, because it is not just the people of san francisco, the waters of public trust and all the residents of california have an interest in that, and we all

have an interest in water. if you can look at these comments and concerns, we appreciate it, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker is michael burton. >> thank you. i'm the executive director of a group called the public trust alliance. and what the last speaker said is true. water is a public trust and there's a law that goes with that that some things are so important for public use you don't treat them like private property, and the science changes as well as you get into large systems which involve high levels of uncertainty and the concerns of the river trust and

the sierra club and others about peer-reviewed of science is extremely important, and we should actually be doing the best with what we know, and we should be using what we know and my organization is a long time intervener before the state and public utilities commission, and they have been dealing with changing circumstances as much as you have, but one of the real problems is that lawyers have established themselves as experts and many times they don't know anything about either engineering or economics, they just do law, and they know about winning cases, and with the

notion of a public trust, you have to look at problems differently. i was interested in the report you got on this outreach about the head works. we went to all these places because we wanted to educate them about their sewer surface, or their sewers and our plans to help out, and the thing is, that the water is the property of the people of california, and as managed interest for the the benefit of those people and future generations, and in taking a look at long-term water problems, we request, again, with the other organizations that the peer review stuff and just making sure that adequate

measures for science are taken into account and the proper expertise is directed toward it, and it is not lawyers instead of engineers and scientists. anyway, thank you, very much. >> thank you. the next speaker is bearing nielsen. >> thank you, madame chair and commissioners. i am with golden gate -- just a context first. we are in the middle of a salmon setting season, and the debate in the season every year is how much of a normal season we are going to lose because of the damage to our fisheries. that is the life that every salmon fishery faces. that means every year salmon fishermen wait to find out how much of their normal livelihood that we have seen for decades will be shut down this year.

this year probably won't be as bad as the last two years, but it isn't a good salmon season. i think it is really important to highlight that because this is not just about ecosystem health, although it is also about people his lives, including people in your community. i only like to talk about two issues today. one place where we have made real progress in the resolution, we have made real progress. your new resolution states at the top of page 3 that an additional resolved that says that your position is that new contributions in the voluntary agreement should be in addition to flow obligations and other required mitigation measures as of the date of this resolution. first, as i've said in the past, frankly, some of the habitat restoration is just phony. it is counting stuff that's really -- already legally

committed to in some cases, and already constructed, not by your agency, but by others. this is helpful in moving the process forward to getting that phony stuff out of the voluntary agreement that frankly makes all of the water uses -- it helps the state waterborne actually analyse the proposal. right now they can't analyse a proposal because right now it isn't coherent, without a baseline, they measure water and habitat against, it just doesn't mean very much, and finally, a potentially could be helpful in resisting efforts by some water uses in particular about the trump administration, changing rules in the delta, to be blunt, they can steal your water. this is not theoretical. the trump administration has released an analysis of how they plan to implement these and they are planning to pump any additional water that you release. that is clearly not acceptable to the people of san francisco. but i want to touch on one last issue and that is the peer

review. this is, in a lot of ways, the core issue. the standards we are looking at now have been in place for 25 years. the state waterborne did an exhaustive peer review effort regarding the science from bay delta issues a decade ago. water users have had a decade to put together a counterproposal, and no point in that process have the water users stepped up and said -- [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> thank you. the next speaker is mr. dacosta.

>> commissioners, i spoke on this matter some time ago, for thousands of years, the indigenous people who always respect mother earth, they vetted spiritually the free flow of the salmon. at that time that i spoke, i spoke about the rituals that they had along the rivers, and then came the so-called civilization and this notion of damning the rivers, and all this mickey mouse of having

escalators and elevators to move the fish artificially from one area to another area, spiritually, we all know, because we have a conscience that if we harm the salmon, they are doing injustice, not only here in california, but all over the world. in california, as has been stated, the rain, every drop, the water is public trust, which commissioners do not understand. you hire their attorneys, and you use legal jargon to lie. nobody wants to speak the truth. you want to negotiate so that

you profit from the negotiations you don't go to the source and see about the health of the river. you don't go to the source and see about the harm done to the salmon. you don't go to the source and see about climate change, and all the contamination and all the pollution. you don't even read what lewis and clarke wrote and reported in less than 150 years you have destroyed what was pristine for thousands of years. this commission, this city, named after st. francis xavier should think in a holistic manner, not decide that you know better than what the indigenous

people know, and the indigenous people had at the table. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other speakers at this time? >> thank you. as i've said on several occasions, i am moved to say, why not participate in the peer review. is there something to be afraid of? i've reviewed your proposal, there's lots of interesting elements in it, and why not? i have two and a half minutes. why not? >> thank you. >> any further comments from the public?

so now i will turn to the commission. who will speak first. [laughter] >> i was going to deferred to another commissioner, but she is pointing in this direction, so i will go first. first of all, i think that the resolution that we have here is a pretty good product and it doesn't satisfy everybody and it never would or could or will, but i think it is pretty decent, and i think it says, at its heart, a lot of things that we all believe are important, and that doesn't include a commitment to improving the fishery, to adaptive management, to having a biological objective

, and it does deal with what is our fact, which is there is a tension between some versions of doing that and water supply, and we need to reconcile that. we don't have the luxury of being in an advocacy position where we can just state a point of view. we have the responsibility of reconciling that to the world that we live in and that serves our planet. one thing that i do agree with, and i would be prepared to make a resolution at the appropriate time to amend -- this is the next to last resolve that barry was talking about and that was also addressed to insert the word before, signed -- scientific review and put in the word independent, which i think

gets as pretty much there. [please stand by]

>> and we need to do something about it and the commission on the puc to regard water as the public trust and be able to meet our obligations to our residents as well as our contracts and our obligations to both of those entities. that was the frame and the real issues that we'll reiterate and have been repeatedly to put on the table were as a reminder, first this question of outcome and what would success look like. what are the biological items and the settlement process, our hope and directs for the

resolution and our hope was together p.u.c. staff would come up with and the commitment once get into it whatever the outcomes are, we're adapting as we go so there are specific bench marks and if the fish continue to decline we would then be there to say we're not doing something right and have to adjust course. that's the idea behind adaptive management. there's now a directive in the resolution to hold the process to address that and come up with an adaptive management plan with benchmarks.

get the environmental review lined up as soon as possible to make that happen we cannot wait longer. the fish was in decline and there was a commitment to that and the question of peer review which keeps coming up. i for one agree with and think we should be reviewing it. i don't think there's anything to hide. the p.u.c. staff feels strongly and believes in the model developed with the directs but what was in the tuolumne management plan. i would agree and with that amendment there needs to be an in depend en -- independent review as part of the process and would support that amendment. i would go a bit further and add two other small amendments for my fellow commissioners to consider. i also had a question about the

same comment that was raised about posing significant adverse impacts. and i would feel more comfortable to use a language significantly impact instead. oppose significant impacts whereas in the clause. i understand there's harm that will be caused and we need to address the water supply issues and there's economic concerns and impacting on rationing, all sorts of impacts but i look forward to naming specifically and looking for solution to address but i would be more comfortable with that language as a friendly amendment. then the last piece and i would just kind of put this to my commissioners and i'm not sure if it could or should appear as an amendment but the