>> on thisfriday, march 26 . secretary, wouldyou please call the role .

you are on mute. >> sorry about that. [rollcall] we have a quorum. and mister president, before we get started i'd like tomake an announcement . due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health and that governors have looked at the restrictions in teleconference this meeting is being held via teleconference and is being televised by sfgov tv. for those who you watching the aware there's a brieftimeline between the live meeting and what is viewed on sfgov tv . on behalf of the commission i'd

like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff and the itstaff for their assistance during this meeting . this is a special meeting of the san francisco public utilities meeting and there will be no general comments period. a comment will only be called for the item noted on the special meeting agenda by dialing 415-655-0001, meeting id 187 148 1409. limit your topics to the item is discussed and the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda itemcomment . we asked the meeting is civil and you refrain from the use of profanity. please address your remarks to thecommission as awhole not to individual commissioners or staff . mister vice president . >> let me run quickly through the agenda and introductory comments that willbe brief .

the presentation for staff in our budget scenarios. >> raise your hand to ask a question. wait to speak until the host calls on you .>> apologies commissioner. >> hopefully therewill be time for questions and discussions . the ngos have a couple scenarios they asked us to run as well as their own presentations and again there should be time for comments and questions during that. so each of those two are about an hour. then we will have public comment and the end of public comment your remaining times the meeting will be available for the commission to discuss what they want to. the intent of the meeting is to

builda common base that we can use as we debate policy issues going forward . get some understanding and facts and mechanicsbefore we enter into the lessee donates . it is not the intent and this meeting has had those debates very specifically, to be areas that are very important and there's a lot of interest and passion about which is the use of the design route and what we have structured at the design draft as well as the ration and policy. those two we have agreedboth policy discussions will not be part of thisworkshop . they will be part of a future discussion .i mentioned on monday at part of the setup of this workshop is an unnatural act and what i mean by that is that we're asking all parties actually to go outside their

comfort zones as they prepare andmake the comments and have the discussion today . staff is trained to be very careful and cautious about numbers that they publish. and especially numbers that go out into the public realm and portrayed that way in part because they know that once out in public, numbers tend to take on a life of their own and can they use for purposes other than they were intendedso that makes it very uncomfortable and that's correct and proper . i've asked them today to their willing to publish numbers that they don't necessarily agree with . so we can see how those numbers behave and i appreciate their willingness to dothat and they have done . similarly the ngos, many of the folks in that community are advocates. we asked them not to advocate and that's an unnatural act. they agreed to that condition

as well. so again my appreciation to them. as we must all this through, that has resulted in a bunch o last-minute changes . and as always, last-minute changes means a burden on donna and her staff and she has risen to the occasion and i want to express my appreciation for that as well . success for the workshop would be if at the end of it we have a better understanding of the mechanics of how the water supply works and what makes things better, what makes things worse and by what magnitude . it will also be a success if there's a general feeling that the materialspresented are fair and reasonable . which is not to say that anybody agrees with all the numbers. and it's not to say that any particular scenario represents something that anybody thinks is feasible.

and it's not to say that the scenarios presented are exhausted. i would expect in fact they are not as we go on beyond this workshop we will be posing and examining different scenarios as we go forward and that the entire purpose of having a budget worksheet wecan work with . so i said we had agreed not to discuss the two big elephant i the room if you will . the design draft and the policy and everybody has been very good about agreeing with those conditions. that's the end ofmy introduction . let me turn to steve ritchie who i will believe will be kicking off the staff presentation on the scenarios that will be presented this afternoon. steve .>>steve ritchie: thank you vice president and good

afternoon commissioners. steve ritchie, assistant general manager of water and i will be starting off with a presentation but i ably supported here by a number of staff from the water enterprise. ellen levine,deputy manager of enterprise, policy hope manager of our water resources division , the manager of ouralternative water supply planning , sarah triolo and matt moses was in our hydrology and water systems for as responsible for a lot of the modeling of power systems and how it performs under different scenarios. >> i do need to read this item before you get started. >> steve ritchie: okay. >> we are on item number three, presentation on ssp water supply and demand under different regulatory scenarios

including implementation of the december 2018 amendment. the, proposed voluntary agreement and see the state water resources control board 401 water quality certification orthe don pedro and lagrange issued on january 15 2021. thank you misterrichie . >> . >> steve ritchie: thank you, that slide please. as commissioner morandi pointed out we've been running various supply planning scenarios. this slide mentions there were 10 because there were 10. two of them will be presented by the ngos because they were done at the request and there was a little changeto those scenarios so you will see them in their presentation . we will cross over those here but they were using our hs and system modeling tool, that our primary modeling tool and the regional water systems supply and demand worksheet. as commissionermorandi pointed

out this is just a small number of scenarios . there is not exhausted by any means and there are many other possibilities. for each scenario will result is a surplus or deficit of supply scenario poses different results, demonstrating the effective choicesthat are made in developing that scenario . the assumptions and results each scenario will be presented in this presentation andthe presentation will conclude with the summary table of the bottom-line results . as i said two of the scenarios items nine and 10 are included here but we won't be in discussion thenbecause they beenmodified and will be presented by the ngos . next slide please . just in quick overview, the 10 scenarios are obvious demand estimates and then projections which were taken from the 2015

urban water management plan. current conditions which show updated demand projections and things as we know them now. the river voluntary agreement as is one of those scenarios. but they don't plan is the fourthscenario . they don't plan with alternative water supply projects added to is ascenario . a data plan with alternative water supply objects and a modified rationing policy is one and then moving on they got a plan with alternative water supply policy and modified design draft so as you can see the scenarios build on each other so you can see the differences between them . then number eight as the water quality certification with alternative water supply projects modified rationing policy and modified design draft and the last two willnot need to betalked about here but will be talked about later on by the ngos . next slide please . okay, i'm going tostart with a prior demand estimates . this set of slides will be useful caused they will show

water demand projections work on the last one management plan developed in 2015 the 2015 just protection from our wholesale customers. it also includes the current agreement on lows in the lower 12 river and peo values are based on the a and happier design draft with the adopted rationing policy and to remind you folks the rationing policy was developed in 2008. basically it was three years of 10 percent rationing and 3 and a half years of 20 percent rationing. so folks might say well, it sends an a and happier drop so how come there's only 6 and a half years there and one of the presumptions that's built into our water supply planning is that the first year or two of the draft you're not really thinking that it's really a draft so rationing doesn't start and in fact often times you see at the beginning of the draft demand going up

conditions are drier yet we have not really developed the drought mindset yet at that point. this will also help to see how things are presented going forward so we will talk about each of the assumptions at the beginning and then there's a table below that which is the summary results from the supply and demand worksheet. what you see here in the top row is total yield rejected out for each of the years, in .20 20, 25, 2035, 2040 and 2045. see the 2045 is an a here because out of the 2015 projections only went out 2040. all the rest of the tables will show projections through 2045. the next line is theregional water system demand and that's the projection that is made of what demands would be so these

projections were developed in 2015 . these started in 2020. it was predicted there would be ademand of 230 million gallons per day increasing to a demand of 255 million gallons a day in 2040 . the lower contribution is not applicable in these cases because it's already covered by the side agreement, that was the contribution we were making at that point in time where basically paying the irrigation districts for handling obligations in the lower 12 river and then down at the bottom is the surplus or deficit and you will see they are highlighted ingreen when there's a surplus and highlighted in pink when there's a deficit but in this case it's simple math . patiently taking the total yield minus regional water system demand so you see a surplus of 15 million gallons per day in 2020 decreasing to 3 million gallons per day in 2040 so that's what each one of these will look like.

this is the simplest one because there arefew moving parts to it . if i can have the next slide please. so this is a graphical representation of it as well. we got for each one in your presentation a graphical is everybody processesends in different ways . so in this case you will see three bars in each of the columns. the first bar, the lowest one at the bottom is deeper yield or amount of water the system can physically deliver topped by a rationing policy which is that the amount of rationing that we would anticipate over the design draft which is translated into 1 million gallons per day toget a total system yield . the second column or the second bar is the retaildemand, the darker green and wholesale demand in the lighter green . then in orange bar which in this case they are all moving positive is the surplus or

deficit so it's always orange but it's either going above the line of zero or below the line of zero you can see with the demands we projected at that time they were actually ending up to the into 2040 255million gallons per day when you had wholesale and resale together . this is just showing overtime how we anticipated back in 2015 our demands would interact with our supply and where we would end up at the end of thatas it shows in this case we always expected to have a surplus of supply .i should stop for just a second and ask if there areany basic questions about the presentation . >> commissioner moran: i have one and maybe i'm just deaf here but are you saying when you look at 2030 that the first year of drought the average of

eight years, the immolation? i can't figure out why this rationing policy because that year it's the fifthyear , how does this work? >> steve ritchie: i may ask matt to come in and correct me but we were talking about citizen yields sois not a particular year of the draft . what is is the firm yield is the amount of physical water, wet water can deliver across and eight and half your draft and then that part at the top is basically annualizing the amount of water that you're saving by having rationing in place over the period draft so it's an averageacross the drought and the firm yield is average across an entire drought .so it basically collapses the entire drought into a single year but this is the amount of water. you could deliver on average

and the amount of water you could conserve on average over the 8and a half yourdraft . >> the year 2030 is the beginning of this ?>> steve ritchie: it's neither the beginning. it's neither the beginning nor the end. it's the average over the a and a half year drought assuming it's started, it's just an average. >> commissioner moran: assuming itstarts in 2030 ? >> steve ritchie: i guess you could say it that way. it just collapses the drought into a single number for any drought, for any time it's starting or finishing. this is not to portray that routes are starting or ending anytime in this period soyou can say at the beginning of the drive that would be a way to simplify it . >> commissioner moran: the onl

reason that number would change is if you change your policy . so it's not a measure of a counting process. it's saying the policy is we will do rationing during the drought and because of that policy we can offer more water to people than the loan provides. >> commissionerharrington: but when we say wholesale demand working a year. where not taking over eight and half years but that's changing over the four years, right ? >> steve ritchie: that's correct. each one of those is a projection of what demand will be in that given year but we are comparing it to the average of what we can supply over a drought and ration over a drought. so it would apply whether you are at the beginning or end of

the drought.>> commissioner moran: it's a confusing but important concept .and probably a very bad analogy, if you bought a car that can go 100 miles per hour most of the time you don't so your supply potentially is 100 but your actual demand on the car is not like that all the time so they operate indifferent ways . the supply number is: a rating of the system at any given time. the demand number is the actual measurable demand at that point intime. they just behave differently . >> commissioner harrington: thanks. >> steve ritchie: any other questions? okay, we can go on to the next slide. so here we are looking at it

today. this has updated demand projections for anticipated development in the retail service area and includes most recent artist predictions from our wholesale customers and includes a total of 9 million gallons aday for san jose and santa clara . you'll see these are womenábecause not to repeat the savory lines and all the following slides but they're the same in all the following slides but the first important thing to note here is that the regional water system demand in 1920 was, is 198 million gallons per daywhereas if you recall from the last chart , the projection was 230million gallons per day . that trend continues across those bars there the 2040 four year we show a demand projection by 27 million gallons per day.

when in 2015 we had projected 255 million gallons per day so we're looking at essentially less demand looking forward over this next 25 year period that we were in 2015. and that is really as much as anything else due to a big improvement in per capita demands throughout the service area. in san francisco where looking at residential per capita demands of about 41 gallons per person per day. and inthe wholesale area , i don't recall from nichols presentation the other day but it was on the order of 56 to 58 gallons per capita per day. so these per capita numbers are much less than what was anticipated before.of course the other effect in demand is what population in job projections emerge.those are

things we can actually control so we focus on gallons per person per day because that's what we can effect with our conservation programs and the behavior of our customers . again, this includes the 1995 type agreement on the flows in the lower river and again, the yield values are based on the half-year design drought andthe adopted rationing policy . so with nothing else going on out there you can see for the total yield we are looking at numbers going up to two 57 million gallons per day but overall decrease demand, the 236 million gallons per day in 2045 . although anbar is moving across the entire bar. next slide please. again here you see a similar chart to the first one except now the 2045 column is still in area and again actually i like your crazy their commissioner

of the rating of the system. firm yield plus the rationing policy is a rating of what horses in can deliver on average throughout the design drought.so you see here the green bars come down a little bit and they are distinctly below the blue bars so that we have a surplus throughout the entire planning here 25 years. which is what you will see in the upcoming water management plan. you might have a question. >> commissioner ajami: will be in san francisco multiplying per capita water use to population to get demand? >> in doing our demands and we will be delving into thisin our urban water management plan at the next commission meeting . we get our demands working a lot with the econometric model

and working with the group on it. and actually the demands in san francisco aredistinctly lower because we are starting to see the impacts of various different things and in performing their analysis , they did a lot of work on what actual individualhousehold behavior have been. so they have a lot of good data to work with their which is what resulted in these numbers . we also though at the same time have to dealwith the question of what housing projections are in san francisco and i think you will see both san francisco and our wholesale customer area , the housing projections are quite high. during this last period they were quite high but did not

materialize as much as had been expected and that's something we have to keep an eye on throughout his despite what we see from an economic standpoint we do have to keep track of how much housing is really being built and how much is being occupied so it's accommodation of things this is primarily driven by that econometric analysis . >>. >> commissioner ajami: thank you. >> steve ritchie: if we can move on, we're talking about the river voluntary agreement and again, this takes into account the base conditions that were in the previous slides. the yield valuesare based on the half-year design drought and the adopted rationing policy . it includes the ssp you see contribution to the voluntary agreement and what we will see displayed in the graph, that doesn'tshow up as a single item, just as a reduction in the firm yield .

again the sfpuc contributions are according to the fourth agreement and it assumes continuation of the 1995 side agreement and just to note that if the 1995 side agreement were not in place because it does expire with the issuing of a new license

>> steve ritchie: now is when we start to get into slightly scenarios.go to the next slide. this scenario is looking at the baby also water control quality plan the yield values again are based on the design drought with the adopted list of

rationing policy includes the san franciscocontribution to the new baby out of plan . it's display as areduction in for you . assuming the flow requirements is 40 percent of unimpaired flow february through june . current flow requirements are assuming the rest of the year and ourcontributions are according to the fourth agreement . so here is where we're looking at a lower quality contribution of 93 billion gallons per day so it's much larger. and if you do the math here the 93+ the total yield above is 245 which is what it would have been borrowing the lower quality contribution. that reduction there is down to 152. that results in the math now from the total yield of 152 in 2025 minus the regional water system demand of 213 million gallons per day or a deficit of

61 million gallons per day. what we show here is with the assumptions in place including the contributions 93 million gallons per day that you move into a period of deficit that we need to account for. and if we can go tothe next slide . here's where it starts to change it. as you see between 2020 and 2025, the yield of the system, the blue bar those down substantially and goes down to 152 million gallons per day across there which dropped it down below the man in virtually every one of the planning years which are now depicted as a deficit below the bar in year 2025 through 2045.

okay. if we canmove to the next slide . this is where we are building off of that stage now and start to see if we take actions, can we move the needle back the other day? this analysis was done with the data plan withalternative wate supply projects . we get the base conditions and yield values . we use the samepopulation . 40 percent of unimpaired flow was utilized the same way along with contributions according to the fourth agreement so the last build up there is the significant one where it includes a total of 35 million gallons per day of new water supply projects which are assumed to be added between

2025 and 2040 so the firm yields in the new project separately and able to demonstrate the estimated development of the projects over time but you see the total yield at the top changing by that amount over time as these projects come online. and the new project yield is also included in the total yield shown at the table there. of the 5 million gallons perday , this number was estimated by staff based on what we know in this earlyfeasibility stage planning projects .when you look at those, the 35, 33 million gallons per day is close 2030 and 30 million gallons per day is post 2035 . so you see the larger increases, in those last two five-year increments, bringing thetotal yield up to 192 million gallons per day . because the projects that contribute to that are either

purified water projects we're talking about drinking purified wastewater when that end of the drinking water system and particularly congress reservoir expansion which we all recognize that while it's an attractive project and might seem simple on the paper is going to be a complex project to implement over time so we think that the projects that we are approaching because we're not in the land of lowhanging fruit anymore that these are projects that really do take some time to develop . next slide please. you see the picturestarting to change it . again, the firm yield is decreased in 2025, increases a bit in 2030. a bit more in 2035. then substantially more in 2040 and 2045. we've done nothing to change the demand bar on this for

either a retail or wholesale customers . we just change what contributes to firm yield in thesystem . we can go to the next slide please. okay, here we are talking about plan with alternative water supplyprojects and a modified rationing policy . so the first five bulletshere are basically what we looked at in the last scenario . scenario five which the addition of 35million gallons per day of new water supply projects . what we have here is aging the rationing sequence. the rationing policy to 7 and a half years of rationing at a level of 20 percent. what i described before was so years of 10 percent and years,

excuse me. some years of 10 percent and some years of20 percent . here given that the level of service that the commission adopted said no more than 20 percent rationing, this is you would basically be rationing 20 percent throughout the period of the draft so that results in again, an increase in total yield because you're basically committing to rationing more which is, you can start to drop a higher level people will know they have to accept less water than they would normally get in a normal year. next slide please. and what you see here are changes in the yield going up. you see the big jump in 2040 and 2045 what you see also is a

decrease in the deficit at that time so the deficit numbers are now coming down to a lower level that represents opportunity on basically limiting those deficits in other ways but right here we're looking at a limited set of water supply projects at increased rationingas a way to bring these things intobalance between supply and demand .so any questions at this point ? >> commissioner ajami: i had a question and maybe i'mreading this incorrectly . i'm just not sure why the rationing ... i know we talked about this before this came up or those rationing numbers also reflected in demand or is it only reflected on top of your

supply numbers? >> steve ritchie: we apply it to the supply numbers as a way to you know, be able to put a number on it that we can measure. so in this case we basically said what we're doing in our design drought is we can supply up to 255 million gallons per day as a starting point as our level of service and that we will then have to potentially in the drought up to 20 percent rationing so it's just a matter of where we want to account for that rationing and you could basically apply it, you could leave the yield at a certain level andapply that to the demand-side . here we chose to basically say that gives you something more than your water that youcan be supplying , yet people made basically a social contract that if we get in the drought,

this is how muchwhere have to not get water for and forgo that demand .>> commissioner ajami: it makes more sense to kind of account that as part of your supply because then as a communication. >> commissioner ajami: yes. in normal years we will be able to supply x and in drought years will only be able to supply x minus that so part of your demand is going to be for god whether you got your irrigation or take your shower or whatever . >> commissioner harrington: seems like if you'reselling a commodity , using electric energy as an example, if you're selling power where that power will always the energy you can sell one on that. if you say i'll sell you non-solar power you can sell more during a normal year . the same math that the lower

number, the darkblue is basically if there was no curtailment at all . this would be the amount of water we could allocate but because we're saying we will do some rationing, that becomes a commitment and you can sell more of it. this may not be the time to ask this question so if you don't want to answer i'll push it off and it may reflect my lack of understanding but this is from what i can understand this is what we would happen if there was only one in adrought . and i understand why we would be focused on that but that's the critical risk that we have but you're also looking over a 20, 50 whatever your period time, do you have any sense of the probability or the rest of this happening versus all the other years when it doesn't

happen. i will forgo that question for a, we will get into that a little bit later that one of the things that we grapple with is how to try to quantify that risk and how to quantify our lost term vulnerability to climate change and any other things that couldhappen . so one of the products we're working on is our long term vulnerability assessments that we are able to talk about or in the coming months and maybe we can talk more about later here why don't we get through all of these because we do have some discussion of potentially modifying the design drought as part of this. again, not to lose track of what the design drought's purpose for is it a planning tool to help us think about how we would approach the extremely dry period because there's no substitute for actually operating in the system and figuring out what you need to do in terms of supply and

demand and rationing and quickly run out the door and get another supply because you're getting dangerously close to your levelin your storage. >> . >> is just how these numbers areportrayed . >> commissioner moran: if you were in the drought and you have to do 20 percent rationing, what you would think is what is that total number, 220 or 30 or so and the rationing would be applied to that so the actual consumption if people did ration would be less than the demand shown here. commands are non-rationed demands. as shown. >> that makes sense and i guess my problem is we have talked about having what's with the big alton or any other specific scenarios, we talk about that we can make it okay and work in wet years and maybe normal years maybe the beginning of the drive period but the real

risk is that if the drought but all our conversations always go with the entire period time area and it doesn't ... if the assumption is we could have a variable sponsor to our voluntary agreement that this case in in drought years, this is worse than the rest of the time but this scenario keeps coming back in mymind . >> commissioner moran: hold on steve, i guess when you're done . >> commissioner harrington: i was going to say something but go ahead. >> commissioner moran: i'm nipping around heels a little bit, i just as this stuff gets presented in these great workshops, i just hope that we are dealing with this as with the way you mentioned it

commissioner moran.this isn't what we're selling, this is what we are providing and i hope we're talking about this from a policy point ofview, not a political point of view because this is , we sit on this commission to hear what folks are recommending and doing and therefore we will make decisions on that on policy and analysis, not on what we're selling.i just wanted to get around on that context. >> commissioner ajami: can i addsomething on what and was saying . my challenge is also the fact that the numbers are approached in a very static way and also we assume it's always going to have a drought area is a very limited flexibility and human dimension inall this .

it's very much sort of a tunnel view of what's going to happen. that makes the whole conversation a little easy to present, but not realistic to decide on. because it's just not, it's not how it works. but from a chart perspective it looks great because i can add numbers and subtract numbers and it all makes sense but you know, in reality that's not what happens. >> commissioner, one of the things that they were talking about and it has been suggested as an example that early in the drought we put up higher flows and then make lower releases later. and the couple issues of that

one is that none of them, the proposal that the state is out there does not allow for off ramps during travel so you basically commit to a concept level. the other thing is the logic here is again, it's the rating of the system so again, you could at any given moment provide more water than the writing was for. but you would put yourself in some jeopardy down the line. if you do that. >> if there were a drought. >>. >> sometimes i mean, you get lucky and you can, we use to routinely generate extra energy in years. and that brought us in a potential jeopardy if a drought were to come along. and one of the lessons from the

a7 and 93 drought was that jeopardy was just too high so we went for a water first policy which said we willnot plan on getting lucky . we will basically assume that we need to maintain our reserves in case of a drought coming forward. >> i guess that makes sense but even the way you framed that kind of assumed that the default is a drought and that the default is normal. if in fact, that's one thing the risk of probability, over a period the risk of a drought is two or three times that's still leaves you a whole lot of years like that so it's the unlucky time of the drought, not that every year is going to be bad and thenumber is basically magically better off . we're better off most of the time . that's the part i'm having trouble with . >> commissioner moran: part of

the problem is our forecasting tools are limited so basically every year once you talk off your reservoirs, you have to assume that the beginning of a drought. you have no way of knowing that's not true. >> what you also assume whatever we do with the water side is the only defining factor in this process. which is not true because what happens downstream can impact how much water we need and i give you a simple example of that, just a recent drought that we experienced the first two or three years, we were all in a voluntary rationing process because the governor had asked people to save and a lot of water heaters did too much to promote conservation. people did say and they save

significantly because they were responding to the action by the governor and the fact that he was asking people to say and in that situation we were putting ourselves in a different kind of jeopardy because we did have water but then there were people who wanted that water so that's why you saw that three years into the drought a lot of water agencies said weall have to stay 25 percent . from here onmandatory water conservation . a lot of water agencies and reach that number not because they done anything, it's just what people responded to . that israel andwhere not incorporating that.we assume people are static . they just continue doing what they're doing because that's what they are told to do and they will, there on just a linear path that we decide how it is and the realities are

much more, their ads incentive and adds dynamic as our climate system and as our water cycle. >> commissioner moran: not to get too deeply into the metaphor although i'm going to. when it comes to a different product which is called money and revenue, government agencies you know, why dothey call it a rainy day fund ? this is the tug of war that happens about whether or not in economic systems, not an ecological system, has its ups and downs. where as agents we have to think about what do we keep together and i think that i'm not a conservative but i still feel that making sure that we have some type of a model that puts things aside in this case water, is incredibly important

and that's why we're having these workshops because this i , there's got to be a political nature to it. just like in government, do we save for school, be safe for thepeople who make our government , do we save for infrastructure, whatever that is. we got to , there's probably a type of model that we are going to continue to monitor and make decisions on that are based on quote unquote the metaphorical rating day fund. this is not unique. >> and if i might, go ahead. >> commissioner harrington: people often have rationing programs and people often outperform the program because we even found that you could make exceptions for people if the rationing level was a

hardship. you could afford to grant those exceptions because other people were over performing area the way that would reflect in some of these numbers is that you could change therationing plan to reflect what your expectation would be . and then it would flow into the numbers. >> commissioner ajami: i appreciate it, the only concern and i can see from our perspective who is providing water to this one a region. it is easier for us to focus on the blue bar because that's what we have control over so we can have the rationing on top of it and make sure we know how this whole thing will do as a collective work. the concern that i have is we are giving up on the fact that

we can all see while we are working on this blue bar the green bar has a mind of its own which we are right now not accounting for.or at least we sort of assumed it just doesn't have a mind of itsown . we assume, we think that's how much it's going to be and that's my onlyconcern and i hope it's clear . maybe it's not coming across very clearly but i'm a little concerned that you are treating the green bar as a very static way . >>steve ritchie: if i may , because this is ... what we've been trying to do is create a simplifiedpresentation of the overall planning tool . i'm listening to this and i'm thinking g, we base this, just

doesn't sound like my life.my life is tracking very closely towards demand and storage and how this is all going to work. weare right now going through our wholesale customers. we provide free announcements to the availability of water . one february 1, one on march 1 and the other one coming up before april 15 where we have to tell them what theavailable supply is going to be andthose are going to be rationing . and rationing is actually a formal thing under the water supply agreement . it's different from conservation. conservation is the programs we have and what people actually do and those are all things we have totake into account. the rationing policy is when we will make a formal declaration of rationing and that kicks into place a whole lot of different mechanisms . you're going to hear more about

this in the urban water management plan coming up talking about what levels of usage wemight see in the future. both in shortage and just naturally over time because we do see the per capita demand going down .but commissioner moran is right, around july 1 our system is going to be as full as it's going to be. it's a storage based system. but in terms of what we have to do as water managers, it's a lot more complex than that and i might refer to the background the chief of the experience from 28 2011 through 2017. and how are storage changed and when we were starting to get into trouble. we never actually declared any rationing because people were doing really well in terms of conservation so yes, it is a dynamic living system and maybe we can find additional ways to portray it in simple bargraphs . but this is just trying to account for thewater and demand someplace . we will try another type of person later but let's stick it on the demand side and see what

happens but that won'treflect what people actually do and that does have a huge impact on how we manage our systems . and if we could go on to the next slide. here we are building further where we would also modify the design droughtsequence . again, it's planning sequence, it's not anoperational sequence but it's useful in thinking about our supply . here we talk about all of the same conditions we applied earlier but the yield values are estimated using the 7 and a half year design drought as opposed to an 8 and a half year design droughtat 6 and a half years of rationing at 20 percent . so you see here that the total yield is going up. because of those considerations and you have some years of shortage but as again those projects begin that shortage turns to a surplus in time as

thewater supply projects kicking later in the sequence . and if we can go to the bar chart. this is basically looking at how things change when you start to pull more letters and in this case, the yield of the system goes up dramatically because it's taking into account the design drought and modified rationing policy of and you have a surplus right now which as you can put in place and that they got the plan you can weigh that and you have smaller numbers come by in terms of balancing it outwhich again, could be additional conservation or additional projects . when those projects that are developing kick in in 2040 and 2045 you do get back to having a surplus so you can pull levers and do these things but

the trade-off is how much risk you're willing to take in terms of what the planning horizon should be and how much you think that you can put upon people in terms of rationing. these are all possibilities thatcan be developed . and then going to the next slide. this is the recent water quality certification on the license for lagrange pedro and. according to thefourth agreement this would be a continuation of the1994 side agreement . it has a modified design problem in place . but one of the deals here is that the water quality certification that was issued recently by the state control board staff basically went well beyond the bay delta water quality controlplan . we had applications of the

vague delta water quality control plan would be occurring in water quality certification and we were concerned about that but the water quality certification came out and had many more conditions that caused it to be a much greater contribution to thelower 12 . so you see despite all the other things going on there's lots of paint at the bottom of this chart. next slide. and again, this kicks in 2025. under this scenario you see a greater reduction in firm yield that's what the contributions shows up in terms of changes in the bars. we didn't change anything on the demand side other than again, the change in firm yield as a result of rationing in place so you see significant deficits throughout the planning period in2015 and 2045

. [ please stand by] >> i think heard some of the conversation about well, may be in some year, you cut back.

the agreement has in it the concept of offramps. if you have sequential dryer critical years, you get into off ramp and reducing your contribution to the river. there are changes that would be occurring. the design drought is more of of static thing. real life happens while you're planning what to do. it's making those real life decisions that we have to do. again, what this tries to portray, there are lots of different things you can change. some have greater effect some have lesser effect on the overall balance of supply and demand in the system. we try to portray those in a relatively simple way. i know has its challenges.

we'll continue to try to look at ways that can make it clearer. again, choices can be made. different results come about and then in the end, we have to make the system work for the customers. i'll be happy to answer any questions. this is the last slide. if there's more detail we need to dive into here, there's resource staff available to help answer questions. >> what you're seeing is a series of budget and if we're talking the city's financial budget, kind of -- you have some number of physicians authorized and they are authorized at a certain salary levels. the fact is, not all budgets are

-- not all positions are filled all the time. there's another line, what the city hold salary savings. because the real world is not as neat as the budget build up. by experience, you can say it will be less than that. the budget you have here don't really do that. they are all the elements. if you ask for 0%, you will get 0%. you could try to put in there something that applies windage. that says how would that translate to the real world. we have not tried to do that here. >> one comment i will make here. i appreciate your analogy. the most important part of this

discussion is obviously the bay-delta requirements are out there. you have to deal with them in one way or another. one thing that lures me, if you don't look at the demand dynamics in a closer way. maybe the way you just portrayed them. a line if this scenario is going to turn out to be this way, what are we going to do. i'm afraid we may invest in things that would yield water that we might not need. that's what my concern is. are we making smart choices or smart investments. i appreciate -- it's easy to sit on the sidelines and want to direct staff to do xy and z in

reality steve and his staff are the ones responsible to ensure there's reliable water out there for all the customers. the final statements is correct. reliability of the system is -- [indiscernible] i would really like to emphasize here, there's a different way of looking at this that we need to make sure we consider that as a scenario. if you want to make sure we're making smart decisions. if you don't do that, you're not helping ourselves. we may end up in the wrong place and or wrong situation. very i want to what you said --y similar what you said with the energy generation.

these are all very important and hard to consider. the same way we use certain level forecast to make decisions about supply, we have to be a little bit more realistic with how we predict and look at demand and sort of the dynamics that are related to demand. i'm not talking about condemnation. i'm talking about the natural way demand has been progressing overtime how it has been changing. >> any questions or comments? we can move on to the next panel. >> i have one question.

commissioner ajami talked about demand questions. i'm looking at this mostly from a supply question and the metrics that will be use to say are we doing eight years, seven years and six years. where do we release and where do we not release. that type of thing. i want to make sure there's full equal ability to see what exactly the system is looking like not just from the customers but also what the heck is happening science wise, throughout our systems. i want to put that in there. >> thank you, steve and to your staff for having putting this together. why don't we move on to the next

panel them. peter drekmeier are you introducing folks? >> yes, i will. can everybody hear me? >> yes. >> okay. i'm peter drekmeier, i'm the policy director for the tuolumne river trust. i think this workshop is really great. the discussion already has been wonderful. i want to thank you for arranging these workshops. i had an opportunity to look over the scenarios and i got pretty familiar with them. staff has done a good job putting this together. commissioner moran i see your fingerprints on this. i know you put a lot of effort into pulling this together, making sure that we looked at all the different aspects that influenced water supply. i thank you. you really done an incredible job. also, it's fun chatting with you

and bouncing around ideas. i wanted to start off with a few quick observations. [indiscernible] >> first of all, it's really great that you shifted from using 265m.g.d. when it's a sales cap and using demand projection. thank you for that. we might have some differences with the demand projections and we appreciate the opportunity to make our case. that was really big step in the right direction. thank you. an example would be that water demand is projected to increase by 7.5% in the next five years. another observation planning for 7.5-year drought adds about

28m.g.d. total yield. to put that in perspective, the chris -- crystal spring purified project -- alternative water supply plays a big role in water security. they are being developed slowly. we're expecting only five m.g.d. until 2040. last thing is that the rationing formula does make a difference. the difference between scenarios four and six was that six included a more realistic rationing policy. which added 12 m.g.d. to total yield. we really appreciate the opportunity to have a panel today. joining me will be heather cooley, she's the director of research for the pacific

institute. fabulous organization. fabulous person. chris shutes who's the ferc project director for the california sportfishing projection alliance. heather will be kicking us off. >> thank you, peter. thank you to sfpuc staff and commissioners for the opportunity to speak with you today. today i'm going to talk about water supply and demand trends in california. i will take a statewide view but i will provide some regional perspectives as well. there's a widespread misconception that as our population and our economy grow we need more water. here i'm showing water use in it san francisco bay area, what has been seen, the bay area has decoupled water demand and growth. this figure shows total water

demand and per capita demand for the san francisco bay area between 1986 and 2017. the drought periods are shown in the light yellow area. the per capita is the yellow line at the top. what we can see is that water use was high. i'm looking at the blue bars here. high in the 1980s. it peaked again around 2001 and since has declined dramatically. total water use in 2017 was less than in 1986 despite adding 1.5 million people in the region and supporting a robust economy. we can some year-to-year variability in capital demand.

about 200gpcd to 110 gpcd in 2017. per capita demand declined dramatically. there's some rebounds that happens when the drought ends. per capita use after the drought even with that rebound is far less than it was going into the drought. you can see that in each of those three periods. similar etrend -- trends can be seen statewide. this shows urban water use in california. we have a little more data. this is from 1960 through 2015. the latter years aren't yet available on statewide level. again showing total use the blue bars and per capita use those green lines at the top. here we see statewide level, we

saw water use peak in 2007. little bit beyond what happened in the bay area. it declined dramatically since then. by 2015, per capita use was lower than it had been at any time in the 55 years. statewide water use reached levels we haven't seen since the early 1990s. this trend we're seeing in the bay area is one we're seeing in community across california. talk a little bit about why we're seeing that. there are several reasons. we're seeing greater uptick of more efficient devices. as new homes will build, there are standards that are require to meet. such that new homes use much less water on a per capita bases. as old appliances die or people just want to upgrade, they can only buy those appliances and

devices that are meeting current standards. overtime, we are continuing to see uptick in that. that is driving down that per capita demand. we're seeing uptick in promote landscape. moving away from watering lawns to plants that are more appropriate that requires less water. the last major drop we had, we seen a lot more of that. we'll continue to see more of that going forward. there's also been a reason for those trends around land use changes. we are moving towards center development. you tend to have less outdoor space. therefore, on an indoor doesn't matter, if you're in dense or in the sprawl type of environment -- with denser development you have less outdoor space and less outdoor water use. that's one of the factors driving down demand.

the third are changes in economic activity. over the time period, there's been a shift away from manufacturing which tends to be water intensive towards more service oriented. commercial businesses don't use as much water. this is great news. i think those figures have shown in the past particularly the difference between the first and the second scenario, this makes us less vulnerable drought. if we were still using at the 1980, 1986 level, the last drought would have been much worse. we haven't had to build as much to meet the need of of growing population. it's also reduced our energy use in greenhouse gas emissions. moving water, treating water, using water and treating waste water uses a lot of energy.

because we've used less, we saved that energy. we produced our greenhouse gas as a result. that helped us meet some of our climate goals that we have in california and regionally. in part because of the ability to delay and downsize the infrastructure and because of energy use, it has resulted in lower wastewater and energy cost saving and greater affordability for essential needs. if we had to bill all that infrastructure, we were still operating at a high level, that would have been an additional cost. finally, it helped us to avoid extraction of water from rivers and the ocean. imagine if we were using at the 1980 and 1985 level, we would be needing to take more. these benefits are really predicated and realizing these benefits are predicating on

planning. which i will talk about on the next slide. just last year in june 2020 we released a new assessment looking at urban water demand forecast in california. for this analysis, we looked at the ten largest water players -- inspire -- suppliers in the state. they account for 25% for the state population. we looked at forecast from the period from 2000 to 2015. we did that and we looked at these ten water suppliers because of data availability. we were pulling data from the urban water management plan in order to allow for that consistency as many of you are know, they are required to do projections and five-year increments. we needed some of that consistency to see patterns across the region. we couldn't find data for a large number of suppliers.

i'll talk about what we found. first was we found that between the 2000 and 2015 period, population increased by 9%. total water demand declined by 18%. this is the trend as we saw in the first two slide that i showed. increase population reduced per capita use and overall net reduction in total water use. that same pattern held for the ten largest water suppliers. what we found is despite this trend that the forecasts group overestimating future water demand. i'll show you a couple of examples. this is something i pulled from the study. we have all ten of them in the study. just in the interest of time to walk through these, this is showing the black line in each of these is actual water demand.

each of the lines, the yellow line the estimate from the 2000 urban water management plan, the one below is 2005 and then 2010, 2015. these are the projections in each of the plans. there's couple of things i want to point out with this. first is that this trend that each subsequent forecast was lower than the previous ones. we see that in pretty much every one of the cases that we looked at. in many cases, this is because demand is declining and the baseline data, which they started in the forecast, is lower going forward. you see that here. you see that in the other four -- examples. looking here you can see that in every case that the demand was over estimated. when we looked at the estimates in the plan, 98% of them had

over estimated demand. i also want point though, planning for a future where demand is going up and then they may be securing new supply and infrastructure to meet that new demand. what we see is demand going down. it's not just an over estimate. it's a suggestion that demand is going to go up. planning and building for that future that doesn't come to fruition. again, i want to point out that we focused on this 2000 and 2015 period in order to evaluate more than one or two agencies. i will point out in the previous work that i done in looking at forecast from different agencies. this is not a new phenomenon. this is not something that started in 2000 but when you look back even at older projections, you still see going

back since the '80s, projections and over estimates of future demand. finally, last key finding from the study, the overestimates of demand were due largely to inflated estimates of per capita demand into a lesser population. across the studies, in the cities we examined, we found that population was overestimated by 5%. the biggest issue future per capita demand was overestimated. in many cases suppliers were expecting that per capita demand was going to stay relatively constant, maybe decline a little bit. it went down about 2%. that was the big driver of the overestimate. i want top point -- i want to

point out that there's more changes on the way. we have standards in the state. we have tightened those standards recently in terms of reduce the flow rates for various appliances. we can expect to see more of this. we'll see more climate appropriate landscape in california. there's been a shift in what we people is appropriate for the state. there's been -- there will and has been effort to reduce leaks. we have new tools, new metering that provides customers with information that they need. we will also continue to see denser developments with less outdoor space. a continuation of many of these trends. i wanted to touch on supply trends. i will do this quickly. in addition to the issues around

demand, there's also a lot of changes that are happening around supply, how we think about supply. diversification really began in the '87, '92. we're seeing more and more communities look to do that in the face of climate change and increase droughts. we're also seeing a major shift to local resources. from statewide goals around recycled water and storm water capture to local efforts. city of los angeles is an example. they announced a goal to reduce their imports by 70% by 2035. committed to doing so by recycle 100% of wastewater, capturing 150,000 storm water. there are communities around the state that are looking at

diversifying, adding new tools. but also looking at these local opportunities. just in summary, i want to talk through some of the key points. really it's the san francisco bay area and california have seen significant reductions in total per capita urban water demand. greater efficiency in land use changes will continue. our forecast much bettering for these changes. we're also seeing a greater emphasis on a diversified portfolio. we're really starting thinking about climate change, thinking about the many issues that we're facing. these strategies are going to be central for helping us to get there. with that, i like to thank you for your time. i'm happy to answer any

questions. thank you. >> thank you, so much, heather. you always inspire me. there's lot of hope out there. i will go next. then we'll have chris shutes close us out at the end. i think lot of people are familiar with the water system. for the public, you see three reservoirs on the far right. those are reservoirs owned and operated by the san francisco public utilities commission. then little bit west of there is

slightly larger and real world it's quite a bit larger reservoir. it's six times as big. san francisco paid for about half of it in exchange for a water bank. the way the water bank works when san francisco reservoirs are full, they still have more entitlement they can take more water than they can bank it in the water bank. later on if we have a drought, they can take water from hetch hetchy. the water bank is equal to one and a half hetch hetchys.

you see perforated line there. everything belong there belongs to the irrigation system. everything in green belongs to san francisco. you see during the recent drought, there were four poor water years. we had an average year in 2016 and a very good year in 2017. in an average year, the sfpuc entitled to three times as much water as it needs. you see some figures from sfpuc documents for the bay-delta plan. if average year, 750,000-acre feet. equivalent to a football field. in an average year, 244,000-acre

feet is needed. that's back in the old days that heather alluded to where we iced a lot more water. our total demand is 198 m.g.d. if you assume that 15% of our water coming from bay area supplies, we're gown to 189,000-acre feet per year needed from the tuolumne. this shows all of sfpuc storage. hetch hetchy is about a quarter of it.

hetch hetchy and the other reservoir, they can stay relatively full. at the height of the recent throughout 2015, the sfpuc had enough water in storage to last three years. on the far right you can see that the water bank is starting to fill getting into 2016. bay area storage not included in this slide. 2016 again, that was an average water year. into the summer, the tuolumne storage was back up to 85%. the bay area little bit lower because it was being constructed. in 85%, we have enough water in storage to last five years. keep in mind, three years of water in an average year, used a

year's worth. we added two years into our storage. this is really quite enviable. at the same time, the state was still technically in drought. there were communities that were really struggling. here we have five years worth of water in storage. they have been the -- then we have the big water year in 2017. we needed 373,000-acre feet to fill the reservoirs. obviously there wasn't place to put all that water and it had to be filled back in the river. the flows in the lower tuolumne were 9000 cubic feet per second or higher from early january to summer. 9000 was a critical number. army corps of engineers don't want you going much higher than that because it can cause flooding. san francisco this year had to

spill 88% of its entitlement including all the water we conserved during the recent drought. this shows what the problem is with the current policy. as we enter what looks like a drought, sfpuc planning for the design, says we got to really hold backwater from 2012 to 2016, unimpaired flow in the lower tuolumne was 12%. in 2017, the year we had to spill all that one way or the -- spill all thatwater was 79%. you can see this pattern recur as you see 2001 to 2005 and then

2007 to 2011. we have done a really good job of conserving water. couple of things you can notice here. in 2008, following that we saw pretty good decline in water consumption. 2008 was when water system improvement program was approved. $4.8 billion project. more with that service. rates started going up. people saw that price signal. they started to use water more efficiently. we got down to that period around 2011 to 2014 and it kind of plateaued. we had another big drop. which was largely driven by the drought and the governor's mandate. prices were still going up.

in 2016 and 2017, we used less water than in 1977. for the last six years, we used under 200 million gallons per day. the water didn't rebound back up to prior use. in 2008 the demand projection was -- 285 million gallons day. the projection was off by 31%. now with the new numbers, possibly 236 in 2045. what really amazes me is that we added 27% more jobs in san mateo and san francisco county during the drought, while at the same time, water use declined by 23%. this is the decoupling on a

really big scale that heather was talking about. again, there's price elasticity as price goes down. sfpuc water has tripled. we've seen it in demand. this is looking forward and you can see there's another big rate increase on the horizon, 33%. similar to one we had back in 2015-2018 time period. the blue bars are smaller than the ones on the left. they are percentage that incorporate those rate increases from the past. we'll see 33% increase in rates. san francisco has a ten-year financial plan looking out for

the next decade. it's really important for the financial division to get things right because if you overproject demand in sales then you don't bring in as much revenue. you get into trouble because the books around balanced and your commissioners will get mad at you. on the supply side, if you over project, you end up with a little bit more water in storage. the financial team is projecting that demand in sales will remain it flat for the next ten years. another thing to consider is that san francisco is embarking on the sewer system improvement program. very similar to the witsip but even larger multibillion dollar project. wastewater rates are tied to water rates. we don't meter wastewater.

we assume that water coming is going to go out. the price of wastewater will be going up and some people will realize, if i use less water my wastewater rates will go down. there will be more incentive to be efficient. it's a 58% increase in rates for the sewer charges over the next ten years. that's going to be quite a price signal. then combined water and wastewater is 91% increase over the next 15 years. the price of water and wastewater is going to drive a lot of behavioral changes. this is one of the scenarios that you saw earlier. i think it's one of the more

promising scenarios. it's looking at -- shorten the drought by a year. 7.5 years is still be the worst drought on record including the last 1100 years based on data. that's something we have to consider at some point. new water supply is coming on late. you see there we are in the green. that's where we'll want to be. next. this one includes 35 m.g.d. of new water. you see some pink at the bottom. had we had more time, we could make that green.

one way is shave off the last half year of the design drought. that goes away and becomes green. or, by using what i would consider more realistic rationing scenario. this is based on the rationing policy which again, as you heard earlier, doesn't kick into 20% rationing until sixth year of the design drought. it was designed at the time we didn't have the bay-delta on the horizon. you can make up that and much more in the bottom. i'm done with my presentation. i'll just close by saying thank you again for this opportunity to have a real dialogue with

you. >> my name is christian, i work for the california sportfishing projection alliance. this presentation is structured to provide recommendations both from modeling and for policy. doubt they are related.

we had lot from sfpuc staff. matt moses of your staff. gave us the ability to make different input base the on the bay-delta plan. to change irrigation deliveries. there were some things we couldn't do because the model doesn't have options available

for us. there were also some inputs that we asked for that the city declined or the sfpuc declined to provide. we'll discuss those later. we like to use our improving relationships to get some of that information so that we can use more data and have more options for using the don pedro operations model. the calculator that matt put together and sfpuc staff is a useful tool. it provides quick analysis. the operations model is more diverse. it models those times that aren't just droughts. it shows the output for many elements. it allows optimization better. it's publicly available and it's a tool that we can use without relying on sfpuc staff.

it's our view that input for both tools to be robust and if the tools should form and not limit policies so that data that might provide unwant the outcome should not be limited or not provided because it may provide an unwanted outcome. these are the six strategies. they are related to how you model things. i didn't completely get the message about policy. i apologize commissioner moran. if this does go into the realm of policy, it doesn't hit your third rail item. one to maintain and reduce existing demand. second is to develop rules around sequences. the fourth is something we developed in the relicensing

which is develop a groundwater water bank for the districts. finally aggressively build regional n.g.o. partnerships. sfpuc, i recognize is already working on many of these strategies. the problem in my view is that the efforts to have greater magnitude and more urgency. this shows some of the projects in the bay area. they're all good projects. they haven't move forward very much. we'll talk about some of them as we move on. one of the things that i think

you can do is have your policy to keep demand at or below the existing levels. start that maybe for the next five years. we're calling in the water supply improvement program discussions. there was a lot of argument over future demand and general manager harrington helped break the deadlock by agreeing to limit demand into 2018. it turned out the demand was nowhere near the cap that was proposed while it was being discussed. the lesson is to start with a short-term policy and make best efforts. in modeling, we wanted a 2200 m.g.d. in the don pedro operations law. i asked matt for that.

i got the message back after long delay. someone who runs the system would be better placed to give us that information. we think it's important to develop for drier sequences. that seems to be where most of the problem is.

we try to engage sfpuc and other entities throughout the san joaquin watershed. to look at how can you make rules that would not do away with the impaired flow but would modify the rules for drier years. we proposed several of them on the record in the don pedro relicensing. separately for water board staff, a colleague and i put together a number of scenarios that the board could evaluate. right now it's my view that the board thinks it's sort of yes or no. there's litigation. i admit we're involved in that. it becomes hard in those circumstances to try to modify something. it's particularly hard when you're saying we're not going to deal with this. i think it's worthwhile for sfpuc staff and us to get together and look at the past

approaches, look at other approaches within the framework and see what we can do. next slide. there's unsustainable level of agricultural deliveries in the san joaquin basin. this shows average and median, annual runoff. average agricultural deliveries and m.n.i. deliveries. urban agencies can't solve this problem alone. part of the issue of how more flow can be made available for the delta in the san joaquin river and all trib -- tributaries have been to placed. on that theme, the fourth agreement between the districts and city only works in a context

where the tuolumne river isn't getting very much water. we may try to make a different edeal with the districts in the future. it's easier to fight with folks like me than it is to deal with a thorny issue like the fourth agreement. i do think there's win-win solutions for willing partners. that might be part of the answer. after all, the districts are going to be asked to contribute water too and that's going to hurt their operations are limited material what to do. if the bay-delta plan goes in place. i don't like to see the operations modify. it's not either fourth agreement or nothing but if the percent

unimpaired flow can be valted -- evaluated. the fourth agreement will be in place as stated. this is a different approach. i think it has potential both for the districts and for the city. it's made possible by sigma. ground water banking has all of a sudden become something that is within the realm of reason. we presented lot of this in our comments, ready for environmental analysis in the don pedro relicensing. the citation -- i will not make all the citations for the facts. they are available there. i urge you to review the recommendations. it's not fully flushed out. it requires the cooperation and

willingness to look at it both from the district and from yourselves. there's a lot of flood irritation in stanislaus county on both sides. turlock and modesto. that creates opportunities. ground water recharge in both turlock and modesto basins is from flood irritation. this all comes from their agricultural water management plan. they estimated that in a wet year for an average year, about 310,000-acre feet is recharged out of 800,000-acre feet applied. that's water that's going into the ground mostly from flood irrigation. the downside of that they need flood irrigate in dry years.

that's not efficient. they already pumped some ground water in dry years. we know the basin can take a lot of ground water. if we want to do it in a more organized and conservation-minded way. we have to understand how and where. the vision is that the groundwater bank will be the second water bank for don pedro. the water deposited in wet years, in other words, put in recharge facilities or just recharge by winter diversion and flooding of fields. will be credited to san francisco as repayment for building infrastructure. the water deposited in above normal years, which is the other water year type, you'd be likely to out water to put in the ground, would be charged as a

debit to the don pedro water bank. in dry and critical years the credit from the water bank would go back to the don pedro bank. some of the water that's in don pedro will be available. that means you can divert water farther uphill and have that available to you. the nice thing about this arrangement would be that no district water ever moves to the bay area. that's a third rail for the districts, for the farmers and customers of the districts. it's something on which good ideas in the past is founded. this is a way around it. it builds on the smart thinking that the city and the districts came up with to create the don pedro water bank. the project is long-term, it's

scalable. it can finance drip as well as recharge. the ultimate goal i was thinking in terms of, would be big numbers. recharging up to 90,000-acre feet a year. having that kind of credit available to you. no delta diversion special water treatment is needed if you had this kind of arrangement. stanislaus county will continue to manage its own groundwater. what they did with the water once it's in the ground is up to them. i think it will be a good idea to start the discussion now with folks in stanislaus county. i note that in the agreement, there's a very vague discussion of potential groundwater banking. this is something you all can move forward. it's long-term but it might start with some short-term

pilots. talked about using storage and other diversions. potential long-term transfers from the north. this is all drought year kind of planning. the precondition for that is being able to treat and use delta water. that seems to me to be the precondition to diversifying your surface water supplies. i would encourage you to move forward on that as quickly and expeditiously as possible. it's been grounded to halt waiting for the vaqueros expansion.

next slide. it's really important that you all can leverage that, get treatment of delta water made available to you. it's important in doing that to talk to n.g.o.s and involve them. it was framed. that was a hot button item for lot of folks. if you talked about it as in-delta diversion, you might have had a better hearing. it's important to talk to folks before telling us announcing things.

checking it out. let's figure out the right way to present them and to think about them and modify them. same thing goes with model scenarios. finally, one last idea. right now the biden administration is climate change and infrastructure. this is a real opportunity for all, especially for drought funding, i encourage you to make use of it and do what you can do. there's the sunry. -- there's the summary. there's the nice view of the tuolumne river. thank you very much for your time. i apologize for going over. it's one of the hazards being last in line. you get squeezed. there we are. there's my contact information. thank you very much. >> thank you, chris.

that's it for our presentations. we'll be very happy to answer any questions and enter day -- dialogue with you. >> vice president moran: questio ns for the panel? >> commissioner harrington: comm issioner paulson was talking with his mute on. >> mr. paulson, we cannot hear you. >> commissioner paulson: i'm sorry, commissioners. i'm going to be a little more 10,000 feet. commissioner harrington, please -- i want to get to where i was. i took this position to be a

commissioner very seriously. i'm incredibly impressed by all the indulgence and the repartee and all the issues that have been presented to us so far. i know that we're not done with this third workshop. i do want to say, i'm also -- i'm going through the commissioners that commissioner moran and harrington have run the department. we have this brilliant new professor who actually does this for a living. i feel like i'm in the best hands of any commissioner that i can ever been in. when london breed asked me to be on the commission, i went kicking and screaming. i'm doing better about this more now than i ever have. i'm going to leave, which is why

i'm saying this. i told don in i have a short window today. i will continue to take all of this stuff incredibly seriously. i am going to deal with sewer, water or power, all of these things i'm going to be as diligent as i can. that being said, i'm going to be in a position where i do want to get to answers. i do want to make sure that the policy that we support as commissioners is going to be beneficial to the agency that i have decided to serve. it's very specific. i guess what i have to say is

that when i hear somebody is part of reports say that this isn't finished or we have to continue to move this and we have to continue to -- there will be more data. i get that. we need to make decisions about what we're going to do based on full reports. i don't have -- sometimes the patience to continue to make sure that people are going to complain as opposed to like peter say, peter drekmeier say, this is going to be our presentation. i hope we keep commissioner moran, that focus. i want to thank you very much for pushing this stuff. i really do want to cut to the chase on many issues.

even though i know it's organic. i need to particularly say that's where i'm going to continue to be paying attention. thanks for indulging me. i do want to put that perspective in there. >> thanks to everybody who was speaking today. all the comments have been helpful. i'm interested in the relationship with the district i understand that we should not make assumptions what they may or may not do. the idea of the groundwater bank seem to make lot of sense to me.

i don't think i've ever been told, what are the impacts to the districts of the bay-delta plan? what is their design drought. i don't know what they are dealing with to think about whether we think these things work or not. at some point, someone can give us a bit more information about their design drought, that would be helpful in terms of heading into the reality. i would appreciate that. >> vice president moran: i think that's an important area of thought and discussion. there's considerable history there. one thing i'll mention is that, the irrigation districts have a very different operation. the notion of design drought is different. they don't really have one. if this are faced with a drought

-- [indiscernible]. we can't. it's a different thought process. the actual impact in terms of water, just the quantity of water is right now about 50-50. >> i think it's a very valuable

comment. it's hard to get people to change and i appreciate that. i think there are some forward-thinking folks in the district in both of them. i would say that one -- if you want to evaluate the impacts just in terms of water, don pedro operations model is a good way to do that. it doesn't just include your operations but it includes both the operations of the districts and on the front end, how much water is coming out of the tuolumne to you all. i really think that those kinds of conversations can go a long way. they have a lot more opportunity for conservation than you do, frankly. just in terms of raw numbers. ms. cooley -- there's some big

opportunities there. that may be a more cost efficient way for you all to ensure drought supplies is looking to help and work with the districts than trying to do groundwater banking in the bay area where there's very little opportunity or spending money on other kinds of projects. my area of focus has been surface water and not alternative supply. i do think there are real opportunities there. >> commissioner ajami: i think president maxwell want to make a comment. >> president maxwell: that's okay. i think shutes hit on the points i was going to make. thank you. >> commissioner ajami: one thing i was going to say. as long as the districts are growing cost that they can

follow, this assumption is absolutely correct. if they start changing their cost and they start focusing on different kind of trees, we are really dealing with a totally different situation which constantly concerns me. unless you really have very good statewide plan to connect land use to water use, i don't see is coming any time soon. it is going to be an issue. i would say while i'm totally -- i know for many years that many water agencies dependent on short-term contracts with different agriculture districts to secure droughts and water supplies. i'm not sure considering the new change in demand -- agricultural

patterns are going to lead us to securing a lot of water. just a comment there to consider. i think i agree with mr. shutes. i don't necessarily think we should not be focused on the urban areas. we should save whatever drop of water wherever we can. we should not leave anything on the table. we definitely should consider focusing on conserving agriculture. >> president maxwell: is there an urban -- we have an urban water use plan. is there a rule or an ag water

plan? if so, i think it would behoove us to have a look at it. i feel like we're looking at one side of the apple. we need kind of a 360-degree view of this. i think if we do it in a way that does not put them on the defense, but just kind of ask the question or talk about it, it seems to me it might help us with our own planning as well. >> they did approve their agricultural water management plan last tuesday. they are interesting documents. you can learn a lot about a.g. district. my couple of take aways, they charge very little for water. under $20 an acre foot. their infrastructure is underfunded. i made those comments and a farmer followed up on me said

he's right. i think there are people in those communities who realize they're underinvested. they could use support from san francisco. you can save an acre foot of water for $200 versus bringing something on for 4000-dollar. >> commissioner ajami: this is something that puts me on the edge. nobody pays for water. even san francisco is not paying for water. we are paying for infrastructure services we are received. we should be very specific about what you are paying for and who's paying for it. that is actually biggest problem we have, which is water as a drop of water is free.

>> vice president moran: commiss ioners like to get to public comment if we could. i think we'll have time for discussion after that. >> commissioner harrington: i hope we get back to it. if we don't maybe ask ms. cooley to think about this and respond later. you were talking about the demand and you were talking about all the different factors that should and could go in those discussions. at our tuesday meeting, our representative was talking about working with and involving the pacific institute in their demand projections. i would love to hear your thoughts if you were involved, whether you think those kinds of ideas were incorporated and how they did their work. it will be helpful to know that.

>> you want me to respond now or wait? >> vice president moran: you can give the quick response now. if it's a longer response, we can get back to it. >> it can be relatively quick. one of my staff members was engaged in the conservation assessment wasn't framed around the demand forecast. it was looking at where are the opportunities for efficiency. we provided input and comments along the lines there are more opportunities available than what was necessarily captured.

in this case was more focused on with a limited number of programs, how much might we save. there could be more to expand ton that. >> vice president moran: thank you. why don't we take public comment and we'll return and hopefully have time for discussion before 5:00. madam secretary, please proceed with public comments please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment dial 415-655-0001 meeting i.d., 187 148 4909,

pound pound. do we have callers? >> there are nine callers in the queue. >> good afternoon commissioners and panelist. i'm tom francis. i like to make some technical observations about the presentations given today. first in the presentation by the san francisco staff, the bulk of the options shows drastic water supply impacted the bay-delta plan. we believe it's worthy of formal analysis by the state board. in ms. cooley's presentation she

speaks to demands in the past. the recent study followed the procedures and practices that the institute advocates. ms. cooley noted they took part of the stakeholderrer in conservation aspect of that study. we stand behind results of our 2020 study. we agree it will be admirable. the fact is the region has grown as well as the new regional housing that we're all struggling with. i appreciate the presentation. we continue to support, we support sfpuc continue the participation.

final in the presentation about mr. drekmeier -- climate change study that sfpuc is doing would help >> thank you for your comment. your time expired. next caller. >> good afternoon president maxwell and commissioners. my name gustav. i'm chair of the board. thank you for holding this informational workshop.

just as sfpuc represents san francisco's water users, bossca is authorized to represent the water users served by sfpuc and three county service areas. covering 1.8 million people and over 40,000 businesses. we pay our fair share of the regional water system cost. we pay $270 million annualed to sfpuc covering two thirds of the system's cost. we are by far sfpuc's largest group of water customers. we've been listening with great interest in today's workshop. after today, when you take up policy discussions around the

bay-delta plan, it will be crucial to include your $270 million a year customer group as an integral part of those conversations. we expect to participate actively in discussions. we want to partner with sfpuc on solutions and we look forward to working together toward commission decisions that we can support. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. two months ago i spoke to you about our respective agencies, principle responsibilities. i mentioned the importance of the review of those responsibilities in light of the challenges that we face today due to the state board adopted

bay-delta plan. san francisco has an obligation to wholesale customers to provide up to 184 million gallons of water a day from its regional water system. the p.u.c. has the responsibility to manage safeguard the public resources under its control in accordance with stewardship policy and other laws. the sfpuc have analyzed the bay-delta plan.

the p.u.c. and district propose the tuolumne river as an alternative to the plan that will increase production of salmon by providing regional protection of the water supply that is important for the member agency. the state board has broad authority and is responsible for adopting the bay-delta plan and flow requirements needed to provide reasonable protection of all beneficial uses in the watershed. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is open.

>> thank you commissioners for the opportunity to speak. you asked us in your scenario presentation to think outside the comfort zone. i wanted to remind you that the 40% unimpaired 40% flows recommended by the bay-delta plan are already out of the comfort zone. to go further will ensure to the fishery and delta communities and everyone who depends on the bay-delta itself. 40% is already outside what a fish really needs.

the salmon fishery is likely to go instinct. a delta plan is what we need to focus on. for the sfpuc, i would recommend that you use a 7.5-year drought period. it also represents a drought that will be worse than history. i would also recommend that you consider rationing that year too. i think that changes your scenarios quite a bit with available water. thank you for the opportunity to talk. i appreciate it. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is open.

>> hi. i want to mention that as mark just mentioned, bay-delta plan doesn't go far enough. it is a good start as good step in the right direction is the goal. in the don pedro, we put forward proposal that we felt would go far enough with lot of the features that shutes mentioned cutting back in dry years. constraints in the model chris mentioned also. we worked around that. we allowed the water banks to go negative. we lowered demand. with those assumptions, we got the water balance. we got a better percentage of unimpaired flow that would restore salmon population. it is achievable.

we can do it. i think part of the problem is the fourth agreement, is just one example where we run into agreements that are holding us back. they need to be renegotiated in order to equitably district water -- distribute water. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> i'm barry nelson with golden state salmon association. there are four documents i had staff to share with you. i think you got them yesterday. i had four points. one for each of them documents. heather cooley said regional partnership really started after the '87 and '92 drought. these tools really have been

proven by los angeles, orange county, contra costa, san diego and others in the last couple of decades. these are really proven tools. they are state-of-the-art. i shared a study by u.c. davis looking at the allocation of water rights in the whole california system. they showed that the san joaquin was the most over allocated river. totally almost nine times usage. that's an important factor to remember. third document, talking about

the severe limitations on the upcoming salmon season which will produce dramatic results. i want to add that note here. there's a sense of remain urgency. finally i like to thank commissioner ajami for her discussion and commissioner hearing ton and chair maxwell for talking about the a.g. side of the equation on the tuolumne. i thank your staff. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes.

>> thank you very much for holding this workshop. your jobs and the staff's jobs is to deliver water to the bay area. as a conservationist and the other conservations, we see there's going to be balance between that and a the environment as well. we think you should free up the hetch hetchy valley and all california water agency except salmon.

>> thank you for your comments. next caller . you got two minutes. >> my name is conrad. i'm with water climate trust. thank you to all the presenters.

thank you to city for all you have done to conserve water. i'm glad today we focused on what a.g. can do. i heard a comment where we're not land of low-hanging fruit maybe we still are. there are many parts in the state even in the central valley where flood irrigation is wasteful. not just with conservation but just eliminating wasteful and unreasonable use of water. we could make up any shortfall. i would like that city model by sfpuc and everyone else in involved. in addition to modeling, how you all can justify the opposing bay-delta plan. the position you are taking is is for california salmon. i know that's hard to hear.

it's not necessary. the bay-delta flows are already compromised. barely possibly recovery path. let's just look at what a.g. can do to balance the equation so it does not have to be salmon. does not have to be. thank you all. >> thank you for your comments. caller, you have two minutes. >> hi. i don't represent any groups. i'm a citizen within san francisco. i want to thank the commission for holding these meetings and for be willing to have dialogue and also consider other

positions than just the staff. i see salmon has been part of our lives. we believe we can have it both. two people around the region and having salmon return and having healthy river. thank you and good evening. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: public comment on item 3 is closed.

>> vice president moran: commiss ioners we have some time for additional questions or discussion. >> commissioner harrington: we started this whole discussion because we wanted to engage and educate. this has been incredibly helpful for that. i appreciate all the work by everybody on it. the issue now is what do we do with it what's the timing of that and how do we make this work. have you thought next steps? is that something we should talk about? >> vice president moran: i have done some thinking on it. it's not totally developed.

i will share with you what thinking i have. i think there's some key issues that surface during the discussion that require some more thought and discussion. we identified two of them going into this meeting. i think there's at least couple of more. the two we identified how we think about and how we plan for the design drought. what role does that play. second is, the rationing policy and again, how do we think about that. third, certainly was talked about a lot of of this meeting. the dynamics and whether that's the informal demand response, commissioner ajami was talking about, some of the presented during the n.g.o. presentations. there's room for additional thought there.

we also have the city's upper water management plan. that may be an opportunity to have some of that discussion. at least as it related to the city's demand projections. the whole question about additional opportunities. things that are beyond what our current alternative water supply plan envisions. those are four big ones. there's probably lesser ones. i have been question in my mind, whether this workshop format is the best way to proceed for each of those. i don't know. i think it's been very powerful in a lot of ways. it does enable to get input beyond the two minutes. which is frustrating to

everybody. i think that part of it's useful. we may need more of that. i'd love to hear any other thoughts for just the forums how we go about this. the issues that we need to talk about are pretty clear. if we get through some of these, i think we can start putting together our own scenario for how we think we ought to balance this. when we looked at the city's presentation, voluntary agreement, that reflects our current position in the world. we know there's a proposal and voluntary agreement that we can live with. it doesn't really stress the

water supply system. first two workshops raised a big question. at least my take away from it was, voluntary agreement depends very heavily on non-flow measures. the question was, will they work? in essence, i think of that instead of asking the experts, let's ask the fish. let's do it and see how it

performs left the scientific discussion go on. we ought to be putting it out there anyway. that does have some institutional issues. i'm anxious to figure out ways that we can address those. those are the thoughts i had on that. >> commissioner harrington: i've been hoping that your fourth buck of issues includes working with the district on some things. we should investigate that more. maybe that's the fifth bucket. >> vice president moran: i think we should. certainly, that's not a new thing. we haven't been successful in that one case and side agreement. that was successful. we have not been successful in extending it. we got very close on the water transfer. that fell through.

i think there's opportunity there that we need to pursue. we need to think about how we do that and what constraints do we have. in the discussion, we do have ongoing discussions. san joaquin has meanings. the directors do talk to each other. one of the things that's been made clear to them, as they think about these issues, we don't want them to do anything which is not in their best interest but if they can figure out something that is in their own interest, we would be enthusiastic and generous partners. if there's probably nobody on earth that is a better partner for them than we are. if you can get over some of the emotional and institutional issues. that is clearly not communicated. how you convert all of that past

practice and things that are known and somebody that may happen for you. >> commissioner ajami: i appreciate how you put all these ideas and make them useful. i wonder if we can approach these slightly. keep those buckets but keep about them as layers. there's some soft approaches that we can have. which doesn't require lot of resources. time is a resource. money as a resource. kind of identify what are our options. let's put the options on the table. how can we approach this situation in a non-financial way. maybe those conversations would lead to the most affordable most economic way of approaching this

problem. that way we have more strategically approaching this. the reason i say this is because, there's a system level thinking that needs to happen on what can happen in different parts of the system that would benefit the whole system, with the system as a whole. for example, if you're investing in efficiency for example, if you talk to the districts and they are willing to work with us, these are all hypothetical. if you work and come up with different paths working on the contracts and demands there. at the same time working in san francisco, to figure out how we can shave off demand in different ways.

it's kind of like, do you really need to put money in that or invest in something that you may not even need it. my point is, i think maybe we can layer these into soft conversations, more economic solutions and then more expensive but longer term

solutions. look at them from a system level perspective rather than just individual projects, ad hoc manner. coming and going. i want to -- make sure demand management -- i insist on the word management because i think we should actually approach it as an option rather than constantly connecting with efficiency -- you can see that in the energy sector that's how it's been approached. it is a bucket or an item that is part of the process. demand management being part of that whole discussion, so alternative water supply so is potential change and processes

or anticipation of what's going to happen in the future base on climate change and change in regulations that we're going to have. making sure these buckets are also having sort of different layering base on what we can do at a system level. i think there needs to be a better way of approaching this. i want to make sure we're configuring ought of those as you're dealing with matter in hand. >> vice president moran: i like to hear more about that how that layering works. commissioner maxwell, any thoughts? >> president maxwell: i want to thank you all for -- i want to

thank everyone for participating. i think it's been a real good thing that we did. i believe it can certainly get better. there might be different ways doing it. the objective is to have input to be open and to learn more. we've heard about all of this. not having an opportunity to get in-depth. i think it's a good thing to do. it's extremely important. i think we need to talk about strategies. when we think about different parts of the system. maybe there's a strategy for each part. we need to consider that. we need to consider our strategy with our districts and how we approach and if we decide, maybe this might be a good way for us to go. we should come up with a strategy to approach them. certainly knowing their needs and things have changed.

i looked at their profiles. people changed. maybe we can also talk to the state about, if there is a management for agriculture and how we go about doing it, long range and short range goal. i don't know whether we've done that. maybe somebody can find out. it seems to me that will be something that the business part or somebody would do. i think there's so many different components that we kind of have to know what we have to be aware of where they are and who they are. i really want to thank everybody, ed harrington, thank you very much for all your input. i think this is a good way. we've gotten some great positive input from the people out there. i think that's important. thank you.

>> vice president moran: let me close with something -- process of trying to figure out how we were going to have discussion without triggering all kinds of responses that might not be helpful. it has been an interesting process. peter drekmeier and i, while we're in the weeds what we were doing, trying to figure out how we would structure that. one of the things i was hoping for is we would have, after this process of development, there were things that we could agree on. there are clearly areas where there are differences. there's areas where we are hopeful on an agreement. there's other areas where in the past, we have been at odds. i was thinking it would be nice if we can come up with some stuff to agree on. we have a short list.

donna if i can ask you to put up that slide. the list would have been longer if we had more time. we work with what we have.

the delta plan cannot be accommodated without additional water supply through planning assumptions. they can't be accommodated. it's a much heavier lift than the voluntary agreement. currently, identified alternative water supply projects bill themselves or to make it plan flows.

they are not included in the supply rejections. some of the discussions about options that we have in it central valley. they are possible and potentially very significant. those are the points of agreement which one of the things about putting that together is that words matter. the way we think about things are different enough, even though we're speaking in english sometimes. it's very hard to come up with statements simple as those are. we can get agreement on. we got that far, which i

consider a plus. we can work on page 2. we're coming up on 5:00. any last thoughts before we adjourn the meeting? >> commissioner ajami: i really appreciated all the different scenarios. i think that's a good place to start. i agree with you that it's good to have some baseline that we all agree on. i appreciated that. >> vice president moran: maybe have a score sheet. >> commissioner harrington: one request of the staff, these conversations can go on for years. obviously that doesn't work very

well. some idea of timing. are there deadlines that are meaningful somewhere? how we need to work and may be closed session. sometimes that relates how this moves and when there should be movement would be helpful. >> vice president moran: absolut ely. >> commissioner ajami: i wanted to say -- i think mr. drekmeier mentioned there's an a.g. water management plan that the districts put together that came out. i haven't seen that one. i was wondering if there's a way either we can get a copy of it or if we can ask kindly, somebody to present that to us. that will be very useful. just to get a sense what they are visioning for the years to come. >> we can get you copies of the agricultural water management plan.

that's easy. >> president maxwell: i would like to thank peter and all of the n.g.o.s and all of those people for participating and having panels and thank them for being a part of this whole -- all that we're doing. civic engagement. thank you all for everything that you do. thank you for your commitment. we appreciate it. we need it. keep coming. thank you. that's it. >> vice president moran: thank you to donna for putting up with all the late submissions and staff staying up late to prepare them. that was very much appreciated. thank you all. >> president maxwell: thank you, great job. >> commissioner ajami: thanks everybody. >> commissioner harrington: than k you very much. more