i'm going to call the meeting to order. madam secretary, can you do a roll call, please. >> (roll call). you have a quorum. due to the covid 19 health emergencies and the issues, this

meeting is being held by tele conference. for those of you watching live stream, please be aware there's a brief lag in time line. i would like to extend our thanks to sf staff for their assistance during the meeting. since this is a special meeting, there will be no general comment period. please note to limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed.

please address your remarks to the commission as a whole. >> thank you for that. i'm just going to say as you know this is a special meeting which i indicated when we convened. there are going to be some presentations. i think this is very exciting that we're indulging in being able to listen to those that do this for a living to help guide us as commissioners to move forward on our policies and there are presentations that are going to be done today. steve richy who is the assistant chair, assistant general manager in this department. i'm going to defer to him to do the introductions on the presentations we're going to

have. we're going to move forward and have commissioner discussion as well as public comment as we move through this particular meeting. can you read the first item, please. >> the first item is item number three, presentations on alternative water supply planning. >> thank you very much. good afternoon commissioners. i'm looking forward to this workshop, we have not just staff presenting but some guests from guests fromsan diego area who ha lot of the same work that we're presenting. our expectation today is we'll go deeper into what we've been talking about for alternative

water supplies. what the individual projects are a bit. our road map to get to the plan that we're obligated to put together by july 30th, 2023. one other quick thing i would say is that we obviously wanted to have much dialogue with the commission. you can let the presentations go, if you need something clarified, feel free to ask. certainly at the end of the presentations, plenty of questions that would you like to ask for the presenters would be great. we're going to start off with the alternative water supply planning. i'm going to give a brief introduction and turn it over for alternative water supply manager to handle the bulk of the presentation.

one of the key things we want to make sure comes clear in this presentation, we get a lot of questions, of well you have so many projects, you don't want to overbuild. i think we hit on a good phrase to keep that in mind. we have obligations and our actual demands. we're planning for all of our obligations but only building for our demands. that's what i'm bringing as we move forward. i would like to cover the agenda and move forward with the presentation. >> thank you steve. good afternoon commissioners, i'm program manager for the alternative water supply program. very pleased to be presenting to you today. i'm going to break my presentation down into three parts, three different topic

areas. i'll give an overview of the alternative water supply program and the objective and what needs we're planning for and how we think about those needs and talk about our planning priorities and the big picture road map and how we're thinking about getting there and the time line for that. i'll talk more specifically about the projects that we're planning for right now and others that we have just behind at the concept stage and where we're going with that. some of the individual project considerations that we have -- that we're thinking about right now. finallyi'll talk about the alternative water supply plan. we'll be preparing a plan, an actual document by july, 2023. i'm go to go talk about theing e vision for that.

it's something we're thinking about and i invite your comments on. we'll talk about the approach and how we suspect that document to support decision making as we go forward. breaking out the pieces of the alternative water supply plan program. alternatives, what we mean by that really is thinking about new projects that add to the surface water supplies of the regional water system. that plus the existing projects that are being implemented and looking beyond that. what comes next? when we look out the planning horizon is through 2025. what are the additional projects we might implement. the water supply piece, we have

and we will be talking about some of the obligations that we have both to the environment and to our customers. our goal is to be able to provide sufficient supplies to meet those projected needs and obligations. we simultaneously encourage other project opportunities. decentralized opportunities like our onsite water recycling program, for example. those happen concretely. they are not necessarily included but work with and very much integrated with the alternative water supply program. finally, we're calling it a program because it's really comprehensive effort. we have very clear mile stones, deliverables and report out regularly including with the quarterly reports that was

delivered to the commission on tuesday. very much a systematic approach on planning and how we move forward. >> really, what goes into the thinking of the alternative water supply program. there was a commission workshop on demands in july. really thinking about demands that including conservation and onsite water recycling, the ordinance that's we have. that's very much in the context of how we get to our program objectives over all. can you see at the top, the objective is how do we have a resilient water supply. demand is a big piece of that. on the supply side, we have our local supplies and here what we're talking about, the focus of this conversation, the alternative water supplieses. all in all, we're thrying to tro

balance our supplies and demands demandsand future uncertainties, climate change and all the things we're thinking about. ultimately how do we develop a resilient water supply system. in the next few slides i'm going to talk about the needs and how we get to say our total needs are for the program. these numbers you'll see are consistent with what were developed for the supply demand work sheet earlier in the year and late last year. you'll see in the water management plans. these are the same numbers that we're talking about. retail demand, we have retail demands and looking out in the planning horizon to 2045.

the last column year 82 point three. we have retail allocation which i put here in the allocation column, 81. you take that the active conservation savings projected in 2045 and the onsite recycling savings plus the local water supplies that are currently being implemented under the water improvement program, that brings you in the right column seventy three point seven of what the retail service area would need from the regional water system. carry over the obligation of that. >> i understand when we get to our whole sale customerses, is

there an obligation need for retail customers. >> that's a good question. we don't have a contract ourselves. there's -- we're treating it as an obligation. there's no contracts but it's an allocation. we planned for 81 on the retail side. >> okay. thanks. >> just like with the retail demands, we have the whole sale customer demands. the first row here is the net permanent customer whole sale demands. this is inclusive of conservation, local, and other non regional water supplies that

the whole sale customers have. that is the 184 supply insurance. in the 2045 is the cumulative demand projection of whole sale customers. the next row is jose. this is not currently an obligation but a decision that's before the commission to make in 2028. it is a policy decision that needs to be made. here what we've done is i've included nine. what they've asked for is something between nine and 15 point four mgd. i included nine to provide options to the commission, if you were to say yes and make a

policy division to make them permanent, what would that look like. i added here to the obligation column in 2045. totaling that, you have 184 plus nine on the obligation side. now we're looking at the supply side of the house. these were numbers generated and modeled through the hss modeling system. this is in 2045 with fully implemented, the system firm yield or what the regional water system can deliver including the projects and current instream flow releases is

227 million-gallons per day. you see that included both with and without the bay delta plan. you have 227 million-gallons per day systems per yield. without the delta plan there's no new stream releases. in 2045 this is what was modeled through the lsm system 93 short fall from the regional water system. you add onto that is the brought rational policies. that would be a demand reduction but we show it as an equivalent as the supply. it's represented here to be add

additive to the system. >> quick question. you said 20%, put that in perspective again. >> the 20% is our current policy to system wide reduction on average of no more than 20 percent. that's over an eight and a half year design. it's not 20 percent all the time. but a system wide average of 20%. >> okay. >> this is a summary of what would be available of supply -- >> i have a quick question for you. if the drought rationing policy -- i'm having a hard time why

you're adding it to the supply. doesn't that reduce the amount to the whole sellers. >> maybe i should step in on this, supply isn't exactly the right word here. it's system yield. carries that amount of conservation or delivery reduction if you have more customers than you actually have water for because you're telling them in advance that during a drought they're going to be reduced by that amount. >> okay. basically this is how many people we can provide water to at any given time.

>> yeah. with the understanding that in drought they'll be reduced up to 20%. >> got it. maybe i should ask you one more question. why aren't those two columnses both -- if we're asking them to ration -- i know 20% is off what their supply is but if you're thinking about the capacity of the system, wouldn't that capacity be the same if you're thinking about these two scenarios? >> the capacity is but it's actually rationed off of a different yield as the results of the reduction in yield based off of the reduction in

requirements. 20% rationing -- >> i understand mathematically how you came to that number. i'm asking conceptually wouldn't the systems capacity to reduce water use be the same regardless if we're under the delta plan or not. is it because we cannot ask them to reduce their water beyond that 20%. if we're not providing them a certain amount it becomes smaller. >> the commitment in the levels of service was rationing of no more than 20%. >> it's a percentage of a total amount because that total amount reduces due to this number. >> that's it. >> thank you.

>> these are the questions that can just as easily flow in at any particular time. thank you. okay. >> here we're putting the supplies and demands together. on the top, we're breaking it out into two different sets of numbers. the obligations versus the demands. if you're meeting your obligations you have the two different supply scenarios

without the bay delta plan. the 265 with the customers. this is straight math supply minus demand. without the bay delta plan, if you are meeting obligations, you would have a short fall of 17 million-gallons per day. with the bay delta plan if you're try to go meet obligations you'll have a short fall of 22 million-gallons per day. if you're looking at projected demandses in 2045 your supply doesn't change but goes down to 26 million-gallons per day. without the bay delta plan, you don't have a short fall. with the bay delta plan, you would have a short fall of

84 million gallons per day. depending on where we go with the agreement, the bay delta plan, the demands could change as we move forward. these numbers could change. what doesn't change right now is the existing obligations and what the system can provide without the bay delta plan with the system fully implemented. our planning mantra has been to identify projects where we can plan for, how would we meet these obligations, and ultimately building for the demands that we know we'll have. we'll have to revisit this over time. with that our planning priorities and we've had these in place since august of 2016.

we have our oblig toor. two policy decisions need to be made by the commission. if there are increased demands for any of the existing an interruptible customers whether to meet those increase demands also. >> some special considerations in thinking about making san jose and santa clara customers.

we need something to point to that would say these would meet the needs. they need to be identified for both normal and drought conditions. it could be a combination of supplies that does that, increased diversions. there are a number of ways that can be done, we're thinking about that. they should not adversely effect any of the retail or whole sale plan. here is the road map looking at the schedule as we go forward. we're here now, doing a number of feasibility studies and institutional agreements with various partner agencies, looking at costs and alternatives and preparing

monthly and quarterly updates that we report out on. our goal is by 2023 we have an alternative water supply program in place. we'll also have comprehensive project costs and water supply benefits to help provide decks for future project cases, we'll be thinking about how to integrate these project with the interregional water system. this could mean moving into c.e.q.a. phase. other projects are already there. it's moving further in the project development phase. in 2028 is when the decision will have some decision it make on the position of san jose and santa clara. i'll talk more specifically

about the projects we have in planning. one of the things we did early on in thinking about these projects holistically is look at our regional service area and look at all of the different existing infrastructure that we have throughout our service area. it's not just our infrastructure but all of the infrastructure out there and opportunities for partnerships is a big driver. we look at water treatment plans and waste water treatment plans. trying to do a comprehensive look at the potential water service programs and what other

agencies are doing and what we might be able to partner on. that informs some of our early planning. here, these circles represent what projects are currently doing feasibility studies on. our partnerships with one or more other entities. in some cases up to seven or eight entities on a project. we're looking at alternative with each of these projects, the technical and feasibility of each project. really you can see from this map, i think we're really looking at how to diversify and look at leverage project that's

already exist, and large infrastructure that might be needed. this pie represents 22 million-gallons per day. if we were trying to meet all of the obligations that we foresee for 2025. these are the projects that we have numbers for right now. the numberses that we have are for projects we're studying right now and getting a sense of how much water they can provide. the logic for these numbers sz numbers andthinking about how mr they could add. the drought and rationing right

be needed. what would happen if we bring on a purified water project. we tried to think through the logic of all of that in coming up with these numbers represented by this 35mgd. we have this gray space where we're still looking at projects and identifying numberses. ground water banking, purified water in san francisco. other storage opportunitieses to fill this gap. this 84 gets to this 84mgd that looks our demands for the year 2045.

those projected demands and obligations in 2045. i did want to take a moment and also note that as of tuesday's commission meeting the cac passed on resilient water supply. looking at the sf purified water project. i wanted to mention here that we are doing a study right now. the purpose of that study is to look at what are the maximum potentials and maximum feasible opportunity in san francisco for purified water. taking the waste water and saying how much of that can you recover. how much of that can your infrastructure support. looking at draft regulations

currently in draft form but expected by 2023. also looking at operations and seeing how much can we feasibly produce. we just kicked that off and moving towards that right now. some of these others, these are projects that are also included as part of the river voluntary agreement discussions. as those progress we'll be able to have discussions on these projects. we recognize for sure that there is a significant short fall here still that we need to plan for. i guess i would say that, you know, you can see a number of these projects are in the one, two, five million gallon per day

range. that is the nature of what we've seen in terms of the types of supplies that are available now. they tend to be in this range and involve large partnerships can other agencies. it also does help give us a diversified water portfolio. we continue to look for additional projects that will help meet those needs. just a little bit more on the daily city recycled water project. the project works is basically we provide a new recycled water source to irrigators. they for go pumping from the ground water basis and a dry

year supply course. this is a project that we've done quite a bit of work on. c.e.q.a. has been completed. we're looking at alternative such as injecting purified water into the in ground water basin. the crystal springs takes waste water, purifies that water and brings it to crystal springs reservoir and provides additional supply to san francisco and other partners. we're looking at alternatives here instead of or in addition

to crystal springs could take it directly into router treatment plants for their distribution system. there's the acwb purified water project, treat that to drinking water standards, put that into cory lakes where it basically serves as ground water recharge. it stays there for some time before it's picked up by alameda county districts. there's the reservoir extension project that you've heard a lot about. that really is the furthest along. c.e.q.a. has been completed and

design is happening right now for the project. forty thousand acre feet, that would make us the largest partner in this regional storage project. this storage sits on top of ccwd existing reservoir and would provide dry year delivery to san francisco customers. there's the expansion project that does not require other partners. this could be a significant expansion of the reservoir between 118 to provide --

treating waste water from south east and ocean side treatment plants and in the case of san francisco is a little different than a lot of the other purified water projects that we've talked about in that we don't have a drinking water treatment plant within san francisco and we don't have available space foreground water recharge in san francisco. it would be this additional treatment and probably an engineered storage and through drinking water reservoirs and distribution to our customers. our study right now is to see what the maximum feasible retention is there. we're looking at treatment availability through south east

or satellite facilities. this is a study that's ongoing right now. >> i had a quick question. what is engineered storage? >> that's just a large storage tank where you can hold the water. basically with purified water you want to make sure you have a place to hold water once it's treated before you put it it directly in your distribution system. in case there's a off spike, we don't have an environmental buffer, we would have to build something. >> in two sentences or less, you said this is in research or planning. what does that mean?

talking to customers or talking about engineers? >> right now it's talking about engineering. we have done a pilot project, a very small pilot project in our head quarters project in 2018 or 2019, we it quite a bit of research with staff as well. we tried it out what a very small system looked like. when we talk about research and studying it, the technical and regulatory feasibility. we're hiring a contractor looking at the draft regulations right now and what would be feasible to produce. we would need to do more out reach and education as well.

we also have an innovations programs looking at new technology to increase water availability in san francisco. we're looking at a number of different kinds of things here, we have a pilot project on atmospheric water generation right now in san francisco. >> could you define atmospheric water generation. >> that and my knowledge is very limited here. really it's about collecting condensate. you might have solar panels where you would collect the water droplets from the air and have that be a small water

supply. >> broad caption would be another example of that. >> a couple of projects that i mentioned that are not yet in planning, are part of the river voluntary agreement. ground water banking up count c.

it's still something that we're pursuing and hoping that we can secure. there really puts together how we're thinking about these individual pieces. at the project level we're looking at objectives, technical feasibility, the various alternativeses that might be available to us an the cost. that fits into a bigger water supply plan project that i'll talk about next. how we integrate with the

operations of the existing regional water system. where do we have operational flexibility. what kinds of uncertainties do we have and how that all fits into our broader level service goals through 2045. i talked -- put out teasers about the alternative water supply plan. it's something we want to develop by july first, 2023. what is it? this is how we're thinking about it. we're thinking about individual projects that have a very near term focus and as those projects move forward, we need iterative thinking. when we talked about water supply needs, a lot of those numbers are changing. water forecasts get refined

every four years, we have new development that might happen, new regulations. there's a lot of moving pieces here. the idea is identifying within each project different key mile stones where you would have an additional financial expenditure, making an important commitment, making sure we continue to tie in with what the planning objectives are and the overall program needs are. having that built into our planning process. we have to keep checking in and revisiting what the plans are as we move forward with these projects. we're continuously doing a reality check on how much water we need and where we are with projects and what that means for investment. really gives us the ability to

make no regrets decisions as we move through each of these different project mile stones. we are currently drafting a number of citing principles for the existing water supply program and plan. this gives you a sense of what they are. they are still being drafted. protecting things like rate payer investments. in order to maximize what we already have where it's available. diversifying water supply options. we have on our list a variety of different kinds of water supply options.

we have some tools that we're

also developing. we have some sequencing and where it makes sense to stop. as we continue to move forward along the project trajectory. we're looking at doing some modeling. you'll be hearing in the next couple of months in the climate change models, long term accessibility funds. making sure we understand under different climate and demand scenarios what the future looks like and how these projects have a water supply benefit or not under different conditions. that's a modeling effort we're doing in conjunction with the long term work at the puc. we're doing some financial

modeling. these are very different kinds of projects we've gt. got. what is the delivered water cost of these individual projects. what does that mean, the o and m cost. how do we compare them so we understand on a unit cost base s as we understand what that means. that is some of the work we're embarking on right now. project sequencing really defining different mile stones within a project. understanding the risks at every step. the technical and financial considerations and revisiting whether we should go forward and whether that's really the best way to move along the course of

the project. modeling for the projected water supplies. looking at the water supply benefits that might accrue not just at one point in time but multiple scenarios and various points in the fought you're as we account for climate change and new demand scenarios. for development it will look at different metrics. we're defining those right now. applying them to diverse scenarios in both supply and demand to assess what these water plans would be. unit cost, standardizing cost for individual projects and

having the ability within that model to add new projects in as well as we identify new projects with a common lens across projects. and this is really what we're hoping that the water supply plan will do. describe this planning approach, look at both near term planning projects. a lot of the work we're doing right now is a lot of the detailed cost development. using these tools that i described really give you some key inputs on how to help make decisions to advance these to the next stage. whether that's c.e.q.a. in the case of many of these projects or going further deeper into design and encouraging different development costs associated with that.

and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much for that overview and i know that as we move forward we'll be seeing more presentations and have many questions. in this particular meeting, we have two more presentations that we're going to have. since we have the commissioners here and before we lose you, i would like to go a little off script and make sure any of the commissioners while we you have and steve and others as a resource here, if there are any other questions that could be asked right now, i would like to open that up and take this opportunity to you haves engage if commissioners -- >> i have a question. what are some of the metrics that you're considering?

>> that's a good question. really we're looking at things like where in our system we have -- basically looking at our distribution and looking at our infrastructure where we have redundancies. what does that mean in the context of future scenarios. that's something we're still thinking about and developing right now. >> is there any other metrics that you're considering? >> that's something we can get back to you on. we haven't even had had our kick off meeting yet. we're just getting started on. >> on the interruptible customers, how long have we been

servicing them. >> since the 1970s. nicole is with us as well if there's any questions relevant about the whole sale customers. they became customers in the 1970s. >> that's over 30 years. >> almost 50. >> we're just considering whether or not to add them as permanent customers. >> we're on a track to final make a decision on it one way or the other. whether to make them part of the regional water system permanent customers. >> they would be interruptible.

>> this actually predates me. at a prior meeting i asked that we schedule a session on agenda to talk about the interruptibles. i think we suggested to do that in the next few meetings. it's a big subject and deserves it's own time. >> okay. this sounds a little bit loaded, is there any other comments on this particular issue that either staff or commissioner moran would like to comment on. otherwise we'll move on.

>> the interruptible in the sense they are not a part of the assurance. >> it's not like anybody has the power to cut them off or put them on. we're not looking at those issues right. >> the contract provides a process for that. that would be a challenging decision to make to just cut them off. >> any other comments on that? >> i would only ask if it doesn't matter, why are they interruptible. if we have to go through a big deal to get rid of -- why is it necessary to make this decision? >> because they were not part of

the initial litigation that resulted in the 1984 settlement contract, they were not captured in the insurance that is subject to right by that litigation. by that definition, they are out side of the supply assurance which is really a unique perpetual obligation san francisco has to the whole sale customers. that relationship with them has stemmed since that time. it's important for all parties

to recognize that we all have differences about who -- the rest of the whole sale customers feel strongly that they are not part of the 1984, we provide them assurance for a long term contract. that's the interest. >> basically that's going to be san francisco puc's decision or yours. >> it is your decision. it's laid out in the water supply agreement at this point. you have to give them ten years notice to interrupt them. you have to do a c.e.q.a. analysis and have to make a decision by 2028. >> thank you. any other comments as we move

forward. this is important. >> i actually have a different question maybe on the demand side. i appreciated your presentation. one thing i didn't see there was maybe a broader analysis on demand. the reason i'm asking you this is, i imagine myself having this conversation 30 years ago. i'm trying to imagine what the numbers would have looked at at a time when talking about demand and how we would have said, probably this is not going to change or likely to change, we're planning for that. i want to imagine ourselves

today and then 30 years ago. denmark is using 20-gallons per person per day. that's a very small number. i'm not saying we're go to go ing endup there. my ask is, can we actually try to do a better job of having a demand uncertainty in this study. everybody on average in the bay area are two point seven million people. if our water is used. what does that add up to be and

how does that change this equation? would that change the way we look at various projects. that's my overall comment. i appreciated your very thorough presentation on how you're approaching this problem. >> thank you, commissioner. again, thank you for the very thorough overview. i think mr. richy, i interrupted you. >> that's okay. i was going to say we talked about the pre jeked level and still expect them to project. when we start to build brand new housing, we know that the

demands are going to be less because of the codes. a lot of that is built in. can it be more. right now san francisco is using 42-gallons per person p per day. will he anne up going lower, i'm sure we will. will it get to 38 or 35, those are good questions.

>> i understand that commissioner is saying we should plan for what if that happens. the other side of looking at that is if we forced it to happen and got to 35-gallons, would that absolve us from having to do all this other stuff. what should we do to avoid -- is it preventing crazy. it would be nice to know if that

35 or 22 -- >> i love trying out the crazy ideas. we'll be back with that and see how horrendous or crazy or not. >> that would be great. >> i'll move onto our next thing with a rhetorical comment. people are really excited in the united states and particularly in san francisco we have an over 30 percent turn out for an election. when we would like to have one 100%of registered voters voting. part of the reason they might not be voting is because they are in the shower. that being said, let's move onto the next two presenters and steve, you've got some folks from san diego that are are

going topresent to us. >> we have director of water resources for the san diego water authority. the large wholesaler in san diego county. they have been down this path and going down a similar path again to go into the future. we think it would be good to have somebody out side of our perspective to talk about what they've done and how they did it and what they learned. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i would like to thank michaelle for the opportunity to present today. i serve as an alternate on the board of water board agencies. i'm here on sandies behave

today. i'm the director of water resources for the san diego water authority. i started in 2001, i left for a few years and came back in my current position in 2018. it's always exciting to be able to share our diversification journey. we started this journey 20 plus years ago. we're much better prepared for the current drought we're facing this year. i'd like to be able to share our story with you. some of you might be similar with the water authority. here is a quick overview. the water authority of san diego

whole sale water agencies. we work very closely with our regional land use agencies to align our planning assumptions to support the implementation of our local supplies to ensure the region has the water supplies supplies.our service area covert the entire san diego county region.

this is a very simplified picture of where our supplies come from. today a majority of our recent supply about 66 percent comes from the colorado river. 24 percent are local supplies. which is run off and water desalination and recycled water. with the result of three decades of regional planning. the drinking water supply an manager. it ensures resiliancy. this picture is not the same.

the innovative in our infrastructure investments. we embarked on a similar planning process. we completed a similar plan on our water facilities master plan back in 2003 to diversify our water plans. how did we achieve this? residents and businesses are making the most of every drop of water. san diego is a state wide leader in conservation and water use efficiency for more than three

decades. our businesses and residents have reduced water use by nearly 50 percent over the last 30 years. the commitment is so deeply engrained in our cult ner theree has been little redrought. a significant amount of our supplies each year is about 50 percent of our portfolio. project it recycle waste water and look ago head during various regions that turn waste water into drinking water during phase one of 70,000-acre feet by 2025.

we've increased our capacity and set supplies for wet years in the use of dry ones. here are some pictures of those projects that i just mentioned and that are helping us to make sure san diego water supplies are sustainable. i'm not going to go over them in detail in the interest of time.

here is our 2020 demand and supply chart from last year. this chart is much different from the 1990s. since then we have added the conserve water transfer as well as sea water desalination and others. this is a much more diversified portfolio. looking ahead, i just want to give you the big picture. >> just a quick question, desalination, what was that percentage? is that the 8 percent? >> salt water is about 8 percent

of our supplies. >> okay. thank you. >> looking ahead, i want to give you the big picture for some opportunities for partnership. in line about governor new some's model. affordable reuse development is the next increment of supply in our region. we're expecting to bring portable reuse water supply? the next 15 years. remove direct portable reuse of these supplies an save rate payers millions of dollars. we're looking for options to store water in lake mead to help

the colorado river basin as a whole. here is our projected water supply resource mix. parts of the state are facing challenge with the ongoing supply conditions. we have sufficient water supplies for this year and beyond. our water plan and these are the approved water plans for 2045. a safe and water supply even when there's not a lot of water to go around. from the san diego, through our

board of directors and our agencies and rate payers. san diego is more than prepared. this concludes my presentation today. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> should we move to the next piece or take the opportunity for any questions. >> let's take the opportunity for any questions the commissioners might have. >> thank you so much for your presentation. i was wondering, you mentioned -- what's the demand per capita in san diego. >> it's 120g pc d.

right now it's hovering around 28. >> thank you so much. >> i have a question. you seem to be fairly reliant on colorado river and it seems to be a problem wrying now. wrying. >> through the imperial irrigation district, they have a higher priority right. metropolitans is a fifth priority right. they are activating the contingency plan. you'll see cutbacks to arizona and nevada before you see cutbacks to california.

if there is cutbacks to california, that will hit the metropolitan area first. we're pretty insulated from any cutbacks on the river. it would be take a severe prolonged drought for us to feel any effect. >> anymore questions for kelly? comments? thank you very much for the presentation. .>> thank you. >> this collaboration of ideas. do have you the next presenter. >> i would like to welcome the assistant director for environmental monitoring and technical services. john actually used to work for the city of san jose.

we have john t 'ed up the video virtual tool as system. if you make some introductory comments, we can go to that video. >> i'm assistant director of the public utilities department for the city of san diego. i'll start by saying that --

san diego serves about one point four million people on the water side. i have two slides to give a background for the program in san diego. this is the plan that's have only enhanced primary treatment. as can you see it's built on the side of a cliff. when the city was presented with the plans, the other option was pure water which removes the pollutants by the ocean. the pure water program is funded or will be funned approximately one third by the sewer customers and two thirds by the water customer. the sewer customers, it's less

expensive for them to contribute to pure water. water customers are also getting a pretty good deal. the purple squares are in addition to the waste water supply. water challenges are pretty similar to everybody elses. local supply is 15 percent for the city. typical response to conservation. the desalination plant, we wish we had some ground water down here but it's very limited. eight percent of our water is

recycled. what does pure water do. this is the san diego system and goes into reservoirs. we operate three drinking water plants. most of it is discharminged in the ocean of eight percent go it the recreation plant and build another one. water from that plant in addition to the non portable uses will go to secure the plant and go towards the rez voar. we'll provide one half of san deag oh's water supply.

it's in two phases. it is a one poin five million dollar project. it is the biggest and most complicated capital improvement project that the city has ever done. it will be completed in 2035. we have a phase two that is twice as big and serve the central area. we're putting that final touches on the planning for that. the decision making is whether to go into a closed sand reservoir or much bigger further away. you've heard about orange county of course.

orange county used the pipeline, we had to send our recycled water through the reservoir. we worked with the state to develop the regulations for surface water. we discharged our phase one water into the reservoir. i won't go too much into regulations. we worked hand in hand with the regulatories for augmentation. this is what the regulations deal with. what made it interesting, of course, is we had to deal with changing regulations for using storage for drinking wawer.

essentially we needed addition in a our plans. we're building a new water plant. here is where the water goes if we pump it up through the north city plan. this is the existing plant which we're expanding to continue to provide non portables. when the water goes across the street that's about an 83 million-dollar project existing at this time. the fema process is extreme p.

it goes to a reservoir and then to a drinking water plant. here is the water coming out of the plant. it goes into the reservoir it's like a fish bone of a hundred different ports that distribute the water into the reservoir and goes over to the treatment plan. this this is the status of our contract. can you see there's eleven difn contracts. we have now awarded eight of them and all together presented that it will be one poin five million dollars for the project. the out reach has been a critical pent.

twenty yers ago said we're not using the expact same -- wawer will be pure ch. these are organizes that support pure water. it's really a wide variety of organizations. that's the summary of our presentation. did you want to play the video, feel free to do that. with that, we'll take any

questions. >> you covered it pretty well. they produced a virtual tool that is worth watching. that takes about ten minutes. we can put that on hold and later share it with the commissioners. if you have any questions of john, now would definitely be the time to ask them. i have twice taken the tour of the demonstration facilities. >> ten minutes is ten minutes. i know we're a little over schedule. maybe for the public if we should play the video or not or if we just send it in to all of us so we can see it.

i'll leave that towp the commissioners whether or not we should look at it right now. let's open it up to questions from the commissioners for the san diego folks. >> thank you for your presentation. certainly very informative. thinking about the whole half of san diegos water supply will come from this. that's quite impressive considering the amount of demand. i was wondering, obviously this is a centralized approach to recycling and that is great. i was wnd hing having your

system or is this something you are not foreseeing happening in san diego. >> this was a big project. we have been looking to san francisco for onsite recycling an starting to look at that as well. the focus as really been the pure water. when you look at how much you get for it in terms of half of the city's water supply and no additional cost. if we pure watter.

we are looking at other areas as well. some interesting thing that's occur, we need enough sewage. we're a little concerned about what happens if because of the way we put this together. we're now legally obligated to produce 83 million-gallons of water per year. because of the great conservation happening, it's getting close. >> i have a clarifying question. you mentioned sewer customer.

every cuff mere is a sewer customer as well. water customers is all of san sandiego. all sets of customers benefit from pure water. if you're a water and sewer customer, you get those benefits. >> got it. thank you so much. >> great. any other questions for john?

>> thanks for the presentation both of you. that moving forward we have one more presentation for this workshop that we're doing. steve, do you want to introduce our next panel. >> yes, we have with us today folks you've seen before representing non governmental organizations. i will turn it over to peter. >> thank you very much. good to see you this often chair and commissioners. i'm grateful that chris was able to join me. he was at a workshop all day. we actually had a number of people we hoped could be on this panel but they are all on

vacation or doing other things. we are going to tag team with this presentation. determining how much alternative water supply is needed requires a number of steps. i would say the first one is carrying the capacity of the river. what does the river need to remain healthy. after that how much is available to us. caring capacity is the number of people or other living organism that's can survive in a region without degradation. the water board started the whole delta plan with a flow criteria study.

this was completed in 2010. it required 60 percent of our un incurred flow. the basin alone needed 100% of current flow. they adopted the plan with 40% unimpaired flow thavment was a that was a compromise. we're not in agreement as to what is the caring capacity. maybe we'll get there. from this point we need to figure out what are reasonable demand projections. we had had really good workshop in july and some things that

came up were that, what was in the water plan was more of a worst case scenario if all of the projected bay area plan came to fruition, this is what we would need. we're hoping there will be a decision on that with your next workshop focusing on the climate change vulnerability requirement. once we have a sense of how long of a drought we're planning for. what are regional projections. we have a water supply calculator, it's similar to the water supply work sheet. it allows you to go into deficit. we used all figures provided by

sfpuc. we're in agreement with the number going in. what happens in current demand remained at close to 200 millio. rationing begins in year three. if we're following this scenario next year we would have 20% rationing. we make it through seven years of the design draft. we have a deficit of 224,000-acre feet to make it through year eight.

one of the things we've talked to you before and i mentioned in my last presentation was the status of the water treatment plan that east bay mud is constructing. it's not moving ahead as fast as i hoped it would but it's moving forward. use wattser diverted from the delta.

i understand we've alternated a quarter an getting agreements in place. i appreciate what was said and the folks at san diego to understand what your need is. on the other hand, you have to act on certain things or you lose the opportunity. it's our view that something that's reasonable and certain to get into place as an agreement now to get the added storage. another big part of this as i understand it is what the water

rights would be that the sfpuc would be able to use in order to get that storage. it would certainly be more convenient an less expensive to use water rights as an adding point rather than having to buy transferred water. that's something we would be interested in talking to ccwd about to see if there are -- there's a way to do. it would probably have to involve the districts as well. meanwhile there are a lot of it iterative processes. concerns about treatment and water quality. those are institutional kinds of

obstacles that really need to be worked out. i brought the same issue up ten years ago at east bay mud. they said we couldn't possibly do that. they couldn't possibly work with the water district. things change. i'm sure you're aware that there really needs to be a break through here. if it's not east bay mud, you need to figure out what a reasonable option is for being able to use water that's diverted in the delta. >> i wanted to talk a little about the water transfer that was proposed in 2012. the idea is the district would

solve and study quite a bit more water. the price would have been $700 per acre foot and it was take or pay. this was a terrible deal. the need was designed on the design drought. we're going to need a lot more water. san francisco would have peaked one point five million dollars per year for water that wasn't needed. we still have three years worth of water in storage. 2019 was a spill year. we would have about five additional acre feet in storage. is it really worth $15 million

to have one thousand acre feet. the water transfer failed but we learned a lot. the irrigation districts are very seek active about opportunities because their narrative is oh, my gosh if we have to provide more water to the river our economy is going to collapse. they were forced because the farmers were opposed to the transfer. they had to make sure and show them that it made good sense for us. they pointed out all of this infrastructure work they needed to do to save water. preventing spill. a lot of water just spills out of the canals because they don't have a way to recapture it. the big challenge is they charge

so little for water, they don't have the funding to do these projects. they showed that we have the potential to save 25,000 to

45,000-acre feet. we're talking real water. at mid distributed half of much water as tid. there's a lot of savings potential there as well. the estimated cost was $115 million. that's not a lot of money for us. it's about $200 per acre foot. this is really low hanging fruit. it needs to be navigated better. what happened in 2012 is the farmers revolted. the general manager of mid and the lawyer were shown the door. three of the directors chose not to run again. it was a big to do. our ground water bank and crystal talked about that

avoidses that constraint. it avoids selling water out of the district. what i would encourage is looking as more of helping fund these infrastructure improvements in exchange for an insurance policy. you're not buying water that you might end up dumping at some point. in extreme situations, if it looks like we're running low on water, you'll help us make it through. i think that's the solution. i do think it's important to understand or recall that insurance doesn't pay out every year. that's not the function of it. equally not all feasibility

studies lead to project. but all of them take time. it doesn't mean that it's a bad investment to look at insurance policies and the issue that we may not need it or all the time has to be balanced with the fact that if you don't do something reasonably soon, you may lose the opportunity to do it all the time. we know the risk increasing. how surprising and quickly things have progressed in this very dry water year. the other thing to recall is as we heard feasibility studies don't happen overnight. it takes a sequencing process. you probably aren't ever going

to know what your demand is going to be. have you to make some reasonable and conservative solutions. you won't have the perfect answer ever that allows you to know exactly what you need to do. this is just something that peter like it remind folks. in wet years there are opportunities for -- there's a lot of water available for projects. let's look at some of these opportunities foreground water recharge in the service areas of mid and tid. it's not going to happen to get a full on ground water recharge in place in the next ten years. you really need to start now or it's going to take decades. start the feasibility project

recharge program and what the opportunities are by mapping the service areas of mid and tid. the sfpuc could fund these projects. the water smart program which helped to fund the bay area reliability process. it's added a component foreground water recently. another thing that you should look at in looking at opportunities for habitat restoration, it may very well be that there's an opportunity for flood plane recharge as you're constructing flood places that inundated, you have the opportunity to reground flood water. it's important it to note that

there are new technologies available. some of have been tried and promoted heavily by stanford. new or old, it's a good idea to start figuring out where your opportunities are and just to get a better handle on this. the districts an the local ground water agencies are already pursuing this. i think a partnership is an available opportunity and appropriate. i want to comment a little bit about the ground water banking approach as stated in the volunteer agreement. it's important that both sfpuc and bosca bring ground water banking not something that's a benefit to a few fish but

important as a component for water supply reliability for districts and the bay area. that gives farmers in the districts and bay area districts a reason to care. as formulated in the trva the ground water banking is considereds a way to supplement water in considerably dry years. that's too narrow a focus and frame. you'll enable higher flows in the wet years. that's when fish really benefit. the dry year triage which has been much of the focus of the districts preferred plan it helps avoid disaster but not the time when fish have the opportunity to really increase their populations. a reset and different way of

looking at ground water banking in the district service areas i think is appropriate. >> this is peter again, we know the irrigation districts can be challenging to work with. but they have a lot of incentive to cooperate. first of all, if the bay delta plan is implemented, they are going to come to you and talk about the partnership, the shared savings that have come up before. their own climate change studies suggest that overall precipitation and run off is going to similar to the past but the run off is going to come earlier. they are looking at a shift of 60% coming from the april/july

period coming to 60 percent. if you recall the raker grant to the irrigation districts for most of the year. in that critical time period of snow melt and run off which is mid april to mid june it goes up to 4,000. when you have 60 percent of the run off coming in that time period san francisco gets less water and the districts get more. current demand is about 225,000-acres per year. a years worth of water shifts over. we're looking at a much bigger

shift than three weeks. we're going to see this and how it impacts san francisco's entitlements. they are going to be very eager to collaborate. >> we have a series of recommendations and the main thing is to get moving. a commitment to alternative supplies and having several projects permitted and funded in time for inclusion in the owe 2025 urban water management plan. that is important. what no particular preference for what they are. i think that forward motion is very important. more aggressive water recycling

plants in the next five years. executing contracts for drought reserve storage. there are a lot of different folks who are considering taking advantage of storage. i think sfpuc have a very big stake in making sure that they take the opportunity while it's still there. i realize that there's risk involved in that. i don't see a lot of equivalent opportunities that offer you that level of opportunity. it's a lot of storage local and that kind of opportunity is really important. finally we recommend that you finance or partly finance the

evaluation and mapping of recharge opportunities in the mid and tid service areas to work together to develop a feasible and acceptable ground water recharge banking program. finally, regional solutions. this is what everybody says. it doesn't seem like vosca and sfpuc have really become the kind of equal partners and all the agencies for that matter, the retail agencies need the same level of commitment to regional solutions. it still seems like there's too much looking out for individual

agencies, not sfpuc as some of the vosca ones and not enough commitment to regional cooperation. that's it. thanks very much. >> thank you chris and peter for the presentation. and also for being partners in this discussion on water that has been commenced and obviously will continue. what i would like is if steve or any of sfpuc staff have a comment or anything to make, this would be the opportunity if you desire to say something. post that. i'll open it up to the commissioners for comments or questions. not only on just the ngo stuff we just heard but maybe a continuation of the other things that we talked about.

that being said, steve, any comments or we can open it up. >> i would just make the comment that there are a number of good ideas. part of the presentation that i would expect to follow-up on with chris and peter. there are a number of things that i feel were a little bit misinforming so we'll just leave that aside. there are some good ideas that are worth talking about there. one piece of that is, it's interesting, you talked about how difficult it is for us to talk to the irrigation districts but i haven't seen you guys out there in the valley very much. maybe we need to be talking more about how we can work jointly on things. i'll leave it at that but i'll be following up to you both.

>> thanks steve. anything else? i'll open it to the commissioners. we are in discussion mode. >> i might be a little confused on the expansion discussion. are you suggesting something different than what we are doing or lock it in faster than we're locking it in? >> i'll take that. i think you lock it in is the most important thing. figure out how you're going to make it work. i think there are some pieces

that may be potentially looked at with other things like how you can use your existing water rights. that's something that we suggested ten years ago and your attorneys told us was not possible. i think it's a worthwhile thing to consider. just getting it done, i think that's really all. >> i think we are looking at those many possibilities. we did approve commission approve signing onto the joint commission authorities. there are further agreements that hopefully to the next year, year and a half to pin down the substance of the agreements. the jpa is basically formulated. we'll have our meeting in the

next month or so. >> thanks. as a follow-up. >> just a couple comments. the first is that peter, you started off by talking about the first thing we need to do is identify the carrying capacity of the river. i have to agree with that. we need to figure outgoing forward what our obligations are in the river and how that effects us. i think -- when you just look at the arithmetic of trying to balance this thing. that unknown so huge that it

makes all the other discussions just beside the point. we need to get some closure on that as best and as soon as we can. the other thing i'd like to comment on is is chris you made the case for getting started given

-- >> thank you for that presentation, i appreciate it. i look forward to the next stage of all of this. >> one quick response -- >> thank you commissioner. peter are you responding to commissioner. >> if i may, thank you. good point. we'll help out as we can. we have an interesting

relationship with the irrigation district. on tuesday larry bird on the mid board referred to us as his friends and supported keeping the funding for our tracking the program and voted five to zero to move forward. that was a big victory. i think it's really important to remember that what's good for the tualame is not necessarily bad for the sfpuc. in an average year the sfpuc is entitled to am seven auto 750,0e feet. there's a lot of water in between those two to make up the

93mgd and a lot more. it's only when you have a very very long drought and you're having to give up water from storage every year and you don't have these breaks from just an average year that you need to start getting nervous. for example, if you took the design drought and put an average year buffer in between the 8792 drought. you might ask your mod letters modelers totake a look at that. >> thank you, peter. commissioners, any other comments and discussions of this

workshop before we go into public comment? okay. seeing none. i want to thank everybody for their presentations. i think that barring any other comments, i would like the secretary to open this to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item three.

moderator do we have any callers. >> we have a couple callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> first caller, i'm unmuting your line. have you two minutes. >> i would like you all to read the act one more time. i would like you who talk to do a needs assessment on all the pipes that are leaking an the millions of gallons of water that is leaking into the ground every single day.

i would like to see a needs assessment, empirical data from the millions of gallons of water that are leaking in santa clara and san jose. once you get a sense of those, you can address the other things you are addressing. secondly, in san francisco we have to remember we have over a million and a half daytime population that was damaged from covid. you need to do a needs assessment for how many are using this in the financial district and these buildings. if i remember correctly, chronologically speaking the water was paid for and bought

for a profits purpose. now we're all over the place. some people that were in the part of the agreement -- screw that. thank you very much. >> thank you caller. next caller, i've unmuted your line. >> hello this is mark. the best discussion i heard today was the thought that we have to look at the river first. one of the commissions mentioned we have to look into that. the bay delta quality control plan spent years and years looking into that. i think that number is

established. we should start from there and let the city get its water that it needs from that. thank you. >> thank you caller. next caller i have unmuted your line. >> hello commissioners. my name is john over in oak lan. oakland.i want to thank you forg these workshops that have been very informative to me. i was at the focus water memorial the other day and thinking it's been around 88 years since we started getting water and all the different changes and challenges we have had in the bay area. i remember when the clean water act came through people said we

can't do this. we think of our waste water treatment how we evolved better for our health and everything else. people talk about the commissioners just mentioned the health of a river versus our obligation. i think it's possible to have boablg. both. the health of the river is part of your obligation. i would hope you would withdraw from the lawsuit against the delta plan. people have mentioned it really doesn't provide enough water. on the average of 40 percent whereas fish need around 60 percent. we have gone from 100,000 to

about a thousand. this is crunch time. you hole the fate of salon in your hands. that's very powerful and sobering. i hope you can save the fish as well as providing water for all of us. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. i have unmuted your line. you have two minutes. >> hello i am with the organization save california's salon. i wanted to thank you for holding this workshop and wanted to thank peter and chris for their presentation which was great. i wanted to encourage you guys to diversify your water supply

and take all the steps necessary to do that. you do have the fate of the salon in your hand. i was very disappointed to hear about the recent lawsuit against the curtailments. san francisco has the storage to protect yourselves so when the fish need water they can get it especially during drought years. we are actually starting an office in fisherman's wharf in about a week and a half from now as part of the indian american cultural district hub. fishing in the native community is part of san francisco's kul culture. it's part of its heritage and ports and industry.

i would like to encourage you again to diversify the water supply. thank you again for doing these workshops. >> thank you. next caller. you have two minutes, i have unmuted your line. >> i'm a water resource manager.

>> there are no other callers in the queue at this time. >> listen, thank you everybody for attending an presenting at this meeting. those of you still on the phone an my fellow colleagues and

commissioners. i will just state that this is obviously an organic and ongoing process that has been started in over the last year or so to continue besides the regular work we do to monitor in particular the water issues that we're confronted with. that being said assuming there are no other comments, will consider -- i see a hand up. >> thank you. i had saved comments because i wanted to have a look at all of it before i commented. they are very brief. first of all, the san diego water authority had a very impressive program that they talked to us about. two of the things that came out

of that is it takes a long time to get it done. it took them decades. we need to get higher under this this. it takes a lot of money. i think we know that and we're prepared to spend that. a couple comments -- when i look at it, one of the things that jumps out at me is the thedifference between the amounf water that is identified by potential projects an the amount of water that is out there. it's less than half of the identified total. it does raise questions about the sufficiency of the plan. is it ambitious enough.

if we in the next five years presented with a delta management project, we don't have anything on the books to get us there. i mentioned how difficult that is because we don't know what the requirement is going to be. it makes that difficult but i think we need to wrestle with that and make sure that we are not moving slower than we could otherwise because of that uncertainty. there were a couple things in the presentation where we need to look at some of the policies that we have in place and make sure that they reflect what you're current thinking is. i don't think that the current policies are wrong. i think they need to be nuanced. i'll point to two. at the beginning we talked about the basic priorities of the program.

we had some that were non negotiable or absolute. one of those were meeting our obligations. that became higher on the list than things like serving current demands. steve, you had a good thumb nail for it. we need to plan for our obligations but build for demands. that's a good statement for it and we need to make sure our policies are in line with that.

it is also true that our resources are probably the place that providing fishery flow sz er flows isgoing to have to com. i think those are nuances but important shifts. i think we need to take a look at priorities that we identified in the presentation it make sure they really reflect the current situation and our current thinking about that. that's all. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. anymore comments. i know we were going to spend our time prior to public comment

on that. let's keep this open if there are others that want to weigh in before adjournment. >> just a quick comment. i really appreciate everybody's presentations. i think it was a really productive discussion. one comment i have is about the more productive collaboration and trying to look at ground water recharge which i think it's definitely valuable. we should look into that as an option as we're developing water supplies. overall, i know we've been working with them many years. i think we are all in it together. they are go to go face more challenges because of climate

change. the more we use these connections as a collaborative opportunity than trying to explore opportunities of reducing risk while investing in future alternatives to get there. we can be in a better place. i think i want to reemphasize that. i know we talked about that before. i just wanted to preface this one more time and putting it in higher priority. one other comment i had for steve and the team to think about is i really appreciate the number of staff we have on this project. i wonder if we need to diversify

the expertise we have on this effort. maybe we need to have someone from the finance team sitting in on this conversation. maybe someone from the demand team sitting in on the conversation. as a engineer i know how easy it is to get so comfortable in the things we know. it's faster, easier, it moves much smoothing. it would be good to have some of these alternative expertise on part of the discussion it make sure we're asking all the right questions and exploring different scenarios and looking at everything that we should. another idea is to have someone from our base water enterprise sitting on this as part of this discussion can be part of this

partnership moving forward. just an idea. >> just to respond to that, we have four dedicated staff for this. we have a group representing many different parts of the puc who are also working on this that we refer to the water supply task force that meets every two weeks. that group there are at least three people who are spending more than 50% of their time on this. finance, environmental review, the modeling team that are not part of the dedicated staff but very involved in this. we have a lot of different people involved working on this. yes, we've tried to work hard to getting that diversity there. >> thank you so much for letting

me know. one last comment, i know you guys are looking into uncertainties from various sides. climatic sides, demand side, supply side. it would be good to maybe move away from this presentation model that we have which is always two scenarios, the best and the worst. have these portfolios presented as we have these discussions. this would be helpful at least for me personally to see what are we looking at. what's the spectrum of possibilities that are ahead of us from each side of this equation. >> that's very appropriate for the long term view. i would say for the short term view, we have to look at the bad

scenario. >> i think in the long term planning, it would be good to have these various scenarios. >> absolutely. >> thanks for filling in the clarification to the question about diversity of team and what you have. we'll continue to look at and monitor as we move forward. any other commissioners have comments, questions et cetera as we move towards closure? >> i would just like to thank everyone. thank you tim, i think you did a

great job. thank everybody. this is an ongoing conversation and the beginning. thank you all. >> great. thank you commissioner. >> if i could just make a comment or two, i personally would like to thank minisha a lot for this work and all she has been doing. we're looking forward to the next work shot next october. it will be the long term vulnerability assessment and long term change. we'll do it just as that as defer the discussion of how we actually plan for the design drought or the drought stress to a final workshop beyond that. >> thank you. >> enough to think about right there. >> thank you, steve.

we're looking forward as we always are to this extra work we have to do to assess what our responsibilities are. again, i'm going to say the same thing too. minisha set the tone for this meeting today. that being said, i'm going to adjourn the meeting. thanks everybody. we'll see you at our next regularly scheduled meeting. thank you and have a good evening. >> thank you everyone. bye.

. >> hi, i'm frank jorge golden go up a utility supervisor for the distribution system i offer seizing see the personnel that install water maidens and water carbon monoxides i've personal proud to work with city and distribution place whether a

fire or main break those folks come on scene and get the job done 3450r7b9 what time they're here to take care of each other and make it so a safe and secure way i was encouraged to learn to deal with the services and breaks and i wanted to move into understanding how to do main connections one the great things that the sfpuc to move to different sections in if you're tdr in learning a different job you have the ability to move up i courage anyone to step out of their comfortable zone and work on a system as large as a our water system we started from one end and keep on going it's a fascinating job and i'm going to

stay here because i'll never learn everything to learn about this system >> okay. sorry. all right. good morning everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i'm excited to be here at footprint with michael, the owner. with our captain and our assessor-recorder, the supervisor of the community gordon mar and office of economic and work force development. so many people who work hard to help support our small