At the last two District meetings I have proposed and the Board has discussed the draft resolution, titled:  

IN SUPPORT OF WATER CONSERVATION, EFFICIENCY AND RECYCLING RATHER THAN INCREASING DIVERSIONS FROM THE TUOLUMNE RIVER

 

As you may know, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is overseeing a $4.3 billion Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) aimed at upgrading and seismically retrofitting the aging Hetch Hetchy water system to improve the systems' resilience to earthquakes. As part of WISP, the SFPUC preferred alternative includes a proposal to divert up to 25 million more gallons of water per day from the upper Tuolumne River (designated as a Wild and Scenic River) to meet projected water demands through the year 2030.

My principal concerns with selection of this alternative are that:

1. The SFPUC is coupling a necessary and broadly supported program (seismic upgrades) with a highly controversial and unrelated element (water diversion from the Tuolumne). I strongly believe that public policy decisions should be based on their individual merits and not by coupling them to unrelated policy decisions. While water supply is an important issue, it is controversial and may well derail or delay the important seismic upgrades. Note that Tuolumne County may sue the SFPUC over the water diversion issue, a lengthy court battle could delay the upgrades beyond the next earthquake and would drive up the cost of the seismic upgrades.

2. Their projected water demand analysis would benefit from additional study. 

For additional information on the need for a more refined analysis of regional water demand and the potential for water conservation, efficiency and recycling to meet more of that demand see the report from the Pacific Studies Institute (http://www.tuolumne.org/content/fmd/files/Appendix_A.pdf) which concludes:

"Our analysis, however, reveals that current studies may significantly overestimate future regional demand for water and underestimate the potential for cost-effective demand management.

A straightforward re-examination of conservation scenarios, using more plausible employment projections, more accurate non-residential water use estimates, and a price-driven conservation component would likely produce a more realistic 2030 demand forecast and identify priority policies for cost-effective efficiency improvements, recycling, and reuse."

3. The proposed diversions from the Tuolumne may have significant impact on the already stressed steelhead and salmon populations in the river. Note that the salmon season was cancelled this year, in 2000 the lower (below Lake Don Pedro) Tuolumne fish counts were at 18,000, this past season they were at 200. The California Department of Fish and Game comments on the plan stated "“we respectfully request that the SFPUC use alternative water sources other than the Tuolumne river system or implement water conservation measures to meet drought year demands and 2030 purchase requests;”

Given these concerns I have proposed a resolution which essentially asks the SFPUC to select an alternative included in their programmatic environmental impact report that keeps the water allotment at current levels for ten years. This will allow refined analysis of; water demand projections, the success of water use efficiency programs, and completion of important environmental studies on water flow in the Tuolumne as related to fish stocks. At that time I believe a superior public policy decision can be made.

I hope this helps clarify my position and addresses some of the concerns raised about this resolution in the last two meetings.