Committee holds hearing on West Side emergency firefighting water system; project planning continues as costs rise

The Land Use and Transportation Committee on July 28 held a hearing on funding and design for a seismically resilient Emergency Firefighting Water System (EFWS) for San Francisco’s West Side and continued the matter to the call of the chair to allow additional analysis and public engagement.

Katie Miller, director of Water Capital Programs at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), described the EFWS plan as a dual‑purpose, seismically resilient potable system that would supply high‑pressure water for post‑earthquake firefighting as well as low‑pressure potable water for recovery. The program has received past bond funding (EASER bonds passed in 2010, 2014 and 2020) and additional water‑bond allocations; the SFPUC has increased its commitment for the potable benefit to $145 million in the 10‑year capital plan. Projected needs to complete shovel‑ready work and extend pipelines toward the Richmond are substantially larger and may require a future EASER 2028 bond or additional water bonds, the presentation said.

Miller said the project team is updating demand models to reflect future building density, housing policy and electrification trends, and to forecast post‑earthquake fire demand through 2050. The updated modeling considers ignition sources, building materials and redevelopment projects in the city’s development pipeline. A phased map presented by SFPUC shows pipeline contracts planned through the Sunset and Richmond districts, with some phases funded and others contingent on future bond funding.

Assistant Deputy Chief Gareth Miller of the San Francisco Fire Department discussed operational aspects and supported an alignment that runs along the Sunset Boulevard corridor to create a strategic firebreak; the department and SFPUC held joint field tests deploying more than 3,400 feet of 5‑inch hose from an EFWS hydrant in Golden Gate Park to validate assumptions.

Public comment included requests that the city consider nonpotable sources (for example a seawater pump at Ocean Beach) for firefighting in a conflagration so potable supplies are preserved for people, and questions about the project timeline and steep per‑mile cost increases — the committee heard earlier estimates of $15 million per mile rising in design work to roughly $42 million per mile. Commenters asked why costs rose and urged the city to move quickly; SFPUC staff said larger pipe diameter, depth (around 10 feet) and seismic features increase costs and that the pipeline provides immediate, incremental benefits with each phase constructed.

Given the scope, costs and remaining modeling work, the committee continued the hearing to the call of the chair and requested periodic updates on project status and finalized demand modeling. The committee recorded three ayes on the continuation motion.