Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC debates State Water Board Bay-Delta amendment as city joins lawsuit; commission seeks peer review
Summary
At its Jan. 22 meeting the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission discussed the State Water Board's Bay-Delta plan amendment and voluntary settlement agreements affecting Tuolumne River flows. Staff warned of supply impacts, called for rapid negotiation before a March 1 deadline and said the city joined litigation as a protective measure; public commenters and commissioners pressed for peer review and clarity on implementation and funding.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission heard a detailed briefing Jan. 22 on the State Water Board's Dec. 12 amendment to the Bay-Delta plan and the voluntary settlement agreement (VSA) framework proposed for the Tuolumne River.
Steve Ritchie, assistant general manager for water, told commissioners the adopted plan carries "significant impacts on the San Francisco water supply with uncertain benefits for the Tuolumne River." He described key VSA elements: functional flows linked to the Don Pedro FERC relicensing schedule, a spill-management plan to maximize ecological benefit of spill events, and approximately $76 million in proposed habitat improvements split into two $38 million program pots.
Ritchie said the state directed staff to develop watershed-wide agreement details by March 1, a fast timeline that will require rapid work on governance, funding for a water-purchase fund and a science/adaptive management program. He told the commission the city joined a lawsuit with other tributary agencies "to preserve our rights and interests" if voluntary agreements prove insufficient or fail to be accepted by the State Water Board.
Commissioners pressed staff on several technical points: what constitutes the baseline (Ritchie said the 1995 agreement and its subsequent amendment remain the operative baseline), which flow measures are new versus previously proposed in FERC relicensing, and the availability and peer review of models and analyses. Ritchie acknowledged uncertainty about parts of the package and said staff will bring further details and a proposed peer-review approach at future meetings.
Public comment reflected a split in the stakeholder community. Heinrich Albert of the Sierra Club said a recent analysis "shows key defects" in the VSA framework and called it "basically a sham," arguing the science and measures have not been independently peer reviewed. Dave Warner, speaking for environmental advocates, urged the commission to make peer review and tracking of progress regular agenda items. Geralyn Moran said she was "disappointed" the commission joined litigation and urged the commission to drop the lawsuit and allow the State Water Board's compromise to proceed.
Ritchie and other staff emphasized the city remains committed to achieving both water supply reliability and environmental stewardship, saying "we see those as two things we need to accomplish, not one or the other." The commission scheduled follow-up briefings; staff warned more information will be presented in February because the March 1 state timeline may prompt rapid developments.
Next steps: staff said they will present options for peer review, additional technical detail on proposed flow measures and a clearer explanation of how funds and governance might be structured if a VSA is finalized. The commission may consider a policy-level action depending on developments.
