Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Delta topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco PUC weighs river‑flow plan; public and commissioners press for peer review and early implementation
Summary
SFPUC staff outlined a proposed adaptive‑management approach to Bay‑Delta Phase 1 and Tuolumne River flows while dozens of public speakers, tribes and environmental groups urged support for the State Water Board's higher‑flow proposal, peer review of SFPUC modeling, and prompt early implementation. Commissioners asked staff for a January resolution detailing implementation steps, monitoring and communications.
Steve Ritchie, the SFPUC assistant general manager for water, told commissioners the utility remains "committed to adaptive management" for Tuolumne River fishery improvements while seeking to protect water reliability for customers. Ritchie said staff is close to a framework settlement with the state but urged an approach that couples a flow schedule with habitat ("non‑flow") measures and explicit adaptive management. "If the initial actions aren't successful we will take additional steps," he said.
Commissioners publicly pressed staff to move from negotiation to action. Commissioner Moran said the PUC must focus on "early implementation, commitment to outcomes, and creating net water" by accelerating conservation and new supplies. "We need to go on and prove that" measures work, Moran said, asking staff to prepare a January resolution that would commit to start implementation no later than February 2019, require peer review, and set monitoring and communication plans.
Public comment filled more than an hour and a half, with scores of speakers urging the commission to support the State Water Board's flow proposals (often described as 40 percent or more of unimpaired flows), oppose additional delays or litigation, and prioritize peer review of SFPUC's fish models. Ben Eichenberg of San Francisco Baykeeper warned that a lawsuit "aims the federal government's attack on California's sovereign right to govern its own water" and urged the commission not to join further legal delays. Barry Nelson of the Golden Gate Salmon Association told the commission that non‑flow measures alone "are not the best available science" and that NGO participants had withdrawn from voluntary settlement talks because the package under consideration was "scientifically and legally deficient." Cindy Charles of the Tuolumne River Trust described witnessing salmon spawning and urged immediate action: "The adoption of this plan is long overdue, and any delays...will contribute to the extinction of the wild salmon in the Tuolumne River."
Speakers representing tribal nations emphasized cultural and public‑health impacts if salmon are not restored. Multiple speakers asked the commission to demand peer review of SFPUC‑sponsored models before relying on them and to publicize any voluntary settlement texts before a state board vote. Several commissioners echoed that request for transparency.
Ritchie said SFPUC will begin implementation of measures included in a proposed framework "as soon as possible" and accelerate efforts to diversify and expand water supplies (recycled water, desalination, additional storage) to support environmental commitments. He cautioned that many supply projects will take 10–30 years to complete. Commissioners directed staff to return in January with more fully developed implementation options, peer‑review plans, monitoring schedules, and a communications strategy for stakeholders.
The commission did not take a formal vote on a litigation posture during this meeting but committed to continuing the record and to further public briefings and oversight at upcoming meetings.
