SFPUC outlines 2035 water plan, weighing transfers, recycled water and conservation as wholesale customers press for supplies

San Francisco — At a July 10 meeting of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, staff presented a planning framework for meeting projected water demands through 2035 that lays out a suite of options — from transfers and groundwater storage to recycled water and regional desalination — and asked commissioners whether to accelerate design, pursue rate structures tied to individual supply guarantees, or prioritize dry‑year supplies.

Chief Ritchie, assistant general manager for water, told commissioners the planning questions are urgent because dry‑year supply is the central risk, not average‑year availability. He summarized the agency—s performance objectives, including a planning target of roughly 265 million gallons per day (MGD) and a rationing approach that could include staged reductions of 10% and 20% in an extended drought.

The staff presentation identified several drivers of a future shortfall: regulatory constraints affecting stream flows (modeled at about 7.4 MGD in one scenario), the possible Upper Albany project outcome, and wholesale customer requests for additional guaranteed supply (San Jose and Santa Clara together seek roughly 9 MGD). "This is a working planning number as opposed to a definitive — but it frames the discussion for the commission," Chief Ritchie said.

Staff compared candidate dry‑year options on an average annualized cost basis to aid trade‑offs. Examples presented in the meeting record included: a groundwater storage and recovery project at about $1,000 per acre‑foot (AF) on an annualized basis; a regional desalination project around $1,900/AF; and a transfer from the Modesto/Merced irrigation district (MID) roughly $700/AF — figures staff said depend on how often the resource is used and on amortization assumptions.

Conservation remains a major element in staff—s plan. Ritchie noted San Francisco—s gross per‑capita use was shown at roughly 95 gallons per capita per day on the statewide comparison chart and that the city already meets the SBX7‑7 "20% by 2020" baseline. The presentation also summarized active conservation investments (staff cited about $40 million since 1990 and an annual conservation budget that has grown to roughly $9 million).

Public commenters and wholesale customer representatives pressed the commission on equity and cost allocation. Peter Drechmeyer of Tuolumne River Trust reiterated his group's opposition to an MID transfer, arguing demand projections have fallen and local conservation can be less costly. Sharla Allen of the Sierra Club's water committee warned the additional sources under consideration cost roughly $2,000/AF and said retail customers should not be asked to subsidize wholesale customers: "It seems only fair that since the wholesale customers are driving your needs for additional water ... they should bear the burden of those additional water sources," she said.

Staff asked commissioners whether to: - continue to pursue a diversified portfolio (groundwater, recycled water, transfers and desalination) with attention to dry‑year reliability; - accelerate planning and design on recycled water projects; and - explore rate structures tied to individual supply guarantees as a tool for managing demand and revenue.

No formal commission vote was held on November planning direction at the July 10 meeting; staff said more detailed project‑level comparisons and environmental review timing would return to the commission. The presentation and ensuing public comment underscored the central trade‑off: protecting regional economic activity in dry years at costs that wholesale customers and the agency's retail ratepayers find acceptable.

What happens next: Staff will supply commissioners with the modeling and cost comparisons requested at the meeting, including more detailed comparisons of non‑potable/in‑building recycled options versus transfers and groundwater projects, and will continue outreach to wholesale customers on guarantees and potential rate‑structure changes.