Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Water Management Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC holds public hearing on draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan; public comment stresses river protection and projection concerns
Summary
The SFPUC opened public comment on its draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan; staff said the plan maintains a 265 MGD watershed limit and shows San Francisco compliant with state conservation targets, while public speakers warned against further Tuolumne River withdrawals and questioned demand projections.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission held a public hearing on the draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan on May 11, 2011, with staff presenting key supply assumptions and the public offering comments on water sources and demand forecasts.
Steve Rich, assistant general manager for water, told the commission the 2010 UWMP projects supply and demand through 2035 and carries forward a previously adopted watershed supply constraint of 265 million gallons per day (MGD) through 2018, allocated as 184 MGD to wholesale customers and 81 MGD to San Francisco's retail system.
"It is the 2010 urban water management plan even though we're in 2011 because these are set to be adopted on 5 year cycles," Rich said, explaining the plan's timeframe and regulatory context. He noted the plan incorporates requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and that public comments on the draft would be accepted through May 27 with a planned commission action on June 14.
Rich emphasized conservation and said gross per-capita use — which includes system losses — is about 85.6 gallons per capita per day and that, under the state's calculation method, San Francisco is in compliance with the Water Conservation Act of 2009.
Public commenters raised concerns about water sources and projection methods. Peter Drechmeier of the Tuolumne River Trust commended conservation work but warned that replacing about 7.4 MGD of net in-stream flows for Calaveras and Lower Crystal Springs by diverting additional Tuolumne River water would be harmful. He urged that groundwater recharge use recycled water or stormwater rather than surface Tuolumne flows.
"We'd much rather see something like recycled water or stormwater for recharge," Drechmeier said, noting concern that surface water might be used for recharge in the regional groundwater storage project.
Joan Gerardo of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods questioned the underlying growth projections, pointing to ABAG scenarios that show widely different population and household counts by 2030, and raised concerns about the Peninsula aquifer's safe yield estimates and the timing of recycled-water availability between 2015 and 2020.
Commissioners agreed the draft is a useful start and asked staff to continue clarifying demand assumptions and to incorporate wholesale customers' planning information to inform policy decisions due in 2018. The public comment period remains open through May 27, and staff intends to return with a revised plan for possible approval on June 14.
