Citizens' Advisory Committee
Water Subcommittee

MINUTES 

September 24, 2008
1155 Market Street, San Francisco
6th Floor Conference Room
5:00- 7:00 p.m.

Members: Jennifer Clary (Chair), David Drabin, Richard Hansen, Lurilla Harris, Art Jensen, Robert Varni
  

Staff: Ben Chan

ORDER OF BUSINESS 

Roll Call
Present:  Jennifer Clary, Richard Hansen, Varni, Lurilla Harris, Dawdy
Absent:  Art Jensen, David Drabin

1.Call to order
Jennifer Clary, Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
 

2. Discussion and possible action on support for the Retrofit on Resale Ordinance to go before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Laura Spanjian, Assistant General Manager for External Affairs. 

Ms. Spanjian stated that the ordinance stipulated that when a property is put on the market, goes through renovation or conversion, it would be required to bring fixtures up to current codes for conservation. It also requires replacing toilet with new ones that use 1.6 gallons or below, fixing all water leaks, install faucet aerator and shower head. For commercial buildings, the owner has to replace urinals.

A working group comprising representatives from the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), the Department of the Environment, stakeholders, and SFPUC’s conservation manager have met throughout the summer. A meeting with realtors is scheduled within the week.

On the residential side of the legislation, she talked with the Mayors’ Office, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell’s office. On the commercial side, she brought in Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). In response to BOMA’s comments, an amendment to the bill will be put forward to change the timing of the retrofit.  The city plans to present the legislation to the Board of Supervisor in October.

Questions and comments from the Subcommittee members included:
• Current city codes are not reflective of state code. The city is trying to update current codes so that everyone will comply with the state code. Once the legislation goes through its 30-day resting period, it will go to DBI’s own technical committee for review.
• What is the cost of replacement of fixtures on a new house? Staff stated this is not expensive.
• Does the SFPUC give away low-flow toilets? SFPUC provides rebates for 1.2 gallon efficient toilets.

Varni moved that CAC recommended implementation of this proposed legislation, seconded by Hansen. The proposal was passed unanimously

 Public comment:

Chuck of San Francisco Apartment Association: Who should install these fixtures? The seller or the owner?  Staff responded that it is the property owner’s responsibility but in reality it can be negotiable.

Chuck: What is DBI’s role in enforcement? Staff response: Once the property is on the market, it will become part of DBI’s check list. The legislation would not add another layer of bureaucracy to the selling process.

Chuck: Any analysis as to how long it would take recoup the cost of retrofitting these fixtures?  Staff. We not not have these numbers at this time. J. Clary added that the current plumbing code and requirement, plus the rebates would reduce water use per capita use and in that sense people can recoup saving quickly. 

3. Approval of minutes from the June 25, 2008 and July 23, 2008 meetings.
Hansen moved. Varni seconded. Approved.

4. Public comment-matters within Subcommittee’s scope, not on today’s agenda.
None

5. Debate regarding the pros and cons of the development of recycled water in the SFPUC water system as part of the Water System Improvement Program, Jennifer Clary and Bob Varni. 

Varni: The 29 suburban customers don’t use up the amount the city allocates to them and therefore there is plenty of water for San Francisco residents. The city’s conservation effort will cost 10 times more than the Hetch Hetchy water. It’s fair to San Francisco to share equal amount and if the suburban customers want to recycle water, let them pay their fair share.

San Francisco uses 245 to 265 million gallons per day (mgd). He was told that in the process of transmitting the water, the city loses 9 to 10 percent of the water, meaning 25 mgd. So the city is left with 240 mgd.

The city commits 184 mgd to its 29 suburban wholesale customers. That means the city is left with 56 mgd for its 800,000 residents. The 29 suburban customers only use about 172 mgd. We can add 12 mgd to San Francisco and therefore each San Francisco residents can get 58 gallons a day. When we deliver 184 mgd to 1.6 million suburban customers, they will get 115 million gallons per day.

Clary: Water loss is not calculated off the top.  It’s lost throughout the system. The 184 mgd is not accurate. Their loss is the same as ours. San Franciscans use 90 million gallons a day. It’s correct that the city needs to put in additional belt-tightening for regional customers. They need to tighten up their use of 312 gallons per capita a day for Hillsborough as opposed to 61gallons for San Francisco residents.

Also, water use increases as you go south when the weather gets warmer. Therefore she is not sure if someone in Mountain View has to have the same amount of water as those in San Francisco but it’s reasonable to ask the southern neighbor to take equivalent measures in adjusting their water use.
 
Overall, San Francisco is in a precarious position because 85 percent of their water comes from a river on which it holds junior water right and it wholly depends on storage to get us through. We need to diversify our water supply, plan ahead, and not wait until an emergency occurs. It takes ten years to get new supply from the capitol investment. It is great that San Francisco spends $4 billion to upgrade the system that has great quality but the idea that we can rely on 85 percent of our supply is questionable. Climate change will impact the Hetch Hetchy system because of high altitude.

Even if regional customers cut down to 58 gallons per person per day, we still have to rely on a single source of water supply.

Conservation is the best option. You use less of what you have, just as you would in saving money, energy or gas. It’s also the least expensive option. It reduces the carbon footprint because you spend less money on treating, pumping, and heating. The WSIP’s 4 million gallons potential is doable estimate. 

On ground water - Before Hetch Hetchy, we forget we used to get 8 million gallons a day from San Francisco groundwater. East and west sides. There’s a slight increase in carbon footprint because you have to pump water from the well and do treatment.  It is not the same quality as Hetch Hetchy water but there’s good supply of it.

On storm water: It is pollution prevention program and has limited supply. It reduces the carbon footprint. The more you treat wastewater, the less pollution you put into the bay. It creates fewer overflows that go into the ocean. There’s no research on cost or how much we can get. SFPUC only has a small program for recharging the aquifer with storm water, which is the storm water treatment at Lake Merced that is being planned.

On Grey water –It reduces the carbon footprint. The advantage is that it alleviates treatment plant’s work but the quantity is unknown. It has more potential than storm water in terms of expanding supply. It is another form of conservation.

On recycled water – This is a drought tool by using the same supply. The draw back is that the west side plan is all landscaping. It helps to irrigate city properties. It can be expensive. It’s about $3,000 acre foot.

Her estimate is 5 million gallons a day in recycled water, half on west and half on east, which is part of the wastewater master plan.

Desalination – SFPUC is working in concert with other bay area agencies to build a desalination plant in the East Bay. You can get potable water and drinking water. There’s no need to build extra pipe. It is energy intensive and the cost is high. It is about 5 percent in WSIP’s cost, which is reasonable cost in strengthening our system against drought.

She’d like to increase the level of treatment in the west side, which is tightly spaced. Golden Gate Park and Lincoln Park and some spaces around of Lake Merced are expected to be the main users of recycled water. Should also look at the purple piping ordinance and what the future of recycle looks like. SFPUC should start looking at the potentials of these alternatives.

Varni: He does not support 300 gallons of water a day for a Hillsborough resident, versus 50 gallons for someone in the Mission district, who is barely making a living. We need a more fair way of distribution.

Clary: Current water contract and water rights conflict with what is the right thing to do. The current contract with the suburban customers is the result of a legal settlement and it’s unlikely that SFPUC will ever succeed in reducing the allocation for the customers to less than 184 million gallons of water a day. What SFPUC can do is to make sure it won’t go beyond that limit. SFPUC may consider a rate-tier structure for regional customers. Art Jensen should be here to make this a fair conversation. 

Hansen shared Clary’s view on water conservation and SFPUC should diversify its water supply, given the impact of climate change and increasing world population.

Public Comments:
Joan Girardot of Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood – There’s a legal problem with master sales agreement. Clary’s argument on global warming basically is the same argument on future growth. Also city’s policy on development is inconsistent. Conserve 61.19 gallons a day for San Francisco residents per day is the lowest of any of the city’s customers. (Clary pointed out that Daly City and Palo Alto have lower numbers.) Joan said San Francisco s already 12 percent below EPA numbers.

West side project beneficiaries are golf courses, the zoo, landscaping along median stripes and parks. Homeowners are paying the bills and do not get to use the water. They are already paying the $4.4 billion for WSIP up front, another $4 billion for wastewater master plan, plus recycle projects. It is imprudent at this time. It is asking too much for the families to pay for all of these projects. It’s nice to have lobbyist for the suburbs but SFPUC has to look after its own customers first and foremost. It’s the families who pay for the system.

Clary: To be fair, a big part of the Peninsula customers pay for the system as well. Fairness issue trumps supply issue.
 
Ms. Girardot – There is adequate conservation effort but at the same time there’s a need to address population growth.

Clary - There’s not a huge population growth in the Bay Area. Changing the plumbing code can offset that.

There was no recommendation on recycled water

6. Announcements by members and reports on other meetings
    Varni said he would be leaving the CAC and the Subcommittee next month. 
    Big Blue Bucket event and the Academy of Science reopening

7. Discussion about future agenda items.
 In the next meeting, the committee would ask Art Jensen to talk about regional conservation and Bryan Brown to talk about water use, David Briggs to talk about maintenance issues next month.

8.   Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.