<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi all,<br>
<br>
At the June 14th SFPUC hearing, Commissioners Francesca Vietor and
Art Torres, were very skeptical about the wisdom of the desal
appropriation, citing both environmental and economic reasons,
however they ended up compromising a bit. (Commissioner Vince
Courtney who moved to postponed the item l in May, was not
present.)<br>
<br>
So the SFPUC commissioners (because they were essentially split on
the issue) decided to postpone the desalination item for one full
month (until Tuesday, July 12) with direction to staff which
creates both positives and negatives for us. (See further below
for details.)<br>
<br>
The upshot is that, while we gained some ground, we have not yet
achieved even what we asked for in the joint letter (see text
attached).<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
There is a possible opportunity to even get three of the five
commissioners to reject the appropriation altogether; and at the
very least we may be able to get them to stage the expenditures
and studies on all of this so that they answer basic questions
like local water need and potential for alternatives before money
is spent specifically on scoping for desal itself.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Some key points:<br>
<br>
- SFPUC staff pretty aggressively defended the appropriation, even
in light of the letter and some solid commentary via a separate
email from me, and in public comment from myself and Peter
Drekmeier really taking to task the fundamental validity of desal,
especially using ocean, bay and estuary waters. Staff was in fact
so insistent that I am guessing some contractors which stand to
make a good chunk of money on this deal are probably working this
issue behind the scenes.<br>
<br>
- Staff's most successful argument to refute our position, was
their claim that, in order to answer the questions we posed in the
letter, they needed to pass the $200,000 appropriation so that the
studies can be commissioned to specifically answer such questions.<br>
<br>
(We have at least two good counter arguments which are: 1) Needs
assessments and alternatives assessments can be conducted without
doing a larger appropriation to study desalination itself, and
that those needs and alternatives assessments should clearly be
conducted first, before jumping into desal planning. 2) There has
already been a San Francisco Bay desalination pilot. Existing
information from that pilot and other desal projects around the
world, along with existing data on San Francisco Bay habitat,
wildlife populations, and endangered species, should first be
analyzed to answer only the specific question of whether it is
fundamentally environmentally sensible to engage in desalination
of the San Francisco Bay waters in the first place. A more
preliminary initial assessment like this does not require a study
of an entire proposal for desalination. It will save money and
staff resources to do these preliminary assessments of need,
alternatives, and environmental advisability first, before
proceeding with a full study for desal implementation.)<br>
<br>
- Commissioners Art Torres specifically raised the issue that a
pilot has already been done, and that we should be able to get
enough information from that pilot. Both he and Commissioner
Francesca Vietor strongly questioned the advisability of spending
so much money on this study during such drastic budget times. Both
also questioned, as we have, whether desalination might in fact be
an environmental non-starter in the first place. In addition
Commissioner Torres raised the issue that ratepayers will be
paying for this, and that therefore a robust engagement with the
public should be engaged before the appropriation is approved. He
noted that the MOA had no funding in it for public outreach, and
staff admitted that this was the case. (The MOA mentions public
outreach, but not with enough specificity, nor with dedicated
funding.) Unfortunately this line of reasoning, while solid, also
sent the hearing in the direction of a possible weak compromise
next month that might allow the appropriation to go forward unless
we really gear up and push hard for an alternative strategy in the
next three weeks. (See my last dashed bullet note for a
description of this potential compromise problem.) <br>
<br>
- As noted below in the May hearing, Commissioner Vince Courtney
(head of the local Laborers trade union) supported the position
that enviros should get more input before the appropriation is
approved. If we do some dedicated lobbying with him, and
Commissioners Torres and Vietor, giving them strong environmental
and economic/green-jobs arguments against desal, we may very well
be able to get them to simply vote down the proposal (because the
full commission. And by green jobs arguments I mean describing for
them that, if we focus our water sustainability efforts on an
-extensive- citywide retrofitting of homes, businesses, open
space, pavements, capture-storage, and a strongly ramped up
efficiency of our entire local water delivery system, hundreds of
ongoing jobs can be created; far, far more than would be created
by building and running an environmentally harmful desal plant.)<br>
<br>
- Commissioners Anne Moller Caen, and Anson Moran (who is the
water expert on the Commission) both pretty strongly supported
staff's position that the full money must be appropriated so
sufficient study can be done. It is conceivable that if we lay out
a good argument and plan for Commissioner Moran for a more phased
approach as our letter suggests and as I note above, we may be
able to get him on board, but my gut tells me it would be tough to
get his buy-in on it.<br>
<br>
- As noted above, the hearing ended with Torres and Vietor
supporting our position - Caen and Moran opposing - (with Courtney
not present). To get past the impasse, they reached a compromise
between eachother, and staff, that they would postpone their vote
on the MOA to July 12, with the stipulation that staff would amend
the MOA to clearly lay out a strong public, and ratepayer,
outreach plan so that there can be a robust public process engaged
as studies move forward. Early in the hearing Commissioner Torres
seemed pretty adamant that some strong public outreach and a
public hearing be engaged -before- the $200,000 appropriation was
engaged, however his (and Vietor's) final stand on this by the end
was a little unclear and we should firm it up.<br>
<br>
Final Notes:<br>
<br>
Essentially, July 12 will probably -be- our public hearing, so if
we want to have a strong impact we need to send reps from all of
our groups to that hearing (along with detailed referenced written
public comment beforehand) so that we show them a really solid
grassroots presence at that hearing. It will help a lot if we can
also drum up some opposition from ratepayer groups. I'll also talk
to Joshua Arce of Brightline Defense Project to also weigh in on
the basis that extensive in-city community wide retrofit will be
far better for creating a boom in local green jobs for water
sustainability.<br>
<br>
We have a really good shot at winning this if we put up a strong
effort.</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> <br>
Eric B</font>
</body>
</html>