Comments on the EDAW Review

A meeting was held with the Public Utilities Commission staff and several of their consultants for the purpose of reviewing the work done by EDAW as reported in their report, Initiative to Raise and Maintain Lake Level and Improve Water Quality, Task 3 Technical Memorandum.

The meeting consumed nearly 4 hours of discussion and debate. In attendance were David Golden representing the Recreation Committee, Dan Murphy representing the Nature Committee, and Dick Allen, Tim Colen, Dick Morten, David Dawdy, Mondy Lariz, Cynthia Royer (representing Daly City) and yours truly representing the Water Committee.

Several of those attending have discussed this meeting in a series of e-mail exchanges. I am pasting those e-mails below as I think these constitute the best record of the meeting, and of the responses of various participants, that is available. Perhaps most important, they demonstrate that there is a general agreement, from a variety of perspectives, as to the main issues and the direction that should be pursued.

I have posted these comments in chronological order as later e-mails often refer to items contained in earlier e-mails. Since I am again first out of the box my comments come first in this sequence; other than chronology no implication of priority should be assigned.

John Plummer, 9/26/03

Thursday evening a group of us met with the PUC and several of their consultants to discuss the EDAW report on Task #3. We had a pretty good turnout; I think I counted nine members of the Task Force, Greg Bartow representing the PUC, three representatives of EDAW, one from Talavera Richardson (who didn't get to say a word), and Joe Scalmanini.

I will not attempt a minutes of the meeting, perhaps someone else took notes. Rather, I will relate my observations as to the events of the evening, editorializing at will. These are my opinions and mine alone. Others who want to throw theirs into the mix are welcome.

Greg Bartow had organized all of our comments into a single summary, grouping them by such topics as project schedules, mitigation and lake management, groundwater issues, etc. That was probably helpful in that it allowed us to concentrate on each topic area in turn. However, I am not comfortable that we included all of the issues, especially some of the more topical issues such as those raised by Jerry Cadagan. We miss Jerry badly already!

The result was sort of a standard 'Here's what we said and if you don't understand it we'll explain it to you, but we're not going to change anything.' Editorial fixes were accepted, but nothing that I can remember of a substantial nature. The expression 'out-of-the-box' greeted a number of our ideas, seemingly intent on distracting our attention by stroking our egos while doing little if anything to seriously consider those ideas. My impression instead was that the PUC has a mighty small box.

In some ways it was a shame that Joe Scalmanini attended. He dominated the discussion while adding nothing new to the unsupported allegations we have often heard before. The lake can be managed as a reservoir without consideration for the aquifer. Nothing we can do to support the aquifer will in any perceivable time have any impact on the lake. Interestingly, at one point he even went so far as to say that in the real world the pumpers will pump so there's no point worrying about it. I think that Joe was by then having something of a bad hair day.

Joe did bring a little data. He pointed out that he couldn't really share the data with us because it's all tied up in the secret negotiations; more on that below. But he did say that in one year of the conjunctive use program the head of the deep aquifer had risen from -135 feet to -105 feet, or more than 20%. It wasn't clear to me why that wouldn't mean that the head would reach sea level in about four more years, but Joe was confident that this offered proof positive that the aquifer will never rise to the point of affecting the lake.

Joe also obviously doesn't like models: "I guess we'll have to develop one." But, he contends, he is helpless to do anything until Gus Yates finishes his model. Models of this sort are never 'finished,' so that is nothing more than a cop out.

With regard to secrecy, what in the world makes data from the conjunctive use test privileged to the negotiation process. It's been more than a year now since anything public has emerged from those proceedings. I keep threatening that if nothing happens but to tie up the data we need then I'm about to write to the state and ask them to terminate this process. What can we do to get this data freed up!?!

There was a water chemist in the EDAW group who made a very positive impression, on me at least. The other members of that contingent said little, and the Talaver rep said nothing at all. Still it became quite clear that the EDAW folks have been tasked with a tiny slice of the analysis needed, and we need to exert whatever pressure and influence we can to enlarge the scope of this activity.

Somehow our group gave the impression of scatter and dissension, although I think that on the fundamental points we are in general agreement:

1) The target level for the lake should be to maintain the lake in the range 25 to 28 feet (8.5 - 10.5 feet City Datum). The burden of scientific proof lies with any who would want to change that target.

2) The lake level should approach that target very slowly, probably not more than 6 inches to a foot each year, in order to permit the environment to adapt smoothly.

4) The lake can not be considered in isolation, but needs to be studied within the context of the Westside Basin aquifer. Other programs, e.g., the recycled water plan, groundwater management plan, storm water management plan, etc. need also to be coordinated.

5) In general then, a systems approach is needed that lays out a long-term strategy, with a planning horizon of 10 to 50 years, that will assure both the health of the lake and provision for a sustainable program deriving domestic water from the aquifer. We believe that program will of necessity include management of the aquifer in a way that contributes to restoration of the lake.

6) Finally, until a substantial portion of this long-term strategy has been developed additions of imported water to the lake should be limited to those needed to stabilize the lake at its current level. Until a sustainable, long-term program has been developed, no additional system water should be added to Lake Merced for the specific purpose of raising lake level.

Maybe I just made these points up, but I thought we expressed them fairly clearly at the meeting; others who were there please comment. Still we gave the appearance of scatter and dissension, and I wonder why that is. I have some thoughts:

1) There are some who would like to pick one or two or three things to work on and get going. The fact that this is a very complex problem with many intertwined components appears to be scatter.

2) That the format of the evening was one of response to a report, and response to those responses, cast the evening in a protagonist atmosphere. There were disagreements, although I don't think that many of those were among Task Force members.

3) The fact that Joe Scalmanini came with a political agenda to propose and protect, one with which we do by and large all disagree, in more than one instance turned protaganism into antagonism. Again, I wish we had had more opportunity to concentrate on the contribution from EDAW.

There are undoubtedly other factors, but these are the ones that I can put my finger on. Any help?

I tried to end the evening with at least a half-hour discussion of next steps, the approach to Task #4, enlarging the scope of the research, etc., so far as I could tell to no avail. Here I don't feel like we made any progress, but I don't think we should give up.

Guys -- I’ve had communications with 3 or 4 of those who participated in Thursday’s meeting and have been asked for my impressions of what went on and whether the apparent appearance of scatter and dissension is of concern. I've read John's email of this morning. I’ve re-read my comments on EDAW 3 and found that the last 2 paragraphs say exactly what I would have said had I been at the meeting. Those paragraphs are quoted at the end of this email. I hope that all who did attend would agree with that position.

In other words, if any LMTF participants acknowledged to SF that aquifer management is now legitimately off the table, I would view that a mistake, notwithstanding that Greg apparently said it’s fait accompli and Joe continues his unsupported claims that it won’t work. Aquifer management, as a tool to cure the lake level and water quality problems, should remain on the table unless and until SF makes a very convincing case that some combination of other tools (the EDAW 4 + Alemeny aquifer) is virtually guaranteed to raise the lake to the 25-28 level and keep it there with water of satisfactory quality.

I hope paragraphs 5 & 6 in John’s notes removes any concern that he
said that there are no possible long range scenarios under which we might accept some combination of EDAW 4 + Alemany as the means of solving the lake’s problems. I’m sure that what he is saying is that until there’s a viable long term plan in place, further increases above today’s levels should not come out of the Tuolumne River, I can’t disagree as I’ve maintained all along that solving all the lake’s problems with Tuolumne water is bad public policy. However, I do believe that if SF can find a sure fire way to do the job with tools other than aquifer management, we should not insist that they use our favorite tool. Tuolumne water alone will never meet my criteria because, aside from the chloromation issue, the supply is not sufficiently reliable. There will be droughts.

I understand that John and others are legitimately concerned about the health of the aquifer itself, as distinguished from the health of the lake. I think that is an issue, but is most likely an issue that will be watched very carefully by our friends in Daly City, San Bruno, SSF, etc. We are free to join with them in insuring that the health of the aquifer is protected (e.g. protecting against sea water intrusion, land subsidence, etc.), but that does’t mean we would necessarily be acting on behalf of Lake Merced if SF has satisfied us with another program to fully protect the lake.

Finally, I acknowledge that even if we were so lucky that all the good guys agreed my position is a good, moderate, compromise position there will still be difficulty. The difficulty will be that the hawks (and that will probably include me) will want a very compelling case made regarding the prospects of the "other tools" before we give up on aquifer management. Above I intentionally used different phrases like "convincing case", "virtually guaranteed", and "sure fire way". Anyone who has ever been on jury duty in a criminal case knows how difficult it is to grasp or quantify terms like "beyond a reasonable doubt". (Note in the 2nd paragraph below I used the term "beyond a doubt"; I suppose that’s an even higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".) So, later we will probably argue amongst ourselves as to whether SF has made a convincing, compelling case. Meanwhile, let’s see if we can agree on a fundamental position. It would be helpful if all could respond to the group indicating whether they are in agreement with the simple proposition that we should not agree that aquifer management is off the table until and unless SF makes a convincing case that raising and sustaining the lake can be done without aquifer management.

Jerry Cadagan

Dick Allen, 9/28/03

I would like to leave on the table for future discussions two concerns that I have:

(1) How can the long term health and survival of Lake Merced be achieved without also restoring the Westside Basin Aquifer? What is puzzling to me is how can the SFPUC go on record as saying the Westside Basin Aquifer will not be considered by SFPUC staff as part of the long term solution for improving or maintaining LM at a 25 to 28 foot range objective?

(2) Why does the SFPUC staff and their consultant believe that recent reduction in pumping water from the aquifer, which enabled the aquifer to improve from 135 feet below lake level to 105 feet below lake level insignificant or meaningless?

The consultant's chart showed a very linear progression of improvement (about 22%) over this short period of time of reduced pumping. However, the consultant said that over a fifteen year period the aquifer would still be forty feet below lake level and therefore all this talk about restoring the aquifer is foolish. His statement does not make sense to me. I would like to see the science that supports his position.

Question: What would be the long term impact on water levels at LM if the aquifer should rise to lake level within 5 to ten years or more?

Finally I want to express my support for the six points made by John Plummer in his comments on his EDAW review dated September 25, 2003.

David Golden, 9/29/03

I guess we have a 'new' old issue.

I'm a novice in the water arena, but here's my two cents to get the conversation rolling.

At a minimum LMTF should have a resolution stating that San Francisco should establish a policy of aquifer management to ensure the long-term health of the Westside Basin and other aquifers that are accessible or under the control of SF PUC.

This may get a rise (I'm referring to artesian well pressure here <g>) out of Pat. Pat is invited to LMTF to explain SF PUC stewardship over the aquifers.

SF PUC has to be careful that they are not branded as bad stewards of water resources as that would give ammunition to other forces in the State that would like to dismember SF PUC and its resources.

- david

Dan Murphy, 9/30/03

Hi,

No Jerry, you're not a voice crying in the wilderness even if you do live off over the horizon somewhere. I just decided to put this whole thing aside for a while. Now that the Cubs and Braves are on TV I can finally muster the courage to look at this again.

I agree with the first paragraph of David's e-mail. I think it is imperative the PUC care for the Westside Basin and maintain it at the highest level possible. I concur with all of John's points except for one, it might be number 4. But my disagreement is so minimal that I won't even pursue it. I'm on track with all of you.

Now I'm not on the water committee and I've avoided it for those whose minds are more analytical than mine. But hell, I've got 2 cents to pitch in anyhow.

Ok, I'm willing to accept in the near term the lake and the aquifer are different issues. Near term? I don't know how long that might be, but I'd be willing to think outside the calendar and say up to a hundred years. Like I heard a couple of others say, ultimately the lake and the aquifer are the same issue. We must work toward making that reality.

When I asked Scalamini if the lake was self sustaining I was pleased to see he took me literally and pretty much "dissed" me with his response that it wasn't. So much for rhetorical questions. Well that begs the next questions: Was it ever self sustaining? If so what was the condition of the aquifer? What will it take to restore the aquifer to that level?

I'm not one to suggest we shouldn't tap the aquifer. If necessary we should. On the other hand, when we don't need it, I favor the common sense approach of restoring it. Someone voiced the opinion that future droughts may require use of ground water. Fine, use it when we need it.

Maybe one reason I really should stay out of this whole thing is that I don't think any of us know
what's going on with the aquifer. That means Scalamini, the PUC, you and me. I seriously doubt if adding water, or reducing pumping will have a linear impact on improving conditions in the aquifer. I suspect there's a lot more to it than anyone suspects. That means to me that we should take the simplest measures we know to resolve both problems: lake level and aquifer health.

1. We should fill the lake with the cleanest source of local water we can get. I'd love to see a means of trapping local run-off, such as it is, and using that as a water source. I like what I heard about transporting water from the area around the middle of the City.

2. We should adopt David's statement about the aquifer. Wordsmith it as you will, but it's a great baseline.

3. I'm still really concerned about pumping water into the aquifer and I don't even like the idea of using recycled water in the lake. That's because I don't have all the facts and I question whether anyone really does. Yea, I know everyone says it's fine; they do it here and they do it there; I'll be dead long before I'd be satisfied with an answer that would be base on long term application of current technology. Ignorance isn't really bliss.

Ok? I'm going back to the nature committee where I actually have a clue about some of what we discuss.

Best, Dan

Jerry Cadagan, 10/02/03

I’m like Dan Murphy in being in agreement with all of John’s six points, but with some reservation whether #4 ("The lake cannot be considered in isolation, but needs to be studied and managed within the context of the Westside Basin.") will always be true. Like Dan and others, I just don’t think we know enough to know whether that will still be right if SF has convinced us that another program will do the job for the lake. That is not to say that David Golden’s point about SF’s obligation to take good care of the aquifer is not 100% valid. It is.

But we needn’t come to closure on John’s #4 right now. For the time being our position is that aquifer management should remain as one of the tools for lake restoration because the other tools are unproven. If and when the others are proven, we can revisit the question of whether the aquifer and the lake can be decoupled for management purposes. In any event, it will always be a reasonable position that SF should be a good steward of the aquifer.

I don’t disagree with David’s suggestion that LMTF should formally state that SF should establish a policy that ensures the long term health of the aquifer. But, I wonder if a higher priority might not be an explicit LMTF resolution stating that aquifer management should remain on the table as a means of restoring the lake unless and until SF convinces the community that other tools will do the job. Why not do both?

Jerry