Lake Merced Update - January 2004

There is much to report on Lake Merced, but first an anomaly. While its been raining like crazy for the past several days the lake has not gone up. We had about 7" of rain in December, and another inch on New Years Day, but the lake has held a rock steady 19.9 feet at the South Lake Gauge. Where did all the water go?

Almost certainly into the Impound Lake, where a visual check confirms that the water is much deeper. Water level in South Lake has reached the level where it spills into Impound Lake, and will not increase any more until equilibrium is achieved. It looks close to that already to my uncalibrated eyes.

Mark your calendars: The Recreation and Park Department has announced a public meeting to present and discuss Lake Merced Improvements, a series of four projects to be funded by the California Coastal Commission. These include a trail feasibility study, a fish community study, a habitat restoration program, and public access improvements. The meeting will be held Thursday, Janurary 15, 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. at the Doelger Senior Center, 111 Lake Merced Boulevard. That's in Daly City.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SF-PUC), together with the City of Daly City water department, have proposed a demonstration project, testing the ability of shoreline flora to provide a bio-filter to remove contaminants from stormwater taken from the Vista Grande Canal. If this demonstration is successful stormwater runoff might provide a supplemental water source to support Lake Merced. In fact a considerable investment in equipment has already been made, and it would be a shame if that project can not go forward.

Unfortunately, the PUC failed to adequately inform the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) about this demonstration. When a plan was finally submitted, not until December 8, the RWQCB responded, "We find the current Plan deficient in several key areas necessary to adequately characterize and safeguard water quality threats." They then listed a number of "comments and recommendations" that need to be addressed before aproval to proceed will be granted.

We are quite disappointed in this outcome for a number of reasons. First, we would like to see the project proceed, and the issues raised may require that the demonstration be postponed, at least for this rainy season. Second, we are not proud of our PUC when it produces a plan "deficient in several key areas necessary to . . . safequard water quality." That, in our view, should be their guiding objective. Finally, several weeks earlier we had raised many of the same issues addressed by the RWQCB. True to its heritage of ignoring community input, The PUC did not address those issues in the plan submitted, and delay in the project has resulted.

On another front: Harding Park Golf Club has been in operation four months now in its restored condition. We've been provided usage and revenue data for the first three months, September through November, both immediately before and after restoration. We had been concerned that increased fee structure would result in failure to serve community groups traditionaly using this course, and that has in fact happened. Senior weekday use is down 67%, and Senior weekend use is down a whopping 83%. It's a bit ironic that $15 million of Open Space Funds, intended to increase recreational opportunities for underserved communities, have been applied to a project that produced this result. We have written to Sean Sweeney, Golf Course Manager for Rec & Park, asking him to work with the Lake Merced Task Force Recreation Committee to come up with a program that will bring resident Seniors back to Harding Park.

You can find more about these programs at the Friends of Lake Merced web site, www.lakemerced.org. By the way, while useage was down significantly during the last quarter of 2003, we still received more than 72,600 visitors for the year, an increase over 2002 of more than 40%. I'm encouraged that public interest in Lake Merced continues to be strong.