Editors note:  The following e-mail was sent to Greg Bartow, Hydrogeologist for the San Francisco PUC, on October 21, 2003.  In it we have requested information that would assist us in assuring that public health and safety has been fully considered in this experiment.  To date (11/04/03) we have received no reply to this request other than to indicate that discussions with the various authorities have been initiated.  We will now pursue Sunshine Ordinance compliance in an attempt to get answers to these questions (bold-faced in the following edited version of this e-mail).

Greg:

Thank you for filling in some of the background on this project.  Now that you have I do recall some discussion of a perforated pipe delivering Vista Grande water, although I was under the impression that was to be used after the source of coliform in that water had been identified and eliminated.  I was not aware, and this may well be my lack of attentiveness, that this was being proposed as a solution to that problem. 

That said, your response does raise some additional questions which I will raise below:

First, however, let me emphasize that we are dealing here with a public health issue, one that I believe we must attend to with the utmost caution and concern.  Whether we think it likely to be used in this way or not, the lake has been designated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as an emergency supply of domestic water for the city of San Francisco.  And whether we think that designation to be realistic or not, when I last checked with the RWQCB, just a few months ago, they thought that designation to be eminently reasonable, and expressed no inclination whatsoever to change it.  Not that the person with whom I spoke can not be outvoted, but that's where the status stands now.

Parenthetically, the report to the RWQCB that you cited mentions coliform two times, first to indicate that the system installed to process Vista Grande water "did not remove fine, suspended sediment to which metals and coliforms may bind."  The second reference states, "the separation chamber effectively removes oil, grease, and grit, but has fairly low nutrient and coliform removal capabilities."  Nowhere does it state that coliforms have been found in this stormwater, and that testing the ability to remove those coliforms is a primary goal for this project.

My first question, then, is this, has the public been adequately notified about the intent and design of this program?  Were any of the meetings you listed publicly noticed with the intent to provide public review of this specific issue with clarity that a public health issue is involved?  I would appreciate receiving copies of any such public notice, as I do not remember seeing any.

In our phone conversation you observed that some of the Vista Grande water is expected to flow directly into Lake Merced, while the remainder will percolate into the aquifer.  That first portion constitutes what is called direct potable reuse of untreated stormwater; I know of no precedent for such a program in the State of California.  Has the RWQCB approved this program?  Has this project been reviewed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health?

Apparently the purpose of this project is to test the ability of the ground to clean the water as it settles.  Has sufficient engineering study been done to estimate the ability of this system to perform, assessing the coliform content of the input water and the expected impact of the settling system in terms of coliform reduction?  Is a copy of that study available that I might post to our web site?

You mention that there will be extensive monitoring of water quality during the conduct of this project.  What monitors will be in place?  What will be measured?  At what intervals?  With what expected results?  What are the trigger values that will lead to stopping this project?  Again, is a copy of this monitoring plan available that I might post to the web?

A closely related question: If you are monitoring water quality and the monitor indicates that the cleansing has not taken place as expected, does that mean that pollution has already occurred?  If so, what steps can then be taken to clean up the pollution that has been created?

A couple of questions not directly related to water quality:  First, apparently a 300-foot stretch of flora will be removed from the top of the bank where the pipe is to be installed.  We have had significant erosion problems along that shoreline.  What engineering review has been conducted that assures that there will not be erosion in this area resulting from clearing out the ground cover?

Also, someplace (that I can't find right now) you mentioned that groundcover would be removed from upland banks, and that wetland habitat would therefore not be affected.  Is there any impact expected on upland habitat?  If not, has that conclusion been documented?

Again, however, my primary concern is with issues of public health and safety, and those I do not believe can be set aside or ignored.  While there may be every reason to believe that adequate answers to these questions can be provided, and may in fact exist, I think that these answers need to be brought to the public's attention before any Vista Grande water is actually pumped into Lake Merced.

 John