August 16, 2004

Ms. Cheryl Davis
Acting General Manager
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
1155 Market St., 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Cheryl:

I am writing in response to an exchange of memoranda between John Plummer and Alex Lantsberg, members of the community, and Joe Scalmanini, principal of the consulting firm Luhdorff and Scalmanini, the firm retained by the City Attorney’s office in response to the petition filed some years ago by CalTrout.  It seems that although that petition has been inactive for at least a year now, the firm Luhdorff and Scalmanini continues as a general consultant to the City, including the Public Utilities Commission, on a variety of issues, particularly as they affect Lake Merced.

I should make it clear that I am not technically qualified to comment on the scientific merit of the points made on either side.  Rather, I would like to observe on the process these memoranda represent, and the failure, in my view, of Joe Scalmanini to participate in a constructive discussion of those issues, a discussion intended to produce a beneficial result for the lake and for the surrounding community.

Before I begin may I observe that I have known and worked with John Plummer for the past five years.  John has consistently brought a level of intelligent analysis to bear on issues at Lake Merced that the City should be happy to incorporate into their plans and programs.  Instead, as Joe Scalmanini’s memorandum illustrates, an effort has been made to denigrate John’s work and to attack him personally.  John demonstrates incredible patience as he continues his efforts on behalf of Lake Merced; I have never known him to have any other motive.

Joe’s memorandum makes clear his extensive capability as a litigant; in fact his reputation precedes him on this point.  It is equally clear why the City Attorney’s office has chosen Joe’s firm to represent the City in actions of this sort.  We are not, however, involved in litigation at this time.  Needed now are good science and a constructive dialog with the community.  Joe Scalmanini has provided neither.

Joe claims that “the draft plan . . . was discussed at several public meetings prior to being circulated as a draft.”  We have asked Greg Bartow to provide copies of the public notice of these meetings.  Greg has provided two, one in May and the other in June of this year, both after the release of the draft plan.  Greg describes several other contacts, including web postings, all but one post-publication.  That one exception was a meeting of hydrologists in April 2003 to discuss the development of a computer model of the Westside Basin and its relationship to Lake Merced.  The groundwater plan was not on the agenda, was not discussed in any detail, and in fact this was not a public meeting, the attendance limited to those technically qualified.

There have been a series of meetings to discuss Lake Merced, potential sources of imported water to control lake level, and the impact of various lake levels on beneficial uses.  None of these meetings discussed either the maintenance of the aquifer or increased withdrawal of water for domestic use, the subject of the groundwater plan.  I am sure that Joe is well acquainted with this history.  Why, then, did he make this claim?  

The community has for some time supported the use of models being developed by Gus Yates and John Fio, under a contract with the City of Daly City Department of Water and Wastewater Resources, to evaluate various strategies for management of the Westside Basin aquifer.  Joe argues that this is not appropriate: “The commentors (sic) also fail to recognize that plans are not based on output or other use of a model.”  I believe that few if any scientists would agree with that statement.  It is my understanding that effective use of models for prediction is a hallmark of good science.

Joe has consistently promoted the use of a “conceptual model” rather than the development of an enhanced computer model such as that being developed by Yates and Fio.  Joe now states, “The commentors (sic) fail to recognize that a conceptual model is an essential primary step in the development of a numerical groundwater flow model.”  It would seem to a casual observer, based upon this statement, that Joe has been supportive of this effort all along, that his main goal has been to provide support for the numerical modeling effort.  In fact, in public statements Joe has been openly critical and dismissive of this modeling effort.

Earlier work, by the consulting firm Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. (1993), indicated that the use of recycled water to build a barrier between the ocean and Lake Merced would lead to an increase of lake level of an estimated seven feet.  No other single action had such a large impact.  John has on several occasions requested that this option be evaluated using the improved groundwater flow models.  In his comments John had observed:

The conclusion is accepted without support that Lake Merced can be maintained much in the manner of a reservoir, ignoring its natural relationship to the aquifer.  This completely ignores repeated requests both by Friends of Lake Merced and the Water Committee of the Lake Merced Task Force, that the lake be considered in conjunction with programs to restore the aquifer itself.  One example: the only consideration of recycled water is its use for direct input into the lake; using recycled water to buttress the aquifer is off the table.

Joe responds first with a dismissive exposition on the failure of the “commentors” to define what they mean by “restored”.  He then repeats the claim that there is to date no evidence of seawater intrusion, a claim not in dispute; neither is it relevant to the discussion.  He then directs the reader to Elements 3 and 6 of the groundwater management plan.  We took a look.  Element 3 discusses basin yield, but does not mention recycled water.  Element 6 discusses recycled water, but only for the purpose of irrigation and direct input into Lake Merced.  Neither element discusses the potential benefit, either for lake level or increased sustainable yield, of groundwater recharge using recycled water.

More important, the recently released Recycled Water Market Assessment reports that using recycled water for Westside Basin aquifer recharge has a “low priority.”  Potential impact on Lake Merced from such an action is not discussed.  The only reference to Lake Merced in this Assessment is the potential for addition of recycled water directly to the lake.  Whatever the groundwater plan reports, if those actions don’t make it into the recycled water plan there has been no effective coordination; there is little likelihood that the best solution will be found.

Joe observes that “attacks on the process not helpful.”  John and Alex have not attacked anyone, or anything.  They have, however, suggested that better coordination between plan elements is needed, and that a “Comprehensive Water Management Planning Team” should be formed to bring all water management elements, local domestic water supply, groundwater management, stormwater management, the clean water program and recycled water under a single planning team, distinct from the larger capital planning effort, and reporting separately to the General Manager.  I am sure that the community would enthusiastically support such an effort.

I hope that you will carefully consider this realignment of the Public Utilities Commission’s planning effort.  I firmly believe that working together, the PUC and the community can and will develop constructive and sustainable solutions to the preservation of Lake Merced.  I fail to see, however, how the contentious attitude expressed in Joe Scalmanini’s comments contributes to the achievement of this goal.

Sincerely,

Dick Allen

c.c.:    Dennis Normandy, President
          San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

          Alex Lantsberg
          Alliance for a Clean Waterfront

          John Plummer
          Friends of Lake Merced

          Greg Bartow
          San Francisco Public Utilities Commission