|
|
 |
| Willie L. Brown,
Jr.
Mayor Ann Moller Caen
Patricia E. Martel
|
December 18, 2001
John Plummer
Dear Mr. Plummer: I am writing in reply to your inquiries of November 19, 2001 and December 7, 2001. In your correspondence, you asked for clarification of the following statement made by SFPUC staff at various forums: "Lake Merced is no longer regarded as an emergency source of potable water for San Francisco." At the Town Hall on November 15, 2001 and in other public venues, SFPUC staff have stated that Lake Merced represents a water supply to be utilized in the aftermath of a major catastrophic event. Only in such an emergency situation would Lake Merced water be introduced into the potable water distribution system. Lake Merced water, without additional treatment (i.e. filtration) and disinfection, is not considered potable. Lake Merced's potential as a potable water supply for water customers in San Francisco is extremely limited. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act and State of California drinking water regulations prescribe the chemical and biological thresholds that must be met to be considered potable water. The required water treatment facilities to achieve such water quality levels are not available in the vicinity of Lake Merced to treat the water sufficiently to meet the potable standards. In your letter you referred to two resolutions passed by the SFPUC citing that those resolutions designated Lake Merced as an emergency supply of potable water. Resolution 10,435 - dated January 30, 1950, states in the findings that "the Lake Merced Tract can be used for water supply and park and recreational purposes..." This recognizes the fact that the Lake and surrounding land can support multiple uses. The resolved section outlines the conditions under which the Recreation and Park Department must operate including recognition that "the primary purpose of the Lake Merced Tract is to supply potable water to the water consumers in San Francisco and that they will do nothing or suffer or permit anything to be done that, in the opinion of the PUblic Utilities Commission is detrimental to the quality or use of the water in Lake Merced." It is our opinion that such a condition was meant to promote reasonable land use practices by the Recreation and Park Department. In addition, one of the main land uses of the Lake Merced Tract is a golf course that pre-dates the transfer of use resolution and the golf course was irrigated with water withdrawn directly from Lake Merced. The resolution further states "In view of the fact that the lake may be used as the domestic water supply for the City...," which supports our conclusion that the SFPUC was not then, nor previously, using Lake Merced as a potable source of water for San Francisco consumers. The Resolution 95-0082 dated May 23, 1995 reiterates that Lake Merced's location "affords a unique opportunity for an emergency potable water supply" and that the Lake Merced pump station could be used to distribute Lake Merced water for "consumptive and fire fighting use in the event of an earthquake or other catastrophe." This is consistent with statements we have made in public forums that, if no other source of water were available and there was a need for water for fire fighting or sanitary purposes, Lake Merced water could be introduced into the potable distribution system. Once Lake Merced water circulates in the potable distribution system we would then be required to disinfect the entire system including the water system in individual residences. Such a decision to introduce Lake Merced water would only be done under the most extreme and dire circumstances. In regard to the Lake Merced Stewardship Plan, the SFPUC staff voted in support of the Plan, which was adopted unanimously by the Lake Merced Task Force. The comment letter submitted by the SFPUC with the City of Daly City and the neighboring golf courses was a request to the Water Committee to provide additional information (i.e. funding sources, environmental review and facilities construction) for each proposed action. However, as stated in the letter, we support and continue to work towards an integrated water resource program that governs surface water, storm water, groundwater and recycled water use in the Westside Basin. Finally, with respect to the outline provided for our meeting on October 25, 2001, I did not realize that there was an expectation by the representatives who met with me during that session that I had a deadline to implement your proposed action items. During the 56 days that I have been on the job at the SFPUC, I have examined the Lake MErced issue, explored how to strengthen the proposed ten-year capital improvement program being developed by the SFPUC, and focused on a myriad of responsibilities before me. To date, I do not have definitive answers to the questions posed. I have brought together a variety of staff resources to review with them my expectations that we will move forward immediately to address the concerns raised. I am confident that the Agreement with Daly City and the Golf Clubs is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, I am not of the belief that the agreement alone will solve the problems that affect Lake Merced. A comprehensive plan needs to be put into place to work concurrently with activities defined by the joint agreement. Toward that end, I have requested staff to find a date sometime in January to facilitate a meeting of our hydrologists and others to discuss alternative approaches to exploring the hydrology of the Westside Basin Aquifer and the relationship of Lake Merced and Pine Lake to the aquifer. As noted in your discussion outline, much work remains to be done to fully understand the inter-relationships between a variety of hydrological issues and how they can best be resolved. I am committed to working with the Friends of Lake Merced and al other stakeholder groups involved with Lake Merced to determine the most reasonable and expedient means to implement an action plan. It is not my intention to reinvent the wheel. A number of existing studies have produced sufficient data to begin formulating policy initiatives. That will be my focus in the coming year. I hope this adequately responds to our questions. Please feel free to contact me at 554-3160 if you wish to discuss this further. Cordially, (signed)
cc:
|
