Water Security: Nothing to Worry About?

The city council took up the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan last week with the hope of approving this latest five-year update.  We described the stated concerns about shortages that came up during the study session last May here.  Words like "alarming" and "worry" were in vogue back in May, but curiously absent last week as the UWMP was approved 5-0.  I had sent several comments to the council based on my reading of the draft plan where I thought some more work was wise.  We may get to all of them over time, but right now I just want to focus on the main question.  When droughts inevitably come, do we have enough water?  Apparently the various agencies involved think we do as seen in this Table 7-6 from the plan that covers the next 20 years.

These numbers are the SFPUC Regional Water System (RWS) estimates of our city's water availability if the "Save the Fish" maneuver called the Bay Delta Plan doesn't happen.  The "Save the Fish" plan is tied up in court and negotiations, so this looks like great news!  Over the next five years, if we have a dry year our availability drops 19.7% and then stays exactly the same even if the next four years are dry.  Over the long run, things look even better.  20 years from now, if we have a dry year, our availability only drops 12.6% and thankfully stays exactly the same for the next four continuously dry years.  I guess I have been worrying for no reason.  Let's move on.  The day after the council meeting, Wally from Dilbert explained why I feel better.

Comments

[JP]

So I can keep my toilet that actually works?

[Peter Garrison]

As long as it’s electric and you share it with four other people.

[Handle Bard]

There's a nice new water main going in on ECR but do ya think they could fix the drainage at the same time? Nah. Too efficient.

[Lynn]

I am no math genius but shouldn't the amount of water we have go down during a 5 year drought?

[resident]

You are more of a genius than the geniuses.

[Joe]

OK, here we go. Negotiations over the Bay Delta Plan have failed and the hammer is about to come down:

For nearly three years, some of California’s biggest water users, including San Francisco, have been quietly meeting with the state to figure out how much water they should be taking from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

The talks were launched to prevent some of California’s mightiest rivers from drying up, and keep fish populations from disappearing, while still allowing cities and farms to draw the supplies they need. The vision was nothing short of a grand compromise on divvying up California’s water.

But late last week, the state conceded the negotiations had failed. In a letter to San Francisco and the other mostly agricultural water agencies involved in the discussions, state regulators told the parties they had made insufficient concessions on water use. The breakdown in talks means the state will begin directly regulating river draws, a move that could significantly squeeze the water users, and one they’re bound to fight.

Under the plan, sometimes called the Bay Delta Plan, 40% of the natural flow of the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers would have to remain in these waterways during peak flows — not pumped out — to salvage the basin. This would leave 60% of the water for cities and farms, which compares to the 90% they currently draw at times.

Officials at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which manages the water supply for San Francisco and several other Bay Area communities, said they’re not happy to see the state fall back on regulation.

“We’re disappointed,” SFPUC spokesperson Will Reisman said in a statement about the recent negotiations.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/California-drought-Key-talks-over-water-use-16576132.php

We going to be more than just "disappointed". And in other news, B'game has approved an eight-story 241,000 square foot commercial building at 567 Airport Blvd.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/8-story-office-building-approved-in-burlingame/article_a7e88244-3931-11ec-8b5b-1372c686bd67.html?utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1635602426&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[Joe]

Here are the headlines from yesterday's DJ-- just yesterday's edition:

Oyster Point hotel project moves ahead

6-story, 99-unit apartment building proposed in Millbrae

Block 21 development adds 6th level

San Mateo 40-unit condo development in the works

-------------
Nothing to see here, move along.

[Joe]

Fines are coming. From today's SF Comicle:

After two years of drought, Gov. Gavin Newsom remains reluctant to put limits on statewide water use. His administration, however, is looking to take a first step.

Next month, the State Water Resources Control Board is expected to adopt temporary prohibitions on outdoor water practices, including hosing down driveways, filling up decorative fountains and watering lawns within 48 hours of rain.

A violation of these rules would carry the threat of a $500-a-day fine.

The 2014 wasteful water-use policy was followed up a year later with outright limits on water use. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown ordered cities and towns to cut water consumption a cumulative 25% statewide. Each community was given a quota, based largely on its past record of savings.

Newsom has so far asked only for voluntary reductions during the current drought: a cumulative 15% statewide, compared with last year. Since his request in July, water use has dropped 5.6%, according to state data.

The governor’s office declined to comment for this story.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-to-crack-down-on-water-waste-with-16701985.php
----------------------------
I believe this is a newbie water reporter (Kurtis Alexander) since he writes:

"About 20% of the state’s total water use is human consumption, much of it going to the types of outdoor activities included in the proposed ban. The other 80% is agricultural."

Of course, that is impossible since there are also commercial, industrial and government categories in the usage statistics. But he's trying.