The Burlingame Voice

The Tsunami that wasn't: Lessons learned

It was an exciting morning.  I just happened to be outside talking to a buddy whose tsunami knowledge was unknown to me when his phone went off about 10:45 am.  I got nothing on my phone, but he started making a plan since he knew a "warning" is the highest level of four notices that are issued.  Listening to him, I was concerned for the coastal areas covered in the warning; from the area of the 7.0 undersea earthquake off Ferndale down to Davenport on the PCH.  I was skeptical that it would be an issue here on the west side of B'game.  Nonetheless it was time to turn on the local TV news station that was in Breaking News mode.  There was a second quake north of Sacramento that registered a 6.0, the BART tube was shut down and SFO was landing flights as normal while noting the runways are only 13 feet above sea level.

The warning was in effect until 11:49 am-- an hour after the quake hit.  My knowledgeable buddy took off--I didn't ask where, but he mumbled something about "uphill".  The TV experts from SFFD, National Weather Service and some quake center were talking Go-Bag and getting up to 100 feet of elevation.  Traffic on eastbound 92 was bumper to bumper.  I was still skeptical of any tsunami squeezing through the Golden Gate, wrapping around the Bay and pushing water past maybe our Bayfront.  There's a reason Laguna Ave. is named Laguna Ave.  After watching the YouTube documentary on the Japan tsunami of 2011 my friend recommended, a second thought or two has crept in.

I have to wonder why the SMC Alert didn't hit my phone until 11:49 am, an hour after the quake and then was deemed not a danger at 12:10 pm?  It turns out that a 7.0 quake, while big in town, isn't considered to be big enough to cause a major tsunami.  Is there such a thing as a minor tsunami?  Let's hope SMC alert and the quake shake apps are working as designed.  

No go on our H2O: Bay-Delta Plan proceeds

We've known the Water Management plans of many agencies, including our own here in B'game, are fictional representations of hope over reality.  Even the perilously hopeful have to wake up now that a Sacramento County Superior Court judge waved the Bay-Delta Plan through on Friday.  As we wrote back in 2021 here, the key chart in B'game's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) doesn't meet the sniff test for multiple, consecutive dry years.  There is no way years 4 and 5 in row of drought can have the same water available over the next 20 years.  Have a look again at both the right-hand columns and now the footnote

But wait, Batman.  What about with the Bay-Delta Plan?  The SF Comicle notes

The long-awaited decision on what’s known as the Bay-Delta Plan denies 116 claims in a dozen separate lawsuits that seek to undo a 2018 update to the policy, most of which are from water agencies saying the limits on their water draws go too far.  The 160-page verdict, released Friday by Sacramento County Judge Stephen Acquisto, specifically notes that arguments made by San Francisco against the regulation fell short.  (We get our water via SF).

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which manages water supplies for the city as well as about two dozen other communities, has maintained that tighter limits on water draws could force the agency to find new sources of water at a much higher cost to customers. The agency also has expressed concerns about not being able to maintain reliable supplies to support the Bay Area’s robust economy.

“As a public water provider to 2.7 million residents and thousands of businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area, we remain disappointed in the environmental review that informed the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2018 adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan amendments,” the statement read. “This 2018 decision could significantly impact our water supply with rationing of up to 50% in extended droughts.”

Appeals are expected, but a head-further-in-the-sand approach risks all sorts of painful moves that make prior rationing like this look modest.  You might think such signal events would form the basis for reigning in huge, dense growth in both commercial and industrial building, but you would be wrong.

Bayfront shenanigans: Where to put the seawall?

Sea level rise.  King tide flood control.  Airliner bird strikes.  A new lagoon with algae and sediment.  50 years of conflicting regulations.  Sinking runways. Shore-based or Bay-based.  Swing a cat--hit an environmental group:  Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sequoia Audubon Society, Green Foothills, Baykeeper and Sierra Club.  The Daily Journal's Holly Rusch did as good a job as could be done describing the circular firing squad of government agencies, politicians, environmental groups and the OneShoreline county entity that seeks to build a seawall in the Bay from SFO to Coyote Point.  The article didn't note what size budget OneShoreline has to gather public comment and attempt to get a draft EIR out by 2025, but we will $niff that out going forward.  In the meantime, the engineer in me is very curious about this:

The proposed barrier would remain open unless the Bay was hit by extreme storms or king tides, at which point the tidal gates would close to protect from flooding impacts.  One major concern regarding the project is the permitting and legal hurdles it could face when receiving approval due to its unprecedented scale and goals, said Save the Bay Executive Director David Lewis, a point his organization’s letter emphasized.  The “unprecedented” size of Bay fill required for the project, which includes a lagoon that could be as many as 670 acres, could require significant mitigation, BCDC warned in a letter to the agency.

For those keeping track at home, 670 acres is about 29.2 million square feet or exactly two-thirds the size of Golden Gate Park.  What could go wrong?  The County Supe contender (against Jackie Speier) notes:

Millbrae Councilmember Ann Schneider, who has been speaking out against the project since November when she was mayor, reiterated concerns that the community had not been given adequate time or space to provide feedback on the project.  “OneShoreline completely ignored me, me as the mayor of Millbrae, me who has been working on sea-level rise since they created the first vulnerability process,” she said.

I predict a lot of sound and fury ultimately signifying nothing--apologies to the Bard.  Here is our local jewel Coyote Point yesterday as an airliner descends through our December clouds.

Water: Newsom pushing uphill finally

Gavin Newsom appears to have finally gotten serious about a bit more reservoir capacity in California.  As we noted back in wet January, some "experts" claim we have already built reservoirs in the most useful spots, but Newsom seems to disagree and is "accelerating" the Sites Reservoir whose Project Authority has been in existence for some time.  Per the Comicle piece

Gov. Gavin Newsom exercised his new power under state law Monday to help get a giant reservoir planned for Northern California on the fast track for approval.  The proposed $4.5 billion Sites Reservoir, envisioned 70 miles north of Sacramento, would be the first major reservoir built in California in nearly half a century.

The reservoir, planned for a swath of ranchlands in rural Colusa and Glenn counties, has long been promoted as a way to significantly boost water storage amid an increasingly uncertain climate.  The reservoir is designed to capture water from the Sacramento River during wet years like this past one and hold up to 1.5 million acre-feet in reserve for dry times — enough for at least 3 million households for a year. The supply would be piped to cities and farms from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. The reservoir would be the state’s eighth largest.

That note about NorCal water going to SoCal is always concerning, but that is the political price to be paid.  The other interesting design feature is

While the water would come from the Sacramento River, the proposed facility is different than most because it would not sit on a waterway. Instead, water from the river would be piped to the “off-stream” site.

So the fish get water first and the reservoir only diverts some when the Sacramento River is flowing well.  It's a plan--lets see if it really starts holding water in 2032.

Fake Grass: Millbrae issues a ban worth following

I don't like artificial turf--fake grass.  Never have.  I don't like how it looks or how it wears.  I don't like how hot it gets in direct sunlight when it can burn a dog's paws.  None of that really matters much, BUT gather evidence that it is bad for the environment and political gears start to turn.  Two years ago Millbrae began assessing the damages from fake grass as we noted here.  Back in 2021, some of the stated concerns were:

increased heat, reduced water absorption and toxic runoff from disintegrating plastic.  “That means not only is there no worm or bee activity, you have no runoff capacity, you have no water infiltration capacity, you have no carbon sink that you would have with grass.”  Additionally, artificial turf is 30% to 60% hotter than ambient temperatures on a warm sunny day, Conway said.

Recycling fake turf is probably about as effective as recycling most everything else these days which is to say not very effective as we noted here two and a half years ago.  Now the Millbrae city council has unanimously taken the plunge as reported in the DJ

Millbrae City Council passed an ordinance that bans the installment of artificial turf and synthetic grass and mandates proper maintenance of existing turf if it was installed legally.  “We’re concerned about the health and safety of synthetic materials. There’s plastics, nylon, different kinds of materials in there,” said Community Development Director Andy Mogensen. “And we are concerned with its impact on our stormwater, aquatic life and things of that nature,” he said.

County Supervisor candidate Ann Schneider weighed in with the broader picture

“I strongly believe that there will be legislation coming down federally and state wise that holds cities accountable for microplastics entering waterways, because it's entering into our food system. And then these highly carcinogenic — full of PFAS, or forever chemicals — are getting into our food supply, so it’s a ticking time bomb,” said Mayor Ann Schneider.

I await B'game making the same move.  Millbrae wanted to give people five years to replace it but relented due to homeowner costs.  It doesn't really matter since a lot of it will wear out by then and need to be replaced anyway.  Let's join Millbrae in being responsible!

New water rules: a "budget" for all seasons

Just because it rained a lot last season doesn't mean we are out of the woods on water scarcity.  Apparently, Sacramento put in some rules five years ago that are just kicking in.  Per today's Merc piece

Dozens of California cities could be required to impose permanent water conservation measures starting in about a year — and keep them in place even when the state is not in a drought — under proposed new rules from state water regulators.  The landmark rules are required by two laws that former Gov. Jerry Brown signed in 2018 after a severe five-year drought.

Under the new rules, roughly 400 of the California’s largest cities and water districts are required to come up with a water-use budget every year beginning Jan. 1, 2025. They could eventually face fines of up to $1,000 a day — and $10,000 a day during drought emergencies — for failing to set and meet appropriate targets.

The targets will vary by community. They are based on a formula made up of three main factors: a standard of 47 gallons per person per day for indoor water use — dropping to 42 gallons by 2030; an amount for outdoor residential use that varies by community depending on regional climates; and a standard for water loss due to rates of leaks in water system pipes.

The Bay Area is considered to be doing an OK job of conserving now, apart from some East Bay communities. The first round of cuts in 2025 are not expected to hit nearby including the SF PUC where B'game gets its water.  The chart in the Merc piece appears to say SF PUC is fine as is through 2035.  That may be true if interest rates stay about 7 or 8% for years.  The Merc noted elsewhere

In fact, no apartment projects with market-rate units broke ground in Silicon Valley during the first half of 2023, according to data from CoStar, an international real estate analytics company. Compare that to the last six months of 2022, when developers started construction on at least 5,298 multifamily units in the region.

But

By 2030, the state water board estimated, only 97 agencies representing 28% of the state’s urban population would escape additional conservation requirements. Another 88 with 18% of the state’s urban population would see cutbacks of 10% to 20%, and 134 representing 19% of the state’s urban population would see required cutbacks of 20% or more.

There was more handwringing over how much building new storage or desalinization plants would cost.  We need to constantly keep Ben Franklin's advice in mind:  "When the well is dry, we know the value of water".

Papan putting water in focus

Mr. Water here with a catch-up post on newly minted Assemblywoman Diane Papan's early attention to.....water.  She had a Guest Perspective in the DJ a week ago and it merits some additional coverage as we see how the proposed legislation progresses.  First and foremost, I give her kudos for focusing on something important and suitable for Sacramento to deal with.  I wish some of our other representatives had the same approach.  After the dutiful bow to climate change, we learn from her piece:

That’s why I have made water — the adequacy of supply, equitable distribution, cleanliness and availability — one of my top legislative priorities.

As such, one of my bills, Assembly Bill 753, will ensure that communities harmed by pollution receive state funding to clean up local waters. The bill reforms the State Water Board’s Cleanup and Abatement Fund to require half of these funds be dedicated to cleaning up the most polluted waterways, improving monitoring and developing community capacity so disadvantaged communities can participate fully in addressing water quality.

I'm left wondering what we have been doing with the other half all this time? 

I have also introduced two bills to help ensure reliable, affordable water supplies. Assembly Bill 754 would improve conservation planning by urban and agricultural water agencies by establishing localized conservation measures if water storage falls below specified levels. With the likelihood of more severe droughts, we need to ensure that we’re ready to conserve during times of scarcity.

I'd love to see part of these bills address the reasonableness of cities Urban Water Management Plans as I noted here back in 2021.  Some important data and forecasts just don't pass the smell test.  Having BAWSCA do a roll-up of all of the forecasts from all of its agencies would also be useful.  Next is the bow to some sort of equity

Finally, Assembly Bill 755 addresses rising water rates that are often driven by those who use the most. The bill requires urban water agencies to evaluate what new water supply investments could be avoided if the largest — often most affluent — residential users were to reduce water use. These thirsty users can require an agency to make expensive investments to develop additional water supply and infrastructure, driving up costs for all, including low-income residents and residents who already conserve. This bill can help ensure fairness, encourage conservation and tackle high water costs.

Notice the assumptions embedded.  Affluent people don't conserve, but low-income people do.  Fact-check, please.  Additionally, what expensive investments are being made to develop additional supply around here?  I guess I missed that.  There is of course the big investment to send more NorCal water to SoCal, but I doubt that is what she's talking about.  The maintenace work on the pipe from Hetch Hetchy is needed but doesn't add capacity.  I get worried when I see the word "fairness" creep into legislation.  In a lot of places, its meaning has become inverted such that unfair treatment is masquerading as fair.  Let's not have water flow down the same pipe as the unfair proposals to base electricity prices on users' income.

Water Rates: Drip, drip, water torture

The SF Comicle is giving us the unfortunate preview of coming water rate increases.  Reporter Kurtis Alexander's piece titled "Storms replenished California’s reservoirs. So why are Bay Area water bills about to soar?" brings the bad news into focus:

The SFPUC, which directly serves nearly 900,000 people in San Francisco (Ed: and most of the Peninsula including B'game), is scheduled to vote on its higher water and sewer rates Tuesday. Under the proposal, both the fixed base rate and the amount charged for the volume of water used, or discharged in the case of wastewater, will rise, resulting in an average 8.3% annual increase over three years for single-family households...or a cumulative 27% increase.

“We get this question a lot: Why raise rates if we have this abundance of water?” said Christopher Tritto, a spokesperson for EBMUD. “Well, what we’re really paying for is all of the infrastructure to store the water, to transport it to the Bay Area and to distribute it. … The water we get from the rain and snow is essentially free.” 

“Even with these proposed rate increases, our services are a tremendous value,” said John Coté, spokesperson for the SFPUC. “One gallon of our world-class tap water would cost only 2 cents, while a gallon of bottled water costs $1.79 on average. Our services are also competitive with our peers.”  The agency did not raise rates last year. Over the previous four years, rates rose an average of 8% annually.

Get your calculator or spreadsheet out, add in the coming sewer rate increases we wrote about in October 2021 here and revise household budget accordingly.  The other front-page article in today's Chronicle was about the impending transit system "doom loop" being nearer than believed.  The sad thing is anyone could see that the "doom loop" started the day we went into Covid lockdown; when the managements of all these systems stuck their head in the sand and stuck out their hands for $4.5 billion of federal "aid" to keep empty trains and buses running.  Now they want more even though BART ridership, for example, is still 60% down from pre-Covid.

If the trade-off is water system reliability vs. 95% empty SamTrans buses running up and down El Camino--and it might just be given the $31.5 billion and growing budget deficit--I'll take water reliability for $500, Alex.

Housing policy: Some thoughtful ideas

We have some thoughtful council members here in Ole B'game.  I don't always agree with their priorities or their approaches, but in the case of Mayor Brownrigg and Vice Mayor Colson, there is recent evidence of thoughtful housing proposals.  For the moment, let's put aside whether or not there is a "housing crisis", whether or not the local population will return to positive growth, whether or not the RHNA numbers driving policy (and the Big Stick from Rob Bonta) are reasonable and just look at the Brownrigg/Colson proposals as shown in a recent Guest Perspective in the Daily Journal.  I will boil them down a bit or you can click through for all of it:

1.  Sacramento could waive capital gains taxes for property owners who sell land to affordable housing developers.

2.  The state could streamline eminent domain for housing on underutilized parcels and then subsidize a city’s acquisitions.

3.  The state should help market-rate builders include more affordable housing units with tax rebates or direct cash subsidies.

4.  Faster than cities can create affordable units, we are losing even more “naturally affordable” units in older buildings when they get sold.  Indeed, the state does not even count a deed-restricted preserved affordable unit toward a city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. That has to change.

5. The state’s housing targets seek a 15% increase in Bay Area housing. Punitive and prescriptive state housing mandates should be waived for cities issuing building permits exceeding a 10% increase in units.

6.  Water allowances should be prioritized for cities that undergo a 10% increase in actual occupied housing units. (see the post directly below)

7.  Infrastructure spending should be directed to communities that are getting housing built.

8.  And for social mobility, let’s reward cities that create more affordable family units (two bedrooms or more). 

Number 2, easier eminent domain, is the only one that raises a "Hell no" from me.  That is just replacing one big authoritarian stick with another.  Missing is my number 9:  introduce a pause in commercial development to give the housing market time to catch up.  That is really the only feasible way to bring back some balance without demolishing single-family zoning and quality of life while overstressing our infrastructure.  All of the others "just take money" that the state doesn't have.

Water ideas: Is anyone listening?

I hope no readers have been lulled into mistakenly thinking our water woes are over.  They aren't.  I have taken four months off the topic last addressed here.  That was when they were letting water out of Crystal Springs and warning people who live along the San Mateo creek.  Now a thoughtful piece in the Wall Street Journal by Edward Ring of the California Policy Center merits some mention.

With the nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, drawn down to historic lows, the seven states that use water from the Colorado River have failed to agree on how to adapt to its dwindling flow. The impasse pits California against everyone else. If California’s political leaders had the political will, they could solve the problem for every member of the Colorado River Compact by developing infrastructure to use untapped sources of water. But to do that, the state Legislature would have to stand up to a powerful environmentalist lobby that views humans as parasites and demands rationing as the only acceptable policy.

The Colorado crisis underscores California’s grotesque failure to upgrade its water infrastructure for the 21st century. Since 1980, Californians have endured five droughts, and politicians are predicting worse in the future. With groundwater aquifers dangerously depleted and access to Colorado River water imperiled, rationing won’t be enough.

There are two major projects that could unlock millions of acre-feet of new water for Californians. The first is to eliminate nutrient pollution in the San Francisco Bay, which feeds toxic algae blooms that kill aquatic life. The solution so far has been to dilute the nutrient loads in the bay by requiring massive diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta—a little like flushing a toilet. But upgrading the urban wastewater-treatment facilities surrounding the bay would eliminate nutrient pollution, permitting more delta water to be directed to California’s farms and cities—a lot more water.

Another piece by CalMatters mentions that eliminating nutrient pollution is actually getting harder and more expensive:

As Californians replace their water-guzzling household appliances with more thrifty devices and let the yellow mellow before flushing, the waste stream becomes more concentrated — which could lead to higher treatment costs, more contaminants and less recycled water overall.

Notice the Law of Unintended Consequences at work?  The rest of the CalMatters piece is good for data, but basically rehashes old ideas, so back to the Ring piece:

The second major project, then, would be for Californians to build new ways to extract and store water from the delta during atmospheric river events. A new technique, already demonstrated on the Tuolumne River, creates channels in some of the delta islands so that huge perforated pipes can be installed under a gravel bed. Fish aren’t endangered by such installations. This water could be rapidly transferred to aquifers south of the delta via surface percolation and deep injection. Unused aquifer capacity in the San Joaquin Valley is conservatively estimated at more than 50 million acre feet.

We shall see if any of the "human parasites" that populate Sacramento are listening.  There's more from Edward Ring of the CPC on water here.