Is the City following the SFPUC Off the Cliff?
Open Letter to the Coastal Commission
• • • • • • • November 20, 2024 • • • • • • •
Many members of the Coastal Commission live outside San Francisco and may not be aware of the foibles of the SFPUC. This Open Letter to the Coastal Commission is an opportunity to showcase the poor management of that department and ask the Coastal Commission to no longer give deference to the decisions of the SFPUC.
FISH STARVED FOR WATER
• First, the SFPUC has been starving the Tuolumne River of water over the years, decreasing the salmon, as the SFPUC guards more water in their reservoirs for a drought emergency that may not happen. The SFPUC is planning for a drought that happened 25,000 years ago. Four of every five gallons of water is delivered to farmers, leaving salmon without enough water.
RESIDENTS CHARGED FOR DROUGHT DESPITE WATER CONSERVATION
• Today, San Franciscans use 55 gallons of water per person daily, which is remarkable since not long ago, BAWSCA estimated San Franciscans used as much as 79.3 gallons daily per person in 2012. There has been an increase in population by 32% during the same period. Despite the low use of water, the SFPUC is charging residents of the City a drought surcharge despite the fact reservoirs are full. Not only are reservoirs full, but if a drought did occur, there would be enough water for four years. The SFPUC is charging its customers for a drought that does not exist.
Yearly, as much as 1.2 billion gallons of combined stormwater runoff and sewage containing feces, bacteria, viruses, chemicals, and trash are dumped into the Bay.”
SEWAGE DUMPING CAUSES MASSIVE FISH DIE-OFFS
• There is a massive die-off of tens of thousands of fish in the San Francisco Bay in the winter from raw sewage dumped into the Bay. Yearly, as much as 1.2 billion gallons of combined stormwater runoff and sewage containing feces, bacteria, viruses, chemicals, and trash are dumped into the Bay. That results in extreme amounts of nitrogen in the Bay. And, when the weather becomes warm, the red tide fostered by the nitrogen can kill as many fish in the warm summer months as are killed in the winter. The SFPUC claims they have reduced the amount of sewage discarded into the Bay. However, that reduction results from customer conservation more than the SFPUC's active effort to clean their water discharge.
• Many residents in San Francisco have urged the SFPUC, in conjunction with the City, to drop the lawsuit against the EPA, at the Supreme Court. The EPA is asking the SFPUC or the City to step up clean wastewater discharge. Should the SFPUC win its lawsuit against the EPA, it could significantly weaken the Clean Water Act throughout the country. Residents resent the City joining well-known toxic polluters in the petroleum, plastic, and mining industries fighting this lawsuit. The Supreme Court has heard the San Francisco vs. EPA case, and we await their decision. Today, our best environmental hope to settle this case is to have our Mayor-elect, Lurie, or the Governor, withdraw the lawsuit. If the the City desires to keep things the way are in an attempt to save money, one resident suggested the State of California could ask for the same improvements wanted by the EPA today!
It should be determined if the City may continue to discharge sewage into the Pacific Ocean, as it is doing today before the $175 million in expenditures are spent to armor the southern section of the Great Highway. Additionally, adding sand to replenish the seawall covering is anticipated to cost $1 million annually. With the encouragement of the Coastal Commission, the City should meet the requirements of the EPA. After all, we have shown that the SFPUC has not been a good actor in environmental issues. Also, should we agree with the EPA and voluntarily do their bidding, the Lake Merced Tunnel, the major source of pollution into the Pacific Ocean, will need to be replaced with an environmental solution. We can only hope that the Coastal Commission concurs.
GREAT HIGHWAY CLOSURE / UNDEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The Coastal Commission should know that the referendum closing Great Highway was defeated in all the westside precincts of San Francisco. It was approved in the eastern part of the City. That is an undemocratic process. The will of local residents is ignored, and those unaffected by the consequences of the legislation win. The proposition means side-street traffic will increase, that 19th Avenue will become even more crowded, that parking will become more difficult for local residents, and that when the dunes collapse, from increased foot traffic by pedestrians trampling dune vegetation that keeps the sand in its place, larger amounts of sand will end up in resident's homes and public sewer systems. We ask the Coastal Commission to correct this miscarriage of justice by allowing the 40-foot-wide green space beside the Great Highway to be used for recreation instead. The following graph shows how the public voted on this issue.
STAFF RESEARCH ERRORS
It is disingenuous for the Coastal Commissioner staff to present pictures of erosion beside the Great Highway and describe it because of storms. The example of erosion provided by the staff was from willful negligence of SFPUC maintenance procedures, allowing leaking clay pipe to cause the erosion displayed to the public and Commissioners. Staff should not allow this disinformation to occur again.
We thank the Coastal Commission for informing the public on important issues involving our coast. Without the good work of the Coastal Commission, California would not be as wonderful as it is today. Thank you.
Glenn Rogers, RLA,
President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN)
Landscape Architect, License 3223
November 2024
