Supes Braced for Deluge of Groundwater Complaints

San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission plans to blend more groundwater into the City's supply faced scrutiny at this week's meeting of the Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. Questions from Committee members, along with public comment, reflected concerns which often intersected with other issues, ranging from artificial turf to future residential development.

The hearing was called by Supervisor Norman Yee in response to requests from a “dozens and dozens” of concerned residents, “from his district as well as others.” Supervisors Jeff Sheehy, Ahsha Safai, and Mark Farrell co-sponsored the motion for the hearing.

Supervisor Sheehy outlined three concerns of his own, which reflected the overall stance of the Committee: (1) that the existing water supply would remain safe; (2) how noticeable would the change in the quality of the water supply be; and (3), whether the PUC did the necessary level of outreach on the project.

Answering these questions was Steve Ritchie, PUC Water Enterprise Assistant General Manager. He explained how the project, which has actually been going on since 2008, was aimed at diversifying the water supply from local sources to ensure its continuing reliability, not only against risks like earthquakes, drought and climate change, but also to meet projected growth in demand. He reiterated that groundwater is a safe and reliable component of water supply for the overwhelming majority of California communities.

Meanwhile in San Francisco, groundwater is being used, among other things, for irrigating Golden Gate Park – a use better suited for recycled water. He noted contractual obligations under the Raker Act to other jurisdictions that use SFPUC water, plus environmental obligations under state and federal law to maintain healthy fish flow for the lower San Joaquin and Tuolumne Rivers.

Much of the public comment was from members of groups associated with the Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods. George Wooding, president of the Coalition, described the PUC project as an effort to downgrade the city's water supply which was unnecessary given the success of current conservation efforts. “We don't want this water until it's been proven safer,” Wooding said, “and we don't want it until we actually need it."

Meanwhile, longtime San Francisco Republican leader Christopher Bowman noted that the project appeared to go against the intentions of Proposition A, the 2002 ballot initiative passed by San Francisco voters which increased water rates in order to pay for system improvements, "including water quality improvements… little did voters know that $66 million of that bond money would be used by the PUC to actually add lower quality water to our pristine supply."

More opposing public comment equated the issue of water quality with development, population growth, and other issues. "Are you planning on exploding the population of San Francisco to two or three million? What kind of place would that be to live in besides the bad water," said one District 7 resident.

Another Noe Valley resident characterized the project in the context of "a chemical assault on the population overall.” Yet another resident alluded to the use of pesticides and what she characterized as "toxic" artificial turf fields in Golden Gate Park.

Others spoke supporting the project. Laura Tam, District 4 resident and Sustainable Policy Director at SPUR, mentioned that even with groundwater, contaminant levels would still be 50 times lower than allowed by state and federal standards: “our new blend is still incredibly safe and we should consider ourselves lucky we don't face a situation like that of some other communities… our water supply is still going to be great, and I'm fine with my kids drinking it.”

Jennifer Clary, Program Manager for Clean Water Action, and member of the PUC Citizens Advisory Committee, noted that San Francisco's reliance on a single source of water makes it vulnerable to climate change, and commented on the outreach process: “We've been holding public hearings at the CAC on this project since 2014; members of the public, perhaps not enough of them, have been attending these meetings, and they asked the same questions that people are asking now. And we got answers for all of those questions."

Meanwhile, members of the committee, including Chair Hillary Ronen (who also ended up having to speak for committee member Sandra Lee Fewer due to her continuing laryngitis), reiterated more general concerns about overall water quality and taste. Supervisor Ahsha Safai noted that his family had already noticed a difference in the taste of the water, and voicing equity concerns about how the groundwater will be distributed, given that it will be coming primarily from the city's Westside Basin.

In the end, the Committee voted to continue the matter, so that the relevant agencies can return for a follow up meeting with more updated data on the City’s evolving water quality, especially in comparison to that in other districts. They’ve also requested that the Department of Public Health’s chief epidemiologist be present at the next hearing, and that the PUC continue with outreach. That follow-up meeting will likely take place next month.