Email exchanges with Michael Carlin GM-Water-SFPUC -- early April 19, 2009

Dear Michael - I read this at 5AM. I apologize for any slips in prose. I need to answer now.

Facts are:

1959/60-1983/4 On average: SF 100.8 MGD and the peninsula 125.5 MGD HH total 226.3 - Why did we assure the peninsula of 184 MGD in the 1984 MWSA? Why is this number sacred? Were we bullied?

More importantly -Why are we exacerbating this (1984) mistake in 2009?

In the MWSA between years (84 - 2009) the average takes were SF 84.5MGD, Peninsula 165.3, and SF total 249.9 MGD Where did the 18MGD + 9 MGD peninsula assurances come from?

Longer - term look at HH deliveries
1959/=2007/8

1959/60 to 2007/08	MGD	MGD	MGD
Mean	92.9	145.0	237.9
SDEV	12.1	32.4	29.4

Your own estimation of system reliability in 2000 was 239MGD based on 1921-1999 hydrology (now with global warming? - considerably less) and system integrity.

In the 2009 MWSA you give Santa Clara and San Jose (combined) 9 MGD (basically changing them from interruptible to non-interruptible) . This means the peninsula is now assured 184 MGD + 9 MGD = 193 MGD. If the system can only sustain 240 MGD, then SF gets 47 MGD. (long-term statistical means) -- down from close to 88 MGD. If we replace HH water with alternative supplies (5 times the cost of HH water) the cost at the SF city gate will increase by at least 20% and the SF water quality index will plunge.

I have correlated all my HH delivery with with Tuolumne River takes. The Tuolumne River does not have the average annual flows to support your forecasts and continuing peninsula expansion. Our junior riparian rights and lowered dam capacity make a long-term statistical average of 265 an aberration that must not be used in any contract.

I cannot accept their models until I have time to study their code and visit all their assumptions. Also, in the 2009 MWSA on "joint facilities," means joint ownership, and therefore you may indeed be inviting the peninsula under 1913 Raker Act to be co-trustees. It is clear that BAWSCA "whipped us at the line of scrimmage in all these (194 and now 2009) negotiations." I am going for a swim and church.

Please do not sign this MWSA asis. My comments above are done on rising and only touch the surface. BTW - what was sent to me by the "regression folks" was an absolute insult. Had they worked for me during my modeling days, I would have sacked them. I will do this regression analysis myself and write specifications as if this was for a CPUC filing.

I see BAWSCA has enshrined in the 2009 MWSA, 100% of the CIP/WSIP must be completed by 2015. Seems they have given you a "pass" on 50% by 2010 (AB1823). I don't believe 2015 is a possible final completion date. Thus BAWSCA's AB2058, AB1823, and AB2437 will ensure BAWSCA becomes the co-trustees with 70% governance?

Finally - State law (CEQA) demands (emerging body of water law) that forecast not only be made but must be accurate? 265 MGD is a statistical anomaly and should not be used as a system benchmark. I can read FORTRAN - so give me the entire program.

Please don't sign this agreement asis.

Cheers - Brian Browne
not edited

Carlin, Michael wrote:

Brian:

In preparation for the upcoming Transparency Group meeting, we requested our external hydrology expert to address the question of the sustainability of delivering 265 million gallons per day from the SFPUC’s Regional Water System. Mr. Steiner’s paper is attached for your review prior to the meeting. He will also be at the meeting to discuss his analysis and conclusions. We look forward to the discussion.

Michael