Were they correct in 2000?

I received this input from a colleague: "The Key sentence (1984 Master Water Sales Agreement), paragraph four of section 7.01, says, "The Supply Assurance shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the Individual Contracts entered into pursuant hereto." As you know, the new 2009 agreement makes this sentence far specific, making the agreement in perpetuity."
Reply:
I am not a lawyer but "in perpetuity" would seem correlated, in the context of a continuum, with co-ownership, albeit ceding governance of the Hetch Hetchy to BAWSCA. Why did Art Jensen jump all over me after I wrote my 2004 Reason article? I deciphered their game plan but I did not quite get how Ammiano's 2002 Proposition E was the glue for giving the system away by one person. See the joint-powers sharing section.

Ammiano's Proposition E in 2002 did many things, other than stripping the voters of the right to issue revenue bonds, it also gave the GM of the SFPUC the right to enter into these type contracts and power-sharing contracts, etc. I believe Ammiano and Jackie Spier linked 2002 SB1870 (Regional Finance Authority) and 2002 Proposition E (strip voters of right to issue water/waster revenue bonds) to ensure we lose the Hetch Hetchy system.

The Regional Finance Bank (2002 SB1870) lets the peninsula loan us money based on future water volumes they will purchase from us. The motive a backup in case San Francisco Props A and E in 2002 both failed?

I do not believe the HH system can maintain "firm deliveries" (long-term) in excess of 239 MGD from current pristine sources. This 239 MGD is what SFPUC and BAWUA estimated in 2000 when our dam capacity [Calaveras was in play] was considerably higher and global warming was less understood. If the firm deliveries are really below the spurious 265 MGD then just subtract 184 MGD from the number you choose as "firm" and see how SF is shafted.

Firm delivery is not water delivered historically at a price, but what the system can actually deliver on a long-term basis and is based on 1. system integrity and 2. hydrologic conditions between 1921 and 1999 (see attached - their own words). This process of estimating firm delivery began with BAWUA (BAWSCA) and SFPUC in 1997. Why is this 2000 result so different from what the they are using as a basis for signing the 2009 MWSA? I think in 2000 they were spot on.

I hope people of SF become aware of the immensity and serious nature of this 2009 contract from water, wastewater to union-security, and everything in between including does HH water go to an investor owned utility (Cal Water) as prohibited by the 1913 Raker Act. The SF Board of Supervisors should hold detailed hearings and if necessary put a measure on the ballot to rescind E and nullify this contract. It must be disinfected by sunshine.