Fixing Hetch Hetchy water system Fixing Hetch Hetchy water system (November 09, 2005)

** After three years, the San Francisco PUC is ready to adopt a program to fix its deteriorating water system.

By Marion Softky

Almanac Staff Writer

With the next earthquake getting ever closer, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is ready to adopt a $4.3 billion program to upgrade its seismically threatened water system, which serves 2.4 million people in four Bay Area counties.

On Tuesday, November 29, at 1:30 p.m., the PUC is set to hold a public hearing and adopt the revised Water System Improvement Program. The public may submit comments on the program before and at the hearing.

The program consists of 77 projects to fix the aging system of reservoirs, pipes, pumps, tunnels and treatment facilities.

These carry 265 million gallons of water per day from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park a distance of 160 miles, across five earthquake faults, to homes and businesses in the Bay Area counties of San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alameda. Water users in those counties depend on the Hetch Hetchy system for 85 percent of their water.

"There is no capital improvement program more vital to the future public health and safety of the San Francisco Bay Area than the timely completion of this Water Supply Improvement Program," said PUC General Manager Susan Leal in presenting the revised plan to the PUC.

The program has been a long time in coming, and it has a long way to go. Some people question whether the PUC can get it done on time by 2015, and on budget at $4.3 billion.

The schedule and budget have already slipped by three years and $700 million. When San Francisco voters passed a $1.6 billion bond issue in 2002 for their share of the project, the total tab was estimated at $3.6 billion. The other two-thirds of the cost will appear on the water bills of suburban customers in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties, who use two-thirds of the water.

"We are not confident that San Francisco can implement the program," warned Art Jensen, general manager of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which represents the 28 suburban water agencies in the three counties that buy water wholesale from San Francisco.
Changes

The program due to be voted on November 29 represents a major revision of the plans approved by San Francisco voters three years ago. The changes have been carried out over the last year under Ms. Leal, the PUC's new general manager.

Ms. Leal issued a draft program report last February after extensive public workshops and debate. Since February, the PUC has retained consultants Parsons and C2HMHill to evaluate the plan and recommend improvements. Their report, delivered October 7, recommends a number of changes that have been incorporated into the revised program before the PUC.

One key change would eliminate a controversial "Fourth Barrel" -- a proposed fourth pipeline to carry water across the San Joaquin Valley -- in favor of a more modest proposal that would still allow the other three pipes to be closed down for maintenance.

The proposal is to construct a shorter, 9-mile segment plus two "crossovers" to allow water to be shifted among pipes. About 6 miles of pre-stressed concrete pipe would also be replaced.

Other key changes include: a $10 million contribution to a regional desalination plant; acquisition of critical lands in local watersheds; and additional security measures.

Among the major Peninsula projects still in the WSIP are a new tunnel under the Bay for two pipes to replace the two 70-plus-year-old pipelines that carry water across the Bay just south of the Dumbarton Bridge. A major rebuild of the Crystal Springs Dam is also included.
Can they do it?

The biggest challenge may be to organize and manage so many huge projects at once, with so much at stake. PUC studies have shown that a major earthquake could leave parts of the Bay Area without mountain water for up to 60 days.

"This will be one of the largest public works projects ever in the western U.S.," said Tony Winnicker, communications director for the PUC. "No one has seen anything like it."

The PUC plans to add staff and expertise to run the programs and coordinate with the San Francisco Planning Department, which is conducting the environmental review.

The environmental impact report for the whole program is just getting started after six months and several sets of meetings to collect public input. A draft environmental report will come out next summer for more public review.

Major construction can't start until 2007, when the final environmental report is approved. "I'd like to make that early 2007," Mr. Winnicker said.

Meanwhile, the PUC says it will press to speed up the process as much as legally possible. It plans to design 100 percent of the system while the environmental report is being prepared, despite the risk that some projects may have to be altered.

"We want to be ready to go when the environmental review is finished," Mr. Winnicker said.

The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, which represents the suburban water agencies, still has serious reservations about San Francisco's ability to complete the big fix by 2015. Based on studies by consultant C. William Ibbs of the University of California at Berkeley, the agency listed several worries about the project:

** Not enough staff, and problems coordinating with the Planning Department doing the environmental report.

** Possible cost overruns that could bring the total tab to $5.2 billion.

** No provision in the schedule to accommodate almost certain lawsuits.

Mr. Jensen is resigned to the need to go forward despite all the worries. "So what if it takes longer and costs more?" he said. "We've been living with the (idea of) the Big One since 1906. It's got to be done."
Other issues

The public "scoping sessions" for the environmental report gave a preview of other issues that need to be resolved.

In Palo Alto on October 18, speaker after speaker asked that no more water be diverted from the Tuolumne River to meet increased demand; they asked instead for more conservation measures, recycling, and desalination.

"I'm real concerned we'll have a wild and scenic river without any water," said Chris Condon of Mountain View, a Tuolumne river guide for 30 years.

Mr. Winnicker of the PUC noted that the water improvement program is based on an increase of 35 million gallons per day -- from 265 million to 300 million -- by 2030 to accommodate rising regional demand.

The plan proposes funding major conservation efforts and also taking an additional 25 million gallons per day from the Tuolumne, he said. The environmental report will examine three other alternatives to meet projected demand.

"We're talking about environmental impacts," Mr. Winnicker said, noting that desalination takes a huge amount of power. "We actually take a relatively small amount from the Tuolumne. That may not be a significant impact."
INFORMATION

For more information, go to sfwater.org. Written comments may be sent to Mary Jung, commission secretary, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 1155 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94103; or e-mail: commissioners@sfwater.org.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.