PUC's broken promises?

One of the high-profile measures on the November 2002 ballot was Proposition A, revenue bonds and a user surcharge for retrofitting the Hetch Hetchy water-delivery system. Given the system's aging infrastructure and the fact that it crosses several fault lines, Prop A was billed as necessary to protect the water supply for San Francisco and over two million Bay Area customers. I found this argument compelling, especially in relation to movement in Sacramento by Peninsula interests to wrest Hetch Hetchy from us. After the issue of whether tenants would be asked to bear an unfair portion of the costs of the bonds was addressed, my major remaining concern was the one being raised by several environmental organizations. They warned that Prop A was really the Public Utility Commission's (PUC) stealth plan to increase the capacity of the Hetch Hetchy system to take more water from the Tuolumne River without regard to the health of the river. This increase in capacity would also fuel sprawl in the region, increasing traffic congestion and pollution while devouring our region's remaining open space.

At issue were an additional pipeline across the San Joaquin and additional water storage that could allow the PUC to take up to 70% more water from the Tuolumne. While groups such as the Sierra Club and the Tuolumne River Trust argued for greater water conservation instead of expansion of the system, the PUC countered that the new facilities were not for increasing system capacity but instead for system redundancy, which may be necessary in a major seismic event. The PUC convinced me of its position, and I signed on as a co-sponsor of Prop A.

Three years later, I'm worried that the PUC has played me for a fool. In July the Government Audits and Oversight Committee saw several items related to the Hetch Hetchy retrofit, including a $162 million spending item that included specific mention of the new San Joaquin pipeline. This also was the first time (and I have asked on many occasions) that PUC staff, including general manager Susan Leal, talked about the possibility of taking more water from the Tuolumne. Never mind the promises made previously by the PUC. "That was a different administration." The good people at American Rivers weren't duped. They had placed the Tuolumne as number eight on their list of "America's Most Endangered Rivers of 2005".

My efforts to amend the item to expressly prohibit the PUC from expanding its take from the Tuolumne were only partially successful. Aaron Peskin proposed language discouraging the PUC from expanding the system, while allowing them to study the possibility. I voted against the items and will oppose all future PUC water efforts while they continue down the path to expansion and environmental degradation.

By San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly