Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

B’game Water Security: The “Message is Alarming”

The City Council study session on Monday before the regular council meeting was an eye-opener for some people.  Public Works director Syed Murtuza summed it up by noting that "the message is alarming" and councilman Ricardo Ortiz followed by saying "there is lots to worry about here".  The CEO and General manager of BAWSCA, Nicole Sandkulla, along with consultant Anona Dutton from EKI led the discussion as part of the update to the B'game Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that happens every five years.

The update is an attempt to forecast water supply and demand so we can see how secure or "reliable" our water will be.  It is more of a long-term analysis verses the short-term limits like voluntary or prescribed rationing.  One big issue is the fact that SFPUC has expressed serious doubts about the Tuolumne River ecosystem benefits of the State Water Board’s plan to keep rivers flowing enough for the salmon and now feels the need to file a lawsuit about it.  That could take years to resolve.

Here are some key points from the study session:

Total B'game water demands are projected to increase 35% from 2020 to 2045 even if we can manage to reduce per capita demand from 66 to 59 gallons per person per day.

If supplies were reduced by 45 percent, could the City meet this?  Possibly by elimination of outdoor watering and establishing reduced residential water budgets to approximately 40 gallons/person/day.  Outdoor watering is categorized as "discretionary usage", but councilwoman Emily Beach noted that our trees need watering that is far from "discretionary".  The city e-newsletter is already asking residents to water the street trees, especially the young ones.

The city could consider exploring “water-neutral” growth policies.  A "net-zero" or "water-neutral" policy would mean large-scale developments would have to go find/buy enough new water to supply their project and inject it into the system.

The bottom line (for me anyways) is that we do not have enough water right now to get through any serious run of dry years.  I was able to speak with CEO/GM Nicole Sandkulla after the meeting about overall demand for all 26 agencies in BAWSCA.  The current forecasts call for increases between .5% and 1.5% per year over the next 20 years, but do not include any future changes to land-use regulations.  And there in lies the rub.  Here is a chart from the presentation that highlights the possible shortfalls in Burlingame.

Dry Year Supply_Demand

Posted in ,

13 responses to “B’game Water Security: The “Message is Alarming””

  1. Paloma Ave

    I was invited to attended a zoom water meeting today by our State Senator Josh Becker. I responded and asked this question, “Why are there still state mandated housing requirements, if there is not enough water for current residents?”
    I hope he will answering that questions on “Water, Water, Nowhere – Innovation, Resiliency & the Drought”
    Thursday, May 27th
    1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
    Please click here to RSVP
    Joining me for this Panel Discussion will be:
    Dr. Newsha Ajami, Director of Urban Water Policy, Stanford’s Water in the West Program
    Gary Kremen, Vice Chair Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water District
    Scott Bryan, President, Imagine H2O
    Felicia Marcus, Former Chair, State Water Resources Control Board, and fellow at Stanford’s Water in the West Program
    To RSVP or submit a question, please click the link above. The event will livestream at sd13.senate.ca.gov.
    Sincerely,
    Josh Becker

  2. Tim Hooker

    Was it someones responsibility to project water usage? What impact has the massive new development had on the water supply?

  3. Joe

    @Tim Hooker Excellent question. I believe we have a case of “many, many cooks in the kitchen”. As I understand it (and I learn more every day) the projections start with historical usage, conservation effects (think low-flow shower heads) and facts like lot size, etc. They then get employment forecasts from ABAG which is a problem in and of itself. Some Department of Finance payroll and revenue numbers get mixed in. Then most cities use consultants (like EKI listed above that B’game use) and Public Works to blend it all together.
    You can dive into the nitty gritty here:
    http://bawsca.org/uploads/userfiles/files/Annual%20Survey%20FY%2019-20_FINAL.pdf
    But as I noted in the OP, changing regulations about land use and zoning are NOT accounted for right now–as I understand it. That was what made Sen. Scott Weiner’s response about water (“Maybe we should look at that”) so disturbing when he came to B’game as noted here:
    https://www.burlingamevoice.com/2019/06/scott-weiner-comes-to-burlingame#comments

  4. Tim Hooker

    thanks Joe. Is it true 2/3 of Southern CA water comes from SF area?

  5. Just Visiting

    Water is a real issue, and Burlingame needs to manage it and worry about it. But the idea that no-growthers tie it to residential use is, populism at its best. Residential water use makes up about 10% of California’s total water use. And generally more than half of residential water use goes to outdoor uses (mostly, lawn irrigation and pools). Because Burlingame has smaller lots and not very many pools, the per capita water use in Burlingame is much lower than many other parts of the state (approximately 65 gpcd (gallons per capita–per person–per day), vs. upwards of 350 statewide. Per the presentation that freaked Joe out, the lowest municipality in the local water district is at about 38 gpcd. In other words, a person can healthily live on well under 65 gpcd–and well under 59–the modest planned decrease Joe mentions above for Burlingame.
    Also, it’s estimated that 15% of residential users are responsible for 60% of water waste in California’s residential markets. So water conservation has to start with cracking down on waste.
    Back to housing, because higher density housing uses significantly less water outdoors–where much of residential water use goes–it is more efficient. In other words, it will help bring that gpcd down.
    Even just looking at Burlingame’s water use, one can see that most of the city’s water use isn’t residential (the gpcd for Burlingame is about 110, whereas residential, which is included in that 110 number, is about 65; math tells us that non-residential users must use dramatically more gpcd for the gross gpcd to hit 110, if the residential is at 65).
    This isn’t to say that water use isn’t a very big deal in California and in Burlingame. It absolutely is. But residential use–and additional higher-density housing in Burlingame–is a small part of the picture that will make very little difference even in the city’s overall use.
    By all means, manage water, and manage growth, but more housing isn’t the big strain on water.

  6. Barking Dog

    https://sbuss.substack.com/p/does-california-have-enough-water

  7. Joni Mitchell

    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel, a boutique
    And a swinging hot spot
    Don’t it always seem to go
    That you don’t know what you’ve got
    Till it’s gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    They took all the trees
    Put ’em in a tree museum
    And they charged the people
    A dollar and a half just to see ’em
    Don’t it always seem to go
    That you don’t know what you’ve got
    Till it’s gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot

  8. MBGA

    Updated version of Joni’s song


  9. Joe

    It’s funny how some people can’t see the forest for the trees. If the per capita use (gpcd) goes down, but the overall use goes up (by the estimated 35% over the next 20 years) and the zoning changes to send the total usage even higher, then “Houston, we have a problem”. Watering flora some of which feeds fauna is not “discretionary” or “wasteful”.
    One would have to be a development addict with some vested interest to look at the chart above and not think we have a problem that needs immediate action–much more so than sea-level rise or “affordable housing”. Marin County is now looking at a pause in new water hook-ups. Their water sources are more limited than ours, but does anyone think SFPUC won’t be pressured into helping Marin out if it gets really bad? Just because we are below a state-wide gpcd average doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be taking action. If that were the case, I can think of a dozen things being forced on us that should not be forced on us.
    How about a pause on new commercial building first since that is a driver of residential demand. That is seeing the trees for the forest.

  10. hollyroller@gmail.com

    Is this event worse than the 1970’s?

  11. Joe

    I was reminded of this piece from the Comicle on May 14th that I did not post last month. Herrera is moving over to the SFPUC! If we don’t have a residential-commerical usage problem (@Just Visiting), then why is the city suing the state? Not much Ag in EssEff.
    The city of San Francisco is reviving a long-simmering feud with the state over water, filing a lawsuit Friday that charges state regulators with trying to take away the city’s coveted Sierra Nevada water supplies.
    The suit claims the state water board is demanding the city forfeit too much water from the Tuolumne River as part of a licensing deal for two dams in the faraway basin. State regulators have said the water is needed to maintain proper river flows and support struggling salmon, but city officials contend the demands would leave Bay Area residents and businesses vulnerable to water shortages.
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/drought/article/San-Francisco-sues-state-over-bid-to-restrict-its-16178329.php

  12. Joe

    For the forest-for-the-trees file from the DJ:
    The city is updating its urban water management plan, which is a long-term water resource planning document, to ensure that the city has adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demand, Jennifer Lee, environmental regulatory compliance manager for the city of Burlingame, said.
    The plan outlines steps for the city to take when the City Council declares a water shortage emergency. The water shortage contingency plan details temporary water conservation measures that the city would implement at various shortage levels. An example includes limiting outdoor watering to two days a week during a drought.
    Lee and Public Works Director Syed Murtuza addressed the councilmembers’ concerns about ticketing by reassuring that they would reach out to the community like they did during the last drought to get compliance with the water conservation rules.
    Councilmember Michael Brownrigg also brought up concerns including the restriction that it would be made illegal to irrigate within 24 hours of rainfall. Murtuza said he was open to a different number than 24 hours and that the idea was to discourage people from irrigating their lawn after a day of rainfall.
    ————————
    We are at least 5 months away from even modest rainfall……
    ————————
    The total set of rules include: using a positive shut-off nozzle on a hose, not using water for operating water features such as fountains, not watering lawns after 24 hours of rainfall, not using water to street medians containing ornamental turf, not using broken or defective plumbing, sprinkler, water or irrigation systems, not using water in new, added, or altered car wash equipment, having hotels and motels making it optional to choose not to have towels and linens laundered daily, and not taking water from any fire hydrant or any unmetered city water system.
    https://bit.ly/3gZqrEY
    All of these restrictions are a drop-in-the-bucket compared to adding 50-100 ADUs, 1,200+ new condos and whatever commercial development can pencil out at the Bayfront. Just sayin’

  13. Paloma Ave

    Joe – How dare you try to introduce common sense!
    How about a total ban on any new construction? The ban would only be lifted when a designated and reliable source of water could be found and procured. (There Billy – I have provided a solution).

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading