For Climate Change, things like that, that we have to take into account. As we deal with those things, we need to deal with those in updates what Conservation Programs do we have in place to make sure that were efficiently using the supply. Then theft lay, we have to have a water shortage timcy plan in there, which is our potential in times of a drought. Thats an obligation of all water suppliers in california to demonstrate we thought ahead to Drought Conditions and have a contingency plan for that. And so our current water urban Management Plan has one of those. And it will be updated as part of the next update, which is in 2020. Thats the basics of the urban water Management Planning act, which ubiquitous throughout california. Everyone has to do it, to demonstrate theyre thinking ahead in concert with the local Planning Agency on how to deal with Water Supplies in the future. Next, thats the guidance document that summarizes the Conservation Program that will take place over the next five years, when we do the plan. Its specific measures to be implemented. The estimated water savings costs and effects on demand. It explains factors that shapes the criteria used to evaluate measures. So, for example, in San Francisco we emphasize fixture replacement. Because thats what we found to be the most efficient thing to do to achieve water savings here, for many of our customers outside of San Francisco, they would really focus on more water efficient irrigation, because thats the single biggest use out there, that is actually been reduced a lot of our time. I think as you saw from presentation that nicole made at the last meeting, where they reduced their water demands over time substantially. And just heres a measure of the youve seen similar graphs before. Weve had a steady decline in the perperson, perday. Were now down to actually this is the blue bars are the gross level, which were down to about 80 gallons per person per day. Thats basically total system total demand in San Francisco, divided by the population of San Francisco. And then the lower, grayer bars that are shown there, those are the residential gallons per person, per day. So that you see the residential use is down right now. Its down to about 41 gallons per person per day among the lowest in the state. So weve had the steady decline, while population has increased. But we expect population to increase more and so were probably getting to diminishing returns on how low people can go, while as we increase population and jobs, overall water use is starting to tick up in our future projections. So what is the water supply assessment . This is also required by state law. And it documents retail supplies, demands and demands of the proposed project, because this is the projectbased document. And references the most recent urban water Management Plan to cover what the setting is. If determines if water supply is proposed for the project. And that is the Planning Department. So the document that we prepare is included in the record and utilized by the Planning Department. Emphasize for this commission an approval of the p. W. S. A. Is not an approval of the proposed project. Its essentially a legal requirement. We have to provide that information to the Planning Department, so that they can then make a decision on the project overall. So the project require a water supply assessment. I wont go into the details here. But basically relatively large residential developments, shopping centers, Office Buildings, hotels, motels, industrial facilities, 500 dwelling units. So its basically its a large project document. Its not looking at like a threeunit condo or Something Like that. We, of course, see many of those in San Francisco, with a lot of the redevelopment going on. Now weve had to make some changes. What we do in our water supply assessments, based on the bay delta Water Quality control plan, back in december of 2018. Thats put us into a challenging situation, where theres uncertainty about the future and weve got to deal with that. So we had to deal with that for projects in the last round. We analyzed three supply scenarios. One is the status quo, where basically its out of the same analysis as before, just using the 2015 urban water Management Plan. Second would be voluntary agreement. Qualitative analysis about that, because as we talked about, we have a voluntary agreement that would require less water to be released to the river, that has a lesser impact on the water supply. We think would have better overall benefits. But thats still under review, as i mentioned earlier, thats got an uncertain future. Then the last would be the bay delta plan amendment, which we have indicated would cause this to have to go to higher levels of rationing, up to 40 , 50 rationing in times of drought. So all of those are possible scenarios of the future. And we dont know which one actually will come to fruition. So we have also assume the same total retail demand projection, as those in the 2015 urban water Management Plan for all of those scenarios. And we reference our level of service goal, which is no more than 20 systemwide rationing during dry years, at a given demand. And then weve also identified additional water supply proms in there, as weve talked about here. Were beginning planning for additional water supply projects, because regardless of which future we face, we do need to develop additional Water Supplies. So we need to be moving forward on that. We also for the large projects require use of our nonpotable water calculator to estimate the proposed potable and nonpotable demands. Thats basically a formula on how to determine what the demands of the project are. We estimate the level of rationing to be imposed in the proposed project on the severe drought. And we reiterated that the proposed project does not cause the overall shortfall. That that is a collective thing and thats where we are now. And weve talked about this at Prior Commission meetings, where the projects were looking at now, have to reuse their wastewater in some ways. Part of the nonpotable ordinance. So their demands definitely are less, because they have that in combination with the most water efficient fixtures. These are the most low waterdemanding folks in the city. So thats the overall, the legal requirements of what we have to do. We have to provide the urban water Management Plan, individual project water supply assessments to the Planning Department for dealing with the review of major projects. Now im going to move on to how we actually plan for our water supply, because that enters into how the water supply assessment is developed. And i will start with 1991, when it was certainly deep into a drought at that point. And again our system is storagedependent. We dont have the first rights to the river. So how much water we can store is whats important to us. And our water supply is driven by Drought Conditions. Theres plenty of water in normal years and wet years. But extended droughts are where we have a big challenge. So the level of service objective, that was adopted in 2008 for attar for water supply, basically making it a through an eight and a half year planning scenario, 1997 with no more than 20 rationing at a total system demand of 265 million gallons per day. That 265 million gallons per day is the 184 million gallons per day, that we are obligated to make available for our customers, and 81 million gallons per day for San Francisco as an allocation. So this graph shows how the design drought works. In this case, the demand of 265 million gallons per day. Ill show one later thats about 223 million gallons per day. Weve done this at different demand levels. Basically whats on the left access is the total system storage, and on the bottom you see 86 through 87 fiscal year, all the way out to 92 and switches to 76, 77 and 7778. What you see here, during that time that drought exists, you see, you know, declining levels of storage, as it continues over time. And this assumes that we go to 10 rationing at the end of the second year of the drought. And to 20 rationing at the end of the fourth year of the drought. And because we dont have enough water currently to meet the 265 demand, we also would have to go to 25 rationing in the six and a half years of the drought. Now this is a planning scenario. This is not an operating scenario. So we use these numbers as guidance. This is where youd have to tick off these increasing levels of rationing. Because what happens at the very end is we get to whats called dead pool. That means theres only water left, you cant get out of the reservoir. That basically zero. I know one person who wouldnt have a job if we got our levels to zero, that would be me. You might be [laughter] youd be first. Yeah. Id be first. So what we show here is that probably about three years before the end, and really depends, were always doing some water supply planning. But we would have to start to take some Emergency Action when we get to in sight of what we get to zero. Because we cant get to zero and then just wish we had some water. You know, there needs to be something in place. Whether its a transfer or some additional storage or we hope for rain, but you cant just hope to rain. We have to plan for it. Thats why i had that notation there, that we would have to start some Emergency Action at that point in time, otherwise we run the risk of running out of water. Wait. Can i stop you there. Sure. I think im finally understanding this a little bit. So this is the eight and a half year design drought scenario. Yes. Which weve seen, according some people, once in the last 1200 years, according to the tree rings, whatever it is. Right. Thats what this was based on was that one period of drought, that was pretty scary. Yeah. That we were planning for. So i just want to be clear. Thats why we have eight and a half. Y , the 86 through 92 was the drought experienced when we decided to go this direction and this was developed actually during the last licensing process. This was a process in the 19941995 range that commissioner moran participate indeed, we were talking about how do we plan for the future water supply, given we had the very stair scary experience. I understand. We used somewhat of the outlier experience, the extreme experience. The conservative model. Right. I dont know. With Climate Change i know, i know. All of the outlier, i know. It is extreme. But that is the challenge we have is if we look back, we can say, oh, yeah it might happen once in a while. Looking forward, potentially scary future. Right. Right. I get it. The other question is on the 265. Because youre saying that we would have to go into water supply Emergency Action. But we we havent come close to our 265 yet. Oh, yes. And i know we have a responsibility, on obligation, contractual obligation to deliver. But we havent come close to that number, right. Thats correct. I dont quite understand why we would have to go into water supply Emergency Action, its not needbased. This is assuming were at a demand of 265. This is all built around the presumption that youre at that demand, starting here, and these are the levels you have to get to to be able to survive. And if you get to that point and nothing has changed, then you better get on your horse at that point. The next slide actually will show a demand of 223 million gallons per day, which is much closer to where we are right now. Right. Okay. I just wanted to kind of really understand that. Yeah. I think that i think you do understand that that way. This is a projected scenario. Its not our current scenario at all. Okay. Great. So here were looking at and i put this slide together to kind of talk through some different thoughts on this. This is rationing through the design drought, if the bay delta plan is in effect. So when nour case, what weve looked at there is we have to actually start rationing more deeply earlier. So that you end up, after the first year, have for ration at a level of 40 and after the fourth year, you have to ration at a level of 50 to be able to survive, if it extends that full eight and a half years. And, of course, you know, i did that in here. You hit the emergency button. Usually thats, you know, probably three, maybe four years before the end of a drought. But you better have something lined up, because you cant get to zero. Now i use this for comparison with what the river trust has suggested, that we should just use the 86 or 92 drought and theyve shown a chart on this. I wanted to show what theyre basically projecting, which is, you know, they say you can make through 86 through 92 with 10 and 20 rationing two, four years into the drought. The problem is their analysis ends with zero water at the end. Again if the next year is dry, you know, youre up a dry creek with no paddle and no boat, no nothing. Thats the strug we have in looking at how to plan for the future is how far to go out there and weve settled on this one design drought as something, because were so storagedriven, it is protective for us. Sorry. Quick question. What is t. R. T. Again . River trust. Thats where they have put up basically a table that shows, see, you get to the end of this and a little bit of water level. I said lets look at the next line. And see what happens there. So at the same time we know we have to develop Water Supplies for a lot of different reasons. Will there be demand increases because of the planned bay area projections. Knowing that all of these projects will take time to develop. Were really looking at a variety of projects in the Tuolumne River area, doing things in conjunction with our partners there, the irrigation district, trying to develop additional supplies. Also within the region were looking at various recycled water projects and looking at potential reservoir expansion and again at cal riveras where we can store water from really wet years, but then would go and be stored there in dry years so rely on that water in dry years. We also are looking at local water supply projects, purified water on the east side and satellite facility to serve dualplumed Office Buildings there. Again we plan for a future, were concerned about the effects of the regulation on our water supply. So regardless of what future comes along, though, weve begun the process of planning for additional Water Supplies. And thats the sum and substance of what ill be saying to the Planning Department and engaging in a dialogue with them. Happy to answer any questions. Im trying to think of my question. This presentation came about in large measure because of the rash of water supply assessments that we processed earlier this year. That being one part of our reality. It is absent something on adopting that or replacing it as scheduled to go into effect over the next few years. I guess the message and i think your presentation covers it all. As far as the key takeaway messages, that i would hope are conveyed to the commission, is that, number one, the planning scenario that we use, were accused of, is having a planning scenario which is arbitrary. That we just kind of pick a number out of there. And what we have responded to is saying not arbitrary, it is a judgment based on experience. And i think that thats you know, one message that should get through. Second is that we have water supply challenges with or without the state boards order. Thats correct. And that is going to require us to pursue a variety of water supply projects that require our funding and Planning Commission approval, so they can expect, even under the most favorable circumstances to see us come forward with proposals for water supply projects. Then the third is that the challenge presented by the state boards plan is significant. And that we havent done anything predecisional in saying this is what were going to do about it. But the discussion that this commission has clearly been, we need to prevent the 50 curtailment is not okay. And that we are acutely aware of that. And that if we are not able to get the voluntary agreements approved and in place, that we will have that those water supply needs will be far more acute and pursuing aggressively with the Planning Commissions approval as well. I guess those are the big takeways. And the thing that is hardest i think to grapple with is what 265 means and what it represents. And im glad that you included the graph that showed todays demand levels. The 223 or so i think thats important. The 265 is something that were not currently projecting to reach, within i guess even by 2045. Getting close. But i dont think we actually get there. But that that remains an obligation that we have for our wholesale customers and for our own city, as we provide for the longterm health and economic stability of the city. So that that number is real and is important. Its a little hard to talk about. Yes. So practice. [laughter] but thats a point that needs to be made. Yeah. And im not sure what Planning Department staff will be what comments theyll be making there. But i would hope that they would speak to the plan bay area, that theyre plan on basically bringing forward a new version of that to the Planning Commission sometime in the next few months. And all reports are the numbers are going to be bigger for population and jobs. And i think i mentioned previously that in the 2001 2010 urban water Mana