‘Come Hell or High Water’: SF grand jury tells city to harmonize its climate resilience plans

The city agencies that are building San Francisco’s climate resilience are doing good work, but they are not sufficiently coordinating with each other and are shy with the public about the inevitable costs, according to a civil grand jury report released this week.

A civil grand jury is an oversight panel of 19 citizen volunteers that investigate county governmental issues and concerns. 

The jury’s report, released Tuesday and entitled “Come Hell or High Water: Flood Management in a Changing Climate,” found weaknesses in coordination between different city departments. The jury found no aggregate account of spending on climate resilience projects, vague plans for funding future projects, and little public outreach and communication about the city’s climate adaptation strategies.

Opening the report are data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about the fate of San Francisco.

“Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland,” the report reads. “By 2050, ‘moderate’ (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today and can be intensified by local factors.”

In 2020, the city’s own study identified 23,700 San Francisco residents at risk of inland stormwater flooding, or 2.7% of the city’s population, with impacts that will increase over time. 

In 2021, the San Francisco Mayor’s Office created the Climate Resilience Program, also known as ClimateSF, to oversee the issue. A program manager was hired to coordinate between all of the different departments that are charged with prepping the city for worsening weather and sea level rise — the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Port, the city’s Planning Department, its Environment Department and its Office of Resilience and Capital Planning. 

But the program manager’s position was defunded in 2023, the jury found. The report also said progress has been hampered by siloed agencies and a lack of transparency. 

Angela Yip with the City Administrator’s Office said those problems have been fixed.

“We recently hired a new program manager for ClimateSF, and we will continue to work on breaking down department silos and facilitating interagency collaboration on climate initiatives,” Yip said in an email.

Nevertheless, since ClimateSF launched in 2021, the city has moved forward with multiple projects, including an online data map where residents can insert their address to learn if they are in a flood risk area, and find access to flood insurance programs. 

The jury found no citywide plan to pay the construction costs of adaptative infrastructure projects, like building up the bay front. They found the city pays for avoidable costs, such as compensating claims for flood damage that might be covered by insurance. They found no clear plan to address the social impact that funding the infrastructure projects will have on property tax rates or increased service rates on items like utilities, transportation and airport fees.

The city is raising money through bond measures — one from 2018 and more scheduled for elections in 2028 and 2032.

A plan to protect the city’s waterfront from coastal flooding was published in January by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of San Francisco. It’s a draft for adapting 7.5 miles of the city’s bay waterfront to adapt to sea level rise. If the plan is approved by Congress, Yip said, it could bring in billions of dollars of federal funding to defend the shoreline against coastal flood risks.

“Combined, the bond packages amount to less than $1 billion,” the jury said. “But the state and city’s projected share of the $21 billion waterfront plan alone exceeds $7 billion.”

The jury’s report also said that the city’s wastewater system could not manage a huge torrential rain.

“Without the capacity to convey, store, or discharge the amount of stormwater in question, the SFPUC predicted inland flooding from a three-hour storm event that delivered 1.3 inches of rain,” the report says. 

‘Misunderstood’ stormwater systems

John Cote, spokesperson for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, said the city’s stormwater sewer system is misunderstood.

“In other cities across the bay, when it rains, urban storm runoff picks up trash and contaminants as it flows untreated into San Francisco Bay and other bodies of water. San Francisco, however, doesn’t do that.” Cote said. 

San Francisco is served by a combined sewer system. 

“This combined system provides greater environmental benefits because it captures and treats most stormwater to the same high standards that apply to wastewater from homes and businesses before releasing it to the Bay or ocean,” said Cote.

“Some extreme storms can stress the capacity of the system, requiring partially treated discharges through designated outfalls along the ocean or Bay. These discharges are authorized by our Environmental Protection Agency and regional water board permits,” he said.

The jury recommended that the city publish a public annual climate adaptation report. They suggested that the city controller add a climate code to budget expenditures so aggregate costs could be monitored. They also suggested that the city and supervisors think seriously about limits on bond financing and debt limits, as well as have all the coordinating departments sign a memorandum of agreement to determine responsibilities and powers. The jury also suggested that the city’s Environment Department and Human Rights Commission engage in communities most likely to be impacted by climate change.

Civil grand juries in each of California’s counties investigate local governments to hold them accountable for working in the best interests of citizens. The city has 60 days to formally respond after the jury’s reports are published. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the controller’s office follow up on the city’s progress on recommendations over the next year. 

For a dashboard on the progress of the city’s climate resilience projects, visit onesanfrancisco.org. For a predictive flood map, visit sfplanninggis.org/floodmap.

The post ‘Come Hell or High Water’: SF grand jury tells city to harmonize its climate resilience plans appeared first on Local News Matters.