Grand jury report blames San Francisco for inadequate climate threat planning

As climate change unleashes increasingly powerful storms, worsening flooding and rising sea levels, San Francisco remains woefully unprepared for flooding, a civil grand jury determined in a report this week.

The critical assessment — written by 19 San Franciscans selected by the Supreme Court — found that the city and county lacked a comprehensive financing plan for climate adaptation and that existing sewer systems cannot handle worsening flooding. Among other concerns, the report also concluded that efforts to make improvements have been hampered by agency silos and a lack of transparency.

Volunteer jurors serve for one year and are tasked with investigating city and county government by reviewing documents and interviewing public officials, experts and private individuals. Juror Michael Carboy said it made sense to consider climate-related flooding because San Francisco is a “peninsula surrounded by water on three sides — and some would argue four sides, because the water is coming from below.” .

“There are several hundred thousand people here, and at least 24,000 people, who are very much at risk of being born from both sea level rise and the consequences of extreme rainfall that fulfills the reality of a combined sewer system that was designed 40 or 50 years ago,” Carboy said. “We’re all going to get our feet wet.”

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

The report, titled “Come Hell or High Water: Flood Management in a Changing Climate,” focused on several city and county agencies, including ClimateSF, which was created by the mayor’s office in 2021 to bring together The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the departments of planning and environment, and the office of resiliency and capital planning in an effort to coordinate and oversee climate resilience projects.

But the jury found that ClimateSF was better designed for planning, not implementation – and that it was struggling to deliver projects. The report highlighted a lack of coordination between departments, absences from high-level meetings and non-publicity of annual reviews among its issues.

“Now that we’re actively thinking about spending money on projects, the existing information sharing platform is no longer the right platform,” said Carboy, a 29-year-old San Francisco resident. “There is no proper governance model. There are not the right seniors working together as peers… There is no coordination at the highest levels regarding planning, definitions of desired outcomes and what victory looks like in this case.”

A woman crosses a street in San Francisco’s Chinatown after a storm in January 2023.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez/Associated Press)

In a statement, San Francisco city and county officials said they appreciate the civil grand jury’s work and will closely review its recommendations before formally responding to the report within 60 days.

“To meet our climate targets, climate resilience must be embedded in the work of every department,” the statement said. “ClimateSF brings together city departments to coordinate climate initiatives that reduce San Francisco’s climate risks and prepare the city to survive, adapt and recover from climate risks. The interagency coordination, planning and strategic investments that ClimateSF facilitates are critical to meeting our climate goals.”

The 71-page report outlines other troubling issues, including the fact that San Francisco lacks a plan to collect the costs of climate adaptation and that it pays for avoidable costs, such as compensating for flood damage claims that may be received from underwriting the insurance.

While the jury is precluded from commenting on items beyond the scope of the report, the findings should speak for themselves, said Jonathan Cowperthwait, a Bay Area native and another member of the jury.

“This is not just a problem of governance and information sharing,” he said. “I would encourage any citizen reading the report to remember the storms in recent memory that have led to knee-deep water.

Less than two years ago, California was hit by a relentless series of atmospheric rivers. The storms caused extensive damage from flooding, landslides, downed trees and power outages in Monterey County, Santa Cruz and the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as at least 22 deaths across the state. More rain and snow hit the region this winter.

Traffic moves along the Golden Gate Bridge as pedestrians carry umbrellas on a path to the Golden Gate Overlook during a March 2023 storm.

(Jeff Chiu/Associated Press)

San Francisco’s Climate Hazards and Resilience Plan, released in 2020, identified 23,700 residents at risk of inland water flooding, or 2.7% of the city’s population. But increased warming driven by climate change will bring more extreme rainfall and put even more people at risk, the jury’s report said.

He also noted that sea levels along the West Coast of the United States are projected to rise 4 to 8 inches by 2050, and possibly more than 3.5 feet by 2100. The rise will cause wave heights and storms to grow and reach further inland, with “moderate” (usually damaging) flooding expected to occur on average 10 times more often than today, he said.

Carboy said the projections underscore the need for San Francisco politicians and leaders “to be honest with the city about what it will cost to protect and defend the city with climate resilience and climate mitigation investments.”

“We have to do this, otherwise we will destroy the business areas. We’re going to destroy neighborhoods from all areas of the economic sphere — from well-heeled neighborhoods to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods,” he said. “So it’s in our collective interest to realize how big the problem is, not pretend it’s not a problem, and start taking planning action to do so.”

Finances were a key part of the report. According to the report, climate resilience projects are not easily identifiable in the city’s accounting, which is hindering management and audits.

Additionally, the grand jury found that self-imposed restrictions on debt financing were preventing San Francisco from financing essential adaptation projects.

For example, the policy dictates that some annual budgets approved by the Board of Supervisors limit the use of general obligation debt so as not to raise property owner tax rates above fiscal 2006 levels. Projections show that the city’s ability to issuing additional general obligation debt will be prevented by this limitation as early as 2028 – not even counting the billions that will need to be spent on seawall projects and sewer system improvements. “As you can clearly see, we’re at maximum debt capacity in 2028, and that’s before we spend on some of these projects,” Carboy said.

But city officials said San Francisco has been and continues to be a nationwide leader in climate resilience — making strides in managing flooding, sea-level rise and extreme heat and precipitation.

Since ClimateSF’s inception, the city has moved forward with the implementation of the Federal Emergency Management’s Flood Mapping Assurance Program and launched a heat and air quality resiliency plan, sea level rise guidelines, an action plan on climate and studies on extreme precipitation and groundwater, the city said. in her answer.

Officials also noted specific projects under development, such as the Ocean Beach Climate Adaptation Project. Ocean Beach, adjacent to Golden Gate Park, has experienced significant erosion in recent years, and the project outlines a managed retreat strategy that includes the construction of a buried seawall to protect key infrastructure and improve coastal access and recreation. The project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.

Other projects include the Islais Creek Movement and Adaptation Strategy, which will help protect the low-lying district from worsening flood risks, and the Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Adaptation Plan, which aims to address inequities in adaptation planning climate in the coastal area.

“It is clear that city departments share the goal of making San Francisco safer and more resilient to the impacts of climate change,” city officials said. “We recently hired a new program manager for ClimateSF and will continue to work on breaking down departmental silos and facilitating interagency collaboration on climate initiatives.”

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission similarly noted a variety of capital project investments that will help reduce flood risk in low-lying neighborhoods, improve wastewater infrastructure and increase water capture capabilities. of the storm. Since 2019, the Green Infrastructure Grant Program has awarded 20 properties a total of $20 million for projects that will divert nearly 13 million gallons of stormwater from the collection system each year – or enough to fill more than 19 Olympic-sized swimming pools, the agency. officials said.

“When it comes to infrastructure, we took a fresh look at our entire capital plan through a climate lens,” said John Coté, director of communications. “Nearly every capital project in the latest iteration of the SFPUC’s 10-year plan is either a result of climate change or seeks to prepare our systems for the worsening impacts of climate change.”

The Commission’s plan includes $11.8 billion in infrastructure investment over the next decade, he said.

Cowperthwait said the civil grand jury cannot make policy, only recommendations.

Among the recommendations outlined in the report are greater transparency around resilience projects; a rethinking of debt ceiling restrictions; creation of annual public reports summarizing the status of projects; and developing a cross-departmental financial plan to convey the projected costs and potential sources of funding for climate change resilience.

However, Cowperthwait said the city was cooperative and helpful throughout the process of creating the report.

“Everyone we talked to was interested in helping to explain and ultimately helping to improve,” he said.

Carboy agreed.

“The city’s goal is to improve,” he said. “It’s kind of like that HOW to make them move toward improvement.”