6 ms·

So, the infrastructure can handle double its current utilization? Aren’t the sewers in SF literally over a century old? No issues with adequate water supply a

So, the infrastructure can handle double its current utilization? Aren’t the sewers in SF literally over a century old? No issues with adequate water supply and sewage treatment?

jeffbee 6y ago
These are bad faith arguments and therefore you are either debating in bad faith, or a dupe. San Francisco's gross water demand has been falling consistently for the last 50 years. Not per-capita. Gross. In 1998 the demand was 82 million gallons per day and in 2019 it was 63 million, with a population 17% greater. The more people you pile into a city, the less demand there is, because grossly wasteful activities like washing cars and watering grass get squeezed out. The east bay's EBMUD service area has experienced the same trend: total water demand has plummeted since mid-century and now stands at its lowest point in history, despite the exploding population.
- frankfrankfrank 6y ago
  Not only is that very unnecessary strong language, but I find the types of squabbles around water rather unproductive. Sure, (referring to your other comment) one can see that efficient toilets have been productive in doing what they are supposed to do, but that also totally dismisses things like the fact that sewage systems designed/engineered in the past were created for specific flow rates that things like high efficiency toilets and faucets and generally low water usage have caused problems with. It also oddly erroneously equates water usage with some sort of negative thing in and of itself, akin to saying that rain is wasting water. It is not the use of water that is the problem, ignoring the rather minimal cost of things like moving the water, which is overwhelmingly a fixed, not variable cost. The real and only consequential problem is the contamination and pollution of water through things like significant quantities of soaps/surfactants, as well as almost unremovable harmful chemicals like birth control and other pharmaceuticals, preservatives from vehicle tires, and carcinogenic PFOA/PFOS that are now said to essentially be in EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET. I can assure you that pumping a million gallons of water out of a well and letting it seep back into the ground is not nearly as destructive and damaging as the emission of various hormones into the municipal water system by women simply going to the bathroom. In other words, if I were to use essentially nothing but moderate levels of natural surfactants, e.g., animal/plant fat produced soaps and did not take or use products created with "chemicals"; I could use tens of thousands of gallons of water per day and it would make no difference to the water cycle or availability. However, I could also use the amount and number of different destructive, polluting, toxic products that the average self-righteous person uses and I could pollute millions upon millions of gallons of water EVERY SINGLE DAY, all, while feeling self-righteous about my low water usage, while tossing new technology and plastic products produced by pumping tons of chemicals into Asian rivers. A lot of these things are about perspective. You would ask that you take a step back and reexamine whether you are actually rational and using the scientific method that requires the questioning and reexamination of all assumptions and facts, or if you are being militant and extreme, aka an activist.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    You seem to be speaking about a theoretical water system, or one that relies on an aquifer that can be considered infinitely capacious, and which recharges from its own wastewater, but that's not the situation in which the SFPUC finds itself. It has one source and it relies on rain and snow falling in one single particular place. Therefore SFPUC has to treat its supply as limited in a way that an aquifer system that's effectively a closed loop doesn't need to worry about. SF's wastewater does not recharge its water supply in any predictable way.
- centimeter 6y ago
  This is mostly from quality-of-life reductions, like inferior showers, toilets, washing machines, etc. You can only reduce quality of life so much.
  - bastawhiz 6y ago
    You're going to need to present some evidence for this, I think. I don't even know what an "inferior toilet" is. I've pooped in a lot of SF toilets and can assure you that they've all gotten the job done satisfactorily.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      This is a brief summary: https://www.aier.org/article/trump-is-right-american-toilets-faucets-and-showers-are-terrible/ https://www.aier.org/article/trump-is-right-american-toilets... TL;DR: Toilets clog more with lower GPF. Showers clean less effectively - you only need to go to a country with no "eco" pressure or flow rate limitations to notice this yourself. Washing machines and dishwashers perform poorly with low flow rate and no TSP. Basically any appliance that people complain about and have a bad time with is only that way because of environmental regulations. > I don't even know what an "inferior toilet" is That's because you're used to using garbage and you've never experienced anything better. Toilets are probably the least acute example, since they have mostly gotten them almost back up to their former reliability. Cleaning appliances, like showers and dishwashers, are the most acute.
      - bastawhiz 6y ago
        > That's because you're used to using garbage and you've never experienced anything better. I grew up in Pennsylvania for the first 21 years of my life, moved to SF for seven, and have lived in Chicago for 3. I've traveled pretty extensively. I can assure you I know how toilets, showers, sinks, washing machines, and dishwashers work. As someone with a breadth of life experience and full control of my faculties, I cannot say I've experienced any of the issues you describe. Do not make assumptions about my life experience. If _anything_ the worst issue I've experienced in some parts of SF is low water pressure, which has nothing to do with fixtures or appliances and everything to do with infrastructure.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  Now, that is half a response. You failed to address anything regarding wastewater treatment. 80 million gallons per day treated with no rain, but rain, it can be 500 gallons. So, will climate change put additional pressures on wastewater treatment as well? Also, has SF only recently had a handle on wastewater treatment? Was 1998 wastewater treatment capacity inadequate? Also, if you have historical data on wastewater metrics, I would like to take a peek.
- dang 6y ago
  Please make your points without personal swipes. Your comment would be fine without the first sentence—it's quite interesting. There was no need to spoil it with a personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
minitoar 6y ago
I think the implication is that you also enhance the infrastructure to support these apartments. Note that the population of SF increases by about 20% during the workday due to commuters.
jjoonathan 6y ago
Well, here's the thing: pipes can be built. Big pipes can replace small pipes. Plant capacity can be upgraded. Shocking, I know, but it's true.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  SF is so ossified that people don't even consider the possibility that infrastructure can be built...
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Which itself is probably part of the problem.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  So, rip up all the roads, start digging, and start upgrading? So, who pays for that? All the taxpayers, or the builders, or the potential new tenants?
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Modern construction is amazing and better than you would think at avoiding ripping up roads, but yeah, that's gonna have to happen too. Who pays for it? This is infrastructure 101 stuff. You want the people who use it to pay for it, so you finance it and have the new tenants pay for it.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Here's the thing: maintenance of existing infrastructure that serves existing residents is almost entirely paid for by astronomical "impact fees" paid by new developments. In the East Bay, 85% of EBMUD's maintenance (not capital!) budget is funded from impact fees. These can be really high. Any new dwelling in the East Bay pays a minimum of $26000 for water capacity and a minimum of $4100 for wastewater capacity. It's a big pyramid scheme and the existing residents better get a clue and permit some new construction, or the public utility districts are going to have to change their strategy and get all that money from annual assessments on existing properties.
Redoubts 6y ago
Truly a failed state
eloff 6y ago
The roads are the tougher part. But there's mass transit - not everyone needs to own or drive a car.
pratik661 6y ago
Some of them are from 1875 to be precise. I know because a section of Mission St collapsed when I was there. The causus belli was a decrepit sewage tunnel from the 1870s.
reaperducer 6y ago
Aren’t the sewers in SF literally over a century old? An entire city's entire sewer system isn't all built in one year. Real life isn't Sim City. There is constant maintenance and replacement. You don't have to be an urban planner to know this, you just have to look at the construction going on in your own neighborhood.

So, the infrastructure can handle double its current utilization? Aren’t the sewers in SF literally over a century old? No issues with adequate water supply and sewage treatment?

jeffbee 6y ago

These are bad faith arguments and therefore you are either debating in bad faith, or a dupe. San Francisco's gross water demand has been falling consistently for the last 50 years. Not per-capita. Gross. In 1998 the demand was 82 million gallons per day and in 2019 it was 63 million, with a population 17% greater. The more people you pile into a city, the less demand there is, because grossly wasteful activities like washing cars and watering grass get squeezed out. The east bay's EBMUD service area has experienced the same trend: total water demand has plummeted since mid-century and now stands at its lowest point in history, despite the exploding population.

frankfrankfrank 6y ago
Not only is that very unnecessary strong language, but I find the types of squabbles around water rather unproductive. Sure, (referring to your other comment) one can see that efficient toilets have been productive in doing what they are supposed to do, but that also totally dismisses things like the fact that sewage systems designed/engineered in the past were created for specific flow rates that things like high efficiency toilets and faucets and generally low water usage have caused problems with. It also oddly erroneously equates water usage with some sort of negative thing in and of itself, akin to saying that rain is wasting water. It is not the use of water that is the problem, ignoring the rather minimal cost of things like moving the water, which is overwhelmingly a fixed, not variable cost. The real and only consequential problem is the contamination and pollution of water through things like significant quantities of soaps/surfactants, as well as almost unremovable harmful chemicals like birth control and other pharmaceuticals, preservatives from vehicle tires, and carcinogenic PFOA/PFOS that are now said to essentially be in EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET. I can assure you that pumping a million gallons of water out of a well and letting it seep back into the ground is not nearly as destructive and damaging as the emission of various hormones into the municipal water system by women simply going to the bathroom. In other words, if I were to use essentially nothing but moderate levels of natural surfactants, e.g., animal/plant fat produced soaps and did not take or use products created with "chemicals"; I could use tens of thousands of gallons of water per day and it would make no difference to the water cycle or availability. However, I could also use the amount and number of different destructive, polluting, toxic products that the average self-righteous person uses and I could pollute millions upon millions of gallons of water EVERY SINGLE DAY, all, while feeling self-righteous about my low water usage, while tossing new technology and plastic products produced by pumping tons of chemicals into Asian rivers. A lot of these things are about perspective. You would ask that you take a step back and reexamine whether you are actually rational and using the scientific method that requires the questioning and reexamination of all assumptions and facts, or if you are being militant and extreme, aka an activist.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  You seem to be speaking about a theoretical water system, or one that relies on an aquifer that can be considered infinitely capacious, and which recharges from its own wastewater, but that's not the situation in which the SFPUC finds itself. It has one source and it relies on rain and snow falling in one single particular place. Therefore SFPUC has to treat its supply as limited in a way that an aquifer system that's effectively a closed loop doesn't need to worry about. SF's wastewater does not recharge its water supply in any predictable way.
centimeter 6y ago
This is mostly from quality-of-life reductions, like inferior showers, toilets, washing machines, etc. You can only reduce quality of life so much.
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  You're going to need to present some evidence for this, I think. I don't even know what an "inferior toilet" is. I've pooped in a lot of SF toilets and can assure you that they've all gotten the job done satisfactorily.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    This is a brief summary: https://www.aier.org/article/trump-is-right-american-toilets-faucets-and-showers-are-terrible/ https://www.aier.org/article/trump-is-right-american-toilets... TL;DR: Toilets clog more with lower GPF. Showers clean less effectively - you only need to go to a country with no "eco" pressure or flow rate limitations to notice this yourself. Washing machines and dishwashers perform poorly with low flow rate and no TSP. Basically any appliance that people complain about and have a bad time with is only that way because of environmental regulations. > I don't even know what an "inferior toilet" is That's because you're used to using garbage and you've never experienced anything better. Toilets are probably the least acute example, since they have mostly gotten them almost back up to their former reliability. Cleaning appliances, like showers and dishwashers, are the most acute.
    - bastawhiz 6y ago
      > That's because you're used to using garbage and you've never experienced anything better. I grew up in Pennsylvania for the first 21 years of my life, moved to SF for seven, and have lived in Chicago for 3. I've traveled pretty extensively. I can assure you I know how toilets, showers, sinks, washing machines, and dishwashers work. As someone with a breadth of life experience and full control of my faculties, I cannot say I've experienced any of the issues you describe. Do not make assumptions about my life experience. If _anything_ the worst issue I've experienced in some parts of SF is low water pressure, which has nothing to do with fixtures or appliances and everything to do with infrastructure.
daniellarusso 6y ago
Now, that is half a response. You failed to address anything regarding wastewater treatment. 80 million gallons per day treated with no rain, but rain, it can be 500 gallons. So, will climate change put additional pressures on wastewater treatment as well? Also, has SF only recently had a handle on wastewater treatment? Was 1998 wastewater treatment capacity inadequate? Also, if you have historical data on wastewater metrics, I would like to take a peek.
dang 6y ago
Please make your points without personal swipes. Your comment would be fine without the first sentence—it's quite interesting. There was no need to spoil it with a personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

minitoar 6y ago

I think the implication is that you also enhance the infrastructure to support these apartments. Note that the population of SF increases by about 20% during the workday due to commuters.

jjoonathan 6y ago

Well, here's the thing: pipes can be built. Big pipes can replace small pipes. Plant capacity can be upgraded. Shocking, I know, but it's true.

BurningFrog 6y ago
SF is so ossified that people don't even consider the possibility that infrastructure can be built...
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Which itself is probably part of the problem.
daniellarusso 6y ago
So, rip up all the roads, start digging, and start upgrading? So, who pays for that? All the taxpayers, or the builders, or the potential new tenants?
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Modern construction is amazing and better than you would think at avoiding ripping up roads, but yeah, that's gonna have to happen too. Who pays for it? This is infrastructure 101 stuff. You want the people who use it to pay for it, so you finance it and have the new tenants pay for it.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Here's the thing: maintenance of existing infrastructure that serves existing residents is almost entirely paid for by astronomical "impact fees" paid by new developments. In the East Bay, 85% of EBMUD's maintenance (not capital!) budget is funded from impact fees. These can be really high. Any new dwelling in the East Bay pays a minimum of $26000 for water capacity and a minimum of $4100 for wastewater capacity. It's a big pyramid scheme and the existing residents better get a clue and permit some new construction, or the public utility districts are going to have to change their strategy and get all that money from annual assessments on existing properties.

Redoubts 6y ago

Truly a failed state

eloff 6y ago

The roads are the tougher part. But there's mass transit - not everyone needs to own or drive a car.

pratik661 6y ago

Some of them are from 1875 to be precise. I know because a section of Mission St collapsed when I was there. The causus belli was a decrepit sewage tunnel from the 1870s.

reaperducer 6y ago

Aren’t the sewers in SF literally over a century old? An entire city's entire sewer system isn't all built in one year. Real life isn't Sim City. There is constant maintenance and replacement. You don't have to be an urban planner to know this, you just have to look at the construction going on in your own neighborhood.