Editor:

Regarding your February 2026 article concerning the Emergency Firefighting Water Supply System (EFWSS):

The west side of SF requires attention to fire risk. Another bond will accomplish nothing, or worse. There are better approaches.

The June $535 million bond would allocate only $130 million for the EFWSS. Three prior bonds dating back to 2010 have allocated $308 million. Thus far, no significant EFWSS components exist.

The plan to draw water from the Sunset Reservoir and Lake Merced is inherently faulty. A major earthquake will rupture the Hetch-Hetchy pipeline serving Sunset Reservoir, and that source is already required for many other emergency needs. Lake Merced water is not potable and introducing it into the potable EFWSS water lines will contaminate users’ water for months.

EFWSS would cost well over $1 billion. Estimates already increased from $15 million/mile to $42 million/mile, and there is no funding source. An earthquake could easily destroy it, and its complexity presents many failure opportunities. Fire response time is the critical factor, and EFWSS still requires extensive over-ground pumping.

I live here and urgently care about emergency preparedness, and it has nothing to do with constructing an expensive, time-consuming, disruptive and inherently faulty EFWSS.

As a first step, consider that natural gas leaks cause almost all fires. The best solution is for gas lines to have automatic electronic shut-off valves. Where possible, buildings should install earthquake automatic shut-off valves.

Immediate, much less costly, and effective EFWSS alternatives:

1. Trucks to pump sea water through a laid-on-ground hose system to other trucks to reach any fires: estimated cost of $100 million for trucks and hoses to cover the west side.

2. Equipment to deliver fire-suppressing carbon dioxide, powder or foam to extinguish fires without water, which can be added to fire trucks through auxiliary equipment and with the addition of trucks carrying such materials. Estimated cost: $40 million, and the cost of suppression materials.

3. Large drones that can accurately apply CO2, powder or foam, resupplied on site. Estimated cost: $8 million for 100 drones, and the cost of suppression materials (such devices are available now, and are also constantly improving).

Jason Jungreis