474 



(4) Inadequate public access. — Loss of public access to the bay is a 

 serious problem. Public access is now extremely inadequate and will 

 become even more serious in the future. Of the 276 miles of San Fran- 

 cisco shoreline, scarcely 4 miles form the boundaries of waterside 

 parks. 



(5) Population and pollution problems. — The heart of the San 

 Francisco Bay planning problem is people and more people. The pop- 

 ulation of this area will grow but the bay cannot. 



Historically, California and the bay area have experienced a much 

 faster rate of population growth than the rest of the Nation, because 

 so many people have migrated to California from elsewhere in the 

 United States. The Association of Bay Area Governments' projections 

 assume these migrations will gradually decline over the coming decade. 

 The estimates assume that in about 50 years almost as many people will 

 be leaving California every year as will be moving into the State; the 

 U.S. Census Bureau studies have found that the rate of intrastate 

 migration is slowing down and the Bureau expects an eventual "state 

 of equilibrium." 



The population of the bay area, the delta, and the Central Valley, 

 whose rivers and streams feed into the delta and bay, is about 6 million 

 now and will increase more than 31/2 times by the year 2020. The 16 

 million new residents will require tremendous supplies of water — and 

 they will produce even larger quantities of wastes. 



There is as yet no detailed prediction of the expected increase in 

 liquid wastes. The U.S. Public Health Service indicated in 1963 that 

 the volume of effluent discharged into the bay would increase to per- 

 haps 1,100 million gallons per day by 1990 and to more than 1,700 mil- 

 lion gallons daily by 2015. 



(6) Agricultural wastes. — The Federal Water Pollution Control 

 Administration has completed a study of the effects of the proposed 

 San Joaquin master drain on the bay. The study concluded that the 

 proposed drain, which would carry agricultural wastes from the Cen- 

 tral Valley to an outfall near Aatioch, would have a significantly 

 harmful effect on the waters of the bay and delta, adversely affecting 

 fishing, recreation, and esthetic values. 



This harm would come primarily from nutrients the drain would 

 deposit in the bay ; the nutrients would stimulate the growth of large 

 quantities of algae and other aquatic plants. The FWPCA study also 

 concluded, how^ever, that these detrimental effects would be minimized 

 by treatment of waste waters; therefore, the FWPCA reconunended 

 that no discharge from the drain be permitted for at least 5 years, 

 that is until 1972, so that pilot treatment facilities can be built and 

 tested. 



Interestingly, the FWPCA study also concluded that the drain, as 

 presently planned, would not increase the jDresent pesticide content 

 of the bay and delta, principally because most pesticides are absorbed 

 or decomposed as they pass through the soil of farmlands, while the 

 drain would collect subsurface waters. 



The pressures on San Francisco Bay area are very similar to those 

 of Chesapeake Bay. Population pressures are present and these people 

 look to the bay as a source for water supply, transportation, recrea- 

 tion, and waste disposal. Dredging and filling are present to the extent 



