A decision on the upper reservoir should be judged by what happens at the upper reservoir cut into the west face. The docket is at step 1 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: A new complaint or proposal has been entered under a dated docket. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
22 depth marks checked at dawn were entered this cycle, compared with 19 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is whether the city can retain a larger reserve without flooding the maintenance walk below.
The reserve proposal uses a recent high-water mark; older surveyors say the mark was taken before the spillway was cleared. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Tavi Orr checked the reservoir depth marks and the household release schedule against the field notes. The method is to trace a system from its control gate to the last household it is meant to serve; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The practical evidence is a narrow spillway whose lip sits one thumb above the older survey mark; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. The survey office will publish both measurements and their dates side by side. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
