HETCH HETCHY RESERVOIR: To drain or not to drain

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/13/5 | Glen Martin

[SmithL]

The debate over the proposal to breach the Sierra's O'Shaughnessy Dam, drain the reservoir behind it and restore Hetch Hetchy Valley to its former natural splendor is apt to intensify this summer with the release of a California Department of Water Resources study on the issue.

But preliminary comments from the agency indicate two things:

First, the restoration is technically possible without disrupting water supplies to San Francisco, Modesto and Turlock, the cities that are the beneficiaries of Hetch Hetchy water.

Second, it will cost a lot of money: From $4 billion to $8 billion, depending on whom you talk to.

"Regardless of what you do in terms of restoration, it will be expensive, " said Gary Bardini, the Hetch Hetchy project manager for the Department of Water Resources.

"People who want to restore the valley tend to pick the low end, and those against it favor the high end," said Larry Weis, the general manager of the Turlock Irrigation District. "So it might be wise to pick a figure in the middle."

For the Hetch Hetchy restoration true believers, Bardini said, "money isn't the issue, of course. The prospect of restoring the valley is what matters. But then there are going to be other people who say, 'Why make this investment when we already have a perfectly good (water delivery) infrastructure?' So it's hard to say how it will play out."

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We have lots of dams. I live at Lake of the Ozarks, created in 1930 by a hydroelectric dam built by a private utility. Above our lake is Truman Reservoir, built by the Corps of Engineers, also a hydro dam. Beyong that are two or three more.

[Carry_Okie]

He just sent one out today on District Judge James Redden's decision.

A travesty, as usual.

[DuncanWaring]

So, California, which is consistently short on water and power, is seriously thinking about spending Billions of dollars to get rid of both water and power?

Remember, they're consistently short of "Billions of dollars", also.

[bigfootbob]

True. We just contracted them last week to sue our county commissioners for thinking about expanding the Critical Areas Ordinance in my county to match the most egregious land theft county policy in the Nation, King County Washington's CAO.

We are very close to a revolution in this state, I've heard talk like that all of my 51 years, but it is beginning to get hugh and series here in the Soviet of Washington, and I'm not kidding.

[hmong]

I think some people are living in a dream. These pre-columbian dreams are just "romantisizing" a time period that can never be again. Environmentally concerned folks have to be realistic, humans will never go away. $$$ concerned folks have to realize that $$$ is not all there is. Selling our national treasures/life lines for $$$= more water, more food, more houses/ more $$ is not moral.

[BallandPowder]

Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE

Yeah we have dams. And lakes, and canals. And the confulence of the two largest watersheds in the united states at our front door. Check out a map. Irrigation is also very widely used in Missouri.

[HereInTheHeartland]

And where will the Bay area get it's drinking water?

[hmong]

Can't we figure that moving water to a place that didn't have water will miss up other areas. Look at the Owens lake and Mono lake problems, with LA stealing all of their water.

[bigfootbob]

He's a real asset that doesn't get the credit he deserves. He broke the story a few years ago about the Oregon's State Wildlife officials clubbing of endangered (yea, right), salmon that returned in high numbers. Can't have that now, can we, when we are telling property owners the fish are hurting so we need your property.

[hmong]

Thanks, Missouri folks. Didn't realize that.

[hmong]

There is tons of water in their front yard (Ocean). :)

[SisBoombah]

I have heard that San Francisco does not want to lose the dam and Hetch Hetchy water, because they receive more than they need and make money by selling the surplus. Anyone know if this is so?

[Carry_Okie]

Selling our national treasures/life lines for $$$= more water, more food, more houses/ more $$ is not moral.

Au contraire, collectivizing the care of nature into an armed government monopoly is what isn't moral. It destroys any prospect of private management, which doesn't survive by perpetuating problems as do government agencies.

See tagline.

[CSM]

"Selling our national treasures/life lines for $$$= more water, more food, more houses/ more $$ is not moral."

Actually, selling land and natural resources in the free market would be the best control you could hope for. Try reading "Applied Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

[Cicero]

This is why I'm strongly opposed to state-sponsored windmill farms. The environmentalists are nuts. First they spend billions on "clean" hydropower, and then they spend billions more tearing out the dams they pushed the taxpayers to build.

You know darned well that they would love to spend billions on windmills, and then spend billions more removing them and "restoring the landscape."

All with taxpayer dollars, naturally.

[PeterPrinciple]

Beavers don't destroy whole valleys

You've not seen hungry beavers work have you? They do a lot of destruction.

[Uncle Hal]

The liberals are truly insane. Maybe we do not need the water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir this year because it is a very wet year for CA. and the Sierras. But when the drought years come, which they most certainly will, we will need that water big time. The political correctness disease is truly dangerous to our health and other living things.

[Arthalion]

Don't you just love statements like this with absolutely no proof to back them up.

Actually there's plenty of proof and. if we had the money, removing the dam would actually be economically beneficial to the area. The dam removal proposal suggests raising the dam at Lake Don Pedro, which could result in a net increase of storage capacity. Raising the lake level would also allow the Don Pedro overflow dam to be converted into a second powerhouse, matching and possibly exceeding Hetch Hetchy's power output. Also, since the Hetch Hetchy water pipeline runs alongside Don Pedro anyway, connecting the drinking water supplies at that point would be trivial. All told, the dam removal proposal wouldn't eliminate ANY water or energy supplies, it would just relocate them from Yosemite National Park to the foothills downstream. Whether it's worth several billion dollars to achieve no major gain in either power generation or water storage is another discussion...we'd spend billions and essentially end up with what we already have.

Politically, it's another story. The Don Pedro Dam and reservoir are owned by Modesto and Turlock, while Hetch Hetchy is owned by San Francisco. San Francisco makes a nice profit from their power station, and they don't want to lose control of that revenue source in favor of a profit sharing agreement with the other two districts. It's that profit, not concerns about water availability, that motivates San Francisco to keep the dam.

[orionblamblam]

> California, which is consistently short on water and power

Bah. California is *not* short on water *or* power. It's got a freakin' OCEAN. If California can't be bothered to buld a few desalination plants, I can't be bothered to care about their predicament.

[HereInTheHeartland]

"There is tons of water in their front yard (Ocean). :)"

That's fairly hard to use without huge infrastructure investments.
Hetch Hetchy provides some of the best water in the country to San Francisco. Its there and working.
This seems to be just another scheme by those who want to rid the earth of human life.