HETCH HETCHY RESERVOIR: To drain or not to drain

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

[dljordan]

"They want us to live in caves."

I am intimately familiar with some of these nutbars as I used to belong to Earth First back in the early 80's. They want to return to a tribal existence where, they think, everything will be wonderful and they can all dance around the campfire at night. Unfortunately these gomers would be the first ones to be killed and eaten.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

They'd be eaten alive by mosquitoes in Minnesota.

[GladesGuru]

Outdoor recreational money never shows up. And the few jobs that are created are at the bottom of the pay scales.

Destruction of anything of value for enviro-esthetics is a very bad idea.

[Arthalion]

No one is going to make two trips to see two valleys next door to each other

Tell that to the thousands of day trippers who get turned away from the gates every year because the valley is full, or the hundreds of thousands of campers who are dissappointed every year because campsites in Yosemite Valley, which must be reserved in advance, typically book-out in under four hours when the reservation desk opens every February. Tell that to the thousands of visitors who, every weekend, sit for hours in long lines of traffic waiting to get into Yosemite Valley.

A second valley would add a tremendous amount of visitor capacity to the park by adding thousands of additional campsites and parking areas. It would also help to divide the traffic load by bringing many more visitors in through the underused Big Oak Flat entrance, shortening vehicle lines and bolstering the economy in one of Californias poorest areas.

[Arthalion]

Yosemite National Park is THE economic engine of the entire Central Sierra region, and Yosemite related tourism generates more income for this part of the state than logging, resource extraction, and power generation combined. We're talking billions of dollars here that support everything from the park itself, to the gas stations that fuel up the tourists, to countless motels, restaurants, and outfitters that cater to these visitors. Recreational profit may be a myth when you're talking about swamps in Florida, but not a gem like Yosemite.

As for whether it will bring in additional visitors, see my last post. Yosemite is probably the only park in the country that regularly turns visitors AWAY because it can't handle any more. Adding capacity by reclaiming Hetch Hetchy Valley would be a HUGE boon to the park and the area.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Tell that to the thousands of day trippers who get turned away from the gates every year because the valley is full, ...must be reserved in advance, typically book-out in under four hours...

---

Sounds like the government is grossly mismanaging the resource by underpricing it. If ordinary Americans willingly pay $50 per person for a day at Disneyland, why not the same for a far grander destination?

Raise prices until there are a few vacancies on most days.

[Arthalion]

If ordinary Americans willingly pay $50 per person for a day at Disneyland, why not the same for a far grander destination?

Probably because, as a national park, Yosemite is the property of the American public...ergo you and me. To charge us out the @$$ to use a resource that we already pay taxes to support is simply wrong.

We need more campsites and capacity, not higher prices on the ones we already have.

[w1andsodidwe]

Tell that to the thousands of day trippers who get turned away from the gates every year because the valley is full, or the hundreds of thousands of campers who are dissappointed every year because campsites in Yosemite Valley, which must be reserved in advance, typically book-out in under four hours when the reservation desk opens every February. Tell that to the thousands of visitors who, every weekend, sit for hours in long lines of traffic waiting to get into Yosemite Valley.

So my tax money should be spent to provide entertainment for the masses? I think that the real solution is to take the available land that he government already owns that is off limits to we that paid for it and sell it or allow it to be used.

The silly attachment to this one valley is just strange. I know it has been the environment rant ever since I have been in California, but get real. We keep making more land off limits to the people, also, because of demands by the environmentalists. Why do they want to open this piece of land to the masses? There is also much beauty in the lands that are off limits.

[Arthalion]

There is no land in the central High Sierra's that's "off limits", except the small chunk that sits beneath the waters of Hetch Hetchy. People are allowed into Yosemite until it gets full, then they close the gates and tell everyone else to go home.

As for your tax dollars being spent on "entertainment", billions of tax dollars are going to be spent retrofitting Hetch Hetchy anyway. The argument is simply that the money would be better spent building a new dam downstream and opening this valley back up, than it would be to refit this relatively small reservoir for another hundred years while denying its use to millions of yearly visitors.

The question is really this: San Fransisco wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to refit a dam that only benefits San Francisco and denies use of a spectacular national resource to the very taxpayers who both OWN the valley AND will fund a big chunk of the dam replacement costs. If we can provide the SAME storage and energy generation capacity DOWNSTREAM with a NEW dam for the SAME billions of dollars, AND provide the American public with restored access to this once-lost natural gem, then what practical reason is there for us NOT to do so?

[GladesGuru]

Part of the crowding is due to enviro-socialist management now widespread in the Department of the Inferior.

As for logging and mining - once again, the negative impact of enviro-socialism based regulatory restrictions are what first made logging and mining impossible, and then turned the USA from a finished lumber exporter to an exporter of raw logs.

And why should those who want to "recreate" in such places have the rest of the taxpayers paying for their amusements? Most of America will never go to such places and care less about them.

Note that due to the enviro-socialist GangGreen types, National Parks don't allow hunting; thus a large group of people don't get to use (or support) the places their tax monies pay for.

And might I ask where in the Constitution you find Federal authority to either create or own such Parklands?

While I appreciate that the InferiorPersons removed nearly all people from the 'Glades, I am not socialist enough to believe it was a good thing. If I wanted such a neighborhood, with so few neighbors, I feel I should have paid for it.

Though in my case, thanks to decades of malignant animosity on the part of agencies, I paid for it, and more.

[GladesGuru]

Part of the crowding is due to enviro-socialist management now widespread in the Department of the Inferior.

As for logging and mining - once again, the negative impact of enviro-socialism based regulatory restrictions are what first made logging and mining impossible, and then turned the USA from a finished lumber exporter to an exporter of raw logs.

And why should those who want to "recreate" in such places have the rest of the taxpayers paying for their amusements? Most of America will never go to such places and care less about them.

Note that due to the enviro-socialist GangGreen types, National Parks don't allow hunting; thus a large group of people don't get to use (or support) the places their tax monies pay for.

And might I ask where in the Constitution you find Federal authority to either create or own such Parklands?

While I appreciate that the InferiorPersons removed nearly all people from the 'Glades, I am not socialist enough to believe it was a good thing. If I wanted such a neighborhood, with so few neighbors, I feel I should have paid for it.

Though in my case, thanks to decades of malignant animosity on the part of agencies, I paid for it, and more.

[w1andsodidwe]

The argument is simply that the money would be better spent building a new dam downstream and opening this valley back up, than it would be to refit this relatively small reservoir for another hundred years while denying its use to millions of yearly visitors.

I imagine that the environmentalist will not allow such a dam to be built. Everyplace will suddenly become a new Yosemite that dare not be covered up. Hug the trees and damn the people.

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: 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.

This is the first thing I'd like to challenge. Unless there is a caveat of utterly draconian controls on water usage (or unthinkably high prices) and less held in reserve for the inevitable drought periods, I do not believe it to be technically feasible. Not at all!

[GOP_1900AD]

Not true. However, it is true that beyond the City of SF, many suburbs here also use Hetch Hetchy Water. And to use it, our own water districts pay a modest price. My water bill is quite manageable all things considered.

[GOP_1900AD]

So long as Don Pedro is raised and so long as there is a net gain, at a zero or negative cost basis versus keeping Hetch Hetchy as a separate reservoir, as a rate payer, I would support removal. But only under those conditions. If there was even a hint of environazi double dealing or bait and switch, I'd vehemently oppose removal.

[Atlas Sneezed]

...as a national park, Yosemite is the property of the American public...ergo you and me. To charge us out the @$$ to use a resource that we already pay taxes to support is simply wrong.

---

Every time someone tries to convince me that public property belongs to "you and me", I must remind them that I have no right to exclude others, yet others have the right to exclude me. It is GOVERNMENT property, not ours.

I believe the right things to do is either to put it in private hands, to ensure that it is enjoyed by those who value it most, or at least to have the government managers seek to emulate this behavior. Adding campgrounds is one option, but that also reduces the value of the resource. Let the market (the people) decide, not government managers pretending to act on behalf of the people.

With government mismanagement (both by underpricing and possibly by under-capacity as you suggest) we have people who value it more being excluded, while those who value it less are filling it up.

[hattend]

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.

Yeah, sure, I have a bridge to sell to you if you believe this. More people means more water needs but removing this reservoir will not affect the water needs of the state. Yeah, right.

[hattend]

I think it would be awesome to return to the American public a valley that has been described as second in beauty only to Yosimite Valley itself.

How many years worth of sediment is sitting in this valley now? Vegatation is dead, ground is saturated. How many years of bulldozing/rebuilding/replanting will be required to return it to "it's natural beauty"?

Sheesh, sounds like job pork to the labor unions, a 21st century TVA if you will.