Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion SF prop F seeks plan to drain Hetch Hetchy

From SF Gate:

Prop. F seeks plan to drain Hetch Hetchy
John Wildermuth
Published 9:00 p.m., Sunday, October 14, 2012

spend $8 mill to "study" something to which the answers are already known.

$10 BILLION to remove the dam...who pays for that?

I got $10 billion, then I would have to file for bankruptcy.

Yosemite is in Mariposa County, and SF is in what county? They built, they paid for it. They destroy it, they pay for it.

Then, below the water line, how long will it be before all is restored to its original state....

Then, below the water line, how long will it be before all is restored to its original state.... [/quote]

Mother Nature works to her own time schedule. Given one can't replant "old growth"; the valley would respond to the environment, and eventually get close to the rest of the area. People said Glen Canyon wouldn't return and would be ugly; if Lake Powell and the dam was removed: then the drought came. Yes, there is an intial 'ring'; however, the side canyons are responded very quickly. The problem for people is the time schedule is longer than our puny life cycle. It will be the children and grandchildren of those who make these changes; who will enjoy the end result. We'll just get to witness the initial steps....

Given the water recycling/reuse habits of the the SF Bay area; don't expect those people to pay their tax share of $8 mil. study and then to dismantle and replace their water source. Even if one or more of the uber wealthy were to donate the funds- that society won't accept that level of change to their lifestyle- too busy texting on their phones/pads, developing more apps ....

I kinda like the graceful lines of the concrete arch, feeling the power of water gushing from the outlet, walking through the cool tunnel to the nice hike around the reservoir over wooden bridges hit by roaring waterfalls. Plenty of remote valley upstream from Rancheria Falls in the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne. I don't see a problem with the way it is that's worth spending $10 billion to "fix" and I sure wouldn't want a million tourists driving up down the access road and tramping around. The biggest loss would be the clean hydropower.

That's my $0.02.

I think the actual importance of Hetch Hetchy as a water resource is much overrated. SF sells much of that water, and I have seen at least one analysis that says downstream storage capacity is more than enough to take up the slack.

It almost certainly was not necessary at the time: my interpretation is that Gifford Pinchot pushed it to prove an ideological point (along with putting the Forest Service in the dept of Ag instead of Interior where it belongs) knowing full well that there were plenty of other sites for a SF water supply.

One should not assume that either the power or water would be lost either: the water and its power will still be there, and part of the plan would no doubt include ways to capture both downstream. There are plans to remove hydro sites at many other places in the PNW including all 4 PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath, with plenty of new renewable sources becoming available that are a lot more eco friendly than hydro.

San Francisco and the private developers and utilities have had a free ride at the expense of the rest of us for 100 years.

Enough already

I concur...My thoughts exactly...

Who knows what one can find below the water line besides hooks, lines, sinkers, watches, rings, necklaces, keys, guns, beer cans (full?), and Jimmy Hoffa...like a time capsule waiting to be re-opened.

Interesting observation.

Certainly a reason to be HIGHLY cautious about getting on this bandwagon, being pushed by younger ideologues.

Here is another perspective.

Look at Yosemite Valley. I find it hard to identify anyone who thinks the development and the hordes are a good thing.

So what is being proposed?

Do the same thing to HH.

Consider that right now, HH is preserved, like in a deep freeze, or a time capsule. Nothing bad is happening, and it will be essentially the same, whether recovered in 2 year, or 2 thousand.

So why now?

The attitude is:

Because I want what I want! I want it for ME, NOW.
I don't care if it is protected for future generations, if I can get it for myself, now! Especially if I can get someone else to pay for it.

> Look at Yosemite Valley. I find it hard to identify anyone who thinks the development and the hordes are a good thing.

Ken, I stand here as Exhibit A.

I fully believe that the world is overpopulated. But you already know my opinion on locking people out of a place like Yosemite Valley. Managing the crowds and hordes, yes. But lock them out, no way!

I am pretty much neutral on the idea of removing HH. But it yanks my chain that SF does not permit even canoes on HH -- another example of locking people out. It is an example of "something bad is happening".

> Because I want what I want! I want it for ME, NOW.

You keep using that term. It is not for "ME NOW". I just think our beautiful places should be managed better so they can be shared better, and not just locked up.

Talk about interesting perspectives. What is being proposed? "To do the same thing to HH?" Where is that being proposed? Nowhere. That is not part of the proposition or any other proposal. The attitude is "For me, now?" Really? Who has expressed that attitude? Again, no one, nowhere: it is a complete fabrication. I find especially interesting the assumption about "get[ting} someone else to pay for it". This is a San Francisco proposal being brought in San Francisco proposing to San Francisco voters that San Francisco pay for a plan. Who is the someone else, exactly?

In fact if HH reverts to the standard that applies to the entire rest of the NP system, the attitude being promoted here is quite the opposite of "Me, now": it is rather "For everyone, always". Sure, I recognize a young ideologue talking: guy by the name of John Muir.

Saltydog, I don't mean to be thinking like an ignorant sheep. I have followed this topic for decades. So when I reference the suggestions and mindsets, it is because I have heard them.

The current strategy is to increment the issue.
First, let's study it. Stack the study.
Second, let's vote on it.
Third, remove the dam.
Fourth, gosh, we've gone that far, now we need to recoup our investment.

There is a proposal to get rid of the dam.

-Uhhh...when? answer ASAP

-Why now? Because people want access to that valley, NOW.

-So that it can remain as a wilderness place, accessible only with difficulty?

You mean like Tehipite Valley? Oh, we already have that, and virtually nobody goes.

Well, when people keep talking about HH, and it being like Yosemite Valley, what do you think they are thinking, that they would need to spend TEN BILLION DOLLARS?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that taxpayers would want something for their investment. It isn't to preserve HH, because it is preserved right now.

There are a lot of water supply lakes that don't allow access to the water. Particularly when the water is not treated, they don't want it contaminated.

> Look at Yosemite Valley. I find it hard to identify anyone who thinks the development and the hordes are a good thing.

Ken, I stand here as Exhibit A.
======================

Ok, I sit here amazed. I can't fathom that anyone would favor a situation in which the traffic jams are worse than I experience in LA. Where there has been profound damage to features of the Valley, due to overuse and being overrun.

You will certainly find commercial interests that think if some is good, more is better....wider roads, more hotels, eliminate the meadows, cut the trees....make room for more, more, more.

I am in the camp that thinks they went over the top a long time ago.

> There are a lot of water supply lakes that don't allow access to the water. Particularly when the water is not treated, they don't want it contaminated.

Just because they do doesn't make it right.

Lake Cachuma comes to mind: Santa Barbara water supply. Campgrounds around it, motorboats on it, fishermen all over the place. The main rule is "no contact", which I think means no swimming, etc. Paddlers could handle that rule on Hetch Hetchy.

Fresno is now supplementing its water supply with Millerton Lake water -- San Joaquin River water, that comes through lots of lakes where fishing, swimming and everything else permitted. Yes they treat it. But SF treats their water too -- you can smell the chlorine from their drinking fountains.

So your concept is to spends millions and millions of dollars, so that 50-100 canoeists can go out?

you wonder why there is a huge part of the electorate that just wants to shut public parks down altogether.

<shaking my head>

That is EXACTLY what I mean by "I want, what I want"

It means an attitude of doing things irrespective of consequences, particularly to others.

The bodies of water you describe are UPSTREAM of treatment.

SF water is hardly treated. You might read that article by Bob Rockwell that states that. It is treated not because it is not pure enough, it is treated because regulations were passed that required that ALL water be treated.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/hetch-hetchy-water-goes-through-ultraviolet-rinse

Maybe they could open it up for canoes, now. But then, people would be yelling that it was just a maneuver to keep the dam from being removed......

Sheesh, Ken, you and I just cannot communicate.

I am talking about canoeing on the existing reservoir. That is all.

> Maybe they could open it up for canoes, now.

Now you're talking!   "...I want what I want! I want it for ME, NOW."

The water can be stored behind Don Pedro dam or elsewhere, maybe raise a different dam, all with environmental costs and water rights issues. But the nice clean reliable green hydro power energy is not recoverable. 835 megawatt hours each year is a lot of green power - enough to power San Francisco's municipal needs. Building other energy plants, natural gas, solar or whatever does not recapture the lost energy stored behind O'Shaughnessy. A fraction of the hydro could be captured seasonally as river run but it would be more expensive and again, create more environmental impacts building it. The investment would take a long time to recoup.

As for water quality and treatment, Hetch Hetchy water is extremely pure. Treating water cost money and it also take energy, uses chemicals, both of which creates pollution. I agree with Steve that canoes and other non-contact recreation should be allowed, but that's another issue.

People need to think through all the various environmental impacts, huges costs, and waste of resources it would entail removing this dam. It sounds great at first thought, and it could be done, but does it make sense? Would we build this today, of course not, but should we tear it down? I think not.

As for the idea that other people are paying for this facility, that's nonsense. It's fully self relianct - there's no federal or state money involved, in fact the SFPUC claims to provide $5 million a year to Yosemite NPS for trails, wilderness preservation and education. Throw that money away too.

The SFPUC just invested $4 billion upgrading this system and hardening it for earthquakes, I know first hand, I worked on the design of parts of it. If the people of San Francisco want to throw that investment away, cut off their water supply and pay thousands of dollars per person, hey, that's their business, but I think they're smarter than that. We'll see in a few weeks.

Yeah, God forbid San Francisco should ever consider flushing its toilets, washing its streets and irrigating the Presidio with anything other than pristine Tuolomne water

We're talking about an 8 million dollar plan, here, folks, not a 10 billion dollar demolition project. That 10b was just a number some interested critic pulled out of his ass. The plan is not a commitment: it designed to answer all the questions the wise guys think they know without even looking at the possibilities, that's pretty cheap information compared to the present very expensive ignorance. That's what a plan is for: to test all these bare assertions and assumptions.

What you think people want and what actually gets done are two completely different things. Disney went after Mineral King for "Me, Now!" and ended up with Everyone, Always.

Point is that you don't know what an ultimate project would cost. You don't know what it would look like. You don't even know whether it would require removal of the dam or the hydro facilities.* You don't know that the hydro can't be replaced; you don't know whether a development plan would pave the valley or designate it wilderness or something in between.

* In fact, here's an idea: drain the valley but leave the dam in place, rename it the Gifford Pinchot Memorial Bridge, and let it stand as a perpetual reminder, maybe even a museum.

Here's a link to the state's overview report on this, which summarizes and expands on a few other reports over the decades. This is not a new idea. It just keeps getting more expensive and more environmentally difficult as time goes on.

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/environment...tudy_report.pdf

One other point to consider is what's called "opportunity costs" of spending $10 billion and decades of effort on this. Other projects would be passed over for this. We would get a much higher environmental benefit for our buck putting this money and effort into more green power, mass transit, forest restoration, land trusts, research, etc. If all these potential projects were ranked systematically, removing O'Shaughnessy would not be anywhere near the top of the list based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. If there were serious ongoing environmental degradation such as Mono Lake or Owen's Valley, that would be different, but we're talking about losing green power here and a huge construction project to take it out. There are so many tradeoffs with removing this dam it's hard to define the net benefits and they come at a very very high cost, and we'd miss a lot of other opportunities.

At the risk of overstating the case here, I would also like add that Prop F is not just an $8 million study by the City. There's a provision to rush it to the ballot again in 2016. Furthermore, this study would have to drag in the federal and state governments, and lots of consultants. At that point we're all paying for this study, and the overall cost of this study would probably triple.

Some battles are worth avoiding in the first place. If you want to get a feel for how this process would look over your lifetime, look into what's been going on in the San Francisco-San Joaquin Delta planning process. Decades of studies, billions of dollars spent, and no decision on what to do. It's a quagmire and Hetch Hetchy would be just as complicated with lawsuits and alternatives up the gazoo. The Delta canal cost estimates started way below $1 billion and now were talking tens of billions and firm opposition whichever way you go. That's what you can expect for taking on this battle. If there were a compelling problem to solve, perhaps it would be worth the fight. When all the other higher priority projects are done, have at it.

Actually, all those things are pretty well worked out. We've walked this path before.

What you won't acknowledge, is that it is really about getting the electorate to start saying "yes" to the concept, then creeping the concept along, step by step, until you get things to a place you would not have gotten knowledgable people to in a transparent and straightforward way.

10 billion seems like a crazy number to remove a dam. They probably want to jack hammer the thing apart and truck every piece of it 1000 miles away.

There is a relatively small dam in Malibu Canyon which is silted out, but blocking a steelhead run. Price tag for removal 10 years ago was 80 mil or something.

It still sits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindge_Dam

I've hiked to the dam. It is an impressive monument.

Yeah, Ken, I can see you're right. After all, the Prop requires the City Council to appoint the planning panel, and then put the plan up for a vote in four years. Obviously, the whole thing is going to be done in secret, and no knowledgeable people could possibly be involved, or keep up with such an opaque and complex process, because all the knowledgeable people already know what the plan is: why waste the time actually participating in the process? So, yeah, screw it.

It's not just a crazy number: its a fantasy number: some critic just made it up. Its a rule, like the one that governs previous lives: no one was ever a peasant in Lithuania: everyone was a spirit nymph in the Black Forest. Nothing is ever projected to cost any number that does not end in a string of zeros numbering at least two thirds of the total digits. What are the odds that an actual, calculated cost of anything equals 10 billion dollars?

Hmmmmm sounds like you and Sierra Nevada have good points.


Steve C. we need a LIKE button next to the posts.

Well it's a good way to manipulate voters who do not study what they vote on. They see 10 billion and decide that not only can the city not afford it but if they are going to spend so much it's best used to help the children.

You're absolutely right, it's not exactly $10 billion. The upper range estimate by the State of California Department of Water Resources and Department of Parks and Recreation is $9,824,000,000.00. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission rounded their estimate to $9,000,000,000.00. I think it would be a fantasy to think it would be less than that. Removing the dam is just a part of it. Replacing the water and power system is what really costs the big bucks. This would be a fantastic boondoggle for consultants and lawyers for a generation before any decision would even be made. By then, the costs will have multiplied.

For comparison:
Oakland Bay Bridge $6.2 billion
The newest air craft carrier $6.3 billion
The newest stadium - Dallas $1.2 billion
CERN Large Hadron Particle Collider $4.4 billion
Boston "Big Dig" Tunnel $14.6 billion ($2.8 billion estimate)
Hubble Telescope $1.2 billion

Edited to add costs and commentary.

I like the idea of being able to canoe in the reservoir....it's so beautiful around the reservoir...in So Cal I think all the lakes and reservoirs allow at least some type of watercraft. I have personally been in watercraft on many of the reservoirs...I would love to take my kayak to Hetch Hetchy...what a relaxing day it would be on the water.

Yeah, they're missing the boat on recreational use. How much would non-motorized watercraft pollute the water? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Well, not exactly. The 9.8 Bil was not the estimate, it was the upper limit of the range of the State's estimate, which was 2.9 to 9.8 billion. And that btw was the highest of the three estimates the PUC looked at which actually started at half a billion. But the PUC essentially accepted the State estimate as the most complete. It established a range, not a single estimate, based on the following (quoted from the page on which the PUC's assessment appears)

"Without any defined project objectives, any cost estimate is conceptual at best. Different concepts of what the project should be lead to different estimates of cost. For example, an objective of draining the reservoir and leaving the dam in place would provide for a much lower cost than an objective to completely remove the dam. Therefore, the cost estimates provided in previous studies are not directly comparable due to the lack of defined and consistent objectives."

"Conceptual at best". I like that. Much more polite than the expression I used, but the point is the same.
Defined and consistent objectives, BTW means formulating a plan, which is certainly NOT any path that has been walked before.

Well, not exactly. The 9.8 Bil was not the estimate, it was the upper limit of the range of the State's estimate, which was 2.9 to 9.8 billion. And that btw was the highest of the three estimates the PUC looked at which actually started at half a billion. But the PUC essentially accepted the State estimate as the most complete. It established a range, not a single estimate, based on the following (quoted from the page on which the PUC's assessment appears)
==================



So what was that you said about the number simply being made up out of thin air?


On top of which, I am hard pressed to think of any public works project that came in anywhere near what the first estimates were for it to cost.

That seems a bit strong of a response, Ken. I think Salty just didn't read the state report I linked to until now. I wrote in my post this was the "upper range" of the state's estimate. The SFPUC came up with their own estimate of $9 billion.

The other estimates are from "Restore Hetch Hetchy" and Environmental Defense Fund. They left out certain costs like, well, REMOVING THE DAM and RESTORING THE VALLEY. The two environmental organization estimates seem extremely optimistic, which you would expect since it's their mission to tear the dam down. Another big cost that's missing is the escalation that will occur by studying this for 30 years or more. That will multiple this several times over, so even if you took the low ball estimate, it will end up at least $10 billion if it ever happened.

I assume we all pretty much agree this should not have been built in Yosemite in the first place. But as angry as that might make people, it's there and it doesn't make economic sense to dismantle the system and the loss of clean hydro power is not easy to make up. Put the energy and money into other environmentally positive projects that make more sense and will move us forward.

Thanks SN, but I read it a while ago.

I didn't say "out of thin air", I said "out of his ass".

When someone cherry picks the maximum estimate from a range of numbers that start at half a billion, rounds it up and then cites it as if it is The Number, yeah, I stand by my characterization.

BTW, Prop F doesn't call for a plan necessarily to either remove the dam or "restore the valley", only to drain the reservoir. The PUC expressly noted that dam removal is not necessary to draining the reservoir, and restoring the valley may involve no more than draining it at a rate that allows more or less natural recovery as the water level drops. After all, as Ken has observed, the valley is preserved under all that water, and may need little intervention as it is exposed again. And of course, as required by the Raker Act granting SF the water and power rights, all of the structures involved including the dam are "sightly and of suitable exterior design and finish so as to harmonize with the surrounding landscape and its use as a park", right?

That's an interesting concept in planning. So if someone tells you it will take 5 to 10 gallons of gas to get from the last gas station to your backcountry destination and back, I'm curious how much gas you take?

If a city is going to undertake a public works project, with a range of cost, what cost do you respond may be the final cost...the low, the middle, or the high? How much would you go to the citizens and ask for?

I think most people are pretty fed up with the "bait and switch" tactics of being told about the lowball figure, then getting in the middle of the project, when you can't really stop, and being told "well, that was the low end of the estimate, cough up"

You're telling us you like that approach to planning?

You must LOVE $3,000 toilet seats!

SaltyDog, you've been misled if you think they intend to leave the dam in place and drain the reservoir. No government agency would allow the dam to remain without a huge notch at the very least. The valley would flood and kill people. The 2005 "Restore Hetch Hetchy" study (one of 7 studies in the last 25 years) proposes the construction of a temporary cofferdam deeper inside Yosemite Park to provide water while O'Shaughnessy dam is dismantled. The plan calls for O'Shaughnessy's 900,000 tons of concrete to be stored at Camp Mather, near the reservoir, until a permanent disposal site is located. Now they call for leaving the dam in place, flooding the valley and drowning people? That's the level of thinking that we're deal with here.

The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, in consultation with Loma Prieta Chapter, has taken a neutral position Measure F.

SF Mayor Ed Lee calls Prop F "stupid" and "insane."

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously oppose it. President of the Bd David Chiu says, "This ballot initiative is a Trojan horse that threatens irreparable harm to our economy and our environment."

The San Francisco Bay Guardian calls Proposition F "...a huge waste of time and money"

The San Francisco Chronicle calls Proposition F "...a misleading measure that will squander taxpayer money".

Dianne Feinstein says, "The suggestion that San Francisco is not using its water supply efficiently is simply not true.

Did I mention the San Francisco Green Party isn't even on board with Prop F. Not just the Sierra Club, the SF Green Party is also conflicted about this.

"Because we are almost evenly split on the measure, we urge voters to study this proposition further and make your own decision."

So there's your line in the sand. Are you more liberal than the SF Green Party? Do you believe the Sierra Club doesn't want to protect and restore Yosemite?

Or is there something wrong with this proposition? This will be interesting on election night.

Giants won game 7 tonight, on their way to the World Series again!

The "more liberal" question is completely unapt: the GP, being split, is taking no position: it is not opposing it. So are the half that are for it "more liberal" than the party they are members of? Half more conservative than their own party? That's like saying I am not an average human, because I have two testicles, whereas the average person has one tescticle and one ovary.

As for the Sierra Club, as a matter of fact I have come to believe that it does NOT want to restore and protect Yosemite nearly as much as it wants to enhance and protect its own corporate stature and bottom line. I first joined in 1964, after my first Whitney trip, when SC was still a 501 c 3. Since then I have watched Muir's beloved creation turn into just another big commercial lobby. I finally quit this year when I got fed up of being bombarded with its alarmist, shallow emails and its sickeningly commercial magazine. The final straws there were an article on how to return to my primordial roots through minimalist trail running, followed by pages of ads describing all the high tech gear I would need to buy to go minimalist, and another on how green the US military is because it has a couple of solar panels in Afghanistan.

So yeah, I do think the so-called Sierra Club has a couple of priorities ahead of just about anything that goes on in the Sierra. One of those priorities is San Francisco money.

The progression of humanity isn't progression at all. Nothing is learned only unwanted positions forced upon each other. The regulation of morality and desire. When faced with a choice that one would think was long ago settled the debate begins again.

We are once again in the early days arguing for exploit or preserve. And once again the fact that this is already a national park doesn't seem to have any effect on the debate.

Maybe tomorrow we will be arguing again if we should log off the whole Sierra for the greater good.

OK, the "line in the sand" was not a good comment. But it is telling that these groups are not backing Prop F. I never used the word "oppose" - these groups would have an internal revolution if they went that far against this.

WWJMD?

I hear ya....it's been over a year since I quit my Sierra Club membership. I hate the fact they emailed me all the time telling me how to vote...just like the Unions telling their members how to vote. They are not the organization I grew to appreciate back in the '70s....but then again I am not the same person I was in the 70's....we have both changed as so has the world.

Exactly.

I consider the Sierrra Club's position on Prop F to be the height of hypocrisy.

BTW the exact text of the Prop is as follows

Proposition F: "This measure will: 1)Require the City to prepare a two-phase plan to evaluate how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identify replacement water and power sources; 2) allocate $8 million to pay for the plan and create a five-member task force to develop it; 3) require the task force to complete the plan by November 1, 2015, and require the Board of Supervisors to consider placing on the ballot a Charter Amendment to approve the plan."

Note it does not force anything onto any future ballot, and does not require any specific steps to be taken other than the formulation of a plan that includes replacement of the power and water.

Nonetheless, the Sierra Club (SF Chapter), says the following:

"The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club . . . has taken a neutral position on San Francisco Ballot Initiative Measure F: "The Water and Environment Plan”.

* * *

The Sierra Club, on historic principle, is in favor of the goal of restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley to its original splendor within Yosemite National Park.

* * *

"We are uncertain whether the mandates of Proposition F clearly serve the needs of the entire water system" said Rebecca Evans, the chair of the San Francisco Group. . .” "

Gee, we don't know exactly what will eventually go into this plan, so we can't risk taking the opportunity to find out. If not through a measure such as this, I would like to know how the Sierra Club imagines Hetch Hetchy will ever be restored. So much for historic principle, or any other. Big brave Sierra Club can take on the entire world energy industry to defend the ANWAR or the Clean Air Act,(That gets contributions) but can't support even creating an opportunity to do something about Hetch Hetchy. Oh, sure, they'll be there if the Prop passes, making sure everyone still gets their water and power, as if there won't be enough support on those issues. But lead the effort? Not me, said the little red hen.

This is beyond hypocrisy: I call this cowardice of the first order.

I wish I were still a member, so I could resign in disgust now.

> I wish I were still a member, so I could resign in disgust now.

This prop is a perfect example of a "rigged" issue.

It does NOT order a study to be done of the issue, seeking impartial information on the issue.

It instead REQUIRES 8 million to be spend to bypass that, and go ahead and CREATE THE PLAN.

Normally, in major public projects, you start by evaluating whether you should do something, and the feasibility of doing it.

This bypasses all the pesky thinking and evaluating stuff, and jumps right into spending money, and creating the plan to do it (no matter how feasable)

Note that it does NOT require a feasability evaluation, first.

So, homeowners, it's like deciding to spend $20,000 for an architect to draw up plans to replace your house, before you've decided that you want to replace your house..........

That's an interesting interpretation of "to evaluate how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identify replacement water and power sources".

==========================================
You have to read EVERY word.

I said FIRST. They are not doing that FIRST, then seeing what they've got. They have to go ahead and spend the 8 million dollars to then develop the actual plan, FEASABLE OR NOT.

This scenario reminds me of how the last company I worked for wasted 10K. Someone decided that we should build a whole new wing of our lab, so it was voted that we should commission different architects to draw up plans. After 10K was spent on drawings, we realized that we could not afford the 1 million to build the thing. 10K out the window.

Perfect analogy, Bee. Just add a lot of zeroes at the end of your numbers and it's the same thing. Seven studies in the last 25 years is enough, and number 8 will cost a lot more than $8 million to confirm common sense.

This battle was lost a hundred years ago. Be glad for the clean energy and super clean water and let it go. Let's revisit this when we have a surplus of renewable energy and clean water.

Even if this proposition fails, it should help motivate SF to develop additional water resources and improve recycling efforts, which they are doing anyway, but never enough or fast enough.

Oh, please, the plan itself is one big feasibility study.
Oh, I read every word. Do you? "To evaluate" is not only FIRST, it is ONLY requirement with respect to actually draining the reservoir. The Plan itself IS "to EVALUATE how . . " Have you read the Proposition? Here it is. It calls for two plans, one for improving and finding sustanable water sources, and the second for restoring Hetch Hetchy

The first phase of the measure requires the City to develop a water sustainability plan (what a concept). That phase deals only with development of the water system and does not deal with draining Hetch Hetchy. The second phase (Section 116.2 (b))is the Environmental Restoration Plan part that requires the City to "evaluate how to . . . return the Valley to the National Park Service."

The eight-pages of proposition text is full of factual errors, misleading statements, and empty promises.

Prop F implies people are getting Giardia from Hetch Hetchy. Really.

Hetch Hetchy holds more water than all the other SFPUC reservoirs combined? Prop F says it's just "one of nine" reservoirs.

Prop F says there is "significant ongoing habitat destruction" going on due to Hetch Hetchy. Ever been there?

The plan is completely unrealistic, especially the timeline they are trying to rush for the largest dam removal in the world, together with new power plants, new water treatment plants, groundwater recharge systems, storm water pollution systems etc etc etc.

All these "changes can take place without adversely affecting taxpayers, water rights, or energy supply." If you believe that I've got a bridge for sale and it's much cheaper than $10 billion.

I like that. Amateurs like you ignore the plan that professionals have had for decades and regularly update, then call for an already-existing plan, but spend $8 mill to do what is already done, and act like it is a phenominally new concept. Here is an example of the process:

http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=166

What a concept. Maybe you can teach classes in this.

What backers like you apparently DON'T have is the integrity to admit what is really going on: a scam to trick SF voters into doing something they would NEVER do, if they actually understood the truth, which you guys can't bring yourself to tell.

Ken: What the f*%! is your problem, really? You don't know me.

Sorry Steve, but there is no other way to put it with this guy.

Salty, I may disagree with you on this particular topic, but I hope our debate has been respectful and educating for both of us. Please do not associate my posts with Ken's aggressiveness. I don't get it and I don't want to be associated with posts like that just because I'm on the same side of the fence as Ken on the issue.

I think we all agree this dam should not have been built in the first place, but it was and it was even raised. It was a devastating defeat for John Muir, but reversing 100 years of that history just doesn't pan out economically or even environmentally. I'd say let's do this if we had an abundance of renewable energy production, an abundance of clean water supplies, and a surplus of public funds. Maybe some day we'll get to that point but it ain't today and it won't be in my lifetime.

Who knows, maybe this proposition will pass. There's a good chance I would be involved in this study and profit on it, but I'm still against wasting time and energy on something so obvious to me.

SN: No worries: I make no comparisons between you and Ken: your comments have been thoughtful and respectful, as I hope mine have been to you. You strike me as someone who would rather educate than berate.

Actually the Prop anticipates your concerns. It only puts forth a plan, does not require immediate action, only consideration of a further ballot measure and does not require even the plan to call for completion before 2035. You plan on being around then? BTW, I happen to believe all your conditins will be satisfied by then. The water is already there, it just needs a new storage system, we are on the threshold of massive development of renewables (that's one of the things I do, professionally BTW) and times can only get better.

Dog

I would think that someone who has the chutzpah to use a name like "saltydog" can take aggressive pushback. Apparently you can only dish it out.

I don't like people who try to manipulate me, or who lie to me. I have NO PROBLEM pointing either out. Perhaps you are used to people who roll over and just take your sloppy thinking. I'm not one of those.

I am perfectly civil with people who want to give transparent information, argue their points fairly with sources and citations, and are willing to concede when they have a misunderstood point corrected. You've been none of those things in this thread. When you get pushback, you get aggressive and start calling names and using profanity. There must be a reason for that.

I note that you don't want to talk about the issues, but rather turn it into an argument over style. That generally means one is losing.

Ken, I have no horse in this race, except that I'd like to float my boat legally on the existing lake. (And even on that point, you misinterpreted what I wrote!) But I have tangled with you on other issues, and can attest that you get personal, exaggerate people's suggestions or points into absurd statements, and in general, attack and insult people you disagree with.

You are NOT perfectly civil in your arguments, you do not argue your points fairly, your pushback is more mudslinging and baiting than respectable debate.

Saltydog and SierraNevada are both respectable, well-educated professionals. Insulting someone and then claiming some sort of victory isn't a victory.

I'd like to lock this thread, but then you'd howl about censorship.

Good grief!

I used to moderate for Oxford Style debate in college, and it was an incredible experience (do to the fact that the rules in general were so strict) I noticed a trend after a while (which proves true in politics, too) that too much 'subjective' attack (all rock with no snow packed around it to at least appear to be participating in the same snowball fight)is distracting to the audience/reader and loses percentage points in the endeavor to sway the observer. I would like to see this discussion tightened back up and continue, because I must admit: I have not read any of the material discussed, so I am depending on you folks to enlighten me on the current rendition of the topic of Hetch Hetchy.

Bee, what happens to a debater's score when they knowing make deceptive statements such as Prop F language?

"Many people believe the city's primary water source is the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park because the system is called the Hetch Hetchy system. In fact, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is just one of nine reservoirs that store water for San Francisco."

Fact: Of those nine reservoirs, only six of them store drinking water. Hetch Hetchy reservoir stores more than the other 5 drinking water reservoirs combined.

Either the authors of Prop F are ignorant about the system they want to change, or they are deliberately lying. Either they need to do some homework before asking for $8 million or they are just plain lying. For a lengthy description of the numerous false and misleading statements in Prop F, read this .

Fact: San Francisco citizens use their water more efficiently than any other major city in California. Water use averages 85 gallons per day vs a statewide average of 160 gallons per day.

Fact: Several projects are either ready to come online within a year, or are in construction, or in planning and design stages to increase groundwater pumping and recycling.

Prop F completely ignores this massive infrastructure upgrade in progress. It's happening whether Prop F passes or not, in fact Prop F might just slow it all down by diverting resources and legal action.

Then there's the long list of unachievable demands on an impossible time schedule that are required by Prop F. This amount of engineering, environmental, and legal work is unheard of in that amount of time.

Pretty much everyone would love to restore Hetch Hetchy just because it sounds great and seems like a good thing to do. The eight pages of false or misleading statements is probably why the Sierra Club and Green Party and not supporting Prop F; and there is strong opposition from the Mayor, City Council, and the local newspapers. It's becoming another poster child for the failed proposition system in San Francisco. It only takes 15,000 signatures to get one on the ballot.

Lastly, as I wrote in my first post, the current ecosystem is not broken, it's just different. It's actually quite a beautiful area as it is. It would be different without the lake, but I'm not convinced it would be better as a valley with millions of people tramping around.

They are really careful to pick topics that are somewhat ironclad in concept; I think one of the topics was "should the government subsidize solar-wind-hydro power, or should the private sector carry the burden, exclusively" They choose really broad spectrum "thesus" type statements that can be supported pro/con based on large amounts of data (sometimes, though, the "data" cited is faulty, so it is up to the opposing debators to catch it and debunk it)

I would really like to see a "should HH be taken out, or should it stay" topic for an Oxford debate; I would pay to attend that one!

I have read some excellent points in this discussion that I otherwise would not have thought of, such as: at what cost of 'dirty' power to replace the hydro lost by dismantling HH. By the way, the Bay Area was way ahead of the game with water meters; they have been in place for decades, and water aint cheap.

Bee: What happens when a debater takes a quote out of context, or only includes a partial quote in order to characterize it as misleading?

The full quote of the second factual finding of Prop F that SN quoted from is:

"The primary source of water for the City of San Francisco is the Tuolomne River. Many people believe the city's primary water source is the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park because the system is called the Hetch Hetchy system. In fact, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is just one of nine reservoirs that store water for San Francisco." [emphasis added]

What the partial quote left out is a very important piece: the distinction between the water and the storage tank. In draining HH, SF does NOT lose the water. The replacement process is one of finding storage capacity only. Difficult, maybe, bit a very different matter from losing the water itself in addition to the storage capacity.

Not to mention that the complete quote is 100% factually correct. And the irrigation water for Turlock Irrigation District etc is just as important and real as the SF municipal supply

I could run through similar problems with every single one of the Attachment A rebuttals that SN linked to, but the greater point is this. In any debate, "misleading" is the epithet cast by each side at the perfectly accurate statements of the other that support the wrong conclusion.

Case in point is Bee's concern about what it would cost to replace the HH hydro with dirty power. That assumes that the hydro couldn't be replaced with other clean renewable power. There is no reason for that assumption, other than the "misleading" statements of the opponents. In fact, such renewables are in development now, and will be available on a massive scale well before 2035.

Every argument and factual assertion is misleading if it leads to the conclusion you don't want others to reach. As such, calling something "misleading" is a pretty useless bit of rhetoric. The fact that I consider something misleading is trivial compared to the actual specific merits of whatever argument I am dealing with. And "lies": that's the strongest epithet of all, and really demands specific identification and backup. I haven't seen an example of that in this discussion, although the accusation has been flung with some abandon.

So SN has done us a great service by pointing at least to a specific document that articulates the source and basis of these assertions of lies and misleading statements. That document itself, however (which is apparently an advocacy piece by or defending the SF PUC, but one would like to know) is guilty of at least as much sophistry as it accuses Prop F of relying on. And of course it deals only with the relatively petty distractions of the findings preamble of the proposition, most of which are a distraction from the real issue; would it be a good idea to have a plan.

Jumping to the subject of "lies" -- usually, the two panels selected to present their points are both groups of well-informed experts, so people do not usually risk sinking their whole presentation with outright falsehoods (it is too easy to get caught, and once that happens, the audience -- who votes for the winner -- becomes too skeptical to be won back over)

The point that Salty brings up -- half-quotes, omitted info, etc. -- happens all of the time, and a lot of it gets past the audience (the moderator in this case is not a fact-checker,rather, he stricly enforces the time contraints and assigns the designated speakers for each go-around....very different from the free-for-alls that the presidential debates have become) The opposing panel does not have enough alotted timne to spend on both fact checking and their own program. A lot of weight is placed on the quality of the audience, and it is VERY annoying when the "wrong" side wins (read: he who spun the facts more adroitly!)

Recycled Water in San Francisco Starts on Golf Course
First recycled water project now online. More to come. Things are moving forward without the $8 million Prop F plan to plan on planning.

This is just one of many better projects to focus on before draining the reservoir and losing so much clean hydroelectric power.

For those still on the fence, I recommend a hike around the lake to or beyond Wapama Falls or Rancheria Falls. Please describe what is so wrong with this ecosystem that we need a massive dam $10 billion removal project to solve it. There's no way a dam would be built there today of course, but is it really practical to reverse what was decided 100 years ago, and then raised even taller.

Removing the dam is an act of symbolism reinforcing the dedication of preservation in our national parks.

I feel the same way about things like the Roman Colosseum. Sure it's old and it's history but it was a place of terrible decadence and horrible things took place there. Tear it down as a symbolic gesture that we want to move beyond the decadent past into a more prosperous future. But then again no one seems to want that type of future.

Tear down Monticello -- Jefferson was a slave owner!! Burn the White House! Nuke Germany -- ( too many buildings/locations where atrocities took place to single them out)

Oh, gawd, sorry people: I lived walking distance from the Colosseum/Forum/Domus Agustana...only a person who has never set foot outside this country could propose such ludicracy!

*shaking head and laughing*

I cannot thank you enough for the entertainment value offered by concepts such is the one mentioned above!!!!

Sierra Nevada, I implore you to step back in before this thread is lost forever

I'm not sure how stepping outside this country has anything to do with the position. Seeing it in person is not going to change my mind just like the fact that having been to Hetch Hetchy and hiking around it does not change my mind to remove the dam.

Bee, you speak the truth. The Roman Colosseum had been stripped of much of its beautiful stone work a long time ago, but not for eco-reasons; many Roman homes were built from the stone work and wood.

Where do we usually go to see history? Europe! Because Europeans revere their history, and here we can't seem to wait to rip something down in order to build something new and shiny.

What would be the point of tearing down Hetch-Hetchy? SF would seek its water elsewhere anyway. Besides, as has already been mentioned on this topic, it would take a long time for that valley to regain any of its former natural beauty - if ever.

See Bob West's post; I could not have said it better.

Thanks for getting it, Bob. BTW, I used to bee a tour guide in Italy (hence, my sensitivity to the subject!) One of the biggest culprits who filched marble from the Colosseum was.....Michaelangelo! Experts have sampled and dated the marble used on his sculptures throughout Italy, and an overwhelming majority of the material came from the Colosseum.

Sorry for highjacking the thread, I had to offer an antidote for the cultural blasphemy being set forth.

If Prop F goes down, we could find another area we could restore to its natural state of beauty.

How about Cape Cod?

I don't think it would take that long. The walls and trees returning will take awhile but the ground floor would be prime for grass to take hold in a year or two. Then it will be a beautiful garden in the right season.

Nature will always find a way to make itself beautiful. We could not stop it by nuking the living crap out of it and you think a little water will defeat it?

What a great idea! Cape Cod does seems to have enough problems at home to tackle without trying to advise Californians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/18nitrogen.html

It's decided. Prop F went down in a landslide.

77% against it.

Thanks for the update; it's good news! Looks like most people in S.F. were smart enough to realize the folly of Prop F.

"What a great idea! Cape Cod does seems to have enough problems at home to tackle without trying to advise Californians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/18nitrogen.html" --Bob West

Hee-hee! Oh, no you dittent! You dit NOT just invoke the "And so are you!" defense!! You dit NOT just invoke the "outside agitator" defense!!

How I love it when they bring knives to a gun fight!! More fun when they're real knives, though. That all you got? C'mon, if you are going to resort to ad hominem attack, you have to do a lot better.

OK, yeah, we have water problems right here on Cape Cod, and right here in Orleans, where I am writing from. Imagine that! Actually I am trying to imagine some place that does not have similar environmental problems. Nope, can't do it. Well, at least not on the planet.

So nitrogen on the Cape makes the Hetch Hetchy plan a bad idea because . . . no, wait I know this one . . because . . .
that's it! Just because! So there!

Wait, seriously let's see if I can help sort this out.

So yeah, anyway, here on the Cape, we rely entirely on our groundwater for supply. There is no aqueduct or so much as a pipe from anywhere other than a local well. And for the last 400 years or so, we have relied on the same ground system to filter and recycle our water. Worked very well for about 375 of those years, until the nitrogen seeping in overtook the nitrogen uptake capacity of the ecosystem, mostly on the fringing salt march, not unlike that that Californians have systematically been destroying all around San Francisco Bay for about the last 175 years, just to mention a random example. Except ours in still intact.

But, yeah we seem to have a nitrogen loading problem. Course, its mostly overstated in the NYT article: the science is not crystal, and poor Gussie (a friend, by the way) happens to live on the most eutrophic salt water body in town. Most of the estuary isn't nearly as bad, and some is pristine: but Gussie's is pretty bad. Mine on the other hand (and by mine, I mean the one I lived on, off and on for forty years, about a mile farther upstream from Gussie's, was pretty damn good. I took clams and quahogs in my front yard without letup, also blue crabs and striped bass. The new owners and neighbors do too.

But Gussie's is pretty bad, and its clear that it time to do something about nitrogen loading before it gets that bad all over. Lots of other things here, too, like eroding beaches, hurricanes, declining fish stocks, California tourists, to name a random example: the usual plagues.

So what do we do. Well, one thing we don't do is go looking around for the nearest nationally owned resource to exploit. We have a great big commons on both sides of us: Cape Cod Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. We don't have a big wastewater treatment plant with an outfall pipe dumping into the commons, and we sure as hell didn't go commandeer some national treasure to supply our water to begin with. Not how we roll.

When Thoreau and Emerson for example (remember them?) were writing about living in harmony our natural heritage, we didn't sic some Dept of Agriculture goon on them so we could have Walden Pond or Nauset harbor all to ourselves. We paid attention. When John F Kennedy and Stewart Udall (remember them?) came calling in 1961, we worked with the Park Service, US Department of the Interior (remember them?) to turn over more than half the land, PRIVATE land, including all of the ocean beach and a lot of the bay side, on the Lower Cape to the Cape Cod National Seashore. Ever hear of it? You should come visit some time. s a National Park (remember them?) Everyone is Welcome: Even Californians can come, for example. So, restoration? You want to talk about restoration of natural beauty. Here's one clue: you don;t f&%# it up to begin with. You preserve it. Guy named Muir taught me that. Ever heard of him? And if you do f&%# it up, you fix it.

So. That brings us to nitrogen loading, what are we doing to fix it? Well, what my friend Gussie is up to first involves a plan. Yep, imagine that. Put together a plan. Paid the big bucks for a waste water treatment plan, even knowing beforehand that actually building the thing would cost bigger bucks, more than anybody here wanted to pay or thought was reasonable. But we commissioned a plan. Hers is for a $150 million water treatment system to replace her and 1999 of her closest friends septic systems. Yep, 150 million to sewer the 2000 homes that are identified as the greatest contributors to the nitrogen loading. Course, that was the initial estimate, in like 2010 dollars. I think its up to about 250 now, but at least we have a plan to look over, a real plan, not just someones speculation and fear-mongering about what such a plan would and would not do. And you knwo what, compared to sitting on our asses up to here in either sea lettuce, national subsidy, stolen resources or hypocrisy, the plan is looking pretty good.

That's right, 150 million and up to sewer 2000 homes. Who knew?

If ultimately the plan does not get implemented, it will be because someone comes up with something better, and few alternatives have been proposed. SO one thing we will not do is sit around and pat ourselves on the back for not even having a plan, pretending it was because of our "good sense" rather than our own selfish interest.

As for Cape Codders advising Californians: that's the most entertaining comment of this whole discussion. I haven't heard the outside agitator argument seriously propounded since the voter registration drives of the 60s. Then, people in Alabama and Mississippi were astounded to learn that they were screwing with people's national, constitutionally protected rights, and that the entire universe did not revolve around what the local White Citizens Council felt made good sense.

Little did I know that 50 years later educated people in California would have to be reminded that Yosemite is a National Park despite being used primarily in California to fill toilets and wash streets. So don't try to impress me with the implication that as a non-Californian I am somehow out of line commenting on Hetch Hetchy. I have exactly the same interest and the same standing in Hetch Hetchy as 99.7 percent of the population of this country. The .3 percent who can't make that claim are those of you who piss in its water.

As for advising Californians: I have been paid a lot of good money to do just that since I graduated from College in Claremont in 1974 and law school in LA in 1981. My most recent professional project in that regard is the mess California agriculture has (with its partners in Oregon) made of the upper Klamath Basin, especially Lower Klamath "Lake" and Tule "Lake".

It involves dam removal, replacement with renewable power, nutrient management, allocation of water resources and remediation of surface water eutrophication.

I have no dog in this fight (apologies to Mike Vick), but I've just got to say that this has been one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a while. And it just keeps getting better. Of course, the proposed plan is fiscally ludicrous, but when has that ever stopped California? It'll be interesting to see if this proposal dies a quick death, or gets legs for the next election cycle.

Rogue, you write great TRs and post excellent photos. Dance with who brung ya. Just sayin' . . .

Yeah, it's sad, Cape Cod is really messed up. If anyone wants to help: Association to Preserve Cape Cod

Unfortunately I don't know what this one means either lol.

I have to keep reminding myself to stick to hiking only on forums. I can't stomach the talking head disorder that is America anymore.

Bulldog: Good point. The plan (actually there isn't a plan, that's sort of the point of the thread) but the prospect of the worst case scenario,let's say, is almost as ludicrous as SF paying the people of the US $30,000 per year for the power, water and real estate involved. That's the rent on a 1`-bedroom apartment in the City. In 1912 it was theft. Today, it makes Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket.

The wastewater problem on Cape Cod is just one of many higher priority projects where action needs to be taken to stop ongoing environmental damage. Chesapeake Bay is another, the Everglades, SF Delta, Salton Sea etc.

The 42-page study is well done. Note how the cost estimates are tight from low to high because wastewater engineering is so well understood and the alternative solutions are obvious.

Yeah, that's pretty much what it means. Stick with your strengths. Things tend to go sideways on you when you drift into the political and philosophical.

Well that's because my heart is not in it anymore. I make blanket statements without displaying facts behind it all. I just don't have the time or desire to do that sort of digging that ultimately still does nothing. People strongly exist on one side of the information war or the other. We literally live in two different worlds and we cannot bridge the gap.

In a word: Diatribe

I've not commented on this thread, mostly because I'm conflicted - I feel Muir's outrage, but have enjoyed the Hetch as it stands, a lot.

I did lead a Sierra Club National outing along with the principals of Restore Hetch Hetchy in 2000, through the Grand Canyon of the Tolumne. Wonderful!

Two thoughts:

I don't know how prone this lake is to silting, but given time, all impoundments will be rendered useless. Then you have millions of tons of stuff to clean up.

Secondly, as the downstream beneficiaries have taken this gift from the People of the Country, they should be required to collect some slice of money from the water bills & use that to help remediate water problems in other National Park areas. Cape Cod comes to mind. And yes, I am aware that SF does kick back about $5 million a year to Yosemite. That's nowhere near the benefits SF has been enjoying for nearly a century.

Okay Salty, you're correct. I'll amend that from "plan" to "loosely fluid proposal". Sounds about right.

I wonder if the fervor to restore Hetch Hetchy would be as dynamic if it had been naturally dammed 100 years ago by an event such as an earthquake. The results would be the same - JM's beloved valley lost - but would the lake then be regarded as a natural wonder and revered? Is the crux of the issue that the valley is flooded, or is it that it was rendered that way by the hand of man?

Well that could only be considered if I knew what side of the information any given person on this forum is on and I intentionally make statements with no intention to explain once the person has lost their control which I never do. However it must be noted that statements made by plenty of other people are not only considered by me to be pure second hand propaganda but highly offensive. But hell what can you do.

Wagga: SF does not "kick back" one red cent more to Yosemite than the 30k required by the Raker Act: that 5 million is payment for services rendered by the Park Service: Road maintenance, security, water monitoring, etc. all incidental to its operation of the reservoir and dam. If there is any net benefit to the Park or Treasury Dept from that, its only because NPS is padding its bill.