We'll get back to air but for now ...
As you may know, water issues have begun to trickle into this blog. We don't do justice to water in newspaper cyberspace. Few places do.
The conflict today is Hetch Hetchy Reservoir -- the San Francisco water supply stashed in Yosemite National Park. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who visited Fresno yesterday, opposes draining it and restoring the glacial valley.
We've heard plenty of arguments in favor of keeping the reservoir -- expense in tearing it down, necessary water supply, hydro power production, water rights problems downstream.
There are plenty of arguments that we rarely hear on the other side. In the ones mentioned here, all but the first rely rather heavily on criticizing the hypocrisy of the Bay Area.
-- The storage and hydro power can be replaced downstream. The water rights can be renegotiated. It's not like the water is going to disappear, and it's not like there are no places to store it.
-- Hetch Hetchy is a treasured geologic feature in a national park. A dam and an urban reservoir do not belong there. Yet Bay Area environmentalists are quick to criticize the Valley's west-side agriculture, saying it has no business farming in a poorly drained desert.
-- How can Bay Area environmentalists be outraged at the pesticides and other farm runoff from the San Joaquin River when their own drinking water comes at the expense of glacial valley in one of the country's most venerated national parks?
-- Critics also point to Los Angeles' early-century water grab in the Owens Valley. It nearly destroyed historic Mono Lake in the high desert east of the Sierra Nevada. But legal action is bringing back at least part of that ecosystem. Why is San Francisco immune to legal action over Hetch Hetchy?
Comments:
Indeed, Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park should be restored.
The volume of water at stake is a pittance compared to that involved in the Delta debate and can be replaced by storage outside the national park. Studies indicate that 95% of the water supply and 80% of the hydropower would be retained without flooding this national treasure.
Spreck Rosekrans
Restore Hetch Hetchy Boardmember
Posted by: Spreck Rosekrans at April 30, 2009 9:56 PM
For folks who don't know Spreck Rosekrans, he's a long-time policy analyst with the organization Environmental Defense.
His note and his participation in the Restore Hetch Hetchy effort are reminders that there are lots of people in Northern California who argue for draining the 17 billion gallons of Tuolumne River water from Hetch Hetchy Valley and allowing it to return to its natural state.
Posted by: Mark Grossi at May 1, 2009 8:01 AM
The arguments in favor of draining the reservoir may be valid, but can they stand on their own without the "hypocrisy" charge? I'd like to see an impartial analysis without the taint of "farmer vs. city." If there is truly excess capacity downstream, what's the big urgency for building new dams? Shouldn't we make use of the capacity we have first?
"Hypocrisy" is a weapon which is almost as likely to wound those who wield it as those it's used against.
Posted by: Mike D. at May 1, 2009 9:17 AM
I believe Spreck Rosecrans could point you to a study that shows it is feasible. This dates back several years. I remember writing a story about a UC grad student whose master's thesis raised intriguing points about water and power replacement for Hetch Hetchy. A more formal study followed, and many experts agreed it demonstrates that San Francisco could get along without Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. I think there is evidence that this would work.
The hypocrisy sentiment is quite strong in this region. Unfortunately, whenever water is the subject in California, politics and emotion often steer the argument, no matter what science says. So it is always wise to learn what people are saying in board rooms and coffee shops, as well as digging up the research.
Posted by: Mark Grossi at May 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)