By: Nick Aster

Nick Aster — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:53:43 +0000

Jerry – excelent reply, thanks. I’m still not 100% behind the idea of spending even $1 Billion, which is still an awful lot of dough, but you’ve definitely shed some light on the issue which I appreciate. I was mostly trying to be pragmatic in the context of the many other things we could spend a that kind of money on.
Anyway given the choice, I’d like to see Glen Canyon Dam come down first – there’s a place where more water is lost to evaporation that gets used for anything and (I’m guessing) most of the electricity is lost in transmission because the dam is so far from anything.

By: Jerry Cadagan

Jerry Cadagan — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:10:22 +0000

One of the difficulties with issues of any complexity is that some are prone to start expressing strong opinions, while simply having their facts and assumptions wrong. Mr. Aster’s piece is a classic example.
He starts off by referring to Hetch Hetchy reservoir as being “massive”. It’s all relative. Hetch Hetchy is only California’s 20th largest reservoir, holding a relative puny 350,000 acre feet of water. He then buys “hook, line and sinker” the Dept. of Water Resources $3 – 10 billion cost estimate. Even a cursory reading of the report (not the SF Chronicle’s coverage of it) quickly reveals that DWR built in replacement water facilities with capacities running from two to four times the capacity of Hetch Hetchy. There should be a debate about NEW capacity in California; but the cost of any new capacity should not be charged to Hetch Hetchy restoration. Meanwhile, our organization stands by its $1 billion estimate.
Nick then characterizes valley restoration as being essentially “asthetic” (sic). California’s population is growing and that growing population needs outdoor recreational outlets for camping, river fishing, boating, bicycling, leisure hiking, and the like. Yosemite Valley used to provide that, but all now complain that Yosemite Valley is too crowded. And under current SFPUC policies at Hetch Hetchy —- no bikes, no dogs, no boats, no swimming — there’s little relief. Meanwhile, some (like SFPUC President Richard Sklar) will respond that we need more water to accommodate that growing population, so let’s increase the size of Hetch Hetchy. See Peter Glieck’s excellent work at pacinst.org to be convinced that we can get along with existing water supplies for a long time to come.
Once again proving that homework is important, Nick assumes that there will be a “decline in water quality”. Wrong again. Under all the alternative proposals the water will still come from the Tuolumne River. Under most, filtration will be required, as should be the case now. There are two studies –one by NRDC and one by Environmental Working Group — that belie the myth that SFPUC water is so “pure”. It may taste OK, but if you’ve got a compromised immune system, watch out.
Nick’s biggest mistake is assuming that proposing Hetch Hetchy Valley restoration will give a “bad name to environmentalists”. We’re kind of proud that our supporters include no less than four former California Resources Secretaries (Ike Livermore, Huey Johnson, Doug Wheeler, Mary Nichols) and Don Hodel, head of President Reagan’s Energy Dept. and Interior Dept.
Finally, Nick rhetorically asks about replacement of the miniscule energy that would be lost by removal of the dam. To SF’s credit, it is a leader in solar power. By the time the reservoir is removed that should more than make up for the loss. Meanwhile, SF ought to join the rest of the state and get into the water recycling business.
Jerry Cadagan
Board Chair, Restore Hetch Hetchy

Comments on: Editorial Monday – Hetch Hetchy Restoration An Example of Pushing Too Far

By: Nick Aster

By: Jerry Cadagan