The proposed Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 includes over $2.25 billion in funding for San Joaquin Delta sustainability and repair projects, as well as billions more for statewide water storage projects. To many in Southern California regions like San Diego, the bond measure is fantastic –more funding in the water system means that water-scarce regions will enjoy more abundant (and cheaper) water supply. For many in Northern California regions like San Francisco, the bond measure is less appealing –the bond would make wet cities pay for expensive water projects that benefit dry cities hundreds of miles away. This kind of conflict is inevitable in situations where pooled resources are spent on different groups (or “special interests” in political terms).

A full analysis of the bond and all its pros and cons is beyond the scope of this post, and perhaps such an analysis is impossible because the relationships and dependencies between different groups (i.e. the public and private sector, environmentalists and builders, the northern and southern residents) are often hard to identify objectively. Today, I want to look at a water issue that is closer to home and narrower in scope. Let’s look at the conflict over the Hetch Hetchy Valley reservoir in California’s Yosemite National Park. Studying a smaller water conflict allows us to circumvent the layers of complexity typical in a statewide water conflict and more easily see the details of a water policy debate.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley is a glacial valley in California’s Yosemite National Park. Essentially, it is a big rock bowl. John Muir visited the Hetch Hetchy valley in 1871 and later described the area as one of “Nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.” San Francisco would later dam the valley with the O’Shaughnessey Dam, completed in 1923. The once empty rock bowl is now filled with pristine water 300 feet deep.

From an engineering standpoint, the reservoir created by the O’Shaughnessey Dam is impressive. It is a notable project for the following reasons:

• The water from the reservoir is conveyed to San Francisco by gravity. The water conveyance system needs no additional energy inputs, unlike the system of pumps that brings San Joaquin Delta water to Southern California.
• Hydroelectricity generation from the O’Shaughnessey dam provides San Francisco with 20% of its electricity.
• The water from the O’Shaughnessey dam has “filtration avoidance” status; only minor treatment (addition of lime for corrosion control and chlorine for disinfection) is required before the city pipes the water to end-users.
• O’Shaughnessey Dam is large. It provides about 25% of the storage in the entire Hetch Hetchy Reservoir system.

From an environmentalist standpoint, the O’Shaughnessey Dam is a blight that has ruined part of Yosemite National Park. Old black-and-white photos of the Hetch Hetchy rock bowl before damming reveal a beautiful landscape. Groups like the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund support the idea of removing the aging O’Shaughnessey Dam and restoring the Hetch Hetchy to its former glory.

Removing O’Shaughnessey Dam, however, would require San Francisco to either find new water sources or cut its water use dramatically. Without the reservoir’s pristine water, the city would have to build energy-intensive water treatment plants to bring replacement water to drinkable standards. Furthermore, San Francisco would lose 20% of its electricity supply without generation from the dam.

The Environmental Defense Fund argues that because San Francisco is investing $3.2 billion in overhauling its water system, now is a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reassess the need for the [O’Shaughnessey] dam.” The San Francisco Public Utility Commission considered removal of the dam and concluded that it would cost about $10 billion for its removal and for construction of new water substitutes. Production of additional electricity to treat lesser quality water and replace lost hydropower will have other environmental costs that may outweigh the benefits of restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley.

The debate over the Hetch Hetchy Valley pits environmental interests against urban interests. Newspapers around the country call for California to restore the valley so that Americans can once again enjoy its natural beauty. Like the larger scale water bond disagreement in California, the disagreement over the Hetch Hetchy involves many views on how natural resources should be utilized in a region.

Should a city spend $10 billion to enhance a national park by restoring an environment to its natural state? Restore Hetch Hetchy, one of the leading organizations in support of removing the O’Shaughnessey Dam, says that water from “Tuolumne river water stored in the Hetch Hetchy valley of Yosemite National Park can be stored elsewhere and delivered without interruption to its end users.” Where, exactly, is elsewhere? While Hetch Hetchy may be restored, another area’s ecological system may be utilized in its stead. San Francisco needs to get its water from somewhere, after all.

Everything that city and state governments do affects groups differently. In California, investment in the San Joaquin Delta system benefits farmers in the central valley and residents in Los Angeles, but it threatens some endangered fish species and forces Northern Californians to pay for Southern Californians’ massive delta withdrawals. Also, there are environmental groups on both sides of the debate; the Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society support the bond while the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League oppose it. The complexity of the California water bond debate is shaped by numerous individual examples such as the Hetch Hetchy conflict. Even the smaller, regional Hetch Hetchy conflict involves huge differences in geographic, hydrological, social, and special interests.

I doubt the O’Shaughnessey Dam will be removed any time soon, but groups will continue to lobby for the restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Meanwhile at the macro-level, the state continues to struggle with the water bond debate. Unless the bond is delayed until the 2012 ballot, voters will have to pick a side by November this year.

Tags: California, Hetch Hetchy, Reservoir, San Francisco, Water bond
Posted in Current events, Energy, Water Distribution, Water Resources | 4 Comments »

4 Responses to “The Hetch Hetchy Debate”

1. Jerry Cadagan says:

   October 23, 2010 at 4:31 pm

   This article is shallow in analysis and inaccurate in fact. For example —1. It says that SF would have to find new water sources or cut use “drastically”. Nonsense. Numerous studies have shown that there are engineering fixes that would allow elimination of the reservoir and still allow SF to get virtually the same amount of water as now from the same source — the Tuolumne River. Those studies can be found with a small amount of effort on the website of the organization that this piece fails to mention — Restore Hetch Hetchy (hetchhetchy.org). 2. SF’s price tag for fixing the long neglected Hetch Hetchy system is 4.6 billion, not 3.2 billion as the author erroneously says. 3. The article refers to electricity being generated at the dam, presumably referring to O’Shaughnessey Dam. No electricity is generated at that dam. 4. The article takes as gospel the $10 billion figure for reservoir elimination, water and power replacement, and restoration. That is an unsubstantiated (and grossly inflated) figure given by SF to the State of California in connection with the State’s “study of the studies” (which can be found on the Restore Hetch Hetchy site). The more accurate numbers (between 1 and 2 billion) are substantiated in the RHH and EDF studies. The article assumes that SF will bear the cost of reservoir elimination and valley restoration. The proposal by RHH explicitly and clearly says that the cost ought to be borne by all US taxpayers, with a significant supplement from the private sector, much as was done when restoration supporter Don Hodel (Reagan’s Interior Secretary) supervised the raising of $500 million to restore the Statue of Liberty.

   Final note on a glaring omission; the story rhetorically asks where SF will find the water that might be lost if the reservoir is removed. The author should have done a bit of research and found that SF is the only city of any significant size in the state that does NO water recycling. That’s right, municipal golf courses, Golden Gate Park, playgrounds, etc. etc. are all irrigated with potable (drinkable) water. That’s unconscionable in this day and age.

   Reply
2. Andrew Parrish says:

   March 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm

   I was just curious where this debate is currently at? Are there any laws that could be used to back up the claim that the dam should be removed?

   Reply
3. Nick Lee says:

   March 21, 2011 at 7:44 am

   Hello Andrew, thank you for writing. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you ask), debate over the Hetch Hetchy seems to have stagnated. I have not seen much recent discussion concerning the Hetch Hetchy on the Internet since I wrote this article.

   One interesting piece I found was this: http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Protecting%20Hetch%20Hetchy%20Reservoir%20and%20the%20SF%20Bay%20Water%20Supply%20-%20Behar.pdf

   It’s a record of a publication released by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission summarizing their research about removing the dam and listing some opinions regarding its removal. In it the SFPUC cites the Raker Act as the law that protects San Francisco’s operation of the Hetch Hetchy. They also say that any change to the Hetch Hetchy must be ordered at the federal level.

   Unfortunately the piece is not dated, so I can’t tell you how recent it came out.

   In 2006, environmentalists and the SFPUC voiced their opinions on the matter at an informational hearing in Sacramento. An article about the hearing can be found here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-10-11/bay-area/17314336_1_hetch-hetchy-valley-o-shaughnessy-dam-tuolumne-river

   The article refers to the report that the SFPUC summarized in the sheet I linked to just now, stating that the report came out 2 years before the 2006 hearing. Thus the the SFPUC publication most likely came out around 2004.

   I hope this helps!

   Reply
4. Peter Jacobs says:

   August 22, 2011 at 11:30 pm

   I don’t take too much issue with this article except on one glaring flaw. You said “Where, exactly, is elsewhere?” implying that no one had bothered to think of it and you in all your brilliance just asked the critical question. People have thought of it and if you had bothered to read the study done by “environment defense” before publishing your article you could have answered your own question. Most of all this article is short on information, analysis and quality and should just be taken down. Also Jerry Cadagan, your remarks were right on the money.

   Reply