Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Hetch Hetchy

A bit off topic, but did anyone else catch this?


President Bush has stuck $7 million into the budget to study the impact of removing O’Shaughnessy Dam and restoring Hetch Hetchy. Unfortunately not everyone looks like they’re happy about it.

ScrippsNews: “This week, the administration slid the Hetch Hetchy study funds into its overall Interior Department budget proposal. If approved by Congress, the money would fund research into the environmental and economic consequences of removing Hetch Hetchy’s O’Shaughnessy Dam.

‘We are extremely pleased that the federal government has seen fit to become a full partner with California in the Hetch Hetchy restoration study process,’ declared Ron Good, executive director of the Sonora-based group called Restore Hetch Hetchy.

But almost certainly, the pleasure will be short-lived.

‘It’s dead on arrival,’ Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, said Wednesday. ‘It’s a complete surprise, and I don’t support one bit of it.’”

To bad John Muir isn't around any more. He would jump all over this.

"Hetch Hetchy Valley, far from being a plain, common, rock-bound meadow, as many who have not seen it seem to suppose, is a grand landscape garden, one of Nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples. As in Yosemite, the sublime rocks of its walls seem to glow with life, whether leaning back in repose or standing erect in thoughtful attitudes, giving welcome to storms and calms alike, their brows in the sky, their feet set in the groves and gay flowery meadows, while birds, bees, and butterflies help the river and waterfalls to stir all the air into music—things frail and fleeting and types of permanence meeting here and blending, just as they do in Yosemite, to draw her lovers into close and confiding communion with her." John Muir

Hetch Hetchy is a primary source of water for San Francisco. Restoring the valley to it's natural state by removing the dam has been an on-going discussion and battle for a number of years but is being vigorously opposed. It probably will not be restored during our lifetimes.

HA! It will NOT be restored. This is a project that I find astonishing. The dam supplies water and power to 2.4 million people. Tear it down, you have to replace it.

What some pushing this say, is that it will be replaced by a dam downstream.

So, it involves building another dam.

Also, to relieve the stress of all the people in Yosemite.

Wait a minute: The masses of people in Yosemite, are largely the people who drive through, and those who camp, and those who stay in overnite accommodations.

Right now, there is no access of points east of the dam, except by foot.

Sounds like massive roadbuilding, construction of campgrounds, buildings, lodging, etc.

That doesn't sound like a restoration to me.

The last person who suggested a study, Don Hodel, was recently ripped to shreds by the Sierra Club, as being "politically motivated"

So, it seems that the proponents tear down those who support their position, before any dams.

This does not seem like a good expenditure of billions, unless it is seen for what it probably is, a make-work jobs program, as so many are.....

If I recall, the Sacramento Bee had a long series of articles about a year or so ago on restoration.

I gather there is an irrigation district or some such (recollection) downstream that could provide capacity to replace Hetch Hetchy.

Restoration would take years so let's start NOW!

When I first heard of this idea a few years ago I thought it was just another crazy fringe group idea. But being a regular at Yosemite, I've thought of what the reaction would be if someone said "We need a place to store water for Fresno; if we built a dam at the end of Yosemite Valley, it would be a ready-made 'water tank' and save us some money, and provide power." Yeah, but...

Hetch Hetchy was very similar to Yosemite Valley, and apparently the research they've done finds that it would recover rather quickly from being underwater. The folks that are proposing it have presented what sounds like viable options for "moving" the reservoir to a more reasonable area, so SF's water supply shouldn't be impacted.

Certainly it would cost, but there are things you can't buy, and if it's possible to undo such a horrible mistake (putting it kindly), and at least leave our kids with Hetch Hetchy Valley as it was and should be, I certainly don't mind paying my share or doing whatever I can to help restore it. They'll just spend the money on something else anyway, might as well get something worthwhile from it. It sounds like such an overwhelming task that I think people just naturally think like I once did, that it's a crazy idea; but if you listen to the proposal, it really does sound possible and not nearly so outrageous as it first appears. I'm somewhat amazed that the administration is actually going to consider it, but thrilled to hear it.

After thinking about this for awhile, let me throw out another concept: If, as that previous study shows, the HH valley would recover relatively quickly (50-100 years), what is the need to do so NOW? The valley is preserved (better than any wilderness act could ever do!) under the water. There is no polluting going on, no crime, no oil spills, no roads, no buses of tourists....in short, all the things that everyone complains about. Like a time capsule, it is preserved for future generations.

So...there is no hurry. I won't see it, but I won't, anyway. There is a whole lot of wilderness I won't see, either, although I support it.

In some finite time, we will figure out fusion power. Then power will be cheap, which means that desalination will be cheap. No new dam needs to be built. Or in our typical American way, instead of being good shepards to the future, we can try to pursue our unending lust to have it our way, NOW.

Here’s another Muir quote concerning the Hetch Hetchy:

“These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and, instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the Mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for watertanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.”

Why would Bush propose this now? Take a page from the crass cynicism of the James Carville – Karl Rove School: be the first to propose the impossible. The marketing value is huge.

Hmmmm... Ken, you pose an interesting argument.

There truly is lots of wilderness that even we outdoors enthusiasts will never see. I have even hiked the PCT from Tuolumne Meadows to Sonora Pass, and at the time thought, "It's only a dayhike from here out to HH. Might be fun to see some day."

But will I? I doubt it. Would it be more appealing if HH were not there? Probably not. It is some of the most remote back country there is in the Sierra. It is really beautiful. I would love to do a trans-sierra from Twin Lakes out of Bridgeport over to HH. But it may never happen, since there are so many other places I want to see, too.

Now, with the current wilderness politics, if HH ever were removed, how many people do you think would visit the valley? Will they build a road? Not likely. Will they build a trail? ...well maybe.

So removing it would be a billion dollar superfund project. But for whose benefit?

I guess I am not against removing HH, but I sure can't get excited enough to support it, either.

....I just want to be permitted to paddle there.

Do not kid yourself folks, this has nothing to do with the good of the forest, or the future visitors. The Bush handbook has only a few plays in it...go figure!! It worked so well last time, why not try it again.

Who wants to bet Halibertin or sum subsidiary, unbenounced to the public, is granted the bid; and guess who ownes a large liquid valve company? That's right, Dady Bush.

It is so clear, that this family cares not for America or it's people, but only about themselves and their finacial friends.

Sorry to seem so pesimestic, however, I think I have it right.

Maybe Laura Bush had some stories to tell after she and her friends camped at several of the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite back in 2001.

Some thoughts:
From the various readings, it appears:
- Leaving Cherry Lake (among others) intact, the amount of water lost from HH itself is negligible.
- This loss could be easily “re-captured” (95% water / 73% hydroelectric) down below… Lake Don Pedro…its proposed new capacity easily dwarfing current water-holding capabilities
- Hydro-electric losses would be miniscule – a fraction of 1%
- Given, new pumps, pipeline, and filters will be needed.
- But, modern hydroelectric studies show that it is feasible to re-open an irreplaceable jewel

I propose that Bush might do something right (for a change)…something worthwhile before he vacates the office. Policies do change; there are precedents:…More than 170 dams have been removed in the United States in the last 5 years… the recent Owens Valley water release…Mono Lake.

Hetch Hetchy is a national treasure, woefully held hostage by a then “convenient at the time” but now “woefully outdated” water storage philosophy. Many respected studies seem to indicate that with today’s technology, any potential losses can be overcome, without any sacrifice to quality of lifestyle. Being as natural wonders are in short supply, this makes the O’Shaughnessy Dam superfluous, unnecessary.

Damming this Valley is/was still morally wrong. I do not really care if Halliburton or anyone of his cronies gets the contract; jobs will be created - whatever….but a wrong will be righted.
I even suggest that they might leave the dam in place, (500-year-flood protection), and just open the gates. Lastly, change the name on the dam…to WMD…truly a weapon of mass destruction.

Here is the underlying problem: The projection is that from 2000 to 2020, the population of California will increase by 8.3 million people.
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/05PyrmdCA2.pdf

We are struggling to supply water to the current population, as well as power. We're squeaking by.

By 2020, we have to add the water and power capacity of over THREE Hetch Hetchys. Where is that coming from?

You don't build a dam overnite, even with modern building techniques. It will likely take over a decade, if we decided to do it right now....one has to do the planning, EIS, purchase the property, litigate the lawsuits, deal with the Indian rights, etc, etc, etc. By the time the dam is built, the state will be in both a water and power crisis, and the only people willing to get rid of the water and power, will be those willing to live in tents.

I just can't see it happening.

I read a biography about John Muir last year and that's when I first read about Hetch Hetchy. It still kind of bums me out when I think about it, so it would be great if they did take steps to restore it, although who knows how many generations it would take for it to get to near the way it was.

Oh well, at least they are talking about it although I doubt anything will be done soon. I suppose they should deal with global warming first, although of course the two projects are not mutually exclusive.

Ken, I appreciate your comments about the topic presented in a factual way without all the worthless political innuendo and garbage. I may live on the east coast but have visited the west so many times that I am very familiar with both the HH and Owens stories. Harvey

Thanks, Harvey.

I do a lot of things in the wilderness every year, and there is SO much to do, and SO much money is needed to restore our forests to health and keep it that way.

I don't oppose the "concept" of restoring HH, but from a practical standpoint, I think that ship has sailed. To divert money to a "show" project like this, which has no real chance of happening, is just throwing money away.....you can't help but wonder who benefits? Did someone's daughter start a environmental consulting firm?

I'm looking at starting to do some work on the Los Padres National Forest, which runs from Ventura up to Monterey. Fully trained professional Rangers--none. Fully trained professional trail crews--none. Same story as Sequoia National Forest, where I occasionally do trail work.

<shaking my head>

The fact that it's even being considered by Bush, Schwarzenegger, etc. is somewhat amazing to me, but I guess I'm not enough of a cynic. If Bush wants to leave a legacy of implementing the 'restore Hetch Hetchy' process, I don't care what his motive is, I'll take it. If it's just a sham and they're considering it just so they can say they did, too bad, but I'm not going to help them along by saying 'why bother, it will never get done anyway.'

I lived in the SF area when the Embarcadero freeway was built. It was "needed". As ugly and unpopular as it was, no one ever imagined it would be 'undone'. Yet sure enough, it's gone, and guess what...we survived, and the removal has been a major asset to the city as a whole. I'm sure there were plenty of folks saying the same thing, "it will never get done, we need other things, what's done is done, we will need the roads for the future, etc.

I'm not sure why or if this qualifies as "political innuendo" but it sure was political that they dammed the valley to begin with...besides irresponsible and shortsighted. I'm sure they said what we hear now, we "need" the water. Never mind that there may be a better way to do it, who cares, let's take the easiest route. There's another valley next to it that the wilderness nuts can use if they need it.

And just because there are other things that "need" doing, does that mean this should be shelved and then nothing at all be done, instead of at least one positive move?

The folks at hh.org seem to have done the math, and this is largely responsible for me changing my thinking from 'wacko idea' to something maybe...just maybe feasible. So I don't think I'll rain on their parade by being a cynic and just 'forget it, they'll never do it anyway.'

I live near Morro Rock, a 500+ foot gem of a landmark in Morro Bay California. Back in the '50's they started blasting away at it because they "needed" the rock to build things. Fortunately somebody stopped them, and it wasn't by saying "oh, don't sweat it, it's already started and you'll never stop them. There are too many other things to worry about."

How about some blasting on Mt. Whitney? We could use the rock to build things...

I just returned from my first visit to Hetch Hetchy, I printed out this entire thread and plan to respond and add a few photos. I have my own opinions but I'll offer up what I can with photos on my web site ( not here) but it's not off-topic here, you never know when some successful group might secretly buy up an ecosystem and way of life to many to supply water to a guzzling lack of ecosystem and morality.

My card hasn't been charged yet for my day hike request...cya up there anyway

Check out the current (March) issue of Scientific American concerning the topic of dam removal and eco-impact. The short story: to do it right, an elaborate network of pipelines, pumps and valves is required. I'm not a black helicopter guy, but the political class has simply become too powerful (both parties) and ignoring those motivations is dangerous.

Goofing around a little, it's kinda obvious what I think about the subject. Check my link and click the 2nd photo down for a video of Hetch Hetchy, I think it spells it out pretty good. To dam or not to dam, I think just move the dam downstream a ways, it's only 360K acre-feet, a very tiny lake.

http://www.hikeofyourlife.com/huntingbigfoot.html
You can watch the other video if you want, too.

Don't get me wrong, Hetch Hetchy reservoir is not ugly, it's just out of place. Arguments pro dam include the lack of traffic, etc., I don't buy that argument, the Grand Canyon of the Tuolomne can be just as off limits as it is now. Arguments against dam include what I said above, the dam just simply doesn't belong in a National Park.

Well have fun, I'll be adding more as the daylight savings goes on.