You are here

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Denies Request For Hearing On Restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park

Share

Published Date

November 29, 2011

Draining the Hetch Hetchy Valley and restoring it would make Tueeulala Falls visible to more Yosemite visitors. Photo from state of California's 2006 study into restoring the valley.

A request by the Restore Hetch Hetchy organization that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission hold a public hearing on the question of restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park has been denied.

Anson Moran, president of the commission, rejected the group's request, saying it was the commission's responsibility to "protect this system that provides water to 2.5 million residents and businesses in the Bay Area."

Beneath the reservoir backed up by the O'Shaugnessy Dam that was finished in 1923, and raised by 85 more feet in 1938, are 360,000 acre-feet of water to meet the needs of San Francisco’s residents. Submerged by that water is a granite-lined canyon once graced by
feathery waterfalls and split by a placid river, the Tuolumne, running through its meadows and forests.

While Mr. Moran seems to imply that draining Hetch Hetchy would jeopardize San Francisco's water supply, officials for Restore Hetch Hetchy have maintained that's not true. Draining the reservoir -- whether to remove the dam itself is something Restore Hetch Hetchy officials haven't taking a firm stand on -- would not adversely affect San Francisco's thirst, Mike Marshall, the group's executive director, told the Traveler back in June.

"San Francisco’s water rights, and its source of water, is the Tuolumne River. Their water rights are tied to the Tuolumne River, which flows through the Hetch Hetchy Valley, and then on down into the San Joaquin River and then into the bay delta and the San Francisco Bay," he said at the time. "That’s not going to change, nobody’s arguing San Francisco’s water rights. What’s going to change is where we store the water. And the confusion derives from the fact that even though San Francisco has nine reservoirs where it stores its water, one of them, its largest  reservoir, is the Hetchy Hetchy Reservoir, and we have always called the system the 'Hetch Hetchy system.'

"So, (U.S.) Sen. (Dianne) Feinstein and many San Franciscans mistakenly believe that Hetch Hetchy is the source of San Francisco’s water, when in fact the Tuolumne River is the source. And we’re not talking about taking a drop of water away from the city, we’re simply saying store it outside of the national park."

While Mr. Moran described the proposal to drain Hetch Hetchy as "antithetical" to the commission's mission, the non-profit group replied that nothing in San Francisco's city charter "would preclude the SFPUC from restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley given that reasonable alternatives for water storage are available."

Multiple studies performed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water Resources, the University of California, Davis and the Environmental Defense Fund have determined that utilizing Hetch Hetchy Valley as a water storage facility is unnecessary, the group said Monday.

“We are deeply disappointed in the SFPUC’s response. The SFPUC’s mission includes environmental stewardship of the Tuolumne River watershed, yet it has never considered the adverse environmental impacts of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir to Yosemite National Park, nor to the nine miles of Tuolumne River buried beneath the reservoir,” said Mr. Marshall.

“We continue to believe that SFPUC’s mission mandates a public hearing on the issue. San Franciscans pride themselves on their 'green' reputation and we believe the City can and should become a better steward of the natural resources it controls,” he went on.  “To suggest that the City Charter prevent the SFPUC from even considering environmental improvements to the system is irresponsible and, in fact, ‘antithetical’ to the will of many San Franciscans.”

According to Restore Hetch Hetchy, a July 2010 poll of San Francisco voters performed by David Binder Research, Inc. found that 59 percent of voters supported restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley if there was no increase in water rates. If there would be an increase in water rates, the poll found the voters evenly split -- 42 percent to 43 percent, with a 4 percent margin of error, the group added.

Restore Hetch Hetchy plans to conduct a petition drive next year to move the question of draining Hetch Hetchy to the November 2012 ballot. To do so, the group must collect 47,000 signatures from registered San Francisco voters by next June.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

I used the word millions in response to your use of the same word.  Probably back in 1913 it was probably more like "hundreds of thousands."  But the idea is the same.  There was tremendous public outcry throughout the United States as John Muir and others pushed to save the valley.

In the end, as is so often the case now, politicians made the decision for all of them.  That is the way it is supposed to be in a republic -- but no one can force us all to like or agree with the decisions they sometimes make.

All any of us can do is try to make sure our own feelings and opinions are heard and considered.  Too often is seems as though the "considered" part is left out or are considered only if the people pushing for consideration have big money behind them.  When that happens, it's wrong.

Now we've kind of beaten this horse severely.  What will we disagree about tomorrow?

Keep smiling, ec, and I'll do the same.


Actually Lee - I don't think we disagree on this one. At least not on the point of needing full public input.  Where we might disagree is on the outcome.  You appear to be fully committed to removal no matter the cost or impact.  I am open to removel IF the cost and impact doesn't place an undue burden on the people.
Amd Lee - I am always smiling.


 Hey John Muir was against that dam-- thats all the expert opinion I need !!!LOL


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.