At an October 28 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP) Board of Commissioners meeting, President Richard Katz lauded progress on the construction of the City’s water recycling plant and declared ”Once the recycled water starts flowing, we won’t need Mono Lake water to meet the supplies in LA.”
Kudos to the Mono Lake Committee for their perseverance. The struggle, to reduce diversions and allow the lake to refill to sustainable levels that support so many migratory bird populations, has been a bit of a roller coater ride ever since the landmark 1994 State Water Board public trust ruling. The prospect of eliminating all diversions is especially appealing – hopefully they will remove all infrastructure and thus eliminate any temptation to resume operations.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is far behind the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in undoing damage to prized mountain habitats. Indeed, the SFPUC barely acknowledges its legacy in being the only city in the United States to destroy part of a national park.
Recycling water on a large scale is relatively new. San Diego gets credit for leading the way. There are many steps in the process, but the core technology is the same as for desalination – “reverse osmosis” nanofilters. Recycling, however, requires far less energy than desalination because the source water has a much lower salt content. Substantial recycling plants are under construction in San Jose and Orange County, as well as in Los Angeles and San Diego – San Francisco and other Bay Area cities could do the same (see Yosemite’s Opportunity, Restore Hetch Hetchy, 2022).
San Diego’s “Pure Water” recycling plant
Recycling is indeed an option for the SFPUC, and would help reduce noxious effluent being dumped into San Francisco Bay as well. As Yosemite’s Opportunity explains, groundwater banking or enlarging Calaveras Reservoir are also options San Francisco might pursue. System demand, however, has been substantially reduced, and there are a wide range of things San Francisco can do to ensure its customers have reliable supplies when Hetch Hetchy Valley is restored.
It’s inspiring to see the success at Mono Lake. San Francisco surely will not want to be outdone by Los Angeles, will it?
It’s always wonderful to hear how people respond to Yosemite for the first time and it was especially rewarding to hear Governor Gavin Newsom describe the reaction of his moody 9 year old son when he saw the park for the first time. The child was suddenly eager to set aside his video game and explore, describing Yosemite as “majestic”. Hear the Governor’s description of this precious moment below.
The reverence our Governor and his family have for Yosemite begs the question of how he feels about Hetch Hetchy and especially our campaign for restoration.
Along with colleagues from the Environmental Defense Fund, we met with Newsom in 2004 when he was Mayor of San Francisco. We had prepared a “briefing book” that outlined water and power improvements necessary to keep the City whole. He listened respectfully, asked good questions and seemed intrigued but cautious. We hoped for the City’s cooperation in further investigations. When those stalled at the Board of Supervisors, we found interest at the State level.
Shortly after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger authorized the California Department of Water Resources to investigate the potential of restoring Hetch Hetchy, we received a copy of a letter from Newsom and Senator Dianne Feinstein. They had written to the Governor asking him to stop the investigation (an identical letter was sent to Secretary of Interior Gail Norton). The letter described us as “well-intentioned” and included a rather amusing error – asserting that Hetch Hetchy is in Yosemite Valley!
We chose to believe that the letter was written at the behest of Feinstein, a legendary defender of the status quo at Hetch Hetchy, and that Newsom was pressured to co-sign. Subsequent conversations with Newsom indicated a certain personal intrigue with restoring Hetch Hetchy. On the eve of his election as Governor, however, he noted to a group of environmental supporters that he would be unlikely to favor restoration.
Then Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom with Executive Director Spreck Rosekrans at the groundbreaking for Yosemite’s Mariposa Grove project in 2018.
Gavin Newsom is one of a number of politicians who have overtly or implicitly conveyed a personal interest in restoration. But few have publicly supported restoration. (Congressman John Garamendi is an exception. When he wrote “As we encourage economic growth in California, we should also make a commitment to cherish and sustain our natural heritage. I can think of no better way than restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley for our children and grandchildren”, he was quickly rebuked by Senator Feinstein.)
We continue to look for elected officials with the courage and vision to stand up for Hetch Hetchy and for all Yosemite, and we continue to build support to make it easier for them to do so. The prescient words of David Brower come to mind:
“Politicians are like weather vanes. Our job is to make the wind blow.”
Please help Restore Hetch Hetchy make the wind blow.
The Eel River is 196 miles long, with a watershed covering 3684 square miles – much of the rugged northwest California mountains. It’s a stunningly beautiful river, but its once abundant fisheries have been devastated. Dam removal will free up spawning habitat that has been blocked by Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury since 1921.Photo: The Wildlands Conservancy
The prospective removal of Scott and Cape Horn Dams on the Eel River continues to move forward, setting an important precedent for the restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. For more information see the Friends of the Eel River website.
Unlike the recently well-publicized removal of four dams on the Klamath River (which only diminished hydropower production), the Eel restoration project will affect water users. In recent years, farmers in Potter Valley have received about 40,000 acre-feet year year from the Eel River dams. This water has been released from storage at Lake Pillsbury (Scott Dam), diverted at Lake Van Arsdale (Cape Horn Dam) through a tunnel to the Russian River and ultimately made available to Potter Valley farmers.
The agreement for dam removalwill still allow water diversions when there is substantial natural flow, estimated to be about 30,000 acre-feet per year. The diversions will not be available during summer, however, when demand is high so improvements in groundwater recharge or expanding surface storage (perhaps Lake Mendocino) will be necessary to ensure the water is available when needed.
This solution is similar to restoring Hetch Hetchy in that river flows not stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir can be diverted downstream and stored in aquifers or other reservoirs. The details differ but the principal is the similar.
What’s different is that most Potter Valley farmers, as well as the Sonoma County Water Agency, seem to understand that dam removal will provide substantial benefits to the Eel River and are committed to finding a solution that works for both watersheds. While Restore Hetch Hetchy has numerous supporters in San Francisco, we are outnumbered by citizens who’ve endured a century of marketing from city officials about how great “Hetch Hetchy water” is with scant reminders that the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley remains the only time in American history that we have allowed such destruction in our national parks.
The campaign to return Hetch Hetchy Valley to its natural splendor has been called the “poster child” for land restoration. We agree.Photo: Matt Ashby Wolfskill
New West Magazine highlighted “Saving Yosemite” 45 years ago with a thoughtful and provocative article by journalist Tom DeVries that included restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley. It is an outstanding article and well worth reading.
DeVries suggestions for saving Yosemite include diminishing automobile traffic, splitting up the concessions, expanding the park to include Mono Lake, involving local tribes and draining (restoring) Hetch Hetchy.
It’s both frustrating and refreshing to see concerns expressed 45 years ago that are still with us today.
At Restore Hetch Hetchy, we have refrained from talking about “draining” the reservoir – opting instead for “relocating” it to emphasize our commitment to maintaining a reliable water system for San Francisco. “Draining” is correct, however, and the reservoir’s storage function could well be replaced by groundwater banking or recycling – technologies not available when DeVries wrote the article.
DeVries rues the sour deal cut in 1913 when President Wilson signed the Raker Act (ignoring the water system alternatives available at the time) and waxes fondly at the thought of a small plaque in a restored valley that commemorates “the day we regained our senses and pulled the plug”.
Tom’s other suggestions are noteworthy as well. Perhaps if the concessions for lodging and food competed with one another, rather than be operated by a single corporation, services would be better, even cheaper, and we would not be reading about rats at the Ahwahnee Hotel.
In recent years, Yosemite has indeed taken steps to welcome tribal input in park planning and operations as DeVries suggests. We’d like to see more.
Expanding the park to include Mono Lake is an idea we hadn’t heard. The State of California might prefer to keep the lake rather than hand it over to the feds, but Mono Lake is only a few short miles from Yosemite.
Yosemite continues to struggle with car traffic, which has includes Hetch Hetchy on weekends in the spring. If there were better public transit options, Yosemite’s reservations system would either be less of a hindrance to visitors or wholly unnecessary. (The Hetch Hetchy entrance is the only one af the parks gates where there is not public transit available.)
New West magazine was founded in 1976, renamed California in 1981, and ceased publication in 1991.
Tom DeVries has long since departed the Bay Area for Mariposa, one of Yosemite’s gateway communities. We thank him for sharing his plan for a better Yosemite in 1980 and for pulling it out of the archives for us to share.
Electricity is part of our daily lives. We need to use it wisely and do what we can to diminish the harm from its production. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable power has been remarkable, with more expected as battery technologies improve. We have also seen relatively small but important reductions to hydropower as we seek to bring our rivers back to life.
In California and the American West, we have built large dams to control the flow of water. These dams create water supply, hydropower and flood reduction benefits. Dams also destroy rivers, flood riparian corridors, eliminate fisheries and diminish recreational activities. Balancing the benefits with the destruction is often the subject of robust public debate, both for proposed projects and for projects already completed.
Recent decades have seen changes that favor the natural flow of rivers, rather than their taming to extract every last dollar.
Trinity River
The 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act authorized the Department of the Interior to create and implement a plan to improve California’s Trinity River – the largest tributary of the Klamath River. Since Trinity Dam was built in the early 1960s, the bulk of the river’s flow had been diverted into the Central Valley where it generates hydropower and ultimately increases water supply to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley.
In 2000, Interior adopted a plan to reduce those diversions and to restore the health of the Trinity River. The litigious Westlands Water District and the Northern California Power Agency (NPCA) sued to stop the plan; the Hoopa Valley Tribe, whose reservation is bisected by the river, intervened on behalf of Interior. Public pressure convinced NCPA members Palo Alto, Alameda, Port of Oakland and Healdsburg to withdraw, creating an unprecedented rift within NPCA.
The court eventually ruled for Interior. Average hydropower production created by the Trinity’s diversions has been reduced by about 322,000,000 kWh per year. (How much is this? If every one of 40,000,000 Californians ran a 1 kilowatt toaster for 8 hours, they would use 320,000,000 kWh.)
Professor Emeritus Luna Leopold called the methodology for restoring the Trinity River “the best thing I have seen in three decades”. The restoration plan (in part) requires more of the Trinity’s natural flow to be left in the river and less diverted to the Central Valley through the Carr and Spring Creek Powerplants.
Klamath River
The removal of four dams (J.C. Boyle, Iron Gate and Copco 1 & 2) on the Klamath River has eliminated production of hydropower. From 1974 to 2023, these dams produced an average of 596,000,000 kWh per year.
The dam removals both improve water quality and expand salmon habitat, and are widely celebrated by boaters and recreational fishermen, as well as the tribes (Yurok, Karok and the aforementioned Hoopa Valley) who have depended on the river and its salmon for both culture and sustenance for millennia.
Tuolumne River and Hetch Hetchy
San Francisco operates three power plants in the Tuolumne watershed: (1) Kirkwood, fed by releases from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, (2) Holm, fed by releases from Cherry Reservoir and (3) Moccasin, fed by diversions in the upper river before being conveyed to San Francisco.
Restore Hetch Hetchy’s Cherry Intertie Alternative proposes that water from Cherry reservoir be allowed to generate power at Holm, then rerouted to generate power at Moccasin before being conveyed to the Bay Area. Under this scenario, there would be little change in hydropower generation at Holm and Moccasin, but generation at Kirkwood would only be possible during winter and spring when there is substantial natural flow in the Tuolumne River.
Restore Hetch Hetchy’s proposal to divert water from Holm Powerplant into the conveyance system is based on engineering produced by San Francisco’s own consultants.
Restore Hetch Hetchy understands that San Francisco will need to make system improvements to retain the hydropower and water supply benefits that their system provides. Those improvements are fully achievable and are long overdue.
