by Spreck | Apr 24, 2026 | Uncategorized
In The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism (2005), Historian Robert Righter recounts the philosophical difference between “Preservationist” John Muir and “Conservationist” Gifford Pinchot, first head of the United States Forest Service who supported damming Hetch Hetchy because it provided “The greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time.”
Righter is correct that Hetch Hetchy ignited the activism we see today, but the term “environmentalism” was not really used in its current context until 1970 or so.
Today, environmentalism means different things to different people and different organizations. At Restore Hetch Hetchy, we’re committed to the idea, passion and value of preserving and restoring Earth’s most spectacular landscapes and we are laser focused on Hetch Hetchy – the one landscape in our great national park system that has been damaged.
Today, many “environmental” organizations have broadened their mission well beyond natural landscapes and some do not address natural landscapes at all.
Authoring “Yosemite’s conservationists: an Earth Day message“, Ken Braun, Managing Editor and Director of Content for the Capitol Research Center, opines that “advocates for both conservation and energy abundance could and should once again become—quite literally— natural allies.” He recounts with disappointment how the Sierra Club has evolved from being the premier protector of public lands to an organization opposed to energy development. He is more positive about The Nature Conservancy and is a big fan of Restore Hetch Hetchy (Yosemite is his “#1 favorite place on the planet and #2 is not close”).
Long before Restore Hetch Hetchy, Executive Director Spreck Rosekrans and his wife Isabella took their kids out of school on a whim and headed off to Yosemite. Ken Braun would understand.
We are sympathetic to Braun’s view. Restore Hetch Hetchy, after all, was founded by Sierra Club members who were highly motivated to find a physical and political solution that would allow Yosemite’s second great valley to be returned to its natural splendor. We take pride in identifying and proposing practical water and power solutions that meet human needs.
We do understand, however, that the Sierra Club and so many others tackle complicated worldwide issues related to energy development and, in many areas, water supply development.
At Restore Hetch Hetchy, we mostly stay in our lane. But we are big supporters of solar power with battery backups that have been successfully and cost-effectively developed in California and other areas. And we are big fans of improved groundwater recharge in wet years, recycled water and improved markets (see last week’s blog).
Another Earth Day message comes from Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, in his Ringside: The Abundance Alliance. Ring does not outwardly support or oppose restoring Hetch Hetchy (or Mono Lake or the Salton Sea), but he implicitly acknowledges them as noble objectives as long as environmentalists “embrace big projects”.
Ring has a point. We all (self-identifying “environmentalists” and those who eschew such a moniker) need to be practical about meeting human needs. But the devil is in the details. Water recycling may share the same core technology as desalination but it has far fewer impacts. Ring’s description of how to add 10 million acre-feet of water supply includes some ideas that should be pursued, some that shouldn’t. Further the proposal conflates storage with supply – building a reservoir does not mean if will fill.
Restore Hetch Hetchy takes pride in being serious about water and power solutions – mostly those related to our narrow (yet oh so grand!) objective, but also for the world at large. We don’t support the same approaches Braun and Ring propose. But we do support robust public debate about all technologies and proposals as well as decisive action to implement projects that serve the needs of our communities without undue financial or ecological cost.
by Spreck | Apr 19, 2026 | Uncategorized
San Diego has an excess of water. So it is selling some of its supply to Las Vegas and Arizona. See the Wall Street Journal story “San Diego now has so much water that it’s selling it”
As a result of the highly-publicized, long-term decline in Colorado River supplies, Las Vegas and Arizona are eager to find additional water. Shown above are Lake Mead’s intake towers in 1983 and 2022.
Water markets are often controversial and are institutionally complex. So buying and selling of supplies between water agencies happens less than it should and many areas do not have sufficient incentives to use water efficiently. (More on this philosophy below.)
San Diego’s surplus is the result of three things:
- Investment in the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant,
- Investment in its Pure Water recycling program, and
- Reduced demand.
Recycling and desalination both rely on the same core technology – using energy to squeeze water through high-efficiency membrane filters (aka nanofilters). Desalination, however requires far more energy due to the high salt content of ocean water. In addition, the disposal of excess brine is problematic and nobody wants a desalination plant on their beach.
San Diego’s “Pure Water” recycling project, however, is intriguing from an environmental perspective. Its genesis is not simply from the desire for more water, but also from mandates to reduce pollution from its Point Loma wastewater plant. See our Fall 2021 Newsletter story.
Additionally, urban water demand in San Diego has dropped, as it has throughout the state. People are watering fewer lawns and indoor fixtures are more efficient than ever.
As a result of its overinvestment, San Diego will be selling water to Las Vegas and Arizona, areas that are seeing reduction in their supplies from the Colorado River. This will bring at least some rate relief in San Diego. We can think of it as selling desalinated and recycled water, but the inland customers will actually be using Colorado River water that would otherwise go to San Diego.
At Restore Hetch Hetchy, we are pleased these agencies are doing business. As noted above, we are fans of San Diego’s recycling project but we are not fans of desalination (it’s an expensive, harmful technology we don’t need at this time and hopefully never will).
As promised above a bit more on selling water, first published on World Water Day in 2010
Balancing the Water Business and the Public Trust
By Spreck Rosekrans | Published: October 15, 2010
Aristotle was right. Water, along with earth, air and fire, is a one of the primary elements upon which life depends. Water is essential for our homes, our businesses, and especially for our farms. Water also is the great elixir that sustains fish, wildlife and the natural world.
Across the globe, as a result of increases in population, depletion of groundwater basins and the uncertainty of future precipitation, shortages of this precious fluid continue to become more commonplace. Providing reliable water supplies requires both cost-effective
investments in infrastructure as well as policies and incentives to ensure that existing supplies are used fairly and efficiently.
There is a fundamental public interest or trust in water which requires that the environment and local communities be provided sufficient supplies and protected from more powerful and often remote economic interests. As water supplies decline, citizens in the 21st century should plan to monitor governmental management of water closely and to ensure that these indispensable public values are protected.
However, the private sector has an important role to play as well. Improvements in efficiency as well as evolving human and environmental needs will inevitably bring about changes in water use patterns. A business model — with appropriate constraints — should be employed that allows and encourages innovation. In many cases, water should be marketed to those who can use it most efficiently and productively. More opportunity for appropriate water marketing will bring out the best ideas that resourceful water users, urban and agricultural alike, can implement.
By improving efficiency in cities and on farms, economic incentives will help maximize food production and meet business needs while optimizing the use of limited water supplies. As a result, it will be easier to meet basic human needs and to reduce the pressure to extract ever increasing amounts of water from our rivers and streams.
by Spreck | Apr 4, 2026 | Uncategorized
Wapama Falls won’t see this kind of volume in 2026. April and May will be the best times for waterfalls in Hetch Hetchy as well as in Yosemite Valley.
Wednesday’s headline in the The San Francisco Chronicle “California in for ‘ugly summer’ amid one of the worst snowpacks on record” was an attention grabber. How bad is it really?
Its worth checking in at the end of March – halfway through the 2026 “water year” (water years run from October through September).
The April 1 San Francisco Chronicle reports “State measurements on April 1, the closely watched date when snow levels historically reach their peaks, show that snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades and Klamath Mountains is a meager 18% of average.”
We aren’t sure where the 18% number comes from. The State’s estimates for rivers in the Sierra Nevada, including the Tuolumne, hover around 50% of average. See the California Data Exchange Center’s B-120 WATER SUPPLY FORECAST UPDATE SUMMARY for March 24.
While there is no such thing as an average year weather-wise, 2026 has indeed been odd. We had a large early season storm in November, significant rain in early January and a cold front bringing mostly snow at the end of February – and little else. Then a heat wave struck. San Francisco saw 90 degrees in March for the first time ever and Sierra snow started to melt quickly.
Focusing on the Tuolumne River (where, like much of the State, good record keeping goes back to 1922):
- For the entire water year, we are expecting 1,436,000 acre-feet, 78% of average.
- For the April-July snowmelt period, we are expecting 640,000 acre-feet, 54% of average.
It’s a dry year, for sure, but not among the driest. We hope for better next year. In addition to water supply concerns, park visitors will need to go earlier to see Yosemite’s waterfalls this year.
San Francisco’s total share of the Tuolumne River, determined by daily flows and shown in red, has well surpassed its annual demand, and will increase as the albeit meager snowpack continues to melt.
The Chronicle also notes the San Francisco Regional Water System has ample supplies: “The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and East Bay Municipal Utility District, also among the big water providers in the Bay Area, operate reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada, which they say have ample water for the near term. Supply challenges for these agencies would arise after multiple dry years.”
This is an understatement. At least in San Francisco’s case, this year’s rain and snow has brought plenty of water – more that 300,000 acre-feet during the first six months of the year (compared to its demand of only 220,000 acre-feet for the entire water year). So the only impact may be that reservoirs will stop filling at the end of May rather than a month or so later).
by Spreck | Mar 15, 2026 | Uncategorized
Our most recent report, The Cherry Solution, demonstrates that San Francisco does not need Hetch Hetchy Reservoir for its water supply. With the city’s recent 19% reduction in demand, San Francisco could meet customer needs by relying on its other reservoirs — and would retain more than two years’ worth of storage even after a recurrence of the worst drought of the 20th century.
We have therefore asked Congress and San Francisco to work together on a plan to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.
But what if the 21st century brings longer or more severe droughts as a result of climate change?
We do not know whether it will be drier overall or whether droughts will last longer. We do expect more rain, less snow, and earlier runoff as temperatures rise.
What we do know is that San Francisco will retain strong options: groundwater recharge, water recycling, and local surface storage projects can diversify and strengthen supply if needed. Other California communities have successfully pursued these approaches in recent decades, often to accommodate environmental restoration projects throughout the state.
Recent investments by California’s cities in groundwater banking, recycling, and local surface storage would replace Hetch Hetchy Reservoir more than fifteen times over. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has the opportunity — and the tools — to pursue any or all of these strategies. (See Yosemite’s Opportunity for more information.)
Planning for the future means planning not just for reliable water supplies, but for protecting the environment as well. None of us envisions a future so narrowly focused on extracting water for human use that we abandon the natural world. No one imagines drying up every river and wetland. No one imagines damming Yosemite Valley. So why can we not restore Hetch Hetchy?
Mono Lake. We have already reduced diversions from the streams feeding Mono Lake, reversing the decline in its water level. Mono Lake is a critical habitat and breeding ground for a wide variety of waterbirds. Los Angeles has invested heavily in water conservation and recycling, as well as groundwater banking and Diamond Valley Reservoir through its wholesaler, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Trinity River. As diversions from the Trinity River in northern California have been reduced, farmers in the San Joaquin Valley have invested in drip irrigation systems that, laid end to end, would reach the moon and back — spurring profitable expansion into nut orchards and other high-value crops. Restoring the Trinity and its neighbor, the Klamath, is particularly important for the tribes whose cultures and livelihoods have long depended on historic salmon runs..
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and Central Valley. Rules now limit water exports from the Bay-Delta to protect both anadromous and estuarine fish — including the longfin smelt — while substantial supplies are being directed toward rewatering previously drained wetlands..
Hetch Hetchy: Returning Hetch Hetchy to its natural splendor would restore a truly spectacular landscape, recreating alpine meadows and riparian woodlands on a grand scale. It would make Yosemite National Park whole again — and inspire a new generation to return, again and again, to watch a valley come back to life.
There is no opportunity like this anywhere in the world. Hetch Hetchy Valley can and should be restored. Not a drop of water supply need be lost.
by Spreck | Feb 20, 2026 | Uncategorized
Hetch Hetchy is a story that continues to fascinate. We focus on the opportunity for restoration – what it means for Yosemite National Park and how it would inspire future generations.
In The Man Who Dammed Hetch Hetchy: San Francisco’s Fight for a Yosemite Water Supply, however, Professor Donald C. Jackson focuses on the effort to design the project and authorize the dam by passing the Raker Act in Congress. It is a very good book and well told – even if the material is frustrating at times for us “nature lovers”.
Was Hetch Hetchy even a cost-effective place to develop or was the narrow granite slot just too enticing a place to build a dam?
Jackson readily acknowledges that no one person gets full credit – not Michael Maurice O’Shaughnessy, the chief engineer who built the dam and for whom it is named – not John Raker who carried the legislation – and not even James Phelan, the former Mayor who personally filed for water rights on the Tuolumne before turning them over to the City of San Francisco.
The Man Who Dammed Hetch Hetchy is about John Freeman, the consulting engineer whose 421 page report dwarfed previous treatises by City officials, overwhelmed the Army Board of Engineers, and compelled Congress to pass legislation. Freeman sold the project as one that would provide access for the general public, not just the few “nature lovers” who, he claimed, wanted Hetch Hetchy for themselves. The water system Freeman designed and successfully promoted was also much larger than what San Francisco had previously proposed.
Indeed, had San Francisco not retained Freeman, Hetch Hetchy may never have been dammed.
The Freeman Report, officially titled The Hetch Hetchy Water Supply for San Francisco, 1912, was written in response to Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger’s order that San Francisco “show cause” as to why it needed to dam Hetch Hetchy rather than develop other means of obtaining water for the City. Ballinger intended for the Army Board of Engineers to review whatever the City submitted.
The Freeman Report is an impressive document indeed. The first section extols the compatibility between recreation and municipal reservoirs, with ample pictures of picnics, boating and lodges (recreation that has never been made available – see Keeping Promises, Restore Hetch Hetchy, 2021). Freeman’s design of the dam and the gravity-fed conveyance system to the Bay Area are meticulous and beautifully done. His analysis of alternative water supplies, however, as Jackson notes, primarily relied on work done by previous City engineers Carl Grunsky and Marsden Madsen and is less rigorous.
Did the Army Board of Engineers really review the Freeman Report or simply rubber stamp it? In a “A National Park Threatened”, the first of its six Hetch Hetchy editorials in 1913, The New York Times noted “The engineers say in their report that they have merely passed on such data as were presented by the officials of San Francisco, since they had neither time nor money to investigate independently the various projects presented.”
Jackson does provide detail of the Army Board’s review of the Freeman report, but a reasonable person may conclude that Freeman had committed his heart and soul to the Hetch Hetchy project and the Army Board never dug deep enough to see if it really was a better alternative (Professor Jackson may disagree.)
Even ignoring its damage to Yosemite, was damming Hetch Hetchy the best option for San Francisco? Or were the narrow granite slot and potential for hydropower simply too enticing for City engineers to consider an alternative? It took 21 years for water to get to the City after the Raker Act was passed. The dam and reservoir were completed in 1923 but water did not reach San Francisco until 1934 after the Coast Range Tunnel was completed. Chief Engineer Michael Maurice O’Shaughnessy, nicknamed “More Money” O’Shaughnessy, had to ask San Franciscans to buy more bond several times to finish the dam project.
By contrast it took the East Bay Municipal Utilities District only 5 years to develop water on the Mokelumne River for Oakland and Berkeley – in large part because they built a pipeline around Mt. Diablo rather than a tunnel.
After the1906 earthquake, however, San Francisco was hell bent on damming Hetch Hetchy, squashing any and all opposition. William Randolph Hearst and his SF Examiner smeared Taggart Aston, an engineer who had written to Congress opining that San Francisco should develop the Mokelumne River (see above) at lower cost. Courts later found Hearst and the Examiner guilty of libel, but by that time the debate over Raker Act was over and construction had begun.
As they say, there’s no use crying over spilt milk. Focused the future on, The Cherry Solution, our most recent report, demonstrates how Hetch Hetchy Valley can be returned to its natural splendor while maintaining a reliable water supply for San Francisco and its customers.
by Spreck | Feb 1, 2026 | Uncategorized
Sierra News Online posted one of our favorite pictures – the snapshot taken by Matt Stoecker during the filming of Patagonia’s “Damnation”. The inset is Isaiah West Taber’s iconic 1908 photo of Hetch Hetchy.
Our Cherry Solutions report shows that, with reduced demand, San Francisco’s Regional Water System would be extraordinarily reliable even if water were no long stored at Hetch Hetchy and the valley were returned to its original splendor.
Our message is getting through in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada, with two nice stories this week:
We hope to get additional coverage, especially in the Bay Area, and look forward to a response from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – even though they are highly unlikely to concur with our findings.
San Francisco’s experience is consistent with that of urban water agencies throughout California, as reported in “Water Demand Projection Accuracy and Demand Management Trends in California Cities”, a peer-reviewed journal article by researchers Johanna Capone and Landon Marston in the Virginia Tech Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. They note:
“Municipal water suppliers consistently overestimated future water demand, with one California study finding 98% of water demand forecasts overestimated water demand by an average of 25% (Abraham et al., 2020), highlighting a critical and persistent inaccuracy in water resource planning.”
These findings are good news for California’s cities as well as for our campaign to Restore Hetch Hetchy.
Elsewhere in California, however, water supply struggles continue. Groundwater overdraft continues in many parts of the Central Valley. If you include the amount of water needed to grow the food we eat to what we use in our homes, calculations of personal water consumption are increased several times over.
On the Colorado River the longstanding discrepancy between allocation and availability is coming to a head.
California’s current allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet per year from the Colorado River is exactly 20 times what San Francisco’s Regional Water System has used over the past decade! Hetch Hetchy is small potatoes indeed when it comes to water supply but huge when it comes to the legacy of our national parks and the the opportunity for Yosemite.
The ongoing negotiations over allocations of limited Colorado River water between the seven “Basin States” and Mexico is ongoing. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum called a summit meeting of Governors to try to break the logjam – to no avail so far.
Passions run high among the Basin States, who see the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact (“The Law of the River”) as chiseled in stone. The Colorado River’s flow in the 21st century has averaged only 12.5 million acre-feet, far less that both the 18 million acre-feet when the Compact was created and the 16.5 million acre-feet presently allocated to the Basin States and to Mexico.
We wish the Secretary luck, but guess the matter will eventually be decided in court.
