Hetch Hetchy Kvetching

Leave it to the SF Comicle and one of its travel editors to write 54 column inches about "weighing the value of Hetch Hetchy" and then burying the lead in the last two paragraphs.  A long, tortured description of some arcane study about the tourist value of draining the Hetch Hetchy came up with $178 million per year.  The travel editor does finally track down an SFPUC Deputy General Manager who notes in the last paragraph

But when asked to indulge in the thought exercise of comparing hypothetical economic outcomes for Hetch Hetchy, Carlin obliged. “The value of that watershed to the Bay Area in general is worth billions and billions of dollars a year, if not tens of billions,” he said.

But my favorite part of the article was the response from the group that wants to drain our main reservoir, Restore Hetch Hetchy, when asked what would replace the storage capacity that is already overtaxed by prodigious Bay Area growth

Rosekrans maintains that the public would be better served if the water in Hetch Hetchy were allowed to flow downstream and be stored elsewhere — the idea being that the valley could be emptied without compromising a cornerstone of San Francisco’s water supply. Where the water would go, whether a new reservoir would need to be built, and other pertinent logistics would have to be determined by lawmakers, Rosekrans says.

Good one.  Instead of building net new reservoirs, which we haven't done in more than 40 years, we should dismember the one we have that is almost 2000 acres and let the lawmakers figure out what else to do.  I hope the SFPUC guy was chuckling when he spoke to the reporter--if not he was probably crying.

Comments

[Barking Dog]

Sunday's Chronicle Editorial...even they dont agree with restoring Hetch Hetchy.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-The-latest-plan-to-drain-the-Hetch-14294455.php?psid=a4RNG

[Sally]

Love the headline.

[Joe]

Here we go again with year 1 of the next drought.....tell me again about building 3.5 million new houses in California:

SAN JOSE (KPIX 5) — With hardly a drop of rain in the entire month of February, 59 percent of California is now experiencing abnormally dry conditions according to the Federal Drought Monitor.

“You know, it’s a dry year,” said Matt Keller of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Keller said above ground reservoir levels are down to 59 percent of average for this time of year.

But underground wells — where most of the Valley’s water is stored — are full because of previous plentiful rainy seasons.
------------------------
I'm looking forward to the next 5 year plan due next July.

[Joe]

I don't think my friend Matt Grocott would mind me excerpting a paragraph from his Daily Journal column today:

One of my Facebook friends often puts out articles about California water issues. She reminded me that almost two years ago, California passed a $7.5 billion water bond that was supposed to spend $2.7 billion on water storage projects. She pointed out how much has been spent to date in that category: zero. Furthermore, she highlighted what has been the state’s response to the federal government’s offer to help move along water storage projects like Shasta Dam. They’ve been blunt: “Stay out!” So basically my friend was questioning if California should be trusted with more bond money since it doesn’t spend it for things promised to the voters.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/charlie-brown/article_d566252a-5781-11ea-9e0d-977d0428668f.html

[Joe]

From today's SF Chronicle--this and building more storage capacity might just be more immediately important than sea-level rise in 2070 or banning natural gas hook-ups:

The Bay Area is dotted with at least 145 dams where failure or misoperation could result in death or property destruction, yet many lack required emergency plans, according to an analysis of state data.

Most of these “high-hazard” dams were built before 1960. While not at a higher risk of failure, they could endanger countless homes and businesses that rest below the aging facilities, making emergency planning and maintenance increasingly important, experts said.

Yet at least 47 of the risky dams in the Bay Area — nearly a third — reported no formal procedures for warning downstream residents of a breach or set up other plans for reducing loss of life and property damage in an emergency, according to data analyzed by the Associated Press and reviewed by The Chronicle. The figures came from state inspections between 2015 and 2018.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dozens-of-high-risk-Bay-Area-dams-lack-required-15084244.php