559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Does Dianne Feinstein Oppose Removal of Klamath Dams?

Oh wait! Senator Feinstein didn't say that.

Mar 19, 2012

 

Families Protecting The Valley Newsletter
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12

MARCH 19 2012

 

:: IN THIS ISSUE
» WithdrawFromKBRA
» PipeCost
Donate to Families Protected the Valley
Visit Our Web Site

Visit Our Web Site

Board of Directors

Denis Prosperi
Chester Andrew
Bob Smittcamp
Russ Waymire
John "Dusty" Giacone
Joe Marchini
Mark Watte
Kole Upton
Piedad Ayala
Tom Barcellos
Jim Walls

 
Does Dianne Feinstein Oppose Removal of Klamath Dams?

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein: "The Klamath River and dam system has been a vital source of water for farmers in the Klamath Valley for decades. Through its energy-efficient gravity flow system, it provides water for thousands of farmers in the Klamath River Valley." Oh wait! Senator Feinstein didn't say that. We just substituted 'Klamath River' for Hetch Hetchy and 'farmers' for people in San Francisco. The Senator was arguing against the removal of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir that provides water to San Francisco. But, she has no opposition to tearing down the four dams on the Klamath that provide water to farmers and hyower to people. So, what's new? This has been the attitude of San Francisco politicians for years. They simply don't care about farmers getting water, even if their hypocrisy is obvious.

State Senator Mark Leno/D-SF: "What hasn't received as much attention is the clean energy implications if Klamath dams are removed. Energy security and reliability are at the core of a sustainable future. This is true not just for the Klamath River Valley, but for the whole of California and the world." Oh wait! Senator Leno didn't say that. We just substituted 'Klamath' for Hetch Hetchy. What else did Mr. Leno have to say? "In addition to the loss of hyower that comes with removing the dams, there would be new demands on the state's energy resources." Again we just substituted 'dams' for Hetch Hetchy.

Funny how the State Senator and the U.S. Senator use the same arguments in support of tearing down Klamath dams that they use for keeping Hetch Hetchy.



 

Viewpoints: Proposals to drain Hetch Hetchy won't work

Special to The Bee

Dianne Feinstein


The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park has been a vital source of clean water for San Francisco Bay communities for almost 100 years.


Through its energy-efficient gravity flow system, it pipes some of the cleanest water in California to 2.6 million people and thousands of high-tech companies that rely on its purity.


Nevertheless, every so often an effort emerges to remove the O'Shaughnessy Dam and drain the reservoir.


Each time, the same conclusion is reached: There is simply no feasible way to replace the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, return the valley to its original condition and still provide water to the Bay Area.


Advocates for restoring Hetch Hetchy persist in calling for removal of the dam. Most recently, they claim that San Francisco has violated the Raker Act, a law passed by Congress in 1913 that permits the city to use water from the Tuolumne River during the runoff season for municipal use.


According to this theory, San Francisco is violating the law by not fully developing all available water resources before it exports a portion of Hetch Hetchy water to neighboring Bay Area communities.


This is not only an incorrect interpretation of the law, it also fails to recognize the extensive efforts by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to maximize efficient use of its water supplies.


The requirements of the Raker Act are quite clear.


During congressional consideration, San Francisco proposed building the Hetch Hetchy Project to its maximum capacity, offsetting the cost by providing reservoir water to Bay Area farmers until the demand for domestic and municipal use increased.


San Joaquin Valley farmers were not keen on new competition and balked at this plan, and Congressman John Raker responded to these concerns by ing language limiting San Francisco's use of Hetch Hetchy water to domestic and other municipal purposes only.


At no time was there any suggestion that San Francisco be required to exhaust local water resources before using Hetch Hetchy water for municipal needs.


Although not required to do so, San Francisco is aggressively pursuing numerous water supply projects at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, including recycled water projects, groundwater storage, desalination and surface storage expansion.


On average, the city diverts only 250,000 acre-feet of water from the Tuolumne River, from an annual average flow of 1.8 million acre-feet. These diversions represent only 0.7 percent of all Delta watershed diversions. These actions allow the city to serve 2.6 million customers, or 7 percent of the entire state's population.


I'm proud that San Francisco's water use is only 88 gallons per person, per day, one of the lowest in the state.


These facts illustrate San Francisco's aggressive pursuit of every reasonable water supply alternative. The actions taken by the city, along with the obvious legislative intent of the Raker Act, make it clear that an investigation is unnecessary.


It is important to note one glaring omission from dam removal proposals: the identification of an alternate water source if the reservoir ceases to exist.


If not from Hetch Hetchy, where would millions of Bay Area residents and thousands of businesses get water? The inevitable answer is the Bay Delta – the most stressed portion of the entire California water system.


Not only is it impractical to suggest that the Delta can serve millions of new customers, but any serious effort to consider such a proposal would trigger a
statewide water war.


The cost of removing the dam is another obstacle. A 2006 study estimates removing Hetch Hetchy and replacing the water supply could cost as much as $10 billion. Even a thorough study to remove the dam could cost as much as $65 million.


To remove or in any way interfere with Hetch Hetchy's continued operation simply makes no sense.


Dianne Feinstein is the senior U.S. senator from California.


 

Viewpoints: Hetch Hetchy provides a clean source of energy

Special to The Bee


Mark Leno



In recent months there have been numerous articles, in The Bee and other newspapers, about the water implications of draining Hetch Hetchy reservoir. And in San Francisco, there is a misguided ballot initiative, the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Act, that is asking voters to take the first step toward dismantling the dam and fostering water insecurity in the Bay Area.


What hasn't received as much attention is the clean energy implications if Hetch Hetchy is drained. Energy security and reliability are at the core of a sustainable future. This is true not just for San Francisco, but for the whole of California and the world.


For more than 70 years, the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System has used only gravity to reliably deliver water to the growing Bay Area. As a collateral benefit, the system produces clean, greenhouse-gas-free energy to help meet the state's energy needs.


Today, the Hetch Hetchy system generates up to 1.6 billion kilowatt hours of clean, reliable hydroelectricity that powers the not only the municipal needs of San Francisco, but also irrigation and agriculture needs in the Central Valley. In San Francisco, Hetch Hetchy provides clean energy to police and fire stations, public schools, public transit, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco International Airport and other municipal purposes.


In addition to the loss of hyower that comes with draining the 117 billion gallons of water stored in the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, there would be new demands on the state's energy resources. The lower water quality that would result will necessitate energy-consuming, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week water filtration plants. If Hetch Hetchy is drained, the ability to deliver water by gravity to the Bay Area disappears. New energy-consuming pumps will need to be built and operated.


Some are claiming that San Francisco has a "19th-century" water system – if the idea of producing clean power is considered a 19th-century concept, I'll take that any day over a 21st-century reliance on natural gas, nuclear, coal and other dirty fossil fuels. If we want to continue moving in the direction of a clean energy future, we shouldn't be destroying the clean energy produced by Hetch Hetchy.


For the past 15 years, my work as a San Francisco supervisor and California legislator has focused on improving the quality of life for the people in our great state by enhancing environmental protections, building bridges to tackle California's water crisis and promoting communitywide clean energy programs. We need to stay focused on those policies and investments that move us toward a truly sustainable future, not a misguided ballot initiative that will take California in the wrong direction.

 

Mark Leno is the Democratic state senator representing San Francisco.

 


If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends. If you're a member of an organization please feel free to send it to everyone on your list. If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here. If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john@familiesprotectingthevalley.com

 

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate