Restoring Hetch Hetchy via Grand Compromise: Trading Dams

A place to explore the natural setting (geology, flora & fauna), people, constructed infrastructure and historical events that play and have played a part in shaping the Sierra Nevada as we know it today.
User avatar
HikeSierraNevada
Topix Acquainted
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:36 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Restoring Hetch Hetchy via Grand Compromise: Trading Dams

Post by HikeSierraNevada »

Interesting idea. More homework is in order regarding the assumptions about net benefits - annual average watershed water volume, hydro generation current capacity vs potential, water quality (cost to treat AR water vs pure HH water), environmental impacts (too numerous to even list). Perhaps someone has time to look up some of the statistics and get back to us with facts rather than speculation. The latest cost estimates are roughly $10 billion to remove HH and about $8 billion to build Auburn (the last design by USBR). The seismic issues and site geology are not a show stopper, they ended up being a red herring exploited by the opponents.

The swap concept seems a bit non productive taken as a whole. As for California population growth, we grew 4 million from 2000 to 2011. I can't imagine any realistic way to deliberately limit population growth except perhaps what China is doing (one child per couple). As for leaving the dam in place with "gates open" it will need huge outlets to keep from reflooding the valley during flood events. A big notch might work, but it would be a public safety issue to ensure it's stability and the water would still rise to some extent.

Do I seem pessimistic, yes. Look at the ridiculous amount of time and money that has been spent just trying to solve the issues with the Delta and the end result is nothing but lawsuits.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests