Restoring Hetch Hetchy via Grand Compromise: Trading Dams
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:00 am
I have often wondered how many people would support the idea of a dam swap. How would all the affected parties (environmentalists, developers, etc.) react if the dam on the Tuolumne were taken down and Hetch Hetchy restored at the fiscal cost of environmentalists, if, in exchange, the dam were built on the American River in Auburn at the fiscal cost of developers and power utility companies, while the state water resources people made sure that SF got the water it needs through a new distribution plan?
A dam on the American at Auburn should provide more water than Hetch Hetchy does, so there would be an increase in total water available. Hetch Hechy would never really look natural again for millennia, but it would be a beginning toward eventual recovery. Some great whitewater and foothill hiking would be lost, but Sacramento would gain the flood protection it desperately needs. (Sacramento actually has greater flood potential than New Orleans.) I won't necessarily call it green energy, but more electricity would be added to the grid without adding to the carbon load; in fact, perhaps a coal plant could be taken offline in exchange for the new hydropower. A greater degree of recreation would become open to the public at both locations while the economy would receive a boost at both locations as well. And, if negotiated as described above, the public would not be on the hook for the cost. I know about the geology and the fault at the dam site, however modern computer modeling and engineering might provide a method to build a seismically sound dam.
The idea is a compromise. Unfortunately, too many in the modern era have come to view compromise as a bad thing. The founders viewed compromise as a good thing and built the early republic on the idea of giving up a part of what you want in exchange for gaining a part of what you want. I am not necessarily advocating this grand dam trade, but I would be very interested in starting a broader dialogue about the idea. Environmentalists would not normally be willing to surrender the American; SF would not normally be willing to surrender the Tuolumne. Would the trade-offs be worth it? Would it be worth the loss of part of the American to regain the Tuolumne and Yosemite's other great valley, while improving the economy, gaining flood control, lowering the carbon output, increasing the water supply, providing more recreation, and boosting the economy, while the city by the bay still gets its water? If we pulled this off, California could set an example for all those bickering people in Washington, D. C.
I am not at all interested in a food fight. Please restrict comments to constructive observations, no bashing, no name-calling, no absolutism. Let's please have a grown up conversation about the pros, the cons, and the realistic possibilities.
A dam on the American at Auburn should provide more water than Hetch Hetchy does, so there would be an increase in total water available. Hetch Hechy would never really look natural again for millennia, but it would be a beginning toward eventual recovery. Some great whitewater and foothill hiking would be lost, but Sacramento would gain the flood protection it desperately needs. (Sacramento actually has greater flood potential than New Orleans.) I won't necessarily call it green energy, but more electricity would be added to the grid without adding to the carbon load; in fact, perhaps a coal plant could be taken offline in exchange for the new hydropower. A greater degree of recreation would become open to the public at both locations while the economy would receive a boost at both locations as well. And, if negotiated as described above, the public would not be on the hook for the cost. I know about the geology and the fault at the dam site, however modern computer modeling and engineering might provide a method to build a seismically sound dam.
The idea is a compromise. Unfortunately, too many in the modern era have come to view compromise as a bad thing. The founders viewed compromise as a good thing and built the early republic on the idea of giving up a part of what you want in exchange for gaining a part of what you want. I am not necessarily advocating this grand dam trade, but I would be very interested in starting a broader dialogue about the idea. Environmentalists would not normally be willing to surrender the American; SF would not normally be willing to surrender the Tuolumne. Would the trade-offs be worth it? Would it be worth the loss of part of the American to regain the Tuolumne and Yosemite's other great valley, while improving the economy, gaining flood control, lowering the carbon output, increasing the water supply, providing more recreation, and boosting the economy, while the city by the bay still gets its water? If we pulled this off, California could set an example for all those bickering people in Washington, D. C.
I am not at all interested in a food fight. Please restrict comments to constructive observations, no bashing, no name-calling, no absolutism. Let's please have a grown up conversation about the pros, the cons, and the realistic possibilities.