January 2005 NEWSLETTER Issue 294a
Restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley – at what cost?
It’s said that John Muir died of a broken
heart after Congress voted in 1913 to allow San Francisco to dam Hetchy
Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park to provide a water supply to the
growing City. Be that as it may, O’Shaughnessy Dam was completed and
the Valley flooded in 1933. The issue remained dormant for decades. It seemed
that more attention has been devoted to the ramifications of the Raker Act
in the fight for public power than in regaining John Muir’s lost treasure.
That began to change in 2002, when San Francisco’s mismanagement of
this resource was brought to statewide attention. San Francisco battled
at the local and state level to retain ownership of the Hetch Hetchy water
system and develop the funding needed (through the $1.6 billion Proposition
A) to make long overdue repairs. And from out of nowhere, it seemed, advocates
appeared, including the Sierra Club and the newly formed organization, Restore
Hetch Hetchy, demanding that the City seize this opportunity to remove the
dam that should never have been built. For Proposition A, the argument was
too little and too late – the bonds passed, and the PUC began planning.
In the 2+ years since the passage of Proposition A, the SF Public Utilities
Commission has made very slow progress on their Capital Improvement Program;
the Programmatic Environment Review of the project in only now getting underway,
and final approval of the preferred program will not occur until 2007. Meanwhile,
the voices supporting restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley are growing louder.
In October, Environmental Defense, a respected environmental organization,
published a report called “Paradise Regained” that outlined
how the SFPUC could replace the storage capacity, power generation, and
water quality provided by Hetch Hetchy Valley and addressed the legal issues
involved in changing its long-standing water agreements. It also discussed
how the restoration could be accomplished, and how the Valley would evolve
in the first decades of restoration. Since that time, the California Department
of Water Resources has agreed to study the removal of this dam, and newspapers
around the state have advocated that this study be done. In addition, several
environmental organization tracking the PUC’s Capital Program have
asked that such a Hetch Hetchy restoration alternative be studied in the
Programmatic document.
Why this dam? And why now? California’s Department of Water Resources
regulates more than 1200 dams, and there are hundreds more that are too
small to come under their purview. Many of those dams covered important
habitat areas, destroyed entire species of salmon and trout that could no
longer reach their spawning places, and inundated Native American sacred
sites. Taken in that context, O’Shaughnessy dam is less destructive
than many of those dams. So why this dam - does the poetry of John Muir’s
description of this Valley’s beauty resonate so strongly over the
past century?
That is surely the motive for the many environmental organizations that
are working on this proposal. But is this all we want? If this dam comes
down, shouldn’t it also serve as a precedent for removal of some of
the most destructive dams around the state? Don’t hold your breath.
San Francisco and its junior water rights on the Tuolumne River (the Turlock
and Modesto Irrigation Districts get first call on the water; SF’s
water rights only begin if enough water flows in the River) are small fry
in the state’s water infrastructure. Taking down other dams would
require taking on the federal and state governments and would raise the
ire of much more powerful and unified interests, both agricultural and urban.
Taking down O’Shaughnessy Dam will come at a cost to the environment
as well – in this case the environment of Alameda Creek. In order
to remove O’Shaughnessy Dam, at least some of its storage capacity
will need to be replaced elsewhere. The location most commonly accepted
for at least some of that extra capacity is at the current site of Calaveras
Dam on Alameda Creek (south of Sunol in the East Bay). But a significant
enlargement of this structure will destroy habitat for a unique species
of trout that has evolved above the dam. Is it appropriate for us to destroy
one environment in order to restore another?
Some already know the answer, with or without a study – take it down,
and give our children and grandchildren the chance to see John Muir’s
treasure come back to life. The sheer poetry and romance of this position
is compelling. But the bean counters also stay with us through the ages,
and they count the cost of the action. A study will help us add up these
costs– not just in restoration dollars, but in the tradeoffs that
will have to be made to make it happen. Lesser water quality? Maybe just
a little. Less clean power production? Could be. Loss of habitat around
Calaveras Reservoir? Very likely. Worth it anyway? That’s the $500
million question. The studies will give us answers to many of these questions
– but don’t count on them to make the decision any easier.
Increasing Traffic in Golden Gate Park
Just before Christmas, the Concourse Authority
and Recreation and Park Commission gave final approval for a plan to widen
to four lanes Martin Luther King Drive in Golden Gate Park. WIDEN a road
in Golden Gate Park? This is the desperate move by the boosters of second
entrance to the Music Concourse garage now under construction in front of
the Academy of Sciences. The Superior Court Judge who ruled on the lawsuits
filed by concerned citizens said that the garage proponents must come up
with a “dedicated roadway” to reach the southern half of the
garage.
Garage proponents claim that the users of the deYoung Museum and the Academy
of Sciences who want to enter the Music Concourse garage must have a second
entrance within the Park, something that Proposition J, which enabled the
garage in the first place, said could not be done.
The park road they wish to widen is the extension of Ninth Avenue northward
as it becomes Martin Luther King Drive in Golden Gate Park. They want to
convert its present two lanes of moving traffic with curbside parking on
both sides, to four lanes of moving traffic. Bicyclists, pedestrians and
MUNI would be the losers, since these two new moving lanes would pose numerous
conflicts with the automobiles using these lanes which would be destined
for the southern garage entrance.
Proposition J mandated that all entrances and exits to the garage must originate
outside Golden Gate Park. Garage proponents haven’t the funds to tunnel
under the park to reach this second entrance on the south, or Sunset side,
of the park. On the north of the park at Tenth Avenue, a dedicated entrance
is being created directly from Fulton Street outside the park. But on the
south, they propose the widening of MLK Drive to four lanes, with the two
curbside lanes providing the required “exclusively dedicated entrance”
for cars required by Prop J.
This plan to widen MLK has widespread opposition. The Inner Sunset Merchants
Association predict a traffic disaster and business loss to their vibrant
commercial/residential area if Museum-destined cars back up traffic along
Ninth Avenue. Environmentalists see a widened four-lane road into the heart
of Golden Gate Park Park as a big step backwards in providing non-invasive
access to open space. The pedestrian advocacy group WalkSF has said that
widening to four lanes of moving traffic means more traffic moving faster,
making it more difficult for pedestrians to reach their destinations in
the Park, unharmed, for example, the playing field at Big Rec, the Arboretum
and the County Fair Building. Even the Municipal Transportation Agency spokesperson.
Joe Speaks, says this plan will only make it worse for all, for pedestrians
and bicyclists, for transit, and for the automobiles themselves.
In order to address this change from the approved document, the Planning
Department issued an ”addendum” to the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) adopted somThe Planning Department has admitted that an addendum
is usually written in the case of an insignificant alteration to an existing
project, such as the change of a condo development proposal from 20 to 21
units, within the same building envelope. Clearly the creation of a widened
four-lane roadway into Golden Gate Park deserves more review. But an addendum
cannot be appealed in contrast to a negative declaration which could have
been.
One issue that has not been addressed at all is how the traffic on
Lincoln Way will be affected. Although the Richmond district has several
arterials that run east-west, California Street, Geary Street and Fulton
Street, the Sunset has a single east-west arterial, Lincoln Way. Lincoln
now operates
very poorly as an artery from 19th Ave to downtown. Why have transportation
planners been absent from the discussion of whether this four-lane widening
will just make traffic worse?
The Bush administration and its allies in Congress
are gearing up for their strongest push yet to deliver Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge into the hands of the oil industry. This spring, drilling
proponents will fiercely pursue the majority of congressional votes they
need to turn America's last unspoiled sliver of Arctic coastline -- a birthing
ground for caribou, polar bears, white wolves and millions of shorebirds
-- into a dense complex of roads, drill pads, processing facilities, pipelines
and air strips.
Not only would this ominous industrial network isolate the refuge's abundant
migratory wildlife from crucial habitat and food sources, it would bring
with it a host of far-ranging pollution risks, such as oil spills, which
occur on a daily basis elsewhere on Alaska's North Slope as a result of
drilling activities. We are in serious danger of losing our wild Arctic
Refuge forever -- for a quantity of oil that amounts to a drop in the bucket
of our national energy needs.
» Tell Congress to protect this irreplaceable Arctic sanctuary for
its wildlife and for the benefit of future generations. To read this newsletter
on the BioGems website, go to:
http://www.savebiogems.org/newsletter/index.asp
Draft Infrastructure Plan
for Treasure Island is Ready
The Draft Infrastructure Plan for Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands has been
released to the public and will be reviewed at a meeting of the Treasure
Island Development Authority(TIDA) on Wednesday, February 9th. The projected
pattern of roads, sidewalks and pathways, utilities, and secondary street
layout will give shape to Treasure Island and dictate the form of development
and the form and location of usable open space. If Treasure island is to
become a viable new neighborhood of the City and an exception to the rule
The Infrastructure Plan is one of nine documents that will be incorporated
into the final Development Agreement for reviewed by the Board of Supervisors
in July. Concerned members of the public need to begin weighing in now,
before the plans become too difficult to change. The meeting will begin
at 1:30 PM, Room 400, City Hall. The plan was authored by Korve Engineering
for Treasure Island Community Development, LLC (TICD), the proposing master
developer for the two islands. You should be able to find the plan on the
TIDA website www.sfgov.org/site/treasureisland_
Some things to pay attention to in the Infrastructure Plan:
· Why is a reduction in the amount of
off-street parking proposed for only one of the several residential areas?
· What is the purpose of the 250-car, $5.5 million parking garage?
If people don't need their cars to take them somewhere on the islands, why
should they bring their cars with them when they come?
· Where's the justification for the 1,840 on-street parking spaces?
· Why are the traffic lanes 12 feet wide?
· Where is the map of the recycled water distribution system, with
a list of the proposed uses for recycled water?
Inspired by the LA Tree People
. . .
Mayor Newsom brought up a lot of new policy initiatives in his State of
the City address on October 21st. One that we found particularly interesting
was his commitment to “greening” San Francisco’s major
streets by planting green medians. Inspired by the LA Tree People who are
following a grass-roots model to divert stormwater from the Los Angeles
River in order to reduce pollution and flooding, we’d like to suggest
to the Mayor that green median strips can serve more than just an aesthetic
purpose. Properly designed and maintained, median green strips can be used
to divert stormwater from the City’s combined sewer and stormwater
system. During moderate to heavy rainstorms, stormwater overwhelms the sewage
transport system around the City, leading overflows of combined stormwater
and raw sewage into San Francisco Bay. In an average year, these overflows
total about 900 million gallons!
A little patience . . .
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches
pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true
sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that
in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors
of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.... If the game runs
sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and
then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have
lost, for this is a game
where principles are at stake."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1798, after the passage of the Alien & Sedition
Act.
Spasms of this sort . . .
I think a lot of this loopy stuff will run its course. The
U.S. periodically goes through spasms of this sort. The early 1950s is still
vivid in my mind, as the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joe
McCarthy had the nation terrorized and in hysteria. A lot of good people
had their lives ruined by these extremists, but eventually we came out of
it. I also remember when HUAC held a hearing in SF City Hall Bd of Supervisors
chambers. The cops and firemen hosed protesters down the grand staircase
like autumn leaves. -- Jake Sigg