Bay Area Council Releases 10-Point Letter Detailing Opposition to Removal of the Bay Area's Hetch Hetchy Water System.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Bay Area Council today released a ten-point letter it sent to Department of Water Resources Secretary, Mike Crissman, which spells out the organization's opposition to removal of the Hetch Hetchy water system. The Hetch Hetchy water system serves 2.4 million Bay Area residents, or more than a third of the region, and approximately 75,000 Bay Area employers, including some of Silicon Valley's most prominent silicon chip manufacturers. The system is world renowned for its purity and derives 85% of its water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir.

The letter follows:

July 5, 2005

Secretary Mike Chrisman
California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject:    Demolishing O'Shaughnessy Dam

A[micro]   Dear Secretary Chrisman:

A[micro]   As your office prepares to issue its report on the demolition of
the O'Shaughnessy Dam and draining of Hetch Hetchy Valley, the Bay
Area Council urges you in the strongest terms possible to conclude
definitively that now is not the time to pursue this proposal. The
truly responsible act is to recognize this and turn the focus to
immediate environmental challenges we can all agree on and work to
resolve together.
A[micro]   Bay Area Council representatives have participated in numerous
forums and seminars at this point concerning Hetch Hetchy. I have
traveled to Southern California, San Jose, Sacramento and U.C. Davis
to explain why, for now, this is such an untimely idea. I have seen
that the proponents, sincere and well intentioned as they may be, have
misrepresented the alternatives for replacing the water supply,
grossly underestimated the costs, and avoided key issues that they
would rather not talk about. The answers keep changing, another
indication of the confusion associated with the matter.
A[micro]   In the interests of brevity, these are some of the issues and in
some instances insurmountable challenges posed by the proposal:

A[micro]   1.  San Francisco has no water rights at New Don Pedro reservoir.
        These are held by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts
        (MID & TID). Federal rights for flood control through the Army
        Corps of Engineers controls any excess capacity.

A[micro]   2.  Water presently stored in Cherry and Eleanor reservoirs are
        unavailable as they are held for use by MID and TID. Hetch
        Hetchy supplies 85% of the water used by 2.4 million Bay Area
        residents, two-thirds of whom live outside San Francisco.

A[micro]   3.  The water delivered from Hetch Hetchy is outstanding in its
        quality, has a Federal exemption from filtration, and the
        consistency of that quality is relied on by families and
        institutional users, such as several prominent Silicon Valley
        chip manufacturers. No replacement scenario, even one which
        incorporates expensive filtration systems (the costs of which
        are missing from the proposal), will come close to matching
        this level of water purity.

A[micro]   4.  Implementation of this proposal will put more pressure on the
        Delta, as even the proponents acknowledge. Increased Delta
        salinity, greater environmental stress on the smelt
        population, wetlands and marshes will all result. Those
        impacts will than affect conditions in San Francisco and San
        Pablo Bay.

A[micro]   5.  A railroad had to be built to create the supply system when
        the Dam was constructed. Excluding consideration of the
        financial costs, what are the environmental consequences of
        tearing down a structure built to last centuries?

A[micro]   6.  Less publicized, but well known to you, would be the loss of
        all or a portion of 400 MW of clean, renewable hydroelectric
        power. The equivalent of 39 million barrels of oil per annum,
        this power is used by farmers, cities and services like MUNI
        transit in San Francisco. Elimination of Hetch Hetchy would
        require new fossil burning plants, and could dictate the
        continued service of a dirty plant in the economically
        depressed Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco.

A[micro]   7.  Federal legislation would be required to amend the Raker Act,
        as well as millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of Federal
        dollars to tear down the Dam. Certainly the viability of
        legislation is problematic, and I believe the likelihood for
        monetary support nil.

A[micro]   8.  The legal challenges that would come with any formal
        governmental adoption of this drive are predictable and
        significant. What public policy benefit would be served by the
        ensuing years of litigation and court dispositions?

A[micro]   9.  Scientists project that due to global warming we face a major
        reduction in our snow pack in the coming decades, making
        existing capture and storage operations like Hetch Hetchy all
        the more valuable.

A[micro]   10. The existing Hetch Hetchy system is dated, approaching its
        100th birthday. The tunnels and pipelines that convey water to
        the Bay Area need renovation and rebuilding, a responsibility
        that the voters have approved with a $4.3 billion capital
        improvement program now underway. We cannot allow distraction
        and the risk of delay from this proposal to demolish a
        working, gravity driven water delivery network that crosses
        over four distinct earthquake faults.

A[micro]   I could continue to list more issues, more problems, but these
suffice to illustrate why this perilous public policy conversation
needs to be terminated. Aside from common sense, all that remains to
review is the financial cost of such an undertaking. We know expensive
new filtration plants will be necessary. We know the proponents did
not factor in a single dollar for the actual demolition, and they
estimate the total cost at $500 million to $1.5 billion. Other
estimates are several times these figures, reaching more than $10
billion -- the reality is that the true costs, though in the billions,
are unknown.
A[micro]   If we even had these billions identified and dedicated for this
purpose -- which we don't -- would it still be the best, prudent and
effective use of public funds? Would it produce the greatest public
benefit? For instance, wouldn't we choose to fund the billions needed
to bolster and enhance the Delta levees from failure? Or perhaps
worthy CalFed environmental projects totaling more than $4 billion
that have no funding.
A[micro]   Our organization is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year,
and we are proud of our legacy of pragmatic, enlightened business
leadership for the region. Representing more than 200 of the Bay
Area's largest employers, we are dedicated to improving the quality of
life and economic vitality of this critical part of California. With
about 7 million people, 2.4 million Bay Area residents depend on Hetch
Hetchy for their water. We are about 1/5 of the State's population,
yet as the most productive workforce in the world we represent 1/4 of
the statewide economy and generate an incredible 1/3 of income taxes.
A[micro]   In the arena of corporate responsibility and social consciousness,
the Bay Area Council and its member companies have long embraced the
fact that being good to the environment is also good for business. Our
advocacy led to the creation of public transportation systems
including BART. We have historically worked to improve air quality,
and executed the Flex Your Power program here. We have sponsored
legislation encouraging transit-oriented development and infill
housing, and are currently running a multi-county greenhouse gas
reduction project.
A[micro]   Companies and business leaders statewide have registered their
opposition to this proposal. We believe if informed and polled,
citizens up and down the State would oppose this expensive, wasteful
idea. We are pleased that the Southern California Water Committee
(SCWC) agrees with our position that it makes no sense at all to
pursue the elimination of a working water delivery system --
especially at a time when we need additional storage capacity, not
less. Please end this potentially divisive discussion with your report
so we can concentrate on the array of infrastructure and environmental
challenges California faces.

A[micro]   Sincerely,

A[micro]   Jim Wunderman
A[micro]   President and CEO

cc: Members, California State Legislature

Bay Area Council

Founded in 1945, the Bay Area Council (www.bayareacouncil.org) develops and drives regional public policy initiatives and critical infrastructure issues. Led by CEOs, the Bay Area Council presents a strong, united voice for more than 275 of the largest employers throughout the Bay Area region in promoting economic prosperity and quality of life. Jim Wunderman has served as president and CEO of the Bay Area Council since April of 2004.