Restore Hetch Hetchy has joined two dozen businesses and organizations to support fishing at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. See our group letter to the National Park Service.
Technically, fishing is not prohibited. A sign in the parking lot says fishing is indeed allowed from the bank of the reservoir (with artificial lures). But several official National Park Service documents prohibit visitors from going below the high water mark of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir! Given that the reservoir is rarely full, it is not permissible to go anywhere near the water. If you cannot go near the water, how can you fish?
It makes no sense.
Photo: Phil Akers, MyOutdoorBuddy.com
Banning access below the high water mark goes far beyond anything Congress contemplated when it debated and ultimately passed the Raker Act. Further, the Raker Act precludes the National Park Service from adding additional restrictions to protect water quality beyond specified criteria prohibiting bathing, washing dishes and human waste etc.
We are pleased to work with the business and organizations listed below, and we are hopeful that the National Park Service will modify this senseless policy in short order.
Aspen Outdoor Management Services ◊ California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Echo Cooperative ◊ Evergreen Lodge, Rush Creek Lodge & Firefall Ranch ◊ Fly Fisherman Magazine ◊ Friends of the River ◊ Merced Fly Fishers ◊ Nesporado Fly Fishing ◊ Northern California Council, Fly Fishers International Pasadena Casting Club ◊ Restore Hetch Hetchy◊ Santa Barbara Fly Fishers ◊ Santa Cruz Fly Fishing Club ◊ Sierra Nevada Alliance ◊ Sonora Fly Company ◊ Stanislaus Fly Fishers ◊ Tight Line Therapy ◊ Trout Unlimited ◊ Trout Unlimited Central Sierra Chapter ◊ Tuolumne River Trust ◊ Yosemite Fly Fishing ◊ Yosemite Fly Fishing Guides ◊ Yosemite Adventure Guides ◊ Yosemite Outfitters
Restore Hetch Hetchy is continuing to encourage the National Park Service to improve access and increase recreational opportunities at Hetch Hetchy – even with the dam in place.
Advocating for an improved visitor experience in the short term is a key part of our campaign to relocate Hetch Hetchy Reservoir so Hetch Hetchy Valley can be returned to its natural splendor – a majestic glacier-carved valley with towering cliffs and waterfalls, an untamed place where river and wildlife run free, a new kind of national park.
Kayakers enjoy Tenaya Lake. Human-powered vessels are allowed on all water bodies in Yosemite, except Hetch Hetchy Reservoir – contrary to the express intentions of Congress when it passed the Raker Act. Photo: Moonjazz
Allowing visitors to explore the reservoir by kayak or canoe would provide outstanding vistas, including views of Tueeulala and Wapama Falls unavailable from the trail. Boating would provide access for picnickers to hike to Rancheria Falls, climbers to scale Hetch Hetchy Dome and fishermen to try their luck on streams feeding the reservoir.
We haven’t heard back for the Superintendent or National Park Service, but will let you know when we do.
In “Eel River’s rebirth requires sacrifice”, San Francisco Chronicle reporter Kurtis Alexander reminds us that dam removals require balancing the benefits dams provide with the harm they cause. Ironically, Scott and Cape Horn Dams were built for hydropower production (some of California’s earliest such facilities) but are now used to augment water supply for Potter Valley farmers and others in Sonoma County.
Diversions have averaged about 48,000 acre-feet over the last ten years. Without water stored upstream in Lake Pillsbury, diversions would only be possible during winter and spring.
The best outcome for the Eel River and its fisheries would be no diversions AND access to expanded spawning habitat above Scott Dam. Potter Valley farmers, however, would like to maintain the ability to divert some of the water. We’ll see what happens as plans for dam removal go forward.
Only the Kirkwood Plant is directly connected to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.
When Hetch Hetchy is restored, water could still be diverted to San Francisco via the Canyon Tunnel as it leaves Hetch Hetchy Valley. Such a diversion would not make a difference to water supply. Those flows could still be stored or diverted downstream, but would allow roughly 64% of the hydropower currently generated at the Kirkwood Powerhouse to continue. Without the diversion, no generation at Kirkwood would be possible (hydropower production at San Francisco’s Holm and Moccasin facilities will continue with only minor changes).
Similar to the Eel River, water supply is the principal issue at Hetch Hetchy and the one that needs to be resolved. A final solution, however, will need to replace lost hydropower as well.
The path to restoring Hetch Hetchy will be increasingly easier as San Francisco adapts its system for a future that includes both climate change and combining realistic levels of water from the Tuolumne River with other supplies. It starts by San Francisco understanding that its next water century will look nothing like the past. Last week’s court ruling may be a harbinger of such changes.
On March 15, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto ruled that the State Water Resources Control Board does indeed have authority to mandate improved river flows to benefit fish in Central Valley streams and in the Bay-Delta. (The San Francisco Chronicle article on the court ruling appears to be free – the Sacramento Bee article requires a subscription.)
The Bay-Delta Plan affects most water agencies in California. Our campaign to restore Hetch Hetchy affects only the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and its customers in selected Bay Area cities.
The ruling, which applies to a dozen lawsuits and some 116 complaints, is the latest salvo in California’s long-running “water wars”. It is certain to be appealed.
Presently, the ruling gives the State Board additional leverage in negotiations over “voluntary agreements”. Water agencies have offered complex programs that include some improved flows combined with improvements in flood plain habitat, replenishment of spawning gravels, scientific monitoring etc.
It is important to understand that the State Board has authority only to mandate improved flows. It has no authority to mandate other measures but it does have the power to accept alternative proposals such as the voluntary agreements. It is fair to say the Newsom administration is advocating that the State Board accept the voluntary agreements. Environmental and fishing advocates strongly believe that flows are the key to improved fisheries and many have rejected the voluntary agreements.
The ruling has no direct bearing on our campaign to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park – after all Hetch Hetchy Reservoir was authorized by (unprecedented) federal legislation. The ruling is, however, a warning shot, aimed at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and others, that old ways of doing business are changing.
Most urban water agencies across California have indeed changed by sharply reducing their reliance on diverting water from far away reservoirs. As we pointed out in Yosemite’s Opportunity (2022), the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, however, has changed little. While others have invested in recycling, groundwater and expanding local reservoirs, the SFPUC has resisted change.
Perhaps this latest court ruling will encourage the SFPUC to change willingly before change is thrust upon them. Such change will not only help fish downstream but can also make Yosemite National Park whole again by restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley.
Only privileged guests of San Francisco are allowed to stay at the Hetch Hetchy “chalet” and its adjacent cabins, but its deck has provided a nice photo op for Restore Hetch Hetchy events.
The board, staff and supporters of Restore Hetch Hetchy are united by a common thread. We love Yosemite National Park – all of it, and we are committed to returning Hetch Hetchy Valley to its natural splendor. Moreover, Hetch Hetchy can be a new kind of national park, with limited development, an improved visitor experience, shared stewardship with native peoples, and permanent protection of its natural and cultural heritage for future generations.
San Francisco, collectively as a city and especially its Public Utilities Commission, loves Hetch Hetchy as well, but in a very different way. Its love goes back more than a century to its decades-long struggle to build a dam and reservoir. Ever since winning that battle, San Francisco has developed a sense of ownership of the Hetch Hetchy area and beyond – see, for example, the offering of lodging to City elites at cabins adjacent to the reservoir.
The Tuolumne River watershed covers more than one half of Yosemite National Park. Engineer Michael Maurice O’Shaughnessy describes it as belonging to San Francisco.
The National Park Service is caught in the middle of this love triangle. Officially, NPS staff members have no position on our view that the Raker Act must be modified and Hetch Hetchy Reservoir relocated (views expressed to us privately or from retired staff are uniformly pro-restoration).
The NPS is also caught in the middle when it comes to our efforts to improve recreation and access even while the dam and reservoir are in place. We’d like to see access and recreation improved at Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco seems to like it the way it is – with minimal visitation.
Camping, better trails, lengthened gate hours, boating, and public transportation etc.) will encourage visitors to know and love Hetch Hetchy as we do and ultimately to support the campaign for restoration. Restore Hetch Hetchy is working with the NPS to make improvements in these areas, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Raker Act (see Keeping Promises, Restore Hetch Hetchy, 2021).
The NPS recognizes it has neglected Hetch Hetchy for more than a century. As we have noted, they are making improvements. The gate is open longer, potable water and sanitation will soon be available at the campground and there will be a new, safer bridge across the base of Wapama Falls. We also look forward to the repair of the boat ramp, although there is no indication at this time that boating will be allowed on Hetch Hetchy Reservoir as it is on Yosemite’s natural lakes.
Even though the NPS agrees the visitor experience at Hetch Hetchy can and should be improved, San Francisco does not share this motivation. And importantly, the NPS is financially dependent on San Francisco for a significant part of their budget. While the Raker Act requires that San Francisco only pay $30,000 per year in rent, it also mandates that San Francisco reimburse the NPS for expenses related to “security” and “watershed protection” – expected to total $10,000,000 per year. This reimbursement is codified in a “Memorandum of Understanding” between the City and Yosemite, which is expected to be renewed later this year.
It’s appropriate that the NPS and SFPUC have such an agreement. As written, however, the MOA is problematic as it deviates significantly from the water quality protections included in the Raker Act. Notable are the MOA’s references, including an entire appendix, to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s filtration avoidance. Unlike virtually all urban water supply agencies, San Francisco is not required to filter the 70% of system supplies that go directly from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to customers (these water supplies are purified with chlorine, ammonia and ultra-violet light). This filtration avoidance, permitted by the California Department of Health Services, saves San Francisco the trouble and expense of enlarging its filtration plants in Sunol and Daly City.
But the Raker Act specifically states that protecting San Francisco’s filtration exemption is not NPS’ responsibility – indeed NPS is precluded from doing so.
Raker Act Section 9(a) Fifth. If at any time the sanitary regulations provided for herein shall be deemed by said grantee insufficient to protect the purity of the water supply, then the said grantee shall install a filtration plant or provide other means to guard the purity of the water. No other sanitary rules or restrictions shall be demanded by or granted to the said grantee as to the use of the watershed by campers, tourists, or the occupants of hotels and cottages…
The proposed new MOA is indeed an improvement over the existing MOA. At our request, language directly associated with the NPS commitment to filtration exemption was modified. (The existing version states that “A goal of the (joint) Source Water Protection Program is for the Hetch Hetchy water supply to maintain its filtration avoidance designation.”, while the proposed new version states more clearly that filtration avoidance is a goal of San Francisco without any reference to NPS.)
Restore Hetch Hetchy is pleased with this improvement but we don’t think it goes far enough. While the MOA does not include visitor restrictions, we believe its overzealous deference to San Francisco’s desire to avoid the expense of filtration may also be the impetus for the many restrictions to access and recreation at Hetch Hetchy that are not explained in public documents.
Given the specific language of the Raker Act, why does this joint document warrant mention of filtration avoidance at all?
Whether or not the new MOA is adopted, we will continue to remind the NPS that they are not permitted to restrict visitor activity at San Francisco’s behest beyond the specific limited provisions of the Raker Act.
Someday, the Raker Act will be modified so San Francisco will still have access to Tuolumne River supplies, but the water will not be stored in Yosemite National Park. At that time, San Francisco will still love the Tuolumne River and we can all love Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite as they should be.
