Hackamac: My name is Bob Hackamac and I live at 5100 Parker Road in Modesto. It’s a very great pleasure to be the first speaker to support the Wild and Scenic Designation of the Tuolumne River. I represent the Tuolumne Wild River Association and the Tuolumne River conference; both action groups of the Sierra Club and I’d like to open my remarks by questioning the announced closing date for comments as September the 11th I believe that in violation of the secret provisions. I’m going to talk about the Alternative B as compared to E. Alternate B stands for “both” in my mind. Both the dams at Clavey and Wards Ferry. “E” is the alternate which is labeled “no action” which I’m going to explain is very intensive action instead. In the report on page 64 we read that the construction of the proposed projects would not necessarily foreclose other water resource management and development opportunities but as Supervisor Seal, who’s certainly to be praised as one of the fine mountain men, spoke here. He was responsible for Bulletin 97 and 169 which proposed some other projects in the water shed and Bulletin 194 of the Department Water Resources explains those projects further. I’d like the study team to include in the report what they mean by “other water resource projects” but specifically are they and where are they so we could understand their impacts and their size. I hear there is some pump storage project somewhere along the Tuolumne River and the study zone but I don’t know where it is and I’d like to have the study team point that out to us so that we can have that information evaluating Alternate E. The language on page 69 that explains this alternate is obscure. I’d like to make that more plain so that everyone might understand it. I’d suggest the wording be something like “the long-term environmental and dollar benefits from these projects of the Clavey/Wards Ferry projects all would go to the MID, the TID, and the City/County of San Francisco while Tuolumne County takes the losses again both in terms of dollars and from their natural resources.” I don’t believe anyone can say that the Alternate E is a no-action alternate, that these dams are proposed might not be built because the report itself explains to us on page 62 that “a preliminary permit application has been filed with the FDRC and has been pending there for some three years now.” The districts indeed are ready to move into the canyon as soon as they might get some permission and start physical work leading straight towards the construction of the dam. But what would San Francisco do? The Public Utilities Commission of San Francisco has passed a rather vague resolution a few days ago and the effect of it and I think they admitted in their meeting is that they would like to have the option on the Tuolumne River raising the O’Shaughnessy Dam by 60 feet; 60 feet higher than it already is. My goodness option…Alternate E certainly is a lot worse than B. It sounds to me like it’s the start of Raker Act all over again and all the trials and tribulations of Tuolumne County getting ripped off by San Francisco; here they come again folks. So I would suggest Alternate E be plain enabled in the report as “E” for “extra project” or maybe “E” for “Everybody loses except the exporters.”
Well I’d like to turn some of my comments now to remarks about recreation and jobs. The numbers in the federal report indeed are hard for us (___) to understand but I trust the federal planners are very unbiased in their work. They’ve been working on three years we were told by Mr. Gettis and in with respect to David Blau. I would say that I think the federal planners have had a better handle on what recreational opportunities are going to be than (___) could’ve had since June of 1979. And in the report we find that the number of recreational opportunities will actually decrease in Tuolumne County by 2,200 visitor days a year if the projects are built and the lose mostly in Tuolumne County in terms of dollars would be $98,000 a year from having. That’s less money than having a wild river here and the loss of jobs would be 40 people. The 40 people would be in Tuolumne County. It’s obvious that the districts have not had a recreation plan. We’ve not seen it before. The dam plans have been around since 1968 and yet today here is the first time we’ve had an opportunity to see the recreation plans. I glanced at it as I walked across the stage. I still didn’t see any dollars and David Blau didn’t mention any dollar figures to us so that we might have an idea of what these would cost the project. As you know the project at the present time the engineering studies have not included a cent for construction or operation of recreation facilities. David said that the access to the canyon was difficult. It is difficult for people coming from San Francisco who don’t know how to reach the river, but as Ralph Field, I believe correctly, pointed out there are a lot of trails down the canyon that if you take the trouble to look for them, you certainly will find. I found a trail not too long ago that was built in 1906 the blazes are still visible. Mountain people, of course being the kind of people that you are, wouldn’t tell the flat landers where those trails are and I don’t blame you. And yet the access is there for the people who know how to find it. I’m trying to warm Ralph Field up. I’m hoping he’ll tell me where some of those are before too long. I spoke about the jobs being less…most of those jobs will be in Moccasin and because prior plans will be highly automated and for these reasons I believe that the best choice for Tuolumne County economically in terms of recreation, in terms of protecting your natural resources, is to favor Alternate A the designation of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River.
Jennings: Thank you Mr. Hackamac. Mill Schroder is our speaker and our on-deck person who’s going to be Marty McDonald. Mr. Schroder.
Schroder: My name is Mill Schroder. I appear as a past-President of the Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of its present legislative committee, a member of its water committee, and would like to testify that I feel real comfortable in this position because it also represents my personal belief and conviction. Wish to testify that we hardly support the truthful and objective position presented by our assemblyman Norm Waters and the presentation made by the Board of Supervisor Representative Bud Hatler. In the many meetings that the chamber have had, there has been consideration and respect for environmental concern but inevitable when you always get to the bottom line you have to make a decision on the advantages verses disadvantages and our opinion is ultimately been and always been the highest and best use of the Tuolumne River would be that which is offered by option E as the only sensible solution for Tuolumne County. To declare this river as a wild river would be a fraud and dishonest. The Chamber of Commerce through the support of its meetings of its water committee and legislative committee recommends option E as the most flexible and beneficial conclusion in the best interest of the people of Tuolumne County. Thank you.
Jennings: Thank you Mr. Schroder. Calling Mr. McDonald; Bob Herburger on-deck? Mr. McDonald.
MacDonelle: Thank you. My name is Marty MacDonelle and my address is P.O. Box 366, Columbia and I’m the owner of Sierra McGrewy Trips which is an ongoing commercial rafting firm since 1963 here in this county. I’ve carried numerous people down the Stanislaus and Tuolumne canyons and needless to say I’m a river rat and I have also had a lot of flat water recreation experience. When I was younger, I spent a lot of time water skiing and sailing on the lakes and reservoirs and so I’ve had a good chance in comparing the two types of recreation. I’ve also voted that Tuolumne River from the base of O’Shaughnessy Dam all the way down to Wards Ferry. The upper stretch is very exceptional area to get into it. I’ve considered it one of the most risky things I’ve ever done trying to experience the wilderness up there. The experience that the passengers have my trips is exceptional. Often I get the comments back from them that this has been one of the most meaningful things they’ve ever done and that they’ve also joined the river rat club and they are…a majority of them are people from the city environments who spend a lot of time in an office with a telephone up to their head and this if for their…for them this is one of the few chances where they can really get a chance to taste the natural environment. For those of you who’ve spent a lot of time in cities, certainly you could appreciate the fact that there’s little untouched environment around cities where people can get a chance to see what it’s like before man has come to change it to fit their needs. This wilderness experience in the Tuolumne River canyon is not affected by the reservoirs upstream and that the people who come with us, they don’t see the dams and they don’t know that these reservoirs are upstream because they’re not visual to them. I think to say O’Shaughnessy Dam upstream makes the Tuolumne River not a wild river is saying the same that Los Angeles on the coast makes the Tuolumne not a wild river. There’s been a lot of talk about saying that these dams because they control the water flow eliminates it from being a wild river. That’s not true either because if the dams weren’t there, there still would be a water time of the year where you could raft the Tuolumne. It’s not just because they regulate the flows that we can boat it. Is the Tuolumne Canyon that offers a personal challenge to people who want to experience the wilderness, the Tuolumne River is their classic environmental classroom. Universities like Davis and Sonoma State have their own rafts and they offer river classrooms where they teach people the geology and the archeology and the history of it of the Sierra Foothills which the Tuolumne and the Stanislaus are the canyons the home of the Mi Wuk Indians and for the people who go down rivers, they can get a chance to see what it’s like to be a newcomer even though it’s 100 years later. As far as these projects benefiting Tuolumne County, the resent study done by PG&E and Tuolumne County Water District Number 2 show that Wards Ferry water is probably one of the most expensive sources of new water in this county and both have conclude…both of these studies have concluded that they’re increasing the size of Lyons Reservoir or improving the ditch are approximately getting water from New Malones Reservoir by far much more economical source of water for this county, so I don’t see that Wards Ferry water being a real desirable thing for us to go after. I’d like the study to review these two documents that PG&E and Tuolumne County Water District to have done to prove this point. More flat water recreation in this county is something that we definitely don’t need and we’ve got lots of it around here and that the reservoirs that are around here certainly not being used to capacity. White water recreation is a dying sport. There’s very few places left to go, there’s 1,000+ reservoirs in the state that virtually, you know, this is pretty much the last excellent place to go white water boating, especially one that is close to the populated areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Also, I don’t know why Hetch-Hetchy is not available for recreation use; even though, it is stated in the (___) (__) that we’re supposed to be able to use Hetch-Hetchy water or O’Shaughnessy Dam Reservoir for recreational uses; however, we’re not permitted to go in it. Although, San Franciscans and people from the Bay Area can play in Pinecrest, our water source, as much as they want. Why is it that our water source can be the recreational playground of the entire state and Hetch-Hetchy is not available to anybody? The fact that if the river is stopped by Wild and Scenic, then we’re closing out our options is also a fraud because as I see it is one of the last options for white water boating, and if we dry up the upper section by the Clavey project and flood out the lower section with the Wards Ferry project, we’ve eliminated one of the last white water recreation options. And as far as this study goes, I’m somewhat confused by the different changes that have gone on throughout the last couple of years. Especially the last one that came with a notice of the study. The place of this hearing has been changed three times and without sending a notice out to everybody that it’s been changed. The last hearing in Oakland says Friday August 11th which Friday is August 10th. You know what am I supposed to do go to Oakland on Friday or Saturday? Why aren’t these changes sent out to the people who got the study report? So I support Alternative A as really being the only alternative that can be a significant power to stop these two projects from the Clavey and Tuolumne River. Thank you very much.
Jennings: Thank you Mr. MacDonnelle. After Mr. Harberger, Noreen Parth. Mr. Harberger.
Harberger: Mr. Hearing Officer, members of the audience, my name is Bob Herberger. I reside in Tuolumne County; I’ve lived here since 1962. I’m a current resident of Tuolumne County Taxpayers Association Incorporated. We urge that the responsible agencies and officials adopt Alternative E as a designation for the study the Tuolumne River. At a critical point in time for the America people to utilize all of their resources for energy and potential development, it is essential that this great river not be locked up to any future development. Our dependence on OPEC Nations for petroleum has subjugated their great nation to a very dangerous level. The people of United States of America have never needed to put to work all of the technology know-how and develop all of the available resources within our country as now. Our efficiency for better conservation, implementation of alternative sources of energy must be met now. Therefore, it is foolhardy to imagine that any resource be locked up to any selfish designation. We cannot allow dormant decisions to satisfy just a few idealists. It is imperative that all decisions benefit the most people. A Wild and Scenic classification for the Tuolumne River with any alternative, except Alternative E, no designation, no action is inappropriate for several reasons. 1. With the existing dams and projects on this river, it does not qualify for the classification for the Wild and Scenic. It is a controlled river. 2. A major portion of the Tuolumne River is already in Yosemite National Park and would not create any significant change in river management. 3. To compare a recreational demands to energy needs water (___) culture, conservation of water, including domestic needs is highly imbalanced. To preclude all of these very necessary financial needs with the Wild and Scenic classification to favor only the elite few some of who have commercial enterprises at stake. Again, only the physically fit can backpack to these areas deem road less by Wild and Scenic classification. Tuolumne County would literally be split in two by such designation. A large portion of Tuolumne County is within Yosemite National Park and over 78% of the land areas already public lands if deemed inadvisable to make further restrictions, but Tuolumne County has experienced considerable growth and the demands for water for domestic needs is ever increasing. Water that is available from the Tuolumne River should be considered in the future planning for these needs. The people of Tuolumne County should protect and utilize resources within our county and incorporate these resources to the betterment of the county. We should not be influenced by outside inners, (___) people, or the Sierra Club which might favor locking up all of the sierras. Much of the advertising appear in the media is misleading. One such ad appearing in the Union Democrat on the date of July 27, 1979, page 3, stated that Alternative E would allow three dams; nowhere in the study does this stipulate three dams; the alternative states, “no designation, no action.” Therefore, on behalf the Tuolumne County Taxpayers Association, I urge the responsible people to choose Alternative E. We cannot afford to lock up Tuolumne River and preclude lively energy needs and water for food production. Thank you.
Jennings: Thank you Mr. Herberger. After Noreen Parks, Russell Rowling…Mr. Rowling.
Parks: Good afternoon, I’m Noreen Parks. I live at 21156 Lyons Bald Mountain Road in Sonora and I represent Citizens to Preserve the Tuolumne River a local organization dedicated to preserving the Tuolumne River. One of the support activities of this group has been to circulate petitions in favor of Wild River Classification and I would like to present those petitions to the Hearing Officer today on behalf of all those who have indicated their support but were not able to attend this hearing. The petition reads: “We the undersigned on favor of including the entire Tuolumne River above new Don Pedro Reservoir in the National Wild and Scenic River system. Inclusion of the Tuolumne in a National Wild and Scenic River system would prevent the construction of any new dams on the river preserving it for future generations. We have approximately 1,400 signatures from Tuolumne and approximately 800 signatures from other parts of the State of California. There are many of us who have been involved in studying the issues of the Tuolumne River and the politics surrounding it for literally years now; and we have, I think, a realistic perspective of the power struggle that is going over the fate of this river. Although the ostensible question before the hearing board today is what part, if any, of the river should be classified as “Wild and Scenic” since four of the five alternatives outlined in the study report allow for one or more dams to be built on the river. The real question is what, if any, part of the river should be destroyed through further dam projects. Therefore, we citizens to preserve the Tuolumne River see the position of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors supporting Alternative E, no designation, as tacit support for the dam’s projects proposed by San Francisco, Modesto, and Turlock. This action of the part of the supervisors ignores the public input of the voters of this county who voted last November 67% opposition to the proposed dam projects. The issues of the Tuolumne River…of the issues of Tuolumne River water for Tuolumne County have been discussed at length in this recent advisory measure campaign. The Tuolumne County Water District Number 2 water study of 1977 gave little attention of the Tuolumne River as a realistic water source. The cost of the river of the water delivered from a Wards Ferry Reservoir has been calculated at upwards at $250 an acre foot. Moreover, the county has been promised some 54,000 acre feet of water from the newly completed New Malones Dam. The record here must indicate the dam projects on the Tuolumne River are not a viable option for increasing our county’s water supply. Despite Mr. Hatler’s opinion did his constituents voted on “no” on Measure B last November because they wanted benefits from the county…for the county if the dams are to be built. We maintain that the voters in this election were very well educated on the issues; 67% of the voters said, “No dams with no conditions.” The supervisors, the Water District Board members, the water developers have been consistently deaf to public input on the Tuolumne River and impervious to the fact of realistic water policy options. Either the river will be protected through classifications or the dams will be built. The only alternative that truly reflects the sentiment of this county’s voters is Alternative A, Designation of all river segments of the Tuolumne; all eligible segments. The study report does an admirable job of summarizing the facts of the Tuolumne River. It carefully assesses the geology, the wildlife, the cultural resources, the vegetation, the recreation uses. It also attempts to project the impacts of the proposed alternatives outlined in the report. What this collection of woods cannot do is to convey the experience of the river itself in the context of twentieth century life in California. In our highly technological urbanized society the opportunity to witness an environment in its largely natural state is rare. Rivers untraveled by the works of man are indeed an endangered species and the Tuolumne drainage is already harnessed by five dams, but the sections of river between developments still embody many wilderness characteristics. This riverain still supports rare and endangered animal species that have been driven from their habitat throughout the state by human progress. It still nourishes a wide variety of plant communities of two life stones, the Chaparral and Yellow Pine transition. It still supports an outstandingly rich fishery. It still offers the dramatic geological lesson of moving water in action. It still presents the setting of past human habitation and it still offers to the human visitor the precious opportunity to witness all of these very rare attractions and to experience him or herself in relation to this rare environment. Whether it would be picking wildflowers or (___) for trout or stocking a deer or riding rapids in a raft or camping next to a roaring waterfall or exploring archeological sites. There are many people in this room who may choose to never seek out such experiences who may not have appreciation for their rareness; some of them sit at drawing boards with five rules and calculators and envision the river as one, vast slow diagram with kilowatt hours, acre feet, and dollars returned on investments. We’ll immense the narrowness of their vision, but their numbers are not so important as the opportunity of freedom for our future generations and for all living now to experience a living river, a life force, a remnant of the past. What we are speaking about is the preservation of the element of our American heritage and a pride of the richness, diversity, and beauty of this land that we inhabit. These values cannot be quantified in visitor days or acre feet or dollars and cents; and perhaps that’s why they’re not addressed in the study report but to ignore these values is to deny us all the opportunity to experience them. The reality of the Tuolumne River situation is that 98% of the lands in resources under consideration are now under public ownership in the guides of National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Jurisdiction. The question is shall we transform that public ownership and strengthen its protection under Federal Wild and Scenic River Classification or shall we allow a small segment of the population to claim this public resource for its own selfish purposes and deny the right of all others to enjoy it? To answer this question one must weigh, in engineers terms, the cost and benefits of the choices. In an era of accelerated inflation, increasing public outcry over wasteful public spending, and diminishing resources on every front; it beholds us to scrutinize the use of our resources and derive all possible benefits from our current investments. The cheapest, most accessible source of new energy in this society has been and continues to be conservation; improving the efficiency of the power already at our disposal. As long as we allow exploitation of every last resource available, the short sided greed ethic will be perpetuated needed the city and county of San Francisco through Hetch-Hetchy power system nor the irrigation districts of Modesto and Turlock have made any significant attempts to encourage conservation or more efficiently utilize the energy already produced from a corporate point of view, an uneconomical. Millions of dollars have already been spent on drawing up the plans for the extravagant projects and lobbying for approval at all levels of government; all without the mandate of the citizens of San Francisco, Modesto, and Turlock we note. These agencies can cruelly propose the investment of more than two thirds of a billion dollars for new hydro-electric facilities that will operate less than six hours per day to provide additional peaking power, but not a penny for implementation of simple conservation techniques that would yield a far better return on dollars already invested. In the state that leads a country in innovated conservation technology, this is an outrage. In a nation that has supposedly prided itself in creative solutions to challenging problems and maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number, it is a travesty. The cost of this proposal more than two thirds of a billion dollars and the loss of a river and all its varied environment far outweighs the benefits of additional peaking power for future wasteful consumption. Congress has mandated in the wild…
Jennings: We only have 30 seconds.
Parks: Ok I’m just about finished.