Blog » sustainable development
- August 23, 2012By Laura Tam, Sustainable Development Policy Director
This November, San Francisco’s Prop. F asks voters to approve an $8 million planning process to find a way to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, the city’s most important water system asset. SPUR believes that this is a bad idea for many reasons, and we strongly oppose Prop F (stay tuned at www.spur.org/voterguide for our full ballot analysis in early October).
The measure also calls for a task force to develop a long-term plan to improve water quality and reliability, and to identify new local water sources to supplement water currently diverted from the Tuolumne River into the Hetch Hetchy system. As we have said before, it is so obviously a good idea to plan for alternative supplies that such endeavors are already well underway in San Francisco (and we certainly don’t need a ballot measure to compel us to do planning that is already being done). The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is working to site recycled water facilities in the city, develop groundwater supplies on the west side and make deep gains in conservation — no small feat in the most water-efficient city in California. By agreement with its wholesale customers, who use two-thirds of the water from the Hetch Hetchy system, the SFPUC must develop 10 million gallons a day of these additional supplies in San Francisco by 2018. This represents about 13 percent of the city’s current daily water use.
Not all of these alternative water supplies are created equal. Regulations — and common sense — currently prohibit us from drinking recycled water (i.e. treated sewage water), graywater (used kitchen, laundry or bath water) or seepage water (water that seeps into basements and needs to be pumped out), none of which are treated to drinking water standards. But these water sources are perfectly fine for uses such as flushing toilets, filling cooling towers or irrigating parks and can be used to offset our potable water demand. This way, we can save the very best Hetch Hetchy water for drinking.
To support this idea of matching supplies to appropriate uses — which is more efficient, sustainable and drought-resilient than using the same source for every use — the SFPUC recently evaluated the feasibility of “onsite” supplies to meet nonpotable demands.These are water supplies such as rainwater, graywater, blackwater (sewage) and seepage water that are generated, partially treated and reused on the same property. The SFPUC studied how much Hetch Hetchy water could be saved by aggressively encouraging the use of onsite supplies to meet nonpotable demands for residential, commercial and municipal open space uses. The study looked at the theoretical maximum available supply from sources such as rainwater or graywater and then looked at maximum feasible onsite demands for such sources. It concluded that in 2035, with 100 percent participation in these programs, San Francisco could save 3.4 million gallons a day.
Let’s put 3.4 million gallons a day in perspective. This savings is significant for a conservation program. It’s more than we will get from any one recycled water facility. It would add a significant extra and drought-resilient supply of local water, over and above the 10-million-gallon-a-day alternative supply portfolio San Francisco is developing from recycled water, groundwater and conservation. It would be a huge boon to the Tuolumne River and its ecosystems if we could put that extra water back into the river. We should pursue this new supply with gusto, first by making it easier to do onsite nonpotable reuse (which SPUR has strongly supported), then by creating greater incentives to do so.
But it will never replace the 74 million gallons a day that Hetch Hetchy delivers to San Francisco. We can’t reduce reuse, and recycle our way out of needing our region’s most important water system.
- August 21, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
For more than three decades, San Francisco's Heart of the City Farmers’ Market has been operating at UN Plaza, along Market Street and within sight of City Hall. The market is unique not only for its central location but also for its dedication to offering fresh produce to low-income customers living in the nearby Tenderloin neighborhood while also supporting the livelihood of California farmers.
Since its start in 1981 as a joint project of the American Friends Service Committee and Market Street Association, Heart of the City Farmers’ Market has been governed by its farmer-vendors. As a result, the farmers have worked to keep stall fees – what they pay for space at the market – low. Currently the fees are $30 per day, per 10 foot by 10 foot stall, which may be the lowest rate in the city. The low stall fees are a prime reason this farmers' market is known not only for its variety but also for its affordability.
The market is also known for its size. With more than 50 farm stands and nearly 20 prepared-food vendors selling fruits, vegetables, flowers, fish, eggs, bread, tamales, rotisserie chicken and more, the market is bigger than most other markets in the city except the Ferry Building and Alemany Markets. According to Kate Creps, Heart of the City market manager, most of the farmers travel 1.5 to 3 hours to reach the market, though some travel further, including Dates by Davall, who drives more than 8 hours one way to bring his produce from the Coachella Valley, east of Los Angeles.
The market also distinguishes itself by its commitment to support the use of food stamps at farmers’ markets. More than 75 percent of all CalFresh electronic benefits used at farmers’ markets in San Francisco are redeemed at Heart of the City.
The organization just reached a new milestone this month with the addition of a Friday market, complementing its existing Wednesday and Sunday gatherings. While it’s still to be seen whether demand is sufficient to sustain the Friday market, it's an exciting development in a neighborhood with no full-service grocery store. Starting a new farmers’ market is difficult in general, but that’s especially true in low-income areas, with the close of the Bayview farmers’ market providing an example.
Describing the Heart of the City Farmers’ Market, though, doesn’t do it justice. So stop reading and mark your calendar for a Wednesday, Friday or Sunday starting as early as 7 a.m. Bring a shopping bag, appetite or both, and enjoy this special market yourself.
- August 2, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
San Francisco will soon have a new urban agriculture program. On July 17, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation — introduced by Supervisor David Chiu and co-sponsored by Supervisors Avalos, Cohen, Mar and Olague — that sets clear goals and timelines for how the city government can better support urban farmers and gardeners.
The following week, the board put funding behind the program when it included $120,000 for the initiative in the 2012-2013 city budget.
The supervisors made two amendments to the version of the legislation that passed out of committee before giving it the final nod:
1. The goal of reducing wait times for a garden plot at community gardens to less than 1 year by 2014 was changed to a goal of developing a strategy to reach that same target by the end of this year.
2. The language regarding creating resource centers was altered slightly to prioritize that the resource centers should be hosted at existing sites rather than opening new facilities.
Now that the ordinance is law, the following timelines and goals go into effect:
· To complete and publish, by January 1, 2013, an audit of city-owned buildings with rooftops potentially suitable for both commercial and non-commercial urban agriculture;
· To develop, by January 1, 2013, incentives for property owners to allow temporary urban agriculture projects, particularly on vacant and blighted property awaiting development;
· To develop, by January 1, 2013, a streamlined application process for urban agriculture projects on public land, with clear evaluation guidelines that are consistent across agencies;
· To create, by July 1, 2013, a “one-stop shop” for urban agriculture that would provide information, programming and technical assistance to all San Francisco residents, businesses and organizations wishing to engage in urban agriculture;
· To develop new urban agriculture projects on public land where residents demonstrate desire for the projects, with at least 10 new locations for urban agriculture completed by July 1, 2014;
· To provide garden resource locations in neighborhoods across the city, at existing sites where possible, that provide residents with resources such as compost, seeds and tools, with at least 5 completed by January 1, 2014; and,
· To analyze and develop, by January 1, 2013, a strategy to reduce the wait list for San Francisco residents seeking access to a community garden plot to one year.
While the above timelines and goals set an overall vision for what the new program must do, another crucial deadline in the legislation is December 31, 2012. By that date, the city administrator and mayor must present to the board a strategic plan for how the new program should meet its goals and a recommendation regarding who – meaning which agency or non-profit – should manage the program.
SPUR’s focus on urban agriculture will now shift from the legislation to its implementation. Many questions remain to be answered between now and the end of the year, and we will be working to ensure that the new urban agriculture program is as effective as possible.
- July 9, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
Update: On July 17, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the expansion proposal and new lease for the San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market.
The San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market, the city’s hub for fresh produce, is looking to modernize and expand. And, this month, the SF Board of Supervisors will be considering a proposal to allow it to do just that.
The market is a critical piece of the region’s food system infrastructure. Its loading docks, warehouses and offices allow more than 25 wholesalers and distributors to link farmers from the region — and from around the world — with grocery stores, restaurants and other food retailers. The market infrastructure, however, is getting old. Most of the warehouses were built in the early 1960s, and its earlier generation of technology and design are limiting the growth of many market tenants and making it more difficult to comply with evolving food safety regulations.
In response, the market is proposing a comprehensive upgrade and expansion of its facilities on city-owned land. The resolution before the Board of Supervisors would allow the market to construct a new building at 901 Rankin and either rebuild or remodel its existing buildings. Importantly, the legislation would also give the market long-term security with a 60-year ground lease. The modernization and the long-term lease are both crucial to the success of the market; without those changes, many of its tenant businesses have indicated that they will leave, taking more than 600 jobs and $720,000 of annual tax dollar revenue out of the city. With the expansion, however, the market projects that its tenants’ total employment will expand to 1,000 people and that the revenue to the city will increase by 44 percent, to at least $1.04 million annually.
The proposal presents San Francisco the chance to support the modernization of its wholesale food infrastructure at less cost than that of other major cities. State agencies in Pennsylvania provided millions in loans and more than $100 million in grants to build the new Philadelphia Wholesale Produce Market. New York City invested a total of $110 million for the redevelopment of its Fulton Fish Market and Hunts Point Produce Market. In contrast, the proposal before San Francisco's supervisors does not involve any capital funding from the city.
Cities around the country are working to develop “food hubs,” organizations that actively manage the distribution and marketing of local and regional food products. In San Francsico, we already have one. SPUR supports the market’s proposal to expand and modernize so that it can continue supporting the vibrant food industry for which the city and region are so well know.
- July 5, 2012By Benjamin Grant, Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager
Some important improvements that SPUR recommended in the Ocean Beach Master Plan will happen right away, thanks to quick work by the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Recreation and Park Commission. This winter DPW will construct a planted median in the center of the Great Highway from Lincoln Way to Balboa Street as part of a previously scheduled project to repave the roadway. DPW acting director Mohammed Nuru, who sits on the Ocean Beach Master Plan Steering Committee, noticed that the long-range vision for Ocean Beach included street medians among its many suggested improvements. Rather than delay the repaving project while the long-term roadway proposals are analyzed, Nuru suggested that a median could be integrated into the current effort, provided it didn't change the configuration of the road, which would trigger a complex review process.
The project will install landscaped medians where today they exist only in paint. It will improve pedestrian safety and access to the beach by providing shorter crossings and pedestrian refuges, as well as clarifying rights of way on large swaths of currently unmarked pavement. It will also improve the aesthetics of the highway, as well as its environmental performance, by providing much-needed greenery and increasing permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration in what is now a large, undifferentiated slab of asphalt. A selection of rugged native plants suitable for the beachfront’s challenging climate is under development.
The only concern that emerged about the project was ensuring that the Great Highway could continue to accommodate major events such as the Nike Marathon and Bay to Breakers races. A review of the proposal with Recreation and Parks Department event managers allayed those fears. The project went before the Recreation and Parks Commission Capital Committee in early June and the full Commission on June 21. Installation is set to begin as part of the larger repaving project this winter.
- June 26, 2012
At last, the final Ocean Beach Master Plan document is ready for viewing and download! Many thanks to everyone who participated in this groundbreaking effort, including community members, advocates and public agencies. Check back here for updates on our implementation efforts.
The viewer below allows easy zooming and page-turning to make this very large document readable. Click the "Expand" button below in order to see it at full-screen size. Then zoom in using the scroll bar (white circle) at the top left.
You can also download the whole document >> [70MB, 210 pages]
Unfortunately, we lack the funds to provide hard copies of the full document. If you would like one, stay tuned. We will be arranging a print-on-demand service where you can purchase a copy.
- June 20, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
Thirty miles east of San Francisco, four farm businesses are growing food for market amidst the hills of Sunol. Though the rows of tomatoes, strawberries, kale, and other crops are typical of the region the land use arrangement at the site, known as the Sunol AgPark, is anything but typical. That’s because the park is on public land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) directly adjacent to the Sunol Water Temple. In 2006, the PUC began an innovative land stewardship partnership and lease with the non-profit organization Sustainable Agriculture and Education (SAGE), who, in turn, subleases the 18 acres to local farmers.
In other words, for-profit farmers are cultivating publicly owned land managed by a nonprofit. It’s an arrangement that works for the PUC, SAGE and the farmers. From the PUC’s perspective, farming is compatible with this site, as it is with many others they own between San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy. By permitting agriculture next to the Water Temple, they reduce their maintenance costs and are able to provide a community benefit, not only to the farmers and their customers, but also to the thousands of visitors and schoolchildren that the PUC and SAGE bring to the site each year for educational tours. For the farmers, the AgPark provides protected land with existing agricultural infrastructure, proximity to urban markets and technical assistance — at rates comparable to farmland with similar amenities available on the private market. And for SAGE, the AgPark increases awareness of the value of local food systems and the importance of preserving agricultural land around cities while covering a portion of its own operating costs.
The AgPark began with a nine-year lease, and it is a model that, if successful, has the potential to be replicated throughout the Bay Area and beyond. The Public Utilities Commission alone owns 84,000 acres outside the city of San Francisco. Other water agencies, utilities and public land stewards in the Bay Area also control thousands of acres of land. Much of the PUC’s land is managed to preserve water quality or otherwise support the function of the water, sewer and power systems they operate. But, recognizing that much of the land could have a secondary use beyond its primary utility function, such as organic farms in a protected watershed area, the PUC adopted a new framework for considering secondary land uses in March.
The Sunol AgPark is a pilot project that, in addition to its educational mission, is helping explore the viability of agriculture as a secondary use on publicly-= owned land. The potential for expanding the model is tantalizing. Time will tell whether it continues to work for the public utilities, nonprofit land managers and the farmers.
- June 14, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
San Francisco may soon have a new urban agriculture program. On June 11, the Land Use and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed legislation introduced earlier by Supervisor David Chiu that seeks to increase the coordination, efficacy and breadth of city support for urban agriculture. Based on recommendations from SPUR's report Public Harvest as well as calls for change from community organizations including the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance, the ordinance now moves to the full board for two consecutive votes, with the first vote likely on June 19.
The version of the legislation that passed the committee included a number of amendments to the original version. Some of the notable changes include:
- Strategic plan: The strategic plan for implementation of the legislation must be presented to the board for approval
- Funding: For the coming fiscal year, the urban agriculture program should have funding sufficient for at least one full-time staff person
- Timelines: The strategic plan may set new target dates for the goals listed in the legislation
- Job training: The program needs to find ways to link urban agriculture with job training and employment opportunities, especially in the private sector
- Land Use: The program must ensure that existing urban agriculture spaces are fully utilized
Though the board agreed to numerous changes, they retained the core components of the legislation. Given the support demonstrated at the hearing by both the supervisors and community advocates, including SPUR, the ordinance appears headed toward passage.
Assuming the legislation becomes law, the most pressing issue becomes how to translate the text of the ordinance into meaningful change. Prime among the questions of the law’s implementation is how the urban agriculture program will be funded. The mayor and Board of Supervisors are in the process of negotiating the city budget, and it is not yet clear what funding, if any, will be included to support the new program and ensure that the ordinance’s call for at least one full-time coordinator is reinforced with budget dollars. The city administrator and mayor will face another large question: Which city agency or nonprofit should manage the program and ensure that the goals of the legislation are met? They have until December to evaluate the various options and submit an answer to the board and public.
The Land Use Committee’s approval of the ordinance has moved the legislation very close to becoming law. And it has moved city agencies, nonprofits and community advocates into the more difficult conversation about how, exactly, the city will create a program that better serves San Francisco’s many gardeners and farmers.
- May 29, 2012by Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager
Seven city agencies spent nearly a million dollars supporting urban agriculture projects in San Francisco in 2010-2011. Yet there is no single staff person responsible for coordinating that funding, nor any overarching goals for how the money is used. Urban agriculture legislation introduced on April 24 by Supervisor David Chiu, however, would change that.
The proposed ordinance, which implements a number of the recommendations in SPUR’s recent report Public Harvest, would:
- Set goals, with outcomes and timelines, such as: an audit of city-owned buildings to identify rooftops suitable for urban agriculture; five new resource centers for compost, mulch and tools; a streamlined application process; a reduction in community garden waiting lists to no more than one year wait time; 10 new urban agriculture projects on public land where residents show desire for the projects;
- Create an urban agriculture program that would coordinate the efforts of city agencies, engage with community groups to reach the goals of the legislation and generally support city gardening and farming; and
- Require the mayor and city administrator to publish an evaluation of existing efforts and a strategic plan for the new urban agriculture program by the end of 2012. Importantly, this evaluation and planning process explicitly calls for SPUR’s top recommendation, which was for the mayor and city administrator to decide whether a city agency or a nonprofit partially funded by the city will serve as the main institutional support for urban agriculture.
Those provisions combined aim to reduce the duplication of effort among agencies by creating a one-stop shop that would: provide a streamlined application process for starting projects on public land; serve as an information clearinghouse for the public and for agencies; and offer technical assistance to city gardens and farms. The legislation’s annual reporting requirement would also increase accountability by shining detailed attention on the city’s progress toward reaching the goals, as well as by providing an accounting of how agencies spent their funding. And, by requiring a strategic plan and having staff assigned to coordinate among agencies, the new urban agriculture program could ensure that existing funding is used more efficiently.
The legislation, however, wouldn’t be a cure-all. Even if the law is passed, successful implementation will require buy-in from the mayor’s office and individual agencies, which would ultimately decide how much priority and staff time they put toward improving existing programs. The legislation sets targets for new sites on public land, but the specific locations and the money to start the projects must still be found. And, for residents on community-garden waiting lists, the bill provides no immediate relief. Instead, the legislation builds the institutional capacity within the city to provide more land, resources and support in the coming years.
Though it won’t solve any challenges overnight, the legislation is a crucial step forward. SPUR supports the legislation and we will be tracking its progress through the Board of Supervisors.
- May 17, 2012By Laura Tam, Sustainable Development Policy Director
Have you been to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite? Everyone who drinks water or takes a shower in San Francisco should go. It is spectacular: a miles-long placid blue lake nested within towering granite cliffs, from which waterfalls cascade. To visit the waterfalls or Yosemite’s northern backcountry, you walk across O’Shaughnessy Dam. It marks the first catchment in a 160-mile long water system that brings high quality, superb-tasting water to 2.6 million residents of the Bay Area every day.
Standing upon it will give you the chance to appreciate the sublimity of both nature and human achievement. O’Shaughnessy Dam and the waterworks that connect it to the Bay Area are a marvel of engineering. The water shunted through them — about 218 million gallons a day — arrives in most city taps by gravity alone. This is also a place imbued with history: San Francisco’s congressional delegation won the right to build the dam in 1913, to secure a reliable source of water in the wake of the 1906 earthquake. This effort was famously and vociferously fought by John Muir and was the subject of a national debate for years; the loss later galvanized the Sierra Club to successfully oppose large dams in Dinosaur National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park.
It would be almost impossible to build a new dam there today. (In fact partially because it is so difficult and destructive to build large dams, we are running out of new supplies of water in California.) But tearing O’Shaughnessy Dam down now in order to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley would be a disaster.
If their signature-gathering campaign is successful, a small group of environmental advocates, led by Restore Hetch Hetchy, will give you the opportunity this November to vote on a measure that would require the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to develop a plan to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The proposed ballot measure calls for the creation of a task force that would spend $8 million to develop a long-term plan for improving water quality and reliability, remediating environmental damages caused by the water supply system, and identifying new water and renewable energy supplies so that Hetch Hetchy Valley could be returned to the National Park Service.
This ballot measure is so problematic that SPUR has taken early action to oppose it.
SPUR wholeheartedly agrees that planning for water quality and reliability is important. In fact, this is so obviously a good idea that the SFPUC and other end users of Hetch Hetchy water have been doing it for years. In 2007, in approving the environmental impact report for the Water System Improvement Program — an investment of more than $4 billion to shore up the seismic reliability of the Hetch Hetchy water system — the SFPUC gave itself, and its wholesale customers on the peninsula, ten years to develop a plan that would identify reliable alternative sources of water to meet the region’s future growth in demand, rather than diverting more water from the Tuolumne River. The SFPUC and other Hetch Hetchy users are currently implementing plans to meet this demand through recycled water, groundwater and conservation. (Read SPUR’s analysis of this plan.) So the idea of planning for new water supplies need not be on the ballot.
In terms of quality, Hetch Hetchy water is so pristine that it is one of only a handful of water supplies in the country that doesn’t need to be filtered, a process that is expensive and energy intensive. The SFPUC tests its quality more than 100,000 times a year to ensure that it exceeds all safe drinking water standards.
The main problem with the measure is that in spite of appearing to be about studying best options or planning for future water supplies, it has pre-determined the solution: draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.
The idea of punching a hole in or removing the dam and allowing the valley to be restored to its pre-development conditions has been around since the late 1980s. Over the last 35 years, the idea has been studied by the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, UC Davis, and several state agencies. Some of these studies determined that the idea of draining the reservoir was technically feasible but incredibly costly.
In 2006, the California State Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Department of Parks and Recreation evaluated the cost estimates of multiple feasibility studies conducted between 1988 and 2005. DWR’s meta-study found a range of costs from $3 billion to $10 billion for restoration and replacement of water and power sources. Restore Hetch Hetchy and the Environmental Defense Fund’s own studies support a lower cost estimate, ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion. DWR also found that the planning studies necessary to refine the costs and benefits of restoration would cost $65 million alone.
Even if we could obtain the several billion dollars necessary to carry out this endeavor (neither private nor public sources have yet been identified) some of the tasks involved may not even be possible. Here are just some of the hurdles we would need to cross:
• Identify water supplies to meet about 18 percent of the region’s water demand in dry years (which occur about 20 percent of the time)
• Permit and build 40 to 90 megawatts of renewable power to supply almost all municipal demand in San Francisco
• Build and operate a water-filtration plant, because water stored further downstream than Hetch Hetchy will have to be filtered
• Engineer and design a series of expensive and complicated infrastructure projects to re-engineer major components of the regional water system, then get those changes through the environmental review process
• Somehow convince senior water-right holders like the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts on the Tuolumne River to let us store our drinking water in their reservoirs
• Also convince them it would be a good idea to raise the heights of their dams so we can enlarge these reservoirs with our extra water, flooding anew many miles of the Tuolumne River and acres of currently dry land.
Yes, the plan to drain Hetch Hetchy involves causing new ecological damage. We would be trading flooded acres in one place for flooded acres in another.
At SPUR, we have done a lot of work on climate change adaptation. From this work, we have concluded that it is not wise to reduce water storage facilities considering the realities of a growing population and climate change. A bigger population will increase demand, meanwhile climate change could significantly reduce supply through drought and hydrological cycle changes. Hetch Hetchy, unlike other water storage facilities in California, is relatively buffered from near-term climate change because of its high elevation. And it is the largest single source of water supply for the Bay Area. In the future, we will certainly need diverse supplies to rely on in a prolonged drought, but we will also need Hetch Hetchy more than ever.
Loss of the reservoir would decrease the Bay Area’s water and energy security, requiring new water storage (possibly in reservoirs not owned by San Francisco) and the development of new water and energy supplies. Such new supplies are not guaranteed to have the low greenhouse gas emissions profile that Hetch Hetchy water and power do — and they could worsen climate change while increasing our vulnerability to it.
So visit Hetch Hetchy. Stand on O’Shaughnessy Dam and feel the cool updraft. Appreciate what nature created and what the city built there long ago. Dams, including this one, don’t last forever, and perhaps in a few generations the conversation about a different future for the Hetch Hetchy Valley may be worthwhile. Then, we’ll need to weigh our options for other new large water supplies, all of which will have enormous environmental tradeoffs: think of building a desalination plant, fighting with Los Angeles over the Sacramento Delta, building a peripheral canal or siting new large dams in presently undammed Sierra mountains and foothills.
Fortunately, that time has not yet come, so this November, vote “no” on the “Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Planning Act of 2012.” Let’s keep Hetch Hetchy around for the forseeable future.Tags: sustainable development