Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opponents Wednesday celebrated the defeat of a controversial San Francisco measure that would have required the city to craft an $8-million plan to demolish the dam that created the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite and find alternate sources of hydropower and water storage.
The Sierra reservoir provides water for 2.6-million area residents. It was formed after the 1913 passage of the Raker Act, inundating a valley that John Muir called "one of nature's rarest and most precious mountain temples."
I love the city of San Francisco, but are there any bigger hypocrites anywhere in this country? They consistently refuse to address the fact that their city water supply came from the destruction of a valley in Yosemite National Park. A valley that was said, by some, to be more scenic than Yosemite itself. The crutch is that they could fix this, they could improve other reservoirs and water supplies to make up the difference, and the valley would be restored in as little as 50 years (in my life time). How can the people of San Francisco care so little about protecting the environment?
What are the costs of alternatives? How soon could they be implemented to restore lost amounts of water? Is there money in the Cities' budget to pay for these alternatives, or does the city have to go into debt to fund them?
Or maybe the electorate in San Francisco isn't as "left wing" as you thought... could that be it?
The idea of "restoring" Hetch Hetchy (which would require SF to invest billions it doesn't have in new power and water systems -- which would cause far more environmental damage than the supposed environmental benefit, not to mention the damage caused by the actual destruction of the dam and the dumping of its remains onto a city-owned campground) was an ultra-progressive pipe dream, and most San Franciscans recognized it as such. Only the loony lefties at the SF Bay Guardian continued to tilt at that particular windmill.
They are hypocrites. I'd prefer SF goes dry than to leave that dam in that never should have been built.
So as long as we're undoing environmental decisions that were made 100 years ago, shall we also disestablish Yosemite National Park? I'm sure some God-fearing conservative developer would just LOVE to line the valley floor with condos or put a ski resort in Tuolumne Meadows.
So as long as we're undoing environmental decisions that were made 100 years ago, shall we also disestablish Yosemite National Park? I'm sure some God-fearing conservative developer would just LOVE to line the valley floor with condos or put a ski resort in Tuolumne Meadows.
Umm, no. Yosemite should be protected. That dam destroyed a significant piece of it. Lots of terrible environmental decisions were made 100 years ago. It's why the passenger pigeon, carolina parakeet, heath hen and some other species are extinct, why the great chestnuts were wiped out by an imported disease, we're still cleaning up all kinds of toxic waste, etc.
I bet if somebody else paid for it they'd be all for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
