Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2012, 03:31 PM
509 509 started this thread
 
6,323 posts, read 6,978,874 times
Reputation: 9441

Advertisements

Does the city of San Francisco really think they OWN Yosemite National Park??

Here are my posts on an environmental forum. Obviously, I am pissed at the lack of environmental awareness in San Francisco. However, the reason for the posting is WHY the measure failed. Are people in San Francisco that anti-environment??

If the Sistine Chapel is flooded should we keep it flooded?

Here is the entire background and quote for those that do not remember David Brower:

Brower and the Sierra Club also led a major battle to stop the Bureau of Reclamation from building two dams that would flood portions of the Grand Canyon. In 1964, Brower organized a dory river expedition led by Martin Litton with Philip Hyde and author Francois Leydet. The trip led to the book Time and The River Flowing which galvanized public opposition to the dams. In June 1966 the Club placed full-page ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post asking, "Should we also flood the Sistine Chapel so tourists can get nearer the ceiling?"

Well, yesterday the voters of San Francisco decided that the natural world equivalent of the Sistine Chapel should remain flooded!!

Yes, the so called environmental voters of San Francisco voted 77% to REFUSE to even STUDY removal of the THEIR dam on the Tuolumne Yosemite inside of Yosemite National Park.

This is an outrage. There are no others words for it.

The environmental movement needs to shame San Francisco into removing their stinking dam.

For more information on the Tuolumne Yosemite

John Muir and David Brower are so ashamed of the city of San Francisco today.

More information on city of San Francisco water use

City of San Francisco has many large dams. It has Lake Eleanor ALSO inside of Yosemite National Park and Cherry Valley Reservoir just outside the park boundary on the Stanislaus National Forest.

By my count the city owns or controls NINE dams for a population of just over 800,000 people. ALL lands controlled by the city are CLOSED to ANY public use. The city does maintain recreational facilities for their elected officials on city watershed lands. How much water do they need??

The water from the Tuolumne Yosemite would flow into ANOTHER larger reservoir owned by the City of San Francisco.

There is NO reason for the dam, other than saving money in the short run.

Both Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and that actor governor supported studies to remove the dam from the National Park.

Good grief, what is wrong with Pelosi and Feinstein??

The question is why did the city voters reject the measure?? Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2012, 03:40 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,487,805 times
Reputation: 13615
No money to pay for its removal nor ways to replace all that water would be my guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 04:05 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
506 posts, read 1,151,826 times
Reputation: 317
Just a few thoughts.

San Francisco is really, really paranoid about water supply. That's because the city burned down once, due to lack of water. Maybe a reservoir on the other side of a major fault line isn't actually going to help much when the earthquake happens, but just as a general principle the city seems committed to the idea that more water = better.

The water from Hetch Hetchy supplies much of the Bay Area -- millions of people, not just San Francisco. It also supplies electricity. It's hard to find carbon-neutral, non-nuclear sources of electricity. Tear the dam down and do what, burn some coal instead?

Finally, the idea that we must get rid of this hideous eyesore is not really compelling.



(I know the river valley was more beautiful, but still, this is not exactly ugly.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 06:51 PM
509 509 started this thread
 
6,323 posts, read 6,978,874 times
Reputation: 9441
Well, I will let John Muir answer your question: " Landscape gardens, places of recreation and worship, are never made beautiful by destroying and burying them. The beautiful lake, forsooth, should be only an eyesore, a dismal blot on the landscape, like many others to be seen in the Sierra. For, instead of keeping it at the same level all the year, allowing Nature to make new shores, it would, of course, be full only a month or two in the spring, when the snow is melting fast; then it would be gradually drained, exposing the slimy sides of the basin and shallower parts of the bottom, with the gathered drift and waste, death and decay of the upper basins, caught here instead of being swept on to decent natural burial along the banks of the river or in the sea. Thus the Hetch Hetchy dam-lake would be only a rough imitation of a natural lake for a few of the spring months, an open mountain sepulcher for the others."

I am a retired Forester and Hetch Hetchy is one of THE major conservation MISTAKES of the past one hundred years. It directly lead to the formation of the Sierra Club and the National Park Service. After Hetch Hetchy people realized that National Parks were undefended by any Federal agency and were going to be destroyed by commercial interests without a Federal agency to defend them. It IS and WAS a huge deal.

But getting back to my question. San Francisco talks green and then its voters by 77-23% margin refuse to fix one of the major conservation mistakes in American history. I was just stunned. I have not lived in the Bay Area since 1978, but I NEVER thought the margin would be that great against restoring one of nature's grandest landscapes.

Getting back to my question? What happened? What were the arguments against the initiative? Who paid for them?? I am appalled by the comments by the Mayor, Paloesi, and Feinstein. Even the lumbermen, oil company executives and mining managers never talked like them in my entire career!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 07:10 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,487,805 times
Reputation: 13615
Having water and electricity is important for some people. You make it sound so easy and cheap to restore Hetch Hetchy. Perhaps you are not aware of our limited budget, water, and power???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 07:53 PM
509 509 started this thread
 
6,323 posts, read 6,978,874 times
Reputation: 9441
Then why is San Francisco wasting all that money on solar power?

I have a solar house. It is expensive without tax breaks.

That explanation does not wash. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest cities in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 07:59 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,487,805 times
Reputation: 13615
How is Solar power wasting money when it's providing power to residents and businesses? Yeah it's pricey but still has a quantifiable benefit. Draining Hetch Hetchy drains critical resources for the region.

What makes you think there financially feasible way to replace all that water and power? You're being extremely irrational and not thinking about the consequences of draining Hetch Hetchy whatsoever.

Yeah SF is relatively wealthy but it's not that that wealthy. And apparently it's not filled with as many extreme irrational environmentalists as you thought or hoped it was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:02 PM
 
Location: A bit further north than before
1,651 posts, read 3,687,890 times
Reputation: 1465
I'll grant that from our modern perspective it was a mistake, but it's not one that can be reversed quickly or easily. There really aren't any well-thought-out Plan B's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:37 AM
509 509 started this thread
 
6,323 posts, read 6,978,874 times
Reputation: 9441
I thought Measure F was a well thought Plan B.

At least, it started the discussion process.

I guess we will just start having to work on a national level. It is a YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, not a division of the San Francisco Water Department!!

......apparently it's not filled with as many extreme irrational environmentalists as you thought or hoped it was........ Thank you, as a retired professional Forester there are plenty of environmentalists that I am sure remember me as an "extreme irrational environmentatllist"!!

No my disappointment is that there are very few San Franciscans with a land ethic.

Start here: A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold and The Yosemite by John Muir.

Last edited by 509; 11-08-2012 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:47 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,965 posts, read 32,487,805 times
Reputation: 13615
Start here: find the water and power to replace Hetch Hetchy w/o tripling people's water and power rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top