San Francisco Hypocrite Alert: Yosemite's lost valley will be subject of vote

Associated Press ^ | Aug. 5, 2012 | TRACIE CONE and JASON DEAREN

[jwsea55]

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (AP) — This fall San Franciscans will vote on a local measure with national implications: It could return to the American people a flooded gorge described as the twin of breathtaking Yosemite Valley.

Voters will decide whether they want a plan for draining the 117-billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, exposing for the first time in 80 years a glacially carved, granite-ringed valley of towering waterfalls 17 miles north of its more famous geologic sibling.

The November ballot measure asks: Should city officials devise a modern water plan that incorporates recycling and study expansion of other storage reservoirs to make up the loss?

The measure could eventually undo a controversial century-old decision by Congress that created the only reservoir in a national park and slaked the thirst of a city 190 miles away.

The battle over Hetch Hetchy, first waged unsuccessfully by naturalist John Muir, had turned the Sierra Club from an outdoors group into an environmental powerhouse. The fight gained momentum in recent years when unlikely allies joined forces.

[gracie1]

It will be a silty mess that no one will be able to “enjoy” for many years. SoCalEd drained one of its reservoirs in the sierra for maintenance on a 90 year old dam. It looked like a barren moonscape. No one was allowed down there, all access was blocked, to protect “native sites”. Yeah, the real reason is because they didn’t want to be liable for some nimrod who might get mired in the muck down there.

[BfloGuy]

I wonder if the dams were put there for any reason originally?

Yes, they were put there for a reason.

[hattend]

So, you drain a dam that provides water for a water starved state.

You hope to uncover another Yosemite.

After 80 years, you find said valley covered in 100 feet of silt.

What now libs? Drink sewer water, bitches!

[Talisker]

First mega taxes, then the bullet train, now dumping all the water for the Bay Area.

Al Qaida couldn’t do a better job of destroying California than the Democrats.

[dsrtsage]

I say that if the central valley, gets no water, then san fransicko should get no water

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I pray that the commie lib idiots of San Francisco vote to slit their throats by eliminating their primary source of clean drinking water. I am praying for it.

When they can’t secure water for people to drink, I’m going to celebrate with a bottle of champagne and a night of raucous laughter.

Stupidity should never go unrewarded.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I hope they do it. I will laugh when their water bills come in triple or more.

[cripplecreek]

I think I would choose a different name since the occupy wall street crowd brings up negative imagery but I fully support leaving the dams in place. Sounds like there was considerable manipulation that lead to the decision to remove the Boardman dam.

Grand Traverse Residents 'Occupy' the Boardman

[jwsea55]

Have you been pretty active in fighting the dam issue?

I find it interesting how people can look at issues like this and imagine that there is some idyllic view of restoring everything to its original state. There isn't much consideration about the cost to those around the communities. Will it raise electrical rates? What form of electricity is going to replace the hydro and how will that effect the environment? Do people think taking electrical capacity out of the system doesn't have a consequence? Does the 'lake' provide economic benefit to local businesses? Does the lake and the dam, themselves, provide a different aesthetic beauty? Were the lakes put in to control 50 or 100 year floods?

[HereInTheHeartland]

I used to live in San Francisco. It has some of the best quality water and most reliable supply.
They now want to undo that; not surprising to hear.

I'm sure the valley is a beautiful place; but water for humans is kind of an important thing!

[liberalh8ter]

Let's think this through.....do we really want them to leave SF and infiltrate our communities?

[cripplecreek]

I’m not officially involved in any groups dedicated to saving the dams but I’m a big supporter of using hydroelectric wherever its available. New generator technology makes a lot of the smaller reservoirs, lakes and ponds viable energy sources. I’ve actually discovered something I like about the smart grid in the sense that electricity can be fed into it from wherever its generated meaning it doesn’t require a single large power plant.

Removing dams will kill property values for millions who paid a premium for lakefront property. After all, nobody pays $500 grand for swampfront property. Removing dams will release untold tons of sediment downstream. Removing dams will destroy far more wetlands than it saves.

[jwsea55]

I appreciate those, like yourself, who present the alternative view. It is easy to take someone else's property/value when that person doesn't have much at stake.

I like hydro, as well. 'Uprating' existing dams with the new generator technology could add a couple of percent to the Country's existing electrical capacity without changing any footprint issues. The amazing thing about hydro is how clean it is (X-ing out the discharge/turbulence issue). The way that the Feds run BPA and TVA is tragedy.