Posted on 06/13/2005 10:27:33 AM PDT by SmithL
The debate over the proposal to breach the Sierra's O'Shaughnessy Dam, drain the reservoir behind it and restore Hetch Hetchy Valley to its former natural splendor is apt to intensify this summer with the release of a California Department of Water Resources study on the issue.
But preliminary comments from the agency indicate two things:
First, the restoration is technically possible without disrupting water supplies to San Francisco, Modesto and Turlock, the cities that are the beneficiaries of Hetch Hetchy water.
Second, it will cost a lot of money: From $4 billion to $8 billion, depending on whom you talk to.
"Regardless of what you do in terms of restoration, it will be expensive, " said Gary Bardini, the Hetch Hetchy project manager for the Department of Water Resources.
"People who want to restore the valley tend to pick the low end, and those against it favor the high end," said Larry Weis, the general manager of the Turlock Irrigation District. "So it might be wise to pick a figure in the middle."
For the Hetch Hetchy restoration true believers, Bardini said, "money isn't the issue, of course. The prospect of restoring the valley is what matters. But then there are going to be other people who say, 'Why make this investment when we already have a perfectly good (water delivery) infrastructure?' So it's hard to say how it will play out."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Well, in that case I think it'll cost about ten trillion dollars.
That's peanuts here in Goofyfornia. It costs that just to build a bridge half-way across San Francisco Bay.
The trouble is America's population has doubled in the last 40 or so years.
And all but a fraction of that growth from illegal AND legal immigrants and their progeny.
We are increasingly running out of resources of all kinds.
But in a frenzy to pack even more immigrants in, they continually dream up new laws that FORCE us to conserve resources.
Most people don't understand the difference between cement & concrete.
Cement is an ingredient (very much like flour) and concrete is the final product (like a cookie).
Our water bills here in Suburbia No Cal just went up over 40%
They finally got all the water meters in and started charging for what we use. Then decided we didn't use enough to pay for their graft and payoffs.
I'm going to stop my program of watering my lawn every three years.
I know the difference. it just ticks me off when people don't and also most newspapers screw it up. That and anytime a truck crashes they say it jack knifed also near misses doesn't that mean they hit
I believe that a good deal of the water used by the humans in LA comes there as a result of the Hoover Dam.
We invested then, what's wrong with investing in desalinization now?
Can you drill a well for your own use ?
I figured you knew the difference basex on your comment. I just thought providing a simple descriptive example would be useful.
It's no biggie though.
I usually grow a good pasture during the winter.
One thing that gets me is the charge for sewer. I guess they charge on the basis of how much water you use.
I am in the process of setting up a downspout from the rain gutters to flush one of my commodes.
Yep, and that's another solid argument in the dam removers court. San Francisco is ALREADY preparing to spend over 4 Billion dollars to upgrade and repair the century old Hetch Hetchy dam and water system. The old dam is showing its age and is nearing the end of its design life. Without those billions of dollars in upgrades, it will become unsafe and have to be removed anyway.
The logical argument then becomes: If we have to spend billions of dollars to preserve that water storage and power generation capacity anyway, and if an option exists to store and generate those resources OUTSIDE of Yosemite National Park, then what legitimate reason could you have to OPPOSE this move?
The answer for San Francisco is the profit they make from the power generation that they would otherwise have to share with Modesto and Turlock. I'm not sure why anyone else would oppose it.
Remember, this proposal was first made by the Reagan administration. It's in no way a "Democrat", "liberal", or "environut" position to support its removal.
If you are a Pubbie, let alone a conservative, why ask the public to buy you a place to appreciate nature? I bought my land - shouldn't you do the same?
And how can you accept that in a land prone to droughts, that the removal of water storage is justifiable on esthetic grounds?
Just how much "nature" must be put off limit to people? And in this case, tear down a useful dam so we can (in maybe a hundred years, have a second Yosemite.
Yosemite covers around 1200 square miles, I think more then enough nature for those that feel the need to commune with the squirrels and bears.
We already have Yosemite. Having two valley's up there would just split the income likely. No one is going to make two trips to see two valleys next door to each other.
I have lived in the state since 78 and have only been there once. A quick drive through. Believe me it is nice to see the unusual , but I don't need to see it very often.
Maybe we could afford it, if we were allowed to spend our state tax money only on American citizens and legal aliens, but that is not going to happen. This is just a silly pipe dream.
"So, California, which is consistently short on water and power, is seriously thinking about spending Billions of dollars to get rid of both water and power?"
They are insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.