Beerball Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Sweet deal they have, all that water (they sell 2/3 to other municipalities) for just $30,000/year. I wonder though, should you drain the valley? The clean up and restoration would have to be very time consuming and massive in scope. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Fresh water is probably the most basic need of any civilization. The population of the planet is ever increasing. Cutting off a reliable supply of fresh water doesn't seem like a good idea to me in the long term But then again we're talking about San Fransisco. Let those damned dirty hippies die of thirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Having worked in Yosemite for a summer I have an opinion on this. If they drain it and restore the valley it will quickly become a tourist attraction and hardly "pristine". Shops will move in, hotels ect. Personally i think it is one of the better quieter sites in the park. Check it out and youll see what i mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Very interesting debate. Quite a sweetheart deal they got going for 30k a year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Very interesting debate. Quite a sweetheart deal they got going for 30k a year! Reviewing the price every few years isn't a bad idea IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 What a phenomenal deal they get... No wonder SF can do so well... Power goes to the city @ a cost of 30k... That is like me paying a dollar a year or less to my mortgage company for my house. If I was the city, why would I want that sweetheart deal. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Then they send water to other places for a price! On top of it, the res is NOT filtered... So almost ALL recreation is eliminated at the lake... Saving even more money for the city at the expense of nature and the nation's taxpayers... AT LEAST open it up to recreation if the res is gonna stay... Make SF filter it. What a smug little sweetheart of an asset they have that nobody can touch. That is like saying the City of Chicago gets its water from Lake Michigan... But you can't boat or swim in it! Holy good God, that is awful. The vote says: "modern" syetems would replace this... Have they lost their mind... This is bought and paid for infrastructure that enables SF to compete at an extremely low cost. How much more modern can they get besides opening that part of the park up to more waterborne recreational activities? Somebody stands to make money on the other side of the coin here too. I can't see how people will vote this in... Water bills will go up 3k a year for a household. Of course, the side that wants the dam down is gonna paint the people of SF as smug, elitist hypocrites if this doesn't pass. Wait a second, The Sierra Club is already a bunch of smug elitist hypocrites! LoL... I do see both sides... The solution is to negotiate a higher price, keep the dam there and possibly open it up to more recreation. What is a pretty valley/gorge gonna do for people? Probably more enviro impact further down the line while chasing business away from the city. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Somewhere, John Muir is smiling... Having lived in EssEff for 7 years or so during one of their long droughts, it always flummoxed me that I was on a 50-gallon/day per person water allocation, had to save and re-use 'gray water', place a brick in my toilet tank, refrain from flushing after 'number one', put out a plastic trash can to collect rain water, and risked getting fined if I washed my car - all while Hetch Hetchy water was being shipped down to LA where, with ignorance and smug impunity, they used it to fill their swimming pools, water their lush lawns, and wash their Bentleys daily. If I still lived there, I would wholeheartedly support the measure to restore the valley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Somewhere, John Muir is smiling... youtube.com/watch?v=l-QLfeoWHPE Having lived in EssEff for 7 years or so during one of their long droughts, it always flummoxed me that I was on a 50-gallon/day per person water allocation, had to save and re-use 'gray water', place a brick in my toilet tank, refrain from flushing after 'number one', put out a plastic trash can to collect rain water, and risked getting fined if I washed my car - all while Hetch Hetchy water was being shipped down to LA where, with ignorance and smug impunity, they used it to fill their swimming pools, water their lush lawns, and wash their Bentleys daily. If I still lived there, I would wholeheartedly support the measure to restore the valley. Lived where? In SF? San Fransicans are the only ones voting on this. You think they are gonna let it pass? If they do, I give them credit... It is gonna raise their water bill by almost 3k a year on top of other issues like power to the city and austerity measures! Again, if I understand correctly... Only SF gets to vote. Edited August 5, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 Lived where? In SF? San Fransicans are the only ones voting on this. You think they are gonna let it pass? If they do, I give them credit... It is gonna raise their water bill by almost 3k a year on top of other issues like power to the city and austerity measures! Again, if I understand correctly... Only SF gets to vote. Yes, just a San Francisco issue. They 'own' the water so only they can choose to restore the valley. The environmental/green contingent is strong there. We'll see just how strong, and maybe just how 'pure' they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Dumping 117 billion gallon reservoir for any reason is pretty much insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Dumping 117 billion gallon reservoir for any reason is pretty much insanity. I think it would be done slowly through the years. Even if they restored the valley...What's it gonna serve? People will scare the land even more if they develop it for recreation. You can't even swim or boat on the rez. Right now, it is basically a huge pristine glass of water sitting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) What a phenomenal deal they get... No wonder SF can do so well... Power goes to the city @ a cost of 30k... That is like me paying a dollar a year or less to my mortgage company for my house. If I was the city, why would I want that sweetheart deal. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Then they send water to other places for a price! On top of it, the res is NOT filtered... So almost ALL recreation is eliminated at the lake... Saving even more money for the city at the expense of nature and the nation's taxpayers... AT LEAST open it up to recreation if the res is gonna stay... Make SF filter it. What a smug little sweetheart of an asset they have that nobody can touch. That is like saying the City of Chicago gets its water from Lake Michigan... But you can't boat or swim in it! Holy good God, that is awful. The vote says: "modern" syetems would replace this... Have they lost their mind... This is bought and paid for infrastructure that enables SF to compete at an extremely low cost. How much more modern can they get besides opening that part of the park up to more waterborne recreational activities? Somebody stands to make money on the other side of the coin here too. I can't see how people will vote this in... Water bills will go up 3k a year for a household. Of course, the side that wants the dam down is gonna paint the people of SF as smug, elitist hypocrites if this doesn't pass. Wait a second, The Sierra Club is already a bunch of smug elitist hypocrites! LoL... I do see both sides... The solution is to negotiate a higher price, keep the dam there and possibly open it up to more recreation. What is a pretty valley/gorge gonna do for people? Probably more enviro impact further down the line while chasing business away from the city. ?? Yeah I always thought the problem with Yosemite National Park was a lack of jet ski areas. I hope you stay in Illinois, Edited August 6, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Lived where? In SF? San Fransicans are the only ones voting on this. You think they are gonna let it pass? If they do, I give them credit... It is gonna raise their water bill by almost 3k a year on top of other issues like power to the city and austerity measures! Again, if I understand correctly... Only SF gets to vote. I lived in the Russian Hill neighborhood, on the crooked part of Lombard (btwn Hyde & Leavenworth) - and yes, I believe San Franciscans will pass the measure. (On a side note, when I moved there and was about to vote in my first EssEff election, a few weeks before election day I received a ballot information booklet the size of a small telephone directory listing dozens of referendums, propositions, ballot initiatives, plebiscites, etc., and explaining each one in detail - I always found it amazing that the voters actually get to decide so many of the issues for themselves, rather than leaving it in the hands of corrupt and/or inept politicians.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Yeah I always thought the problem with Yosemite National Park was a lack of jet ski areas. I hope you stay in Illinois, Yeah... That would be pretty bad. But what gives? A nation of taxpayers is paying for SF to have a competitive advantage with the sweetheart deal. Jet skis and boats could get pretty bad I suppose... Like snowmobiling in Yellowstone. But a person can not even enter the water.. Swimming is also banned because they don't want the precious unfiltered water tainted. Still, what an elitist concept they got going... I lived in the Russian Hill neighborhood, on the crooked part of Lombard (btwn Hyde & Leavenworth) - and yes, I believe San Franciscans will pass the measure. (On a side note, when I moved there and was about to vote in my first EssEff election, a few weeks before election day I received a ballot information booklet the size of a small telephone directory listing dozens of referendums, propositions, ballot initiatives, plebiscites, etc., and explaining each one in detail - I always found it amazing that the voters actually get to decide so many of the issues for themselves, rather than leaving it in the hands of corrupt and/or inept politicians.) More power to 'em if they believe it is the right thing to do. That water seems like a big competitive advantage for SF... It even suplies power to the city. Who's gonna eat that cost? What's the enviro harm on the other side of the coin? Every action has a reaction. Our human goals are seldom perfect. Edited August 6, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Have any of you guys seen the links on the main page to the Bills videos by Hetch Hetchy? They aren't completely terrible. No offense to ajzepp because they are different than his web show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Right now, it is basically a huge pristine glass of water sitting there. Which you would think would greatly appeal to all the tree huggers out there. It sounds to me like people are pissed that someone else is getting a good deal so they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or in this case, the bathwater out with the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Which you would think would greatly appeal to all the tree huggers out there. It sounds to me like people are pissed that someone else is getting a good deal so they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or in this case, the bathwater out with the baby. Exactly! It is a great deal they are getting. I suppose it is a bit a jealousy that gets even the best guy. IMO, it is such a Catch-22 given how beautiful that valley was! What do you do? This obviously goes way back to Muir's days and the founding of the Sierra Club. My gut tells me that it would be unwise to drain it after this long... They gotta live with that pristine glass of water! At least it is pristine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Pristine water is overrated - just ask any Bostonian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Pristine water is overrated - just ask any Bostonian. Or me... ;-) What I do in Chicago... Operating a million gallon flush toilet. :-O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts