ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=9220150 Interesting. I guess they can just filter it if the ash gets bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I used to work in Yosemite. Besides Hetchy being one of the most beautiful and quiet paces in the entire park they are extremely strict about what you can do at Hetchy. It is illegal to even touch the water and swimming gets you arrested. They don't filter it at all because the water comes from natural springs in the high country, snow melt essentially. When I read about the fires near there I was actually wondering about this.Hopefully they find a way to keep it safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2013 Author Share Posted August 29, 2013 I used to work in Yosemite. Besides Hetchy being one of the most beautiful and quiet paces in the entire park they are extremely strict about what you can do at Hetchy. It is illegal to even touch the water and swimming gets you arrested. They don't filter it at all because the water comes from natural springs in the high country, snow melt essentially. When I read about the fires near there I was actually wondering about this.Hopefully they find a way to keep it safe Supposedly the valley was even more beautiful before they flooded the valley? How did the referendum go to restore the valley to the pre-1920's days? I take that the rez is gonna stay. Quite a sweetheart deal SF has with Hetch Hetchy. How much would it cost to just filter it... A ton! Cost of business would skyrocket. Probably why they keep it hidden away from the unwashed (pun intended) masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Supposedly the valley was even more beautiful before they flooded the valley? How did the referendum go to restore the valley to the pre-1920's days? I take that the rez is gonna stay. Quite a sweetheart deal SF has with Hetch Hetchy. How much would it cost to just filter it... A ton! Cost of business would skyrocket. Probably why they keep it hidden away from the unwashed (pun intended) masses. I've seen pictures of the valley before it was flooded and it was beautiful. Talking to a ranger out there, he told me it would just be another Yosemite Valley and commercialized if it wasnt flooded. He is probably right about that so it is a nice trade off. Really if you have a chance to go its a beautiful and peaceful spot. I think San Fran pays Yosemite 5 million annually to protect the water. Peanuts for what they actually get for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Supposedly the valley was even more beautiful before they flooded the valley? How did the referendum go to restore the valley to the pre-1920's days? I take that the rez is gonna stay. Quite a sweetheart deal SF has with Hetch Hetchy. How much would it cost to just filter it... A ton! Cost of business would skyrocket. Probably why they keep it hidden away from the unwashed (pun intended) masses. Depends on who you talk to. I've seen before and after pictures of the valley and I think it's more beautiful flooded. But then again I'm a water guy. The Bay Area needed water from someplace. Do you know what prompted them to work so hard to find a reliable water source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I've seen pictures of the valley before it was flooded and it was beautiful. Talking to a ranger out there, he told me it would just be another Yosemite Valley and commercialized if it wasnt flooded. He is probably right about that so it is a nice trade off. Really if you have a chance to go its a beautiful and peaceful spot. I think San Fran pays Yosemite 5 million annually to protect the water. Peanuts for what they actually get for it $5M to as you say, protect the water & $30,000 annually for the water itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Depends on who you talk to. I've seen before and after pictures of the valley and I think it's more beautiful flooded. But then again I'm a water guy. The Bay Area needed water from someplace. Do you know what prompted them to work so hard to find a reliable water source? San Fran Fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2013 Author Share Posted August 29, 2013 Depends on who you talk to. I've seen before and after pictures of the valley and I think it's more beautiful flooded. But then again I'm a water guy. The Bay Area needed water from someplace. Do you know what prompted them to work so hard to find a reliable water source? I take the referendum didn't pass and the rez stays? I am really torn on the issue. If I lived there, I'd probably vote to keep the valley flooded. It is just a shame that it has to be kept so off limits, the water that is. I am not advocating ruining it w/all kinds of water recreational... That would be brutal... But, people aren't even allowed to touch the water because they can't spring for filteration? It is kinda like my granmother's living room, plastic over everthing and nobody allowed in... Or like daming up The Falls and only turning it on for 8 hours a day (for the tourists)... LoL... CH mentioned the fire. Is that the answer? $5M to as you say, protect the water & $30,000 annually for the water itself. Yep... Info from last years thread. That is what sticks in my craw. They open the valley up and an economy would bring in a ton of money from toruism. Would that economy outweigh numbers wise the benefit of keeping it a lake? Again, what they are doing is like daming up The Falls and using every last drop for hydro. Even know it is equally as pretty as a lake/rez... It is very exclusive and the water is off limits. It is a big FU to the tourism economy @ the expense of having a private supply of water. Again, I am torn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 San Fran Fire Yes. Not sure if it would have helped seeing the quake took out the main water pumps but it sure gave them a good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2013 Author Share Posted August 29, 2013 Yes. Not sure if it would have helped seeing the quake took out the main water pumps but it sure gave them a good argument. Understandable. BUT, why fresh and freakishly pure water that needs not to be filtered? Pumps in The Bay, can't salt water equally put out a fire? There has to be another argument? Is there literally a fire suppression system installed in SF (outside normal water distribution)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts