Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion SF prop F seeks plan to drain Hetch Hetchy

WWJMD?

I hear ya....it's been over a year since I quit my Sierra Club membership. I hate the fact they emailed me all the time telling me how to vote...just like the Unions telling their members how to vote. They are not the organization I grew to appreciate back in the '70s....but then again I am not the same person I was in the 70's....we have both changed as so has the world.

Exactly.

I consider the Sierrra Club's position on Prop F to be the height of hypocrisy.

BTW the exact text of the Prop is as follows

Proposition F: "This measure will: 1)Require the City to prepare a two-phase plan to evaluate how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identify replacement water and power sources; 2) allocate $8 million to pay for the plan and create a five-member task force to develop it; 3) require the task force to complete the plan by November 1, 2015, and require the Board of Supervisors to consider placing on the ballot a Charter Amendment to approve the plan."

Note it does not force anything onto any future ballot, and does not require any specific steps to be taken other than the formulation of a plan that includes replacement of the power and water.

Nonetheless, the Sierra Club (SF Chapter), says the following:

"The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club . . . has taken a neutral position on San Francisco Ballot Initiative Measure F: "The Water and Environment Plan”.

* * *

The Sierra Club, on historic principle, is in favor of the goal of restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley to its original splendor within Yosemite National Park.

* * *

"We are uncertain whether the mandates of Proposition F clearly serve the needs of the entire water system" said Rebecca Evans, the chair of the San Francisco Group. . .” "

Gee, we don't know exactly what will eventually go into this plan, so we can't risk taking the opportunity to find out. If not through a measure such as this, I would like to know how the Sierra Club imagines Hetch Hetchy will ever be restored. So much for historic principle, or any other. Big brave Sierra Club can take on the entire world energy industry to defend the ANWAR or the Clean Air Act,(That gets contributions) but can't support even creating an opportunity to do something about Hetch Hetchy. Oh, sure, they'll be there if the Prop passes, making sure everyone still gets their water and power, as if there won't be enough support on those issues. But lead the effort? Not me, said the little red hen.

This is beyond hypocrisy: I call this cowardice of the first order.

I wish I were still a member, so I could resign in disgust now.

> I wish I were still a member, so I could resign in disgust now.

This prop is a perfect example of a "rigged" issue.

It does NOT order a study to be done of the issue, seeking impartial information on the issue.

It instead REQUIRES 8 million to be spend to bypass that, and go ahead and CREATE THE PLAN.

Normally, in major public projects, you start by evaluating whether you should do something, and the feasibility of doing it.

This bypasses all the pesky thinking and evaluating stuff, and jumps right into spending money, and creating the plan to do it (no matter how feasable)

Note that it does NOT require a feasability evaluation, first.

So, homeowners, it's like deciding to spend $20,000 for an architect to draw up plans to replace your house, before you've decided that you want to replace your house..........

That's an interesting interpretation of "to evaluate how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identify replacement water and power sources".

==========================================
You have to read EVERY word.

I said FIRST. They are not doing that FIRST, then seeing what they've got. They have to go ahead and spend the 8 million dollars to then develop the actual plan, FEASABLE OR NOT.

This scenario reminds me of how the last company I worked for wasted 10K. Someone decided that we should build a whole new wing of our lab, so it was voted that we should commission different architects to draw up plans. After 10K was spent on drawings, we realized that we could not afford the 1 million to build the thing. 10K out the window.

Perfect analogy, Bee. Just add a lot of zeroes at the end of your numbers and it's the same thing. Seven studies in the last 25 years is enough, and number 8 will cost a lot more than $8 million to confirm common sense.

This battle was lost a hundred years ago. Be glad for the clean energy and super clean water and let it go. Let's revisit this when we have a surplus of renewable energy and clean water.

Even if this proposition fails, it should help motivate SF to develop additional water resources and improve recycling efforts, which they are doing anyway, but never enough or fast enough.

Oh, please, the plan itself is one big feasibility study.
Oh, I read every word. Do you? "To evaluate" is not only FIRST, it is ONLY requirement with respect to actually draining the reservoir. The Plan itself IS "to EVALUATE how . . " Have you read the Proposition? Here it is. It calls for two plans, one for improving and finding sustanable water sources, and the second for restoring Hetch Hetchy

The first phase of the measure requires the City to develop a water sustainability plan (what a concept). That phase deals only with development of the water system and does not deal with draining Hetch Hetchy. The second phase (Section 116.2 (b))is the Environmental Restoration Plan part that requires the City to "evaluate how to . . . return the Valley to the National Park Service."

The eight-pages of proposition text is full of factual errors, misleading statements, and empty promises.

Prop F implies people are getting Giardia from Hetch Hetchy. Really.

Hetch Hetchy holds more water than all the other SFPUC reservoirs combined? Prop F says it's just "one of nine" reservoirs.

Prop F says there is "significant ongoing habitat destruction" going on due to Hetch Hetchy. Ever been there?

The plan is completely unrealistic, especially the timeline they are trying to rush for the largest dam removal in the world, together with new power plants, new water treatment plants, groundwater recharge systems, storm water pollution systems etc etc etc.

All these "changes can take place without adversely affecting taxpayers, water rights, or energy supply." If you believe that I've got a bridge for sale and it's much cheaper than $10 billion.

I like that. Amateurs like you ignore the plan that professionals have had for decades and regularly update, then call for an already-existing plan, but spend $8 mill to do what is already done, and act like it is a phenominally new concept. Here is an example of the process:

http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=166

What a concept. Maybe you can teach classes in this.

What backers like you apparently DON'T have is the integrity to admit what is really going on: a scam to trick SF voters into doing something they would NEVER do, if they actually understood the truth, which you guys can't bring yourself to tell.

Ken: What the f*%! is your problem, really? You don't know me.

Sorry Steve, but there is no other way to put it with this guy.

Salty, I may disagree with you on this particular topic, but I hope our debate has been respectful and educating for both of us. Please do not associate my posts with Ken's aggressiveness. I don't get it and I don't want to be associated with posts like that just because I'm on the same side of the fence as Ken on the issue.

I think we all agree this dam should not have been built in the first place, but it was and it was even raised. It was a devastating defeat for John Muir, but reversing 100 years of that history just doesn't pan out economically or even environmentally. I'd say let's do this if we had an abundance of renewable energy production, an abundance of clean water supplies, and a surplus of public funds. Maybe some day we'll get to that point but it ain't today and it won't be in my lifetime.

Who knows, maybe this proposition will pass. There's a good chance I would be involved in this study and profit on it, but I'm still against wasting time and energy on something so obvious to me.

SN: No worries: I make no comparisons between you and Ken: your comments have been thoughtful and respectful, as I hope mine have been to you. You strike me as someone who would rather educate than berate.

Actually the Prop anticipates your concerns. It only puts forth a plan, does not require immediate action, only consideration of a further ballot measure and does not require even the plan to call for completion before 2035. You plan on being around then? BTW, I happen to believe all your conditins will be satisfied by then. The water is already there, it just needs a new storage system, we are on the threshold of massive development of renewables (that's one of the things I do, professionally BTW) and times can only get better.

Dog

I would think that someone who has the chutzpah to use a name like "saltydog" can take aggressive pushback. Apparently you can only dish it out.

I don't like people who try to manipulate me, or who lie to me. I have NO PROBLEM pointing either out. Perhaps you are used to people who roll over and just take your sloppy thinking. I'm not one of those.

I am perfectly civil with people who want to give transparent information, argue their points fairly with sources and citations, and are willing to concede when they have a misunderstood point corrected. You've been none of those things in this thread. When you get pushback, you get aggressive and start calling names and using profanity. There must be a reason for that.

I note that you don't want to talk about the issues, but rather turn it into an argument over style. That generally means one is losing.

Ken, I have no horse in this race, except that I'd like to float my boat legally on the existing lake. (And even on that point, you misinterpreted what I wrote!) But I have tangled with you on other issues, and can attest that you get personal, exaggerate people's suggestions or points into absurd statements, and in general, attack and insult people you disagree with.

You are NOT perfectly civil in your arguments, you do not argue your points fairly, your pushback is more mudslinging and baiting than respectable debate.

Saltydog and SierraNevada are both respectable, well-educated professionals. Insulting someone and then claiming some sort of victory isn't a victory.

I'd like to lock this thread, but then you'd howl about censorship.

Good grief!

I used to moderate for Oxford Style debate in college, and it was an incredible experience (do to the fact that the rules in general were so strict) I noticed a trend after a while (which proves true in politics, too) that too much 'subjective' attack (all rock with no snow packed around it to at least appear to be participating in the same snowball fight)is distracting to the audience/reader and loses percentage points in the endeavor to sway the observer. I would like to see this discussion tightened back up and continue, because I must admit: I have not read any of the material discussed, so I am depending on you folks to enlighten me on the current rendition of the topic of Hetch Hetchy.

Bee, what happens to a debater's score when they knowing make deceptive statements such as Prop F language?

"Many people believe the city's primary water source is the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park because the system is called the Hetch Hetchy system. In fact, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is just one of nine reservoirs that store water for San Francisco."

Fact: Of those nine reservoirs, only six of them store drinking water. Hetch Hetchy reservoir stores more than the other 5 drinking water reservoirs combined.

Either the authors of Prop F are ignorant about the system they want to change, or they are deliberately lying. Either they need to do some homework before asking for $8 million or they are just plain lying. For a lengthy description of the numerous false and misleading statements in Prop F, read this .

Fact: San Francisco citizens use their water more efficiently than any other major city in California. Water use averages 85 gallons per day vs a statewide average of 160 gallons per day.

Fact: Several projects are either ready to come online within a year, or are in construction, or in planning and design stages to increase groundwater pumping and recycling.

Prop F completely ignores this massive infrastructure upgrade in progress. It's happening whether Prop F passes or not, in fact Prop F might just slow it all down by diverting resources and legal action.

Then there's the long list of unachievable demands on an impossible time schedule that are required by Prop F. This amount of engineering, environmental, and legal work is unheard of in that amount of time.

Pretty much everyone would love to restore Hetch Hetchy just because it sounds great and seems like a good thing to do. The eight pages of false or misleading statements is probably why the Sierra Club and Green Party and not supporting Prop F; and there is strong opposition from the Mayor, City Council, and the local newspapers. It's becoming another poster child for the failed proposition system in San Francisco. It only takes 15,000 signatures to get one on the ballot.

Lastly, as I wrote in my first post, the current ecosystem is not broken, it's just different. It's actually quite a beautiful area as it is. It would be different without the lake, but I'm not convinced it would be better as a valley with millions of people tramping around.

They are really careful to pick topics that are somewhat ironclad in concept; I think one of the topics was "should the government subsidize solar-wind-hydro power, or should the private sector carry the burden, exclusively" They choose really broad spectrum "thesus" type statements that can be supported pro/con based on large amounts of data (sometimes, though, the "data" cited is faulty, so it is up to the opposing debators to catch it and debunk it)

I would really like to see a "should HH be taken out, or should it stay" topic for an Oxford debate; I would pay to attend that one!

I have read some excellent points in this discussion that I otherwise would not have thought of, such as: at what cost of 'dirty' power to replace the hydro lost by dismantling HH. By the way, the Bay Area was way ahead of the game with water meters; they have been in place for decades, and water aint cheap.