http://aquafornia.com/archives/16057 The California Water News blog! Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:13:16 -0700 hourly 1 http://aquafornia.com/archives/16057/comment-page-1#comment-23698 dfb Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:38:02 +0000 http://aquafornia.com/?p=16057#comment-23698 I'd like to understand more about the point of restoring hetch hetchy if the downstream dams are left in tact. San Francisco's water rights are senior to relative to the MID/TID rights to don pedro water. It is foolish to think that MID/TID will let SF use its storage facilities, even if SF agreed to pay all costs. If the goal is to restore fish runs, it is more important to remove the downstream dams. If the goal is just to restore Hetch Hetchy to its former grandeur, what makes them think it is possible, beyond a report that does not complete a feasibility analysis? I'm not against the plan, just think it is missing some screws holding it together and in place. I’d like to understand more about the point of restoring hetch hetchy if the downstream dams are left in tact. San Francisco’s water rights are senior to relative to the MID/TID rights to don pedro water. It is foolish to think that MID/TID will let SF use its storage facilities, even if SF agreed to pay all costs. If the goal is to restore fish runs, it is more important to remove the downstream dams. If the goal is just to restore Hetch Hetchy to its former grandeur, what makes them think it is possible, beyond a report that does not complete a feasibility analysis? I’m not against the plan, just think it is missing some screws holding it together and in place.

]]>