Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Once again the East Bay Express has done a masterful job of journalism while covering both sides of the very hotly disputed BDCP/Peripheral Tunnels proposal.
There is one aspect that deserves further mention. The story points out that under some scenarios the taxpayers could end up shouldering much of the financial burden. The fact is that even under the rosiest scenarios the BDCP plan documents show that at least $8 billion of the cost (so-called habitat restoration and other mitigation measures) will be paid for by taxpayers. Many of us live in areas that will receive absolutely no benefit from the BDCP/Peripheral Tunnels plan. Why should our tax dollars be used to pay for any part of it?
David Pafford --- Neither time nor space allow a full response to what you say, so let me leave it with two points: 1. Yu obviously have some knowledge of the subject and that is good, but you demean yourself she you resort to the vocabulary of the likes of Devin Nunes with stuff like "environmental extremists". Do you consider the salmon fishing industry to be a bunch of environment extremists? 2. Be careful when you use terminology like "HOW COME THEY HAVEN'T CONSISTANTLY RECEIVED THE WATER PROMISED THEM SINCE THE EARLY 90s???" I suspect you know full well that nothing was "promised" to Westlands in terms of the amount of water they'd' get. Here's the actual contract language:
"3 (b) Because the capacity of the Project to deliver Project Water has been constrained in years and may be constrained in the future due to many factors including hydrologic conditions and implementation of Federal and State laws, the likelihood of the Contractor actually receiving the amount of Project Water set out in subdivision (a) of this Article in any given Year is uncertain."
Victor Ochoa --- You clearly get it. If you're inclined, please contact me at email@example.com.
I'll try to recruit you into being a full time sensible California water policy advocate.
Another piece of excellent journalism from the East Bay Express.
"The massive Rim Fire reached Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, heightening concerns that ash will contaminate the primary water source for the City of San Francisco"
It's much more accurate to say the primary water source for SF is the TUOLUMNE RIVER.
Adam --- You have to understand the SFPUC to understand the costs relating to anything they touch. First they hire a consultant to help them ascertain the right shade of gold that they will be using on whatever piece of infrastructure they are building. They they hire a second consultant to conduct a "public process" to determine whether the pubic approves of the shade of gold recommended by consultant #1. Then they totally ignore what the public thinks and do what they damned well please.
Here's an example --- for about 20 years SFPUC has been studying, hiring consultants, having public meetings, and generally beating their gums together about a relatively small recycled water plant in the western part of the city. They've now tentatively decided on a site and a design. Estimated cost: over $100 million. Between 2002 and 2004 Daly City built a comparable facility for $7million.
And if the SF recycling facility is ever built it will be the first water recycling facility in the so-called "city the knows how". Every other city of any significant size in the state has at least one water recycling facility.
What goes around, comes around. The arrogant, incompetent SFPUC has long resisted filtration because of their smugness in having as their virtually sole source of water a nationally designated Wild & Scenic River in the Sierra Nevadas. And they store that water in an ugly reservoir in a national park; the only reservoir in any US national park.
All Comments »
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation