Member since Nov 11, 2007


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Tuolumne Water Grab

Before you conclude that SF aims to make a profit on water, consider a) that the Raker Act (under which it takes Tuolumne water) prohibits SF from selling water except at cost to wholesale customers, as it does; b) an outside engineer, URS, was engaged to predict 2030 demand, and demand numbers were lowered; c) there is no allowance for global warming to increase demand; d) SF residential per person usage is far lower than average across the country, and usage within its service area is significantly lower than elsewhere in the Bay Area; e) SF has and has had a number of conservation programs; and f) taking more river water is undesirable because doing so makes it far harder to accomplish seismic solutions that are urgently needed. If SF does not accommodate growth in the Bay Area, where do you think growth will occur, and will development there (e.g. Manteca) be more or less "green" than in-fill growth in the Bay Area? If demand does not materialize, great, the extra water won't be taken; there are limited places to store it. If water isn't available, population growth will go elsewhere: further inland, with more commuting, air pollution, water usage, and air conditioning.

Posted by Steve Lawrence on 11/11/2007 at 6:10 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation