The latest "river restoration" plan is a rehash of the previous General Management Plan that got stalled in the courts during construction. But the graphics keep getting better each iteration, got to give them that.
It bothers me when they go from river protection and restoration, which is great if done correctly, to protecting "river values." That's a big leap, an overstep in my mind.
It's the "river values" clause that supposedly authorizes them to do just about anything near the river: from removing facilities, housing, campgrounds; to limiting access; to setting quotas all in the name of protecting "river values."
I see this one ending up in the courts also, depending on how far they go and who gets screwed in the final plan.
