Saltydog, I don't mean to be thinking like an ignorant sheep. I have followed this topic for decades. So when I reference the suggestions and mindsets, it is because I have heard them.
The current strategy is to increment the issue.
First, let's study it. Stack the study.
Second, let's vote on it.
Third, remove the dam.
Fourth, gosh, we've gone that far, now we need to recoup our investment.
There is a proposal to get rid of the dam.
-Uhhh...when? answer ASAP
-Why now? Because people want access to that valley, NOW.
-So that it can remain as a wilderness place, accessible only with difficulty?
You mean like Tehipite Valley? Oh, we already have that, and virtually nobody goes.
Well, when people keep talking about HH, and it being like Yosemite Valley, what do you think they are thinking, that they would need to spend TEN BILLION DOLLARS?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that taxpayers would want something for their investment. It isn't to preserve HH, because it is preserved right now.
There are a lot of water supply lakes that don't allow access to the water. Particularly when the water is not treated, they don't want it contaminated.
