Thanks SN, but I read it a while ago.
I didn't say "out of thin air", I said "out of his ass".
When someone cherry picks the maximum estimate from a range of numbers that start at half a billion, rounds it up and then cites it as if it is The Number, yeah, I stand by my characterization.
BTW, Prop F doesn't call for a plan necessarily to either remove the dam or "restore the valley", only to drain the reservoir. The PUC expressly noted that dam removal is not necessary to draining the reservoir, and restoring the valley may involve no more than draining it at a rate that allows more or less natural recovery as the water level drops. After all, as Ken has observed, the valley is preserved under all that water, and may need little intervention as it is exposed again. And of course, as required by the Raker Act granting SF the water and power rights, all of the structures involved including the dam are "sightly and of suitable exterior design and finish so as to harmonize with the surrounding landscape and its use as a park", right?
