Salty, I may disagree with you on this particular topic, but I hope our debate has been respectful and educating for both of us. Please do not associate my posts with Ken's aggressiveness. I don't get it and I don't want to be associated with posts like that just because I'm on the same side of the fence as Ken on the issue.
I think we all agree this dam should not have been built in the first place, but it was and it was even raised. It was a devastating defeat for John Muir, but reversing 100 years of that history just doesn't pan out economically or even environmentally. I'd say let's do this if we had an abundance of renewable energy production, an abundance of clean water supplies, and a surplus of public funds. Maybe some day we'll get to that point but it ain't today and it won't be in my lifetime.
Who knows, maybe this proposition will pass. There's a good chance I would be involved in this study and profit on it, but I'm still against wasting time and energy on something so obvious to me.
