National Parks Traveler

As I suspected.  There were at least 10 years of discussion and lots of hearings on the topic. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/consbib8.html

There were millions of people whose opinions didn't count back in 1915 or whenever Hetch Hetchy was flooded.

" There's no reason not to hold public hearings on this important topic." lord no - we certainly wouldn't want to muddy the cituation with public opinion.  Afterall there are only millions of people that may be affected but their opinion doesn't count.

While restoring the HH may be idealistic, here are several points to consider. Where will the funds come from to tear down the dam and the restoration? Where the funds come from to build an additional storage facility for the City because there will need to be additional storage?

As a US citizen and as a former resident of San Francisco and Yosemite Valley, I highly support restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley.  Drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and store the water needed to service the city in other impoundments located further downstream along the Tuolumne River.  There's no reason not to hold public hearings on this important topic.  I hope to see Hetch Hetchy restored duri

Great link...thank you!

Kurt, It would be fascinating to restore Hetch Hetchy and could be like doubling the size of an overcrowded Park. It would be a long slow process that would have wide interest. I was curious as to the following quote above;   "would preclude the SFPUC from restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley given that reasonable alternatives for water storage are available."

Anon who wants to nationalize the oil industry.  Perhaps you should move to Venezuela.  That is such a nice place under nationalization.

Aaron, park wilderness tends to be designated in Democratic states or congressional districts like the California parks, or by a congressman with Democratic leanings who is prominent in the Interior department, like the brothers Udall in Arizona. I hate to say but it seems like a very partisan process.

Accounting - of course Exxon doesn't pay all its taxes to the US.  It doesn't do all its business in the US.  In fact, the vast majority of the income is generated outside the US.

Controlling profit doesn't work for anyone but feeds the class envy dysfunction.  Thoses 90,000 employees and 500,000 stock investors pay taxes also and are probably able to hold onto their houses, visiting Parks and spreading their earnings much more efficiently to the country than those 45 million that are being cared for through food stamps (no disrespect) and long term unemployment.

I do appreciate and love vast tracts of wilderness in parks, but then again I also love some of the fantastic drives and views provided by roads. There definately has to be a balance between having wilderness but also allow corridors for access. To me a National Park is not simply a wild place.

You have a lot of patience Kurt.  That being said, I don't think you'll ever win your debate with ecbuck.  Its just a different set of values.  You obviously have some skepticism about the ability of unrestrained "bottom-line" thinking, sometimes known as greed, to produce the best long term solutions.

I know it seems hopeless, ecbuck.  This pretty much explains why any company with sense is moving away.  

Kurt - That $30 billion number on a standalone basis means nothing.  It needs to be put in perspective of revenues, assets, capital investment, employees and much more.  $30 billion may sound like a lot but relative to $300 billion in invested assets, 90,000 direct employess and over 1/2 million registered stockholders it is far from extreme.

So the taxes are a cost of doing business, and I'd venture there are a lot of folks -- including the folks in the board room -- who would think a $30 billion profit is doing quite well. Those who would disagree shouldn't invest in Exxon. Could they do better without a 45 percent tax burden? Sure. But I'd still be happy with a $30 billion profit.

Only addendum I'd make, ec, is that people need to remember that, in Exxon's case, even after paying $90 billion in taxes, they still netted $30 billion. It's not like they went in the hole by $60 billion. As to how much the oil companies are subsidized, I'll let someone else tackle that, as I have more parks-specific matters to work on.

The original American Alps proposal was downsized by about a third because of strong local opposition, mostly from recreationists, that would probably have doomed the whole idea.