| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 351 | John Fiore | |
| 352 | Kellye McKee | |
| 353 | Patricia Hickson | |
| 354 | Dorothy Bender | |
| 355 | Brian Rulifson | |
| 356 | dennis deisinger | In addition, the reduced flow of water is having an adverse impact on the recreation opportunities in the local lakes which is directly impacting the local economy. |
| 357 | Mitchell Johnson | |
| 358 | Richard Zimmerman | |
| 359 | Ron Sandel | |
| 360 | Marilyn Davis | The number one priority should be women's rights because that is the way to control population. |
| 361 | Erik Wohlgemuth | SF PUC:
I was a whitewater river guide for several years on the Tuolomne and have lived and worked in San Francisco for the past 11 years. I have worked in the field of sustainability for over fifteen years in California and know that 80% of our water is consumed by agriculture.
The agriculture sector is vitally important to the state but enjoys heavy subsidies and has resisted regulatory efforts requiring efficiency investments.
Fortunately, bills like AB 2175 that require efficiency investment in the agriculture sector, are finally gaining bipartisan support through efforts of groups like NRCD and E2 (of which I am a member). This bill seeks to take a lesson from California's energy market where conservation measures are more cost effective than building new dams or diverting more water from rivers like the Tuolomne.
There is a lot of water in California but it's wasted due to improper market pricing and innefficiencies that result in rice being grown in the Owens Valley. It's time for SF PUC to take a 21st century systems approach to our looming water crisis and focus on our biggest water consumers - agriculture - supporting bills like AB 2175.
Rather than spend time and money focusing on trivial issues like bottled water vs. tap water, focus where it's really needed -- efficiency gains in Agriculture.
Leave the Tuolomne river alone. |
| 362 | Leila Clark-Riddell | |
| 363 | meave o'connor | The Tuolumne River is a precious jewel. It needs to be left wild and free for the welfare of humans and animals. Please, no more diversion of water from the Tuolomne. |
| 364 | Barbara Nesbet | |
| 365 | Chris Kangas | Please do not divert any more water from the Tuolumne. The answer is conservation, growth limitation, and recycling, rather than further depleting yet another one of our precious resources.
Thank you. |
| 366 | Shirley Kinoshita | |
| 367 | Mondy Lariz | |
| 368 | Byron Leydecker | |
| 369 | G. Craige Edgerton | Conservation is the cheapest and most effective way to preserve the Tuolumne River. I encourage you to put incentives in place for folks to use less water. We can have our cake and eat it too! |
| 370 | Barbara Slone | |
| 371 | EM Wilkinson | |
| 372 | carol dibenedetto | |
| 373 | Elizabeth B. Wolf | |
| 374 | Kevin J. Lansing | I oppose the diversion of more water from the Tuolumne River. |
| 375 | Laura Mello | When are we going to campaign to reduce the population in this area? The West cannot support unlimited growth and cannot even support the population it has now. |
| 376 | Kris Yenney | THANK you for doing the right thing... |
| 377 | John D Fox | I urge the SFPUC to look to better utilisation of existing water resources rather than divert more water from the Tuolumne River. I am a SFPUC water user ( Menlo Park) and I think there are many obvious conservation measures that would be much better for all the water users than further diversions from the river. |
| 378 | Elizabeth Carmel | Thanks! |
| 379 | Mark and Janet Thew | |
| 380 | Neil Nikirk | Not only does increased diversion have biological consequences, it has adverse effects on recreation, including whitewater rafting and kayaking of the upper Tuolumne and Cherry Creek. |
| 381 | Kirk Stoddard | It's time to show the people in Washington that there is such a thing as enough -- and that living within reasonable constraints is the key to sustainability. Keep the water where it belongs! |
| 382 | Lenore Cymes | We need to start learning how to effectively use "grey water" and still have green lawns. |
| 383 | Barbara Bernhart | The diversion proposal is a very poor idea, considering the severe impact of current diversions on the river. It should be abandoned in favor of conservation. |
| 384 | Jeannette Hassberg | Water conservation could be a priority, rather than raiding wilderness areas for urban waters. Low-flow toilets in public places, recycled fountain water, affordable gray-water gardening, etc. are only a few possibilities to deal with our recent drought. The Tuolumne River is not a renewable resource which can be casually wasted for the misplaced priority of over-consumption of water in our cities! |
| 385 | Connie Rogers | |
| 386 | Anonymous | the more humans consume,the less is left for the other living things,including plants and animals. |
| 387 | Anonymous | |
| 388 | Anonymous | It is time to conserve our natural resources. |
| 389 | Joan and Wallace MacDonald | Conservation, efficiency and recycling must come FIRST before any diversion to establish a base line because diversion can yield only a limited amount of additional water . |
| 390 | JOhn A Allen | |
| 391 | Mircalla Wozniak | |
| 392 | Roger D. Poe | |
| 393 | Anonymous | Recreational Fishing Alliance and Calif.Striped Bass Assc.strongly oppose more water being taken out of the Tuolumne river.
Red Bartley |
| 394 | barbara holden | |
| 395 | zorina wolf | |
| 396 | Charlene Mayne Woodcock | We must cease to subsidize water-needy crops like rice and cotton in California and require agribusiness to become much better water stewards. |
| 397 | Robin Depke | we have a responsibility to protect our wild areas. |
| 398 | nancy newman | |
| 399 | Douglas T. Cheeseman Jr | |
| 400 | Denny Jackman | |