More Los Vaqueros

From: Jeff Roberts (jroberts@tdl.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Sat Feb 28 1998 - 09:16:34 PST


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA145796764; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:26:04 -0800
Return-Path: <jroberts@tdl.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA126706763; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:26:03 -0800
Received: from tdl.com (jroberts@tdl.tdl.com-DeleteThis [204.182.16.2]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6 HPLabs Relay) with ESMTP id JAA14780 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (jroberts@localhost) by tdl.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA13166 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:16:34 -0800
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:16:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Roberts <jroberts@tdl.com-DeleteThis>
Reply-To: Jeff Roberts <jroberts@tdl.com-DeleteThis>
To: Multiple recipients of list <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
Subject: More Los Vaqueros
In-Reply-To: <199802281647.AA130234451@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.93.980228090314.12219B-100000@tdl.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


I read yesterday an article regarding recreation on Los Vaqueros. The
issue is still being debated. (Article was an online article taken from
local newspaper-SJMN?, dated 24Feb)

The article said the the East Bay Regional Park District has offered to
take part in the management of the recreation portion of Los Vaqueros.
Evidently EBRPD and CCWD aren't exactly best buddies, but do work together
on some issues. The article seemed to indicate this might be the case for
LV.

The issues still seem to be how much recreation and wht type, and if
activities like swimming are allowed at places like Contra Loma, how can
they be banned at LV? I read this as if body contact is not allowed at
LV, it might be lost at Contra Loma (not that I go there).

I also read (elsewhere, forget where) that at the CCWD meeting, many
people from out of district lobbied for recreation, and was noted by the
board (absence of in district interest for recreation by the people
footing the bill). What is really needed is someone from that district to
be at the meetings. So, if SFBA gets involved, it would be more effective
to have someone who gets their water from CCWD to be the 'point' person.
Rick C., you listening? Yes, my interest is selfish since I live 5
minutes from the south edge of the reservoir (in Alameda county).

JR



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 01:59:42 PST