[Post removed at poster's request]

"So much for SFPUC "policies" to "protect" water infrastructure."

Are you able to explain the detriment that the construction is currently doing to the infrastructure? Do you know what the construction actually is? Valve replacement? Pipeline repair? That would actually be improving the infrastructure, no quotes needed.

[Post removed at poster's request]

Shouldn't we rely on the City Council instead of the SFPUC to further the "larger vision for recreation for an area"? SFPUC should worry about their pipes and let local governments decide for themselves whether parks serve local people 40 miles away from SF. Anyway, much of the Hetch-hetchy land is parking lots which don't seem to promote recreation at all.

Exactly, the construction does not affect the actual infrastructure at all. That's what I was getting at.

[Post removed at poster's request]

That's just it...how DO you know that.
I have no evidence that they are not mining puppies from the ground either, but I won't go around making snide statements that suggest they ARE.
There is also zero evidence that they are damaging the infrastructure.

The point was, the original assumption that damage was being done was based on ignorance because he has no clue what is even being done and apparently it doesn't even INVOLVE the infrastructure. Now we've all come full circle in this discussion. Thanks for wrapping it up.

I guess a paved lane of any sort could theoretically make it more difficult to access the pipe in an emergency or needed side construction, so I guess that part could occur.

I still don't know why you needed to tie in the temporary construction going on now though. You seem to be reaching a bit to make a point, but I think I know what you mean.

They're worried about protecting their legal right of way, not about damage to the pipe.

Also, big surprise, the "interim" rules are temporary. Most interim rules are cast in stone.