In support of the project the proponents note  San Bernardino needs a backbone, and water can provide this backbone upon which they can reassess the whole City. The supporters claim  it will have a profound effect on tourism. Further, the reservoir will help control the water level in our basin and will allow the incorporation of facilities which help clear up pollution;  it will revitalize the community, bring jobs back to the core of San Bernardino, and serve as a catalyst to a significant development in the downtown area.

Challenging the summary of the proponents:

Comments by the author examines the evidence of the summary by the supporters.

1, The reservoir can never be a backbone. The reservoir does not make San Bernardino and history repeats a Seccombe Lake, Central City Mall a.k.a. Carousal Mall. Both projects point out a designation and failed. In short, the experts fail in both projects and others. No designation and no evidence for people to flock to a reservoir.

2. .To reassess the entire City because of a reservoir is irresponsible. The surrounded distressed neighborhoods and 72 isolated upscale homes plunked around a 44 ½ acre reservoir cannot be considered ideal.

3. The reservoir will not attract tourism. The desire of a river walk is a bait and switch technique to sell a picture of San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio makes the river walk and history sells the river walk since 1531. The Alamo and many historical landmarks including other significance create the beauty of the river walk. San Bernardino on the other hand offers a wrecking ball and bulldozers. San Antonio makes the river walk, Alamo, Spurs, and many other historical events. The supporters’ argument is flawed.

4. There is no evidence of high water and what about an earthquake in the midst of downtown?

In the event of an earthquake one-fourth billion gallons of water will flow in the streets. An earthquake can happen during a Route 66 festival injuring large groups of people. Nevertheless, a huge body of water in a populated area can cause significant problems.

5. The supporters claim more jobs and prosperity. There is no evidence indicating a job increase, on the contrary, a job loss of 192 was authored by the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report indicate a job loss of 672 and a job gain of 480 in the North Lake Project. Calculating the difference the job loss of 192 is a valid argument that the concept of greater job opportunities in the North Lake project is flawed.

6. The supporter point out the reservoir is a catalyst. There is no evidence of a catalyst.

A catalyst for San Bernardino is to restore historical homes and structures. Also, creating a pleasant atmosphere for the people residing in the area.

To conclude, the arguments of the supporters are flawed. There is no evidence of a backbone, designation, tourism, high water level, and jobs in the revitalization plan of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District.