It will never happen, regardless of the economic benefit to the area. Regardless of the national deense benefits. Period. Let me count the ways - Peytonia Slough Ecological Preserve, San Francisco Bay National Estuarian Research Facility, Joice Island State Gamee Refuge, Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, Point Edith Wildlife Area, and Waterbird Regional Preserve. And those are only the impediments upstream of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. You should also be aware that due to the tidal complexities of San Franciso Bay, every (repeat: every) pollutant that enters the bay ends up in the South Bay, which gives everyone in that region a reason to complain. And file law suits. And delay the required multiple environmental studies. Great idea, but no ship will ever be built there.
You forgot the essential point that despite any national security concerns, Trump would rather die before providing billions of dollars to a blue state like California for shipyard infrastructure.
BRAC'd along with all the shipyards and a bunch of DoD bases in California that weren't wanted by California politicians. Blue politicians didn't want us then either.
Your "us" is not very inclusive. Gave a thought that the usual suspects might step outside of daily partisanship. No talk of how to build essential consensus in a paralyzed, fragmented electorate
The CDR. made an excellent point on the need for a shipyard in San Francisco Bay Area. The issue is how might it get done in the face of a hostile presidency and local electorate (including the billionaires in the Palo Alto-Mountain View-San Jose axis part of the lower San Francisco Bay Area)
Their electrical grid is archaic and unreliable under high and low temperatures. The main problem may be flooding. The Texas coast is highly susceptible to flooding due to its low elevation, exposure to hurricanes and tropical storms, and increasing sea levels.
You are correct about the grid. However, the basic infrastructure is in place and upgrading the grid would be relatively inexpensive compared to starting from scratch. The other issues are well known and dealt with. The main reason I mentioned it was Texas does produce a surplus of electricity. (Which is attracting data centers.)
Not to mention the needed dredging with all those numerous agencies such as EPA CalEPA, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife, Air Resources Board, perhaps BCDC.
UI worked maritime on the SF Bay for over 30 years. I would love it, but the pushback will be such an impediment, it will be ALMOST impossible. The best way to fail is not to try.
I moved to the Gulf Coast where they do build ships. Much faster to expand on the Gulf of America coast to be truly effective for shipbuilding as opposed to the best place to do it, SF Bay.
The trouble with shipyards, nuclear plants and refineries in California is that they are on the water. It is a problem because it is the rich, liberal or conservative, who actually can afford to live on the beach or bay and who will do anything to protect their private enclaves. Any proposal for industrial initiatives on the water draws faux environmental lawsuits designed to slow down permitting for any beachfront development and make the cost prohibitive.
But for a shipyard in San Francisco Bay Area they have substantial ammunition.
Environmental issues at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard include contamination from a variety of hazardous substances, such as pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, dioxins, volatile organic compounds, and radioactive materials. This contamination has impacted the soil, groundwater, and sediments across the site and its surrounding areas. Any new shipyard would have to address those issues and detail how they are legacy problems that can be avoided with present day manufacturing techniques.
I have to agree. CA can’t rebuild from the Palisades fire due to the permitting crap going on. Of course part of the reason that fire was so disastrous was conservation issues that took precedence over human settlements. The govt there (state and local) I believe could care less about America’s need for rejuvenated ship building/repair capability. It is a beautiful bay don’t get me wrong, but the US doesn’t have a lot real state that’s user friend friendly to shipbuilding. We can hope, but as long as the libs are running the show there I don’t see it happening. Sad..
Palisades took longer because they were built up and when the place burned to the ground all the rubble was toxic and had to be removed first. I believe the Coastal Commission suspended their permitting process as long as you were simply rebuilding. The governmental problems, as so often pointed out on this site, are federal bureaucracies. But then this site is more about right wing pitter patter than realistic discussion of Navy or national security matters.
Right wing pitter patter is merely no more than what you disagree with. It does not make it any less a realistic discussion of Navy or national security matters.
We are starting to sound like children on the playground arguing with the usual, "You are one too." Too bad really, but we do love our snark (myself included).
The real issue with that low grade repartee is that it exhibits in miniature the political paralysis that inhibits effective government action for anything worthwhile. This well suits the Chinese argument for non-kinetic warfare set forth in the PLA'a, "Unrestricted Warfare" issued back in the 90's.
You obviously missed the post where I suggested that building a new yard in the Bay area would be an excellent long term phase II plan. It's not currently a practicable short or mid term solution for a myriad of reasons, some political and others physical. One of which would be political paralysis in Sacramento and the Bay area.
I'd bet the 1200 acres at OLF Imperial Beach San Diego would have a better chance of being turned into a yard.
BTW speaking of snark, inhibiting effective government action, low grade repartee, and the Chinese argument for non-kinetic warfare? In that spirit, how are Fang-Fang, and Feinstein's chauffeur?
Great idea, perhaps as a secondary part of a long term program. Especially considering the lack of infrastructure, logistical support, and enthusiasm in Sacramento.
Texas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, currently produce surplus electricity and would probably be less hostile to developing new shipyards, are closer to steel production, and have established logistical support to get the materials in. Wages and cost of living also need to be compared to California as well.
Naval bases? One can safely bet there would be a lack of enthusiasm as well.
Basically agree. One site to revive the Great Lakes region (Pennsylvania or Ohio), and one for the Mississippi Delta. Wish the BRACers had given more thought to long-term implications of Mare Island.
You do realize there are several nucs on the Porch and that posting a garbage Guardian link is going to get fisked, right? Here are the actual values from Parcel C that the Guardian journalist didn't bother to explain.
Since journalists don't even take enough math to know how to balance their checkbook, 10-14 is larger than 10-15. The fact sheet notes that the value from Parcel C wasn't duplicated, I suspect weather conditions created a temperature inversion resulting in the higher-than-normal value.
Was home ported there (NWS Concord) mid 70s. Great place (Then) to live, and you could always escape the local idiots by going to TI. Not so sure these days. The negative comments about local hostility to the military are probably all to true.
I can agree there, I flew in from a stint in WestPac during Vietnam and was treated with hostile intent at the oakland airport and the airplane on my way home.
I lived in the East Bay Area when Ron Dellums was my congressman (in a miracle of gerrymandering, it was always a matter of mixing enough of Berkeley and West Oakland into the otherwise conservative -- then -- I-680 corridor to make Dellums my representative). He was very frank about supporting the post-Cold War closing of the Bay Area's naval facilities. He said that those who disagreed with him should vote for someone else.
How would new or renovated shipyards be established in California with its high taxes and cost of living and anticipated lengthy permitting processes? Could "national defense" needs be used to bypass or override and expedite construction?
Designing notional warships for the US Navy is fun. Designing notional navy bases is even more fun. Herewith is a conceptual layout and facility arrangement design for Naval Station Longview (NSL), a large full-service naval base which would be located on the Columbia River immediately west of Longview, Washington.
NSL, as I've envisioned it, is a 'maximum effort' type of basing concept. Every element of a full-service navy base is present. As shown on the illustration, the following list of facilities constitute Naval Station Longview:
(1) Longview Naval Shipyard -- a full service shipyard with 19 drydocks of various sizes supporting both ship maintenance activities and new-build ship construction, including several piers supporting post-launch fitting out activities and follow-on systems installation.
(2) NSL North Ship Channel -- a vessel channel which allows traverse from west to east around the periphery of the shipyard and which has thousands of feet of linear dock space available for tying up naval vessels awaiting either maintenance or a deployment assignment.
(3) Shipyard Industrial Support -- An area set aside on the main shipyard island for structural component fabrication facilities such as electric arc furnaces and large hydraulic presses.
(4) NSL Tank Farms -- Bulk storage for liquid fuels such as Diesel Fuel Marine (DFM) and JP5 jet fuel.
(5) NSL Logistics Support -- Storage and distribution facilities for non-kinetic types of ship stores, supplies, and parts for naval vessels and aircraft.
(6) Longview Naval Arsenal -- Storage and distribution of kinetic ordnances and related supplies for warships and for combat aircraft.
(7) Longview Naval Air Station -- A full-service naval air station including aircraft parking aprons, hangars, maintenance shops, a tower, and a 10,800 foot runway with a parallel taxiway.
(8) Harbor Operations Support -- Office space and dock space for harbor patrol boat, tugboat, and fireboat operations.
(9) Longview Energy Center -- A large multi-unit power generation facility with four 300 Megawatt small modular nuclear reactors and a 150 megawatt gas-fired power plant. The energy center guarantees that sufficient electric power is always available to the naval base itself, to the city of Longview, and to the industries located in the regional area surrounding Longview.
(10) NSL Base Housing -- An area north of the Columbia River shoreline set aside for housing of USN personnel and their families.
Not shown on the illustration are two privately-owned facilities located elsewhere in the Longview area, a separate steel mill and a separate steel products fabrication & supply operation whose primary customer is the Longview Naval Shipyard.
Naval Station Longview represents the power of positive thinking, intensely focused on adding substantial shipbuilding capacity in support of future Pacific Theater naval and air operations.
Now for the bottom line: How much would Naval Station Longview cost to construct, and how long would it take end-to-end to complete the entire project?
My rough guess would be fifty billion dollars and fifteen years, assuming everything went well.
Admirable & aspirational approach to redeveloping SF region as a naval support area. But sad to say, Bay Area will probably never reboot to its naval roots (eg, former Mare Island shipyard established in 1853, during the Gold Rush)... Because there's too much modern development physically in the way, along w widespread anti-development sociology amongst the population. Same reason that one of America's largest oil basins -- aka "Los Angeles" -- will remain undeveloped as time unfolds.
It would be a great idea…if the Bay Area had been plastered with neutron bombs beforehand.
Let me put it this way - when I retired, I had immediate interest from a major aerospace company. I turned them down, entirely because the state of California is over-regulated. As well as overtaxed, but the contents of Vault #1 would get me thrown into a CA prison for the rest of my life.
Born and raised in San Francisco, went to NROTC UC Berkeley more decades ago than I care to think about at this point.
I'll say this. If you haven't been there, you don't realize the level of pathological hate for the US Military that exists in San Francisco, and how much its metastasized into the surrounding region.
If they were to do this as a closed "company city" it might be survivable, but it would be absolute hell to work there as a government civilian or contract employee.
I think it will be nigh on impossible to overcome the "political climate hostile to both the military and industry," as shown by the NIMBYs in the last video.
Agree 100%. Excellent bay needs to rebuilt.
Hopefully this will happen, but more likely the North and South Coasts will get new shipyards.
It will never happen, regardless of the economic benefit to the area. Regardless of the national deense benefits. Period. Let me count the ways - Peytonia Slough Ecological Preserve, San Francisco Bay National Estuarian Research Facility, Joice Island State Gamee Refuge, Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, Point Edith Wildlife Area, and Waterbird Regional Preserve. And those are only the impediments upstream of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. You should also be aware that due to the tidal complexities of San Franciso Bay, every (repeat: every) pollutant that enters the bay ends up in the South Bay, which gives everyone in that region a reason to complain. And file law suits. And delay the required multiple environmental studies. Great idea, but no ship will ever be built there.
You forgot the essential point that despite any national security concerns, Trump would rather die before providing billions of dollars to a blue state like California for shipyard infrastructure.
Forgot to add that it is an excellent idea if the feckless leadership from both parties could be overcome.
The mayor of Glenview Il stated the military personnel at the Air Station were a drag on the city, economy, and schools and wanted the base closed.
Glenview Air base in Il closed in 1995.
BRAC'd along with all the shipyards and a bunch of DoD bases in California that weren't wanted by California politicians. Blue politicians didn't want us then either.
Your "us" is not very inclusive. Gave a thought that the usual suspects might step outside of daily partisanship. No talk of how to build essential consensus in a paralyzed, fragmented electorate
The CDR. made an excellent point on the need for a shipyard in San Francisco Bay Area. The issue is how might it get done in the face of a hostile presidency and local electorate (including the billionaires in the Palo Alto-Mountain View-San Jose axis part of the lower San Francisco Bay Area)
In the aggregate? Simply not wanted.
https://www.kqed.org/news/12022479/why-are-there-so-many-abandoned-military-bases-in-the-bay-area
Your first comment in this thread was pure partisanship ...
More like a hostile governor.
I don't think so, he is a smart man when it comes to needs vs politics.
Are there any reasons not to build a shipyard in Texas?
Their electrical grid is archaic and unreliable under high and low temperatures. The main problem may be flooding. The Texas coast is highly susceptible to flooding due to its low elevation, exposure to hurricanes and tropical storms, and increasing sea levels.
You are correct about the grid. However, the basic infrastructure is in place and upgrading the grid would be relatively inexpensive compared to starting from scratch. The other issues are well known and dealt with. The main reason I mentioned it was Texas does produce a surplus of electricity. (Which is attracting data centers.)
Not to mention the needed dredging with all those numerous agencies such as EPA CalEPA, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife, Air Resources Board, perhaps BCDC.
UI worked maritime on the SF Bay for over 30 years. I would love it, but the pushback will be such an impediment, it will be ALMOST impossible. The best way to fail is not to try.
I moved to the Gulf Coast where they do build ships. Much faster to expand on the Gulf of America coast to be truly effective for shipbuilding as opposed to the best place to do it, SF Bay.
We are not building ships in Nakhodka Bay, or anywhere near Russia's Primorsky Krai.
The trouble with shipyards, nuclear plants and refineries in California is that they are on the water. It is a problem because it is the rich, liberal or conservative, who actually can afford to live on the beach or bay and who will do anything to protect their private enclaves. Any proposal for industrial initiatives on the water draws faux environmental lawsuits designed to slow down permitting for any beachfront development and make the cost prohibitive.
But for a shipyard in San Francisco Bay Area they have substantial ammunition.
Environmental issues at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard include contamination from a variety of hazardous substances, such as pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, dioxins, volatile organic compounds, and radioactive materials. This contamination has impacted the soil, groundwater, and sediments across the site and its surrounding areas. Any new shipyard would have to address those issues and detail how they are legacy problems that can be avoided with present day manufacturing techniques.
I have to agree. CA can’t rebuild from the Palisades fire due to the permitting crap going on. Of course part of the reason that fire was so disastrous was conservation issues that took precedence over human settlements. The govt there (state and local) I believe could care less about America’s need for rejuvenated ship building/repair capability. It is a beautiful bay don’t get me wrong, but the US doesn’t have a lot real state that’s user friend friendly to shipbuilding. We can hope, but as long as the libs are running the show there I don’t see it happening. Sad..
Palisades took longer because they were built up and when the place burned to the ground all the rubble was toxic and had to be removed first. I believe the Coastal Commission suspended their permitting process as long as you were simply rebuilding. The governmental problems, as so often pointed out on this site, are federal bureaucracies. But then this site is more about right wing pitter patter than realistic discussion of Navy or national security matters.
Right wing pitter patter is merely no more than what you disagree with. It does not make it any less a realistic discussion of Navy or national security matters.
We are starting to sound like children on the playground arguing with the usual, "You are one too." Too bad really, but we do love our snark (myself included).
The real issue with that low grade repartee is that it exhibits in miniature the political paralysis that inhibits effective government action for anything worthwhile. This well suits the Chinese argument for non-kinetic warfare set forth in the PLA'a, "Unrestricted Warfare" issued back in the 90's.
You obviously missed the post where I suggested that building a new yard in the Bay area would be an excellent long term phase II plan. It's not currently a practicable short or mid term solution for a myriad of reasons, some political and others physical. One of which would be political paralysis in Sacramento and the Bay area.
I'd bet the 1200 acres at OLF Imperial Beach San Diego would have a better chance of being turned into a yard.
BTW speaking of snark, inhibiting effective government action, low grade repartee, and the Chinese argument for non-kinetic warfare? In that spirit, how are Fang-Fang, and Feinstein's chauffeur?
Low rent rendezvous
Yeah, "boats."
Seems like an excellent idea, including the New Urbanist part of it.
The "fifteen minute city" which is great but derided by paranoids.
Mare Island and Alameda probably available in a pinch too.
"They are literally undermining democracy..."
To my ears, that's all the endorsement I need to hear.
Great idea, perhaps as a secondary part of a long term program. Especially considering the lack of infrastructure, logistical support, and enthusiasm in Sacramento.
Texas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, currently produce surplus electricity and would probably be less hostile to developing new shipyards, are closer to steel production, and have established logistical support to get the materials in. Wages and cost of living also need to be compared to California as well.
Naval bases? One can safely bet there would be a lack of enthusiasm as well.
Basically agree. One site to revive the Great Lakes region (Pennsylvania or Ohio), and one for the Mississippi Delta. Wish the BRACers had given more thought to long-term implications of Mare Island.
US Navy accused of covering-up dangerous plutonium in San Francisco
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/27/us-navy-san-francisco-plutonium#:~:text=The%20navy%20during%20the%201950s,falsifying%20strontium%2D90%20test%20results.
You do realize there are several nucs on the Porch and that posting a garbage Guardian link is going to get fisked, right? Here are the actual values from Parcel C that the Guardian journalist didn't bother to explain.
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Nov/13/2003819825/-1/-1/0/FACT%20SHEET%20HPNS%20PARCEL%20C%20AIR%20MONITORING_NOV2025.PDF
8.16x10-15 microcuries per milliliter. The NRC public limit is 2.0x10-14 microcuries per milliliter.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/Plutonium-239
Since journalists don't even take enough math to know how to balance their checkbook, 10-14 is larger than 10-15. The fact sheet notes that the value from Parcel C wasn't duplicated, I suspect weather conditions created a temperature inversion resulting in the higher-than-normal value.
Point of clarification: would that 10-14 be better rendered as 10^‐14?
IMO 2E-14
Atomic power is green power.
Was home ported there (NWS Concord) mid 70s. Great place (Then) to live, and you could always escape the local idiots by going to TI. Not so sure these days. The negative comments about local hostility to the military are probably all to true.
As is often the case, hostility towards the military comes from a small and vocal subset of Berkeley and Tenderloin types.
The attitude of the vast majority is that of Don Draper: “I don’t think about you at all.”
A significant number of skilled blue collar jobs is always welcome.
I can agree there, I flew in from a stint in WestPac during Vietnam and was treated with hostile intent at the oakland airport and the airplane on my way home.
I lived in the East Bay Area when Ron Dellums was my congressman (in a miracle of gerrymandering, it was always a matter of mixing enough of Berkeley and West Oakland into the otherwise conservative -- then -- I-680 corridor to make Dellums my representative). He was very frank about supporting the post-Cold War closing of the Bay Area's naval facilities. He said that those who disagreed with him should vote for someone else.
If it's ends up depending on voter initiatives, it will fail. Northern California is not very military friendly.
How would new or renovated shipyards be established in California with its high taxes and cost of living and anticipated lengthy permitting processes? Could "national defense" needs be used to bypass or override and expedite construction?
Yes. Congress can write new laws that override existing federal laws and regulations and state laws and regulations. Will they is the question.
Designing notional warships for the US Navy is fun. Designing notional navy bases is even more fun. Herewith is a conceptual layout and facility arrangement design for Naval Station Longview (NSL), a large full-service naval base which would be located on the Columbia River immediately west of Longview, Washington.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54962108493_b9eeff9498_o.jpg
NSL, as I've envisioned it, is a 'maximum effort' type of basing concept. Every element of a full-service navy base is present. As shown on the illustration, the following list of facilities constitute Naval Station Longview:
(1) Longview Naval Shipyard -- a full service shipyard with 19 drydocks of various sizes supporting both ship maintenance activities and new-build ship construction, including several piers supporting post-launch fitting out activities and follow-on systems installation.
(2) NSL North Ship Channel -- a vessel channel which allows traverse from west to east around the periphery of the shipyard and which has thousands of feet of linear dock space available for tying up naval vessels awaiting either maintenance or a deployment assignment.
(3) Shipyard Industrial Support -- An area set aside on the main shipyard island for structural component fabrication facilities such as electric arc furnaces and large hydraulic presses.
(4) NSL Tank Farms -- Bulk storage for liquid fuels such as Diesel Fuel Marine (DFM) and JP5 jet fuel.
(5) NSL Logistics Support -- Storage and distribution facilities for non-kinetic types of ship stores, supplies, and parts for naval vessels and aircraft.
(6) Longview Naval Arsenal -- Storage and distribution of kinetic ordnances and related supplies for warships and for combat aircraft.
(7) Longview Naval Air Station -- A full-service naval air station including aircraft parking aprons, hangars, maintenance shops, a tower, and a 10,800 foot runway with a parallel taxiway.
(8) Harbor Operations Support -- Office space and dock space for harbor patrol boat, tugboat, and fireboat operations.
(9) Longview Energy Center -- A large multi-unit power generation facility with four 300 Megawatt small modular nuclear reactors and a 150 megawatt gas-fired power plant. The energy center guarantees that sufficient electric power is always available to the naval base itself, to the city of Longview, and to the industries located in the regional area surrounding Longview.
(10) NSL Base Housing -- An area north of the Columbia River shoreline set aside for housing of USN personnel and their families.
Not shown on the illustration are two privately-owned facilities located elsewhere in the Longview area, a separate steel mill and a separate steel products fabrication & supply operation whose primary customer is the Longview Naval Shipyard.
Naval Station Longview represents the power of positive thinking, intensely focused on adding substantial shipbuilding capacity in support of future Pacific Theater naval and air operations.
Now for the bottom line: How much would Naval Station Longview cost to construct, and how long would it take end-to-end to complete the entire project?
My rough guess would be fifty billion dollars and fifteen years, assuming everything went well.
Think positive. Dream big.
And don't worry about how to pay for it.
To have a shipyard we must pay for it.
Admirable & aspirational approach to redeveloping SF region as a naval support area. But sad to say, Bay Area will probably never reboot to its naval roots (eg, former Mare Island shipyard established in 1853, during the Gold Rush)... Because there's too much modern development physically in the way, along w widespread anti-development sociology amongst the population. Same reason that one of America's largest oil basins -- aka "Los Angeles" -- will remain undeveloped as time unfolds.
It would be a great idea…if the Bay Area had been plastered with neutron bombs beforehand.
Let me put it this way - when I retired, I had immediate interest from a major aerospace company. I turned them down, entirely because the state of California is over-regulated. As well as overtaxed, but the contents of Vault #1 would get me thrown into a CA prison for the rest of my life.
Born and raised in San Francisco, went to NROTC UC Berkeley more decades ago than I care to think about at this point.
I'll say this. If you haven't been there, you don't realize the level of pathological hate for the US Military that exists in San Francisco, and how much its metastasized into the surrounding region.
If they were to do this as a closed "company city" it might be survivable, but it would be absolute hell to work there as a government civilian or contract employee.
Solano County is military friendly, given Mare Island and Travis AFB is the last bastion of what was a constellation of military bases around the Bay.
I think it will be nigh on impossible to overcome the "political climate hostile to both the military and industry," as shown by the NIMBYs in the last video.