The Project Gutenberg eBook of Water and power for San Francisco from Hetch-Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park, by Martin S. Vilas, A. M.

by
MARTIN S. VILAS, A. M.,
Member of the
Bars of California, Vermont and Washington.

I can assure you that your clean, clear presentation of the matter was admirable and much appreciated.

I think it was a valuable contribution to the data on that subject and indicates a considerable study upon your part.

I read your article in the Chronicle on Hetch Hetchy and want to compliment you on the thoroughness with which you handled the subject.

I ... feel that you are entitled to considerable praise for the concise and clear manner in which you have covered a very comprehensive subject.

I read with much interest and satisfaction your very comprehensive and accurate article on the Hetch-Hetchy.

I beg to compliment you on the clearness and conciseness with which you have stated many of the controversial points involved in same. I have had so much of it in the past year and I had to take up so many angles of the conflict that your resumé is decidedly refreshing.

... I beg to say to you in person what I long since wrote to the editor of the Chronicle. I stated to him that the article was a very valuable contribution to the literature on the Hetch-Hetchy subject, and was the best general exposition of the case that I had read in any newspaper and that, furthermore, the article was practically free from error. I have long since added it to my scrap book.

(Member of Board of Supervisors, City of San Francisco, and member of law firm of Vogelsang & Brown).

I consider it the best resumé of the Hetch-Hetchy scheme that has been written. I sent to the Chronicle for ten more copies after reading it in order that I might use it in the future.

I trust that the article will have a very wide circulation, for it cannot but help convince every fair minded individual not only that San Francisco’s application for rights has not been hastily considered but fair play demanded the grant.

Speaking for myself, I thank you very much for your kindly interest in the matter and for your very careful and comprehensive article.

The Raker Bill, named for John E. Raker of Modoc county, Cal., a member of Congress, was reported unanimously by the House Committee on the Public Lands at the special session of Congress in the summer of 1913, after a hearing occupying several days, and under its recommendation passed the House. This bill was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on the Public Lands, and, after a hard fought contest, occupying a week on the floor of the Senate, passed that body December 6th, 1913, by a vote of 43 to 25. It received the approval of President Wilson and became a law on December 19, 1913.

The enactment of this bill ended a continuous effort on the part of San Francisco, covering a period of many years, to obtain the legal right to take water from Hetch-Hetchy. It marked the end of a contest, spirited and hard fought, which was participated in by the magazines and press the country over, and in which the great majority of publications outside of California opposed the plan of San Francisco.

As this legislation affords legal opportunity for a water project primarily for domestic use, which is in itself a signal and notable work of engineering; as it affects vitally and strongly the irrigation interests of a state having a length of about 775 miles and a land surface greater than the combined areas of the six New England States, of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Ohio—a State which James Bryce characterized as an empire within itself; as it gives a State a very important easement, likely to be enduring, in a national park sharing alone with the great Yellowstone National Park in distinctiveness and notoriety; as it is designed to provide the legal means of furnishing water and much power for the next 100 years for a rapidly growing metropolitan section, now more numerously peopled than any other west of Chicago, the Raker Bill and its accessories are of national interest.

First—What is Hetch-Hetchy, and what, if any, are the present holdings and interests of San Francisco in the Yosemite National Park?

Third—What will be the operative effects of the Raker Bill on San Francisco and the rest of California outside the Yosemite National Park?

Fourth—What will be the operative effects of the Raker Bill on the Yosemite National Park?

I. What is Hetch-Hetchy, and what, if any are the present holdings and interests of San Francisco in the Yosemite National Park?

(1) Until the agitation connected with obtaining water for San Francisco brought in the name of Hetch-Hetchy, the writer supposed Hetch-Hetchy to be probably the name of some Indian chief, some new brand of cigars or some noted trotting horse. Possibly some of those who read this article are still nearly as ignorant as was the writer then.

Hetch-Hetchy is the name of a valley through which flows the Tuolumne River, and has tributary to it a watershed comprising 459 square miles. It lies entirely in Tuolumne County, California, entirely in the Yosemite National Park, of which it is the northern portion, and about 165 miles from San Francisco.

The Yosemite National Park contains about 1500 square miles. Hetch-Hetchy Valley is separated from the Yosemite Valley by a mountain range having a mean elevation of over 8500 feet, and distant from that valley about thirty-five miles by mountain trail. The floor of the valley is between 3000 and 4000 feet in altitude, is level and grass covered, and two or three miles long and nearly half a mile wide. It is surrounded by steep cliffs, out of which extend deep gorges. Just back of Hetch-Hetchy is a gorge a mile deep and one and a half miles wide. The sides of the valley are granite and very steep and precipitous, rising to a height of between 2000 and 5000 feet in different places. The valley is divided into two parts by a large ridge of rocks extending nearly across the middle. The upper end of it is a high, dry area, covered with tall pine trees, varying between 200 and 300 feet high, and with live oak and other kinds of trees, thus forming a natural park. The grasses, shrubs, flowers and trees are beautiful. Several distinguished naturalists have pronounced the natural growth as very unusual. There are a greater variety of trees and larger oaks in the Hetch-Hetchy Valley than in the Yosemite.

The area tributary to Hetch-Hetchy is very rough. Edmund A. Whitman, a lawyer of Boston and president of the Society for the Protection of National Parks; who has several times visited Hetch-Hetchy, in his testimony before the House Committee on the Public Lands last summer, stated:

“I cannot attempt to describe to you the character of the country. It is some of the roughest God ever made. You do not find little places here and there with grass and water, but the largest part of the country is the roughest sort, where camping is as impossible as it would be on the top of this table. Camping and the use of the park reduces itself to one thing—the feed of horses. There are only three places in the entire park where you can take care of horses.”

Hetch-Hetchy Valley is difficult of access. Because of the high, rough country surrounding it but few people visit it. Thus while 6000 or 7000 people visit the Yosemite Valley each year, less than 300 visit Hetch-Hetchy Valley. The valley, difficult to reach in summer, is rendered almost inaccessible as soon as the early snows begin to fall, and in winter is enshrouded in four or five feet of snow.

The summer season in that high altitude is short, and rendered shorter than the ordinary in Hetch-Hetchy by the cooling effect of the mountain streams, almost icy cold, and by the surrounding mountain peaks, snow-capped except for a small part of the year.

The Tuolumne River rises on the eastern side of California among the highest crests of the Sierras and for five or six miles flows through a meadow, but during the next twenty miles drops 3000 feet, in which distance some of the falls in the river are beautiful and picturesque. Next it flows for about two miles through Hetch-Hetchy Valley, then becomes a rushing mountain torrent for twenty miles more, and finally empties into the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County, almost directly east of the southern end of San Francisco Bay.

Lake Eleanor and Cherry Valley are northwest of Hetch-Hetchy. Lake Eleanor, distant about eight miles, is approximately 1000 feet higher than Hetch-Hetchy. Cherry Valley is distant about twelve miles and is approximately 1000 feet higher than Eleanor. Cherry Valley has tributary to it 114 square miles of territory, all in the Stanislaus National Park. Lake Eleanor and the seventy-nine square miles tributary to it are entirely in the Yosemite National Park. The outlets of Cherry Valley and of Lake Eleanor empty into the Tuolumne River several miles nearer the San Joaquin than Hetch-Hetchy.

(2) A report of the State Geologist of California in 1879 suggested Hetch-Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor as possible sources of water supply for the city of San Francisco.

In 1883 a corporation was formed to supply water to San Francisco from the sources of the Tuolumne River. Filings were made and considerable work put in. In 1901 the City Engineer was directed to examine the available sources of water supply for San Francisco. He investigated fourteen different sources and under suggestion of the reclamation service spent about $50,000 in detailed investigation of the sources of the Tuolumne, with a view to utilization at Hetch-Hetchy and Lake Eleanor. That was before the section was taken into the Yosemite National Park in 1905.

The city engineer made his report in 1901 when James D. Phelan was Mayor. This report was immediately approved by the Board of Public Works and since then has been the settled municipal policy of San Francisco so far as water is concerned. This report recommended the Tuolumne River in the following words:

“This source presents the following unrivalled advantages: Absolute purity by reason of the unhabitable character of the entire watershed tributary to the reservoirs and largely within a forest reservation. Abundance far beyond possible future demands for all purposes. Largest and most numerous sites for storage; freedom from complication of water rights; power possibilities outside the reservation.

“It has the drawback of distance to overcome, requiring the constructing of conduits aggregating 142 miles in length. But considering the partial and rapid rate of pollution to which all other sources may in the future be subjected, particularly nearby sources, the Tuolumne River is far superior to any other.”

Thereupon, Mayor Phelan posted notices on the banks of the Tuolumne on July 29, 1901, of his claim to 10,000 miner’s inches of the waters of that river, “for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power and domestic use.” Phelan, when his rights matured, assigned them to the city, as the law did not allow a municipality to make a filing.

Under a grant issued May 11, 1908, by James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, San Francisco obtained permission to store the waters of Lake Eleanor and Cherry Valley, develop them to their highest capacity, and when they should prove insufficient for the needs of the city, to store water in the Hetch-Hetchy Valley by crossing it with a dam. Secretary Garfield conditioned in this grant that San Francisco should submit the proposition to the people of the city for ratification, should buy up all the land held by private owners around Hetch-Hetchy and Lake Eleanor and hold such land for the city.

This proposition was voted upon by the legal voters of San Francisco in November, 1909, in a resolution as to whether or not they wished to acquire a means of water supply in the sources of the Tuolumne River, according to the terms of the Garfield permit, and to vote a municipal bond issue of $600,000 to obtain the land and water rights necessary therefor. The proposition was carried by a vote of more than five to one.

Thereupon San Francisco paid $174,311.20 for 720 acres of privately owned land in the Hetch-Hetchy Valley and for certain other lands so held which were not on the floor of the valley, but which, under the permit, the city must buy for camp sites, so that when campers were excluded from the floor of the valley they still might have a place to camp. These 720 acres comprise about two-thirds of the floor of Hetch-Hetchy Valley. They are now held by San Francisco in fee simple title. Next the city bought standing timber from the Government around Lake Eleanor for $13,428.77. Then out of the $600,000 voted, the city bought the land and water rights claimed by private owners around Lake Eleanor for $400,000.

In January, 1910, under the suggestion of Secretary of the Interior Ballinger, the proposition to obtain water for the city from the sources of Tuolumne and to authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $45,000,000 was submitted to the legal voters of San Francisco. Some 30,000 votes were cast and only about 1200 votes were in opposition.

The city supposed it had bought all available water rights of Lake Eleanor and Cherry Valley. That the city had not soon developed, and it expended $600,000 more to control these rights. The expense of investigations around the sources of the Tuolumne has been $300,000 or $400,000. Hence, upon the project San Francisco has already paid out in excess of $1,500,000, probably nearly $1,700,000.

Of the $174,000 spent on lands in Hetch-Hetchy, $81,306.18 were spent for 720 acres. For the exchange lands $92,457.02 were expended. 640 acres outside the valley proper were bought for camp sites under the order of the Secretary of the Interior. At Lake Eleanor private persons owned nearly all the dam sites. Now San Francisco owns about one-half and the United States Government about one-half. Here the development will be very expensive.

At Cherry Valley almost everything is owned by San Francisco. Owners of property around Cherry Valley and Lake Eleanor received $1,000,000 for property which cost them approximately $100,000. The area in the irrigation districts below the dam sites is mostly included in the Turlock-Modesto district. In the vicinity of Hetch-Hetchy Valley the city owns 1040 acres and around Lake Eleanor, all in the National Park, 920.33 acres more, making a total inside the park of 1960.33 acres. In Cherry Creek the city owns 860 acres below Hetch-Hetchy, in Hog Ranch 322.45 acres, and in Ike Dye Ranch 163.68 acres, making a total of 3406.46 acres.

Secretary Ballinger, in 1909, requested the matter be taken up de novo. At the direction of President Taft a board of three army officers was assigned by the Chief of Engineers to investigate and report on the subject of water supply for San Francisco as bearing particularly upon the need of the sources of the Tuolumne for San Francisco. This board of engineers was appointed in 1911 and consisted of Colonel John Biddle, Colonel Spencer Cosby and Colonel Harry Taylor. It occupied two years in a thorough investigation of all available sources of water supply for San Francisco and made a complete, detailed report, February 19, 1913. This board testified at length before the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives in its hearings on the Raker Bill. The statements of its chairman, Colonel John Biddle, formed the most exhaustive, detailed and apparently accurate testimony there given upon the available water supplies for San Francisco.

Secretary of the Interior Fisher, successor of Secretary Ballinger, wished the subject investigated as an absolutely new proposition. John R. Freeman of Providence, R. I., perhaps the ablest engineer in the country upon water supplies, was engaged and spent much time in California upon the subject at a cost of about $300,000. Two years were occupied by these investigations, entirely independent of the work of the board of army engineers. The result of the research of Engineer John R. Freeman was a comprehensive report recommending that this source is preferable to all others, and that the Hetch-Hetchy Valley be developed first and Lake Eleanor Valley and Cherry Creek be made secondary and accessory to Hetch-Hetchy. In November, 1913, Secretary Fisher came to San Francisco and held a hearing lasting ten days, when the entire matter was presented. Within a week of the retirement of Secretary Fisher from the Cabinet with the going out of President Taft, the Secretary recommended that some action be taken on the part of Congress, as the acts of 1901 to 1905, together with the Garfield permit, were somewhat indefinite and the precise authority of the Secretary of the Interior therein questionable. Hence the Raker Bill.

II. What is the Raker Bill?

This bill is entitled “A bill granting to the city and county of San Francisco certain rights of way in, over and through certain public lands, the Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest, and the public lands in the State of California, and for other purposes.” It is in eleven sections.

The bill grants to the city and county of San Francisco necessary rights of way through the public lands of the United States to Hetch-Hetchy Valley, Lake Eleanor and Cherry Valley for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining aqueducts “for conveying water for domestic purposes and uses to the city and county of San Francisco, and such other municipalities and water districts as, with the consent of the city and county of San Francisco, or in accordance with the laws of the State of California in force at the time application is made, may hereafter participate in the beneficial use of the rights and privileges of this act,” and “for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining power and electric plants, poles and lines for generation, sale and distribution of electric energy; also for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining telephone and telegraph lines.”

The whole construction and maintenance is under such conditions and regulations as may be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture within their respective jurisdictions.

“That for and in consideration of the grant by the United States as provided for in this act, the said grantee shall be required to assign free of cost to the United States all roads and trails built under the provisions hereof; and, further, after the expiration of five years from the passage of this act the grantee shall be required to pay to the United States the sum of $15,000 annually for a period of ten years, beginning with the expiration of the five-year period before mentioned, and for the remainder of the term of the grant, shall, unless otherwise provided by Congress, pay the sum of $30,000 annually, said sums to be paid on the 1st day of July of each year. Said sums shall be kept in a separate fund by the United States, to be applied to the building and maintenance of roads and trails and other improvements in the Yosemite National Park and other national parks in the State of California. The Secretary of the Interior shall designate the uses to be made of sums paid under the provisions of this section, under the conditions specified herein.”

The sanitary regulations are strict under this bill. No offal or refuse can be placed “in the waters of any reservoir or stream or within 300 feet thereof within the watershed above and around said reservoir sites.”

Proviso is also made that if the lower irrigation districts desire more than the usual amount they may have it up to a certain quantity by paying a rate fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

“That the said grantee shall not divert beyond the limits of the San Joaquin Valley any more of the waters from the Tuolumne watershed than, together with the waters which it now has or may hereafter acquire, shall be necessary for its beneficial use for domestic and other municipal purposes.

“That when the said grantee begins the development of the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir site it shall undertake and vigorously prosecute to completion a dam at least 200 feet high, with a foundation capable of supporting said dam when built to its greatest economic and safe height.

“That the said grantee shall upon request sell or supply to said irrigation districts and also to the municipalities within either or both said irrigation districts, for the use of any land owner or owners therein for pumping subsurface water for drainage or irrigation, or for the actual municipal public purposes of said municipalities (which purposes shall not include sale to private persons or corporations), any excess of electrical energy which may be generated and which may be so beneficially used by said irrigation districts or municipalities.

“That the right of said grantee in the Tuolumne water supply to develop electric power for either municipal or commercial use is to be made conditional upon its installing, operating and maintaining apparatus capable of developing and transmitting, under a general increase in amount, not less than 60,000 horse-power at the end of twenty years. The said grantee shall develop and use hydro-electric power for the use of its people and shall at prices to be fixed under the laws of California, or, in the absence of such laws, at prices approved by the Secretary of the Interior, sell or supply such power for irrigation, pumping or other beneficial use.”

The bill further provides that after twenty years the Secretary of the Interior may require the grantee to develop, transmit and use or offer for sale such additional power less than 60,000 horse-power as the grantee may have failed to develop, transmit, use or sell within the twenty years. In case of the failure of the grantee to carry out these requirements, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to provide for the development, transmission, use and sale of such power and power not developed or used. For that purpose the Secretary “may take possession of and lease to such person or persons as he may designate” such portion of the property of the grantee as may be necessary for the purpose in view.

The bill also provides that the grantee shall build certain roads and trails in and near Hetch-Hetchy Valley.

III. What will be the operative effects of the Raker Bill on San Francisco and the rest of California, outside the Yosemite National Park?

(1) The situation of San Francisco at the end of a long peninsula is not one favorable naturally for an abundance of water for a city of nearly half a million. During the golden days of ’49 the water supply came from a stream within the limits of the city. This stream is now in the Presidio and consequently is the property of the United States. Next Lobos Creek water was carried along the shores of the Golden Gate in a wooden flume and through a tunnel, then pumped to high reservoirs, from which it flowed through the city.

As the city grew, the Spring Valley Water Company came into existence and furnished water for the city from a storage reservoir on Pilarcitos Creek, about twenty-five miles from the city. This company has gradually developed its system and about twenty years ago in Alameda county, on the east side of the Bay, began to obtain water from a large area of gravel beds. This water was taken into a reservoir, thence through aqueducts and submarine pipes into San Francisco. San Francisco is now consuming about 50,000,000 gallons of water per day. Of this amount over 8,000,000 gallons come from private wells in different parts of the peninsula. The Spring Valley Water Company furnishes about 41,500,000 gallons, of which about 17,000,000 gallons come from San Mateo County.

City Engineer M. M. O’Shaughnessy of San Francisco testified before the House Committee on the Public Lands in Washington, June, 1913 that this city now needs 75,000,000 gallons of water per day and that about one-third of the city is without water and obliged to haul it in barrels and wagons. Development of the city has been considerably retarded through lack of water. Engineer O’Shaughnessy stated before the committee “for the past three or four months I have been making explorations all over the city in our narrow peninsula, trying to develop what strata there are that will be capable in an emergency of relieving our situation.”

The Spring Valley Water Company is endeavoring to relieve the stress of the situation by starting the construction of the so-called Calaveras dam in Calaveras Valley. But the supply of water behind this is uncertain. The company has built galleries seven or eight feet deep in the gravel beds, into which the water percolates.

After the disaster of 1906 San Francisco bonded itself for $6,000,000 and thereby constructed a high pressure auxiliary water system, operating about seventy-two miles of pipe. A reservoir was built at an elevation of 600 feet, filled through a pumping station drawing salt water from the bay. Another pumping station is now under construction at Fort Mason.

The city expects to buy the Spring Valley Water Company by condemnation in case purchase cannot be effected otherwise. Since the passage of the Raker Bill condemnation proceedings have been begun.

to San Jose for about fifty miles, has a common interest in obtaining water. All of its people look to San Francisco to take the lead. A population of about 1,000,000 is included here, of which Alameda furnishes about 25,000, Oakland about 200,000, Berkeley about 50,000 and Richmond about 15,000. Under the law passed four years ago, known as the “metropolitan district act,” two or more municipalities are allowed to join together in a water supply association. Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda and some other towns on the Bay have joined to condemn the local water supply to include Lake Chabot. But in these towns the situation is even worse than in San Francisco. The eyes of the people are turned anxiously to that city in the hope that before long she may obtain such an abundance as to fill out their lack and to provide for the future of these rapidly growing cities.

The proposition of San Francisco is to build a dam across Hetch-Hetchy Valley 100 feet at the bottom, 760 feet at the top and 300 feet high. This will cover 1930 acres of land with water and extend the water back between seven and eight miles and one and one-half miles wide at the widest point. It is also proposed to build a dam 150 feet high and 1500 feet long at Lake Eleanor. This will flood 1443 acres. The Hetch-Hetchy dam and reservoir will supply in dry seasons 250 gallons a day per capita for 1,000,000 people. Colonel John Biddle of the Board of Army Engineers estimated the cost of the Hetch-Hetchy supply at $77,000,000.

The final development will give to the command of San Francisco between 400 and 500 million gallons a day. The dams will be of massive masonry. The water will be carried through cement-lined steel pressure pipes and concrete lined tunnels ten feet in diameter, cut through the mountains of the coast range. There will be about eighty-three miles of water tunnels. Under the formation of water districts this water can be divided between the two sides of the Bay and approximately 1,000,000 people can now use it. At the upper end of the aqueduct will be two main power-houses capable of developing 145,000 mechanical horse-power twenty-four hours each day of the year.

The present plans of the city provide for its water needs as far ahead as the year 2,000, when at the present rate of growth there will be over 3,000,000 people around the Bay, causing a necessity for 540,000,000 gallons of water daily.

(2) Before the House Committee in Washington, June, 1913, Colonel Biddle testified that he had made a personal examination of every available source of water for the city and in detail described the features of each source, its advantages and disadvantages. Each one was considered not merely as to benefits to San Francisco, but as to whether or not the taking of water would be harmful to other sections now using it for other than domestic purposes, especially for irrigation.

The testimony of Colonel Biddle was that all the water of California was needed for domestic use and irrigation; that as the State is settled more and more, and as better and better facilities are devised for irrigation, more and more the streams are becoming used for these purposes; and that the only available sources of water for San Francisco would reach either the Sacramento or San Joaquin rivers, both flowing into San Francisco Bay, one from the north and one from the south, and together forming a valley about 500 miles long.

The chairman of this committee, Scott Ferris, conducted the examination as follows:

“With the information before you, coupled with the results of these two investigations, if you were a member of this committee, having due regard for the rights of the irrigation people, those of the nature lovers, who believe that you should not interfere with the Yosemite National Park, and the needs of San Francisco, which system would you vote for?”

“Biddle—I would vote for the Hetch-Hetchy system.”

“Chairman—Would you feel, in casting a vote of that kind, that you had inflicted a greater wrong upon the irrigation people and the nature lovers than if you had voted for one of the other systems?”

“Biddle—No, sir.”

“Colonel Cosby—I concur fully with the statement of Colonel Biddle. There is not the slightest question in my mind but that this should be used as the source of water supply, and not only that, but that it will be used as a water supply in a very short time independently of whether this project is adopted or not. I think the pressure will be so great to conserve the water up there that it will be used as a storage reservoir. It is by far the best storage reservoir in that section of the country, and water is so valuable there that they cannot afford to let it run to waste. If you deny the use of it to San Francisco, sooner or later the water will be put to other uses. Somebody will be asking for permission to utilize the Hetch-Hetchy Valley as a storage reservoir for irrigation purposes.”

“Chairman—What do you think of the equitable distribution made of it under the terms of this bill?”

“Colonel Taylor—I do not think the irrigation people have anything to complain of in this bill.”

The testimony of the members of the Board obtained great weight because of their unquestioned technical skill and experience and their positions, entirely disconnected from local prejudice and interest.

That the Raker Bill will prove of considerable advantage to nearly all, if not to all, other interests of the State of California outside the Bay section affected by the Bill seems to have been clearly established.

IV. What will be the operative effects of the Raker Bill on the Yosemite National Park?

The total area flooded in the National Park will be 3373 acres. Of these the city owns about 1300 acres. The Government under the Raker Bill will get, by exchange, the difference between 1300 acres and 3142.78 acres, which is 1842.78. The city will take from the Government the difference between 1300 acres and 3373 acres, which is 2072. Hence, the city will trade to the Government as much land as it takes for flooding, lacking 129.22 acres. The forests to be covered by the flooding are in no part of the large redwoods, but are of a size frequently found in a California forest.

The Chairman of the House Committee before mentioned, finally conducted this examination:

“Chairman—Don’t you think, as a matter of fact, that the roads, trails, telephones, etc., that would come with this water supply development would enhance the usefulness of the park from the standpoint of poor people who cannot now go there?”

“Colonel Biddle—Yes, sir.”

“Chairman—As matters now stand, it would be pretty extravagant for poor people to undertake to go there.”

“Colonel Biddle—It is impossible for them, unless they go in with knapsacks on their backs.”

“Chairman—Poor people do not visit it at all, do they?”

“Colonel Biddle—I would not say that, because it is one of the great delights of Californians, even if they are not well off, to take knapsacks on their backs and go to the Sierras; but they do not really stay long in the Hetch-Hetchy Valley. In the early summer the mosquitoes are bad, in the late summer it is too hot.”

Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and Pueblo, Col., go into national parks for their water supplies. Los Angeles goes into a government forest reserve and brings its water from Inyo County, 220 miles, by aqueduct and more than twenty miles by tunnels.

Gifford Pinchot, testifying before this Committee, stated: “As we all know, there is no use of water higher than the domestic use. Now the fundamental principle of the whole conservative policy is that of use, to take every part of the land and its resources and put it to that use in which it will best serve the most people.”

George Otis Smith, director of the Geological Survey, stated: “I think we will agree that municipal use is the highest value, next irrigation and lastly power—the generation of hydro-electric energy. I believe the highest possible utilization of the Tuolumne, or of any river, is that which provides, as far as possible for a combination of these three values and the harmonizing of the different uses.”

V. From the foregoing and from all the evidence and conditions developed under this design, some conclusions are manifest.

The Bay section is the largest urban section in California and is doing more business than any other. Its growth is rapid. San Francisco is coming into control of all her municipal utilities. The four great cities on the Bay are one in interest. They will before long probably be one in municipal government. This water power will be of tremendous commercial advantage to these cities. To desire to obtain this water power, is not sordid commercialism or base greed on the part of this section. It is an endeavor to make use of the beneficial forces of nature. It is evidence of a high state of advanced civilization. It is a manifestation of enlightened government. It is fitting and highly proper. It is a cause for praise to this city and the lesser municipalities, not for recrimination and abuse.

That the lake in Hetch-Hetchy will not add to the attractiveness of the beautiful valley is undetermined. Opinions are divided. The lake and its accessories will be the means of bringing thousands to a spot hitherto secluded, isolated and, to many, inaccessible. The highest beneficial use of nature to civilization is conservation. Were nature allowed to rest, grand and gloomy, the tall forests and virgin prairie still would lie between Plymouth Rock and the Golden Gate. The march of civilization may still go on and adopt unto itself the high forces of nature in an age of mighty progress and development, and still usually leave “for him who, in the love of nature, holds communion with her visible forms,” the tall cliff, the high waterfall, the grassy flower-strewn valley, and here and there the virgin forest.

It is easy for the sensitive, the fanciful, and the one of moods and tenses to make themselves believe that an infringement upon what they regard as proper is an outrage upon decency, and an indication that the sordid and mercenary are prevailing, and that unless all of the good and true shall rally to the defense the last bulwarks of decency will be stormed and the citadel of high purpose, noble resolve and immaculate life will be forever lost to a ruthless commercialized greed. The forces of darkness and of distortion are not in overwhelming numbers marching down the pike.

This bill is not an indication that the grisly hand of avarice and the cold hand of ambition are seizing hold of the sacred and inviolate. San Francisco may obtain this water, as good as any in the world, and sufficient for her thousands to come for the next 100 years. She may thereby obtain such water power as during the same time will cause all the wheels of industry on her great Bay to whirl and to whirr. Yet the Yosemite National Park in the entire and Hetch-Hetchy in particular will remain, visited by more than ever before, a thing of beauty and a joy unto the ages yet to be.—San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 18, 1914.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WATER AND POWER FOR SAN FRANCISCO FROM HETCH-HETCHY VALLEY IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.