Mr. PINCHOT: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my testimony will be very short. I presume that you very seldom have the opportunity of passing upon any measure before the Committee on the Public Lands which has been so thoroughly thrashed out as this one. This question has been up now, I should say, more than 10 years, and the reasons for and against the proposition have not only been discussed over and over again, but a great deal of the objections which could be composed have been composed, until finally there remains simply the one question of the objection of the Spring Valley Water Co. I understand that the much more important objection of the Tuolumne irrigation districts have been overcome. There is, I understand, objection on the part of other irrigators, but that does not go to the question of using the water, but merely to the distribution of the water. So we come now face to face with the perfectly clean question of what is the best use to which this water that flows out of the Sierras can be put. As we all know, there is no use of water that is higher than the domestic use. Then, if there is, as the engineers tell us, no other source of supply that is anything like so reasonably available as this one; if this is the best, and, within reasonable limits of cost, the only means of supplying San Francisco with water, we come straight to the question of whether the advantage of leaving this valley in a state of nature is greater than the advantage of using it for the benefit of the city of San Francisco.
Now, the fundamental principle of the whole conservation 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, and I think there can be no question at all but that in this case we have an instance in which all weighty considerations demand the passage of the bill. There are, of course, a very large number of incidental changes that will arise after the passage of the bill. The construction of roads, trails, and telephone systems which will follow the passage of this bill will be a very important help in the park and forest reserves. The national forest telephone system and the roads and trails to which this bill will lead will form an important additional help in fighting fire in the forest reserves. As has already been set forth by the two Secretaries, the presence of these additional means of communication will mean that the national forest and the national park will be visited by very large numbers of people who cannot visit them now. I think that the men who assert that it is better to leave a piece of natural scenery in its natural condition have rather the better of the argument, and I believe if we had nothing else to consider than the delight of the few men and women who would yearly go into the Hetch Hetchy Valley, then it should be left in its natural condition. But the considerations on the other side of the question to my mind are simply overwhelming, and so much so that I have never been able to see that there was any reasonable argument against the use of this water supply by the city of San Francisco. . . .

Mr. [John] RAKER: Taking the scenic beauty of the park as it now stands, and the fact that the valley is sometimes swamped along in June and July, is it not a fact that if a beautiful dam is put there, as is contemplated, and as the picture is given by the engineers, with the roads contemplated around the reservoir and with other trails, it will be more beautiful than it is now, and give more opportunity for the use of the park?

Mr. PINCHOT: Whether it will be more beautiful, I doubt, but the use of the park will be enormously increased. I think there is no doubt about that.

Mr. RAKER: In other words, to put it a different way, there will be more beauty accessible than there is now?

Mr. PINCHOT: Much more beauty will be accessible than now.

Mr. RAKER: And by putting in roads and trails the Government, as well as the citizens of the Government, will get more pleasure out of it than at the present time?

Mr. PINCHOT: You might say from the standpoint of enjoyment of beauty and the greatest good to the greatest number, they will be conserved by the passage of this bill, and there will be a great deal more use of the beauty of the park than there is now.

Mr. RAKER: Have you seen Mr. John Muir’s criticism of the bill? You know him?

Mr. PINCHOT: Yes, sir; I know him very well. He is an old and a very good friend of mine. I have never been able to agree with him in his attitude toward the Sierras for the reason that my point of view has never appealed to him at all. When I became Forester and denied the right to exclude sheep and cows from the Sierras, Mr. Muir thought I had made a great mistake, because I allowed the use by an acquired right of a large number of people to interfere with what would have been the utmost beauty of the forest. In this case I think he has unduly given away to beauty as against use.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM KENT, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA.

Mr. Kent. I am rather inclined to resent the criticism that we who stand for this bill are opposed to conservation. I have tried to be an honest exponent of sane and sensible conservation, and to further the use of our national resources without unnecessary waste. But when an opportunity comes to give to a great community upward to 200,000 horsepower upon which not a cent of private profit shall ever be made; when it comes to the question of benefiting upward of a million people, then I believe that conservation demands that I do my duty and try to help rather than to hinder such a worthy project. I have heard it said right along-Mr. Whitman said in the hearings in the House, "you will find it is largely a question of water power."

I admit that. I want the people of the cities of California; I want the irrigationists and the people of the San Joaquin Valley to be forever free from any danger of being held up in the interest of private profit, if that can be done.

Mr. Johnson expressed great confidence in his knowledge of the purposes of the Creator in the matter of this valley. I do not know whether we can take it that he is absolutely sure of being right. He made the statement that those wonders were put there to be looked at. How are we going to tell what things are there to be looked at and what things are there to be used. It seems reasonable to me that we should use the useful things and look at the beautiful things; and that the highest use of the useful things is their use for the benefit of humanity.

I made the statement in the House that if Niagara Falls could be used to lighten the burdens of the overworked, I should be willing to see those Falls harnessed. I would not be willing to see them harnessed for private profit, but if Niagara Falls could be utilized for the alleviation of overworked suffering humanity, I should like to see the Falls used for that purpose. That is the kind of a conservationist I am, and I put it in the rawest, baldest terms.
That is the purpose of the Almighty, it seems to me. I do not think people should be so sure of the purposes of the Almighty. I do not believe people should be so ready to asperse the methods of other people. I think it is time that the Members of Congress who have tentatively committed themselves to measures of this kind should and up and talk back a little bit. I want to state here and now that have read this literature put out by these people. It has only one foundation of fact and that foundation is the letters of this man Sullivan, whom we proved in the hearings in the House to be a thief and a man who ought to be in the penitentiary. We proved his claims to be absolutely valueless; that he issued $250,000 of bonds on this alternative scheme that were really worthless. Every clipping I get from the public press-and I get lots of them-has this same foundation of falsity, and I am very glad to have had the opportunity to express my opinion of that kind of a propaganda.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. RAKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA.

Mr. Raker, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my time will be brief, but I will apply myself principally to the objections to using the Hetch Hetchy for any and all purposes. The matters in connection with San Francisco's use of the water, with which I am somewhat familiar, will be ably presented by Mr. Freeman, who is here representing San Francisco and others.

This matter is familiar to me. I have been over practically all of this territory except right down on the floor of this valley. That entire country is in my district, and my people realizing the question of conservation and the question of utilizing not only the lands but the water, feel that under the conditions of this bill it ought to pass, because they believe it is one of the greatest pieces of constructive legislation the State of California has ever had. It utilizes the park in a proper way; it gives to the city and county of San Francisco the pure water it ought to have; it absolutely guarantees to these districts the permanent supply of water that they themselves by their committee and their representatives state they ought to have. The city and county of San Francisco stipulates that at all times they are to have their prior rights to the amount of water which they claim. Not only before the Public Lands Committee but for the last 10 years this has been claimed, and it is in the report of Secretary Garfield that is the amount they claim for their district. That has been before the Secretaries of the Interior and before the committees, and to avoid any question of litigation which this bill does not necessarily determine as to the actual rights, the city of San Francisco says. "Your claim is 2,350 feet or whatever it is."
Their rights are recognized and they are satisfied in that permit, and it is the testimony of all their representatives that is the amount of their prior right and prior claim.

Within the last month--not before the committee at this time-- but in addition to that gentlemen who have represented these people have admitted that. They do not--Judge Fulkerth does not admit-- and it is not said for a minute that they have ever used this entire amount of water, that they have ever had it running in their lines of ditches to its full capacity. It depends upon the floods: it depends upon the sun and the rain. You have to hold it back so that it fills your ditches, and that is the condition these people are trying to put in and whether there is little water or not there must always be sufficient water coming down to maintain for them this supply of 2,350 feet.

This bill further provides and says that the city and county of San Francisco must file their written consent with the Secretary of the Interior by their duly authorized authorities within a certain number of days after this bill is enacted into law or they do not get the grant. It makes no difference whether it is enacted into law or not.

I want to call the committee's attention to the question of conservation. I am surprised that these gentlemen who call themselves conservationists are not in favor of this bill. I suppose that Mr. Pinchot is the greatest conservationist in the United States. He came before our committee and he says that this bill to his mind is the acme of conservation in all its phases and all its conditions; as to preserving the park, as to the use of the water, and as to power purposes.

In addition to that this water has been running to waste for years, and will continue to run to waste, unless the dam is in there. It will run off into the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River and then into the sea. Why, we have seen the floods of this river at Sacramento slopping upon the depot steps at flood time. Then they say they do not flood the San Joaquin Valley. Part of that same water when it is flooded backs clear up the Sacramento River. That is the condition in California at flood times now. Every Californian knows that for six weeks the water runs off the mountains in torrential floods and unless we store it goes to waste. Now let me take up another thing. Part of this territory is owned by the city and county of San Francisco, part by the Government. The gentlemen admit they can not get it. They could not condemn that land because the use for city purposes is higher than the use for agricultural purposes. The city and county of San Francisco now owns two-fifths of the floor of this valley. Are you going to leave it there now and let no one use it?

Another point which has not been called to the attention of the committee, and which I think is important, is that all these questions have been presented to the Government authorities. This matter has been under consideration by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, Director Newell, Director Smith, and other Government officials. These questions were presented to them. I asked them the question whether or not the use of this five hundred and twenty-odd square miles that is on this watershed would be lessened to the public by the construction of this reservoir. Everyone says it will not. They say it opens it up to thousands where to-day there are only hundreds who use that park. The sanitary conditions are those approved by the Forest Service and are those which are in effect in the forest reserves to-day. Therefore, there will not be any denial of the use of this park or its watersheds that is involved here.

I call the committee's attention--I will not be long in doing it-- to this fact: The city of San Francisco owns something like 3,500 acres of land in the Yosemite National Park and in the forest reserve. The land covered in the three reservoirs will be 3,100 acres. I speak of Hetch Hetchy, Lake Eleanor, and Cherry Creek. They are to deed back all the land they own to the Government except that covered by this dam, and I say to you gentlemen, and the evidence shows that there will be more camping grounds, more places to be used in the National Park after this dam is there than there is to-day; after the lake is put in there than there is to-day, because that will be opened. It will be deeded back to the Government so that it can be used.

In addition to that, the city and county of San Francisco is to build public roads connecting with the present public roads, and those will lead to the dam. They will go beyond the dam to Eleanor and Cherry Creek and to the summit of the great mountain range up there. It is proposed to connect those roads with the public Tioga road, which goes from the San Joaquin Valley over to the State of Nevada. That road can be used and that country will be opened, and, as the record shows here, instead of there being from 25 to 150 people at the Hetch Hetchy Valley, all that can go into the Hetch Hetchy Valley now, there will be thousands who will go into that valley. And, in fact, there will be no limit as to the number who can view the great, wonderful scenery there.

The only use for which that country is suitable is for camping purposes. You can not raise hay in there. You have to haul your hay in there. You have to do the same with all your supplies, as in the Yosemite Valley. They have to haul grain, hay, and food into the Yosemite Valley now, and it will be the same with the Hetch Hetchy Valley.

It is true the floor of this valley will be covered by the lake; but they can go over 750,000 acres in the national park and 520 square miles, which is the extent of this watershed.

I am as good a conservationist as anybody. I believe the park ought to be preserved; I believe we ought to get the fullest use of the national park that can be had; but instead of having it used as it is today, only by 150 people, there will be 10,000 people going into the watershed when this dam is completed, because the roads will be there. Provision will be made for them and they will not be retarded by any rules or any regulations which will affect their rights.

There is about 1,500 acres in the floor of this valley--of the Hetch Hetchy. There has been some misunderstanding about that. The city and county of San Francisco owns about 700 acres of that valley. The balance is Government land. That is all the land that is to be covered in this valley. There will be a road built around it, so that it can be used and seen by everybody. The falls will never be touched; not 1 foot of the height of those falls will be affected. The water that goes to waste will be held there in a beautiful lake, so that you can drive up to the dam, across the dam, and around the lake, and then go over the rest of that park. San Francisco is obligated to build those roads at its own expense and it is also obligated to provide for the first five years $15,000 to keep up this park; for the next 10 years $20,000 to keep up this park.

Senator Norris. Per year?

Representative Raker. Yes; per year. For the next 10 years they are obligated to contribute $30,000 to keep up this park and such additional amounts as the Congress from time to time may add.
Is that destroying the beauty of that park?

The testimony of men high in authority who have had lots of experience is unanimous to the effect that valley will be more beautiful than it is to-day. Is that a destruction of the park? Is that a destruction of the trees? No; there are no redwood trees on the floor of this valley which will be destroyed. There are only a few small pine trees, and most of those are owned by the city and county of San Francisco to-day. They could fence off that acreage there if they wished to. There is no destruction of anything which is wonderful. The rocks will be just as high around that dam as they are to-day. There will be just as much scenery when that dam is completed as there is to-day. The dam is to be only 300 feet high. There is to be that beautiful road around the lake.

For myself, I wish to say that I would be last one in the world who would try to despoil one foot of that country which could never be replaced; but I believe I owe it to the district which I represent, to believe I owe it to the city and county of San Francisco as a citizen of the State of California, I believe I owe it to the United States as a Representative in Congress, to see that proper legislation is put upon the statue books giving to the city and county of San Francisco the right to build this dam, properly guarded, properly put in shape. I believe we should use every drop of water in the State of California; I further believe that a use for agricultural purposes is not as high as for the purposes of citizens of towns and cities.

I believe it is right to use the water for a water supply for the city and county of San Francisco. I believe this bill, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, covers all these advantages, protects and safeguards every interest of the Government, every interest of the irrigationists, and every interest of the city and county of San Francisco. I believe that I never have in all my lifetime appeared to speak in behalf of a bill before a committee of Congress which means as much for California, which means as much for San Francisco, which means as much for the eastern mountain district--because we want people to come in there--as this bill. Those mountains might lay there for ages unseen by anyone and amount to nothing.

In addition to that, I will be able to assist in preventing the destruction of the fertile plains down around Stockton and in that part of the country, flooded in the springtime because of high water coming from this river and others. Therefore, I feel justified and more than justified in urging strongly the claims of San Francisco for this bill in all its features.

Representatives of the irrigation districts appeared before the committee. These provisions were put into the bill so that there could be no possible injury to their claim, recognizing their prior rights, and last but most important, it says to them all, "Your rights, whatever they may be, will not be interfered with by this bill or any provision of it, because it is left entirely to the laws of the State of California to settle and adjust every right and to determine every need."

I do not care to go into the legal phase of the water conditions there, because I do not think it is in point here.

Senator Thomas. You understand that the erection of this dam will only flood a section of the floor of the valley. That is a question I would like to clear up in my mind.

Mr. Raker. It will cover practically all of the floor of the Hetch Hetchy Valley; that is about 1,500 acres. As I have said before, six hundred and some odd acres are already owned by the city and county of San Francisco.

Senator Thomas. It would be taking up about a section of Government land

Mr. Raker. Yes; it would be taking up about a section of Government land.
I want to call the attention of the Senators to this one further point. We have talked about the use of that water. The dam is to be built in conformity with the condition of the mountains. As I have said, there is to be a road around the lake; so you can not only see the lake, but you can see the rest of the scenery there, and then the roads lead off in all directions to this park, and they will cost in the neighborhood of $600,000, and that country will accommodate a million people.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. GARFIELD,
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the committee would like to be informed, in a general way, the connection of your department with this granting of this revocable right of way, and as to what developed during the hearings had before you as to the necessities of the city of San Francisco in this matter, and also as to the effect of this water storage upon the park and the forest reserve, as to how it will affect the interests of the general public, as we must necessarily consider the interests of the general public in this matter, as well as those of the city of San Francisco.

Secretary Garfield. The application, as it was presented to me, came up on the motion for a reopening of the case, which had theretofore been closed by the action of my predecessor in declining to grant the request of the city to permit the use of the floor of this valley for storage purposes. I first made careful investigation of the law and the decision of the Attorney-General, and found that under that decision it was clear that the Secretary of the Interior had power, under the act of Congress, to grant this application, if he should deem it for the public interest to do so. I thereafter advised the city of San Francisco to that effect, and while in San Francisco a year ago last summer I had a public hearing there and went over very carefully the various facts relating to the condition of the application, and there appeared various parties in interest, including not only the city representatives, but as well the representatives of certain irrigation districts, the Turlock and Modesto districts, which lie below the headwaters of the Hetch Hetchy, and thereafter giving opportunity to all interested parties to file in detail their briefs and exchange briefs.

These gentlemen came to Washington and we went over in detail again the conditions that existed in that district. Those conditions, in brief, were these: The Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts below had acquired and were using valuable water rights for the development of their irrigation projects. There were certain private holdings in the floor of the Hetch Hetchy Valley and in the surrounding park and forest reserve area. The city had acquired, by option, holdings in the floor of the valley to the extent as stated by its representative here, and had also acquired a number of holdings outside, as indicated by the representative. The points that I gave especial consideration to in determining what action the Government ought to take were these: The city of San Francisco had been making every effort to obtain for its citizens, and the citizens in the immediate surrounding vicinity there, the best, purest, and largest water supply. I took the view that, so far as the Federal Government was authorized, it should be of help to the citizens of any of these cities, not only San Francisco, but elsewhere, to enable them to obtain that kind of a water supply, believing that the domestic use was the highest use to which water could be put. There were, in connection with this question, a number of matters of difficulty; private interests-that is, conflicts between the existing water company in San Francisco and companies or individuals who were seeking to have the city acquire their water rights, instead of undertaking to develop the Hetch Hetchy, as was requested by the city. I declined to enter into a discussion of the relative merits or demerits of any of these various plans, because they involved most intricate engineering questions in almost every instance, as well as questions of cost, both of which questions I felt were matters for the city to determine and not for the Federal Government to determine.

The matter before me was simply whether or not the Federal Government ought to give the citizens of San Francisco an opportunity to use this valley and the adjacent valley, the Lake Eleanor site, for purposes of obtaining a domestic water supply, if those citizens deemed that this was the most available and the purest, and the question of cost was a matter for them to determine, not for the Government. I likewise considered most carefully, as the Government should, the question of the rights of the irrigating district below. They were not only valuable rights, but were likewise rights that had been very highly developed by the citizens in those localities, and, as I stated to the representatives of the city, I should take no action that did not absolutely protect the people who had developed the irrigation projects below there in their rights to use or impound the water upon which they had filed. As to the private property owned in the park and on the floor of the park, those were matters that I stated to them would have to be settled by submission of those matters probably to Congress, because I had no authority under the general acts to patent to the city of San Francisco the remaining unappropriated lands on the bid of the valley, nor could I without an act of Congress accept other property in exchange for those, and therefore the proposition was made that the city, having acquired these private rights, would offer in exchange, acre for acre, as nearly as could be exchanged on the smallest equal subdivision, land which it owned outside for the unappropriated land which remained on the floor of the valley. That proposition seemed to me an eminently fair one, because it not only cleared the question of title on the floor of the valley, but also cleared from the park and forest reserve area those private holdings which were now used for camping purposes by the private owners, under an arrangement with individuals or an arrangement with the Government. After a full consideration of all of these points to which I have referred I reached the conclusion, without any hesitation in my own mind, that it was the duty of the Federal Government to aid the city of San Francisco in this regard, if we could reach an agreement that was satisfactory to all the various interests concerned.

There was serious opposition on the part of a number of citizens, not only of California, but throughout the country, to any action by me that would, as they stated, abandon the Hetch Hetchy as a valley and destroy, as they felt, one of the great and wonderful natural beauties of that section of the country. I fully appreciated that feeling on the part of those gentlemen, and fully appreciated the obligation that Congress had placed upon me to preserve those tracts for the purpose, not only of the nation's playgrounds, but for the purpose of preserving the great curiosities and great beauty of that region. On the other hand, in weighing the two sides of this question, I felt that there could be no doubt but that it should be resolved in favor of the citizens of San Francisco, because this use of the valley would not destroy it as one of the most beautiful spots in the West. It would simply change the floor of the valley from a meadow to a beautiful lake, and it could be so constructed as not to interfere with the access of people to that portion of the park. It would mean, of course, that there would not be that same freedom in camping that there otherwise would be, because it would be necessary to protect the watershed there from pollution, but that would be the only interference with the opportunity of individuals to visit and enjoy that park. I therefore made the agreement which appears in the final decision which I made in this matter, which has been presented to you here this morning. That agreement was made after the most careful conference with the representatives of the irrigation districts and a final and unanimous agreement by all that we had protected fully the rights of these various interested parties. The provisions of the permit appear at the of the decision, I think nine or ten special clauses, and I believe have most carefully safeguarded the interests of the public in the issuing of this permit. The city of San Francisco obtains this right subject to very carefully drawn provisions.

These provisions, in brief, are that, in the first instance, they should come to Congress for this very purpose which the resolution we are considering intends to carry out, namely, to authorize the exchange of these lands. Thereafter the use of these lands is subject to the regulation of the Secretary of the Interior, and the only use which the city itself can permanently enjoy will be that which is necessary and appurtenant to the construction of the reservoir and the use for water purposes. In case the city fails to carry out the terms of the permit within the time specified in the last two clauses, then all the rights shall revert to the Federal Government, and the titles to all lands which they might have acquired will also revert to the Federal Government, so that it does not afford an opportunity for the city of San Francisco to use this permit for any purpose other than that which is stated in the permit itself, which has for its only purpose the use of water by the citizens of San Francisco. The rights of the people of irrigation districts below are well guarded, so that they will not be denied or deprived of the rights that they had theretofore acquired for irrigation purposes. The language of a condition of the grant was that this question should be submitted to the voters of the city, so that there should be the fullest and most careful explanation and understanding of this agreement with the Federal Government, and I am advised by the reports sent me by the city officials that election has been held and the results up to this time have been adopted. I think that, Mr. Chairman, covers all, in brief, that has been done by the department.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXANDER T. VOGELSANG, OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., SUPERVISOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Mr. Vogelsang Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, I will take but a few moments. Like the eloquent speaker from the San Joaquin. I have come from the other side of the continent to Washington in the hope that I might do something in expediting what we believe to be the most important legislation affecting the State of California that has come before Congress in recent years. We believe it is so important because it benefits so many citizens of the State.

I am a native of the State of California; my birthplace was in the mountains of California, not more than 60 miles from Hetch Hetchy. I went myself last August with Mr. Freeman and the Board of Army Engineers to the Hetch Hetchy Valley. And I know all about it.

In fact, I may say that I know more about it than the gentleman who has so eloquently discussed the rights of a water district formed since the report of the House committee was made.

Senator Thomas. What was the district you referred to?

Mr. Vogelsang. I refer to the Waterford district. That district was not in existence at the time the report of the House committee was made. It was represented in its tentative form by Mr. Dennett, a report of whose statement is contained in the latter part of the hearings.

We are very friendly to the people of the San Joaquin Valley, who are tributary to this watershed of the Tuolumne. They are our friends; we have attempted always to treat them as friends; we have guaranteed them always, and always voluntarily, as entitled to the rights they originally claimed. We have filings subsequent to theirs which can only fulfilled by the conservation of the storm waters of that section. We are asking the right to conserve the storm waters by building this dam at the mouth of the Hetch Hetchy Valley and flooding it. That will flood 720 acres of land owned by the city and county of San Francisco, which we have the right to use, of course, as we please, as any other citizen has the right to use his own land.
I am a nature lover, second to one, not even Mr. Johnson. Every summer of my life my vacation is spent among the crags and we streams and the lakes of the mountainous sections of California and Oregon. I am a disciple of Izaak Walton, and I have my chief pleasures in studying nature and following the gentle art of angling.

As representative of the city and county of San Francisco here officially I have come to ask you to extend a hand to us. I do not want to revert to what has gone before in our city. We have made a struggle now for 12 years in order to get this water; we do not desire to harm the face of nature; we do not desire to injure the people in the San Joaquin Valley who have rights there, for their prosperity is our prosperity; they are our friends and our customers. We have come together with them here before the House committee and have settled every difficulty with their official representatives, their attorneys, their engineers, the representatives of the entire district, and with the judge of the superior court of the county of Stanislaus at their head.
I have had conferences with their representatives since their return concerning this bill in San Francisco. They are unanimously in favor of it. They have held mass meetings, not only those reported, but many others; they have canvassed the counties, and since they have returned have explained their attitude and explained the provisions of this bill. At least they so reported to us at our conference in San Francisco, and they reported that their communities were unanimously in favor of this measure.

Now, gentlemen, there is a great necessity for it. There are many other reasons why we should not take some other source that has been mentioned. It is possible that by extreme expenditure we might find a supply that would suffice, but if we did that we would be forced to take a very large area of the State of California that might better be left for the people and devoted to beneficial uses and production.

There is probably no other water source on the face of the earth equal to the Hetch Hetchy, for its waters will never be polluted by mining, by milling, by lumbering, by agriculture, or anything of that sort. The face of nature is too stern to ever be softened by the hand of man to his profit. It is there, a natural granitic watershed, partly covered with underbrush, interspersed with trees. There is no forest in commercial quantity on it whatever, no mining has ever been done there, and it will never be used for agriculture. It will only be a pleasure ground for the American people in the summer season, and it will have upon it in thee way of restrictions only the ordinary rules of common decency. That is all that we shall require; that is all that is required by the bill; and that will give in perpetuity, not only to San Francisco but to the city of Oakland, the city of Berkeley, the city of Alameda, the city of Richmond, and the city of San Jose, a pure domestic water supply forever.

Now, gentlemen, I am a conservationist of human life, of human activity, and of human comfort, and I say, when I speak for San Francisco, that I am speaking for the conservation of the men, women, and children of this great, rich, popular section of California, which suffers to-day most seriously and grievously for water.

If every known resource local to us was developed to-day to its uttermost extent, there would be a shortage of water throughout that section. We have had two years of drought now; we are in San Francisco drawing upon the water that fell three years ago in that section. As I came away from San Francisco I read a Sacramento paper on the train which gave out the statement of the water supply of the city of Vallejo, where the navy yard is at Mare Island, Cal. That statement set forth the rules which have been applied to the water service and which have been promulgated in that city. They provide that the water shall be turned on at quarter to 6 in the morning and turned off at 6 o'clock in the morning; turned on at quarter to 12 and turned off at 12 o'clock in the middle of the day; and turned on the quarter to 6 at night and turned off at 6 o'clock at night.

That is the condition of the water supply of the City of Vallejo, which has never occurred before in the history of that city, and that some condition exists to-day throughout northern California.

I do no want to extend these remarks any further than to say that the city of San Francisco is a good city, a great city, a magnificent city; a city with a great spirit and a great determination, as she has exhibited before. We have had our troubles and our tribulations. We have had our grafters, and, please God, we will never have them any more. We think our laws are so complete now that there never can be a recurrence of that sort. We are here pleading and begging for this; we are begging for an opportunity to make an investment eventually of over $77,000,000 in order that the future as well as the present may be protected.

Mr. Johnson said that if this grant was made it would not be long before other parks and other reserves would be opened upon similar pretext. Gentlemen, I am not a Member of Congress, but I say to you that whenever a similar pretext to this is presented to your attention that you can not be true to your country unless you grant it.

I am pleading for the conservation of humanity at the present time, the protection and delivery to them of the second prime necessity of life to the extent of almost a million resident inhabitants, and that is certainly all the excuse which could warrant a representative of the people in casting an affirmative vote in favor of the passage of this bill.

Gentlemen of the committee, I thank you.

From my own investigations, which have now been in progress, off and on, for more than two years, I am convinced that the Hetch Hetchy is much the best mountain source for the San Francisco District, and I am also convinced that the city in course of its development of works for water supply will make the Hetch Hetchy valley more beautiful, and a far more useful instrument of pleasure than it is today...

What one finds there today is beautiful, but it is relatively tame in comparison with the far more grand and varied Yosemite.

The flooding of the valley floor, giving in its place a deeply sheltered lake with an outlet so planned that the bottom could never again become uncovered, would present features different from anything found in the Yosemite or elsewhere in California. The flooding of the margins and the stocking of the lake with trout would cure the mosquito pest and would thus double and perhaps treble the length of the season in which one can visit the valley in pleasure.

...it can be proved that by taking any source for its future water supply other than those found above the Hetch Hetchy, Eleanor, Cherry and Poopenaut reservoir sites, the San Francisco District would waste certainly more than ten million dollars; ultimately perhaps more than thirty million dollars,....and it is a matter of plain common sense that an extra burden of ten or twenty or thirty million dollars should not be placed on the tax payers and other citizens of the cities around San Francisco Bay merely to satisfy the peculiar views of a few solitude lovers or in order to meet the unreasonable demands of some sentimentalists who have been led astray by misstatements of the case and who have had no direct knowledge of the facts.

The better part of the world is beginning to know that beauty plays an important part in human progress, and that regarded even from the lowest financial standpoint it is one of the most precious and productive assets any country can posses.

Most of our forests have already vanished in lumber and smoke, mostly smoke. Fortunately the Federal Government is now faithfully protecting and developing nearly all that is left of our forest and stream resources; nor even these money-mad commercial days have our beauty resources been altogether forgotten. Witness the magnificent wild parks of the West, set apart and guarded for the highest good of all, and the thousands of city parks make to satisfy the natural taste and hunger for landscape beauty that God in some measure has put into every human being.

Timber and water are universal wants, and of course the Government is aware that no scheme of management of the public domain failing to provide for them can possibly be maintained. But, however abundantly supplied from legitimate sources, every national park is besieged by thieves and robbers and beggars with all sorts of plans and pleas for possession of some coveted treasure of water, timber, pasture, rights of way, etc. Nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded. Thus the Yosemite Park, the beauty glory of California and the nation, nature's own mountain wonderland, has been attacked by spoilers ever since it was established, and this strife I suppose must go on as part of the eternal battle between right and wrong. At present the San Francisco board of supervisors and certain monopolizing capitalists are trying to get the Government's permission to dam and destroy Hetch Hetchy, the Tuolumne, Yosemite Valley, for a reservoir, simply that comparatively private gain may be made out of universal public loss.

Should this wonderful valley be submerged as proposed, not only would it be made utterly inaccessible, but the sublime Tuolumne Canyon way to the heart of the high Sierra would be hopelessly closed. None, as far as I have learned, of the thousands who have visited the park, is in favor of this destructive and wholly unnecessary water scheme. Very few of the statements made by the applicants are even partly true.
Thus, Hetch Hetchy, they say, is "a low-lying meadow." On the contrary, it is a high-lying natural landscape garden. "It is a common minor feature, like thousands of others." On the contrary, it is a very uncommon feature, and after Yosemite, the rarest, most beautiful, and in many ways the most important feature of the park. "Damming it would enhance its beauty." As well say damming New York's Central Park would enhance its beauty. "Hetch Hetchy water is the purest and the only available source of supply for San Francisco." It is not the purest, because it drains a pleasure ground visited by hundreds of campers with their animals every season, and soon these hundreds will be thousands. And there are many other adequate and available sources of supply, though probably they would be somewhat more costly; and so with all their bad, cunning arguments, boldly advanced under the general ignorance of the subject.

John Muir

THE HETCH HETCHY SCHEME

Why It Should Not Be Rushed Through the Extra Session

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Fellow-Owners of the Yosemite National Park:

For twelve years the city of San Francisco has been trying to obtain from the Government the gift of the wonderful Hetch Hetchy Valley, eighteen miles from the Yosemite Valley and one of the chief attractions of the greatest of your National Parks. The plea has been that the Hetch Hetchy is the only available source of water supply for the city--this being the only plausible reason for the scheme, which involves the destruction of the valley, by flooding it as a reservoir, and the exclusion of the public from two of the three chief camping-places amid this phenomenally beautiful scenery, and from access to twenty miles of the most remarkable cascades in the world. The language of hyperbole is the only appropriate medium to describe the features of your Yosemite National Park. Better that there had never been a Niagara than that the northern half of the Park should thus be diverted from the use of the public. The Hetch Hetchy is a veritable temple of the Living God, and again the money-changers are in the temple!

For these twelve years a few public-spirited men in California and elsewhere, led by John Muir, "California's grand old man," and supported by eight or ten national organizations, have succeeded in thwarting this project. Their attitude is not quixotic. They say: If San Francisco could nowhere else obtain an abundant supply of good water, supreme necessity would require that the valley should be placed at its disposal. But they claim that not until the city has demonstrated that the supply cannot be obtained from any other source should any concession be made to its demands. And they further claim that the city is under obligations to prove this negative--that the Hetch Hetchy is not merely desirable, but that it is absolutely necessary. The importance of the reasons for dismembering your Park must be equal to the importance of the reasons for its creation. And the reasons for dismembering it must not be accepted as final when they come from the party in interest. Otherwise we shall pay too high a price for San Francisco's water.

I wish to call your attention to some aspects of this project that amount to a scandal. Its proponents have been defeated four times--once before Secretary Hitchcock of the Interior Department, again before the Senate Committee on Public Lands in 1909--10, again before Secretary Ballinger, and again before Secretary Fisher. Secretary Lane has refused to take the responsibility of applying first to the Hetch Hetchy the revocable grant given by Secretary Garfield, and even Mr. Garfield thought that by compelling the city first to take the Lake Eleanor watershed (which it could have without opposition) the Hetch Hetchy would never be in danger. The city, by which is meant its supervisors, taking advantage of the announcement that no general legislation would be considered at the extra session, and the fact that the opponents were therefore off their guard--many being absent or ill--have invented an "emergency" and with the aid of salaried officials who have been at Washington for several months, and, with a fund of $45,000,000 (water-supply bond issue of 1910) to draw upon for expenses, are endeavoring to rush through a drastic measure that would turn over to the city five hundred square miles--half your National Park. The scandal consists in these facts: (1) That the appeal is made on ex parte evidence furnished by the city and not fully verified by the Advisory Board of Army Engineers appointed by Secretary Fisher, and (2) that in presenting data to this Board the city actually withheld a report showing that the Mokelumne River region will afford abundant resources at a smaller expense.
Before considering this other source of supply, let me cite two damaging statements of a general nature. At the hearing before the Public Lands Committee of the Senate, Mr. Nelson of Minnesota in the chair, Mr. McCutcheon said to Mr. James D. Phelan, then and now the most conspicuous advocate of the scheme, substantially this:
"You know, Mr. Phelan, that you could go out over night anywhere along the Sierra and get an abundant supply of pure water for the city."

"Yes," said Mr. Phelan, "by paying for it."

And Mr. Manson (another advocate) echoed, "Yes, by paying for it."

This is matter of record and has never been disputed. It shows that the object of the scheme is to get something for nothing--the simplest sort of a commercial "grab". The nation is called upon to make sacrifice of its noblest pleasure ground, not to save the lives or the health of San Franciscans but their dollars--and, moreover, to supply water not merely for drinking but for power!

Again, the report of the Army Board states the belief of its members that the city's reports on other sources besides the Sacramento and the Tuolumne (Hetch Hetchy) are not thorough and complete, "due largely, it is thought, to the lack of importance and impracticability, from the point of view of the city authorities, of any source of supply other than the upper Tuolumne." This report was made on the order of the Interior Department that the city should investigate and report on all possible available sources. It has not done so in good faith. This report of the Army Board, it is understood, was drawn up by H. H. Wadsworth, Assistant Engineer and Secretary of the Board, who on July 1, 1913, said he had not seen the elaborate report favorable to the Mokelumne River region known as the Bartell report, and added: "I am very confident that no such report was submitted to the Board." This is confirmed by Colonel Biddle, chairman of the Board, in a telegram to me.

The plain fact is that the Bartell report to the city of April, 1912, though it was made for the city, proved an obstacle to the theories and purposes of the supervisors, and therefore was withheld by them from the Army Board, substitution being made of a report after a brief investigation by Engineer Grunsky (July, 1912), placing the resources of the Mokelumne at 60,000,000 instead of 432,000,000 gallons daily! This withholding constitutes an important suppression of the truth, and was a wrong to the Board, to the city's expert (Mr. Freeman), to the members of both Houses of Congress, and to every other American citizen.

If the legislation is not railroaded through Congress, an even fuller report of the Mokelumne resources than that of the Engineer Bartell will be presented, along with an offer of rights and sites, by the Sierra Blue Lakes and Water Power Co.

The advantages claimed for this source over that of Hetch Hetchy are:
• (1) It would obviate the invasion of your National Park.
• (2) It would save seventy miles of tunneling, much of it through solid rock.
• (3) It would be a shorter route by sixty-five miles.
• (4) It could be completed in four years, as against the ten needed to make Hetch Hetchy available.
• (5) Its owners will offer it to the city at a price to be arbitrated.
• (6) Its watershed is virtually in a Forest Reserve (not a National Park) and thus is more fully protected than a scenic resort like Hetch Hetchy.

The fact is that with the $45,000,000 at their command, the city made a most elaborate investigation of the source desired, and very inadequate investigation of all but one of the others. A Congressional investigation may be necessary to reveal whether there was any sinister reason for this attitude.

The country ought to know that the grant to the city would do an immeasurable wrong to the residents of California's greatest valley, the San Joaquin. Without water this valley is almost a desert; with water it is a paradise. This central valley of California should have prior claim on the water. I well know the purposes of Congress in creating the Yosemite National Park, for I was the only person who advocated it before the Public Lands Committee of the House in 1890. These were primarily to preserve the great scenery for the use and recreation of the whole nation, to defend the forests against destruction by herds of sheep--"hoofed locusts," as Mr. Muir called them--and to conserve the waters of the region for purposes of irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley. The residents in that valley are overwhelmingly against this legislation, and although the city seems to have arranged with the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation representatives, the people are not satisfied. This is particularly true of the Waterford region and other large regions dependent for prosperity on the Yosemite Park sources. In order to silence the opposition of the irrigation interests the city's agents have agreed to divide with them the waters of the coveted valley. The spectacle of thus parceling out the resources of one of God's most beautiful creations has had no counterpart since the casting of lots for the raiment of Jesus.

In the face of these facts, where is the "emergency" requiring the passage of this piece of inexcusable folly? There is an emergency, but it lies in the other direction: the emergency is that unless as American citizens you protest to your representatives in both houses of Congress, your great National Park is likely to be lost to you and your descendants forever. Yosemite Valley will become "the back door of San Francisco," and a precedent will be established under which all your other National Parks will become the loot of corporations, private or municipal. The pretense of the supervisors is that there is a shortage of water--this in the face of a reserve of 100,000,000 gallons per day of the local water company, to which Lobos creek and the wells of the city can add 8,510,000 gallons, while the water in driven wells is said to be virtually inexhaustible.

But even if there were a shortage, the resources of the Hetch Hetchy ten years from now would not meet the emergency.
I have said nothing here of the offer of the local company, the Spring Valley, to sell to the city all its vested interests and options, which it claims would solve the problem for a hundred years, nor of the desirability of establishing a great filtration scheme, such as London is about to do, abandoning the plan of piping from the Welch mountains. These are pertinent considerations and they are new to the present Congress, and time should be given to them. This piece of vandalism, so repugnant to the enlightened opinion of the country, can only be rushed through by the deference of the judgment of Congress to the statements of interested parties. A complete investigation of other sources (which the Army Board states that it has had neither time nor facilities to make) should be undertaken by an impartial commission.

Col. Heuer, U. S. Engineer, said in 1898: "Engineers who made surveys of Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy inform me that there are other Sierra supplies which can be brought here at much less cost than the Hetch Hetchy. The latter by persistent advocates has been preached, almost forced, into acceptance by the people of San Francisco."
The simple issue is not "Shall San Francisco have a satisfactory water supply?" but "Shall the National Park be dismembered and Hetch Hetchy destroyed unnecessarily?" The report of the Army Board is quoted in favor of the scheme. But it includes the following significant, if not conclusive, paragraph:

"The Board is of the opinion that there are several sources of water supply that could be obtained and used by the City of San Francisco and adjacent communities to supplement the nearby supplies as the necessity develops. From anyone of these sources the water is sufficient in quantity and is, or can be made, suitable in quality. While the engineering difficulties are not insurmountable, the determining factor is one of cost."
In other words, the American people are asked to subsidize the city's water supply to the extent of the money value of Hetch Hetchy and of five hundred square miles of phenomenal scenery. Put up at auction, what would this wonderland bring? "What am I bid," the auctioneer might say, "for one superb valley, twenty miles of unique cascades, half-a-dozen snow peaks, beautiful upland meadows, noble forests, etc., now owned by a gentleman named Uncle Sam, suspected of not being able to administer his own property? Do I hear $20,000,000 to start the bidding? Remember that these natural features are priceless."

Will the reader of these lines also remember that fact?

Citizens, will you not help prevent this outrage by writing in protest, however briefly, to your Senators and Representative, and to Hon. Reed Smoot, U. S. Senate, and Hon. F. W. Mondell, M. C., Washington, D. C., and to the press, and by asking others to do the same? "They have rights who dare maintain them."

Respectfully yours,

Robert Underwood Johnson.
327 Lexington Avenue, New York.
August 1, 1913.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDMUND A. WHITMAN, OF BOSTON, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF NATIONAL PARKS.

Mr. Whitman...Now, to answer the question of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Thomas] as to the need of San Francisco for this water: If you have been to San Francisco, sir, you know that there is a range of mountains close down to the city-the Coast Range-and the present water supply of San Francisco comes from that range. The board of Army engineers report, after their investigations, that the amount of water which can be obtained from that coast range is 233,000,000 gallons daily. Mr. Freeman's report says-

Senator Thomas. Unappropriated for purposes of irrigation?

Mr. Whitman. Unappropriated, and which they can use.

Senator Thomas. At what cost?

Mr. Whitman. I do not think that the cost has been figured, but that water is close at hand and can be obtained by the laying of pipes. There would have to be no long tunnels. It is an extension of the present source which the Spring Valley Co. and which the other company across the bay, the Bay Cities Co., were intending to develop. At any rate, there is at their back door 233,000,000 gallons a day which can be developed. That is mountain water. The present use of San Francisco and the people who live in that neighborhood is not over 100,000,000 gallons a day, so that the immediate supply at home is ample for over two million and a quarter people. There are now 750,000 people in that vicinity. So, sir, what this bill seeks to bring about is not an immediate supply to satisfy an immediate need or an immediate shortage of the city of San Francisco, but to provide for sometime in the distant future when that 233,000,000 gallons a day has been used up, which will be 50 or 60 years from now, according to the engineers. What San Francisco will do at that time they are now asking you to tell them, and they are asking you now to appropriate to them a portion of a national park. Nobody knows how that park will be used at that time, or how many people will be on the floor of the Hetch Hetchy Valley 50 or 60 years from now.

I have said, and I think those with whom I have discussed it have always said, that if San Francisco needs any part of the national domain she ought to have it if she can not get a similar thing elsewhere; but she can get it at home, and the engineers of the local companies were providing for further water, either by going to the San Joaquin or going to the Sacramento.
The idea of mountain water has carried the people away. What is San Francisco asking for? She is not only asking to destroy the large use of this corner of the park, but she is getting an electric power which the engineers estimate is worth $45,000,000, and which Mr. Freeman says in his report is capable of developing 200,000 horsepower. What is it for? Well, they have recently started a municipal electric car line in San Francisco. I have no objection to San Francisco trying any experiment in municipal ownership that they see fit, but not at my expense as a citizen of this country.

Senator Norris. Mr. Whitman, it ought to be said here that the bill requires San Francisco to develop this horsepower.

Mr. Freeman. Certainly, for their own benefit.

Senator Norris. Yes. I think the general opinion is that they ought to be required to develop it, and that is one argument in favor of the proposition. Here is a lot of horsepower going to waste which ought to be developed, and the bill therefore requires San Francisco to develop this horsepower.

Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir; and they get it from the Nation.

Senator Norris. But it goes to the city.

Senator Chamberlain. It goes to the people closest at hand.

Senator Pittman. If the natural resources adjacent to each community were utilized for the benefit of nearly all the people in that community, such a benefit as furnishing with cheap power or furnishing them with cheaper and purer water, would not that be one of the very best uses to which public property could be put?

Mr. Whitman. I think so; yes, sir.

Senator Pittman. Is it not a fact that the water in the Hetch Hetchy will supply $45,000,000 worth of power?

Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir; $45,000,000 worth.

Senator Pittman. It will supply that much power to the adjacent country there. Is not that another great reason why that should be developed, instead of utilizing the coast-range water supply?

Mr. Whitman. If I may answer that, is it not necessary in order to utilize that power to have a dam at Hetch Hetchy. That river is damable downhill for 50 miles. You can build any quantity of dams down below.

Senator Pittman. But you can not from the water supply in the coast range.
Mr. Whitman No; but I mean to say so far as the development of power is concerned that there is on the other rivers in that locality a quantity of power developed now.

Senator Pittman. You were comparing the coast-range water supply with that of the Hetch Hetchy.

Mr. Whitman. I agree that the coast range will supply water for drinking and domestic purposes.

Senator Pittman. You say that this project will flood a valley 2 square miles in extent?

Mr. Whitman Yes, sir.

Senator Pittman. And you know that there are some 1,500 square miles, approximately, in that beautiful Yosemite Valley?

Mr. Whitman. You have never seen it, sir, and I have, and most of it is unusable.

Senator Pittman. You know from the hearings that it contains approximately 1,500 square miles.

Mr. Whitman I have been there twice, but I say most of that 1,500 miles is not usable for camp purposes. It is largely rocky cliffs and mountains sides.

Senator Pittman. Then, as I understand your position, one of the arguments you use is that in order to save 2 square miles of camping ground you would compel the people in the vicinity of this natural resource to use water they would probably have to filter, water that the people of Boston and New York would not use-you would compel those people to go to enormous public utility corporations and buy from them, at whatever price they might ask, coast-range water sources?

Mr. Whitman. No, sir.

Senator Pittman. All for the purpose of preserving 2 square miles or more of this little mountain valley.

Mr. Whitman. No, sir; that is not the proposition.

July 12, 1913

A NATIONAL PARK THREATENED - Editorial

Why the City of San Francisco, with plenty of collateral sources of water supply, should present an emergency measure to the special session of Congress whereby it may invade the Yosemite National Park is one of those Dundrearian things that no fellow can find out. The Hetch Hetchy Valley is described by John Muir as a "wonderfully exact counterpart of the great Yosemite." Why should its inspiring cliffs and waterfalls, its groves and flowery, park-like floor, be spoiled by the grabbers of water and power? The public officials of San Francisco are not even the best sort of politicians; as appraisers and appreciators of natural beauties their taste may be called in question.

It is the aggregation of its natural scenic features, the Secretary of the Interior declared to the would-be invaders of the park when a decade ago they presented their first petition, that "makes the Yosemite Park a wonderland, which the Congress of the United States sought by law to preserve for all coming time." Their application was rejected. Now they have obtained from the Board of Army Engineers a report approving their project as an emergency measure which is based on incomplete, erroneous, and false evidence. The engineers say in their report that they have merely passed on such data as were presented by the officials of San Francisco, since they had neither time nor money to investigate independently the various projects presented. But San Francisco's officials have withheld from these data the report upon the Mokelumne River and watershed submitted April 24, 1912, in which Engineers Bartel and Manson declare that this system is capable of supplying to the City of San Francisco between 280,000,000 and 430,000,000 gallons daily, the larger amount if certain extinguishable rights are disposed of. Even on their insufficient data, the army engineers report that San Francisco's present water supply can be more than doubled by adding to present nearby sources, and more economically than by going to the Sierras.

The suppressed report, showing that the Mokelumne River is a better and cheaper source than the Hetch Hetchy, says that between 600,000,000 and 700,000,000 gallons of water outside the park may be delivered daily into San Francisco and the adjacent bay region, supplying their growing needs for perhaps a century to come. Representative Scott Ferris, Chairman of the Park Lands Committee, has been apprised of the existence of this report. A receipt of the copy is worth waiting for. If the water-power grabbers are put off this session, or two, or three, or many more sessions, before gaining an entrance to the Hetch Hetchy Valley, the dwellers of San Francisco will not go thirsty.

Appalachian Mountain Club,
Boston, Mass., December 15, 1908.

Committee on the Public Lands,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen: Being advised that a hearing is to be granted to-morrow by your committee upon the petition of the city of San Francisco for a confirmation of a grant of flowage rights in certain valleys within the Yosemite National Park, said petition being represented by House Joint Resolution 184 dated May 12, 1908, I beg leave to herewith file with you a protest, on behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club, against this grant and its confirmation.
Permit me to state that I have authority to thus speak on behalf of the club by virtue of a vote passed by our governing board on October 22, 1907. The matter was at that time before the Secretary of the Interior, and a formal protest was filed with him.

Allow me also to state that we are not speaking upon this subject without definite knowledge of the conditions both political and physical. Many of us have visited the Hetch Hetchy Valley, and in fact have traversed the entire length of the Tuolumne Canyon from Soda Springs meadows to Hetch Hetchy. Moreover, we have examined in detail all the printed evidence gathered upon the subject by the Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, who, as Secretary of the Interior, considered this petition in 1902; we have corresponded with the present Secretary of the Interior, with the Chief of the Forest Service, and with prominent citizens of San Francisco and other bay cities upon the matter. The writer has also had personal interviews on two or three occasions with two noted hydraulic engineers who had served as consulting authorities upon this subject of added water supply for San Francisco. We have, in short, taken the utmost pains to inform ourselves as to the merits of both sides of the case, and have kept posted constantly through all the proceedings.

It is our belief that Mr. Hitchcock took the only proper stand upon this petition. It was his endeavor to ascertain whether or no there was any public necessity which would justify him in surrendering to any community special rights which would tend to injure the natural beauties of the park. The act of October, 1890, requires the Secretary of the Interior to "provide for the preservation from injury of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders ... and their retention in their natural condition."

It is true that the act gives him power to make grants such as that now under consideration, but only when it "is not incompatible with the public interest."

Mr. Hitchcock, after taking much testimony, decided that this was not the only reasonable source of water supply for the city, and that he was not justified, therefore, in granting flowage rights which would of necessity involve the mutilation of the natural wonders of the park.

Mr. Garfield, however, declined to rule upon the claim of the city that this was the only reasonable source of water supply, stating that in his judgment "it is sufficient that after careful and competent study the city officials insist that such is the case."

In this we feel that Mr. Garfield erred. What constitutes "careful and competent study?"

Two of the very best authorities on municipal water supply in the country were consulted by the opposing sides in this matter. For the city, Mr. Desmond Fitz Gerald, of Boston, made an examination and report. For the opposition, Mr. Frederick P. Stearns, also of this city, likewise made examination and report. Both engineers considered not only the present water supply but several proposed new supplies among others the Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor watersheds. Mr. Fitz Gerald favored the Tuolumne source, while Mr. Stearns reported that the present supply with the extensions which can readily be made, is in all respects adequate for many years to come.

Was not the study of the opposition therefore equally "careful and competent?"

We would not array ourselves knowingly in opposition to granting any community a proper water supply, but we feel that here is a point of fundamental importance which should be proved beyond peradventure before the Hetch Hetchy grant is confirmed. Is the Tuolumne supply to only reasonable one for San Francisco.

The mere assertion of either side that it is or that it is not, however positively made, should not be accepted as conclusive evidence. It is our hope that your committee will avail itself of the personal testimony of the two engineers named above.

We believe that you will agree with us that the resources of our national parks should not be carelessly opened to exploitation and that you will also appreciate the importance of conserving such notable scenery as these parks contain as national assets of value. Switzerland long ago appreciated the commercial and sanitary value of scenery and legislated for its conservation to her great and lasting profit. Our people are more and more coming to appreciate the value of their national scenic treasures. The Yosemite Park is year by year visited by increasing numbers. An examination of the recent reports of the superintendent of the park will show that the tide of travel has greatly increased there since the completion of the railroad to El Portal. The hotels in the main valley are already inadequate, and camping parties find it increasingly difficult to securities.

Hetch Hetchy Valley is admitted to be a natural wonder, but little inferior to the Yosemite proper, while the Tuolumne Canyon, through which flows and plunges the main river from the great mountain meadows at Soda Springs, is one of the big natural features of the Sierra and of the park.

The old Yosemite is soon to prove inadequate in every way to keep the throngs that will journey to those mountain regions. With better roads to Soda Springs and to Hetch Hetchy the present pressure upon Yosemite will be relieved. Civil engineers who are members of this club and who have recently traveled over the trails of the park, state that it would be a comparatively simple matter to thus open up those sections to the public. The public merely awaits the facilities. With a reservoir at Hetch Hetchy one of these great camping grounds will be extinguished, and the scenery which would attract the people thence will, in our opinion, be seriously marred. We are unable to agree with those who profess to think that a vast artificial lake, subject to heavy drafts by the water users and by evaporation in dry summers, with the attendant bare and slimy shores, will prove equally attractive to those who seek relaxation amid pleasant scenes.

It is even doubtful if the users of the water would long allow the camping upon those shores of hundreds of tourists and their animals, owing to the danger of the contamination of the supply. And will not the same hold true of the camping privilege in the Tuolumne Canyon and on the mountain meadows above? The tendency of water boards everywhere is to relieve the watersheds under their care of even a suspicion of a contaminating influence.
We regret that we are unable to be personally represented at the hearing, but we trust that this letter may be allowed to go in as a part of your record, and that your committee will take no hasty action upon the petition of the city.

Respectfully,

Allen Chamberlain,
Councillor of Exploration and Forestry.