How San Francisco Stole Hetch Hetchy

[@NationalParkDiaries]

SAN FRANCISCANS! I'd love to know where you stand on this issue. Are you pro-dam or anti-dam? Perhaps somewhere in between? Let me know below 👇🏻

[@highalpine7321]

They voted not long ago. Id like to see how a statewide vote would go.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

@@highalpine7321 I'm not sure how that would work legally, but I'd be interested in seeing California's opinion on this issue as a whole.

[@Zt3v3]

I don't live in The City anymore but It's way down the list of priorities in my opinion. We have finite resources and a huge list of problems to solve.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for a local perspective. Do you mind if I ask, if resources weren't an issue, how you would feel about it?

[@bassman87]

The Don Pedro Dam is down stream of Hetch hetchy and for at least the last decade or two has always been under capacity. Additionally, the outlet pipes heading to San Francisco from Hetch hetch run along the south side of that reservoir. Removing the Hetch hereby dam and capturing that water at Don Pedro and then pumping that water into the existing pipes would: 1) allow for the restoration of the Hetch Hetchy Valley. 2) Allow San Francisco access to the same Tuolumne River water that they currently have. 3) Allow San Francisco to gain access to the much larger watershed that flows into Don Pedro reservoir, rather than just the watershed above the hetch hetchy valley. 3a) would provide some stabilization to the water available to San Francisco as we continue to observe more sporadic snowpacks in the Sierras.

[@LeeHawkinsPhoto]

What’s really incredible is that you only scratched the surface on all the violations of the Raker Act. The hydroelectric power was supposed to run a public utility for the city…annnd the electricity gets sold instead at a ridiculously low price to a private utility who then sells it at a profit. There’s a LOT of funny business with the Raker Act & O’Shaughnessy Dam…I didn’t even know about how SF balked on the infrastructure in the park. I finally got to see the valley myself last fall…the road to get there is pretty awful. It’s all very perfunctory what public access there is. I too would love to see that Valley restored.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Yep, you're absolutely right! There's so much more to the Raker Act Violations that didn't make the final cut, but they're still a very important part of the story.

[@BLUEBIRD-1960]

About 30 years ago I took a solo hike around the perimeter in one day. I hope that in my lifetime the Dam is removed and Hetch Hetchy is allowed the opportunity to be restored by natural forces once again.

[@0.-.0]

@Buckwheat Hikes what the hell are you actually talking about lmfao

[@skippayless4357]

Missed a prime opportunity to say “But this project wasn’t just going to go ahead without a hitch hitchy”

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Haha, you're totally right! Unfortunately, I'm terrible at puns lol

[@johnchedsey1306]

California's various projects to secure water for cities could and does fill volumes of books. Utterly fascinating stuff. And their efforts to somehow continue maintaining their state's water supply over the few decades may prove equally fascinating. Diane Feinstein is now riddled with dementia and shouldn't be serving in the senate any more. Just as an aside. (And for the record, I'm not a republican, just a little appalled that we probably have dozens of equally impaired senior citizens running the federal government)

[@thelonelyphish]

It has indeed filled books, gotta recommend Cadillac Desert

[@Korina42]

@@thelonelyphish I was going to bring that up. Excellent read, quite the page-turner. Have you also read the author's A Dangerous Place? It made sure I will *never* live anywhere near the Bay Area. 😮Well, that and the cost of housing. 🙃

[@thelonelyphish]

@@Korina42 I'll have to give it a read, counter to what Cadillac Desert described about the modern Owen's Valley I still want to move there so maybe that book will make me want to move to the Bay Area too lol

[@Korina42]

@@thelonelyphish Not with the 110 Freeway running along a significant portion of the Hayward Fault (which runs through the Stanford stadium).

[@thelonelyphish]

@@Korina42 I'd rather deal with earthquakes than hurricanes and tornadoes but yeah, I prefer when those fault lines are at least like 50 miles away

[@regantrotter6888]

Thanks for producing this video. My perspective coming from New Zealand 🇳🇿 at the bottom of the globe. Water is an issue worldwide, that is only going to become more precious. It's about time we look globally at the true costs of all aspects of life. Growing crops in arid areas, building cities in deserts and having a throw away mentality. Not an easy process, and one that will not get politicians re-elected.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for watching! I think you're spot on when it comes to rethinking how we use water (and other resources) for the future.

[@StuffandThings_]

Just remember that New Zealand killed off a staggering percentage of its geothermal features for geothermal energy, quite a few of the volcanic cones in Auckland were literally removed to make room for development, and 97% of the Kauri forest was destroyed for timber and farmland. Oh, and damming the Waikato was a massive mistake. New Zealand's hands are far from clean on environmental issues, although the modern stance seems to be quite respectable compared to most of the world.

[@mustangracer5124]

They have internet manipulated elections now.. you can't 'vote them out'

[@geogypsytraveler]

Once again, a sad story well told. Glad I found this one.

[@bajaboy27]

Hey, hey! You didn't just find it! 🤪 Lol

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for watching. A sad story indeed and yet another lesson to be learned. These seem to pop up on the channel often lol 😅

[@tonics7121]

Enjoying and appreciating all the great info.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks so much for your support - it means a lot!

[@JenWitsShamanicPractitioner]

Great context and history. I like learning about the progressive movement's orginins and that of utilitarian conservationists. thank you!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for watching! I felt those were important pieces of this story. A lot of the decisions made with regard to Hetch Hetchy can be boiled down to the philosophies of those two movements.

[@ADAMJWAITE]

Just don't confuse the progressive's movements of yesterday with those of today.

[@RichardRoy2]

We, as a species, don't seem to be able to consider the way that nature had settled arguments between gravity, chemistry, and any other phenomenon that went to build the landscape and the cycles of life. At least, not without placing themselves at the head as its benefactor. Often, as you pointed out, it's the immediate, short term gain that takes precedence. The rational of persuading the authorities that a reservoir could be used for recreation was unrealistic. It was a pretense. There is a real problem of life in that it will always expand to the level resources allow. And it will always reach an equilibrium. There are two things particularly interesting about that point of equilibrium. One is that it is not a pleasant place to be. It is a constant battleground of take and being taken, where the fight is for resources that are just sufficient to maintain subsistence. Any gains made are at the expense of another, which causes shifting in the equation. I'd read somewhere that the planet's biomass remains relatively constant for the conditions. So, as we expand, as a species, we shift that biomass to serve us. And biodiversity suffers for it. If we keep going, we could be wiped out easily by any opportunistic disease that strikes, either us directly, or a critical element that supports us. So the arguments that we're often proffered are not of the minutia of biology, but power brokerage. "You support the damn, and we'll support you profiting off recreation." Whatever is not useful to a profiteer is wasteland. And the primary timeline is the lifetime of the profiteer, or their legacy. So the battle seems to be against those who "want more now." The more I think of it, the more I wonder, as a species that cannot see beyond immediate needs, how do you fight that? We're talking about large populations that create circumstances that only get noticed after they become dire. Sure, the science is there, and there are those who understand the problem from the deeper perspective, but the psychology of the population doesn't seem to operate on that level. I guess I'm at a loss.

[@davidgrisez]

This video brings up the fact that Yosemite National in the past had not one but two spectacular valleys. These valleys were Yosemite Valley and Hetch Hetchy Valley. As we all know Hetch Hetchy was made into a big water reservoir so that the city of San Francisco would have a water supply. Hetch Hetchy is still a controversial subject. There are plenty of people that would like to see Hetch Hetchy restored to its original state.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

That's right. In my opinion, there's a serious argument to be made that the dam should never have been built in the first place, and even after its construction, that San Francisco was not abiding by the terms of the agreement.

[@honeysucklecat]

It still has those valleys, it’s just one is off limits to people, one is trashed.

[@dapeach06]

@@honeysucklecat what? You can go to Hetch Hetchy, you just can't swim in the reservoir itself. There are fantastic trails in Hetch Hetchy

[@Boxpsring]

Yes, thank you. I too watched the video.

[@LoganCharlesII]

"He died, reportedly, from a broken heart. "

[@starfilmsanimation]

Hetch Hetchy reminds me of Glen Canyon and both are terribly sad losses

[@NationalParkDiaries]

It's funny you should say that because I'm working on a Glen Canyon video next. That issue is basically a continuation of this one. But yes, both terrible injustices for our parks...

[@johnchedsey1306]

Glen Canyon, in some respects, feels worse to me because at that point there really wasn't a genuine need for the dam. But the Bureau of Reclamation was high on their horse and wanted to flex one more massive dam project. The fact Lake Powell is at historic lows demonstrates that it probably makes more sense to store as much water as possible in Lake Mead, not two reservoirs.

[@at1970]

Glen canyon is reappearing. As the drought continues it will come back no matter what the developers want.

[@kawythowy867]

I watched this ‘National parks video’ and watched this whole thing unfold. It was heart breaking. Muir was a great man.

[@AbouttheJourney]

Awesome video! You've covered this subject quite well and you got your quote of Feinstein spot on in this video, however, I'd like to see this, and several other dams (like Glen Canyon) removed. Thanks for reminding us about some of our historical blunders. - Mike

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Agreed! These structures are holdovers from a different time and a different way of thinking about our natural resources. I think we can learn a lot from these mistakes and chart a different course for the future. Especially with Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon, both of which have viable alternative proposals.

[@TheBoatPirate]

@@NationalParkDiaries i agree with removing these things. but im pretty sure along with these, about 3/4s of the population of the southwest would have to go with them. unfortunately there are many snowflakes that have a meltdown if you even bring it up. i say, GO MELT.

[@ADAMJWAITE]

@@NationalParkDiaries Ok, I'll play. Let's hear what the viable alternatives are?

[@fishfoolishness4222]

Adam you are correct. There are NO viable alternatives. Removing these dams at this point would make environmentalists happy but would cause a human disaster the likes of which we have never experienced. Mistakes were made in the past but pretending we can correct them by removing this massive infrastructure that benefits so many is just insane.

[@TheBoatPirate]

@@ADAMJWAITE get some billionaires to quit being billionaires by building mega scale desalination plants all up and down the coast. of course that also means developing fusion power to run said project. i bet the people who built this would be remembered for millennia

[@goneham4015]

I was always fascinated by this topic, thank you for making this video!

[@easyteh4getperson]

as a born and raised san franciscan, i didnt even know hetch hetchy was controversial but it doesnt surprise me. LA also stole water so it makes sense that SF would do the same. i think the big difference is that SF also uses other sources of water, at least 3 others. HH is still one of big providers of water though and prob reliable because of the snow melt (bay area only gets rainfall from nov-may if we're lucky, most years are shorter). 2022 winter rainfall was great and overflowed all the bay area reservoirs but it did cause landslides and the usual flooding that happens when it rains heavily. personally, i dont have a strong stance but i do love my tap water. i wouldn't know how we would replace the water HH provides.

[@tankfighter2767]

I had never heard of this heart wrenching story, thank you for such an informative video

[@NationalParkDiaries]

You're very welcome!

[@esleyhamilton4056]

This is really outstanding, providing an excellent context for decisions that otherwise seem solely based on greed. I hope that the story of what happened to the Hetch Hetchy will be more widely told so that it can never be forgotten again.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks so much for watching and I agree!

[@dr.tobiasgoodfellow5174]

While I’m sure this video is correct on many things, it omits the fact, spoken by someone who knows, that there are many trails to hike/backpack in hetch hetchy. While the valley might have been beautiful to look upon, the real action is above the valley. I have backpacked 3 times at hetch hetchy, including my only solo trip and a 5 day loop. So other than the valley being flooded, there is still opportunities to recreate in hetch hetchy.

[@mrabrasive51]

I backpacked thru there many times in the 70's..its beautiful just the way it is..California is in no position to eliminate a major water source..

[@paullehrbmx]

@@mrabrasive51 california never should've been developed to it's current state either

[@fastinradfordable]

@@mrabrasive51 and they’re in no position to properly apologize for paying millions for native scalps. Doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to lose everything

[@johnlucier5654]

@@fastinradfordable youre sick.

[@johnlucier5654]

@@paullehrbmx so what are you going to accomplish?

[@davidnewkirk2438]

Wow I had no idea of this story! It’s truly scandalous. Thanks so much for putting a great video together

[@NationalParkDiaries]

You're very welcome, thanks for watching! Hetch Hetchy is one of those big park issues I knew I really wanted to cover on the channel - such a travesty.

[@andybaldman]

This is a great video! And channel! You should have way more views. This is really great work. Can’t wait to check out your other videos. Thanks for your time and care in making these.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for watching! This community has been growing slowly but surely and I'm just glad there's a group of people out there who want to learn about and engage with me on these issues!

[@ian_davidson]

Crazy how good these videos are and how low the views are! This channel is bound to blow up!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Hahaha, thank you! I'm excited with what we're building here, thanks for watching!

[@ajmksmsc2652]

Thank you for such a thorough, informational video!!!!!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thank you for watching it!

[@RelativeMotionCC]

My new favorite channel, keep up the good work 😎

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Will do, thanks for your support!

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

Part of what you said about access to Hetch Hetchy and it never being done reminds of how I feel about Alaska. There are millions of acres of land there that are locked away from the people. There are no access roads it trails nothing. A few places can be reached by bush planes that can land on water but the vast majority of it are inaccessible.

[@JeepCherokeeful]

And the USA government burned all “unauthorized” structures during the Obama administration, severely limiting what access there was;(

[@ADAMJWAITE]

Are you implying that this is a good or a bad thing? Also, have you spent any time living in and getting to know the native people?

[@fastinradfordable]

California paid Millions for Native American scalps. Not long ago.

[@Korina42]

And that's a bad thing how...?

[@bookbeing]

Denali park is an example. You can't drive your own vehicle on most of the existing roads into and within the park.

[@malafunkshun8086]

Well researched, and well presented! Mahalo for sharing this important ‘olelo (history)! Aloha 😊🤙🏼👏🏼

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for watching!

[@davidterrie7661]

I was shocked to find I could not take my canoe out on the water.

[@oldschoolman1444]

The cause of the natural resources problem is overpopulation and the continuous economic growth model, it just doesn't work!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

I agree in the sense that there's a disconnect between the way we value natural resources and the way we value economic growth. My personal opinion is that these things are not mutually exclusive and that it's possible to value the natural world while still maintaining a nice standard of living.

[@charlesmanning3454]

You are right. There are good reasons to think the population will stabilize but economic growth, continual expansion, is built into the system and our values. Every generation wants more than previous. Whether that is the way it should be or not is a matter of opinion. Whether it can be that way runs up against the fact that nothing grows forever.

[@StuffandThings_]

Yup. Humanity has a thirst for exponentiation in a universe built for equilibrium. Continued population growth and economic growth are simply not possible in the long term, but fools will fight as hard as they can to keep the trend going well beyond its natural limits. Nature will be the main casualty and the future will be dystopian indeed if we don't get our act together. Pretty much anything over 1 billion people is remarkably unsustainable. Dams in the desert is just one of the more obvious bits to the problem.

[@heartoftherobot]

High quality content right here!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thank you!

[@adamcox1809]

Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon need to be restored.

[@Boxpsring]

Glen Canyon is well on the way to restoring itself.

[@2unknown]

Add in Owens Valley too!

[@broadh2o980]

@@2unknown you'd need to get rid of about half of LA's population to do that. The sad reality is that millions rely on these robbed features of ecology and there is no feasible way to just bring them back

[@tmarkcommons174]

I just finished hiking from the dam to Tuolomne, then Yosemite Valley. I got a fully submerged swim in a granite stream or river with aerated waterfall-water each day for nine days. I am 67-years-old and a lifetime, Sierra hiker. I have always advocated making the back country as accessible as possible for the most people; even putting mule-supplied, "Hi Sierra Camps" on the John Muir Trail so that people who cannot carry backpacks can experience it. (There are plenty of other trails for those of us who like to get completely away from people.) BUT, I think that John Muir would be pleased that Yosemite Valley was developed so that people could enjoy it using cars and Hetch Hetchy was preserved for nothing but backpackers. Ironically, it was the dam that did that. And keep those boats out! Boats would bring shoreline development and city people who do not understand wilderness. And finish that trail from Rancheria Falls to Pate Valley! Removing the dam could not be justified unless the valley was going to be developed for tourism, like Yosemite Valley. That would not be an improvement. Improve those trails and make it a world class, destination shrine to backpacking in perpetuity.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for your perspective! From my own point of view, having the dam/reservoir there has already removed anything "wild" about Hetch Hetchy Valley (it's one of the few places in the park not designated as an "official" wilderness). If the dam were to be removed and Hetch Hetchy were to become more accessible, I doubt it would turn into another Yosemite Valley. Our understanding of parks and how we manage them has fundamentally changed since Yosemite was first developed and I think an undammed Hetch Hetchy would still be an excellent escape, for backpackers and others.

[@tmarkcommons174]

@@NationalParkDiaries It could be done well. No matter how many people are in YV I still love ending a trip there and walking the valley and having dinner at the Ahwahnee before taking the bus home. I just cannot be anymore unhappy in Hetch Hetchy than I would be if it were a natural lake.

[@esco51030]

San Francisco, still full of people bottling their own farts for recreational use.

[@hansthecat]

Thanks!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thank you! I really appreciate the support!

[@akaasianguy]

Dam good video.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks!

[@sethhuyett6539]

Check my math, but the amount of drinking water available depends on rain/snow that falls in the area, which will remain the same with or without the dam. It seems to me that the dam gets SF water quality, and (looks it up real quick) 385 MW of electrical generating capacity. Yeah, I say pull the dam. I grew up on Colorado River water, pulled from downstream of where Las Vegas dumps its treated sewage. San Franciscans can afford to buy Brita water filters like the rest of us.

[@jasonreed7522]

I always find it strange how cities brag about unfiltered water. Especially when it is literally lake water filled with sediment, leaves/organic material, plankton, fishpoop ect, it seems like it should always need to be filtered before chlorination (litterally just bleach) if you are using surface waters which is most cities. And since i grew up on a well i have to use a zero water filter to fix the taste of my city tap water, my parents just use a brita charcoal filter for well water. (Inherently filtered by the ground) My concern with pulling the dam now is that the damage has been done and the valley is now a lakebed ecosystem that won't be pretty when dried up and will take some time to recolonize and reach old growth. Not to mention the lost clean power capacity that will probably get replaced by nat gas. I suppose they could convert to a "run of the river" system and maintain the electric generation but lose the ability to control its rate via impoundment.

[@Chris-ut6eq]

We need some law profs and students to build a case for this then see if something could be brought to court, assuming non compliance is true. SF city should be held up to the standard of opening trails, roads around the watershed. Keep in mind, if the area was opened to tourists, the public might take much more interest in this issue. Right now, the city's non-compliance is unknown, forgotten and not well understood.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

To my knowledge, SF has been brought to court before for its handling of the power Hetch Hetchy generates. The book "Dam! Water, Power, Politics, and Preservation in Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite National Park" has a couple of great chapters about it. Several other lawsuits have also been rejected so far: www.sfexaminer.com/news/state-supreme-court-rejects-restore-hetch-hetchy-lawsuit/

[@honeysucklecat]

I’m finding it a bit depressing how everyone still only sees the world as something for humans to exploit. Keeping it a watershed free from humans sounds like a smart idea. Let the deer and bears and trees enjoy it people free. Look at how trashed the other valley is.

[@michaelrichardson5505]

One can only hope that the dam, by some miraculous act of mother nature would somehow be removed and the valley and all things downstream from it would naturally be returned to its former glory. Realistically this will eventually happen Whether by earthquake or meteor. It would just be nice if humans got to enjoy the valley again before we become extinct again.

[@erinmac4750]

One positive about SF hoarding this area is that it has been kept quite primitive. I did Census work in that area, much of which is only a credible by Forest Service roads. If you want to see wilderness, this is one area that has quite a bit of it. However, there are "private" lands that are locked off mixed in. I'm not sure if companies leased rights or something to be able to do that. It just adds another level of caution needed to avoid trespassing. Based on my experience, I would recommend Tuolumne County and the area between the 108 and 120 for spectacular day trips and exploring. ✌️😎🍀

[@mkay1957]

Much of that private land was homesteaded before Yosemite became a national park.

[@erinmac4750]

@@mkay1957 That may be. From what I observed, there were a number of large corporations that owned the land. I'm not sure for what purpose, mining, timber, water, grazing, or something else. It was just a bummer to find large swathes of beautiful forest fenced off.

[@mkay1957]

@@erinmac4750 There are who own mining rights that go back to the 1850s, and the people who own that land incorporate to discharge liability in case someone comes onto their land and gets hurt or killed doing something stupid. There is no logging or grazing in national parks like there is in national forests, the exception being some limited salvage logging after wildfires, or to clear out excess trees. The people who own that land surrounded by national forests do have the right to graze livestock as long as they keep their livestock on their land, and any mining there is would only be small scale recreational mining and no industrial scale mining on those properties. If you drive on the road from Yosemite Valley south to Wawona, you will see a number of homes that are on small private pieces of property.

[@mkay1957]

@@erinmac4750 Erin, the City of SF only owns the area immediately adjacent to the dam and everything else is national park, although SF does help maintain the road from 120 to the dam. And as I said earlier, the land fenced off really is private land. Not "private" in parenthesis. From what I understand, all of the private land surrounded by the national park predate the establishment of Yosemite National Park.

[@clonescope2433]

I don't think dams are necessarily, they can create whole new ecosystem uses for humans. But at the same time if not done properly it destroys an ecosystem and resources for humans as well. A great example of dams being mostly good for the environment is awesome California the diamond valley reservoir/lake, it was created as a way to give people in the surrounding valleys of Hemet, Menifee, Perris, Temecula, a local source of water for many applications including irrigation, drinking, and to maintain the balance of some natural lakes, when Excavating the site they found several fossils ranging from more recent creatures all the way back to Mammoth, and they put the project on hold and excavated as many as they could to help bring an understanding to the area's ecological past, and it was discovered that at one point before it became a shrubland it was home to a forest and a lake, an area that the reservoir was to be built was also known to flood and form a lake temporarily. So excavation was done of fossils they continued on with the project, constructing three Earthen dams, including the largest Earthworks project in the history of the United States. That's due to its location the type of dam that was used it has created an ecosystem along the Peaks and rim that makeup the shore of the reservoir.

[@jasonreed7522]

Exactly, dams don't have to be bad but they do convert a river ecosystem to a lake ecosystem which won't always be to the greater enviroment's benefit. But they also have much utility to humans as water storage, clean electricity, flood control, and recreation. I think the worst part of this dam is that it's resevoir was promised to be recreational (like lake Mead or lake St. Lawrence) but the city shirked their legal mandate to actually open up the area for recreation. Granted building dams in national parks isn't exactly a good way to open up new sources of recreation considering you already had a preserved forrest for recreation in.

[@Papershields001]

All the people who support the dam need to go and spend a few months in our national parks and then ask them if they’re okay with destroying one to build a dam.

[@ravenwing199]

Its not destroyed though. Yes it may well take century to return to its proper state but the land is drowned in trash and humans.

[@stump1897]

You know what’s dumb? Living in cities in an aid reason and expecting to have enough water to survive. Sort of like living in the upper Midwest and cursing snow.

[@dr.floridaman4805]

all these yanks curse my humidity. when a hurricane hits and their without air conditioning for 12 days they will move. Florida is FREEDOM

[@duarte1082]

Agree

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

Do you mean arid? I would include the biggest example of this in the city of Las Vegas. Middle of a desert and they have massive fountains in front of casinos. Also millions of homes and thousands of hotel rooms and countless swimming pools and golf courses. Stupid.

[@chaklee435]

bad analogy. Funny that you mention the Midwest - it would be dumb to stand on the shores of the Great Lakes and wonder if there is enough fresh water in the area.

[@schweedies4597]

You know what's dumb? Blaming people born in the desert which they didnt choose, for wanting to have water.

[@offgridhomesteadingmcgarve1494]

Very informative video. Thanks for sharing. California has plenty of shady deals. This is just one of many. I contain my own water so I don’t have to rely on anyone.

[@GiordanDiodato]

every state has it. PA and Marcellus Shale comes to mind

[@fastinradfordable]

All water is connected

[@paulmentzer7658]

The worse part of Hetch Hetchy was California water problem is primarily SOUTH of both San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy (75 % of all rainfall in California falls north of Sacramento which is on that same line). Thus San Francesco (unlike Los Angles) has other sources of water, mostly to its north so water could be obtain at very similar costs to getting water from Hetch Hetchy. San Francesco wanted a large single source of water, that Hetch Hetchy could provide as opposed to obtaining water from various other sources of water known to exist in Northern California.

[@mkatravels]

Great video!

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thank you!

[@snaileybailey]

I would love to know how this controvosy and subsequent protections put into place affected the development and creation of later national parks. After it became clear that more dams, and I assume other profitable endeavours, would no longer be allowed, was there backlash on future parks? Have there been fights by greedy folks to keep land out of national park dedication for the sake of being able to exploit those lands?

[@NationalParkDiaries]

New National Parks have pretty much avoided new dam construction, largely as a result of the fight over Hetch Hetchy (and the controversy over Glen Canyon, which I also have a video on!). There were also plans to put dams in the Grand Canyon and Glacier National Park that were never implemented. Also, there was a sort-of compromise situation with the creation of National Recreation Areas, where large reservoir sites were developed as recreation areas, giving them a "legitimate" reason for new dam construction. Basically, agencies like the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps have still found ways to create large dam projects while largely avoiding the controversies over putting them in National Parks.

[@snaileybailey]

@@NationalParkDiaries Ah, yes, I think I didn't quite phrase my thought the right way: I see that this controversy basically put an end to dam construction in national parks, and my question was about how that effected the way land was allocated in the future. For example, if a river valley like Hetch Hetchy was up for consideration, do you think there would be folks/corps that would fight to keep it out of the park system so that dam construction could be possible? I wondered how this precedent affected future park land boundaries. Just a wonder; thanks so much for all your great videos and work.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

@@snaileybailey Ah, I see! That I don't know off the top of my head, I'd have to look into it a bit more, but I want to say I've seen somewhere that there have been instances of boundaries being developed to avoid dams. Don't take my word for it though! Thanks for being here too!

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

There's been somewhat of an arc as the National Park Service has grown and matured, and the vision for national parks has changed over the years. When Great Smoky Mountains National Park was created, there were communities of people-- entire towns-- that were kicked out. They likely were not paid sufficiently for the loss of their homes and farms. The newer buildings were torn down; the older buildings were kept as historic artifacts. In order for visitors to enjoy "pristine" nature, it was seen as problematic to have human developments in the national parks-- except for facilities to cater to the tourists' needs. In some national parks, even the historic buildings were bulldozed. When Great Basin National Park was established in 1986, it was pretty much an add-on to the Lehman Caves. The new visitor center was built near an orchard. The orchard was seen as valuable for having older varieties of fruit, which could have value for preserving genetic diversity and ensuring the food supply for humans. Also, for a time the traditional grazing rights were continued, with cattle on one side of the mountains, and sheep on the other. Hikers who thought they were in for a wilderness experience were perplexed to encounter domestic livestock along their trails. I think the grazing has been eliminated by now, but I'm not sure. The National Park Service has also focused more on areas that are accessible to city dwellers, such as the Cuyahoga National Park in Ohio. There's also more of an emphasis on historic sites. I think we will not be seeing huge new national parks designated in remote, wild lands. Rather, a number of National Monuments (not administered by the National Park Service) have been designated next to existing National Parks. These seem to be preliminary efforts to expand National Parks in the future, and are worrisome to some groups who have long used the National Forest lands. For example, a number of youth camps in the western Sierra Nevada are now surrounded by a newer National Monument, and worry that in future they could lose their leases, or their ownership of land, and would then be unable to serve youth. No doubt you have also seen in the news the controversy over such things as the Bears Ears National Monument, where one President proclaimed it, and the next tried to undo its Monument status. The real conflict is between people who have traditionally used the land for ranching and other "productive" activities and fear losing their livelihood, versus people who see the land as rightfully belonging to tribal people as sacred sites, and/or as natural features that need to be preserved.

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

I used to live in California for a couple of decades and I would say that it’s not always been a dry state. For some reason as more and more people either moved there or were born there to the point that residents in California outnumber Canadians or Australians there has been less rainfall and a shortage of water. They have now been in a drought for 20 years. Maybe paving over the best farmland in America wasn’t a good idea. Places that when I was growing up used to be crops and orchards and vineyards are now massive communities of houses and apartments. Its ridiculous on a massive scale. Back in the 70’s and 80’s we received plenty of rain and snow. When it comes to snowfall remember the Sierra Nevada’s is where the Donner party were located in fact there’s a big statue there that shows how deep the snow was. The sheer amount of pavement and houses has altered the amount of rainfall at least that’s my opinion lol.

[@dapeach06]

It's not overpopulation, it's water allocation, mostly to water-hungry crops, and to bottled water. The rest is climate change

[@StuffandThings_]

Or maybe, juuuust maybe, humans are altering the global climate trends. Add on top of this that the early 1900's were one of the wetter periods for the American west over the past few centuries. So not only was the west originally developed for what was already anomalous rainfall patterns, we're only exacerbating this deficit. Also worth mentioning that many of California's crops, like almonds, are quite water intensive and far more problematic than urban development in that regard. But yeah, California and the west as a whole is quite spectacularly overpopulated. The east coast is far better suited to support large populations, has little to offer in terms of spectacular natural features, and is overall far more sustainable.

[@Santor-]

@@StuffandThings_ nah, impossible. Definitely pavement and asphalt.

[@seanthe100]

I agree this is man made issue California had 7 million acres of wetlands and destroyed 96% of them.

[@robertcameron3193]

Corruption is at the very top these days In America.... all about money and who they can hurt.......

[@skywerner7653]

I live near there been to it many times. The dam won't go away anytime soon there is a pipeline that goes all the way to San Francisco and at each point there is a collective of people that work and maintain it. Hetch hetchy created a small community where I live and those that live and work there help support the local town up here. Whether it was rite or wrong back then is another story. But today it provides a huge amount of jobs and without it the town of groveland the town I live in wouldn't be nearly what is now.

[@corruptcatalyst4141]

It's interesting to think if the wilderness act would have been passed without this happening

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

Instead of spending trillions of dollars fighting wars for 20 years the government should have restored the Hetch Hetchy and forced SF to get their water somewhere else. Maybe they should build a desalination plant right there on the coast. That would be the simplest solution and they would have control over how much water they had regardless of drought conditions.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

But a desalination plant would put strain on valuable coastal ecosystems.

[@honeysucklecat]

Because the area around Hetch Hetchy is off limits for people it’s good for all the wild plants and animals. So leave it.

[@CarlosRodriguez-hb3vq]

One thing we can all agree on is that San Francisco needs a better flag. I think they should just adopt the SF Giants flag.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

You have no idea how much I wish cities/states had better flags... I'll keep dreaming

[@Luciferwinchester]

Your best video yet! Loved learning about this. And they should hole SF to it's promises.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thank you! (I think this is my favorite one also lol)

[@MrJoshuarose1986]

Can you do a video on Rocky Mount national Park and Lake Granby grand Lake shadow mountain of the Colorado river

[@yosemite735]

Do not tear down the damn. Simply open the gates and see how it goes. You might want to close the gates again.

[@snap-off5383]

Dams are good, welching one the roads is bad. Manhattan was a pristine wilderness once too. Humans happen. Shortage in a drought means we didn't store enough when times were good. We should have dammed more canyons.

[@Tennyson138]

Restore Hetch Hetchy now; Wilderness with this beauty and majesty is way above any monetary value.

[@khkartc]

I have sympathy for both viewpoints. On the “Environmentalist” side, clearly there are natural wonders and resources that must be preserved for future generations of people. Having spent some years as a recreational caver, however, and being frustrated that only a few privileged and well-connected individuals had access to the “cooler” caves on public lands, I’m for granting more public access. (A friend once observed, only slightly facetiously, that the Environmentalist’s First Article of Faith is: “We believe in the preservation of natural resources for our own use and that of a few of our friends.”) When “progressivism” means that only a few elite people get to partake, the system is more Soviet than most of the American public can guess. The “default” position of the USFS, and various other federal agencies, seems to be that anything that discourages public access (and the attendant impact) is, ipso facto, wise policy. In Albuquerque, where I live, that attitude resulted (a) in a private landowner’s blocking his part of a forest road (previously used by the public for generations) giving vehicular access to USFS picnicgrounds and trailheads, and (b) the USFS’s total acquiescence and failure to sue the landowner to maintain the public right-of-way. (In Utah, we’ve even seen national monuments created for no other plausible purpose than to prevent fossil-fuel development.) On the “Conservationist” side, my feeling is that eventually the needs of the many, with cautious management, have to win out over the desires of the few. Most of Albuquerque’s growth in the last 50 years has been on the west side of the Rio Grande. Wealthy landowners along the river held up the construction of additional bridges for many years, arguing they were trying to maintain the natural beauty and traditional semi-rural character of the “bosque,” and that that trumped the needs of the residents of a burgeoning west side. Gradually, a bare minimum of bridges were built as the landowners’ contentions became untenable on the ground, but the process was inexorable because of how it impacted so many people. (On the other hand, one could argue for a _lot_ of public-works projects in national parks, and on other public lands, that would benefit many people; however, preservation, again with cautious management, has to win out in most of these cases.)

[@fastinradfordable]

U have sympathy for natives? Who were murdered?

[@larkmacgregor3143]

I'm a caver, too, but I understand why certain caves are off limits except to researchers: opening them would destroy them. Them being "cool" does not give me the right to demand entry to, for example, Lechugilla, when the general public having access would cause irreversible damage to the formations we're desiring to see. As a Colorado native, I've watched the population of my state go from 2 million people to 6 million in my lifetime, and I'm still decently young. We've turned our heads as development placed demands on resources that are unsustainable, and reacted with shock when the inevitable consequences arrived. And now we demand that somehow government "fix" the mess we've made without any impact on ourselves. Human selfishness, short-sightedness, and greed got us into this predicament, and forever stand in the way of its resolution. Unless there's a sea change in human nature, we will destroy everything we claim to value because we cannot see beyond our own personal wants and needs and refuse to see that the collective impact of that selfishness isn't someone else's fault. There is such a thing as a greater/common good that deserves as deep consideration as the need to turn a profit, use resources to excess, or even get access to places that are protected from our personal desire to see them, lest we kill them with our "love".

[@SuperSirianRigel]

In that Utilitarian Conversation you talk about... I feel it should be looked at from both sides. In both directions. Basically the way they were using it as you spoke about in your video, but also in a reverse way kind of. The main point is people. Not nature. Like for instance, if a new major infrastructure project was being proposed in a relatively wild area then it should have unbiased studies done ahead of time to figure out if said project would Actually benefit a large amount of people. In multiple ways... Then said project should be given the greenlight if it is determined it will benefit many people. Once said project is finished it should be given 20 or 30 years and then another study collecting all the facts of it's benefits should happen to make sure it Actually is benefiting people. If not it should be decided that said infrastructure should be tore down and cleaned up. This could be done retroactively as well with already existing infrastructure. Dams and whatever else should be studied and the facts taken in and if said dam or whatever else seems to serve a lot of people. It should stay. If it is failing to serve many people and seems to exist for very little reason it should be removed. Like with the video you made about the Elwha River dams. Those dams were in a fairly remote area and seemed to serve very few people. And the salmon in that river had almost died out or at the very least were relocating to some other rivers. So it made perfect sense to make the Elwha River wild again. But using the same theories the case for removing the dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley area doesn't work. People are more important. And Too Many people are benefitting from the reservoir in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. I've read many of the other comments and it seems that the water is very much needed at this point. By a Large number of people in the Bay Area, not just the city of San Fransisco itself. The whole state of California seems to be struggling for water as a whole itself. I don't see how anyone in that whole state can afford to remove a good source of clean drinking water. It actually sounds like more needs to be Added instead of removing any. Maybe if they could add enough elsewhere the drying up of the southern end of the Colorado River could finally be stopped. Since a huge chunk of the water for that river goes into California. The story and its impact on people is way bigger than it seems. A lot of people Need the water from that reservoir. And compared to the need of a few thousand people that want the reservoir removed just so they can hike to it's remoteness and "gaze upon the valley" in a more "wild" state... It's really a no brainer. This particular dam needs to stay. p.s. I do however agree that the city of San Fransisco needs to fulfill it's promises that it made concerning the project. The fact they didn't do what they said they would do, that part is complete nonsense.

[@abubbam]

Destroy the dam and leave the city to figure things out their selves. The city should have to pay for dam removal and the effort to restore the valley

[@ambushbob5383]

That city like LA and las Vegas. should never have been built.

[@fuzzytigercat]

I spent 3 hours traveling 1 mile while waiting in traffic in the Yosemite valley before. There's way too many people there all the time. I like to go at least once or twice a year. After going there during covid and having to get a reservation, I hope they continue this so that they know exactly how many vehicles will be going in each day. The dam is already built. Removing it won't make the valley accessible anytime soon. It would be ugly for a long time. People have to have drinking water. Water is more important than having another valley in Yosemite. Yosemite is already over crowded and doesn't need a reason for more people to destroy it.

[@dr.floridaman4805]

tracking a citizens that uses publicly owned property is unconstitutional. it's all the illegals that clog the American arteries.

[@brightonluke3280]

At the very least San Francisco needs to be sued on behalf of the American people to hold up their legal responsibilities to finish the loop road, build more trails and provide recreational access to the reservoir as they agreed to, and are legally obligated to do. Instead we let them get away with the exact opposite with things like banning boating.

[@rhobot75]

I'm a San Franciscan and my issue would be: I'm a human at the leading edge of a million years of evolution and NO I'm NOT giving up my toys! No, I won't share! But seriously, I feel terror at the prospect of losing that clean water. Fueled in large part by witnessing over and over again how money and resources are not being put to do the major water infrastructure projects needed in the State. If we were to give up the dam we have no guarantee the State or Feds would provide replacement water resources. Our waterways were built to support a tenth of the population. The San Joaquin valley is sinking from loss of groundwater and whole towns (mostly of immigrant farm workers) are completely dry or polluted groundwater. Change is hard, beyond hard, but you can't take away our water as we look out on an aged and not-big enough water system to meet everyone's needs (even taking into consideration that everyone in the Whole Wide Greater Western Region needs to chill it down, dry the golf course, get a hold of major wasting municipalities and medical and military industrial complexes, and now Big Data needs. Those VR headsets people wear use a lot of water. Everyone is suffering from overuse of the Colorado and etc. I saw the video about Lake Powell and we all know it's foolish to keep moving to the SW...) And that's my opinion: MITTS OFF, byyye. The big thing I do worry about is sabotage- I'm glad there's no easy access to the place, frankly, after 9/11. OK, OOT. Nice vid, nice channel. I like the research.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks for your input, I appreciate the perspective. It's not lost on me how important these water sources are for people and I completely understand the argument. These issues are complicated and multifaceted, with no easy solutions. In my opinion, discussing them like this helps - so again thanks for your contribution.

[@bookbeing]

Part of what's drying out our state is the fast tracking of inland water to the oceans. What's confuses me is why not desalinate the water needed among densely populated coastal areas and let these inland water sources stay inland for as long as possible and recharge our aquifers? If the oceans and sea levels are fast rising how can directing and dumping our freshwater flows into the mix help? It just seems that we need to keep as much freshwater inland as possible and let it soak in and hydrate the parched lands. The woodland canopies are withering up or on fire. I worry that desertification is our future if we continue on the current track.

[@jasonreed7522]

@@bookbeing i am also confused why coastal socal doesn't build solar powered desalination plants and instead of returning the brine to the ocean which is ecologically harmful, put it in a large evaporator and fully extract the salt and sell it, or dump it in a salt flat. (moved by electrified trains of course) It just seams like all the wayer they need for the cities is right there for the taking, and since desalination converts energy into drinking water just use that abundant desert sun to power it.

[@christosioannou9628]

Me: Hey I’m visiting Yosemite this week, I should check this cool vid out! Me, sixteen and a half minutes later: oh

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Haha, Yosemite is still well worth visiting! My goal with this video was simply to shed light on a topic people might not have heard of before and help them be more informed. Plus, not all my videos are as sad as this one lol, I hope you can find something else you like around here!

[@fixpacifica]

I live in the SF Bay Area and get my water from Hetch Hetchy. Draining it does seem pretty dumb. The SF Bay Area is one of the most environmentally-conscious places in the world, and you would think that residents would be very open to the idea of restoring Hetch Hetchy. Yet the people who want to drain it have never been able to come up with a convincing argument that the water from Hetch Hetchy can be replaced.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

Mr. Muir looks like a man with an affinity for nature because he's spent time in it.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

lol he's definitely got a look 😂

[@wanderinghobo78]

You should do a story on Glacier National Park and the controversy around its creation.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

You know, somehow I've still never covered Glacier on this channel, so that would be a good story to tell. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@hermask815]

So this is the watershed you can test San Francisco’s folks against.

[@dlbstl]

Great information. I do think the ship has sailed on this lake becoming a valley again. Way too expensive and problematic. We just need to make a vow to be more careful and have better oversight on public projects in the future. And maybe get that one loop road built as promised

[@snap-off5383]

And reopen to boating.

[@toomanyjstoomanyrs1705]

Let me get this straight, San Fran, a bastion of liberty, equality, progressiveness, doesn't want to pay for a new road? I've been to Hetch Hetchy, the only road to access the dam is narrow and needs to be repaired.😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

[@honeysucklecat]

I’m growing fond of the idea of keeping the dam and keeping it off limits

[@toomanyjstoomanyrs1705]

It'd be great to have road access thru the back. It's such a unique landscape.

[@fastinradfordable]

@@toomanyjstoomanyrs1705 Road access destroys ‘unique landscapes’

[@davidterrie7661]

If you are from San Francisco, you have no right to call yourself an environmentalist.

[@johnchedsey1306]

If you live in any city, you cant make that claim, by this logic. However, keep in mind that an environmentalist in SF didn't create the system and is completely allowed to speak up about problems.

[@davidterrie7661]

@@johnchedsey1306 There are other examples, like LA/Owens Valley and LV/Hoover Dam, but flooding a national treasure takes the cake. SF has had multiple opportunities to rectify the atrocity and has declined, despite the fact that there's a solution that does not deprive the city of this source of water. Where is the outcry from those in SF who call themselves environmentalists? Crickets.

[@RobertSander]

I have heard over the years about Hetch Hetchy and the wrongs of it's history but this is the first time I have heard anyone telling me what actually happened. I too think the country is owed the removal of the dam. Water in the west is driving decisions today and I understand it is not easy to forego progress and building new homes for people who want to live there. My sisters live in S. California near San Diego and assume water is available. Don't we all, even here in Houston where I live we assume water will be there when we turn on the tap, we just have to pay for it. As you say, we assume it is a requirement of a city to supply water to me. Is it?

[@johnlucier5654]

Why remove the dam? Spite for the people who built it? The valley doesnt care. Nature doesnt care. Youll do more damage removing it.

[@honeysucklecat]

I’m really disappointed. The sentiment I’m seeing presents itself as getting rid of human exploitation of the environment, yet all are just advocating for a different type of exploitation, one they find more pleasing to their aesthetics. Sad that it was built. But now there’s a huge part of Yosemite that people can’t get to, trash, abuse, and destroy. Look at the other valley. Go up to Glacier Point at night. The Valley floor is like a town. Light pollution is bad. Noise. Traffic. We done fucked it up good. Hetch Hetchy isn’t for us to trash. Leave it alone. Be grateful that San Francisco has made it hard to access, kept boats off the lake, kept it clean.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion, flooding the Valley under a reservoir is not the same as leaving it alone. I think there is a way to manage access to Hetch Hetchy that doesn't lead to the same level of development as Yosemite Valley. That way people can access it, enjoy it, and learn about it, while still protecting it for future generations to enjoy.

[@StuffandThings_]

Have you heard of features like The Wave in Arizona? They restrict the access to keep it from becoming trashed, whist still allowing people to enjoy it. Not to mention having two pristine valleys would reduce the pressure on Yosemite. There really isn't a good excuse for this project, San Francisco is just desperate to uphold the ridiculous notion of a metropolis in an arid region.

[@dlbstl]

I agree.

[@TommyBaldwin652]

You couldn't be more right. Yosemite valley had so much traffic they had to limit the amount of cars allowed up in the valley.. I think you have to take a bus nowadays for day trips and if you want to camp there it's a two year wait.

[@mikechurch2359]

great content

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks Mike!

[@paulmentzer7658]

Gifford Pinchot later became a two term Governor of Pennsylvania, at a time when Governors could NOT succeed themselves (elected in 1922 to serve from 1923 to 1927 and elected in 1930 to serve 1931 to 1935). In his first term came up with one of the best systems to publish government regulations, a system still in use today but was stopped from doing to much by the state legislature, expanded the state forest system (which even today is one of the largest in the Nation, larger then Allegheny National Forest set up under him) and established the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol, to Patrol the newly paved main highway in the state to both make sure motorists whose automobile broke down could get help and make sure they obeyed the speed limits (in 1938 the Highway Patrol was merged with the already existing Pennsylvania State Police, yes for almost ten years Pennsylvania had two independent "State Police" forces, the Pennsylvania State Police formed in 1903, mostly to deal with striking coal miners but also rural crime and the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol whose job was to patrol the state's highways, the reason for the split was the Pennsylvania State Police had such a bad reputation by the 1920s it was easier to form a new state police force then reform and give more duties to the already existing Pennsylvania State Police). The two police forces were merged in 1938 into the Pennsylvania Motor Police which was renamed the Pennsylvania State Police in 1948. In Pinchot's second term, he abolished the Coal and Iron Police (private policemen with full power of a state police officer and have been called the only true terrorist organization to actually exist in the US, extremally anti labor and known killers, these were independent of the Pennsylvania State Police but often worked with the State Police in roughing up strikers), paved many rural roads "to get the farmer out of the mud" and fully embraced the New Deal given FDR was a personnel friend even through Pinchot was a Republican. He supported Prohibition but when it was repealed set up a system to minimize alcohol abuse by mandating all Hard Liquor be sold by State Civil Service employees (Beer is sold by private companies but the state controls the sale of anything else). During WWII Pinchot developed a survival kit for pilots who had to get out of they planes and survive in the Pacific. Pinchot OPPOSED both the US Forest service embracing total fire suppression AND Clear cutting of Federal Forests (Pinchot was removed as head of the Forest Service by President Taft in 1909 because Pinchot opposed those policies). As to Muir and Pinchot, they were friends and often allies in the conservation movement, they differ mostly by Pinchot, being a politician, knew the best way to get people to support conservation was to get people to see and get to use what is being conserved even if that meant development of those conservation areas. Muir wanted more total preservation even if that means most people never get a chance to even see what is being preserved. That dispute did not prevent them from working together but it was a split. As one old union member told me many years ago, Pinchot, given he abolished the Coal and Iron Police was one of the greatest Americans ever just for that act.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Great info, thanks for sharing!

[@swithinbarclay4797]

Even if they be opposites of the same coin, "Johnnie" and "Giff" are both heroes of mine. Theodore Roosevelt VIGOROUSLY tried several times to reconcile them--and--if I know my TR correctly, he was NO quitter(!)--and failed. I have been to HH several times and I am not bothered at all with the dam. I see the trailhead there as a perfect jump-off for a dear gem of mine, Lake Vernon. There are rare copses of Pinyon Pines there along the North shore--species certainly better suited for the deserts of California--because HH laid directly upon a trade route for Native American commerce, that would link tribes of the Pacific Coast with those of the deserts, the Rockies, and the great plains beyond . . . So, either some pine seeds leaked out of packs, or the local Miwoks took some efforts to cultivate Pinyons for their own, so they wouldn't be as dependent upon the Eastern tribes. For San Francisco, the "damage" has been done and today they have some of the finest "natural" water to be found anywhere. I don't know what the average Franciscan pays for their water per person per month, but let's assume that figure is $300.00/month. If the reservoir is drained, the dam destroyed, taking a WAAG, I'd say that individual water consumer would end up paying Five Grand/month, and that water would be nowhere as good for their health, as it is now! And San Francisco would have to say goodbye to all of its celebrated lush gardens and swimming pools.

[@philguzman6932]

Everyone that I know who has backpacked or hiked in that area, has relieved themselves in the reservoir.

[@craigsawyer6453]

That's gross!

[@philguzman6932]

@@craigsawyer6453 so was damming Hetch Hetchy

[@nanoRat]

I am a native San Franciscan but I am not going to get involved in the politics of this issue. BUT one fact is clear. San Francisco has the best tasting drinking water of any metropolitan area in the country.

[@shredeliriumshreddelirium4049]

at timestamp 13:43 it appears to be drone footage of illiloutte falls in the merced river canyon with half dome and basket dome in the background. filming with drones is still illegal in yosemite i thought.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

It is illegal to film with drones in National Parks, yes. All the footage in this video is stock footage though.

[@mathiasmueller9693]

I thought it was illegal to launch drones in national parks. What i have heard is that you can launch from outside the park boundaries, fly over the park, and land outside of it. At least you could do this at Gettysburg.

[@jarredquinlan187]

Prophecy: This channel will have >= 1M subs in 1 year.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

So much pressure lol. But really, I'm super proud of this community and can't wait to see it keep growing. Thanks for your support!

[@CenCaBORL_Explorers]

What astounds me the most is.. that this project was done over 100 years ago and is still viable today with the amount of growth that has occurred in SF. To that that is very rare indeed.. yet at a cost... But had the dam not been built where would SF get their water? and where would of the water that has been going to SF have gone? well that answer is simple it would have gone out to sea... thru the delta system... wasted away.. lower dams maybe.. but the water supply is there....

[@hgbugalou]

I don't see the dam going away. That said, San Francisco needs to pay for the improvements.

[@GuidoMumin]

I could see the removal happening by the end of the century. It will be a pricey endeavor, but I am down for it.

[@cmontes7961]

It's the only National Park that was destroyed by a dam. After that it never happened again.

[@jgaffney2010]

It's not true that San Francisco has blocked access to Hetch Hetchy. Yes, there is only one road in and out, and, yes, there is no boating or fishing allowed in the reservoir. But those regulations apply to many other drinking water reservoirs in the Sierras. I have backpacked out of the Hetch Hetchy dam area many times, to Rancheria Falls at the east end, and to the several lakes north of Hetch Hetchy. Yes, it would be nice to have expanded public access but, no, the area does not suffer from a lack of access.

[@LoganCharlesII]

They probably should've given it a better name than Hetch Hetchy.

[@fastinradfordable]

They shouldn’t have killed the native ppl

[@SerielThriller]

Why didn't they compremise and build half a dam?

[@ajmksmsc2652]

* America was coming out of the gilded age: period of government corruption: progressives wanted to clean up living conditions and democracy, etc. * Public Works Projects seen as the best method * SF population was booming: a water system was very crucial for SF * utilitarian conservationists: people have a right to use natural resources to our benefit but not to the point of overexploitation: Gifford Pinchot (first chief of US forest service) “For the greatest good, of the greatest number, for the longest time.” * progressive movement & conservative movement coalesced to accomplish Hetch Hetchy * city officials identified H Hetchy as prime candidate: narrow opening so small dam, height = hydropower, granite composition = high quality drinking water * prime idea: progressives saw project for benefit of society. Conservationists saw a way to utilize * Muir: can’t just destroy the entire valley for one city. It’s the mountain temple counterpart of Yosemite (20 miles south). Worried about precedent this project would set about how we treat nature. * Pinchot: hey we like nature but we think it can benefit us. * Muir: not everything has to benefit humans. Some things can just exist and be scenic. * 1906 city officials voted to abandon project & search elsewhere |||GREAT SF EARTHQUAKE OF 1906||| * caused fire that destroyed most of city * couldn’t fight- pipes to reservoir were destroyed * now they DESPERATELY needed water * congress got involved; public sympathy on their side (how were they surviving during this time?) * applied for a permit to build and got it- Tass’s interior secretary wanted them to justifywhy put a dam in a National park?” * SF officials came back with 400p document- Freeman Report (like a compromise- SF was asking for a national park and now congress was involved) * the compromise: dam is built, SF will pay for lots of recreation infrastructure (paths, roads) so people can still access the valley/reservoir (util. Conservation idea: needs met, people can still access the natural area) * Congress & Army Corp of engineers agreed and passes Raker Act, allowing O'Shaughnessy Dam to be built in Hetch Hetchy * President Woodrow Wilson who signed this Act said, addressing both sides: “ I have signed the bill because it seemed to serve the pressing public needs of the region concerned better than they could be served in any other way, and yet did not impair the usefulness or materially detract from the beauty of the public domain.” BUT THERE WAS FUNKY STUFF. 1. The Freeman Report was not independent- it was commissioned by city of SF. They had an incentive to say dam should be built. 2. The Army Corps of Engineers did not review the report like they were supposed to: They didn’t have “time or money to investigate independently the various projects presented.” They accepted conclusions straight from SF officials. 3. Interior secretary who endorsed Raker Act was Franklin Laine, city attorney for SF in 1903. (Accused of being appointed to the cabinet specifically for the purpose of pushing the Raker-Pittman Bill.”

[@ajmksmsc2652]

* dice were loaded in favor of making the dam: even SF media was saying “this area isn’t used for anything” neglecting to mention that it is a National Park. * Muir died 1 year after Raker Act was passed * Well. The Reservoir was going to be paved with roads and trails so people could still enjoy the National park while city needs were being met. * BUT THE ROADS NEVER HAPPENED. Yosemite Superintendent WB Louis said: [quote about keeping the public away from the quality Hetch Hetchy watershed, including Toulumne Meadows] * even though this was part of the Raker Bill agreement, SF was dragging their feet (they didn’t want contamination) * resolution with National Park Service: SF built 1 road to reservoir, a trail that goes 1/2 way along north shore only, pay for improvements on Tioga Road (a loop road). SF was supposed to pay for A NEW loop road to connect to Tioga and reduce travel time to the reservoir for public access, but opted out by paying for “improvements” to Tioga only. Instead of following the law, SF tried to amend the Raker Law RETROACTIVELY (didn’t work out). To this day they still haven’t built the new loop road like they said. * SF STOLE the valley, it’s benefits flowing only to a select few. They didn’t uphold their promise and they are hogging the National park only for themselves. * Conflict over Hetch Hetchy birthed new environmental movement: nature and our place in it; Congress Passed national park service organic act (3y after Raker Act)- agency going on to steward and protect national parks. No other national park has a dam built in it since. * many efforts to drain and restore the valley * 2012- SF voters vote against STUDYING removal of dam * 2019- House of Reps bans boating on the Reservoir (How many other reservoirs are activities allowed? I can think of a lot in Fresno. I think SF needs to seriously compromise in terms of public access to the national park otherwise this dam is gonna get drained) * 2006 study- cost of removing dam and replacing lost water and power could cost 3-10B dollars * take decades or centuries for HH to look the way it did before dammed * SF drinking water need to be reallocated among existing reservoirs (HH was formerly connected to), filtration needed, water recycling programs need to be introduced- real challenges for real people

[@bjdebrick]

So the dam is there, somebody could still sue SF to at least get them to follow the law to give people access to enjoy the area.

[@fastinradfordable]

What about the fact the land was stolen from natives? Where is their access?

[@BcFuTw9jt]

And all without income tax. Amazing how the country worked just fine without the Fed

[@dilbertdoefanboy5084]

Its too late. It will never be restored

[@gextreme2381]

Basically talking out of both sides of their mouths....sums up the left.

[@tommorgan888]

Outstanding documentary! With any bit of luck, hopefully that dam will be gone in my lifetime.

[@NationalParkDiaries]

Thanks Tom! And yes, I agree. Would love to see Hetch Hetchy restored to its rightful place among our most iconic park landscapes. Just have to keep the conversation going!

[@rbenzango]

GIVE US BACK OUR VALLEY

[@adolfosantana8038]

Thank you for telling this story of corruption and how it basically hasn't changed. I wasn't aware that SF is still under obligation to build trails and such. Hopefully, un-damming the Hetch Hetchy will catch on especially with the revival of free flowing rivers and demolition of the dams that aren't as economical anymore

[@edp2260]

Hetch Hetchy should be next.

[@ristube3319]

14:34 Diane Feinstein is said similarly to Einstein not “steene”

[@shannonpincombe8485]

Yeah....It's always difficult to unwind a crime of such proportions. Those whom have benefited from it will do anything, say anything to avoid reality.

[@fastinradfordable]

That’s what she said

[@aaronjohnson718]

The last time I checked san Francisco is located on a huge bay on the largest ocean in the world so why don't they use the ocean for water by taking the salt out of the water or use the salt water in fire fighting wells and fire fighting utilities because no one is going to drink the water used to put out fires

[@fastinradfordable]

Ppl will drink whatever water they’re given. Not like water is a choice

[@franzwaltenspuhl8892]

I think it’s the right thing to remove the dam too. It’ll never happen though😞

[@franzwaltenspuhl8892]

Native SF, here. ~Franz’s wife, Lora.