Damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley - Assignment Example

The Damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley: Analytical Memo to Senator Smoot Transmittal, To Senator Smoot, Dear Sir, Re: Analysis of the Hetch Hetchy Damming and Recommendations on voting on the Raker Bill As instructed, I hereby officially submit an analysis memo on the issue of the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley and a recommendation on the Raker Bill vote. A critical and objective analysis on the issue has been undertaken, and after careful review of the opposing views a recommendation on the vote made and justified. The Damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley: Analytical Memo to Senator Smoot The controversy surrounding the proposed damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley has reached fever pitch, epitomized by public interest and lobbying for or against the Raker Bill (Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco 2). A brief overview of the issue indicates that the Hetch Hetchy is already under legislative protection from human encroachment as part of the Yosemite National Park. However, San Francisco’s water needs mean they are interested in damming the valley. The city argues that engineer reports indicate the valley to be the best source for sufficient water. They also state that the domestic water needs of the city’s population far outweigh the interests of campers in the valley. The anti-damming side argues that the engineer reports are faulty and unreliable, not exhausting other possible water sources for the city. Besides, damming the valley upholds the immoral and selfish commercial exploitation of nature. I advise you to vote against the Bill on the rationale that this will allow for involvement of all stakeholders in deliberating on the issue and independent engineer investigations, both of which have been foregone in the preparation of the current bill. Background on the Hetch Hetchy and the Raker Bill: The Hetch Hetchy is a valley in California, closely related with the Yosemite Valley and lying in the wider Sierra Nevada mountain ranges (Hetch Hetchy Timeline 1). In light of the rapid commercial expansionism of America at the expense of the environment, the Harrison administration legislated and converted the entire area into the Yosemite National Park in March 3, 1891. A notable figure in sparking public awareness on conservationism and, in particular, the need to conserve the natural setting of California was John Muir, who has later headed the Sierra Club to protect the established park (United Sates Mint 1). Geographically, the Yosemite National Park consists of the Yosemite Valley and the Hetch Hetchy Valley (History Matters 5-6). The controversial issue of establishing a dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley can be traced back to 1882, when the City of San Francisco sought a cheap and plentiful water source to meet the needs of its growing population. The Hetch Hetchy appeared as one of the best alternatives, but in the process set two parties on a collision course; the City of San Francisco and most American conservationists led by the Sierra Club. The debate between these two groups has now grown into involve a national issue, involving the media, the public and political quarters. In 1903 and 1905, Mayor Phelan of San Francisco applied, without success, to rights to the Hetch Hetchy waters. However, Phelan has succeeded past the Interior Department and now awaits Congress to pass the Raker Bill, upon which construction of the dam in the Hetch Hetchy will start. As this brief timeline indicates, the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley is an important issue at both the local and national levels. The outcomes of the vote on the Raker Bill will decisively set precedents to the future. Hence, stances should be made after careful consideration of the facts. As a senator, the privilege and responsibility to vote on the Raker Bill provides you with an opportunity to contribute the path taken by the USA at a symbolically important period of the nation’s history. I will now detail the arguments from the pro-damming side of the divide, and then provide the arguments against the Bill. The Pro-damming Side: If the congress does pass the Raker Bill, the party whose interests will be served is the City of San Francisco administration. As discussed earlier, Mayor Phelan has tried to gain access to the waters of Hetch Hetchy on previous occasions without success. However, a combination of events has led to the Interior Department finally granting the City an opportunity to succeed, subject to the Congress vote on the Raker Bill. A change of guard in the government accompanied by change of staff at the Interior Department (appointment of former Attorney of San Francisco Franklin Lane as Secretary of the interior by Wilson’s administration) has shifted the government’s opinion in favor of San Francisco. The City’s argument centers on the view that the Hetch Hetchy Valley provides sufficient and economic possible source of water for San Francisco. While not trashing the views of the intrinsic value of natural beauty, the city’s representatives question the idea that beauty ought to be upheld over the domestic needs of water in the city. Traditionally, San Francisco has lost out to neighboring cities such as Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda due to constraints on important resources such as water. While the city has much potential, the lack of stable, secure, sufficient and clean water hampers development (History Matters 1, 3). Engineers have already approved the Hetch Hetchy as the best source of water for the City of San Francisco based on projects presented to the Board of Army Engineers (New York Times Editorial 1). The City’s representatives have made efforts to address the concerns and criticism from their opponents. First, they argue that the scenic beauty of the Hetch Hetchy Valley will not be destroyed. Rather, it will be improved through making the valley more accessible to interested viewers. Other arguments versus the question of beauty revolve around the claim that camping in the Hetch Hetchy Valley satisfies the wants of the few, while damming it will meet the needs/good of the many (History Matters 2). The city has also faced allegations of having deep and short sighted commercial interests in mind, pursued at the expense of nature. This is due to the addition of a hydro-electric power generation element that will reap the city massive incomes from damming the valley. However, the Mayor has argued that the power generation is a requirement made by the Secretary of the Interior in order to grant access to the water resource of the valley. Hence, there are no underlying commercial interests behind the proposed damming of the Hetch Hetchy (New York Times 1). The Opposing Side: Much of the opposition to the damming of the Hetchy Hetch Valley has come from the Sierra Club, the media and conservationists, with these three groups able to marshal a lot of public support against the Raker Bill. The very first argument centers on the reasons of creating the Yosemite National Park; to prevent the encroachment of people with commercial interests into important natural landscapes and forests (History Matters 5). Their argument is from a naturalist perspective against utilitarianism; history already indicates that, without protection, selfish parties will take advantage of the available natural resources. The effects of human forest encroachment are already being felt in the countries around the Mediterranean, a fate likely to befall the USA if destruction of nature proceeds at wanton pace (History Matters 4). As it is, the Hetch Hetchy Valley is scenic under threat of becoming history at the hands of humans. The opponents to the Raker Bill also argue that San Francisco has other alternative sources of water. The New York Times Editorial (1) claims that the City is not pursuing other cheaper and sufficient sources of water such as the Mokelumne River which has the capacity to provide 600-700 million gallons of water to San Francisco and its environs for the next century. besides, the city has undertaken skewed research into possible water sources for the city; concentrating 30-50 times more on Hetch Hetchy than other possibilities. This is presumably due to the perceived budget friendly availability of water from Hetch Hetchy (History Matters 6). The opponents also dispute the integrity of engineer’s approval on a number of bases; first, it is based on erroneous, false and incomplete evidence (for instance, the exclusion of the Mokelumne water source possibility); the engineers ratified the city’s report without independent investigations due to a lack of time and funds; other engineers have provided reports indicating that other sufficient sources of water for San Francisco (New York Editorial 1). The opposition side also offers evidence of novel alternative sources of clean water; London has ceased sourcing water from the Welsh mountains, instead favoring a filtration system. The opponents to the Raker Bill also bring the perspective of morality to the debate. Natural resources are in the danger of being auctioned off to commercial developers with vested interests. This is not only evidence by the history of human-environment interaction in the USA where selfish interests have dominated expansionism. The current debate over the Hetch Hetchy damming also exemplifies the efforts of selfish commercial interests over morals. The opponents argue that the power generation element is the main intention of damming the Hetch Hetchy as opposed to water provision. This explains the obvious lack of consideration of the other possible water sources, with all the interests being placed on the Hetch Hetchy where hydro-electric power generation can be carried out (New York Times Editorial 2). RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE VOTE The upcoming vote on the Raker Bill decide whether the City of Francisco will dam the Hetch Hetchy or not, and have influence on the debate which could go on for a very long time into the future. The significance of this moment in time is not lost on both sides of the divide since it will signal the direction taken for similar incidences in the future. This recommendation is made on the basis of analysis of the arguments of both sides, which in turn influence my view of the matter. I recommend that you vote against the Raker Bill due to a number of considerations. I present my rationale below, integrated in terms of; broader utilitarianism versus conservationism; stakeholder involvement; alternative sources of water; and finally, setting of the wrong precedents for our nation. First, a broader look at the issue indicates that the debate is a manifestation of the historical strains between utilitarianism and conservationism, where moral and ethical questions arise. Human expansionism, on most occasions selfish, has in prevailed over nature in virtually all cases of their interaction leading to wanton destruction of forests, natural scenery and wastage of resources. The commercial gains are consolidated around a few individuals at the expense of the will of the majority. In an age where collective efforts to benefit communal and national interests should be the case (National Conservation Commission 4), it is selfish to cater for the interests of a few. Besides, much of the heated debate arises from the manner the city has approached the issue- failing to involve the relevant stakeholders. It is every generation’s moral obligation to bequeath the future generations the resources and chances to behold splendid beauty such as what is now threatened at the Hetch Hetchy Valley. The Sierra Club has been branded names instead of being invited to deliberate (McFarland 2). It is also obvious that the proper attention has not been given to exploring other viable and less controversial water sources around San Francisco. Hence, there is need for independent input to investigate on the matter before the city can be allowed to dam the valley. Finally, ratifying the Raker Bill will set the wrong precedents to the entire nation, as any natural resource within reach of human settlement will be acquired even when alternatives exist (History Matters 5). These arguments are further supported by the view that the rush and impetuousness exhibited by the pro-side suggest ulterior motives. The Bill should be voted out, independent efforts undertaken and consultative deliberations made. The viability and sustainability of alternative water sources should be established by the independent investigators. This will settle the debate based on valid and reliable evidence, upon which informed decisions can be made on whether to grant access to the valley’s waters. All the stakeholders will be involved under this approach, and their concerns addressed. Under such circumstances, opposition to the city’s plans would be malicious at best. Thus, voting against the Raker Bill is not altogether endorsing one side, but buying time to allow for the proper approach to the issue as should have been done in the first place. Works Cited Hetch Hetchy Timeline. Nd. Web. January 19, 2012. History Matters. Giving a Dam: Congress Debates Hetch Hetchy. 2005. Web. January 18, 2012. McFarland, Horace J. A High Price to Pay for Water-Apropos of the Grant of the Hetch Hetchy Valley to San Francisco for a Reservoir. 1908. Web. January 18, 2012. National Conservation Commission. Report of the National Conservation Commission. Doc no. 676. 1909. Web. January 19, 2012. New York Times. 1913 Editorials Opposing Damming of Hetch Hetchy. 1913. January 19, 2012. New York Times. Senator Phelan on the Hetch Hetchy Plans. 1916. Web. January 19, 2012. United Sates Mint. California. 2009. Web. January 19, 2012. Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco. Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Site: The Raker Bill 1913. 2005. Web. January 18, 2012. . Read More