Editorials 



175 



that from eight to twelve years would be required for the construction 

 of a Sierra water system. 



The irrigationists discovered later that the bill to which their repre- 

 sentatives had rashly given their assent,, condemns large areas of irri- 

 gable lands to permanent aridity, and may ultimately deprive them even 

 of the waters to which they thought they had legal claim. In any case, 

 by investigations of the Conservation Commission of the State of Cali- 

 fornia (Report 1912), the State Water Commission (Report I9i2),the 

 Irrigation Resources Investigations of the U. S. Agricultural Depart- 

 ment (Bulletin 254), and the records of Annual Runoff of the Tuol- 

 umne, it is shown to be certain that there is not as much water as the 

 city and the irrigationists together claim for their future needs. Quite 

 apart, therefore, from the destructive effect of the project upon the 

 scenic values of the Park, so conclusively set forth by Frederick Law 

 Olmsted, the Hetch-Hetchy bill is unquestionably open to the charge 

 of being an anti-conservation measure. 



As every one knows, the hope of Cahfornia's greatness hes in the 

 agricultural development of her great central basin. This development 

 is impossible without water. Yet the present bill proposes to divert 

 for metropolitan needs, easily satisfiable from other sources, waters with- 

 out which vast areas of wealth-producing land must remain as worth- 

 less as a desert. The bill is vulnerable on the legal side because it 

 attempts to exercise federal control over the distribution of waters with- 

 in a sovereign state. Measures are already being taken by the irriga- 

 tionists to test these assumptions of the bill in the courts. But of 

 more fundamental importance is the question of pubHc policy involved. 

 Suppose a city is short-sighted enough to undertake to destroy, quite 

 needlessly as in this case, the agricultural possibilities of a region upon 

 which its own future development in large part depends. Ought the 

 federal government to become a party to such a project? 



Now that the bill has been passed it is beginning to be seen that 

 the amount which the city is supposed to save is not nearly as great 

 as the nation and the San Joaquin Valley loses. The political wisdom 

 of this scheme is comparable to the famous Scalp Act of Pennsylvania 

 by which the state paid $90,000 for the killing of hawks and owls in 

 order to save chicken-breeding farmers a loss of $1,875. Presently it 

 was discovered, through investigations of the Department of Agricul- 

 ture, that by the killing of the above-mentioned natural enemies of 

 rodents a contingent loss of nearly four million dollars had been in- 

 flicted on the agricultural interests of the state. The absurd law was 

 promptly repealed, but not until irreparable damage had been done. 



Senator John D. Works, of California, has introduced in the Senate 

 a bill to repeal the Hetch Hetchy legislation, and in his vigorous re- 

 marks accompanying the same sets forth the points on which he justi- 

 fies his action. A thorough investigation of his presentation is to be 

 hoped for, as the truth is all that those honestly on either side of the 

 question can properly demand. 



