Notes and Correspondence 



193 



11. 



THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSAL 



The Opponents have admitted 

 the probability of large economic 

 advantages for the project, but 

 since they believe the offsetting 

 damage to be very great they in- 

 sist that the probable economic 

 gain to the community should be 

 definitely appraised and fairly bal- 

 anced against this loss before a 

 decision is reached. 



The proponents have claimed 

 that the additional water which 

 will certainly be needed in the 

 course of a few years for San 

 Francisco and other bay cities, 

 and that hydrauHc power for 

 which a local use will be found' 

 can be obtained at a much less cost 

 by this project than otherwise. 

 How much less has not been def- 

 initely estimated. If there is no 

 offsetting damage to the park, or 

 if it is so slight as to be negligible, 

 as claimed, it is enough to say the 

 economic gain is large without 

 need to ascertain just what it is. 



III. 



TO WHOM SHOULD THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF THE PROJECT, IF EXE- 

 CUTED, ACCRUE 



The Opponents have claimed — 

 on the hypothesis that the project 

 would result in a great loss to the 

 people of the United States 

 through impairing the value of the 

 park — that substantially the entire 

 economic advantages resulting 

 from the project, if executed, 

 should accrue to the Treasury of 

 the United States, as a recompense 

 for that loss. 



CASE HINGES 



The proponents have claimed, — 

 on the hypothesis that there would 

 be no serious damage but rather a 

 gain to the value of the park, on 

 the ground that the cash for exe- 

 cuting the project would be fur- 

 nished by the city, and on the 

 ground that the city has an owner- 

 ship in fee of a portion of the land 

 to be flooded — that substantially 

 the entire economic advantages re- 

 sulting from the project should be 

 permitted to accrue to the treasury 

 of the city. And the present bill 

 so provides. " V 



WHERE THE 



It will be seen that the fundamental difference arises over the first 

 point. 



If it were to be universally admitted that the execution of the project 

 would inflict a really great loss upon the people of the United States 

 through injury to the Yosemite National Park, the only ground upon 

 which the present bill could be advocated is that the taxpayers of San 

 Francisco are for some reason entitled to a large subsidy from the 

 citizens and taxpayers of the rest of the country. This is not seriously 

 claimed by anyone. 



If on the other hand it can be established that the project would, 

 upon the whole, involve no real and substantial depreciation in the 

 value of the park as a place of public recreation, the development clearly 

 ought to be permitted ; and the question would then be whether the 

 highest economic vise of all available resources is to be secured by 

 appropriating the waters of the Tuolumne mainly to the use of San 



