James Garfield, as Civil War General. No pictures of his trip to Yosemite have survived, but based on his diary it is hard to imagine he would have supported damming Hetch Hetchy Valley.
Reminder: Restore Hetch Hetchy is a nonpartisan organization. We stand willing to work in good faith with anyone to return Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park to its natural splendor.
Politics can change quickly. In the mid-term election on November 3rd, the electorate rejected the party in power amidst economic woes and allegations of corruption. The 2026 vote count is not final, but Democrats are projected to gain 50 seats in the House of Representatives – about 11% of all 435 members.
It’s happened before. In 1874, the economy was in shambles and President Grant’s administration faced a variety of scandals. In the mid-terms, Democrats gained 94 seats when there were only 293 members in all – 32% of the total. So the flip of the house in 1874 was three times as large as it was in 2026 (although the Republicans did hold onto the Senate).
We are hopeful that the 120th Congress, when seated in January, will take an interest in the opportunity to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. It is time. After all:
San Francisco’s demand for water is down;
An independent statewide poll shows Californians overwhelmingly support restoration (as long as San Francisco gets the water it needs); and
More and more environmental groups are supporting action to restore Hetch Hetchy.
But back to 1874. As we posted in Lusty Vigor 4 years ago, Republican Congressman James Garfield retained his seat but lost his chairmanship of the Appropriation Committee when the House flipped. Congress would not reconvene until December 1875. In May he embarked on a trip west, taking the still new transcontinental railroad to visit California and the Yosemite that he had heard so much about.
Garfield wrote almost daily in his diary, talking about the train trip across the west, his personal medical challenges and attempts to visit with his old Civil War comrade General Rosecrans (fifth cousin, thrice removed of Restore Hetch Hetchy Executive Director Spreck Rosekrans). Garfield’s most compelling diary entries, however, are from his travels to Yosemite:
On May 14 Garfield and his party rode horses into the Mariposa Grove. He was happy the trees were named “Sequoias Giganteas” – an Indian word – rather than “Wellingtonian” which English Botanists had proposed. Noting the size of the sequoias, Garfield wrote “Our 18 horses, standing nose to tail, complete the circle around the Grizzly Giant, as near as we can reach the roots!” He then waxes philosophic “To look upon a tree that antedates the Christian Era; that was in lusty vigor when Rome was founded; that is older than the Iliad–is a thing not to be passed over lightly. I came down from the mountain feeling as though I had communed with the monarchs of the classic days.”
Garfield spent the next 5 nights at a hotel in Yosemite Valley. He marveled at its waterfalls and El Capitan, and took day trips to Mirror Lake, Glacier Point and Nevada Falls. At the end of this visit, Garfield wrote “I would only say in conclusion, that it is one of the few things I have ever examined which has not been overpraised. All description fails adequately to exhibit its greatness. Its language addressed the Eye and the mind, more than the Ear.”
Like so many of us, Garfield was entirely captivated by Yosemite. It is hard to imagine he would support leaving a dam in one of its glacier carved valleys. .
Unfortunately, James Garfield is no longer with us. Many elected officials understand the opportunity at hand to restore Hetch Hetchy to its natural splendor. Who will step forward to make it happen?
Saturday’s San Francisco Times ran a lengthy story on Hetch Hetchy – some of its history and the myriad present day controversies surrounding Hetch Hetchy and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The Valley San Francisco Took After the Fire is well worth reading. It’s accurate, provocative and generally fair with respect to our campaign for restoration.
The San Francisco Times relies on artificial intelligence, with human review – something we are all getting used to.
While the article is reasonably comprehensive, we would like to add a few salient points.
The article ignores the history of Indigenous peoples who lived in Hetch Hetchy both seasonally and year-round for 6000 years before it was “discovered” by European Americans in 1850.
The description of Proposition F, Restore Hetch Hetchy’s 2012 unsuccessful proposal to require the City to analyze water system alternatives, ignores many of the shenanigans that were at play. For example, the City’s “Ballot Simplification Committee” refused to include words like “Yosemite” or “Restoration” in the measure’s title, and only described it as a proposal to “Drain Hetch Hetchy”. When we challenged the title in court, the attorney for the City told the judge they were allowed to use “misleading” language as long as it did not include actual falsehoods.
The article also includes a number of problematic statements by Dennis Herrera, formerly City Attorney and current (soon-to-retire) General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Perhaps most egregious is “Without a reliable source of clean drinking water, San Francisco doesn’t become a major city. Without this system, the Bay Area as we know it doesn’t exist.” Is Herrera unaware of the other proposals considered in the early 20th century? Does he know about the options successfully pursued by California’s largest urban water systems over the last 30 years – many in response to reduce environmental damage caused by their systems (see Yosemite’s Opportunity)? Or is he just repeating the unwarranted hackneyed rhetoric that (damming) Hetch Hetchy is San Francisco’s “birthright.”
At Restore Hetch Hetchy, we are pleased to see our campaign and related issues resonating with journalists, politicians and the public alike. Please share this story with friends and let us know what you think.
Restore Hetch Hetchy is grateful to the San Francisco Times for an openminded approach to Hetch Hetchy. We hope City officials will follow suit.
A quick walk through the campground at Hetch Hetchy last weekend showed no one camping at any of the 21 sites. Zero. Nobody.
Group Campsite A – a little shade would be nice for starters.
Meanwhile, a fair crowd of elite San Franciscans was staying at the Chalet overlooking the reservoir and nearby cabins. A boisterous group was laughing and drinking coffee while they were waiting for the sun to rise over the spectacular canyon walls.
The Chalet was built in the 1930s, hoping Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt would stay on their visit to Yosemite. Perhaps it could better serve the public as a National Park Service visitor center.
The men laughing and drinking coffee outside the bunkhouse were a stark contrast to the empty campsite. Why can’t all park visitors have the same opportunities?
There are a number of reasons why the campground is empty:
Camping is only allowed if you are leaving for or returning from a backpacking trip.
There is no potable water available at the campground.
While the views are nice, there is little shade at the campground.
Next year, when San Francisco provides potable water to the campground (114 years after being required to do so by the Raker Act), the National Park Service should allow all visitors to use the campground. We also encourage NPS to solicit public funds to upgrade the campground to the same standards as elsewhere in Yosemite.
It’s also clear Congress never intended that San Francisco be allowed recreational use of cabins at Hetch Hetchy. (The Raker Act states any City buildings must be associated with construction and operation of the dam. A quick perusal of the publicly available guests lists shows most visitors are there as privileged tourists and not involved with the operation of the dam.)
Of course, we believe the reservoir has no place at Hetch Hetchy. Relocating the reservoir, however, will likely require an act of Congress – hopefully in cooperation with San Francisco. Until that takes place, the least the National Park Service can do is provide improved and equal access to Hetch Hetchy for all visitors.
Hooray! San Francisco is now soliciting contractors to provide potable water to the campground at Hetch Hetchy. Construction is scheduled for August 2027.
Potable water was a requirement when Congress passed the Raker Act in 1913. Somehow both San Francisco and the National Park Service managed to ignore this requirement for 110 years – until Restore Hetch Hetchy reminded them in 2023. For more background, see “progress-good-and-sufficient-supply-of-water-for-camp-purposes-at-last”– posted a year ago.
One image from San Francisco’s extensive files for prospective contractors. Click photo to enlarge.
When the project is completed, we have asked the National Park Service to allow all visitors to stay at the campground – not merely those leaving for or returning from a backpacking trip. NPS has not made any such commitment. (Note San Francisco intends to install fiberoptic cable as well, which NPS has said will improve security.)
San Francisco’s elite guests are permitted to stay at its Chalet overlooking the reservoir and adjacent cabins. While these structure are intended for activities “necessary or properly incident to the construction, operation, and maintenance of said water-power and electric plants: (Raker Act Section 1), most use is clearly recreational for the City’s guests.
Governor Newsom visited Hetch Hetchy earlier this summer and we are told they stayed at the Chalet.
Restore Hetch Hetchy’s fundamental campaign is to restore the valley while making water system improvements so that no one loses a drop of supply. It is also essential, however, that visitors are welcomed at Hetch Hetchy. Providing potable water to the campground is an important part of improving the visitor experience and something to celebrate.
On Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries held a hearing considering eight proposed bills. Some were relatively noncontroversial. A Florida bill that would allow destruction of wetlands and the killing of wildlife, including manatees, raised serious concerns.
Rep. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, spoke in favor of recreation and access but noted there needed to be balance without further explanation. He also opined that he wished the National Park Service had been invited to testify.
Huffman also took a moment to criticize the administration’s proposed land swap on the western edge of Yosemite. Rep McClintock announced he too was opposed and called the proposal “idiotic”. It was nice to see the two gentlemen agree.
McClintock explained San Francisco’s sweetheart deal dated back to the Raker Act of 1913. He sharply criticized the minimal rent ($30,000) that the city pays as well as the inability to swim, boat and camp at Hetch Hetchy. He acknowledged that San Francisco would need to filter its water, but that doing so is no different from what every other water agency does.
Brett Barbre, General Manager of the Yorba Linda Water District, testified in support of the bill. Barbre explained that the bill would provide a recreation benefit that is “consistent with every other major reservoir in California and the west” and opined “Hetch Hetchy should be treated no better and no worse than any other system.” Barbre said San Francisco was “hostile” to improved recreation and further added that he agreed that San Francisco’s rent of $30,000 should be raised.
Chair Hageman encouraged Barbre to expand. They both opined that the proposed rent increase to $2,000,000 was too low. Hageman closed the conversation by saying that H.R. 177 was a good bill.
We agree with pretty much everything said by Hageman, McClintock and Barbre, even though none of them are likely to support our end goal of restoring Hetch Hetchy valley to its natural splendor.
Passage of H.R. 177 would indeed provide significant benefits to park visitors. Further, we believe that greater appreciation of Hetch Hetchy will help build even more support for elimination of the reservoir. We would like to see the bill pass, but note it is being heard very late in the session and is unlikely to make it through both houses. Still, we will cross our fingers.
