Robert W. Righter
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195149470
- eISBN:
- 9780199788934
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195149470.003.0009
- Subject:
- History, American History: 20th Century
The Hetch Hetchy fight was greatly influenced by the nascent battle over who would provide the public with electrical power. Would it be public power or a private power company? Would it be San ...
More
The Hetch Hetchy fight was greatly influenced by the nascent battle over who would provide the public with electrical power. Would it be public power or a private power company? Would it be San Francisco or the newly-formed (1905) Pacific Gas and Electric Company? For some, such as Senator George Norris of Nebraska, the heart of the Hetch Hetchy fight was to keep power in the public's hands. Therefore, the Raker Act granted San Francisco the right to build and operate electrical generating stations, but specifically prohibiting the city from selling that power to a privately owned company. In 1925, however, San Francisco violated the Raker Act by contracting with PG&E to purchase for $2 million per year all of the power generated by the Hetch Hetchy system. Most of this chapter chronicles the long fight between San Francisco and the federal government. It particularly focuses on Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes' determination to bring public power to San Francsico, rejected eight times in public bond issues. Although Ickes view was sustained by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling (US vs. City and County of San Francisco, 1940), by the late 1940s he had lost his battle. Today, the people of San Franciscan still pay the PG&E for their electricity. Congress expected the Hetch Hetchy system to provide the city with municipal water and power. Only 50 percent of that goal was realized. Today, most of the Hetch Hetchy system electricity is sold to the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts.Less
The Hetch Hetchy fight was greatly influenced by the nascent battle over who would provide the public with electrical power. Would it be public power or a private power company? Would it be San Francisco or the newly-formed (1905) Pacific Gas and Electric Company? For some, such as Senator George Norris of Nebraska, the heart of the Hetch Hetchy fight was to keep power in the public's hands. Therefore, the Raker Act granted San Francisco the right to build and operate electrical generating stations, but specifically prohibiting the city from selling that power to a privately owned company. In 1925, however, San Francisco violated the Raker Act by contracting with PG&E to purchase for $2 million per year all of the power generated by the Hetch Hetchy system. Most of this chapter chronicles the long fight between San Francisco and the federal government. It particularly focuses on Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes' determination to bring public power to San Francsico, rejected eight times in public bond issues. Although Ickes view was sustained by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling (US vs. City and County of San Francisco, 1940), by the late 1940s he had lost his battle. Today, the people of San Franciscan still pay the PG&E for their electricity. Congress expected the Hetch Hetchy system to provide the city with municipal water and power. Only 50 percent of that goal was realized. Today, most of the Hetch Hetchy system electricity is sold to the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts.
Robert W. Righter
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195149470
- eISBN:
- 9780199788934
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195149470.003.0007
- Subject:
- History, American History: 20th Century
In early 1913, the issue was thrown into the halls of Congress for a final decision. At the same time, a new administration came into power with President Woodrow Wilson appointing Franklin Lane as ...
More
In early 1913, the issue was thrown into the halls of Congress for a final decision. At the same time, a new administration came into power with President Woodrow Wilson appointing Franklin Lane as his secretary of the interior. Nothing could have been more important, for Lane had been San Francisco City Attorney, and strongly favored the city's case. Hearing took place in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but with Lane in office and a strong San Francisco lobbying team, it was clear who would be the victor. The valley defenders fought furiously, but they were out numbered, out maneuvered, and out staffed. The Raker Act, granting San Francisco the valley, won approval in the House, 183 to 43. After six days of debate in the Senate, the Raker Act passed at 12 o'clock A.M on December 6, with 43 yeas, 25 nays, and 27 absentees. President Wilson signed the Raker Act on December 19, 1913. San Francisco's long political struggle was over. It was a devastating loss for the preservation interests, but as John Muir stated, “the battle for conservation will go on endlessly. It is part of the universal warfare between right and wrong”.Less
In early 1913, the issue was thrown into the halls of Congress for a final decision. At the same time, a new administration came into power with President Woodrow Wilson appointing Franklin Lane as his secretary of the interior. Nothing could have been more important, for Lane had been San Francisco City Attorney, and strongly favored the city's case. Hearing took place in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but with Lane in office and a strong San Francisco lobbying team, it was clear who would be the victor. The valley defenders fought furiously, but they were out numbered, out maneuvered, and out staffed. The Raker Act, granting San Francisco the valley, won approval in the House, 183 to 43. After six days of debate in the Senate, the Raker Act passed at 12 o'clock A.M on December 6, with 43 yeas, 25 nays, and 27 absentees. President Wilson signed the Raker Act on December 19, 1913. San Francisco's long political struggle was over. It was a devastating loss for the preservation interests, but as John Muir stated, “the battle for conservation will go on endlessly. It is part of the universal warfare between right and wrong”.