SAN FRANCISCANS! I'd love to know where you stand on this issue. Are you pro-dam or anti-dam? Perhaps somewhere in between? Let me know below 👇🏻

Missed a prime opportunity to say “But this project wasn’t just going to go ahead without a hitch hitchy”

What’s really incredible is that you only scratched the surface on all the violations of the Raker Act. The hydroelectric power was supposed to run a public utility for the city…annnd the electricity gets sold instead at a ridiculously low price to a private utility who then sells it at a profit. There’s a LOT of funny business with the Raker Act & O’Shaughnessy Dam…I didn’t even know about how SF balked on the infrastructure in the park. I finally got to see the valley myself last fall…the road to get there is pretty awful. It’s all very perfunctory what public access there is. I too would love to see that Valley restored.

California's various projects to secure water for cities could and does fill volumes of books. Utterly fascinating stuff. And their efforts to somehow continue maintaining their state's water supply over the few decades may prove equally fascinating. Diane Feinstein is now riddled with dementia and shouldn't be serving in the senate any more. Just as an aside. (And for the record, I'm not a republican, just a little appalled that we probably have dozens of equally impaired senior citizens running the federal government)

Thanks for producing this video. My perspective coming from New Zealand 🇳🇿 at the bottom of the globe. Water is an issue worldwide, that is only going to become more precious. It's about time we look globally at the true costs of all aspects of life. Growing crops in arid areas, building cities in deserts and having a throw away mentality. Not an easy process, and one that will not get politicians re-elected.

Of course Woodrow "I'm a complete piece of shit" Wilson was okay with this.

"He died, reportedly, from a broken heart. "

Awesome video! You've covered this subject quite well and you got your quote of Feinstein spot on in this video, however, I'd like to see this, and several other dams (like Glen Canyon) removed. Thanks for reminding us about some of our historical blunders. - Mike

Hetch Hetchy reminds me of Glen Canyon and both are terribly sad losses

I was always fascinated by this topic, thank you for making this video!

We, as a species, don't seem to be able to consider the way that nature had settled arguments between gravity, chemistry, and any other phenomenon that went to build the landscape and the cycles of life. At least, not without placing themselves at the head as its benefactor. Often, as you pointed out, it's the immediate, short term gain that takes precedence. The rational of persuading the authorities that a reservoir could be used for recreation was unrealistic. It was a pretense. There is a real problem of life in that it will always expand to the level resources allow. And it will always reach an equilibrium. There are two things particularly interesting about that point of equilibrium. One is that it is not a pleasant place to be. It is a constant battleground of take and being taken, where the fight is for resources that are just sufficient to maintain subsistence. Any gains made are at the expense of another, which causes shifting in the equation. I'd read somewhere that the planet's biomass remains relatively constant for the conditions. So, as we expand, as a species, we shift that biomass to serve us. And biodiversity suffers for it. If we keep going, we could be wiped out easily by any opportunistic disease that strikes, either us directly, or a critical element that supports us. So the arguments that we're often proffered are not of the minutia of biology, but power brokerage. "You support the damn, and we'll support you profiting off recreation." Whatever is not useful to a profiteer is wasteland. And the primary timeline is the lifetime of the profiteer, or their legacy. So the battle seems to be against those who "want more now." The more I think of it, the more I wonder, as a species that cannot see beyond immediate needs, how do you fight that? We're talking about large populations that create circumstances that only get noticed after they become dire. Sure, the science is there, and there are those who understand the problem from the deeper perspective, but the psychology of the population doesn't seem to operate on that level. I guess I'm at a loss.

While I’m sure this video is correct on many things, it omits the fact, spoken by someone who knows, that there are many trails to hike/backpack in hetch hetchy. While the valley might have been beautiful to look upon, the real action is above the valley. I have backpacked 3 times at hetch hetchy, including my only solo trip and a 5 day loop. So other than the valley being flooded, there is still opportunities to recreate in hetch hetchy.

Great context and history. I like learning about the progressive movement's orginins and that of utilitarian conservationists. thank you!

I watched this ‘National parks video’ and watched this whole thing unfold. It was heart breaking. Muir was a great man.

This video brings up the fact that Yosemite National in the past had not one but two spectacular valleys. These valleys were Yosemite Valley and Hetch Hetchy Valley. As we all know Hetch Hetchy was made into a big water reservoir so that the city of San Francisco would have a water supply. Hetch Hetchy is still a controversial subject. There are plenty of people that would like to see Hetch Hetchy restored to its original state.

I had never heard of this heart wrenching story, thank you for such an informative video

Crazy how good these videos are and how low the views are! This channel is bound to blow up!

My new favorite channel, keep up the good work 😎

This is really outstanding, providing an excellent context for decisions that otherwise seem solely based on greed. I hope that the story of what happened to the Hetch Hetchy will be more widely told so that it can never be forgotten again.

as a born and raised san franciscan, i didnt even know hetch hetchy was controversial but it doesnt surprise me. LA also stole water so it makes sense that SF would do the same. i think the big difference is that SF also uses other sources of water, at least 3 others. HH is still one of big providers of water though and prob reliable because of the snow melt (bay area only gets rainfall from nov-may if we're lucky, most years are shorter). 2022 winter rainfall was great and overflowed all the bay area reservoirs but it did cause landslides and the usual flooding that happens when it rains heavily. personally, i dont have a strong stance but i do love my tap water. i wouldn't know how we would replace the water HH provides.

Once again, a sad story well told. Glad I found this one.

Enjoying and appreciating all the great info.

Well researched, and well presented! Mahalo for sharing this important ‘olelo (history)! Aloha 😊🤙🏼👏🏼

I don't know why, but I really need Christian Bale to play John Muir in a movie about Hetch Hetchy

Thank you for such a thorough, informational video!!!!!

Wow I had no idea of this story! It’s truly scandalous. Thanks so much for putting a great video together

This is a great video! And channel! You should have way more views. This is really great work. Can’t wait to check out your other videos. Thanks for your time and care in making these.

High quality content right here!

I was shocked to find I could not take my canoe out on the water.

The worse part of Hetch Hetchy was California water problem is primarily SOUTH of both San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy (75 % of all rainfall in California falls north of Sacramento which is on that same line). Thus San Francesco (unlike Los Angles) has other sources of water, mostly to its north so water could be obtain at very similar costs to getting water from Hetch Hetchy. San Francesco wanted a large single source of water, that Hetch Hetchy could provide as opposed to obtaining water from various other sources of water known to exist in Northern California.

Dam good video.

Part of what you said about access to Hetch Hetchy and it never being done reminds of how I feel about Alaska. There are millions of acres of land there that are locked away from the people. There are no access roads it trails nothing. A few places can be reached by bush planes that can land on water but the vast majority of it are inaccessible.

Great video!

Your best video yet! Loved learning about this. And they should hole SF to it's promises.

Check my math, but the amount of drinking water available depends on rain/snow that falls in the area, which will remain the same with or without the dam. It seems to me that the dam gets SF water quality, and (looks it up real quick) 385 MW of electrical generating capacity. Yeah, I say pull the dam. I grew up on Colorado River water, pulled from downstream of where Las Vegas dumps its treated sewage. San Franciscans can afford to buy Brita water filters like the rest of us.

Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon need to be restored.

I live near there been to it many times. The dam won't go away anytime soon there is a pipeline that goes all the way to San Francisco and at each point there is a collective of people that work and maintain it. Hetch hetchy created a small community where I live and those that live and work there help support the local town up here. Whether it was rite or wrong back then is another story. But today it provides a huge amount of jobs and without it the town of groveland the town I live in wouldn't be nearly what is now.

All the people who support the dam need to go and spend a few months in our national parks and then ask them if they’re okay with destroying one to build a dam.

Restore Hetch Hetchy now; Wilderness with this beauty and majesty is way above any monetary value.

I just finished hiking from the dam to Tuolomne, then Yosemite Valley. I got a fully submerged swim in a granite stream or river with aerated waterfall-water each day for nine days. I am 67-years-old and a lifetime, Sierra hiker. I have always advocated making the back country as accessible as possible for the most people; even putting mule-supplied, "Hi Sierra Camps" on the John Muir Trail so that people who cannot carry backpacks can experience it. (There are plenty of other trails for those of us who like to get completely away from people.) BUT, I think that John Muir would be pleased that Yosemite Valley was developed so that people could enjoy it using cars and Hetch Hetchy was preserved for nothing but backpackers. Ironically, it was the dam that did that. And keep those boats out! Boats would bring shoreline development and city people who do not understand wilderness. And finish that trail from Rancheria Falls to Pate Valley! Removing the dam could not be justified unless the valley was going to be developed for tourism, like Yosemite Valley. That would not be an improvement. Improve those trails and make it a world class, destination shrine to backpacking in perpetuity.

San Francisco, still full of people bottling their own farts for recreational use.

One positive about SF hoarding this area is that it has been kept quite primitive. I did Census work in that area, much of which is only a credible by Forest Service roads. If you want to see wilderness, this is one area that has quite a bit of it. However, there are "private" lands that are locked off mixed in. I'm not sure if companies leased rights or something to be able to do that. It just adds another level of caution needed to avoid trespassing. Based on my experience, I would recommend Tuolumne County and the area between the 108 and 120 for spectacular day trips and exploring. ✌️😎🍀

We need some law profs and students to build a case for this then see if something could be brought to court, assuming non compliance is true. SF city should be held up to the standard of opening trails, roads around the watershed. Keep in mind, if the area was opened to tourists, the public might take much more interest in this issue. Right now, the city's non-compliance is unknown, forgotten and not well understood.

The cause of the natural resources problem is overpopulation and the continuous economic growth model, it just doesn't work!

great content

Very informative video. Thanks for sharing. California has plenty of shady deals. This is just one of many. I contain my own water so I don’t have to rely on anyone.

In that Utilitarian Conversation you talk about... I feel it should be looked at from both sides. In both directions. Basically the way they were using it as you spoke about in your video, but also in a reverse way kind of. The main point is people. Not nature. Like for instance, if a new major infrastructure project was being proposed in a relatively wild area then it should have unbiased studies done ahead of time to figure out if said project would Actually benefit a large amount of people. In multiple ways... Then said project should be given the greenlight if it is determined it will benefit many people. Once said project is finished it should be given 20 or 30 years and then another study collecting all the facts of it's benefits should happen to make sure it Actually is benefiting people. If not it should be decided that said infrastructure should be tore down and cleaned up. This could be done retroactively as well with already existing infrastructure. Dams and whatever else should be studied and the facts taken in and if said dam or whatever else seems to serve a lot of people. It should stay. If it is failing to serve many people and seems to exist for very little reason it should be removed. Like with the video you made about the Elwha River dams. Those dams were in a fairly remote area and seemed to serve very few people. And the salmon in that river had almost died out or at the very least were relocating to some other rivers. So it made perfect sense to make the Elwha River wild again. But using the same theories the case for removing the dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley area doesn't work. People are more important. And Too Many people are benefitting from the reservoir in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. I've read many of the other comments and it seems that the water is very much needed at this point. By a Large number of people in the Bay Area, not just the city of San Fransisco itself. The whole state of California seems to be struggling for water as a whole itself. I don't see how anyone in that whole state can afford to remove a good source of clean drinking water. It actually sounds like more needs to be Added instead of removing any. Maybe if they could add enough elsewhere the drying up of the southern end of the Colorado River could finally be stopped. Since a huge chunk of the water for that river goes into California. The story and its impact on people is way bigger than it seems. A lot of people Need the water from that reservoir. And compared to the need of a few thousand people that want the reservoir removed just so they can hike to it's remoteness and "gaze upon the valley" in a more "wild" state... It's really a no brainer. This particular dam needs to stay. p.s. I do however agree that the city of San Fransisco needs to fulfill it's promises that it made concerning the project. The fact they didn't do what they said they would do, that part is complete nonsense.

It's interesting to think if the wilderness act would have been passed without this happening

I don't think dams are necessarily, they can create whole new ecosystem uses for humans. But at the same time if not done properly it destroys an ecosystem and resources for humans as well. A great example of dams being mostly good for the environment is awesome California the diamond valley reservoir/lake, it was created as a way to give people in the surrounding valleys of Hemet, Menifee, Perris, Temecula, a local source of water for many applications including irrigation, drinking, and to maintain the balance of some natural lakes, when Excavating the site they found several fossils ranging from more recent creatures all the way back to Mammoth, and they put the project on hold and excavated as many as they could to help bring an understanding to the area's ecological past, and it was discovered that at one point before it became a shrubland it was home to a forest and a lake, an area that the reservoir was to be built was also known to flood and form a lake temporarily. So excavation was done of fossils they continued on with the project, constructing three Earthen dams, including the largest Earthworks project in the history of the United States. That's due to its location the type of dam that was used it has created an ecosystem along the Peaks and rim that makeup the shore of the reservoir.

Do not tear down the damn. Simply open the gates and see how it goes. You might want to close the gates again.

Can you do a video on Rocky Mount national Park and Lake Granby grand Lake shadow mountain of the Colorado river

Me: Hey I’m visiting Yosemite this week, I should check this cool vid out! Me, sixteen and a half minutes later: oh

I would love to know how this controvosy and subsequent protections put into place affected the development and creation of later national parks. After it became clear that more dams, and I assume other profitable endeavours, would no longer be allowed, was there backlash on future parks? Have there been fights by greedy folks to keep land out of national park dedication for the sake of being able to exploit those lands?

Mr. Muir looks like a man with an affinity for nature because he's spent time in it.

So this is the watershed you can test San Francisco’s folks against.

What astounds me the most is.. that this project was done over 100 years ago and is still viable today with the amount of growth that has occurred in SF. To that that is very rare indeed.. yet at a cost... But had the dam not been built where would SF get their water? and where would of the water that has been going to SF have gone? well that answer is simple it would have gone out to sea... thru the delta system... wasted away.. lower dams maybe.. but the water supply is there....

Because the area around Hetch Hetchy is off limits for people it’s good for all the wild plants and animals. So leave it.

I spent 3 hours traveling 1 mile while waiting in traffic in the Yosemite valley before. There's way too many people there all the time. I like to go at least once or twice a year. After going there during covid and having to get a reservation, I hope they continue this so that they know exactly how many vehicles will be going in each day. The dam is already built. Removing it won't make the valley accessible anytime soon. It would be ugly for a long time. People have to have drinking water. Water is more important than having another valley in Yosemite. Yosemite is already over crowded and doesn't need a reason for more people to destroy it.

Corruption is at the very top these days In America.... all about money and who they can hurt.......

You should do a story on Glacier National Park and the controversy around its creation.

One can only hope that the dam, by some miraculous act of mother nature would somehow be removed and the valley and all things downstream from it would naturally be returned to its former glory. Realistically this will eventually happen Whether by earthquake or meteor. It would just be nice if humans got to enjoy the valley again before we become extinct again.

One thing we can all agree on is that San Francisco needs a better flag. I think they should just adopt the SF Giants flag.

You know what’s dumb? Living in cities in an aid reason and expecting to have enough water to survive. Sort of like living in the upper Midwest and cursing snow.

Thanks!

Great information. I do think the ship has sailed on this lake becoming a valley again. Way too expensive and problematic. We just need to make a vow to be more careful and have better oversight on public projects in the future. And maybe get that one loop road built as promised

At the very least San Francisco needs to be sued on behalf of the American people to hold up their legal responsibilities to finish the loop road, build more trails and provide recreational access to the reservoir as they agreed to, and are legally obligated to do. Instead we let them get away with the exact opposite with things like banning boating.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars fighting wars for 20 years the government should have restored the Hetch Hetchy and forced SF to get their water somewhere else. Maybe they should build a desalination plant right there on the coast. That would be the simplest solution and they would have control over how much water they had regardless of drought conditions.

Everyone that I know who has backpacked or hiked in that area, has relieved themselves in the reservoir.

Gifford Pinchot later became a two term Governor of Pennsylvania, at a time when Governors could NOT succeed themselves (elected in 1922 to serve from 1923 to 1927 and elected in 1930 to serve 1931 to 1935). In his first term came up with one of the best systems to publish government regulations, a system still in use today but was stopped from doing to much by the state legislature, expanded the state forest system (which even today is one of the largest in the Nation, larger then Allegheny National Forest set up under him) and established the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol, to Patrol the newly paved main highway in the state to both make sure motorists whose automobile broke down could get help and make sure they obeyed the speed limits (in 1938 the Highway Patrol was merged with the already existing Pennsylvania State Police, yes for almost ten years Pennsylvania had two independent "State Police" forces, the Pennsylvania State Police formed in 1903, mostly to deal with striking coal miners but also rural crime and the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol whose job was to patrol the state's highways, the reason for the split was the Pennsylvania State Police had such a bad reputation by the 1920s it was easier to form a new state police force then reform and give more duties to the already existing Pennsylvania State Police). The two police forces were merged in 1938 into the Pennsylvania Motor Police which was renamed the Pennsylvania State Police in 1948. In Pinchot's second term, he abolished the Coal and Iron Police (private policemen with full power of a state police officer and have been called the only true terrorist organization to actually exist in the US, extremally anti labor and known killers, these were independent of the Pennsylvania State Police but often worked with the State Police in roughing up strikers), paved many rural roads "to get the farmer out of the mud" and fully embraced the New Deal given FDR was a personnel friend even through Pinchot was a Republican. He supported Prohibition but when it was repealed set up a system to minimize alcohol abuse by mandating all Hard Liquor be sold by State Civil Service employees (Beer is sold by private companies but the state controls the sale of anything else). During WWII Pinchot developed a survival kit for pilots who had to get out of they planes and survive in the Pacific. Pinchot OPPOSED both the US Forest service embracing total fire suppression AND Clear cutting of Federal Forests (Pinchot was removed as head of the Forest Service by President Taft in 1909 because Pinchot opposed those policies). As to Muir and Pinchot, they were friends and often allies in the conservation movement, they differ mostly by Pinchot, being a politician, knew the best way to get people to support conservation was to get people to see and get to use what is being conserved even if that meant development of those conservation areas. Muir wanted more total preservation even if that means most people never get a chance to even see what is being preserved. That dispute did not prevent them from working together but it was a split. As one old union member told me many years ago, Pinchot, given he abolished the Coal and Iron Police was one of the greatest Americans ever just for that act.

I have heard over the years about Hetch Hetchy and the wrongs of it's history but this is the first time I have heard anyone telling me what actually happened. I too think the country is owed the removal of the dam. Water in the west is driving decisions today and I understand it is not easy to forego progress and building new homes for people who want to live there. My sisters live in S. California near San Diego and assume water is available. Don't we all, even here in Houston where I live we assume water will be there when we turn on the tap, we just have to pay for it. As you say, we assume it is a requirement of a city to supply water to me. Is it?

I don't see the dam going away. That said, San Francisco needs to pay for the improvements.

Destroy the dam and leave the city to figure things out their selves. The city should have to pay for dam removal and the effort to restore the valley

It's the only National Park that was destroyed by a dam. After that it never happened again.

I live in the SF Bay Area and get my water from Hetch Hetchy. Draining it does seem pretty dumb. The SF Bay Area is one of the most environmentally-conscious places in the world, and you would think that residents would be very open to the idea of restoring Hetch Hetchy. Yet the people who want to drain it have never been able to come up with a convincing argument that the water from Hetch Hetchy can be replaced.

I used to live in California for a couple of decades and I would say that it’s not always been a dry state. For some reason as more and more people either moved there or were born there to the point that residents in California outnumber Canadians or Australians there has been less rainfall and a shortage of water. They have now been in a drought for 20 years. Maybe paving over the best farmland in America wasn’t a good idea. Places that when I was growing up used to be crops and orchards and vineyards are now massive communities of houses and apartments. Its ridiculous on a massive scale. Back in the 70’s and 80’s we received plenty of rain and snow. When it comes to snowfall remember the Sierra Nevada’s is where the Donner party were located in fact there’s a big statue there that shows how deep the snow was. The sheer amount of pavement and houses has altered the amount of rainfall at least that’s my opinion lol.

Let me get this straight, San Fran, a bastion of liberty, equality, progressiveness, doesn't want to pay for a new road? I've been to Hetch Hetchy, the only road to access the dam is narrow and needs to be repaired.😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

I have sympathy for both viewpoints. On the “Environmentalist” side, clearly there are natural wonders and resources that must be preserved for future generations of people. Having spent some years as a recreational caver, however, and being frustrated that only a few privileged and well-connected individuals had access to the “cooler” caves on public lands, I’m for granting more public access. (A friend once observed, only slightly facetiously, that the Environmentalist’s First Article of Faith is: “We believe in the preservation of natural resources for our own use and that of a few of our friends.”) When “progressivism” means that only a few elite people get to partake, the system is more Soviet than most of the American public can guess. The “default” position of the USFS, and various other federal agencies, seems to be that anything that discourages public access (and the attendant impact) is, ipso facto, wise policy. In Albuquerque, where I live, that attitude resulted (a) in a private landowner’s blocking his part of a forest road (previously used by the public for generations) giving vehicular access to USFS picnicgrounds and trailheads, and (b) the USFS’s total acquiescence and failure to sue the landowner to maintain the public right-of-way. (In Utah, we’ve even seen national monuments created for no other plausible purpose than to prevent fossil-fuel development.) On the “Conservationist” side, my feeling is that eventually the needs of the many, with cautious management, have to win out over the desires of the few. Most of Albuquerque’s growth in the last 50 years has been on the west side of the Rio Grande. Wealthy landowners along the river held up the construction of additional bridges for many years, arguing they were trying to maintain the natural beauty and traditional semi-rural character of the “bosque,” and that that trumped the needs of the residents of a burgeoning west side. Gradually, a bare minimum of bridges were built as the landowners’ contentions became untenable on the ground, but the process was inexorable because of how it impacted so many people. (On the other hand, one could argue for a _lot_ of public-works projects in national parks, and on other public lands, that would benefit many people; however, preservation, again with cautious management, has to win out in most of these cases.)

This really upset me

Prophecy: This channel will have >= 1M subs in 1 year.

GIVE US BACK OUR VALLEY

They probably should've given it a better name than Hetch Hetchy.

Its too late. It will never be restored

So the dam is there, somebody could still sue SF to at least get them to follow the law to give people access to enjoy the area.

Hetch Hetchy should be next.

I am a native San Franciscan but I am not going to get involved in the politics of this issue. BUT one fact is clear. San Francisco has the best tasting drinking water of any metropolitan area in the country.

I new people who were in the valley before the Hetch Hetche and was told that it wasn't all that. I Fail to see what the controversy is all about

at timestamp 13:43 it appears to be drone footage of illiloutte falls in the merced river canyon with half dome and basket dome in the background. filming with drones is still illegal in yosemite i thought.

Thank God for John Muir!

Now San Francisco has people shitting in the streets. Yeah, they're gonna get to that road real soon...

Basically talking out of both sides of their mouths....sums up the left.

If you are from San Francisco, you have no right to call yourself an environmentalist.

The last time I checked san Francisco is located on a huge bay on the largest ocean in the world so why don't they use the ocean for water by taking the salt out of the water or use the salt water in fire fighting wells and fire fighting utilities because no one is going to drink the water used to put out fires

NOTHING was "stolen". Beyond that is SF willing to have ZERO water??

Why didn't they compremise and build half a dam?

14:34 Diane Feinstein is said similarly to Einstein not “steene”

I'm a San Franciscan and my issue would be: I'm a human at the leading edge of a million years of evolution and NO I'm NOT giving up my toys! No, I won't share! But seriously, I feel terror at the prospect of losing that clean water. Fueled in large part by witnessing over and over again how money and resources are not being put to do the major water infrastructure projects needed in the State. If we were to give up the dam we have no guarantee the State or Feds would provide replacement water resources. Our waterways were built to support a tenth of the population. The San Joaquin valley is sinking from loss of groundwater and whole towns (mostly of immigrant farm workers) are completely dry or polluted groundwater. Change is hard, beyond hard, but you can't take away our water as we look out on an aged and not-big enough water system to meet everyone's needs (even taking into consideration that everyone in the Whole Wide Greater Western Region needs to chill it down, dry the golf course, get a hold of major wasting municipalities and medical and military industrial complexes, and now Big Data needs. Those VR headsets people wear use a lot of water. Everyone is suffering from overuse of the Colorado and etc. I saw the video about Lake Powell and we all know it's foolish to keep moving to the SW...) And that's my opinion: MITTS OFF, byyye. The big thing I do worry about is sabotage- I'm glad there's no easy access to the place, frankly, after 9/11. OK, OOT. Nice vid, nice channel. I like the research.

Hayduke lives!

Yeah....It's always difficult to unwind a crime of such proportions. Those whom have benefited from it will do anything, say anything to avoid reality.

It needs to be taken down.

How is Reclamation reclaiming what was? And how is damming a River Conservation? I just want to understand these definitions.