Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy1 As to my attitude regarding the proposed use of Hetch Hetchy by the city of San Francisco...I am fully persuaded that...the injury...by substi- tuting a lake for the present swampy floor of the valley...is altogether unimportant compared with the benefits to be derived from its use as a reservoir. —Gifford Pinchot, 1913 These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the Mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. —John Muir, 1912 Situated on a dry, sandy peninsula, the city of of traditional assumptions about the desirability San Francisco faced a chronic fresh-water short- of putting undeveloped natural resources to use age. In the Sierra, about one hundred and on the other, the battle over Hetch Hetchy was fifty miles distant, the erosive action of glaciers bound to be bitter. Before Congress and President and the Tuolumne River scooped the spectacu- Woodrow Wilson made a final decision in 1913, lar, high-walled Hetch Hetchy Valley. As early the valley became a cause célèbre. The principle as 1882, city engineers pointed out the possibil- of preserving wilderness was put to the test. For ity of damming its narrow, lower end to make a the first time in the American experience the com- reservoir. They also recognized the opportunity peting claims of wilderness and civilization to a of using the fall of the impounded water for the specific area received a thorough hearing before generation of hydroelectric power. In 1890, how- a national audience.2 ever, the act creating Yosemite National Park des- When the preservationists first learned of San ignated Hetch Hetchy and its environs a wilder- Francisco’s plans for Hetch Hetchy, Theodore ness preserve. Undaunted, San Francisco’s mayor Roosevelt occupied the White House, and the James D. Phelan applied for the valley as a reser- choice of reservoir or wilderness placed him in an voir site shortly after the turn of the century. Sec- awkward position. There were few Americans so retary of the Interior Ethan A. Hitchcock’s refusal committed to a belief in the value of wild coun- to violate the sanctity of a national park was only a try. Yet Roosevelt appreciated the importance of temporary setback, because on April 18, 1906, an water, lumber, and similar commodities to na- earthquake and fire devastated San Francisco and tional welfare and as President felt responsible added urgency and public sympathy to the search for providing them. The result of this ambiva- for an adequate water supply. The city immedi- lence was inconsistency in Roosevelt’s early policy ately reapplied for Hetch Hetchy, and on May 11, statements. In 1901 he declared in his first annual 1908, Secretary James R. Garfield approved the message that “the fundamental idea of forestry is new application. “Domestic use,” he wrote, “is the the perpetuation of forests by use. Forest protec- highest use to which water and available storage tion is not an end in itself; it is a means to in- basins...can be put.” crease and sustain the resources of our country John Muir, Robert Underwood Johnson, and and the industries which depend on them.” But those whom they had won to the cause of wilder- later in the message, he revealed his hope that ness preservation disagreed. Secretary Garfield’s some of the forest reserves could be made “pre- approval stimulated them to launch a national serves for the wild forest creatures.” The same protest campaign. Given the flourishing cult of uncertainty appeared two years later in an ad- wilderness on the one hand and the strength dress on the goal of forestry: “primarily the ob- 1Roderick Nash, ch 10 in Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed, Yale Univ Press, 2001. Author’s footnotes omitted. 2italics added for emphasis. 26 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy ject is not to preserve forests because they are protect the Yosemite National Park, but I believe beautiful—though that is good in itself—not to that the highest possible use which could be made preserve them because they are refuges for the of it would be to supply pure water to a great cen- wild creatures of the wilderness—though that too ter of population.” Still Roosevelt was not com- is good in itself—but the primary object of for- fortable in his decision against wilderness, and est policy...is the making of prosperous homes, is confessed to Johnson that Hetch Hetchy was “one part of the traditional policy of homemaking in of those cases where I was extremely doubtful.” our country.” In spite of his doubts Roosevelt had made a In this seesaw manner Roosevelt hoped to hold choice, and in the spring of 1908 the Garfield per- the two wings of the conservation movement to- mit opened the way for the development of the gether on a united front. The task was formidable: valley. Muir was discouraged but not defeated. Muir already had found his position incompatible He believed it still was possible to arouse a na- with Gifford Pinchot’s. But after 1905 Pinchot was tional protest and demonstrate to federal author- Chief Forester and the principal spokesman of ities that Roosevelt was mistaken in his judgment the utilitarian conception of conservation. More- about the lack of public sentiment for keeping over, he enjoyed a close friendship with Roosevelt. Hetch Hetchy wild. But Muir fully realized that According to Johnson, the President went so far “public opinion is not yet awakened.” The first as to declare that “’in all forestry matters I have task of the preservationists was to capitalize on put my conscience in the keeping of Gifford Pin- the wilderness cult and replace ignorance with chot.”’ And Pinchot favored converting Hetch anger. Telling arguments against the reservoir Hetchy into a reservoir. Yet Roosevelt had camped were needed. As the basis for their protest, the in Yosemite with Muir and appreciated the grow- friends of wilderness turned to the old Roman- ing political strength of the preservationist posi- tic case against “Mammon.” They made Hetch tion. Early in September 1907, he received a let- Hetchy into a symbol of ethical and aesthetic qual- ter from Muir that brought the issue to a head. ities, while disparaging San Francisco’s proposal Reminding the President of their 1903 trip into as tragically typical of American indifference to- the Sierra wilderness, Muir expressed his desire ward them. This line of defense took advantage that the region “be saved from all sorts of com- of national sensitivity to charges of being a cul- mercialism and marks of man’s works.” While ture devoted entirely to the frantic pursuit of the acknowledging the need for an adequate munic- main chance. It criticized the commercialism and ipal water supply, he maintained that it could sordidness of American civilization, while defend- be secured outside “our wild mountain parks.” ing wilderness. Concluding the letter, Muir expressed his belief John Muir opened the argument for the Val- that over ninety per cent of the American people ley on aesthetic grounds with an article in Out- would oppose San Francisco’s plans if they were look. After describing its beauties, he declared apprised of their consequences. that its maintainence as a wilderness was essen- Roosevelt’s initial reaction, made even before tial, “for everybody needs beauty as well as bread, Muir’s communication, was to seek advice from places to play in and pray in where Nature may engineers about alternative reservoir sites. The re- heal and cheer and give strength to body and port, however, was that Hetch Hetchy offered the soul alike.” Others took up the same theme in only practical solution to San Francisco’s problem. the national press. Writing in Century, which he Reluctantly Roosevelt made up his mind. While now edited, Robert Underwood Johnson charged assuring Muir that he would do everything pos- that only those who had not advanced beyond the sible to protect the national parks, the President “pseudo-’practical’ stage” could favor San Fran- reminded him that if these reservations “interfere cisco. The presence of these individuals in the na- with the permanent material development of the tion, he added, “is one of the retarding influences State instead of helping...the result will be bad.” of American civilization and brings us back to the Roosevelt ended with an expression of doubt that materialistic declaration that ’Good is only good the great majority would take the side of wilder- to eat.”’ As a self-appointed spokesman for cul- ness in a showdown with the material needs of ture and refinement, Johnson took it upon himself an expanding civilization. Pinchot seconded the to defend intangibles. In a brief submitted at the judgment in favor of San Francisco. Writing to the first Congressional hearing on the Hetch Hetchy President in October 1907 that “I fully sympathize question in December, 1908, he made his protest with the desire of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Muir to “in the name of all lovers of beauty...against the 27 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy materialistic idea that there must be something represented the broader struggle to maintain in- wrong about a man who finds one of the highest tangibles against the pressure of utilitarian de- uses of nature in the fact that it is made to be mands. Sensing this, Abbott made Outlook one looked at.” of the chief organs of the Hetch Hetchy campaign. As president of the American Civic Associa- He explained his stand in an editorial in 1909: “if tion, J.