Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy1

As to my attitude regarding the proposed use of by the city of ...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. —, 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 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 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. Horace McFarland took every opportunity this country were in danger of habitually ignor- to preach the desirability, indeed the necessity, ing utilitarian practice for the sake of running af- of maintaining some element of beauty in man’s ter sentimental dreams and aesthetic visions we environment. He believed the aesthetic should should advise it...to dam the Tuolumne River in have a place in the conservation movement, and order to instruct its citizens in the use of the bath- in 1909 expressed his displeasure at its concen- tub. But the danger is all the other way. The na- tration on utilitarian aims. In the same year he tional habit is to waste the beauty of Nature and told Pinchot that “the conservation movement is save the dollars of business.” now weak, because it has failed to join hands The same disparaging reference to American with the preservation of scenery.” For McFarland, tastes and values appeared in the statements of Hetch Hetchy was a test case, and he spoke and preservationists in early 1909 at the House and wrote widely in its defense. If even national parks Senate hearings in regard to Hetch Hetchy. One were to be given over to utilitarian purposes, there man, who had camped in the valley, pointedly was no guarantee that ultimately all the beauty asked: “is it never ceasing; is there nothing to of unspoiled nature would be destroyed.3 Speak- be held sacred by this nation; is it to be dollars ing before the Secretary of the Interior on the only; are we to be cramped in soul and mind by Hetch Hetchy question, McFarland contended that the lust after filthy lucre only; shall we be left such undeveloped places would become increas- some of the more glorious places?” Others joined ingly valuable for recreation as more and more him in pleading that “loftier motives” than saving Americans lived in cities. Yet when the preserva- money for San Francisco be taken into considera- tion of wilderness conflicted with “material inter- tion. “May we live down our national reputation ests,” those financially affected cried: “’that is sen- for commercialism,” one letter concluded. timentalism; that is aestheticism; that is pleasure- In the Senate hearings, Henry E. Gregory of the loving; that is unnecessary; that is not practi- American Scenic and Historic Preservation Soci- cal.”’ Usually such resistance carried the day and ety appeared in person and spoke of the need to wildness was sacrificed. McFarland objected be- counteract “business and utilitarian motives” that cause “it is not sentimentalism, Mr. Secretary; it seemed to him to dominate the age. He pointed is living.” Elsewhere he elaborated on his ideas: out that wildernesses such as Hetch Hetchy had “the primary function of the national forests is to value beyond computation in monetary terms “as supply lumber. The primary function of the na- an educator of the people and as a restorer and tional parks is to maintain in healthful efficiency liberator of the spirit enslaved by Mammon.” Ar- the lives of the people who must use that lum- guments along these lines struck home, especially ber....The true ideal of their maintenance does not at a time when many Americans squirmed uncom- run parallel to the making of the most timber, or fortably at charges that their nation’s aesthetic the most pasturage, or the most water power.” sense was stunted and deformed. Lyman Abbott, the editor of Outlook, also felt Another tactic of the preservationists empha- it was a mistake “to turn every tree and waterfall sized the spiritual significance of wild places and into dollars and cents.” His magazine found most the tendency of money-minded America to ignore of its readers among a class of people concerned religion. Hetch Hetchy became a sanctuary or tem- over what they thought was the eclipse of moral- ple in the eyes of the defenders. John Muir, for ity, refinement, and idealism by urbanization, in- one, believed so strongly in the divinity of wild dustrialization, and an emphasis on business val- nature that he was convinced he was doing the ues. The defense of wilderness attracted them be- Lord’s battle in resisting the reservoir. The preser- cause it permitted making a positive case—they vationists’ innumerable puns about “damning” could be for something (wilderness) rather than Hetch Hetchy were only partly in jest. John Muir merely against amorphous forces. Protecting the and his colleagues believed they were preaching wild from an exploitative civilization, in short, “the Tuolumne gospel.” San Francisco became

3italics added.

28 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy

“the Prince of the powers of Darkness” and “Sa- San Francisco was bewildered and incensed at tan and Co.” Muir wrote: “we may lose this par- the public unwillingness that it should have Hetch ticular fight but truth and right must prevail at Hetchy as a reservoir. Was not supplying water last. Anyhow we must be true to ourselves and to a large city a worthy cause, one that certainly the Lord.” This conviction that they were engaged took priority over preserving wilderness? The in a battle between right and wrong prompted the San Francisco Chronicle referred to the preserva- preservationists to vituperative outbursts against tionists as “hoggish and mushy esthetes,” while their opponents. In a popular book of 1912, Muir the city’s engineer, Marsden Manson, wrote in labeled his foes “temple destroyers” who scorned 1910 that the opposition was largely composed of the “God of the Mountains” in pursuit of the “short-haired women and long-haired men.” San “Almighty Dollar.” A ringing and widely quoted Francisco argued that the beauties of wilderness denunciation followed: “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As were admirable, but in this case human health, well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals comfort, and even human life were the alterna- and churches, for no holier temple has ever been tives. Phrased in these terms, even some of the consecrated by the heart of man.” members of the Appalachian Mountain Club and Using these arguments, and the especially ef- the felt compelled to place the needs fective one (unrelated to wilderness) that the val- of civilization ahead of protecting wild country. ley as part of Yosemite National Park was a “public In the Sierra Club, Warren Olney, one of the playground” which should not be turned over to founders, led a faction which supported the city. any special interest, the preservationists were able In 1910 the Club held a referendum in which to arouse considerable opposition to San Fran- preservation won 589 to 161, but in order to pros- cisco’s plans. Members of the Sierra and Ap- ecute the defense of Hetch Hetchy, the preserva- palachian Mountain Clubs took the lead in prepar- tionists were obliged to act in a separate organiza- ing pamphlet literature for mass distribution. Let tion: the Branch of the Society for the All the People Speak and Prevent the Destruction Preservation of National Parks. The wilderness of the Yosemite Park of 1909, for example, con- enthusiasts in the Appalachian group formed an tained a history of the issue, reprints of articles Eastern Branch of the Society. and statements opposing the dam, a discussion of At every opportunity the proponents of the alternative sources of water, and photographs of dam expressed their belief that a lake in Hetch the valley. Preservationists also obtained the sym- Hetchy would not spoil its beauty but, rather, en- pathies of numerous newspaper and magazine ed- hance it. A prominent engineer reported on the itors in all parts of the nation. Even Theodore City’s behalf that roads and walks could be built Roosevelt retreated from his earlier endorsement which would open the region for public recreation of the reservoir and declared in his eighth annual in the manner of European mountainlake resorts. message of December 8, 1908, that Yellowstone Since the preservationists frequently based their and Yosemite “should be kept as a great national opposition on the need to maintain a “scenic won- playground. In both, all wild things should be pro- der” or “beauty spot,” and on the desirability of tected and the scenery kept wholly unmarred.” maintaining a public playground, the claims of Evidence of the effectiveness of the protest ap- San Francisco were difficult to dismiss. If, instead, peared in the action of the House after its 1909 more attention had been paid specifically to the hearings. Although the Committee on the Public wilderness qualities of Hetch Hetchy—which any Lands had approved the grant in a close vote, a man-made construction would have eliminated— strong minority report dissented on the grounds San Francisco’s point about the scenic attraction that such action would deny the public’s right of an artificial lake could have been more easily to the valley for recreational purposes. Testify- answered. As it was, this tactical error cost the ing to the amount of popular opposition, the re- preservationists considerable support. port observed that “there has been an exceedingly The Hetch Hetchy controversy entered its widespread, earnest, and vigorous protest voiced climactic stage on March 4, 1913, when the by scientists, naturalists, mountain climbers, trav- Woodrow Wilson administration took office. San elers, and others in person, by letters, and tele- Francisco’s hopes soared, because the new Secre- grams, and in newspaper and magazine articles.” tary of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane, was a native, In the face of this expression of public opinion, a former attorney for the city, and a proponent of the House pigeonholed and killed San Francisco’s the reservoir. But Lane upheld the policy of pre- application in the Sixtieth Congress. vious Secretaries that in cases involving national

29 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy parks Congress must make the final decision. On mediately developed for its passage. Applying the behalf of San Francisco, Representative John E. time-honored utilitarian yardstick to the problem, Raker immediately introduced a bill to the Sixty- Representative Raker of California asserted that third Congress approving the grant. The preser- the “old barren rocks” of the valley have a “cash vationists prepared to send protest literature to value” of less than $300,000 whereas a reservoir 1418 newspapers and to make known their views would be worth millions. But most proponents of before Congress. Robert Underwood Johnson dis- the dam were not so positive. They prefaced their tributed an Open Letter to the American People in support of the dam with a declaration of their love which he declared Hetch Hetchy to be “a veritable of wilderness and reluctance to have it destroyed. temple of the living God” and warned that “again Finly H. Gray of Indiana, for example, explained: the money-changers are in the temple.” The stage “Mr. Chairman, much as I admire the beauties of was set for a showdown. nature and deplore the desecration of God’s Cre- On June 25 the House Committee on the Public ation, yet when these two considerations come in Lands opened hearings on the Hetch Hetchy issue, conflict the conservation of nature should yield with Gifford Pinchot as the star witness. Pinchot to the conservation of human welfare, health, and simplified the question into “whether the advan- life.” tage of leaving this valley in a state of nature is The choice Representative Gray made between greater than...using it for the benefit of the city wilderness and the needs of civilization was es- of San Francisco.” He admitted that the idea of pecially difficult for William Kent, a Representa- preserving wilderness appealed to him “if nothing tive from California. Independently wealthy, he else were at stake,” but in this case the need of had chosen a career as a reformer in politics, the city seemed “overwhelming.” Explaining his first in Chicago and after 1906 in Marin County, reasoning, Pinchot declared that “the fundamen- north of San Francisco, where he had lived as tal principle of the whole conservation policy is a boy. Kent’s devotion to wild country had the that of use, to take every part of the land and same characteristics as Theodore Roosevelt’s. “My its resources and put it to that use in which it life,” he declared in an autobiographical fragment, will serve the most people.” Former San Francisco “has been largely spent outdoors...I have ridden mayor James D. Phelan told the Committee that the prairies, the mountains and the desert.” A the criteria for a decision should be the needs of skilled hunter who deprecated the softness of his the “little children, men and women...who swarm contemporaries, Kent called for a revitalization of the shore of San Francisco Bay” rather than the the savage virtues. Understandably, he believed few who liked “solitary loneliness” and “the mere in the wisdom of preserving wilderness, and in scenic value of the mountains.” 1903 bought several hundred acres of virgin red- Since the House hearings were called on short wood forest on the shoulder of Marin County’s Mt. notice, Edmund D. Whitman of the Appalachian Tamalpais. In December 1907 Kent informed the Mountain Club was the only preservationist to tes- Secretary of the Interior of his desire to give this tify. He attempted to show that the reservoir land to the federal government as a national mon- would substantially reduce the value of Yosemite ument under the provisions of the Antiquities Act. National Park as a public recreation ground and His purpose was to keep in a primitive condition beauty spot. But Whitman did not bring out “the most attractive bit of wilderness I have ever the fact that wilderness was at stake in Hetch seen.” Kent requested the area be named in honor Hetchy. As a result Phelan’s rejoinder that San of John Muir, and on January 9, 1908, President Francisco would cover the dam with moss, vines, Roosevelt issued a proclamation designating the and trees and would build picnic spots and trails Muir Woods National Monument. around the reservoir seemed to answer his objec- In view of this record, preservationists be- tions. Whitman concluded his testimony more ef- lieved they had found a champion in William Kent. fectively with a quotation from a Robert Under- The Sierra Club made him an honorary member wood Johnson letter on the danger that without while letters poured in from all parts of the coun- unspoiled nature to provide a “touch of idealism,” try applauding him for upholding aesthetic and life degenerated into “a race for the trough.” spiritual values in a materialistic age. Deeply On the basis of the June hearings, the Commit- touched by Kent’s tribute, John Muir wrote per- tee submitted a report unanimously endorsing the sonally, calling Muir Woods “the finest forest and reservoir plans. When the bill reached the floor of park thing done in California in many a day.” A the House on August 29, 1913, strong support im- few weeks later he again thanked Kent for “the

30 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy best tree-lover’s monument that could be found Wilson in which Kent advocated San Francisco’s in all the forests of the world.” Protecting the red- claim and then added that in the cause of pro- woods, Muir thought, was “a much needed lesson tecting nature he had personally “spent more time to saint and sinner alike, and a credit and encour- and effort...than any of the men who are opposing agement to God.” It astonished Muir that “so fine this bill.” divine a thing should have come out of money- It remained for Kent, as an acknowledged ad- mad Chicago” and he ended by wishing Kent “im- mirer of Muir, to provide public explanation for mortal Sequoia life.” Kent replied at once, inviting their divergence over Hetch Hetchy. He did so Muir to speak in Marin County and proposing col- in the summer of 1913 in a series of letters to laboration in “the general cause of nature preser- his Congressional colleagues. To Representative vation.” Sydney Anderson of Minnesota he wrote: “I hope A few weeks after arriving in Washington in you will not take my friend, Muir, seriously, for 1911 to begin his first term as a California Con- he is a man entirely without social sense. With gressman, William Kent received a letter from his him, it is me and God and the rock where God put friend John Muir about Hetch Hetchy. Assum- it, and that is the end of the story. I know him ing that Kent, the donor of Muir Woods, would well and as far as this proposition is concerned, champion the cause of wilderness preservation, he is mistaken.” Similarly, Kent wired Pinchot that Muir simply encouraged him to follow the Hetch the Hetch Hetchy protest was the work of private Hetchy issue and “do lots of good work.” But for waterpower interests using “misinformed nature Kent the matter was not so simple. While he re- lovers” as their spokesman. In October Kent told a alized that Hetch Hetchy was valuable as wilder- meeting in California that because Muir had spent ness and part of a national park, he also knew so much time in the wilderness he had not ac- that the powerful Pacific Gas and Electric Com- quired the social instincts of the average man. pany wanted the valley as a step toward consoli- It was not the case that Kent changed his mind dating its control over California hydroelectric re- about the value of wilderness between 1908 and sources. Municipal control of Hetch Hetchy’s wa- 1913. In fact, at the very time he was advocat- ter by San Francisco would block this plan, be a ing development of Hetch Hetchy, he asked Gif- significant victory for the ideal of public owner- ford Pinchot for a statement in support of a state ship, and, beyond that, assert the democratic prin- park on Mt. Tamalpais. Specifically, Kent wanted ciple. Moreover, Kent had decided with his po- Pinchot to show “the advantage of such a wilder- litical friend Gifford Pinchot that “real conserva- ness, particularly near San Francisco.” And after tion meant proper use and not locking up of nat- Hetch Hetchy, Kent went on to help author the bill ural resources.” The sacrifice of Hetch Hetchy’s establishing the National Park Service, participate wilderness qualities, Kent concluded, was regret- in the founding of the Save-the-Redwoods League, table but in this case necessary for a greater good. and add more land to Muir Woods National Mon- Answering Muir indirectly in a letter to Robert Un- ument. Kent’s problem was that the necessity of derwood Johnson, Kent stated his conviction that deciding about Hetch Hetchy left no room for an conservation could best be served by granting the expression of his ambivalence. The valley could valley to San Francisco. not be a wilderness and a publicly owned reservoir In 1913, as a key member of the House Com- simultaneously. And, ultimately, Kent and Muir mittee on the Public Lands, William Kent was in gave wilderness preservation a different priority a position to exert considerable influence. He be- at the price of their earlier friendship. gan by helping draft a bill permitting San Fran- As the consideration of the Hetch Hetchy ques- cisco to build its reservoir; then opened his home tion in the House continued into September, 1913, to the city’s supporters as a campaign headquar- the sentiments of William Kent and other support- ters. The fact that Kent was widely known as the ers of San Francisco encountered stiffer opposi- donor of Muir Woods lent extra weight to his opin- tion. Halvor Steenerson of Minnesota declared it ions. Certainly he would not dismiss the claims was nonsense to claim that an artificial lake would of wilderness preservation lightly. Kent exploited add to the beauty of the valley. “You may as well this advantage fully. When the Hetch Hetchy bill improve upon the lily of the field by handpainting came to the floor of the House, he stated simply: it,” he pointed out, and added that all the city of- “I can lay claim to being a nature lover myself. I fered was a power plant making a “devilish hissing think that is a matter of record.” The same tech- noise” and a “dirty muddy pond.” Concluding his nique appeared in a letter to President Woodrow remarks, Steenerson spoke in the agrarian tradi-

31 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy

tion, deploring the tendency of Americans to live and the faculties of colleges and universities as in cities, and in the Romantic manner, hoping that well as from individuals. The American wilder- some day a poet would use the “pristine glory” of ness had never been so popular before. Hetch Hetchy “to produce something more valu- The arguments the preservationists used able than money.” Horace M. Towner of Iowa against the dam followed the lines laid down in agreed, and pleaded with his colleagues to recog- the earlier stages of the controversy. The issue nize that “dishwashing is not the only use for wa- was represented to be between the intangible val- ter, nor lumber for trees, nor pasture for grass.” ues of wilderness and the insensitivity of utili- But Martin Dies of Texas rose to say the final word tarianism. One widely circulated statement from before the House vote. He felt that natural re- an editorial in the Brooklyn [N.Y.] Standard Union sources should serve civilization. “I want them maintained that keeping Hetch Hetchy wild was to open the reservations in this country,” Dies de- an opportunity to answer the taunts of detractors clared. “I am not for reservations and parks.” Ap- and demonstrate “that there are some things even plause and cries of “Vote!” greeted the conclusion in America which money cannot buy.” Frederick of Dies’ remarks. Law Olmsted, Jr., who had succeeded to his fa- On September 3 the House passed the Hetch ther’s place as a leader in the field of landscape ar- Hetchy bill 183 to 43, with 203 Representatives chitecture, also published a defense of the valley. not voting. No Congressman from a Western state After distinguishing between the “beauty-value” voted against it. Most of its support came from and the “use-value” of nature, he observed that Southern and Middle Western Democrats. In fact, the previous century “has shown...an enormous the bill was rumored to be an administration mea- increase in the appreciation of and resort to the sure, connected, in some minds, with the votes wilder and less man-handled scenery as a means California had given to Wilson in the recent elec- of recreation from the intensifying strain of civi- tion. lization.” As a consequence, Olmsted contended, The Senate still had to decide on San Fran- wildernesses like Hetch Hetchy had great impor- cisco’s application, and in preparation the preser- tance to modern society. They must be preserved vationists worked frantically. Their plan was “to and held inviolate “if beauty of scenery is not to flood the Senate with letters from influential peo- be pushed to the wall at every point of conflict ple.” In addition, the Society for the Preserva- [with] the more obvious claims of utilitarian ad- tion of National Parks and the newly organized vantages.” National Committee for the Preservation of the Robert Underwood Johnson worked for Hetch Yosemite National Park published several pam- Hetchy at a fever pitch through the summer and phlets which called on Americans to write or wire fall of 1913 because he believed that “this is a their President and Congressmen and suggested fight between the sordid commercialism on the arguments against the dam. Thousands of copies one hand and the higher interests of the whole circulated, and the public responded. Between the people on the other.” The difference between a time of the House passage and early December wild Hetch Hetchy and an artificial reservoir, he when the Senate began its debate, the destruc- asserted, was not “a tweedledee and tweedledum tion of the wilderness qualities of Hetch Hetchy distinction between two equally good kinds of Valley became a major national issue. Hundreds scenery” but rather involved “worship and sacri- of newspapers throughout the country, including lege.” In Johnson’s eyes there could be no com- such opinion leaders as the New York Times, pub- promise with San Francisco. “I am so confident lished editorials on the question, most of which that we are right in this matter,” he wrote young took the side of preservation. Leading magazines, Franklin D. Roosevelt at the height of the con- such as Outlook, Nation, Independent, and Col- troversy, that he would debate anyone anywhere lier’s, carried articles protesting the reservoir. A on the subject. Johnson and his colleagues con- mass meeting on behalf of the valley took place at stantly emphasized that they had no desire of the Museum of Natural History in New York City. denying San Francisco an adequate water supply. Mail poured into the offices of key Senators: Reed Of course civilization must have its due, they con- Smoot of Utah estimated late in November that he ceded, but in this case other sources of water had received five thousand letters in opposition were available and keeping Hetch Hetchy wild was to the bill, and other Senators were likewise be- worth the extra cost of their development. sieged. The protests came from women’s groups, The wilderness advocates looked forward outing and sportsmen’s clubs, scientific societies, hopefully to the Senate debate and vote. They had

32 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy succeeded in demonstrating that a large number scenic drives for automobiles and boating facili- of Americans resented the proposed alteration of ties for happy family groups. The Examiner also Yosemite National Park. In mid-November 1913, published experts’ testimony justifying the grant Muir cheered the hardworking Johnson: “we’re in a variety of ways. In comparison, the preserva- bound to win, enemy badly frightened, Up and tionists’ campaign literature was considerably less smite em!” But when the Senate began its consid- impressive. eration of the bill on December 1, it was apparent At three minutes before midnight on Decem- that San Francisco’s representatives, who had not ber 6, the Senate voted. Forty-three favored the campaigned nationally but rather lobbied quietly grant, twenty-five opposed it, and twenty-nine did in Washington, had done effective work. As was not vote or were absent. Eighteen votes from the case with many Representatives, most Sena- Southern Democrats were the decisive factor, and tors first made clear that they too appreciated the suggested, as in the case of the House, that the values of unspoiled nature but went on to sup- Wilson administration was behind San Francisco. port the dam. “I appreciate the importance of pre- Only nine of the “yeas” came from Republicans. serving beautiful natural features of a landscape A Presidential veto was the last hope of the as much as anybody else,” Frank B. Brandegee of preservationists. After the Senate passage, Wil- Connecticut declared. Yet ultimately civilization son received numerous letters calling upon him won out because the “mere preservation of a beau- to defend Yosemite National Park. Robert Under- tiful, romantic, and picturesque spot...for esthetic wood Johnson wrote, characteristically, that “God purposes” could not conceivably take precedence invented courage for just such emergencies. The over “the urgent needs of great masses of human moral effect of a veto would be immense.” He beings for the necessities of life.” Echoing Bran- even called in person on the President, but when degee, Marcus A. Smith of Arizona said that his he left the office, William Kent was waiting to en- affection for natural beauty “leads me as nothing ter! On December 19, 1913, Wilson approved the else could to sympathize with those thousands of Hetch Hetchy grant. In signing he declared that people who have sent their protests against the “the bill was opposed by so many public-spirited destruction of...Yosemite National Park.” How- men...that I have naturally sought to scrutinize it ever, Smith, too, was in favor of the reservoir, be- very closely. I take the liberty of thinking that cause while “we all love the sound of whispering their fears and objections were not well founded.” winds amid the trees...the wail of a hungry baby The preservationists had lost the fight for the will make us forget it...as we try to minister to its valley, but they had gained much ground in the wants.” Few Senators supported the dam because larger war for the existence of wilderness. A they opposed wilderness. Most either thought the deeply disappointed John Muir took some con- benefits coming to San Francisco greater than the solation from the fact that “the conscience of good that accrued from the wild park or, as with the whole country has been aroused from sleep.” George D. Norris of Nebraska, conceived of the is- Scattered sentiment for wilderness preservation sue only in terms of publicly owned hydroelectric had, in truth, become a national movement in the development. course of the Hetch Hetchy controversy. More- The Senators opposing San Francisco stressed over, the defenders of wilderness discovered their the availability of other reservoir sites and the political muscles and how to flex them by arous- need to respect the sanctity of a region that had ing an expression of public opinion, and in Hetch been dedicated to providing the public with a sam- Hetchy they had a symbol which, like the Maine, ple of wilderness. Asle J. Gronna of North Dakota would not easily be forgotten. In fact, immedi- believed it was a mistake “to commercialize ev- ately after the Hetch Hetchy defeat the fortunes ery bit of land” and to “destroy the handiwork of of wilderness preservation took an abrupt turn God’s creation.” Exchanges were heated, and for for the better. Early in 1915 Stephen T. Mather, several evenings the lights of the Senate burned a highly successful businessman and wilderness late into the night. enthusiast, became director of the national parks. A decision had been made to vote on Decem- Along with Horace M. Albright, Robert Sterling ber 6, and when the Senators entered their cham- Yard, J. Horace McFarland, and the Sierra Club, ber that morning they found copies of a “Special Mather generated a campaign on the park’s be- Washington Edition” of the San Francisco Exam- half that resulted in the enactment in 1916 of the iner on their desks. Skillful drawings showed how National Park Service Act. The publicity that ac- the valley might appear as a man-made lake with companied its passage did much to increase the

33 Reading 5 Hetch Hetchy

national interest in preserving wilderness that the other way—on civilizing it in the name of progress Hetch Hetchy fight had aroused. and prosperity. Older generations conceived of Near the close of the Senate debate on Hetch the thrust of civilization into the wilderness as the Hetchy, James A. Reed of Missouri arose to con- beneficent working out of divine intentions, but in fess his incredulity at the entire controversy. How the twentieth century a handful of preservation- could it be, he wondered, that over the future of ists generated widespread resistance against this a piece of wilderness “the Senate goes into pro- very process. What had formerly been the subject found debate, the country is thrown into a condi- of national celebration was made to appear a na- tion of hysteria.” Observing, accurately, that the tional tragedy. intensity of resistance to the dam increased with Muir, Johnson, and their colleagues were able the distance from Yosemite, he remarked that to create a protest because the American people “when we get as far east as New England the op- were ready to be aroused. Appreciation of wild position has become a frenzy.” In Senator Reed’s country and the desire for its preservation had opinion this was clearly “much ado about little.” spread in the closing decades of the nineteenth He might have said the same about the enthusi- century from a small number of literati to a size- asm for Joe Knowles, the Boy Scouts, or Tarzan able segment of the population. The extent and of the Apes that occurred simultaneously with the vigor of the resistance to San Francisco’s plans for Hetch Hetchy battle. But the point, as Reed him- Hetch Hetchy constituted tangible evidence for self suggested, was that a great many of his con- the existence of a wilderness cult. Equally reveal- temporaries did regard wilderness as worth get- ing was the fact that very few favored the dam ting excited about. because they opposed wilderness. Even the par- Indeed the most significant thing about the con- tisans of San Francisco phrased the issue as not troversy over the valley was that it occurred at all.4 between a good (civilization) and an evil (wilder- One hundred or even fifty years earlier a similar ness) but between two goods. While placing mate- proposal to dam a wilderness river would not have rial needs first, they still proclaimed their love of occasioned the slightest ripple of public protest. unspoiled nature. Previously most Americans had Traditional American assumptions about the use not felt compelled to rationalize the conquest of of undeveloped country did not include reserving wild country in this manner. For three centuries it in national parks for its recreational, aesthetic, they had chosen civilization without any hesita- and inspirational values. The emphasis was all the tion. By 1913 they were no longer so sure.

Questions

1. Briefly describe the Hetch Hetchy debate and 4. What was the significance of the debate, and summarize the major arguments for/against its resolution? Answer in some detail. damming the valley. 5. (a) Based on this article and your own re- search, prepare a timeline of the events 2. The battle over Hetch Hetchy pitted Pinchot’s leading to the passage of the Raker Act in Conservatives against Muir’s Preservationists. 1913 allowing the Hetch Hetchy dam to Compare the tactics of the two camps. be built. (b) Further research: what has happened in 3. The preservationists lost their battle to save Hetch Hetchy since the Raker Act was Hetch Hetchy. What tactical mistakes, noted passed? What is the current status of the by Nash, contributed to their defeat? dam?

4italics added.

34