Roderick Nash, PhD. Author, Professor Emeritus. University of California, Santa Barbara Environmental Studies Program and History "Roderick Nash is considered America's foremost wilderness historian. He is regarded as a national leader in the field of environmental history and management and environmental education. Among his numerous books and over 150 essays, Professor Roderick Frazier Nash is best known for Wilderness and the American Mind, which has received many reprintings, revised editions, and foreign translations. Nash, a past Lindbergh Fellow, has served on the board of directors of the Yosemite Institute and as a member of the advisory committee to the U.S. National Park Service." - UC Santa Barbara Environmental Studies Faculty Page Date of interview: Feb 27, 2011. Please set the historical context in which the debate took place.
The debate over Hetch Hetchy dam was an interesting time in American history. The attitudes towards nature were changing very quickly. In 1890, a decade before the Hetch Hetchy debate fired up, the frontier ended according to the US Census. That touched off a great deal of interest in the wilderness, in wild animals, the Indians, changing attitudes - we were no longer struggling against the wild. The context was now that we should protect parts of that frontier experience. That is how the national parks system came into being. So the debate coming in the turn of the 20th century, dropped right in the middle of that context. I will give you one example of the context - a book by Jack London, called the Call of the Wild, published in 1906, and was hugely popular. It had to do with the reversion of the dog to a wolf and kind of the primitivistic benefits of wilderness. So Americans were primed to think about the wilderness, about National parks. That is the context in which the debate took place.
What was Muir's opinion of the conservationist movement?
John Muir was what I call, a preservationist, as opposed to a conservationist. The conservationists were interested in efficient use, wise use, but always the idea of use. For example, they wanted to practice forestry, and to cut trees but do it in a scientific manner. Muir was on the other hand, a preservationist, believed that the national forests should not be cut, should not be used, and should be more like parks. So he was not a friend of the conservation movement and in particular a man who invented the term conservation in 1907, Gifford Pinchot. He was a good buddy of President Roosevelt, conspired to keep Muir on the outside of the conservation movement. At a conference at the white house for the conservation movement, and Muir was one of the prominent persons, a famous writer, a big name in the west - he was deliberately left out of the conference. They basically told him that this was a conference for conservation not preservation, and Muir felt really bad about that.
How did the public treat Muir and the Sierra Club?
Well, the Sierra Club was started in 1892, right after the ending of the frontier. It was in a way started to preserve the frontier values and landscape. John Muir was of course the first president of the Sierra club. The club was widely recognized as a champion of preservation of national parks, and later on what was known as the wilderness movement. But, because Hetchy Hetchy was going to benefit San Francisco, because the Sierra Club was headquartered in San Francisco, with local members. There was big debate within the club, as a result of the great earthquake of 1906. There were members of the club who were divided - some wanted to dam, some wanted to stop it. It split the club right down the middle and the rift persisted for many years.
Do you consider Muir to be diplomatic in his efforts to stop the damming?
I don't consider that Muir was diplomatic. John Muir believed that the Hetch Hetchy controversy involved good and evil. It was not just a question of policy. It had to do with forces of light and forces of darkness. He thought that the people who wanted the dam were linked to the devil, he called them "Satan and company". That's the language of moral discourse, not what would you would call diplomatic or political discourse. We are not used to seeing people jump up and say - "you are not only wrong, but you are evil". God was associated in his mind with the mountains and the wild places, and so someone who would destroy that and damming a mountain valley was sacrilegious, and going against his religion. So when you have that kind of attitude, it’s hard to be diplomatic. Some people thought he was nuts, some people thought he was a saint.
How would you describe the relationship of President Roosevelt with Pinchot and with Muir?
Theodore Roosevelt was a hugely popular president. He loved the outdoors and was friends with John Muir. He camped with Muir for three days in Yosemite in 1903. However, he was pursued even more by Gifford Pinchot, who he was a real buddy with - he rode horses with him, boxed with him. He appointed Pinchot head of forestry. Roosevelt had a struggle when Pinchot came to him with the idea of damming the valley. This was early, in the 20th century, around in 1901. He had a real struggle - Muir said don't dam it, Pinchot said, yes dam it; this is what conservation is - the national park idea. It's about good use. It will provide good water for the city. Ultimately Theodore Roosevelt went with Pinchot, and issued the Garfield permit of 1901. So even though I like John Muir, after the earthquake of 1906, this the best way to help the people, the highest use of the land for benefit. Roosevelt understood the wild, was a hunter and understood that wild animals needed habitat to live in. He was a friend of the wilderness, but in this case, he sided with his friend Gifford Pinchot and against John Muir.
How were the supporters of the dam able to use the change in presidency to Woodrow Wilson?
When Wilson won the election in 1912, it wasn't good news for National Parks. It wasn't good news for Yosemite and keeping the dam out of Hetch Hetchy valley. For one thing Wilson was a supporter of public power, of public water power. The debate was not just not about water, it was also about generating power. It was the beginning of crusade of public power, which would continue later, for example during the New Deal and developments like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also, Secretary of the Interior, who was in charge for the national forests, in charge of some of these decisions, was a man named Franklin Lane. Now Franklin Lane had been the city attorney of San Francisco, and a very strong advocate of damming the Hetch Hetchy. Now in these circumstances, it did not look too good for keeping the dam out of Hetch Hetchy valley. The final vote for the valley in the senate in the December of 1913 and the vote 43 for the dam, 25 opposed and 29 abstaining. That's a close vote in the senate. If 15 or so of the absent had showed up, it might have gone the other way. So the Wilson presidency and Franklin Lane had heard considerable resistance in the senate to Hetch Hetchy - people questioned - wait a minute do we want a dam in a National Park? The outcome of the vote as you know was devastating to Muir, and he was broken hearted. He had fought this with so much effort thinking it was evil. He was broken hearted and died the next year, 1914. It was really quite a sad end; John Muir, who had done so much for National Parks and wilderness died with the bitter taste of the Hetch Hetchy defeat in his mouth.
How successful were the preservationists in getting the message out to the American public?
I think the preservationists did not do a very good job in getting the message out to the public - and that's people like John Muir, Robert Underwood Johnson and the others actors and leaders who were behind the campaign to stop the dam. They failed to emphasize wilderness qualities. They talked a lot about scenery, a lot about scenery. Wilderness as we understand it today was not that common a concept. With scenery they lost an important argument against the dam. The dam builders were able to take that point and talk about why their beautiful mountain lake would not destroy the scenery. People would be able to boat on it. They were able to make a point that their lake would look just like many famous European lakes. What instead the preservationists should have said was that this reservoir, it was not a lake, but the dam and the reservoir would destroy the natural wilderness of the place and the National Park was created to preserve nature in its wild condition. Putting in an industrial structure on the Tuolumne River would destroy it forever. That's where the preservations lost the argument. Of course, it didn't turn out to be a very pretty lake and people were not able to go boating on it.
What examples of diplomatic tactics stand out in the debate?
Remember how we talked about scenery was a poor choice for the preservationists to use. There was a photograph that was circulated to committees and members of congress that showed Hetch Hetchy valley. And an artist had drawn in a lake - and he didn't show much of the dam, and even if he did, it was covered in ivy and vines... the lake was brim full and beautiful, there was no draw-down line, and there were people in boats on it and people were playing. The picture was designed to convince Americans that - "look this reservoir isn't going to harm the National Park - it's going to make it beautiful". The picture was done by an artist - it wasn't an actual photograph. The final project didn't look like that all. That was an example of persuasive technique that changed some votes in congress.
Are there other environmental debates in history that are similar to this one?
Let me say that this was one of the first times in history about public land that had been set aside. National Parks had only existed a short time, since Yellowstone in 1872. America invented National Parks - we were the first nation to have them - When you look at world history this was very uncommon to have an area that had been dedicated to the public - not for private use, not for a duke or an early or other aristocratic power. It was a public decision and there were not many precedents for that - should we develop it or not. Also very new was the idea that development may not always be beneficial. Therefore there are not many precedents before Hetch Hetchy. However after Hetch Hetchy there were a number of controversies that had the same payers - a dam on public land, a dam affecting a National Park. One of them that you can read about in the book is Echo Park, in Dinosaur National Monument in 1956 and that was defeated. Also later on, there was a controversy over Glen Canyon dam and that was settled because it was not in a National Park. There was a huge controversy about dams in the Grand Canyon of Colorado. There is now a strong movement to remove dams from rivers - they are harmful for the environment - they are harmful for Salmon runs.
What is your stand on removing O'Shaughnessy dam?
I am very much for it. It's a win-win situation - a win for National Parks. San Francisco would get its water from the Tuolumne further downstream, just not from the National Park. I believe all great ideas go through three stages - ridicule, discussion, and adoption. We are now in the discussion phase of this idea of removing the dam from Hetch Hetchy. It would be a great triumph and a great demonstration that we recognize other qualities and put great importance to them in American civilization.