As wilderness preservation became more popular, disagreements about the goals became more visible.
San Francisco needed a reservoir--urban water supplies at the time were usually based on a large lake that would be protected from development so the water would be clean (for another example see Quabbin)
- the Hetch Hetchy valley was seen as a good location as early as 1882
- in 1890 it became part of Yosemite National Park
- 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire made a better water supply seem more crucial
- despite opposition from the Sierra Club the Secretary of the Interior approved the reservoir plan in 1908
- Pinchot saw this as
an example of his principle that the public would only
support conservation if it was made compatible with
human needs and supported the reservoir--wise use
- Muir argued that the wild mountain park should be saved from commercialism--preservation
- Roosevelt first asked for more engineering studies, but the report was that the Hetch Hetchy valley was the only practical place near San Fracisco for a reservoir
- there was also a side fight going on about whether profit-making companies or city governments should provide water and electricity--the alternative to the city developing a reservoir at Hetch Hetchy would be a private company that was trying to create a monopoly
- the city of San Francisco argued that human health and comfort, much less human life, were more important than wilderness preservation
- Muir didn't give up
the fight but sought to mobilize public opinion
- The preservationists didn't make the wilderness claim very clearly, and when they argued recreation and beauty the answer was that the reservoir would provide that--see before and after photos here
- the debate made the public much more aware of the issue of development vs. preservation
- between wise human
use and wilderness for its own sake
Hetch Hetchy Valley
Consider the choice between the natural valley and a lake
The Greatest Good chapter 11
Consider the choice between the natural valley and a lake
- needs of the city of San Francisco
- which will provide more recreational opportunities?
- do we do harm when we radically modify the environment?
- we affect the ecosystem
- should we leave nature undisturbed for its own sake?
- wilderness is more important than human needs
- the natural state of a place is what is important--humans shouldn't improve it
- but if you ignore human use entirely, wilderness preservation won't be very popular
- drawing
the line is tricky
- wise use of natural areas
- preserve nature
for people--greatest good of the greatest number for
the longest term (close to the modern idea of
sustainability)
- human needs are most important, but we need to think long term
- fine if you are cutting down and replanting forests
- what about removing a mountaintop to get at the coal and then putting the dirt back and replanting a forest
- where do you
draw the line
The Greatest Good chapter 11