Chapter Seven:
Two Battles for Kings Canyon (1931-1947)
(continued)
How Much Tourism and Where Will it Be?
|
While the National Park Service struggled to resolve
these persistent questions of regulation and jurisdiction in Kings
Canyon, a larger and more critical question arose. What form and extent
would development along the South Fork take? In resolving this issue the
Park Service faced unusually heavy pressure from outside interest groups
that had participated in formation of the park and thus held somewhat
proprietary feelings. There were many opinions on specific development
decisions, but three basic groups evolved to represent distinctly
different overall plans. On one hand, there was the Fresno Chamber of
Commerce led by lawyer and former chamber president Chester Warlow. A
tireless benefactor of the parks, he had been instrumental in hammering
out the great compromise between Ickes and San Joaquin Valley citizens.
The Fresno group favored extensive development and incessantly reminded
the Park Service of its promises to do so. [41]
At the other end of the development spectrum was the
Sierra Club. Its members, including highly respected figures like
William Colby and Francis Farquhar, had feverishly campaigned on behalf
of the park for more than a half century. Sierra Club members favored
minimum construction, preferring to leave the bulk of the canyon floor
for hiking and horseback exploration. [42]
Finally, in the middle was the Park Service itself.
For the next quarter century, in every decision affecting Kings Canyon,
park officials were pulled from either side and were themselves much
divided on the issues. Colonel White, oddly enough, leaned heavily
toward the opinion of the Fresno group. Although indefatigable in his
campaign to control and reduce tourism in Giant Forest, he nonetheless
favored fairly extensive operations in Kings Canyon. His reasons were
first, because the area should be seen by as many people as possible;
second, because it would draw people away from Giant Forest, giving it a
chance to recover; and third and most important, because the Park
Service had promised extensive development to the Fresno people. [43] Park Service naturalist-scientists such as
Lowell Sumner and Joseph Dixon strongly favored minimum development
citing ecological reasons such as meadow and marsh preservation and
wildlife protection. Park landscape architects such as Ernest Davidson
and Sanford Hill ranged somewhere in the middle. [44]
Three basic packages of development decisions formed
the substance over which these groups disagreed. The first concerned how
far and by what route a road should extend into the canyon. Initially
the Park Service verbally agreed to build the road as far as the old
Kanawyer's site east of Copper Creek. Yet by December 1938, well before
the park's creation could be confidently assured, the Sierra Club and
other preservationists began to press for a road terminus at Roaring
River where the Forest Service had plotted its "wilderness" boundary.
[45] Word of this pressure leaked to park
backers in Fresno and an angry Chester Warlow challenged the Park
Service to honor its agreement or suffer the abandonment of any local
support for the park. [46]
On January 20, 1939, Associate Park Service Director
Demaray responded in writing to Warlow that the park would definitely
extend the road to Copper Creek. [47] Then
in May 1940, a few weeks after the park bill passed, another angry
letter from Warlow to Demaray complained that younger members of the
Sierra Club were agitating for a shorter road:
The activities of the Sierra Club stopped the old
1908 canyon road at Lookout Point. They are attempting to do the same
thing now at Cedar Grove. We were generous enough to allow 2-1/2 miles
of the upper canyon for their altruistic wilderness theories, but we do
insist that a portion of the beautiful portion of the canyon be
available to the 'softies.' It seems a shame that a small group of
individuals would want to lock this place up so that it will be used
only by 100 or so people a year when it is entitled to be enjoyed by
thousands. [48]
Warlow finished by warning that the betrayal of
Fresno supporters and the dishonor of breaking their promises would
destroy any chance the Park Service might have for credibility and for
further cooperation from the citizens of the San Joaquin Valley.
The next few months saw hasty and placating
negotiations which culminated in a decision to plan for a Copper Creek
road terminus regardless of any designs or ideas to the contrary. To the
dismay of the Sierra Club, rumors then began circulating about a new
drive to push the road through the park, over Kearsarge Pass and on to
the Owens Valley. Warlow and other Fresno people, however, assured Park
Service officials that no support for road development across the Sierra
would come from their community. Congress in 1946 further buried such
rumors by passing an appropriations bill which outlawed any funding for
road construction within Kings Canyon National Park except for the short
distance from the park boundary near Zumwalt Meadow to Copper Creek.
Thus by the end of 1946 the Copper Creek vicinity became the accepted
area for road's end. Despite grumbling from some in the Sierra Club,
most members contented themselves with trying to influence other
development plans for the park. [49]
Having established Copper Creek as the general area
of the road terminus, Park Service landscape architects discussed
whether the road should end with a loop on the east or west side of the
creek. Despite the need to build two bridges over Copper Creek, the
architects and park engineers preferred a gradual road loop east of the
creek. [50]
At the same time the Park Service struggled with the
issue of where the road should terminate, the matter of its route
through the canyon also begged solution. Fresno citizens and some Park
Service officials favored a road along the south side of the river
through the beautiful but ecologically delicate Zumwalt Meadow. The
Sierra Club and other Park Service planners maintained that the road
should proceed past the existing campgrounds on the south side as far as
Roaring River, then cross back to the northern side hugging the talus
slope along the north wall to Copper Creek. For a period of time in the
late war years, a few planners and engineers promoted a dual road
systemeastbound along the south side of the river through Zumwalt
Meadow and then a westbound return on the north side. [51]
As the war wound down, the Park Service geared up for
an expected infusion of development capital. As hot debate continued to
swirl about the issues of the route and terminus, the Sierra Club played
its trump card. Although it could not prevent the road from reaching the
Copper Creek vicinity, it could influence these detail decisions. In
1924, the daughter of early Kings Canyon settler, Jesse Agnew, had
deeded to the Sierra Club eighty acres of land extending across the
canyon and including Zumwalt Meadow. As early as 1938, the Park Service
requested that the club donate its easement land to the forthcoming park
or, short of that, grant an easement for a Park Service road. Although
sentiment favored turning the land over to the Park Service, Sierra Club
representatives made it clear to the government that they were not
prepared to do so until certain guarantees were made. Specifically they
wanted assurances that the road would end very near Copper Creek and
that it would follow a route against the base of the north wall of the
canyon. Indeed, they would not even grant an easement for any other road
route. [52]
The effect of these stipulations was substantial.
Zumwalt Meadow formed the very heart of the scenic and ecological
treasures of the upper canyon and many park officials were only too
ready to push for its unspoiled, roadless preservation. Because an
easement from the Sierra Club was politically necessary if a road were
even to approach Copper Creek, by 1947 a north side route was a matter
of policy. As for the exact spot of a road loop, the plans still called
for crossing Copper Creek, but with a dramatically diminished road loop
on the eastern side. [53]
A second major development issue in the canyon
consisted of the proper location for visitor facilities. All parties
agreed that some lodgings and other infrastructure should be built at
Cedar Grove. Logic seemed to dictate some development near the existing
ranger contact station and the four big campgrounds. Beyond that obvious
point, however, opinion diverged drastically. Fresno representatives
insisted that the Park Service had promised to build a hotel, cabins,
and a large pack station at the old Kanawyer's site, east of Copper
Creek. Colonel White again concurred and frequently reminded his
superiors of their promises and commitments. The Sierra Club,
conversely, wanted the developments concentrated at Cedar Grove with no
more than a small outlying pack station, rather than the main base, at
Copper Creek. Again a frustrated Chester Warlow blistered the Park
Service with complaints, oral and written. [54]
Here again the Park Service found itself in the
middle and again deeply divided internally. At various times from 1939
to 1947, park planners considered developing Cedar Grove, Lewis Creek,
Hotel Creek, Roaring River, Copper Creek (both sides), and various
combinations of all of these. By the end of the war, however, the only
serious issue was the extent of facilities to be imposed at Copper
Creek. Nearly all planners favored retaining visitor lodgings, food
services, and a main visitor center at Cedar Grove. At Copper Creek the
focus became the main pack station for the entire national park. This
was to be a substantial complex covering at least six or seven acres. In
addition to the corrals, storage barns, sheds, work yards, and feed
lots, the packers would need housing for up to thirty employees,
recreational facilities and possibly a store, a snack bar, and a few
visitor amenities. [55]
Once again it was the Sierra Club that most strongly
influenced the final decision. Preliminary plans for development in the
canyon became available in the early months of 1946. The club then
convinced one of its foremost members, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., to
review those plans, visit the sites, and make recommendations. Olmsted
was a nationally reknowned landscape architect whose father had designed
Central Park in New York City, contributed considerably to the
foundation of the national park movement, and was considered the "father
of landscape architecture in America." Both the Forest Service, whose
planners had consulted Olmsted about Cedar Grove during the 1930s, and
the Park Service deeply respected his abilities and opinion. He was,
coincidentally, vice-president of the Sierra Club. [56]
Olmsted dove into the project with all his
considerable skill and energy. In late September 1946 he released his
report, which was subsequently published in the Sierra Club
Bulletin in the spring of 1947. The landscape architect favored a
north side road, a road terminus west of Copper Creek, and reduction of
any pack station facilities there to the "least extensive and least
conspicuous things that will permit reasonably good service to the
public." The effect of this report by so eminent a commentator on park
design and development was pronounced. Immediately, the Park Service
concluded that construction of two small pack stations, one at Copper
Creek, the other at Cedar Grove, followed by further study, would be a
safer course of action. [57]
The third and final development issue in the canyon
was the scope of visitor facilities to be constructed, wherever they
might be located. Fresno and other San Joaquin Valley businessmen
envisioned a major development on the scale the Forest Service had
proposed. That meant cabins or hotel space for between 700 and 1,500
people, an elaborate cafeteria and retail complex, a large visitor
center, and an expanded camping area. The Sierra Club favored a smaller
infrastructure although it was not adamant, provided the facilities were
kept at Cedar Grove. Here the Park Service fully intended to honor its
promises, perhaps because there seemed to be little contention. In 1947
the "Kings Canyon Development Plan" called for the design of overnight
facilities at Cedar Grove to include an expanded camping capacity of 400
sites for 1,500 people, a picnic area for up to forty groups, 200
housekeeping cabins (500 people), an inn with fifty overnight cabins
(another 200 people), a store, post office, visitor center, cafeteria,
and pack station. A second pack station was proposed for Copper Creek
and employee housing for the Lewis Creek area. Further study of the
issues of visitor facilities at Copper Creek, further campground
expansion and a larger picnic capacity would commence immediately. [58]
Thus it seemed by the summer of 1947 the Park Service
could look forward to development of major visitor facilities in the
Kings River Canyon. The road would cross the river at Roaring River,
proceed along the north wall and execute a tight loop just to the west
of Copper Creek. A large tourism infrastructure would be established at
Cedar Grove with a small pack station at Copper Creek. Finally, the park
could attract thousands of scenery-hungry visitors and fulfill promises
to San Joaquin Valley businessmen. Trail development would proceed for
the greater enjoyment of Sierra Club members and other wilderness
enthusiasts. New Regional Director O.A. Tomlinson confidently assured
Warlow and others that the road to Copper Canyon would be completed by
late 1948. [59] Major visitor facilities and
concession lodgings would be available shortly to accept the anticipated
boom of visitors to the nation's great new wilderness park.
The Park Service, however, had not predicted three
final factors which were to delay construction in the canyon for another
two and one-half decades. One was the fault of the government itself,
which by its niggardly appropriations dragged out construction of the
road to Copper Creek for another ten years. Another was the
unwillingness of concessioners Howard Hays and George Mauger to spend
any money or effort developing Cedar Grove. And the third was the
stunning reapplication by Los Angeles to build dams on the Kings River
watershed both outside and inside the young park.
|
By 1947 it had been decided that
overnight facilities in King Canyon would be constructed in the Cedar
Grove Area and that the Kings Canyon Highway would end at Copper Creek.
Still on the table, however, was exactly what form the Copper Creek
day-use facility would take. (click on image for an enlargement in a
new window)
|
|