Chapter Eight:
Controlling Development: How Much Is Too Much? (1947-1972)
(continued)
Cedar Grove: The One Big Failure of Mission 66
|
In 1947, with the release of the "Kings Canyon
Development Plan," the National Park Service confidently expected
imminent completion of major visitor facilities at Cedar Grove. The
Fresno Chamber of Commerce and other local business groups had abandoned
their efforts to force construction of the infrastructure at Copper
Creek and had expressed satisfaction with the scale of the Cedar Grove
plans. The Sierra Club, despite the grumblings of younger members,
accepted the location and scale of the planned development as the least
of all evils. Although government funds for completion of the road to
Copper Creek were slow in coming, there was no reason to believe that
this delay would affect development at Cedar Grove. At long last the
Park Service hoped to see the canyon brought into full use and the
completion of the government's side of great compromise.
Park officials, however, had not bargained on Howard
Hays, George Mauger, and their Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Company. For the next twenty-five years, Hays and Mauger resisted every
effort of the Park Service to force investment in and expansion of
concession operations in the canyon. With the deliberate destruction of
company records by later executives in the 1960s, the reflections and
confidential preferences of the men are unavailable. Yet their record on
all matters regarding construction, expanded operations, and longer
seasons of operation point to a pair of men who simply did not want to
invest in Cedar Grove. Indeed, in a rare glimpse of true feelings, Hays
wrote in 1955:
I do not feel that Kings Canyon is a second Yosemite
by a long shot. It is a delightful Sierra Valley and will have many
attractions for visitors, but I do not think it will attract the resort
type who enjoy a vacation in the cool area of the Giant Forest.
It was in that resort crowd and in Giant Forest that
Mauger and Hays saw their priorities. They had no interest in what they
saw as a distant, seasonally snowbound, and presumably doomed canyon far
from the main park highway. [16]
The company had seemed interested during the early
days of the park. Shortly after successful passage of the Kings Canyon
park bill in 1940, Mauger officially applied for permission to develop
the canyon's tourism resources. However, that enthusiasm seemed to
evaporate once the park began operations, to be replaced with
protestations that conditions made investment unsafe and unwise. The
earliest reasons arose from the odd status of the canyon's jurisdiction.
Under the laws of the time, concessions on Forest Service lands could
only receive five-year contracts compared to the twenty-year contracts
signed with the Park Service. In addition, Forest Service permits only
allowed five acres to each concession company for its operations.
Throughout Kings Canyon's first decade, Department of Interior
representatives, along with friendly congressmen, struggled and
successfully overcame these problems by special legislation and brought
Cedar Grove into line with the rest of the parks. [17]
|
First as general manager and later as
part-owner, George Mauger managed the concessions in the two parks for
forty years. (National Park Service photo)
|
World War II was a second issue that obviously
hindered investment. The scarcity of equipment, supplies, funds,
manpower, and visitors combined to squash all construction plans for
nearly four years. However, by 1945, with visitation on the rise and the
war moving toward its conclusion, Colonel White suggested resumption of
limited operations in the canyon and of planning for postwar
development. The concessioners responded by writing that they were
shocked at this suggestion and that, "when the casualties affect every
neighborhood, as they will by next summer, our people (Americans) are
going to be on edge about undue emphasis on non-essentials." Colonel
White reacted with immediate and typical scorn by writing to Director
Drury:
The point is that I have for years been trying to
discuss plans with Mr. Mauger, but find that he must always refer them
to Mr. Hays. And when I suggest an appointment with Mr. Hays, he is too
busy on important matters or he cannot stand the arduous drive up the
frightful Giant Forest road, or there is some other excuse. . . . I
fully realize the difficulties under which all park operators now labor
with regard to employment and OPA and other regulations. But the fact
remains that, as good businessmen, the officers of the Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks Company desire to serve the public only when the
cream is cheap and plentiful. I do not mind that natural attitude but
object to the insinuations that they are virtuously refraining from
stimulating travel while park officers are viciously disregarding the
national interest and all regulations. [18]
With the war over and the jurisdictional and planning
problems almost solved, Mauger and Hays presented three new and
ultimately far more obstructive reasons for delay. The first was the
inadequacy of infrastructure, particularly the lack of a water system
for fire protection and the undersized sewage treatment facility.
Available systems dated from the early days of the Forest Service in
Kings Canyon and were wholly inadequate for existing demand, much less
any grand expansion. The government did improve both systems by 1954
with further enlargement in 1957, but the concessioners had managed to
win an agreement allowing them to delay construction until five years
after completion of improved water and sewage lines. Hence, it was late
in the decade before Mauger and company were required to uphold their
agreement. These delays in government installation of infrastructure
arose from the same funding and development woes that plagued the road
to Copper Creek and blunted programs throughout the national park
system. [19]
A second reason for resistance to investment in Cedar
Grove sprang from the issue of power, specifically electrification.
Commencing in the late 1950s, negotiations for construction of a power
line to the canyon by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company snagged on
the matter of the concessioner's share of the costs. Initially Mauger
tried to coax the government into bearing the entire charge. As
negotiations proceeded through and beyond Mission 66, company
representatives held out for government payment of two-thirds of the
$37,000 annual maintenance fee despite the fact that the concession
facilities would use more than half the power. Finally, the government
and PG&E split nearly the entire cost of construction and early
maintenance, allowing completion of lines into the canyon in early 1972.
[20]
Despite the importance to Mauger and Hays of such
issues as water, sewage and power, they paled in contrast to the threat
of inundation from reclamation and power development in the canyon. In
1947, that issue had seemed a distant and unlikely prospect. Downstream,
in the foothills, construction was underway on an enormous structure at
Pine Flat. The reservoir would hold approximately one million acre feet
of water, or two-thirds of the total annual runoff from the entire Kings
River system. In addition, negotiations had begun for further projects
on the North Fork of the river. Most Department of Interior people and
many in the San Joaquin Valley expected there never to be a need for
Cedar Grove or Tehipite Valley reclamation. [21]
Then, to the consternation of everyone, on May 4,
1948, Los Angeles refiled petitions with both the Federal Power
Commission and the State Water Board to build dams and power stations at
both canyons as well as at several sites within the young park. For
several reasons, the Kings River Conservation District filed immediately
on the same sites. One of their reasons was to block Los Angeles. Rumors
had begun to surface that the city did not need the power but simply
meant to sell it for profit. In such a development local communities
would receive no benefit. Another story suggested that Los Angeles
engineers meant to drill a tunnel fourteen miles under the Sierra Nevada
and add Kings River water to their Owens Valley aqueduct. Although that
suggestion was discounted by most reasonable men, the old fears of Los
Angeles water piracy had surfaced. [22]
In addition to the threat from Los Angeles, locals
had fallen into bitter disagreement with the Bureau of Reclamation over
development of the North Fork. The Kings River Water Association wanted
development of combined water storage and power generation facilities by
Pacific Gas & Electric. This would allow the water to be kept
entirely for local irrigation districts. The Bureau of Reclamation, on
the other hand, wanted to design similar structures but make the river
part of the Central Valley Project, a huge federal program principally
aimed at shifting water southward from the Sacramento Valley to the San
Joaquin Valley. As a byproduct some extra water went, once again, to Los
Angeles. If the North Fork waters became part of the Central Valley
Project, local farmers would lose control of the water and, as they saw
it, suffer during California's periodic drought years. [23]
The Federal Power Commission took both issues under
study while Park Service officials, Fresno civic leaders, and Sierra
Club representatives hurriedly conferred. The problem of North Fork
development was settled relatively quickly with the nod going to the
locals and PG&E on November 5, 1949. Thereafter construction began
on the Courtwright and Wishon dams and on associated power stations. The
two projects were completed in 1962, ten years after the Pine Flat Dam,
and gave locals control of storage facilities capable of holding more
than three-fourth's of the annual runoff from the Kings River Basin. [24]
The defeat of Los Angeles, on the other hand, took
somewhat longer. Despite continued rejections of their applications, the
city refiled in 1952, 1954, and 1959. After settlement of the North Fork
issue, local irrigation officials felt secure yet they refiled each time
on the same sites, confiding to the Park Service that they only meant to
block Los Angeles. Finally, in 1963 the State Water Board, following the
lead of the federal government by three years, rejected the last Los
Angeles proposal for the Kings River. [25]
With the Los Angeles threat finally removed, most
local politicians and citizens joined the quarter-century-old movement
to give the canyons to the national park. The Kings River Water
Association, loath to lose control of any potential resource, still
opposed inclusion, but, nevertheless, the bill passed easily. On August
6, 1965, Cedar Grove and Tehipite Valley became parts of Kings Canyon
National Park, some eighty-four years after Senator Miller made the
first proposal.
|
(click on image for an enlargement in a new window)
|
This persistent, uncertain status of Cedar Grove gave
George Mauger and Howard Hays all the reason they needed to balk at
spending money for construction. Always a miserly sort, Mauger
complained that his company could barely hold its own and could scarcely
be expected to invest in such a large construction project in such a
threatened locale. He and Hays consulted with an attorney in 1954 and,
based on his recommendations, offered three solutions to the problem.
First, the canyon could be incorporated into the national park, thus
eliminating the threat. Or the federal government could build concession
facilities and lease them to the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Company. This would place the investment risk on the government rather
than on Mauger and Hays. Finally, the Park Service could allow
construction of facilities near Copper Creek, within the existing park
and well east of the reservoir's reach. [26]
The Park Service declined the last two options and
could not implement a takeover of Cedar Grove for twenty-five years; but
it assured Mauger that if he built visitor facilities which were later
flooded, he would be recompensed. However, Mauger took a dim view of
such promises and secretly so did some Park Service personnel. This
attitude may have arisen because in two and one-half decades of arguing
with George Mauger, and despite the prominent inclusion of Cedar Grove
development in Mission 66 plans, the Park Service never invested in any
substantial structures either. Here at the nub of the issue the official
record becomes nebulous, but Mauger's reticent attitude seemed to be
infectious. Repeatedly Mauger pointed to the threat of power withdrawal
and pleaded that his limited resources were needed elsewherenow
for repairs at Giant Forest, later a new Grant Grove coffee shop, still
later additions to visitor facilities at Lodgepole. Again and again, he
made the case stand up, and resisted efforts to build more than a few
miserable tent cabins at Cedar Grove. [27]
As long as Mauger delayed, the Park Service seemed equally unwilling to
build beyond the water and sewage infrastructure. Plans for a major
visitor center with museum simply lay dormant while park planners
reallocated funds and priorities elsewhere in the parks.
In 1965, as Mission 66 drew to a close, the Park
Service finally fulfilled the first of Mauger's
optionsincorporation of the canyon into the park and its automatic
protection from inundation. But before the issue could again be
broached, George Mauger, following Hays' earlier lead, sold the company
and, shortly thereafter, retired. This began a lengthy, confusing
process of sellouts and mergers that combined to freeze any further
progress for another seven years. The new owner was the Fred Harvey
Company, a major concessioner in the national parks of the Southwest. In
Cedar Grove, the Harvey Company exhibited the same unwillingness as
Mauger to make any improvements. Indeed, during its short tenure
operating the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Company, it
allowed much of the maintenance to lapse. In 1968, the Fred Harvey
Company merged with the huge Amfac conglomerate, a corporation so
diverse and so large that a puny operation like the Sequoia and Kings
Canyon concession received only enough attention to assure that it was
not a strong moneymaker. Accordingly in 1972, Amfac sold the concession
rights to Government Services, Inc. (GSI), concessioner for Washington
D.C.'s national capital parks. [28]
In Government Services, Inc., the parks finally had a
concessioner with substantial resources devoted to the business of
national park concessions. The company had been founded as a nonprofit
organization to bring better quality to park tourism operations. GSI
approached Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks in general and Cedar
Grove in particular with a will to develop and the money to back it up.
The coincident arrival of PG&E electric lines seemed finally to
clear the way for the kind of development in the canyon that had been
sought since the early 1930s.
Over the years of negotiating with Mauger and Company
the Park Service had scaled back its plans for Cedar Grove in reaction
to continued pressure from the Sierra Club and from its own increasingly
preservationist officials. In 1957, the Park Service dropped the
proposed cabin pillow count from 700 to 260. [29] Gone too were ideas of campground expansion
beyond the 370 sites in existence. Nevertheless, the plans released by
the Park Service in 1972, with GSI's blessings, still called for a
substantial buildup of visitor facilities. New lodges and cabins would
house 260 people, a new 11,000-square-foot store and cafeteria complex
would complement an equal-sized new visitor center now well overdue from
Mission 66. Parking for more than 500 cars in the canyon was anticipated
as well as enlarged facilities for picnicking. [30] The main pack station would also remain at
Cedar Grove but a small branch station would be built at Copper Creek.
The long years of delay, argument and stingy investment were over. With
these plans amicably approved by the new concessioner, a confident Park
Service sat back to wait for the reaction from the public on what
finally was to be done with the beautiful canyon of the South Fork.
|