THE DAMYIATION OF A DAM: TIIE H I G H ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY

TERRY ALLAN SIblMONS

A. B., U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , San ta Cruz, 1968

A THESIS SUBIUTTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

i n t h e Department

of

Geography

S I M O N FRASER UNIVERSITY

May 1974

A l l r i g h t s r e s o r i n p a r t , by t h e a u t h o r .

e r v e d . T h i s t h e s i s may n o t b? reproduced i n whole photocopy o r o t h e r means, w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n of

APPROVAL

Name: Ter ry A l l an Simmons

Degree: Master o f A r t s

T i t l e o f Thesis : The Damnation of a Dam: The High Ross Dam Controversy

Examining Committee:

Chairman: F. F. Cunningham

4

E . . Gibson S e n i Superv isor

/ / ( L. J. Evendon

/ I. K. Fox e r n a l Examiner P r o f e s s o r

School o f Community and Regional Planning Un ive r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby g r a n t t o Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y rhe r ighc t o lcnd

my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n ( t h e t i t l e o f which is shown below) t o u s e r s

of t h e Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r s i n g l e

c o p i e s o n l y f o r s u c h u s e r s o r i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e q u e s t from t h e l i b r a r y

of a n y o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own

b e h a l f o r f o r one of i t s u s e r s . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t pe rmiss ion f o r

m u l t i p l e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d

b y me o r t h e Dean of Graduate S t u d i e s . It is unders tood t h a t copy ing

o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l lowed '

w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n pe rmiss ion .

T i t l e o f ' ~ h e s is /mqqmkm:

The Damnation nf a nam. ~m

Author : - / "

( s i g n a t u r e )

Terrv A . S.imrnonze

(name )

July 22, 1974

( d a t e )

ABSTRACT

I n 1967, a f t e r n e a r l y f i f t y y e a r s o f p r e p a r a t i o n , i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s concern ing t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e High

Ross Dan1 on t h e Skag i t R ive r were concluded between t h e

Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e . Under

t h e t e rms of t h e agreement t h e dam would r a i s e t h e l e v e l o f Ross

Lake by 122 f e e t f l o o d i n g a d d i t i o n a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e Ross Lake

Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area i n Washington and o f t h e upper Skag i t

Val ley i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The purpose o f r a i s i n g t h e h e i g h t

o f t h e dam i s t o p rov ide a d d i t i o n a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c c a p a c i t y i n

o r d e r t o meet peak p e r i o d demands i n S e a t t l e .

Only two y e a r s a f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s ,

a major i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n t r o v e r s y e rup ted over t h e proposed dam

c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s s t udy examines t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e High Ross

Dam con t rove r sy and o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c development on t h e S k a g i t

R i v e r i n o r d e r t o e x p l a l n why this con t rove r sy a r o s e . T h i s

c o n t r o v e r s y focuses upon t h e e s s e n t i a l r e s o u r c e i s s u e : i s t h e

environmental impact caused by t h e f u r t h e r f l o o d i n g o f t h e

S k a g i t Va l l ey j u s t i f i e d by t h e a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c power r ece ived

by S e a t t l e ? The p r e s e n t s tudy a d d r e s s e s t h i s g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n ,

by comparing t h e d e c i s i o n making p roces ses i n B r i t i s h Columbia

and Washington and a r g u e s t h a t t h e con t rove r sy r e s u l t s from t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n by t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n movement i n Washington and

B r i t i s h Columbia o f a s e t o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s i n environmental

i s s u e s which p r e v i o u s l y had n o t been a r t i c u l a t e d .

iii

Data, found i n many s c a t t e r e d p l a c e s , a r e t a k e n from pr imary

and secondary documents, f i e l d work, pe r sona l i n t e rv i ews , and

from m a t e r i a l s a r i s i n g from t h e a u t h o r ' s p o s i t i o n as a p a r t i c i -

p a n t observer .

This s tudy documents a convergence i n ' t h e development o f

t h e conse rva t ion movement between B r i t i s h Columbia and

Washington i n 1969. It i s a rgued t h a t t h e emergent c l i m a t e of

op in ion a l lowed t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s i n both a r e a s t o launch

c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s t o c h a l l e n g e S e a t t l e ' s p r i o r i t y f o r t h e

e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e upper Skag i t River r eg ion and t h e r i g h t of

S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t t o e x p r o p r i a t e t h e upper r i v e r system f o r

i t s own u s e . The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s t h e r e f o r e r ev ived t h e High

Ross Dam i s s u e by c r e a t i n g a p u b l i c debate , t h e e x i s t e n c e of

which depended upon t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n of d i f f e r 5 n t environmental

va lue judgements and consequent r e sou rce management o p t i o n s .

I n t h e l i g h t of t h e t r e n d s i d e n t i f i e d , t h e s tudy concludes by

a p p r a i s i n g t h e f u t u r e of h y d r o e l e c t r i c development on t h e

Skag i t River .

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This t h e s i s i s about people and dams. The dams may be

damnzd; but t h e people must . he thanknd f o r t h e i r p a r t i n t h e

p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . Thousands of l i v e s have been

touched by t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy . This t h e s i s r e f l e c t s

t h e i r exper iences . Many o f them have been consu l t ed . I n

p a r t i c u l a r , I wish t o thank Kenneth Farquharson and t h e members

of t h e ROSS Committee and P a t r i c k Goldsworthy and t h e North

Cascades Conservat ion Council f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and a c c e s s

t o t h e i r f i l e s . I a m g r a t e f u l t o Edward Gibson f o r h i s encourage-

ment and adv ice .

TABLE 014' CONTENTS -

Chapter One I n t r o d u c t i o n

The Thes i s

The Pe r spec t ive

The Data

The Method

The Organiza t ion

Page

2

2

3

8

10

12

P a r t One Genesis

Chapter Two From Mineral C l a i m s t o Water C l a i m s : Ea r ly Obs tac les t o H y d r o ~ l e c t r i c Development 18

Mining A c t i v i t y 19

Ea r ly Se t t l ement and Condemnation 21

Land Tenure i n t h e B, C . Skag i t Val ley 23

Conclusion 24

Chapter Three C i t y Bui ld ing i n t h e Wilderness: J. D. Ross and t h e Skag i t River Development 27

E l e c t r i c a l and P o l i t i c a l Power- A Grand S p e c u l a t i v e Venture 27

C i t y Bui ld ing and t h e Or ig ins o f S e a t t l e C i ty Ligh t 29

J. D. Rosk 33

Municipal D3velopment on t h e Cedar River 36

-The B a t t l e f o r t h e Skagi t River 39

Ear ly Planning on t h e Skag i t River 44

The Gorge Dam 4 8

The Diablo Dam 49

The Ross Dam

Conclusion

Page

I ve rsy

I Ear ly Negot ia t ions- Ignorance

Compensation f o r Timber

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

1 The Skag i t Val ley Land Act

i New Considerations-Downstream B e n e f i t s

The 1967 Agreement

Conclusion

Chapter F ive The C r e a t i o n o f Controversy: The Role o f t h e C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s

I The Conservat ion Movement a s a Movement

The Conservat ion Movement i n H i s t o r i c a l P a t t e r n

The Conservat ion Movement- I t s Var i e ty of Ocganizat i o n s

1 Run Out Skag i t Spo i l . e r s

North Cascades Conserva t ion Council

i Comparison o f Two Organiza t ions

The Crea t ion of t h e High Ross D a m Controversy i n B r i t i s h Columbia

The Campaign t o C r e a t e t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park

Conclusion

I P a r t Three Syn thes i s

v i i

Chapter S i x Publ ic Forum f o r Damnation: The I n t e r n a t i o n a i J o i n t Commission

Development o f t h e Controversy

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Referencs and Pub l i c Hearings

Legal Cons idera t ions

S e a t t l e C i ty L igh t1 s Submission

Support f o r S e a t t l e C i t y Light

Opposi t ion t o S e a t t l e C i t y Light

The Hearings i n P e r s p e c t i v e

The F i n a l Report of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

Conclusion

Chapter Seven Conclusions

Summary

P rospec t s

Concluding Observat ions

Bibl iography

Appendices

A. Onomastic Notes

Terminology

Ross Dam/Skagit Val ley

Conservat ion/Environment/Ecology

P r e s e r v a t i o n i s t

viii

Page

B. L e t t e r By Alex Robinson, A p r i l 1, 1931 198

C. I n t e r n a t i o n a l ~ o i n t Comrnissiorl Order of Approval 201

D. Agreement Between t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia And t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e 204

E. Th rea t s t o t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park 211

"Threa t t o Cascades", L e t t e r by Grant McConnell, J U ~ Y 20, 1969 211

11 North Cascades Dam ~ h r e a t " , New York Times,

February 23, 1970 2 13

Do You Want THIS I n Your Brand-New Nat iona l Park And Rec rea t ion Area? 215

F. The 1971. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Hear ings 216

Summary of Submissions t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, 1971 216

Persons P r e s e n t i n g B r i e f s O r Testimony A t The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Publ ic Hear ings 222

Text of Reference t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission ' - L A 3 3 ~

F i g u r e s

Page

Proposed High Ross P r o j e c t , Locat ion Map 7

P r o j e c t Area 17

North Cascades Na t iona l Park, Ross Lake and Lake Chelan Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area 227

CHAPTER I

T n t r o d u ~ t ~ i o n

. . . t h e h i s t o r i c a l achievement of sc ience and tech- nology has rendered p o s s i b l e t h e t r a n s l a t i o n -- of va l - ues i n t o t e c h n i c a l tasks -- t h e m a t e r i a l i z a t i o n of - values. Consequently, what i s a t s t a k e i s t h e re- d e f i n i t i o n of values i n t e c h n i c a l terms, a s elements i n t h e technologica l ends, would then opera te i n t h e p r o j e c t and i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e machinery, and not only i n i t s u t i l i z a t i o n . Moreover, t h e new ends might a s s e r t themselves even i n t h e construc- t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c hypotheses -- i n pure s c i e n t i f i c theory. From t h e q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of secondary qua l i - t i e s , sc ience would proceed t o t h e q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of values.

--- Herbert Marcuse1

Were it s i t u a t e d almost anywhere e l s e , t h e Skagi t would be

a major i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r . While t h e Skagi t i s t h e l a r g e s t

r i v e r t o flow i n t o t h e Puget Sound, it has remained u n t i l re-

c e n t l y remote and dwarfed i n i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e by i t s neigh-

boring c o n t i n e n t a l g i a n t s , t h e F rase r and t h e Columbia, i n one

of t h e bes t watered reg ions of North Amsrica. Today, however,

t h e Skagi t River i s t h e sub jec t of s e v e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l

n a t u r a l resource management i s s u e s with s i g n i f i c a n t impl ica t ions

f o r bi- l a t e r a l pol icy . The most important t h e s e i s s u e s

c u r r e n t l y concerns t h e High Ross Dam o r Skagi t Valley contro-

versy. That i s whether o r not t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e , Department

of Lighting, known commonly as S e a t t l e City Light, should r a i s e

t h e height of Ross Dam 122.5 f e e t i n order t o provide more head

f o r t h e generat ion of of peaking capaci ty . Despite i t s h i s t o r y of t rapping , mining and h y d r o e l e c t r i c

development, t h e Skag i t R ive r count ry remains i s o l a t e d . I t s

c h a r a c t e r i s rugged and .wi ld . The Skag i t i s a f u l l , fas t ,

bu t r e g u l a t e d r i v e r . It r i s e s i n t h e mountains o f Manning

P r o v i n c i a l Park and f lows approximately 125 mi l e s t o t h e

sho res of Puget Sound nea r Mount Vernon, Washington. It

d r a i n s about 3105 square mi l e s . Although about 13 p e r c e n t

o f t h e t o t a l watershed a r e a , about 400 square mi l e s , l i e s i n

B r i t i s h Columbia, 94 p e r c e n t o f t h e runof f o r i g i n a t e s i n

Washington. The d i s t a n c e from t h e ocean and t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n

o f t h e mountain ranges cause t h e upper b a s i n t o be d r i e r . The

b a s i n has a n average annua l r a i n f a l l of 71 inches w i t h a n an-

n u a l runoff o f about 30 i n c h e s from t h e upper b a s i n and of

about 140 inches from t h e t r i b u t a r i e s n e a r e r t h e c o a s t . The

average annua l runof f , measured at Marblemount, i s about

The Thes i s

This i s a comparative s tudy of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n

making process concern ing t h e High Ross Dam. A f t e r n e a r l y

f i f t y y e a r s of p r e p a r a t i o n , i n t e r n a t i o n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e

High Ross D a m were completed between t h e Province o f B r i t i s h

Columbia and t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e i n 1967. But two y e a r s

l a t e r , a major i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e sou rce con t rove r sy e rup ted .

This s tudy examines t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e High Ross Dam cont ro-

ve r sy i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n why t h i s con t rove r sy a r o s e . The

t h e s i s advanced i s t h a t t h i s con t rove r sy r e s u l t s from t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n by t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n movement i n Washington and

B r i t i s h Columbia of a s e t of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s p rev ious ly

u n a r t i c u l a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i s i s s u e .

A convergence i n t h e development and h i s t o r y o f t h e

conse rva t ion movement i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i n Washington

i n 1969 c r e a t e d a c l i m a t e of o p i n i o n which a l lowed conserva-

t i o n i s t s t o launch c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s t o c h a l l e n g e t h e c i t y ' s

p r i o r i t y f o r t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e upper Skag i t R ive r reg ion .

I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e y have cha l l enged t h e r i g h t o f S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t t o e x p r o p r i a t e t h e upper r i v e r system f o r i t s own use .

The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s have reopened t h e High Ross Dam q u e s t i o n

by c r e a t i n g a p u b l i c deba t e based upon d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e

environment va lue judgements and consequent r e sou rce manage-

ment o p t i o n s . This s tudy d i s c u s s e s t h e s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and

h i s t o r i c a l themes which p rov ide t h e fundamental b a s i s f o r t h e

con t rove r sy r a t h e r t h a n t h e t a n g i b l e management problems

emphasized du r ing most of t h e p u b l i c debate .

The P e r s p e c t i v e - D a m s r e p r e s e n t more t h a n a s o p h i s t i c a t e d p i l e o f b r i c k s

and mortar . Most d i s c u s s i o n s about dams emphasize t h e physi-

c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and e n g i n e e r i n g a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e

and t h e economic consequences o f t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n . It may

be a t r u i s m t h a t eng inee r s b u i l d dams because t h a t i s what

t hey a r e t r a i n e d and p a i d t o do. Water works have bzen n o t o r i -

ous f e a t u r e s of pork b a r r e l politic^.^ But t h e r e e x i s t s a

number of more b a s i c s o c i o - c u l t u r a l themes w i t h i n t h e n a t u r a l

resource dec i s ion making process which deserve more a t t e n t i o n .

A dam has meaning beyond o n e l s technologica l a b i l i t y t o

c o n s t r u c t it and beyond a dam1 s d i r e c t impact upon t h e phys ica l

environment. A dam i s more t h a n a phys ica l objec t ; it i s a

symbol, a conf igura t ion of ideas . Al t e rna t ive ly , t h e absence

of a dam a l s o i s symbolic o f t h e impact of human values upon

t h e landscape. Most c e r t a i n l y , engineers w i l l b u i l d t h e i r

dams; but they must have t h e w i l l a s we l l as t h e a b i l i t y t o

bu i ld . The dec i s ion t o b u i l d o r not t o bu i ld a h y d r o e l e c t r i c

dam i s a d i r e c t expression of c u l t u r a l values upon t h e land-

scape. 4

The cons t ruc t ion o f a h y d r o e l e c t r i c dam i s a d i r e c t s t a t e -

ment about man1 s r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s environment. A s a n

i n t e i l e c t u a i theme and a s a b a s l s f o r p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n , the

problem of c u l t u r e - environment r e l a t i o n s , necessa r i ly , has a

long and complex h i s t o r y . Like most themes t h a t a r e broadly

i d e n t i f i a b l e wi th in t h e h i s t o r y of ideas , t h e o r i g i n s of our

a t t i t u d e s and values about n a t u r e can be t r a c e d through Genesis,

P la to , A r i s t o t l e , Herodotus and o the r s . Accordingly, a com-

p l e t e a n a l y s i s of t h e va lues inhe ren t i n man1 s r o l e i n changing

t h e f a c e of t h e e a r t h r e q u i r e s an understanding of a v a s t

v a r i e t y of men and ideas ranging from Lucret ius , Augustine,

Bacon, Copernicus, and Rousseau t o more modern f i g u r e s such a s

Marsh, Powell, Muir, and Pinchot. I n t h i s regard, t h e High

Ross Dam controversy i s rooted deeply i n t h e f a b r i c of our

c u l t u r e . 5

A t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s toward man's r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th h i s

environment a r c f u n d a r x n t a l c o n t e x t u a l ~ l e m e n t s . The funda-

mental c u l t u r a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l i s s u e s of c u l t u r e environment

r e l a t i o n s do no t change. These themes a r e expressed, i n t u r n ,

as s o c i o - c u l t u r a l themes i n t h e form o f a b s t r a c t r e s o u r c e

management p r i n c i p l e s . These s o c i o - c u l t u r a l themes o f

r e s o u r c e management change ve ry slowly, i f a t a l l . C e r t a i n l y ,

t hey have no t changed i n essence s i n c e t h e Ross Dam was f i rs t

conceived i n 1904. Although t h e s e s o c i o - c u l t u r a l themes may

n o t be a r t i c u l a t e d e x p l i c i t l y , t hey remain t h e b a s i s f o r t h e

r e s o u r c e c o n f l i c t . Although a l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s con t rove r sy

a r e a s k i n g e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same ques t ion ; t h a t i s , should t h e

High Ross Dam a d d i t i o n be b u i l t , t h e p l a c e s under d i s p u t e a r e

de f ined d i f f e r ~ n t l y . ~

Natura l r e sou rce management c o n f l i c t s e x i s t because va r ious

i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s wish t o e x e r c i s e d i f f e r e n t r e s o u r c e manage-

ment op t ions . These o p t i o n s can be complementary; bu t t hey

a r e o f t e n incompat ible . Resource o p t i o n s can change r a p i d l y .

There have bken s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t ways o f e x p l o i t i n g t h e

Upper Skag i t River r eg ion . The kinds o f o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e

depend upon many economic, s o c i a l and environmental v a r i a b l e s .

The range of r e sou rce management o p t i o n s changes as t h e s e

v a r i a b l e s change and as t h e images o f t h e landscape change

w i t h i n t h e contemporary s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t .

Landscaps change i s no t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t a n t o r c o n s i s t e n t .

Landscape change occu r s because i n d i v i d u a l s , groups and i n s t i -

t u t i o n s who d e s i r e t h i s change a r e a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r

d e s i r e f c r this change th rough t h e p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n making

r I proces s . The term p o l i t i c a l " h e r e i s used i n t h e broad

s o c i e t a l sense; i t need no t be r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e p o l i c i e s o f

governments. I n 1931, t h e B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t e r o f Lands

11 s t a t e d , B. C . i n t e r e s t s w i l l no t be i n j u r e d by t h e scheme."

But i n 1973, t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Attorney-General procla imed

t h a t he would r e s i g n i f t h e High Ross D a m were b u i l t .

Governmental p o l i c y i s a produc t o f t h e g r e a t v a r i a t i o n i n

t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p o l i t i c a l exp res s ion by t h e p r i n c i p a l

p a r t i e s t o t h e con t rove r sy over t ime . Th i s dramat ic s h i f t i n

a t t i t u d e on p a r t of t h e B r i t i s h Columbia government i s i n d i -

c a t i v e o f t h e g r e a t s h i f t i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e High Ross

Dam q u e s t i o n c r e a t e d by t h e e f f o r t s of t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n

movement. Th i s change i n t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r p o l i t i c a l ar-

t i c u l a t i o n of environmental v a l u e s i s shown by t h e h i s t o r y

of t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy .

This p r o j e c t has been r e d e f i n e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of

new p r o t a g o n i s t s i n t h e cont roversy . There a r e many themes

interwoven i n t o t h e f a b r i c o f t h e debate , which vary acco rd ing

t o t h e immediate c i rcumstances and t h e s e themes o f t e n o v e r l a p

w i t h each o t h e r . I n gene ra l , however, t h e r e a r e f o u r major

van tage p o i n t s from which t o view t h i s p r o j e c t . / These a r e

t h e American pro-High Ross Dam, t h e American an t i -High Ross

Dam, t h e Cmad ian pro-High Ross Dam, and t h e Canadian a n t i -

High Ross D a m p e r s p e c t i v e s , which, i n t u r n , a r e p a i r e d off

LEGEND

-6- INTERSTATE HIGHWAY

FEDERAL HIGHWAY

STATE HIGHWAY

Figure 1

Proposed High Ross Project,

Location Map SCALE IN MILES

I0 0 10 20

The accounts o f t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy r e p o r t e d

by t h e Vancouver - Sun, t h e Vancouver Province, t h e V i c t o r i a

C o l o n i s t , t h e V i c t o r i a Times, t h e S e a t t l e Times and t h e S e a t t l e

du r ing t h e deba te r e l a t i v e t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e p r o t a g o n i s t s

and whether 01- no t t h e two p a r t i e s are a l l i e d i n common cause.

The Data -- Thi s s tudy i s based upon d a t a de r ived by h i s t o r i c a l and

a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l methods f o r t h e purpose of a s k i n g a geographi-

c a l ques t ion . The d a t a a r e d iv ided i n t o f i v e c l a s s e s . These

a r e primary document s , secondary documents, f i e l d work, per -

s o n a l i n t e rv i ews , and p a r t i c i p a t o r y obse rva t ion .

A l a r g e c o l l e c t i o n o f pr imary documents has been assembled

and examined. V i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e in format ion r e g a r d i n g t h e

r s c e n t events i n t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy a r e i n t h e form

o f primary documents. Heavy r e l i a n c e i s p l aced upon t h e s e

unpubl ished documents. The a u t h o r has i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n one

o f t h e most cornplete c o l l e c t i o n s o f Ross D a m m a t e r i a l , e s p e c i a l -

l y as it r e l a t e s t o t h e B r i t i s h Columbia s i d e o f t h e cont ro-

versy . The working papers and correspondence o f t h e Run Out

Skag i t S p o i l e r s , commonly known as t h e ROSS Committee, a r e a t

t h e c o r e o f t h i s c o l l e c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , much o f t h e working

f i l e s and corkespondence of t h e North Cascades Conserva t ion

Council have been made a v a i l a b l e . Various documents from

S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t , t h e S e a t t l e C i t y Council , t h e Fede ra l

Power Commission, t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission and t h e

Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l Commission have been consu l t ed .

P o s t - I n t e l l i g m c e r have been surveyed. Other newspapers and t

works o f popular journa l i sm r e l a t i n g t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n have

been consu l t ed as a v a i l a b l e .

There a r e no pub l i shed s c h o l a r l y accounts o f t h e High

Ross D a m cont roversy . However, a wide range of h i s t o r i c a l ,

p o l i t i c a l , a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l , geographic and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e

management l i t e r a t u r e h a s been consu l t ed f o r purposes of

background and p e r s p e c t i v e .

Formal i n t e r v i e w s have been conducted w i t h a number o f

p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e con t rove r sy . Count less in formal d i scus -

s i o n s have been h e l d w i t h informed i n d i v i d u a l s concern ing t h e

f a t e of t h e High Ross D a m p r o j e c t over t h e p a s t f o u r and a

h a l f y e a r s .

Understanding o f t h i s i s s u e h a s been a i d e d g r e a t l y by

p e r s o n a i o b s e r v a t i o n s of tile s tudy a r e a . Thc e n t i r e S h g i t

Val ley i n B r i t i s h Columbia h a s been v i s i t e d . Most o f t h e

t r a i l s of t h e Ross Lake Na t iona l Rec rea t ion Area i n c l u d i n g

B i g Beaver Creek have been hiked. An e n l i g h t e n i n g day was

spent on S e a t t l 2 C i t y L i g h t ' s Skag i t Tour which i n c l u d e s t h e

Ross powerhouse and most of i t s f a c i l i t i e s on t h e Skag i t

River . Adjacent a r e a s i n t h e North Cascades Na t iona l Park

and t h e Chi l l iwack Val ley i n B r i t i s h Columbia have been v i s i t e d .

There i s no s u b s t i t u t e f o r p e r s o n a l i n s p e c t i o n o f a n a r e a

under d i s p u t e . The most important source of d a t a and o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s

about t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e High Ross D a m con t rove r sy i s par-

t i c i p a t o r y observat ion. The author has been a c t i v e l y involved

i n this controversy s i n c e its r e v i v a l i n 1969. H e has been

one of t h e p r i n c i p a l members of t h e ROSS Committee and as such

has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n and observed t h e process of dec i s ion making

and of s t r a t e g y planning w i t h i n t h e inner c i r c l e s of t h e con-

s e r v a t i o n i s t oppos i t ion . V i r t u a l l y a l l t h e important p a r t i c i -

pan t s i n t h e controversy a r e known personal ly . Board of

D i r e c t o r s meetings of t h e North Cascades Conservation Council

have been a t tended. He a t t ended hear ings o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission and t h e Washington S t a t e Ecological Commission

i n a d d i t i o n t o a v a r i e t y of o t h e r r e l evan t ga ther ings . I n t h e

t r a d i t i o n of an thropologica l f ieldwork, he has been deeply

immersed i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n while remaining a detached o b j e c t i v e

observer a s much a s i s p ~ s s i b l e . ~ The a u t h o r ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t

t h e High Ross Dam should not be b u i l t has been c l e a r and

c o n s i s t e n t throughout h i s per iod of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and research .

Nevertheless , he f e e l s t h a t he has been a b l e t o a s s e s s t h e

da ta honest ly and o b j e c t i v e l y .

The Method -- The method of o rgan iza t ion and of a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s study

i s h i s t o r i c a l . The view of h i s t o r i c a l explanat ion i s h o l i s t i c

and p l u r a l i s t i c . No s i n g l e type of causa l f a c t o r i s dec is ive .

The evidence i s contextua l . The h i s t o r i c a l t a s k i s t o observe

t h e process of events and t h e evidence of human consciousness,

consciously o r subconc ious ly inherent i n those events .

Collin@voodl s d i s t i n c t i o n between being i n s i d e and ou t s ide

even t s i s i n s t r u c t i v e i n t h i s regard.

The h i s t o r i a n , i n v e s t i g a t i n g any event i n t h e p a s t , makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between what may be c a l l e d t h e ou t s ide and t h e i n s i d e of an event. By t h e out- s i d e of t h e event I mean everything belonging t o it which can be descr ibed i n terms of bodies and t h e i r movements: t h e passage of Caesar, accompanied by c e r t a i n men, a c r o s s a r i v e r c a l l e d t h e Rubicon a t one da te , o r t h e s p i l l i n g of h i s blood on t h e f l o o r o f t h e Senate-house a t another . By t h e i n s i d e of t h e event I mean t h a t i n it which can only be de- sc r ibed i n terms of thought: Caesar ' s def iance of Republican l a w , o r t h e c l a sh of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l po l i cy between himself and h i s a s s a s s i n s . The h i s t o r i a n i s never concerned with e i t h e r of t h e s e t o t h e exclusion of t h e o t h e r . He i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g

Oan one not mere events (where by a mere event I m, which has only a n o u t s i d e and no i n s i d e ) but a c t i o n s , and an a c t i o n i s t h z u n i t y of t h e ou t s ide and t h e i n s i d e of a n event.

H i s to ry i s genera l and p a r t i c u l a r . Explanat ion i n h i s t o r y

r e l i e s upon o n e ' s view of t h e genera l processes of human

n a t u r e and upon t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e f l e c t i v e judgement of t h e

h i s t o r i a n . His tory i s both t h e record of observat ions and an

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e observor. The h i s t o r i c a l method pro-

v i d e s a syn thes i s f o r t h e understanding of observed p a t t e r n s 1 0 and u n i f o r m i t i e s .

The p r e v a i l i n g h i s t o r i c a l pe r spec t ive used here i s

r e l a t i v i s t i c . This study i s more a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s t o r i c

f a c t s than an expos i t ion of them. The r u l i n g h i s t o r i c a l

I1 concept i s t h e not ion of c l ima te of opinion". Climate of

op in ion r e f e r s t o a s e t of fundamental assumptions and a t t i t u d e s

both i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t which a r e cu r ren t among a t l e a s t a

segment of soc ie ty a t any given time. S imi lar terms a r e t h e

11 n o t i o n of a s p i r i t of an age" and t h e f e e l i n g of an idea

"be ing i n t h e a i r" . The c o r e e lements o f t h e High Ross D a m

con t rove r sy v e r e major f a c t o r s i n t h e e s t ab l i shmen t o f t h e

c l i m a t e o f op in ion f o r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e management d e c i s i o n s

on t h e Upper Skag i t River . And, i n t u r n , t h i s h i s t o r i c a l

1 1 con tex t became p a r t o f t h e p r e s e n t .

Cu l tu re h i s t o r y , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f Kroeber

and o f Bagby, has been h e l p f u l i n a n e f f o r t t o g a i n perspec-

t i v e s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e and h i s t o r y and on

t h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n s o f i d e o l o g i c a l and t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. 1 P

Organ iza t ion

Th i s s tudy i s d iv ided i n t o t h r e e p a r t s : genes i s , meta-

morphosis, and s y n t h e s i s , The High Ross D a m con t rove r sy

con t inues t o evolve. But, t h e focus o f t h i s s tudy r e s t s w i t h

t h e metamorphosis which began i n 1969.

Genesis ,comprising t h e second, t h i r d and f o u r t h c h a p t e r s ,

p rov ides t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t o f t h e High Ross Dam cont ro-

ve r sy .

The second c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e e a r l y mining a c t i v i t y

and homesteading i n t h e Skag i t River a r e a . It shows t h a t t h e

p a t t e r n of economic domination by t h e c i t y of S e a t t l e o f t h i s

r e g i o n was s e t e a r l y . The h i s t o r y of l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n and

condemnation and t h e purchase o f t h e Whitworth Ranch i n t h e

B r i t i s h Columbia Skag i t Val ley demonst r a t e t h e e a r l y i n t e n t i o n s

o f S e a t t l e C i t y Light t o develop t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c a l p o t e n t i a l

o f t h e Skag i t River .

Chapter t h r e e examines t h e h i s t o r y o f S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t ,

t h e r o l e of J. D. Ross wi th in t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n , and t h e

h i s t o r y o f t h e Skagi t Kiver develop~nent program. This

chapter shows t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l va lues expressed by t h e

Skagi t River p r o j e c t a r e c i t y bu i ld ing and municipal owner-

s h i p of pub l i c u t i l i t i e s .

Chapter four examines t h e h i s t o r y of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

n e g o t i a t i o n s between t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e

City of S e a t t l e concerning t h e f a t e of t h e Skagi t Valley. The

1941 hear ing and t h e consequent 1942 order of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission and t h e 1967 agreement between t h e province

and t h e c i t y a r e reviewed. This chapter demonstrates t h a t

a l though t h e province had no o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s p r o j e c t i n

p r i n c i p l e , t h e s t a t u s of t h e s e nego t i a t ions and t h e p o s i t i o n

of t h e province changed s e v e r a l t imes. It shows t h a t t h e r e was

very l i t t l e publ ic debate about , o r inf luence upon t h e s e d i s -

cuss ions .

Metamorphosis, chapter f i v e , examines t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e

High Ross Dam controversy i n 1969. It reviews t h e c h a r a c t e r

of t h e conservat ion movement and t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e p r i n c i p a l

opponents t o t h e High Ross D a m p r o j e c t , t h e ROSS Committee and

t h e North Cascades Conservation Council. This chapter expla ins

why t h i s controversy a r o s e anew a f t e r t h e completion of i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l nego t i a t ions i n 1967. It demonstrates t h a t a con-

vergence i n t h e development and h i s t o r y of t h e conservat ion

movement i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i n Washington i n 1969 c r e a t e d

a c l ima te of opinion which allowed t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s t o

launch cooperat ive e f f o r t s t o s t o p t h i s p r o j e c t .

Synthes is , chapters . f i v e , s i x and seven, examines t h e

h i s t o r y of t h e High Ross Dam controversy and t h e process of

pub l i c debate s ince 1969.

Chapter f i v e examines t h e c h a r a c t e r and development of

t h e resource management i s s u e s involved i n t h i s controversy.

The 1971 publ ic hear ing of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

has been t h e most comprehensive publ ic f o r m during t h i s

controversy t o da te . This hea r ing and t h e consequent r e p o r t

by t h e commission a r e reviewed a s a microcosm of t h e debate.

Chapter s i x s t a t e s t h e conclusions of t h i s study.

Footnotes f o r Chapter I.

l ~ a r c u s e 1964:231-232. Emphases a r e i n t h e o r i g i n a l .

2 ~ e d e r a l Power Commission 1973:2-52.

3 ~ e e , - e. - g . , Clusen 1973.

- g. , Wagner l972a and 1972b. * see , e . -

S ~ e e , e . g., Collingwood 1945; Glacken 1967, 1970; Tuan 1966, 1968 ,-1970; and White 1967, 1973.

6~ d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e importance o f p l a c e names and some t e r m i n o l o g i c a l r e s e r v a t i o n s a r e found i n Appendix A.

7 ~ e e , - e. - g . , Keesing 1971 and Gar f inke l 1966.

'The q u a l i t y of o b j e c t i v i t y demanded by s c i e n t i s m i s i l l u s o r y f o r a l l knowledge i s c u l t u r a l l y mediated and h i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d . The f a l s e i d e a l of detached, impersonal i n q u i r y must be r ep l aced by a n i d e a l of a c r i t i c a l , homocentric s p i r i t of i n q u i r y i n keeping wi th a n immanently humane epistemology. See S c h o l t e 1971.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between mediated knowledge and h i s t o r i c a l con tex t has been expressed w e l l by Merleau-Ponty .

Actua l ly , h i s t o r i c a l consc iousness i n v i t e s u s t o s h i f t t h e very n o t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e mind t o i t s o b j e c t . P r e c i s e l y t h e inherence of my th ink - i n g w i t h i n a c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n , which i s i t s own, and beyond t h i s one i t s inherence i n o t h e r h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n s t h a t i n t e r e s t it- s i n c e t h e former i s o r i g i n a r y wi th r e g a r d t o t h e o b j e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s s c i e n c e t e l l s u s about- makes t h e unders tanding o f t h e s o c i a l a n unders tanding o f myself , c a l l s f o r and a u t h o r i z e s a -- view of i n t e r - s u b j e c t i v i t y as being -- my own, which i s f o r g o t t e n by sc i ence wh i l e u t i l i z e d by it, and which i s t h e s p e c i f i c f i e l d of phi losophy. I f h i s t o r y envelops u s a l l , it i s up t o u s t o unders tand t h a t whatever we can have of t h e t r u t h i s no t t o be ob ta ined i n s p i t e of our h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n but because o f i t . Considered s u p e r f i c i a l l y , h i s t o r y d e s t r o y s a l l t r u t h , though cons ide red r a d i c a l l y i t founds a new idea of t r u t h . A s l ong as I hold t h e i d e a l o f a n a b s o l u t e s p e c t a t o r be fo re me, o f knowledge wi thout a p o i n t

of view, I can see my s i t u a t i o n only a s a p r i n c i p l e of e r r o r . But having once recognized t h a t th rough t h i s s i t u a t i o n I have become p a r t of a l l a c t i o n and a l l knowledge t h a t can be meaningful f o r me, and t h a t it c o n t a i n s , i n g r a d u a l l y widening ho r i zons , a l l t h a t can be f o r me, t h e n my c o n t a c t w i t h t h e - s o c i a l i n t h e f i n i t u d e o f my s i t u a t i o n r e v e a l s it- s e l f as t h e o r i g i n o f a l l t r u t h , i n c l u d i n g t h a t o f sc ience ; and s i n c e we have a n idea of t r u t h , s i n c e we a r e i n t h e t r u t h and cannot escape it, t h e n t h e only t h i n g l e f t f o r us t o do i s t o d e f i n e a t r u t h w i t h i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . Knowledge w i l l be founded upon t h e i r r e f u t a b l e f a c t t h a t we a r e no t i n t h e s i t u a t i o n a s i s t h e o b j e c t i n o b j e c t i v e space, and t h a t i s f o r u s t h e p r i n c i p l e of our c u r i o s i t y , ou r r e s e a r c h and i n t e r e s t i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s as v a r i - a n t s of ou r s , and i n our own l i v e s , i l l u m i n a t e d by fellowmen, a s v a r i a n t s o f t h e l i v e s o f o t h e r s . F i n a l l y it i s t h a t which u n i t e s u s t o t h e t o t a l i t y o f human exper ience no l e s s t h a n t h a t which s e p a r a t s s u s from it.

sCollingwood 1946: 213.

l o s e e , e . g . , Collingwood 1946, 1965; Harris 1971; Smith 1964 and Wzlsh 1958.

' ' s e e , - e. - g . , Becker 1932.

12see , - e . - g . , Kroeber 1944 and Bagby 1963.

CHAPTER I1

From Mineral C l a i m s t o Water C l a i m s : Ea r ly

Obs tac les t o Hydroe l ec t r i c Development

The Skag i t River has remained remote, rugged and w i l d

throughout i t s h i s t o r y . The upper reaches of t h e Skag i t were

hunted most l i k e l y by t h e S a l i s h of t h e F ra se r Val ley from t ime

t o t ime. Some e a r l y t r a p p e r s were f a m i l i a r wi th t h e Skag i t

Val ley. Enough beaver were i n t h e a r e a f o r t h e Hudson' s Bay

Company t o d i scourage s e t t l e m e n t and p rospec t ing t h e r e . How-

ever , a f t e r t h e demise of t h e Hudson's Bay Company's i n f luence ,

t h i s r e g i o n became p a r t o f S e a t t l e ' s h i n t e r l a n d . Most miners

and t r a v e l l e r s e n t e r e d t h e area from t h e west . Gold f e v e r

brought more people a long t h e Skag i t and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s i n

s ea rch of t h e i r p e r s o n a l c u r e i n t h e l a s t h a l f of t h e n i n e t e e n t h

cen tu ry . A few miners s t ayed t o homestead t h e a r e a u n t i l t h e y

were bought ou t o r d r i v e n o u t by t h o s e who would s t a k e c l a ims

on wate r r i g h t s r a t h e r t h a n go ld a t t h e beginning o f t h e cen tu ry .

These e a r l y s e t t l e r s were major o b s t a c l e s t o h y d r o e l e c t r i c

development. But, t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e and t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

development i n v e s t o r s would no t a l low them t o remain. One by

one they were forced o u t . There w & s no room f o r r e s o u r c e con-

f l i c t s . Gold mining opened t h e r e g i o n f o r t h e wate r c l a ims

p r o s p e c t o r s and t h e e l e c t r i c companies a s S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t ,

i n t u r n , would prov ide a c c e s s f o r t h e r e c r e a t i o n u s e r s . 1

Mining A c t i v i t y

Mincrs s t imu la t ed by t h e C o l v i l l e gold rush o f 1855 and

a c t i v i t y i n t h e F r a s e r Val ley i n 1858 t r a v e l l e d through t h e

Skag i t Val ley . But, t h e f i r s t s e r i o u s i n f l u x of European

i n h a b i t a n t s i n t o t h e a r e a came w i t h t h e f i rs t o f s e v e r a l minor

go ld ru shes i n 1880. Mining a c t i v i t y , sporad ic as it was,

brought people i n t o t h e Skag i t , e s p e c i a l l y a long t h e Ruby

Creek and Thunder Creek between 1877 and 1910. The y i e l d i n

go ld and i n s i l v e r was r e l a t i v e l y low f o r t h e e f f o r t s r e q u i r e d

i n such a n i s o l a t e d a r e a . The only f o r t u n e s made were on paper .

I n S e a t t l e , t h e commercial advantages of mining a c t i v i t y were

appa ren t .

These e a r l y mining a c t i v i t i e s s e t t h e b a s i c p a t t e r n of

p o l i t i c a l and economic i n f l u e n c e f o r t h e Skag i t River . S e a t t l e -

based i n t e r e s t s c o n t r o l l e d t h e reg ion . Canadian i n t e r e s t s gave

t h e r e g i o n l i t t l e o r no a t t e n t i o n . t h e n o r t h e r n a c c e s s

t h e watershed - v i a t h e F r a s e r Val ley remained important .

I n December 1879, f e a r i n g compet i t ion from V i c t o r i a mer-

chan t s , a meeting o f S e a t t l e merchants was he ld . According t o

t h e Bellingham Bay Mail, a prominent c i t i z e n o f t h e day, Judge

Orange Jacobs was e x p l i c i t about t h e i r merchan t i l e p r o s p e c t s .

1 I Suppose t h a t f i v e thousand men f i t o u t i n S e a t t l e ; it i s s a f e t o e s t i m a t e t h a t each one w i l l spend a t l e a s t f i f t y d o l l a r s f o r a n o u t f i t , t o o l s , p rov i - s i o n s , e t c . ; t h i s would put from two hundred thousand t o h a l f a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n c i r c u l a t i o n i n a s h o r t t ime, and t h e consequences o f such a n amount, added t o t h e u s u a l s p r i n g bus ines s , would make t h i n g s i n S e a t t l e f a i r l y boom. " 2

The S e a t t l e merchants d i d c a p t u r e t h e mining supply market.

Then as now, t h e e a s i e s t way t o reach t h e n o r t h e r n end o f t h e

upper Skagi t Val ley was v i a B r i t i s h Columbia. Th i s f a c t p re - - c i p i t a t e d t h e f i r s t i n t e r n a t i o n a l con t roversy i n t h e S k a g i t

Val ley . But t h e c r i s i s was a v e r t e d by t h e acquiescence of

Canadian customs o f f i c i a l s . They a l lowed t h e miners t o t r a v e l

t o t h e Skag i t mines, - v i a F o r t Hope o r Chi l l iwack wi th t h e i r

pos ses s ions i n bond. A s t h e Bellingham Bay Mail r e p o r t s ,

I I This i s q u i t e a concess ion and convenience t o t h o s e going i n

from n o r t h e r n rou tes .113 The V i c t o r i a merchants l o s t out ; bu t

t h e r e was l i t t l e t o l o s e . P l a c e r go ld was i n l i m i t e d supply.

Only s i x t o seven hundred miners p a r t i c i p a t e d . A f t e r t h e summer

o f 1880, t h e l a r g e monetary inves tments o f hard rock mining were

r e q u i r e d . The f i r s t gold ru sh f a i l e d . A s i m i l a r b u r s t of

enthusiasm ended i n d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t i n 1893.

Typica l o f t h e c o r p o r a t e h i s t o r y of mining a l o n g t h e Skag i t

R ive r was t h e Ruby Creek Mining Company. A f t e r s e v e r a l y e a r s of

o p e r a t i o n i n t h e a r e a , it proposed t o mine t h e g r a v e l beds a t

t h e conf luence of t h e Skag i t River and Ruby Creek. A f t e r spend-

i n g over $300,000 on t h e i r camp and equipment, i n c l u d i n g heavy

c a s t i r o n h y d r a u l i c equipment, which had t o be hau led i n by

pack animals , Ruby Creek Mining r ece ived about $3,000 r e t u r n i n

go ld . The b u i l d i n g s were s o l d and conver ted i n t o a road house,

t h e Ruby Creek Inn. This s i t e i s p r e s e n t l y under wate r . 4

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n 1913, s e v e r a l mergers, s t o c k promotions

and bankrup tc i e s l a t e r , t h e Ruby Creek Mining Company as t h e

B r i t i s h Mining Company t r i e d t o swi tch from mining go ld t o

11 mining1' w a t e r , ' b u t soon found t h a t a l l t h e p o t e n t i a l wate r

21.

power l o c a t i o n s on t h e S k a g i t were a l r e a d y pos ted . Unable t o

d i v e r s i f y , t h e B r i t i s h Mining Company fol lowed i t s p redeces so r s

i n t o ob l iv ion . " Most mining v e n t u r e s were unproduct ive; t h e

mines and t h e i r s e t t l e m e n t s were abandoned. I n t ime most o f t h e

ev idence of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s d e t e r i o r a t e d and became overgrown.

But, mining d i d open t h e Skag i t a r e a f o r a l i m i t e d number o f

fa rmers and roadhouse o p e r a t o r s .

E a r l y Se t t l ement and Condemnation

Although t h e s e homesteaders were a v a r i e d l o t , t h e y shared

t h e common f a t e o f being f o r c e d t o move ou t o r t o s e l l o u t t o

t h e power companies wi th t h e a c t i v e encouragernsnt o f t h e

F o r e s t Se rv i ce . An a c t c r e a t i n g t h e Washington F o r e s t Reserve,

i n c l u d i n g t h e Skag i t v a l l e y above Goode l l1 s Landing ( ~ e w h a l e m ) ,

was s igned i n 1897. Then, t h e F o r e s t Homestead Act of 1906

brougilt tile s e t t i e r s under t h e d l r e c t r e g d l a t h n and zdministra-

t i o n of , t h e Fo res t Se rv i ce . Th i s a c t a l lowed each homesteader

t o c l a i m up t o 160 a c r e s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes prov ided t h e

t r a c t d i d no t c o n t a i n v a l u a b l e t imber s t ands . However, each

s e t t l e r was r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y t h e Fo res t S e r v i c e t h a t he had

l i v e d on t h e l a n d f o r f i v e 'or more y e a r s p r i o r t o 1906. Some

were g iven t i t l e ; o t h e r s were e v i c t e d ; a few rece ived annua l

s p e c i a l u s e pe rmi t s f o r s p e c i f i c commercial purposes . A few

of t h e most remote i n h a b i t a n t s were ignored.

August Dohne o p e r a t e d a roadhouse and farmed a t t h e c u r r e n t

s i t e of Newhalem. S ince h i s c l a im was p e r f e c t l y v a l i d , h i s

homestead was approved soon a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n i n 1908. However,

a f t e r t h e Skag i t Power Company expressed a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e

Gorge s i t e f o r a n h y d r o e l e c t r i c development, t h e power company

and t h e Fo res t S e r v i c e d i s p u t e d h i s c l a im and o the rwi se subjected

Dohne t o l e g a l harassment i n a n a t t empt t o f o r c e him t o s e l l .

U l t ima te ly , t h e p r o p e r t y was bought through a condemnation pro-

ceed ing a f t e r Dohnefs dea th i n 1918 by S e a t t l e C i t y ~ i g h t . '

S i m i l a r l y , Glee Davis was e s t a b l i s h e d a t Cedar Bar n e a r

Diablo . I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s homestead, Davis worked f o r S e a t t l e

C i ty Light dur ing t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Gorge power p r o j e c t .

I n January 1927, S e a t t l e C i t y Light condemned t h e Davis p rope r ty .

A f t e r two y e a r s o f l e g a l b a t t l e s , Davis and h i s f ami ly moved t o

Sedro Woolley wi th a meager $15,000 s e t t l e m e n t .

F a r t h e r up t h e r i v e r s t i l l , above Big Beaver Creek, John

McMillan s e t t l e d i n 1884. He never a p p l i e d f o r a c l a i m on h i s

p rope r ty , but i t was s o remote t h a t he was never bo thered by t h e

F o r e s t Se rv i ce . McMillan and h i s w i f e managed t o avo id t h e

government u n t i l h i s dea th i n 1922 when t h e c l a im was abandoned.

F a r t h e r up Big Beaver Creek l i v e d Tommy Rowland who was l e s s

f o r t u n a t e . A f t e r s e t t l i n g t h e r e i n 1895, he s o l d v e g e t a b l e s and

hay t o miners. A r e l i g i o u s f a n a t i c , Rowland be l i eved t h a t h e was

a n i n c a r n a t i o n of t h e Prophet E l i s h a and he c a l l e d h i s home " ~ e w

Jerusalem." Miners t h i n k i n g t h a t Rowland was h i d i n g a r i c h go ld

mine bshind h i s madness l u r e d Rowland t o Sedro Woolley where he

was p l aced i n t h e l o c a l mental h o s p i t a l . A f t e r t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s

had been d i sappoin ted , Rowland escaped and r e t u r n e d t o t h e

i s o l a t i o n o f "New Jerusalem." A few y e a r s l a t e r , t h e F o r e s t

S e r v i c e r e t u r n e d him t o t h e h o s p i t a l and burned t h e homestead.

Both t h e McMillan p l a c e and " ~ e w ~ e r u s a l e m " a r e beneath Ross

Lake.

Cur ren t ly , t h e only p r i v a t e l y h e l d l ands i n t h e Skag i t

Val ley a r e h e l d by S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t . Other l a n d u s e r s , such

as Diablo Lake Resor t and t h e Ross Lake Reso r t , o p e r a t e through

pe rmi t s i s s u e d by t h e Na t iona l Park S e r v i c e which a c q u i r e d

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e a r e a w i t h t h e convers ion of th'e F o r e s t

S e r v i c e l a n d s i n t o t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park and t h e

Ross Lake Nat iona l R e c r e a t i o n a l Area.

Land Tenure i n t h e Skag i t Val ley of B r i t i s h Columbia -- - Likewise, S e a t t l e C i t y Light i s t h e major p r i v a t e l a n d

owner i n t h e Skag i t Val ley o f B r i t i s h Columbia. The u s e p a t t e r n

of t h e Skag i t Val ley has been s i m i l a r t o t h a t of t h e United

S t a t e s p o r t i o n . Trappers and miners have v i s i t e d t h e a r e a .

Cur ren t ly , t h e r e i s a r e g i s t e r e d t r a p l i n e i n t h e v a l l e y super-

v i s e d by t h e B r i t i s h Columbia F i sh and W i l d l i f e B r a n ~ h . ~ There

a r e mining c la ims on both s i d e s o f t h e v a l l e y . A crown r e s e r v e

on a l l minzra l c la ims below 1800 f e e t was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1966

by Order i n Council . l o Nevertheless , , t h e r e has never been any

v i a b l e minera l e x p l o i t a t i o n i n t h e a r e a . Hunting, f i s h i n g and

o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s have t a k e n p l a c e i n t h e a r e a over

t h e y e a r s . But t h e v a l l e y was i s o l a t e d and l i t t l e known.

Access was d i f f i c u l t u n t i l t h e S i lve r -Skag i t Road was b u i l t i n

1946 i n o r d e r t o remove t h e t imber c l e a r e d from t h e Ross

r e s e r v o i r s i t e .

The only permanent s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e Skag i t Val ley Was

t h e Whitworth Ranch. Henry Whitworth used t h ~ meadows o f

t h e v a l l e y t o graze c a t t l e i n t h e l g 2 0 f s . S e a t t l e Ci ty Light

en te red i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n wi th Whitworth i n 1927 and purchased

t h e two l o t s of 320 a c r e s each, Lot 221 and Lot 222 i n 1929

f o r $20,000. Half of Lot 222 i s inundated when t h e p resen t

Ross Lake i s a t f u l l pool. Lot 221 i s about 2.7 mi les nor th of

t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l border on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r . Lot 221

i s known a s t h e Whitworth Meadow. The only o t h e r p r i v a t e l y he ld

land i n t h e v a l l e y i s Lot 867 which cons is ted of 40 a c r e s north-

e a s t of t h e proposed r e s e r v o i r and w i l l not be flooded. '* Af te r

t h e purchase of t h e Whitworth Ranch i n 1929, S e a t t l e Ci ty Light

was t h e only pa r ty t o have a n a c t i v e i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a t e of t h e

Skagi t Valley i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The occasional hunters ,

fishermen, and rum runners made l i t t l e impact upon t h e va l l ey .

Sporadic n e g c t i a t i c n s between t h e Provinc ie l Government and t h e

Ci ty of S e a t t l e received l i t t l e publ ic a t t e n t i o n . The a r e a

rece ived l i t t l e note u n t i l t h e r i s e of conse rva t ion i s t oppos i t ion

t o t h e High Ross Dam i n 1969. The B r i t i s h Columbia v a l l e y re-

mained uninhabi ted and remote.

Conclusions

The focus f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c development on t h e Skagi t

River always has been i n S e a t t l e . The Province of B r i t i s h

Columbia was approached about t h e poss ib le inundat ion of t h e

Skagi t Valley by J. D. Ross i n October 1926, t h e year a f t e r t h e

S e a t t l e City Council approved t h e o v e r a l l development p lan f o r

t h e r i v e r . However, i n t e r e s t i n t h e hydroe lec t r i c p o t e n t i a l

had begun some twenty y e a r s previously.

I n t h e c o n f l i c t between t h e homesteader and t h e Fo res t Se rv i ce , t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power companies p layed a n important p a r t as was seen i n t h e c a s e of August Dohne. The Fores t S e r v i c e c l e a r l y approved c o n s t r u c t i o n of l a r g e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p r o j e c t s which were cons idered worthwhile inves tments b e n e f i t t i n g many people and wise conse rva t ion measures. With t h e s e va lues i n mind, F o r e s t Se rv i ce o f f i c i a l s c l e a r l y f e l t j u s t i f i e d i n c lo se - l y ques t ion ing c l a ims on Fede ra l l and by i n d i v i d u a l s . I n t h e end t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e philosophy and t h e power companies predominated as a l l o f t h e homesteaders, i n one manner o r a n o t h e r , were e v i c t e d from t h e i r homes on t h e Upper S k a g i t . The way was c l e a r f o r development of t h e a r e a i n t o Northwestern Washington1 s l a r g e s t hydro- e l e c t r i c power s i t e . 1 3

The e a r l y mining a c t i v i t i e s provided in fo rma t ion about

t h e wate r power p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e Skag i t River . Mining ven tu re s ,

roadhouses and homesteads a i d e d a c c e s s i n t o t h e a r e a . The

s e t t l e r s had l i t t l e r ecour se t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s o f

t h e Fo res t Se rv i ce and t h e l e g a l e f f o r t s of t h e power companies.

H y d r o e l e c t r i c development r e q u i r e d most of t h e f l a t v a l l e y l and .

L i t t l e room was l e f t f o r o t h e r u s e r s when t h e v a l l e y became a

r e s e r v o i r . A f t e r t h e dozen o r s o s e t t l e r s l e f t t h e S k a g i t

Val ley , S e a t t l e C i t y ~ i ~ h t became t h e Fo res t S e r v i c e ' s

on ly t e n a n t . A f t e r t h e purchase o f t h e Whitworth Ranch i n

1929, S e a t t l e C i ty Light remained t h e only a c t i v e i n t e r e s t i n

t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Skag i t Val ley .

Footnotes f o r Chapter - 11.

'Por t ions of t h i s chapter r e l y heavi ly upon Paul P i t z e r l s - A History of t h e Upper Skagi t Valley 1880 - 1924, a n M. A . t h e s i s i K ~ = o r y a t t h e Univers i ty of Washington, 1966.

2 ~ i t z e r 1 9 6 6 ~ 8 .

3 ~ i t z e r 1 9 6 6 ~ 1 0 .

4 ~ i t z e r 1966:19.

5 ~ i t z e r 1966: 28.

6 ~ i t z e r 1966: 50-53.

7 ~ i t z e r 1966:43.

8 P i t z e r 1966:54.

' ~ u n c a n testimony, S e a t t l e C i ty Light 1973: I: 5.

l O I J C 1973a: 108.

" ~ e t t e r from J. Nelson t o P. Goldsworthy, November 5, 1970.

2~~~ 1971a: 53.

1 3 p i t z e r 1 9 6 6 ~ 6 1 .

CHAPTER I11

City Building i n t h e Wilderness: J. D. Ross

and t h e Skagi t River Development

E l e c t r i c a l and P o l i t i c a l Power -- - A Grand - Specula t ive Venture

The harnessing of t h e s w i f t , abundant waters of t h e

P a c i f i c Northwest was a grand specu la t ive venture, a p r o j e c t w i t h

much t o g a i n and much t o lose . Most l a rge , economically v i a b l e

h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e s have been developed i n North America during

t h e l a s t h a l f century. Very l i t t l e hydroe lec t r i c p o t e n t i a l

remains today.2 Yet, a t t h e t u r n of t h e century, t h e e r a of

h y d r o e l e c t r i c power was j u s t beginning. The supply of cheap

h y d r o e l e c t r i c power and t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r economic growth and

p o l i t i c a l power based upon t h a t energy seemed unbounded.

The d e s i r e f o r e l e c t r i c a l power and p o l i t i c a l power merged

i n t h e c i t y of S e a t t l e with t h e ques t ion of p r i v a t e versus

pub l i c ownership o f publ ic u t i l i t i e s . This i s s u e was a major

f o r c e i n municipal p o l i t i c s from 1889 when t h e c i t y counci l f i r s t

d iscussed t h e c r e a t i o n of i t s own l i g h t i n g p l a n t f o r s t r e e t

l i g h t i n g u n t i l 1952 when S e a t t l e City Light f i n a l l y obta ined

monopoly c o n t r o l . I n 1902, when t h e f i r s t municipal l i g h t i n g

p l a n t was es t ab l i shed , t h e S e a t t l e E l e c t r i c Company, l a t e r t o

become t h e Puget Sound Light and Power Company, he ld a near

monopoly on e l e c t r i c power d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e c i t y . Puget

Sound Light and Power was a subs id ia ry of t h e l a r g e Stone and

Webster, a l s o owned t h e Skagi t Power Company a f t e r 1912. Stone

and Webster and S e a t t l e Ci ty Light were b i t t e r enemies. Both

sought t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e o the r . This competi t ion s t imula ted

much p o l i t i c a l controversy both i n terms of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l

ques t ion of publ ic versus p r i v a t e ownership and i n terms of t h e

pub l i c management p o l i c i e s .

The City of S e a t t l e , Department of Light ing has always been

a c o n t r o v e r s i a l agency. Even a f t e r t h e continued ex i s t ence of

t h e agency was no longer i n doubt, t h e management of City Light

o f t e n took t h e form of a crusade a g a i n s t p r i v a t e ownership of

u t i l i t i e s . J. D. Ross promoted publ ic ownership throughout t h e

United S t a t e s with missionary zea l . To t h i s day, Ci ty Light

remains a f o r c e unto i t s e l f w i t h i n c i t y h a l l . Indeed, Ross and

h i s p o l i c i e s were important f a c t o r s i n t h e r e c a l l of two mayors.

The e l e c t r i c a l se rv ices provided t h e c i t i z e n s of S e a t t l e were a

means t o an end a s much a s they were an end i n i t s e l f . ' The

t a s k of City Light was t o promote demand f o r and t o o b t a i n

cheap power f o r t h e economic growth of S e a t t l e and t h e p o l i t i c a l

growth of City Light. Although t h e u l t i m a t e energy demand

came t o e x i s t a s Ross had foreseen, Rossr primary reason f o r

c laiming t h e water power r i g h t s on t h e Skagi t River was not

t h e necess i ty of genera t ing e l e c t r i c i t y . The Skagi t River

development p lan was an a t tempt t o monopolize t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

power p o t e n t i a l of t h e r e g i o n ' s l a r g e s t r i v e r and, thus , t o

weaken and eventua l ly t o f o r c e h i s competit ion out of business .

The i s s u e i n Ross1 mind was not k i lowat t hours but c o n t r o l of

t h e economic and p o l i t i c a l f u t u r e of t h e u t i l i t i e s i n t h e c i t y

of S e a t t l e by t h e publ ic s e c t o r .

I n t e r e s t i n t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l o f t h e Skag i t

River was f irst , expressed. by C h a r l n s Freema,n, an Anacor tes

engineer , i n 1904. Freeman formed t h e Skag i t Power Company

wi th Denver f i n a n c i a l backing t h e nex t year . I n 1907 t h e f i r s t

wa te r power c l a im on t h e S k a g i t was f i l e d on t h e Gorge Dam s i t e .

H i s n o t i c e of c l a im s t a t e d :

The purposes f o r which s a i d wate r i s a p p r o p r i a t e d a r e i r r i g a t i o n , mining, manufactur ing, power p l a n t s and supply ing c i t i e s , towns and v i l l a g e s f o r t h e purposes o f g e n e r a t i n g e l e c t r i c i t y f o r commercial purposes . 5

Ross and S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t d i d no t d e s i r e t o posses s

t h e s e wate r r i g h t s u n t i l 1912 and d i d no t g a i n c o n t r o l o f them

u n t i l 1917. The reasons f o r t h i s de lay had as much t o do wi th

t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l power w i t h i n S e a t t l e as it d i d t h e

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c power w i t h i n t h e P a c i f i c Northwest.

C i t y Building and t h e Origins of Sea t t . l e C i ty Light -- -

Since i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n d u r i n g t h e 1 8 8 0 ' ~ ~ t h e d e s i r e f o r

e l e c t r i c i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y , c h e a p power, has been a major p o l i t i c a l

and economic f o r c e i n S e a t t l e . Abundant and cheap power was seen

as t h e means f o r a b igge r and b e t t e r f u t u r e f o r S e a t t l e . Pro- ,

g r e s s was i t s most important p roduc t . I n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s were

h igh and compet i t ion was f i e r c e . A s it neared complet ion of

i t s h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n p l a n t , f o r example, t h e Snoqualmie

F a l l s Power Company added t o t h e optimism and boos te r i sm of t h e

11 c i t y bu i ld ing" movement wi th a f u l l adver t i sement i n t h e

S e a t t l e Argus o f December 1898.

GOOD HORSE POWER now a v a i l a b l e . S e a t t l e 1 s dream f o r y e a r s has now been r e a l i z e d , and t h i s renowned c a t a r a c t f o r t h e f i rs t t ime i n h i s t o r y w i l l be t h e u s e f u l agen t

of mankind, t r a n s m i t t i n g energy from t h e Mountains THIRTY MILES TO SEATTLE.

CHEAP POWER w i l l make S e a t t l e t h e Manufacturing and I n d u s t r i a l Metropolis of t h e P a c i f i c S t a t e s .

With an unr iva led geographical loca t ion , wi th four t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l ra i lways t o i n s u r e commercial supremacy, with raw m a t e r i a l s a t her door, S e a t t l e has only needed abundant and cheap power t o o u t s t r i p San Francisco.

The cos t of power i s t h e bas ic element i n t h e c o s t of every manufactured a r t i c l e . With Snoqualmie F a l l s Power S e a t t l e w i l l do t h e Manufacturing of t h e coas t , t h e Orient and Alaska and w i l l i n consequence, add d i r e c t l y 50,000 people t o he r populat ion i n f i v e yea r s . . . . Eastern F a c t o r i e s contemplating a change i n l o c a t i o n w i l l do wel l t o address t h e S e a t t l e Chamber of Commerce o r t h e Snoqualmie F a l l s Power Co. 6

The o r i g i n s of S e a t t l e City Light a r e a product of h i s t o r i c

and geographic circumstances. The Department of Light ing was a

logLcal outgrcvth of the water system. The c i t y a l r eady held

water r i g h t s . The water works were opera t ing reasonably we l l .

Since S e a t t l e was s i t u a t e d near s e v e r a l p r a c t i c a l dam s i t e s , t h e

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l o f t h e water system was not overlooked.

A municipal dam on t h e Cedar e x i s t e d where t h e engineering

c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r e l e c t r i c a l genera t ion were p resen t . S e a t t l e

was much more a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h i t s own independent e l e c t r i c a l

system than were comparable c i t i e s such a s San Francisco which

a l s o had extens ive municipal water supply systems.

The comparative advantage of loca t ion , notwithstanding,

t h e c i t y requi red t h e necessary c a p i t a l and p o l i t i c a l w i l l i n

o rdz r t o expand i t s municipal s e r v i c e s . The municipal ownership

movement was s t rong a t t h e t u r n of t h e century. A major element

o f t h e " c i t y bu i ld ing" e t h i c o f t h e t ime, u rban reform was t h e

g o a l ra ther . than soc i a l i sm. The people d e s i r e d more e f f i c i e n t

and more inexpens ive s e r v i c e . There were widespread f e e l i n g s

t h a t t h e c i t y could buy power and d i s t r i b u t e i t f o r a lower

p r i c e . For example, Mayor W. D. Wood claimed i n 1897 t h a t i f

t h e mun ic ipa l i t y were t o e s t a b l i s h i t s own l i g h t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n

system t h e c o s t of s t r e e t l i g h t i n g would be reduced and t h a t t h e i r

e n t i r e c a p i t a l c o s t s would be covered w i t h i n a t h r e e y e a r pe r iod .

The S e a t t l e Argus i n 1899 complained t h a t t h e l i g h t i n g s e r v i c e

was t h e wors t , p o s s i b l y , f u r n i s h e d t o any c i t y i n t h e United S t a t e s . It is, i n f a c t , no s e r v i c e a t a l l , t h e l i g h t s be ing so weak t h a t t h e y a r e a b s o l u t e l y u ~ e l e s s . ~

While it may have been a n exagge ra t ion t o say t h a t t h e s e r v i c e

i n S e a t t l e was t h e wors t i n t h e country , it a p p a r e n t l y was

i n f e r i o r t o t h a t of Tacoma's municipal system. The r e l a t i v e

succes s of t h e c i t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l r i v a l s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d t h e

l o c a l c i v i c p r i d e .

But t h e most impor tan t element i n municipal ownership

campaign was t h e d i s t r u s t o f t h e l a r g e , p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n s

t h a t ope ra t ed t h e e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e s . I n a n e r a when g r e a t

f o r t u n e s and empires were b u i l t , c o r p o r a t e power was f e a r e d ,

e s p e c i a l l y where n a t u r a l monopolies o r near monopolies were

l i k e l y t o appear . The l u c r a t i v e municipal f r a n c h i s e s i s s u e d

t o t h e s e c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s were

a s s o c i a t e d o f t e n wi th p o l i t i c a l s canda l and c o r r u p t i o n . Indeed,

one of t h e h i s t o r i c i r o n i e s o f t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy

i s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i s l i k e o f " fo re ign" c a p i t a l and o f

" f o r e i g n " domination o f t h e l o c a l e l e c t r i c a l c o r p o r a t i o n s was

a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e desire for p u b l i c ownership. In

t h i s ca se , of course , t h e " f o r e i g n " c a p i t a l came from Boston,

New York, and Denver. The e a s t e r n barons were d r a i n i n g S e a t t l e

o f i t s l o c a l c a p i t a l , o r s o i t was thought . The proponents of

p u b l i c ownership be l i eved t h a t t h e c i t y would p reven t c o r r u p t i o n ,

improve t h e s e r v i c e and keep t h e p r o f i t s and t h e c a p i t a l a t home.

I n t h e beginning, municipal e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e s were

r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e s t r e e t l i g h t i n g system which

was admin i s t e r ed w i t h i n t h e Water Department. The Department

of L igh t ing was not e s t a b l i s h e d u n t i l 1910. Growth o f demand

and movement i n t o t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n September o f 1905 caused

r a p i d expansion o f t h e c i t y ' s p h y s i c a l p l a n t and o f i t s bonded

indebtedness . Between 1905 and 1910 t h e Cedar F a l l s hydro-

e l e c t r i c p l a n t had i t s c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s e d from 2,400 kw t o

40,000 kw. Bond i s s u e s i n 1906, 1908, and 1910 t o t a l l i n g

$ ~ , ~ O O , O O O f i rmly e s t a b l i s h e d t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e r e f o r m i s t

experiment. I n t h e C i t y Light annua l r e p o r t o f 1910 t h e agency

c a l l e d i t s e l f "growing i n s t i t u i o n , thoroughly prosperous and

w i t h every prospec t o f a s u c c e s s f u l f u t u r e . "' L. B. Youngs,

t h e Super in tendent of t h e Water Department was p l eased w i t h t h e

p r o g r e s s of t h e s e e a r l y y e a r s .

Viewing t h e p l a n t . . . no t a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n in t ended t o p i l e up s u r p l u s revenue, but merely a s a n agency t o f i x and main ta in a j u s t and r ea sonab le r a t e f o r e l e c - t r i c a l s e r v i c e s , it has f u l f i l l e d i t s miss ion i n t h e most s a t i s f a c t o r y manner. There has been no a t t e m p t t o crowd ou t t h e o t h e r companies, but on ly t o f i x a r a t e which would of n e c e s s i t y i n t h e compe t i t i ve mar- k e t have to , be met by a . l l compet i to rs . 9

The municipal ownership s u p p o r t e r s had reason t o be p leased .

But, no t a i l were as e n t h u s i a s t i c .

J. D. Ross - - - Being a p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e young agency was d i r e c t l y

r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e C i t y Council as t h e board o f d i r e c t o r s and

t h e Mayor as t h e c h i e f execu t ive o f f i c e r . Every a c t i o n and

motive of t h e department were open t o p u b l i c , - i. e. p o l i t i c a l ,

s c r u t i n y and debate . Every major development was reviewed by

t h e c i t y c o u n c i l and t h e bond i s s u e s were s u b j e c t t o , t he d i r e c t

app rova l o f t h e v o t e r s . Bond i s s u e s were p a r t i c u l a r l y obvious

o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o q u e s t i o n t h e wisdom o f C i t y L i g h t ' s p o l i c i e s .

For example, The S e a t t l e Times January 31, 1905 e d i t i o n exclaimed

i n a banner head l ing : "CITY LIGHTING PLANT A FAILURE!". The

S e a t t l e S t a r promptly r e p l i e d , "SOUR GRAPES". The Cedar F a l l s

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t was having d i f f i c u l t i e s . The S e a t t l e Times

viewed t h e s e t r o u b l e s as s i g n s of t h e l a c k o f l e a d e r s h i p of t h e

c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as w e l l a s improper c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e

p l a n t . According t o t h e C i t y Engineer, R . H. Thomson, t h e

p l a n t d i d have some f l aws i n t h e s t a r t i n g up p roces s a t t h e

p l a n t . The S e a t t l e S t a r counte rcharged t h a t t h e S e a t t l e Times

was t r y i n g t o p l e a s e S e a t t l e E l e c t r i c Company by t r y i n g t o

d i s c r e d i t p u b l i c ownership.

This p a r t i c u l a r d i s p u t e has s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e because

i t was t h e occas ion o f t h e f i r s t p u b l i c appearance o f J. D.

Ross i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a r ena . Ross was h i r e d as t h e c h i e f e l e c t r i -

c a l eng ineer on t h e c i t y ' s eng inee r ing s t a f f by Thomson i n 1903.

It was Ross who was respons ib le f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n ' o f t h e p l a n t

and t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e genera to r s i n quest ion. Ross i ssued

a major poin t by poin t a t t a c k upon t h e S e a t t l e Times1 accusa-

t i o n s . And he accused them of t r y i n g t o prevent t h e s a l e of

bonds which had previous ly been approved i n order t o pay f o r

t h e c a p i t a l c o s t s of t h e new p l a n t . A t t h e end of h i s long and

vigorous r e b u t t a l , Ross concluded with a statement which fore-

t o l d h i s b e l i e f s i n t h e ideas of " c i t y bui lding" which he would

advocate so f r equen t ly .

11 What a c i t y needs f o r h e r i n d u s t r i a l growth i s p len ty of power a t reasonable r a t e s , and i f t h i s i s given by a muncipali ty, o r i f a muncipal p l a n t can hold p r i c e s a t a reasonable f i g u r e , a s it does, and t o t h i s f a c t i s due most of t h e a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n a g a i n s t muncipal p l a n t s , then t h e ob jec t of t h e people i n i n s t i t u t i n g such a concern i s a t t a i n e d . I1 1 0

Ross, however, was t o wai t another s i x yea r s before he was t o

become t h e Superintendent of t h e Department of Lighting.

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , Ross was appointed superintendent

a f t e r a long and b i t t e r controversy. When t h e Department of

Light ing was es t ab l i shed i n 1910, t h e Superintendent, L. B.

Youngs, remained i n charge o f t h e water works and, thus ,

c r e a t e d a vacancy a t t h e t o p of t h e City Light management.

Major H i G i l l appointed Richard Arms who had been an employee

of t h e S e a t t l e E l e c t r i c Company. Although A r m s was obviously

f u l l y q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e job, h i s appointment and subsequent b r i e f

per iod of admin i s t r a t ion were a t t acked vigorously. H i s

opponents, inc luding Ross, quest ioned some of h i s management

p o l i c i e s and t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of having a person so c l o s e l y

i d e n t i f i e d with t h e p r i v a t e e l e c t r i c indus t ry i n t h e pos t . I n

February 1911, H i G i l l was r e c a l l e d a s Mayor. The p r i n c i p a l

i s s u e during t h e r e c a l l campaign was t h e ques t ion o f an open

versus a c losed town. But t h e Arms7 controversy was a l s o a

s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e demise o f t h e c o l o r f u l Mayor. The

S e a t t l e Union Record s t a t e d t h a t t h e success of t h e r e c a l l

a c t i o n would not have been p o s s i b l e

were i t not f o r t h e number of votes l o s t t o t h e r e t i r i n g mayor because of t h e r e t e n t i o n of A r m s as Superintendent of Lights . 1 1

George D i l l i n g s , t h e new Mayor, accepted Arms1 r e s i g n a t i o n and

appointed Ross.

James Delmage Ross was born i n Chatham, Ontar io i n 1872. 1 2

He taught school i n a number o f s m a l l towns i n Ontario.

Abandoning t h e classroom f o r t h e adventures of gold mining, Ross

wandered through t h e Yukon and Alaska before e s t a b l i s h i n g an

e l e c t r i c a l c o n t r a c t i n g f i r m i n 1902 i n S e a t t l e . However,

f i n d i n g p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e not t o h i s l i k i n g , he joined t h e c i t y

engineering s t a f f wi th in a year . Ross remained t h e Superintendent

of Light ing f d r twenty-eight y e a r s u n t i l h i s death i n 1939 with

t h e except ion of t h e per iod between h i s being f i r e d by Mayor

Edwards i n 1931 and Edwardsf subsequent r e c a l l and Ross7 '

r e h i r i n g a few months l a t e r . Ross was known a s t h e "Father of

Ci ty ~ i g h t . I' H i s p e r s o n a l i t y dominated t h e organiza t ion . I n

many respec t s , he i s s t i l l very i n f l u e n t i a l a s he overlooks t h e

products of h i s l i f e ' s work from h i s p o r t r a i t on t h e w a l l .

J. D. Ross was a man of v i s ion . Upon formal appointment

a s super in tendent , he s e t h i s goa l s .

I1 Some day we w i l l have a network of municipally owned l i g h t p l a n t s i n t h i s country. The S e a t t l e p l a n t ' s success i s going t o he lp b r ing it about. I1 1 3

His enthusiasm and l o y a l t y t o t h e cause of publ ic ownership was

abso lu te .

Ross received favor p r imar i ly from two sources. One was a l a r g e group of c i v i c minded c i t i z e n s , p r i n c i - p a l l y small businessmen, who favored a moderate po- s i t i o n on t h e u t i l i t y i s s u e . They supported t h e publ ic p l a n t , but they were content t o regard t h e c i t y operated u t i l i t y only as a source of cheap e lec- t r i c cu r ren t f o r r e s i d e n t i a l l i g h t i n g , and as a means by which l o c a l p r i v a t e u t i l i t y r a t e s could be regu- l a t e d through l i m i t e d competit ion. The second group, a c o t e r i e o r i g i n a l l y designated a s t h e lPa t rons of C i ty L igh t t and l a t e r a s t h e Friends of C i ty Light1 centered about J. D. Ross and worked d i l i g e n t l y t o b r ing i n t o being Ross1 . . . v i s i o n of what might be and should be. . . . This s m a l l group of church and l abor l eader s , l i b e r a l minded businessmen and news- paper publ i shers , and i n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t e s of Ross, des i red t o boost t h e i r c i t y by making a v a i l a b l e an abundant and cheap supply of hydroe lec t r i c power. And it was a g a i n s t t h i s back-drop of divided s e n t i - ment and sub-rosa p o l i t i c a l i n t r i q u e , t h a t Ross endeavored t o c a r r y out h i s c i t y bu i ld ing p lans . 1 4

J. D. Ross bel ieved t h a t " t h e market f o r e l e c t r i c i t y i s what

you make it1' and t h a t " t h e union of t h e people i n promoting

t h e use of e l e c t r i c i t y i s t h e cond i t ion we wish t o reach. I I

H e was v i r t u a l l y worshipped by h i s employees a s Ci ty Light

where a s t rong e s p r i t - dz corps was b u i l t around t h e p e r s o n a l i t y

and ideal ism of i t s l e a d e r . 1 5

Municipal Development -- on t h e Cedar River

A major t e s t of Ross1 l e a d e r s h i p i n t h e e a r l y y e a r s of h i s

admin i s t r a t ion was h i s a b i l i t y t o expand t h e genera t ing capa-

c i t y of h i s phys ica l p l a n t . Simultaneously, of course, he was

promoting growth of demand. C i t y Light depended upon bo th f u e l

o i l burning thermal p l a n t s w i t h i n t h e me t ropo l i t an a r e a and a n

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t on t h e Cedar. And it had hopes f o r develop-

ments elsewhere. The c a p a c i t y o f t h e thermal p l a n t s was l i m i t e d

and inadequate . H y d r o e l e c t r i c development was impera t ive .

Unfor tuna te ly , t h e development o f t h e Cedar River was a f i a s c o .

The a s y e t uncompleted Skag i t River p r o jfzct was s t i l l i n t h e

d i s t a n t f u t u r e . S e a t t l e was l a t e i n e n t e r i n g t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

f i e l d . O r i g i n a l l y , it was a power d i s t r i b u t i o n system and was

n o t in tended t o gene ra t e i t s own power. La t e r , v a l u a b l e t ime was

l o s t by c o n c e n t r a t i o n upon t h e wate r r e sou rces o f t h e

Cedar River and by f a i l u r e t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e r a p i d growth of

f u t u r e demand. S p e c u l a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c po-

t e n t i a l on t h e Skag i t River began i n 1904. But S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t showed no formal i n t e r e s t i n t h i s r i v e r u n t i l 1915.

Water power r e s o u r c e s i t e s were t h e key t o t h e c o n t r o l of

t h e f u t u r e o f t h e i n d u s t r y . This was c l e a r t o a l l concerned.

But, t o Ross, more t h a n bus ines s compet i t ion was a t s t a k e . He

f e a r e d t h e p o l i t i c a l power o f h i s compet i to rs and he f e a r e d f o r

t h e s u r v i v a l o f h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n t h e C i t y Light annua l

r e p o r t f o r 1912-13, he expressed h i s concern.

Without more power t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e municipal p l a n t as a compe t i t i ve f a c t o r w i l l soon be a t a n end; w i th a n abundance of cheap power i t s s e r v i c e t o t h e c i t y may be m u l t i p l i e d many t imes , and it may become a powerful f a c t o r i n b r i n g i n g t o S e a t t l e t h e indus- t r i a l supremacy of t h e P a c i f i c Coast , as w e l l as f u l - f i l l i n g i t s primary purpose o f supply ing t h e many conveniences of e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e homes, shops and o f f i c e s o f our c i t i z e n s a t r a t e s as cheap as t h e y can be made. 1 6

L a t e r t h e same yea r , du r ing a n a d d r e s s t o t h e annua l convent ion

o f t h e League of Washington M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Ross was more par-

t i s a n and more e x p l i c i t .

The only s o l u t i o n i s t o g e t c o n t r o l of t h e s e wate r powers, and develop them f o r t h e community. Every one l o s t now i s used by t h e enemy as a n e x t r a weapon i n f i g h t i n g t h e munic ipa l p l a n t i dea and a n e x t r a weapon t o produce money f o r p o l i t i c a l power and tboss i sml . I 7

C i t y L i g h t ' s f i r s t v e n t u r e i n h y d r o e l e c t r i c development was

a n embarrassment. A masonry dam c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e Cedar

R ive r began i n 1908 r e p r e s e n t e d a c o l l e c t i v e gamble which was

l o s t i n t h e ru sh t o i n c r e a s e g e n e r a t i o n c a p a c i t y . The

e s s e n t i a l problem was t h e s i t e ; it was chosen wi thout p roper

geo log ic t e s t i n g . Engineer ing r e p o r t s i n 1912 demons t ra t ing

t h e i n f e r i o r i t y of t h e l o c a t i o n were not p repared u n t i l a f t e r

t h e city was committed t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dam. The dam

was weak; many ques t ioned whether o r not i t would ho ld . The

p u b l i c image of t h e l i g h t i n g department was damaged s e r i o u s l y .

W . J. Grambs, a n o f f i c i a l o f t h e Puget Sound T r a c t i o n , L igh t

and Power Company was a b l e t o w r i t e t h a t

t h e masonry dam on Cedar R ive r i s a c o l o s s a l and c o s t l y blunder f o r which municipal ownership t h e o r i s t s a r e wholly r e s p o n s i b l e . 1 8

I1 Proponents of p r i v a t e power a , t t r i b u t e d t h e blunder t o t h e i n sane

d e s i r e " of c i t y o f f i c i a l s t o i n c r e a s e t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e i r power

p l a n t s . I n 1918, du r ing e f f o r t s t o t e s t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of

t h e r e p a i r s on t h e dam, t h e n o r t h bank o f t h e r i v e r washed ou t

caus ing a f l ood of wate r t o flow i n t o t h e Snoqualmie R ive r

which des t royed t h e town of Edgewick, t h e t r a c k s of t h e

Milwaukle Ra i l road , and t h e s a w m i l l s of t h e North Bend Lumber

Company, Although ac lives were l o s t , t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e was

r e q u i r e d t o pay $362,000 i n damages. And, t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l

competency of C i t y L i g h t ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n cont inued t o be

s e r i o u s l y quest ioned. For i n s t a n c e , as Ross prepared t o begin

c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e Gorge Dam, t h e S e a t t l e Times dec l a red i n

a head l ine : "Le t ' s Avoid Another Cedar Dam ~ l u n d e r " . 20 I r o n i c a l l y , t h e t r o u b l e d w a t e r s of t h e Cedar were t o a i d

C i t y Light i n t h e i r v i t a l s t r u g g l e f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e

wate r r i g h t s on t h e Skag i t River . F a i l u r e o f t h e p r o j e c t e d

energy t o come on l i n e from t h e Cedar fo rced a n o v e r - r e l i a n c e

on t h e o i l burning, t h e r m a l p l a n t s i n t h e c i t y . This dependence

became c r i t i c a l when t h e i n d u s t r i a l boom caused by t h e advent of

World War I c r e a t e d S e a t t l e f s f i r s t "energy c r i s i s " .

The B a t t l e f o r t h e Skag i t River - -- 5. D. Ross cons ide red t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of deve lop ing t h e

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l on t h e S k a g i t River f i r s t i n 1912, bu t

he abandoned t h e i d e a t empora r i l y when t h e S k a g i t Power Company

was purchased by Puget Sound Trac t ion , Power and Light Company.

The p r i n c i p a l a s s e t s of Skag i t Power Company were F o r e s t Se rv i ce

power development pe rmi t s . . Char les Freeman, t h e o r i g i n a l pro-

moter of Skag i t power, s o l d h i s wate r r i g h t s t o Puget Sound t h e

nex t y e a r . The S e a t t l e E l e c t r i c Company merged wi th t h e Puget

Sound Trac t ion , Power and Light Company. The Skag i t Power

Company was ope ra t ed as a s u b s i d i a r y of Puget Sound which was a

s u b s i d i a r y of Stone and Webster, a l a r g e ho ld ing company based i n

Boston which owned s e v e r a l p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s throughout t h e United

S t a t e s . I n 1918 Puget Sound T r a c t i o n , Power and Light Company

s o l d i t s t r a n s i t a s s e t s w i t h i n S e a t t l e t o t h e c i t y . It still

o p e r a t e s i n Northwestern Washington as Puget Sound Power and

Light Company.

The Fores t Se rv i ce r e g u l a t e d t h e development o f wate r

power p r i o r t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e Fede ra l Power Commission i n

1920. There was l i t t l e q u e s t i o n o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f hydro-

e l e c t r i c development a t t h a t t ime . Flooding o f t h e lower Skag i t

F l a t s was a major problem. D a m s were perce ived as good n a t u r a l

r e s o u r c e management, a s w i se conse rva t ion . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e

fol lowed Gi f fo rd Pinchot l s famous d e f i n i t i o n o f conse rva t ion .

I I Conservat ion means t h e g r e a t e s t good t o t h e g r e a t e s t number

and t h a t f o r t h e l o n g e s t t ime. rlr 2 1 Conservat ion meant t h e wise V'

u s e of t h e p u b l i c n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f man.

Resources were t o be used i n such a way as t o a l low t h e people

t o l i v e a n abundant, happy l i f e . This was i n keeping w i t h Ross1

" c i t y bu i ld ing" va lues . The w i l d l a n d s va lues expressed du r ing

t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy f i f t y y e a r s l a t e r were n o t ap-

p a r e n t . No one d i spu ted t h a t dams should be b u i l t , on ly who

would b u i l d them and who would b e n e f i t .

C i t y Light s h i f t e d a t t e n t i o n t o s i t e s on t h e Sauk and

S u i a t t l e R ive r s nea r Dar r ing ton . It f i l e d wi th t h e Department

of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r t h e power r i g h t s t h e r e which had a p o t e n t i a l

o f about 125,000 kw. Although p r i o r i t y was ob ta ined , no s e r i o u s

p l a n s were made. Ross s t i l l had h i s eyes on t h e Skag i t which

had a p o t e n t i a l between 500,000 and 600,000 kw. The Skag i t

41.

power Company he ld t h e p e r m i t s on t h e Skag i t . However, t h e y had

f a i l e d t o make any t a n g i b l e p r o g r e s s toward c o n s t r u c t i o n . I n

October of 1915 Ross wro te t h e D i s t r i c t F o r e s t e r i n P o r t l a n d

t o complain about t h i s l a c k o f p r o g r e s s and t h e f a c t t h a t

v a l u a b l e government wate r s i t e s were s i t t i n g i d l e . Ross

b e l i e v e d t h a t Stone and Webster was t r y i n g t o monopolize t h e

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l . C i t y L igh t , o f course , con t inued t o

ho ld and t o make no p r o g r e s s on t h e Sauk and S u i a t t l e p r o j e c t .

The F o r e s t S e r v i c e throughout t h i s p e r i o d appeared t o be more

concerned about t h e r a p i d development o f t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

p o t e n t i a l t h a n i n t h e deba te concern ing p r i v a t e ve r sus p u b l i c

ownership. They ques t ioned t h e s i n c e r i t y of a l l power companies. 2 2

The Skagi t Power Company pe rmi t s exp i red i n 1917. I n

January of 1917, t h e Fcrest . S e r v i c e wrote C i ty Ligh t s ay ing t h a t

t h e i r p r o j e c t on t h e Sauk and S u i a t t l e would no longe r be con-

s i d e r e d because Ross was a c t i v e l y looking f o r o t h e r s i t e . How-

ever , most s i t e s were t o o small o r claimed a l r e a d y . On J u l y 20,

1917, C i ty Light a p p l i e d f o r a permit on t h e Skag i t i n d i r e c t

o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Skag i t Power pe rmi t s which were be ing reviewed.

The F o r e s t Se rv i ce was no t s a t i s f i e d wi th t h e f i r m r s performance.

Ross a p p l i e d g r e a t p r e s s u r e t o have t h e permit revoked.

The v i r t u e s of p u b l i c ownership and o f " c i t y bu i ld ing" cont inued

I! t o be emphasized. However, a wartime energy c r i s i s " provided a

f r e s h and t ime ly argument. Ross1 appea l was on beha l f o f t h e

f u t u r e o f a c i t y .

We f e e l t h a t i f we a r e denied t h e Skagi t s i t e our p l a n t and system w i l l no longer be t h e c i t y b u i l d e r t h a t it has been of t h e p resen t s tanding and success of our c i t y p lant ; i t w i l l be crushed t o t h e wal l and our competitor w i l l have u s b o t t l e d up . a t every t u r n a s they now openly boast . . . . Our appeal i s from 350,000 c i t i z e n s who a r e t r y i n g t o b u i l d t h e i r c i t y a s a g a i n s t one f i n a n c i a l concern which i s t r y i n g t o prevent us from so doing by f i l i n g on s i t e s and hold- i n g them without development o r buying them when we c a l l f o r b ids i n good f a i t h . 2 3

During World War I, S e a t t l e experienced an economic boom, a

per iod of expansion and p r o s p e r i t y . S ix ty thousand people

a r r i v e d t o work i n t h e new shipyards and f a c t o r i e s . C i ty L i g h t ' s

f a c i l i t i e s were s t r a i n e d due t o t h e f a i l u r e of t h e Cedar River .

Valuable f u e l o i l was being used i n t h e thermal p l a n t s . Ross

r e a l i z e d t h i s f a c t and made use of t h e wartime f u e l shor tage i n

h i s arguments with t h e Sec re ta ry o f Agr icul ture . I n a l e t t e r

t o C i ty Engineer A. H. Dimock, Ross s a i d ,

It i s unnecessary t o say t h a t t h e use of f u e l o i l i s nok expensive but it i s a g a i n s t f u e l conservat ion . . . It is , t h e r e f o r e , very urgent t h a t we begin t o i n s t a l l immediately t h e 25,000 kw p l a n t which we r e q u i r e ( f o r t h e ~ k a g i t ) , not only t o r e l i e v e t h e o i l s i t u a t i o n but t o t ake c a r e of t h e f u t u r e growth t h a t apparent ly i s t o be enormous. 24

The f u e l o i l supply had l i t t l e t o do d i r e c t l y with t h e p o t e n t i a l

development of h y d r o e l e c t r i c a l power . The Gorge Dam which hard ly

could be considered an emergency wartime measure was not com-

p l e t e d u n t i l 1924. Nevertheless , t h i s was p a r t of t h e s a l e s

p i t c h t h a t Ross used during h i s meeting with t h e Secre tary of

Agr icu l tu re i n Washington, D. C. i n September 1917. The

Federal Fuel Administrat ion needed City L i g h t ' s cooperat ion.

The f u e l shor tage was a s i g n i f i c a n t element i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s

between Ross and t h e f e d e r a l government.

I n add i t ion , t h e Wilson admin i s t r a t ion was sympathetic to

t h e purposes of publ ic ownership f o r r a t e r egu la t ion . C. E.

Hamlin, Chairman of t h e Cap i t a l I s sues Committee of t h e Federal

Trade Commission which regu la ted c a p i t a l expenditures during t h e

war s a i d t h a t f a i l u r e t o permit S e a t t l e City ~ i ~ h t t o maintain

f u l l s t r e n g t h

would e l iminate a very important f a c t o r i n f i x i n g of r a t e s f o r power i n t h e d i s t r i c t . . . . I f e a r very grave i n j u r y t o t h e consumer of t h e d i s t r i c t might occur. 2 5

Ultimately, Ross convinced t h e f e d e r a l government of t h e

importance of t h e Skagi t p r o j e c t ; they were not w i l l i n g t o r i s k

t h e demise of t h i s municipal ownership experiment.

I n December of 1917, t h e Secre tary of Agr icul ture , David F.

Houston, wrote t h e Skagi t River Company informing them t h a t

t h e i r permits would not be renewed. He suspected t h a t t h e

company had ac ted i n bad f a i t h with t h e government. They had

f a i l e d t o show any s igns of progress . 26 A t about t h e same time,

he wrote Hugh Caldwell, Corporation Counsel f o r t h e Ci ty of

S e a t t l e informing him of t h e dec is ion . Houston s a i d t h a t t h e

Department of Agr icu l tu re was p r imar i ly concerned wi th t h e

quickes t and most complete u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e Skagi t . The

success of t h e c i t y ' s a p p l i c a t i o n would depend upon i t s a b i l i t y

t o show s i n c e r e i n t e n t i o n s t o develop t h e r i v e r and t o provide

adequate f inancing . 27 Ross was v ic to r ious ; t h e competi t ion had

been el iminated. Ross wrote t h e Mayor of S e a t t l e , Ole Hanson,

It I a m convinced more and more each day t h a t t h e concern t h a t

l o s e s t h e Skag i t w i l l be r e l e g a t e d t o o b l i v i o n sooner o r l a t e r . " 2 8

I n a 1918 p r e s s r e l e a s e , 'Ross boas ted ,

Only one l i g h t and power concern can o u t l i v e t h e com- p e t i t i o n f o r t h e r e i s on ly one Skag i t R ive r . It w i l l be t h e s u r v i v a l of t h e f i t t e s t . * '

The v i c t o r y was, however, on ly a p a r t i a l one. C i t y Ligh t

possessed t h e wate r power r i g h t s on t h e Skag i t . But, every

management d e c i s i o n became s u b j e c t t o t h e approva l o f t h e

Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and t h e Fede ra l Power Commission a f t e r

i t s c r e a t i o n i n 1920. S e a t t l e C i t y Light began i n 1918 a mas-

s i v e h y d r o e l e c t r i c development p r o j e c t , known o f f i c i a l l y by t h e - d

Fede ra l Power Commission as P r o j e c t 533. The High Ross D a m i s .,

only a small f o u r t h phase of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Ross D a m

which i s t h e t h i r d dam i n t h e p r o j e c t . The Gorge and Diablo

dams were completed p rev ious ly . Another smal l dam, Copper

Creek, i s planned f o r t h e i n d e f i n i t e f u t u r e . The High Ross

Dam cont roversy , is , i n f a c t , on ly t h e l a t e s t and most i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l c h a p t e r of a long development h i s t o r y . Th i s h i s t o r y

i s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e con t rove r sy i n S e a t t l e , bu t i s l i t t l e

known i n vancouver.

Ea r ly Planning on t h e S k a g i t R ive r -- - Removing t h e wate r power pe rmi t s , however, was on ly t h e

f i r s t s t e p i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l p roces s of h y d r o e l e c t r i c

development on t h e Skag i t . The Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e and

t h e people o f S e a t t l e d i d no t s h a r e Ross1 z e a l and optimism.

The demeanor of S e c r e t a r y Houston was c a u t i o u s . C i t y Ligh t

was g iven p r i o r i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n on t h e Skag i t . But, t h e r e

were s t r i n g s a t tached; t h e f e d e r a l government wanted a c t i o n . The

impl ica t ions of Houstonls l e t t e r of i n t e n t were c l e a r .

An examination of maps and o the r da ta a v a i l a b l e i n d i - c a t e s t h a t such development as i s immediately pro- posed could be made without i n t e r f e r i n g with t h e sub- sequent development of t h e remainder of t h e r i v e r of t h e c i t y ' s ope ra t ion f o r any reason should not extend beyond t h e lower s i t e . The Department i s w i l l i n g t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e lower Skagi t s i t e should be t h e b a s i s f o r c a l l i n g f o r b ids f o r t h e proposed p l a n t and i n t h e event t h e c i t y w i l l undertake t o make t h e de- velopment, t h e Department w i l l g r a n t a permit t o t h e c i t y f o r t h a t purpose.

The Department w i l l a l s o g r a n t t h e c i t y u n t i l May 15, 1918 p r i o r i t y cons ide ra t ion f o r any f u r t h e r develop- ment of t h e Skagi t River on t h e understanding t h a t i n t h e meantime t h e c i t y w i l l p repare and submit t o t h e Department i t s proposed scheme f o r such deve10pmen-t .~~

The chal lenge had been made; t h e b l u f f had been c a l l e d .

A t t h e same time, t h e c i t y was i n t h e middle of a mayoralty

campaign. The eventual winner, Ole Hanson, used " c i t y building' '

i deas f a m i l i a r t o Ross. For ins t ance , he t o l d shipyard workers,

We want manufactories t h a t w i l l be permanent sources of income f o r our workers. . . . And an abundant sup- p ly of e l e c t r i c i t y can h e l p u s g e t them. 3 1

He supported t h e Skagi t p r o j e c t i n p r i n c i p l e . But he was

s k e p t i c a l . The s p e c t r e of t h e Cedar Dam blunder remained.

I dec lared i n my opening statement of my campaign f o r mayor t h a t I would oppose t h e expenditure of any money on development by t h e c i t y of t h e Skagi t River power s i t e u n t i l a complete survey and ap- proval had been made by a competent board of en- g inee r s . 3 2

However, on t h e weekend of May 1, 1918, t h e new mayor v i s i t e d

t h e Gorge s i t e . Upon h i s r e t u r n from what might be descr ibed a s

t h e f i r s t " c i t y Light Skagi t our" , Hanson came out s t rong ly

i n favor of t h e p r o j e c t d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t no engineering

s t u d i e s had been completed.

The g r e a t e s t problem b e f o r e u s now i s t h e development o f a g r e a t power s i t e . I hope t o s e e t h e day when every man i n S e a t t l e w i l l e a t a b r e a k f a s t cooked by e l e c t r i c i t y and every f a c t o r y h e r e w i l l be run by e l e c t r i c power. 33

F u r t h e r , he r e i t e r a t e d Ross1 v i s i o n a r y theme.

Secur ing t h e Skag i t R ive r f o r S e a t t l e f r e e i s such a n unheard of t h i n g t h a t no wonder many gasp and groan a t t h e s p e c t a c l e . Beginning t h e development o f a r e a l power s i t e which w i l l supply our needs means t h e end of t h e domination of Stone and Webster i n t e r e s t s not on ly i n S e a t t l e bu t i n t h e e n t i r e Northwest. The on ly monopoly I a m i n f2ior o f i s a monopoly owned by t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e .

Ross cont inued t o promote t h e Skag i t as a war c o n s e r v a t i o n

measure. He c la imed t h a t t h e Gorge p r o j e c t cou ld completed

i n e i g h t e e n months i n o r d e r t o r e l i e v e t h e p r e s s u r e upon t h e

f u e l o i l supply i n t h e c i t y . 3 5 I n January 1918, t h e C i t y '

Council a l l o c a t e d a n i n i t i a l $5,000,000 f o r t h e development

of t h e Skag i t o r a c t u a l l y i n t h i s ca se , t h e Gorge s i t e . This

a p p r o p r i a t i o n demonstrated t h e c i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o f i n a n c e such

a p r o j e c t and s e t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p roces s i n motion. I n May,

t h e c i t y decided t o b u i l d t h e p r o j e c t i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n p l a c e

t h e job ou t t o b i d s because t h e p r o j e c t was so c o n t r o v e r s i a l

t h a t no q u a l i f i e d b i d d e r s could be found . Plans f o r a dam a t

Ruby Creek a l s o were go ing forward. A p r e l imina ry permi t f o r

t h e Ruby Creek dam was submi t ted . The Fores t S e r v i c e r e q u i r e d

t h a t t h e e n t i r e hydrologic p o t e n t i a l be used and t h a t it not

be wasted by i n e f f i c i e n t small o r i s o l a t e d dams. The e n t i r e

r i v e r system had t o be cons idered . Ross moved r a p i d l y t o g a i n

momentum and suppor t . La t e r , he was t o comment upon t h e s e

The Skag i t s i t e may be much l a r g e r t h a n t h e c i t y needs o r can a f f o r d t o b u i l d . We doubt very much i f t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e as a munc ipa l i t y w i l l eve r have a market f o r 200,000 k i l o w a t t s . If t h i s i s t r u e t h e Skag i t p r o j e c t would b s a whi t e e l ephan t as a f u l l y developed power s i t e . 3 8

Although many i n S e a t t l e today f e e l t h a t t h e High Ross Dam

p r o j e c t i s a whi te e l ephan t , t h i s sent iment d i d no t p r e v a i l when

t h e C i ty Council unanimously approved t h e Skag i t p r o j e c t on

May 21, 1 9 1 8 . ~ " Actua l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Gorge Dam began

i n September 1919. A wagon road from Rockport was proposed;

e a r l y p r e p a r a t i o n s t h a t t h e f i r s t Ruby Creek a p p l i c a t i o n s were

designed to improve t h e appearance of t h e o v e r a l l p l a n s f o r t h e

r i v e r and t o improve t h e pace o f n e g o t i a t i o n s w i th t h e

Department o f A g r i c ~ l t u r e . ~ ~

But, a l l was no t w e l l w i t h t h e p r o j e c t . The e s s e n t i a l

eng inee r ing and g e o l o g i c a l d a t a were l ack ing . The Skag i t was

s t i l l remote and unknown. Adequate t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o t h e Gorge

s i t e d i d not e x i s t . When t h e S e a t t l e p r e s s r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e

Skag i t f r o z e i n t h e w i n t e r o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h a t t h e average

runof f was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o t u r n t h e t u r b i n e s , Ross d i d no t have

t h e b a s i c d a t a necessary f o r r e b u t t a l . Ross was r e q u i r e d t o

h u r r i e d l y r eques t t h e b a s i c h y d r o l o g i c a l da t a from t h e United

S t a t e s Geological S e r ~ i c e . ~ ~

Other c r i t i c s argued t h a t t h e Skag i t was not needed and

was t o o c o s t l y . The dam s i t e s were t o o remote and t h e weather

was t o o seve re i n t h e w i n t e r . Objec t ing councilmen i s s u e d a

s t r o n g s ta tement i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e pending C i t y Council

approva l .

48.

a s m a l l sawmill and a s m a l l , temporary h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t f o r

Newhalem were planned. A f t e r much n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h t h e F o r e s t

S e r v i c e and t h e s a l e o f $1,500,000 worth o f .bonds, S e c r e t a r y

Houston g ran ted a permanent power permit i n December 1919. The

p r o j e c t had j u s t begun; but C i t y Ligh t f i n a l l y had done enough

work t o show good f a i t h . Over t h e nex t f i f t y y e a r s , C i t y Light

would spend more t h a n $165,000,000 on t h r e e dams and a s s o c i a t e d

f a c i l i t i e s .

The Gorge Dam - - I n e a r l y 1920, a r a i l r o a d was begun between t h e Great

Northern l i n e a t Rockport t o Newhalem twenty-s ix m i l e s upstream.

This was t h e f i r s t good a c c e s s t o t h e a r e a . This r a i l r o a d was

b e t t e r a b l e t o c a r r y heavy l o a d s r e q u i r e d and it was more secu re

and r e s t r i c t e d t o o u t s i d e r s . S e c u r i t y was very impor tan t . Ross

was paranoid and f e a r e d sabo tage from h i s enemies. Many y e a r s

l a t e r a f t e r some wheel bea r ings on one of h i s r a i l r o a d enegines

were damaged by g r a v e l i n t h e wheel housings, Ross wro te h i s

head works foreman t o complain t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t was undoubtedly

caused by men working f o r " t h e Other company". The o t h e r company

most l i k e l y was meant t o be Stone and W e b ~ t e r . ~ ' When t h e f i r s t

permanent employees were h i r e d f o r t h e management o f t h e Gorge

p l a n t , on ly exper ienced C i t y Ligh t employees were appo in t ed i n

11 4 1 o r d e r t o avoid t h e i n f i l t r a t i o n o f " s p i e s . The c i t y eng inee r ing department completed t h e Gorge power-

house i n l a t e 1923. Then, t h e g e n e r a t o r s were i n s t a l l e d . But,

t h e p r o j e c t was delayed u n t i l t h e d i v e r s i o n t u n n e l was f i n i s h e d

during t h e summer of 1924 a f t e r much d i f f i c u l t y and controversy

concerning t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e engineering design. F. D. \

Harman, t h e Chief Operator a t t h e Cedar F a l l s p l a n t , ref'used

t h e o f f e r t o become t h e f irst superintendent of t h e Gorge

powerhouse. He bel ieved t h a t t h e p l a n t would not work proper ly

and t h a t t h e dam would wash out i n t h e f i r s t high water .

Although h i s views were widely shared i n S e a t t l e , they were

unfounded. 4 2

The f i r s t e l e c t r i c i t y from Gorge, 5,000 h, came on l i n e on

September 14 , 1924. Within a week t h e genera t ing capac i ty was

increased t o 17,000 kw and Pres iden t Calvin Coolidge had o f f i -

c i a l l y opened t h e powerhouse by t e l eg raph from Washington, D. C.

The t o t a l cos t of t h e i n i t i a l Gorge Creek p r o j e c t was more than

$l3,000.,OOO. Today, a f t e r r e p l a c i n g t h i s e a r l y d ive r s ion dam

with a high dam completed i n 1961 and o the r s t r u c t u r a l changes,

t h e genera t ing capaci ty has been increased t o t h e p resen t 175,000

kw.

The Diablo Dam - - The Gorge Dam had one of t h e l a r g e s t i n s t a l l e d genzra t ing

c a p a c i t i e s on t h e west coas t . Indzed, t h e i n i t i a l two genera tors

a t Gorge more than doubled Ci ty Light system1 s capac i ty over

t h e previous year . 4 3 But, t h i s was not enough. Immediately

upon completion of Gorge, t h e planning f o r t h e Diablo Dam was

commenced. Ross observed,

Ci ty Light has passed i t s small town s tage . I t s fu- t u r e cons t ruc t ion must be of t h e most enduring and dependable kind. The next l o g i c a l s t e p . . . con- s i d e r i n g our demand i s t h e Diablo . . . 4 4

TO.

The c o n s t r u c t i o n r a i l r o a d was extended s i x mi l e s from Newhalem

t o Diablo i n 1327. Actual c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dam began i n l a t e

1927. The 389 f o o t h i g h dam, which a t t h e t ime was t h e w o r l d ' s

h i g h e s t a r ch - type dam, was completed i n t h e autumn o f 1930. The

Diablo r e s e r v o i r has a s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y o f 90,000 a c r e f e e t .

Genera tors were not i n s t a l l e d u n t i l 1936. However, the f o u r

u n i t s c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g t h e r e have a combined c a p a c i t y o f

161,000 kw. The impact o f t h e down s t ream b e n e f i t s were immediate.

The f u r t h e r r e g u l a t i o n and s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f t h e r i v e r l e s s e n e d

t h e t h r e a t o f f l o o d f o r t h e fa rmers of t h e lower Skag i t . The

a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y added 33,000 kw c a p a c i t y t o t h e

Gorge powerhouse which t h e n a c q u i r e d a guaran teed maximum ou tpu t

of 56,500 k ~ . ~ ~

The complet ion of t h e Diablo Dam and t h e beg inn ing o f t h e

dep res s ion combined t o end S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s massive b u i l d i n g

program t empora r i l y . The u t i l i t y 1 s g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y was

about 59,000,000 kw i n 1917 a t t h e beginning o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

o f t h e Skag i t p r o j e c t . I n 1931 w i t h t h e u s e o f t h e Gorge and

Diablo dams, t h e system provided 384,000,000 kw. But, a t t h e

same t ime t h e number o f consumers had doubled and t h e ave rage

r e s i d e n t i a l consumerls demand had inc reased f o u r f o l d . 4 6

'1 The p r a c t i c a l impact of C i t y L i g h t ' s c i t y bu i ld ing ' ' p o l i c i e s

as expressed through t h e development of t h e Skag i t were appa ren t .

S h o r t l y be fo re t h e complet ion o f t h e Diablo p r o j e c t , Ross wro te

'1 The Skag i t i s a l i f e works w i t h me. The t h i r d phase o f t h e

S k a g i t p r o j e c t , t h e Ruby o r Ross Dam, had on ly begun and would

o u t l i v e Ross himself.

The Ross Daul C---

The Ross Dam s i t e was one of t h e f i r s t tnajor power s i t e s t o

be claimed. Plans f o r a dam a t Ruby Creek were f i l e d by Ross

with t h e Secre tary of Agr icu l tu re i n 1917 i n order t o demonstrate

t h e comprehensiveness of City L i g h t ' s p lans on t h e Skagi t .

Active cons ide ra t ion of t h e Ruby Creek s i t e began i n 1925. The

o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a water power l i c e n s e f i l e d wi th t h e

Federal Power Commission on November 8, 1926 included t h e 7-

Ruby Creek p r o j e c t . Nevertheless , t h e Ruby Creek Dam and i t s - i /

i n t e r n a t i o n a l impl ica t ions d id not become widely known t o t h e

publ ic u n t i l t h e development of t h e High Ross Dam controversy i n

1969

The f i r s t phase of t h e Ross Dam was begun i n 1937. The

dam was designed with a unique concre te waf f l e f ac ing i n o rde r

t o accommodate f u t u r e a d d i t i o n s on t h e t o p of t h e f i r s t s t a g e .

The o r i g i n a l p lans c a l l e d f o r t h e incorpora t ion of each e a r l i e r

s t a g e u n t i l t h e 1725 f e e t he igh t i s achieved. This f i r s t phase

was completed t o an e l e v a t i o n of 1365 i n 1940. The second

phase was begun almost immediately i n 1943 s t imula ted by

increased power demands of t h e World War I1 i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .

But, s t e p two was not completed u n t i l 1947 a t a n e l e v a t i o n of

1550. The t h i r d phase was f i n i s h e d i n 1949 a t t h e 1615 f e e t

l e v e l which i s t h e present l e v e l . The Ross power house was

constr.ucted between 1951 and 1956. The f i r s t genera tors went

on line t h e r e i n 1952. P resen t ly , t h e r e a r e f o u r u n i t s i n

o p e r a t i n g which produce 90,000 kw each. The c o n t r o v e r s i a l High

Ross Dzc a d d i t i o n i s , i n f a<c t , t h e f o u r t h and f i n a l phase of

cons t ruc t ion .

Conclusions

The Skag i t River h y d r o e l e c t r i c development was conceived

more t h a n seventy y e a r s ago. S e a t t l e C i t y Light has had a d i r e c t

i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a t e o f t h e r i v e r s i n c e 1912. The g o a l s s e t f o r

t h i s development by J. D. Ross a t t h a t t ime remain t h e p r i n c i p a l

e lements of mot iva t ion for S e a t t l e C i ty Light dur ing t h e High

Ross Dam cont roversy . O r i g i n a l l y , Ross saw t h e Skag i t as t h e

key t o t h e c o n t r o l of h y d r o e l e c t r i c development i n Northwestern

Washington. By monopolozing t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l o f t h e

Skag i t , S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t , and t h u s , no t i t s p r i n c i p a l competi-

t o r , Puget Sound Light and Power, acqu i r ed t h e power neces sa ry ..I

t o develop f a c i l i t i e s and t o expand i t s s e r v i c e . E l e c t r i c

power meant p o l i t i c a l power.

Rosst primary goa l on t h e S k a g i t as wi th t h e management

of S e a t t l e C i ty Light a s a whole was t h e dzvelopment o f

e l e c t r i c i t y by t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r . Secondly, t h e massive develop-

ment of t h e Skag i t provided t h e l a r g e amounts o f r e l a t i v e l y cheap

e l e c t r i c a l power neces sa ry f o r t h e economic growth o f t h e C i t y

o f S e a t t l e . "C i ty bu i ld ing" was a major mo t iva t ion f o r t h e

development of t h e Skag i t .

The d e s i r e for economic growth and f o r cheap power remains,

but t h e e r a of " c i t y bu i ld ing" h a s p a s t . The S k a g i t p r o j e c t

was a product o f t h e c l i m a t e of op in ion o f i t s t imes. The g o a l s

53

s e t by Ross f o r t h e p r o j e c t were achieved. I n t h i s regard , t h 2

f u r t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e p r o j e c t , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e High

ROSS a d d i t i o n , i s no longe r o f much importance except as a

form of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i d e . Today, S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t i s on

t h e defens ive . The major i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t con t ro-

versy a r e t h o s e of t h e opponents of t h e dam. S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s

t r iumph, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dams, i s t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of

i t s v a l u e s of s i x t y y e a r s ago i n t o immobile c o n c r e t e monuments.

The i r f a i l u r e r e s t s w i t h i n t h i s succes s i n t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o

cope wi th changing r e sou rce o p t i o n s w i t h i n a new s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l

con tex t .

Footnotes - f o r Chapter - 111.

2- his chapter i s indebted t o four 14. A. ~ h e s e s from t h e Universi ty of Washington, P i t z e r 1966, Dick 1965, Sparks 1964 and McNabb 1968.

2See, e. g . , Moore 1968.

3 ~ l t h o u g h a dead i s s u e f o r many yea r s , B r i t i s h Columbian opponents of t h e High Ross Dam were warned by t h e i r a l l i e s i n 1970 not t o mention t h e f a c t t h a t S e a t t l e City Light was a publ ic i n s t i t u t i o n wi th in t h e Ci ty of S e a t t l e . Perhaps, t h e i s s u e of publ ic versus p r i v a t e ownership of e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t i e s i s not q u i t e dead y e t . Since B. C. E l e c t r i c had been taken over by t h e Soc ia l Credi t government i n 1961, t h i s has no longer been an i s s u e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The B r i t i s h Columbia c o n s $ r v a t i o n i s t s had not intended t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e and they have not done s o nor has anyone e l s e f o r t h a t mat ter .

4 ~ e e , - e .g . , Dreher 1940.

'Dick 1965: 94.

1 2 ~ h e h i s t o r i c irony i s obvious. One of t h e major elements of d iscontent from t h e Canad.ian po in t of view i s t h e l o s s of sovereign land t o t h e Americans. One can only specu la te t o t h e degree of dismay f e l t by t h e more n a t i o n a l i s t i c and a n t i - American opponents of t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t when they l e a r n t h a t t h e chief a r c h i t e c t of t h e " land grab" was a Canadian.

7 D i ~ k 1965: 144.

l 8Dic k 1365: 147.

1 9 ~ i c k 1965:148.

2 0 ~ i ~ k 1965: 137.

*'See, - e. g. , Van Hise 1910: 379.

2 2 ~ e e Dick 1965: 154 and P i t z e r 1966:79.

2 3 ~ p a r k s 1964: 26.

24 Sparks 1964 : 27.

2 5 D i ~ k 1965:170.

2 6 ~ p a r k s 1964:29.

2 7 P i t z e r 1966: 83.

8 ~ p a r k s 1964 : 20.

2 s ~ p a r k s 1964:20.

3 0 ~ p a r k s 1964: 32.

31 Sparks 1964: 34.

3 2 ~ p a r k s 1964: 35.

3 3 ~ p a r k s 1964: 36.

3 4 ~ p a r k s 1964:39.

3 5 ~ p a r k s 1964: 49.

3 6 ~ i t z e r 1966:86.

3 7 ~ i t z e r 1966: 90.

3 8 ~ p a r k s 1964 : 39.

3 9 ~ i t z e r 1966: 92.

4 0 ~ i t z e r 1966:101.

4 1 ~ i t z e r 1966: 117.

4 2 ~ i t z e r 1966: 117.

CHAPTER I V

The S e l l i n g of a River Val ley: The Beginnings o f

a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Controversy

The Skagi t i s a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r . But i n t e r n a t i o n a l

wate r management q u e s t i o n s were no t involved u n t i l p r e p a r a t i o n s

f o r t h e Ross D a m began. Gorge and Diablo dams have no i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l impact upon t h e r i v e r . ' However, any p o t e n t i a l

development above t h e 1585 f e e t mark, t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e

r i v e r a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary l i n e , has obvious i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . The f i r s t d i r e c t p h y s i c a l impact o f

S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s Skag i t development upon t h e B r i t i s h Columbia

r i v e r fol lowed t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t h i r d phase o f t h e

Ross Dam i n 1949 a t a h e i g h t o f 1615 f e e t .

But, t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n s concerning t h i s ununda-

t i o n began a q u a r t e r of a cen tu ry before . These d i s c u s s i o n s

con t inue t o t h i s day between t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia

and t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e . The impact o f t h e Ross r e s e r v o i r i n t h e

B r i t i s h Columbia Skagi t 'Jal ley i s p r e s e n t l y t h e s u b j e c t o f h o t l y

c o n t e s t e d p o l i t i c a l debate.. Th i s has no t always been t h e ca se .

P r i o r t o 1969 most o f t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s have been q u i e t admini-

s t r a t i v e t a s k s . There was a lmos t no p u b l i c knowledge o r d i scus-

s i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n . Those who ques t ioned t h e p r o j e c t had

l i t t l e impact a s a review o f t h e s e n e g o t i a t i o n s show.

S e a t t l e C i ty Light s p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s n e g o t i a t i o n s

concerning t h e f a t e of t h i s l a n d has been c o n s i s t e n t . Put

simply, i t s expressed d e s i r e has been t o o b t a i n permiss ion

$ I; t o f l o o d t h e v a l l e y . The only r e a l i s s u e f o r it has been how

much t h i s p r i v i l e g e would c o s t i n d i r e c t compensation f o r l o s s

of l and and/or i n improvements upon t h e a l t e r e d landscape . The

p r o v i n c i a l government, however, has h e l d s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t

p e r s p e c t i v e s toward t h e va lue and meaning of t h e v a l l e y .

A t v a r i o u s t imes , t h e p r o v i n c i a l government 's p o s i t i o n has L.

v a r i e d from ignorance and apa thy , t o concern about t imber va lues

i n t h e v a l l e y t o w o r r i e s about t h e l e g a l p receden t s of s e l l i n g

downstream b e n e f i t s and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e S k a g i t nego t i a -

t i o n s f o r t h e Columbia River T r e a t y and Pro toco l . However,

t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e prov ince ever doubted t h e

wisdom o f u l t i m a t e l y g r a n t i n g a n easement f o r t h e v a l l e y t o

S e a t t l e .

Ea r ly Nego t i a t i ons -- Ignorance

The province was informed i n i t i a l l y of S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s

i n t e n t i o n s by J. D. Ross who handled t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s p e r s o n a l l y

i n a l e t t e r da ted October 26, 1926. This l e t t e r formed p a r t o f

t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l i c e n s i n g be fo re t h e Fede ra l Power

Commission which was approved t h e nex t y e a r . I n 1929, t h e

Whitworth Ranch was purchased. The P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet p l aced a

crown r e s e r v e upon 6,350 a c r e s in t h e v a l l e y which inc luded t h e

5,200 a c r e s o f s u r f a c e a r e a of t h e proposed r e s e r v o i r a t

e l e v a t i o n 1725 i n 1930 a f t e r S e a t t l e C i t y Light had t h e a r e a

l e g a l l y surveyed. Nego t i a t i ons were p rog res s ing . The p r o j e c t

caused none of t h e p o l i t i c a l con t rove r sy i n B r i t i s h Columbia

t h a t it had caused f o r y e a r s i n S e a t t l e .

The p u b l i c took l i t t l e o r no n o t i c e of t h e p r o j e c t *

The Skag i t remained remote. The Hope-Frinceton Highway was only

t h e n being cons t ruc t ed . Accurate knowledge o f t h e Skag i t was

meager. The p r o v i n c i a l government d i d not appear t o have any

o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o j e c t i n p r i n c i p l e . The p r o j e c t had no

d i r e c t impact upon t h e l i v e s of t h e people o f t h e Lower Mainland.

The i r i s no d i r e c t l i n k between t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e development

o f t h e Skag i t River and t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e development of hydro-

e l e c t r i c power i n B r i t i s h Columbia. There were no B r i t i s h

Columbian power p l a n s f o r t h e development of t h e Skag i t . But

t h i s p r o j e c t p a r a l l e l s t h e development of t h e Lower Mainland

h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l , f o r example, a t S%ave F a l l s and Ruskin

by t h e B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Company.

The Vancouver Board o f Trade r a i s e d t h e f i r s t p u b l i c ques-

t i o n s concerning t h e Ross D a m i n March 1931 when it wrote t o t h e

p r o v i n c i a l Attorney-General R . M. Pooley. The Board of Trade

s t a t e d t h a t t h e Skag i t Val ley con ta ined about 400 square m i l e s

and was p r a c t i c a l l y s h u t o f f from t h e r e s t o f t h e prov ince by

mountain ranges . It d id no t know t h e p o t e n t i a l va lue of t h e

v a l l e y i t s e l f , bu t it was concerned about t h e minera l p o t e n t i a l

t o t h e west .* The Board of Trade wro te i n response t o pending

l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly.

We do not know t h a t any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s have been made t o t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government o r t h a t a c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e laws of t h e prov ince has made any move t o - wards a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e a r e a of l and a f f e c t e d ; b u t t h e r e i s now be fo re t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a n amendment t o t h e Land Act t h a t would appear t o have f o r i t s o b j e c t j u s t such a g r a n t . . . . If such a g r a n t were made and t h e proposed works c o n s t r u c t e d o u t s i d e o f p r o v i n c i a l

j u r i s d i c t i o n , it would appear t o mean handing over i n p e r p e t u i t y a l a r g e a r e a of o u r p rov ince t o a foreign country . 5

The Board of Trade knew l i t t l e about t h e Skag i t . But,

t h e r e a c t i o n was immediate; t h e rumors were confirmed. And, t h e

f a c t s behind t h e f l o o d i n g of t h e Skagi t Val ley were d i s c l o s e d

f o r t h e f i r s t t ime t o t h e p u b l i c . B. P. Stockton, a

Vancouver b a r r i s t e r , r e p o r t e d t h a t he he ld two p a r c e l s of

p r i v a t e l and i n t h e Skag i t under h i s own name a s a n agen t f o r

S e a t t l e C i t y Light . ' The f i r s t government r e p l y came wi th t h e

r ea s su rances of t h e M i n i s t e r o f Lands, N. B. Lougheed. "B. C.

i n t e r e s t s w i l l not be i n j u r e d by t h e s ~ h e m e . " ~ The m i n i s t e r

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e ma t t e r had been under n e g o t i a t i o n s i n c e 1926

and t h a t t h e u s u a l procedures f o r purchase and t a x a t i o n would

be fol lowed. I f t h e r e were any disagreements , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission would be asked t o p r o t e c t Canadian i n t e r e s t s . G

ow ever, c o n t r a r y t o t h e impress ion which M r . Lougheed gave, t h e ,/

r o l e of t h e ~ n t e r n z t i o n a l ' J o i n t Commission i s not t o

defend o r t o r e p r e s e n t t h e i n t e r e s t s of B r i t i s h Columbia. It

i s a quas i - j u d i c i a l body empowered t o mediate d i s p u t e s and t o

c a r r y ou t s t u d i e s . Never the less , f o r Lougheed, t h e r e was no

cause f o r alarm. The government was n e g o t i a t i n g q u i e t l y wi th

S e a t t l e .

The most complete d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Ross Dam p r o j e c t was

publ i shed as a L e t t e r t o t h e E d i t o r o f t h e Vancouver Province 4

on t h e day a f t e r Lougheedf s s t a t emen t . Signed by Alex Robinson

of Vancouver, it was a c l e a r and conc i se s ta tement o f S e a t t l e

Ci ty L igh t1 s i n t e n t i o n s w r i t t e n by one of i t s a s s o c i a t e s . Then

as now, t h e p r i n c i p a l defenders of t h e Ross Dam p r o j e c t

were employees o r a s s o c i a t e s o f t h e agency. This l eng thy

r e b u t t a l t o t h e Board of T r a d e ' s complaint was t h e f i rs t a c c u r a t e

in format ion t o reach t h e p u b l i c .

This l e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d S e a t t l e C i ty L i g h t ' s p o s i t i o n

v i s - a - v i s B r i t i s h Columbia l a n d very we l l . The major i d e a s

conta ined i n t h i s s ta tement a s w i l l be seen remain major e lements

i n S e a t t l e C i ty L i g h t ' s p o l i c y t o t h i s day. The tone was s t r a i g h t

forward and s o l i c i t i o u s ; t h e g o a l was e x p l i c i t . The l e t t e r

s t a t e d t h a t t h e Board o f Trade h a s made "many e r roneous and m i s -

l e a d i n g s ta tements" and t h a t t hey had appealed t o t h e government

11 i n h a s t e " . Robinson cont inued t o d e s c r i b e t h e p r o j e c t and t h e

n e g o t i a t i o n s . , S e a t t l e had o f f e r e d t o buy t h e land and t o pay any

stumpage o r r o y a l t y r equ i r ed . The l and t o be f looded and a c c e s s

r o u t e s had been surveyed. The t imber had been a s s e s s e d a t low

va lue . B r i t i s h Columbia would be compensated f o r a l l c o s t s .

A l l l a b o r i n Canada would be done by Canadians. A r a i l r o a d was

suggested a long t h e S i l v e r - S k a g i t r o u t e t h a t would open t h e a r e a

up f o r economic development o f a l l kinds . I n conc lus ion ,

Robinson appea l s t o t h e c r i t i c s from t h e Board o f Trade t o j o i n

S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t i n t h e c rusade a g a i n s t t h e "power t r u s t " .

@he f u l l t e x t o f t h i s l e t t e r i s found i n Appendix B.) Apparent ly ,

t h e Board of Trade was embarrassed i n t o s i l e n c e . There was no

more pub l i c deba te concern ing t h e m a t t e r t h a t yea r .

Although both t h e p r o v i n c i a l government and S e a t t l e seemed

t o be w i l l i n g t o make a d e a l , t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s dragged o u t .

The next p u b l i c mention of t h e p r o j e c t came almost

e x a c t l y two years l a t e r . Th? C i t y Council of S e a t t l e apprcved

$18,500,00 i n 30 y e a r c o n s t r u c t i o n bonds f o r t h e Ross Dam.

The c i t y promised t o employ 15,000 men of whom 1,000 would work

on t h e dam i t s e l f . I n t h e dep th of t h e dep res s ion t h i s was

o p t i m i s t i c news. Cons t ruc t ion began i n 1937. But t h e two

p a r t i e s had not agreed y e t ; nor had t h e Vancouver p r e s s l e a r n e d

where t h e doomed v a l l e y was. The Vancouver Province desc r ibed

it as being southwest o f P r ince ton i n d i c a t e s t h e remoteness

o f t h e alley.^

Compensation - f o r Timber

A s t h e Ross Dam was being c o n s t r u c t e d , n e g o t i a t i o n s

cont inued. The M i n i s t e r s of Land changed a s d i d t h e p e r s p e c t i

of t h e i r n e g o t i a t o r s . By t h e 1940 ' s t hey knew where t h e

v a l l e y was and t h e i r primary concern was compensation f o r t h e

t imber i n t h e v a l l e y . For i n s t a n c e , wh i l e announcing t h a t t hey

would be p r e s e n t a t a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission h e a r i n g

concerning t h e Ross Dam, t h e M i n i s t e r of Lands, A. Wells Gray,

s t a t e d " t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e a r e a but con-

s i d e r a b l e t imber on crown l ands . 11 1 o The e v a l u a t i o n o f t imber

supply i n t h e v a l l e y was t h e major o b s t a c l e a t t h a t t ime.

Nego t i a t i ons progressed s lowly, bu t amicably. A s a n t i c i p a t e d by

a p rev ious Min i s t e r of Lands, t h e Ross Dam p r o j e c t was r e f e r r e d

t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Approval by it i s

r e q u i r e d under t h e terms o f t h e Boundary Waters T rea ty of 1909.

63.

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission - The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l body

author ized under t h e Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 t o mediate

boundary d i spu tes . I t s i n i t i a l purpose was t o prevent and/or t o

ad jud ica te d i spu tes regarding boundary waters . However, t h e

commission i s empowered"to s e t t l e a l l ques t ions concerning t r a n s -

boundary r e l a t i o n s . One of i t s most important dec i s ions in-

volved t h e T r a i l smelter ques t ion . A i r p o l l u t i o n from Comincols

l ead and zinc smelter a t T r a i l , B. C. was damaging farmers ' crops

i n Washington. Af te r yea r s of s tudy and d e l i b e r a t i o n , t h e f a r -

mers received compensation. Cominco was ordered t o reduce t h e

amounts of e f f l u e n t being produced. T h i s world famous case i s a

landmark i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l environmental law. I n r ecen t yea r s ,

t h e r o l e of t h e commission h a s broadened considerably from i t s

t r a d i t i o n a l concent ra t ion upon water works and r e l a t e d i s s u e s .

For ins t ance , it has d e a l t with t h e ques t ion of t h e p o l l u t i o n of

t h e Great Lakes and t h e f u t u r e management of t h e Point Roberts,

Washington enclave. I 3 The commission i s a major instrument i n

b i l a t e r a 1 r e l a t i o n s between t h e United S t a t e s and Canada. This

h ighly respected, but c o n t r o v e r s i a l body i s one of t h e e a r l i e s t

and most successfu l i n s t i t u t i o n s of i t s kind.14

The commission i s independent of both governments. But

a t t h e same time, it can a c t upon only those mat ters which a r e

r e f e r r e d t o it by t h e Department o f S t a t e of t h e United S t a t e s

and t h e Department of S t a t e f o r Externa l A f f a i r s of t h e Government

of Canada. The terms of r e fe rence , whether t h e ques t ion be a

matter of s tudy such a s t h e 1971 Ross Dam re fe rence o r a mat ter

f o r arbitration such a s t h e 1941 Ross Darn a p p l i c a t i o n , a r e de te r -

mined j o i n t l y by t h e two governments. The exact meaning and

i n t e n t of t h e s e r e fe rences a r e c r u c i a l . And, a s i n t h e case of

t h e 1971 Ross Dam reference , it can be q u i t e r e s t r i c t i v e .

This b i l a t e r a l agency has a completely d u a l i s t i c

organiza t ion . The commission has s i x commissioners, t h r e e from

each country, who a r e appointed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e governments.

There a r e two chairmen who p res ide when t h e commission i s i n

s e s s i o n i n t h e i r r e spec t ive coun t r i e s . Likewise, t h e r e a r e two

s e c r e t a r i e s , who adminis te r t h e a f f a i r s of t h e commission from

o f f i c e s i n Ottawa and i n Washington, D. C . . Normally, hear ings

a r e he ld i n both coun t r i e s where c i t i z e n s from e i t h e r country

a r e welcome. Great s t r e s s i s placed upon t h e b i l a t e r a l charac-

t e r of t h e commission and t h e v i r t u e s of good ne ighbor l iness .

I n genera l , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s a success fu l

i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h i n i t s terms of re ference . P

A hear ing concerning S e a t t l e City L i g h t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r approval of t h e Ross Dam p r o j e c t was held on September 12,

1941 i n S e a t t l e . Approval i s requi red under A r t i c l e

I V of t h e Boundary Waters Treaty. The nego t i a t ions between

B. C. and S e a t t l e were incomplete and were not t h e d i r e c t

concern of t h i s hearing. The commission l e f t t h e mat ter o f

compensation open and r e f e r r e d t h e ques t ion back t o t h e City of

S e a t t l e and t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r f u r t h e r nego-

t i a t i o n s a s per paragraph one of t h e Order of Approval

da ted January 27, 1942 which a u t h o r i z e d t h e p r o j e c t . ( s e e

Appendix C.) This hea r ing , u n l i k e i t s c o u n t e r p a r t twenty y e a r s

l a t e r , was a q u i e t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a f f a i r .

The f a t e o f t h e Ross Dam p roposa l was never i n doubt. Only

t h r e e commissioners were p r e s e n t . For unknown reasons , only

one hea r ing was held; t h e r e was no h e a r i n g he ld i n Canada. 1 6

The hea r ing was a d v e r t i z e d poor ly by p r e s e n t s t anda rds . No

members of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c were p r e s e n t . The primary concern

was t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p r e l i m i n a r y eng inee r ing da t a .

Very l i t t l e was known about t h e p r o j e c t p r i o r t o t h i s

h e a r i n g by any one o t h e r t h a n t h o s e d i r e c t l y involved. Not ice

o f t h e hea r ing could have been over looked e a s i l y by t h e p u b l i c .

Not ice was g iven t o a number o f American and Canadian o f f i c i a l s .

But, appa ren t ly , l i t t l e e f f o r t was made t o spread t h e word.

The M i n i s t e r o f Lands, A. Wells Gray ' s announcement of t h e

h e a r i n g t h e day before was r e p o r t e d i n t h e p r e s s by a one column

inch s t o r y next t o t h e o b i t u a r i e s i n both t h e Vancouver Sun and - t h e V i c t o r i a Times. l 7 The Game Commissioner, J. G.

Cunningham, should have been informed of t h e h e a r i n g by t h e

Premier o r by M r . Gray. He was n o t . I n s t ead , he l e a r n e d of

t h e h e a r i n g from h i s c o u n t e r p a r t i n Washington. O f f i c i a l

n o t i c e was publ i shed i n t h e Canada Gaze t te , i n t h e " ~ e g a l

Not ices" o f t h e Vancouver Province on August 18, 1941, ( p . 18),

on August 25, 1941 ( p . 20) and on September 2, 1941 ( p . 22)

and i n t h e "Legal ~ o t i c e s " o f t h e Vancouver - Sun on August 19,

1941 ( p . 18), on August 26 th ( p . 22) and on September 2nd

( p . 2 2 ) . These n o t i c e s were i n small p r i n t i n obscure l o c a t i o n s .

Most of t h e hearing was occupied by a ske tchy and confused

d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Ross Dam proposa l by S e a t t l e C i ty Ligh t

o f f i c i a l s . A c r u c i a l map o f t h e Skag i t Val ley i n B r i t i s h

Columbia was not p repared p r o p e r l y . Much d i s c u s s i o n concerned

t h e p rope r l o c a t i o n of t h e 1725 contour l i n e . l 8 Confusion

surrounded t h e s t a t u s o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s between B. C. and

S e a t t l e . This was caused i n p a r t by t h e in formal , p e r s o n a l

n a t u r e of t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s conducted by t h e l a t e J. D. Ross . lS

The Government of Canada was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t

Engineer , Dominion Water and Power Bureau, Department o f Mines

and Resources from Vancouver who r e s t r i c t e d h i s remarks t o

t e c h n i c a l i n f ~ r m a t i o n . ~ ' A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e Department

o f E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s had no s ta tement t o make. He had no t

s t u d i e d t h e d e t a i l s of t h e p r o j e c t . 2 1

he Province of B r i t i s h Columbia was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e

Comptrol ler o f Water R igh t s . He r ead i n t o t h e r e c o r d a s t a t emen t

submi t ted by A. Wells Gray.

The Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia does n o t oppose t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e but submits t h a t any approva l g iven by t h e Commission should c o n t a i n t h e fo l lowing cond i t i ons :

That such approva l be g iven c o n d i t i o n a l on t h e a p p l i c a n t making s u i t a b l e and adequa te p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and indemnity o f a l l i n t e r e s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia t h a t may be i n j u r e d by t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r o p e r a t i o n of t h e works t o be con- s t r u c t e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t .

That t h e Commission r e s e r v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a f u r t h e r o r d e r o r o r d e r s wi th r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r o p e r a t i o n of t h e s a i d works. 22

M r . Wells r e q u e s t s were g ran ted i n t h e Order of Approval o f

The Comptroller con t inued t o comment upon t h e

impact of t h e f l ood ing upon t h e l a n d and upon t h e n a t u r e o f

t h e p a s t n e g o t i a t i o n s r e - en fo rc ing h i s p rev ious prepared remarks.

I would l i k e t o add t h a t it must be a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t t h e f l ood ing of t h i s l a n d w i l l undoubtedly a f f e c t t h e revenues o f t h e prov ince o f B r i t i s h Columbia, no t only i n t h e l a n d s , t h e f o r e s t , t h e wa te r s and t h e meadows, bu t a l s o i n t h e f i s h e r i e s . . . . For t h a t reason , it i s d e s i r e a b l e t h a t t h e Commission see t o it t h a t t h e s e i n t e r e s t s a r e adequa te ly p r o t e c t e d . I should a l s o l i k e t o say, i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e nego- t i a t i o n s which were c a r r i e d on about 1931 o r 1932 by t h e l a t e M r . Ross, t h a t wh i l e t h e s e arrangements d i d not t e r m i n a t e i n a n agreement, t h e y were conducted very f r e e l y and I t h i n k g e n e r a l l y t h e c o n d i t i o n s were more o r l e s s s e t ou t . I do no t a n t i c i p a t e . . . t h e r e should .be very much d i f f i c u l t y i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e departments coming t o a n unders tanding . 23

One of t h e major r ea sons f o r t h e c o r d i a l accep tance o f t h e J

Ross Dam proposa l was t h e f e a r of energy sho r t ages . Canada was

a t war. The United S t a t e s expected t o j o i n i t s a l l i e s soon.

Like t h e o r i g i n a l n e g ~ t i a t i o n s conducted by J. D. Ross i n 1917

w i t h t h e Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , C i t y L i g h t ' s p o s i t i o n wi th

t h e Fede ra l Power Cornmission was p laced w i t h i n a m i l i t a r y

con tex t . The Ross Dam proposa l was viewed a s a wartime

emergency measure. Accordingly, Canada, t h e a l l y a t war, could

no t o b j e c t t o t h e dam. The fo l lowing tes t imony i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s

f e e l i n g .

M r . Wilson ( c o u n s e l f o r C i t y o f ~ e a t t l e ) : I n o t h e r words, M r . Hoffman, i n view of t h e p r e s e n t n a t i o n a l emergency we do no t know how much power and what f a c i l i t i e s a r e go ing t o be r equ i r ed , and we want t o be prepared t o proceed t o i n c r e a s e our p l a n t t o t ake c a r e o f t h a t s i t u a t i o n i f it develops?

M r . Hoffman ( s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of L igh t ing , C i t y o f ~ e a t t l e ) : Yes, sir..

M r . S t an l ey ( ~ o m r n i s s i o n e r ) : . . . under t h e p r e s e n t ex igen t c o n d i t i o n s you do n o t a n t i c i p a t e any g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , i f you deem it a d v i s a b l e , i n reach ing an amicable unders tanding between t h e c i t y of S e a t t l e and t h e p rov ince of B r i t i s h Columbia ?

M r . Hoffman: No, s i r , I do not .**

Again, t h e Skag i t River development was viewed a s a n imme-

d i a t e source o f cheap and abundant energy f o r expanding S e a t t l e

i n d u s t r y . The Ross Dam was j u s t i f i e d as a n emergency p r o j e c t

i n t imes o f c r i s i s dur ing both world wars. The same l o g i c

c o n t i n u e s today i n t h e r h e t o r i c o f t h e s o - c a l l e d energy c r i s i s

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e on ly r e s e r v a t i o n s expressed a t t h e

1941 h e a r i n g t o t h e p r o j e c t as a whole came from t h e

Game Commissioner, J. G. Cunningham. He was not p repared t o

make a s ta tement . He d i d no t know t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e p r o j e c t

and had no t seen a map showing t h e e x t e n t of t h e f l o o d i n g i n

t h e Skag i t Val ley u n t i l t h e t ime o f t h e hea r ing . He was con-

ce rned wi th t h e f u t u r e o f s p o r t s f i s h i n g i n t h e

11 v a l l e y . It i s one o f t h e b e s t f l y f i s h i n g s t reams i n t h e whole

o f B r i t i s h Columbia. But, he d i d not know what impact t h e

f l o o d i n g would have on t h e f i s h e r y . Fu r the r s tudy was needed.

The Game Commission conducted a survey o f t h e impact o f t h e

f l ood ing fo l lowing t h e hea r ing . Concern was expressed r e g a r d i n g

t h e l o s s of a r e g i s t e r e d t r a p l i n e i n t h e v a l l e y and t h e l o s s of

s p o r t s f i s h i n g . The major goa l was t o determine t h e amount of

compensation required."" P r i o r t o t h e i s s u i n g of t h e f i n a l

Order of' Approval, t h e Ciiairriian o f t h e Canadian Sec t ion o f t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, Char les S tewar t , wro te t h e

Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, in forming him o f t h e meet ing

scheduled f o r t h a t purpose i n Montreal .

I a m anxious t o p r o t e c t B r i t i s h Columbia and t h i n k it wise t o inform you about t h i s meeting i n o r d e r t h a t , i f you t h i n k it d e s i r a b l e , you may make f u r t h e r rep- r e s e n t a t i o n s , which w i l l r e c e i v e t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission be fo re a f i n a l Order i s passed. 27

No f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n s were r a i s e d by t h e prov ince . The Order o f

Approval was i s s u e d on schedule .

Cunningham' s o b s e r v a t i o n s a n t i c i p a t e d t h e con t rove r sy which

a r o s e i n 1963. R e c r e a t i o n a l u s e r s of t h e Skag i t Val ley ,

e s p e c i a l l y f l y f ishermen, c o n s t i t u t e a major f o r c e o f o p p o s i t i o n

-7 7 - 1 8 1 1. .,? t o t h e High Ross D a m p roposa i . lrie 1 y 4 ~ ~ i ~ d ~ ~ j ~ g l a s t e d less than

two hours . There was no r e a l con t roversy . The p r e s s from

B r i t i s h Columbia a p p a r e n t l y was not p r e s e n t . The V i c t o r i a Dai ly

Co lon i s t , t h e Vancouver Province, and t h e Vancouver Sun a l l r an - t h e same s t o r y verba t im from t h e Assoc ia ted P re s s Se rv i ce . The

h e a r i n g was desc r ibed as r each ing a n "amicable agreement". The

Vancouver - Sun, however, p l aced t h e account of J. G. Cunningham's

t es t imony i n bold b l ack t y p e f o r emphasis. Also, t h e V i c t o r i a

Dai ly C o l o n i s t l s c u t l i n e d e s c r i b e d t h e Skag i t River as a

'I backwater". The Skag i t RTver remained remote, as a backwater.

But, a t l e a s t some of t h e media remained s e n s i t i v e t o t h e f a c t

t h a t l a n d was being f looded by S e a t t l e ' s dam and t h a t t h e

f i s h i n g and o t h e r w i ld l and b e n ~ f i t s would be l o s t .

After reviewing t h e background o f t h e proposa l , t h e Order.

of Approval confirmed t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o c o n s t r u c t t h e Ross Dam.

However, t h i s approva l i s s u b j e c t t o t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s . (1)

S e a t t l e i s r e q u i r e d t o p rov ide adequa te compensation t o B r i t i s h

Columbian i n t e r e s t s . The impounded water was not t o have c ros sed

t h e border u n t i l a n agreement was confirmed between B. C. and

S e a t t l e . ( 2 ) The commission r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o review t h e

terms of t h i s o r d e r and t h e n e g o t i a t e d agreement and t o manage

t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l s a s necessary . (3) The commission

c r e a t e d t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Skag i t River Board of Control , a two

man eng inee r ing pane l , t o p rov ide t e c h n i c a l a d v i c e f o r them.

The fundamental d e c i s i o n t o b u i l d Ross Dam had been made

formal ly . The Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia had no o b j e c t i o n s

t o t h e p r o j e c t . With t h e excep t ion o f i t s i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, t h e Government o f Canada had no

r o l e i n t h e dec i s ion . R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e management of w a t e r /

and l and r e sou rces r e s t w i th t h e prov inces under t h e B r i t i s h

North America Act." Although C i t y Light had y e t t o convince

t h e C i t y Council o f S e a t t l e , t h e Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l

Commission, and t h e Federa l Power Commission o f t h e wisdom of

t h e p r o j e c t , no f u r t h e r formal pe rmi t s o r l i c e n s e s were r e q u i r e d

from Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s a f t e r t h e approva l i n 1942.

No formal avenues o f Canadian c i t i z e n s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e

d e c i s i o n remained. Only a ve ry complex and u n d e s i r a b l e l e g a l

argument on t h e p a r t o f t h e Canadian o f f i c i a l s can r e v e r s e t h e

d e c i s i o n .

The Skag l t Yal ley Tand Act CL --

Governmental n e g o t i a t i o n s and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dam

cont inued fo l lowing t h e commission1 s approva l . S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t was anxious t o complete t h e agreement a s soon as p o s s i b l e .

S e a t t l e was w i l l i n g t o purchase t h e l and o u t r i g h t o r t o buy a n

easement upon i t . Q u i t e c l e a r l y , t h e province was not a b l e t o

determine f o r i t s e l f t h e proper compensation. I n June 1945

S e a t t l e l e t a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e c l e a r i n g o f t h e f o r e s t e d r e s e r v o i r

s i t e on t h e Washington s i d e . Three hundred m i l l i o n board f e e t

o f t imber were t o be t r a n s p o r t e d t o market over a s i x y e a r

p e r i o d - v i a t h e S i lve r -Skag i t Road which was c o n s t r u c t e d f o r

t h i s purpose. 3 0

Yet, t h e Min i s t e r of Lands and F o r e s t s , E. T. Kenney, found

it necessary t o beg in a new s tudy o f t h e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s i n t h e

Skag i t Val ley a yea r and a h a l f l a t e r . P r e p a r a t i o n s by t h e

gov2rnment f o r n e g o t i a t i o n s were i n t e n s i f i e d du r ing t h e

f a l l of 1946. The m i n i s t e r h imse l f v i s i t e d t h e a r e a . H i s

p r i n c i p a l concern was t h e amount of merchantable t imber t h a t

would be e l imina t ed . 31 These t imber s t a n d s had been c r u i s e d

y e a r s before; but t h e da t a were ou t -o f -da t e . S e a t t l e had

asked, aga in , f o r a b i l l o f damages f o r t h e f l ood ing . 3 2

This f l u r r y o f renewed a c t i v i t y r e s u l t e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n

of t h e Skag i t Val ley Land Act by t h e l a n d s m i n i s t e r a t t h e v

beginning of t h e 1947 L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly s e s s i o n . 33 Thi s

a c t which was a s s e n t e d t o on A p r i l 3, 1947 i s s h o r t and s imple .

It s e t f o r t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e government 's permiss ion

t o flood t h e v a l l e y and t h e g o a l s f o r t h e con t inu ing negotiations.

The Skag i t Val ley Lands Act r e a d s i n p a r t :

2. The Ci ty of S e a t t l e i s a u t h o r i z e d t o cause Lot 1103, Yale D i s t r i c t , t o be f looded, under such c o n d i t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s as may be decided by t h e Lieutenant-Governor i n Council; and such land , when f looded , s h a l l be deemed t o be i m - proved land , and as such s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e "Taxa t ion Act".

3 The p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 2 s h a l l no t come i n t o e f f e c t u n t i l The C i t y o f S e a t t l e has p a i d t o t h e Province such sum o f money, as compensation f o r damages, as may be agreed upon between t h e C i ty and t h e Lieutenant-Governor i n Council , which sum may i n c l u d e a n amount o f money ag reed upon i n l i e u of r e n t a l s o r o t h e r c u r r e n t charges .

S e a t t l e was g iven l e g a l permiss ion t o f l o o d t h e v a l l e y i n

p r i n c i p l e . An easement was g ran ted . But t hey cont inued

r e q u i r e d . The p r o v i n c i a l government could never determine t h e

v a l u e of t h e t imber and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s i n t h e Skag i t Val ley .

New Considerat i o n s -- Downstream B e n e f i t s - S i g n i f i c a n t l y , a t t h e same t ime a s permiss ion was being

g ran ted , t h e B r i t i s h columbia Government was beginning t o have second

thoughts . The primary concern o f t h e government was t h e revenue

t o be de r ived from t h e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e v a l l e y .

However, a f t e r World War 11, t h e development of l a r g e

s c a l e , i n t e r n a t i o n a l wa te r r e s o u r c e p r o j e c t s became more

impor tan t . The Skag i t was a smal l , remote r i v e r of r e l a t i v e l y

l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e . J3ut t h e Columbia was a major c o n t i n e n t a l

r i v e r wi th g r e a t p o t e n t i a l f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c development.

They became more caut ious when it was r e a l i z e d t h a t any a c t i o n

on t h e Skagi t might s e t a precedent f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s J'

concerning t h e Columbia. Af te r inspec t ing t h e Skagi t Valley,

E. T. Kenney, t h e Minis te r of Lands, was unusual ly non-committal.

B. A. McKelvie repor ted i n t h e Vancouver Province t h a t

t h e government in tends t o move cau t ious ly i n t h i s mat ter , a s it may become a precedent f o r o t h e r ap- p l i c a t i o n s f o r use of B. C . st,reams and l a k e s a long t h e border a s holding grounds f o r U. S. power corpora t ions . 34

From t h i s time u n t i l t h e s ign ing of t h e agreement of 1967, t h e

nego t i a t ions between B r i t i s h Columbia and S e a t t l e were over-

shadowed by t h e lengthy, complex nego t i a t ions concerning t h e

Columbia Fiver Treaty.

The Skagi t Valley n e g o t i a t i o n s were not concluded by M r .

Kenney and t h e Coa l i t ion government a s many had hoped.

S e a t t l e f e l t t h a t a se t t lement f o r $255,508 cash f o r t h e damages

i n t h e v a l l e y had been reached i n 1952. But, t h i s arrangement

evaporated with t h e advent of s o c i a l Credi t . 3 5 But, t h e Soc ia l

Credi t government was "not cognizant" with an o r a l agreement

which S e a t t l e claimed it made with t h e previous government.

The Minis te r of Lands, Robert Sornrners, claimed t h a t t h e r e was

no record of an agreement i n h i s f i l e s . 36

t h e Spring S e a t t l e City Light l o s t i t s pa t ience .

The t h i r d phase of t h e Ross Dam had been cons t ruc ted . Genera-

t o r s had been i n s t a l l e d . Only t h e cons t ruc t ion of t h e f o u r t h

phase, t h e High Ross, remained. S e a t t l e was worried because

r e s e r v o i r water was a l r eady a c r o s s t h e boundary l i n e covering

about 500 a c r e s . S t r i c t l y speaking, t h i s impoundment was

i l l e g a l . E e a t t l e appealed t o t h e In temaLiona l J o i n t Corrmission

t o mediate t h e s t a l l e d nego t i a t ions . They met i n s p e c i a l execu-

t i v e sess ion on A p r i l 8, 1954 t o consider t h e f a t e of t h e Skagi t .

The terms of t h e 1942 Order of Approval were not being met.

s e a t t l e was represented by a c i t y counsel and by Senator J. W.

deB. F a r r i s , a prominent, L ibe ra l Vancouver laywer. They urged

t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission t o s e t t l e t h e d i spu te as

quickly as poss ib le . B r i t i s h Columbia explained i t s reasons f o r

delay. The meeting was e s s e n t i a l l y a d iscuss ion o f t h e genera l

d i s t r i b u t i o n of downstream benef i t s . Af ter t h e hearing, Lt. -Col.

E r i c Pepler , an a s s i s t a n t a t torney-genera1 ,s ta ted t h a t B r i t i s h

Columbia thought it was "an amicable" meeting. 37

The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia feared t h a t a case s e t t l e -

ment on t h e Skagi t such a s t h e one almost achieved i n 1952 would

p re jud ice nego t i a t ions concerning t h e Libby Dam on t h e Kootenay

River and t h e Columbia River dams. They no longer wanted cash.

In o rde r t o e s t a b l i s h an important precedent f o r o t h e r i n t e r -

n a t i o n a l water p r o j e c t s , t h e province wanted a d i r e c t sha re o f

t h e downstream benef i t s . That i s a p o r t i o n of t h e e l e c t r i c a l

power generated by t h e Ross Dam. Being l inked with t h e Columbia

River proposals , it was c l e a r t h a t t h e bego t i a t ions on t h e Skagi t

had become g r e a t l y more complex. S e a t t l e City Light was i n se r -

ious t r o u b l e , Expansion of t h e Ross Dam could not w a i t u n t i l

t h e Columbia s i t u a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y t h e Libby Dam, was s e t t l e d .

There i s no d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e opera t ion of

the h y d r o e l e c t r i c development on t h e Skag i t River and t h e

development on t h e Columbia River by B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and

power Author i ty and t h e Bonnevi l le Power Author i ty . S ince t h e

Skag i t n e g o t i a t i o n s were delayed u n t i l 1967, t hey had no d i r e c t

i n f l u e n c e on t h e Columbia River developments. But t h e c h a r a c t e r

of t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s between S e a t t l e and B r i t i s h Columbia were

shaped by t h e s e more important d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n t h e reg ion . The

Columbia River T rea ty i s a complex a f fa i r i n i t s e l f . 3 8

A qu ick s o l u t i o n had t o be found. B r i t i s h Columbia could

demand t h a t S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t lower i t s r e s e r v o i r t he reby d ra in -

i n g the c o n t r o v e r s i a l 500 a c r e s of B r i t i s h Columbia. Th i s would

d i s r u p t t h e no-rmal o p e r a t i n g procedures e s t a b l i s h e d f o r Ross

Dam. No p rog res s had beel ;iic _;e i n t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t

Commission hea r ing . Then Congr essman Thomas P e l l y of Washington ,,/ proposed a compromise. I i e fibs=.----- &.L ~ c d that t i n e

w i l l not permit e x t e n s i v e de lay i n r each ing a dec i - s i o n , and they ( t h 2 B r i t i s h Columbia o f f i c i a l s ) w i l l t h e r e f o r e be amenable i n a temporary arrangement which would permit t h e c i t y t o f l o o d beyond t h e boundary f o r one year , o r u n t i l such t ime as a permanent arrangement can be reached. 3 s

A temporary cash s e t t l e m e n t a l l owing t h e f l o o d i n g i n t h e Skag i t

Val ley was o f f e r e d which d id no t p r e j u d i c e t h e f i n a l r e s u l t s of $/,

t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s . Robert Somners, t h e M i n i s t e r of Lands, r e a c t e d

c o o l l y t o P e l l y l s compromise. He s t a t e d t h a t he was w a i t i n g

f o r a proposa l from S e a t t l e . And, he reminded them t h a t t h e

Order of Approval r e q u f r ~ d t h a t no f l o o d i n g was t o occur p r i o r t o

a f i r m agreement be ing s igned . He was not p repared t o f i n a l i z e

t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s . F u r t h e r s tudy was necessary; he had no r e c o r d

in h i s f i l e from t h e previous admin i s t r a t ion showing t h e i r b a s i s

f o r a se t t lement . P rov inc ia l economists and engineers were

examining t h e s i t u a t i o n . 4 0

Nevertheless, P e l l y l s compromise suggest ion was success fu l .

A temporary agreement was reached a month l a t e r which avoided

t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l elements of t h e s t a l l e d nego t i a t ions . Robert

I I Sornmers s t a t e d t h a t t h e se t t lement was signed a s a f avor f f . It

d i d not pre judice any formula f o r downstream b e n e f i t s . B r i t i s h Columbia was e s p e c i a l l y concerned about t h e

f a t e of t h e Libby Dam a t t h i s t ime. The con t rac t d i d , however,

l e g i t i m i z e City L i g h t ' s r e s e r v o i r . The agreement allowed

S e a t t l e t o f lood 635 a c r e s f o r $5000 a year on a

"temporary" b a s i s u n t i l March 31, 1955. This se t t lement was t o

be renewed annual ly u n t i l t h e f i n a l 1967 agreement was signed. 4 1

This i n t e r i m se t t lement solved S e a t t l e ' s immediate needs.

But nego t i a t ions continued slowly. Eventually, it became c l e a r

t h a t no agreement was p o s s i b l e u n t i l a f t e r t h e Columbia River

Treaty was r a t i f i e d . B r i t i s h Columbia was opposed t o a f i n a l

se t t l ement beCause it feared t h a t t h e Skagi t n e g o t i a t i o n s would

s e t t h e p a t t e r n f o r t h e Columbia River p r o j e c t . Attorney-

General Robert Bonner s a i d ,

They want a lump sum payment i n se t t lement of t h e Skagi t . We have opposed t h i s because of i t s in- f luence on t h e Columbia.**

This represented a major s h i f t i n emphasis. The i n t e r i m s e t t l e -

ment was reviewed and approved annual ly. But, t h e r e a l negot ia-

t i o n s were postponed. 43 The fundamental terms of t h e agreement

w e r e t o be der ived from t h e Columbia River n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Federal ~ f f i c i a l s W n r n a w a r n of the Ross Dam p r o j e c t , bu t

cons ide red it of l i t t l e importance. The Hon. Howard C. Green,

s e c r e t a r y of S t a t e For E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s 1959 - 1963, was not

aware o f any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e Ross Dam and t h e Columbia

River T rea ty . He does no t r e c a l l t h i s ma t t e r eve r be ing brought

t o h i s a t t e n t i o n dur ing h i s t e rm i n o f f i c e . 4 4 The Hon. Alvin

Hamilton, Min i s t e r of Northern Affairs and Natura l Resources

between 1957 and 1960 and t h e Chairman of t h e f e d e r a l -

p r o v i n c i a l Columbia River Po l i cy L i a s i o n Committee remembers

t h e Skag i t River being mentioned by h i s a d v i s o r s du r ing g e n e r a l

b r i e f i n g s . But , it was never o f any importance. Although it

was mentioned, t h e Skag i t was never d i scus sed a t any l e n g t h and

does no t appear i n t h e minutes of t h e Columbia R ive r P o l i c y

L i a i s o n Committee. * The 1967 Agreement --

A f t e r t h e Columbia R ive r Trea ty and P ro toco l were f i n a l i z e " ;

i n 1964, B. C . f e l t f r e e t o e n t e r i n t o s e r i o u s n e g o t i a t i o n s w i th

S e a t t l e . However, t h e te rms o f r e f e r e n c e had changed r a d i c a l l y .

It was t h e Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia which was committed t o a

lump sum payment a f t e r Premier W . A. C . Benne t t f s dramat ic

t u rnabou t a f t e r t h e s i g n i n g o f t h e Columbia River T rea ty which

r e q u i r e d t h e n e g o t i a t i o n of t h e Pro toco l . They wanted money;

downstream b e n e f i t s i n t h e form o f e l e c t r i c a l power were no longer

d e s i r e d . F ive y e a r s l a t e r , a f t e r f o r t y y e a r s of d i s c u s s i o n , t h e

requi rements of t h e 1942 Order of Approval was s a t i s f i e d by

t h e s i g n i n g of t h e 1967 agreement by t h e Mayor of S e a t t l e and

t h e Minis te r of Lands, F o r e s t s and Water Resources. ( s e e

Appendix n. )

The 1967 agreement c a l l s f o r an annual r e n t a l payment o f

$34,566.21 paid by t h e c i t y t o t h e province f o r 99 years i n

exchange f o r permission t o f lood t h e Skagi t Valley; i . e . ,

an easement t o inundate t h e v a l l e y t o t h e 1725 f e e t e l e v a t i o n

l e v e l o r approximately 5,180 a c r e s . I n a d d i t i o n a buf fe r zone

t o t h e 1740 f e e t e l e v a t i o n was provided f o r management purposes.

The province was a l s o given t h e opt ion of ob ta in ing payment i n

t h e form of e l e c t r i c a l power a t t h e r a t e of 3.75 m i l l s (based

upon t h e U. S. d o l l a r ) per k i lowat t hour suppl ied a t a n annual

load f a c t o r of a t l e a s t 65 percent de l ivered t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

boundary l i n e . This p rov i s ion allowed a hedge a g a i n s t i n f l a t i o n ,

i f necessary. But, t h e a c t u a l amount of power i s very small .

S e a t t l e was requi red t o d e l i n e a t e t h e ground, t o c l e a r t h e land

p r i o r t o inundation, and t o r ep lace t h e Si lver -Skagi t Road and

t o make o the r improvements of t h e r e s e r v o i r shore l ine . A l l

l abor employed by t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s was requi red t o be r e s i d e n t s

of t h e Province. I n genera l , t h e Province reserved a l l r i g h t s

f o r i t s e l f o t h e r than t h e r i g h t t o genera te hydroe lec t r i c power

and t o manage t h e r e s e r v o i r wi th in t h e Skagi t watershed.

The 1967 agreement i s t h e most important document i n t h e

High Ross Dam controversy. It def ines t h e working r e l a t i o n s h i p

between t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e City of ~ e a t t l e . / It formalized t h e t a c i t understanding i n opera t ion f o r f o r t y

yea r s . Any reasonable person could have expected t o f i l e t h i s

document away and f o r g e t about i t . The long n e g o t i a t i o n s were

the f i n a l p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e

h igh dam were being f i n i s h e d . Most impor tan t ly , t h e r e was no

o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r o j e c t i'rom B r i t i s h Columbian i n t e r e s t s .

The development of t h e Skag i t River conformed wi th t h e g o a l s

of t h e prov ince on t h e Peace and Columbia R ive r s . The f e d e r a l

government had had v i r t u a l l y no r o l e i n t h e ma t t e r . The

I n t e r n a t i o n a l River Improvements Act had no t been a p p l i e d . The

p r o v i n c i a l government had passed t h e Skag i t Val ley Lands Act.

The 1967 agreement complied w i t h t h e requirements of t h e 1942

Order of Approval. As long a s B r i t i s h Columbia was s a t i s f i e d

wi th t h e s e t t l e m e n t , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission would

n o t r e c o n s i d e r t h i s r e f e rcnce . The Canadian d e c i s ion-making

p roces s was complete. No formal a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedures

remained f o r opponents of t h e dam i n Canada.

Conclusions

The f a t e o f t h e Skag i t Val ley was never i n doubt from t h e

day t h a t J. D. Ross f i r s t r e q u e s t was r ece ived i n 1926. A

t a c i t unders tanding e x i s t e d between t h e p r o v i n c i a l government

and t h e c i t y t h a t t h e f l o o d i n g would be a l lowed. The 1967

agreement should have been approved du r ing t h e e a r l y 1930 ' s .

The o r Tginal n e g o t i a t i o n s were delayed by t h e f i n a n c i a l p r e s s u r e s

o f depress ion , by t h e l o s s o f t h e pe r sona l s e r v i c e s of J. D.

Ross du r ing t h e New Deal and u l t i m a t e l y , b y h i s dea th . The

p r o v i n c i a l government ; a t t i t u d e toward t h e Ross Dam p r o j e c t was

p a s s i v e . That i s t o say, wh i l e t h e v a r i o u s l ands m i n i s t e r s d id

not oppose t h e p r o j e c t , none showed any r e a l enthusiasm f o r i t .

s e a t t l e City Light always showed t h e i n i t i a t i v e . The i r

d e s i r e s and purposes were c o n s i s t e n t and c l e a r .

The p r i n c i p a l cause f o r f r u s t r a t i o n during t h e s e negot ia-

t i o n s was t h e indec i s ion and incompetence on t h e p a r t of t h e

var ious lands min i s t e r s . Although t h e u l t i m a t e dec i s ion was

not i n doubt, t h e p r o v i n c i a l pe r spec t ive toward t h e Skagi t Valley

changed severa l t imes. The m i n i s t e r s never seemed t o have a

f u l l grasp of t h e f a c t s concerning t h e va l l ey . 1 Surveys of t h e

n a t u r a l resources of t h e a r e a were never complete; t h e economic

and engineering r e p o r t s used t o a s s e s s t h e c o s t s of t h e f lood ing

were l o s t . A t f i r s t , t h e Skagi t Valley was remote and unknown

a s t h e p e t i t i o n by t h e Vancouver Board of Trade i l l u s t r a t e s .

During t h e l a t e 1930 ' s and t h e 1940' s t h e primary concern was

t h e va lue of t h e t imber i n t h e a r e a . With t h e advent of nego-

t i a t i o n s concerning t h e Columbia River development, t h e Skagi t

River took on g r e a t e r importance f o r t h e province. A se t t lement

on t h e Skagi t would s e t a precedent on t h e Columbia. B. C.

des i r ed a share of t h e downstream benef i t s ; i. e . , a p o r t i o n of

t h e peaking power generated by t h e dam. Then, a f t e r W. A. C.

Benne t t ' s g r e a t r e v e r s a l on t h e terms of t h e Columbia River

Treaty which requi red t h e n e g o t i a t i o n of t h e Protocol , t h e

Province demanded a cash payment. These pe r spec t ives changed;

but , they a l l view t h e v a l l e y a s a d i r e c t source of revenue, a

n a t u r a l resource t o be explo i ted .

There was no important oppos i t ion t o t h e p r o j e c t . But, t h e

few o b j e c t i o n s t h a t were heard d i d a n t i c i p a t e t h e con t rove r sy

t h a t developed a few years later. The Vancouver Soard o f Trade

wanted t o exploj- t t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e a r ea ; they d i s l i k e d t h e

a l i e n a t i o n o f t h e land f o r i t s u s e by f o r e i g n i n t e r e s t s . The

Game Commission ques t ioned t h e impact of t h e r e s e r v o i r upon

t h e f i s h and w i l d l i f e popu la t ion o f t h e a r e a ; t hey wished t o pro-

t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e f i s h and t h e f ishermen.

These few o b j e c t i o n s t h a t were heard d id a n t i c i p a t e t h e

con t rove r sy t h a t would develop a few y e a r s l a t e r when t h e

g e n e r a l p u b l i c became aware o f t h e f u l l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e

1967 agreement. The arguments a g a i n s t t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t L/

e x i s t e d . But, t hey were no t a r t i c u l a t e d we l l . E f f e c t i v e means

t o r a i s e ques t ions about t h i s p r o j e c t were no t appa ren t . The

B r i t i s h Columbia-Seatt le n e g o t i a t i o n s remained a q u i e t ,

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure o u t s i d e t h e p o l i t i c a l a r ena .

Footnotes - f o r Chapter I V -

'1f t h e s e two dams have any i n f l u e n c e upon t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e r i v e r w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia, it i s very minor. The Washington S t a t e Game Commission d i d no t o b j e c t t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Gorge Dam. A f i s h ha t che ry was planned, but no t b u i l t when it was determined t h a t few salmon spawned above t h e Gorge s i t e . ( P i t z e r 1966: 103)

2Nelson tes t imony S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t 1973: I :10.

=F'urther in format ion r e g a r d i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f B. C . hydro- e l e c t r i c development can be found i n Ingledox 1945; Siemens 1968; Taylor 1965 and Maiden 1947. More g e n e r a l accounts of t h e s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y of B r i t i s h Columbia can be found i n Ormsby 1958; Robin 1972, 1973 and Sherman 1966. A summary of t h e p r e s e n t e l e c t r i c a l energy s i t u a t i o n i n t h e prov ince and i t s p r o s p e c t s f o r t h e f u t u r e can be ob ta ined i n t h e r e p o r t s of t h e B. C. Energy Board of 1971 and 1972. E f fo rd and Smith 1972 i s a l s o q u i t e h e l p f u l .

41n f a c t , 400 square mi l e s i s about 256,000 a c r e s , an over- e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e amov~lt o f l a n d involved by a f a c t o r o f f o r t y . Although t h e r e was no road, a c c e s s i n t o t h e Skag i t Val ley - v i a t h e r o u t e of t h e p r e s e n t S i l v e r - S k a g i t road was r e l a t i v e l y easy. Flooding o f t h e v a l l e y would have no d i r e c t impact upon p o t z n t i z ? z i n e r z l r e s e r v e s ,

5 ~ a n c o u v e r Province " say S e a t t l e P lans t o Flood B. C. Skag i t ~ r e a " , March 26, 1931, p. 1. This amendment t o t h e Land Act was passed e v e n t u a l l y as t h e s k a g i t Val ley Lands Act on A p r i l 3, 1947.

I I 6 ~ a n c o u v e r Province Skaagit Power i s Ob jec t ive o f ~ e a t t l e " , March 29, -m 4.

7 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun Lougheed Favors S e a t t l e Bid For Skag i t ~ r o p e r t y " , M a r c h 31, 1931, p. 1.

11 8 ~ a n c o u v e r Province Lougheed Discounts Danger o f lood ding" , March 31, 1931, p. 1.

I 1 S ~ a n c o u v e r Province S e a t t l e Power P r o j e c t Would Use B. C . Water $18,000,000 Skag i t River Development Would Employ 15,000 Men" , March 31, 1933, P. 7.

1 0 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun " ~ o w e r D a m May A f f e c t B. C. ~ i m b e r " , September 11, 1941, P . 1 6 .

l i ~ h e Pre l iminary A r t i c l e o f t h e Boundary Waters T rea ty reads :

For t h e purposes of t h i s t r e a t y boundary w a t e r s a r e de f ined a s t h e wa te r s from main sho re t o main sho re of t h e l a k e s and r i v e r s and connec t ing waterways, o r t h e p o r t i o n s t h e r e o f , a l o n g which t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between t h e United S t a t e s and t h e Dominion of Canada passes , i n c l u d i n g a l l bays, arms, and in - l e t s t h e r e o f , but no t i n c l u d i n g t r i b u t a r y wa te r s which i n t h e i r n a t u r a l channe ls would flow i n t o such l a k e s , r i v e r s , and o r t h e w a t e r s o f r i v e r s f lowing a c r o s s t h e boundary.

The Skag i t River i s c l e a r l y a boundary wate r .

I 2 s e e , - e. g . , I J C 1936-40 and Murray 1972.

13see, e. g . , I J C 1970 and 1973.

1 4 ~ o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e I J C a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n , see , e . g . , Chacko 1932; Bloomfield and F i t z g e r a l d 1958; Berber 1 9 5 9 7 Bourne 1971; McDouglass 1971 and Smedresman 1973.

1 5 ~ r t i c l e I V o f t h e Boundary Waters Trea ty of 1909 reads :

The High Con t r ac t ing P a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t , except i n c a s e s provided f o r by s p e c i a l agreement between them, t hey w i l l no t permi t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r maintenance on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i d e s o f t h e boundary o f any remedial o r p r o t e c t i v e works o r any dams o r o t h e r o b s t r u c t i o n s i n wate rs f lowing from boundary w a t e r s o r i n wa te r s a t a iower l e v e l t h a n t h e boundary i n r i v e r s f lowing a c r o s s t h e boundary, t h e e f f e c t o f which i s t o r a i s e t h e , n a t u r a l l e v e l of wa te r s on t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e boundary u n l e s s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r maintenance t h e r e o f i s approved by t h e a f o r e s a i d I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Comrnis s ion .

' = l e t t e r from D. G. Chance t o T. L. Perry, June 15, 1971, a u t h o r 1 s f i l e .

1 7 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun " ~ o w e r D a m May A f f e c t B. C . ~ i m b e r " , September 11, 1941, p . 1 6 and V i c t o r i a Times "B. C , Watching Skag i t Power plan1' , September 11, 1 9 4 1 , . 11.

2 6 ~ e t t e r from F. R. B u t l e r t o L. J. Burpee, September 23 , 1941, a u t h o r 1 s f i l e .

2 7 ~ e t t e r from Char les S tewar t t o John Hart, January 8, 1942, a u t h o r 1 s f i l e .

t 1 2 8 ~ i c t o r i a Dai ly Colonis t Agreement on Water Levels, J o i n t U. S. , Canadian Commission S e t t l e Skag i t River Rackwater" , September 1 4 , 1941, p. 39 and Vancouver Province " ~ k a g i t River Backed I n t o canadall, September 13, 1941, p. 39.

2 9 ~ h e Government o f Canada ach ieved some j u r i s d i c t i o n over management of i n t e rna t l i oua i r i v e l X s by t h e enactment of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l River Improvements Act i n 1955. However, t h e l e g a l i t y of pos t de f a c t o a p p l i c a . b i l i t y of t h i s a c t i n t h e -- Ross Dam c a s e IS ques t ionab le .

3 0 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun " ~ e a t t l e Hydro t o Af fec t B. C . ~ i v e r " June 9, 1945, p. 28,

3 1 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun ca am t o Flood 7800 Acres of B. C. c and", September 1946, p. 12.

3 2 Vancouver Sun " ~ e a t t l e t o Pay R. C . f o r ~ l o o d s " , November 15, 1946, p. 2 7

11 3 3 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun S e a t t l e t o Flood Skag i t River Area", March 26, 1947, p. 11.

I 1 3 4 ~ a n c o u v e r Province Kenney Completes Skag i t Dam ~ u r v e y " , September 30, 1946, p. 10.

11 3 5 ~ a n c o u v e r Province Skag i t River Border Dispute t o be S e t t l e d i n Washington", A p r i l 9, 1954, p. 12.

3 6 ~ a n c o u v e r Province "B. C. A w a i t s S e a t t l e l s Ross Dam ~ r o p o s a l " , May 13, 1954, P* 11.

11 37Vancouver Province Skag i t R ive r Border Dispute t o be S e t t l e d i n Washington" ,. A p r i l 9, 1954, p. 12.

3 8 ~ h e l i t e r a t u r e concerning t h e Columbia River Trea ty and P ro toco l i s ex t ens ive . Accounts o f t h a t s i t u a t i o n which dominated h y d r o e l e c t r i c development du r ing t h e 1950' s and 1960% can be found i n Bocking 1972; Wilson 1973; K r u t i l l a 1967; Wate r f i e ld 1970, 1973 and t h e Canada Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and Northern A f f a i r s and Na tu ra l Resources 1964.

3 9 ~ a n c o u v e r - Sun " Temporary Pac t Urged f o r Ross Dam, Normal Operat ion Handicapped by F a i l u r e t o Reach ~ e c i s i o n " , May 11, 1954, P . 19.

I I 40Vancouver Sun B. C. Waits S e a t t l e Word on Ross am", May 13, 1954, p. 1 r

4 1 ~ a n c o u v e r Sun " ~ e a t t l e Pays B. C. f o r Land Flooding, Temporary - Set t lement I n Skag i t River Power p r o j e c t " , June 30, 1954, p. 27

4 2 ~ a n c o u v e r - Sun " p a r l e y on Skag i t 'Key' t o Columbia, B. C . t o F igh t Se t t l ement Demand i n Ottawa as S e t t i n g precedent" , October 9, 1958, p. 13.

I I 4 3 ~ e e , P . g. , Vancouver Province Agreement on Flood Pay okayed", A p r i l 13, 1959, p. 6 and Vancouver Province " ~ l o o d Terms okayed", May 10, 1962, p. 3.

4 4 ~ e r sona l communication, Howard Green, January 30, 1974.

4 5 ~ e r s o n a l communication, Alv in Hamilton, February 1, 1974.

CHAPTER V

The Creation of Cont,roversy:

The Role o f t h e C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s

one who h a b i t u a l l y endeavors t o contemplate e t r u e s t a t e o f t h i n g s , t h e p o l i t i c a l s t a t e can

h a r d l y be s a i d t o have any e x i s t e n c e whatever. It i s u n r e a l , i n c r e d i b l e , and i n s i g n i f i c a n t t o him, and f o r him t o endeavor t o e x t r a c t t h e t r u t h from such l e a n m a t e r i a l i s l i k e making sugar from l i n e n r a g s , when sugar cane may be had. Genera l ly speak- i ng , t h e p o l i t i c a l news, whether domestic o r f o r e i g n , might be w r i t t s n today f o r t h e nex t t e n y e a r s wi th s u f f i c i e n t accuracy . Most r e v o l u t i o n s i n s o c i e t y have no t power t o i n t e r e s t , s t i l l l e s s a l a rm us; but t e l l me t h a t our r i v e r s a r e d ry ing up, o r t h e genus p ine dying o u t i n t h e count ry , and I might a t t e n d .

-- Henry David ~ h o r e a u '

It i s contended i n t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t t h e r e v i v a l o f t h e

High Ross D a m q u e s t i o n i n 1969 i s t h e product of two c o r e e i e -

ment s w i t h i n t h e conse rva t ion movement. These two elements a r e

t h e r i s e of t h e conse rva t ion movement i n B r i t i s h Columbia of

which t h e ROSS Committee i s a p a r t and, t h e h i s t o r y of t h e

campaign t o c r e a t e t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park which was

l e d by t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council . These two

elements a r e p roduc ts of both t h e c l i m a t e of op in ion p r e s e n t i n

B r i t i s h Columbia and Washington du r ing t h e l as t f i v e y e a r s and

t h e o v e r a l l , g e n e r a l h i s t o r y of t h e conse rva t ion movement. These

p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s i n t h i s con t rove r sy a r e examined as c a t a l y t i c

a g e n t s i n t h e p u b l i c deba te as a whole.

The persons r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e High Ross

Dam con t rove r sy a r e members o f t h e Vancouver-based a d hoc -- c o a l i t i o n , t h e KOSS Committee, and t h e North Cascades

Conservat ion Council whTch h a s headqua r t e r s i n S e a t t l e . The

c h a r a c t e r of t h e s e two groups i s desc r ibed f o r they a r e

S e a t t l e C i ty L i g h t ' s p r i n c i p a l p r o t a g o n i s t s . A wide v a r i e t y

of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups i s involved, most of whom a r e p a r t

o f t h e North American conse rva t ion movement.

The High Ross D a m con t rove r sy i s a product o f t h e conser-

v a t i o n movement. The c h a r a c t e r of t h e conse rva t ion movement

as a s o c i a l movement i s reviewed. This movement has provided ,/ t h e mean t o a r t i c u l . a t e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e High Ross D a m p r o j e c t

w i t h i n t h e p o l i t i c a l p roces s .

Unless o the rwi se noted, t h e data and obse rva t ions i n t h i s

chap te r concerning t h e n a t u r e of t h e conse rva t ion movement and

t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e ROSS Committee and t h e North Cascades

Conservat ion Council a r e de r ived from t h e pe r sona l expe r i ence

and p a r t i c i p a t o r y o b s e r v a t i o n desc r ibed i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y

c h a p t e r .

The Conservat ion Movement a s a Movement - -- The conse rva t ion movement i s a p a r t i c u l a r kind of s o c i a l

movement. A movement i s t h e vo lun ta ry a s s o c i a t i o n o f people t o

promote a common ideology o r t o seek s o l u t i o n s o r s a t i s f a c t i o n

of s p e c i f i e d common problems o r goa l s . These common i d e o l o g i e s

and goa l s g ive t h e movement s o c i a l f o r c e and d i s t i n g u i s h it from

o t h e r more s t r i c t l y s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

Ideology i s t h e on ly t h i n g which e f f e c t i v e l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s

a movement from any o t h e r vo lun ta ry a s s o c i a t i o n . Thus, w i t h i n

a r e l i g i o u s moveirmit, a sha rp d i s t i n c t i o n iriust be made betweel-1

t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s o f a Sunday s e r v i c e and t h e s o c i a l

a t t r i b u t e s of a church sponsored Tuesday n i g h t b r i d g e c lub .

Like a r e l i g i o u s movement, t h e conse rva t ion movement h a s w i t h i n

it elements o f theology and o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Movements, by

d e f i n i t i o n , a r e more t h a n g a t h e r i n g s o r s o c i a l c lubs ; t hey have

i d e o l o g i c a l mo t iva t ion and g o a l o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s .

A s t h e p o l i t i c a l exp res s ion o f c u r r e n t b e l i e f s concerning

man1 s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s environment and/or t h e "wise"

management o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , t h e conse rva t ion movement has

a wide v a r i e t y o f i d e o l o g i c a l s t a n c e s which may o r may no t be

mutua l ly compatible. Thus, game wardens and s p o r t h u n t e r s may

coopera te w i th o t h e r groups o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s i n t h e develop-

ment o f w i l d l i f e management p o l i c i e s ; but t hey may d i s a g r e e

complete ly wi th each o t h e r s 1 motives. For i n s t a n c e , one group

may d e s i r e t o main ta in t h e deer p o p u l a t i o n i n o r d e r t o shoot

them and t h e o t h e r group may wish t o p re se rve t h e deer and

o t h e r w i l d l i f e ' popu la t ions i n o r d e r t o main ta in t h e i n t e g r i t y

of w i l d l i f e f o r i t s own sake. The management o f pet roleum and

n a t u r a l gas r e s e r v e s by government and by i n d u s t r y i s done under

t h e name o f conse rva t ion . P o l i t i c a l o f f i c i a l s , bus ines s execu-

t i v e s , and w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s a l l c l a im t h a t t hey suppor t con-

s e r v a t i o n i s t goa l s . Yet, o f t e n , t hey promote d i f f e r e n t and con-

f l i c t i n g views.

The conse rva t ion movement does no t have a n a b s o l u t e , con-

s i s t e n t i d e o l o g i c a l base; a t l e a s t , i t i s not a r t i c u l a t e d . This

weak i d e o l o g i c a l base i s a major source of t e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e

movement. Note w e l l , however, t h a t t h i s i s more t h a n a q u e s t i o n

of what o r who i s " i d e o l o g i c a l l y pure" . Nor i s it merely a

m a t t e r of e l i m i n a t i n g spu r ious c la ims . Desp i t e t h e w e l l known

e f f o r t s of s e v e r a l contemporary conse rva t ion l e a d e r s , t h e

t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e movement remains vague.

Although t h e s p e c i f i c g o a l s remain v a r i e d , t h e comprehensive

concept of environmental q u a l i t y has broadened and u n i f i e d t h e

g e n e r a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e conse rva t ion movement.

The concept of environmental q u a l i t y i s p a r t of t h e development

o f t h e s o - c a l l e d environmental movement t h a t has t rans formed

much of t h e conse rva t ion movement. J. Michael McCloskey, t h e

Execut ive D i r e c t o r of t h e S i e r r a Club and one of t h e most

pronlineni; leaders of t h z c o n s z r v z t i c z azvement , has observed

t h i s r e c e n t t r a n s i t i o n .

I n a sense , t h ~ conse rva t ion movement i s now i n t h e p roces s of being swallowed up i n t o a l a r g e r and

7" newer movement - a n environmental one. This l a t t e r movement i s a n amalgamation o f many o t h e r s : t h e con- sumer c rusade , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o r p o r a t e reformers ; t h e movemmt f o r s c i e n t i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; a r e v i t a l i z e d pub l i c h e a l t h movement; b i r t h c o n t r o l and popu la t ion s t a b i l i z a t i o n groups; p a c i f i s t s and t h o s e who s t r e s s p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy i n which d e c i s i o n s a r e made consensua l ly ; young people who s t r e s s s i m p l i c i t y i n l i f e s t y l e s and who c a l l f o r pe r sona l a c t i o n and e c o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n l i v i n g ; and o t h e r groups s e a r c h i n g f o r a new focus f o r p o l i t i c z . While many o f t h e long-term goa l s of t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e similar, t h e new move- ment l a c k s cohesion wi th r e s p e c t t o what comes f i r s t : mass educa t ion , major l i f e s t y l e changes, s i m p l i f i e d i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r t r a d i t i o n a l pragmat ic e f f o r t s a t piecemeal reform. 4

Basic d i f f e r e n c e s of op in ion e x i s t ; a t t h e same t ime , most

of i h e s e i n t e r % & groups a r c a b l e t o work t o g e t h e r . C o a l i t i o n s

a r e formed; over lapping memberships and d i r e c t o r s h i p s a r e

common. The bPa;?rder and l a r g e r groups l i k e t h e S i e r r a Club

which c o n t a i n s elements of' t h e p o i n t s o f view t h a t McCloskey

desc r ibed s e r v e a s c l ea r inghouses f o r reform. The g r e a t e s t

i n t e r n a l b a t t l e s concern p r i o r i t i e s of a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n long

term goa l s and p r i n c i p l e s . There i s s t r e n g t h i n d i v e r s i t y and

v a r i e t y only as long as u n i t y o f purpose i s mainta ined.

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , some of t h e most prominent names i n t h e

environmental movement a r e e s s e n t i a l l y l e a d e r s of t h e s e newly

combined causes f o r reform. Ralph Nader i s a major advoca te of

consumer and c o r p o r a t e rcform. Barry Commoner, Donald Chant

and many o f t h e a n t i - p o l l u t i o n l e a d e r s s t a r t e d i n t h e movement

f o r s c i e n t i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and f o r improved p u b l i c h e a l t h . 6

Paul E h r l i c h and h i s Zero Popula t ion Growth groups a r e p a r t of

a long h i s t o r y o f fami ly p l ann ing and popu la t ion c o n t r o l groups.

The Greenpeace Foundation as t h e name imp l i e s has merged environ-

mental concerns w i t h p a c i f i s t g o a l s and methods. s Conservat ion

groups i n t h e United S t a t e s i n t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 ' s found them-

s e l v e s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e war i n Indochina l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t

of t h e d e v a s t a t i o n o f d e f o l i a t i o n programs. It i s c l e a r t h a t

persons who o therwise would no t speak t o one ano the r a r e a l l i e d

t o g e t h e r under a common banner of environmental reform.

I n sum, i t can be s a i d t h a t a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e conser-

v a t i o n rnovzment a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y important a s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

i n s t a n c e of a c t i o n by t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e i n governmental

decisiol-i m k i n g . Movsmcfit c , as a s s o c i a t i o n s of peep] e w i t h

common i d z o l o g i e s and g o a l s , have c e r t a i n r e a l and/or p o t e n t i a l

c o n s t i t u e n c i e s . Although not c a t h o l i c , t h e conse rva t ion

movement's membership i s extremely d i v e r s e . Consequently,

t h e r e i s p r e s e n t l y a n amazing degree o f s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and

i d e o l o g i c a l f l e x i b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e expanded conse rva t ion move-

ment. I n t h i s regard , t h e immediate h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s o f t h e

movement du r ing t h e P rog res s ive Era a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . To g a i n

f u r t h e r unders tanding of t h e High Ross D a m cont roversy t h e s e

immediate h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s r e q u i r e more examination.

The Conservat ion Movement i n H i s t o r i c a l P a t t e r n - - The h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s w i t h i n t h e conse rva t ion movement

r e s t upon common va lues expressed i n v a r i e d s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l

c o n t e x t s . The contemporary c o n s e r v a t i o n movement i s a produc t

of t h e s e t t l e m e n t of a new c o n t i n e n t du r ing a t ime o f r a p i d

economic, p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l and t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. A poor

and empty land i s now a r i c h and f u l l l and .6 Desp i t e t h e s e

changes, t h e b a s i c p a t t e r n s o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e management

o f t h e landscape have not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The conserva-

t i o n movement may t h e r e f o r e be seen as one o f t h e c u r r e n t mani-

f e s t a t i o n s of t h e d e s i r e t o c o n t r o l o r t o i n f l u e n c e t h e d e s t i n y

of t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n and thc d i s t r i b u t i o n o f n a t u r a l r e sou rces .

Although t h e b a s i c s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and t e c h n o l o g i c a l s t r a t s g i e s

of t h e conse rva t ion movement have v a r i e d , t h e b a s i c arguments of

t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n movement a s a c u l t u r a l f o r c e , as a communicator

of i d e a s about t h e environment have remained very similar.

A l l h y d r o e l e c t r i c contra-jersies see^ to f o l l o ~ t h e same basic

p a t t e r n s t h a t a r e i n h e r e n t i n t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy . Thus,

one may in t e r change t h e e lements o f deba te concern ing hydro-

e l e c t r i c dams from one p a r t i c u l a r t ime and p l a c e t o a n o t h e r by

changing t h e proper nouns and some o f t h e t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s .

These i n h e r e n t s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e p a r t of t h e h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s

and c u l t u r a l f a b r i c of n a t u r a l r e sou rce d e c i s i o n making.

The fundamental s t r u c t u r e of t h e High Ross Dam deba te i s

very similar t o t h a t of t h e Hetch Hetchy Dam con t rove r sy a t t h e

beginning of t h i s cen tury . A t t h e c o r e o f t h a t c o n f l i c t was

t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l deba te between John Muir, t h e w r i t e r and

n a t u r a l i s t , and Gi f ford P inchot , t h e Chief of t h e United S t a t e s

F o r e s t Serv ice . The i r p e r s o n a l views a r e symbolic o f t h e wide

p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n t h e conse rva t ion movement.

M u i r l s foremost concern was t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l

l andscape f o r i t s own sake. Pinchot i s b e s t known f o r h i s

d e f i n i t i o n of conse rva t ion a s t h e w i se u s e of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s

which h e a p p l i e d t o t h e management of t h e n a t i o n a l f o r e s t s .

The p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n s o f Muir and Pinchot a r e cont inued

by t h e North Cascades Conserva t ion Council and S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t as for thcoming d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i r views w i l l show.

The Hetch Hetchy D a m was b u i l t by t h e c i t y o f San F ranc i sco

i n t h e Hetch Hetchy Val ley w i t h i n Yosemite Nat iona l Park as p a r t

of t h e c i t y ' s p u b l i c wate r supply system. The Hetch Hetchy D a m

was p a r t of t h e same v i s i o n s o f c i t y b u i l d i n g which s t i m u l a t e d

t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e Skag i t River development by t h e c i t y of

s e a t t l e . B u i l t i n a new n a t i o n a l park, t h e Hetch Hetchy Dam

was t h e s u b j e c t of a l eng thy cont roversy between c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s

l e d by John Muir and c i t y o f f i c i a l s who d e s i r e d t o p rov ide f o r

t h e growing demand f o r wate r i n San Franc isco . This c l a s s i c i n

conse rva t ion h i s t o r y has many p a r a l l e l s w i th t h e High Ross D a m

case . Indeed, as w i l l be d i scus sed l a t e r , t h e t r agedy of Hetch

Hetchy, has been r e f e r r e d t o as p a r t o f t h e argument a g a i n s t

t h e High Ross Dam.7

Another example of t h e p a t t e r n s and un i fo rmi ty w i t h i n t h e

h i s t o r y t h e conse rva t ion movement occur red a c c i d e n t

co inc idence . During t h e months p r i o r t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t

Commission hea r ing on t h e High Ross Dam i n 1971, u n r e l a t e d

r e s e a r c h by a member o f t h e ROSS Committee l e d t o t h e Rainy

Lake r e f e r e n c e o r docket . One of t h e f r u i t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h

was a q u o t a t i o n from t h e f i n a l r e p o r t of t h i s r e f e r e n c e which

was given t o David Brousson, a spokesman f o r t h e ROSS Committee,

f o r i n c l u s i o n i n h i s submission. This quo ta t ion , w r i t t e n t h i r t y -

seven y e a r s be fo re , summarized t h e e n t i r e t h r u s t o f t h e ROSS

Committeef s p r e s e n t a t i o n .

The Commission a l s o sympathizes w i th t h e a i m s and t h e o b j e c t s o f t h o s e who advoca te t h a t t h i s b e a u t i f u l , n a t u r a l s anc tua ry , emblematic o f peace and unmarred by t h e hand of man, should be s e t a p a r t as a memorial. p a r k t o commemorate t h e more t h a n a cen tu ry of peace, goodwil l and common i d e a l s t h a t have e x i s t e d between t h e Engl i sh speaking peoples t h a t l i v e s i d e by s i d e on t h e n o r t h e r n h a l f o f t h i s c o n t i n e n t , and t h e com- miss ion i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r o u s t h a t no th ing i n t h i s r e p o r t should p r e s e n t any o b s t a c l e t o , o r i n any way i n t e r f e r e w i t h , t h e governments o f t h e two c o u n t r i e s i n t o a t r e a t y f o r t h i s purpose.

Brousson went on i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n t o conclude:

Those words comk from t h e con:lusions and recom- mendations of t h e F i n a l Report o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l -- J o i n t Commission, Rainy Lake Reference , May 1, 1934. - - .. - - - - - - I do not suggest t h e y e x a c t l y , o r complete ly d e s c r i b e t h e Ross Lake-Skagit Val ley s i t u a t i o n , but t h o s e words do p r e s e n t , even 37 y e a r s l a t e r , a p o i n t of view f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s Commission. I F THIS I S THE K I N D OF THINKING DONE BY THE COMMISSION I N THE YEAR OF 1971, I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT YOU WILL G I V E THE SKAGIT VALLEY A SECOND CIIATJCE.

A d i s c r e t e smi le o f a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l conver-

gence f l a s h e d a c r o s s t h e f a c e s o f s e v e r a l o f t h e commissioners

when Brousson r ead t h i s q u o t a t i o n . Nei ther t h e 1971 commissioners

nor t h e ROSS Committee wanted a n o t h e r . i n t e r n a t i o n a l peace park.

But, t h e r eques t f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of w i ld l ands as p a r k was

c l e a r . The Rainy Lake r e f e r e n c e c o n t a i n s s t a t emen t s r e g a r d i n g

t h e w i l d e r n e s s and r e c r e a t i o n a l v a l u e s of t h e Boundary Waters

Canoe Area/Quet ico P r o v i n c i a l Park r e g i o n which could be used

e a s i l y today.

On a n i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l , s imilar p a t t e r n s p r e v a i l i n terms

o f t h e d a i l y conduct of t h e n a t u r a l r e sou rce i s s u e . For example,

a t a n e a r l y news conference h e l d j o i n t l y by t h e ROSS Committee 1 1

and t h e North Cascades Conserva t ion Council which in t roduced i

t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy t o

t h e S e a t t l e media, t h e r e was a very f r i e n d l y exchange between

one o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s and one o f t h e r e p o r t e r s . Being a n

exper ienced r e p o r t e r , he knew t h e r i g h t ques t ions t o a s k and

t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s , a l s o be ing exper ienced, knew e x a c t l y how

t o respond. This r i t u a l i z e d exchange was not f o r t h e b e n e f i t

of e i t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t but f o r t h e sake of t h e

r eade r sh ip . The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t r ece ived h i s p r e s s coverage and

t h e repor te ry got h i s stor.. Y . However, the point. is t h a t both

knew e x a c t l y what t h e o t h e r was going t o say. The c u l t u r a l

p a t t e r n of t h e arguments change very slowly; bu t t h e b a s i c

p a t t e r n s , i m p l i c i t l y and s u b j e c t i v e l y known, p rov ide t h e

fundamental framework f o r t h e n a t u r a l r e sou rce con t rove r sy when

one a r i s e s .

From t ime t o t ime, t h e p a t t e r n s of h i s t o r y converge t o

c r e a t e a renewed vigorous c o n s e r v a t i o n movement t h a t i s a b l e

t o c h a l l e n g e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d g o a l s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . However,

even when t h e c l i m a t e o f op in ion i s conducive, p r e s s conferences

and p u b l i c hea r ings a r e not haphazard events ; t hey a r e w e l l

planned and organized by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e con t rove r sy . The

ROSS Committee and t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council have

major r o l e s i n t h e management o f t h e High Ross D a m con t rove r sy .

However, be fo re d i s c u s s i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e two o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

it i s u s e f u l t o p l a c e them w i t h i n t h e con tex t o f t h e wide v a r i e t y

o f conse rva t ion o r g a n i z a t i o n s p r e s e n t .

The Conservat ion Movemmt - I t s Var i e ty o f Organiza t ions - . - - Each conse rva t ion o r g a n i z a t i o n has i t s own s t y l e , p u b l i c

image, modus operandi , and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s . Organiza t ions ,

l i k e i n d i v i d u a l s , have p e r s o n a l i t i e s and p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s .

Conservat ion groups a r e f aced wi th a wide v a r i e t y of p o t e n t i a l

concerns; but t h e i r r e s o u r c e s a r e l i m i t e d . Thus, p o l i t i c a l

i s s u e s a r e chosen acco rd ing t o t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e members

and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o handle them. Accordingly, a 1 1 i s s u e s

a r e created; 311 i ssues a r e rnana,gnd. P o l i t i c a l s t r a t e g y

depends upon t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i s s u e , t h e p o l i t i c a l c l i m a t e ,

and t h e p o l i t i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t t i t u d e s of t h e conser-

v a t i o n l e a d e r s h i p .

A typology of conse rva t ion o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t h e p u b l i c

s e c t o r has been devised based upon t h e a u t h o r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s

of such groups i n North America. Nine types have been i d e n t i -

f i e d accord ing t o s i z e , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , geographica l

a r e a , and func t ion . They a r 2 t h e o l iga rchy , t h e d i s p e r s e d

h i e r a r c h y , the l o c a l i z e d assembly, t h e s p e c i a l i z e d s o c i a l , t h e

con fede ra t ion , t h e c o a l i t i o n , t h e founda t ion , t h e -- a d hoe, and

t h e non-conservat ion p u b l i c a f f a i r s o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

O l i g a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s u s u a l l y cover l a r g e geograph ica l

a r e a s , a r e run by boards of d i r e c t o r s and perhaps a n execu t ive

d i r e c t o r and a s t a f f , and have a d i s p e r s e d membership which has

a l i t t l e o r no power i n dec id ing t h e p o l i c i e s of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

The Wilderness Soc ie ty and F r i ends of t h e Ea r th a r e examples.

Disperszd h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e similar t o o l i g a r -

c h i c a l ones w i t h t h e excep t ion t h a t t h e members have a d i r e c t

vo i ce i n t h e a f fa i r s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The members of t h e

board of d i r e c t o r s a r e e l e c t e d by t h e membership. The organiza-

t i o n i s pyramidal i n s t r u c t u r e . Po l icy i s s e t on t h e l o c a l l e v e l

w i th t h e approva l of t h e h i g h e r u n i t . It i s e s s e n t i a l l y a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy i n s t r u c t u r e . The S i e r r a Club i s a n

example.

The l o c a l i z e d assembly cove r s a small geographica l a r e a ,

has a small t o medium-sized membcrshlp, i s l e d by an execu t ive

committee o f t h r e e t o twelve persons , t ends t o s p e c i a l i z e on a

narrow range o f i n t e r e s t s , t e n d s t o l a c k permanence and

exper ience , and r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t h e t a l e n t s of a small number

of persons . The l o c a l i z e d assembly type i s q u i t e common and

i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most o f t h e newer s o - c a l l e d "ecology"

o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

The s p e c i a l i z e d s o c i a l group i s u s u a l l y small and i s

similar i n s t r u c t u r e t o t h e l o c a l i z e d assembly. But it has a

h igh ly s p e c i a l i z e d i n t e r e s t o r a c t i v i t y such a s camping, hunt ing ,

f i s h i n g , o r n a t u r e s tudy . It i s p r i m a r i l y a n outdoor s o c i a l

c l u b and not a p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Never the less , i t w i l l

a l l y i t s e l f wi th t h e more a c t i v i s t groups but u s u a l l y w i l l not

t a k e a p o s i t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p . The l o c a l rod and gun c l u b i s

a n example. Such o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y permanent and

cons ide r themselves as long t ime c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s .

The confede ra t ion cove r s a l a r g e geographica l a r e a and

b r i n g s t o g e t h e r l o c a l i z e d a s sembl i e s o r s p e c i a l i z e d s o c i a l

groups. It may have a s taf f which r e p r e s e n t s i t s members

and does t h e a c t u a l c o n s e r v a t i o n work. It i s governed by

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the l o c a l member groups and i s u s u a l l y

weaker t h a n t h e o t h n r c e n t r a l i z e d types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s

because it must depend more h e a v i l y on t h e suppor t o f t h e l o c a l

c lub . The Fede ra t ion of Wcstern Outdoor Clubs and t h e B r i t i s h

Columbia W i l d l i f e Federa t i o n a r e examples.

The c o a l i t i o n i s a h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d t y p e of o r g a n i z a t i o n .

~t i s a conf edera t io r l of o r g a n i ~ a t i o i i s and somct i rns indS vi d u a l s

which band t o g e t h e r i n o rde r t o c o n s o l i d a t e power and money f o r

a p a r t i c u l a r purpose. A s we w i l l s ee , t h e ROSS Committee i s

such a c o a l i t i o n .

Foundations a r e non-p ro f i t , t a x d e d u c t i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s

which promote r e s e a r c h and/or conse rva t ion educa t ion . Normally,

t hey do not p a r t i c i p a t e d i r e c t l y i n t h e p o l i t i c a l p roces s .

Resources For t h e F'uture and t h e Conservat ion Foundation a r e

n o t a b l e examples of indcpendent r e s e a r c h i n s t i t u t i o n s . Other

founda t ions , l i k e t h e S i s r r a Club Foundation, p rov ide a d i r e c t ,

bu t n o n - p o l i t i c a l , s u p p o r t i v e r o l e . I n t h e United S t a t e s ,

t h e t a x s h e l t e r e d money t h a t t h e founda t ions handle can no t be

used f o r purposes o f i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . Most c o n s e r v a t i o n

o r g a n i z a t i o n s as non-p ro f i t , p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups can q u a l i f y

f o r t a x d e d u c t i b l e s t a t u s . However, t h i s can on ly be done a t

a p o l i t i c a l c o s t . The S i e r r a Club, f o r example, l o s t i t s t a x

s t a t u s as governmentzl punishment f o r f i g h t i n g t o o v igo rous ly

a g a i n s t dams on t h e Colorado R ive r . However, a t p r e s e n t t h e

l e a d e r s of t h e S i e r r a Club do no t want t h e t a x s t a t u s back because

t h e y f e e l t h a t t h e p o s s i b l e g a i n i n donat ions would no t o f f s e t

t h e conscious and subconcious c o n s t r a i n t s p laced upon t h e i r

p o l i c y making p roces s by t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e ' s regu-

l a t i o n s concerning lobbying. The p o s i t i o n o f t h e Government

of Canada r ega rd ing lobbying by non-p ro f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s

l e s s w e l l def ined . Desp i t e t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s p laced upon conser-

v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s by t a x laws, founda t ion g r a n t s a r e important

sou.rces o f funds. 10

The -- a d hoc o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a temporary, h igh ly s p e c i a l i z e d

t y p e of l o c a l i z e d assembly ded ica t ed t o one p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e o r

it i s a c o a l i t i o n o r f r o n t o r g a n i z a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t o handle

one p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . Ad hoc groups have l i v e s of t h e i r own. -- Some a r e s h o r t l i v e d . Others t r ans fo rm themselves i n t o perma-

nent o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above mentioned t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

t h e r e i s a number o f non-conservat ion, p u b l i c a f f a i r s groups

which w i l l from t ime t o t ime t a k e p u b l i c s t a n d s on p a r t i c u l a r

conse rva t ion i s s u e s . They make e x c e l l e n t a l l i e s f o r l a r g e s c a l e

o p e r a t i o n s where broad p u b l i c suppor t i s needed. Having surveyed

t h e v a r i e t y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e s p e c i f i c 'form o f t h e ROSS

Committee can be p laced i n c o n t e x t .

Run Out Skag i t S p o i l e r s -- Run Out Skag i t S p o i l e r s i s a n a d hoc c o a l i t i o n o f e x i s t i n g --

conse rva t ion o rgan iza t ions ; it has no i n d i v i d u a l members. It

e x i s t s f o r only one reason . That i s t o p revent t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

of t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t by S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t . For example,

dur ing a n e a r l y news conference i n S z a t t l e , a l e a d i n g member of

t h e group s t a t e d ,

We w i l l no t s t o p f i g h t i n g ( a g a i n s t t h e dam) u n t i l t h e l a s t cubic inch of c o n c r e t e i s poured. 1 1

The ROSS Committee u n l i k e many a d hoc o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l no t -- evolve i n t o ano the r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r adopt ano the r i s s u e .

The o r i g i n a l members o f t h e committee were t h e B r i t i s h

columbia W i l d l i f e Federa t ion , t h e Alp ine Club o f Canada, t h e

v a r s i t y Outdoor Club, t h e Soc ie ty f o r Pol lut . ion and Environmental

Cont ro l , t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Mountaineering Club, t h e Simon

F r a s e r Outdoor Club and t h e S i e r r a Club o f B r i t i s h Columbia.

Subsequently, t h e V a r s i t y Outdoor Club withdrew. But , t hey

were r ep l aced by t h e A l m a Mater Soc ie ty of t h e Un ive r s i t y of

B r i t i s h Columbia. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c h a r t e r members, t h e Totem

F ly F i s h e r s and t h e Lower Mainland W i l d l i f e Assoc i a t i on bo th o f

which a r e members of t h e B r i t i s h Columbia W i l d l i f e Fede ra t ion

and t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Fzde ra t ion of N a t u r a l i s t s j o ined t h e

c o a l i t i o n .

I n f a c t , t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s sponsor t h e work o f t h e com-

mittee r a t h e r t h a n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t d i r e c t l y . The ROSS

Committee o p e r a t e s a lmost ~u tomonous ly o f i t s member organiza-

tions. It h a s a p u b l i c image as a s e p a r a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Although it i s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i t i s managed

independent ly by a small group of i n d i v i d u a l s . Th i s i n n e r

c i r c l e c o n s i s t e d o r i g i n a l l y o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e member

o r g a n i z a t i o n s . However, t h i s has evolved i n t o a small group

o f independent i n d i v i d u a l s . The committee of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

i s c a l l e d t o g e t h e r on ly when it i s necessary t o make major p o l i c y

d e c i s i o n s . This small c o r e o f a c t i v i s t s has never numbered

more t h a n a dozen.

Awareness o f t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy among B r i t i s h

Columbia c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s began i n A p r i l 1969. ' Knowledge o f

t h e i s s u e grew dur ing t h e summer and f a l l when t h e B r i t i s h

Columbia Y i l d l i f n Federation and t h e Sierra Club promoted t h e

i s s u e as a major p r o j e c t . A meeting was c a l l e d i n November i n

o r d e r t o b r ing a growing number o f concerned i n d i v i d u a l s t o -

ge the r . The format ion o f t h e c o a l i t i o n was agreed upon a t t h a t

t ime. The ROSS Committee was organized and subsequent ly ,

fo rmal ly announced i n December.

The p r i n c i p a l r o l e o f t h e Ross Committee has been t o pro-

v i d e l e a d e r s h i p and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r a l l a s p e c t s o f t h e Canadian

oppos i t i on t o t h e h igh dam p r o j e c t . It has provided a c l e a r i n g -

house o f informat ion, h a s p lanned most of t h e p o l i t i c a l s t r a t e g y

involved and most impor t an t ly , ha s mainta ined a cont inuous

source of oppos i t i on and i n t e r e s t i n t h e i s s u e . There have been I

many ebbs and flows o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and involvement. The

development of in format ion and exper ience needed t o conduct t h i s

campaign h a s been a n exhaus t ing t a s k . The ROSS Committee does

no t have any c o n t r o l over t h e a c t i o n s of o t h e r s who might wish

t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s i s s u e . However, once t h e group became

i d e n t i f i e d wi th it, t h e r e has been a s t r o n g tendency f o r it t o

have nominal r i g h t s over t h e management o f t h e i s s u e . I n

p a r t i c u l a r , o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s would c o n s u l t w i th t h e ROSS

Committee o r de fe r a c t i o n t o it. The l a t t e r i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e

f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and groups o u t s i d e t h e Lower Mainland. Thus,

t h e High Ross D a m con t rove r sy i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been

managed by a small group of i n d i v i d u a l s wi th t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l

backing of t h e formal members o f t he c o a l i t i o n and t h e p a s s i v e

support of many o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s and o rgan iza t ions .

The ROSS Conunittee has had two s u 5 s i d i a r y organiza t i .ons .

They a r e t h e Skagi t Defense Fund and t h e Skag i t Val ley Study

Group. Both were s e t up and managed by t h e ROSS Committee

f o r s p e c i a l purposes which could no t be handled by t h e committee

i t s e l f .

The Skag i t Defense Fund was e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e s p r i n g o f

1971 as a means of r a i s i n g money i n o rde r t o suppor t t h e work

of t h e ROSS Committee. The p r i n c i p a l purpose o f t h i s s e p a r a t e

o p e r a t i o n was t o prov ide a n avenue f o r t a x d e d u c t i b l e dona t ions

f o r t h e committee. The ROSS Committee does not have f e d e r a l

t a x deduc tab le s t a t u s . The B r i t i s h Columbia W i l d l i f e Fede ra t ion

ag reed t o r e c e i v e dona t ions on bcha l f of t h e Skag i t Defense

Fund and t o a d m i n i s t e r a t r u s t account f o r i t . Although some

g e n e r a l o p e r a t i n g c o s t s were covered by t h i s fund, t h e major

r ea son f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e was t o p rov ide funding neces sa ry t o

p repa re f o r forthcoming I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission and

F e d e r a l Power Commission h e a r i n g s . Most o f t h e c o s t s o f t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o i n t Commission h e a r i n g were covered by a n

Oppor tun i t i e s For Youth g r a n t . The p r e p a r a t i o n f o r and p a r t i c i -

p a t i o n i n t h e Fede ra l Power Commission h e a r i n g were e s t ima ted

a t a minimum c o s t o f $10,000. These expenses depend upon t h e

comprehensiveness of t h e submiss ion and t h e a c t u a l amount of

p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The submiss ion i s e s s e n t i a l l y a compromise

between what ought t o be and what can be a f f o r d e d i n t e rms of

t ime and money. Even wi th a minimal submission, i n t e r v e n t i o n

r equ i r e s a t t e n d a n c e of a n a t t o r n e y .

Thz Skag i t Deferrs~! Fund remains a dormant a r m o f t h e ROSS

committee. It has been used s p o r a d i c a l l y . The fund has had

modest success . However, p u b l i c dona t ions a r e r ece ived a t a r a t e

p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and of

t h e f e e l i n g of urgency. Fund r a i s i n g i s only s u c c e s s f u l when

t h e l e v e l of media coverage i s h igh enough t o main ta in i n t e r e s t .

The fund r a i s i n g campaign o f t h e Skag i t Defense Fund was v i r t u a l -

l y des t royed by t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e New Democratic P a r t y and by

Robert W i l l i a m s ' , t h e M i n i s t e r o f Lands, F o r e s t s and Water

Resources, d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e new government would no t a l low

t h e High Ross Dam t o be b u i l t i n t h e f a l l of 1972. People would

no t donate money t o a dead i s s u e . But, i n f a c t , t h e monetary

requi rements o f t h e Fede ra l Power Commission h e a r i n g remain

s t i l l . Most o f t h e money needed by t h e ROSS Committee has

come from i t s member o r g a n i z a t i o n s and from smal l p r i v a t e

dona t ions . Fund r a i s i n g i s a d i f f i c u l t t a s k wi th

u n r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s .

One s t o p gap means of funding conse rva t ion a c t i v i t i e s

h a s been government g r a n t s from t h e Oppor tun i t i e s For Youth

program. The Skag i t Valley. Study Group i s such a case . This

group was e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e S i e r r a Club f o r t h e summer o f 1971

w i t h funds r ece ived from t h i s program. This group c o n s i s t e d of

e i g h t s t u d e n t s working under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of P r o f e s s o r

I a n E f f o r t a t t h e I n s t i t u t e o f Resource Ecology o f t h e Un ive r s i t y

of B r i t i s h Columbia. During a two month pe r iod , t h e s e s t u d e n t s

s t u d i e d t h e upper Skag i t Val ley and wro te a comprehehsive

r e p o r t , - The Fu tu re -- of t h e Skag i t Val ley, which was submi t ted t o

t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission as supplementary documenta-

t i o n f o r t h e 1971 hear ing . l 3 Thi s document i s no t a d e f i n i t i v e

s tudy, but it remains a v a l u a b l e r e f e r e n c e f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d

i n t h e f l o o d i n g of t h e Skag i t Val ley. This s tudy group was t h e

only oppor tun i ty t h a t t h e ROSS Committee has had t o p r e p a r e a

complete s ta tement of t h e arguments a g a i n s t t h e dam.

The ROSS Committee formal ized o the rwi se in formal a l l i a n c e s

and provided t h e focus f o r t h e High Ross Dam i s s u e . The

o r g a n i z a t i o n con t inues today i n i t s e f f o r t t o s t o p t h e dam. It

i s a n e x c e l l e n t example of t h e c a p a c i t y f o r people t o form e f f e c -

t i v e c o a l i t i o n s i n t h e t ime o f need.

North Cascades Conservat ion Council

While a new c o a l i t i o n was formed i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n

T 1 -1 * o r d e r t o cha l l enge S e a t i i e City hlgnb, a very e f f z c t i v e , inde-

pendent , r e g i o n a l o l i ga rchy , the North Cascades Conservat ion

Council , a l r e a d y was pres-ent i n Washington. It was formed i n

1 I 1957 by a dismal l i t t l e group i n Auburn worrying about t h e

11 1 4 North Cascades . The North Cascades Conservat ion Council i s made

up o f c i t i z e n s who a r e g r e a t l y d i s t u r b e d over t h e a c c e l e r a t i n g damage t o t h e scenery o f t h e North Cascades. It i s a c i v i c o r g a n i z a t i o n wi th a member- s h i p of over 1500 i n d i v i d u a l s who r e s i d e p r i m a r i l y i n Washington S t a t e . It i s a non-p ro f i t conserva- t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n formed f o r t h e purposes of s e c u r i n g t h e p r o t e c t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s c e n i c , s c i e n t i f i c , r e c r e a t i o n a l , educa t iona l , w i l d l i f e , and w i l d e r n e s s va lues o f t h e North Cascades o f Washington from t h e Columbia R ive r t o t h e Canadian border . 1 5

It i s a gene ra l c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n wi th a r e g i o n a l

focus . It has concerned i t s e l f w i t h a wide v a r i e t y of i s s u e s

w i t h i n t h e North Cascades. These inc lude wi lde rnes s p re se rva -

t i o n , f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s , mining, r e c r e a t i o n , highways and hydro-

e l e c t r i c dams. For t h e p r i n c i p a l conse rva t ion watchdog f o r

t h e a r e a , t h e High Ross D a m i s on ly one modest i s s u e .

The North Cascades Conserva t ion Council i s run by a board

of d i r e c t o r s o f 27 persons , a t h i r d of whom a r e e l e c t e d annu-ally,

who meet t h r e e o r f o u r t imes a y e a r t o d i s c u s s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s

bus ines s and t o s e t p o l i c y and p r i o r i t i e s , The membership has

no formal vo ice i n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s , u n l e s s t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e

d i r e c t l y i n a p r o j e c t . A bi-monthly p u b l i c a t i o n , The W i l d

Cascades, i s publ i shed .

A s one of t h e most impor tan t r e g i o n a l conse rva t ion organi -

z a t i o n s i n t h e United S t a t e s , it has gained much d i s t i n c t i o n from

t h e h igh q u a l i t y of i t s board o f d i r e c t o r s and t h e expe r i ence

of i t s members. Many o f t h e l e a d e r s of t h e North Cascades

Conservat ion Council have been prominent i n c o n s e r v a t i o n a f fa i r s

i n t h e P a c i f i c Northwest f o r over twenty y e a r s . Many have h e l d

important pos j t i o n s w i th o t h e r major o r g a n i z a t i o n s . There a r e

s e v e r a l ove r l app ing d i r e c t o r s h i p s w i th t h e g r o u p ' s p r i n c i p a l

a l l i e s such as t h e S i e r r a Club, t h e Wilderness Soc ie ty , t h e

Mountaineers, and t h e F r i ends o f t h e Ea r th c r e a t i n g i n v a l u a b l e

p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s . The North Cascades Conservat ion Counci l i s

a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d and has been h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l . An a rche type

o f t h e r e g i o n a l c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t i s ons of t h e

p r i n c i p a l groups r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e North

Cascades Nat iona l Park.

This o r g a n i z a t i o n has one s u b s i d i a r y , t h e North Cascades

Foundation. This founda t ion was e s t a b l i s h e d a s a non-prof i t ,

t ax -deduc t ib l e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n 1971. I t s purpose i s

t o supplement t h e work o f t h e N3C i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e North Cascades by engaging i n n o n - l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i - v i t i e s . I n t h i s way t h e Foundation could q u a l i f y under S e c t i o n 501 ( c ) (3) o f t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue Code. 1 6

This founda t ion p rov ides a cont inuous source of funds t o be used

by t h e c o u n c i l f o r a wide v a r i e t y o f i s s u e s .

Opposi t ion t o t h e High Ross D a m p r o j e c t i s a n outgrowth of

and c o n t i n u a t i o n of' t h e e f f o r t s e s t a b l i s h t h e North Cascades

Nat iona l Park. The e f f o r t s o f t h e North Cascades Conservat ion

Council on t h i s p r o j e c t has been l e d by a dozen major p a r t i c i -

p a n t s . A s w i th t h e ROSS Committee, it has prov ided t h e l e a d e r -

s h i p and focus f o r t h e i s s u e . A t t h e same t ime , it has been

a l l i e d wi th a number o f o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s .

Comparison -- of Two Organ iza t ions

The ROSS Committee and t h e North Cascades Conservat ion

Council have work3d t o g e t h e r s i n c e t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e High

Ross Dam con t rove r sy i n 1969. There i s r e g u l a r c o n s u l t a t i o n

and flow of in format ion between t h e two groups. They have

sha red i d e a s , in format ion , t a l e n t s and s t r a t e g y which enables

them t o be much more e f f e c t i v e t h a n they would have been

s e p a r a t e l y . Each i s a b l e t o g a t h e r in format ion and t o i n t e r p r e t

t h e p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i d e s of t h e b o r d ~ r .

One of t h e c o n t i n u i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s has been t h e r e l a t i v e

ignorance and l a c k o f conf idence i n d e a l i n g wi th t h e o t h e r

c o u n t r y ' s p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l c o n t e x t . The coope ra t ion between

t h e s e two s r g a n i z a t i o ~ s res!!! t s from more t h a n t h e common bond

o f a common cause.

I n r e c e n t yea r s , c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s have been communicating

w i t h each o t h e r on both s i d e s of t h e bordzr on a number of

i s s u e s . This i s p a r t of t h e g e n e r a l p a t t e r n o f nor th-south flow

of in format ion on t h e P a c i f i c Coast . Other common a r e a s o f

cone e r n have inc luded p a r k p o l i c y , f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s , o i l s p i l l s

and o f f s h o r e o i l d r i l l i n g . l 7 Na tu ra l ly , t h e r e have been many

p e r s o n a l informal c o n t a c t s a l o n g t h e P a c i f i c Coast. The most

impor tan t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i n k s have been w i t h i n t h e S i e r r a Club.

A t t h e t ime t h e Ross Dam con t rove r sy was beginning, t h e S i e r r a

Club l e a d e r s i n Washington and i n B ~ i t i s h Columbia sat on a

common execu t ive f o r t h e P a c i f i c Northwest and Western Canada.

Seve ra l of t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e ROSS Committee and

t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council were a l r e a d y acqua in t ed

through t h e S i e r r a Club. The p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l coopera-

t i o n i n t h e movement i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Northwestern North

America.

The North Cascades Conservat ion Council i s a f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d

o rgan iza t ion ; it i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d f o r c e of conse rva t ion i n

Washington. Within it, t h e r e i s a l a r g e r e s e r v o i r of exper ience .

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e ROSS Committee i s a n a d hoc l o o s e l y -- organized group. Although a number of t h e l e a d e r s of t h e ROSS

Committee had been involved w i t h o t h e r i s s u e s , t h e i r exper ience

was r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d i n 1969. C e r t a i n l y , t h e ROSS Committee

has been l e a r n i n g from i t s a c t i v i t e s ; bu t , it has none o f t h e

depth o f exper ience w i t h i n t h z c o n s e r v z t i c n movement t h a t was

a v a i l a b l e i n S e a t t l e .

Desp i t e t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , both o r g a n i z a t i o n s have been

a b l e t o f u n c t i o n s u c c e s s f u l l y . Both have enjoyed wide suppor t .

Both have provided t h e major focus o f t h e i s s u e wi th t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Both have been a b l e t o f u n c t i o n w e l l

t o g e t h e r and t o c o o r d i n a t e t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e h igh dam

p r o j e c t .

The purposes of t h e s e two o r g a n i z a t i o n s a s i d e from opposi-

t i o n t o t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t i t s e l f a r e q u i t e similar.

The b a s i s f o r bo th o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e s t s i n t h e d e s i r e f o r

p r e s e r v a t i o n of wi ld lands , b e t t e r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n oppor tun i -

t i e s and t h e promotion o f park l ands . 1'These common causes a r e

a t t h e r o o t of t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy . On t h e B r i t i s h

Columbia s i d e , i t i s p a r t o f t h e r i s e of t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n

movement i n g e n e r a l and on t h e Washington s i d e , it i s a

c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e campaign f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e North

Cascades Nat iona l Park. The High Ross Dam con t rove r sy i s but

a b a t t l e i n t h e l a r g e r war between t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s on t h e

one hand and t h e deve lopers and managers o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s

on t h e otheT.

The C r e a t i o n of t h e High Ross Dam Controversy i n B r i t i s h - ----- - Columbia

I n o r d e r t o p l a c e t h e a c t i o n s of t h e ROSS Committee i n i t s

s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l con tex t , t h i s s tudy must cons ide r t h e development

of t h e High Ross Dam i s s u e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Th i s c o n f l i c t

became impor tan t i n 1969 because t h e c l i m a t e o f op in ion

e s t a b l i s h e d by renewed i n t e r e s t i n conse rva t ion p r i n c i p l e s

and i s suesp rov ided a means f o r p o l i t i c a l a r t i c u l a t i o n f o r

t h o s e who f e l t s t r o n g l y about t h e f u t u r e of t h e v a l l e y . This

s e c t i o n surveys t h e changes i n t h e c l i m a t e o f op in ion concern ing

h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams i n B r i t i s h Columbia which l e d t o t h e c r e a t i o n

of t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy . I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n

w i l l show t h a t t h e Skag i t Val ley i s a f o c a l p o i n t of concern

f o r environmental i s s u e s a long t h e border . Moreover, t h e

Skagi t Val ley problem i s on ly p a r t o f a l a r g e r s e t o f i s s u e s

i n t h e r eg ion e s t a b l i s h e d by f o u r i n t e r r e l a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e s

expressed among t h o s e who oppose S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t i n B r i t i s h

Columbia.

The s i g n i n g of t h e 1967 agreement between t h e C i t y o f

S e a t t l e and t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia was a q u i e t admini-

s t r a t i v e event . There was no p u b l i c con t rove r sy and l i t t l e

p u b l i c knowledge of t h e s i t u a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , Rober t

S t rachan , who was t h e l e a d e r of t h e B r i t i s h Columbia New

Democratic P a r t y and t h e Leader o f t h e Opposi t ion i n t h e

L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly between 1956 and 1969 was not aware o f

t h e s e n e g o t i a t i o n s o r of t h e 1967 c o n t r a c t u n t i l s h o r t l y be fo re 23

he r e t i r e d . - Knowledge of t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t was

r e s t r i c t e d l a r g e l y t o t h o s e d i r e c t l y involved i n tfie p r o j e c t .

A s t h e h i s t o r y of t h e Columbia River Trea ty and High Ross

Dam n e g o t i a t i o n s show, t h e r e was l i t t l e voca l o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e

i d e a of dams i n g e n e r a l o r t o dams on t h e Skag i t and/or Columbia

R ive r s i n p a r t i c u l a r . The c l i m a t e o f op in ion i n t h e prov ince

favored l a r g e sca1.e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power developments as p a r t

of t h e genera, l atmosphere o f economic boom. D a m s were viewed

as t h e key t o r e g i o n a l development. Thus, t h e l a r g e develop-

ments on t h e Peace and Columbia r a i s e d l i t t l e o r no o b j e c t i o n s

t o t h e dams as Arguments concerning t h e v i r t u e s of what

u l t i m a t e l y became t h e Columbia River Trea ty and P r o t o c o l l a r g e l y

r e s t upon t h e s p e c i f i c t e c h n i c a l and economic d e t a i l s o f t h e

v a r i o u s dams cons idered a t t h e t ime. Only t h e l o c a l r e s i d e n t s

i n t h e Kootenays ques t ioned t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h e Columbia

River p r o j e c t as a whole i n p r i n c i p a l . Sure ly , i f t h e Columbia

River dam p roposa l s could no t r a i s e l a r g e s c a l e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s

i n t h e f a t e of B r i t i s h Columbia r i v e r s , t h e sma l l e r Skag i t would

no t cause much concern.

A f t e r t h e B r i t i s h Columbia two r i v e r s p o l i c y on t h e Peace

and 'Colum-bia had been implemented, however, ba s i c changes i n

t h e p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s toward h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams began t o appear .

Some o f t h e adve r se consequences of h y d r o e l e c t r i c power develop-

ments became b e t t e r unders tood. The f a i l u r e t o c l e a r t h e

reservo i r . s i t e f o r t h e Bennett Dam and t h e Duncan Dam was noted

w i t h alarm. The g h o s t l y images of t h e stump f o r e s t on S tave

Lake were r e c a l l e d . Displacement and r e s e t t l e m e n t caused by

t h e High Arrow and Libby D a m s con t inued t o be m a t t e r s o f con t ro-

versy and concern, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e Kootenays. Many people

in B r i t i s h Columbia had come t o a p p r e c i a t e more t h e s o c i a l and

environmental c o s t s o f t h e s e dams. I n t h e s e r e s p e c t s , t h e High

Ross D a m con t rove r sy b u i l d s upon t h e exper ience of t h e Columbia

Rive r T rea ty debate . Defense o f t h z Skagi t Val ley can be viewed

as a gznz ra l re rcny- ids ra+ion of t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of dams

s t imu la t ed , e s p e c i a l l y , by d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s on

t h e Columbia.

A s t h e c l i m a t e of op in ion changed, t h e manner of p o l i t i c a l

exp res s ion changed. Those opposed t o t h e f l ood ing o f t h e Skag i t

Val ley had g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o u n i t e wi th o t h e r l i k e minded

i n d i v i d u a l s and groups because t h e b a s i c concept of o p p o s i t i o n

had become a c c e p t a b l e among a l a r g e r p ropor t ion o f t h e popula-

tion. A s has been p rev ious ly d i scussed , t h e ROSS Committee has

p rov ided t h e p r i n c i p a l Cocus and l e a d e r s h i p i n t h i s r ega rd .

D a m s a r e no longe r viewed e x c l u s i v e l y as s t i m u l i f o r a booming

economy. Opposif,ion t o t h e High Ross Dam became p l a u s i b l e .

A s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r o j e c t has developed, fou r g e n e r a l / p e r s p e c t i v e s have emerged i n o r d e r t o provide t h e b a s i s f o r t h e

a r t i c u l a t i o n o f environmental i s s u z s . They a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d

and a r e r ep re sen ted s imul taneous ly by va r ious i n d i v i d u a l s and

groups. They a r e t h e v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s of t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e r s

of t h e S k a g i t r V a l l e y ; t h e d e s i r e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f w i l d lands ;

t h e u s e of t h e Skag i t Val ley as a f o c a l p o i n t f o r a v a r i e t y of

environmental concerns a long t h e border and t h e l a c k o f compara-

t i v e advantage f o r 3 r i t i s h Columbia c r e a t e d by t h e dam. Each

of t h e s e elements of concern i s d i scussed i n t u r n .

The f i r s t l i n e of o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t

in B r i t i s h Columbia i s th: r e c r e a t i o n u s e r of t h e Skagi t Val ley.

The Skag i t Val ley i s a l i g h t t o medium d e n s i t y r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a

s u i t a b l e f o r a l l ages . The pr imary r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s of

the a r e a a r e f i s h i n g , carripLng, h ik ing , ccinoeing, and hunt ing .

These u s e s would be des t royed o r reduced by 'the' i n c r e a s e d

y-eservoir. The c h a r a c t e r of t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l exper ience would

be g r e a t l y a l t e r e d . Put simply, t h e s e u s e r s a r e t h e pe r sons

t o be d i s p l a c e d by t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e l e v e l o f t h e Ross

r e s e r v o i r .

The p r o t e s t by t h e outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i s t s was a n t i c i p a t e d

by t h e i n q u i r i e s and r e s e r v a t i o n s expressed by J. G. Cunningham

and t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Game Commission du r ing t h e 19141

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission hea r ing . Cunningham po in t ed

ou t t h a t t h e Skag i t River has a n e x c e l l e n t r e p u t a t i o n as a f l y

f i s h i n g a r e a . He was worr ied about t h e impact of t h e i n c r e a s e d

f l o o d i n g upon f i s h spawning. Nany s t i l l worry about t h i s

impact; t h e f l y f i s h i n g i s more important t h a n ever . I n 1950,

Bruce Hutchinson d ig re s sed du r ing a survey of s e r i o u s t r o u t

f i s h i n g l o c a t i o n s on t h e F r a s e r R ive r t o comment on t h e Skag i t .

I t s i c y wa te r s , i n my exper ience , p rov ide t h e u l t i m a t e i n t r o u t f i s h i n g , as t o bo th q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y . 2 2

The s t a t emen t s by Cunningham and Hutchinson r e f l e c t t h e c o n t i n u i t y

o f t h e conse rva t ion movement.

I r o n i c i a l l y , t h e Skagi t Val ley d i d not become g e n e r a l l y

known and a c c e s s i b l e u n t i l a f t e r World War 11. I n 1946, S e a t t l e

C i t y Ligh t b u i l t t h e S i l v e r - S k a g i t Road f o r t h e purpose of haul-

i n g l o g s c l e a r e d from t h e Ross r e s e r v o i r s i t e . This road a l lowed

t h e v a l l e y t o develop in fo rma l ly i n t o a major r e g i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n -

a1 a r e a f o r t h e Lower Mainland. A t t h e same t ime, o t h e r s u i t a b l e

l o c a t i o n s remain r e l a t i v e l y i n a c c e s s i b l e o r a r e flooded for

o t h e r h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s .

The r a i s i n g of t h e dam w i l l r e p l a c e a r i v e r i n e f i s h e r y

w i t h a l a k e f i s h e r y . It i s deeply f e a r e d t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f \

t h e t r o u t f i s h i n g w i l l d e c l i n e . C e r t a i n l y , t h e q u a l i t y and

q u a n t i t y o f f l y f i s h i n g w i l l d iminish. More f l a t wate r b o a t i n g

and l a k e f i s h i n g would be c r e a t e d . Family camping i n t h e

f o r e s t and meadows, and on r i v e r banks would be r e p l a c e d by

s h o r e l i n e r e s o r t developments.

The c o r e of t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e h igh dam p r o j e c t con-

s i s t s of u s e r s of t h e a r e a . A s h i s t o r y shows, S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t gained p r a c t i c a l c o n t r o l o f t h e v a l l e y i n 1929. But i t s

a c c e s s road a l lowed a new s e t o f v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s , t h e outdoor

r e c r e a t i o n i s t s t o g a i n p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l , i f no t l e g a l c o n t r o l

over t h e f a t e of t h e a r e a .

While t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e r s o f t h e Skagi t Val ley have

prov ided a major f o r c e of oppos i t i on , t h e d e s i r e f o r p reserva-

t i o n o f w i ld l ands i s o f equa l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The f i s h a r e as

impor tan t as f i s h i n t h e r i v e r f o r t h e i r own sake as food o r as

o b j e c t s of s p o r t . The Skag i t Val ley i s a major n a t u r a l a r e a .

Contrary t o t h e impress ion l e f t by many du r ing t h i s con t ro-

ve r sy , t h e a r e a under q u e s t i o n i s no t a wi lde rnes s a r e a .

Ths h i s t o r y of t h e Slcagit River r e g i o n r e c a l l e d e a r l i e r

demonstra tes t h a t man's impact on t h e n a t u r a l l andscape i n t h e

a r e a has been ex t ens ive . The lower end of t h e v a l l e y i s

covered wi th water . Much o f t h e f o r e s t ha s been logged. The

meadows have been grazed by c a t t l e . The e n t i r e a r e a has f e l t

t h e impact of r e c r e a t i o n a l use .

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e v a l l e y i s a n ecotone, a n e c o l o g i c a l

t r a n s i t i o n a l zone, between c o a s t a l and i n t e r i o r ecosystems.

Eco log ica l r e s e r v e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e prov ince f o r

a s t a n d of Ponderosa p i n e and a c l u s t e r o f C a l i f o r n i a rhodo-

dendron. W i l d l i f e and v e g e t a t i o n a l v a r i e t y a r e abundant. The

v a l l e y p rov ides a p l e a s a n t outdoor exper ience i n n a t u r a l sur -

roundings amongst t h e h igh peaks o f t h e North Cascades. Thus,

d e s p i t e man's impact, t h e dominant c h a r a c t e r o f t h e landscape

i s w i l d and n a t u r a l .

While no t w i lde rnes s i n t h e s t r i c t sense , t h e a r e a i s

pe rce ived as wi lderness ; and, i n f a c t , t h e most impor tan t moti-

v a t i o n of t h e opponents o f t h e h igh dam proposa l i s t h e d e s i r e

f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n of w i l d l ands . The u s e r s of t h e v a l l e y do no t

want a l a r g e r r e s e r v o i r ; t hey wish t h e v a l l e y t o remain n a t u r a l

both f o r t h e i r con t inuous u s e and f o r i t s own sake. The sub-

miss ion by t h e Fnvironmental Systems Community A s s o c i a t i o n (ESCA)

t o t h e 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission h e a r i n g i l l u s t r a t e s

t h i s w e l l .

The s i x t h s ense has f u e l e d t h e Skagi t con t rove r sy which i s now far more t h a n a qu ibb le over p r i c e s . The f e l t inadequacy o f t h e p r i c e t o be pa id by S e a t t l e t o B r i t i s h Columbia i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f a far deeper con- v i c t i o n , and t h a t i s t h e a b i d i n g b e l i e f of many people both i n B. C . and Washington S t a t e t h a t t h e High Ross Dam i s a t h i n g which should no t be b u i l t because t h e Skag i t and Big Beaver Va l l eys a r e t h i n g s which should be preserved.

I n t h i s paper, ESCA ma in t a in s t h a t t h e s i x t h sense , environmental consc iousness , i s t h e a u t h e n t i c

td7' i n n e r vo ice o f a ccmmu-l~ty. It i s j u s t as impor tan t , i n gu id ing conduct, as t h e i n n e r vo ice o f t h e i n d i - v i d u a l t h a t w i l l warn a g a i n s t d r i v i n g down a& i s o l a t e d road i n deep snow. It i s t h e r ea son why many who have never been t o t h e Skag i t wish t o save it. A f t e r a l l , t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s have been s e t o u t , t h e s i x t h s ense must weight h e a v i e s t o f a l l t h e i n t a n g i b l e s i n t h e s c a l e s of judgement. It i s l o g i c of t h e soc i a l ' e a r l y warning system t h a t many wish t o save t h e Skag i t because they do n o t wish t o s e e any more p i c - t u r e s of people weeping over t h e bodies of dead b i r d s covered wi th o i l .

ESCA hopes t o show t h a t t h e vo ice of E v e r y m n l s environmental consc ience i s a l s o t h e a u t h e n t i c vo ice o f reason. The High Ross D a m i s a mis take both i n t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f ecology and i n t h e more l i m i t e d range of s o c i a l v i s i o n o f economics, r e c r e a t i o n a l soc io logy , and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. 23

However t h e theme Is expressed, t h e d e s i r e f o r t h e p r e s e r -

v a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l l andscape ( even i f it i s no t complete ly

na tu ra l ) i s t h e common u n i f y i n g theme throughout t h e arguments

of t h e opponents o f t h e h i @ dam proposa l . P r e s e r v a t i o n o f

t h e n a t u r a l l andscape i s a t t h e r o o t s o f t h e mo t iva t ion o f t h e

c o n s e r v a t i o n movement. Whether it be a c h i l d s i g h t i n g a deer

on t h e v a l l e y f l o o r o r a b o t a n i s t s t udy ing t h e complex eco tone

of t h e reg ion , t h e common element i s t h e human r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th

t h e n a t u r a l environment. This i n t a n g i b l e can not be r e p l a c e d

by t h e most s k i l l f u l l andscap ing o f a r e s e r v o i r s h o r e l i n e . The

r o o t s o f t h e e n t i r e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy a r e i n t h i s f a c t .

Qui te a p a r t from t h e i s s u e s o f w i l d l a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n and

f i s h and w i l d l i f e management, t h e r e remain some concerns of

un ique ly Canadian o r i g i n . The people o f B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l

l ook upon any disadvantageous e f f e c t s of t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e

r e s e r v o i r wi th g r e a t d i s f a v o r because o f t h e manner i n which

t h e d e c i s i o n maklng p roces s has been conducted. This f e e l i n g

of d i s c o n t e n t i s , i n p a r t , a r e f l e c t i o n o f i n c r e a s i n g Canadian

na t iona l i sm. ButJ t h e r e i s a number o f more important , s p e c i f i c

f a c t o r s . The b a s i c n a t u r e of t h i s p r o j e c t i s t h a t S e a t t l e

w i l l r e c e i v e a l l t h e b e n e f i t s from t h i s development i n t h e form

of peaking power. B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be compensated f o r

i t s s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t s , i n t heo ry , i f t hey a r e c a l c u l a t e d and

n e g o t i a t e d c o r r e c t l y . However, t h e f a c t remains t h a t no s i g -

n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t w i l l a c c r u s t o B r i t i s h Columbia o t h e r t h a n

more r e s e r v o i r a r e a .

The s i g n i n g o f t h e 1967 agreement ended t h e Canadian

d e c i s i o n making p roces s i n t h i s ma t t e r . It i s s t r o n g l y f e l t

by many opponents of t h e dam i n B r i t i s h Columbia t h a t t h i s

c o n t r a c t was n e g o t i a t e d poor ly and t h a t it i s no t v a l i d moral ly .

The low p r i c e of compensation s e t a t approximately $6.67 p e r

a c r e pe r yea r i s a source of c o n t i n u i n g anger . I n t h i s r ega rd ,

many members of t h e p u b l i c s h a r e w i t h t h e Vancouver Board o f

Trade of 1931 t h e resentment of a poor bus ines s d e a l as much

as any th ing d s e . Canadian opponents t o t h e p r o j e c t a r e f o r c e d

t o a rgue t h e i r c a s e today no t i n t u r n s of t h e w i l l o f t h e people

of B r i t i s h Columbia who a r e overwhelmingly a g a i n s t t h e dam, bu t

i n terms of t h e narrow t e c h n i c a l m e r i t s of t h e p r o j e c t w i t h i n

t h e terms o f r e f e r e n c e o f t h e Fede ra l Power Commission. Th i s

l e v e l o f resentment toward S e a t t l e and t h e S o c i a l C r e d i t govern-

ment of t h e day has been h igh . It i s a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o

t h e r i s e of t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e dam. The High Ross D a m o f f e r s

B r i t i s h Cnlurnhi-a no comparative advantages . A l l l e g a l r i g h t s J'

were sur rendered wi th t h e s i g n i n g o f t h e 1967 agreement. The

f i n a l d e c i s i o n w i l l be made under American l a w .

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e b a s i c m e r i t s o f the, High Ross Dam

cont roversy , t h e b a t t l e over t h e f u t u r e o f t h e Skag i t Va l l ey

has se rved t o focus a t t e n t i o n upon a broader range o f conserva-

t i o n i s s u e s a l o n g t h e B r i t i s h Columbia-Washington boundary l i n e .

I n t h i s regard , t h e Ross Dam i s s u e has been managed as p a r t o f

a long t e rm conse rva t ion program wi th emphasis upon w i l d l a n d s

p r e s e r v a t i o n , outdoor r e c r e a t i o n , and g e n e r a l environmental

q u a l i t y . This f a c t has been obscured, however, by t h e massive

amounts of t ime, energy, and money necessary f o r t h e High Ross

deba te . Indeed, it has d e t r a c t e d from o t h e r i s s u e s i n t h e

province.

Much of t h e va lue of t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Skag i t Val ley

r e s t s w i th i t s r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e North Cascades

a d j a c e n t t o t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park. While t h e United

S t a t e s has madaged i t s border l a n d s as a n a t i o n a l p a r k and as

w i l d e r n e s s a r e a , B r i t i s h Columbia has g iven t h e s e u s e s low

p r i o r i t y . The idea t h a t t h e B r i t i s h Columbia p o r t i o n o f t h e

Skagi t River b a s i n ought t o be p a r t o f a pa rk was sugges ted

very e a r l y dur ing t h e High Ross D a m deba t e , 24

The u l t i m a t e p a r k p roposa l f o r t h e Skag i t Val ley t o o k t h e

form o f a 312 square mi le n a t i o n a l o r p r o v i n c i a l p a r k ex tending

some 100 mi l e s from Cu l tu s I a k e eas twards a long t h e border i n -

118.

eluding t h e Chill iwack Valley, t h e Skagi t Valley, Manning

p rov inc ia l Park, a proposed Ashnola wilderness a r e a and t h e

ca thedra l Lakes P rov inc ia l Park. The S a l i s h Park would c r e a t e

an i n t e r n a t i o n a l park complex ad jacen t t o t h e M t . Baker Nat ional

Fores t , t h e North Cascades National Park, t h e Ross Lake National

Recreat ion Area, and t h e Pasayten Wilderness Area. These parks

were t o have a r e l a t i o n s h i p similar t o t h a t between t h e Waterton

Lakes and Glacier National Parks a long t h e Alberta-Montana

border. Linked c l o s e l y with t h e f a t e of t h e Skagi t Valley, t h e

S a l i s h Park was offered as a p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n f o r t h e Canadian

government.

The statement by Kenneth Farquharson, a p r i n c i p a l member

of t h e ROSS Committee, then Chairman of t h e S i e r r a Club of B r i t i s

Columbia, i l l u s t r a t e d t h e arguments f o r t h e S a l i s h Park. He

s t a t e d t h a t n a t i o n a l park s t a t u s would p r o t e c t t h e Skagi t

Valley from t h e dam. Crea t ion of a park would g ive t h e f ede ra l

government an opportuni ty t o a c t i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n .

I f we took u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n , we might f e e l we have t o g ive some compensation, something t h a t would be u s e f u l t o t h e people o f S e a t t l e . A park i n t h e Skagi t would be a wonderful and unique r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e Lower Mainland and t o S e a t t l e . It would have more p o i n t s of access than Gar iba ld i o r Golden Ears parks. . . . We would g e t t h e complete eco log ica l system from t h e c o a s t a l r a i n f o r e s t t o t h e Okanagan grassy high land. . . . We have contacted Ottawa, and we were t o l d t h a t any n a t i o n a l park a r e a has t o have unique values i n terms of scenery, r e c r e a t i o n , access and t h e l i k e , and we have t o be a b l e t o show evidence of t h i s . We be l i eve t h e Skagi t meets t h e s e condi t ions . I t ' s ( t h e S a l i s h park) got canyons, r i v e r s , mountains - something f o r everybody. The a r e a immediately t o t h e south i s much t h e same and it has a l r eady been declared a n a t i o n a l park. 2 5

The S a l i s h park proposa l has no t been a s u c c e s s f u l one.

parks Canada was uni n t e r e s t n d . The p r o v i n c i a l government has

remained u n e n t h u s i a s t i c . But, t h i s p roposa l has se rved i t s

i n i t i a l purpose by r a i s i n g t h e g e n e r a l l e v e l of awareness of

pa rk and wi ld l a n d s p r e s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s i n a p o s i t i v e manner.

A s t h e High Ross D a m con t rove r sy has evolved, however, t h e

e f f o r t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o S e a t t l e C i t y Light has t aken precedent

over t h e t h e S a l i s h park proposa l . These e f f o r t s have taken

much of t h e r e sou rces t h a t would have o the rwi se been devoted

t o t h e l a r g e park p roposa l s . The Skag i t Val ley remains a

s e p a r a t z , high p r i o r i t y m a t t e r of concern.

A t t h e same t ime, t h e park proposa l has r ece ived suppor t

a s s o c i a t e d wi th the Ska6::i'c Val ley debate . For example, a n

endorsement of t h e g o a l s of t h e ROSS Committee by t h e C i t y o f

Kamloops brought support. f o r t h e S a l i s h p a r k concept as w e l l .

The Kamloops C i t y Council has gone on r e c o r d as p r o t e s t i n g t h e f l o o d i n g o f t h i s a r e a f o r power s t o r a g e purposes. The Council would l i k e t o submit t h e sug- g e s t i o n t h a t t h i s a r e a be s e t a s i d e as a Na t iona l Park adding t o t h e s t r i n g o f border parks ex tending from t h e Peace Arch Park t o Manning

The S a l i s h park concept has been s p l i t e f f e c t i v e l y i n t o

t h r e e p a r t s . Each seeks e s t ab l i shmen t o f a d d i t i o n a l p a r k land

i n t h e S a l i s h reg ion . The f i r s t o f t h e s e , o f course , i s t h e

Slragit Val ley. The o t h e r s a r e t h e Chi l l iwack Val ley and t h e

Ashnola a n d Cathedra l Lakes P r o v i n c i a l Park. Major p a r k

p r o p o s a l s have come fro13 t h e North Cascades Conserva t ion Council

and j o i n t l y from t h e S i e r r a Club and t h e B r i t i s h Columbia

Mountaineering Club. 27 E f f o r t s t o e n l a r g e t h e Cathedra l

Lakes P r o v i n c i a l Park by t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e Ashnola a r e a have

been l e d by t h e Clianagan .Simill%mzer\, Parks S o c i e + ~ ~ " 3 and the S i n r r a

c l u b and o t h e r s . 2" The S a l i s h p a r k concept i s s t i l l a l i v e ; but

t h e S a l i s h park proposa l has been t ransformed i n t o a s t r a t e g y

f o r enlargement of t h e e x i s t i n g pa rks r a t h e r t h a n f o r t h e

c r e a t i o n of one b ig park. 29

I n conc lus ion , t h e High Ross D a m cont roversy i s t h e product

of t h e changing c l i m a t e o f op in ion i n B r i t i s h Columbia concern ing

environmental va lue judgements. I n t u r n , t h i s i s s u e h a s s e rved

as a c a t a l y s t f o r o t h e r environmental concerns . The major

e lements of t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h i s dam p r o j e c t a r e - t h e i n t e r e s t s - of t h e c u r r e n t r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e r s o f t h e v a l l e y , t h e d e s i r e f o r

p r e s e r v a t i o n of w i l d l a n d s , t h e l a c k of comparative advantage

f o r t h e prov ince , and t h e promotion of l a r g e r p a r k p roposa l s

such a s t h e S a l i s h p a r k concept . Although t h e S a l i s h pa rk

concept has no t been s u c c e s s f u l , w i ld l a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n and

outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s con t inue t o be promoted i n a d d i t i o n

t o t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e High Ross D a m i n p a r t i c u l a r . The High

Ross Dam i s viewed as one problem among many i n t h e r eg ion .

Comparison between t h e s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia and

i n Washington shows a n i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t . Although i n t e r e s t

i n S a l i s h park and r e l a t e d p a r k a c q u i s i t i o n p roposa l s i n t h e

r e g i o n was s t i m u l a t e d by t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy , t h e

r e v e r s e i s t r u e i n Washington. A s t h e next s e c t i o n w i l l show,

t h e High Ross Dam i s s u e i s a n outgrowth of t h e h i s t o r y o f park

a c q u i s i t i o n i n Washington.

The Campaign t o Crea t e t h e North Cascades Na t iona l Park - - - I n Washington, t h e High Ross D a m con t rove r sy i s p a r t o f a

d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t . The High Ross

Dam con t rove r sy i s a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e campaign t o c r e a t e t h e

North Cascades Nat iona l Park. This c o n f l i c t r e s u l t s from t h e

f a i l u r e t o cope wi th t h e g e n e r a l i s s u e o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c develop-

ment i n t h e n a t i o n a l pa rk a r e a . Hydroe l ec t r i c dams i n n a t i o n a l

pa rks have caused major c o n t r o v e r s i e s throughout t h e h i s t o r y

of t h e United S t a t e s Nat iona l Park Serv ice . The Hetch Hetchy

Dam i n Yosemite Nat iona l Park, v a r i o u s dams proposed f o r t h e

Grand Canyon Nat iona l Park, t h e Glen Canyon Dam on t h e Colorado

River and t h e proposed dam i n t h e Dinosaur Nat iona l Monument

i n Utah have been c l a s s i c c o n f l i c t s . The High Ross D a m fo l lows

t h e same b a s i c h i s t o r i c p a t t e r n s as t h e s e c o n t r o v e r s i e s .

I n 1906, t h e Mazamas, a n outdoor and conse rva t ion club i n

t h e P a c i f i c Northwest " . . . h e a r t i l y endorsed t h e p r o j e c t o f

making a n a t i o n a l park and p e r p e t u a l game r e se rve" o f t h e North

Cascades region." The h i s t o r y of t h e campaign t o c r e a t e t h e

North Cascades Nat iona l Park i s as long as complex as t h e

h i s t o r y o f S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s Skag i t River development pro-

j e c t . The North Cascades Nat iona l Park, t h e Ross Lake and

Lake Chelan Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Areas and t h e Pasay tsn Wilder-

n e s s Area were e s t a b l i s h e d a l o n g w i t h mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e

boundar ies of t h e G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness Area by a c t o f Congress

on October 2, 1968. This a c t was a major v i c t o r y f o r t h e

c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s . But, t h e passage o f Publ ic Law 90-544 d i d

end t h e con t rove r sy concerning t h e management of t h e s e l ands .

The boundar ies were drawn on t h e b a s i s o f compromises made i n

t h e Subcommittee on Nat iona l Parks and Rec rea t ion o f t h e

committee on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s o f t h e House of

~ e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n o r d e r t o avo id c o n f l i c t . On t h i s b a s i s ,

va luab le t imbered v a l l e y s , S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s a c t u a l and

p o t e n t i a l development s i t e s and p o r t i o n s of t h e North Cross-

S t a t e Highway were l e f t o u t o f t h e n a t i o n a l park. The q u e s t i o n

of t h e r i g h t of S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t t o b u i l d t h e High Ross Dam

remained unanswered; t h e con t rove r sy was postponed. 3 1

There a r e t h r e e s e c t i o n s of Pub l i c Law 90-544 t h a t a r e

e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy .

S e c t i o n 101- I n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e f o r t h e b e n e f i t , u se , and i n s p i r a t i o n o f p r e s e n t and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s c e r t a i n m a j e s t i c mountain scenery , snowfie lds , g l a c i e r s , a l p i n e meadows, and o t h e r unique n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s i n t h e North Cascades Mountains o f t h e S t a t e of Kashington, t h e r e i s hereby e s t a b l i s h e d , s u b j e c t t o v a l i d e x i s t i n g r i g h t s , t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park.

Sec t ion 201- I n o r d e r t o p rov ide f o r p u b l i c ou t - door r e c r e a t i o n u s e and enjoyment o f p o r t i o n s o f t h e Skag i t River and Ross, Diablo and Gorge Lakes, t o - g e t h e r w i t h t h e sur rounding l a n d s , and f o r t h e conser- v a t i o n of t h e s c e n i c , s c i e n t i f i c , h i s t o r i c , and o t h e r v a l u e s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p u b l i c enjoyment o f such l a n d s and wa te r s , t h e r e i s hereby e s t a b l i s h e d s u b j e c t t o v a l i d e x i s t i n g r i g h t s , t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l Recrea- t i o n Area.

Sec t ion 505- Nothing i n t h i s Act s h a l l be cons t rued t o supersede, r e p e a l , modify, o r impair t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Fede ra l Power Commission under t h e Fede ra l Powsr Act ( 4 1 S t a t , 1 0 6 3 ) ~ a s amended (16 U. S. C . 791a -- e t seq. ) , i n the r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s .

S e a t t l e C i t y Light a s t h e p r i n c i p a l owner of t h e " v a l i d

e x i s t i n g r i g h t s 1 ' i n t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area was

The Fede ra l Power Commission was l e f t t h e t a s k o f

making t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n s r ega rd ing t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s

t h e r e ( s e e f i g u r e 3 ) .

The North Cascades Nat iona l Park complex, which i n c l u d e s

t h e Ross Lake and Lake Chelan Na t iona l Rec rea t ion Areas as one

management u n i t , was c r e a t e d a f t e r over f i f t y y e a r s of i n t e r -

m i t t e n t p o l i t i c a l debate and a f t e r t e n y e a r s of i n t e n s i v e cont ro-

versy . The p a r k complex was e s t a b l i s h e d l a r g e l y through t h e

e f f o r t s of t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council and o t h e r

conse rva t ion groups. The pa rk w a s oppos2d a c t i v e l y by t h e

f o r e s t i n d u s t r y , mining i n t e r e s t s , and t h e United S t a t e s F o r e s t

Se rv i ce . S e a t t l e C i t y Light made it c l e a r t h a t i t was n e u t r a l

as long a s t h e i r ve s t ed i n t e r e s t s were p ro t ec t ed . A l l o f t h i s

l and had been managed p rev ious ly by t h e Fo res t S e r v i c e . The

primary moiive foi- ths a z t i c n s sf t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s was t h e

l a c k of f a i t h i n t h e p o l i c i e s of t h e Fo res t S e r v i c e and t h e

d e s i r e t o have wi lde rnes s a r e a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s reg ion .

The High Ross Dam was no t cons ide red d i r e c t l y du r ing t h i s

debate . The High Ross Dam, t h e Copper Creek Dam and o t h e r

mod i f i ca t ions o f t h e Skag i t R ive r development planned by S e a t t l e

were known. However, S e a t t l e C i t y Light was concerned p r i m a r i l y

about t h e f a t e of i t s Thunder Creek d i v e r s i o n dam p r o j e c t .

Within t h e con tex t of t h e e n t i r e campaign t o e s t a b l i s h t h e park ,

t h e T h u n d ~ r Creek dam and by i m p l i c a t i o n t h e High Ross Dam were

minor i s s u e s . Sec t ion 50'5 of PuSl ic Law 90-544 bypassed t h e

i s s u e and t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area boundar ies

were drawn e x p l i c i t l y t o avo id c o n f l i c t wi th f u t u r e S e a t t l e

C i t y Ligh t i n t e n t i ons .

S e c r e t a r y o f I n t e r i o r S tewar t Udal l t e s t i f i e d be fo re t h e

subcommittee on Parks and R e c r e a t i o n o f t h e Committee on

I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s of t h e United S t a t e s Sena te i n

suppor t of t h e n a t i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n a r e a concept on t h e Skag i t

River .

The Ross-Diablo-Gorge Lakes and park o f t h e Skag i t River Val ley i s e s t a b l i s h e d as a n a t i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n a r e a f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by t h e Nat iona l Park S e r v i c e between t h e two u n i t s o f t h e n a t i o n a l park.

This , it seems t o u s , o f f e r s a f l e x i b l e and sound approach-using t h e new t o o l s t h a t we have developed i n r e c e n t y e a r s . Th i s i s a n a r e a t h a t i s t o be developed. The Ross Lake Reservoi r b u i l t by t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e was one of t h e e a r l y hydro p r o j e c t s b u i l t i n t h e Northwest. This i s a l s o going t o be a v i t a l a c c e s s a r e a t o t h e new n a t i o n a l park .

The b a s i c reasons s u p p o r t i n g a n a t i o n a l r e c r e - a t i o n a r e a t o permit f u t u r e r a i s i n g of' Koss Lake and more d i v e r s i f i e d and i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e o f t h i s a r e a t h a n i s normal ly t h e custom w i t h i n a n a t i o n a l park.32

Testimony by John N d s o n , Super in tendent o f t h e C i t y o f

S e a t t l e , Department of L igh t ing a t t h e s e same Sena te h e a r i n g s

a r t i c u l a t e d t h e concerns of S e a t t l e C i t y Light .

Besides t h e t h r e e dams and powerhouses which now o p e r a t e on t h e Skag i t River , S e a t t l e Ci ty Light has had p l a n s f o r a number o f y e a r s t o r a i s e Ross Dam e l e - v a t i o n t o 1725 f e e t , which would mean t h e r a i s i n g Ross Lake about 1.25 f e e t , and develop two o t h e r si-&zs w i t h i n t h e Skag i t wate rshed .

A l l t h r e e contemplated p r o j e c t s would enhance t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e a r e a . . . . 33

I n conve r sa t ions w i t h o f f i c i a l s from t h e Nat iona l Park Serv ice , we have been a s s u r e d t h a t it would no t be a problem f o r u s t o c o n s t r u c t t h e Thunder Creek p r o j e c t w i th t h e natLonal park. IIowever, we s t i l l f e e l t h a t as a sa fegua rd t h e l e g i s l a t i o n p rov id ing

f o r t h e n a t i o n a l pa rk should i n c l u d e a u t h o r i t y f o r u s t o c o n s t r u c t t h e dam and t u n n e l and provide t h e a r e a f o r t h e r e s e r v o i r a t Thunder Creek. . . . 34

Our concern over t h e v a r i o u s p roposa l s f o r parks , r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s , w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s , e t c e t e r a , have been o f t h r e e kinds of concern. Probably t h e f i r s t concern we have had i s t h e concern over what e f f e c t , i f any, changes o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r changing r u l e s might have over t h e problems o f o p e r a t i n g and main- t a i n i n g a h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y , you might c a l l i t t h e bread and b u t t e r problsms t h a t you g e t a s s o c i a t e d wi th a n o p e r a t i o n o f ou r kind.

We have had , over a number o f y e a r s , a very f i n e working r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th t h e F o r e s t Se rv i ce , bu t we a l s o f i n d i n our conve r sa t ion wi th t h e Nat iona l Park S e r v i c e people t h a t t h e r e seems t o be no problem of t h e kind I am speaking o f , t h e kind you g e t i n o p e r a t i n g and ma in t a in ing a f a c i l i t y .

The o p e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s t h a t we have l i e e n t i r e l y w i t h i n t h e proposed r e c r e a t i o n a r e a . There would be no o p e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n any o f t h e o t h e r a r e a s . A s I s a i d a moment ago i n conve r sa t ion wi th t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e Park Se rv i ce , we f i n d no a r e a of disagreement a s far as t h o s e m a t t e r s a r e concerned.

The second a r e a o f our concern has been over ou r r o l e i n t h e f i e l d o f r e c r e a t i o n . A s you know, we have been i n t e r e s t e d f o r many y e a r s i n hav ing people v i s i t our p r o j e c t s and v i s i t t h e a r e a g e n e r a l l y and, i n connec t ion the rewi th , have developed t o u r s which a r e q u i t e popular wi th ou r people and o t h e r s and we have a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n b u i l d i n g of roads and t h e es tab l i shment o f boat t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , e t c e t e r a .

We have a l s o been concerned about t h e appear- ance of t h e whole a r e a and t h i n k we have done some t h i n g s t h a t a r e q u i t e n i c e i n t h e development o f t h e grounds and t h e i l l u m i n a t e d w a t e r f a l l s , rock gardens , and t h i n g s of t h i s k ind . 3 5

S e a t t l e C i t y Light d i d no t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e North

Cascades Nat iona l Park deba te o t h e r t han t o p r o t e c t i t s own

e x i s t i n g v e s t s d i n t e r e s t s on t h e Skag i t River . While it d i d

suppor t developments f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i n t h e r eg ion ,

was c l e a r t h a t i t s view of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n wi th co lo red

w a t e r f a l l s and rock gardens d i f f e r s cons ide rab ly from t h o s e o f

t h e c o n s s r v a t i o n i s t s who d e s i r e d wi lde rnes s .

A f t e r t h e ~ s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e North Cascades Nat iona l

park and t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area, t h e F o r e s t

S e r v i c e was no longer involved i n any p o t e n t i a l con t rove r sy con-

c e r n i n g t h e High Ross Dam. The Nat iona l Park Se rv i ce has

remained s t r i c t l y n e u t r a l . It c l a ims t h a t i t can l i v e w i t h

e i t h e r t h e p r e s e n t r e s e r v o i r o r t h e h ighe r one. The Park

S e r v i c e u s e s Sec t ion 505 of Pub l i c Law t o avoid involvement

i n t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy .

The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s d i d n o t c o n c e n t r a t e upon t h e Thunder

Creek proposa l o r t h e High Ross Dam proposa l a l t hough they

d id oppose them dur ing t h e campaign t o c r e a t e t h e North Cascades

Nat iona l Park. There were many o t h e r

d id no t want t o a l i e n a t e S e a t t l e C i ty

t h e emphasis was on t h e Thunder Creek

impact of t h i s p r o j e c t was thought t o

fundamental i s s u e s . They

Light complete ly . A l l

dam and t u n n e l . The

be a g r e a t e r t h r e a t t o

t h e w i l d e r n e s s c h a r a c t e r of t h e p a r k t h a n t h e High Ross Dam.

S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t c l e a r l y p l aced h i g h e r p r i o r i t y upon t h e

Thunder Creek dam. And, t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s a t t h a t t ime

n o t know t h e va lue of Big Beaver Creek we l l . 37 Ul t ima te ly ,

S e a t t l e C i ty Ligh t opted t o abandon o r a t l e a s t t o postpone

t h e Thunder Creek p r o j e c t

because of t h e o p p o s i t i o n which developed and t h e apparen t acquiescence of conse rva t ion groups t o High Ross i f ' Thunder Creek were foregone by t h e C i ty . . . 3 8

d id

The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s may hzve p l aced a low p r i o r i t y upon t h e

High Ross Dam u n t i l 1969; but t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e High Ross

Dam con t rove r sy demonstra tes t h a t t h e r e has been no acquiescence .

Most of t h e b a s i c themes of t h e presen t . con t rove r sy were

p r e s e n t du r ing t h e deba te concern ing Thunder Creek. S e a t t l e

C i t y Light would have t o be extremely na ive and/or i gno ran t

of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n movement t o t h i n k t h a t it

could t r a d e t h e Thunder Creek p r o j e c t f o r t h e High Ross Dam

p r o j e c t . I n 1969, t h e impact o f t h e High Ross Dam upon t h e

sur rounding wi lde rnes s and t h e new n a t i o n a l park became a

major theme i n t h e argument. Although t h i s theme i s no t mentioned

o f t e n i n terms of t h e p r a c t i c a l r e sou rce management o p t i o n s

a v a i l a b l e , it seems t o remain a n i n f l u e n c e upon t h e deba te .

Ths a t t i t u d e s of t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were c l e a r through-

ou t t h e n a t i o n a l p a r k deba te . I n g e n e r a l , t h e y d e s i r e d t h e

l a r g e s t a r e a of w i l d l a n d s as p o s s i b l e w i t h i n t h e p r e v a i l i n g

p o l i t i c a l terms o f r e f e renc? . For i n s t a n c e , Margaret M i l l e r ,

a major opponent of t h e High Ross Dam w i t h i n t h e North Cascades

Conservat ion Council , s t a t e d du r ing t h e 1967 Sena te hea r ing :

I a m i n f avo r of t h e l a r g e s t n a t i o n a l pa rk i n t h e North Cascades t h a t we can o b t a i n because I a m convinced t h a t i s t h e on ly way we can s u c c e s s f u l l y save some of our n a t u r a l environment. . . . 3 9

Mrs. M i l l e r has provided much o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l d a t a concern ing

t h e n a t u r a l environment o f t h e Big Beaver Val ley.

Thomas H. S. Brucker, a n a t t o r n e y who has r e p r e s e n t e d

t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council throughout t h e High

Ross Dam deba te , supported t h e n a t i o n a l park and g r e a t e r w i lde r -

n e s s a r e a .

My t h e s i s i s t h a t wi lderness i s invaluable t o those who a r e t h e r e , t o those who yearn t o be t h e r e , and t o those who have no d e s i r e t o go t h e r e but who know it i s t h e r e . I say . t h a t because we can see today t h e r e s u l t s of our unconcern a s t o t h e necess i ty of keeping our urban complexes decent p laces i n which t o l i v e . . . . Let us , then, not repeat t h e same e r r o r and p o l l u t e and despo i l our sh r ink ing wilder- ness f o r t h a t i s i r r e p l a c a b l e . It i s not a product t h a t money can r e s t o r e . 4 0

The c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s have not been w i l l i n g t o t r a d e t h e

w i l d lands f o r k i lowat t s . A s ta tement i n regard t o t h e Thunder

Creek p roJec t by Brock Evans, t h e n t h e Northwest Representa t ive

of t h e Federa t ion of Outdoor Clubs and a p r i n c i p a l opponent of

t h e High .Ross Dam, i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s pe r spec t ive .

The essence of our p o s i t i o n with regard t o t h i s p r o j e c t i s t h a t we be l i eve t h a t t h e r e a r e a l t e r n a t i v e v" sources of power but t h e r e a r e no a l t e r n a t i v e s t o a prime wi lderness v a l l e y . . . . I n due course, we i n t h e Northwest w i l l soon run out of good h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e s and w i l l soon run out o f good h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e s and w i l l have t o t u r n t o o t h e r sources f o r powx supply. We be l i eve t h a t i n t h e case of Thunder Creek t h i s dec i s ion can be made now, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e i t i s such a small p r o j e c t . We be l i eve t h a t t h i s dec i s ion i s one f o r t h e Nation a s a whole t o make, s i n c e Federal lands a r e involved and a n a t i o n a l park i s being considered. We b e l i e v e t h a t not only can t h e Nation forgo developing t h i s small p a r t o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l hydro power p o t e n t i a l o f t h e North Cascades Nat ional Park but t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s of S e a t t l e who present ly ' pay one o f t h e lowest e l e c t r i c a l r a t e s i n t h e United S t a t e s can a l s o forgo t h i s small a d d i t i o n t o t h e system. 4 1

P r e c i s e l y t h e same bas ic argument i s being used by t h o s e who

oppose t h e High Ross Dam.

Although t h e ques t ion o f t h e High Ross Dam was s ide -

stepped by most p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e n a t i o n a l pa rk debate , t h e

congress ional hea r ing records show t h a t t h e i s s u e remained a

minor, but v i t a l one, Most congressmen avoided t h e t o p i c .

M r . Udall: M r . Nelson, I came he re with no preconcep- t i o n s and I am not f a m i l i a r with t h e a r e a a s I should be, perhaps, but on t h e f i r s t page of your s ta tement yau advocate r a i s i n g Ross Dam, cons t ruc t ing Thunder Creek D a m and cons t ruc t ing Copper Creek Dam and Powerhouse. M r . Nelson: Yes, s i r . M r . Udall: Are t h e s e d a m s i t e s wi th in t h e boundaries o f t h e n a t i o n a l park under t h e b i l l approved by t h e Senate?

everth he less, some s t r o n g f e e l i n g s a g a i n s t t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

*rejects and hy i n f e r e n c e the Ross Take r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a con-

cept were heard. Congressman John Saylor , a major congress ional

l eader of conse rva t ion i s t causes, made an u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y

s t rong statement during t h e house hear ings on t h e North

Cascades National Park.

A s f a r a s I pe r sona l ly am concerned, i f it i s a ques t ion of water f o r human consumption, t h i s i s one th ing . If it i s a ques t ion of bu i ld ing a dam up t h e r e f o r power, t h i s i s a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t mat- t e r . As f a r a s I a m concerned, t h i s ( ~ h u n d e r c reek) neednl t be b u i l t .

As f a r a s I am concerned, I would j u s t e l i - minate t h e whole a rea ; ' , I am sor ry t h a t I have never been p r i v i l e g e d t o be i n t h i s a r e a , but i f it i s a n a r e a as good a s t h e p i c t u r e s say it i s then I am f o r preserv ing it f o r t h e people and not t o t a k e c a r e of an o u t f i t t o produce e l e c t r i c i t y . 42

S a y l o r l s remarks echo Evan's s ta tement , But most of t h e

dialogde was ncre r e s t r a i n e d and l e e s explicit. Morris

Udall i s a congressman from t h e S t a t e of Arizona and t h e

b ro the r of t h e Secre tary of t h e I n t e r i o r . He genera l ly has

been a supporter of conservat ion causes, but he has favored

dams on t h e Colorado River t o supply water f o r h i s a r i d s t a t e .

The fol lowing dialogue between John Nelson and Udall a n t i c i p a t e s

t h e fundamental b a s i s f o r t h e High RQSS Dam debate.

M r . Nelson: These s i t e s a r e w i t h i n t h e boundar ies o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a r e a ; yes , as passed by t h e Senate . M r . Uda11: Well, t h e Sena te b i l l c r e a t e s a n a t i o n a l park. M r . Nelson: These would be o u t s i d e o f t h e n a t i o n a l pa rk t h a t would b? c r e a t e d by t h e s e n a t e b i l l ? M r . Nelson: Yes, s i r ; but w i t h i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n a r e a a s passed by t h e Senate . M r . Udall : Would they be w i t h i n t h e w i lde rnes s a r e a ? M r . Nelson: No, sir . M r . Udall : They would be o u t s i d e t h e w i lde rnes s a r e a s t h a t have been proposed i n t h i s a r e a ? M r . Nelson: Yes. M r . Udall: I a m r a t h e r s e n s i t i v e about t h i s . We have a l a r g e h o l e i n Arizona c a l l e d t h e Grand Canyon and t h e r e was some con t rove r sy about bu i ld - i n g dams t h e r e t h a t you may have heard of . ( I a u g h t e r ) . 4 3

This exchange was more t h a n a ma t t e r o f semantic c l a r i f i c a -

t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e between a n a t i o n a l pa rk and a n a t i o n a l

r e c r e a t i o n a r e a as a d m i n i s t r a t e d by t h e Nat iona l Park S e r v i c e

i s bas2d upon narrow a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c r i t e r i a . Most people

no t t o t a l l y familiar w i t h t h e agency1 s management p o l i c i e s

could not d i s t i n g u i s h t h e d i f f e r e n c e . Desp i te t h e t e c h n i c a l

d i s t i n c t i o n s , t h e f a c t remains t h a t t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l

Rec rea t ion Area boundar ies would have been drawn on t h e

r e s e r v o i r ' s s h o r e l i n e and most of i t s surrounding a r e a would

have been c l a s s i f i e d as wi lde rnes s , i f S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s

requ i rements had no t been a n t i c i p a t e d .

It i s no a c c i d e n t t h a t ' o n e of t h e opening rounds of t h e

con t rove r sy i n 1969 was a l e t t e r t o t h e e d i t o r o f t h e New York

Times by Grant McConnell complaining about t h e t h r e a t t o t h e - -- new North Cascades Nat iona l Park caused by t h e proposed r a i s i n g

of Ross Dam. He s a i d t h a t S e a t t l e C i t y Light would succeed

11 u n l e s s t h o s e c i t i z e n s th roughout t h e n a t i o n who brought about

dam. The f u l l page o f t e x t d i s cus sed t h e impact o f t h e High

t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e pa rk v igo rous ly p r o t e s t t h i s new t h r e a t . "

He went on t,o c i t e " t h e t e r r i b l y i rony" o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y

between t h e C i ty of San F r a n c i s c o ' s Hetch Hetchy D a m and

S e a t t l e ' s p l a n " f o r d e s t r u c t i o n i n ou r newest n a t i o n a l park. I I

The f u l l t e x t o f t h i s l e t t e r i s found i n Appendix E.

I n a similar manner, t h e New York Times wrote a major

e d i t o r i a l on t h e s u b j e c t of t h e High Ross Dam on February 23,

1970. It fol lowed t h e same arguments t h a t werz i n t h e l e t t e r

from McConnell.

Barely a yea r and a h a l f ago, Congress e s t a b l i s h e d t h e North Cascades Na t iona l Park i n n o r t h e r n Washington S t a t e . Because of p r e s s u r e s from S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t , s e v e r a l s cen ic w i l d e r n e s s v a l l e y s were l e f t ou t o f t h e park. Now t h e mo t iva t ion o f t h i s compromise h a s become c l e a r . . . . The newly e l e c t e d members of S e a t t l e ' s C i ty Council can b e s t s e r v e t h e i r com- munity and t h e e n t i r e Northwest by v o t i n g down t h e s e stop-gap p l a n s t h a t would s o n e e d l e s s l y des t roy recre8 . t tona l , s cen ic and s c i e n t i f i c va lues . Congress ought t o t h e n add t h e v a l l e y s t o t h e n a t i o n a l p a r k as was o r i g i n a l l y urged.

The f u l l t e x t o f t h i s e d i t o r i a l i s i n Appendix E.

The North Cascades Conserva t ion Council produced a f u l l

page adver t i sement i n t h e S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r on

January 20, 1970 e n t i t l e d "Do You Want THIS I n Your Brand-New

Nat iona l Park And Rec rea t ion ~ r e a ? " . "THIS" was a p i c t u r e of

stump f o r e s t l e f t by a drawn down r e s e r v o i r . This a d inc luded

coupons t o be s e n t t o t h e mayor, t o t h e c i t y councilmen who

opposed t h e dam and t o t h e c i t y councilmen who suppor ted t h e

Ross Dam on t h e Big Beaver Creek and t h e a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s

f o r power. It i s found i n Appendix E.

The l e t t e r and e d i t o r a l i n t h c Nzw York Times and t h e el-ll

page adver t i sement demonstra te t h e endurance of t h e b a s i c theme

t h a t dams a r e no t a l lowed i n n a t i o n a l parks . This theme remains

a c l e a r and p r e c i s e one. But t h e adver t i sement was a t r a n s i -

t i o n a l one i n t h e argumentat ion. The n a t i o n a l pa rk argument

i s no t used f r e q u e n t l y . Resource managenent o p t i o n i s s u e s such

as a l t e r n a t i v e sources o f power, t h e d i r e c t impact on f i s h and

w i l d l i f e , power economics, and c o n f l i c t i n g va lues f o r outdoor

r e c r e a t i o n a r e most commonly debated. Never the less , t h e h i s t o r y

o f t h e deba te concerning t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e North Cascades

Nat iona l Park shows t h a t t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy i s a

b a t t l e i n t h e same war. Now t h a t many o f t h e more b a s i c i s s u e s

i n t h e North Cascades have been s e t t l e d o r a r e dormant, t h e

q u e s t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c development has become a n independent

i s s u e .

Conclusion

The conse rva t ion movement as a s o c i a l movement has gained

renewed v i g o r ' in r e c e n t y e a r s . It has on ly a vaguely i n t e r -

r e l a t e d and incomplete ly developed ideology. Many d i v e r s e

groups arid i n d i v i d u a l s a r e involved. Never the less , w i t h some

c a r e t h e conse rva t ion movement i s be ing moulded i n t o a h i g h l y

e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c vo ice f o r environmental q u a l i t y . Desp i t e t h e

appa ren t change i n modus operandi , t h e conse rva t ion movement

has fol lowed f a m i l i a r h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s .

The High Ross D a m con t rove r sy i s t h e r e s u l t o f a convergence

of a p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s w i t h i n t h e conserva-

t i o n movment. The persons r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h i s

con t roversy a r e members of t h e ROSS Committee, a l o o s e l y

organized ad hoc group, and t h e North Cascades Conservat ion -- counc i l , a f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d , major r e g i o n a l conse rva t ion

o r g a n i z a t i o n .

The c r e a t i o n of t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy i n B r i t i s h

Columbia r e f l e c t s a changing c l i m a t e of op in ion concern ing

h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams. The defense o f t h e Skagi t Val ley i s p a r t

of a g e n e r a l r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of and t h e

environmental c o s t s o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams based upon t h e s o c i a l

and p o l i t i c a l exper ience o f t h e Columbia River Trea ty deba te

and upon con t inu ing d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n wi th t h e economic and

environmental r e s u l t s o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia two r i v e r s

p o l i c y . I n p a r t i c u l a r , opponents of t h e High Ross Dam i n

B r i t i s h Columbia r e p r e s e n t f o u r i n t e r r e l a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e s .

These a r e t h e ves t ed i n t e r e s t s of t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e r s o f

the Skag i t Valley; t h e d e s i r e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f w i l d lands ;

t h e u s e of t h e Skagi t Val ley a s a f o c a l p o i n t f o r a v a r i e t y

o f environmental concerns a l o n g t h e border and t h e l a c k o f

comparat ive advantage f o r B r i t i s h Columbia c r e a t e d by t h e dam.

The High Ross Dam con t rove r sy i s a l s o a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f

t h e campaign t o c r e a t e t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park. The

p r e s e n t con t rove r sy r e s u l t s from t h e f a i l u r e t o cope wi th t h e

g e n e r a l i s s u e of h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams i n t h e n a t i o n a l p a r k a r e a .

During t h e North Cascades pa rk debate , t h e Thunder Creek dam

and t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t s were minor i s s u e s . Today, t h e

Thunder Creek p r o j e c t has b n ~ n dropped and t h e High Ross Dam

p r o j e c t has become a s e p a r a t e i s s u e . The h i s t o r y o f t h e North

Cascades park campaign and t h s h i s t o r y of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between dams and n a t i o n a l p a r k s i n t h e United S t a t e s have made

t h i s con t roversy v i r t u a l l y i n e v i t a b l e .

Footnotes f o r Chapter V.

Thor eau 1867: 166.

2 ~ h e term "conse rva t ion movement" i s used throughout t h i s t h e s i s . A d i s c u s s i o n of t h e reasons f o r t h i s cho ice i s found i n Appen- d i x A.

3 ~ e e J e. - g . , Gerlach and Hine 1970 and Toch 1965.

5 ~ e e , e. g . , Nader 1972 and Nader and Green 1973. - - 6 ~ e e , e . g . , Commoner 1966 and 1971 and Chant 1970. - - 7 ~ e e , e . g . , E h r l i c h 1968 and Marsden 1972. - - 8 ~ e e , e. g . , Hunter and Kenzie re 1972 and McTaggart 1973. - - 'The r e s p e c t i v e h i s t o r i e s of t h e conse rva t ion movements and of n a t u r a l r e sou rce management p o l i c y i n t h e United S t a t e s and i n Canada unders tandably a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . However, t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e more s i g n i f i c a n t . The American conser- v a t i o n movement f i r s t f l o u r i s h e d dur ing t h e P rog res s ive Era o f t h e 1900' s. Canadians p a r t i c i p a t e d i n and observed t h i s a c t i v i t y i n both c o u n t r i e s and were i n f luenced by it. The p r e s e n t l i n k s between c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s i n B r i t i s h Coiumbla and i n Washington a r e bo th i d e o l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l . R e l a t i o n s a r e s t r o n g and c o o p e r a t i v e as t h e even t s of t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy i l l u s t r a t e . F u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of Canadian conse rva t ion h i s t o r y can be found i n Burton 1972 and Thorpe 1961. The h i s t o r y o f conse rva t ion i n t h e United S t a t e s i s surveyed i n Nash 1968. H i s ex t ens ive b ib l iog raphy i s a n e x c e l l e n t guide t o t h e American l i t e r a t u r e .

1 1 See, e . g . , Jones 1965 and Nash 1967.

13persona l Communication, Richard Leonard, January 15, 1974.

14see , - e . - g., Wing 1973. 11 5 ~ e a t t l e Pos t - In t e l l i g e n c e r Canadians Pledge F igh t Over

C i t y Ligh t Dam", January 7, 19'70, p. 6.

''see, - e . - g . , Massey 1969.

17Adams -- e t a l . 1971.

I s s t a t emen t by P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, P re s iden t of t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council t o t h e Hearings Before t h e - Subcommittee on Nat iona l Parks - and Rec rea t ion of Committee -- on I n t e r i o r a x I n s u l a r Affairs . House of R e ~ r e s e n t a t i v e s . - - 90th Cong. 2nd s e s s i o n , on H. R: w a n d r e i a t e d b i l l s . ' . . - m : m ( h z a f t e r r e f e=e? t5 a x e House hea r ings 1968) .

2 l ~ o s t in format ion and i d e a s flow northward. I n January 1969 when P la t fo rm A f a i l e d i n t h e Santa Barbara Channel caus ing a l a r g e o i l s p i l l , a l o c a l a d hoc o r g a n i z a t i o n c a l l e d G $ t O i l Out o r GOO was formed. Th i s group se rved a s a major source of in format ion and a d v i a e i n Vancouver when o i l d r i l l i n g i n t h e S t r a i t s of Georgia was rumored. A speaker , a f i l m of t h e s p i l l and c l e a n up and t e c h n i c a l in format ion was prov ided from Santa Barbara. "When t h e Canadian government fol lowed s u i t by banning o i l e x p l o r a t i o n i n t h e S t r a i t o f Georgia between Vancouver I s l a n d and t h e mainland o f B r i t i s h Columbia, t h e channel s p i l l became t r u l y i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n i t s e f f e c t s . Santa Barbara c i t i z e n s f o r Environmental Defense and GOO r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s had worked wi th Vancouver c i t i z e n s a n t i - o i l groups." (Eas ton 1972: 232)

2 2 ~ n d e e d , th2y have in e f f z z t t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s f o r t h e i s s u e .

2 3 ~ e r s o n a l Communication, Robert S t rachan , February 22, 1974.

2 4 ~ e r s o n a l Communication,.Robert S t rachan , February 22, 1974.

2 5 ~ e e , e . g . , Sherman 1966 and W a t e r f i e l d 1970. - -

3 0 ~ e e , g. g., Vancouver Sun " s i e r r a Club A i m s A t Park Expansion", November 28;-1969, p. 44 .

~ a n c o u v e r Sun " ~ k a g i t Urged A s I n t e r n a t i o n a l park" , Dec ember 21, 1970, P . 1 5 .

3 2 ~ e t t e r t o t h e ROSS Committee from J. J. Clark, May 20, 1971, a u t h o r f s f i l e .

11 33see, e. g . , The W i l d Cascades Sapper Park: A New Neighbor t o t h F NErthfT-;-~=ar~-~arch 1972, p. 9-13 and F e l l e r 1973.

I I The W i l d Cascades Okanagan Similkameen Parks 34See, e. g., Socie ty request expansion of Cathedral Lakes Class "A" P rov inc ia l Pa rk" , February-Mar ch 1972, pp. 14-19.

35Vancouver Sun " ~ o v ' t Urged t o Enlarge 2 B. C . pa rks" , February 2 5 1 9 7 4 , p. 10.

38Statement by Stewart U d a l l during t h e Hearings Before t h e Subcommittee on Parks - and Recreat ion -- o - m m on P a r k s c F a t i o n -- of t h e Committee on I n t e r i o r - and I n s u l a r m r c ~ n e d S t a t e s Senate, 90th Congress, f i r s t s e s s i o n - on S. 1321. . . 196-hereaftsr r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Senate hear ings 1967).

39Nelson, Senate hearings 1967:57.

4 0 ~ e l s o n J Senate hearings 1967: 58.

41 els son, Senate hear ings 1967: 59.

4 2 ~ e r s o n a l communication, Roger Contor, June 3, 1970.

4 3 ~ e r s o n a l communication, Brock Evans, January 15, 1974.

4 4 ~ e l s o n Testimony, S e a t t l e C i t y Light 1973:1:27.

4 5 ~ i l l e r J Senate hear ings 1967: 321.

4 6 ~ r u c k e r , House hear ings 1968:532. 4 7 Evans, House hear ings 1968: 224.

4 8 ~ a y l o r , House hear ings 1968: 962.

4 9 ~ e l s o n , House hearings 1968: 95.

CHAPTER V I

Publ ic Forum For Damnation: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission Hearing

L

The h i s t o r y of t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy from 1969 t o

t h e p r e s e n t has been complex. There has been much p u b l i c

deba te through t h e media. However, t h e major f o c i o f t h e con-

t r o v e r s y have been t h e v a r i o u s p u b l i c hea r ings concern ing t h e

i s s u e . $hen t h e 1967 agreement was s igned, t h e formal

d e c i s i o n making p roces s was concluded i n B r i t i s h Columbia > Nei the r t h e Province of B r i t i s h Co lumbianor the Government of

Canada have eve r conducted p u b l i c hea r ings on t h i s ma t t e r .

The 1971 hea r ings he ld by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

a r e t h e on ly p u b l i c forum h e l d w i t h i n ~ a n a d a ) S e a t t l e C i t y

Ligh t has beei-1 i,equli-ed t o I-eezlve approvz l frcr?, t h e S e a t t l e

C i t y Council , t h e Washington S t a t e Ecolog ica l Commission and

t h e Fede ra l Power Commission. The p roces s o f r e c e i v i n g t h e s e

app rova l s has provided t h e working framework f o r t h e con t r cve r sy

and t h e forum f o r p u b l i c deba te . This chap te r surveys t h i s

p roces s and examines t h e proceedings o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission i n d e t a i l .

Development -- o f t h e Controversy

S e a t t l e C i ty Light i s no t a n independent agency. It i s

formal ly t h e Department o f L igh t ing of t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e .

It en joys t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e same o b l i g a t i o n s t o

t h e S e a t t l e C i t y Council and t o t h e people of S e a t t l e as t h e

managers of t h e wate r system and t h e s a n i t a t i o n system. The

supe r in t enden t of L igh t ing i s t h e c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r

f o r t h e department of l i g h t i n g ; he i s appoin ted by t h e mayor

who i s t h e c i t y I s c h i e f execu t ive o f f i c e r . The c i t y c o u n c i l

s e t s p u b l i c p o l i c y f o r t h e department o f l i g h t i n g . Although

t h e p r e s e n t mayor, Wes Uhlman, i s a g a i n s t t h e High Ross Dam,

he must fo l low t h e p o l i c y i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e c i t y counc i l i n

t h i s regard . It has g ran ted S e a t t l e C i ty Light permiss ion t o

apply f o r a l i c e n s e t o b u i l d t h e h igh dam from t h e Fede ra l

Power Commission. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c i t y c o u n c i l must approve

t h e annua l budget f o r t h e e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y . This budget

i n c l u d e s funds f o r p r e p a r a t o r y economic, eng ineer ing , and

environmental s t u d i e s neces sa ry f o r t h e dam. Eventua l ly , t h e

councilmen must approve t h e s a l e o f bonds f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

o f t h e p r o J z c t . Accordingly, every t ime that the high dam

p r o j e c t i s on t h e c o u n c i l ' s agenda, a p u b l i c forum i s a v a i l a b l e .

I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e was a l eng thy s e t o f hea r ings du r ing t h e

s p r i n g o f 1970 conducted by t h e Publ ic U t i l i t i e s Committee

of t h e C i t y Council . There a r e n i n e members o f t h e c o u n c i l .

A s i z e a b l e minor i t y on t h e c o u n c i l has been opposed t o t h e

dam. The High Ross Dam p r o j e c t was almost de fea t ed a t l e a s t

once du r ing such a meeting. It i s be l i eved commonly t h a t t h e

p r e s e n t councilmen s t a n d f o u r f o r t h e p r o j e c t , f o u r a g a i n s t

t h e p r o j e c t and one wavering i n t h e middle. The l a s t v o t e on

t h i s ma t t e r was f i v e t o f o u r f o r t h e p r o j e c t .

The Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l Commission i s a r e g u l a t o r y

body e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e S t a t e o f Washington du r ing 1970 i n

o r d e r t o review environmental p o l i c i e s . This commission

o p e r a t e s i n con junc t ion wi th t h e Department o f Ecology. The

D i r e c t o r of t h e Department o f Ecology se rves as a n - ex o f f i c i o

execu t ive member. The commissioners, who a r e appo in t ed by t h e

Governor of Washington, a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

o f t h e s t a t e ' s wate r r e s o u r c e s program. It was t h e commission' s

t a s k t o a d v i s e t h e governor upon t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h e a p p l i -

c a t i o n o f t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e t o t h e Fede ra l Power Commission

t o r a i s e t h e he igh t o f Ross Dam. A major p u b l i c h e a r i n g was

h e l d i n March 1971 f o r t h i s purpose. Subsequently, t h e

Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l Commission and t h e Governor of

Washington, Daniel Evans, announced t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e

p r o j e c t and t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r o j e c t

b e f o r e t h e for thcoming F e d e r a l Power Commission hea r ing .

Governor Evans s a i d t h e s t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n t o oppose t h e

High Ross Dam was

a n encouragement f o r a l l i n d u s t r i e s t o develop p o l i c i e s f o r p r o t e c t i n g t h e environment . . . We a r e n ' t condemning anyone . . . We're a l l g u i l t y of no t having t a k e n a good enough look a t t h e environment i n t h e p a s t . But what w e ' r e s ay ing i s t h a t we a b s o l u t e l y have t o do a b e t t e r job o f t o t a l environment planning. . . . I j u s t hope t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n paper , S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t and t h e c i t y Council w i l l t a k e ano the r l o o k a t t h e p r o j e c t . . . 1 The D i r e c t o r o f t h e Dipartment of Ecology, John Biggs,

11 desc r ibed t h e High Ross Dam as a p l a n by a n o p p o r t u n i s t

company" wi th no environmental p l ans . Biggs s a i d t h a t h i s

department would withdraw i t s o b j e c t i o n s

i f it could k c provided wi th s u b s t a n t i a l a s su rances t h a t , s t a r t i n g h e r e and now, S e a t t l e C i t y Light would p repa re i t s e l f t o under take a permanent and l a s t i n g program o f energy produc t ion which gave a t l e a s t equa l va lue t o t h e c a r e and maintenance o f a good environment. * Having examined t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t i n d e t a i l and

having h e l d p u b l i c h e a r i n g s on t h e ques t ion , t h e s t a t e ' s

p o l i c y has become one of f i r m o p p o s i t i o n . I n January o f 1973,

John Biggs wrote Mayor Uhlman d e s c r i b i n g t h e s t a t e government ls

p o s i t i o n .

May I, t h e r e f o r e , now a d v i s e you t h a t t h e s t a t e 1 s / p o s i t i o n o f o p p o s i t i o n i s a f u l l and f i n a l one, f o r t h e reason t h a t ou r examinat ion i n d i c a t e s t h a t sub- s t a n t i a l and s e r i o u s environmental d i s r u p t i o n s of a n i r r e v o c a b l e kind would r e s u l t from t h e p r o j e c t . For t h i s reason , i t w i l l be t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e s t a t e t o exp res s i t s o p p o s i t i o n be fo re t h e Federa l Power Com- miss ion as a p a r t of t h e proceedings pending be fo re t h a t body having t o do w i t h t h e C c ~ ~ a i s s i ~ n ' s approva l o r non-approval of t h e p r o j e c t . 3

Although t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r o j e c t Ornor t h e govb

w i l l l i k e l y have powers of moral pe r suas ion t h e Department of

Ecology i s a n i n t e r v e n o r b e f o r e t h e Fede ra l Power Commission.

Governor Evark i s prevented by s t a t e law from s topp ing t h e

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dam. Desp i t e wide spread p o l i t i c a l

o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington, only t h e F e d e r a l Power

Commission has t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e v a l u a t e t h e wisdom of t h e

p r o j e c t . 4

The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission h e a r i n g

~%rch 1971 was t h e f i r s t major forum f o r p u b l i c exp res s ion

o t h e r t h a n t h e S e a t t l e C i t y Council . Although a s i g n i f i c a n t

Approval. The commission had overseen t h e p r o t r a c t e d nego t i a -

t i o n s between S e a t t l e and B r i t i s h Columbia. If t h e High Ross

e v e n t i n i t s e l f , t h i s h e a r i n g became a d r e s s r e h e a r s a l f o r t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t C c ~ m i s s i o n hea r ings which were h e l d three

months l a t e r . These two h e a r i n g s were very similar i n con ten t .

However, t h e i r terms o f r e f e r e n c e and p o l i t i c a l impacts were

q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . One se rved t o a d v i s e t h e Governor o f Washington

wh i l e t h e o t h e r was r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e s tudy o f t h e impact of t h e

High Ross Dam i n B r i t i s h Columbia.

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Reference and Pub l i c Hearings - The 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission r e f e r e n c e and

consequent p u b l i c hea r ings a r e d i scus sed h e r e i n d e t a i l . Th is

r e f e r e n c e was r e s t r i c t i v e ; bu t t h e deba te it provoked was n o t .

The p u b l i c hea r ings were a microcosm of t h e e n t i r e High Ross

Dam cont roversy . I n a d d i t i o n , it has been t h e on ly forum a t

which t h e Canadian opponents of t h e dam have had a n equa l

s t and ing . These h e a r i n g s w i t h t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d documentation

and t h e f i n a l r e p o r t o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission,

Environmental - And Eco log ica l Consequences - I n Canada - Of R a i s i n g

Ross Lake I n The Skag i t Val ley To E leva t ion 1725, remain t h e ---- -

most comprehensive examination o f t h e High Ross Dam s i t u a t i o n

t o d a t e . Only t h e f i n a l r e p o r t of t h e Fede ra l Power Commission

w i l l be more complete.

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission approved S e a t t l e C i t y

L i g h t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n t o c o n s t r u c t t h e Ross D a m under t h e Boundary

Waters T rea ty o f 1909 when it i s s u e d i t s 1942 Order o f

Dam cont roversy had no t occur red , t h e commission would no t

have r econs ide red t h e ma t t e r . However, t h e s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n

t o t h e dam i n B r i t i s h Columbia caused t h e Government o f Canada

t o r e q u e s t du r ing t h e w i n t e r o f 1970 a re-examinat ion o f t h e

p r o j e c t . The people of B r i t i s h Columbia had no forum f o r p u b l i c

exp res s ion and no formal means o f add res s . It was f e l t widely

t h a t t h e Fede ra l Power Commission would no t cons ide r f u l l y t h e

impact of t h e f l o o d i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission a s a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l quasi - j u d i c i a l t r i b u n a l

provided t h e means f o r a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e environ-

mental impact o f t h e p r o j e c t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. And most

impor t an t ly , it provided t h e p u b l i c forum t h a t t h e f e d e r a l and

p r o v i n c i a l governments could no t e s t a b l i s h .

The S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e and t h e Min i s t e r o f E x t e r n a l Affairs

s e n t i d e n t i c a l l e t t e r s o u t l i n i n g t h e terms of r e f e r e n c e of t h e

1971 Ross Lake s tudy t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s e c t i o n s o f t h e I n t e r -

n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission A p r i l 7, Within a p e r i o d o f

s i x months, t h e commission was r eques t ed

t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e environmental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n Canada o f t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e Ross Lake t o a n e l e v a t i o n o f 1,725 f e e t . . . (and) t o make recommendations, f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f t h e environment and ecology o f t h e Skag i t River Val ley no t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e Commission1 s Order of Approval da ted January 27, 1942, t h e Agreement r e q u i r e d the reby . . . dated January 10, 1967, and t h e purposes f o r which such Order of Approval was g ran ted .

The complete t e x t of t h i s r e f e r e n c e i s found i n Appendix F.

This r e f e r e n c e was very c o n t r o v e r s i a l . No one was com-

p l e t e l y s a t i s f i e d wi th it. However, i t s wording r e p r e s e n t s

t h e compromise r e q u i r e d between t h e two governments i n o r d e r

t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e be made.

f l The phrase t h e environmental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences"

11 i s most inadequa te . I n s t r i c t terms, t h e r e can be no eco-

11 l o g i c a l 1 ' consequences because ecologyf' i s a branch o f s tudy

o r a theo ry concerning b i o l o g i c a l p rocesses . A t minimum, it

11 i s redundant because environmental f1 consequences can i n c l u d e

l i t e r a l l y eve ry th ing i n t h e world around us . For f u r t h e r

t e r m i n o l o g i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s , s e e Appendix A.

The Commission i n t e r p r e t e d t h e Reference as con- f i n i n g t h e i n q u i r y t o t h e d i r e c t e c o l o g i c a l and envi- ronmental consequences i n Canada o f r a i s i n g t h e r e s e r - v o i r , and t h e secondary e c o l o g i c a l and environmental e f f e c t s i n Canada r e s u l t i n g from t h e d i r e c t environ- mental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n t h e United S t a t e s . Thus, t h e p r e s e n t i n q u i r y i s no t a n assessment of High Ross Dam, nor i s i t a complete response t o t h e sou rces o f pub l i c concern. The c o s t o f t h e necessary s t r u c - t u r e s , e l e c t r i c i t y gene ra t ed , a l t e r n a t i v e sou rces of power a v a i l a b l e t o t h e C i t y o f S e a t t i e and t h e d i r e c t environmental consequenc e s i n t h e United S t a t e s were excluded from t h e Commissionf s i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e terms o f t h e Reference. Although q u e s t i o n s have a l s o been r a i s e d concerning t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e Commission's Order of Approval o f 1942 and t h e B r i t i s h Columbia - S e a t t l e Agreement o f 1967, t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e , l i k e - wise , o u t s i d e t h e scope o f t h e p r e s e n t i n q u i r y . 5

Many c r i t i c s f e l t t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e was t o o r e s t r i c t i v e

because it r e q u i r e d only examinat ion o f t h e impact o f t h e high

dam i n Canada. Never the less , r e l e v a n t in format ion e lsewhere

on t h e Skag i t River inc luded v i r t u a l l y eve ry th ing e l s e . The

commri.ssion was very f l e x i b l e i n t h i s regard; no evidence was

r e j e c t e d as being i r r e l e v a n t . Although t h e impact of t h e

f l o o d i n g i n t h e Big Beaver Val ley , f o r i n s t a n c e , was d i scussed

i n d e t a i l , t h e r e s t r i c t i v e te rms o f t h e r e f e r e n c e prevented a

f u l l examination of t h e environmental impact on t h e Washington

s i d c .

The r e f e r e n c e prec luded t h e a s k i n g o f ' the most fundamental

ques t ion ; - i. - e. , whether o r n o t t h e High Ross Dam ought t o be

b u i l t . Only t h e environmental impact could be cons idered , a t

l e a s t i n t heo ry . Furthermore, t h e commission r e fused t o

c o n s i d e r l e g a l arguments p r e s e n t e d by John F r a s e r f o r t h e ROSS

Committee which cha l lenged t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e 1942 Order of

Approval and t h e 1967 agreement.

The p u b l i c h e a r i n g s r e q u i r e d by t h e r e f e r e n c e were h e l d

i n a h igh school aud i to r ium i n Bellingham on June 3, 1971 and

i n t h e Queen E l i z a b e t h Playhouse i n Vancouver on June 4 and 5.

These hea r ings were w e l l a t t e n d e d and w e l l covered by t h e media.

A l l members of t h e p u b l i c were g iven t h e oppor tun i ty t o speak.

I n a d d i t i o n , w r i t t e n submiss ions and l e t t e r s were r e c e i v e d

u n t i l August 3 l s t . Although i n d i v i d u a l s were welcome, t h e

h e a r i n g s were dominated by t h e u n i f i e d tes t imony o f S e a t t l e

C i t y Ligh t , t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council and t h e

ROSS Committee who present ,ed t eams o f w i tnes ses .

The hea r ings were l eng thy , bu t l i v e l y . An i n d i s c r e t e

comment by Louis Robichaud, t h e Chairman o f t h e Canadian

S e c t i o n and chairman o f t h e h e a r i n g s whi le i n Canada, i s

i n d i c a t i v e of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c a t t i t u d e dur ing t h e h e a r i n g s ,

especia1l .y i n Vancouver. When n e a r i n g t h e end o f t h e h e a r i n g

on t h e t h i r d day, Robichaud warned of t h e l a c k o f t ime

a v a i l a b l e .

The Chai17man, :h. RoSichaud: I might. say at. t h i s s t a g e t h a t t h e r e a r e r e q u e s t s f o r 150 minutes, which i s 2 hours and 112 and it i s 5 t o 12; we d o n ' t have t h e t ime. Most eve ry th ing has been sa id ; i f you a r e going t o be r e p e t i t i o u s , we wish t h a t you appear and j u s t say I oppose t h e p r o j e c t bu t eve ry th ing t h a t I had t o say was s a i d a l r e a d ~ . ~

A l i s t of persons p r e s e n t i n g b r i e f s o r tes t imony a t t h e s e

p u b l i c h e a r i n g s and a summary o f t h e arguments p u t f o r t h

a r e found i n Appendix F.

Legal Consid2ra-t i o n s

Although t h e s e h e a r i n g s were i n e f f e c t d i r e c t a t t a c k s

upon S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t t s p l a n s , t h e r e f e r e n c e prec luded

d i r e c t i n t e r v e n t i o n . S ince t h e commission was no t a l lowed

t o cont ravene t h e 1942 Order o f Approval o r t h e 1967 agree-

ment, i t had no power t o h a l t o r t o impai r t h e proposed High

Ross Dam p r o j e c t . Ths. commission was reminded o f t h i s f a c t

p o i n t e d l y by Donald Burns, t h e counse l r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e

Department of S t a t e .

The q u e s t i o n o f whether o r no t t h e dam i t s e l f i s t o be, r a i s e d i s no t b e f o r e t h e I. J. C. i n t h i s proceeding. . . . That app rova l was g ran ted i n 1942. . . . The q u e s t i o n which i s be fo re t h e Com- miss ion i n t h i s proceeding i s l i m i t e d t o environ- mental consequences i n Canada. . . . And we have n o t asked t h e Commission t o make a recommendation as t o whether t h e amount o f compensation which S e a t t l e has agreed t o pay B r i t i s h Columbia i s s u f - f i c i e n t o r n o t , because t h e Commission i n i t s o r d e r o f approva l , l e f t t h e m a t t e r t o be r e so lved by ne- g o t i a t i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s and t h o s e negot ia - t i o n s which were l ong and complicated, r e s u l t e d i n t h e agreement. . . . 7

The counse l r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e Department o f E x t e r n a l

Affairs, ii. C. Kingstone, d i d no t d i s p u t e B u n s 1 remarks.

He d id , however, e l a b o r a t e upon h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

terms of r e f e r e n c e .

It ( t h e terms o f r e f e r e n c e ) emphasizes t h a t t h e Commission i s reques ted t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e environ- mental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n Canada o f t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e Ross Dam and it a l s o t a k e s i n t o account t h e s e words, " ~ a k i n g i n t o account r e l e v a n t i n fo rma t ion about environmental and e c o l o g i c a l con- sequences e lsewhere on t h e Skag i t River and measures be ing t aken o r planned t o p r o t e c t o r enhance t h e environment i n t h e s e a r e a s . I t 8

While t h e r e was no th ing unusua l o r remarkable about

t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e r e f e r e n c e , Burns h i g h l i g h t e d t h e

s i t u a t i o n i n a most undip lomat ic manner. H i s remarks were

immediately used t o d ramat ize t h e f r u s t r a t i n g wording o f t h e

r e f e r e n c e f o r t h o s e who thought mis tak ing ly t h a t t h e commission

could s t o p t h e dam. The most damning a c t i o n came from t h e

Vancouver Province. The f r o n t page h e a d l i n e t h e morning a f t e r

t h e f i r s t day o f hea r ings r ead " ~ o m b s h e l l a t Bellingham

hea r ing : I J C Powerless To Prevent Skag i t Flooding, says U. S . ,

C i t y Sess ion today academi,c e x e r c i s e ? " . The commission was

u p s e t by i t s t r ea tmen t i n t h e p r e s s . C h r i s t i a n Her t e r , t h e

Chairman of t h e United S t a t e s Sec t ion , r e p l i e d a t t h e begin-

n i n g o f t h e hea r ing .

I would l i k e t o , f o r t h e sake of t h e r eco rd , comment b r i e f l y because I t h i n k it i s very important t o do s o , on t h e h e a d l i n e t h a t appeared i n t h e ~ r o v i n c e ~ t h i s morning. To w i t t h e I J C i s powerless t o p revent t h e Skagi t f l ood ing . Is t h e c i t y t s s e s s i o n today a n academic e x e r c i s e ?

I would l i k e t o s ay t h z fol lowing; t h a t t h e I J C from a t e c h n i c a l p o i n t o f view i s powerless t o p re - vent t h e Skag i t f l ood ing . I t s mandate as a Commission i s conf ined t o r e p o r t i n g t o t h e two governments on t h e environmental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n Canada o f r a i s i n g t h e Ross Dam.

However, it can make a r e p o r t and I can a s s u r e you t h a t i t s r e p o r t w i l l be r e a d by t h e Fede ra l Power Commission which I would p o i n t o u t has no t y e t ap- proved t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S e a t t l e C i t y Light t o com- p l e t e t h e f i n a l s t a g e s o f t h e dam. And I can a l s o a s s u r e you t h a t t h e r e p o r t w i l l be r ead wi th g r e a t c a r e by t h e two governments, t h e United S t a t e s and t h e Canadian Government.

This i s t h e r e f o r e , no t a n academic e x e r c i s e . Far from it, it i s t h e on ly mechanism a v a i l a b l e t o e i t h e r government t o r e c e i v e a r e p o r t on t h e environ- mental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n Canada of t h e f i n a l s t a g e s o f r a i s i n g t h e dam. 9

Indeed, t h e major impact o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Com-

m i s s i o n ' s r e p o r t has been t o p l a c e d a t a on t h e r eco rd and t o

prov ide a forum i n Canada a t t h a t t ime. There were few

i l l u s i o n s about t h e power o f t h e commission. An e d i t o r i a l

i n t h e Vancouver - Sun expressed t h e p r e v a i l i n g mood o f t h e

people involved and t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c which remained over-

whelmingly a g a i n s t t h e p r o j e c t .

The hopes o f many persons t h a t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s on t h e verge o f a breakthrough from i t s decorous c o - o r d i n a t i n g and adv i so ry r o l e t o one of tough envirocinental p o l i c i n g w i l l be dogged indeed i f t hey s u r v i v e through t h e Skagi t hear ing . . . .

Alas, t h e p r o f i l e p re sen ted by t h e commission i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s , anyway, o f t h e c ross -border h e a r i n g has been one of a c a p t i v e f a t e , y,oked t o t h e mis takes of h i s t o r y . . . .

The r e s t r i c t i v e terms o f r e f e r e n c e imposed on t h e commission, of course , were outrageous. . . .

11 11 If t h i s hea r ing i s n o t completely i r r e l e v a n t , as some have charged, whatever promise it i n i t i a l l y o f f e r e d i s s p e e d i l y d imin ish ing . And t h e adv ice

t I o f f e r e d t o t h e commission i s no t t o a l low your- s e l v e s t o be emasculated by t h e terms of re fe rence ' ' should be most s e r i o u s l y cons idered . Publ ic r e - s p e c t i s r e q u i r e d i f t h e I J C i s t o become t h e i n s t r u -

ment of U. S. - Canadian environmental co-opera t ion and c o n t r o l t h a t t h i n k i n g people on both s i d e s of t h e bordzr so a r d e n t l y d e s i r e . It w i l l not e a r n t h i s r e s p e c t by l end ing i t s e l f t o what a l r e a d y has been l a b e l l e d as a whitewash job. 1 0

The fundamental l e g a l problem, however, r e s t s no t w i t h

t h e narrow meaning of t h e 1971 r e f e r e n c e . The u l t i m a t e d i f -

f i c u l t y r e s t s w i th t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n a l 1942

Order of Approval. Although t h e commission would no t recon-

s i d e r t h e o r i g i n a l dec i s ion , t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e o r d e r remains

i n ques t ion . The major l e g a l c h a l l e n g e came from John F r a s e r ,

a Vancouver lawyer, on beha l f o f t h e ROSS Committee. H e

s t a t e d t h a t

t h e 1942 Order and t h e 1967 Agreement a r e i n v a l i d and t h a t your p r e s e n t t e rms o f r e f e r e n c e do no t p re - c l u d e you from t a k i n g cognizance o f such i n v a l i d i t y and r e o r t i n g acco rd ing ly t o your r e s p e c t i v e Govern- ment s. ? I

F r a se r argued t h a t t h e 1942 Order i s a n u l l i t y because it

d e l e g a t e s t o t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e and t h e Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, t h e ve ry d u t i e s which t h e Com- miss ion must perform under A r t i c l e V I I I o f t h e Boundary Waters T rea ty o f 1909. 1 2

That i s , t h e commission de l ega t ed t h e powers t o approve t h e

terms o f compensatioa and has avoided i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o

ensure adequa te cornpensat i on .

Following from t h i s , t h e 1967 agreement i s i n v a l i d because

it depends upon t h e 1942 Order. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 1967 agreement

h a s never been formal ly approved by t h e commission. F r a s e r

argued t h a t t h e

mere f i l i n g of t h e 1967 Agreement wi th t h e Commission cannot be cons t rued a s c o n s i d e r a t i o n and app rova l of t h e terms.. 13

~ c c o r d i n g l y , r ega rd less of t h e terms of re ference during t h e

1971 i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e City of S e a t t l e should be requi red t o

submit a new a p p l i c a t i o n c o n s i s t e n t with present circumstances.

I n t e r e s t i n g l y i n a l a t e r w r i t t e n submission, J. Richard

Aramburu and Thomas H. S. Brucker, counsel f o r t h e North

Cascades Conservation Council, argued t h a t t h e 1967 Agreement

was i n v a l i d because it i s a v i o l a t i o n of t h e compact c l ause of

t h e United S t a t e s Const i tu t ion .

A r t i c l e 1, Sect ion 9, c l ause 3 of t h e United S t a t e s Cons t i tu t ion , commonly known a s t h e Compact Clause, provides, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " N O s t a t e s h a l l , without t h e Consent of Congress, . . . e n t e r i n t o any Agreement o r Compact wi th any S t a t e , o r with a f o r e i g n Power." The 1967 Agreement i s on i t s f a c e an agreement between a body of t h e S t a t e of Washington, t h e C i ty of S e a t t l e , and a fo re ign S t a t e , i. e. t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. 14

Throughout t h e s e l e g a l arguments, t h e counsel f o r S e a t t l e

Ci ty Light remained s i l e n t . But, t h e r e a c t i o n from t h e com-

mission was immediate and h o s t i l e . The chairman of t h e

hear ing , LouYs Robichaud, was pe r sona l ly h o s t i l e ; t h e in fe rence

was t h a t t h e commission was not very i n t e r e s t e d i n hear ing

t h e s e arguments. The major r ep ly a t t h a t t ime came from H. C .

Kingstone, t h e counsel f o r t h e Department of Externa l A f f a i r s .

M r . Chairman, I j u s t have a comment t o make. F i r s t of a l l , I a m f u l l y acquainted with t h e argu- ment M r . F raser has made, it has been made many t imes before. How~ver, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h i s i s t h e t ime t o d i scuss t h e l e g a l a spec t of it.

I would l i k e t o e m p h a s i z e t h e Government of Canada has t r e a t e d t h e 1942 Order and t h e 1967 Agreement as p e r f e c t l y sound l e g a l documents and t h i s has been our pos tu re and I t h i n k t h a t speaks f o r i t s e l f . 15

Frase r objec ted imrnediat e ly.

M r . Chairman, it m a t t e r s not a t i t t l e t o anybody i n t h i s room, t h e p u b l i c of Canada, whether t h e Canadian Governmentls l e g a l a d v i s o r s decide t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r r u l i n g i s v a l i d , when it has never been p r o p e r l y t e s t e d o r cons ide red by t h e commission i t s e l f . I f t h e argument h e r e i s t o be cons idered , it must be cons idered and merely because t h e Canadian government comes a long and says we have always cons idered it v a l i d does no t make it v a l i d . ' Much t o t h e dismay of t h e Government of Canada and t h e

commission, t h i s l e g a l con t rove r sy was h i g h l i g h t e d by t h e

media. The f r o n t page o f t h e Vancouver Province t h e nex t

11 morning r ead Despi te U. S. C l a i m : I J C Has The Au tho r i t y To

K i l l Skag i t P r o j e c t , Says I,awyerl'. The Department o f E x t e r n a l

Affairs i s known t o be familiar w i t h t h e s e arguments. A long

memorandum e x i s t s i n t h e i r f i l e s . But, f o r unknown reasons ,

t h e M i n i s t e r f o r E x t e r n a l Affai rs w i l l no t u s e i t . No l e g a l

t h e o r y has been found t h a t den ie s t h i s argument.17 It i s

thought t h a t t h e s e l e g a l arguments a r e not used a g a i n s t S e a t t l e

C i t y Light because it i s f e a r e d t h a t it would damage o r weaken

g u l a r i t i e s i n ano the r docket t o be uncovered.

S e a t t l e -- C i t y L i g h t T s Submission

S e a t t l e C i t y Light ignored t h e s e l e g a l arguments. It

approached t h e s e hea r ings from a p o s i t i o n of conf idence and

s t r e n g t h . It were b e t t e r p repared than i t s opponents. The

terms of r e f e r e n c e prevented t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

from s topp ing t h e p r o j e c t . But they could cause i t t o be more

c o s t l y . The major t h r u s t of' S e a t t l e C i ty L i g h t f s tes t imony

was t h a t it was a "good c i t i z e n ' ' o f t h e Skag i t Val ley and a

prov ide r of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . The commission

could have caused S e a t t l e City l i g h t t o improve i t s p l a n s

f o r c l e a n up and f o r p o s t - d i l u v i a n r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s .

Put simply, S e a t t l e C i t y Light s t a t e d i t s goa l as t h e

produc t ion o f cheap, abundant power f o r t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e .

The c i t y needs t h e a d d i t i o n a l 272 mw i n peaking power f o r t h e

growing economy of S e a t t l e .

Much emphasis w a s p l aced upon i t s r o l e i n p rov id ing mass

outdoor r e c r e a t i o n . The Skag i t River development p r o j e c t d id

open t h e a r e a up f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes . The f i r s t reason-

a b l e a c c e s s was by t h e r a i l r o a d c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e c i t y . It

b u i l t t h e road i n 1943 which became t h e r o u t e f o r t h e Cross-

S t a t e Highway. And, on t h e B r i t i s h Columbia s i d e , t h e S i l v e r -

Skag i t road g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y and brought t h e

r eg ion w i t h i n easy reach of Vancouver. S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t

has been coope ra t ive w i t h t h e United S t a t e s F o r e s t S e r v i c e

and t h e United S t a t e s Park S e r v i c e who have c o n t r o l l e d t h e

l a n d around them. Most impor t an t ly , t h e department o f l i g h t i n g

has provided t h e w e l l known Skag i t Tours which have a l lowed 30

t o 40 thousand persons a y e a r t o v i s i t t h e Skag i t Val ley and

S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' s e l e c t r i c a l f a c i l i t i e s .

The Skag i t Tours have been a popular f e a t u r e s i n c e t h e

1930 ' s . One o f t h e s tar w i t n e s s e s f o r S e a t t l e , a l t hough no t

a n o f f i c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e c i t y , was Char l e s King of

Bellingham. H i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i s t o u r e s t a b l i s h e d a f i n e

c o n t r a s t between t h e n a t u r a l w a t e r f a l l s i n t h e w i l d e r Cascades

and J. D. Rosst rock garden w i t h co lo red outdoor l i g h t i n g il-

l u n i n a t i n g t h e at e r f a l l at. Newhalem.

I n my opin ion , t h e Upper Skag i t count ry c o n s t i - t u t e s one o f t h e g r e a t hand works o f God. Thanks t o J. D. Ross, and t h e far s e e i n g people o f t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e , t h i s g r e a t a r e a has been opened up f o r t h e p l e a s u r e and enjoyment o f hundreds o f thousands and i n a few y e a r s it w i l l be m i l l i o n s o f people .

I n e a r l y 1934 t h e e l e c t e d county o f f i c i a l s and l e g i s l a t o r s o f f o u r o r f i v e c o u n t i e s i n t h e nor thwest s e c t o r o f t h e s t a t e , were i n v i t e d t o come t o Newhalem f o r a n ove rn igh t v i s i t w i t h M r . Ross. We a l l accep ted and as a r e s u l t were t r e a t e d t o one o f t h e most impres- s i v e exper iences imaginable . . . .

The symphony o f sound combined wi th t h e n a t u r a l g l o r i e s o f t h e a r e a made t h i s one of many memorable moments were t o r e c e i v e w i t h i n t h e n2xt 24 hours . . . .

The t r i p inc luded a d e l i c i o u s d inner i n t h e a t t r a c t i v e d i n i n g room, motion p i c t u r e s o f t h e develop- ment and many of t h e s c e n i c h i g h l i g h t s . We s l e p t i n comfortable beds i n a s e r i e s o f do rmi to r i e s and were awakened by b i r d s s i n g i n g over t h e communications system. . . .

More hidden music was heard and a s we passed a n i s l a n d , we no ted a deer and two fawns f r o l i c k i n g i n t h s s u n l i g h t . A t t h e same t i m ~ t h e vo ice o f John

I 1 Char les Thomas could be hea rd s i n g i n g Home on t h e ~ a n g e " . When t h e g r e a t t e n o r reached t h e l i n e , I I Where t h e deer and t h e a n t e l o p e p lay t t t h e hundred o r more s i g h t s e e r s were r e a l l y i n s t i t c h e s .

There was a h igh mark on t h e c l i f f s showing t h e h e i g h t t o which R O S ~ D a m would reach when f i n a l l y completed. I formed t h e op in ion t h e n and t h e r e t h a t t h e dam should be b u i l t and I s t i l l ho ld f i r m l y t o t h a t same conc lus ion .

The p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s f o r S e a t t l e C i ty Light i n r e g a r d s

t o t h e d i r e c t terms of r e f e r e n c e of t h e hea r ings was F. F.

Slaney. Slaney i s t h e p r i n c i p a l of F. F. Slaney and Company

Limited, a Vancouver-based r e sou rce dev~ lopmen t and environ-

mental management f i r m . A s i t s environmental c o n s u l t a n t i n

B r i t i s h Columbia, Slaney had done v i r t u a l l y a l l o f S e a t t l e

C i t y L i g h t ' s r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e environmental impact o f t h e

l e c t i n g f o r e s t f e r n s i n t h e Skag i t Val ley, dec l a red h i s back-

f l o o d i n g of t h e Skag i t Val ley i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and t h e

p o t z n t i a l f o r r e c r e ~ ~ t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and o t h e r irnpr0vement.s

such as t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e S i lve r -Skag i t road a f t e r t h e

f a c t . Most of h i s tes t imony was assembled i n a submiss ion

11 e n t i t l e d , Environmental I n v e s t i g a t i o n s Skagi t Val ley I n

Canada And I n d i c a t i o n Of Consequences From Ra i s ing The Level

O f Ross ~ a k e " . Slaney minimized t h e environmental consequences

o f t h e f l ood ing and spoke o f t h e advantages o f a l a r g e r l a k e .

Slaney desc r ibed h i s submiss ion and po in t ed ou t t h e incomplete-

n e s s of h i s d a t a and h i s c o n t i n u i n g r e s e a r c h program. When

ques t ioned by t h e commission, he s t a t e d ,

I d o n ' t t h i n k we s a i d we wou1.d make a complete s t a t e - ment about t h e impact a t t h i s t ime. What we had s a i d i s t h a t t h e r e would be no unusua l o r s e r i o u s impacts . 1 9

Support - For S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t

There were few independent s u p p o r t e r s o f S e a t t l e C i t y

L i g h t ' s High Ross Dam p r o j e c t a t t h e s e hea r ings . Besides M r .

King, a r , ep re sen ta t ive from t h e Skcg i t S o i l and Water Conserva-

t i o n D i s t r i c t which i n c l u d e s t h e lower a g r i c u l t u r a l r eg ion of

t h e Skagi t River sur rounding M t . Vernon spoke i n favour of t h e

h igh dam because he be l i eved t h a t f u r t h e r f l o o d c o n t r o l p ro t ec -

t i o n would be c r e a t e d . Wayne Dameron, who o p e r a t e s Ross Lake

R e s o r t s which i s a f l o a t i n g f i s h i n g and boa t ing camp on Ross

Lake, supported t h e h igh dam because it would i n c r e a s e

boa t ing and f i s h i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s on t h e l ake . Also, K. C.

Bruce o f Maple Ridge, B r i t i s h Columbia, who has a bus ines s c o l -

i n g f o r t h e p r o j e c t . He had spoken t o h i s l o c a l member o f t h e

B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, George Mussallem. H i s

tes t imony was t h e t y p i c a l of t h e p o s i t i o n o f S o c i a l C r e d i t

p a r t y and Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia a t t h a t t ime.

A s far as I a m concerned, t h e r e was a bus ines s d e a l made some y e a r s ago and as a Canadian I a m k ind o f ashamed t h a t we a r e t r y i n g t o welch on it.20

A l l of t h e s e w i tnes ses t e s t i f i e d i n Bellingham.

A s t h e remark by Louis Robichaud c i t e d p rev ious ly i n d i -

c a t e s , S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t enjoyed very l i t t l e suppor t i n

Vancouver. The on ly independent S e a t t l e Ci ty Ligh t suppor t e r

t o appear i n Vancouver was a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e Hope and

D i s t r i c t Board o f Trade. Hope i s t h e c l o s e s t s e t t l e m e n t t o

t h e Skag i t Val ley. I n sum, h i s p o s i t i o n was t h a t

t h i s a r e a i s r e q u i r e d f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes and should be developed.

2 1 He meant f l a t wate r r ~ c r e a t i o n .

Opposi t ion - t o S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t .- - The 'vas t m a j o r i t y of t h o s e p r e s e n t a t t h e s e h e a r i n g s d i d

not suppor t S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t . The oppos i t i on t o t h e High I

Ross Dam p r o j e c t was l e d by t h e North Cascades Conservat ion

Council i n Bellingham and by t h e ROSS Committee i n Vancouver.

Each p re sen ted a team of w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y upon v a r i o u s

a s p e c t s of t h e p r o j e c t as d i d S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t . I n a d d i t i o n ,

t h e r e was a number of i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s who t e s t i -

f i e d independent ly . A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g s , w r i t t e n s t a t emen t s

were r ece ived . Most o f t h e s e s t a t emen t s were i n response t o

i s s u e s and q u e s t i o n s r a i s 2 d a t t h e hea r ings , but o t h e r s came

from i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s who had no t a t t e n d e d . Over

a hundred l e t t e r s were r ece ived by t h e commission i n o p p o s i t i o n

t o S e a t t l e ' s p r o j e c t .

The North Cascades Conserva t ion Council p r e sen ted a team

o f seven w i t n e s s e s . These w i t n e s s e s covered t h e f u l l range of

i s s u e s p r e s e n t . However, t h e t h r u s t o f t h e tes t imony d e a l t

w i th t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r medium and low d e n s i t y r e c r e a t i o n and

f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l landscape. I n p a r t i c u l a r ,

t h e va lue o f t h e western r e d cedar groves i n t h e Big Beaver

Val ley were s t r e s s e d . They desc r ibed t h e i n t a n g i b l e v a l u e s

o f t h e r eg ion f o r r e c r e a t i o n , a e s t h e t i c purposes , and

s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h which would be l o s t by t h e f l ood ing .

For example, i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Big Beaver Val ley, D r . Dale

Cole d i scus sed t h e unknown va lue of t h a t unique ecosystem.

I f we a r e r e q u i r e d t o pu t a n environt~lelztai p r i c e f o r t h e p roduc t ion of e l e c t r i c i t y , I would a rgue t h a t w'e should be aware of t h i s p r i c e p r i o r t o a d e c i s i o n t o c o n s t r u c t r a t h e r t h a n a f t e r w a r d s . The development of t h e High Ross p r o j e c t c a r r i e s w i th it i r r e v e r s i b l e d e s t r u c t i o n o f a massive e c o l o g i c a l system, t h e magnf- t u d e of such change i s l a r g e l y unknown. 22

It was c l e a r t h a t t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council

d i f f e r e d cons ide rab ly from S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t i n i t s view o f

t h e k inds of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n t h a t ought t o be a v a i l a b l e .

Although t h e i s s u e was n o t d i s cus sed e x p l i c i t l y , t h e s t a t u s

of t h e l and sur rounding Ross Lake i s s t i l l i n d i s p u t e . This

l and i s perce ived as wi ld l a n d s , as n a t i o n a l pa rk q u a l i t y

l ands . This l a n d has g r e a t e r va lue t o s o c i e t y a s pa rk l a n d

than does t h e a d d i t i o n a l k i l o w a t t s t o be genera ted by t h e

higher dam. Other l e s s damaging a l t e r n a t i v e sources of peaking

power a r e a v a i l a b l e .

According t o t h e p ro toco l of such hearings, t h e f i r s t

wi tness i n Vancouver was a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e Canadian

Department of F i s h e r i e s and Fores t ry , which i s now p a r t of t h e

Department of t h e Environment. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e s e hear ings

were being he ld a t t h e i n i t i a t i v e of t h e Government of Canada

wi th t h e support of t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. He

s t r e s s e d t h e l a c k of information a v a i l a b l e as t o t h e impact

of t h e f looding upon t h e Skagi t Valley.

M r . Chairman, a c e r t a i n amount of d i sconcer t ing evidence i s a l r eady a v a i l a b l e , which i s causing much concern i n Canada about t h e n a t u r e and ex ten t of t h e consequences of t h e proposed f looding. I should l i k e t o say q u i t e f r ank ly t h a t t h e Canadian Govern- ment i s worried about t h e environmental damage which seems l i k e l y t o t a k e p l a c e should f u r t h e r f lood ing occur i n t h e Canadian p o r t i o n of t h e Skagi t V a l l e ~ . ~ "

This was t h e s t ronges t s ta tement by t h e Government of Canada

a t t h a t t ime d e s p i t e t h e s ta tements previously by Jack Davis

t h e Minis te r of t h e Environment, a g a i n s t t h e p r o j e c t .

The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia remained unrepresented

a t t h e s e hearings. I t s p o s i t i o n was t h a t , unfor tunate a s it

may have been, t h e 1967 agreement was a v a l i d c o n t r a c t t h a t

could not be broken.

The Leader of t h e Opposit ion and Leader of t h e New

Democratic Party, David B a r r e t t , a r r i v e d a t t h e hea r ing i n

Vancouver with B i l l Hart ley, t h e M. L. A. whose r i d i n g inc ludes

t h e Skagi t , and James Lorimer, a Burnaby M. L. A. But, they

cance l l ed t h e i r appearances because B a r r e t t f e l t t h a t t h e

r e f e r e n c e .

The Leader o f t h e L i b e r a l Pa r ty , Pat McGeer, d i d t e s t i f y .

H i s remarks o u t l i n e d t h e b a s i c p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t i o n s from t h e

opponents of t h e dam i n r ega rds t o t h e 1967 agreement.

The c o n t r a c t p r e s e n t s a b ind ing problem t o you. On t h e o t h e r hand t h e r ea son why you a r e h e r e i s be- cause pub l i c op in ion i s s o adve r se t o t h a t c o n t r a c t . I t h i n k it i s f a i r t o say t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia people a r e overwhelmingly opposed t o t h e f l o o d i n g of t h e S k a g i t Val ley. And it becomes t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p o l i t i c i a n s such a s myself t o t r y and a r t i c u l a t e f o r you why t h i s i s s o because t h e people who a r e opposed t o it a r e not e c o l o g i s t s o r n a t u r a l i s t s , t hey a r e simply people who l o v e t h e i r l and .

The f i r s t t h i n g i s t h a t we Canadians a r e no t i n t e r e s t e d i n more money. Our hope i s t h a t t h e J I. J. C . w i l l f i n d f o r u s and f o r o t h e r s a new sense of va lues , because up t o now t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have Len U C C ~ strict z c o n o ~ i c eona i3c ra t i o n s . 24

Most of t h e s u b s t a n t i v e tes t imony a g a i n s t t h e High Ross

D a m p r o j e c t from Canadians came from t h e team o f w i t n e s s e s

o rganized by t h e ROSS Committee. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e l e g a l

arguments p re sen ted by John F r a s e r , a number of arguments were

s e t f o r t h concerning t h e va lue o f t h e Skag i t Val ley i n i t s

p r e s e n t s t a t e and t h e adve r se environmental impact of t h e

f l ood ing of t h e v a l l e y . The h i s t o r y of t h e 1942 Order o f

Approval and t h e 1967 Agreement was reviewed, t h e v a l u e s of

t h e a r e a as wi ld l ands were desc r ibed and t h e wide v a r i e t y of

r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e v a l l e y were o u t l i n e d . It was

s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e Skag i t Val ley i s a n unique a r e a , a n ecotone,

c o n t a i n i n g a d i v e r s i t y of c o a s t a l and i n t e r i o r v e g e t a t i o n and

w i l d l i f e w i t h i n t h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l zone. The Skagi t Val ley i s

a major s i t e f o r medium and low d e n s i t y r e c r e a t i o n f o r r e s i d e n t s

of t h e Lower Mainland. A number of l a r g e f i s h i n g l a k e s a r e

a v a i l a b l e ; but t h e r e i s no o t h e r f l a t r i v e r v a l l e y . The Skag i t

River i s e s p e c i a l l y va luab le f o r f l y f i s h i n g and f o r canoeing.

John Massey, t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e ROSS Committee and a n

a v i d f l y f isherman, s t a t e d t h a t t h e Skag i t River was t h e only

good f l y f i s h i n g s t ream nea r t h e Lower Mainland. H i s dry w i t

made h i s p o s i t i o n c l e a r .

B r i t i s h Columbia i s b l e s s e d wi th many good f l y f i s h i n g l a k e s but extremely few f l y f i s h i n g r i v e r s a t a l l . By and l a r g e , l a k e s a r e f i s h e d from b o a t s and r i v e r s a r e f i s h e d by t h o s e who p r e f e r t o wade on f o o t and over 500 y e a r s o f a n g l i n g b ib l iography i n our language c l e a r l y a s s e r t s f l y f i s h i n g a r i v e r on f o o t i s by f a r t h e h igher a r t . 2 5

Put simply, acco rd ing t o t h e ROSS Committee, t h e f l o o d i n g

of t h e Skag i t Val ley would change a n unique na tu l ' a i l andscape

and r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a i n t o a common f l a t wate r r e s e r v o i r and

r e a c r e a t i o n a r e a .

The Hear ings I n Pe r spec t ive - - J" The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission h e a r i n g s were l eng thy and

d e t a i l e d . A v a s t amount o f i n fo rma t ion was presen ted ; s e v e r a l

major r e sou rce management themes were a r t i c u l a t e d . The major

management i s s u e s i n t h e High Ross Dam cont roversy a r e , pu t

simply, ( 1 ) t h e impact on t h e f l o r a and fauna and t h e f u t u r e

of w i l d l ands management i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e Ross r e s e r v o i r ,

( 2 ) t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t s o f f u t u r e r e c r e a t i o n va lues and f a c i l i -

t i e s w i t h o r wi thout t h e increaseci r e s e r v o i r , and (3 ) t h e

n a t u r e of energy demands, u s e p a t t e r n s and p r o j e c t i o n s f o r t h e

C i ty of S e a t t l e and o t h e r msmhers of the Northwest Power G r i d

and t h e v i a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e energy sources . These were

t h e t a n g i b l e i s s u e s around which t h e deba te revolved. Most of

t h e t ime and energy of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e s e h e a r i n g s was

spen t i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e management i s s u e s .

L i t t l e mention was made of t h e more a b s t r a c t i s s u e s d i s -

cussed i n t h e p rev ious c h a p t e r s . The ques t ion of t h e environ-

mental consequences of t h e r a i s i n g of t h e Ross Lake p rov ides a

means t o a s s e s s t h e t e c h n i c a l , environmental impact of t h e pro-

j e c t . But, it has l i t t l e t o do wi th t h e mo t iva t ion o f t h e

i s s u e , w i th t h e o v e r a l l s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t

of t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy . The u l t i m a t e exp res s ion of

va lues upon t h e landscape r e s t s i n t h e mere e x i s t e n c e o r non-

e x i s t e n c e of t h e dam pe r s e , no t i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i t s -- t e c h n o l o g i c a l b e n e f i t s o r , converse ly , i n t h e maintenance o f t h e

w i l d l ands . The High Ross Dam con t rove r sy i s not a deba te con-

c e r n i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f s p r i n g range o f deer , t h e v i a b i l i t y o f

t r o u t spawning beds o r t h e number of v i s i t o r - d a y s i n J u l y of

r e c r e a t i o n i s t s on Ross Lake. A t t h e same t ime, a wide range

o f i s s u e s such as t h e s e a r e t h e t a n g i b l e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t which

preoccupy t h e decision-makers a t a l l l e v e l s of t h e deba te . 26

The F i n a l Report of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission - -- The f i n a l r e p o r t of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission,

Environmental And - Eco log ica l Consequences Canada R a i s i n g

Ross Lake I n The Skag i t Val ley To E l e v a t i o n 1725, appeared on ---- -

flovember 15, 1971. This r e p o r t remains t h e most comprehensive

d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r e sou rce management i s s u e s and t h e background

t o t h e High Ross D a m cont roversy t o da t e . The r e p o r t was

d iv ided i n t o two p a r t s . The f i r s t p a r t i s t h e r e p o r t and recom-

mendation of t h e cornmlssioners. The environmental impact , and

p o s s i b l e measures f o r p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f t h e a r e a

a r e d i scussed . I n t h e second s e c t i o n , t h e background m a t e r i a l

f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e i s desc r ibed and analyzed by t h e team o f

s p e c i a l a d v i s o r s assembled by t h e commission. This background

m a t e r i a l ' inc ludes a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p u b l i c hea r ings , a s t a t u s

r e p o r t on Ross Lake, a n inven to ry of t h e r e sou rces i n t h e a r e a ,

and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t u s e of t h e r e s o u r c e s i n t h e

a r e a . Then, t h e Skagi t Val ley wi th and wi thout t h e High Ross

r e s e r v o i r a r e desc r ibed , ana lyzed and compared.

Having cons ide red t h e environmental consequences of t h e

r a i s i n g of t h e l e v e l of Ross Lake, t h e commission made t h e

fo l lowing conc lus ions .

The p r e s e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e environment would be (changed, but t h e new environment would r e - t a i n many of t h e former c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Those who a p p r e c i a t e and u s e t h e v a l l e y i n i t s p r e s e n t s t a t e would i n e v i t a b l y s u f f e r somewhat, a l though o t h e r people would f i n d t h e new environment a t l e a s t a s p l e a s a n t . Measured e i t h e r by t h e amount o f u se , o r weighted by d o l l a r va lues , t h e o v e r a l l impact of changes i n t h e t o t a l environment i s no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e .

T h i s balance does not appear t o be g r e a t l y changed by supplementing t h e assessment t o t a k e account o f educa t ion , r e s e a r c h and t h e o p t i o n v a l u e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s . These undoubtedly favour p r e s e r - v a t i o n , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e imbalance i s not g r e a t .

Furthermore, t h e Commission i s o f t h e op in ion

There i s need f o r m i t i g a t i o n measures t o cover no t on ly t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f t h e ecology and t h e n a t u r a l environment, but a l s o t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f t h e u s e s by v a r i o u s t ypes o f v i s i - t o r s . The type o f works t h a t could be under taken i n c l u d e but a r e not r e s t r i c t e d t o spawning channe ls o r h a t c h e r i e s , beach improvement and camp grounds.

The Commission recommends t h a t t h e s e m i t i g a t i v e measurzs be f u l l y s t u d i e d be fo re Ross Dam i s r a i s e d ,

t h a t t h e s o c i a l p r e s e r v a t i o n va lues a r e s i g n i f i c a n t and should be t aken i n t o account i n t h e dec i s ion - making p roces s . . . . . . . seen i n a broad s o c i a l c o n t e x t , t h e Skag i t Val ley i s a n uncommon and n o n r e s t o r a b l e a r e a and has important s o c i a l va lues . 27

The commission went on t o recommend t o t h e Government o f

t h e United S t a t e s , i n f a c t t h e Fede ra l Power Cornmission, ' that

it c o n s i d e r t h e fo l lowing q u e s t i o n s which were beyond t h e scope

of i t s s tudy .

( a ) I s t h e r e , i n f a c t , a n immediate need f o r a d d i t i o n a l power f o r t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e ?

( b ) I f so , a r e t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e sou rces o f such a d d i t i o n a l power t o t h e p r o j e c t e d High Ross Dam?

( c ) If such a l t e r n a t i v e sou rces do e x i s t , a r e t h e y more expensive t h a n t h e p r o j e c t e d High Ross Dam?

( d ) I f so, w i l l t h e b e n e f i t s t o t h e c i t i z e n s of both c o u n t r i e s from not r a i s i n g Ross Dam more t h a n o f f - s e t t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s t o consumers o f e l e c t r i c i t y of such a l t e r n a t i v e source o r sou rces of power?

( e ) I f t h e a d d i t i o n a l power from High Ross Dam w i l l meet t h e f o r e c a s t needs of t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e f o r a l i m i t e d iirne, and a d d i t i o i l a i power sou rces w L l l be added a f t e r t h a t , what would be t h e c o s t o f chang- i n g t h e sequence i n which t h e s e p r o j e c t s a r e cons t ruc- t e d , postponing t h e r a i s i n g of Ross Dam u n t i l a dec i - s i o n on t h e t o t a l m e r i t o f t h e p r o j e c t could be made wi th g r e a t e r c e r t a i n t y ? 2 8

They cont inued t o recommend p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n

and enhancement o f t h e environment o f t h e Skagi t River Val ley

on t h e assumption t h a t t h e dam would be b u i l t a s i n s t r u c t e d

by i t s r e f e r e n c e .

and t h a t t hey be under taken t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e governmental agenc ie s concerned f i n d them f e a s i b l e . . . . 2 9

The Commission recommends t h a t f o r e s t g e n e t i c i s t s be encouraged t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e v e g e t a t i o n i n t h e proposed r e s e r v o i r a r e a and i d e n t i f y p l a n t s p e c i e s w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s worthy of f u r t h e r s c i e n t i f i c s tudy . . . . 3 0

Represen ta t ive p l a n t s of most s p e c i e s found w i t h i n t h e Skag i t Val ley e x i s t both w i t h i n and with- ou t t h e proposed r e s e r v o i r a r e a . The Commission recommends t h a t a c c e s s t r a i l s be provided o r marked t o p l a n t communities of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n a r e a s above t h e proposed r e s e r v o i r , i f t h e more e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e exam l e s of t h e same s p e c i e s have been f looded . . . . 3?

A number of low e l e v a t i o n s i t e s a d j a c e n t t o t h e e a s t e r n shore of High Ross r e s e r v o i r i n Canada appear t o be p h y s i c a l l y s u i t e d f o r pas tu re - type developments t o r e p l a c e s p r i n g range f o r deer . . . . No p r a c t i c a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e p l a c e l o s s e s t o o t h e r w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s have been i d e n t i f i e d and no m i t i g a t i v e measures a r e recommended. . . .

The Commission recommends t h a t t h e f i s h l o s s e s be o f f s e t . . . . 3 2

For t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of o t h e r r e a c r e a t i o n a c t i - v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g gene ra l camping, swimming, boa t ing , n a t u r e s tudy , and f o r f i s h i n g on t h e r e s e r v o i r , c e r t a i n minimum under tak ings a r e necessary . The m i t i - g a t i v e o r enhancing measures recommended f o r t h e Skag i t Val ley i n Canada include:

-- maintenance of r e s e r v o i r l e v e l s w i t h i n t h r e e f e e t o f f u l l pool dur ing t h e summer r e c r e a - t i o n season from June 1 5 t h t o September 1 0 t h of each year ;

-- c l e a r i n g and grubbing of t h e r e s e r v o i r s i t e t o a s a t i s f a c t o r y d i s t a n c e below f u l l pool;

-- r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e road; -- development of campgrounds; -- beach improvement; -- es tab l i shment of boat launching po in t s ; -- cont inuous clean-up of d e b r i s and main-

t enance of s h o r e l i n e s u n t i l s t a b i l i t y i s r e - e s t a b l i s h e d .

It has been noted t h a t some of t h e s e i t ems a r e r e q u i r e d i n t h e agreement w i th B r i t i s h Columbia and o t h e r s have been considered by t h e Ci ty o f S e a t t l e , i n t h e p roces s of n e g o t i a t i o n s . It i s f u r t h e r no ted t h a t i f t h e s e environmental e f f e c t s were wholly w i t h i n t h e boundar ies of t h e United S t a t e s a l l measures of t h i s n a t u r e would l i k e l y be r e q u i r e d by t h e l i c e n c i n g agenc ie s . 3 3

The Commission . . . recommends cont inued s t u d i e s t o minimize t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f over looking m i t i g a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t o t a k e account o f any unforeseen conse- quences of r a i s i n g Eibss Reservoir, and t o a s s e s s t h c e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e m i t i g a t i o n measures under taken. . . . 3 4

The Commission recommends t h a t t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e be r e q u i r e d t o forward t h i s i n i t i a l o p e r a t i n g r u l e curve t o t h e Commission and subsequent ly o b t a i n i t s approva l f o r any mod i f i ca t ions t h a t may be proposed. Under t h e s e c i rcumstances t h e Commissionts I n t e r n a t i o n a l Skag i t River Board of Con t ro l would monitor adherence t o t h e o p ~ r a t i n g r u l e curve , and r e p o r t t o t h e Commission.

3 5

Thi s r e p o r t wa.s w e l l r ece ived . I t s recomniendations were

passed on t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a g e n c i e s i n both c o u n t r i e s . But

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission has no power of enforcement.

The fundamental q u e s t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e was excluded from t h e

r e f e rence . Both s i d e s of t h e cont roversy have used t h e t e x t

of t h e r e p o r t t o support t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e arguments.

Conclusion

'The p roces s o f r e c e i v i n g apyr.ovais f o r t h e ITigl? R ~ s s %K

p r o j e c t from t h e s e bodies has p rov ided t h e working framework

and p u b l i c forums f o r t h e con t rove r sy . The most impor tan t of

t h e s e forums has been t h e 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission

hea r ings conce,rning t h e environmental and e c o l o g i c a l conse-

quences o f r a i s i n g t h e l e v e l of Ross I ake . Desp i t e t h e f a c t

t h a t t h e commissionts r e f e r e n c e was r e s t r i c t i v e , t h e s e p u b l i c

hea r ings were a microcosm o f t h e p u b l i c cont roversy . These

hea r ings were t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s ' f i n e s t hour . This was t h e

on ly oppor tun i ty t h a t t h e Canadian opponents t o t h e h igh dam

have had t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o j e c t from a p o s i t i o n of equa l s tand-

i n g wi th S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t . The commission was a n e u t r a l

body. The opponents o f t h e dam were b e t t e r a b l e t o t a k e com-

m n d of t h e s i t u a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n Vancouver where t h e media

and t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c were s o l i d l y a g a i n s t t h e dam. The

hea r ings were informal and t h e l e v e l o f p r e p a r a t i o n and sophi-

s t i c a t i o n necessary f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n was l e s s t h a n r e q u i r e d ,

f o r i n s t a n c e , by t h e Fede ra l Power Commission where formal

p repared tes t imony and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by counse l i s necessary .

These h e a r i n g s were a b l e t o measure pub l i c op in ion which

was overwhelmingly a g a i n s t t h e dam. The submissions t o t h e

commission and r e s e a r c h by t h e commissionf s team o f s p e c i a l

a d v i s o r s enabled them t o w r i t e t h e most comprehensive r e p o r t

of t h e s i t u a t i o n t o d a t e from a n independent source . The

f i n a l r e p o r t d i d no t and could. not dec ide t h e f a t e o f . t h e Skag i t

Val ley. The commission1 s conc lus ions were ambivalent ; however,

t hey showed r e l u c t a n c e t o f l o o d t h e a r e a . The c rux o f t h e

s i t u a t i o n r e s t s i n t h e c o n f l i c t between s h o r t term economic

va lues and long te rm s o c i a l va lues .

Measured e i t h e r by t h e amount o f u se , o r weighted by d o l l a r va lues , t h e o v e r a l l impact o f changes i n t h e t o t a l environment i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e . . . .

However, a t t h e same t ime ,

. . . seen i n a broad s o c i a l c o n t e x t , t h e Skag i t Val ley i s a n uncommon and n o n - r e s t o r a b l e a r e a and has impor- t a n t s o c i a l va lues . 3 6 '

I n t h i s w r i t e r ' s op in ion , it i s f a i r t o s p e c u l a t e t h a t i f t h e

commissioners had been f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e 1942 Order of

Approval and t h e 1967 agreement, t hey would have r eve r sed

t h e i r p r ev ious d e c i s i o n o r t h e y would have r e q u i r e d p r o h i b i t i v e l y

expensive m i t i g a t i v e measures.

Th

detail::

pub l i c

t han t h

e a r l i e r

con t rov

e s e s e r i e

d recor+ci

deba te ha

e s o c i a l ,

c h a p t e r s

e r sy .

s of forums

of t h e High

s concerned

p o l i t i c a l ,

which prov

have provided a l eng thy and

Eoss Dam con t rove r sy . Xost o

t a n g i b l e management problems

and h i s t o r i c a l themes d i s c u s s

i d e t h e fundamental b a s i s f o r

f

r a t h e r

ed i n

t h e

Footnotes f o r Chapter - 6 --

11 ' ~ e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r Evans Expla ins Opposi t ion To High Ross am", December 9 , 1971, p. 4.

I 1 2 ~ e a t t l e P o s t - l n t e l l i g e n c e r Evans Expla ins Opposi t ion t o High Ross ~ a i n " , December 9, 1971, p. 4.

3 ~ e t t e r from J. Biggs t o W. Uhlman, January 29, 1973, a u t h o r ' s f i l e .

*As of t h i s w r i t i n g , p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e Fede ra l Power Com- miss ion h e a r i n g a r e v i r t u a l l y complete, Although impor tan t , t h i s h e a r i n g i s beyond t h e scope o f t h i s t h e s i s which i n ch rono log ica l terms ends a t t h e end of t h e summer o f 1971. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e Government o f Canada, t h e o p p o s i t i o n of t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n of t h e New Democratic P a r t y ' s government on August 31, 1972, t h e consequent f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l n e g o t i a t i o n s r e - gard ing t h e s t a t u s of t h e 1967 agreement and i t s proposed r e - n e g o t i a t i o n wi th t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e , a r e no t d i s c u s s e d .

11 'O~ancouve r - Sun Tes t Time f o r The IJC" , June 5, 1971, p. 4 .

2 ~ r a s e r 1971: 4 .

l3l?raser 1971: 8.

14~ra rnburu and Brucker 1971: 7.

"IJC 1971b: 11: 130.

1971b: 11: 130.

1 7 ~ e r s o l ? a l cor(lm~micat,ion, John F r a s e r , Augl~st 1 4 , 1973.

'IJC 1971b: I: 51-53.

2 4 ~ ~ ~ l 9 7 l b : 111: 39. See, a l s o , McGeer 1972: 123.

261t i s no t o f t e n t h a t a n a u t h o r reviews h i s own book as a t h i r d p a r t y . However, t h e comments by D r . Anthony S c o t t , a n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s economist and a member o f t h e Canadian S e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, i l l u s t r a t e t h e v a r i e t y o f i s s u e s examined i n a s i t u a t i o n such as t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy .

However, t h e t r u t h i s t h a t t h e s tudy o f conse rva t ion o f a n open-access n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e r e q u i r e s t h e blend- i n g o f elements from t h e (economic) t h e o r i e s o f con-

s u i F ~ . ~ s , """' ' suillei~- -..-- p u u l i ~ ~ G G ~ S , ~ ~ p i t ~ l , grmth, publ ic

cho ice and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , p l u s t h e gene ra t ion of eco- nomic, b i o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l d a t a i n p r o p o r t i o n s t h a t few have y e t found a t t r a c t i v e . Two s t u d i e s t h a t i l l u s t r a t e t h e b r e a t h of t h e problems involved a r e Paul Davidson, F. Adams and J. Seneca, he S o c i a l

11 Value of Water . . . The Delaware Es tuary , i n A . V. Kneese and S. Smith, eds . , Water Research (Ea l t imore , 1966) , and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, En- vi ronmental - and Eco log ica l Consequences - i n Canada - of Ra i s ing Ross Lake i n t h e Skag i t Val ley . . . --- TWashington and 0 t t a w a , l c W (SCOtt 1973: 69)

Of course , from a non-economic p o i n t o f view, t h e r e a r e many t h e o r i e s and p e r s p e c t i v e s t h a t can be used i n a n a l y s i s of t h i s con t roversy .

CHAPTER V I I

Conclusions

summary - Thi s has been a comparat ive s tudy of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

d e c i s i o n making p roces s concern ing t h e High Ross Dam. It has

demonstrated t h a t t h e convergence i n t h e development and h i s t o r y

of t h e conse rva t ion movement i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i n

Washington i n 1969 e s t a b l i s h e d a c l i m a t e o f op in ion which

a l lowed t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s t o cha l l enge t h e s i x t y y e a r o l d

p l a n s of ' ~ e a t t l e C i ty Light f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c developments on

t h e Skag i t River. More d i r e c t l y , c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s have r e -

openzd t h e High Ross Dam q u e s t i o n by c r e a t i n g a p u b l i c deba t e

based upon d i f f e r e n t cu- l tu re environment va lue judgements and

consequent r e sou rce ~ a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s .

Landscape change occurs because i n d i v i d u a l s , groups and

i n s t i t u t i o n s , who hold d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s and va lues concerning

t h e d e f i n i t i o n and u s e of n a t u r a l r e sou rces , a r e a b l e t o a r t i -

c u l a t e t h e i r d e s i r e s f o r change throu-gh t h e p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n ,

making process . The h i s t o r y o f t h e High Ross Dam con t rove r sy

demonstra tes t h e c a p a c i t y f o r t h e p o l i t i c a l a r t i c u l a t i o n of

environmental va lues . If S e a t t l e C i t y Light l o s e s i t s f i g h t

'to r a i s e t h e Ross Dam, it w i l l be due t o i t s f a i l u r e t o cope

wi th changing r e sou rce o p t i o n s w i t h i n a new s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l

c o n t e x t . The major i s s u e s r a i s e d dur ing t h e p r e s e n t contuooversy

a r e t h o s e of t h e opponents of t h e p r o j e c t .

The purpose of t h e two p r i n c i p a l opponents o f t h e dam,

t h e ROSS Committee and t h e North Cascades Conservation Council,

a r e q u i t e s i m i l a r . The fundamental b a s i s f o r both o rgan iza t ions

i n t h e d e s i r e f o r p rese rva t ion of wild lands , b e t t e r

oppor tun i t i e s f o r out door r e c r e a t i o n and t h e promotion of park

lands.

I n B r i t i s h Columbia t h e Skagi t Valley i s a f o c a l po in t of

concern r e l a t i n g t o environmental i s s u e s along t h e border and

t o t h e genera l ques t ion of hydroe lec t r i c development throughout

t h e province. The core of t h e oppos i t ion t o t h e high dam pro-

j e c t c o n s i s t s of u s e r s of t h e a r e a . But t h e d e s i r e f o r t h e

p rese rva t ion of t h e n a t u r a l landscape, even i f it i s not

completely n a t u r a l , i s t h e common un i fy ing theme throughout t h e

arguments of t h e opponents of t h e dam.

I n t h e United S t a t e s t h e High Ross D a m controversy i s a

cont inuat ion of t h e campaign t o c r e a t e t h e North Cascades

National Park. This c o n f l i c t r e s u l t s from t h e f a i l u r e t o cope

with t h e genera l i s s u e of hydroe lec t r i c development i n t h e

n a t i o n a l park a rea . Hydroelectr ic dams i n n a t i o n a l parks have

caused major con t rovers i e s throughout t h e h i s t o r y of t h e United

S t a t e s n a t i o n a l park system. The High Ross Dam follows t h e s e

h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s i n some regards .

The High Ross Dam controversy has been s t r u c t u r e d by a

s e r i e s of formal procedures r equ i red by t h e City of S e a t t l e ,

t h e Washington S t a t e Ecological Commission, t h e Federal Power

Commission and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. These forums

have provided a lengthy and d e t a i l e d record of debate. How-

172.

eve r , most of t h e p u b l i c deba te has concerned t a n g i b l e manage-

ment problems r a t h e r t han t h e s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and h i s t o r i c a l

themes which provide t h e fundamental b a s i s f o r t h e cont roversy .

P r o s p e c t i v e s

The cont roversy cont inues ; t h e f a t e o f t h e High Ross Dam

i s s t i l l i n doubt. Never the less , it i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o p r e d i c t

t h a t t h e High Ross Dam w i l l not be b u i l t i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e

f u t u r e . The p roces s of damnation has been t o o complete.

V i r t u a l l y no one o u t s i d e t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e suppor t s t h e pro-

j e c t . The Government o f Canada, t h e Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia,

t h e S t a t e of Washington, t h e Mayor of t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e , and

many people throughout t h e United S t a t e s and Canada oppose t h e

p r o j e c t . Indeed, t h e f a c t t h a t a con t rove r sy remains today i n

l i g h t of such o b j e c t i o n s i s remarkable. The primary r ea sons f o r

t h i s endurance of t h e p r o j e c t a r e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i d e ai:d

de t e rmina t ion of S e a t t l e C i t y Light and t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e

d e c i s i o n making p roces s i n Canada.

S e a t t l e C i t y Light s t i l l must o b t a i n permiss ion from t h e

Fede ra l Power Commission and t h e S e a t t l e C i t y Council t o b u i l d

t h e dam. If t h e s e app rova l s a r e r ece ived , l e g a l a c t i o n s by t h e

S t a t e o f Washington and t h e North Cascades Conservat ion Council

a r e a lmost c e r t a i n . A t t h e same t ime, no similar a c t i o n i s

l i k e l y i n Canada. S e a t t l e C i t y Light w i l l con t inue t o r i d e i t s

wh i t e e lephant u n t i l it drowns. A t t h e same t ime, it w i l l

con t inue i t s energy c o n s e r v a t i o n program and proceed w i t h p l a n s

t o b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e sou rces o f power f o r t h e c i t y .

Even a long enduring con t rove r sy such as t h i s one must

' come t o a n end e v e n t u a l l y , Assuming t h a t t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n

is such t h a t t h e dam w i l l not be b u i l t , a number o f c o u r s e s

, of a c t i o n a r e l i k e l y . The boundar ies of' t h e Ross Lake Nat iona l

Rec rea t ion Area w i l l be redrawn c l o s e r t o t h e edge o f t h e e x i s t -

. i ng r e s e r v o i r as was o r i g i n a l l y advocated by some of t h e conser-

v a t i o n i s t s . The Skagi t Val ley i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be

, developed a s a major r e g i o n a l p a r k wi th medium and low d e n s i t y

family r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n con junc t ion wi th Manning

P r o v i n c i a l Park and wi th r e c r e a t i o n a l development i n t h e C h i l l i -

w8ck Val ley. These a r e a s w i l l be admin i s t e r ed by t h e prov ince

i n coope ra t ion w i t h t h e United S t a t e s Nat iona l Park Se rv i ce .

Growing popu la t ions of S e a t t l e and Vancouver and a t t r a c t i o n o f

n a t i o n a l p a r k s t a t u s w i l l c r e a t e i n c r e a s i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l demand.

The North Cross S t a t e Highway and t h e Skag i t Val ley w i l l be

jo ined u l t i m a t e l y by a passenger f e r r y on Ross Lake. The

S i lve r -Skag i t Road w i l l be paved and w i l l become a n a l t e r n a t i v e

r o u t e between Vancouver and Wenatchee p rov id ing a major c o r r i d o r

f o r u s e and a c c e s s i n t h e r eg ion .

Conversely, i f t h e High Ross D a m i s b u i l t , S e a t t l e C i t y

Light w i l l a c q u i r e i t s planned Ylcrement of peaking power. The

boa t ing , camping and o t h e r r e ~ r e a ~ t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be

c o n s t r u c t e d . Numerous m o d i f i c a t i o n s such a s t h e r e l o c a t i o n of

t h e S i l v e r - S k a g i t Road w i l l be made. A t t h e same t ime, many

important p o l i t i c i a n s i n t h e United S t a t e s and i n Canada w i l l

be very embarrassad. I n a d d i t i o n , as was t h e c a s e w i th t h e

174.

getch Hetchy Dam, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e High Ross Dam p r o j e c t

w j l l ha gre9 ted wi th much dismay and remorse by t h e opponents

Concluding Observations

I n conclusion, t h i s study l e a d s t o t h e fol lowing considera-

t ions . The High Ross Dam controversy foll.ows a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d

I t r a d i t i o n of hydroe lec t r i c dam debates . The e s s e n t i a l i s s u e s

( have changed l i t t l e ; t h e h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s appear t o hold i n

severa l r e spec t s . Arguments f o r and a g a i n s t l a r g e h y d r o e l e c t r i c

p r o j e c t s a r e v i r t u a l l y interchangeable. The High Ross D a m contro-

versy, f o r ins t ance , i s s t r u c t u r a l l y very s i m i l a r t o t h e Hetch

Hetchy Dam debate. Basic n a t u r a l resource pe r spec t ives and

choices change very l i t t l e over time.

I However, t h e c l ima te o f opinion toward dams does change

( Over t ime* S o c i o - p o l i t i c a l v i a b i l i t y of n a t u r a l resource op t ions

I depends upon t h e capac i ty f o r t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n of resource

I values. S e a t t l e Ci ty L i g h t ' s p lans f o r t h e High Ross Dam have

I p e r s i s t e d i n t h e f a c e of repeated de lays and growing oppos i t ion .

1 A t t h e same time, t h e pe r spec t ive o f t h e province of B r i t i s h

1 Columbia has changed f i v e t imes when d i f f e r e n t resource p r i o r i - L I t i e s have predominated. The c u r r e n t High Ross Dam controversy

( e x i s t s because groups such a s t h e ROSS Committee and t h e North

I Cascades Conservation Council have been a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e

resource i s s u e s and va lues t h a t were neglec ted previously. The

p r e s e n t c l i m a t e of op in ion has pe rmi t t ed them t o express t h e i r

views concerning t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e dam more d i s t i n c t ] - y

and e x p l i c i t l y and thus , t o r a i s e q u e s t i o n s p rev ious ly expressed

only weakly and o b l i q u e l y .

The High Ross D a m con t rove r sy has been s u b j e c t t o a n

unique ebb and flow of p u b l i c deba t e which has shaped t h e

c h a r a c t e r of t h e con t rove r sy . This cont roversy has been a n

a c t i v e p u b l i c i s s u e . However, even t s dur ing t h i s deba te have

no t been cont inuous. A week o f g r e a t a c t i v i t y may be fol lowed

by months of i n a c t i v i t y . The p r i n c i p a l causes of t h i s p a t t e r n

a r e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements f o r governmental approva l o f

t h e p r o j e c t and t h e p roces s o f p u b l i c debate through t h e media.

Publ ic deba te can e x i s t on ly when t h e r e i s a p u b l i c forum.

The efforts of the ROSS Connittee and the North Cascades

Conservat ion Council have been s t r u c t u r e d around t h e requi rements

of and t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s p re sen ted by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t

Commission, t h e Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l Commission, t h e

S e a t t l e C i t y Council , and t h e Fede ra l Power Commission. The

Federa l Power Commission, f o r example, p rov ides a n oppor tun i ty

f o r t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s t o persuade t h e commission t h a t it

ought no t g ran t t h e r e q u i r e d power l i c e n s e and t o a rgue t h e

i s s u e s be fo re t h e p u b l i c aga in . S e a t t l e C i ty Ligh t , i n t u r n ,

r e q u i r e s t h e l i c e n s e and amst defend i t s p r o j e c t . Although t h e

i s s u e may appear dormant t o members of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c , t h i s

hea r ing has r e q u i r e d months o f d e t a i l e d p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e hear-

i n g .

The conduct of t h e media i s a v i t a l element i n t h e High

ROSS Da!. ron!rroversy. There ?;:o::ld b e no contyovcrsy ijjitiiouL

a c t i v e suppor t from members of t h e media. Opponents of t h e dam

I I 1 I have r ece ived good p r e s s on t h e whole. Coverage h a s been

ex tens ive ; i t has been f r o n t page m a t e r i a l many t imes . Media

coverage, g e n e r a l l y , has been c a r e f u l l y o r c h e s t r a t e d i n o r d e r t o

ach ieve maximum impact f o r t h e mutual advantage o f t h e media

and t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s . Although t h e governmental bodies

provide t h e b a s i c framework f o r t h e cont roversy , t h e media

e s t a b l i s h e s t h e e s s e n t i a l ebb and flow p a t t e r n . A p u b l i c

cont roversy i s i n l a r g e p a r t a media campaign,

An examination of t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e High Ross D a m ques t ion

shows t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s and va lues expressed toward hydro- - e l e c t r i c dams and t h e i r impact a r e a t t h e r o o t of t h e con t rove r sy ,

I The r e a l con t roversy concerns b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e

( c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s among t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s of t h i s deba te

and does no t concern t h e t a n g i b l e management i s s u e s t h a t a r e

argued dur ing t h e variou-s p u b l i c hea r ings . The fundamental

b a s i s f o r t h i s ' con t roversy r e s t s w i th t h e s o c i a l , h i s t o r i c a l

I and p o l i t j c a l themes expla ined du r ing t h i s s tudy r a t h e r t h a n

ques t ions of eng ineer ing , b io logy , and economics.

s t r i c t sense , t h e r e can be no conse rva t ion v i c t o r i e s . A dec i -

s i o n no t t o b u i l d t h e dam a d d i t i o n w i l l no t n e c e s s a r i l y improve

t h e a r e a from a c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t p o i n t of view. It merely pre-

u e 1 2 t ~ f u r t h e r darnage. The b e s t they can do i s t o main ta in t h e

S t a t 4 ~ ~ s q l l O . -- Furthermore, a1 though h y d r o e l e c t r i c power gene ra t i o n

p r o j e c t s a r e becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y l e s s v i a b l e , t h e r a p i d

growth of e l e c t r i c a l demand may make t h i s p r o j e c t more d e s i r a b l e

in t h e f u t u r e . Costs a r e r e l a t i v e . This fundamental ly marginal

p r o j e c t may become v i a b l e much i n t h e same way t h a t expensive,

i s o l a t e d f r o n t i e r r e s e r v e s of pet roleum and n a t u r a l gas have

become i n demand. I n a d d i t i o n , as t h e a r e a s se rved by t h e

Northwest Power Grid r e l y more and more on thermal gene ra t ion ,

e s p e c i a l l y nuc l ea r generatLon, h y d r o e l e c t r i c power becomes more

valuabl-e as peaking power. I f t h e demand f o r and c o s t of energy

becomes h igh enough, t h e High Ross Dam w i l l become more p r o f i t a b l e .

A s long a s e l e c t r i c a l power i s gene ra t ed and consumed, t h e r e

w i l l be a High Ross Dam con t rove r sy .

SXLECTED EIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Publ ic Documents

Adams, Paul e t a l . , - -- 1971 - The Future -- of t h e Skag i t Val ley, Vancouver, Report

p repared f o r t h e Skag i t Val ley Study Group.

B r i t i s h Columbia Energy Board, -- 1971 E l e c t r i c Power Requirements i n B. C . : P r o j e c t i o n s - - - - --

t o 1990, Vancouver, H. C. Energy Board. -- 1972 Report on E l e c t r i c Energy Resources and Fu tu re

Power S G p l y , B r i t i s h Columbia 1972-1990, - Vancouver B r i t i s h Columbia Energy Board.

Canada Department of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and t h e Department o f Northern A f f a i r s and Natura l Resources,

1964 The Columbia River T rea ty P ro toco l and Re la t ed Documents, Ottawa, Queen1 s P r i n t e r .

Canada Nat iona l Energy Roard, 1968 Energy Supply - and Demand Balances 1955-1967:

Consol ida t ion - of H i s t o r i c a l Data, Ottawa, Queen ' s -- P Y ~ R ~ ~ Y .

1969 Energy Supply - and Demand i n Canada and Export Demand f o r Canadian Energy 1966-1990, Ottawa, Queen1 s P r i n t e r .

Crafts, Edward C . , ed . , 1965 The North Cascades, A Keport -- t o t h e S e c r e t a r y -- of t h e

I n t e r i o r -- a n d e c r e t a r y - of A g r i c u l t u r e -- by t h e North Cascades Study Team, Washington, Dept. of I n t e r i o r and Dept . o f A g r i c u l t u r e .

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, 1936-40 T r a i l Smelter Quest ion , seven volumes, Ottawa and

Washington, K ing ' s P r i n t e r .

1941 App l i ca t ion of t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e For Approval o f ----- - - Proposal To Ra i se The Water Level -- of t h e Skag i t River , S t a t e - of Washington, -- a t and above - t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary, Hearing, S e a t t l e , Washington, Septembzr 12, 1941-, volume 1, Ottawa and Washington, I n t e r n a t i o n a l - - J o i n t Cornmis s i o n .

Order Of' Approval, I n t h e Mat ter o f t h e App l i ca t ion - - -- Of ?'he?itv of S e a t t l e For Author i ty To Raise The ---- - Water Level o f ' t h e Skag i t River Approximatel-y 130 -- Feet A t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Between The --- - United S t a t e s and Canada, Ottawa and Washington, I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.

Rules of Procedure and Text of T rea ty , Ottawa and --- ~ a s h i n z o n , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.

Agreement Between Her Majesty The Queen I n Right O f The Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia And The C i t y -- --- Of S e a t t l e , v i c t o r i a , Province of B r i t i s h Columbia - and Ci ty o f S e a t t l e , Washington

P o l l u t i o n o f Lake E r i e , Lake Ontar io and t h e --- - -- I n t e r n a t i o n a l S e c t i o n o f t h e S t . Lawrence R ive r , --- Ottawa, In format ion Canada.

Environmental And Ecol o g i c a l Consequences I n Canada Of Ra i s ing Ross Lake I n The Skagi t Val ley to Elevat , ion - ---- - 1725, Ottawa and Washington, I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Conmi s s ion .

Publ ic Hear ings , Environmental And Eco log ica l Conse- quences I n Canada Of R a i s i n g Ross Lake I n The Skag i t ---- Valley - T o ' ~ l e v a t i o T l 7 2 5 , June 3-5, 1971, Bell inghsm and Vancouver, T ransc . r i p t , Ottawa and Washington, I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.

Report of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on -- S o l u t i o n t o t h e Problems Facing t h e ~ e s i d e n t s a f -- Poin t Rober ts , Ottawa and Washington, 1 n t e r n a t G n a l J o i d t Commission.

Moore, Edwin A . , 1968 - An Economic Analys i s of Generat ion P a t t e r n s on Fu tu re

Power Systems, ~ t t a , w a T ~ a t i o n a l Energy ~oard:

S e a t t l e , Dspartment of L igh t ing , 1971 Environmental Inves t iga - t i ons , Skagi t Val ley - I n Canada

And I n d i c a t i o n of Consecluences From Ra i s ing The Level - - Of Ross Lake, Vancorlver, 5'. F. Slanzy and Company. ---

1972 The Aquatic Envjronment, F i shcs - And F i she ry Ross Lake -- And The Canadian Sks ~ i t River , Jnterirn K$port, v . 1, - - -- S e a t t l e , I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l Skagi t -Eoss F ishery Committee.

Testimony - On Behalf Of App l i ca t ion Of C i t y Of S e a t t l e , --- ~ P ~ a r t m e n t o f ~ i ~ h t i E , -- I n The Mat te r O f The Applica- -- t i o n O f ~ h e ' ? i i . ~ of' Sea l . t l e , Washington For Amendment ----- 7

O f License For Skag i t River Ross Development P r o j e c t - - No. 553 Washington, 4 v o l s . , S e a t t l e , S e a t t l e -- Department of L igh t ing .

J- , 11 H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e on t h e 'Resources For Tomorrowf ~ o n f e r e n c e " , I n 6. H. K r i s t j a n s o n , ed . , Resources For - Tomorrow, v o l . 1, pp. 1-13, Ottawa, Queen1 s P r i n t e r .

U. S. Department o f I n t e r i o r , Nat iona l Park Se rv i ce , 1970 North Cascades Complex, Master P lan /Publ ic Meeting,

Wilderness Proposa l /Publ ic Hearing, Washington, Park Se rv i ce .

U. S. House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Commj t t e e on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s 1968 Hear ings on H. K. 8970 and Re la t ed B i l l s A B i l l To ------ ---

E s t a b l i s h t h e North Ca~c -ades Nat iona l Park , . . , - -.-- 90th Congress, 2nd Sesc:: on, Washington, Government P r i n t i n g Off ice .

U. S. Fede ra l Power Commission, 1973 Ross Development o f Pro;j:>et No. 553 Skag i t River , --

Washington, ~ r a f t E n v i r o j u a e n t a l Impact Sta tement , Washington, Fede ra l Powel. Commission.

U. S. Senate , Committee on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s , 1966 Hear ings -- on t h e Study Team Report o f t h e R e c r e a t i o n a l --

Oppor tun i t i e s -- i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington, 89 th Congress, 2nd Sess ion , ~ a s h i n g t o n , Government P r i n t i n g Of f i ce .

1: 1967 Hearings - - on S. ---- 1321 A B i l l To E s t a b l i s h The North E - I?? Cascades Nat iona l Park . , . . 90th Conaress , 1s t 7 . . - - ; 5, Sess ion , Washing~on, Goverment P r i n t i n g Off ice .

Washington S t a t e Eco log ica l Cotrsnission, 1971 Hearing Regarding Proposa l To Ra i se Ross Dam, --

T r a n s c r i p t , Olympia, k l a s h i n a o n S t a t e Eco log ica l Commission.

11. Unpublished Monographs

~ r a m b u r u , J. Richard and Thomas H. S. Brucker, 11 1971 Br ie f t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission,"

S e a t t l e , North Cascades Conservat ion Council .

Bianchi , Renato, l I 1938 An Economic Study o f t h e Skag i t Power Development, II

M. S. t h e s i s i n E l e c t r i c a l Engineer ing, Un ive r s i t y o f Washington.

Brousson, David, 11 1971 Br i e f t o t h e I n t e r n a , t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on t h e

Skag i t Val lzy and High Ross am," Vancouver, ROSS Committee.

Dick, Wesle A , , 1965 'The Genesis of S e a t t l e C i t y ~ i g h t , " M. A. t h e s i s i n

H i s to ry , Un ive r s i t y o f Washington.

Fra s e r , John, 1971 "ROSS Committee Legal Br i e f t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

1 1 J o i n t Commission, Vancouver, ROSS Committee.

Massey, John, 1969 " c i t y o f S e a t t l e Department o f L igh t ing , Skag i t

River P r o j e c t : Hourglass Program, A p r i l 29, 1969, 11

Vancouver, Canadian Broadcas t ing Corporat ion. . McNabb, David E.,

1968 "The P r i v a t e Versus Pub l i c Power F igh t i n S e a t t l e 1939-1934 ," M. A . t h e s i s i n Communications, Un ive r s i t y of Washington,

P i t z e r , Paul , S' 1966 "A H i s to ry of t h e Upper Skag i t v a l l e y , " M. A. t h e s i s

i t i n H i s to ry , U n i v ~ r s i t y o f Washington.

41*

$ Sommarstrom, A l l an R . , * sv.

1970 "Wild Land P re se rva t ion : The North Cascades 8'

11 Controversy, Ph.D. t h e s i s i n Geography, U n i v e r s i t y - * of Washington. I

Sparks, Will iam O . , 1964 I' J. D. Ross and S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t 1917-193211, M. A.

t h e s i s i n H i s to ry , Un ive r s i t y o f Washington.

Taylor, Mar D . , 1965 'Development o f t h e E l e c t r i c i t y I n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h

~ o l u m b i a , " M. A. t h e s i s i n Geography, Un ive r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.

111. Newspapers - and P e r i ~ o d i c a l s

S e a t t l e Times 1969-74,

The Wild Cascades 1968-1974. CC-

Vancouver Province 1925-1974,

~ a n c o u v e r - sun 1926-1974..

V i c t o r i a Dai ly

V i c t o r i a Times 1926-1974.

I, t

I IV. Manuscript Files

The working T i l e s and correspondence of the North Cascades conse rva t ion Council I 968 - 1974.

Books and A r t i c l e s -

gagby, P h i l i p , 1963 C u l t u r e - and Hi s to ry , Berkeley, Un ive r s i t y o f C a l i -

f o r n i a P re s s .

~ e c k e r , C a r l , 1932 - The Heavenly C i t y of t h e Eigh t?en th Century Phi loso- ---

phers , New Haven, Yale Un ive r s i t y P re s s .

Berber, F. J . , 1959 Rive r s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, N e w York, Oceana Publ i -

c a t i o n s 7

loomf field, L. M. and G. F. F i t z g e r a l d , 1958 Boundary Water Problems o f Canada and t h e United - --

S t a t e s , Toronto, C a r s e l l P res s .

cking, Richard C . , 1972 Canadaf s Water: For S a l e ? Toronto, James Lewis and

Samuel.

urne, C. B. , 1971 " ~ n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and Pol l .u t ion o f ~ n t e r n a t i o n a l

R ive r s and Lakes", U. B. C . Law Review 6 ( 1 ) : 115-136. - - - -

Burton, Thomas L. , 1972 Na tu ra l Resource Po l i cy i n Canada, Toronto, McClelland -

and Stewart .

hacko, C. J . , 1932 The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Between t h e - -

United S t a t e s and t h e Dominion of Canada, New York, -- - Columbia Un ive r s i t y P r e s s .

Fz *. Chant, Donald, ed . , Q 1970 P o l l u t i o n Probe, Toronto, Newpress.

s e n , Char les M, ed . , 1973 Engineer ing a Vic to ry For O u r a Environment: A C i t i - -- --

z e n l s Guide To The U. S. Army Corps O f Engineers , --- - - - San Franc isco , S i e r r a Club.

.lingwood, R. G . , 1945 The Idea of Nature, Oxford, Clarendon P r e s s . --- 1946 The Idea o f H i s to ry , Oxford, Clarendon P res s . ---

comnoner, Barry, 1966 Sciencz and Surv iva l , New York, - i k i n g P re s s .

1971 The Clos ing C i r c l e , New York, Knopf.

reh her, Ca r l , 1940 I' J. D. Ross, Publ ic Power ~ a g n a t e " , Harperr s Magazine

181: 46-60.

Easton, Rober t , 1972 Black Tide, New York, De lco r t e P r e s s .

E f f o r t , I a n E. and Earbara M. Smith, 1972 Energy -- and t h e Environment, Vancouver, I n s t i t u t e of

Resource Ecology, Un ive r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.

Eh r l i ch , Paul , 1968 - The Popula t ion Bomb, San Franc isco , S i e r r a Club.

F e l l e r , Micha,el, 11 1973 The ChTlliwack Val ley , A Park Proposal f o r B r i t i s h Columbia", Park News g ( 3 ) : 30-38. --

Gar f inke l , Harold, 1967 S t u d i e s - i n Enti-~nomzthodology, Englewood C l i f f s ,

P ren t i ce -Ha l l .

Gerlach, Luther , and V i r g i n i a Hine, 1970 Paople, Power, Change: Movements - of S o c i a l Trans-

f ~ r m a t ~ i o n , I n d i e n p o l i s , Bobbs-Merri l l .

Glacken, Clarence, 1967 Traces on t h e Rhodian Shore, Berkeley, Un ive r s i t y --

of C a l i f o r n i a P re s s .

11 1970 Manf s P l ace i n Nature i n Recent Western ~ h o u g h t " , I n Michael IIamilton, e d . , This L i t t l e P l a n e t , pp. - 163-202, New York, Char les S c r i b n e r t s Sons.

Harris, Cole, 11 1971 Theory a,nd Syn thes i s i n H i s t o r i c a l ~ e o g r a p h y " , Canadian Geographer l 5 ( 3 ) : 157-172.

Hunter, Robert and Robert Kcziere , 1972 Greenpeace, Toroilto, JkCle l l and and S tewar t .

Hutchinson, Bruce, 1950 The F r a s e r , Toronto, Cla rke , I rwin and Co. -

~ng ledow, T., 1945 Hydro-Electr ic Power and Hydro-Electr ic Power

Devt-3.l opnent, in t;ha T o w n r Mari.nl and Coas t,al Arna, of -- -- B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, Engineer ing I n s t i t u t e of Canada.

Jones, Holway, 1965 ---- John Muir and t h e S i e r r a Club, San Franc isco , S i e r r a

Keesing, Roger and F e l i x Keesing, 1971 - New P e r s p e c t i v e s i n C u l t u r a l Anthropology, New York,

Hol t , R inehar t anF;d ins ton .

Kneese, A l l en and Stephen Smith, ed . , 1966 Water Research, Bal t imore , John Hopkins P re s s .

Kroeber, Al f red , 1944 Conf igura t ions of Cu l tu re Growth, Berkeley, Un ive r s i t y

of C a l i f o r n i a P ~ S S .

K r u t i l l a , John, 1967 - The Columbia River Trea ty : - The Economics -- of a n

I n t e r n a t i o n a l River S a s i n Develoument, Bal t imore John Hopkins P re s s .

~ e a r t ' b o k o f - t h e ~ s s o c i a t i o n o f P a c i f i c Coast --- - - - Geographers 31: 79-89.

J. Michael, "wi lde rnes s Movement a t t h e c ros s roads : l945- l970", P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review 4 1 ( 3 ) : 346-361.

Grant , 11 Prologue: Environment and t h e Q u a l i t y of P o l i t i c a l ~ i f e " , - I n Richard Cooley and Geoffrey Wandesforde- Smith, eds . , Congress -- and t h e Environment, pp. 3-15, S e a t t l e , Un ive r s i t y of Washington P re s s .

Ian , 11 The Dev~lopment of I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a w With Respect t o Trans-Boundary Water Resources: Co-operation f o r Mutual Advantage of Cont inen ta l i sm ' s Thin Edge of t h e ~dedge?" , Osgoode -- Hall Iaw Jou rna l 9: 261-311.

McGeer, P a t r i c k , 1972 P o l i t i c s - i n Pa rad i se , Toronto, P e t e r Mar t in Assoc i a t e s .

McTaggart, David, 1973 Outrage! - The Ordeal - of Greenpeace 111, Vancouver,

T nn7,mi ,-, 2. U. U u U b s L u .

Maiden, C e c i l , 1948 Lighted Journey, t h e S tory --- of t h e B. - C . E l e c t r i c ,

Vancouver, B. C . E l e c t r i c Co.

Marcus?, Herber t , 1964 One-Dimensional Man, Boston, Beacon P re s s .

Marsen, imrna P.. , 1.972 Popula t ion Probe, Toronto, Copp, Clarke Pub l i sh ing Co.

Merleau- Ponty, Maurice, I 1 1963 The Phi losopher and ~ o c i o l o g y " , I n Maurice Natanson, ed. , Philosophy -- of t h e S o c i a l ~ c i n c e s , pp. 487-505, New York, Random House.

M i l l e r , Joseph, 1973 he North Cascades ~ o u n d a t i o n " , The Wild Cascades --

February-March, pp. 26-27.

Murray, Kei th , I t 1972 The T! .I1 Smel ter Case: I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r P o l l u t i o n i n t h e Columbia v a l l e y " , - B. - C . S t u d i e s 15: 68-85.

Nader, Baiph, 1972 Unsafe -- A t Any Speed, New York, Grossman.

Nader, Ralph and Mark J. Green, e d s . , 1973 Corporate Power - I n America, New York, Grossman.

Nash, Roderick, l967 " ~ o h n Muir, Williarn Kent, and t h e Conserva t ive

~ c h i s m " , P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review 34: 423-433.

1968 - - The American Environment: Readings i n t h e H i s to ry of -- Conservat ion, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley pub l i sh ing co.

Odum, Eugene, 1959 Fundamentals - of Ecology, P h i l a d e l p h i a , W. B. Saunders

and Co.

Ormsby, Margaret , 1958 British Columbia: - A Hi s to ry , Toronto, Macmillan.

Bobin, Mart in , 1972 The Rush F'or S p o i l s , The Company Province 1871-1933,

7-- - loro1-1t0, KcCleilalld arid 5lewal.t .

1972 P i l l a r s of P r o f i t , The Company Province 1934-1972, - -- - Toronto, McClelland and S tewar t .

s a h l i n s , Marshal l , 1964 " c u l t u r e and Ehvironmznt" , I n Sol , T. , ed . , Horizons

O f Anthropology, pp. 132-147, Chicago, Aldine - Pub l i sh ing Co.

s c h o l t e , Bob, 11 1971 Disconten t i n ~ n t h r o p o l o g y " , S o c i a l Research 38(4) : 777-807

S c o t t , Anthony, 1973 Natura l Resources:

Toronto, McClelland. The - and

Economics S t w a r t .

Conserva t ion ,

Sherman, Paddy, 1966 Bennet t , Toronto, McClel l and and S tewar t .

Siemans, Al f red , ed. , 1968 Lower F ra se r Val ley: Evolu t ion - - of a C u l t u r a l - Landscape,

Vancouver, Tan ta lus Research Limited.

Smedresman, P e t e r , 11 1973 The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commis~ion ( u n i t e d S t a t e s - Canada) and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary and Water Commission ( u n i t e d s t a t e s - ~ e x i c o ) : P o t e n t i a l For ~ n v i r o n m e n t a l Cont ro l Along t h e boundar ies" , - New York Jou rna l of l n t z r n a t i o n a l Law and P o l i t i c s - --- 6(3) :499-531.

Smith, Page, 1964 - The I I i s t o r i a n - and H i s t o r y , New York, A l f r ed Knopf.

Spoehr, Alexander, 1956 " C u l t u r a l D i f r e r e n c e s i n t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Natura l

11 Resources , I n Wil l iam L. Thomas, ed . , Man's Role I n C h a n c i n ~ t h e Facz of t h s E a r t h , pp. 93-102, Chicago, - .-, .., ---- - - - Univers i ty of' Chicago Press .

Thoreau, IIenry David, 1867 A Wzek On t h e Concord and Merrimaclc Rivers , Boston -------

Houghton K f f l i n and Co.

~ o c h , J ans , 1965 'i'he S o c i a l Psycholog 7 of S o c i a l Movements, - -

I n d i a n a p o l i s , hobbs-Merr i l l .

Turn, Yi-E'u, 1966 "blan and ~ a t u r e " , Landscape l 5 ( 3 ) : 30-36.

1968 " ~ i s c r e p a n c i e s Between Environmental A t t i t u d e s And Behavior: Examples From Europe and China", Canadian Geographer l 2 ( 3 ) : 13-22.

1975 "Thz T r x t m e n t o f t h e Environment i n I d e a l and ~ c t u a l i t y " , American S c i e n t i s t 5 8 ( 3 ) : 244-249.

Van Hise, Char les , 1910 The Conservat ion of Natura l Resources i n t h e United - --

S t a t e s , New York, Macmillan Co.

Vogt, Evon and E t h e l A l b e r t , 1966 People - of Rimlrock, Cambridge, Harvard Un ive r s i t y P re s s .

Wagner, P h i l i p , 19728, Environrnents ar,d Peoples , Englerzlood C l i f f s , P r e n t i c e -

H a l l .

1972b " C u l t u r a l Landscapes and Regions: Aspects of Comrnuni- c a t i o n " , I n Pa,ul Engl i sh and Robert Mayfield, eds . , Man, space , and Environment, pp. 55-68., New Yorli, O x f o ~ d Un ive r s i t y P re s s .

Walsh, W. H., 1958 - An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Philosophy o f H i s to ry , London, -- -

Hutchinson and Co.

Waterf i e l d , Donald, 1970 Con t inen ta l Waterboy, Toronto, Clarke, I rwin .

1973 l and Grab: One Xan Versus t h e Au tho r i t y , Toronto, -- Clarke, I rwin .

White, Lynn J r . , 1967 he His to r i ca l . Roots of Our Ecologic c r i s i s " , Sc ience

155(3767):1203-1207.

11 19'73 C o n t i n ~ . i n g t h e onv versa ti on", I n I a n Barbour, ed . , 7-7- Western l.!lan And Environmental & t h i c s , Reading, Mass., --

Addison-Kcsley Fub l i sh ing Co.

Wilson, James, 1973 Peoplc I n The Nay, Toyonto, Un ive r s i t y of Toronto P re s s . - - -

.am, Philanthropl!y Foundat i o n ,

And The 7-

Environment, Washington,

APPENDICES

Onomastic Notzs

L e t t e r by Alex Kobinson, A p r i l 1, 1931

The 1942 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Order o f Approval

The 1967 Agrzement between t h e C i ty of S s a t t l e and t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia

Threa t s t o t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park

The 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission hea r ings

APPENDIX A

ONOMASTTC NOTES

1. Terminology

Ross D a m was known as Ruby Dam, a f t e r Ruby Creek, be fo re

t h e dea th of J. D. Ross i n 1939. Ross Lake, d e s p i t e i t s name,

i s a r e s e r v o i r .

Unless o the rwi se c l e a r from i t s c o n t e x t , Washington r e f e r s

t o t h e S t a t e of Washington, not t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia.

S i m i l a r l y , Canada r e f e r s t o t h e count ry as a whole o r t h e

Fede ra l Government i n 0t tawa r a t h e r t h a n B r i t i s h Columbia o r

t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government i n V i c t o r i a i n p a r t i c u l a r . There i s

a c u r i o u s h a b i t on both s i d e s of t h e border t o perr e i v e a n

incongruency of s c a l e . That i s t o view t h e o t h e r count ry a s a,

count ry . For example, a c t i v i t i e s i n Vancouver o r V i c t o r i a a r e

spoken of a s a c t i v i t i e s of Canada o r by Canadians by t h e people

i n S e a t t l e i n s i t u a t i o n s when t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e people of

P o r t l a n d o r t h e government o f Oregon would not a p p r o p r i a t e l y

be c a l l e d American.

This s i t u a t i o n causes d ip loma t i c as w e l l a s semantic

d i f f i c u l t i e s . Witness t h e tes t imony be fo re t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o i n t Commission i n 1941.

M r . Meek ( c o n t r o l l e r , Dominion Water and Power Bureau, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa) : M r . Yoore ha,s s t a t e d , I t h i n k , t h a t an agreement had been made wi th t h e Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t t h e l e v e l s should no t excezd 1-72??

M r . Moore ( ~ e a t t l e C i t y ~ i g h t ) : Yes

M r . S t an l ey ( IJC Cornmissioner) : Yl unders tanding i s t h a t t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t a r e mentioned i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n were w i t h t h e prov ince of B r i t i s h Columbia. We d i scussed tha t m a t t e r a t t h e t ime, and I suggested, knowing t h a t t h e r e i s a dua l form o f government up t h e r e , t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e d e f i n i t e l y wi th what government, whether p r o v i n c i a l o r n a t i o n a l , t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s were made.

M r . Meek: Could you t e l l u s w i th what Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t acreement was reached?

M r . Moore: May I r e f e r t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a g a i n ? I have very l i t t l e t o o f f e r a long t h a t l i n e i n a d d i t i o n t o what i s inc luded i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.

M r . McWhorter ( IJC Commissioner) : Perhaps M r . Wilson cou-ld s t a t e whether o r not a formal agree- ment has been en t e red i n t o , and, i f so , wi th what Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s .

M r . Wil-son ( counse l f o r C i t y o f ~ e a t t l e ) : I t h i n k I unders tand t h e purpose of t h e ques t ion . I par- t i c i p a t e d i n p a r t of t h o s e -- t hey were wi th t h e p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . Perhaps i n t h a t s ta tement t h e word "Canadian" i s being understood. as r e f e r - r i n g t o t h e Dominion. I t h i n k t h e d i s c u s s i o n s between M r . Ross and M r . Glen Smith were w i th t h e p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s a t V i c t o r i a .

M r . Moore: I would a c c e p t t h a t c o r r e c t i o n .

A l l t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s had been wi th t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government.

This confus ion a l s o h i g h l i g h t s t h e ignorance of t h e l e g a l and

p o l i t i c a l p roces s i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . There

i s a g r e a t r e l u c t a n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e people i n S e a t t l e t o

d e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h B r i t i s h Columbian l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l s t r u c -

t u r e s . The converse i s a l s o t r u e . There appears t o be no l o g i -

c a l reason f o r t h i s d i f f i c u l t y .

11. Koss Dam/Skagi.t Valley

'lhe o n o r ~ a s t i c q u a i i t l e s of t h e Skzg i t Ei~:zr C Z ~ be conrusin.- U

m t , a t t h e same t ime , they can be r e v e a l i n g . The v a r i a t i o n rin

t h e name o f t h e bas i c i s s u e be ing d i scusszd he re , t h e High Ross

D a m o r t h e Skag i t Val ley, i s i n d i c a t i v e o f a b a s i c s h i f t i n

p l a c e d e f i n i t i o n a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l border . The e n t i r e i s s u e

i s always r e f e r r e d t o by Americans as t h e Ross Dam o r High Ross

Dam i s s u e . For example, t h e S e a t t l e Times e d i t o r i a l on

November 21, 1972 i s e n t i t l e d " ~ u i l d High Ross am" and a n a r t i -

c l e i n t h e S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r o f December 6, 1972 i s

e n t i t l e d , "B. C . Says Ross Dam Plan o u t . " The Ross Dam i s

a l r e a d y b u i l t , but t h e a d d i t i o n o f 122 .5 f e e t would c r e a t e t h e

High Ross D a m . References t o t h e Skag i t Val ley a r e r a r e ; bu t ,

t hey a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o problems r e l a t e d t o t h e upper Skag i t

Val ley of B r i t i s h Columbia.

Canadians, converse ly , conce ive t h e i s s u e as t h e SkagFt

Val ley problem. For example, t h e Vancouver Sun o f November -

16, 1973 spread a c r o s s t h e f r o n t page i n bold t y p e " ~ k a g i t Val ley

Pact S t i l l ~ a l ' i d . " The terms, Ross Dam o r more r a r e l y High Ross

Dam, aye used i n a g e n e r a l sense; it i s more u s u a l f o r a p a r t i -

c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Ross D a m t o mean t h e dam i t s e l f as a

p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e . An excep t ion t o t h i s r u l e appea r s i n t h e

B r i t i s h Columbia p r e s s from t ime t o t imc when they u s e news

s t o r i e s from American sources v i r t u a l l y verbat im from t h e w i r e

servrices of' Assoc ia ted P r e s s and United P re s s I n t e r n a t i o n a l .

The converse i s not t r u e i n t h e S e a t t l e prless. For ex.ample, t h e

Vancouver Province of November 16, 1973 s t a t e s " ~ o l i c ~ Council

Tables P l an t o Raise Ross D a m . " Th is d i f f e r e n c e i n terminoloey

is more t h a n a n a c c i d e n t of p o l i t i c a l geography. It u n d e r l i n e s

a number of fundamental conceptua l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e

canadian and American p a r t i e s t o t h e d i s p u t e .

111. Conservation/Environnent/Ecology

11 The term, conse rva t ion movement" i s used throughout t o

11 i d e n t i f y t h e contemporary s o c i a l movement. The term, environ-

mental movement" has gained wide use and favor dur ing t h e p a s t

f i v e y e a r s . It i s no l e s s meaningful and ambiguous t h a n t h e

former term. The usage h e r e i s p r i m a r i l y a ma t t e r o f pe r sona l

p re fe rence .

The term, I ' ecology movement" and i t s v a r i a t i o n s a r e no t a t

11 a l l a p p r o p r i a t e . While t h e term ecology" has gained a g r e a t

amount of popularity and common usage, it i s vulgar ism. "Ecology"

i s a s o l i d , p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c term. It has been s a i d t h a t

t e n y e a r s ago only b i o l o g i s t s knew what ecology meant; now,

everyone except t h e e c o l o g i s t s know what it means.

Usually ecology i s def ined as t h e s tudy of t h e r e l a - t i o n of organisms t o t h e i r environment, o r t h e s c i e n c e of t h e interrelations between l i v i n g organisms and t h e i r environment. Bec,ause ecology i s concerned e s p e c i a l l y w i th t h e b io logy o f groups of organisms and w i t h f u n c t i o n a l p roces ses on t h e l ands , i n t h e oc3ans and i n f r e s h wa te r s , it i s more i n keeping wi th t h e modern emphasis, t o d e f i n e ecology a s t h e s tudy of t h e s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n of n a t u r e ( i t being unders tood t h a t mankind i s a p a r t of n a t u r e ) . I n t h e long run t h e b e s t d e f i n i t i o n f o r a broad s u b j e c t f i e l d i s probably t h e s h o r t e s t and l e a s t t e c h n i c a l one, as, f o r example, " t h e s c l e n c e o f t h e

11 l i v i n g envi.ronment" , o r simply environmental b iology. I t

(Odum 1959: 4 )

Ecology has come t o mean t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of organisme

i n c l u d i n g man w i t h i n t h e environment. This i s I n i t s e l f meaning-

f u l . But the ecology movement, e c o l o g i c a l c r i s i s , and o t h e r such

v a r i a t i o n s a r e not meaningful o r l e g i t i m a t e . Ecology i s a con-

cep t and a methodology. It has no t been comprehended complete ly

1 I by t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . Most people u s e t h e word ecologyT1 v~hen

they ac tua l - ly mean t h e word "environment". Ecology i s not a

th ing ; it i s a process ; it cannot be a l t e r e d . Furthermore, t h e

no t ion of a n e c o l o g i c a l c r i s i s i s extremely mis leading. A s a

paradigm f o r environmental change, t h e process of e c o l o g i c a l

change may r e s u l t i n a disadvantageous p o s i t i o n f o r IIomo sap iens .

But, i f a c r i s i s r e s u l t s , it i s a c r i s i s f o r man g iven h i s

p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l norms. Ecology as a process o f change i s

n e u t r a l t o t h e c o s t o r b e n e f i t s of any g iven change f o r any

give!? n r g a ~ i c m . The c n n c e p t of' ec010- pe r S E , c=lnnot prev ide U'J' --

t h e neces sa ry i d e o l o g i c a l o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e conser-

v a t i o n movement.

11 The l o o s e u s e of t h e te rm ecology" i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of

t h e s loppy and o f t e n crude t h i n k i n g behind much o f t h e r e c e n t

a c t i v i t y i n t h i s a r e a . This l a c k o f d i s c i p l i n e and thought i s

one o f t h e g r e a t e s t i n t e r n a l t h r e a t s t o t h e v i a b i l i t y o f t h e

I I c onse rva t ion movement. The t e rm conserva t ion" i s used because

it does have f i r m h i s t o r i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l r o o t s . This does

not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t conse rva t ion i s e a s i l y de f ined o r a

Completely adequa te term. However, it i s t h e b e s t cormon l a b e l

i n u s e a t t h i s t ime. See, e . g . , Nash 1968. -

IV. P r e s e r v a t i o n i s t

?.!acy pnrconc use t h e . t e r m , "preservati on i st", when thi.7

11 w r i t e r u s e s t h e term, c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t " . This w r i t e r p r e f e r s

11 t o avo id t h e term because p r e s e r v a t i o n i s t " has been used o f t e n

i n a mocking and s l ande rous manner. A l a r g e number o f people

d e s i r e t o p r e s e r v e and t o p r o t e c t n a t u r a l a r e a s . Usually, i t i s

neces sa ry t o s t r i c t l y r e g u l a t e o r p r o h i b i t u se of t h e s e n a t u r a l

a r e a s by man and h i s economic e x p l o i t s on t h e land . Natura l

a r e a s , by d e f i n i t i o n , a r e no t n a t u r a l i f man's impact on t h e s e

a r e a s i s no t minimized. Charges t h a t persons who wish t o p re se rve

n a t u r a l a r e a s ; i. e . , t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n l s t s , a r e narrow minded, o r

misan thropic a r e sirnply not; true. But they a r e f a v o r i t e s of

t h o s e who u s e t h ? wise u s e d e f i n i t i o n of conse rva t ion as a p a r t

of t he i - r own management p o l i c i e s f o r t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e s e

same a r e a s .

APPENDIX B

I n a r e c e n t i s s u e of The Province t h e r e appeared a n a r t i c l e d e a l i n g wi th t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a dam on t h e Skag i t R ive r by t h e Ci ty o f S e a t t l e , and t h e conse- quent f l o o d i n g of a c o n s i d e r a b l e a r e a on t h e B r i t i s h Columbia s i d e of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary l i n e , which con ta ined s o many erroneous and mis lead ing s t a t e - ments t h a t I a m s u r e you w i l l welcome any in format ion t h a t w i l l g i v e you t h e f a c t s of t h e ca se . I am s a t i s - f i e d t h a t had you had knowledge of t h e s e f a c t s t h i s i t em a s worded, would no t have been publ i shed , nor would t h e Board o f Trade have been i n such h a s t e t o r e q u e s t t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government t o v e t o t h e scheme i n s o f a r as it a f f e c t e d l and i n B r i t i s h Columbia.

The work o f developing power on t h e Skag i t River i s a municipal p r o j e c t conducted by t h e c i t y o f S e a t t l e , and has been underway f o r y e a r s . Two dams have a l - ready been c o n s t r u c t e d and power gene ra t ed from one of t h e s e has been supp l i ed t o c l i e n t s i n S e a t t l e f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e t ime a t a f i g u r e t h a t i s a t h o r n i n t h e f l e s h of t h e b i g p r i v a t e power co rpo ra t ion .

The l o c a t i o n of t h e t h i r d dam i s a t t h e hea6 of' i he canyon on t h e Skag i t , nea r Ruby Creek and a s t h e v a l l e y northward from t h a t p o i n t i s of a very easy g r a d i e n t , it w i l l c r e a t e a r e s e r v o i r t h i r t y - f i v e mi l e s long, o r b e t t e r , c o n d i t i o n a l upon t h e c i t y be ing a b l e t o complete t h e arrangements w i th t h e B. C . Government, which have been under c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e prov inc i .a l department of l ands f o r two y e a r s o r more.

I n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s r e l a t i v e t o t h i s ma t t e r , t h e r e has been no secrecy , no underhand methods fol lowed, no p r i v a t e company forlned t o handle t h e scheme, nor i s t h e r e going t o be. , On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e h a s been a s t r a i g h t o f f e r t o buy t h e land a t t h e p r i c e p l aced upon it by t h e B. C . Government, pay what stumpage the government r e q u i r e s f o r t h e t imber , a s w e l l as t h e r o y a l t y , and pay f o r any p r i v a t e l y owned p ropnr ty and o t h e r improvements a t whatever f i g u r e may be agreed upon w i t h t h e owners.

The land was surveyed by p r o v i n c i a l l and surveyors (Hawkins and 11orte) o f Vancouver and pl-ans f i l e d w i t h the department a t V i c t o r i a , and it i s t h e s e t - t l e d pol-icy of t h e S e a t t l e C i t y power a u t h o r i t i e s t o

have a l l work on t h e B r i t i s h Columbia s i d e o f t h e l i n e done a b s o l u t e l y by Canadians.

The a r e a of t h e p r o j e c t e d purchase amounts t o 6350 a c r e s of which 5475 a c r e s w i l l be submerged when t h e dam i s f i n i s h e d . This w i l l extend some e i g h t mi l e s n o r t h from t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary l i n e , i n s t e a d of t h e twenty mi les which seems t o have worr ied t h e Board o f Trade s o much. Of t h e a r e a t o be submerged possi-bly 20 pe r cen t i s good l and , t h e balance i s t o - t a l l y w o r t h l e s s a s f a r a s a g r i c u l t u r e i s concerned, c o n s i s t i n g l a r g e l y of g r a v e l and boulders , and a s t h e r e i s n e i t h e r wagon road nor ra i lway , and no t l i k e l y t o be any, t h e r e i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e count ry amounting t o much f o r y e a r s t o come.

There i s , however, some good t imber i n smal l t r a c t s which might agg rega t e one hundred m i l l i o n f e e t o r more. This a long wi th t h r e e o r fou r hundred m i l l i o n f e e t on t h e American s i d e , ha s a l l t o be c u t and burned o r o the rwi se removed before t h e l and can be f looded . I n t h e hopes t h a t t h i s t imber , a l o n g wi th t h e l i m i t s on S i l v e r Creek, would be a t t r a c t i v e a s a logging proposi tLon, t h e w r i t e r i n con junc t ion v ~ i t h M r . James G a l b r a i t h of New Westminster , had a n engineer , M r . W. G . McElhaney o f Vancouver, make a ~rcliminzrg Tnvest ? g a t i on f o r a logging ra i lway . His r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t would be very l i g h t , and t h a t f a r from beimg " i s o l a t e d by

11 mountain cha ins , a s r e p r e s e n t e d , a n e x c e l l e n t p a s s i s a v a i l a b l e , w i t h g rades e a s i e r t h a n e x i s t on many logg ing r a i lways a t p r e s e n t i n d a i l y use .

I Inasmuch as t h e new road t o P r ince ton a t p r e s e n t under c o n s t r u c t i o n does no t reach t h e lower Skag i t by twenty mi l e s , u n l e s s a r a i lways i s cons t ruc t ed , n e i t h e r l and , t imber nor mine ra l s i s l i k e l y t o y i e l d any r e t u r n s f o r many y e a r s t o come; and it t h e r e f o r e seems good bus ines s t o embrace t h i s oppor tun i ty o f g e t t i n g something f o r i t . The c o s t o f t h e c l e a r i n g oT t h i s l and v i l l probably exceed a m i l l i o n and a q u a r t e r , t o say no th ing o f t h e stumpage, r o y a l t y and t h e c o s t of t h e land i t s e l f . Nor must we over look t h e annual r e n t a l . I n t h e agg rega t e t h i s p r o j e c t r e p r e s e n t s a sum o f money coming i n t o B r i t i s h Columbia t h a t should command r e s p e c t f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e s e t imes - and t h e r e i s t h i s a d d i t i o n a l f a c t worth n o t i n g - as t h i s l a k e w i l l be nav igab le . It w i l l p rov ide a r o u t e t o t h e ra i lway a t t h e dam f o r t h e shipment of pol-es, lumber and o r e and t h u s g i v e u s a chance t o develop t h a t lower Skag i t count ry . I n

a n u t s h e l l , t h ~ r e does not sezm t o be any v a l i d reason why t h e l a n d should not be sol-d, but very many sound reasons xhy it s h o ~ l d ;

I n conc lus ion , t h e r e i s one o t h e r f a c t t h a t t h e Vancouver Board of Trade might w e l l c o n s i d e r . The power p r o j e c t on t h e Skag i t i s a municipal under tak ing , designed t o g i v e t h e c i t i z e n s o f S e a t t l e C i t y Light and power a t reason- a b l e r a t e s . I n t h i s t h e y have t o f a c e t h e s t r o n g opposi- t i o n o f t h e power t r u s t of t h e United S t a t e s who, by u t i l i z i n g every dev ice t h a t w e l l pa id f e r t i l e minds can dev i se , a r e c e a s e l e s s l y endeavoring t o h inde r i t s com- p l e t i o n and d e s t r o y i t s ~ ~ s e f u l n e s s . The o p p o s i t i o n embraces a campaign o f propaganda t h a t i s more ingenious t h a n c red i tab l : , and which, among people u n f a m i l i a r wi th t h e c i rcumstances , may l e a d t o very wrong conc lus ions ; s o t h a t , be fo re adop t ing any a t t i t u d e , o r dec id ing upon any a c t i o n may a f f e c t t h i s e n t e r p r i s e adve r se ly , o r o therwise , it may be a d v i s a b l e t o i n v e s t i g a t e very close]-y t h e sources of any in format ion r e l a t i n g t o t h i s p r o j e c t t h a t may come be fo re t h e board f o r i t s cons ide ra - t i o n .

I I Source: Vancouvzr. - Province S k a g i t P r o j e c t ~ x p l a i n e d "

A p r i l 1, 1931, p. 6

I N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE C I T Y OF SEATTLE I'OR AUT1-1OKITY TO RAISE TIiE IJATEE LEmIJ OF THE SKAGIT RIVER APPROXIblATELY 130 FEET AT THE IIYTERISATIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEEfl THE UI!JI'IIED STATES AND CANADA.

ORDEI, OF APPROVAL

WHEREAS a n A p p l i c a t i o n of' t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e bea r ing t h e d a t e of Nay 26, 1941, was p re sen ted t o and f i l e d wi th t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on August 6, 1941., under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e T rea ty of January 11, 1909, between t h e United S t a t e s and Great S r i t a i n , f o r a u t h o r i t y t o r a i s e , by s t a g e s , t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l of t h e Skag i t River 130 f e e t , t o e l e v a t i o n 1725 f e e t above mean s e a l e v e l a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary, by p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n c r e a s i n g t h e h e i g h t of t h e Ross Dam on t h e Skag i t River i n Vha,tcom County, Washi-net on; and

WHEREAS t h e Skag i t River r i s e s i n B r i t i s h Colurnbia west of t h e Cascade Mountai-ns, and a f t e r -FT r,i.ii n m q n n - r n v i r n ~ f c ~ l T~ 29 r n i l n s thrnugh Rrit.%s?? r ~ u i u . L I I ~ ~ u,yyrL v ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ C.-LJ

Columbia c r o s s e s t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary i n t o t h e S t a t e of Washington, and a f t e r a f u r t h e r cou r se of 135 mi les , i n t h e S t a t e of Washington, d i s cha rges i n t o t h e P a c i f i c Ocean through t h e S t r a i t of Juan de Fuca; and i s a s t r eam c r o s s i n g t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary w i t h i n t h e meaning o f A r t i c l e I V of t h e T rea ty of January 11, 1909; and

WHEREAS f o r many y e a r s t h e Ci ty of S e a t t l e has been c o n s t r u c t i n g , o p e r a t i n g and main ta in ing a l a r g e water-power p r o j e c t on t h e Skag i t River , o f which t h e Ross Dam, l o c a t e d about 30 mi l e s downstream from t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary, arid t h e r e s e r v o i r c r e a t e d the reby , known as Ruby Lake, a r e e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s ; and

WHEREAS t h e s a i d Ross D a m has been c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e C i ty of Szatt1.e t o a n i n i t i a l o r i n t e r m e d i a t e h e i g h t s u f f i c i e n t t o impound water t o e l e v a t i o n 1'380 f e e t zbove mnan sea l e v e l , i n accordance wi th p l a n s approved by t h e Federa l Power Cormission of t h e United S t a t s s , which p l a n s c o n s t i t u t e a p a r t of t h e l i c e n s e a u t h o r i z e d hy t h a t Commission f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o p e r a t i o n , and maintenance of t h e s a i d

(1) The C i ty o f S e a t t l e s h a l l adequa te ly compensate t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, and any Canadian p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s t h a t may be a f f ec t ed , f o r any damage caused i n B r i t i s h Columbia a s t h e r e s u l t of any i n c r e a s e i n t h e n a t u r a l wate r l c v e l s of t h e Skagi t River a t and above the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary; provided t h a t t h e Ross Dam s h a l l n o t be r a i s e d beyond t h e h e i g h t a t which t h e wate r impounded by it would reach B r i t i s h Columbia u n l e s s and u n t i l a b ind ing agreement

water-power p r o j e c t ; and t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e proposes i n i t s App l i ca t ion t o r a i s e t h e dam by s t a g e s t o an u l t i m a t e l i ~ i b i i t s i- iff icicnt t o impound r ; a t ~ r t o e l e v a t i o n 1725 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l , s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Fede ra l Power Cornmission; and

WHEREAS, a f ' t e r due n o t i c e t o a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s and Canada, t h e s a i d App l i ca t ion cam? on f o r h e a r i n g i n t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e i n t h e S t a t e of Washington on September 12, 1941, when evidence was adduced by i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s , and a l l such p a r t i e s d e s i r i n g t o be heard were f u l l y heard; and

WHEREAS it appea r s t h a t t h e r a i s i n g of t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary by 130 f e e t would r e s u l t i n t h e f l o o d i n g of approximately 5475 a c r e s of l and i n t h e Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada, t h e t i t l e t o approximately 4835 a c r e s t h e r e o f being h e l d by t h e s a i d Province; and

WHEREAS o f f i c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia appeared bef'ore t h e Commission a t t h e aforement ioned S e a t t l e h e a r i n g and s t a t e d t h a t t h e Province would i n t e r p o s e no o b j e c t i o n t o approva l of t h e A p p l i c a t i o n by t h e Cornmission, provided

1 1 the Commission s n a i l r e q u i r e m e Ci ty of S e s t t l z reasonably and a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o compensat e t h e Province, and any o t h e r Canadian i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d , f o r such damage t o l a n d s i n Canada as may r e s u l t from t h e r a i s i n g of t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l of t h e S k a g i t River a t and above t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary.

NOW THEREFORE THIS COMMISSION DOTII ORDER AND DIRECT t h a t t h e s a i d App l i ca t ion o f t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e f o r a u t h o r i t y t o r a i s e , by s t a g e s , t h e n a t u r a l water l e v e l o f t h e Skag i t River a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary t o e l e v a t i o n 1725 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l , be approved and it i s hereby approved, s u b j e c t t o t h e fo l lowing c o n d i t i o n s :

h a s been e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e and the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia

folq i ndcan i fy lng E r i t i s h Columbia 2nd p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia f o r any i n j u r y t h a t may be s u s t a i n e d by r ea son o f t h e C i t y r s o p e r a t i o n s on t h e Skag i t River .

( 2 ) The Commission e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e s i t s powers under t h e a f o r e s a i d T rea ty f u r t h e r t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over e f f e c t s on the n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l s a t and above t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary, and t o amend t h i s Order o r i s s u e a d d i t i o n a l Orders f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and indemni f i ca t ion of t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, o r any a f f e c t e d p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n Canada, t h a t may be found by t h e Commission t o have s u s t a i n e d damage by reason o f any v i o l a t i o n of t h e terms of t h i s Order; provided, t h a t any such f u r t h e r Order s h a l l be i s s u e d on ly a f t e r t h e Commission s h a l l have r ece ived and cons idered a formal App l i ca t ion f i l e d by t h e aggr ieved p a r t y i n accordance wi th t h e Commissionr s Rules of Praocedure, and a f t e r due n o t i c e has been g iven and oppor tun i ty oI' h e a r i n g a f f o r d e d t o a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s and Canada.

( 3 ) The Commission s h a l l appo in t a n Engineer ing Eoard, t o be lcnown a s t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Skag i t River Board of Cor iLl .o i , Lo cunslet of t ; i o nzab.zrs , one t o be dravin from t h e engineer ing s e r v i c e s of t h e United S t a t e s and t h e o t h e r from t h e eng inee r ing s e r v i c e s o f Canada. It s h a l l be t h e duty o f t h e Board t o a c t as t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s t o t h e Commission and t o make such t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t s w i th r e s p e c t t o t h i s rnatter as t h e Commission may r e q u i r e .

Dated a t t h e C i ty o f Montreal t h i s twenty-seventh day of January, 1942.

A . 0. S t an l ey

Char les Stewart

Roger B. McWhorter

APPENDIX D

THIS AGRE~~~EII?' made t h i s 1 0 t h day of January A.D . ~96~(

Betw een:

HER PNJESTY THE QUEEN I N RIGHT O F THE PROVINCE O F BRITISH COLIJMHIA ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d t h e I I ~ r o v i n c e " ) , as r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n by t h e M i n i s t e r of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources f o r t h e s a i d Province

OF THE FIRST PART

AND

THE C I T Y OF SEATTLE, a Municipal Corpora t ion of t h e S t a t e of Nashington, one of t h e United S t a t e s of America ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d t h e ' I c i t y " )

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS t h e C i ty made formal a p p l i c a t i o n da ted iWdy 26th) 1941, t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission f o r a u t h o r i t y t o r a i s e t h z n a t u r a l water l e v e l of t h e Skag i t River , being a r i v e r f lowing a c r o s s t h e boundary between Canada and t h e United S t a t e s , t o e l e v a t i o n 1725 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary :

AND XHEREAS such r a i s i n g o f t h e r i v e r l e v e l w i l l f l ood 6350 a c r e s , more o r l e s s , of l and w i t h i n t h e Province, of which 5710 a c r e s , more o r l e s s , a r e ves t ed i n t h e Crown i n r i g h t o f t h e Province:

AND WHEREAS a f t e r , publ.ic h e a r i n g s t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission by Order da ted January 27th , 194-2, approved t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e C i t y s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l - lowing c o n d i t i o n s i n t e r a l i a :

I l n l h e C i ty of S e a t t l e s h a l l adequa te ly compensate t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and any Canadian p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s t h a t may be a f f e c t e d , f o r any damage caused i n B r i t i s h Columbia a s t h e r e s u l t , of any i n c r e a s e i n t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l s of' t h e Skag i t River a t and above t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary; provided t h a t t h e Ross D a m s h a l l no t be r a i s e d beyond t h e h e i g h t a t which t h e wate r impounded by it would reach B r i t i s h Columbia

u n l e s s and u n t i l a b lnd ing agreement has been e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e and thn Govern!nent, of B r i t i s h Columbia prov id ing f o r indemnifying B r i t i s h Columbia and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia f o r any i n j u r y t h a t may be s u s t a i n e d by r ea son o f t h e C i t y ' s o p e r z t i o n s on t h e Skag i t River .

I I The Conlmission exp res s ly r e s e r v e s i t s powers under t h e a f o r e s a i d T rea ty f u r t h e r t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over e f f e c t s on t h e n a t u r a l wate r l e v e l s a t and above t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary, and t o amend t h i s Order o r i s s u e a d d i t i o n a l Orders f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and indemni f i ca t ion o f t h e Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, o r any a f f e c t e d p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n Canada, t h a t may be found by t h e Commission t o have sus- t a i n e d damage by r ea son of any v i o l a t i o n of t h e terms o f t h i s Order; provided, t h a t any such f u r t h e r Order s h a l l be i s s u e d only a f t e r t h e Cornniission s h a l l have r ece ived and con- s i d e r e d a formal A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e d by t h e aggr ieved p a r t y i n accordance With t h e Com- mis s ion l s Rules of Procedure, and a f t e r due n o t i c e has been g iven and oppor tun i ty of h e a r i n g a f f o r d e d t o a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s and Canada. I I

11 AND WHEREAS t h e " ~ k a g i t Val ley Lands Act, be ing Chapter 81 o f t h e S t a t u t e s o f S r i t i s h Columbia, 1947, a u t h o r i z e d t h e f l o o d i n g of Lot 1103, Yale D i s t r i c t , being p a r t of t h e l a n d s covered by t h i s agreement, s u b j e c t t o such c o n d i t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s a s may be decided by t h e Lieutenant-Governor i n Council and s u b j e c t t o payment by t h e C i t y t o t h e Province of such sum o f money a s compensation f o r damages, as may be agreed upon, between t h e C i t y and t h e Lieu tenant Governor i n Council:

AND WHEREAS n e g o t i a t i o n s have been conducted between t h e Province and t h e C i t y t o a r r i v e a t mutual- l y s a t i s f a c t o r y terms cove r ing t h e f l ood ing and com- p e n s a t i o n t h e r e f o r , whether i n cash, r e n t a l payments, d e l i v e r e d e l e c t r i c a l energy, combination t h e r e o f , o r o therwise :

ANE WHEREAS it h a s been agreed between t h e Province and t h e Ci ty t o execute t h i s agreement t o a l low f lood ing o f t h e l a n d s t o t h e e x t e n t and f o r a p e r i o d h e r e i n a f t e r mentioned, pursuant t o t h e Order of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Conmission a f o r e s a i d ,

I1 t h e Skag i t Val ley Lands Act," t h e " Iand Act" and a l l o t h e r powers of t h e Province t h e r e u n t o enabl ing:

AND WHEREAS t h i s agreement has been a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Lieutenant-Governor i n Council under Order No. 103 approved t h e 10 th day o f January, 1967, and by t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e under Ordinance No. 95451, approved t h e 1 1 t h day of January, 1967.

THlS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH t h a t i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r s he re inbe fo re r e c i t e d and h e r e i n a f t e r provided f o r , t h e Province, s u b J e c t t o t h e r i g h t s o f h o l d e r s of any p r i o r t e n u r e s , does hereby permit and a l low t h e C i ty t o f l ood f o r a p e r i o d of n ine ty -n ine y e a r s from t h e d a t e of t h i s agreement, t h o s e vacant and u n a l i e n a t e d p o r t i o n s o f t h e Skag i t River watershed i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h i n o r wi thout t h e boundar ies o f Lot 1103, Yale D iv i s ion of Yale D i s t r i c t , up t o e l e v a t i o n 1725 f e e t , North American Datum (1927) as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Geodetic Survey of Canada, and, i n a d d i t i o n such added vacant and u n a l i e n a t e d Crown Lands up t o e l e v a t i o n 1-740 f e e t , North American Datum (1927) a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h z Geodetic Survey of Canada, a s t h e Province may c o n s i d e r neces sa ry t o p r o p e r l y con- t a i n t h e r e s e r v o i r , having i n mind p o s s i b l e l and ero- s i o n a s a r e s u l t , o f wave, i c e o r o t h e r Yactors in - h e r e n t i n e,cta'nlishment of' t h e r e s e r v o i r .

THE C I T Y AGREES t o pay t o t h e Province as com- pensa t ion f o r damages and i n l i e u of any o t h e r r e n t a l s and charges except t h o s e ag reed h e r e i n t o be pa id , a n annua l r e n t a l based on t h e schedule of r e n t a l s cur - r e n t l y i n e f f e c t under t h e Kegula t ion and T a r i f f of Fees, R e n t a l s and Charges under t h e "Water ~ c t " a s made by Order-in-Council No. 2771, approved on t h e 5 t h day of December, 1960, and amended by Order-in- Council No. 277, approved on t h e 1st day of February, 1962, f o r s t o r a g e of wate r f o r power purposes and, i n t h i s r e s p e c t , t h e s a i d annua l r e n t a l payment has been e s t a b l i s h e d and s h a l l be T h i r t y - f o u r Thousand F ive Hundred and S i x t y - s i x D o l l a r s and Twenty-one Cents ($34,566.21) which sum s h a l l be p a i d by t h e Ci ty i n United S t a t e s cu-rrency w i t h t h e T i r s t payment of such sum made on t h e d a t e of t h i s agreement and t h e r e a f t e r y e a r l y and every yea r on o r be fo re t h e a n n i v e r s a r y d a t e of t h i s a g r e e m ~ n t ; provided, however, t h a t t h e Province may by n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g mailed by p repa id r e g i s t e r e d p o s t addressed t o t h c C i ty one y e a r i n advance t a k e any such annua l r e n t a l payment, payments o r p o r t i o n s t h e r e o f i n t h e form of e l e c t r i c a l energy valued a t 3 .75 m i l l s ( ba sed on United S t a t e s cu r r ency ) p e r k i l o w a t t hour supp l i ed a t a n annual load f a c t o r

of no t l e s s t h a n s i x t y - f i v e pe rcen t and d e l i v e r e d a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary a t no c o s t t o t h e Province over t h e n e x i s t i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s as agreed upon between t h e Province and t h e C i ty .

THE C I T Y AGREES a t i t s own expense t o have de- l i n e a t e d upon t h e ground, by survey c a r r i e d ou t under i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c e r of t h e Province, t h e boundar ies of t h e Crown l a n d s as from t ime t o t ime and a s f i n a l l y determined by t h e Province as necessary t o p r o p e r l y c o n t a i n t h e r e s e r v o i r as h e r e t o f o r e r e c i t e d .

THE C I T ' Y AGHEES t o pay a l l t a x e s l e v i e d by o r under au - tho r i t y of t h e Province upon t h e l ands covered by t h i s agreement, and any improvements thereon , pro- v ided t h a t t h e C i t y s h a l l no t be s u b j e c t t o f o r e s t pro- t e c t i o n t a x .

THE CITY AGREES t h a t , u n t i l such t i m s as i t d e s i r e s t o c a r r y ou t f l o o d i n g o f any t imbered a r e a , ownership of t h e t imber on such a r e a s h a l l remain i n t h e Crown i n r i g h t of t h e Province and t h e Province s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o make s a l e s of such t imber from time t o t ime i n accordance

I I w i th t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e F o r e s t ~ c t " provided t h a t t o f a c i l i t a t e r e s e r v o i r development by t h e C i t y a s and when r e q u i r e d such s a l e s s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o c a n c e l l a t i o n on s i x months n o t i c e being g iven by t h e Province t o t h e t imber s a l e l i c e n c e e . A s and when t h e C i t y determines t o f l o o d t h e whole o r any p o r t i o n o f t h e a r e a and any t h e n e x i s t i n g t imber s a l e s h a v ~ been duly t e rmina t ed t h e r e s h a l l be due and payable by t h e C i t y t o t h e Province as determined by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e o f f i c e r o f t h e Province stumpage va lue and s t a t u t o r y r o y a l t y as of t h a t d a t e i n r e s p e c t t o any mature t imber and a va lue p e r a c r e i n r e s p e c t of any immature t imber t h e n remaining on t h e a r e a . Volume of mature t imber and ac reage of immature t imber s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d by j o i n t i n s p e c t i o n conducted by t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s agreement.

THE C I T Y AGREES, b e f o r e e x e r c i s i n g i t s r i g h t t o f l ood t h e a r e a o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f t o r e p l a c e a t no c o s t t o t h e Province t h e a c c e s s road e s t a b l i s h e d by n o t i c e a t t h e M i n i s t e r o f Highways, da ted January 9 t h ) 1961, and. appea r ing i n B r i t i s h Columbia Gaze t te o f Janua,ry 26 th ) 1961, a t pages 151 and 152 and pre - s e n t l y s i t u a t 2 w i t h i n t h e a r e a proposed f o r f l ood ing , w i t h ano the r road, i n c l u d i n g any necessary b r idges , running above t h e f l o o d l i n e f o r t h e f u l l l e n g t h of t h e r e s e r v o i r w i t h i n t h e Province, such o t h e r road t o be i n a l o c a t j o n , c o n s t r u c t e d t o s t anda rds no t lower t h a n t h o s e o f the road be ing r ep l aced , and surveyed, al.1 t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e Province. I f any por-

t i o n o f t h e road t o be re l -oca ted r e q u i r e s t o be b u i l t over Crown l ands t h e Province w i l l a t no c o s t t o t h e C i t y make ava i l - ab l e such l a n d s a s may be necessary f o r t h e right-01'-way, pr-ovided t h a t t h e Ci ty w i l l pay stumpage and s t a t u t o r y r o y a l t y i n accordance wi th t h e

I I p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Fo res t ~ c t " i n r e s p e c t t o any t imber t he reon . I f any p o r t i o n of t h e road t o be r e l o c a t e d r e q u i r e s t o be b u i l t on l a n d s t hen a l i e n a t e d from t h e Crown, t h e Province, upon t h e r e q u e s t of t h e C i ty , w i l l e x e r c i s e such of i t s r i g h t s o f e x p r o p r i a t i o n as may be necessary , provided t h a t t h z c o s t t h e r e o f and t h e c o s t s of a c q u i s i t i o n of such l ands t o g e t h e r wi th s t a t u t o r y r o y a l t y as a f o r e s a i d s h a l l be borne by t h e C i ty .

THE C I T Y AGREES t h a t a t i t s own expense and p r i o r t o f l o o d i n g any p o r t i o n of t h e a r e a covered by t h i s agreement such a r e a w i l l be c l e a r e d of a l l f o r e s t growth and d e b r i s i n a manner and t o a n e x t e n t as d i - r e c t e d by t h e Province.

THE C I T Y AGREES t h a t a l l l abour employed by o r on i t s beha l f i n connec t ion w i t h g e n e r a l development of t h e r e s e r v o i r , i nc lud ing t h e c l e a r i n g , t h e f l o o d i n g and t h e d i s p o s a l of d e b r i s w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia, s h a l l be r e s t r i c t e d t o r e s i d e n t s o f t h e Province.

TIIE PROVINCE AGREES t h a t , du r ing t h e term of t h i s agreement, it w i l l not d i v e r t any wate r o f t h e Skag i t River from i t s n a t u r a l channel f o r any u s e o t h e r Lila11

consunpt ive u se w i t h i n t h e watershed of t h a t r i v e r , such consumptive u s e t o i n c l u d e use of water f o r do- mes t ic , municipal , s tock-water , i r r i g a t i o n , mining o r i n d u s t r i a l purposes but does not i nc lude u s e f o r t h e g e n e r a t i o n of h y d r o e l e c t r i c power.

THE PROVINCE AGREES t o permit t h e C i t y du r ing t h e term of t h i s agreement t o d i spose of w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia accumulated d e b r i s r e s u l t i n g from t h e f lood- i n g a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s agreement o r o therwise , pro- v ided t h a t any such d i s p o s a l s h a l l be c a r r i e d o u t i n

I! accordance wi th p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Fo res t Act" and r e g u l a t i o n s made pursuant t h e r e t o , a l l t o t h e spec i - f i c a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Fo res t Se rv i ce .

THE CITY AGREES a t i t s own expense ( a ) t o main- t a i n a c l e a r i n g crew a s r e q u i r s d t o r e g u l a r l y d i s - pose of by burning o r o the rwi se a l l d e b r i s c o l l e c t i n g i n Ross I ake and depos i ted w i t h i n t h e f l ood ing a r m i n B r i t i s h Columbia; ( b ) t o e s t a b l i s h and main ta in f i r e guards by such c l e a r i n g crew; ( c ) t o p rov ide and main ta in f i r e suppress ion equipment a t a l l t imes t o t h e

s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Fo res t S e r v i c e and t o under take i n i t i a l f o r e s t f i r e suppress ion a c t i o n i n t h e a r e a covered by t h i s agreement.

TIIE CITY AGREES t o indemnify and save harmless t h e Province from and a g a i n s t a l l a c t i o n s , c la ims and damages whatsoever t h a t may be brought o r made a g a i n s t t h e Province by reason o f any th ing done o r omi t ted t o be don? by t h e C i ty , i t s s e r v a n t s , work- men o r a g e n t s , i n t h e e x e r c i s e , o r purpor ted exer- c i s e , of t h e r i g h t s , powers and p r i v i l e g e s con fe r r ed by t h e Province under t h i s agreement o r anyway a r i s i n g o u t of o r connected wi th t h e e x e r c i s e , o r purpor ted e x e r c i s e , of t h e r i g h t s , powers and p r i - v i l e g e s so con fe r r ed .

THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE t h a t t h e Province r e s e r v e s f o r i t s e l f arid f o r any person o r persons du ly , a u t h o r i z e d i n i t s beha l f i t s f u l l r i g h t o f a c c e s s t o both l and and wate r i n t h e a r e a covered by t h i s agreement and t h e r i g h t of e n t r y thereupon and t o t h e u s s and o ~ c u p a ~ t i o n t h e r e o f i n any manner not i n c o n s i s t e n t wi th t h e purpose f o r which t h e C i t y r e q u l r e s t h e a r e a covered by t h i s agreement.

IT IS FURTHER MUTUALLY AGREED by t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t i n ca se of any d i s p u t e , d i f f e r e n c e o r q u e s t i o n a r i s i n g a s t o any ma t t e r o r t h i n g con- nec ted w i t h t h i s agreenzent o r t h e i e r ~ n s 01 t h e agreement o r t o any o t h e r ma t t e r no t s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l t wi th h e r e i n , such d i s p u t e , d i f f e r e n c e o r q u e s t i o n s h a l l be j o i n t l y r e f e r r e d by t h e s a i d p a r t i e s t o a Board of Arhj . t . rat ion whose d e c i s i o n i n a l l m a t t e r s s o r e f e r r e d s h a l l be f i n a l and bind- i n g on t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . Any such Board of Arbi- t r a t i o n s h a l l be comprised of one a r b i t r a t o r appo in t ed ,by each of t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o and a t h i r d , who s h a l l be chairf ian, t o be appoin ted by such two a r b i t r a t o r s .

I N WITNESS WHE3.EOP t h e s e p r e s e n t s have been executed by t h e Honourable Ray W i l l i s t o n , M i n i s t e r of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources, on beha l f of' t h e Province, being duly a u t h o r i z e d so t o do by Order of t h e Lie~i tenant-Governor i n Council a f o r e - s a i d , and by t h e C i ty a i ' f ix lng i t s c o r p o r a t e s e a l t h e r e t o by t h e hands of i t s p roper o f f i c e r s i n t h a t beha l f , being duly a u t h o r i z e d so t o do by Municipal Ordinance a s a f o r e s a i d of' t h e s a i d Cl ty .

t h e

A t t e s t

p resence

C i t y Comptroller

Ray Wi l l - i s ton ~ i n i s t - e r of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources

On beha l f of t h e C i ty of S e a t t l e

OF SEATTLE

By J. Braman - Mayor

APPENDIX E

'rhre=l,t s to t h e Nol-t.)? Cascades National Park

1, " ~ h r e a t t o cascades" , L e t t e r by Grant McConnell, J u l y 20, 1969

To t h e Ed i to r :

Less t han

s igned t h e a c t

our g r e a t e s t .

a ca l enda r y e a r has passed s i n c e t h e P re s iden t

c r e a t i n g t h e North Cascades Nat iona l Park, perhaps

Nevert ,heless, t h i s superb pa rk i s a l r e a d y being

th rea . tened wi th d i s a s t e r by t h e proposed b u i l d i n g of an a d d i t i o n -

125 f e e t added t o t h e Ross Dam- t h a t w i l l d e s t roy one of t h e

f i n e s t p a r t s o f t h e park. S e a t t l e C i t y Light and Power i s now

p r e s s i n g p l a n s f o r t h i s a d d i t i o n and may w e l l succeed i n g e t t i n g

a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n u n l e s s t h o s e c i t i z e n s throughout

t h e n z t i c n vhc brcught ahout the c rea - t i on o f the park v igo rous ly

p r o t e s t t h i s new t h r e a t .

The proposed a d d i t i o n t o t h e Ross Dam w i l l i nunda te t h e

Big Beaver Val ley f o r approximately s i x mi les . This v a l l e y

i s t h e prime r o u t e o f a c c e s s t o t h e P i cke t Range, one o f t h e

major c l imaxes o f t h e North Cascades and one o f t h e g r e a t

a l p i n e r eg ions of t h e United S t a t e s . Moreover, t h i s v a l l e y

con ta ins t h e f i n e s t f o r e s t and t h e l a r g e s t t r e e s of t h e park.

!I It i s one o f few a r e a s i n t h e p a r k p rov id ing t h e v i t a l l i v i n g

space" f o r t h e g r e a t e s t number of v i s i t o r s .

The p rospec t ive economic benf t f i t s from t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

a r e p l a i n l y marginal . What i s provided i s p r i m a r i l y a 6

Pe r c e n t a d d i t i o n t o t h e peaking power r e sou rces of t h e u t i l i t y .

212.

The a d d i t i o n a l f i r m power w i l l be small. The new amount of

pown?-- provtdnd wi 11 not make a s i g n i f i c a n t - c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e

gene ra l power r e sou rces and, i n any event , w i l l s h o r t l y have to

be supplemented by thermal and, l a t e r , by nuc l ea r power. These

b e n e f i t s , moreover, w i l l a cc rue t o only one a r e a o f n a t i o n ,

wh i l e t h e c o s t s w i l l have t o be borne by t h e n a t i o n .

It i s a t e r r i b l e i rony t h a t no t much more t h a n a g e n e r a t i o n

a f t e r San F ranc i sco f o r c e d through t h e i nvas ion o f one o f t h e

g r e a t scenes o f ano the r park, Yosemite, by t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e

Hetch Hetchy Dam and t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f i t s once superb v a l l e y ,

t h e p u b l i c l y owned u t i l i t y of S e a t t l e i s d r i v i n g ahead wi th a

similar p l a n f o r d e s t r u c t i o n i n our newest n a t i o n a l park .

1 t Sou.rce: The New York Times L e t t e r t o E d i t o r , Threa t t o Cascades", August 10, S e c t i o n 4 , p. 11.

Eare ly a yea r and a h a l f ago, Congress e s t a b l i s h e d t h e

North Cascades Nat iona l Park i n n o r t h e r n Washington S t a t e .

Because of p r e s s u r e s from S e a t t l e C i t y Ligh t , s e v e r a l s c e n i c

w i l d e r n e s s v a l l e y s were l e f t ou t o f t h e park. Now t h e motiva-

t i o n of' t h i s compromise has become c l e a r .

The u t i l i t y i s pushing f o r approva l of a $45 m i l l i o n scheme

t o r a i s e t h e l e v e l of i t s e x i s t i n g Ross Dam by ano the r 125 f e e t .

I f approved, t h e enlarged r e s e r v o i r would f l ood a t l e a s t 20,000

a c r e s of t h e new Ross Lake Nat iona l Rec rea t ion Area - d e s t r o y i n g

some o f t h e f i n e s t Skag i t Val ley ~ c e n e r y , as w e l l a s many o f

unspo5led s t reams , s h o r e l i n e t r a i l s and t h e b e s t a r e a s f o r boat

camping. The p r o j e c t would inunda te w i ld f o r e s t s i n t h e lower

Ruby Creek v a l l e y , w'ilicil l e a d s - - - - up ln te t h e sou the rn u n l t cf

t h e n a t i o n a l park, and would a c t u a l l y f l ood i n t o t h e pa rk i t s e l f .

Worst of a l l , t h e r e s e r v o i r would wipe ou t 80 pe r c e n t o f t h e

n a t i o n ' s f i n e s t remaining s t a n d of pr imeval Western r ed cedar ,

s i t u a t e d i n lower Big Beaver Val ley. B i o l o g i s t s o f both t h e

U. S. F o r e s t Se rv i ce and t h e Soc ie ty of American F o r e s t e r s con-

s i d e r t h i s f o r e s t of utmost s c i e n t i f i c va lue .

Canadians have jo ined i n opposing t h e a d d i t i o n t o Ross Dam.

The r e s z r v o i r , which a l r e a d y backs i n t o B r i t i s h Columbia, would

f l o o d 6,000 a c r e s of' v a l u a b l e r e c r e a t i o n a l l and a l o n g t h e

Skag i t River- wiping ou t more b e a u t i f u l f o r e s t s and w i l d l i f e

h a b i t a t .

214.

This p lan , t o g e t h e r wi th a r e l a t e d proposa l , would t a k e

c a r e o f S e a t t l e ' s growing power needs f o r on ly two o r t h r e e

! a d d i t i o n a l y e a r s . A f t e r t h a t longer-range sou rces of power L *

. would have t o be developed e lsewhere .

4 The newly e l e c t e d members o f S e a t t l e ' s C i ty Council can

b e s t s e r v e t h e i r community and t h e e n t i r e Northwest by v o t i n g

: down t h e s e stop-gap p l ans t h a t would s o n e e d l e s s l y d e s t r o y

r e c r e a t i o n a l , s c e n i c and s c i e n t i f i c va lues . Congress ought

t h e n add t h e v a l l e y s t o t h s n a t i o n a l p a r k a s was o r i g i n a l l y

urged.

1 1 Source: The New York Times, North Cascades Dam ~ h r e a t " , February 23, 1970, ~ e c m 4 , p. 10.

Do You Want THIS 11 I I11 Your Brand-New National

Park And Recreation Area?

Tcrc's a hat \\!I1 11:lppi.n 1 , ,\" c < ~ , ~ > L A , pdr.,,l,%c ,n ,tX 13,: I<<A\<, \ d l < ! m l " &

n~ h . i % ~ r dm>.. piwd\ ni.$r.hc\ rnd lhi. wdc \.,rir.I! e l ).I.<n! md ~mrn.81 Ihk !ha, NI'! .,n cn\~ronmcnt lhk ,h~ \ ~ u p p w l u ~ l l bc dt<wnr.J

2 1 0 1 ,I><, " . , , , < > : I . Id4 I ,r;c S,<>\L 01 \ b C . l ~ ~ \ I l led ' t d . 8 n

,omc c.~m.twd hc w.cr l . ~ l ~ l ~ l !:dnvld SO', w l l I>< ~ w n d ntu rnllc* cf h t u s ~ ; l ~ ~ n r . r r ~ 1 m u d 11~1, c i c n ~ h w $ l i 11 I, ~ o o - , ~d t r cd 1~1 hi. h! lhr t , , l w r \ $ trlur. f~ rc.?.kr,h h! r rdog4. o l he Smwl) t > f h w r ~ ~ . m 1 ,xe.kr, .md L \ I mm1 \ c r m c

3 ) A l l )our ,hurr.iini. r r d ~ . .tnJ nlu.11 13' !,wr I L r p t Lrinp- :round on Kor\ I .d r. ubil hr. p n c

4 ) ' dh uf 1rc;-ll~h.ng liclul \tir.rnir 4111 tw cone 5 ) And rhcn I! ur l l h t~nic for ( I , ! L~yhr I<, do v l i i r thmg

.hr anju,) \\ h! don't i h q Jo I! rtghl !he tir*, l t ~ n e ' ( 11) Ltght >a!$ IIWAC bwn p!anwn: cw m A c KCM Dm,

mghcr e\cr rmir I Q l k . and h.t~r. Inonc! cn>e~rcd m I, a l r cd ) l lu t uc. uuu ld l l h r to p o ~ n , uut ha^ thrrc ha \? hcrn w m r :h.nge\ q l n ~ c 191 Y ' o m s h.,d one, ~ n d mmi. good o x \ - uhch all of ui. pari~cul*rl) Clr! L~gh t , ought l o tale ma) ICC"UI,t.

NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK

On the brd \I&. ur h ~ \ r far Ie's of our narurrl ur.klth left to rqusrrdrr I11.m u e hdd In I 9 I 8 I 1 r l lnw ue ucrr y \ m ; at Ira\l a, much thou~h t tv Li.cp~ng rhi. Pugrl Suund arcr lhc umtdcr- full) r t l r a c l w p1.1~r 11 15. ar nc p ~ \ c to pl.!onmf for lhc g r w l h I 1 .lllr.tCth

On the g w d uJu. ~ h r w .uc m c t h d r of ynl . rmng pcwcr .#ni l of lnrnaglnf 11, urr. lhal d1Jn.1 i.\irr in 1918 \lr.O~od\ that mrlr furthcr r.t\.t:lngvfuur ~rrcpl rcc.~hlr P ~ t u ~ a l e n \ ~ r m m r r ~ t unnc,c.\rr) I leluu. ur. ~OLTIIIL. W ~ C of I ~ C W ~ m c l h ~ d ~ , \ w w cotnh~nal>on of uhich nr r d d Ihii. ro w e ( 11) 11:llr tn\r . \ t l-

patr, rulhcm 1h.m tr!lr>g 1,s hul ld~vr . rhc.td u ~ h thr.lrdr.,~rurt~\c. crpcnwe. mL). dnd in rn) r.\cn! ~n.dcqu.~lc p1.m l u i I l igh Ross I>.tm.

ARcr all. r h r l clthtr rorpnratuc ur gwernrncnl ; ~ g c n ~ ) would drcrm of b w n o ~t,fulurc c,i*.r&kmion plan\ made nwrc than hft) j c d n ago''

A CLW OF T l i t ALTEK'i\'TI\ 1-S T O A Hl(i1ll.R KO\ \ b \ M

I n w . 4 ol spl.niling 5 15 r n d l ~ m ,,n I(~N I h i n m d lhrn II.I,- mp. I n Ih*A 1c.r furllicr wiirrrr u>!lun tutr o r thrci. \ ear \ .rfcri r omp lc l~m. hcrc 4,. \~,rnc v l rhr !IIII>~ ( 11) I ~ g h l u # ! l 11.111. 1 0

I h""' . ,,, 5 < \

I , t i \lac 1," I

;.------------------.I \o 5 I

APPENDIX F

The 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Hearings

I. SUMMARY O F SURMISSIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL J O I N T COWIISSION, 1971.

The s a l i e n t poi-nts i n t h e submissions pu t f o r t h by Counsel and c o n s u l t a n t s f o r t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e as w e l l as t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who supported r a i s i n g Ross D a m a r e summarized and paraphrased i n t h e fo l lowing para- graphs :

Ross Lake i s w i t h i n 2 1 / 2 hours d r i v i n g range of 4 m i l l i o n people i n t h e Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e S e a t t l e Met ropol i t an a.rea. It i s a mul t i -purpose r e s e r v o i r ope ra t ed f o r power, r e c r e a t i o n , f l ood c o n t r o l and t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t f o r downstream salmon f i s h e r i e s . The sudden i n t e r e s t i n t h i s a r e a has r e s u l t e d from t h e inaugura t ion of t h e High Ross p r o j e c t . Today 's h e a d l i n e s demonstra te t h e cont roversy surrounding t h i s p r o j e c t . A f i f t h of t h e 6,700 people who v i s i t e d t h e Val ley i n Canada between October and December 1970 came as a r e s u l t o f t h e con t rove r sy over t h e f looded a r e a .

Cheap abu_n_c?a.nt. pown.r has been one o f t h e p r i n c i p l e economic c a r d s o f t h e nor thwest . The pro- posed p r o j e c t w i l l b r i ng on l i n e 272,000 k i l o w a t t s o f peaking power, about 20 pe rcen t o f S e a t t l e ' s p r e s e n t peak load . Flood c o n t r o l b e n e f i t s a r e important t o t h o s e who l i v e i n t h e lower p a r t of t h e Val ley. The C i t y i s r e q u i r e d t o ma in t a in 120,000 a c r e - f e e t of s t o r a g e f o r f l ood c o n t r o l from October 1 t o March 15 and t o main ta in a downstream flow of 1,000 c . f . s. f o r salmon f i s h e r y .

The s i x hour t o u r s unde rwr i t t en by t h e Department of L igh t ing o f t h e C i t y accommodate 30 t o 40 thousand people annua l ly . The C i ty has provided many mi l e s o f t r a i l s a long Ross Lake and s e v e r a l sus- pens ion b r idges . I n t h e event t h a t t h e Dam i s r a i s e d t h e e x i s t i n g campgrounds and t r a i l s around t h e Lake would be r ep l aced and b e t t e r e d by t h e Ci ty . Water- o r i e n t a t e d a c t i v i t y seems t o be t h e hub of t h e r e c r e a t i o n . The p l ans f o r g e n e r a l pub l i c r e c r e a t i o n

r development, a s proposed by t h e U. S. Nat iona l Parks a I

Serv ice , a r c good and i n l i n e wi th t h e exper iences of t h e C i ty o f S e a t t l e on Ross Lake.

The agreement w i t h B r i t i s h Columbia p rov ides f o r payment of compensation by t h e C i t y t o t h e P rov incs f o r a l l damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e i n c r e a s e i n l e v e l of t h c Rese rvo i r from 1502 t c 1725 f e e t .

Man has t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f i n f l u e n c i n g changes i n t h e ecosystems. S ince h e has been u s i n g t h e r e s o u r c e s of t h e Skag i t Val ley f o r about 100 y e a r s , it i s no t a n untamed wi lde rnes s . The proposed f l o o d i n g would be a n improvement over what e x i s t s t h e r e now. The p r e s e n t Canadian camping f a c i l i t i e s a r e t o t a l l y inadequa te . There would be no unusual o r s e r i o u s environmental impacts.

A s t h e popu la t ion o f t h e Lower Mainland i n c r e a s e s , t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l demand w i l l expand. The l a r g e r Ross Lake would c r e a t e opportumity f o r h igh d e n s i t y development of w a t e r - o r i e n t a t ed r e c r e a t i o n on and around t h e Lake l e a v i n g t h e f o r e s t and t h e River f o r low d e n s i t y u se . The n o r t h e a s t sho re should be s e t a s i d e f o r r e c r e a t i o n and t h e west sho re as a pa rk o r w i lde rnes s a r e a . The e x t e n t of human a c t i v i t y w i l l l a r g e l y depend on t h e improvement of t h e a c c e s s road and a l a r g e r l a k z .

The p r e s e n t drawdown o f 125 f e e t t a k e s t h e wate r ou t of Canada l e a v i n g mud f l a t s . I n c o n t r a s t t h e proposed maxirnum drawdown would be l e s s t h a n 57

m 7 . l r l e piqoposed dyswdcdn o f t h r c c tc f i v e f e e t dur ing t h e summer would prov lde a good s h o r e l i n e con- d i t i o n and a l a k e i n Canada between e i g h t and n ine mi l e s long. There would be a magni f icen t i n s p i r a t i o n a l view of t h e mountains.

The e x t e n s i v e s t u d i e s now i n p rog res s on beha l f of t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e should prov ide a sound p o l i c y f o r balanced use . S t u d i e s a r e be:!.ng designed t o determine which animal s p e c i e s u t i l i z e t h e proposed Ross Lake s i t e and t o d e s c r i b e t h e degree o f t h e i r dependence on t h z s i t e . Emphasis has been p l aced on t h e more i n t e r e s t i n g and e a s i l y observed t a x a such as deer , upland game b i r d s , waterfowl and l a r g e r c a r n i v o r e s . P re sen t s t u d i e s a r e be ing executed by s s v e r a l t eams of f i s h e r y b i o l o g i s t s . The quan t i - t a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n survey, be ing c a r r i e d ou t i n t h e summer of 1971, w i l l y i e l d i n fo rma t ion on t r e e cover , shrubs , he rbs , g r a s s e s , mosses and l i c h e n s .

I n a l i k e manner t h e t h r u s t o f t h e arguments p u t f o r t h by t h e opponents t o r a i s i n g Ross Lake a r e sum- marized and paraphrased i n t h e fo l lowing paragraphs:

The i r p l e a was f o r t h e conse rva t ion and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e extremely v a l u a b l e b i o t i c mosaic of t h e Skag i t Val ley , t h e l i k e of which they arpped could no t be ~ ' ound elsewhere i n e i i h e r . Xashington or. B r i t i s h Columbia. There would be g r e a t e r Canadian awareness and concern f o r t h e f a t e of t h e Upper Skag i t were t h e a r e a b e t t e r known. I n 1942 t h e Skag i t was cons idered a s a n i s o l a t e d v a l l e y u n r e l a t e d t o i t s r e g i o n a l con tex t ; i n 1971 it should be cons idered a s a component o f t h e Lower Mainland Region.

Ecology l i e s a t t h e conceptua l c e n t r e of a new s e t of p r i n c i p l e s i n resource a l l o c a t i o n based on t h e s u r v i v a l and good h e a l t h o f hunan and o t h e r com- mun i t i e s . The Skag i t o f f e r s a n oppor tun i ty t o develop t h e s e new r u l e s . Ross Lake w i l l a l i e n a t e l a r g e groups of sub-systems of t h e l i v e community, throw t h e food c h a i n s ou t of ba lance , and i n t e r r u p t t h e in terdependence wi th t h e p o s s i b l e consequence of c o l l a p s e . A h igh va lue must be s e t on p r e s e r v i n g t h e ba lance of n a t u r a l ecosystems.

The s p r i n g range f o r t h e deer i n t h e r eg ion i s l i m i t e d t o t h e v a l l e y f l o o r . Flooding w i l l e l i m i n a t e t h o s e an imals now l i v i n g i n t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a because t h e a l t e r n a t i v e h a b i t a t s a r e a l r e a d y occupied. There a r e no vacuums i n n a t u r e .

'The e x i s t i n g envirori~rierlt Is a z c ~ t o n c c o n t a i n i n g a d i v e r s i t y of bo th c o a s t a l and i n t e r i o r v e g e t a t i o n and should be p r e f e r r e d t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f a l e s s d i v e r s i f i e d community. The Skag i t has a f i n e mixed f o r e s t , a nearby w i l d e r n e s s and a long growing season. It i s t h e n o r t h e r n l i m i t of many p l a n t s and t h e on ly good t r a n s i t i o n a l a r e a i n B r i t i s h Columbia.

Env i ronmen ta l i s t s seek t o d e s c r i b e i n t a n g i b l e s wh i l e hydro-power s u p p o r t e r s r e l y on sconomic c a t e g o r i e s and money exp res s ions o f va lue . Can d o l l a r s compensate t h e Canadians f o r t h e environmental damage?

Which w i l l be t h e g r e a t e r b e n e f i t t o s o c i e t y i n t h e long run -- a n increment of power t h a t w i l l s a t i s f y S e a t t l e ' s needs f o r t h r e e y e a r s of t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e i r r e p l a c e a b l e n a t u r a l a s s e t s of t h e Canadian Skag i t Val ley? A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r pro- ducing e l e c t r i c i t y a r e a v a i l a b l e . I s i t r e a l l y worth squander ing a semi-wilderness v a l l e y and t h e l i f e i t suppor t s and p e r p e t u a t e s f o r more cheap power f o r S e a t t l e which now has one o f t h e h i g h e s t e l e c t r i c a l power consumptions i n t h e wor ld? Skag i t

power p roduc t ion i s now a minor i t em i n t h e nor th- wes te rn g r i d .

About 95 pe rcen t o f t h e park land a v a i l a b l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s remote and i n a c c e s s i b l e mountain t e r r a i n . The Skagi t i s t h e only f l a t bottom v a l l e y below a n e l z v a t i o n o f 2,000 f e e t t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e as a pa rk f o r t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c which i s a c c e s s i b l e i n a semi-wilderness a r e a and w i t h i n t h r e e hours t r a v e l from Vancouver. It i s most amenable f o r summer r e c r e - a t i o n w i t h low r a i n f a l l , ample sunsh ine and warm summer tempera tures .

The Skag i t Val ley p rov ides oppor tun i ty f o r a wide v a r i e t y o f h igh q u a l i t y r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s f o r people of a l l ages -- camping, p icknick ing , hunt ing , f i s h i n g , h i k i n g over f l a t l a n d s , mountain c l imbing, and t h e enjoyment of t h e i n d i s p u t a b l e beauty o f i t s n a t u r a l s e t t i n g . It i s a p l a c e t o i n t roduce urban c h i l d r e n t o t h e meaning of t h e ou tdoors and t h e key t o t h e i r l e a r n i n g i s t h e d i v e r s i t y i n t h e f l a t v a l l e y bottom and t h e w i l d l i f e s u s t a i n e d by t h e h a b i t a t which edges t h e v a l l e y .

While Ross Lake o f f e r s l i m i t e d boa t ing i n Canada t h e complimentary s t ream s i d e r e c r e a t i o n and campsi te ac reage a r e of g r e a t va lue and should not be s a c r i f i c e d f o r r e s e r v o i r o r i e n t a t e d r e c r e a t i o n .

Water-based r e c r e a t i o n should be s u b j e c t e d t o a c r i t i c a l economic and eco log ic examination so t h a t which i s r a r e and v a l u a b l e i s no t t r a d e d f o r t h a t which i s common p l a c e o r i n s u r p l u s and o f marginal va lue . Ey r a i s i n g Ross Dam you a r e going t o l o s e t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n t h a t i s t h e r e now with- ou t add ing any th ing t o t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l value . B r i t i s h Columbia i s s h o r t of f l a t parkland, not l akeshore . Regular s t r o n g a f t e r n o o n winds make t h e r e s e r v o i r unsa fe f o r smal l boa t s . Ross Lake cannot be ope ra t ed t o s t i m u l a t e a n a t u r a l l a k e on a yea r round b a s i s . Reservoi r ,drawdown would expose t h r e e o r f o u r mi l e s of ug ly , s l imy, ba r r en , mud f l a t s a d j a c e n t t o t h e Skag i t River P r o v i n c i a l Park.

The Lower Mainland a l r e a d y has a l a r g e number of f i s h i n g l akes ; r i t does no t need ano the r drowned v a l l e y . Nowwhere i n t h e Lower Mainland i s t h e r e ano the r s t ream more s u i t a b l e f o r f l y f i s h i n g a s t h e n i n e mi les immzdiately upst ream from Ross Lake.

The Canadian Skag i t should be des igna t ed as a n undeveloped park . It would a c t a s a b u f f e r t o

p r o t e c t t h e w i lde rnes s a r e a s . There i s no need t o develop a park today; no necd t o make a l l our dec i - s i o n s now and r u i n a r e a s we w i l l need i n t h e f u t u r e .

/' Wilderness i s p a r t of our c u l t u r e and h e r i -

t a g e . Fundamental t o t h e awareness and t h e s p i r i t u a l J

o r r e - c r e a t i o n va lues of n a t u r e and t h e r o l e of humanity i n it a r e t h e absence o f t h e works of man. The Skag i t i s t h e l a s t v a l l e y i n B r i t i s h Columbia which b e a r s few marks o f man and which i s a c c e s s i b l e . Hence it can a l s o prov ide a v i t a l c o n t r o l f o r s c i e n t i s t s t o e v a l u a t e what we a r e doing t o t h e d i s t u r b e d environment.

The mental and p h y s i c a l wel l -be ing o f a n a t i o n depends g r e a t l y on t h e people bz ing a b l e t o enjoy t h e t ype of e x h i l a r a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l environ- ment provided by t h e S k a g i t . As t h e popu la t ion pres - s u r e s b u i l d up we w i l l need t h e S k a g i t t o r e t a i n t h e psychologica, l r o o t s t h a t main ta in l i f e i n S e a t t l e and Vancouver. It i s hoped t h a t t h e Commission w i l l f i n d a new sense of va lues , something t o do wi th t h e human s p i r i t , because up u n t i l now t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been s t r i c t l y economic. The d o l l a r va lue cannot be r e a l i s t i c a l l y p laced on t h e p r e s e n t and f u t u r e u s e o f t h e Skag i t Val ley.

There a r e a number of a l - t e r n a t i v e sources of power a v a i l a b l e t o S e a t t l z C i ty Light which a r e more a t t r a c t i v e t h a n r a i s i n g Koss Uam. A reasonably sophi- s t i c a t e d comparison of such a l t e r n a t i v e sources i s r e - q u i r e d .

The development o f High Ross w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e i r r e v e r s i b l e d e s t r u c t i o n of a n e c o l o g i c a l system. The magnitude of t h e l o s s i s l a r g e l y unknown. If f looded , t h e Canadian Skag i t cannot be r e - eva lua t ed . A broad comprehensive s tudy cover ing a l l seasons over a minimum pe r iod of f i v e y e a r s would be r e q u i r e d t o know t h e environmental c o s t o f t h e changes e n t a i l e d i n r a i s i n g Ross Lake a s proposed. The r a i s i n g o f Ross Lake i s opposed because i t i s be ing done i n ignorance. There would be o p p o s i t i o n t o any o t h e r p r o j e c t anywhere wi th a similar amount of e c o l o g i c a l and environmental ignorance.

Thc Commission was reminded t h a t i n t h e c a s e o f ,/ t h e Skagi t River Slooding t h e r e i s a unique oppor tun i - t y , a r a r e chance t o t a k e a second look, i n t h e l i g h t of today1 s c o n d i t i o n s and t o a a y l s p r i o r i t i e s a t t h e consequences of' d e c i s i o n s made by some 30 y e a r s ago. The required l icc>nc in@ proceedings be fo re t h e United S t a t e s Pcder2al Power Cornmission would prov ide t h a t

sscond chance.

Source: Environmental and Ecologica l Consequenc e s - i n Canada of R a i s i n g Ross Jake i n t h e Skagi t Valley, 1n te rna t ) iona l - ---- J o i n t C o m i s s i o n l9'71:44-119.

I 11. PERSONS PRESENTING BRIEFS OR TESTIMONY AT THE INTERNATIOTLTAL J O I N 1 ' C O F W l I S S l O N PUE1,IC f IEARINGS

1 i

I Where wi tnes ses t e s i f i e d a t more t h a n one hea r ing on ly cine appearance i s recorded hereunder .

I June 3, 1971 a t Bellingham, Washington.

Ar thur T. Lane, Counsel f o r C i t y o f S e a t t l e Thomas Brucker f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council+ Brock Evans f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council Mrs. Margaret M. M i l l e r f o r North Cascades Conservat ion

Councll Dale W . Cole f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council John Knowles f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council Miss Mary Eysenback f o r North Cascades Conservat ion

Council P a t r i c k D. Goldsworthy f o r North Cascades Conservat ion

Council F. T . D a r v i l l , Chairman f o r North Cascade Committee,

Skag i t Environmental Council

5' P r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e name o f North Cascades Conscrvat ion Council i nc lude :

F r i ends of t h e Ea r th Aero Club Nat iona l Parks and Conservat ion Assoc i a t i on Wilderness Soc ie ty Nat iona l Audubon Soc ie ty Fede ra t ion o f Western Outdoor Clubs The Mountaineers Audubon Soc ie ty from Bellingham Elk Park A s s o c i a t i o n S e a t t l e Audubon Soc ie ty Skag i t Environmental Council Washington Environmental Council S i e r r a Club

K. C . Bruce, Maple Ridge, B r i t i s h Columbia Char les E. King, Bellingharn, Washington Wayne Darneron, Ross Lake R e s o r t s , Rock Por t , Washington Robert Hulber t , Skagi t S o i l and Water Conservat ion D i s t r i c t Joseph M i l l e r , Bel levue, Washington Dennis Meers, P re s iden t of T. lngledow and Assoc i a t e s

Limited, Vancouver

June 4 , 1971 a t Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia.

David Brousson, M. L. A . , Vancouver F. Stone, Canadian Department of F i s h e r i e s and F o r e s t r y C . F. Murphy, Counsel f o r t h e C i ty of S e a t t l e F. F. Slaney, Consul tant f o r t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e Conrad L. Wir th , Consul tant f o r t h e Ci ty o f S e a t t l e John F r a s e r f o r ROSS Committee John Ma,ssey, Chairman of t h e ROSS Committee P e t e r B. F in layson f o r t h e Lower Mainland W i l d l i f e

A s s o c i a t i o n Gerrard Culhane f o r Environmental Systems Commnity

A s s o c i a t i o n A. J. Vancise f o r Hope and D i s t r i c t Board of Trade D. Kanee, Vancouver Miss R . Mellander, West Vancouver I a n E. E f f o r t , Vancouver Mrs. C. Thomas, Hope, B r i t i s h Columbia B. Metcalfe , West Vancouver

June 5, 1971 a t Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia.

P a t r i c k McGeer, bl. L. R . , Leader L i b e r a l Pa r ty i n B r i t i s h Columbia

V. C . Brink f o r Fede ra t ion of B. C . N a t u r a l i s t s Ken Farquharson, Secr eta>ry o f ROSS Committee R. 1.1. Rockcvzll f o r Soc ie ty f o r Po l l -u t ion and Environmental

Corltrol Robin Harger f o r Environmental Systems Cornrnunity Assoc i a t i on D. J . Huntley f o r Dogwood Canoe Club, Burnaby, B. C. P h i l l i p E. Moase f o r Richmond Rod and Gun Club Weyner Dyck f o r Unit 2G Army Navy and A i r Force Veterans

Rod and Gun Club N . P u r s s e l f o r Alpine Club o f Canada, Vancouver Sec t ion Miss Be t ty Mussenden, Vancouver F. J. Bartholomew, Vancouver Geoff Warden, B. C . W i l d l i f e Fede ra t ion Mrs. C . Ra i th , Tappen, B r i t i s h Columbia M r . C . Ra i th , Shuswap Rura l Ratepayers Assoc i a t i on , Tappen,

B r i t i s h Columbia Doug Baker I r v i n g II . Stone, Vancouver Hugh Par f itt , Vancouver

S ta tements r ece ived a f t e r t h e p u b l i c hea r ings .

A. L. Newbould, Corpora t ion Counsel f o r c i t y of S e a t t l e F. F. Slaney and Company f o r C i t y of S e a t t l e - d e t a i l e d

memorandum J. R . Aramburu f o r American Conservat ion Organiza t ions Dale W. Cole f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council P. D. Goldsworthy f o r North Cascades Conservat ion Council

M i s s M. L. Eysenback f o r North C a s c a s ~ s Conservat ion Council

E a r l 1 N. Murman o f P n c i f - i c Northwest Chapter o f t h e S i e r r a Club

R . W. Jepperson, P re s iden t of North Cascades Audubon Soc ie ty

J. M. Pe te rson , P re s iden t o f Olympia Audubon Soc ie ty Skag i t Val ley Study Group of I n s t i t u t e of Resource

Ecology, Un ive r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia - a documented r e p o r t e n t i t l e d , The Fu tu re of t h e Skag i t Val ley

K. G. Farquharson, Secrae ta ry o f ROSS Conunittee John A. F r a s e r f o r ROSS Committee V. C . Brink f o r Fede ra t ion o f H. C . Na tu ra , l i s t s Robin Hargzr f o r Environmental Systems Community

Assoc i a t i on J. Boyd o f t h e B. C . D i v i s i o n of I n t e r n a t i o n a l T rave l and

Trailer Clubs of America C. L. J u s t i c e , P r e s i d e n t o f B. C . Soc i e ty o f Landscape

A r c h i t e c t s P e t e r Walsh, Los Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a 5. F. F rank l in , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon Miss Nancy Anderson, Olympia, Washington M r . and Mrs. P. D. Koch, S e a t t l e Miss J a n e t A . F i sk , Bremerton, Washington Edward L. Meyers, Woodinvi l le , rlJashingt,on James J . Poth, S e a t t l e Leonard J. C o ~ ' c o ~ ' a n , West Vancouver E. P r i t t , T?ance1.?vnr

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above over 100 l e t t e r s were r ece ived through t h e mails exp res s ing o p p o s i t i o n t o S e a t t l e ' s p l a n t o r a i s e Ross Lake.

Source: E n v i r o n ~ e n t a l -- and Eco1oi;ical Consequences - i n Canad-a - of of R a i s i n g Ross Lake i n t h e Skag i t Val ley, I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t - ---- Commission l9'/l: 160- 162 ( a s amended by a u t h o r )

111. I I ~ z x t of Reference t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission".

On A p r i l 7, 1971, t h e S e c r e t a r y o r S t a t e f o r E x t e r n a l Affairs, f o r t h e Government of Canada and t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , f o r t h e Government o f t h e United S t a t e s , s e n t t h e fo l lowing Reference t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission through i d e n t i c a l l e t t e r s addressed r e s p e c t i v e l y t o t h e Canadian and United S t a t e s Sec t ions o f t h e Commission:

I have t h e honour t o inform you t h a t t h e Governments o f Canada and t h e United S t a t e s , pursuant t o A r t i c l e I X of t h e Boundary Waters Trea ty of 1909, have agreed t o r eques t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Com- miss ion t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e environmental conse- quences i n Canada r e s u l t i n g from t h e e l e v a t i o n of t h e Ross Lake i n t h e S t a t e of Washington frorx 1,602.5 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l t o 1,725 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l , and t o make such recornmendations a s it may deem a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhance- ment o f t h e environment and t h e ecol.ogy i n t h e a r e a of Canada a f f e c t z d by t h e e l e v a t i o n of t h e l a k e .

The Commission i s reques ted :

( a ) t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e environmental and e c o l o g i c a l consequences i n Canada of t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e Ross Lake t o a n e l e v a t i o n of' 1,725 f e e t above mean sea l e v e l , t a k i n g i n t o account r e l e v a n t informat i on about environmental and e c o l o g i c a l cons5quences e lsewhere on t h e Skag i t River , and measures being t a k e n o r planned t o p r o t e c t and enhance t h e environment i n t h e s e a r e a s ;

( b ) i n t h e l i g h t of i t s f i n d i n g s , t o r e p o r t on t h e n a t u r e , scope and impact of t h e s e consequences;

t o make recommendations, f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f t h e environment and t h e ecology of t h e Skagi t River Val ley not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e Commissionts Order o f Approval da ted January 27, 1942, t h e Agreement r equ i r ed thereby between t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e and t h e Province of B r i t i s h Columbia da ted January 10, 1967, and t h e purposes f o r which such Order o f Approval was gran ted .

The Commission i s reques t2d t o submit i t s con- c l u s i o n s and recommendations t o t h e Governments o f Canada and t h e United S t a t e s no l a t e r t han s i x months from t h e d a t e of t h i s l e t t e r o f r e f e rence .

I n t h e conduct o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and o t h e r - w i s e i n t h e performance of i t s d u t . i e s u n d e r t h i s rae.rerunce, the Coliiiills'sluii may u t l i i z e t h e s e r v 9 c e s of s p e c i a l i s t s i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l f i e l d and o t h e r s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l o f t h e t e c h n i c a l a g e n c i e s of' Canada and t h e U n i t z d S t a t e s , and w i l l , s o far as p o s s i b l e , make u s e of i n f o r m a t i o n and t e c h n i c a l d a t a h e r e t o f o r e a c q u i r e d o r which may become a v a i l a b l e i n e i t h e r c o u n t r y d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

Source: Environmenta l -- and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences - i n Canada -

of Raisinir, Ross lake i n t l ~ c : ,C:l.ragit Val l e y , I n t e r n a t j o n a l - -- - - - - -- J o i n t Conmision 19'71: 15'7-1.58.

North Cascades NATIONAL PAR