| OCR Text |
Show 531. work, "damming the Colorado flood, filling a way across the Great Salt Lake, tunnelling the Sierra above Truckee, and helping San Francisco after the great earthquake and fire," was different from Phelan's plan to dam the Tuolumne? It was a fine distinction at best, and it must have worried Muir deeply. His most powerful ally and his worst enemies seemed to subscribe to the same philosophy, and they were all humanists and philanthropists . Since the philosophies of his allies and his enemies seemed indistinguishable, Muir had to argue in practical terms. He couldn't expect the public to make subtle distinctions which troubled even himself. It was no wonder,- then, that he saw the need to temper his arguments and repeat the more moderate view of the New York Outlook in a pamphlet: . . . while the Yosemite National Park might very properly be sacrificed to save the lives and health of citizens of San Francisco, it ought not to be sacrificed to save their dollars. Colby, Parsons, Bade, Johnson, and Muir decided that the most effective argument for Hetch Hetchy would have to be made in terms of the "utility of recreation." They were willing to quote Horace McFarland when he spoke of the money value of tourism. They were willing to concede improvements which would damage the valley's ecology, if that would in turn save it from the dam makers. For instance, opponents began to suggest that the lower end of Hetch Hetchy was a mosquito bog, and so the defenders were willing to allow that the meadows |
