OCR Text |
Show 533. case, even examining and criticizing the engineer's report. They had admitted in so doing that the Parks would always be subject to this kind of invasion, and would always have to be defended, not on principle, but on the merits of the invader's case. Consequently, during World War I and World War II, when the question of invading the Parks arose, the same kind of issues would recur. And now, in 1981, when war seems to be a constant state of mind in the United States, when agribusiness, coal, or the MX Missile system are all weapons which threaten not just our American landscape but also our National Parks, there is, in the public mind, a constant need to invade untouched natural resources in America. Muir and his colleagues tried to say that San Francisco could get its water elsewhere. And so too, at Olympic National Park during World War II, the Sitka spruce was defended by a study which showed that the wood could be gotten elsewhere. But there will come a time when the Park invaders will perceive a need, and the National Park Service, the Sierra Club, and all else who want to preserve the Parks will discover that there is no other Place to get the coal, spruce, or whatever. Then what? Indeed, the proponents of the Hetch Hetchy scheme delivered to all United States Congressmen a copy of an editorial printed in the San Francisco Examiner, December 2, 1913. m this editorial the Examiner argued that Los Angeles had been allowed to take its water from the Owens Valley, |