A History of Wasatch County

Introduction

INTRODUCTION Waas atch County is composed of several valleys nestled near the top of the Wasatch Range. Much of the land is in the Uinta National Forest; the Wasatch and Ashley national forests also spill over the county boundaries. The communities line up along the west side of the county, and nearly all of them are in Heber Valley. In 1990 Heber City (population 4,782), the county seat, was by far the largest community. Next in size were Midway (population 1,554) and Charleston (population 337). Daniel1 and Center Creek have never been incorporated. Wallsburg, located in the smaller Round Valley south of the other communities, had a population of 273. The only other community, Soldier Summit, along the main Denver and Rio Grande Radroad line, was unincorporated by 1990. Soldier Summit's rise and decline based on changing railroad technology has been a unique part of the county's history. Wasatch County is rich in natural resources. Two mountain ranges, the Uinta and the Wasatch, played roles in depositing rich sod in the vadeys and minerals in the mountainous area that became the Park City Mining District. Two watersheds, the Colorado River and HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY Deer Creek Reservoir and Mount Timpanogos. (Utah State Historical Society) the Great Basin drainage systems, give the area vast water resources and possibilities. But the county also has geological features which hindered the immediate use of these resources. First, Wasatch County includes three valleys set high in the mountains which are character­ized by long, often severe winters and a very short growing season. Second, water and farming lands are distant, and the water must be moved to the land. Third, the vadeys can be reached only after cross­ing steep mountain passes. As a result, for many years the area seemed virtuady uninhabitable. Current archaeological research sug­gests that Native Americans visited only to hunt during the fad; they spent their winters in milder climates around Utah Lake. Later a few European explorers crisscrossed through the county boundaries, but they also did not linger. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons) were the first permanent settlers in Wasatch County. Ambitious settlers looking for greater economic opportuni­ties crossed the mountains and considered the possibdities of living INTRODUCTION in the area-but only after the lower valleys were becoming over-populated. Even then some feared that the high altitude and short growing season would make the area suitable only for livestock. Despite these concerns, some newcomers to Utah County moved to the area after construction of the road up Provo Canyon made set­tlement possible. Mormons already living in Utah were the first to move; immigrants from England, Sweden, and Switzerland fodowed. Initially, most area settlers were immigrants who could not find places to live along the more populous Wasatch Front. But these new­comers soon made homes for themselves in Heber City, Midway, Charleston, and Wadsburg, and their chddren stayed. In a short time, most of the residents had been born in Utah. Soon new communi­ties such as Center Creek and Daniel became the home for the increasing population. The Wasatch County settlers established communities simdar to those in the lower vadeys. Rather than living on isolated homesteads, they lived in towns and set up their farms on land surrounding the villages. The federal government's block survey methods facditated this type of settlement, as did the settlers' knowledge of New England towns; but they adopted this settlement pattern mainly because they were fodowing Mormon church founder Joseph Smith's "Plat of the City of Zion." Mormon leaders encouraged this settlement pattern, and the Mormon villages in turn encouraged cooperation.2 The village plan thrived because it met the needs of the environ­ment. In areas Uke Wasatch County, cooperation was necessary to bring the water from the mountain streams to the vadeys. It took more than one person to budd the necessary canals to transport the water, and the limited resource needed to be shared. The Mormons also had displaced the Native Americans, taking away their gathering and hunting lands. Being close together helped protect the settlers. In fact, many Mormon towns, including Heber, began as forts where homes were budt in a square to protect the inhabitants from Indian attacks. There were other elements that made Mormon vdlages distinc­tive. First, the church dominated all aspects of life. Almost everything could be considered part of worship, whether it was irrigating the fields, planting crops, or attending sacrament meetings. The church also controlled political life directly and indirectly. When the HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY Aerial view of Heber City, taken December 30, 1946. (Salt Lake Tribune CoUection, Utah State Historical Society) Mormons first established a town, church leaders formed the gov­erning body. Later, as governments developed, the same men often held church and public positions. For example, the probate judge listed at the beginning of Wasatch County's property records was Abram Hatch, who was the area's first stake president and the area's representative to the territorial legislature. LDS general authorities asked Mormons to be self-sufficient, to produce everything they needed themselves and not to depend on outside sources, especially non-Mormons. The church's general authorities tried several methods to encourage this self-reliance. One involved asking communities to establish church-operated coopera­tives and united orders, a form of commune. Wasatch County's united order failed, however, as did many of its other cooperative attempts. Some blamed it on local leaders who, they felt, did not sup­port the church's program. Another reason might be that the limited population struggling to survive in a harsh environment focused on INTRODUCTION Aerial view of Midway, July 1958. (Utah State Historical Society) self-interests. In many other parts of Utah, residents were able to move from subsistence farming as the population grew; however, the harsh mountain climate in Wasatch County made raising crops always a gamble. This focus on survival did not encourage the development of industry, everyone had to be a farmer first. Residents did cooperate herding livestock because at first everyone had only a few animals and placing them together saved time, money, and resources. Graduady some men developed bigger herds and moved off on their own. The focus of local cooperative efforts then shifted to working for common interests. One concern was finding new grazing lands, which enterprising Heber Vadey residents did in the federally owned Strawberry Vadey and on the Uintah Indian Reserve. HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY Residents also cooperated on irrigation projects. Farmers in most communities developed companies to build canals and determine how the water would be divided. Towns luce Midway that did not ini­tially have water companies learned the hard way that working together meant more water for everyone. There were some individ­uals who struck out on their own and tapped unused water resources outside of the immediate settlement area. But such efforts were time-consuming, and it was difficult to move water from places like Strawberry Valley to Heber Valley. These residents actually trans­ported water they had no legal rights to across federal lands. In addi­tion, they could never develop the ftdl potential of the land because they did not have the financial resources. Once the federal government started paying attention to public lands, it curtailed many of these dlegal activities. For example, the establishment of the Uintah National Forest restricted the grazing of Heber Valley and Round Valley residents' cattle, sheep, and horses. Over the years federal grazing policies virtuady ended what was once a booming livestock industry in Wasatch County. The federal government also ended Wasatch County residents' control over the water in Strawberry Vadey. Without outside funds, it was impossible for Utahns to ftdly develop the water potential in Wasatch County. The water had to be moved too far, and residents could not afford to budd extensive dams, reservoirs, and canals. The Newlands Act and the establishment of the Bureau of Reclamation provided some federal assistance to water users. But Wasatch County residents were not the ones who benefited from the congressional action. Instead, farmers from southern Utah County saw the possi-bdity of using water from the Strawberry River. They convinced the Bureau of Reclamation to budd Strawberry Reservoir and transport the water to them. This water revived dying Utah County towns, but Wasatch County residents lost water and grazing lands. The transfer of water did not stop with Strawberry. Later, resi­dents of northern Utah County and Salt Lake City expanded beyond their water resources. They found underutilized resources in the Weber, Provo, and Duchesne rivers. They convinced the Bureau of Reclamation to budd Deer Creek Reservoir and transfer water from the three rivers to where it would benefit more people. Once again INTRODUCTION Aerial view of Stawberry Reservoir, July 1958. (Utah State Historical Society) Wasatch County residents suffered, losing water rights and range lands. The reservoir also buried much of the town of Charleston. Mormons are often portrayed as an ethnic homogenous group who worked together for the common good. But in the construction of both Strawberry and Deer Creek reservoirs, fedow Utahns, in most cases Mormons, were looking out for their own interests and, as a result, taking from Wasatch County. This process was also noticeable in the development of Wasatch Mountain State Park in Midway. State, Mormon church, and county leaders developed the plan for the park, hoping it would bring visitors to the Mormon villages. Their motives varied: political leaders hoped for economic growth; church leaders hoped for positive publicity. The groups worked together because they had a common goal. Some area landowners, however, questioned the park and refused to sed. It took church leaders to con­vince them to accept the park. Recent events have brought additional changes to the appearance HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY of Wasatch County. After years of debate, parts of the Central Utah Water Project have been completed, including Jordanede Dam. The reservoir was filled in June 1995, creating another state park in the county. Deer Creek Reservoir is also a state-operated resort. There are plans to develop a trail connecting the parks. After years of debate over whether the county or the Strawberry Water Users Association was responsible for controlling vacationers on Strawberry Reservoir, the Forest Service now determines recreational policies there. Some Wasatch County residents have objected to the state and federal gov­ernments' takeover of property. The increased county visitation also has not brought some hoped-for economic growth. Most recreation-ists come from the Wasatch Front and bring their own supplies; they buy very little in the county; but the county is required to provide water, police, and emergency services for them. These factors have transferred some control from Wasatch County to the federal and state governments. At the same time, other events have made rural areas throughout the United States-includ­ing Wasatch County-less self-sufficient. Between 1923 and 1950, scholars studied the community of Escalante, Utah, another isolated Mormon settlement, for changes in isolation, commercialization of its rural economy, and the impact of urbanization of the commu­nity's lifestyle.3 Because Wasatch County is closer to the population centers, it experienced many of these changes before Escalante. The construction of the radroad in 1889 meant that Wasatch County res­idents had more exposure to the outside world and wider markets for their goods. But it also meant that the county became more subject to these markets. At first they were proud of the number of sheep being shipped from their area. Later they were pleased that their homemade butter was used throughout the Wasatch Front. But soon the markets shifted, and it was not the butter made in the local creamery but the milk that was going to Salt Lake City, where it was made into butter. Local businesses closed down, and Wasatch County became the producer of raw materials that were processed elsewhere. Although they never became as self-sufficient as Mormon church leaders preached, as the years passed, Wasatch County residents depended less on their own industries. As roads improved and people wanted to move away from the populated areas, Wasatch County's INTRODUCTION towns became bedroom communities (where residents lived but went elsewhere to work) and vacation resorts where outsiders built second homes. Over the years, Wasatch County also became more dependent on the federal government. Just as it did in the rest of the nation, the Great Depression of the 1930s hit Wasatch County. Stdl recovering from the drop in farming and mining prices fodowing World War I and the 1920s, Wasatch County and Utah found the 1930s ever harder. To help provide work, the county received money from the federal government to improve civic projects that they had struggled to budd on their own thirty years earlier and to bring improvements they had not been able to afford. Using these funds sometimes brought federal controls which have continued. While they have brought needed jobs and money into the area, some conservative county residents feared the loss of independence. By the 1990s, Wasatch County depended on other political and economic systems for its survival. In a worldwide economy, this con­dition is referred to as dependency. One economist explained, "By dependency we mean a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected."4 This same the­ory can be used to describe Wasatch County history. Just as with a country, there have been positive and negative effects.5 Wasatch County has passed through several stages. Native Americans and later European travelers used some resources but did not settle in the area. The Latter-day Saints established the first com­munities, and these resembled other self-sufficient Mormon vdlages. But these early settlers did not have the money to utilize the area's natural resources. Federal and state funds eventuady developed the water resources, but the more populated areas of Utah often reaped the benefits. In addition, the federal government owned parts of Wasatch County, and federal agencies such as the Forest Service took control over these areas. Wasatch County continued to change in the 1990s as it became a bedroom district to the Wasatch Front. The fol­lowing pages wid detail these developments. 10 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY ENDNOTES 1. The residents of Wasatch County refer to Daniel Town and Daniels Canyon and Daniels Creek. United States Geological Survey maps and other sources call the town Daniels. This history will use the term Daniel for the town, since it is preferred by the residents. 2. Sociologist Lowry Nelson discussed the Mormon settlement pattern in his book The Mormon Village: A Pattern and Technique of Land Settlement (Salt Lake City University of Utah, 1952), 39-40. According to Nelson, "the Plat of the City of Zion" developed by the church's founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., combined "ideologies of mdlennialism, communism, and nationalism which tiiey derived from the social environment of the early nineteenth cen­tury, and the Old and New Testaments." While "they drew undoubtedly upon the rectangular survey method of the federal government, the New England town, and their knowledge of city layouts," the plans were not the results of "external influences." Instead, they were "the product of the group ideologies." 3. Nelson, "Mormon ViUage," 109. 4. Richard White, The Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change among the Choctaws, Pawnees, and Navajos (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), xvii. 5. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) talks about the negative impacts of a more powerful state; 5,170.