Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Category
Social Sciences/Humanities
Abstract/Artist Statement
This presentation will examine support of and opposition to the construction of several dams on the forks of the Flathead River in Western Montana between 1944 and 1968. Between the authorization of Hungry Horse Dam in 1944 and the passage of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968, the federal government proposed six dams in the Flathead valley. Among the proposed dams were Spruce Park Dam on the Middle Fork, Glacier View and Smoky Range Dam on the North Fork in Glacier National Park, Knowles and Paradise Dam on the Lower Flathead and Clark Fork, and a proposal to raise the height of Kerr Dam at the mouth of Flathead Lake. The debate over these projects serves as a window into the formation of political identities that would go on to shape national politics in the twentieth century. Labor unions saw the promise of good paying jobs, both in dam construction and in the industries that the hydropower would support. Sportsmen’s organizations saw a threat to their hunting, fishing, and boating grounds. Biologists like John and Frank Craighead the loss of vital winter habitat. Famers in Paradise, MT feared losing their homes under a new lake, while farmers in Charlo, MT saw the possibility of waterfront property. Senator Mansfield and Congressman Metcalf saw the opportunity to expand public ownership of the power grid and reduce energy rates for their constituents.
Writers such as award-winning conservation writer Tim Palmer have placed the opposition to Glacier View and Spruce Park Dams alongside the better-known Echo Park and Grand Canyon dam controversies as a fight which galvanized the modern environmental movement. Defeating these dam proposals ushered in the wilderness regime typified by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The scientists and citizen advocates who were central to the preservation of the forks of the Flathead were called upon to write drafts of those laws. Their legacies endure as heroes of the wilderness movement. Less explored however, are the motivations of those who promoted dam construction. In Palmer’s version of the story, it is the faceless behemoth of the Army Corp of Engineers alone pushing for river development. This presentation looks beyond that to the labor organizers and local boosters of the Flathead Valley who successfully garnered the support of Metcalf and Mansfield, despite growing support for permanently protecting wild rivers. Understanding their side of this story is crucial to grasping the role that federal dam construction played in postwar political realignments.
This presentation is grounded evidentially in the personal papers of labor leaders, members of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Flathead Valley farmers, sportsmen, and conservationists along with the public debates that took place in the pages of the Daily Interlake and Hungry Horse News, in Army Corps hearings, and on the floor of Congress. From these sources I trace a story of the growing divide between labor unions, public power advocates, and environmental protection groups in the mid twentieth century.
Mentor Name
Anya Jabour
Damming Paradise: the struggle for wild rivers, good jobs, and public power in the Flathead Valley
This presentation will examine support of and opposition to the construction of several dams on the forks of the Flathead River in Western Montana between 1944 and 1968. Between the authorization of Hungry Horse Dam in 1944 and the passage of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968, the federal government proposed six dams in the Flathead valley. Among the proposed dams were Spruce Park Dam on the Middle Fork, Glacier View and Smoky Range Dam on the North Fork in Glacier National Park, Knowles and Paradise Dam on the Lower Flathead and Clark Fork, and a proposal to raise the height of Kerr Dam at the mouth of Flathead Lake. The debate over these projects serves as a window into the formation of political identities that would go on to shape national politics in the twentieth century. Labor unions saw the promise of good paying jobs, both in dam construction and in the industries that the hydropower would support. Sportsmen’s organizations saw a threat to their hunting, fishing, and boating grounds. Biologists like John and Frank Craighead the loss of vital winter habitat. Famers in Paradise, MT feared losing their homes under a new lake, while farmers in Charlo, MT saw the possibility of waterfront property. Senator Mansfield and Congressman Metcalf saw the opportunity to expand public ownership of the power grid and reduce energy rates for their constituents.
Writers such as award-winning conservation writer Tim Palmer have placed the opposition to Glacier View and Spruce Park Dams alongside the better-known Echo Park and Grand Canyon dam controversies as a fight which galvanized the modern environmental movement. Defeating these dam proposals ushered in the wilderness regime typified by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The scientists and citizen advocates who were central to the preservation of the forks of the Flathead were called upon to write drafts of those laws. Their legacies endure as heroes of the wilderness movement. Less explored however, are the motivations of those who promoted dam construction. In Palmer’s version of the story, it is the faceless behemoth of the Army Corp of Engineers alone pushing for river development. This presentation looks beyond that to the labor organizers and local boosters of the Flathead Valley who successfully garnered the support of Metcalf and Mansfield, despite growing support for permanently protecting wild rivers. Understanding their side of this story is crucial to grasping the role that federal dam construction played in postwar political realignments.
This presentation is grounded evidentially in the personal papers of labor leaders, members of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Flathead Valley farmers, sportsmen, and conservationists along with the public debates that took place in the pages of the Daily Interlake and Hungry Horse News, in Army Corps hearings, and on the floor of Congress. From these sources I trace a story of the growing divide between labor unions, public power advocates, and environmental protection groups in the mid twentieth century.