Mineral King's long road to wilderness
When Congress created an additional 2 million acres of wilderness Wednesday, it brought to a close one of California's more memorable conservation sagas: the fight over a chiseled High Sierra valley called Mineral King.
In the 1960s, Walt Disney Productions unveiled plans for a $35-million resort development in the valley, then a popular hiking area in the Sequoia National Forest. Disney called the valley and its surrounding alpine bowls one of the most beautiful spots he had ever seen. He just thought it could use a few things -- like a village of shops and hotels, gondolas, ski slopes and underground parking.
The U.S. Forest Service, which would have leased the land to Disney, approved the company's master plan in 1969. But in a move that would help shape strategy for the modern environmental movement, the Sierra Club that same year filed a lawsuit to block the development.
That was the beginning of what remains a favorite and often successful tactic for environmental groups: Go to court.
The lawsuit slowed the project enough so that it lost momentum. Its final death throes came in 1978, when Congress added Mineral King to nearby Sequoia National Park and specifically prohibited downhill ski facilities.
In the '60s, conservationists lobbied to make the scenic valley part of the country's new wilderness system. This week they finally got their wish. The 700,000 acres of California wilderness designated by the big lands bill headed for President Obama's desk includes Mineral King, part of the new John Krebs Wilderness, named for the former congressman who wrote the law transferring the valley to the National Park Service.
--Bettina Boxall
Photo: A view of Mineral King Valley. Credit: Vani Rangachar / Los Angeles Times
The Mineral King portion of the new "Wilderness Bill" is a single unit of a nine western states wild lands protection bill. Southern Idaho and Northern Nevada's Owhyee Mountains, 500,000 acres, is another unit.
Like MK, the Qwhyee's are roaded and sprinkled with ghost towns, ranches, and ranching operations.
The next phase is the tough part, finding money to implement the provisions of thed bill.
So...protection may never happen.
Posted by: richard dahlgren | March 31, 2009 at 09:54 PM
Doesn't the designation of Mineral King Valley as Wilderness run counter to the "untrammeled by man" ethic of capital-W Wilderness?
If this previously mined, roaded, and built-on place has been reclaimed enough to now constitute Wilderness, then any other can also be developed now without presuming irreparable harm of wilderness characteristics. I'm a strong fan of small-w wilderness, "the place of wild beasts," but feel that Mineral King's protection from future development in the national park should have been enough.
Posted by: Linda Blum | March 30, 2009 at 03:29 PM
what a difference a few decades makes. now the Sierra Club is spearheading a massive ecosystem kill-off for Big Energy profits. they are desperately, frantically trying to site as many Big Solar and Big Wind and Big Transmission projects as possible in our open spaces before people here learn the truth about feed in tariffs, rooftop solar and how NO wilderness-killing power infrastructure is required at all in this nation.
thanks to the LA Times' steadfast refusal to let anyone know about AB 811 loans, feed in tariffs, point of use solutions, etc. - the Sierra Club will likely win this war on our planet for their paymasters in Big Solar. They are working in back rooms as we speak with Senator Feinstein to slam through 140,000 acres of "sacrifice zones" in California alone, as a Big Energy giveaway. no environmental reviews, no public input and no consideration of the potential for non-lethal solar and wind production, conservation, or utility-scale projects on previously destroyed lands like superfund sites, brownfields, abandoned airports, industrial sites and agricultural lands. just dead public lands devoted entirely to private profiteering.
because of the stupidity of their process, they are going to site the "sacrifice zones" in 7 blocks of 20,000 acres, so even if they cared enough to find degraded sites near existing transmission, they have GUARANTEED massive pristine ecosystem deaths since virtually no public lands have 20,000 contiguous acres of destroyed ecosystem. if they did them in blocks of 5,000 acres (large enough for almost any Big Solar Boondoggle), they might be able to spare the migration corridors and endangered species in our carbon-absorbing deserts, but they are trying to slam it through before anyone notices, so they need to rush, rush, rush. no doubt the LA Times is all over this story, too? haha. kidding of course. you might write about it after it all implodes with a "who could have known?" angle.
who needs global warming when we have Feinstein, the LA Times, Sierra Club (and Wildlands Conservancy, Wilderness Society and others) all working so hard on the DIRECT destruction of the planet? by not telling people the truth about their options, LA Times is absolutely pushing Big Energy's agenda.
Posted by: sheila | March 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The Sierra Club butted heads with Disney on another proposed Disney ski resort before Mineral King...the backside of San Gorgonio above Redlands, which the Sierra Club was adamantly opposed.
As I was told, way back then, Disney made a handshake deal with the Sierra Club, agreeing to abandon San Gee, if the Sierra Club would not oppose development of Mineral King.
Disney left the San Bernardino NF project and proceeded to first stage development plans for MK.
As Paul Harvey used to say..."Now you know the rest of the story."
Posted by: richard dahlgren | March 27, 2009 at 07:45 AM