Hersh 1
Progressive Pipelines:
The History of Seattle’s Drinking Water
Amy Hersh
Section AC
Figure 1. Assembling the pipeline from the Cedar River to Seattle1
Seattle Municipal Archives, Assembling the woodstave pipeline which was installed
to carry Cedar River water to Seattle, 1899.
1
Hersh 2
Today, many of the basic amenities and resources we have are taken for
granted. Few are familiar with the historical processes that allowed for the creation
of public utilities. This topic may upon first glance seem dry and technical, but can
often involve a rich historical background interwoven with cultural movements and
conflicts tied to a flux of societal values. The history of Seattle’s drinking water and
electricity is one such topic. The creation of the Cedar River watershed that serves
Seattle today is the direct result of a combination of Progressive ideals and values
that developed in the late 19th and early 20th century as well as chance events like
the Great Seattle Fire and the involvement of Reginald H. Thomson, a Progressive
and highly influential civil engineer. The construction of the Landsburg Water
Diversion Dam, caused a variety of social, environmental and economic changes for
the logging industry, citizens of Seattle2, and surrounding watershed, by shifting
societal support towards scientific resource management and the creation of public
utilities, blocking migration routes for salmon and other species, and reducing
employment within the logging industry. In order to fully understand the unique
historical factors that shaped the municipal Cedar River Watershed, it is important
to trace its evolution from a natural and undeveloped water source to the important
resource it has evolved to be today.
Contemporary King County Washington contains nearly two million people
and eight hundred thousand households, all of which require an efficient and
Mayor of Seattle, “Cedar River Watershed: Detailed Recommended Changes to the
Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan”, May 1999, 10-21.
2
Hersh 3
reliable provision of drinking water.3 Residents of this area are lucky enough to
have their drinking water provided by the Cedar River watershed, the only naturally
filtered and municipal watershed in the nation that is owned by the people who
utilize its water.4 This development was made into a municipality through the
progressive work of Reginald H Thomson
and his belief in public land management.
The modern Cedar River and surrounding
watershed is a uniquely altered ecological
and economic creation. One of only six
protected watersheds in the nation, the
river and its tributaries are owned by Figure 2 Abiel Peak in the Cascade Mountains5
the City of Seattle, which utilizes its natural forest and glacial till to filter drinking
water for King County residents.6 The watershed includes the Cedar River itself,
which stems from the Cascade Mountain Range, near Abiel Peak, and runs about
forty-five miles, extending into dozens of tributaries, where it ends in the south end
of Lake Washington. From the lake, it flows through the Ship Canal and the Hiram
Chittenden Locks into the Puget Sound. The watershed is often divided into the
upper and lower watershed, the former consisting of an aquifer created by water
seeping through a region of permeable and cavernous unsorted glacial sediment.
3
US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. King County, Washington,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033.html (September 18th. 2012)
4 The Watershed, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed,
http://www.cedarriver.org/the-watershed (2012).
5Deal, Gabriel, Abiel Beak, 2004, JPEG file
http://yellowleaf.org/scramble/pics/2009-03-12-roaring-ridge/097-tink-abiel.jpg
6 The Watershed, 2012.
Hersh 4
This naturally filtered water finds its way back to the surface of the watershed
through natural springs, Rattlesnake Lake, and the Snoqualmie River.7 But what did
the Cedar River look like culturally before colonization, urbanization, and
progressivism?
Before colonization, native people inhabited and utilized the lands of the
Cedar River basin. There is evidence of prehistoric use by native people dating as
early as 2200 BC. Specifically, three different types of sites have been reported,
including a winter village, tool manufacturing sites, and temporary camps. 8 Other
sources have documented Native American presence, mainly Snoqualmie, as early
as 7400 BC.9 The natives utilized important sources of food included fish like
salmon and trout, which would later be impacted by the development of the
municipal watershed. 10 As with many discussions of Native American influence and
agency, there is little information to be found regarding their effect on the landscape
of the Cedar Basin. Taking a step forward in time, Europeans in the mid 19th century
utilized the Cedar River watershed as an area for fur trade routes through the
migration of wagons and the creation of rail routes. Explorations of the Cascade
Mountains began as early as 1841, including survey expeditions to scout out
potential locations for Pacific Railroad development and wagon trails. Military
expeditions were common here in response to the Indian Wars of 1855-1856.11
The Watershed, 2012.
Wilke, Steve, “Cultural Resource Assessment of Cedar River Exchange Lands, GeoRecon International, July 28th, 1980, 7.
9 Cultural Heritage, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed,
http://www.cedarriver.org/the-watershed/municipal/cultural-heritage (2012)
10 Wilke,. 9.
11 Wilke, 10.
7
8
Hersh 5
Development was concentrated on mineral resources such as gold, silver, copper,
quartzite, the most important of which was coal. Small and generally unsuccessful
mining operations above Cedar Lake included about twenty-nine claims in the late
19th century.12 At the turn of the century, homesteading had become much more
prevalent in the region: cabins were built above the lake, and logging camps were
created to take advantage of the dense region of Douglas Firs, Hemlocks, and Cedars.
These original logging efforts were originally concentrated in the lower section of
the watershed. It was at this time in the late 1800s that Reginald H. Thomson, a
Progressive city engineer who would become one of the most influential people on
the layout of Seattle, began to take an interest in the Cedar River as a potential
source of drinking water for the city.13
Thomson was the first serious advocate of the river’s use as an important
water and electrical power source. Prior to the use of the Cedar River as a water
source for the city, the Spring Hill Water Company was the main source of publicly
distributed water, providing and storing it through the diversion of streams in
wooden tanks and mains underneath the business district.14 In 1881 Thomson and
his partner F.H Whitworth visited the city, and recommended to the city council that
the Cedar River be used to provide extensive quantities of pure water to the city.
Their idea was turned down due to the river’s seemingly inaccessible location 35
miles away. But Thomson and Whitworth’s vision of a publicly maintained drinking
source would not die here. In June of 1889, the Great Seattle Fire burned down one
Wilke, 10.
Dorpat, Paul and McCoy, Genevieve. Building Washington: A History of Washington
State Public Works. (Seattle, Washington, Tartu Publications, 1998) 282-284.
14 Dorpat, and McCoy, 282-284.
12
13
Hersh 6
hundred and twenty blocks of the city. This disaster was started by an accident in a
woodworking shop and fueled by the alcohol in neighboring saloons, roaring from
2:15 pm until 3:00 am, destroying buildings such as the Trinity Church, the
Commercial Mill, and Opera House.15 Shortly after this tragedy in 1892, R.H
Thomson took on the role of city engineer, immediately ceasing the expansion of
pumps on Lake Washington to increase the water supply, directing all of his efforts
to bring Cedar River water to the city.16 Lake Washington had proved to be an
inadequate and unsustainable
resource during the fire, 17 and the
Cedar River would be an important
step, according to Progressives, for
science to prove its worth with
regards Figure 3. Aftermath of the Great Seattle Fire18 to public utilities.
It was at this point in Cedar Watershed history, that evidence of social,
environmental and economic conflicts emerged. In the 1890s, a cultural movement
and identity known as Progressivism was developing. Progressives, like Thomson
and famous US forestry chief Gifford Pinchot, believed that efficiency and progress
provide “the greatest good for the greatest number.” In their eyes, this would occur
through active government involvement, decision making guided by scientific
15University
of Washington Libraries. The Great Seattle Fire, Digital Collections.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/extras/seattle-fire.html
16 Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.
17 University of Washington Libraries.
18 University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections, Aftermath of Seattle Fire,
JPEG file. http://content.lib.washington.edu/extras/seattle-fire.html
Hersh 7
progress, and constant work to modernize and improve society. 19 Thomson
specifically, had “a predisposition to public service and a fervent belief in the
importance of fresh water”, which he stated was “the lifeblood of a city”.20 After
visiting and surveying the Maple Valley area for two summers in 1893 and 1894,
Thomson had drawn out plans for the buried pipeline that would someday run
throughout Seattle. Issues began to arise when Thomson and associates started
pushing for revenue bonds to provide funding for these plans, which required voter
approval to be implemented. 21
At first, the proposed plan for public ownership and development of the
Cedar River Lands did not find itself in the hands of a supportive voter population.
Despite the growing number of Progressives in middle class US society at the time,22
Eastern capitalist and private property advocate Edward Ammidown and an
association of wealthy Seattle businessmen vehemently and publicly opposed the
proposal, by hiring speakers to accuse Thomson and his supporters of socialism. An
uphill battle began between advocates of a privatized Seattle Power Company that
would sell its water to the city, and supporters of Thomson’s public utilities.23
Ammidown and other private property supporters saw the landscape as a
“transformative economy”, where land should be divided and improved upon by its
owners. In contrast, public utility advocates saw the land as an interconnected
Linda Nash, “Progressivism Lecture”, November 1st, 2012.
Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.
21 Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.
22 Morehead State Univerity, Progressivism. http://www.slideshare.net/tabenn2/usprogressivism#btnNext (November 4th, 2009).
23 Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.
19
20
Hersh 8
system whose “natural economy” should be protected by the state.24 After
successfully diffusing resistance from respected civil frontrunner Federal Judge J.J
McGilvra, 25, Thomson and his supporters ended the election strong, winning by a
thousand votes, and in 1897, surveys of the watershed began.
In 1901 the city created the Landsburg Water Diversion Dam for supply
intake, fitted with a settling basin and screens to filter out sticks and leaves. The
system tested so well that waters were let loose into Capital Hill’s Volunteer Park on
January 10th to demonstrate. 26 A second dam and hydroelectrical power plant was
constructed in 1902, soon to be named Cedar Falls.27 This dam would provide
electric power to the city of Seattle under the name City Light. At this time, there
was little concern over the effects these dams would have on the local aquatic
environment.28 Later research would show that these dams had significant
environmental effects on the Cedar River, by restricting important migratory fish
passages for salmon, increasing sedimentation, and slowing water flow.29 These
issues have contributed to the listing of northwest salmon and steelhead trout on
the Endangered Species List.30 At the time, Progressives like Thomson were more
concerned with the overall outcome, which was clean drinking water for the city.
Beth Bryant, “Takings and Public Trust Doctrine Lecture”, October 31, 2012.
Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.
26 Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.
27 Stein, Alan.
28 City of Seattle, Fish and Landsburg, Seattle Public Utilities.
http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/OurWatersheds/Habitat_C
onservation_Plan/FishandLandsburg/index.htm (2012).
29 Mayor of Seattle.
30 "Salmon Populations." Salmon Populations. NOAA, 14 Aug. 2012. Web.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/.
24
25
Hersh 9
Environmental concerns for any players except for humans fell to the wayside in the
name of improvement and development. That is not to say no form of
environmental management was created in response to this project. Forestry was
next on Thomson’s list, not for the benefit of the environment however, but for the
cleanliness of the water supply for Seattle citizens.
Extensive private logging operations significantly decreased the amount of
old growth forest and caused pollution through chemical usage and machinery
leakage from the mid 18902 to the 1940s.31 In 1999, less than 16% of old growth
forest remained. In 1913, Reginald Thomson’s personal papers and reports indicate
a support of Progressive forestry policies through the acquisition of Cedar River
lands by the city of Seattle, in order to protect the watershed from pollution linked
to logging and timber activities.32 In correspondence between Thomson and B.H
Ober, Superintendent of Buildings, a report documented the necessary purchases of
land that “will result in giving the City of Seattle an assurance of a continuation of an
adequate supply of pure and wholesome water not surpassed by that of any city in
the world”.33 This report also indicated a lack of interest in agricultural values and a
distrust of local individuals to maintain the pristine nature of the water, as well as a
disregard for the economic viability of the timber industry. “In its present state it
does not constitute anything of value to the city except for the particular use and
purpose of protecting the purity of the water supply. It may have a potential money
Mayor of Seattle, 10-16.
Ober, B.H, Report on Reforestation of Cedar River Watershed, University of
Washington Special Collections, February 1913.
33 Ober, B.H, 4-5.
31
32
Hersh10
value, however, dependent upon the use which can be made of it.”34 This shift in
values during the 20th century, from individualistic agrarianism and industry in
many parts of the country, to a more united and “greater good” oriented progressive
movement was also immersed in conflict.
Although there was support for the public maintenance of the watershed
from elites like University of Washington forestry
specialist Huge Winkenwerder, this disregard of local
timber was not taken well by many working class
individuals. Newspaper clippings like the one in
Figure 4 illustrate major social conflicts between the
population of Seattle and its government
Figure 4 Newspaper Clipping35
officials, protesting the acquisition of lands their economic viability depended on. 36
Public protests were common during this time, and other article clippings indicate
major public distrust in the costs to this industry. This same conflict is discussed in
Karl Jacoby’s novel Crimes Against Nature, where the Forestry Commission in the
Adirondack Mountains invoked conservation strategies to preserve a “pristine”
environment by moving land from the hands of “irresponsible” and “immoral”
loggers and hunters and into those of elites.37 As in Jacoby’s novel, despite public
outcry, the City of Seattle was successful in its public lands practice. Today, nearly
Ober, B.H, 7.
Excerpt from the Seattle Daily Times, Wednesday April 9th, 1920, University of
Washington Special Collections, Accession number 1602-2, Box 3.
36 Excerpt from the Seattle Daily Times, Wednesday April 9th, 1920, University of
Washington Special Collections, Accession number 1602-2, Box 3.
37 Jacoby, Karl. Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden
History of American Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press, c2001
2001
34
35
Hersh11
90,000 acres or 123 miles of the upper Cedar River Watershed are maintained as an
ecological preserve.38
Throughout the development of the Cedar River Municipal Watershed,
environmental, social, and economic issues arose. Social protests by capitalist
businessmen and the working class almost halted the creation of public utilities in
Seattle. The dams, which provide our city with its unprecedented drinking water
and electricity, have blocked over 17 miles of Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon
and steelhead trout habitat,39 and increased sedimentation.40 Additionally,
economic viability and industrial independence was reduced in the watershed by
the acquisition of lands by the city of Seattle, despite heated controversies over
economic losses to the working class. The municipal watershed is a unique
ecological and economic creation, tied to the social and political movements of the
19th and 20th century. Without the right sequence of events and inventiveness of
Reginald Thomson, Seattle might still be relying on an insufficient water source.
Although some of the environmental consequences of this municipality have been
detrimental, many restoration efforts have been implemented in the past 50 years
to combat these. The municipal Cedar River Watershed is one of a kind, with a rich
cultural history often overlooked in the Progression of modern society.
The Watershed, 2012.
Mayor of Seattle, 19.
40 City of Seattle.
38
39
Hersh12
Bibliography
Figures
1. Seattle Municipal Archives, Assembling the woodstave pipeline which was
installed to carry Cedar River water to Seattle, 1899.
2. Deal, Gabriel, Abiel Beak, 2004, JPEG file
http://yellowleaf.org/scramble/pics/2009-03-12-roaring-ridge/097tink-abiel.jpg
3. University of Washington Libraries. The Great Seattle Fire, Digital
Collections. http://content.lib.washington.edu/extras/seattle-fire.html
4. Excerpt from the Seattle Daily Times, Wednesday April 9th, 1920,
University of Washington Special Collections, Accession number 1602-2,
Box 3.
Sources
City of Seattle, Fish and Landsburg, Seattle Public Utilities.
http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/OurWatersheds/Habitat_C
onservation_Plan/FishandLandsburg/index.htm (2012).
Cultural Heritage, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed,
http://www.cedarriver.org/the-watershed/municipal/cultural-heritage (2012)
Hersh13
Dorpat, Paul and McCoy, Genevieve. Building Washington: A History of Washington
State Public Works. (Seattle, Washington,: Tartu Publications, 1998) 282-284.
Linda Nash, “Progressivism Lecture”, November 1st, 2012.
Mayor of Seattle, “Cedar River Watershed: Detailed Recommended Changes to the
Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan”, May 1999, 10-21.
Morehead State University, Progressivism. http://www.slideshare.net/tabenn2/usprogressivism#btnNext (November 4th, 2009).
Ober, B.H, Report on Reforestation of Cedar River Watershed, University of
Washington Special Collections, February 1913.
"Salmon Populations." Salmon Populations. NOAA, 14 Aug. 2012.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/.
Stein, Alan J, Thomas Reginald Heber (1895-1949), HistoryLink,
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=2074
(January 18th, 2000)
The Watershed, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed,
http://www.cedarriver.org/the-watershed (2012).
Hersh14
University of Washington Libraries. The Great Seattle Fire, Digital Collections.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/extras/seattle-fire.html
US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. King County, Washington,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033.html (September 18th. 2012)
Wilke, Steve, “Cultural Resource Assessment of Cedar River Exchange Lands, GeoRecon International, July 28th, 1980.