Hersh

Progressive Pipelines:The History of Seattle’s Drinking Water

Amy HershSection AC

Figure 1. Assembling the pipeline from the Cedar River to Seattle1

1 Seattle Municipal Archives, Assembling the woodstave pipeline which was installed to carry Cedar River water to Seattle, 1899.

1

Hersh

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

reliable provision of drinking water.3 Residents of this area are lucky enough to have

2 Mayor of Seattle, “Cedar River Watershed: Detailed Recommended Changes to the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan”, May 1999, 10-21.3 US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. King County, Washington, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033.html (September 18th. 2012)

2

Hersh

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. This naturally filtered water finds its way back to the surface of the

watershed through natural springs, Rattlesnake Lake, and the Snoqualmie River.7

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.jpg6 The Watershed, 2012.7 The Watershed, 2012.

3

Hersh

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

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

8 Wilke, Steve, “Cultural Resource Assessment of Cedar River Exchange Lands, Geo-Recon 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.

4

Hersh

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

12 Wilke, 10.13 Dorpat, Paul and McCoy, Genevieve. Building Washington: A History of Washington State Public Works. (Seattle, Washington, Tartu Publications, 1998) 282-284.

5

Hersh

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 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

14 Dorpat, and McCoy, 282-284.15University of Washington Libraries. The Great Seattle Fire, Digital Collections. http://content.lib.washington.edu/extras/seattle-fire.html16 Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.

6

Hersh

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

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.

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.html19 Linda Nash, “Progressivism Lecture”, November 1st, 2012. 20 Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.21 Dorpat and McCoy, 282-284.

7

Hersh

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

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

22 Morehead State Univerity, Progressivism. http://www.slideshare.net/tabenn2/us-progressivism#btnNext (November 4th, 2009).23 Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.24 Beth Bryant, “Takings and Public Trust Doctrine Lecture”, October 31, 2012.25 Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.26 Darpat and McCoy, 282-284.27 Stein, Alan.

8

Hersh

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.

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

28 City of Seattle, Fish and Landsburg, Seattle Public Utilities. http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/OurWatersheds/Habitat_Conservation_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/.

31 Mayor of Seattle, 10-16.

9

Hersh

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

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

32 Ober, B.H, Report on Reforestation of Cedar River Watershed, University of Washington Special Collections, February 1913.33 Ober, B.H, 4-5.34 Ober, B.H, 7. 35 Excerpt from the Seattle Daily Times, Wednesday April 9th, 1920, University of Washington Special Collections, Accession number 1602-2, Box 3.

10

Hersh

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

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

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 200138 The Watershed, 2012.39 Mayor of Seattle, 19.40 City of Seattle.

11

Hersh

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.

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/097-

tink-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.

12

Hersh

Sources

City of Seattle, Fish and Landsburg, Seattle Public Utilities.

http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/OurWatersheds/

Habitat_Conservation_Plan/FishandLandsburg/index.htm (2012).

Cultural Heritage, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed,

http://www.cedarriver.org/the-watershed/municipal/cultural-heritage (2012)

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/us-

progressivism#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/.

13

Hersh

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).

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, Geo-

Recon International, July 28th, 1980.

14