Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Bomber factory) and postwar civil infrastructure contracts (Atlanta Hartsfield International
water releases for electrical generation would surround Clemson College with unsightly
and insect-prone mudflats. Second, as water rose behind the Hartwell dam, the new high-
water level would render the college's raw drinking-water intake and sewage treatment fa-
cilities inoperable. Finally, and an issue that soon threatened to halt the project forever, the
authors determined that the new reservoir's water would inundate thousands of acres of
college property. In their final assessment for the Clemson board of trustees, the three men
believed a dike or levee—built and maintained by the Corps—was the best solution to keep
the rising waters off campus property and out of the Tigers' football stadium.
33
Reid, Stanford, and Sloan then used information from the private Clemson College re-
port to publish their own publicity piece. The tone of the two documents could not have
been more different, and
The Truth about “Hartwell”
reads like a red-smearing vituper-
ative rant. The 1952 cover page alone made the mission clear: “SAVE CLEMSON from
being surrounded by a sea of mud; SAVE SOUTH CAROLINA from Federal Control,
from so-called Civil Rights, from Socialism and Communism; SAVE STATES RIGHTS.”
Buried in the rhetoric were nuggets of truth. The three authors correctly identified a well-
founded criticism of multiple-purpose dams: “A full reservoir cannot regulate floods and
might mean keeping the reservoir low or nearly empty, but in order to produce electricity
on a regular schedule, reservoirs need to be full. Since Hartwell was initially considered
a flood control structure with additional benefits for power production and navigational
improvements, the concern was legitimate. What, the authors asked, would the reservoir's
fluctuating level mean for Clemson—the mudflats, the mosquitoes, the sewage and water
lines, and the relocation of buildings and roads? When Reid and his coauthors specifically
targeted the Corps' projected water levels, they landed clear opinions on the federal gov-
ernment's encroachment on race relations, property rights, and the free enterprise system.
Concerns about a new working reservoir served as key elements of the Sun Belt backlash
against liberalism that critics concentrated on the crumbling New Deal big dam consensus.
Hartwell opponents used the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) much as those who op-
posed public water and energy projects like Clarks Hill had a decade earlier.
The Truth
about “Hartwell”
explained that the TVA did not pay taxes, was a federally subsidized
electrical company, and threatened the competitive marketplace. The TVA, Clarks Hill, and
now Hartwell represented the slippery slope: “If the government can go into the power
business and charge itself no interest and practically no taxes it should pay, why cannot it
also go into the Oil, Bread, Shoe, Transportation or Insurance business. When it does this,
is that not state socialism?” The conservative authors recommended that the Corps aban-
don its project or, at a minimum, reduce the height of the dam to keep the Clemson cam-
