Countryside Conservatism and Conservation - Southern Water, Southern Power - page 116

assigned to “something of more value and interest to newspaper publishers.” Clearly frus-
trated, Williford called the Georgia Conservancy “a special interest group which came re-
questing time to promote their beliefs and programs.” In exaggeration mode, he did not
think “we should provide a forum for such groups, and certainly not in response to their re-
quest,” because if the Georgia Conservancy got airtime, “Why not the Black Panthers, reli-
gious groups, or one of the thousands of others who have some 'special kick' going?” Wil-
liford was not the first person to associate the Sun Belt's environmental concerns with civil
rights problems. Countryside conservationists and environmentalists who rallied around
water quality were only the latest manifestation of opposition to Corps water and energy
projects. 52
Frank Harrison was among a small group of regular writers to South Carolina's congres-
sional delegation who linked the Savannah River's water and energy history to the nation's
civil rights conflict and postwar rights-based liberalism beginning in the 1950s. As a con-
cerned constituent, Harrison was not alone in his critique of the Corps' Hartwell and Trot-
ters Shoals projects. Unlike some of his fellow writers who were prone to hyperbole, Har-
rison pointed logically to a new conflation of “rights” that eventually converged more con-
cretely downstream at Trotters Shoals. First and foremost, Harrison opposed the Hartwell
project because the economics did not make sense. The Corps wanted to build a taxpayer-
funded and tax-exempt dam that produced electricity less efficiently than thermoelectric
coal-fired steam plants as advertised by Duke Power Company. His protest bubbled from a
collection of circumstances including his observation of the Corps' Clarks Hill project land
condemnation and purchase process as well as the Corps' acquisition of water rights. Har-
rison had been personally involved in McCormick County's (S.C.) fight for congressional
authorization to legally draw water from Clarks Hill, and while ultimately successful, this
experience only added to his sense that the federal government was usurping states' and
local municipalities' water rights. 53
As Harrison succinctly summed up his concerns, “The taking of huge areas of private
property by the Federal Government is becoming increasingly dangerous especially in view
of the recent Supreme Court decision and other actions of the administration in attempting
to continue the centralizing of power in the Federal Government.” Harrison was referring
to nothing other than the Supreme Court's May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education rul-
ing that declared “separate but equal” facilities unconstitutional. Harrison thought he saw
the writing on the wall and connected states' rights, water rights, and civil rights: “The
widespread increase of federal public use and recreation areas may result in serious politic-
al repercussions in this state and other states because these areas may become areas which
cannot be used to any extent by members of the white race.” 54 Harrison was not alone.
For example, when the Georgia Farm Bureau assembled to set the 1955 state farm lobby's
agenda, they “expected to make a stand on four major issues—water resources, segrega-