Taken and Delivered - Southern Water, Southern Power - page 133

Walhalla, Oconee's county seat. As an illustration of this disconnect, his family never had a
phone and did not receive electricity until 1952, despite the Southeast's extensive electric-
al generation and transmission system. Their neighbors—the Russells—obtained the first
community phone connection in 1968 before selling their property to the Forest Service
in 1970. 38 Second, Ridley interpreted the Chattooga's transformation in a larger historical
context of southern Appalachian community reaction to Forest Service policy. The Forest
Service's history of land condemnations in Georgia and South Carolina dating back to 1915
had left an impression with local residents that when the Forest Service threatened to con-
demn property, little could be done to stop the process. This early fear likely dated back to
the Forest Service's condemnation of thousands of acres of private property when it began
to acquire land under the auspices of watershed protection and the Weeks Act (1911). 39 It is
worth noting that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) made land condemnation for river
corridors very difficult, but land adjacent to and outside the future corridor—including in-
holdings—was indeed condemned. 40 Given this context, local people “did not think they
could do anything or did not know about the process,” in Ridley's opinion. Furthermore,
farming families like his, who lived along the river before moving out in 1970, “lost in-
terest after losing their land.” These families may have chosen not to participate, but that
did not mean they did not care about the river. Ridley believed the “locals knew they took
better care of the river” and that the “general public doesn't take care of the property.” He
also claimed that today's visitors from outside the region—mostly raft, kayak, and canoe
recreationists—leave their trash along a river that once provided his family with trout. 41
Ridley was not alone in the opinion that local residents who cared about the Chattooga did
not vocalize significant opposition to the river's designation. Newspaper editors and their
coverage on both sides of the river portrayed the initial wild and scenic river designation
process as a love fest, with one paper noting “almost no opposition” at advertised public
“listening sessions” as the study process kicked off in 1968. 42
But beginning in 1969, conservation-minded critics—particularly from South Caro-
lina—warned the Forest Service officials facilitating study sessions and public hearings
that designating the Chattooga a wild and scenic river would require users, including local
residents and outside visitors, to adjust their behavior within the protected river corridor. 43
Attention to planned road and trail closures on the South Carolina side of the river, as well
as potential restrictions on hunting and fishing access, occupied more than passing con-
versation at a Clemson meeting and foreshadowed future points of contention. 44 Tension
flared at yet another Chattooga-related public meeting when a lawyer from Greenville—a
South Carolina city located about sixty-five miles east of the river—attacked the Forest
Service's clear-cutting policy, only to be rebuffed by resident loggers in the audience who
responded that clear-cutting operations improved the forest's health and provided jobs for
South Carolinians. These South Carolina meeting participants—countryside conservation-