Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Green, Shovel-Ready Stimulus — 100 Years Ago
There was a time when our nation was capable of large, visionary construction projects.

By Victor Davis Hanson


Archive Latest RSS Send

Huntington Lake, Calif. — Our politicians love soaring platitudes followed by little, if any, action. The more Americans are promised shovel-ready stimulus projects, new sources of power, and other fantasies, the more we accept that bureaucracy, regulations, lawsuits, and impact statements will prevent much from ever being done.

The president himself, after demanding nearly a trillion dollars in borrowed money for his budget, confessed that his “shovel-ready” projects had proved not so shovel-ready after all. Much of the vast sum of borrowed money instead went to subsidize nearly insolvent pension funds, entitlements, and bloated state budgets. Unemployment is still at 9.2 percent, with nearly 50 million people on government-subsidized food stamps — even as American infrastructure is crumbling, the private sector is moribund, and national timidity prevents any new large, visionary construction. Prior generations gave us space projects; ours ends them. Boeing once ruled the skies; now the government sues to stop Boeing from opening a new plant.

Advertisement
For the way things used to be, consider the Big Creek hydroelectric project, begun here in the central Sierra Nevada mountains of California 100 years ago. It was the nation’s first large effort to generate electricity from falling water — spurred by the need to provide electric power for a growing Los Angeles nearly 250 miles away.

Industrialist and entrepreneur Henry Huntington conceived the gargantuan effort, begun in 1911. In just 157 days, a supply railroad up the mountains was built by thousands of workers struggling at over 6,000 feet in elevation with picks, shovels, and horse-drawn scrapers. In just two years, electricity was flowing southward from a new powerhouse at Big Creek that harnessed San Joaquin River water released from the new Huntington Lake reservoir.

Huntington’s dream project — eventually expanded, and today managed by the Southern California Edison power company — would eventually encompass six major lakes, 27 dams, and 24 powerhouses that capture the descending High Sierra water to generate over 1,000 megawatts of clean electricity.

The interconnected lakes also store precious water for 1 million acres of irrigated California farmland thousands of feet below. The thriving High Sierra sailing, sports, and tourist industries grew up around the new lakes and roads. Far from destroying the environment, the Big Creek project created beautiful alpine reservoirs and gave millions of middle-class Californians access for the first time to the beauty of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Few appreciate that the entire project was built with private funds.

How did our ancestors — poorer than we and with limited technology — so quickly create such a vast project, which today probably would pose insurmountable challenges to their far richer, high-tech descendants?

They were far more in need and far more self-confident than we are today — and they acted when they were 80 percent sure of success rather than endlessly talking and delaying in expectation of an always-elusive 100 percent certainty. In 1911, there was a desire for the new wonders of electricity. Today, we take the power for our iPads and video games for granted, and are more likely to nitpick the environmental and social sensibilities of past generations who gave us what we so nonchalantly use in the present.

Quite simply, Big Creek could not be built today in the United States. Environmentalists would claim that the pristine nature of the San Joaquin River would be unnecessarily altered, citing a newly discovered colony of spotted newts or dappled dragonflies in the way of the proposed penstocks. Unions would demand blanket representation without elections — and every imaginable compensation for such hazardous duty. Workers would apply for stress-related disability benefits given the dizzying heights and the dank subterranean digging. Government regulators and inspectors would outnumber project engineers. Private entrepreneurs world never risk such a chancy investment without ironclad government guarantees of profits despite enormous cost overruns. And the public would be as skeptical of the risky project’s success as they would be eager to enjoy its dividends when completed.

The Big Creek project, like the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate bridges, and the interstate highway system, was the work of a less wealthy but confident bygone generation. They understood man’s ceaseless elemental struggle against nature to survive one more day, and they did not have the luxury of second- and third-guessing the work of others before them. 

We should remember the lesson of Henry Huntington’s Big Creek project, started 100 years ago this year, as we let rich irrigated farm acreage lie idle and pass up the exploitation of new oil and gas fields — preferring to argue endlessly over how to redistribute our inherited but ever-shrinking national pie.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

You Might Also Like...

Nordlinger: One Mo’ Time

Symposium: The Mesa Debate

Trinko: Santorum in Arizona



COMMENTS   48

EXPAND  

john walker
   07/21/11 07:49

The Panama canal was a federally supervised project that was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. George Goethals and The Corps of Engineers did a remarkable job in doing what others including the French had failed to do. The Manhattan project developed an atomic bomb within two and a half years. Prior estimates of a bomb in 10 years was considered an optimistic assessment. The Germans weren't even close. They thought the critical mass required to trigger off a chain reaction meant a bomb that was too big. The clever Americans realized a pre-detonation could cut the amount of fissionable material to make a bomb that was carriable. The Los Alamos boys also found out that Plutonium was a more fissionable product than Uranium.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 09:25

The concept of a canal near Panama dates to the early 16th century. The first attempt to construct a canal began in 1880 under French leadership, but was abandoned after 21,900 workers died, largely from disease (particularly malaria and yellow fever) and landslides. The United States launched a second effort, incurring a further 5,600 deaths but succeeding in opening the canal in 1914.

I'd like to see how far and how long ANY project today would continue with a mortality rate of such magnitude. If the envirowackos didn't stop such a project, the anti-exploitationistas of the oppressed native populations surely would.
I'm sure in today's regulation happy world, the environmental impact study required to begin an endeavor of the magnitude of the Manhattan Project would take more than two and a half years just to complete, let alone get approval.
In today's world, the war would have long been over before ground was broken.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 09:43

Americans? The Jews were running the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer, Szilard, Teller, and Einstein as external consultant.

Just as the Jews (Von Neiman) gave America the nuclear edge during the Cold War.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Stammon
   07/21/11 15:36

Niels Bohr
Jews and Danes actually. A good mix.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Brown Fan42
   07/21/11 07:55

This article hits the nail on the head as to one of the key reasons our economy is flat....and will remain flat....under Obama. While some environmental regulation is good (Clean Air/Water Acts of the '70s), the EPA's nonsense of trying to stop global warming via stricter regulations is killing jobs.

There is no "settled science" that man is causing global warming. One way to inspire growth in this economy is to defang the EPA of ALL its regulations that are designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise halt global warming.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bulldog 82
   07/21/11 09:02

Not only is it clean energy, it's renewable. But, it doesn't count because the tree huggers don't like hydro and would like to abolish it. Go figure.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 09:03

The Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate bridges, and the interstate highway system...we might as well look at them as if they were built by some ancient civilization.

Instead of wondering how they overcame the engineering challenges, we should wonder how they overcame their own government.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 09:15

"This article hits the nail on the head as to one of the key reasons our economy is flat....and will remain flat....under Obama."

No, it's not just Obama. It is all politicians. It wasn't Obama that signed the ban on light bulbs. Nor was it Obama that signed into law prescription drug coverage for seniors. It wasn't Obama that gave us the EPA. It wasn't the Obama administration that said that under the Clean Air Act the EPA can be given the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. It wasn't the Obama Administration that gave us Medicaid, Medicare, public education, or welfare programs. It wasn't the Obama Administration that asked for $700 billion to bail out banks and car companies.

His administration is just an admission for what everyone knows, but refuses to say: That we have accepted socialism in lieu of capitalism. If you don't think so, just think about the current "debt negotiations" where the government is negotiating with itself to raise its own debt limit. One of the arguments being bandied about is that if the government doesn't get to borrow more money, the economy will tank. Well, if the economy tanks because the government cannot borrow money, is that not a tacit admission that ours is a socialist economy? When did the spending of the government become detrimental to the overall economy? No sir, this is not the doing of Obama; as always it is the voter's fault because we listen to the promises of pols and think we can get something for nothing.

CAPCHA is "sorry sight". Indeed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 12:34

Well said. Very well said.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Russ Davis
   07/21/11 09:36

All this is true, but the ultimate basis for it is that we've turned our back on the God we worshipped and served when we did these things, and since we're fatally stupid enough to do so, we'll never do anything great again unless we repent of our corruption and give Him the endless recognition He's long overdue. Our Founders promised/warned that without God as our sole sure foundation we would be fatally doomed and we have been. Only He can save us now.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 10:06
   07/21/11 10:08

The truth of is that America has turned its back on Israel. Reap the consequences. No country in the history of the world has ever profited from anti-Semitism - America will not be the first. You can't listen to 'Rev' Wright for 20yrs and not be one. Obama does the same flip flopping about Jews as he does with everything else, including his 'patriotism'. He makes Nixon look like he was on truth serum.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 10:19

Russ, that is pathetic drivel. I thought your God helped those that helped themselves. Only HE can save us? Claptrap. Only we can save us. But only if we want to.

Given your attitude, however, it would be fine with me if you retreated to your house of worship and prayed 24/7. Stay out of the way of those who might actually want to do the heavy lifting of fixing the problem, rather than whining defeatedly that only supernatural intervention can do it.

In fact, why don't you go along ahead and meet your maker, and tell him we need his help. When you get to him, and send him our way, hopefully we'll already be working on the problem.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Duresky
   07/21/11 09:53

Reminds me of a joke. A young kid is talking to a very old guy. Young kid is bragging and says, "We have computers, nice color TVs, the space shuttle (well, at least at one time we had the space shuttle), nuclear power. What did you have when you were young?" Old guy replies, "We didn't have any of those things, we were too busy inventing them." The article is right, the vigor of the U.S. economy is in direct inverse proportion to the government regulations being piled on it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 10:26

I think we will see those kind of achievements again. I think people of today are in fact ready to do that kind of thing if we just change our attitude as a society.

I think the change will come. Might (likely will) take a while but it will come. There have been slumps before in this country. Periods of moral corruption and timidity followed by revival both spiritual and physical. This does not have to be permanent and I do not think it will be.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 11:05

"The Big Creek project, like the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate bridges, and the interstate highway system, was the work of a less wealthy but confident bygone generation."

Bait-and-switch. Which of these, other than the Big Creek project, were not US Government endeavors?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 11:59

"Bait-and-switch. Which of these, other than the Big Creek project, were not US Government endeavors?"

MikeB, why the masterfully irrelevant comment?

Dr. Hanson's excellent point is that we've allowed the wussification of our culture. Too many of us hide under the bed of Utopian risk aversion and are so fearful of uncertainty that we seek to control everything around us. Such people do not take on hard jobs, nor do they place themselves at risk to meet great challenges. They consign themselves to mediocrity and decline.

Dr. Hanson's point is spot-on, whether you worship at the altar of government or not.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
OC Conservative
   07/21/11 14:58

VDH's point is that today those US government projects would not be built because of of current regulatory requirements.
When will the WTC be rebuilt?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
IsaacB
   07/21/11 11:08

Marvelous column.
Funny how reading through, even before arriving at Dr. Hanson's assertion that this project could never be accomplished today, especially in 157 days, I was thinking just that.
Has it become so tragically obvious that in today's America, a project like this would be bled dry by unions, lawyers, militant environemntalists and govt regulators long before a sinle megawatt of electricity was generated?
I've heard Dr. Hanson state that decline is a choice and he referenced Rome; at the time of the Western EMpire's collapse, it's enemies were a fraction as powerful as during the Second Punic War, when Hannibal was at the gates. However, the citizenry had devolved into something quite different--gone were the self-reliant, tough, republican yeoman farmer militia soldiers, replaced by a spoiled, softened, morally bankrupt citizenry atrophied under a bloated, top-heavy central government with a steadily devalued currency.
SOUND FAMILIAR?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 11:29

It's not just public works.

The Empire State Building was built in 16 months (groundbreaking to opening). I can't imagine buikding something that large, that fast today.

Design on the Empire State was completed about a year before construction began. Today, it might take five years just to get all the required permits.

(Well actually you wouldn't be able to build it at all. It was built on the site of the original Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, and today that would be landmarketd and you couldn't destroy it).

Or NYC's IRT subway- built in about four years, using primitive tools. How long is it taking to build the much shorter and less ambitious Second Avenue subway?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact