Creating the South Mountains State Park: A Product of the “Environmental Decade”?

About the Author: E.G. Palmer is a Senior at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics in Morganton, NC (class of ‘24). She was born and raised in Hendersonville, North Carolina. She wrote this paper as part of the Summer Research and Innovation Program at NCSSM Morganton. 

BY E.G. Palmer

            North Carolina officially established South Mountains State Park as public land in November 1975.  According to forester Rob Amberg, parts of the South Mountain range were being considered for National Forest purchases as far back as 1911.1 Officials surveyed the land for potential state park development as far back as 1942. However, it wasn’t until the “environmental decade” of the 1970s that park development began to be seriously considered. Local groups discussed questions such as who would conserve the South Mountains, what should be conserved, and later, what the appropriate level of human involvement in the park should be.

These debates took the form of editorials in the local newspapers, park planning meetings attended by hundreds, and letters written to government officials. The specific conclusions reached in these debates couldn’t have existed without the historical context of the 1970s. Drawing on rhetoric and aesthetic of wilderness from the Romantic era, the ecology movement peaked in the 1970s, leading people to value environmental relationships more than in the past. Through examining primary sources documenting the park’s creation and considering environmental trends from the 1970s, it becomes clear that the creation of South Mountains State Park reflected the ecological values of the time.

Who Should Conserve the South Mountains?

            The most revealing feature of the debates surrounding the creation of the park was that all parties believed that the area should be conserved. There was only disagreement about who was best to do it. When South Mountains State Park was created, there were two main groups that inhibited the park’s creation: independent small landowners and a corporation, Pine Mountain Lakes.  These two opponents of the state park agreed that the part of the South Mountains should be conserved, but they each made cases for why they should be the ones responsible for conserving it.  In addition to questions about who should conserve the land, the community also questioned who should have access to the land.  Yet, notably absent from these discussions were the voices of timber and mining interests.   This may have been a reflection of the pro-environment climate of the 1970s, when many political figures agreed that conservation was important and even passed impactful environmental legislation, such as the Clean Air Act (1970) and Clean Water Act (1972). In previous decades, logging and mining interests (who would likely argue against environmental protection) would have had a much larger influence. 

            One of the main catalysts for the creation of the park was encroaching residential development in the region, namely upscale development that would prohibit public access. In 1973, newspapers began to report on a new development that was under construction in the South Mountains. This planned community was called Pine Mountain Lakes, and it would become synonymous with all development in the South Mountains. Pine Mountain Lakes was intended to be an enormous project. It was originally planned to house 10,000 families (although its size was later reduced). It was also intended to be a “recreation resort community”, complete with a lodge that “will resemble a large tri-level country club with outdoor swimming pool, a restaurant, game rooms, several quiet areas, and tennis and paddle tennis courts”.2 Most relevantly to the public, it was intended to be (and still is to this day) a gated community, with no access allowed to non-residents. Many people were upset by this. Shelby citizen Lester Roark wrote, “This nation has long been dedicated to the proposition that areas of ‘unusual scenic beauty’ should be set aside for the enjoyment of ALL our people- young and old, rich and poor”.3 Equitable access regardless of social class is an especially important idea here, considering that Pine Mountain Lakes was (and still is) a development intended for the rich. The development would have closed off a significant amount of land in the Jacob’s Fork area of the park for private use if it had fulfilled all of its plans.

            Even though the land wouldn’t be available for public use, Pine Mountain Lakes claimed to be committed to conservation in the region. According to the Morganton News Herald, Pine Mountain Lakes hired a team of professionals “including geologists, engineers, ecologists, and land-planning experts” in order to better construct the development.5 In his letter to the Shelby newspaper, titled “Developers, Park Can Coexist”, Lester Roark mentioned Pine Mountain Lakes in a positive way, writing “THEY ARE DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB and should be commended for their efforts to protect the landscape”.4 Although Roark was against Pine Mountain Lakes closing the land off to the public, he believed that they were committed to conserving the land. At least publicly, Pine Mountain Lakes seemed to be committed to protecting the South Mountains in some way.

Although Pine Mountain Lakes claimed to be committed to conservation, the development is alleged to have been less than careful about the ecological balance of the region. Art Linkletter, TV and radio personality turned public relations representative for the development, is quoted as saying, “Ecology is like any crusade of its type. It will reach an intense pitch and then subside”.6 It is relevant that Linkletter used the word “ecology” here. Ecology was a very new idea in the 1970s. As opposed to earlier ideas like “conservation” that emphasized sustainable development, ecology emphasized the interconnectedness of different parts of nature. Although Pine Mountain Lakes was outwardly committed to conservation, they also engaged in environmentally irresponsible behaviors that may have harmed the ecology of the region. Alan Eakes, chief of planning and interpreting of the state parks division, said about Pine Mountain Lakes “It’s just frightening to see what they are doing. [The trees cleared for roads] were being burned like crazy in the middle of last week. It looked from a distance like the whole forest was on fire”.7 While there was other development going on in the South Mountains at the time, the scale of the Pine Mountain Lakes development seemed especially threatening to the ecology of the region. According to the article “Mining Under Way?”, Pine Mountain Lakes was granted a permit to mine gravel in specific areas, but not in Jacob’s Fork River.  However, some residents accused Pine Mountain Lakes of mining in the Jacob’s Fork River that caused the river to look “like chocolate milk.”.8 Allegedly, the mining killed over 200 fish. While Pine Mountain Lakes conserved parts of the landscape, some actions taken by this development had damaging ecological impacts.

            The small property owners within the area of the proposed park added another dimension to the debate about the rightful ownership of the land. Some of these property owners, mostly from families who lived in the South Mountains for many generations, strongly opposed the park's creation. Some argued that they stewarded the land better than the government could. One area resident, Faye Deviney, told a local newspaper that “people mean pollution” and that the park would attract “undesirables” to the area and “alter (the community’s) way of life”.9 She believed that the more people invited into the area, the more polluted and dangerous it would become. This sentiment is echoed by other residents of the South Mountains. M.H. Smith, a farmer from the Burke County community of Casar, wrote to North Carolina Governor  James Holshouser concerning the park. Smith argued, “The landowners have carefully conserved the natural resources and the natural beauty of these hills. We are extremely proud of what we have created and maintained”.10 Smith opposed the area he lived in for a park, but didn’t seem against the idea of a park altogether. He wrote, “There are other sites more readily available and more suited for a park”.11 This makes sense in the context of the 1970s, when there was widespread support for conservation. Despite the assurances of the locals that the land was well taken care of, it was eventually transferred to the government by 1975. Although there were likely several factors leading to this decision (such as the aforementioned encroaching development), this decision also reflects another important idea in American conservation: technocracy. They believed that land is best managed in the hands of experts and scientists rather than the public. Even though the landowners may have been conserving the land, others believed it could be conserved best in the hands of the government, where scientists and park officials could monitor it more easily.

The Sublime: What Should Be Preserved?

Romanticism was one of the most powerful environmental philosophies of the 19th century. Its fascination with sublime landscapes- those that inspire both fear and amazement- still is relevant to 20th century environmentalism. The idea of sublime landscapes has historically had religious connotations. Romantics believed that by experiencing sublime landscapes (such as waterfalls and mountain vistas) people could become closer to God. These ideas have  been ingrained in American culture so deeply that it is echoed in the writing about South Mountains State Park, and likely played a small part in conservation decisions. When the state purchased land for the park in 1975, Thomas Ellis, the Superintendent of State Parks at the time, remarked “I think some things ought to belong to all people. The High Shoals area is one of the God given works that the good Lord has blessed us with, and it should belong to everybody”.12  Ellis refers to the waterfall as a blessing, which is significant because a “blessing” has a connotation of something that everyone should enjoy.  By describing the waterfall this way, Ellis appeals to a philosophy of conservation that has been responsible for many historic national parks.

Waterfalls were one of the main sources of the sublime for 19th century writers.  It is no coincidence that when Pine Mountain Lakes was buying land in the South Mountains prior to the park’s formation, the feature people cared the most about was the waterfall. Many letters and newspapers referenced the High Shoals Waterfall on Jacob’s Fork River as an object of special concern. Pine Mountain Lakes had purchased a lot of the land around the waterfall, and citizens were concerned that there would not be enough free land around the waterfall to make a park. One article reported that “the state park may have to be discarded despite the hopes and aspirations of residents of Cleveland, Burke, and Rutherford counties”.13 Several letters and statements from organizations all over the region about the park paid special attention to the High Shoals Waterfall. For example, the Cecilia Music Club of Shelby sent out a statement saying “We respectfully request that the state of North Carolina move swiftly to buy the Jacob’s Fork High Shoals as a national wilderness area.” 14 William Cronon wrote about the tendency to preserve sublime landscapes, saying: “God was on the mountaintop, in the chasm, in the waterfall, in the thundercloud, in the rainbow, in the sunset. One has only to think of the sites that Americans chose for their first national parks—Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Rainier, Zion—to realize that virtually all of them fit one or more of these categories”.15 People chose the first national parks, especially Yellowstone and Yosemite, because of their sublime landscapes. Waterfalls, such as High Shoals Falls, are the quintessential representation of sublime landscapes. This helps explain why people wrote about the falls in a Romantic way. It also helps explain why this rhetoric was effective for conservation, and why so many people cared about preserving the falls for public access.

Pure Wilderness: What is the Role of Humans in Nature?

American conservation has historically been fascinated with the idea of a “pure” or “pristine” wilderness. The most widely read articles about South Mountains State Park are probably those that appeared in the magazine Our State (or The State, as it was known prior to 1996). South Mountains State Park was featured in at least two articles, and both times provide notable examples of rhetoric related to purity. The earlier article, written by Edgar Abernathy, describes South Mountains State Park as “rugged” and “pristine…uncluttered by tourists”.16 This reinforces the idea that to be pristine or pure, humans have to stay away from the wilderness. The later article, written by Marshall Ellis and appearing in the March 1999 issue of Our State, also included references to the park’s “pristine streams.” 17 These articles were relatively accessible to the general public, so it is significant that this is the rhetoric that was promoted about the park. It shows how the South Mountains State Parks’s purity was one of the most press-worthy things about it.

The ecological perspectives of the time also supported the idea that environments work best without any human interference. In the 1970s and 80s, the dominant environmental idea was that nature would always reach a climax community without human interference. A climax community can best be explained in the words of Eugene Odum, a biologist who pioneered the field of ecosystem ecology. Odum wrote that all ecosystems are fundamentally “directed toward achieving as large and diverse an organic structure as is possible within the limits set by the available energy input and the prevailing physical conditions of existence”.18 Odum’s ideas were highly influential in the early 1970s. People believed that ecosystems would, without human interference, always move toward a climax (or k-selected) community. From an ecological standpoint, non-interference was always considered the right thing to do. Although this viewpoint changed after the 1980s, it influenced how the park was created. According to a 1978 memorandum, there was a debate about whether or not to build an artificial lake. The report says one of the plans proposed involved a “12 ½ acre lake with a swimming beach, fishing, row boating and canoeing” that would be created by damming the Jacob’s Fork River.19 The public was not in favor of this proposal, and it never happened. Local newspapers were thrilled about this decision. The Shelby Daily Star published an article called “Keeping Park Natural” praising the decision to limit development in the park. The article claimed, “With the lesser development plan approved, fewer funds should be needed so that the minimal development should be able to be undertaken quickly. More important, the natural beauty of South Mountains State Park will have been preserved.” 20 Although funding appeared to be a part of the issue, to the community, the decision was about preserving the “natural beauty” of the park. They thought that the lake would make it artificial, which meant less beautiful. This reinforces the concept of wilderness as something that is as far removed from human intervention as possible.

As mentioned before, there were many people living in South Mountains State Park before its creation. As with all state and national parks, these people had to be moved before the park was created because they were incompatible with the idea of wilderness. There is a very interesting historical precedent to this decision. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, established in 1926, was the first national park created with land the government didn’t already own. The government had to decide what to do with the people who lived there. If the park “was to be seen as wilderness, they could not contain farmers whose families had lived there for hundreds of years”.21 Again, the idea appears that true wilderness and humans are incompatible. The National Park Service never “intended to allow the mountain dwellers to stay in the park”.22  They were all forced out, likely using the powers of eminent domain granted to North Carolina and Tennessee. By setting this precedent, the national park service sent a clear message about the place of human inhabitants of the wilderness that was followed by all future state and national parks.

Conclusion

Environmental historian William Cronon once wrote, “To the extent that we celebrate wilderness as the measure with which we judge civilization, we reproduce the dualism that sets humanity and nature at opposite poles. We thereby leave ourselves little hope of discovering what an ethical, sustainable, honorable human place in nature might actually look like”.23 Cronon’s quote speaks to the importance of environmental history. Nature cannot be fully understood without considering the human relationships to it. Environmental history is increasingly important considering that the anthropocene era has made it so the human world and the non-human world are even more connected than ever before. The creation of South Mountains State Park is an important example of how the human world and the environment were connected in the historical context of the 1970s. Through understanding why the park was established, what was conserved, and how it was managed, it can be better understood how human culture and scientific thought impact environmental management.

Notes:

1.      Amberg, Rob. Contact about Old Surveys of Rollins, Etc. 8 Aug. 2007. South Mountains State Park.

2.      Houser, Troy. “New Burke Community Born.” The News Herald, 88th ed., 6 July 1973. Burke County Library, Pine Mountain Lakes.

3.      Roark, Lester. “Developers, Park Can Coexist.” The Shelby Daily Star. South Mountains State Park.

4.      Roark, Lester. “Developers, Park Can Coexist.” The Shelby Daily Star. South Mountains State Park.

5.      10,000 Families Expected in New Burke Development. Burke County Library, Pine Mountain Lakes.

6.       Inman, Bill. “A Star Without a Mike.” Shelby Daily Star, 3 June 1974. South Mountains State Park.

7.      Weathers, Jim. “Park May Lose Jacob Fork Area.” Shelby Daily Star, 11 Mar. 1974.

8.      Weathers, Jim, and Joe DePriest. “Mining Under Way?” Shelby Daily Star.

9.      Nicholas, Wayne. “Lonely, Silent Mountains Wait as Developers Begin to Hum.” The Charlotte Observer. South Mountains State Park, Formation of the Park.

10.  Smith, M. H. 11 Feb. 1974. South Mountains State Park, Formation of Park.

11.  Smith, M. H. 11 Feb. 1974. South Mountains State Park, Formation of Park.

12.  Hall, Ted. “State Purchases South Mtn. Park.” The News Herald, 19 Dec. 1975. Burke County Library.

13.  South Mountain Park Now in Real Danger. 12 Mar. 1974. South Mountains State Park.

14.  Mrs. Lee Gilliatt. Statement. 5 Dec. 1973. South Mountains State Park.

15.  Cronan, William. The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html. Accessed 15 June 2023.

16.   Abernathy, Edgar. “The South Mountains.” The State. Burke County Archive.

17.  Ellis, Marshall. “Call of the Wild.” Our State, Mar. 1999, pp. 60–64. Burke County Library.

18.  Worster, Donald. “The Ecology of Order and Chaos.” Environmental History Review, vol. 14, no. Spring-Summer 1990, pp. 1–18, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3984623.

19.  Weaver, Steve and Fred Hagenberger. Additional Public Input Needed Regarding South Mountains State Park Master Plan . 18 Apr. 1978. South Mountains State Park, Formation of the Park.

20.   “Keeping Park Natural.” The Shelby Daily Star, 14 Apr. 1978. South Mountains State Park.

21.  Cantrill, James G., and Christine L. Oravec, editors. The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment. 1st ed., University Press of Kentucky, 1996. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130j1tg. Accessed 23 June 2023.

22.  Cantrill, James G., and Christine L. Oravec, editors. The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment. 1st ed., University Press of Kentucky, 1996. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130j1tg. Accessed 23 June 2023.

23.  Cronan, William. The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html. Accessed 15 June 2023.