The Battle for Snoqualmie Falls
A high-stakes legal and land-grab feud erupts over plans to harness the falls for Seattle’s future electrical grid.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The first steps have been taken to harness Snoqualmie Falls and transmit their immense power to Seattle, though a long contest for the title to the property is underway. W.T. Lacy, a wealthy San Francisco capitalist, has filed notice of a claim to the water power, effectively challenging the riparian rights claimed by D.H. Gilman. Gilman's claim is further disputed by Guy C. Phinney, who asserts that he initiated the project and that Gilman and Judge Thomas Burke improperly seized control of the land he helped locate. While Gilman vehemently denies these claims as 'a naked, bald lie,' Lacy and Phinney are preparing for a court battle to secure their share of the falls. They plan to build a plant at the falls with an initial capacity of 5,000 horsepower, transmitting the current through 26 miles of buried cables across Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington to Seattle. The projectors estimate that this power could eventually run every sawmill, street railway, and household in the city, offering a 40 percent cost savings over current fuel-based plants.
“It is a naked, bald lie. You may quote me as saying that it is a lie in the plainest Anglo-Saxon you can command.”
This 1891 struggle over Snoqualmie Falls highlights the early, brutal competition for control over Washington’s natural resources. Just as developers once fought to monopolize the power grid, modern-day Seattle continues to grapple with the tension between private infrastructure projects and public utility access.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.