To Guard and Preserve? Or Open and Enjoy?

The last time anyone really got excited about the terrain was in the last third of the 19th century, when prospectors discovered what seemed to be rich veins of gold, silver, copper and lead. The bonanza was short-lived, but the mountain's enticing name endured: Mineral King, an area of majestic 12,000-ft. peaks in California's eastern Sierras, 228 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

The last of the miners had left by the turn of the century, and it was not until four years ago that a new band of prospectors returned to Mineral King. Financed by the late Walt Disney, they systematically surveyed the Sierra woodland--now a part of a national forest. Finally they suggested that Mineral King's real riches could be realized in 20th century America as a year-round vacation resort. It sounded at first like a sterling idea to almost everyone concerned. Last week, however, when the Disney group's plans were given final approval by the Forest Service, Mineral King became the center of a modern claims battle between conservationists, who want to keep the wilderness sequestered, and recreationists intent on opening it for fun.

The conservationists were led by California's potent Sierra Club. Though it originally supported the idea, the club bridled at the project's Disneyland proportions (proposed 1978 capacity: 8,000 skiers, 3,300 overnight visitors). It claimed that such numbers would cause overcrowding, might result in erosion from road drainage and upset the ecological balance of the 20-sq.-mi. resort valley. It also objected to the construction of an essential access road through 8.5 miles of the Sequoia National Park.

That part of the conflict soon turned into a battle between giant federal departments, with Agriculture (which runs the forestry service) behind the development and Interior (which runs the park service) opposed to it. Before leaving office last month, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall finally approved the highway plan, noting that it would not result in the removal of a single redwood. However, both he and the Sierra Club had already created the impression that the developers would be violating a pristine piece of America's wilderness.

No Longer Kings. In fact, Mineral King is not quite that. The skeleton of the abandoned mining town (onetime pop. 500) is still in plain view and at least 60 summer homes now dot the proposed ski valley, which can be reached by an existing dirt road. Moreover, Mineral King is the jumping-off point for summertime packhorse trips into the wild, mountainous wonder. Disney officials say that the Kaweah River is already polluted downstream from the stable of the horse-renting concession--and promised to do something about it.

No doubt the developers intend to mine Mineral King with the same antiseptic efficiency and imaginative salesmanship that they exercised on Disneyland itself. They promise to ban automobiles from the village and advocate a five-level underground garage. From there, visitors would ride a cogwheel train the last mile and a half. The ski valley would have more than two dozen lifts and tramways leading up slopes. Summertime guests would find fewer trees, but there would be good swimming and hiking.

Still, critics who believe that America's natural glories are seriously threatened today are appalled by the prospect of all that super-organization--and all that cuteness--which could lead to a village of Snow White Synthetic or Plastic Alpine. Moreover, the area around Mineral King would also be profoundly altered as a result of the resort. What seems to bother the Sierra Club most is the prospect that the pack travelers and other outdoorsmen will no longer be the only kings on this hill. Jack Hope, senior editor of Natural History magazine, voiced the typical objection. Disney's plan, he said, "conjures up pictures of tourists picking the grounds clean, of skiers watching the white wrappers of their candy bars floating to the ground." The Sierra Club is contemplating legal action on several technical grounds, but there seems little indication that Disney can be headed off at the pass. Nor, considering the need for well-planned recreational development, does there seem much cause for trying.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.