announcement of the Storm King project.

In a letter to The New York Times, Pusey stated that he and the trustees of Black Rock Forest "are deeply concerned with preserving intact this important scientific area. Unless Consolidated Edison can demonstrate that there is no alternative to this radical proposal for altering the scenic beauty and scientific value of a largely unspoiled section of the Hudson River Valley, we wish to ally ourselves with The Times and with the individuals and organizations who are protesting the plans of the Consolidated Edison Company. It is our hope that an acceptable alternative can be found."

In a 1970 private communication, Pusey reaffirmed this stance, saying: "There has been no change in Harvard's attitude about Black Rock Forest. We have no desire to have land under our trusteeship used for the purposes proposed by Con Ed."

According to several environmentalists and scientists, alternatives to the proposed pumped storage plant do exist. Rising construction costs have made the Con Ed plan more and more economically unfeasible, environmentalists argue. They say that other methods of generation, such as gas turbines, would prove to be more satisfactory both economically and ecologically.

THE BOK Administration came to office without a stand on Storm King--in fact, according to one Administration source, "President Bok didn't even know we had Black Rock Forest until he read about it in The Crimson" in February 1972.

Bok responded by appointing Alfred W. Crompton, professor of Biology; William E. Reifsnyder, professor of Forest Meteorology and Public Health at Yale; and Richard Wilson, professor of Physics, to a special committee to study the situation.

Their report, issued in late January 1973, noted that several problems remained unresolved--and even added a new issue to opponents' arguments, that of public safety. But at the same time, it recommended "that Harvard take no active steps to attempt to prevent construction...such as refusing to sell to Con Ed the 240 acres of the Black Rock that will be flooded by the storage reservoir or by presenting this land to the Palisades Interstate State Park before Con Ed can obtain ownership."

Those apparently contradictory conclusions raised the hackles of environmentalists both in and out of the University community. Scenic Hudson charged that since "the forest was given to the University for research, if it is to be divested, the property should be sold to the most compatible recipient--certainly not to an industry." The Law School's Environmental Law Society saw the report's conclusions "to be not only a contradiction, but seriously in derogation of the University's duties in regard to its stewardship of the forest."

The undergraduate population also became vocal. After distributing leaflets on the project, Harvard Ecology Action collected over 2000 signatures in two days on petitions asking President Bok not to sell the forest.

The voice of the Stillman family also has been heard. In a meeting with Bok and Steiner, several family members expressed their opposition to the report's conclusions. But the family also includes one of the most vocal proponents of the project, Calvin W. Stillman '39. He wrote in a 1966 Black Rock Forest Report that he felt "the plant as planned constitutes no significant blight upon the natural beauty of Storm King and the Hudson River shorelines" and that he saw no reason why it should not be built.

But beside the numerous environmental issues, the question of University responsibility to trustees also exists. The Environmental Law Society pointed out in its letter to Bok that "the long-time residence of the family on the slopes of Storm King Mountain and Dr. Stillman's own use of the forest make clear that his broad intention was to preserve the area in its condition of natural beauty." It went on to say that "the proper role of Harvard is to oppose with full vigor the construction of a pumped storage generating plant on Storm King Mountain."

The view was put somewhat more succinctly by Rod Vandivert, a consultant to Scenic Hudson. "If I were a donor to Harvard and saw that they provided good stewardship and protection for my gift, I might do something more for them," he said. "But if I were to give them something in good faith only to have them dispose of it, I would question giving them the next Spiro Agnew watch."

What began ten years ago as a small environmental protest will hit the University full-blown this year, with a decade of momentum behind it. Harvard's decision on whether to sell the land will bolster the environmentalist cause or destroy it.