A Brief History of Little Old Ladies in Tennis Shoes:

The Origins of Save the Bay

THE STATE OF THE BAY BEFORE 1961

Before 1850: before rapid American development, the Bay region contained roughly 2,200 square kilometers of tidal and freshwater wetlands. Indigenous communities had long lived around and managed the estuary.

1849–1850: the California Gold Rush brought rapid population growth, industry, and land speculation. Filling began in places such as Yerba Buena Cove, the shallow inlet that once occupied much of today’s San Francisco waterfront. Developers used earth from nearby hills and construction projects to create land for streets, warehouses, railroads, ports, and buildings. 

1850s–1900: especially destructive for two related reasons:

1) Developers filled and diked tidal marshes and mudflats for farms, railways, roads, and urban expansion.

2) Hydraulic gold mining sent enormous quantities of sediment from the Sierra Nevada through the Central Valley and into the Bay.

A USGS mapping study estimates that approximately 605 square kilometers of Bay area were filled between 1850 and 1960, with the Bay shrinking by more than 40% during that period. 

Around 1900–1960: Bay fill had become routine infrastructure.

Importantly, the crisis was cumulative. One project might seem totally justified; thousands of such changes have progressively destroyed the Bay’s tidal circulation, habitat, and public shoreline. Donna Ball from SFEI estimates that roughly 80–90% of the Bay’s historic tidal wetlands had been lost over the past 150 years.

Before 1850: before rapid American development, the Bay region contained roughly 2,200 square kilometers of tidal and freshwater wetlands. Indigenous communities had long lived around and managed the estuary.

1849–1850: the California Gold Rush brought rapid population growth, industry, and land speculation. Filling began in places such as Yerba Buena Cove, the shallow inlet that once occupied much of today’s San Francisco waterfront. Developers used earth from nearby hills and construction projects to create land for streets, warehouses, railroads, ports, and buildings. 

1850s–1900: especially destructive for two related reasons:

1) Developers filled and diked tidal marshes and mudflats for farms, railways, roads, and urban expansion.

2) Hydraulic gold mining sent enormous quantities of sediment from the Sierra Nevada through the Central Valley and into the Bay.

A USGS mapping study estimates that approximately 605 square kilometers of Bay area were filled between 1850 and 1960, with the Bay shrinking by more than 40% during that period. 

Around 1900–1960: Bay fill had become routine infrastructure.

Importantly, the crisis was cumulative. One project might seem totally justified; thousands of such changes have progressively destroyed the Bay’s tidal circulation, habitat, and public shoreline. Donna Ball from SFEI estimates that roughly 80–90% of the Bay’s historic tidal wetlands had been lost over the past 150 years.

Why is it so important for the bay to be saved? Geography changes all the time — what’s so bad about it this time?

The first thing to establish is that, by this point, the bay physically looked awful. Bay water in this period was fouled by oil slicks, shipping waste, trash dumped and burned at waterfront garbage centres, and largely untreated sewage. Rae Alexandra writes that,at low tide, the stench emanating from the water wafted from Mill Valley to Oakland." At night, Gulick could see trash being dumped in the shallows and set on fire. The underlying toxic legacy from 1860s–1880s hydraulic gold mining (mercury-laden Sierra sediment washed into the Bay and Delta) persists in Bay mud even today. Moreover, the Bay supports fisheries, tourism, recreation, and transportation that make up the region’s distinctive quality of life.

In a 1988 speech given at UC Berkeley’s Rausser College of Natural Resources, Gulick describes how “as the human and automobile population of the Bay increases, it becomes more important than ever to have recreational opportunities close at hand, particularly to serve the residents of the more intensely developed areas closest to the edge of the Bay.” This sentiment reflects recent research on ‘blue spaces’ — lakes, rivers, sea — and their effect on human health. A 2017 major systematic review examined 35 quantitative studies of rivers, lakes, coasts, and other outdoor blue spaces. They found that the balance of evidence showed positive associations between greater blue-space exposure and mental health and well-being; physical activity; and other general-health outcomes (Gascon et al). One source even noted that “compared with exercising indoors, exercising in natural environments was associated with greater feelings of revitalization and positive engagement, decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy… participants reported greater enjoyment and satisfaction with outdoor activity and declared a greater intent to repeat the activity at a later date” (Coon et al).

Even if the ecological impacts don’t matter to you — which, to be clear, it should — it’s clear that healing these environments is essential for improving the physical and mental health of the community.

With that said, the Bay also is essential because it’s a functioning estuary—a place where freshwater and saltwater mix, supporting wildlife, filtering pollution, buffering floods, and sustaining the region’s economy and identity. This will be elaborated on further in the next chapter.

Map comparing the distribution of major bayland and adjacent land habitat types in the San Francisco region circa 1770 - 1820 (historical) and 1985 - 1996 (modern). Pink represents salt pond; purple represents developed bay fill.

(Click to see original map on San Francisco Estuary Institute)

Grassroots mechanics

  • $1-per-year memberships in exchange for a newsletter served as a low-friction way to build both funding and a mailing list.


  • An initial mailing of about 700 letters (using the borrowed Sierra Club list) generated roughly 600 pledges of support within the first month.


  • Flyering, phone chains, and community gatherings to keep growing the base.


  • Utilised public-facing spectacle: for example, distributing handmade "Save the Bay" flags at a 1968 boat parade generated press coverage without a formal protest.


    IMPACT: Members mobilized to attend city council meetings in force. In 1963 this pressure led the Berkeley City Council to formally rescind its bay-fill plan, the movement's first major win!

  • $1-per-year memberships in exchange for a newsletter served as a low-friction way to build both funding and a mailing list.


  • An initial mailing of about 700 letters (using the borrowed Sierra Club list) generated roughly 600 pledges of support within the first month.


  • Flyering, phone chains, and community gatherings to keep growing the base.


  • Utilised public-facing spectacle: for example, distributing handmade "Save the Bay" flags at a 1968 boat parade generated press coverage without a formal protest.


    IMPACT: Members mobilized to attend city council meetings in force. In 1963 this pressure led the Berkeley City Council to formally rescind its bay-fill plan, the movement's first major win!

Technical rigour

  • The founders consulted biologists, engineers, economists, architects, legal scholars, and city planners to "prepare official arguments for all eventualities," turning a "fringe issue" mainstream.


  • 1964: Kay Kerr met with State Senator Eugene Mc-Ateer and argued that the consequences of filling the Bay needed to be studied before more projects proceeded. This resulted in the San Francisco Bay Conservation Study Commission, which received four months and $75,000 to investigate the effects of Bay filling and report to the Legislature


    IMPACT: The commission recommended creating a permanent regional agency with authority to regulate Bay filling. That recommendation became the foundation for the McAteer-Petris Act, signed on June 17, 1965, which created the BCDC.

Political connections

  • Gulick and Kerr were both wives of prominent UC Berkeley figures (Kerr's husband was UC Berkeley's chancellor; McLaughlin's was a mining executive and UC Regent). This allowed them to draw on Christmas-card lists, UC Berkeley faculty directory, church and club memberships, and Sierra Club contacts to recruit early, powerful supporters.


  • Actively reached out to civic and environmental organizations, including the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association and the Bay Area Council, to gain institutional support.


    IMPACT: Their legislative solution was promoted by the Bay Area Council, a business organization. Their movement ultimately won over, rather than simply defeated, growth-oriented interests, by offering a workable regional framework instead of a total prohibition.

THE SECRET TO SUCCESS

At the time, filling the bay for development was widely regarded as simply progress. The three founders were dismissed even by sympathetic observers: author Harold Gilliam, who attended their first organizing meeting, later admitted that he privately believed "any attempt to stop the filling of the bay would be hopeless" and that "the notion that the big-buck developers... could be turned back by a few starry-eyed bay savers seemed preposterous." In the Rausser speech, Esther Gulick recalled being publicly branded "enemies of progress," "impractical idealists," "posy pickers," and "little old ladies in tennis shoes."

How did they see such success? The founders combined three ingredients : grassroots emotional urgency and volunteer labor; rigorous, technically credible data prepared with outside experts; and elite political access through their own social networks.

It's through these efforts that the Save the SF Bay Association was able to establish two key things to be kept in mind: 1965 McAteer–Petris Act and the creation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The Act designated the Bay as a protected resource and gave BCDC authority to regulate development in and around the Bay. BCDC helped establish several important precedents:

  • Environmental protection could justify limits on private and public development.

  • Regional ecological systems could be regulated through land-use and permitting law.

  • Wetlands, shoreline areas, wildlife refuges, and open water could be treated as planning-sensitive resources.

  • Environmental organisations could use research, public advocacy, and legislation to influence local and state planning.

Decades later, these precedents became the regulatory foundation that made large-scale efforts like the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project possible. But legal eligibility for protection isn't proof that protection actually worked. The next question is harder: is the Bay's habitat actually alive, or only protected on paper?