Why Disney’s Attempt At A Ski Resort Failed—And How It Permanently Changed the Winter Sports World
When it comes to planning a ski trip, The Walt Disney Company is probably one of the last entities that comes to mind. But if a few things had panned out differently five decades ago, just the opposite may have been true.
While Disney is often associated with animation and theme parks, back in the 1960s, the company had ambitious plans to build out a world-class ski resort as well. But even with an incredibly powerful brand name and plenty of cash behind them, the effort completely failed. So what exactly happened with Disney’s attempt at a ski resort—and how did it impact on the ski world as we know it today?
In this piece, we’ll go through the story of how close the Disney ski resort actually came to reality, the various circumstances that caused the project to fail, and why rather than continuing to try, they eventually gave up on building any sort of ski resort entirely. Finally, it wouldn’t be a PeakRankings deep dive without some ski resort analysis, so we’ll also examine whether the resort would have actually been competitive with other North American destinations if it had actually been built.
Disney's Early History with Skiing
Walt Disney himself became a huge fan of skiing in the 1930s.
Credit: SkiTalk
To fully understand The Disney Company’s relationship with the ski world, we have to start with Walt Disney himself. Walt Disney became a huge fan of skiing as an adult. He got into the sport in the 1930s, only a few years after resorts really started to be developed in California. Mr. Disney partially funded the acquisition and development of Sugar Bowl ski resort, which opened in 1939. As a thank you, Sugar Bowl’s owner and operator Hannes Schroll actually renamed one of the peaks after him, rechristening what was formerly Hemlock Peak as Mt. Disney—a name that remains to this day. You might notice that if you visit the resort today, you’ll be skiing the Disney Nose, Disney Meadows, and Donald Duck trails off the Disney Express quad.
Disney maintained a focus on skiing over the next few decades, with the company releasing The Art of Skiing, an animated Goofy cartoon that actually took place at Sugar Bowl, in 1941. Walt Disney even played a major role in producing the opening and closing ceremonies for the 1960 Olympics, which were held at what was at the time called Squaw Valley. Disney also opened its first theme park in 1955, the now-legendary Disneyland in Anaheim, California, setting the stage for the company to expand into destination experiences on top of motion picture entertainment.
A few months after his stint in the Olympics in 1960, Walt Disney stepped foot into Mineral King Valley for the first time, which at the time was in the periphery of California’s Sequoia National Park. In the wake of an explosive three decades of company growth and the capital to do it, The Disney Company claims that he immediately set his sights on building a resort there.
Sugar Bowl’s Mt. Disney, pictured here, was named after Walt Disney for his help with funding the resort.
Attempt #1: Mineral King Ski Resort
A rendering of Mineral King Village from 1965.
Credit: USC Libraries
Initial Plans
Following that visit, The Disney Corporation got to work on making Walt’s vision a reality. Disney obtained an initial permit to build out the Mineral King ski resort in December 1965, just one month after Disney bought the land in Florida to develop what would eventually become Disney World. To really put the timeline into perspective, if everything went according to plan, Disney’s ski resort would open around the same time as the theme park that’s now become the most popular vacation resort in the world.
The US Forest Service issued Disney a preliminary permit that gave them three years to complete a comprehensive resort plan. If the plan was approved by the USFS, Disney would be awarded with a permanent 30-year operating permit—basically sealing the deal for the resort to open.
1970 Sequoia National Park map. Credit: USC Libraries
Access Road Issues
However, there was one major thorn in the side of Disney’s plans. Only one road existed into Mineral King Valley, and at the time, it was only usable during the summer months. The permanent permit was dependent on a full-year road into the valley, which meant Disney had to figure out a way to upgrade the highway.
Initially, it looked like the all-weather highway had the green light. The state of California received a federal grant for the road’s construction in 1966, and the governor planned to apply for a loan to cover a good chunk of the rest of the cost. Disney received approval for their resort master plan in January 1969, just over three years after the preliminary permit was issued. At the time, it seemed like things were going to plan, and the new resort—including the new all-weather road—was expected to open for the 1972-73 ski season.
While Disney received approval for their 1969 master plan, lawsuits held the plan up in court for three years.
Credit: USC Libraries
Environmental Opposition and Lawsuits
However, during the three years Disney was working on their master plan, environmental opposition mounted. The new all-weather highway was a sticking point—while the resort itself wasn’t in national park system land at the time, parts of the rebuilt road would have to go directly through Sequoia National Park. In addition, the Mineral King Valley was surrounded by the Sequoia National Park on three sides, and many believed that the site’s exclusion from the national park itself was questionable—especially when the contended reason why Mineral King wasn’t in the National Park itself was due to historical mining claims.
Another sticking point was the sheer size of the planned development. The Sierra Club, which at the time was a more casually organized group of environmental enthusiasts than the lobbying powerhouse it is today, initially supported Disney’s ski resort plan when it was proposed in 1965. However, as the resort plan evolved to a massive footprint designed to attract two million people per year, they changed their mind. Around the same time the 1969 master plan was approved, the Sierra Club sued the Sequoia National Park and Sequoia National Forest—this tied the project up in the courts for three years.
This environmental suit made it all the way to the Supreme Court in 1972, and Disney actually won, which gave them the right to resume construction.
1972 Revisions
However, by the time Disney won at the Supreme Court, there was another issue. Disney was facing financial constraints, brought about in large part due to the exorbitant cost of opening Disney World the previous summer, and the company decided to scale down its initial plan. In addition to scaling down the size of the ski area and number of lifts, Disney abandoned plans to build a four-season road and instead planned a 15-mile cog railway to reach the resort. The railway would use zero-emission trains and require a much narrower footprint than the previously-planned all-weather highway.
Even after Disney won their case at the Supreme Court, environmental lawsuits continued.
Credit: USC Libraries
Eventual Demise
In addition, the delayed timeline and master plan changes meant that Disney had to jump through new regulatory hurdles to get the Mineral King ski resort across the finish line. The 1970s were not the same environment for developing ski resorts as the 1960s, and in addition to new approval from the US Forest Service on this amended master plan, Disney now had to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) due to a new federal law signed in 1970. Due to these circumstances, the earliest construction could theoretically resume was 1976.
Finally, despite the reduced footprint, environmental lawsuits from the Sierra Club continued—and it was unclear when they would be resolved. Importantly, the Supreme Court ruling that gave Disney the right to proceed with its construction also established that environmental groups had standing to sue the government for issuing these permits—and the Sierra Club took full advantage of this. The cog railway looked like a better environmental alternative to the initially-proposed road on paper, but issues still arose about its legality, with the project becoming tied up in the courts.
Ultimately, this confluence of factors prompted Disney to decide it had had enough. In the mid-1970s, the company decided to cut their losses on the Mineral King project and walk away from the ski resort entirely. Shortly after Disney pulled the plug in 1978, the United States Congress signed a bill annexing Mineral King into Sequoia National Park, permanently putting an end to any potential Disney ski resort—or any ski resort at all—in this 16,000-acre area.
Disney tried to build a second ski resort north of Lake Tahoe after plans for the Mineral King development fell through.
Credit: 1977 Walt Disney Productions Annual Report
Attempt #2: Independence Lake Ski Resort
Prospective Independence Lake ski resort terrain.
Credit: Disney Avenue
Initial Plans
So after they couldn’t get a ski resort off the ground the first time, did Disney completely throw in the towel? Well, not exactly.
When plans for the original Mineral King resort started to fall through in 1971, Disney started talks with the U.S. Forest Service about an alternate location, and they settled on Independence Lake, which is about an hour north of Lake Tahoe. Disney announced the project publicly in 1974, and they received the initial Forest Service permit the year after.
Land Swap and Paperwork Issues
However, the Independence Lake project was once again met with local opposition. The first problem came with land ownership.
While the land that Disney wanted to develop on Independence Lake was partially owned by two private companies—both of which were partners on the project—the rest was owned by the US Forest Service. Disney and its partners wanted the entire resort to be on private property, so they requested a land swap with the USFS. Due to the land use plan and Environmental Impact Statement requirements mentioned earlier, the USFS said the land swap likely could not occur until late 1978 or early 1979.
Disney ran into hurdles with land ownership when planning the Independence Lake ski resort, resulting in what was essentially a death blow of paperwork.
Credit: Disney Avenue
Eventual Demise
Disney ultimately decided against this land swap in the wake of that less-than-ideal timeline, and in mid-1977, the company completed the requirements to submit their special-use-permit (SUP) application without the land swap. The hope at the time was to begin construction in 1979 and open the first facilities to the public in winter 1982.
However, because the resort was now on both private and public land, it now needed more paperwork than initially intended—both an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), versus just an EIS. Disney also faced additional hurdles, and the company now apparently needed approvals from nine state agencies before they could even break ground on the project—with no clear path to actually getting these approvals.
In the wake of these unclear circumstances, Disney said screw it. The company abandoned its second and final ski resort project altogether in mid-1978.
Would These Resorts Have Been Competitive?
Based on the limited schematics we have today, Disney’s Mineral King resort looks like it would have been incredibly competitive if it had been fully built out.
Credit: 1965 Walt Disney Productions Annual Report
Mineral King Resort
So neither Disney ski resort ever got built, but what would these resorts have looked like if they existed today? Well, it looks like their first attempt would have been pretty darn competitive.
The Mineral King ski resort would have been massive, with the final build calling for 27 ski lifts, including at least two gondolas, and eight high-alpine bowls. Disney would have had a permit to build out approximately 13,000 acres of land for ski resort development, which would have made it the largest ski resort in North America. However, based on our measurements, the initial resort would have been closer to 4,000 or 4,500 acres—which still would have made it the largest ski resort in California by a substantial margin at the time—and among the largest still today.
The resort would have boasted a 3,700 foot vertical drop, which would have been on the significant upper end among North American ski resorts and well above every other California competitor. And while the Mineral King resort would have been south of Mammoth, it would have started out at nearly as high of a base elevation and topped out around 11,600 feet, so snow preservation may well have been very competitive for the Sierra region—and North America in general.
Disney also planned ten restaurants at the Mineral King resort, including one at 11,000 feet in altitude near or at the top of the resort—so one could probably assume that the on-mountain facility setup would have been pretty compelling as well. It’s also worth noting that even in the first plan, cars were to be totally excluded from the valley, similar to the setup in Switzerland’s Zermatt, with a cog railway intended to bring guests directly to the resort village.
Mineral King had the potential for the longest vertical drop of any ski resort in California, with skiing and riding developable in eight high-alpine bowls.
Credit: USC Libraries
Independence Lake Resort
So what about the second planned resort at Independence Lake? Well, it probably would have at least been competitive with the Tahoe mountains a few hours south, but it certainly wouldn’t have been quite as world-class as the Mineral King mountain it was forced to abandon. Disney was certainly aware of this, as evidenced by a press release from the resort that claimed it would have “some of the finest beginning and intermediate ski terrain to be found anywhere in America” and terrain “ideally suited for family skiing groups, which will be an essential part of the Disney market.”
Disney basically admitted their Independence Lake ski resort wasn’t going to be competitive for experts in marketing materials. Excerpt from the 1977 Walt Disney Productions Annual Report.
The resort would have topped out around 9,100 feet, which, while competitive, was nowhere near as high as the original Mineral King resort. A look at the topography of the Independence Lake region shows that the resort could have theoretically offered up to 3,500 acres of terrain, which would have been very competitive, but that its vertical drop would have practically only been around 2,000 feet, which would have been far lower than most other destination ski resorts across the country.
Ultimately, the extensive pedestrian village from Mineral King probably would have been replicated to some extent, but there’s a reason why Independence Lake wasn’t Disney’s first choice for a ski resort development, and we’d be hard pressed to see the appeal of this location as a fly-to destination for skiing and riding alone.
The Independence Lake ski resort’s vertical drop would have been mediocre even for the Lake Tahoe region, and unremarkable compared to major fly-to destinations across North America.
Final Thoughts
So while it might be easy to assume that Disney failed to enter the ski resort world because of opposition specific to its heavily-commercialized brand, the truth of the matter is that the company just got into the game too late—and was dealt a few bad hands that sealed the death blow. If it weren’t for a bad access road, a few new state and federal environmental laws that were passed during the project’s conception, and some financial troubles on the company’s part in the early 70s, the Disney ski resort in all likelihood would have become a reality, whether in the world-class Mineral King form or the less competitive Independence Lake iteration. Disney had some seemingly well-thought-out plans for their winter sports concepts, but ultimately, it just wasn’t meant to be.
Disney’s Ski World Legacy Today
The green circle, blue square, and black diamond symbols used almost universally at today’s North American ski resorts were actually designed by Disney for use at the proposed Mineral King ski resort.
So in the wake of the extensive development efforts on the part of the company all those years ago, does Disney have any sort of ski resort footprint today? Well yes, but not in the ways anyone would expect. Parts of Sugar Bowl are still named after Disney, and there are a few snow guns that the company uses to produce mist at Disney World. The biggest physical symbol of Disney’s alpine roots is probably the Matterhorn ride at Disneyland, which is clearly based on the iconic mountain that hosts Switzerland’s Zermatt. But other than those features, one would have no idea that Walt Disney or the Disney Corporation ever had their hands tangled in the world of skiing.
But behind the scenes, Disney has actually had a very significant impact on the ski world—at least in North America. The green circle, blue square, and black diamond rating scale that’s almost universally used on the continent today was actually designed by Disney for use at the initial Mineral King resort, and the United States’s National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) officially adopted it in 1968. It’s also worth noting that one attraction at both Disneyland and Disney World—Country Bear Jamboree—was originally intended to be an aprés-ski attraction at Mineral King.
Disney’s failed ski resort attempts marked the end of an era for ski area development in the United States. New resort openings curtailed sharply around the time the Mineral King project fell apart in the early 1970s.
The End of an Era for Ski Resort Development
Disney’s attempt at a ski resort, along with the various legal challenges against it, had profound implications for the development of new ski resorts in the United States. Even though the Sierra Club lost in their initial 1972 case, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling established a precedent that environmental groups had standing to sue government agencies. These groups took full advantage of this standing, and many successful environmental-based lawsuits against the government today can trace their fundamentals back to this case.
Ultimately, Disney’s failure at a winter sports development marked a symbolic end to the era of developing massive destination ski resorts. Since the rise of these environmental lobbying organizations, the number of new ski resorts in the US has plummeted. In California, only one new ski resort, Mount Shasta Ski Park, has opened since the last attempt at a Disney ski resort ended in 1978—and this was effectively a replacement for Mount Shasta Ski Bowl, which was destroyed by an avalanche in the late 1970s. In fact, the last new large California ski resorts opened more than 50 years ago, when Northstar and Kirkwood began their operations in 1972. If you look at fly-to destinations across the country, the last one to open was Deer Valley in 1981—meaning that no new serious ski resorts have opened in over 40 years (although some have seen substantial expansions).
No new serious destination ski resorts in the US have opened in the last 40 years—and only two have opened in the past 50.
As winter sports continue to boom in popularity across the United States, overcrowding has been a hot topic of conversation. While we as a society have become a lot more conscious about our impact on the environment over the past few decades, the question remains: what if there were just a few more resorts to spread out the crowds? Disney might be the reason we don’t have an answer.
Considering a ski trip to California next winter? Check out our ski resort rankings and reviews for the state. Additionally, you can check out our full US and Canada ski resort rankings here.
