The Implications of Ignorance: Glen Canyon Dam

An Analysis by Gordon Gianniny

What was the ideology of those who created Glen Canyon Dam? How were they able to look at a place like Glen Canyon and see only its potential for energy creation?

Research Synthesis

The Implications of Ignorance

On January 2nd, 1963, massive steel floodgates slammed shut across the Colorado River, trapping it behind a 710 foot tall, 300 foot thick wall of concrete. Glen Canyon Dam was born. Construction had started seven years earlier and wouldnt completely finish for another three years, but from that moment on, the upper Colorado River had been turned in to a giant settling pond. From that moment on, the wonders of Glen Canyon, from Cathedral in the Desert to Music Temple, were slowly being buried in sediment and flooded by the waters of a tamed river. Below the Dam, the river would continue to flow through Grand Canyon, but only as a mere shadow of its former self. I have never understood how people were able to build that dam. I understand why; water for Phoenix, electricity for Tucson, and so on, but I have never understood how. How could anyone look at the sinuous canyons and high plateaus and see only their potential for hydroelectricity or their ability to send water to an unsustainable conglomeration of cities somewhere in the desert of the southwest? After researching this question, I arrived at the conclusion that while Glen Canyon dam may have seemed well planned at first, it was a project executed on an ideology of ignorance. The damming of the Colorado has been a long process, and to fully understand it, I went all the way back to its roots. It all started with the Colorado River Compact (CORC) of 1922. As is stated in the introduction of the document, its purpose was to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System. Put more simply, the document carved up the Colorado River Basin in to different parts, upper and lower, and then subscribed uses for all of the water in the river. During this discussion of use and division, there was never a mention of preservation or, more surprisingly, of water use limits. There was some small mention that after a starting point of 7,500,000 acre-feet, water use could increase by one million acre feet every year. This was the first indication to me that the people who designed the dam and prescribed the uses of the Colorados waters didnt entirely understand the system that they were changing so drastically. The results of this misunderstanding are clear when looking at todays Colorado River: the river no longer reaches the sea, instead drying up somewhere near the top of its delta. The ecosystems along the river are collapsing because of the lack of large spring floods, and many more rivers are being affected than just the Colorado. The San Juan River, which I descend almost every year with my family, has been backfilled with almost fifty five feet of sediment because of the dam at Glen Canyon. When looking at these serious problems, it becomes clearer than ever that the dam was poorly planned. In spite of my realizations about the level of understanding possessed by the authors of the CORC, I still didnt fully appreciate the extent to which the dam was poorly planned until I read an editorial by David Brower, the leader of the opposition against the dam. In his editorial, Brower cites many of the problems that the engineers overlooked, possibly from a misunderstanding of the environment that the dam was built in. One of the biggest issues is this: according to Brower, In 1996, the Bureau found that almost a million acre-feet, or 8 percent of the river's flow, disappeared between the stations recording the reservoir's inflow and outflow. Most of this was presumed to have evaporated, while some soaked in to the dry, porous rock and soil that makes up the shoreline of Lake Powell. This was one of many indications to me that the dam wasnt the perfectly planned and executed

project that its often made out to be. Brower also made another point in his piece that lead me closer to my thesis. Glen Canyon Dam was, to a degree, a product of Browers conservation efforts. He proposed it as an alternative dam site in order to save Echo Park, another beautiful canyon upstream of Glen. However, Brower had never been to Glen Canyon, and as soon as he went there, he saw how dire his mistake was in condemning this beautiful canyon. In his words, Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, knew it well enough to insist that at all costs it should endure. When we began to find out it was too late. With the lessons of Browers article fresh in my mind I turned to a completely different medium: fiction. Edward Abbey is nothing short of legendary. Brower was the main face of the resistance to the dam, but Abbey played just as large of a part. A few years after the dam was completed, in 1975, Abbey published The Monkey Wrench Gang, a provocative novel about the development of the southwest, with a focus on Glen Canyon Dam. Abbey writes comically, but it was only after reading his work that I finally discovered my thesis. In his book, Abbeys main characters are absolutely ridiculous: a Vietnam veteran, a Jack Mormon raft guide, a doctor, and his assistant. However, this motley assortment has one thing in common: a connection to the desert. Their band was formed on a Grand Canyon river trip, one of the best forms of connection to a place that there is. And it was formed with one purpose: to combat the development of the southwest. Throughout the book, the Monkey Wrench Gang does their best to disable everything from oil rigs to bulldozers. I imagine that youre wondering how all of this connects back to a giant plug of concrete in a desert canyon. Even though these characters are important, Abbeys greatest insight was not his protagonists. Every antagonist, usually a government official, also has something in common. Each and every one of them is removed from the desert itself, either physically or mentally. They use this power to abuse the land that they are put in charge of, from corrupted park rangers to government officials in D.C; every antagonist in the book exibits this same removal. Abbeys book gave me the insight that I needed to form my thesis. Just as the park rangers in the Monkey Wrench Gang were blind to the land they were supposed to protect because of their desire for power, the designers of the Glen Canyon Dam couldnt see anything but the potential for power in Glen Canyon because thats what they were looking for. Just as David Brower was able to throw away Glen Canyon as a bargaining chip to save Echo Park because hed never seen it, the signers of the Colorado River Compact were oblivious to the gorgeous canyons they were unknowingly flooding with their desire for infrastructure because they had never been to Glen Canyon. How could anyone see just the potential for power in a place like Glen Canyon, or the Grand Canyon, or the San Juan Canyon? Quite simply, they couldnt. The people that designed Glen Canyon Dam might have visited the site once or twice, but they couldnt have truly connected with it because they werent looking for a beautiful canyon, they were looking for a dam site. The exploitation of land that you dont know is a recurring theme. Very few Exxon officials have been to every place along a new oil pipeline, and no owner of a mining company has climbed every mountain that he signed off to strip mining. The consequences of this lack of understanding are clear, from global issues like climate change to the local problems like ecosystem collapse. Imagine if every

CEO had to connect with all of their land on the same level that the members of the Monkey Wrench Gang did. The world would be a different place, as would Glen Canyon.

Research Notes

Honors Project Source Analysis

Source 1 (secondary): Conservation in Action: Glen Canyon Controversy (Video)
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/environment/going-green-environment/conservation-in-action/glen-canyon/

Summary/Response: This short video is about the problems posed by the Glen Canyon dam and the opposition to it. The video mentions things like endangered species threatened by the dam, as well as problems with the dam itself. Dams are always temporary because they fill with sediment and must eventually be removed, and the Glen Canyon Dam is no different. The Colorado carries a lot of sediment, and the rivers ecosystems depend on this sediment. Lake Powell acts as a giant settling pool, removing all of the sediment in the river. This slowly fills the lake while also robbing the river of its power to re-form the canyons ecosystems. My reaction to this video is one of surprise. I had no idea that dams fill with sediment, but now that Ive heard that, it makes perfect sense. It seems to me that this is a perfect reason to remove the dam at Glen Canyon. Historical Analysis Questions: This author probably believes that Glen Canyon dam, while providing recreation, water, and electricity for many people, is generally not a sustainable creation. I think that the audience is meant to be the American people because they are the only ones that can really make change in this case. I trust this video for two reasons. First because it was made by National Geographic, which is a credible source. Secondly, it covers both sides of the issues and doesnt contain any blatantly obvious fallacies. From this video, I would guess that people at this time were feeling uncertain about Glen Canyon Dam and what its benefits and risks are. This document might not give me the whole picture because it is about the environmental side of the issue, and doesnt focus much on the good things about the dam, although it does mention them. I think that the author chose the images and words because they make me feel inspired. By showing images of endangered species, towering canyon walls, and drowned desert, the movie showed me what Im taking action against. The author is trying to convince me by using these images in conjunction with quotes from scientists. The author disagrees with dam advocates and people who are uninformed about the dam, but the video is generally more informative than persuasive.

Source 2 (Primary): Let the River Run Through It By David Brower

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199703/brower.asp

Summary/Response: This article, written by the man who was director of the Sierra Club when Glen Canyon was built, is an op-ed showing that we can still save Glen Canyon, and that it was a mistake to ever fill it in the first place. Almost 8% of the rivers inflow is lost to bank saturation, evaporation, and leakage before it ever makes it out of Lake Powell, and Lake Mead, just downstream, is no better. Brower suggests draining Lake Powell in order to fill lake Mead, not only saving Glen Canyon, but also saving millions of gallons of water that we cant afford to lose. My reaction to this article is one of agreement. I dont see why this solution hasnt already been implemented. It makes perfect sense from the perspectives of conservationists, economists, and government officials. Historical Analysis Questions: The author probably believes that Glen Canyon dam is a waste of money that shouldnt have ever been built. He thinks that the lake should be drained and the dam left as a memento of human engineering, like the pyramids. I think that the audience is meant to be American people, specifically the ones in higher up positions that could do something about this problem. I trust this document because it is from the Sierra Club website, which is a reliable source because of its credibility, established from many decades of activism. With that credibility comes a certain amount of bias however; the Sierra Club isnt going to show the opposition as fully as they do the support. From this document, I would guess that people at this time were feeling generally supportive of the Dam movement because it was still a relatively new development, which is why Brower was trying to convince them that dams, Glen Canyon in particular, were not a good thing. This document might not give me the whole picture because it is biased toward the side of the conservationists, although at this point, Im not convinced that there is a good argument for the other side. The author chose the words he did because they act as a call to action. His vivid descriptions of how Glen Canyon could be returned to its former glory make me want to do something to help Glen Canyon be restored. The author uses word choice to convince for much of the article, but also uses a fair amount of statistics. For example, about 8% of the rivers total flow is lost between the inflow and outflow of the reservoir. The author disagrees with people that say that the dam is sustainable, and generally agrees with the perspective of the national geographic video. He too mentions the filling of the lake with sediment. This document was written earlier than the other, so Brower doesnt have the insight of what the full consequences of the dam have been. However, most of his predictions are correct.

Source Analysis 3: Glen Canyon Damn (video clip, Secondary)

http://www.sacredland.org/glen-canyon-damn/ Summary/Response: This video is mostly a recording of Edward Abbeys speech about Glen Canyon Dam, which he gave from the back of a pickup truck on the top of the dam. As a part of his speech, supporters rolled a long piece of black plastic down the face of the dam, giving the appearance that the dam had cracked. One of the main points of the speech is that controlling nature leads to controlling people, and that it is our duty to resist the dam by outwaiting it and its makers. He encourages resistance, both to Glen Canyon Dam and other possible future dams. The video is made more impactful by the images of the flooded Glen Canyon and of the dam itself. I agree with the message of the video, but found it less effective because of the small number of people that showed up to the speech. Nevertheless, Abbeys rhetoric is very impactful and he does a good job of linking the fate of individuals to the fate of nature, a position that I think is very important. Historical Thinking Questions: I think the author probably believes that Glen canyon dam is a massive waste of resources that isnt helping anything. My reasoning behind this is the title: The Glen Canyon Damn. The audience is clearly the American people, especially the ones who live in the southwest and are therefore directly affected by the dam. People that, like the makers of the film, live on the rivers of the southwest and can see the catastrophic effects of the Dam firsthand. I trust this video because it is mainly an interview of Edward Abbey, part of the opposition of the dam. Abbey is a well-known author and environmentalist. This video was made in 1982, 16 years after the dam was finished and one year before it was nearly destroyed by the 1983 flooding. Feelings towards the dam were less than positive at this point, largely because the environmental and physical implications of it were beginning to become clear. From the video, I would guess that at the time, at least some people were starting to realize that the dam was maybe not such a good idea. People were wondering the effects of the dam could even be reversed at this point. This video certainly doesnt give me the whole picture because it doesnt talk about the benefits of the dam at all. It also doesnt give an idea of what the pro-dam movement was doing at the time. The domination of nature leads to the domination of human beings. I think that Abbey used these words in his speech to make people feel more connected to the fate of the southwest. He was trying to make them think that its not just the earth that is in trouble: you are too. In Abbeys speech, he clearly states his intentions to convince people to oppose the destruction of our homeland. His goal isnt to actually crack the dam, as people do with a roll of black plastic in the video, but he wants people to protest the dam, just as they did the building of the

two dams in the depths of the Grand Canyon. He wants people to delay the empire until it can no longer oppress the west. The author agrees with the other sources that Ive seen. I havent started looking at opposing sources, but so far, the sources that are against the dam all agree that it is a threat to the southwest and its people, both literally and ideologically. This video was produced earlier than the letter from Brower or the National Geographic video, so it doesnt include details about many of the environmental problems that have since occurred.

Honors Project Source Analysis 4: Colorado River Compact (Primary)

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf Summary/Response: This source carves the Colorado River in to basins and districts, prescribing different uses for the water in the river. The term beneficial use is common in the articles of the compact, but its never really clear what these uses are or who they benefit. One thing that is made exceedingly clear by the compact is that recreation and preservation are not to be considered when planning the use of the water in the Colorado. One thing that I found exceptionally surprising was the lack of limits put on water use. The compact basically said that use can increase endlessly as population and demand do. This leaves no room for consideration of the essential riparian ecosystems that would be destroyed by such a practice. Historical Thinking Questions: The authors probably believe that the Colorado and its tributaries are a valuable developmental asset, nothing more. Because this is a legal document of sorts, the audience is fairly limited, but probably includes those who opposed the document. By setting it in stone, signed by the president and all, the authors made a point to the opposition. Based on the sourcing information, I think the author will disagree with and discredit the environmental claims of opposing advocates. As far as credibility, its easy to trust this document because it is a primary source. Glen Canyon dam was possible because of this document, and its not something that can really be debated. This document was written in 1922, at which point industrialism was booming after World War I. After Manifest Destiny had covered the continent from sea to shining sea, People were looking for other things to develop and conquer. Rivers were one of them. This document doesnt give me the whole picture because it is specifically about water usage and management and doesnt address the environmental issues at all. However, when compared to other sources Ive read, it gives me a better idea of both sides of the argument. Since this is a legal document, the claims it makes are stated more like rules. The author claims that the Colorado is to be divided between states in order to aid development. Readers are convinced because these claims are stated like facts, leaving no room for debate, which is of course the goal of legal documents. These authors strongly disagree with the claims made by Abbey, Brower, and basically all of the other sources Ive used. It is the other side of the issue, in which the benefits of parceling out the Colorados water are highlighted while the costs are left unmentioned. This document was written before the Dam was actually constructed, so it doesnt deal directly with the complaints of environmentalists.

Honors Project Source Analysis 5: The Monkey Wrench Gang (Fiction, By Edward Abbey)
Reaction: This is probably the most thought-provoking piece of evidence that Ive examined so far. It was very easy to read and very entertaining, but it also made me think more than many fiction books. It starts out by introducing a motley assortment of characters. Theres Hayduke, a Vietnam veteran, Seldom Seen Smith, a jack-Mormon raft guide, Doc Sarvis, a surgeon from Albuquerque, and his assistant, Bonnie Abbzug. They all come together a little ways into the book when Doc and Abbzug go on a rafting trip guided by Smith, who hires Hayduke as an assistant boatman. On this trip, they realize that they all have a similar problem: their desert was being invaded, developed, and besmirched. They resolve to band together with the intent of sabotaging development of all kinds. Their main goal: Glen Canyon Dam. As that was my main focus in my project and research, I was most interested in the sections about the dam and their conquest against it. I was surprised, however, by the lack of content about the dam. It was mentioned, but always as a larger goal, and not one that was ever achieved. Even so, the ideology transmitted by the rest of the book carries great merit for my project. Abbey weaves an intricate web of perspectives on the desert through his various characters, and that is the beauty of his book. Hayduke loves the desert with a violent passion, as is reflected by his frequent dynamiting and explosive habits. The Doc and Abbzug both have a slightly removed view of the landscape, but they are committed to it nonetheless. Smith loves the desert on a personal level, as it has been his habitat for most of his career. He might understand it the best of all of them, and his sense of duty for its protection is very strong. My interpretation of the book is that these characters represent the people who, like me, truly understand the value of the desert, no matter what their reasoning for this understanding is. The antagonists, the search and rescue team and Bishop Love, are the opposite. They look at the desert and see it only as an obstacle. One that must be overcome, tamed, and beaten back in order to achieve their goal, be it chasing down the notorious Monkey Wrench Gang or build a dam. This is the mindset that I have a very hard time understanding and set out to uncover with my research. I feel that I am now closer to understanding the way that people could develop such a perspective. Abbey hints that Bishop Love, head of the search and rescue team, really doesnt care about the desert. His time spent there as search and rescue leader is more of a hobby than one of his passions. I think that this is a representation of how when people become removed from something, they cease to understand it and can exploit it much more easily. The people that commissioned and built Glen Canyon Dam didnt live in the Southwest, they were government officials from the East Coast, flying to the town of Page, AZ only to oversee construction. They may have known the technicalities of the river better than me; its flow rate, gradient, depth, and canyons, but they did not understand that a river is more than just technicalities. They didnt understand how incredible the Colorado River was because they had never drifted through its towering canyons, never watched moonrise from a sand bar in midstream, never watched a heron silently wing its way down the river corridor. When someone removes themselves from their setting, they remove their understanding for it, just as Bishop Love and all of the other government officials in

the monkey wrench gang did. This allows people to dam rivers, strip mine mountains, and scar pristine wilderness with roads and train tracks.

Bibliography

Bibliography
Abbey, Edward. The Monkey Wrench Gang. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975. Print. Brower, David. "Let the River Run Through It." Editorial. Sierra Magazine Apr. 1997: n. pag. Sierra Club. Sierra CLub, 2000. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Conservation in Action: Glen Canyon Controversy. Prod. National Geographic. National Geographic. National Geographic, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Glen Canyon Damn. Prod. Christopher McLeod, Glenn Switkes, and Randy Hayes. Perf. Edward Abbey. Sacred Lands Film Project, 1982. Online Clip. United States of America. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Compact. S.l.: S.n., 1923. Print.