Dam Busting
The Sierra Club's Plan To Dismantle Glen Canyon Dam.
By Gregory McNamee
NESTLED AMONG THE huge buttresses and turbines of Hoover
Dam, on the lower Colorado River, lies a marble map of the stars.
The map is intended to show future inhabitants of the Southwest
that the New Deal-era builders of the dam knew their place in
the universe. Their unspoken assumption was that the gigantic
dam, completed in 1935, would stand for countless generations--long
enough that visitors to it might no longer speak anything recognizably
like English, but might nonetheless be able to read a celestial
chart.
The builders of Glen Canyon Dam, 350 miles upstream in northern
Arizona, also assumed that the massive concrete-and-steel structure
would stand for centuries. Completed in 1963 as part of a federal
program to control the flow of the Colorado River and irrigate
the surrounding region, the dam created 200-mile-long Lake Powell,
one of the largest artificial bodies of water on the planet.
Now, 35 years later, the Sierra Club has sounded a call for Glen
Canyon Dam to be dismantled and Lake Powell drained. The club's
leadership argues, among other things, that Lake Powell is an
inefficient reservoir that loses an unacceptable amount of water
to evaporation--about 1 million acre feet a year, nearly enough
to meet the annual water needs of Los Angeles--and that the dam's
hydroelectric-generating capability is redundant in a time when
the West enjoys a surplus of electrical power.
Glen Canyon has long been a symbol of everything wrong about
giant development projects. The founders of the radical group
Earth First!, inspired by Edward Abbey's 1975 novel The Monkey-Wrench
Gang, nursed dreams of destroying the dam by whatever means
necessary. Abbey himself deemed Glen Canyon Dam the West's most
hated structure, calling Lake Powell "more like a bathtub
that is never drained than a true lake." Even many of the
dam's champions, among them former Arizona senator Barry Goldwater
and former secretary of the interior Stewart Udall, publicly repented
their roles in its construction.
Other environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society,
have expressed support for the idea, which was originally proposed
by the Glen Canyon Institute. There is plenty of opposition as
well. But the debate currently swirling over Glen Canyon is only
part of an increasingly noisy dialog over the future of dams worldwide.
Large hydroelectric projects are under attack as never before.
The government of Malaysia recently halted construction of the
massive Bakun Dam; the U.S. Export-Import Bank has refused to
guarantee American contracts for China's Three Gorges Dam; and
Germany has withdraw financing for a major dam project in Nepal.
In the United States, the federal Energy Regulatory Commission
recently approved for the first time the removal of an operating
hydroelectric dam, a structure on Maine's Kennebec River.
Dam projects traditionally have overestimated economic returns
while underestimating social and environmental costs, according
to an Environmental Defense Fund study. EDF senior scientist Deborah
Moore argues that dams displace native peoples and steer power
to cities at the expense of the countryside, which ultimately
has the effect of widening the gap between rich and poor.
In September 1997 a group of representatives from various aid
agencies and energy industries converged in Washington to create
the World Commission on Dams. The commission has been charged
with drafting a set of environmental, economic, and social standards
to govern the actions of international financing agencies such
as the World Bank, and to set reparations for people harmed by
dams already in operation.
But the commission is not likely to be of much help in Glen Canyon,
the site four decades ago of one of the Sierra Club's most bitter
defeats. The group, under then-president David Brower, had loudly
protested the project, organizing a national campaign to save
Glen Canyon and citing the area's beauty and accessibility. But
when the federal Bureau of Reclamation agreed to cancel proposed
dams in Dinosaur Park and Echo Park, along the upper reaches of
the Colorado system, the Sierra Club's leadership capitulated.
They reasoned, Brower recalls in his 1990 memoir For Earth's
Sake, that a partial victory was better than no victory at
all. It was a decision, Brower writes, that the Sierra Club would
forever regret.
As controversial as the project was in the late 1950s, the plan
to restore Glen Canyon to its original state is generating heated
debate. Many residents of the Lake Powell area oppose the plan,
arguing that jobs and ways of life would disappear along with
the dam. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R- Colorado) has called
the Sierra Club's proposal "a certifiable nut idea";
other Western politicians have similarly denounced the plan.
Some environmentalists, Jason Zengerle reports in The New
Republic (Nov. 24, 1997), believe that to restore Glen Canyon
to anything like its pre-dammed condition is an environmental
impossibility. They fear that the delicate network of small seeps
and springs that fed the long-drowned canyon will never return,
that toxic sediments supposedly now resting on Lake Powell's floor
would create a public-health nightmare if they were to become
airborne, and that the lake's saline water has whitewashed the
canyon walls to create what Zengerle calls "the world's largest
bathtub ring." (To such a charge, Edward Abbey retorts in
his 1981 essay "The Damnation of a Canyon," "give
nature a little time. In five years, at most in ten, the sun and
wind and storms will cleanse and sterilize the repellent mess.
The inevitable floods will soon remove all that does not belong
within the canyons...Within a generation--thirty years--I predict
the river and canyons will bear a decent resemblance to their
former selves.")
Zengerle maintains that the Sierra Club has called for the destruction
of Glen Canyon Dam largely to garner publicity and attract new
members. Unfazed by such criticism, the organization, under its
25-year old president, Adam Werbach, is recruiting a younger,
more activist constituency by assuming a more militant public
stance. Werbach promises to continue the campaign on several fronts.
Just as the fight over building Glen Canyon Dam in the first
place sparked a rethinking of the value of dam-building, a debate
that spread worldwide, the current Glen Canyon controversy may
open a new round of discussion over whether environmental damage
can truly be reversed through restoration. Proponents and opponents
alike are keeping careful watch on the lower Colorado River to
see where that discussion will lead.
|