Purcell 0
Down with the Dams!
An analysis of Steven Hawley’s informational book
Recovering a Lost River
Natasha Purcell
March 3, 2013
Aquatic Resources 200
Dr. P. Clancy
Purcell 1
As early as the end of World War II, a rush to find new energy at a cheap
cost emerged, which resulted in the worldwide trend of dam construction in
order to harvest the power. As mentioned by Hawley (9), the United States
have over 75000 dam projects since 1776. It was assured to make the
companies a lot of money by theoretically doing little damage to the ecological
processes at work. Through investigations and studies, this theory was proven
false. One person who extensively studied the impacts of the dam construction
trend was Steven Hawley. Hawley delves into the political, economic,
ecological, and cultural implications resulting from the construction of the
dams as the catalyst of societies' race for greed and power. He touches on how
species survival is compromised as a result of the dams being built, as well as
the ripple effect they had on the whole ecosystem. Hawley also looks at the
political workings around dam construction how they affect the human
population around a dam, and the economic stress caused by the dams by
outlining the costs versus the benefits of their construction. The following
paper is a review on Hawley’s work. The first part of which I will be going
through the major themes that he covered. The second part of the paper will
be a critical analysis on the effectiveness of his writing style and the overall
solution he is proposing to fix the situation at hand .
Steven Hawley’s Recovering a Lost River; Removing Dams, Rewilding
Salmon, Revitalizing Communities (2011) is a 252 page book on the impact the
monetary centered mind frame of society with the drive for new power sources
had on every area of society. It was written from the point of view that the
Purcell 2
dams destroyed numerous irreplaceable ecological treasures, and evidence
from studies proved they should not have been constructed in the first place.
Hawley supported this stance by looking at a number of areas which can be
broken down into four main topics. The main topics Hawley explored were; the
ecological implications the dam construction had, how that construction
affected humans living in the area, the political workings revolving the dams,
and how to go about reversing the resulted damage.
The first decipherable main topic of Hawley’s is the ecological
implications of dam construction on salmon and how that affected the
ecosystem as a whole. He makes it very clear that the ecological impacts have
been catastrophic and have led to a loss of species that cannot be reversed
(Hawley, 9). He explains how the Snake River is the main passage for migratory
salmon and therefore the introduction of a dam to an area that is the main
means of transportation for a fish species would cause many problems. The
extent that salmon and other migratory species was explained by staggering
statistics of numerous salmon species –including Snake River Sockeye,
spring/summer Chinook, fall Chinook, and steelhead- all being threatened with
extinction, and one species actually going extinct as of the 1980s (around the
middle of dam construction mania). He attributes the fall in salmon numbers to
the construction of dams, which he argued didn't benefit society much when
the cost of maintenance was added in. Hawley also stressed that salmon were
not the only animal that suffered from the introduction of dams. On pages 8081, he shows that there was salmon habitat, as well as acres of land that was
Purcell 3
productive farmland or bird and riparian wildlife habitat. Hawley connected
the damage done to the salmon populations to other marine life as well, such
as whales; Orcha whales, Killer whales, and other sea dwelling creatures; sea
lions, sea otters, and sea calfs. He explained in that these organisms rely on
salmon in one way or another for survival, so as one would imagine the
decreased salmon population because of dam construction has a pretty
significant impact on the numbers of these creatures (Chapter 3). The main
conclusion that can be drawn out of Hawley’s examination is that there was a
crisis created by human selfishness and if something drastic is not done to
revert the damage, it will ultimately cause the destruction of whale, sea otter,
and sea lion, and salmon populations, which will eventually affect all areas of
nature.
The second main topic Hawley illustrated is the impact the dams have on
the human population living around the construction areas. He shows that
there are many ways in that people are affected by the decline in salmon
species as a result of the dam construction. There are three main impacts that
humans occupying the riparian zones of the dammed rivers have to put up with;
those mentioned by Hawley are: the impact on the economy, the result of the
physical aspects of the dams, and the impact on their culture. Firstly the
economic impacts Hawley mentioned on the communities near the dam
construction. This can be explained by just looking critically at the ecological
impacts. I mean, if one thinks about it not even in the context of this book, it
is clear that if the dam dramatically decreases the salmon population, there
Purcell 4
are going to be fewer people willing to travel to that area for fishing, which
would decrease the economic activity for that area. A decrease in economic
activity in a community generally has a largely negative impact on the whole
community. The second cluster of impacts Hawley mentioned that communities
near dam construction are faced with are those resulting from the physical
nature of the dam. These impacts are shown in two areas of Hawley’s book,
but really just convey the same message; that since the end of World War II,
forty million to eighty million people have lost their homes, jobs, and land
because of the dam construction which violated Indian treaties, and went
against the supposed intents of congress (Hawley, 9, and 80-81). Hawley
revealed that not only were people displaced, but that salmon fishing was seen
to many members of those regions as not just a hobby, but as a religion, a way
of life (Hawley 29). He showed that not only does the construction of a dam
flood the land around the river ruining land it also poses real safety risks to
those who live in the vicinity of the construction area; and so there were
increased safety risks to human population along the riparian zone as a result
of dam construction. As well that not only were the people more susceptible to
an increase in flooding, the companies were not adequately meeting safety
regulations and that the companies did not even have an evacuation plan in
case flooding occurred. By stating these facts, he showed that dam
construction had a larger on human life than companies initially thought.
The third topic observable in Hawley’s work is the role of politics in
regards to dam construction and how that played into the current ecological
Purcell 5
disaster we are sitting on top of. In which Hawley tackles the role of politics in
relation to two main situations: to the initial construction of the dams, and the
research being done on resolving the resulting ecological crisis.
The first situation Hawley investigated was the politics behind the initial
construction of the dams. In the fourth chapter he explains that not only were
the laws of ecology ignored, but, it was assumed that the want of power would
not disrupt the normal working of things. He did note that in the 1970s America
did have an environmental legislation, however, the possible positive impact
the legislation had was covered by the misconception that the ecological
standards can be met with a (possibly created) surplus of the resource (Hawley
53). It was shown that they thought that the river flow targets (presumably
created in the environmental legislation) – and from the looks of it the other
ecological standards set in that legislation- could just be dealt with after the
hydroelectric power companies got what they wanted (Hawley, 54). He
proposes that the introduction of dams was just a political tool for transferring
wealth from one part of a country to another to benefit the rich and harm the
poor (Hawley, 10).
The second way in which Hawley relates the political processes to dam
construction is the research being done to try to repair the damage already
done to the ecosystem as a result of the dam construction. It was made clear
by Hawley that even the companies supposedly dedicated to the protection of
the environment had a hidden agenda. This agenda was exposed in great detail
over the course of two chapters of Hawley’s book. The overall argument that
Purcell 6
he made was that hydroelectric companies did really not care about the
environment, and would do any sneaky underhanded thing to make sure they
could continue to exploit it to the best of their ability.
The list of things Hawley made showed that they were willing to do a
number of things including hiring a rookie fisheries specialist to do research on
the impact they were having on the dams and not adhering to the facts and
recommendations that came from that research; not even having a feasible
way for the fish to get around the dams- a requirement; hiding the numerous
dead salmon around their dams; and essentially paying researchers to only
publish results that will keep their dam production levels in tact (Hawley 123125). He says that even the large corporations like BPA always underestimated
the impact of dams on salmon, and that results ought to count, but they don’t
when it comes to politics (Hawley, 127). A point Hawley made was because
scientists need money and can not give up the opportunity of money, the bias
on the results found by those who research for companies like NOAA, BPA, and
NPCC are going to be in favor of the companies they work for. The occurrence
of manipulated statistics often resulting from research done from company
employed scientists are solidified when Hawley points out that that science
consultants work for their clients and because of that fact the results that they
produce are always predictable solidified this and going to have biases that
condone the actions that rational research has shown to be false and harmful
to the environment (Hawley, 146). Hawley says these are the same scientists
giving fodder for the companies to tell the public to ignore information and
Purcell 7
that the laws are wrong on the premise of their faulty data (Hawley, 152).
Through this he warns us to think critically because those organizations who
were previously thought to be trustworthy and in favor of preserving the
environment are in no way reliable for accurate information; that when dealing
with environmental issues that also have political aspects it may be necessary
to do outside research if one wants solid facts.
He showed that all the political aspects he researched just add to the
complications that were already created by the construction itself. The
political aspects cause more problems in that they make it harder for anything
to be done to try to reverse the damage, increasing the need for direct action
if they want to keep the ecological treasures they have.
Which brings me to the fourth and last main topic found in Hawley’s
work is the action that should be taken to reverse the damage caused from the
years and years of dam construction. He takes on this problem from numerous
points of view and a variety of different sources. One source Hawley uses is a
group of scientists who are depicted saying that if the government is serious
about helping the populations of orcha and killer whales, they need to remove
at least 4 dams on the lower Snake River and allow the salmon stocks to
increase so the salmon can survive which was proven successful on the Butte
Creek River (Hawley, 56). A different source of Hawley’s has the opinion that
while the tearing down of the dams will no doubt help the salmon population
recover, there is a need for more drastic measures including a 10 year
moratorium of the commercial fishing of salmon and a severe restriction of the
Purcell 8
sport fishing (Hawley, 34). They say that even if the river were to be
completely cleaned up, the residents would still be lacking salmon so the only
way to save both the salmon and the whale populations is for a politician to
declare the salmon whale food and so they would have to be protected
(Hawley, 39). The main solution that can be drawn from Hawley’s work is that
the most effective way to nock out the dams to help both economically (by
decreasing the maintenance and safety costs etc.) and solve the numerous
problems caused by the construction of the dams in the first place.
Now on to the second part of the paper: which as mentioned is the
critical analysis of Hawley’s book. There are many criticisms of the book; the
ones that I outline include extensive profanity use, inconsistency in writing
styles, and the excessive use of imagery.
The first problem I will examine is the absurd amount of profanity
Scattered throughout the course of Hawley’s work. Now, in a fiction novel –
depending on the audience – it is permissible for an author to have a small
amount of profanity in their work. However, it does need to be in the context
of the character and fit the style of the author’s work. In a scientific work, the
presence of profanity diminishes any authority the author may have previously
had in the reader’s eyes. For example, an author that uses a sentence
containing “orca shit”(37), or “deuce”(37) is less likely to continue to hold a
position of authority than an author who doesn’t. Since Hawley appears to try
to take a pseudo-scientific stance in his paper with the facts and statistics he
presents, and authority is critical in how highly the public is going to value your
Purcell 9
opinion. And so, the extensive profanity not only decreases the credibility that
Hawley would’ve had, but it also causes the reader to not take future works by
him seriously as well.
The second malfunction about Hawley’s work that I would like to draw
attention to is the inconsistency in writing styles he used. There are different
aspects to this problem, so I will take them one at a time. The first aspect of
inconsistency that is problematic is the switching between types of writing that
is common in Hawley’s writing. He switches from a story telling/flashback kind
of mode, to trying to present actual statistics and information that are
supposed to be taken seriously. Because he does this, it throws off the reader
and it is difficult for one to follow the track he is trying to lead them on. This
very frequent problem can be seen as early as the second chapter, in which
Hawley starts off telling the story of how he got to Alaska and his time there,
and then randomly switches to explaining –in immense detail– the biological
processes of the Salmon life cycle, and the migratory tracks they take
throughout their life. While these types of discussions and dialogue are
interesting, it is difficult to justify that the tangents –or better yet stories - he
indulges in contribute to the novel as a whole. This is made worse by the
absence of transitions between the story telling and scientific aspects of his
writing, which added more to the problem at hand. Therefore, if I may dare to
argue so, It would have be better for Hawley to have picked the style of book
that would ensure the way in which he wanted the public to perceive him. If he
wants to write a scientific book that will be taken seriously, then do so and if
Purcell 10
he wants to write an entertaining story, then stop randomly putting scientific
facts in there and expecting people to take him seriously.
The second inconsistency in Hawley’s work is that the whole book seems
out of order. If he is trying to get people to take him seriously as a scientific
writer, this needs to occur. In the majority of scientific writing, first there is
the background information needed to understand why their research makes
sense and why they are studying what they are. Then there is an experiment in
which all the research is done and the methods used are explained. In Hawley’s
work, his research and why he is studying the dams and their impact are more
adequately explained in the middle chapters from around chapter 5-8. The last
3 chapters in Recovering a Lost River fall somewhere between the two main
parts of a scientific work. The second part of a scientific work would be their
results from their studies, the impact their research has on the world, what It
would be the impact it has on the world, and how it affects the ecology of
everything else. Which in Hawley’s work would be the first four chapters of
the book. Having more of a structure to his writing that is almost dichotomous
in nature and if nothing having the history and things chronologically ordered
so there isn’t the constant moving between past and present would help.
Ultimately the putting like material with like or even just having it structured
and explained in a scientific way would allow Hawley’s work to be taken more
seriously and him to have the authority which he seems to want –not to
mention creating an easier read.
Purcell 11
The last negative criticism that I would like to bring to your attention is
that Hawley has a tendency to overindulge in concepts, be it facts, or imagery.
Both of these create a problem. When he explains in too much detail things
that do not add a lot to his book, it takes away from what he is trying to
accomplish, and so just appears as filler. For example, Hawley (31-51) did not
need to use as much space he did in outlining every detail in the whale and
otter life cycle or on looking into so many studies that were done on those
species. Explaining that they are affected and how they are affected is a good
thing, but expending so much energy on the life cycles and every detail about
them takes away from what his work is actually about and the conclusions he
tries to emphasize. The other point here is the tendency Hawley has to get
carried away with the amount of imagery he uses. An example of this being;
“On a gin-clear June afternoon, the high granite escarpments… light and sweet,
is laden with the smell of pines, new grass, and mountain flowers” (Hawley,
27). This results in the similar effect of causing the reader to think he is
inexperienced and trying too hard so decreasing the reader’s opinion of his
work.
After spending time going through the weak parts of Hawley’s book, a
helpful question to ask is: what can actually be taken out of this book and
applied to real life? One of the extremely important things that can be
extrapolated from Hawley’s work is his suggestion about how to deal with the
current ecological crisis. Mainly; that unless there are dramatic changes
implemented now to attempt reversing the damage done, the probability of
Purcell 12
salmon going extinct is 100%, and removing the dams is the only way to actually
protect these species and all that depend on them to survive (Hawley, 233234).
In conclusion, even though there are many negative qualities of Hawley’s
book, there is still a lot of material that can be taken and applied to our
current ecological situation. He not only gives us insight into the political
effects of dam construction and hydroelectric operation, but into how it affects
human life in every way. In compiling with the main theme of his arguments, if
we don’t do something, everything revolving around salmon will be destroyed;
but we not only have the power and proof about what immediate action can
do, but we also know what we need to do to save the magnifying effects of this
and that we need to do something now before it is too late – tear down the
dams!
Purcell 13
Steven Hawley. 2011. Recovering a Lost River; Removing Dams,
Rewilding Salmon, Revitalizing Communities. United States.