What Goes Up, May Come Down

Abstract

Once upon a time (not long ago, during the early years of my tenure at the US Department of the Interior), vigilant watershed-based communities could often be seen gathered on the banks of their streams, waving homemade signs, heckling politicians, and vowing to lie down in front of government bulldozers, united by their singular passion to Stop Dams! Save Our River! No longer. Rapid developments in the last few years have given rise to a new protest movement. This one, also grassroots, musters its forces, raises funds, organizes committees, shouts down federal officials, lobbies legislators, waves placards for the press, and promises civil disobedience if the government proceeds with its engineering plans. Only this time, the words painted on their banners read “Stop Rivers! Save Our Dam!” Ye t this is only the most visible level of irony. Peel away simple media images and a second level emerges: Ideological opposites on dams are now reversing roles, exchanging hats, and switching arguments with each other. Consider: Dam opponents once were the true fiscal conservatives. They urged caution, pointing out that dams typically cost taxpayers more than estimated in early projections, and that alternatives to dams exist. They favored the status quo, noting that there was too much uncertainty to allow concrete pouring without more and more laborious environmental and social impact studies. They championed the rights of human lives and livelihoods for Native American tribes who earned their food and made their homes on the banks of rivers but who were still displaced involuntarily and without meaningful compensation.