My first task for my readers to understanding them is, logically, for them to see them-- to make the 22 hydroelectric dams in Montana real.
If you all don't mind watching a few moments of each of these videos, I'd love to see some brief comments with your first thoughts. Are the dams beautiful? Ugly? Do you have a connection with the river it's on? Do they scare you or do you like them? What does it make you think about?
The Kerr Dam on the Flathead-- Polson, MT
Gibson Dam (Glory Hole spillway) on the Sun River (Missouri tributary)-- west of Great Falls, MT
Ryan Dam on the Missouri-- Great Falls, MT (Skip to 1:20 in video)
Libby Dam on the Kootenai--Libby, MT (Skip to 1:30 to see the actual dam)
Thompson Falls Dam on the Clark Fork-- Sanders County, NW MT
Hungry Horse Dam on the South Fork of the Flathead-- Columbia Falls, MT (skip to 1:28)
Fort Peck Dam on the Missouri-- SE of Glasgow, MT
Yellowtail Dam on the Big Horn-- St, Xavier, MT
Hauser Dam on the Missouri-- Helena, MT
Holter Dam on the Missouri-- SE of Helena. MT (see image)
Hi Lea, I just read through your notes and watch a few of these clips. My initial reaction to these videos is that dams are scary. They make me feel uneasy. I used to row in high school so I spent a lot of time on rivers. Whenever we got within a half mile of this one dam on the Allegheny River, I always had a mild panic attack. I hated it. I didn't like seeing and hearing all that water gushing in the middle of the river--it's unsettling. Also, I went to the Hoover Dam once and it really freaked me out. However, the video clip of the Fort Peck dam was kind of cool. Perhaps it was the camera angle, but it had a very "zen" feeling to it. I'll be interested to read your "by the numbers" piece in a few days. It was definitely a challenge to read all the facts and numbers in your notes, so l'll be interested to see how this form works for you. This idea made me think about the scope of your project. If "by the numbers" works, or inspires you, do you think you might try a few different mediums to tell your story? Perhaps you could try a narrative/journalistic piece, a "by the numbers" piece and something else. I still think you can totally do one cohesive piece, but since you're already trying new forms, I was wondering if that might be a direction for your project? As you know, many activist groups employ a host of materials to spread their messages. Maybe that's something to try?
ReplyDeleteHey Kerry, thanks for the feedback! I am in complete agreement-- dams are unnerving, and it's really odd being up close and personal with them. One on hand I think the older dams are impressive, when just measuring the difficulty of a novice project like that, but the environmentalist in me will never be able to warm up to the idea. If not counting the ecological impact, than just the sheer size and misplacement of the dam is enough to turn me off to the idea. I think it's interesting that you made that observation about the Fort Peck Dam because I had a similar thought when I posted it-- especially if you compare it to some of the more "violent" dams, like the Kerr. What I was hoping to understand more from hearing what people see when watching the videos was how others understand these dams. For me, I'm stuck in such opposition that I can't find the other side. I also was hoping that people might see the stark contrast of the dam, or this figment of modernity, in such pristine environments. Anyway... thank you for your input! And to answer your question-- yes! I was absolutely hoping to go about this project in a series of "articles" that can be understood alone, but speak to one another when combined. I see it as a sort of dam portfolio... but we will see how that pans out!
DeleteI'm currently reading Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded (as in, I'm reading the book at this moment) and I've come across a few mentions of dams. In this book, dams seem to be portrayed in a favorable light as a "renewable" clean energy source. I'm also in a Sustainable Business Practices class and people seem to view dams as positive infrastructure. It's just interesting to me that a subject as controversial as dams has been portrayed somewhat one dimensionally in these contexts. I just wanted to share that thought before I got back to my reading. Good luck writing!
ReplyDeleteIt's strange how people's perspectives may vary depending on their proximity to or experience with dams.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in Great Falls, Montana--the land of many dams--and I spent a lot of time near and around them while growing up. In high school, my friends and I frequently drove out to Ryan Dam to hang out in the park on the island below, coated by the cool spray from the cascading water. Growing up, my dad took me kayaking a few times below Marony Dam, my mom and I frequently biked to Rainbow Dam, and during cross country practice we ran past Black Eagle Dam every Wednesday during our longer runs. I've fished, canoed, and swam countless times in the Mighty Mo, and always knew to never get too close to the dams.
They never really scared me, although I did find their giant whirring turbines intimidating. As a child I frequently wondered what would happen if a fish, a duck, or a person was sucked through them. Sometimes, especially in the case of Ryan Dam, I found them beautiful despite their man-made elements.
But as a nature lover, I always wondered what the falls looked like before they were dams--especially since they're such a big part of the history of the area. The "great falls" for which the town is named refers to the series of waterfalls that Lewis and Clark portaged before their final push up the Missouri River to reach the Pacific. It's sad that the original falls, which were undoubtedly quite spectacular, have been replaced to generate hydroelectric power. They're even the impetus for Great Falls' nickname: the Electric City.
If you have a chance, check out the website for the Great Falls Public Library and see if it grants you access to their archives. I'm sure there's both recent articles and ones that date back to the dams' construction that could give you insight into how the community felt (and feels) about them. As one of the Montana communities most directly affected by dams, Great Falls could be a good place to focus some of your research.
Thanks a lot for the feedback, Kaylee. I really appreciate hearing what you guys think about all this stuff. It's great to hear from someone that has been in the community of Great Falls and been up-close and personal with the presence of the dam systems.
ReplyDeleteI'll definitely have to take a look at the archives, that's a great idea to get a feel for whether or not environmental questions were even being asked. It's also really interesting for me to hear how both you and Kerry have had outdoor experiences shaped, in some way, by the dams. I want to pursue this more, so if you guys would be willing, I might come explore that a bit with you guys.
Wow - I love the feedback you've gotten here from Kerry and Kaylee - they are serious and engaged responses, and they are there because you've given them something to write about. You're also taking on an interesting question here: dams are awesome, often, even weirdly sublime in the Romantic sense - you can feel that a little bit in Kerry's reflection above. It makes you wonder what else - besides the sort of practical resource extraction - drove dam construction. I have a sense - perhaps wrong - that the golden age of dams was the 1930s and 40s, that dams represented something at the same time that they did something - represented human achievement and ingenuity, represented scale, and represented a control of nature, the belief (that I think you would argue has proven untenable) that humans could improve and manage the improvements upon nature. Clearly that role must be reconsidered (you should check out the new PBS "Earth" series, by the way: it asks the question, what does it mean to understand humans as an integral part of the natural world?).
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about dams, I think about some of what I learned from students I worked with on the Tulalip Reservation years ago, 90 minutes north of Seattle. Their ancestors used to fish here:
http://www.critfc.org/salmon-culture/tribal-salmon-culture/celilo-falls/
and it was still understood, in the 1990s, as a sort of cultural tragedy that those falls were destroyed, which did away with one of the most important and clearly sustainable fishing processes in the Western United States.
Here's what else I like about the videos you posted: you are drawing on your strengths as a writer -your reflective prose style, your engagement with the natural world, that hippy girl think you made fun of before but that works for you in many ways - to pull yourself in a new direction. What I mean is, these dams are astounding and amazing, beautiful in their own way, and scary and awesome (in the original sense of the word) - to advocate their destruction, or new ones never being completed, is an argument about humanity and the natural world. I might not be making sense, but I see you getting pulled in interesting directions.
What you set out to do might be too big - and it's growing still. That's fun to watch, because you have to write yourself out of this conundrum!
I am very drawn in by your writing. You have conveyed a sense of urgency and critical questioning that spans all of your writing, and it has made me think deeper on the subject. I think about the water I waste. I think about the power I waste. I wonder why we think we need some much of this "progression" and don't care how we obtain it. I think about my desires to have a home that connects more with nature than steals from it. We live in a balancing act, but the scales have been weighted heavily on one side. Can we balance it out? Our energy reliance is pretty scary. Your writing looks closely at the cost of producing energy while simultaneously looking at a bigger picture. The combination is powerful.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback, Levi. It's really productive (and a relief) for me to hear that what you've read has had some sort of impact on someone out there. With a project like this, it's easy to feel like I'm completely loosing my reader. I feel so flooded by the topic, that I'm never sure anything I am writing comes across clearly. I really appreciate the kind words!
DeleteHey Lea!
ReplyDeleteThis is about three weeks late, for which I am very sorry, but here it goes anyway. I love your passion. It really comes through in your writing, which is beautiful and lyrical and extremely intriguing. The patagonia piece was very engaging, and I really like the way you have melded statistics and facts, dry on their own, into your prose. The piece 'Consider the River' with the $9,000 per month statistic is what I am specifically referring to here (an astounding statistic by the way). Also, your passion for this project comes through in your meticulous research, which is very commendable. It is not often that people delve into water rights law, and I have found myself hesitating at the brink of that issue because I'm not sure I want to tackle that with my piece.
These things being said, I am finding an interesting dichotomy between the writing you have put up in google docs and the notes you scanned. Maybe it's just because you haven't written for the water rights stuff yet, but the pieces you've posted are much more 'big picture', for lack of a better phrase, than the notes you scanned. So I guess what I'm wondering is this: Is your purpose to get people to want to fight back against the dams (which I believe it is) and if so, is your 'sub-purpose', to instigate just that desire, or is it to provide a sort of 'how to' from a legal standpoint. I don't know if this is making any sense, but what I am trying to get at is this: If you want your writing to instigate an awareness of the problems of dams and a need in your reader to do something about it, I don't think the details of water rights will help you. I think in this case that lyrical and passionate prose which you are so good at will really be your strong suit. On the other hand, if you are wanting to instill in your readers an intricate familiarity with water law, in the hopes that they will then be able to find ways to subvert and leagally fight back against dams, I think the detail which your notes show is vital.
It is almost like you are working on two audiences, or two prongs of one argument - the first being, convincing people dams are bad, the second being how to deal with the dam issue (hahahah so many possible puns) once they are convinced. And I like that set up, if that's what you're going for.
And just in case this comment wasn't long and stumbly enough, my response to the clips:
I tend to agree with you about having an inherent aversion to dams. But I also think there is something amazing about them, something awe-inspiring. As humans, our ability to manipulate and manage our environment is astonishing and, on one hand commendable, on the other, despicable. I have long struggled with a reconciliation between the two. I grew up near a small dam in California, one which is called the 'Terminus' dam because it literally ends the river. It's waters are then distributed to the Farmers in the valley during the dry season. So what always comes up for me is both what the dam does to the environment, and what it does to the people who rely on it. That would be my question for you. If we get rid of the dams, where does the water and power come from that people are relying on? I am not quite sure how it works in Montana, it is a water-rich state and so I don't know if getting rid of dams/not building dams would have as much of an impact on the local communities livelihoods as such action would have in CA, but I am interested nonetheless in the 'other side of the coin'. I guess I'm not sure dams are all bad. I want them to be. I want to be able to say - take them down! Free the rivers! - but I think my mind is a bit tainted by that California mindset.
Hopefully some of this is helpful, and at least a little bit coherent. I've been enjoying following your piece and look forward to reading more!
Analisa
Hey Lea!
ReplyDeleteThis is about three weeks late, for which I am very sorry, but here it goes anyway. I love your passion. It really comes through in your writing, which is beautiful and lyrical and extremely intriguing. The patagonia piece was very engaging, and I really like the way you have melded statistics and facts, dry on their own, into your prose. The piece 'Consider the River' with the $9,000 per month statistic is what I am specifically referring to here (an astounding statistic by the way). Also, your passion for this project comes through in your meticulous research, which is very commendable. It is not often that people delve into water rights law, and I have found myself hesitating at the brink of that issue because I'm not sure I want to tackle that with my piece.
These things being said, I am finding an interesting dichotomy between the writing you have put up in google docs and the notes you scanned. Maybe it's just because you haven't written for the water rights stuff yet, but the pieces you've posted are much more 'big picture', for lack of a better phrase, than the notes you scanned. So I guess what I'm wondering is this: Is your purpose to get people to want to fight back against the dams (which I believe it is) and if so, is your 'sub-purpose', to instigate just that desire, or is it to provide a sort of 'how to' from a legal standpoint. I don't know if this is making any sense, but what I am trying to get at is this: If you want your writing to instigate an awareness of the problems of dams and a need in your reader to do something about it, I don't think the details of water rights will help you. I think in this case that lyrical and passionate prose which you are so good at will really be your strong suit. On the other hand, if you are wanting to instill in your readers an intricate familiarity with water law, in the hopes that they will then be able to find ways to subvert and leagally fight back against dams, I think the detail which your notes show is vital.
It is almost like you are working on two audiences, or two prongs of one argument - the first being, convincing people dams are bad, the second being how to deal with the dam issue (hahahah so many possible puns) once they are convinced. And I like that set up, if that's what you're going for.
And just in case this comment wasn't long and stumbly enough, my response to the clips:
I tend to agree with you about having an inherent aversion to dams. But I also think there is something amazing about them, something awe-inspiring. As humans, our ability to manipulate and manage our environment is astonishing and, on one hand commendable, on the other, despicable. I have long struggled with a reconciliation between the two. I grew up near a small dam in California, one which is called the 'Terminus' dam because it literally ends the river. It's waters are then distributed to the Farmers in the valley during the dry season. So what always comes up for me is both what the dam does to the environment, and what it does to the people who rely on it. That would be my question for you. If we get rid of the dams, where does the water and power come from that people are relying on? I am not quite sure how it works in Montana, it is a water-rich state and so I don't know if getting rid of dams/not building dams would have as much of an impact on the local communities livelihoods as such action would have in CA, but I am interested nonetheless in the 'other side of the coin'. I guess I'm not sure dams are all bad. I want them to be. I want to be able to say - take them down! Free the rivers! - but I think my mind is a bit tainted by that California mindset.
Hopefully some of this is helpful, and at least a little bit coherent. I've been enjoying following your piece and look forward to reading more!
Analisa