National Radio Project

MAKING CONTACT

Transcript: #08-01 Rethinking Large Dams
February 21, 2001

Program description, guest contact information and audio files at http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2001/0801.html

Phillip Babich: This week on Making Contact....

Phillip Williams: When you build a big dam in a river system, you fundamentally transform the hydrology and the ecology of the river, from all the way from the watershed to the river valley, to the estuary, to the coastal seas.

Philmer Bluehouse: The dam itself could be there, but the water would go around it. It would be a monument to man's stupidity...

Phillip Babich: Large dams have been built on over 70 percent of rivers around the world, the majority of which are located in three countries: the United States, China, and India. But opposition to these industrial development projects is increasing worldwide, due to social and ecological impacts. On this program, we take a look at movements to end the construction of large dams. I'm Phillip Babich -- your host this week on Making Contact -- an international radio program seeking to create connections between people, vital ideas, and important information.

In November 2000, the World Commission on Dams released a comprehensive report -- the first of its kind -- that examined the social and ecological effects of large dams around the world. The Commission was formed in 1998 as a result of meetings arranged by the World Bank to discuss controversial issues surrounding dams. Participants included representatives of governments, corporations, international financial institutions and some groups that have been working to stop large dam construction. Those groups have criticized the World Bank for financing the construction of large dams.

After the release of the report, there were a variety of reactions among the non-governmental organizations tracking dam projects: some groups were surprised that the report was as critical as it was, crediting commission participants for consulting with grass roots groups from the beginning of the process. Others were less impressed with the report. Philip Williams is the president of a hydrology consulting firm and has advised many environmental groups that work on river protection issues. He is also one of the founders of the International Rivers Network. In an interview with Making Contact's Stephanie Welch, Williams said he was disappointed in the report, saying it did not address some of the core environmental issues involving large dams.

Phillip Williams: I think it is disappointing -- what actually came out of the World Commission on Dams. It did not meet the expectations that we had hoped for. It is absolutely true that the commission report, because of so much NGO input, was forced to include many instances that documented the devastating ecologic and human rights impacts of these projects. But what it failed to do, which I think is a significant setback to the movement fighting dams--what it failed to do was effectively challenge this rationale that these dams were needed for development. And what was hoped for out of this process was not only that the WCD would look at, you know, costs and benefits and impacts, and ways of improving planning and improving consultation with affected people and so on -- but really come to grips with the central issue of: Are these big dam projects needed for development? And that's what it ducked. It ducked that big issue. And in doing so it just has not challenged essentially, this development ideology that's been in place for the last 30 or 40 years, which emphasizes massive capital expenditure on infrastructure, at the expense of other programs, which could genuinely benefit peoples' livelihoods.

Stephanie Welch: Could you talk about some of the more negative effects of large dams have on ecosystems?

Phillip Williams: Well, this is another failing of the World Commission on Dams Report. When you build a big dam in a river system, you fundamentally transform the hydrology and the ecology of a river from all the way from the watershed to the river valley, to the estuary, to the coastal seas. And now, scientific evidence is mounting that these impacts are devastating, that they're cumulative and devastating and a major factor in loss of global biodiversity, a major factor in decline of important food sources like fisheries, and the WCD report ducks that issue. It did not come to grips with a continuation of building dams, in the way we've been doing. What will happen to global biodiversity and the environmental resources on which humanity depends? And I can't stress how important that subject is -- for it not to be covered in a report of this type, which purports to be a global review of dams, is extremely disappointing and there's a danger of it undercutting that segment of the global anti-dam movement represented by the environmental groups.

Stephanie Welch: Now do you have an opinion as to why they ducked that issue?

Phillip Williams: Well, it was partly because there was not an environmentalist on the commission really. There were, over on the NGO's side, there were water resources experts from NGO's, there were human social movements experts, but there was no environmentalist expert representing it. And I think because of that, there was deference to the industry representatives, like the International Commission on Large Dams representative, which really was not a satisfactory outcome. There was a disconnect between the World Commission on Dams saying and what the latest thinking is on the role of dams and river systems. And this is no more made apparent than when you take a look at what's happening in the United States right now, about how there's a realization now in the United States that when many of the big dams were built, they were done in ignorance of their true ecologic, social and economic costs. And that they were done for political reasons. This has been documented in books like Cadillac Desert and Rivers of Empire, that these were really political decisions that used public funds to benefit particular interest groups.

Phillip Williams: Well, it was partly because there was not an environmentalist on the commission really. Over on the NGO's side, there were water resources experts from NGO's, there were human social movements experts, but there was no environmentalist expert representing it. And I think because of that, there was deferrence to the industry representatives, like the International Commission on Large Dams representative, which really was not a satisfactory outcome. There was a disconnect between the World Commission on Dams saying and what the latest thinking is on the role of dams and river systems. And this is no more made apparent than when you take a look at what's happening in the United States right now, about how there's a realization now in the United States that when many of the big dams were built, they were done in ignorance of their true ecologic, social and economic costs. And that they were done for political reasons. This has been documented in books like Cadillac Desert and Rivers of Empire, that these were really political decisions that used public funds to benefit particular interest groups.

And now, you see, we have a more sophisticated understanding. We believe in more egalitarian ideas on how resources should be used and allocated. And if we were to take a step back and take a look at these past decisions that were made, and affected the future of our rivers, I think we would say pretty clearly that if the rivers hadn't been dammed 40 or 50 years ago, very few of those dams would have been built today, in today's priorities. Many agencies are taking a second look at these dams, and saying, "Okay, maybe we can't get rid of them right now, but let's at least look at how we can operate them differently so we don't have to cause such bad effects on [the] ecosystem." And what's coming out of those studies is new operating routines that essentially try to emulate what the natural river flows would have been without the dam. And they kind of make you really or fully understand how the mounting body of evidence is that these dams have caused major impacts on our ecosystems in the United States.

Phillip Babich: Phillip Williams, a consultant on health of river ecosystems, speaking with Stephanie Welch.

Around the world, communities that have borne the social and ecological brunt of large dam projects are calling for reparations from the World Bank. They're asking for various forms of compensation for the loss of their land and livelihoods. Some members of the World Commission on Dams support many of the claims made by local people worldwide. Making Contact's Monica Lopez takes a look at a few communities affected by dam projects.

Monica Lopez: Dams are one of the main threats to aquatic ecosystems. They stop the flow of rivers and store enormous volumes of water, inhibiting the movements of fish upstream and downstream. They flood and inundate certain habitats and also de-water the river downstream. But in addition to environmental impacts, large dams have enormous social and political consequences on the people whose livelihoods are affected by dams. Communities affected by these projects, funded in part or entirely by the World Bank, are calling for reparations from the Bank for harmful, often brutal impacts that the dams have had on their lives and their land. Deborah Moore is a scientist and a member of the World Commission on Dams.

Deborah Moore: It's very disruptive for these communities to be moved, both culturally, families sometimes are split apart. It fuels the whole migration to cities, where you have all kinds of urban growth and urban areas, and people turn into squatters and day laborers. And if they lose their land, they're thrown into much more of a kind of cash economy, which they often are unfamiliar with. And really they have very few resources. You don't have savings, you don't have education, you don't have other skills to all of a sudden find a new job. Monica Lopez: In 1991, the World Bank issued an internal report, called the Wappenhans Report. In it, the World Bank declared that 37.5 percent of its projects were failures. Yet according to Aviva Imhof, the Southeast Asia campaigner for the International Rivers Network, the World Bank has done little to change its operations.

Aviva Imhof: The Bank, when it's been attacked for its support for particular projects, its consistent line is, "Well, these projects were funded in the past, and, we know we've made mistakes, but now we know how to do these projects much better, we know how to comply with our policies much better." And we do not have evidence of that. We haven't been able to find in the projects that we've been following, and certainly the projects that other people have been following, the World Bank is continuing to break every single one of its guidelines in all different areas. The thing that has changed in the large dam arena is that the bank is funding less dams. And I think the reason for that is because of the huge opposition world-wide to large dams. The Bank realizes that there are easier ways of moving money. Then they still have said that they will continue to fund these projects, and we basically believe that there should be a moratorium on funding for large dam projects until they've basically taken account of their mistakes of the past.

Monica Lopez: One of the most violent resettlement campaigns funded by the World Bank happened around the Chixoy Dam project in Guatemala. In the early 1980s, the residents of Rabinal, Guatemala, refused to leave their land to make way for the construction of Chixoy. As a result, the Guatemalan military killed over 400 of the 900 villagers in a series of massacres that spanned three years. Carlos Chen is a human rights activist in Guatemala and is one of the survivors of the killings.

Carlos Chen (translated): This community of Rio Grande is a very old community. His parents, his grandparents, his great-grandparents were all born there, so it's a community that's very much part of this land, and the land is very much a part of this community too. And one day, the representatives from INDE (Instituto Nacional de Electrificacion), the country's electricity department, came and talked to them and told them that they were going to build the dam. And the community didn't know what a dam was. This is generally a community who doesn't read or write. So they did not know at all what electricity was. But they did know that they definitely did not want any projects to displace them from their land.

Monica Lopez: What ensued was a series of killings that claimed the lives of 434 villagers including Chen's wife and two children. As part of the compensation the community of Rabinal is asking for, not only land and monetary compensation, but also an acknowledgment from the Bank that the killings took place. They also want a monument built to honor those lost.

Deborah Moore: This is the community that was not even necessarily opposing the dam. They were concerned about being resettled, and they had raised questions about the kind of compensation they were going to receive. And Chixoy Dam is a World Bank financed dam, and there have been studies and investigations about what the role of the Bank in that project has been. And now, after the fact, at least in that particular case, the World Bank has said, "Well, we will complete the compensation program that we promised you before." But for many of these communities, that's just not enough. And so by calling for reparations, people are saying the society that is benefiting from these projects needs to pay for the harm that is done.

Monica Lopez: In November, 2000, the World Commission on Dams issued a report concluding that large dams have failed to produce as much electricity as promised. They are unprofitable, and dam projects have had major social and environmental impacts, which have disproportionately affected the poorer sectors of society. The WCD is calling for a collaborative and participatory way of planning development projects, planning that includes the local community's input on what kinds of development should be included before a project is designed or even conceptualized. Deborah Moore: Deborah Moore: What is it that the community needs? Do they need power, do they need agricultural development? Do they need drinking water, health -- what is it they need? Monica Lopez: Similar questions are being asked in Thailand, where there has been a call for reparations surrounding the Pakmoon Dam over the past two years. An estimated 5000 villagers occupied the dam site in protest over loss of land, water, and the depletion of their fish catch. The commission found that the fish catch in the reservoir surrounding the Pakmoon Dam is 60 to 80 percent less than the catch before the dam was built. Aviva Imhof explains:

Aviva Imhof: ...and their main demand now is for the World Bank and the Thai government to take down the Pakmoon dam. The way that the project has affected their lives is through destruction of the fisheries in that river. And when the dam went in, it blocked the migration of fish upstream, and so all the communities upstream no longer have any fish. And the ironic thing about this case is that the communities knew that this would happen way back when the dam was being proposed, and they said to the World Bank, "Don't fund this project because it'll destroy our livelihoods." And the World Bank went ahead anyway said, "No, no, no, everything will be okay." They funded the project, the impacts have occurred, and the World Bank walks away and says, "It's not our problem."

Monica Lopez: In November, 2000, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, or EGAT, hired approximately 200 so-called guards to forcibly remove Pakmoon protesters and their campsite. According to a report in the Bangkok Post, EGAT admitted to employing the attackers but denied witness accounts that the mob burned down nearly 500 campsite dwellings. Susanne Wong is a campaign assistant for the International Rivers Network.

Susanne Wong: On November 20th, about 200 hired hitmen of the Thai Electricity Generating Authority marched into the protest site. They were wielding guns, knives and batons, and forcibly evicted people from their houses. About 30 people were injured, three seriously. People, when they tried to resist the attackers, once the protesters were evicted from the site, the 200 men began destroying the contents of the huts and set them ablaze. They set about 500 huts on fire, and even a makeshift school that had been set up.

Monica Lopez: In the past the World Bank has not made reparations, but instead has made loans to affected peoples. In the meantime, over 100 non-governmental organizations around the world are calling for the halt of all financial support for dam projects until the Commission's recommendations are fully implemented. For Making Contact, I'm Monica Lopez.

Phillip Babich: You're listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. If you want more information about the topic of this week's program, or would like to get in touch with any of our guests, we'll be giving our toll free number at the end of this program.

The United States has the second highest number of dams in the world. The waters of the Colorado River flow from the Rocky Mountains, through Utah, then south to create the border between Arizona and California, ultimately meeting the Sea of Cortez in Northern Mexico. On its way, the river has carved a series of dramatic canyons, including the Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon. Since the early part of the 19th century, however, the construction of dozens of large dams has blocked the flow of the Colorado River, so that now only a trickle of water ever gets to the river mouth.

In 1960, the federal government began work on the Glen Canyon Dam, which is now the 19th largest dam in the world, measuring 710 feet high. After volumes of concrete were poured over a two year period to make the dam, Glen Canyon -- called one of the most beautiful canyons on Earth -- was flooded to make Lake Powell, one of the largest man-made reservoirs in the Western Hemisphere. Ever since, environmentalists and local citizens have been fighting to restore Glen Canyon, located in Utah and Arizona. Making Contact's Krissy Clark has more.

Krissy Clark: For the Dine people, commonly called the Navajos, Glen Canyon was home to some of their culture's most sacred places, which are now all under water. Philmer Bluehouse is a member of the Dine Medicine Men's Association, a council forum to preserve the traditional practices of the Navajo Nation. He spoke to Making Contact from his home on the Navajo reservation.

Philmer Bluehouse: This area we used to called a Navajo [Navajo term], which means one of the holy beings, the footprint, was placed in the sandstone there. And there's evidence of that. And then there's a mask -- it's a large rock, rather, that somehow had been carved into by nature -- not anything of man's doing, but by nature was carved into what appeared to be a mask of one of our deities, or one of our representatives of the creator.

Krissy Clark: Until Glen Canyon was flooded almost 40 years ago, the Dine people had been visiting holy sites there for generations. It's estimated that barely 1000 white people had ever seen the canyon's beauty. Ken Sleight is one of the lucky ones who knew the canyon. He owns a river guide outfit in Utah. Sleight spend several years in the early 1950s leading float trips along the 175 miles of river that went through Glen Canyon. As soon as any discussion began about a dam at Glen Canyon, opposition began too. Sleight organized the group called Friends of Glen Canyon, that led the movement. But in 1956, a slim Congressional majority passed the Colorado River Storage Project, and construction of the dam came soon after. Sleight remembers his last visit to the Canyon before it was flooded.

Ken Sleight: I saw the waters come up. I saw all these beautiful things destroyed. Had I stayed down there to watch all my beautiful things destroyed -- sometime I had to shake my head because it was the most painful thing I have ever witnessed, seeing inch by inch all this water coming up covering the very thing you love so much, and watching all the animals drown. Each week I went down, there was a little more, it was a little higher and more destruction. All the thousands and thousands of Indian dwellings...they toppled over and [were] destroyed. And all the Indian sites, the writings on the wall, things like that -- the Indian petroglyphs, the pictographs, they were all covered.

Krissy Clark: In the last 20 years, increasing numbers of people are insisting that much of what was lost can be restored. Research has shown that if the reservoir was drained, much of the ecology would come back relatively quickly. Backed by the Sierra Club and several grass roots environmental organizations, there is a growing movement to retire Glen Canyon Dam. Owen Lammers is the executive director of Glen Canyon Action Network.

Owen Lammers: Well, it was politics that built Glen Canyon Dam, and it will be politics that indeed brings about its decommissioning. The economics, the technical issues, the legal issues are really not constraints to decommissioning the dam. What really needs to happen is for people within the basin, and across the country, because this is a federal resource, to begin stating that we do indeed want a different approach to river management. And that approach includes a much more extensive conservation of water, of energy, different approaches to flood management. And in so doing, we can easily live without Glen Canyon and many other dams, not only on the Colorado but throughout the United States and around the world.

Krissy Clark: Lammers says he expects the biggest opposition to the dam's decommissioning will be large scale agribusinesses in Arizona and California, states that are downstream of the dam.

Owen Lammers: They don't want to be forced to have to implement water conservation measures. They want to be able to continue to use flood irrigation to continue to grow things like alfalfa and Sudan grass in the Southeastern desert of California, which ultimately gets put on boats and shipped to feed cattle in Japan.

Krissy Clark: For those who support the dam say it provides an important water insurance policy for the dry Southwest, and is vital to the area's tourist economy which is dependent on the Lake Powell reservoir. But Philmer Bluehouse of the Medicine Men's Association, says he doesn't see the dam or the reservoir providing any agricultural or economic benefits to his people.

Philmer Bluehouse: If there's any kind of economic development as a result of the water, it seems to be down in Phoenix, or down in Las Vegas, or other high population areas, and there's no benefit coming to the Navajo Nation. In addition to that, all the recreational stuff that's happening up there in that region...we don't see any benefits. I mean, nothing is coming back to the Navajo Nation in terms of use of land, or that kind of stuff. And certainly there's an economic dysfunction that is occurring as a result of that.

Krissy Clark: Well, the Dam itself may be nearing dysfunction too, and safety concerns are mounting. The 40-year old dam is already leaking around the porous sandstone that abuts it. A heavy rain season in 1983 brought near catastrophe when the reservoir could barely hold all the water coming in from the upper Colorado River. But activists, from Owen Lammers and Ken Sleight, to the late David Brower, former director of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, hope that the government will decommission the dam before nature does. Brower described his hopes in a ceremony at the dam, in March, 2000, as part of the International Day of Action Against Dams, and For Rivers, Water and Life.

David Brower: I want you all to be at least as old as I am, so that you will join the party when that blue water there that hides the most beautiful scenery on earth is free again. And every time one of the old species comes back and is restored -- I want you all to come out to the party, and by the time everything is restored, we'll all be smashed.

Krissy Clark: Katie Lee, an author, singer and a long time river activist, returned to the area just for the ceremony. She had refused to visit Glen Canyon since the dam was erected by the United States Reclamation Bureau, or what she calls the "Wreck the Nation" Bureau.

Katie Lee: I've always said, wouldn't it be wondrous if the Wreck the Nation Bureau reclaimed something. Reclaimed: to claim or demand the return or restoration of, is the meaning of the word. Instead of revising, redoing, retarding, reducing, repressing, replacing, and revoltingly destroying everything they touch. They need to be put to work on a generous act, such as restoring Glen Canyon, in order to repair their rotten image.

Katie Lee singing: Three cheers for the Wreck the Nation Bureau, freeloaders with soul so pure, oh, life doth the good Lord's work in six short years. They never saw the old Glen Canyon just standin' up, while they were standin' at their drawing boards with cotton in their ears. Oh, they're gonna dam the fryin' pan...

Krissy Clark: For Making Contact, I'm Krissy Clark.

Phillip Babich: That's it for this edition of Making Contact: A look at the effects of large dams. Thanks for listening. And special thanks this week to Doug Fabrizio for recorded portions. We had production assistance from Krissy Clark, Arosio Roke provided translation assistance. Laura Livoti is our managing director. Peggy Law, executive director. Associate producers, Stephanie Welch and Shereen Meraji. Senior advisor, Norman Solomon. National producer, David Barsamian. And I'm your host and managing producer, Phillip Babich.

If you want more information about the topic of this week's programmer how to get in touch with any of our guests, call the National Radio Project at 800-529-5736. Call that same number for tapes and transcripts. That's 800-529-5736. You can also go to our website at radioproject.org.

Making Contact is an independent production. We're committed to providing a forum for voices and opinions not often heard in the mass media. If you have suggestions for future programs, we'd like to hear from you. Our theme music is by the Charlie Hunter trio. Bye for now.