For modern conservationists, the story of the successful campaign by David Brower and the Sierra Club to save the Colorado is well known and oft championed. Shattered by his decision not to defend Glen Canyon from damming–a tradeoff made to save Echo Park from the same fate–Brower approached his defense of the Grand Canyon with particular vigor, no longer willing to compromise. The year was 1968, and two large dams had been proposed in Grand Canyon National Park at Marble and Bridge canyons. After a protracted and intense legal battle with California, Arizona had received an additional 2.8 million acre feet of water in 1963, and wasted no time introducing legislation to build a massive canal system, which would deliver water from the Colorado near Parker Dam to the burgeoning metropolises of Phoenix and Tucson. In order to power the many pumps and locks needed to deliver water across 336 miles of scorching desert, the state needed a huge amount of power. It was for this reason Arizona Congressman Carl Hayden and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall supported the dams in Grand Canyon.
Taylor Graham, Image
The well-known story concludes with David Brower and the Sierra Club putting together the first large-scale environmental marketing campaign, rousing the public against the dams, and ultimately forcing the Department of Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Reclamation to abandon attempts to build dams in the national park. However, more was taking place outside of the public’s view. Up until 1961, both the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon and the one at Marble Canyon were supported by the tribes on whose land the dams would be built: the Hualapai and Navajo, respectively. It was the DOI that ultimately made the fatal error, dooming the proposed dams. While the government had offered the Hualapai Nation $16 million to build the dam at Bridge Canyon, it failed to offer a cent of compensation to the Navajo Nation, believing that the Nation’s claim to the 46 miles of scenic canyon the Marble Dam would submerge was, at best, tenuous. Tribal members felt differently, and, upon hearing that they had been short-shafted, voted to withdraw support for the project in 1966. Rather than enter into another protracted legal battle to secure Navajo support for the dam and facing the mounting public pressure roused by the Sierra Club’s campaign, the DOI scrapped plans for the dams. Additionally, a simultaneous rash of dealmaking made it easier for the dam builders to abandon their efforts.
When the Navajo Tribal Council withdrew support for the dam at Marble Canyon, the Nation was also beginning talks with Peabody Energy to mine Black Mesa of its coal. In 1964, the Nation officially chose coal mining over river damming, and signed a deal with Peabody to begin extracting coal on Black Mesa, in exchange for royalties from coal sales and the faulty assumption that such development would lead to the electrification of the vast and infrastructure-starved Navajo Nation. Since the 1938 Indian Mineral Leasing Act required the DOI to sign off on any mineral extraction deal made between a tribe and a private entity—in order to protect the tribes, of course—Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall caught wind of the deal, as well. Seeing a new, less-controversial way to power the delivery of Arizona’s water, Udall and the DOI worked closely with Peabody over the next few years to ensure the mining at Black Mesa and the construction of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) on the shores of Lake Powell went smoothly. The DOI also made sure that the new power plant, built on land leased from the Navajo Nation, would supply energy directly to the Central Arizona Project.
Crossing Worlds Hopi Projects, Image
Thus began a fifty-year history of destruction by the mining activities on Black Mesa and polluting by the towering smoke stacks at the Navajo Generating Station. Thousands of Navajo and Hopi were displaced from their homes and grazing lands atop Black Mesa and the Nation itself went on to receive a minute fraction of the revenue generated by the industrial activities. The Navajo people continued to live largely without electricity or running water. To add insult to injury, the Nation agreed to waive rights to the water used by the NGS—nearly 270,000 gallons per day, or enough to supply three Flagstaffs each year—which, in today’s prices, would be worth tens of millions of dollars. With the NGS and Black Mesa mining activities scheduled to shut down in 2019, nearly 800 jobs will be lost, and with them the only real benefit provided by the mining and electrical generation. However, the ruined Black Mesa will be allowed to begin its long process of recovery and the polluted skies downwind of the generating plant will clear. Many Navajo see the closing of operations on Black Mesa and at NGS as an opportunity for more sustainable, environmentally-friendly, and ultimately more-profitable economic development. If the nation plays its cards right, there’s even opportunity to see a return of the Nation’s water rights, nearly 50,000 acre feet annually, which could be worth a great deal more than coal to the tribe, if sold downstream to the highest bidder.
Sierra Club, Image
In 1968, Arizona and the DOI were going to ensure their massive water project received the electricity it needed. The defense of Grand Canyon was admirable and a great victory, which, in large part, fanned the flames of the modern environmental movement. However, it also resulted in the dam builders shifting their gaze to a more easily-exploited community. Through the destruction of their land, exploitation of their resources, and continued economic immobility, the Navajo Nation ultimately paid the price for the growth of Phoenix and other Western metropolises. As we conservationists battle to conserve our most valued resources, it is imperative that we recognize the victories almost always come at a cost. Moving forward, we need to be cognizant of the communities whose role in a capitalistic and colonial system may be exploited, fueling the growth and prosperity of the nation at their own cost. As voices for environmental conservation, we must make every effort to mitigate the price those communities pay, and work towards an era of egalitarian and intersectional conservation thinking, which will ultimately be more impactful than ever before.