The Damnation Of A Canyon Summary

What does a man do when the canyon that he so dearly loves is transformed into an unrecognizable monstrosity at the hands of others that have no affinity to the area they have destroyed? Some may bemoan the destruction, yet lament that what’s done is done and move on. Others may voice their concerns with the unsightliness they see. However, rarely does one voice their views in such a poignant and direct way as to grab the attention of the reader and powerfully force the writer’s views into the mind of the reader. The essay “The Damnation of a Canyon” by Edward Abbey is a revealing look into the mind of an environmental activist and his dissatisfaction with man’s detrimental impacts on the environment and the natural world. Edward Abbey is acclaimed

for being a gruff naturalist who stopped at nothing but to say it all. He was a writer, artist, and philosopher; a liberal and conservative; a nature writer that hated being labeled a nature writer; in short, Abbey was best labeled a contradiction (Duryee).

He wrote, in part, about the human condition and man’s role in the disregard and destruction of the natural world. In essence, he favored the environment in its natural state and saw the elimination of its beauty as another means of control by the rich and powerful. To Abbey the damming of Lake Powell was a damn thing, not good for anyone or anything except the “upper-middle-class American slob” (99) and he abhorred the technological society that develops at the expense of nature’s environmental resources. This disdain is captured perfectly in the double entendre used to encapsulate the subject laid out before us by Abbey: The Damnation of a

Canyon.
The essay can be summarized by Abbey’s affirmation that the heart of the Canyonlands lies within the Colorado River and Glen Canyon and this heart could be viewed similarly to the human heart, for just like a human heart that becomes filled with plaque which constricts blood flow, so too does the life of the canyon and river when it is impeded by the equivalent of man-made “plaque” in the form of a hydroelectric dam. Abbey begins the essay by giving the reader an account of his trip down the Colorado River with a friend in 1959 and describes how they enjoyed the journey with all the sights and sounds gleaned from traveling through such a pristine stretch of river (95). He laments of his time working as a seasonal park ranger in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area during the summer and fall of 1967 and stakes his qualification on judging the destruction of Glen Canyon based on this work, which allowed him intimate knowledge of the area before construction of the dam and afterward (96). In his mind the construction of the dam had done far more harm than good and what little value that could be derived from the dam was meant only for those that had no interest in the intrinsic value of nature. While detesting the changes that had befallen the area because of the dam’s construction, Abbey acknowledged his own bias by referring to himself as a “Butterfly chaser, googly eyed bleeding heart and wild conservative” (96). Yet this does not detract from his overall message and instead lends more to the open and honest tone set forth by Abbey in describing his feelings on the dam and it’s far-ranging effects on the natural world.
An analysis of the essay highlights Abbey’s strong emotions relating to how human activities impact the environment. He critically provides the specific variables of how the creation of Lake Powell has affected the environment by reflecting on the reality of the situation and man’s role in the destruction of the environment coupled with the effects that the guise of economic development belies the loss of nature and biodiversity. Abbey showed how animals and plants, scenery, and history were distorted, disrupted, and destroyed directly related to the damming of Lake Powell.
Abbey worried about the drastic changes occurring on the Colorado River, and that the unspoiled scenery that was once offered was being lost at the behest of humanities need for cheap energy. He further feared for the loss of wildlife, the beautiful scenery, and the expense that the dam imposed on recreation in Glen Canyon. Notably, he remarked that Lake Powell was a lake in name only and was more akin to a bathtub due to it’s artificial rising and falling based not on nature but on the needs of the Basin States Compact (96-97). To punctuate his point he described the “bathtub ring” left in the reservoir after successive increases and decreases made to Lake Powell and how these rings should remove any fantasy one has on viewing Lake Powell as a true lake (97). Finally, he showed that the damming of Lake Powell, far from making access to the area cheaper and easier, had actually made it more costly and inaccessible to areas that used to be easily accessed. Abbey argued that the building of Glen Canyon Dam had removed any enjoyment man could have hoped to garner due to the loss of nature, increased costs to access the area, and loss of uninhibited access to Glen Canyon.
Loss of nature
The loss of the natural world greatly troubled Abbey. Through his seasonal work as a park ranger in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area he was keenly aware of the before and after picture of Glen Canyon and his experiences on the Colorado River made him a credible eye witness to the atrocities that had overtaken Glen Canyon and the Colorado River. To give the reader deeper understanding of what used to be, Abbey describes a time before the river was dammed in which the area was filled with many forms of life. The picture painted was that of birds singing in the brush; beavers making their presence known by their tail slaps on the river; large mammals patrolling the lush environment; and magical plants creeping up the rock faces of Glen Canyon (Abbey 97-98). A veritable Eden complete with all the beauty and wonder that one would expect to find in such a rich and unspoiled environment. Abbey’s describing of such a serene environment was markedly contrasted by his unflinching conveyance of the after effects of the damming of Glen Canyon. Where once there were plants and animals teaming in a biocentric universe, there now were shores devoid of life and canyon walls filled with debris. The sounds of birds and insects were replaced with the sounds of silence. To drive home the reality of the stark contrast shared between the area before and after the damming, Abbey states “The difference between the present reservoir, with its silent sterile shores and debris-choked side canyons, and the original Glen Canyon, is the difference between death and life. Glen Canyon was alive. Lake Powell is a graveyard” (98). This assault on the senses not only allows the reader to experience the loss felt by Abbey, but also allows the reader to contemplate the significance of this loss. While one may not be an outdoorsmen or feel an affinity for nature, most are compassionate enough to understand that the loss of an entire ecosystem is not an act that occurs lightly or without the help of an extreme force. The dinosaurs were wiped out when a meteor slammed into the earth 66 million years ago, which even most non-environmentalist would assuredly view as a catastrophic event (Hand). In describing the loss of an entire ecosystem shortly after the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam, Abbey showed that human hands can be just as destructive as any force of nature.
Loss of access to Glen Canyon
A point of contention for Abbey, was that defenders of the dam’s construction argued that damming Glen Canyon had increased the recreational benefits found in the reservoir and that these benefits were of greater importance than the “Loss of Indian ruins, historical sites, wildlife and wilderness adventure” (99). In making their case, these dam defenders claimed that areas once only traversed by a few could now be utilized by millions and that were once one needed to hike to enter nearly inaccessible areas, now one could use the luxuries of modern technologies (power boats) to reach them (Abbey 99). To Abbey, this was an argument befitting of the wealthy, aka the lazy. As he iterated “Why should a trip to such a place be the privilege only of those who are willing to walk six miles” (99)? This question both prods at the need for instant gratification for those that derive little satisfaction gained from achieving a task, such as climbing a mountain, and the idea that money alone can buy happiness by the fact that the hypothetical answer to this question is “it shouldn’t, it should be the privilege of those that have the means to afford a way to accomplish the trip”.
While Abbey was vehemently opposed to the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam and the waste created in its wake, he admitted that areas once only accessible to those willing to hike to behold beauty now could access areas that flooding the canyon had opened to those with boats. This may at first seem as if Abbey had realized that the previous pages of conjecturing on the problems brought about through the construction of the dam may not be as bad as one first thought. However, Abbey quickly snaps the reader back to the problem that dam construction has wrought, for the areas now accessible by those motorboats are not the pristine waters that once flowed through the canyon, instead the areas are now nothing more than silt and trash filled ponds of polluted water. And what’s more, the areas that were once only accessible by foot were now accessible by neither foot nor boat. Man’s need for cheap energy and the trappings of modern society had rendered an area once accessible to all, now only accessible to those brave enough to scuba dive in those contaminated waters.
Increased cost to access Glen Canyon
Whether fully believed or half-heartedly subscribed to by those that understood the destruction and looked the other way or were blinded by the proposition of cheap energy, many defended the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam as a means of opening up access to once inaccessible areas and connected this access to a reduction of the cost one might incur if visiting Glen Canyon. Abbey, though, did not buy this argument and retorted that far from lowering the cost of visiting Glen Canyon, prices had actually risen. Where once a person could float down the Colorado River, through the stretch at Glen Canyon cheaply with little more than an inflatable raft prior to construction, afterwards the only possible way to safely maneuver the stretch was through the use of motorboats that required far greater cost than the lowly inflatable raft (Abbey 101-102).
To Abbey, the perpetual fallacy of decreased cost did not account for the intrinsic value ascribed to nature based on nothing more than it being found where it was. The loss of these areas due to the intentional raising and lowering of Lake Powell through Glen Canyon denied present and future generation’s unabated access to these areas. Of equal denial was the possible income derived from those coming to Glen Canyon for recreational activities. This argument, however, lacks any insight into the contrary and we are left to take Abbey’s word for it that the dam had brought no value. The loss of scenery, wildlife, and ecosystems are of major concern, yet for the sake of arguing, it would have been more powerful to have provided conclusive evidence that the dam had taken all value from the area.
Conclusion
Edward Abbey was a keen observer of the natural world and the voice of the American Southwest.

In some circles he was known as the Thoreau of the West and wrote extensively on both the beauty and the loss of nature brought about by the hands of man (Miller). His essay “The Damnation of a Canyon” serves as an implicit tale of what once was and what is no more. His objective was to show the reader that man had, through his own actions, destroyed what was created over vast expanses of time. The essay was meant to convey the devastation as it currently stands, yet it was not specifically written to be a hopeless tale of destruction lacking a happy ending. And though there may not be a happy ending specifically at the end of the essay, what does remain is a way forward, however unlikely, in which man could ultimately regain the lost peacefulness and beauty that once thrived in Glen Canyon. While the essay may have held some bias in favor of nature because of Abbey’s leanings towards the environment, his overall argument still rings true: The enjoyment and wonder of Glen Canyon has been lost due to man’s damning or damming of the area. This has made it more costly and unattractive than it was before the dam was constructed. Therefore, the only way to restore it to its former glory would be to destroy Glen Canyon Dam and give the area back to its rightful owner: Mother

Nature.