Policy and Society

ISSN: 1449-4035 (Print) 1839-3373 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpas20

The water that cannot be stopped: Southern

Paiute perspectives on the Colorado River and the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam

Diane Austin & Brenda Drye

To cite this article: Diane Austin & Brenda Drye (2011) The water that cannot be stopped:
Southern Paiute perspectives on the Colorado River and the operations of Glen Canyon Dam,
Policy and Society, 30:4, 285-300, DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2011.10.003

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2011.10.003

© 2011 Policy and Society Associates (APSS)

Published online: 03 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 585

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpas20
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

www.elsevier.com/locate/polsoc

The water that cannot be stopped: Southern Paiute perspectives on

the Colorado River and the operations of Glen Canyon Dam
Diane Austin a,*, Brenda Drye b
a
University of Arizona, The School of Anthropology, 1009 East South Campus Drive, P.O. Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA
b
Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Arizona, USA

Abstract
Construction and operation of water infrastructure, such as dams, historically has been carried out with little attention paid to
mitigating the impacts of such activities on the livelihoods and values of those for whom the water being managed. Enhanced awareness
of the need to take into account a wide range of interests, as well as social, cultural, and ecological impacts of water projects, has
prompted efforts to include such interests in decision processes. Glen Canyon Dam, located on the Colorado River upstream from
Grand Canyon National Park, in the U.S. state of Arizona, has become the center of a complex adaptive management program which
aims to recognize both locally specific and broader interests in the water that flows through the dam. A part of this effort has focused on
integrating the concerns and values of Native Americans with historic and ongoing ties to the area affected by the dam. The experience
of two Southern Paiute tribes, as participants in this effort, foregrounds the challenges and possibilities of changing the ways in which
non-market values of water are conceptualized and, by extension, how water resources are defined and managed.
# 2011 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Ultimately, an important question at the center of debates about the management of water resources is, ‘‘What tools
do policymakers have and use to incorporate and defend the allocation of water to any but the highest bidder?’’ Water
is a challenging asset to manage. It is not easily divided and fenced, and its supply, unless controlled by dams, is highly
variable in terms of space, time, and often quantity. At the same time, water is transported long distances and many
users never experience it in its ecological context. Hanemann notes,
‘‘The major challenge for most large water systems is the spatial and temporal matching of supply with demand.
Storage is typically the key to controlling the temporal variability in supply, while inter-basin transfers are used
to overcome the spatial mismatch between supply and demand’’ (2006, p. 72).
Important, too, is that water acquires special meaning and value when it is in specific places. The presence or
absence of water at a spring or in a pond affects how each is experienced. When in motion, water’s capacity for eroding
streambeds as well as supporting vegetative and animal life is affected by the amount and rate of flow. These attributes
also affect whether and how humans can travel on or across it. Thus, the challenge is not only to match supply and
demand but also to balance locally specific interests and concerns with those of a wide range of users.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: daustin@email.arizona.edu (D. Austin).

1449-4035/$ – see front matter # 2011 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2011.10.003
286 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

This paper considers a twenty-year effort by two Southern Paiute tribes of the U.S. southwest to engage with
policymakers and scientists in order to assert their values and interests in the water that passes through Glen Canyon
Dam on the Colorado River in northern Arizona. Because the Colorado River flows through Grand Canyon National
Park, one of the seven designated ‘‘natural wonders of the world,’’ concern about the impacts of dam operations is both
widespread and extensive. Considerable resources have been allocated to studying and monitoring the impacts of the
dam’s operation. From early use of contingent valuation studies, assessments of values associated with the region
affected by the dam have expanded to include a much broader range of concerns. Of specific interest in this paper is
how, and to what extent, the interests of Native Americans whose ancestral lands border this portion of the Colorado
River have been incorporated in decision processes about dam operations. The paper observes that, whereas economic
and scientific approaches may address interests and concerns of some stakeholders, integrated approaches offer better
opportunities for considering the interests, values, and worldviews inhering in particular places and resources.

2. Glen Canyon Dam: a study in adaptive management

Adaptive management has been touted as an alternative to more static approaches to natural resources management,
with the intention of providing managers with opportunities to adjust their policies and decisions based on ongoing
change and new information about the system they are attempting to manage. While adaptive management was not
developed to challenge market-based approaches to natural resources management, its application in the management
of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam1 in northern Arizona has been in part an effort to balance the needs and desires
of a wide variety of users and interest groups with efforts to generate revenues from the operation of the dam (CGER,
1999).
Where dam operations were once based primarily on maximizing the flow of water through the generators at the
base of the dam, while at the same time maintaining water for users above and below the dam, the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) has required that other considerations, such as the building of beaches
below the dam and providing support for habitats for endangered fish populations, be taken into account. Because Glen
Canyon Dam lies within a national recreation area, and the Colorado River Corridor below the dam is within a national
park and proposed wilderness area, debates about dam management are more narrowly construed than in most places
where agriculture, aquaculture, industrial development, energy projects, and the public water supply all compete for
water (Jackson, 2006; Kato, 2006). Nevertheless, the program has been criticized for its failure to conform to U.S. law,
stabilize or otherwise improve the quality of the fragile downstream ecosystem, or make progress toward resolving
resource conflicts related to the dam’s operations (Feller, 2008; Susskind, Camacho, & Schenk, 2010). Notably,
attention has also been paid specifically to problems with efforts to incorporate the perspectives of Native American
tribes into the program (Austin, Phillips, & Seibert, 2007; Kearsley et al., 2006).
On the surface, it appears that the GCDAMP has succeeded in ensuring that non-market values will be considered
and that specific groups, such as Native Americans, whose voices may not otherwise be heard in policy processes, have
a place at the table. Indeed, the most visible manifestation of the ‘‘success’’ of the GCDAMP has been in the
implementation of high water releases during which the dam is operated to try and replenish sand on beaches and
restore habitat (CGER, 1999; Melis, 2011). Nevertheless, the long-term ecological benefits of the various management
actions remain contested, and dissatisfaction with procedures as well as outcomes is high (Camacho, 2008; Feller,
2008; Susskind et al., 2010). This paper makes no attempt to assess those actions but rather focuses on the process by
which decisions are made within the GCDAMP and the experiences of Southern Paiute leaders and representatives
within that process. The paper specifically examines the attempts by U.S. federal agencies having responsibilities for
Glen Canyon Dam management to include within the GCDAMP a broad range of perspectives – particularly those of
Native Americans. It examines, through the experiences of Southern Paiutes, the challenges arising from very
fundamental differences in perspective and considers three approaches to gaining the understanding necessary for
improving decisions regarding water flows through Glen Canyon Dam: economic (market and non-market based),
scientific, and integrative.

1
Glen Canyon Dam and downstream Hoover Dam are operated by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The National Park
Service, responsible for management of Grand Canyon National Park, is also within the Department of Interior.
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 287

Specifically, this analysis draws on the authors’ participation in the GCDAMP, as technical advisor and director of
the Southern Paiute Consortium (SPC), respectively, as well as specific assessments of Southern Paiute involvement in
the program (Austin & Bulletts, 1996b; Austin et al., 2007). For the 2007 assessment, the first author and a graduate
student reviewed written documents created for and by the GCDAMP and the SPC; conducted participant observation
during activities of the SPC, its member tribes, and the various workgroups and committees of the GCDAMP; and
conducted formal and informal interviews with over two dozen individuals who were members of and had participated
in one or more of these groups. This analysis also relies on the first author’s participant observation in meetings and on
SPC river trips, and review of secondary documents produced for the GCDAMP by and on behalf of the SPC as well as
by other program participants since the 2007 assessment. It is further informed by both authors’ involvement in the
production of a video describing the history and evolution of the SPC and its monitoring and education program, and
by insights gained from both authors’ participation in various multi-stakeholder forums on cultural and natural
resource management.

2.1. Background

Prior to the arrival of Europeans in what is now the U.S. southwest, numerous Native American groups lived along
or near the Colorado River. Among these were Southern Paiutes, whose traditional lands are bounded by more than
600 miles of the Colorado River from the Kaiparowits Plateau in the north to Blythe, California in the south (see
Fig. 1). However, since the time the Colorado River and its canyons were first recognized by Euro-Americans for their
potential – as sites for mining, dams, a railroad, and recreation – Southern Paiutes have been forced to adapt to the
policies and practices of people whose interests have often been diametrically opposed to their own. Beginning with
the establishment of the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve in 1893, and followed by the creation of Grand Canyon
National Monument in 1906 and then Grand Canyon National Park in 1919, U.S. government policies increasingly
restricted, and ultimately prohibited, Southern Paiutes from living, hunting, or even gathering plants within the region.
In the early 1900s, the U.S. government moved the Southern Paiutes onto small reservations away from the river.

Fig. 1. Southern Paiute territory at European contact.

288 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

Fig. 2. The Colorado River Corridor and Glen Canyon Dam. Map image by A. Ashley Stinnett and J. Benjamin McMahan, with support from the
University of Arizona Center for Applied Spatial Analysis.

Nevertheless, they continue to take very seriously their traditional and contemporary right and responsibility to protect
and manage this land and water and all that is upon and within it.
In 1963 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River
upstream from Grand Canyon National Park in northeastern Arizona (see Fig. 2). Lake Powell, just upstream from the
dam (www.gcdamp.gov), was created in the process. Glen Canyon Dam is the largest of four units of the Colorado
River Storage Project, which was begun in 1956 to provide hydroelectric power, flood control, and water storage for
participating states along the upper portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries. Foundations for this project were
established in the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which divided the waters of the river among seven western states
within its watershed. The electricity generated at Glen Canyon Dam is sold under 20-year contracts within the states of
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming as well as to non-profit entities serving over five
million customers (GCDAMP, 2007). Water is marketed through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA),
one of four marketing administrations within the U.S. Department of Energy.
In 1972, the U.S. Congress created the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA). The GCNRA, which
includes Lake Powell and lands adjacent to the lake in the states of Arizona and Utah, also encompasses the stretch
along the Colorado River from the dam to Lees Ferry. A key feature of the recreation area is a trout fishery developed
downstream of the dam to take advantage of cold waters drawn from the bottom of Lake Powell where flows pass
through the base of the dam, entering the electricity-generating turbines (Voichick & Wright, 2007).
Glen Canyon Dam was completed before the passage of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the development of regulations requiring environmental assessments of major U.S. federal actions. Ecological and
archaeological investigations were completed in the areas behind the dam that would be inundated, but the potential
downstream impacts of the dam were largely ignored. To remedy this omission, the Glen Canyon Environmental
Studies program emerged in 1982 to examine whether operations of Glen Canyon Dam were adversely affecting the
environmental and recreational resources of Glen and Grand Canyons. The program also considered whether there
were ways to operate the dam, consistent with Colorado River Storage Project water delivery requirements, that would
protect or enhance those resources (USGS, 2005). However, it was not until 1988, when the dam’s managers proposed
rewinding and upgrading its generators and increasing flow through them, that then-Secretary of the Interior Manuel
Lujan ordered an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, which required
consideration of the downstream impacts of dam operations.

2.2. The Grand Canyon Dam environmental impacts study and the tribes

The Glen Canyon Dam EIS (GCDEIS) considered alternatives in dam operations, such as varying the maximum
and minimum flows, the daily flow, and the rate of change in flow. While the EIS studies were being conducted, the
rapid and dramatic fluctuations in the flow of water through the dam, which were maintained to maximize electricity
generation when it was needed most, were decreased. Direct impacts of the dam that were studied include the effects of
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 289

the capture of sediments behind the dam, manipulation of the rates of water flow, the elimination of former annual
highs and lows in flow, reduction and stabilization of the temperature of the water in the river below the dam, impacts
to plant and animal communities within the ecosystem, and impacts on human uses of the area.
The Bureau of Reclamation was the lead agency for the GCDEIS; the National Park Service joined later, followed
finally by state agencies and eight Native American tribes. Notably, tribal involvement came only after a representative
from the President’s Council on Environmental Quality notified Reclamation that the agency was required to expand
the scope of the EIS. With support from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Phoenix Area Office, the eight tribes eventually
elected to become cooperating agencies in the process (see Austin & Bulletts, 1996a, 1996b). The participating tribes
were those having reservations within the Colorado River Corridor, those within the region of the Colorado River
between the dam and Lake Mead who could potentially be impacted by flows from the dam (defined as up to
300,000 cfs, the highest estimated pre-dam flow), and those whose reservations were established outside that region
but who had ties to the region, The Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA) at the University of Arizona
became involved in the GCDEIS when Dr. Richard Stoffle was awarded a contract from the National Park Service to
design and conduct a study investigating the potential impacts of the dam on Southern Paiute and Havasupai cultural
resources in the area. During the first phase of the research, the Havasupai Tribe withdrew its participation, so from
1992 to 1995 BARA researchers worked with Southern Paiute tribal leaders and members to document the impacts of
the dam on their people and the land and resources2 to which they maintain ties (Stoffle, Austin, Fulfrost, Phillips, &
Drye, 1995; Stoffle, Loendorf, et al., 1995; Stoffle, Halmo, Evans, & Austin, 1994).
In 1992, the Grand Canyon Protection Act was passed, formalizing the flows put in place when the GCDEIS began
and directing the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which
Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited
to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.’’ Further protection lies in the National Historic Preservation Act,
which mandates the evaluation and monitoring of the impacts of any federal undertaking that will negatively affect
historic and traditional cultural properties. The 1992 amendments to the Act increased protection for Native American
sites and requirements for consultation with tribes.
A major challenge, of course, is how to decide among competing laws and users, as when increased visitor use
threatens pictographs painted on canyon walls and river levels that are ideal for whitewater rafting disrupt plant
communities. Because Glen Canyon Dam has become a significant feature in the Colorado River ecosystem and, along
with other features such as drought, has influenced the functioning of that system, Southern Paiutes have persisted in
trying to be recognized and given the opportunity to fulfill their cultural and legal mandate to protect this region which
is central to their lives and understanding of who they are. For this reason, in 1991, three federally recognized Southern
Paiute tribes – the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (representing the Shivwits Band),
and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe – agreed to participate in the EIS-driven studies to identify cultural resources
impacted by Glen Canyon Dam and to recommend strategies for their protection. In 1993, the Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah created the Southern Paiute Consortium (SPC) to ensure more effective
government-to-government interactions3 between the tribes and Reclamation. The SPC took over the cultural resource
studies being conducted under the GCDEIS.

3. Long-term management and the question of values

In 1995, the GCDEIS was completed, a record of decision was issued (U.S. DOI, 1996), and the transition to long-
term management was begun. During this transition period, all cooperating agencies were given the opportunity to
develop monitoring programs to establish their interests in long-term participation in decision making related to the
dam. A significant challenge of the GCDAMP, especially given it is funded by revenues from the operations of the dam
for hydropower generation, has been to consider non-market values of the resource. A fundamental problem, though,

2
In the past, Southern Paiutes did not consider water, plants, rocks, or any other such features to be ‘‘resources;’’ the adoption of this framework
for thinking and talking about these features is one result of interacting with Euroamericans and their governing bodies (Austin & Jake, 1998).
3
President Clinton’s 1994 Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments reaffirmed the
federal government’s commitment to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized American Indian and
Alaska Native tribes, and to advance self-governance for those tribes.
290 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

as has been observed in other efforts to explicitly consider diverse values in water resources management (e.g., Gibbs,
2006; Jackson, 2006), is that nowhere in the process did anyone question what was meant by value, develop a theory of
value that would make it possible to articulate values that could compete with currently felt preferences, or recognize
that values are determined within the policy process (see Norton, 2000). Consequently, the program has displayed what
Jackson (2006, p. 20) has termed a ‘‘misconstrued, naı̈ve, and underdeveloped concept of value.’’
The result has been attempts to categorize concerns by separating water and hydropower, sediment, fish, vegetation,
cultural resources, and recreation, and providing each with distinct management goals and budgets. Yet all of these are
connected. In addition, there is no clear line between market and non-market uses of the water in the Colorado River as
it flows through northern Arizona. Finally, with the economic and also ecological stakes being very high, decision
making within the GCDAMP has had to at least appear to be rational and non-arbitrary, governed by science. During
the transition period and subsequent establishment of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC)4
‘‘to provide credible, objective scientific information to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program on the
effects of operating Glen Canyon Dam on the downstream resources of the Colorado River ecosystem, utilizing an
ecosystem science approach’’ (USGS, nd), BARA researchers helped Southern Paiutes develop a program to monitor
the effects of dam operations on their cultural resources5 in the Colorado River Corridor and, since then, have provided
technical assistance regarding Southern Paiute participation in the GCDAMP.

3.1. The economic approach: contingent valuation and Glen Canyon Dam

The extensive impacts of the dam on the Colorado River ecosystem, the unique features of the Colorado River and
its canyons, and the special role of the Colorado River in prehistoric, historic, and present-day societies have all
contributed to widespread interest in dam operations. Consequently, for more than 30 years efforts have been made to
understand and reconcile competing values and uses of the Colorado River. Reclamation initially opted to use the
contingent valuation method (CVM)6 to evaluate decision options.7 The agency’s selection of CVM was considered
groundbreaking at the time (Loomis, nd; Sanders, Walsh, & Loomis, 1990; see Breedlove, 1999 for review). The initial
valuation question centered on how much fishing and recreational rafting were worth, compared to the market value of
the peak-load power supply (Bishop, Boyle, Welsh, Baumgartner, & Rathbun, 1987; Bishop, Brown, Welsh, & Boyle,
1989; for subsequent critiques see GAO, 1996; Jones & Graham, 1996).
Still focused on the ‘‘natural resources’’ of the Grand Canyon, and driven in large part by concerns over threatened
and endangered species, the next phase of study, conducted between 1994 and 1995, involved a mail survey of
households throughout the United States. The study attempted to measure ‘‘non-use’’ values by estimating willingness
to pay for flow regimes that would address problems related to dam operations on threatened and endangered fish
species, erosion, native vegetation, and birds (Welsh, Bishop, Phillips, & Baumgartner, 1995a; Welsh, Bishop,
Phillips, & Baumgartner, 1995b). Some have argued that the results of that study contributed to substantial changes in
dam management (Loomis, nd), though certainly the legal implications of perceived non-compliance with the
Endangered Species Act cannot be ignored as factors (though see Feller, 2008 for discussion of the failure of existing
flow regimes to actually protect species). Since those early studies, many diverse groups such as federal and state
agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations have come to be included in studies to assess the impacts of the
dam and support an adaptive management framework for dam operations (see, e.g., Douglas & Harpman, 2004;
Stewart, Larkin, Orland, & Anderson, 2003 for specific studies).

4
The Center was first administered by Reclamation and then transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
5
Despite Southern Paiute efforts to be more broadly involved, because their reservations do not lie within the Colorado River Corridor, they have
been pigeonholed into the ‘‘cultural resources’’ box (see Merlan, 1989 and Jackson, 2006 for a similar argument with regard to Australian aboriginal
peoples).
6
CVM is one of six major non-market valuation techniques; these include avoided cost (costs that would have occurred in the absence of the
services), replacement cost, factor income (services provided for the enhancement of incomes), travel cost (travel costs reflect the implied value of
the service), hedonic pricing (price people will pay for associated goods), and contingent valuation.
7
Non-market valuation studies were first applied in the United States in 1963, the year Glen Canyon Dam was constructed, to estimate the
economic value of outdoor recreation in the Maine woods (Davis, 1963). The use of such studies grew during the 1970s and 1980s, in response to
implementation of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and came to play a role in the design and approval of water projects.
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 291

The application of CVM brought the economic concerns of a broader group of actors, including fishermen and river
companies, into the decision process, and the GCDAMP continues to recruit as participants a wide range of actors from
different sectors. Still, the GCDAMP is financed from revenues from the operation of the dam, and the economic
tradeoffs remain central to decision making about dam operations. In the words of a former coordinator of the Southern
Paiute Consortium, ‘‘It’s always been money and it always will be money. Because they have these blackouts in
California and some of the stakeholders that are the bigwigs [are] wanting WAPA [Western Area Power
Administration] to get their money back from these states’’ (Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, pp. 9–10). While it can be
argued that the visitors who travel down the Colorado River on commercial rafts and helicopters may be motivated by
values that are not economic, certainly the interests of those whose companies transport them are monetary: an early
measure of program success noted that ‘‘Rather than recreation versus hydropower, the focus turned to finding a
release pattern that could increase the economic value of all the multiple purposes’’ (Loomis, nd, p. 7).
In the application and incorporation of different non-market valuation methods in decision making, it has still not
been resolved how to recognize and include values that not only do not manifest themselves in someone’s ‘‘willingness
to pay’’ for opportunities, experiences, or resources, but would be compromised by the suggestion that someone would
pay for these (Hammer, 2002; Venn and Calkin, 2007). Native Americans are not the only people who value features to
which it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign monetary worth, but they have received the most attention for their
efforts to uphold those values. As Hammer (2002, p. 3) noted,
‘‘American Indian beliefs often assert the full integration of the spiritual with the physical, and the sacredness
and interrelatedness of all creation. Thus, while some American Indian tribes or individuals are quite
comfortable with putting dollar values on land and water resources, many other tribes or individuals find this
highly offensive. Nonetheless, economists are often skeptical of the assertion that natural resources are infinitely
valuable to American Indians, an assertion that would appear to follow from such beliefs.’’
Yet efforts to bridge the gap between descriptions of the cultural importance of resources and their economic values
have generally offered little guidance. For example, suggested approaches include providing detailed information
about the cultural and religious aspects of resources in assessments and reports to allow decision makers to have a good
understanding of the degree of the importance of the resources to the groups in question and then ensuring that such
descriptions are thoroughly referenced in the economic sections of reports and assessments in order to ensure they
receive the proper attention by decision makers (see Hammer, 2002). Another approach is to avoid putting any values
in monetary terms and, instead, describe all values according to Meyer Resources’ ‘‘Hierarchy of Needs’’ (1999, pp.
25–37, cited in Hammer, 2002) and five additional ‘‘non-Tribal indicators.’’ Additional suggestions include
convincing groups to do economic valuations of their resources using one or more of several different econometric
techniques or to have dollar values administratively assigned to the resources in question, thus providing decision
makers with ‘target’ values. None of these approaches recognize the fundamental incongruity in the way water is
valued. Shiva (2002) has argued that such debates reflect a clash between cultures. One views water as sacred and
considers it a duty to assure its provision for the preservation of life. Another that sees water as a commodity and views
owning and trading it to be fundamental corporate rights. Thus the culture of commodification is at war with diverse
cultures that view the sharing, receiving, and giving of water as essential.

3.2. The science approach: the Grand Canyon monitoring and research center

Efforts to operate the dam for purposes other than solely the maximization of economic benefits have led to revenue
losses on various occasions (though those revenues are not lost directly but are foregone by failure to operate the dam
at maximum flow during periods of greatest demand for power). The outcome has been to place the program under
high levels of scrutiny. Because arguments for alternative water flows through the dam have been made to achieve
specific material benefits, managers are under significant pressure to show that such benefits have indeed accrued.
This, supported by the Grand Canyon Protection Act, has in turn fostered the development of an extensive science
program to demonstrate realization of these benefits (see the GCDAMP website home page, www.gcdamp.gov, and
the GCMRC website, www.gcmrc.gov). Consequently, evidence can only be gathered and disseminated through
science – specifically through a particular form of science, funneled through a fixed structure and linked to
management through an elaborate system of management documents and plans (see, for example, GCDAMP, 2001).
292 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

Despite efforts to adopt holistic ecosystem approaches to both scientific study and management within the
Colorado River Corridor (CGER, 1999; GCDAMP, 2001; Melis, 2011), the GCDAMP remains highly fragmented,
reductionist, and limited in its attention to human factors. A quick review of the titles of recent publications confirms
what the management goals and budgets also indicate: most studies are very narrow. At most, two or occasionally three
separate elements are brought together in a single study (www.gcmrc.gov). In the most recently published
comprehensive study of the effect of the manipulation of dam operations (Melis, 2011), the final chapter, on strategies,
includes a short section on ‘‘Other Resources’’:
‘‘The GCDAMP has established goals for several other Colorado River resources, including recreation (for
example, rafting and fishing), riparian vegetation and spring ecosystems, cultural properties (for example,
archaeological sites), the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis), and water quality (for example,
salinity). These other resources were not considered in the development of this HFE [high flow experiment]
strategy because there are few definitive studies to guide HFE planning on the basis of these other resources’’
(Wright, 2011, p. 132).
After 15 years of program operation, the authors conclude, ‘‘Additional monitoring and research data are necessary,
however, before a meaningful analysis of the complex tradeoffs between sandbars, fish, recreation, archaeological
sites, and other resources can be conducted’’ (Wright, 2011, p. 133). The cultural concerns and values of Native
Americans and other participants are presumably subsumed in these distinct resources.

3.3. An integrated view: Southern Paiute understanding and perspective

Jackson (2006) has argued that, rather than being pre-existing or intrinsic characteristics of either human or natural
systems, values develop through relationships, and it is through nurturing and sustaining those relationships that
communities and ecosystems are protected. Important human attributes such as identity, sentiment, spirituality, and
well-being derive not from individual environmental objects or features, or categories of these, but from the social and
ecological relationships that develop through interaction with those entities. The Southern Paiute approach to the
GCDAMP can be viewed as an integrative attempt to maintain critical relationships among Southern Paiutes and
between Southern Paiutes and the Colorado River and its canyons. At the same time, Southern Paiutes have been
attempting to develop relationships with other participants in the GCDAMP and to influence the relationships that
others have with the river and canyons.
During the GCDEIS, through direct interaction and written reports, Southern Paiutes attempted to share with
others the importance of the Colorado River and its canyons to their people and culture (Stoffle, Austin, et al., 1995;
Stoffle, Loendorf, et al., 1995; Stoffle et al., 1994).8 Water is of central importance to life in arid environments and has
dictated for generations where people settle, how long they stay, and how they move from place to place. Humans’
interactions with water, and the respect they show in those interactions, also influence whether and when water is
available to them. Prior to Euro-American settlement in the region, management of springs and water sources was
under the control of specific Southern Paiute families, and these families were responsible for protecting the water
and also ensuring that it was made available to those who needed it. However, as noted earlier, Southern Paiutes were
forced from large territories onto tiny reservations, and even there they entered into protracted struggles with non-
Indians for access to water sources (see, for example, Austin & Jake, 1998; Knack, 1993; Stoffle & Evans, 1976). It is
not surprising, therefore, that during the studies for the GCDEIS, Southern Paiute leaders engaged in serious
discussions about the river, its springs, and other resources within the Colorado River Corridor and about what sorts of
decisions should be made about them. For example, during a visit to several springs along the Colorado, responding to
expressions of concern about the impacts of visitors to springs and water sources, Southern Paiute leaders discussed at
length among themselves and with BARA researchers whether they should advocate that some places be off-limits to

8
Southern Paiutes are not alone in their concern for intangible benefits of the Colorado River and its tributaries and canyons. It is also important to
remember that among Native Americans there is no consensus about the dam and its operation, due to cultural, historic, and current geographic/
economic factors. Some reservation lands touch the river and tribes have invested in tourism (e.g., www.hualapai.com). Others have power plants;
power generated from the dam may be seen as in competition with tribal revenues or as a clean alternative to coal or petroleum.
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 293

non-Indians.9 Cultural practices prohibit excluding anyone from access to a water source, and, in the end, most tribal
representatives agreed they should not try to keep non-Paiutes away from springs and water sources, even where
damage was being done, favoring instead to educate others about the importance of the water sources and appropriate
behaviors at them.
Because water is vital to efforts to live in arid environments and to obtain and grow food there, Southern Paiute
concerns about the Colorado River Corridor extend beyond the water itself. In the same way that the exclusion of
Southern Paiutes from this region cut off their access to water sources, it also separated them from key farming,
hunting, and gathering areas. Nevertheless, though they can no longer freely practice these activities themselves,
Southern Paiute representatives who participated in the studies conducted for the GCDEIS expressed concern
about the health of the plants and animals in the region and the effects of dam operations on them. They also
reminded ethnographers and scientists of the importance of Southern Paiutes’ physical presence and prayers
within the canyons of the Colorado River to the well-being of Paiute people and the resources on which they
depend.
The SPC receives financial and logistical support from Reclamation to participate in the GCDAMP. To increase its
effectiveness, in addition to implementing its monitoring and education program, the SPC sends representatives to
meetings of several committees and workgroups associated with the program, develops educational and outreach
materials and activities, and learns from and contributes to projects and studies developed by scientists and
stakeholders involved in the program. The SPC is managed by a director, an individual enrolled in one of the SPC
member tribes, and is under the direction of the chairpersons and councils of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians,
Shivwits Band, and Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah.
The SPC representative to the GCDAMP – usually the SPC director – acquires information about dam operations
and their effects through participation in committees, the SPC monitoring and education program, and other projects
and studies in which Southern Paiutes become involved. That individual shares information with leaders, elders, and
other interested persons from its member tribes. The SPC uses its monitoring program as a tool in its education and
outreach efforts, communicating its logic as well as findings to tribal councils and members, at science symposia, in
meetings of the GCDAMP, on college campuses, and to river guides and tourist organizations.10 Through these
activities, tribal representatives attempt to convey Southern Paiute views and values related to the Colorado River and
corridor, especially the importance of the river as a holder of Southern Paiute history and culture. By incorporating
tribal elders, monitors, and youth and young adults into the program, the SPC has been able to broaden the group of
people knowledgeable and concerned about the dam and its effects. Still, lack of effective communication – with tribal
leaders and members, other GCDAMP participants, and members of the public – has been a major problem for the SPC
and has been exacerbated by changes in leadership within the SPC and the agencies responsible for managing the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam (Austin et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, the SPC continues its efforts to maintain meaningful participation in the GCDAMP. In response
to concerns expressed by tribal elders about impacts on specific places along the Colorado River, during the
transition to the GCDAMP, the SPC identified 20 sites that included features of cultural significance to Southern
Paiutes and potentially impacted by the operations of the dam (see Stoffle, Austin, et al., 1995). The SPC-
identified sites can be impacted by dam operations through (1) continued loss of sediment over time, (2)
inundation, and (3) input of sediments at high flows. To minimize the impacts of monitoring on the sites but at the
same time maintain sufficient data to assess the conditions at those sites, the SPC develops five-year plans that
provide direction about where, when, and how to conduct monitoring activities there. These sites show changes in
vegetation and animal habitat, and impacts caused by changes in the movement of human visitors. Though
monitoring activities at some sites have been modified due to the challenges of monitoring in a dynamic
environment, the SPC program has generated data that are consistent and comparable from year to year through a
range of climatic and flow regimes.

9
Some places, such as the Salt Mines located below the confluence of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River, have been placed off-limits to
non-Indians because of concerns about damage and desecration at those sites.
10
In 2011, the SPC, with the assistance of BARA, produced a video, The Rivers and Canyons of the Colorado: Southern Paiute Monitoring and
Education, to share information about its program with a broader audience. The video is available through the SPC (see www.kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov/
SPC.html).
294 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

4. Assessment of the Southern Paiute experience in the GCDAMP

Ongoing Southern Paiute participation in the GCDAMP has not fundamentally changed the operation of Glen
Canyon Dam nor the structure of the program. Still, Southern Paiutes have remained involved in the program because
they have achieved some success in adapting it to meet their needs and because they continue to believe that education
of others is critical to the long-term protection of the Colorado River and its canyons. This section examines two
specific areas within which the Southern Paiutes have actively attempted to influence the program and the impact of
their participation.

4.1. Defining the parameters of participation

Before the completion of the GCDEIS, and to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires
consultation with Native Americans regarding the protection of their significant historic and traditional cultural
properties, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, with the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service,
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians,
Navajo Nation, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, and Zuni Pueblo, developed the
Programmatic Agreement on Cultural Resources (PA) for Glen Canyon Dam Operations. By August 30, 1994, the PA had
been signed by all groups except the Havasupai and San Juan Southern Paiute tribes; the latter two, small tribes, had
withdrawn from the process due to both practical and ideological concerns about participating. The PA laid out a plan for
compliance with the Act through the development of monitoring and management protocols for certain cultural resources
in the Colorado River Corridor. It directed Reclamation and the NPS to develop and implement a plan for monitoring
remedial actions and to develop a Historic Preservation Plan for long-term monitoring and management. Yet, as is
common in situations governed by legislation dealing with historic and archaeological resources, the greatest attention
has been paid to physical features such as rock shelters and rock writing; water resources are considered only as
traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which have generally been harder to document and protect.
The entire Colorado River Corridor, and not only specific places within it, is integral to Southern Paiute culture and
the understanding that Southern Paiutes have about who they are, where they come from, and where they go when they
leave this life. Places within the corridor have been accessed over centuries from points throughout Southern Paiute
territory, and they are connected through songs and stories. In the mid-1990s, the Southern Paiutes issued a statement
declaring the entire Colorado River Corridor a TCP, refusing to single out certain places or springs for special
protection. Though that designation has not been sanctioned through federal designation, the Southern Paiutes have
framed their participation in the GCDAMP, and developed their monitoring program, based on their declaration.
A related challenge for the SPC, as for other cooperating agencies, has been the requirement, according to the
structure of the GCDAMP, to distinguish impacts of the dam from other impacts to the Colorado River Corridor.
Reclamation defines dam impacts as those that occur within the 300,000 cfs boundary that marks the historic high
floods, but Southern Paiute concerns are not narrowly defined, and attempts to restrict their interactions to that region
sever connections and limit understanding. Clearly, the dam is not the only factor affecting tourists and their decisions
about where to stop along the river, and not all tourists enter the region via the river. However, because the dam has
increased the predictability of the river flows and made it possible for commercial and private river trips to take
approximately 20,000 people per year through the Corridor, it is impossible to ignore visitor impacts as a significant
effect of the dam. And, because visitors who come in from the river do not restrict their movement to within the
300,000 cfs region, the impacts of the dam are not limited to that zone. Fig. 3 diagrams the visitor impacts of the dam
on the Colorado River Corridor. Though concerns about visitor impacts do not receive much attention within the
GCDAMP, some participants, such as the National Park Service and the Grand Canyon River Guides, have used data
gathered within the SPC monitoring and education program to address these impacts, such as by rerouting trails away
from archaeological features, and to enrich their education and outreach programs.

4.2. Working with scientists

The Southern Paiutes have faced greater challenges working within the scientific framework mandated by the
GCDAMP. As noted above, to ensure that its member tribes could continue to participate in the decision making
regarding the operations of Glen Canyon Dam, the SPC began developing a monitoring and education program. The
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 295

Dam Erodes: Minerals, Rock Art Panels,

Releases Archaeological Features, Plant
Direct
Water Communities, etc.

Moves Increases Bank Affects Animals, Plants,

Sediment Slumpage, Rock Art Panels,
Indirect Arroyo Cutting Archaeoogical Features, etc.

Moves Human Affects Animals, Plants,

Visitors Rock Art Panels,
Archaeoogical Features, etc.

Moves Plant Moves

Communities Animals

Affects Animals, Plants,

Moves Human Rock Art Panels, and
Visitors Archaeological
Features

Fig. 3. Impacts of Glen Canyon Dam in the Colorado River Corridor.

basis for the SPC program and the results of its initial development and implementation are described in Stoffle,
Austin, et al. (1995; see also Austin et al., 2007). Despite efforts by Southern Paiutes, and anthropologists and an
ethnobotanist who have attempted to help them translate their concerns into the language of GCDAMP science, again
and again leaders of the SPC and its member tribes have received messages that their monitoring program is not
sufficiently scientific, and the program and its evolution have reflected their efforts to satisfy the scientists and dam
managers while also meeting the needs and desires of Southern Paiutes.
Fundamental differences in perspective remain. For example, disagreements have centered on sampling (biologists
have argued that the Southern Paiutes should randomly sample vegetative communities for evaluation while Southern
Paiutes have selected monitoring sites that hold particular cultural significance to them), approaches to monitoring
(biologists have argued for identifying vegetative communities from aerial photographs and then locating and
evaluating those communities on the ground while Southern Paiutes have used simple line transects and photo
matching that are easy for tribal participants to learn and help carry out), and what can be known and shared (many
scientists have argued that, with enough data, the Colorado River ecosystem can be understood while Southern Paiutes
contend that some things can not and should not be known). At one point, several years after the SPC monitoring
program had been put in place, in an effort by biologists to incorporate tribal perspectives in their monitoring program
but based on a limited understanding of traditional ecological knowledge and how it is acquired and shared, Southern
Paiute representatives were asked to contribute to ‘‘holistic’’ assessments of randomly sampled sites they had never
visited. Such occurrences are reminders of major gaps in understanding.
Beyond the monitoring itself, technical meetings conducted for the GCDAMP shape most of the program’s work.
These meetings are generally held at government offices in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, and are organized and run by
scientists, with information shared via Powerpoint# presentations and technical reports. The activities and opinions of
scientists dominate those of others present, and attempts to move discussions to incorporate alternative points of view
or mechanisms of communication are often met with silence (Austin et al., 2007). Consequently, structured, seemingly
predictable, measurable, and clearly articulated ‘‘findings’’ of the scientists, related in a formal manner and logically
presented, carry the most influence. . . and they effectively silence other ways of knowing and speaking about the
Colorado River and all that is within and around it. Those who wish to be heard must align with established GCDAMP
practices, or as one SPC leader put it, ‘‘the way things are done in Phoenix’’ (Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, p. 65).
Reluctance to speak in AMP-accepted ways puts participants at a disadvantage; consider especially the consequences
for those who are differently socialized and uncomfortable getting up and giving presentations, especially when they
296 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

are among others who read silence as an indicator of acquiescence or apathy. Southern Paiutes who have participated
in the meetings note that they have been held responsible for failed communication and for strained or confusing
relationships.
Occasionally, GCDAMP participants interact outside of meeting rooms, along the Colorado River. Southern Paiute
representatives have viewed these river trips as among their best opportunities to change the nature of their
relationships with other participants and of those participants’ relationships with the river and its canyons. Reflecting
on her participation on such a river trip, during which tribal representatives provided information about their
relationships to the Colorado River and concerns about the operations of Glen Canyon Dam, one SPC representative
commented, ‘‘Each tribe gave the history on a certain part of the Canyon related to their tribe. So we were hoping –
they even said this themselves – when we were on the river everyone was getting along, more in agreement, listening to
the tribes on their concerns. But when we got back to the table it was like they forgot all that and it was only money
again’’ (Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, p. 90).
A specific example illustrates the challenges. In 2001, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Program (TEP) was initiated as a
means to gather and integrate data across terrestrial plant and animal species, to address information gaps, and to
gather data that could be included in computer models that have been developed to predict the physical effects of dam
operations on the Colorado River Corridor. The GCMRC established cooperative agreements with a university and
private consulting firm to carry out the TEP, and it played a significant role throughout. According to the final report
covering the program’s first three years, the program had six primary research objectives (Kearsley et al., 2006, pp. 5–
6): (1) to create a powerful sampling design with probability-based site selection, which will allow system-wide
inferences to be made from monitoring data; (2) to integrate sampling of terrestrial biotic resources in ways that are
based on our understanding of how hydrographs of regulated rivers impact terrestrial resources; (3) to monitor
terrestrial resources in ways which allow their inclusion in current conceptual and analytic computer models relating
dam operations to physical processes; (4) to expand on integrated investigations currently underway regarding
interaction among vegetation structure, arthropod abundance, and breeding bird populations in the Colorado River
Corridor; (5) to survey terrestrial faunal components about which little is known beyond scattered collection records,
including terrestrial arthropods, herpetofauna, and small mammals; and (6) to incorporate Tribal perspectives and
information in all phases of monitoring through consultations, shared sampling, training, and reciprocal exchanges of
information.
Clearly, the program was vast in scope. It was based on the assumption that it is possible to generalize from specific
species and sites to the entire system, a belief that models can adequately represent conditions in the riparian corridor
and are appropriate even in a system as complex as the Colorado River ecosystem, and the notion that tribal
perspectives can be integrated into a framework defined and directed by tenets of western science. These goals evolved
along with the program. For example, in the solicitation for proposals for the TEP, the principal investigators were
asked to include tribal participants in the fieldwork activities and the interpretation of project data, though the exact
roles of the tribal participants were not explicitly defined at the time.
Almost from the GCDAMP’s inception, at least some individuals within Reclamation sought to limit the scope of
tribal monitoring to include only archaeological sites, define who could participate in tribal programs to include only
tribal members, and eliminate what was perceived as duplication of data being gathered by those programs. The TEP
was recognized by some as an opportunity to integrate the tribal monitoring programs into those being developed by
scientists. During an interview, one GCMRC scientist noted: ‘‘Terrestrial recommendations were to expand the
sampling environment and to at the same time integrate tribal concerns and a more holistic approach that included
insects and animals along with the plants. The ‘charge’ for GCMRC was to include tribal perspectives in this work’’
(Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, p. 97). However, given the GCMRC’s ability to deal with only ‘‘credible, objective
scientific information’’ and the specific need for numeric data for the computer models, and without a clear idea of
what was meant by tribal perspectives, the goal proved to be unachievable.
One approach attempted by the scientists was to incorporate Southern Paiute representatives on their research trips
into the Colorado River. On one such trip, because the scientists were busy when the boats were stopped, the Southern
Paiute representative was instructed by the trip leader to move from boat to boat as the group traveled down the river
and use the travel time to teach the others about Southern Paiute culture. It proved difficult for her to share information
while traveling, given other responsibilities such as rowing and bailing, lack of interest by some of the scientists, and
the awkwardness of getting into a boat and talking about ‘‘culture’’ to a group of strangers. During an interview
conducted for the 2007 assessment, she noted, ‘‘It’s really hard because you can’t say too much because it’s not for
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 297

them to know. You can’t incorporate scientific theory and oral history native beliefs because scientists think there’s a
reason for everything and some things have just been passed down’’ (Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, p. 100).
An equally noteworthy challenge for the Southern Paiute representative arose from the fundamental difference in
the way the scientists and Southern Paiutes relate to the Colorado River Corridor and behave while they are there. The
representative noted that finding time to pray and make offerings, distancing herself from alcohol consumption while
not being perceived as aloof, and determining what information should and should not be shared with others were all
specific challenges. She observed, ‘‘I don’t think it worked. I’m sure it was accepted when I said something. They’d
say, ‘Oh yeah, yeah,’ but they- I’m sure they tried to understand, but I did not get it across to them how I felt. . . I think
it’s two different worlds totally, but I know we could teach them something – our culture, our history – because they
had no clue. I would tell them all the north rim was Paiute, Paiute names for the places. I was trying to give them an
idea of what this means to us’’ (Quoted in Austin et al., 2007, p. 100).
The final report of the TEP was issued in 2006 (Kearsley et al., 2006). The report included nine chapters focused on
vegetation, habitats, arthropods, herpetofauna, and mammals, with seven appendices, mostly consisting of lists of the
species encountered. The report includes two mentions of tribal participation in the program:
‘‘An additional goal of this project was to include perspectives from the Tribes who participate in the adaptive
management process. Rather than imposing a formal method for this goal, we have accomplished it by
maintaining direct contacts with the Paiute, Hopi and Hualapai tribes. We have met while on the river when our
separate trips have coincided, have included tribal representatives in our trips, and have participated in resource
monitoring trips sponsored by the Tribes. We have also presented results of our first three years of work to the
Tribes in a set of twice-yearly formal presentations at GCMRC during which we received feedback on how our
work relates to Tribal concerns. We have also been advised on how to perform and report the work so that it bears
directly on Tribal information needs and avoids conflicts with cultural values. We have endeavored to
incorporate these points into the work described in this report’’ (Kearsley et al., 2006, p. 6).

‘‘[W]e wanted to include the perspectives of members of the Hopi, Paiute and Hualapai tribes who have strong
historical and cultural ties to Grand Canyon. These groups are stakeholders in the adaptive management of Glen
Canyon Dam, and many of these tribes’ cultural properties are biological in nature and are heavily represented in
the post-dam riparian zone. We therefore determined which elements of our project could supplement the
information needs of the cultural programs of the tribes beyond those provided by their own ethnobotanical and
cultural monitoring’’ (Kearsley et al., 2006, pp. 7–8).
Based on these statements, the goal of integrating tribal perspectives was fulfilled if the report met tribal
information needs and did not conflict with tribal cultural values (whatever those might be defined to be). The authors
admitted that their findings were tentative, based on only three years’ worth of data that could be used to show possible
links among plants, animals, and their physical environment, but not causality. ‘‘Overall, our integrative findings
demonstrate that Grand Canyon riparian environments that support dense stands of vegetation also support larger
numbers of animals’’ (Kearsley et al., 2006, p. 158). Clearly, over the years, the focus of the TEP shifted from
integrating monitoring programs to translating scientific findings into formats and language ‘‘accessible’’ to the tribes
– though at every stage of the process the GCMRC and TEP scientists controlled the interactions and forms of
communication and set the bounds on what could be considered. What some believed began as an effort of mutual
exchange ended as a project to provide scientific data to tribes and have the tribes interpret and assess those data from a
tribal perspective. Opportunities for relationship building were significantly restricted by the way the TEP was defined,
structured, and carried out.

5. Conclusion

Glen Canyon Dam was constructed on the Colorado River to generate electricity and help manage water in the river
to fulfill agreements established in the 1922 Colorado River Compact. In addition to these uses, water in the Colorado
River also provides a home to fish, supports vegetation and animals, moves sediments to build or destroy beaches, and
provides the surface upon which rafts move, making possible both transportation and recreation. The latter is itself a
multibillion dollar industry, relying on the willingness of tourists to the region to pay for the experience of riding on
and through whitewater rapids as they make their way through magnificent canyons. That experience is not based
298 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

solely on the value of the water or its flow; it depends also on the existence of beaches, fish, and the animals and plants
that live along the river.
The GCDAMP was developed to advise the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on actions to improve resources in the
Glen and Grand canyons of the Colorado River and provides a process through which the effects of dam operations on
downstream resources are monitored and assessed; operational adjustments are recommended to the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior based on those assessments. Under this program, rather than the market driving decisions about dam
operations, measurable ‘‘scientific results’’ now do. While this has increased the number of players who are at the
policy table, it has not ensured that the often intangible values associated with water in the Colorado River system, and
at specific places, are actually incorporated into dam management. Benefits that are intangible are difficult to assess,
and efforts to measure them are at best incomplete and, at other times, lead to erroneous results. In particular,
participants who value water for other than instrumental purposes and want to have those values recognized remain
frustrated.
Not all tribes who have ties to the Colorado River participate in the GCDAMP. The Havasupai, for example,
withdrew early in the GCDEIS process and remain disengaged; their voices are completely silent in this program. The
SPC has maintained its position within the GCDAMP through perseverance and a current national political climate
that supports tribal participation in natural resource decision making; its future is anything but assured.11 Some within
the GCDAMP have recognized that Southern Paiutes (and others) value the Colorado River and its springs and
tributaries for more than their potential for generating revenues, and that SPC participation in the GCDAMP was
premised on spiritual and cultural ties that cannot be strictly measured or given a monetary value. And Southern
Paiutes have been at least somewhat successful in defining the parameters within which they participate in the
GCDAMP. Yet, full participation in the program12 has depended on the Paiutes’ ability to develop a monitoring
program that conforms to others’ ideas of what science is and should be. The shift in the debate from selecting dam
operations that would generate the greatest revenues to those that can produce scientifically verifiable ecosystem
impacts has privileged a different seemingly rational process for selecting among available options, but it has not
ensured that Southern Paiute values (or those of other tribes and groups) will be incorporated (see White, 2006 for a
related argument regarding Canadian First Nations peoples). Despite its efforts to use its monitoring program to bridge
those gaps, the SPC has been only minimally successful in influencing the debate over dam operations. Significant
improvements in the integration of Southern Paiute and other Native American perspectives within the GCDAMP are
unlikely to occur without major changes in the organization and function of the program.
Given the tremendous challenges facing similar efforts around the world, it is tempting to give up and conclude that
meaningful changes are impossible to achieve. As Jackson (2006, p. 28) notes, ‘‘A relational conceptualization of
value is undoubtedly more difficult to conceptualize and act upon, but it has the benefit of being integrative in that it
reduces the divide between the biophysical or material world, where intrinsic values are commonly thought to be
located, and the social world of constructed value.’’ Fundamentally, neither economics nor science, non-market
valuation nor adaptive management, allow for meaningful integration of a relational conceptualization of value.
Neither the institutions, with their rules and structures to govern decision making, nor the politics and social process
through which those institutions come into being, are readily changed. Perhaps the most we can hope for is to
recognize the imperfection of those institutions and processes and commit to Herbert Simon’s (1956) notion of
satisficing, achieving progress on multiple goals without maximizing any single value.
Southern Paiutes, and other Native American tribes, were first allowed into the formal decision making about Glen
Canyon Dam almost 30 years after the dam was completed. By that point, the people and institutions dependent upon
the electricity and revenues it generated, and the recreational opportunities it made possible, were well entrenched.

11
And without this sort of political support, non-Indian groups with similar perspectives are unlikely to have their values recognized in this
process.
12
At various points, in order to save money, the SPC has been offered the option of choosing between participating in quarterly meetings of the
GCDAMP and in the SPC’s annual monitoring and education trip down the Colorado River. The SPC has argued that neither participating in
decision making without the opportunity to gather firsthand information about what is happening along the river nor taking an annual trip down the
river without the opportunity to participate in decision making was acceptable. The tribal allocation from the GCDAMP was greatest in 1997, the
first year of the program, was reduced over the next several years, and has remained flat since 2004. The SPC has responded by supplementing those
resources with tribal funds, getting volunteer assistance from scientists and educators, and reducing the number of days spent along the Colorado
River each year.
 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300 299

Also, though the ecological impacts caused by the dam had been many, and some animal species had become
endangered by loss of habitat due to the vast changes wrought by the dam, some plants and animals had come to
depend on the new environmental conditions. Thus, any decisions to modify dam operations would have significant
repercussions.
In situations where dams and other water development projects have not yet been constructed, interested parties
should be brought together early in the decision making process, in a variety of places and settings, before decisions
have been made and options have been narrowed. By focusing on relationships among people and the environments
that are important to their lives, with the intention of preserving those, the opportunities for finding common ground
are increased, either by identifying alternatives to proposed projects or modifying the projects. When a project will
move forward, decisions must be made at each step in the process of identifying impacts, and then avoiding,
minimizing, or reducing them.13 These decisions will be based on values which can be revealed, explored, and
articulated through integrative processes.

References

Austin, D. E., & Bulletts, A. (1996a). Placing dam management on a solid foundation: Southern Paiutes and the Bureau of Reclamation. Southern
Paiute Consortium. Paper presented at the 21st annual conference and exposition of the national association of environmental professionals.
Austin, D. E., & Bulletts, A. (1996b). Overview and history of Southern Paiute involvement in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS. Southern Paiute
Consortium. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the society for applied anthropology.
Austin, D. E., & Jake, V. (1998). Water quality and quantity assessment baseline document for the Kaibab Paiute Reservation. Tucson, AZ: Bureau of
Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona.
Austin, D., Phillips, A., III, & Seibert, D. (2007). Southern Paiute participation in the Glen Canyon adaptive management program: A ten year
review. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Prepared with the assistance of Kevin Bulletts by Tucson, Arizona: Bureau of Applied Research
in Anthropology, University of Arizona and Pipe Springs. Arizona: Southern Paiute Consortium. Accessed online at www.kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov/
spc/spconsortium/p5/TenYearSummaryReport-final.pdf.
Bishop, R., Boyle, K. J., Welsh, M. P, Baumgartner, R. M, & Rathburn, P. C. (1987). Glen Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation: An
analysis of user preferences and economic values. Madison, Wisconsin: Heberlein-Baumgartner Research Services.
Bishop, R., Brown, C., Welsh, M., & Boyle, K. (1989). Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam operations: An economic evaluation. In K. Boyle & T.
Heekin (Eds.), W-133, benefits and costs in natural resources planning, interim report #2. Maine: Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, University of Maine, Orono.
Breedlove, J. (1999). Natural resources: Assessing nonmarket values through contingent valuation (CRS Report for Congress, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division. RL30242).
Camacho, A. E. (2008). Beyond conjecture: Learning about ecosystem management from the Glen Canyon Dam experiment. Nevada Law Journal,
8, 942–963.
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources (CGER). (1999). Downstream: Adaptive management of Glen Canyon Dam and the
Colorado River ecosystem. Washington, D.C. Committee on Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research, Water Science and Technology Board,
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Davis, R. K. (1963). The value of outdoor recreation: An economic study of the Maine Woods (PhD Dissertation). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University.
Douglas, A. J., & Harpman, D. A. (2004). Lake Powell management alternatives and values: CVM estimates of recreation. Water International,
29(3), 375–383.
Feller, J. M. (2008). Collaborative management of Glen Canyon Dam: The elevation of social engineering over law. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 896–
941.
Gibbs, L. M. (2006). Valuing water: Variability and the Lake Eyre Basin, Central Australia. Australian Geographer, 37(1), 73–85.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). (2001). Strategic plan. Accessed online at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/
sp_final.pdf.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). (2007). Frequently asked questions. Accessed online at http://www.gcdamp.gov/
faq.html.
Hammer, M. Z. (2002). Valuation of American Indian land and water resources: A guidebook Accessed online at http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/
economics/reports/Valuation%20of%20Indian%20Resources%20Land%20and%20Water%20Resources.pdf.
Hanemann, W. M. (2006). The economic conception of water. In P. P. Rogers, M. Ramon Llamas, & L. Martinez-Cortina (Eds.), Water crisis: Myth
or reality? London: Taylor and Francis.
Jackson, S. (2006). Compartmentalising culture: The articulation and consideration of indigenous values in water resource management. Australian
Geographer, 37(1), 19–31.

13
The process is referred to as mitigation sequencing. It begins with an assessment of the potentially affected assets and then, based on the outcome
of that assessment, requires either avoidance, minimization, rectification of impacts, reduction over time through preservation and maintenance, or
compensation (Weems & Canter, 1995).
300 D. Austin, B. Drye / Policy and Society 30 (2011) 285–300

Jones, C. V., & Graham, M. (1996). Rebuttal to the GCES non-use value study final report. Unpublished Report.
Kearsley, M. J. C., Cobb, N. S., Yard, H. K., Lightfoot, D. C., Brantley, S. L., Carpenter, G. C., et al. (2006). Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial
riparian resources in the Colorado River Corridor of Grand Canyon: An integrative approach. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Grand
Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Cooperative Agreement/Assistance Awards 01 WRAG 0044 (NAU) and 01 WRAG 0034 (HYC),
August.
Knack, M. (1993). Interethnic competition at Kaibab. Ethnohistory, 40, 212–245.
Kato, k. (2006). Community, connection and conservation: Intangible cultural values in natural heritage—The case of Shirakami-sanchi world
heritage area. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(5), 458–473.
Loomis, J. B. (nd). Use of non-market valuation studies in water resource management assessments. Accessed online at http://www.ucowr.org/
updates/pdf/V109_A2.pdf
Melis, T. S. (Ed.). (2011). Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. (pp. 1366–).
Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular.
Merlan, F. (1989). The objectification of ‘‘culture’’: An aspect of current political process in Aboriginal affairs. Anthropological Forum, 6, 105–116.
Meyer Resources. (1999). Tribal circumstances and impacts of the Lower Snake River Project on the Nez Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs,
and Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Portland, Oregon: Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Cited in Hammer, 2002.
Norton, B. G. (2000). Biodiversity and environmental values: In search of a universal earth ethic. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 1029–1044.
Sanders, L. D., Walsh, R. G., & Loomis, J. B. (1990). Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers. Water Resources Research,
26(7), 1345–1358.
Shiva, V. (2002). Water wars: Privatization, pollution and profit. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.
Stewart, W., Larkin, K., Orland, B., & Anderson, D. (2003). Boater preferences for beach characteristics downstream from Glen Canyon Dam,
Arizona. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 201–211.
Stoffle, R. W., Austin, D. E., Fulfrost, B. K., Phillips, A. M., III, & Drye, T. F. (1995a). Itus, Auv, Te’ek (past present, future): Managing Southern
Paiute resources in the Colorado River Corridor. Prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Bureau of Reclamation. Prepared by
Tucson, AZ: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona.
Stoffle, R. W., & Evans, M. J. (1976). Resource competition and population change: A Kaibab Paiute ethnohistorical case. Ethnohistory, 23, 173–197.
Stoffle, R. W., Halmo, D. B., Evans, M. J., & Austin, D. E. (1994). Pia’Paxa’Huipi (Big River Canyon): Ethnographic resource inventory and
assessment for Colorado River Corridor, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, and Grand Canyon National Park. Arizona:
Prepared for the National Park Service.
Stoffle, R. W., Loendorf, L. L, Austin, D. E., Halmo, D. B., Bulletts, A. S., & Fulfrost, B. K. (1995b). Tumpituxwinap: Southern Paiute rock art in the
Colorado River Corridor. Prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Bureau of Reclamation.
Susskind, L., Camacho, A. E., & Schenk, T. (2010). Collaborative planning and adaptive management in Glen Canyon: A cautionary tale. Columbia
Journal of Environmental Law, 35(1), 1–54.
United States Department of the Interior, (DOI). (1996). Record of Decision, operation of Glen Canyon Dam final environmental impact statement.
Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary of the Interior.
U.S. General Accounting Office, (GAO). (1996). Bureau of Reclamation: An assessment of the environmental impact statement on the operations of
the Glen Canyon Dam (GAO/RCED- 97-12). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2005). Glen Canyon environmental studies: Multidisciplinary studies of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam.
Accessed online at http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/gces.html
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (nd). In the spotlight. Accessed online at http://biology.usgs.gov/faer/ecology.html
Venn, T. J., & Calkin, D. E. (2007). Challenges of accommodating non-market values in evaluation of wildfire suppression in the United States.
Paper prepared for presentation at the American agricultural economics association annual meeting Accessed online at http://ageconsearch.-
umn.edu/bitstream/9903/1/sp07ve01.pdf.
Voichick Nicholas, & Scott, A. Wright. (2007). Water temperature data for the Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and
Spencer Canyon, Northern Arizona 1988–2005. Data Series 251. US Geological Survey.
Weems, W. A., & Canter, L. (1995). Planning and operational guidelines for mitigation banking for wetland impacts. Environment Impact
Assessment Review, 15(3), 197–218.
Welsh, M. R., Phillips, M., & Baumgartner, R. (1995a). GCES non-use values final study summary report. Prepared for Glen Canyon environmental
studies, non-use, value committee by Madison. Wisconsin: Hagler Bailly Consulting.
Welsh, M. R., Phillips, M., & Baumgartner, R. (1995b). GCES non-use value study final report. Prepared for Glen Canyon environmental studies,
non-use value committee by Madison. Wisconsin: Hagler Bailly Consulting.
White, G. (2006). Cultures in collision: Traditional knowledge and Euro-Canadian governance processes in Northern Land-Claim Boards. Arctic,
59(4), 401–415.
Wright, K. (2011). Science-based strategies for future high-flow experiments at Glen Canyon Dam. In T. S. Melis (Ed.), Effects of three high-flow
experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (pp. 127–147). Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366.

Websites

www.gcdamp.gov [last accessed online September 29, 2011]. www.gcmrc.gov [last accessed online September 29, 2011]. www.huala-
paitourism.com/ [last accessed online September 29, 2011]. www.kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov/SPC.html [last accessed online September 29, 2011].