Any thesis or argument within a paper must be backed up with appropriate evidence. In this case, your thesis is that dammed rivers are beneficial to people. As the focus of the original essay is on Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam, it would be a good idea to look at the benefits the original project and the resulting lake had on the populace.
One clear benefit that you could argue for in your essay is the economic success of rivers and dams. While Lake Powell provides a small amount of water to urbanized areas, the greater amount of water from the lake—about 85%—is used in irrigation. Because of this irrigation, states surrounding the lake are more agriculturally viable, something that they would not be without this water because of their locations in the Southwest.
Another argument could be made for the social benefits of water from the Glen Canyon Dam project. People of all kinds benefit from these lake waters, among them the Native American people who are now able to receive water to their lands. Without Lake Powell, many groups of people that belong to low income populations have the water that they need.
I strongly suggest that you continue to search for evidence, especially factual information such as data, that you can use to support your claim that the dam provides more benefits than leaving the river in its natural state.
https://www2.kenyon.edu/projects/Dams/gec02ros.html
Abbey's position is that the dams should be removed to let the rivers return to their natural state. A successful paper arguing against this position would have to demonstrate that the benefits of the dams outweigh the costs.
One major benefit of the Glan Canyon dam and Lake Powell is the fact that Lake Powell is one of the most popular recreational destinations in the Southwest. You could easily turn Powell's argument about mass access being "undemocratic" on its head. Surely his position of making access more difficult and restricted is the elitist one, as is his disdain for jet skis, ATVs and campers. Lake Powell is undeniably beautiful and popular with all classes. Draining Lake Powell would largely eliminate its broad recreational appeal.
California, Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico each receive millions of acre feet of water from the Glen Canyon dam and Lake Powell. Although some of this water goes to urban centers in the Southwest, the majority goes to the irrigation of agriculture making this sun-drenched region a top producer of fruits and vegetables for domestic consumption and export. This multi-billion dollar industry would not be possible in many areas of the Southwest without this water. Destroying the dams would cause tremendous economic damage to this agricultural industry and raise the price of fruits and vegetables for all Americans that consume them.
One of the central themes of Edward Abbey's work has been his staunch opposition to the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River that created Lake Powell, destroying stunning scenery and wildlife habitat, endangering many rare species of fish and animals, and also irreparably destroying many important archaeological sites which provided information about the early inhabitants of the United States.
The original benefits claimed for Glen Canyon Dam were twofold, first providing clean and inexpensive hydropower and second providing regular supplies of water to cities downstream. Trying to write a paper justifying building the dam on the basis of these benefits will be quite difficult, as history has proven Abbey correct in his assessment of the dam's impracticality.
Although the dam did provide water and power for a few decades, the continued shrinkage of Lake Powell, due to leakage and evaporation, has made it unprofitable in recent decades as a source of power, and more water is lost by these mechanisms than is saved by having Lake Powell as a reservoir. While some dams in places such as Quebec do provide clean power with minimal environmental damage, the Glen Canyon Dam is not really a good example of the positive benefits of dams.
No comments:
Post a Comment