Construction of the Glen Canyon Dam in northern Arizona was motivated by the conviction that a river running to the sea is a resource forsaken. Since 1963, it has provided water storage, recreational opportunities, and electricity for millions. It has also generated far-reaching ecological changes, and controlled flooding has been employed since 1996 to restore ecological habitat downriver in the Grand Canyon. The present study situates these high-flow experiments at the Glen Canyon Dam within a neo-Weberian theoretical perspective attuned to a posthumanist critique. The objective of high-flow experiments is to attain greater balance between ecological and instrumental rationalization processes. They are not simply an experiment in habitat renewal but an operational shift signaling a greater resolve to evolve with nature, but they also illustrate the challenges inherent to large-scale ecological restoration. Nonetheless, controlled flooding illustrates important lessons with regard to the need to reflect on, learn from, and adjust socionatural relations in response to ecological degradation and change.
AlbrowM. (1990). Max Weber’s construction of social theory. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
2.
AllenC. R.FontaineJ. J.PopeK. L.GarmestaniA. S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1339-1345.
3.
AndrewsE. D.PizziL. A. (2000). Origin of the Colorado River experimental flood in Grand Canyon. Hydrological Sciences, 45, 607-627.
4.
AsplenL. (2008). Going with the flow: Living the mangle through environmental management practice. In PickeringA.GuzikK. (Eds.), The mangle in practice: Science, society, and becoming (pp. 163-184). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
BakerL. R. (2004). The ontology of artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 7, 99-111.
6.
BansalP.Knox-HayesJ. (2013). The time and space of materiality in organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 26, 61-82.
7.
BarnettT. P.PierceD. W. (2009). Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7334-7338.
8.
BednarekA. T.HartD. (2005). Modifying dam operations to restore rivers: Ecological responses to Tennessee River dam mitigation. Ecological Applications, 15, 997-1008.
9.
BillingtonD. P.JacksonD. C.MelosiM. M. (2005). The history of large federal dams: Planning, design, and construction in the era of big dams. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
10.
BrubakerR. (1984). The limits of rationality: An essay on the social and moral thought of Max Weber. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
12.
CamachoA. E. (2008). Beyond conjecture: Learning about ecosystem management from the Glen Canyon Dam experiment. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 942-963.
13.
CarolanM. S. (2005). Society, biology, and ecology: Bringing nature back into sociology’s disciplinary narrative through critical realism. Organization & Environment, 18, 393-421.
14.
CarolanM. S. (2006). Conserving nature, but to what end?Organization & Environment, 19, 153-170.
15.
CastroC. J. (2004). Sustainable development: Mainstream and critical perspectives. Organization & Environment, 17, 195-225.
16.
ChristopherM. (1999). An exploration of the “reflex” in reflexive modernity: The rational and prerational social causes of the affinity for ecological consciousness. Organization & Environment, 12, 357-400.
17.
CohenB. R. (2005). Escaping the false binary of nature and culture through connection. Organization & Environment, 18, 445-457.
18.
CollierM. P.WebbR. H.AndrewsE. D. (1997). Experimental flooding in Grand Canyon. Scientific American, 276, 82-89.
19.
DavidsonL. (1996, April11). Flood’s success spawns a flood of excitement. Deseret News, pp. A1-A2.
20.
deBuysW. (2011). A great aridness: Climate change and the future of the American southwest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
DolanR.HowardA.GallensonA. (1974). Man’s impact on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. American Scientist, 62, 392-401.
22.
DynesiusM.NilssonC. (1994). Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the Northern third of the world. Science, 266, 753-762.
23.
EmirbayerM.MischeA. (1998). What is agency?American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023.
24.
FarmerJ. (1999). Glen Canyon dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the Canyon Country. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
25.
FranklinA. (2006). Burning cities: A posthumanist account of Australians and eucalypts. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 555-576.
26.
GermainG. G. (1993). A discourse on disenchantment: Reflections on politics and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
GibsonJ. W. (2009). A reenchanted world: The quest for a new kinship with nature. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
28.
GramsP. E. (2013). A sand budget for Marble Canyon, Arizona—Implications for long-term monitoring of sand storage change (U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013-3074). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
29.
HamillJ. (2008). Science activities associated with proposed 2008 high-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
30.
HanniganJ. (2006). Environmental sociology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
HarpmanD. A.DouglasA. J. (2005). Status and trends of hydropower production at Glen Canyon Dam. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 165-176). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
32.
HollingC. S.MeffeG. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328-337.
33.
HorkheimerM.AdornoT. W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments (NoerrG. S., Ed., JephcottE. Trans.). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1972)
34.
JohnsonK. (2012, August3). A river newly wild and seriously muddy. New York Times, pp. A10.
35.
KalbergS. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1145-1179.
36.
KennedyT. A.RalstonB. E. (2011). Biological responses to high-flow experiments at Glen Canyon Dam. In MelisT. S. (Ed.), Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366; pp. 93-125). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
37.
LoomisJ.DouglasA. J.HarpmanD. A. (2005). Recreation use values and nonuse values of Glen and Grand Canyons. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 153-164). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
38.
LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (2005). Lessons from 10 years of adaptive management in Grand Canyon. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 207-220). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
39.
LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (2007). The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: Lessons from 10 years of adaptive ecosystem management. International Journal of River Basin Management, 5, 207-221.
40.
MagnaniN. (2012). Nonhuman actors, hybrid networks, and conflicts over municipal waste incinerators. Organization & Environment, 25, 131-145.
41.
ManesC. (1990). Green rage: Radical environmentalism and the unmaking of civilization. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
MeretskyV. J.WegnerD. L.StevensL. E. (2000). Balancing endangered species and ecosystems: A case study of adaptive management in Grand Canyon. Environmental Management, 25, 579-586.
44.
MolA. P. J.SonnenfeldD. A. (2000). Ecological modernization around the world: Perspectives and critical debates. Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
45.
MuellerG. A.MarshP. C. (2002). Lost, a desert river and its native fishes: A historical perspective of the lower Colorado River. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey.
46.
MurdochJ. (2001). Ecologising sociology: Actor-network theory, co-construction, and the problem of human exemptionalism. Sociology, 35, 111-133.
47.
MurphyR. (1994). Rationality and nature. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
MurphyR. (2002). The internalization of autonomous nature into society. Sociological Review, 50, 313-333.
49.
MurphyR. (2004). Disaster or sustainability: The dance of human agents with nature’s actants. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 41, 249-266.
50.
PattenD. T.HarpmanD. A.VoitaM. I.RandleT. J. (2001). A managed flood on the Colorado River: Background, objectives, design, and implementation. Ecological Applications, 11, 635-643.
51.
PickeringA. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559-589.
52.
PickeringA. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
53.
PickeringAndrew. 2005. “Asian Eels and Global Warming: A Posthumanist Perspective on Society and the Environment.” Ethics & the Environment, 10(2): 29-43.
54.
PickeringA. (2009). The politics of theory: Producing another world, with some thoughts on Latour. Journal of Cultural Economy, 2, 197-212.
55.
PickeringA. (2010). The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
PorterT. B. (2006). Coevolution as a research framework for organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 19, 479-504.
57.
PowellJ. L. (2008). Dead pool: Lake Powell, global warming, and the future of water in the West. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
58.
RandleTimothy J.LyonsJoseph K.ChristensenRick J.StephenRyan D.2007. Colorado River Ecosystem Sediment Augmentation Appraisal Engineering Report. Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Denver, Co. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
59.
ReisnerM. (1993). Cadillac desert: The American West and its disappearing water. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
60.
RiceJ. (2013). Further beyond the Durkheimian problematic: Environmental sociology and the co-construction of the social and the natural. Sociological Forum, 28, 236-260.
SchmitL. M.SchmidtJ. C. (2011). Introduction and overview. In MelisT. S. (Ed.), Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366; pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
63.
SeagerR.VecchiG. A. (2010). Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate of Southwestern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21277-21282.
64.
ServiceR. F. (2004). As the West goes dry. Science, 303, 1124-1127.
65.
SwyngedouwE. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890-1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, 443-465.
66.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (1965). Lake Powell: Jewell of the Colorado. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (1946). The Colorado River: A natural menace becomes a national resource. Washington, DC: Bureau of Reclamation.
69.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (1996). Record of decision, operation of the Glen Canyon Dam—Final environmental impact statement. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Interior.
70.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011). Development and implementation of a protocol for high flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020. Washington, DC: Bureau of Reclamation.
71.
VernieuW. S.HueftleS. J.GlossS. P. (2005). Water quality in Lake Powell and the Colorado River. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 69-85). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
72.
WebbR. H.HerefordR.McCabeG. J. (2005). Climatic fluctuations, drought, and flow in the Colorado River. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 57-67). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
73.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society (Vol. 1; RothG.WittichC., Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1920)
74.
WeberM. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism and other writings (BaehrP.GordonC., Eds. & Trans.). Wells. NY: Penguin. (Original work published 1905)
75.
WhiteD. F.WilbertC. (2009). Inhabiting technonatural time/spaces. In WhiteD. F.WilbertC. (Eds.), Technonatures: Environments, technologies, spaces, and places in the twenty-first century (pp. 1-30). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
76.
WhiteR. (1995). The organic machine: The remaking of the Columbia River. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
77.
WrightS. A.MelisT. S.ToppingD. J.RubinmD. M. (2005). Influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. In GlossS. P.LovichJ. E.MelisT. S. (Eds.), The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282; pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
78.
WrightS. A.KennedyT. A. (2011). Science-based strategies for future high-flow experiments at Glen Canyon Dam. In MelisT. S. (Ed.), Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366; pp. 127-147). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
79.
YorkR.RosaE. A. (2003). Key challenges to ecological modernization theory. Organization & Environment, 16, 273-287.
