Customer Reviews

RIVERS OF EMPIRE

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Donald Worster's "Rivers of Empire" is a superb work by the environmental historian, though his critique of California's "hydraulic society" is more a social history. Worster chronicles the exploits of the agribusinessmen and engineers who financed and built the system of damns, reservoirs, and canals which transformed the American West from a sparsely inhabited desert to the site of massive fertile farms and sprawling urban metropolises. Worster argues that the control of scarce water resources gave rise to a symbiotic capitalist/bureaucratic elite and to a modern day empire like its ancient predecessors on the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Huang Ho. This imperial elite, in turn, established and perpetuated itself on the backs of impoverished wage laborers usually of minority or immigrant descent. As an environmentalist, he rails against the wanton waste of water for swimming pools, casino fountains, and ill-suited crops like alfalfa, the depletion of aquifers, and the salinization of rivers - all byproducts of the US government's ambitious 20th century reclamation projects. Worster points out the vengeance of nature in the form of the sedimentation and collapse of dozens of dams. He suggests that these processes and events presage the decay of a socio-economic system which long ago forsook the more harmonious ideals of agrarianism and democracy. This doomsday prediction and Worster's idealistic alternatives are a bit hard to stomach. Also, for all of Worster's sympathy for the underclass of farm laborers, this group never emerges as a real actor in his story. Rather, this is a history of great men, albeit a critical one. Nevertheless, Worster writes with passion; his narrative is fascinating and his contentions are compelling. The book is a fine counterpoint for fans of Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert," and an extremely worthwhile read on its own.

'Rivers' presents an extensive yet accessible history of Western development based on the author's unique 'hydraulic' thesis -- a hybrid framework that adds an environmental dimension to traditional socio-economic analysis. Essentially, the idea is that the relationship between humans and environment dictates social structure. Whether or not one buys the theory on the strength of this book alone is beside the point. The importance of 'Rivers' lies in its singular, alternative perspective that, when combined with others, reconstructs a more complete story of the West. With that understanding, the reader may appreciate this work without being bothered by its occasional lapses into the kind of flat ideological analysis that seems inevitable in social histories like this.

'Rivers' offers a number of invaluable insights. Contrary to the idealized vision of the West as the last hope for freedom and democracy, the West birthed a rigid, hierarchical society combining big capitalism with big government. Yet the reason behind this was not the environmental condition of aridity per se, but the romantic capitalistic notion of the desert as something to be subdued and exploited. On an even broader level, therefore, 'Rivers' begins to shed light on the dynamic interplay between the relationship between human and nature and the relationship between humans themselves. In the end, this work's highest value may lie in its contribution to the development of this critical but still largely ignored point.

I can count on two hands the number of truly pathbreaking works of history published since 1980. "Rivers of Empire" is one of them, and must reading for anyone who seeks to understand the history of this critical region of the United States.

Donald Worster, Hall Distinguished Professor of American History at the University of Kansas, has been producing outstanding history of the American West and environmentalism for more than a quarter century. When the so-called "New Western History" was avant-garde in historian circles in the early 1980s he was dubbed one of the "Gang of Four" who transformed the field of study--the others being Patricia Nelson Limerick, William Cronen, and Richard White. Worster's work, as well as that of the other three historians, was indeed pathbreaking, and "Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West" is by far his most influential publication. It demonstrates well why Worster was one of the "Gang of Four."

In "Rivers of Empire" Worster argues that the core reality of the American West is its aridity. To make it suitable for large-scale human habitation required the complete transformation of the region; Americans harnessed the rivers and brought water there, irrigating the land and creating great cities. As Worster writes, "The ecological and social transformation of the Great Valley is one of the most spectacular, and more revealing episodes of the American West" (p. 11). The organization and structure of every institution associated with the West reflected the need to control the environment. It brought profound changes to both the region and the people who lived there. This is the story that he tells in this superb book.

Ironically, the supposed individualistic and democratic westerners willingly conspired with the government to create a hydraulic civilization under the suzerainty of the federal government. In order to flourish in the arid West Americans had to build an agricultural system that was dependent upon large-scale government-managed waterworks--productive (for irrigation) and protective (for flood control). This not only made the West habitable, it brought urbanization and wealth there as well. Ancient Egypt first engaged in this type of civilization, and became a dominant power in the process. But always, there were winners and losers in this situation and those left out harped on the inequities of the system. In the American West the "Sagebrush Revolution" of the latter twentieth century pitted the presumably individualist West against the organization and power of the federal government. Ironically, the very organization and power that had created the modern American West was under attack from those who had so benefited from it.

Worster notes that the dominant myth of the West needs to be replaced with a more realistic understanding. He asserts that it is best understood as a story "of people encountering difficult environments, of driving to overcome them through technological means, of creating the necessary social organization to do so, of leading on and on to indigenous bureaucracy and corporatism" (p. 11). He is so right.

This is a wonderful book. Don't miss it!

However, while I appreciate other reviewers' passion, Marc Reisner has a broader scope in that book, covering the aquifer-driven irrigation of the High Plains as well as the river-fed irrigation of the Southwest.

Plus, his book has a 1993 revised edition, making it newer and more informative.

Above all, though, as a journalist, rather than an academic. Reisner is simply the better writer. His book is more of a story than "Rivers of Empire," and reads that way, as well as having the broader and more updated coverage.

Indeed, with an older-style typeface (at least in hardcover), Worster's book looks much more dated.

For somebody new to this subject, this is still a very solid four-star book. But, having read and re-read "Cadillac Desert," in that context, I rate "Rivers of Empire" at 3.5 stars.

The history of the American West begins and ends with water argues Donald Worster in his book "Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West." Worster traces three stages of the water West, each lasting roughly fifty years. The first, incipience, from 1847 into the 1890s was characterized by individuals or small communities working with water in limited ways. The second, florescence, starting in 1902, marked the time the federal government took charge of the western rivers. The third stage, empire, beginning in the 1940s, is when government and private wealth form an alliance that brings every western river under unified control.

In an effort sure to stir controversy with its Marxist views, "Rivers" begins, unexpectedly, with a discussion of Karl Wittfogel, a German student of the Frankfurt School, who believed that those who controlled water controlled society. Worster moves on to some of the individuals who characterized the first stage, most prominent among these were the Mormons, whose control over water became the basis of their society. The state of California becomes the leading agricultural producer in the nation due to its control over irrigation. The major question during this period became who would control the water?

The answer to this question, opposing river explorer John Wesley Powell, was the federal government. It comes in 1902 with the passing of the National Reclamation Act. An act Worster claims is "the most important single piece of legislation in the history of the West." Coming out of this act, Elwood Mead, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation from 1924-1936, directs the agency through the building of Hoover Dam. Although an impressive engineering feat, Worster believes it to be an example of the "power elite" turning nature into something profitable.

In a section of the book called "The Grapes of Wealth," a play on words from the John Steinbeck novel, "The Grapes of Wrath," Worster feels free to trash one of America's greatest novels because it does not address "advanced water engineering." He calls Steinbeck's conclusion "unconvincing and half-hearted."

In his conclusion, Worster waxes nostalgia for the past, speaking of deer in the river canyons who would shelter there for the winter. He believes that the enthusiasm for the domination of nature is waning. He sees the "water-control apparatus" as a "necessary evil" in the history of the West. In the future, the West "cannot have life both ways -- cannot maximize wealth and empire and maximize democracy and freedom too." Will the West continue on this path of authority over water or take a new direction, one towards the past with an emphasis on cooperation with nature rather than control? Agree or disagree, Worster makes his point well, maybe he who controls the water does control society.

'Rivers' presents an extensive yet accessible history of Western development based on the author's unique 'hydraulic' thesis -- a hybrid framework that adds an environmental dimension to traditional socio-economic analysis. Essentially, the idea is that the relationship between humans and environment dictates social structure. Whether or not one buys the theory on the strength of this book alone is beside the point. The importance of 'Rivers' lies in its singular, alternative perspective that, when combined with others, reconstructs a more complete story of the West. With that understanding, the reader may appreciate this work without being bothered by its occasional lapses into the kind of flat ideological analysis that seems inevitable in social histories like this.

'Rivers' offers a number of invaluable insights. Contrary to the idealized vision of the West as the last hope for freedom and democracy, the West birthed a rigid, hierarchical society combining big capitalism with big government. Yet the reason behind this was not the environmental condition of aridity per se, but the romantic capitalistic notion of the desert as something to be subdued and exploited. On an even broader level, therefore, 'Rivers' begins to shed light on the dynamic interplay between the relationship between human and nature and the relationship between humans themselves. In the end, this work's highest value may lie in its contribution to the development of this critical but still largely ignored point.

One interesting point from Hawai`i: the author's suggestion of a new model based on sustainable, locally governed and accountable communities is very reminiscent of the ahupua'a system of ancient Hawai`i.

In this book, Worster extends Karl Wittfogel's theory of the hydraulic society to the United States - - a task that Wittfogel, despite having emigrated to the US, never attempted. Since Wittfogel emphasized the authoritarian consequences of large-scale irrigation system, so too does Worster, finding an authoritarian "empire" in the American West.

Certainly there are authoritarian elements of western agriculture, especially in the treatment of farmworkers by large farms and corporations. Worster mentions this, but oddly enough does not give this issue as much attention as one would expect.

Worster gives much more attention to the symbiotic relationship between landowners and the water engineers at the Bureau of Reclamation. Like most relationships between government and business, this represents a conspiracy against voters and consumers. That said, it doesn't seem any more hierarchical or autocratic than any other area of regulation, and Worster doesn't really make that case.

Theory aside, the book tells its story well. Unfortunately for Worster, he's competing with a masterpiece, Mark Reisner's "Cadillac Desert", and he covers essentially the same ground. (Reisner's book was published a year later.) Without Reisner, I'd have given this book four stars and recommend for general readers interested in this particular corner of human experience. But Reisner tells the story so well that Worster's book has to stand or fall on the theoretical apparatus - - and this just isn't convincing. As a result, I think that "Rivers of Empire" will really only be interesting for specialists.

The central argument Worster tries to make in here is that the "hydraulic society" of the American West has somehow created an antidemocracy in which technocrats and plutocrats run everything. He asserts in his his book that "everything begins and ends with water." If you accept this premise, his text has some interesting points, but the logical leaps required to accept the premise are difficult to make. As much as anything this book seems to be an attack on capitalism, but even that does not hold up because at different points in the text the author both highlights the need to get the power "into the hands of as many people as possible" and the problems people have in making self-regulated decisions. The general ecological message is still reasonably sound - learn to live with nature and don't fight it or dominate it to the point of damage - but the rest of the book is confusing and suffering from an overly narrow focus. Read it if you have to, but be aware of what you are getting in to.