Artificial flood seeks to right environmental wrong

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Nov. 20, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    God will destroy them that destroy the earth (Rev. 11). Neither selfish self-importance ("Sorry the Grand Canyon loses its natural habitat, but my interests are more important than the creations of God") nor rationalization ("the earth changes naturally, so therefore foisting our own violent change on it is perfectly OK") will excuse anyone from being answerable to Him for the disrespect we show His Creation.

  • WhyNotThink North, UT
    Nov. 20, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    Too what period are we trying to restore the canyon? 1955, 1830, 1211, 3000BC... Our world is dynamic not static. To suggest that it is in some form of steady state is to ignore all the alterations that occur over time. Once we restore it, do we fight nature to prevent it from changing? Who decides what should and should not be in this canyon? Should we take the simple minded approach that it should be like it was in 1955? Who flipped a coin and decided that was the ultimate utopia?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Nov. 20, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    The headline leaves a lot to be desired. The Glen Canyon Dam provides benefits that otherwise wouldn't be there. Sorry the Grand Canyon loses some sandbars but people are more important than sand.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Nov. 20, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    Be wary of anything done for "environmental reasons." Especially if Ken Salazar is involved.

    Today, the environmentalists would probably fight against any activity that would wash away huge amounts of soil and result in a "gaping scar" that is the Grand Canyon.

    Their motivations may sound pure, but their actions are often aimed at crippling human betterment, industry, and capitalism.