LAUSR

tion would own 25%–49% of the power plant and would receive $50 million in annual revenue, but it also accepted substantial liability. Desert Rock proponents claimed that the project would displace “only” about 20 families, but they did not consider the devastating effects on those families: destruction of a landscape that was central to their lifeways, culture, and identity, containing plant-gathering areas, offering places, ancestral dwellings and herding facilities, graves, shrines, and other landmarks. A description of Burnham resident Alice Gilmore’s sheep camp in Ram Springs Valley (140–144), just south of Navajo Mine, conveys this sense of place, personal attachment to the land, and importance of landscape in cultural survival. In December of 2006, Alice Gilmore and other Burnham residents opposed to Desert Rock formed an informal association called Doodá (No) Desert Rock. They established a resistance camp near the proposed entrance to the plant and enlisted the support of Diné CARE and other organizations. In 2007, the Bureau of Indian Affairs released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the project and held 10 hearings in New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. Powell attended nine of these hearings and in chapter 4, “Contesting Expertise,” describes how the EIS process is designed to assess projects from the perspective of Western science, engineering, and technology and excludes participation by people having non-Western views about human effects on environments. The way the Desert Rock EIS process unfolded, though, showed how people could override the scientific bias, at least in the hearings. One of the EIS preparers said that if the EIS process had continued, however, many of the comments made in the hearings would have been dismissed because they did not address the technical statements of the EIS. After the EIS hearings, Diné opponents to the project responded artistically with “paintings, photographs, political cartoons, television talk shows, and bumper stickers” (188). Venaya Yazzie, a curator at the Center of Southwest Studies at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, organized an art show called “Connections: Earth 1 Artist p A Tribute Art Show in Resistance to Desert Rock,” which was exhibited at the Center of Southwest Studies in 2008 and at Shiprock in 2009. The most original and innovative part of the book, chapter 5, “Artifacts,” examines these artistic responses to Desert Rock. The Great Recession reduced demand for energy, and in 2009 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency remanded the Bush administration’s 2008 clean air permit for Desert Rock. The state of NewMexico also opposed the project on environmental grounds, citing the presence of two coal-fired power plants between Farmington and Shiprock already in operation and causing severe air pollution, concerns about water pollution, its effects on endangered native fish in the San Juan River, and the overall inadequacy of the EIS. Still later, increased natural gas production undercut coal-fired electrical generation in terms of both price and environmental concerns, and the Desert Rock proposal never recovered. The Desert Rock resistance changed the Navajo Nation, empowering Diné citizens with a successful campaign and a set of experiences that will influence political discourse on the Navajo Nation in the future. Landscapes of Power addresses important topics: colonialism, economic development, environmental justice, resistance, and cultural survival. The resistance to the Desert Rock Energy Project is a useful case study, and the data sets used to study the resistance to the Desert Rock Energy Project (specifically the EIS hearings and the artistic responses to the project) are interesting and appropriate. Powell describes the complex points of view: tribal officials wanting to improve the economy, local people trying to ensure their cultural survival, and the many organizations attempting to influence the outcome. The book’s biggest drawback is that it seems to have been written exclusively for anthropologists in an authoritarian argot that mantles the anthropologist in the cloak of authority, with more knowledge and insight than the Diné, who are the subject of the book. As in Sherry’s (2002:81–82) description of foresters’ use of technical jargon to position themselves as the authorities on forest management and logging decisions, Powell notes that the technical language used in the Desert Rock EIS privileged technical and scientific arguments over cultural concerns. It is unfortunate that the language she uses in Landscapes of Power similarly privileges the anthropologist and makes the book less accessible than it could be for Diné (students, teachers, historians, community activists), government officials, planners, environmentalists, and others.