¹ ”Technically, a watershed is the divide separating one drainage area from another. The term ‘watershed’ is commonly used to refer to an area: specifically, the area in which all surface waters flow to a common point” (Bruce P. McCammon, USDA—Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, available at http://www.watershed.org/news/fall_94/terminology.html.

² “The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good. An International Pastoral Letter by the Catholic Bishops of the Region,” 1.

³ Snyder, Gary, The Practice of the Wild (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990), 40, 38.Google Scholar For a classic articulation of the meaning of bioregionalism, see Sale, Kirkpatrick, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2000).Google Scholar

⁴ Important environmental documents have also been published by the World Council of Churches and by a variety of non-Catholic Christian denominations. For the purposes of the present essay, my focus is on the writings published within the Roman Catholic community. See, e.g: “Renewing the Earth,” published by the United States Catholic Conference; “Care for the Earth,” published by the Indiana Catholic Conference; “Celebrate Life: Care for Creation,” by the Bishops of Alberta, Canada; “At Home in the Web of Life: A Pastoral Message on Sustainable Communities in Appalachia (1995),” and “This Land is Home to Me (1975),” published by the Bishops of Appalachia. For a more international focus, see: “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” published by the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the “The Cry of the Land,” the 1988 Pastoral Letter published by the Bishops of Guatemala.

⁵ For an important study that argues for the ancient, biblical devotion to place, see: Hiebert, Theodore, The Yahwist's Landscape (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar For a thoughtful analysis of the significance of place within the history of Christian spirituality and theology, see: Lane, Belden C., Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American Spirituality, expanded edition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, and Sheldrake, Philip, Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory and Identity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).Google Scholar For a Christian “Theopoetics” of place, see: Burton-Christie, Douglas, “Words Beneath the Water: Logos, Cosmos and the Spirit of Place,” in Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Being of Earth and Humans, ed. Hessel, Dieter T. and Ruether, Rosemary Radford (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 317–36.Google Scholar

⁶ Pope John Paul II, “The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility.”

⁷ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 1.

⁸ John Paul II, §11.

⁹ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 2.

¹⁰ Snyder, , The Practice of the Wild, 29–37.Google Scholar See also Hardin, Garrett and Baden, John, Managing the Commons (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977).Google Scholar

¹¹ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 10.

¹² The Church in the Modern World, §71. Cited in “The Columbia River Watershed,” 8.

¹³ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 7.

¹⁴ “Renewing the Earth,” United States Catholic Conference.

¹⁵ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 7.

¹⁶ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 9.

¹⁷ I owe this felicitous comparison to Brian Doyle of the University of Portland, who made this observation during a panel session on the “The Columbia River Watershed” at the College Theology Society meeting at the University of Portland in June 2001.

¹⁸ “At Home in the Web of Life: A Pastoral Message on Sustainable Communities in Appalachia Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of ‘This Land is Home to Me’,”11.

¹⁹ It is important to note that “At Home in the Web of Life” is considerably longer than the “The Columbia River Watershed,” roughly twice as long in its present form. The penultimate draft of the “The Columbia River Watershed” was much longer than the final version turned out to be, longer also than the Appalachian Letter. Much of the life and texture that is present in the Appalachian Letter and that is so noticeably lacking in the “The Columbia River Watershed” was in fact present in that penultimate draft. For various reasons, not the least of which was the Pacific Northwest bishops' hope that the Letter actually would be read, it was significantly shortened. One needs to ask “at what cost?”

²⁰ The bishops appear to have been uncertain about how far to push their sacramental vision of reality. The phrase “sacramental commons,” which figured importantly in the penultimate draft of the letter, was dropped in the final draft. According to at least one observer, one of the principle authors of the Letter, this shift came about because of an uneasiness among some bishops about the implications of attributing sacramental significance to the entire created world.

²¹ House, Freeman, Totem Salmon (Boston: Beacon, 1999), 13.Google Scholar

²² House, , Totem Salmon, 70Google Scholar

²³ Snyder, Gary, Turtle Island (New York: New Directions, 1974), 109.Google Scholar

²⁴ “The Columbia River Watershed,” 13.

²⁵ For a searching and disturbing examination of the complex history of the Columbia River in modern times, see: Harden, Blaine, A River Lost: The Life and Death of the Columbia (New York: Norton, 1996).Google Scholar

²⁶ Dietrich, William, Northwest Passage: The Great Columbia River (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995), 187–95.Google Scholar Dietrich cites an account of the English explorer Adolph Baillie-Groham, who at the end of the nineteenth century spoke with nostalgia for a world of abundant salmon runs that was already disappearing: “Forty years ago the number of fish who reached these beds was so great that the receding waters would leave millions of dead salmon strewn along the banks, emitting a stench that could be smelled miles off, and which never failed to attract a great number of bears. Though I have never performed the feat of walking across a stream on the backs of fish, which many an old timer will swear he has done, I have certainly seen fish so numerous near their spawning grounds that nowhere could you have thrown a stone into the water without hitting a salmon” (188).

²⁷ Harden, , A River Lost, 105–16.Google Scholar Harden documents the harsh treatment of the Colville Indians, especially in the aftermath of the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. “None of the irrigation water diverted from the river by the Grand Coulee Dam has ever been made available to the Indians…. As the non-Indian side of the Columbia. … attracted industry and farmers with its subsidized power and water, the economy of the reservation withered. Unemployment hovered around 50 percent for decades. A chart of income distribution one the reservation in the early 1990's showed no middle class… Electricity generated by the Grand Coulee Dam earns the federal government more than four hundred million dollars a year. Since the dam went on line in 1942, it has earned the government more than five billion dollars. Although half of the dam sits on reservation property, none of the power earnings was allotted to the Colvilles.”