Notes
The Industrialized Isthmus: Gatun Lake and the Environmental Colonization of Panamá
In the 2st century, the Panamá Canal has been celebrated as being a significant marker of the capabilities of human engineering and a progressive measure for extending global trade. Despite its notable and highly praised actions, the canal came at the cost of the environment of the isthmus and the people living nearby. The United States not only played a critical role in Panamá through extensive political and military forces, it also left an ecological footprint. Gatun Lake, an artificial reservoir created in order to allow the canal to function, is a definite example of what Alfred Crosby defined as ecological imperialism. Crosby defines this action as the “reshaping of ecosystems by colonial powers to serve their own economic and strategic needs”.[1] We can look towards this project and view it as an exploration of the environmental changes of the isthmus that occurred as a result of Gatun Lake and the ways in which industrial ambition and military strategy urged a form of environmental control that morphed Panamá through their biodiversity and political autonomy. [2]
The creation of Gatun Lake during the United States construction of the Panama Canal is a significant example of environmental imperialism. Industrial and military forces modified the ecosystem found within Panamá in order to serve colonial powers. Through the disruption of ecosystems and the chemical control of hydrilla, the United States created lasting environmental and political consequences that affected Panamá’s stability. As we explore these ideas, we can also begin to ask further questions such as, How did the creation of Gatun Lake shape existing ecosystems on the Isthmus of Panamá? How did the U.S. military affect the decisions regarding the environment around Gatun Lake? And finally, How does the creation of Gatun Lake reflect “ecological imperialism” as defined by Alfred Crosby?
In 1904, the Panamá Canal was created in an effort to expedite shipping between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Panamá Canal came to be used for much more than that, however. The Canal not only reduced shipping time, but also the cost of shipping. Before the Canal, ships would have to sail down to the southernmost tip of South America, Cape Horn[3], in order to complete their voyages. This would cost thousands of dollars on fuel as well as greater expenses for businesses. The Canal was used as a strategic presence for the United States. Through the Canal, the United States deployed their navy ships to pass through the Canal and into both the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean in order to strengthen their global presence. Interestingly, the United States was, and arguably continues to be, the dominant presence in the Panamá Canal. While the Canal allowed for stronger economic growth to happen globally, the industrialization of the Isthmus of Panamá came at a cost.
On November 18th, 1903, after a series of treaties and a variety of events, the construction of the Panamá Canal became official through the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. [4]This treaty granted the United states the rights to build and administer the Canal zone at the cost of a small fee and guaranteeing independence to Panaminians. The treaty was named after the US secretary of State John Hay and Philippe Bunau-Varilla, Panamá’s representative at the time. The construction of the Canal began in 1904 and carried on until 1914.
In 1913, seeking a consistent and reliable water source for the ships to pass through the canal became a task. Ultimately, the U.S. Army and civilian engineers[5] proposed the damming of the Chagres river near Gatun in order to hold all the water necessary to fill the lake. While the efforts and motivation came across as being for the betterment of the trade and society, the damming led to catastrophic environmental impacts. Rainforests were destroyed as well as many other environmental systems found near the river. There were significant numbers of Indigenous communities that were displaced as a result of the damming. In the place of community and creation stood one of the largest man made lakes in the entire world at the time. Gatun Lake became a necessity within the Panamanian society. It not only regulated the locks and was used to help ships pass through the canal, it also served as a water reservoir that kept water accessible to the people of Panamá. [6]
Between 1904 and 1914, the Panamá Canal was home to both the Isthmian Canal Commission and the Panamá Canal Guard. Serving its purpose to defend the Canal Zone, the Panamá Canal Guard protected land areas, coastal defenses, harbor, air, and sea defenses. The Panamá Canal Guard served its purpose to ensure that the United States was capable of defending the Canal. Amidst the construction of the Canal, the world saw the commencement of World War I in 1914. The Allies, also known as the Entente, fought against the Central Powers. [7]Though not directly involved, the United States played a crucial role in the outcome of the war. Initially, the U.S. held a state of neutrality. However, Germany enabled the U.S. to steer away from their neutral stance through their unrestricted submarine warfare[8] that led to grand numbers of American casualties. Furthermore, the decoding of the Zimmerman telegram [9]suggested Germany and Mexico were to form an alliance against the United States and as a result, further solidified the United States reason for war. These events led to the declaration of war against Germany on April 6th, 1917 and carved a space in World War I for the United States. [10]
As World War I became a greater presence in the West, the United States set their focus back to the Panamá Canal where their goal lay within defending and protecting the canal as it had become a new commodity that global powers may use to attack the United States. [11] This would lead to the activation of the Panamá Canal department. The militarized zone controlled much more than ships, however, Military personnel were involved in making ecological decisions surrounding the Panamá Canal and Gatun Lake itself. As a result, this left space for any form of environmental management to be handled under national security logic. By justifying interventions such as the chemical treatment of Hydrilla verticillata, these actions served as a form of imperial hygiene. [12]
As a result of the creation of the Panamá Canal, there have been significant changes in the environment in and around Gatun Lake, most notably, the introduction and infestation of Hydrilla Verticillata[14]. This plant has been one of the most visible and consistent environmental consequences that has impacted Gatun Lake to this day. Hydrilla verticillata is an invasive aquatic plant that is native to Asia. While it's difficult to pinpoint the exact introduction of this plant into Gatun Lake, it is predicted that it was introduced through military vessels, ballast water, or as part of imported equipment that was used during the construction of the canal. By the 1930’s, hydrilla had taken over the canal zones freshwater systems and was spreading rapidly[15].
Hydrilla is an ideal plant for aquatic spaces like Gatun Lake and the Panamá Canal as it dominated its spaces rapidly. Not only does it grow aggressively, averaging an inch per day, it forms dense mats on the surface that block sunlight from reaching native aquatic plants. This results in the killing and displacement of native biodiversity[16] . Hydrilla also clogs irrigation systems. This affects both the commercial and recreational navigation of water. Hydrilla itself is a direct and aggressive threat to the operations within the canal [17]. Because of the centrality to Panamá that Gatun Lake holds, the rapid growth of hydrilla accumulates and jams the operation of the locks, restricts the movement of the ships, and damages propellers.
As a result of the damage that Hydrilla was causing on the canal, the U.S. military, and later the Panamá Canal Authority, called for “herbicide-based control strategies”. This method primarily used fluridone. In a study conducted in 1979 by Sanders and Theriot[19] , they tested two formulas of fluridone in Gatun Lake and found that while they were useful in suppressing Hydrilla, there were high risks of targeting native and non-invasive aquatic species and ultimately contributed to the overall toxicity of the water over time.
The chemical interventions demonstrated a consistent effort of imperial environmental management. By having quick fixes instead of environmental focused or ecologically balanced decisions reinforces the control that the U.S. military had on the environmental decisions that were made in the canal. Decades later, Hydrilla continues to be a problem that Panamá is combating. While there have been local efforts to control the plant, there continues to be outbreaks periodically. The consistent battle has resulted in the recurring use of herbicides that contribute to the chemical runoff which later affects the sediment toxicity, and the declining water quality in the canal [20].
The spread of hydrilla and its impact extends past the canal zone. It stands as a reminder of ecological imperialism. The introduction of the plant stemmed from a colonial project. This resulted in the introduction of a foreign species that began tearing apart native ecological systems. In its place stands a repeating cycle of disturbance where now local authorities have to deal with the consequences of these actions with limited resources.
Ecological Imperialism, as defined by Alfred Crosby, helps further our understanding of what exactly happened to Gatun Lake. Crosby argues that colonial powers were the one imposing their own ecological systems on colonized regions. This would be done by introducing different species, disease, and the environmental management that would eventually reshape the local ecologies. Gatun Lake is a highly valued example of this concept. The lake itself was created through extensive deforestation, flooding, and military planning. The Ecosystem was then manipulated through chemical control and later the landscape was entirely different and was viewed through an imperial imagination. The damage done to the ecology of Panamá was foundational. The United States was the one responsible for reshaping the isthmus as it was seen as no longer capable of serving its own ecology or human communities, it was now a crucial and strategic player in the growth of an empire.
Today, we see Gatun Lake as a testament to the cost of the environment as a result of an empire. What we have come to know and understand as a critical part of the functionality of the Panamá canal, was once a thriving and lush forest filled with community. The introduction of Hydrilla was anything but an accident, it was a consequence of the environmental manipulation that occurred on an imperial scale.
U.S. colonial powers were prevalent in Gatun Lake. Their power surpassed that of treaties and troops and bled into the reshaping of ecosystems. Military and industrial interests were used as guides in the decision making regarding land, water, and the overall biodiversity. There was limited regard for the long term sustainability or the impact it would have on the locals. By doing this, the United States rooted itself within Panamá through industrialization, ecological systems, and economically. We can look at this through the ecological imperialism lens as well. Gatun Lake serves as both an Infrastructure and an archive. The flooded rainforests, the displaced species and the chemically altered ecosystems all live within the lake, it holds the memories of what once was and what it continues to be. We must ensure that we consistently remember what Gatun Lake means in terms of the environment. Environmental degradation is never neutral, It continues to be a reflection of colonial ambition and the way in which it’s impact is not evenly distributed. Gatun Lake continues to thrive and be used, however, under the surface, there is a history of disruption that we must continue to revisit.
Crosby, A. J. (2004). Ecological Imperialism. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511805554 ↑
Figure 1: Shortest trade route provided by the Panama Canal (Adapted... (n.d.). ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shortest-trade-route-provided-by-the-Panama-Canal-Adapted-from-Council-for-Economic_fig1_224208970 ↑
Cape Horn | EBSCO. (2024). EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | Www.ebsco.com. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/cape-horn ↑
Lowenfeld, A. (n.d.). Panama Canal Treaty. https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Panama-Canal-Treaty-of-1903.pdf ↑
Rogers, J. D. (2014). The American Engineers that Built the Panama Canal. The American Engineers That Built the Panama Canal, 112–349. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413739.005 ↑
U.S. Army South (Sixth Army). (n.d.). U.S. ARMY SOUTH – A BRIEF HISTORY. https://www.arsouth.army.mil/About/History/ ↑
Library of Congress. (2015). Timeline (1914 - 1921). The Library of Congress; The Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/collections/stars-and-stripes/articles-and-essays/a-world-at-war/timeline-1914-1921/ ↑
National WWI Museum and Memorial. (2023). Unrestricted U-boat Warfare. National WWI Museum and Memorial. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/unrestricted-u-boat-warfare ↑
Alexander, M., & Childress, M. (2018, April 25). The Zimmermann Telegram. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann ↑
Office of the Historian. (2019). U.S. Entry into World War I, 1917. State.gov; United States Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi ↑
How the Panama Canal helped make the U.S. a world power. (2014, August 15). PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/panama-canal-helped-make-u-s-world-power ↑
Anderson, W., & Bashford, A. (2004). Imperial Hygiene: A Critical history of colonialism, nationalism and public health. Health and History, 6(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.2307/40111488 ↑
Southern Locks of the Panamá Canal 1913. Gatun Lake and south end of Gatun Locks, Panama Canal. (n.d.). The Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/resource/stereo.1s35000/ ↑
Rojas-Sandoval, J. (2022). Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) [Dataset]. In CABI Compendium. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.28170 ↑
Jorge Salgado, María I. Vélez, Catalina González-Arango, Neil L. Rose, Handong Yang, Carme Huguet, Juan Camacho, Aaron O’Dea
bioRxiv 777938; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/777938 ↑
Webb, D., Wedig, J., Ramey, V., Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Granholm, J. M., Chester, S. E., & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Another invasive species is heading towards the Great Lakes: Hydrilla verticillata. https://nyis.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Michigan-DEQ-hydrilla-factsheet.pdf ↑
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2020). Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Ecological Risk Screening Summary. https://fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ecological-Risk-Screening-Summary-Hydrilla-verticillata.pdf ↑
| Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants | University of Florida, IFAS. (n.d.). https://plant-directory.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/hydrilla-verticillata/ ↑
Sanders, Dana, and Russell Theriot. 1979. “Evaluation of Two Fluridone Formulations for the Control of Hydrilla in Gatun Lake Panama Canal Zone.” ↑
Naisma, I. (2024, September 17). Hydrilla impact on the ecosystem: a growing threat. NAISMA. https://naisma.org/2024/09/17/hydrilla-impact-on-the-ecosystem-a-growing-threat/#:~:text=The%20hydrilla%20impact%20on%20the%20ecosystem%20is%20primarily%20felt%20through,organisms%2C%20further%20destabilizing%20the%20ecosystem. ↑