You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
An interview with science writer Melissa L. Sevigny about Brave the Wild River: The Untold Story of Two Women Who Mapped the Botany of the Grand Canyon
In late June 1938, three small boats pushed off from the banks of Green River, Utah, with plans to run the raging Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, all the way to Lake Mead. In addition to Grape Nuts, a bottle of Four Roses whiskey, and the latest USGS survey maps tied up with a “lucky string,” the boats carried something rather unusual on board: women.
At the time that Elzada Clover and her assistant, Lois Jotter, set out to become the first botanists to catalog the Grand Canyon, rumors still swirled that prehistoric creatures might lurk in its labyrinthine side canyons. Only 12 non-native expeditions had made the trip down the Colorado River since John Wesley Powell’s inaugural 1869 trip, and almost all of those rafters were men (the only woman to have attempted the journey vanished without a trace, along with her husband).
Though Clover and Jotter had serious work ahead of them, the contemporary coverage focused almost exclusively on the fact that the pair were women. Clover and Jotter weren’t much better respected by the men accompanying them; in addition to their significant scientific duties, they served as cooks for the crew on the entire 43-day journey. Even in spite of the distractions, though, Clover and Jotter’s catalog of over 400 species, including four previously unknown cactus species, remains the botanical ur-text of the region: “There was simply no other comprehensive plant list [of the Grand Canyon] published prior to the closure of Glen Canyon Dam,” explains science writer Melissa L. Sevigny’s Brave the Wild River: The Untold Story of Two Women Who Mapped the Botany of the Grand Canyon, an excellent new book about the river expedition. “Anyone who wanted to understand how the vegetation had changed — because of dams, exotic species, or any of the other human and natural influences at work on ecosystems in the past half-century — had to refer to Clover and Jotter’s work.”
Sevigny aimed to do Clover and Jotter justice by restoring them to their rightful place in science — and remembered history. But her book is also a rollicking, keep-you-up-at-night adventure story, told in utterly enveloping and immediate prose. Happily, Sevigny is earning her accolades; the book has received a rare triple-crown of early starred reviews from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and Booklist.
Brave the Wild River is out on May 23. Ahead of its publication, I had the chance to speak with Sevigny about Clover and Jotter, her writing process, and the continued uphill battle of women in the sciences today. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
It was the fact that they were female scientists that drew me in. I always wanted to be a scientist; I wanted to be a geologist when I was a kid. I stayed on that path for quite a while and then I became a writer. I feel myself drawn to those stories because I suspect they might have changed things for me if I had known more stories about women in science when I was on that path.
I was surprised that I had never heard of these two women before, Elzada Clover and Lois Jotter. I’ve lived in Arizona all my life. I thought I knew a lot about its history, and yet somehow their names had never come up. Something about that really compelled me and the more I looked, the more I realized I couldn’t find what I was looking for, which was the story of the botanical work that they did. If I wanted to know that story, I was going to have to write it myself.
I was lucky enough right from the start to have the diaries of both of these women. A diary is such an immersive document, you really do feel like you’re in their heads. They’re writing things down that maybe they wouldn’t say out loud to anyone. And so I got to know them first through their diaries, which were wonderfully descriptive, and through letters, which are another really intimate form of communication. They had friends and family that they were very close with and that they would write these letters to on the trip. Whenever they could stop and post a letter, they would do that.
But I also had to do some other things to get into their heads and one of them was raft the Grand Canyon myself. I was incredibly nervous. I’d never done a whitewater rafting trip before. But I knew I was going to need to do that.
I went with a botany crew; we were tasked with weeding out an invasive species of grass. I wanted to do that so I could get a sense of what it was like to actually have to work as a botanist on the river. It was a small group: We had three boats and six people, just like they did. Of course, a lot of things have changed since 1938 about river rafting, but it did feel like a very immersive experience. I remember at one point, turning around to watch the boat behind me come through a rapid and I thought, ‘Oh, there’s Lorin Bell.’ That is a character from 1938 in my book; it was not, in fact, Lorin Bell. Time, it feels different down at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And sometimes I did forget that it wasn’t 1938.
I’m grateful to them for having the foresight to keep the materials because while they were alive, people often told them — or gave them the impression — that what they did wasn’t that important. And if they had listened to those people, they wouldn’t have kept these materials. The fact that they saved their diaries, they saved their letters, they saved the newspaper clippings, and they donated them to these archives shows a lot of foresight and a lot of courage. I couldn’t have written this book if they hadn’t felt that way.
I did keep my own diary. I made sure I wrote in it every night. I also had a waterproof river map with me and I made notes on it before the trip of things I wanted to make sure I looked at. Because there would be a moment in the diaries where they would say, like, “We looked up and we saw the Desert View watchtower.” That would be the whole description. And so I knew, okay, stop and look up here so that you can describe what they were seeing.
When I got home, I typed up little bits of description out of my diary and I printed them out and I cut them up with scissors and then I actually would tape them into my draft and work at integrating them in.
That’s a direct quote from something that Lois Jotter said. I found out pretty quickly that both these women wanted to be remembered as botanists and they struggled because people wanted to talk about them as if they were the first women to succeed at rafting the Grand Canyon. Elzada Clover actually pushed back against that for a very specific reason: She would refer to herself as the first non-native woman to raft the Grand Canyon. She knew that the region had a long Indigenous history — Navajo and Hopi both have stories of running this river long before a white person came along and did it. Elzada knew that and so that was one reason she pushed back against that label.
But the second reason was that she did want to be remembered as a scientist, as a botanist, and I don’t think that really happened for her during her lifetime. But it’s difficult to center a story on science when the fact that they were women shaped so much of their experience. When I first dove into writing this book, I wanted to stay on the science and I really thought the sexism that they experienced would be a smaller thread — I thought it would be there, but I didn’t want it to center it. But as I was writing, it was impossible to ignore all of the obstacles they faced because they were women, so I hope I managed to strike the right balance and do justice to their story. It was a frustration for them when they were alive and it was a difficulty for me when I was writing, like “How can we tell this as a science story when they’re constantly being told that they shouldn’t be scientists?”
I think that’s absolutely right. And I’m glad you said you were shocked by that because I was fairly shocked too, and then I was embarrassed for being shocked. I expected going into it — this is embarrassing to admit — I really expected the sexism would almost be kind of funny, you know, it would be like, “Look at how those people acted in the 1930s!” And it is funny, but it’s a much darker humor than I expected because women are still facing all of these things today.
Maybe not to the same degree — it might be a little more hidden or subtle now — but all of the same things that [Clover and Jotter] experienced: struggle getting a job, struggle getting a promotion, struggle to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table. Smaller things too, like people fixating on their physical appearance, telling them to smile. All of those things still happen to women today. I wasn’t expecting to write as much about that going into this book as I did, but I knew I had to because it was a very real part of their story and an extremely relevant part of their story.
It’s become only more relevant as time goes on. Clover and Jotter were the only people to make a formal plant list published in a Western scientific journal before Glen Canyon Dam went up. Today, there’s been a shift in thinking about the Colorado River. In their era, it was a given that people were going to build dams and they were going to harness this river. But today, a lot of people want to figure out how we can undo some of that damage, how we can protect the rivers, cultural values, and environmental values. And in that discussion, it’s hard to know how to do that if you don’t know what the river used to look like.
Clover and Jotter’s plant lists are just one part of that story. There’s also Indigenous wisdom about the plants along the river. There are other pre-dam records, but together it creates a picture of how this place used to look. Not saying that we can make it look like that again, but it gives us a way to pin our baselines in place so as we move forward, we can understand what kind of processes we need to restore this river. How do we want to protect it?
Yeah, so many things. Gosh. I was lucky to be able to track down some of their relatives and some of their former students and had really wonderful interviews with them. But there’s always questions, like, did you get it quite right?
There’s a key moment in the book where [Clover and Jotter] lose part of their plant collection and all I have are these little scraps and I don’t know exactly how that happened. Like, what were you planning? Who did you give that collection to, who was entrusted with it, and then what happened? I’d love to fill in those kinds of details.
I’d also like to ask them how they feel about how their botanical work has been used today. So many things changed from the 1930s to the present day and they lived through those changes, but because I don’t have as detailed records later in their life, I don’t know how they felt about what happened to the Colorado River, how they felt about how their work was used or ignored or misused over that time. I would just love to sit and talk with them about that. That’s one of many, many questions I would have.
This was a story about two ordinary women. I mean, I think they were remarkable, I wrote a whole book about them. But sometimes when we tell stories about science, we focus on the lone genius in the laboratory discovering a new element or breaking the laws of physics. Most science actually gets done in a much more incremental fashion. It’s about ordinary people who are passionate about some part of the natural world and they go out and they chase that curiosity and they move our knowledge forward. Just a little step. That’s what [Clover and Jotter] did and I think that’s how science works.
I started this conversation by saying that I wanted to be a scientist, right? I hope that young people or people of any age who are interested in science will see that it’s not something done by geniuses locked away in laboratories. Anybody can be a scientist.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On changes at the EPA, New York’s climate superfund, and a failed merger
Current conditions: Winter storm Garnett could drop up to 9 inches of snow on parts of New England this weekend • A blast of warm air is breaking temperature records in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado • Two people were killed in Tennessee by a possible tornado. If confirmed, this would be the first deadly tornado of 2025.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo explains, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable because money that’s already been allocated can’t be recalled, but the FHWA apparently thinks it has found a workaround. Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation. The new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid. The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
The Environmental Protection Agency put 168 employees on administrative leave yesterday evening. The workers focused on “environmental justice,” specifically addressing pollution in underserved communities. Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokeswoman, said these employees “did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work.” As The New York Times reported, the agency cannot put employees on leave for more than 10 days in a year, so “observers said they interpret the administrative leave notices as a first step toward the eventual shuttering the office.” Meanwhile, new U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi told the Justice Department to get rid of its environmental justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and identify basically anyone connected to these initiatives or who might have received federal funding to advance their causes.
New York is being sued by 22 other states and a handful of fossil fuel companies hoping to block its Climate Change Superfund Act, which requires major polluters to pay for their emissions. Starting in 2028, the companies would end up paying $3 billion each for 25 years – amounting to some $75 billion total – and the money would go towards climate adaptation and mitigation projects. The states challenging the law say only the federal government can regulate air quality. In other legal news, the Supreme Court yesterday denied the Trump administration’s request to pause a case weighing whether California should be able to set its own vehicle emissions standards.
Norwegian clean tech company Freyr Battery has canceled its plans to build a $2.6 billion lithium-ion battery plant in Georgia. The project was expected to bring more than 700 new jobs to the state. In a letter to the Coweta County Development Authority, Freyr said the decision “was made reluctantly, as the Company has realigned its near-term strategic goals.”
The Nissan/Honda merger is reportedly dead, and Nissan is looking for new partners. The two companies had been in talks to create the world’s third-largest automaker by sales, but the negotiations fell apart after Honda pushed for Nissan to become a subsidiary of Honda, instead of creating a joint holding company. Both companies were hoping the merger would allow them to share resources to produce electric vehicles to compete with market leaders like Tesla and BYD. Back in December, when the merger was first reported, one consultant toldThe New York Times that “if Nissan and Honda are not able to achieve this, they will not survive. Times are truly that tough.”
“The overall trend in cost reductions is so strong that nobody, not even President Trump, will be able to halt it.”
–Matthias Kimmel, head of Energy Economics at BloombergNEF. A new report from BNEF says the costs of renewables will continue to fall quickly in 2025, with production costs for new wind and solar farms already undercutting those of new fossil fuel plants.
A former head of the American Meteorological Society on whether the weather agency will wither under Trump.
There is a lot of uncertainty in the federal government right now. Some functions of critical agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers are paused, or maybe they’re not. Tariffs are on and then off again. Other government agencies are shutting down most of their operations at the direction of Elon Musk’s Efficiency Department, even if such moves are technically unconstitutional.
Amid all this uncertainty stands the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which Musk’s team breached earlier this week and which Project 2025 has targeted for breakup. Per Thomas F. Gilman, who wrote the chapter on reforms for the Department of Commerce, NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” and its National Weather Service ought to be “fully commercialize[d]” since “Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by … private companies.”
Created during the Nixon administration, NOAA was designed to bring together disparate scientific agencies to release coordinated emergency weather alerts and responses. Today, it employs almost 7,000 scientists and engineers, although Musk’s team reportedly wants to cut that by 50%. In addition to hosting a trove of valuable climate science, NOAA remains responsible for issuing emergency alerts through its divisions such as the NWS and the National Hurricane Center. If you’re among the 99% of the American population who experienced some form of extreme weather last summer, you’ve likely interacted with NOAA in some small way.
To make sense of the plan to break up NOAA and what it would mean to “privatize” weather forecasting in the United States, I spoke to Keith Seitter, the former executive director of the American Meteorological Society and a current professor at the College of the Holy Cross. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
What is the argument for privatizing weather reporting? Why do folks at places like the Heritage Foundation think this is a good idea?
That’s a really good question — because it’s not. Weather services are provided to the nation through a wonderful cooperative process in which the government and the private sector work collaboratively to provide the best possible services to the people. It is all well thought out, with the National Weather Service and other parts of the government getting observations, running the numerical models, and providing warning services. Then the private sector takes the output from those government projects or processes and creates tailored, value-added forecasts and information that can be provided to commercial organizations in different sectors of the economy.
All of this is done with each component knowing what the other is doing, supporting the other, and tailoring their processes to the maximum efficiency. That’s one of the reasons that the U.S. has the best provision of weather services to the nation — and to the nation’s economy — of any country.
So the National Weather Service and NOAA are the ones with the actual monitors out there gathering the data, and then they give that information to the people who, let’s say, make the apps on your phone. What would it mean to “privatize” weather forecasting, then? What would that entail?
It’s not exactly clear what it would look like. Project 2025 suggests that the government should keep taking all the observations and essentially do nothing else. But the government is also quality-controlling its observations and assimilating them into numerical models. This process requires vast resources and must be completed before you can make the best use of that data.
You’d have to do everything the National Weather Service is doing now before the private sector could take over and tailor it for others. It’s unclear how you could move that line between what the government does and what the private sector does any further toward the private sector without impeding its ability to actually do a good job.
What would privatizing weather mean on the business side? What challenges would the private sector face in trying to make up the gap left by NOAA?
It would be very hard for them to make up that gap. There may be a few large private sector companies like The Weather Company, which has a lot of resources, and maybe AccuWeather — they could probably invest more in computer resources and do some of that stuff themselves, but it’s not an efficient way to get it done. I think the people at those companies would say that’s not the direction they want to move in. [Privatizing weather forecasting is] a solution being proposed where there isn’t a problem because almost anything you do to change the current balance will make weather forecasting less efficient and provide less service to the country.
So it’s not like private weather companies are agitating for this change?
Oh, gosh, no. They’re looking to get even more of that data and content from the government. Part of what happens is the observations and the numerical models — all those things that the government does — are provided to the country for free. The more of that information that the private sector can pull into their systems at no cost, the more products they can create and disseminate in ways that make them more money than if they had to do any of that work themselves. That cost would now fall on them. They clearly don’t want to be in a position where they have to do a lot of the [collection and data processing] that is currently being given to them for free.
What would this mean for users? Is there a risk that people will no longer receive extreme weather warnings?
The warnings are a big issue. Right now, the government is responsible for protecting life and property. The warnings from the National Weather Service are only possible because it’s doing all of the other processes of gathering the data and processing it and running forecasts.
You don’t want 10 different private companies trying to offer warnings to people and deciding who’s going to evacuate and who isn’t — that puts those companies in a position of liability if they make the decision incorrectly. It is a fundamental government responsibility to protect the people, so warnings are intrinsically something that has to come from the government. There’s no other way to get that done without incurring a lot of legal liability.
What frightens you the most about the potential for privatization of weather forecasting in the U.S.?
The loss of the balance that we have now. Almost any aspect that you mess with will make things work less well. There is also the potential for serious problems with the warnings many people depend on in life-or-death situations. We need to ensure that those are preserved and that we are doing the things that protect people and businesses.
What may seem like a way to save a few bucks in the federal government’s budget could lead to the loss of life, property, and business capacity. These could have very large downstream impacts for a relatively small amount of financial savings in the budget.
Is there anything keeping you optimistic?
The Secretary of Commerce that was approved, Howard Lutnick, said in the Senate hearings that he has no intention of breaking up NOAA, and that he’s not going to implement some of those ideas that were part of the Project 2025 handbook. I’m optimistic that as long as he lives up to what he said in those hearings, that’s a better place for us to be.
The other thing is, the nominee for the new NOAA administrator, Neil Jacobs, was the acting administrator in the first Trump administration, and he’s a very good person. He’s very knowledgeable and understands these things well; he’s a well-qualified individual to be put in charge of NOAA. If the Senate confirms him, I feel that he understands these issues and will do everything he can to ensure that NOAA lives up to its mission requirements and fulfills its goals of protecting life and property for the country.
The Federal Highway Administration believes it has found a workaround to a court-ordered stay of execution.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads.
The program has been under threat since the day Donald Trump stepped into the White House. His executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which ordered agencies to pause the disbursement of funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically called out NEVI as a program to freeze. Twenty-two Democrat-controlled states quickly took legal action, and a U.S. District court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to keep congressionally-approved funds flowing, at least to those states.
In general, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable. The program’s “safeguards make it nearly impossible to claw back money already allocated, except in cases of misuse or noncompliance.” Beth Hammond, a senior advocate for EV infrastructure at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel wrote in a recent blog post.
But the Federal Highway Administration apparently thinks it has found a workaround.
Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation.
Now, the new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid, the letter says: “Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved.”
Advocates for NEVI don’t believe this strategy will hold up in court. “This should be carefully scrutinized by states and the legal community,” Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action told me, “as it looks like an attempt to sabotage the program based on ideology that’s dressed up in bureaucratic language about plan and guidance revisions.” Balik said NEVI was “one of the most important resources states have been given by the feds to fight climate change.”
An important thing to understand about NEVI is that after a state has its annual plan approved, it is legally entitled to that year’s allocation of funding. That doesn’t mean said funding immediately gets transferred into the state’s coffers, however. States have to continually request reimbursement from the federal DOT as they implement their programs. So, for example, if a state puts out a request for proposals for NEVI projects, it can then invoice the federal government for the related administrative costs. Once the state awards grants to specific projects, those projects have to reach certain benchmarks before they get any money. If the first benchmark is getting permits, for example, then once a project is permitted, its developer can invoice the state government for the associated costs, and then the state government can file with the federal government for reimbursement.
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects — with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.
The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
“This has been a learning curve for state DOTs and we’re just beginning to hit our stride in a lot of ways,” said Balik. “Exactly the worst time to cut this off at its knees.”
Prior to the memo issued Thursday, states had been divided over how to respond to the chaos of executive orders and court orders. At least six states — Alabama, Ohio, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Oklahoma — had already suspended their programs indefinitely.
“We are still working with FHWA to understand specific impacts to NEVI funding,” a spokesperson for the Ohio DOT told me on Thursday prior to the federal letter being released. Ohio had been an unexpected early leader for the NEVI program. It was the first state in the country to bring a NEVI-funded charging station online, in October 2023. It has since opened 18 additional stations, more than any other state, and has selected awardees to build 24 more. Missouri, by contrast, had been lagging behind. The state had not yet issued a single request for proposals.
But at least until Thursday evening, other states, such as Oregon and California, were advancing their programs. The Oregon DOT posted an informational notice about federal grants on its website earlier this week saying that NEVI funding was not frozen. A spokesperson for the California DOT told me on Thursday afternoon that, “For now, federal courts have prohibited federal agencies from pausing or terminating payment of federal financial assistance funds,” and that “Caltrans’ services remain fully operational.” When I followed up asking if these comments took into account the new letter issued Thursday, the agency said it would need to get back to me on Friday.
The decision to rescind the guidance and invalidate state plans is sure to face court challenges. The Federal Highway Administration, for its part, said it plans to issue new draft guidance for NEVI in the spring, which will then be subject to public comment before being finalized — so the agency doesn’t seem to be trying to throw the program out altogether.
This is a developing story and we will update it with perspectives on the letter as we learn more.