In Ron Rashs novel Saints at the River, numerous heated
debates occur over the final outcome of a tragedy on the Tamassee River. While wading in the river, the tumultuous rapids claim the life of a young girl, Ruth Kowalsky, bringing her to rest in a dangerous section of the river. While her parents want her body recovered, The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits any unnatural occurrences or developments to the area. Thus, no rescue attempt can occur safely and legally as the section of the river is too dangerous for any attempt to occur without the water being diverted. Now a community, family, environmentalists, the media, and politicians must decide their stance on the issue as ethics and federal law come into play. Should a familys grieving warrant an exception to federal law? One of the most controversial topics displayed throughout the novel is whether warranting an exception for the Kowalsky family will in the future lead to more protests for exceptions, thus voiding the rivers status as a protected scenic river. For years, developers have been trying to gain access to river land to build on only being turned away by the federal protection law. Now however, Luke, a local river guide, his followers, and the entire Oconee county community is worried that with one exception, many more will follow. Ruths family on the other hand cannot focus on anything else besides recovering their
daughters remains, which is why the believe politicians should allow
such an exception. Finally, past occurrences trouble the media and journalists who are supposed to always take a neutral stance. Allen Hemphill, a South Carolinian journalist who dealt with the death of his own daughter, can relate to the familys grieving, and although he tries to eliminate any loyalty to one side, he struggles to disagree with the parents only wishes. On the other hand, Maggie, a local photographer, takes a picture that seems to sway many of the publics views towards the side of the Nowalsky family; however, she grew up in Oconee county and knows how important it is that the river remains protected. Her actions thus result in isolation by some of her once closest friends. All of the groups represented have specific reasons for choosing their personal and moralistic stance on the issue. Of the many groups decisions, the most controversial is that of the politicians. Now, the people who create laws and acts are trying to dismantle one. While many would disagree with this, I believe that in this instance it is appropriate for the politicians to suspend the act long enough to recover the Ruths body. However, it could have been done much more ethically had the politicians researched and found a way to please both sides a solution that would allow for a rescue attempt, yet not harm the river too severely. Had this been done not only would Ruths family get what they wanted, but the Oconee Community would be pleased since their river would be unharmed an remain protected.
In conclusion, when deciding a solution to this horrible tragedy,
ethical standards become the main concern. Although many wanted to do anything and everything possible to recover the remains of Ruth Kowalski, others argue in favor of the river because of the federal restrictions and environmental concerns. In the end there is no right or wrong side, but instead a difficult to decision to be made because regardless of the ruling their will always be someone who is not pleased.