Is running Separation or Lava Cliff Rapids something only Powell did or just a dream until the dams are gone? Maybe not, but wishing the dams away or arguing their futility 100 years hence won't work. Just draining them, if there were a plug to pull, might not be much different than the imaginative catastrophic dam releases often seen in movies or some real past dam failures. For example, Lake Powell has four years of accumulated river flow in storage, hundreds of feet deep unconsolidated muddy sediments at the source end. At the surface is a pot full of lazy houseboats and scurrying jet-skis. What do you do with all that? Review the situation and specifically make a case for what's right for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon!
Granted lakes, natural or otherwise, are ephemeral which still may stretch back to the last ice-age compared to rivers which may flow for millions of years. And you can't deny their popularity particularly in the arid Southwest. So their ultimate infill or destruction is not really something you want to hold your breath for. The more cogent question now that they're part of the scene is: in what ways do they belong? A lot has changed since some of the early massive structures were built, based essentially on maximum water storage and hydroelectric potential at the best technically feasible spot. The river above & below and the potential lakes had no real consideration. Their use by others was minimal or considered trivial or actually nonexistent.
Boulder Dam upon completion was a wonderful thing. It and Grand Coolie's electric power contributed tremendously to our success in the second great war. Others larger, later and profligate were not so easy to interpret. The last 50 years have shown both the reservoir lakes and the flowing rivers have as many recreational economics as the former intended industrial and agricultural interests. Yet real structural aging and the natural consequences of time must be re-evaluated and ultimately addressed. We dammed the big rivers; we can no longer just ‘damn' the rest of the issues.
Can anyone claim the water? English law is based on precedence, Mother Earth having the first four billion years of water rights. Treaties in the 1800s granted rights here and there for “as long as the rivers shall run”. And the present century brought total over-allocation, private domination, gross subsidies, user inequities and outright fraud. All parties—the earth, the Native Americans and all the myriad groups of this century—have their constituencies. Progress lies in rewriting the laws.
In a democracy we could vote on the issue, and to the surprise and consternation of some, have not two, but three choices: damn the river-runners, damn the house-boaters, or find a compromise. Ideally, an honest ‘win-win' compromise would be best.
In general, here are the things that must be addressed together for the next 50 years:
1) Protection from floods must be assured, with honest estimates on capacity reserve. This can be accomplished with significantly lower lake levels over the winter season.
2) Water is a multi-use, volatile resource in both rivers and lakes. All natural, public and private needs should be balanced.
3) Silt and sediment must be transported and maintained in a long life system for both the lakes and the rivers.
4) Grand Canyon is directly affected by what occurs in Lake Mead and Lake Powell and should claim its functional rights.

The Grand Colorado River - Wild to fully utilized

Times have changed; now many diverse people care. We must question how to attain balance in water use, conservation of resources and viable life of the system. The solution recommended here is by lowering lake levels to re-establishing the prime directive of dams (which is and always will be ‘flood control') and adding silt transport via a lake-long penstock. The additional argument is claiming certain rights for the river in the Park domain, namely needed silt and active river gradient through the whole Park.
Lowering lake levels would increase the active flowing length of the Colorado River in both Grand Canyon and Cataract Canyon. In Grand Canyon, lowering Lake Mead 120 feet would result in the resurrection of the famous Separation and Lava Cliff Rapids of Major Powell's time. In Cataract Canyon, not only could the river and active rapids be almost doubled, the total run would be a realistic runout and greater potential for a river experience of Grand Canyon caliber. Both wilderness and natural riparian environments would be added to Grand Canyon and Cataract Canyon, and the latter would still have the high spring flows. The San Juan River, part of the Lake Powell system, would also have new use potential. Incisement of the existing upper lake sediment accumulations would actually be beneficial, even in the short run . While there would be a partial reduction in total storage and lake size there would be a significant improvement in evaporative losses, now a more valuable consideration. In fairness for both lakes, investment in various marina improvements and other accommodations for the lower lake levels are justified and should be included in the public cost of the project.
A lake-long penstock to transport river silt is an absurd idea until put into perspective. The penstock concept is as old as the Roman aqueducts as a method to cross river valleys. Lengths of hundreds of miles have been attained in urban water systems. The fact that the Bureau was considering a penstock 35 ft in diameter for a distance of 38 miles to redirect up to 90% of the river flow in Grand Canyon some 50 years ago dismisses any objections as to what they could do today to rescue their lakes from sediment infill and restore the river environment at the same time. Whether done by tunnel or a lake bottom conduit is not important.
Some specific considerations are:
1) Properly deal with flood and drought protection based on accommodating actual spring river flows rather than inadvertent improper estimates by maintaining new basic lake levels 50 foot below present dam heights nominally and 100-150 foot over winter and spring.
2) Balance river inflow with sediment transport and power potential
3) Balance reservoir lake potential, including some restoration of Glen Canyon beauty with flowing river potential by extension to reasonable run-out sites such as Hite and Pierce Ferry.
4) Redefine river inflow, water allocation, water conservation and flood & drought assurance to physically real and appropriate ethical standards over an extended attainable system life.
In summary now is a good time to discuss the vast problem and face realistic changes. These ideas may be considered interim solutions of the magnitude that created them in the first place. In another 50-100 years let it be looked at again. How can the argument for lower lake levels be justified? Thinking about who originally set lake levels and why is justification enough.
Some dams are presently due to go. Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite, two salmon blocking dams in Olympia and an old one on the Kennebec River in Maine are offered as much smaller and justifiable projects. It is time for other dams and river systems to be reevaluated and considered as new projects. New interim solutions must account for all the modern issues and factors. Here Grand Canyon and the Colorado River make a good case in point.

Noel Eberz

Why I Choose to Charge at the Glen Canyon Windmill

have decided to contribute time and money to the mission statement of the Glen Canyon Institute; to the goal of restoring Glen Canyon and honoring the concept of Escalante National Monument as proposed by the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I believe that Glen Canyon Dam should be decommissioned because it is the right thing to do. I feel that it is impossible to manage the riverine ecosystem of Grand Canyon National Park with a cash register dam operating upstream; it is an oxymoronic relationship.
I believe it is wrong to manage an ecosystem that would have a lifespan of the very dam that altered it. We should never forget that Glen Canyon Dam was built knowing that it would silt in; that it would evaporate and absorb water; that it would destroy prehistoric cultural sites; that it would invade Rainbow Bridge National Monument; that Navajo sandstone is not a structurally sound bedrock for a high gravity arch dam.
I believe it is time to stop enabling the present economic system that has entrapped us and is propelling us into a realm of chaos. It is time to develop new technologies; to renew our commitments to family planning, clean air and water, and habitat restoration. I believe that if we fail to meet this challenge now— quality lifestyles will become passe.
The contemplation of raising the elevation of the spillway gates at Glen Canyon Dam to increase the pool of Lake Powell is not progressive thinking. Willingly managing a temporary ecosystem is not a progressive action. The course of nature has already made for us—the decision concerning the future of Glen Canyon Dam. My hope is that we ally ourselves with this inevitable fate and forge ahead on the process to decommision Glen Canyon Dam; to readjust our water and energy policies for the future.
Please consider helping Glen Canyon Institute achieve its mission statement!
Glen Canyon Institute 476 East South Temple #154 Salt Lake City,- UT 84111
John Weisheit