he following was written by Andre Potochnik for his presentation to the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Annual Meeting on behalf of GCRG. It was part of a panel presentation on the “Removal of Glen Canyon Dam” held in August, 1999, Ephraim, Utah.
The question of the removal of Glen Canyon Dam is a complex issue that never fails to stir-up a debate among our members. We love free-flowing rivers and their beautiful canyons, but some of us also appreciate the job benefits and hydroelectric power produced by the dam.
We all recognize that the dam won't last forever. The river will eventually remove it, as it has the numerous volcanic dams in western Grand Canyon during the recent geologic past. We view Lake Powell as a temporary feature on this timeless landscape. And when the lake is full of mud, what will be left?… a 180-mile-long tamarisk-choked silt flat that leaves little hope for the restoration of Glen Canyon, one of our country's greatest natural wonders. Page, Arizona will likely become just another ghost town. So, the issue of the removal of the dam raises big questions on the sustainability of Colorado River dams, the value of national parks, and the destiny of civilization in the southwest.
In our hearts and minds, we share a common vision for the future of the river in Glen Canyon. It is a vision of a free-flowing river, wild and muddy… coursing to its own rhythms through a renewed desert ecosystem. We envision the establishment of Glen Canyon National Park, which will oversee the healing of this vital and exquisite landscape as it emerges from its watery slumber. We wish to leave this river and canyon better than we found them, for the enjoyment of future generations.
A major public addressing of this very complex issue is essential. Now is the time to plan a sane, non-catastrophic path to a post-dam environment, rather than deny or ignore this eventuality. We support the Citizens' Environmental Assessment, and the efforts of all those willing to develop a sustainable future for the Colorado River in Glen Canyon.
Following are three articles excerpted from our newsletter, the boatman's quarterly review that capture many of the thoughts and concerns of our membership.
1) “Gcrg on the Future of Glen Canyon Dam” (bqr 11:1, Winter, 1998). This statement from the board of directors recognizes the inherent non-sustainability of the present system, and proposes that we manage the dam concurrently for both short term and long term goals.
2) “A Geologic Train Wreck, the Long View on Colorado River Dams” (bqr 10:2, Spring, 1997). This statement conveys the importance of long-term planning to avoid ecological disaster.
3) “Where Should gcrg Stand on Glen Canyon Dam” (bqr 11:3, Summer, 1998). This is a listing of member comments from a straw poll about the removal of the dam. In a series of “one liners” it conveys the variety of sentiment held by our members.
Back issues of the boatman's quarterly review contain a variety of views from our members on the future of Lake Powell and may be found in these previous issues, some of which are on our website www.gcrg.org:

Bailey, Ric, bqr 12:1, Points, Counterpoints.
Beard, Dan, bqr 11:1, Dan Beard on Restoring Glen Canyon.
Dimock, Brad, bqr 10:2, Glen Canyon Institute.
Eberz, Noel, bqr 10:3, Dam Riddance?
Elliot, Rob, bqr 10:4, Congressional Testimony.
Ghiglieri, Michael, bqr 10:4, Why Not Bring it Back?
Ledbetter, Jeri, bqr 11:1, Restore Glen Canyon.
McElya, Bruce, bqr 12:1, Points, Counterpoints.
Potochnik, Andre, bqr 10:2, A Geologic Train Wreck, the Long View on Colorado River Dams.
Stevens, Larry, bqr 10:4, A Butt Pygmy's Rebuttal.
Stevens, Larry, bqr 12:1, Science, Values, and Vision for the Colorado River.
Valdez, Rich, bqr 10:2, Save the Dam.
Weisheit, John, bqr 10:3, Why I Choose to Charge at the Glen Canyon Windmill.
Werbach, Adam, bqr 10:4, Congressional Testimony. Andre Potochnik
amwg Representative
August 10, 1999