Boating on a Free Flowing Colorado River
The proposal to drain Lake Powell is based upon three factors: biological need, economic viability, and dam safety concerns.
Biological Need
Prior to the dam, the waters of Glen Canyon were a crucial breeding and
rearing ground for many endemic species (including humpback chub and Colorado
pikeminnow (formerly the Colorado squawfish), and the free flowing Colorado
River provided a necessary passageway for seasonal migration. In 1963,
the gates at Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River were closed, and Lake
Powell began to fill. The canyon, named for its exceptionally beautiful
side canyons and glens by Major John Wesley Powell during his first descent
of the Colorado River in 1869, gradually flooded.
Construction of Glen Canyon Dam has impacted the ecosystem of Grand Canyon
National Park more than any other human factor. Spring floods that previously
deposited millions of tons of vital sediment and nutrients have been replaced
with cold, clear, regulated flows. Native fish that evolved in the dynamic,
pre-dam environment have been unable to adapt, and are increasingly outcompeted
by non-native, introduced species. Despite high expectations, the much
touted experimental spike flow, conducted in 1996, provided only short-term
benefits rather than a long-term solution. The Grand Canyon riparian ecosystem
has been radically altered into an unnatural and unsustainable system.
Economic Viability
Over the past twenty years, the Bureau of Reclamation has spent many millions
of dollars attempting to mitigate the downstream impacts of the dam. According
to Dan Beard, former Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the long-term
cost associated with maintaining the reservoir offers the most compelling
argument in favor of decommissioning.
The power provided by Glen Canyon Dam represents a mere three percent
of the total power use for an area that currently has a surplus. California's
current electricity crisis is largely irrelevant to this issue, as the
amount of power the dam could deliver to that area is insignificant due
to limitations in the delivery system. Also, California's difficulty
is not a product of a systemic shortage of energy, but a short term result
of regulatory failure. Also, their problem is well on its way to being
solved, in large part due to conservation measures.
In the arid Southwest, water is becoming increasingly more valuable than
power. Currently the only water diverted from Lake Powell is for the small
town of Page, Arizona, and for the cooling of the Navajo Generating Station.
Yet the 27 million acre-foot reservoir, an incredibly inefficient storage
container shimmering in the desert sun, loses 570,000 acre feet of water
per year due to evaporation and an additional, variable amount due to
bank seepage. The total cumulative loss since the creation of Lake Powell
is greater than 30,000,000 acre feet, or approximately 2.25 years worth
of the river's flow.
The dam has a finite life span, due to the enormous amount of sediment
carried by the Colorado River. Sediment is being relentlessly deposited
in the reservoir, reducing its storage capacity, and advancing along the
old river channel toward the dam. Once too much sediment accumulates in
the reservoir, the process of decommissioning the dam will become much
more difficult and expensive, as well as environmentally damaging.
Dam Safety
During the summer of 1983, a relatively small flood nearly resulted in
catastrophic spillway failure. Employees of the Bureau of Reclamation,
in a desperate effort to maintain control of the river, placed makeshift
plywood extensions on the spillway gates. Thankfully, the rains abated
and the flood subsided, but only after inflicting significant and costly
damage to the spillways.
The 1983 flood peaked at just under 120,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Yet according to historic records, the Colorado River flowed at more than
500,000 cfs in the 1860s, and over 350,000 cfs in the 1880s. Geologic
evidence indicates flows exceeding one million cfs within the past 2,000
years. The dam's ability to control these enormous floods will steadily
decrease as storage capacity of the reservoir is reduced due to sedimentation.
Catastrophic failure of the spillways would have enormous environmental
and economic consequences, and could result in the loss of human life.
Citizens' Environmental
Assessment
Glen Canyon Institute believes that an environmental assessment, led by
citizens of the United States, provides the best opportunity to assess
the potential for restoring Glen Canyon. Therefore, we have been developing
and facilitating a Citizens' Environmental Assessment (cea) of the
proposal to restore a free flowing Colorado River through Glen Canyon
and Grand Canyon. As part of the cea, we have completed eight technical
studies, covering issues such as biological resources, cultural resources,
economic resources, physical resources, dam safety and social/policy issues.
The proposal to decommission Glen Canyon Dam will require intensive study
and public review that is far more rigorous than the resources of Glen
Canyon Institute will support. The cea is not intended to take the place
of a comprehensive environmental review; rather, it is the first step
in the process. The purpose of the cea is to demonstrate sufficient public
support to justify a full Environmental Impact Study (eis) on the operations
of Glen Canyon Dam that includes decommissioning the dam within the range
of alternatives.
Although in 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation (bor) completed an eis on operations
of the dam, decommissioning was not offered as an alternative to the public.
Public comments that suggested decommissioning were simply rejected as
falling outside the scope of that eis process. We believe that the American
public should decide whether or not the long-term environmental costs
of maintaining Glen Canyon Dam outweigh the short-term benefits provided
by Lake Powell reservoir.
Let's Be Realistic
Several years ago, I discussed our campaign with a fellow river guide
who, although he liked the idea of a free flowing Colorado River, argued
passionately with me for the better part of an hour. He finally said,
“Jeri, I just worry that you people are wasting your time. It's
just not realistic.”
Another friend suggested that I go visit Mono Lake, another “unrealistic”
effort. In the 1970s, Mono Lake was being relentlessly siphoned off to
quench a very thirsty Los Angeles. An idealistic group of scientists founded
the Mono Lake Committee with the mission of saving and restoring the beautiful,
fragile ecosystem. “You're dreaming,” they were told.
“You guys are wasting your time; you'll never win against
L.A. water.”
But they did win. With what seemed like a radical proposal, they presented
a positive, rational message. The Mono Lake Committee managed to persuade
L.A. water users that they could still have plenty of water, without destroying
the lake. Today Mono Lake, well on its way to recovery, steadily rises,
providing a symbol of hope to remind us that “lost” causes
are not necessarily lost. Unless, of course, we don't try.
It's important to remember that, were it not for Martin Litton,
David Brower, and a handful of others, two dams would have been built
within Grand Canyon during the 1960s. Brower, when offered a compromise
that would allow only one dam in Grand Canyon, compared it to choosing
“only one bullet through the heart instead of two.” No compromise.
Fighting the dams in Grand Canyon was “unrealistic.” A small
city had been built to support the dam workers; blasting had begun. But
thanks to those willing to fight such “lost causes,” the Colorado
River still flows through Grand Canyon. Mono Lake wasn't consumed
by the high-flow toilets of Los Angeles. A hundred other “lost causes”
have been won by those unwilling to compromise.
Is a vision of a free flowing Colorado River “unrealistic?”
Not at all. Over the past few years, we have noted a gradual acceptance
of the proposal—on both sides of the issue. At a recent Congressional
Field Hearing regarding the future of Western water management, Congressman
Hansen (r-ut) predicted, “In the very near future some well-meaning
lawmaker from the East will introduce legislation to decommission Glen
Canyon Dam.” He warned the audience, and officials representing
the seven Colorado River Basin states who were called to testify, “The
day is coming.”
People sometimes ask what I think the chances are of decommissioning the
dam; I reply, “100%.” The Colorado River, by virtue of its
enormous capacity to carry sediment, has already made that decision for
us. The question, then, is not if it will happen, but when.
We must act now, while the window of opportunity exists for the Colorado
River to restore itself. We can no longer afford to make decisions about
our natural resources as though we are the last generation to truly matter.
We must, after all, be realistic.
Jeri Ledbetter
Executive Director
Glen Canyon Institute
