Dear Eddy

A primary reason for the construction of Glen Canyon Dam was to extend the life of downstream reservoirs. It was common knowledge that silt from the Colorado drainage would diminish the storage capacity and ultimately inhibit hydroelectric generation of downstream facilities. Glen Canyon Dam was built to postpone the inevitable. While the silt may settle out of sight in the Reservoir, it has not been eliminated. It accumulates, as do a host of other problems created by our manipulation of the river system.
Regional development increases demand for water, recreation and power with no concomitant recognition that these resources are finite, and, in the case of water, already over allocated. While demand grows, the supply diminishes as silt accumulates in the reservoir. We are becoming increasingly dependent on a system that is unsustainable. It is time to recognize and take responsibility for the declining utility and ultimate failure of current river management policy.
In the debate over decommissioning, proponents of the Dam should not be allowed to ignore the future. Evaporation losses from the reservoir are currently tolerable, but as the storage capacity diminishes and water becomes increasingly valuable there will come a time when the costs of maintaining the reservoir exceed the benefit. Factor in the escalating cost and impact of ultimately decommissioning the Dam when the utility of the reservoir is compromised by the accumulation of silt and it is quite possible that the time to act is sooner rather than later.
There are plenty of ethical and esthetic reasons for the restoration of Glen Canyon, but it will be political and economic pressure that drives change in resource management policy. In that light, the decision to decommission the Dam requires an investigation that realistically determines where the cost benefit balance point lies. This appraisal should include a realistic estimate of future restoration costs associated with present operation. Current resource pricing should include adequate funding for rehabilitation of the river system. While we may not live long enough to see this restoration occur, it is arrogant and irresponsible to use resources provided by the Dam while ignoring the environmental mess we are leaving for future generations.
Analysis of any operating policy must include restoration costs if there is to be a rational debate. Appraisals should project present and long-term costs, and provide resource pricing that adequately funds the operating strategy; such information is bound to change the nature of the debate.
The membership of gcrg has diverse opinions, but avoiding the issue will not solve the problem. If gcrg is serious about preserving the Grand Canyon it is time to step up to the plate.
Kevin Greif

I oppose the idea that gcrg endorse a request for an eis on Glen Canyon Dam. First, it won’t be distinguished from a simple advocacy of “Drain it, Damn it,” which has the real effect of wasting energy on an improbable action to the detriment of other possibilities. And secondly it would alienate many outside our organization, with hardly a broad consensus inside our group.
Even better, the idea of a full length Colorado River Short and Long Term eis is deserved and proper to channel our efforts. My understanding is that if Lake Mead and Lake Powell bathtubs are full, Glen Canyon Dam can release flood flows three times faster than Hoover dam can handle, as experienced in the 1983 lower river flooding. Such a realization might dictate lower lake levels in winter. Lava Cliff Rapid could rise again—now that’s something to fight for. This is different than just an eis centered on Glen Canyon Dam.
I have recently visited the Elwha River, Dams and Lakes in the Olympic Peninsula and couldn’t be more excited about the prospect of it again becoming a free flowing river. I would advise all to get a copy of the recent High Country News, September 24, 2001, and read the history of the justifications and battles to accomplish this still unfinished project. It’s a sobering lesson and marvel of cooperation—not a ramrod of a few with their own agenda.
Noel Eberz

I suppose we’re all glad that the Colorado River Management Plan (crmp) will be restarted. What do you think it took to do that? My guess is a lawsuit. I hate to admit it but the legal system can be our friend, especially when it makes parties get together and agree without making one party or the other guilty. The recent out-of-court settlement has ordered the restart and completion of the public planning process, identified money for it, shifted allocation, and a few other things. That’s a far cry from where we were when, in February of 2000, Rob Arnberger, then Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, unilaterally terminated the public planning process that his organization was required by law to perform. In a way his act was an out-of-court settlement, too. No guilt was imputed and a set of conditions was met.
The conditions were to encourage and sustain two sets of access rules—one set granted immediate access and one set couldn’t guarantee a trip in the Canyon within most of a lifetime. Arnberger liked the way wealthy commercial river trip customers didn’t have to wait hardly at all for their turn to view the canyon as it sped by their luxury boats while at the same time the penurious tens of thousands waited in vain for a chance to feel the dirt, wet, and spirit of an unhurried river trip powered by their own muscles. We had to continue treating the de facto wilderness of the river corridor as a superhighway for waterbus tours.
When the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (gcpba), and over 400,000 of their friends sued the Park Service and Rob Arnberger they sought, among other things, to restart the public planning process. On the other hand, the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (gcroa) joined with the Park Service and pledged their considerable profit-derived resources so that the public’s voice would be silenced in matters pertaining to national park management. Gcroa liked things the way they were and saw no reason to allow the public to be heard. Judging by its longstanding silence on the inequities, the Grand Canyon River Guides felt the same way. In fact, their president at the time, Bob Grusy, decried the position of gcpba and lamented the fact that gcpba decided a lawsuit was needed; after all, couldn’t we all just get along? Apparently we couldn’t, and at last the United States legal system thinks the public shouldn’t have to settle for the raw treatment it has received in these last twenty years. The new settlement is quite a different one from the business as usual, no comment, no response, and arrogance of the original settlement.
It is a good thing that the courts are here to encourage (cajole, threaten, and force if necessary) dissenting parties to reach an agreement; otherwise the people who lack the megaphone of money aren’t heard. Now let us work together again to get the best access solution we can and work together so that Congress doesn’t sabotage our efforts this time.
David Yeamans, Life Guide Member of gcrg

“In life, everything is just the way we like it.”
–Georgie White Clark

I am delighted to officially tell gcrg that 24-Mile Rapid has now been changed to Georgie Rapid! It was a long and difficult path to get this honor for Georgie. I know many of you may not feel the choice of a rapid to be renamed was a good one. However, it is only important that she be recognized for being such an integral part of Grand Canyon history.
Georgie’s first choice for a rapid named after her would have been Crystal. She especially loved the roughest rapids and Crystal above all others. I knew that would not be possible because of its long-established name. 24-Mile was chosen because of its “kick in the bum” attitude. Georgie liked to do just that to the people she was fond of.
I was surprised and shocked by the dissent voiced by the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association regarding the naming of any rapid for a “commercial” operator. They did not realize that Georgie, like the private boaters, began just as they have—sharing the expenses of a river trip with people who were interested in an adventure. They decided politics were involved in naming a rapid for Georgie and nothing could have been further from the truth.
When you run Georgie Rapid, I hope you will take the opportunity to tell your passengers a bit about Georgie and her colorful history—the true one and the one she made up! She was an amazing woman.
Roz Jirge