EIS Perspective #2

   Reclamation and Cooperating Agencies, and especially the efforts of Science, are to be complimented for the enormous amount of honest work gone into a search for a balance between environmental, recreational, political and power interests at Glen Canyon. Thank you for making the best of an enormously complex process. Without the work of everyone involved we wouldn’t have this feis, or the understanding and personal/group growth that has gone with it.

   Grand Canyon is a World Heritage Site; there is not another place on earth like it. To this end I direct my comments. Put in simplest terms, we cannot return to the past, to the days before Glen Canyon Dam. But, to a reasonable extent, we must recognize the river’s need to replenish itself, it’s habitats, backwaters and beaches and honor an historic, breathtakingly wondrous, past. We must also think of the future. And while we’re doing that, we should realize that power, environmental, and political realities, have changed a thousandfold since 1963. They will continue to change from here on in.

   Because of political weather patterns at play I feel this feis—any feis would leave me feeling the same—almost accomplished what it set out to do. It’s like stuffing 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5-pound cook kettle. Viewed historically, all the spuds didn’t fit. Not at first. But they had to. So they were individually paired down, shaved here and there, and then they got all squeezed in. Today, there are only a few chunks of food left on the beach. And there’s not much space left in the cooker.

   Again I say it would be the same with any feis, in any canyon on any river. This is due to the press of humanities physical demand on natural places, if not from one ‘impact sector’ then from, or to, another. But beyond this, it’s how we pack the spuds, for it will determine what we eat. That’s the real question here. For the future it’s my hope that Draft eis flows can be maintained until the Adaptive Management Program (amp) is funded and put in place. I don’t worry about the upramps so much as the auspices under which they are seemingly to be implemented. I honestly don’t understand why the changes were made. And I question changing two parameters at once; I wonder if that is scientifically advisable procedure. For the present I feel Reclamation has established a good baseline on which to build, but that research results are not yet thoroughly understood; more time may be needed to best establish further operating criteria. The amp supplies the proper mechanism to deal with the future.Dealing with Grand Canyon’s past is different. Spring floods were, before the dam, quintessential events to Grand Canyon’s ecosystem. They gave life to that place; floods defined the Colorado’s dynamic character. Let’s remember that. Whenever possible. I feel ‘flood flows’ are the pivotal issue just now, driven by a political past I do not pretend to understand. But I do think the eis process is in jeopardy: ‘flood flows’ have not been forthcoming; they are a Common Element. I also feel, sincerely, that ’flood flow’ issues should be addressed and resolved before the rod is signed. I’m not saying we can, or should, have such an event by then. I’m saying its time to establish their precedence—and to then get on with the amp. I don’t feel this is a power or environmental issue. I believe ‘flood flows’ should be conducted as an act of faith, a celebration of the past. Call it a birthday. This, of all things, is deserved. And make it official, on proper paper. Otherwise it’s my feeling environmental groups may always be at odds with power interests. That is not where we want to be. Its not in line for the 21st Century.

   Also, in what I feel to be an important side matter, I think the Science Center should be housed at Grand Canyon’s South Rim Village, or perhaps Tusayan. If placed in the proper building/location, with substantial floorspace given to scientific exhibits, interactive displays, dioramas, a science library, simulation models, Native American displays, dances and whatnot, don’t you think such a place could pay for itself? It’s important the Science Center be at Grand Canyon because it is even more important the people who are peeling the potatoes be sitting on the rim while they do it. They must not forget the place they are serving.

   I further ask Secretary Babbitt to sign the Record of Decision before the end of 1995. I understand this is contingent upon a General Accounting Office (gao) audit and for this reason request the gao process move ahead at utmost efficiency.

Shane Murphy