American Whitewater Affiliation
Rich Hoffman, River Access Coordinator

   Everything associated with the Grand Canyon is on a scale all its own. The Colorado River has the most notorious rapids on the continent, large enough to merit a scale that goes to 10. The river flows through, arguably, the most dramatic landscape in the continent. Even its human explorers are larger than life: the one-armed John Wesley Powell venturing into the “Great Unknown” with his failing equipment and dwindling supplies.

   In the past century, the Canyon has been a crucible for decisions and values about natural resources: the duel over the proposed Bureau of Reclamation dam that would have flooded Marble Canyon; the fight over Glen Canyon and the ongoing struggle to manage water flows from the dam, including the recent beach-building flows; the interstate squabbling over water appropriation, leaving the Colorado a salty trickle by the time it reaches the sea.

   The revision of the Colorado River Management Plan is also a critical process that will set the tone for important issues on public lands, such as allocation among user groups, the designation and management of wilderness and fees for recreation on public land. While there are many different views on what the problems are and how to solve them, everyone who loves the Canyon strongly believes that, above everything else, the CRMP must provide for the long-term preservation of the resource and assure that this outstanding wilderness area will not be further deteriorated. Here are our thoughts on three key issues that will be addressed in the CRMP:

   Access

   River use in the West began to rise dramatically in the early 1970's. In the year 1972, 16,432 people floated through the Grand Canyon, more than the total number of people who floated the Canyon during the entire period from 1950 through 1970. Rightfully recognizing the need to set limits on the amount of people who float the Canyon, the Park Service set a ceiling on use in 1972, using the "historical precedent" for the basis of the allocation. This "historical precedent" was frozen in time and gave commercial outfitters 92% of the allocation, with the remaining 8% for non-commercial trips. (Considering the fact that non-commercial boaters take longer trips, the split in terms of the number of people was even more skewed, with only 3% of the people who traveled the Canyon being non-commercial.)

   Many members of the boating public did not think that this was a fair system, and the NPS was sued at least twice in the 1970's questioning the fairness of this rationing system. Most notable was a case called Wilderness Public Rights Fund v. Kleppe which ruled that while the NPS has the authority to set use limits, and that while a split allocation system is not inherently unfair, use limits must be "fairly done pursuant to appropriate standards." The Court used the fact that the NPS was adjusting the allocation (to the present 70-30) after conducting a study to justify the allocation as evidence that this allocation was not "arbitrary."

   In 1997, the most commonly cited statistic for user day allocation is the 70-30 commercial-non-commercial split. No adjustments have been made to this split- established in 1970 -to reflect changing demand. Thus, the situation where non-commercial users must wait up to 10 years (or longer) while commercial users can gain access to a trip in a given year. A strong argument can be made that the current allocation is indeed arbitrary.

   While we feel strongly that use ceilings are a necessary management tool to preserve the river resource, the distribution of these limited access opportunities must be equitable to all members of the public. To take this into account, the CRMP should have the following characteristics: it must reflect demand and it must be flexible, so that the distribution of access opportunities can adjust over time.

   Rigid quotas for separate groups can become increasingly unfair over time unless they are periodically updated to adjust to changes in demand levels among the different user groups. This is especially true if the original quotas were inequitable. One obvious need is an objective way to measure demand. The waiting list for non-commercial boaters does not take into account the amount of people deterred from even applying, or who go commercial rather than wait, deal with substantial bureaucracy and pay large fees. Measuring demand must also recognize that non-commercial boaters jump through a lot of hoops to get on the river, while commercial clients are solicited through marketing and advertisements.

   While we do not wish to undermine the financial viability of commercial outfitters, we do not think that the CRMP should guarantee that they will make a large profit. The present system guarantees a certain amount of user days to each outfitter. While commercial outfitters provide an important service, their presence should not restrict the rights of other members of the public to access the river. Because of the high demand and limited supply for trips through the Grand Canyon, the current management plan essentially guarantees business to commercial outfitters. By doing so, equal access is denied to non-commercial boaters.

   As we state in our access policy, we advocate experimenting with new methods to reduce disparities in river access opportunities. A "common pool" system- where all members of the public (commercial and non-commercial alike) wait in the same line -was recently established for the Deschutes River in Oregon by the BLM and the Illinois River in Oregon by the Forest Service and these plans should be carefully evaluated by the NPS. An additional advantage of this system is that it may provide smaller outfitters a more level playing field with which to compete with larger outfitters, by allowing members of the public to choose an outfitter based on better services and trips and lower prices, rather than solely based on whether the outfitter has available trip space. Another idea that should be evaluated is privatizing the waiting list to reduce overhead and to prevent abuse. Raising the user day ceiling is NOT the solution.

   Fees

   In January, 1997, GCNP announced dramatic changes in the fees for non-commercial boaters. The new fees are a combination of the Fee Demonstration Program, a component of the 1996 Appropriations Act, and the Cost Recovery Program, a program designed to recover the costs of managing a “special use.” These new fee programs have increased the cost of an average non-commercial trip through the Grand Canyon from $131 to $1500. We have several concerns with the new fees:

   1) The process by which the fees were established. There was no opportunity for public participation prior to the implementation of these fees.

   2) The combination of two separate fee authorities for the same activity, creating a level of fees that is inconsistent with fees charged to comparable uses. To the best of our knowledge, no other comparable non-commercial use within GCNP or the National Park System is charged a level of fees which exceed operational costs by 80% (the fees that the GCNP will collect from non-commercial boaters are approximately $480,000, while -according to Park Service estimates- it costs $275,000 to manage this use). We do not believe that it is equitable to target only one group of users to fund backlogged projects which have not been identified and which are the responsibility of all park users. An equitable system must charge the same level of fees for all comparable uses.

   3) The structure of the Cost Recovery Program that requires non-commercial boaters to pay to stand in line. With an average wait of 10 years to receive a permit, non-commercial boaters will pay $350 before entering the park. Clearly, these fees are not commensurate with the services provided. In addition, if you cannot make the trip when your name is called, no provision exists for a refund.

   4) The classification of non-commercial river running as a "special park use." By singling out non-commercial river running as a special use for which 100% cost recovery must be achieved, GCNP is maintaining inconsistent practices, also concluded by an 1995 audit by the Interior Inspector General. We are worried about the precedent that this classification will set for recreational use on public lands.

   The NPS has made small changes in the fee program (such as a reduction in fees for small trips and a reinstatement of the one year grace period for renewing your space on the wait list), which, while a positive first step, do not address the primary problems with the new fee program. We believe that the NPS should consider changing the fees in the following manner: 1) remove the classification of non-commercial river running as a special park use; 2) ensure that the total amount of fees charged to a particular user does not substantially exceed operational costs and is consistent with comparable uses; 3) greatly reduce the fees to stand in line so that fees are commensurate with the services received; 4) calculate operational costs to be consistent with standards used at other units of the NPS; 5) collect and spend funds for projects/operations that are identified and have the support of the taxpayer; and 6) establish a public involvement process that allows the taxpayer to make real suggestions and changes to the fee program.

   Wilderness and Resource Impacts

   Rightly recognizing the need and desire of the majority of river runners to eliminate motors on the river, the NPS attempted to reduce motor use during the 1979 revision of the CRMP. This reduction was compensated by increasing the allocation of the outfitters who operated motor rigs. However, action by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) prevented the NPS from reducing the use of motor rigs, but unfortunately, the commercial outfitters maintained this increased allocation.

   Floating down the Grand Canyon is an experience in solitude and tranquility. Noise from aircraft overflights and other motors is not consistent with managing the area as a wilderness; the loud buzzing of planes and motor rigs is detrimental to anyone who desires solitude in Grand Canyon. New motor technology for motor rigs may help to alleviate this noise. In addition, there are reports of Personal Water Craft (PWC) infiltrating the Canyon from Lake Mead. The backcountry of Grand Canyon should be managed as a primitive wilderness. We hope that the CRMP is true to the Wilderness Act which emphasizes non-motorized use and enunciates the minimum tool concept. We hope that the NPS recognizes the multitude of opportunities to ride a motor rig in the U.S. vs. the few places that afford the chance to be away from motors.

   Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that when the CRMP is said and done, the Canyon will remain, will continue to be the ultimate river trip. Now that’s something we all agree upon.

   American Whitewater is a national non-profit organization representing hundreds of affiliate clubs and about 30,000 paddlers. (301) 589-9453