| Restoration of Glen Canyon [top]
View brochure about Glen Canyon Restoration
Wouldn’t Glen Canyon be destroyed after years of water inundation?
(See
evidence of the restoration of Glen Canyon)
The current drought and low water levels at reservoir Powell have provided
a definitive answer to one of the most common questions: “Isn’t Glen
Canyon destroyed?” NO! It is truly remarkable how quickly the reemerging
side canyons of the Glen are restoring. While decades of submersion
have changed the canyons in a variety of ways, much of the original
beauty still remains or is quickly returning. In the upper sections
of the main channel and side canyons, sediment deposits are steadily
being mobilized downstream with seasonal and flash floods. Vegetation
and wildlife are returning at an astonishing rate. The bathtub ring
is already disappearing all over the canyon as desert varnish runs over
the top of it, and scientists estimate that it will be almost completely
gone within as little as three decades.
Won’t Lake Powell fill again?
If average flows return to the Colorado River Basin, water levels at
Lake Powell will begin rising again. However, within the coming decade,
basin-wide water demand will exceed the amount of water delivered by
the Colorado River and Lake Powell will decline again. Water managers
are already taking steps to store water in underground aquifers and
off-stream storage facilities closer to users. While it is likely that
a spike in the hydrograph will raise reservoir levels sometime in the
next decade, the institute is advocating for all excess runoff water
to be stored in other storage facilities to ensure the continued restoration
of Glen Canyon.
What about Glen Canyon Dam?
Glen Canyon Dam is quickly becoming a relic of the past. At some point,
the management of the dam will be altered to preserve the remaining
biological integrity of the Grand Canyon and to allow the “dead
pool” water storage trapped behind the dam to flow downstream
to lower basin users. The likely process of bypassing Glen Canyon Dam
would involve lowering the reservoir level down to the dead pool level
(237 feet) and drilling bypass tunnels around the base of the dam to
mobilize the remaining water and sediment around the dam. The dam site
will eventually become a major tourist attraction in the region.
What is “Dead Pool”?
Dead Pool is the term used for inactive water storage behind Glen Canyon
Dam. About 2 MAF of Powell’s 26 MAF storage capacity is considered
“dead storage” because the dam currently has no means to
release it. During construction of the dam, the river bypass tunnels
were filled with reinforced concrete, thus prohibiting any releases
from the dam once reservoir elevations dipped below the 237 foot River
Outlet Works.
Does restoring Glen Canyon mean completely removing Glen Canyon
Dam?
No. The process of decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam would involve lowering
the reservoir level down to the dead pool level (237 feet) and drilling
bypass tunnels around the base of the dam to mobilize the remaining
water around the dam. Removing the dam completely would be so costly
that it would likely not ever be funded by Congress.
What is the timeframe for restoring Glen Canyon and a healthy
Colorado River?
The short answer: The sooner Lake Powell goes away, the faster Glen
Canyon will be restored.
The long answer: As of January 2005, Mother Nature has lowered the
reservoir water levels to 37% of full and restored hundreds of miles
of side canyons in Glen Canyon. However, the reservoir still backs up
well over a hundred miles of the Colorado River. If the low-runoff years
of the recent past continue for a few more years into the future, the
restoration of Glen Canyon will continue.
Essentially, the time table for Glen Canyon’s restoration is
contingent upon Mother Nature and decisions made by water managers about
where to efficiently store water in the West. We recognize that a lot
of research, education and discussion needs to happen before a decision
can be made. That's why we urge the government to study this proposal,
engage the public, and provide scientifically credible information to
decision makers and the public about a sustainable water supply for
future generations.
Could draining the reservoir harm endangered species, such
as bald eagles, which exist in the area now?
Bald eagles do live in the area, but a huge reservoir is not necessary
for their survival; many live and thrive along existing Southwestern
rivers. Eagles and Peregrine Falcons are opportunistic feeders, and
can adapt as habitat changes. Bald eagle populations in the United States
and Canada have grown steadily and their removal from the threatened
list is imminent in the next few years.
On the other hand, many other endangered species, which are found only
in the Colorado River, would be favorably impacted by the restoration
of prime habitat in the emerging canyons of the Glen. Currently, many
of these native species are in steady decline due to the changed environment
brought about by Glen Canyon Dam, and policy makers are searching for
a solution to prevent extinction.
Grand Canyon [top]
Click here to learn more about the Grand Canyon
Doesn't the existing dam and reservoir protect the Grand Canyon
from large, damaging spring floods?
Large floods were essential for the evolution of Grand Canyon. In fact,
elimination of the annual spring floods and sediment have contributed
to a significant change to the canyon environment, and a loss of a number
of native species. Several rare and endangered species have been extirpated
from the canyon. Since the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act
of 1992, the government spends millions every year studying how to protect
the existing endangered species by mimicking natural spring floods.
Allowing the river to flow freely around the dam could allow endangered
species to recover by restoring the habitats in which they evolved.
A natural, free flowing Colorado River would replenish sand from the
beaches which have been steadily eroding, provide warmer water, and
redefining the critical habitats necessary for species survival.
What does the Grand Canyon Protection Act do?
The Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) essentially says that Glen Canyon
Dam is to be operated to protect the health of the Grand Canyon instead
of maximizing hydropower generation. The Adaptive Management Program
(AMP) was instituted to provide policy makers with scientific information
necessary to fulfill the mandate of the GCPA. However, water and power
interests control the decision-making process within AMP to apply temporary
band-aid solutions to the growing problem of ecosystem decline in the
Grand Canyon.
How much money is spent to study how to protect the Grand Canyon?
About $10 Million is spent annually studying the impacts of Glen Canyon
Dam in the Grand Canyon. Additionally, $10 Million is also spent in
the Upper Basin for Endangered Species Fish Recovery programs. Glen
Canyon Dam is responsible for drowning the historical spawning grounds
for the native fish in the Colorado River, causing the species to be
listed on the threatened and endangered list. Glen Canyon Dam releases
cold, clear, regulated flows into the Grand Canyon, which has evolved
over millennia relying upon warm, sediment-laden highly-fluctuating
flows.
Water [top]
Click here to learn more about Lake Powell
and the Western water supply
Why was Glen Canyon Dam built?
Glen Canyon Dam was built for the primary purpose of water
storage and delivery for the Lower Basin. The Colorado River Compact
of 1922 established the legal requirement for the upper basin to deliver
75 Million Acre Feet to the lower basin over a rolling ten-year average.
A treaty with Mexico in 1944 increased the requirement to 82.3 MAF every
ten years. The upper basin Congressional Delegation also pushed for
the construction of Glen Canyon Dam as a “cash register”
dam, with hydropower revenue to help fund dozens of smaller water development
projects around the upper basin.
How much water does Powell reservoir lose to evaporation and bank seepage?
Lake Powell loses an average of 860,000 acre feet of water
to evaporation and bank seepage. (1 acre-foot is enough to supply a
family of four for one year.) This is equivalent to the annual water
usage of Los Angeles!
Who gets their water supply from Powell reservoir?
Essentially no straws dip into Lake Powell except for Page
(pop. 8,000) and Navajo Generating Station. Both of these water users
could easily extend their intake pipes into a free-flowing river. The
reservoir is essentially a measuring point that is used to regulate
how much water is released into the lower basin. The river flow to the
lower basin could easily be measured downstream at Lee’s Ferry
and stored in the lower basin.
Would the water supply for Colorado River water users be threatened?
No, it would not. Based upon the Bureau of Reclamation’s own flow
data, since the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, more than 40 MAF of water
has been lost to evaporation. There would simply be more water in the
system without Lake Powell and there are more efficient places to store
that water. the chances that the Colorado River wouldn’t be able
to delivery the required water downstream (with the reservoir’s
wasted water) is 1:1000. Without the reservoir and the nearly 1 Million
Acre feet of lost water, the chances fall dramatically to 1:30,000!
According to a report by the Environmental Defense Fund, Upper Basin
water use would not be curtailed by draining Lake Powell, and Lower
Basin use would be diminished only slightly -- an average of 1.2% annually.
This analysis used Bureau of Reclamation's river modeling program and
assumptions.
How long would it take to refill the reservoir if the drought
ended now?
The last time the reservoir was at its current level was 1970 and the
reservoir filled up completely in 1980. Based on projected basin-wide
demand reaching average Colorado River inflows in the next few decades,
Lake Powell will never refill.
Where would we store water without Lake Powell?
There are better solutions for water storage than Lake Powell, with
its huge evaporative loss. For instance, the Lower Basin is already
storing massive amounts of water in underground salt aquifers in Arizona.
They are also storing water in off-stream storage facilities such as
Diamond Valley, which are much less environmentally destructive and
much closer to users in the lower basin. Efficiency of Colorado River
water delivery could be greatly increased by altering the management
of the more efficient reservoirs in the headwaters and decreasing the
amount of water stored in wasteful facilities such as Lake Powell reservoir.
Sediment [top]
Click here for more information
How much sediment is deposited into the reservoir by the Colorado
River?
On average, the equivalent of 30,000 dumptruck loads of sediment is
deposited into Lake Powell daily. This is approximately 100 Million
tons annually. More than one million acrefeet of storage capacity has
been lost to date.
How long will it take for the reservoir to completely fill
with sediment?
Scientific studies predict the reservoir will fill completely with sediment
within 300-700 years. However, within 100 years, sediment will reach
the River Outlet Works 237 feet above river level, rendering it unsafe
in the occurrence of an earthquake or flood. We will eventually be forced
to manage the sediment problem and the longer we wait, the more expensive
it will be.
How long will it take for the sediment that buries much of
Glen Canyon and the side canyons to move out?
Scientists predict that without the reservoir, sediment deposits
in the mainstem of the Colorado would be flushed out within 2-6 years.
Five years into the drought, sediment deposits in the side canyons have
already begun moving out at an astonishing rate.
What happens to all the sediment mobilized around Glen Canyon
Dam?
The sediment mobilized around Glen Canyon Dam would move down the river
through the Grand Canyon creating new sandbars, a natural occurance
before the dam was built. The 270 miles-long Grand Canyon has a huge
capacity for sediment storage, and is currently sediment bankrupt because
of the dam. The sediment would eventually move through the Grand Canyon
into Lake Mead where sediment management is much more feasible and less
expensive than at Lake Powell.
The sheer, deep canyon walls of Powell make it a poor sediment management
location, while the wide open desert around Mead is much better suited
for this. This issue will be studied through an environmental analysis.
Upstream conservation and sediment management can assist in minimizing
the concern over sediment buildup in Lake Mead. Dams on high volume,
high sediment rivers such as the Colorado trip huge amounts of sediment.
Building more dams upstream to extend the life of downstream dams is
not a long-term solution.
What about the toxic sediments?
Sediment, which historically traveled harmlessly to sea are now trapped
behind the dam. Naturally occurring heavy metals such as selenium, mercury,
boron, lead, and arsenic from upstream sources are contained in these
sediments. Additionally, the flooding of Glen Canyon also covered toxic
uranium mill tailings near Hite. The water percolating through this
toxic sediment may pose health risks to fish, wildlife and humans who
visit Lake Powell.
Management of these toxic sediments through the Grand Canyon will require
careful consideration to ensure impacts to ecosystems and water quality
for downstream users are minimized.
Wouldn't Lake Mead silt in faster without Glen Canyon Dam?
Yes, somewhat, because dams on high volume, high sediment rivers such
as the Colorado trip huge amounts of sediment. Building more dams upstream
to extend the life of downstream dams is not a long term solution. Much
of the sediment would be captured in the 270 miles of the Grand Canyon
and become new sandbars, a natural occurrence before Glen Canyon Dam
was built. Upstream conservation and sediment management can assist
in minimizing this concern.
Additionally, sediment management at Powell would be far more difficult
and costly than managing the sediment at Mead. The sheer, deep canyon
walls of Powell make it a poor sediment management location, while the
wide open desert around Mead is much better suited for this. This issue
will be studied through an environmental analysis.
What about the toxic sediments?
Power Generation
[top]
How much power does Glen Canyon Dam generate?
Glen Canyon Dam generates 451 avg. megawatts, which is negligible compared
to most of the other power generating stations in the region (Navajo,
AZ- 2,410 avg. megawatts, Hoover, NV-1,840 avg. megawatts, Four Corners,
NM-2,270 avg. megawatts, Jim Bridger,WY-1,749 avg. megawatts, Hunter,
UT-1,048 avg. megawatts).
Would power shortages occur?
Glen Canyon Dam generates less than 1% of the power on the Western Power
Grid. The Western Power Grid always keeps an excess power capacity of
20% on hand. According to the energy experts, losing Glen Canyon Dam
as a source of electricity should not create a power shortage because
of the current excess generating capacity in the Southwest. The draining
of Lake Powell would occur over a significant period of time; the impacts
will be minimal.
Would draining the reservoir make Navajo Generating Station
close?
No. This is a common myth perpetuated by many friends of the reservoir.
The generating station would only need to extend its intakes down to
the river level a few hundred feet below where they currently are located.
Without Glen Canyon Dam’s “clean” power, wouldn’t
the mostly coal-burning power plants have to make up for the lost power,
leading to increased pollution?
First of all, Glen Canyon Dam doesn’t generate “clean”
power. While there is no air pollution from the dam, the 186 mile long
reservoir (which serves as the “fuel” for power generation)
has destroyed one of the most incredible regions in the world. Add to
that the batteries, feces, and gasoline dumped into the reservoir each
year by the myriad speedboats and houseboats. In a hundred years, when
the reservoir is filled with toxins and sediment and well beyond any
hope of restoration, which will have been the "dirtier" power
source Additionally, the destruction of the Grand Canyon ecosystem is
attributed to the power production of Glen Canyon Dam.
Most, if not all, of the power generated by Glen Canyon Dam could be
recovered with simple conservation measures and expanded cooperation
with power distributors. There are many forms of pollution. In order
to avoid polluting the skies, is it better to flood a place like Glen
Canyon with water and muck??
Use of coal and oil fired generators can cause pollution. However,
existing environmental considerations will minimize this impact and
recent technology improvements in the scrubbing technology for the coal
power plants has drastically reduced pollution from these sources.
What about Glen Canyon Dam’s “cash-register”
function to repay water projects across the upper basin?
To date, only about 18% of the reimbursable repayment has occurred through
sale of power, with beneficiaries of the water projects across the upper
basin not being held accountable for any of the huge costs of these
projects. This amounts to an enormous American taxpayer subsidy for
a small percentage of upper basin farmers as well as the small percentage
of beneficiaries of Glen Canyon Dam’s sub-market rate power.
Additionally, the current generation of power from Glen Canyon Dam
has been cut by about 1/3. Because of pre-arranged power delivery contracts,
the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is currently forced to
purchase that 1/3 to meet contracts. The market rate for power in the
West is over $.05/ kilowatt hour. WAPA sells its power for just over
$.02/kilowatt hour. Power production is negligible under the current
flow regime and the economics of continuing to produce power doesn’t
make sense.
Wouldn't power rates go up?
Most power users in the Southwest would not be affected by draining
Lake Powell, according to the new report from the Environmental Defense
Fund. Glen Canyon Dam produces approximately 3% of the power used in
the Four Corners area. There is currently a surplus of power. Most of
the power from the dam is purchased for commercial use at heavily subsidized
rates. The customers who have received subsidized power from Glen Canyon
Dam would pay the market rate, like the rest of us. Most Glen Canyon
power users get their power from several sources, which would also serve
to lessen the impact.
Recreation
[top]
What about the economic impacts to the region, including Page,
AZ?
Under our proposal, the economic benefits to the Glen Canyon region
would actually increase to a level comparable to that of Grand Canyon
National Park. Additionally, economic benefits would be distributed
more evenly among the communities surrounding Glen Canyon, including
Escalante, Bluff, Blanding, Boulder, Kanab, Mexican Hat, Hanskville,
Kayenta, and the Navajo Nation. Page, which is subject to the fluctuation
economic benefits of a fluctuating reservoir would evolve into a major
access point to Glen Canyon for land-based uses.
Page was first built as a service camp for the workers who built the
dam. When the dam was completed, most of Page’s residents left,
while the remaining residents adapted to the new motorized-recreation
economy. Upon the restoration of Glen Canyon, Page will adapt once again
to a sustainable non-motorized recreation based economy and function
as the access point to one of the most-visited attractions in the West,
the Glen Canyon Dam Site. Also, because of the scientific importance
and magnitude of restoring the huge Glen Canyon ecosystem, Page would
become the headquarters for dozens of long-term scientific programs
from around the world.
Current economic benefits of the reservoir are short-term and unsustainable.
Restoring and protecting Glen Canyon would ensure a sustainable, long-term
economic foundation for Page, as well as the other access communities
throughout the region.
Wouldn't the world class trout fishery below Glen Canyon Dam
be lost?
This trout fishery exists because of the dam, and would likely disappear
if a natural, warm water river returned. However, what would be restored
would be prime habitat for endangered native fish which used to inhabit
this stretch of river. The trout fishery has been an important part
of the Northern Arizona economy. However restoration of the river would
provide for a self sustaining environment in Glen and Grand Canyonsthat
is far more valuable. Additionally, because the trout prey upon the
endangered fish species in the Colorado River, the government is spending
millions annually on schizophrenic efforts to remove the non-native
trout below Lee’s Ferry while working to maintain populations
at Lee’s Ferry. This program simply isn’t working.
What about the huge recreation industry at Lake Powell?
Millions of people visit the Lake Powell area every year. A similar
number visit the Grand Canyon, which indicates that tourism is not dependent
upon a reservoir. There is a thriving recreation industry based on the
natural canyons and rivers of the Colorado Plateau, both upstream (Canyonlands
National Park, Arches, Bryce, etc), and downstream (Grand Canyon National
Park). Located within the “Golden Triangle” of Bryce, Zion,
and the Grand Canyon, a restored Glen Canyon would likely receive visitation
comparable to these heavily-visited National Parks.
A restored Glen Canyon would offer great possibilities for backpacking,
leisurely non-motorized boating, and wilderness experience. An integrated,
sustainable environment could provide for a world resource that would
offer high value for future generations.
Because the dam and reservoir are temporary, the current Lake Powell
motorized recreation-based economy is also. Based upon the economic
benefits accrued for the region surrounding the Grand Canyon, similar
economic benefits would be derived for the communities surrounding a
restored Glen Canyon.
Would the river running season in Grand Canyon be shortened
without regulation by Glen Canyon Dam?
It needn't be. Before Glen Canyon Dam was built, river runners successfully
ran trips throughout the year. In fact, some of the lowest flows on
record, which presented significant problems for river runners, occurred
after the dam was built as the reservoir was filling. In the early 1970s
the dam shut the river down to around 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs),
and during the late 1980s the dam quite often reduced flows to 3,000
cfs. During 1983, releases approached 100,000 cfs. Yet throughout both
of these extremes, commercial rafting continued. We don't need a dam
to run a river; people run free flowing rivers all over the world. Cataract
Canyon is largely unregulated, and yes, it gets exciting when spring
run-off is high. But it is still run commercially. How would a free
flowing Colorado River affect river running in Grand Canyon? For one
thing, it would be more real.
What would the impacts on river running be without Glen Canyon
Dam?
Currently, there is immense pressure for river running opportunities
on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon. There is currently a 20
year waiting list for private boat trips in the Grand Canyon. A free-flowing
river through Glen Canyon would alleviate some of this pressure by re-introducing
186 miles of the Colorado River.
In answer to some claims that the river running season would be shortened
without Glen Canyon Dam, it needn’t be. Before Glen Canyon Dam
was built, river runners successfully ran trips throughout the year.
In fact, some of the lowest flows on record, which presented significant
problems for river runners, occurred after the dam was built as the
reservoir was filling. In the early 1970s the dam shut the river down
to around 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), and during the late 1980s
the dam quite often reduced flows to 3,000 cfs. During 1983, releases
approached 100,000 cfs. Yet throughout both of these extremes, commercial
rafting continued. We don't need a dam to run a river; people run free
flowing rivers all over the world. Cataract Canyon is largely unregulated,
and yes, it gets exciting when spring run-off is high. But it is still
run commercially. How would a free flowing Colorado River affect river
running in Grand Canyon? For one thing, it would be less like a theme
park ride and more like a real wild river. For another, there would
actually be beaches to camp on.
Position of Glen Canyon Institute [top]
The revealed landscape of Glen Canyon should be protected and
the continued restoration of Glen Canyon should be facilitated and planned
for. Lake Powell is unnecessary and enormously destructive, while Glen
Canyon is America’s Lost National Park.
Where are your facts?
Glen Canyon Institute has stated its goal, but we recognize that all
the information to answer questions about restoring Glen Canyon is not
yet in hand. We rely heavily upon data produced by the Bureau of Reclamation,
United States Geological Survey, and the Department of Energy. Additionally,
significant scientific evidence obtained by the Glen Canyon Environmental
Studies Program and the Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program demonstrate
the huge destructive costs of Glen Canyon Dam on the downstream environment.
Glen Canyon Institute has conducted an initial Citizen’s Environmental
Assessment (CEA) to examine the opportunities, costs and environmental
impacts of restoring Glen Canyon. The initial data demonstrates the
immense impacts of Powell reservoir and warrant attention.
Why is the Environmental Assessment so important?
If Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell were proposed today, an Environmental
Assessment followed by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would
be required by the National Environmental Policy Act (1970), so this
is not an unreasonable request. We believe the majority of Americans
would support restoring Glen Canyon if all the facts were known, so
we believe such a study would be in the public interest.
Wouldn't a Citizen’s EA be biased since you've already taken
a position against the reservoir?
We urge the government to do a complete environmental analysis of the
impacts of Lake Powell to provide objective information. However, since
they have refused thus far, Glen Canyon Institute has secured private
funding to hire various unbiased scientists to conduct such a review.
The science and documentation are available for review. We believe the
facts speak for themselves.
|
