|
Glen Canyon Institute Newsletter
May 4, 2003
Volume 2, No. 4
Hi,
These days the Glen Canyon Institute finds its expertise in high demand by
the media, with the Washington Post and CBS News topping the list. Our news
links section has those stories and more. Plus "Lea Rudee Speaks Out!" - the
founding dean of the Jacobs School of Engineering of UCSD, and a GCI
trustee, fills in some glaring science gaps in two recent stories quoting
GCI.
Also, GCI science director and trustee Dave Wegner tells you about a
magnificent 17 day GCI Grand Canyon river trip last month, with a film crew
along to get footage for a PBS documentary. In the spirit of "Yes we can",
member Laurel Hanley tells of a small dam in Oregon that was taken out
through rational political action. Finally, Dave Haskell, artist and
independent Grand Canyon/Colorado River protection consultant, shares his
recent presentation about the dam to the Grand Canyon River Guides, making
an exceedingly powerful case for decommissioning in scientific and economic
terms.
* Free Stuff *
Visited our online store lately? We've got "Damn Dam" hats, books, CDs,
videos, and some very special limited edition collectors' items: autographed
photos of David R. Brower pulling a symbolic plug
(http://www.glencanyon.org/store/posters/posters.htm). The free part? Order
$20 or more in May and mention this May newsletter and get a Free CD "Under
Lake Powell - 'Before the Damnation'" produced by Steven and Megan Gaskill.
It has over 800 photos of Glen Canyon, Glen Canyon Screensavers, and songs
by Katie Lee.
Cheers,
Bill Bernat, Membership Director, GCI, bill@glencanyon.org
ANNOUNCEMENTS
We have a lawyer who is working with GCI to, initially, research all the
possible legal angles available for furthering our cause through the courts,
and he would appreciate contacts for people to interview. This might include
current or former DoI or other government officials, environmental lawyers,
or anybody else who has legal knowledge about the dam and related issues and
is willing to share it. Please call or e-mail me (bill@glencanyon.org) and
I'll pass the information along.
A graphic design volunteer would be of great help to us as we work on the
new version of our web site. We've got programming under way, but need a
web-friendly logo (our standard logo is gorgeous, but too intricate to
shrink well for the web). Call or e-mail if interested.
NEWS LINKS
William Booth of the Washington Post spent some time in the canyon with GCI
president Rich Ingebretsen to research this story about Glen Canyon rising
above the shrinking lake. This story was also picked up by the Oakland
Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, and Seattle Times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42468-2003Apr26.html
Here's another article that talks about some of the natural beauty that's
becoming visible as Lake Powell's water level falls.
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=34142§ion=TRAVEL&sub
section=REGIONAL_TRAVEL&year=2003&month=4&day=13
CBS News interviewed the Glen Canyon Institute for this story about the
falling pool and the rising canyon. A broader video segment aired on the CBS
Evening News with Dan Rather on April 28th, but didn't mention GCI.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/sunday/main551133.shtml
The Salt Lake Tribune reviews a book of writings about Glen Canyon from as
far back as 1776 (Spanish priest Silvestre Velez de Escalante) up through
present day (John Wesley Powell, Zane Grey, Barry Goldwater, Ed Abbey,
Wallace Stegner, David Brower, and others).
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04062003/arts/45127.asp
Another story about the current efforts to save the humpback chub by
removing predatory non-native trout.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0415canyonfish15.htm
l
Vice versa! 40 years ago trout anglers were delighted by efforts to reduce
the Colorado River humpback chub population to make for better trout
fishing, but it seems that today's trout anglers are warming up to the idea
of trout-reduction along the Colorado River to save the humbacks.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~172~1348538,00.html
The jetski ban controversy churns. A larger lawsuit to end the Powell ban is
filed, and the Bluewater Network is preparing to fight it, maybe. Meanwhile,
a National Park Service official suggests that the final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will be released in May and will not differ much from
the draft EIS -- 30,000 public comments later.
http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20030406/topstories/70730.html
The City of Page has a new, tougher water ordinance, leaving us to wonder at
the irony of a water shortage for a city whose livelihood depends upon the
reservoir it sits next to.
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=64719
The dam will come down some day, by the force of either political action or
nature. Until then, if you want to visit it, it's open to the public again
after terrorism alerts had closed it.
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=23051
The Embrey Dam in Virginia is scheduled to come down over the next few
years. Read about 100 years of silt buildup and how congress funded the
removal project and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help bring the dam
down.
http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2003/032003/03162003/894434
The DoI's reduction of 600,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water to
California appears to have been finalized, with Los Angeles, San Diego, and
areas near Palm Springs receiving the cuts.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=27&u=/ap/2003
0429/ap_on_re_us/california_water_3
By the way, if you come across links that might belong here, please send
them to us. We'll give you back a very hearty thank you (and a mention).
LEA RUDEE SPEAKS OUT!
When the Sacramento Bee printed an article with big, beautiful photos of
Glen Canyon in March,
www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/powell/story/6373636p-7326446c.html,
GCI's trustees were elated to see the press coverage and disappointed by
some omissions. Lea was motivated to write this letter to the editor which,
incidentally, they did not print.
"Your recent article on Lake Powell did not include one important aspect of
the problems caused by Lake Powell that is of particular importance to
Californians. When full, Lake Powell causes a loss of Colorado River water
that is about equal to the amount that California has been using over its
allotment. This loss is through both evaporation and bank seepage. Hence,
rather than being a security net for the upper basin states, it actually
makes it harder for them to meet their obligation under the terms of the
Colorado Compact of 1922. At the prices being paid for transfer of water
from farms to cities, the water lost is worth more than the electricity Glen
Canyon Dam generates. In addition, Glen Canyon Dam is causing environmental
havoc in Grand Canyon National Park.
"If the business owners in Arizona and Utah defend Lake Powell because it
provides them revenue, then I believe the water the Lake loses should be
counted against Arizona's and Utah's allotments, just as if it was
transferred to farms and cities."
And when the Washington Post story (top of this newsletter's news links) was
published, Lea offered the following insights.
"I think it is interesting that the Bureau is arguing against the 10 year
average, which is in the Colorado Compact of 1922. We must have gotten their
attention in our most recent articles and brochures. From what I can see
there is adequate storage up stream and in Mead to do without Powell and its
losses. Especially since the climate estimates are that unless we do an
about face on greenhouse gases, the need for storage will decline.
"It is also a basic precept of reservoir management that if there are two
reservoirs on a stream, in times of low water keep one full and one empty to
minimize loss. This is based on a first course in physical chemistry and
common sense. This was done on Pine Valley Creek in San Diego County one
drought ago over the screams of the recreational users of one of the two
reservoirs. As I understand it the Bureau is drawing down Powell and Mead at
about equal rates, thereby maximizing loss."
APRIL IN THE GRAND CANYON
By Dave Wegner
From April 2nd through the 19th Jeri Ledbetter (former GCI ED) and I led a
group of enthusiastic river supporters through the Grand Canyon. Six dories
and two rafts navigated the river from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek. Along
the way, side canyons, springs, backcountry areas and the river corridor
were explored. Daily interactive lectures included canyon ecology, the law
of the Colorado River, Reservoir Powell dynamics, legal shenanigans, and
native cultures. Evenings included campfire talks, music and the time
honored tradition of telling tall tales about the Grand Canyon. Included on
the trip was a film crew recording footage for an upcoming PBS special on
Glen Canyon and the restoration efforts. We will let you know when the
premier of the show is scheduled.
The next GCI sponsored Grand Canyon trip is tentatively scheduled for the
spring of 2006. Once again the focus will be on education, exploration of
the Grand Canyon and above all having a good time.
The Grand Canyon is truly a wondrous place, every day someone remarked -
"just imagine what it would be like to float from Moab to Diamond Creek".
Someday, with your help, and the Glen Canyon Institute's vigilance, that
dream will become a reality. Stay tuned.
YES WE CAN
By Laurel Hanley
At least three dams have been removed in the state of Oregon within the past
five years. Among these is the Jackson Street Dam on Bear Creek, a major
tributary of the Rogue River in southwest Oregon, which flows into the
Pacific Ocean.
The Jackson Street Dam was built in 1960 to provide irrigation to the Rogue
River Valley Irrigation District. It was located in the largest city park in
Medford, Oregon, and backed up water for a quarter-mile, creating poor water
quality in the reservoir and causing a bad odor in Medford's downtown area.
In addition, the Jackson Street Dam blocked the migration of fish species in
Bear Creek such as coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead. Coho salmon
are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and
were seldom found in Bear Creek. The dam did have an upstream fish ladder,
but it was not effective due to flaws in its construction. Fish passage
downstream was also a problem because migrating fish would get caught in the
irrigation canals.
To replace the water that the dam had provided to the irrigation district, a
new diversion device was built that was about three feet high instead of the
11 foot high Jackson Street Dam. It is located 1,200 feet upstream from the
old dam, and backs up only 5-10% of the area contained in the old reservoir.
More importantly, its main feature is that it is removable at the end of the
irrigation season in October, and Bear Creek can run freely until April when
the irrigation season begins again. This allows fish to migrate upstream and
downstream much more easily during their primary migration months. Improved
fish ladders were built, with short, one-foot drops, and a better quality
fish screen was installed to keep the fish out of irrigation canals.
Volunteer groups from the community planted native trees along the newly
exposed stream banks.
Since the Jackson Street Dam was removed in 1998, water quality has
improved, a quarter mile of Bear Creek has been restored, upstream and
downstream migration has improved, and coho salmon and other species have
been found upstream of the old dam site. In addition, the city park and
downtown area are free from the stench caused by the reservoir.
The total cost to remove the dam was $1.2 million, and was the lowest cost
alternative for fixing the problems caused by the dam. This is an excellent
example of a collaborative effort among city and state government agencies,
environmental groups, and an irrigation district. Stakeholders with little
in common (fish and farmers) are literally sharing the water, the fish
having primary use from October to April, and irrigation interests having
primary use from April to October. Future restoration projects are planned
for Bear Creek.
(Source: American Rivers)
CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
By Dave Haskell
There are many human activities that impact, to some degree, the resources
of the Grand Canyon or the visitor experiences that depend on those
resources. Some of these activities, although temporarily damaging, are
sustainable because they do not lead to irreparable damage. An example is
the presence of air tours. They create noise that is detrimental to the
enjoyment of natural quiet. However, the impact is not cumulative and once
it is stopped, the temporary impairment is immediately gone. There are many
other human induced impacts that fit into this category of "manageable
impact". It is unsustainable resource damages that must not be allowed to
occur in a National Park such as the Grand Canyon because it creates the
type of severe, permanent impairment that the National Park Service Organic
Act prohibits.
By far the most damaging and unsustainable human activity occurring within
the Grand Canyon today is the effect of the presence of Glen Canyon Dam. It
is well documented that the operations of this dam are causing severe and
possibly irreversible damage to the aquatic ecosystem of the Colorado River.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The continued operation of Glen
Canyon Dam will eventually lead to a disaster of immense proportions. It is
becoming very clear that the construction of this dam was a huge mistake
because it has created a situation that is not sustainable. The most obvious
and unavoidable problem is the trapping of river sediment in the reservoir.
It must be clearly understood that the primary natural function of the
Colorado River is to transport the easily eroded soft sandstone of the
Colorado Plateau to the sea. The forces of erosion and gravity can not be
denied. Within the scope of geologic time, this process is less than half
completed. There is still enough sediment to be transported by the river to
fill both Powell and Mead reservoirs thousands of times over. Sediment
accumulation alone will eventually led to failure of the dam and subsequent
unprecedented damage to the Grand Canyon and other resources downstream.
The huge sediment load carried by the Colorado River has been known since
the earliest river explorations. It is a tragedy that in 1954 Congress
knowingly failed to adequately consider the seriousness of this problem. It
is a little understood fact that one of the primary reasons for building
Glen Canyon Dam was to prolong the life of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. In the
years following the construction of Hoover Dam the rate of sediment
accumulation in Lake Mead was alarming. It was a certainty that unless the
huge annual sediment load of the Colorado River was trapped somewhere else
upstream the life of Hoover Dam was limited. As is often the case,
relatively short-term economic needs won the day, and Congress authorized
Glen Canyon Dam. Some future Congress would have to deal with the
consequences.
In addition to serving as a sediment trap, the dam produces power generation
revenue that the upper basin states use to construct more dams and
diversions on the tributaries of the Colorado. This purpose has now been
largely fulfilled. Society is now faced with the daunting prospect of paying
the price. Dealing with sediment accumulation in the reservoir and paying
for the huge losses of water that evaporate in periods of draught, will
eventually cost far more then the initial economic benefits provided to the
upper basin states. Time will eventually prove that it would have been far
less expensive just to have used tax dollars to pay for these upper basin
storage projects and let the river run free through Glen and Grand Canyon.
In addition to escalating economic losses as a result of the dam, government
scientists are now well aware of the severe ecological damage created both
upstream and downstream of this dam. The National Park Service (NPS) is
responsible for protecting and managing the resources found within most of
the Colorado River system north of Hoover Dam. The NPS has a congressional
mandate to protect park resources and natural processes "unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations". The body of law that creates this mandate
is just as relevant to our culture as that which pertains to the management
of water and power. In response to growing public concern over the adverse
effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the resources of the Grand
Canyon, Congress passed the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act. This act
directed the Secretary of the Interior to mitigate the negative effects of
the dam on downstream resources. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was
conducted and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1996. The Glen Canyon
Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) was established to advise the
Secretary on dam operational changes authorized within the ROD and to report
on progress made in the mitigation progress.
An impressive amount of research and monitoring has been conducted in
support of this effort. Beginning with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
program which gathered information for the EIS, and continuing with the
Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center supporting the AMWG, over a
decade of research and associated experimental flows has been conducted
costing taxpayers over 80 million dollars. Although much has been learned,
very little progress, if any, has been made in actually reducing the
impacts. The total demise of the natural biodiversity of the Colorado River
ecosystem within the Grand Canyon is nearing completion. It is becoming
increasingly clear that altering dam operations will not be effective in
mitigating ecosystem changes brought about by the presence of the dam.
The key to maintaining the long-term viability of any activity or condition
is the concept of sustainability. This concept is particularly relevant to
the management and protection of national parks because the National Park
Service Organic Act of 1916 requires that parks be maintained in an
"unimpaired" condition. In order for the National Park Service to meet this
mandate it must manage for the long-term sustainability of park resources.
Although the current damages to Grand Canyon resources are tragic, future
catastrophic events brought about by the accumulation of river sediment in
the reservoir will be devastating. Since the completion of Glen Canyon Dam
in 1964, the Colorado's nearly 100million ton average annual sediment load
has been collecting in Lake Powell. It is an undisputed fact that unless a
very costly annual dredging program is commenced soon, or the dam is
decommissioned and a river bypass created, Lake Powell will fill with
sediment. Studies show that the advancing silt has already traveled 50 miles
downstream in the 39 years since the dam was completed. As the accumulating
sediment continues to move downstream the rate of advance will likely speed
up as more sediment is added from numerous side canyons and major sources
such as the San Juan River. In less than 80 years it is likely that sediment
will be rapidly piling up against the face of the dam. Well before the
entire reservoir is filled with silt, the leading edge of the advancing
sediment will first clog the dam's river outlet works, the only openings
that can be used to release water in times of low reservoir levels. Located
at elevation 3374 (100 feet below the generator penstock openings), BOR data
estimates that sediment will clog these openings in about another 100 years
(E. Shultz, 1961).
The clogging of the river outlets will severely impair the safety of the
dam. These are the only openings that can be used to release water from the
dam in times of prolonged draught when the reservoir surface drops below the
penstock openings. And in times of high water flows these openings are
needed to augment releases from the generator penstocks in order to prevent
hazardous use of the spillways during high water years. During the current
draught the reservoir has already dropped 100 feet to an elevation of 3605.
If the reservoir level drops to elevation 3490 (within twenty feet of the
center of the generator penstock openings), the generators must be shut
down. If the draught continues, it is possible that this could occur within
two years. In this event the outlet works will be used to bypass the
generators in order to deliver the minimum flows required by law through the
dam. No electric power would be generated until the lake level rose back
above the penstock intake openings, which could be several years. This
event, in itself, might not be more harmful to the canyon, but future
scenarios are likely to be disastrous. Let's take a look at what could occur
one hundred years in the future. If the BOR has not found a way to raise the
river outlet works openings higher on the face of the dam, these openings
will now be clogged with sediment. If there is another draught, and the lake
level drops below the penstock openings, there will no longer be any way to
release water from the dam. Except for the inflows from the few small
tributary streams within the Grand Canyon, the flow of the mighty Colorado
would be a reduced to mere trickle.
As the sediment level continues to deepen it could reach the penstock
openings by the year 2150. In this scenario there will no longer be any way
to release water at any reservoir level. In wet cycles, because of
drastically reduced reservoir storage capacity, the water level could easily
reach the spillways. These spillways were not designed for the discharge of
water for prolonged periods of time. High volume use of these spillways for
more than a week or two would most likely lead to their catastrophic
failure.
According to BOR studies, over-topping of the dam would likely lead to the
formation of a river channel through the soft sandstone on either side of
the dam. Once the spillways failed, complete breaching of the dam could
occur in a matter of hours. Such an event would be devastating to the inner
gorge of the Grand Canyon. Following the near failure of the dam in 1983,
the Bureau of Reclamation prepared a flood inundation model for the failure
of Glen Canyon Dam ( S. Latham, BOR 1990). According to this study, in the
event of overtopping or breaching of the dam, the crest of the flood would
be over 500 feet high when it reached the Grand Canyon and 230 feet high
when it reached Lake Mead. The study concludes: " The failure of Glen Canyon
Dam due to overtopping would produce catastrophic flooding with
unprecedented flood depths and discharges all the way to Lake Mead and
Hoover Dam. Even if Hoover Dam did not fail, there would be unprecedented
flooding downstream of Lake Mead as well". The results would be that the
inner gorge of the park would be completely scoured, and every living thing
would be crushed by a wall of sediment, rock and water traveling at
approximately 25 miles per hour down the canyon.
Although the recent draught period precludes such an event occurring in the
near term, the exposed sediment bed at the upper end of the reservoir is a
vivid reminder that the sedimentation process is well underway. The time to
act is now before the situation becomes unmanageable. If dredging is to be
the long-term solution, it must start immediately while the advancing
sediment toe is still near the road access at Hite. If engineering studies
prove that annual dredging will be too costly and impractical in this remote
location, Congress should aggressively seek the decommissioning of Glen
Canyon Dam. With a dam bypass the accumulated sediment could be carried
naturally over a period of years through the Grand Canyon to Lake Mead where
it can be more easily dredged and removed. The policy ramifications of this
issue are obviously complex. However, there is compelling evidence that
there would be both short and long-term positive economic benefits from
restoring a free flowing river through Glen and Grand Canyon. The government
could then focus its effort on managing Lake Mead as a sustainable water
storage and hydropower facility. Resolving this critical problem will take
courage and strong commitment to creating a sustainable future for the Grand
Canyon, property owners downstream of the park and Colorado Rivers water
users. |
|
|
