What was considered almost laughable two years ago, has now become a serious proposal among recreationists, environmentalists and politicians. The Glen Canyon Institute's proposal to drain Lake Powell reservoir and restore the Colorado has great merit. I want to take a moment and update you on what is happening in the bid to drain Lake Powell. Space won't allow me to discuss everything, but here are some highlights of what is happening.
We are well into our citizen's environmental assessment (CEA) to collect reliable data that will provide the scientific basis and arguments needed to drain the reservoir. In addition, the data collected will be used to force the government to perform an environmental impact statement (EIS). The CEA is well underway. With several studies completed and more being conducted.
We have just hired an Executive Director. She is Pamela Hyde. Most recently she was director of the Southwest Office of American Rivers. She received her J.D. from Duke University School of Law. We are challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts to alter the temperature of the water released from Glen Canyon Dam without first performing an Environmental Impact Statement. We are looking at dam safety, water quality and sediment problems. We are building a constituency of other environmental groups form a united front on restoring the Colorado River.
This past October, we held our 4th annual conference in Salt Lake City on the University of Utah Campus. It was a very successful day long conference. In the morning was the scientific session. In the afternoon we held the artists session where leading artists and writers came together from around the United States to present their views on this work. The evening general session was attended by 1,300 people and there actor Woody Harrelson attended to give his support to the restoration of the river. Below are some of the common questions that people ask.
Don't we need the water stored in Lake Powell?
This is one of the biggest misconceptions. Even with the worst drought situation, water from Lake Powell would only be required one year out of 100 to meet the Lower Basin's needs. Every year, however, one million acre feet are lost to evaporation and seepage into the reservoir's sandstone banks. The lower basin can store water needed for those rare drought conditions.
How would we make up the lost power from the dam?
The generators at Glen Canyon Dam produce, on average, 1.4% of the electrical energy administered by the Western Area Power Administration. Currently there is a surplus of power on the grid. These facts are not disputed by power officials.
The Bureau of Reclamation states that the reservoir won't silt in for another seven hundred years. Shouldn't we use it while it lasts?
To ask how long it will take the reservoir to silt in is an exercise in futility .More recent studies have predicted the life of the reservoir at 250 or 300 years. In any case, the river is unpredictable and a single 500-year flood could change all figures. More significant is that when silt reaches the "river outlet work" valves that allow the reservoir to be drawn down, for safety or other reasons, the dam will have to be retrofitted for new tubes. This could happen in less than 100 years. Such scenarios are complex and hypothetical, but none of them bode well for the future of the dam. More to the point, how many laws that were made 700 years ago, in the 12th century, govern the way water is distributed today? The next fifty years are going to see rapid, frightening growth in the West, and meanwhile many cleaner, less damaging technologies will be coming on line. Water laws as we know them will be obsolete. The best thing we can do for the future is to deliver a world that is starting to heal from past mistakes.
Isn't Glen Canyon already destroyed? Won't it be a mess if it's drained? Can it be restored?
A better question to ask is where the reservoir is headed if we don't drain it. Year after year the incoming river deltas create more mud flats and the lake surface shrinks. Pollution, including bacteriological contamination, of the stagnant trapped water steadily increases. But a drained Glen Canyon would go through the following metamorphoses. (1) The impounded soils and sediments would flush out quickly. Annual floods would soon deposit the material down the Grand Canyon where it is so desperately needed. (2) The white layer would quickly dry and flake off. (3) In the hundreds of miles of canyon and side canyon bottomsCa breathtaking burst of life! The estimated 15 million acre feet of water that have been forced back into the sandstone over the past 35 years would trickle back. Cottonwoods, hackberry trees, box elders, mesquite, and acacia would quickly populate the rich soil. Oaks would sprout and spread their crowns within two generations. With the abundance of water, year around, Glen Canyon would be more luxuriant than it was when it was flooded.
Nearly three million people visit Lake Powell each year. Won't draining the reservoir prevent many people from seeing at least part of that area?
Glen Canyon is the only long, uninterrupted section in the Colorado River's 700-mile route through the canyon country that does not have any rapids, only a couple of mild riffles. Unlike the situation in Grand Canyon, and the canyons above Glen, highly experienced amateur or professional boatmen with specialized and expensive equipment would not be needed to transport people down the canyon. A restored Glen Canyon would open hundreds of miles of deep mysterious side canyons, filled with verdant life, that could not be fully explored in a lifetime. Tree shaded and open beaches on the main channel would extend for miles. In sum, visitors would have a spectrum of experience vastly greater than what is available in a motor boat on the sterile surface of Lake Powell. Boaters will still have Lake Mead, but those who desire a more profound experience will delight in easily accessible Glen Canyon.