Drain Powell (was SUWA)

Beautiful pictures! Thanks for the link.

jim

Gail Hoskisson moabgail@frontiernet.net> wrote: on 6/18/04 10:24 AM, Mark Lewis at mwlewis27@comcast.net wrote:

> I’d be up for that; mighty interested in those canyons myself…

Mark

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, James Schnepel > Politics and facts about draining Lake Powell aside, I’d like to > explore some of these newly exposed canyons before the water rises. > Anyone interested in working together to research and plan some trips?

I went with a group of friends for several days this April to explore some of the reemerging canyons. We explored from Lake Foul using motorboats to get to the canyons. Frankly, we expected to spend a lot more time hiking and in the canyons that we did. It took a lot of time to get from one canyon to another by water. Every one of us left with mixed feelings about the excursion, but were still glad that we did it.

One member of our group put together some photographs (before the dam and now) on this website.

http://rosebud.moenkopi.net/pics/utah0404/powell/powell1.html

Gail

When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:

Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?

Bombastic Bolt Debates are allowed to only a limited extent. Folks should go to the Canyoneer Group for a truly un-moderated forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyoneer

To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/

This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".

WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.

Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.

New and Improved Mail – Send 10MB messages!

I was curious about many of the points members of the group have brought up regarding this issue and it prompted me to share some of the group’s discussion with the Executive Director of the Glen Canyon Institute. Following, is his reply… (It is long, but, it didn’t feel right to try to edit it.) Jim

The Glen Canyon issue is by far the most misunderstood issue in the West; after reading some of the correspondence that is going back and forth on this message board, it is obvious that this is true. The issue is incredibly complex and often people love to get tied up in little details instead of looking at the big picture; this is often a struggle for those of us working within the issue. The reality is this: “Lake” Powell reservoir is the most destructive and least useful reservoir ever built.

Lake Powell Reservoir was justified to Congress in the 1950s as the perfect solution to uncertainty of water supply for the growing Southwest. It was to be the “silver bullet”, providing an insurance policy for the Upper Basin States’ water delivery responsibility, regulating floods, and being a “cash register” hydropower dam to pay for building dozens of other dams upstream in the Colorado’s watershed. After forty years, it is clear that Lake Powell Reservoir is far from the perfect solution to water supply problems in the West. It wastes significant amounts of water annually to evaporation (nearly 1 Million acre-feet annually), generates an insignificant amount of hydropower, is unsafe, has all but destroyed the biological resources in Glen and Grand Canyons, while imposing significant long-term costs on the public (due to rapid sedimentation). However, the most devastating impact of Lake Powell’s development has been the false sense of water security to both the Upper and Lower Basin States, which has resulted in unsustainable growth and development. The idea of a centralized water and electricity system has simply proven to be unsustainable.

The current drought in the Southwest, which is not unprecedented in recent history, has drawn the water levels of Lake Powell down by more than 56%, exposing hundreds of miles of “lost” side canyons and more than forty miles of the Colorado River itself. In addition, the record low water levels have shown that Glen Canyon and its side canyons possess an incredible capacity for rapid restoration. It is evident that Lake Powell reservoir is not an acceptable solution to the region’s water resource problems. Long-term climate models predict changing hydrologic dynamics throughout the watershed, decreasing the reservoir’s storage capacity—as there may not be sufficient water in the river to refill it. Glen Canyon Dam began life as a political decision. It exists today as a monument to the political tradeoffs of the 1950’s. The Colorado River is a national resource, supported and subsidized by all Americans. Its’ purpose and future should be debated on a national level, not in the office of developers. This is the big picture.

There are numerous falsehoods floating around the message board on this issue and I don’t have time to go through and debunk every single one, however, I will touch on the most important issues. The dam was built for water storage and delivery purposes, not hydropower or recreation. The Burea of Reclamation’s own flow data shows that Lake Powell ( and the nearly 1 million acrefeet of water lost to evaporation and bank seepage), makes it more difficult for the Upper Basin to meet it’s water delivery requirement to the Lower Basin. It is simply counterproductive for this purpose, and this is why it was built!

When you talk about power generation, Glen Canyon Dam generates less than 1% of the power on the Western Power Grid, and the Western grid always keeps a 20% excess. It generates 451 average megawatts, which is negligible in comparison to the power plants in the region.The capacity of GCD will never be used because the Grand Canyon PRotection Act of 1992 was passed to help save the Grand Canyon ecosystem from harmful peaking releases.) A big chunk of the power from GCD goes at a heavily subsidized rate to irrigation cooperatives. Hunter and Huntington plants down by Price generate 750 and 1150 avg. megawatts; and they are tiny. Navajo Generating Station would only need to extend its intakes to a free flowing river (or to the 237 dead pool elevation in the mean time) if the reservoir was drained. Restoring Glen Canyon does not mean destroying Navajo Generating Station; that is one of the many falsehoods that the Friends of Lake Powell love to hammer on–it’s just not true. The fact is that power generation is a non issue when it comes to what will ultimately happen to Glen Canyon, as is recreation; it’s all about water.

Glen Canyon Institute Perspective: We believe, based on the facts and operational outcomes that the basin wide approach to water management for the Colorado River has failed. This 40-year experiment has failed to achieve the objectives used to justify the dam to the Congress and the American public. We believe there are alternative approaches to water management that will provide a sustainable approach to balancing water use and environmental protection in the Colorado River Basin. Glen Canyon Institute can become the catalyst for change to begin the process of restoring the Canyon. I’d be happy to schedule a slideshow presentation and answer questions in the SLC area if the interest is there for it.

Christopher Peterson Executive Director Glen Canyon Institute 450 S. 900 E. Ste. 160 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: 801.363.4450 Fax: 801.363.4451 chris@glencanyon.org http://www.glencanyon.org

Mail is new and improved – Check it out!

Shane Burrows shane@sisna.com> wrote:

While current sedimentation may be growing at less than 1 cm per year at the dam, much higher levels are accumulating farther back in the reservoir. Sediments fall from water to the lake/reservoir bed as the river flow slows down. Thus, most of the sediment is going to drop out well before it reaches the dam. But, this will not last forever because as sediments fill up the upper reaches of the lake they will continue to build areas closer to the dam at a faster, and increasing, rate. Thus, the dam will see a progressively growing sedimentary over the years to come.

At a certain critical height (I can’t recall the level) the sedimentation will overcome the water inlets that feed the generators. It is then theorized that the system will have to be decomissioned or risk damage from sediments and larger debris that will then be working toward the dam.

Jim

>>Rolling brown-outs and drastically increased power prices?! Sheesh. That piddly little dam doesnt produce THAT much power for the grid. You must be thinking of the Enron Dam!