I found this interesting. The NPS and newspaper takes on the big releases and then the take of Tom Martin owner of the Rafting Yahoo Group. Thoughts anyone?
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/hfe.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rafting_Grand_Canyon/message/10405
Steve, While I personally have been on the river at 42,000 cfs, that doesn’t mean anything. You would get more good out of a hill of beans you could create with a two pound bag of pinto’s and a trowel…
While some folks, from the BOR and Interior to some of the “river community” make a big deal of this 24 hour 42,000 cfs flow event, another group have come to realize that 42,000 cfs, without sediment and driftwood augmentation at that, is way too little and way too late. 42,000 is not “super high water” and it’s not even close to pre-dam average yearly spring run-off flows (Average!). What the 42,000 cfs flows are doing is taking the last vestiges of pre-dam sand and moving them out to Lake Mead while a few folks slap each other on the back and say the river environment is being taken care of…
Sorry you were not in Prescott to catch the talk. You might have found you really liked it and I can only encourage you to give the book a read. In researching the Big Water Little Boats book, I came across a letter by Otis Marston in which he predicted way back in 1962 exactly what we are seeing now. Marston noted “The lack of fluctuation in the River will eliminate most of the sand beaches as the willow and tamarisk will grow into a jungle…” (Marston to Coffin, 11-14-62, Marston Collection, Huntington Library).
Then there are the photos of the pre-dam river showing a LOT of sand, the vast majority of which is now gone to lake Mead thanks to “real” high water events like 1983. As to the 42,000 cfs flows, the results are indicating nothing is being rebuilt and more importantly, retained. The deck chairs on the Titanic are being rearranged while the long term results, as now put forward by the USGS in “The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon” (USGS Circular 1282), are disheartening.
But it is not just sand. Driftwood, from huge logs to sawdust sized chunks, fed the food chain in the River before the dam. That too is in very short supply now.
I think the river community, especially those folks like yourself that study river ecology, are smart enough to “get it” that the dam has caused impairment to the river, and the rare 42,000 cfs flow is not going to get us out of the mess the dam has caused.
My running assumption is that the “crazed power brokers” you mention don’t want the flood at all, but a daily hydrograph following peaking power. While in no way advocating for that flow regime, I am saying we need to be truthful about what we have done, remember the River’s history before the dam, and work back toward that state. Anything else is eyewash.