Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I have just finished reading a speech you gave at a conference on ESA. The text: Dams are not forever.

My family and I are from a suburb northwest of Chicago. Around 1979 an article on Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam appeared in a local newspaper. After reading the article we decided to take a side trip to the area to see first hand all the outdoor adventures Lake Powell had to offer.

As we drove down Rt. 89 to the Lake, we became awe struck at the beauty of what lay before of us. The Lake a beautiful blue and the mountains in many shades of the southwest, we only stayed two days but vowed to return.

Since then we have been back once a year for the last twenty years and in that same time only stopped twice at the Grand Canyon.

My husband and I have been in love with the area ever since that first glance. So much so, that two years ago we made our dream come true with the purchase of property over looking the lake. Yes, Mr. Babbitt we purchased the property knowing that the Dam may hear the "clang of the sledge hammer" and decided it was still worth it.

Now, to my thoughts of the "clang of the sledgehammer" to the Glen Canyon Dam and the death of Lake Powell. As I read your speech and the three paragraphs on the Glen Canyon Dam I could hear echos of the Sierra Club and Mr. Brower. Please don't get me wrong, I think the Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization. I just question some of its leadership.

I agree that perhaps the Dam should never have been built, but it was. It seems that we as Americans act first and think about the consequences later. An example: the automobile. This fantastic marvel was revered for solving a major pollution problem -- the horse. You see the horse recycled 22 pounds of hay a day and in urban areas this was becoming a problem. So entered the automobile to solve the problem - but did it? Now the consequence is air pollution. So, do we go back to the horse or find solutions to the air pollution the automobile has caused?

As I read your comments, several questions come to mind and I would like you to address them:

Is there a guarantee that the Colorado River will reach the gulf if the dam is demolished?

If the American Indian Tribes sell their water rights what will happen to the river at that point?

Would there be severe and uncontrolled flooding with the destruction of the Dam?

Has flooding in other areas of the country been more severe due to the ring of your sledgehammer?

What would be the financial loss to the states of Arizona and Utah that now benefit from tourism due to the Lake?

Has there been any thought to the Hydro power that Glen Canyon generates for several states?

The reference to a community deciding the fate of a dam, in the case of Glen Canyon Dam what would the community consist of - define community.

Has the artificial flooding or in your words "flushing of a giant toilet" helped restore the Colorado River downstream in the Grand Canyon? If so, will this continue and would this not be a solution to the problem?

Your statement "But without consequences for the entire river system" stands out, my final and most important question: If Glen Canyon Dam hears the "clang of the sledgehammer" what is the consequence to the ecosystem that is Lake Powell now?

Barbara J. Morony
A Friend of Lake Powell

February 11, 1999

Ms. Barbara J. Morony

Dear Ms. Morony:

I have been asked to respond to your e-mail letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The issues surrounding the Colorado River and Glen Canyon Dam are of particular interest to Secretary Babbitt. His personal involvement includes signing the Record of Decision in 1996 for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (GCD EIS) and, in 1997, chartering the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) for Glen Canyon Dam. The AMWG is a federal advisory group to the Secretary concerning current and future management issues at Glen Canyon Dam relative to implementing the GCD EIS and the Grand Canyon Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992. Also in 1996, Secretary Babbitt personally started the Beach/Habitat-Building Flow from Glen Canyon Dam, designed to test our ability to use flood flows to restore and maintain beaches and backwater habitats in the Grand Canyon.

Concerning the "clang of the sledgehammer" at Glen Canyon Dam, there are no proposals by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Secretary of the Interior to eliminate the dam or drain Lake Powell. In fact, appropriation legislation passed last fall for this current fiscal year prohibits us from spending any appropriated funds for the purpose of studying any such proposal.

You had some specific questions for the Secretary. I will try to answer them, but not all of them have a definitive answer readily available.

"Is there a guarantee that the Colorado River will reach the gulf if the dam is demolished?"

As I said, there is no federal proposal to demolish the dam, so therefore there are no studies concerning this question. It is reasonable to say there would be no guarantee that water under that event would reach the gulf. At that point, the water would be in the Republic of Mexico and subject to Mexican law and desires. At the present time, Mexico is guaranteed 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year by way of a 1945 treaty. That water is consumptively used by Mexico.

"If the American Indian Tribes sell their water rights what will happen to the river at that point?"

The issue of water rights and their uses by Native Americans is a complex one. Several tribes occupy reservations with claimed or vested water rights to the Colorado River and/or its tributaries. Typically, those rights are senior rights tied back to the dates of the establishment of their reservations. However, the 1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent actions that became the body of law known as the "Law of the River" did not address the tribes' water rights. In recent years, Congress, the Interior Department, and the basin states have worked with the tribes to quantify and recognize those rights. The long-term uses of those rights that may involve selling or leasing those rights on an interstate basis has implications related to the "Law of the River," which governs water allocation and uses between the states. Also, water law in each specific state impacts each tribe. I cannot provide a definite answer to your question at this point in time. However, I believe that it is safe to assume that any large storage reservoir such as Lake Powell will become an even more critical component in future management scenarios, whatever they may be.

"Would there be severe and uncontrolled flooding with the destruction of the dam?"

It is possible. The Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs, as mandated by the Colorado River Basin Act of 1968, includes flood control and river regulation. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, and other reservoirs upstream of Glen Canyon, also are important to the operation of Hoover Dam and other dams downstream of Glen Canyon. Without Glen Canyon Dam, Hoover Dam would be at a greater risk of releasing flood flows due to the lack of upstream river control.

"Has flooding in other areas of the country been more severe due to the ring of your sledgehammer?"

I cannot answer that with any specifics. Those recent actions involve small dams where the concept of removal included broad based support of all interests in the impacted watersheds. Flood control, and other management issues, were far more localized. Also, since those actions were recent, these is no post-dam record to study.

"What would be the financial loss to the states of Arizona and Utah that now benefit from tourism due to the lake?"

Commissioner of Reclamation Eluid Martinez testified before the Congress (House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources) on September 23, 1997, and reported that Glen Canyon generates approximately $400 million annually for the local and regional economies. Over 2.5 million national and international visitors are attracted to the Lake Powell area. About 42,000 visitors float the waters between the dam and Lees Ferry, 16 miles downstream, on concessioner float trips. We have over 900,000 people annually stop at the visitor center at the dam. The assured flows from the dam provide for the river running industry through the Grand Canyon, which prior to the dam was limited to the brief spring runoff period.

The Department of Energy testified at the same hearing that Glen Canyon Dam's maximum hydropower operating capability of 1,356 megawatts is critical to over 100 municipal utilities, rural electric cooperatives, irrigation districts, and federal and state agencies in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. For the most part, the power is supplied to the states' rural areas. The sales of Glen Canyon Dam hydropower, which in fiscal year 1996 totaled 5.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh's), generated $93 million in revenues. That money repays the cost of construction and operation of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), plus portions of the repayment for a number of other "participating projects" (they participate, by law, in the use of CRSP power revenues) in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Glen Canyon Dam revenues account for about 75 percent of the total power sales from CRSP powerplants, which include Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona; Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah; and Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Dams in Colorado. CRSP powerplants also include the Upper and Lower Molina Powerplants of the Collbran Project in Colorado and the Fontenelle Dam Powerplant of the Seedskadee Project in Wyoming. One other CRSP Unit, Navajo Dam in New Mexico, does not have a federal powerplant. If the power revenues at Glen Canyon Dam were lost, the remaining repayment obligations from construction of the CRSP and the upstream participating projects would have to be covered by the taxpayers. If the power source was lost, the Department of Energy estimates that up to 80 percent of it would have to be replaced from fossil-fired (coal) powerplants. There are no other hydropower options to replace Glen Canyon Dam.

At the same hearing, the state of Utah testified that even if the lake-based recreational industry were replaced with a river-based recreational industry, the resulting economic losses would exceed $380 million and would devastate southern Utah. The State also testified that the dam is critical to allowing Utah and the Upper Basin states to continue to use and develop their shares of the Colorado River by storing water for delivery to the Lower Basin during drought periods.

The state of Arizona testified that without Glen Canyon Dam, future water supplies for 20 million people in the Lower Basin states would be severely jeopardized and become more susceptible to drought. Arizona put the overall economic impact of Lake Powell to the southwest at more than $500 million. Arizona Game and Fish also reported fishing days in the waters below the dam at about 30,000 per year with a value of $5 million annually. Draining the lake would destroy that fishery, the state said. Arizona also cited the loss of over 1,600 jobs to the Navajo Nation if the lake were drained, plus the closing of the Navajo Power Plant in Page, Arizona, which would run about $2.7 billion in cost. Over 3 million customers, mostly in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, receive electricity produced at that powerplant that depends upon Lake Powell waters. Those customers, of course, are in addition to those receiving power from the Glen Canyon Dam powerplant.

As a point of reference, one hydropower industry publication reported that in 1995, Glen Canyon Dam was the seventh largest hydropower generating facility in the country with over 5.5 million megawatt hours (MWh's), ahead of even Hoover Dam which generated 4.7 MWh's. The largest, by the way, was Grand Coulee Dam, also a Reclamation facility, with 27.9 million MWh's.

Returning to the Grand Canyon river running industry, a representative of America Outdoors, a national trade association representing the river outfitters, also testified in opposition to the concept of draining the lake. The guides said that such an idea was bad on all counts, environmentally, recreationally, socially, and economically.

"Has there been any thought to the hydropower that Glen Canyon generates for several states."

That answer is included in question number six. The hydropower generated is critical to a number of states and would be difficult to replace.

"The reference to a community deciding the fate of a dam, in the case of Glen Canyon Dam, what would the community consist of - define community."

Again, since the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior have no proposal for removing the dam, this has never been considered or defined in relationship to Glen Canyon Dam. The community of interest and the beneficiaries of the dam and Lake Powell include the seven basin states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. In addition, there is a national constituency reflected in the millions of visitors to Lake Powell.

"Has the artificial flooding or in your words "flushing of a giant toilet" helped restore the Colorado River downstream in the Grand Canyon? If so, will this continue and would this not be a solution to the problem?"

I believe that Secretary Babbitt's reference to flushing a toilet was in speaking to the past operations of the dam. In past years, the flows from the dam would fluctuate significantly on a daily and even hourly basis, driven by the demand for hydropower generation. However, the GCD EIS and the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 changed the way the dam operates. Now Glen Canyon operations are conducted with a very sensitive eye towards downstream impacts. Secretary Babbitt, in fact, signed the Record of Decision implementing the GCD EIS in 1996. Additionally, Secretary Babbitt was present in 1996 to start the testing of our use of flood flows for regeneration of riverine beaches and habitat and, at a national news conference, declared it a successful process. We envision future uses of floods for environmental purposes. Over the past year, the Adaptive Management Work Group worked with Reclamation to develop criteria that will, in the future, determine when and how those flows will take place. The 1996 experiment did create or rejuvenate beaches and backwaters that are critical to the endangered fish in Grand Canyon. We also, in the ensuing period, learned more about how post-flood management actions impact those newly created resources. You are correct, Beach/Habitat-Building Flows, as we call them, are important management tools.

"If Glen Canyon Dam hears the "clang of the sledgehammer," what is the consequence to the ecosystem that is Lake Powell now?"
Essentially, the Lake Powell ecosystem would be lost. Again, since we have no proposal to drain the lake, we have never quantified what that loss would be. Companion to that questions is, what would the impact be to the downstream ecosystem in Grand Canyon? Obviously, sediment that is in the bottom of the lake would go downstream. Would it bury Grand Canyon? Some say yes, it could. Would it impact Lake Mead? Yes. Would the trout fishery be lost? Yes. Beyond that, everything is speculation, and if one listens to scientists and interested individuals, a host of conflicting opinions will be heard.

Charles A. Calhoun
Regional Director

For more information contact. friends@lakepowell.org