|
Request for information from Andrea Desilets.Original message to Ed Weeks concerning the website glencanyon.net.
========================================================
Hello-
My name is Andrea Desilets. I am a graduate student in Resource Management and
Administration at Antioch of New England Graduate School, New Hampshire. I'm
working on a project on dam decommissioning and came across your web site
(www.glencanyon.net) in my search for information on Glen Canyon Dam. I would be
very grateful if you could answer some questions for me, via email.
Do you have many responses to your web site? Are they predominantly from
anti-dam folks refuting your information or are they from supporters of the dam?
What is the attitude of Page, Arizona toward the dam? Do most residents feel
that they benefit from it and that it contributes to their livelihood? Is there
a strong local movement for draining the lake, or do you feel that it is mostly
non-local (i.e, large environmental organizations) groups that oppose the dam?
Do you think that recreation would decline if the lake were drained? There
wouldn't be an influx of hikers and campers equal to the water-based tourists?
Does your interest for saving Lake Powell stem from your use of it for
recreation, or your belief that those who oppose the dam are misinformed, or
something else?
I recently read that the Bureau of Reclamation has not completed a dam failure
study below Glen Canyon Dam (due to the reported instability of the Navajo
sandstone that the dam is built upon). Do you have any thoughts on this?
Lastly, did you ever experience Glen Canyon before it was flooded? I read your
section about Glen Canyon has been affected by natural dams, but a lot of the
environmentalists' literature discusses how few people ever visited the canyon
before flooding. Its reported beauty has lended the canyon a greater sense of
loss once it was flooded.
Thank you very much for your time!
Truly,
Andrea Desilets
__________________________________________________________________ ____________
Andrea Desilets Eastern Research Group, Inc.
adesilet@erg.com 781-674-7202
Barry Wirth's (Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado) response:
Your e-mail to Ed Weeks concerning questions on Lake Powell issues was
forwarded to me the other day.
I am the Regional Public Affairs Officer for the Upper Colorado
Region of the Bureau of Reclamation. There is a specific item in your
e-mail to Mr. Weeks that I thought it might be helpful for me to
comment on directly to you .
Since your graduate school project has the potential to be read by a
number of interested persons, I paid particular attention to your
questions.
Concerning the safety of Glen Canyon Dam, there are a lot of
misconceptions and ill-founded allegations floating around in the
public sector. You indicated you recently read that Reclamation "has
not completed a dam failure study below Glen Canyon Dam (due to the
reported instability of the Navajo sandstone that the dam is built
upon)." and asked for thoughts on that?"
I recently provided research work to the Commissioner of Reclamation,
Eluid Martinez, for a letter he sent to the Glen Canyon Institute,
which is the principal proponent of the "drain Lake Powell" movement.
There are some portions of that letter that may be helpful to you in
answering your question.
The Commissioner said that the Glen Canyon Institute continues to
imply there are severe Glen Canyon Dam safety concerns within
Reclamation, which Reclamation will not discuss with the public. All
safety inspection records for Glen Canyon Dam are in Reclamation's
files and are available for review. They are extensive and complete
and do not indicate any problems concerning either the siting of the
dam or the structure. Included in these records are four complete
studies done in 1982, 1984, 1989, and 1995 under the Safety Evaluation
of Existing Dams (SEED) program. The 1989 study was done by an
outside firm (Goodson and Associates) under contract to Reclamation.
The Commissioner said it is important to realize that each study
applied state-of-the-art standards as they existed at that time for
design, construction and operation practices. The dam may have been
constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, but the very latest review
incorporated 1998 technology. That is, by the way, true for every
Bureau of Reclamation dam.
We have just completed the field work for a Comprehensive Facilities
Review of Glen Canyon Dam, which will be published in 1999. The
report of findings is being prepared by a senior design engineer who
has not been involved in any previous analysis. This ensures we do
not overlook anything by having a fresh set of eyes looking at the dam
and the report. In addition, the draft report will be peer-reviewed
prior to publication. The Comprehensive Facilities Review replaces
the SEED reviews previously conducted.
There are other safety studies the Commissioner identified. Prior to
construction of the dam, extensive geological studies were undertaken.
Those reports were reevaluated in the Glen Canyon Dam Structural
Analysis Report of 1985 to determine if, following construction and
filling of the reservoir, conditions had changed. Essentially, that
report became the baseline for future analysis of the structural
integrity of the dam. Also in 1991, a Structural Behavior Report was
done reviewing the dam itself, including mechanical equipment and the
concrete.
The spillway redesign, reconstruction, testing and evaluation studies
are also available for public review. The 1984 testing of the
reconstructed spillways confirmed that the spillways performed as
designed with the installed air slots to prevent the cavitational
forces that damaged them during use in 1983. This is a point we have
not hid from the public. In fact, one of the most popular videos we
have ever produced for the public details this situation and repair
effort. (It is called "Challenge at Glen Canyon" and is available
from my office)
We constantly reevaluate the structural integrity of all Reclamation
dams, using data, information, and new state-of-the-art processes.
Our desire is to know as much as possible about how a dam is
performing and how it will perform under extreme loadings, such as in
earthquakes or under extreme hydrologic situations. Whenever new
information or a better method of analysis becomes available, we seize
the opportunity to learn more about our projects. In the case of Glen
Canyon Dam, NO STUDY has revealed a significant concern.
The Commissioner invited the Glen Canyon Institute to visit
Reclamation's offices and review the reports and data concerning the
safety of Glen Canyon Dam. He suggested that the Institute may want
to bring a professional person of their choice who is educated and
experienced in engineering and geologic sciences to assist them in
such a review. To date, that has never happened.
We have belabored these safety points because the Commissioner
strongly believes in the integrity of the Bureau of Reclamation's
safety program and record. Commissioner Martinez said in one news
release on our dam safety program in 1997, "...our highest obligation
is to maintain public safety. We are dedicated to taking every
measure necessary to see that our program is the most effective in the
world."
The bottom line is, all of the numerous reviews of the dam, the
foundation, the abutments, and the overall safety of the facility
indicate Glen Canyon Dam is safe and secure. There are no technical
documents concerning the geology or safety that have not been
published or are not in our files or are otherwise "hidden" from
view.
One other item of note, in P.L.105-277 (October 21, 1998) Congress
prohibited the federal government from any use of appropriated funds
in any study of draining the reservoir. To quote from the conference
report: "Sec. 110. Lake Powell. No funds appropriated by this Act
or any other Act for fiscal year 1999 shall be used to study or
implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or decommission the Glen
Canyon Dam." Accordingly, the Bureau of Reclamation will not involve
itself in any studies or activities related to draining Lake Powell.
The concept of draining Lake Powell was covered in a hearing
conducted by the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
and the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources on September
23, 1997. The various statements on all sides of the issue, presented
by water users, hydropower customers, environmentalists, recreation
guides, state governments, native American governments, local
entities, etc. may be useful to you. You may obtain those statements
from the Congress. I also have copies of many that I can mail to
you.
Please do not hesitate to call, write, or e-mail me with any further
questions. My address is Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S. State Street,
Room 6107, Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1102, my phone number is (801)
524-3774, my fax number is (801) 524-3856, and you will have my e-mail
through this note. You may also want to visit our web site at:
www.uc.usbr.gov. We have a lot of information concerning the Adaptive
Management Program for Glen Canyon Dam, in conformance with the Record
of Decision and 1996 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam EIS and the 1992
Grand Canyon Protection Act.
Thanks for your time,
Barry Wirth
Regional Public Affairs Officer
Bureau of Reclamation
Ed Weeks' response:
I took the liberty of passing your note
on to Joan Nevilles-Stavely of the Page/Lake Powell Chamber of commerce. Joan grew up in this area, and her father was one of the first to take tours through the Glen and Grand Canyons. Joan is an ardent supporter of
Lake Powell. She misses the Canyon, but realizes it won't some back. She also realizes that the benefits of Lake Powell are considerable. Please contact her. She's intelligent, witty, and has probably spent more time in
what was Glen Canyon then anyone now alive. She copied me on her note to you from the Chamber of Commerce.
Barry Wirth of the Bureau of Reclamation also got your note. He did a much better job of discussing the
current status of the dam safety status than I could have. As much as the Glen Canyon Institute would like to show that the dam is unsafe, it isn't true. The damage in 1983 was from cavitation in the spillways for the
dam. These are concrete lined tunnels through the Navajo sandstone. The cavitation problem has been eliminated and the spillways were tested in 1984. This was the potential weak link - not the dam itself - embedded in
the Navajo Sandstone. The Bureau can provide more details than I can. Feel free to contact Barry. He has a great deal of knowledge about Glen Canyon Dam, and if he doesn't have an answer, he knows where to find it.
As for your questions of me:
Do you have many responses to your web site? Are they predominantly from
anti-dam folks refuting your information or are they from supporters of the dam?"
First of
all, the only mail I recieved that questioned the data was from David Orr (see his rebuttal). I had my facts and figures reviewed by personnel without the appropriate government agencies. (In general they do not take
the threat of draining the Lake seriously.)
It's been real interesting. I've had email from Britain, Israel, Ohio, and points beyond. Many have been from students either at the start of a semester, or the end,
depending on how/when they decide to do their research paper. Some have been from people preparing to do documentaries on the subject (one being prepared for BBC to be broadcast on PBS). I have suggested that they
contact the "Friends of Lake Powell" president, Larry Tarp.
It has been pretty well split between the "drain" and "don't drain" parties. The "don't drain" parties are
usually those from the West. They are familiar with the importance of water in the West (especially as it continues to develop). I'm not a developer, just an engineer at a power plant, but the population influx to the
South West U.S. is increasing. A couple of decades ago I fought against development in this region. I have since become more pragmatic about it. San Diego/Tijuana is projected to be the largest metropolitan area
"West of the Mississippi" in the next few decades. Currently 90% of the water to San Diego comes from the Metropolitan Water District, and most of that from the Colorado River, and the remainder from the
Northern California watershed.
"What is the attitude of Page, Arizona toward the dam? Do most residents feel
that they benefit from it and that it contributes to their livelihood? Is there
a strong local movement for draining the lake, or do you feel that it is mostly
non-local (i.e, large environmental organizations) groups that oppose the dam?"
The Glen Canyon Institute is the primary
push for draining the Lake (and the Sierra Club board, which bypassed their usual procedure in backing this proposal). The is no local support for this.
I feel it would be safe to say that 90% or more of the people
living in Page and the surrounding area are intensely against draining Lake Powell.
I guess that at this point it would be good to give you a view of Page's economy (Joan will do a more accurate job than I).
The major employers in the area are:
(Page's population is approximately 8000 people)
- Navajo Generating Station
- Bureau of Reclamation (Glen Canyon Dam)
- National Park Service (Glen Canyon National Recreation Area)
- Page Unified School District (which busses in Navajo reservation children from over 50 miles away)- the school district's student body is approximately
half Navajos from the reservation, not counting Navajo children who live in Page.
- The service industries that provide for the approximately 3 million visitors to the area each year.
"Do you think that
recreation would decline if the lake were drained? There wouldn't be an influx of hikers and campers equal to the water-based tourists?"
I don't believe that 3 million visitors a year would be allowed into
the new area. The current allotment of visitors through the Grand Canyon is 40 thousand per year. I don't believe that the area would be capable of attracting anywhere near the number of visitors without the Lake. Those
opposed to power boats would love it (other recreationalists won't make up the difference).
"Does your interest for saving Lake Powell stem from your use of it for
recreation, or your belief that those who oppose the dam are misinformed, or
something else?"
From my conversations with the governmental agencies involved I know that the Lake will not be drained, and
will be in place for centuries. I just can't live with the manipulated statistics that the proponents of draining the Lake provide. What is called "impeccable" science during serious review does not hold up.
"I recently read that the Bureau of Reclamation has not completed a dam failure
study below Glen Canyon Dam (due to the reported instability of the Navajo
sandstone that the dam is built upon). Do you have any thoughts on this?"
I think that you should pursue this through Barry Wirth of the Bureau (his response to you should have coverd this). They can answer
it much better than I can. As an engineer I have reviewed what they did to correct the problem, and I can't find fault with it.
"Lastly, did you ever experience Glen Canyon before it was flooded? I read your
section about Glen Canyon has been affected by natural dams, but a lot of the
environmentalists' literature discusses how few people ever visited the canyon
before flooding. Its reported beauty has lended the canyon a greater sense of
loss once it was flooded."
As I stated above, Joan Nevilles-Stavely at the Chamber of Commerce can discuss this with you in
great detail. Thanks for taking the time to look at my site, ED
|
