Prepared by the following Utah State University students:
Sandra Keil
Ben Johnson
Caroline Smith
Lorie Waters
Jenifer Goldman
For the last few decades there has been an ongoing debate over Glen Canyon
Dam, but it has escalated in the last few years. The Sierra Club argues that it would be more beneficial to remove the dam because it is causing extreme environmental and ecological problems. However, we believe that it
would cause more negative impacts to drain Lake Powell than to leave the adapted area as is. By following the history and examining the negative and positive aspects of the dam, research has proven that it would be more
environmentally sound to keep the reservoir intact.
The prospects of building dams on the Colorado River date back to the early 1900's. There was much debate about water rights and usage in the southwest. The states
in the lower basin (i.e. California, Arizona, and Nevada) were developing and started worrying about where they would get water for their increasing populations. In 1919, California started asking for more water and
introduced legislation into Congress. This legislation became the Colorado River compact in 1922. It stated that the water flow at Lees Ferry (Glen Canyon) could not drop below 75,000,000 acre-feet for any 10-year
period. The US also agreed to send 1,500,000 acre-feet per year to Mexico. These water demands were very high considering the extremely unpredictable nature of the Colorado River. The only way to regulate the flow of
the river was with a series of dams, which became the Colorado River Storage Project. It authorized the building of dams to create reservoirs for the purpose of reserving the water rights of the lower basin, to make the
area more useable, and to generate electricity.
Proposals for dam sites were made including Dinosaur National Monument at Echo Park, and Split Mountain on the Green River, along with Glen Canyon. The Echo Park dam was
the dam of choice because of its steep banks that would hinder evaporation and thus not waste valuable water. But because it would drown Dinosaur National Monument, it was a topic of
much debate. Many people,
including the Sierra Club, were against the Echo Park dam, and eventually Glen Canyon was chosen to house the dam by default. Priscilla Perkins, professor at the University of California who studied the effects of the
reservoir stated that, "...the ultimate decision to build Glen Canyon dam was based on consideration of alternatives…"(Perkins 13)
During the planning of Glen Canyon Dam, environmental issues were rarely the
basis of making decisions. That is not to say that they were unaware of the impact the dam would cause. During senate hearings in 1925 when the dam was first discussed, Senator Oddie of Nevada asked La Rue, the man in
charge of planning the Glen Canyon dam, what the Americans would think of a dam so close to the Grand Canyon. La Rue replied," Outside of our own party in 1923, there are not more than 5 men now living who have
seen the Grand Canyon from the inside. I say they will have to let them construct dams, and they can put motor boats on them so that the people can see the inside of the canyon. I would not object at all to presenting
that subject to the park service as a policy to be prosecuted 50 years from now." (Perkins 8)
This type of attitude was typical of those that were planning the Colorado River Storage Project. They were more
concerned with the political aspects of the project than the environmental. Especially with what they considered to be a "poor quality habitat"(Perkins 12). Besides the fact that building the dam was not
environmentally friendly to begin with, it was also devastating to ancient Indians ruins and petroglyphs. In Goodbye River, a book by Elizabeth Sprang, It talks about what she saw on her journey along the Colorado
River. Elizabeth had the opportunity to see the petroglyphs that were created by these
tribes. "The momentos these ancient people left behind them are- unlike ours-all beautiful things to see. They were always
embellished with a true artisit's touch, a bit of decoration unnecessary from the standpoint of function." (Good Bye River, 29).
Fortunately for us she did "rubbings" of this wonderful art, by putting a
piece of paper against the wall and rubbing charcoal or paint along it, so they could be remembered. They told stories about myths and beliefs, which helped us to understand their way of life.It is sad that we don't
have these Indian artifacts any longer, but draining Lake Powell isn't the solution; there is no guarantee that they are still intact. Therefore it is not a valid reason for wanting to drain the lake.
Two major
arguments that people use for wanting to drain the lake are the sedimentation and pollution problems. Lake Powell is being filled with a great amount of sediment that may contain traces of mercury and selenium (Hanscom
41). Nobody knows when the reservoir will be completely filled with sediment, but it will happen. Because the nearest estimate of when this phenomenon will occur is two hundred years away, it should not be considered an
immediate concern (DiLeo 32). However, one major concern that is a problem now is that motorboats produce both water and air pollution. Another way to view this is that three million tons of coal is being saved each
year the lake is there, which prevents a considerable amount of air pollution. So, in actuality, draining the lake would most likely add to the air pollution problem instead of contributing to the prevention of
(Ostapuk).
Before Glen Canyon dam was built the water of the Grand Canyon was warm and silty. Since the presence of the dam, the water that is released is cold and clear. This cold and clear water has had an effect
on the fish in the Grand Canyon. Some people believe that there was once a large population of rare native fish in the canyon, but according to our interview with Paul Holden (wetlands specialist), Glen Canyon was never
highly populated with native fish. Most of the native fish population lived in the turbid rough water of the Grand Canyon. While the addition of the dam has affected these populations, most of the fish, including the
humpback chub, have adapted to the cold clear water. Returning the river to its original condition would force the humpback chub to adapt again creating the great possibility that it may not survive. Also if the lake
were drained, many non-native predator fish would be released into the river posing a threat to the existing native fish.
In addition to the fish being affected with the draining of Lake Powell, numerous other species
would be threatened. These species such as the Peregrine falcon, Bald eagle, and spotted owl, are able to live in the area because of the dam. It has reduced the flow of the Colorado River allowing many types of plants
to grow and provide food for these animals. These birds were once on the endangered species list, but due to the dam and the creation of Lake Powell, they were able to find a well-suited environment to live in and they
are no longer in danger of becoming extinct. Do we really want to see them put back on the list because some selfish humans destroyed their habitat?
Peregrine falcons have greatly increased their numbers over the past
10 years in the Lake Powell area. According to Park Service data, there are an estimated 100 breeding pairs of Peregrine falcons in the Lake Powell region. This growth is attributed to the great numbers of water related
insects which, in turn attract a hearty population of small birds such as swallows and doves. These birds are delectable prey for the Peregrine (Weeks).
The extremely rare Spotted Owl has also made Lake Powell its
home. Normally Spotted Owls are not associated with large bodies of water; however, this group lives in the narrow side canyons of Glen Canyon where they can easily find packrats, which they enjoy feasting upon (Friends
of Lake Powell).
Another bird that has benefited greatly from the habitat that Lake Powell has created is our national bird, the Bald eagle. Prior to 1985, Bald Eagles were not seen along the Colorado River: their
numbers have increased in this area over the last ten years. An estimated 30-45 Bald Eagles are known to winter around Lake Powell because it has created a perfect habitat for this bird to survive. If our sole purpose
is to protect these beautiful creatures, then why are we even considering draining Lake Powell and destroying their habitat (Weeks)?
If saving Lake Powell for the animals is not a good enough reason, think of the
thousands of people whose lives would be devastated by its removal. The entire existence of a town called Page, Arizona would be jeopardized by the removal of this reservoir. This town was built in 1957 as engineers
came together to develop the plans for Glen Canyon Dam. It continued to grow as more employees were hired to construct the dam, and services appeared to accommodate the workers. Today, the town still prospers because of
tourism and the Navajo Generating Station. The majority of the people who live in this area are employed by the city, state, or federal governments to provide services to the three million tourists each year that go to
Lake Powell (Weeks).
One of the biggest employers is the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). This is a power plant that was built after Glen Canyon Dam to be used to produce energy for Utah, Arizona, and California. The
NGS is extremely beneficial to Page as well as the Navajo Indians. This plant hires 1,615 Navajos, which is significant because at this time these Indians have an unemployment rate of 40%! The Navajo Generating Station
not only provides jobs for over a thousand native Americans, it also pays the Navajo tribe $21 million each year. The jobs and money given to these people support a large portion of their tribe. The well being of these
people has never seriously been considered a first priority and draining the lake would prove to be no different (Ostapuk).
Not only does the Navajo Generating Station provide jobs and money to the Navajos; it also
pays $12 Million in taxes- $8.1 million of that goes towards education. By having this plant, the citizens from Utah, Arizona, and California spend $19 million dollars less on utilities. Thus, it is a positive thing for
the Navajo Indians, utility users, businesses, taxpayers, and even school children (Ostapuk).
One group left out of the beneficiaries listed above, are the tourists. The Dam has created a beautiful lake that is
desirable to many as a vacation spot. Some argue that Glen Canyon, without the lake, would draw in more tourists because of its natural beauty. If this is true, it will be decades before this is seen. One reason for
this, is the white bathtub ring that would be left after the lake is drained. Estimates range anywhere from thirty years to never for this ring to disappear. Another thing to consider is its location. It is in the
center of six national parks, all with protected natural canyons. These include the Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Canyon de Chelley, Canyonlands, and Monument Valley. Because it is surrounded by these places that have what
Glen Canyon has, it will not necessarily bring in more tourists. It could even lower the tourist rate considerably from the three million that currently visit Lake Powell.
Over the past fifty years, Glen Canyon dam
and Lake Powell have become a significant part of the animals and people that dwell there. The peregrine falcon, spotted owl, and bald eagle have all found homes in Glen Canyon. The dam makes it possible to provide
clean energy to the people of three states along with jobs to 1,615 Navajo Indians. By draining the lake it would be taking an extreme risk in losing the adapted native species of fish of the Grand Canyon. Last but not
least, three million tourists would lose their favorite vacation spot.
According to our survey, 73 percent of USU students feel that the lake should not be drained. Even our environmentally friendly wetlands
specialist, Paul Holden, said "I think it's a great idea to remove dams, I'm just not so sure it's a great idea to remove this one."
Bibliography
DiLeo, Michael. "The Undoing of a Dam." American Way Nov. 1997: 32-34.
"Friends of Lake Powell" www.lakepowell.org November 1998
Hanscom, Greg. "Reclaiming a Lost Canyon." High Country News 29.21 (1997): 41-47.
Jennings, Jessie D. Accidental Archaeologist: Memoirs of Jessie D.
Jennings. Utah: University of Utah Press, 1994.
Ostupuk, Paul. "Appreciating Lake Powell" www.lakepowell.net May 1997.
Perkins, Priscilla C. The Colorado River Through Glen Canyon Before Lake Powell.
New York: Perkins Pyramid Printing, 1995.
Sprang, Elizabeth. Goodbye River. New York: Kiva Press, 1992.
Topping, Gary. Glen Canyon and The San Juan Country. Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1997.
Weeks, Edward. "Save the Lake" www.glencanyon.net May 28, 1998.
