The National Rivers Website, Rivers of the Grand Canyon:
Grand Canyon River News and Opinions
The current status of river conservation and access issues on the Colorado River and its tributaries in the Grand Canyon.
The following news is assembled from postings from various sources, as a public service. The sponsors of this website do not assume responsibility for accuracy. Always double-check information before relying on it, especially when your safety is involved!
OVERALL ISSUES:
NEW!!--Solid steps toward a quieter canyon
Second lawsuit over boating permits
Arizona paper advocates fair access to river
(Im?)possibility of draining Powell
UPDATED!! Moratorium on Colorado River Management Plan
New hiking book opens possibilities in Canyon
McCain takes noisy step backwards
An uneasy quiet in the Grand Canyon
Rider blocks Grand Canyon overflights rulemaking
National Park Service still collecting data on river trips
San Juan gets facelift from five river running groups
Consider carefully before hiking out of Phantom Ranch
Conservation concerns in 1978 still concerns in 1999
The Federal Aviation Administration has set specific guidelines for the Park Service to follow in reducing the amount of noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park. According to Park Superintendent Robert Arnberger, the short-term goal is to "prevent acoustic conditions from further deterioration, while the National Park Service and FAA analyze noise conditions and designe a comprehensive noise management plan. This plan is eesential to the park's long range efforts to achieve the goal of substantially restoring natural quiet."
The Park Service and FAA will begin by expanding flight free zones and by limiting the number of commercial flights in and around the canyon and park.
Group says system lacks fairness, responsibility
Frustration with the way Grand Canyon boating permits are issued has resulted in a second lawsuit filed against the National Park Service, this time in the U.S. District in Phoenix.
A coalition of private boaters and environmentalists, including the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Assocation, American Whitewater, and the National Parks Conservation Association contend the Park Service has failed to allocate boating permits equitably, favoring instead commercial ventures, and that it has failed in its environmental and custodial duties by allowing too many motorized craft in the canyon.
In the last twenty years, private boaters have accounted for 32 percent of the Grand Canyon permits, while commercial outfits have received the remaining 68 percent.
The editorial board of the Arizona Daily Sun, the daily newspaper of Flagstaff and Coconino County, introduced their perspective on the river allocation issue in an editorial published on March 15, 2000. Presented here, with permission from the Daily Sun, is the complete text of the editorial which recognizes that the 70% commercial allocation status quo is "not acceptable" and that "something has got to give."
COLORADO RIVER SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSABLE TO ALL
Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff, Arizona - 3/15/00
Editorial
What's wrong with this picture?
--The secretary of a corporate board wants to stage a week-long retreat via rafting trip down the Colorado River. He calls a commercial outfitter, pays several thousand dollars per person, and has a date reserved in two months.
--A Boy Scout leader wants to take his troop on the same kind of trip, only the boys want to paddle their own rafts and can only afford to pay several hundred dollars apiece. The leader contacts Grand Canyon National Park to reserve a trip date and is told he will have to wait between 11 and 22 years.
If you believe that money should talk, then we suppose that nothing is wrong with the scenario above. But if you believe, as we do, that a resource like the Colorado River should be accessible to as broad a spectrum of people as possible, then something has got to give.
That "something" is the way in which rafting permits are allocated. Right now, 70 percent go to the commercial outfitters, which can carry more people because they use motors and, hence, bigger rafts.
The so-called "private" boaters -- like the Boy Scouts -- generally disavow motorized travel in favor of rafting dories, kayaks or smaller rafts, which lowers the cost but takes them more time to cover the same distance as the commercial trips. As a result, the Park Service gives them fewer permits because they are spending more nights on the river.
Some hardliners want all motors banned from the Colorado River inside Grand Canyon National Park in keeping with its proposed wilderness designation. After all, they point out, a "motorized wilderness" is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
The commercial boaters contend they have invested millions of dollars in equipment -- including quieter motors -- and trained personnel to maintain at least the status quo. They're willing to give the private boaters more days on the river, as long as it doesn't come out of their allotment.
Caught in the middle is Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger, who last week essentially decided to get out of the crossfire. So polarized are the two sides on the issue of wilderness and rafting permits that he saw no point in continuing to try to craft a comprehensive management plan for the river. There may be ways to tweak the permit system, he said, but he's going to leave it up to Congress to decide what constitutes wilderness.
Arnberger raises an interesting question: Does wilderness have to be legislated or do appointed officials who are given responsibility for a watershed have the power to control various uses (such as rafting motors) as if the watershed were a wilderness?
Ideally, it would be Congress that would act on broad designations, then delegate to officials such as Arnberger the power to work out the details. The fact that Congress has not done so in the case of the Grand Canyon's Colorado River is no reason not to attempt to work out a comprehensive solution. Arnberger has taken the first steps, and at least he has gotten all sides to lay their cards on the table.
But if Congress eventually is going to undermine any such plan, it may be better for private boaters and others to focus their lobbying efforts on Congress, not Arnberger. The status quo now favors the commercial boaters, not the Boy Scouts, and that's not acceptable. If Congress can set a standard of "substantial quiet" for Canyon overflights, it can set a standard for rafting through the Canyon, too. It's time it got busy -- the Boy Scouts shouldn't have to wait forever.
The Arizona Daily Sun. Copyright 1999, Pulitzer Community Newspapers, Inc. To see other articles of events occurring in Northern Arizona and throughout the world, be it today or in the future, visit the Arizona Daily Sun's website at www.azdailysun.com.
Article looks at challenges, opportunities
The STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL recently published an 88-page analysis of the Sierra Club's 1996 proposal to restore Glen Canyon on the Colorado River by draining Lake Powell reservoir. The extensively researched analysis titled, "Undamming Glen Canyon: Lunacy, Rationality, or Prophecy" was written by Scott Miller, an attorney with the Office of the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mr. Miller examined: existing laws pertaining to the management of the Colorado River; technical and economic issues pertaining to anticipated impacts on water storage and energy supply; and the variety of impacts associated with changes in the recreational uses within Glen Canyon. Some key findings are excerpted below.
LAW OF THE RIVER: If we take a close look at the [Sierra Club] proposal, we may find that there is flexibility still hidden in the rigid Law of the River. We may also find crucial benefits to making the Law of the River itself more flexible.
WATER: Practically speaking, the effects of draining Lake Powell on water availability are surprisingly minimal, though not altogether absent. Politically, speaking, however, effects on water use are the most difficult problem facing the Sierra Club's proposal.
POWER: Although Glen Canyon's raw generating capacity of 1,300 MW is impressive, it is not irreplaceable. ... Furthermore, there is currently significant surplus of power in the Colorado Plateau region, so there would be a significant amount of time to find alternative sources of raw power. By the time additional sources of power are needed the life-span of Glen Canyon Dam's powerplant may be considerably reduced; in a few hundred years, accumulated sediments will completely eliminate power production from Glen Canyon Dam.
RECREATION: Perhaps the most fundamental question concerning recreation, however, is how much recreation do we really want on Lake Powell and in the Grand Canyon? ... The two-and-a-half million visitors to Lake Powell leave an extraordinary amount of trash on the beaches and on the lake. Along Lake Powell's 2,000 miles of coastline there are only forty-six restrooms. Fouled by human waste, beaches along the lake are periodically closed. Visitors consume about five million gallons of gas on their Lake Powell vacations each year. ... Perhaps present recreation should be limited in any case. Doing so might also limit any costs of draining Lake Powell.
ENVIRONMENT: In sum, environmental costs and benefits associated with draining Lake Powell are presently unclear. Here, perhaps more than any other issue, our current knowledge is severely insufficient to accurately evaluate the consequences. At the same time, the [Colorado] Plateau's native fishes, the Sea of Cortez's vaquita and totoaba, and the delta itself may not wait for decades of study.
CONCLUSIONS : This preliminary analysis of water, power, recreation, and the environment reveals that some of the common assumptions about the importance of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell may not be accurate. Even so, analysis has its limitations. There are values involved that simply cannot be balanced with dollars or any other economic valuations. ... Just look to the Florida Everglades, where the federal and state governments have already spent $3.5 billion and plan to dedicate nearly $8 billion more to habitat restoration, or the Columbia River where $3 billion already has been spent trying [to] save and restore the salmon and steelhead.
"This analysis helps to further awaken the public to the potential of reviving the declining ecosystems in the Grand Canyon," said Lisa Force, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, the nation's leading advocate on behalf of endangered species. "The more people who become aware that the Grand Canyon is itself endangered by Glen Canyon Dam, the sooner the dam's decommissioning will become a reality."
Although Mr. Miller is in the employ of the Interior Department, the analysis is his own, and in no way represents any official government position on the future of Glen Canyon Dam. Copies of the analysis are available through the fulfillment office of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal at (650) 725-0183 or from the Glen Canyon Action Network (GCAN) by calling 435.259.1063 or emailing Owen Lammers at owen@drainit.org. GCAN's web site is www.drainit.org.
National Park Superintendent claims disagreements prevent progress, completion of plan
Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Robert Arnberger announced a decision to halt any further work to merge the planning process for the Colorado River Management Plan and draft Wilderness Management Plan into a single planning effort through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This is the first time a planning process for park management has ever been tabled. The plan called for the revision of the park's 1988 Backcountry Management Plan and suggested the park's 1989 Colorado River Management Plan be revised when needed to conform to GMP management objectives. The purpose of the draft Wilderness Management Plan is to provide park management guidance on how lands contained in the land-based "proposed wilderness" areas will be managed, a proposal which awaits congressional action.
The National Park Service (NPS) has addressed management issues through the two planning processes and the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The most recent undertaking examined the possibility of combining the two planning efforts and completing the necessary EIS for this expanded effort. Due to the inability of the parties involved to resolve many of these issues, and due to the lack of available fiscal and human resources to complete a comprehensive planning effort, the NPS will halt work on any further combined planning effort until such a time as the Congress formally acts upon the wilderness recommendation and/or until the NPS has both the financial and human resources to complete planning and NEPA compliance. The current Backcountry Management Plan approved in 1988 and Colorado River Management Plan approved in 1989 will continue to be the guiding documents for management.
"The decision to halt this process is not a decision to halt progress on the resolution of key issues," Superintendent Arnberger continued. "We will continue to seek improvements, within the parameters of National Park Service Policy and other guiding documents, to those issues identified by the public."
The park, along with the Department of the Interior, will continue to work with commercial river operators in the research and deployment of quiet and clean motor use. Commercial operators have already voluntarily converted over 90% of their engine inventories to quiet engine technology. The NPS will continue analysis of issues brought forth by the public relative to land-based "proposed wilderness" to determine the feasibility of completing the Wilderness Management Plan and EA. Park staff will direct their attentions to many of the other planning efforts currently underway that continue to command a great deal of park resources. Some of these include: the accomplishment of the Noise Management Plan, pursuant to overflights legislation and FAA regulation; completion of an agreement with the Hualapai Tribe for management of the river corridor along disputed boundaries; implementation of the GMP involving the completion of Canyon View Information Plaza, the park's transportation/orientation center; implementation of the mass-transportation system.
Additional information can be obtained by writing to Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, Attn: Linda Jalbert, Outdoor Recreation Planner, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 or on the park's web site at www.thecanyon.com/nps, and click on the Future page. Comments can be sent to Ms. Jalbert at the above address or by email to grca_public_comment@nps.gov.
The following comments discussing the moratorium were posted online:
"What astounds me about the overall reaction to Rob Arnberger's suspension of the CRMP development process is the fact that so many people are surprised. History tells us, clearly, that no matter what might have been recommended by the NPS, Congress has the final word, period. A truly great plan might have been produced by the many concerned private boaters and outfitters alike, who have been collaborating with the NPS. However, as much as we would all like to pretend it isn't so, all it would take is one powerful senator to overturn any plan, no matter how equitable, for another 20 years. Without the protection of formal law, in concrete form such as formal wilderness designation or federal public law, the greatest plan would only be a house of cards. The Superintendent knows this. This road has been traveled before - or should I say this river run?
I do not mean to disparage the dedication and hard work of the private boaters, guides, NPS personnel, and outfitters, who have devoted so much time and resources in recent years to the CRMP. I do not think that the work to date will have been in vain. If nothing else, river management and access issues are more available to and in the public mind that ever. Newspapers across the country are running stories on Arnberger's actions as well as the lawsuit being pressed in New Mexico. Awareness, a bright, public spotlight on the issues, serves to help make back room deals by politicians less likely.
I'd just love it if a big name television reporter were to ask Bush or Gore how they stand on the current controversies in Grand Canyon National Park regarding public access and wilderness designation. While it may not be a huge campaign issue, certainly the candidate who takes up the torch to further protect the Grand Canyon and insure the public has fair access to a gem of the park system, will get, at least, a sound bite on the nightly news. It might even spark a minor discussion in Congress. Maybe. Hopefully.
I think Arnberger is taking the only action left open to him that might yield some results during his tenure as superintendent. It seems to me that he took a hard look at the realities of the bureaucratic and political environment in which river management decisions are made and decided to take a moral stand. Understanding that any CRMP would be built on a foundation of sand without public law re-enforcing it, he is telling the world he will not pretend it would. Some years ago, in a meeting with the old river constituency panel, Arnberger urged everyone to take "the high road" in our thinking and actions. He has done exactly that with his decision to stop work on a river management plan until a legal foundation for it is established." --Leonard Thurman
"The above decision by the Park has forced the GCPBA board to seriously consider legal options in resolving over 20 years of mismanagement of the allocation issue. " --Gary Adams
"Don't let the GCPBA go it alone in the legal challenge to this latest maneuver. This NPS action forces all of us to look at the CRMP process and the government agencies we have to deal with and compare them and their recent activities to the law that brought them into existence. The NPS doesn't come out looking very good. I'm not a part of any organized group but I continue to observe the degradation of access to the Grand Canyons. We all have a continually worsening chance to see and appreciate the river corridor and the surrounding lands as time goes on. In particular, the management of access to the Colorado River corridor has been characterized by favoritism to established commercial interests. I don't like this situation one bit and I imagine most of the rest of you feel the same. AFAICT, if the money changers dominate the temple's activities, it's time to bring down the temple." --Michael Dooley
"Arnberger said 'some level of trepidation.' This is code. He expects to be sued. He wants to be sued. This is just like the pattern of behavior from an even more gutless agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They pretty much won't list a species under the Endangered Species Act, these days, until they get sued; it's a CYA tactic. It would be very obtuse on our parts, even recreant, not to recognize Arnberger asking us to use the courts to force NPS to do what it is too timorous and underfunded to do on its own." --Earl Perry
"The gcpba [Grand Canyon Private Boaters Assocation] has been aware of the legal tool since the organizations conception. No sense in any legal action when an open public process is underway (and a good one at that). The superintendents latest actions make moving forward in a new arena more productive. We'll follow this plan to hell if it takes it, but all the players hadn't gone there yet. We'll need (and are counting on) your continued support in the future, along with all boaters who care about equitable access. The bottom line here is river concessions reform. This will not be easy." --Tom Martin
"The first thing to do -- assuming the man can function in a cooperative spirit -- is to sit down with Arnberger and ask him what elements, issues, etc, would be most helpful to him when raised in our lawsuit." --Earl Perry
"We need a list of the issues it may be most effective to press. Some of you folks reading have dealt with Superintendent Arnberger. What does he really think? Does he have a discernable personal opinion or leaning? One thing that keeps coming up for me, not being a lawyer, is aren't many aspects of the way NPS is running Grand Canyon out of sorts with the Organic Act and other laws? Can't they be sued to force them to comply with federal law? This is in regards to Wilderness rather than the allocation issue. Can't they be sued to comply with their own 1979 studies? Finally, given that the commercial operators are sure to fight any suits as well as appeal any ruling that goes against them; how do we get sufficient legal support to mount such a suit? I sure as hell can't afford it..." --Warren Musselman
"Arnberger appeared at the GTS some years ago - I think just after he became Superintendent - and said something to the effect that 1) there is no way I can comply with all the laws - they are contradictory, at best; 2) I have been (and expect to be) sued over all this stuff; and 3) I will do the best I can meet my responsibilites as Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park. I think his decision is in accordance with these statements. He's a smart guy and an experienced bureaucrat: he knows they gave him $100 and a Swiss Army Knife and ordered him to rebuild the Space Shuttle, and he's doing the best he can. The legal system does not make a whole lot of sense. The NPS is expected to comply with the entire Federal Code - which is full of contridictions. Arnberger also has some pretty serious feelings for the objectives of the National Park System, which may have (currently) been lost in the everyday details. I think he has an eye for the future which will measure his contributions against a more comprehensive standard: he wants to do the right thing. He is not afraid to step on toes; he knows that whatever he does will be second guessed by just about everybody. He is not intimidated: just reasonably cautious. My assessment: Arnberger is more concerned with VISION than legal technicalities. See past the bullshit - think about the future (like it's YOUR responsibility) - and put youself in the position of speaking for everybody. For me, this does not lead to any really obvious conclusions. The issues ARE difficult - not to mention controversial. I think that the Superintendent has done the right thing in passing some of these issues back to society at large, rather than trying to resolve them himself." --Drifter Smith
"I'm addressing Drifter's final statement regarding the Superintendent's "doing the right thing by passing the issue back to society". This is naive; and it abdicates the RESPONSIBILITY delegated to the agency to affirmatively resolve the issues in the "best interests of society, consistent with law"... The way to "pass the issue back to the (informed?) public" is to go ahead with an open and honest management process, and document both public opinion and legal mandate(s) on the matter. What ever happened to "due process of law" anyway?" --Bob Lippman
"Re: 'Arnberger also has some pretty serious feelings for the objectives of the National Park System, which may have (currently) been lost in the everyday details. I think he has an eye for the future which will measure his contributions against a more comprehensive standard: he wants to do the right thing.'
I admit to some dismay at the man's obvious penchant for setting a piss-cup under every boatman's crotch. There's no reason why a high-echelon bureaucrat cannot also be a civil libertarian; he just hasn't shown any signs of it on that issue. But the point of my post -- find out from him what issues we could raise in a lawsuit that would help him in his planning and administrative responsibilities -- is predicated on a belief that you are very possibly right in the paragraph above. And right or not, he deserves the benefit of the doubt; and he (and his staff) may have some real insights we can use. And in turn, we may be able to assist him (actually, his successor - this will probably extend past 1 and possibly 2 superintendents). Lots of agencies want a defensible position -- "guys, we'd just LOVE to let you continue to shotgun eagles from choppers, poison whole foodchains with 1080 right up to the Bald Eagles, we'd just LOVE to let you dam and dewater every linear inch of the Colorado system and to hell with the 'Pikeminnow;'/* but those pesky environmentalists and fellow-traveller courts just won't let us get away with accommodating you the way we'd really like. Sorry." I find it more than conceivable that Arnberger, and many on his staff, would welcome a lawsuit to 'drive' them to decisions they may not otherwise be able to make and sustain. At a minimum, this is a possibility to be explored. It would be a mistake to cherish legal naivete and self-chosen moral purity to the point that you assume there are no allies or worthy, cooperative opponents in the agency you sue." --Earl Perry
"The second thing we could do is remind him that he is now free of the tyranny of the CRMP. This means the NPS can actually be expected to do things within their administrative action areas. The excuse that everything has to wait for the CRMP is not effective any more. There is no CRMP. Now the question is what could be done to improve private access administratively without causing any adverse commercial reactions? It has been established that the river can carry over 150 people a day commercially plus 1-2 private groups in the summer months even when the commercials launch in weekend waves. Now if that is true I can't see any reason why the shoulder and winter seasons could not have several private launches each and every day. My proposal is the superintendent administratively establish 2-3 private launches a day (say a maximum of 50 people per day) from 2/15-4/15 and from 9/15-11/15. In the period 11/15-2/15 all private applications for a launch date should be accepted with a limit of no more than 3 per day. I seriously doubt that the demand for absolute winter dates will ever need anything accept write the paper and let them go if they wish to go. Since there is little or no commercial activity at that time I can't see how anyone in the commercial sector would care. In fact the commercial guides might be very supportive because it would give them additional opportunities to continue their looping on the river. Denial of access within these periods without legitimate cause would definitely seem to be legally actionable." --Bob Marley
"My suggestion is this -- simple, fair, cheap, easy, and fast. Let the weekly launch ratio of commercial to private equal the yearly ratio of allocation. That would end the preferential use of the summer season by the commercials. If NPS held the use at the 1998 level during the summer then the commercials would feel a pinch. If the Perry Launch management scenario were added to this, then the commercials would launch the same number of trips as now but the privates would get two more per day in the summer." --David Yeamans
"I think it is very sad that it came to this. I actually was given to some optimism in the process. The actions taken are clearly disrespectful of the hundreds of persons who have participated, in good faith, in a public process. As I see it, unlinking the wilderness plan and letting the CRMP planning stand on its own, clearly would have been the right thing to do." --Landis Arnold
Email fan adds to list of great GC hikes
I purchased a copy of Tom Martin's book "Day Hikes From the River - a Guide to 75 Hikes from Camps on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park," and have greatly enjoyed browsing through it. Great job, Tom! The maps and descriptions are excellent. I sure wish I'd had this book on previous trips down the Canyon. I keep thinking "dang, if only I'd known to hike a little further and then head up that nose," or "I can't believe I floated right by that spot every time without stopping," or whatever. It seems to me that a lot of river runners tend to congregate at a relatively few well known hikes and other points of interest, and I hope that this book will tend to spread people out over a larger number of sites. With the help of the book I'm already thinking up an itinerary of new hikes for my next trip. I do have a couple of favorite hikes that Tom could add to the next edition of the book. These hikes are as follows:
75 Mile Creek. When you get to Neville's Rapid, pull in either above or below the rapid and take an hour hike up 75 Mile Creek. The first half mile is an excellent narrow canyon, about 15-20 feet wide and quite deep. At the end of the narrows you can either climb up over a couple of pour overs or scramble up some ledges on creek left. Above this point, 75 Mile Canyon widens out.
130 Mile Creek. If you've just run Specter Rapid, and you want a scenic lunch break before you run Bedrock, pull into the mouth of 130 Mile Creek, which is on river right. About a quarter mile back in the side canyon is a spectacular waterfall several hundred feet tall. You probably won't appreciate how high the waterfall is until you hike back to the base of it, which involves scrambling over a couple of boulders. This is a great lunch stop or fifteen minute side hike. You can see the waterfall from the river, but if you blink you'll miss it.
Cogswell Butte. If you hike into Suprise Valley from Tapeats Creek (Mile 133.75) or Deer Creek (Mile 136), scramble up Cogswell Butte for a great view up and down the Colorado River.
Travertine Falls is on river left at Mile 230.5, about 1.5 miles below Travertine Canyon. There's a great camp just above the drainage. From the camp you can scramble straight up through the granite to the Tonto Plateau. Once you're on the Tonto Plateau, you can hike as far as you want. If you hike back the side drainage towards the springs, you can scramble up past several high travertine falls. The scenery's great, and it's worth spending a couple of hours exploring the area.
Bridge Canyon, below Mile 235, is real nice hiking, and the canyon has some beautiful black and pink granite water slides. In addition to hiking back to the natural bridge, as described in the book, you can scramble up to the Tonto Plateau. However, look out for those teddy bear cholla!If everybody else sends Tom a couple of their favorite hikes which aren't included in "Day Hikes From the River," the second edition will be REALLY good. -- Peter D.
Web community shares fact, opinion
What follows are excerpts from a two-week email discussion of issues surrounding Lake Powell:
An intriguing potential solution to thermal degradation of water quality at the outfall of Reservoir Powell's penstocks was proposed to me by my son, the boatman and nuclear engineer. Use the artificially cooled waters of the reservoir to recycle the waste heat from a nuclear power plant at Page, AZ. The power plant would get it's cooling without wasting water, supplanting evaporative cooling with larger (in lake?) heat exchangers, and the downstream ecosystem would get more appropriate water temperatures. My apologies to the Glen Canyon Institute for implying any reason to keep the reservoir. -- David Y.
The existing Page coal-fired plant needs cooling, too. I don't know what cooling method they currently use. However, when you do the math, you'll find that application of waste heat from the powerplant to the river would have a negligible effect on the river temperature.
Consider this: The output of the GC hydropower plant is of the same order as the waste heat from a coal-fired or nuke powerplant (probably greater). The energy in water released through the Glen Canyon Dam bypass tubes is the same as that in the water routed through the turbines. The hydraulic capacity of the bypass tubes is a substantial fraction of the hydraulic capacity of the turbines (I can't recall the exact values), thus the energy output of the bypass tubes is of the same order as that of the waste heat from a coal - fired powerplant. If we could expect significant temperature increases from the application of waste heat to the Colorado River we'd also expect to see substantially higher temperatures when the bypass tubes are in operation and all the potential energy in the water is dissipated in turbulence and eventually heat. We don't. We'd also expect to see the river warm significantly due to energy dissipation as it falls downstream.
Looking at this from the other direction, the energy content of Lake Powell due to solar heating is a great deal more (I guess multiple orders--I haven't done the math) than the potential energy that we capture in the powerplant. There have been proposals to extract some of this energy by exploiting the thermal stratification in the reservoir using floating thermal power stations originally conceived for off-shore use.
We often lose sight of what a great thing the Sun is. -- Ben H.
The solution to warming the Colorado River is to DRAIN LAKE POWELL. The ecological problems in the Grand Canyon caused by year-round cold water flows, and no silt, can only be effectively solved by decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam.
Please see the websites www.drainit.org and www.glencanyon.org for more info. -- David O.
Maybe this is a small point, but it irkes me that all the adocates of draining "lake" Powell never seem to get their facts straight...in this case, it's "year-round" cold water flows. Actually flows are warmer than is natural during winter months, and colder than normal during the summer. -- Drifter
David O. said [above] "year round _cold_ water flows" (emphasis added) not "colder." That statement seems factually correct to me. I guess it depends on what you call "cold" (fisheries people have a threshold) but to me it seems that the water is cold year round now.
The data (very sparse before the dam) show that the flows from the dam are probably _warmer_ than they were before the dam in December, January and February and _colder_ in the other months. -- Ben H.
Hey Drifter! Let's set the record straight: the evidence shows that pre-dam temperature regimes on the Colorado River through Glen Canyon fluctuated from freezing (ice often formed on the river surface in winter) to warm--up in the 70s.
I said "year-round cold temperatures," and I am correct. The dam disgorges water at about 48 degrees Fahrenheit year-round, and that is cold. Ask anyone who's been swimming in the Grand Canyon without a wetsuit. -- David O.
As far as draining the lake is concerned, maybe I should state my position clearly.
I agree with Glen Canyon Institute (and others) that the construction of Glen Canyon Dam was an environmental disaster of the first magnitude, both for "The Place No One Knew," the Grand Canyon, and other places as well.
I also agree that Glen Canyon Institute has made some valid points:
1.) Lake Powell has a finite useful lifetime
2.) nobody has a plan for dealing with the situation when the useful life of the reservoir is over; and
3.) it's not too early to address the questions of when and how Glen Canyon Dam will be decomissioned; and finally,
4.) since the Government has it's head in the sand about this, a Citizens Environmental Assessment is a good idea.
Where I part company with Glen Canyon Institute is on their agenda, which - in spite of claims to objectivity - is clearly aimed at getting rid of Lake Powell ASAP.
Seems to me that any OBJECTIVE consideration of these weighty matters would not begin with an agenda and work backwards through the supporting science. To the extent that the agenda determines the supporting "science" it will also discredit the results of any "research" being done, and complicate the process by politicizing issues better resolved scientifically.
Another problem with the agenda is that Glen Canyon Institute appears to be focused on a single point (drain the lake) and has refused to consider the issue in the broader perspective of impacts on the entire system...i.e. siltation in Lake Mead, the reduced water storage for agricultural purposes, contractural obligations of Upper Basin States to Lower Basin States, need for additional peak power generation elsewhere to replace lost capacity at Glen Canyon Dam, etc. But these are all items that can't just be shoved under the rug, they'll have to be addressed and resolved before any action is taken.
And the overall impact on water-based recreation in the Southwest is - to me - a serious question that is being systematically ignored; there's simply no way that the Colorado River in Glen Canyon could ever support the level of recreational activity that currently is supported by Lake Powell. In terms of user days, it looks like Lake Powell is more popular than the Grand Canyon. The people that own, time-share, or rent the hundreds (thousands?) of houseboats on Lake Powell are going to be a considerable political force to contend with...it's not like there is another place like Lake Powell (regardless of what YOU may think of it) anywhere in the world.
I'm not arguing that Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell should be preserved indefinitely or (more realistically) as long as possible. It could well be that objective studies would lead to the conclusion that the problems associated with decomissioning the dam and lake will be simpler the sooner we get started on it.
But I am saying that until there is a way to disassociate any "scientific" studies from the existing agenda, and its pre-ordained conclusions, the "drain the lake" advocates will be tilting at windmills, and - ultimately - they may discredit the very cause they espouse. I think the questions - and issues - deserve more than that. -- Drifter
When the Citizens Environmental Assessment is commissioned as conceived, the evaluations will be apolitical. The histrionics from all sides will still carry on, but the evaluation will be dispassionate and no side will be able to do any rug brushing. That seems to be what GCI is espousing -- almost like they aren't afraid of the facts. There might be a concern about fairness if GCI determined which science to perform. In that case, disaffected parties have a legitimate concern. However, if the scope is broad and fairly determined (and fair), then relax. Lastly, if the CEA isn't addressing a problem you feel is important, it should, and it will if you bring the problem forward. -- David Y.
Science and experience give different opinions
This is a quick water treatment follow-up to my water quality sampling post earlier. Boiling water for 5 minutes is the best treatment of all. Barring that, the recommended treatment for water is as follows:
1) If water is sediment-laden, add approximately 1 teaspoon of alum (buy at drug store) per 5 gallons. Swirl water vigorously. Allow to stand until clear (approx. 1 hour).
2) Decant water into water treatment filter (if gravity filter), or just pump out of upper part of bucket (if pump filter), leaving floc junk in the bottom of the bucket.
3) Add approx. 1/2 teaspoon liquid bleach (e.g. Clorox) per 5 gallons. This is equivalent to about 8 drops per gallon and should give a chlorine residual of 5 ppm.
4) Allow to stand 30 minutes or more before drinking.
Most of the above information came from the Coconino County Health Department.
Note that some filters have an integral disinfecting element in which case the bleach treatment would not be necessary. If for whatever reason you only do one thing, the filtering is the most important. And if you don't have a filter, such as on a long side hike, use Potable Aqua tablets for disinfection. -- James M.
"It was mentioned by an earlier writer that the water at Vasey's Paradise is not well filtered, and that may be the case, but it is my understanding that the water emerging from Vasey's is thirty to forty years old (date established by some sort of radioactivity tests). If Vasey's were dependent on recent groundwater flows it would be dry by now. We haven't had significant rain or snow in Northern Arizona, other than torrential flash flooding for nearly three years. In fact we are now in the longest dry period ever recorded.
The only rivers I have ever used chlorine or iodine in the water were in Mexico and on the Rio Grande in Big Bend, Texas, in both cases we did not know what was upstream (El Paso - Juarez .... we did know about them). We have always used the large expedition sized Katadyn filter. ( Note - I did see a pretty healthy looking Mexican cowboy drink directly from the river.)
"If the Colorado is running clear, we always use the river water (boiled) for, coffee, other hot drinks, dish water, pasta, etc. By the way on a five boat trip. it is very easy to carry 120 gallons of water, that's four 6 gallon jugs per boat, or approx 200 lbs, which would probably last until Phantom Ranch and then you should be able to resupply at Phantom Ranch and probably make it to the take out easily.
I have never been on a trip, in eighteen years of running rivers where anyone came down with sickness caused by water consumption."
-- Richard
"Some of the postings here showed concern about drinking untreated water from some R-aquifer springs, such as Vasey's, Thunder, and Deer Ck (by the way, Pumpkin Spring issues from the Tapeats, not the R-aquifer). My belief is that the base flow to these North Rim springs is of excellent chemical quality; however, rapid recharge from storm events and potential impacts to the aquifer itself far from the GC may deteriorate the quality from time to time. If more development occurs on the plateaus north from the GC, water quality at these springs may become more of a concern. It may be a crap shoot, but I have never gotten sick from drinking untreated water there and I do not know anyone who has. I obtain drinking water as near as possible to the springs; overland flow can add contaminants to the water, especially where campers, ranchers, or the occasional dead animal are upstream.
"Something to remember is that the chemical quality standards for drinking water are generally based on long-term consumption. In my OPINION, drinking somewhat elevated concentrations of many normally feared inorganic or organic constituents (arsenic, etc.) for the short time you are on the river will have no discernible effect on a healthy person's well being. If I were a commercial guide drinking such water for several months at a time, I might be somewhat more selective. Biological constituents, such as disease-causing bacteria and virus are a different matter; however, it takes a sufficient amount of them to begin an infection. People would be surprised at how often they ingest small amounts of coliform, etc., with no ill effect. Dilution goes a long way in this respect and the Colorado mainstream provides plenty of it when turbidity is low. I have seen people scoop their cups from the mainstream on a regular basis with no ill effect, but I don't do that myself. Everyone has their own comfort level and resistance. It is best to play it safe when with a group on the river."
-- Bill Victor
"I'm a water treatment engineer. I strongly recommend you not drink any water from any source that is not filtered to 1 micron or better and disinfected with chlorine or other disinfectant. The filter gets the giardia, cryptosporidium, and other big stuff, but viruses pass through like BBs through a chain link fence. Disinfection kills the viruses.
"You may be OK in most cases, but you risk infection in all cases if you don't filter and disinfect first. Giardia takes a long time to recover from. Crypto is no fun either. Both form cysts that disinfection alone won't penetrate, and they have incredibile survival rates. While the Colorado is a high quality water source, upstream uses preclude drinking it straight. All watersheds in the US are also suspect, since giardia has been widely spread among wildlife, i.e., don't drink from the springs."
-- E. Duwain Whitis, Jr.
"Drinking from these sources without disinfection is a crap shoot."
-- Ben Harding
"Oh yeah. I have also drunk from Vaseys, Thunder River, and Deer Creek (up above) without purification."
-- John Wells
Senator's provisions undermine the efforts for peace and quiet
Senator John McCain has attached an amendment to the FAA authorization bill, SB82, that will continue to encourage air traffic over the Grand Canyon.
The North West Rafters Association newsletter outlined the proposals, which would:
* Deem all Grand Canyon tour aircraft as "quiet" if the FAA doesn't say otherwise in nine months,
* Open up flight-free areas to "quiet" aircraft routes,
* Remove the proposed caps on air tour numbers for "quiet" aircraft, and
* Jettison the existing curfews, letting "quiet" aircraft fly from 7am to 7pm.
As the association points out, the amendment ignores the efforts to move routes and limit the numbers of flights and effectively leaves the door open to virtually unlimited air access. You can reach Senator McCain at (202) 224-2235, or his committee staff at (202) 224-4852.
No boat registration needed for paddlers, rowers
If you're paddling or rowing and you're not using any kind of motor at any point along the river, you no longer have to register your boat. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has not been taking registrations since May, although the new rule officially goes into effect in September. Renewal fees remain the same, as they are based on boat length, not type of power used.
No promises from FAA to maintain the peace
Grand Canyon River Guides (www.gcrg.org) reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced another set of proposed rules to regulate air tours over Grand Canyon. Of previous rules proposed by the FAA to fulfill the legislative mandate to substantially restore natural quiet, some have been implemented; others have been watered down or delayed. The result has been a confusing, frustrating and lengthy process that has not reduced the noise impacts associated with the relentlessly growing air tour industry. The National Park Service (NPS) announced that these rules will allow visitors "a greater opportunity to experience natural sounds of the part." However, without vigorous support from the public to enhance the proposed restrictions, benefits would be dubious at best.
You can also contact Mark Lawyer at the FAA for information or to provide testimony at (202) 493-4531 or mark.lawyer@faa.gov.
Bill blocks Grand Canyon overflights rulemaking
According to the National Parks Conservation Association and Grand Canyon River Guides, Nevada Senators Ried and Bryan will probably attempt to block implementation of overflights rulemaking at Grand Canyon via a rider to the FY 2000 appropriations bill due to intense pressure from tour operators in Las Vegas.As of early August, the appropriations bill was pending on the Senate floor, but debate was suspended while the Senate dealt with the tax bill. With two Democrats offering the amendment, it might be hard to stop. Sens. Akaka (HI) and McCain (AZ) will probably step up to help fight the amendment, but they need help.
The Conservation Association and River Guides have provided a list of senators who need to hear your opinion on this topic:
Senate Phone #: 202-224-3121 (Let it ring a long time.)Republicans: Sen. John McCain (AZ), Sen. Trent Lott (MS), Sen. Slade Gorton (WA), Sen. Robert Bennett (UT)
Democrats: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (NM) Sen. Robert Byrd (WV) Sen. Harry Reid (NV) Sen. Richard Bryan (NV) Sen. Patty Murray (WA) Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA) Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT)
The two Grand Canyon associations recommend the making the following points if calling in opposition to the rider: 1. The National Park Service and the FAA have not complied with the 1987 Overflights Act, a congressional mandate, and the proposed rulemaking changes to SFAR 50-2 will be progress toward that goal. 2. The rulemakings have been subject to exhaustive public input and years of analysis, including recent public hearings (in Flagstaff and Las Vegas). Short-circuiting the rules at this time (blocking them for another year) is outrageous and slap in the face to the public. 3. Appropriations riders are dirty pool.
River trip data need your input
The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (www.gcpba.org) reported on September 10, 1999, that for the second year, GCNP planners and researchers have been collecting river trip data for the development of the Grand Canyon River Trip Simulator (GCRTSim). The GCRTSim is a computer model being developed as a management tool to assist in evaluating launch schedules in relation to resource conditions and visitor experience. A "Colorado River Trip Report" was distributed at Lees Ferry during the trip check-in and orientation. Information from the Trip Reports is used to develop a profile of trips through descriptions of daily itineraries, including camps, activity sites, and possible changes of plans due to occupied sites, etc. Actual data is linked by computer coding to eventual "simulated" trips that are based on trip characteristics including trip size, trip length, commercial, private, etc.
The database "engine" of the GCRTSim was developed from over 300 completed trip reports from June 15, 1998 to March 30, 1999. Although the Park Service continued to distribute River Trip Reports at Lees Ferry, the rate of return has declined. The Park Service reports that they have received completed reports from less than 10% of private trip leaders who have done trips since late March. Perhaps there are some of you who took the time to complete a report, but stuffed it in your ammo can or something that is still unpacked? Even if you have not filled it in, you can do so by memory--just note that on the form. So please dig it out and mail it to Linda Jalbert, Grand Canyon Science Center, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon AZ 86023.
SPECIFIC PLACES IN THE GRAND CANYON:
Stone Creek: Flash flood strips the creek
William R. Victor found Stone Creek totally barren of life from wall to wall through nearly its entire length on July 29. It appears a storm on July 26 or 27 created the havoc. The Grand Canyon Boaters' Association reports the flood washed down the canyon at 2-3,000 cubic feet per second. According to Victor, trees two feet in diameter were snapped off at ground level, and large amounts of eroded alluvial material and boulders had been brought into the canyon where there was once lush vegetation. There are conflicting reports as to whether an Anasazi granary survived the flood.
The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association www.gcbpa.org reported on September 10 that their Flagstaff-based group, along with the New Mexico group Adobe Whitewater Club and the Colorado Based Colorado Whitewater Association, have been given the go-ahead by Utah Bureau of Land Management officials for a river clean-up on the San Juan River, to start Monday, September 13.
Nothing like this has ever happened before, notes trip coordinator Tom Martin. "This is the first time groups representing non-commercial river runners have attempted a San Juan clean-up together. All of our organizations are dealing with access and resource protection issues in our respective states. We are looking forward to giving our time back to the resource we enjoy, while building stronger coalitions between our respective groups."
Martin went on to add that the Colorado River Basin, from the Grand Canyon section to the Colorado and New Mexico headwater regions, knows no boundaries. "It's up to all of us to get together and protect the wilderness rivers we are passionate about boating through."
The cleanup party of 15 individuals will spend 8 days cleaning up 84 miles of river. The San Juan has been running unusually high for this time of year, and a surprising amount of trash is reported to be accumulating along the banks. "The BLM has identified areas they want us to focus on, including a heavily visited area just down river from where the trip will launch at Sand Island Recreation Area," notes Martin.
"We are really looking forward to sharing our activities with other 4 corner river running groups" notes Martin. "Our access and resource protection issues are becoming serious enough that outreach to other groups is needed. This clean-up is one of the ways we will be able to strengthen our ability to be effective advocates for equitable access to resource areas where access is limited."
Trip doesn't end at the take-out
Tom Martin of the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (www.gcbpa.org) passed on the following reminder: All river runners who are exchanging at Phantom Ranch need to be aware of the nature and risk of the hike out of the canyon. The hike is seven miles of steep trail, covering an elevation change of over 4000 feet. There is little shade, and you must carry enough water and snack foods to stay hydrated. Anyone who will be attempting a Phantom exchange needs to spend at least a month ahead of time preparing themselves for this physical exertion.
On April 28, 1999, a 52-year-old male who was hiking out the Bright Angel trail from a commercial river trip exchange had a heart attack three mile from the rim. Two of the party were MD's, who immediately started CPR, which was preformed for one and a half hours, at which time the man was pronounced dead. Traffic on the trail was halted during the resuscitation attempt. According to Dr. Tom Myers, the man had no prior history of a cardiac problem.
Dr. Myers, who has worked at the Grand Canyon Clinic for the last ten years, went on to note that each year, numerous exchange hikers are treated for heat related illness, exhaustion, trauma and cardiovascular/respiratory related problems. According to Dr. Myers, the Bright Angel and Kaibab Trails, used by river runners to exchange trip participants, do not equal easy hikes, and pose a potentially serious problem and should be addressed as such. If someone has major health problems, especially heart disease or risk factors, they should consult with their doctor before attempting such a hike, notes Myers.
Those who are planning exchanges should also remember there are two adjacent river camps at "Cremation Camp," river mile 87.2 left. These camps are for river trips with exchanges, and allow exchange trips to reach the trailheads early in the morning. This tragic incident should be a reminder to all river runners to take the Phantom exchange and required hike very seriously.
Still loving the canyon to death
Earl Perry highlighted the exceedingly slow process of change after he dug out and quoted from a July 1978 National Geographic issued called "Grand Canyon, Are We Loving It To Death?"
"Several of Roy Johnson's river researchers spoke at the seminar. During the past 5 years their study has taken on the status of a minor industry. 3 dozen investigators from 20 institutions have data into computers. The goal--a management plan that would strike a delicate balance between maximum river recreation and minimum damage. Now the recommendations are on record. Like a suitor not quite suggesting marriage--yet--the Park Service has issued a draft of the plan, with a notice that it has been neither approved nor disapproved.
"But if the public says yes after a series of hearings, the recommendations will become policy within a year. Many may anyway if the Sierra Club suit now pending goes against the Park Service.
"The plan recommends doubling the user days (one person on the river for one day), lengthening the summer season from 3 1/2 months to 6 months, and establishing a 6 month winter season. It would also raise the ratio of private trips from 8 percent of the total to 30 percent, and phase out all motors during a 3 year period, resulting in longer, quieter trips. Since each passenger would consume more user days, the overall result of the changes would be a 10 percent reduction in the number of commercial passengers."
Perry writes that this article touches on almost everything that still concerns us: Rim overcrowding and public transportation, disappearance of beaches and native fish, river overcrowding, tamarisks choking the banks, trying to move privates to the winter season, and the Glen Canyon Dam. The one exception? Burros. Thank goodness they gone. The photos of the damage they caused were astonishing. This was a shocking reminder of how little has changed despite the best efforts of some great people through the decades.
To post your Grand Canyon river news, alerts, descriptions, opinions, or observations, click to go to the River Rendezvous--State River News, Grand Canyon section. The webmaster will subsequently integrate your information into the news and opinions shown above.
The National Rivers Website and the Rivers of the Grand Canyon pages are made possible by the generosity of the members of the National Organization for Rivers (NORS.) To start or extend your membership, go to NORS Memberships.
NORS Twentieth Anniversary, 1978 to 1998.
Back to the Rivers of the Grand Canyon menu. | Back to the River Registry menu.
The National Organization for Rivers (NORS)
Membership Offices: 212 West Cheyenne Mountain
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
(719) 579-8759. Fax (719) 576-6238.
nors@rmi.netCopyright © 1999 by the National Organization for Rivers. All rights reserved. 3.
The National Rivers Website is part of Adventure Sports Online.