Torrent roars at Grand Canyon
Outcome of Glen Canyon release won't surface for several weeks
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Chris Schneider / The Rocky
Water gushes from two jet tubes Wednesday at the base of the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, drastically increasing the flow of the Colorado River on its journey through the Grand Canyon. The 60-hour outpouring is chiefly aimed at improving habitat downstream.
Martha Hahn is clutching the front of a motorized raft Wednesday afternoon as it strains against surging currents on the Colorado River.
Hahn is chief of science at Grand Canyon National Park, and she's onboard to observe how the river is responding to the mighty torrent of water being turned loose from the Glen Canyon Dam.
The release is an attempt to re-create the roaring springtime flows that shaped the river before the dam was built in the 1960s.
This has only been tried here twice before, in 1996 and 2004. Similar projects, though smaller in scale, are under study at other federal dams, including some facilities in Colorado.
Proponents of the man-induced floods say the rushing torrent will reverse the damaging effects of giant dams on Western rivers, and they argue that it has been too long in coming. Critics believe the system should be allowed to work as intended, primarily to deliver water, electricity and recreation.
Hahn is among those who want to see the heavily managed river operated in a more natural way.
"We feel good that we have this high flow going," she says.
When Hahn boards the raft at 2 p.m. - 14 miles downstream from the dam at Lee's Ferry - the water is rising, up two feet since midmorning. The river is wide here and boiling in spots. There are white caps but no waves.
Coots and cormorants are flying close along the surface, feasting on the fish stirred up by these fast-moving waters.
Steve Martin, superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, is also along for the excursion, looking to identify the early effects of the release - the speed of the flows, the behavior of the birds, the debris rushing past the raft and the water's steady rise up the sides of the copper-colored sandstone bluffs that form Glen Canyon, which lies upriver from the Grand Canyon.
"We won't know for another two or three weeks whether we were successful or not," Martin says. "But we feel it's time to take regular actions like these to protect the park."
The goal of these high flows is to move sand and sediment that improves habitat for endangered fish and also improves beaches for kayakers and rafters.
Not everyone shares Martin's enthusiasm for the experiment. Some people in Page, now a tourist town of 8,500 people that was created in 1957 when workers arrived to begin building the dam, see their livelihoods being threatened.
"I have mixed emotions about all of this," Mayor William Justice says, noting that Lake Powell will drop about 21/2 feet by Friday. "Water is gold in this region. I hope we don't look back in 10 years and say, 'I wish we would have kept the water here.' "
As afternoon shadows steal over the river, rafters on the beach at Lee's Ferry are preparing to head out on a 20-day trip through the Grand Canyon. They're excited at the challenges the high waters are likely to present. They've been watching the river rise all day.
"We've never done the river at these flows before," said Chris Mattson, 36, of Boise, Idaho. "I've got a first-aid kit. I'm a paramedic. I hope everything's going to be okay."
Martha Hahn, meanwhile, has grown chilled from cold winds on the river. But she is pleased with the way the experiment has played out in its initial phase, here just below the dam. Now much work lies ahead.
"The science of all of this," she said, referring to the deluge headed toward the Grand Canyon, "is moving down the river."
smithj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5474
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
March 6, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
youngman writes:
What a waste....."improves beaches for kayakers and rafters" what? come one people..we drink this stuff
March 6, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
We??? Screw Phoenix and Las Vegas. The day the Bellagio turns off their water show or the Venetian drains it canals is the day I will worry about not having enough drinking water. If there weren't so many illegals living and using water in the Southwest we would have a shortage of the stuff. Lose the illegals and you are one stop closer to solving the water shortage issue.
March 6, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Maybe they are just looking ahead to runoff season. Remember in 89 or so when they had plywood baffles on the damn to prevent water from coming over? They really had too much water that year and it had to be released. It calved out some of the concrete in the outflow areas.
Give them a chance to see how this works.
March 6, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
"It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature"
March 6, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
bockclocker writes:
I wonder what the eco-friendly type will burn down in response to this.
March 6, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
This is my favorite comment of the day. "If there weren't so many illegals living and using water in the Southwest we would have a shortage of the stuff. Lose the illegals and you are one stop closer to solving the water shortage issue."
Does anyone know where I can get a good tortilla? All of those damn illegals in the Southwest have been eating up the supply. If we could just lose the illegals, I could get a decent tortilla.
March 6, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
This is not "looking forward to Spring runoff." Lake Powell is over 60 feet below the spillway. Even with the heavy snowpack there is no chance that the lake will get within 40 feet of the spillway.
This is a classic demonstration of the Bureau of Rec (wreck) screwing up again. The endangered fish, the chub, isn't even a game fish. Gather up some that you can find and put them in an aquarium somewhere.
I'm very concerned with the effect this will have on the river immediately below the dam. The highest outflow was 26,900 cfs in 1997. At 9:15 this morning the outflow was at 42,100. Do you think this could have some adverse effects?
I must admit I would love to run the Grand Canyon with the river at 42,000 cfs. I've run the canyon twice and the flows were the daily averages that go from 8000 to 14000. I can't imagine the river at 42000!!!
March 6, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
You figure there are 11 million illegals in the country. They all drink .5 to .75 gallons of water, cerveza or tequilla (water is used to make tequilla) each day. If we lose them we gain 5.5 to 8.75 million gallons of the blue stuff each day. Not to mention I bet most of them haven't taken too many xeroscaping classes so they put in real water thirsty plants while landscaping.
Good point about the tortillas. The good ones are hard to find.
March 6, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
Take a look back through Colorado history and you'll be surprised at the water rights laws. Mexico even has agreements on the Colorado River. All in all it would be nice to get rid of the dam and let nature take its course. But its been built and we have to live with it. As an aside, it would be a hoot if the cormorants were eating those endangered fish. Regarding the kayaks and rafters....you can't see then from Denver so whats the problem? Las Vegas? Who cares? I only envy that the state has no income tax. Perhaps we need more prostitutes in Denver. At least those California imports are more attractive than the hags we have in Denver. It may perk up our partying politicians.
March 6, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Theoldguy
Have you seen what used to be the estuary where the Colorado runs into the Gulf of California? It's a sad site dried up brack water marshes. In the early 70's (the only time I saw the real thing) they were already diverting lots of water to California but it was a thriving, huge area with incredibly abundant wildlife. What a difference. I'm not surprised that mexico has water rights of the Colorado but, obviously, they are not being honored.
March 6, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
FlyfishDude52
I've seen pictures and read about that estuary. It was one helluva place to be during the fall migration. The alternating fresh/salt water (brackish) made for some interesting and diverse species of birds.
I've been to Southern California once and the same for Northern California. It is truly a beautiful state except for the people. They are a curious bunch that are more interested in controlling what YOU do and afraid of everything. Case in point: Have you ever wondered why Californians park as close to a store front as possible? To keep a watch on the car and minimize their exposure to a crook. If you ever go there notice that even in a neighborhood we'd consider safe they have front doors and screens that would keep a major assault out of the house. One hell of a way to live....in constant fear
March 6, 2008
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Illegallydead writes:
Had any of you read the previous stories on this, your worries would have been alleviated. The water will be re-collected in Lake Mead, down-river of the Grand Canyon and all that.
And no, it is not the illegals using the water that is the problem. I don't like illegals either (have not problem with legals). However, it is white middle and upper class people watering there lawns every day of the week, and washing there Hummers 3 times daily that is the problem, not an illegal in some small apartment or ghetto somewhere. The problem is not the number of users, it is the use. The average American uses something like 175-200 GALLONS each day. How many do you really need to survive? Nor that many.
Also, a lot of the problem is California, although Vegas is a glaring example of waste, for sure.
To put it in economic terms, the problem is not totally supply (although droughts are a concern). The problem is demand, caused by building extravagant cities in the middle of a desert, and a general wasteful attitude towards water.
Water rights laws were created in the early 1900's, and done in a year or two survey where there was exceptionally high flow of 14 million acre-feet per year or so. California got 1/2 of that flow in the agreement, which equated to 7 million acre-feet of water per year. Problem is, the agreement was signed as 7 million acre-feet per year, not "half of the flow".
This means California is entitled to vast amounts of water from the Colorado when the flow is below that 14 million number.
As a side note, I am entertained (and worried about the state of the human race) on a daily by reading the ridiculous comments made by some posters that are blatantly ignorant, racist, or generally not thought out in the least... It is hilarious...
March 6, 2008
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
weemoose writes:
It's nice to know Ed Abby's soul still lives!
March 26, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
canyonben writes:
Did anyone check out what the results where on the last time we did this experiment back in 96 and 04? I beleive the term was "Failure". Why would flushing the sand and sediment downstream improve the beaches? And increasing the water flow only drops the temperature of the river because the water has less time to warm up. I can only assume the native fish are the fish they are trying to help who are used to warmer rivers anyway are going to be pushed further downstream to get into the temperatures that they perfer and the non native trout love cold water so there reach extends further down stream. Nice job. Super job on thinking this all out. The real clincher will be when the lake after 60 years of operation has all the sediment from that time period backed up to the dam. They rave about the lake levels rising but what they are not sure of is how much sediment is currently occupying where the water used to occupy. Perhaps its Utah's idea to farm all the nitrogen rich sediment lying at the bottom of the lake. When the sand settles downstream on this one it will be the third time that the experiment has flopped. What will be learned? By the way the lower the lake the further downstream all that sediment above will reach as the river channalizes the silt and sends it spewing further down the lake. I wonder if mud baths will be made popular?