Fishing Forum

Here we go again with the environmentalists and their wacky ideas.....


Friday, July 29, 2005 - 12:00 AM [url "http://www.harktheherald.com/print.php?sid=60790"][/url] | [url "http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Recommend_Us&file=index&req=FriendSend&sid=60790"][/url]

Utah environmental group calls for a 'One-Dam Solution'

Mark Thiessen THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


SALT LAKE CITY -- A Utah environmental group on Thursday renewed its call for Glen Canyon Dam to be decommissioned and Lake Powell drained to stop the massive yearly evaporation of stored Colorado River water, saying there is a better use for it in the water-starved West. [url "http://heraldextra.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=display_ads&file=index&func=display_ad&ad=00271603"][/url][url "http://adserver.harktheherald.com/adclick.php?n=a1d19a67"][/url]
"We believe 800,000 feet of water could be available to the lower basin," said John Weisheit, with the Moab-based Living Rivers group. "We think that is a significant amount of water."
The group issued a 24-page report -- titled "The One-Dam Solution" -- this week ahead of two federal Bureau of Reclamation meetings seeking comment on plans to manage Lake Powell and Lake Mead during drought.
By having only Hoover Dam in Nevada capture water and using extensive underground storage, enough water could be saved to support 1.6 million households of four people each, Weisheit said at Thursday's meeting here.
When Weisheit spoke at a similar meeting Tuesday in Henderson, Nev., he was told the bureau has been directed by Congress not to study that.
"Living Rivers thinks it's highly undemocratic that we are not allowed to discuss and debate the study of the facility that uses public money," Weisheit said Thursday. "If Glen Canyon Dam is needed, the studies will prove that. If it is not, then that will be the case, too, and we should let science decide what is best for the resources of the Colorado River."
There was no debate Thursday as water managers only took testimony for review. More hearings may be held before the bureau's management report is issued in December 2007.
This week's meetings were part of Interior Secretary Gale Norton's command to establish rules to limit fights among states while managing the river during shortages. A 1922 agreement allocating Colorado River water does not specify how it should be shared during drought.
Norton in May rejected a request by four states in the river's upper basin -- Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico -- to reduce releases of water from drought-depleted Lake Powell to more quickly refill the reservoir.
The decision was seen as a victory for California, Nevada and Arizona -- three lower basin states that rely on allocations from the downstream Lake Mead reservoir. But Norton made it clear she wanted the states to find a way to share the water without federal involvement.
Some of those who testified Thursday urged the government not to ignore the financial rewards from recreation and tourism at both lakes and nearby recreational areas.
Fourteen million visitors annually result in direct and indirect economic benefit to the economy, said Kitty Roberts, superintendent for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1.
[signature]

Those Dam fools. Will they not learn?
[signature]

I have to wonder if anyone the 24 page report was delivered to actually wasted the time and effort to read it?[laugh]
[signature]

Environmentalists are just one special interest group with an opinion - fishermen(or women) are just another one - as are the water users down stream.

Calling one group stupid or implying they are fools is not productive for getting cooperation among the different groups. Some of them, call us anglers - just dumb uneducated, selfish and unsportsman like(non of which I think really apply to most anglers I know).

BTW - I call you and all of us anglers "environmentalists" - just like anyone else out there using the environment - we are concerned with the quality of it and want to pass that along to the next generation.

P.S. - I think it would be fun to walk around in the muck of the giant bath tub ring to see what has ended up on the bottom of "LAKE FOWELL" - but I would HATE to see it all go away - along with the possible fishing opportunities there - but then again, as an angler, I do have some vested interest in keeping that puddle and it's current inhabitants around.

Disclaimer: I am not a rabid unidirectionally focused elitest when it comes to my preferences - I recognize other folks have rights and that public lands are intended to be "Multi-use" facilities accessible to all members of the public(unfortunately, to my complete chagrin, that also includes inconsiderate PWC operators).
[signature]

It'll never happen! Too many people downstream depend on the water it holds. They can squawk all they want, but too many people with a TON of money will prevent it from happening. Politicians will be bought, and that will be that.
[signature]

You're right. Stricken from the record. Let me rephrase that...the IDEA is stupid, not the people.[][cool]
[signature]

You're right it will not happen. Without Powell not only water will be lost but power. And California enviros already have stopped all power plant construction in there state for a decade. And what if Powell had not been there thru this past drought? Mead would have dried up and went away too. On the thought of it is everybodies to use, I agree. But enviros want to put a big fence around all our cities and not let any one out to use the land. They try to accomplish this by pitting all us users against each other. Fisherman vs jet skier, hiker vs four wheeler, hunter vs nature lover. Then we fight amongst our selves and get laws passed against the other group and pretty soon its so reastricted we just stay home! So maybe all us fishermen should hug a jet skier the next time they come to close.[] And just love one another and have a little tolerance for other groups. Like thats ever going to happen.[cool] Well enough of my rant, i better get to Powell before the drain it!!!!!!
[signature]

your right about the power plant in the dam.. vages get 60 to 80% of power from that plant in glen canyon.. So. Cal get's about 55 to 60 % of the power from the salt river plant.. together they produce over 4 million $$$ of power per day!! any of you think that they are going to let all that money just go away without a fight? i dont..

and i'll tell you this as well the power plant guy's have the ear of some powerfull people them self's...
[signature]

Ya know, I once felt the same as every single one of you on this issue. Draining Lake Powell seemed not just stupid but absurd. I've always been a fan of LP, I've been going there before it was ever completely full. I decided rather than just going of my own knowledge and opinion on why it was absurd to drain it I better do a little reading and find out why others want it drained.

It didn't take me long reading the info I did to start to rearrange my thinking on the whole issue. I'm now sitting on the fence and can't decide which side I'd fall on if I had to choose. I enjoy LP for what it is now, however I also understand where the other side is coming from.

I for one think that one day the lake will be drained, and the sooner the better. As for now, I'm going to enjoy it while it's there.

If you're not to pig headed to understand where the other side is coming from give this a read [url "http://www.glencanyon.org/aboutgci/faq.php"]http://www.glencanyon.org/aboutgci/faq.php[/url]
[signature]

Don't ya just love fence sitters?? No matter which side wins they can't loose. I wouldn't base my opinion on the information that [soley] comes from GCI.
[signature]

One point they make is that the west has plenty of power. That is the case if you look at power 24 hrs a day and average it out. However we peak usage problems, hence the brown/black outs in California and elsewhere. A good writer can bend the facts to fit his case. You would have to take that article apart issue by issue and investigate reality yourself.
[signature]

Lake Powell = stored water, flood control, economic development, clean electric power generation, recreation for 14 million people annually, access to hundreds of square miles of recreation otherwise inaccessable, etc.

No Lake Powell = inability to store water in lean water years (we do live in a desert), more reliance on fossil fuels for power generation, and annual recreation for a few hundred very healthy younger people who can undergo the rigors or hiking the bottom of the canyon.

I am for saving the environment as much as the next person, but there needs to be a balance. Extremes at either end of the spectrum are not good.

Still, I have to put in one last jab - "May the 'thirsty' environmentalists freeze to death in the dark, walking". When we become short of water, power, gasoline, etc., they need to be the first ones to be cut off since they have fought the development of new or existing resources. Mr. J.
[signature]

[reply]
I wouldn't base my opinion on the information that [soley] comes from GCI. [/reply]

Who should I believe, you? All of the guys on this site who rely solely on their own expertise?

Take a look at the type of structure all that water is sitting on, its sitting on sandstone. Sand sucks water faster than the sun will evaporate it. If we are concerned about storing water and making sure all of us water happy wasters get enough then Powell isn't the best place to store it, in fact it's the worst possible place. I don't need GCI to tell me that.

Yes, the dam does generate power, but it isn't the concrete that generates it. The water is what generates the power, so why does it matter if there is a dam there or not. The water still runs down the canyon, wouldn't we be able to harvest the power without the dam? GCI doesn't have to tell me that.

Lake Powell does attract millions, I'm included. The Grand Canyon attracts millions also and you don't have to have a boat to go to the Grand Canyon. Why wouldn't Glen Canyon be able to attract the same numbers the Grand Canyon or Lake Powell does? Once again, GCI didn't tell me that.

I'm not concerned about restoring miles of beautiful canyons. Utah already has miles of canyons that I will never be able to explore in my life time, Glen Canyon would just add to the list of places I want to go. I'm more concerned about being more efficient. Water storage is not efficient in Lake Powell. Energy produced is efficient, but there are other options, using the Colorado River, solar, and wind are all acceptable substitutes. The fact is more and more people need the water to water their bright green lawns, take 30 min showers, and spray off their driveway and sidewalks. Where will all that water come from? Not Lake Powell the way it alone wastes water.

I guess I'm no longer a fence sitter.
[signature]

[size 1]"Yes, the dam does generate power, but it isn't the concrete that generates it. The water is what generates the power, so why does it matter if there is a dam there or not. The water still runs down the canyon, wouldn't we be able to harvest the power without the dam? GCI doesn't have to tell me that."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]I am going to stay part of the silent majority on this one, except to state that only minimal electricity can be generated by a slow moving river. It takes a dam in order to create the force necessary to turn the large turbines that generate substantial electricity.[/size]
[signature]

[reply]
[reply]


Yes, the dam does generate power, but it isn't the concrete that generates it. The water is what generates the power, so why does it matter if tHere is a dam there or not. The water still runs down the canyon, wouldn't we be able to harvest the power without the dam? GCI doesn't have to tell me that.

[/reply]
WHOA THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE POWER GENERATOR THAT OPERATES WITH WATER JUST FLOWING BY. THE DAM GENERATES POWER BY CREATING ELEVATION DIFFERENCES IN WATER SURFACES OR HEAD. SIMPLY PUT KW=HEAD*FLOW*DENSITY/410. NO HEAD= NO POWER, NO FLOW= NO POWER, NO LAKE POWELL= NO POWER.
[signature]

Itchys,
Are you familiar with the water cycle? Water isn't really created or destroyed (it is like energy) it goes through a series of phases. When the water is sucked into the sandstone it finds its way into underground rivers or aquifers and is either stored there until it is found and pumped or surfaces again. The water that evaporates condences in clounds and falls as rain or snow elsewhere where it more than likely flows back into Lake Powell.
I am not familar with Glen Canyon Dam and the way it produces energy, but if it is anything like Hoover Dam a river will not work. The water needs to spin the turbines and if there are more than a couple it would require a large space to fit all the turbines along the rivers corridor rather than on central storage site such as the dam. If the turbines were spaced out it would also require more storage and transfer sites for the energy they were producing.
I am sure that if you read both sides of the arguement for and against draining Lake Powell you will find the truth somewhere inbetween.

Rut
[signature]

[reply]
I am sure that if you read both sides of the arguement for and against draining Lake Powell you will find the truth somewhere inbetween. [/reply]

I hear you there.

I get the the whole power generation not working with a river running slower than I can paddle. I do also know there are areas in the canyon where the flows are considered impassable because of carpkillers KW=HEAD*FLOW*DENSITY/410. My point was there are other alternatives.

I also get the water cycle. Unfortunately the water cycle is not keeping up with how much water all of us are using. Before this season Powell was at 33% capacity, it's now about 52% of its capacity. In order for that thing to fill up we'll need several seasons of snow/rain just like India had. Even if we have "average" water years from here on out that Lake will never fill again, we need above average water years from here on out to just keep up.

It's great being the only one on this side of the fence.
[signature]

Just because the lake is only half full is no reason to drain it. Many people (many more than if it were drained) will still enjoy the water that is currently in there. Scofield and Bear Lake were very low last year, yet we didn't drain them. Talk to any of the old timers and they will tell you the best flyfishing around was the stretch of river where Scofield currently sits, but I would rather have the reservoir rather than the pristine natural river that once flowed through Pleasant Valley.

Rut
[signature]

There is a little difference between Powell and Bear Lake. Bear Lake is a natural lake and they can't drain it.[]

Bodine
[signature]

RuttCrazed, I like the points you raise in your post, and I'd like to add to them.

I have very similar thoughts about the water in Lake Powell not being "lost" through evaporation and seepage into the sand. LP is a huge body of water, and if a lot of its water is seeping into underground aquifers and/or rivers, then that water is certainly not lost but is simply being stored under and around the lake itself. Where better to store all of that water than in a desert? Maybe a good discussion would involve how to tap into LP's underground water stores.

Also, if a lot of evaporation is occurring, then doesn't that evaporated water tend to localize near its source? I know that the lake effect, which results in heavier rain storms, comes into play as storms pass over the Great Salt Lake. It would be interesting to compare rainfall and snow totals pre- and post-Lake Powell in the areas immediately surrounding the lake. (I'm really speculating here.)

All of my speculation comes from an uneducated mind when it involves water usage, hydroelectricity, damming a river, and flooding a canyon. But speaking as one who has visited LP, I would hate to lose it, and most of what I've said is based on things that I've read and heard over the years from water usage professionals.

One more point I'd like to make is that it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If the lake's level continues to drop over the years, it certainly doesn't mean LP should have to be drained altogether.

If it ends up dropping year after year, then I see it as a win-win for both parties: The environmentalists get more of their canyons exposed so they can go hug the trees that have been under water for years and chant “Kum-by-ya” to one another, and the recreationists can still fish, ski, boat, etc.

(By the way, why can't the environmentalists embrace LP for what it is in all of its natural wonder, even though it is man-made? Yes, several species of flora and fauna were displaced when LP began to fill, but just think of all the species that would die if LP were drained.)

I for one hope that it doesn't continue to drain, and that we're over the drought for several years down the road.
[signature]