Michael A. Klass

March 20, 2008

As part of a high-flow experiment into the effects of flooding on the Colorado River, the Department of Interior (DOI) recently ordered an increase in the outflow from the Glen Canyon Dam. For approximately sixty hours, beginning on March 5, 2008, 41,500 cubic feet of water was released per second through the dam's powerplant and bypass tubes. This volume more than doubles the dam's usual maximum discharge, which has been limited to 20,000 cubic feet per second since 1996.

The test is an inter-agency effort among three DOI bureaus—the U.S. Geological Survey; the Bureau of Reclamation; and the National Park Service—and builds upon similar experiments that were conducted in 1996 and 2004. While the test will serve a range of research activities, the flood's primary purpose is to replicate natural stream conditions that historically flushed the river valley before the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, which was built in 1963. Floods on the Colorado River serve to distribute and restore natural sandbars and backwater channels, upon which endangered species rely.

While scientists agree that periodic flooding is necessary to maintain the historic ecosystem of the Colorado River, opponents question the experiment's details. The environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility labeled the experiment a "Green Wash" intended to "drown out sharp dissent" that the flooding will do more harm than good.

Dissent is not limited to environmental groups. Inter-agency discontent reveals that personnel within both the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Park Service questioned the experiment. In his February 2006 comments on the proposed flow options, the project leader of the Arizona Fishery Resources Office, Stewart Jacks, critiqued the decision's timeframe. In part, Jacks argued that an insufficient number of proposals was considered and that the decision was rushed—"a very short time frame [was] proposed in which to make a decision that will have long lasting (and possibly irrevocable) consequences."

This concern was echoed in a February 19, 2008, comment letter from National Park Superintendent Steve Martin. Martin pointed to a disconnect between the available science and DOI's decision to conduct a single large-scale flood over five years. While acknowledging some of the practical considerations of the experiment—specifically the effect upon power generation of increased discharges—Martin simply requested that future releases be established using the most current scientific data available.

Sources:

Amanda Lee Myers, Manmade Flood Unleashed in Grand Canyon, Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2008, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030602980.html.

Janet Wilson, Plan to 'Flush' Grand Canyon Stirs Concerns, L.A. Times, Mar. 4, 2008, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-grand4mar04,1,6227374.story?ctrack=1&cset=true.

National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/upload/2008FinalFAQs.pdf (last visited Mar. 10, 2008).

National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, 2008 High-Flow Experiment Underway, http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/high_flow2008.htm (last visited Mar. 10, 2008).

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Interior Department Stages Grand Canyon Green Wash, Mar. 3, 2008, available at http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1003.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Kempthorne Launches Grand Canyon High Flow Experiment, Mar. 5, 2008, available at http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080305.html.