Water Resources Management - the Grand Canyon Controversy

Introduction

This research effort began as a result of a trip that I took a year and a half ago. That trip was to hike the Grand Canyon. I hiked the canyon at the end of May 1996, about two months after a controlled flooding event conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, the government agency that operates the dam. I had heard about the flood and as I hiked, I wondered just what effects that flood event had on the canyon and the Colorado River. So, I began to search various internet sites, looking for information on the flood. There were various articles indicating that the flood was a "success." However, none of the articles really defined what that success encompassed. I did manage to find information on data that was collected during the flood. However, it seems that the analysis has not yet been completed. So much for learning about the effects that the flood produced. During my research, I did find a lot of information about the Colorado River, Lake Powell, and the Glen Canyon Dam. There is quite a story to be told, in particular about the controversy of the Glen Canyon Dam. So, that is where my reserach efforts will focus. I will talk a little about the flood towards the end of this report.

Background

The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming. It flows 1,450 miles to the Gulf of California, loosing more than 10,000 feet in elevation as it makes its journey. The river basin covers almost a quarter of a million square miles and includes seven states, part of Mexico, and 34 Indian reservations. In his early writings about the river, John Wesley Powell noted the irony of snowmelt maintaining a river through hundreds of miles of the hottest and driest terrain in North America (qtd in National Research Council (NRC), 1996). Sadly enough, the Colorado River, known for its huge energy in a rush to the sea, today fails to reach the sea at all. In the days before damming the river, water moved from the headwaters in the Rockies to the Gulf of California in about 1 to 3 months. Today, only about 10% of the annual yield of the river even crosses into Mexico, and that portion is used up before it can reach the Gulf of California (NRC, 1996). Glen Canyon Dam was largely an offspring of the Reclamation Act of 1902. This act dictated that the American West should be extensively irrigated with waters from western rivers. The Reclamation Act provided federal loans for multipurpose projects whose principal aim was the agricultural settlement of the West.

Congress authorized the construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1956 as part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Construction of the dam was completed in 1963, and the dam was closed to begin filling Lake Powell.

The "Law of the River" governs the management of the river and outlines basic water rights. This "law of the river" is actually a group of agreements, contracts, treaties, laws, and court decisions that regulate the use of the river’s waters among the seven basin states, American Indian tribes, and Mexico. This "law" is definitely not stagnant and can be added to as necessary. The "law" currently consists of the following 11 components:

As you might guess, water rights is a highly contested and debated topic. One of the major causes of all the controversy lies in the fact that the original compact (1922) was based on the mistaken belief that the river's yield was somewhere between 16 and 20 million acre-feet (maf) annually. This mistake is somewhat believable considering the fact that the wettest 10-year period on record (1914 to 1923, showing average annual flow of 18.8 maf) occurred around the time of the compact's negotiations (Pontius, 1997). The 1922 compact divided the basin states into the "upper basin states" (Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) and the "lower basin states" (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada). It also outlined that 15 maf was to be equally divided between the upper and lower basins and 1.5 maf was to be delivered to Mexico. This overestimation supported the construction of a large dam on the upper mainstem. Drought periods, without the dam, would either prevent the upper-basin states from using their entire allocation or would cause them to default on their obligation to the lower-basin states (NRC, 1996). The dam would also produce revenue through hydroelectric power production. This revenue could then be used to pay for other water resources structures. Incidentally, the Colorado River Storage Project Act listed the primary purposes of the dam as: (1) beneficial use of water; (2) reclamation of arid and semiarid lands; and (3) control of floods. Hydropower is mentioned in the act, but only as an "incident" of the other specifically outlined purposes (NRC, 1996). Even so, Congress specified that the dam should be operated in a manner to produce maximum power at firm rates consistent with the overriding requirements for delivery of water.

In addition to the water rights, there has been much discussion about the impact of the operation of the dam on the downstream segment of the Colorado river. There was never any doubt that the presence of Glen Canyon Dam would change the Colorado River. The dam traps sediment in Lake Powell, and the water drawn through the turbines at depth is constantly very cold. These two facts alone have impacts on fish and other biota, beaches, backwaters, and vegetation. In the early 80s, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) was starting to receive pressure from various groups to change operating regimes in recognition of values other than hydropower. At that time, the BOR had little to no information regarding the effects of dam operations on those other resources. Because of this lack of information, the BOR authorized the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) in 1982. According to the NRC's Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (1996), another driving force for the GCES was a desire to avoid having to do an environmental assessment or a full environmental impact statement (EIS). To support a decision not to conduct an EIS, the Bureau needed data. They hoped that the GCES could provide that data. In the end, an EIS was required, but the GCES effort has provided a vast amount of data and is the first large scale effort that has tried to account for the entire eco-system of the river. Discussion of GCES findings and recommendation appear throughout this report.

So, we can see that the controversy over the waters of the Colorado River can be grossly divided into two categories: (1) those that surround the issue of water rights; and (2) those that surround the issue of the impacts downstream from Glen Canyon Dam.

 Water Rights

 As stated above, water rights for the Colorado River has always been a contested issue. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 divided the river basin into upper and lower basins. However the basin is split along hydrologic boundaries rather than state lines. For this reason, part of Arizona (a "lower-basin" state) is located in the Upper Basin and parts of Utah (an "upper-basin" state) lie in the Lower Basin. This is just one more complicating fact to add to the puzzle. Table 1 shows the entitlements and figures for annual use.

Table 1. Entitlements and Annual Use Figures for the Colorado River

As you can see, the upper basin states are not utilizing their full entitlement, but the lower basin states are using more than their entitlement (considering their obligation to Mexico). This has not been a problem yet because the lower basin states (in particular California) have been allowed to use portions that other states have not used. However, the upper basin states do have concerns about their future development and required water needs.

The issue of Mexico’s entitlement has been a point of contention. The 1922 Compact did not specifically address the issue of water for Mexico. However, the compact did recognize that this issue would have to be addressed eventually as reflected in Article III(c):

In the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, the US agreed to deliver 1.5 maf annually to Mexico except under surplus or shortage conditions. Among the basin states there is disagreement over interpretation of the actual delivery obligations. One sticking point is whether or not the upper basin is responsible for evaporation and conveyance losses between Lee’s Ferry and Mexico. As it is, the upper basin releases 8.23 maf annually to meet their obligation of delivery of 7.5 maf to the lower basin states. Currently, the obligation for delivery to Mexico comes from unused upper basin apportionments. Again, the upper basin states maintain that they want to eventually use their full entitlement. Eventually, they intend to meet only their specific obligation, i.e., one-half of the deficiency to Mexico (McClurg, 1997).

In addition, there is the issue of Indian water rights and tribal uses. Tribal uses and claims are considered within each state's individual entitlement (Pontius, 1997). The US Supreme court decision in Winters v. U.S. established the Winters Doctrine. This doctrine outlines that Indians carry an implied right to enough water to support the reasons the reservation was formed (McClurg, 1997). However, these rights were never quantified. One key area of concern is tribal water development. Court decisions subsequent to the Winters Doctrine declared that the rights cannot be lost by non-use (McClurg, 1997). However, economic limitations have kept many tribes from developing their full water rights. This has led to yet another controversial issue - marketing that unused portion to other users.

In discussing the water marketing issue, John Leshy, Bureau of the Interior Solicitor, notes that many arguments today surround the issue of "beneficial consumptive use," a term not defined in the compact (qtd in McClurg, 1997). Many within the basin states question the legality of American Indians moving water across state lines. The legality relates back to the Winters Doctrine. The Supreme Court ruling reflected the belief that the Indians have a right to sufficient water to fulfill the purpose of the lands. The question lies in "what is the purpose of the lands?" Some feel that the water must be used on the reservation. Others argue that if marketing the water to others off the reservation results in an economic benefit, it fulfills the purpose of the reservation (qtd in McClurg, 1997).

Downstream Impacts

The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies were initiated in an effort to document effects of operation of the Glen Canyon Dam. They were begun in 1982 and continue today. The purpose of GCES was to predict the effects of various dam operating strategies on the downstream environment below the dam. GCES has gone through a lot of growth to reach its current state. In the beginning, the studies were rather constrained by various political issues and suffered from typical government bureaucracy. Initially, the Bureau of Reclamation, backed by the Western Area Power Administration, argued that any changes in the operation would have to be made so as not to reduce hydropower production and revenue. As time went on, the BOR was forced to relax this constraint. As GCES has evolved, it has truly encompassed the entire ecosystem of the Colorado River. Much of the data collected through GCES-directed research has allowed for a greater understanding of the relationships between various and seemingly opposing needs. The GCES strongly supported the 1996 controlled flooding event. While the data is still being analyzed, in general, the flood is believed to have been a success. The GCES office has released preliminary results that support this belief.

Ecosystem and Environmental Issues

Damming and the creation of reservoirs along the Colorado River have had numerous impacts on the ecosystem of the river. Before Glen Canyon Dam, the natural flow of the river followed a seasonal pattern. Over 70% of the flow occured in May, June, and July, and the floods of May and June historically peaked at greater than 86,000 cfs (qtd in Pontius, 1997). Some flows have been in excess of 100,000 cfs (Long, 1997). Peak current flows only average about 25,000 cfs (qtd in Pontius, 1997).

The pre-dam floods scoured much of the vegetation along the banks and served to carry sediment that formed sandbars along the way. Since the dam has been built, daily tides fluctuate according to power demands. The absence of pre-dam floods has allowed proliferation of non-native tamarisks and native willows. This foliage supports millions of bugs which has attracted migrant birds, which in turn has attracted peregrine falcons. This has created "the largest population of nesting pergrines in the lower forty-eight" (Long, 1997). In addition, the southern willow flycatcher, an endangered species, prefers to nest in the non-native tamarisks (qtd in Long, 1997). Flood scouring of this non-native vegetation could be seen to adversely impact the habitat of an endangered species.

Long (1997) also discusses impacts of the post-dam clear, cold water. Sunlight is able to penetrate the clear water creating a new food chain, starting with Cladaphora algae and ending with trout feeding bald eagles. However, findings of the GCES indicate that this clear, cold water has contributed to the increased disappearance of four endangered species, the humpback chub, the bonytail chub, the razorback sucker, and the Colorado squawfish (NRC, 1996). These native fishes are adapted to highly turbid, seasonally warm waters.

Recreation Values

The GCES did considerable work in evaluating the economics of recreation associated with the Colorado River and and in measuring nonuse values. GCES has documented that over 20,000 anglers, 33,000 day-trip rafters, and 15,000 to 20,000 white-water boaters use the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam each year (NRC, 1996). A 1987 study by Bishop et al identified four major categories of recreational use: (1) angling in Glen Canyon, (2) day rafting in Glen Canyon, (3) commercial white-water boating in Grand Canyon, and (4) private white-water boating in Grand Canyon (NRC, 1996).

The trout fishery in Glen Canyon is a direct result of the cold, clear waters created by Glen Canyon Dam. This fishery is considered to be of high quality. Bishop et al’s study showed that a positive fishing experience is related to the site and number of fish that anglers could expect to catch (NRC, 1996). These factors are related to flow fluctuations in two ways. Rising water is thought to encourage fish to feed as invertebrates are dislodged, thus improving the potential to catch fish. Flows below 10,000 cfs provide bars from which to fish. Very low flows often restrict access to areas upstream.

Day rafting "success" was not really affected by changes in dam operations. The only real affect is a change in location of departure for the trip (qtd in NRC, 1996).

Bishop et al (qtd in NRC, 1996) found two attributes that contribute to a "successful" white-water boating trip that are potentially affected by changes in dam operation: (1) the time for layovers and stops at sites along the trip; and (2) the quality of rapids. Low flows can affect stops and layovers in that they may cause a group to shorten a layover or completely skip one to be able to stay on schedule. Rapids are very much affected by changes in flows. Bishop et al (qtd in NRC, 1996) found that small to medium rapids can be less exciting at high flows, while large rapids often become more exciting at high flows. Very high or very low flows may cause passengers to have to walk around some rapids. For a number of reasons, constant flows versus fluctuating flows are preferred for a "successful" white-water trip. This preference is related to ability to camp and ability to moor a boat (NRC, 1996).

Most recreational benefit derives from commercial white-water rafting of all the categories considered (NRC, 1996). Benefit is positively related to average daily flow and negatively related to fluctuations in flow. Changes in dam operations that increase average summer flows or limit daily fluctuations to 10,000 cfs tended to increase benefit from recreation. Long sums up the impact on recreation in his National Geographic article "The Grand Managed Canyon." Since the dam has been built, daily tides fluctuate according to power demands. Long (1997) quotes current Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt describing these fluctuations, "The river went up and down like a toilet tank." These fluctuations can strand river runners or flood out campers.

Hydropower Production

As mentioned earlier, hydropower needs have largely dominated the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. This is despite the fact that hydropower is explicitly an incidental purpose of the dam. The economics of power production and marketing is an extremely complex issue. This section will give a brief overview of some of the factors that come into play and a bit about what research has been done for the Colorado River. Because power output is proportional to water flow through the dam, changes in dam operation will change the characteristics of the power produced. The value of power produced varies on a daily, weekly, and even seasonal basis. Therefore, the value of power produced is very closely tied to water flows which are dictated by the dam operation.

The maximum amount of energy that can be produced over time by a dam is determined by the smaller of two limiting factors: turbine capacity or the amount of water in the reservoir. Glen Canyon Dam’s annual turbine capacity is 12,000 giga-watt hours (GWh). It’s limit based on historic water levels in Lake Powell is about 5,000 GWh (NRC, 1996). So, the maximum amount of energy that can be produced from Glen Canyon Dam is limited by the water supply. Because of this, changes in daily or monthly operations will not affect annual power generation. These changes will, however, affect the scheduling of power output, and thus, its value.

As mentioned earlier, demand for power varies on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis. This change in demand is reflected in a change in value. Power is generally discussed in terms of base load and peak load. Base load describes the average amount of power that is required on a constant basis. The peak loads are those incremental amounts needed above the base load. Hydropower plants are quite suited to provide peak power because turbines can be turned on or off almost instantaneously. However, because power can’t be stored easily or cheaply, if that peak power can’t be produced when it is needed, it looses much of its value. Another factor to be considered is the reliability of the power system. If power production does not very closely match power use, the system can become unstable and may result in blackouts. All of these factors must be considered when looking at how changes in dam operations might affect power production.

While Glen Canyon Dam is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets the electric power produced by the dam. Under existing contractual obligations, WAPA is required to supply fixed quantities of peaking power. Changes in dam operations could very likely limit the quantities that WAPA can supply. In order for WAPA to meet their obligations, they would have to purchase this peaking power from other utilities, most likely at a higher cost. This may then be passed on to customers in higher costs for electricity. The NRC report on river resource management (NRC, 1996) points out an important distinction in discussions of power value - the difference between an economic perspective that reflects impacts to society as a whole and a financial perspective that focuses on impacts to specific entities. In the beginning of the GCES, the focus was strictly from a financial perspective. Power studies were largely influenced by BOR, WAPA, and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. These groups historically controlled and benefited from operation of the dam. They obviously have an incentive to leave dam operations unchanged. As the GCES progressed, efforts were made to model dam operations to give an estimate of the time pattern of releases, and thus power production, under different flow alternatives. Early models did not provide a very realistic estimate of releases over time.

To date, the analysis of the economics of power production from Glen Canyon Dam is still lacking. The Committee to Review the GCES has indicated that because the dam is a federally owned, national resource, a national economic perspective needs to be adopted for future studies (NRC, 1996). They have also cited planning procedures in place to analyze hydropower production issues for the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest. The Committee has recommended the need for a similar ongoing process for the Colorado River. A better understanding of the power economics can also help to determine the appropriate timing for future experimental floods or habitat/beach-building flows.

The Future

In light of all of the controversy, the question becomes how do we proceed? GCES was very instrumental in studying various options for dam operation. Alternatives ranged from unrestricted fluctuations to steady flows. In the final Environmental Impact Statement, the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative was chosen. This alternative specifies:

This flow alternative was adopted in the Record of Decision that was signed in October 1996.

In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation has adopted an Adaptive Management Program for operation of the dam. This program conducts frequent reviews of dam operations and considers adjustment of releases to optimize the overall value of all resources below Glen Canyon Dam. This is a huge step forward in that the dam is not being operated strictly using the amount of power produced as the only variable of importance.

There are 3 main tools that are now available to help optimize the operation of the dam. They are:

In conclusion, we still have a long way to go in fully understanding the ecosystem of the Colorado River as a whole. There are many issues still to be resolved in the area of water rights and downstream impacts. However, the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies has gone a long way in laying the framework for considering alternative operations. This framework will allow the dam to be operated in a manner that can consider all of the potential impacts, and hopefully, will allow changes to be made that will have minimal overall negative impact.

 References

1. Long, Mike. (1977). The Grand Managed Canyon. National Geographic, July 1997, 120 - 135.

2. McClurg, Sue. (1997). The Colorado Compact: 75 Years Later. Western Water, Sep/Oct 1997, 4 - 17. Published by the Water Education Foundation.

3. National Research Council; Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources; Water Science and Technology Board; Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. (1996). River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

4. Pontius, Dale in conjunction with SWCA, Inc. (1997). Colorado River Basin Study. Draft report submitted to The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission.

Return to Patrice's Homepage