Mountain Buzz banner

Action item: There will NOT be a High Flow Experiment this Fall to restore Grand Canyon beaches.

6K views 63 replies 18 participants last post by  Eagle Mapper 
#1 ·
This came across my desk this morning as I'm a member of GCRG, thought it worthy of sharing with the Buzz.


Hello Grand Canyon Stewards and Advocates!

There will NOT be a High Flow Experiment this Fall to restore Grand Canyon beaches. First a few salient facts:

Fact:
High Flow Experiments (HFE) are intended to occur frequently to maintain and improve beaches, sandbars, and associated habitats.

Fact: The last High Flow Experiment conducted in Grand Canyon was in 2018.

Fact: Beaches in Grand Canyon were further eroded by extreme monsoonal events in 2021.

Fact: This season, well over a million metric tons of sediment was deposited into the Colorado River by the Paria, a tributary downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, exceeding the trigger for a potential HFE. This is perhaps the second largest sediment contribution since they've been keeping records.

Fact: HFE's do not affect the total volume of water released in a given Water Year.

Fact: Yet, despite all this, The Glen Canyon Planning/Implementation Team made the decision to NOT conduct a HFE this fall.

Fact: GCRG and other key stakeholders (tribes, recreational, and environmental stakeholders) were shut out of the decision-making process.

How could this be? You can read more about it in these two articles:

The sand is there, but low water levels halt a controlled flood to restore Grand Canyon beaches. (Arizona Republic)

"Dangerous precedent": Feds say no to controlled flood on Colorado River (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

What are we doing about it? You can also read the joint letter (referenced in the first article above) that disenfranchised stakeholders recently sent to Mr. Wayne Pullan, Secretary's Designee for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, regarding our grave concerns about structural deficiencies in the program in regards to lack of inclusion, transparency, and flexibility.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 states: The Secretary shall operate Glen Canyon Dam... in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use." We care deeply about those values, and we know the American public does too. In this time of prolonged drought and climate crisis, it is more important than ever for ALL stakeholder voices to be heard, valued, and incorporated in the decision-making process.

Stay tuned as we push for these important structural changes and for a HFE this spring. What are the dam flows in the meantime? You can check out the most recent dam flow report here.

Thanks for caring about Grand Canyon and the Colorado River over the long term!
>End of notice from GCRG<<
The Bureau of wreck the nation is at it again, this arbitrary crap needs to stop, apparently there's no reason for this not to happen other than an arbitrary and capricious decision not to have a HFE.. They care so little about anything other than their precious dam, and the cash register that is the hydroelectric aspect. Destroy an ecosystem they have, and seem not to be content until it's completely ruined.

Time to get the cards and letters to your elected officials going.. Not sure that any of them really care, but with enough outcry they may actually do something.

Cheers..
 
See less See more
Discussion starter · #3 ·
They are desperate to prevent the levels at Powell from dropping so low as to prevent power generation. When they did untimely extra releases a few months ago from impoundments above Powell, they lost a huge future buffer against that -- they bet the farm on having at least a decent spring runoff next year. If Flaming Gorge and others don't get replenished next year, and Powell inflow doesn't dramatically improve, the buffer is gone and so may be power generation at GCD later in 2022.

The rest of this posturing. They couldn't afford the optics of releasing "extra" water in a drought. That is notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin.

Of course nobody wants to address the real issue -- continued residential and agricultural growth in a desert region where already stressed water resources are in ever-shorter supply.

Rich Phillips
Fact: HFE's do not affect the total volume of water released in a given Water Year. Don't know about this year, but that's what the adaptive management plan prescribes unless my memory fails.
 
Discussion starter · #7 ·
If these are FACTS, then please by all means make the sources available. Anytime I read something clearly designed to lead readers down a primrose path to outrage but employs obfuscate sources of information and journalism predicated on conjecture (muckraking), I have to first wonder whether it's warranted or a manipulation. Here's where critical thinking is a real skill, as otherwise we become just another fist-shaking rube that lazily jumped to a conclusion because it aligned with personal belief. The former allows for being wrong and a didactic changing of ones mind depending on the evidence, whereas the latter allows no room for facts and outright denies anything to the contrary. Let's also not forget the long history of ginned up controversy and astroturf activism in terms of the GC Management either. Therefore inflaming tensions by citing intrinsic and intractable problems of the West among the realities of a changing climate really only leads to entrenched opinions with no acceptable solutions for anyone. But so it goes with politics these days, as well.

From what I took from a cursory perusal of the available info, is this sediment isn't going anywhere and the NPS will be continuing dialog to possibly shift this event to the Spring if possible, which actually is more in sync with how floods naturally reset aquatic ecosystem structure/function as well as replenish riparian zones with nutrients. Actually I think it would be a cool to see a comparative HFE done at a different time to test their hypotheses as well as observe any deviation from prior observations, because that's what science really is...and not just some static prop for stakeholders to hold up when it suits them.
The sources are readily available, the LTEMP, the Adaptive management plan and the FEIS are ALL available online, all one has to do is search for them and you can read to your hearts content. Unfortunately, they don't lend themselves to your "cursory perusal" method of reading, to truly understand what they contain. I've at one point or the other read them all, and actually when I was on the board of GCPBA had input to the FEIS with that orginization.

I do agree the the HFE's should be held at differing times of the year to gauge what would be more effective, however as I remember, it would interfere with the fish spawning season, and a couple more things that were I to spend a couple hours researching it, I would likely remember, but at this point in time I do not recall specifics past the fish spawning issue.

This article was more about the issuing of an edict to again, not do a HFE, without any input from any of the stakeholder groups, which as a private boater you are one of those said groups. An arbitrary and capricious decision was made based on nothing that's been made public past the decision not to have one, just a statement that the powers that be at Bureau of wreck the nation said so.

While this sort of decision has become commonplace in government this year, I and many others feel that it at least should have been circulated to the stakeholders for their opinion, especially as there's not been a HFE of any sort since 2018. Not that this would likely have had any change in the decision made.....

I didn't post it for contentious debate, just as an FYI, and if one felt so inclined they should write to their representatives with their opinions about it. Had I wanted contentious debate, complete with some people's attempt to radically politicize it and argue pointless statements ad infinitum, I would have posted it in the Eddy LOL
 
Discussion starter · #8 ·
MNichols, I allude to that later down in my comments.

"...notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin."

Perhaps too nebulous for your finely tuned engineering mind...

Rich
HAHA, yes, I saw that, but as I just noted, for me anyway, and GCRG, the issue is more that nobody asked anyone, they just said, We are God, and we're doing this. Not complying with anything that's been historically agreed and adhered to, enshrined in documents preserved for posterity..
 
Discussion starter · #19 ·
I can see them rebuilding the plant when the dam runs out of water........🤔
Plant? The NGS? Extremely likely that the dam will run out of water, despite their best efforts to continue to destroy a resource...

What we need is some nice clean nuclear power!
 
Discussion starter · #26 ·
not to mention the public outcry that would absolutely follow a HFE with record low lake levels.
Very few in my estimation that aren't boaters or environmentalists would have any idea that a HFE happened or not, let alone be outraged by it. The fact that they buried their arbitrary decision and kept it out of the media... Well... Most folks are content to live with their heads in the sand and take what's dished out when it comes to dam operations they know nothing about, and the BuRec keeps things quiet and under cover as much as they can. I've seen absolutely nothing about an HFE either happening or not in the media, who is too busy lauding the wonderful job the current administration is doing (barf, choke, repeat) Most I know who have built their McMansions and sprawling cities in the desert are still watering their golfin pastures, still filling their swimming pools, and will until they are forced by mandate to stop, while the farmers and ranchers are taking it in the ass.. But I digress.

It chaps my ass in a royal way that the ecosystem in GC suffers simply cause WAPA (which can kiss my ass as well) wants to make money, contractual obligations or not. Shouldn't have entered into a contract you knew there was a possibility you couldn't keep.. See "Colorado River Compact" as a perfect example of this short sighted thinking.. As long as they keep cutting generation in places that CAN generate electricity, and halfheartedly rely on things like solar and wind, which as you pointed out do nothing in the way of load balancing due to their fluctuating levels of contribution to the grid, well Houston, we have a problem.

There's not one compelling argument that I've heard why the ecosystem can't be maintained at the expense of revenue generation for WAPA. Sorry, I know it's an unrealistic expectation in this day and time, but it's the way I feel. It's mine, and many other's beliefs that the level in Powell will drop to dead pool eventually, if not year after next as they predict, then the year after that unless the weather patterns NOAA and NCAR predict change significantly, and when that happens there won't be any water to conduct a HFE, OR generate power for that matter. What happens then. Dry up GC to save what little inflow occurs in the hopes that they can run the turbines a little? Kill the fish and other indigenous residents of the canyon, bankrupt multiple businesses and shut off access to the boaters cause there's no water ? I'll bet there's a distinct possibility that this has been discussed by the powers that be who are enriched by the damn dam. Destroy an irreplacable national treasure all in the name of money and power generation to serve the air conditioned populace that inhabited the desert. Yep, it's been discussed, I'll bet money on it.

In MY opinion it {HFE} should happen while it can, before the resource suffers any further damage. Mandated HFE's hasn't happened since 2018, so there's 2 years of wear, tear and degradation to mitigate.. The material to rebuild the beaches is there, and will likely lessen with the tides caused my "normal" dam operations to some extent.. Not a Hydrologist by any means, but it makes sense to my little engineering mind, from a total self serving viewpoint. I actually care about GC... Always have.. Likely will to my grave..

Sorry, just venting.. But it's quite piss offing to me.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
I'm advocating for the first 3 weeks of April myself, but,..

Not sure I am underestimating the optics (love that phrasing BTW). If this were happening back in the 70's or 80's, where folks cared about what the country was doing, and the environment was supported more by grass roots types, than the large "We know what's best for you and the environment" orgs such as Sierra Club, think Martin Litton (RIP) flying in his airplane to speak, Edward Abbey (RIP) et al, I think my views would change, but today, it'd be swept under the rug, 15 second snippet on CNN / MSNBC etc if at all.

Perhaps I have a narrower view of the situation, and am more idealistic than many...

In essence Grand Canyon is being sold by WAPA and Burec for 8,000,000 a day give or take.. Again, I don't think the sheeple have any ideal this is happening either, to look at the other side of the coin. All very hush hush, as is demonstrated by the arbitrary decision to again, not hold a HFE... A few stakeholders with vested interests found out about it, but nothing past that and one media article from of all places Las Vegas..

Long read, but I found it interesting, and it made me wonder again for the 100th time why someone hasn't proposed putting a Nuke plant at NGS.

Thanks for your perspective on this as an energy regulator, you've caused me to think in directions I wouldn't normally have gone.

Back on subject though, I found this article,

John Weisheit, a Colorado River guide and longtime advocate, said there’s no reason not to conduct the flow release this fall. He said the releases don’t mean hydropower production will cease.
“Here’s what it means,” he said. “Grand Canyon is not important. Our bottom line budget is more important than the Grand Canyon.”

With a nod to "upacreek":

The entire article is a good read. It's the ONLY article I was able to find, past the BuRec's typical "glossed over" news release, where they admit that it's contrary to the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision. (LTEMP). The LTEMP was developed by the Department of the Interior through a public process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and is based on the best available scientific information developed through the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and other sources of relevant information.


So, they violate a Record of Decision, created by a NEPA process which was developed thru over 20 years of scientific research and analysis conducted under the GC Adaptive management plan, despite the BuRec's admission that the HFE will not impact the total annual amount of water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead in the water year.

Furthermore,
The decision-making process outlined for HFEs in LTEMP consists of three components:
  1. Planning and budgeting – to prepare for high flow experimental release, ensure funds are available, and determine if resource conditions are appropriate. The resource conditions evaluated include:
    • Sediment Resources
    • Cultural Resources including archaeological site condition and stability and tribal access
    • Biological Resources including endangered species, the Lees Ferry recreational fishery, and riparian vegetation
    • Hydropower and water delivery
  2. Hydrology and sand budget modeling – to evaluate the available volume of water and sand primarily delivered by the Paria River, and determine the magnitude and duration of a potential HFE.
  3. Decision and implementation – Scientists and resource managers make a recommendation to the Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science based on the suitability of the hydrology, sediment, and other resource conditions.
Hmmm, not a whole lot in the LTEMP about revenue generation, but BuRec does include this little snippet about your concerns as an energy regulator in it's FAQ's..

During a high flow release, water goes through both the hydropower units (turbines) and through the bypass tubes. Some water generates power and some water bypasses the power generation. During an HFE, additional power is produced, but later in the year the water that was bypassed is not available to generate power. As a result, additional power will need to be purchased at that time from other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, or renewable energy. The LTEMP HFE decision making process includes appropriate review and planning for all resources, including coordination with the Western Area Power Administration on specific changes to power generation associated with each HFE to ensure a steady supply of power...

From MY perspective in the current day and era, Our current administration is trying to spend upwards of 5 TRILLION dollars on completely pork based social programs in an effort to move the country one step further toward socialism, but spending 112 million to preserve the national treasure Grand Canyon, and violating both NEPA and an ROD to do so is acceptable..

Wow.. Turns my stomach
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
Weighing all this uncertainty with the very real and clear legal and financial problems caused by shorting water users in the Colorado River Basin, BOR seems to be making a rational choice.
The HFE's aren't shorting water users at all, just moving the water from one evaporitive impoundment to another.
 
Discussion starter · #32 · (Edited)
Been running the Ditch since 1970, perspective based on about 50 trips since 1981 (my first private). HFE's effects are EXTREMELY transitory/short-lived. I've twice seen "restored" beaches gone the next time visited... And I mean on two subsequent trips, not two beaches.
Well, others seem to disagree with that, and given that your observations are short of empirical evidence, well.

From the AZcentral article I'm posting below
Controlled floods, officially known as high-flow experiments, are no cure for what ails the Grand Canyon. They temporarily restore beaches, which are then eroded over time by flows that fluctuate to meet water and power demands. Only the next flood can keep them from eroding to critically low levels.
Today, with no flood since 2018, the sandbars and beaches are as low as they’ve been in a decade, and are projected to decline another 10% before next year’s rafting season. Had the government scheduled a 192-hour flood, the beaches were projected to grow by 75%, and to remain 50% larger after winter erosion.

The Grand is a channelized ditch, has been since the 90's early/2000's. It's a great trip, but anyone who runs it and thinks high teens/low 20's are "big water" has my sympathies. And fluctuations between 6k and 15k are in no way comparable to the "olden times" tides when I went to sleep with bowline around my ankle...
On this I agree, but the occasional 40K release, that's a horse of a different color. Just wish I had been there to experience it.
 
Discussion starter · #33 ·
As for 5 TRILLION DOLLARS "Socialist" spending." Nonsense.
Really Really Really don't want to turn this into a political discussion that belongs in the Eddy where folks can debate GeoRon's nonsense until hell freezes over.
Check the media, and no, I don't mean CNN and MSNBC, if they pass both bills, the total in real dollars, not what you're told, will exceed 5 trillion. Granted over 10 years give or take a couple Billion. The government, more now days, wants to put forth their "creative accounting numbers" than actually deal with the real costs of some of their pork filled spending.
 
Discussion starter · #34 ·
It would seem that it's hitting the media, slowly but surely. Back on topic..

https://gizmodo.com/its-time-to-drain-lake-powell-1848003413

If Dominy had tried to build Glen Canyon Dam today, it would be dead in the water. Not only would it be illogical from a water governance standpoint, it’s unlikely that it would get through the environmental review process now required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. The mad dam-building of the last century has given way to an era of dam-unbuilding, with most of the nation’s more than 1,200 dams dismantled in the past two decades and significant removals scheduled.

The time may finally be coming when this will happen

if it did, we wouldn't see stories like this -

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...water-spare-grand-canyons-beaches/6201263001/

Representatives from several organizations and tribes that participate in the program’s technical work group complained of the decision and their exclusion from the debate. “We were not consulted,” Hopi tribal archaeologist Jakob Maase said. “Consultation needs to happen.”
“It seems as though the Grand Canyon Protection Act was not given much weight,” said Peter Bungart, a cultural resources officer for the Hualapai Tribe.
That law’s mandate for managing the dam in harmony with canyon resources is “clear as mud,” according to University of Utah law professor Robert Adler. It first directs the government to release water in a way that protects and restores the natural and recreational resources for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.
Then it says to do that in a way that’s consistent with the suite of other laws governing the river’s water storage and distribution agreements, laws often in conflict with the canyon’s environmental interests.
“The Grand Canyon Protection Act is a great exercise in circular logic,” Adler said.
 
Discussion starter · #36 ·
Discussion starter · #39 ·
Caught one High Flow release, 2008? Was awesome for the ride and to see some new/old beaches. But gone very soon after. My impression is that the issue of beach erosion is due to the tidal nature of releases. If the daily fluctuations were replaced by seasonal fluctuations, a high flow release would have a much bigger impact.
Unfortunatly, the dam is managed by the amount of revenue it can produce, and the needs of the national electrical grid, with apparently no thought, or at least compelling reason to protect the grand canyon ecosystem. The tides are a direct result of load following, and do unfortunatly undo 50% or more depending on who you talk to, of the HFE's in short time.
 
Discussion starter · #40 ·
With a nod to Electric Mayhem, this came across my desk this morning.
A $4B nuclear power plant backed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is set for construction in Wyoming

https://flip.it/TEs2CO

“The Natrium reactor is the future of nuclear energy in America. It makes perfect sense to have it in Wyoming, the energy capital of the United States. Wyoming’s economy will grow from having this groundbreaking technology in our state," U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, said in a statement to USA TODAY. "Our abundant energy sources including coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, and now nuclear power will continue to provide good-paying jobs. Americans across the country will depend on Wyoming energy for decades and decades to come.”

So it looks like it's coming to fruition.
 
Discussion starter · #49 ·
I have often wondered why large scale solar electricity out in the southwest can't be used to set up massive electrolysis plants.

The resultant hydrogen and oxygen byproducts can be stored (a limiting factor for solar and wind) then combusted/recombined as needed to generate electricity at night and on cloudy days. This would produce water on combustion that could be re-electrolyzed in a nice tidy loop.

The hydrogen thus produced also could be piped or shipped to other locations for power generation, fuel cell usage, and even automotive power -- just the way petroleum products are now.

Yes, there would be massive front end costs, but it's a known, safe technology. And when we contemplate the cost of many, many nuclear plants, the expense of such a system might not be all that bad to consider.

Rich Phillips
That's the underlying problem with a lot of today's emerging technology, and efforts to "save" the planet thru "green" stuff. It's expensive. massively so upfront, and so far, doesn't last all that long, like solar and wind. Gives us a nice "feel good" thing deep inside, but does little if nothing to either combat the problem, or create something that's sustainable

Huge upfront costs being spent on "temporary" solutions to the problem, that sorta work. As azpowell points out, their (wind / solar) output is of little consequence to the grid in the big scheme of things, as it's an intermittent output. Perhaps your solution might be something to consider, but likely too costly to ramp up. Nuclear is indeed an answer, and there are others, but most of them, Nuclear included take a massive investment initially, and would decomission the very things that bring the owners revenue, and of course, NIMBYisim plays a huge part as well. Just like the politicians that flew their individual private jets, sucking down huge amounts of fuel, and spewing forth massive contributions of hydrocarbons etc into the atmosphere in order to emphatically state that "The world has GOT to go "green"", they don't want any of this "dangerous" technology in their little corner of the world.

The fact that the private sector is building them despite the big corporations, knowing about it, and having the means to build them, and doing so is even more threatening. Then as b4otter states, the nations electrical distribution system is already overtaxed in terms of ability to handle the demand, inadequate for the users it serves, and in poor repair, well Houston, we have a problem. The solution so far has been to band aid it and hope it lasts, Ala Texas.

Backtracking a bit, the NIMBY thing is very real. Not to mention America is literally running out of space, and with all the immigration, some legal, most of it illegal, we have to have some place to put these people, along with the upwardly mobile who no longer want to live in the shithole cities and pursue the "American Dream" of 40 acres and a mule. These days, it's 40 acres, a chain link fence topped with razor wire and a McMansion.. I suppose that's one contributing reason we're in the situation we're in to some respect.

Folks building in the desert, expecting water and other nicety's in life that one wouldn't expect to actually be in the desert to be readily available. Now it's looking more and more like these resources, which were once viewed as infinite, hence the swimming pools, ornate landscaping, and water intensive golfin pastures we see today. So, what happens when it's realized as indeed finite? Well, we strip the water from those that grow our food of course. Makes perfect sense, to the McMansion and Golfin pasture owners.

WAPA manages their resource damaging infrastructure for nothing other than profit, unwilling to change from the methodology that's served them for many years, simply cause they don't want to mess with the revenue stream that supports their existence, and are unwilling to do anything else to change these problems as again, it'll interfere with their revenue stream.

Vicious cycle. Not likely to end in my lifetime. One can hope, but so far no real viable solutions. It's easy to identify problems, but it would seem much more difficult to engineer solutions.
 
Discussion starter · #50 ·
It would be interesting to experiment, rather then doing an HFE, to use that water to reduce or eliminate the tides and see if that does as much or more to restore the river. Rather then a big flow event...release water at night to match the daytime flows. I've definitely been at camps where you can watch the beach fall into the water as the water drops.
Yep, obviously a steady flow, ramping up and down slowly would cause much less erosion. Problem is, WAPA is unlikely to stop the practice, as it's too convienient for them to achieve load balancing. Let's see what happens when the reservoir reaches dead pool, and they have no choice but to let what little water they have flow thru, else finish the job they started of wiping out an entire ecosystem in Grand Canyon in order to fill the damn dam. The load following aspect of a hydro (read cash register) dam would be moot then. I've thought that a prudent entity would already be looking at ways to mitigate this situation, and look to the future, but alas, that's not one of the qualities an entity such as BuWreck or WAPA has.. Totally reactive, no thought to being proactive will ever cross their collective minds IMHO
 
Discussion starter · #52 ·
Yeah, MNichols, but you are an engineer. Why not submit a grant proposal to Bill Gates' or some other foundation for a relatively self contained residential solar powered hydrogen generation/storage/combustion package, for off peak generation of electricity at the local level?

You get enough sun there in the Arkansas valley for something like that to save you big bucks on pellets or propane. And if refined into a tidy enough package for folks with enough square footage for panels, it could offload millions of homes from the grid.

In your dreams, you could patent it and become the next Elon Musk, old boy...

Rich
Damn... Ya thinks ? LOLOLOL

Gonna take smarter minds than mine to fix this mess we've gotten ourselves into.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top