Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rafting changed with different flows in the Grand Canyon. The economic effects were <br /> <br />substantial, representing changes of $2 million annually (Bishop, et al., 1989). The impact of <br /> <br />this analysis was far more than the magnitude of the values, as it helped change the <br /> <br />perspective of discussion. Rather than recreation versus hydropower, it was now finding a <br /> <br />release pattern that increased the economic value of all the multiple purposes. For a variety <br /> <br />of reasons, more even flows were put in place while the final environmental impact studies <br /> <br />took place. Congress formalized these flows when it passed the Grand Canyon Protection Act <br /> <br />of 1992. <br /> <br />The impact of the recreation study was sufficient to result in one of the first, major Federal <br />agency funded existence and bequest value study being added to the economic analysis. As it <br />became clear that more than recreation was at stake in re-regulation of the dam, it also <br />became more obvious that citizens throughout the U.S. cared about how dam operations <br />affected the natural resources of the Grand Canyon, In particular, people were concerned <br />about Threatened and Endangered (T&E) fish, erosion, native vegetation and birds, which <br />were all being adversely affected by unnatural flows and lack of high spring flows. The <br />Bureau of Reclamation funded a major non-use value study of households throughout the <br />U.S. to estimate their WTP for flow regimes that would protect the natural resources in the <br />Grand Canyon. These results showed strong support for a more natural flow regime. While it <br />is difficult to point to anyone study as definitively affecting management of Glen Canyon <br />dam, the public support combined with concerns over T&E fish have resulted in substantial <br />changes in the management of the dam. For example, recall the large spills during the spring <br /> <br />14 <br />