WSP02109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.......-- - , . Page 2 washn x x x action Julie Gal ton Gale of Grand Canyon Trust epitomized the recrea- tionalists' delight over the draft EIS. As Peter T. Cleary of the En- vironmental Defense Fund (EDF) put it, "Julie was jumping out of her skin" at the Jan. 6 press conference that unveiled the draft EIS. She enthusiastically explained to WRW the recommended low-flow fluctuating alternative in operating the dam proposed in the draft EIS would end the continual wetting of beaches along the river used by river runners. "You won't sink up to your ankles in wet sand," she explained. That regularly occurred, she said, prior to 1991 when there were wide fluc- tations in the flow of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam because the dam was operated to its maximum capacity to produce peaking power. Wide fluctations have not occurred in the river since November 1991, when the dam's peaking power capability was cut back for testing pur- poses at the insistence of environmental organizations. They claimed the dam's peaking power operations which caused wide fluctations in the Colorado river resulted in erosion in Grand Canyon below the dam, loss of vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat and harmed cultural values in the area. The draft EIS essentially recommended that this modified operation of the dam begun in 1991 should continue. A statement from Grand Canyon Trust that Ms. Gale released at the press conference said, "We will work particularly hard to ensure that the final EIS provides for comprehensive long-term natural and cultural resource monitoring so that we will know what effects dam operations" will produce in the future "and can make adjustments as needed to pro- tect the environment and archaeological sites." So far so good, said American Rivers (AR) of the draft EIS on Glen Canyon, but it added it wanted more. "We hope the Bureau (of Reclama- tion) applies the experience it has gained from the Glen Canyon draft EIS in trying to assess and minimize negative environmental impacts of other dams it operates" on the Colorado River "including Flaming Gorge in utah and the dams on the Lower Colorado River, from Lake Mead to the Mexican border," AR stated. The EIS on operating Glen Canyon dam will become final by the end of the year by law, Beard said. The 16 public hearings and meetings to comment on the draft EIS to be held held here and in the West during the next two months will bring about some changes in the final EIS. (For details on public comment times and places, see last two WRW' s.) Few expect the EIS will be changed much in its final form. But it is ex- pected that Bu/Rec, which operates Glen Canyon Dam, will fine-tune its dam operation in years ahead, as the Grand Canyon Trust indicated. POWER USERS DOING A SLOW BURN But Glen Canyon power users, the people who have to pick up the costs of what are widely regarded as both environmental and commonsense improvements in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, are doing a slow burn over the draft EIS. They are privately fuming. A veteran of many pow- er battles told WRW on Jan. 21, "If they (Bu/Rec officials) had any conscience about them, they would reallocate the costs of the Colorado River Storage Project" (CRSP) and require the recreationists to pick up part of the share of CRSP costs now borne largely by the power users. The CRSP dams, including Glen Canyon Dam, are "the cash cows" now paying for CRSP, he said. CRSP power users, who did not comment publicly when the draft EIS was released, would have to pay higher rates for less efficient hydropower, according to the EIS. They are concerned about several problems the draft EIS poses for Glen Canyon Dam and CRSP power. (more)