Planned Grand Canyon Flood Postponed

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation postponed a scheduled spring flood of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, to the disappointment of biologists and river raft guides. The flood, which a biologist said was "to clean out the system," would have been created by high-volume releases from Glen Canyon Dam. Conservationists worry what the postponement portends.

Plans called for flood waters released from Glen Canyon Dam to pour through 225 miles of Colorado River bed during late March or early April, with a velocity unmatched since the high-water summer of 1984. The turbulent waters of the scheduled flood were to repair conditions affected by the dam's operation.

The surging waters were to scour the river bed, carrying beach sands downstream for redeposit on depleted beaches. The restored beaches would buffer Anasazi ruins along the river corridor. Also, the forceful waters would be replicating the flood environment in which native fish evolved, thus improving their current spawning habitat.

The BuRec halted the scheduled flood saying it required more time to study the "effects of the beach habitat-building." Although the agency insists the flood is merely postponed, not cancelled, critics charge that the influence of the water and power industry prompted the delaying tactic. They fear the action marks the beginning of political wrangling over the experimental flood.

The Western Area Power Administration, which markets the dam's power, is wary of the flooding strategy and its accompanying high costs. WAPA estimates a $4.5-million revenue loss from releasing flood waters that would bypass hydropower turbines. The flood would require the release of 45,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs). The dam has a generating capacity of about 30,000 cfs which means about 15,000 cfs would bypass the turbines.

The Upper Colorado River Commission, which represents four states with Colorado River entitlements in the upper basin, raised a legal objection. Commission Director Wayne Cook claims the BuRec is overstepping its bounds by scheduling the flood.

Also, Cook fears an unfortunate precedent may be set if the Secretary of the Interior is able to authorize a flood. A Grand Canyon flood authorized by the Secretary could lead to other flood approvals, to the disadvantage of the power industry. For example, water could be made to bypass generators in the Northwest to study salmon migration.

Some flood critics claimed the planned flood was a major action requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Others countered this argument by pointing out that the experimental flood already is included in the BuRec EIS. To conduct an EIS on the flood would therefore involve doing an EIS on an EIS.

BuRec referred the issue to John Leshy, Interior Department's Solicitor General, to determine if the agency has the right in this instance to schedule a flood and bypass the turbines. Leshy has not yet issued an opinion.

Observers perceive a major legal battle brewing, and some conservationists speculate that BuRec's flood postponement was in response to this legal threat. Such a court battle could play out over a long period of time, well past the scheduled date of the flood. Instead of taking on a legal battle now, a suggested strategy is to wait for the Secretary to act on the EIS which includes provisions for the spring high-water research flows. The floods could then become part of the EIS's record of decision. Other conservationists are wary of this scenario. Such a record of decision is not expected to be in effect for a year, during spring of 1996. This will be a politically sensitive time, and the Secretary and the Democrats may be reluctant to take on a highly charged environmental issue, with legal challenges threatening. Also, litigation in response to a BuRec approved flood could take years to resolve.

Meanwhile, as the flood controversy runs its course, another issue related to Glen Canyon Dam operations arose. The EIS that included flood release provisions also recommended increasing both the maximum permissible flow from the dam and the rate at which the dam releases may be increased. Environmentalists fear the boosted water releases will harm vegetation and wildlife and further erode beaches.