[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
JOINT HEARING ON THE SIERRA CLUB'S PROPOSAL TO DRAIN LAKE POWELL OR
REDUCE ITS WATER STORAGE CAPABILITY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
and
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-584 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
P. Dan Smith, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California SAM FARR, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RON KIND, Wisconsin
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ---------- ----------
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ---------- ----------
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Valerie West, Professional Staff
Christopher Stearns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 24, 1997.................................. 1
Statements of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 6
Chenowith, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 14
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 15
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 13
Pickett, Hon. Owen B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 16
Shadegg, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Stump, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona, prepared statement of.......................... 33
Statements of witnesses:
Bautista, Melvin F., Executive Director, Navajo Nation
Division of Natural Resources.............................. 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 111
Brower, David Ross, prepared statement of.................... 87
Additional material submitted for the record............. 89
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, a Senator in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 10
Elliott, Robert, America Outdoors and Arizona Raft Adventures 72
Hacskaylo, Michael S., Acting Administrator, Western Area
Power Administration, Department of Energy................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 134
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a Senator in Congresss from the State
of Utah, prepared statement of............................. 85
Hunter, Joseph, Executive Director, Colorado River Energy
Distribution Association (CREDA)........................... 74
Lochhead, Jim, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 60
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation...... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 130
Pearson, Rita, Director, Arizona Department of Water
Resources.................................................. 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Stewart, Ted, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural
Resources.................................................. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 141
Tarp, Larry E., Chairman, Friends of Lake Powell............. 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
Wegner, David, Ecosystem Management International............ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Werbach, Adam, President, Sierra Club........................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 138
Whitlock, Mark, Executive Director, FAME Renaissance......... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
Additional material supplied:
Let the River Run Through It, Sierra Magazine, March/April
1997....................................................... 89
JOINT HEARING ON THE SIERRA CLUB'S PROPOSAL TO DRAIN LAKE POWELL OR
REDUCE ITS WATER STORAGE CAPABILITY
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on
Water and Power, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen [chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and
Public Lands] and Hon. John Doolittle [chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power] presiding.
Mr. Hansen. This meeting will come to order. Good morning.
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the
Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order.
John Doolittle of California is the Chairman of the
Committee of Water and Power and is sitting to my right. And
together we will conduct this hearing.
I ask unanimous consent that all of the testimony from
Members of Congress and Senate be allowed in the record. Is
there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. We are conducting this joint oversight hearing
to explore the proposal of draining Lake Powell as passed
unanimously by the Sierra Club Board of Directors on November
16, 1996. Any discussion of the issue brings some disbelief
from some observers. However, we have with us today Mr. Adam
Werbach, President of the Sierra Club, who is a strong
proponent of the idea. We expected to have Mr. David Brower
with us today, but, unfortunately, his wife is ill, and he is
unable to attend. Our best wishes go out to the Browers and we
hope everything is fine.
We look forward to the testimony this morning. There will
be many questions asked. And I hope that the witnesses can
provide answers for the serious consequences this proposal
would bring. There are concerns from the States of Utah,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
Millions of people could potentially be affected with water
shortages, electric power outages, and loss of millions of
hours of recreational enjoyment.
There is a long history behind the development of the
Colorado River. And the Glen Canyon Dam provides perhaps the
most interesting history. This Nation's urge to move West
spawned the taming of the Colorado River and turned this one
unpredictable resource into a water energy and recreation
source for millions of people.
Mr. Brower played an important role in the policy to build
Glen Canyon. I was hopeful we could hear some of that history
today. However, Congress and the President made the policy
decision in 1956 to build this dam. And millions of people now
utilize the resources Glen Canyon provides.
Today, over 2.5 million people visit Lake Powell each year.
Prior to the filling of the lake, only a few hundred people had
ever seen Rainbow Bridge. Now tens of thousands of people visit
Rainbow Bridge annually, see Hole-in-the-Rock, and thousands of
other spectacular views from Lake Powell.
I have to admit I boat Lake Powell and have since its first
year it was allowed and been going back ever since. I've
witnessed a change from an isolated desert lake to one of the
most popular national park units in the Nation. Thus, I have to
say I am personally somewhat concerned about Lake Powell, but
I'm also concerned about the people who enjoy its recreation,
people who use the power it generates, and the people who need
the water that it stores.
Now, 40 years later, the Sierra Club proposes to turn back
the clock and drain the lake in an attempt to restore Glen
Canyon. This would be a complete reversal of the policy path
this country chose many years ago.
This hearing is designed to put all the facts on the table
and analyze the potential impacts of such a proposal. Everyone
is entitled to their opinion, and we respect that. And I have
nothing but respect for the Sierra Club and their members. We
simply want to explore fully this idea so that Congress, the
public, and the media understand the consequences such a policy
change would have on the Colorado River and the States that
benefit from his resource.
There are three agencies in the Federal Government here to
testify this morning. Furthermore, the Executive Directors of
Natural Resources for two States and the Navajo Nation will
testify on the need for Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell for the
well-being of the people they represent.
And, finally, we will hear from the board an array of users
of the power, water, and recreation this reservoir provides to
millions of people.
I look forward to the testimony we will receive this
morning and to the statements and questions of my colleagues.
Due to the numbers of Members that I think will be dribbling in
that we will have here today, I think we will have to stay
strictly to the 5-minute rule for opening statements, testimony
of witnesses, and followup round of questions.
I would, before recognizing my colleague, Mr. Doolittle of
California, I would somewhat like to just outline how we are
going to do this today. We would urge our colleagues to be
brief in their opening statements, if they would be. Keep in
mind the respect we have for everyone here in the room. And
then I understand there is a possibility of, possibly, a couple
of Senators coming over. We will insert them when they come
over.
Then, we will go to panel one, which will be Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, Dennis Galvin of the National
Park Service, and Mr. Hacskaylo, Acting Director of the Western
Area Power Administration.
On panel two, we were going to have Mr. David Brower. We
will have on panel two Mr. Adam Werbach, the President of the
Sierra Club; Mr. Ted Stewart, Executive Director of Utah
Department of Natural Resources; Rita P. Pearson, Director of
Arizona Department of Water Resources; and Mark Whitlock,
Executive Director of FAME.
And then we will go to panel three, Jim Lochhead, Executive
Director of Colorado Department of Natural Resources; Melvin
Bautista, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Division of
Natural Resources; Larry E. Tarp, Chairman of Friends of Lake
Powell.
Then we will go to panel four: Robert Elliot, Arizona Raft
Adventures; Joseph Hunter, Executive Director, Colorado River
Energy Distribution Association; and David Wegner, Ecosystem
Management International.
We may mix you up a little bit. So if that is all right
with everyone, we will try to work this out so that it is fair
and reasonable for all people concerned.
Mr. Doolittle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
Good Morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands and the Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to
order.
We are conducting this joint oversight hearing to explore
the proposal of draining Lake Powell as passed unanimously by
the Sierra Club Board of Directors on November 16, 1996. Any
discussion of this issue brings disbelief from many observers,
however, we have with us today Mr. Adam Werbach, President of
the Sierra Club who is a strong proponent of this idea. We
expected to have Mr. David Brower with us today but
unfortunately his wife is ill and he is unable to attend. Our
best wishes go out to the Brower's and we hope everything is
fine.
We look forward to the testimony this morning. There will
be many questions asked, and I hope that the witnesses can
provide sensible answers for the serious consequences this
proposal would bring. There are concerns not only from my State
of Utah, but Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada,
and California. Millions of people could potentially be
affected with water shortages, electric power outages and loss
of millions of hours of recreational enjoyment.
There is a long history behind the development of the
Colorado River, and the Glen Canyon Dam provides perhaps the
most interesting history. This Nation's urge to move West
spawned the taming of the Colorado River and turned this once
unpredictable resource into a water, energy, and recreation
resource for millions of people. Mr. Brower played an important
role in the policy to build Glen Canyon dam and I was hopeful
we could hear some of that history today. However, Congress and
the President made the policy decision in 1956 to build this
dam and millions of people now utilize the resources Glen
Canyon dam provides. Today, over 2.5 million people visit Lake
Powell each year. Prior to the filling of the lake, only a few
hundred people had ever seen Rainbow Bridge. Now, tens of
thousands of people visit Rainbow Bridge annually, see Hole-in-
the-Rock, and thousands of other spectacular views from Lake
Powell. I boated on Lake Powell the first year it was allowed
and have been going back ever since. I have witnessed the
change from an isolated desert lake to one of the most popular
National Park units in the Nation. Thus, I am personally very
concerned about Lake Powell, but am also concerned about the
people who enjoy its recreation, people who use the power it
generates and the people who need the water it stores.
Now, forty years later, the Sierra Club proposes to turn
back the clock and drain the lake in an attempt to restore Glen
Canyon. This would be a complete reversal of the policy path
this country chose many years ago. This hearing is designed to
put all of the facts on the table and analyze the potential
impacts of such a proposal. Everyone is entitled to their
opinion and I have nothing but respect for the Sierra Club and
their members. We simply want to explore fully this idea so
that Congress, the public and the media understand the
consequences such a policy change would have on the Colorado
River and the States that benefit from its resources.
There are three agencies of the Federal Government here to
testify this morning. Furthermore, the Executive Directors of
Natural Resources for two states and the Navajo Nation will
testify on the need for Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell for the
well-being of the people they represent. And finally, we will
hear from a broad array of users of the power, water, and
recreation this reservoir provides to millions of people.
I look forward to the testimony we will receive this
morning and to the statements and questions of my colleagues.
Due to the number of Members and witnesses we have here today,
I will strictly adhere to the five minute rule for opening
statements, testimony from witnesses, and follow-up rounds of
questions.
I recognize my colleague, Mr. Doolittle of California,
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for his opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. We will hear today many facts and
figures concerning Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. All are
important as a part of the discussion. But I want to add my own
personal sense of the importance of Lake Powell. Standing on
the shore of the lake or gliding quietly over the surface of
the water deep in one of the many canyons or flying over the
majestic reach of Lake Powell, you have an opportunity to
experience a unique natural resource. From the quiet canyons to
secluded vistas to remote beaches, Lake Powell provides one of
life's truly refreshing pleasures.
I, along with tens of millions of others, have had the
chance to experience this beauty and grandeur. It would not
exist and could not be enjoyed if we had not had the foresight
and courage to create this wonder. I, for one, would not
support any step to destroy this beautiful gem that has meant
so much to so many people.
Beyond its scenic and recreational qualities, Lake Powell
is a source of both clean hydropower as well as water storage.
Draining Lake Powell would have negative environmental impacts,
eliminate water stored for millions of people throughout the
Southwest, and destroy the delicate balance of water rights
between the upper and the lower Colorado River basins. It would
eliminate a renewable power source serving businesses and
residences all over the Western United States.
Among all sources of electric power today, hydropower
provides an unusual ability to enhance the reliability of our
electric system. And the hydropower lost would be replaced by
burning fossil fuels at a time when the Federal Government is
looking to use our resources efficiently and to reduce our
deficit. Draining Lake Powell would result in lost revenues
measured in the billions of dollars.
For decades, the water laws governing the Colorado River
have evolved to meet the competing needs of the Western States.
Those laws are based in the existence of Lake Powell as a major
water storage resource. Elimination of this foundational piece
in the interlocking water puzzle would throw the entire
Colorado River system into chaos.
The decision to build Glen Canyon Dam and create Lake
Powell was made after many years of review, years when informed
people on many sides of the debate had an opportunity to weigh
the choices.
When that process was finished, huge commitments of time,
money and resources were made. History recorded a decision.
People, States, businesses, populations all relied on that
decision. To those who did not like that decision who wish to
rewrite that history, we can only say there is a time when all
of us must let go.
Glen Canyon Dam was built. The beautiful and serene Lake
Powell was formed. It fulfills the diverse needs of millions of
Americans. Let us make the best use of this magnificent
resource. It is a decision we can live with.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
We will hear, today, many facts and figures concerning Glen
Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. All are an important part of the
discussion. But I want to add my own personal sense of the
importance of Lake Powell. Standing on the shore of the lake,
or gliding quietly over the surface of the water deep in one of
the many canyons, or flying over the majestic reach of Lake
Powell you have an opportunity to experience a unique natural
resource. From the quiet canyons, to secluded vistas, to remote
beaches, Lake Powell provides one of life's truly refreshing
pleasures. I, along with tens of millions, have had the chance
to experience this beauty and grandeur. It would not exist and
could not be enjoyed if we had not had the foresight and
courage to create this wonder. I for one would not support any
step to destroy this beautiful gem that has meant so much to so
many people.
Beyond its scenic and recreational qualities, Lake Powell
is a source of both clean hydropower as well as water storage.
Draining Lake Powell would have negative environmental impacts,
eliminate water stored for millions of people throughout the
southwest, and destroy the delicate balance of water rights
between the upper and lower Colorado River basins. It would
eliminate a renewable power source serving businesses and
residences all over the western United States. Among all
sources of electric power today, hydropower provides an unusual
ability to enhance the reliability of our electric system. And
the hydropower lost would be replaced by burning fossil fuels.
At a time when the Federal Government is looking to use our
resources efficiently and to reduce our deficit, draining Lake
Powell would result in lost revenues measured in the billions
of dollars.
For decades, the water laws governing the Colorado River
have evolved to meet the competing needs of the western states.
Those laws are based on the existence of Lake Powell as a major
water storage resource. Elimination of this foundational piece
in the interlocking water puzzle would throw the entire
Colorado River system into chaos.
The decision to build Glen Canyon Dam and create Lake
Powell was made after many years. Years when informed people on
many sides of the debate had an opportunity to weigh the
choices. When that process was finished huge commitments of
time, money, and resources were made. History recorded the
decision. People, states, businesses, populations all relied on
that decision. To those who did not like that decision, who
wish to rewrite that history we can only say there is a time
when all of us must let go. Glen Canyon Dam was built. The
beautiful and serene Lake Powell was formed. It fulfills the
diverse needs of millions of Americans. Let us make the best
use of this magnificent resource. It is a decision we can live
with.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of time, I will not
have an opening statement and look forward to listening to the
witnesses.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, my
district contains the entire Utah portion of Lake Powell.
Today, you will hear several witnesses testify as to the
logical reasons for preserving the integrity of the lake.
As the Committee will hear, Lake Powell provides
substantial power, drinking and irrigation water, and
protection from ravenous floods for millions of people, people
whose lives now depend upon the lake's existence. Not to
mention the fact that Lake Powell is incomparable in scale and
quality to any other recreational area in America, providing
world renowned water recreation to some 3 million people every
year.
Chairman, draining the lake is a ridiculous idea. I
remember the debate before Glen Canyon Dam was built. The
environmental effects were discussed. Frankly, I was offended
at the idea that we would build a dam there and destroy what I
think was a wonderful area, even though I was quite young at
the time. The damage to the canyon was acknowledged at that
time. The decision to go forward was made. It is too late to
change that now simply because some have grown sentimental for
Glen Canyon.
What existed then could never be restored. To suggest
otherwise is silly. I dare say this could be the silliest
proposal discussed in the 105th Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen environmental proposals in my
district that can only be described as dumb, some monumentally
dumb. But now, Mr. Chairman, we have dumb and dumber. In that
spirit, I would like to introduce my top 10 environmental ideas
that might be even dumber than draining Lake Powell.
Number 10, remove the Statute of Liberty and reclaim
Liberty Island. Number 9, return New Orleans and Southern
Louisiana to its natural wetlands state. Number 8, dismantle
all white houses cluttering our Nation's shorelines. Number 7,
return Mount Rushmore to its pristine state. Number 6, repack
Manhattan's linking tunnel. Number 5, remove the Golden Gate
Bridge from the San Francisco Bay. Number 4, rip up the
interstate highways that litter our landscape. Number 3, fill
in Lake Erie Canal. Number 2, return Washington to its original
and swampy wetlands, a proposal that might well be received
around the country. And Number 1, designate a 1.7-million-acre
national monument in Southern Utah without any hearings. Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. I caution the gentleman here that everyone's
entitled to their viewpoint, and we'll treat everybody with
respect.
The gentleman from Arizona.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHADEGG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say that
I have grave reservations about this hearing. I did not hear,
nor did my staff learn of this hearing until a little over a
week ago. And I did not have a chance to invite witnesses until
all of the witnesses from Arizona had been invited. I was not
afforded that opportunity until last Thursday.
So I have grave concern that those of us who are in
opposition to this idea have not had sufficient time to prepare
and, with that, may at some point want to request a future
hearing. But with that, let me give you my opening statement.
We will hear testimony today about how some people think it
would be wonderful to turn back the clock. And, indeed,
sometimes, we would perhaps all like to do so. At times, we all
wish we could do things differently in retrospect. But it
cannot happen. Time moves in only one direction.
The wishful thinking and the ill-conceived proposal which
brings us here today calls to mind the lines from Edward
Fitzgerald's ``Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:'' ``The moving finger
writes; and having writ, moves on: Nor all your piety nor wit
shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears
wash out a word of it.''
Time moves in one direction, and that is how God intended
it. In this life, each of us is called to look forward, not
backward.
We will hear testimony today claiming that one of God's
creation has been destroyed by man and one of man's creations.
No one here is so arrogant as to say that man's works can
replace those of God. But I am here to stand foursquare in
favor of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam as beautiful and
functional works, albeit man-made. Let us not forget as we
consider this issue that man is one of God's creations and that
man's creations often honor his God.
Ultimately, why is this issue before us? It is certainly
within the purview of Congress to right wrongs. And there will
be testimony claiming that the dam and the lake are wrong. The
Sierra Club President has called the dam a horrible mistake of
humanity and an arrogant symbol of technology. Though, in my
mind, technology has raised humanity to extraordinary heights.
There also will be testimony as to how right the dam and
lake are, from solving water and power needs in seven Western
States, to the beauty and recreational opportunities afforded
to all citizens. I can assure you firsthand they are a wonder.
I have spent more than two dozen nights on Lake Powell and
explored every canyon from Wahweap to Bullfrog.
One man who will testify here takes credit for raising the
issue to national prominence. He has said that he virtually
alone is responsible for Glen Canyon Dam and that he has
suffered 40 years of guilt over it.
One organization, the Sierra Club, has acknowledged that it
is suffering from decline in younger membership and believe
this is the kind of high profile litmus test issue that will
boost its youthful membership.
Another man, who will not testify here today, but who has
founded an institute to study the issue and provide reliable
data says, and I quote, ``At its heart, this is a religious
issue.''
We will hear testimony from others which will provide hard
facts and scientific data upon which we may draw valid
conclusions. But I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, this issue is
before us for the most spurious of reasons. This issue is
driven by ego, sentimentality, guilt, and a desire for profit.
That is hardly a good basis on which to build public policy.
I am hopeful that a meaningful discussion of issues
regarding dam safety, long-term siltation studies, the future
of remediation and mitigation will be raised and discussed
here. But I state as unequivocally as I possibly can, Lake
Powell should not be drained. It is an ill-conceived proposal
that appears to be advanced for personal and institutional
gain, and I will oppose it with every ounce of energy I have.
Even a Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, arguably the
chapter most affected by this plan, acknowledge that time has
rendered the issue moot. Ann Wechshler, leader of the Utah
Chapter said, and I quote, ``We were not consulted. We do not
support the draining.''
Current habitats both above and below the dam are stable,
thriving and providing for the rebound of such endangered
species as the peregrine falcon and bald eagle. Lees's Ferry in
my State is home to a world class trout fishery.
Flow controls from the dam in last year's simulated flood
has shown the Grand Canyon can be maintained as a thriving
ecosystem. The amount and variety of wildlife supported by Lake
Powell has been cataloged and studied to ensure its success.
Were the lake to be drained, all that would be lost. The lack
of scouring floods through the Grand Canyon has allowed a rich
variety of plant and animal life to make a home there. It is
true that the habitats have changed, but that does not make
them worse. And by most accounts, they are better.
There are many problems that must be resolved in this
debate. For instance, the sediment contained in Lake Powell
likely contains toxic concentrations of heavy metals and
uranium that could destroy the Grand Canyon as well as Lake
Mead if we were to drain Lake Powell as proposed.
Of greater concern than that, however, is the silt not
carried away in the water, but which dries out and becomes
airborne in many violent storms within the region. As many as
12 times a year, the dry Owens Lake in California is whipped by
winds that cut visibility to zero and put 25 times the EPA
maximum amount of particulates into the air.
Do we drain Lake Powell only to visually obscure the Grand
Canyon and other surrounding national parks? Do we drain Lake
Powell only to expose hundreds of thousands of citizens to
toxic dust?
Proponents attempt to counter the enormous economic loss
that draining Lake Powell would cause, from lost power
generation, water storage, tourism, and more, by stating that
one million acre feet of water evaporate from the lake each
year. What they don't say is that those million acre feet are
the result of storage, not wasted flows.
The Colorado is already fully used, fully apportioned.
Eliminating the dam will not cause one more gallon of water to
flow. It will simply cause water hardships in dry years and
water waste in wet years.
The total loss by evaporation which they claim, if the
figures are even accurate, is a mere 4 percent of Lake Powell's
capacity. And of course, water lost to evaporation is not lost
at all. Even school children know it rises to form clouds and
fall as rain somewhere else.
Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation built on the principle that
to look forward is to grow and to thrive. To dwell in the past
is to wither and die. Not all change is perfect and good and
true, but change is inevitable. And to learn from our mistakes
is noble and right. To turn our backs on progress for the sake
of sentimental wishing is suicide, indeed.
The Sierra Club's board of directors, without consulting
its membership, has embraced an irresponsible proposal that is
not only economically disastrous, but environmentally
dangerous. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shadegg follows:]
Statement of Hon. John B. Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arizona
Mr. Chairman,
We will hear testimony today about how some people think it would
be wonderful to turn back the clock . . . and indeed sometimes we would
perhaps all like to do so. At times we all wish we could do things
differently, in retrospect.
But it cannot happen. Time moves in only one direction.
The wishful thinking and the ill-conceived proposal which brings us
here today calls to mind the lines from Edward Fitzgerald's ``Rubiyat
of Omar Khayyam'':
The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it hack to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
Time does move in one direction and that is how God intended it. In
this life each of us is called to look forward and not backward.
We will hear testimony today claiming that one of God's creations
has been despoiled by man and one of man's creations. No one here is so
arrogant as to say that man's works can replace those of his God. But I
am here to stand foresquare in favor of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam
as beautiful and functional works, albeit man-made.
Let us not forget, as we consider this issue, that man is one of
God's creations and that man's creations often honor his God.
Ultimately, why is this issue before us? It is certainly within the
purview of Congress to right wrongs, and there will be testimony
claiming that the dam and the lake are wrong. The Sierra Club President
has called the dam a ``horrible mistake of humanity'' and ``an arrogant
symbol of technology,'' though, in my mind, technology has raised
humanity to extraordinary heights. There will also be testimony as to
how right the dam and the lake are. From solving water and power needs
in seven western states to the beauty and recreational opportunities
afforded to all citizens, I can assure you, first-hand, they are a
wonder. I have spent more than two dozen nights on Lake Powell and
explored every canyon from Wahweap to Bullfrog.
One man, who will testify here, takes credit for
raising this issue to national prominence. He has said that he,
virtually alone, is responsible for Glen Canyon Dam and that he
has suffered 40 years of guilt over it.
One organization, the Sierra Club, suffering from a
decline in younger membership believes this is the kind of
high-profile ``litmus test'' issue that will boost its youthful
membership.
Another man, who will testify here, founds an
institute to ``study'' the issue and provide reliable data, yet
says: ``At its heart, this is a religious issue.''
We will hear testimony from others that will provide hard facts and
scientific data upon which we may draw valid conclusions, but I submit
to you, Mr. Chairman, that this issue is before us for the most
spurious of reasons. This issue is driven by ego, sentimentality and
guilt. That's hardly a good basis on which to build public policy.
I am hopeful that a meaningful discussion of issues regarding dam
safety, long-term siltation studies, and future remediation and
mitigation will be raised and discussed here. But, and I state this as
unequivocally as I possibly can: Lake Powell should not be drained. It
is an ill-conceived proposal that appears to be advanced for personal
and institutional gain and I will oppose it with every ounce of energy
I have.
Even the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club--arguably the Chapter most
affected by this plan--acknowledges that time has rendered this a moot
issue. Ann Wechshler, leader of the Utah Chapter, said: ``We were not
consulted. We don't support the draining.''
Current habitats, both above and below the dam, are stable,
thriving and providing for the rebound of such endangered species as
the peregrine falcon and bald eagle. Lee's Ferry is home to a world-
class trout fishery. Flow controls from the dam and last year's
simulated flood have shown that the Grand Canyon can be maintained as a
thriving ecosystem. The amount and variety of wildlife supported by
Lake Powell has been cataloged and studied to ensure its success. Were
the lake to be drained, all that would be lost. The lack of scouring
floods through Grand Canyon has allowed a rich variety of plant and
animal life to make a home there. It is true that the habitats have
changed, but that does not make them worse. And by most accounts, they
are better.
There are many problems that must be resolved in this debate. For
instance, the sediment contained in Lake Powell likely contains toxic
concentrations of heavy metals and uranium that could destroy the Grand
Canyon as well as Lake Mead if we were to drain Lake Powell as
proposed. Of greater concern than that, however, is the silt that is
not carried away, but which dries out and becomes airborne in the many
violent storms within this region. As many as 12 times a year, the dry
Owens Lake in California is whipped by winds that cut visibility to
zero and put 25 times the EPA maximum amount of particulates into the
air. Do we drain Lake Powell only to visually obscure the Grand Canyon
and other surrounding National Parks? Do we drain Lake Powell only to
expose hundreds of thousands of citizens to toxic dust?
Proponents attempt to counter the enormous economic loss that
draining Lake Powell would cause, from lost power generation, water
storage, tourism and more, by stating that one million acre feet of
water evaporate from the lake each year. What they don't say is that
those million acre feet are the result of storage, not wasted flows.
The Colorado is already fully used, fully apportioned. Eliminating
the dam will not cause one more gallon of water to flow. It will simply
cause water hardships in dry years and water waste in wet years. And,
of course, water lost to evaporation is not ``lost'' at all. Even
school children know that it rises to form clouds and falls as rain
elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, we are a nation built on the principle that to look
forward is to grow and thrive; to dwell in the past is to wither and
die. Not all change is perfect, good and true; but change is inevitable
and to learn from our mistakes is noble and right. To turn our backs on
progress for the sake of sentimental wishing is suicide, indeed. The
Sierra Club's board of directors, without consulting its membership has
embraced an irresponsible proposal that is not only economically
disastrous but is environmentally dangerous.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I am always
embarrassed to see you folks standing over there. We won't be
using this lower tier. You are welcome to come up and sit here,
if you would like. And I instruct the clerk to pick up these
packets, if they would. If you folks would like to come up and
sit down. I would hate to see you stand through this. It is
going to be a long hearing. If you plan to stay the entire
hearing, you are going to pass out; I hope not from boredom.
Senator Campbell, it is a pleasure to have you, sir. We
will take Senator Campbell and then go to Congressman Hefley,
Congresswoman Helen Chenowith and Congressman Jim Gibbons in
that order.
I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Senator
Campbell be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Hansen. Senator Campbell, it is always a pleasure to
see you. I hope that a lot of you folks realize it wasn't too
many years ago that Senator Campbell was sitting here with us
in this room. I will turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A SENATOR IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I remember
those days very well in which we fought many a battle that is
fought in the so-called debate over the new West versus the old
West. And I certainly thank you for holding this very important
hearing and allowing me the opportunity to make a brief comment
on the Sierra Club's proposal to drain Lake Powell.
We are in a series of votes over on the Senate side now, so
I won't stay long. But I did talk to several other Western
Senators before I came over to kind of get their ideas about
how they felt. And I'm sure you can imagine how many of them
felt.
You, I am sure, are going to have many witnesses today, who
will have much more expertise and knowledge from a technical
standpoint than I have when they speak about this water
project. Some of them will be able to tell you how many cubic
feet of water is stored, how much goes to different States and
how important it is to a great many Western people.
Some will be able to tell you specifically how many
kilowatts of power are generated every day and the demand on
power in the Los Angeles basin and the other places where it
supplys. And certainly we all know that it has provided a
reasonable quality of life for the people that get that rather
inexpensive power.
Well, I am certainly not here to try to speak from a
technical standpoint. But I am here, I think, to voice the
opinions of millions of westerners, some who sit on this
Committee, in proclaiming it to be a certifiable nut idea.
It is true that Lake Powell, when it was built, forever
changed an incredibly beautiful place. But so did building New
York City on Long Island. And we simply can't go back in time
and undo all of the projects that have been built.
Now, in fact, I think it would just plain be silly to even
contemplate it, but I don't mean that to disparage the remarks
that may come later in favor of it. It is just my personal
opinion.
When I first heard about it, in fact, I thought it was a
joke, as many westerners did when we read it in the paper. But
then, on the other hand, after I realized the Sierra Club was
supporting it, I knew they were serious because I know that it
was no joke when they reduced the timber industry's ability to
harvest resources. And, in fact, in the name of environmental
purism, they have made great strides in reducing most of our
land-based industries while making us more dependent on foreign
resources, particularly energy.
And if there is anybody on that panel that doesn't know
what that war in Kuwait was about, let me enlighten them. It
was about energy. There is no question about it.
There are just too many good reasons to keep that lake and
not enough to destroy it. The Glen Canyon Lake has produced
tens of thousands of jobs, first of all, not only in
construction, but in the current maintenance of it, too, and
the recreational services it provides in energy and water-
related activities.
It has also produced a great deal of clean energy. To my
understanding, the Sierra Club is very concerned about global
warming. It factors no contribution, to my knowledge, of global
warming, and no air pollution, either one, as there is coming
from the eastern coal-fired plants or the Northern coal-fired
plants. Therefore, it reduces demand for strip money to get the
coal, which they also claim they dislike.
Now, I haven't seen a nuclear project that produces power
that they support. I haven't seen a coal-fired project that
they support. And there is no question in my mind that, if we
did something as crazy as this sounds to me, the cost of power
would skyrocket.
It also provides an awful lot of water for all of our folks
that live out in our area. I come from the Four Corners area,
as you know, Mr. Chairman. And you also know coming from our
neighboring State of Utah in the West, we store 85 to 90
percent of our yearly water needs, unlike here in the East
where it rains so much that they only have to store about 15
percent of the water needs.
But your State, mine, as well as Arizona, Nevada, and
Southern California simply won't have available options if we
cutoff both the power and the water, or reduce both the power
and water, except one, and that is they will be moving to your
State and mine.
So we end up, I think, if we follow the Sierra Club's line
of thinking to tear down that dam and drain the lake, we would
put another set of circumstances in place that is going to make
it difficult when you have a huge inward migration into the
mountain States, which currently does have a lot of water.
I live down near the cliff dwellings, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, Mesa Verde it's called. And most historians will tell
you that the reason they moved down river a thousand years ago
wasn't from massive social upheaval. It was simply because they
droughted out. They had no way of storing water when they went
through years of drought, and they had to leave.
The Sierra Club also, I think, betrays a basic underlying
elitism. It wants to drain Lake Powell so the spectacular Glen
Canyon is once again accessible, as I understand it. But who
would it be accessible to, a few thousand hikers that can go in
there. Certainly they wouldn't support wheelchairs going in
there. They never have for our wilderness areas. And it would
certainly cutoff the elderly, the people that can visit it by
boat, the thousands of recreational tourists that go there now.
I think also the consequences of the Grand Canyon also need
to be measured. Without flood control provided by the dam, the
Grand Canyon would be subject to dangerous torrential flash
floods much of the year. Year-round rafting and hiking would
simply be out of the question. Access to the canyon would be
reduced. And the risks associated with flooding would also be
increased. And only the wealthiest of Americans would be able
to appreciate that area.
As you know, there are many tragedies in those canyons and
during flood season. In fact, just recently, several hikers
were killed in a flash flood. Imagine what the Colorado would
do to all communities downstream during raging spring floods
that have been built since the canyon was damned and the flood
waters have been controlled. To simply tear that down and
release torrential floods of water downstream to small
communities all the way down to the ocean, I think, is
absolutely nonsense.
I also would like to just say in closing, Mr. Chairman,
that, if this were to go forward, and I have a hunch it is
going nowhere, but if it were to go forward, what would be the
next project? Would it be Hoover Dam or any of the dams in the
West, all the dams in the West? Would we then talk about maybe
returning the Utah project and the Arizona project back to its
former natural environment? Would we talk about tearing down
Hetch Hetchy, there was kind of a joke made about that a few
years ago, which supplies water and power to the city of San
Francisco.
This project, when people hear all the testimony for and
against, I would hope that they will realize it is something
absolutely ridiculous to contemplate. With that, I thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator Campbell. It is always a
pleasure to see you. And I appreciate you coming over. We are
going to be quite busy this morning. So instead of giving
questions to Senator Campbell, you are welcome to join us if
you are so inclined. I know you are very busy.
Senator Campbell. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. We are on
the floor, too. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.
Senator Campbell. May I also just maybe mention one thing?
I have on our side, I have asked Senator Murkowski of the full
Committee on Energy if he would hold similar hearings to this,
too. So we are not trying to simply lock people out on the
Senate side. Those westerners who--we believe debate is
healthy. But we want you to know that we have asked Senator
Murkowski to hold a hearing.
Mr. Hansen. I may add to what you just said. If this idea
goes forward with some of our Members of Congress, as I have
told the Congressman from Arizona, we truly intend to hold
additional meetings and hearings, possibly out in the West. The
gentleman from--did you want to have him yield to you?
Mr. Shadegg. If he would yield for just a moment.
Mr. Hefley. Surely.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank Senator
Campbell. I reached out to him this weekend to assure that he
would be here. I think his testimony adds greatly to this
hearing, and I want to express my personal appreciation for his
attendance. I yield back.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mrs. Chenowith was here
before I was.
Mr. Hansen. If I made that mistake, I surely apologize to
both of you.
Mrs. Chenowith. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to
seniority. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. I apologize. I was just going by my sheet here.
And we had you down. I want you all to see this, because I
don't want to do that purposely.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a prepared
statement. I would like to just say a few things. I guess I am
surprised that the Committee is taking time with a nutty idea
like this. I don't know anyone that really takes it seriously.
I suppose we will hear some testimony today from some folks
that do. But it kind of ranks in my mind with the idea that
came out a few years ago of taking the whole plains of the West
and Midwest and turning them back into a buffalo preserve,
because that is what they were originally, and move people out
of those areas. And that would be many, many States. Maybe we
will have hearings on that as well. It is kind of a similar
idea.
I don't need to educate you, Mr. Chairman, on Western
water, because you are the expert on it. I think Senator
Campbell and others have pointed that out. Our water comes in
the form of snow in the wintertime. And if we don't capture
that water and store it for use throughout the year out there
in the West, we just simply don't have water. And maybe it
becomes a buffalo preserve. Maybe we do move everybody off the
land, because there is simply no water there for us to live on
or to support the populations that are out there.
Now, it might have been--might have been nice if we could
have had a Garden of Eden type setting in the world and that
man didn't disturb that setting, but when you have populations
that we do, you do make changes. And we do have technology. And
just like I think that canyon is God-given, I think our ability
to use technology is God-given as well. And I think we have
used it rather well with Lake Powell.
I am a little surprised, I guess, at the Sierra Club. I
don't know if they realize what this does to their credibility.
Because there are--I would hope all of us consider ourselves
environmentalists, but there are responsible environmental
groups, and there is the nutty fringe of environmental groups.
There is the fringe that always has to buildup straw men to
fight against in order to get their donations so they can stay
in business. I never thought of the Sierra Club as being in the
nutty fringe. But with this idea, I begin to wonder, Mr.
Chairman.
And I guess it is OK for us to have these hearings and to
hear the viewpoints. I would hope this idea goes absolutely
nowhere. And I hope this Committee would not spend its time on
these kinds of craziness in the future, because this is
something that is not going to happen. We are not going to
drain Lake Powell. And we can discuss it. You can raise money
with it. But we are not going to do it. It simply isn't going
to happen, because the West cannot afford that kind of
activity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. As the Senator, my friend from Colorado, said,
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Mrs. Chenowith.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO+
Mrs. Chenowith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know,
sometimes those of us who work in this body find the most
audacious and arrogant ideas coming in front of us; but I will
tell you, this one takes the cake. The fact that we would even
start with the hearing on draining Lake Powell and then move on
into other areas that have impoundment facilities and working
activity on our rivers, which has been historic from the
beginning of the founding of this country, to even start
pulling the plug on America's commerce with these kinds of
visions is unthinkable.
However, when groups like the Sierra Club, who, by the way,
has become very powerful in the U.S. Congress, very, very
powerful, and I am going to begin to make an appeal, Mr.
Chairman, to those corporate entities who support these ideas,
and appeal to them to look to America first, because what is
happening with the beginning of the pulling of the plug at Lake
Powell, there is also, right next to that, the pulling of the
plug of several dams on the Colombia River which--and the Snake
River which affect my district very, very directly.
Yes, this is audacious, arrogant, and very self-centered on
the part of an organization who wants to make sure that they
have an issue that takes on national proportions that will help
them with their fund-raising capabilities.
Lake Powell was built around 1922, and it contains $.2
billion worth or stimulates $.2 billion worth of agriculture
industry stretching across seven States.
It produces a thousand megawatts, utilized by 20 million
residents in California, Arizona, and Nevada. And it is worth
$800 million industry annually.
The Navajo project, as part of the Glen Canyon system,
provides power for 3 million customers and employs 2,000
people. For recreation, the Glen Canyon National Recreation
area has almost 3 million visitors annually, which brings in
$500 million annually to the regions of 42,000 people who also
annually float the river below Glen Canyon. Thirty thousand
anglers enjoy the blue ribbon trout fishery.
And one of the most important items, Mr. Chairman, is that
Glen Canyon Dam was built also for the purpose of flood control
on a river that experiences runoff flows up to 400,000 cubic
feet per second. That can be very devastating.
We have already dealt with the environmental issues. But I
would ask these members who are making these proposals who--and
this type of proposal will devastate the income ability of
thousands and hundreds of thousands of people, take away their
life-style, and change the face of the commercial activity and
the environment drastically. What is going to happen to your
healthy wages? What is going to happen to your steady
employment, those members of the Sierra Club who are dreaming
up these ideas?
Unfortunately, their vision is not--we don't really count
in their vision. I am not sure what their vision is, but I
don't believe that it is healthy for America. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. No questions or comments, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I first want to
applaud you for your interest and your effort here today to
hold this hearing and your leadership on this issue.
It seems that, seldom in the history of Congress, indeed
perhaps even seldom in the history of mankind, do we have an
opportunity to hear extreme proposals like this one. And, in
fact, this is an extremely bad proposal.
This Nation, years ago, went through considerable or great
lengths and a considerable amount of money to construct the
Glen Canyon Dam and for good reasons. But this proposal to
drain Lake Powell fails even in the very simplest of terms to
understand that the issues that Lake Powell provide for the
humanity in Southwestern United States is at stake with this
extreme proposal.
Lake Powell is an issue of storage. And it was constructed
for the issue of storage. Storage, which includes municipal and
agricultural uses, maybe not directly from Lake Powell, but for
downstream users. Millions of people reside in Nevada, Arizona,
California, and Utah.
Sensitive ecosystems along the banks and riverways of the
Colorado River will be at stake and at risk without the storage
and the flood prevention and flood control efforts of the Lake
Powell Dam.
This is just totally unacceptable to have a group propose
such an extreme position without taking into consideration the
needs of both the environment and humanity along the way. And I
am not even speaking yet of the resource of recreation that is
provided to millions of Americans every year.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal, at first glance, seems to be
so far out on a limb that it should not even be considered as
part of our hearing today. But, indeed, it runs the risk that,
if we fail to address this issue, we have failed to do our job
in terms of the future of America. And I thank you for your
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Nevada.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Pickett.
STATEMENT OF HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Pickett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And while this
project is considerably removed from my district, I share the
sentiments that have been expressed here today about the need
to preserve it.
I say it is impossible today and in the future to build any
kind of major infrastructure project in our country. And to
come here and talk about beginning to dismantle the ones that
our forbearers had the good sense and vision to create is
absolute nonsense. And I just hope that you will conduct this
hearing with that in mind. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I previously read the number of
witnesses that were here. And I am sure you heard your name. It
is the policy of the Chairman of the full Committee to swear in
people on oversight hearings, so why don't, instead of doing
that one panel at a time, could I ask you all to stand, and we
will just do this right now.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Hansen. Our first panel is Eluid L. Martinez,
Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation, accompanied by Dennis
Galvin of the National Park Service and Mr. Michael Hacskaylo,
Acting Administrator, Western Area Power Administration,
Department of Energy.
We are grateful for all you folks being here. As has been
evident by the opening statements, there is some diversity of
thought on this particular issue. But keep in mind, there is on
about every issue that comes around here. So that is the way we
do our business.
Again, before you start, let me point out that, if you
folks standing--we have still got some chairs up here in the
lower tier if you would like to use them. You are more than
free to do it. We just won't let you talk is all.
OK. We will start with Mr. Martinez. And we are grateful
for you being here.
Mr. Martinez. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Let me point out, Mr. Martinez is accompanied
by Charles Calhoon, Regional Director of Upper Colorado,
Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Calhoon, we
appreciate you being here.
Mr. Martinez, the floor is yours. Let me ask you, can
everybody do it in 5 minutes? That is kind of our rules. And if
you have just got a burning desire to go over, I am not going
to stop you. But if you watch the little things in front of you
there, it is just like a traffic light, you know, when you
drive your car. Just do the same thing. Mr. Martinez.
STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to be here today in this oversight
hearing. I have submitted my written statement for the record.
And if appropriate, I would like to summarize that statement.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Interior is committed to a
management process at Glen Canyon Dam that implements the 1996
record of decision, which resulted from the environmental
impact statement on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam developed
pursuant to the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. I might
state that the level of public participation and development of
that document was unprecedented.
Two weeks ago today, the adapted management group, which is
a Federal advisory committee to the Department concerning
management and scientific applications in the Grand Canyon,
began its work. The management group includes a full spectrum
of public interest, including the seven basin States, tribal
governments, and the Federal agencies.
The Glen Canyon National Recreation area was established by
Congress in 1972 to encompass Lake Powell and surrounding
lands, encompassing some 1.2 million acres that was established
to provide for public outdoor recreation use and to preserve
State, scientific, and historic features of the area.
Information provided by the National Park Service estimates
that, this past year, the recreation area drew 2.5 million
visitors and that the annual recreational economic value of
Lake Powell exceeds $400 million.
The city of Page and much of northern Arizona and southern
Utah are dependent in some way on the recreation area for
economic well-being. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam are key
units in the water infrastructure that has evolved in the seven
basin States.
Mr. Chairman, recognizing the numerous interrelated
factors, laws, and histories concerning Glen Canyon Dam, the
law of the Colorado River, and the 1922 Colorado River Compact,
draining or reducing the storage capacity of Lake Powell is
unrealistic.
Acting Deputy Director, Mr. Denis Galvin from the National
Park Service and Reclamation Lower Colorado Regional Director,
Mr. Charles Calhoon, are here with me to assist me in answering
any questions you might have. And I took 2 minutes, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Well, Mr. Martinez, you just set a record in
here. And I want you to know how much I appreciate that.
Denis, you've been before us many times. It is always good
to see you. Does the National Park Service have a statement?
Mr. Galvin. No. Our perspectives in the opening statement
are incorporated into Mr. Martinez's statement, Mr. Chairman. I
am simply here to answer questions if the Subcommittee has
them.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate that. Mr. Hacskaylo, I turn the
time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. HACSKAYLO, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Hacskaylo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittees. My name is Michael Hacskaylo. I'm Acting
Administrator, Western Area Power Administration. And I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the power-related impacts of draining Lake Powell. I
have submitted a written statement for the record. If I may, I
will summarize my comments.
The power plant at----
Mr. Hansen. Hold that mike just a little closer to you,
please, sir. We would appreciate it.
Mr. Hacskaylo. Yes, sir. The power plant at Glen Canyon Dam
has a maximum operating capability of 1,356 megawatts. That is
approximately 75 percent of the total electric capacity of the
Colorado River Storage Project.
Western Area Power Administration markets that power to
over 100 municipalities, rural electric cooperatives,
irrigation districts, and Federal and State agencies in the
States of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and
Wyoming.
In fiscal year 1996, of the $126 million of total power
revenues from the Colorado River Storage Project, Rio Grande
Project and Collbran Project (known collectively as the Salt
Lake City Area Integrated Projects) we have received about $93
million of that amount from sales of Glen Canyon Dam power. If
the Glen Canyon power plant is no longer available, it is
highly likely that the capacity that is lost would be replaced
by fossil-fired power plants. Certainly, conservation might
help in reducing some of that lost capacity, but additional
fossil-fired generation capacity would need to be utilized, we
believe.
If the Glen Canyon power plant is no longer available,
there would be adverse financial impacts on our power
customers. There would be rate increases, we believe, because
of the replacement of the Glen Canyon Dam power with what we
expect would be higher cost power. Those rate impacts would
vary considerably depending on how much power our customers buy
from Western Area Power Administration and the cost of
replacement power.
There also would be impacts to the Federal Treasury if the
power plant is no longer available. Through fiscal year 1996,
power revenues have repaid $537 million of the cost allocated
to power for the Colorado River Storage Project.
Right now, we have $503 million left to repay. In addition,
there is $801 million of cost allocated to irrigation. Without
revenues from the power plant, we would have a very, very
difficult time in ensuring repayment.
In closing, we estimate that over the next 50 years, if the
power plant is not available, if we are not able to sell that
power, there would be a loss of $1.3 billion from power
revenues not collected, not available to the Federal Treasury.
That is the end of my summarized statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hacskaylo may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Hacskaylo. We appreciate the
statement. This is a very brief panel here.
Mr. Doolittle, questions for the panel. We will limit the
Members to 5 minutes in their questioning.
Mr. Doolittle. Were you passing over your----
Mr. Hansen. No, I was going to be the clean-up batter here.
Mr. Doolittle. That is fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, are you aware of any instance where a dam has
been torn down by the government or authorized to be torn down?
Isn't there such a dam in the State of Washington?
Mr. Martinez. I am not aware of any dam that's been torn
down, but there is a proposal for Elwa Dam in the State of
Washington, for a small structure.
Mr. Doolittle. I've heard a number of the Members express
surprise at the absurdity of this idea of tearing down dams,
but at a hearing we held with our Subcommittee in Mrs.
Chenowith's district, why the engineer for the Corps of
Engineers indeed admitted in testimony that they're actively
studying the proposal involving five dams to return the river
level. I believe it is the Snake River, to its natural level by
bypassing, not one, but five dams.
So these ideas are very strange, but I think one has to
treat them seriously, especially when an agency of our
government, not the Bureau in this case--in fact, I don't know.
Is the Bureau involved in that study, Commissioner?
Mr. Martinez. On the Snake River dams? No, we are not. That
is a Corps of Engineer's study, as I understand it.
Mr. Doolittle. Right. Are you familiar with the Navajo
generating station.
Mr. Martinez. Yes, I am.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just ask you to recall as best you
can. It was my understanding that the Navajo generating station
was built as the result of another compromise, just like we
heard about Glen Canyon was a compromise. That was a happy
compromise as far as I am concerned. But the Navajo generating
station im-
pressed me, when I viewed this area, as being completely
incongruous for the area. These enormous smokestacks rise.
And when we toured the facility, we went to the 20th story
and got out and walked on the roof. And we looked up, and the
towers, the tops of the towers were 57 stories above our heads
even at the 20th story level. And there are three of these. And
thanks to the new scrubbers that are being built, there are now
six smokestacks. I guess we will tear down the other three when
the new ones are completed.
But the thing that struck me as interesting about this was
that this was itself, in fact, compelled by some of these
environmental groups, perhaps not the Sierra Club in this case.
I don't remember which one it was. But that Navajo generating
station was built to replace the power that would have been
generated by two dams to have been constructed downstream of
Glen Canyon. Is that your recollection?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, and if I'm wrong, I'll have Mr.
Calhoon correct me, but my understanding is that the power that
was contemplated to be generated by dams on the Colorado River
was to drive principally the water delivery mechanisms to the
central Arizona project as well as provide some electricity to
that part of the United States.
In the absence of those two other dams you're referring to,
there was this power plant constructed. The Bureau of
Reclamation owns part of that facility. And we use power to
drive the pumps on the central Arizona project. But directly to
answer, yes, it was built as a way of delivering power that was
originally contemplated as being produced by, I believe, two
other dams on the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Doolittle. So when the committees of Congress hear
testimony later on, which I am sure we will hear in the next
few years, about how detrimental the air quality of the Navajo
generating station is and how it's necessary to remove it as a
blight in the environment, we can thank the very environmental
groups themselves for giving us that taxpayer expense. Of
course, the Navajo generating station in its 77-story tall
towers and daily consumption of something like 20,000 tons of
coal per day. A special railway was built to make sure that the
coal could be delivered day after day, plus a number of trucks
that bring it in.
So I just want to confirm with you your understanding of
how that got built. And I think this is a lot of unintended
consequences sometimes. Because no one who visits that
beautiful area would, I think, be pleased to see this huge
coal-fired plant sitting there. But the dams that would have
produced the clean hydroelectric power were nixed by the
environmental groups. So I thank you for your testimony, and I
yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms.
Green.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
question for Mr. Martinez. And I would like to welcome all of
the panelists this morning.
Mr. Martinez, you said in your testimony that proposals to
drain Lake Powell are unrealistic. Has the Bureau of
Reclamation done any analysis of the costs and benefits of
these proposals? And is there any reason that private citizens
shouldn't do such an analysis?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Madam, we have not seen
specific proposals, and we have not done any studies of those
proposals.
Ms. Christian-Green. OK. Another--those who propose
lowering Lake Powell argue that the current evaporation losses
from the reservoir are about 1 million acre feet per year. Is
that about accurate?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Madam, any structure, any dam
results in evaporation. A lot of it is dependent on the
location of the reservoir. There is approximately 800,000 acre
feet of evaporation that occurs at this reservoir. And that is
not unusual for the area and was anticipated.
Ms. Christian Green. OK. A question for Mr. Hacskaylo.
Mr. Hacskaylo. Hacskaylo.
Ms. Christian-Green. Hacskaylo. I'm sorry. In your
testimony, you referred to payment of irrigation assistance by
Glen Canyon Power customers as a benefit from Glen Canyon Dam.
Can you tell us in what year that irrigation assistance payment
might be made and what is the present value of a payment.
Mr. Hacskaylo. I do not have that information available. We
would be happy to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and
supply it for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------
Irrigation Assistance Payments
The $801 million of unpaid irrigation assistance as of the
end of fiscal year 1996 that is an obligation of Colorado River
Storage Project power customers is projected to be paid over
many years. The fiscal year 1996 power repayment study for the
Colorado River Storage Project projects that the vast majority
of the payments will occur between the years 2010 and 2023. The
present value of these payments as of September 30, 1996, is
$203 million using a 7 percent discount rate.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. And one other question. You
gave the total amount of power generated from Glen Canyon Dam
in fiscal year 1996. Was that a higher than average water year?
And what is the average amount of power generated each year
from Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Hacskaylo. I can provide that information for the
record.
--------
Average Annual Glen Canyon Dam Power Generation
The average amount of power generated annually at Glen
Canyon Dam since Lake Powell filled in 1981 is 5.2 billion
kilowatt-hours (KWhs). Therefore, the 5.5 billion KWhs
generated at Glen Canyon in 1996 is above average.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martinez, in his
written statement, Mr. Brower has asserted that Glen Canyon Dam
nearly failed in 1983, and this could happen in the future as a
result of poor engineering, flood lands, flood, landslide,
earthquake, or human intent. Do you agree with Mr. Brower about
the vulnerability of Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, to the extent that
that question implies that the dam is unsafe, I do not agree
with it. It is a safe structure. However, we did experience, in
1983, some problems with our spillways. We had sustained some
cavitation. We have corrected those problems and don't
anticipate any future problems with the spillways.
Mr. Cannon. I thank you. Mr. Brower also talks about the
dam nearly being filled with sedimentation over time. What is
the current projected life of the reservoir behind the dam?
Mr. Martinez. Chairman, Congressman, the Glen Canyon
Institute estimates that it will be completely full within 250
to 350 years. Bureau of Reclamation estimates indicate a life-
span from 5 to 700 years.
Mr. Cannon. So recreation and power generation will be
effective for that kind of period of time.
Mr. Martinez. If these--you know, one thing about figures,
depending on which expert you talk to, he'll give you different
opinions. But our belief from the Bureau of Reclamation is that
that facility will be functioning from a siltation standpoint
for several hundred years.
Mr. Cannon. My understanding is the Department of Interior
spent about $100 million since 1982 on studies on the Glen
Canyon. Now, is that about right?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, if you're
referring to the studies conducted for the EIS for Glen Canyon
operation, there was approximately $100 million spent for that.
Mr. Cannon. Have you had a chance to look at the citizen-
led environmental assessment that Mr. Brower refers to?
Mr. Martinez. I have not.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Mr. Galvin, how many visitor days a
year do we have at Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Galvin. We have--in 1996, we had over 2\1/2\ million
visits. An important subtext there is that Glen Canyon has the
second most overnight visits in the entire system. Of those
2\1/2\ million visits, 2 million visitors spend at least one
night in Glen Canyon. So in that respect, it's one of the most
heavily visited areas in the system.
Mr. Cannon. What are the other opportunities in the area
for flat water recreation that are now served in by Lake
Powell?
Mr. Galvin. In that general area, while there are 8 or 10
other national park areas, there is very little in terms of
flat water recreation.
Mr. Cannon. If Lake Powell ceased to exist, what would the
impact be on Lake Mead and its resources that are now served by
Lake Powell for recreation and other things?
Mr. Galvin. I am not absolutely certain how the two dams
interact. Perhaps one of my colleagues would have a better
idea. But we have obviously similar facilities at Lake Mead.
And if we experienced higher water levels at the recreation
area, we would have to do a considerable amount of
reconstruction of the infrastructure there, which is quite--its
marinas and that kind of thing.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know how many people visit Lake Mead per
year?
Mr. Galvin. I don't. But it is on the same order of
magnitude or more than Glen Canyon. But not as many overnight
visits.
Mr. Cannon. Would it be possible for all those people who
now use Lake Powell to go down to Lake Mead?
Mr. Galvin. Not with our present capacity, no question
about it.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Hacskaylo, Mr. Brower asserts in his
written statement that we can replace the power currently
generated at Glen Canyon Dam through reduced demand. Is that
realistic in your assessment?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cannon, the Glen Canyon
environmental impact statement assessed the impact of
conservation and saving electricity. And the estimates range
from zero percent savings to, best case, of 20 percent savings
based on the assumptions used. So there could be some
conservation savings. But we do not believe that the capacity
and the energy generated at Glen Canyon Dam could be replaced
in its entirety by conservation.
Mr. Cannon. When was that study done?
Mr. Hacskaylo. In 1994, as part of the Glen Canyon EIS.
Mr. Cannon. Do you happen to know what has happened to our
power usage since that study in America?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Not in the general area of the Glen Canyon
Dam, in that part of the United States. Power usage has
increased slightly. Demand has increased.
Mr. Cannon. Isn't it likely this lost generation would have
to be replaced with some form of fossil fuel generation? And
has anyone calculated the air quality impacts of a replacement
for the dam with fossil fuel generation?
Mr. Hacskaylo. It is likely that fossil fuel generation
would be utilized to replace the lost capacity at Glen Canyon
Dam. And I'm not aware of any studies as to air impacts.
Mr. Cannon. Great. Thank you. And----
Mr. Hansen. Will the gentleman yield for just one moment?
Mr. Cannon. Absolutely.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hacskaylo, how many tons of coal would it
take to replace the power that is generated by the hydropower
on the dam?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Our best estimate, based on the entire
replacement of all the capacity of Glen Canyon Dam, is one
million tons of coal annually.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martinez, let me
begin with you. Let me followup on a point made on the other
side. Your written statement does, in fact, have you saying
that the proposals to drain Lake Powell are unrealistic. I note
that word because, in the July issue of National Geographic,
which contains a thorough evaluation of the Grand Canyon, and
touches extensively on this issue, Wayne Cooke of the Upper
Colorado River Commission is quoted as saying: If Powell goes,
growth in the upper basin States from a water standpoint is
over. There would be no storage for our obligations under the
Compact.
It then goes on to say: Secretary Babbitt, referring to
Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, agrees in self-arguing
that Lake Powell is, quote, ``essential to the economies of
those States, and that draining the reservoir is unrealistic.''
I guess I would like to put into the record those
statements from Secretary Babbitt from this article, Mr.
Chairman. And I would like to have Mr. Martinez confirm to us
that is, in fact, the Secretary's position and the
administration's position.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that article. I
have not specifically discussed this issue with the Secretary,
but I am aware of that article where he was quoted. And I was
present at a budget hearing earlier this spring where the
Secretary basically stated the same position.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. Could I request that, if that is not the
Secretary's position, the President's position, the
administration's position, that you advise the Committee within
two weeks.
Mr. Martinez. I'll pass that on to the Secretary.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me move to some other statements that I
would like to focus on. In his seminal paper on this issue, and
I regret that Mr. Brower is not going to be here. A paper
entitled, ``Let the River Run Through It,'' Mr. Brower makes a
series of factual assertions which I find stunning, some of
which I find not sustainable.
With regard to water, which I consider to be your focus, in
the fourth paragraph of the article, he states, and I quote:
``Lake Mead's Hoover Dam can control the Colorado River without
Lake Powell.''
Let me ask you, it certainly could not control the Colorado
River if we did not create some flood storage capacity at the
top of Lake Mead. That is, we would have to drain some portion
of Lake Mead, would we not?
Mr. Martinez. The--it gets somewhat complicated, but let me
put it this way: If what you're saying is, in order for flood
control, we would have to hold a greater pool for flood storage
at Lake Mead, that would be the case.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
Mr. Martinez. Which would make less water available for
downstream uses.
Mr. Shadegg. So as a result of that, we would not only lose
the water stored for future use in the event of a drought,
which we have in Lake Powell, but we would also lose some of
the water currently stored at the top of Lake Mead, because
Lake Mead is nearly full; is it not?
Mr. Martinez. You would lose the ability at Lake Mead to
store more water for purposes other than flood control.
Mr. Shadegg. And also lose the storage we have at Lake
Powell.
Mr. Martinez. That's correct.
Mr. Shadegg. He also makes a statement toward the end of
his article, and again I will quote, because I think there is a
stunning statement that may persuade people who are not paying
attention or thinking the issue through: ``Draining Lake Powell
means more water for the Colorado River States and Mexico,
especially Colorado and Utah.''
It is beyond me how draining Lake Powell could possibly
mean more water. Can you explain his statement, or do you have
an understanding of it?
Mr. Martinez. It would appear to me, for the short term, it
would appear as a high flow. It could probably provide more
water in terms of volume. But over time, it would appear to me
that storage would provide the opportunity to capture more of
that flow and provide it to the system. In other words, the
storage, as was indicated earlier this year in the Southwest--
or earlier today, in the Southwest, is necessary in order to
make better use of high spring runoff.
Mr. Shadegg. There is no question, but that we created Lake
Powell to store water in the event of droughts. It seems to me
there's also no question but that we experience droughts in the
West, and that to empty it could not create more water.
And insofar as he is addressing the evaporation issue,
which I think is, quite frankly, the issue on which turned the
minds of the board of directors, it seems to me that Lake
Powell is an insurance policy against a future drought and
that, just as when you purchase an insurance policy, it is--
there is a price so that you have that insurance pool there in
the event of a catastrophe. Evaporation and bank storage, which
Mr. Brower seems deeply concerned about, is the price we pay so
that we will have a storage reservoir there. And I guess there
are more points.
I see I am running short on time, but I would like to ask
Mr. Hacskaylo a question. Mr. Brower also makes a statement in
his paper that Lake Mead's Hoover Dam can produce more power if
Powell's water is stored behind it. How could it be that
storing Lake Powell water behind Lake Mead, which is already
full, could produce more power than the combination of Lake
Mead and Lake Powell?
Mr. Hacskaylo. I do not know, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. It simply doesn't make sense, does it?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Not to me.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me ask a second question. Proponents of
this idea say point blank that we could reengineer Navajo
generating station, which is also essential for the economies
of the Southwestern United States, so that the tubes, which now
take the cooling water out at a level of about 250 feet above
the river, could take them out at river level. Given that the
river fluctuated dramatically and had very low flow in the
wintertime, does that idea appear realistic to you?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Sir, I would have to defer to the
Commissioner of Reclamation on that question.
Mr. Shadegg. Two other quick questions, if I might. There's
been some reference to conservation here and that we might save
some of the power lost by shutting down Glen Canyon Dam by
conservation. Would we not be better off to use that
conservation to defer the construction of future dirty coal or
oil or natural gas fired-power plants?
Mr. Hacskaylo. That certainly is an option for the
policymakers to consider.
Mr. Shadegg. I guess the last point I would like to make,
Mr. Duncan goes back to you, with regard to how fast the lake
will fill up. I understand the Lake Powell Institute says it's
only 100 year--one or 200 years. I simply want to note that
Bill Duncan of the Bureau of Reclamation, who is the engineer
that manages the dam, has said that sedimentation in the lake
is very slow. And he said, and I quote, ``At current rates,''
he predicted ``dredging would be needed to clear the tubes for
the turbine intake pipes in about 500 years'' He's saying not
that the lake will be full in 500 or 700 years, but that
dredging won't even be necessary to clear the intake tubes for
500 years. He's on the site. It would seem to me he would make
a pretty good estimate of what's required, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I've been around this business
long enough. Like I said, different folks will give you
different figures. It's my feeling that, or at least for the
next three to four or 500 years, we will not have siltation
unless the climate of the world changes to a point where it
causes chaotic problems. But that structure, from my best
information I have available, will not get into a siltation
problem at least for 4 or 500 years.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you each for your testimony and I
thank the Chair for his indulgence.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Martinez, let me quickly insert a question.
I started, as we were flying in here, I read in a report from
one of the river runners magazines, that if not one more drop
came into Lake Powell, that it could sustain the flow on the
other end for 4 years. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Martinez. My understanding that both Lake Mead and Lake
Powell are capable of impounding the average flow of the
Colorado River for about 4 to 5 years.
Mr. Hansen. So together you could keep it going for 4 or 5
years. So there's that much water stored behind those two
reservoirs; would that be correct, Mr. Calhoon?
Mr. Calhoon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Approximately 26 million
acre feet of water are presently stored in Lake Powell. And the
average inflow to Lake Powell is something on the order of 12,
13 million acre feet. So it wouldn't be quite the 4 years, it
would be more like 2 years.
Mr. Hansen. Quite an insurance policy that the gentleman
from Arizona talked about.
The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenowith.
Mrs. Chenowith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I
would like to make a correction to my opening statement if it
wasn't clear. It's my understanding that in 1922, the Colorado
Lower Basin Water Compact and Colorado River storage projects
were established out of that. Eventually, in the fifties came
the construction of the Grand Canyon Dam and the culmination of
the substantial construction of the recreational facilities in
the seventies. And I hope the record will reflect these
changes.
I'm very interested, Commissioner, in knowing what effect
draining Lake Powell would have on our ability to live up to
our obligations to deliver water to the lower basin and to
Mexico?
Mr. Martinez. It is my understanding that the deliveries to
the lower basin States, except for periods of extensive
drought, could be met without Lake Powell being in place.
However, if there is extended drought, the deliveries could
not. What is more important, from my perspective, is that,
without Lake Powell, the upper basin States would not be able
to develop their entitlement.
Mrs. Chenowith. Would not----
Mr. Martinez. There is two answers to that question. One
is, in periods of extensive drought, Lake Powell would be
needed to meet deliveries to the lower States. In other
situations, without Lake Powell, the upper basin States would
not be able to develop their water that they're entitled to
under the Colorado River Compact.
Mrs. Chenowith. The ability to deliver water to Mexico, is
that a higher right than the right to deliver water for
irrigation and hydropower flood control?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the attorneys
on that issue, but that is an international treaty. And we have
obligations under the international treaty to deliver water.
Mrs. Chenowith. So what I'm asking you, Commissioner, is
there is only so much storage capacity without Lake Powell. And
within that storage capacity, there is the capability of
delivering for previous filing water rights, such as for energy
or for agriculture or flood control.
Are you saying that, under international treaty, that the
filling of a water interbasin or international water, transfer
of water comes as a higher priority in the first in time, first
in right doctrine established in the West if we have less
storage capability without Lake Powell?
Mr. Martinez. If you have a stream system that's
overallocated, especially in the West, first in time, first in
right, the question I--the issue I raise is I would defer to
the attorneys. That if we have an international treaty in
place, whether the international treaty would go first in terms
of water shortage, I believe that it would. But I think, going
back to the question that was asked, was that----
Mrs. Chenowith. If the gentleman would yield, you believe
that the international treaty would require a higher and more
senior right, is that correct, above irrigation rights filed
previously?
Mr. Martinez. The water rights in the West are apportioned
by prior priority.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right.
Mr. Martinez. Prior priority.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right.
Mr. Martinez. Prior rights get first crack at limited water
supplies. The point I am raising is that, if you have an
international treaty, that's why I say I would defer to the
attorneys in the audience, but it would appear to me that, if
you have an international treaty, you have international
obligations, which might require that water to go downstream.
But I would be glad to provide that direct answer for the
record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would appreciate that, Commissioner. I
would be very interested in seeing what your legal analysis on
that would be with regards to seniority and rights.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. A very interesting question was asked
earlier about whether the Bureau had done a cost benefit ratio
analysis on draining Lake Powell. Your answer didn't surprise
me. But I thought it was a very interesting question in that I
wanted to followup and ask you: Does an agency have an
obligation to do a cost-benefit analysis or an environmental
impact statement or any other of those costly studies when an
outside organization is requiring an action such as this?
Mr. Martinez. To my knowledge, the Bureau of Reclamation
has not undertaken any studies on evacuation of reservoirs
across the West as a course of business. Or if Congress so
directs, we shall undertake such study.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you would say your obligation comes from
Congress?
Mr. Martinez. I--the Bureau of Reclamation will do what
Congress tells us to do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to submit
that question in writing. I see my light is on. And so with
regards to the obligation of the Bureau, I will submit that in
writing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martinez, continuing on the same line, I noticed in the
previous testimony that a million acre feet of evaporation is
one of the considerations for draining Lake Powell. In other
words, the waste of that water through evaporation. Would you
agree or would you disagree that evaporation should be a
consideration in the draining of a water storage area?
Mr. Martinez. It could be, but to the extent that you're
going to replace that storage someplace else, you have the same
problem. And if it's the storage occurs downstream at Lake
Mead, the evaporation rates would be even higher. Mr. Chairman,
what I said earlier on, Congressman, was that any structure
across the West and in ponds of water suffers evaporation.
That's part of the physical process.
Mr. Doolittle. Would the gentleman yield for just a minute?
Mr. Gibbons. I'd be glad to yield.
Mr. Doolittle. Commissioner, this figure of a million came
from the Sierra Club. Do you accept that it's a million? Is
that the Bureau's estimate of the amount of evaporation? Is it
a million acre feet?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, the million acre feet a year is
a high figure. We feel like it's less than that. The total loss
of water from Lake Powell for evaporation and bank storage is
less than a million. It's something on the order of 950,000
acre feet a year.
Mr. Doolittle. Oh, so then your testimony is--that's
different than what I understood, then. It nearly is a million.
Mr. Calhoon. For bank storage and evaporation. Evaporation
is on the order of a little under 600,000 acre feet a year.
Bank storage is another 350,000 acre feet a year.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. But the bank storage, you believe, comes
back as the level of the reservoir drops.
Mr. Calhoon. That is essentially correct.
Mr. Doolittle. So then it wouldn't be fair to say that
we're losing banks--I apologize to Mr. Gibbons. Can we give him
a couple extra minutes.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, we will just give him two
additional minutes.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Let me just get the rest of the answer.
So the bank storage, if we set aside the bank storage, what is
the loss, then, due to evaporation?
Mr. Calhoon. In 1996, the evaporation loss for Lake Powell
was computed at, I believe, 585,000 acre feet.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hansen. The Secretary will give two additional minutes
to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, I
won't take that long. If the evaporation rates are a condition
of consideration for removal of a water storage area, is there
a criteria upon which the amount of the evaporation is a
determining factor in making a recommendation to eliminate a
water storage area? Is there a percentage or a criteria in that
area?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think that--I'm
not aware of evaporation being considered as a criteria for
removing the structure or evacuating a structure. It is
criteria that is considered at the time you construct the
structure.
It would appear to me that, if the evaporation rate is so
great, you would not construct the structure in the first
place. So those issues from an engineering perspective should
have been addressed at the time the dam was constructed and
designed.
Mr. Gibbons. Sure. I understand that. And it's based on the
size of the impoundment area, whether it's wide and thin or
wide and shallow versus deep?
Mr. Martinez. It's based on the----
Mr. Gibbons. Total quality of water versus the evaporation
rate would be under consideration?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, it's based on the exposed
surface area and the location of the structure. For a given
area, the evaporation rates would be higher at Lake Mead than
they would be at Glen Canyon Dam.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. Mr. Galvin, how many units of the national
park system would be impacted by this proposal?
Mr. Galvin. Well, we startup in canyon lands, so there
are--and Lake Mead, of course--well, let's just go up--let's go
up the river. We have Lake Mead National Recreation area, Grand
Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation area, and
Canyon Lands.
Now, that covers the length of the river. But there are
other--there are other units that are on these drainages,
Capital Reef and Dinosaur upstream, although that is not--I
mean, theoretically, because the water flows change, they could
be somehow impacted.
Mr. Gibbons. So the national park system has a very, very
active participatory interest in this hearing today?
Mr. Galvin. Yeah. We've--you know, we manage recreation on
the Colorado River for a very significant length of that and on
the tributaries of the Colorado River.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, you were requested by the Committee to
appear here today, were you not?
Mr. Galvin. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. And, originally, you intended just to submit a
written statement. Did you have any discussions with the
Department of Interior about your appearance here today?
Mr. Galvin. The committee invited the National Park Service
to appear as an expert witness. And, originally, in preparing
for the hearing, we prepared two separate statements. It was
the decision of the Department of Interior simply to
incorporate the perspectives of the National Park Service under
Mr. Martinez's statement.
Because of schedules, we did have some discussion about who
the witness would be. And I was the witness, then I wasn't the
witness. Then we discussed with the Subcommittee. And they
wanted a high-ranking management official, so I agreed I would
be the witness.
But it was largely a consideration of schedules that was--
there was no direction from the Department one way or the
other.
Mr. Gibbons. Has the National Park Service an interest in
the endangered species that exist along the Colorado River?
Mr. Galvin. Yes. In fact, we were a participant on the
environmental impact statement on the management of the river
that was referred to in previous testimony.
Mr. Gibbons. Are there a number of endangered species that
exist upstream but not downstream or vice versa because of the
existence of Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Galvin. I am aware of endangered species downstream
because the environmental impact statement principally covered
the management of the Colorado River below the dam. And an
important--the endangered species thing sort of cuts both ways,
because the temperature of the water is influenced, obviously,
by the dam. But there are clearly endangered species downstream
of the dam that would--that would become more endangered if the
canyon was drained. On the other hand, there are some that
perhaps would benefit from warm water.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martinez, the part
that you raised about extensive drought, could you just give me
your definition of what extensive drought would be.
Mr. Martinez. I refer to Mr. Calhoon.
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we've experienced
several significant droughts. The droughts in the thirties are
of historical record. And the droughts of the fifties were very
significant. More recently, we experienced a 6-year drought on
the Colorado River beginning in 1986 in which we realized
approximately two-thirds of the normal runoff during that 6-
year period.
Mr. Ensign. And you're saying that that is a significant
enough drought period to have an effect on the lower basin
States on the supply of water that they would get.
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, particularly the earlier
droughts of the thirties and fifties, the drought--if the 6-
year drought in the eighties had gone on longer, I am sure that
would have been the case then also.
Mr. Ensign. So am I safe in saying that, with a reasonable
degree of certainty, the drainage of Lake Powell will have,
within the next 30 or 40 years, almost assuredly based on at
least the last hundred years, will have a severe affect on the
lower basin States?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, experience would indicate that
would be the case.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Also, can you address why Lake
Mead's evaporation rate is greater. We're saying, you know, if
you drain Lake Powell, Lake Mead has a greater evaporation
rate.
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, Lake Mead is at a lower
elevation and experiences a much higher temperature year-round.
And that would be the primary reason for the higher evaporation
loss.
Mr. Ensign. So you're saying that, by draining Lake Powell
and putting the water into Lake Mead, because of the increased
temperature and the lower elevation, then we increase even more
evaporation. So some of the benefit that the Sierra Club seems
to think by draining Lake Powell is actually negated because of
the increased evaporation rates in Lake Mead; is that correct?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. Ensign. Have you seen anything put out by the Sierra
Club that would address that issue, that would--in other words,
that they address that maybe counter--counters the argument
against that.
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, no, I have not.
Mr. Ensign. OK, thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ensign. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. I just want to understand this. Lake Mead
is, I think, the largest reservoir in the country, right?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. And that's, what, twenties--if Powell is
27 million, what is Lake Mead?
Mr. Calhoon. It's slightly more than 27. It's larger.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. I'm just wondering how are you going to
put all that--and assume Lake Mead is full. How are you going
to put another 27 million acre feet of water in Lake Mead?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, that would be physically
impossible. Additional water supplies, when Lake Mead is full,
would flow through the system over the spillway.
Mr. Doolittle. I mean, there is no way you could do it,
right? So you would be cutting, I don't know what it would be,
but you would be making a dramatic cut in your obviously 27
million acre foot cut in your reservoir storage capacity. But,
I mean, you couldn't just--you just can't add water into Lake
Mead beyond what it can hold, right?
Mr. Calhoon. That is correct.
Mr. Doolittle. I mean, theoretically, you shouldn't be able
to add another drop beyond its 27 million acre feet of storage,
is that right, without flooding something or causing some
damage?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, that is essentially correct. Of
course, Lake Mead is not completely full all of the time.
Mr. Doolittle. Right. But I mean the point is that you're
going to lose, I don't know, if you took an average, I mean,
how much is typically available for added storage in Lake Mead
when it's not--let's say it's not full all the time, like if
it's 80 percent full or what percentage would it be normally?
Mr. Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, we could supply that for the
record. I don't have that information.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. I just think it's important for the
Committee to understand that it's not like you can just get rid
of Lake Powell and have it all in Lake Mead, and we're all just
fat, dumb, and happy. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. We're pleased to have J.D. Hayworth, past
Member of our Committee and Member of Congress and a gentleman
from Arizona. Do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, only to say that I hope the
description of my colleague from California won't be used for
me because I'm a little bit nutritionally challenged from time
to time. And there are those that would say the same thing
about my intellectual capacities. But I thank you for the
chance to be here with you. And I'm sure my colleague from
California was not referring to me.
Mr. Hansen. We'll accept that. Mr. Galvin, I didn't get it
straight when somebody asked you the question. Does the
National Park Service and this administration have a position
on this proposal?
Mr. Galvin. Well, Mr. Martinez used the word
``unrealistic.'' And Mr. Shadegg quoted the National
Geographics article. I believe that is, to the extent that we
offer positions at an oversight hearing, that's our position.
Mr. Hansen. You stated earlier the amount of visitation,
and you used overnight figures. Did I hear you correctly that
you said it was one of the highest or second highest?
Mr. Galvin. It is actually second to Yosemite National Park
in terms of overnight stays. And I suspect, this year, because
of the fewer facilities at Yosemite, it will be the highest
number of overnight stays in the national park system.
Mr. Hansen. You say it will be the highest of the entire
Park Service?
Mr. Galvin. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. All 375 units, huh?
Mr. Galvin. Right. And that is because of the nature of the
visitation. It's not--unlike Lake Mead, which is primarily day
use, near major metropolitan areas, people come to Glen Canyon
and stay overnight. They take the house boats down the lake, as
you know. So they tend to be overnight--there are 456 hotel
rooms. There are 600 camp sites.
Mr. Hansen. Last time I was there, I talked to the
superintendent, and he indicated to me that about 400,000
people launched boats there last year. Is that a correct
statement?
Mr. Galvin. If the superintendent said that, it's
undoubtedly true, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. OK. Never cross the superintendent, do you?
Mr. Galvin. Well, I wouldn't say that.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hacskaylo, which areas are specifically
treated with power? Would you identify those that receive this
hydropower?
Mr. Hacskaylo. Yes, sir. From the Glen Canyon Dam and the
Colorado River Storage Project, our customers are located in
Utah, Colorado, Wyoming--a few in Wyoming, a few in New Mexico,
Arizona, and I believe one customer in Nevada. We do have a map
which we'd be happy to provide for the record showing the
locations of our customers.
Mr. Hansen. We previously asked the question as to how many
tons of coal would have to make up for the loss. How many
generating plants do you think would have to be created in
order to fill the gap that we would lose from the hydropower?
How many kilowatts, sir? Would you have any----
Mr. Hacskaylo. Right now, the maximum operating capability
of Glen Canyon power plant is 1,356 megawatts. I'm sure the
consulting engineers could give any sort of variations on what
would be needed to replace that lost capacity. I do not have an
answer for that.
Mr. Hansen. And you would assume that would have to be done
by fossil fuels or coal----
Mr. Hacskaylo. This is correct.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] or nuclear?
Mr. Hacskaylo. That would be a reasonable assumption, yes,
sir.
Mr. Hansen. I see.
Mr. Shadegg had one more comment he wanted to make. We'll
give him a minute to do that.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just noticed that
there was some significant discussion here about the issue of
bank storage and the Bureau of Reclamation claiming that some
of that can be regained. And I simply want to make a couple of
points.
I noted earlier that I was not able to get the witnesses
here as a result of the short timing of this hearing that I
thought ought to be here. One of the witnesses I think deserves
to be here is the representative of the Hopi tribe. Congressman
Stump, who represents the Hopis, is not a member of the this
Committee, but is deeply concerned about this issue.
And I want to make this point: Again, in his seminal paper
on this issue, ``Let The River Run Through It,'' Mr. Brower,
the principal proponent or leading proponent of this idea,
diminishes the idea of bank storage by saying, quote: ``All too
likely, the region's downward slanting geological strata are
leading some of Powell's waters into the dark unknown,'' close
quote.
I believe were there a Hopi witness here, he would tell you
or she would tell you that, in point of fact, the dark unknown
is a very viable aquifer that underlies the Hopi reservation
and which is currently supplying water to the Hopi. And the
Hopi are greatly concerned, as I know Congressman Hayworth
knows, about the loss of that water, and have indeed come to
the Congress and said, not only are we worried about the
depletion of that aquifer over time, but we would like it
supplemented by a pipeline from Lake Powell.
And I would suggest very strongly that the dark unknown
that Mr. Brower refers to is, in fact, an aquifer underlying
the Hopi and Navajo reservations and is important to their
lives and economies. And I look forward to asking the
representatives of the Navajo nation here if they share that
concern about damage to that aquifer were the lake drained.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stump follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Stump, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona
Chairman Hansen, Chairman Doolittle, distinguished members
of the Resources Committee, panelists and interested parties,
Lake Powell, while not a natural lake, has a very positive
presence in Northern Arizona and in Southern Utah. World
renowned for its outstanding scenic beauty and extraordinary
recreational opportunities, the Lake also serves as an
important water storage body, whose Glen Canyon Dam is an
essential generator of critically needed electrical power.
Draining Lake Powell to ``restore'' the Colorado River is
simply destruction for destruction's sake that would
irreparably harm fish and wildlife that today accept Lake
Powell as their home. It would also have grave consequences for
river towns whose economies depend upon recreational tourism.
The uncertain water supplies brought on by draining would harm
downstream users and would create unnecessary spikes in
electrical generation and distribution costs, all without
giving U.S. taxpayers one sound reason for the need to do so.
Aren't taxpayers sick enough of costly, ill-advised
government initiatives? As a Member of Congress, I urge my
colleagues here at this oversight hearing to let taxpayers know
that Congress has heard their pleas. I will stand with you in
telling taxpayers that Congress will not pull the plug on Lake
Powell.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We'll excuse this panel. Thank you
so much for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brower may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Our next witnesses are Mr. Adam Werbach,
President of the Sierra Club; Mr. Ted Stewart, Executive
Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources; Rita P.
Pearson, Director of Arizona Department of Water Resources;
Mark Whitlock, Executive Director of FAME. And David Wegner was
asked by Mr. Werbach if he could sit with him. I have no
objection to that if you want to bring him up.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, are you going to ask unanimous
consent to bring up Mr. Wegner, because I intend to object.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I'll tell you what, we'll have him sit
there, and we won't call upon him to testify until the third
panel. Is that all right?
Mr. Doolittle. Or even the fourth panel.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Wegner, if you would like to sit up there,
we won't call upon you to testify until the third panel.
You all realize that in this setting there is some strong
feelings on both sides of every issue. And they are most of the
time in this area. So Mr. Werbach, we're pleased that you could
join us today. And we'll turn the time to you for your
testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF ADAM WERBACH, PRESIDENT, SIERRA CLUB
Mr. Werbach. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Adam
Werbach, and I am the President of the Sierra Club. I thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I represent the Sierra Club's 600,000 members across
America in supporting the restoration of one of the most
special places on earth, Glen Canyon, for our families and for
our future.
Last November, the Sierra Club's national board of
directors voted unanimously to advocate the draining of the
Lake Powell Reservoir. This might have surprised some people,
but it was a natural decision for the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has been protecting unique natural
resources throughout the Colorado River basin for the last 50
years. Throughout our history, we have urged protection of the
Green and Yampa Rivers and Dinosaur National Monument, the
Animas River in Colorado. And we have always stood for the
river canyons along the Colorado.
Flooding Glen Canyon was never a good idea. And the Sierra
Club never thought that it was. But we had no idea how wrong it
was at the time it was proposed. David Brower, who could not be
here today because of health problems with his wife, Anne,
called Glen Canyon the place that no one knew.
While the canyons of Dinosaur National Monuments were world
famous, only a few people had experienced the transcendent
natural majesty of Glen Canyon. Few people had rafted its
waters. Few people had explored its mysterious side canyons.
Few people experienced Glen Canyon's quite soulful magic.
Those who did experience Glen Canyon were lucky. I regret
that I was born too late to see one of God's masterpieces. I
hope my children will have that chance.
The sense of remorse spreads beyond the Sierra Club. Former
Senator Barry Goldwater recently reflected in the PBS
documentary ``Cadillac Desert'' that, quote, ``I'd vote against
it. I have become convinced that, while water is important,
it's just not that important,'' end quote.
We are simply not being good stewards of the river. By
inundating Glen Canyon, we have eliminated some of the most
productive habitat for native Colorado fish, many of which have
been smothered forever from the face of this earth. The
remaining species hang on as isolated and aging populations in
only a few places along the river.
The Colorado River Compact promises more water to the basin
States and to Mexico than what nature provides. And most of
that water goes to water plants, not people. Many of these
plants, like cotton, are not native to the desert, are heavy
water users, and would not be grown at all if their cultivation
was not supported by a complex web of tax breaks, subsidies,
and Federal price supports.
Perhaps most appalling is that the Grand Canyon is
suffering from the effects of Glen Canyon Dam. This dam has
turned its water--its warm water native fish habitats cold,
cutoff the supply of sediments needed to rebuild its beaches
and shorelines, and prevented the cleansing seasonal floods.
We have only a short window of time to act to protect the
native species of the Grand Canyon that are on the verge of
extinction. Let us not be known as the generation that
sacrificed the Grand Canyon.
In the not-too-distant future, Lake Powell, like all
reservoirs, will be rendered useless for water storage and
power by incoming silt. Between seepage into the canyon walls
around Lake Powell and evaporation from this vast, flat high-
elevation reservoir located in one of the driest areas in the
country, water loss is estimated at almost one million acre
feet of water per year according to the Bureau of Reclamation,
enough for a city the size of Los Angeles. This is no way to
run a river. And it's not the legacy to leave for our children.
Now, there is good news. Changes are possible without
massive shortfalls in water or power. I would like to submit to
the hearing record a study just completed by the Environmental
Defense Fund entitled, ``The Effect of Draining Lake Powell on
Water Supply and Electricity Production.''
Now, EDF used the Bureau of Reclamation's own hydrologic
model for managing the Colorado River to assess the impacts of
the river system with and without Lake Powell and even assumed
growth in water use through the year 2050. The analysis shows
that, quote: ``On average, the drained Lake Powell scenario
reduces deliveries to the lower basin by only 91,000 acre feet
per year, approximately 1.15 percent of all lower basin
deliveries. The Colorado River's ability to meet upper basin
obligations does not depend on whether Lake Powell is
drained.''
Regarding hydropower, EDF finds that most, quote, ``most
power users in the Southwest would not be affected,'' end
quote. And the estimated cost to all Americans of restoring
Glen Canyon by foregoing power revenues from the dam is only 37
cents a piece per year, a bargain for what we would get back.
EDF concludes that, quote: ``A comprehensive study of all
effects of the proposal to drain Lake Powell is clearly
warranted.''
We believe that these preliminary analyses show that
draining Lake Powell is possible without major dislocations,
that it's affordable, and that it's not too late to consider
this option.
The power generation loss from Glen Canyon Dam can be
replaced by natural gas or conservation elsewhere. And the cost
spread over the rate base of the western power grade should not
be prohibitive.
Today, society is reevaluating our past fascination with
dams. Congress has directed that the Elwa Dam in Washington
State be removed to restore the rivers. Reservoirs in the
Colombia and Snake River basins are being proposed for drawdown
to restore salmon runs. Glen Canyon Dam itself has been re-
regulated by 1992 legislation.
The Sierra Club supports evaluating the tradeoffs and
opportunities of draining Lake Powell through an environment
assessment. We urge the administration to undertake this
review. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it clearly
makes sense to examine the facts. The fate of the Grand Canyons
is at stake. Our goal is to make the place no one knew the
place that everyone knows about. We believe that the American
public would choose in favor of Glen Canyon. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for beginning this conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Werbach may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Werbach.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, apparently the EDF study I would
ask unanimous consent to be included in the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Ted Stewart, Executive Director, Department of
Natural Resources, State of Utah. Mr. Stewart, we'll recognize
you, sir.
STATEMENT OF TED STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1922, the Colorado
River Compact was entered into between the seven States most
af-
fected by the Colorado River. An equitable apportionment of
that river was agreed to after considerable and painful debate.
The Colorado River is divided into two basins, the upper
and the lower. The upper basin consists of the States of Utah,
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The lower basin States are
Arizona, Nevada, and California.
That Compact requires that, in any 10-year period of time,
75 million acre-feet of water be delivered by the upper basin
States at Lees Ferry, which is immediately below Glen Canyon
Dam. And that is, if you will, the highest priority on the
river, except perhaps the Mexican treaty obligation that has
already been discussed here.
Unfortunately, the river does not work on averages, which
apparently the EDF study is based on. The flow at Glen Canyon
or, excuse me, Lees Ferry can vary from 5.8 million acre feet a
year to over 24 million acre feet a year. Yet, the obligation
to deliver 75 million acre feet in any 10-year period remains.
The storage in Lake Powell is absolutely essential for the
ability of the upper basin States to meet that obligation to
the lower basin States. If Lake Powell were drained, water
would be taken from the taps along the Wasatch Front and Salt
Lake City, because the Central Utah Project brings water from
the Colorado River basin to the Wasatch Front.
The State of Utah cannot rely on its ability to--with the
other upper basin states--meet that obligation to the lower
basin States without Lake Powell storage. It is that simple.
In addition to the Central Utah Project, obligations to
Native American tribes in the Uintah Basin and the eastern part
of the State of Utah would be at risk. And, in addition,
current plans to bring water to southwestern Utah, one of the
fastest growing areas in the entire country, is dependent to a
large extent on a proposed pipeline from Lake Powell to
Washington County and other areas in Southwest Utah.
So, again, there is an absolute obligation to meet that 75
million acre-feet to the lower basin States. And it cannot be
met without storage in Lake Powell.
Besides the water storage, secondary benefits have already
been mentioned--the hydropower, the recreation. The State of
Utah, along with the other Western States, are always told we
have to free ourselves from this historical ``Old West''
mentality of being dependent upon natural resource jobs. Forget
about mining. It's a historical oddity. Forget about grazing
cattle and sheep. It's evil. Let's get rid of all of this oil
and gas production, become dependent, or at least more
dependent, on tourism.
Well, people in this part of the State of Utah have become
dependent on tourism. They have accepted that challenge. And in
excess of $400 million a year is generated by those millions of
visitors that come to Lake Powell. Are we now going to remove
that option for the people in Southern Utah as a way of
sustaining an economic base?
Lake Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) is a natural resource, but it
is also a public resource. It belongs to every one of us. And
when any group, especially a group with the reputation and the
influence of the Sierra Club, comes forward and makes a
proposal, they have an obligation to answer certain questions,
I believe.
One of those questions has to be: ``Where will Utah and the
other upper basin States get its water if Lake Powell storage
is removed?'' The population in the State of Utah is booming.
We're currently slightly over 2 million people. In the next 20
years, it is estimated we will add another million people.
Where will water come from if we are not allowed to develop our
full Colorado River allocation?
It has been stated that we can put the water in Lake Mead.
The Bureau of Reclamation just a few minutes ago indicated what
a foolish notion that was. But if I may point out this, earlier
this year, environmentalists brought a lawsuit to stop the
increased storage at Lake Mead because of its impact on the
Southwest willow flycatcher, an endangered species.
Lake Mead is currently rising because the Colorado River
has begun to flow at heavier levels than it has over the last 6
or 7 years. The natural increase was going to destroy willow
habitat. Environmentalists brought a lawsuit to require the
Bureau of Reclamation to not allow that increased storage to
happen.
The second question that I think needs to be answered is,
``Why is the recreation that may be available to an additional
15,000 to 20,000 people, which is what is estimated will be
allowed to use Glen Canyon if it is restored, be superior to or
a higher priority than that recreation that is currently
available to about 3 million Americans?''
Additionally, ``Where will the replacement power come
from?'' ``Where will the repayments to the Federal Treasury for
the dam come from?'' `` Who will pay for the cost of
restoration? Where will the millions and millions of tons of
silt and other materials that are found in Lake Powell be moved
to? And who will move them? At what cost to taxpayers or
others?''
These are legitimate questions. And, again, my assertion
is, before anyone comes and starts talking about the use, or
the change in use, of any public resource, they have an
obligation to answer these legitimate questions. And I believe
those answers have not been forthcoming to this point. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Rita Pearson. I turn the time to you, madam.
STATEMENT OF RITA PEARSON, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
Ms. Pearson. Good morning, Chairman Hansen and members of
the joint Subcommittees. My name is Rita Pearson, and I am the
Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
State of Arizona. My testimony today will focus on Arizona's
primary concerns with the draining of Lake Powell, a proposal
which we adamantly oppose. I've submitted written testimony
that provides additional details. And I will refer to it
periodically during my testimony.
I would also like to acknowledge the submission of
testimony from Governor Jane Hull, Arizona's Governor, on
behalf of the State of Arizona as well.
Draining Lake Powell cannot be seriously considered for
many reasons. But the principal reason is because life as we
know it here in the West would be impossible without Lake
Powell Reservoir. It is one of the keystone facilities used in
managing the Colorado River basin system and the hydroelectric
power resources generated from it.
Draining Lake Powell would have serious impacts on water
supplies in the lower basin States, Arizona, California, and
Nevada, as well as creating environmental and economic
hardships, specifically in the State of Arizona.
As has been mentioned a number of times this morning, Lake
Powell can store 25 million acre feet or more of Colorado River
water. That's 42 percent of the storage capacity of the entire
Colorado River system.
Lake Powell is the upper basin's insurance policy, because
with it, the upper basin cannot guarantee annual deliveries to
the lower basin of 7\1/2\ million acre feet pursuant to the
1922 Interstate Compact.
The Colorado River is one of the most erratically flowing
rivers in the United States. It has flows as high as 23 million
acre feet in 1 year and as low as 5 million acre feet in
another.
With my testimony today, I submitted a chart which shows
annual inflows into the Colorado River above Glen Canyon Dam.
You will see that it's a roller coaster. No 2 years are alike.
In fact, talking about averages as we have heard today from the
Sierra Club is absolutely meaningless without a reservoir
system. And because of this, if the storage capabilities of
Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell are eliminated, future Colorado
water supplies in the lower basin States will be critically
jeopardized. It will be a water resource feast or famine.
Seventy percent of the natural inflows flowing into Lake
Powell occur during the months of May, June, and July. The only
way we can capture the runoff is through reservoir storage.
Without Lake Powell, the Bureau of Reclamation's modeling
indicates that shortages in the lower basin could occur as
early as the year 2006, almost 20 years earlier than had been
projected. And I note, we are projecting shortages today
without the elimination of Lake Powell. But eliminating that
storage capacity reduces supplies and makes shortage a
possibility much sooner.
Arizona is particularly vulnerable to shortage. As a result
of the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, the water supply
through the central Arizona project into central and southern
Arizona is the lowest priority water in the lower basin.
During such a shortage, as a result of Lake Powell
drainage, the CAP could see diversions reduced to zero as early
as 2051. Without Lake Powell, as I mentioned, as early as 2006,
the probability of shortage jumps to 25 percent or once in
every 4 years. By 2051, shortages could occur one-third of the
time.
We have noted that 600,000 acre feet of evaporative storage
disappears every year from Lake Powell. That is a cost--that's
the insurance premium that we buy in order to guarantee 27
million acre feet of storage. That is a very important storage
capacity for the lower basin system.
To give you an idea of how important the CAP is to Arizona,
it provides water to Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties where
3\1/2\ million acre people live. More than 2.4 million people
live in Maricopa County alone, which is the home to Phoenix,
Arizona, the sixth largest city in the United States.
Currently, the majority of our water is delivered to
agriculture, but with each passing year, more and more of that
water is delivered to cities, cities that do not have the
flexibility of retiring ag. land. There is an ongoing demand
that does not cease regardless of drought conditions.
I would also point out, the Southern Nevada Water Authority
would be greatly jeopardized as well. Their intake pump is set
at 7.3 million acre feet of storage in Lake Mead. If all of the
demand is drawn off of Lake Mead, we would have serious
shortages in both Southern California and Southern Nevada.
The drought referred to earlier between 1986 and 1993 took
20 million acre feet of storage out of the system. If that was
borne solely by Lake Mead, Nevada's intake pumps would have
been left high and dry. Twenty million people are served by
supplies in the lower basin by water from the Colorado River.
In addition to drainage problems from Lake Powell, that
would also cause problems from Lake Mead. Annual storage in
Lake Mead would be reduced as well. And you would have to
manage the system either for a drought condition or for a flood
condition. In other words, if you're managing for a drought,
you have to maximize the storage in Lake Mead. But when the
flood hits, you have nowhere to put the water. It goes down
streams. And downstream communities like Yuma, Bull Head City,
Lake Havasu City would be greatly jeopardized.
In addition to that, you have more than 30 years of
sediment trapped behind Glen Canyon Dam. The estimates are that
between 65,000 and 100,000 cubic yards of sediment are annually
gathered behind Glen Canyon Dam.
When Lake Powell dries out, the sediment will evaporate. It
will move into the air. We will have air quality problems
throughout the West as well as water quality problems from the
selenium and heavy metals in the sediment.
Three years ago, the lower basin States entered into a
multistate State habitat conservation plan. That plan is
designed to protect over 100 plant and wildlife species
dependent upon the lower Colorado.
Our ability to protect those species is directly dependent
upon the water supply. If we lose Lake Powell, all of our
flexibility in the system is managed off of Lake Mead. We will
be unable to protect those species as we have planned to in
joint agreements with the Interior Department, environmental
groups, and Indian tribes as well. Mr. Chairman, I see I am out
of time. I have a bit more testimony, but I would be happy to
stop.
Mr. Hansen. How much time do you need?
Ms. Pearson. Probably another 2 minutes.
Mr. Hansen. I'll give you an additional 2 minutes.
Ms. Pearson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me briefly touch
upon the visitation at the Glen Canyon recreational area,
including Lake Powell. We've talked about 3 million people a
year visiting there. The canyon is now open in a way it never
was before. As has been talked about by the previous panel, it
has the second largest number of overnight stays of any park in
the national system. Forty-two thousand people annually float
the river. Seventy thousand now visit Rainbow Bridge, a
national monument that was not readily accessible because it
was 6 miles into very difficult territory.
The annual economic impact to the tiny Arizona communities
like Marble Canyon and Vermillion Cliffs that are associated
with the Lees Ferry fishery are estimated to be $5 million
alone. Draining Lake Powell would shut down the blue ribbon
trout fishery known as Lees Ferry. And 8,000 people reside in
Page, Arizona, where tourism and the Navajo Generating Station
are the principal types of employment there.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on about the impacts of
draining Lake Powell. But let me first and finally point out
that there is an old saying that they use in the West, that
water is just around the corner. It is just over the next hill.
That is no longer the case in the West. We have identified and
quantified all of the available supplies of water. We are
facing shortages today without the draining of Lake Powell. To
exacerbate it would be irresponsible. I would like to suggest
that we use history as a guidepost, not a hitching post. Thank
you.
[The preparerd statement of Ms. Pearson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mark
Whitlock. He's accompanied by Shelia Reed, Project Manager,
Environment Protection Department of FAME Renaissance. Mr.
Whitlock.
STATEMENT OF MARK WHITLOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAME
RENAISSANCE
Mr. Whitlock. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate the opportunity to be here
today to share some of our concerns we have regarding the
Sierra Club and the Glen Canyon Institute's proposal to drain
Lake Powell.
My name is Mark Whitlock. And I serve as a minister of
First A.M.E. Church led by Dr. Cecil L. Murray. We have some
14,000 members. And we are all on one accord with this issue.
We believe that water is important. We believe it sustains
life, offers new life, provides a preservation of life. Thus,
we believe we must retain Lake Powell. Certainly, as the city
of Los Angeles grows by some 210,000 people per year, and
possibly by the year 2020, we will have some 21.5 million
people in the city of Los Angeles, State of California.
We're concerned that if there is not enough water
available, then we will have to go out and spend an enormous
amount of money finding the supplies for them. Clearly, Lake
Powell provides that surplus, that water needed to sustain
life.
If we have to spend more money on new water supplies, then
there will be a cost incurred for that research, that new
project. And that cost, unfortunately, reflects back on our
ratepayers or our community, our constituents, whose water
bills will increase.
Well, that's where the rubber meets the road for us.
Clearly, in south central Los Angeles, where we suffer from the
poverty of money, an unemployment rate of anywhere from 16
percent, in some areas of our community as high as 50 percent,
a poverty rate in our community of 25 percent. So any increase
in water, any increase in bills takes food out of the mouths of
our children. So we--we clearly believe water is important.
Thus, Lake Powell is important.
Why not look at another program? Why not look at another
way to provide resources to continue working within the system?
We support a project that we work closely on with the
Metropolitan Water District and other agencies within the city
of Los Angeles. That project, we call it a water conservation
program.
Most toilets, shower heads in the city of Los Angeles are
rather antiquated. One flush could result in a loss of 9 to as
much as 16 gallons of water. Clearly, if you take a piece of
tissue and put it down the drain, 16 gallons of water gone.
Well, a partnership with the Metropolitan Water District
results in a savings of water. Five years ago, they offered us
the opportunity to exchange the old guzzler, 9 to 16 gallons
per flush for a new guzzler, 1.6 gallons of water per flush.
We thought it was a bit strange to offer that program to
First A.M.E. Church, an organization that has allowed certainly
minister--allowed Martin Luther King to come over our pulpit,
Mandela, even President Clinton has offered a few words over
our pulpit. We thought it a bit strange to talk about toilets
over the pulpit at First A.M.E. Church.
Well, we did support the program. And they paid a small fee
for that program. And out of that program, we were able to hire
men, women who were unemployed or underemployed, some 30 of
them, to be exact. And they started exchanging toilets.
The agency wanted just 100 a week. These men, women started
exchanging toilets to the tune of a thousand a week. And within
a 2\1/2\-year period, we exchanged some 84,000 toilets,
resulting in a savings of 68,710 acre feet of water. They saved
some billions of gallons of water. A program that works, a
program that works within the system, certainly not the extreme
of eliminating Lake Powell.
So, today, we support the retention of Lake Powell for all
the right reasons. And we challenge, certainly, other agencies
to develop a partnership, a partnership that saves water, a
partnership that creates jobs, lowers water bills, and at the
same time, preserves the Colorado River and certainly supports
the continuation of Lake Powell.
We thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We
certainly welcome any questions that you may have, Shelia Reed
and I. I'm Mark Whitlock. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitlock may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Whitlock. I appreciate the
testimony of all of our witnesses. We'll now go to the
Committee for questions of the witnesses. I would like to hold
you to the 5 minutes, if I could. We'll start out with Mr.
Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Ms. Pearson, I would like to refer to
your--the graph you supplied with your testimony. If we were to
drain Lake Powell and thus Hoover Dam and Lake Mead would
become the main regulating reservoir in the Colorado River
system, I'm just wondering, looking at this, it looks like in
1979 that you had 17 million acre feet. And yet, in 1980, there
were 5 million acre feet for a difference of 12 million. And
then you go into, it looks like, 1981, you had 8 million; and
then 1982, you had 23 million for a difference of 15. I just
can't imagine how would you ever purport to manage this--your
manager would have to be wrong at least half the time, I would
think.
Ms. Pearson. That's correct, Congressman. There is no
perfect predictor out there. And so that's why we have the
reservoir system. That is the only way we can manage this
system.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, that would be a very substantial
drawback, even for those who are arguing that this is a
desirable to go to one. Certainly, this would seem to be
irrefutable evidence that there would be no way you could ever
manage. And if--I assume flood control would get the highest
priority amongst the multiple uses. And if that's the case,
then you're going to create plenty of flood reservation storage
in case you get a year of 23 million acre feet flowing in as
opposed to 5 million like the year before. Let me ask Mr.--is
it Werbach? Is that----
Mr. Werbach. Werbach.
Mr. Doolittle. Werbach. Thank you. Mr. Werbach, how do you
react to this chart?
Mr. Werbach. Well, right now what we're asking for is
solely an environmental assessment of this proposal. And all
these things would need to be looked at very carefully. What
this would require would be the Bureau to be a more effective
manager of those water resources.
Mr. Doolittle. So you're saying--I'm sorry. I was
distracted. But you're indicating you're just calling for the
study rather than making a claim that we can live with this?
Mr. Werbach. The Sierra Club advocates the draining of the
lake. But we believe right now we need to look at a lot of the
facts that a lot of the other witnesses raised right here, to
look into the issue and to examine them and to begin a
conversation with society to see where we come out.
We believe that, after looking at the facts, people will
believe this is the right course of action. But we wouldn't be
so bold to say that all those facts are already in hand.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, given the testimony you've heard
today, which I guess you could say we've begun the
conversation, does this concern you, the ability to properly
manage the river when you tear down the--one of the main
reservoirs on it and have this kind of annual fluctuation like
history shows we've had?
Mr. Werbach. That would certainly be one of the issues that
we'd look into.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. You state in your testimony in the not
too distant future Lake Powell, like all the reservoirs, would
be rendered useless for water storage and power by incoming
silt. What do you mean when you say ``the not too distant
future?''
Mr. Werbach. Well, if we use the Bureau's figures of 700
years for total filling of the silt of the dam, in about 250
years the outlet tubes would be inundated. And at that point,
the dam's effective use as a power generation plant would be
essentially useless.
Mr. Doolittle. So you had in mind, then, their figures of
say 250 to 500 years.
Mr. Werbach. If we use those figures. There are other
figures that suggest that those numbers would be between 70 and
125 years.
Mr. Doolittle. All right. But, I mean, I'd say that 250
years is a fair way into the future.
Mr. Werbach. Well, it depends on what your level of horizon
is. Two hundred fifty years for the destruction of one of the
canyons that took millions of years to create is really not
that long. In a geologic sense, 250 years is really nothing.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, that is longer than we've been a
country. It's long for Americans. Maybe it's not long for
Europeans. Let me ask you this: If we do tear it down so that
we have to have more storage, then, would the Sierra Club
support the inundation of additional river miles that are
currently upstream of Lake Mead in order to compensate for the
loss of storage behind Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Werbach. Well, we don't believe that you should fill up
Lake Mead to an extraordinary level that would be unsafe. We
wouldn't suggest that. And let me clarify one thing. The Sierra
Club is not suggesting that we tear down Glen Canyon Dam. We
are only suggesting that we bypass it.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Bypass it. That is true. Well, then,
you've heard the testimony that it has to go somewhere.
Wouldn't that be a necessary consequence of bypassing Glen
Canyon Dam that you would have to store more water in Lake
Mead?
Mr. Werbach. Well, some of the water would be used to
fulfill our treaty obligations to Mexico. The water would flow
through.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, our treaty obligation to Mexico is,
what, 1\1/2\ million acre feet? So I mean, out of the total
number of acre feet in this system, that's relatively small. So
we're going to have to put the water someplace. And I guess I'm
just trying to see if the Sierra Club is going to advocate
this, and if we were to act on it, then what would your
complete proposal be? How would we provide for the storage
needs? I mean, would you support the construction of a dam
someplace else to store it?
Mr. Werbach. Let me refer back to the EDF study that I have
quoted. Let me read a paragraph from it. Let me use something
that I cutoff from my testimony because I was running a little
long. Information prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation itself
in July 1997 addresses the issue of draining Lake Powell and
says that the difference between the average annual inflow to
the reservoir and current upper basin use is, quote, enough to
satisfy the Colorado River Compact obligation of 75 million
acre feet for 10 years to the lower basin without needing the
storage of Lake Powell.
In addition, recovered evaporation losses from Lake Powell
would help to meet any potential deficiency in the Mexican
treaty obligation. That's in this document that was prepared by
the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Doolittle. My question to you is--can I have a couple
extra minutes?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized for two additional
minutes.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. How are we--since--I mean, yes,
an average is just a theoretical number given the way the
Colorado River actually works, as demonstrated by this chart.
But how would we practically manage the river for flood
control, water supply, power generation, to name three
important things, not to mention the recreation and
environmental aspects, but how would you manage those three
things without having more storage?
Mr. Werbach. It is a river, and rivers flow. It's only our
obstructions on the river that have stopped and made those
impoundments. Now, as I said, you would be able to have enough
water to fulfill the Compact obligations, but it would be
letting more water flow through the river.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, yes, it's a river, and rivers flow. I
think we'll all stipulate to that. The problem is sometimes
they flow very slowly, and sometimes they flow in raging
torrents. And the Colorado River is an extreme example from
that. And it can go from one extreme in 1 year literally to the
other in the next year.
So how do the river managers manage this river in such a
way to meet the power and the water and the flood control
needs? I don't see how they could possibly do it without having
more reservoir storage?
Mr. Werbach. There is plenty of water. The question is who
gets it and how much they pay for it.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, sometimes there's too much water.
Sometimes there's not enough. You heard testimony from Mr.
Stewart that the upper basin will be without water in a
sustained period of drought, which happens every few years. I
think we heard testimony there was a 6-year drought for a
while. Now, we've got El Nino hitting us in the West this year.
So I just--I don't want to be argumentative with you, but I
mean rivers flow. That's exactly the point. That's why we
have--you're going to tear down--not tear down. You're going to
bypass the second largest reservoir on this Colorado River
system. And when you do that, you're going to tremendously
limit the flexibility to manage for all these other important
values.
So telling somebody that has lost his house that, while
rivers flow, or somebody that's, you know, on water rationing
because they have flowed out trying to have enough reservation
for flood storage, it turned out to be a miscalculation, I
mean, that doesn't really satisfy for us.
I think you're going to--before you can move your idea,
you're going to really have to come up with some answers for
what you do when you eliminate essentially 27 million acre feet
of storage that we presently have behind Glen Canyon Dam. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not here earlier.
I just wanted to make the observation that I think that this
hearing sort of underlines the importance of land use decisions
we make on the Committee. And that, very often, they are almost
irreversible in terms of the consequences they have.
In this instance, as I look at the witness, the list of
witnesses, both in recreation and economic and other factors, I
mean, really, this dam has set down a land use pattern--a land
use pattern in terms of population and use that is very
difficult to change.
So it's one thing to look at the physical geography of this
and the changed view of an individual, Mr. Brower, and then
others to try and talk about how this is going to be or could
be accomplished, because it makes it very difficult in terms of
turning that away.
Of course I visited this site, realized tremendous
recreation park designations have gone on based on the fact
there is a reservoir there. It's one of those things we
designate, I guess, parks for recreation purposes for certain.
So I think, though, as we look ahead, I mean, there may be
physical or other problems that do exist with this. I realize
there is some points about--I mean, it is an efficient use.
This water isn't going to be running into the ocean. It goes
someplace before. And, as you said, for safety or for other
reasons, if you were just doing this for safety reasons, you
probably would have a much different type of facility than you
have. And a lot of it is lost, as they point out through,
evaporation. And the argument here is whether it's a million or
half million acre feet that are lost and treaty obligations and
other issues.
But I think it's useful to have the hearing in the sense
that--and further review of the issue. I don't know what--if,
in fact, there is a real interest in doing an environmental
impact statement or a study. I note that there is a volunteer
group that is going to go ahead and move with that.
In fact, we have begun to modify in 1992 the policy path
for the--for how the water levels in Glen Canyon were, in fact,
managed, to look at the restoration of some of the beaches and
some of the other. Because, you know, it dramatically has
changed the whole system, the geography and the ecosystems down
river. And I don't know the answers to this. It's pretty much
if you just say you're going to bypass it and go without it,
you left behind millions of people or more--millions of people
and rate users and others that have obviously a vested
interest. They have come to depend upon this. And so you
clearly cannot move, you know, in that direction without--
without considering what the consequences are.
And I think, at this point, just as when Don Hodel,
Secretary of Interior, I think was Secretary, then came in and
said, let us take Hetch Hetchy down or bypass it or drain it.
It was another question.
But I think there is a growing realization of some of the
consequences of these type of structures of an age--I don't
know what the age is on this one. I know that, looking at Elwa
Dam, which had been there for--since the thirties, 50, 60
years, it looks like it would stand there another 100 to me the
way it looked. It looked like it was in pretty good shape. Yet
we're not using it. That's a much smaller scale problem than
the problem that is clearly being presented here, a much
different purpose, a much different use.
But these are expensive to maintain. They represent some
serious problems in terms of what the consequences are as we
look today. So, you know, one of our jobs is to get new
information, to get new knowledge, and to translate it into
public policy. That's what we do here. That's what we're
supposed to do.
And, obviously this--there is certain--you know,
recognizing our errors, and we all make them, I guess. If we
pass perfect laws, we wouldn't have to be meeting here every
year. But we know that they're imperfect.
But I think it's a viable question to raise. Everyone
raises questions about what happens to the population of the
West if you do this. This is a legitimate concern for certain
as much as they might think that we're--you know, most of us
are concerned about that. We want to do reasonable and
cognitive things.
So I think that's the spirit in which I take this. I
understand that, right now, there are all sorts of technical
questions we could ask about Glen Canyon, whether California is
overappropriating water, whether Colorado is overappropriating
water, whether there are treaty problems with Mexico. I think
the answer to those are all yes.
So this is going to be an ongoing issue in terms of where
we go, and the physical condition of this dam, whether it could
meet the expectations and all the goals that it has. But we
ought to be looking at alternatives. And certainly, you know,
one of them may be looking at what--how we can better manage
this to address some of the concerns and what we're going to do
in the future in terms of this infrastructure as it ages. It
won't happen--I don't know if it's going to be 250 years. I
would say more like 50 years. So I'm really scaring Mr.
Doolittle.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Werbach, you suggested or said very clearly that the
Sierra Club advocates the draining of Lake Powell and that your
purpose now is to start a dialog. It seems to me that the chart
that Mr. Doolittle is talking about which shows the annual
variation in runoff in the Colorado River above Glen Canyon Dam
is one of the most significant elements in any kind of decision
to change the usage of the dam or eliminate the dam.
And my normal course is to ask short questions and add to a
record. What I would really like to do is give you some time to
talk about that chart, those variations in yearly flow, and
how, in this very complicated set of issues, you expect that to
sort itself out.
I've truly been trying to understand what your position is.
I've made a list of the various goals that you would like to
change or balances that you would like to change. But it seems
to me that, in the end, you come down to how you control the
water that runs through it and what you do.
Would you mind just taking a few minutes? What I would like
to do is give you the time to advocate that position. Whether
this discussion goes on any further really is going to turn on
that, I think.
Mr. Werbach. I appreciate the opportunity. Once again, you
know, there are very serious environmental issues at stake
here. The fate of the Grand Canyon is at stake here. And we
have issues that we need to talk about. What we're advocating
now is that we look into these issues through an environmental
assessment and examine what's happening. What I would like to
do is turn it over to Dave Wegner, who is more familiar with
these issues specifically to respond to your question. Dave.
Mr. Cannon. That would be fine, but let me just point out
that you're advocating draining the lake. That's what the
position of the Sierra Club is and that's what you voted on.
And so I would very much like to hear from Mr. Wegner what--how
the control of the extreme flows fits into the purposes that
you're trying to accomplish here.
Mr. Wegner. Well, Mr. Congressman, my name is Dave Wegner,
and I am from Flagstaff, Arizona. And I'm a member, Vice
President of the Glen Canyon Institute. And I'm here today to
help with some of the technical issues----
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Wegner. [continuing] that was just referred to.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to offend
feelings here. I thought Mr.--he was on the fourth panel. Is he
now going to join the second panel?
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Doolittle had objected to Mr. Wegner coming
on to the second panel. And I allowed him to sit there if Mr.
Werbach needed some information from him. No one objected to
your objection, so I respectfully point out that you can
respond to that in the following panel, third and fourth panel.
I apologize. We don't want to offend you in any way. We do want
to hear your testimony.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I'll look forward to that. If I can
just then redirect my question to Mr. Werbach. You may just
take the time to set forth, not the emotion behind this, but
how the various factors that you're concerned about fit
together. Let me just list them for you.
You're concerned about evaporation. The water presumably
could be used to go into the Sea of Cortez. Concern about the
danger of dam failure. The esthetics of the canyon are a major
issue here, and I think may be the most important issue. And
I'm not sure. I would like you to tell me that.
The concern with what is happening with the Sea of Cortez
on the other side, this water is not likely to make it to the
Sea of Cortez anyway except in those years when we have
dramatic runoff. And the lost habitat versus some of the gained
habitat that you have there, those are issues that I would like
to hear you address for a few minutes.
Mr. Werbach. Mr. Congressman, what I would like to say to
you is that I am not an expert on the specifics of all these
issues. That is why we do have a staff at the Sierra Club who
works on the issues as well as experts who are on the other
panels for you.
Mr. Cannon. But I'm not asking technical questions. We can
get back to Mr. Werbach--I'm sorry, Mr. Wegner, when he is on.
What I would like from you--what I want to do is just give you
the opportunity to make--to present just a few more points,
make a cogent case as to why we should actually begin the
dialog that you're asking for.
Mr. Werbach. Absolutely. Well, let's speak about, first,
the native fish populations in the Grand Canyon. We're already
seeing die-off of isolated and aging populations, species like
the humpback chub and the sucker fish that are in the Grand
Canyon. The cold water that comes from Lake Powell, about 47
degrees, is too cold to support those fish. Now we need to
figure out some way too deal with that.
A few years back, we tried a controlled release into the
Grand Canyon to simulate a flood. Well, now our experience is
that this was largely not a long-term success. We did not
succeed in restoring the Grand Canyon, its beaches, and its
native fish habitat. So we need to look at other options.
And when the EIS was done, when the EIS was completed for
the Glen Canyon Dam, it really didn't look at the option of
draining the lake. It didn't look at the option there because
it was deemed infeasible at the time.
But with new information that we see, both in terms of the
evaporation rates, which would seem to portend that, if there
is more water available if you did not have this dam, then it
would seem likely that we should take the chance to look at
this issue and reflect and talk about it as a society and see
what we come up with.
The Sierra Club has its position. But I understand that it
will take longer for people to look at this and see the science
and make these determinations on their own.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up. Can I ask
unanimous consent for additional minutes?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized for two additional
minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. You're welcome.
Mr. Cannon. What I would like to hear, and maybe Mr. Wegner
later can do this or someone else may ask. I have asked sort of
the general question, why should we continue the dialog? And
what I've heard is that there are a couple of endangered
species. This is the opportunity. This is the public forum for
you to have the opportunity to say why.
I think the issues are much, much broader than that,
especially when you consider that it's pretty clear now that
the humpback chub is stable. The squaw fish was not common,
even before the dam was in place. You have many other fish, as
you alluded to. So but I think studies show that they're not
dwindling particularly. On the other hand, you now have some
endangered species that are thriving in the current habitat.
So I would just, as a plea, I'm sitting here trying to
understand this. Now, I used some strong language earlier.
Before the dam was done, I was very young, but it was a matter
of grave concern because I love those canyons. Now many people
get to see those canyons. They do it in boats instead of
hiking, but they do see the beauty of those canyons, and it's a
thrilling, wonderful experience.
I'm really trying to understand why we should have a dialog
on the issue. And I hope that in the future, as others will ask
questions, you will take the opportunity to sort of give me the
broader picture on how it balances together. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would
like to thank the panelists for their testimony. And I would
like to commend the First A.M.E. Church for the programs that
they have undertaken on behalf of their congregation and the
community.
Mr. Werbach, both your testimony and the written testimony
of Mr. Brower points to a frightening picture of what could
happen in the area served by Lake Powell and the dam. You also
say in your testimony that we're not being good stewards of
this resource. Do you see that we can avoid some of these
untoward outcomes by being better stewards rather than by
draining the lake?
Mr. Werbach. Well, I think the consequence of being better
stewards is draining the lake. And at first blush, it may seem
like a strange idea. But the thing was not actually evaluated.
There was not--the dam was built before NEPA, before the
National Environmental Policy Act. So an environmental review
was not done for the dam. In fact, the NEPA review was just
nonexistent.
So what we need to do was to look back and see it right
now. Just because a mistake was made in the past and it would
be difficult to change, I don't believe that's reason enough to
say, well, let's ignore it. It would be difficult to do so, we
should not look at this.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. You've partly answered my
second question, and you've really answered it several times in
responding to several other questions from other members from
the Committee and Subcommittee.
But I did come here thinking--and as I listened to the
earlier testimony, I thought we were talking about the Sierra
Club having voted to drain the lake. But it's become
increasingly clear, and I think it's an important distinction
to make that what the Sierra Club actually did ask for was an
environmental assessment; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. The Sierra Club did vote to advocate the
draining of the lake, because we felt that was the way to began
the conversation and to put it on people's radars. But right
now what we're asking people to do is look at the issue, to
begin an environmental assessment.
I understand the Glen Canyon Institute is interested in
performing it if the administration is not.
Ms. Christian-Green. I'm sorry, so you say the club is
willing to do the environmental assessment themselves?
Mr. Werbach. The Glen Canyon Institute is busy trying to
raise some funds to do such an assessment. But of course, we
would prefer if the administration were willing to pay for it
and would feel more comfortable with the numbers and the
science that would come out of it.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you for your answers. Are any of
the other panelists objecting? Do you oppose having the
environmental assessment done? I understand that you may oppose
the draining of the lake, but are you also in opposition to the
environmental assessment?
Mr. Whitlock. Congresswoman Green, we feel that, clearly,
we must leave Lake Powell alone. But as we examine Lake Powell
and the efficacy, efficiency of draining or not draining, I
think we would like to remind the panel and certainly our
committee that there are innovative programs that are
available, practical water conservation programs that deal with
resource management.
And I think if we focus time and certainly our dollars at
resource management, then we don't have to go to the extreme of
considering draining the beautiful Lake Powell. Our water
conservation program creates jobs. But at the same time, it
saves the Colorado River. And that's the real goal here I
think. And I end with that.
Ms. Christian-Green. Would anyone else like to respond?
Ms. Pearson. Congresswoman, I would have to agree with Mr.
Whitlock and add that we live in a time of very, very many
priorities. And unless we hear a proposal that has merit, why
spend taxpayer dollars on something that has not yet been
justified. I think the burden is on them. And if a private
organization wants to fund the study, they're welcome to do so.
But as a taxpayer, I would not appreciate having my money spent
that way.
I think we know enough and we are capable of modifying the
system and protecting endangered species today without
conducting an additional study and a proposal that can go
nowhere and cost millions.
Ms. Christian-Green. I thank you for your answers.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Shadegg from Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try not to be
too intense about this. But I find what happened here is rather
shocking. Let me begin by thanking Rita Pearson for her
thoughtful testimony and for all of her work and to ask
unanimous consent that the photographs of Lake Powell which she
brought and the other material which she has brought here which
show the beauty of that lake and which reveal, quite frankly,
that a tremendous amount of the beauty of Glen Canyon is, in
fact, not only not inundated, but as seen now by between
somewhere between 3 and 4 million people per year and that it
is a tremendous asset that those all be included in the record
with unanimous consent.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Werbach, I have to tell you that I am
stunned by this proposal. I am stunned by some of the remarks
that you make. And I'm a little concerned about what's
happening here today.
Your testimony concludes with what I consider to be a kind
of a reasonable proposal. ``The Sierra Club supports evaluating
the tradeoffs and opportunities and through an environmental
assessment.'' Perhaps no one could disagree with that. But I
want the record precisely clear that the board of directors of
the Sierra Club voted not to study, but rather to drain Lake
Powell. That's correct, isn't it?
Mr. Werbach. To advocate the draining; that's correct.
Mr. Shadegg. And the mission statement of the Glen Canyon
Institute specifically proposes draining, not studying,
draining Lake Powell; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. I can't speak to the mission statement.
Mr. Shadegg. It does. And I would like to put it in the
record without objection, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Shadegg. I also would like to point out that the Sierra
Club did not, in fact, though your testimony suggest you
represent their 600,000 members, did not, in fact, survey its
members before taking this involvement. In point of fact, the
President of the Utah chapter unequivocally stated in the press
that she opposes this idea and that she was not consulted. Are
you aware of that, and do you acknowledge it?
Mr. Werbach. The board of directors of the Sierra Club
represents the membership of the Sierra Club. We're elected by
the membership in an annual election. And the Utah Chapter of
the Sierra Club advocates the studying of this issue as well.
Mr. Shadegg. You answered neither of my questions. Are you
aware that she said she opposes it and the chapter opposes it?
And you, I believe, just did concede that the membership did
not vote on the issue.
Mr. Werbach. No, the membership did not vote on this issue.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me turn quickly to the point that Mr.
Doolittle brought out. I would just simply say, with regard to
your comment and your testimony, which I've read in many other
places in the press, that in the not too distant future, Lake
Powell will be filled and useless is, quite frankly, I think
misleading the American people who read those comments in the
press because, by your own admission, not to distant future is,
in the early estimates, 250 years. By the long estimates of the
Bureau, it's 700 years; and by the gentleman who manages the
dam, it will be 500 years before you will even have to dredge
to open up the intake tubes.
Let me turn to another comment. In the Salt Lake City paper
in this year, you were quoted as saying in an article in the
Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, August 3rd: If the Club succeeded,
succeeded in draining Lake Powell, it would, quote, ``take 10
years for the lake to drain and another 25 years for Glen
Canyon to be cleaned up and restored to its former beauty.''
What basis do you have for the claim that it would be
completely restored or would be restored to its former beauty
in just 25 years?
Mr. Werbach. Well, in 1992, there was a significant
drawdown of the lake. And what we did see was that a lot of the
natural features of Glen Canyon actually came forward again.
There was a bathtub ring, as some people call it, around it.
But I have every faith in the world that America would have
jumped into the idea of supporting this amazing restoration
project.
Mr. Shadegg. I was on the lake in 1992 and saw the bathtub
ring. I have spent many, many days there. Do you have a
scientific study that establishes that it would all be restored
in 25 years?
Mr. Werbach. What we are doing is assessing this at this
point.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. I apologize for being rude, but I've got a
lot of ground to cover here. The answer is you do not have a
study that establishes that.
Mr. Werbach. Not that I know of.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. In another article published in--actually
repeated in a number of places, you say that proposing to drain
Lake Powell is the perfect test of someone's true colors, and I
quote, quote, ``it is the job of the Sierra Club to show what
being green really means.''
Rob Elliot from my State, a noted environmentalist himself,
is here to testify strongly against this proposal. Are you
saying--is the Sierra Club saying that anyone who opposes this
is not, quote-unquote, ``really green?''
Mr. Werbach. I would not tend to say--I would not make
calls on people's environmentalness. I don't do that.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me turn to some other comments. In an
article in Outside Magazine, written by Bill Donohue this year,
April 1997, you say: ``We are going to do the science.'' I take
it that means that, when the Sierra Club board voted, you had
not, in fact, already done the science; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. That is correct. We are advocating
environmental assessment.
Mr. Shadegg. Well, that's not what your resolution said. It
didn't say that. Your statement here today says you're doing
that. But the vote of your board was to drain Lake Powell.
Mr. Werbach. Because we believe that is the best way to
advocate the draining of Lake Powell, because we believe the
science will bear us out.
Mr. Shadegg. Yeah, well, I guess maybe that then fits with
the title of your forthcoming book, which is mentioned in
another article that we found, which says that your forthcoming
book is going to be titled: ``Act First and Apologize Later.''
I suggest you don't think that Congress should act first and
apologize later.
Mr. Werbach. The idea is that sometime when ideas are
controversial, they're hard to look at, they're hard to
swallow. Sometimes society needs to take a moment and move
forward. Sometimes we need to assess things that may seem
unpopular, that may seem controversial because these issues are
critical to our future.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, may I request, since this is an
important topic----
Mr. Hansen. Is there an objection? Hearing none, the
gentleman is recognized for two additional minutes.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
In that same article in Outside Magazine by Mr. Donohue,
the question was raised as to why the Sierra Club is really
doing this. And Mr. Donahue asks you point-blank, he says:
``One logical answer is that the Sierra Club is simply
genuflecting before its aging Arch Druid,'' I can't pronounce
that word, ``David Brower.''
You respond: ``That's a huge part of it.'' Do you think
that we ought to drain Lake Powell as a--in order to pay
respect to Mr. Brower for which he reports draining Lake Powell
is somewhat of a grail?
Mr. Werbach. Congressman, I have great respect for those
people who are older than me, as there are many of them.
Mr. Shadegg. Including me.
Mr. Werbach. Say again?
Mr. Shadegg. Including me.
Mr. Werbach. I rely on their advice to move forward. Now,
Mr. Brower fought this battle during this time. And he knew the
issues. And many times he corrected the Bureau of Reclamation,
which was wrong on a lot of figures. They admit that now. There
are many times when he was right and they were wrong.
Now he says his action was a mistake at the time. And it
would seem strange not to take the advice of someone who has
such sage wisdom and who has helped protect so many fabulous
places in America.
Mr. Shadegg. As a matter of fact, he's gone around the
Nation saying that he has worn sack cloth and ashes for 40
years. And it seems to me that that may be his perspective.
That's not a good comment on public policy. I think he's dead
wrong now.
Let me--the one last point I want to make out of this
article goes to the question of what's going on here. And I
raised this in my opening statement. Mr. Donahue says the real
motive, they say, these are critics of the Sierra Club, is that
the Sierra Club, who's average membership is now about 45, is
desperately trying to appear fresh and hip.
According to Mark Dowy, author of ``Losing Ground,'' a
Pulitzer Prize nominated study on U.S. environmentalism, the
Club's board feels that the best way to attract more youthful
supporters is to enhance this kind of blind idealism.
You wouldn't agree with that assessment and you wouldn't
suggest we make public policy on that basis, would you?
Mr. Werbach. The Sierra board of directors did not look at
this issue at all when it was considering this issue in any
way. I will mention, though, that there is extremely high
support of this among young people. Young people do understand
that they have not had the chance to see those canyons. And the
Congressman to your left said that he has had a chance.
Frankly, I'm jealous. I've seen Cataract Canyon. I was able to
raft it twice this summer. And I, one day, would like to be
able to raft Glen Canyon as well.
Mr. Shadegg. You can see Glen Canyon if you go there today.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenowith.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I join the gentleman from Arizona and the
gentleman from Utah in still trying to understand your specific
reasons. As I understand the reasons why you would like to see
Lake Powell drained, first of all, you propose that we drain
the lake, but leave the impoundment facility there, right?
Mr. Werbach. That's correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And then there would be about 15,000 people
who would be hiking or floating the river in its natural state?
Mr. Werbach. I'm not quite sure where you get that number.
If you look at places like Moab, Utah, you see incredible
amounts of recreational activities taking place in canyons.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You also indicated that one of the reasons
why you would recommend or the Club recommended that we drain
Lake Powell was because of the humpback chub and the sucker
fish; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. I'm sorry. Can you ask that question again?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Another reason that you suggested that we
should drain Lake Powell is because of the humpback chub fish
and a sucker fish; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. Yes. We believe that destroying species that
God created is not something that humanity should be doing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And then finally we heard testimony about
being able to view the bathtub ring; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. Being able to view it?
Mrs. Chenoweth. The bathtub ring.
Mr. Werbach. Yes. We believe that there would be a bathtub
ring for all of the garbage and crud that's been thrown out of
those houseboats for all these years.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Golly, I just find that amazing. I mean,
you want what's natural but you're willing to drain the lake
and leave the impoundment facility standing there. Absolutely
amazing.
Right now, they have an outstanding trout fishery because
the water is cooler. And so with the water warming up, there
would be the greater stripe bass population, which, in turn
preys, on the chub and the sucker. And I'm sorry, sir, but your
logic just doesn't add up. But I find your testimony and your
proposal very interesting. And believe me, I take it seriously.
I want to ask Mr. Stewart, do you believe that this
particular proposal threatens the law of the river?
Mr. Stewart. I think the only way that the obligations
could be met by the upper basin States to the lower basin
States would be by changing the Law of the River, which is an
extraordinarily complicated, delicate compromise which has been
worked out for that equitable apportionment. And the potential
for warfare between States would be significant.
And one of the things that I try to keep in mind is the
fact that, as I count up the number--the numbers of the Members
of the U.S. House of Representatives plus the U.S. Senate
representing the upper basin States versus those of the lower
basin States, we lose by, as I recall, about a 3 to 1 margin.
And that's not a real comforting thought for those of us in the
upper basin States.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What would be the, in your opinion, the
environmental impact of this proposal for wildlife and
vegetation in Utah that are dependent upon the reservoir?
Mr. Stewart. Clearly, the habitats that have been
established since the reservoir was created would be destroyed.
And the impacts on a number of species would be great. But I
would indicate this further. In order for the State of Utah to
meet its water needs that would be lost because of the draining
of Lake Powell, we would end up damming other rivers elsewhere
in the State. Other habitats would be destroyed.
And, again, I ask the question--I asked the question
earlier where why is the right of 15,000 or 20,000 people to
enjoy a hike or a river run through Glen Canyon superior for
the 3 million who may enjoy the flat water? Why would the
destruction of additional river habitats in northern Utah to
meet our water supply be less of a loss than a potential or
questionable restoration of a habitat in southern Utah? Those
are value judgments that are very difficult for me to accept.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Ms. Pearson, the work that you do in your capacity as
director is admirable.
Ms. Pearson. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And I have learned a lot from all of those
of you who have testified. But you mentioned in your testimony
that, without the insurance of water that Lake Powell does
provide, that property values downstream could go down.
Could you, to the degree we have time, expound on this and
expand on this? And, in your opinion, if we drain Lake Powell,
and the property values go down, wouldn't this require that the
U.S. compensate, under the constitutional requirements,
compensate for that loss?
Ms. Pearson. Thank you, Congresswoman. There would be very
local impacts. And in my testimony, I talked about the
immediate impact to Page and surrounding communities that rely
on tourism as a major source of income to those communities.
The property values, obviously, adjacent to Lake Powell would
be dramatically impacted. There would be no resource base on
which to stimulate the economy. Those taxes, of course, support
the infrastructure. You would have impacts on schools, medical
care, et cetera. It's a very local impact.
On a regional basis, in particular, Arizona, we have a
program known as 100-year assured water supply program which
applies to all the major urban areas of the State. And what
that does is guarantee to families, businesses that come into
our area, that before they can develop, there has to be a 100-
year assured water supply, a committed stable affordable water
supply of high quality water available to them.
We are assuming that we have the Colorado River entitlement
available to us to meet that demand. Without it, we would be
forced to go back on groundwater. Groundwater is a finite
source of water. We would lose that supply of water in a very
short period of time. We would have inadequate amounts of water
to meet the long-term demand in our communities. That would
have a dramatic impact on property values. Obviously, we could
not sustain our current population. Similar concerns, I think,
can be expressed both in southern Nevada as well as southern
California.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend Mr. Mark Whitlock on his testimony and on the program
that he has led in embarking on the installation of water-
efficient shower heads and toilets. And believe me, your
testimony was refreshing to hear. Keep up the good work. Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you for the testimony of all the folks.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, may I take my 2 minutes now? I'll
take 2 minutes if I can have unanimous consent.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. I don't quite share the sense of shock of my
colleagues. I feel like it's a scene out of Casablanca here.
They're shocked that the Sierra Club would be in favor.
Frankly, I mean, in terms of some of that idealism, while I
don't think, you know, that we're quite ready to act on this
particular proposal I think is a good quality. And I hope that
the Sierra Club and other groups that are involved from both--
whatever view maintain that.
As far as studies are concerned, I think we spend a lot of
money, at least we should be spending dollars on this important
resource. I think there are a lot of questions raised by this
in terms of what happens with the soils and the accumulation of
sediments that--I heard some talk about various types of heavy
metals and other things that are accumulating there.
And these, frankly, represent like some of the questions
dealing with nuclear waste, you know, it's almost a problem
from the mining to the disposal of the high-level waste.
And I think these dams and some of the other water
structures that we're involved with in the West have some of
the same sort of questions that are being raised. So as far as
environmental assessment, which is a--I would expect that the
Bureau of Reclamation and other authorities there are almost on
a constant basis looking at the nature of the reservoir and the
angle of repose, the other soils and the rate at which it's
filling and other questions that are important. You know, there
is a blue ribbon trout stream downstream. A lot of us who fish,
we like that particular quality.
So we have dramatically changed this area. There are some
positives to it, I guess, and a lot of other aspects that are
not. But as we get new information, we have to be willing to
look at it. I understand the position of the Sierra Club in
this area, but I don't think that we should be opposed to
obviously getting adequate information concerning this. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, in your testimony,
maybe I got this wrong, but you said, in Lake Mead, as it was
drawing down, that a certain amount of willows were created,
and this became a habitat for willow flycatchers; is that
right?
Mr. Stewart. Southwest willow flycatcher, yes.
Mr. Hansen. And now one of the proposals we have in front
of us is to fill up Lake Mead with the water from Lake Powell.
But you also stated that there was an environmental group that
had filed a lawsuit to prohibit Lake Mead from coming up, as it
would destroy that habitat; is that correct?
Mr. Stewart. That's correct.
Mr. Hansen. Is the Sierra Club enjoined in that lawsuit,
Mr. Werbach?
Mr. Werbach. I am not sure. I will check with my staff and
get that into the record.
Mr. Hansen. Kind of a little paradox there. On one hand,
you know, if you say that we want to a fill Lake Mead with Lake
Powell; yet, we're in a lawsuit to prevent the flycatcher's
habitat. It would be just a tad of a paradox or maybe an
inconsistency. I don't mean to make a big deal out of that. But
it strikes me rather odd that the environmental community who
would advocate draining Lake Powell and putting the water into
Lake Mead would also become an area that is something that
could not occur.
Mr. Werbach, you had a very powerful organization. The
Sierra Club is known nationwide, has a lot of power. It's been
reported in Salt Lake papers that you folks are prepared to
come up with a half million to $3 million to push this
proposal. Is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. No, that is not correct.
Mr. Hansen. What is correct, may I ask?
Mr. Werbach. The Sierra Club is not--the proposal to
advocate the draining of the lake or the environment
assessment?
Mr. Hansen. One or both.
Mr. Werbach. We have no budget, per se, for the proposal to
advocate the draining of the lake. Our first goal right now is
to complete this environmental assessment and that--the Sierra
Club is not proposing to conduct that. We're proposing to help
the Glen Canyon Institute. We're hoping that, with your help,
the administration will undertake that review.
Mr. Hansen. If you accept what Mr. Shadegg said about
draining the lake and you folks are serious about it, if I
understand how that would have to go, it would go through
Congress, and Congress would pass legislation. This place is a
rumor mill, we all know that, and it's a big sieve anyway. It's
like the Pentagon. There are no secrets at all over there.
Anyway, having said that, we keep hearing you have a
sponsor to--I've asked. Is anybody a sponsor? It's none of my
business, I guess. You don't have to answer that. But do you
have a sponsor on draining Lake Powell or proposing this
legislation?
Mr. Werbach. We have not seeked a sponsor for this.
Mr. Hansen. You're not to that point yet of talking to
someone; is that right?
Mr. Werbach. No.
Mr. Hansen. I assume you do have some Members of Congress
who find this an interesting idea, though; is that correct?
Mr. Werbach. Frankly, we haven't had conversations with the
Members of Congress on this yet. This is our first opportunity
to do that. And we're not really looking for it. Right now what
we're trying to do is to begin this assessment so that we'll
have the facts to answer many of the good questions that you're
asking right now.
Mr. Hansen. If you were to put this in a category of
importance of the many things that the Sierra Club is
interested in, where would you put this?
Mr. Werbach. I would put this of critical importance to the
Sierra Club.
Mr. Hansen. It is critical importance?
Mr. Werbach. Uh-huh.
Mr. Hansen. Top five maybe.
Mr. Werbach. It's critically important to the Sierra Club.
Mr. Hansen. Critically important to the Sierra Club. Well,
I appreciate that. I appreciate your candor.
We have kept you folks here quite a while. We'll excuse
this panel. Excuse me, Mr. Shadegg had an additional 2 minutes
he wanted to take.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I hope not to take 2 minutes.
But since Mr. Brower was to be on this panel, there are,
although many quotes I might want to ask him about, there are
at least three that I think are critical. And I would like to
put them in the record and make a case for why I think they are
important.
Mr. Hansen. Is there an objection? Hearing none, so
ordered.
Mr. Shadegg. It's pretty clear that Mr. Brower is the
single most dominant advocate of this idea. If you look at the
history of the political struggles within the Sierra Club, he's
been on the board and off the board. He was the executive
director when the lake was built and wears sack cloth and ashes
as he is quoted as saying, and he wants to now right this. His
piece, ``Let the River Run Through It'' is the seminal piece on
why this ought to happen.
There are, as I said, three quotes that have been published
and attributed to him which I find shocking and which I would
like him to respond to. The first appears in ``Environmental
Overkill'' published in 1993 by Dixie Lee Ray. And by the way,
in none of these quotes have I found--ever have I found a
statement by Mr. Brower disavowing them.
The first quote is: ``While the death of young men in war
is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of
mountains and wilderness areas by human kind.''
The second quote is found in Dixie Lee Ray's book,
``Trashing the Planet.'' It is based on a subsequent book noted
in--or a prior book noted in her footnote. And this quote is:
``Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society
unless the parents hold a government license. All potential
parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the
government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for
childbearing.''
And the third quote--and I thought it would be impossible
to trump the first two until I found this one. The third one
is, quote, by Mr. Brower, the advocate of this idea: ``Loggers
losing their jobs because of spotted owl legislation is, in my
eyes,'' Mr. Brower says, ``no different than people being out
of work after the furnaces of Dachau are shut down.'' That also
appears in Dixie Lee Ray's book, ``Environmental Overkill,''
published in 1993, and was never disavowed by Mr. Brower. I
think those are important quotes to get into the record. And I
would like----
Mr. Doolittle. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shadegg. Certainly.
Mr. Doolittle. I would just like to ask Mr. Werbach if you
agree with those quotes or which one do you disagree with, if
any.
Mr. Werbach. First of all, let me state my great offense at
the suggestion David Brower would suggest those things. No, I
do not agree with those things. I do not suggest that we take
Dixie Lee Ray's view on the environment as gospel.
I will mention that David Brower served in a mountaineering
unit in World War II along with former Senator Bob Dole, served
our country well, and does not deserve to be slandered in that
way.
Mr. Shadegg. No, reclaiming my time, these are all quotes
that appear on the Internet attributed to Mr. Brower and have
been there since 1990 and 1993, respectively. We have
thoroughly, as you might tell at this point in this hearing, we
searched this issue and Mr. Brower and found not a single
occasion where he has disavowed any of them. So if this is an
opportunity for him to do so, I call upon him to do so.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman's time has expired. We appreciate
the panel being with us. Mr. Werbach, Mr. Wegner, if you would
stay there.
The next panel is Jim Lochhead, Executive Director of the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources. We have Melvin
Bautista, Executive Director of the Division of Natural
Resources of the Navajo Nation. And we have Larry E. Tarp,
Chairman of Friends of Lake Powell.
We appreciate the panel being with us. You know all the
rules. You can stay within 5 minutes. Thank you very much. Mr.
Lochhead, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, you have the floor, as we say in our
business. We recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM LOCHHEAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Lochhead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittees. I would ask the Chair's indulgence. Given the
late time that I had for notice of this hearing, I wasn't able
to prepare written testimony, and I would request to be able to
do so after the hearing.
The purpose of my testimony today, Mr. Chairman, is to help
express from an upper Colorado River basin perspective our
grave concerns as to the effects of draining Lake Powell. To
fully appreciate these concerns, Members of Congress should
understand that this proposal is not just about one dam. Glen
Canyon Dam was built and is operated as a key component of a
complex framework of laws passed by Congress known as the law
of the river.
These laws were born out of the necessity to provide secure
water supplies. They are the product of two interstate
Compacts, a U.S. Supreme Court decree, and a treaty with Mexico
allocating the river's water.
They reflect the fact that for over a hundred years, the
financial strength and national authority of the U.S. Congress
has been absolutely necessary to avoid interstate disputes and
to secure economic stability for the Colorado River basin.
Floods in the lower Colorado River in the first years of
this century caused extensive damage and created the Salton
Sea, bringing urgency to the desires of California irrigators
for an all-American canal and a dam that would regulate the
river. The California interests sought financial support for
these projects from Congress.
The upper basin States were wary that the lower basin would
develop at the expense of the upper basin, and successfully
blocked these efforts in Congress. The upper and lower basins
resolved their differences in 1922 when they signed the
Colorado River Basin Compact.
The Compact divides the river's water between the basins
and also sets a requirement that the upper basin not deplete
the flow of the river below 75 million acre feet over any 10-
year period.
Because of the erratic nature of the river (you heard the
testimony on that previously) from year to year, the
negotiators of the Compact in 1922 knew that the upper basin
could not meet its burden without the comprehensive development
throughout the basin of storage reservoirs.
The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, by which Congress
ratified the Compact, also directed the Secretary of Interior
to develop a report to Congress, ``formulating a comprehensive
scheme of control in the improvement and utilization of the
waters of the Colorado water and its tributaries.''
The depression and World War II intervened, but in 1946,
the Bureau of Reclamation completed its report. The Upper Basin
Compact of 1948 allowed for Congress to implement that plan.
In the 1956 Colorado River Basin Project Act, Congress
authorized the construction of so-called holdover reservoirs
which would assure that the upper basin could meet its compact
obligations. Lake Powell is the cornerstone of that system,
supported by units at Flaming Gorge, Aspinall, and Navajo.
In the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, Congress
provided for the comprehensive operation of Lake Powell and the
major facilities in conjunction with Lake Mead. This regulatory
framework was implemented in the coordinating operating
criteria by the Secretary of the Interior in 1970.
Without the ability to properly regulate river flow as
provided by these facilities, Colorado and other upper basin
States would face the prospect of a Compact call, which would
entail the massive curtailment of water use by millions of
people.
Throughout the development of this series of laws, Congress
has also worked closely with the basin States and has
explicitly recognized and affirmed the water allocations
established under the law of the river.
In the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, Congress
directed that operations of the power plant in Glen Canyon Dam
take into account downstream impacts. Those operations were the
result of a $100 million environmental impact study that was
alluded to earlier.
But that law also affirmed the critical role Lake Powell
plays in meeting interstate water allocation needs. The Act
makes operations for downstream purposes subject to the dam's
primary water allocation function.
The Senate Energy Committee Report describes Lake Powell as
follows: ``Glen Canyon Dam is the keystone of the Colorado
River Storage Project, CRSP, and CRSP is the central vehicle
for implementation of the congressionally approved Colorado
River Compact. The Compact is in turn the basis for allocation
of Colorado River water among the seven Colorado River Basin
States.''
By storing water in the upper reservoirs at Flaming Gorge,
Aspinall, and Navajo, regulating the water through Lake Powell,
and delivering the water to Lake Mead, the Bureau of
Reclamation has the facilities and operational flexibility to
meet the needs first envisioned over 100 years ago. These
facilities ensure a secure water supply for over 20 million
people, and a hydroelectric and recreational resource.
As illustrated by the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the
Bureau also has the ability to manage water to meet
environmental goals. For example, the upper basin States,
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others
have developed a recovery plan for four endangered fish species
in the Colorado River Basin.
The plan is designed to recover these endangered species
while allowing the upper basin States to fully develop our
compact shares. Under this plan, the operation of these upper
basin storage units has been changed to more closely
approximate the natural hydrograph. Without Lake Powell, this
reregulating flexibility would not be possible.
Other aspects of this recovery plan, including habitat
acquisition, fish ladders, and stocking programs will need to
be funded through a combination of hydropower revenues,
congressional appropriations, and State and local funds. We
need the help of Congress now more than ever to meet these
national priorities of Colorado River management.
By directing the draining of Lake Powell, Congress would
completely reverse its field from a direction in which it has
steadily en-
gaged for nearly 100 years. We believe that any proposal to
drain the lake should take these concerns into consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Lochhead. We appreciate it. Mr.
Bautista, we'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF MELVIN F. BAUTISTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO
NATION DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bautista. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Melvin
Bautista. I'm the Executive Director of the Division of Natural
Resources for the Navajo Nation and also a member of the Navajo
Nation. I would like to thank Chairman Doolittle of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power and Chairman Hansen on the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Public Alliance, as well as
other distinguished Congressmen for extending an invitation for
Navajo Nation to testify at this hearing.
We are gathered here to discuss Mr. Brower's and the Sierra
Club's proposal to drain Lake Powell. To abide by the
recommendation of the Sierra Club as articulated would wreak
disaster upon the economic and social welfare of the Navajo
Nation. It would also detrimentally and fundamentally alter a
water preservation, delivery, and supply system crafted by many
decades of planning and social compromise for the sake of a
myopic, selfish, impractical environmental deal.
In short, the Sierra Club's proposal does not address all
of the complexities of water administration under the upper
compact and lower compact States. It also does not address the
adverse impacts on Navajo water rights, Navajo economic
development concerns, or Navajo social welfare.
Water is life in the western region of the Continental
United States. Water considerations affect land and economic
development plans and opportunities for all those who live
here, including the Navajo Nation.
The Colorado River is a primary water supply and ground
water resource in the Colorado Basin States. The Navajo nation
has reserved water rights with a priority to date that relates
back to creation of our reservation by the Federal Government.
The Navajo Nation entered into two treaties with the United
States in 1850 and 1868. It set aside an exclusive reservation
exclusive for the Navajo Nation.
Navajo water rights, however, must be quantified by a court
of competent jurisdiction as part of a general stream
adjudication unless the Nation authorizes a settlement approved
by Congress. Thus the Navajo, like other water users in the
region, is currently engaged in the general stream adjudication
for a number of rivers and basins on or near the Navajo Nation,
including the Colorado River.
In Arizona versus California, the Supreme Court adjudicated
water rights of five Indian tribes. The Navajo Nation, however,
was excluded from this litigation.
Two theories have been postulated to explain the exclusion
of Navajo water rights. The first suggests that the Special
Master limited his consideration of water rights on the main
stream of the rivers below Lake Mead. The second envisions the
surrender of Navajo water rights in exchange for monetary
consideration and a promise of beneficial economic developments
which made possible a construction of a Navajo generating
station. Without Lake Powell, the Navajo generating station
would not exist.
Moreover, in 1958, Congress authorized exchange of Navajo
reservation lands for public domain lands occupied by Navajos.
Glen Canyon Dam is located on former Navajo reservation lands.
The Navajo Nation still owns the mineral estate under Lake
Powell. Lake Powell flooded Navajo religious and cultural sites
forever destroying their use by Navajo people. The Navajo
Nation has been deprived of its minerals and culture without
compensation being paid by the Federal Government.
First and foremost, a proposal to drain Lake Powell would
create hardship for the Navajo Nation securing any readily
accessible water supply. The proposal, if it is accepted, would
literally destroy mining and agri-business concerns that
provide most of the financial resources the Navajo Nation
expends to provide benefits to members of the Navajo Nation.
Secondly, the Navajo Agricultural Project Enterprise and
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, also referred to as NAPE, and
NIIP, would be jeopardized because it is a largely dependent
upon water availability from the mainstream of the San Juan
River and its tributaries for farming activities.
Water availability for NAPE and NIIP would be reduced
foreclosing the possibility about ever completing this project.
Third, the Navajo Nation believes dangerous and toxic
concentrations of selenium, salt, and mercury left behind from
a drained lake and airborne by wind would detrimentally affect
health and safety of Navajo people living near Lake Powell.
Fourth, there would be a significant cost increase for the
public by substituting other resources to provide energy and
electricity now or in the future by hydroelectric facilities on
Lake Powell. More coal may have to be burned to maintain
electricity at production levels. This may contribute to
increased air pollution in a strictly regulated clean air
environment.
Fifth, since many, if not all, of the native species of
plant and animal life have already been destroyed or affected
by Lake Powell, nonnative species would merely inhabit the
vacant space. It would be prohibitively expensive to return the
environment to its original habitat. Instead, it has already
been drastically affected.
Furthermore, the current endangered species of fish life
would have greater risk by encroachment of nonnative fish if
Lake Powell was drained.
Lastly, revenues from the tourism industry created by Lake
Powell, the Glen Canyon area, and the Navajo Nation would be
drastically affected. During the earlier years after the lake
was drained, there would be no tourism attraction. Even if the
environment were perfectly reclaimed, there would be only
limited tourist attraction appeal, since the recreation utility
potential of the site would be greatly limited.
Many members of the Navajo Nation sell food, beverages,
jewelry to tourists. This accounts for most of their income for
each year. Draining Lake Powell would absolutely destroy this
means of in-
come for Navajo vendors and enjoyment by those wanting to see
and experience Lake Powell.
In conclusion, if Lake Powell is drained, then the Navajo
Nation still desires to proceed with settlements of issues with
the National Park Service concerning the Navajo Nation's
boundary along the Colorado River. The Nation still maintains
that the shore line of the river in the vicinity of the Grand
Canyon National Park is the northern and western boundary of
the Navajo reservation, which includes the center line of the
San Juan River as clearly defined in our treaty.
The National Park Service refuses to accept this, even
though an Arizona State court made this finding when it
dismissed the citation for fishing without a license, State
license within the Grand Canyon National Park to a member of
the Navajo Nation. He did possess a Navajo Nation permit.
The draining of Lake Powell would do nothing but harm the
economic and social welfare of the Navajo Nation. This would
greatly complicate and further delay use of Colorado River
water by the Navajo Nation. As such, the Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that you reject the Sierra Club's
proposal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bautista may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bautista.
Mr. Tarp. We'll turn the time to you. Do you want to pull
the mike over there by you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LARRY E. TARP, CHAIRMAN, FRIENDS OF LAKE POWELL
Mr. Tarp. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I have
submitted my written testimony previously, and I assume it will
be part of the record.
As the Chairman of the Friends of Lake Powell, I thank you
for allowing me to speak on behalf of the people that support
maintaining Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam.
This testimony normally would be a trying thing for a
layman like myself. But while you cannot see them, I feel I
have a million people standing by my side.
To begin, let me paraphrase our mission statement. We
support the preservation of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam for
the generations. We want to provide the public factual
information about social, entertainment, environmental, and the
economics. And we'll solicit membership to create maximum
public awareness of these issues.
We will fight off any attempts by groups that seek to alter
its status. We will support environmental improvements and
represent the millions of people who love the area.
Let me tell you some facts about Lake Powell. This is a
fact: Lake Powell and the surrounding area is one of the most
beautiful places on earth. Lake Powell is in northern Arizona
and southern Utah. Ninety percent of the lake is in Utah.
The lake surface is below the surrounding mountains and is
the major reason for its extreme beauty. Blue waters contrast
the red sandstone cliffs. There is nothing else like it on this
planet.
Lake Powell was created by Glen Canyon Dam. Lake Powell was
named for Major John Wesley Powell. Lake Powell is within the
Glen Canyon national recreation area, which has 1,236,800
acres, the size of Delaware. It preserves 650 million years of
history with a mission to preserve the existing scientific,
scenic, and historical features, which certainly include the
Lake and Dam.
Lake Powell is 186 miles long with 1,960 miles of shore
line, more than the entire length of the West Coast of the
United States. It has 96 major side canyons.
But before I go on, for the record, I must point out some
of the misleading information that proponents of draining Lake
Powell have issued. First, evaporation. Claims of one million
feet have been voiced, even here today. The official figures
are half that. Most importantly, evaporation is not
elimination. It is a natural part of weather. All bodies of
water evaporate when exposed to atmospheric changes. But the
water becomes clouds in the case of Lake Powell, it rains on
fields and farms in places East such as Colorado, Kansas, and
Nebraska.
The proponents of draining would allow this water to flow
into the Sea of Cortez, where it would evaporate also and water
Mexico's crops and not our heartland.
They talk about restoring the Canyon walls knowing full
well that not all the king's horses and all the king's men can
put the iron oxide back in.
The bathtub ring, as it is so-called, seen as the water
recedes, extends from top to bottom and all around the lake. We
would be left with the biggest, bleached, ugliest white hole on
earth. And the proponents of lake draining would be long gone.
Statements have been made claiming the Power Plant and Dam
have as little as 100 years or so. You have heard today that
Bureau figures indicate 500 years for the Power Plant and up to
700 years for the Lake with a do-nothing policy.
If no superduper sources of power and energy are developed
over the next 500 years, I submit to you that dredging is not
rocket science.
They say simply pull the plug in Glen Canyon Dam.
Impossible. As the diversion tubes are completely filled with
concrete and their outlets were redirected to make spillway
outlets, draining the Lake and leaving the Dam intact is not
possible. Their claims that the Dam is unstable and subject to
catastrophic failure are so slanderous, I refuse to discuss
them.
Also, for the record, you should know that the Sierra
Club's seven-member task force charged with studying this issue
were invited by the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Bill Duncan,
whose name was in the record this morning, to come to the Lake
Powell, visit the Dam, and talk to the people, and they
refused. Ignorance must be bliss.
Now, let me go on. Glen Canyon Power Plant controls the
complete upper CSRP with six other power plants. Lake Powell is
the water savings account as you've heard today for the upper
basin States and for delivery to the lower basin States.
The Power Plant generates enough electricity for 400,000
people. Lake Powell hosts about 3 million visitors a year. As
heard today, over 400,000 people a year come for boating
activity.
The Lake now affords access to 325,000 people a year that
can reach Rainbow Bridge National Monument. Before, it was
about a 16-mile walk to get to that monument.
The lake is also home to about 275 species of birds, 700
species of plants. As mentioned earlier, the Peregrine Falcon
is there. And, largely, the lake is the reason its population
is being removed from the endangered species list. We have
trout fishing. The lake waters supply the Navajo generating
station, as was stated earlier.
Electricity is equal to about $100 million a year from Glen
Canyon Dam. About a Billion Dollars a year from NGS. And all of
these dollars are subject to Federal taxes, State taxes, County
taxes, and City taxes.
The local commerce supports human services, hospital,
schools, libraries, and other essential services. Nearly 23,000
Native Americans live on nearby reservations. Our public school
enrollments are 63 percent Native American.
In closing, let me say that the people involved in daily
life, commerce, and the free enterprise system surrounding the
area will oppose until their deaths any person or persons that
attempt to disrupt our personal rights, freedoms, and
opportunities for existence around Lake Powell.
According to the intent of the articles of our
Constitution, no one person or group has either the right or
the power to impose their belief on others in this the great
United States of America. We, the millions of Friends of Lake
Powell, are citizens and voters and intend to see that these
rights are upheld regardless of time and cost. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarp may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Tarp. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Doolittle, for the questions for this panel.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Bautista, I appreciated your testimony.
And you indicated therein that Lake Powell is basically on your
reservation's land. Didn't I read that?
Mr. Bautista. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. You retain the mineral estate. I guess
you've acceded the surface rights, but you have the mineral
estate underneath it; isn't that correct?
Mr. Bautista. Yes. When the exchange was done to create the
McCrackin Mesa in Utah, the lands were taken from the Lake
Powell area where Glen Canyon Dam was built. So, essentially,
the subsurface estate still belongs to the Navajo Nation as
well as the area. We always had arguments with the National
Park Service in terms--the terms are basically saying that
Navajo Nation still recognizes their boundary as being the edge
of the Colorado River and center line for San Juan River. So
that is where a lot of the issues come from. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. You have there flooded over Indian burial
sites and other heritage and cultural sites, do you not?
Mr. Bautista. Yes, we do.
Mr. Doolittle. And, yet, unlike the Sierra Club, you have
not joined in this effort to drain the lake to recover those
sites.
Mr. Bautista. Well, the attempts were made to try to
educate the Bureau of Reclamation at that time when that was
being done. And they did try to work with us in terms of trying
to take many of the items that were down in the canyon area
out.
But, unfortunately, we lost some of the areas where
basically prayers and offerings were made, so we could not do
that anymore. The lake does exist now. And the areas around
those places where we used for prayers are still used, but
further away from their original site.
Mr. Doolittle. I guess I'm just trying to draw out here,
you would have a real vested interest, arguably, in draining
the lake because of these sites; and, yet, you have not elected
to do so, weighing the pros and the cons of such a drastic
action.
Mr. Bautista. We would not be interested in draining the
lake, because that has very--it's a source of water supply for
both the Navajos and the Hopi tribe. We're currently in
litigation involving the lower Colorado River. And this is one
area that both Nations have identified as being a source of
water supply for our area.
Mr. Doolittle. I noticed from your testimony that, in the
litigation involving the lower basin States, the Navajo Nation
was excluded from having its rights adjudicated at that point.
Is that correct?
Mr. Bautista. That is correct.
Mr. Doolittle. So you're now involved in the negotiation of
the--of your own compact, I guess, with the Federal Government?
How does that--where are we in those negotiations?
Mr. Bautista. Essentially, we are still involved in terms
of trying to settle many of the issues that the Navajo Nation
has in terms of water rights, not only the Colorado River, but
many of the tributaries that flow into the Colorado River.
And in many cases, the Navajo Nation does have the water
rights, but we are trying to work with the various people,
government, local governments, the city, the county
governments, and whatnot to try to at least work out a way
where we can share the water. So that's what we are currently
working on now in terms of basically a settlement.
Mr. Doolittle. Does Lake Powell present the Navajo Nation
with significant economic opportunities?
Mr. Bautista. Yes, it does. Many of our Navajo vendors who
basically don't have jobs--the Navajo Nation is about 45
percent unemployed. And people that live along the lake, that's
the only source of employment that they have in terms of
selling food, jewelry, and whatever they can use to do that,
and also taking people on tours. Additionally, they try to
assist in terms of working with people that do come to the area
as well. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. I also just mention, I noted when I visited
the Navajo Generating Station, there were a number of Navajo
employees there. And I gather that you depend upon Lake Powell
for your water as well as for the livelihood that your people
would hope to make in the future.
Mr. Bautista. Yes. That's true. In terms of Lake Powell.
And there is no water that comes from Lake Powell. It only goes
to the city of Page currently. And we are trying to negotiate
in the water litigation, or excuse me, water settlement
discussions under the LCR, lower Colorado River, to try and
take water out of the lake.
In terms of the Navajo generating station, we are currently
negotiating Royalty re-openers with Peabody which supplies coal
to the Navajo generating station, as well as Mojave, to allow
us to sell more coal to them for revenue generation. But Lake
Powell is one of the key ingredients of part of the
negotiations.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Lochhead, could your upper
basin States meet the obligation to deliver the 7\1/2\ million
acre feet to the lower basin States without Lake Powell?
Mr. Lochhead. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that we could,
Congressman. And the testimony of Mr. Bautista, I think,
illustrates also that there are a number of uncertainties
regarding the regulation and allocation of the river system,
the negotiation of tribal reserved rights among them, that we
are trying to work on as States with the tribal nations and the
Colorado River states. Those uncertainties present further
challenges to our ability to reregulate water for these
allocation purposes and additional demands on the system that
would need to be addressed.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Tarp, my time is up. I just
wanted to mention I appreciated very much your testimony. I
thought you drew out a number of the important values about
Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Green.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
thank you for your testimony, also. I wanted to ask Mr.
Werbach, Mr. Bautista in his conclusion of his testimony says
that the Sierra Club's proposal views the destruction of Glen
Canyon Dam and Lake Powell with justifications that benefit
only a few members of the human community. Would you comment on
that?
Mr. Werbach. Well, the Sierra Club pays deference to the
Navajo Nation and supports them reaching their treaty
obligations and hopes that this Committee will help them do so.
We have spoken to some other Nations in the area, Haulapai,
the Havasupai, and the Hopi, all of whom, while not having
voted formerly on it, their departments of natural resources
supports studying the issue and looking into options. At this
time, as we said, there are lots of issues still at hand. And
these are very, very important. Native American rights are
critical to the success of this plan. Right now we want to do
the assessment and take it from there.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing. It has been very
informative. And I can see that there are many difficulties and
far-reaching impacts involved with draining--the possibility of
draining Lake Powell. But certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think we
have an obligation, not only to this generation, but to those
to come. And so, while in the end, I may or may not support the
draining of the lake, I do support an environmental assessment.
Because I believe that the people of Utah, California, Nevada,
Colorado, and the other States that are involved do have a
right to know. And so I would support Federal funds being used
to fund either in part or in whole the environmental
assessment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Informative and
provocative I probably would add to that. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bautista, I want
to thank you for taking the time to travel here all the way
from Arizona. I appreciate your being here. I made reference in
my earlier comments to the fact that both you and the Hopi
share an important aquifer which lies under your reservations
and which I believe is, in part, as full or has the capacity it
currently has because of the existence of Lake Powell.
I note in your testimony that you talk about adverse impact
on Navajo water rights, Navajo economic development, Navajo
social welfare, and go on to say that, in point of fact, the
proposal would create great hardship and would literally
destroy mining and agri-business that provide most of the
financial resources of the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation does not have a particularly strong
economic base at the present time, does it, Mr. Bautista?
Mr. Bautista. That is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. What is unemployment on the reservation?
Mr. Bautista. Unemployment runs approximately 45 percent.
Mr. Shadegg. And if we were to rule out all of the
recreation activities which now provide jobs and other
associated jobs, the operation of the dam, the operation of the
Navajo power plant, all of which or most of which have native
American hiring preferences, that would be devastating to your
employment base, would it not?
Mr. Bautista. Yes, it would.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me talk briefly. Peabody Coal has a Black
Mesa mine that employes many Native Americans, both Navajo and
Hopi, does it not?
Mr. Bautista. Yes, it does.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. And it is dependent upon the power
generated at the Navajo generating station.
Mr. Bautista. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. So if we were to lose the Navajo generating
station because we had no cooling water, we would literally
shut the mine.
Mr. Bautista. Yes, it would.
Mr. Shadegg. And, also, it is dependent upon the water from
the aquifer that I have mentioned. If we were to lose that
water, there would be no way to pump the coal and slurry where
it is taken to the West; is that right?
Mr. Bautista. That's correct.
Mr. Shadegg. So we really can lose that mine in two
different regards.
I note, and I'm glad you touched upon it, that in your
testimony, you talk about the dangerous and toxic
concentrations of selenium, salts, and mercury left behind from
a drained lake and which the airborne wind would detrimentally
affect the health and safety of the Navajo people. Are you
familiar with the experience in California with regard to Owens
Lake?
Mr. Bautista. Not that familiar with it.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me just point it out. And I want to ask
some of the serious environmentalists who are here to talk to
us today if they have thought through that issue, because, in
point of fact, the experience at Owens Lake demonstrates that,
were we to dry up Lake Powell, we would leave the sediment with
all of these toxins in it, including, perhaps, nuclear toxins
in it, which would be blown around by dust. And we can get into
Owens lake later, but I appreciate your testimony and
appreciate you coming here and thank you for that.
Mr. Tarp, I would like to turn to you. I believe you are
familiar with Stan Jones, one of the premier chroniclers of
Lake Powell.
Mr. Tarp. Yes. He is called Mr. Lake Powell.
Mr. Shadegg. He is called Mr. Lake Powell. This is one of
his many books. I would, Mr. Chairman, like to put this into
the record. Because it depicts some of the beauty of Lake
Powell. I know that I spoke with Stan Jones for--at length
Sunday morning. And I know that Mr. Tarp spoke with him at
length. So I would like to put that into the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Shadegg. He's quite an environmentalist in his own
right; is he not?
Mr. Tarp. Yes, he is. If I might just read a small
statement that he gave me over the phone. He said: ``I submit
to you that Glen Canyon and its 100 or more side canyons do not
need to be restored. Why? Because they were never lost or
destroyed by the waters of Lake Powell.
Every canyon is still there and in its full splendor. Yes,
there may be 100 or even 200 feet of water on the floors, but
when the walls go up, some straight up over 1,000 feet, it
actually enhances them. Rather than think of it as spoiling
them, think of it as having a reflective base that appears to
double their height.
Plus, they are completely accessible by water. And still by
land as well or by foot or by pack animal, if you prefer. The
water access can make this trip short, full of additional
splendor, and very calming.
In a week or two of concentrated boating effort, a person
or group could see nearly all 100 of them. Without water
access, I doubt a person or group could see them all in a
lifetime.
I invite Adam Werbach, his family, and Mr. David Brower to
come to Page, and we will personally show them the variety of
splendor they never have nor never would see if they had to
walk in, ride the river, or come on pack mules.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, when I spoke with Stan Jones on Sunday by
phone, he pointed out something to me that I was unaware of,
and that is that there was a preinundation study of the lake
and of the wildlife, both in the canyon and on Navajo Mountain.
That study is, I believe, some 25 pages long. And Mr. Jones
could not get it to me in time for this hearing.
He did, however, on Monday fax to me a three-page statement
in which he lifts direct quotes from that study, which
demonstrate, I think, quite vividly that, in the absence of a
constant supply of water, there was really very little wildlife
relatively speaking, very few birds in the area. And there are
a number of quotes. And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I
would like this inserted in the record.
Mr. Hansen. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me just conclude by saying, as I mentioned
earlier in my testimony or in my opening statement, I have
camped in or explored virtually every canyon on Lake Powell
from Wahweap to Bullfrog.
Speaking about Stan Jones' comment about the reflective
ability, in the canyon immediately south of Rainbow Bridge on
the--what would be the southeast side of the lake, I have
explored that canyon all the way up to where the boat we were
in, which was 8 feet wide, was touching sandstone on each side.
We went off the front of the boat in a little what would be
the kind of raft that you would lie on in a swimming pool and
went further up the canyon to where we could touch both sides
of the canyon and look. And, at that point, we were floating in
water and looking straight up for sandstone cliffs that went
300 to 400 feet above our heads. It is magnificent. I suggest
draining it would destroy an incredible natural wondering
enjoyed by millions of people annually and makes no sense.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tarp, you heard Mr. Werbach say that, in the eyes of
the Sierra Club, this proposal was critically important. How
important is it to your group?
Mr. Tarp. Well, I think a lot has been said today about the
water rights and what would happen, and I won't get into that
discussion. But I believe the economics of the issue, the
enjoyment, the human bonding, I think about a family going out
on a houseboat for 3 or 4 days enjoying life together, sitting
around the campfire together, which doesn't usually go on in a
family home.
Getting back to the economic's side, I recently found out,
although I was not able to include it in my testimony, the
assessed value in the city of Page today, as of June is $370
million. And I submit to you that, without Lake Powell, the
city would be valueless because, A: it has no other water
source, and B: obviously they would have no source of revenue
without the recreational activities associated with the Lake
and Dam.
Mr. Hansen. It's hard to put that in dollars, isn't it? But
yet, as you look at it, the State of Utah claims they bring in
$409 million a year because of the dam.
Every time I go down there, I stand at Waheap and look at
the slips with just the boats there, for example, and then look
out at the boats that are anchored. I've always tried to
evaluate how much money is sitting there. Has anyone ever made
a guess on that? Between--forgetting Halls Crossing and
Bullfrog and Hite and the money sitting at Dangling Rope, what
would you estimate that as?
Mr. Tarp. Well, I can only estimate. But I would say, on
the south end of the lake, between the slip's and the buoy's,
there are approximately 1,000 boats. And I would suggest to you
that, with all the peripherals, insurance and the other costs,
they probably have an average value of $100,000 or more each.
Mr. Hansen. That's rather expensive, isn't it?
Well, I thank this panel for being with us. And we'll
excuse you. And, Mr. Wegner, it's your turn now. We're going to
get to you.
Now, Mr. Werbach can give you instructions as you go back
and forth there.
Our last panel is Robert Elliot, Arizona Raft Adventurers;
Joseph Hunter, Executive Director of Colorado River Energy
Distribution Association, CREDA, and David Wegner, Ecosystems
Management International.
So we're grateful for you folks for being here. We'll get
you all labeled here so we know who you are.
Mr. Elliott, we will start with you and then Mr. Hunter
and, Mr. Wegner, you can be the cleanup batter here.
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
Committee----
Mr. Hansen. You know the rules. We would appreciate it if
you could stay within your time.
Mr. Elliott, we turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ELLIOTT, AMERICA OUTDOORS AND ARIZONA RAFT
ADVENTURES
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman and illustrious members of the
Subcommittees, thank you kindly for inviting me to testify
today.
My name is Rob Elliott. I represent America Outdoors, a
national trade association comprised of 600 small businesses
which outfit back country trips for the public on lands managed
by government agencies across the Nation. I am also the
President of Arizona Raft Adventures, a river runner in the
Grand Canyon.
Knowing what we know today, and on balance with all the
myriad considerations, I am adamantly opposed to the draining
of Lake Powell and I will document my position in a few
moments.
Spiritually, I grew up in Glen Canyon. I have lived and
worked and played on the Colorado plateau most of my adult
life, and I have outfitted over 30,000 people on river trips
through the Grand Canyon. I have represented the outfitting
industry and the transition work group for several years
working directly with the Bureau of Reclamation and the dozen
or so cooperating agencies in the development of the Glen
Canyon Dam EIS.
In the spring of 1962, I was twice blessed when I floated
through Glen Canyon with David Brower. Before dawn one morning,
I left alone for the 6-mile hike up Aztec Creek to see Rainbow
Bridge and upon returning to camp I had an epiphany. I cried
out loud and apologized to God for our flooding of Glen Canyon.
That experience forever annealed the environmental ethic to my
soul.
The second blessing was meeting and coming to know David
Brower, a personal hero of mine. David Brower taught me that
one person can make a monumental difference in the world.
My first reaction to the notion of draining Lake Powell and
freeing the Colorado River to its pre-dammed condition was,
wouldn't it be wonderful to turn back the clock? And what a
preposterous idea.
My more studied reaction to the proposal to drain Lake
Powell is that the riparian habitat in Grand Canyon downstream
from the dam is today amazingly vibrant, rich in biodiversity,
nonetheless legitimate because it is a highly managed
ecosystem. And it is threatened by both the prospect of
draining Lake Powell and the possibility that nature may act
first to blow out Glen Canyon Dam, with or without the
authorization of Congress.
With the control of annual flooding in Grand Canyon, there
has been a dramatic increase in riparian vegetation with a
corresponding increase of biodiversity, including supportive
habitat for threatened and endangered species. By accident, we
have created a refuge for Neotropical birds of regional
significance, and the cold clear water below the dam supports a
blue ribbon trout fishery. A highly regulated river has
produced high biodiversity and new recreational opportunity.
What are the environmental consequences of draining Lake
Powell?
With the draining of Lake Powell and the freeing of Glen
Canyon from beneath megatons of potentially toxic sediments,
restoration would begin immediately and take perhaps a
millennium for nature to restore Glen Canyon to, to what? We
don't know. But not likely to its original splendor.
Glen Canyon would be an unstable environment for a very
long period of time, and the first species to reclaim the land
would very likely be invasive, nonnative specious such as
tamarisk and camel thorn. Restoration to a natural condition
may neither be possible nor desirable. We know very little
about the environmental consequences of draining Lake Powell,
but we do know some things about river sediments and delta
deposits elsewhere.
As river sediments accumulate, various naturally occurring
compounds and heavy metals concentrate to toxic levels.
What do the proponents of draining the lake suggest we do
with these potentially toxic sediments? The Colorado River
flowing into Glen Canyon would carry the same sediments it does
today. Upon entering the former Lake Powell, the river would
pick up newly exposed lake sediments. At best, the mix of lake
sediments with upstream sediments is a black box
scientifically.
If the sediments flow through Glen and Grand Canyons, then
Lake Meade will fill all the more quickly. And then are we to
decommission Hoover Dam as well? Is the only ultimate answer to
let the sediments run through to the Sea of Cortez? To use the
water, we must remove the sediments. And I admit, that fact
poses very tough questions for future generations. It is not
too soon to start looking for the answers today.
I am a strong advocate for deepening scientific inquiry at
Lake Powell. What is the composition of lake sediments and how
fast are they accumulating? Do the lake sediments pose a health
and safety concern for our or future generations? How much
water is really lost to evaporation percolation? What about
meromixis, the accumulation of deep water conditions with high
salinity and very low oxygen levels which some day could kill
fish and corrode turbines? Scientists can answer these
questions and we need to give them all the support and the
funding we can reasonably pull together to look at those.
Included in the scope of this hearing is the reduction of
water storage capability of Lake Powell. I also would like to
urge both Committees to strongly advocate a governmental risk
analysis to determine the competency of Glen Canyon Dam and
flood control capacity in Lake Powell to withstand a 500-year
flood.
How long did the engineers design the dam to last? Was it
smart to put it in sandstone in the first place? There is a lot
of speculation as to how long the dam will be there. We almost
lost it in 1983 when El Nino produced 210 percent of normal
snowpack in the early spring and a warm June brought it all
down the first 10 days of the month.
Meteorologists tell us the coming El Nino event building
off the coast of South America is expected to be the biggest of
the century. A 500-year flood run events about--flood event
runs about 250,000 cubic feet per second and sedimentologists
with the Bureau of Reclamation point to evidence of prehistoric
floods of up to 400,000 cubic feet per second. With all tubes
and spillways flowing, Glen Canyon Dam can release 270,000
cubic feet per second.
Back in 1983, the dam flowed 93,000 cubic feet per second.
So when reviewing these figures, we have a potential 500-year
flood event--who knows if El Nino will bring it or not--of
250,000 to 400,000 cubic feet per second. We did pass 93,000
cubic feet per second through the dam in 1983 with some
serious, serious corrosive erosion effects to the bypass tubes.
So now we are talking about the possibility of passing
250,000, 270,000 cubic feet per second through the dam in a
major flood event for flood control purposes. That is three
times the amount of water that we passed through the dam in
1983.
My view is that the Subcommittees can productively focus
time and resources on assuring the public that the risk
analysis of managing a 500-year flood is addressed. Whether the
lake is drained by man or the dam is blown out by nature, the
riparian resources in both Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon will
recover in a few hundred years. If we fail to accommodate the
eventuality of a 500-year flood, we may have created a
situation with unacceptable risks to society.
I thank the Committees very much for the opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Elliott. We appreciate your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elliott may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hunter.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HUNTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER
ENERGY DISTRIBUTION ASSOCIATION (CREDA)
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association.
Testimony from several of today's witnesses include
references to the hydropower produced at Glen Canyon Dam and
the value of that hydropower. CREDA, the organization I
represent, represents the more than 100 nonprofit public
utilities and rural electric cooperatives who purchase that
power from the United States and distribute it to consumers
throughout the Colorado River Basin. Clearly, when we are
talking about draining Lake Powell we get rather interested.
Over the past several months I have heard a wide-range of
opinion as to the impact draining the lake would have on the
genera-
tion of electricity. The basic facts are well documented. Glen
Canyon Dam is capable of generating more than 1,300 megawatts
of hydropower each year. That electricity is sold by the United
States at cost-based rates to nonprofit public utilities,
government organizations, and Native American utilities.
Ultimately, millions of families, farms, and businesses depend
upon this clean, relatively economical source of energy.
Appearing today as the representative or a representative
of the local utilities and electric co-ops, we are responsible
for making sure the lights stay on. I would like to focus
primarily on the practical implications of removing Glen Canyon
Dam as a hydropower resource.
First, I have heard with some amusement the claims that the
generation that would be lost at Glen Canyon Dam could be
offset through conservation. Such claims demonstrate a
remarkable lack of understanding of the role Glen Canyon Dam
plays in the overall scheme of power supply in the West. The
importance of hydropower generation goes far beyond the raw
number of megawatts it provides. Unlike most conventional
generation sources, hydropower is variable. It provides a
critical opportunity to generate more or less electricity as
demand changes from hour to hour. This load following potential
is not something that can be offset through conservation.
While conservation can be an effective tool for reducing
the need for base-load generation, it does nothing to reduce
the need for peaking resources such as Glen Canyon Dam. If
power consumption in the West were cut in half tomorrow, we
would still have the same need to adjust generation to meet
varying load requirements.
An excellent example of this very fact occurred last
summer, during the widespread and widely publicized power
outages. Glen Canyon Dam was one of the more critical tools
that was available to help restore service to much of Arizona
and Southern California. Even the harshest critics of historic
dam operations have long agreed that if some type of system
failure threatens power supply, Glen Canyon Dam should be
available to pick up the slack.
Could this capability be replaced? I suppose it could.
Absent Glen Canyon Dam power generation, greater dependence
could be placed on other existing hydropower facilities. Each
of those dams, however, has its own set of environmental
concerns. And I suspect that the potential consequences of
using other dams for increased load following would be
unacceptable to the same interests who are today advocating the
draining of Lake Powell.
The other potential alternatives to Glen Canyon Dam are
technologies that are either immature or significantly more
costly. And for those who believe that there is currently an
abundance of generation available in the Western States, I
would suggest they take a look at the projected growth rates in
areas today served by Glen Canyon Dam, and would remind them
that short-term planning in the electricity business is
measured in decades.
Mr. Chairman, many witnesses have told you the
ramifications of this proposal for meeting the current and
future water needs of an entire region. You have heard of the
value of Lake Powell itself as a magnificent recreation and
tourism resource. Customers throughout the Colorado River Basin
spend more than $100 million per year--send more than $100
million per year to the United States Treasury for the
privilege of using the clean renewable and economical
electricity generated with the water that is stored in Lake
Powell. Under any scenario, the loss of that power resource
would have far-reaching impacts on the electric bills of
families, ranchers, and small businesses.
Further, the entities represented at this hearing, along
with many others, have just completed a difficult process of
environmental study, cooperation and compromise regarding the
operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Those studies have consumed more
than a decade of time and more than $100 million of electric
ratepayers' money. This effort, whether one agrees with the
outcome or not, represents one of the most significant
environmental programs in the history of this Nation. The
draining of Lake Powell would render that effort moot.
In short, the benefits of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell
are tremendous and far-reaching. At the same time, we have gone
to extraordinary lengths to make these facilities as compatible
as possible with the natural and environmental values they
impact. To seriously consider sacrificing all of those
benefits, imposing so much cost on millions of consumers, and
impeding our ability to meet the electric needs of a rapidly
growing region, in order to revisit a decision made more than
30 years ago, seems more than a bit absurd.
Surely, we have more pressing items on our environmental
``to do'' list than draining Lake Powell. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Wegner, we are happy that you have had the
patience to stay with us.
Mr. Wegner. Finally.
Mr. Hansen. We will turn the time to you now.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WEGNER, ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Wegner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. My name is Dave Wegner. I am here representing the
Glen Canyon Institute today. I am also the owner of a small
business in Flagstaff, Arizona, called Ecosystem Management
International.
I have provided to the Committee my testimony, which again
it is here. And also I didn't know it was going to be a show
and tell, but we brought a book that you can have, also. So
please take it and look at it.
I am going to ad-lib a little bit because of all the
comments that I heard today, and I have to commend my fellow
panelists here and all the panelists today. I have known of
most of these gentlemen and ladies for years. We have worked on
many issues together involving the Colorado River and Glen
Canyon Dam.
For the past 22 years, I have been privileged to work for
the Department of Interior, to look at the issues associated
with the Colorado River drainage. It is an area that I have
studied extensively. I am a scientist by training. I am not a
politician. I am not a busi-
nessman. I am not a bureaucrat. All I am is a simple scientist
trying to get to the facts. Those facts, gathered over the last
14 years that Mr. Hunter referred to, is that the Grand Canyon
and the Colorado River are in serious need of some restoration.
We cannot sustain the environmental resources, the endangered
fish and the endangered bird with the present level of effort
and the operation of the river system.
Many good questions came out today, and I really commend
the panelists and the Committee for asking them. I guess as the
author of the primary document, the proposal to develop the
citizens' environmental assessment, we are going to use every
one of these questions that came up today. They are going to
help us frame this whole document.
Let me give you a little brief history of Glen Canyon
Institute. We are a volunteer organization. None of us get
paid. There is no--none of us get wages to deal with this. We
are private citizens. We are scientists. We are
environmentalists and boaters, but there is one common thread.
We are all concerned about Glen Canyon and the Colorado River.
The proposal to develop the citizens' EA, which flows out
of the environmental studies that were done at Glen Canyon Dam
over the past 14 years, is our way of trying to document the
science, document the information. Today we are here seeking
wisdom, we are here in this place of power and trappings to
look at how we can move forward with this whole proposal.
Yesterday at 6 p.m., I was on the Animas River, and I wish
Senator Campbell was still here. This is a little water from
his river. I was there talking to students about the value of
our resources, about the value of our endangered species.
Yes, Congressmen, it is all about water. It is about water
that supplies not only development, not only power, not only
recreation, but this is the lifeblood of the species that
depend upon it.
And, yes, we are looking at diminishing species. The Upper
Basin in particular is putting millions of dollars into
endangered species programs. The single most important thing we
could do would be to develop more habitats for these endangered
fish. If you develop the habitats, the fish and the birds will
use them.
The system, specifically the Colorado River system, is
compromised. The heart of the Colorado River, Glen Canyon, has
been drowned. It has been drowned for almost 35 years now.
The proposal that the Glen Canyon Institute is putting
forth is not developed by a group of bureaucrats. We are not
being developed by corporations. None of us own river
companies. We are just private people who are concerned about
looking at the issues. What we do represent are people who are
interested in the river, interested in the canyon, and
interested in finding ways not only for this generation but for
future generations to protect our rich natural heritage.
We are people who believe in the resources. We are people
who believe in the fish. We are people who speak for the birds.
We also are asking through this environmental assessment, which
we are not asking a dollar from Congress for, to allow us the
freedom of free speech that several of the panelists have asked
and talked about in the past to explore these issues.
We believe that the United States is founded on a
democratic process of asking questions, gathering data, and
evaluating the information, and we want to do that
successfully. And we invite anybody, anyone on the panels, any
citizen, who wants to be involved to join us. Come on, let's
talk about it; let's debate it.
Yes, it is all about water. It is all about habitats. It is
all about that area and that sense of place called Glen Canyon.
And I wish to heck David Brower was here today, because he is
much more eloquent at expressing those particular ideas.
We need to--no, let me rephrase that. We must ask the
question of what are we going to do with these dams for the
future? Not only for us, but for the future generations, our
kids, our grandkids, their grandkids? We are committed to the
process. We are committed, most importantly, to the resources.
We are not here today asking you for money. We are not here
asking you for wisdom. We are not even asking you for
validation. All we are asking is for the right to look at it,
to look at it with a citizens' environmental assessment and to
move forward with the issues for the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wegner may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Wegner, it is my understanding the
Sierra Club has called for the use of public funds in certain
respects pertaining to the draining of Lake Powell. Do you
concur with that request or do you disagree with it?
Mr. Wegner. We are raising funds independently of the
Sierra Club.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you concur with their support for public
funds or do you not?
Mr. Wegner. We would like to get public funds if we could,
but I am not--we are not depending upon them and that is why we
have initiated on our private level.
Mr. Doolittle. So do you support their suggestion that
public funds should be used?
Mr. Wegner. If you can get it, you bet.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Hunter, has anyone actually calculated
the cost to decommission a dam the size of Glen Canyon Dam?
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, not that I am aware of. I would
be happy to check, but I--to my knowledge, a decommissioning of
that magnitude has never been seriously contemplated.
Mr. Doolittle. Given that it is a relatively new dam, how
much is the outstanding repayment on the dam?
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to provide you
with exact dollar figures because, as you know, the Colorado
River Storage Project itself, of which Glen Canyon Dam is only
one piece, is what the repayment is of.
The total repayment of the entire project, and this would
be far greater than the dam itself, is well over $1 billion.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Well, maybe you can supply the answer
specifically for the record.
Mr. Hunter. Certainly.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. How do you--let me just ask you this: How do
you think the debt would be handled if the dam were no longer
producing power?
Mr. Hunter. Congressman, as Acting Administrator Hacskaylo
said this morning, I don't have an answer for that.
Essentially, if you remove Glen Canyon Dam from the system, you
are removing the facility that produces 75 percent of the
revenues for the entire project, the entire Upper Colorado
River Basin. If you simply lift that piece out of it, to me it
is inconceivable that you would somehow place the remaining
burden, which would still be over $1 billion, on the remainder
of the project power facilities. It simply wouldn't work to try
to market that power and repay it.
By default, I would have to believe that that burden would
fall on the taxpayers, most likely. I don't know who else would
pay it.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Elliott, do you think that the summer conditions that
would exist on the river in the Grand Canyon, without the Glen
Canyon Dam, that you described in your testimony, would be
appealing to many of your current rafting customers?
Mr. Elliott. I don't think it would be either better or
worse, but let me paint the following picture: Both pre-dam and
post-dam, at Lee's Ferry, where we embark down the river, in
the month of August, for example, we would have--the water
temperature would be maybe 80 degrees. It would be perhaps 10
percent mud and we would no longer have the ability to get
clean. We would no longer have the ability to help keep our
perishable foods cold for another 2 weeks down the river, et
cetera.
We happen to think right now that the condition that we
have below the dam is a preferred condition both in terms of
the richness of the biodiversity of specious, as well as the
colder water, the cleaner water, as more suitable for rafting.
Mr. Doolittle. You do get--when you get far enough down the
river, even now you get into those muddy kinds of conditions;
don't you?
Mr. Elliott. We certainly do, from the inflow from the
Paria River and also, especially this time of year, from the
inflow from the Little Colorado River. But it is one thing to
look out and have a muddy river; it is another thing to dip
your arm into it and pull your arm back and have all of your
hair follicles completely full of silt. That is an entirely
different circumstance.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you know, prior to the time the dam was
built, how many people floated down that stretch of the river
from, I guess from Lee's Ferry down?
Mr. Elliott. It could be measured in terms of the hundreds
as opposed to the tens of thousands. The critical year is about
1968, 1969, where if you look at a curve of all of the use, it
was about 1968 or 1969 where as many people went through the
canyon--I think it was about 3,000 people in 1969--as had gone
in all of history. That is when the use just skyrocketed, after
1969.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by saying, Mr. Wegner, I certainly acknowledge
your expertise in the field. I suppose in all the world you are
one of the most renowned experts on the Grand Canyon.
I would comment, based on your testimony, that thanks to
the first amendment you don't have to ask us for permission to
study this or to research it, and I hope you will research it
thoroughly and debate it, and I wish you all the best in that.
Mr. Wegner. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. With regard to your comment about developing
more habitat for native species, I encourage you in that effort
as well. I think indeed we have lost some native species. That
is indisputable.
My concern is, how many species will we lose that are not
native that are still productive and useful and have a great
value if we go overboard in trying to restore habitat for
native species? So I would urge you to, in looking for ways to
restore habitat for native species, figure out a way not to
drain Lake Powell.
Mr. Elliott, I want to compliment you. I think your
testimony is some of the most thoughtful we have here and I
think, in terms of rafting the river, going down the river and
taking people down the river, you probably have more expertise
than any witness we have had today.
In that regard, I want to walk you through a series of
questions. I mentioned earlier today, and I put in the record,
this National Geographic issue of July of this year. It has a
discussion of this whole issue, and I want to focus in part on
some comments about the Grand Canyon Trust, and you served on
the board of the Grand Canyon Trust, but I also want to focus
on this particular chart which is in the magazine.
As I understand your testimony, it really is much along the
lines of my opening remarks, which is that we don't have the
option of going back; that we have what we have at this point
in time and that the issue isn't, could we snap our fingers and
have Lake Powell never have been constructed but rather what
can we do now?
I want to just ask you if you have seen this magazine?
Mr. Elliott. No, I haven't.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. Maybe I can get somebody to bring it to
you.
It shows, on the page that I have it open to, a very
verdant and vibrant ecosystem in the river now, which in fact
supports, albeit different but from what is shown there, more
habitat, more wildlife, more plant life than prior to the dam.
Is that your understanding of the facts?
Mr. Elliott. That is my understanding of the facts. That is
my understanding from talking with scientists, most recently a
Larry Stevens in Flagstaff, for a couple of hours last week,
who is a foremost biologist having studied the riparian habitat
downstream from the dam. It is also my observations from just
antidotally.
Mr. Shadegg. I think the point made in your testimony is
well taken and that is, you know, one can argue whether it is
better or worse but in point of fact there is more animal and
plant life and wildlife now than then, albeit different.
To go to Mr. Wegner's point, it seems to me, if the
question is, well, we want to restore the entire Grand Canyon
to its, quote/unquote, natural state, if you then posit the
only way to do that is to remove Glen Canyon Dam or the lake,
it is hard to argue that point; isn't it?
It is pretty hard to make the point that you can't restore
it to its pre-lake condition without absolutely removing the
dam or at least allowing the water to completely flow around
it, correct?
Mr. Elliott. Not in Glen Canyon. But are you speaking of
Glen Canyon now or the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Shadegg. I am sorry, the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Elliott. OK.
Mr. Shadegg. In the stretch below the dam, where we now
have apparently a more verdant habitat, we could hardly restore
that if we didn't do what the Lake Powell Institute advocates?
Mr. Elliott. We get into a debate of whether--of kind of a
values debate, is the natural condition preferred over the
managed ecosystem that we have today?
We could certainly attempt to restore the natural condition
in the Grand Canyon by letting the sediments flow through.
Mr. Shadegg. Good point.
Mr. Elliott. And we could perhaps get to that condition. It
may or may not bring back the endangered fish species, for
example, but certainly the spring floods that would be allowed
in a run-of-the-river scenario through the dam would again
flood the banks, would wipe out a great deal of the vegetation
which supports the enrichment of the species' diversity today.
Mr. Shadegg. We could also try to raise the temperature
perhaps by drawing water into the turbines at a higher level or
something along that line; could we not?
Mr. Elliott. We can do that.
One of the factors that has caused the enrichment of the
biodiversity is the clarity of the water. Light is allowed to
penetrate through to the bottom of the river. It supports a
plant called cladophera, which in turn supports a tiny little
invertebrate, which in turn, supports the food chain right on
up the ladder. There is a new abundance in waterfowl. In turn,
the peregrine falcon feed on the waterfowl that represents
about 80 percent of their diet, et cetera.
So we have a--all starting with clear water and sunlight
penetrating through to the bottom of the river, we have a much
richer species diversity in that area now. If we return to the
sediments, that could theoretically help the--could help the
beaches, could help even some of the camping areas. But we
would return to less--very likely I think we would return to a
reduced biodiversity and species.
Mr. Shadegg. If I could request 2 additional minutes? I
will be brief.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Shadegg. I just want to make a couple more quick
points. I know you are on the board of the Grand Canyon Trust
which is concerned about the ecological health of the Grand
Canyon.
Your testimony raises in the most serious way the question
of the heavy metals and contamination in the sediment on the
bottom of the lake. I just want to point out that in this
National Geographic article, Jeff Bernard, President at least
at that time of the Grand Canyon Trust, says, draining Lake
Powell could also be dan-
gerous. I quote, I think it is important to stake out a vision
of a free flowing Colorado River but there are many problems
right now.
He does, in fact, go on to address the sediment and the
heavy metals and contaminants in that sediment.
To your knowledge--I know the Grand Canyon Trust has not
taken a position on this issue. To your knowledge, has the
Grand Canyon Trust studied the issue of airborne contaminants
were we to drain the lake?
Mr. Elliott. No, they have not. And the--this whole issue
has not been debated at the board level. And it is correct, I
sit on the board of trustees of the Grand Canyon Trust. They
have begun the evaluation in staff discussions to look at it,
and I think it is safe to say in terms of the Grand Canyon
Trust that they believe very strongly in the science and they
would want to look at any scientific evidence that would
support the viability of this proposal. They do not have a
position at this time.
Mr. Shadegg. I certainly am not a scientist or an expert,
and I don't know the answer but I do know that what little
research--what research we have been able to do in the short
time for preparing for this hearing gives us concern which I
have adverted to having to do with experience of Owens Lake and
the dust which rises off of it.
Poor Mr. Wegner is dying to make a comment. I hope you will
look at this issue, but let me afford you to make that comment
briefly.
Mr. Wegner. Well, we have, and that whole issue with the
sediments is extremely important because we realize the high
concentrations of mercury and selenium and a whole bunch of
other heavy metals suites that are there. The issue here is--
and specifically would be dealt with in the EA--is that as you
would draw down the lake, you would start to mobilize those
sediments and move them slowly downstream in the manner that
the ecosystem could deal with.
We do not and will not propose to leave a whole expanse of
drying out sediments there that would become airborne. I am
very familiar with Owens Lake and all the issues in Kesterson.
Mr. Shadegg. Let me just conclude by turning to Mr. Hunter.
This whole issue of conservation, I personally believe that
conservation is a little bit like the Congress saying we are
going to save money. We talk about saving money through waste
reduction and we never quite do it. It seems to me that if we
can do conservation, we ought to be doing the conservation to
avoid building future coal-fired or other power plants.
But I want to make the point about peaking. It seems to me
that hydropower is uniquely suited to peaking. Peaking means
that we use power at different levels at different times of the
day; is that right?
Mr. Hunter. That is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. So if you were to conserve peaking power, what
you really have to do is say to the people of Phoenix or Yuma
or Los Angeles or San Diego, we have this idea; we are going to
save peaking power, which means that during the 30 hottest days
of the summer, when we need that peaking power, since we no
longer have it, we don't want you to run your air conditioning
from 4 p.m. to, say, 7 p.m., the hottest hours of the day.
Pretty realistic?
Mr. Hunter. You are absolutely correct. The only way to
conserve peaking load would be to dramatically change behavior.
Mr. Shadegg. I don't know how we are going to get the earth
to make it not hotter between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. than it is,
say, between 4 a.m. and 7 a.m.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Shadegg.
It has been a very interesting hearing. I appreciate the
patience of all of you.
Mr. Werbach, you know, if I was head of the Sierra Club, I
think I would find a dam that didn't have so much multiple use
to it. You have heard all of the things that this dam has.
Have you ever thought of Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite? Now, I
could probably go along with that one. I think that probably
has some real clout to it.
Of course, you would have 52 Members of the House and 2
from the Senate and the administration, because they are very
interested in the political votes there as we saw on something
called the Air Logistic Center of McClellan where they violated
the law, but Hetch Hetchy, in my mind, would probably be a--I
mean, right there in the beautiful Yosemite National Park. I
say that somewhat tongue in check, but I still think it was one
that the Sierra Club ought to give peripheral thought about.
You may find one of great interest there.
You know what, the proposal you have brought up is so
critical to the entire southwest part of America, I mean, you
have got the Upper and Lower Basin States, this is of utmost
importance, and I think we could all see it here today, how it
would affect so many, many, literally millions and millions, of
people. So we would hope that you would look at it in a very
critical way and be very careful on what you propose.
Of course, I don't give you folks instructions. You are
perfectly capable of doing that, and you have a perfect right
to come up with any proposal you have a bent to do.
I noticed that you were on the South Rim of the Grand
Canyon in September 1996 when President Clinton made 1.7
million acres of Utah a monument.
You know, I don't mean to differ with you but respectfully
point out that if I have ever seen anybody shoot themselves in
the foot, the environmentalists did it at that point, as we
have researched that exhaustively. You used the 1916 antiquity
law and therefore extinguished wilderness that would come under
NEPA, come under the 1964 Wilderness Act, the FLIPMA act, and
now it is wide open. And people are coming in there by the
hundreds and they are colloquially referring to it now as
``toilet paper city.'' You know, if the President had worked
with us on that we could have put in Fifty Mile Ridge and a few
other areas and come up with a good piece of legislation.
And when you were there, I noticed that you spent some time
with--not that I would want to tell you what you did, but some
time with Vice President Gore and President Clinton. Are they--
do they have any interest in this proposal to drain Lake Powell
or was that something not considered?
Mr. Werbach. We have not raised it with the administration.
Mr. Hansen. I see. I would be curious to know where they
are coming from.
Well, not to elaborate on things such as that, we will
thank the witnesses. And, Mr. Werbach, we appreciate your
patience for coming here and thank you for sitting through
three panels. That is very kind of you.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a Senator in Congresss from the State
of Utah
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit my
views to your Subcommittee on the recent proposal to drain Lake
Powell and to decommission the Glen Canyon Dam.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, this proposal would
wreak havoc--environmental as well as economic--in the region.
Even if we excluded from the argument the needs of people in
the region, such as water, energy, and recreation, it would
still be a terrible idea, based solely on the harm it would
cause to the environment.
Whatever the ostensible benefits to the environment that
could come from draining Lake Powell, they would surely be
overpowered by the greater harm this proposal would cause. As
it is currently managed, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the
world's finest recreation and wildlife areas. As an ecosystem,
the canyon has vastly improved since the days before the dam.
We all know the reasons the Glen Canyon Dam was proposed
and built. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Utah is the second driest
state in the Union; during dry years, there is simply not
enough water in the Colorado River to meet our water needs and
the needs of the other Colorado River Basin states.
By building the Glen Canyon Dam, we not only secured the
necessary water during dry periods for all the basin states,
but we created a world-class recreation area and an
inexpensive, renewable, and clean source of energy. Revenue
from the energy production pays back the cost of building the
dam with interest and has helped to provide infrastructure to
provide electricity to rural areas. There is no doubt, Mr.
Chairman, that building the Glen Canyon Dam has made an impact
on the lower Colorado River and on the riparian area within the
Grand Canyon. But it is important to understand the delicate
balance that is found in the Grand Canyon today, and how
today's balance compares to the predam condition of the area.
Before the dam was built, the Colorado River would send
gigantic torrents of water through the canyons in the spring.
The high flows would leave the area devoid of vegetation and
create immense beaches in its wake. In the winter months, the
river would subside to a tiny flow. Because the beaches were
reformed and redeposited each year, very little wildlife lived
in the canyons before the dam. Even if the wildlife could have
survived the floods, the lack of vegetation made it difficult
to exist. Before the dam, the water was even siltier than
today. The excess silt blocked out the sun, so that underwater
vegetation was scarce, if it existed at all. Food was hard to
come by for underwater life in the predam era.
When the dam was built, new ecological benefits arose. The
clearer water allowed for underwater vegetation to thrive below
the dam and in shallow areas. This vegetation now breaks off,
feeding underwater life for hundreds of miles. This has helped
to create a world-class trout fishery in the river. In
addition, the beaches have begun producing rich and diverse
vegetation. This has attracted many species of wildlife that
had previously not existed. The increase in trout and
vegetation has attracted bald eagles, herons, ducks, and many
other species of birds--some of which are endangered. In fact,
the postdam lower Colorado River now hosts more peregrine
falcons than anywhere else in the lower forty-eight states.
This would not be possible without the stability and vegetation
the dam provides for the area. Besides birds and fish, the dam
has made the area a favorite of bighorn sheep and other big
game.
During the early years of the dam, the water level of the
Colorado would go up and down as society's energy needs peaked
and fell throughout the day. The steady rise and fall of the
river slowly ate away at the beaches. This was problematic on a
number of counts. As the beaches shrunk there were fewer back
eddies which provided calm shallow areas. These mini marshes
were critical to the new insect and amphibious life that had
come since the dam was built. The back shallow back eddies were
also important spawning grounds for the endangered humpback
chub. The fluctuating flows also became the bane of boaters,
who would find their camps occasionally flooded or their boats
stranded on dry land as the water receded.
Most criticisms of the dam revolve around the fluctuating
flows. Yet, this problem has already been fixed. In 1982, the
Departmnet of the Interior instituted controls that keep the
wide variability out of the flows from the dam. Boaters are no
longer stranded, and the erosion of the beaches has been kept
to a minimum. Controlled flooding has also been instituted
which periodically builds the beaches back up.
However, if the river were restored to its predam state
much would be lost for the environment and for the boaters who
float down the Grand Canyon. In addition, fewer people could
enjoy the experience because the boating season would be cut
back sharply due to the low winter flows and the unnavigable
spring flows.
Needless to say without the dam we would lose Lake Powell.
I consider Lake Powell to be a national treasure. I think any
member of this Committee would be hard-pressed to find 2,000
miles of shoreline that are more beautiful. As the second
largest man-made lake in the United States, it attracts over 2
million recreationists every year. Mr. Chairman, Lake Powell is
as important to Utahns as the Atlantic beaches are to
easterners as a therapeutic getaway. I haven't heard anyone
suggest closing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to improve the
environment on the Delmarva peninsula. Yet, that idea would be
analogous to draining Lake Powell and, of course, equally as
ridiculous.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to
express my views on this issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5584.058