# GCPBA RiverNews 1/7/2016 - Grand Canyon in Depth: Pipeline on the Precipice



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

*GCPBA RiverNews 1/7/2016 - Grand Canyon in Depth: Pipeline on the Precipice

*The Trans-Canyon Pipeline was built in the late 1960's and supplies all of Grand Canyon National Park's drinking water. From its source at Roaring Springs on the North Rim, water travels 15 miles through an aging pipeline to reach the South Rim of the park. Over the past decade the pipeline has suffered numerous leaks, fissures, and breaks. Full replacement of the TCP is currently estimated at around $150 million.

"Guaranteed water to the South Rim is in peril as long as we have the existing pipeline and infrastructure in place. If we don’t have that, then everybody goes home." Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent, Dave Uberuaga.

During 2015, workers at Phantom Ranch replaced 2,800 ft. of the 15 miles and that cost the park 3.5 million dollars. To replace this part of the pipeline, the contractor had 121,500 pounds of steel pipe flown in. The work required some temporary shutdowns of the drinking water system along corridor trails, and hikers and Phantom Ranch guests experienced noise and dust during the construction.

Multiple breaks along the pipeline in late June 2013 required the closure and evacuation of guests and employees from Phantom Ranch.

A You Tube video below was produced by the National Park Service in association with Bristlecone Media and Grand Canyon Association, the official nonprofit partner of Grand Canyon National Park. Click on this link:

Pipeline on the Precipice - Grand Canyon in Depth, Episode 6

GCPBA RiverNews is a service of Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association.
Join and Support GCPBA. Visit our website www.gcpba.org.
We are on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1424392787831584


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Excellent video.

I wonder why the various commercial firms operating on the South Rim -- who depend on this water -- are not chipping in for a bond issue of some type to fund a new pipeline.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

I went ahead and skimmed the parks services budget for this year. 

Key takeaways:
1. Current Operations and Maintenance Cost for the 2016 year is $5000. This is far short of the $5,081,334 needed for the project
2. If each of the ~ 250,000 year visitors of Phantom Ranch paid $20.33 the project could be financed in one year. If each of the ~5million visitors each paid $1 toward the project it could also be financed in one year. 


Link to FY 2002-2016 Budget's: Budget (U.S. National Park Service)

Also attached screen shots from the 2016 budget which I skimmed. 

Go ahead nerd out on the park service's operations. 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

Rich Phillips,

I did not see the money allocated for the film in the budget I read. That does not mean it is not there.

Also, while the media is reporting the cost at $150million the budget clearly states; $5,081,334. 

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Buckman,

I'm not sure what you mean by "money allocated for the film".

I understood from what the Superintendent said in the video that the 150 million number was for complete replacement of the entire water system/pipeline, which surely would be a multi-year project. The program overview you attach does reference 100 million, which might be the remaining cost after the currently planned phases are complete. I confess, I don't read those kind of documents very well, so I could be way off base. 

However, my point really was that all these commercial activities outside the Park in Tusayan rely on the Park for their existence. It would seem that some kind of special assessment on them could be an option. But I'm a realist, and I'm pretty sure local and state politics would be a barrier to something like that.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

Rich,

Sorry I misread your message I thought firms said films. Anyway, I agree with your thoughts on this issue presented in your posts. 

Thanks, 

~ B


----------

