# Action item: There will NOT be a High Flow Experiment this Fall to restore Grand Canyon beaches.



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

This came across my desk this morning as I'm a member of GCRG, thought it worthy of sharing with the Buzz. 


*Hello Grand Canyon Stewards and Advocates!

There will NOT be a High Flow Experiment this Fall to restore Grand Canyon beaches. First a few salient facts:

Fact:* High Flow Experiments (HFE) are intended to occur frequently to maintain and improve beaches, sandbars, and associated habitats.

*Fact:* The last High Flow Experiment conducted in Grand Canyon was in 2018.

*Fact:* Beaches in Grand Canyon were further eroded by extreme monsoonal events in 2021.

*Fact:* This season, well over a million metric tons of sediment was deposited into the Colorado River by the Paria, a tributary downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, exceeding the trigger for a potential HFE. This is perhaps the second largest sediment contribution since they've been keeping records. 

*Fact*: HFE's do not affect the total volume of water released in a given Water Year.

*Fact:* Yet, despite all this, The Glen Canyon Planning/Implementation Team made the decision to NOT conduct a HFE this fall. 

*Fact*: GCRG and other key stakeholders (tribes, recreational, and environmental stakeholders) were shut out of the decision-making process. 

How could this be? You can read more about it in these two articles:

The sand is there, but low water levels halt a controlled flood to restore Grand Canyon beaches. (Arizona Republic)

"Dangerous precedent": Feds say no to controlled flood on Colorado River (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

What are we doing about it? You can also read the joint letter (referenced in the first article above) that disenfranchised stakeholders recently sent to Mr. Wayne Pullan, Secretary's Designee for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, regarding our grave concerns about structural deficiencies in the program in regards to lack of inclusion, transparency, and flexibility. 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 states: _The Secretary shall operate Glen Canyon Dam... in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use." _We care deeply about those values, and we know the American public does too. In this time of prolonged drought and climate crisis, it is more important than ever for ALL stakeholder voices to be heard, valued, and incorporated in the decision-making process. 

Stay tuned as we push for these important structural changes and for a HFE this spring. What are the dam flows in the meantime? You can check out the most recent dam flow report here. 

Thanks for caring about Grand Canyon and the Colorado River over the long term! 


> >End of notice from GCRG<<


The Bureau of wreck the nation is at it again, this arbitrary crap needs to stop, apparently there's no reason for this not to happen other than an arbitrary and capricious decision not to have a HFE.. They care so little about anything other than their precious dam, and the cash register that is the hydroelectric aspect. Destroy an ecosystem they have, and seem not to be content until it's completely ruined. 

Time to get the cards and letters to your elected officials going.. Not sure that any of them really care, but with enough outcry they may actually do something. 

Cheers..


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

They are desperate to prevent the levels at Powell from dropping so low as to prevent power generation. When they did untimely extra releases a few months ago from impoundments above Powell, they lost a huge future buffer against that -- they bet the farm on having at least a decent spring runoff next year. If Flaming Gorge and others don't get replenished next year, and Powell inflow doesn't dramatically improve, the buffer is gone and so may be power generation at GCD later in 2022.

The rest of this posturing. They couldn't afford the optics of releasing "extra" water in a drought. That is notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin.

Of course nobody wants to address the real issue -- continued residential and agricultural growth in a desert region where already stressed water resources are in ever-shorter supply.

Rich Phillips


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

richp said:


> They are desperate to prevent the levels at Powell from dropping so low as to prevent power generation. When they did untimely extra releases a few months ago from impoundments above Powell, they lost a huge future buffer against that -- they bet the farm on having at least a decent spring runoff next year. If Flaming Gorge and others don't get replenished next year, and Powell inflow doesn't dramatically improve, the buffer is gone and so may be power generation at GCD later in 2022.
> 
> The rest of this posturing. They couldn't afford the optics of releasing "extra" water in a drought. That is notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin.
> 
> ...


*Fact*: HFE's do not affect the total volume of water released in a given Water Year. Don't know about this year, but that's what the adaptive management plan prescribes unless my memory fails.


----------



## MtnBuzzed (Aug 6, 2020)

Three cheers for the Bureau Boys and a special rah for Floyd.


----------



## upacreek (Mar 17, 2021)

If these are FACTS, then please by all means make the sources available, esp if only acting as an honest broker. Anytime I read something clearly designed to lead down a primrose path to outrage but employs obfuscate sources of information and journalism predicated on conjecture (muckraking), I have to first wonder whether it's warranted or a manipulation. Here's where critical thinking is a real skill, as otherwise we become just another fist-shaking rube that lazily jumped to a conclusion because it aligned with personal belief. The former allows for being wrong and a didactic changing of ones mind depending on the evidence, whereas the latter allows no room for facts and outright denies anything to the contrary. Let's also not forget the long history of ginned up controversy and astroturf activism in terms of the GC Management either. Therefore inflaming tensions by citing intrinsic and intractable problems of the West among the realities of a changing climate really only leads to entrenched opinions with no acceptable solutions for anyone. But so it goes with politics these days, as well.

From what I took from a cursory perusal of the available info, is this sediment isn't going anywhere fast and the NPS will be continuing dialog to possibly shift this event to the Spring if possible, which is more in sync with phenology regarding how floods naturally reset aquatic ecosystem structure/function as well as replenish riparian zones with nutrients. Actually I think it would be pretty cool to see a comparative HFE done at a different time to test their hypotheses as well as observe any deviation from prior observations, because that's what science really is...and not just some static prop for stakeholders to hold up when it suits them. But you know, since _a lot of people are saying_...something must be true and credible, right?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

MNichols, I allude to that later down in my comments.

"...notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin."

Perhaps too nebulous for your finely tuned engineering mind...

Rich


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

upacreek said:


> If these are FACTS, then please by all means make the sources available. Anytime I read something clearly designed to lead readers down a primrose path to outrage but employs obfuscate sources of information and journalism predicated on conjecture (muckraking), I have to first wonder whether it's warranted or a manipulation. Here's where critical thinking is a real skill, as otherwise we become just another fist-shaking rube that lazily jumped to a conclusion because it aligned with personal belief. The former allows for being wrong and a didactic changing of ones mind depending on the evidence, whereas the latter allows no room for facts and outright denies anything to the contrary. Let's also not forget the long history of ginned up controversy and astroturf activism in terms of the GC Management either. Therefore inflaming tensions by citing intrinsic and intractable problems of the West among the realities of a changing climate really only leads to entrenched opinions with no acceptable solutions for anyone. But so it goes with politics these days, as well.
> 
> From what I took from a cursory perusal of the available info, is this sediment isn't going anywhere and the NPS will be continuing dialog to possibly shift this event to the Spring if possible, which actually is more in sync with how floods naturally reset aquatic ecosystem structure/function as well as replenish riparian zones with nutrients. Actually I think it would be a cool to see a comparative HFE done at a different time to test their hypotheses as well as observe any deviation from prior observations, because that's what science really is...and not just some static prop for stakeholders to hold up when it suits them.


The sources are readily available, the LTEMP, the Adaptive management plan and the FEIS are ALL available online, all one has to do is search for them and you can read to your hearts content. Unfortunately, they don't lend themselves to your "cursory perusal" method of reading, to truly understand what they contain. I've at one point or the other read them all, and actually when I was on the board of GCPBA had input to the FEIS with that orginization. 

I do agree the the HFE's should be held at differing times of the year to gauge what would be more effective, however as I remember, it would interfere with the fish spawning season, and a couple more things that were I to spend a couple hours researching it, I would likely remember, but at this point in time I do not recall specifics past the fish spawning issue. 

This article was more about the issuing of an edict to again, not do a HFE, without any input from any of the stakeholder groups, which as a private boater you are one of those said groups. An arbitrary and capricious decision was made based on nothing that's been made public past the decision not to have one, just a statement that the powers that be at Bureau of wreck the nation said so. 

While this sort of decision has become commonplace in government this year, I and many others feel that it at least should have been circulated to the stakeholders for their opinion, especially as there's not been a HFE of any sort since 2018. Not that this would likely have had any change in the decision made.....

I didn't post it for contentious debate, just as an FYI, and if one felt so inclined they should write to their representatives with their opinions about it. Had I wanted contentious debate, complete with some people's attempt to radically politicize it and argue pointless statements ad infinitum, I would have posted it in the Eddy LOL


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

richp said:


> MNichols, I allude to that later down in my comments.
> 
> "...notwithstanding the fact that there are available means of adequately compensating for a short high flow event, while still maintaining Colorado Compact and other obligations for delivery of a certain volume of water to the lower basin."
> 
> ...


HAHA, yes, I saw that, but as I just noted, for me anyway, and GCRG, the issue is more that nobody asked anyone, they just said, We are God, and we're doing this. Not complying with anything that's been historically agreed and adhered to, enshrined in documents preserved for posterity..


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

This is the beginning of a problem that is far bigger than beaches and one HFE. Until now, management of the Colorado river system has been based on the presumption that we can meet ESA obligations and begin a restorative process with river ecosystems all while maintaining the status quo in regards to water development and hydroelectric generation.

We now have a new paradigm to consider: How do we manage the river for ecosystem functionality and various user groups while that same system of water development and power generation is actively failing?


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I find it rather humorous that the power plant just outside of Page has recently been dismantled.........🐴


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

caverdan said:


> I find it rather humorous that the power plant just outside of Page has recently been dismantled.........🐴


Coal is bad sayeth the gubbermint, makes one wonder what's gonna power them electrical cars they be a pushing 😜


----------



## Bootboy (Aug 25, 2020)

caverdan said:


> I find it rather humorous that the power plant just outside of Page has recently been dismantled.........


I believe that many pieces of it on on their way to China. Out of sight, out of mind.


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

MNichols said:


> Coal is bad sayeth the gubbermint, makes one wonder what's gonna power them electrical cars they be a pushing 😜


"According to an SRP spokesperson, the public power entity is primarily replacing its share of NGS' generating capacity with natural gas from the Mesquite and Gila River power plants as well as some additional new solar resources."









The Navajo Generating Station Coal Plant Officially Powers Down. Will Renewables Replace It?


What does the plant retirement mean for Salt River Project’s energy mix in Arizona – and for clean energy opportunities on Navajo Nation land?




www.greentechmedia.com


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

Bootboy said:


> I believe that many pieces of it on on their way to China. Out of sight, out of mind.


What pieces?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Flows have been all over the place for the last year.... 4k followed by 20k... a week of 8k flat flows...overall low flows compared to a few years ago. If they do the HFE...feels like it would have to hold back water before and/or after to make up for it. THAT doesn't seem very natural to me if the goal is to recreate a natural high water event like spring runoff. I'm not expert on this... one would hope that the people making decisions know what they are doing.

I guess my big question is...what nefarious reason could there be for NOT having an HFE? I get that many of the things that would trigger one happened this year... but its also been a year full of scarily low lake levels, drought conditions and fear over it going to deadpool status so it doesn't FEEL like its some secret government organization trying to get one over on us or something...but just continuing the trend of running the fine line between keeping water in the lake and releasing enough for Lake Mead and lower Colorado users and some ecology mixed in.

All this said... I have a early May launch next year... so I'd be totally stoked if they did a HFE during my trip! That sounds like a lot of fun.


----------



## azpowell (Aug 14, 2014)

MNichols said:


> Coal is bad sayeth the gubbermint, makes one wonder what's gonna power them electrical cars they be a pushing 😜


unicorn farts and happy thoughts dude....


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

The best future for coal power plants is summarized in the photo below. They are bad for the atmosphere, wildlife, rivers, us, our children and the planets future.

I made a lot of money in my youth modeling coal deposits, deposit economics and mine simulations. Coal is nasty shit when you look at its chemical analysis on a day to day basis. Toxic elements best left buried or carbon saved for a day when we find a better use for it than converting it into toxic gases and toxic ash lakes held back by failing dams.

Good buy and good riddance NGS and hopefully all coal power plants. And, in time, all fossil fuels.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I can see them rebuilding the plant when the dam runs out of water........🤔


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

caverdan said:


> I can see them rebuilding the plant when the dam runs out of water........🤔


Plant? The NGS? Extremely likely that the dam will run out of water, despite their best efforts to continue to destroy a resource...

What we need is some nice clean nuclear power!


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

MNichols said:


> What we need is some nice clean nuclear power!


I agree that they need one along the Arkansas River. Somewhere like Howard would be a perfect choice for a nuclear power plant. 😉


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

MNichols said:


> Plant? The NGS? Extremely likely that the dam will run out of water, despite their best efforts to continue to destroy a resource...
> 
> What we need is some nice clean nuclear power!


Yes, the resource you speak of being destroyed is our planet.

Page would be a great place to build a new generation nuclear power plant. The transmission lines are already in place. (And, we can mine the uranium a short distance away on the rim of the Grand Canyon.)

The Arkansas River Valley would be another excellent location for a nuc plant. It is centrally located to many urban centers and could serve Albuquerque, the front range and the west slope. At night it could power the pump storage of the Mt Elbert Hydroplant.

I'm actually in favor of a new generation of nuclear reactors. We still have to figure out what to do with spent fuel that no one wants in their back yard. Not even the Nevadans.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

caverdan said:


> I agree that they need one along the Arkansas River. Somewhere like Howard would be a perfect choice for a nuclear power plant. 😉


Bring it on, I am certainly not an NIMBY


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

They are still in development...but a few Small Modular Nuclear reactors to replace or supplement some of these dams sounds like a nice way to go. Small enough for a small town, or do a bunch of them for a city. Self contained, not enough material to melt down or have the problems that a large facility might have...and when their usable life is over the plant itself acts as its own long term storage container.

I personally would much prefer a Nuclear plant nearby over a Coal Plant. Current version of Nuclear are hugely expensive, take a long time to build, and have some serious downsides. The SMNR's seem to take a lot of those issues away. Basically the same idea as what would power an Aircraft Carrier but in modular form that could be built at a factory and transported to where they are needed and installed rather then having a decade long construction process like traditional large nuclear facilities are.


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I guess my big question is...what nefarious reason could there be for NOT having an HFE? I get that many of the things that would trigger one happened this year... but its also been a year full of scarily low lake levels, drought conditions and fear over it going to deadpool status so it doesn't FEEL like its some secret government organization trying to get one over on us or something...but just continuing the trend of running the fine line between keeping water in the lake and releasing enough for Lake Mead and lower Colorado users and some ecology mixed in.


I can't say for sure what the reasoning behind this was, but HFE's cost money. The water can be made up for by reducing flows later on, but WAPA loses hydroelectric revenue even if the HFE stays within powerplant capacity because it means they have to sell the power at a lower rate. WAPA has contractual obligations to provide power and with these low reservoir levels and lack of water, they have to buy power from other sources to meet those obligations. Combine that with high electricity costs in California, and CRSP is either running in the red or darn close to it. They have already basically cut off the environmental programs from their share of hydropower funds, but the infrastructure bill that just got sent to Biden seems to have covered things for a few more years.

Bad things are going to happen soon and we need to be ready for it if we want things like functioning ecosystems and recreational use to endure.


----------



## azpowell (Aug 14, 2014)

SMR's are definitely the ticket for maintaining base load power and stabilizing the grid (frequency and VARS). we are currently seeing a need for rapid expansion in fast acting peaker units (simple cycle) to catch the load during the morning and evening when solar is either coming in or going out. large dams also have the ability to catch this load with their fast ramp rates and multiple generators per dam. I dont see coal coming back into the picture even with its ability to store a years worth of fuel on site. our grid is heavily reliant on our weak gas infrastructure, and with rapidly rising fuel costs I would prepare for rapidly rising energy costs.
the HFE seems to move alot of sand around down there, and enjoying the beaches it creates is amazing. its going to suck when our monthly electricity bill is about the cost of a 2 week grand trip, it will definitely close off a lot of these places to folks on fixed incomes and in lower income brackets. the BOR should keep every bit of water they can behind the dam because its all stored energy at this point, the dam can not spin the generators with the water coming out of the hollow jets. not sure if they participate in any of the markets that sell into California in the summer but some days its upwards of $500 per MW/hr in certain markets, its not uncommon to see $1000 during heatwaves and fires. a few days of hollow jet use equals a few days of reserve power when it could be needed. not to mention the public outcry that would absolutely follow a HFE with record low lake levels.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

azpowell said:


> not to mention the public outcry that would absolutely follow a HFE with record low lake levels.


Very few in my estimation that aren't boaters or environmentalists would have any idea that a HFE happened or not, let alone be outraged by it. The fact that they buried their arbitrary decision and kept it out of the media... Well... Most folks are content to live with their heads in the sand and take what's dished out when it comes to dam operations they know nothing about, and the BuRec keeps things quiet and under cover as much as they can. I've seen absolutely nothing about an HFE either happening or not in the media, who is too busy lauding the wonderful job the current administration is doing (barf, choke, repeat) Most I know who have built their McMansions and sprawling cities in the desert are still watering their golfin pastures, still filling their swimming pools, and will until they are forced by mandate to stop, while the farmers and ranchers are taking it in the ass.. But I digress.

It chaps my ass in a royal way that the ecosystem in GC suffers simply cause WAPA (which can kiss my ass as well) wants to make money, contractual obligations or not. Shouldn't have entered into a contract you knew there was a possibility you couldn't keep.. See "Colorado River Compact" as a perfect example of this short sighted thinking.. As long as they keep cutting generation in places that CAN generate electricity, and halfheartedly rely on things like solar and wind, which as you pointed out do nothing in the way of load balancing due to their fluctuating levels of contribution to the grid, well Houston, we have a problem. 

There's not one compelling argument that I've heard why the ecosystem can't be maintained at the expense of revenue generation for WAPA. Sorry, I know it's an unrealistic expectation in this day and time, but it's the way I feel. It's mine, and many other's beliefs that the level in Powell will drop to dead pool eventually, if not year after next as they predict, then the year after that unless the weather patterns NOAA and NCAR predict change significantly, and when that happens there won't be any water to conduct a HFE, OR generate power for that matter. What happens then. Dry up GC to save what little inflow occurs in the hopes that they can run the turbines a little? Kill the fish and other indigenous residents of the canyon, bankrupt multiple businesses and shut off access to the boaters cause there's no water ? I'll bet there's a distinct possibility that this has been discussed by the powers that be who are enriched by the damn dam. Destroy an irreplacable national treasure all in the name of money and power generation to serve the air conditioned populace that inhabited the desert. Yep, it's been discussed, I'll bet money on it.

In MY opinion it {HFE} should happen while it can, before the resource suffers any further damage. Mandated HFE's hasn't happened since 2018, so there's 2 years of wear, tear and degradation to mitigate.. The material to rebuild the beaches is there, and will likely lessen with the tides caused my "normal" dam operations to some extent.. Not a Hydrologist by any means, but it makes sense to my little engineering mind, from a total self serving viewpoint. I actually care about GC... Always have.. Likely will to my grave..

Sorry, just venting.. But it's quite piss offing to me.


----------



## azpowell (Aug 14, 2014)

I think you underestimate the optics to the general public of what a HFE with current lake levels would look like... my points about WAPA and BOR in regards to energy production is not me advocating for anything just to be perfectly clear. Im More looking at it from an energy regulator POV... my understanding is that there is a solid chance they will lose the ability to generate electricity late next summer with current projections.... to replace GCD capacity at even $250/mwh on the wholesale market would cost $8,000,000 a day (that is a very high price compared to current costs but could reflect summer wholesale prices with the continued lose of generation resources, coal, hydro and the expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure do to rising fuel costs) Carry this cost out over a month and you can see where this would go.

GCD power plant capacity is about equal to 1 unit at Palo Verde Generation Station (nuclear-powered) or 1.75 of the units at Navajo Generating Station... as you can imagine 3600MW (1320 GCD, 2265 NGS)of electricity going offline will definitely have a huge impact on electrical rates and reliability/stability. Further up the thread someone had mentioned how srp had replaced "its " share of NGS with Gila and Mesquite, it should be noted that both plants were constructed in the early 2000's and were operating already. The loss of NGS as a Generating resource is still felt in the summer, and if GCD goes it really leads down an ugly path for the southwest grid

if they do a HFE, I'm advocating for second week in June for completely selfish reasons...


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm advocating for the first 3 weeks of April myself, but,..

Not sure I am underestimating the optics (love that phrasing BTW). If this were happening back in the 70's or 80's, where folks cared about what the country was doing, and the environment was supported more by grass roots types, than the large "We know what's best for you and the environment" orgs such as Sierra Club, think Martin Litton (RIP) flying in his airplane to speak, Edward Abbey (RIP) et al, I think my views would change, but today, it'd be swept under the rug, 15 second snippet on CNN / MSNBC etc if at all.

Perhaps I have a narrower view of the situation, and am more idealistic than many...

In essence Grand Canyon is being sold by WAPA and Burec for 8,000,000 a day give or take.. Again, I don't think the sheeple have any ideal this is happening either, to look at the other side of the coin. All very hush hush, as is demonstrated by the arbitrary decision to again, not hold a HFE... A few stakeholders with vested interests found out about it, but nothing past that and one media article from of all places Las Vegas..

Long read, but I found it interesting, and it made me wonder again for the 100th time why someone hasn't proposed putting a Nuke plant at NGS.





Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association


Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Nuclear fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater.




world-nuclear.org





Thanks for your perspective on this as an energy regulator, you've caused me to think in directions I wouldn't normally have gone.

Back on subject though, I found this article,








‘Dangerous precedent’: Feds say no to controlled flood on Colorado River


A controlled flood that repairs beaches in the Grand Canyon won’t happen this year as federal officials grapple with the ongoing effects of drought on the Colorado River.




www.reviewjournal.com





John Weisheit, a Colorado River guide and longtime advocate, said there’s no reason not to conduct the flow release this fall. He said the releases don’t mean hydropower production will cease.
“Here’s what it means,” he said. “Grand Canyon is not important. Our bottom line budget is more important than the Grand Canyon.”

With a nod to "upacreek":

The entire article is a good read. It's the ONLY article I was able to find, past the BuRec's typical "glossed over" news release, where they admit that it's contrary to the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision. (LTEMP). The LTEMP was developed by the Department of the Interior through a public process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and is based on the best available scientific information developed through the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and other sources of relevant information.






Glen Canyon Dam High Flow Experimental Release | Upper Colorado Region | Bureau of Reclamation


Bureau of Reclamation - Managing water and power in the West




www.usbr.gov





So, they violate a Record of Decision, created by a NEPA process which was developed thru over 20 years of scientific research and analysis conducted under the GC Adaptive management plan, despite the BuRec's admission that the HFE will not impact the total annual amount of water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead in the water year.

Furthermore,
The decision-making process outlined for HFEs in LTEMP consists of three components: 

Planning and budgeting – to prepare for high flow experimental release, ensure funds are available, and determine if resource conditions are appropriate. The resource conditions evaluated include: 
Sediment Resources
Cultural Resources including archaeological site condition and stability and tribal access
Biological Resources including endangered species, the Lees Ferry recreational fishery, and riparian vegetation
Hydropower and water delivery

Hydrology and sand budget modeling – to evaluate the available volume of water and sand primarily delivered by the Paria River, and determine the magnitude and duration of a potential HFE.
Decision and implementation – Scientists and resource managers make a recommendation to the Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science based on the suitability of the hydrology, sediment, and other resource conditions.
Hmmm, not a whole lot in the LTEMP about revenue generation, but BuRec does include this little snippet about your concerns as an energy regulator in it's FAQ's..

During a high flow release, water goes through both the hydropower units (turbines) and through the bypass tubes. Some water generates power and some water bypasses the power generation. During an HFE, additional power is produced, but later in the year the water that was bypassed is not available to generate power. As a result, additional power will need to be purchased at that time from other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, or renewable energy. The LTEMP HFE decision making process includes appropriate review and planning for all resources, including coordination with the Western Area Power Administration on specific changes to power generation associated with each HFE to ensure a steady supply of power...

From MY perspective in the current day and era, Our current administration is trying to spend upwards of 5 TRILLION dollars on completely pork based social programs in an effort to move the country one step further toward socialism, but spending 112 million to preserve the national treasure Grand Canyon, and violating both NEPA and an ROD to do so is acceptable..

Wow.. Turns my stomach


----------



## Teddy Brewsevelt (Jan 29, 2015)

HFEs only do so much to offset the complete reconstruction of the Canyon ecosystem from warm-turbid-seasonal to cold-clear-stable conditions. The high flows move sediment, but they don't reverse our fundamental alteration of the Canyon's aquatic environment, and thus don't offer a long-term benefit for restoring native species or historic ecosystem function. Native fish need a host of environmental changes to recover including return to a natural Spring-runoff discharge cycle, warmer and more turbid temperatures, and system-wide riverine connectivity (proposed as a major problem for long-migrating Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow). The HFEs don't address these problems. The biggest benefit seems to be restoring beaches for boaters along the river corridor. While that's a real tangible benefit for the limited boaters lucky or wealthy enough to run the Grand and provide short-term ecological fixes, it does little to address the systemic conservation issues in the Canyon. Weighing all this uncertainty with the very real and clear legal and financial problems caused by shorting water users in the Colorado River Basin, BOR seems to be making a rational choice.


----------



## B4otter (Apr 20, 2009)

Been running the Ditch since 1970, perspective based on about 50 trips since 1981 (my first private). HFE's effects are EXTREMELY transitory/short-lived. I've twice seen "restored" beaches gone the next time visited... And I mean on two subsequent trips, not two beaches.

WAPA is NOT a creature that can be attributed to one particular Administration (read its formative history/Congressional "mandate"). And BuWreck does not turn on a dime based on current Administration. No HFE's since 2018 means 3 X under previous "Administration" and this one you can attribute to current - if so inclined. 

As for 5 TRILLION DOLLARS "Socialist" spending." Nonsense. The Infrastructure bill just passed comes in less than 1.7 TRILLION over 10 years - less than wasted on Afghanistan and Iraq, if you want to keep honest score. I doubt - and regret - that the social programs proposed in the now-pared down "Build Back Better" bill not yet passed will not come to fruition, but they total WAY less than 2 TRILLION in any event. 1.7 + 2.0 = 3.7 at the most, likely a lot less. Any reliable estimate of the 2017 tax cut is right in that neighborhood. You have any more money in your paycheck because of it?

The Grand is a channelized ditch, has been since the 90's early/2000's. It's a great trip, but anyone who runs it and thinks high teens/low 20's are "big water" has my sympathies. And fluctuations between 6k and 15k are in no way comparable to the "olden times" tides when I went to sleep with bowline around my ankle... Back to my original point, echoing T Brewsevelt above: HFE's are overblown "solutions" that do nothing to affect even in the short-term. Nice if you catch one within a few weeks of your launch, otherwise... BS.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Teddy Brewsevelt said:


> Weighing all this uncertainty with the very real and clear legal and financial problems caused by shorting water users in the Colorado River Basin, BOR seems to be making a rational choice.


The HFE's aren't shorting water users at all, just moving the water from one evaporitive impoundment to another.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

B4otter said:


> Been running the Ditch since 1970, perspective based on about 50 trips since 1981 (my first private). HFE's effects are EXTREMELY transitory/short-lived. I've twice seen "restored" beaches gone the next time visited... And I mean on two subsequent trips, not two beaches.


Well, others seem to disagree with that, and given that your observations are short of empirical evidence, well.

From the AZcentral article I'm posting below
Controlled floods, officially known as high-flow experiments, are no cure for what ails the Grand Canyon. They temporarily restore beaches, which are then eroded over time by flows that fluctuate to meet water and power demands. Only the next flood can keep them from eroding to critically low levels.
Today, with no flood since 2018, the sandbars and beaches are as low as they’ve been in a decade, and are projected to decline another 10% before next year’s rafting season. Had the government scheduled a 192-hour flood, the beaches were projected to grow by 75%, and to remain 50% larger after winter erosion.



B4otter said:


> The Grand is a channelized ditch, has been since the 90's early/2000's. It's a great trip, but anyone who runs it and thinks high teens/low 20's are "big water" has my sympathies. And fluctuations between 6k and 15k are in no way comparable to the "olden times" tides when I went to sleep with bowline around my ankle...


On this I agree, but the occasional 40K release, that's a horse of a different color. Just wish I had been there to experience it.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

B4otter said:


> As for 5 TRILLION DOLLARS "Socialist" spending." Nonsense.


Really Really Really don't want to turn this into a political discussion that belongs in the Eddy where folks can debate GeoRon's nonsense until hell freezes over. 
Check the media, and no, I don't mean CNN and MSNBC, if they pass both bills, the total in real dollars, not what you're told, will exceed 5 trillion. Granted over 10 years give or take a couple Billion. The government, more now days, wants to put forth their "creative accounting numbers" than actually deal with the real costs of some of their pork filled spending.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

It would seem that it's hitting the media, slowly but surely. Back on topic..

https://gizmodo.com/its-time-to-drain-lake-powell-1848003413

If Dominy had tried to build Glen Canyon Dam today, it would be dead in the water. Not only would it be illogical from a water governance standpoint, it’s unlikely that it would get through the environmental review process now required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. The mad dam-building of the last century has given way to an era of dam-unbuilding, with most of the nation’s more than 1,200 dams dismantled in the past two decades and significant removals scheduled.

The time may finally be coming when this will happen

if it did, we wouldn't see stories like this -

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...water-spare-grand-canyons-beaches/6201263001/

Representatives from several organizations and tribes that participate in the program’s technical work group complained of the decision and their exclusion from the debate. “We were not consulted,” Hopi tribal archaeologist Jakob Maase said. “Consultation needs to happen.”
“It seems as though the Grand Canyon Protection Act was not given much weight,” said Peter Bungart, a cultural resources officer for the Hualapai Tribe.
That law’s mandate for managing the dam in harmony with canyon resources is “clear as mud,” according to University of Utah law professor Robert Adler. It first directs the government to release water in a way that protects and restores the natural and recreational resources for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.
Then it says to do that in a way that’s consistent with the suite of other laws governing the river’s water storage and distribution agreements, laws often in conflict with the canyon’s environmental interests.
“The Grand Canyon Protection Act is a great exercise in circular logic,” Adler said.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

I agree that it should be more then a few people making the decision and that tribal and other organizations that are called out as being part of the working group should definitely be part of the discussions. No matter how you slice it there are MANY different opinions about how this should be done. There really isn't "one right way" to do it...so some compromises need to be made.

I also agree with Justin... the low lake level got a ton of attention this year and I think there is a very real chance for confusion and misinterpretation about doing a high flow event in the same year that they were having to do emergency supplemental releases out of a bunch of different reservoirs upstream. I had a bunch of non-river users who know I am one talk to me about it. Lots of articles and news reports about that. There is no reason I can come up with that those same news sources wouldn't report on the HFE and its hard to say how they'd spin it.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Perhaps fill Mead reservoir first ???? Would at least keep flows in the canyon, and fit in with the mandated HFE event..








It could take at least 500,000 acre-feet of water a year to keep Lake Mead from tanking


If the Lower Basin states agree to keep this much water in Lake Mead this quickly, it would be an amazing feat of regional cooperation.



www.azcentral.com





Food for thought


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I've been enjoying the slow return of Glen Canyon by doing nearly week long sea kayak trips on Lake Powell. I did three last year.

I've been a member of the Glen Canyon Institute and will continue to pay my annual dues. I was very impressed by their sponsorship of the returning rapids project and the Dirty Devil takeout analysis. They have many other projects focused on returning Lake Powell to a river. In October we chatted with members of a GCI team at the Bull Frog ramp. They were heading to the San Juan arm area to document the dropping waters and the return of that arms ecosystem to a river.

Point being, I'm sure they would appreciate the political clout of having as many dues paying members as possible. Of course there are other organizations that deserve our support.

Just putting in a recommendation for how to turn our words into action.






Glen Canyon Institute







www.glencanyon.org


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Caught one High Flow release, 2008? Was awesome for the ride and to see some new/old beaches. But gone very soon after. My impression is that the issue of beach erosion is due to the tidal nature of releases. If the daily fluctuations were replaced by seasonal fluctuations, a high flow release would have a much bigger impact.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

sarahkonamojo said:


> Caught one High Flow release, 2008? Was awesome for the ride and to see some new/old beaches. But gone very soon after. My impression is that the issue of beach erosion is due to the tidal nature of releases. If the daily fluctuations were replaced by seasonal fluctuations, a high flow release would have a much bigger impact.


Unfortunatly, the dam is managed by the amount of revenue it can produce, and the needs of the national electrical grid, with apparently no thought, or at least compelling reason to protect the grand canyon ecosystem. The tides are a direct result of load following, and do unfortunatly undo 50% or more depending on who you talk to, of the HFE's in short time.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

With a nod to Electric Mayhem, this came across my desk this morning. 
A $4B nuclear power plant backed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is set for construction in Wyoming

https://flip.it/TEs2CO

“The Natrium reactor is the future of nuclear energy in America. It makes perfect sense to have it in Wyoming, the energy capital of the United States. Wyoming’s economy will grow from having this groundbreaking technology in our state," U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, said in a statement to USA TODAY. "Our abundant energy sources including coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, and now nuclear power will continue to provide good-paying jobs. Americans across the country will depend on Wyoming energy for decades and decades to come.”

So it looks like it's coming to fruition.


----------



## Bootboy (Aug 25, 2020)

MNichols said:


> With a nod to Electric Mayhem, this came across my desk this morning.
> A $4B nuclear power plant backed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is set for construction in Wyoming
> 
> https://flip.it/TEs2CO
> ...


Fuckin Bill Gates…


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Bootboy said:


> Fuckin Bill Gates…


Indeed, but despite his involvement, this seems like the start to a good thing. Get rid of all them damn windmills in the oceans that are fing up the fisheries..


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

sarahkonamojo said:


> Caught one High Flow release, 2008? Was awesome for the ride and to see some new/old beaches. But gone very soon after. My impression is that the issue of beach erosion is due to the tidal nature of releases. If the daily fluctuations were replaced by seasonal fluctuations, a high flow release would have a much bigger impact.


I was down for the first HFE in the 90's. It was amazing and movement of the sand, the buildup of the beaches and creation of backwater habitat (originally the main purpose for the event) was immediate. Within a season or two all was back to the way it was because of the daily tidal flows.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

It would be interesting to experiment, rather then doing an HFE, to use that water to reduce or eliminate the tides and see if that does as much or more to restore the river. Rather then a big flow event...release water at night to match the daytime flows. I've definitely been at camps where you can watch the beach fall into the water as the water drops.


----------



## B4otter (Apr 20, 2009)

The water released in a 3 day HFE would ameliorate tides for maybe a couple of weeks... then you're back to daily fluctuations. The bottom line problem is that the dam was built to deliver electricity (& control floods, but we can only hope!) and the "on demand" facility has gained importance/prominence as other (renewable) sources proliferate. WPA is a real interesting creature, pretty much not accountable to anyone although the power delivery companies (Salt River Project, Arizona Public Service, the utility in Nevada and the BIG player: southern California) definitely control/influence.

Hydropower's utility (pun intended) will always be its ability to deliver power 24/7. Nuclear has that capability, but (note disclaimer) I remain unconvinced it is economically feasible. The "sodium" reactor touted in postings above is not new, has been known and researched for at least twenty years. Fundamental problems remain cooling (water) and reactor safety (Fukashima). 

Tidal fluctuations were a lot more extreme back when WPA and BuRec were figuring out how to operate the dam to meet fluctuating demand. The grid it serves is WAY antiquated, complicated, and compromised. Until the late 80's or early 90's, that didn't much matter. GCD could always release enought water to spin the turbines and satisfy demand. Eventually population - and air conditioning - became significant. The science was always pretty sound after the mid-80's. But the population growth everywhere in the lower basin exploded. 

TBC... if anyone interested.


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes Hydro power can deliver 24–7 but only as long as there is water which won’t be around for long at this rate. Any type of alternative energy is the only way we are going to survive the future. Bring it on!


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

B4otter said:


> The water released in a 3 day HFE would ameliorate tides for maybe a couple of weeks... then you're back to daily fluctuations. The bottom line problem is that the dam was built to deliver electricity (& control floods, but we can only hope!) and the "on demand" facility has gained importance/prominence as other (renewable) sources proliferate. WPA is a real interesting creature, pretty much not accountable to anyone although the power delivery companies (Salt River Project, Arizona Public Service, the utility in Nevada and the BIG player: southern California) definitely control/influence.
> 
> Hydropower's utility (pun intended) will always be its ability to deliver power 24/7. Nuclear has that capability, but (note disclaimer) I remain unconvinced it is economically feasible. The "sodium" reactor touted in postings above is not new, has been known and researched for at least twenty years. Fundamental problems remain cooling (water) and reactor safety (Fukashima).
> 
> ...



Yeah...I know...that did occur to me as I was writing it. I just think it would be something to try. Might mean having to have lower overall water levels but keep them level. The river runner in me doesn't like it since I got to experience a flat 8k cfs for a week of my last GC trip and it tamed most of the rapids but it might be more ecologically sound. A few of us on the trip speculated whether that flat release was a test to see how it effected the river and that it might become the new normal.

The SMR's that I am most intrigued by are still standard fission reactors with fuel rods and all that...but they claim to be self regulating and would lack sufficient reactive material to have a runaway situation happen like the Fukushima plant. Even the one in that article is bigger then what I personally would advocate for. I'm hardly an expert and just watch Youtube videos and ready general interest articles about that stuff...but it seems like the way forward. I think a combination of small distributed power sources(wind, solar, geothermal and small nuclear facilities) feeding their local community rather then "shipping" electricity all over the place seems more future proof to me.

I'm not gonna say how or where I saw it...but I got to witness some power company executives speak about the future of their company and what they are looking for. They definitely DID NOT support a more distributed approach even though they said with the advent of more and more things becoming electrified over using fossil fuels. They estimated that the grid capacity will likely need to be 10 times the size it is now to support things like electric steel mills (still in development) and other industry, more and more electric powered cars, and lots of other things that are moving to electric power. Crazily enough...they seemed to support Fusion power over the, at least to me, more realistic small form factor fission reactors. I've always heard that "fusion is always 30 years away" but in that room people were saying quoting it as "always 5 or 10 years away". I know there have been some pretty serious developments in magnet tech (one of the keys to fusion) that will purportedly help make a net power gain with the fusion process...but it is still a long long way from being a viable real world power source.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

I have often wondered why large scale solar electricity out in the southwest can't be used to set up massive electrolysis plants. 

The resultant hydrogen and oxygen byproducts can be stored (a limiting factor for solar and wind) then combusted/recombined as needed to generate electricity at night and on cloudy days. This would produce water on combustion that could be re-electrolyzed in a nice tidy loop. 

The hydrogen thus produced also could be piped or shipped to other locations for power generation, fuel cell usage, and even automotive power -- just the way petroleum products are now. 

Yes, there would be massive front end costs, but it's a known, safe technology. And when we contemplate the cost of many, many nuclear plants, the expense of such a system might not be all that bad to consider.

Rich Phillips


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

richp said:


> I have often wondered why large scale solar electricity out in the southwest can't be used to set up massive electrolysis plants.
> 
> The resultant hydrogen and oxygen byproducts can be stored (a limiting factor for solar and wind) then combusted/recombined as needed to generate electricity at night and on cloudy days. This would produce water on combustion that could be re-electrolyzed in a nice tidy loop.
> 
> ...


That's the underlying problem with a lot of today's emerging technology, and efforts to "save" the planet thru "green" stuff. It's expensive. massively so upfront, and so far, doesn't last all that long, like solar and wind. Gives us a nice "feel good" thing deep inside, but does little if nothing to either combat the problem, or create something that's sustainable

Huge upfront costs being spent on "temporary" solutions to the problem, that sorta work. As azpowell points out, their (wind / solar) output is of little consequence to the grid in the big scheme of things, as it's an intermittent output. Perhaps your solution might be something to consider, but likely too costly to ramp up. Nuclear is indeed an answer, and there are others, but most of them, Nuclear included take a massive investment initially, and would decomission the very things that bring the owners revenue, and of course, NIMBYisim plays a huge part as well. Just like the politicians that flew their individual private jets, sucking down huge amounts of fuel, and spewing forth massive contributions of hydrocarbons etc into the atmosphere in order to emphatically state that "The world has GOT to go "green"", they don't want any of this "dangerous" technology in their little corner of the world. 

The fact that the private sector is building them despite the big corporations, knowing about it, and having the means to build them, and doing so is even more threatening. Then as b4otter states, the nations electrical distribution system is already overtaxed in terms of ability to handle the demand, inadequate for the users it serves, and in poor repair, well Houston, we have a problem. The solution so far has been to band aid it and hope it lasts, Ala Texas.

Backtracking a bit, the NIMBY thing is very real. Not to mention America is literally running out of space, and with all the immigration, some legal, most of it illegal, we have to have some place to put these people, along with the upwardly mobile who no longer want to live in the shithole cities and pursue the "American Dream" of 40 acres and a mule. These days, it's 40 acres, a chain link fence topped with razor wire and a McMansion.. I suppose that's one contributing reason we're in the situation we're in to some respect. 

Folks building in the desert, expecting water and other nicety's in life that one wouldn't expect to actually be in the desert to be readily available. Now it's looking more and more like these resources, which were once viewed as infinite, hence the swimming pools, ornate landscaping, and water intensive golfin pastures we see today. So, what happens when it's realized as indeed finite? Well, we strip the water from those that grow our food of course. Makes perfect sense, to the McMansion and Golfin pasture owners. 

WAPA manages their resource damaging infrastructure for nothing other than profit, unwilling to change from the methodology that's served them for many years, simply cause they don't want to mess with the revenue stream that supports their existence, and are unwilling to do anything else to change these problems as again, it'll interfere with their revenue stream. 

Vicious cycle. Not likely to end in my lifetime. One can hope, but so far no real viable solutions. It's easy to identify problems, but it would seem much more difficult to engineer solutions.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> It would be interesting to experiment, rather then doing an HFE, to use that water to reduce or eliminate the tides and see if that does as much or more to restore the river. Rather then a big flow event...release water at night to match the daytime flows. I've definitely been at camps where you can watch the beach fall into the water as the water drops.


Yep, obviously a steady flow, ramping up and down slowly would cause much less erosion. Problem is, WAPA is unlikely to stop the practice, as it's too convienient for them to achieve load balancing. Let's see what happens when the reservoir reaches dead pool, and they have no choice but to let what little water they have flow thru, else finish the job they started of wiping out an entire ecosystem in Grand Canyon in order to fill the damn dam. The load following aspect of a hydro (read cash register) dam would be moot then. I've thought that a prudent entity would already be looking at ways to mitigate this situation, and look to the future, but alas, that's not one of the qualities an entity such as BuWreck or WAPA has.. Totally reactive, no thought to being proactive will ever cross their collective minds IMHO


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Yeah, MNichols, but you are an engineer. Why not submit a grant proposal to Bill Gates' or some other foundation for a relatively self contained residential solar powered hydrogen generation/storage/combustion package, for off peak generation of electricity at the local level? 

You get enough sun there in the Arkansas valley for something like that to save you big bucks on pellets or propane. And if refined into a tidy enough package for folks with enough square footage for panels, it could offload millions of homes from the grid.

In your dreams, you could patent it and become the next Elon Musk, old boy...

Rich


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

richp said:


> Yeah, MNichols, but you are an engineer. Why not submit a grant proposal to Bill Gates' or some other foundation for a relatively self contained residential solar powered hydrogen generation/storage/combustion package, for off peak generation of electricity at the local level?
> 
> You get enough sun there in the Arkansas valley for something like that to save you big bucks on pellets or propane. And if refined into a tidy enough package for folks with enough square footage for panels, it could offload millions of homes from the grid.
> 
> ...


Damn... Ya thinks ? LOLOLOL

Gonna take smarter minds than mine to fix this mess we've gotten ourselves into.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

I've seen mutliple news reports in the last week talking about drought....probably spurred by the distinct lack of precipitation lately... here's one...






long form with interviews...





Seems inevitable that the less knowledgeable, after seeiing reports like this, would kinda freak out if a HFE would go forward this year.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Yep, well now possibly, but the HFE doesn't alter the total amount of water released from Powell Reservoir, Liberal news sources that have now picked up on it like CNN / PBS etc, would likely champion it now days, and select the tidbits of information, commonly known as cherry picking facts, simply to rile folks up, that's true. Had it happened when it was supposed to, nobody would likely have picked up on it, and BOR wouldn't advertise it was happening, as it would be business as usual. 

Precip and snowpack reports are indeed dismal.. Seems they are worse than a month ago for anything south of the upper north USA as far as precip..


----------



## B4otter (Apr 20, 2009)

Just so we all know: only "...Liberal news sources..." cherry-pick their facts...


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

B4otter said:


> Just so we all know: only "...Liberal news sources..." cherry-pick their facts...


Yep, it's the formula to fake news..

EDIT.. The conservative and business websites don't need to do that nearly as much, specifically as to what's happening in the USA, as you simply can't make this shit up.
The other sources are trying to candy coat and cover up what's happening, so it "Doesn't seem that bad".. Newsflash, it IS that bad..









Now back to the regularly scheduled programming LOL


----------



## gnarsify (Oct 5, 2020)

MNichols said:


> Yep, it's the formula to fake news..
> 
> EDIT.. The conservative and business websites don't need to do that nearly as much, specifically as to what's happening in the USA, as you simply can't make this shit up.
> The other sources are trying to candy coat and cover up what's happening, so it "Doesn't seem that bad".. Newsflash, it IS that bad..
> ...


JFC can we not turn every. single. thread. into a liberal vs. conservative argument? It's getting pretty obnoxious. I get it MNichols, you hate Biden, prefer using fossil fuels, deny climate change, and everything you don't agree with is the socialist agenda. You don't need to advertise your lack of nuance every time the words 'climate change' are uttered. And whether liberal news 'lies' or cherry-picks information, I'll just counter with Fox "News".


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Uh huh..




__





Can Media Cover 'Build Back Better' Fairly When It Awards Them Gov Goodies?


The constitutional protections guaranteed in the First Amendment apply to all citizens. Everybody has freedom to practice religion as they see fit and to speak freely. It might come as a surprise to the media establishment and even government legislators that the First Amendment protection for...




 cnsnews.com


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

And on another note more closely related to the original subject









Denver still without snow but climatologists say they’re more concerned by snowpack levels out west


Colorado needs an above-average snowpack year to start recovering from a dry summer this year and last year, Climatologist Becky Bolinger said. Without that snowpack water levels along the parched …




www.denverpost.com


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Feds tighten Colorado River flow at Glen Canyon Dam as ever-shrinking Lake Powell nears critical level


The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced Friday that, over the next four months, it plans to hold back 350,000 acre-feet of water that would normally flow through Grand Canyon into Lake Mead, which is also struggling with a receding shoreline in the face of a stubborn drought.




www.sltrib.com





Hmmmm...


----------



## B4otter (Apr 20, 2009)

“America Is Now in Fascism’s Legal Phase”


Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, writes about the recent revitalization of the long tradit




kottke.org


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

B4otter said:


> “America Is Now in Fascism’s Legal Phase”
> 
> 
> Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, writes about the recent revitalization of the long tradit
> ...


Quote from link:
The fascist movement in the Republican party has turned to critical race theory instead. Fascism feeds off a narrative of supposed national humiliation by...

Really Mike? What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with boating, water or damn dams?

Really? Can we leave your political views out of this discussion? Please?


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

> Really Mike? What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with boating, water or damn dams?
> 
> Really? Can we leave your political views out of this discussion? Please?


That seems pretty ridiculous coming from you, I think we should ban anyone who brings up this shit up from any side or viewpoint. You can't take a hint and stop mentioning who got banned or your viewpoints and then claiming I didn't do anything or that the other side is the only one instigating - its eating up the world these days. So lame, start banning people admins and I would say permanently.

This thread should get deleted as well


----------



## Eagle Mapper (Mar 24, 2008)

MNichols said:


> Quote from link:
> The fascist movement in the Republican party has turned to critical race theory instead. Fascism feeds off a narrative of supposed national humiliation by...
> 
> Really Mike? What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with boating, water or damn dams?
> ...


Kettle this is Pot, Can you please pick up the courtesy phone.


----------

