# Why Filling Lake Mead First is a bad idea - By Sinjin Eberle



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Article by Sinjin Eberle of American Rivers discussing why Glen Canyon Dam shouldn't be removed anytime soon. Shout out to John Fleck for alerting me to this article.



> The Fill Mead First logic reads like this — because Lake Powell is so expansive, covering roughly 250 square miles when full, with highly porous sandstone underlying the lake seemingly seeping millions of gallons of water every year, added to many tons of sediment coming down the river and settling on the bottom of the lake year after year after year; if Lake Powell were drained to a level where it was basically no longer a lake, bypassing Glen Canyon Dam, all that water could be collected in a single, larger pool, in Lake Mead. Lake Powell would shrink back to a figment of itself, like a shriveled earthworm lying on a hot sidewalk, with all its lake water living in Mead. Glen Canyon could then be allowed the process of reviving itself, returning to its majestic and spiritual glory. Billions of gallons of Colorado River water would be saved, and outdoor recreationalists young and old could suddenly bask in the renewed glow of a long-lost lover. This pair of vastly depleted lakes (Mead is not quite 40% full while Powell is holding barely half of its capacity) could be turned into one, topped out, more efficient reservoir.
> 
> The problem is, it’s too soon, and the science doesn’t work out. Not yet.


It's a pretty emotional issue for a lot of us, we all would love to raft the Grand in warm, muddy water, and of course save water. It has always seemed like a no-brainer that Glen Canyon Dam / Lake Powell should go. Recent research says the evaporation loss savings would be a wash, and seepage from Powell is minimal. Then there's the fact the Upper Basin States would need storage and once-coveted damsites on the San Juan, Yampa/Green, Upper Colorado, or Animas could be revived.

Hopefully this will inform the discussions we have here. 

-AH


----------



## yak1 (Jan 28, 2006)

"For Every Complex Problem, There Is an Answer That Is Clear, Simple, and Wrong." H.L. Mencken
Simply undoing what was done will not solve the problem. It may solve one problem but it will manifest itself in a multitude of other issues and problems. That may have been the answer 61 yrs ago but not today.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

That article does pretty much make it look like we are fucked.
It would be really awesome to somehow decrease the need ( or want), for that much water allocation, but that does seem like a near impossible goal, considering current population explosion. A lot could be done to decrease water usage, but could it ever be done to that extent?


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

FYI - some substantial study has been done on diverting water from the Mississippi during annual high flow to the Colorado Basin, and the idea is making some resurgence. I am not arguing this is a good idea, just throwing it out there for people to be aware.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

The general consensus that my river friends and I have come to, is that we wish Glen Canyon dam had never been built, but now that it is here it should stay.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that even if we started the draw down of the lake today, Glen Canyon would take more then a lifetime to come even close to being what it was before the lake. I doubt it would even be safe to run due to the silt beds and constantly changing conditions. I imagine similar, but larger silt banks to what is above Pearce Ferry and the creation of rapids similar to Pearce Ferry rapid.

I also imagine the amount of sediment in the river would increase dramatically and effect ecology in the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead. Just as the water will go into Lake Mead, so will the silt.

I also think there is a larger contingent of motorised recreational users i.e. power boats and house boats, that would be up in arms if they drained Lake Powell.

I wish it wasn't true, but I think leaving Lake Powell basically as it is, is the better route. This view of everything being allright again as soon as you drain it is a bit foolhardy and it seems like having the lake there isn't quite the ecological disaster it seems.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

shappattack said:


> FYI - some substantial study has been done on diverting water from the Mississippi during annual high flow to the Colorado Basin, and the idea is making some resurgence. I am not arguing this is a good idea, just throwing it out there for people to be aware.


Isn't the Mississippi River Delta and surrounding estuary already imperiled? Wouldn't diverting more water from an already reduced system further harm a system that needs more water, not less? Everything I have read hints that medium to long term ecological and economical benefits are symbiotic to restore one of the most important and productive Delta's in North America.

I have appreciated Rebecca Solnit ever since I stumbled onto an advanced reader copy of Wanderlust. Her writing taps into many of my passions. But I also think she waxes poetic on subjects that are increasingly complex and require extreme nuance. This is one of those times. More and more I see how the political exuberance of environmentalism isn't always an accurate portrayal of resource management. What works to rally a base isn't necessarily what is best for science-based decision making. I think the article Andy links highlights that dichotomy well. 

I won't claim to know what is best for Glen Canyon as there are far too many diverse stakeholders to define one clear black and white solution. I will say though that environmental organizations are faced with a modern need to employ new strategies to maintain relevancy and success. The implications of the growing populist movement across the West (societal/cultural, not American geographic) have yet to be felt in the realm of resource management. The Administrative State that environmentalism so heavily relied on in past decades will not be the same in the coming years. If non-profit groups can't find a way to imbue "fly over" country with different sense of respect and collaboration than we will see a larger erosion of momentum and sustainability than is needed. The implications for river management and recreation are profound.
The need for collaboration is more relevant than ever. And that means digging into the untidy complexity of places like Lake Powell and the myriad of users that appreciate its existence or communities that rely on it to exist.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

I nominate restrac2000 for the position of Official Sage of the Buzz. 

Rich Phillips


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

That article doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Evaporation: How can evaporation from a lake the size of Powell be "a wash" compared to a river the size of the Colorado? 

Seepage: This argument seems logical. 

Sediment: I would rather see that sediment accumulate in Meade than Glen Canyon. The longer the dam is there the worse the damage to Glen Canyon becomes. 

Colorado River Compact: What does is matter if the water is stored in Powell vs. Meade? It all still passes the gauge at Lees Ferry. We know how much is sent downstream. Reservoirs don't change the amount of water flowing down a river they just change WHEN the water flows down the river. Does the compact state we have to send a certain amount of water per month? If so, I'm sure the compact could be changed to say we'll send a certain amount of water per year and let the lower states store it all in Mead. 

Administrative: Just because we have 20 year operational plan for Glen Canyon doesn't mean we can't get rid of it. 

Not very persuasive. And this is from someone who got married at Lake Powell. I love the place, but it's time for it to go. 



Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Per question about Colorado River Compact's relevance....

Doesn't Lake Powell water serve the storage needs of the Upper Basin states and Mead serve the Lower Basin states? If correct, then that is both a major political issue and infrastructure problem to overcome to serve residents of both areas. My county voted against participating in the Lake Powell pipeline but I guarantee minority water rights holders around us will not give up access without a major fight. There are some serious powers and populations that are stakeholders of Powell water (at least in theory).

Considering the compromises that were needed to create that 20 year extension I doubt anyone is willing to truly abandon Powell in that timeline. What am I missing?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Per evaporation....i am not a hydrologist and can only glean a minority of the information from the Schmidt study cited but the linked article seems to summarize it well. Blutzki, your summary that its a wash between evaporation rates for Powell and the river itself is not consistent with the article's statement. They stated



> But it's false, and the Schmidt study concludes that if there is essentially any presence of water in Lake Powell, that even as it is drained down the evaporation would be essentially the same. Since it is unlikely that Powell would ever be truly empty, moving most of its water to Mead would be a wash rather than a significant benefit."


This is all in tbe context of moving water to Mead. When you dive into the scientific study the "wash" is because of Mead's higher overall evaporation rate and the correlated increase in total evaporation with increasing Mead lake level. Its important to highlight the fact that the scientific paper admits a high level of uncertainty (statistical definition) in their findings but that is still better than anecdotes and guestimates from simplified theories. The scientific paper is worth reading as it openly deals with all of the nuance and uncertainty. These details matter and the Fill Mead First pitch isn't aligning cleanly with the best math and statistical analysis we have conducted. 

All this said, like any good scientific paper, it calls for further study which could ammend their findings.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

restrac2000 said:


> Per question about Colorado River Compact's relevance....
> 
> Doesn't Lake Powell water serve the storage needs of the Upper Basin states and Mead serve the Lower Basin states? If correct, then that is both a major political issue and infrastructure problem to overcome to serve residents of both areas.
> 
> Considering the compromises that were needed to create that 20 year extension I doubt anyone is willing to truly abandon Powell in that timeline. What am I missing?


Yes, Powell serves the storage needs of the Upper Basin States, Mead the Lower. Water is released from Powell to satisfy the Compact obligations of the Upper Basin States on a 10-year rolling average. The Colorado River Compact, or "Law of the River" was decided by the US Supreme Court in the 1920s and has almost a century of precedent built on it.

The reason it matters whether the water is stored in Mead or Powell is that in good years the Upper Basin states can top off their local reservoirs and store the rest in Powell, sending down water to Mead if/when needed. Without Powell, the Upper Basin States will want to build additional storage upstream and thus flood out some of our favorite places (Like the Green and Yampa in Dinosaur for example).

The evaporation issue isn't the lake compared to the river, but is based on the concept of the surface area of both reservoirs. The "Fill Mead First" contingent argues that two half-filled reservoirs have greater surface area (and thus evaporation losses) than Mead alone would have if full. It would take a fairly straightforward GIS analysis to determine this, and I imagine that was the first thing the Utah State team did.

-AH


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

Andy H. said:


> The reason it matters whether the water is stored in Mead or Powell is that in good years the Upper Basin states can top off their local reservoirs and store the rest in Powell, sending down water to Mead if/when needed. Without Powell, the Upper Basin States will want to build additional storage upstream and thus flood out some of our favorite places (Like the Green and Yampa in Dinosaur for example).
> -AH



I get that, but still don't understand why it matters whether the excess water is stored in Powell or Mead. Gauges tell us how much water we send down stream on a 10 year rolling average and whether we have met the obligation of the compact. Why does it matter where it is stored or even if it is stored before sending it downstream? Imagine the upper states had no reservoirs at all. Aren't we just responsible for sending water to the lower states? Or are we also responsible for storing it for them?


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Stiff N' Wett (Feb 18, 2010)

Oh measly humans. We should remove the dams so when the human race is gone (which certainly can't be long)the rivers can return to there natural state. If we don't over a few hundred years they will erode away and become free flowing. People think we are so important but we are just a spec in time.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

Blutski- I think that you're right, and wrong. The water does just have to be delivered to the Lower Basin, however, if we have another several dry years in a row, with no Upper Basin storage to smooth out the spikes and dips, the Upper Basin states could wind up "in default", not having enough water to deliver.

As to the Evaporation question- yes, looking at river vs lake isn't really the question the OPs article referenced, but I still think that it is relevant to the overall discussion. Net evaporation (lake evap-river evap) is around 400,000 acre feet (Source. See second to last page.), or nearly 4% of the average annual inflow into Lake Powell. That number is quite a bit lower than I'd anticipated, but still pretty significant. The lake vs river evap isn't based simply on the surface area, but entails quite a few other factors- vegetation along the banks, etc.


----------



## SugarHigh (Mar 7, 2017)

We got a snow balls chance in Phoenix that they will decommission Glen Canyon dam. Those that politically want it are such a minority and the case seems soft at best.

Biggest reason we keep it is if we get a few strong snow pack years that gives us excess storage. For all the people that live in the Southwest, that is huge.

Another point. The though of being able to run what is now a lake sure is romantic. Remember that it will make the Grand in consistent. There will be some gnarly dangerous flows and then a huge amount of time it will run low. Could be a wash in quality boating days.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Remove the dam, restore Glen Canyon -- sounds good. 

But do it, anfwith the publicity Glen Canyon has received in the last few decades, coupled with the ease of running this stretch, you will think access to a Grand Canyon river permit is easy. Every Tom, Dick, and Harriet, along with every Boy Scout and Girl Scout troop, Sunday school group, and geology class within range will be clamoring for access.

Not saying getting rid of the dam doesn't have its allure or benefits. Just pointing out that it couldn't be instant, easy access for all, or the resource would be destroyed.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Shooter thinks Glen Canyon can be easily removed; the plans are right there in the Monkey Wrench Gang master Abbey gave us years ago. Shooter is willing to rent the house boat 

The river has an amazing ability to regenerate itself once we get our fat fingers out of the mix; we've seen it in other rivers where the cork has been permanently pulled. Regardless; I may not be able to enjoy Glen Canyon au naturale but my kids could. If we can, we should.

As for states wanting to build additional reservoirs to make up for Powell?
They can build them when they pry my dead, desiccated body off of the dam site. The vermin got by with it once when we weren't paying attention, but we are now. Yes indeed, we are paying attention now. Just try. We dare you. The ghost of Martin Litton will rise up and smite you for your efforts.

On the other hand, we've made a sort of uneasy peace with Powell and Mead, shaking our fists at those concrete monstrosities when the flow is lower than we wish, but giving them (quiet) praise when a low snow pack year would otherwise dictate we park our boats in the garage and take the kids to Disneyland.

Dolores comes to mind in this respect. We have lost that grand and beautiful river virtually since they stuck that cork in her, but this year we expect a much longer than natural season. It doesn't make up for the loss, but this year Schutzie suspects we will hear few complaints about that damn.......... dam.


----------



## GilaRobusta (Mar 19, 2015)

Gila robusta, hell all of the Gila spp. are in favor of letting the concrete plugs go. I personally could care less if the boaters are not in favor, or the house boat drunks, or the Phoenix golf pro's prefer to rely on old techniques to solve old problems.

Hite will rise again.

J.


----------



## Fumble (May 23, 2013)

It's funny to use flawed assumptions and reasoning to call out other people on what you perceive as flawed assumptions and reasoning. I like to see a study from a real university on the subject.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Fumble said:


> It's funny to use flawed assumptions and reasoning to call out other people on what you perceive as flawed assumptions and reasoning. I like to see a study from a real university on the subject.


Did you read the university study linked in the article the OP provided?

Here

Utah State University is a highly respected academic institution, especially their natural resource departments. 

The study seems the first that digs into the details of the FMF proposal. It digs into the numbers, uncertainties and starts what will undoubtedly be a long, contentious conversation. I haven't read all 80+ pages but the Medium article this thread is about appears to accurately reflect the portions I have checked. 

It will be intriguing to see if GCI responds. I find their interjection into the decision making process highly suspect given their statements like "GCI will continue to facilitate research that supports the Fill Mead First proposal". That statement is inconsistent with a group that claims to support science-based decision making. To be clear, "facilitating research that supports the" FMF is antithetical to empirical science and completely inverse. That is the work of a political think-tank, ie propaganda. Ultimately the rational behind FMF could be supported by analysis but this is the reason why we need research institutions that are firewalled against politics. To have productive science we need to separate political advocacy from the research, even when its for causes we support. Science-based policy has no future with the type of meddling GCI describes.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

*Ecosystem Effects*

Been reading the USU paper slowly and found this interesting:



> *6.2.2.Aquatic ecosystem*
> The primary change in the aquatic ecosystem under Phase I would be caused by the long duration high
> flows and the much lower flows that would occur in fall and winter in some years. The more natural thermal regime
> would cause changes in the distribution of native and non-native fish populations, and the potential for significant
> ...


There is an ecological maxim that there is no "away" or stated differently, "everything goes somewhere". That reality does not bode well for native species when we understand the way in which we have impacted Glen Canyon over the past decades. And it definitely doesn't align well with anecdotal theories of a "restored" Glen Canyon.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

A disappearance of humans would cause all other life forms on earth to revert to their pre-human patterns given time.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

Nothing short of that will.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ColoradoDave said:


> A disappearance of humans would cause all other life forms on earth to revert to their pre-human patterns given time.


Yes, and as a geologist, I can tell you with certainty that we will, one day disappear and either be replaced by something else, or bring down the house and a lot of the earth's creatures with us. There'll just be a rock layer with lots of metals and probably a little plutonium thrown in. And toxic seeps where there were once landfills and dumps. Right now our planet is undergoing the "Sixth Mass Extinction" which will alter planet's ecosystems for longer than we'll be here.

One day, Glen Canyon Dam will be a hulk of concrete in the desert with a river flowing through it, either drawn down and intentionally breached or catastrophically failed. That's also for certain.

However, afterward, it'll be decades or centuries before all the silt left high along the Colorado is washed away and the slickrock uplands are restored. The river may even take a new channel, as the San Juan has below Clay Hills, and the Colorado at Pearce Ferry Rapid. Lots of things have changed under the water's surface due to a half century of siltation at the head of Lake Powell. Just things to think about. It's not going to return to the Glen Canyon that Schutzie knew, and Katie Lee sang about, in our lifetimes. 

Not meaning to be a killjoy but there's more to consider in those campfire conversations on solutions ranging from Hayduke's houseboat to petitions to congress.

-AH


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> Yes, and as a geologist, I can tell you with certainty that we will, one day disappear and either be replaced by something else, or bring down the house and a lot of the earth's creatures with us. There'll just be a rock layer with lots of metals and probably a little plutonium thrown in. And toxic seeps where there were once landfills and dumps. Right now our planet is undergoing the "Sixth Mass Extinction" which will alter planet's ecosystems for longer than we'll be here.
> 
> One day, Glen Canyon Dam will be a hulk of concrete in the desert with a river flowing through it, either drawn down and intentionally breached or catastrophically failed. That's also for certain.
> 
> ...


Is there a way to predict such changes to the river course, assuming we reached a compromise to let the Colorado River flow free through Glen Canyon again? I imagine modeling the siltation of something like Powell along with the complexity of predicting future river flows creates too much uncertainty but that is just a guess. Is there technology to accurately map the siltation at the bottom of Powell?


----------



## bcpnick (Jul 16, 2015)

The bulk of the silt in Glen Canyon drops where the big rivers come in. Based on depth readings and pre-lake elevations, it is safe to estimate that there is at least 180 feet of silt sitting on the old river bed in the area of Trachyte, White, and Farley canyons where the Colorado has dumped it's load. You can see that on satellite imagery quite well when the water level comes down and the river leaves 'lakes' in the side canyons such as North Wash and Farley. 

I'm sure if the dam were gone the channel would move around in all that silt, but it can't move much due to the narrowness of Glen Canyon itself. Maybe you'd see some bigger changes in wide areas such as Padre Bay, but it's not going to significantly alter anything, in my opinion. I think the large bays on the upper ends of the lake like Good Hope and high in the San Juan have the highest probability of this. 

I've spent more than my share of time walking the canyons out there as the water levels have dropped, and I feel strongly that things would bounce back faster than most people think. Some of the high silt load areas would definitely take decades or centuries, but most of the side canyons would be back well within our lifetimes. One of my favorite canyons out there is Fiftymile Creek on the Escalante. I've visited it a handful of times, backpacking and by boat. In the space of a few years we saw 10+ feet of silt washed out of the canyon. Without really looking, you could hardly tell it used to be under almost 100 feet of water. Here's a pic comparing those two visits:


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

My general ideas/guesses align with yours about siltation. I figured the bigger bays would be the likely culprits for a change to the river bed. 

My solo kayak of the length of Lake Powell, canyoneering in the early oughts and backpacking have led me to different conclusions about the fate of the Canyon. There are definitely side canyons that will recover relatively fast but I consider that in context to the main stem. Bill Wolverton's observations and photos also highlight a few examples of erosion of sediment loading. The closer one gets to the high water line the more this is likely to be true, except for the river itself.

I would wager the main stem Colorado and many of the side canyons are decimated ecologically. The idea of restoration to a historic norm just doesn't seem to align with the processes (man and natural) that are most likely to occur during and after a draining. The study highlights some of this. To really reduce the sediment load and restore the environment would require the most profound adaptive management we have ever seen. It would require millions of dollars in constant research funding, unprecedented man hours and a herculean collaboration with upstream dams. And sadly that just doesn't make sense to invest in if GCI truly supports continued use of Powell during big water years (I think thats clearly a Trojan Horse). And that doesn't take into account the very rational for FMF which are predictions of extensive drought in the future. We would need plenty of regulated and unregulated flow to strategically diminish the sediment banks.

And the biotic communities....ugh, thats just too depressing to think about. 

A free flowing river system would find its own equilibrium again (not static) without human influence but it won't ever resemble what it once was. That just isn't scientifically possible. Restoration as GCI uses the term is not supported by ecological realities. It gets people excited though.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

Isn't the obvious answer blowing up the dam and letting the entire reservoir drain in one big rush to flush the sediment like they did with that reservoir up in Oregon a few year back? There can't be any drawbacks to that approach. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

blutzski said:


> Isn't the obvious answer blowing up the dam and letting the entire reservoir drain in one big rush to flush the sediment like they did with that reservoir up in Oregon a few year back? There can't be any drawbacks to that approach.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


Well that does sound like the most FUN!
Also goes well with the "ready, fire,aim" approach I prefer!! Let's blow that fucker up already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Utah Science, Good Dams, Brietbart News*

The Utah report is a collection of straw arguments that privileged white men of science and engineering need to make the built world seem inevitable, secure, natural, and just. It shows off the type of intellectual skills that could get a graduate students a gig with the Flat Earth Society or the New Trump University of San Juan County.

Every assumption and uncertainty is tweaked and magnified to justify the status quo as it stands in 2017. The evaporation section is hokum. The Law of the River is oversimplified and misstated. Each uncertainty and need for more data is stated in a way that suggests the dam serves some purpose other than a spooge bucket for the Water Buffaloes in the Upper Basin. No attempt to examine the positive outcomes or the fact that some uncertainty and risk must be accepted to have any chance to restore the beauty and function of the Colorado River ecosystem. Steady decline, uncertainty and risk from the status quo is ignored.

Just ask Terry Tempest Williams about higher education in Utah. You get too close to the sacred myths, and you get ostracized. The Utahniversities serve their masters just as Brietbart serves its Master. 

There is no doubt that the damn dam must go and will be gone one sunny day. Poking Dominy Holes in the bottom and then collecting data on the ascension of a functioning river ecosystem seems like a fitting job for the Wrecked Bureau.


----------

