The Bureau of Reclamation has announced it will not release floodwaters from Lake Powell this spring to restore the Grand Canyon due to ongoing work at Glen Canyon Dam. Critics argue this decision harms the canyon’s ecosystems and violates the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. Environmentalists and anglers advocate for the flood to restore beaches and improve fish stocks, while power consumers warn it could significantly reduce hydroelectric output, costing millions. The decision may escalate tensions among environmentalists, government, and energy producers, with calls for a flood later in the year despite its mismatch with the Colorado River’s natural cycle.
Discontent has arisen following the announcement by federal officials at the Bureau of Reclamation, stating that they will not release floodwaters from Lake Powell this spring to rejuvenate the Grand Canyon due to ongoing work at the Glen Canyon Dam and further downstream on the Colorado River.
Newsweek reached out to the Bureau of Reclamation via email for comments on Saturday, outside of standard office hours.
Why It Matters
Since its inception in 1963, the Glen Canyon Dam has hindered the flow of water and sediment into the Grand Canyon via the Colorado River.
In response, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, overseen by the Bureau of Reclamation, has utilized the dam’s bypass tubes 12 times since 1996, as reported by local media outlet AZ Central.
Critics contend that the absence of regular flooding in the Grand Canyon leads to the erosion of its beaches and detrimental effects on local wildlife.
What To Know
The Bureau of Reclamation has confirmed that there will be no flooding of the Grand Canyon this spring due to ongoing projects at the Glen Canyon Dam and along the Colorado River.
In April, the bureau indicated that it would advise Interior Secretary Doug Burgum against approving a spring flood, citing work by a National Park Service contractor who is excavating a slough downstream from the dam to prevent non-native fish, like smallmouth bass, from reproducing. On May 22, the agency reaffirmed its decision as final.
However, critics argue that this decision may violate the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, which mandates the preservation of the National Park’s ecosystem and wildlife.
Jeff Topping/GETTY
Environmental advocates have been lobbying for a spring flood to replicate the river’s natural flow and rejuvenate the Grand Canyon’s beaches. Fishing organizations have also supported this, as the tailwater rainbow trout population has suffered in recent years due to low water levels in Lake Powell, which have elevated temperatures.
Jim Strogen, a spokesperson for Trout Unlimited, stated that a “deeper, colder lake” would be more beneficial for fishing.
On the other hand, major energy consumers expressed concerns that spring floods could disrupt hydroelectric power generation. Leslie James, executive director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, warned that a spring flood could potentially lead to losses of $1 million to $2 million in electricity production.
What People Are Saying
In an interview with AZ Central, Ben Reeder, representing the Grand Canyon River Guides at a technical group in collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation, stated that federal officials seem to be “looking for any excuse” to avoid a flood.
Reeder expressed his concern: “It really bothers me that we discuss the Grand Canyon in terms of economics, as if it exists merely for human use.”
Larry Stevens, an ecologist with the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and Wild Arizona, voiced his “deep disappointment.”
What Happens Next
The choice not to conduct a spring flood at the Grand Canyon may intensify calls for a flood later in the year, although this would not align as closely with the Colorado River’s natural patterns. Disputes over flooding the Grand Canyon are likely to persist among environmentalists, government entities, and electricity providers.