• Friends: Please double-check the email address you have on file. Make sure that it is current and able to receive email. When our emails are rejected it can damage our ratings and slow down future deliveries.
    Thanks!

Drain Lake Powell and tear down Glen Canyon Dam to promote conservation and water supply security

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red Rock Paradise

Active Member
Draining Powell is a bad idea as well as stopping new storage from being constructed. I will never understand why the idea of draining lake Powell will help with the water problems. To me it's like emptying one half full glass into another that's half full and saying both glasses are full. I also don't get why they don't understand that new storage will help retain water from years that have above average precipitation. Water conservation is great but we need more than just conservation to keep the water flowing to the cities.
 

Waterbaby

Escalante-Class Member
They fall for the GCI hype and think it will save money by storing it in Lake Mead - with double the evaporation rate for a longer period of time than Lake Powell. For a long time Friends of Lake Powell answered back this nonsense with facts, but I haven't seen or heard anything from them in a very long time, not even certain they are still active.
 
This is our take on the topic...

Talking Points against the Fill Lake Mead First Proposal

The Glen Canyon Institute and the Sierra Club have tried for nearly 20 years to reverse construction of Glen Canyon Dam and drain Lake Powell. The Fill Mead First proposal is the latest attempt to disparage the benefits of Lake Powell.

The Bureau of Reclamation recognizes the importance of Lake Powell as a critical component of the Colorado River Basin Project.

The GCI proposal is a ploy to drain Lake Powell by requiring the transfer of water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin to avoid a shortage call in the Lower Basin. The proposal only serves to stir up inter- basin tensions on the Colorado River. It is politics at its worst.

The proposal would compromise recreational opportunities at Lake Powell by leaving boat ramps stranded, forcing marina shutdowns, and depriving millions of visitors the joy of visiting Lake Powell. It would undermine the economic vitality of northern Arizona and southern Utah.

The BOR’s 2007 Interim Guidelines serve to coordinate operation of both Lake Mead and Lake Powell and encourage efficient use and management of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin to avoid a shortage call. These guidelines were designed to balance the needs of both Colorado River basins in regards to water supply, power production, recreation, and other environmental resources.

The bank storage rate at Lake Powell represents but a fraction of the reservoir volume. The rate has slowed significantly since the early decades when the lake first filled to full pool. Now, as the bank storage approaches equilibrium, the rate of bank storage seepage continues to decrease. Bank storage is not lost and contributes to recharging the regional N-aquifer (Navajo Sandstone aquifer).

Water stored of Lake Mead is subject to evaporation rates twice that of Lake Powell owing to the lower elevation (1,100 feet above sea level), increased surface area and hotter temperatures.

Reduced power production at Glen Canyon dam would affect non-profit entities who serve over five million customers within the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Lake Mead would be nearly empty today had it not been for the critical waters stored in Lake Powell.
 

Endurance

Well-Known Member
From my reading of what the Denver Post is calling a Guest Commentary, the authors seem to be saying that draining Lake Powell would diminish the water supply for the arid states of Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. I agree. The authors then go on to conclude that this would be a good thing because these states all waste water and need a lesson in conservation. I agree that water conservation is a worthy goal. But draining our water supplies to encourage conservation is kind of like them draining your bank account to encourage thrift.

I would just as soon they not flush our Western States' water downriver in the Pacific to support their ideas about conservation. We have enough reminders of our fragile state in the arid West that we don't need to empty water that we were wise enough to save for a not-rainy day.

I reject the bottom line that we should waste the water in Lake Powell to prevent people from wasting water.

If the authors want to encourage themselves to spend money wisely by draining their bank accounts, they can feel free to make their checks payable to me.
 

SeaLegs

Well-Known Member
This is our take on the topic...

Talking Points against the Fill Lake Mead First Proposal

The Glen Canyon Institute and the Sierra Club have tried for nearly 20 years to reverse construction of Glen Canyon Dam and drain Lake Powell. The Fill Mead First proposal is the latest attempt to disparage the benefits of Lake Powell.

The Bureau of Reclamation recognizes the importance of Lake Powell as a critical component of the Colorado River Basin Project.

The GCI proposal is a ploy to drain Lake Powell by requiring the transfer of water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin to avoid a shortage call in the Lower Basin. The proposal only serves to stir up inter- basin tensions on the Colorado River. It is politics at its worst.

The proposal would compromise recreational opportunities at Lake Powell by leaving boat ramps stranded, forcing marina shutdowns, and depriving millions of visitors the joy of visiting Lake Powell. It would undermine the economic vitality of northern Arizona and southern Utah.

The BOR’s 2007 Interim Guidelines serve to coordinate operation of both Lake Mead and Lake Powell and encourage efficient use and management of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin to avoid a shortage call. These guidelines were designed to balance the needs of both Colorado River basins in regards to water supply, power production, recreation, and other environmental resources.

The bank storage rate at Lake Powell represents but a fraction of the reservoir volume. The rate has slowed significantly since the early decades when the lake first filled to full pool. Now, as the bank storage approaches equilibrium, the rate of bank storage seepage continues to decrease. Bank storage is not lost and contributes to recharging the regional N-aquifer (Navajo Sandstone aquifer).

Water stored of Lake Mead is subject to evaporation rates twice that of Lake Powell owing to the lower elevation (1,100 feet above sea level), increased surface area and hotter temperatures.

Reduced power production at Glen Canyon dam would affect non-profit entities who serve over five million customers within the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Lake Mead would be nearly empty today had it not been for the critical waters stored in Lake Powell.

Thank you.
 

Waterbaby

Escalante-Class Member
And as we knew all along the Fill Lake Mead First proposal will simply a ruse for removing Glen Canyon Dam which Beard now openly admits in the Op-Ed is the real intent.

Glad to see you back posting on this subject!

Your post mentioning power production reminded me of this crazy prop 127 Steyer is funding to turn Arizona into one giant solar desert, some of the reports I've read state they even want to replace Palo Verde nuclear power plant with solar, and I strongly suspect they will include our dams in their plan. I cringe if Steyer gets involved with GCI and throws his billions their way.
 

shanewave

Well-Known Member
From my reading of what the Denver Post is calling a Guest Commentary, the authors seem to be saying that draining Lake Powell would diminish the water supply for the arid states of Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. I agree. The authors then go on to conclude that this would be a good thing because these states all waste water and need a lesson in conservation. I agree that water conservation is a worthy goal. But draining our water supplies to encourage conservation is kind of like them draining your bank account to encourage thrift.

I would just as soon they not flush our Western States' water downriver in the Pacific to support their ideas about conservation. We have enough reminders of our fragile state in the arid West that we don't need to empty water that we were wise enough to save for a not-rainy day.

I reject the bottom line that we should waste the water in Lake Powell to prevent people from wasting water.

If the authors want to encourage themselves to spend money wisely by draining their bank accounts, they can feel free to make their checks payable to me.
Fantastic, hilarious and tragic, Endurance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top