OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2005 Glen Canyon Dam on the surrounding environment (National Research Council 1996, 5). However, in 1989, when Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan came under pressure from Congress, which was supported by the science of the GCES, he ordered the completion of an official Environmental Impact Statement on the Dam, thus the GCES served as important groundwork (Peterson 2004a). The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 was the next major law to affect the dam. On its third run through Congress, it was finally passed as a result of the huge lobbying effort of environmental groups like the Sierra Club as well as numerous river rafting enthusiasts (Grand Canyon River Guides 1992). According to Chris Peterson, executive director of the Glen Canyon Institution, the act had two main purposes. The first was to reemphasize the prior mandate for completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the second was to set forth the health and protection of the Grand Canyon ecosystem as the number one principle for the operation of the dam (Peterson 2004a). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was put out in 1995, and the Final EIS in 1996 (Grand Canyon Trust 2004). In it were nine different dam operation scenarios; however, not included was the option of decommissioning the dam. In October of 1996, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit signed the Record of Decision (ROD) which outlined the new flow rules that were chosen based on the "modified low-fluctuating flow" scenario described as one of the nine alternatives (Jacobs and Wescoat 2002, 13). Further, the ROD outlined that an adaptive management technique be applied to the operation of the dam which was to be overseen by two federal advisory committees: the Adaptive Management Work Group and the Technical Work Group. Both committees consist of representatives from a wide range of interests including tribal groups, basin states, environmental groups, recreation interests, federal purchase contractors, and the U.S. Geological Survey (Jacobs and Wescoat 2002, 13). Both groups help administer the adaptive management program and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to meet the requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Jacobs and Wescoat 2002, 13). This management technique continues today on the Colorado River at the Glen Canyon Dam. However, since the EIS was completed, some, like Richard Ingebretsen, have wondered why the option of decommissioning the dam was not included. This is perhaps a good example, he believes, of only operating within the strict boundaries of the status quo. The Bureau of Reclamation is an agency that builds dams- not destroys them. In fact, the procedure for decommissioning a dam is not even in the Federal Registry (the guidebook for federal operational procedures) (Ingebretsen 2004). The dam damning sentiment is shared by many more than just one rouge Ingebretsen, as it seems to be gaining momentum among many individuals across the nation. In his recent book, Uam Politics: Restoring America's Rivers, William Lowry chron- icles the movement to condemn dams on rivers all over the country including those on the Neuse, Kennebec, Elwa, Clyde, and other rivers (Lowry 2003, 84). Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit is perhaps one of the movement's most notable figures. In an article for Open Spaces Magazine, Babbit wrote, During the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt and his Interior Secretary, Harold Ickes, toured the West dedicating dams before large, enthusiastic crowds. Now, at the end of the century, I am out touring the country with a different message-it is time to un-dedicate some of those dams by removing them and letting the rivers run free (1998). He further noted on another occasion, "I want to be the first secretary to tear down a big dam" (Miller 2000, 168). Surprisingly, however, the Glen Canyon Dam was not to be the one. In July 2000 during a radio interview in Page, Arizona, Secretary Babbit claimed adamant opposition to any effort to decommission Glen Canyon Dam (Babbit 2000). A prominent figure in the river restoration movement going against the proposal to decommission the Glen Canyon Dam seemed to many to bolster support for those trying to preserve it. Despite this, Ingebretsen hopes that the approval to bring down the Elwa Dam in Washington State will set a precedent for federal dam removal that will challenge the status quo for dam policy in the West (Ingebretson 2004). But "old habits are hard to break," as they say, and the Elwa is caught up in congressional appropriations limbo and the bill doesn't appear to be coming out anytime soon. Arguments and Behaviors During the '80s and early '90s, groups like the Sierra Club, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Environmental Defense Fund, Grand Canyon River Guides, and others were largely successful in their lobbying efforts to pass the Grand Canyon Protection Act and push for the completion of the Environmental Impact Study on the Glen Canyon Dam. However, the bulk of political effort in the past decade to reform policy surrounding the dam has been waged by the Glen Canyon Institute. To counter their efforts, there is the group Friends of Lake Powell. Both groups promote their vision of recreation as principle incentives to support their position. O( course, these are not the only groups. As was mentioned earlier, there are stakeholders involved from a range of interests. However, these groups seem to be making the most noise and thus for the purpose of this study became the primary focus. In 1995, the newly formed GCI invited former director of the Sierra Club David Brower and former Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy to the University of Utah to debate the issue. While the spirit of the evening was light hearted, it was obvious that both men still firmly believed in their sides of the issue. Referring to his decision to let the dam be built in the late '50s in exchange for the sal- 17 |