Public power interests have compromised a lot in the 12 years since studies began on the environmental effects of fluctuating water flows from Glen Canyon Dam in Southern Utah. They have reduced by one-third the power generated from the dam and spent nearly $100 million on studies.
But now the federal government is pushing for more because of unproven concerns about a small fish whose numbers are declining. The fish, the Humpback chub, could stand in the way of any chance to find meaningful middle-ground between power interests and environmentalists.The government has a chance to find a fair solution. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an environmental impact statement that will recommend ways to save the fragile Grand Canyon, which is downstream from the dam and has been damaged by water that once fluctuated up to 10 feet twice a day.
Unfortunately, an early draft of the statement gives into the demands of environmentalists despite a lack of data. It calls for the dam to cut back the power it generates by two-thirds, or an additional 400 megawatts. The reduction would be in place for at least 10 years while studies continue into the impact on the chub.
Such a reduction seems unnecessary. All it would do is drive up rates in Bountiful, Murray and other cities that own and operate power systems, while forcing public power providers to rely more on coal-burning plants or other generators that pollute.
No one denies that the chub are disappearing. But the reasons are unclear. Humpback chub thrive best in warm water, but the water released from the dam is cold. Environmentalists claim this is hastening the decline. However, power interests cite evidence that the chub was endangered since long before the dam, thanks to the introduction of carp and catfish into the river. These fish eat chub. If stream flows are reduced further, the carp and catfish will multiply faster and eat more.
A silver lining may exist in the dark cloud that threatens the dam. The bureau's statement promotes a confusing concept called "adaptive management," without explaining what it means. If it means the recommendations are not rigid, that the government will adapt to the environmental impacts of reduced stream flows as more data is available, it could be used to solve the impasse.
However, the government should use adaptive management to allow the dam to continue operating at two-thirds capacity until the impacts are more clear, rather than punishing power users needlessly.
The bureau has held public hearings on a draft of the statement, and will continue to accept written comments until Monday. Comments should be mailed to: Colorado River Studies Office, Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 11568, Salt Lake City, UT 84147.
Much has changed since 1982. Power interests and environmentalists no longer are miles apart in their demands. The federal government should see to it that a fish doesn't stand in the way of a rational solution.