Reader comments
River is 'set free' — Water blasts out of Glen Canyon Dam

38 comments | Read story

drought | 4:46 a.m. March 6, 2008

What a bunch of idiots!!!!

Anonymous | 5:22 a.m. March 6, 2008

This is a glimpse of stupitity
The excess pressure could rupture Dams below
What stupitity?

Huh? | 6:34 a.m. March 6, 2008

Anonymous and drought: how is it that you are such experts? You don't know what you're talking about.

Comments continue below

FloydDominy | 6:36 a.m. March 6, 2008

Stupititity indeed. Rupturing of Hoover Dam from an incremental increase of inches, taking place over days? Gimme a break. If this can help conserve the wildlife along the Colorado River as it flows at the bottom of Grand Canyon, then it's a small price to pay.

Bart | 6:37 a.m. March 6, 2008

I'm sure this has already been considered.

Steve | 6:45 a.m. March 6, 2008

A similar "experiment" in 2004 has been mentioned several times, was it successful? It has never been stated whether the 2004 experiment achieved its goals. If it did, why the need for months of study following this experiment? And if it did not, why do the powers that be expect this time to be different? Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that a sure sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Help | 6:51 a.m. March 6, 2008

Please call Las Vegas when you have enough water in Lake Mead.

Eco-system? | 7:04 a.m. March 6, 2008

Do You people really think that the silt was going to build up to a point that it would fill the grand canyon? Do you think that sending a giant ball of mud down the canyon really helped the fish feel better? I'm betting that you did more damage to the fish population than good. What about the millions of people who could use this energy for power in a drought year? I think that you geriatric hippies need to find something constructive to do with your lives, instead of harrassing your fellow nonproducing bureaucrats into doing something this stupid. The people will finally rise up when you have put them in the dark and choked them into paying attention. You are wasting the talents you were blessed with.

STB | 7:10 a.m. March 6, 2008

Surf's up!

Stupidity? | 7:15 a.m. March 6, 2008

Stupidity would be believing that this could rupture dams below Glen Canyon!

samhill | 7:38 a.m. March 6, 2008

Don't worry "Anonymous". The "excess" pressure will have no effect whatever on the dams below.

It's laughable (in an alarming way) to see how poorly some people understand the most basic laws of physics. In this case, the simplest principles of hydrostatics that have been around since at least the days of Archimedes. More than 2,000 year ago!

I have a sneaky suspicion that both “Anonymous” and “drought” are so annoyed by the fact that the dam is there at all, they have both lost what little claim to objectivity over this matter they might have ever had. Such is the nature of thoughtless zealotry.

Speaking of which. Another oddity about the hatred for Glen Canyon Dam is highlighted in this article. It refers to all the indication of ancient human activity as “archaeological sites”. The “loss” of similar sites beneath the waters of Lake Powell is often cited as reasons for removing the dam. Yet, in a few hundred or thousand years, the dam itself might be regarded as a valuable “archaeological site”. So, speaking on behalf of our descendents many years hence, I say, “How dare they consider removing such an historical (to future humanity) treasure?!”

Jon | 7:50 a.m. March 6, 2008

While the necessity of this experiment can be debated, I hardly think that the safety of it can be. I mean really, people, do you actually think they would have done this if there was a danger of rupturing damns down stream? Please.

Kevin in Texas | 7:56 a.m. March 6, 2008

As a wildlife biologist, this was a very ecologically friendly move that has only positive impacts on fish and wildlife downstream. It does nothing to harm the interests of the american public except for a small few who have built their livley hood based upon the exsistance of the dam. Even still, there will be little impact to these trout outfitters business operations and in fact the fisheries that they depend on will improve because of the release.
Daming a river changes the hydrology, morphology, and biodiversity of the river downstream. If a two week release of high water flow will help restore some of those changes to bennefit several endangered fish species and bennefit recreation by creating beaches then it should be done.

4.1 million? | 8:09 a.m. March 6, 2008

My question is about the cost.

Where do I sign up?

I'll do it for 3.9 million and the thrill of watching my paper boat get creamed by a giant gush of water. I'll even provide my own paper.

Re: Kevin in Texas | 8:23 a.m. March 6, 2008

You hve no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how many millions of people depend on the water behind this dam for drinking and elctricity. There is a whole lot more at stake than a few fish but your view shows how people only see what they want to see. Read Steve above: They're not sure it will work for crying out loud.

Drought | 8:39 a.m. March 6, 2008

It's good to see that in the middle of a 7 year drought we are more worried about the habitat of the chub than the needs of people.

Even before the dam was built, I guarantee that the river had many many low years due the fluctuations of mother nature.

I wonder | 8:38 a.m. March 6, 2008

I wonder if the motivation for this huge release is more Las Vegas complaining that Lake Mead is getting low, and less to save the habitat and animals in the canyon.

??? | 8:44 a.m. March 6, 2008

Experiment in 2004 = erosion PROBLEMS! The sand bars they were trying to repair were eroded away! The endangered fish and sport fish they were trying to help disappeared from sections of the river. Look at the water in the pictures...it's clear! To restore the sandbars muddy water would be needed, the kind that previously flowed from the Green River and Upper Colorado before it was all being depostied in Lake Powell. The old flows left the sediments that were collected in Northeast Utah and Western Colorado. That water now will do nothing but erode the beaches and sandbars again, just like in '04. What a waste of time and money! At least the water will help an already low Lake Mead, and Powell should still rebound about 40-50 feet this year! What happened to the lessons learned in the '04 "flood"? Why are we doing the same experiment if that one failed so badly?

BobH | 8:47 a.m. March 6, 2008

This is a DIVERSION tactic! Bring attention to items downstream and deplete the water storage above the dam to insure the failure of the dam. Who ever said the water would rise "50 feet" because of the spring runoff must be joking!
We have been watching the water level lower for the last 10 or so years. This is a way to stop the pipeline to service southern Utah communities Way to go Engineers? LET THE WATER OUT TO MAKE THE LAKE LOWER??
THEY NOW WILL SAY ï¿½The water level in Lake Powell is too low to allow such a projectï¿½.
Again, we are being hoodwinked by the environmentalists to stop such an important venture for the future of the southern Utah/Nevada developments. As a downstream resident I think this kind of action should have been be pre-approved by the public it effects!!!
By the way has anyone seen any desert tortoise lately - we spent enough to protect them we should be stumbling over them all the way to Vegas!!

In the know | 8:54 a.m. March 6, 2008

The water Lake Powell releases for the year will remain unchanged due to the experimental releases. Though releases in March will be higher releases in subsequent months will be lower to meet the year end releases.

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. March 6, 2008

It's the Bureau of Reck the Nation.

Ken | 9:39 a.m. March 6, 2008

I live in Tucson and go to the lake several times each year like the 3 million other visitors to the Page-Lake Powell area. This is not peanuts to the area, it is real money like the revenue from the power and the water stored. Now about the water flow this year, the snow pack is already 100% of normal and this means the lake will rise about 50 feet this runoff year like it did in 2005. The bureau will let 8.23 million cubic feet of water out of the dam this year like it has for at least a decade. This will not change because of the flow test. People get informed and not all steamed up.

realist | 9:42 a.m. March 6, 2008

Dam the Grand canyon and dam it now! Think of all the hyropower and water for the PEOPLE of St. George the enviro nazis and hippies are cheating us out of. The original plan was to DAM the whole Grand canyon not just lake powell and the GREEN COMMIES stopped the better plan. Only crazy anti gun hippies use the parks ANYWAY> PEOPLE FIRST! Dam the ugly hole in the ground GRAND CANYON for the PEOPLE of UTAH! And do it TODAY!

Love it! | 9:55 a.m. March 6, 2008

Love these anonymous forums that make everyone experts!

Geniuses | 10:21 a.m. March 6, 2008

The scientists, Bureau of Reclamation officials, and anyone elso who advocated this water release non-sense are real geniuses.

The few remaining beaches and silt deposits in the canyon will now be washed to the bottom of Lake Meade. Wildlife is destroyed and much needed electricity and water are wasted.

Anonymous | 10:39 a.m. March 6, 2008

bobH do you enjoy being negative? i bet you also believe that global warming will kill us all in the next 50 years anyways. even though temperatures have dropped for almost a whole decade.

i hope this will be a success. less silt in powell where its not needed displaced to the grand canyon where it is needed is a good idea. plus there going to try doing it every few years so once it becomes a normal thing i hope you get used to it.

good timing too alot of water instead of silt i cant wait to go boating. i dont know where you live but most the water for the colorado comes from the rockies so its borrowed water anyway.

DR Don | 11:03 a.m. March 6, 2008

If, as the article mentioned, the reservoir traps 90% of the sediment that enters it, how long will it be before the reservoir is filled with dirt and can no longer serve its' purpose?

For the 99th time | 11:28 a.m. March 6, 2008

The drought is OVER! There's enough excess snowpack in the Upper Colorado Basin to more than compensate for the relatively small amount that is being released.

Stop reading environmentalist Doomsday propaganda. Lake Powell is NOT going dry anytime soon.

If the current wet pattern continues (as it did in the early 80's) the Bureau of Reclamation might have to relase water to just keep the lake from overflowing the dam (like in 1983).

Stupidity revisited | 11:58 a.m. March 6, 2008

Stupidity is that this dam was ever built.

Voice of experience | 1:11 p.m. March 6, 2008

Having guided commercial river trips through Grand Canyon for 19 years, I think I can add some voice of experience to these comments. First of all, the release will coincide with the annual allotment agreed to by the upper and lower basin states. Second, the previous floods have had positive impacts on beach rebuilding, and this flood will also have positive benefits in this regard. The previous floods have also created some beneficial results in terms of habitat for the humpback chubs. Although this release seems excessive to some, it doesn't even come close to replicating a real spring time flood, which some years exceeded 100,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). The sediment that will help to rebuild beaches comes in from tributaries of the Colorado below Glen Canyon Dam, such as the Paria. These tributaries can wash in hundreds of tons of sediment, which then settles on the river bottom. The flood will suspend this sediment, and redistribute the suspended materials into the back eddies and slower moving waters. Do an internet search for "adopt a beach" Grand Canyon River Guides, and I'm sure you can find more information.

Reservoir filling | 1:44 p.m. March 6, 2008

Projections of the lake filling with sediment are around 1000 years.

Envriornmentalists are Morons | 2:41 p.m. March 6, 2008

Why is it when a beaver changes it's enviornment, everyone comments on how it adds deversity to the landscape. Enviornementalists, get misty of the beauty of a lake when an ancient avalanche dammed a river. However, if a person does the same thing, we are somehow destroying the enviornment. Both lakes and rivers are great in their own way. Enjoy the beauty of Lake Powell, and quit crying about the beauty that was destroyed.

Oh yeah, and it may even provide water so you and your family can live.

I know. Let's go back to living in caves so we can have the smallest amount of impact on the enviornment as possible.

RE:Stupidity revisited | 4:20 p.m. March 6, 2008

Please give us one economical reason that this dam should not have been built. Please explain where and how you would get power to all the new residences in the west that have been built in the last 50 years without the help of this dam. Please put mankind first in your thoughts.

John | 4:44 p.m. March 6, 2008

I just have one question. Is this the God dam?

Mike | 6:06 p.m. March 6, 2008

What will this do to the village of Supai, AZ, on the floor of the Grand Canyon, where members of the Havasupai tribe live?

AnswerGuy | 7:56 p.m. March 6, 2008

So many questions:
Mike; do your research. There are large waterfalls on Havasu Creek BELOW Supai Village. The additional water will have NO effect on that village.
2:41 and 4:20. If every possible dam is a source of power, I assume you are in favor of building as many hydro dams as possible on our rivers; that would be a logical, if crass, position.
I disagree; there are definite costs, loss of native species, declining soil fertility in downstream floodplains, etc. Future dams should be offstream, so that these effects are minimized. Now that Glen Canyon is built, I don't propose tearing it down; but I would strongly resist other dams in the Grand Canyon. Do you agree, or would you rather see more reservoirs in the canyon?
The essence of crassness is when the Almighty Dollar is the measure of all things. We have indeed become a crass country, if we are willing to spend our most prized landscapes (national parks) for slightly cheaper water and power.

Lake Powell Lover | 10:13 p.m. March 6, 2008

LONG LIVE LAKE POWELL!! Do any of you remember how AWESOME Lake Powell was when the water was at its normal level? It was heaven on earth.... They are destroying "Americas Playground"

reality | 8:42 a.m. March 10, 2008

we always talk of people first and energy and water, just imagine what us people could do if we conserved energy and water just a little more. We'd then have plenty of "excess" water to help make the river a little more natural.

For all of us who like to think we have high morals, ask yourself "when did thinking of yourself first become a virtue?"

Go ahead, try to fit me into some negative stereotype just to make yourselves feel better, here's a few of my characteristics which might help
I believe in God, the environment, fishing, and the 2nd amendment. enjoy your day and try to make yourself useful

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.