how the fair got me thinking more about how badly Glen Canyon Dam needs to be brought down, among other things
I took the urban trail to the fair on Saturday. It was a super chill ride right after a great storm. I wondered around by myself, ran into a lot of friends, and ate cinnamon almonds. Throughout the afternoon I saw people juggling fire, eating, parading animals around in a barn, dancing, doing magic, playing music, eating, scamming, engaged in political conversations, drinking, singing, complaining, selling, smiling, hoola-hooping, laughing, and did I mention eating?
One of many “register to vote here while we hock our candidate” booths had one of those giant sketch pads—ala pictionary or the less cool, ‘win, lose, or draw’—listing popular voting issues. Folks were to check the issues that are most important to them.
Here was the top three:
1. Ending the war
2. Protecting the environment
3. Sustainable energy
Flagstaff, I love you. Even while I was standing there, someone was adding a category, “protection of civil liberties.” I walked up and checked “protecting the environment,” while a woman next to me commented, “I wonder why the economy isn’t getting more checks. Every time you turn on the TV, everyone seems to be talking about the economy.” I kinda shrugged and walked away.
I wish I had told her that a) local sustainable energy and ending the war would help the economy and b) that if we don’t protect the environment, none of the things on the list really matter.
Then, I visited the National Parks Service tent. I scored a bumper sticker intended for use on boats. “Danger: Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.” I thought it would be funny to put it on my car. I also got a few temporary tattoos of the endangered humpback chub, courtesy of Glen Canyon Natural Resource Association…or, ironically, the Canyon’s NRA. Already knowing the answer, I asked a rep from the Park’s Service, “what is the largest threat to the humpback chub?”
She said, “apart from complicated issues involving the temperature of the sandbars, the biggest threat is Glen Canyon Dam.” I couldn’t believe how open and honest she was with me. I don’t know, I guess I thought she’d throw some scientific jargon at me or blame it all on invasive mussels or something. I didn’t have to tell her that it seemed like a pretty easy problem/solution scenario. She knows it is. So I asked the only question I could possibly ask. “So when is the dam coming down?”
I guess it’s easier to print up temporary tattoos.
Then I watched the bears and the bees play at the Variety Stage… and I hoola-hooped. I mean, what else was I going to do, right?
Here are some dam resources (ha!).
http://www.nps.gov/glca/faqs.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekflo
http://www.nps.gov/glca/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/
Here is an excerpt from the US Geological Survey report on what can be done to save the Humpback Chub (the last in the list of links above).
Given existing volumetric constraints and the current state of knowledge, the most readily available tool to stabilize the presence and persistence of nearshore habitats and, thus, enhanced warming in those environments during the summer months, is steady flows from Glen Canyon Dam.
Calling a man-made dam, “existing volumetric constraints” sort of makes it sound like the dam is a natural and permanent structure. So the real question here isn’t, how do we save the humpback chub? Rather it is, how can we prolong the extinction rate of a native fish without addressing the fact that we’ve systematically destroyed it’s habitat? So, as I understand the plan (more on this in the second link above)–the last part of the sentence–their solution to saving the fish is to periodically allow water flow into the river at a higher density, therefore temporarily creating a sandbar where the fish typically thrive.
The bit about “our current state of knowledge” is pretty funny too. Put together and translated, it’s like they’ve figured out a cleaver way to say, “because there is a big dam there for some reason and because, we’ll we’re just not too bright, we’ve got to…”
No. It was an interesting experiment. But it is fostering an environment where invasive species thrive and the native ones are being choked out. It only produces a million kilowatts. If we have to kill off fish and destroy rivers to get energy, we don’t want it. It was a mistake. Tear it down.
Explore posts in the same categories: environmental injustice, local politix, marine/water