OCR Text |
Show An Objective Summary ... ly Fran Harm's A groat deal lias boon written about tlif risusv; waters of Lake Powell eniei-ing eniei-ing the boundaries of Rainbow Rain-bow linage National Monument. Monu-ment. Much ot what has been v niton tails into three- categories: cate-gories: tl) biased, emo'.ion-inspired emo'.ion-inspired material originating from various conservanoi:-nunded conservanoi:-nunded organisations and individuals; in-dividuals; (2) biased, money-inspired money-inspired material originating" from various industrial and political organizations and individuals in-dividuals trom various industrial indus-trial and political organizations organiza-tions and individuals; and i.o) unbiased, unemotional, non-mercenary, non-mercenary, but also largely unanalyzed, reporting by various news media. There is thus plenty of room in Uiis controversy for an objective summary and analysis. an-alysis. It is highly unlikely that such an analysis would have any effect upon tne ultimate outcome of this problem, but perhaps it will help those of us who have a special feeling for the uniqueness uni-queness of southeastern Utah to reconcile ourselves to what most probably is going to happen. The problem of Lake Powell Pow-ell versus Rainbow Bridge can best be understood if summarized, then divided into three aspects for analysis political' economic, legal, and practical. Summary of the Problem Glen Canyon dam was built so that Lake Powell would be full at elevation 3700 feet above sea level, and to perform per-form its basic functions of flood control, water conservation conserva-tion and power generation most efficiently at levels not far below this maximum. However, Lake Powell water backs up into Bridge Canyon and at elevation 3600 begins encroaching upon Rainbow Bridge National Monument. With the possible exception of a few purists, no one particularly par-ticularly cares if the water just gees a few feet into the Monument. But at elevation 3700, the water will be directly direct-ly beneath Rainbow Bridge, and this troubles a great many people, enough so that legal and other actions have been taken by various groups to halt the rising waters at elevation 3600, in spite of the political, economic and legal repercussions this would create. Pii'it lo.ilFeoiimnii- Aspects The political ami economic aspecls of the controversy simply represent two sides of the same coin. Glen Canyon Pain was built fur economic purposes, over the .strenuous objections of certain cunser- of utmost importance and perhaps rightfully so, this places most, if not all, federal Continued on Page 15-2 ' ... '.' ' i . . 1 : ' .. ; ' . v ' --. : . ' . ; ' .. ' - v . '-y- H r , - . .. .'.. ' -. . ... -i i t . .4 ;:vu.;'v, i - . y . . i ,. ' f-y . . r ; . ' ' .v. ' ".'...' ' . ' 'f ' ' : U-Xi; ''v, ; t . - A ' r ' , . :..r . : ? . : .-. v . , ;;. ,;s'- r. -J. . " . .J m' . ( f , . . J mi., ..-.- ' ;v(;,v - w- . -a : , . Ve . i ' ' t f . v -.- s ' ' :;:-'V.;,:( v! -i, ? ' , : ' ' . ,' t v., - . r-- - v ' - : -r-wi.r:---! v: - . .... j; - ' mmnmtiz: - - - . , - ;,.; :--. ., i. , , v " -t, ' ' ' ' . ( ' Uy:y:whP: ,' : r . ' : Rainbow Bridge is impressive when viewed from upstream. up-stream. Before the creation of Lake Powell, the few people who visited the gigantic span came from this direction di-rection by jeep or horseback, then on foot, accompanied across the Navajo Reservation by Indian guides. Now valion croups. As both federal fed-eral and stale politieans almost al-most invariably consider economic development to he that Bridge Canyon can be reached by boat,' thousands of tourists visit Rainbow Bridge each year, most of them brought there by Lake Powell concessionaires in large tour boats. In 1971 the tour boat dock was within sight of Rainbow Bridge. ""i'TV? - ' ... . '-' -.-.. -.- - L -v .,:v .;y.: - 1 i 6'-''-v,V r-v-- . ;rv"" '---v' '.;;'t:;: y-: ( 4!-.rfc';- 3 1 r-; . -';.' r :; .v- ,. :.'" .... -. f p: - '': - '- """V ' ' , :a;'; i ' -." , :-; ....... - ; - . : -' '. 'v ' ; ' ' v. V.-iv V-T'f"''r' -', ' ' t": ' .'-..?,'-.' 'i-. - , ' '.. .J - Iyyy;.:-y . -Hyyy ..'-y; . y-A'y J& : "' :;yC-yvS " I T-'.c."' ; 'y"" . .-: v:'v Xrvv;: -' --; v.-- - ,.xr 'vH-; y-O ! : r-r'-'. , j : ' T.'. - r.A5. "iy. " : :yy" 1 JL-,.. -. -.. . ' r-. -is -i -.I.v.- fe'W E ... . . 'iJJ-4.iiJi.- - The foot trail to Rainbow Bridge from where the water has reached in Bridge Canyon, has been growing shorter each yar, as rising Lake Powell waters flood more of the canyon. This photo, taken in 1969, shows the first glimpse of Rainbow bridge that hikers get. At that time, this point was about half .way between the dock and Rainbow. In 1971 the water . reached about the level of the two people in the foreground, and it was possible to enjoy this view of Rainbow Bridge from the dock. Less than another 100 vertical feet of water above 1 97 1 's high will put water directly di-rectly under the span. Unless restrained by court decision, the water will approach even closer in 1972 than it did a year ago. A Big Question at Rainbow Bridge Continued from Page B-l and state politicians and agencies squarely on the side of the industries which favor full usage of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, 'essen- tially power companies and major water users. To counterbalance this somewhat one-sided stand for economic-development - above all - else, are various conservation conser-vation - minded organizations and individuals. These tend to be somewhat one-sided in defense of natural beauty and existing ecological systems, to the exclusion of economic factors. Again, rightfully so, because such groups serve a very useful purpose. Before they existed, uncontrolled, ill - considered economic "development" "de-velopment" has all too often produced short - range gain at the expense of long range environmental and aesthete disaster, and sometimes even ultimate economic net loss. So the battle over Rainbow Bridge can be said to be between those who favor economic gain over aesthetic values such as the beauty of Rainbow Bridge as nature created it and those who hold that economic factors should not invariably and automatically prevail over all others. This is a healthv situation, as the courts which must ultimately resolve this dilemma will thus be well supplied with facts and argu- . ments on both sides of the question, and thus be able to, make sound decisions. Legal Aspects Conservationists base their legal case upon a federal law which prohibits dams and reservoir waters in National Parks and Monuments. This law was quite probably enacted en-acted by Congress under pressure from conservation groups at a tin.f. when economic econ-omic development forces saw little in the law of danger to future developments, and so put up little resistance to its passage. Later, however, in passing the legislation necessary for the construction of Glen Canyon Dam, Congress showed show-ed its true feelings about this law. It permitted the dam to be designed to operate at the 3700-foot level, it failed to allocate money for any form of construction to keep Lake Powell water out of Rainbow Bridge National Monument, ' and even specified that alio- " cated funds were not to be used for this purpose. This, the legal situation now facing the courts that must resolve the controversy is highly ambiguous. Each of the contestants can show evidence evi-dence that Congress is on their side, and that 'the "intent" "in-tent" of Congress is obviou-;. Yet the only thing that is really obvious is that state-elected state-elected members of Congress ' have deliberately avoided making their true intent clear that in order to escyce pressures pres-sures from both sides, they have firmly straddled the fence by passing a law, then neglecting and blocking its. enforcement. Unfortunately, the courts which must decide the legal issue, cannot use this time-honored time-honored ploy. They must decide de-cide one way or the other.' . They must either rule in favor of economics, by deciding decid-ing that Congressional . "intent" "in-tent" was to allow full use of Glen Canyon Dam as an exception to the no-dams-and-water-in-parks law, or in favor fav-or of the conservationists by-insisting by-insisting on enforcement of the letter of this law. Either way, Congress is apt to hear a gr.eat deal more from those who ultimately lose the decision. de-cision. Complicating the matter still further is the fact that existing, legally-binding contracts con-tracts between " power companies com-panies and the federal agency that administers Glen Canyon Dam permit impounding water up to the 3700 - foot level. Also, the fulfillment of existing water-user agreements agree-ments depend upon greater reservoir storage capacity " than would be available under a 3600 - foot leveL limitation. Practical Aspects The practical aspects of the " controversy have all too often " been obscured by the smokescreens smoke-screens of legal verbosity that both sides have generated. It ' is easy to say that had Glen Canyon Dam been built tri ' operate at a 3600 - foot max-ium. max-ium. there would now be no problem. Perhaps this whole fiasco will serve to prevent such ambiguous law- passing and enforcement in the fulur? But the present, very real problem must be solved too, and there are practical considerations con-siderations on both sides. It ' Lake Powell waters are held to the 3600-foot maximum, then power production and major water users who depend de-pend upon the full water impoundment im-poundment potential of the dam will suffer economic loss. And if the water is allowed al-lowed to reach the' 3700-foo! level, there is a possible danger dan-ger that Rainbow Bridge will be undermined and collapse. Legal aspects aside, the problem is simply one of very real economic loss versus the potential loss of a one-of-a-kind natural wonder. No one seriously claims that water standing under Rainbow Bridge would detract from its beauty. That the water might weaken and endanger the span is the only practical issue. How serious this danger may be is anyone's guess. All kinds of experts have made all kinds of elaims, some saying the probability of collapse is very slow, others contending that disaster would be inevitable. They can't all be correct, but there is no practical way of determining deter-mining in advance which experts ex-perts are wrong. There is objective evidence on both sides. Rainbow Bridge is formed of Navajo sandstone and stands on a base of layred Kayenta deposits. de-posits. Some of these layers are hard, others relatively soft. As the waters of Lake Powell have risen, hundreds of miles of shoreline have consisted of Navajo sandstone cliffs supported by Kayenta deposits ,with the water lapping lapp-ing at or near the interface ' Yet despite " this, signs . of collapse are few. On the other hand, Powell waters have only been at this level for a relatively short time, yet despite this, massive mass-ive collapse has occurred. Just a mile or so uplake from The Rincon,. where the rising waters of the lake have been working on Kayenta deposits for about three years, a dra matic change has been taking place. In 1969 a huge section of the solid Navajo sandstone cliff above the lake slid into the lake, leaving a finger-shard finger-shard of rock some 200 feet tall still leaning against th? cliff at a slight angle. In 1970, this monstrous slab disappeared disap-peared into the water, togu-ther togu-ther with countless tons of additional rock. In 1971, weakened weak-ened still further by the rising ris-ing water, the 300-foot cliff suffered still another massive collapse, this one carrying more material into the lake than all the previous falls together ,and leaving an enormous, deep scar reaching clear to the top of the solid rock wall. So Kayenta deposits are indeed weakened by constant contact with water, and massive mass-ive collapses of undercut Navajo Na-vajo sandstone do occur. But when it comes to Rainbow Bridge, it is simply a matter of judging probability, and in this we are all about equally unqualified. Various proposals have been made for allowing the lake level to reach 3700 feet, but excluding . the water from Rainbow Bridge National Monument. Unfortunately, a'l such proposals have been impractical. Even ignoring costs, the best of them would cause more damage to the terrain in and around the Monument than the rising waters probably will, and would also be unsightly in the. extreme. Conclusions The whole controversy will soon be judged in a federal court and doubtless, whichever which-ever way this decision goes, the losers will appeal to still higher courts. And doubtless too, whoever ultimately loses in the courts will then continue con-tinue efforts to get Congress off of its fence. So the whole affair will probably continue for years. Which way will the first legal decision go? That, too, is anyone's guess, but on the basis of American history, when dollars and aesthetics lock horns, dollars very seldom sel-dom lose. As this country grows and matures and faces the long-range results of some of its earlier short-sighted decisions against protection and preservation of our natural na-tural resources, this lopsid-edness lopsid-edness is very slowly appro-clung appro-clung a healthier balance. But still, all things considered, consider-ed, it is quite likely that within the next two or three years, many family-vacation photo-albums will display pic tures of Rainbow Bridge standing astride a reflective ribbon of Lake Powell water. At that time, the only remaining re-maining question will be how soon will albums contain photos of where Rainbow Bridge once stood? Photos showing a scattering of odd-shaped odd-shaped boulders in a white-encrusted white-encrusted gully, where once a "frozen rainbow" proudly arched across the sky! |