The Fooding of the Grand Canyon: An Act of Betrayal

On Wednesday, March 5, federal officials from the Department of the Interior began a three-day mission of flooding the Grand Canyon by pouring millions of gallons of water in order to restore its precious ecosystem and to rebuild the beaches along the Colorado River. This man-made flood was yet another, desperate attempt to restore the canyon to its former glory days since its ecosystem was permanently and drastically altered after the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam and the Hoover Dam. Although the canyon has been flooded twice before, in 1996 and 2004, scientists claim that this exercise must be conducted at least once a year, depending on the arid Arizona conditions, to observe any positive outcomes. Dirk Kempthorne from the Interior Secretary optimistically noted, "This gives you a glimpse of what nature has been doing for millions of years, cutting through and creating this magnificent canyon." Although the Department radiates the picture of perfection on the outside, this false deception should not take attention away from the real issues at hand- they are not acting in an environmentally safe and responsible fashion by not following through with the necessary repercussions after the initial flood; the implementation and execution are, for the current time, failing miserably.

Historically before the Glen Canyon was ever built in 1963 to generate vital hydroelectric energy, natural floods from the warm and muddy Colorado River enabled the existence of numerous native plant and fish species. Unfortunately, after its construction, the once warm water quickly turned into a cool and clear fluid, which perpetuated the extinction of four fish species, while two other species came to the brink of extinction, including the endangered humpback chub. In essence, this sixty-hour flood replicated the natural floods that used to nourish the ecosystem by leaving behind vital sediment. Not only does the Grand Canyon face a loss of richness of the habitat, this disheartening loss is also paralleled with "shrinking beaches" along the Colorado River. A superintendent for the Grand Canyon National Park noted, "shrinking beaches have led to the loss of half the camping sites in the canyon in the past decade. Since Glen Canyon Dam was built, 98 percent of the sediment carried by the Colorado River has been lost."

While examining the complexity of the recent event, one is most likely to contemplate whether the flooding is just too little, too late? Proponents of the flood argue that the new flood will not be fatal to the existing ecosystem and species; instead it will remarkably be beneficial, as it will revive both the ecosystem and the beaches. The followers of this argument essentially emphasize that Mother Nature is capable of withstanding drastic changes, while species alike, will also adapt to the new environment. Even though this argument may hold some ground, the negative consequences of the flood are extraordinarily overpowering. Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility declares, "This so-called experiment ignores the results of a decade worth of research obtained with more than $80 million tax dollars. This week's high-flow stunt is nothing but a green wash to mask another betrayal of the Grand Canyon by its political custodians." Following this rhetoric, it becomes obvious that the flooding will harm the surrounding ecology and resources in more detrimental ways than previously thought. According to Grand Canyon Gets Flooded, Turns Out It's Man, more so, by denying follow-up floods for months (and years at a time) will undoubtedly "leave endangered species, sandbars used by river-rafting trips, and archeological treasures at river's edge diminished almost to the point of no return."

Furthermore, opponents of the flood, including members of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, claim that the flood is a deceiving battleground between politics and the environment, where politics is currently, but not surprisingly, on the winning side. A spokesperson for the Grand Canyon Trust stated, "the power industry is driving the Bureau of Reclamation more than anything else, as opposed to what's best for the canyon." As such, environmentalists accuse the government of perpetuating the need to maximize hydropower revenue at the cost of the well being of the canyon. Appallingly, the Interior Department has not scheduled a follow-up flood for another five years! As a result, the net benefits (if any) from the flood will inevitably be lost if the procedure is not repeated. While scientists will document habitat changes and its effects on the aquatic life, science and politics should not prosper at the cost of the other.

More so, what is even more disturbing is that officials from the Interior Department, under an agreement with NBC, chose to exclusively publicize the event on the superficial morning program, the "Today Show," at the expense of the scientists and geologists. Clearly, these sly actions cost the American people vital knowledge. The "Today Show," which often omits, dramatizes and fragments newsworthy occurrences and information, will be unable to communicate the complex nature of the flood. Jeff Ruch, the PEER Executive cleverly remarks, "While the Interior Department's craving for any favorable media coverage is understandable, they should earn it with actual good stewardship rather than from offering some splashy footage." Evidently, the motives of the Interior Department are merely a facade, which ultimately lead to an act of betrayal.

The Grand Canyon, one of the most well-known and significant landmarks of the United States offers incredible insight into the history of the planet's formation; therefore, its economic diversity (resulting in the extinction of species after one-time floods) should not be undermined even at the cost of hydroelectric power, generated from the Glen Canyon Dam. A happy medium between the production of hydropower and biodiversity may be achieved by enabling a more natural and fluid flow from the Colorado River or by enabling consistent flood follow-ups; this way, both sides, to a certain extent, prosper. The current actions of the Department of the Interior should not be tolerated any further, as they are a source of hindrance in more ways than one. It is undeniably necessary and significant to establish and maintain open and honest interactions between the political and the environmental spheres.