As usual, the politics of Glen Canyon Dam are tied up in the economic issues surrounding the dam. In the Western United States water is precious, even more so than gold. So when water is the topic of discussion out west, the stakes are immediately very high. Glen Canyon dam provides an interesting case study because it is an integral piece to the entire western river system, both economically and ecologically. Without Lake Powell, the upper basin is left literally high and dry during drought years, but with Lake Powell, the aquatic ecosystem is severely altered downstream. Further, Glen Canyon Dam was built in the spirit of the settlement of the west which thrived just after the war. Decommissioning this dam both directly and indirectly questions everything about that settlement. How much water is necessary? How much power do we need? At what cost are we willing to have these things? How do we determine whether an alfalfa farmer in northern Colorado is more or less important to the community than a homeowner in Los Angeles with a green yard and a hot tub and a car to wash?In addition to these already value laden questions, there are legal issues related to the Law of the River which prove politically contentious. Are the compacts on the river perfectly binding in perpetuity? Can we rework the laws or reapportion the stakes? Or are these laws absolute? The major question of taking down a dam is entirely new and unprecedented. What are the long-term conditions for removal and restoration and who will benefit? Below, some of these questions are discussed.
There are a number of industries which rely heavily on the dam itself or the reservoir it creates; each has definitive claims on the system and whatever decision is made will have to meet their concessions.
First, the recreationists on Lake Powell and the anglers in the trout fishery downstream have a vested interest in keeping Lake Powell. Houseboat users and water skiers enjoy the lake, anglers relish in the cold, sediment free water that provides a blue ribbon trout fishery downstream. Both of these groups have large numbers and deep pockets, as well as representatives in the lobbying community. Because both boaters and fishers are so powerful politically, they are a force to be reckoned with and their opinion in the matter will be weighed heavily.
Second, the hydropower generated at Glen Canyon Dam is cheap to produce and cheap to buy. Glen Canyon Dam provides 60% of that power for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPAlink?). WAPA has contracts with over 100 countries, cities, and private entities who buy the power at a low price. When the price of power goes up, or when WAPA runs out and has to buy it at market price, they still sell it to their contractors at the subsidized price (approximately $20 MW hr.). Further, a huge argument for the power user constituency is the reliability and renewable source that hydropower provides. Although Pam Hyde of the Glen Canyon Institute argues that "water may be renewable but rivers aren't," the fact remains that there is strong opposition from contractors who have gotten used to cheap power and want to keep it that way.
There is also the issue of the legality of removing the dam. As already discussed, Lake Powell is the dowry of the Upper Basin. Without that reserve of water to send downstream, there is fear of draught and a call on the compact. The fact is that the Law of the River has been contentious from the very beginning. The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation and the regulations set on water use in the arid west have created an entire economy of water lawyers in water courts. Today, with the number of calls on the river for industrial, agricultural, and urban uses, the failure to deliver water can be a very expensive mistake. The Colorado River is already over appropriated, meaning that the water naturally flowing is too little to meet contract obligations. In addition, the calls on this small resource are growing as more people settle into urban and suburban areas. From the point of view of the Upper Basin, if it hopes to experience continued growth and development, as well as meet the requests of the Lower Basin, Lake Powell is essential.
Last but not least, there is the issue of social equity which relates directly to income distribution. Without Glen Canyon Dam, the city of Page would not exist. An entire town, all its inhabitants and its livelihood, would disappear. The Glen Canyon Institute touts the idea that Page would become the dam decommissioning capital of the world. In reality, the economic loss to Page would be a hard hit. There is also the issue of the Native American call on water rights. If this country were to obey the Winter's Doctrine (link), the amount of water claimed by Natives would be staggering. As it stands, most tribes do not receive their allocation of water. This is a serious issue in the discussion of Glen Canyon Dam as well as the entire Colorado River system. How do we talk fairly about this issue when we ignore an entire population of people with a vested interest in the river's management? The Navajo Nation has an interest in both Lake Powell waters for the Navajo Generating Station as well as a potential boat marina on Reservation land. For a people of extreme poverty (nearly 50% of Native Americans live below the poverty level and without running water or electricity), this discussion is one of equity, not principle or idealism. It is difficult to weigh the environmental costs and political strife versus the basic needs of native peoples and the lack of consideration given to them.In the end, the decision to take down the dam will be political, just as its construction was political. The ultimate deciding factor will value water as if it were gold, for water is the essential resource of the southwest.