Lake Powell Is Hiding Something Spectacular—and Draining It Would Bring It Back

When the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell were completed in the early 1960s, proponents of the project called the reservoir the “jewel of Colorado.” While they lauded the benefits Lake Powell would bring to Colorado River Basin states—mainly drought protection, cheap hydropower, and recreation—critics mourned the loss of Glen Canyon itself, now submerged beneath the lake. Today, parts of this lost desert landscape are resurfacing. Amid a worsening Colorado River Crisis, both Lake Powell and Lake Mead reached record-low levels this year, exposing more of Glen Canyon’s features. Gregory Bridge, a natural rock arch, towers above Lake Powell’s surface. The entire chamber of a rock amphitheater called Cathedral in the Desert is also above water. The reappearance of these natural wonders and mounting concerns over the future of the Colorado River have reinvigorated the push to drain Lake Powell, Yale Environment 360 reports. Groups like the Glen Canyon Institute believe this would create a more reliable water supply and reinvigorate a once thriving riverine ecosystem. “Before the dam, Glen Canyon was a wonderland of gorges, spires, cliffs, and grottoes; the biological heart of the Colorado River, with more than 79 species of plants, 189 species of birds, and 34 species of mammals; and a cultural treasure, with more than 3,000 ancient ruins,” says the institute’s website. “After the dam, Glen Canyon became known as ‘the place no one knew’ and America’s ‘lost national park.'” A controversial conservation strategy The institute is advocating for a “Fill Mead First” strategy that would drain Lake Powell and consolidate its water into Lake Mead, turning two half-empty, failing reservoirs into a single, full, functioning one and restoring Glen Canyon. Rather than removing the dam—which would be expensive—it argues for drilling new diversion tunnels around it, allowing the Colorado River to flow freely through. Those tunnels would lie below the existing bypass tubes, close to the riverbed, according to Yale e360. The Institute claims hydropower generation turbines could be installed in the tunnels so that Glen Canyon dam keeps producing electricity, and Lake Powell could still serve as a backup to store excess water during flood years. In addition to restoring Glen Canyon, this strategy would allow for “normalized sediment flows to take place in the Grand Canyon, which has been starved of sediment for the last 50 years,” its website states. What’s more, draining Lake Powell completely “could [annually] reduce evaporative losses by a couple hundred thousand acre-feet,” Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, told Yale e360. Due to its high desert location and huge surface area, Lake Powell loses an average of 860,000 acre-feet of water per year to evaporation and bank seepage, according to the Glen Canyon Institute. “On a river that is much smaller than anyone expected, that water really matters,” Sorensen said, but she noted that the Fill Mead First plan will face “a lot of obstacles.” Yale e360 notes that the federal government did not consider this strategy in its environmental impact statement for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, published in August. It will also face opposition from proponents of water recreation on Lake Powell. Plus, drilling the new diversion tunnels would likely take a decade and billions of dollars. So, it doesn’t look like Lake Powell will be drained anytime soon. In August, the federal government ordered the Lower Basin states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—to significantly reduce the amount of water they draw from the Colorado River. These states primarily source their water from Lake Mead, and the cuts aim to conserve water across the Colorado River system and help stabilize reservoir systems. Arizona and Nevada have sued the government over this management plan, claiming that it is unlawful and forces just three of the seven Colorado Basin states to shoulder the burden of water conservation. Scientists predict that the river’s flows will only continue to shrink due to climate change and unsustainable use, declining as much as 31% by 2050. Finding an equitable solution that will remain effective into the future is critical.