OK. This is the second half of uh my interview with Anne Castle for the
Glen Cannon Dam Adaptive Management Program on March 26th of 2018.
So Anne earlier, you were talking about um when you came into the program
in 2009, there was uh a little bit of conflict, policy, conflicts or
position differences between the federal agencies involved in the program.
And one of your first tasks was to figure out how to resolve those
conflicts or differences. And I was struck by your description of the
process that you utilized, which was to get everybody to the table um and
including the tribes and have everybody talk to each other and begin to
slowly uh and incrementally but successfully work out um a way forward
that everybody could agree to. And it occurred to me that um sometimes
this is a little bit different than another type of leadership style which
we're familiar with in, in, in some federal agencies in which you have a
policy determined from the top and, and an executor and administrator. Uh
make sure that everybody down the line is implementing that unified policy
direction. And we assume that that's the way that's how ceos manage
corporations. That's one style, sort of top down policy conformance.
There's also this sort of bottom up collaborative process which the M wig
itself is kind of a representative.
I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the differences between
those two management styles. Why you chose one over the other in any
particular instances where you see the strengths and weaknesses are of
those two different kinds of management styles. I think that part of the
reason for um the way that I tried to manage the AM wig was the condition
in which I found it. And this,
the, the context is important, the, the park service and, and when I say
the Park Service, that's not really fair because it wasn't the Park
service as the agency, but Grand Canyon National Park, which was the um
embodiment of the Park service involved in the AM wig. They had um felt
for the entire George W Bush administration that they were under siege and
they, I think in some sense, envisioned themselves as um the rebels that
were saving the values of the park. Um
So, so they felt embattled. Um I think that was part of the reason that
they were so at odds with the other federal agencies. Um And, and it was
partly uh because they, the different agencies have different mission
descriptions and they, they have to do different things. They're trying to
get to different goals. Um And so that, that natural tension is going to
be there. But in this case, it was exacerbated by um the politics. And so
if I had come in as the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, being
identified with the Bureau of Reclamation and told the Park Service how to
behave, that would not have worked, that would have been totally
counterproductive. Um Plus I'm naturally inclined to value the same things
that the Grand Canyon National Park was valuing. And so I wanted to find a
way that, that all the agencies could work together. And plus I felt that
it was inappropriate and unseemly for the different interior agencies to
be squabbling with each other in public. Um And I thought that the federal
government should make a better showing than that embodied. And so, um
it was also the change of administration allowed Grand Canyon National
Park to be more accepting of the Obama political appointees than they had
been of the George W Bush political appointees. And so I had an
opportunity to make peace. Um And so we instituted these pre meetings with
the federal agencies. Um And that was an interesting evolution as well
because uh the AM wig, um
let's say the amid meeting would be for two days on a uh Thursday and
Friday. So we'd all come in on Wednesday and, and the federal agencies
would meet and we'd go through the agenda and figure out what we were, how
we were gonna vote and what we were gonna say. Um and then in order to
facilitate input from the tribes in a setting that they would feel um
safer in expressing their opinions, we brought the tribes in as part of
that meeting with the federal agencies because one of the communications
issues that, that um was uh communicated to me was that the tribes felt
that their opinions were not heard in the Greater AM W group. Um And that
their positions were dismissed by other AMW members. And so we thought
that it might be helpful to um meet with the tribes just as federal
agencies, all of whom bear a trust responsibility to the tribes, um to see
if we could establish better communication and allow the tribes to be more
forthright, then they might be um comfortable being in the larger group.
And then, um the uh Western Area Power Administration also a member of the
, am we um said, well, hey, wait a minute, we're a federal agency too. Um
And we also have a trust responsibility to the tribe. So why are you just
meeting with the interior agencies? So we had this evolutionary process in
which we, um we started with just the interior agencies and then we had
interior agencies and then the tribes came in and then we had just the
interior agencies, then Interior Plus wa A then Interior W A and the
tribes and we'd all go through this day long series of meetings all before
the AM rig meeting started to get our ducks in a row and some of that was
more successful than other parts. Um I think the, uh, getting the interior
agencies on the same page was the most successful portion of that. And, um
, these efforts are all being made around particular issues, policy issues.
Um You mentioned, uh, the endangered species uh ch and versus trout in
the Colorado River. Um What other issues were sort of the the flashpoints
for uh potential conflict? And um that required more collaboration and
discussion permitting, as I mentioned, permitting of the science. Um and
uh there were some conflicts around who was responsible for doing stuff.
So the park service has its own science um that Grand Canyon National Park
has scientists that do science in the park. And so there were times at
which they were concerned that us, GS or GCMRC
were usurping their responsibilities or overstepping the bounds, maybe
duplicating efforts. Um That was particularly an issue around cultural
resources. Um because the park has a responsibility to maintain cultural
resources within the park. And because of tribal concerns, GCMRC had um
cultural resource experts, Archaeo archaeologists on staff who were also
trying to do cultural resource um investigation.
And um so there was a source of conflict there and I imagine the tribes
wanted to do their own archaeological archaeology and cultural resource
studies too in, in some cases, although that, that didn't seem to raise
the same conflict as between the federal agencies. And if I recall
correctly, the superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park during some of
that period was Steve Martin, right. Um, were there other Grand Canyon
National Park superintendents that were in during that time period that
you were involved? Yeah. Um, Steve Martin's successor is a guy named Dave
Ura, um, who was uh who is very focused on
ensuring that Grand Canyon National Park had a good working relationship
with the other interior agencies and in particular with GCMRC. And so he
put a lot of effort into uh understanding what GCMRC wanted to do needed
to do was being directed to do what that took in terms of park resources
and permitting and trying to work things out. So you mentioned the tribes
a number of times. Um one of the issues that has evolved over the life of
the Adaptive Management Program has been uh increasing and making more
meaningful tribal input. Uh Many of the people that we've interviewed have
had things to say about that. Um Is there anything else you'd like to say
about the role of tribes, how it may have changed over time, the kinds of
issues they're most concerned about and how you were successful in getting
their involvement and input on a more meaningful level.
I think the tribes will always have an important role. Um and it, it is an
interesting
um dichotomy between the tribal cultural values and this highly western
scientific effort that's going on in GCMRC and, and that the majority of
the AMW members relate to. Um So I, I think the sources of that tension
will not go away. Um In addition to having this um pre meeting with the
tribes, I also started having lunch with um the tribal representatives and
whatever tribal members were coming to the AM wig because there'd usually
be a member and an alternate or a twig member, sometimes tribal members in
the audience. So we get all the um tribal members together on one of the
two days of the AM wig meeting and just have lunch together and usually
without agenda. Um just to create that relationship and social interaction
, which I found very valuable. And I think that at the end of the day, the
AM Wag functions as uh uh complex set of relationships and it was, it was
incredibly valuable to me to establish relationships with all the MW
members. Um And I think that's particularly important with the tribal
representatives um because
the, the personal relationship is so important in, in any sort of
transaction or activity with a tribe. Um And so that was all really
valuable and the tribal representatives tended to be pretty long lived on
the AM wag. And so that provided an opportunity to establish and deepen
those relationships.
And when you have that there's so much more trust and um willingness to
compromise. Um And, and try to be creative about solutions that, I mean,
maybe you don't even have to compromise, maybe there's a solution that, um
that gets everybody what they need without compromise. But I think if you
don't have a personal relationship that's so much harder to do.
Um That's a great segue to my next question. Uh I love your statement that
the AM wig is fundamentally a complicated set of relationships. Our
interview with Mary Gordon focused a great deal on her efforts to um
develop those relationships in a way that allow the, you know, the
organization to move forward as a, you know, as a kind of a team rather
than a whole bunch of individuals fighting for a stake in, in the outcome
, it's more collaboration and that was her sort of contribution. Um Can
you mention some of the key individuals that you think have been most
consequential in that complicated set of relationships, what role they
played and some people who should be called out and remembered for their
work? Well, I think Mary is a good start. Um She has had an interesting
history with the AM wig starting as an AMW member representing American
Rivers. Um And then coming back as a facilitator uh for a long time, going
away for a little while and then coming back again. Um So, uh she has
institutional knowledge and um relationships with a lot of the different
generations of a wig members and, and I learned a lot from Mary. Um I
learned a lot from her facilitation style and uh a component of that was
if we were going to vote on a motion, she would um type the motion onto
her laptop projected on a screen and then we'd fiddle with it real time.
Um And, and you could do that with suggestions from different AMW members
in a less than fully parliamentary procedure type manner that was much
more productive. Um And we'd end up with something that everybody was
looking at as a motion, um that pretty much everybody could vote for, um
because they had participated in the process of crafting it. And if they
had some concern about this word or that phrase, they could get that
corrected before we had to put people on paper um with their positions.
And, and so I thought that was a really effective device um that Mary used.
And another thing I learned from Mary was that she would sort of scan the
room and figure out if somebody was looking unhappy but wasn't saying
anything and she'd make him say something. Um And we developed a really
nice working relationship. Um because uh
Mary had um for other chairs, I think, taken more of the, um I'm gonna run
this meeting role. Um And uh and the, the person who was the secretary's
desk name was there to make decisions and, and kind of provide the big
picture but wasn't necessarily running the meeting. Um But I ran the
meeting, but Mary could facilitate the meeting and that freed her up to be
able to figure out who was mad but wasn't talking. Um And, and tell me,
and, you know, we could get that person to express their viewpoint and
adjust the process accordingly. Um So I felt like we, we had kind of a
good team thing going on, but I think Mary style is very inclusive. Uh And
um she tries to make sure that people aren't left behind and that, um
that I think is key to a functional group where people feel like they're
contributing, that they're not being ignored. Um And they're part of this
collective effort and you're right, that's what we were really trying to
create. Ok, we got a problem here. Um We got a dam that didn't exist
before and it's upstream of one of the most iconic parks in the world. Um
How are we going to solve that problem collectively? And yes, we have
different missions um and, and different constituencies to respond to, but
let's let's work on it, let's work on it together. And um, so that was, uh
do you think it was reasonably successful during your time there? I like
to think so. And partly because um there had been all this conflict and
controversy and divided votes and um litigation uh at the beginning and
toward the end of the time I was there,
I think all the votes I remember were um consensus votes without
dissension. So we come to these decisions collectively. Now, one of the
things we did as an experiment and I'm not sure if it's still going on,
but um this is really, this was another interesting evolution. So, um so
as I said, when, when I first started, the federal agencies are batting
with each other and, and voting differently. Um, and I said, we're not
going to do that anymore. We're gonna figure out how we're all voting and
we're all voting that way. Um, and, um, the other am wig members,
particularly the states had been the most vocal about what's going on with
these federal agencies. They're voting in different directions. We don't
know what the secretary thinks. How are we supposed to figure that out?
And then when we all started voting the same way, they said, well, you
know, we don't know what the federal agencies are thinking because you all
go in a room together and you figure out what you're gonna say and then
you do it and we don't know who's thinking what. Um, so that was, that was
, you know, whatever you do, damned if you do, damned if you don't, I
guess. But, um, uh, so there was a suggestion that if the federal agencies
were gonna all vote the same way, then why should they vote? Why should
they be voting members? Which, which is not as weird as it might sound at
, at first because it's really unusual to have federal agencies as voting
members of a federal advisory committee, which is what the A W is. So,
it's a committee that's set up to advise the secretary, presumably the
secretary can get advice from the Park Service or US GS or whichever um
independently. And, um, so we decided to try as an experiment that the
federal agencies would be non voting members. And um that was implemented
about midway through my time um as the chair of the Am wig. And as I said
, it, um some people liked it. Some people didn't, uh it gave the federal
agency some freedom though. Um And, and we were explicit at the time that
uh
the, the, the agencies, the interior agencies weren't gonna vote, but um
they were still going to fully participate and they were gonna make their
views known so that um am wick members with less time and resources to
invest in the program would get the benefit of the expertise and the
insight from the federal folks who were, you know, immersed in these
issues as part of their jobs. And so that was a little bit of a struggle.
But um but that was what we were trying to do. So, going back to the
question of who was influential. So, Mary, I would say, but I really think
that uh there were contributions from so many quarters. Um The reclamation
folks had to think outside of their traditional box, which is water
operations. How are we going to manage this dam to get the water where
it's supposed to be and generate electricity? Because that's what creates
revenue. Um They had to go outside that and think, yes, we have endangered
species responsibilities, but we're all part of interior and we want to
preserve Grand Canyon National Park and, and how do we do that? And how do
we honor the tribes? And, and so I think there had to be a considerable
evolution in the um uh the analysis, the sort of internal analysis that
the reclamation folks went through and that had been occurring um over
many years since really the enactment of the Grand Canyon Protection Act.
But, but it was happening in real time while I was there and I could see
it happening and gold was the deputy um regional director of the Upper
Colorado region. Um And she was the uh reclamation AM wig member um for
many years. And, and she was terrific in terms of uh her ability to
understand the positions of other AM W members and, and try to work with
people to figure out a, a constructive path forward. The folks at GCMRC um
were very responsive and under Jack's leadership, I think particularly so
to um not only let's do science that makes a difference to um real people
on the ground. But let's get our results out there. Let's not make sure
that we've got 30 peer reviews and, you know, 87 spell checks before we
release something. Let's get it out as soon as we can. Um uh understanding
and informing people that this may not be final um because it hasn't gone
through peer review but, but people want to see this stuff, they don't
want to wait for three years. Um And so that, that was a, a huge hurdle
for um us geo scientists to jump. Um But they were able to um to work on
that and uh and turn their results around um much more quickly than they
had before. Uh
the Park service, I think was also um under Dave U Baraga leadership, uh
very accommodating um in ways that they had not always been. Um And Jan
Balsam who was the chief scientist for Grand Canyon National Park um was
really, really helpful in dealing with those tricky cultural resource
issues um and working with reclamation to um reach an agreement on
historic preservation that that was part of what had to be done uh During
the time that I was there,
we just arranged to interview Jan Bol sometime in the next year. So I'm
looking forward to that. I know she's been involved as a liaison with the
tribes for Grand Canyon National Park for decades. So she'll have great
insight Yeah. Yeah, she does. Yeah.
Um, during the four or so years that you were involved, were there any, um
, really significant events that happened? Sometimes there'll be a massive
flood that changes everything, like in 1983 84 or a crash in a endangered
species population or terrible fire? Was there anything that happened?
Some event that happened that sticks out in your mind as significant
during your two? Um, it was 5.5 years that I was there. Um,
uh, probably the most significant things that happened, um,
were the high flow releases. Um, and having the protocol in place to be
able to do them really quick turnaround, um, was pretty awesome. And so
were you doing them annually by that time? Almost? Um, that's a big
difference from, yeah, absolutely. But interestingly, I mean, nature
always throws a curveball, right. And there was one time that they were
all ginned up to do a high flow release and
all of a sudden there was a green catfish problem below the dam and green
catfish are apparently even more of a threat to endangered species than
trout, like by an order of magnitude. And there was some concern that
doing a high flow release with these green catfish in the system was going
to really upend the ecosystem and, and they didn't have much science on
the green catfish. And so they didn't know what would happen as a result
of that though. The high flow release for that particular year, um, didn't
happen. Um And so it was, I think that was right after I left, but I knew
about it. It was in the works when, um, when I was still there, uh, it was
just a lesson on adaptive management, right? You just, you have no idea
what's gonna happen. You can't predict all these things and you have to be
nimble.
That's, that's an interesting anecdote. I wonder, um, if they engaged in
the same kind of, um, fish control shocking that you were suggesting for,
I don't think they did. I, I really don't think they've done elective
shocking, um, in the upper canyon since like 2010, something like that. Um
, Secretary Salazar came to the first high flow release under the protocol.
Um, and, uh, I think I went to
three of them and is it like a party? Does everybody gather at the dam and
totally like a party? Because it's a good news story, right? You know, the
media is all there and, um, everybody supports, there's, there's nobody
who doesn't want it to happen. Um, and, well, with minor exceptions, but
there's always an exception.
It did. And, um, you know, I got to turn the valve to open the bypass
tubes. Yeah, it's pretty exciting stuff. Do you have any pictures of that
? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Maybe you can send us a picture of you with the? Ok.
Ok. I have a wonderful picture. Um That's uh one of the ones I treasure
from interior and I think it's from the first high flow release um under
the protocol. And there are six of us who are standing on the little
concrete pathway right above the bypass tubes, which is what they open to
create the high flow release. So there's tubes that are a little bit
bigger in diameter than this room. Um So maybe 15 ft um in diameter and
they are shooting water, you know, maybe the water is coming out with such
a velocity that it shoots out, maybe 2025 ft horizontally before it falls
into the river. And so this picture um, has the commissioner of
reclamation, Mike Connor. I uh the um our, our solicitor, um, Bob Snow who
works on all sorts of Colorado River legal issues. The operator from the
Bureau of Reclamation, Katrina Grant, um My deputy Laurie Kaman and the
assistant Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Jane
Lighter and the bypass tubes are shooting water behind us and we all
signed the picture. It's great.
Um Next question. Do you, what do you think um, during your term, what do
you think you were able to accomplish? And what did you want to do that
maybe you weren't able to accomplish? Well, um I certainly wanted to
uh correct what I saw was dysfunction in the AM wig when I first arrived,
I wanted to um hopefully get rid of the litigation and ultimately that
litigation was resolved by dismissal. Um,
and I wanted to,
uh, resolve the discord among the interior agencies
and I wanted to
involve the tribes in a more meaningful way and I think we moved toward
all of those goals. Uh, I didn't know when I came in that I wanted to have
a high flow release protocol, but, but I figured that out and, and we got
that done. And I think that together with a non native fish control
program, those two things together were significant steps forward in
managing the operations of Glen Canyon Dam in a way that was responsive to
environmental concerns, endangered species concerns, and tribal concerns.
Um So I feel good about that, but there's always more to do. Um when I
left, uh we were working on the long term experimental and management plan
, the L temp and that wasn't finished until after I left. I was hoping
that it would be finished while I was there. The previous long term plan
had been finalized.
Uh It had been talked about. Um And I think finalized in the early two
thousands, it was time to do another one and to incorporate all the
scientific lessons we had learned and, and incorporate things like the
protocol in the non native fish control program and to set the stage for
the next 15 years or so of um operations. So I was disappointed that I
didn't get to see that one through but, but it got done. Um And now is in
place. I,
I think um
there are many federal advisory committees that
uh their goal is to see themselves go out of business because that advice
is no longer required. They've given the advice that was requested and,
and now they're, you don't need them anymore. I don't know that that
applies to the MW. Um partly because our science is always evolving. Um
And the,
the nature of the river is changing, climate change is reducing flows.
There will be at some point um Different agreements about the operations
of like Powell and Glen Canyon Dam to deliver water from the upper basin
to the lower basin that will mean different impacts in the Grand Canyon.
And the AM wig needs to advise the secretary about their interests in
those impacts. So I think that um
it, it isn't and shouldn't be a goal of this group to put themselves out
of business. Um The, the nature of the problems will evolve,
the um direction that the federal agencies are getting from their
political leadership will change over time and they need to hear from the
interests that the MW represents um about how uh
how their constituencies view the operations of Glen Canyon Dam and, and
um how their interests are being affected. So, uh I think that need will
continue to exist. Um And the fact that uh they've got different problems
to deal with now than they did when I first started. That's great. Um, and
, uh, different people will be involved, different tribal representatives
, different state representatives and, and all of that is the mix that was
intended when the Grand Canyon Protection Act was enacted in 1992 and said
the secretary will get advice from these different interests about these
operations. That's what the M wave is doing. Um, and I think it's, it's a
really important function and one that needs to continue.
Yeah, that's a very compelling argument for the value of the program and
why it should continue. Um
Do you think that there is any um structural element to the adaptive
management program that could be improved? Are there any weaknesses in how
the program is, uh you know, helps representatives are selected, how
decisions are made, the connection between science and policy or anything
that you see as a continuing weakness that might be focused on to
strengthen the value of the program over time.
One of the things that I had been concerned about when, um when I was at
interior was uh
the Grand Canyon Protection Act says that the secretary will seek advice
from these different listed interests that include the States and the
tribes and um recreation and environmental, scientific and academic. And
there's not a designated academic member of the AM wick. And we thought
about whether the charter should be changed to include that um there was
some thought that the science advisors um through Dave Garrett at the time
served that academic function. Braun now. Ok. I would think that he would
kind of serve that function, but maybe not. Yeah. And, and should that be
a different status than all the rest of the MW members? Um, I don't know
the answer to that, but it was something that I was a little concerned
about the role of the science advisors was always a little murky to me. Um
And, and so that was, I guess that was part of why I was concerned because
I wasn't sure exactly
um what the charge of the science advisors was. Um So that's something
that I think um could be considered if you start changing, especially
increasing the number of people on the AM w everybody gets worried that
their votes are diluted. Um And so it's a political discussion, it, it
would, it would uh have to be thoroughly vetted. Um So that's an issue. I
remember it being raised when I was there that um the state
representatives on the AM wig are usually the highest ranking state water
official that's been designated by the governor, you know, so Tom Bussy or
um the director of the Water Conservation Board in Colorado or the state
engineer in Wyoming, um And sometimes they'll send their designees, their
deputies or whoever. Um But the member is usually the, the state water
official um at least that was true. Well, most of the time I was there, um
, and then the recreational, or usually the recreational representative
might own a bait shop at page. And so the concern was expressed that we
didn't have parity among the members. I don't worry about that. I think
that's ok. Uh, because I think that, um,
you don't want, you know, somebody on the board of American Rivers talking
about, you know, going to AM Wake meetings and, and sort of representing
the recreational community. You want the guy from the bait shop, um, who's
right there on the ground? And so I, that was not a concern that I had, um
, trying to think of anything else structurally.
It was hard, um, having meetings in Phoenix in August
and those are actually, um, required by the charter. Yeah, but Phoenix was
just a good airport cop but it's actually in the charter. Yeah. But we
ignored it, um, and had meetings in Flagstaff and, yeah, I used to get
worried about people just wandering around at 100 and 17 degrees. Yeah.
Um, are you hopeful about the future of the program?
Absolutely. Yeah. I think it's a great program, I think, um,
in my experience, the work of the AM wig is listened to in the halls of
interior, I think it serves as, um, an outlet for some of the
controversies that might otherwise erupt in more unproductive ways. Uh, I
, I am definitely hopeful about the future. I also think that everybody
who serves on the am wig for any um significant period of time establishes
relationships with all the other people who are am like members and, and a
lot of the, the sort of um group that sits around the table if not at the
table and those relationships um are productive in so many ways that we,
we can't even predict uh
for the environmental representatives to have a personal relationship and
go out for Margaritas with the, the head of the state water Agency um in
the state where, where their operations are located that that has benefits
well beyond the operations of, of Glen Canyon Dam. And I think it's really
, really important and, and just a good incubator for uh for good things
to happen because of those relationships in water operations throughout
the basin. You mentioned earlier in the interview, um the uh the impact of
climate change on water supplies in the Colorado River Basin. I I'm sure
you already know Lake Mead is about a third full and Glen Canyon Dam is
less than half full and 60% 60% now and none of them have been full for a
while. And climatologists are not expecting or hydrologists are expecting
them to pretty much. So there's suddenly some discussion uh now about how
long into the future Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell are even viable. Do
you ever think about that? Does it trouble you. What do you, I mean, this
is a long term program. Um What's your thoughts on, on the possible impact
on the program? And the Colorado River Basin as a whole under current
conditions of drought and climate change? Yeah. Well, there's, there's
absolutely no question but that climate change is affecting flows in the
river. And the, the um best and most recent scientific evidence is that
that effect will be much more drastic in the years to come, 35% maybe
reduction in flows by the next century. Um Huge numbers and, and that that
kind of possible future has to spark uh uh pretty intense conversations
about how we're going to manage this river differently. Um If we're only
getting
60 70% of the flows that we're accustomed to on average, um And, and, and
that will affect Glen Canyon Dam. Um As you know, there's a proposal
called Fill Mead first that would um put all available water into Lake
Mead and only use Pell if there was excess. Uh You've talked to Jack
Schmidt. Um But he's investigated that most recently. And the idea is of
course, that uh
if you only have one big water surface, there's less evaporation overall,
less water loss overall than if you have two big water surfaces. Lake
Poland Lake Mead. Um But there are other factors at work and um the, the
Jack's analysis, um which is the most recent seems to indicate that the
projected water savings are not nearly as substantial as might have
originally been thought. Um There was some science done in 2011 that
suggested that 300,000 acre feet a year could be saved if you followed the
film, you first Protocol. Um Jack's analysis suggests that it might be on
the order of 50,000 acre feet. Uh And in my opinion, that's not enough to
justify the really intense brain damage and congressional uproar that it
would require to, to do a film made First protocol. Um
But uh this is an area where we don't have the scientific data. We need to
um reach uh
well informed conclusions and we need um more information about
evaporation from both of the lakes. We need more information about seepage
from Lake Powell, in particular. Um We need more information about the
potential impact of not having uh a storage reservoir at Lake Powell on
the downstream ecosystems, particularly in the Grand Canyon. Um I think
that if there's some potential to save 300,000 acre feet um in a river
where um where we're spending millions of dollars to save 10,000 acre feet
, I
that, that if there's that potential, then the scenario needs to be
investigated. I don't think it's justified by anything we've seen
currently. Um But we need to develop the data to um to be able to do that
analysis uh and, and reach more definitive conclusions.
Do you think we need another adaptive management program working group
authorized by Congress to deal with the larger issues of, of basin storage
and water allocation and climate change. Or do you think the current hew
could take that on? It's so much bigger than its original charter. But
these are, this is science that needs to be done and collaborative
decision making. Who would do that? The the bigger challenge um about
adjusting to reduced flows.
um is in the first instance, uh
a discussion that needs to be had among the states, the seven basin states
with interior revisit the Colorado River Compact. No, I don't know that.
No. Um I'm talking about primarily the interim guidelines. Um and the
interim guidelines were put in place in 2007 designed to be effective
through 2026. But um they uh the, the Secretary of the Interior is
required to start consultation on renewal or the next iteration of the
guidelines by no later than the end of 2020. That's not that far away. And
so the states need to be involved in those discussions. The drought
contingency planning that's taking place in all of the basin states, but
most intensely in the lower basin is part of that. Um And we'll probably
the DC P discussions will probably morph into the recons consultation
under the interim guidelines. I think that there's enough flexibility in
the 1922 compact so that it doesn't need to be revised but um the
operational uh uh implementation of the 1922 compact needs to um evolve
based on climate change and increased demands. So, but, but that's
something that the states have to deal with in the first instance. Um And
I can tell you that the states would be very concerned about having an
advisory committee with any sort of power um around that discussion. Do
you think that um the drought contingency plans in place now um uh could
potentially have an effect on the ability of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management program to continue its high flow event, experimental high
flows and continue its its research and its work. Is there any potential
for, you know, water shortages to undermine the continuation of the
program driven?
Oh, I think it um decisions around the drought contingency plan and, and
how that plays out um ultimately can have an effect on operations. So I I
don't think it will affect the high flow experiments, probably not. Um
because
the way the the dam has to be operated for water delivery is on an annual
basis. And so they can jigger around with the timing and the high flow
releases um are part of that. So even with diminished leases, they should
be able to do high flow releases, maybe, maybe not as high. But even then
it's just a question of how the timing of the releases works during the
year. It doesn't have to affect the annual deliveries. Um, and, and that's
an important point. That was something people would be concerned. Well,
you're wasting water. You know, you're sending upper basin water to the
lower base and you don't need to. And we'd say no, they're getting only
the amount of water that they're entitled to. We're just re timing it. Um
, so I think there's no reason why you wouldn't be able to do that still.
And there's an energy cost to those high flow releases because you're
bypassing the turbines. Um And so you lose the energy production that
would have occurred, had you released that water in a more uniform way? Um
in the overall scheme of things, that's a relatively small loss compared
to the annual revenue that's produced by the turbines. Um But that, um
because it's a non carbon energy that may be a concern in the future, um
not wasting a drop of water uh that could be used to produce hydropower.
Um
But, you know, that's a balance, um that's been a balance that the system
and the AM wig had to consider from the beginning. Um So, you know,
climate change is having an impact on the, the basin as a whole and that's
gonna continue and, and become more dramatic. But, you know, I think
that's another reason why the MW needs to continue so that all those
diverse voices um understand the impacts of climate change on their
particular constituencies and interests and are able to advise the
secretary. Great last question. What advice would you give an incoming
member of am wig somebody new coming onto the team, what would be your
best advice as they launch their participation in the program
form relationships with the fellow AMW members.
People have been coming in new for as long as the M wake has existed. So
there, there are a lot of um acronyms, there's a lot of legend, there's a
lot of institutional history that may feel intimidating to a new member.
Um But pretty much everybody there has been in that position at one time
and I found that people are proud of the am wick history and um are more
than willing to help educate new members. But it's the creation of
relationships with your fellow AM wic members that will have the most
lasting effect and enable you to represent your constituencies in the most
effective way and communicate on a personal level. Um What, what the
concerns are, what the interests are um and be able to work um with other
members at that personal level to create mutually beneficial solutions.
Thank you so much, Anne. It was a wonderful conversation. I appreciate you
taking time to do this. You're welcome, my pleasure.