Should we backfill the Grand Canyon?

Brad......A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

No, We should just put up a safety nets.

I think it is a great idea. However, the reality of the situation requires the Corps of Engineers, EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Fish and Wildlife, et al. to perform various impact studies. The Corps of Engineers will need to either create a giant culvert system to allow the Colorado River to continue to California or else the State of California would file an injunction to stop the project. Another option might be to simply divert the river around through central Arizona and then westward across Nevada into California, but I would foresee additional lawsuits alledging loss of water by evaporation as the water moved through the desert areas. The Bureau of Indian Affairs would have to make decisions based on the finding of archaeological evidence of prehistoric Indian activity within the canyon. Those sites have to be preserved at all costs, so that requires building what would amount to underground structures to protect the sites while making them accessible to the public and to those studying the artifacts. Every site containing ANY artifacts would have to be protected from the backfilling. The Bureau of Land Management would be involved with the BIA in the evaluation and subsequent protective measures. Any potentially valuable commodity or prospective grazing lands or timber lands would have to be evaluated and a development plan created. The Fish and Wildlife biologists and botanists would have to do a riparian survey to determine if ANY critter habit, breeding grounds, nesting grounds, migration paths, etc. are impacted by the backfilling. Any that are found will have to be protected from further decline or negative impact. This may require removal and reintroduction into a similar environment, the creation of protected status for the critter and it's environs which may necessitate another (yet separate) underground chamber with access to the river, dirt, rocks, cliffs, sky, etc. while making it available to the public and those studying these critters (be they plant or animal). Years of study would be needed to satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Diverting the river may expose hazardous material to the atmosphere or expose workers to potential hazardous material. If it is found that workers could actually fall into the Dihydrogen Oxide which would be diverted out of the canyon, protective measures would be needed since that can cause death. Similar studies would have to take place at the site from which the back-fill dirt is to be obtained. So from a practical point of view, I think the best thing would be to just kill all the animals in the Grand Canyon to prevent their accidental lingering death from falls.

Yes, with idiots that think that the grand canyon was the result of the biblical flood. There was one on TV the other night. I nearly died laughing!

no

That would be pointless, in fact you would be ruining nature even more. Animals may fall off the sides, but more animals would die by filling it. We would be destroying thousands of creature's habitats! Mankind did not create the grand canyon, mother nature did, and I think we should leave it that way. Let's not destroy our wonderful planet even more than we already have.

Only if you want to be arrested by the National Park Service. They take much umbrage at people destroying our heritage.

Surely you jest...

You have got to be kidding me. I suppose such a liberal as yourself would want to pay for this project with my tax money!! Where would we get the material to fill such a void from our rear ends?