3573
- Thread starter KYKevin
- Start date
- Status
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Based on USBR's latest projections (just out on 10-13-23), you can expect that the lake will remain at 3573 through November. After that, it will be a slow decline until spring, at which point it's anybody's guess how strong the runoff will be. But until March 2024, I'd say the lake levels will be pretty predictable. Here's USBR's "most probable" scenario for lake levels through March 2024:
All levels shown are for the end of the month indicated, all numbers rounded -
Oct 31 - 3573
Nov 30 - 3573
Dec 31 - 3571
Jan 31 - 3568
Feb 29 - 3566
Mar 31 - 3564
In this scenario, USBR sees it peaking at a touch over 3595 in July 2024, but there's a huge possible variation there, and we can't really know much beyond March 2024 until we see how the snow plays out...
...Still, it's notable that under their "minimum" and "maximum" probable scenarios, there's little difference through January, at which point you start to see some divergence. It's almost not even worth reporting those lake level predictions yet because it only gets people overly optimistic or worried one way or the other. But to give you at least a sense of how big a spread we're talking about, here's the range of unregulated inflow to Powell USBR predicts for WY 2024, with a comparison to WY 2023:
WY 2023 - 13.4 maf
WY 2024 (most probable) - 9.4 maf
WY 2024 (max probable) - 17.6 maf
WY 2024 (min probable) - 6.0 maf
To put those numbers in context, the average unregulated inflow since 1991 has been 9.6 maf.
As I say, there's a huge range there, but as a general thought, USBR sees next year most likely as not quite as good as this past year, but anything can happen. That said, if the unregulated inflow really did hit 17.6 maf, that's something that hasn't happened since 1986. I wouldn't bet the house on that, but anything is still possible at this point. (It's also still technically possible for the Carolina Panthers to win the Super Bowl, too.)
All levels shown are for the end of the month indicated, all numbers rounded -
Oct 31 - 3573
Nov 30 - 3573
Dec 31 - 3571
Jan 31 - 3568
Feb 29 - 3566
Mar 31 - 3564
In this scenario, USBR sees it peaking at a touch over 3595 in July 2024, but there's a huge possible variation there, and we can't really know much beyond March 2024 until we see how the snow plays out...
...Still, it's notable that under their "minimum" and "maximum" probable scenarios, there's little difference through January, at which point you start to see some divergence. It's almost not even worth reporting those lake level predictions yet because it only gets people overly optimistic or worried one way or the other. But to give you at least a sense of how big a spread we're talking about, here's the range of unregulated inflow to Powell USBR predicts for WY 2024, with a comparison to WY 2023:
WY 2023 - 13.4 maf
WY 2024 (most probable) - 9.4 maf
WY 2024 (max probable) - 17.6 maf
WY 2024 (min probable) - 6.0 maf
To put those numbers in context, the average unregulated inflow since 1991 has been 9.6 maf.
As I say, there's a huge range there, but as a general thought, USBR sees next year most likely as not quite as good as this past year, but anything can happen. That said, if the unregulated inflow really did hit 17.6 maf, that's something that hasn't happened since 1986. I wouldn't bet the house on that, but anything is still possible at this point. (It's also still technically possible for the Carolina Panthers to win the Super Bowl, too.)
Last edited:
nzaugg
Escalante-Class Member
The report is unfriendly, but this chart is not:
https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/hydrodata/crmms/current/10_2023/919/dashboard.html#pool_elevation/
Yes, absolutely enjoy it while you can……and stay positive! You never know what could happen. You might even get some likes on your comments.
Cindy Jones
Member
FYI, today, Oct.17th O- DOCK was moved from Halls crossing back to Bull Frog. Might we surmise that they are not going to let the lake fall to the prior level as of a year ago?. Time will tell.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I think it's fair to surmise that. Keep in mind that USBR has stated it is committed to keeping the lake above 3525, which means it will withhold releases if it has to, all in the context of updating its operational protocols. And don't forget the states are committed to figuring out how to equitably reduce water use from the Colorado River basin, although the painful details are yet to be worked out. I just hope that with the big runoff, that effort doesn't lose momentum, because it's a critical part of getting to something approaching long-term sustainability.
But if you're just thinking ahead for the next year or two, I'm pretty confident that even under a reasonable worst case scenario, the lake is not going to drop anywhere near where it bottomed out last April (just under 3520), partly because we're in a much better place today (3573) than we were exactly a year ago (3530). Those extra 43 feet (and extra 3 maf in storage in Lake Powell) make a huge difference. USBR's most recent long-term "minimum probable" scenario indicates that even with a terrible runoff spring, the lake would still only be as low as 3555 next October, and then perhaps down to 3535 in April 2025, when the runoff would begin. That's the worst case scenario. Under anything approaching average, the lake will fluctuate between 3563 and 3600 over the next 2 years.
But of course, anything is possible, and outlier outcomes (good or bad) have happened before...
Last edited:
I will for sure enjoy it at all levels, and try and remember that not every one wants it to fill
Its more conveinant at Bullfrog, but I loved it at Halls. Much better view. But that BS with no pumpout and gas was not good, even though I rarely buy gas on the lake.
And just imagine....if we had held the outflows a little in June, July, and August. Maybe we could've held at 3580, or 3853...?
Nothing positive about water overuse draining the Lake. Would positively like to see California reduce agricultural over use. Positive thinking won't get far there. Fiddling while Rome ---. Arizona just denied and retracted water permits for growing alfalfa for export. Why can't Cal do that? I just enjoyed a 10 day Lake visit and want my kids to be able to continue that.
Last edited:
Hoskm01
Well-Known Member
They only denied the Saudi users from owning / exporting. The water use and alfalfa growing continues, same fields, same water, it just stays in the country.
How should we be growing crops in winter time to feed ourselves if not in the warm, fertile parts of the country with a water delivery system designed for just that?
I love it but recreation is a tertiary, at best, benefit of Powell.
Littlesaltwash
Well-Known Member
The irrigation season ends here in junction at the end of this month. I don’t know about below us (Arizona) but I imagine the other irrigation users upstream of us will be shutting water off for the year also. I have never tracked inflow around the first of November but we might see a slight uptick
Yes! Let’s shut down our domestic agriculture production and switch to imported crops so that we can fiddle at the lake! (Note sarcasm and irony). I think that would also reduce inflation at the same time right? I’m all for conservation and efficient use of our resources and I’m sure we can make improvements in our ag and domestic water use. But, we all have to remember that recreation is a quinary use at best for Colorado river water. I enjoy the lake as much as anyone but I won’t trade it for tap water, electricity or guacamole and chips with a cold beer. Although I don’t care for wine or strawberry’s so maybe we can just shut down those crops and let the sagebrush takeover?
nzaugg
Escalante-Class Member
The wine and strawberries are fed from a different river system, so it's not a worry for Powell users. The real argument to be made is efficient vs. inefficient water use. Alfalfa is an inefficient user of water. Furthermore, there are a lot of Imperial Irrigation water users who have very limited interest in using water efficiently. They are incentivized to use 100% of their allocation under the existing legal framework around water rights. They have expressed to the government that they would be willing to use water more efficiently in exchange for payment, which I would assume would include money required for improvements to reduce water consumption along with payment for the water rights they currently hold.
The Arizona situation is different, as I understand it was groundwater being consumed. It could be argued that use of groundwater within the same basin as Colorado River water usage impacts Colorado River issues, which I think it does. Judicious use of groundwater will be required for long term sustainability of the communities in the CWP footprint.
You are right though about recreation being a lower importance use on the system. As much as I love to have a full Lake Powell, I recognize the overriding need to get water to the farmers and the communities who have grown to rely on the water. The desire to have a full Lake Powell should revolve around the need to have storage for future droughts and to construct facilities that are adaptable to use of the water for recreation all through the expected water levels along the lake.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
That's a very good post, and accurate in its basic assessment of the situation. In the end, there's going to have to be a re-framing of the existing legal structure around water use, because as it is, the current structure incentivizes waste and inefficiency. And that wrongly makes it look like farmers in general are to blame for all the ills in the Colorado River basin. The truth is that you have a handful of irrigation districts trying to protect their rights. And relative to California water use, I'll say it again--statewide water use amounts to about 42 maf on average, of which about 10% comes from the Colorado River. And of that 10%, about three-fourths is used by one irrigation district in the Imperial Valley that's been in existence since 1911, and is the driver behind the entire system. Figure out how to make them whole in all this, and you're far down the road to a solution. As for the rest of California, with the exception of about 1 maf used by the giant metro areas in LA and SD, it has nothing to do with the Colorado River. And those two metro areas are working hard to diversify their water portfolios, a good step in the right direction.
On the issue of recreational use of Lake Powell, the only importance I attach to higher lake levels is to ensure that access and related infrastructure is maintained, mostly as an economic issue. Full pool is fun, but personally, I think there are some real gems revealed at all different lake levels, and for me, I'm fine playing the cards as they're dealt. There's plenty to see and do, no matter how high or low the lake is. But that's just me. At the same time, I miss the days you could boat up into White Canyon and then hike beyond the Route 95 bridge, or when you could boat way beyond Hite--or that you could get gas at Hite Marina. But then again, low water conditions reveal things like Gregory Bridge, an open Cathedral in the Desert, or some awesome beaches never seen before. As I say, you play the ball where it lays, and take advantage of the conditions as they present themselves. It's different every year, as it's always been, and that's what I love about Lake Powell.
The more important reason to keep the lake level up has nothing to do with recreation, but as an insurance policy related to regional water and power use. I say "insurance policy", because we all have to seriously figure out how to collectively wean ourselves off this source of water and power (to the extent possible) if we can't sustain it through long-term diminishing snowpack. Part of that solution is better conservation (in Utah in particular), part is more efficient water use (especially in the ag sector), and part is developing other sustainable water supplies, one of which is recycled water (or recycled wastewater--"toilet to tap"). Say what you want about Las Vegas, but they do a great job recycling their water. Vegas is not the problem. And Arizona faces the greatest challenges in this regard, having put a lot of their eggs in the Colorado River basket, both from a municipal and agricultural perspective. Roughly 30-40% of all AZ water supply comes from the river, a much higher percentage than any other state, with water rights junior to California...yikes... ...a very tough situation for them...
Long-term re-imagining of our water and power structure is just the smart thing to plan for, and fortunately, last winter bought us all a little more time to do that. Let's not lose the momentum that was gained when we stared into a crisis during 2021-22...
Last edited:
- Status