ALL TIME LOW POINT IS HERE… 3522

B

Bubba1211

Member
ALL TIME LOW POINT IS HERE - and this is nothing compared to the April 2027 cliff if we do not get at least 20 feet of runoff next spring.


Folks - in about a week we will be at a new all time low… dropping below 3522.06…


Wow… Wow… Wow…


How much emergency water is still up at FG waiting to be released, I understand it is 18 feet, but I am fuzzy on where this 18 number is measured, is the 18 feet measured at FG or at powell?


If powell lifts 18 feet from the FG emergency release we will still be 10 feet lower than today in April 27.


If runoff next spring is not 40 feet then we hit 3490 before spring of 28.


If runoff 27 is the same as last year then Wahweap probably collapses next summer and we just slide below 3490 and keep sliding.


Each April we probably need 30-40 feet of runoff just to maintain current low point each April, maybe JFR can fine tune that annual drop number.


Let that sink in, we need 30-40 feet each spring just to end up at the same low point before the next runoff.


The only way to keep the 30 feet of buffer above 3490 is to limit output to 15% less than input starting today, and this will not happen.


Regarding Wahweap, where do they move it to - there is really no other place to put it but Halls - where else is there road access with sewer and electric and water utilities and deep water. Without another base site already built there is no way the new site will be permitted, planned, built and ready when Wahweap approaches mud. Look at the chaos and lack of progress or completion of the Aramark project of just pushing bullfrog the distance of a long par 5 to Halls. Now multiply that by a lot for the train wreck of Aramark moving Wahweap marina.


Folks - it does not look good. Number patterns and probability are not encouraging.


AP survives but it will be tough and dusty for a bit. Regarding the 7 new boat slips, I am sure they already have reserved signs for Adonia Dave. And the other 60-70 phantom slips, well I am sure that Jerry’s buddies are all lined up for those.


To end on a positive note it does look promising from the numbers Marina Bum posted that the 3420 for the aux ramp is not a hard edge and the ramp can live on for another year or more.
 
Thanks Bubba--

I'll just add or clarify a few things here. The lake is certainly getting into low territory, but 3522 isn't as low as it's been. Not counting the time it was rising in the 1960s, the lake dropped to 3519.92 in April 2023. We'll blow past that soon enough I'm sure. But your point is right on--we're dropping into new territory.

With regard to Flaming Gorge, right now the BOR's latest 24-month study (July) is planning to release more from that reservoir in the coming months as compared to 2025. In August through October 2026, they plan to release 375,000 af. That compares to Aug-Oct 2025, when they released 226,000 af. That extra "bump" of 150,000 af would mean about 3 feet to Lake Powell. Not much.

Not sure where the 18 feet you cite comes from. But I can tell you that an 18-foot rise in Powell from where we are now would mean an increased volume of about 1.1 maf. Not sure where that would come from other than the sky.

Setting aside the BOR's prognostications for 2027, the math is simple. If more water comes in than is taken out, the lake will rise. So if we assume that upper basin use is the same as it has been in recent years (say, 4.0-4.5 maf), outflow through Glen Canyon Dam is maintained at 6 maf, and Lake Powell evaporation and seepage amounts to 0.5 maf (remember it's less when volume is less), the total drain on Powell for 2027 would be about 11 maf.

Here's the optimist's take on the future. If the river's "natural flow" (i.e., the flow if there were no diversions) over the winter and through the end of WY2027 is 17.5 maf (similar to 2019 or 2023, certainly possible with El Niño), the lake would increase in volume by 6.5 maf in WY27. If we start that rise from 3500 (likely by the end of March 2027), which is to say, when Powell's live storage is about 4.2 maf, then the net increase would bring the live storage volume to 10.7 maf. That's about 3597. That's considerably more optimistic than BOR's current 2027 forecast by about 70 feet.

I suspect, however, that if the snow really came, and runoff really got going, BOR would increase releases through Glen Canyon Dam sometime in the spring, and make an effort to store more in the upper reservoirs above Powell. That would suppress the rise of Powell to some degree, but a 60-foot rise would not be out of the question.

That's the optimist's take, not guaranteed, but certainly possible. But here's the other possibility. Let's say we have a repeat of 2025, which was bad, but not quite as bad as 2026. That year the natural flow was 7 maf. If that happened, and upper basin use, GCD releases, and evaporation are the same as in the first scenario (11 maf), Lake Powell would lose 4 maf in WY27. A loss like that would effectively mean dead pool, somewhere below 3400.

Can anything be done about that? Well, if the upper basin cut their use by 25% this coming year, that buys you 1 maf. Cutting releases through GCD to 5 maf buys another 1 maf. Okay, that still means a net loss of 2 maf. That still puts you in the 3450 range next year. Not good.

So it really all does depend on the snowpack this year. Not three years from now. This year. El Niño is coming up. It's like being down by a couple of runs going into the 9th, but the heart of the lineup is coming up. It's who you want at the plate, but they still have to hit the ball...
 
You guys are a lot more sophisticated and detailed than me. But I'll ask what might seem like a dumb question anyway.

If this is all so readily foreseeable, why have they not trimmed back release volume by curtailing power production, to maintain a cushion against a complete loss of generation capability? If they can pay people to stop using water elsewhere, why not compensate the grid interests now as well?
 
Richp47 said:
You guys are a lot more sophisticated and detailed than me. But I'll ask what might seem like a dumb question anyway.

If this is all so readily foreseeable, why have they not trimmed back release volume by curtailing power production, to maintain a cushion against a complete loss of generation capability? If they can pay people to stop using water elsewhere, why not compensate the grid interests now as well?
Click to expand...
Power is not what's driving the releases. The downstream states have a right to a certain amount of water in Lake Powell each year. These amounts were based off of an expectation of much higher inflows. So why don't they see the writing on the wall and all cut back? Because giving an inch is political suicide. Hopefully the feds this year force the issue because another runoff year like 2026 even with a new agreement in place would be devastating. With no new agreement in place, it'll be cataclysmic. Basically, we'd be at deadpool.
 
Richp47 said:
You guys are a lot more sophisticated and detailed than me. But I'll ask what might seem like a dumb question anyway.

If this is all so readily foreseeable, why have they not trimmed back release volume by curtailing power production, to maintain a cushion against a complete loss of generation capability? If they can pay people to stop using water elsewhere, why not compensate the grid interests now as well?
Click to expand...
To put it bluntly. No one can agree on anything. They kept kicking the can down the road and getting bailed out by big winters and it got shuffled back to the bottom of the deck again.

Now “they” have continued to change nothing and it’s too late to “change” now. It’s emergency mode NOW when it should’ve been emergency mode two or three years ago.
 
JFR:
Here's the optimist's take on the future. If the river's "natural flow" (i.e., the flow if there were no diversions) over the winter and through the end of WY2027 is 17.5 maf (similar to 2019 or 2023, certainly possible with El Niño), the lake would increase in volume by 6.5 maf in WY27. If we start that rise from 3500 (likely by the end of March 2027), which is to say, when Powell's live storage is about 4.2 maf, then the net increase would bring the live storage volume to 10.7 maf. That's about 3597. That's considerably more optimistic than BOR's current 2027 forecast by about 70 feet.

Good reminder, John, that we are pretty low in the martini glass and that we have had a couple of recent good snowpacks. So, vertical rise COULD be impressive. Thank you for translating maf to vertical that we all can comprehend.
 
Richp47 said:
So if the release flows from Powell were diminished in a way that failed to meet the 10 year average target, what enforcement mechanisms are available to the lower states, beyond filing lawsuits that would take years to wind their way through the courts?
Click to expand...
None in general other than filing and if the Feds declare a national emergency then zero. The upper states like to say that” we’d rather be upstream with a shovel than down steam with a piece of paper.” I think the Feds always knew the compact was pie in the sky but pitched it heavy to get the states to sign up. Afterwards if they didn’t have the water to fulfill all the promises what were the states going to do about it? Well, here it is.
 
Last edited:
Just a bit of a reality check here for those banking on the coming winter to solve our water problems in the Colorado River basin. Having just driven around quite a bit of Colorado over the past month, from east to west, and north to south, I have come to realize how deep and severe the current drought here is. The attached photo below of what used to be Blue Mesa reservoir, taken from the bridge heading south to Lake City, serves to emphasize this point.

Blue Mesa Reservoir - 19 July 2026.jpg

Anyone who anticipates that stream and river discharges in the upper Colorado River basin will return to any semblance of normal over the next year needs to reset their expectations. Even with the recent localized monsoon thunderstorms, most gauge locations in western Colorado are reporting less than 3 inches of rain over the past 90 days, with the best locations coming in at around 6 inches. Coupled with record warm temperatures, 1 or 2 inches of rainfall per month from May through July does not move the needle much when it comes to drought, because evapotranspiration rapidly overwhelms such paltry precipitation inputs. As a result, nearly all of western Colorado is desperately dry, except for a few widely isolated pockets in the higher mountains, and even there in the alpine settings the tundra is brown rather than green. And as can be seen by watching the newscasts, the desiccated forests burn at the slightest spark of lightening or errant campfire.

The reservoirs throughout the state are also badly drawn down, with Blue Mesa, McPhee and Navajo having all been cannibalized to stabilize water levels in Lake Powell. The local folks are well aware of this, and largely resent it, since water sent downstream to Utah does them no good when junior water rights for their fields and ranches are being progressively cut off. They just see water going to Lake Powell as water going to Arizona and California, while their pastures turn brown. The reservoirs that serve Denver and the eastern slope are also seriously depleted both west and east of the Continental Divide, with Green Mountain, Shadow Mountain, Dillon and Cheesman all at exceptionally low levels. Refilling these will be the first priority for the state come next spring. At the moment there is no chance of doing that, since the rivers of western Colorado look more like creeks, with the San Juan, the Los Pinos and the Piedra running about 4 feet wide and one foot deep. The Colorado River itself below the Cameo roller dam above Grand Junction is so shallow that one can wade across the entire channel and never have the water get above one’s knees.

The basic point is that even if we were to have a coming winter with above normal snowpack, which is basically fifty-fifty odds in an El Nino year, most of the runoff generated would be sucked up by parched soils and drought-stressed tinderbox forests, or go to refill all the depleted reservoirs and stock ponds large and small that are scattered across the landscape, many of which have pre-Compact water rights. As such, there will likely be no big surge of flow coming down the Colorado to Lake Powell in spring of 2027. The BOR knows this, which is why their lake level projections for next year are so conservative. At this point, it will take two or three really big winters to bring things back to just a semblance of normal hydrology, given how deep the current drought is in the southern Rockies. Predicting the future is always risky, but given where we are at right now I would wager that Lake Powell will be sitting at around 3500 for quite some time to come.
 
Last edited:
Jan Hertzen said:
Aren't we all so happy they tore down the Navajo Generating Station?
Click to expand...
I feel ya, but really I don’t miss those stacks in the way of our view, not at all. To me they were a blight upon this land scape which to me is one of Gods greatest of all time works. I know, we need power and tearing down working infrastructure is a dumb idea but…
 
Last edited:
Trix said:
JFR:
Here's the optimist's take on the future. If the river's "natural flow" (i.e., the flow if there were no diversions) over the winter and through the end of WY2027 is 17.5 maf (similar to 2019 or 2023, certainly possible with El Niño), the lake would increase in volume by 6.5 maf in WY27. If we start that rise from 3500 (likely by the end of March 2027), which is to say, when Powell's live storage is about 4.2 maf, then the net increase would bring the live storage volume to 10.7 maf. That's about 3597. That's considerably more optimistic than BOR's current 2027 forecast by about 70 feet.

Good reminder, John, that we are pretty low in the martini glass and that we have had a couple of recent good snowpacks. So, vertical rise COULD be impressive. Thank you for translating maf to vertical that we all can comprehend.
Click to expand...
Always insightful JFR, Im glad to know you.

IMHO l’m just not convinced that BOR is interested in letting the last three million acer feet go between power pool and dead pool. Nope, I don’t think they will, it’s a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of what could be missed releases anyway. It’s just a strong hunch but I think BOR has decided that they have much more flexibility to manage the reservoir from an elevation of 3490 and above because they can send a lot of water down stream with the eight turbines plus they can make power with the releases. If they gave away the last three MAF they’d be left with only the internal tunnels and at best could only deliver three to four MAF a year until they let the lake rise above 3490 again and restarted the turbines.

By contrast if they let the three million acer feet go they’d have to mothball the power plant and probably let most of the staff go who know how to run it. Park Service would be dancing trying to provide access and they would loose the marinas and all the folks who know how to keep marinas going. Page, Aramark and small communities all around would loose everyone who knows how to keep boats large and small going. It would be devastating to the recreational aspect too which is another mission of BOR but it’s not their first priority. Communities and farms down stream will be affected too but three million acer feet held in reserve in the reservoir would not solve any of their problem either. A one time three MAF delivery split 4 ways is a drop in the bucket compared to ten or twelve MAF annually as described in the compact.

As a lead question I would ask why the Park Service is spending over a hundred million dollars to extend Antelope Public Ramp to an elevation of 3490? That is supposed to be done by June of 2027. Why stop there If they expect we’ll be dropping below that in the next year or two? Why not go deeper while you are at it in the channel, why not much deeper? I think they know something we don’t yet. Would you think that is a possibility JFR?

With Park Service talking about “a return to a riparian environment where what flows in flows out” for years now I think BOR has decided that they can do that with less risk, less impact and less downside from above the turbines than from below. I’m sort of repeating my thoughts but it’s a different topic and the same issue.

The Feds cant give you what they don’t get, people have to get used to that, I have and I’m downstream in Arizona with inferior water rights to Californians. Rights, laws, obligations, and traditions can only take you so far. You can’t get blood from a turnip or water from a Stone. We may be back to what flows in flows out, or not? Come on Mother Nature!
 
Last edited:
I had the privilege of taking a canoe trip down the lower Colorado river about 10 years ago with my son and his scout troop. In 110 degree temp days, I was appalled by the waste of water for inefficient flood irrigation on both sides of the river. Every couple hundred yards there was a large pipe (looked to be 12”-18” diameter) pumping water constantly out of the river into open fields to rapidly evaporate in extreme heat. These pumps seemed to be constantly running. I have been told that 70% of the Colorado water goes to aggricultural uses, and if what I saw is typical, then there is much room to reduce the use. If the federal government came in and dictated that there was going to be a 50% reduction of water for irrigation (like what happened on our Utah family farm this year due to the drought), then we would solve the problem fairly rapidly. I would suggest that congress take it in their hands and reduce aggricultural use by 50% and then offer up 1-2 billion of funds as grants to modernize irrigation methods to more efficient methods. Some of that could also be put toward Desalination along the California coast to supplement the reduced use from the Colorado river. There needs to be drastic reduction in the water use, not small reductions, the only way I can see it happening is for something along the lines of a 35% reduction in use, as I suggested above. Congress needs to get involved ASAP.

Now I expect to be criticized for suggesting reducing water for aggricultural use, because it will make it more difficult for farmers and may impact our food supply. But, we are dealing with it on our farms elsewhere, and fairly soon, the day of reconning will come where there will be massive cuts anyway. Might as well be more pro-active and just make the cuts now.
 
Stork said:
I had the privilege of taking a canoe trip down the lower Colorado river about 10 years ago with my son and his scout troop. In 110 degree temp days, I was appalled by the waste of water for inefficient flood irrigation on both sides of the river. Every couple hundred yards there was a large pipe (looked to be 12”-18” diameter) pumping water constantly out of the river into open fields to rapidly evaporate in extreme heat. These pumps seemed to be constantly running. I have been told that 70% of the Colorado water goes to aggricultural uses, and if what I saw is typical, then there is much room to reduce the use. If the federal government came in and dictated that there was going to be a 50% reduction of water for irrigation (like what happened on our Utah family farm this year due to the drought), then we would solve the problem fairly rapidly. I would suggest that congress take it in their hands and reduce aggricultural use by 50% and then offer up 1-2 billion of funds as grants to modernize irrigation methods to more efficient methods. Some of that could also be put toward Desalination along the California coast to supplement the reduced use from the Colorado river. There needs to be drastic reduction in the water use, not small reductions, the only way I can see it happening is for something along the lines of a 35% reduction in use, as I suggested above. Congress needs to get involved ASAP.

Now I expect to be criticized for suggesting reducing water for aggricultural use, because it will make it more difficult for farmers and may impact our food supply. But, we are dealing with it on our farms elsewhere, and fairly soon, the day of reconning will come where there will be massive cuts anyway. Might as well be more pro-active and just make the cuts now.
Click to expand...
I've always thought that ag water would go waaaayyyy further if they were watering at night instead of misting it directly into the air during the worst heat of the day, and that's without even changing methods. Current watering techniques are about as wasteful as you can get, but they're the least effort and so far there's been no lever to push farmers into changing that.

And of course, the type of crops we're growing needs to change. We need to be growing cattle feed literally anywhere else besides the damn desert, which would make the single biggest change, but there's plenty of other crops that we need to be outlawing in the Colorado basin as well to focus on foods which have a way better gallons to calories ratio.

None of this will happen without some heavy handed rules that will certainly piss off some senior water rights holders, but the time for asking nicely is long past.
 
Cheef Baconator said:
I've always thought that ag water would go waaaayyyy further if they were watering at night instead of misting it directly into the air during the worst heat of the day, and that's without even changing methods. Current watering techniques are about as wasteful as you can get, but they're the least effort and so far there's been no lever to push farmers into changing that.

And of course, the type of crops we're growing needs to change. We need to be growing cattle feed literally anywhere else besides the damn desert, which would make the single biggest change, but there's plenty of other crops that we need to be outlawing in the Colorado basin as well to focus on foods which have a way better gallons to calories ratio.

None of this will happen without some heavy handed rules that will certainly piss off some senior water rights holders, but the time for asking nicely is long past.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. But who’s going to tell a farmer what he can grow and how to do it, especially if the business is successful. While I understand your sentiment fully and I even agree with it, there are just basic rights to being an American and one of them is doing what you want on your land. Now, the water usage change can sway them, but someone knocking on their door and telling them not to will probably only result in more water use and another field to grow cattle feed, in the desert…
 
POk3s said:
To put it bluntly. No one can agree on anything. They kept kicking the can down the road and getting bailed out by big winters and it got shuffled back to the bottom of the deck again.

Now “they” have continued to change nothing and it’s too late to “change” now. It’s emergency mode NOW when it should’ve been emergency mode two or three years ago.
Click to expand...
Politician's are good at kicking the can down the road were over 39 trillion in debt and the interest on the debt for the month of May was 108 billion.
 
Cheef Baconator said:
I've always thought that ag water would go waaaayyyy further if they were watering at night instead of misting it directly into the air during the worst heat of the day, and that's without even changing methods. Current watering techniques are about as wasteful as you can get, but they're the least effort and so far there's been no lever to push farmers into changing that.

And of course, the type of crops we're growing needs to change. We need to be growing cattle feed literally anywhere else besides the damn desert, which would make the single biggest change, but there's plenty of other crops that we need to be outlawing in the Colorado basin as well to focus on foods which have a way better gallons to calories ratio.

None of this will happen without some heavy handed rules that will certainly piss off some senior water rights holders, but the time for asking nicely is long past.
Click to expand...
Irrigation goes 24 hours a day once the water is ordered until the field is completely watered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top