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.
 
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?
 
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...
Excellent Question! (y) (y)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top