Bullfrog Marina Lake Bottom Elevation?

I agree with @Rivergoer. If you look at pre-Powell USGS maps, the creekbed of Bullfrog Creek opposite the modern marina is somewhere around 3500. Sedimentation over the years may have reduced that a bit, so 3505 might be right on the mark. As you got closer to the Colorado River channel in pre-Powell days, the creek had a pretty steady downward grade, and met the Colorado River at about 3350.
 
JFR, It's been said before.....and will be said again.....you are an amazing professorial gem to our forum.....Mucho Mahalo, Grazie, und vielin Danke.....(y)

.....if ONLY they would have listened to you in 1922......we'd all be happy like clams at high tide......:LOL: (er.....any elevation?):rolleyes:

seriously, you bring long forgotten/discarded historical data/maps/etc, with important context, that explains the 'thinking' ....(or lack of)... at the time.....that put us where we are in 2026. (most folks don't put historical data in any 'context'....which, IMHO, doesn't give the full picture, but you always do...(y))

Like all wordlings......So love your posts!!!

(y)(y)
 
Rainbowbridge said:
JFR, It's been said before.....and will be said again.....you are an amazing professorial gem to our forum.....Mucho Mahalo, Grazie, und vielin Danke.....(y)

.....if ONLY they would have listened to you in 1922......we'd all be happy like clams at high tide......:LOL: (er.....any elevation?):rolleyes:

seriously, you bring long forgotten/discarded historical data/maps/etc, with important context, that explains the 'thinking' ....(or lack of)... at the time.....that put us where we are in 2026. (most folks don't put historical data in any 'context'....which, IMHO, doesn't give the full picture, but you always do...(y))

Like all wordlings......So love your posts!!!

(y)(y)
Click to expand...
Thank you. I appreciate that. But as I told my wife when I first met her, 50% of what I say is probably true, and the other 50% may or may not be, even if I think it is. The trick is to figure out which 50% is coming out of my mouth at any given time, and when to call me on the other half. We're still working on that.
 
JFRCalifornia said:
Thank you. I appreciate that. But as I told my wife when I first met her, 50% of what I say is probably true, and the other 50% may or may not be, even if I think it is. The trick is to figure out which 50% is coming out of my mouth at any given time, and when to call me on the other half. We're still working on that.
Click to expand...
JFR -as the great George Costanza said, "It's not a lie, if you believe it". :)
 
CATD8RII said:
Im curious about this remark,,,,,,
Who is they?
What was the reason they should have listened to this in 1922?
Click to expand...
CatD8RII, When the powers that 'be'....well, were of that time, 1922....allocated the %'s of water to all the states.

That has, & continues to be (wordlings please correct if'n I'm mistaken)....has largely gotten us into the current debacle/situation.

Basically, those guys in 1922 did not look at ALL the historical flow/rainfall data that JFR does. They took the wettest years....and made long standing policy from that erroneous (egregious?) perspective.

Which..........may have dictated both Hoover & GC Dam's ability to release....cuz they never thought wettest years would ever.....dry up.....(sorry, bad pun) :rolleyes:

JFR, is that synopsis somewhat accurate? :unsure:
 
TucsontoTexas said:
My read of the map is that if LP levels continue to drop the area of Bullfrog Marina's historical location will become a narrow ribbon of water. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
To give you an idea of what Bullfrog Bay looked like before Lake Powell when it was Bullfrog Creek, here are two aerial shots from 1958 and 1962, thanks to Dock Marston... First shot is looking up the creek from the river, the second one is looking down the creek...

58-10-04 - Bullfrog Creek - Dock Marston.jpeg62-09-29- Bullfrog Creek 2 - Dock Marston .jpeg
 
Last edited:
Rainbowbridge said:
CatD8RII, When the powers that 'be'....well, were of that time, 1922....allocated the %'s of water to all the states.

That has, & continues to be (wordlings please correct if'n I'm mistaken)....has largely gotten us into the current debacle/situation.

Basically, those guys in 1922 did not look at ALL the historical flow/rainfall data that JFR does. They took the wettest years....and made long standing policy from that erroneous (egregious?) perspective.

Which..........may have dictated both Hoover & GC Dam's ability to release....cuz they never thought wettest years would ever.....dry up.....(sorry, bad pun) :rolleyes:

JFR, is that synopsis somewhat accurate? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Thanks @Rainbowbridge. I think in fairness to those who put together the Compact in 1922, they did not have the benefit of seeing the future. Their dataset was also limited, and really only reliably measured since about 1906 or so, perhaps 1895 if you want to stretch it. Before that, it was mostly anecdotal. And if you look at what they had to work with, and squinted and hoped, you could convince yourself that there was more than 15 maf and maybe as much as 18 maf as an average river flow, depending on the assumptions you made about upstream diversions, and what you cherry-picked as your dataset. (The reality was that the 1895-1922 dataset yielded an average natural flow of 15.2 maf.) You also have to remember that it was very much in the interest of the states (especially the upper basin states) to convince yourself that flows really were that big, because unless they were, the share of the pie you agreed to wouldn't seem like much. Remember that in 1922, the Compact did not allocate percentages by state, just established a split between upper and lower basins, and that while nominally 50-50, it really said "lower basin gets its full share of 7.5 maf, but upper basin only gets its 7.5 maf share if there is enough leftover."

In practice, most of the thorny questions could be kicked down the road because neither the upper or lower basin states came anywhere near close to using those allocations in those days. But they all knew that one day, those questions would need to be addressed. In the short-term, the upper basin states (especially Colorado) got what they wanted: a guarantee that California could not appropriate the entire river, which was a real concern following a 1922 Supreme Court decision that allowed for downstream appropriators to take all the water they wanted if they got there first.

That's probably more than you asked for.

For a deeper dive, you can always go to this thread...

JFRCalifornia

Thread 'Was the 1922 Colorado River Compact Based on Bad Data? Or Just Bad Timing?'

Today there’s a palpable sense of urgency about how to manage the dwindling resources of the Colorado River. Of course there’s a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing going on, which is what happens in any crisis. It’s a common narrative to blame decades of overuse, especially agricultural use. Others point to a changing climate, or whatever you want to call the phenomenon that has produced the extended drought we still find ourselves in the middle of grappling with.

Most of us can only sit helplessly on the sidelines wondering where this is all headed, and whether there’s a fair...
  • Like
  • Love
 
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia said:
To give you an idea of what Bullfrog Bay looked like before Lake Powell when it was Bullfrog Creek, here are two aerial shots from 1958 and 1962, thanks to Dock Marston... First shot is looking up the creek from the river, the second one is looking down the creek...

View attachment 36160View attachment 36161
Click to expand...
Amazing pictures! Trying to see where an extension of the main ramp would go.
 
Awesome photos thanks!! It’s crazy how the lake covers such a meandering watercourse below. Never would’ve imagined so many turns from the main channel to the old marina location, always seemed like a straight shot.
 
Any idea what full pool would have looked like in those old photos? How high up on those the ridges to the south and the flatter shallower grade to the north is 3700?
It’s been so long that I can’t remember. I just know in the 80’s and 90’s when I was much younger Bullfrog seemed massive to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top