Good Sign - Water Level Equalizing
- Thread starter Docker
- Start date
- Status
Nice work. I have read in the site that the lower the lake level, the less water needed to give it a rise. I guess that makes sense, but not really my thing. Question would be if you look back at historic lake levels can you correlate increased elevation gain with less total inflow at lower starting lake levels? I guess my point would be that if this is true, and the lake is lower than other years, we should get increased elevation? My other thought is that everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie when available, so how much increased water will the lake lose both above and below? At any rate, the only thing that really makes a difference to me is enough elevation for my southern brothers to get through the cut. Personally, and up north, it doesn’t matter low water or high, every day is awesome and the fishing is great. I do miss the contest though because one day sooner or later I was gonna win with full pool.
TR
Thanks for the southern support. It really hurt yesterday coming back from uplake when I got to the mouth of Warm Creek I had to turn left instead of right. Going into Warm Creek and through the Cut would take about 15 minutes before arriving at the launch ramp. Going around the long way and through Antelope Point's no wake zone made the trip an hour before putting the boat on the trailer.
In hindsight I should say = It's OK - Lake Powell is worth it!
Curious - just how narrow is the passage by the house boats???? Must be close - there does not seem much room to shift the slips!!!
Curious - just how narrow is the passage by the house boats???? Must be close - there does not seem much room to shift the slips!!!
It is getting tighter but there is room for two houseboats to comfortably pass each other. The down side occurs if a smaller boat chooses to be the third party and get close to the wall opposite of the houseboat slips. Look closely to see the many mooring cables coming off that wall. The cables go quickly into the depths but if you run right next to the wall you may very well hit a cable and damage your boat or the mooring slip cables. There should only be two lanes of traffic in the wakeless zone.
Good info - We usually stay up north - but like to hit Page at least once a year!!
birdsnest
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Yes, the same amount of water will raise the lake alot more when it is low like this and I personally believe that Blue Mesa, Navajo and Flaming Gorge will get their share with plenty left over for Powell to raise 50' or so. My biggest worry is always Mead. They have already raised it 12' but they were scared to death of further drops in elevation and will take as much as they can.Nice work. I have read in the site that the lower the lake level, the less water needed to give it a rise. I guess that makes sense, but not really my thing. Question would be if you look back at historic lake levels can you correlate increased elevation gain with less total inflow at lower starting lake levels? I guess my point would be that if this is true, and the lake is lower than other years, we should get increased elevation? My other thought is that everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie when available, so how much increased water will the lake lose both above and below? At any rate, the only thing that really makes a difference to me is enough elevation for my southern brothers to get through the cut. Personally, and up north, it doesn’t matter low water or high, every day is awesome and the fishing is great. I do miss the contest though because one day sooner or later I was gonna win with full pool.
TR
Tiff Mapel
Escalante-Class Member
Dang, JFRC, you beat me to it. I've been keeping track of water levels since 2000 and have been wanting to post this. 2005 and 2011 saw the biggest gains. Yes, those were great winters, but nothing like what we're having now. I'm going to be the optimist too, and predict we get a 55-foot rise this year.
With 1983, the BuRec didn't let out enough water the last half of 1982. And that was a very wet spring. Let's hope we get a repeat of that, but now we've got the room to contain it. We've got nowhere to go but UP!!!
Tiff
PBH
Well-Known Member
One good thing is that southwest Utah (Virgin River / Paria) is also getting a lot of snow, and rain. So we are actually contributing to Mead outside of Lake Powell drainages right now. As has already been mentioned, this year's snow pack is high for everywhere. Things look really good right now. Maybe even a bit scary for many places. I'm guessing that we'll see numerous smaller reservoirs around the West spilling this spring, with localized flooding. I'll take it. An old fish biologist I know once said "fish like water".
Here's a pic from 3/10 from a small reservoir just north of St. George, UT (Virgin River drainage):
Last edited:
viking842000
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
davew
Well-Known Member
I decided to take this one step further ---- hear me out on this one----Dang, JFRC, you beat me to it. I've been keeping track of water levels since 2000 and have been wanting to post this. 2005 and 2011 saw the biggest gains. Yes, those were great winters, but nothing like what we're having now. I'm going to be the optimist too, and predict we get a 55-foot rise this year.
With 1983, the BuRec didn't let out enough water the last half of 1982. And that was a very wet spring. Let's hope we get a repeat of that, but now we've got the room to contain it. We've got nowhere to go but UP!!!
Tiff
View attachment 4223
I have heard from numerous older folks that this year reminds them a lot of 1983 --- constant snow during the winter, and heavy snow rain in early spring ---- so I got to thinking --- what would happen IF we have the same run off this year as they did in 1983--- so I did the very crude math---
stay with me on this---
from April 15th 1983 to August 22 1983 ( 130 days total) the average inflow into lake powell was 55245 --- if we look at the average outflow during this same period in years when the lake was not full ( 1983 does not count as they were letting out as much as they could -- average is 11,759 ----- I then went back and looked for days that most closely averaged those two numbers ( there were a lot of them) when I average the volume of water gained on those days ( not the elevation gain, but the volume gain) it averages to about 75,000 gallons per day of gain. --- then I multiply the 75,000 gallons per day x the 130 days I looked at, and the increase volume would be 9,750,000 gallons of water---- IF the lake stays at the same volume it is today until April 15 the lake will have approx. 9,191,399 gallons of water in it --- if we add the 9,750,000 increase, on august 22nd the lake volume would be 18,941,399 gallons of water ---- this would put the lake level at 3663.33 feet -----
so -- IF we have same run off amount as we did in 1983 AND we do not release more water than "normal" the lake would top out in the 3660 range in late August.
I am sure my math is a little off, but it sure is fun to hope.
already OFF --- SORRY -- the amount of water above is in Acre feet not gallons -- so on aug 22nd we would have 18,941,399 acre feet of water. -- it would still be 3663.33 elevation
I am counting on you to be spot on. Thanks for the great report.
Mildog
Well-Known Member
I posted this on another area regarding water levels, Thought it made sense to throw in my two cents worth here as well. Lets all pray for more snow and rain. Can't wait to get down there soon. I will be down the first part of April for sure and will post a report, I May swing by the Hite area at end of next week and look at the upper lake (Farley) area as I will be in the neighborhood for a land based trip not related to fishing, but I may throw in some tackle for a cast or two if the opportunity arises.
I, like many word-lings on this site, check the snowpack daily and water levels almost daily. I am always trying to imagine/predict what will happen to the lake this year.
From my observations 2014 is a good year to look at for a SWAG....The lake level low point was 3574 for this time in March 2014
this year we are at 3571 so within 3 feet for a starting point for 2019..... 2014 was a pretty good snow pack year, currently we are above 2014 snowpack and trending up quite a bit above 2014 and hopefully it will continue. So with that in mind and as a comparison, which is a good starting point for how much it will rise since starting elevations are close....
In 2014 the lake level max was 3609 for a total rise of 35 FEET
If things hold and water releases aren't drastically higher, I think it would be a safe bet that 2019 Lake levels would exceed 3610 or a rise of 39 Feet or more since snowpack levels appear that they will be significantly better than 2014 which was a good year... and the lake rose 35 feet from a similar starting point. That probably would not occur until June depending on timing of the runoff.
With a continued wet spring maybe even a few feet higher!!
That's my best educated Silly wild a** Guess..
Lets all cross our fingers and hope for more water in the drainage !!!
Mildog out!
I, like many word-lings on this site, check the snowpack daily and water levels almost daily. I am always trying to imagine/predict what will happen to the lake this year.
From my observations 2014 is a good year to look at for a SWAG....The lake level low point was 3574 for this time in March 2014
this year we are at 3571 so within 3 feet for a starting point for 2019..... 2014 was a pretty good snow pack year, currently we are above 2014 snowpack and trending up quite a bit above 2014 and hopefully it will continue. So with that in mind and as a comparison, which is a good starting point for how much it will rise since starting elevations are close....
In 2014 the lake level max was 3609 for a total rise of 35 FEET
If things hold and water releases aren't drastically higher, I think it would be a safe bet that 2019 Lake levels would exceed 3610 or a rise of 39 Feet or more since snowpack levels appear that they will be significantly better than 2014 which was a good year... and the lake rose 35 feet from a similar starting point. That probably would not occur until June depending on timing of the runoff.
With a continued wet spring maybe even a few feet higher!!
That's my best educated Silly wild a** Guess..
Lets all cross our fingers and hope for more water in the drainage !!!
Mildog out!
Dorado
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
When does the BOR have their next prediction for inflow and water levels? Seems like the last one was in early January when the snowpack was pretty dismal, before we got pounded by all the storms...Not to beat a dead horse, but how much water is released to Mead seems like the decider on how full Powell gets...
Looks like the weather is quite warm and dry next week, the inflow will spike for sure. The forecast looks fantastic for LP, wish I could get down there! Hopefully we get back into the wet and cool pattern again....
Looks like the weather is quite warm and dry next week, the inflow will spike for sure. The forecast looks fantastic for LP, wish I could get down there! Hopefully we get back into the wet and cool pattern again....
TR.
Escalante-Class Member
Your number of 3609 is interesting as the current google earth view is for a water level of 3610. Could be helpful for planning this summer.
TR
last one was released February 15th: https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/24Month_02.pdf
I'm guessing we get the March report today or tomorrow.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Just to add more food for thought to the discussion...
Intuitively it seems that more storage is in the top of any lake (like in a martini glass), but I wanted to see how pronounced that was for Lake Powell, because that affects the rate of lake rise. It's interesting. The base elevation of the river below the dam is 3132, so here's the stats for 50-foot intervals (except the first two intervals, since there is no data below 3410):
Elevation Incremental Vol/Total Vol % Capacity Within Interval/Total % of Capacity
3132-3410 1.0 MAF / 1.0 MAF 4.1% / 4.1%
3410-3450 1.3 MAF / 2.3 MAF 5.3% / 9.4%
3450-3500 2.4 MAF / 4.7 MAF 9.9% / 19.3%
3500-3550 3.1 MAF / 7.8 MAF 12.7% / 32.1%
3550-3600 4.0 MAF / 11.8 MAF 16.4% / 48.5%
3600-3650 5.4 MAF / 17.2 MAF 22.2% / 70.7%
3650-3700 7.1 MAF / 24.3 MAF 29.3% / 100.0%
I also did the same exercise in 25-foot intervals, but this illustrates the point just as well. A few things jump out at you right away:
So how does this relate to actual observed data? Well, let's start with the five years with the biggest elevation rises in the spring (it's never hit 60--someone asked that):
1973 - 58 feet
1979 - 58 feet
1993 - 56 feet
2005 - 53 feet
2011 - 51 feet
How do those correlate to increase in volume during the spring runoff?
1973 - 6.31 MAF
1979 - 7.48 MAF
1993 - 6.67 MAF
2005 - 4.61 MAF
2011 - 5.91 MAF
Notice that even though 1973 and 1979 had the same rise, it took more volume to do it in 1979, because the lake was nearly full. In fact, 1979 was the greatest rise by volume in the lake's history...(one wonders what 1983 would have been like if the releases hadn't been so huge)...
Also notice that even though 2005 and 2011 had a similar rise, it took way less volume to do the slightly larger elevation gain in 2005 because the lake was so much lower that year.
And so what were the five greatest spring runoff rises by volume in the lake's history?
1979 - 7.48 MAF
1995 - 6.78 MAF
1993 - 6.67 MAF
1973 - 6.31 MAY
2011 - 5.91 MAF
Notice 1995 is the second largest increase ever, but the lake only rose 49 feet that spring, because it started at 3645...
Other notable years include:
1997, which had a volume increase of 4.64 MAF but a rise of only 32 feet, because it started at 3663...
2008, which had a volume increase of 4.61 MAF but a rise of 46 feet, because it started at 3588...
1984, which had a volume increase of 4.46 MAF but a rise of only 29 feet, because it started at 3673...
2017, which had a volume increase of 4.33 MAF but a rise of 42 feet, because it started at 3594...
It's notable that the only other years (besides those discussed above) that had a spring volume increase that exceeded 4.0 MAF were 1980 and 1983. None of the years during the time the lake was filling, except 1973, 1979 and 1980 had such a big increase by volume. This tells a larger story: it's often observed that it took 17 years to fill the lake, from 1963-80, which implies that it was a steady rise to fit such a huge volume. But that's not true. By 1970, it was already at 3600, higher than today, and roughly half full. So it took 7 years to fill the first half, but 10 to fill the second half. One reason it took longer in the second half was because of poor years in 1972, 1976, and 1977...which were saved by high years in 1973, 1979 and 1980...
There's also a perception that Powell has been in steady decline since about 2000. Again, untrue. There were five consecutive terrible years from 2000-04, two of which were truly horrific. 2002 and 2004 were the only years in the lake's history that saw next to no spring bump; in the case of 2002, the "bump" for the whole year lasted for only 5 days in late May, with a rise of less than a foot! Starting in summer 2001 and ending in spring 2003, the lake dropped 68 feet and lost over 7 MAF... (!!) A similarly awful overall drop happened in 2004, which also had a negligible spring bump of only 4 feet. The net result of all that was that what was essentially a full lake in July 1999 dropped to 3555 in April 2005 (down 145 feet), a loss of 16 MAF, or about 68% of its volume.
The good news is the since then, the lake has had its ups and downs, but has generally maintained. Three more horrific years (2012, 2013, and 2018) were balanced by several well-above average ones (2005, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2017...and now 2019), so the net effect of the last 15 years is positive. But it's very true that a short and sharp drought of even 5 years is hard to overcome. It's notable that in order to fill the lake in 1980, we needed two huge years in a row in 1979-80, and also needed to avoid a giant drought from 1963-80. There were bad years in that period, but nothing like we've seen since 2000. Here's the worst years in terms of spring volume increase since 1965. I've included all 10 examples where net spring runoff increase was less than 1.0 MAF:
2002 - 0.02 MAF
2012 - 0.23 MAF
1990 - 0.30 MAF
2018 - 0.31 MAF
2004 - 0.41 MAF
2013 - 0.48 MAF
1981 - 0.51 MAF
1977 - 0.58 MAF
1989 - 0.61 MAF
1966 - 0.84 MAF
Notably, 5 of the top 6 have happened in this century. This trend will likely continue based on consensus scientific climate predictions, so management will become increasingly difficult. But this is somewhat balanced by the fact that many of the years where increases have occurred in this century have been far above average... So the bottom line here is that the annual "norm" is becoming more extreme one way or the other...
But for this year, definitely hoping for the best. But it would be unprecedented if we had a lake level rise of 60 feet or more, since that's never happened before, nor has a volume increase been greater than 7.5 MAF (which was 1979). But if a 7.5 MAF rise DID happen this year, we'd be over 3650 as a summer peak... hmm... But to be cautious, that seems unlikely because of the need to release relatively large volumes for Lake Mead, which is really all part of the same management system...
But not too far-fetched to hope for 3610... and yes, 2014 is a good model for that...
And just noticed BOR's March report, which shows the same range of possibilities they reported in January and February, but now says it's more likely to be within the higher end of their predicted range... they predict it will top out at 3592 in July...
Intuitively it seems that more storage is in the top of any lake (like in a martini glass), but I wanted to see how pronounced that was for Lake Powell, because that affects the rate of lake rise. It's interesting. The base elevation of the river below the dam is 3132, so here's the stats for 50-foot intervals (except the first two intervals, since there is no data below 3410):
Elevation Incremental Vol/Total Vol % Capacity Within Interval/Total % of Capacity
3132-3410 1.0 MAF / 1.0 MAF 4.1% / 4.1%
3410-3450 1.3 MAF / 2.3 MAF 5.3% / 9.4%
3450-3500 2.4 MAF / 4.7 MAF 9.9% / 19.3%
3500-3550 3.1 MAF / 7.8 MAF 12.7% / 32.1%
3550-3600 4.0 MAF / 11.8 MAF 16.4% / 48.5%
3600-3650 5.4 MAF / 17.2 MAF 22.2% / 70.7%
3650-3700 7.1 MAF / 24.3 MAF 29.3% / 100.0%
I also did the same exercise in 25-foot intervals, but this illustrates the point just as well. A few things jump out at you right away:
- Half of the lake's volume is in the top 100 feet, and the other half is in the lower 458 feet;
- The lowest 288 feet of the lake (roughly half the height of the dam) only holds 4% of the lake volume, so the top half of the lake holds 96%;
- It takes just as much volume to fill the range 3650-3700 as it does 3500-3600--i.e., it's relatively hard to fill the top 50 feet of the lake.
So how does this relate to actual observed data? Well, let's start with the five years with the biggest elevation rises in the spring (it's never hit 60--someone asked that):
1973 - 58 feet
1979 - 58 feet
1993 - 56 feet
2005 - 53 feet
2011 - 51 feet
How do those correlate to increase in volume during the spring runoff?
1973 - 6.31 MAF
1979 - 7.48 MAF
1993 - 6.67 MAF
2005 - 4.61 MAF
2011 - 5.91 MAF
Notice that even though 1973 and 1979 had the same rise, it took more volume to do it in 1979, because the lake was nearly full. In fact, 1979 was the greatest rise by volume in the lake's history...(one wonders what 1983 would have been like if the releases hadn't been so huge)...
Also notice that even though 2005 and 2011 had a similar rise, it took way less volume to do the slightly larger elevation gain in 2005 because the lake was so much lower that year.
And so what were the five greatest spring runoff rises by volume in the lake's history?
1979 - 7.48 MAF
1995 - 6.78 MAF
1993 - 6.67 MAF
1973 - 6.31 MAY
2011 - 5.91 MAF
Notice 1995 is the second largest increase ever, but the lake only rose 49 feet that spring, because it started at 3645...
Other notable years include:
1997, which had a volume increase of 4.64 MAF but a rise of only 32 feet, because it started at 3663...
2008, which had a volume increase of 4.61 MAF but a rise of 46 feet, because it started at 3588...
1984, which had a volume increase of 4.46 MAF but a rise of only 29 feet, because it started at 3673...
2017, which had a volume increase of 4.33 MAF but a rise of 42 feet, because it started at 3594...
It's notable that the only other years (besides those discussed above) that had a spring volume increase that exceeded 4.0 MAF were 1980 and 1983. None of the years during the time the lake was filling, except 1973, 1979 and 1980 had such a big increase by volume. This tells a larger story: it's often observed that it took 17 years to fill the lake, from 1963-80, which implies that it was a steady rise to fit such a huge volume. But that's not true. By 1970, it was already at 3600, higher than today, and roughly half full. So it took 7 years to fill the first half, but 10 to fill the second half. One reason it took longer in the second half was because of poor years in 1972, 1976, and 1977...which were saved by high years in 1973, 1979 and 1980...
There's also a perception that Powell has been in steady decline since about 2000. Again, untrue. There were five consecutive terrible years from 2000-04, two of which were truly horrific. 2002 and 2004 were the only years in the lake's history that saw next to no spring bump; in the case of 2002, the "bump" for the whole year lasted for only 5 days in late May, with a rise of less than a foot! Starting in summer 2001 and ending in spring 2003, the lake dropped 68 feet and lost over 7 MAF... (!!) A similarly awful overall drop happened in 2004, which also had a negligible spring bump of only 4 feet. The net result of all that was that what was essentially a full lake in July 1999 dropped to 3555 in April 2005 (down 145 feet), a loss of 16 MAF, or about 68% of its volume.
The good news is the since then, the lake has had its ups and downs, but has generally maintained. Three more horrific years (2012, 2013, and 2018) were balanced by several well-above average ones (2005, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2017...and now 2019), so the net effect of the last 15 years is positive. But it's very true that a short and sharp drought of even 5 years is hard to overcome. It's notable that in order to fill the lake in 1980, we needed two huge years in a row in 1979-80, and also needed to avoid a giant drought from 1963-80. There were bad years in that period, but nothing like we've seen since 2000. Here's the worst years in terms of spring volume increase since 1965. I've included all 10 examples where net spring runoff increase was less than 1.0 MAF:
2002 - 0.02 MAF
2012 - 0.23 MAF
1990 - 0.30 MAF
2018 - 0.31 MAF
2004 - 0.41 MAF
2013 - 0.48 MAF
1981 - 0.51 MAF
1977 - 0.58 MAF
1989 - 0.61 MAF
1966 - 0.84 MAF
Notably, 5 of the top 6 have happened in this century. This trend will likely continue based on consensus scientific climate predictions, so management will become increasingly difficult. But this is somewhat balanced by the fact that many of the years where increases have occurred in this century have been far above average... So the bottom line here is that the annual "norm" is becoming more extreme one way or the other...
But for this year, definitely hoping for the best. But it would be unprecedented if we had a lake level rise of 60 feet or more, since that's never happened before, nor has a volume increase been greater than 7.5 MAF (which was 1979). But if a 7.5 MAF rise DID happen this year, we'd be over 3650 as a summer peak... hmm... But to be cautious, that seems unlikely because of the need to release relatively large volumes for Lake Mead, which is really all part of the same management system...
But not too far-fetched to hope for 3610... and yes, 2014 is a good model for that...
And just noticed BOR's March report, which shows the same range of possibilities they reported in January and February, but now says it's more likely to be within the higher end of their predicted range... they predict it will top out at 3592 in July...
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
...no, haven't done that yet, but that's the next line of analysis for sure...
TR.
Escalante-Class Member
- Status