Feds to release Flaming Gorge water to support Lake Powell, as new hazards emerge
The federal government is intending to release a substantial amount of water from Flaming Gorge to support Lake Powell.
www.ksl.com
In the news - 54 feet sounds iffy… FG set to dump up to 1 million AF
- Thread starter Bubba1211
- Start date
www.ksl.com
sparkin5280
Well-Known Member
I saw that article earlier, couldn't believe when I read that 54 foot number. They're spinning it making it sound like Mead is going to take a huge loss in favor of Powell getting this large increase. Very biased towards Vegas and Mead. There must be some sort of logic to their math. Maybe they're adding up all the water that should have been sent in the last 2-3 years. Maybe that equals 50 ft of Powell elevation when you add it all up? But no one's getting water this year, everybody can cry about it all they want but there's just none to go around.
Eagle Rock
Active Member
The 24-month study released today shows the Powell surface at 3456' at its minimum at the end of next winter. That's before today's announcement about cutting Powell releases and increasing Flaming Gorge releases. Add 54 feet to that and you get 3510'. So I read the "54 feet" as meaning "54 feet higher than the low point that would otherwise occur." And reading the "54 feet" that way, next spring's minimum reservoir level would be 3510', which makes sense for avoiding minimum power pool at 3490'. So they can claim they've raised Powell by 54 feet (from where it otherwise would have been), but it still bottoms out at 3510', 16 feet below the current level, and the lowest since the 1960s.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Eagle Rock has it pretty much right. Here's how it breaks down.
The federal announcement is confusing. In substance, all it says is this:
"Through the 2019 Drought Response Operating Agreements, Reclamation is intending to release 660,000 acre-feet to 1 maf from Flaming Gorge Reservoir from April 2026 through April 2027. In addition, Reclamation is intending to reduce the annual release volume from Lake Powell to Lake Mead by 1.48 maf—from 7.48 maf to 6.0 maf—through September 2026 by utilizing section 6E of the Record of Decision from the final 2024 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for near-term Colorado River Operations. Together, these actions are expected to increase Lake Powell’s elevation by approximately 54 ft to at least elevation 3500 feet by April 2027."
So there are two levers they are working--increased releases from Flaming Gorge, and decreased releases through Glen Canyon Dam.
First, let's look at FG. In the April 2026 24-Month Study (which does not reflect anything in the new federal announcement), it is projecting that the total release from FG from April 2026 through April 2027 will be 725,000 af. Is the intent of the announcement to say the total release would now be 660,000 to 1 million af? If so, that's not much different than what they already have planned. I've got to assume they mean 660-1,000 Kaf ADDITIONAL water released. If so, the announcement would appear to increase the total release from FG in that period anywhere to 1.4-1.7 maf. For a reservoir that only holds 3.8 maf, that's a pretty sizable release in one year.
If this is accurate, the estimated additional FG release through September 2026 (end of WY26) would be 275-420 Kaf. Set that range aside for a second.
For Glen Canyon Dam, BOR says they intend to reduce the total release from May through Sept 2026 by 1.48 maf. They don't say what they intend to do after that, so I can only assume they intend to stick with what they are showing in the latest 24-month study from October 2026 onward. But in effect, that reduction would keep monthly releases to about 574,000 af/month through September, which is about 10% higher than the amount to be released in April. Look for daily releases on the order of 9,500 cfs through the summer of 2026.
So the net volume increase to Powell through Sept 2026 would be 1.48 maf + somewhere between 0.27-0.42 maf = 1.75-1.90 maf. That means the net impact of proposed release modifications through Sept 2026 would be something like this:
9-30-26 lake level (per April 2026 24-month study) - 3483
9-30-26 lake level (with proposed release modifications) - 3519-3521
Let's call it a net increase of about 36-38 feet by the end of September compared to what had been expected.
How about in April 2027? Assuming BOR does not modify planned releases through GCD after September, but do keep the spigot open through FG as their announcement suggests, here's what you get:
4-1-27 lake level (per April 2026 24-month study) - 3456
4-1-27 lake level (with proposed release modifications) - 3505-3510
That suggests a net increase of about 49-54 feet at the beginning of April 2027 compared to what had been expected.
So when the feds say "an increase of approximately 54 feet to at least an elevation of 3500 by April 2027", it's confusing at best. But you can kind of see what they're getting at. I hope they have a much clearer explanation when details of the plan actually come out, because as it is, news media and social media pundits are inevitably going to get this one wrong...
Also worth noting the April 24 month study is based on a forecast 1400 kaf Apr-Jul inflow from the April 1st official CBRFC estimate. Right now that estimate is down to 900 to 1000 kaf depending on whether you use current weather forecasts in the estimate (900 kaf) or just use climatology (1000 kaf).
So the best guess right now is about 500 kaf lower than everything in the press release and the 24 month forecast. That 500 kaf amounts to about 10 ft of elevation when the lake is around 3500.
Or some really simple math using storage and elevation:
April 24 Month Study forecast for 3/31/27: 2338 kaf / 3456 ft
Less 500 kaf most recent CBRFC forecast: 1838 kaf
Plus 2500 kaf for just released BoR plan: 4338 kaf / 3503 ft
So even with the drastic BoR plan the "most probable" outcome is only 3503 ft elevation in April 2027
So the best guess right now is about 500 kaf lower than everything in the press release and the 24 month forecast. That 500 kaf amounts to about 10 ft of elevation when the lake is around 3500.
Or some really simple math using storage and elevation:
April 24 Month Study forecast for 3/31/27: 2338 kaf / 3456 ft
Less 500 kaf most recent CBRFC forecast: 1838 kaf
Plus 2500 kaf for just released BoR plan: 4338 kaf / 3503 ft
So even with the drastic BoR plan the "most probable" outcome is only 3503 ft elevation in April 2027
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
To me this is phase one, I believe that BOR’s long term mystery plan due out in December is shaping up the be all about maintaining the Power Pool at Glen Canyon Dam as long as possible; to drop below that would represent a hugely negative milestone for BOR and for Lake Powell.
I think it’s possible that future releases will be more in line with the volumes they could deliver through the internal bypass tunnels IF that was the only apparatus left to pass water through the works. Their logic supporting that might be that they are operating as though they were already below power pool, which would have been almost inevitable in the near term, so why not save that buffer to maintain power production while delivering those same quantities downstream.
The importance of the ability to produce clean cheap power while sending water down stream can not be overstated. We are using more power than ever before with all of our new devices and technologies that we have come to depend on. The difference between having the superpower of making electricity and loosing that capability could be gone next spring without some kind of change. In other words Power Production is a byproduct of sending water down stream but only if the levels stay above the turbine inlets, above dead power pool.
The most they can pass safely through the bypass tunnels below dead power pool is about four million acre feet a year. With a good bounce the unregulated inflow and poor snow pack runoff/inflow that have become somewhat of a new normal over the past decade could support those levels of releases while still maintaining power pool. This is only my hunch but it’s how I’m reading the tea leaves. So IF this is the case their plan will have to be implemented by some type of emergency powers or the states will sue immediately. If the states did still somehow manage to get a suit together it would only go to highlight the absurdity of the current guaranteed acer feet spoils system. The Government simply can’t send you more water than they have or get this year.
JFR California posted a chart not too long ago showing how many MAF were left in the reservoir at each decreasing elevation. I can’t remember exactly but the delta between Dead Power Pool and actual Dead Pool was not that large a spread, something like three MAF, a conceptual drop in the bucket compared to annual releases or total storage capacity. That is why I suspect that BOR thinks a safe distance above dead power pool should be the New Bottom, a new red line and If so I think it’s somewhat wise.
I think it’s possible that future releases will be more in line with the volumes they could deliver through the internal bypass tunnels IF that was the only apparatus left to pass water through the works. Their logic supporting that might be that they are operating as though they were already below power pool, which would have been almost inevitable in the near term, so why not save that buffer to maintain power production while delivering those same quantities downstream.
The importance of the ability to produce clean cheap power while sending water down stream can not be overstated. We are using more power than ever before with all of our new devices and technologies that we have come to depend on. The difference between having the superpower of making electricity and loosing that capability could be gone next spring without some kind of change. In other words Power Production is a byproduct of sending water down stream but only if the levels stay above the turbine inlets, above dead power pool.
The most they can pass safely through the bypass tunnels below dead power pool is about four million acre feet a year. With a good bounce the unregulated inflow and poor snow pack runoff/inflow that have become somewhat of a new normal over the past decade could support those levels of releases while still maintaining power pool. This is only my hunch but it’s how I’m reading the tea leaves. So IF this is the case their plan will have to be implemented by some type of emergency powers or the states will sue immediately. If the states did still somehow manage to get a suit together it would only go to highlight the absurdity of the current guaranteed acer feet spoils system. The Government simply can’t send you more water than they have or get this year.
JFR California posted a chart not too long ago showing how many MAF were left in the reservoir at each decreasing elevation. I can’t remember exactly but the delta between Dead Power Pool and actual Dead Pool was not that large a spread, something like three MAF, a conceptual drop in the bucket compared to annual releases or total storage capacity. That is why I suspect that BOR thinks a safe distance above dead power pool should be the New Bottom, a new red line and If so I think it’s somewhat wise.
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Here's the chart you're referencing, which shows the live storage volume of the reservoir at different lake levels:
5.5 maf - 3525
5.0 maf - 3515
4.5 maf - 3506
4.0 maf - 3495
3.7 maf - 3490 (minimum power pool)
3.0 maf - 3484
2.5 maf - 3473
2.0 maf - 3460
1.5 maf - 3446
1.0 maf - 3430
0.5 maf - 3413
0.0 maf - 3370 (dead pool)
And keep in mind that there is an additional 1.7 maf in dead storage that can't be released when the lake hits dead pool. Best guess is that the lake would extend to near Halls Crossing if it reached dead pool.
POk3s
Escalante-Class Member
Same. It also killed the Kokanee fishery. The kokes were finally back the last couple years and now I predict it will crash again. That’s a hit for everybody but lots to the local economy. Kokanee fisherman from all over the country (world) love to come here and they spend money!
I’ll hope for the best but I just hope everyone realizes this situation stretches far greater than just “propping up Powell for power”. It is a multi state catastrophe.
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
I found this on FB today and it is really well produced, mostly acurate and tells almost the whole story about our levels and power production and the impacts for 40 million people. It has a few of the big stretches of the truth you might expect and a couple of omissions but I’ll leave it to you to pick those out. Otherwise it’s very well done and quite on point.
www.facebook.com
26K views · 361 reactions | The Hoover Dam Situation Just Got WORSE... | Radar Crisis
The Hoover Dam Situation Just Got WORSE...
www.facebook.com
Last edited:
Colorado Expat
Well-Known Member
Due to its design, Glen Canyon Dam has become an increasing impediment to the management of the Colorado River as a whole. States both upstream and down are having to accept major water concessions just to keep it out of crisis. And consider a worst case scenario: what happens if we have another dry winter even close to the current one? With Upper Basin storage depleted, there will be few if any good options to prevent Lake Powell from hitting dead pool.
The hope is that this scenario will not occur, but there is an oft-repeated cliché that hope is not a plan. If the modelers at NOAA are correct, and we can look forward to another decade or two of Southwest drought, then it is pragmatic to undertake some adaptive solutions. In particular, a set of additional lower elevation bypass tunnels needs to be designed and constructed so that the lake can be managed across a wider range of depths. Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, it will take time. And yes, we probably should have started this process at least 5 years ago when the writing first appeared on the wall.
At present, about 4 million acre feet of water is held behind Glen Canyon Dam below the 3370 foot surface elevation that constitutes dead pool. This is water that is essentially trapped, and cannot be used for hydropower or sent downstream. It is just stuck there. Being able to access even part of that dead pool water would have made a big difference in a water year like we are having. And if the drought continues, I would think it likely that plans will be made to tap into it. But for now, it is simply not available.
The hope is that this scenario will not occur, but there is an oft-repeated cliché that hope is not a plan. If the modelers at NOAA are correct, and we can look forward to another decade or two of Southwest drought, then it is pragmatic to undertake some adaptive solutions. In particular, a set of additional lower elevation bypass tunnels needs to be designed and constructed so that the lake can be managed across a wider range of depths. Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, it will take time. And yes, we probably should have started this process at least 5 years ago when the writing first appeared on the wall.
At present, about 4 million acre feet of water is held behind Glen Canyon Dam below the 3370 foot surface elevation that constitutes dead pool. This is water that is essentially trapped, and cannot be used for hydropower or sent downstream. It is just stuck there. Being able to access even part of that dead pool water would have made a big difference in a water year like we are having. And if the drought continues, I would think it likely that plans will be made to tap into it. But for now, it is simply not available.
Lake Powell already has an operating range of 20 Maf. I’m not sure Herculean engineering efforts to expand that range slightly to access at most another 4 Maf makes any practical sense.
Rather it would simply prove to be a very expensive enabler for continued kicking the can down the road by public officials and stakeholders who have repeatedly demonstrated they simply cannot and will not act until forced to by crisis. Postponing that crisis by engineering is not actually a useful thing to do.
4 Maf is nothing, essentially zilch, when it comes to even medium term operations. It’s half a year of delivery. It is just eight years of a practically trivial reduction of 0.5 Maf conservation spread over seven states. We could have that 4 Maf of margin and more if stakeholders had made even the tiniest effort to acknowledge the impending crisis that has been glaringly obvious for a decade.
The dam is built as the dam is. The fact it has 4 Maf of dead pool has zero to do with the problem we face. Having access to that 4 Maf would do zero to help solve the problem, it would merely move the crisis slightly into the future.
This is a public policy problem plain and simple. Engineering has nothing to do with the cause of the problem nor with its solution.
Rather it would simply prove to be a very expensive enabler for continued kicking the can down the road by public officials and stakeholders who have repeatedly demonstrated they simply cannot and will not act until forced to by crisis. Postponing that crisis by engineering is not actually a useful thing to do.
4 Maf is nothing, essentially zilch, when it comes to even medium term operations. It’s half a year of delivery. It is just eight years of a practically trivial reduction of 0.5 Maf conservation spread over seven states. We could have that 4 Maf of margin and more if stakeholders had made even the tiniest effort to acknowledge the impending crisis that has been glaringly obvious for a decade.
The dam is built as the dam is. The fact it has 4 Maf of dead pool has zero to do with the problem we face. Having access to that 4 Maf would do zero to help solve the problem, it would merely move the crisis slightly into the future.
This is a public policy problem plain and simple. Engineering has nothing to do with the cause of the problem nor with its solution.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Great post, and I agree with most of the thinking behind it. But I’m pretty sure it’s only 1.7 maf of dead storage in Lake Powell below the 3370 dead pool level…
Good point, making it even more pointless to access. But in fairness to his post, there is much talk that operating below power pool isn’t actually sustainable because the infrastructure will quickly wear out. So that kind of makes everything below power pool nearly equivalent to “dead” for long term operations without doing some major infrastructure work.
Which as outlined in my above post is in my opinion probably worse than a fool’s errand in the end. It only seems like it helps if you completely ignore the actual root causes.
Colorado Expat
Well-Known Member
My best guess numbers of the amount of dead pool storage stuck behind GCD were extrapolated from a study by Schmidt and colleagues that came on 11 September of last year. To quote it directly:
"At Glen Canyon Dam, the river outlets theoretically allow for reservoir releases down to elevation 3370 feet (below which is dead storage). But Reclamation has stated that elevation 3394 feet is the minimum reservoir elevation at which the river outlets can be safely used, thereby decreasing the volume of active storage by approximately 400,000 acre feet. In addition, Reclamation has reported that the river outlets were not designed for long-term use at low reservoir levels, and there is potential for cavitation damage, acceleration of necessary operation and maintenance tasks, and interference with efficient operation of the power plant if the river outlets are the sole method of release.
Similarly, at Lake Mead, the SEIS ROD states Reclamation’s intent to protect the reservoir from going below elevation 1000 feet. If the April 24-Month Study minimum probable forecast projects Lake Mead reaching elevation 1025 feet, the Lower Division States, in consultation with the Upper Division States, must provide Reclamation with an implementation plan to protect Lake Mead from reaching that elevation. If the plan proposed is not acceptable, Reclamation has stated that it may take additional action to protect elevation 1000 feet. This means that the water available for use in Lake Mead may be limited in the short term to the amount of active storage above 1000 feet of elevation.
Realistically accessible storage
On September 1, 2025, there was 7.0 million acre feet of water in active storage in Lake Powell, but only 2.7 million acre-feet was above elevation 3500 feet. On the same day, there was 8.1 million acre-feet of water in active storage in Lake Mead, but only 3.6 million acre feet was above elevation 1000 feet. Thus, although Lake Powell and Lake Mead had 15.1 million acre feet of active storage, only 6.3 million acre feet (2.7 + 3.6) was above the higher thresholds established by Reclamation.
Gap between use and inflow and resulting reservoir drawdown
We estimate that consumptive uses and losses in the coming twelve months could be 3.6 million acre feet more than inflow (12.9 - 9.3), if next year is a repeat of this year. Assuming that three-quarters of this amount is drawn from Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2.7 million acre feet),38 this will leave only 3.6 million acre 9 feet of (6.3 – 2.7) realistically accessible water in those two reservoirs in late summer 2026, when a 9-month season of even further drawdown typically occurs."
Some of the above comments have clearly been overtaken by events, but the basic math they laid out seems accurate (and not pretty). And it does seem to work out to about 4 million acre feet of dead pool water in Lake Powell. But those were not my calculations, so happy to be corrected.