Is Powell next

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think when the generation of the big dam building era ended, a piece of the human spirit died with it. Why we traded our future for a bloated government and endless pensions I cant answer, but thats the reality now, we dont build things anymore. Powell or Oroville, I dont think its ever safe to be complacent, nature didnt intend for us to dam massive rivers like we have, but we did, and shame on us for not maintaining and improving the infrastructure that we inherited. Anything can happen and if you give it long enough will happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On April 15th, 2011, the lake was at 3609 ft., and in July 2011 it topped out about 3660. That's huge runoff. On April 15, 1983, the lake was at 3684ft. Certainly seems like they should have been planning for more than 16 foot runoff, since an "average" snow year will raise the lake 20 feet or more.

Another interesting historical note: after the near disaster in '83 and '84, the April low water mark for the lake in the late '80s was around 3680, and they allowed the lake to rise within a couple feet of the 3700 mark in 1985 to 1987. But apparently, they had faith in the repairs to the bypass tunnel in 1983/84 in case it was needed.
 
OK, I was bored, so I pulled some numbers from the water data page. I wanted to see what the biggest years for Lake Powell were.
So, I looked at lake levels on April 15th and July 15th for each year since 1968, to give the approximate filling of the lake in feet. I also looked at the increase in water storage in millions of acre feet between 4/15 and 7/15 of each year. Now, this is NOT the total runoff that a hydrologist would look at, since, in some years they let more water out to Lake Mead as it's filling (as in 83 and 84, when they used the bypass). I rounded numbers, so this isn't exact. But here were the best years for Lake Powell.

But if you are a Lake Powell boater, all that matters is how much did the lake rise, and how much more water was stored.

Year.............. Rise in Feet...... July 15 elevation ........ Increase in Millions of Acre Feet stored
2014..................35 .................... 3614 .......................... 3.2
2011...................49....................3658.......................... 5.5 big rise and storage increase
2008..................42....................3634...........................4.32
2005...................52...................3608..........................4.51 biggest rise 4/15 to 7/15
1997....................32...................3695...........................4.59
1995....................44...................3689...........................5.99 high water
1993....................49...................3668...........................5.9 big year
1984....................19....................3702.......................... 4.4 Big releases to Lake Mead!!
1983.....................24...................3708..........................3.7 huge releases to Lake Mead!!
1980.....................25...................3699..........................3.73
1979.....................45....................3684..........................6.0 biggest storage increase
1973.....................48................... 3640....filling up.......5.1

So, in 2017, we are well ahead of snowpack for 2011. But 2011 had a very cool, wet spring which delayed and added to runoff substantially. But 2017 has the potential to be ALL TIME in terms of overall runoff. Since we are starting below 3600, a 50 foot or more increase by July is absolutely possible. But unfortunately, most of that will be let out to Mead by next spring.

It will take a few more good years to get us back to high water levels.
 
Last edited:
Dorado said:
Very unlikely we will get anywhere near filling LP. But we are WAY ahead of the snowpack in 2011. And the forecast for the next few weeks is cool and wet.

The graph showing percent of average is deceiving. Having 150% of average at the beginning of March is much more impressive than having 200% at the end of May (like 2011), when much of the snowpack has already melted. We currently have 106% of average snowpack for the entire water year, with 6 more weeks of typically wet late winter/early spring to go. And the lowland snow, which is not accounted for in the SNOTEL sites, is 200-400% of average already. This water year may not break any records, but it is undoubtedly going to be in the top 5 since records have been kept when all is said and done. I will be very surprised if we do not get substantially more runoff than 2011!
Click to expand...
Good point... but remember, 2011 was a very cool, wet spring, and runoff started late.

We could easily beat 2011... or not, if it warms up in March and April.
 
If you read the report they are hedging their bets in the report with 9.6 being the conservative analysis and stating it could be 13.5.... they also state the lake will likely end up at 3640 for the water year - which off the top of my head is about as high as allowed under the balancing plan so anything over 3640 will most likely be sent on down to Lake Mead.

The April to July 2017 water supply forecast for unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, issued on February 2, 2017, by the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, projects that the most probable (median) unregulated inflow volume will be 9.6 maf (134% of average based on the period 1981-2010). The projected water year 2017 inflow is 13.2 maf (122%). At this early point in the season, there is still significant uncertainty regarding this year’s water supply. The April-July forecast ranges from a minimum probable of 6.6 maf (92%) to a maximum probable of 13.5 maf (189%). There is a 10% chance that inflows could be higher than the current maximum probable forecast and a 10% chance that inflows could be lower than the minimum probable forecast.

Based on the current forecast, the February 24-Month Study projects Lake Powell elevation will end water year 2017 near 3,640 feet with approximately 16.0 maf in storage (66% capacity). Note that projections of elevation and storage for water year 2017 have significant uncertainty at this point in the season. Projections of elevation and storage using the minimum and maximum probable inflow forecast, updated in January, are 3,586 feet (10.4 maf, 43% capacity) and 3,640 feet (16.0 maf, 66% capacity), respectively. Under these scenarios, there is a 10 percent chance that inflows will be higher, resulting in higher elevation and storage, and 10 percent chance that inflows will be lower, potentially in lower elevation and storage. The annual release volume from Lake Powell during water year 2017 is projected to be 9.0 maf under the minimum, most, and maximum probable inflow scenarios. There is a chance that inflows could be higher or lower, potentially resulting in releases greater than 9.0 maf or as low as 8.23 maf in water year 2017. Modeling of projected reservoir operations based on the minimum and maximum scenarios will be updated again in April.
 
A lot of "water year" totals in that forecast... and my post was looking solely at storage increase from 4/15 to 7/15 (which, granted, is most of the water... but water does flow in to Powell year round). But, it does look promising that they expect a 40 to 50 foot rise. But not sounding really "historic" in the forecast.
 
Mark said:
http://graphs.water-data.com/lakepowell/

This graph shows the total yearly inflow for every year at LP. Look at 83 to 86!! The yellow line is the yearly minimum release from LP. You can clearly see the cyclic nature... every 10 years... dry spell... followed by wet years... and another dry spell.
Click to expand...


Yep, as it has always been as long as I can remember. The only thing that stands between us and another dust bowl is our system of lakes... what the environmentalists ignore is the evaporation makes it into the jet stream in the summer and falls as rain on the summer crops in the middle of the country.

What is sad right now is California has more snow than they can even measure [depth-wise] and no infrastructure to hold the water - most will simply flow into the ocean rather than be preserved for future dry cycles..... We could use this record snow in the Rockies to fill our two major lakes, which we should be very grateful we have, because if we had been dependent on Lake Mead alone we'd be in a real world of hurt right now since both lakes were full when this drought started and through preservation and management we have made it the last 14 years with only a couple of good years in the midst of the drought [which began in 2002]..... Sometimes we get lucky and March really dumps a lot of snow on Colorado so hope springs eternal we can get some of what California has and cannot even use [or save]...
 
California has the most developed water storage infrastructure in the US. In fact there are over 1400 dams. The best sites, that can be justified with any rational cost/benefit analysis were developed years ago. Spending billions for minimal returns in terms of acre feet of storage is the very definition of wasteful big government spending so frequently railed against on this board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree, the big snowpack this year that will flow through full reservoirs to the sea makes strong argument for more storage.

I know desalination is expensive, but so are dams. If California can't slow down growth, they are gonna HAVE to build some dams, or start desalination on a large scale.
 
There is plenty of good discussion in this thread about what may happen to our water level, but I'd be interested in opinions about recreation on the lake at higher water levels. Did you find it significantly better than at some of the more recent water levels?
 
Last edited:
ScottF said:
There is plenty of good discussion in this thread about what may happen to our water level, but I'd be interested in opinions about recreation on the lake at higher water levels. Did you find it significantly better at some of the more recent water levels?
Click to expand...


My favorite level for Lake Powell has always been 3685 - 3690......
 
Mark said:
Agree, the big snowpack this year that will flow through full reservoirs to the sea makes strong argument for more storage.

I know desalination is expensive, but so are dams. If California can't slow down growth, they are gonna HAVE to build some dams, or start desalination on a large scale.
Click to expand...


To do desalination you need abundant energy [and storage for the residue]. Unfortunately CA decided to farm out a lot of their energy to other western states and I don't see another Nuclear Power Plant in my lifetime... solar cannot provide the power required. Even where a good plant exists in Yuma [which was put in place to remove the salt from the Colorado River Water flowing into Mexico [we send 1.5maf a year]..... they only fire it up once in a while to be sure it still works - too expensive to operate full time.
 
Especially if they secede! :)
ScottF said:
There is plenty of good discussion in this thread about what may happen to our water level, but I'd be interested in opinions about recreation on the lake at higher water levels. Did you find it significantly better at some of the more recent water levels?
Click to expand...

One really nice thing would be able to launch at Hite again for a Thanksgiving trip. That would require at LEAST 3615 but probably more like 3620 with all the silt deposits.
 
There is always ample fishing spots in Good Hope no matter the level. But from 3620-3640 there is even more really good areas that open up.
 
does anyone know the level of the lower dirt parking lot at Wahweap? Seems like if the water goes higher than that it will suck. Also they will have to move the electrical transformers.

I worry about less beach space as the water goes up. I will have to re learn the lake LOL.

Mike
 
Scott, on the South end of the lake, many popular sandy beaches in Gunsight and Padre Bay disappear as the water rises leaving fewer options for larger 'cruiser' boats to anchor (whereas many HB's can anchor into rocky areas easier). The South end becomes much more like the North end beach wise.

But many of the backs of canyons that are now rock become sandy, so new beach opportunities become available. Above 3650, we tended to go much further up-lake than we do at lower levels. Our favorite canyon at 3650+ is Dungeon, where at lower levels it hardly exists.

With that said, I'd still like to see the lake as full as it can get as it also spreads people out more. -Doug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top