Looks like November for high flow.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waterbaby

Escalante-Class Member
Glen Canyon Dam
GlenCanyonDam.jpg


(Last Updated: September 17, 2018)

Current Status

The Department of the Interior is exploring the possibility of a High Flow Experiment from Glen Canyon Dam to be conducted in November 2018. High Flow Experiments (HFE) below Glen Canyon Dam are driven by weather, sediment inputs, and other resource conditions, in accordance with the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP).

When sediment conditions during the summer and fall meet specific thresholds as described in the LTEMP, a fall HFE can occur. Fall HFEs can be scheduled to occur anytime during the months of October and November; however, under the LTEMP, HFEs have historically always occurred in November. Our best preliminary data and model runs indicate we now have enough sediment input from the Paria River for an HFE to occur at Glen Canyon Dam. The HFE Technical Team will be meeting to begin planning for a possible HFE and reviewing the status of resources and potential resource impacts.

The HFE will likely begin on November 5, 2018. The duration of the HFE is dependent upon further data collection, modeling, and analysis prior ot the end of October. A final determination on the timing, magnitude and duration of a potential fall 2018 HFE will likely be made in mid- to late-October.


The April to July 2018 unregulated inflow to Lake Powell was 2.6 maf (36 percent of average). The unregulated inflow in August was 11.2 thousand acre-feet (kaf) (2 percent of average). The is the second lowest unregulated inflow to occur in August. The lowest occurred in August 2002 when the volume was negative 50 kaf. Unregulated inflow is a calculated value that attempts to eliminate changes in upstream reservoir storage and evaporation. Negative unregulated inflow indicates that the upstream reservoir storage is being used to keep the river wet and without upstream storage the river would be dry. The release volume from Glen Canyon Dam in August was 900 kaf. The end of August elevation and storage of Lake Powell were 3,597 feet (103 feet from full pool) and 11.2 million acre-feet (maf) (47 percent of full capacity).



To view the most current reservoir elevation projections, click on: Lake Powell Elevation Projections.
To view the 2018 progession of snowpack above Lake Powell, click on Lake Powell Snow Chart.
To view the current inflow forecast relative to past inflows, click on Lake Powell Inflow Forecast.
Current Operations

The operating tier for water year 2018 was established in August 2017 as the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier. The April 2018 24-Month Study established that Lake Powell operations will be governed by balancing for the remainder of water year 2018. Under balancing, the contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead will be balanced by the end of the water year, but not more than 9.0 maf and not less than 8.23 maf shall be released from Lake Powell. Based on the most probable inflow forecast, this August 24-Month Study projects a balancing release of 9.0 maf in water year 2018. The projected release from Lake Powell in water year 2018 will be updated each month throughout the remainder of the water year. Reclamation will schedule operations at Glen Canyon Dam to achieve as practicably as possible the appropriate total annual release volume by September 30, 2018.

The operating tier for water year 2019, established by the August 2018 24-Month Study, is the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier. Under this Tier the initial annual water year release volume is 8.23 maf but there is potential for an April 2019 adjustment to equalization or balancing releases. Based on the current forecast, an April adjustment to balancing releases is projected and Lake Powell is currently projected to release 9.0 maf in water year 2019. This projection will be updated each month throughout the water year.

In September, the release volume will be approximately 671 kaf, with fluctuations anticipated between about 7,600 cfs in the nighttime to about 13,640 cfs in the daytime and consistent with the Glen Canyon Dam, Record of Decision on LTEMP (dated December, 2016). The anticipated release volume for October is 625 kaf with daily fluctuations between approximately 7,070 cfs and 12,700 cfs. The expected release for November is 625 kaf, unless an HFE is implemented. Once the timing, magnitude and duration of an HFE has been determined, a release volume will be available.

In addition to daily scheduled fluctuations for power generation, the instantaneous releases from Glen Canyon Dam may also fluctuate to provide 40 megawatts (mw) of system regulation. These instantaneous release adjustments stabilize the electrical generation and transmission system and translate to a range of about 1,200 cfs above or below the hourly scheduled release rate. Under system normal conditions, fluctuations for regulation are typically short lived and generally balance out over the hour with minimal or no noticeable impacts on downstream river flow conditions.

Releases from Glen Canyon Dam can also fluctuate beyond scheduled releases when called upon to respond to unscheduled power outages or power system emergencies. Depending on the severity of the system emergency, the response from Glen Canyon Dam can be significant, within the full range of the operating capacity of the power plant for as long as is necessary to maintain balance in the transmission system. Glen Canyon Dam currently maintains 30 mw (approximately 800 cfs) of generation capacity in reserve in order to respond to a system emergency even when generation rates are already high. System emergencies occur fairly infrequently and typically require small responses from Glen Canyon Dam. However, these responses can have a noticeable impact on the river downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.
Inflow Forecasts and Model Projections

The forecast for water year 2019 unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, issued on August 1, 2018, by the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, projects that the most probable (median) unregulated inflow volume next year will be 8.1 maf (75 percent of average). There is significant uncertainty regarding next season’s snow pack development and resulting runoff into Lake Powell. The forecast ranges from a minimum probable of 4.8 maf (44 percent of average) to a maximum probable of 15.6 maf (144 percent of average). There is a 10 percent chance that inflows could be higher than the current maximum probable forecast and a 10 percent chance that inflows could be lower than the minimum probable forecast.

Based on the current forecast, the August 24-Month Study projects Lake Powell elevation will end water year 2018 near 3,586 feet with approximately 10.51 maf in storage (43 percent of capacity) and water year 2019 near 3,581 feet with approximately 10.07 maf in storage (43 percent of capacity). Note that projections of elevation and storage for water year 2019 have significant uncertainty at this point in the season. Projections of end of water year 2019 elevation and storage using the minimum and maximum probable inflow forecast are 3,566 feet (8.8 maf, 36 percent of capacity) and 3,648 feet (17.0 maf, 70 percent of 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, resulting in lower elevation and storage. The annual release volume from Lake Powell during water year 2019 is projected to be 9.0 maf under the most probable and maximum probable inflow scenarios and 8.23 maf under the minimum probable inflow scenario.

Upper Colorado River Basin Hydrology

The Upper Colorado River Basin regularly experiences significant year to year hydrologic variability. During the 18-year period 2000 to 2017, however, the unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, which is a good measure of hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin, was above average in only 4 out of the past 18 years. The period 2000-2017 is the lowest 18-year period since the closure of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, with an average unregulated inflow of 8.76 maf, or 81percent of the 30-year average (1981-2010). (For comparison, the 1981-2010 total water year average is 10.83 maf.) The unregulated inflow during the 2000-2017 period has ranged from a low of 2.64 maf (24 percent of average) in water year 2002 to a high of 15.97 maf (147 percent of average) in water year 2011. In water year 2017 unregulated inflow volume to Lake Powell was 11.9 maf (110 percent of average), the fourth year to be above average. Under the current most probable forecast, the total water year 2018 unregulated inflow to Lake Powell is projected to be 5.25 maf (48 percent of average). At the beginning of water year 2018, total system storage in the Colorado River Basin was 32.9 maf (55 percent of 59.6 maf total system capacity). This is an increase of 2.7 maf over the total storage at the beginning of water year 2017 when total system storage was 30.2 maf (51 percent of capacity). Since the beginning of water year 2000, total Colorado Basin storage has experienced year to year increases and decreases in response to wet and dry hydrology, ranging from a high of 94 percent of capacity at the beginning of 2000 to a low of 50 percent of capacity at the beginning of water year 2005. One wet year can significantly increase total system reservoir storage, just as persistent dry years can draw down the system storage. Based on current inflow forecasts, the current projected end of water year total Colorado Basin reservoir storage for water year 2018 is approximately 29.0 maf (48 percent of total system capacity). The actual end of water year 2018 system storage may vary from this projection, primarily due to uncertainty regarding this season’s runoff and reservoir inflow. Based on the April minimum and maximum probable inflow forecasts and modeling, the range of end of water year 2018 total system capacity is approximately 27.8 maf (47 percent of capacity) to 31.0 maf (52 percent of capacity), respectively.
 
Waterbaby, do you know why the 2019 projected outflow is still 9.0 maf after such a terrible 2017-18 water runoff? I thought the 9.0 maf was done to balance LP and Mead when LP had high water inflow years? Obviously, I don't understand. Could you shed any light on how the 9.0 maf vs. 8.23 maf outflow is decided upon? Thx, Doug
 
I believe the trigger for balancing is not a high Powell inflow, but rather the comparative levels of Lake Mead(Currently 38% of full pool) and Lake Powell(currently 43% of full pool). This is the reason the Central Arizona Project administrators received a strongly worded letter from upper basin users for intentionally releasing water from Mead to maintain the "sweet spot" that forces the 9 Million Acre Foot release as opposed to 8.23 MAF under normal operation. Upper Basin users have been working diligently on conservation strategies while their southern counterparts have been pumping water into the ground(they claim for future use, but I personally don't think you can get all that water back).
 
I believe the trigger for balancing is not a high Powell inflow, but rather the comparative levels of Lake Mead(Currently 38% of full pool) and Lake Powell(currently 43% of full pool). This is the reason the Central Arizona Project administrators received a strongly worded letter from upper basin users for intentionally releasing water from Mead to maintain the "sweet spot" that forces the 9 Million Acre Foot release as opposed to 8.23 MAF under normal operation. Upper Basin users have been working diligently on conservation strategies while their southern counterparts have been pumping water into the ground(they claim for future use, but I personally don't think you can get all that water back).
Under this scenario, there is an extra incentive for lower basin states to use more water - which sounds like what is occurring.

Just FYI - I found this math interesting. If 100% of Lake Powell was drained into Lake Mead today, Lake Powell would be empty, and Lake Mead would be 81.6% full. That to me is a pretty scary low number. A couple of more 'no runnoff' winters like this past one and the West will be in big trouble.
 
Waterbaby, do you know why the 2019 projected outflow is still 9.0 maf after such a terrible 2017-18 water runoff? I thought the 9.0 maf was done to balance LP and Mead when LP had high water inflow years? Obviously, I don't understand. Could you shed any light on how the 9.0 maf vs. 8.23 maf outflow is decided upon? Thx, Doug

J. Funk is right, doesn't have anything to do with high flow years. We released 8.23 as a rule from Lake Powell [in the past], but Mead released more [remember they receive water from the White Mountains, Bill Williams River as well as the Virgin River... all of which have been way down due to the drought, and now a larger percentage of the Little Colorado may be diverted to the Hopi Tribe - depending on the outcome of their lawsuit and we are obligated to send 1.5 each year into Mexico. Some of what we were storing wasn't our water, but Mexican water because of some work that was being done on the canals taking water into Mexico.
 
J. Funk is right, doesn't have anything to do with high flow years. We released 8.23 as a rule from Lake Powell [in the past], but Mead released more [remember they receive water from the White Mountains, Bill Williams River as well as the Virgin River... all of which have been way down due to the drought, and now a larger percentage of the Little Colorado may be diverted to the Hopi Tribe - depending on the outcome of their lawsuit and we are obligated to send 1.5 each year into Mexico. Some of what we were storing wasn't our water, but Mexican water because of some work that was being done on the canals taking water into Mexico.
We were also still carrying the water from the two dams damaged in the earthquakes from a few years ago in mexico, if they asked for that water back now we would be in a different water world
 
We were also still carrying the water from the two dams damaged in the earthquakes from a few years ago in mexico, if they asked for that water back now we would be in a different water world
Can you qauntify that comment? i.e. how much is LP carrying of the Mexico water? I"m just curious as I had not heard that.
 
Can you qauntify that comment? i.e. how much is LP carrying of the Mexico water? I"m just curious as I had not heard that.
IT isn't lake Powell carrying it - it is being stored in Arizona. If they place a call on it we have to deliver - at one point [don't know if they still do] California was storing water [underground] between Needles and Barstow. This was before the drought. They do store some water underground in the LA area..........
 
BTW somehow I [or we] missed they did a big flush out of Alamo Lake last winter... flooded the Bill Williams river which dumps into the wild life refuge at the end of Lake Havasu [below the Parker Dam. While a lot of the water was to come into Havasu they also took advantage of the high flow to let water seem back into the ground water which had drawn down due to the drought. But the extra water coming into Havasu [which pumps to California at the pumping plant above the dam and Tucson from the end of the lake where the refuge is located - takes some pressure off Lake Mead having to send more water down this way [mead to Mohave to Havasu. Fishermen were VERY unhappy and filed a lawsuit to stop it, but lost. The purpose of this was to make repairs to Alamo Dam.

http://www.parkerliveonline.com/2018/03/05/alamo-lake-flushed-march-12th-says-army-corps-colonel/
 
BTW somehow I [or we] missed they did a big flush out of Alamo Lake last winter... flooded the Bill Williams river which dumps into the wild life refuge at the end of Lake Havasu [below the Parker Dam. While a lot of the water was to come into Havasu they also took advantage of the high flow to let water seem back into the ground water which had drawn down due to the drought. But the extra water coming into Havasu [which pumps to California at the pumping plant above the dam and Tucson from the end of the lake where the refuge is located - takes some pressure off Lake Mead having to send more water down this way [mead to Mohave to Havasu. Fishermen were VERY unhappy and filed a lawsuit to stop it, but lost. The purpose of this was to make repairs to Alamo Dam.

http://www.parkerliveonline.com/2018/03/05/alamo-lake-flushed-march-12th-says-army-corps-colonel/


Waterbaby I have been fishing there for many years and from what I have been able to ascertain they really needed to reduce the water level as they built a faulty dam.

They claimed it was so they would not need a diving bell for the divers to inspect the sill, but it's funny they still used one when they did the inspection.

And they did it this spring/Summer.

Here is a link to newsletters regarding the situation.

https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Article/1510257/whats-happening-at-alamo-dam/
 
Waterbaby I have been fishing there for many years and from what I have been able to ascertain they really needed to reduce the water level as they built a faulty dam.

They claimed it was so they would not need a diving bell for the divers to inspect the sill, but it's funny they still used one when they did the inspection.

And they did it this spring/Summer.

Here is a link to newsletters regarding the situation.

https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Article/1510257/whats-happening-at-alamo-dam/


The timing of this wasn't great as far as the wildlife refuge was concerned. At least they allowed some of it to percolate back into the ground water. Don't know how I missed it, guess I need to break down and start taking our local paper again.
 
Can you qauntify that comment? i.e. how much is LP carrying of the Mexico water? I"m just curious as I had not heard that.
i cant Peg, I remember reading that they split the total between the two lakes to start with, then through other agreements some went to underground storage until a time that Mexico would start to fill the dams back, the dams were north east Mexico but I cant find where I was reading that. i'm not sure i'm remembering everything right, just remembered that they at one point stated that it was about 22 vertical feet split between the two lakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top