Please don't shoot the messenger...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trix said:
Blah, blah, blah.
“The dam's main purpose is to store water for the West, support hydroelectric power generation, and provide recreational opportunities.”
Click to expand...
The remoteness of Lake Powell has survived for over 60 years, let's pray it survives another 60 years without all the roads some groups want to open up. It's purpose enhances so many people it is unbelievable. I wonder what Lake Mead would look like without Lake Powell or Glen Canyon Dam?
 
Most telling line from the video:

"I wanted to know more with what's happening with Lake Powell, so I reached out to Eric Balken of the Glen Canyon Institute to learn more."

That's like saying, "I wanted to know more about what's happening with the New York Yankees, so I reached out to a bunch of Boston Red Sox fans to learn more."

I'm okay with videos that talk about all these issues, and agree with a lot of what is said, but let's make it a real analysis, with all the perspectives you need (including GCI's) to draw any meaningful conclusions to inform the next steps....
 
I'm not a 'drainer'.....unless you count the inane emotionally draining puns..... 😋 .......but I do have to admire their enthusiasm. It's possible to admire your opponent. How many of us have wondered: wouldn't it be nice to have both? At what lake level do we keep a lake and enjoy olde 'Glen Canyon'? Some may say 3700, others 3500, some: as long as there's a navigable cut....:cool:

Methinks mother nature, as usual, be in control. Anyone remember the TV ads from the 60's: You can't fool Mother Nature?

Which begs the question that the video leaves us with....if we get to dead pool, is dam modification needed at all to allow any flow, or does water flow only when the level exceeds dead pool? AND.....Does it even matter? :unsure::unsure:

And I wouldn't worry.....our lake ain't gonna be drained in our lifetime, and that dam isn't going anywhere.....🤞
 
The discussion about draining Lake Powell is completely academic, because the current design of Glen Canyon Dam does not allow the reservoir to be drained. And in point of fact, if we get below minimum hydro pool we have a major problem, because the existing outlet works, which are the only other option, are not designed for prolonged use and have already sustained damage from only periodic utilization, which is a cause for real concern. So there is little choice at the moment but to keep Lake Powell at or above minimum hydro pool, until such time as alternate engineering solutions might be implemented. Even if we wanted to start construction on those right now, which is not on the books, it would take many years to complete them. So for the foreseeable future we are where we are, in a situation where Lake Powell may end up being a crimp on BOR's ability to supply the legally specified amount of water down the river to the Lower Basin states. I doubt that anyone contemplated being in this situation when the dam was completed in the 1960s.
 
Colorado Expat said:
The discussion about draining Lake Powell is completely academic, because the current design of Glen Canyon Dam does not allow the reservoir to be drained. And in point of fact, if we get below minimum hydro pool we have a major problem, because the existing outlet works, which are the only other option, are not designed for prolonged use and have already sustained damage from only periodic utilization, which is a cause for real concern. So there is little choice at the moment but to keep Lake Powell at or above minimum hydro pool, until such time as alternate engineering solutions might be implemented. Even if we wanted to start construction on those right now, which is not on the books, it would take many years to complete them. So for the foreseeable future we are where we are, in a situation where Lake Powell may end up being a crimp on BOR's ability to supply the legally specified amount of water down the river to the Lower Basin states. I doubt that anyone contemplated being in this situation when the dam was completed in the 1960s.
Click to expand...
Agreed! (y) That's why I think our lake is safe in our lifetime. Plus govt don't wanna stop the power generation. Funny how that was never addressed in the video....doesn't fit their agenda?...:unsure:
But, as a (poor) chess player, It's fun to think of different moves on the board...... so ....IF mother nature brings us to dead pool, and the canyon & Meade need water....what would or could be done? anything? There was a brief mention of the bypass tunnels, but weren't they permanently sealed? :unsure: And I believe JFR said in '63 only 1,000cfs were being released, which isn't much....guess even that sustains Grand canyon? And this is all probably much ado about nothing......:cool:
 
Rainbowbridge said:
:unsure: And I believe JFR said in '63 only 1,000cfs were being released, which isn't much....guess even that sustains Grand canyon? And this is all probably much ado about nothing......:cool:
Click to expand...
On that point, there was a period from May 12 to August 18, 1964 when releases through Glen Canyon Dam were reduced to roughly 1000 cfs, in an effort to raise the elevation of Lake Powell to at least minimum power pool (3490). That effort was successful. During that 3-month period, Lake Powell rose about 90 feet, on some days, 3 feet per day. The lake's volume increased by 3.1 maf in that time.

That sustained low outflow to the Grand Canyon also had its consequences. During that same period, Lake Mead lost 2.2 maf, and dropped by 23 feet. About 15% of its existing live volume disappeared in those 3 months. Fundamentally, it shifted the storage balance between Mead and Powell, although at the time, most of the water storage still remained in Lake Mead. In late August 1964, after the artificially induced increase of Powell's volume, the live storage volume of Powell was about 4.1 maf. In Mead, it was much more--about 12.3. Here's an interesting tidbit: Collectively, the total live storage of 16.4 maf in August 1964 was almost exactly what it is today here in May 2025, with the main difference being that now, the volumes in Mead and Powell are nearly the same (roughly 8 maf each).

Does that matter? If we had the same reservoir balance now as in 1964, would people be concerned? Probably so. At least now, maintaining more volume in Powell allows for adjustments to releases, and allows for better management of power potential between the two reservoirs.

And then there's the constant cry about Powell's evaporative losses. Let's not forget: despite what that video says, the evaporation rate of Mead is substantially higher than that of Powell. Generally speaking (and based on actual data since 2011), Lake Mead loses about 6.5 afy per acre of surface area. For Powell, it's about 4 afy per acre of surface area. Total evaporation goes up for each reservoir as surface area increases. I'm attaching another graphic which shows the evaporative loss as a function of the volume for the two reservoirs. Bottom line, at least from the perspective of evaporation, it's much better to store water in Powell than Mead. And that's intuitive: the area around Lake Mead is just a lot hotter, plain and simple.

One last thing for now, to Rainbowbridge's question: What does 1000 cfs of flow do to the Grand Canyon? Hard to say. It's rarely been that low. Apart from that period in 1964, the only other times the flow was that low in the Grand Canyon were a few dates in the summers of 1934 and 1940. The lowest recorded flow? That was 672 cfs, on 7-19-34. Hard to imagine what that looks like, but I can show you what 1,000 cfs looks like. In June 1964, my family was on a cross country trip that included the Grand Canyon. My dad happened to take a photo from Desert View that included the river flowing through marble canyon at 1,000 cfs. Here's a link to another post that shows this and goes into some narrative detail:

JFRCalifornia

Thread 'What Does a 1000 cfs Release Look Like Downstream? A look back at 1964...'

Big runoff and a rising lake have been huge topics this spring, but one of the lingering questions on the minds of some is this: why didn't the BOR release less than the 18,000 cfs in the last couple of months and make the lake rise even more? Well, I'm not going to answer that one in this post, but instead take a different angle on this whole topic.

In recent decades, the normal release pattern through the dam varies, but it's usually somewhere between 8,000 and 18,000 cfs, depending on the season and how big the snowpack was in the spring. There have been years where the runoff was...
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Love

Powell and Mead Evaporative Loss - evap v. vol..jpg
 
Last edited:
“One of the most destructive environmental projects in American history”.
That’s what that dummy said…
The most destructive project was the over population of the American southwest.
Lots of talk about who needs the water from the basin, but not enough talk about the fact the too many people have assumed a right to such a fragile and limited resource. If you wish to live in the desert then accept that you might not always have as much water as you want.
I love the lake, and if it’s not sustainable because the river can’t support it that’s fine by me. However, if the lake can’t exist because the river basin fails to support an unrealistic expectation to support an overwhelming population…
This video is garbage, and I want the 25 minutes of my life I spent watching it back.
 
Chovyboy said:
However, if the lake can’t exist because the river basin fails to support an unrealistic expectation to support an overwhelming population…
Click to expand...

Domestic, municipal, and industrial users of the Colorado river use less than 20% of it.

Population is not the issue at all. The biggest users are agricultural, often with incredibly inefficient crops and many of which for export to foreign countries as well.

The biggest issue is exploiting the river for profit, not people wanting to live in the southwest. Get agricultural use under control (e.g. don’t waste the water on alfalfa being shipped to China) and you can easily have the population of the southwest grow while getting the cut back permanently (eventually the Bullfrog one too).

(But I agree, without even having watched the video I can imagine you want your time back! Just the thumbnail for it is annoying!)
 
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia said:
On that point, there was a period from May 12 to August 18, 1964 when releases through Glen Canyon Dam were reduced to roughly 1000 cfs, in an effort to raise the elevation of Lake Powell to at least minimum power pool (3490). That effort was successful. During that 3-month period, Lake Powell rose about 90 feet, on some days, 3 feet per day. The lake's volume increased by 3.1 maf in that time.

That sustained low outflow to the Grand Canyon also had its consequences. During that same period, Lake Mead lost 2.2 maf, and dropped by 23 feet. About 15% of its existing live volume disappeared in those 3 months. Fundamentally, it shifted the storage balance between Mead and Powell, although at the time, most of the water storage still remained in Lake Mead. In late August 1964, after the artificially induced increase of Powell's volume, the live storage volume of Powell was about 4.1 maf. In Mead, it was much more--about 12.3. Here's an interesting tidbit: Collectively, the total live storage of 16.4 maf in August 1964 was almost exactly what it is today here in May 2025, with the main difference being that now, the volumes in Mead and Powell are nearly the same (roughly 8 maf each).

Does that matter? If we had the same reservoir balance now as in 1964, would people be concerned? Probably so. At least now, maintaining more volume in Powell allows for adjustments to releases, and allows for better management of power potential between the two reservoirs.

And then there's the constant cry about Powell's evaporative losses. Let's not forget: despite what that video says, the evaporation rate of Mead is substantially higher than that of Powell. Generally speaking (and based on actual data since 2011), Lake Mead loses about 6.5 afy per acre of surface area. For Powell, it's about 4 afy per acre of surface area. Total evaporation goes up for each reservoir as surface area increases. I'm attaching another graphic which shows the evaporative loss as a function of the volume for the two reservoirs. Bottom line, at least from the perspective of evaporation, it's much better to store water in Powell than Mead. And that's intuitive: the area around Lake Mead is just a lot hotter, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Why do I find it enjoyable to read about water flows in Lake Powell?
 
Trix said:
I’m not finding “Desert View” near Marble Canyon (near Lee’s Ferry, right?) to fully understand JFR’s photos. My map search goes to the Desert View Tower in GCNP.
Click to expand...

Desert View Tower in GCNP is where those photos were taken from and they are of the southern terminus of Marble Canyon. "Marble Canyon" runs from Lees Ferry to the Little Colorado River. The Little Colorado is entering from the right just out of view at the top of the images.

(JFR can of course correct me if I didn't recognize that view correctly!)
 
DVexile said:
Desert View Tower in GCNP is where those photos were taken from and they are of the southern terminus of Marble Canyon. "Marble Canyon" runs from Lees Ferry to the Little Colorado River. The Little Colorado is entering from the right just out of view at the top of the images.

(JFR can of course correct me if I didn't recognize that view correctly!)
Click to expand...
You are correct!
 
Great info pictures etc! I’m a firm believer in Climate Change! It’s changing daily weekly and over the millennia! So if the flow was as low as 1000cfs in 1934 and in the 90,000cfs plus range in 1983 a span of “just” fifty years, there was that big a swing. So we are in a prolonged drought now. “People” say we will never see high flows again!
BUT,
Who’s to say in another decade it swings back to a wetter trend! I’m hopefulI that I may live long enough to see that and with it much of the nonsense talk about draining Lake Powell gets washed away!! Pun intended!
 
“Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed ... We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in.” Wallace Stegner.

In support of keeping the ecosystem of the Grand Canyon vibrant. That doesn't happen without a healthy river. Unfortunately discussions about Colorado River water are now and have always been driven by the economics of it all. When renegotiating the Colorado River Compact really starts to happen neither recreation on Lake Powell nor the amazing ecosystem that is the Grand Canyon from Lee's Ferry to Diamond Creek will make one bit of difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top