What is BOR thinking?
- Thread starter lakepowellnut
- Start date
- Status
Dave I.
Escalante-Class Member
To be fair, it's been too cold for any real amount of runoff to even start yet. Yesterday was really the first day Iwas able to wear a t-shirt only most of the day, even in the shade.
But, even this morning in Hanksville is still only 43 degrees. Go up about another 2000 feet elevation and it's still not above freezing at night probably.
The run off will be coming after it warms up a little more.
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
I get it, Sounds bad! A lot of people are sensitive right now about the lake levels. I think if it was up to us Powell Super Enthusiasts we would shut down power production to a trickle and fill the reservoir. Once full, inflows could go out the spillways so only what flows in could flow out, who needs a tunnel; There is a Fill Powell First plan! A guy can dream can't he? JFR is right, us boaters and lake lovers are maybe 10th in line on the list of BOR concerns, sad but true. What we need is another two or three winters like this in a row so there is plenty of water in the short run at lest. The long term problems would still exist but would perplex me far less because at some point, possibly soon, I will be too old to dig anchor holes and tie off a houseboat without serious help. If that sounds selfish that's because it is.
Last edited:
Mr Jimmy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, not all rainbows and butterflies.
Between finally filling up depleted lakes in the upper drainage, fast tracking filling up Mead, and replenishing the ground table.
Powell will be the straw that's going to be conduit to Mead.
Repercussion being, the mud and sediment in Powell will rival any year since.
Between finally filling up depleted lakes in the upper drainage, fast tracking filling up Mead, and replenishing the ground table.
Powell will be the straw that's going to be conduit to Mead.
Repercussion being, the mud and sediment in Powell will rival any year since.
lakepowellnut
Well-Known Member
I certainly can’t assume what others are thinking and feeling, but this is a big puzzle. Looking at the forest through the trees is paramount. Having said that and as a data and process analyst, the recent releases on the surface don’t make sense. Maybe it does to them, but there appears to be a lack of transparency in what they are doing. I grew up at the lake and have over 50 years of memories at Powell, but the lack of transparency is what concerns me. Here are my top concerns and solutions:
1. Lack of transparency - don’t make promises or agreements regarding release flows and not keep them. Let’s hear the ”why”.
2. Protect the economy of Page and the Reservation - a healthy lake level is critical to the locals. A rise in Lake Level will encourage tourism.
3. Decline in lake levels affect on power generation - fresh water weighs 62.4 pounds per square foot and with every draw down, the turbines would have to work harder to produce power. Based on Pascal’s, Archimedes and Bernoulli principles, this holds true for power generation (I am a 100% supporter of power generation).
4. Fuel consumption by boats due to the cut being closed - mother nature pretty much dictate a good part of this, but there is a cost. What the BOR consider doing is laying all their cards on the table provide answers as to why they are making decisions as they are.
The list goes on and on, but since they are a reactive agency when it comes to providing information, I would love to see the day when taxpayers don’t have to request information. Maybe they think they are, but in reality and based on many of the questions this group has asked, it’s apparent improvement is needed. They are great at providing historical data, but more needs to be done to ensure the taxpayers are informed.
Every drop of water that accumulates behind Glen Canyon dam for future use downstream is an argument for keeping the dam. Those who seek to abolish the dam must be really chagrined right now.
Thinking about it a little differently, every shovel full of silt that accumulates behind Glen Canyon dam extends the life of Mead. That's an even longer term good outcome to retaining GCD.
Thinking about it a little differently, every shovel full of silt that accumulates behind Glen Canyon dam extends the life of Mead. That's an even longer term good outcome to retaining GCD.
leesferrydave
Member
I do not know all the details, but from what I have heard from a few at USGS and researchers associated with the Adaptive Mnagment Program, the BOR entered into some sort of agreement in 2007 with the lower basin states. This agreement allows for annual flow releases above the standard 8.24 MAF during winters that the snowpack/estimated inflow exceeds a specific number. The high water is basically water delivery to California. On top of this, there is an HFE (High Flow Experiment) planned for April 24, 25, 26, 27. The river will go to 40,000 cfs for 72 hours. The problem with all this is of course there is no gaurantee we won't have 50% years for the next three. Then we will be right back where we were last August.
leesferrydave
Member
They drained Lake Hodges because the thing is 100 years old and was about to collapse. I mean for real. Chucks of concrete falling out of the interior spaces. I releally wahted to get over there and see this before repairs, but couldn't. A good friend of mine is the lake keeper there who is oh so happily retiring in May.
leesferrydave
Member
You are right on with this. I have been hearing 10 MAF total release, but this is still on the bubble. The thing that is amazing is how all the hoopla over threatened fish, building beaches, moving non-natives into Grand Canyon all goes right out the window. I really boils down to power and water delivery and everything else is really an aside. There is zero managemnt in the Adaptive Mangement Program.
leesferrydave
Member
HFE's are done for one, well really two reasons. The first is to move sand up out of the channel, the "sediment bank" where it accumulates, mostly during the monsoon season and build beaches in Grand Canyon. The second is that is is closer to predam flows/conditions. Never mind that they almost always have them in October/November when floods never occurred. There is a whole contingent of scientists/stakeholders what rant and rave about HFE, mainly the commercial river runners and the sediment scientists. The scientists wanted an HFE LAST YEAR!!! because the sediment "trigger" was way met afetr a monstrous monsoon season. The really stupid thing is that the sediment "bank" resets every year, it is an annual accounting. That menas that a flood flow will never occur in the spring when it was typical because the sediment trigger is never met till after the monsoons in the late summer. This HFE will be unusual. I beleive that only the first one was done in the spring in the late 90's.
The problem with these built in "triggers" i.e. triggers for HFE's, triggers for dumping water from GCD is that they do not take into account the situations/conditions during the period of time the trigger was met.
Tiff Mapel
Escalante-Class Member
Everybody wants their piece of the pie. What could have been a really nice rise for Powell this year is going to get swept down to Mead. We'll be right back at 3520 this time next year, wringing our hands saying "what could we have done? Where did all the water go?"
Tiff
Tiff
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Okay, I'll weigh in on this.
What happened in 1983 was unprecedented in the history of Lake Powell, and remains unique to this day. Many lessons were learned from that year. You had a situation where the lake was already at 3685 on April 1 (mistake #1), with the huge runoff yet to come. They just didn't anticipate exactly how big it would be. Inflows through most of April were in the 12-16,000 cfs range, but BOR didn't really react to this until about the middle of the month, when they increased outflows from about the usual 10,000 cfs to roughly 20,000 cfs (mistake #2). And so the lake remained at 3685 at the end of that month. It was May that was the inexplicable month. Inflows were consistently 30-40,000 cfs the entire month, that is until May 27, when hot weather kicked them over 50,000 cfs and quickly rose to nearly 90,000 cfs by June 1!! And what did BOR do that month? Outflows remained at 15-25,000 for the entire month...(mistake #3)
So with the lake at 3696 on June 1, and the lake still rising nearly a foot a day, an inevitable crisis loomed. We know how it played out, with the lake topping out at over 3708 on July 14, held together with plywood sheets. The entire month of June saw flows over 80,000 cfs, often much higher, and peaked at over 122,000 cfs on July 1.
Is BOR feeling another 1983 is coming? Perhaps in terms of inflows, at least for a short while, but not in terms of a possible overflow crisis. No chance. Let's play it out.
From April through July of 1983, the total inflow was (now I'll switch to maf) about 13.3 maf. During that same period, they released nearly 8.9 maf, so there was a net gain of 4.4 maf, and that's when the lake was almost already full. You saw the result.
This year, the April 1 NOAA prediction is that we'll see up to 11.3 maf headed for Powell. Some of this might be held back in the upper reservoirs beyond what is already planned, but you get the idea of how it compares with 1983. But let's say you really saw another 1983, and 13.3 maf enters the lake. If BOR did not release a single drop during those months, the lake would hold 18.7 maf at the end of July, which is an elevation of 3670. So the short answer is, no, there is no chance that Powell would overflow with a repeat of 1983 inflows. It would still only be a little over 75% full.
Right now, BOR 's current plan is to release 3.15 maf total from April through July--and that's with their recent announcement to increase April flows to 0.91 maf. Doesn't seem like much compared to 1983, so you can see the wheels turning in their collective heads. So let's say they bumped up that 4-month total to what it would take to result in a 9.5 maf release for the entire year, a totally plausible (and reasonable) concept? That would mean the 4-month release would be about 4.3 maf. And if they did that, Powell would see a net inflow of 9 maf during that period, entering August at 3636. Probably not going to happen.
So you can see the thoughts in the head of BOR, trying to hit a sweet spot, knowing that another 1983 summer inflow is very unlikely, but still remotely possible. Why would they release so much in April? Hard to say. They know the lake is not going to overflow anytime this summer, no matter how little they release, so "flood control" is not the issue. Helping Lake Mead? Maybe, but they can always relate more later, and they can never get water back to Powell. There's clearly more there than meets the eye. We'll learn a lot more about their thinking in their April 24-Month Report, due out at the end of this week. Then we'll have a lot more clarity from BOR...
By the way, people tend to forget that as big as 1983 was, the summer of 1984 was even bigger in terms of inflow. During that same four-month period, 13.7 maf flowed into Lake Powell, compared to 13.3 in 1983. So why wasn't there a crisis that time? Well, BOR learned from 1983. For one, the lake was 11 feet lower (3674) coming into April. Secondly, they increased outflows in April to about 25,000 cfs, and something like a max-ed out 44,000 cfs in May. They weren't taking any chances. And still with all that, the lake hit 3702 in early July.
The lesson for all of us there, is that BOR does know its own past, acts cautiously, and sometimes makes mistakes. Pretty much like everyone else...
Last edited:
Dorado
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I guess I do not know what your question is? Regardless of when they released the water, there was more water in the system than all the reservoirs together could hold. So Colorado River water was going to end up flowing to the Ocean regardless. Which is not a bad thing!
JFR, thank you once for the comprehensive and thoughtful response
When California gets more than their share from the start, lakes Havasu and Mojave are near full and all reservoirs above Lake Powell are no where near full how does it make sense to release that much water from Lake Powell? In the last 10 days there has been 223,031 af released from Powell. If they are looking at 83 and 84 JFR has clearly shown there is enough storage to compensate so why the increased releases before the run off starts?
There has to be something we are missing. As Tiff said we will be right back here next spring. The BOR can't be this stupid to err this far from what are facts. All this could be avoided by just waiting for the run off to start before increased releases. This dashes a lot of hopes for launching houseboats, now these folks are looking at the end of April or into May. What a crock!!!
There has to be something we are missing. As Tiff said we will be right back here next spring. The BOR can't be this stupid to err this far from what are facts. All this could be avoided by just waiting for the run off to start before increased releases. This dashes a lot of hopes for launching houseboats, now these folks are looking at the end of April or into May. What a crock!!!
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
I fear your expectations are valid but possibly from another century. But, I share your pain. Just don't hold your breath over Government agencies being super responsive. Just my opinion, I've been wrong before and I could be wrong again. Once I gave up hope I felt a lot better!
Last edited:
Danny, “You don’t have to go to college. This isn’t Russia. Is this Russia? This isn’t Russia.”LPWDB is SO RED...
For a minute, it looked like our Lake was in the Soviet Union!!!!
(Note: This post is not political, only historical. No CCPs, balloons, or laptops were mentioned, or implied.)
Just a little “CaddyShack” humor to lighten things up….
Serious question - why not let the lake fill up first and then let the water out??
lakepowellnut
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, you’re correct. I have absolutely no expectations when our government is involved. Just stating facts and how I’d love to see it.
- Status