What is BOR thinking?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not satire, but look at their source. The exec director of "Save the Colorado." If you look at their website it actually states their number one goal is to remove the GCD. Sounds just like the GCI to me. Also, the lake only gaining 6% even with the above average snowpack, seems like they are using last fall projections as data. I think our friend @JFRCalifornia might need to review, and shoot 9news a nice note. I am sending a message to the author on FB. Other Denver peeps need to do the same.
 
I'm on it! Already sent my response to the author:

Dear Mr. Reppenhagen,

I wanted to write about your article titled "Government Recommends Bypassing Dam at Lake Powell." First of all, your headline is very misleading. The Government would never recommend that. And then your article goes on to quote Gary Wockner and his viewpoints about removing Glen Canyon Dam, and restoring the river. Perhaps this article would have been better placed in the "opinion" section, rather than the "regional" section.

In a time of extended drought, it is very short-sighted to remove dams and water storage, especially the 2nd largest man-made reservoir in the U.S.--Lake Powell. When the Seven Basin States are trying to come together for a solution to reduce water usage in time of drought, it is imperative that the system is working as intended. Removal of Lake Powell is not even on the table, nor will it be.

When Colorado River water serves the entire west, and the produce growing region of our country, it's in our best interest to keep the Colorado River system functioning at its best. Gary Wockner and his "Save the Colorado" organization are bent on decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam, and draining Lake Powell. We cannot go back to 1963.

Please vet your sources a bit better. Another organization that's bent on destroying Lake Powell is called the "Glen Canyon Institute." They are really good at getting their propaganda out there to the media outlets. If you choose to use these sources, please put them on the opinion page where they belong.

In the meantime, please use the Glen Canyon Dam operations website from the Bureau of Reclamation for up to date information:

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case anyone else would like to chime in, here's the contact info: Cory.reppenhagen@9news.com
 
CATD8RII said:
Just my opinion, it's always kept full because LA, Phoenix and Tuscon draw their water from Havasu. Again in my opinion, Havasu Lake recreational users will never have to worry about their lake being low!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's a boring pond compared to Powell. The McCulogh corporation, had to bring in an old bridge stone by stone
from London to entice visitors. (It's not really the London bridge nor does it span the entire river) just to attract people. It worked, Please don't get me wrong, it's nice, I've had fun there but we have Rainbow bridge and 130 miles of lake and hundreds of side canyons to get lost in. Water envy? Maybe but they can keep their 125 degree days and their perpetually full crowded pond. Powell, Like no place in earth!
 
Last edited:
Tiff Mapel said:
I'm on it! Already sent my response to the author:

Dear Mr. Reppenhagen,

I wanted to write about your article titled "Government Recommends Bypassing Dam at Lake Powell." First of all, your headline is very misleading. The Government would never recommend that. And then your article goes on to quote Gary Wockner and his viewpoints about removing Glen Canyon Dam, and restoring the river. Perhaps this article would have been better placed in the "opinion" section, rather than the "regional" section.

In a time of extended drought, it is very short-sighted to remove dams and water storage, especially the 2nd largest man-made reservoir in the U.S.--Lake Powell. When the Seven Basin States are trying to come together for a solution to reduce water usage in time of drought, it is imperative that the system is working as intended. Removal of Lake Powell is not even on the table, nor will it be.

When Colorado River water serves the entire west, and the produce growing region of our country, it's in our best interest to keep the Colorado River system functioning at its best. Gary Wockner and his "Save the Colorado" organization are bent on decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam, and draining Lake Powell. We cannot go back to 1963.

Please vet your sources a bit better. Another organization that's bent on destroying Lake Powell is called the "Glen Canyon Institute." They are really good at getting their propaganda out there to the media outlets. If you choose to use these sources, please put them on the opinion page where they belong.

In the meantime, please use the Glen Canyon Dam operations website from the Bureau of Reclamation for up to date information:

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case anyone else would like to chime in, here's the contact info: Cory.reppenhagen@9news.com
Click to expand...
Nice work Tiff!

Here's my very similar response:

***

Mr. Reppenhagen:

Well, in assessing this piece I’ll try to be objective and analytical, but I’m sorry: this article does not qualify as journalism. And it’s not just that it’s propaganda, it’s sloppy propaganda. For as short a piece as it is, it somehow manages to cram in an impressive amount of outdated data, misinformation, or assertions that are demonstrably wrong. Where to begin?

Let’s start with the headline. Contrary to what it asserts, the “government” does not recommend bypassing the dam at Lake Powell. It is true that in 2022 the BOR did examine different alternative dam modification approaches to deal with the possibility that Powell could drop below minimum power pool (3490) at some point. No recommendations were made, and instead the study noted the upcoming Supplemental EIS could consider this information in its analysis to modify current operations. The Supplemental EIS was just released this week, and both action alternatives for near-term operations it considers would establish a “protection level” that would ensure that the lake would not drop below 3500, mostly by limiting releases through the dam. That is to say, the BOR is actually recommending modifying operations to ensure the dam can continue to generate power, without any structural modifications to the dam itself, let alone any bypass tunnels as suggested in the article.

Then there’s the contention that the lake would only rise by 6% in 2023. That was based on a previous article written by the same author in February 2023, which itself was based on data generated a month earlier, before the bulk of the major snowstorms transformed the landscape this winter. Now in April, that data is far outdated, misleading and just plain wrong. Based on the latest water inflow projections by NOAA (as of April 1), and assuming the BOR limits its releases to no more than 9.5 maf for the entire Water Year 2023 (as it has recently said it would), Lake Powell will likely increase in volume by nearly 75%, when comparing its contents in October 2022 to what is likely at the end of September 2023, rising from 5.8 maf to an estimated 10.1 maf in that time. In this scenario, the lake surface elevation would jump from 3529 on October 1, 2022, to 3591 on September 30, 2023. In response to recent public inquiries, BOR officials themselves are now predicting a “65- to 80-foot rise”.

When the facts no longer support your position, and you want to defend that position, you either have to rely on outdated information, or just make things up that are not true. If you’re with “Save the Colorado”, you have to use data “creatively” to gain public support for your mission to restore the river. I can almost sympathize with that—what choice do they have? But if you’re a news organization, you need to report facts and the truth, and at a minimum just do some homework. There’s no excuse for the sloppy reporting in a piece like this, which if I’m being charitable is unintentionally misleading at best, and straight-out propaganda at worst.
 
Marina Bum said:
Yeah, but it's a boring pond compared to Powell. The McCulogh corporation, had to bring in an old bridge stone by stone
from London to entice visitors. (It's not really the London bridge nor does it span the entire river) just to attract people. It worked, Please don't get me wrong, it's nice, I've had fun there but we have Rainbow bridge and 130 miles of lake and hundreds of side canyons to get lost in. Water envy? Maybe but they can keep their 125 degree days and their pond. Powell, Like no place in earth!
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with that. All I'm saying is that lake is kept full to serve some very powerful and influential cities. The lakes recreational users will benefit that. And those users are just as dedicated to their lake as are Powell users.
 
JFRCalifornia said:
Nice work Tiff!

Here's my very similar response:

***

Mr. Reppenhagen:

Well, in assessing this piece I’ll try to be objective and analytical, but I’m sorry: this article does not qualify as journalism. And it’s not just that it’s propaganda, it’s sloppy propaganda. For as short a piece as it is, it somehow manages to cram in an impressive amount of outdated data, misinformation, or assertions that are demonstrably wrong. Where to begin?

Let’s start with the headline. Contrary to what it asserts, the “government” does not recommend bypassing the dam at Lake Powell. It is true that in 2022 the BOR did examine different alternative dam modification approaches to deal with the possibility that Powell could drop below minimum power pool (3490) at some point. No recommendations were made, and instead the study noted the upcoming Supplemental EIS could consider this information in its analysis to modify current operations. The Supplemental EIS was just released this week, and both action alternatives for near-term operations it considers would establish a “protection level” that would ensure that the lake would not drop below 3500, mostly by limiting releases through the dam. That is to say, the BOR is actually recommending modifying operations to ensure the dam can continue to generate power, without any structural modifications to the dam itself, let alone any bypass tunnels as suggested in the article.

Then there’s the contention that the lake would only rise by 6% in 2023. That was based on a previous article written by the same author in February 2023, which itself was based on data generated a month earlier, before the bulk of the major snowstorms transformed the landscape this winter. Now in April, that data is far outdated, misleading and just plain wrong. Based on the latest water inflow projections by NOAA (as of April 1), and assuming the BOR limits its releases to no more than 9.5 maf for the entire Water Year 2023 (as it has recently said it would), Lake Powell will likely increase in volume by nearly 75%, when comparing its contents in October 2022 to what is likely at the end of September 2023, rising from 5.8 maf to an estimated 10.1 maf in that time. In this scenario, the lake surface elevation would jump from 3529 on October 1, 2022, to 3591 on September 30, 2023. In response to recent public inquiries, BOR officials themselves are now predicting a “65- to 80-foot rise”.

When the facts no longer support your position, and you want to defend that position, you either have to rely on outdated information, or just make things up that are not true. If you’re with “Save the Colorado”, you have to use data “creatively” to gain public support for your mission to restore the river. I can almost sympathize with that—what choice do they have? But if you’re a news organization, you need to report facts and the truth, and at a minimum just do some homework. There’s no excuse for the sloppy reporting in a piece like this, which if I’m being charitable is unintentionally misleading at best, and straight-out propaganda at worst.
Click to expand...
Nicely Done! My purpose in posting this here is for those who care to know the message that is being broadcast via a main television station covering a significant portion of Colorado. When those with an agenda control the narrative, it become accepted as truth.
 
ZachS said:
I wish I could believe that was actually true
Click to expand...
Right. They’ll just simply update their “release schedule” which will magically become “more water downstream”. It’s factored in sure, but it’s a moot point when they just continue to tack on more flows.
 
Tiff has done an excellent job monitoring the negative articles and broadcasts concerning the lake. I feel certain that with replies from more of us to the culprits putting out these untruths that it would help our cause. She has included emails addresses with her very detailed responses so lets join in.
John if the HFE of 39,500 cfs for three days totals 235,041.195 af, how much rise will we need to compensate for it?
 
Skip said:
Tiff has done an excellent job monitoring the negative articles and broadcasts concerning the lake. I feel certain that with replies from more of us to the culprits putting out these untruths that it would help our cause. She has included emails addresses with her very detailed responses so lets join in.
John if the HFE of 39,500 cfs for three days totals 235,041.195 af, how much rise will we need to compensate for it?
Click to expand...
Yes, in those 72 hours, they plan to release about 235,000 af in that time. If during those days they instead just released, say, only 15,000 cfs/day, that would translate to about 90,000 af. In other words, the flush is probably sending out a little under 150,000 af more in that time than it "normally" would.

If the question is how much rise will we need to compensate for that, I think the real answer is "none", and that's because with the flush, all BOR is doing is concentrating the outflow that would have otherwise occurred over a longer period of time into a more concentrated timeframe. In the long view, it does not affect the overall planned release for the year, or even for the month. If BOR said they plan to release 910,000 af in April, this is part of that total.

But if the question is "how much elevation difference does an extra 150,000 acre feet sent through the dam translate to?", that's about 2-2.5 feet at this lake level.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top