Western Drought

[RedRoxx44]

From Dr. Jeff Masters Wonderblog ( on Weather Underground)

For the first time in history, the U.S. government has ordered that flow of Colorado River water from the 50-year-old Glen Canyon Dam be slashed, due to a water crisis brought about by the region's historic 14-year drought. On Friday, the Federal Bureau of Reclamation--a division of the Department of Interior that manages water and electric power in the West--announced that it would cut water released from Lake Powell's Glen Canyon Dam by 750,000 acre-feet in 2014. An acre-foot is the amount of water that will cover an acre of land one foot deep; 750,000 acre-feet is enough water to supply at least 750,000 homes for one year. The flow reduction will leave the Colorado River 9% below the 8.23 million acre feet that is supposed to be supplied downstream to Lake Mead for use in California, Nevada, Arizona and Mexico under the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and later agreements. "This is the worst 14-year drought period in the last hundred years," said Upper Colorado Regional Director Larry Walkoviak in a Bureau of Reclamation press release.

In the winter of 2005, Lake Powell reached its lowest level since filling, an elevation 150' below full pool. Lake levels recovered some in during 2005 - 2011, but the resurgence of severe to extreme drought conditions have provoked a steep decline in 2012 and 2013, with the lake falling 35' over the past year. As of August 18, 2013, Lake Powell was 109' below full pool (45% of capacity), and was falling at a rate of one foot every six days."


Get ready for higher water prices and stricter conservation ???

[Jim]

https://lakemead.water-data.com/
https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-wate ... rd-2087164

@azbackpackr
Wouldn't it be the other way around, release water to keep Mead up for Vegas water intakes? Also, what about water below Mead and the All American Canal, Colorado River Aqueduct, and CAP diversions, which depend on Mead not having a dead pool? Dead pool is actually at 895 for Mead, and I doubt that becomes an issue anytime in the next 5 years.

"The longer we wait, the worse it will get and there's a specific reason for this. The Grand Canyons in the west are V-shaped, like a martini glass. So they're very wide at the top and very narrow at the bottom.

"We're now getting close to the bottom. And in each foot of elevation at the narrow section of the canyon, holds less water. So we can drop a heck of a lot faster than the feet way up higher.

From the newsweek article.

Could be interesting, over the next 18 months. I expect that quote applies to Powell, as well.

Play with the graphs for the last 5 years for the lakes. Mead is now tracking into the lows of 2022. Powell tracks close to 2021. Both came up after 2023, which was wet. So, we've been down here before and come up, but now we're dropping again. I can only see the last 5 year, and would like to know what makes this time different (if it is) that forecasters are calling for things like Powell below the turbine intakes in 18 months.

[chumley]

The Bureau of Reclamation released their EIS for management of the Colorado River Basin water resources in the post-2026 time period. It did not include recommendations.

Nerdy stuff here but if you're interested, the full details including the ability to register your comment: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin ... draft-eis/

News sources from the various states impacted provide different perspectives on the document, and AI chatbots provide a summary that blends a lot of those published reports. Good luck.

[azbackpackr]

@chumley
Maybe I will look for the summary! It looks pretty long and pretty dry [unintentional pun].

[RedRoxx44]

Ugh, why can't these entities publish a brief for us Plebs like " All good" "Issues coming up" " we're F'd"

[chumley]

@RedRoxx44
The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is a reasonably compact 66 pages with many useful graphs and charts describing the various alternatives and their potential effects.

And still, good luck!

[LosDosSloFolks]

@chumley
Can you even fathom the total cost of these EIS drafts and summaries? I guess if they don't spend every penny of their budget they won't get it again next year...or be able to ask for more.

[Jim]

People talking about hydrology and the lack of winter snow over critical watershed areas?

Oh, no. No, it's just the usual complaining about something stupid and totally unrelated to the subject itself.

[ youtube video ]

[Jim]

Actually, water levels today at Glen Canyon are at 3536.2
https://lakepowell.water-data.com/

[RedRoxx44]

@Jim
That is totally readable and absent a lot of IMO "BLA BLA BLA"; super important for the science types but not for me.

[Jim]

@RedRoxx44
Is that going to be your official comment to Reclamation, then? That the Environmental Impact Statement is, "super important for the science types but not for me."?

[RedRoxx44]

@Jim
Yes, I'm a nobody so who cares what I think. Those that are responsible for these tasks need the in depth information. I do not.

[Jim]

Interestingly, NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the EIS, or Environmental Impact Statement required under that act, was in response to public concerns over various environmental issues during the 1960s, and I'm sure before then in the 50s and maybe 40s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ct#History

Some things like burning rivers, and birds disappearing due to DDT were important in NEPA's creation, but I can't help but think that the Sierra Club and it's response to the very subject of this recent thread's activity are also a part of that history. The plans to dam nearly the entire length of the Grand Canyon from the current Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead was one of a great many plans that were unpopular once the public learned about them. It is my understanding that on some level, a comprise was reached where the Sierra Club accepted the Glen Canyon Dam if the Bureau of Reclamation would not dam the rest of the river in the Grand Canyon.

In that light, something like an EIS is more of a legal document that is open to public comment so that,

The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process.

Given the intense, often times ludicrous responses people have exhibited towards things like fire and forestry operations such as regenerating a stand of aspen for future generation, or allowing a natural (lightning) fire to run in a wilderness area where a fire has similarly occurred twice in the last 2 decades, I'm a bit surprised that the only response to this plan, so far, is to say that the required EIS is too long, costs to much, or it is too complex.

If you know anything, anything at all about the Colorado River, it is that there is more demand than water exists, and just about everything else involved is complex. I would expect that an EIS is going to be very complex. You can bet that there will be lawsuits and it will cost even more when states start getting less water, or utility rates increase due to seasonal generating shortfalls.

An EIS is not intended to be a brief press release. Expecting that is expecting a round square. I fully understand not being able to read the document, or understand all the parts. What I don't understand is why the only response is to complain about it. Then again, the SR 88 thread's recent activity speaks for itself, so really, why do I expect anything else?

[Pivo]

AZ Daily Star Headline: Arizona, Colorado building river litigation war chests.
This is going to be interesting, because California has more money ( globally now the 4th largest economy) they have more political clout and more people (over 2x more) than all of the other states involved combined. With the current administration, Mexico probably won't even have a seat at the table.

NYT Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/clim ... =url-share

[chumley]

@Pivo I wouldn't disagree that perhaps throwing a few new voices into the discussion could be a good thing, but if coming to a smart agreement is desired, I might question whether one of those voices should be Katie Hobbs.