Lake Mead....

Oldschool
Posts
1532
Joined
8/29/2006
Location
IL US

Is it really that bad out there ?

Its demise is blowing up the news around here...

1
|
zehn
Posts
7865
Joined
1/15/2013
Location
Anchorage, AK US
6/4/2026 5:08pm

I was on the north shore this past March and yes it was bad. I’m sure it’s even worse now 

2
TeamGreen
Posts
36914
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
6/4/2026 5:12pm

WT actual F?

28.5% of capacity?

Damn. 

1
1
soggy
Posts
8659
Joined
12/3/2018
Location
UT US
6/4/2026 5:21pm

Powell and mead are fucked. 

1
2

The Shop

Oldschool
Posts
1532
Joined
8/29/2006
Location
IL US
6/4/2026 5:30pm

De salenazation ( sp ) from tbe West !?

Oldschool
Posts
1532
Joined
8/29/2006
Location
IL US
6/4/2026 7:01pm

Its like 2nd generation Mayflower..

We rolled right over the Indians...

" Suck it "... Zero say in the matter

Fast forward,  Data centers 

" Suck it "....Zero say in the matter

3
1
APLMAN99
Posts
12380
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
6/4/2026 7:07pm
7I3N wrote:
I wonder if the 33 data centers in Las Vegas have anything to do with this? Southern Nevada data centers used a ton of water in...

I wonder if the 33 data centers in Las Vegas have anything to do with this? 

Southern Nevada data centers used a ton of water in 2024. Here’s how

They certainly can’t be helping but the warnings of this have been going on for at least 30 years. It’s similar to the situation of how our politicians look at the national debt. They know it’s getting worse at an astounding rate, but they really just ignore and hope that they suddenly wake up in an alternate reality. Until that happens, they just keep kicking the can down the road and hope that the events that force them to face up to it come after they are gone. 

2
5
Dudley
Posts
503
Joined
9/10/2012
Location
Denver, CO US
6/4/2026 7:08pm

The Colorado river basin is well below snowpack this year. Going to be a long summer for folks in the west I’m afraid. They’re draining 30% of flaming gorge to rescue lake Powell. 

First year I can remember mountain biking essentially every weekend above 7000 feet. They were climbing 14ers in hiking boots with minimal spikes in early May.  
 

4
byke
Posts
2992
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA US
6/4/2026 7:29pm

It's annoying how many problems need to come to a head before people are willing to do something. Not to sidetrack, but we're going to be having those same conversations with social security before too long and it's going to kill people. But, fires in the west, water shortages in the southwest....makes that humidity in the east not seem so bad. 

3
1
ShellyMX
Posts
606
Joined
3/22/2026
Location
Smyrna, GA US
6/4/2026 7:58pm

Can’t wait until data centers are constructed nearby!

1
4
Josh422
Posts
1102
Joined
4/29/2008
Location
Joshougal, WA US
6/4/2026 8:58pm

We are reactive not proactive.

3
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13670
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
6/5/2026 6:31am

Don't worry, they probably saved the Moogamboo Killer Mosquito from extinction by not making sure our reservoirs are supplied.

3
2
6/5/2026 6:45am
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

5
soggy
Posts
8659
Joined
12/3/2018
Location
UT US
6/5/2026 7:08am
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?


Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this spring. 

3
Dudley
Posts
503
Joined
9/10/2012
Location
Denver, CO US
6/5/2026 7:40am
byke wrote:
It's annoying how many problems need to come to a head before people are willing to do something. Not to sidetrack, but we're going to be...

It's annoying how many problems need to come to a head before people are willing to do something. Not to sidetrack, but we're going to be having those same conversations with social security before too long and it's going to kill people. But, fires in the west, water shortages in the southwest....makes that humidity in the east not seem so bad. 

Same thing happened with beetle kill forests. We all saw the train wreck happening right in front of us. The feds just sat back and said climate change, nothing we can do about it. No mention of years of fire suppression and logging bans. Regardless of cause, we could have saved some rain forests by actually using the dead timber. 

1
1
byke
Posts
2992
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA US
6/5/2026 8:42am
byke wrote:
It's annoying how many problems need to come to a head before people are willing to do something. Not to sidetrack, but we're going to be...

It's annoying how many problems need to come to a head before people are willing to do something. Not to sidetrack, but we're going to be having those same conversations with social security before too long and it's going to kill people. But, fires in the west, water shortages in the southwest....makes that humidity in the east not seem so bad. 

Dudley wrote:
Same thing happened with beetle kill forests. We all saw the train wreck happening right in front of us. The feds just sat back and said...

Same thing happened with beetle kill forests. We all saw the train wreck happening right in front of us. The feds just sat back and said climate change, nothing we can do about it. No mention of years of fire suppression and logging bans. Regardless of cause, we could have saved some rain forests by actually using the dead timber. 

We used to live in the forest and I was a tree killin' slash burnin' mf'er! But yeah I'd be walking around the property and hear them chewing on trees and see sap dripping out of their little boreholes. I hate them. And they're terrible at flying, so they'd just smack into things or into you. I'm happy to say I stomped on every one I could find. 

3
1
peelout
Posts
18371
Joined
1/6/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
6/5/2026 2:23pm
Dudley wrote:
The Colorado river basin is well below snowpack this year. Going to be a long summer for folks in the west I’m afraid. They’re draining 30%...

The Colorado river basin is well below snowpack this year. Going to be a long summer for folks in the west I’m afraid. They’re draining 30% of flaming gorge to rescue lake Powell. 

First year I can remember mountain biking essentially every weekend above 7000 feet. They were climbing 14ers in hiking boots with minimal spikes in early May.  
 

we spend about 3 total weeks on Flaming Gorge per summer for the last 15 years. our first trip is in a couple weeks. i'm really nervous about what we are going to be getting into, beautiful reservoir. 

3
1
6/5/2026 6:17pm
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

soggy wrote:
Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this...

Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?


Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this spring. 

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...

https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

image 3163.png?VersionId=0zz23So0cRa2W.ZQgOl
2
APLMAN99
Posts
12380
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
6/5/2026 6:50pm
The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

soggy wrote:
Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this...

Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?


Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this spring. 

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...

https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

image 3163.png?VersionId=0zz23So0cRa2W.ZQgOl

Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something like ‘41 or ‘42. That should probably be its ‘zero line’ with positive numbers above that on the y axis and negative numbers below that. I think that the original fill level was somewhere close to 1210, so that would be reasonable to set as ‘zero’. 

4
borg
Posts
6720
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
6/5/2026 6:57pm
soggy wrote:
Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this...

Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?


Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this spring. 

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...

https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

image 3163.png?VersionId=0zz23So0cRa2W.ZQgOl
APLMAN99 wrote:
Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something...

Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something like ‘41 or ‘42. That should probably be its ‘zero line’ with positive numbers above that on the y axis and negative numbers below that. I think that the original fill level was somewhere close to 1210, so that would be reasonable to set as ‘zero’. 

Yup!

6/5/2026 7:04pm Edited Date/Time 6/5/2026 7:05pm
soggy wrote:
Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this...

Do you have a graph showing how much is down over the last 10, 15, 20 years?


Lake Powell was somewhere around 30’ rom dead pool this spring. 

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...

https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

image 3163.png?VersionId=0zz23So0cRa2W.ZQgOl
APLMAN99 wrote:
Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something...

Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something like ‘41 or ‘42. That should probably be its ‘zero line’ with positive numbers above that on the y axis and negative numbers below that. I think that the original fill level was somewhere close to 1210, so that would be reasonable to set as ‘zero’. 

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.

Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level, nothing to panic about.

5
APLMAN99
Posts
12380
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
6/5/2026 7:10pm
If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

If you graph the last 90 years, with the vertical axis starting at zero, it doesn't look bad...

https://lakemead.water-data.com/index2_old.php

image 3163.png?VersionId=0zz23So0cRa2W.ZQgOl
APLMAN99 wrote:
Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something...

Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something like ‘41 or ‘42. That should probably be its ‘zero line’ with positive numbers above that on the y axis and negative numbers below that. I think that the original fill level was somewhere close to 1210, so that would be reasonable to set as ‘zero’. 

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level...

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.

Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level, nothing to panic about.

No, it’s useless as a reservoir long before it is ‘empty’. But zero should be your starting point with the measurement being how much higher or lower you are than that measurement. 

The number you are using is elevation, not lake depth. If all the water were to disappear tomorrow, using your measurement the lake would still be at 697 feet. 

3
6/5/2026 7:18pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something...

Even that isn’t really a good representation of the the historical record. The lake wasn’t truly formed until it filled for the first time in something like ‘41 or ‘42. That should probably be its ‘zero line’ with positive numbers above that on the y axis and negative numbers below that. I think that the original fill level was somewhere close to 1210, so that would be reasonable to set as ‘zero’. 

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level...

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.

Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level, nothing to panic about.

APLMAN99 wrote:
No, it’s useless as a reservoir long before it is ‘empty’. But zero should be your starting point with the measurement being how much higher or...

No, it’s useless as a reservoir long before it is ‘empty’. But zero should be your starting point with the measurement being how much higher or lower you are than that measurement. 

The number you are using is elevation, not lake depth. If all the water were to disappear tomorrow, using your measurement the lake would still be at 697 feet. 

Volume would be the best measurement...

image 3164
5
APLMAN99
Posts
12380
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
6/5/2026 7:23pm Edited Date/Time 6/5/2026 7:25pm
The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level...

The graph I posted show the lake filling up to 1942.

Maximum recorded level was 1225.83 in 1983, current level is 85.6% of the maximum recorded level, nothing to panic about.

APLMAN99 wrote:
No, it’s useless as a reservoir long before it is ‘empty’. But zero should be your starting point with the measurement being how much higher or...

No, it’s useless as a reservoir long before it is ‘empty’. But zero should be your starting point with the measurement being how much higher or lower you are than that measurement. 

The number you are using is elevation, not lake depth. If all the water were to disappear tomorrow, using your measurement the lake would still be at 697 feet. 

Volume would be the best measurement...

Volume would be the best measurement...

image 3164

That’s probably the best interpretation, actually. 

That shows that it’s lost about 2/3 of its volume in the last 25 years or so. 

3
RonSkj
Posts
2890
Joined
6/20/2008
Location
Radiator Springs, CA US
Fantasy
6/5/2026 8:58pm
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

It's down 17' in two years. How did you figure that was 1.6 % ? 

6/5/2026 9:15pm
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

RonSkj wrote:

It's down 17' in two years. How did you figure that was 1.6 % ? 

1049.02 / 1066.36 = 0.984

(1 - 0.984) x 100 = 1.6%

4
APLMAN99
Posts
12380
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
6/5/2026 9:40pm
The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

RonSkj wrote:

It's down 17' in two years. How did you figure that was 1.6 % ? 

1049.02 / 1066.36 = 0.984

(1 - 0.984) x 100 = 1.6%

Even if you want to use ft, you’d have to subtract 697 from both of those heights. 

 

6
dkurtd
Posts
1118
Joined
4/15/2018
Location
TN US
1 day ago Edited Date/Time 1 day ago
sumdood wrote:

Wow. Check out this graphic yikes

Lake Mead Water Level

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years... 

The vertical axis doesn't start at 0, which makes it misleading, it's only down 1.6% in 2 years...

image 3145

 

If full pool is 1229 and dead pool is 895 then it holds 334 ft of usable water.  A 17.34 ft drop of 334 ft is more like 5.19%.  Of course that is elevation, not acre feet of water.  Acre feet is how most lakes are measured.

1
Oldschool
Posts
1532
Joined
8/29/2006
Location
IL US
1 day ago

Turbines wont be touching water soon....

1

Post a reply to: Lake Mead....

The Latest