Lake Mead....

APLMAN99 wrote:

I would say that it isn't exactly just 'bad times'.  It's reached the point where the demand (outflow) has outpaced the supply (inflow) by huge volumes...

I would say that it isn't exactly just 'bad times'.  It's reached the point where the demand (outflow) has outpaced the supply (inflow) by huge volumes for a long time.  Most dams like this have to balance energy production and other water demand on a tightrope.  Even in the 'good times' in can be an incredible balancing act.  

This has been talked about for the last couple of decades, but just like our national debt issues no one wants to actually face the problem.  It won't become a vitally important issue until an event of catastrophic proportions occurs.  

Unfortunately.  

RichieW13 wrote:

Total usage of Colorado river water has been trending downward for ~25 years. Peak usage was in 2001 at nearly 13 million acre-feet, where last year...

Total usage of Colorado river water has been trending downward for ~25 years. Peak usage was in 2001 at nearly 13 million acre-feet, where last year "we" used about 11maf.  So that's about a 15% decrease in usage.  (Plus we send another 1.5maf to Mexico every year.)

From 1971-1999 the river averaged providing over 15maf of water.  But since 2000 it has only provided 11.9maf per year.  And since 2018 it has only provided 10.6maf.

So the main issue is that over the last 25 years the Colorado river has been providing less water than it had been providing for the previous 75-100 years that were used to plan usage in the area.

APLMAN99 wrote:

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how...

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how much worse it could have been if that usage had been sustained.  Even though total usage may have declined, it has still been unsustainably higher than the supply.  

We can't really affect the supply part of the equation too much, it is what it is for the most part.  The only thing we can really affect is the usage, and pointing out that we have reduced usage but Mother Nature is not playing fair by somehow withholding supply doesn't fill the reservoirs.  

I remember hearing some loud rumblings about this in the early 2000s, as the pattern changed drastically from the early to mid 80s.  The downward pattern in supply is more than just a few year blip now.  

Can supplies potentially increase dramatically in the next couple of decades?  Sure, anything is possible I suppose.  But there is no evidence to make anyone believe that it a certainty and continuing to use more water than the supply because the supply 'might' go up later is not a solid plan by any means.  

APLMAN99 wrote:

I read somewhere that if you completely stopped taking any water out of Lake Mead, whether using it for energy production, irrigation, or any other reason...

I read somewhere that if you completely stopped taking any water out of Lake Mead, whether using it for energy production, irrigation, or any other reason, it would take over 3 years to refill to a full reservoir.  3 years without taking a drop out of it at all.  That's a long time.  And it assumes a pretty high amount of flow coming from Lake Powell.  

If you were to look at Lake Powell and Lake Mead together, as they probably should be, it would take over 10 years to refill them even if there wasn't a single drop taken out of them for human use in any way.  That's just water flowing in, nothing being removed other than evaporation.  

RichieW13 wrote:

Yes, Lake Mead holds about 26maf of water, but currently only contains 6maf.  Lake Powell is required to deliver an average of 7.5maf of water each...

Yes, Lake Mead holds about 26maf of water, but currently only contains 6maf.  Lake Powell is required to deliver an average of 7.5maf of water each year.  So at that rate it would take about 3 years to fill Mead.  And that assumes that enough water even flows in to Powell to send 7.5maf downstream. 

Similarly, Lake Powell is currently about 19maf under its capacity.  That's 39maf of available capacity between the 2 reservoirs. Based on recent years inflow, it will take infinity years to fill both reservoirs.  But sometimes a lot of water can come down in consecutive years.  From 1984 to 1987, the snowpack was huge.  An average of about 22maf was delivered over those 4 years.  So 88 maf combined.  At our current usage rate of about 12.5maf per year, if we had a 4-year run like we did 40 years ago, that would create a 38maf surplus, which would be almost enough to fill both reservoirs.  So based on actual previous patterns it would be theoretically possible to (almost) fill both reservoirs in 4 years.
 

 

RichieW13 wrote:

Total usage of Colorado river water has been trending downward for ~25 years. Peak usage was in 2001 at nearly 13 million acre-feet, where last year...

Total usage of Colorado river water has been trending downward for ~25 years. Peak usage was in 2001 at nearly 13 million acre-feet, where last year "we" used about 11maf.  So that's about a 15% decrease in usage.  (Plus we send another 1.5maf to Mexico every year.)

From 1971-1999 the river averaged providing over 15maf of water.  But since 2000 it has only provided 11.9maf per year.  And since 2018 it has only provided 10.6maf.

So the main issue is that over the last 25 years the Colorado river has been providing less water than it had been providing for the previous 75-100 years that were used to plan usage in the area.

APLMAN99 wrote:

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how...

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how much worse it could have been if that usage had been sustained.  Even though total usage may have declined, it has still been unsustainably higher than the supply.  

We can't really affect the supply part of the equation too much, it is what it is for the most part.  The only thing we can really affect is the usage, and pointing out that we have reduced usage but Mother Nature is not playing fair by somehow withholding supply doesn't fill the reservoirs.  

I remember hearing some loud rumblings about this in the early 2000s, as the pattern changed drastically from the early to mid 80s.  The downward pattern in supply is more than just a few year blip now.  

Can supplies potentially increase dramatically in the next couple of decades?  Sure, anything is possible I suppose.  But there is no evidence to make anyone believe that it a certainty and continuing to use more water than the supply because the supply 'might' go up later is not a solid plan by any means.  

borg wrote:

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this...

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this is mostly due to man induced climate change. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how...

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The demand is still exceeding the supply, even with reduced usage.  That just points out how much worse it could have been if that usage had been sustained.  Even though total usage may have declined, it has still been unsustainably higher than the supply.  

We can't really affect the supply part of the equation too much, it is what it is for the most part.  The only thing we can really affect is the usage, and pointing out that we have reduced usage but Mother Nature is not playing fair by somehow withholding supply doesn't fill the reservoirs.  

I remember hearing some loud rumblings about this in the early 2000s, as the pattern changed drastically from the early to mid 80s.  The downward pattern in supply is more than just a few year blip now.  

Can supplies potentially increase dramatically in the next couple of decades?  Sure, anything is possible I suppose.  But there is no evidence to make anyone believe that it a certainty and continuing to use more water than the supply because the supply 'might' go up later is not a solid plan by any means.  

borg wrote:

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this...

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this is mostly due to man induced climate change. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

At this point, I don't think it matter 'why' the supply is going down, we can all agree that using more than it is supplying is...

At this point, I don't think it matter 'why' the supply is going down, we can all agree that using more than it is supplying is not sustainable for much longer.  

Titan1 wrote:

Putting millions and millions of people and thousands and thousands of acres of farm land in the middle of the desert will eventually cause a water...

Putting millions and millions of people and thousands and thousands of acres of farm land in the middle of the desert will eventually cause a water problem?  Why didn't anyone see this coming? 

Will water will eventually get so expensive, that people will start moving to places with cheaper water?...Think of the impact of that migration?  Would it eventually shape the real estate market and economy of the entire country?  

Or...They can run gas and oil pipelines across the continent...why not water pipelines?  Imagine if Lake Powell and Lake Mead were filled/kept full with Mississippi River water?  

Seems to me that because CA borders the Ocean, that no agriculture (and eventually people) in CA should be using Colorado River water...when is it time to build desalination plants, and start irrigating CA farms with ocean water?

borg wrote:

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this...

Supply or inflows to Powell have decreased about 20% over the last 100 years with most occurring in the last 50. Of course AI claims this is mostly due to man induced climate change. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

At this point, I don't think it matter 'why' the supply is going down, we can all agree that using more than it is supplying is...

At this point, I don't think it matter 'why' the supply is going down, we can all agree that using more than it is supplying is not sustainable for much longer.  

Dudley wrote:

Water rights is the new commodity. I remember an oil exec saying that it would be 20 years ago. Not just in the states but worldwide. 

Titan1 wrote:

Putting millions and millions of people and thousands and thousands of acres of farm land in the middle of the desert will eventually cause a water...

Putting millions and millions of people and thousands and thousands of acres of farm land in the middle of the desert will eventually cause a water problem?  Why didn't anyone see this coming? 

Will water will eventually get so expensive, that people will start moving to places with cheaper water?...Think of the impact of that migration?  Would it eventually shape the real estate market and economy of the entire country?  

Or...They can run gas and oil pipelines across the continent...why not water pipelines?  Imagine if Lake Powell and Lake Mead were filled/kept full with Mississippi River water?  

Seems to me that because CA borders the Ocean, that no agriculture (and eventually people) in CA should be using Colorado River water...when is it time to build desalination plants, and start irrigating CA farms with ocean water?

RichieW13 wrote:

A true market price for the use of our natural water needs to be implemented.  Apparently some agriculture districts pay nothing.  Maybe it's still worth it...

A true market price for the use of our natural water needs to be implemented.  Apparently some agriculture districts pay nothing.  Maybe it's still worth it to grow alfalfa in the southwest, even if they have to pay.  But since water is a limited resource in the west, it sure seems like the users should pay.  Then the market can decide if it really makes sense to grow almonds, alfalfa and beef in California.

Titan1 wrote:

Desalination plants seem to expensive now (at least thats the most common argument I hear against them...beyond the bogus environmentalist who oppose everything)...but if water gets...

Desalination plants seem to expensive now (at least thats the most common argument I hear against them...beyond the bogus environmentalist who oppose everything)...but if water gets more expensive, I would imagine the economics of desalination plants will make more sense...

borg wrote:

I walked across Hoover dam just as the water was beginning to go over the spillways for the first time, other than the original test in...

I walked across Hoover dam just as the water was beginning to go over the spillways for the first time, other than the original test in 1941. It was in 1983 and it was spooky as hell standing on the dam and seeing how high the water was and then crossing the road to the other side. I was freaking out a bit and continued on to the AZ side and took a few pics of the water just starting to go over. I didn't stay long. I need to look for those.

borg wrote:

I walked across Hoover dam just as the water was beginning to go over the spillways for the first time, other than the original test in...

I walked across Hoover dam just as the water was beginning to go over the spillways for the first time, other than the original test in 1941. It was in 1983 and it was spooky as hell standing on the dam and seeing how high the water was and then crossing the road to the other side. I was freaking out a bit and continued on to the AZ side and took a few pics of the water just starting to go over. I didn't stay long. I need to look for those.

Rawly wrote:

I remember that year well. The water level was so high that boats were not allowed on the Parker Strip. The wakes would have destroyed a...

I remember that year well. The water level was so high that boats were not allowed on the Parker Strip. The wakes would have destroyed a lot of property. All you could do was drive up river in a car and float back down. You had to go up to Havasu for boating. 

borg wrote:

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is...

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is lost. I guess the flow was so violent that it tore up the spillway on AZ side. I didn't stick around for that. Parker is way down river. I didn't know that they prohibited boats. I was a regular at Fox's Landing and Rumrunners at the time.

borg wrote:

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is...

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is lost. I guess the flow was so violent that it tore up the spillway on AZ side. I didn't stick around for that. Parker is way down river. I didn't know that they prohibited boats. I was a regular at Fox's Landing and Rumrunners at the time.

Rawly wrote:

Sundance is where I spent my money. Wild times on the river back then. 

borg wrote:

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is...

There were floods along the banks that washed out golf courses and trailer parks down past Needles. Once the water goes over the spillway, control is lost. I guess the flow was so violent that it tore up the spillway on AZ side. I didn't stick around for that. Parker is way down river. I didn't know that they prohibited boats. I was a regular at Fox's Landing and Rumrunners at the time.

Rawly wrote:

Sundance is where I spent my money. Wild times on the river back then. 

borg wrote:

Where was that? I may be mixing up bar names. I'm pretty sure about Fox's and the floating bar. But maybe the other one was roadrunners...

Where was that? I may be mixing up bar names. I'm pretty sure about Fox's and the floating bar. But maybe the other one was roadrunners. I think they also had a floating bar. 

Hey it 40 plus years ago.