Closing Lake Mead

If they are going to close it then they should lay off the rangers and park employee's. If they told them that's what they were going to do I'm sure they would come up with some ideas like portable ramps or cranes to launch boats and keep there jobs.
 
jkidd":lcw6e5cn said:
If they are going to close it then they should lay off the rangers and park employee's. If they told them that's what they were going to do I'm sure they would come up with some ideas like portable ramps or cranes to launch boats and keep there jobs.
Click to expand...

Only going to close the ramps, not the park. Plenty of other things for rangers and and park employees to do besides monitor boat ramps. The marinas are run by contractors and there will still be plenty of boats. Just not day users. Could all be a conspiracy by the NPS and marinas to increase the number of slip holders.
 
Jody, very interesting video. Have you been paying your $400 a day fee to be taking any photo graphs in the National Recreational Areas? (This includes I phone.). Photographers are limited to 1 tripod and one backpack of camera gear. $200 of that fee is non refundable, even if you don't get your permit (which has to be applied for in advance to your arrival in the NRA.

If we don't get some very substantial snow pack this year, I see both Powell and Mead being shut down for boating?
 
One comment on the filming issue: either an iPhone or big professional gear could be used for "commercial" filming. It would seem to depend on the purpose. It would be a STRETCH to say videos for personal enjoyment of friends and family are "commercial" filming. However, even iPhone videos MONETIZED on YouTube could well be considered "commercial." But that seems to miss the point. The issue in my mind is whether the filming affects the use of streets, parks, or public property by the general public, or whether filming requires special services from police, fire or public works. That was our test in Snoqualmie. A lot of movies and commercials have been filmed in Snoqualmie, including most of "Twin Peaks"!

The lake water level issue seems to get worse and worse. I probably won't ever get back to Powell and I am glad we boated there in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2014. As supply goes down, down down, year after year, demand goes UP. The growth and development in Arizona on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson is insane. The same in Utah around Salt Lake City. The prospects long term for recovery of the reservoirs appear bleak.
 
Pat, I feel the same that we will never be able to return to Powell.

However the Western Waters have been a source of shortage and conflict thru the brief history of the United States and period of exploration. My college Class (1958 Pomona College) has monthly Zoom meetings of many of our living alumni. I am on the steering committee which meets weekly. One of the long range topics which we have had experts (both from our class and current professors) present, is on the water wars, rights and conflicts for Southern Calif. (We addressed the Owen's Valley, the Sacramento Delta, as well as the Colorado River and local water tables under the LA/Orange County basin.). More recently we have addressed the issues with desalination plants.

At some point, and no one knows when precisely, there will be enough snow pack and water run off to again fill the lakes at least part way. What we don't know is if Lakes Powell and Mead will be saved as both generating power and significant water storage. This brings up if the major dams should be destroyed and the Colorado river be allowed to freely flow. I doubt that the destruction of the dams will occur, but loss of generating power is certainly likely.

The issue of photography is not as clear cut as it might seem. Pat brings up a number of valid points. I would be very miffed if some ranger wanted to change me $400 a day for taking photos as we cruised Lake Powell.
 
With all the wild weather out west and current snow pack at least in the Sierra's (I know, wrong range for Lake's Powell and Mead), I would hope many of the western reservoirs will start to reverse the past cycle, and start filling again. Colby
 
Currently the snow pack in the Colorado River drainage basin is about 140% of normal. It appears that it may be a good year from that standpoint. But just that will not fill up the reservoirs.
 
Lake Powell is in the process of moving Bullfrog marina to Stanton Creek on the main Channel and building a new ramp over there. I will be extended to dead pool as the lake goes down. it is a permanent location for the marina. The south end will extend their ramps as well. even if the lake reaches dead pool it will still be a big lake. The propaganda that is being spread right now is that when the lake reaches dead pool no more water will pass through the dam. The truth is any water coming down the Colorado will simple flow through the dam to lake Mead.

If both Lake Powell and Lake Mead were to reach dead pool they wouldn't be generating electricity and I don't think the southwest would like that much. They are going to half to start cutting back the water allocations so that they can maintain power pool. They need to set elevations in each lake so that when a lake reaches it's emergency level they have to ration the water until it recovers. Both dams need to be there in order to make things work as designed. If you want to understand the logic behind it find yourself a copy of the book called " A wild Red River Tamed " They do a good job of explaining why it all exists. If you were to dismantle it you would basically turn the whole southwest into a ghost town.
 
thataway":26le93sw said:
Currently the snow pack in the Colorado River drainage basin is about 140% of normal. It appears that it may be a good year from that standpoint. But just that will not fill up the reservoirs.
Click to expand...

Your right it would take 3 to 4 good years to put things back. Or they need to reduce the allocations for 10 years to fix it.

P.S. I can't think of anything nice to say about the photography stuff so I'll just keep my mouth shut.
 
We have been spending our winters in Apache Junction, Arizona for the past 10 years. In our travels North to Puget Sound area every year we pass by either Lake Mead or Lake Powell and are amazed at the loss of water over just a few years. Lake Shasta is in the same or possibly worse condition judged merely by observations from I-5 on our journey south every year. I find it somewhat disturbing that the greater Phoenix area is growing by leaps and bounds. Which is partially do to all the Baby Boomers buying up properties down here. They are currently building entire neighborhoods all at the same time. Mind boggeling. It would seem that there is absolutely no concern for the effects of the demand for water. Golf courses all over the place watering like crazy. I don't excuse myself from being part of the problem as I enjoy being here in the winter. Just don't know where it's all headed. Hopefully the weather being cyclic, will fill the lakes and reservoirs once again.
 
Jody, I suspect that the SW would adapt rather than become a ghost area. Phoenix gets 36% of its water from Colorado River--its other sources: Verde and Salt River, plus ground water still are working. Phoenix has purchased land on other Western Water basins for their ground water resources. Tuscon does get water, but apparently does not use all of its allocation and has vast underground (deep) water. We drove across country many times along I 10, and there are multiple towns with minimal water supplies (ground water mostly) which continue to thrive (sort of). They serve the highway trade, but also the local ranchers who are not dependent on Colorado River in the SW.

Colorado River water shut down would certainly affect agriculture (some of which is not American owned.) Even Calif water from the Colorado River is mostly used for agriculture. (Consider the Imperial Valley).

If the dams were eliminated then there would be substantial power loss, but other renewables would be increased. Most of Las Vegas power comes from Natural Gas, in one of the areas optimal for solar power (issue of night time storage). Only about 20 % of Bolder dam power goes to Las Vegas. Las Vegas has aa very high % of recycling water. (And I suspect they would adjust to loss of Lake Mead water.) Southern Nevada has 8 years reserves of water according to one recent source.

Lets hope that we never find out what happens if the lakes reach dead pool. No more River Rafting (Maybe)--but still some boating. :)
 
Couple of things:

There was a developer who wanted to build a big development west of Las Vegas based on a couple of springs in the desert. It is a nice spring where 1 guy had a hut back in the 1800's. In the case of one spring the water is so clear it is hard to judge the depth of the pool the spring feeds. Supposedly it is 15' deep. The developer wanted to put a couple of thousand homes there based on the water from the springs. The locals got together a said it was not possible to support that many homes in that area. Got the area declared a national wildlife refuge to stop the developer. The point here is that developers in the southwest will try to create developments that grossly exceed the carrying capacity of the available water sources.

About 10 years ago, Las Vegas saw the writing on the wall. While there is a lot of water recycling in the Las Vegas area, they are still dependent on the water from Lake Mead. The original plans for the drinking water intakes assumed that the water level would not go down below dead pool. The city figured that was not true and tunneled under Lake Mead to put in a new intake that is more or less a drain for the lake. Took them a few years to build it. Even if the water level goes below dead pool, Las Vegas will still be able to get most of the water out of the reservoir.

There are lots of solar arrays and other solar powered power generating installations in the Las Vegas area. Once they come up with an efficient storage system for solar energy, I don't think that they will be too dependent on hydro power. Even a couple of years ago if you took the tour of Hoover Dam you'd see that a majority of the generators were not online.

As for the filming thing, it should be not a secret to anyone with an interest in video or photography that commercial use at any Federal property requires a permit. It has been that way for a very long time. When I was younger, merely getting out a tripod to set up a camera on some Federal property was enough to get attention from the rangers or police. "Only professionals use a tripod" they would say, "Where's your permit?". Usually I could talk them down, but sometimes I just had to move on. Nowadays, they don't pay much attention to tripods (except at some sensitive locations, set up a tripod near the Capitol and see what happens) but if you post stuff online you do make yourself known. You may not intend to make money off a particular photo or video, but if you have a YouTube channel that generates ad revenue you are violating the rules (even if you don't actually get a check, Google still might make some $). Plenty of people have been caught out by this. Not to mention the IRS looking at web activity and coming after people for tax evasion (e.g. "Google paid you $X and you didn't report it as income?" or "My band just released a CD, get it here [/url]!") You've got to remember that very little Google (or any other web entity) does is done for free. Somebody is paying them something. If you're good or lucky you can get a taste of that. Either through direct ad payments or via the stock price.

One last thing. I was working at place and a news station wanted to do a story. They sent one guy who had a couple of GoPros and iPhones. The whole thing was done on these devices and then edited and put on the TV broadcast. Seemed like that's the way they do it nowadays (and this was about 7 years ago).
 
Here is some info about Lake Powell questions ask by a poster over on Wayneswords.net. I would imagine that Lake Mead is taking the same steps.




Well I heard back from Heidie Grigg at NPS today, who answered the questions I posed on December 20. In general, there's not a lot of obvious "good news" in there, and still a lot of unknowns. One major theme in her responses is that they either do not have funding for certain actions, or they are awaiting funding.

A few key takeaways:

1. There will be no interim Bullfrog ramp while the one at Stanton is being built. And so if the lake drops below 3522, the Bullfrog north ramp will be inoperable.

2. The completion date for the Stanton ramp is unknown, mainly because they don't have anyone under contract yet. They expect the contract will be announced in the spring. They do confirm this ramp will be usable down to 3450.

3. There will be no action on a mid-lake marina replacement for Dangling Rope in 2023, but they are seeking funding to do something.

4. There is no timetable for the extension of the ramp at Halls, but they are seeking funding for it. They do confirm it will be usable only down to 3520.

5. Their current priority is to make sure at least one ramp is operational on either end of the lake.

6. They sidestep any issues related to Aramark, and basically say "everything's fine" with them, and that they are a "consistent partner".

Here are my questions and her specific responses, indicated in red italics:

1. Lake Powell is at 3526.21 on 12-20-22. It is projected to be below 3525 from the end of December through April 2023. What boat launching, if any, will be possible at Bullfrog during this period? As of January 22, 2023, Lake Powell's elevation is 3524.05.

Answer: Bullfrog North ramp is still operational for small motorized vessels. The park is working on a longer-term solution for a ramp that reaches elevation 3450’ in the Stanton Creek area in Bullfrog.

2. My understanding from previous correspondence with NPS is that there will be an interim ramp between Bullfrog and Stanton until the permanent ramp at Stanton is built. Where will that be located? When will that be online, and to what minimum lake level will it be usable?

Answer: There is not a plan for an interim ramp at Bullfrog. The topography of Bullfrog Bay does not support water elevations necessary to launch vessels. When the lake reaches 3522 the Bullfrog North Ramp will become inoperable.

3. Will camping facilities be moved from Stanton to the Bullfrog area? And will existing lodging and other facilities at Bullfrog remain in place?

Answer: Camping at Stanton Creek has always been dispersed, with no facilities. The Stanton Creek Ramp project will route park visitors to other camping locations such as the Bullfrog Campground. During the Bullfrog Stanton Ramp construction project this area will be closed to the public for safety reasons. The existing lodging and other land-based facilities at Bullfrog are planned to remain at Bullfrog.

4. What is the status and timing of the contract to construct the Stanton Creek ramp, and a projected date of completion?

Answer: We do not have a design build contract in place yet. We do not have a final schedule for the construction of Stanton Creek ramp. Once we issue the contract, we will have a better idea of the timeframe of this project. This contract is on track to be announced spring of 2023.

5. When is the Halls Crossing ramp extension likely to be completed? And why will it only be usable to 3520?

Answer: The Halls Crossing ramp extension project has only been conceptually designed and approved. The park has requested funding for this project but we have not received funding for this project yet. The ramp would only be usable to 3520’ because of the bathymetry of the lake in this area.

6. Given its limited utility, why is the Halls Crossing ramp extension prioritized over replacing Dangling Rope Marina to have a mid-lake fuel opportunity? Dangling Rope would seem to have a greater economic effect on the entire GCNRA than Halls Crossing, especially based on declining visitation as it correlates to when Dangling Rope went offline in 2021.

Answer: The park has not prioritized Halls Crossing over Mid Lake Fuel. We are seeking funding for both projects and both are not funded at this time.

7. When do you see the replacement or relocation of Dangling Rope Marina coming online? In 2023? Until then, will NPS take any steps to improve safe access to the middle part of the lake (i.e., so boats don’t get stranded). What sorts of possible solutions is NPS considering? Any new locations?

Answer: The park is actively seeking funds to address a Mid Lake Fuel station. This project is not funded and will not be coming online in 2023.

8. In general, is funding available to make the needed improvements?

Answer: The park has received partial funding for the Stanton Creek ramp but has not received funding for the other ramps (Antelope Point, Hite and Halls Crossing). However, the park has requested funding for these ramps as well as Mid Lake Fuel, and other resource concerns lakewide.

9. What is the major constraint to making needed improvements? Funding? Administrative logistics? Lack of staffing? Uncertainty of the lake levels?

Answer: The Park is prioritizing resources to try to keep one ramp available Southlake and one ramp available Northlake. The park has been proactive in obtaining an engineering contract to find the best low water ramp locations lakewide. The park has also requested funding for build these conceptual ramps but have not received the funding yet for Antelope Point, Hite and Halls Crossing. Future lake levels are also uncertain. A major constraint is funding and the uncertainty around lake levels.

10. How have declining lake levels and impaired access affected the economics and revenue generated by the GCNRA? Are there any recent economic studies you could point me to about GCNRA that correlate declining lake levels and limited lake access?

Answer: The lake levels and recent access issues has had economic impacts, but this is a complicated situation since the recent pandemic has also caused economic effects. There has not been a recent economic study of these impacts.

11. What is the status of Aramark as the concessionaire? What role do they play (if any) in the planning of future lake facilities? Is there any truth to an ongoing rumor that they are seeking to get out of their contract? And if so, what is the plan to replace them if Aramark pulls out as concessionaire?

Answer: Aramark is operating under a concession contract with the National Park Service and are a consistent partner of GLCA, continuing to offer visitor services.
 
Back
Top