Comments by "ke6gwf - Ben Blackburn" (@ke6gwf) on "Lake Mead level continues to drop, affecting power production" video.

@hydroponichomesteader6852 I assume that you don't eat any vegetables, beef, fruit, almonds, rice, etc grown in California? If so, you are contributing to the problem, because most of the water California uses is producing things used by the rest of the world. I mean, you are using YouTube, which is based in California, so all the water used by the workers who run this website is part of providing this service. If California reduces water use, the rest of the world gets reduced food and services from California.
2
It gives the date when the water is high, and the guy says it's been headed here for 20 years, so your outrage is unfounded and shows an inability to read and listen.
2
@bill1usmc lmao. Guess they don't teach basic reading skills in the Marines anymore... 0:44 The date shown is November 2000. That's the year Two Thousand, not the year Two Thousand and Twenty. Thank you for digging your hole deeper and making my point for me!
2
A dam on the Colorado River, draining vast areas of NOT desert, but the canyon in the desert was an excellent place to put the dam. The lack of water is do to the drought in the hills and mountains far away, and so this has nothing to do with being in the desert.
1
@dmannevada5981 not "much" of a drought, but yet the river flow has been avaegai/averaging lower and lower for decades. The lake level is also effected by more water being taken out upstream as cities grow and more land is irrigated, which reduces the water flow even without a drought. But the gradually decreasing rain and snow, combined with the increased upstream demand means that the inflow has been lower than the legally mandated rate of release since 2000.
1
@dmannevada5981 wow, a reasonable and well informed comment on YouTube!? I should play the lottery too lol You seem to be more familiar with the details than I am, sounds like you have done your homework. And yes, it makes sense that ag uses more water, but I think I included expanded ag upstream, but I probably should emphasize it more. And yes, there is the little detail of the water allocation being overly optimistic, but they were able to handle it through 2000 or so with excess, and then there was a reduction in flow (returning to average it seems...) but everyone hoped that it was temporary and the water would return, and they had years to do something about it. Well. Years are here and gone, and now they can't pretend it's not a problem, and so we will see how badly they handle it... Lol The other factor however is that a lot of the areas where this water is used, ARE experiencing drought conditions, thus needing more water, so drought is playing into the story, even if it's from the other side.
1
@bill1usmc Ahh, so you are one of the types who always is moving the goalposts to deal with inconvenient facts, because you can never be wrong... You are correct that the lake reached a higher level in '83, but that was the choice of the operators, and up until 2000, they were releasing more water than the contracts required, and intentionally keeping the water below the spillway by sending more through the power plant. So in 2000, there was enough water flowing to go over the spillway, but they used the valves to maintain the level that they consider as "full", partly because it's the best level for recreation, boat ramps etc. To put it into perspective, the lake is now lower than it's ever been since it was originally filled in the 30s.
1
@Igrowbigbuds-b3q you are correct, they only tested the spillway once, the rest of the time, up until 2000, they sent more water through the power plant to maintain the water level at the depth they call "full", but there was enough water they COULD have let it go over the spillway. Prior to then, they were releasing more water than they are required to because they had a surplus, but there is not enough water since 2000 to refill the lake and also supply the contracts, so it's been steadily decreasing since. Remember that Lake Powell is upstream, so Mead doesn't have to deal with storm surge or anything, just a planned steady outflow from Powell, and the power plant and flow valves are easily able to handle that flow, so they don't need to use the spillway. And why run water over the spillway they can use to make power?
1
@bill1usmc so you admit that it peaked once in '83 because of extreme river conditions, and went ABOVE full. And that is the only time in the history of the lake that it got that high. So by definition, overfull, using the emergency spillway and actually damaging the dam, should not be considered the definition of Full. And it's exactly events like that which damage the dam that made them more conservative in future years and always leave a few feet of room for flood surge, and so consider it "full" at a lower level. They are required by the downstream water rights to release a certain minimum flow from the lake, and prior to 2000 they were able to release more than the minimum each year. After 2000, the water right requirements have exceed the river inflow every year, so it has never been able to refill and steadily drops. Water rights are one of the most sacred rights in the US, and it's only in times of extreme drought that water rights can be reduced, so they are legally required to release that minimum amount every year. If you are a farmer and you have the elder rights to a certain amount of water available to you, are you going to use less water and thus make less money on your land, or will you grow the highest value crop you can on your land with the water you have available? You can complain about the almond groves, but if you owned that land would you not grow what's most profitable and utilize all the water you can buy or have rights to? Remember that most of the California almond groves buy the water from the water districts, and it doesn't come from the Colorado River.
1