Page 1 of 18

Team #445

Table of Contents

I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . 3

III. Projections for the State of Lake Powell in 2015. . . . . 4-6

IV. Effects on the Economy of the Lower Basin. . . . . . .7-11

V. Recommendations for Increasing Conservation . . . . . .12-17

VI. Works Cited . . . . . . . . . .18

 Page 2 of 18
Team #445

Section I: Summary

Using the approximate inflow rates given in the problem, we predicted the water levels of
Lake Powell and the Lower Basin area of the Colorado River. We found that despite the drought,
Lake Powell’s volume increased at a slow and constant rate according to the most likely future
inflow rate. By the end of 2015, our projected time period, we estimate that the lake volume
should be at % of its capacity. However, the slightest disparities in our estimated inflow rates
have large influences on the lake’s final projected volume—even a -5% deviation from the
predicted inflow signifies a 10% reduction in the volume of the lake and a five-fold increase in
the profit lost as the Hoover Dam operates under full-pool efficiency. The effects of changes in
the predicted inflow rates are enumerated in Section III.
Furthermore, we have calculated the consequences that will occur if the inflow to Lake
Powell is either the minimum or the maximum possible value. If the inflow from the Colorado
River is the minimum possible value (39% of the average inflow), Lake Powell will dry up by
2014. If the inflow is the maximum possible value (137% of average inflow), the lake will
overflow before the end of the year 2012. Lake Mead’s volume will also increase or decrease in
the same manner as the volume of Lake Powell, as the two lakes’ volumes correlate.
If Lake Powell and Lake Mead continue to increase at the sluggish rate projected by this
paper, the local economy will be adversely affected. Government revenues earned by harvesting
energy from the Hoover Dam will decrease by approximately $70-90 million. Private sector
businesses will also lose profits. Fishing contributes $40 million to the local economy, but the
fishing industry will stagnate, and perhaps even disappear, if the lakes are not maintained.
According to our projected increases in the volume of Lake Powell from 2011-2015, the
yearly inflow of water into the lake from the Colorado River will not be sufficient to maintain
the lake’s minimum capacity (the volume at which human use of the lake will not diminish it
beyond drought level.) The projected volume of Lake Powell must be increased by at least 2.5
MAF over the next five years, and this can be achieved by decreasing the amount of water taken
from the Upper Basin Colorado River, thus increasing the river’s inflow into Lake Powell.
Section V of this paper offers recommendations for this conservation of water. These
recommendations include promotion of water-conservation methods such as faucet aerators and
showers, as well as legislation intended to decrease casual water usage. If followed, these
recommendations will allow the lake to remain at a sustainable level while permitting continued
use of the lake’s water.
 Page 3 of 18
Team #445

Section II: Assumptions

 The first step in estimating the inflow and volume of Lake Powell and adjacent bodies
of water is to isolate the major sources contribute and draw from the Lake. The
largest inflow source, of course, is the Colorado River. In analyzing at this data, we
can assume that the River collects most precipitation, and thus the input data includes
water contributed by rain and snow. Differences in the precipitation over the lake
itself are negligible.

 Several losses in outflow are also negligible--we assume that all water is transferred
with complete efficiency. No water is lost during transit through the dams, absorbed
into the ground or lost in minor creeks, streams, etc. Thus the outflow of Lake Powell
is approximately equal to the inflow of Lake Powell. Since Lake Powell’s outflow is
regulated in an effort to equalize water distribution, it also remains relatively constant
over the drought period of 2000-2010.

 Since Lake Powell was built in 1963, and its volume slowly increased over a period
of 7 years, this paper uses only data from 1970 and onward. (Lake Powell feeds into
Lake Mead, thus the inflow data for Lake Mead is also only reliable after 1970). The
Lake’s inflow and capacity are both approximations taken from the predictions given
in the problem, which persist over the projected time period of 2011-2016.

 In predicting the economic impact of Colorado River water-level fluctuations, we also

assume that all water taken from the river is used with complete efficiency. (No water
is wasted during use.)
 Page 4 of 18
Team #445

Section III: Projections for the State of Lake Powell in 2015

Our model is primarily based on the correlation between the outflow subtracted from the
inflow [17] and the change in volume [17]. Graph 1 below shows this relationship:

Graph 1: Difference in Inflow and Outflow vs. Change in

Volume
2.00E+06

1.00E+06

Change in Volume 0.00E+00

(Acre-feet/Year)
-5.00E+06 -4.00E+06 -3.00E+06 -2.00E+06 -1.00E+06 0.00E+00 1.00E+06 2.00E+06 3.00E+06 4.00E+06
-1.00E+06

-2.00E+06

-3.00E+06

-4.00E+06

Difference in Inflow and Outflow (Acre-Feet/Year)

The R2 value of approximately .71 shows an accurate trend line. Using the given values
for inflow, the volume present in Lake Powell was projected by subtracting the averaged outflow
value, and then extrapolating the change in volume with the linear equation shown on the graph..
This was repeated with separate values for inflow, including the 83% average, 39% low, and
137% high, as well as 5% and 10% deviations from the average. Chart 1 below shows the
projected volumes over a five-year period.
Table 1: Projected Volumes by Year
Year Average Low High Average-5% Average+5% Average-10%Average+10%
2011 1.50E+07 1.13E+07 1.95E+07 1.47E+07 1.54E+07 1.41E+07 1.57E+07
2012 1.53E+07 7.93E+06 2.44E+07 1.46E+07 1.60E+07 1.35E+07 1.67E+07
2013 1.56E+07 4.53E+06 2.92E+07 1.46E+07 1.66E+07 1.29E+07 1.77E+07
2014 1.59E+07 1.14E+06 3.40E+07 1.45E+07 1.73E+07 1.24E+07 1.87E+07
2015 1.62E+07 -2.25E+06 3.88E+07 1.45E+07 1.79E+07 1.18E+07 1.97E+07
Capacity % 66.61 0 159.53 59.62 73.60 48.52 81.00
 Page 5 of 18
Team #445

The final projected volume in the second column is especially important. Should the
inflow be close to the given prediction, Lake Powell will have 16.2 maf in 2015. The various
columns show our projected volumes in 2015 with both 5% and 10% deviations from the given
average inflow.
Define the drought level of Lake Powell by setting it equal to the lowest recorded
volume, which occurred in 2004 when it contained 9.95 maf. According to the Colorado River
Contract of 1922, Upper Basin citizens who draw from Lake Powell are allowed to remove 1.7
maf from the river each year. Thus the lake’s minimum capacity can be found by multiplying the
yearly water allotment by the years elapsed since the base year (2010) and adding this to the
drought level.
Table 2: Differences in Projected Volume and Minimum Volume

Projected Volume (Million Minimum Volume (Million Difference (Million

Year Acre-Feet) Acre-Feet) Acre-Feet)
2011 15 11.7 -3.3
2012 15.3 13.4 -1.9
2013 15.6 15.1 -.5
2014 15.9 16.9 1.0
2015 16.2 18.6 2.4

According to the above chart, the Lake’s minimum volume needed only begins to exceed
the projected volume of the Lake during 2013—thus, there are almost four years to implement a
plan to reduce water withdrawal from the Colorado River.
The above graph shows the volume from 1999, when the drought began, to 2010, and our
projections for the next five years. The blue data points are given, and the red data points are
extrapolations.

Graph 2: Volume from 1999-2015

25000000

20000000

15000000
Volume (maf)
10000000

5000000

0
1998 2003 2008 2013
Year
 Page 6 of 18
Team #445

If 2.4 MAF can be conserved over five years along the Colorado River and funneled into
Lake Powell, the Lake will be able to meet its minimum capacity. Reasons that support such an
effort and recommendations for how to do so will be presented in later sections.
 Page 7 of 18
Team #445

Section IV: Effects on the Water Supply of Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam
Effects of the Drought on Lake Mead

Volume of Lake Mead (acre Average

ft) Inflow Low Inflow High Inflow
2011 18200500 16177710 20660650
2012 18364510 14335331 23339480
2013 18528520 12476551 25963640
2014 18692530 10623238 28587800
2015 18856540 8769925 31211960

As the preceding chart shows, the flow rate into Lake Powell is important in determining
the volume of Lake Mead. The explanation for the acquisition of this data can be found in the
next section. If the inflow into Lake Powell continues at an average rate, the volume of Lake
Mead will slowly increase. If the rate is maximum, the volume of Lake Mead will increase at a
much higher rate, and the water in Lake Mead will be replenished within a few years. However,
if the inflow rate is at its minimum, the volume of Lake Mead will decrease steadily over the
next few years and may even reach the point at which no water can be used for industrial and
human purposes. Thus, the inflow rate to Lake Powell affects the volume of Lake Mead and
subsequently will affect the economy of the entire region.

Electricity Output from the Hoover Dam

Once the volume of Lake Powell had been extrapolated for the next five years in average,
low, and high situations, this data could then be used to find the capacity of energy that could be
attained from the Hoover Dam in each case. The data for these calculations can be found in
Appendix A. First, we graphed the volume of Lake Powell versus the volume of Lake Mead, as
shown by the graph below (17). We then used a linear trend line to determine the relationship
between these two volumes. The coefficient of determination, r2, for this regression was 0.621,
so it was accepted as a valid explanation of the variation between the two volumes. Thus, the
equation for the volume of Lake Mead based on the volume of Lake Powell was found to be
(volume of Lake Mead) = 0.5467 * (volume of Lake Powell) + 1 x 10^7. We used this equation
to calculate the volume of Lake Mead for each given volume of Lake Powell during the years
2011 to 2015, in average, low, and high situations.

Relationship Between the Volumes of Lakes

Powell and Mead y = 0.5467x + 1E+07
R² = 0.621
30000000
Volume of Lake Mead (acre ft)

25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000
Volume of Lake Powell (acre ft)
 Page 8 of 18
Team #445

Elevation vs. Volume of Lake Mead

30000000

y = 0.5318x3 - 1547x2 + 2E+06x - 5E+08

25000000
R² = 1

20000000
Volume (acre ft)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240
Elevation (ft)

We then graphed the elevation of Lake Mead versus the volume of Lake Mead, as
displayed in the preceding graph. Data points for years prior to 1970 were disregarded for
reasons stated earlier. We used a polynomial trendline with a power of three because length has a
cubic relationship with volume. The r2 value was very close to 1.0, showing that this model is an
extremely accurate depiction of the relationship between elevation and volume. Thus, we could
use the equation (Volume of Lake Mead) = 0.5318 * (Elevation of Lake Mead)^3 – 1547 *
(Elevation of Lake Mead)^2 + 2 x 10 ^ 6 * (Elevation of Lake Mead) – 5 x 10 ^ 8 to calculate the
elevation of Lake Mead based on the previously calculated volumes.
The capacity of the Hoover Dam at Lake Mead’s original elevation, 1172.03 feet, is 2080
megawatts [21]. For each foot that the elevation of Lake Mead drops, the power capacity of the
Hoover Dam decreases by 5.7 megawatts [36]. We first verified that our model would be
accurate by comparing the current power capacity of the Hoover Dam to the result that would be
calculated with our model. To do this, we first found the change in elevation by subtracting the
current elevation, 1095.96 feet, from the original elevation. The difference was found to be 76.07
feet. We then multiplied this by 5.7 megawatts per foot to find that the loss in power capacity
was 433.599 megawatts. Subtracting this from the maximum capacity of 2080 megawatts yielded
a value of 1646.401 megawatts for the current capacity of the Hoover Dam. The current capacity
of the Hoover Dam is actually 1617 megawatts [36]. The percent difference between our model’s
calculation and the actual capacity was 1.82%, so we accepted our model as accurate.
After verifying our model, we then substituted the calculated values for the future
elevations of Lake Mead in all three potential situations from 2011 through 2015 to find the
difference between the original elevation and the future elevation. This number was then
multiplied by 5.7 megawatts per foot to find the change in capacity of the Hoover Dam. We
subtracted this calculated value from the original capacity, 2080 megawatts, to find the new
power capacity. Our results are as follows:
 Page 9 of 18
New Capacity Average Low High
(MW) Inflow Inflow Inflow Team #445
2011 2037.512 1938.211 2147.443
2012 2045.188 1839.39 2256.004
2013 2052.812 1730.137 2353.107
2014 2060.384 1610.052 2442.627
2015 2067.904 1477.233 2525.761

According to this model, if the inflow into Lake Powell stays constant at the most likely
projected value, 9.96 * 10^6 acre feet, the Hoover Dam’s capacity to produce energy will
increase to nearly its greatest potential capacity within five years of now. If the inflow is at the
maximum projected value, the projected capacity will quickly rise to above maximum potential
capacity. However, the turbines cannot spin fast enough for more than potential capacity to be
reached, so 2080 megawatts will be able to be converted to usable energy. Furthermore, there
will most likely be spillage from Lake Mead because of the increased water pressure. However,
if the minimum projected inflow is maintained for the next five years, the elevation of Lake
Mead will drop to a point at which the Hoover Dam cannot create nearly as much energy as its
potential capacity indicates. The capacity will continue to drop until the elevation reaches 1050
feet, when the water level will be below the level of the turbines in the dam and thus no
hydroelectric energy will be able to be produced [37]. All of these situations can be explained by
the increased water pressure when the volume and elevation of Lake Mead increase, which
pushes the water through the turbines of the Hoover Dam at a faster rate and thus creates a larger
capacity for energy transfer.
Since a kilowatt-hour is worth 9.8 cents [38] a megawatt-hour is worth $9.80. Thus, the
potential value of the Hoover Dam through energy sales is $20,384. Using the same method, we
calculated the values of the dollar values for the projected capacities for average, low, and high
inflow rates. We then subtracted these values from the potential value of the dam, $20,384, to
find the money that was lost due to a lower volume of water in Lake Mead. This is essentially the
money that could have been made but was not because the water pressure was not great enough
to flow through the Hoover Dam to create the maximum potential capacity of megawatts. The
loss of value is as follows:

Value Lost Average Low High

(dollars) Inflow Inflow Inflow
-
2011 416.3817 1389.531 660.944
-
2012 341.1544 2357.981 1724.84
-
2013 266.4428 3428.653 2676.45
-
2014 192.2395 4605.486 3553.74
-
2015 118.5378 5907.116 4368.46
 Page 10 of 18
Team #445

This data shows that if the projected most likely rate of inflow into Lake Powell persists
for the next five years, there will be a minimal loss of value. If a low inflow persists, the value
lost will be much greater and will increase substantially as time progresses. However, if a high
inflow persists, the potential value of the energy from the Hoover Dam will be not be lost at all.
To assess the effect of a small change in the expected inflow rate on the analysis of the
Hoover Dam, we redid the calculations of the new capacity in megawatts and value lost in
dollars for 90%, 95%, 105%, and 110% of the earlier average inflow value. This yielded the
following graphs:

New Capacity of the Hoover Dam

2200

2150
Capacity (megawatts)

2100
Average
2050 95% of Average
105% of Average
2000
90% of Average
1950 110% of Average

1900
2010 2012 2014 2016
Year

This graph shows the changes in capacity of the Hoover Dam that would occur if the
projected inflow rate into Lake Powell was incorrect. For average flow rate and rates higher than
average, the Hoover Dam will increase in capacity in a linear fashion, more quickly for higher
rates. Similarly, for the flow rates lower than average, the Hoover Dam’s capacity will decrease
in a linear fashion, more quickly for lower rates. The most significant portion of this graph is the
95% of Average line, which shows that if the inflow rate is slightly lower than the most likely
rate, the capacity of the Hoover Dam will follow a negative trend instead of a positive one.
 Page 11 of 18
Team #445

Year vs. Value of Water Lost (USD)

1400

1200
Projected Value
1000 - x% Disparity in
800 0%
Value Lost (USD) -5%
600
-10%
400 +5%

200 +10%

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year

Similarly, the graph above shows the drastic changes in value lost that would occur based
on the amount that the actual inflow rate into Lake Powell deviates from the average projected.
For the inflow rates above average, the value in dollars lost due to inefficiency would increase,
while for inflow rates below average this value would decrease because the inefficiency would
decrease as time progressed.
Essentially, power generation would increase over time for inflows greater than average
and decrease over time for inflows lower than average.
 Page 12 of 18
Team #445

Section V: Effects on the Economy of the Lower Basin

Economy of the Lower Basin
The Glen Canyon Dam is considered part of the Lower Basin, but the reservoir provides
the storage necessary to maintain downriver flows, while allowing Upper Basin states to access
necessary waters. Under the Colorado River Compact in 1922, the Colorado River was
apportioned between the seven user states in both the Upper and Lower Basins. This agreement
is responsible for water developments along Colorado and its tributaries as well as acts to control
water flows.
With an exploding western population base, basin withdrawals have increased, yet there
is less water in the Colorado River due to a warmer, drier climate. Western states are
increasingly relying on water stored in reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell.
It is necessary to have two water reservoirs:

[20]
A drought long and severe enough is able to drain Lake Powell.
Looking at the Severe Drought Scenario graph, taking Lake Powell out of the equation threatens
almost certain drainage of Lake Mead.
Recreational Economy
Millions of people each year visit the Glen Canyon National Recreational Area, which
drives an economy that didn’t exist until the dam was constructed. Without Lake Powell, the
northern Arizona economy would lose jobs and $400 million dollars of recreation dollars would
be lost.
People in favor for a ―river rafting‖ economy suggest that Page doesn’t need Lake
Powell. However, this economic model would send river rafting parties hundreds of miles from
Page, thus not contributing to the Page rafting economy. [20]
Since Lake Powell was created 23 years ago, Page, Arizona’s economy has boomed. 4
million visiting tourists create $2.5 million dollars per year economy, and because of its central
location, Page is a rest stop for tourists en route to other recreational sites like the Grand Canyon,
Monument Valley, and Lake Powell.
 Page 13 of 18
Team #445

Power Revenues
Without Lake Powell, the federal government would lose $70 – 90 million per year in
revenues from power. These revenues normally go to the Upper Basin in paying for upstream
irrigation and water storage infrastructure.
Power generated from Lake Powell through the Glen Canyon Dam and the Navajo
Generating Station produce about 22,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough power
for the entire population of Arizona (5 million people). The cost to replace this source of energy
with gas turbines would be more than $2 billion dollars, and residents would be left to pay for
this funding. The cost to replace this energy with wind or solar- and fuel-powered cells ranges
from $30 – 100 billion dollars. [27]

Fishing Industry
In a 2006 report, drought conditions brought a partial die-out of trout at Lees Ferry,
considering state game managers to restock non-native fish for the first time in ten years.
Matthew Anderson, supervisory biologist for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research
Center, said that if trout were not restocked at Lees Ferry, the fishery would not be able to
recover to prior levels. Unfortunately, the blue-ribbon trout fishery contributes $40 million
dollars a year to the local economy.
Flows of low-oxygen waters were released from Lake Powell in September 2005,
suffocating large numbers of trout at the fishery located down the Colorado River. Meanwhile,
these conditions that have been killing off trout and its industry have been beneficial for native
fish. By lowering the depth of Lake Powell, the drought has also introduced more sediment into
the river, potentially creating warmer and shallower places for native fish to hide from predators.
[23]
The drought is not only depleting the trout population, but also diminishing the trout
fishery industry in Page, Arizona. Once water levels rise again, oxygen levels as well as
temperatures will approach ideal levels for trout to thrive and revive the industry.

Water Distribution
The two regions of the Colorado River, The Upper and Lower Basins, were created
following the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which allocated water to different regions along
the river. The Glen Canyon Dam, which regulates the water leaving Lake Powell, controls the
7.5 million acre-feet of water heading into the Lower Basin. The Hoover Dam, built in 1928 as a
result of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, further divvies up the Lower Basin water, giving 2.8
million acre-feet to Arizona, 4.4 million acre-feet to California, and 1.5 million acre-feet to
Mexico. [24]
However, the amounts of water requested by each region have started to change
following the drought, probably due to increasing populations. For instance, Nevada previously
 Page 14 of 18
Team #445

relied mostly on local ground water to support its small irrigation projects, receiving only around
four percent of the water from the Lower Basin. Las Vegas now uses 88% of that water, and its
increasing population is becoming more and more reliant on Lower Basin water, so much that
their current allotment of river water is becoming insufficient. In 2003, the governors of each
state met again to redistribute water; as California was not using all of the water it was being
given, Nevada was given permission to divert more water to Las Vegas if other states were not in
danger of running out themselves. [29]
The drought caused the supply curve of water distribution to shift to the left, causing a
shortage of stored water. As the volumes of Lake Mead and Lake Powell drop, so does the
electricity supply of the Colorado River Basin. This causes utilities to search for other sources
like gas turbines, and solar- and fuel-powered cells, which are more expensive, and translate to
elevated consumer’s costs. [31]

Further Recommendations
The key to reducing the amount of water removed from the Colorado River in order to
maintain minimal capacity in Lake Powell is to minimize the amounts of water Lake Powell and
Lake Mead need to distribute. If the water distribution from the Glen Canyon Dam is decreased,
water outflow to Lake Mead can be increased, and thus water distribution from the Hoover Dam
can be reduced as well. In order to decrease the amount of water each reservoir needs to
distribute to consumers, either a new source of water has to be created, or its consumers have to
find a way to decrease their demand for the resource. One option that takes after the former
would be to create waste water treatment facilities that could recycle used water. This would add
a portion of the water piped to consumers back into the system. For instance, the wastewater
treatment plants of the Southern Nevada Water Authority can treat around 1,840 acre-feet of
water daily [33]. Annually, the amount of water recycled would be around 672,085 acre-feet per
treatment plant. Though a modest amount compared to the amount of water given to the region
by the Hoover Dam, multiple plants could potentially make an impact, especially as their
efficiency increases over time.
Water conservation efforts should target farmers as irrigation accounts for 70% of
worldwide freshwater use. Farmers should grow crops that have higher water efficiencies and
optimize crop distributions in irrigation systems, thus maintaining optimal salinities and reducing
run-off and loss of potentially harmful agro-chemicals. Less water consumption for agricultural
use will reduce the amount of run-off as well as the over-exploitation of groundwater, which will
lead to salinisation. [35]
Decreasing demand for water would require public desire and acceptance of changes that
might occur. The most effective way to achieve this would be to increase general awareness of
the personal and societal benefits of controlling water usage (for instance, lower monthly bills
and a cleaner environment). Increased use of faucet aerators and the promotion of decreased
wash and shower times are two rather simple ways to lower water consumption. Aerators alone
reduce the amount of water expelled by more than half on average [34]. These water
conservation goals can be achieved by passing legislation intended to decrease casual water
usage. For example, water and electricity used in businesses and public institutions around the
Colorado River Basin can be restricted through water and hydroelectric power rationing. States
in the Upper and Lower Basins can impose laws restricting times during which citizens can use
 Page 15 of 18
Team #445

sprinklers, as well as the temperatures at which citizens can set refrigerators, freezers, and central
air conditioning systems.
 Page 16 of 18
Team #445

Section VI: Works Cited

1. http://www.usbr.gov/uc/feature/drought.html
2. http://lakepowell.water-data.com/
3. http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/faq.html
4. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/AOP2010/AOP10.pdf
5. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126494/Colorado-River/39963/Economic-
development
6. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/
7. http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/lppwse.html
8. http://wwa.colorado.edu/colorado_river/regional.html
9.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/consultation/Feb06SevenBasinStatesPrelimin
aryProposal.pdf
10. http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/droughts/causesofdroughts.shtml
11. http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1240937900113.pdf
12. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/use10.pdf
13. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/weekly.pdf
14. http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_b7e44e9e-087d-53b2-9c49-7ea32262c9a9.html
15. http://crc.nv.gov/docs/iolll_0410/William%20Vernieu.pdf
16. http://www.glencanyon.org/library/water.php
http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/archive/march2000/0310_powell.html
17. http://lakepowell.water-data.com/index2.php
18.http://employees.oneonta.edu/baumanpr/geosat2/Lake_Powell/Colorado_River_Basin_Lake_
Powell.htm
19. http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/report-shows-droughts-severe-769702.html
20. http://www.lakepowell.org/page_two/information/25_reasons/25_reasons.html:
21. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
22. http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Boulder+Canyon+Project+-
+Hoover+Dam
23. http://azdailysun.com/news/article_a3055764-4edb-5fc8-8f6d-1a66f600663e.html
24. http://nevada.usgs.gov/barcass/articles/Ely44.pdf
25. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf
26. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf
27. http://www.lakepowell.net/myths.html
28. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/21/20101221colorado-river-water-mexico-
united-states.html
29. http://www.watersheds.tv/old_cattails/hooverdam.asp
30. http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-is-a-kilowatt-hour.htm
31. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x26
 Page 17 of 18
Team #445

0522
33. http://www.snwa.com/html/wq_treatment_facilities.html
34. http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=18710
35. http://aciar.gov.au/node/725
36.http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/low-water-may-still-hoover-
dam%e2%80%99s-power/
37.http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/11/01/20101101lake-mead-
water-level-down.html
38.http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/wholesale/wholesalelinks.html
 Page 18 of 18
Team #445

Appendix A :Data for Hoover Dam Energy Calculations

Volume of Lake
Powell (acre ft) Average Low High
2011 15000000 11300000 19500000
2012 1.53E+07 7.93E+06 2.44E+07
2013 1.56E+07 4.53E+06 2.92E+07
2014 1.59E+07 1.14E+06 3.40E+07
2015 1.62E+07 -2.25E+06 3.88E+07

Change in Capacity of
Hoover Dam (MW) Average Low High
2011 -42.48793 -141.789 67.44329
2012 -34.81168 -240.61 176.0036
2013 -27.18804 -349.863 273.1068
2014 -19.61627 -469.948 362.6268
2015 -12.09569 -602.767 445.7611

Elevation of Lake Mead (ft) Average Low High

2011 1164.576 1147.155 1183.862
2012 1165.923 1129.818 1202.908
2013 1167.26 1110.651 1219.943
2014 1168.589 1089.583 1235.649
2015 1169.908 1066.281 1250.234

Change in Elevation
of Lake Mead (ft) Average Low High
-
2011 7.454023 24.87524 11.8322 New Capacity
- (MW) Average Low High
2012 6.107312 42.21233 30.8778 2011 2037.512 1938.211 2147.443
- 2012 2045.188 1839.39 2256.004
2013 4.769831 61.37939 47.9135 2013 2052.812 1730.137 2353.107
-
2014 2060.384 1610.052 2442.627
2014 3.441451 82.44693 63.6187
- 2015 2067.904 1477.233 2525.761
2015 2.122051 105.7486 78.2037