The Real Problem Isn't Drought — It's Math
If we had released just 5% less water since 1996, Lake Powell would be roughly 98 feet higher today.
If we had released just 5% less water each year since 1996, Lake Powell would sit about 98 feet higher today.
This is not a climate claim. It is not a drought claim. It is not a guess about the future. It is plain math. We can do it using the Bureau of Reclamation's own daily numbers. Every drop that left Glen Canyon Dam is on the books. Every drop that came in is too. The math is right there. We just have not been doing it.
This article asks one question: how much of Lake Powell's low level is drought, and how much is math we skipped?
The receipts
On January 1, 1996, Lake Powell stood at 3681 ft. That is about 155 feet higher than today. The lake was close to full. Since then, it has dropped by that same 155 feet.
We can replay those 30 years using the same inflows that really happened. The only change: release a bit less water each day. Less out means more stays in. The lake rises. Here is what it would look like under tighter rules:
Replaying actual inflows from Jan 1996 under reduced release rates. Accounts for evaporation and spillway. Dashed lines show key boat ramp access thresholds.
- 5% less released: Lake would be 98 feet higher today (3624 ft).
- 10% less released: 137 feet higher (3663 ft).
- 15% less released: 152 feet higher (3678 ft) — almost back to 1996 levels.
The black line shows what really happened. The colored lines show what-if scenarios. Same water in. Less water out.
Try the 5% less since 1996 scenario in the simulator →
"But the drought did it"
Look at the next chart. It shows each water year since 1996 as two bars. One bar is water in. The other is water out.
Outflow tracks inflow closely most years. Evaporation (~500-600 KAF/yr) is not reflected in either bar — it is the gap.
In most years, more water went out than came in. People call this the "gap" — or the structural deficit. But it is also a choice. In wet years, we released more. In dry years, we still released a lot. Over 30 years, the gap adds up over time. And that does not count the water that evaporates.
The evaporation gap
Lake Powell loses about 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet a year to evaporation. That is a whole reservoir every decade or two, gone into the air.
Evaporation is not on the outflow books. It does not count against any state's share. It just disappears. Thirty years of it adds up to about 17 MAF. That is close to the full size of Lake Powell.
If the operating rules pretend evaporation is not real, the lake will slowly drain any time inflow is less than outflow. That is exactly what we have watched happen.
What this means
The post-2026 operating rules are on the table right now. This site lays out the choices in plain numbers:
- How each plan does under the driest decade on record, so no one can say "your model is too rosy."
- What each one looks like over 10, 20, and 40 years.
- How the Colorado River Abundance Act fits in as we build new water projects.
- Which plans are worth pushing for, and why.
How the plans score
Here is the timeline you need to keep straight:
- Now through Sep 30, 2026: the short-term federal plan is running. Powell releases are cut. A little water is moved in from Flaming Gorge. The plan commits to keeping Powell above 3,500 ft by April 2027 — 10 ft above the minimum power pool. This is a bridge, not the fix.
- Oct 1, 2026 and on: a new long-term rule takes over. The states and feds are picking that rule right now. Every plan on this site is a candidate for that long-term slot.
The chart below shows how each candidate long-term plan does over the 40 years that follow. The starting point is Oct 1, 2026 — Lake Powell at the level the short-term plan leaves it. Click any plan for the full breakdown.
| Plan | Recovery lake fills (40yr median) | Floor worst-case low point | Bad-case End 40yr p10 ending | Speed 10yr gain | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max Operational Flexibility → Strongest worst-case protection — floor holds closest to the Oct 1, 2026 baseline | B 3599 ft | A 3507 ft | B 3551 ft | A +89 ft | A |
| Supply Driven → Best recovery — highest median elevation at every long horizon | A 3678 ft | B 3433 ft | A 3641 ft | A +113 ft | A |
| Enhanced Coordination → Balanced fallback — middling on every axis, no major weakness | B 3593 ft | B 3469 ft | B 3532 ft | A +102 ft | B+ |
| Basic Coordination → Not recommended — median stays below min power; floor reaches dead pool | C 3530 ft | F 3370 ft | D 3415 ft | B +26 ft | D+ |
| 2007 Guidelines (status quo) Not recommended — structural deficit persists; floor reaches dead pool | C 3535 ft | F 3370 ft | D 3411 ft | B +28 ft | D+ |
| No Action → Not recommended — lowest median of any plan; floor reaches dead pool | D 3482 ft | F 3370 ft | F 3370 ft | F -21 ft | D- |
A single "overall" grade hides real trade-offs. Supply Driven wins on Recovery, Bad-case End, and Speed — the plan that most fills the lake back up. Max Operational Flexibility wins on Floor (the lowest point reached) — the plan with the strongest worst-case protection. The full head-to-head breaks it apart.
Full side-by-side analysis, with all four axes and speed of recovery →
The case in every one of these articles starts here: we have enough water. We just need to manage it like the water matters.
Read the plan-by-plan breakdowns: No Action · Basic Coordination · Enhanced Coordination · Max Operational Flexibility · Supply Driven · The Abundance Act · Head-to-Head verdict.