# Dolores River



## fdon (Jul 23, 2008)

McPhee Dam needs to go. According to the damn officials, inflows into McPhee are projected to be 40% of normal for 2013. No boatable flows are in that forecast as well as sub-adequate flow for downstream wildlife and or other water uses. The operators are going to be releasing less than 50cfs all year. Once again, irrigation storage rules. There needs to be a discussion regarding current vs best water use and the evolving new normal.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Not sure if your familiar with the current work being done by Nathan and American Whitewater, but they have made progress towards recreational releases. I agree the situation with McPhee is sad. Hopefully one day.....

American Whitewater - Lower Dolores River Draft Implementation Plan Released - Colorado


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

fdon said:


> McPhee Dam needs to go. According to the damn officials, inflows into McPhee are projected to be 40% of normal for 2013. No boatable flows are in that forecast as well as sub-adequate flow for downstream wildlife and or other water uses. The operators are going to be releasing less than 50cfs all year. Once again, irrigation storage rules. There needs to be a discussion regarding current vs best water use and the evolving new normal.


A nice thought. Dolores remains my favorite river experience, even above GC. The reality though is that the powers in control will not cotton removal of Mcphee, or likely even modify stream flows to accommodate boaters. Water is life, and that will always trump recreation. Those Pinto bean farmers will always get priority over boaters.

But I like your idea.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Praise the Beans*

Please don't blame the dryland bean farmers for McPhee. Most of them vigorously opposed the Dolores Project along with some notable boaters. 

Be sure to honor their efforts. I look forward to eating a plate of Dove Creek's finest beans at the dam decommissioning ceremony and until then, each time the Dolores flows enough to float my boat.

Please do blame the alfalfa industry and greedy water buffaloes and spineless politicians who were and are the driving forces behind McPhee.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Droboat said:


> Please don't blame the dryland bean farmers for McPhee. Most of them vigorously opposed the Dolores Project along with some notable boaters.
> 
> Be sure to honor their efforts. I look forward to eating a plate of Dove Creek's finest beans at the dam decommissioning ceremony and until then, each time the Dolores flows enough to float my boat.
> 
> Please do blame the alfalfa industry and greedy water buffaloes and spineless politicians who were and are the driving forces behind McPhee.


Sorry did not mean to sound offensive to the bean farmers. I was standing in that crowd opposing the damn dam. I recall the ranchers, the gummit lap dogs, and the chamber of commerce supporting it. They were thinking McPhee would be like Powell; people would flock down there to the new water wonder land, and of course the ranchers et al were pointing out that they are guardians of the land every day, not just a month a year.

The argument that the Dolores output would still be used, cause, you know, it ends up in Powell, fell on deaf ears. I recall one farmer/rancher/supporter asking how they were supposed to get their water back once it got to Powell? You know, cause it's uphill from Powell?

And talking about the scenic wonder of Dolores was like talking to the wall. One wit made the observation that letting Dolores water go to Powell just so a bunch of "long haired smarty pants hippies can come down here to float and smoke dope for a month a year" seemed wasteful. I took exception to the long haired part. Didn't do any good.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*A Notable Boater*

A sincere thank-you for your efforts. 

Unsustainable evaporation, sedimentation, and appropriations will cause the eventual demise of this and every other damn dam in the Colorado watershed. 

Dolores will prevail, but still worth helping her out where we can.


----------



## fdon (Jul 23, 2008)

My love for the Dolores prompts my calling foul on the Dam. It should have never been built but that's history now. My best regards to the AW folks and the stellar work they are doing to secure adequate flow.

My main point is the game has changed since the dam was built. Weather patterns have changed in the interim and 40% of normal really is a meaningless number now. An argument should be developed that takes weather pattern change into account and a re-adjustment of water held to water released ratio needs to be thought about. 
Rhetorically speaking, if the dry winters continue to be the new normal, at what point is the dam even needed? In the past, the operators filled prior to spill due to the lower cost of power to pump from a brimming lake. Is the farmers and ranchers bottom line fat enough to pay that increased power cost due to lower lake levels and for how long? and, at what point do the endangered plant and wildlife advocates enter the fight with their staggering lawsuits to ensure downstream flow?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I love the Dolores but don't believe change will ever come solely for boaters. I appreciate those putting in the god, hard work of trying to emphasize change in policy based on a multiple-stakeholder standpoint, including the ecology of the waterway. To me without that, then it will always be a group of self-centered stakeholders fighting it out, in this case boaters versus agriculture. Hard not to recognize that most of the sympathy will go towards the livelihood of farmers in that situation, even when they are pulling beans from the ground in the desert.

My 2 cents....I don't think things have changed as much as we like to believe since the dam. It went it relatively recently well into the environmental movement when there was enough information to support the conclusion that there wasn't nearly as much water as the pro-dam supporters tried to claim. They knew what they were doing then and still do. I don't expect to see a major change anytime soon as we aren't talking about the same culture as the PNW. I think it will happen just maybe not for me to benefit from the change.

Impatiently waiting for another floatable year myself.

Phillip


----------



## FastFXR (May 22, 2012)

I'm sorry to play the noob here, but I kind of secretly planned to run the Dolores this year--Gateway into Moab sounds like a fun multi-day kayak run. Are you telling me that this won't happen nor will it likely happen in the future? I thought I'd done the research and knew that I'd have to wait for the flows to come up, but does this mean that there won't be any sustainable flows at all?


----------



## bluebtr (May 27, 2011)

FastFXR said:


> I'm sorry to play the noob here, but I kind of secretly planned to run the Dolores this year--Gateway into Moab sounds like a fun multi-day kayak run. Are you telling me that this won't happen nor will it likely happen in the future? I thought I'd done the research and knew that I'd have to wait for the flows to come up, but does this mean that there won't be any sustainable flows at all?


 You should be fine with that stretch because that water comes from the San Miguel, which is still , thank god, unplugged. It breaks my heart that the upper Dolores is in the state that it is.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

You might have the chance to eek out a lower Dolores trip but it won't flow anywhere near normal. The San Miguel is releasing 50% of average right now and the Dolores is down around 50 cfs with no boatable flows this summer above the confluence. The snowpack for that basin (San Miguel, Dolores, Juan) is already crashing hard so I wouldn't plan on much higher flows unless that region gets some major snow (which doesn't seem likely with the persistent weather patterns we have been seeing).

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/basinplotsjadsm13.gif

The San Miguel may be "unplugged" but they pull a fair amount from small diversion dams all along its course. Right now it looks like they are pulling more than 15% of its flows, which is alot considering its already low supply. 

So....go soon and plan for a very low water run.

Phillip


----------



## afraid (Jun 8, 2011)

So the San Miguel is at @450 today and Dolores at @50 cfs. How is Stateline at this flow? And how reasonable is it to raft from the confluence to Dewey in 5 days?? we might do a trip next week... Where is the closest put in to the confluence on the San Miguel? Or maybe a put in just below the confluence? Is there a shuttle service?


----------



## 3d3vart (Apr 15, 2010)

I was down along the Dolores below Gateway about a week ago and I'm not gonna say it isn't possible, but it was very low. The diversion dam north of Gateway was unrunable in any craft (but an easy portage). The rest of the river north to Utah was very boney...probably easier to walk the riverbed than to kayak. Things may have improved since then of course, but yuck. They don't call it the River of Sorrows for nothing...


----------



## ilanarama (Jun 25, 2010)

I ran this stretch a few years back at 1200 and can't IMAGINE it at 500.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

ilanarama said:


> I ran this stretch a few years back at 1200 and can't IMAGINE it at 500.


Agreed. 1200 would be my minimum.


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

We put in about a mile or two above the confluence on the San Miguel just below the town of Paradox. Had to walk down a hill to the put-in, but since it was just a day run in IKs, no big deal. There's also a few ad-hoc put-ins on the Dolores above the put-in, but far enough that you wouldn't want to bother at 50cfs. Just drive the dirt road up the river from Paradox to Bedrock and there's a few spots where you could probably launch when the water's higher...


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

afraid said:


> So the San Miguel is at @450 today and Dolores at @50 cfs. How is Stateline at this flow? And how reasonable is it to raft from the confluence to Dewey in 5 days?? we might do a trip next week... Where is the closest put in to the confluence on the San Miguel? Or maybe a put in just below the confluence? Is there a shuttle service?


There is a put-in on private land a few miles below the confluence where Blue Creek comes in on river right. We used it as a take-out since the cowboy I ran it with knew the owner and got permission....


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

stuntmansteve said:


> There is a put-in on private land a few miles below the confluence where Blue Creek comes in on river right. We used it as a take-out since the cowboy I ran it with knew the owner and got permission....


After checking the map, the river access point at Blue Ck is about 20 miles below the confluence. However, you could probably put-in about a mile above the confluence on the Dolores near Trap Rapid if you can put up with dragging boats at 50cfs until reaching the San Miguel. Might work for kayakers, but not bigger rigs...


----------



## afraid (Jun 8, 2011)

I meant to ask about putting in upstream from the confluence on the San Miguel, not dolores.


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

afraid said:


> I meant to ask about putting in upstream from the confluence on the San Miguel, not dolores.


I know, I was just giving you alternative options. My first response described a put-in on the San Miguel just below the town of Paradox, about a mile or two above the confluence. You have to hike down a hill to launch, but it wasn't a problem for us since we used IK's. Its probably useable for a bigger boat like a raft or cat, just expect to do more work hauling gear from the parking spot to the launch point....


----------



## billycrack (May 20, 2010)

smaller rivers need smaller rafts


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 29, 2009)

Um, Paradox isn't on, or even near the San Miguel.


----------



## afraid (Jun 8, 2011)

stuntmansteve said:


> I know, I was just giving you alternative options. My first response described a put-in on the San Miguel just below the town of Paradox, about a mile or two above the confluence. You have to hike down a hill to launch, but it wasn't a problem for us since we used IK's. Its probably useable for a bigger boat like a raft or cat, just expect to do more work hauling gear from the parking spot to the launch point....


Maybe you mean Uruvan, not Paradox.


----------



## FastFXR (May 22, 2012)

So what does this mean for kayaks? You guys and your rafts I'm not in the least concerned with.


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 29, 2009)

It means you'd be bored, very bored, and feeling like left-overs; crammed into tupperware. Seriously, the confluence to Gateway, after the first couple miles of the "hanging flume" section is pretty flat, for many miles.


----------



## richierivertrip (Jul 28, 2008)

When the Dolores is running, you need to overdose on it while you can. I put 350 miles in on it back in 1995. It was runnable until about July 10th that year. Put another 150 miles on it in "97. I'd rather do the Dolores twice than the Grand once. Thanks to AW for helping the river as best it can.


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

afraid said:


> Maybe you mean Uruvan, not Paradox.


 You're right, its Uravan (Uranium+Vanadium), not Paradox which is over near the Dolores....


----------

