Protect

KENS LAKE

San Juan County
Fathom Restoration
38° 28′ 53″ N
109° 25′ 46″ WKENS LAKE
Donate to Protect Kens Lake
This lake is in San Juan County, not Grand, and it is filled through a tunnel that predates it. Every figure on this page is quoted from the record it appears in.
San JuanThe county, in five separate federal and state records. Most writing says Grand
3 sq miThe drainage above a reservoir holding 2,680 acre feet. It cannot fill itself
2012The date on the condition rating of this high hazard dam. It was inspected in 2023
0Agency sources publishing a depth, a mean depth or a shoreline for this lake
73%Storage lost between June 2024 and July 2026
Two gauges, one either side of the tunnel that fills this lake
The storage figure is monthly and the service flags it as derived, because the daily series this station advertises returns nothing. There is no percentage card, because three published percentages for this lake imply three different full pools. The two flow cards bracket the diversion.
contacting federal services
Water in the lakeNRCS
reading the monthly storage record
Mill Creek, above the tunnelUSGS
reading site 09183500
Mill Creek, below the tunnelUSGS
reading site 09183600
Forecast over the waterNWS
contacting the National Weather Service
About  ·  01

The wrong county, a one letter twin, and a tunnel older than the lake

Five records put this lake in San Juan County and most writing puts it in Grand. Its drainage is three square miles. Its high hazard dam is private, inspected every year, and carries a condition rating from 2012.

Ken's Lake is described nearly everywhere as being near Moab, which is true, and in Grand County, which is not. It is in San Juan County, south of the county line that runs through Spanish Valley.

SourceCounty it records
The federal names authority San Juan
The national dam inventory San Juan
The soil conservation service's station record San Juan
Utah's fish consumption advisory table, which prints the county in the heading San Juan
Utah's water quality classification rule, in its San Juan County table San Juan
The likeliest reason for the error is that the land manager is in the other county. The recreation area is run by the Bureau of Land Management's Moab Field Office , and Moab is in Grand County. The office is in one county and the lake is in another.

It is not a trivia point. County determines which sheriff responds, which health department issues an advisory, and which set of records anyone searching afterwards will look in. Two news outlets covering the same 2023 algal bloom named two different health departments , which is what a county line running through a populated valley does to a record.

The agencies also disagree about the apostrophe. The names authority, the dam inventory and the state water quality rule write Kens Lake . The land manager, the reservoir storage network, the booking service and the state environmental department all write Ken's Lake . This page uses the apostrophe in prose because that is what the public and the land manager use, and the header carries the official form.

A search of the national dam inventory for the string ken in Utah returns twenty structures, and only one of them is this lake .

What you might findWhat it actually is
Kent's Lake No. 1 (Upper) and No. 2 (Middle)Beaver County, on Birch Creek, two hundred and forty miles west. Also privately owned, also rated High hazard, completed 1915 and 1928
Anderson (Kenneth)Wasatch County, on Lake Creek, an irrigation reservoir from 1900
Eleven Kennecott structuresSalt Lake County. Tailings ponds, retention dams and flood structures around the mine
Kent's Lake is the one that will catch you. One letter apart, both in Utah, both privately owned, both High hazard, both routinely written with an apostrophe. There are two of them and neither is this water.

Against that, the names authority is unusually clean here: this is the only feature in the entire national gazetteer whose name begins Kens Lake . The confusion is not in the naming system. It is in everything downstream of it.

The dam inventory records a drainage area of three square miles above a reservoir whose normal storage is 2,680 acre feet . Those two numbers cannot both belong to a lake that fills on its own runoff. The same record files the water source as "Mill Creek - Offstream".

Water is taken out of Mill Creek and carried under the ridge through a tunnel. The operating agency's own account :

"The Sheeley Tunnel is named for Horace Sheeley, who according to some, had hoped to supply water through the tunnel and a flume to the area below Blue Hill for farming."

The tunnel is older than the lake and it was dug for something else. The reservoir was completed in 1981 . The tunnel was started by a settler who wanted to irrigate a different piece of ground.

And the federal permission to divert came with a condition. The operating agency writes that the right of way "stipulated that the Diversion in Millcreek maintain a downstream flow of 3 CFS" . There are gauges above and below the tunnel and both are on the live strip at the top of this page . This page prints those readings and asserts nothing about compliance, because no source retrieved here states where that three cubic feet is measured, and the readings are provisional.

Even the tunnel's name is spelled two ways. The operating agency writes Sheeley . The water survey names both of its gauges SHELEY, with one e .

And the creek it takes from is closed. Utah's water rights policy for the Moab vicinity, last updated 18 May 2021, states that the Mill Creek upper watershed drainage is closed to new appropriations of both surface and ground water . That page does not mention this lake, the tunnel or the operating agency by name, so this build does not connect them beyond noting that the source creek is a closed drainage.

What this page does not call it. A diversion that moves water from one creek into a reservoir in another valley invites the phrase trans basin. No agency source retrieved here uses that phrase, or interbasin, for this project, and the federal water body record puts the lake in the same eight digit basin code as its source . So the page says off channel diversion and stops there.

This one is not federal and not a state park facility. It is a private dam under state regulation .

FieldValue
Owner typePrivate, and the inventory does not name the owner
RegulatorUtah Division of Water Rights, with state permitting, inspection and enforcement all Yes and federally regulated No
Completed1981, earth, 95 feet high and 4,050 feet long
Hazard potentialHigh
Last inspected26 September 2023, on a one year inspection frequency
Condition assessmentSatisfactory, dated 1 January 2012
Read the last two rows together, again. A high hazard dam inspected in 2023, on an annual cycle, carrying a condition rating dated 2012. Eleven years and eight months between the rating and the inspection, both in the same federal record .

This is the third dam in this series with that pattern and the fourth variation on it: one carried a 1991 rating against a 2023 inspection, one carried no rating at all, and this one carries a 2012 rating against annual inspections. Do not read "Satisfactory" as a statement about the dam today. It is a statement about the dam in 2012, sitting in a record that has been updated since.

The lake is named for a person and formally named for him too. The operating agency records that it was named for K.E. McDougald . A non agency account gives the formal name as the K.E. McDougald Reservoir and identifies him as chair of the county water conservancy district and a former mayor of Moab, who died in a plane crash in 1983. No agency source uses that formal name and the names authority does not carry it as a variant , so this page does not print it as the lake's name.

Science  ·  02

An undated advisory, a bloom that is newspaper reporting, and no depth at all

The state lists largemouth bass at 0.473 and prints no date beside it. A 2023 cyanobacteria bloom is real and is not in the agency record. And no agency has ever published how deep this lake is.

Utah's environmental department lists this lake for largemouth bass . The block is headed with the county, which is the fourth federal or state record to put it in San Juan.

SpeciesMercuryPregnant women and childrenWomen of childbearing ageEveryone else
Largemouth bass0.4730 four ounce meals a month2 eight ounce meals a month6 eight ounce meals a month
The health department's list does not carry this lake. Its twelve water list, from a 2022 mercury analysis, names other waters and not this one . Utah's two advisory lists have now disagreed about several waters in this series, and this is the ordinary direction: on the environmental department's longer list and not on the health department's shorter one.

And this block carries no date. The environmental department's page prints a line reading "Fish Consumption Advisory (4/23/18)" above some of its waterbody blocks and not others . Minersville Reservoir and Navajo Lake carry that line. This one is the name and the table, with nothing else. So this page gives the figure and does not give a date, and does not borrow one from another block on the same page. The same thing happens at Currant Creek Reservoir, whose block on the same page is also undated , and an earlier version of that page borrowed a date it should not have.

What the number is not. The column is headed Hg Level and this build did not retrieve a stated unit for it, so no unit is printed here. The figure is 0.473 and it is the environmental department's.

This lake had a cyanobacteria bloom in 2023. That is newspaper reporting, and this page presents it as newspaper reporting, because the agency record does not carry it.

What the agency publishedWhat the newspaper published
A post headed "October 18, 2023: Harmful algal bloom (HAB) monitoring update" A healthwatch issued 6 September 2023, over 200,000 cells per millilitre, and "Tests for toxicity came back negative"
Four dated entries on the lake's own monitoring page, all from 2025, all reporting E. coli below recreational thresholds Described as "the first incidence of a suspected toxic bloom" at this lake
Two strict reads of the lake's own state monitoring page found no advisory of any level, in any year . The page carries four 2025 entries and a seasonal close, and one generic line about blooms occurring year round. A monitoring update is not an advisory, and the 2023 post this build could reach begins with the words "GOOD NEWS".

So the honest split is this. The state monitored this lake for blooms in 2023 and published an update. A local newspaper reported that a healthwatch was issued and that toxin tests came back negative. The advisory level, the date and the cell count are the newspaper's, not the state's, and two outlets covering it named two different health departments .

What the state does publish here is bacteria, and it is clean. Sampling at the south beach on 29 June, 15 July and 30 September 2025 each reported "E. coli counts were measured below recreational thresholds" . Monitoring closed for the season on 1 November 2025 and was due to resume in June or July 2026. None of this appears on the state's harmful algal blooms index, whose own monitoring table is headed 2018 and does not name this lake .

The shape in the header is traced from the Fathom print artwork and checked against the federal water body polygon .

MeasureTracedFederalGap
Width against length1.08061.04273.63%
Share of its bounding box0.6060.5549.4%
Area, matched on width55.0 acres52.1 acres5.6% over
The two drawings agree with each other and both disagree with the only published area. Shape matches to 3.6 percent and the self check on the federal polygon is clean: adding it up by hand gives 0.2109 square kilometres against the 0.2110 the dataset publishes, agreement to about five hundredths of one percent.

But the polygon computes to 52 acres and the only published surface area is 86 . The polygon also carries a null elevation , so unlike other lakes in this series it cannot be checked against a working pool. A forty percent shortfall and no elevation stamp together say low pool snapshot. So this page does not publish 52 acres as the surface area, and it cannot publish 86 either, because that figure comes from a document with no author and no agency host.

There is no agency bathymetry for this lake at all. No maximum depth, no mean depth and no shoreline length is published by the land manager, the dam inventory, the water survey or the state. The dam inventory leaves its surface area field empty . The only figures in circulation, 70 feet maximum, 33 feet mean, 7,000 feet of shoreline, come from that same unattributed sheet , whose capacity row contradicts itself by a factor of about twenty two between its own metric and imperial columns. A document that cannot keep its own units straight is not a source for a depth.

Utah classifies this lake 2B, 3A with a site specific footnote, and 4 . The relevant one is the first.

ClassDefinition, verbatim
2B"Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for secondary contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of bodily contact with the water."
3A"Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain." The entry carries a footnote reading "Site-specific criteria are associated with this use"
4"Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering."
2B is the lower of Utah's two primary contact classes. 2A is the one for frequent primary contact where ingestion is likely, which is the swimming class. This lake is 2B, and the Bureau of Land Management lists swimming as an activity on both of its pages for the site .

That is not a contradiction and this page is not calling it one. A use classification sets which water quality standards apply; it does not permit or forbid anything a visitor does. It is worth knowing which standard the state is holding this water to, especially at a lake where the state samples a beach for bacteria every summer.

Both the classification and the definitions above are non agency sources and they are chipped as such. Utah's own rules site returns a 404 for the text of this rule and its mirror is closed to automated reading, so this page is quoting a legal publisher reproducing Utah code, not Utah .

Whether this lake is on Utah's impaired waters list could not be determined. The most recent approved integrated report is the 2022 one, approved by the federal environmental agency on 8 March 2022, and its landing page does not name this lake either way. That is unresolved, not clean.

Recreation  ·  03

Where everything is

Nine places, three of which are other Utah waters that a search for this one will hand you.

The whole lake
Midpoint of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset water body extent, derived rather than published
Nine places, three of which are other Utah waters that a search for this one will hand you.

The Bureau of Land Management runs this recreation area, and its own pages do not agree about what you can put on the water.

PageWhat it says, verbatim
The campground page "Electric motors only - gas powered engines are prohibited"
The recreation site page "Boating on the reservoir is limited to non-motorized craft."
The group sites page "limited boating (electric motors only)"
The federal booking service Repeats the electric motors rule
An electric trolling motor is either allowed on this lake or it is not, and the managing agency says both. Three of its four pages say electric motors are permitted and one says the water is limited to non motorised craft. This page prints all four and picks no winner.

If you are planning to launch anything with a motor on it, call the Moab Field Office first. That is not a hedge; it is the only thing the published record supports.

No boat ramp is mentioned by any agency source read in this build, on any of the four pages. Do not assume a formal launch exists. Swimming is listed as an activity and the group sites page says swimming is permitted , but no agency names a designated swimming beach and none mentions a lifeguard. The state samples something it calls the south beach for bacteria , which is the closest thing to an official beach in any record found here.

The campground is shut as this page is written. Verbatim from the federal booking service :

"This facility is closed July 6, 2026 to August 28, 2026."

PublishedValue
SitesForty eight, in two loops. Loop A by reservation, Loop B first come first served
Fee20 dollars a site a night plus a reservation fee. The two group sites are 125 dollars each
ServicesNo drinking water and no electricity. Vault toilets, gravel pads, fire rings
Elevation5,085 feet from the land manager , 5,030 feet on the storage station record
And the distance from Moab is given twice on one page, differently. The land manager's campground page describes the site as ten miles south of Moab in its overview and approximately eight miles in its own driving directions . Both are printed here and neither is averaged.

It is not a state park. That was checked against the full Utah roster of forty six rather than against a sub page . The nearest state park to Moab is Dead Horse Point.
Fishing  ·  04

Two fish, no rule, and a clean no on Blue Ribbon

One species is named by an agency on an agency page and one is not. The state fishing guidebook does not mention this lake in either of the last two editions.

Largemouth bass

The only species named for this lake by an agency on an agency page. Utah's environmental department lists it on the state fish consumption advisory table at mercury 0.473 . An advisory requires tissue sampling, so it is the hardest species evidence there is.

On the state advisory

Rainbow trout

Named by the wildlife division in a regional fishing report that lists this lake among waters stocked with rainbow trout . The text is the division's own and the host is not: it is served from a commercial government mailing service rather than a wildlife division domain, so this page chips it as a non agency source. The same sentence groups this lake with the La Sal Mountain lakes, which it is not one of.

Agency text, non agency host

That is the whole list, and it is the shortest in this series except for one. Only one species is named for this lake by an agency on an agency domain.

What is not drawn, and why. A non agency data sheet names brown trout . It is undated, unsigned, on no agency host, and its capacity row contradicts itself by a factor of about twenty two. It is not enough to draw a fish on.

The same sheet records that the lake was chemically treated to control rough fish in 1984 and 1988 and does not say what was treated . No rough fish is drawn, because reasoning from a treatment record to a species is exactly the move this series exists to refuse. The land manager's pages name no species at all , and the booking service says only that fishing is popular .

No wildlife division survey of this lake exists online. Nine addresses were tried across both directories the division actually uses and four of the five filename conventions this series has confirmed working elsewhere. All returned 404. A domain scoped search returned technical reports for eight other Utah waters and nothing for this one. So there is no netting survey behind either fish on this page, and the species list is two long rather than the six or eight a warm water reservoir this size probably holds.

Ken's Lake does not appear in Utah's fishing guidebook. Not in the 2026 edition and not in the 2023 one . Statewide limits apply and nothing else.

That absence was checked four ways, because an absence is easy to get wrong. A literal string search, a full transcription of the printed run of entries around where it would sit, an alphabetical order test, and a separately issued existence question phrased so that "yes" was the easy answer.

The alphabetical test is the one that settles it. The K entries run Jordanelle Reservoir, then Kolob Reservoir, then Kolob Reservoir tributaries, then Lake Canyon Lake . Kens Lake would sort between Jordanelle and Kolob, and there is nothing between them.

One rule nearby that is not this lake's. Kolob Reservoir, the entry that would sit directly after this one if this one existed, carries "Limit 2 trout (must be under 15 inches or over 22 inches)" and "All trout from 15 to 22 inches must be immediately released" . That is a genuine protected slot limit, unlike the rule the previous lake in this series is famous for, and it belongs to Kolob. It does not apply here and nothing does.

This lake is not a Blue Ribbon fishery. Seven pages in this series could not settle that question. This one can, because two wildlife division pages that would name it do not.

The division's Blue Ribbon page describes the programme and its four criteria and prints no list and no count . Its most recent funding release, dated 15 July 2026, states that there are 41 waterbodies including two mountain areas, names four project waters, and does not name this lake .

Why that is a no here and an unresolved elsewhere. On the previous pages the question was whether a well known fishery had been designated years ago, before the division began publishing per water releases, in which case there would be nothing to find. This is a forty eight site campground pond on the edge of a desert town that does not appear in the state fishing guidebook at all. The absence is consistent with never having been designated rather than with a lost record.

And nothing here was taken from the division's fishing application. Its Blue Ribbon page points readers at that application for the list . The application was fetched and it is a shell that builds its content in the browser, so the served document contains no waterbody data for any water. A search engine's stored title of that application is not a source, and none was used.
Recreation  ·  05

What to watch for

No incident found and a search full of other states, a flash flood that packed the diversion with mud, and a lake that has lost nearly three quarters of its water and freezes hard enough to skate on.

No drowning, boating fatality, vehicle in the water, submerged debris recovery, dive operation or search and rescue callout at this lake was found in any source, agency or press.

The searches returned other people's lakes. Lake Granby in Colorado, Lake Havasu, Chatfield and Pueblo in Colorado, Crane Lake in Minnesota, the Missouri River, and Colorado River rafting deaths in Utah. None of them is this water.

Closer to home the problem is worse rather than better. Moab sits between the Colorado River, Lake Powell and a national park, and any search for a water incident near Moab returns those first. The publishable sentence is "no incident found", and it is not "nothing has happened here".

Two gaps in this build, stated rather than hidden. The San Juan County sheriff's own incident records were not queried directly, and neither were Utah's public safety records. And no source states which agency has primary water rescue jurisdiction at this lake, which matters more than usual here because the lake and its land manager are in different counties.

The gauge above the tunnel has been running since 1 October 1954 . In late July 2022 it did this:

DateCubic feet a second
25 July 20225.35
26 July 202257.3
27 July 20226.41

Roughly eleven times baseline, and back down inside a day . That is what a desert flash flood looks like in a gauge record.

What it did to the diversion is non agency reporting and it is specific. A local newspaper reported that when the creek flooded, the infrastructure used to divert water from Mill Creek to the lake filled with mud and blocked flow into the lake, that suspended mud then moved into the operating agency's pipes, and that officials shut off the outlet from the lake .

Sediment is the hazard this lake actually has. Not a documented incident history, which does not exist, but a diversion fed reservoir at the bottom of a flash flood catchment. For anyone planning to be under the surface here, that is a visibility problem and a footing problem, and it arrives with the weather rather than on a schedule.

One figure this page will not print as fact. The same report gives a record maximum stream height for the upper Mill Creek gauge. The water survey's peak flow endpoint is closed to automated reading, so that figure could not be checked against the agency record and it is left out.

Storage is published monthly and the direction is one way .

MonthAcre feet
June 20242,522, the highest in the recent record
March 2026960
July 2026674

From 2,522 acre feet to 674 in twenty five months, a loss of about 73 percent .

This page prints acre feet and not a percentage, and that is deliberate. Three different percentages full are in public circulation for this lake and they imply three different lakes. The operating agency published 893 acre feet at 34 percent in March 2026 , which implies a full pool near 2,626. A local report put it at 40 percent on 1 June 2026, which implies about 2,053. The dam inventory's normal storage is 2,680 . A percentage here would be arithmetic on a denominator nobody agrees on.

The two March 2026 figures do not match either: the operating agency says 893 and the federal storage record says 960 . Both are printed.

And it freezes hard. A local paper's 2022 review carries a photograph captioned "A group played hockey on Ken's Lake" . No agency publishes ice thickness, an ice safety notice or a winter closure for this water, and none is offered here. A shallow desert reservoir at 5,000 feet that draws down through the summer and freezes in the winter is a lake whose surface and whose bottom both move.

No agency has ever published how deep this lake is, how much shoreline it has, or what lives in it beyond one fish.

Fathom Restoration is a Utah 501(c)(3) that runs volunteer dive cleanups and is built to pull what does not belong out of Utah water, statewide.

Donate to Protect Kens Lake

Every figure on this page is quoted from the source named beside it.

FATHOM RESTORATION
Six things on this page are narrower than what is usually written about Ken's Lake. The county is San Juan and not Grand, on five separate records. There is no depth, no mean depth and no shoreline anywhere on this page, because no agency publishes any of them and the one document that does is unsigned and contradicts itself. Only one fish is drawn on agency evidence and the second is chipped as non agency, because the wildlife division text naming it sits on a commercial host. The 2023 algal bloom is presented as newspaper reporting, because the state's own page for this lake carries no advisory in any year. There is no percentage of capacity, because three published percentages imply three different full pools. And the boating rule is printed four ways, because the managing agency states it four ways. This is a reference for the public and is not a navigation chart.