I don't think depth is all that important, as long as it's a consistent, relatively large body of water that is significantly warmer than the air above. Bigger factor is just that there's a long stretch where cold air tracks directly over warm water. Klamath Lake certainly isn't big enough for any significant lake effect snow, but it's probably possible to get a couple inches every now and then from it. I remember it happening earlier this year off some similarly sized lakes in Texas. https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/parts-of-dfw-see-up-to-2-inches-of-lake-effect-snow/3434567/ I think the bigger issue with Klamath Lake is it's probably pretty hard to get ice cold winds coming out of the NW there, which is the only realistic track it could take to generate some lake effect. Any flow from that direction seems likely to be relatively dry and warmed by compressional heating off the mountains.

Patience. It's not even Thanksgiving. It all comes together in December. No, really. Seriously.

It’s not depth, it’s temperature differential. The Great Salt Lake is shallow, yet can make lake effect snow. Of course, the deeper a lake is, the longer it takes to cool and freeze. The GSL cools fast enough that past early December, lake effect snow is rare in Utah. Interestingly, parts of the Great Salt Lake actually froze in the cold, wet, snowy winters of the 1980’s. What happened is that the increased water inflow during those wet years tended to float on top of the denser salt water, and that topmost fresh layer in the vicinity of the incoming rivers then froze.

That much is certainly true.

Sure beats a coast to coast TORCH.