This is a purely artistic comment with little technical merit, but isn't one of the basic requirements of a photo that there's a clear subject?
You can mess around will all the polarisers, ND filters (graduated or not) and bracketed exposures, but there has to be something to attract the eye. The lovely mountains are far away. The bottom of the lake is finely pebbled with little vegetation. Even if you managed through technical wizardry to entirely remove the water, the foreground would have the same texture as the background. Your gaze would wonder across the image without coming to rest on anything specific. Even with an obvious full colour image, the quasi monochromatic palette is blending the background into the foreground. It smudges the two into a single square of bluey grey.
You need a strong focal point somewhere. Relocate to where there's something more interesting (and larger) in the foreground. Like a swimming crocodile or rusting submarine. An interesting rock formation, colourful plant, or dramatic golden hour relief lighting may be more realistic. The last thing's difficult, especially for travel photography as often your schedule precludes it.
My screen does not indicate the focal point of your photo, but make sure that you've focused only a few metres ahead. An eye of that crocodile would be ideal. This hyperfocal technique will ensure that the maximum area of the scene is in sharp focus when using a wide angle as the depth of field will be maximised. This will help emphasis the lake bed.
One of the most disappointing lessons I've learnt in landscape photography is that even the best 2D camera cannot easily capture the essence of a majestic 3D scene. In many respects, you have to completely ignore the existence of the third dimension for this kind of photo. Another learning I've taken is that surprisingly often, a landscape photograph is not of a landscape, but something within it. Do GoogleImages("transparent water landscape"). Sorry for the brutality; my leg's hurting again.