• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jackdaw

Great Lakes levels 2013

Recommended Posts

Snow is finally melting, how are the suffering lakes doing?

 

superior_zpsb6ba9591.gif

Superior looks OK; at last years low-ish but OK level. Big plus has been more ice on the lake and MUCH more snow that last year. As this time last year the little snow the basin got was already melted... As of today most of the lower lake is surrounded by two feet of snowpack.

 

 

mh_sc_cl_zps06edabaa.gif

Huron and Michigan are suffering, over a foot below last years crappy level. How does the spring look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, all the coverage that the extended winter in the mid-west has been getting, I hoped this would have things looking up.

Unfortunately most of the snow that has fallen during the late winter storms will wind up melting and draining into the Mississippi River Basin and not the Great Lakes Basin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, all the coverage that the extended winter in the mid-west has been getting, I hoped this would have things looking up.

Lots of snow, not in the right places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have bought a centerboard boat, two years ago.

 

This might be the new normal.

new normal is what i'm thinking too

might be part of the reason j70's are booming around here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart makes it clear that although all the Great Lakes are pretty low, Michigan-Huron is by far the worst. Barely above record low and the farthest of all the lakes below average. The Corps needs to do something about too much water going out through the St. Clair River. http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/GreatLakesWaterLevels/WaterLevelForecast/WeeklyGreatLakesWaterLevels.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the State of Michigan is going to spend a few million to dredge the municipal marinas . .but there are many private marinas that are in need to dredging .I slip on Muskegon Lake out of curiosity I went out on the ice at my slip and did some measuring . .It appears I have 5" under my keel and it is now a 3 foot fall from the fixed dock to the deck of my boat . . they (the owners) plan on dredging and lowing the docks .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The saving grace here is that it was a colder winter with less evaporation, and we got above average snowfall for a change, a lot of it is still on the ground in the Great White North. If we get a decent amount of spring rainfall, we should be better, at least for the summer. No question that there will be harbors that will be unaccessible and a whole lot more bumping going on. Last fall was an adventure in Lk St Clair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart makes it clear that although all the Great Lakes are pretty low, Michigan-Huron is by far the worst. Barely above record low and the farthest of all the lakes below average. The Corps needs to do something about too much water going out through the St. Clair River. http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/GreatLakesWaterLevels/WaterLevelForecast/WeeklyGreatLakesWaterLevels.aspx

 

Can the corps do anything about the exit of water via the St. Claire? Stop dredging? Lakers still gotta get through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Corp could open up the gates at Lake Superior and let it flow down hill. We promise we will return the favour someday...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any speculation on the impact on the Mac races?

Don't plan on a slip or rafting up in the inner harbor if you draw more than 6'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Corp could open up the gates at Lake Superior and let it flow down hill. We promise we will return the favour someday...........

 

We have plans to bomb the locks if the water at Pike's gets too low.

 

 

 

 

PS - to top-secret NSA sniffer programs, just kidding about the bomb the locks thing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 49 years I've been monitoring my parents' beach on Lakeshore Rd in Sarnia, Ontario...I've never seen such a big beach. And this far exceeds the huge beach we had in the late '60's / early '70s. Amazing how low the water is now.

 

But it's a cycle. Always has been.

 

My cousin has, though, for the first time in over 150 years of our family's farming (in Harrow, Ontario) dug a massive reservoir in one of his farms to capture rain water and keep filled to irrigate his tomato crop this coming year. Quite telling...but they grow over a thousand acres of tomatoes for Heinz so not a bad move really.

 

Hope the spring run-off has some surprises this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta wonder at what point we all stand back and say, "This is serious."

 

or maybe scream it.

 

most Texas lakes are man made reservoirs , but the fact is our entire state's water reserve is down by 25% over the last few years. Some of our lakes are flat out empty...grass growing wehre there used to be a hundred feet of water. Lake Travis , where I live, is down 50 feet from its mode level.

 

It has rained sufficiently to raise the lake only eight of the last 2500 days...

 

Should we be worried yet??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta wonder at what point we all stand back and say, "This is serious."

 

or maybe scream it.

 

most Texas lakes are man made reservoirs , but the fact is our entire state's water reserve is down by 25% over the last few years. Some of our lakes are flat out empty...grass growing wehre there used to be a hundred feet of water. Lake Travis , where I live, is down 50 feet from its mode level.

 

It has rained sufficiently to raise the lake only eight of the last 2500 days...

 

Should we be worried yet??

Travis lake is low? Must be the beginning of armageddon!

 

Isn't Travis lake a "reservoir"?

 

I think your problem may be perceived.

 

Take a metaphorical walk upstream, check it out...

 

Then, pack your bag, and get the hell out of texas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

 

Dredging in Michigan Harbors is coming from state funds.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/02/michigan_dredging_plan_locatio.html

 

A lot of water has been diverted to the Mississipi through Chicago

 

Maddening that a City and State with the smallest amount of shoreline has the largest impact on the Great Lakes. Even more maddening is that leadership at all levels is inept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

 

Dredging in Michigan Harbors is coming from state funds.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/02/michigan_dredging_plan_locatio.html

 

A lot of water has been diverted to the Mississipi through Chicago

 

Maddening that a City and State with the smallest amount of shoreline has the largest impact on the Great Lakes. Even more maddening is that leadership at all levels is inept.

 

GLE, can you cite a credible source? My gut feeling is the outflow out of Chicago is negigible compared to the other sinks. It has been some time, but is the first lock on the canal a lift?

 

No big deal but I don't see much outflow in Chicago and would really appreciate a reference.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 49 years I've been monitoring my parents' beach on Lakeshore Rd in Sarnia, Ontario...I've never seen such a big beach. And this far exceeds the huge beach we had in the late '60's / early '70s. Amazing how low the water is now.

 

But it's a cycle. Always has been.

 

(...)

 

Hope the spring run-off has some surprises this year.

 

Same here on Lake St Louis in Montreal. Normally have the lake right up brimming at the Seawall my mid April. Horizontally it's about 30' back from where it normally is, which equates to about 5 vertical feet. Yikes! And we have a rocky lake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snowpack up north has not melted. Hopefully it will help a bit when it does.

 

nsm_swe_2013040105_National.jpg

 

We've been hit today with white-out conditions and a winter weather advisory is still in effect. Snow squalls just keep on moving through and dumping more of the white stuff. While all precipitation will be helpful to the lakes (and another few inches are forecast for tomorrow) this is getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

 

Dredging in Michigan Harbors is coming from state funds.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/02/michigan_dredging_plan_locatio.html

 

A lot of water has been diverted to the Mississipi through Chicago

 

Maddening that a City and State with the smallest amount of shoreline has the largest impact on the Great Lakes. Even more maddening is that leadership at all levels is inept.

 

GLE, can you cite a credible source? My gut feeling is the outflow out of Chicago is negigible compared to the other sinks. It has been some time, but is the first lock on the canal a lift?

 

No big deal but I don't see much outflow in Chicago and would really appreciate a reference.

 

Thanks.

 

I believe the US Army Engineers constructed a few huge underground tunnels yrs ago contrary to the agreement between Canada and US

They quietly allow water to flow down to the Mississippi in order to keep enough depth for shipping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

 

Dredging in Michigan Harbors is coming from state funds.

http://www.mlive.com...an_locatio.html

 

A lot of water has been diverted to the Mississipi through Chicago

 

Maddening that a City and State with the smallest amount of shoreline has the largest impact on the Great Lakes. Even more maddening is that leadership at all levels is inept.

 

GLE, can you cite a credible source? My gut feeling is the outflow out of Chicago is negigible compared to the other sinks. It has been some time, but is the first lock on the canal a lift?

 

No big deal but I don't see much outflow in Chicago and would really appreciate a reference.

 

Thanks.

 

I believe the US Army Engineers constructed a few huge underground tunnels yrs ago contrary to the agreement between Canada and US

They quietly allow water to flow down to the Mississippi in order to keep enough depth for shipping

 

Thats true. I live in Minneapolis and the huge valve for this sucker is in my back yard. Should I run out and turn it off????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was home back in feb I couldn't beleive how far down the lakes where. Lake Erie and Lake Michigan just looked sad. I feel bad for anyone not running a shoal draft sailboat this year.

 

 

On a side note if you have beach front propert, go out and bulkhead where the new low water level is, and you will probably gain an extra 200-300' of property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart makes it clear that although all the Great Lakes are pretty low, Michigan-Huron is by far the worst. Barely above record low and the farthest of all the lakes below average. The Corps needs to do something about too much water going out through the St. Clair River. http://www.lre.usace...aterLevels.aspx

 

Can the corps do anything about the exit of water via the St. Claire? Stop dredging? Lakers still gotta get through.

 

Yes. Back in the 60s the Corps dredged the St. Clair. Then, with the natural rocky bottom removed, additional scouring occurred so that the St. Clair is now much deeper than before. More water goes out than if the dredging had not occurred. And even more water goes out than the Corps calculated, because of the scouring.

 

The Corps could bring the bed of the St. Clair back to its pre-scouring level (back to the level intended to have been achieved by the dredging) by simply dumping a few barge loads of rocks. However that solution is too simple and the Corps are too ponderous for it to occur. Meanwhile Lake Michigan / Huron riparian owners and harbors incur millions in dredging costs and other costs to adapt to near record low water levels, which the other Great Lakes are not seeing. Superior's level is not affected by the St. Clair, and the lakes downstream of the St. Clair are benefiting from the additional water they receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-15596-0-23199300-1364926502_thumb.png

 

Cottage Grove boat ramp on Muskegon Lake.

 

Remarkable for two reasons. 1. A week ago people were ice boating from here. 2. Note the water level! No ramp left and the beach at the top has never been a beach before in my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart makes it clear that although all the Great Lakes are pretty low, Michigan-Huron is by far the worst. Barely above record low and the farthest of all the lakes below average. The Corps needs to do something about too much water going out through the St. Clair River. http://www.lre.usace...aterLevels.aspx

 

Can the corps do anything about the exit of water via the St. Claire? Stop dredging? Lakers still gotta get through.

 

Yes. Back in the 60s the Corps dredged the St. Clair. Then, with the natural rocky bottom removed, additional scouring occurred so that the St. Clair is now much deeper than before. More water goes out than if the dredging had not occurred. And even more water goes out than the Corps calculated, because of the scouring.

 

The Corps could bring the bed of the St. Clair back to its pre-scouring level (back to the level intended to have been achieved by the dredging) by simply dumping a few barge loads of rocks. However that solution is too simple and the Corps are too ponderous for it to occur. Meanwhile Lake Michigan / Huron riparian owners and harbors incur millions in dredging costs and other costs to adapt to near record low water levels, which the other Great Lakes are not seeing. Superior's level is not affected by the St. Clair, and the lakes downstream of the St. Clair are benefiting from the additional water they receive.

 

There are huge tunnels under Chicago that divert water to the Mississippi. Not widely a lot of info on them as they contravene an agreement between US and Canada. They were made in the 50's to protect the Mississippi levels as a lot of shipping runs up and down the Midwest. Look at Chicago's location and it just makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dredging OKed in Lexington Harbor& Port Sanilac Harbor Lake Huron thank you For your Federal tax payments.

 

St Clair river is lined with boat hoists (boats winter stored in them) over dry land on both sides. Docks put in at the last hi water levels are over beaches going no ware.

 

Kettle Ponit, Ont. is a must see for those in the area. Miles of "Kettles" above the water with the point walkable about 2 mi out into the Lake Huron.

 

Water levels are are NOT much lower now then the last low water I remember back in the early 60s. These lakes cycle low to hi back to low in a cycle nothin new about this really.

 

Dredging in Michigan Harbors is coming from state funds.

http://www.mlive.com...an_locatio.html

 

A lot of water has been diverted to the Mississipi through Chicago

 

Maddening that a City and State with the smallest amount of shoreline has the largest impact on the Great Lakes. Even more maddening is that leadership at all levels is inept.

 

GLE, can you cite a credible source? My gut feeling is the outflow out of Chicago is negigible compared to the other sinks. It has been some time, but is the first lock on the canal a lift?

 

No big deal but I don't see much outflow in Chicago and would really appreciate a reference.

 

Thanks.

 

According to this article, it's about 2.1 Billion gallons per day that is siphoned out of Lake Michigan and dumped into the Mississippi River Basin. It also states that this amounts to about a 2 inch drop in the long term water levels.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/pressure-mounts-to-restore-great-lakes-water-levels-f76ug5a-170854881.html

 

The other (good) side to the Chicago River flowing backwards is that all of Chicago's sewage also goes down the Mississippi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to believe that 2.1 billion a day equals 2 " in water level lol

 

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart makes it clear that although all the Great Lakes are pretty low, Michigan-Huron is by far the worst. Barely above record low and the farthest of all the lakes below average. The Corps needs to do something about too much water going out through the St. Clair River. http://www.lre.usace...aterLevels.aspx

 

Can the corps do anything about the exit of water via the St. Claire? Stop dredging? Lakers still gotta get through.

 

Yes. Back in the 60s the Corps dredged the St. Clair. Then, with the natural rocky bottom removed, additional scouring occurred so that the St. Clair is now much deeper than before. More water goes out than if the dredging had not occurred. And even more water goes out than the Corps calculated, because of the scouring.

 

The Corps could bring the bed of the St. Clair back to its pre-scouring level (back to the level intended to have been achieved by the dredging) by simply dumping a few barge loads of rocks. However that solution is too simple and the Corps are too ponderous for it to occur. Meanwhile Lake Michigan / Huron riparian owners and harbors incur millions in dredging costs and other costs to adapt to near record low water levels, which the other Great Lakes are not seeing. Superior's level is not affected by the St. Clair, and the lakes downstream of the St. Clair are benefiting from the additional water they receive.

 

There are huge tunnels under Chicago that divert water to the Mississippi. Not widely a lot of info on them as they contravene an agreement between US and Canada. They were made in the 50's to protect the Mississippi levels as a lot of shipping runs up and down the Midwest. Look at Chicago's location and it just makes sense.

 

And you know this how? What a crock. The only "tunnels" are the water gates which let water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago river. Those are in plain sight and in fact I have stood above them and watched the water come through. Better get your tinfoil hat and then think about how do you know about these secret tunnels, but the Canadians -- nor any of the other states bordering Lakes Michigan - Huron -- have never found out about them.....because I guarantee if they exist, my Wisconsin state representatives would be all over that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Back in the 60s the Corps dredged the St. Clair. Then, with the natural rocky bottom removed, additional scouring occurred so that the St. Clair is now much deeper than before. More water goes out than if the dredging had not occurred. And even more water goes out than the Corps calculated, because of the scouring.

 

The Corps could bring the bed of the St. Clair back to its pre-scouring level (back to the level intended to have been achieved by the dredging) by simply dumping a few barge loads of rocks. However that solution is too simple and the Corps are too ponderous for it to occur. Meanwhile Lake Michigan / Huron riparian owners and harbors incur millions in dredging costs and other costs to adapt to near record low water levels, which the other Great Lakes are not seeing. Superior's level is not affected by the St. Clair, and the lakes downstream of the St. Clair are benefiting from the additional water they receive.

 

There are huge tunnels under Chicago that divert water to the Mississippi. Not widely a lot of info on them as they contravene an agreement between US and Canada. They were made in the 50's to protect the Mississippi levels as a lot of shipping runs up and down the Midwest. Look at Chicago's location and it just makes sense.

 

And you know this how? What a crock. The only "tunnels" are the water gates which let water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago river. Those are in plain sight and in fact I have stood above them and watched the water come through. Better get your tinfoil hat and then think about how do you know about these secret tunnels, but the Canadians -- nor any of the other states bordering Lakes Michigan - Huron -- have never found out about them.....because I guarantee if they exist, my Wisconsin state representatives would be all over that issue.

 

Hmm. I'm going with a late April Fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow levels on the south shore of Lake Superior. Melt baby melt!

 

GRAND_MARAIS_SNOWBANK%202013.jpg?w=440&h=330&aspect=nostretch

 

Me thinks i recognize that prehistoric lab..........(the one on the left)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake Michigan/Huron went up 3 cm (1.18 inchs) from March to April. Take it where we can get it.

 

Start rain dancing! We need a few good soakers and the snow melt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

 

Sailing on the eastern end of Lake Erie, I can assure you that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

google Great Lake Water Diversions Chicago

They have been diverting water since early 1900's

I dont have a tin hat lol. perhaps there aren't tunnels but there is 2.1 billion gallons per day since early 60's and up to 5 in a treaty singed in 1985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

 

Sailing on the eastern end of Lake Erie, I can assure you that is not the case.

 

No. That Statement only shows what it flowing over Niagara falls, and it was only used as a comparison to show just how much water flows down the St. Clair River every day. Water is also flowing out of Lake Erie via the Welland and Erie Canals.

 

To your point though, in terms of historic water levels, Lake Erie is not nearly as close to all time record lows as Huron and Michigan. Lake Michigan set all time record lows for the months of November-February and are barely above them now. We will all benefit from the snowfall this winter in the UP and Canada when it melts, but we should also do the rain dance for some decent spring rains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The four niagara power plants can divert 150000 cfs from the falls. during tourist season 100,000 cfs so the falls still look like falls. the average flow rate in the niagara river is 200,000 cfs. the treaty allows flow regardless of lake levels. this is new & should help make this a banner year for beaches:

 

Ontario completes huge hydro project

 

 

March 27, 2013 | By Barbara Vergetis Lundin

 

The Ontario government has completed a renewable electricity project -- the largest hydroelectric project to come into service in Ontario in the past 50 years -- that will provide the province with clean energy for the next 100 years.

The Niagara Tunnel Project, part of Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan, is more than six miles long and channels additional water from the Niagara River to the Sir Adam Beck Generating Station at 132,086 gallons per second -- fast enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool in just seconds.

Hydro accounts for almost one-third of Ontario Power Generation's electricity production today. Since 2003, more than 360 MW of new, upgraded and refurbished water power projects have come online in Ontario. In 2011, hydroelectric generation produced 32.4 terawatt-hours.

For more:

- see Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

 

Sailing on the eastern end of Lake Erie, I can assure you that is not the case.

 

No. That Statement only shows what it flowing over Niagara falls, and it was only used as a comparison to show just how much water flows down the St. Clair River every day. Water is also flowing out of Lake Erie via the Welland and Erie Canals.

 

To your point though, in terms of historic water levels, Lake Erie is not nearly as close to all time record lows as Huron and Michigan. Lake Michigan set all time record lows for the months of November-February and are barely above them now. We will all benefit from the snowfall this winter in the UP and Canada when it melts, but we should also do the rain dance for some decent spring rains.

 

Water does not "flow" down the Welland and Erie Canals. I ride my bike along the Erie Canal fairly frequently when I am in this part of the world. The water is damn near stagnant. Pretty much the same in the Welland, another place I spend some time in the summer.

 

One thing that hasn't been noted is the opening of the new canal for the Canadian power authority (whatever it is technically called, HydroCanada maybe) in the Niagara River. It was just completed and opened. Long standing agreement for the Canucks to suck more water out of the river ahead of the falls for power creation. I suspect it will have some impact in the level of Lake Erie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hard to believe that 2.1 billion a day equals 2 " in water level lol

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

The St Clair River outflow into Lake St Clair is over double the outflow of Niagara Falls?. Have a link for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically...on western Lake Ontario, I'm going to pay about $2000 for a dock in a harbour which had 7.8' of water under my transducer last spring. As of yesterday the level was measured at 5.5' midway along the dock. My boat draws 6'. Not looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beach at the side of the Grosse Pointe Farms Park (Lake St. Clair) has shrunk a lot since the winter low water mark. The GP police can breath easier as a Metro Beach south appears to be unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

This is probably a bettter source.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/Outflows.aspx

 

They measure the St Clair at several points, near the head the current is much higher. I have a hard time believing those outflow numbers because there the St Clair River outflow to Lake St Clair is several narrow and shallow channels. I just can't see that volume of water moving through them.

 

 

Also, ran across this site, shows a nice graphical representation of historical, you choose dates and datasets.

 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

This is probably a bettter source.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/Outflows.aspx

 

They measure the St Clair at several points, near the head the current is much higher. I have a hard time believing those outflow numbers because there the St Clair River outflow to Lake St Clair is several narrow and shallow channels. I just can't see that volume of water moving through them.

 

 

Also, ran across this site, shows a nice graphical representation of historical, you choose dates and datasets.

 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

I couldn't quite make sense of the USACE spreadsheet, but I'm not disputing the numbers. Like I said, I made the comparison between the St. Clair River and Niagara Falls, not the Niagara River.

 

The interactive water level site is pretty cool. I've played around with it before.

 

Bottom line is there is a shit ton of water that flows under the Blue Water Bridge and out of the upper Great Lakes. The US and Canadian government could do something to slow it down a bit without limiting shipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The snow cover around here is about 75% melted without the assistance of rain, and our rivers are as high as I have ever seen them. Hopefully this is a common theme around the region. If we combine this with some steady spring rains, perhaps we will see the water level rise a bit before summer. There are no plans to dredge the marina here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just spent about $100K to dredge our Club in western Lake Erie. Hope it works. Never seen the water this low at this time of year before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

lockquote>

 

This is probably a bettter source.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/Outflows.aspx

 

They measure the St Clair at several points, near the head the current is much higher. I have a hard time believing those outflow numbers because there the St Clair River outflow to Lake St Clair is several narrow and shallow channels. I just can't see that volume of water moving through them.

 

 

Also, ran across this site, shows a nice graphical representation of historical, you choose dates and datasets.

 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

I couldn't quite make sense of the USACE spreadsheet, but I'm not disputing the numbers. Like I said, I made the comparison between the St. Clair River and Niagara Falls, not the Niagara River.

 

The interactive water level site is pretty cool. I've played around with it before.

 

Bottom line is there is a shit ton of water that flows under the Blue Water Bridge and out of the upper Great Lakes. The US and Canadian government could do something to slow it down a bit without limiting shipping.

 

 

Again I would question the numbers, but I think you are missing the bigger picture. The entire Great Lakes basin needs to be managed cohesively, not just single lakes or spots,. Water bottling, the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal diversion, the Niagara River, the St Lawrence Seaway, etc. Limiting the flow of the St Clair River without addressing other areas just lowers the levels in Lake St Clair, Erie and Ontario. And if shipping can't transit Lake St Clair, it doesn't matter whether Lakes Huron and Michigan are a few inches higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The four niagara power plants can divert 150000 cfs from the falls. during tourist season 100,000 cfs so the falls still look like falls. the average flow rate in the niagara river is 200,000 cfs. the treaty allows flow regardless of lake levels. this is new & should help make this a banner year for beaches:

 

Ontario completes huge hydro project

 

 

March 27, 2013 | By Barbara Vergetis Lundin

 

The Ontario government has completed a renewable electricity project -- the largest hydroelectric project to come into service in Ontario in the past 50 years -- that will provide the province with clean energy for the next 100 years.

The Niagara Tunnel Project, part of Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan, is more than six miles long and channels additional water from the Niagara River to the Sir Adam Beck Generating Station at 132,086 gallons per second -- fast enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool in just seconds.

Hydro accounts for almost one-third of Ontario Power Generation's electricity production today. Since 2003, more than 360 MW of new, upgraded and refurbished water power projects have come online in Ontario. In 2011, hydroelectric generation produced 32.4 terawatt-hours.

For more:

- see Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan

 

If the diversion from the Niagara river takes place below the level of the outflow of the river from Lake Erie, then the diversion can have no effect on Lake Erie's level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

Sailing on the eastern end of Lake Erie, I can assure you that is not the case.

 

No. That Statement only shows what it flowing over Niagara falls, and it was only used as a comparison to show just how much water flows down the St. Clair River every day. Water is also flowing out of Lake Erie via the Welland and Erie Canals.

 

To your point though, in terms of historic water levels, Lake Erie is not nearly as close to all time record lows as Huron and Michigan. Lake Michigan set all time record lows for the months of November-February and are barely above them now. We will all benefit from the snowfall this winter in the UP and Canada when it melts, but we should also do the rain dance for some decent spring rains.

 

Water does not "flow" down the Welland and Erie Canals. I ride my bike along the Erie Canal fairly frequently when I am in this part of the world. The water is damn near stagnant. Pretty much the same in the Welland, another place I spend some time in the summer.

 

One thing that hasn't been noted is the opening of the new canal for the Canadian power authority (whatever it is technically called, HydroCanada maybe) in the Niagara River. It was just completed and opened. Long standing agreement for the Canucks to suck more water out of the river ahead of the falls for power creation. I suspect it will have some impact in the level of Lake Erie.

How could it affect the level of Lake Erie if the water is being taken out of the river below the elevation of Lake Erie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we now start calling them The Great Lakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

It converts to about 195,000 cubic feet per minute pumped out of Chicago compared to almost 11 million cubic feet per minute flowing out of the St. Clair River and about 5 million cubic feet per minute flowing over Niagara Falls.

 

 

So you are saying Lake Erie is filling up at the rate of 6 million cubic feet per minute?

Sailing on the eastern end of Lake Erie, I can assure you that is not the case.

 

No. That Statement only shows what it flowing over Niagara falls, and it was only used as a comparison to show just how much water flows down the St. Clair River every day. Water is also flowing out of Lake Erie via the Welland and Erie Canals.

 

To your point though, in terms of historic water levels, Lake Erie is not nearly as close to all time record lows as Huron and Michigan. Lake Michigan set all time record lows for the months of November-February and are barely above them now. We will all benefit from the snowfall this winter in the UP and Canada when it melts, but we should also do the rain dance for some decent spring rains.

 

Water does not "flow" down the Welland and Erie Canals. I ride my bike along the Erie Canal fairly frequently when I am in this part of the world. The water is damn near stagnant. Pretty much the same in the Welland, another place I spend some time in the summer.

 

One thing that hasn't been noted is the opening of the new canal for the Canadian power authority (whatever it is technically called, HydroCanada maybe) in the Niagara River. It was just completed and opened. Long standing agreement for the Canucks to suck more water out of the river ahead of the falls for power creation. I suspect it will have some impact in the level of Lake Erie.

How could it affect the level of Lake Erie if the water is being taken out of the river below the elevation of Lake Erie?

 

 

Look at it this way: say you've got a 5 gallon bucket that is nearly full of water. There is a hole on the side in the middle that lets about one pint an hour flow out. The bucket has a faucet that leaks into it at a pint per hour, so you have equilibrium, more or less.

 

Now you add another hole in the bucket directly adjacent to the original hole, which is 1/50th the size (as an example) of the original hole, and the water flow stays constant as before.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that the water level in the bucket is going to decrease given the additional hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How could it affect the level of Lake Erie if the water is being taken out of the river below the elevation of Lake Erie?

 

***

Look at it this way: say you've got a 5 gallon bucket that is nearly full of water. There is a hole on the side in the middle that lets about one pint an hour flow out. The bucket has a faucet that leaks into it at a pint per hour, so you have equilibrium, more or less.

 

Now you add another hole in the bucket directly adjacent to the original hole, which is 1/50th the size (as an example) of the original hole, and the water flow stays constant as before.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that the water level in the bucket is going to decrease given the additional hole?

 

*****

 

 

Peter,

 

To take your analogy a little closer to the facts, there is a pipe which drains the hole in the side of the bucket. Rather than adding a new hole in the side of the bucket, we are adding a new hole in the side of the pipe. Why would that affect the amount of water which drains from the hole in the bucket into the pipe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GG,

 

Are you still allowing the water to flow naturally through the hole in the side of the bucket, down the pipe, and through the new hole, or are you placing a siphon on that new hole and forcing the water to flow faster? If so, then you are affecting the amount of water that drains from the bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could it affect the level of Lake Erie if the water is being taken out of the river below the elevation of Lake Erie?

 

***

Look at it this way: say you've got a 5 gallon bucket that is nearly full of water. There is a hole on the side in the middle that lets about one pint an hour flow out. The bucket has a faucet that leaks into it at a pint per hour, so you have equilibrium, more or less.

 

Now you add another hole in the bucket directly adjacent to the original hole, which is 1/50th the size (as an example) of the original hole, and the water flow stays constant as before.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that the water level in the bucket is going to decrease given the additional hole?

 

*****

 

 

Peter,

 

To take your analogy a little closer to the facts, there is a pipe which drains the hole in the side of the bucket. Rather than adding a new hole in the side of the bucket, we are adding a new hole in the side of the pipe. Why would that affect the amount of water which drains from the hole in the bucket into the pipe?

 

 

First....I'm not suggesting that the new power plant channel in Canada is going to make a perceptible difference. Mother Nature has a far greater influence, even day to day, and sometimes hour to hour.

 

I forget the exact treaty name, but it was signed by the US and Canada back in the early 1900's, which created the International Joint Commission, for the purpose of making sure water wasn't diverted out of the lakes to an excessive extent.

 

Rerouting water flow around the Falls does more to impact the noticable level of the upper Niagara, and the flow over the Falls than it does the level of Lake Erie. The reason for the treaty though was to make sure the lake level was never seriously changed.

 

Here is something from the Ohio DNR that sort of sums it up.

 

From here - http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/7829/default.aspx

 

 

Currently, three power generation facilities at Niagara take water from the Niagara River above Niagara Falls and discharge it below the Falls. A popular belief is that these activities have raised Lake Erie's level through damming. However, the power plants at Niagara are unlike hydroelectric plants in the western United States that use tall dams to impound large amounts of water. The Niagara power facilities use the natural elevation drop of the Niagara River to generate power. Therefore, there are no tall dams on the river. The overall effect of the power plants actually is to somewhat lower the level of the Niagara River. To ensure that the Falls remain visually impressive with less water going over them, weirs (low dams) deepen the water slightly in the vicinity of the Falls and an "International Control Structure" helps to spread the flow of water across the full width of the Horseshoe (Canadian) Falls.

It is possible to measure how much each of these human-made factors removes from or contributes to the overall system and arrive at a net effect on the level of Lake Erie. Taking into account the controls on Lake Superior and the various diversions, the overall effect of artificial controls on Lake Erie's level is -0.3 feet. In other words, Lake Erie is about four inches lower than it would be without controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was attempting to make is this: dropping Great Lakes water levels are a big issue, and are costing a lot of people a lot of money, especially around Lakes Michigan - Huron. In the harbor where I sail, 5 different riparian owners each have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in dredging costs just in the last 6 weeks. So, we need to focus on what's important.

 

The amount of water going out of the St. Lawrence river, going through a power plant, and then returning to the St. Lawrence River, is not important. The amount of water going out through the Chicago River is not important. The amount of water being "lost" to mythical water bottling operations (Ha!) is not important.

 

The amount of water being sucked out of Lake Huron because of sloppy dredging in the St. Clair River, and laziness on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers is VERY important. Lakes Michigan and Huron -- by the Corps' own admission -- would be 20 inches higher RIGHT NOW if not for such dredging. That 20 inches, in my harbor and in a lot of others, is the difference between needing to dredge, and not needing to dredge.

 

See for example http://www.grandhaventribune.com/article/299771

 

The man-made hole at the bottom of the St. Clair River is what needs fixing. The rest is just a distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GG,

 

Are you still allowing the water to flow naturally through the hole in the side of the bucket, down the pipe, and through the new hole, or are you placing a siphon on that new hole and forcing the water to flow faster? If so, then you are affecting the amount of water that drains from the bucket.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

 

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

 

I realize that wikipedia is not the most reliable source of info, but its where I got those numbers from. It's weird because the flow rate of the Niagara River is much higher than the Falls. Must be those power plants that amount to the difference.

lockquote>

 

This is probably a bettter source.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation/Outflows.aspx

 

They measure the St Clair at several points, near the head the current is much higher. I have a hard time believing those outflow numbers because there the St Clair River outflow to Lake St Clair is several narrow and shallow channels. I just can't see that volume of water moving through them.

 

 

Also, ran across this site, shows a nice graphical representation of historical, you choose dates and datasets.

 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

I couldn't quite make sense of the USACE spreadsheet, but I'm not disputing the numbers. Like I said, I made the comparison between the St. Clair River and Niagara Falls, not the Niagara River.

 

The interactive water level site is pretty cool. I've played around with it before.

 

Bottom line is there is a shit ton of water that flows under the Blue Water Bridge and out of the upper Great Lakes. The US and Canadian government could do something to slow it down a bit without limiting shipping.

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was attempting to make is this: dropping Great Lakes water levels are a big issue, and are costing a lot of people a lot of money, especially around Lakes Michigan - Huron. In the harbor where I sail, 5 different riparian owners each have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in dredging costs just in the last 6 weeks. So, we need to focus on what's important.

 

The amount of water going out of the St. Lawrence river, going through a power plant, and then returning to the St. Lawrence River, is not important. The amount of water going out through the Chicago River is not important. The amount of water being "lost" to mythical water bottling operations (Ha!) is not important.

 

The amount of water being sucked out of Lake Huron because of sloppy dredging in the St. Clair River, and laziness on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers is VERY important. Lakes Michigan and Huron -- by the Corps' own admission -- would be 20 inches higher RIGHT NOW if not for such dredging. That 20 inches, in my harbor and in a lot of others, is the difference between needing to dredge, and not needing to dredge.

 

See for example http://www.grandhaventribune.com/article/299771

 

The man-made hole at the bottom of the St. Clair River is what needs fixing. The rest is just a distraction.

 

hooey. the relative lack of precip into the basin over the 15 years is the issue. consider the opposite case: high water, e.g., 1986. would all y'alls lakefront owners be complaining that the st. clair river was transporting too much water? i don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this a dumb thought, but this IS SA, right?

 

How about distributing responsibility for the water to the states, proportional to how much of their area is in the Great Lakes watershed?

 

great_lakes_watershed.gif

 

Every DROP of rain and snow that falls in Michigan ends up in the great lakes. MN and WI, not so much. And Illinois is a laughter. Looks like Ontario would get a say as well.

 

Told you it was dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point I was attempting to make is this: dropping Great Lakes water levels are a big issue, and are costing a lot of people a lot of money, especially around Lakes Michigan - Huron. In the harbor where I sail, 5 different riparian owners each have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in dredging costs just in the last 6 weeks. So, we need to focus on what's important.

 

The amount of water going out of the St. Lawrence river, going through a power plant, and then returning to the St. Lawrence River, is not important. The amount of water going out through the Chicago River is not important. The amount of water being "lost" to mythical water bottling operations (Ha!) is not important.

 

The amount of water being sucked out of Lake Huron because of sloppy dredging in the St. Clair River, and laziness on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers is VERY important. Lakes Michigan and Huron -- by the Corps' own admission -- would be 20 inches higher RIGHT NOW if not for such dredging. That 20 inches, in my harbor and in a lot of others, is the difference between needing to dredge, and not needing to dredge.

 

See for example http://www.grandhaventribune.com/article/299771

 

The man-made hole at the bottom of the St. Clair River is what needs fixing. The rest is just a distraction.

 

hooey. the relative lack of precip into the basin over the 15 years is the issue. consider the opposite case: high water, e.g., 1986. would all y'alls lakefront owners be complaining that the st. clair river was transporting too much water? i don't think so.

No kidding eh? If all of Huron's water issues were because it was flowing away down through St. Clair, why is Erie and Ontario so fucking low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was attempting to make is this: dropping Great Lakes water levels are a big issue, and are costing a lot of people a lot of money, especially around Lakes Michigan - Huron. In the harbor where I sail, 5 different riparian owners each have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in dredging costs just in the last 6 weeks. So, we need to focus on what's important.

 

The amount of water going out of the St. Lawrence river, going through a power plant, and then returning to the St. Lawrence River, is not important. The amount of water going out through the Chicago River is not important. The amount of water being "lost" to mythical water bottling operations (Ha!) is not important.

 

The amount of water being sucked out of Lake Huron because of sloppy dredging in the St. Clair River, and laziness on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers is VERY important. Lakes Michigan and Huron -- by the Corps' own admission -- would be 20 inches higher RIGHT NOW if not for such dredging. That 20 inches, in my harbor and in a lot of others, is the difference between needing to dredge, and not needing to dredge.

 

See for example http://www.grandhaventribune.com/article/299771

 

The man-made hole at the bottom of the St. Clair River is what needs fixing. The rest is just a distraction.

 

I am a riparian property owner on Lake Michigan. I also sail on other lakes that are affected besides Huron and Michigan. Yes the water levels are down in Lakes Michigan and Huron. Newsflash, the entire GL basin is at or near historic lows. The problem here is that you want to make yourself whole at the expense of other lakes downstream. The St Clair River is not the magic bullet that is going to make all your problems go away. FFS , the St Clair River was dredged in 1963, there were very high water levels during the mid 1980s. Did water not flow through the St Clair River then?. This has far more to do with warmer temperatures leading to increased evaporation and less rain and snow fall than flow through the St Clair River.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that message barley.

 

People are looking for simple solutions, not logical answers.

 

The loudest crybabies are in Georgian Bay.

 

Canada should just build a dam at Tobermory.

 

edit - where is the sarcasm thingy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snow cover around here is about 75% melted without the assistance of rain, and our rivers are as high as I have ever seen them. Hopefully this is a common theme around the region. If we combine this with some steady spring rains, perhaps we will see the water level rise a bit before summer. There are no plans to dredge the marina here.

 

I have the sump in the basement working pretty hard today with all the rain. I am doing what I can for the water levels. My sump might be the difference maker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low water was when the Alpena ridge was used to herd and hunt animals. Lots of room before we get to that point again.

 

Only 36 feet to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The point I was attempting to make is this: dropping Great Lakes water levels are a big issue, and are costing a lot of people a lot of money, especially around Lakes Michigan - Huron. In the harbor where I sail, 5 different riparian owners each have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in dredging costs just in the last 6 weeks. So, we need to focus on what's important.

 

The amount of water going out of the St. Lawrence river, going through a power plant, and then returning to the St. Lawrence River, is not important. The amount of water going out through the Chicago River is not important. The amount of water being "lost" to mythical water bottling operations (Ha!) is not important.

 

The amount of water being sucked out of Lake Huron because of sloppy dredging in the St. Clair River, and laziness on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers is VERY important. Lakes Michigan and Huron -- by the Corps' own admission -- would be 20 inches higher RIGHT NOW if not for such dredging. That 20 inches, in my harbor and in a lot of others, is the difference between needing to dredge, and not needing to dredge.

 

See for example http://www.grandhaventribune.com/article/299771

 

The man-made hole at the bottom of the St. Clair River is what needs fixing. The rest is just a distraction.

 

hooey. the relative lack of precip into the basin over the 15 years is the issue. consider the opposite case: high water, e.g., 1986. would all y'alls lakefront owners be complaining that the st. clair river was transporting too much water? i don't think so.

No kidding eh? If all of Huron's water issues were because it was flowing away down through St. Clair, why is Erie and Ontario so fucking low?

 

I am with you on the superior, huron, and Michigan, but depending on what people mean by "historic lows", not so sure that erie and ontario fit the description.

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of the significance, but living a couple KM from the Great Lakes basin I can say that land is at least as wet as ever. Last year saw the most flooding that my area has seen in decades and as my property is already half flooded, I would say it could repeat itself this year. It could be easy to say that the great lake levels are a result of global warming; but we have been and continue to mess with water distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites