Jump to content


Great Lakes levels 2013


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#1 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 28 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

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

Posted Image
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.


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

#2 NYBOZO1

NYBOZO1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 07:55 PM

The Youngstown Levels on Lake Ontario are way down as well.

New format in 2014................nevermind............

#3 ropetrick

ropetrick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 08:26 PM

Should have bought a centerboard boat, two years ago.

This might be the new normal.

#4 Rum Runner

Rum Runner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,134 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 08:38 PM

Michigan is still very low. It will cause some problems in the marinas for spring launching.

#5 RockBox Chris

RockBox Chris

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Location:Detroit Michigan USA

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:03 PM

Was at the club last night, Lake Erie is low too.
Having the centerboard up doesn't matter when the rudder is in the mud...

This may help though: http://www.freep.com...ichigan-harbors

#6 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:17 PM

Lake Ontario is down big time also

#7 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

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

#8 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

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.

#9 jerseyguy

jerseyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • Location:somewhere over the rainbow

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:59 AM

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.

#10 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:06 AM

As long as it ain't HERE....

#11 hard aground

hard aground

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,283 posts
  • Location:out with my droogs

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

I have to admit I was a little bit depressed by the size of the beach last weekend when I went for a drive-by. Lake Erie.

#12 bwana

bwana

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:36 AM

Any speculation on the impact on the Mac races?

#13 DogWillBark

DogWillBark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Location:Rocky River, OH.

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:07 AM

South shore of LE lowest early spring levels in memory...

#14 jeff carver

jeff carver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts
  • Location:river city

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:25 AM

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

#15 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:58 AM

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

#16 rodauthor

rodauthor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Sunset side of Michigan
  • Interests:Boat Slave

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

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 .

#17 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,244 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:42 PM

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.

#18 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

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.


#19 b6sfull

b6sfull

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Midland, Ontario (Georgian Bay)

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:34 PM

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

#20 Grinder

Grinder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,620 posts
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:02 PM

GL's

Attached Files



#21 lartaunt

lartaunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI/ Muskegon MI
  • Interests:Sailing, boating, automobiles, diving, Big Ten Sports, Sailing

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:16 PM

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'

#22 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:59 PM

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.....

#23 b6sfull

b6sfull

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Midland, Ontario (Georgian Bay)

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:56 PM

Had a knock at the door yet?

#24 tuf-luf

tuf-luf

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,571 posts
  • Location:xyz

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:56 PM

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.

#25 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,622 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:53 AM

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??

#26 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:04 AM

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!

#27 Sailor90

Sailor90

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:A Scow racer, Melges 24's, Laser, and big boats in Chicago.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:07 AM

Posted on SA before, I'll post it again.

GL's water level dashboard

#28 DRIFTW00D

DRIFTW00D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,251 posts
  • Location:Blue Water Area Great Lakes

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:37 PM

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.



#29 Fishbone

Fishbone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts
  • Location:Lake St Clair

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

Interesting report and recommendation in this report
http://www.georgianb...mmendations.pdf

IJC accepted the report but at a meeting in Windsor last month all the was mentioned was alot of "dialogue, meeting, review " and a bunch of other words that don't mean anything of action,

#30 Bad Andy

Bad Andy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • Location:Chicago Suburbs
  • Interests:SAILING

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:10 PM

Went out on the Vanguard yesterday, it was like throwing the boat off a cliff to get it in.

#31 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:21 PM

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

#32 glexpress

glexpress

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,000 posts
  • Location:Hill Valley

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:08 PM

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.

#33 JDL

JDL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:23 PM


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.

#34 Catalina30

Catalina30

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:Cycling, sailing, hiking, board games!

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:34 PM

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

Posted Image

#35 cantp1

cantp1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Interests:Sailing
    Skiing
    Squash

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:37 PM

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!

#36 LLD

LLD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:Halfway between equator and north pole

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:50 PM

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

Posted Image


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.

#37 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:25 PM



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

#38 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:30 PM




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????

#39 CptRatBag

CptRatBag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:55 AM

I took this pic at the Holland pier on Saturday. It isn't exactly encouraging.
Posted Image

#40 Trendsetter

Trendsetter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Location:Cape Cod

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:00 AM

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

#41 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:20 AM

Google US Army Engineer water projects Chicago to Missiippi River

#42 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:57 PM


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.

#43 lartaunt

lartaunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI/ Muskegon MI
  • Interests:Sailing, boating, automobiles, diving, Big Ten Sports, Sailing

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

Attached File  Cottage Grove Boat Ramp.png   528.68K   84 downloads

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.

#44 bwana

bwana

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:52 PM

None of this looks good, regardless of the cause:

http://www.dailykos....harbors-Oh-Wait

#45 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:23 AM



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.

#46 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:59 AM




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....-170854881.html

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

#47 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:35 AM

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

#48 ropetrick

ropetrick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:09 AM

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


It is a really big lake.

#49 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:10 AM

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.

#50 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 09:40 AM




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.

#51 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

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

Posted Image

#52 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:53 PM





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.

#53 b6sfull

b6sfull

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Midland, Ontario (Georgian Bay)

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:06 PM

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

Posted Image


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

#54 Sailor90

Sailor90

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:A Scow racer, Melges 24's, Laser, and big boats in Chicago.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:14 PM

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.

#55 wick

wick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

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?

#56 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 09:21 PM

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.

#57 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:48 PM

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

#58 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:18 AM


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.

#59 199.99

199.99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:36 AM

. 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

#60 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:49 AM



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.

#61 LLD

LLD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:Halfway between equator and north pole

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:51 PM

The photo says it all:

http://www.petoskeyn...0,4650940.story

#62 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,244 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:51 PM

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?

#63 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:47 AM

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

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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.



#64 Incorrigible

Incorrigible

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

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. 



#65 Sven

Sven

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 11:19 AM

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.

#66 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,244 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:01 PM

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

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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....St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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...n/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.noa...ow/wlevels/dbd/



#67 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:42 PM

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

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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....St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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...n/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.noa...ow/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.



#68 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:46 PM


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.

#69 AJ Oliver

AJ Oliver

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Location:Sandusky Sailing Club
  • Interests:Retired Pol Sci Prof

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:28 PM

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.  



#70 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,244 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:40 PM

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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....St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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...n/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.noa...ow/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. 



#71 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:03 PM

. 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.



#72 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:04 PM

 

 


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?



#73 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,971 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

can we now start calling them The   Great   Lakes



#74 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:26 PM

 

 

 


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?



#75 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:32 AM


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?  



#76 dcbsheb

dcbsheb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, WI

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:22 AM

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.

#77 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

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...29/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.

 


#78 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:07 PM

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.grandhave.../article/299771

 

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



#79 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:11 PM

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....St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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....St._Clair_River

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/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...n/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.noa...ow/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.



#80 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,616 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:13 PM

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.grandhave.../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.



#81 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 05:14 PM

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.



#82 hard aground

hard aground

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,283 posts
  • Location:out with my droogs

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:50 PM

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.grandhave.../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?  



#83 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,244 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:14 PM

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.grandhave.../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. 



#84 ropetrick

ropetrick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:44 AM

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?



#85 -Julian-

-Julian-

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Location:Lake Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:32 AM

+1 for dam at Tobermory



#86 DRIFTW00D

DRIFTW00D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,251 posts
  • Location:Blue Water Area Great Lakes

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:18 AM

Use to be a water fall there on the bottom Dam it . +1 Dam Tobermory

 

 

The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes - National Geographic

#87 eclipse5499

eclipse5499

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 870 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

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!



#88 Tax Man

Tax Man

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:24 PM

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



#89 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

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.



#90 smartwool_elmo

smartwool_elmo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Interests:Keelboat

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:46 PM

 

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.grandhave.../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.noa...ow/wlevels/dbd/



#91 postpast

postpast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Location:North Toronto
  • Interests:Old Cars, Old Heavy Equipment, Sailing, Fixing Sail Boats,

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:29 PM

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.



#92 Lightfoot

Lightfoot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Location:the GREAT lakes
  • Interests:Sailing...

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:17 PM

Ok Jet Fuel I'm a Chicagoan and lets get a few of your misplaced facts right. 

 

First there is a system called the deep tunnel. It was a project created to ensure Chicago never flooded. It is a large holding tank deep under the city which all the storm run off goes into. This is then pumped in reservoirs before it is treated and returned to Lake Michigan. The tunnel does not lead into the Mississippi

 

http://www.encyclope.../pages/367.html

 

Yes the river was reversed and the sanitary and ship canal as well as the Chicago river flow into the Mississippi, however since the completion of this amazing piece of engineering there have been strict rules which regulate how much water is allowed to flow from Lake Michigan by the Great Lakes Commission which is a joint US, Canadian group. The US Supreme Court ruled the system can only divert more than 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Lake Michigan for navigation, domestic or sanitary uses. http://www.deq.state...reesummary.pdf, The 3200 cubic feet per second also includes the drinking water for the entire city and surrounding area. In total the city only send about half of this, 1 billion US gallons a day down the chicago river. 

 

​There is no conspiracy, nothing secret. Its all out there with a quick google search, good place to start as always is wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....er#cite_note-61

 

In all, Chicago went 321 days without 1in of rain or snow fall last year... we are in a drought. Thats most of the problem. 



#93 jetfuel

jetfuel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:sail ski

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:25 PM

Ok Jet Fuel I'm a Chicagoan and lets get a few of your misplaced facts right. 

 

First there is a system called the deep tunnel. It was a project created to ensure Chicago never flooded. It is a large holding tank deep under the city which all the storm run off goes into. This is then pumped in reservoirs before it is treated and returned to Lake Michigan. The tunnel does not lead into the Mississippi

 

http://www.encyclope.../pages/367.html

 

Yes the river was reversed and the sanitary and ship canal as well as the Chicago river flow into the Mississippi, however since the completion of this amazing piece of engineering there have been strict rules which regulate how much water is allowed to flow from Lake Michigan by the Great Lakes Commission which is a joint US, Canadian group. The US Supreme Court ruled the system can only divert more than 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Lake Michigan for navigation, domestic or sanitary uses. http://www.deq.state...reesummary.pdf, The 3200 cubic feet per second also includes the drinking water for the entire city and surrounding area. In total the city only send about half of this, 1 billion US gallons a day down the chicago river. 

 

​There is no conspiracy, nothing secret. Its all out there with a quick google search, good place to start as always is wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....er#cite_note-61

 

In all, Chicago went 321 days without 1in of rain or snow fall last year... we are in a drought. Thats most of the problem. 

never said there was a conspiracy lol Just the fact that there is water, a lot of water being diverted through Chicago t the Mississippi,  and that there was a tunnel. I dont have any facts but you have proved me right to a degree. To say there is no diversion is wrong. 



#94 Sailor90

Sailor90

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:A Scow racer, Melges 24's, Laser, and big boats in Chicago.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:31 PM

Lot's O'rain over Michigan and Huron over the past 48 hours.

 

Keep rain dancing everybody! April has been a soaker so far.



#95 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,616 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:27 PM

A pretty thorough read on the history of dredging in the St. Clair and Detroit River systems - HERE.   A quick spin through the data available at the GLERL site actually does lend some credence to the Georgian Bay folks notions about dredging impacting Lk Huron-Michigan water levels.  I never really looked at much, but its pretty clear that there has been a decrease in the height difference between Huron and St. Clair over the years.  This would imply that the St. Clair River has been transporting more water into Lk. St. Clair over time.  Hmmm ...  



#96 PeterSailor

PeterSailor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Montreal and 1000 Islands

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:28 PM

Not a big watershed for such big lakes. If you look at annual mean water level from 1960 to today, you can see that Ontario is maintaining itself, and all the others are on a down slope, Michigan/Huron being the worse.



#97 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:44 PM

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!

Eclipse, check my sump pump, im out of the country.



#98 Lightfoot

Lightfoot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Location:the GREAT lakes
  • Interests:Sailing...

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:21 PM

Ok Jet Fuel I'm a Chicagoan and lets get a few of your misplaced facts right. 

 

First there is a system called the deep tunnel. It was a project created to ensure Chicago never flooded. It is a large holding tank deep under the city which all the storm run off goes into. This is then pumped in reservoirs before it is treated and returned to Lake Michigan. The tunnel does not lead into the Mississippi

 

http://www.encyclope.../pages/367.html

 

Yes the river was reversed and the sanitary and ship canal as well as the Chicago river flow into the Mississippi, however since the completion of this amazing piece of engineering there have been strict rules which regulate how much water is allowed to flow from Lake Michigan by the Great Lakes Commission which is a joint US, Canadian group. The US Supreme Court ruled the system can only divert more than 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Lake Michigan for navigation, domestic or sanitary uses. http://www.deq.state...reesummary.pdf, The 3200 cubic feet per second also includes the drinking water for the entire city and surrounding area. In total the city only send about half of this, 1 billion US gallons a day down the chicago river. 

 

​There is no conspiracy, nothing secret. Its all out there with a quick google search, good place to start as always is wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....er#cite_note-61

 

In all, Chicago went 321 days without 1in of rain or snow fall last year... we are in a drought. Thats most of the problem. 

never said there was a conspiracy lol Just the fact that there is water, a lot of water being diverted through Chicago t the Mississippi,  and that there was a tunnel. I dont have any facts but you have proved me right to a degree. To say there is no diversion is wrong. 

 

Cool glad we ironed that out... 

 

Yes water does leave the lakes, but remember water is supposed to leave the lakes, wether it is through the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Erie Canal (how come no one has brought this up as sucking away the water?) Chicago river, or any way else the lakes flow the lakes naturally flow to the sea (ok yes two of my examples the Chicago river and Erie Canal are not natural). but still the issue that we are letting to much water leave the lakes is debatable, the real reason they are so low is we have had several years of droughts with only one or two flood years in between. Its been much warmer the last decade then it has been in the previous ones and therefore less and less snow and rain to fill the lakes. As the cycle changes we will get our water back, but for the time being everyone get floating docks. 



#99 eclipse5499

eclipse5499

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 870 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:30 PM

 

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!

Eclipse, check my sump pump, im out of the country.

And we thank you for that. That was your house I saw floating by then!?!?!? Hope you are in a better place than we are here...snowing at the F*@#$ing moment.



#100 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

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.grandhave.../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.

The relative lack of precip into the basin over the last 15 years is responsible for much of the current shortfall.  But the Army Corps of Engineers has ADMITTED that lakes Michigan-Huron would be 20" higher if not for the dredging of the St. Clair.  Again, that 20" is the difference between having to dredge and not having to dredge, THIS YEAR. The Corps busted it, they should fix it.  

 

As for 1986, that's water over the dam, so to speak. We need to solve NOW the problem we have NOW, a problem created by our careless and shortsighted government.  If the water gets that high in the future, fine.  We still have all the seawalls, riprap, and raised docks which we built in 1986-1987.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users