(Nolin River Lake Specific)
2 messages
Updated 6/24/2009 2:03:36 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Nolin River Lake Specific)
1 messages
Updated 2/18/2007 6:33:51 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
LifeTime Laker
- 
|
|
Subject:
|
More about droughts.
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2007 12:36:15 PM
|
|
In 1988 we had a drought. No news there, most everybody is aware of it by now. If you weren't around you have heard talk of it. What has not been discussed is the effects off that drought. Much has been said of the dredge downstream and how they are going to 'drain Lake Martin' just to float the dredge, and that these industries have alternative means of transportation. Well the situation faced downstream is about a lot more than transportation. You guys that claim to be concerned about the environmental impact should be aware of these things.
My father had not yet retired in 1988. He worked for Kimberly Clark Corporation. KC had (still there but sold to another company) a pulp and paper mill on the Coosa River. They obviously used the Coosa as a water supply for the plant. What wasn't used up in the manufacturing process would come out to the plant in a heated state, with altered oxygenation. The water can only be returned to the river in the same state as it was when it was removed. To accomplish this they have many 'cooling ponds' on the plant site. During the drought everything changed. Less water flow in the river meant changes in temp and oxygen also. KC had many folks whose job it was to monitor and release water back to river when possible. All of the cooling ponds began to fill up. They built new ones. Those filled up. It was touch and go for quite some time. The plant was faced with possible layoffs. At that time there were 3500 employed there. The impact would have been devastating to several surrounding counties. All due to decreased flows in the river. The rains came eventually and saved the day.
Things have changed since then. Production at that plant has been greatly reduced. They are down to about 1200 employees through retirement and attrition. I have not heard of the same or similar problems happening there with this drought, YET. It may be a concern this year, I just don't talk to anyone that works there on a regular basis. But production has been cut in half and they still have all the holding ponds, so it may not be an issue this year.
I say all that to point a couple of things. Some would have us believe that they are taking 'our' water 'just to float a dredge'. Their are flaws in that argument so blatant that it troubles me that an organization(s) that claim to represent the interest of Lake Martin would even use it. First I will point out that it has recently been shown in previous threads that the 'water belongs to all the citizens of the state' by statute. Sorry, but in my world you can't have it both ways. When it is convenient for your argument it is 'ours' (Lake Martin), but then when it isn't, the water belongs to the entire state. If it belongs to the entire state, how can you argue for keeping it here and not sending it downstream where it is NEEDED, not just WANTED. And then we have the flawed argument that it is just to 'float a dredge'. As my anecdote shows, there are other downstream concerns besides floating a dredge. I don't know what or how many manufacturing plants are downstream depending on the river as a source of water for use in manufacturing, but I know one is a pulp mill, very similar to the one my father worked in. As has been shown, water flows and levels are a major concern to them, it is not all about 'transportation'.
I have seen the quote that the CORPS has said that downstream flows could be cut by 20% without harm to the environment. Not knowing when that statement was made makes it impossible to qualify it. The downstream flows may already be 20% below what they were when that statement was made, and even if they aren't was the person making such statement speaking in general terms or was he/she aware of the specific needs of industry on the ACT basin?
I welcome debate on any point made in this post. If, however, all you can accomplish is another personal attack, just save it or take it to one of the newly created forums where it can wither away in obscurity.
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Nolin River Lake Topics Forum
»
Kentucky Lakes
»
Nolin River Lake
Login
|
Home
