| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Why let more water out ???
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 12:59:46 PM
|
This is just a thought but, why let water out to keep a river flowing that would be dry if their was no lake to supply stored water? Man can use some other means of transporting goods other than a barge. But what he can't do is make it rain in a certain spot. This was the worst in10 year drought..... Then the worst in 20 years then 30 then 50, now I read 170 year drought!!! Man can't make it rain!!!! This could go on for 5 years we don't know. Water we release today to dredge a soon to be dry river could be needed 3 years from now to water crops or cattle,or humans. This is MAN playing GOD. Nobody knows for sure. When this will end. 20 years from now we could be talking about the GREAT ALABAMA DUST BOWL. What a story that would be for the grandkids.....We just thought the rain would come back..........it never did. Even a squirral is smart enough to store nuts for the winter.
|
| Name: |
dmp
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Why let more water out ???
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 1:32:08 PM
|
I agree completely!
I just can't understand why now we need to be releasing so much water for this dredging project. They have been getting by without it for many months-- why noy continue?!
It seems incredibly irresponsible to me; it is causing Alex City to have to explore spending who knows what to try and ensure city water.
I just don't get the urgency given what we do know.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Why let more water out ???
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 1:53:45 PM
|
Good points, but as always, there are two sides to the coin. In this case, wasn't the building of the dam "man playing God?" And since what God created was a free-flowing river, isn't holding water back at all a case of "man playing God?"
|
| Name: |
ecstasypoint
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Why let more water out ???
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 1:58:13 PM
|
If you take your point to its logical conclusion, then it makes little difference when they let the water go, really. We've been told repeatedly on this forum that it will definitely rain. But I've got to say, these last few months ought to get everyone to wondering. Talk about isolated showers. I've seen it rain on the barbecue but not beside it. On the rare ocassion that it does rain, it only lasts about 45 seconds. This situation in unusual to say the least. So I'm with you. We should be thinking about the long term.
PS Squirrels don't jet ski in their drinking water either.
|
You are ABSOLUTELY right Myth.
And once again, the downstream flows are for a LOT MORE THAN THE DREDGING. There are towns downstream that get their drinking water from the river, and industries that depend on the river for water used in the manufacturing process. I realize NONE of this is as important as us having water to play in/on, but we all have to share the pain. <sarcasm OFF>
But just as AC is worried about drawing water for the city, don't you think those below are worried as well. Even if the lake dries up, there will still be a river running through the middle that can supply water to AC. It just means a different way of getting it out. Actually according to what I heard on the weather channell the Lake is a liabillity NOW. We are loosing more water to evaporation than is flowing in. I say drain it. That will reduce evaporation by well over 90%.
|
| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Pleasure
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 2:45:35 PM
|
Nowhere in my comments did I refer to boating or pleasures on the lake. This is not about that. If we continue to think that way then we look like crybabies wining about our lake disappearing. The more water we release the more that runs down the river the less we will have in the future to release when people downstream REALLY need it. Levels of water should be released for drinking and industry with no other options like a cooling plant. Also less water evaporates on a deep lake with less surface area than a long shallow river with more surface area that ends in an ocean.
|
| Name: |
greycove
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I share your concern
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 3:46:12 PM
|
What do we know about rainfall this winter and spring?
Of course weather prediction is far from perfect, however, nothing in the forecasts suggest that this period will be any different than last winter and spring. We will be in worse shape going into the winter. Right now we are two feet below the low for 2006. The lake never filled in 2007. If the rainfall was the same this winter and spring, our high water mark would be about 482. Most of us could not launch our boats. But this is of no concern when compared to cities and farmers being out of water.
I hope those managing water levels are planning for a long term drough while hoping for more rain.
|
| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That is my point
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 4:15:04 PM
|
Take in the fact that all tributiries are at record lows with no water flow. They have to start flowing first. How can they stop the falling water level in the winter? When the lake hits 480 it stays right around there for a few months. At the current rate of water loss we could be 25ft below with no rain to fill it up. 12 more feet in the next 5 months and we are there. Sure if we have a normal spring we will be fine ready to fight another year. And if the drought continues the lake will be 50 ft below summer pool this time next year. There is no water flowing in. The underground watertable is dropping lower and lower......
|
"Also less water evaporates on a deep lake with less surface area than a long shallow river with more surface area that ends in an ocean."
Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but if you are saying that the lake would evaporate less than if we let it go back ot just river channels, then that is absolutely absurd. How you can think the lake, 44,000 acres, would evaporate less than a river a couple of hundred feet wide is beyond my comprehension.
|
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU DETERMINED THE "If the rainfall was the same this winter and spring, our high water mark would be about 482."
I'M NOT BEING A SMART A**, I JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH RAIN IS NEEDED TO REACH 480',490 IF NO WATER IS RELEASED FROM DAM.
I AM REFERRING TO EARLER DISCUSSION ABOUT LAKE FILLED WHEN DOWN IN PREVIOUS YEARS 40',50'.
|
IS ANYONE HAVING WELL ISSUES YET ? I'VE NOT HEARD OF ANY YET ALTHOUH I HEAR COMMENTS ON LOWER WATER TABLES.
|
| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Surface area of lake vs river
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 6:02:31 PM
|
My point was the water will evaporate just as easy from the river as it would from the lake. You said the lake was a liability because it was evaporating faster than it was filling. If you take all the suface area of the river downstream its probably 10 times that of lake martin. Also once you let the water go you dont get it back. I'm not saying save the water so I can go boating. Hold it back for when the people really need it.
|
| Name: |
JIM
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I share your concern
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 7:02:20 PM
|
The Lake will take care of itself, no matter if there are HOBO`S or whatever, Now if anyone has pancertic cancer, that is something that will get your attention,then the water level wont matter.
|
point well taken.
G.B.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Surface area of lake vs river
|
|
Date:
|
10/10/2007 7:42:06 PM
|
But the surface are of the river is still there. It is a constant. The only thing that varies to any measurable amount is the lake. Unless you are advocating holding all the water and letting the river dry up, and if THAT is what you are saying..... well that is just to ludicrous to even argue against.
|
| Name: |
greycove
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I can answer this...
|
|
Date:
|
10/11/2007 8:38:24 AM
|
Last winter in January we fell to 479.2. We are very near 477 this morning. The lake only reached about 486 last year in May but fell quickly. Given that predictions from Alabama Power suggest the lake will continue to fall, we are very likely to be four or more feet below our lowest point last winter as we enter this winter and spring period.
I suggested in my above post that we would be at least feet lower this year. With the winter and spring rains matching last year, we would only rise to 486-4=482 feet.
Might be optimistic given predictions of levels like 465 even this fall.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I can answer this...
|
|
Date:
|
10/11/2007 9:43:38 AM
|
Your equation assumes that ALL rain that fell was held back. But it isn't. EVERY year more rain falls than is held back. The excess is used to generate power. This is done because the Corps has the 'rule curve' that has to be followed. In other words, APCO is only allowed to fill at a certain rate. I doubt any such rules will be enforced this year, unless by some fluke of nature we are at 'normal' winter pool in the middle February when the fill up normally starts.
|
| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Surface area of lake vs river
|
|
Date:
|
10/11/2007 10:28:22 AM
|
Your right!! Draining the lake make more sense.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My post was....
|
|
Date:
|
10/12/2007 8:56:58 AM
|
...tongue in cheek!!
|
|
New Post
Search
Oak Mountain Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Oak Mountain Lake
Login
|
Home
