(West Point Lake Specific)
14 messages
Updated 9/22/2020 5:02:40 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,633 messages
Updated 5/23/2024 7:09:08 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(West Point Lake Specific)
9 messages
Updated 11/29/2020 10:11:11 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: |
Osms
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/6/2013 11:27:34 PM (updated 6/6/2013 11:56:49 PM)
|
FERC has just released their long awaited "Draft Environmental Analysis" for Lake Martin Relicensing. Their key recommendation is to DENY a winter lake level increase about the existing 480' MSL. They further recommend NO fall extension of the summer level. This is a major disappointment for those hoping for higher winter levels and more water in the fall. The full 256 page document will be posted on the HOBO website ASAP. www.lakemartin.org
We now enter the comment phase on the relicensing process, and we'll provide more info soon on how stakeholders may file comments.
|
| Name: |
Buteye
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 6:59:29 AM (updated 6/7/2013 7:00:31 AM)
|
This comes as "bad" news for those of us who had our hopes up that keeping the lake level about 3 feet higher during the winter months and the extending the level to later in the fall would be approved. Those changes would make a significant change in how those of us who don't have "deep" water year round can enjoy the benefits and fun the lake provides for a longer period of time. It will be interesting to find out what the "reasoning and justification" is for presumably denying the changes. It appears that like many other things we are now experiencing that the people in Washington who don't "use" or "live" on the lake know better what our "needs" and "desires" are for the beautiful lake we have access to. Could it be that those in Washington who have the "power" to make the rules are jealous of what our lake has to offer to those who use it?. I hope someone will be able to determine that if the request for changes are denied, that the denial is based on substantial evidence for the denial rather than on the possibility that those with the power to approve the changes are not really concerned about what "we" the users really need. In essence, I believe that "we" who are the customers of Lake Martin, and actually make the lake the wonderful "attraction" that it is, should have a significant impact on changes being made to operation of the lake.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH (correction)
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 9:10:09 AM
|
Second sentence should say "ABOVE the existing 480' level", not about.
|
| Name: |
Toni
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 9:13:13 AM
|
This is really disappointing.
|
| Name: |
Shari
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 9:14:41 AM
|
Is there a chance that the denial is preliminary and not final?
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 11:06:28 AM
|
Shari, while we are still reviewing the document, it appears the justification for the denial is based on the objection of 11 landowners below Tallassee who had damage during a flood in 2003. These landowners sued APCo in the Alabama courts and lost every appeal. This document is a draft and is subject to review, comment, and political pressure. We intend to make every effort to support the higher winter level and the higher fall level.
|
| Name: |
Samdog
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/7/2013 2:58:32 PM
|
If we could at least get the fall level extended that would help.
|
| Name: |
papatoon869
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/9/2013 9:04:36 AM
|
Another example of how "the powers" think they know what is best for everyone and we are incapable of thinking for ourselves. As mentioned, the higher level in the winter would be beneficial for those not on deep water but it would also make the lake more attractive in certain areas, i.e. looking at water v. mud
An extension of the water level into Sep and Oct should be beneficial to the economy of the lake area, and that can't
be anything but "good".
Good luck and a BIG THANK YOU to those involved who will be fighting this ruling, hopefully you will be successful in your arguement against the "uninformed".
|
| Name: |
George
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/10/2013 11:00:14 AM
|
I think it didn't help that all the residents and users of Lake Martin couldn't come together as a united front. I think I remember that a faction of the community sided with the downstream farmers against the proposal of APCo of 483' with extended summer pool.
|
| Name: |
CC2MC
-
|
|
| Subject: |
NEWS FLASH
|
|
Date:
|
6/11/2013 10:47:22 AM
|
Someone please enlighten me. So the flood of 2003, the winter water level was the "normal" 480, correct? Would the landowners not have gotten the same results from the water being three feet higher? I assume that APCO opened the flood gates to account for all of the water, flooding those 11 landowners downstream. I am not exactly sure what dictates the flood gates being wide open, besides rain and demand for power generation, but to me, 7' would take a whole lot of water to fill the lake. I am sure the APCO has certain times when they need to flow a certain amount of water through just to keep the proper amount of power generated, but I am not understanding how keeping the level lower would be beneficial to the landowners.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
West Point Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
Georgia Lakes
»
West Point Lake
Login
|
Home
