Forum Thread

Lake Naomi Topics

(Lake Naomi Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,673 messages

Updated 6/13/2024 6:12:00 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,197 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM

Lake Naomi Fishing

(Lake Naomi Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,170 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,977 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	Patrick J -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 9:58:32 AM

I understand the winter level for the first quarter of 2008 was raised to 483 and the variance allows for the lake to fill faster. Is there any chance this winter pool level will be permenantly? I've heard the earliest the lake levels could be permenantly was 2013 when the current act is up for renewal.

Name:	Arnold -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 12:03:38 PM

I’ll let Osms give you the Martin HOBO perspective and actions they’ve taken on this issue.

Here’s my 2-sense worth: There is a chance, BUT. Near-term risks loom larger in decision makers’ eyes that longer term benefits. The crux of this issue now is drought risk versus flood risk and the cost$ Alabama Power is willing to bear. They get sued for flood damage, not drought damage.

So, for now, flood risk trumps drought risk--and measures to reduce such risk like raising the winter pool level in Martin like they did with the variance this year. Last summer APCo indicated that they planned to keep the winter pool at 483 (God willing) during the interim relicensing phase between now and 2013. This would allow them, State, federal agencies, and the Army Corps of Engineers to thoroughly study the risk$ and benefit$ resulting from a permanent change. However, 2 weeks ago, Jim Crew heading the relicensing effort for APCo indicated that APCo had recently completed a flood analysis and presented the findings to FERC. Based on that study FERC directed that the winter pool could not be raised to 483 for relicensing study purposes.

Also, another impediment to an interim change to the winter pool level is the apparent never-ending inter-state water war. Earlier efforts to raise Martin’s winter pool level were rebuffed because changes to Alabama’s reservoir storage capacity would, in effect, weaken the State’s negotiating position for demanding more water from GA during drought conditions. All the models, data, and impact studies entered into evidence were and remain predicated on the current rule curve for Martin. Is there a chance to change it? Maybe. More folks joining and supporting the HOBO effort may make the difference.

Name:	Patrick J -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 2:24:02 PM

Thank you for your answer. I'm not an engineer or a flood control expert, but it seems to me the fall / winter seasons are the driest we have. In a normal year we receive most of our rain during the spring and summer when the lake is between 487 to 490. I don't see where a winter pool level of 483 from November to February would hurt anything or make a difference in flood control efforts. I don't see why they can't lower it to 483 by the end of November and leave it there until the middle of March.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 2:37:37 PM

I'm more optmistic than Arnold on the winter lake level matter. Our meeting with Crew and consultants was not filled with optimism, but we feel that there may room for improvement in the historical modeling. APCo engineers are supposed to meet with HOBO engineer types soon to review modeling data.in Birmingham. Remember, Crew was the APCo representative that told the relicensing attendees in May that there would be no chance of a temporary raise in winter water level before 2013---and look where we are--we got the temp raise for 07-08.

WE WILL ANNOUNCE ON THE FORUM AND VIA HOBO EMAIL THE DATE AND TIME OF THE NEXT RELICENSING MEETING--EVERYONE SHOULD PLAN TO ATTEND AND LET APCO KNOW THAT THE WINTER LAKE LEVEL IS IMPORTANT TO US.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Patrick J
Date:	2/24/2008 2:41:48 PM

Your comment is our position also. The historical flood data used by APCo was March 1990 and May 2003. In 2003 the lake was already full when the flood hit, In March 1990, we've got to review their data but we doubt the lake was at 480.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 3:11:54 PM

I wold like to be on the HOBO email list, ifit's doable.. Thanks

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 4:10:48 PM

If you are a member of the HOBOs and have given us your email address, you will receive all correspondence. If you are not a member, see the link below.

URL: http://www.lakemartin.org/

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 4:32:51 PM

In a way I can sympathize with APCO on this issue. Just look at the rapid rise in water levels over the last two weeks (over 4') in the middle of a drought. If we had normal rainfall and then a significant storm event I can see it raising the level so much that flooding could occur downstream. As much flak as they get for the impact of the drought, they would really catch it for flooding.

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 5:46:54 PM

Arnold sounds like he has jumped up on my soapbox!! The risk of drought vs. flood is really a non-issue as I see it however. First, you can sue anybody for anything, but to try to sue APCO for a flood, AKA, act of God, would be a fruitless venture. Even with my low opinion of (most)lawyers I can't see that case going to court. Second, Martin can only go a few feet out its banks before the dam is overflowed again. In 1980 after the first ever overflow the new concrete coffer dam was built on the east side of the dam. This was to prevent another overflow from happening, but the coffer dam is only 3-4ft high. The engineers say it would have prevented the 1980 overflow event however.

Second is weather prediction. It has come a long way in the past years. With satellite technology, we know days in advance of any storm system and with computer modeling the lakes and rivers can be lowered to accommodate massive storms in most cases. As we have seen this year, the water level can be effected greatly in a short time. It can be lowered as fast or even faster than it can be raised.

The higher winter pool could very well be a double edged sword. Yes it would extend the season, but it could also lead to some pretty severe level fluctuations. They might start raising and lowering more often to accommodate rainfall. In high fluctuation situations the risk of damage to watercraft greatly increases. Floating piers help tremendously with this issue, but DO NOT eliminate it. Fluctuations also impact erosion and cause greater stress on seawalls.

I have said for years that I am in favor of, and think a 5ft draw is plenty, but I don't have the data, nor expertise to say. APCO does however, and FLOOD CONTROL will be the deciding factor.

Name:	Arnold -	Reply
Subject:	Flood Lawsuits
Date:	2/24/2008 6:29:02 PM

Agree with you for the most LTL except for lawsuits. Two lawsuits come to mind against APCo for flooding on the Tallapoosa. One for flooding below Martin has been through the litigation gauntlet and either has been settled at the BAMA Supreme Court or about to be. Another, related to the May 8, 2003 flooding between Harris and Martin that is still in the works.

As Osms indicated above, HOBO is challenging the veracity of the recent APCo flood study that used past March and May flood event data. We've had some nasty floods in winter before, the 1961 February flood comes to mind; but there is more winter storage capacity now with the addition of Harris reservoir, and much mo better forecasting technology to manage the dam(n) hydraulic control capabilities Harris and Martin provide on the Poosa.

Again, I think the HOBOs are going to make a higher winter pool happen--hopefully $ooner rather than later.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 7:46:29 PM

LTL, what have you seen over the years with water fluctuations? I seem to recall an earlier post where you saw levels rise signifinatly in a short period of time. I am all for a winter pool of 483 or 485 but at the same time recognize that if we can avoid flooding downstream of Martin that is a good thing, even if in some years of lower precip we might be inconvenienced (i.e., my not being able to float my boat is less important than flood damage).

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Future winter levels
Date:	2/24/2008 10:01:07 PM

Fortunately Martin is very stable for the most part, although in 2000, which was also a drought year, 6 inches was pulled in one 24 hour period for (hold your breath folks) to float ONE heavy laden barge downstream. In my younger years my family shared a place on Lake Mitchell with another family. It had horrible fluctuations. We woke up a couple of times to find our boats practically hanging from the pier.

Quick Links
Lake Naomi News
Lake Naomi Photos
Lake Naomi Videos