Forum Thread

Lake Hartwell Topics

(Lake Hartwell Specific)

61 messages

Updated 5/3/2023 7:56:51 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,606 messages

Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Hartwell Fishing

(Lake Hartwell Specific)

3 messages

Updated 8/24/2016 3:16:17 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

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

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Want higher winter pool?
Date:	7/29/2010 3:21:40 PM

If you wnat a higher winter lake level, go to the link below and vote. Sure it won't help, but what the heck.

URL: Vote for higher winter pool,

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Want higher winter pool?
Date:	7/29/2010 4:09:05 PM

Not sure. The lower winter pools help flush a lot of the stuff that causes algae and other noxious plants to grow....might be tough to give up our amazingly clear water and end up with water like Lake Jordan.....but I have year round water even at 480, so have not walked in the shoes of those living along shallower areas of the lake. Might feel differently if we were high and dry at 483 or 484.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Clear water and high winter pool
Date:	7/29/2010 5:35:45 PM

Interesting you should mention water quality and higher winter water level. Tuesday, there was a relicensing panel discussion by five water quality experts--four were very familiar with Lake Martin and the consensus was that the winter level of the lake could be raised as much as 5', without a detrimental effect on water quality. Doubts were expressed about the available water flow to maintain higher fall levels much longer than the present rule curve allows, but overall the meeting was very positive about raising the winter level. Also, discussed was having a periodic drawdown of 10' to move sediment deeper--say every 3 to 5 years. Don't worry, nobody wants to harm the water quality.

Name:	pcs1900 -	Reply
Subject:	Want higher winter pool?
Date:	7/29/2010 5:36:46 PM

Not interested. Not many people here and the ones that do know how to navigate the lake. The lower levels help keep the shoreline clean and winter shore projects from being stupidly expensive. Nope.

Name:	willallie -	Reply
Subject:	Want higher winter pool?
Date:	7/30/2010 12:21:33 PM

I also vote NOPE for higher winter level. Besides the winter projects, kids realy enjoy walking around the lake in areas that are under water in the summer.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Don't forget....
Date:	7/31/2010 9:20:51 AM

that the primary reason for raising the winter level is so we will have enough water to reach full pool during drought years. We're currently headed back into a dry spell and possibly a "la nina" drought.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Don't forget....
Date:	7/31/2010 11:43:34 AM

We've been on the lake for about 15 years or so and the drought of 2007 (or was it 2008?) is the only time I can remember the water being super-low. Question I have is this: Is raising the winter pool a knee-jerk reaction to the 07/08(?) drought? Do we really want to possibly give up great water for a few more inches of depth? And I know you argue that it might not affect water quality but we have more and more residents fertilizing lawns and thus more and more fertilizer runoff into the lake. The yearly "flushing" so far has kept the negative effects at bay.

Not to mention that fact that there is always enough water to fill the lake - the question is how much of it Alabama Power decides to share with us rather than using it to generate electricity. Even a higher winter pool won't affect that.

Maybe we need to try a higher winter pool for a couple years to see what the effects are.

Just my opinion on a hot, yet wonderful Saturday morning at Lake Martin!!

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Don't forget....
Date:	7/31/2010 2:19:53 PM

Water quality is an extremely complex issue and I will not pretend to have any knowledge to share; however, as I have related, possible effects of raising the winter water level on water quality have been studied by many groups and the consensus as reported at the relicensing meeting is that raising the winter level by up to 5' will have little or no effect on water quality. The Tallapoosa River watershed is blessed with mostly timberland and few industrial polluters, few municipal waste water treatment plants, few chicken, hog, or cattle feeding operations that are the biggest source of pollution. While lawn fertilizer certainly is a source of nutrients for the lake, other sources are of a larger concern. The lake only rose to 486' in the summer of 2007, was down over 8 feet on July 4, and reached 479' (down 11') by the end of September 2007 --that's a lot worse than the few inches you mentioned. That drought devastated the lake dependent businesses in 2007 and 2008; many closed and many more have never recovered, so the lake level is important for the entire economy of the area. We hope everyone will be able to see the "big picture" and not think of their personal situation and desires. Raising the lake level in winter has been advocated for many years. Not only raising the winter level, but keeping the lake up later in the fall and raising it earlier in the spring as a way to improve recreation and the economy of the area. Lake Martin is the economic engine for the three county area, and as more and more mills close, the area will become more dependent on the lake. Alabama Power has delayed consideration of raising the level for years, until the relicensing process could begin -- now is the time, and it won't come around for another 30 or 40 years. We have advocated an adaptive management approach to the lake and certainly agree that flexibility should be incorporated in lake level issue. Unfortunately, there currently is no flexibility provided by FERC, which led to our situation in 2007. Someone said that if you forget the past, the past will surely repeat itself.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Read More Carefully Please
Date:	8/1/2010 8:07:30 AM

You must have miised the part of my post where I said "the drought of 2007 (or was it 2008?) is the only time I can remember the water being super-low." And that maybe we should try a higher winter level for a year or two. to see what it does to the water quality.

I am not opposed to a higher winter level IF water quality can be maintained. I see your "big picture" Try to see mine and others'.

Nasreddin Hodja

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	I think...
Date:	8/1/2010 9:11:41 AM

we're on the same page. When someone post a comment on the forum it is read by many people with varying backgrounds and knowledge levels. To better answer your post, I explained further my earlier post to help clarify the situation for all. Remember, in December 2006, APCo took the lake down to 478'+, because that's what they had always done and they didn't know that they would not be able to raise the lake to 490'--if they had been at 485' the lake would have filled even though the drought still happened. To exacerbate the problem the Corps continued to dredge the Alabama River and demanded more water from Martin to float the dredge and away we went to 475'. Hopefully, we've learned a few lessons--like raise the winter level and always be prepared for a drought. BTW, the Corps was dredging so that one wood pellet plant could ship by barge on the Alabama--the pellet plant filed bankruptcy the next year, so all was wasted. Learn from the Boy Scouts -- Be Prepared.

Name:	HARRY -	Reply
Subject:	I think...
Date:	8/1/2010 10:56:34 AM

Always be prepared for a drought is good. Also must always be prepared for flood conditions which is the reason for the winter drawdown.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	That's why 485' will work...
Date:	8/1/2010 1:09:21 PM

so well. Gives flood relief and prepares for a drought. Lake Martin is not a flood control dam--Alabama Supreme Court said so a couple of years ago. Interestingly the lake is lowered during Oct, Nov, and Dec which are the months with the lowest flood potential.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	That's why 485' will work...
Date:	8/1/2010 2:58:31 PM

Remember Jan 2010.....we got water and more water, and many of us were not able to finish the low level projects. I like having high water like everyone else, but I am with Hodja on water quality. We may not be from Missouri but will need some "show me" on good water quality at a higher winter pool. I thought OSMS had greatly misread Hodja before, and I had a reply all typed out, but decided that Mr Hodja was very capable of pointed that out himself.

To me the guy who seeks water quality is seeing the bigger picture than the guy who seeks water level. I agree both are good.

Name:	Ulysses E. McGill -	Reply
Subject:	That's why 485' will work...
Date:	8/1/2010 3:39:51 PM (updated 8/1/2010 3:41:25 PM)

I think all of you are basically on the same page and I am there too....I haven't put my rusty Biology degree to work in many years, but I strongly believe water quality, drought control, and flood control can go hand in hand. There are good scientists looking at the data and I belive a better solution will be found; the current system is antiquated and is not based on available scientific data. I think the key to the best solution is flexibility, and I hope flexibility will be added to the equation....although we are talking government oversight so I won't hold my breath on that issue.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Didn't misread Hodja...
Date:	8/1/2010 4:19:53 PM

just backed up the response so others would understand. I would like to invite all interested parties to attend the APCo Relicennsing Meetings that have been going on for 3+ years. It's a complex issue that is being worked through and hopefully a good solution will be reached. I would hope that all the posters with personal stories about water rising too soon, children enjoying playing on the bank, etc., will just weigh that option against a drought year like 2007 and tell us which alternative you'd prefer. The water quality issue has been addressed and I highly recommend everyone to get involved with the future of the lake -- don't stand from afar and fuss, step up; we need you help.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Didn't misread Hodja...
Date:	8/1/2010 4:55:13 PM

We are not really standing from afar and fussing. The major rains during this past winter may have been as much an aberration as the drought of 2007, but it did happen. Your statement about not getting that much rain in the winter may be true, but there are exceptions.

As I have said, I am ok with a higher winter level, even started a thread once on what would you do different if we were able to achieve that. We are with you. Just your statement about the bigger picture caused my red flag to go up.

Name:	Spot Remover -	Reply
Subject:	Want higher winter pool?
Date:	8/2/2010 7:48:17 AM

A higher winter pool is OK (but I really like things the way they are). Not a fan of waiting until October to start dropping the lake, though. As in most things, (environmental changes), "gradual" affects the eco-system to a lesser degree than down and up in 4 or so months. I would hope for a continued drop in the lake level after Labor Day, and maybe do it in a slower mode over a longer period of time if necessary. Hey, I'm a fisherman, and I love to get out on the end of the long points in the fall.

Quick Links
Lake Hartwell News
Lake Hartwell Photos
Lake Hartwell Videos