Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

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

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

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

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

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

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	John C -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 11:51:26 AM

We (the folks that know and love Lake Martin) have a once in a 40 year chance to help improve the community.

FERC is having their only public comment meeting this Wednesday at the CACC in Alex City. 6:30 - 9:30. Even if you don't plan on speaking, I think that the sheer number of bodies that show up for this will have a positive effect on FERC. I wrote a post on my blog about it, with links to further reading if you would like.

Basically, the issues attracting most attention are that AL Power, and many other stakeholders, have requested that for the new license,

1. Only draw down the water 7 feet as opposed to 10 in the winter
2. Have an optional full pool season that can extend into October, weather permitting.

FERC has denied both of these, citing that not many stakeholders would be affected and flood control.

Whether you like AL Power or not, whether you think Russell Lands controls the lake or not, whether you like fast boats or jet skis or big wave wakeboarders or puttering around in a jon boat or your grandaddy's wooden dugout canoe -

Now is the time to come together and support the above two measures.

I would argue it's way past time to quit nit picking amongst ourselves and support this. We need one loud, clear voice to FERC saying there are many, many stakeholders and we want this. We don't need to cloud the issue by saying anything else or asking for anything else.

What can I do? You might say. Show up, I say.

In this below post, I also try to answer 5 common objections to coming to the meeting:

1. “The fatcats and corporate bigwigs control everything anyway. People like me don’t matter.”

2. “I’m not going to speak at the meeting, so why should I come?”

3. “Someone else will go. I don’t need to go.”

4. “I have church on Wednesday nights.”

5. “I live out of town.”

URL: Why You Must Attend The FERC Meeting

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 12:30:09 PM

here here 2nd that motion !!! it will greatly enhance values at lake

Name:	USCGAU89 -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 2:05:13 PM

It is very important that you take this opportunity to speak out about the Lake you love.

Name:	lakeguy -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 2:35:07 PM

FERC has already denied both proposals.

Do you consider this an appeal, or simply FERC saying they "listened"?

Name:	John C -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 2:51:07 PM

I am not an expert in the re licensing process, but my understanding is that their denial is not official yet, it is in draft form. Hence the "Draft EIS" status of the document to which everyone refers. In my dumbed down thought process, I perceive them as saying "hey y'all - this is how we plan to rule on this. What do you think?"

So we are in a "public comment" period and this is our chance to comment, even if commenting means just physically coming to the meeting.

What distresses me is that FERC seems to have a narrow definition of stakeholder - e.g. when speaking about the proposed fall full pool level, they said it would only benefit property owners. That's silly. They are ignoring the huge potential economic benefit to the entire area for increased tourism.

FERC also has a wide margin of error on weather prediction. They say the reason they don't want a 7 foot winter drop is that the 10 foot gives them a better margin of error to handle floods. Why do they still need such a wide margin of error, the same margin they had 40 years ago with stone age (comparatively) weather prediction methods?

Name:	green,ed -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 3:02:07 PM

With all the rain and downstream flooding, not a good year for this to come up

Name:	papatoon869 -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 3:21:52 PM

Part of the problem is the "F" in FERC. Unfortunately the Feds think they know what is best for everyone and must think for all of us. Anyone who doesn't understand (or doesn't care) about the economic impact this will make in the lake area doesn't need to be making important decisions about anything. Let's all go out and support our spokespersons Wed night

Name:	CAT BOAT -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 3:55:44 PM

Stop by and get me John. I'll go with you.

Name:	lakeguy -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 4:03:06 PM

I appreciate your efforts and will be hopeful that they can make a difference. Unfortunately, I do have some track record with their position on this issue. They have not been supportive for a very long time.

It appears to be the only opportunity we have, however, and therefore is worth the effort.

Name:	Spot Remover -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 4:49:55 PM

One clear, loud voice on one topic sounds like it limits other concerns besides water level.
Why would these be the only topics to bring up?

Name:	RickLake -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 5:48:49 PM

Why not start the spring fill-up earlier? How about February 1? Even if the 481 winter pool continues, at least the lake could have a chance to fill earlier and keep the early February rains. Have a goal of 491 by April 15. This gets the lake full 2 weeks ealier than current rule curve. I submitted this idea to FERC thru their website.

Name:	John C -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 7:03:48 PM

to CAT - I would love to but I will be coming from Alex City.

to spot remover and Rick - those are great ideas but you are too late to the table with them. This is too late in the game to muddy the waters with too many options. To me, the options in front of us are simple: to support the 7 foot winter rule and the provisional fall full pool, or not. To talk about other hypotheticals, while well meaning, to me is tantamount to discussing and creating new plays at a goal line stand with one second on the clock. Go with the strongest play that everyone can execute. If 100 people speak with 100 different requests, I don't think that would make much of an impact. Babble. But if we all speak of one accord, in support of what has been on the table for two years, I think we would have a chance.

If you're on the 1 yard line and trying to score, sure, there are conceivably 100 plays that might work. Let's go with our strongest play, I say.

It is also my personal opinion that lack of community cohesiveness has hurt us here. Time spent, for example, arguing against AP's proposal for 7 feet, saying they were greedy and all of that, was wasteful. Sure, I would have loved to get 5 feet, too. But I think that time, energy, money and resource should have been focused on supporting the 7 foot, e.g.

Obviously I have no way to prove that, but it's just my take. A house divided cannot stand.

Name:	Wakely -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/15/2013 7:23:49 PM

I spoke with a marina owner earlier this month (I'll keep his name and his business out of it) who said that a rainy July Fourth-- not the weekend, but that day-- would ruin his year.

If a little rain keeps enough people off the water for one day to ruin a business year, I don't see why people think that it's the water level that keeps boaters away during the winter. It's not; it's the weather.

Likewise, it's not the combination of good weather and high water that brings people to the lake; you have to add time of year into the equation as well. Otherwise, the week AFTER Labor Day would be just as busy as the week BEFORE. But it's not, and anyone who doesn't limit their lake season to the days between Memorial Day Weekend and Labor Day Weekend knows that.

While I would be in favor of extended seasons on both ends, anyone who thinks that three more feet of water in the winter is going to bring some sort of economic boom is kidding themselves. The only businesses that will benefit from a higher winter pool are those businesses that repair and/or build docks and seawalls, when three feet of water is the difference between standing on the sand and doing the work yourself, or hiring someone to do the same work in a few feet of icy water.

Get the FERC to do something about the weather, the school year and football season, and a higher winter pool WILL do many of the great things that people seem to think it will. But as long as school runs from late August through late May, as long as college football season runs from early September through early January, and as long as the temps start dropping below 72 in the fall, winter and early spring, a higher winter pool is going to do nothing to the local economy (dock companies notwithstanding.) Sorry to come across as a doomsayer, but that's just the reality of the situation, and it's a reality supported by facts that are out there for anyone to examine.

If the FERC reverses itself and the new regulations take effect, I hope all of the restaurants and other businesses expecting a huge uptick in business just because the lake is deeper in the winter have some money set aside; they'll need it.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/15/2013 11:01:14 PM

Your friend with the marina told you the very reason the lake needs to be raised during the fall and winter. Businesses around the lake are fragile at best, and increased traffic, whether boats buying gas, or people buying meals at a restaurant help these businesses survive, especially during those times when lake traffic is light. Will it take a few years for people to change their habits? Yes, but they will change their habits to enjoy more lake time. Those of us who are full timers have learned that a wonderful time of the year is the fall when the weather is cooler....part-timers will learn this too, if given the benefit of higher water. Back in the 50s and early 60s few if any people had houses on the lake because levels were very unpredictable. That all changed when the lake levels were stabilized with the new license in 1973. It got better then and it'll do the same this time if we can get higher water. Every person able to go to the meeting should be there. If you aren't there don't complain when the next drought comes in a couple of years.

Name:	Wakely -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/15/2013 11:47:47 PM

Thanks for the lesson, though most of it was not needed, since I am also a full-time resident, and have been since I was born back in the late 1950s. So I know how things work here; I also know how they don't. And raising water levels in the dead of winter will not increase traffic on the lake, or on the roads around the lake, no matter how much you, me or anyone else wants it to. A full-time resident like you should now that, since you should have noticed how little things change in the off season from year to year, no matter what. The vast majority of our summertime visitors aren't going to choose the lake over football. They can't choose the lake over school. And they aren't going to choose to spend time on the lake on a cold winter day, at least not more than once. And if sane water levels in January lead to lower than normal water levels in the summer, you won't hear me complain; I've been here long enough to have learned how to love the lake even in drought conditions.

Name:	centerpleasure -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/16/2013 9:07:27 AM

Wakely, I completely agree. More things to consider are, property values will remain higher for those of us who have year around water. Also, level 480 allows the lake to cleanse the shoreline of algae growth & will let natural creek beds return somewhat.

Name:	Tbone -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/16/2013 9:55:17 AM

Well here is one football crazy Ala fan that would definately spend some at the lake in the fall. The fall is the best time of the year, and Ala and Auburn only play 3 or 4 home games that are even worth going to Big screen TVs have changed some things for football fans. Besides, for Auburn fans the lake would be the perfect place to go to after a game, and before it. Most years there wont be enough water to keep the level up in the Fall, but if you have a wet year like this one, why not keep itfor a couple of months? I suspect folks probably dont want more people at the lake.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/16/2013 10:29:15 AM

If you liked 2007, then no one can help you.

Name:	John C -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/16/2013 12:08:18 PM

ditto Wix. If you think water levels have nothing to do with anything, please see 07. It was hot as rip with no water and no rain.

I also would respectfully disagree with you when you say that more full pool would not help. I am not guaranteeing an economic boom. I am saying it would help the lake move into a year round economy. To act like lower water levels (e.g. 2007) don't affect that - ignores the facts and ignores common sense. More water is better. To quote one marina owner about one day about rain is rather anecdotal and not very scientific. Ask the same marina owner how 2007 treated him and I think you might get a fuller picture.

I am 40. I have seen the lake change in my 40 years. To use real estate alone as an example, (not to mention boats, marinas, telephone, Tv, restaurants) - When they first opened Willow Point in the early 70s, everyone in Alex City, - including my family that has been in real estate since 1953 - wondered what crazy person would buy a lot at Willow Point for $9,000 when they are so far away from Alex City. Ditto in the 1980s when in Trillium there was one island with four lots that cost - gasp - $1 million. What fools would pay $250k for one lot?

Name:	UncleSam -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/16/2013 12:35:59 PM

If the issue is nothing more than higher water, why isn't the lake as busy in the first few weeks of September than it is all summer? Most of the time there is very little difference in the temperatures or the water levels, yet the number of people on the lake drops considerably. If those people aren't coming in September, I don't see them coming in January. It's easy for some business owners to look at a possibly longer season and see nothing but good. But if you have a business with a high overhead, and you decide to keep summer hours all winter, you MUST draw a summer like crowd. You have to bring in a certain amount of people just to break even, because you have payroll to meet, power bills to pay, and inventory to buy, and that's money out even if no money comes in. And on the shoestring budget that many if these places must operate on, that's money they can't afford to waste. If we truly want this area to become more of a year round community, it's not the water we need to improve; it's the school systems. All of those summertime people from Mountain Brook and Vestavia and Hoover aren't going to put their kids in a local school just so the parents can live on the lake. And if you took a close look at all of those boats you see in July that you wish we're here in January, you'd see that most of them are full of kids.

Name:	Tbone -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/16/2013 3:34:24 PM

But why force the water level down in Sept and Oct?? Most of the time it will go down due to the dry conditions of those 2 months, but it its a wet year like this one, why lower the level those 2 months? In Alabama, those are two of the best weather months of the year. October is probably the best month of the year to be outdoors.

Name:	RickLake -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/16/2013 3:56:11 PM

Three feet is just not gonna help much to increase boating. I need 486' (new standard) to get my boat in and out of my boat lift. Also, when we had the 3 extra feet winter before last, I don't remember lake traffic being any higher.

Increase property values? I think you will need for than 3 feet to do that. Year round full pool - you bet!

Despite being a new idea, the barn door is not closed and I am asking FERC to initiate spring fill earlier.

Name:	Wakely -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/16/2013 9:58:02 PM

I am in favor of a full-pool season that arrives sooner, and lasts longer. My issue is with the three extra feet in the dead of winter, and with the idea that those three feet are some sort of magic bean that will drive people to the lake, into their boats, and to local businesses, even on the cold winter days and nights. If water level was all it took, the Gulf Shores would be just as busy in December as it is in June. I had never thought about the issue of school systems before, but that's a great point; to convince many of these summer people to become full timers, you need to be able to offer their children the same quality education that they can get in their wealthy Birmingham, Atlanta or Montgomery suburbs. Besides all of that, thousands more full-time residents aren't going to have a 100% positive effect on every local business; unless all of those new residents are retirees, a good number of them are going to be competitors: restaurant owners, veterinarians, accountants, dentists, lawyers, bankers... and of course real estate agents. All drawing customers away from current businesses that offer the same services that their new businesses will offer.

Name:	Hawks Nest -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/16/2013 11:30:51 PM

I am blessed to have year-round water, but only by about 3 inches. And even though my boat is floating, I don't use it in the winter because I see stump tops all around. I'd love to see 3 more feet as it would give me clearance over these stumps. And I'd be on the water in the winter on occasion. Love to fish in the winter. How will we ever know what the activity may be like with more winter water if we never have it to try?

Name:	Wakely -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 1:54:39 AM

I'd love to hear what others remember, but when I think back to those occasions when we HAVE had high water in winter, I don't recall any additional boat traffic. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about February 2013, when we broke 484 on the 26th; we haven't dropped below it since, but it wasn't until late spring that I noticed more boats. And I'm talking about January 2012, when we had four straight days of 484. And I'm talking about late 2009/early2010. Check the graph on this site, and you'll see that we were between 484 and 488 almost every day between March 1 2009 and January 4 2010, and again from January 28 until November 9. Almost every day in February 2010 was between 484 and 487, well above the "magic 484." Do the local businesses refer to this in some sort of reverent way? Because from what I've been reading they must, since all we need to fill the lake with boats is higher water. Not warmer weather, not school-free days for the kids, but higher water.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 7:15:23 AM

John C has clearly stated that he is not predicting an immediate economic boom to the area if we get 483. He has said there is a chance, and there is a possibility that more boaters would be here in the off months. Each business would have to determine its response to the possibility, probably only after they saw a reality.

I, for one, have mixed opinions. I like the beach in the winter, good to access my pier for repairs, etc. On the other hand, if we had 483 standard, I would purchase a ride on PWC ramp, so I could keep my 4stroke sea doo at the pier year round. So, there is a tiny bit of $ that 483 would produce, a little bit more gas purchased from local store in off months. Multiply that by number of other permanent residents, add a few weekenders, and at least a slight $ boost.

Question is: In the eyes and minds of the licensing folks is that amount of $, and my enjoyment of more water (and yours and theirs) worth the risk the agency takes to use the lake for flood control? They have years of history with it working, so a change will be hard to come by.

Name:	RickLake -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 10:06:03 AM

I wonder if people would really use PWC or boats after you winterize them. I don't have a PWC nor an inboard/outboard but I do know they need specific winterization and cannot be used again until weather is not gonna freeze again or you risk expensive engine block damage. Who is gonna winterize a PWC or I/O boat only to take it out on a warm January day and then have to re-winterize for the next week when temps could dive into the 20s or lower? I know outboards are different so long as you don't have water in the foot (caused by a leaky seal) but you only know that when you changed the gear oil and at that point I'm not starting that motor again until the spring unless I leave it in the water all winter which I don't do.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 10:27:17 AM

We use our PWC all year, it has an open cooling system, so when I pull it out (the PWC) of the water, I just run the engine a couple of times to clear the water. Our I/O runabout - once it is winterized, it is done for the season, we just got an outboard pontoon boat, and it will see winter action. We have wetsuits that we have used a couple of times, but it would surprise you how much fun is to be had during the winter. If we get 483, I can use the jetdock, at 480 I launch and just beach.

Name:	jalcz -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 11:33:46 AM

We can start making a list of business people who will definitely benefit from a higher winter level: Mechanics who will be winterizing and summerizing individual boats multiple times each winter. Mechanics who will be repairing engines after the inevitable "I don't need to winterize, no way it can get too cold." Marinas who will be selling boats to people who have inboards or inboard/outboards, but need outboards to use in the winter. Marinas that store boats, since now more people will be adding another boat to their stable. And the one that affects me the most: dock companies who will be doing deep-water repairs that could be done on dry land if the lake would drop three more feet. (I need to replace a broken pole. If the water drops to 481, I can do the work myself for the cost of the pole and two bags of cement. If the water only drops to 484, I have to hire a dock company to bring over a barge and use a pile driver to sink a new post. The lowest estimate I have so far is more than TWENTY times the cost of doing it myself. That's more than $1,000 compared to less than $50.

Name:	jalcz -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely asks a good question
Date:	7/17/2013 11:36:13 AM

"If water level was all it took, Gulf Shores would be as busy in December as it is in June." Excellent point. Ignored because it's the painful truth, but excellent.

Name:	jalcz -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/17/2013 11:40:34 AM

Isn't it a bit shortsighted to equate summer and winter? Of course higher water is important in the summer, but to say that it's the lower water that keeps people away in the winter is comparing apples to oranges, when there are so many other factors that come into play.

Name:	jalcz -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/17/2013 11:45:04 AM

I'd bet that the improvements in the highway system had more to do with the increased lake population than the stable water levels did. As Highway 280 improved in bits and pieces, our three-hour drive through small towns on narrow winding roads became shorter and quicker... and our lake visits became more frequent. (Not to mention how much easier it was to convince people to make the drive.)

Name:	RickLake -	Reply
Subject:	Wakely
Date:	7/17/2013 11:47:56 AM

Frankly, I understood the request for 3 foot winter pool increase is to mitigate drought conditions in spring. I just don't expect an economic boom with 3 more feet. However, it certainly could help the lake fill easier in the spring but then only if the rule curve is adjusted to take advantage of it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/17/2013 6:41:32 PM

I really think you make a lot of very valid points about the change in lake levels not being a panacea for all that ails lake oriented businesses. But I also think you underestimate the positive economic benefit and if there is no real downside to the increase in lake level in the winter and extension of the drawdown then why not support anything that can help the economy?

I can tell you an additional 3' would give me and probably a half dozen or more other houses in my little slough year round water. I have no doubt it would increase property values which is a positive. In addition, with the extended full pool it would make my dock boat-usable into the late fall when I would love to come to the lake but don't because I don't want to cart my boat in and out of the water every day. Multiply that on a lake with 700 miles of shoreline and you can see that it would have a reasonably significant positive economic benefit. That alone seems worth it especially if APCO is on board with the change.

On top of that, when the weather patterns change for the worse (and they will), having that extra 3' of water and the extended draw down timeframes would be a significant improvement on lake usage and would benefit those businesses that rely on people being at the lake. In 2007 we left after July 4th and never came back. I can tell you that was repeated all over the lake and as we saw with all the business failures it does indeed make a difference.

Would 3 more feet of water and extending the full pool curve bring folks in droves during the winter? Of course not and that isn't the point. I can assure you it would help a lot in the spring and the fall and that extra revenue would do wonders for local businesses. If the weather is bad then business is likewise going to be negatively impacted......but you can't do anything about the weather. But we can change winter pool and the rule curve in a way that will provide a boost to local businesses, increase property values and improve the views for hundreds of houses in sloughs all over the lake.

If there is little to no downside to this and all the benefits why not support the change?

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/17/2013 7:08:50 PM

Martini,,, because the F in FERC is for Federal, and the easiest thing to do is always NOTHING.

Name:	TotheLake -	Reply
Subject:	If the school systems were better we would move
Date:	7/18/2013 3:05:44 PM

full time to the lake. But me being 42 and my husband being 51 and having 9 year old and a 2 year old to put through school just isn't the right time. We live in the Redland area of Wetumpka and love our elementary school. If there was a school system that has the same caring teachers, principal and office staff and test scores that we have at our school, I would move in a heartbeat. Unfortunately there isn't one. I've seriously thought about home schooling just so we could sell our house in town and move to the lake full time but I haven't convinced myself that I'm ready to do that.

We spend time at the lake in September and October but just not during the week since we have school. Before my daughter started school, we would spend a week at the time at the lake just to enjoy it and my husband would drive into Montgomery for work. As someone else said, September and October is great weather for boating. We also spend time at the lake in November and December but not nearly as much time as we would like to because of the holidays. I would love to see the water levels we've been seeing the last few years. My husband and I will be going to the website that I saw today to give our input since we were unable to attend the meeting last night.

Name:	jalcz -	Reply
Subject:	Higher winter levels will improve the schools...
Date:	7/19/2013 12:16:49 AM

Magically!! And immediately!! At least that's what I've gathered from this thread. Also, everyone will have more money because their property taxes will rise.

Name:	greycove -	Reply
Subject:	Why You Must Attend Lake Martin's FERC Meeting
Date:	7/19/2013 12:38:50 PM

How long would it take for APC to raise the lake level from 483 to 490 versus 480 to 490? Is this a sufficent time difference that the power company would be concerned about meeting their lake level curve?

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos