(Lake Naomi Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,623 messages
Updated 5/13/2024 10:35:33 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Naomi Specific)
0 messages
Updated
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: |
raysea
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 12:39:50 PM
|
APCO has used the excuse that they have to release water from Lake Martin to keep the Alabama River navigable. If this is true, why can't more water be released from the other Tallapoosa and Coosa river lakes for the same purpose? As of today, Lake Martin is down 6.9'. The other lakes that could feed the Alabama above Montgomery are down as follows: Jordan -1.5', Mitchell -2.2', Lay -2.1', Logan Martin -3.0', Neely Henry -1.2', Weiss -1.4', Tallassee -1.9', Yates -1.4', and Wedowee -3.2'.
Why does Lake Martin have to suffer most of the misery? Could it be that APCO makes more money generating electricity at Martin Dam? Someone needs to ask APCO some tougher questions. Don't be naive about our water level situation.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 1:02:37 PM
|
I believe that water IS released form those lakes to help keep the river navigable. So to assume that they aren't releasing water is itself naive.
You have to remember that Lake Martin is much, much larger than all of those lakes, not just in shoreline but also volume. Not adding the Lake Martin release water could, presumably, all but drain some of those lakes. (OF course, as long as WE have what WE want, who cares about people who live on other lakes, right? THEY don't matter.)
As for the money made by generating hydroelectric power from Lake Martin, Alabama Power is now buying power on the open market, to offset the losses they are feeling from the power that they are NOT generating this year. And as of June 14 they were requesting that the U.S. Corps of Engineers allow them to release even less water from Lake Martin, but I don't know the results of that request.
Don't forget that we are experiencing a drought of historic proportions. And further north, where the water that fills Lake martin originates, they are in the grips of what has been labeled an "exceptional" drought (and that's about as bad as it gets.) Add in the evaporation caused by the hot, dry, rainless days, and it's probably amazing that the lake has as much water as it does. And until the drought ends-- and one good thunderstorm isn't going to even make a dent-- people need to expect the lake to continue to drop. Because, the water needed to fill the lake JUST ISN'T THERE.
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 2:02:55 PM
|
Good post.
|
| Name: |
raysea
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 2:30:18 PM
|
You must have been the guy I was looking for! First off, I didn't suggest that no water should have been withdrawn from Lake Martin, only that the drawdown be equitable with the other lakes in the system. As to the size of Lake Martin, the other lakes have a combined surface area of 100,000 acres ( 2-1/2 times the surface area of Lake Martin). If one additional foot of water had been withdrawn from each of the other lakes, it would have saved 2-1/2' of water from Lake Martin. And guess what, all the lake property owners would have about the same waterlevel situation (actually Lake Martin would still be the worst of the group). Now that the damage is done, you are correct, there is no water to fill Lake Martin. That is the point! Why was it mismanaged to that point by APCO and/or the Corp. I apologize if you work for one of the two.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 4:58:51 PM
|
First, your numbers are only accurate if the banks of the respective lakes drop straight down. Think about a glass full of water, and a Petri dish (or a very, very shallow bowl) 2.5 times the size of the opening of that glass. If you remove an inch of water from the glass, the surface area of the water is virtually unchanged, but if you remove an equal amount of water from the Petri dish, the surface area is now greatly diminished. In other words, the effects of being a foot lower could be much, much worse on those smaller lakes, despite their surface area.
But ignore that, because that's not really the problem. Instead, let's assume that we now have that 2.5 feet of water that you think is so important. That would put the lake at about 483.5. When was the lake last at this level? The last week of May. And what were people doing at that time?
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WATER LEVEL. AND BLAMING APCO FOR THEIR "MISMANAGEMENT."
In other words, things would be as they are now anyway.
|
| Name: |
lubdalake
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 5:27:18 PM
|
Could somebody explain to me why Logan Martin level has gone up over the past few days? I think that Martin is supplying most of the river flow. I would like to go back to last winter and the mismanagement of the levels then having an impact on the levels now.
|
| Name: |
skiantique
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 5:44:10 PM
|
There has been a decent amount of rain around LM this past week, perhaps?
chris
|
| Name: |
PC Al
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 6:19:26 PM
|
You get my vote raysea, but you won’t get a lot of sympathy from several on this forum. I could use MythBuster’s theory that we are the largest so we should suffer more, turn it around to say that why not let the mega-rich pay all the taxes because they have most of the money. Wish it worked that way, but not so. I agree with you that the draw down should be equitable with the other lakes in the system. If you want to talk about the size of Lake Martin, then conversely, that means we are supplying a much larger volume of the downstream water.
We all agree that not much can be done this year, but if you just accept status quo, you get status quo. My concern is that we not get the shaft next year or the year after that. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The article about the mayors and people along the Alabama River is an example. They do not want to accept what is happening and they are trying to do something about it. If you don’t think the lawsuit filed by the Logan Martin Homeowners Association or the pressure put on by the Lake Harris Association has done any good, then nothing we can write on this forum will change your mind. I can only point to the results. Both lakes are better off now than any other time Lake Martin has been at this level of water.
|
| Name: |
Carnac
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I'm with you, AL
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 6:34:16 PM
|
You've hit the nail on the head. We've got to put a lot of pressure on APCO and keep ratcheting it up. It worked for the others that you mentioned and it can work for us. Unfortunately there are too many folks who think that it's hopeless to go against APCO and FERC.
If you always do what you always did you'll always get what you always got.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question for Mythbuster
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 6:47:08 PM
|
If Lake Martin had a winter level 6 feet higher than it was this past winter, what would be the lake level today. No BS, just a correct answer.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Join the Lake Martin HOBOs
|
|
Date:
|
6/20/2007 6:47:28 PM
|
This exactly one of the issue we would like to discuss with APCo and if they are not willing to discuss the matter the HOBOs will take it to FERC.
However as the HOBO website states "To be successful we have to have the support of the masses of Lake Martin lovers. When we fight the fight we have to all stand united and say that we are thousands strong and we mean what we say. When we are thousands strong we will be heard!"
.
Click the link below for our membership page.
URL: HOBO Membership Application
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question for Mythbuster
|
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 12:19:42 AM
|
Obviously, the safe answer to YOUR question is "about one foot below full pool." However, given the way things are right now, you would have to consider the mindset of the powers-that-be when they looked at lake levels, lake sizes, etc. and saw these two things:
1-- that the rivers downstream from Lake Martin were in dire need of water, and
2-- that Lake Martin was just about full of water that could be used downstream.
So I would guess-- and I stress the word guess-- that Lake Martin would not be nearly as full as most people think it would had the winter drop been six feet less, because I think a lot of the water conserved this winter would have been used for downstream purposes this spring. Exactly what the current level would be, though, I don't know, since I don't know exactly how much of the "extra six feet" they would have used.
However... THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, AND SO THE ANSWER I GAVE DID NOT CONSIDER FACTORS LIKE HIGHER WINTER LEVELS.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question for Mythbuster
|
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 8:03:20 AM
|
If the lake had a winter pool level last winter of 485', we would have started with a level of 490' and we could have released another 2' to help folks downstream. 479' + 7' rise = 486' highest water level 2007'. Or if winter level were 485' + 7'rise = 492' - 2' released = 490'. Then the drought release from 486' - 3' = 483' Today's level.
If we had started at 490' with the same releases, the same drought, etc., the lake level would be 487' and we would have provided 2' of additional water downstream. 487' is a reasonable lake level and is in line with the lake levels in Alabama.
Can you imagine why APCo would not support winter levels of 485'?
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answers based on false premise
|
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 8:26:50 AM
|
If we started with more I am sure APCO would have used more for power generation AND downstream releases.
When are you guys going to realize that it IS APCO's LAKE. It is here for their purposes, NOT OURS. All the talk of 'mismanagement' by APCO is crazy. None of you have a clue as to what goes into the decison making at APCO, much less the FERC. Its one summer out of you life. Find something else to do.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
LTL
|
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 9:52:22 AM
|
LTL --Last week it was Dadeville's lake to dump their sewage in, according to you. Whose lake is it really?
It belongs to everyone that uses it - even you. Take ownership.
|
| Name: |
raysea
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Naive About Water Level
|
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 10:00:49 AM
|
Thank you PC Al! You get it. If we make some noise, maybe it won't happen again. Oh, by the way, MythBuster obviously did not learn mathematics from the same teacher that I did. 483.1 plus 2.5 equals 485.6 (down 4.4). That would put a lot of boaters back in the water. All of the lakes in the system have sloping banks, not just Lake Martin. I admit that using the full pool acerage is a little inacurate, but it is similiar on all of the lakes in the system. Lake Martin certainly needs an advocate voice, good point about Logan Martin and Wedowee homeowners.
|
I will admit that I have taken some GREAT slate to use as stepping stones. I will NOT however take ownership of the entire lake. I am too smart, and not near egotistical enough to think the world revolves around me. Besides IF I owned it, I would run most of you guys out. I am just greatful that APCO allows me to play on their lake, even if it is not full.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Naomi Topics Forum
Reply
»
Pennsylvania Lakes
»
Lake Naomi
Login
|
Home
