| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
OTHER LAKES TO FILL
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 8:55:27 AM
|
Why is APCO going to fill Lay Mitchell and Jordan back up in the next two weeks while drawing on Martin Logan Martin and Harris?
go to this url to see what is to happen
http://www.alabamapower.com/lakes/iframe_lakelevel.asp
URL: APCO lake level predictions
|
| Name: |
skiantique
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OTHER LAKES TO FILL
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 9:01:16 AM
|
How do you come to that conclusion from there? It says those lakes will continue to fluctuate between their current levels (which are below full pool) and a foot less? I don't see where it says APCO is filling them back up.
cf
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OTHER LAKES TO FILL
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 9:07:17 AM
|
click on lake mitchel then wait for the graf to appear. look at the blue dots after today's date. you will see that they expect the lake to refill.
do the same thing with lake martin. look at the blue dots. the blue dots indicate to me that apco expects martin to continue to go down.
the text that you are looking at has not been updated for some time and if you will give it a close read, you wil see that it only applies through the day after tomorrow.
the blue lines and dots on the picture show that some lakes have already begun to rise and will rise to full pool in a couple of weeks.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
DO YOU WORK FOR APCO?
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 9:10:32 AM
|
You seem to see things like a apco pr man. you ask them a question about lake levels and they say all lakes are suffering. martin is down 9 feet and falling and lay mitchell and jordan are down 2 feet and rising.
HOW IS THIS SUFFERING EQUALLY??
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Two words...
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 10:18:24 AM
|
WATER VOLUME!!
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lake Mitchell, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 10:18:28 AM
|
These lakes are run-of-the-river which means their levels vary very little and any water released up stream (Logan Martin) simply runs through the generators and on to the next lake. The corp approved APCo lowering these lakes temporarily to supply extra water to the Alabama River. APCo is probably refilling them now that there has been a little rain. Of course, this is at Lake Martin's expense.
The answer is raising winter pool levels so that we start with more water. APCo could have prevented some of their current problems it we had only gone down to 485 instead of 479. Join HOBOs.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Two words...
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 10:30:05 AM
|
if you and the people and computers at apco cannot figure out how to get the same WATER FLOW in the Alabama River by doing the math and lowering all lakes equally, the I would be glad to have my ten year old niece do it for you
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lake Mitchell, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 10:35:08 AM
|
the " run-of-the-river" argument is just semantics. why not make all lakes ruu of the river? or at least treat them equally when there isn't enough water?
sure not drawing so much in the winter is a good idea, but now we are where we are, now where we wish we were. why not flow the Alabama by drawing all contributing lakes to the same level below full pool?
that would spread the burden equally.
as you may or may not know, I am anti-semantic
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Draw down, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 10:48:09 AM
|
Can't draw them all down equally because the lake depths differ. The Coosa lakes are more shallow and would empty. One of the big reasons are the intakes for power generation are much deeper in Lake Martin and other storage lakes than in the run-of-the-river lakes. When a lake like Mitchell gets to a certain point the intakes are exposed and APCO could not generate (and possible not pass water downstream). With your proposal cities downstream may lose their city water because water intakes in the river would be exposed--then what do you do. There is one thing that will help--I've already stated it. Higher winter level.
|
| Name: |
Ilovelkmartin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are so right....!
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:00:41 AM
|
there is a real simple solution to the water problems we have been suffering from for years. CHANGE THE WATER FLOW CHARTS they (APCO) has been using. It is very simple....Atlanta added more people, we have added more lakes, we are in a period of reduced rain, hmmmm.....what should we do?
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Please explain...
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:12:44 AM
|
How does the Atlanta population affect our levels? And what new lakes? Are you referring to Harris, that was filled in the early 80's? The doomsayers claimed once Harris was filled we would NEVER get full again. In fact it works just the opposite. Harris is a reservoir lake too. By holding water in Harris they are able to release it as need dictates. With out it we would have been lower sooner this year as the only water would have been the river flow which is decreased significantly this year.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here's why
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:26:21 AM
|
Water. None in the Lake Martin watershed.
URL: Water-Water
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Draw down, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:32:38 AM
|
If the fact that cities have not put their draw pipes in the correct place is a reason to not draw a lake down, the we should get Dadeville to put a draw pipe at 488 and then the lake would never be drawn down.
I think that you have the tail wagging the dog.
And so what if the other lakes are not as deep. parts of lake martin are not as deep as parts of lake Mitchell. It is just a question of who's ox is being gored.
fyi I was one of the first to pay my hobo dues.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here's why
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:34:35 AM
|
It appears to me that the water shed for the Coosa is in worse shape that for the Tallapoosa.
If that is not correct explain how you reffered url proves otherwise?
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We already had this discussion
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:50:03 AM
|
You couldn't understand the obvious then, and I don't see any indication that you've gotten any smarter in the meantime.
However, I'll give it a shot. Look at a map of a run-of-the-river lake (Mitchell, Lay.) Now look at a map of a reservoir (Martin.) See the difference. Notice how the run of the river lakes do not stray far at all from the boundaries of the original river bed. Then notice how much of Lake Martin is miles from the original bed of the Tallapoosa.
If you want Lake Martin to become a run-of-the-river lake, then you want everything west of the Dixie Sailing Club to be dry land. And that's not semantics, it's simple common sense. Ask your 10-year-old niece to explain it to you.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Draw down, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 12:08:02 PM
|
"parts of lake martin are not as deep as parts of lake Mitchell." That's genius at work! Of course parts of Martin are shallower than parts of Mitchell. And parts of Mitchell are shallower than Martin. Usually it depends on how far from shore you are; one foot from the Martin shore is far shallower than the middle of Mitchell. Explain how that matters?
The big picture is volume; here are some facts:
LAKE MITCHELL: 147 miles of shoreline. 5,850 acres in the lake. Height of dam: 106 feet.
LAKE MARTIN: 750 miles of shoreline. 40,000+ acres in the lake. Height of dam: 168 feet.
Can you see how Lake Mitchell is a much smaller lake, and therefore contains less water? And how taking the same amount of water from two lakes of differing size is NOT equitable, since their volumes are different?
Eyeballing those numbers, I'd guess that Lake Martin has about eight times the volume of Lake Mitchell; therefore, "fair" would mean taking eight times as much water from Martin. (Somebody who actually likes math can crunch the numbers and give us the real volumes of the lakes.)
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Draw down, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 2:17:50 PM
|
who said the same number of gallons? what I said was the same number of inches from full pool. that is the fairest way.
the depth of the lake doesn't matter. that was my point. another poster said that lake Martin was much deeper than Mitchell. I said so what?
that is how we got into some parts of each lake are deeper than some parts of any other lake. but it doesn't matter.
what is your point? do you want Martin down 30 feet and the others down .5 feet?
if so why? if not, why are you yammering
|
| Name: |
PC Al
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We already had this discussion
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 2:26:49 PM
|
A fair way, in my mind, would be for all lakes to contribute at an equal percentage of their available water. Therefore the larger lakes, like Martin, would contribute many more gallons, but would be on an equal percentage basis. As I stated in earlier post, the rich don’t pay all the taxes because they have 98% of the money. You and I all pay taxes on a percentage basis.
And as far as the theory that if Martin were a run-of-the-river lake, areas west of the Dixie Sailing Club would be dry, that makes no sense at all. The area absorbed by a lake has to do with the height of the dam and the lay of the land. If we have a 168 foot dam, water is not going to just wall up at Dixie Sailing Club. It is going to go as far as it’s boundaries let it go.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You don't know what ROR means
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 2:26:50 PM
|
so much for the pun.
I ask the ten year old and she said:
Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity is a type of hydroelectric generation whereby the natural flow and elevation drop of a river are used to generate electricity.
Its the flow stupid, not the location of the river bed.
what comes in goes out and the level stays the same 490 in our case.
what is your point? do you want the other lakes full and martin at 460?
Maybe you and the power company will get it some day.
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You don't know what ROR means
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 2:34:09 PM
|
Is your slough dry?
|
| Name: |
raysea
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here's why
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 2:54:37 PM
|
Kizma,
You are exactly right about the equitable drawdown (feet and inches, not volume). I have tryed to engage the same group of "smart people" that you are talking with on this subject before, they just don't have the mental capability to understand simple logic. I like what OSMS says, but I wish he would pick up on the equitable drawdown issue also. MathBuster and LTL are hopeless.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You don't know what ROR means
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 3:17:59 PM
|
still have nine feet at my dock, I live on a point. But my friends can't get their boats out and meeting friends at the rock is half of the fun.
that is for those of us who have friends
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Different lakes
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 3:33:02 PM
|
Have a different purpose. Not all lakes are impound lakes. Impound lakes serve as reservoirs for such issues as flood control and water storage for the lean years like we are having now. ROR lakes are to generate power ONLY.
It is not me and Mythbuster that don't 'get it'.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Draw down, etc.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 4:40:51 PM
|
Why is "number of inches" the fairest way? If one lake has an average depth of ten feet, and another has an average depth of one foot, do you think they should both lose one foot of water if needed? If so, the people on the one-foot lake would like to have a word with you about the meaning of "fair."
Volume matters because deeper lakes can lose more water and remain viable and navigable, while shallower lakes become mud holes and dry beds. Which you would care about if you had a place on one of the smaller lakes, but since you are only concerned about yourself, you ignore the rest of the population.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We already had this discussion
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 4:45:13 PM
|
"If we have a 168 foot dam, water is not going to just wall up at Dixie Sailing Club. It is going to go as far as it’s boundaries let it go."
Right. But if we became a run-of-the-river as opposed to a reservoir, water wouldn't back up as much, because the water we now store would simply flow downstream.
When people talk about APCO releasing less water, generating less power, etc., they are saying that they want the reservoir use of Martin to increase. When they talk about Martin becoming run-of-the-river, they are saying that they want the reservoir use decreased. Decreasing the reservoir = less water in the lake.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You don't know what ROR means
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 4:52:06 PM
|
"Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity is a type of hydroelectric generation whereby the natural flow and elevation drop of a river are used to generate electricity."
Now ask her what "natural" means. Then compare the natural elevation and drop of the Tallapoosa River to the footprint of Lake Martin. You'll see that they are nowhere near the same.
And remember that APCO is generating LESS power this summer, and has requested to release LESS water downstream, in addition to DECREASING the power generated by even more. Yet what you want is for them to INCREASE the power generated by letting the NATURAL flow of the river pass through the turbines. If they DECREASE power generated to save water, how is INCREASING power generated going to save more?
Lake Martin exists up to the 490 mark because it is a reservoir. Reservoirs store water for later use. If you want them to lose that reservoir status, fine, but that means that all of that stored water will now simply flow downstream, impeded by the dam just enough so that it can be used to generate electricity.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
AND YOUR POINT IS???????
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 5:06:56 PM
|
STOP THE BABLE AND GET TO THE POINT
WHAT WAS NORMAL IN 1928 IS NOT NORMAL IN 2007.
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED.
YOU CAN
SINCERELY
KIZMA ANUICE
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Different lakes
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 5:10:06 PM
|
YOU SHOULD GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ANUICE.
ALL OF THE LAKES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE RIVER IMPOUNDMENTS.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
YOU ARE RIGHT ON!!!!
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 5:37:33 PM
|
WHAT WAS NORMAL IN 1928 WAS A 50FT DRAW DOWN. LET ME REPEAT THAT A FIFTY FOOT DRAW DOWN WAS WHAT WAS PLANNED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE LAKES HISTORY. THAT IS WHY THE ENTIRE 44,000 ACRE LAKE BED WAS CLEAR CUT WITH STUMPS REMOVED TO THE 440 MARK ARE BELOW. THAT WAS LATER REVISED TO 30 FEET AND NOW 10 AND PROBABLY GOING TO 5 IN 2013. BUT THE CORPS AND FERC WILL MAKE THAT CALL.
I think with you I will take fallback position #1....."never argue with an idiot, bystanders might not can tell the difference".
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yep....
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 6:30:53 PM
|
and some of those impoundments are run-of-the-river impoundments, and some are reservoirs. Different kinds of impoundments, with different intents, different uses, and different regulations.
If you're so fired up to be on a ROR, then move. And if the only retort you have is telling me to kiss your @ss again, save it for someone who is impressed with your elementary school-level debating skills.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nice language.
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 6:31:27 PM
|
Did I understand that you're a HOBO? Thanks for giving me a good reason to save my money; if you're representative of that group, all I can say is, what a waste of what should have been such a good organization.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I have to Say ---
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 6:50:42 PM
|
-- with all due respect: you have just made a less than profound statement. The other individual is only one member of HOBO. You in return could and would be another member. You would have an equal voice in the organization. A Forum voice is of little significance other than a media to circle around the camp post (pun intended).
You, if anyone, with your alias and past post, are way beyond the content of the post I am responding.
Please join and help all of us in support of what we love and cherish (the Lake). Do not base the Organization (HOBO) upon individual's view points but the good of it all. We are only strong if we have consensus in the objective and diversity in opinions to evaluate for achieving our mutual objective.
I only hope I have reached and achieved a point of objectivity.
|
Its A Drought People, Nobodies fault, Its just THE WORST DROUGHT IN LAKE MARTINS HISTORY! GEEEEZZZZZ
|
| Name: |
skiantique
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OTHER LAKES TO FILL
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2007 11:06:42 PM
|
You are so correct, must be a conspiracy against Lake Martin homeowners. They must like the folks on Lay and Mitchell more than you. No wonder your so upset.
chris
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Different lakes
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 7:23:28 AM
|
You shouldn't have dipped into the liquor so early today. Save it for your weekend trip to the rock.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hmmmm....
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 8:25:36 AM
|
surpressed anger, probably from a childhood trauma in the bathtub.
|
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hmmmm....
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 1:47:08 PM
|
Somebody probably drained the water from the tub before he was finished playing with his boat.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hmmmm....
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 3:35:29 PM
|
You mean dock?
|
| Name: |
BigFoot
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hmmmm....
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 4:27:26 PM
|
another good one from the ros...........ROFLMAO
|
Good one boataholic!!
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
LMAO
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2007 7:21:25 PM
|
well heck..I served it up....he and I are starting a comedy routine at Chucks....
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
