BoatBanter.com - Lake Lanier drying up?

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Lake Lanier drying up? (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/87116-lake-lanier-drying-up.html)

Lake Lanier drying up?

On Oct 19, 9:56 am, trainfan1 wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:12 am, trainfan1 wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:42 pm, trainfan1 wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:03 pm, trainfan1 wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:25 pm, trainfan1 wrote:
HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news:DLqdnUOpmOY9cY7anZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@co mcast.com...
Jack Redington wrote:
HK wrote:
CNN had a feature on Lake Lanier this morning. Apparently water
levels are way, way down, and if there isn't some serious
protracted rain soon,
a goodly portion of Georgia will be facing drought.
Meanwhile, the video showed the shorelines of the lake line with
dead shellfish and fish, left behind as the water receded.
What's the impact on boating?
While I no longer boat on Lanier, from the news many ramps are
closed. At the present time that lake is about 12 below full pool.
At least that was the last time I checked. Projections do not look
good.
Georgia has been in drought conditions all of this year. Spring
rains were slight and every month has been a short. So it is not
really news anymore. Lanier has several problems when rain is short.
For one the drainage basin is small for a lake it's size. And about
6 million people in the Atlanta area depend on it. There is also the
fact this this lake is under the Army Corps managment. At present
they are letting out about twice the amount of water that is coming
in. This has alot to do with the tri-state water war that has been
going on since I have been here (about 10 years)
The Corps has stated that they are keeping the discharge rate as it
is to protect some shellfish that need it in in Florida. That being
where the water hit the ocean. Alabama also uses/needs this water.
Thus the tri-state angle on the water resources war.
As far as impact on boating - Some ramps are closed and there are
hazzards to navigation that would not normally exist. But that is
what happens when water gets lower them normal.
If you are really interested:
http://lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/Pre...07_BoatersCaut...
Capt Jack R..
I was looking earlier for a current aerial or low satellite photo of
the lake, but then I was distracted by work. With all the dead marine
life now on the edges of the lake, there must be an insect and rat
problem.
I don't pay attention to Atlanta weather patterns. Is there a winter
rainy season? If not, then the city may be reduced to Homeland
Security bringing in water trucks.
Not from our Lakes.........the Great Lakes.....the largest amount of
fresh water in the world and quite a resource for the Canadians and
Americans living close enough to enjoy the Lakes.
Let Lanier dry up. After all, it is nothing more than a recreational
lake.........correct?
First and foremost, I believe, it is a reservoir.
No. Flood Control.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
From Lake Lanier Army Corp of Engineers website:
Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950's, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and fish and
wildlife management.
In that order. Flood control first. Water supply is down the list.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Who ever told you that it's in that order?? The power generated at
Lake Lanier, which in your order is #2, is very little,
Correct - drinking water supply is below power generation in priority,
which is below flood control in priority. You got it right!
Since the lake's construction, metro Atlanta has been taking water from
the lake to use for municipal drinking water, which was only authorized
by Congress as an INCIDENTAL use, secondary to hydroelectricity.
The lake's original and authorized purposes were to provide
hydroelectricity and flood control.
Who told you any different?
Rob
Where did you get this information from? It surely isn't from the Army
Corp of Engineers, who operate the system!
See:
http://lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/
Nowhere on that site will you see one single reason above all others
for the construction of the lake. There are several reasons, none of
which is paramount over any other.
Google is your friend... but I'll go with the order of importance your
reference presents:

http://lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/purposes.htm

The "major function" is flood control. Indicating 50% for flood
control. I can't find any reference that puts it any other way. You
say they don't produce much hydro power there. I'll go along with that too.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Need to really find out?
http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/vis...cfm?Id=K502200

which simply calls it a simply "multipurpose" without identifying any
one particular reason over another:

"Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950 s, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and fish and
wildlife management. Lake Lanier is one of 464 lakes in 43 states
constructed and operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. It has
won the best operated lake of the year award in 1990, 1997 and 2002."

Assuming this paragraph is mil spec, the purposes are listed in order of
decreasing importance. I'll accept that too.

I really don't know any more than you on this, but flood control comes
up first in every reference. Power production wasn't a priority in
1950, & water supply for that region was certainly lower in priority
than power in 1950.

One interesting point made is that it took 3 years, 1956 to 1959, to
reach full pool... even w/o modern demands. Lanier is in trouble.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Absolutely! They are saying that it is possible to go below
"conservation pool", but if that happens, then because of those modern
demands, it will never recover.

Lake Lanier drying up?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

It's a theory, and the name of an organization which, for many years,
has
tried to push an agenda of not having more than 2 kids, so a couple only
replaces itself without adding population. Naturally, there are people
who
think its inevitable that suggestions will become laws, and such people
refuse to think about controlling population growth.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

You are correct. All resources are infinite, and it doesn't matter how
many people tap these resources. This is physically impossible, but if
you're stupid enough (like you), anything's possible.

Where did I say all resources are finite?

Lake Lanier drying up?

"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:54:02 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 15, 7:44?am, wrote:

So then you must agree it is OK to alter the course of nature in
order
to serve the growing human population?- Hide quoted text -

Careful, that statement is getting pretty close to recognizing the
possibility that a growing human population *could* "alter the course
of nature".

Then slowing down the rate of growth may be a cost effective way of
dealing
with the problem, as opposed to making Al Gore more wealthy?

It would be impossible for it NOT to help, but it's a touchy subject.
Zero
population growth? Watch the reactions to that in subsequent messages.

The emphasis was on cost effective means of dealing with a problem, as
opposed to sending money to Al Gore.

'Zero population gowth' is your term, not mine. I'm not trying to
engender
any reaction to that in any messages. But, it looks like you are.

It's a theory, and the name of an organization which, for many years, has
tried to push an agenda of not having more than 2 kids, so a couple only
replaces itself without adding population. Naturally, there are people
who
think its inevitable that suggestions will become laws, and such people
refuse to think about controlling population growth.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo
famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are
going
to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los
Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
(1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which
the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
(1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to
some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42
because
of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million."
(1969)

I read between the lines. You made it easy.

Lake Lanier drying up?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:54:02 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 15, 7:44?am, wrote:

So then you must agree it is OK to alter the course of nature in
order
to serve the growing human population?- Hide quoted text -

Careful, that statement is getting pretty close to recognizing the
possibility that a growing human population *could* "alter the course
of nature".

Then slowing down the rate of growth may be a cost effective way of
dealing
with the problem, as opposed to making Al Gore more wealthy?

It would be impossible for it NOT to help, but it's a touchy subject.
Zero
population growth? Watch the reactions to that in subsequent messages.

The emphasis was on cost effective means of dealing with a problem, as
opposed to sending money to Al Gore.

'Zero population gowth' is your term, not mine. I'm not trying to
engender
any reaction to that in any messages. But, it looks like you are.

It's a theory, and the name of an organization which, for many years,
has
tried to push an agenda of not having more than 2 kids, so a couple only
replaces itself without adding population. Naturally, there are people
who
think its inevitable that suggestions will become laws, and such people
refuse to think about controlling population growth.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo
famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are
going
to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los
Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
(1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which
the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
(1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to
some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42
because
of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million."
(1969)

I read between the lines. You made it easy.

You should really try to absorb and understand what is on the lines before
attempting to read between them.

Lake Lanier drying up?

"BillP" wrote in message
news:gv4Si.5$uE4.0@trnddc07...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:9ld7h39i97qjuuk6ftp61c7n1b0gt6m63e@4ax. com...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:54:02 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 15, 7:44?am, wrote:

So then you must agree it is OK to alter the course of nature in
order
to serve the growing human population?- Hide quoted text -

Careful, that statement is getting pretty close to recognizing the
possibility that a growing human population *could* "alter the
course
of nature".

Then slowing down the rate of growth may be a cost effective way of
dealing
with the problem, as opposed to making Al Gore more wealthy?

It would be impossible for it NOT to help, but it's a touchy subject.
Zero
population growth? Watch the reactions to that in subsequent messages.

The emphasis was on cost effective means of dealing with a problem, as
opposed to sending money to Al Gore.

'Zero population gowth' is your term, not mine. I'm not trying to
engender
any reaction to that in any messages. But, it looks like you are.

It's a theory, and the name of an organization which, for many years,
has
tried to push an agenda of not having more than 2 kids, so a couple
only
replaces itself without adding population. Naturally, there are people
who
think its inevitable that suggestions will become laws, and such people
refuse to think about controlling population growth.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will
undergo
famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are
going
to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los
Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
(1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in
which
the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
(1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to
some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42
because
of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million."
(1969)

I read between the lines. You made it easy.

You should really try to absorb and understand what is on the lines before
attempting to read between them.

Ehrlich was a bit of a nut, but it doesn't change the simple mathematical
fact that population growth can become unsustainable at some point. I
thought you were contesting that fact.

Lake Lanier drying up?

PhantMan wrote:
So.... did Atlanta/Lake Lanier get drenched last night?

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote:
no, just a little shower

That sucks :-(

Lake Lanier drying up?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:04:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Ehrlich was a bit of a nut, but it doesn't change the simple mathematical
fact that population growth can become unsustainable at some point. I
thought you were contesting that fact.

War is nature's way of limiting population.
A small nuclear war would fix all of these global warming problems and
skim off a significant amount of the overpopulation.
That might happen if we got serious about forcing India and China into
Kyoto.

BURP. Pass the Combos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5hFw2SA1Bs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr8hmrxkX0c

Lake Lanier drying up?

On Oct 19, 11:42 am, wrote:
trainfan1 wrote:
One interesting point made is that it took 3 years, 1956 to 1959, to
reach full pool... even w/o modern demands. Lanier is in trouble.

On Fri, 19 Oct 07, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote:

If they had a year of normal rain, the lake could be back to full
levels in a year. While this is the lowest level, we have had other
years when it was very low.

So.... did Atlanta/Lake Lanier get drenched last night? The radar I
was watching just showed state lines and it was hard to tell. Looked
like the rain storms may have past to the south of them. But I haven't
heard word one from anybody who actually lives there. If that storm
missed them, they really missed a deluge (we got drenched here on the
Gulf Coast and then sent it on up their way).

Rick

No. Not much rain at all, most of it well south of Atlanta.