Lake Lanier drying up?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 29, 5:03 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...





On Oct 28, 9:56 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington
wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington
wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

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.

Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of
power
production.

It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has
dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from
shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.

Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.

Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally.
Because
of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900
million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so
far).

I don't really know how much it has dropped and really
don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.

kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a
creek.

I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in
bad
shape too.

fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady
for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in
bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not
suffering.

I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But
our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.

At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for
the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck
with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access
etc.

Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying
there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their
attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure
code
or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!

Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.

I'll do that, thanks!

And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.

I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to
use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in
a
manual, or code book.

Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how
they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in
a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it.
I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's')
makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good, you know how to spell Corps, so you ARE an expert! Now,
let's see here, what was your capacity with the Army Corps of
Engineers? Are you a civil engineer? Structural?

And what school did you graduate from with a Structural Engineering
degree?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a civil degree, structural emphasis, but I know you don't
understand much about degrees like that. And, I looked, the schools I
attended don't offer B.S. or M.S. degrees in handyman or deckbuilder,
sorry.


I have a degree in Engineering. But you are the one who claimed a
structural engineering degree from an institute of higher education that did
not offer a degree in that discipline. Just because I like to do home
repair and am good at it does not mean I do not have an engineering degree.
Just happens to be an EE. I retired at 59 and got bored. So I work when I
want to. You, on the other hand have to work as a scutwork draftsman.

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:04:40 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...





JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.



Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.


Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.


Why is it that the folks who jump first if a military man breaks the law
are the first ones to jump on the military for not breaking the law?

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Oct 29, 8:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 29, 5:03 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 28, 9:56 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington
wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington
wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

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.

Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of
power
production.

It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has
dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from
shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.

Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.

Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally.
Because
of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900
million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so
far).

I don't really know how much it has dropped and really
don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.

kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a
creek.

I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in
bad
shape too.

fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady
for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in
bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not
suffering.

I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But
our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.

At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for
the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck
with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access
etc.

Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying
there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their
attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure
code
or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!

Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.

I'll do that, thanks!

And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.

I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to
use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in
a
manual, or code book.

Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how
they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in
a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it.
I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's')
makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good, you know how to spell Corps, so you ARE an expert! Now,
let's see here, what was your capacity with the Army Corps of
Engineers? Are you a civil engineer? Structural?

And what school did you graduate from with a Structural Engineering
degree?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a civil degree, structural emphasis, but I know you don't
understand much about degrees like that. And, I looked, the schools I
attended don't offer B.S. or M.S. degrees in handyman or deckbuilder,
sorry.

I have a degree in Engineering. But you are the one who claimed a
structural engineering degree from an institute of higher education that did
not offer a degree in that discipline. Just because I like to do home
repair and am good at it does not mean I do not have an engineering degree.
Just happens to be an EE. I retired at 59 and got bored. So I work when I
want to. You, on the other hand have to work as a scutwork draftsman.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a way to FINALLY prove that you have some knowledge. Please
provide the proof you have that I:
1. Don't have an engineering degree
2. Work as a "draftsman".
3. that you DO have an EE.
4. where you got this information.

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and argue with JohnH. When I stated that the Corps can not make
any engineering decisions that aren't in a SOP or code book, he said
it was "bull****". Now here you are saying that it's true!

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:16:41 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars. Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.

I guess your example was just plain stupid.

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 29, 8:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 29, 5:03 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 28, 9:56 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington
wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington

wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:

wrote:

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.

Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of
power
production.

It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has
dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4
mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150
ft
from
shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.

Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for
reaching
beach lines.

Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally.
Because
of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are
still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900
million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be
creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12
feet
(so
far).

I don't really know how much it has dropped and really
don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake
is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.

kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a
creek.

I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell.
It's
in
bad
shape too.

fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady
for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle
too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is
in
bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not
suffering.

I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not
look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But
our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out
of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is
rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep
path
threw it.

At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for
the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck
with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp
access
etc.

Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a
place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying
there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their
attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure
code
or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!

Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.

I'll do that, thanks!

And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though
it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water
from
Lanier.

I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and
get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed
to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get
to
use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out
in
a
manual, or code book.

Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how
they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the
loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to
see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out
in
a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it.
I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did
what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only
24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's')
makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good, you know how to spell Corps, so you ARE an expert! Now,
let's see here, what was your capacity with the Army Corps of
Engineers? Are you a civil engineer? Structural?

And what school did you graduate from with a Structural Engineering
degree?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a civil degree, structural emphasis, but I know you don't
understand much about degrees like that. And, I looked, the schools I
attended don't offer B.S. or M.S. degrees in handyman or deckbuilder,
sorry.

I have a degree in Engineering. But you are the one who claimed a
structural engineering degree from an institute of higher education that
did
not offer a degree in that discipline. Just because I like to do home
repair and am good at it does not mean I do not have an engineering
degree.
Just happens to be an EE. I retired at 59 and got bored. So I work when
I
want to. You, on the other hand have to work as a scutwork draftsman.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a way to FINALLY prove that you have some knowledge. Please
provide the proof you have that I:
1. Don't have an engineering degree
2. Work as a "draftsman".
3. that you DO have an EE.
4. where you got this information.



You prove it!

Lake Lanier drying up?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He
seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of
which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy
was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's
tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues,
based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the
Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking
outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their
was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the
compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the
deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable
codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not
with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the
fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the
code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable
for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars.
Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees
were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee
break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built
in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.


Your example is stupid. The COE is going to go with what ever is written as
SOP. Prevents legal problems. Does not matter if it is the best way or
cheapest way to do a job. My example is far from stupid. Is the way the
world runs. Why there is a statement on auto sunshades to remove before
driving. That fear of legal repercussions.