|
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 26, 2:15 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:39:40 -0000, penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: |On Oct 26, 11:18 am, Gene wrote: | On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:24:35 -0000, penned the | following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | | |On Oct 25, 1:06 pm, Gene Kearns | |wrote: | | On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:21:09 -0000, penned the | | following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | | | | |They do, and are quite stringent compared to the rest of the more | | |populated areas of the country. How are we to control what Alabama | | |does? | | | | I don't think I would adopt that as a meaningful project until water | | flows up hill..... | | | |Adopt what as a meaningful project? | | "How are we to control what Alabama does?" | |That's a question I asked you. | And my answer was.... .... as long as you are up-river from Alabama.... what does it matter? Send them the agreed upon amounts and stick with it. Their planning is based upon the agreement. Subsequently, you can't just whine to some judge and get it changed because they have planned in accordance with expectations based on written agreement. I guess you just don't understand the underlying problem, Gene. There is X amount of water being dumped by the corp for the 3 banded mussel in Florida. The mussel isn't getting that X amount because Alabama doesn't have any water restrictions! Just don't allow unrestricted growth in your own back yard, over-run mother nature's supply to you, and then go looking for help from the next guy(s) down river..... JimH seems to think that if you live in proximity to a body of water, that it's yours and yours alone! |
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
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. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote: It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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'll bet that old Bassy doesn't know how many Corps are in the Naval Service. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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. The two of you are like a bad sequel to the movie dumb and dumber. So how many folks are you arguing with and putting down today? So far I count 3. JimH, you are turning into a prissy little bitch. Does that make you feel better? |
Lake Lanier drying up?
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? |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: 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'). JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In the illustrious words of yourself, Bull****. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 7:52 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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. The two of you are like a bad sequel to the movie dumb and dumber. So how many folks are you arguing with and putting down today? So far I count 3. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: 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'). JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U. wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it, can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess why? |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 7:37 am, BAR wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote: It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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'll bet that old Bassy doesn't know how many Corps are in the Naval Service. Nope, don't know, don't give a ****. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:29:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: 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. Yes, I'm glad to see that boo-boo not repeated. However, USACE is the preferred abbreviation. I've no doubt that the USACE is following the law, which is having a detrimental effect on the local area. It sounds as though someone put mussels over humans in the priority list. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 10:29 am, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:36:47 -0000, wrote: On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: 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'). JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U. wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it, can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess why? Absolutely not. Why, I already gave you the answer! Because the diagonal type of shear reinforcement in the horizontal CMU reinforcing interferes with the cells, making harder, and sometimes impossible to properly place the vertical reinforcement bars. Just what WAS your job in the Army Corps of Engineers???? I wasn't there, I don't know the problems they faced or the constraints under which they were working. I've told you the problem. And you do know the constraints. They don't use any engineering judgement, and make no decisions unless it's in a document somewhere. Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as 'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Again, just what was your job? My step daughter's grand dad was a civil engineer in California and worked many many years for the Corps of Engineers. If talked to him many times about just this subject, and he agrees 100%, as does any civilian engineer or technician that I know that has done Corps work. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
wrote: John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U. wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it, can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess why? I've also noticed in many cases with gov't agencies, that they're never there to tell you how to do it right, but always around to tell you how you did it wrong.... |
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 2:17 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote: John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U. wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it, can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess why? I've also noticed in many cases with gov't agencies, that they're never there to tell you how to do it right, but always around to tell you how you did it wrong.... Yep, exactly! |
Lake Lanier drying up?
On Oct 29, 2:56 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:16:36 -0000, wrote: Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as 'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Again, just what was your job? My step daughter's grand dad was a civil engineer in California and worked many many years for the Corps of Engineers. If talked to him many times about just this subject, and he agrees 100%, as does any civilian engineer or technician that I know that has done Corps work. Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as 'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that. as suspected.......... nothing but crickets from John's end.... |
Lake Lanier drying up?
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. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
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. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
|
Lake Lanier drying up?
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. 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. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
"John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:52:54 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. JohnH, He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers. It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps. 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. The two of you are like a bad sequel to the movie dumb and dumber. So how many folks are you arguing with and putting down today? So far I count 3. Jimh, I think you are probably an extremely sensitive person. Have you ever thought of moving to San Francisco? Highly sensitive people are found out there, from what I see on the TV. Do you notice that when you call names, I don't respond with more names? We got too man people here now. I think Connecticut would be a better fit. Has cold weather in the winter also. |
Lake Lanier drying up?
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? |
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?
|
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?
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com