(Lake Martin Specific)
111,173 messages
Updated 5/30/2024 4:01:40 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,645 messages
Updated 5/30/2024 11:45:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,195 messages
Updated 5/31/2024 4:36:53 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,171 messages
Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Catherine
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
2 questions
|
|
Date:
|
12/28/2008 11:10:47 PM
|
1. Why do we continue to have such a strong desire to put goats on a small island, when every time we do, we only end up killing more goats?
2. Why do we care what the winter level is, since hardly anyone uses the lake between Halloween and Valentines Day? As long as its back to full pool by Memorial Day, does it matter how low it goes in the winter?
Those two stump me everytime I log on here.
Happy New Year to all!
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2 questions
|
|
Date:
|
12/28/2008 11:57:21 PM
|
1. Why do we continue to have such a strong desire to put goats on a small island, when every time we do, we only end up killing more goats?
SINCE ALABAMA POLITICIANS SEEM TO FLOCK TO PLACES GOATS HAVE INHABITED, WE HOPE THAT THEY WILL FLOCK TO SMALL ISLANDS AND MEET THE SAME FATE AS THE GOATS.
2. Why do we care what the winter level is, since hardly anyone uses the lake between Halloween and Valentines Day? As long as its back to full pool by Memorial Day, does it matter how low it goes in the winter?
HARDLY ANYONE USED THE LAKE DURING THE SUMMER WHEN IT WAS AT WINTER LEVELS LAST YEAR. DUH, MAYBE IT IS THE LAKE LEVEL THAT CAUSES LESS USE.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU MOVED TO CALIFORNIA SOME YEARS AGO AFTER CLOSING THE STORE. THAT BEING THE CASE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONCERN YOUR SELF WITH CALIFORNIA'S WATER PROBLEMS, NOT ALABAMA'S
|
| Name: |
Aardvark
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2 questions
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 12:18:07 AM
|
Since I only rarely go as far as the Kowaliga bridge, I will leave the goat question to others. As to the winter levels, like most people, I have seen what happens when an extended drought keeps the lake from filling up. I think that most lakers fear a repeat of the years when there is not enough rain after plug day to bring the lake up to 490. We just want to have water to use when the weather is more favorable for most lake activities.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Moving to California was easy.
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 7:43:23 AM
|
But that whole dying thing took a little while to work through.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks Aa
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 7:49:24 AM
|
"Full pool by Summer" was the only explaination that made any sense to me. I personally like draw-down, as it gives us all a chance to do needed repairs/improvements/cleanup. Plus, the lake in Winter is far more beautiful than it is in Summer (at least to me).
Perhaps instead of hammering APCO and the Corps over how far the lake goes down in Winter, we should focus on how quickly it is raised in the Spring?
Just a thought.
While "we" are the ones who enjoy the lake firsthand in the Summer months, there are literally millions of people who feel its impact year-round. I guess I'm just one of those who still believes that the Lake should be used for its original, intended purpose, because in the end, it will be, regardless of what we want (look at Lanier).
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks Aa
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 9:54:17 AM
|
Here you answer your own question. Drawing down the lake IS one of its intended purposes, FLOOD CONTROL. The only argument now is if 10 feet is still the appropriate amount. I would argue no, but that is just a laymens perpesctive. With sattelites and the resulting wether forecasting now, less is surely adequate. How much less? I don't know, but I can assure you that APCO does, and will seek that level at the next relicensing, no matter what we think or do. The biggest issue now seems to be the 'plug date'. APCO presented evidence at the variance meeting of last year that the shifting weather patterns are bringing the rains ealier, therefore the earlier plug date was granted, and we all saw the results. 490, 480, 470, there is STILL plenty of water for us to play on.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I agree with an earlier plug
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 10:55:51 AM
|
date. But I'm not so fond of raising the Winter level at all. In fact, were it my decision, I would lower the Winter level another 5 feet to 475, then plug this sucker up earlier in the Spring or even LATE Winter (when is the pug date now anyway?).
But I'm not so much of a "recreational weekender" anymore, so not being able to pull my boat up to the dock in January doesn't bother me in the least. It does the lake good to show more of the bottom in Winter, at least more often than once every 10 years, and it is good for those of us who have maintenance to do from time to time (mainly cleaning up other people's trash).
I've been here almost all of my life, and I've never understood the obsession with the Winter level, except for those who are only worried about the lake being at full pool (plus 6 inches) the instant they arrive for Summer until the moment they leave in the Fall.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I agree with an earlier plug
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 11:38:07 AM
|
why have it go lower? The beauty of a lake is with water. The lake was built for power generation and flood control. I can see and support the need for taking it down in the winter to handle the spring rains. Southern company does generate power when they need to release .... but power generation is a small part of the lake management any longer. In the summer it is used to supplement demand, but not as a primary energy source.
When you see the rapid rise rise we had late this summer, it was a good thing we were not at full pool or we could have had flooding. But I can not see on a regular basis taking the winter level lower than the current plan.
When you say plug it up in the spring, that is all well and good, but there are requirements for meeting down stream needs .... the same as the "feeders" that fill up Martin. If others took your attitude the Martin would not fill up.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I guess we just disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 12:04:55 PM
|
As I said, I've lived here all my life, and the lake has always filled back up. I would bet that as long as that dam is standing, and structurally sound, it will continue to fill back up no matter how far down we take it. Taking it down further, and plugging it up earlier, would not alter the course of nature one bit (keep in mind that there wasn't a lake here to start with). My original post posed two questions. If you revisit them, you will see that they are actually one and the same. We continue to manipulate nature to make ourselves happier, completely oblivious to the effects our actions may have down the road (its a little more convoluted with respect to damming the river to create a lake, but the general principles hold true). It is as if the driving thought process is "Why should I care what happens once I'm gone? I am entitled to what I want, when I want it, and everyone else needs to just get over it. This is MY lake, and it was put here just for ME."
And we disagree also in that the beauty of the lake is "with the water." There is more beauty in and around the lake that is dry than there is that is wet. The lake is at its' most beautiful, in my opinion, when the water is down, the leaves are off the trees, and the air is bitterly cold. I understand and respect that not everyone shares my opinions.
There is no "right or wrong" in these scenarios (well, there is with regard to the goats, but with regard to the lake we cannot undo the "wrong" done by our ancestors that dictates its' existence). The ebb and flow of the lake's levels is all a matter of personal preference, notwitstanding Governmental and other regulations. Most want the lake to stay at full pool as long as possible, which I agree with to some extent, but I believe that the Winter draw-down is necessary and beneficial. Far more so than a year-round full pool scenario. The problem isn't how far down the lake goes in Winter, but on what date does it return to "full pool."
It just seems to me that plugging it up sooner, and drawing it down farther, returns the most benefit to the most people.
Of course, that is just another of my opinions.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I guess we just disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 1:47:02 PM
|
I don'th know how long your life has been, but as late as the '60's the lake still had a 30 ft winter draw. Tha's 30 feet EVERY year, and it still filled up every year. The biggest difference is government interference in the process. The dam was engineered and built for a 50 ft drawdown evey year. Tthat is why Ben Russell could buy all the land that he did, when he did, for as little as he did. Waterfront property here was considered useless scrub because of the wild fluctations in the lake level. I can't wait to see/hear all of you guys go nuts when they start building the HorseShoe Bend dam.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
yes, we disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 3:18:44 PM
|
I think the 'rule" that is in place works just fine and it it can be adjusted "not" to draw down as far I think most people would be happier .... i realize you would not, but from the posts on this board, I think you are in the minority. Why live on a lake to look at mud and stumps when the water is drawn down too far.
Also, we are blessed with relatively mild winters, so if the water was higher there are plenty of great days to fish or take and quite boat ride. When the water is down to far you either can't launch the boat or it becomes to dangerous to go out with unmarked hazards when the water is down much below the 480 level.
|
| Name: |
Tallyman
-
|
|
| Subject: |
yes, we disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 4:10:27 PM
|
The lake is ugly at 480. It is unusable at 480, in my case. There are many warm January days when I would like to cruise about, but I can't.
|
| Name: |
green,ed
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I guess we just disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 9:57:09 AM
|
Must have been early 60's.Been on lake since '65.Don't remember that.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I guess we just disagree...
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 11:21:06 AM
|
It was. It might have even been the late 50's. I can't remember exactly. I haven't read this, but I think it may have had something to do with Wind Creek becoming a State Park, which is about the same time frame. But I assure you it is a FACT. If you require proof read "Putting Loafing Streams to Work". It is my favorite book on LM, although it is really about the early days of APCO, with only one chapter devoted to Martin.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
