LongLine

Cape Vincent about 1/2 hr ago:

Ogdensburg about 1/2 hr ago:

iiWh' - You complain about low water in Lake St Lawrence yet you forget that that lake didn't exist before the seaway was built. Area became known as "the lost villages." Not only people (over 6,500) but all the houses (over 500) were relocated. Anyone who has built there since should have seen this repeat in history was going to happen, according to your (and your supporters) arguments. The fact that it hasn't happened in the last 60 yrs has no bearing on it. Additionally, you've stated environmental improvements are made with higher and lower water levels. Well, you just got your wish with Lake St Lawrence now being so low. So why complain about that, maybe you'll catch some real muskies next season. Lucky 13 - So the high water is just making a bad situation worse. That's a great justification! BTW, Isostatic rebounding is a tipping of the lake bottom that has been recognized with the St Lawrence going up & the Niagara area equally going down - just like a teeter-totter. (The middle which is like a fulcrum isn't affected) If my recollection is correct, it's something like 0.0035 inches per year so don't worry your grandkids and their grandkids and their grandkids and many many more generations won't have to worry about it.

"profits"....."revenues"..."GDP"..."costs" . You need an economics dictionary as you obviously don't know the difference and certainly can't make up your mind..

Please make up your mind. It either cost shipping $1 billion or it didn't. Given 90 days for summer (even though flow wasn't there the full summer and using the higher estimate): $4M per day x 90days = $360M. 360M doesn't round off to 1 Billion (not even on your fantasy calculator) If it did cost shipping $1 billion when water flows were over 10.4K (as claimed by you from your article) at $3-4M per day then there had to be a minimum of 250 days in which water flow was over that mark. (divide 1B by 4M) I'd like to see your fantasy calendar showing that many days at or over that outflow. It would be a very imaginative design and worth publishing.

Just another example of your reading what nots there. READ the first sentence of your copied article. "Canadian & U.S economies..."

$1 Billion loss to the (overall) economy - wow! 1 billon divided by 6 trillion x 100% = 0.02%. I wonder how many CFOs jumped off their ships fantail for that tremendous loss? Probably none as they received discounted seaway passage fees this year.

another from Mid Oct: Looks to me like shipping was loving the high water!

Prediction for 2019 shipping by marine chamber: https://www.marinedelivers.com/media_release/great-lakes-seaway-ports-forecast-stellar-2019-shipping-season/ Results reported: (right click & open in another tab/window if you can't read it) Yes - down at US ports 6.4%, but was due to tariffs on metals. Other materials all broke records. Yes - "Massive cargo ships" (salties) from all over the world came all the way in this year. Yes - IJC was going to close seaway in Dec but didn't because of industry protests Yes - with another week, they will exceed their 2018 goals. (note this was posted 12/24) There's another post in the above link (further down it) as to how they extended the shipping season another week this year. Yep - shipping lost money all right...NOT! (Now I got'ta go buy a new meter, you just bent the needle on the old BS meter.) Tom B. (LongLine)

Happy New Year Gill-T. Tom B. (LongLine)

You're right about the 92 days. So the calculation looks more like this: It was claimed in that quote from your post that "this year will set the record for the most water sent thru the system." 9,199 CuM average is still way above the average discharged for the remaining 92 days of 2019. '86 outflow is definite proof that claim is bogus. Can't settle for 2nd place or ever admit you're wrong? Anyways, Good luck out there & we're all looking forward to seeing fishing reports from you. Happy New Year! Tom B. (LongLine)

I'd believe this IF the average daily discharge thru Massena for the last 89 days of 2019 had been 11,006 CuM/sec. But it wasn't so the above claim is just another example of "Bogus-ology". Come on Spring! I'd like to go fishing on Lake Ontario at least once in 2020 before the ramps get closed again! Tom B. (LongLine)

- You said seiches increase it. I agree, Largest seiche ever recorded on Lake Ontario raised the outflow by 2K cu ft. Big whoop! I don't consider 2K significant when the lake was so high and outflow at 300K. Apparently you do. - You said water supply was causing reduction in outflow. I showed you USGS graphs that showed that was not true. - You said outflows were always reduced to 6KM to low 7KM in Dec. I showed where that is bogus and you said "Look again at those graphs, They're at near 300,000 cuft" I say yes 300,000 ft is the same as 8.5KM which is considerably higher than 6-7KM. If a little less than 300Kft then still a lot more than your 6-7KM - You said 2014 only in effect from Jan-April of 17 (that's 4 months). I say that was enough to mess things up pretty good as we still don't have water level where it belongs in Dec '19 I also say if that plan has only been in effect for that short of a time over the last 3 years, then it should be abandoned and not held onto as dearly as you do. However you also posted a press release from this year that showed permission to exceed plan levels were approved. THIS YEAR! So your 4 or 3 months in effect out of 3 years, as you claim, is just another bogus claim. - You said lake goes thru 20 yr cycle water levels. I disagreed with that. High water didn't occur in 2000-2014 as those were record low levels across all the lakes. That leaves you 6 yrs before 2020 if your statement is true and if a cycle occurred in the 80's-90's. So where/which year is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that something in your posts was true. - In the first 6 pages of this thread you insisted level control has nothing to do with shipping. Yet now you say it has a lot to do with shipping. Which is it? Shipping in '17, 18 & 19 boomed. I showed that & you side stepped it. The shipping season was extended this year. (normally closes a little earlier) - You said the Iroquois was closed for those years. You said that the bays would flood if outflows increased. Yet opening the Iroquois would have let the water out & there would have been more room for increased outflow. - You said it'd be good environmentally to have the wetlands flood and be rinsed, yet in another post you don't want any flooding downstream or in the Ottawa. Again, please make up you mind. - You said outflow was near 370K yet your own data shows much closer to 360K and for only 2 1/2 months. Water level wasn't nearly as high back in '86 yet they held the 340K range & higher for the last 9 1/2 months of the year and with no significant 2 month reductions as they did in '19. - You said "They're doing all they can" and "They're the highest outflows possible" yet couple hours ago it was posted that they're going to significantly higher outflow. - You refer me to IJC videos. I say there is no need to, as IMO, many of your posts are nearly verbatim of them, IMO, your drive to gain sympathy for the IMO inadequate and possibly inept policies of water control for Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence Seaway for the last 3 years, evidenced by wide lakeshore flooding and riparian damage. - You've made a number of bogus claims and then when I show you graphical facts from reputable sources, you try to spin them in your favor or side-step.

Point being that it was stated that outflows are always lowered in Dec. That's a bogus claim as shown in '86 graph where outflows were kept high most of the year and other graphs show no significant drop in Dec outflows (in fact some increase) yet the water level was nowhere near what 2017-2019 was. Another look at graphs shows they let considerable more water out at end of year in anticipation of more inflow to occur. In 96, 86, 85, 81, they were over the 300K level, and significantly over in '86. Yet in these years there wasn't nearly the high water level in Lake Ontario nor on the Ottawa River. This also shows outflow can be high with significantly less water supply. The current outflow is in a much less proportion to water level than it was in those shown years. It has been stated that they're letting out more water now, except from that in '86, for which the homeowners are grateful, however they could let out a lot more as evidenced particularly by '86. Obviously the '17-19 concern was the level of the Ottawa with very little concern over the level of Ontario or the upper lakes which we have been reminded multiple times that they are at very high levels. If the concern was the high levels in the upper lakes then that would dictate that even greater outflow would occur now. The IJC was charged by treaty to control the outflow, yet they allowed the Iroquois to be closed for those 2 high summers. It obviously wasn't closed in '86. Why closed in '17-19? easy - shipping. During high water, extra tugs are required to help the freighters maneuver. Schumer's '19 letter to the Control board asked that outflows be increased and tugs be re-instated and they said no. (tugs cost money) IJC meeting minutes show discussion of closing shipping for November & December, yet they said no as economic loss to shipping would be great. Again, too bad for homeowners and no concern whatsoever over high water on the upper lakes. It has been claimed that more water can't be let out due to water supply and surges. There is plenty of water supply (lake is high) and they wouldn't have had surges if they had kept the flow going through the Iroquois. The Niagara hasn't slowed down. Why increase outflow now? The NYSDEC is going after them in court concerning damages to the riparian areas both above & below the control structures. IJC press release was issued 2 weeks after the formal filing by the NYSAG on behalf of the NYSDEC. 20 year cycles have been claimed and that homeowners & boaters should wait two years for low water, yet planners ignored 20 year cycles on the Upper lakes. (20 year cycles began 2016-2017 for the upper lakes.) That plan was designed based on data from 2000-2012 which was a period of relative low water on the upper lakes, even though climatology experts were warning about el nino, melting icebergs and more precipitation at the time. Water will not go down to a low low level in two years as the IJC has the mandate to protect international commerce on the St Lawrence. As soon as we have a period of dry weather, they'll reduce the outflow & get the lake back up real quick. It has been claimed that winds from the SW have an effect on water level. Yes they do. Another fact that the designers ignored: The prevailing winds in the affected area are from the SW. Storms did occur in the fall & spring of the above graphed years, yet outflows were not dropped significantly due to seiche fears. Anyone remember Feb 24th 2019? Pretty strong wind. Cape Vincent water level went up tremendously and almost instantaneously. What did Seaway control do? It has been claimed that exceptions to outflow levels have been granted. (IJC &SLSCB press releases) IMO, even more reason why 2014 should be abandoned. Why debate it now? Thank you to all for the eloquent & in depth explanations on waterflow & water levels, however the reasons put forth on why the waterflow are froth with inadequacies, side stepping and unanswered questions. ( I still haven't seen an answer to Gambler's question) Tom B. (LongLine) WaveHeight6_buf.bmp

The years 2000 thru 2014 were a period where the upper lakes were consistently at fairly low historical levels. (Check out iiwh's graph previously posted) For these years, I agree that seaway control did lower the outflows in December as he stated. i.e to the 6-7K range. However if you go back to where they were not at consistently low levels, they did not lower the outflows of Lake Ontario. Specifically years, '67, 72, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86 & 96 they did not significantly lower the outflows in December. (according to what the seaway control reported to Army Corps) :(They dropped this one in Jan '78) For reference 300,000 cuft/s = 8,500cuM/s Plan 2014 was developed based on the years 2000-2014. If they had looked at any of the outflow data prior to that, they would have seen that historically the increase in outflow should begin in March (as shown above) and not a drastic dip in April-June nor begin a decrease in Sept as shown below on the 2019 outflow graph. That 2 month drop (Apr-Jun) never should of happened. Saying that outflow can't be increased because there is not enough water supply is bogus. Water level wasn't as high back in '86, yet they kept the flow pretty close to 340K from May thru December that year. As to the 20yr cycle - That's probably pretty close on the upper lakes. But it hasn't been true for Ontario. (again look at iiWh's previously posted graph for Lake O)

Tom B. (LongLine)

It's even more amazing that some believe outflow is reduced by them "Opening" them.

Outflows have increased this last week: Tom B. (LongLine)

Merry Christmas Sk8! Tom B. (LongLine)

Merry Christmas Hank. Love the pic. Tom B. (LongLine)

ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas! Tom B. (LongLine)

Nice fish. Yes, ice forms near shore first. Hope you told your friend to get off the ice...as just a couple days are all that's needed: (19th & 20th) Here's a USGS chart so you can see the years' history & you can extrapolate the above: Highest ever let out was 378K, (approx. 35-40 yrs ago) Max this year was 364K. BTW, the Ottawa was back to normal in June. Tom B. (LongLine)

Yes, the water is high. The Ottawa average was 2" higher than last year. Can we get past that now? (even though that's nothing compared to over 30" higher on Big-O) Some people want to believe tabloid clippings while others prefer reputable data/measurements. As we know which camp 2014er's are in and which I'm in, here's one of your tabloid articles from the Bay of Quinte that's kind of interesting especially what a past member of the St law' Riv' Control board says about 2014. (2014 is biased, etc....) www.inquinte.ca/story/quinte-residents-rally-against-ijc-plan-2014 Here's a blurb from the USDOT submitted by the SLSDC: www.transportation.gov/transition/slsdc-top-policy-issues " Since the IJC's December 2016 announcement of the approved Plan 2014, environmental groups and shipping industry representatives have expressed support for the new water regulation plan. The only group at this point that has expressed concerns or opposition to Plan 2014 are landowners on the south shore of Lake Ontario whose homes will likely be flooded as a result of the new plan. SUBMITTED BY: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation LAST UPDATED: January 6, 2017" IJC knew there was going to be flooding and did nothing about it as their plan caused the expanded flood plain by not handling the inflow as historically would have been. As has been mentioned many times before: why no answer to Gambler's question? (obviously due to the higher trigger levels of 2014. '58 would have opened those gates wider a lot earlier.) What is the pro-2014er answer to the question? (They beg that question an awful lot) IJC claimed they were changing the plan due to environmental concerns as pro2014r's have also claimed. Here's their fact sheet: https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/tinymce/uploaded/LOSLR/Plan2014FactSheet_EN.pdf Yet they are now being sued by the NYSDEC for damage to the Riparian area above & below the dam and around the lake. The IJC misled a lot of people with mis-information just as the 2014er's are trying to do now in justifying their brainchild. Someone once said that you can't convince someone that their position is flawed, even with mounds of reputable data because they emotionally own that position for whatever reason. So with that in mind, iiW' , even though you've posted a lot of untruths, I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, hopefully it won't be underwater. Tom B. (LongLine)