Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Let's not forget about Canada in this discussion, remember when we were trolling around in February in near 60* temps that went way up into Canada's snow belts also. I know guys that sled up around chaubugamoo, last year it sucked they said snow was mostly slush and trails washed out unfit to run $13000.00 machines on, so we can't over look that LakeO has a Canadian border also and that's a huge influence to the water level of the lake, plus their cities were under water till late in the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Last One said:

I have only one question; Where do we stand with the lake Ontario water level today as apposed to same day last year?

Approximately 15" higher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Last One said:

October through November are usually the lowest lake levels of the year. So we are still in trouble for next year,

even with a average amount of snow/rain through spring.

The forecasted level is going to be back to the normal levels in December according to the Army Corps website.  Lake Erie is going to be high again and Huron and Michigan are going to be higher next year in the spring than this spring. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last weekend it was probably 10-12" higher in Wilson as well. My only thought about the rain is, what was the level of the lake in comparison to previous years in the months of January , February and March . I would not be surprised if it was a lot higher in 2017 and that's what started it all. The Great Lakes surely had less snow and melt than a average winter.Lake effect snow should not count as it just takes moisture from the lake and redeposit it on  land. And all of that does not make it back into the lake. So with less "national " snow our levels should of been below average in the early spring and O would of absorbed the extra rainfall IF the dam was not there or they opened it up in January. Yes I know Montreal was flooding out, but my point was and still is, this was a man made mess.

Edited by Bozeman Bob
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 15" high. There is a big flat rock at the marina I keep my boat at. The water is usually way below that rock by now. It is not hat far below it at all. Also out weir at work is usually way above the water line at this time of the year. It is only 12" above the water on the down stream side.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:55 AM, Bozeman Bob said:

  First off "nature" had nothing to do with the actual flooding. It was all a result of a government installed dam on the St. Lawrence. No dam/no flooding. If the government came in and flooded the street you live on for whatever reason and destroyed your houses foundation along with the actual house would you be thinking you should be paying out of your own pocket for rebuilding your house ? I do not own waterfront property but I think every one that was affected can "thank" the government for completely screwing it up. And yes I would be first in line looking for reimbursement.

High and low levels were higher and lower prior to the seaway and " dam".  Please look at the long term data plots, as they clearly reveal this fact. Please note that nearly all the monthly highs are pre 1950 and all the monthly lows are pre 1950.  Perhaps the double the normal Rainfall in March and April, combined with the lack of ice cover in January and February which limited discharges in those months, combined with the lager than normal input from Lake Erie had something to do with the high water, but it is always more convenient to blame someone.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Portals/69/docs/GreatLakesInfo/docs/WaterLevels/LTA-GLWL-English_2016.pdf?ver=2017-03-13-091618-030

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:15 PM, Bozeman Bob said:

The mouth of the Niagara River actually impedes much of the excess water with it narrow funnel shape. It will rise slowly but not enough to have any real repercussions on O. or the people that live along the river.

This is really funny.  Sad that someone could think this way in this day and age, but, oh well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:53 PM, GAMBLER said:

With the amount of rain we received this spring in a short duration, snow melt on tug hill and Lake Erie being well above the historical average, you can't just blame the dam. Even if the dam was not there, the St Lawrence can only let so much water out. With all the tributaries around the lake, the lake would still rise. Maybe not to the extent it did this year but it would still rise. The IJC could have let more water through the dam but shipping is apparently more important that thousands of home owners on Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence. Once the lake hit trigger levels, the IJC did not follow their own plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

It is important to remember that at the other end of the St Lawrence, there is a large city that was 5.5 feet under water, and there was extremely high water coming out of the Ottawa River as well as the St Lawrence.  If there is not a heavy enough ice over in January and February, it is not possible to release water at higher velocities without flooding the nearshores of the river, so the Board of Control was not able to " dump" water then.  This was basically the "perfect storm" of high water problems, and would have occurred under any regulation plan in place, and may have been worse in the pre-Seaway condition.   As to the shipping, they increased water release to the point where the big boats were starting to have navigation problems with the current levels and could have run aground at higher flows, leading to potentially damaging situations in the river.  Please also note the well above average discharges (all the areas above the yellow dots) from the larger tributaries along the lake, and remember that the farmers around here had next to nothing planted at Memorial Day because it had been raining so much.  The continued high discharges through the summer are a reflection of that continuing rain over much of the state. I know you get this, but a lot of these other guys don't have a clue.

 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Portals/69/docs/GreatLakesInfo/docs/WaterLevels/LTA-GLWL-Graph_2016.pdf?ver=2017-03-13-091619-203

 

 

graph?agency_cd=USGS&site_no=04250200&parm_cd=00060&period=365&format=gif_stats

graph?agency_cd=USGS&site_no=04231600&parm_cd=00060&period=365&format=gif_stats

graph?agency_cd=USGS&site_no=04260500&parm_cd=00060&period=365&format=gif_stats

graph?agency_cd=USGS&site_no=04249000&parm_cd=00060&period=365&format=gif_stats

 

Edited by Lucky13
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Gambler says, they are projected to be down to normal by December.    I can also attest to it being higher, there is still water over the small pulloff on empire Blvd on Irondequoit Bay, and my fall fishing spot is still under water.

 

 

ontario.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lucky13 said:

This is really funny.  Sad that someone could think this way in this day and age, but, oh well!

  Really ??? And you are the resident expert , I bow to you . Any liquid going into a funnel is going to back up as the narrow part of the funnel impedes the flow. Sure the level is going to rise a little bit allowing more flow but it gets impeded around the round house and the Barge canal pier inflow slowing that process down.  How much more water would be flowing out of Erie if the Niagara  river was 3 miles wide and 60 feet deep in its entirety ? Now , to quote/paraphrase  the US Army Corp of Eng, Detroit ," as Lake Erie enters into the Niagara river it hits a width of 1500 feet and a depth of 17' at a rock ledge WHICH naturally controls its out flow" And what is  so sad about someone with a opinion ? Not the same as yours, so revert to the personal criticism card, nice . Time to move on to more pressing projects.

Edited by Bozeman Bob
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some professional experience in hydrology.  It is not a matter for opinion, it is a matter for science.  Sure, there is a some small amount of backwater caused by the constriction, but in comparison to the scale of the Lake, it is insignificant.  Make the channel deep enough and you end up with one lake, but that is not what you were ranting about. And you are the one who made all the noise about the "guvment conspiracy" to flood the lake, so rant on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick quote from our illustrious Governor in reference to the IJC.. "There  is a body we have no representation on that CONTROLS the levels in the lakes" " I think they made a mistake, and I think they better not repeat that mistake next year"" They should of gotten ahead of the problem, and kept the water level lower, and I hope they do it next year"   I guess its sad in this day and age to see someone like him saying that the IJC is to blame,  the same thing I said ,you pick the agency, it's all government in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...