What about water use? Irrigation, municipal, etc? Is that a factor? Steve C&C 32 Toronto
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ronald B. Frerker <rbfrer...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Mostly makes sense. However, flow through the Chicago canal to > the Mississippi by way of the Illinois doesn't ever cause much more than > flushing a toilet in MPLS. The Chicago was diverted to the Illinois to > keep Chicago sewage out of Lake Michigan. The canal just allows for > traffic between the river and the lake given the river course change. > Also, I believe someone mentioned the dredging earlier, but IIRC, flow > rate would not be as related to river depth as to the drop rate of the > river bottom and the height of water column of the upper lakes. If only a > section was dredged and not the entire river, I would think the flow rate > would not be significantly different due to dredging. > I'm not overly familiar with that section of the country, but it does > sound more like a weather problem than a man-made one. > Ron > Wild Cheri > C&C 30 > STL > > > --- On *Wed, 10/3/12, Alex Giannelia <a...@airsensing.com>* wrote: > > > From: Alex Giannelia <a...@airsensing.com> > Subject: Stus-List Great Lakes Water Levels > To: "cnc-list@cnc-list.com" <cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 5:31 PM > > > Stu is right to point this out. We need to listen and to do something. > Here is my background based on what I do for a living and who I do it for. > > This issue is always going to be a difficult one. I am in the aerial > mapping business and we have seen projects come out either because the lake > levels were too high and caused property damaging erosion (1988-1990 comes > to mind) that needed to be mapped for? The IJC. So they are looking at > this. > > > There are four drain plugs in the system that I know of, > 1 Jackfish River to divert to hydro power in the James Bay > 1) Chicago Canal to flood the Mississippi for shipping > 2) Oswego to flood the Hudson > 3) St. Lawrence which also drives shipping and hydroelectric > > These are supposed to balanced, and if the scientists were running the > show, they probably would be, but politicians are, so the squeaky hinge > gets the flow, so the St. Clair River deal just put a kibosh on everything > because it accelerates the flown to Erie which due to its shallow nature is > a great evaporator. > > No one figured on losing ice the way we have on all the lakes. I > photographed Lake Ontario in Feb 1978, the last time it had more than 50% > cover. > > Counting on this evaporation to create more snow is a nice wish, but as > one guy on this list pointed out, Superior is upwind of everything, so > don't count on it. > > WE ARE THE REASON. AND WHEN WE EITHER CHANGE OUR WAYS, OR GET POLITICIANS > TO CHANGE THEM FOR US, THE SITUATION WILL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER, BUT IF WE > DO NOTHING, THE WATER WILL EVAPORATE AND DUMP DOWNWIND INTO THE OCEAN > EITHER AS SNOW OR RAIN. > > My .02 worth. > > > ALEX GIANNELIA > > CC 35-II (1974) WILL BE RENAMED > ON THE HARD SINCE NOV. 2006 and if the lake levels drop more, may be there > forever ;>} > Toronto Ontario > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album > http://www.cncphotoalbum.com > CnC-List@cnc-list.com <http://mc/compose?to=CnC-List@cnc-list.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album > http://www.cncphotoalbum.com > CnC-List@cnc-list.com > >
_______________________________________________ This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album http://www.cncphotoalbum.com CnC-List@cnc-list.com
