Animal Cruelty!

[Road Guy]

Can your mutt do this?

 

[DVINNY]

That's BadA$$.

I love that dog.

 

[Road Guy]

I must admit, that is MY dog

 

[Guest]

^^^ Awesome !!!

You couldn't get my pooch near the lake much less into the boat! :true:

JR

 

[TXengrChickPE]

mine would be swimming along beside the boat... in the boat? never

 

[Dleg]

That is pretty awesome. If my dog could operate a camera, I'd have been on the David Letterman Show by now. Or I;d have my own amateur **** website.

Who's the dog in the boat?

:huh:

 

[GTScott]

That has to be photoshopped, there is no water in the lake.

Awesome dog!

 

[Road Guy]

maybe its just that the south part of the lake is still okay, but I think the news people are doing a great job of dom & gloom regarding the lake.

I was running +100 feet depth on the depth finder the last few times I have been out.

Off course I think its dumb as hell that the army corps of engineers (not known for being smart though) release more water that they would receive if the lake was never built.

between the COE & the EPD I cant tell who is more ********...

 

[MA_PE]

great shot RG. I'm surprised he's in there, I didn't think borders like to get wet.

 

[Guest]

between the COE & the EPD I cant tell who is more ********...

Hey! I resemble that remark

If you aren't careful, I am going to lobby for even MORE lake drawdown to protect your downgradient neighbors. Namely me!

JR

 

[roadwreck]

maybe its just that the south part of the lake is still okay, but I think the news people are doing a great job of dom & gloom regarding the lake.
I was running +100 feet depth on the depth finder the last few times I have been out.

Off course I think its dumb as hell that the army corps of engineers (not known for being smart though) release more water that they would receive if the lake was never built.

between the COE & the EPD I cant tell who is more ********...

I think this is why people are kinda freaking out.

check out those forecast values. Yum!

The 80 days of water left (or whatever number they keep throwing out there) isn't the number of days till the lake is empty, it's the number of days until the lake level gets to the 'bottom of conservation'. Which I believe happens to coincide with the lowest elevation water can currently be pumped out of the lake unless some changes are made. I'm not sure what the lake elevation would be at the bottom of conservation, but my guess is there would be a lot of unhappy people if the lake ever got that low.

What I don't understand is it would seem as though the COE would want to take some measures against draining the lakes to quickly since if the levels were to get to the point that they were at the 'bottom of conservation' that would mean they would no longer be able to send water downstream and all that bitching about Alabama and Florida not having enough water would kind of be a moot point since then they would have no water too.

The amount of water they are releasing does seem to be a bit excessive though. I haven't lived here that long, but I know I've seen the Chattahoochee with a lot less water in it then now and I don't recall it causing all this hubbub.

 

[Road Guy]

MA- I dont know about the rest but our border collie cant get enough of the water.

I can understand we should maintain a certain level in the Chattahoochie, but it makes absolute no sense for us to send down MORE water than we receive, I think if they would make that the minimum standard I think most of us Atlanta people would see that as sensible.

right now were sending out somthing like twice the amount of water we receive, so based on that we should just tear the damn out and let the damn mussles and sturgeon DIE!

 

[roadwreck]

I can understand we should maintain a certain level in the Chattahoochie, but it makes absolute no sense for us to send down MORE water than we receive, I think if they would make that the minimum standard I think most of us Atlanta people would see that as sensible.
right now were sending out somthing like twice the amount of water we receive, so based on that we should just tear the damn out and let the damn mussles and sturgeon DIE!

I agree, somewhat. It would seem that without the reservoir that the Chattahoochee would be running at a much lower level right now b/c of the drought, so everything downstream would be **** up a creek. That said, I'm sure the reservoir was put in place to prevent that from happening. What I don't understand is that the COE seems to be letting water out at a rate so high that it would seem as though there were no drought in the area at all. There needs to be some regulations that state there needs to be a balance between the inflow to the lake and the outflow so that we at this end don't end up high and dry. What kind of water conservation measures are being taken downstream? Here we are under pretty sever watering bans and being asked to cut back anyway we can. I personally know that it's drastically effecting certain businesses in the area.

 

[Guest]

There needs to be some regulations that state there needs to be a balance between the inflow to the lake and the outflow so that we at this end don't end up high and dry. What kind of water conservation measures are being taken downstream?

The problem with regulating the flow is that you are dealing with an interstate issue that crosses several industries (recreation, shellfish, forestry, etc.) and the water consumption (or lack thereof) does become problematic for businesses and individuals when you are told that not only can you NOT have as much water as you want but you will also have to ration what you are given.

I don't have any quickie types of answers. I can say that today there were some folks down in my part of the woods that were telling me that the salinity in parts of the Ocholocknee river has risen so high that fisherman are putting crab traps in the river (pretty far upstream) and they are catching saltwater fish in the river.

I have looked at several optimization models that evaluate various interests and try to specify the problem in terms of resource 'use'. I don't think there is an equitable split in that manner because some utilizing units (like shellfish) have a greater unit need than others (say people recreating). Again, I don't have answers but as long as everyone continues to quibble over the nature of the problem rather than looking towards an equitable solution, there will continue to be problems :2cents:

FWIW - I really DON'T have much of a stake in this other than to say I would like a sound, scientific solution to be presented and get everyone on board.

JR

 

[roadwreck]

I have looked at several optimization models that evaluate various interests and try to specify the problem in terms of resource 'use'. I don't think there is an equitable split in that manner because some utilizing units (like shellfish) have a greater unit need than others (say people recreating).

At this end it's going beyond just the recreational aspect, I know people who are losing jobs b/c of it. The landscaping business (yes it goes beyond people just cutting your grass) has been hit pretty hard b/c no body is allowed to water anything anymore. That may seem trivial, but when your livelihood depends on it means a bit more then just letting a few plants here and there wither and die.

I think what people are so incensed by here is that the COE is actually increasing the amount of water that is being released from the lake. Presumably this is to try and combat lower river levels downstream (b/c the whole region is in a drought so there is little to no contribution downstream). So as a resident here, you are put under strict water conservation guidelines, people are losing jobs, and you see the river running damn near full. That's gonna piss a few people off.

 

[Guest]

^^^ That is very true and, in fact, I would most likely take issue with my resources being drawn away (to my detriment) so that others may prosper.

Resource allocation is a real ***** - that is my point about establishing a sound, scientific principle that everyone can agree upon. Some of my statements are tongue-in-cheek but I am quite serious about the optimization models as a means to OBJECTIVELY evaluate the resource allocation - in this case water retention or discharge.

Similar issues exist in the Everglades when there is an extreme storm event. When the flooding event comes do you:

a. Allow the middle class neighborhoods to become flooded;

b. Allow the native american's sacred land to become flooded;

c. Allow the flood water to mobilize and further contaminate the river of grass through phosphorous redistribution; or

d. Allow the flood water to inundate the rookeries of the endangered woodstork whose habitat requires him to wade in a very narrowly defined depth of water.

Again, I don't offer solutions - just encouragement for ALL stakeholders (critters included) to be able to weigh in on a decision-making platform. In the end, someone is going to take it in the end - we just need to decide what is more important.

JR

 

[frazil]

At this end it's going beyond just the recreational aspect, I know people who are losing jobs b/c of it. The landscaping business (yes it goes beyond people just cutting your grass) has been hit pretty hard b/c no body is allowed to water anything anymore. That may seem trivial, but when your livelihood depends on it means a bit more then just letting a few plants here and there wither and die.

If it's a choice between landscaping and providing water for people to live, it's not a tough decision. The COE is probably under contract to provide a certain about of water to cities and states downstream for water supply and hydropower. There are many instances where the COE has been sued for trying to restrict releases in times of drought. It's easy to blame the regulating agency, but the real issue is the drought and the fact that everyone feels entitled to the water.

 

[Road Guy]

My grandfather told me how the environmentalist fought the construction of lake lanier back in the day, imagine if the thing had never been built?

 

[Guest]

It's easy to blame the regulating agency, but the real issue is the drought and the fact that everyone feels entitled to the water.

Very true.

I was recently reading a book by a noted epidemiologist who was quoted as saying the next major war on a global scale will not be fought over oil. It will be fought over water (potable).

You don't have to have oil to live ...

JR

 

[Wolverine]

The other day, some land drawings came across my desk that showed an outline for "Lake Etowah" (for lack of a better name) up in the Rome area. The urban encroachment in the last 50 years makes that dream about a hundred times less likely than the original Lake Lanier given the amount of land that would have to be condemned now. Still, somebody awhile back thunk it and it seems like it would've been a good idea today.

I also once saw aereal photos of Lanier before it was Lanier. I don't see what the big deal was... a couple of barns and a country store. Still down there I suppose.