Great Lakes HIGH water levels

[CFS Klopas]

The existing politics of managing the Great Lakes makes it impossible to divert water anywhere. It's construed as taking our regional resource. They won't even open the Chicago locks because Canada doesn't like that.

[Scaramanga F25]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

The existing politics of managing the Great Lakes makes it impossible to divert water anywhere. It's construed as taking our regional resource. They won't even open the Chicago locks because Canada doesn't like that.

Canada has no control over the U.S. system.
Downstream East on both U.S. and Canadian sides would benefit from increasing water flow South to the U.S. Rivers system. Releasing too much water southward from the Lake would cause severe flooding down the Mississippi. Now a greater problem with so much rain and flooding inland.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by thruska

Well now may be the correct time to sell some supertanker loads of water , off Ontario , to China and Europe . Win - win.

You must be joking

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ammers-UK.html

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The IJC is trying to return to this more "natural" pattern. I have my doubts that they will be successful, especially when faced with our new rapidly changing climate.

.

Going back two decades environmentalist were clamoring for greater fluctuations in water level to restore the wetlands. There was a lot of press and discussion on this amongst do-good organizations, mostly armchair environmentalists. I don’t recall having read any professional nor independent definitions of what that fluctuation should entail.

When NYS announced it was studying solutions it seemed to satisfy most people. Indeed, i was happy to let NYS do their job.

What we got was Plan 2014, which does little, if anything, to restore wetlands to past conditions or performance (remember, wetlands have a job to do, thus I use that word.). I haven’t heard any real environmental organization extolling the virtues of Plan 2014.

We asked for more natural, higher flow rate in wetlands. What we got was higher water trickling out. Stinks like politics.

[Dave Lochner]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Going back two decades environmentalist were clamoring for greater fluctuations in water level to restore the wetlands. There was a lot of press and discussion on this amongst do-good organizations, mostly armchair environmentalists. I don’t recall having read any professional nor independent definitions of what that fluctuation should entail.

When NYS announced it was studying solutions it seemed to satisfy most people. Indeed, i was happy to let NYS do their job.

What we got was Plan 2014, which does little, if anything, to restore wetlands to past conditions or performance (remember, wetlands have a job to do, thus I use that word.). I haven’t heard any real environmental organization extolling the virtues of Plan 2014.

We asked for more natural, higher flow rate in wetlands. What we got was higher water trickling out. Stinks like politics.

Plan 2014 was adopted in December 2016. The next year the lake flooded due to record spring rainfalls in 2017. The first year the IJC could have tried to follow the Plan was 2018. And we know what happened in 2019. So, to be fair, Plan 2014 has only been implemented for 1 year at best. Currently, the IJC is not following the plan and releasing more water than the plan calls for.

The Moses-Saunders dam can not increase water flow out of the lake above the St Lawrence River's natural unimpeded flow rate. It becomes a simple matter of math, when more water enters than can leave the lake the lake rises. With high water levels in the upper lakes and increased rainfall the lake faces a near future of high water levels.

[Tetepare]

But the dam is impeding flow below the natural rate. Open her up and let’s see what happens.

And when a “normal” year returns, the dam will be used to retain water well below the natural flow rates. None of this helps the wetlands.

[SuW]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

But the dam is impeding flow below the natural rate. Open her up and let’s see what happens.
And when a “normal” year returns, the dam will be used to retain water well below the natural flow rates. None of this helps the wetlands.

The sluices are opened up. To the maximum considered safe. "Open her up" isn't really helpful, imo.

An interesting article in the local media:
https://www.northcountrypublicradio....n-lake-ontario
Everyone is trying to help this situation. IJC, Seaway authority, governments of states and provinces. I suspect we will not see "normal" for a while.

[Mike OReilly]

I have no doubt politics, and general human hubris, plays some part in the current water situations. But I don't think you can lay all the blame on the IJC, or Plan 2014. As SuW says, they can't open the gates any more than they are without risk to downstream communities (i.e. Montreal et. al) and without real danger to the dam itself.

The fact is, we've had a lot more precipitation coming into the Great Lakes watershed in 2016/17, and now in these last couple of years, than is normal. This may in fact be the 'new normal'. It's certainly consistent with a rapidly changing climate driven by global warming.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SuW

An interesting article in the local media:
https://www.northcountrypublicradio....n-lake-ontario
Everyone is trying to help this situation. IJC, Seaway authority, governments of states and provinces. I suspect we will not see "normal" for a while.

Interesting. This kind of supports the grumbling I heard that high levels were to some extent a pander to shipping.

[LakeSuperior]

I am making an guess that the spring water level in Superior will be down about 12 to 18 inches before the spring melt due to winter evaporation as it continuing to be a mild winter with little ice. Therefore, a nice low starting point for the rise of the lake over the summer. This will be welcome by the lakefront land owners and all others battling high water.

Winters of 2018 and 2019 had maximum ice coverage of 80 and 98 percent respectively.

Lower lakes should also be down this spring.

[Mike OReilly]

That's what I'd think too LS, but current data shows Superior is still more about a foot higher than the long-term average. Normally this would be a low period in the annual cycle, and while it is coming down, it's still much higher than normal. And the current 6-month predictions have the decline bottoming out in April, and then rebounding, with the upper end of the predicted range reaching record high levels.

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/dash...GLD_HTML5.html

We have friends on the north shore of Superior (Rossport area) who have been sandbaging at the water's edge to protect some decking that is normally well above the water. They've lived at this location for 40+ years and never had to do this.

I'm currently living at a house on the shores of Lake Huron. The water looks high -- very high for this time of year. So say the locals.

[Dave Lochner]

Here's a link to info on lake levels and forecasts in a little easier to read format:

http://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/Forecas...d_backpage.pdf

Superior and Ontario are the only lakes over which humans have a modicum of control. Most of that control is about dealing with dry seasons and slowing the outflow. When the inflow is greater than the maximum outflow, the lakes flood.

Spending time on the IJC website is enlightening. There is a considerable amount of information on the site about all of the lakes and water management issues.

If you read the info on Plan 2014, there is a list of priorities. A few I can recall are: safe navigation, sufficient water for the hydro plant at Moses-Saunders Dam, environmental concerns, flood mitigation, municipal and private water supplies, and recreational boating.

If there is any good weather news it is the lack of snow pack and ice on the lakes. I flew from Chicago to Syracuse last week over Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario and was surprised at the lack of snow cover and lack of ice. Spring melt and runoff should be less of an issue than in the past few years. Fingers crossed!

[Tetepare]

I’d guess that the lack of melt coming and the already high level will roughly balance meaning it’s going to be high at the start of the season. Corp of Eng and communities are already saying plan for it to reach record height, so I suppose it’s a good indication what’s coming.

“Sluices are open” and “dam is gone”’ have different impacts on wetlands. One achieves need, one doesn’t. Of course, the dam isn’t going anywhere so the point is moot.

I’m fine with high water. But my friends own the small businesses that drive local economies. They are crushed and can ill afford another disastrous season. Watch, small marinas will struggle, then sell to become waterfront condo developments.

[Tetepare]

Was flooding caused by Plan 2014? $3million funding a study by...IJC.

Seriously. Why not give the job to an outside agency? IJC investing a subject for which they’ve previously and repeatedly decided?

I wonder who’s pockets that $3million is going to line. The results of this upcoming study I have no doubt about.

[rslifkin]

I thought the study was more about what can be improved from Plan 2014? Keep in mind, we've had record inflows over the last couple of years. As in, more than Plan 2014 (or its predecessor) was designed to cope with and pushing the limits of what the Seaway system can physically handle. Some learning curve and finding some improvements to the plan is pretty much expected at this point. There's a reason they've been not following most of the plan for the last 9 months or so.