Great Lakes HIGH water levels

[Tetepare]

Last year my marina raised all the fixed docks by 5”. Even if I have to wade through water it won’t kill me. I did build a landing bridle because fenders were useless.

It is sad to see century-old cottages being destroyed. The economic impact on shoreline businesses has been terrible. The no wake rules mean powerboats don’t launch, and they spend a lot more money on fuel and booze than the sailors.

Higher water means again lots of flotsam, which creates dangerous conditions on the lake.

Blaming this on nature is rediculous. Natural outflow would have put Lake Ontario down more than a meter from where it is. You can’t blame natural inflow and ignore controlled outflow. Well, I suppose you can, because they do.

We can’t drastically increase Lake Ontario outflow for risk of flooding Montreal.

The real problem is that when control began it enable building of homes on the shoreline. Now people, reasonably, don’t want the homes destroyed. But they shouldn’t have been allowed to be built in the first place. Too late now.

[rslifkin]

[QUOTE=Tetepare;3075070Blaming this on nature is rediculous. Natural outflow would have put Lake Ontario down more than a meter from where it is. You can’t blame natural inflow and ignore controlled outflow. Well, I suppose you can, because they do.

We can’t drastically increase Lake Ontario outflow for risk of flooding Montreal.

The real problem is that when control began it enable building of homes on the shoreline. Now people, reasonably, don’t want the homes destroyed. But they shouldn’t have been allowed to be built in the first place. Too late now.[/QUOTE]


Natural outflow would actually be less, as the flow capacity of the St. Lawrence was significantly increased in some areas when the Seaway was built. But if dealing with this much water is going to be a frequent occurrence, it may be time to try to open up some of the choke points in the upper river as well as downstream of Montreal to allow more water to flow.



And yes, I agree, those that complain the loudest are those that built way too close to the water. When it only takes a foot of extra water to get your house wet, it's a bit too close.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

...Blaming this on nature is rediculous. Natural outflow would have put Lake Ontario down more than a meter from where it is. You can’t blame natural inflow and ignore controlled outflow. Well, I suppose you can, because they do.

I dunno TP, the historic data I've seen indicates Ontario was far more variable in it's water levels before the development of the Seaway than after. And some of the highs were similar to what we're getting to now.

But I think you're right in the sense that this may not be "normal" inflows. The research is indicating this increase in precipitation, followed by equally dramatic decreases, are consistent with symptoms of rapid climate change. This may be the new normal.

Originally Posted by Tetepare

We can’t drastically increase Lake Ontario outflow for risk of flooding Montreal.

Very true. The IJC is charged with managing the entire watershed. They must balance the needs of all areas.

Originally Posted by Tetepare

The real problem is that when control began it enable building of homes on the shoreline. Now people, reasonably, don’t want the homes destroyed. But they shouldn’t have been allowed to be built in the first place. Too late now.

Very true. Standard human hubris in thinking we can control Momma Nature. Best we can do is work with her, but when she gets pissed off, you better get outta the way.

[Dave Lochner]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Blaming this on nature is rediculous. Natural outflow would have put Lake Ontario down more than a meter from where it is. You can’t blame natural inflow and ignore controlled outflow. Well, I suppose you can, because they do.

We can’t drastically increase Lake Ontario outflow for risk of flooding Montreal.

No it is not, because it is higher rainfall across the Great Lakes Basin.

Even without the dam, the St. Lawrence can not handle the flow. The size and depth of the river are limiting factors. At its widest Ontario is about 50 miles wide that water drains into the St. Lawrence a Wolf Island. The south channel at Wolf is a little more than a mile wide. The North channel is about the same.

The small area and the gentle gradient restricts the flow, holding the water back on the lake. When the inflow is greater than the out flow, the lake floods.


Check out the IJC website (IJC.org) there is an abundance of good information on the water shed and the water resources along the Canadian/US border.

[Tetepare]

Mike your point about level and flow variability is one people should be more aware of.

As one who loves exploring the lake’s swamps (places which most lifelong boaters see constantly from a safe distance) I’ve watched a change. The swamps and bays are silting and filling. One of my favorite swamp spots used to have 2’ of water in spring with spawning carp and bass. We’d sit in the small boat for hours and watch the wildlife. Now I can walk there. Similarly, the south end of the bay, where we had a family cottage and used to swim off the dock, is never more than 3’ deep and all muck and weeds.

The environmentalists (in which I include myself) said we need higher water to rejuvenate the swamps. But here they are wrong, what we need is high water that rushes out and flushed the swamps- not high water that simply raises the water level.

There’s a popular photo from 100 years ago that shows people standing on the sandy bottom of the Sodus channel. That would be natural fluctuation. Very high water in spring, very low water in fall. As in a 3 or 4 meter seasonal difference, not one meter. And storms that would drain the creeks and swamps in two weeks, not season long highs.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

The environmentalists (in which I include myself) said we need higher water to rejuvenate the swamps. But here they are wrong, what we need is high water that rushes out and flushed the swamps- not high water that simply raises the water level.

There’s a popular photo from 100 years ago that shows people standing on the sandy bottom of the Sodus channel. That would be natural fluctuation. Very high water in spring, very low water in fall. As in a 3 or 4 meter seasonal difference, not one meter. And storms that would drain the creeks and swamps in two weeks, not season long highs.

It's my understanding that the new arrangement put forward by the IJC around 2014 was supposed to do what you suggest - allow for more 'natural' level fluctuations to improve the health of wetlands.


But this initiative was blamed by many for the high levels of 2017. Regarding last year's high levels, I heard most point to a high level of winter precipitation, but I also heard grumbling from some that the problem was exacerbated by pandering to the shipping industry, who like the high levels.


It's pretty hard to be 'natural' when the levels are mostly under human control, and there are a number of competing interests applying pressure on the decisionmakers.

[Dave Lochner]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's pretty hard to be 'natural' when the levels are mostly under human control, and there are a number of competing interests applying pressure on the decisionmakers.

Humans have limited control over the lake level. A bigger factor in controlling water levels is the size and capacity of the river itself.

Think of a funnel. Only so much water can flow out of the funnel regardless of how much water is in the funnel. Essentially, the St Lawrence is the funnel's spout and the lake is the big part of the funnel.

The lake is roughly 50 miles by 130 miles, the entrance to the St. Lawrence River is only about 2-3 miles wide and it is dotted with hundreds of islands and shoals which restrict flow. Between Cap Vincent and Alexandria Bay the river's gradient is pretty shallow, so the current is relatively low.

Even if the dam was removed, the maximum flow down the river would be little changed.

Here's a video on the water levels and the 2019 floods. The IJC website has more information.

https://vimeo.com/378433728

[Mike OReilly]

Exactly right TP/LE. The natural ebb and flow of the Great Lakes were more variable before we intervened to "manage" things. We "developed" the region to serve our shipping needs, but in doing so, changed the natural patterns.

My understanding agrees with LE's in that the new management protocols are trying to better emulate these natural flows. All too often, though, we make things worse.

[Dave Lochner]

Here's an interesting graph showing the Max, min, and average lake level from 1908 to 2018. (There are also links on the page to show flow rates)

https://ijc.org/en/loslrb/watershed/water-levels

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dave Lochner

...Even if the dam was removed, the maximum flow down the river would be little changed.

Agreed. The historic data shows that before the dam the water levels in Lake Ontario fluctuated even more than they have since. This past natural pattern created certain habitat, probably like TP describes.

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.

Nice link Dave. I'll repost the one I kicked this discussion off as well. You can use this tool to look at a lot of GL factors, including lake levels, going back to the start of the datasets (1918 I think). Just looking at Lake Ontario pre-1960 (when the modern Seaway was completed) shows much greater variation in lake levels, at least up until the last few years.

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

With climate now rapidly shifting, our control systems may no longer be able to manage -- not that we ever really could (hubris).

[AKA-None]

Well it managed before by overflowing the dry land but towns don’t like that

[Svan]

The national yacht club in Toronto spent much of the summer Last year and the one before with its sea wall underwater and waves topping the breakwall and bouncing around the anchorage. Mega unpleasant.

Saw a Marina just BELOW the Outflow dam from L Ontario with the travelift track under a few inches of water. The lock difference looked like maybe a foot.

I would think the thing to do at times like this is use the water to refill one of our many depleted aquifers

[JBsurfin]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm sitting her looking at the very high shoreline of Lake Huron right now, and wondering what things are going to look like come Spring. This is supposed to be the low point in the season, after all. Yet we're at near record-breaking highs everywhere in the Great Lakes basin.

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

Predictions currently are for all the lakes to be way above the longer term averages, with most Lakes breaking through the all time record highs. I'm no longer sailing these Great Lakes, but this can't be good news for many marinas and other facilities built down along the shores.

Are people making plans for the coming soggy season?

As a deeper draft boater, I never complain about having TO much water.. Better than what occurred in 2013 when they were at all time low.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JBsurfin

As a deeper draft boater, I never complain about having TO much water.. Better than what occurred in 2013 when they were at all time low.

At 6-feet, I hear ya .

[SuW]

Originally Posted by Svan

...
Saw a Marina just BELOW the Outflow dam from L Ontario with the travelift track under a few inches of water. The lock difference looked like maybe a foot.

I would think the thing to do at times like this is use the water to refill one of our many depleted aquifers

What marina was that? The only marina that has a travelift I know of in that area is IMS at Iroquois, where they are actually above the Iroquois Lock, although the location seems confusing because of the old canal.

And yep, IMS lift well and lower parking area was underwater last Spring and in 2017.

See http://tiyc.ca/

As for reloading aquifers, sure...