A friend took this photo from the water. Any idea what is going on there?
Printable View
A friend took this photo from the water. Any idea what is going on there?
They are finally replacing the seawall at Erma Henderson Park. It has failed over many years and allowed flooding of the lower part of the park and the parking lot causing a lot of damage. This flooding has gotten quite bad in the past few years as river levels have risen quite high, and is expected to be even worse in the future as water levels are expected rise even higher in years to come. I believe the idea is that the seawall will be removed and a more natural shoreline/beach/slope better able to absorb the changes in the river will be restored there.Quote:
Originally Posted by expatriate
EastsideAl... I know that we get seasonal flooding [when the spring time rains cause higher water levels]... but generally the Great Lakes water levels have decreased since 2018.
It's too bad that no one can figure out a way to divert some of the excess water [to the west] to make money [liquid gold] for the Great Lakes region... without releasing any water during low water years of the Lakes 11 year cycles.
I wonder how much it would affect the Great Lakes water levels to refill Lakes Powell and Mead... during Great Lakes high water years?? Of course we can't do that, because it would be like opening Pandora's Box. :eek:
We'll take all you can spare. TYVM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Sadly, climate change means that there won't be snowpack in the mountain ranges that supply run-off to the once-mighty Colorado River. I think that salt-water will have to come from the Gulf of California under a treaty with Mexico. And without hydro-electric power the Desert Southwest will need alternate sources of energy and plenty of it, because desalination requires lots of energy. Solar, wind, and nuclear would be the alternatives. Many people are still in denial about climate change who have their heads buried in the sand.
It's feasible but imprudent. IMHO the Desert Southwest should use salt water because the seas are rising and that's not cyclical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Gov't is the worse when it comes to planning and prevention when dealing with nature. Forget climate change, simple things like allowing building along rivers that flood continually, mass paving of land where there's nowhere for water to drain after a flood and letting retirees from Michigan move to Nevada because they get chilly.:p
As far as I'm concerned, the DESERT southwest can do without water like most DESERTs.
Let's put a million plus people in the desert, throw in tons of hotels & tourists, and assume that little lake will always supply us endless amounts of fresh water. Sounds like a plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Let’s build large cities on the coasts and assume the oceans will remain at the same levels. Let’s build where hurricanes hit and assume the hurricanes won’t grow in strength. The list goes on….Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Two words: Continental Divide. That's never going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
It's more sensible to move people to the water than the water to people.
Almost sounds like something a criminal gang would cook up.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
No. The Democrats were too blame just as much.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
I suppose that must depend on where you are on the lakes. The places I'm most familiar with, the Detroit River, the north shore of Lake Erie, and the south shore of Lake Ontario have seen record high levels in the past few years, and any decrease has been from historically high levels that caused a very significant amount of property damage. Including whole houses falling into the water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Certainly the experts that the city and state sent around to discuss the matter with riverfront property owners [[one of I used to be) a couple of years ago were clear that they expected a much wider variability in water levels going forward, with an overall trend towards permanently higher levels. The main thrust of their message was that older seawalls were no longer going to be adequate, that they were going to suffer increasing damage and even destruction, and that the best way to deal with this challenge was going to be to replace walls with as close to a natural [[albeit somewhat higher) shoreline as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
Actually the Continental Divide is at its' lowest point in New Mexico... where at the southern end is near 4,500 ft. above sea level, and its' most direct route would be along the I-40 corridor, which is at circa 7,000 ft. Isn't this the Route 66 way across the Rockies?
Of course I am totally clueless at what type of mechanics it would take to send a water pipeline to such elevations, but I had thought that the Continental Divide was higher than that.
Anyway, it ain't gonna happen. The folks will just have to move to the Great Lakes... :p
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Someone once suggested a siphon but all it would take would be one moron with a drill to end that plan. And we certainly have no shortage of morons nowadays. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Legislation to authorize the [Boulder] dam was introduced repeatedly by two California Republicans, Representative Phil Swing and Senator Hiram Johnson, but representatives from other parts of the country considered the project as hugely expensive and one that would mostly benefit California...Congress authorized a board of engineers to review plans for the proposed dam. The Colorado River Board found the project feasible, but warned that should the dam fail, every downstream Colorado River community would be destroyed, and that the river might change course and empty into the Salton Sea. The Board cautioned: "To avoid such possibilities, the proposed dam should be constructed on conservative if not ultra-conservative lines."...On December 21, 1928, President Coolidge signed the bill authorizing the dam. The Boulder Canyon Project Act appropriated $165 million for the project along with the downstream Imperial Dam and All-American Canal, a replacement for Beatty's canal entirely on the U.S. side of the border. It also permitted the compact to go into effect when at least six of the seven states approved it. This occurred on March 6, 1929, with Utah's ratification; Arizona did not approve it until 1944.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Never. Why would we ever want to give them our precious water even if it was possible? The southwestern US can shrivel and rot on the vine for all I care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
It was not a serious inquiry...more of a "what if"? If we had high water levels... it would be worth it charging $1 billion to refill Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoir's as a one time deal... without impacting our lakes. But there are 2 problems with that... 1) how to get them the water, the 800 pound gorilla, and 2) how to do so and not be forced again and again to do so... that's the Pandora's Box scenario... can't just do it once and have them satisfied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satiricalivory
They're going to be up Schitt's Creek twice... once for water, and once for hydroelectricity.
Remember, Nestle's takes millions of gallons of our Michigan groundwater weekly... at no charge to them. :eek:
Relax. I didn't need a history lesson. It was a joke. Meddle was referring to the Mob starting Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Whalley
I laughed out loud when I read that, Meddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Nestle's taking water for free is seriously criminal. But come to think of it, all beverage makers do so. And all corporations for that matter. I suppose some pay a water bill which may be a write-off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok