reporting:where did all the water go

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Aloha, Maui here alive and well, lights on, phone and internet OK.

Here's a reporting of at least a portion of this interesting thread:

I was out for a drive by our river today when I noticed that the river was really full....like it is at spring snow melt. The news said later in the day that all northwest rivers were running high right now. the news just left you with no explanation. Could it be that the Hydroelectric dams are running there generators at near 100% because of power needs due to shutdowns at malfunctioning power plants.(I live below a hydroelectric dam.) We have a normal snow pack and no rain.NO MELTING. NOTE: The northwest rivers all have Dams with hydroeletric generators.

-- Glenn Boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 05, 2000 Answers Interesting point. Checking the weather in the NW seems to have been relatively clear and sunny, since New Years. Can you find out from the authorities in your area what were the river levels for the past 2 weeks? Then we can see if this started after Jan 1 or not.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 05, 2000.

Alice, duh, e-mail the source of the adoption plea for info. You pasted the e-mail enough, use it.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

Hi Glen, I live right on the same reservoir your talking about and I was down at the lake just yesterday. It is waaaaay low, appears to be 100' down already. For those of you who don't know, this is a 90 mile long lake, so a 100' drop is HUGE. However, every winter this lake drops to prepare for the spring melt, which is significant in this country. Still, your point about running the hydroelectric 100% makes an intersting point.

-- Me (lake@watcher.com), January 05, 2000.

To answer your question . I went to work along the river until december 30th. It was at it`s normal low winter level.It also normal on Jan. 1st.Today is the first day I have chcked it since the first.

-- glenn boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 05, 2000.

Glen and Lakewatcher: Do you have historical data we can judge the current data (river or lake levels) against so we can make an informed assessment about what is happening? I'm just so tired of "look what I've seen" without any sort of comparison to historical norms.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 05, 2000.

Glenn: Ruddy good post! I used to live in Mackenzie, BC (on Williston Lake, for WAC Bennet Dam) and water levels usually dropped in summer, not winter (for the 3 summer/4 winters I was there...) Please keep us all posted on this (no pun intended)

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 05, 2000.

Fascinating notion, Glenn: power juggling to accomodate ..... Y2K failures? Although I can't readily verify water levels, as I'm not near enough to the Columbia, maybe some other posters -- A & L, amidst their martyrdom to trolls? -- can check on riverlevels in the PDX area? It definitely has been unseasonably clear and comparatively dry the last week. Byootiful. Had more than an eyeful of the sun even today -- often reported as a UFO sighting around here this time of year. >"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), January 05, 2000.

Glenn, thanks, we must have cross posted. See if you can get real numbers tomorrow from the officials.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 05, 2000.

Would this kind of data help: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis-w/US/ Warren

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 05, 2000.

Warren: Very nice; that's what I like about this forum; such a wide cross section of experience. Glenn: Ok Glenn, which lake and dam are you on? Could you give us the USGS number (if I've got the lingo correct) or could you post a url directly to your lake and dam from Warren's site. Thanks

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 05, 2000.

Inter.Spect. I`ll check tomarrow and post it here.

-- glenn boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 05, 2000.

Interesting. Columbia River at the Dalles is running at roughly 125 cubic feet per second above its seasonal mean -- and has been since .... January 1st. From my cursory reading of the graphs it loks like this is about 30-40% above the mean. thanks, Warren.

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), January 05, 2000.

Kookanusa reservoir, in NW Montana. Isn't this a Army Corp of Engineers dam? They'd have the historical data (and perhaps the kilowatts being generated past and present). No idea offhand where to get the info.

-- Lake Watcher (I@forget.com), January 05, 2000.

SH: Now isn't this shaping up to be interesting indeed. Amazing what just a little before and after comparison data can do take an analysis out of speculation into lets take a closer look at this mode? Wish more people would take this more rigorous approach to analysis. Any body else got any ideas about why the river and lake is the way it is? Ever seen this before? If so do you remember why it was the case?

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 05, 2000.

IS... .....We had just a bit of rain in eastern Ohio, we're 15 inches below normal, but the river that flows through Tuscarawas county, (Tuscarawas river), was nearly up to the bridges. Haven't seen it that high except in the wettest of springs...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), January 05, 2000.

Hi Squirrel Hunter! And of course flowers to the Squirrel King! We can't go see rivers at the mo -- still got projects we're finishing -- but we can say that this Fall & Winter so far have been unusually warm and dry. Sure it's rained buckets -- but COMPARATIVELY very little! By now usually we've had ferocious wind storms, snow, flooding, and silver thaws. Yet it's just so eternally Springlike, only drier. Lovely :-) And the snowpacks are way down last time we read about that ... although it was supposed to snow the last couple days in the Cascades. Possibly if it continues this way there will be drought and water shortages in summertime. Shudder at what you may be surmising ... this is NOT the year to spill the reserves!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), January 05, 2000.

The downstream flow along the Columbia at Hood River and below Bonneville dam (THE major hydroelectric source for Portland, and thw Y2K showcse where DOE Sec. Richardson spent the 9/9/99 "test") have some intriguing if inconcluisve data. IN PARTICULAR the "current conditions" page for the Columbia below Bonneville, updated Jan 5, 16:00, 20000 graphs data in feet above "datum" -- which I am guessing at this point is the historical mean figure for flows of the same date. Looks like data goes back 69 years. What might interest the folks on this page, is that the "stage" (in feet above mean) begins to rise on January 2, and crescendoes into a peal at midnight, January 2-3; then falls off then cresendoes again into a peak at about , say 6:00 o'clock a.m., Janaury 4, then cresendoes again and hit another peak at midnight January 4-5, trailing off again to the present time. ALMOST AS IF the river flow were being regulated to hit the power generators at Bonneville in time to begin gneration for the next day's load (beats me how long it takes to "transform" teh current generated into consumable 'lectricity. An interesting detail that I had not anticipated but which might flesh out Glenn's concept ...... Of course, we run on hydro all year 'round, and it makes sense that the Corps might adjust flow to hit the dams in coordination with demand. There need be nothing sinister about that observation. It's the low level of the reservoirs in Montana and elsewhere that is more interesting. That graph is of Station 14128870 -- COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW BONNEVILLE DAM, OR and the url is http://oregon.usgs.gov/rt-cgi/gen_stn_pg? station=14128870 ..... that is, if I typed it out right. Another graph for the Columbia at the Dalles, OR, upstream from Bonneville about ? 80 milles or so. This is the one I mentioned in my last post. the Station number is 14105700 and it shows the river "streammflow" running at a mean of probably 50/cu.ft/sec. above mean, since January 1, whereas, the streama flow seemed to be nearer the mean on the 30 and 31 of December, etc. etc., although the graph does not include earlier data. This one shows the same peaks and troughs of flow that are recorded downstream at Bonneville, and which, I am supposing are the way the riverflow is managed routinely. At the webpage for the same station (teh dalles) there is a second graph that shows "stage" in feet above "dataum" -- or historical mean for that day. There's not much additional info here, except that the "stage" has been climbing generally since December 31. The url is the same as the last one, except that after the "=" (equal sign) the station number is 14105700. Don't know that this leads anywhere, frankly. >"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), January 06, 2000.

Persons living near a hydro dam could easily check out the spillways. Is the flow abnormally high for the season and current rainfall/snow melt conditions? Conversation with employees of the plant might be useful. These hydro impoundments are not usually drawn down unless an exceptionally heavy runoff or snowmelt is anticipated.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

I guess the real question is, what happens if the reservoirs are being emptied to the levels suggested by Glenn, and then these same ABOVE AVERAGE FLOWS IN A BELLOW AVERAGE RAINFALL YEAR cannot be maintained? Lights out? Fascinating thread Glenn. Someone whould compare the NOAA rainfall data for the Columbia basin, with this flow data. >"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), January 06, 2000.

Here is a link to the Department of the Interior that may help further the search: http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 06, 2000.

Lake Erie at lowest level in 33 years ERIE, Pa. (January 3, 2000) - After near-record high water levels just a few years ago, Lake Erie has dipped to its lowest levels since 1966. On Dec. 27, Lake Erie was 570.3 feet above sea level, the lowest in 33 years, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The lake has dropped nearly 4 feet since June 1997, when it reached a near-record high of 574.2. The corps believes a lack of precipitation in the Great Lakes basin is to blame, particularly in the Lake Superior watershed. When Superior, the uppermost lake, loses water, it affects the other four lakes.

-- gone fishing (nowater@erie.com), January 06, 2000.

You guys (and gals) are amazing. Good work all! Me

-- Me (me@me.me), January 06, 2000.

Gone Fishing: I don't think the Great Lakes have dropped since Jan 1. We are looking for unusual river and lake levels since Jan 1 where hydro dams are located. Ok everybody, we can only cry wolf once more (if that) so lets make sure the wolf on its way and lets keep this analysis rational and get solid facts and evidence before making any predictions or assessments. Anybody a hydro/dam/water engineer who can start to give us some explaination on all this, or know of a friend/spouse who is?

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 06, 2000.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

Hmmm....this is interesting. I visited here in Iowa in June of 99 to see what it was like. Went to this lake...don't know the name but it's about 5 miles outside Des Moines and the DM river runs thru it. Water was up pretty good...Dam spillway was really neat...photoed the waves and such. The lake was pretty. Now I went back out last week to photo the last sunset of 99 and the first sunrise of 2000....the spillway was low...looked like a waterslide. river was sown maybe 5ft from June. The lake is frozen but it's down as well...can see the high waterline on the beach. Been very temperate here and almost no rain since I was here in June. about 6inches of snow that's melted and 1/2" or so that's mostly gone from New Years. This is bad in a way too-without rain there are no crops. Just went thru 7 years of drought in Texas....Lord I wish it would rain and snow......

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), January 06, 2000.

I remember hearing during this past summer that the Great Lakes were down 2 to 3 feet which was the lowest in the past 30 years. However, it was stated that for the past 30 years we have been at an exceedingly high water level and now we are at the level we should be and will continue to be. Supposedly, this is the norm. Don't remember when I read it but it was in a newspaper article, either Detroit News, Free Press or USA Today.

-- Trish (Adler2@webtv.com), January 06, 2000.

I live in Alberta Canada and phoned down to the Dworshak Reservoir at Orofino ID, (phone 208-476-3293) and spoke to a technician who gave me the water level at their reservoir. It holds 1600 ft and is at the 1538 ft. level.

When I explained why I wanted the information we chatted about why the reservoirs probably were drawing down and the the rivers were up so high. Up here our rivers are at the normal levels and nothing has changed in the reservoirs and there are no electricity producing problems (no flickers either) and that makes sense in light of what the technician told me. He said that the amount of snow melt and spring rain runoff plus the rain already coming into the system from British Columbia around 25 million acres/ft - a huge amount of watershed which has had a tremendous amount of rain, not snow - was already impacting the sytems on the Columbia River.

Really, they are worried about controlling the reservoir levels come spring and not any Y2k problem. Even with the drought people are experiencing, the water controllers believe there is so much water expected that there will be no supply problems.

You can contact the Reservoir Control Center at 503-808-3941 for more technical information if you wish.

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), January 06, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ