So maybe the dead pool isn’t so bad…
It appears that there is a lot of mis-information out there about exactly what will happen when Lake Lanier drops below 1035 feet. Every media outlet has been giving out bad information (including us), so here is our attempt to set it straight.
(For the full story, you can read the comments from this post, but I’ll give you a summary.)
We had understood that once Lake Lanier dropped below 1035′, things would get bad. The water quality would get much worse. Pumps and barges would be needed to get water over the dam. Things like that.
I spoke with Michael Lapina of the Army Corps of Engineers a few days ago, based off of things people had said in that thread. According to him, the “dead pool” isn’t really a big deal.
Right now, water already comes from the “dead pool” at the bottom of the lake. It flows from the bottom, through the dam, then out into the river. As the water flows through it powers three turbines in the dam that generate electricity. The two largest turbines require significant “head pressure” to function. As the lake gets lower, the head pressure decreases. The turbines are already running at a lower rate due to the lower level of the lake. At 1035′, the head pressure will be too low for them to function. The third turbine, which is much smaller than the other two, will function down to about 1020′.
That’s it. There will be no need for “pumps and barges” to get water over the dam. We won’t suddenly be getting water that’s much worse than the current water. Essentially nothing will change, other than the dam losing its ability to generate power. The dam will be able to release water freely down to 919 feet, which is the bottom of the lake.
Losing the power generation won’t be a good thing (especially next summer when everyone fires up the A/C), but the grid should be able to handle the load.
All in all, this is very good news. However, you need to keep in mind that as the lake gets lower, the level of the water will drop more quickly. I figured that if they needed to use pumps and barges to get the water out, they might not be able to release as much every day and it might prolong things for us. Now that we know they can release the water freely, the lake will continue to lose water as quickly as it is right now.
The dead pool holds about 40% of the capacity of the lake, so it’s still a decent amount of water. Still, with a dry winter predicted, things could be looking really ugly by spring.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:51 am
When dead pool level is reached, then basically the remaining water in the lake is unable to generate power at the dam. Water can still be released to recharge Lake Seminole/Woodruff Dam, so Gov. Crist of Florida can get his 3 billion gallons a day flow for old Scholz power plant and the mussels too.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:58 am
So everyone else is wrong about the dead pool and the Corps is right? Yeah sure Mickey! I have some vacant lots in New Orleans you should buy.
Experience would indicate that a rational person would be a skeptic of the Corps, when lacking collaboration and/or being able to examine the Corps engineering and analysis.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/29/grunwald/
December 10th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I’m going to go with the Corps on this one.
Excellent work guys! Thank you!
December 10th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Yeah, I posted this link here about three weeks ago.
Nice job though.
http://www.wsbtv.com/drought/14456915/detail.html
I think there is also a lot of misinformation from Georgia on how the water is allocated and the impact water reductions would have on Alabama and Florida.
There could be a short term solution the three states could work out, but Atlanta needs to build more storage capacity like everyone else, instead of adding more urban sprawl at the expense of AL and FL.
JMO
December 10th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“I think there is also a lot of misinformation from Georgia on how the water is allocated and the impact water reductions would have on Alabama and Florida.”
Please fill us in JohnC. Other than a bad oyster harvest in Apalachicola I’m not really hearing about a lot of severe impact downstream.
“Atlanta needs to build more storage capacity like everyone else” Will Alabama and Florida quit blocking us in court when we try to build new reservoirs? Also as GThierry pointed out earlier - Why hasn’t Florida built their own reservoirs to protect their own interests instead of just crying about Atlanta?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I think the simple answer to the last question is because thay have legal access to that water. That was the original plan. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game because your team’s losing. Especially when they failed to plan ahead and practice for the game.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Carol > Old binding water agreements cannot be honored when severe drought takes place. You can probably flee back to Alabama, if water runs out here, but those of us stuck in Georgia might end up under martial law to quell riots in Atlanta. Gov. Crist of Florida demands the 3+ billion gallons of water release, daily from Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole, to basically maintain an artificial flow level on Apalachicola River for an old dinosaur coal-fired power generating plant named Scholz. The plant has a canal from the river that needs that flow level, but could have been upgraded years ago with a water intake pipe from the river and water pump works.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Plus Georgia wanted to build two new reservoirs on the Flint River, below Atlanta, but Florida filed lawsuits to prevent it.
Eventually if the drought remains for another year, then the artificial flow of 3+ billion gallons released into Florida from Lake Seminole will not be possible, since all the above reservoirs could be emptied including Lanier.
At that time the mussels along the banks of Apalachicola River will die back, but return someday when the drought is over. Same applies for oysters in Apalachicola Bay.
Atlanta must do its part by informing developers that the out-of-control building boom is over forever. Unless a nationwide pipe system is built to bring water down into United States from Canadian rivers.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 am
notanumber, It is a known fact that the release valves are at 919 above sea level which is also the level of the river as it leaves the dam. Nobody can disprove that, if you can please post a reputable link.
I would advise you to click the link in this article and read about my conversations with the Corps, and my subsequent complaints to the Atlanta Journal in which the reporter blew me off. I think they are manipulating coverage to sell more papers and it is outrageous.
The AJC reporter has trouble grasping even simple concepts: The use of barges and pumps only applies to people who get their water FROM THE LAKE ABOVE THE DAM such as Cumming, Gainesville and Gwinnett. The AJC is saying/implying that the river will run dry at the dead pool 1035 ASL and that they will need barges and pumps to supply water to Atlanta. This is totally false.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
John > AJC newspaper is just confused about what the dead pool level implies. US Army Corps of Engineers could have cleared this matter up months ago.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Jay - I think the point is that as a responsible reporter, and a responsible news source, AJC should have communicated better with the ACE.
This goes long with the AJC’s laughable countdown clock, which uses a rolling average of the previous two weeks - meaning every time it rains, the clock will suddenly become very innaccurate.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Carol - Couldn’t you make the EXACT same argument to all the people who say Atlanta should have planned for this by building reservoirs (while ignoring the fact that Atlanta has been blocked from doing so by downstream interests)?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Yes but it is not the Corps job to correct the local media. They could issue a press release but it appears that the media already has this information, they just want to deliberately misinterpet it to sell more newspapers.
I think the Corps has realized the atlanta media is very misleading, so they have taken their case to the national media…i saw the lanier head ranger on the weater channel standing by the dam and he said “the lake is still 68% full.”
The media is supposed to hire professional writers who can ask the right questions and provide their readers with some basic key facts. And when confronted they should try to clarify their coverage, not blow people off.
I also contacted 11alive.com about their incorrect drought graphic 10 days ago but it remains. http://www.11alive.com/news/local/drought/
This graphic shows the magic 1035 level at river level. This is totally incorrect. There is 110 feet between the 1035 level and the river level. If that is not enough proof then I don’t know what is.
Anyway, I am washing my hands of this matter, I can’t play editor to the media outlets if they want to post fake information that contradicts known facts.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
http://www.lakelanier50.com/History.htm
That link shows pictures of the dam construction. It shows the release valves at the bottom of the river bed.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
rkolter > I never defend AJC’s countdown clock. I think it has become a joke and the newspaper should either end it or work out a formula that makes some sense.
John > AJC is acting ignorant about Lanier’s dead pool level, for some unknown reasons, but at some time ACE needs to hold press conferences and fully explain the operations at Buford Dam. Even they have put out wildly different info. on how much water actually remains in Lake Lanier.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
same time I mean, not some.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
John > interesting pics of Buford Dam construction, but the bore holes I saw in pics are the ones cut in the rock for power channel. Interesting that coke bottles were used in the dedication of the finished dam. Odd that Flint River was mentioned, because its watershed is below Atlanta and has nothing to do with Lanier or Chattahoochee River either. It does flow into Lake Seminole.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Well, why is “dead pool” at 1030? According to your post Lake Lanier doesn’t have a “dead pool”?
“The normal maximum level of a reservoir lake is called full pool, while the minimum level it can function at is dead pool. The water below this point is also called the dead pool, while the water in between is called the conservation pool. Full pool may have different levels in summer and winter, or based on the local wet and dry seasons.
Once a reservoir reaches dead pool, it is below the level at which the dam can release it downstream. At this point, the streambed beyond the dam goes nearly or completely dry, and electricity production stops as well. This is also often the point at which intakes for municipal water systems begin to suck air in, and must be extended into deeper water, where stagnant water quality is much poorer. This can be done either permanently with longer pipes, or temporarily with large hoses floated on small barges, such as until a severe drought or dam repairs are over.”
December 10th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
CBUIslander - The Wikipedia’s reference to a deadpool is not accurate for Lake Lanier. The 1035 point for Lake Lanier is the point at which the main turbines will no longer function.
I suspect, but cannot confirm, that they used the term ‘deadpool’ because every lake with a dam has a deadpool classification.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Normally champagne bottles are used to dedicate things, like ships and dams, so did Coca Cola company have a stake in Buford Dam from the beginning?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Hmm the Buford Dam cost $45,000,000 to construct, so Gov. Perdue needs to present a check of 45 million to ACE to purchase the dam from the Federal government, thus Florida cannot control its use anymore.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Thanks for putting this explanation out of what the dead pool means. I’ll reiterate the comment that I just made on the last thread: Regardless of you opinion of who is at fault here, let’s all hope that La Nina ends sooner rather than later and that we get a big fat hurricane right at the beginning of the season next year. Maybe if we’re lucky this will scare the government of GA into getting those reservoirs built.
RichS, do you have a link for those court orders blocking GA from building reservoirs? I’m trying to find out just what the appropriations are for FL and GA for Chattahoochee/Apalachicola water are, maybe they quote it in the decision. (And also, I’d like to see you back up that assertion because I hadn’t heard that.)
I had to laugh at this part, “Losing the power generation won’t be a good thing (especially next summer when everyone fires up the A/C), but the grid should be able to handle the load.” Wouldn’t it be power plants in FL and AL that would be contributing to that?? Hah, good thing those states can’t restrict electricity export… In all serious, my guess would be that it’ll probably be the nuke plants on the coast in GA that would take up the slack, possibly some from TN and SC since they’re closer to ATL.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Andrew > yep the power plants located along the Georgia/Alabama border and below Seminole Lake in Florida might be off-lined if the reservoirs all run dry. First one to close will be old Scholz Plant in Florida. Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama can run on reduced river flow of 2 billion gallons daily.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
John - What does the Corps phrase “pretty good water” mean as far as delivering safe acceptable tastful water to Atlanta’s residences? I am not sure that the Corps has a provided a study of water quality relating to domestic taps. Have they?
Here is what Brig. Gen. Joseph Schroedel, commander of the South Atlantic Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers had to say about water quality at a recent Lake Lainer meeting
“Q. What is the Corps’ role in water quality?
A. The Corps is concerned about water quality issues within Lake Lanier and its watershed. However, the responsibility for water quality falls upon local communities and, in particular, the State of Georgia. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has the principle role for enforcing water quality issues. The Corps calls upon the State to address water quality issues that surface within our immediate watershed. The Corps does, however, monitor water quality at the intake structure, the river immediately below the dam, and handles testing at all Corps-operated beaches.”
As you can learn from the Corps own commander the Corps has NOTHING to do with community water quality.
What is interesting is that the articles mentioned in this thread that quote the Corps statements on water quality are always sourced to Michael Lapina the Lake Lanier Rark Ranger, or Pat Taylor the person responsible for filling potholes on the dam road. Why doesn’t anyone actually ask the Corps spokespeople some follow-up questions about water quality for domestic use and the Corps testing or substantiation for its most recent statements by Lapina and Taylor?
Now about those vacant lots in New Orleans …
December 10th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Just updated the Wiki Deadpool page.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Andrew - I think there have been several cases of reservoirs being blocked. It took about thirty seconds of websearching to find just one of them here - http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/ag-howett.pdf
2. Current Litigation: In 1990, Alabama sued Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over Georgia’s plan to construct a large reservoir that Alabama felt would negatively impact its surface water supplies. That litigation was stayed pending negotiations under the compact. With expiration of the ACF compact, the stay was lifted and that litigation is continuing in federal district court in Alabama (see State of Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, CV-90-BE-1331-E (N.D. Ala. 1990)).
December 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
not a number> if you read the link at the top of this article, I stated early on that michael lapina, spokesperson for the Army Corp of Engineers said: “There is no water treatment at the dam, it is done at the local plants downstream. The water we drink everyday comes from the bottom of the lake.” That was established a long time ago so I don’t know your motivations for debating something that is not even up for debate.
As for quoting michael lapina, he is the offical spokesperson for the Army Corps Buford office as well as the head ranger as the army corps controls that area. If you google his name, you will see he is listed on all offical press releases as the spokesperson as is customary in business. Do you expect me to call the Washington DC headquarters to ask simple questions about the location of the release valves? Mr. Lapina gives guided tours of the place so he should know.
I do not need to ask mr. lapina any follow-up questions as he answered everything I asked. I did not ask about water quality because it is not their function and it is also obviously beyond their control. You will have to complain to God about the water quality of lake lanier.
I spent several hours researching and posting basic facts that the media did not provide, so why don’t you start contacting the corps and posting info.
michael.b.lapina@us.army.mil
December 10th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
John - “Mr. Lapina gives guided tours of the place so he should know.”
Yep, tour guides always have all the best information.
John - “I do not need to ask mr. lapina any follow-up questions”.
I would have expected a reasonable thinking seeker of fact when receiving any of Lapina’s statements regarding water quality at the bottom of the lake if the dead pool becomes a reality “We won’t suddenly be getting water that’s much worse than the current water.” to have followed up asking about changes in water quality particularly in light of local water supply engineers being quoted discussing increased treatment requirements and another local Corps spokesperson Pat Taylor who stated previously that according to tests the dead pool water quality in is pretty good. Specifically in the news item from the WSB link posted by JohnC above “The Corps’ Pat Taylor says the tests show the water quality if “pretty good.” He says the water in the dead pools will require minimum treatment to make it suitable for drinking.”
How can you accept Lapina on one had saying they know nothing about water quality and on the other saying Atlanta “won’t suddenly be getting water that’s much worse than the current water”. Either the Corps is testing or they are speaking out of their ass. Don’t you want to know? Wouldn’t you want discover what water quality testing the Corps was doing or some reference material or copies of the testing results. Please post the facts or links to the facts, not just statements from discussions you claim to have had. Or maybe you were just seeking certain answers to write a “softball” item?
I apologize if I have confused the Johns in this thread. The link at the top of the article goes to a link summary posted in this blog on 12/4. The other two links in the top article go to a post in this blog titled “Understanding Lake Lanier’s level” and “La Nina isn’t going to be our friend” So where in the “top of this article” do you mean? Can you provide a direct link to your report text?
Why should I complain to God about Lanier’s water quality, as all knowing and all powerful the water is as God wants it to be. Which is probably true of the water volume as well.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:25 am
notanumber, as I stated, the it is not the corps job to “treat or purify” the water as it leaves the dam. As stated by the corps, that is the job of the local water departments. What do you find so hard to understand about that??? Any water testing the corps does is probably being done as a favor to everyone else. I don’t know, why don’t you contact the corps if you are so interested rather than attack someone who has spend many many hours trying to relay simple questions from this board to the corps and back to this board.
Since you feel mr. lapina is unqualified to be the offical spokesperson for the army corps buford office because he also gives tours of the powerhouse, why don’t you contact the head general of the army corps and ask him your questions? Perhaps you could suggest that they fire mr. lapina as spokesperson because he gives tours of the powerhouse. Maybe you could complain to your congressman.
It is obvious you are here to stir stuff up and blame me for not having the answers to your irrelevant questions so I will not be reading anymore of your posts.
For the benefit of the other readers, please don’t turn this into an attack contest…if you have unanswered questions about water quality, then do what I did and contact the head person at the army corps or defer to the appropriate agencies…the local water departments.
Thank you
December 11th, 2007 at 1:31 am
PS, if you contact the head of the army corps with questions about lake lanier, they will refer you to their offical spokesperson michael lapina. Did you even read what I wrote?
michael.b.lapina@us.army.mil
December 11th, 2007 at 1:43 am
notanumber, here is the contact info for Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel at the bottom of the page.
http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/joseph_schroedel.html
Point of contact Torrie McAllister (415) 977-8112
victoria.l.mcallister@usace.army.mil
Just call him and tell him you don’t like the offical spokesperson for the Corps Buford Georgia office cause he gives tours of the dam. Ask him if he has a few minutes to answer all your questions about the quality of the water in lake lanier.
Please let us know what he says.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:50 am
For those on here who think the US Army Corps of Engineers are wonderful better read a new AJC newspaper article: “Lake Lanier resort, water park approved,” by Nancy Badertscher, published on 12/10/07.
Lake Lanier is at its lowest level since construction of Buford Dam that created it, but the Corps approves a water-park resort for the wealthy?
I will not comment further on the article, because it made me sick and angry at the same time.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
This story?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/12/10/greatwolf_1213_web.html
It’s not a water park resort for the wealthy. Where’d you get that idea?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:54 am
John - would you please provide a link to what you wrote. Until you do that I am not sure I have completely read all that you have written and specifically what you keep asking about.
As far as the Corps and Lanier’s water quality. My main question is why when talking to the Corps spokesperson you didn’t attempt to reconcile the Corps’ recent and apparently conflicting statements. 1) that they know nothing about water quality, and then 2) that according to the Corps water quality testing of Lanier’s dead pool water is pretty good and requires “minimum treatment” for drinking. If if you don’t feel that those are in conflict, then I can understand that, too.
As far as spokespeople and tour guides. I think most insightful adults realize that spokespeople and tour guides normally prepare and reveal only the information that shows their organization in the “best light” and in a way that seeks to advance the organization’s agenda. Usually the ability do that is the primary job qualification and description . It is not that I “don’t like” Mr. Lapina. I don’t have any affection or disaffection towards him. To me, he is just a guy doing what his boss wants him to do. If you like him I hope the two of you may have a wonderful relationship. Glad you share Mr. Lapina’s opinion that the media is idiots and hope he shares your opinion that the writing staff at the AJC are comprised of “typewriter banging monkeys”. It might be nice of you to let the General know of your fondness for Mr. Lapina. He must give a great dam tour.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Jay Randal> Most government agencies are corrupt. Always have been and always will be. I’m not saying the corps are good people, I am saying if you want to know the elevation of the water release valves, you ask them and not some idiot reporters…they have to provide some information by law. You can even file a freedom of information act.
I hate over-development also but it is a free country and you can file lawsuits if you are affected by it.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The impact to Florida and Alabama goes much further than oysters.
No water = no industry, no jobs, no growth, low property value etc. (the same as GA)
I would like to learn more about solutions instead of why FL and AL do not deserve water etc.
Talk about drivel.
These flow rates were established when the dam was built like fifty years ago with the same criteria as any other dam.
If it’s gotten to the point of not enough water for the minimum flow rate, it’s time to consider other solutions.
It just seems like GA does whatever is expedient instead of any real planning, and it comes across as being reckless and irresponsible.
So, that’s the plan, add another million people in few years then cry to the federal government when you run out of water?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:32 am
JohnC,
With all due respect, you are not answering the question, of what significant impact would reducing water flow to Florida and Alabama have NOW. “No water = no industry, no jobs, no growth, low property value etc. (the same as GA)”, too broad, give specifics as to immediate effects.
Stopping or reducing the flow would affect future growth prospects for
Florida, no doudt, but we’re talking about the present, as in NOW. Also, one would hope that Florida and Alabama would consider reigning in future development sprawl etc., given, you know, that there seems to be a regional water problem - shortage.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 am
On a purely quantitative level, the oysters in the Appalacian bay are already being squeezed due to drought and are dying off; the 5% reduction in flow for the Mussels upstream had further consequences to the bay area oyster fishing - in particular the encroachment of salt water has accelerated and can be directly measured in the bay. This has caused oysters to die of on two of three major beds (they were already dying, but the die-off accelerated after the reduction).
This has had a direct impact on the economy of the appalacian bay area - which is mostly lower-middle class people whose families get by on either the product of oyster fishing, or as a result of the oyster fishing industry. While the entire industry is under 200 million dollars, that still encompasses a lot of individuals and families.
Further reductions will cause a direct impact on those peoples’ livlihoods.
The numbers certainly aren’t equal, but there is a value for you - tens of thousands of jobs lost, families without a working income, and local businesses put out of work as a result of the loss of water from Lanier.
One clear solution, given the (Relatively) small financial value would be to bail out the oyster industry and those families as a part of the already declared disaster in Georgia. It’s not a great solution, but it’s -a- solution.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Sorry… that solution would then allow Georgia to retain more water from Lanier. Or, would effectively buy off the biggest complaint Florida has.
In the end, Georgia may be able to purchase the water rights for Lanier directly - paying off those who would be otherwise affected, and giving themselves ownership of the water in the lake from a legal standpoint.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
JohnC,
You seem to find it quite easy to point a finger at GA and call them lazy, but what have AL and FL been doing in the meantime?
At least GA has been trying (from time to time) to increase the number of reservoirs on which they and their downstream neighbors depend.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:00 am
JohnC - I agree with you! Why won’t Atlanta implement effective water usage reductions now?
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, The people of Atlanta can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Thirsty, first off let me say I’m interested in finding a solution. Also, all of those examples are specifics. You also have tourism, etc.
So, what are you going to do, get another 10% of the water, add another million people then in the next drought say this is NOW! To hell with everyone else?
But I agree and have said many times that all the states need to get together and agree on how much water is in Lanier and the river basin during droughts. That is the problem!
This water war has gotten out of control.
I think North Georgia will pick up more volume from the lake, but this should not be at the expense of FL and AL.
Sony Perdue thinks he is just going to turn the water off downstream whenever he wants to add another 2 million people?
think again
rkolter,
Atlanta nor Georgia can afford to compensate Florida and Alabama for impact no water would have. Sorry. And what impact would that policy have on the rest of the nation?
Now, Georgia may have overdeveloped so much that they don’t have room for a resevoir, and may have to help build one in AL? Don’t know. Can they build another dam further down?
Prootwadl,
I’m not the one pointing fingers. Once again more misinformation. Charlotte started water restrictions last spring, while Atlanata has been dragging its feet. Some parts of Alabama also started restrictions last spring.
notanumber,
They probably should be taking this seriously. It will rain again, so you want to get though this one and find some reasonable solutions for the future.
Florida has also announced that they have reached the limits of what their own water supply can sustain and that conservation and limited development is the future.
I’m still learning all the aspects involved, so this is JMO. And I hope there is a solution.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
JohnC - There are no solutions that don’t involve Atlanta and Georgia spending a lot of money. Your response:
“Atlanta nor Georgia can afford to compensate Florida and Alabama for impact no water would have. Sorry.”
Is really of off-handed and doesn’t look at the larger picture - Georgia doesn’t own all the water in Lake Lanier. It -can- be forced to release extra water downstream. One potential solution, and one you should not just toss away without looking at, is Georgia buying out the water rights from the other states. The agreement would still have to allow some water to flow, but would allow Georgia first right to the water in events like droughts.
The example I gave, of the oyster fishing in Florida, is one perfect example - in the grand scheme of things, 200 million dollars is not much money between to state governments, when you’re looking at disaster relief. Even a billion dollars would be reasonable if the result was to effectively turn a three-state talk into a two-state one. Especially when under disaster relief, the federal government may be paying a large portion of it.
Is it a simplistic example that would need further study and analysis to determine if it’s viable? Heck yes. But is it a route that should at least be considered? Definitely. Especially, as I mentioned at the start, given that there is no way out of this that doesn’t end with Atlanta or Georgia spending some fairly sizable sums of money.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I agree with rkolter about this, except that I think there’s a possibility that it’s going to be the Feds come in and bail both FL, AL and GA out if the governors don’t reach a settlement and the drought gets bad enough to declare the area a federal disaster relief area.* However, historically, my understanding is that when the federal government steps in to help, they do so with strings attached. They did this when the district of columbia when it’s government fell apart in the 90s (due to Marion Barry), but I haven’t read about them doing very much at all in New Orleans. If they do it in this case, *they* would determine who would get what water and the various states wouldn’t have much choice in the matter.
*Perdue’s call for that this summer was premature, but it probably didn’t hurt as a political move to call people’s attention to it.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
5% reduction in flow? THAT’S A BOLD FACED LIE. Take a look at the Corps discharge records on their web site. They are still releasing over a billion gallons a day!
Folks, let me tell you what this is really all about. The Corps is running the water out of every reservoir in the country that they control because they are generating power with it. The money they make from selling the power is being used to fund the Iraq war. Haven’t you guys ever wondered where that 750 billion dollars came from? All of that money and we haven’t gotten the first drop of oil out of Iraq. What gives?
One more thing. When the lakes and rivers are all run dry, the power plants are going to be shut down. Not only will we be out of water but much of the state will be in a blackout. Arm yourselves because anarchy is coming next summer.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
The 5% reduction is for the flow at Woodruff Dam at Lake Seminole. As a result of the 5% reduction there, Buford Dam at Lake Lanier should be able to release less water.
I don’t know what the numbers look like at Woodruff, but I’m hoping they’re about 5% lower than they used to be…
December 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
MATH!
750 billion dollars, at $0.075 dollars per kilowatt hour is 10 trillion kilowatt hours.
The highest I’ve seen Buford Dam produce is about 665Mwh a day. That’s 665,000 kilowatt hours. At that rate, it would take Buford Dam 41,170 years to produce (and sell) the energy required to hit that value.
The US hit it’s highest peak energy production ever in August at about 14,000 Gigawatt hours a day - 14 million Kilowatt hours. That means the US would have to churn (and consume) energy at this breakneck pace for 1,955 years to generate that kind of income.
The sun however, produces this much energy in 0.00000226 seconds. Maybe we leased the sun to some alien civilization for two millionths of a second or so.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Georgia tried to generate power using a huge canopy to catch sunlight a couple of years ago but Florida and Alabama got all pissy because we were blocking sunlight that they said was supposed to go to them.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
JohnC, notanumber, Carol, and the rest of you that keep slamming Atlanta for uncontrolled growth, etc. I was browsing and ran across this item about Florida water use -
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcconserv/2flodro1.html
“Water use is forecast to increase 30 percent from 7.2 billion gallons per day in 1995 to 9.3 billion in 2020 as more people move to the Sunshine State, already home to nearly 16 million residents.”
“In central Florida, wetlands, lakes, and streams will start to dry up by 2006 if all the permits to withdraw water are granted”
But of course Atlanta is the only place that is out of control right? Oh, and my math shows the numbers above to be a much higher per capita use than I have seen for Atlanta. Honestly I’m not knocking Florida for their water use - just pointing out to all you haters that Atlanta isn’t the villain you want to make it out to be.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Another interesting document here -
http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/131/10_ruhl.pdf
It’s a bit of a dry read, so I am pasting a couple of the things I found interesting.
“The Flint River begins just south of Atlanta and, …supports a large agricultural economy. Water extraction is mainly used for irrigation drawn from Floridan Aquifer groundwater sources; no precise figure on the total
use exists. The hydrological relation between the aquifer and the surface flow in the river is not completely understood.” I point this out because no one wants to talk about agricultural use.
“Atlanta draws over 500 million gallons per day from Lake Lanier, returning to the river downstream of the city 350 mgd as treated wastewater.” A good and probably fair number for Atlanta consumption - 150 mgd.
“The Apalachicola River winds 100 river miles through the flat Florida Panhandle area. … The area is sparsely populated and has little economic activity.” Back to my question for JohnC of who is suffering in Florida other than the oyster fishermen.
And there is a ton of legal information about how the courts might view the dispute -
“Interstate water disputes of this sort have generally been resolved through four legal mechanisms: 1) congressional allocation over interstate commerce between the states; 2) interstate compacts approved by Congress; 3) United States Supreme Courtjurisdiction to resolve disputes between the states; or 4) litigation under federal laws which apply to the
states, such as the Endangered Species Act.”
“How might the Supreme Court approach the controversy through its doctrine of “equitable apportionment”? The Court’s doctrine, forged in the West well before the rise of presentday ecological knowledge and commitment, employs a loose balancing test that favors economic interests
and water resource development. Yet the ecological demands of the Apalachicola River and Bay and the human demands of Atlanta’s economy may not so easily lend themselves to balancing.”
December 12th, 2007 at 2:08 am
richs- “notanumber, …. and the rest of you that keep slamming Atlanta for uncontrolled growth.”
I don’t know you are off your medication or what, but I have never “slammed Atlanta for uncontrolled growth”.
My own feeling is that the idea that “uncontrolled growth” exists in urban areas is a myth. Every city that I have worked in has had planning and zoning, which to my perspective are growth controls. Even so I have no idea what planning and enforcement Atlanta has in effect and I did not make any comments related to “uncontrolled growth”. That noted, I have criticized Atlanta and GA for not enacting effective water usage regulation towards reducing consumption during the drought. Although related, there is a considerable difference between community planning and zoning, and water distribution and usage. A difference which I hope you can understand.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:38 am
RichS, when you pick and choose from that document, you can make it say whatever you like, I note this section for example:
The Court has laid down three important foundational
principles about states rights to shared waters, as
recently summarized in Idaho v. Oregon:8
December 12th, 2007 at 8:39 am
** Apparently my cut and paste had a funny character in it and it killed my post, reposting.
RichS, when you pick and choose from that document, you can make it say whatever you like, I note this section for example:
“The Court has laid down three important foundational
principles about states rights to shared waters, as
recently summarized in Idaho v. Oregon:8
* First, a State may not preserve solely for its
own inhabitants the natural resources
located within its borders.
* Second, no state has inherent priority,
absolute or presumptive, over another state
in the use of water from an interstate
stream.
* Third, all states have the affirmative duty to
take reasonable steps to conserve
prospective water use, and even to augment
water supply, as a condition to making a
successful claim to a fair share of an
interstate water.
The upshot is that, just because Georgia is
upstream of Florida, it has no inherent right to
deplete the flow of water to Florida, to take priority
over Florida in use of the ACF waters, or use
interstate waters within its boundaries however it
sees fit.”
Additionally, even if Florida was experiencing uncontrolled growth, that doesn’t mean that Atlanta is not. Florida’s uncontrolled growth isn’t the issue in this case, leaving Atlanta to be the villian.
Finally, the Appalacian Bay area is not heavily populated, as you, and the report, suggest. That is not to say that it is unpopulated. The oyster industry does exist, and there are people whose lives will be destroyed by the loss of the oysters. It’s never been in question that the number of people was low. In fact, we both had accepted that premise - it was one of the very reasons that buying them out seemed feasable.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Notanumber - I apologise if I lumped you in on an argument you are not making.
RKolter - yes I did pick and chose but I think regarding the legalities I picked a pretty neutral piece of text to paste - whereas you on the other hand picked out a bit of text and cut it off right before the paragraph that followed which favored Georgia -
“Yet, while these principles may sound good for Florida’s interests, there is more to it. First, the Court has set a high standard of injury as a prerequisite to seeking relief in the form of a claim to the right to more water from an interstate stream.”
I thought that whole couple of pages was interesting but way too much to post here. Therefore the link for whoever wants to click through. And I will point out that the paper is biased in favor of Florida. It is written to aid Florida in their argument by Florida State University. Nevertheless I feel like it had a ton of good information and wasn’t written as a one sided argument.
Another interesting tidbit of fact that I should have pasted from that article -
“The ACF basin covers 19,600 square miles, within which human population has exceeded 6 million and is rapidly approaching 7 million. Georgia dominates in terms of population (90 percent), land area (75 percent), and water withdrawals (82 percent).”
December 12th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Also Rkolter - “It’s never been in question that the number of people was low. In fact, we both had accepted that premise - it was one of the very reasons that buying them out seemed feasable.”
I think you and I have come to a point of agreement on that however If you look at JohnC’s posts, you will see that our agreement doesn’t seem to be universal.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:11 am
notanumber,
I’m sure city of Atlanta does have responsible zoning and planning. The problem is the area outside of the any city limits. This usually involves multiple counties, so that if one county has responsible planning, another county right across the county line, can develop some massive housing community and overwhelm the roads, schools, etc.
It’s like this everywhere in the south. The developers and politicians are often partners, so the new developments tend to get all the funding for road improvements, instead of established neighborhoods.
The county often offer variances to these zoning laws.
For example where I live everyone blames the city for high density developments but it was the county that granted the variances just outside of the city limits.
I think any new developments only need a reasonable supply of water. So that a lot of islands on the coast actually fight against bringing in water via a pipe to protect it from unwanted developments.
Otherwise it’s hard to tell people they can’t build on their own land. The real problems is often the variances that were already given out when no one was paying attention.
But I don’t know of anyone who wants to sit in grid lock traffic for half the day and get home and have no water either.
I’m one of those people who go to all the public meetings for new roads, zoning, etc.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
rkolter,
You can’t simply pay off some oyster fishers to justify reducing the water to entire state.
It’s not some seafood dinner you can switch out with french fries or cole slaw.
However, the solution might involve Georgia contributing to increase the water supply via some reservoir in Alabama. So, you are on the right line of thinking.
You all can treat me like dirt all you want but you are lucky to have someone here to represent the other side of the equation that you will have to find a solution to your problem.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
JohnC,
Most of the counties and communities in the Atlanta metro area are under rather severe watering restrictions at this time, and some have been under those restrictions since springtime.
My area (Cobb County) has been under an almost total outdoor water ban since the beginning of November 2007, but the county started a county water use reduction program back in March 2005, and the county just successfully reduced its total water usage by another 10% this past month (when compared to last year).
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, but some water restrictions have been in place here since my wife and I moved to Atlanta in the Fall of 2004!
December 12th, 2007 at 11:07 am
JohnC,
I wasn’t aware that the “entire state” of Florida was using the water from the Chattahoochie River. Miami must have a very long pipeline.
Since you seem to refer to “Atlanta” a lot, I’m sure you’re aware that the actual City of Atlanta contains less than 500,000 people in a 5.5 million person metro area. In other words, it represents less than 10% of the metro.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
You are right JohnC (never thought I would say that). This would be a boring forum if we all agreed.
Basically what I have been trying to get from you though is some idea of what downstream interests you are defending from the Florida viewpoint. I understand the environmental concerns, and I understand the Apalachicola economic concerns. Otherwise I really can’t find much information about who is being harmed in Florida. I actually spent an hour or two last night digging for that information. The best thing I found was the article I linked above which pretty much says the argument is between a very large economic concern (Atlanta) vs. a very small economic concern (Apalachicola) plus the Florida environmental concern.
I am honestly open to learning who else in Florida is being harmed.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
RichS > it’s all about the old Scholz Generating Plant, in Florida, located below the Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole. It requires a river flow of 3+ billion gallons for its canal to supply the coal-fired plant with cooling water. The facility was never upgraded to handle a lesser flow on Apalachicola River. Since the artificially maintained flow from Woodruff dam has existed for over 50 years it has allowed freshwater mussels to proliferate along the banks of the river.
Plus ends up that as long as Florida gets access to 3+ billion gallons of water daily, thus Gov. Crist by insisting it remains at that flow ensures a bank account of water for his state to build more power plants, and the river kept full allows barges to bring coal to Scholz plant. Big problem is that the drought might eventually empty out Lake Seminole too and then Crist can scream for water till he is blue in the face.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Prootwadl,
There is another thread here that addresses the water conservation between NC and GA.
I never suggested that all of Florida got it’s water from the Chattahoochie River?
And, yes, we were just discussing urban sprawl that is outside of the city limits.
You need to read my post more carefully.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
One thing I’ll point out about Florida water usage growth: They have the highest number of desalination plants in the U.S., followed by California and a few in Texas. For those of you who don’t know, this is a water treatment method where the salt is removed from seawater. It is very expensive but for people who have no other choice, that is what is done. The point is that the state of Florida is attempting to deal with their growth by increasing their capacity to provide water for them. The number of desalination plants in Georgia? 0. In any case, I’m not sure it’s feasible to pump water up to the elevation of Atlanta, which is about 1000 ft above sea level, maybe you could do it I have no idea.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
RichS,
Yes. That is where we disagree.
Governor Perdue took office and canceled an extensive list of water retention and transportation projects proposed by the previous governor.
The Atlanta metro area also has unbridled growth without an adequate infrastructure to support it.
Then he wants to blame this all on the ESA and thinks FL and AL should receive less water based on false assumption that the echo-system and the economy of the other states should just die off.
What kind of policy is that?
You also share this reckless, distructive, and just dumb approach, then in the next post think that Tennessee might be willing to share water with you.
Do you think Tennessee doesn’t care about it’s economy and echo-system?
Why should the rest of the nation support an irresponsible policy?
If that’s Georgia’s idea of of solution, I’m convinced they are headed for disaster.
The fact is all three states have a valid claim to the water in the river basin.
Georgia would be much better off by making valid points instead of trying to steam roll other states with these dire threats.
I’m convinced there is a reasonable solution to solve these problems instead of create more.
JMO
December 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“Governor Perdue took office and canceled an extensive list of water retention and transportation projects proposed by the previous governor.” I have heard this charge before but I haven’t seen any unbiased information about it. Why was it cancelled? Could it have been in response to downstream complaints? I don’t know but would be willing to learn if you can point me to something that looks factual and unbiased.
“Then he wants to blame this all on the ESA and thinks FL and AL should receive less water based on false assumption that the echo-system and the economy of the other states should just die off.” Come on man nobody wants the economy of anyone to die off and no one has said so. You’re being ridiculous and your anger is clouding your logic.
“You also share this reckless, distructive, and just dumb approach, then in the next post think that Tennessee might be willing to share water with you.” I feel that if we offer them something of value and they have plenty of water to spare they might be willing to make a deal. I haven’t suggested that we point our guns toward them and demand anything.
“The fact is all three states have a valid claim to the water in the river basin.” Absolutely. What we are talking about is how to fairly decide an apportionment of the water. Georgia isn’t trying to take “all” the water as you have said in earlier posts. Actually it is much closer to the truth to say that Florida believes that every drop of water that would flow naturally is their right and Atlanta deserves none. Not quite true - but much truer than the opposite.
“Georgia would be much better off by making valid points instead of trying to steam roll other states with these dire threats.” Examples of dire threats please.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
AndrewS - So would it make sense for Georgia to build a desalinization plant in Florida to pump water straight into the Apalachicola River? It’s an interesting question because that is effectively what would be happening - Atlanta would be making it’s own water so that more can flow through the Apalachicola into the Gulf of Mexico. Assuming we were going to do that it would make more sense to do it down there than to try to pump that volume of water 1000 ft uphill and across many more miles of terrain.
Of course the idea seems to make a lot more sense when you are talking about spending billions of dollars to keep a city wet - not nearly as much sense when you are talking about keeping some mussels and oysters wet. That’s really the argument though. There is plenty of water here. We would be building a desalinization plant to keep downstream interests happy.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I have heard this charge before but I haven’t seen any unbiased information about it. Why was it cancelled? Could it have been in response to downstream complaints? I don’t know but would be willing to learn if you can point me to something that looks factual and unbiased.
So what’s your point? Altanta prepared for this drought? Do some research.
“Come on man nobody wants the economy of anyone to die off and no one has said so. You’re being ridiculous and your anger is clouding your logic.”
This only logic that is clouded is your own. You have some bipolar and anger disorder going on here. This is exactly why I usually ignore you.
This is your last post up above. I guess you can’t remember.
“The best thing I found was the article I linked above which pretty much says the argument is between a very large economic concern (Atlanta) vs. a very small economic concern (Apalachicola) plus the Florida environmental concern.”
Let me illustrate this by your next point.
“The fact is all three states have a valid claim to the water in the river basin.” Absolutely. What we are talking about is how to fairly decide an apportionment of the water. Georgia isn’t trying to take “all” the water as you have said in earlier posts. Actually it is much closer to the truth to say that Florida believes that every drop of water that would flow naturally is their right and Atlanta deserves none. Not quite true - but much truer than the opposite.
Why do you contradict yourself in the same paragraph? Florida doesn’t believe they should get every drop of water. While Perdue wants to amend the ESA?
“I feel that if we offer them something (TN) of value and they have plenty of water to spare they might be willing to make a deal. I haven’t suggested that we point our guns toward them and demand anything.”
I didn’t say you were pointing guns at them. But look at how you treat FL and AL, then you turn around and think Tennessee would willingly include you in their water supply?
That’s just DUMB!
It’s all in God’s hand’s now.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
It’s just not worth responding to……….
December 13th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Looking over this thread (and others) it’s obvious why the Tri-States haven’t been able to come to an allocation agreement.
-st
December 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
JohnC said:
“I never suggested that all of Florida got it’s water from the Chattahoochie River?”
Er. In a previous posting, you stated “You can’t simply pay off some oyster fishers to justify reducing the water to entire state.”
JohnC said:
“You need to read my post more carefully.”
Since you don’t seem to bother answering the most basic questions posed to you, I’m really questioning whether your postings are worth reading at all.
Since the entire Atlanta metro only actually USES 150 million gallons per day, compared to a total daily release of over a billion gallons, why is Atlanta’s usage even relevant to the issues being faced downstream?
Can you provide us with a serious answer instead of rhetoric?
December 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
ST,
If the politicians in Florida are anything like some of the posters here from Florida, it’s no wonder no deals have been made.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Don’t believe government. There main goal right now is to try to “fix” the problem, while lying to you so as not to invoke panic with the truth. That is real bad guys.
I have to ask, are lake laneir, kedron and altoona man made? If they are then nature said no to lakes in these areas do to some reason. I dunno, maybe the area is prone to DROUGHT
so lakes can’t seize hold and stay around. I mean no one knows how these areas were 1,000 years ago. 500yrs ago. Maybe this drought stuff just happens regularly in this area. This won’t be the first drought, and won’t be the last.
t
December 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Prootwadl - not arguing - we are definitely on the same side. I just want to make sure you are clear so idiots don’t argue your points on technicalities.
You say Atlanta use is only 150 MGD. You are really talking about consumption. Use is the total water taken out of the system - consumption is the water taken out and not returned. Atlanta use is not really of any importance to downstream interests. Consumption is. And consumption is like you say - around 150 MGD - an impact of generally less than 5% of the total Flow at the mouth of the Apalachicola River - and generally less than 10% of the current outflow from Buford Dam.
When I told JohnC above that it looks like Florida doesn’t seem to want Atlanta to have any water - this is my point. If Atlanta didn’t exist, Florida would have approx 5% more water. And they seem to be furious about that??? How much do they think is Atlanta’s fair share? None???
December 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Just to be careful about technicalities, the 500 million and 350 million gallon values given are coming from a report in 2005, which did not itself investigate, but took numbers from what seems to be 2003.
The actual INTAKE is being worked out on this wiki page:
http://atlantawatershortage.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_water_sources_for_metro_area_counties
Near the bottom, and is up to about 685 million gallons a day, before Baldwin, Sandy Springs, Roswell, and all of Heard County are taken into account.
If you acept a 30% consumption across that value (350/500 = .7 = 70% returned, 30% consumed), then the actual CONSUMED water is somewhere slightly over 200 million gallons.
Still not much compared to the total release. That’s not my point. I’m just pointing out more accurate values.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Rkolter - In 2003 there weren’t the stringent watering restrictions that are in place now so I think if anything the numbers might be lower now.
I would also ask if it has been verified that all those sources are from the ACF basin?
Either way - 150 MGD or 200 MGD. I think either of those numbers could be considered valid so I don’t think we have any real argument there.
This also brings up another point that I was pondering. (I probably spend way too much time pondering this stuff.) I see a lot of the attacks on Atlanta citing figures for population growth - implying that water use is growing in proportion to population growth. While that may be true to some extent, the great majority of growth is in suburban and exurban counties - many of which do not draw their water from ACF. It is simply a lazy argument to inflame tempers - not draw attention to facts.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Sorry, one more thing - I would ask if those numbers are actual use or permitted use? It may be that actual use is considerably below the maximum that some communities are permitted for. At least you would hope so.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:18 am
The numbers come from various documents that are linked in the wiki - as far as I can tell, they’re fairly recent numbers.
Since they’re actual numbers, “maximum” doesn’t really have a meaning here - if they were inflow numbers, that would be different. The max inflow for example, for Atlanta is 750 million gallons I remember reading, from 2005.
I’d agree - if the additional population isn’t drawing from the ACF, then argueing about sprawl would be at a minimum, misleading. I don’t have any numbers on where the population growth in Atlanta is occuring. I wonder where we’d get that info?
December 14th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I’m sure the numbers could be compiled county by county. Unfortunately I have an actual job that keeps food on the table. Way too time consuming for me.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Jay Randal:
Re: the damn cost… that 45 million is probably in 1950’s money. If so, care to scale it to 2008 dollars? I bet you have to add a couple of zeros prior to the decimal point.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Pardon me, “damn” should be dam …
December 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
According to The Inflation Calculator,
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
45 million in 1958 is over 311 million in 2006. That seems on the surface to be a reasonable cost for a dam.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
67.
Although ‘water shortage’ is the theme here, I find the power shortage potential more electrifying. Ahem. Has anyone on AWS investigated the anticipated power loss to Atlanta, as the FIRST major side effect of water loss? Here’s my reasoning.
Today, the AJC reported the 61 county area lessened their November water consumption by 15%. 6% of this reduction came from residences and businesses while the remaining 9% came from the shutdown of two hydroelectric plants. Both plants were reporting financial losses due to the t shutdown. One was shutdown for equipment repair, the other due to ‘drought restrictions’. They consume hundreds of millions of gallons daily when they are operating. FYI: SEPA is the entity that reroutes electrical power by the way. If you google drought summit june 2007 you will find an ACE pdf, (see page 4) where the SEPA rep is saying that Allatoona loses 25% of it’s hydroelectric generating capacity when at 828-830 ft. Well, it is now at 818 ft. On the lanier side,AWS bloggers, quoting the Corp, have stated that the two big turbines stop at 1035 ft or so….with a smaller one at 1020.
So it appears to beg a question of SEPA or other public authorities…how may power days are left and how much more will it cost in the future? I have read about the much reduced water consumption by GA Power, for instance, once they installed cooling towers. The water savings were tremendous. SAK
So the question is: How many power days do we have left when Lanier hits Deadpool and the turbines stop? Which will run out first, water or electricity…and why? All information (certifiable) is appreciated. SAK
December 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Sak - not an expert in this, but I will point out that I think you are confusing hydroelectric with other power plants. The turbines stopping is strictly a hydroelectric issue. I have read somewhere that hydroelectric amounts to about 2% of the area’s power.
I have also read that if the flow from the Chatahoochee is not sufficient to cool the downsteam plants that it will be possible to bring in power from elsewhere on the grid. I’m sure there will be an economic impact but I’m not seeing predictions that there will be a widespread electricity outage.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
[...] to see what happens this summer. Will we hit the magic 1035′ level (even if it’s not as bad as we thought)? Lower than that? What do you think? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking [...]