Inch by Inch, Great Lakes Shrink, and Cargo Carriers Face Losses

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: NYT

OSWEGO, N.Y. — From his office at the port here, Jonathan Daniels stared at a watermark etched on the rocks that hug one of the commercial piers — a thick dark line several inches above the surface of Lake Ontario — and wondered how much lower the water would dip.

“What we need is some rain,” said Mr. Daniels, director of the Port of Oswego Authority, one of a dozen public port agencies on the United States side of the Great Lakes. “The more we lose water, the less cargo the ships that travel in the Great Lakes can carry, and each time that happens, shipping companies lose money,” he said. “Ultimately, it’s people like you and I who are going to pay the price.”

Water levels in the Great Lakes are falling; Lake Ontario, for example, is about seven inches below where it was a year ago. And for every inch of water that the lakes lose, the ships that ferry bulk materials across them must lighten their loads by 270 tons — or 540,000 pounds — or risk running aground, according to the Lake Carriers’ Association, a trade group for United States-flag cargo companies.

<snip>

Most environmental researchers say that low precipitation, mild winters and high evaporation, due largely to a lack of heavy ice covers to shield cold lake waters from the warmer air above, are depleting the lakes. The Great Lakes follow a natural cycle, their levels rising in the spring, peaking in the summer and reaching a low in the winter, as the evaporation rate rises.





Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/nyregion/22oswego.html?ex=1350705600&en=d9e005bd60f97b87&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Scout]

1. thank you for this ... tell the southeast and southwest to quit

thinking about "sharing" the great lakes with them ... the great lakes states and Canada don't have water to share.

[Toots]

2. So you feel the Great lakes only belong to the nearest states?

I always felt they belonged to all America not just bordering states..If that is the case then all National Forests should only belong to the States they exist in.

[Scout]

3. the National Parks in the Great Lakes, such as Isle Royale

belong to all the people ... but the lakes, nope.

[Bryan Buchan]

4. The Great Lakes are not a National Forest...

...nor have the protections...and surrounding states have carried the burden of responsibility for them. Your analogy is incorrect.

[susanna]

39. Thank you. Well said. n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

5. And Canada, but yeah.

Water diversion schemes are moronic anyway, as even an Alaska Pipeline project would only supply water for 200,000 people a day. If Canada and the Great Lakes States let you do it, which they wouldn't.

[hedgehog]

6. The Great Lakes are a closed system.

The water in the lakes is what falls in the basin. Take the water out, and it isn't coming back.

BTW - that applies even within the states bordering the lakes. Water from LAke Ontario may go to Syracuse, but not to New York City.
Theres a smal city out in Wisconsin (I think) that is about 10 miles outside the basin. That city gets its water from about 20 miles away.

Also - the Great Lakes belong to the US and Canada. They are controlled by an international treaty.

[Pathwalker]

8. Google the Great Lakes Water Treaty for your answer.

The Great Lakes belong to the states bordering them AND Canada, we have been responsible for maintaining them since 1909, and no other state is allowed to divert water from them. It would take an exceedingly long court fight before anyone received so much as a drop of water from them. Now, I know the Bushies don't believe in international treaties, but you'd have to take on ALL the Great Lakes States AND Canada to get our water.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Where were all you guys on FRIDAY?

I was getting the SNOT kicked out of me for DARING to suggest that what is ours by treaty should stay that way.

[Scout]

12. sorry about that, I'd have stuck my 2 cents in if i was here! n/t

[Tyler Durden]

15. I held my own pretty well.

I think even clearer when I've lost my temper; unfortunately, I usually get heartburn and a migraine afterwards, which I did.

[Tyler Durden]

9. Actually, by treaty with Canada, YEP, they DO.

And no offense, but it's rather foolish to deplete a resource already in serious jeopardy.

This is the kind of nonsense that set me off on Friday. The Southeast got our JOBS, and the Southwest got our TAXES. I think the water should stay right where it is.

[JVS]

19. That's our water, back off

[barb162]

23. Yes, to the nearest states AND Canada

DOes Lake Tahoe belong to me or to the people of CA and NV? I think iot belongs to the people of CA and NV.

[girl gone mad]

31. What..

you mean they'll ship redwoods across the country? Cause we could use the shade in Texas.

[Earth_First]

32. This Great Lakes resident feels so...

The Great Lakes belong to the Great Lakes.

[BearSquirrel2]

35. The water ...

The water in the Great Lakes belongs to the Great Lakes watershed. The rule is that you can take water from the watershed so long as you return it. The only exception to this is the city of Chicago who that takes from the lake but discharges the water down the Chicago and DesPlaines river. The situation cannot be corrected and no one else will be added to that exception.

I suppose if we asked for Las Vegas to donate jobs to the Great Lakes region they'd be happy to oblige since they are so keen on our water. Civilization is supposed to follow resources, not the other way around.

[barb162]

24. I think your gov. mentioned this about a week ago.

And I think she was correct. She said something like if you want our water, then you can move here.

[happyslug]

29. I once looked into diverting the Water from the Great lakes to the South West.

First you have a little thing called the Mississippi River in the way. Any water has to be diverted to the Mississippi River (An easy diversion via the Illinois river from Lake Michigan, or from Lake Erie to the Ohio. Huron a little more difficult for you have to pump the water BACK to lake Erie to do it). It might be better just to divert water from the Mississippi than the Great lakes, but the main body of water the Mississippi is the Ohio which enters the Mississippi 50 miles SOUTH of where the Missouri enters the Mississippi

Once the water was in the Mississippi River you have to divert it further westward, which is even MORE difficult. The best way would be to reverse flow the Missouri and then the Plate. This would take billions od Dollars (if NOT Trillions of Dollars). An alternative plan would be to reverse the Red River, which will cost even MORE money and since it joins the Mississippi even more down stream then the Missouri, you have to dig even DEEPER trenches (Or pump the water even Higher, if you decide to pump the water backward instead of digging deep enough for the water to flow backward).

Either way you have the problem of getting over the Rio Grande River and the Rocky Mountains. People forget the the Rio Grande, In New Mexico and Colorado, is one of the HIGHEST Rivers valley in the World. You will have to drill UNDER it (If you want the water to flow "naturally") or pump the water over it, to get ANY water to the South West.

My point is draining the water from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi is doable. It is a simple deep cut. Reversing the Missouri and Plate (or even the Red River) is borderline doable (i.e. might be possible if we throw enough money into the project). The problem is getting the water over (or under) the Rio Grande and the Rocky Mountains. That is nealy impossible. The cost to pump the water would be extremely high, to dig even more costly. Thus in my opinion to move the Great Lake Waters to the Southwest is impossible, it is somebody pipe dream. Every time I hear of the proposal I just laugh, for the people proposing it have NOT even done a cursory look into HOW to do it. if they had, they would dismiss it as the pipe dream it is.

[Thor_MN]

37. I have a way to balance out the pumping issues.

The South just needs to send a pound of oil north for each pound of water sent south...

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. This doesn't make sense to me

"And for every inch of water that the lakes lose, the ships that ferry bulk materials across them must lighten their loads by 270 tons — or 540,000 pounds — or risk running aground"

I think this is a bogus comparison. A lowering of level may make certain harbours more dangerous - if the port authorities can't be bothered to dredge them out by another inch than they used to - but you can't equate that to "the ships must lighten their load".

And given this: "The water, however, is still about 2 feet above the lake’s low of 242.19 feet, registered in 1934, according to the Corps of Engineers", then the port authorities should already have known the lakes vary in height a bit, and they should be prepared to keep their channels clear. I mean, all the sea ports in the world can cope with that.

[Tyler Durden]

11. It's the LOCKS and CANALS.

The ships of that era drew far less water than a modern 1100' bulk carrier, or modern international container ships.

Actually, as someone who has lived on the St. Lawrence Seaway his entire life up until now, it's actually a CONSERVATIVE estimate.

Take my word for it if you will, but check it out if you want to. The Great Lakes are a Closed System, and it doesn't matter HOW you dredge, you can't make the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers deeper, The or the Soo Locks or Welland Canal deeper.

Think Suez or Panama.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. So, as the depth of the hard-bottomed canal at lake level crept up

the naval architects took advantage of the extra inches to say "the ships can draw an extra inch or two than they could a decade ago"? Wow, that was short-sighted. I have little sympathy for the shipowners who bought such defective goods.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Muriel, they OVERBUILT those seaways...

They were designed in the 1950's.

And BIGGER ships mean LESS SHIPS to pollute. Most of them burn Bunker "C" crude oil, which makes diesel look like EVIAN.

Global Warming did this: NOT the "shipowners." Not to be on the side of a group of industrialists, but very few shipping companies do well and "Stay Afloat."

I understand your chagrin, but it is misplaced, and it's STILL stupid to pipe away the water.

[susanna]

40. Sure. They do it all the time.

A highly enlightening book I just read, "River Horse" by William Least Heat-Moon talks about just these engineering follies that lead to the ridiculous waterway problems we have in this country. (He and a small boat tried to re-visit the route of Lewis & Clark across the continent.)

His book was more focused on the locks and dams that re-route the Missouri and other magnificent rivers, but in a nutshell, the push for "progress" held true everywhere, including the Great Lakes. Engineers never met a body of water they didn't like, IMHO.

[formercia]

42. It might be time to build smaller carriers

with less draft.

[JNelson6563]

16. Yep, we're in trouble

And good luck to any state who tries to pipe out Great Lakes water. You'll kick off a civil war.

You want water? Move out of the desert.

Julie

[noonwitch]

17. We need massive snowfall in MI's UP, MN, WI and ONT

We have not been getting the kinds of winter snowfalls that we used to get-Lake Superior has to get full, first, for the water to start moving down the system.

The water at my grandpa's, in Traverse City, is as low as I've ever seen it in over 40 years.

[Tyler Durden]

18. The Wisconsin snows feed Lake Michigan...

the offshores off Michigan feed Lake Huron.

And so on.

[enki23]

21. well, it's damned near rained every day for the past couple of weeks here in northern MN

not that it's going to catch us all up anytime soon. especially considering no small part of that water came from the lakes in the first place.

[barb162]

26. Wasn't it pretty droughty all summer?

[enki23]

28. very. i didn't mow my lawn from july to october

now, it's growing like weeds. probably because it mostly is.

[barb162]

34. Bwahaha re the weeds. I was just looking at my dandelions

and other weeds about two hours ago. Glad to hear you're getting rain.
(PS I have a cousin in Int'l Falls.)

[burrowowl]

36. Dandelions make good salad when picked young

and my Grandmother made dandelion wine.

[SlowDownFast]

30. Yep. Been raining here in Michigan's Upper Peninsula every day, too.

People are starting to complain a little (can't get any outside work done), but the water table is definitely on the up and up.

Lake Superior, October 18
At Last The Lake Is Rising
Summer brought the lake level way down.

A month of heavy rain is helping the water level of Lake Superior rebound finally.

The all-time record low for August was set this year after a drought-filled summer. But now, record rain in September and a wet start to October have brought the level up by half a foot.

"At this point, we are still well below normal for the lake even with the recent rise we had," explains Tom Green of the National Weather Service. "We're still approximately 14 inches below the average for the month of October in Lake Superior, and the lake is still projected to continue falling at a slight rate throughout the winter months."

The Army Corps of Engineers is predicting the lake level will drop by an inch over the next few weeks. Evaporation and lake effect snow will also cause a further decline, meteorologists say.

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=7234029&nav=menu134_1_4

[Thor_MN]

38. My dad's place is just north of Two Harbors

He says you can walk dry to the beach where I had to wade through shin deep water a couple years ago. Seems so odd that not too long ago, there were arguements over Lake Superior being kept too high, casuiong erosion. Just outside Duluth, they had to move North Shore Drive back a bit where I used to have my paper route growing up.

I definately need to get back up there next summer.

[barb162]

25. Yes the water is lowering across the GL area.

People fail to realize there is drought in upper Minnesota, areas of IL, etc

[susanna]

41. I hear you, noonwitch.

I was up in Traverse SIX years ago and went around multiple small coves where the DOCKS were on dry land for several hundred feet. The locals kept saying, "the winter snows will help it." It never did, since I've been back most years since. I was shocked by how low Lake Michigan was up there. :-(

[baldguy]

20. The Great Lakes basin has been experiencing a drought for the last 15 yrs.

This didn't begin overnight.

[hedgehog]

22. As a measure of volatility, Lake Erie was so high in the 70's it was

washing out shore line cliffs and took out some houses in the Dunkirk area. A few years ago the water level in the Erie Canal was so high it had to be closed to boaters. This year, parts were so low that it had to be closed again. Just a reminder that what goes up can go down and vice versa.

[Tyler Durden]

27. Erie is so shallow that it can do that.

Erie is a saucer to all the other lakes' soup tureen.

That didn't happen in Huron, I can tell you.

[mopinko]

33. michigan was high at that time also.

for a while there we were worried about loosing lake shore drive.