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.

SYSOPS:

Why was the following thread deleted:

Question re: Power spikes and flucuations

It gave info on a person who checks his power at home regularly with a meter and since Jan has noticed that it has been fluctuating a lot, and before it was very smooth.

I had posted a set of links (to this thread, to the thread about the city with the blackout today, to the town with the spike today) that showed evidence that something was amiss with power, and others were also posting similar evidence (not opinion) (one post about O'Hare having a spike then going onto their own new generators and since then have not been on the grid).

Why was this thread then just deleted?

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

To put the theory to the test, flow levels from hydroelectric compared to flood control and water supply only dams would be interesting to see.... any list Warren of the Hydroelectric Generation plants to work from?

We've had little to no rain and snow here in California this year, dumping for spring run off would be very stupid this year...

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.

Glenn,, without having any conclusive information, I believe your initial guess as to cause of high river levels would be close to the mark. This would be prudent operating and would make very good sense for the following reason:

Hydro plant is very versatile in that it can startup or shut down very quickly. ie a matter of minutes rather than the hours it takes a thermal station, or days for a nuke. However hydro plant is not quite as good at supplying partly loaded spinning reserve. The long penstocks and physical limitations in accellerating water compared to steam make thermal plant better at supplying partly loaded spinning reserve. Therefore during any period where there is a risk of contingent events (eg Y2K failures), then it would make good sense to run hydro reasonably hard and allow thermal plant to back off slightly.

Very observant of you to notice.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es,co.nz), January 06, 2000.

Here are some links to follow for corps of engineers management of the river projects in the Northwest:

main site for the northwest: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/

river level info (basin weather and such): http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pa/river.htm

stick charts for the different dams they control; I'm familar with the dams in the lower columbia and the willamette river. the charts have data for today, and show the trends as up or down or steady:

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nwp/Reports/stick.html

and this is probably more data than anyone would want to stare at too long, but for daily reports on the impoundments today, yesterday, and up to 9 days ago:

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nwp/Reports/drg.html

As someone stated above, I think the corps operates the dams as far as letting how much water spill over the edge and such. I guess they operate everything but the power portion of the site. At least their signs are still up all over the place.

And then there is the Bureau of Reclamation folks at the url listed in a previous post.

As far as power output from the dams themselves, that sounds like bpa land (oops there's that nasty y2k popup agin {everthging is y2k ready...}):

http://www.bpa.gov/indexmain.htm

From this spot http://www.bpa.gov/Power/pl/columbia/2-multi.htm

There are fifty-five major hydroelectric projects located on the Columbia River and its tributaries. Thirty are federal dams owned an operated by the Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation. Twenty-five are non-federal installations owned by various public and private utilities. These (and smaller dams not shown) give the Pacific Northwest the largest hydroelectric system in the world.

The site is interesting but no real information on how much power from which dam.

What we really need is info on the big columbia dams. Still looking...

Warren

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

Power generation by dam must be a secret. At least river information is a little easier to digest at u or wa:

http://www.cqs.washington.edu/crisp/hydro/

and the DART project looks like it might contain some nice interactive graphs for research into river levels (river data / river report?) w/ historic data:

http://www.cqs.washington.edu/dart/dart.html

Problem is it's down at the moment to load data; should be up soon.

Warren

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

Here are some sites on California records if that helps. Looks like no peaks (almost flat line) on the Klamath at Scott River below Iron Gate (a hydro-electric dam.) Also, we have had very little precipitation that would effect melt.

http://s601dcascr.wr.usgs.gov/rt-cgi/gen_stn_pg?station=11519500 http://s601dcascr.wr.usgs.gov/Sites/h1801.html http://s601dcascr.wr.usgs.gov/Sites/ Here is link to the national

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), January 06, 2000.

oops - national links: http://water.usgs.gov/realtime.html http://water.usgs.gov/ http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis-w/US/ http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/ http://water.usgs.gov/wrd002.html

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), January 06, 2000.

Links--

USGS Real Time Water Data -- http://water.usgs.gov/realt ime.html

USGS Water Resources of the United States -- http://water.usgs.gov/

USGS Data retrieval by state -- http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis-w/US/

USGS GIS Data for Water Resources -- http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/

USGS Local Offices for Water Resources -- http://water.usgs.gov/wrd002. html

-- Cherokee (Cherokee@qtmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Thanks Cherokee. I am link impaired.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), January 06, 2000.

I called the dam this morning and was told they were just fine tuning the reservoir and will continue the high level maybe the whole month................?

-- glenn boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 06, 2000.

Oh, yes I do that all the time, tune a lake level for I don't know how long. :)

Did they say why? Have they ever done this before (especially when there was little rain)?

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

From a good source:

All NW resevoirs/dams have been placed on Level 1 (read the same as DEFCON) security due to terrorist concerns. Under this condition reserves are reduced for the obvious reasons.

Due to a 'nds' I can't say much except -- nothing is over and check six.

*from the horses mouth*

-- from a good source (insider@info.intel), January 06, 2000.

Someone asked for a hydroengineer to explain all this. I have twenty- odd years working for USGS and USFS as a hydrologic tech. Spent many years analyzing this type of data.

I haven't seen anything posted here that would convince me that there is anything particularly unusual going on, though of course it is POSSIBLE.

Hydro dams release ever changing flows to accomodate demand. Flood control dams change the flow fairly frequently to do their best tro control floods. I know that there has been some flooding, and serious mudslides in NW Oregon a couple of weeks ago (Hwy 101 was closed by slides in three places). It would be normal that flood control dams would reduce flow during storms, then increase outflows after the storm to make more room in their reservoirs in preparation for the next storm. Also, in the NW, most, but not all, rivers have high spring run off from snowmelt. But many, including all the coastal rivers, also have high runoff from winter rains. The really big floods are almost ALL caused by "rain on snow" events. Which is why they are typically in midwinter (Biggest floods on many NW rivers was in December 1955, December 1964, and Jan 1974. Biggest flood of all, here on the Rogue River in SW Oregon was in 1861, nine feet higher than even the 1964 flood, but I don't know what month it occured.

To make a long story longer, most people, and I assume it includes the original poster, don't really understand river flow characterisitcs, and should be cautious in making uninformed conclustions.

This is especially important in regards to making conclusions that any particular flow level is caused by y2k problems at other power plants. Sure, it COULD be, but probably is not. You're grasping at straws.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

Jumpoff Joe:

'Twas I who made the request.

Thank you, sir.

As i said, that's what I love about this forum, amazing breadth of experience.

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

What about the disastrous floods of 1996/97?

-- swampy (still@wet.even.now), 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. But he did allow that maybe the hydro plants were taking advantage of the water supply right now to allow the coal fired plants to back off a bit (for whatever reason - efficiency probably).

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.

Very good thread, good teamwork everyone.

I'm a NW resident too. Heard on the news last night that the north Idaho snowpacks are the highest in the nation right now. The Cascades have been getting a ton of snow too. If we were to get a warm, wet system through here, that pack would melt down right quick. That may be why they are lowering the reservoirs, cover for that contingency. Even if we don't get a melt-off, it still doesn't hurt to bleed the reservoirs down, because "there's plenty of snowpack".

It's also possible that it has something to do with the salmon and trying to control the streamflows/water temperature during the spring runs.

BTW, I keep hearing of plants being pulled offline for 'non-Y2K' issues. Anyone have a count of how many are currently 'offline'? Might that have something to do with needing extra juice?

Side note: I was talking to a local here the other day, He mentioned how the local dam has 7 or so turbines, but only runs about 2 at a time. These hydro facilities can crank out ALOT of power if needed (as long as the water holds out, that is).

mark

-- mark (anvilmark@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

Very unlikely to be directly year 2000 related, though indirectly is affected by the "regular" yearly events.

In most of north america - water levels are drawn down in most reservoirs over winter to increase margins available in the late spring to prevent spring floods from spring rains (in the south and soouthern mountain states), and spring floods (from snow melt and upstream melting/runoff) in the central valley and eastern mountain states. So lower levels now are to be expected.

If there is a chance of ice damage in the winter, a lower lake level reduces ice damage and "blown" ice dams and blockages during storms to shoreside structures and docks.

This winter - especially at rollover - it would be prudent for utilities to have their hydro facilities "on line" and with as much reserve capacity as possible - so the natural drain off (discharging) needed to reduce lake levels to their usual New Year's level "might" not have been made until after rollover. (After all, until last weekend, people really didn't know that the power system would be okay.)

So this week, discharges that you see are possible to occur.

lake levels here in GA are WAY below average because of a drought going back to mid-July - so I've got nothing to compare your flows to. So no guesses about your situation using any local information from this end.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 06, 2000.

I am reading the rest of these posts with growing incredulity! Listen, folks, you are getting into areas about which you don't have a CLUE, and making all sorts of wild conclusions with no bases!

Here are a few comments which will give you an idea of how these conclusions are being based on misimpressions:

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.

-- S

To say that 125 cfs is 30-40% above mean is absurd. For this to be true, the mean would have to be only 300-400 cfs. The Columbia River has the second highest flow rate in the United States, behind only the Mississippi. 300-400 cfs is about what my small creek, Jumpoff Joe Creek, runs during a normal winter day, between storms.

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.

A and L, don't get your tits in a wringer. This river is dam controlled. It has lots of dams. Lots. The flow rate at any time is more dependent on power and fisheries requirements than on the weather for any given day or week. Of course the monthly and yearly precipitation data are somewhat correlative to flow rates, but not daily flows or daily precip. Besides, even if the fall has been fairly dry, as it certainly has been two hundred and fifty miles south of the Columbia, where I live, there is a lot of rainy season left. The most important precip is snowpack and late winter/spring rains.

You're guessing wrong. The "datum" is an arbitrary elevation, generally chosen to represent a point below any anticipated flow level. Thus, on most USGS stream gauges, a very low flow will be a very low number, but still above zero.

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.>

This is an iteresting idea, Tom, but to make these determinations based on visual observations is difficult even for an experienced river observer. And even if you could estimated how much water was coming thru the spillway, you would still have a very difficult time correlating flow rate with rainfall data, even if you knew how to evalutate the data. Also, in reality, most of the reservoirs in the NW are drawn down for the entire winter to below normal levels in anticipation of winter storms, and/or spring runoff. You just can't reduce the water levels based on a weather forecast of an impending storm. The forecasts aren't accurate, for one thing, and the water levels typically can't be reduced rapidly without causing flooding and other problems downstream.

<

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. >

That's right. If the conditions you are suggesting continued, it would be lights out. Unless there were other power sources. Or unless extra conservation methods were put in place.

Again, you would have trouble correlating the "NOAA rainfall data for the Columbia basin, with this flow data."

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

Me

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

This is the truest statement so far. They ARE amazing.

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.>

I don't have any data for California weather, Carl, but please excuse me for saying that you should let the various agencies who deal with this for a living make that conclusion.

I've got a crew working, and have to go back to work. Just stopped in during breakfast. I'll probably come back again later. I love reading all this stuff. At last I am able to make some clarifications. I never could in regard to all the computer stuff. What fun.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

Jumpoff... Here's a weather prediction that probably explains everything...

La Nina Shows Flooding on the Way

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.

Thanks for all the input it was very educational.jump off joe had the most amazing solution "you should let the various agencies who deal with this for a living make that conclusion." MY thought is

-- Glenn Boling (Wilber@montanasky.net), January 06, 2000.

Continuation of last my last post...My thought is I would prefer people to make conclusions that had my well being upper most (which is me)...not a professional who is worrying about his job and his best interests which we have seen so much of lately.

-- Glenn Boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 06, 2000.

< What about the disastrous floods of 1996/97?

-- swampy (still@wet.even.now), January 06, 2000. >

Swampy, I obviously don't have all the data memorized for every location. Since I don't know where you live, I will have to guess that you live somewhere in the NW. The floods of 96/97 were not really disasters, in the way you may be picturing them. At least in the part of the NW where I live, most of the smaller streams were at quite moderate flow levels, but maintained higher than normal flows long enough to cause the larger streams to reach "flood" levels. (meaning that very low lying structures were inundated. The Rogue River reached a level of 26.5 feet, as I recall. The '64 flood was around 34 ft, the 1861 flood was about nine feet higher than the '64 flood; hence the 96/97 flood was almost twenty feet lower than the 1861 flood. To me, that means that 96/97 was not a very big deal at all. Of course, I would not doubt that the news media blew it all out of proportion, as they are prone to do.

By the way, my stream, Jumpoff Joe Creek, draining 33 square miles, has been higher than the level it reached during the 96/97 event at least five or six times in the last thirty years.

Laurane, a good bit of info, although you don't have the units correct when you say 25 million acre ft. This is a volume of water, not a flow rate. Flow rate is expressed in cubic feet per second, gallons per minute, etc. Perhaps the units want to use are acre feet per day?

This is true, Laurane; it would be smart, and I assume normal, to utilize as much hydro as possible, since it is not using up fossil fuels, and does not pollute the air. Save the coal, oil, etc for periods when there is less hydro available.

Mark, glad to hear that you guys have such a good snowpack up in Idaho. We're still really light here. Interesting you should mention fish. I guess everyone here is aware that the NMFS has placed some species of salmonids on the "endangered species list"? This is a very serious issue, which I recommend that anyone, especially those of us who live in the Pacific Northwest, take the energy to learn about. There are some major attacks being made on what lots of us don't want to do without, whether we are fish lovers or not. It is ironic that the Corps of Engineers, who have been battling "environmentalists" for at least thirty-one years (that's how long I've been an "environmentalist); they wanted to put a dam on, seemingly, any stream where there was water running. Now that they have built dams on most nearly all of the medium and large rivers in the US, and have run up against so much opposition that the building of any new dams is highly unlikely, they have changed their tune. Now they want to destroy dams which are already in place, and functioning as designed. It's my belief that they have changed their position for the simple greedy reason that they want to be able to keep busy, making money by doing huge projects, paid for by all of us, regardless of we people's desires.

Robert Cook, your comments are pretty much right on.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

Glenn, you're right. I apologize to Carl for sounding rude and flip. Upon reflection, it sounds pretty dumb, what I said. On the other hand, there actually are some beurocrats who are conscientious, and who do have your best interests at heart. I also believe that I would certainly rather trust a conscientious hydrologist or hydrologic technician to handle the very complex issues regarding trying to control a river's flow and a dam's safety and operation than trust someone who is not trained in this field. As far as POLICY, I think the public certainly has a place. But not as far as day to day operation. Believe me, if a non trained, or poorly trained person tried to run a flood control dam, power dam, or any other large dam, the result would not be pretty!

I hope there has been enough data bantied about that the chemtrail crowd won't adopt "unusual river flows" as their new poster child.

Jumpoff Joe

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

JUmp off Joe, I was not referring to ordinary people making decisions about the dam and its water, I was referring to ordinary people drawing their own conclusions of what is happening. We ought to keep on the subject. N None of us are trying to tell them what to do. We are only observing what's going on and making our own conclusions and so far that is not against the law. And as far as your reference to hydrologists and their education a lot of the people on this forum have a degree or two including myself and it doesnt take a degree to come to a logical conclusion. I only submited an observation. And I don`t think anybody has made a conclusion yet......

-- glenn boling (wilber@montanasky.net), January 06, 2000.

But Glenn, these posts are FILLED with conclusions, and crazy speculations. I could point some out to you, but I'll merely include a copy of your starting post:

< 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

It surely seems to me that you have concluded
A)"the river was really full....like it is at spring snowmelt"
Tell me, Glenn, exactly how full was the river? What was the stage? What was the flow rate? What is the flow rate in the spring? Or the stage in the spring? Do you think that there is even a "normal" flow rate or stage at the spring snowmelt, Glenn? Did you know that the stage AND the rate of flow change constantly, thoughout the day and throughout the year?

< 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. >

This is WILD speculation, Glenn. You have absolutely NO basis for thinking that this is the case. What power plants have had malfunctions which require hydropower to take over for them? I still don't know what river you were looking at, by the way.

< We have a normal snow pack and no rain. NO MELTING >

This is another conclusion, Glenn. Based on what information, I don't know. Did someone tell you the snowpack is "normal"? And where did you get the idea that there has been NO RAIN? Now I REALLY want to know where you live, because it is probably the only spot in the NW which has had no rain. And no melting? Hello? The only way there could be no melting is if there were no snow. Is your normal snowpack zero snow, Glenn?

< NOTE: The northwest rivers all have Dams with hydroeletric generators >

I certainly would call this statement another conclusion, Glenn. And another false one. To say that ALL northwest rivers have hydroelectric dams on them shows not only ignorance of the facts, but a willingness to share that ignorance with us, while calling it facts.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

Just to save you trying to convince me that there are no rivers in the NW without hydroelectric dams, I will list few for you. Heading north from San Francisco we have the Gualala, the Garcia, the Navarro, the Big, the Ten Mile, the Mattole, the Eel, the Mad, the Little, the Smith, the Winchuck, the Chetco, the Applegate, the Elk, the Sixes, the Coquille. None of these have hydro plants. I could name others, but you get the drift.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 06, 2000.

Jumpoff,

You appear to have some knowledge in the hydro department and you have selected many posts to belittle in making your point. Could you address the the post suggesting that the dams are at a high level of security.

jigsaw

-- (jigsaw@puzzle.now), January 06, 2000.

I have some familiarity with water release regimes that have been implemented on the Klamath mainstem for (threatened) salmon and in consideration of tribal trust issues. Generally these releases do not occur until very late spring. In winter, the dams try to emulate natural flows and not vary levels when the salmon redds (nests) are in place. Right now, there are eggs and small fry in the gravel. Varied levels up or down can disturb gravel or dewater redds. They try not to do this unless there is a natural event.

Spring releases have been performed in the past timed either to encourage hatchery fish to outmigrate before natural spawners come down the tributaries or to encourage natural spawners to outmigrate down the mainstem so that they are not harmed by solar heating or low dissolved oxygen from algae blooms.

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), January 06, 2000.

I don't want to fan the flames to much here, but it's never a bad idea to keep your eyes and ears open to anything that looks abnormal in your surounding environment. Since the advent of communication we are also at liberty to discuss these issues with hopefully some enlightenment on everyone's part.

As far as y2k is concerned I've always tried to keep an open mind to both sides of the issue, attempting to weigh each argument against the other. As I come upon new data or reports, I've tried to wiegh it out with some reason based on what's come before and what conclusions have been drawn. This might not be scientific or rational, but, well there you have it.

I still think if it doesn't smell right, it MIGHT not be right. As I get older, this seems more true all the time. Getting older and less trusting (or more questioning) is probably a bad idea.

Along those lines, I sometimes (not all the time) listen to a radio show that features Christians who discuss preparadness. OK hang on. It WAS at one time something some people did to gather more information on y2k. Of course whoever did that in the past (some days ago) will stop doing it soon. But until the habit dies, here's a show that was on today that featured Rick Cowles. I'm sure you all have opinions of him and his position.

In preparation for this show, I sent an email to the show moderators referenceing our discussion about 'manual operation' in Russia and possibly in the US including whatever other steps might be taken to keep generation/transmission/distribution up. I'm sure they reviewed the posts and they may also have reviewed the discussion on dam operations and water level. They did ask Rick about what he knew on these subjects.

I won't summerise (unless asked to) what Rick said on these topics. That way, I can't be acused of spreading my own opinions around by recanting things in my own terms. But if you can mentally throw out the advertisements (don't need any more beans - hit the advance button and open a can of dinty moore) you might find this interesting:

http://www.m2ktalk.com/thu.ram

Before listening to this show, I went and reviewed this interview with Rick back I belive October '98 just to make sure I understood where this guy was coming from in the bad old days of y2k.

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/cowles.asp

It's long, but is interesting to compare what was postulated against what actually happened (or what may still happen).

My take...oops I said I wouldn't do that. Well I still smell a rat here somewhere...

If you listen to this stuff and turn into a Christian or start believing something you wish you hadn't, don't blame me. I didn't send you there for that.

Warren

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

to the top

-- (jigsaw@puzzle.now), January 07, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Is it possible for anyone here (sysops?) to determine what the chronology is between the appearance of this article Researchers use La Nina to predict likelihood of floods, and the original post on this thread? Both are dated Jan 05, 2000.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 07, 2000.

Sorry jigsaw, I don't have any knowledge of security regarding dams. I'm into hydrology, not security. Why do you ask?

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 07, 2000.

Marsh, I know there are at least one or two dams on the Klamath. One is at the outlet of Klamath Lake, I'm pretty sure, and there may be another one. Do you know? I guess I could look it up on the USGS page, but if you can tell me, it would be great. Also, do any of them generate hydro power? If so, they would have at least three often conflicting uses they'd have to juggle, I suppose: flood control, power demand, and fisheries.

I have also read about an effort by some Klamath (? ) County Locals who are trying to build a new dam on the upper Klamath, but I believe it keeps getting vetoed by our Governore (Kitzhaber)

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 10, 2000.