LongLine

$1 Billion loss to the (overall) economy - wow! 1 billon divided by 6 trillion x 100% = 0.02%. I wonder how many CFOs jumped off their ships fantail for that tremendous loss? Probably none as they received discounted seaway passage fees this year.

another from Mid Oct: Looks to me like shipping was loving the high water!

Prediction for 2019 shipping by marine chamber: https://www.marinedelivers.com/media_release/great-lakes-seaway-ports-forecast-stellar-2019-shipping-season/ Results reported: (right click & open in another tab/window if you can't read it) Yes - down at US ports 6.4%, but was due to tariffs on metals. Other materials all broke records. Yes - "Massive cargo ships" (salties) from all over the world came all the way in this year. Yes - IJC was going to close seaway in Dec but didn't because of industry protests Yes - with another week, they will exceed their 2018 goals. (note this was posted 12/24) There's another post in the above link (further down it) as to how they extended the shipping season another week this year. Yep - shipping lost money all right...NOT! (Now I got'ta go buy a new meter, you just bent the needle on the old BS meter.) Tom B. (LongLine)

Happy New Year Gill-T. Tom B. (LongLine)

You're right about the 92 days. So the calculation looks more like this: It was claimed in that quote from your post that "this year will set the record for the most water sent thru the system." 9,199 CuM average is still way above the average discharged for the remaining 92 days of 2019. '86 outflow is definite proof that claim is bogus. Can't settle for 2nd place or ever admit you're wrong? Anyways, Good luck out there & we're all looking forward to seeing fishing reports from you. Happy New Year! Tom B. (LongLine)

I'd believe this IF the average daily discharge thru Massena for the last 89 days of 2019 had been 11,006 CuM/sec. But it wasn't so the above claim is just another example of "Bogus-ology". Come on Spring! I'd like to go fishing on Lake Ontario at least once in 2020 before the ramps get closed again! Tom B. (LongLine)

- You said seiches increase it. I agree, Largest seiche ever recorded on Lake Ontario raised the outflow by 2K cu ft. Big whoop! I don't consider 2K significant when the lake was so high and outflow at 300K. Apparently you do. - You said water supply was causing reduction in outflow. I showed you USGS graphs that showed that was not true. - You said outflows were always reduced to 6KM to low 7KM in Dec. I showed where that is bogus and you said "Look again at those graphs, They're at near 300,000 cuft" I say yes 300,000 ft is the same as 8.5KM which is considerably higher than 6-7KM. If a little less than 300Kft then still a lot more than your 6-7KM - You said 2014 only in effect from Jan-April of 17 (that's 4 months). I say that was enough to mess things up pretty good as we still don't have water level where it belongs in Dec '19 I also say if that plan has only been in effect for that short of a time over the last 3 years, then it should be abandoned and not held onto as dearly as you do. However you also posted a press release from this year that showed permission to exceed plan levels were approved. THIS YEAR! So your 4 or 3 months in effect out of 3 years, as you claim, is just another bogus claim. - You said lake goes thru 20 yr cycle water levels. I disagreed with that. High water didn't occur in 2000-2014 as those were record low levels across all the lakes. That leaves you 6 yrs before 2020 if your statement is true and if a cycle occurred in the 80's-90's. So where/which year is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that something in your posts was true. - In the first 6 pages of this thread you insisted level control has nothing to do with shipping. Yet now you say it has a lot to do with shipping. Which is it? Shipping in '17, 18 & 19 boomed. I showed that & you side stepped it. The shipping season was extended this year. (normally closes a little earlier) - You said the Iroquois was closed for those years. You said that the bays would flood if outflows increased. Yet opening the Iroquois would have let the water out & there would have been more room for increased outflow. - You said it'd be good environmentally to have the wetlands flood and be rinsed, yet in another post you don't want any flooding downstream or in the Ottawa. Again, please make up you mind. - You said outflow was near 370K yet your own data shows much closer to 360K and for only 2 1/2 months. Water level wasn't nearly as high back in '86 yet they held the 340K range & higher for the last 9 1/2 months of the year and with no significant 2 month reductions as they did in '19. - You said "They're doing all they can" and "They're the highest outflows possible" yet couple hours ago it was posted that they're going to significantly higher outflow. - You refer me to IJC videos. I say there is no need to, as IMO, many of your posts are nearly verbatim of them, IMO, your drive to gain sympathy for the IMO inadequate and possibly inept policies of water control for Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence Seaway for the last 3 years, evidenced by wide lakeshore flooding and riparian damage. - You've made a number of bogus claims and then when I show you graphical facts from reputable sources, you try to spin them in your favor or side-step.

Point being that it was stated that outflows are always lowered in Dec. That's a bogus claim as shown in '86 graph where outflows were kept high most of the year and other graphs show no significant drop in Dec outflows (in fact some increase) yet the water level was nowhere near what 2017-2019 was. Another look at graphs shows they let considerable more water out at end of year in anticipation of more inflow to occur. In 96, 86, 85, 81, they were over the 300K level, and significantly over in '86. Yet in these years there wasn't nearly the high water level in Lake Ontario nor on the Ottawa River. This also shows outflow can be high with significantly less water supply. The current outflow is in a much less proportion to water level than it was in those shown years. It has been stated that they're letting out more water now, except from that in '86, for which the homeowners are grateful, however they could let out a lot more as evidenced particularly by '86. Obviously the '17-19 concern was the level of the Ottawa with very little concern over the level of Ontario or the upper lakes which we have been reminded multiple times that they are at very high levels. If the concern was the high levels in the upper lakes then that would dictate that even greater outflow would occur now. The IJC was charged by treaty to control the outflow, yet they allowed the Iroquois to be closed for those 2 high summers. It obviously wasn't closed in '86. Why closed in '17-19? easy - shipping. During high water, extra tugs are required to help the freighters maneuver. Schumer's '19 letter to the Control board asked that outflows be increased and tugs be re-instated and they said no. (tugs cost money) IJC meeting minutes show discussion of closing shipping for November & December, yet they said no as economic loss to shipping would be great. Again, too bad for homeowners and no concern whatsoever over high water on the upper lakes. It has been claimed that more water can't be let out due to water supply and surges. There is plenty of water supply (lake is high) and they wouldn't have had surges if they had kept the flow going through the Iroquois. The Niagara hasn't slowed down. Why increase outflow now? The NYSDEC is going after them in court concerning damages to the riparian areas both above & below the control structures. IJC press release was issued 2 weeks after the formal filing by the NYSAG on behalf of the NYSDEC. 20 year cycles have been claimed and that homeowners & boaters should wait two years for low water, yet planners ignored 20 year cycles on the Upper lakes. (20 year cycles began 2016-2017 for the upper lakes.) That plan was designed based on data from 2000-2012 which was a period of relative low water on the upper lakes, even though climatology experts were warning about el nino, melting icebergs and more precipitation at the time. Water will not go down to a low low level in two years as the IJC has the mandate to protect international commerce on the St Lawrence. As soon as we have a period of dry weather, they'll reduce the outflow & get the lake back up real quick. It has been claimed that winds from the SW have an effect on water level. Yes they do. Another fact that the designers ignored: The prevailing winds in the affected area are from the SW. Storms did occur in the fall & spring of the above graphed years, yet outflows were not dropped significantly due to seiche fears. Anyone remember Feb 24th 2019? Pretty strong wind. Cape Vincent water level went up tremendously and almost instantaneously. What did Seaway control do? It has been claimed that exceptions to outflow levels have been granted. (IJC &SLSCB press releases) IMO, even more reason why 2014 should be abandoned. Why debate it now? Thank you to all for the eloquent & in depth explanations on waterflow & water levels, however the reasons put forth on why the waterflow are froth with inadequacies, side stepping and unanswered questions. ( I still haven't seen an answer to Gambler's question) Tom B. (LongLine) WaveHeight6_buf.bmp

The years 2000 thru 2014 were a period where the upper lakes were consistently at fairly low historical levels. (Check out iiwh's graph previously posted) For these years, I agree that seaway control did lower the outflows in December as he stated. i.e to the 6-7K range. However if you go back to where they were not at consistently low levels, they did not lower the outflows of Lake Ontario. Specifically years, '67, 72, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86 & 96 they did not significantly lower the outflows in December. (according to what the seaway control reported to Army Corps) :(They dropped this one in Jan '78) For reference 300,000 cuft/s = 8,500cuM/s Plan 2014 was developed based on the years 2000-2014. If they had looked at any of the outflow data prior to that, they would have seen that historically the increase in outflow should begin in March (as shown above) and not a drastic dip in April-June nor begin a decrease in Sept as shown below on the 2019 outflow graph. That 2 month drop (Apr-Jun) never should of happened. Saying that outflow can't be increased because there is not enough water supply is bogus. Water level wasn't as high back in '86, yet they kept the flow pretty close to 340K from May thru December that year. As to the 20yr cycle - That's probably pretty close on the upper lakes. But it hasn't been true for Ontario. (again look at iiWh's previously posted graph for Lake O)

Tom B. (LongLine)

It's even more amazing that some believe outflow is reduced by them "Opening" them.

Outflows have increased this last week: Tom B. (LongLine)

Merry Christmas Sk8! Tom B. (LongLine)

Merry Christmas Hank. Love the pic. Tom B. (LongLine)

ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas! Tom B. (LongLine)

Nice fish. Yes, ice forms near shore first. Hope you told your friend to get off the ice...as just a couple days are all that's needed: (19th & 20th) Here's a USGS chart so you can see the years' history & you can extrapolate the above: Highest ever let out was 378K, (approx. 35-40 yrs ago) Max this year was 364K. BTW, the Ottawa was back to normal in June. Tom B. (LongLine)

Yes, the water is high. The Ottawa average was 2" higher than last year. Can we get past that now? (even though that's nothing compared to over 30" higher on Big-O) Some people want to believe tabloid clippings while others prefer reputable data/measurements. As we know which camp 2014er's are in and which I'm in, here's one of your tabloid articles from the Bay of Quinte that's kind of interesting especially what a past member of the St law' Riv' Control board says about 2014. (2014 is biased, etc....) www.inquinte.ca/story/quinte-residents-rally-against-ijc-plan-2014 Here's a blurb from the USDOT submitted by the SLSDC: www.transportation.gov/transition/slsdc-top-policy-issues " Since the IJC's December 2016 announcement of the approved Plan 2014, environmental groups and shipping industry representatives have expressed support for the new water regulation plan. The only group at this point that has expressed concerns or opposition to Plan 2014 are landowners on the south shore of Lake Ontario whose homes will likely be flooded as a result of the new plan. SUBMITTED BY: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation LAST UPDATED: January 6, 2017" IJC knew there was going to be flooding and did nothing about it as their plan caused the expanded flood plain by not handling the inflow as historically would have been. As has been mentioned many times before: why no answer to Gambler's question? (obviously due to the higher trigger levels of 2014. '58 would have opened those gates wider a lot earlier.) What is the pro-2014er answer to the question? (They beg that question an awful lot) IJC claimed they were changing the plan due to environmental concerns as pro2014r's have also claimed. Here's their fact sheet: https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/tinymce/uploaded/LOSLR/Plan2014FactSheet_EN.pdf Yet they are now being sued by the NYSDEC for damage to the Riparian area above & below the dam and around the lake. The IJC misled a lot of people with mis-information just as the 2014er's are trying to do now in justifying their brainchild. Someone once said that you can't convince someone that their position is flawed, even with mounds of reputable data because they emotionally own that position for whatever reason. So with that in mind, iiW' , even though you've posted a lot of untruths, I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, hopefully it won't be underwater. Tom B. (LongLine)

Schumer wrote a letter to the St Lawrence Development Corp back in Nov: www.nny360.com/news/stlawrencecounty/schumer-urges-seaway-officials-to-take-immediate-steps-to-deter/article_484682fa-5722-5b58-9380-0eb871717479.html They promptly pushed it over to the IJC. The Chamber of Marine Commerce in Ottawa (Bruce Burrows - representing 130 shipping interests) replied to his plea that increasing outflows would disrupt shipping. (read the article) The Develop Corp probably would lose money as for the 2019 season as they had offered a 20% discount for the 2019 season on tolls for any ships they deemed as new business and a 10% rebate for any carrier who showed "an incremental increase in freight over the past 5 years." Anyone would be hard pressed to find water level data for the Ottawa and the lakes on a US Army Corps graph. (It's bad enough when reputable data is ignored, now P-2014 supporters ignore maps too. The Ottawa is in Canada) Never the less here's Canadian data for the last 15 yrs or so on the Ottawa at Pembrooke and at Grenville: Doesn't look to me like it's changed much in either place, contrary to what has been claimed. All the other reporting gauges follow the same patterns. Tom B. (LongLine)

iiW - OMG listen to yourself. Of course water levels are cyclical! Look at the Army Corps graph you posted, which supporters of P-2014 refuse to do. They show great variation, on the high side in the last 50 years EXCEPT Ontario which shows much less variation over that same period. (except '00-'12 for all the lakes) WHY? Because the Seaway water control was doing a pretty good job! It effectively got rid of the water in Ontario! When the Seaway was constructed, the water control plan reduced the flood plain of Lake Ontario. (and did it for over 50 years) D-2014 allows that flood plain to increase as it is not getting rid of the water via higher trigger points. The IJC could have gotten rid of the water but it didn't as outflows were not increased soon enough and not kept going long enough. Yes, they don't open the gates full from the end of Dec onward, but they should have and could have from Sept thru early Dec but they DIDN"T. Up til the 1st of the year, shipping has everything to do with it. There's still a lot of ships out there and they have to move, which is the IJC's #1 priority. It was proposed at the early Nov IJC meeting that shipping should be suspended for the rest of the year but was shot down.

P-2014 did not cause the high precipitation. IJC never has had control over the clouds and winds. Just like the DPW snow plows have no control over whether snow falls from the clouds or not. However the snow plows are made ready and loaded with sand when snow is in the forecast and hit the road as soon as it hits. Then they come out again after the snow has stopped and push the banks back further in anticipation of the next snow fall. The high level of precipitation was predicted by the Canadian Gov't, NOAA and the Army Corps well before it's adoption in Jan 2017. The final version of P-2014 has a table of predicted probabilities of high water in the upper lakes & shows that at less than 10%. However if you look at the Corps graphs, which are graciously posted just a couple threads back, you can count near 40 years of the some 100 years where Superior is way up there above datum, which yields a much higher probability. (closer to 35%) If you further look at that same Army Corps graph, you can see many times where the upper lakes were way above Datum yet Ontario didn't go way above Datum in the same periods. So in effect the level control of Ontario during those times was very effective. For those 50 years prior to the adoption of P-2014, the graph of Ontario is much more consistent then any of the other lakes. It took a couple years to design P-2014 which means they probably started in 2011-2012. If you look at that Army graph for the years 2000 thru 2012, all the lakes were very low so those designers probably thought they were home free. They didn't look further back; they didn't consider that geological/meteorological events were more probable than their calculations and they certainly ignored climatologists and the highly publicized movement currently referred to as climate change. Yes, P-2014 was revised. It was revised with language changes to appease opposition. It was not changed in substance and certainly not with any thought towards the steady upward water level trends shown for 2014, 2015 & 2016 on that Army Corps graph. Yes, if you build on a flood plain, you should expect to get flooded. However for over 50 years, there was very little to worry about as the lake level was being effectively controlled, regardless of what the other lakes were doing. Not sure that Canada has laws about building so close to the lake, but am positive the geography/geology is different. Look at the contour lines on the navigation charts. In addition, cities like Rochester & Oswego have been here a very long time - before Lake level records were being kept. Beach Ave, Edgemere drive, Lake Rd were also there. Many of the houses were there prior to the 50's. No, you right, in the 50's that money wasn't spent for shoreline protection, it was spent on relocating an entire town up on the Seaway. Over 10,000 people were moved. Also in the 50's, there was no need to spend money on shoreline protection as the Seaway water control was very effective compared to previous years and much more effective than P-2014. Throughout the US and I'm sure in Canada, if you do something that negatively affects a persons property, you are liable, whether you claim you have or don't have a mandate. IMO, the IJC could have done much much more in '18 and in '19 to get that water level down, regardless of the alternative facts that P-2014 supporters present. In one post: it's frozen; in the next: it's about to freeze. Why not look at the Modis imagery and see that it's not frozen. Why not listen to the weather man who just this evening said "expect more lake effect snow fall this year due to the warmth & level of Lake Ontario." IMO, after the IJC loses the civil case, the board members that adopted that plan should be tried in criminal court. Tom B. (LongLine)

yep, yep, yep...that's a great spin. Reality is that the IJC didn't increase outflows earlier in the year until they heard the NYSDEC was contemplating a major lawsuit against them for their lack of action under P-2014 in protecting the Riparian areas both above & below the Moses-Saunders from flood damage. The posted news release is dated 3 weeks after the official filing of the lawsuit. IMO, sounds like IJC & P-2014 backers are now saying that they're trying to protect the Riparian area up North just to be able to tell the court "see, we're doing what we can." Everyone feels sorry for the farmer who has to go out & chase the cows that escaped from his barn, up until the point they realize that he was the one who negligently left the barn door open. BTW, shipping interests along the St Lawrence & in the lakes are loving it! Tom B. (LongLine)

- The water level is very high - YES! - Is it the highest ever in the upper Great lakes - NO! (Look at the Army Corps historical graphs, particularly 1966 & 1967) - Did Lake Ontario handle that high water period - YES! (Look at the above graphs) - Could the water level controllers that had been acting under P-2014 for 3 months have handled the high water of 2017 - Well, they did get the water down quite a bit thru 2018. - Could the water level controllers that had been acting under P-2014 for 24 months have handled the high water that had been forecasted by the Canadian Gov't, NOAA & the Army Corps of 2019 - YES, they could have handled it much better by opening up the system earlier i.e. in March rather than May which would have allowed more room for inflow. - Where are the lakes now - Over Dec 2018 avg: Sup: +3. Mich/Huron: +16. Erie: +3. Ontario: +11 (Look at your own chart so it's still quite high) - Did the treaty with Canada at the turn of the 20th century charter the IJC for shipping concerns on the St Lawrence River & Great Lakes: YES! (Read the treaty) - What are the priorities of the current water level controllers - 1st shipping, 3rd environment, 4th landowners & recreationalist. - Were homeowners & recreationist been hurt in last 3 years - YES (no need to elaborate on this) - Has the environment been helped in last 3 years - Erosion has been high, sewage leaks, & other pollutants have increased, invasives have thrived, preyfish populations in the open lake continue to decline, stocking plans have been cut, no evidence of healthier embayments has been brought forward other than anecdotal "dock talk." (kind of like that more rain is better for your lawn argument), the water temperature regime in the main lake has been altered as warmer water now goes out farther and deeper. - Has shipping been helped - YES, the port of Montreal is booming as more ships of bigger size have been coming in. - Can the bigger ships come in - YES, your posted specifications for water depth are obviously minimums (although source is unsubstantiated) as the current conditions in Montreal are: so obviously levels towards the main lake are higher than the unsubstantiated specifications. - Were all those alleged dams built in the last 3 years - NO - Do we have to regulate the level of the water - Heck yes! That's what we were doing. i.e keeping Ontario to a 3-4 ft range since the 50's regardless of what the other lakes were doing. So okay, I'll take my "Tin hat" off, why don't you get off your lead what-not.and present some real data that may help rather than try to rationalize a horrible situation. Tom B. (LongLine) .

No you're right the world doesn't revolve around Lake Ontario, however you're forgetting that the purpose of the US/Canada treaty of 1909 that formed the IJC is to protect shipping on the Great lakes, particularly thru the St Lawrence Seaway. Now if sections are frozen or nearly as shallow as you claim then the these ships won't keep their scheduled arrivals in Montreal as the port expects them: Especially the one whose last port was in Spain or the one from Portugal or the one whose last stop was Tangier. I'm sure that Maersk won't appreciate their bigger ships being stranded in ice and unable to get back out to the open ocean. Especially those over 35,000 tonnes, whose draft is well over 30 ft. (keyword: "Port of Montreal" then follow the left hand column headings & tabs) The IJC & the plan supporters forgot that the world, for those people living around it & using it, is Lake Ontario. The current water plan was designed to help shippers, not the environment and certainly not the people BOTH around the lake and along (both up and down) the St Lawrence. J2 - yes, and additionally, moving water requires much colder temperatures to freeze than standing water which is why a waterfall freezes AFTER the pond it feeds freezes. However Lake Ontario is not a small pond. Ice forms on Big-O at the shoreline first due to wave spray then builds outward due to the spraying effect. It's very rare for it to freeze over and when it has, it's been due to an extended calm period and a very prolonged deep freezing air temp. Most people think Big-O evenly streatifies, but it doesn't. The layers are very jagged i.e ups & downs like a mountain range.