sign the petition to fight the IJC's plan

[Bayrat]

SOS (Save our Sodus) is circulating a petition to fight the IJC's proposal to change Lake Ontario water levels.

Here is the link, or go to the Save Our Sodus website for more information, including the time and date of a very important meeting in Williamson coming up regarding these potential changes to Lake Ontario's levels. Thanks!

http://www.change.org/petitions/petitio ... t+Plan+BV7

[GAMBLER]

I signed it. The lake levels should be left the way they have been the past decade. They have a hard enough time keeping the levels regualted now, I could not imagine what would happen in an extreme rain event like last May when the lake is already running way above average in this new plan.

[Tall Tails]

Please correct me if I am wrong because i am just looking at this the last week or so but all BV7 does is keep the water at its normal level earlier and a bit later in the season. Which to me means a longer boating season. So for instance the water will come up a little earlier and stay up a little longer. It by no means increases the level over "normal levels". Save the River is all for this plan but organizations like Save Sodus is against it. Please explain your position. Like I said I am trying to educate myself on this issue not start a war. Simply "fact" finding is all.

[GAMBLER]

The newest proposal wants to run the lake 18" above the high and 18" below the low on different years. the owner of the marina I keep my boat at was talking about it. 18" above the High would put his docks entirely under water .

[Tall Tails]

Does anybody have a link to the actual proposal?

Thanks

[Misty IV]

My neighbor at the lake and I have been watching this very closely. I will get the actual link from him later today and post it. The other concern here is that ALL the properties along the lakeshore have designed and built their buildings, homes, marinas, etc., around the 1958 plan. A change to the new plan would have those massive waves we see during a gale-force storm coming over break walls, stone rip-rap and literally destroying properties. Preliminary estimates are in the billions EACH year!! We had waves hitting our break wall earlier this spring, and that was with the lake level being down. Imagine raising that level - the water will be in our living rooms, showrooms, parking lots, etc. But, I will get the link and links to additional information this evening and post them here.

[ Post made via Android ]

[GAMBLER]

Does anybody have a link to the actual proposal?

Thanks

I will send you some info from my wifes boss in a PM. He is on a commitee for the lake levels in Greece.

[LongLine]

Back in the 70's hurricane Agnes hit NY & Big-O. I remember it well as quite a few houses that were on the East side of Port Bay sandbar were lifted off their foundations by the first freeze from the spray of large waves & then came crashing down.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[Misty IV]

Back in the 70's hurricane Agnes hit NY & Big-O. I remember it well as quite a few houses that were on the East side of Port Bay sandbar were lifted off their foundations by the first freeze from the spray of large waves & then came crashing down.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

I believe that same storm was the one that destroyed the sand dunes at Sandy Pond, as well, at the Jefferson & Oswego County lines.

[TOP SECRET]

Guys help me out here... in Wilson there are all of these boat houses that look like the water level 50 years ago when they were built was probably 10ft higher? Did the water level used to be much higher on average and get lowered at some point? I for one would love a bit more water under me in my dock and my prop would really love the water level to stay a bit higher longer in the fall, once they lower the lake I'm sitting in mud and rocks But I don't know much about this proposal so I can't say yay or nay.

Nick

[Misty IV]

I contacted my neighbor and these are the links he provided. LORA has some of the best information available on the impacts of BV7.

http://www.loranet.org/

http://www.STOPplanBV7.com

One thing to keep in mind is that the increased average level of the Lake means that all those streams, creeks, and even river mouths will need active, annual dredging to REMAIN NAVIGABLE. The individuals pushing BV7 (ie. politicians) DON'T CARE and/or ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THIS BASIC THREAT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMIES AND LIVELIHOODS. They live nowhere near the lake and have absolutely NO idea what they are proposing on us, let alone the impending damage to the shoreline and communities should BV7 go through. All they see is a "boost" to their political career.

The Leveler/LORA group out around Rochester is the best disseminator of "untainted", sober, anti-BV7 info. Congresswoman Buerkle IS THE ONLY POLITICIAN THAT IS NOT ON THE FENCE RIGHT NOW, OR FOR BV7 OUTRIGHT. BOTH should be contacted by all of us. Buerkle is fighting for her political life and is THE ONLY ONE on our side so far. SHE needs our support.

Mexico Bay used to have 100-200 feet of gently sloping "sandy" beach before 1958DD's effects manifested themselves. My family and at least 60 others, have been on our stretch of the shore since the 1920's; i.e. long before development of the St. Lawrence system. Point being that the shoreline WAS BROUGHT TO US, and hundreds of other properties, business and private, by 1958DD. I wasn't around yet for that change of shoreline and my aunts and uncles only remember the battles to save structures through a child's eyes.

The "transparency" deficiency comes about because of complexity of these issues and lack of "layman's" terms being out there. The media has not been out front thus far, except on the St. Lawrence where the priorities are decidedly very different. Unfortunately apathy, and the "head-in-the-sand" strategy/attitude of many stakeholders compounds the lack of "public education" out there, and blunts any impact we can have on the debate.

Essentially the River people DO NOT have to adapt and repair property due to storm surges coming across the 180 mile fetch of the Lake. All man-made defenses, and natural, have developed over time in response to the existing 1958DD. ANY increase in the "storage" of water on Lake Ontario effects us directly, and the regular exceeding of the current 247.3 ft. level (upper limit) during the Spring storm season has been particularly destructive/damaging to our stretch of shore.

What we've seen over the last 30 years has been a regular pattern of the Spring freshet being trapped in the marsh areas inland from the shore. The "trapping" has been done by storm surges pushing cobble and debris into the majority of outlets to the Lake. The "mechanix" of the flushing going on along the Eastern Shore, at least Mexico Bay, is different than what the River deals with. Flooding/high water from the inland/backside of our properties definitely contributes to the mix of problems we face. Blowouts do occur, but the vast majority are caused by manual opening of seasonal barriers; technically not legal (NYSDEC) without permission.

The impression many of us have is that the IJC/Frank Bevacqua COMPLETELY minimize or discount the effect(s) of storm surges on top of their "average" Lake level increases. IJC doctrine/attitude was exemplified last month when Congresswoman Buerkle asked Frank Bevacqua who was representing our stakeholder group; his response, "No one". This simple answer says it all from my viewpoint. Not only as taxpaying citizens are we not "at the table", realistically we have been thrown under the bus. The key presently, is the March thru May period of natural runoff/inflow and "manipulations" of the River dams. We are always in the top of, or over the 1958DD range for the worst weather on the Lake each year. Putting regular 4-8 foot storm waves on top of Lake levels, present and future is very discouraging.

Further compounding this entire issue is the LACK of Constitutionally (USA & NY) guaranteed protections for personal/private property. There are NO provisions for meaningful Mitigation, nor ANY Compensation monies planned for. There are 100's of properties vulnerable to proposed changes, and the effects personally, Town & County (assessments & tax revenues), and on leisure industry (boating, sports fishing access), will be locally crushing. There are no provisions for increased, regular dredging of outlets to the Lake either.

I obtained a good amount of this information from my neighbor at the lake who also resides in Oswego. He has been attending many of the meetings, including managing to get into meetings that were supposed to be "hush-hush" to the public. Imagine the IJC's suprise when a secret meeting was suddenly flooded by citizens asking questions and demanding answers.

Below is the Public Information Session Schedule:

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Cornwall, Ontario

7:30 PM

Ontario Power Generation Visitors Centre

2500B Second Street West

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Montréal, Québec

7:00 PM

Jardin Botanique de Montréal, Auditorium

4101, rue Sherbrooke Est

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Sorel Tracy, Québec

7:00 PM

Auberge de la Rive

465 chemin de la Rive

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Hamilton, Ontario

7:00 PM

Royal Botanical Gardens, Auditorium B

680 Plains Road West

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Belleville, Ontario

7:00 PM

The Banquet Centre, Emerald Room

1 Alhambra Square

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Kingston, Ontario

7:00 PM

City Hall, Memorial Hall

216 Ontario Street

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Massena, New York

7:00 PM

Louisville Volunteer Fire Department

14818 State Highway 37

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Clayton, New York

7:00 PM

Clayton Opera House

405 Riverside Drive

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Oswego, New York

7:00 PM

Campus Center Auditorium

SUNY Oswego, 7060 Route 104

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Olcott, New York

7:00 PM

Olcott Fire Company

1691 Lockport-Olcott Road

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Hilton, New York

7:00 PM

Quest Elementary School Auditorium

225 West Avenue

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Williamson, New York

7:00 PM

Williamson High School Auditorium

5891 Route 21

[Chas0218]

Where we are on the lake 18" higher right now would bring up the water to about where it should be. We have to push our dock so far into the we walk a good 10' out from shore just to get to the end. The cradle for my boat needs a nother section just to get my boat far enough into the water.

[GAMBLER]

Where we are on the lake 18" higher right now would bring up the water to about where it should be. We have to push our dock so far into the we walk a good 10' out from shore just to get to the end. The cradle for my boat needs a nother section just to get my boat far enough into the water.

It would be 18" above the High which would not be good for any port / marina.

[Misty IV]

A big misconception I am seeing is how people interpret the 18" higher level. This does NOT mean the water will be 18" further up the beach or boat ramps. It means 18" vertically higher than the lake sits now. This may, from a visual standpoint, not seem like a huge deal, but take that new height and follow the line horizontally to the shore. This is where the water will be on a CALM day. Add in gale-force 50+ mph winds and those 5+ foot waves rolling in and you quickly see the concern of catastrophic property damage happening. Earlier this spring, we had waves rolling in during a major storm and were hitting our storm wall - something we very rarely see. If the lake were 18" higher, those waves would be crashing on my front lawn and water would flow through my living room, kitchen and out the back door. The same storm this spring had waves going OVER the rip-rap barrier at the Salmon River inlet

[ Post made via Android ]

[GAMBLER]

The way it was explained to me (by my wifes boss) It will be 18" above the Normal high for the season.

[Misty IV]

The way it was explained to me (by my wifes boss) It will be 18" above the Normal high for the season.

That is correct.

[ Post made via Android ]

[GAMBLER]

The 18" below the low would really flup up Braddocks bay for ice fishing! It is only 2.5 ft deep in the winter at the low.

[Misty IV]

If you go to the LORA website, one of the pictures shows a group of people standing in the inlet to Sodus Bay in the early 1900's when the water levels were allowed to fluctuate. There is NO water in the inlet and the base of Sodus light is clearly visible.

[ Post made via Android ]

[LongLine]

This is the average annual water level for Lake Ontario since way back in the 1800’s:

Remember this is an average. High water is typically in June & low water in Dec/Jan. The variation during these periods can be 3 ft - VERTICAL. i.e 3 ft lower in Dec/Jan than it was back in June.

The variation from yr to yr has definitely been reduced since they started controlling the outflow.

Also remember that a good westerly gale can raise the east end a good 2 ft above the rest of the lake and lower the east end the same amount. (Which we typically have twice a year)

I seriously doubt whether that "raise the lake 18in vertically" prediction is accurate as that would take it higher than it's ever been. The scale on the RHS is in feet.

As I understand the DEC proposal, they want to allow a little greater natural variation than we've seen in the last 10-15 yrs to help "cleanse" the wetlands.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[LongLine]

Sorry guys I just went thru the sites posted and this one:

http://www.ijc.org/loslr/en/solution/

They're talking 2 1/2" higher in April and 2" higher in October, nowhere near 18" overall level. The water level is still regulated. It's not going back to the unregulated era.

I agree that storms can cause a lot of damage, but come on...2" on top of 14-17 ft waves??? i would think that any house that survived the 70-90's high water eras and those storms will also survive this.

I would think that Sodus especially would favor this proposal as it looks like it might help do something with that blue algea problem that has creeped up on them in the last couple years.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[Tall Tails]

They're talking 2 1/2" higher in April and 2" higher in October, nowhere near 18" overall level. The water level is still regulated. It's not going back to the unregulated era.

We had a presentation at our ELOSTA meeting recently and that 2.5 in of water is what Save the River is saying. Can anybody find it in writing about the 18in increase. That is one of the reasons I posted this question in the thread as I am trying to educate myself on this.

[GAMBLER]

Let me try to get the proposal from my wifes boss that talks about the 18" ordeal.

[wb13646]

Get informed. Stop the rumors and misinformation.

Go to http://www.ijc.org/loslr/en/solution. Scroll down to "A New Regulation Plan" and listen to presentation explaining BV7.

You can also check out http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/greatlakes/policy/why-plan-bv7-works.xml. Some benefits of BV7.

[GAMBLER]

Here is a chart from my wifes boss on the BV7 plan. It shows the comparison to last season and the high is Approx. 9" over last years high. look at the peak difference. It is .72' which is approx 9". Remember how high the water was last season? The water was over the breakwalls in spots in the marina I slip my boat in. The water was also touching the bottom of the docks. http://www.ijc.org/loslr/en/library/wat ... o_2011.pdf

[Tall Tails]

I still haven't seen the data that says they will raise the water 18in. They are raising it to "mean" water depth earlier and later. There is a tremendous amount of inaccurate data floating around on this issue. You need to look at the entire chart Longline posted not just a yr or 2.

[ Post made via Android ]