Lake Martin Topics: Question for Mythbuster
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,230 messages
Updated 10/1/2024 3:25:28 AM
Lakes Online Forum
84,005 messages
Updated 10/7/2024 5:02:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,204 messages
Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,171 messages
Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,979 messages
Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MythBuster
-
|
Subject:
|
Question for Mythbuster
|
Date:
|
6/21/2007 12:19:42 AM
|
|
Obviously, the safe answer to YOUR question is "about one foot below full pool." However, given the way things are right now, you would have to consider the mindset of the powers-that-be when they looked at lake levels, lake sizes, etc. and saw these two things: 1-- that the rivers downstream from Lake Martin were in dire need of water, and 2-- that Lake Martin was just about full of water that could be used downstream.
So I would guess-- and I stress the word guess-- that Lake Martin would not be nearly as full as most people think it would had the winter drop been six feet less, because I think a lot of the water conserved this winter would have been used for downstream purposes this spring. Exactly what the current level would be, though, I don't know, since I don't know exactly how much of the "extra six feet" they would have used.
However... THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, AND SO THE ANSWER I GAVE DID NOT CONSIDER FACTORS LIKE HIGHER WINTER LEVELS.
|
|