# Great Lakes Drain



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

This; not season start dates nor SGA spinner bans is the thing duck and goose hunters should most concerned about.
___________________

Great Lakes drain
Two billion gallons per day siphoned out of lakes
ALEX DOTY
JAN 26, 2013



As the levels of the Great Lakes continue to recede, some are pointing the finger at the St. Clair River as the 
culprit.

Findings recently released by the Georgian Bay Association indicate the decline in levels in Lakes Michigan and Huron is tied to American and Canadian navigational channel dredging, river bed mining and shoreline alteration projects near Port Huron and Sarnia, Ontario.

The association's report says more than 2 billion gallons of water a day flows out of the St. Clair River &#8212; or more than 3,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. All of this water eventually ends up flowing over Niagara Falls and out to the Atlantic Ocean.

Joel Brammeier, of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, said it's important that the issue be looked at closely.

&#8220;Great Lakes water is far too precious to squander away through an increasing hole in the channel," he said.

Brammeier and other experts are calling for some type of remedial action to try and reverse the course and bring up the region's water levels. This includes underwater barriers to slow the water's velocity.

"With lake levels nearing record lows, all hands on deck should be focused on plugging a gap we've known about for years," Brammeier said.

According to Tom O&#8217;Bryan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dredging in the St. Clair River has resulted in a drop in the lakes' long-term average by about 10-16 inches. That's because, from the 1930s through the 1960s, 
the St. Clair River was dredged for commercial shipping purposes, he explained.

As a result of the dredging, the lakes are almost 2 feet lower than they would otherwise be if no action had been taken...


----------



## Kingcrapp (Jan 6, 2009)

So, what about he Soo Locks? Blame them? I'm sure others on the board have more info on this. In the late 80s we had LSC coming over the sea walls.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

This issue is just heating up. perhaps the drop in levels is something we just have to live with as a result of commercial shipping needs and our refusal to pay more than XXXX for YYYY product, you get the example. ...Andy


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

ahartz said:


> This issue is just heating up. perhaps the drop in levels is something we just have to live with as a result of commercial shipping needs and our refusal to pay more than XXXX for YYYY product, you get the example. ...Andy


Agreed Andy. And even though our Governor talks a big story about the lower lake levels, and he says he's concerned for the marinas and recreational boaters, don't be fooled...his main concern is economics and $$$. He's never going to tell the major shipping industry lobbyists that they'll just have to carry less cargo, and in turn, make less money. Nope, he'll figure something out, but it's not to please boaters like you and I.

I say we introduce a huge colony of beavers, like 10,000 of 'em, at Algonac, and let 'em do their thing for a year or two :lol: Mother nature will overcome man, and the politics of man, in no time


----------



## stackemup (Oct 31, 2011)

I say we introduce a huge colony of beavers, like 10,000 of 'em, at Algonac, and let 'em do their thing for a year or two :lol: Mother nature will overcome man, and the politics of man, in no time [/QUOTE]

That would also solve his new idea of another bridge to Canada. We may have to plant a ****ton of materials for dam building though:evilsmile


----------



## idylmoments (Apr 28, 2002)

I just wrote my congresswoman concerning this because they are voting on a bill to distribute money for dredging. The newsletter makes it sound like the dredging will just be harbors and marina's but also added is "for navigation". Which means shipping channels. 
So we're going to dredge and make the problem even worse down the road. No common sense.


----------



## skycarp10 (Oct 14, 2012)

No ice cover = loss of water. Ice cover has been the most accurate predictor of water levels over the past 50 years.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 28, 2000)

...are a big part of our water loss here too. Go ahead laugh...
google great lakes water being sold...


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

skycarp10 said:


> No ice cover = loss of water. Ice cover has been the most accurate predictor of water levels over the past 50 years.


Definitely part of the equation. And another is the fact our snowfall in recent years has been predominantly "lake effect". in other words, it's taking moisture out of the same watershed, and dumping right back down, so that there's no net gain in ground water. For the southern lower, what would really help is a few hellacious snowstorms to come at us from the SW, like southern Illinois, Kansas, etc., and bring a bunch of snow with it.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

TNL said:


> According to Tom OBryan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dredging in the St. Clair River has resulted in a drop in the lakes' long-term average by about 10-16 inches. That's because, from the 1930s through the 1960s,
> the St. Clair River was dredged for commercial shipping purposes, he explained.
> 
> As a result of the dredging, the lakes are almost 2 feet lower than they would otherwise be if no action had been taken...


I thought this was interesting because someone from the Corps actually admitted what is happening. It's surely more than this amount,  but at least it's an admission. Now if we can reverse this man-made faucet...


----------



## Kingcrapp (Jan 6, 2009)

What about snow fall in theOntario basin. That's where most of the Great Lakes water comes from. I'm struggling with the river lowering the levels. What about the Detroit River?


----------



## idylmoments (Apr 28, 2002)

Low rain/snowfall and no ice lead to temporary lower water levels. And temporary can mean 10 years or more. Continually dredging deeper shipping channels leads to long term lower levels. One of many factors, but probably the biggest. Other factors being water siphoned off thru areas like the Chicago shipping canal.
Also speeding up the flow of the water going down the St Clair River by channeling and driving steel breakwalls has added to the lowering of the lake. At least we are starting to address that issue. There are two local projects, one in Port Huron and one in Marysville, where they are trying to restore the shoreline to a more natural state. Using riprap of rocks and stumps vs. seawall to protect the shoreline.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

bigmac said:


> ...are a big part of our water loss here too. Go ahead laugh...
> google great lakes water being sold...


No offense man, but please honor your teacher by doing A LOT more reading on the subject. Is Nestle selling water from the Great Lakes Basin? yes- just like the 1,000,000 or so other companies/industries in the Great Lakes that incorporate water into a product for sale. Just because Nestle (and the other 76 water bottling companies in Michigan) sells the water straight does not make it any worse or more consumptive than baby food, beer, wine, fruit juice, soft drinks, agricultural produce, etc. etc. etc.

The amount of water any large industry uses is publically available information. I have done the research, so please read this, but if you don't believe me do the research yourself.

Amount of water Nestle sold outside of the Great Lakes basin in 2010:
218,628,760 gallons

Amount of water consumed (meaning lost) from the Great Lakes basin by all industries in 2010:
1,164,210,000,000 gallons

So yes, nestle is responsible for 0.00019 % of the water being "sold" and lost from the Great Lakes. Which by the way, is about 0.000000036 % of the volume of the Great Lakes.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Duke said:


> No offense man, but please honor your teacher by doing A LOT more reading on the subject. Is Nestle selling water from the Great Lakes Basin? yes- just like the 1,000,000 or so other companies/industries in the Great Lakes that incorporate water into a product for sale. Just because Nestle (and the other 76 water bottling companies in Michigan) sells the water straight does not make it any worse or more consumptive than baby food, beer, wine, fruit juice, soft drinks, agricultural produce, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The amount of water any large industry uses is publically available information. I have done the research, so please read this, but if you don't believe me do the research yourself.
> 
> ...


I have a close friend who was a big player in the lawsuit in Mecosta County because his property abuts the waterway _*allegedly*_ being affected. Even he admits (although not publicly) that it's done no harm to the local water table, the streams/rivers, or lakes. The lawsuit was largely symbolic, based on general principle. That's all I'll say about that for fear of starting another 40 page, never-ending thread :yikes:


----------



## bigmac (Nov 28, 2000)

Duke- So, Nestle's is in part responsible for lost water. Thank you for clarifying that for me. You showed much more info than I even heard. I was reading the goofy Jesse Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" posts. You did a way better job of showing they ARE taking water from the Great Lakes! Can you find some info about China Hi-Jacking the water too? No offense taken...


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

One would think that there would be some sort of ripping current going across Lake Erie were this actually the case?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Hey Duke...any idea how much water the City of Detroit sucks annually out of Lake Huron through the intake north of Port Huron? Or the intake near Augres? Guessing those take much more than what Nestle takes out of the Mecosta County ground water, and those have been doing it since the 70's. 

I think his point was that many entities suck water out of the great lakes region for various reasons and it's not having a significant impact.


----------



## idylmoments (Apr 28, 2002)

In theory Detroit and the cities that suck water out put it back in thru the sewers, ditches, and water treatment plants in the same watershed. No net loss.
When a bottling company sucks the water up, they ship it everywhere.


----------



## Water_Hazard (Aug 16, 2006)

skycarp10 said:


> No ice cover = loss of water. Ice cover has been the most accurate predictor of water levels over the past 50 years.


As far as evaporation, how much of a difference would man-made ponds make. I wonder how many acres of new ponds, gravel pits, sand pits... are in Michigan compared to 10 years ago.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

idylmoments said:


> In theory Detroit and the cities that suck water out put it back in thru the sewers, ditches, and water treatment plants in the same watershed. No net loss.
> When a bottling company sucks the water up, they ship it everywhere.


Yep, in theory. That was part of the argument in the Mecosta County case. But along Duke's thought...many entities use water, and many are shipped out. I think his stats were meant to show that this isn't a huge contributing factor.


----------

