Heffley to Host Committee Hearing to Discuss Francis E. Walter Dam Reevaluation Study

DEP is nyc. DEC is nys. NYC DEP controls nyc water supply, not DEC. It is very confusing.
 
Chrome

ACOE and DRBC had a previous agreement to store water in FEW for drought mitigation releases. I think 2002 was the last time the agreement was executed.

That is how I know.
 
Did they talk about the pool size above FEW? I drove to the dam in the fall and it was seriously low. The dumping releases are a concern, I would think, if drought easing is to be addressed.
 
BH,

I'm not 100% sure but I believe part of the proposal being discussed is to raise the pool from 1370 to 1390 for the warmer part of the year

Speaking of which, when does the march from 1300 to 1370 begin? I thought it was first day of spring? Surprised they haven't wanted to take advangtage of the higher flows and fill that thing up now but i know there are rules about when to start, etc
 
The 'word' from the Corps for the reason why storage did not begin earlier in March is due to gate work that needed to be done. Therefore the Corps did not want to go higher than 1,300' for any length of time. I think they are now done so the fisheries releases of 400cfs should start this weekend and during the week I would imagine they will start to skim water (release less than inflow) in order to build pool to the summer level of 1,370' by May 1.
 
I was wondering what the deal with the fishing releases was, i assumed that hydrologic conditions canceled them but wasn't sure. I wonder if there are any plans to reschedule those releases since we missed out on a couple.
 
when I saw notice of this study/meeting, I immediately had a paranoid thought that NYDEP just wants to release less water from the Upper D reservoirs - and this is a way of doing that. is it just me, or do others see a possible ulterior motive here? or am I missing something altogether? albeit, I only have passing knowledge of the agreements in place with NYDEP, the BRBC, the state, etc.
 
Pratt, just by reading the thread you can see you aren't the only one who is skeptical!!

Glenside, eh? I was born and raised, how old are you?
 
timmyt2 wrote:
Pratt, just by reading the thread you can see you aren't the only one who is skeptical!!

Glenside, eh? I was born and raised, how old are you?
Click to expand...


^ Yup, it could be a good thing, but as the old Russian proverb goes "Doveryai, no proveryai" ("trust be verify").
 
It is strange and ironic that the debate seems to be about how to save and store more water in an impoundment that wastes a lot of water downstream on the regular. Not knocking anyone or their choice of recreation with this comment moreso a commentary on the strange ironies life brings our way sometimes
 
I completely understand the apprehension to this study... BUT, this study is exactly what needs to be done (first step) in the long process that moves at glacial speed that could potentially greatly upgrading the infrastructure at FEW. By this I mean a selective withdrawl capability. That is litterally the first item mentioned by the Corps and the one item the Lehgih Coldwater Fishery Alliance has been focused on for the 15 years they've been a non profit. Lets just see where it goes.

Then at that point we can beat the dead horse again.... :)


 
That would be the ideal scenario for all parties vc, it really would. I'm hopeful!

Speaking of the river we all love, any of you guys been out fishing yet? I have not yet this year and i am super excited to get up there this weekend or next, been WAY too long for me
 
lol, "potentially greatly upgrading the infrastructure" - remember what that did for Upper Delaware System when the new outflow valves on Cannonsville were installed in the mid 1990s? It created the ability to shut the West Branch down to a complete trickle flow of under 50 cfs very quickly. It was sold to everyone as being great for the maintaining the flows and fishery though.
 
Still doesn't look like they are raising the level
 
Timmy,

Go onto the FEW FB page. there is a full explanation. The Corps is still doing maintenance on the gates, but it looks like that is finishing up. They are planning on having the fishing release this weekend (as of now) and that will throttle back the release to 400 CFS. Inflow is around 1300 CFS.
 
timmyt2 wrote:
Still doesn't look like they are raising the level
Click to expand...

True ^

They ruled the option of raising the height of the dam out.

Here is an article covering the info from meeting >


https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/2021/03/army-corps-rules-out-building-lehigh-river-dam-higher-in-climate-change-battle.html
 
TimmyT - when you mentioned raising the level in the post above I thought you were commenting on the fact the Corps has yet to start storing water for this year at Walter? This weekend looks like they finally will cut the water back to 400cfs and begin to store. It appears they are finally done all the gate work and can now allow storage that encroaches into flood storage.

As far a comparing Cannonsville to FEW... I could not think of a more apples to oranges comparison. Really? One is for drinking water and the is meant for flood control and recreation. I mean if reservoir water at Cannonsville is not lapping up against the dam breast and spilling over the reservoir it is not doing its job. Of course NYC would want to install gates that can throttle back water to 0 cfs. I don't care how they sold it... it is obviously they would want more 'dialed in' release capabilities.

Anyway, its a complete apples to oranges comparison between two projects that have two completely different dedicated purposes when you consider one has a purpose of drinking water and other has multiple purposes like recreation and flood control.

 
vcregular wrote:
TimmyT - when you mentioned raising the level in the post above I thought you were commenting on the fact the Corps has yet to start storing water for this year at Walter? This weekend looks like they finally will cut the water back to 400cfs and begin to store. It appears they are finally done all the gate work and can now allow storage that encroaches into flood storage.

As far a comparing Cannonsville to FEW... I could not think of a more apples to oranges comparison. Really? One is for drinking water and the is meant for flood control and recreation. I mean if reservoir water at Cannonsville is not lapping up against the dam breast and spilling over the reservoir it is not doing its job. Of course NYC would want to install gates that can throttle back water to 0 cfs. I don't care how they sold it... it is obviously they would want more 'dialed in' release capabilities.

Anyway, its a complete apples to oranges comparison between two projects that have two completely different dedicated purposes when you consider one has a purpose of drinking water and other has multiple purposes like recreation and flood control.
Click to expand...

Drinking water is in the equation since the main purpose of the study is to have the FEW be possibly used to mitigate the level to prevent the salt line from reaching the drinking water supplying Philadelphia and New Jersey. Instead of NYC being required to increase flows during a low water period to meet the requirements of flow on the Delaware, the FEW water would be used to supplement the Cannonsville / Pepacton releases. That's why NYC put up a million dollars for the study. I'm not saying the whole idea is bad, I'm just tying to make clear to the readers what the facts are about why the study is being conducted and what the possible results may be.
 
VC,

Yes you are correct i was referring to raising the level for this year. I see right after i posted it looks like they cut the flow to 250 so I assume it has begun! I don't facebook so i miss out on some info there if I don't go on and look using my wifes acct

Sunday is my only shot this weekend maybe it wont rain as predicted

After reading the article afish posted i have a question, is modifying the current dam to increase the capacity from 1370 to 1390 still on the table? Seems like there were 2 possible scenarios that involved raising the level, one involved major dam construction and has been nixed, the other is modifying the current setup and storing 1390 instead of 1370? Is this correct or were these one in the same?

Thanks!
 
Instead of NYC being required to increase flows during a low water period to meet the requirements of flow on the Delaware, the FEW water would be used to supplement the Cannonsville / Pepacton releases.

Correct Afish... but is the montague target going away?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top