water level

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Senter Cove Guy

I'd really like the State of NH to try keeping Lake Winnipesaukee at or near full lake until Labor Day and then start draining it down instead of starting to drain in July. My dock, my boat and my back would like it a lot. If after a year of trying it and starting draining the day after Labor Day becomes a problem, then revise. What harm?

I do not know the optimal water level overall, and I enjoy seeing the water high. But one big advantage of a lower lake level is that less soil washes into the water from wave effects and rain, and that reduces the amount of phosphorous in the water, thus promoting clearer water.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I do not know the optimal water level overall, and I enjoy seeing the water high. But one big advantage of a lower lake level is that less soil washes into the water from wave effects and rain, and that reduces the amount of phosphorous in the water, thus promoting clearer water.

Fair point. Over a few hundred years, of course, the shore is lined with granite, not grass. Over only 100 years, we now have trees where the shore was once clear cut and sheep grazed. What do you think washed into the water then? I think we're going to see more shorefront that qualifies as "Lakesmart" certified as we go forward. Plant blueberry sod, not grass.

[Gatto Nero]

Can anyone point me to a chart that shows lake level going back 40 or 50 years? So far I can only find one that goes back to 2016.

[Bear Guy]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

Can anyone point me to a chart that shows lake level going back 40 or 50 years?

I see historical data, online at DES, going back to 2010 (link below). I have this graph I snagged from Bizer's site a few years back, that goes back to 1984.


https://www4.des.state.nh.us/rivertr...ch/Search.html [use location LK WINNIPESAUKEE @WEIRS], and you can plot it vs time.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Bear Guy

I see historical data, online at DES, going back to 2010 (link below). I have this graph I snagged from Bizer's site a few years back, that goes back to 1984. ...

The interesting thing to remember about this graph is that the high water in 2005 and 2006 were associated with single "100 year storm" events; yeah 2 years in a row. Low water problems are usually associated with droughts. In 2005 and 2006 the whole NH watershed was flooded. I lived along the Merrimack river and the water level in Nashua was touching the bottom of some bridges that are normally 20 - 30 feet above the water.

In general, the folks that control the dam do a pretty "dam" good job. It is the weather, long and short term, that messes things up. When water levels are dropping normally through the summer and the dam outflow is adjusted accordingly, there is no way to know that 2 months later we will be in drought conditions. There is no magic reservoir of water to fill the lake back up. In 2005 & 2006 we got so much rain that the lake level jumped over 2 FEET. How do you plan for that? How do you get rid of the water when everything downstream is already flooded?

If you look at the graph from the quoted post and go to Bizer for the current one, you see most years follow other year's patterns closely. Considering what they are trying to work with, that's amazing.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The interesting thing to remember about this graph is that the high water in 2005 and 2006 were associated with single "100 year storm" events; yeah 2 years in a row. Low water problems are usually associated with droughts. In 2005 and 2006 the whole NH watershed was flooded. I lived along the Merrimack river and the water level in Nashua was touching the bottom of some bridges that are normally 20 - 30 feet above the water.

In general, the folks that control the dam do a pretty "dam" good job. It is the weather, long and short term, that messes things up. When water levels are dropping normally through the summer and the dam outflow is adjusted accordingly, there is no way to know that 2 months later we will be in drought conditions. There is no magic reservoir of water to fill the lake back up. In 2005 & 2006 we got so much rain that the lake level jumped over 2 FEET. How do you plan for that? How do you get rid of the water when everything downstream is already flooded?

If you look at the graph from the quoted post and go to Bizer for the current one, you see most years follow other year's patterns closely. Considering what they are trying to work with, that's amazing.

Ok, agreeing with your notion that we really cannot predict the weather impacts 2 months out, someone needs to decide what is the lessor of 2 evils (too much water in the lake/too little water in the lake) and it appears that that decision is a potential for too much is the concern we will go with.

I feel certain that is because home owners want to build inside the flood zones, and insurance company's and officials who deal with flood/safety want to avoid problems with the people who have put themselves in harms way.

Just look at the ocean front home homes that get destroyed every year, and emergency responders expend tremendous amounts of time and effort and suffer great risk because of these homes. And in the end, we all pay to rebuild those homes with our increased insurance rates.

So long as people want to live that close to the water, and do so in expensive homes; where there are controls to limit water level they will be set on the conservative side. And if there are late season droughts, it is the boaters that will have to endure it. I seriously doubt there will ever be any change in this model. In the end its about the money, and homes, and emergency services, and lives in danger all cost more then damage to boats.

Well that how it appears to me.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Long range forecast shows rain Wed. through Sat., then more Monday, 5/3. We hope that materializes and improves the lake levels.

[Lakegeezer]

As of this morning, the lake is within 3.5 inches of full and just below normal for this time of year. As others pointed out, a full lake means a full dose of shoreline erosion and nutrients. The full lake height designation is biased towards economic value of the lake over lake water quality. "Full" is an artificial number and was set before the rise of high displacement boats. The number is a bit short sighted, IMHO, and should be revisited. 504.00 would be a better compromise, pretty much where it is today. Many with shoreline property and interest in lake quality cringe when the lake is full during boating season. Being full this time of year, when the chance for spring rain is high, risks an overfull condition and episodic damage if a no-wake declaration is not made. We can have stable water quality, a full lake and heavy boat traffic, but not all three. Which two would you choose?

[TiltonBB]

I appreciate your point of view.

However, if you look at previous years and past threads you will see concern when the lake level gets low. Many people cannot utilize their docks because of insufficient depth.

I know people who have had to take their boat out in September because the lake starts to get too low. I have friends who have a 60 foot long dock because the water is too shallow and you are allowed to get to 3 feet of depth and then have room for a 20 to 25 foot boat at your dock.

The people who really like a low water level are the marinas who do repair work and the propeller repair shops like H&H Propeller.

If you do not want fast boats, loud boats, or big boats, perhaps you have come to the wrong lake? It is sort of like moving to New Hampshire because you like it and then trying to make it like the state you came from.

[MAXUM]

It's much better to have a low water level so that the lake can be contaminated with oil from all the smashed outdrives and litter the lake bottom with bits and pieces of smashed boat parts but the shore will be pristine. Perfect!

By the way today is probably the 5th day since the beginning of April where three has been a strong wind blowing up 3+ foot rollers out there on the lake. Don't worry though because these are naturally occurring waves they don't do any erosion damage to the shore.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

It's much better to have a low water level so that the lake can be contaminated with oil from all the smashed outdrives and litter the lake bottom with bits and pieces of smashed boat parts but the shore will be pristine. Perfect!

By the way today is probably the 5th day since the beginning of April where three has been a strong wind blowing up 3+ foot rollers out there on the lake. Don't worry though because these are naturally occurring waves they don't do any erosion damage to the shore.

I can count at least 5 extreme wind days on paugus bay in the last 2 weeks and 4 or so others constant 10 mph winds sustained. Crushing our beach and eroding behind our rock break wall on the beach. Not to mention all the sand that has been pushed up on the lawn and house, above the retaining wall off used to contain the sand below it. The surge a day like today produces crushes the shore line more than anything else out there

[ApS]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I appreciate your point of view.
However, if you look at previous years and past threads you will see concern when the lake level gets low. Many people cannot utilize their docks because of insufficient depth. I know people who have had to take their boat out in September because the lake starts to get too low. I have friends who have a 60 foot long dock because the water is too shallow and you are allowed to get to 3 feet of depth and then have room for a 20 to 25 foot boat at your dock. The people who really like a low water level are the marinas who do repair work and the propeller repair shops like H&H Propeller.

If you do not want fast boats, loud boats, or big boats, perhaps you have come to the wrong lake? It is sort of like moving to New Hampshire because you like it and then trying to make it like the state you came from.

For those of us who have been here since birth, you've got it exactly backwards!