The Erosion Control Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Erosion Control Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Ninety-Eight Percent Gone
  2. Two Weeks to StormCon
  3. Fighting Invasive Species of Another Sort
  4. Sacrificial Filtering
  5. China Landslides
  6. No Compensation for Beachfront Owners
  7. Sand and Oil
  8. Assessing the Effects of Oil
  9. Certifiable
  10. Clues in Sediment - and Oysters
  11. Tracking the Spill
  12. Louisiana's Wetlands
  13. Nobody's Home
  14. Saving Hitchcock Woods
  15. Dredging Up the Past
  16. Landslides
  17. Extreme Measures to Stop Flooding
  18. East Coast Flooding
  19. Well Done, Fargo
  20. Urban Logging
  21. A Large-Scale DIY Project
  22. Reconfiguring the Beach
  23. A Tiny Impediment to Shoreline Revetment
  24. Tougher Laws for Hillside Development
  25. Putting It All Back
  26. Building Beaches
  27. Moving Mountains
  28. Federal Standards for Florida A Precedent
  29. We Can't Even Go Back There
  30. What to Do About the Asian Carp
  31. Take a Few Minutes to Fill Out This Survey
  32. Lines in the Sand, Again
  33. Explaining What We Do
  34. EPA Issues Final Construction Site Guidelines
  35. Solving a Water Mystery in Bangladesh
  36. El Salvador Mudslides
  37. Trouble at Smuggler's Gulch
  38. Mud Follows Fire
  39. All Downhill From Here
  40. Support for Removing Dams
  41. LID Competition
  42. Finding Promise in Sediment
  43. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  44. More Stringent Mining Reviews
  45. Addressing Compost Questions
  46. Im Insulted
  47. Debating the Salt Cedar Beetle
  48. Join Us at StormCon '09 in Anaheim
  49. Tapping Opportunities
  50. Deforestation
  51. The World in a Grain of Sand
  52. Green Jobs Our Jobs
  53. The Price of Perfection
  54. In Default
  55. A Year Later, It's Still Not Over
  56. Teaching Erosion Control
  57. The New Natural
  58. Recognizing Wetlands
  59. The Creek Is Closer Than You Think
  60. Sleight of Plan
  61. Fire Season Planning for What Comes Next
  62. Stimulus Money for Flood Control
  63. High-Speed Erosion
  64. StormCon Program Now Online
  65. Of Nutria and Men
  66. Energy versus the Environment
  67. Fire for Soil
  68. Biofuels vs Erosion Prevention
  69. Volunteer Labor
  70. Background Turbidity
  71. More on the Proposed ELG
  72. Debating the Cost of Effluent Limitations Guidelines
  73. Underwater
  74. Private Property, Public Funds
  75. All the Pages, None of the Trees
  76. Lines in the Sand
  77. Take a Look at What We've Added
  78. Cleaning Up in Tennessee
  79. Happy Holidays From Erosion Control
  80. Certification, Anyone
  81. Investing in the Infrastructure
  82. A River Runs Through It
  83. EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines Are Here
  84. Thank You, Firefighters
  85. Restoration Writ Large
  86. Between a Wall and a Hard Place
  87. Another Tool for Restoration
  88. StormCon Abstract Deadline Is Five Weeks Away
  89. A Change to Construction Permitting Not Yet, But Hold On
  90. The LEEDing Edge
  91. The Seed Dilemma
  92. An Overzealous Cleaning
  93. The State of the Infrastructure
  94. StormCon 2009 Call for Papers
  95. Effluent Guidelines for Construction Sites
  96. Assessing Risks After Gustav
  97. Where There Was Smoke, There Will Be Flooding
  98. Looking for Data on BMP Performance
  99. More Than Just the Articles
view all

EC Editor's Blog

May 4th, 2009 2:26pm PST

Pulling the Plug on the Great Lakes

Posted By Janice Kaspersen Comments

Did they or didn’t they?

Results are in from a two-year, three-and-a-half million-dollar study to determine whether the US Army Corps of Engineers inadvertently caused a drop in water levels of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

One theory—put forward by Canadian property owners who noticed a permanent 4-inch drop in the lakes’ water levels—is that the Corps of Engineers “unplugged” the lakes during a dredging project in the 1960s by scraping away an erosion-proof layer of the St. Clair riverbed. The two lakes are connected, and the St. Clair River is their main outflow. A Canadian homeowners association wants the US and Canadian governments—both of which funded the study—to build a dam on the river to restore the lake levels.

Although the report, and the Corps of Engineers itself, acknowledge that earlier dredging caused some changes, the report concludes that it was an ice jam in the 1980s that carved the riverbed deeper and led to the 4-inch drop in lake levels. It says the riverbed is no longer eroding.

Overall, it’s generally agreed, the lake levels are 20 inches lower than they were nearly a century ago, and the first 16-inch loss was likely caused by dredging operations in the river to improve commercial navigation. A spokesman for the Corps of Engineers points out that this is a good deal, though, because during the 1980s, when water levels were higher than they are now, flooding and erosion would have been much worse had the lakes not already lost some depth.

You can see articles on the recently released here  here  and here

 

 

 

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

Be the first to tell us what you think!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Erosion Control E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Erosion Control e-mail newsletter!