Dam Susquehanna, dammit (Philadelphia, Erie, York: lease, employment, neighborhood)

[jetgraphics]

Tennessee River Pearls - aquaculture at work

[jetgraphics]

Mama and Baby Lock on the Tennessee, at Guntersville Lake

[jetgraphics]

Another possible benefit to dam building on the Susquehanna - plugging the hole caused by the Knox mine disaster. Or at least, excavating those rail cars, while the riverbed is dry...if the river is diverted during dam building.

(NO, I do not advocate a return to mining under the riverbed. But it might be helpful to let those tunnels dry out.)

Another benefit of dam building:
Susquehanna River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The environmental group American Rivers named the Susquehanna "America's Most Endangered River for 2005" due to the excessive pollution it receives. Most of the pollution in the river is due to excess animal manure from farming, agricultural runoff, urban and suburban stormwater runoff, and raw or inadequately treated sewage. In 2003 the river alone contributed 44% of the nitrogen, 21% of the phosphorus, and 21% of the sediment flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. Pennsylvania may be subject to EPA sanctions if it does not reduce its pollution in the watershed by 2010.

A series of dams would (a) segregate pollution caused by run off, (b) reduce sediment flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, improving the crab fisheries and (c) could save the government from paying sanctions.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Tennessee River Pearls - aquaculture at work

Already some species of clam in the river.

We ate some once we found way up near the NY border. Tasted like nothing. It was like putting a tasteless rubberband in your mouth.

In any event having spent many days on the river and living only half a block from it my entire life I'm with weluvpa. Leave it alone... Like I said I don't think you realize the magnitude of what you are suggesting. As I already said the steep vertical sides of many parts of the river doesn't lend itself to building such a transportation waterway anyway. Houses to confiscate, existing railroad tracks, etc.

The aqusition of land alone would run into the 100's of billions alone. Do realize how many property owners such a plan would cut off from the river? That list includes people that live permantnetly on the river, people with vacation homes , farmers etc.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

(NO, I do not advocate a return to mining under the riverbed. But it might be helpful to let those tunnels dry out.)

Water was being pumped out of the mines long before the Knox mine disaster, it was not the only source. when you dig down into the ground you're going to find water no matter where you do it. They were actually considering increasing the pumps after that happened. In any event those mines are all connected from one end of the valley to the other hence the reason it effects all of them and some of them hundreds of feet deep. I forget what the estimated amount of water is but it's a lot like trillions of gallons of water.

They will never be dry for many reasons other than the volume of water that would need to be pumped, for example the water is holding many of them up.

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

I do not necessarily advocate dredging the Susquehanna.....but it would give Jet his waterway and remove many layers of toxic riverbed and reduce flooding potential. However, I would assume the cost to run into the tens of Billions of dollars. Also the mines may prove to be quite the problem if the river ever were dredged. Down here we have beach renourishment...but it seems even worse than dredging as the environmental impact seems greater relative to the "toxic stew" probably serving as the Susquehanna's riverbed.I remember dredging the river being discussed in the past???

[olbluesguy]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

The idea is not for one big dam, but a series of low head dams, making a series of lakes, linked by locks.

And maintaining a modest channel depth won't require inundating scenic areas.

For example, the Tenn-Tom waterway is only 12 ft. deep. Maintaining a 12ft deep channel is below flood stage for most of the Susquehanna.

Low head dams you say?.....Killing machines I say!
I know how to google too.
Low Head Dams

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by olbluesguy

Low head dams you say?.....Killing machines I say!
I know how to google too.
Low Head Dams

Glad to know you can google!
Interesting site...
But the type of low head dams they refer to are the ones that water goes over the top, obscuring their edge.
Obviously, those do not have locks.
They're not the type I was referring to, anyway.

I was using the term in distinction from high head dams. While visiting one TVA dam, near Chattanooga, TN, the guide mentioned that all the dams on the navigable part of the Tennessee river were low head dams, with locks, while all the dams in the tributaries were high head dams, for water impoundment and flood prevention.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

As I already said the steep vertical sides of many parts of the river doesn't lend itself to building such a transportation waterway anyway. Houses to confiscate, existing railroad tracks, etc.

The aqusition of land alone would run into the 100's of billions alone. Do realize how many property owners such a plan would cut off from the river? That list includes people that live permantnetly on the river, people with vacation homes , farmers etc.

Why assume they would have to be displaced? Or cut off?

Susquehanna Flood Stages:
Pennsylvania

• Towanda 16 ft.
• Meshoppen 27 ft.
• Wilkes-Barre 22 ft.
• Bloomsburg 19 ft.
• Danville 20 ft.
• Sunbury 24 ft.
• Harrisburg 17 ft.

Let's take Towanda as an example - if we were to place a dam so that the water level at Towanda was maintained at 10 ft +/- 2 ft, it would be at least 4 ft. below flood stage.
Are there many properties at the 12 ft. level on shore, that would be inundated?
Am I misreading what "flood stage" means?
Why would shoreline property owners need to be displaced if their property is not submerged?

What I am envisioning, I may be failing to convey, and I apologize.
To change the nature of the Susquehanna from it's legendary "mile wide, foot deep," to a 12 foot deep* chain of lakes, is what I am aiming for.

And in the upper reaches where it would be impractical to dredge a 12 foot deep channel, nor impound a lake deep enough, we might just settle for a 6 - 8 foot deep recreational waterway. (Or small barge capacity)

(* The 12 foot depth is not necessarily cut in stone. It was a reference to the Tenn-Tom canal, and that such a depth was sufficient for its commercial barge traffic. But the Suskee Max barge depth may be a different depth. Perhaps 8 ft?)

To illustrate, the Ohio river's natural depth varies from 3 to 40 feet, but dams and locks make it consistently navigable upstream to Pittsburgh and beyond.

For the Missouri River to permit barge and tow traffic, the water levels must be able to support a 7 ft.. 6 inch barge depth in order for carriers to pass down the waterways undamaged.

Another example, the Seine river, in France:
" The average depth of the Seine today at Paris is about eight metres (26 ft). Until locks were installed to artificially raise the level in the 1800s, however, the river was much shallower within the city most of the time, and consisted only of a small channel of continuous flow bordered by sandy banks (depicted in many illustrations of the period). Today depth is tightly controlled and the entire width of the river between the built-up banks on either side is normally filled with water."

[jetgraphics]

A view of a canal in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Would this be acceptable development for riverbank dwellers? Would it be desirable for developers to construct canals off the tamed Susquehanna, and build neighborhoods like this?
Imagine former flood plains converted into waterfront property...
Do you like the idea, too?