Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Falls lake is full at 251.5'. Anyone know what 90% full would be, which is the point at which they move from Stage 2 to Stage 1 Amended water restrictions.
I would ask you to get out a calculator, but I can try and do the math....so 90% of 251.50 feet is 225.35 feet. Um...i don't know if your number is right b/c it says Falls Lake is at 250.40 feet right now?
Lake Levels :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/weather/image/1001112/ - broken link)
Falls lake is incredibly shallow. While it is just 1.5" down, it is only 77% full pull (at least the water that can be used for drinking). Pretty scary, if you ask me.
251.5 is the height above sea level not the bottom of the lake, so you can't do the math like that.
Also because the lake banks aren't vertical (they slope) a foot of water at the bottom is less in volume, than a foot at the top.
251.5 is the height above sea level not the bottom of the lake, so you can't do the math like that.
Also because the lake banks aren't vertical (they slope) a foot of water at the bottom is less in volume, than a foot at the top.
True - the surface area in relation to the amount of water really make s a difference. To have a lake where 1.5 feet down results in 23% of the usable water being missing points to a *really* shallow lake, and is a big reason that Falls Lake is always going to have problems serving as a drinking source for a growing area. I compare this to the lake my parents live on in Georgie - it's been down 17", yet you could still ride a boat on the lake, get drinking water, etc. Of course, it was much deeper - around 150" near the dam.
let's try to figure this out.
The Bottom of sedimentation pool is 200.0 ft above MSL (mean sea level)
The top of the sedimentation pool is 236.5 above MSL. The water between 200 ft. and 236.5 is the yucky stuff we really don't want to pull from if we can help it. Requires extra treatment.
The top of the conservation pool is 251.5
The sedimentation pools (200-236.5)volume is 25,073 acre/feet of water ( an acre foot is one acre one foot deep of water duh)
The conservation pools volume (236.5-251.5) is 106,322 acre/feet
90% of that is 95,689.8 acre/feet
Add to that the sedimentation pool volume and you get 120,762.8 acre/feet
All this is from the corps of engineers website.
On Oct 29 2003 the lake was recorded at 251.08 with a volume of 120,728 acre/feet.
Now what I can't get to jibe is when look at historical records when the lake is at 251.5 the volume is recorded as 125,940 not the 131,395 I expected. I'm not quite sure why the difference.
This is from the corps records on the web.
The 9:00 p.m. reading was 250.51
I would think the 251.08 estimate is close
The most stupid decision city council could make is easing up on water restrictions at any point this year regardless whether the lake is full or not.
WE ARE STILL IN AN EXTREME DROUGHT, PEOPLE!!!!
Yes, I know it's an inconvenience but your inconvenience is less important than the population's drinking supply.
With all the rain we've been having why would anyone be desperate to water their yards yet?
Our yard is deep green now and the grass is lush, up around our ankles. We have not watered, just had the yard service put down fertilizer, weed killer for drought conditions.
I think water conservation should continue..it is not inexhaustable no matter how good the water supply is and we should ALL be careful with it ALL of the time.
The most stupid decision city council could make is easing up on water restrictions at any point this year regardless whether the lake is full or not.
WE ARE STILL IN AN EXTREME DROUGHT, PEOPLE!!!!
Yes, I know it's an inconvenience but your inconvenience is less important than the population's drinking supply.
If the lake is full they might as well "ease" the restrictions because when it rains when the lake is full all the water will just run out into nowhere basically. I say if it's 100% full than ease restrictions and if it falls back to 90% full then inact them again. Simple as that. Not easing restrictions when the lake is 100% full will not make the lake any fuller.
^ The problem with that is we are still in an severe drought. The creeks and streams in the watershed are still at a very low flow when it's not currently raining. The water that normally flows into the lake to keep it up during dry weather just isn't there. If as little as .5 ft. change in elevation can lose 10% of the water available for drinking they would be going back and forth between restrictions quite often.
Also I think the people in Smithfield, Kinston and the other communities downstream who rely on the Neuse River for their water supply would take issue with your "water will just run out into nowhere basically" statement.
We're kind of all in this together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
