Water Levels on smaller rivers...

[Brian J]

405z06 - GREAT image you posted there. That should clear up a lot of questions.

Seth - Yes, as the image there posted shows, Meramec Springs would have certainly been saved and still a great trout fishing attraction. The biggest loss in my opinion would be Onadoga Cave and the Park there in Leasburg. Other than that, folks who enjoy the river and fishing it would still have from the State Park at 185 Bridge all the way down...plus this part of the river would most certianly have become a bit less shallow as the flow of water would now be regulated and constant instead of soley dependent on rainfall. I have a feeling most of the canoe/raft companies would have moved down river towards the Stanton/St. Clair areas. Oh well...I don't think it will ever happen in my lifetime, there has been talk of re-addressing the issue and putting it up for vote, but I still think there is too much money at the Ozarks at stake that it would never make it that far. We will just keep enjoying our beautiful little river until it gets so wide and filled up with gravel that we can drive our trucks down it instead of our boats :lol:

Here is a link to an article regarding the dam project that is definitely worth reading. https://www.rollanet.org/~conorw/cwome/article69&70combined.htm

As one can see by reading this information, the Meramec Basin Project was not just one lake but a series of lakes that would have forever changed not only the Meramec, but the Big River and the Bourbeuse as well.

I think that it should also be noted that the non-binding referendum placed on the election ballot by petition and voted on by residents of the 12 counties surrounding the lake project area on August 8, 1978 showed that 64 percent of voters were against the construction of the dam and lake. As a result, then president Ronald Reagan signed a bill de-authorizing the project, thus making it the only Corps lake project to ever be turned down by voters.

Regarding the notion that the lake would have been used to create hydroelectric power. Can you direct me to information regarding this? All that I can find regarding the matter says that the original intention of the dam was for flood control only and that only after opposition to the dam began to mount did the Corps suggest the notion that it could be use to create electricity as well.

Regarding a more regulated/constant water flow. Flows below dammed reservoirs are anything but constant. When flood control lakes are holding back water as was the case most of last spring, the flow in the tailwaters and river below the dam is very high and strong. Once lake levels are at summer or normal pool, the water is cut off and the flow below them are but a trickle. Add hydroelectric generation to the picture and the situation below the dam worsens. Spend some time on the Osage below Bagnell and you'll see water levels fluctuate as much as 5-6 feet in a day of fishing or boating. Also take a trip below Clearwater Lake in the summer when lake discharge is at its lowest and you'll also see just how tricky Black River below the lake can be to run.

Regarding the tourism. No doubt big money follows big lakes; especially when they are close to major metro areas. However there are a lot of tourism dollars spent in Crawford and Franklin counties as a result of the river system. There is also a lot of revenue generated in these counties through the personal property and real estate taxes paid by the plethora of canoe outfitters. A lake would have meant that there would have been no Huzzah Valley on the Huzzah, no Bass Resort on the Courtois, and no Rafting Company, Garrisons, Keyes' (Ozark Outdoors), Onondaga Cave, or Blue Springs on the Meramec. Maybe a lake would have generated more revenue or maybe not, I don't know. Also, with a big lake comes the big boats. It would stand to reason that the water on a lake close to STL would be just a busy, rough and ladened with big power boats as LOZ is in the summer therefore making it pretty much inaccessible to the average fisherman or pleasure boater. Thanks but no thanks.

Regarding the canoes. I agree, they are a HUGE problem from Memorial Day through mid-September. However, no commercial outfitters float below Meramec Caverns so all one has to do to avoid them-even on a hot summer weekend- is to put in at Sandford and go down river. The notion that canoe outfitters could simply float between Stanton and St. Clair is impractical as well do to the distance between access points through this stretch of river.

Regarding the gravel. I will say that I have noticed that there seems to be an increased amount of gravel in river from when I started running it back in 1999. However, I am not sure that gravel dredging is the answer. Take a trip around Hwy 30 at St. Clair where there has been a gravel dredging operation in place for years. The river through there is basically a very unattractive canal when compared to stretches upstream. Also, do a little research on the gravel dredging/mining practices that took place on Crooked Creek in Northern Arkansas. This once pristine smallmouth creek is only a shadow of what it once was do to the unregulated gravel mining practices that took place within it's banks and stream bed. The key to slowing down the gravel problem is better land practices on the banks of the Meramec. But then we get into landowner rights and responsibilities and that opens a whole other can of worms.

 

[riverrunner5891]

Brian J - Very well written post and very informative. You bring up some very good and interesting points to say the least. In regards to hydroelectricity, I am sure back when the original project was brought up they did not initially plan for the hydroelectric generation part, however, back then electricity rates & nonrenewable resourses were much more affordable than present day. I think if the project was voted upon once again and included the hydroelectric plan it would pass without much oposition. I can't say I agree with you on the revenue and tax dollar generation part. Yes, indeed the canoe/raft companies pay alot of property tax, sales tax, and bring people in who shop at local stores etc. But there is no way it could even equal a fraction of of the tax dollars generated by the large homes, docks, boats, etc that would have been. In regards to the argument about water flow, I supposed in high flood years, or major drought years, nothing can keep the rivers/lakes and managable levels, but to me I would imagine that on normal years with only moderate flooding, more water could be held to keep the river downstream from excessive flooding, and then let out at a more constant pace to hopefully keep the river in good condition longer into the dry months. Obviously as with any dam, the lake level becomes the priority and the river level secondary. The canoe problems is something that will never go away, and quite honestly they float some of the most desirable areas of the river making boating near impossible is these coveted spots. You say "just run down river from Sanford"....but there again we run into being told where we can boat or where we are "allowed". It seems to me there are to many floating/canoeing companies along the river, and this is providing excessive amounts of floaters. I guess I will just go to the Gasconade when it gets busy! Thank you for yoru points of view, and I will definitily read more on the link you posted!

 

[gotmuddy]

Brian J - Very well written post and very informative. You bring up some very good and interesting points to say the least. In regards to hydroelectricity, I am sure back when the original project was brought up they did not initially plan for the hydroelectric generation part, however, back then electricity rates & nonrenewable resourses were much more affordable than present day. I think if the project was voted upon once again and included the hydroelectric plan it would pass without much oposition.

I live less than 30 miles from Norfork dam and 45 miles from Bull Shoals dam and my electric bill isnt any cheaper per kilowatt hour than anyone else's.

 

[Seth]

I guess I will just go to the Gasconade when it gets busy!

That place is starting to get about as bad as LoZ on the weekends if it's decent outside. If you plan on fishing you better do it early or late because the Gators will be out terrorizing the river the rest of the time. :mrgreen:

 

[Brian J]

Brian J - Very well written post and very informative. You bring up some very good and interesting points to say the least. In regards to hydroelectricity, I am sure back when the original project was brought up they did not initially plan for the hydroelectric generation part, however, back then electricity rates & nonrenewable resourses were much more affordable than present day. I think if the project was voted upon once again and included the hydroelectric plan it would pass without much oposition. I can't say I agree with you on the revenue and tax dollar generation part. Yes, indeed the canoe/raft companies pay alot of property tax, sales tax, and bring people in who shop at local stores etc. But there is no way it could even equal a fraction of of the tax dollars generated by the large homes, docks, boats, etc that would have been. In regards to the argument about water flow, I supposed in high flood years, or major drought years, nothing can keep the rivers/lakes and managable levels, but to me I would imagine that on normal years with only moderate flooding, more water could be held to keep the river downstream from excessive flooding, and then let out at a more constant pace to hopefully keep the river in good condition longer into the dry months. Obviously as with any dam, the lake level becomes the priority and the river level secondary. The canoe problems is something that will never go away, and quite honestly they float some of the most desirable areas of the river making boating near impossible is these coveted spots. You say "just run down river from Sanford"....but there again we run into being told where we can boat or where we are "allowed". It seems to me there are to many floating/canoeing companies along the river, and this is providing excessive amounts of floaters. I guess I will just go to the Gasconade when it gets busy! Thank you for yoru points of view, and I will definitily read more on the link you posted!

:beer: :beer:

The Gasconade is an awesome river, and more big boat friendly than the Meramec. My brother in law has a 1756JT almost identical to yours and has never had any problems running the Gasconade. In fact, last summer in a tournament, we ran 4 miles or so up from Hwy 28 bridge above Jerome in July without any trouble. Plus, there is only one canoe outfitter below Jerome and they float from Bell Chute to Moreland's or Hwy 42. Most of the time they're a non-factor in regards to clogging up the river because of the width of the river through this stretch.

Seth is right about the Gator crew, but they have had favorable water levels these past four summers. Let the water get as low as it was in '06 and '07 and most of them get too nervous to run above Spring Creek/Hwy 63.

 

[S&MFISH]

Let me chime in here. The wife and I were on the Meramec Tues. @Red Horse access,and the river was 1-2ft below what I think is normal, but the spring rains have not started as of yet.

 

[fender66]

Let me chime in here. The wife and I were on the Meramec Tues. @Red Horse access,and the river was 1-2ft below what I think is normal, but the spring rains have not started as of yet.

Hope you're catching fish Steve....and glad to hear your wife was with you. :wink:

 

[Brian J]

Let me chime in here. The wife and I were on the Meramec Tues. @Red Horse access,and the river was 1-2ft below what I think is normal, but the spring rains have not started as of yet.

Did you guys run up or down? If you ran up, were you able to get through bad spot that is about 3 miles up from the ramp? We were out there about three weeks ago and that spot was already starting to get "exciting".

 

[riverrunner5891]

Let me chime in here. The wife and I were on the Meramec Tues. @Red Horse access,and the river was 1-2ft below what I think is normal, but the spring rains have not started as of yet.

S&MFish: That is exactly what my worries were that started this thread. I hope we have a wet year, because at this point...its looking like we will be boating on the Gasconade by June!

 

[S&MFISH]

Brian,we ran upstream and I didn't get that far. I went to the first section of riffles about a mile or so. I saw gravel that I've never seen before. There were two small chutes on either side. Well,I had the wife with me,so I pussed and stopped there(she is no help when there is a grounding). So we started there and floated back to the ramp.

 

[Brian J]

Looks like there will be plenty of water in the creek this weekend............................


https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/uv?site_no=07013000

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/uv?site_no=07014500

 

[riverrunner5891]

Brian,
You are right about that. River was way up this morning...not many gravel bars to even speak of. Thought about putting the boat in, but with the forecast we held off. It is dropping at a pretty good clip, I think it will be a good day to get out tomorrow and do some boat riding. River should be in pretty decent shape by then.