Letters policy: Send by e-mail to letters@gainesvilletimes.com (no attached files, please, which can contain viruses); fax to 770-532-0457; mail to The Times, P.O. Box 838, Gainesville, GA 30503; or click HERE for a form. Include full name, hometown and phone number for confirmation. They should be limited to one topic on issues of public interest and may be edited for content and length (limit of 500 words). Letters originating from other sources, those involving personal, business or legal disputes, poetry, expressions of faith or memorial tributes may be rejected. You may be limited to one letter per month, two on a single topic. Submitted items may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times editorial board.
I would like to address the issue of raising the level of Lake Lanier by 2 feet as proposed by the Lake Lanier Association. While well-intentioned, I think it is ill-advised and not thoroughly analyzed by anybody who thinks it's a good idea, and here's why.
Twenty-six billion gallons of more water seems a lot but there is plenty of water in the lake at its present level. Even 20 feet low, as we recently experienced with the drought that plagued the area, the reservoir still holds billions of gallons of water before it reaches the dreaded 1,035 level at the spillway.
But wait, you say. We would then have more water to release from a higher starting point of 1,073 feet. Well we would, but if the Corps of Engineers let out 10 feet of water from the new level of 1,073 feet, the lake would still be 10 feet low, no different than a starting point of 1,071. Or if the lake was raised 10 feet and 10 feet was drained, the lake would still be 10 feet low. Are you starting to see my point?
The main reason and the only reason people do not want to see a low lake is the impact it has on recreation and the area lake economy as past history has confirmed, so it makes no sense to raise a body of water only to release it and get the same result, an ugly muddy shoreline.
It took 50 years for natural erosion to create the beautiful shoreline with islands and sandy beaches that we now enjoy on a sunny summer afternoon. Are you willing to sacrifice that experience for a higher lake level covering beaches, small islands, 10,000 boat dock ramps, rip rap shorelines and marina amenities, not to mention the millions of trees that would have to be cut to prevent them from falling into the water from the ensuing erosion?
And when the next drought comes along, it only would serve to have the lake level drop 10 or more feet with the same result: an even uglier shoreline, loss of tourism and we are right back where we started from.
The only solution is proper water management. So let's hope our elected officials will come up with a plan that everybody can agree on so that our beautiful resource can be enjoyed for generations to come.
As for the Lake Lanier Association, your other efforts on lake issues are greatly appreciated by many but I hope that you will rethink this one.
Roger Roesler
Flowery Branch