Gwinnett.talk

By Chad

April 23, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Can we water our lawns at reasonable times now?

By Michael H. Smith

April 23, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

A deeper Lake if in turns proves an avoidance of deeper thought to resolve a serious not to distant problem, then once again insult has been delivered upon injury.

By jabster

April 23, 2007 10:04 PM | Link to this

Chad—hate to say this, but no.

Not to sound like a complete “greenie weenie”, but water is the real environmental issue in the ATL. Not air. Not traffic. Not sprawl. Not ground-level ozone. And certainly not global warming.

My father-in-law wonders why I don’t have fescue and instead put up with a brown bermuda lawn in the winter. It’s because I don’t want a brown fescue lawn in the summer.

The smart homeowner will forget about the solar panels and hybrid cars and instead put in a gray water recovery system to recycle just about all wastewater coming out of the house except for kitchen sinks and toilets, and use that for irrigation. We need to update building codes to permit more of this kind of stuff.

86 the fescue and replace it with drought-hardier grasses, prairie gardens, and the like.

Either that, or dust off the plan to pump treated wastewater back into Lanier to be used again. The treated wastewater is cleaner than the lake water is already—and that’s before taking ag runoff from chicken farms and cow pastures into account.

By Scott

April 23, 2007 11:30 PM | Link to this

They should just flood Clayton County, it’d be the best thing for that area. Just leave the airport!

By Cletus Snow

April 24, 2007 12:49 AM | Link to this

Raising the water level 2 feet is a temporary fix if it’s a fix at all.Grey water salvage is a very good means of doubling the usage of water. We used to live in a rural area everyone had wells we reused all grey water everything but toilets for years, almost all of the 80s and 90s we never had our well go dry as many of our neighbors did.we watered our lawn and garden as often as we wanted. wWe used a surplus military 500 gallon water tank buried in the back yard and a pool pump to run the sprinlers and garden hoses,it worked pretty well with a very small investment, I don’t remamber exactly but it was less than $300 dollars.Jabster is right water is the problem here is water and it’s going to get worse.

By On the lake

April 24, 2007 12:58 AM | Link to this

To raise the level of the lake will take a lot of adjustments by those of us who are fortunate enough to live on its shores. If you are going to raise it we will have to move electrical and water connections, move steps and other inconveniences. I am all for raising the level of the lake, my only question is why choose an arbitrary number like two feet? If we are going to go through all the headaches of the water level change, lets make it 6 feet. I do think the charges for water should be drastically increased as that will be the most effective way of getting people to quit wasting our most valuable resource.

By Katie

April 24, 2007 6:12 AM | Link to this

A 2 ft increase in the water level of lake Lanier won’t make a difference since it hasn’t been full for years.

By My back yard

April 24, 2007 7:20 AM | Link to this

The last time the lake was at full pool was 12-15-05. If the corps of mis-engineering would stop releasing too much water (22 million gallons by mistake last summer) to please the save the mud mussel lovers and sturgeon supporters south of the lake and get a grasp of the importance of maintaining a reserve of water for the cities and people that the lake supports then the higher level can be made. Also just an FYI on 4-14-1964 the highest level ever was recorded 1077.15.

By My Back Yard

April 24, 2007 7:25 AM | Link to this

Correction to the water released by mistake. It was 22 BILLION GALLONS.

By rj

April 24, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

This will not be a cheap fix. If you raise it a full 2 feet there will be an expensive lake wide rip rap rebuilding, many campsites and recreation areas would be eliminated and many lakeside homeowners would have their property negatively impacted. I can see 6 inches or maybe even a foot higher reservior but 2 feet is not economically workable. Even a 6” rise in the full pool level would be a heck of a lot of added water.

By Tim McDaniel

April 24, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

If they would quit approving all of the subdivisions this would be a great idea, but doing this and then adding another 50,000 homes is not going to do any good.

By woodie

April 24, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

The permanent fix to the water shortage is to get rid of some people. This will also fix the traffic problems and and greenhouse warming problem. It will reduce our dependence on oil and gas. Depending on who we get rid of, it may help the crime problems too. Certainly it will help the school overcrowding problem. Heck, if we get rid of enough people, maybe Walmart will go away too! In the meantime, let’s waste water so it will speed up the process of depopulation. If you don’t want to get rid of the people permanently, maybe we can convince them to go to Mexico. I hear tell they have a lot fewer people there (i.e. they have a successful depopulation program already in place).

By Scott

April 25, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

NOW THATS FUNNY!!!!

By mw

April 25, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

I agree. Send the population of Norcross BACK to Mexico, or Honduras, or Guatemala, or wherever they are SUPPOSED to be and there will be a great deal less pollution, littering, water usage, and traffic. It’s a win win. Create jobs for AMERICANS and clean up the environment. WAKE UP USCIS/ICE.

By Louis

April 27, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Hey BM…When’s the clan rally ?