# Water Levels on smaller rivers...



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 6, 2012)

Hey all,
This is something that has me a bit concerned, and I am sure others have thought about this already. I wanted to see what everyone thought about how the local small rivers would be this spring. To me, not having the normal snow pack to our north to provide melt off in the spring is really going to hurt the amount of water in our smaller rivers making some of them near impassible in places. I suppose all we can do is hope for above average rain fall, but it seems to me that a hard rain really only effects the level of the river in a positive way for maybe 5-7 days before falling again. Last year with all the snow, it seemed the rivers stayed perfect well in to mid-late summer even with limited rainfall due to a slow and steady supply of melt of in early spring and then the right amounts of rain. Is this a conern to anyone else? Maybe I am over thinking this, but I sure hope I am wrong. Otherwise it could require some travel to larger rivers for me...


----------



## fender66 (Mar 6, 2012)

There is some merit in your thinking....however, it really depends on each river and, where you are on each river. For example....you are probably talking about the Current, Meremac, Gasconade, etc..

The Meremac, in my neck of the woods was flooded most of last year. In your area, it probably was pretty good. Reason....I'm about 16 miles from the Mississippi junction and the Mississippi was very high last year. That raised the levels in the Meremac quite a bit around me...but probably didn't effect you as much.

I agree we could use some rain, (even the lakes around me are low right now), but I'm thinking average spring rain levels will bring things up to where they need to be. If not...we are in for a long dry summer.


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 6, 2012)

Fender,
You are so right about last year. I remember that most of the year last year the Meremac was pretty high down on your end, but it stayed almost perfect for running here until almost August when it finally began to drop a bit. Here is to hoping for rain!


----------



## johnnyclack (Mar 6, 2012)

I’ll chime in on this only because the question was about rivers and rain runoff. I have lived on or fish rivers for most of my life. Your statement of 6-7 days of higher after a day or two of heavy for the most part is right on. The difference on some rivers being how many dams are on that river and how full is the reservoir behind it. The river I live on has five dams holding back H2O. Out here in the west dams and reservoir are quite common, and we can the benefits up into early spring. But we do get most of our water from the snow pack, if we don’t have between 120 to 130” on snow on the ground by this date we start talking about a dry winters.

I had the pleasure of doing my Army basic training and AIT at Fort Leonard Missouri (1973) There will always be a fond spot in my herat for the State of Missouri and the folks who live there… [-o< 

They are some great people


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 6, 2012)

Johnny, 
The small river we were discussing has no dams on it...which is where I was getting the average of 5-7 days from high water to normal or low water. I sure wish we could dam it and control the flow...it would also be nice to have it dredged but those days are over! They voted down a huge lake project in this area some time ago that would have made for quite a boating/fishing attraction. If only :roll:


----------



## Brian J (Mar 7, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> Johnny,
> The small river we were discussing has no dams on it...which is where I was getting the average of 5-7 days from high water to normal or low water. I sure wish we could dam it and control the flow...it would also be nice to have it dredged but those days are over! They voted down a huge lake project in this area some time ago that would have made for quite a boating/fishing attraction. If only :roll:



I think you're the first person I've ever heard wish that the Meramec Basin Project would have went through. Do you realize that most of the river above Hwy 185 would be gone?? 

As for water levels, I wouldn't worry too much yet. Most guys I know with big boats don't get too concerned until the river stage at Sullivan (the guage is actually at Sappington Bridge) drops into the low two's, and us guys with small boats can run with water levels in the mid to high one's; something that we haven't seen in quite a while on the Meramec.


----------



## Seth (Mar 7, 2012)

I haven't ran the Maramec any so don't have any say there. However, I just hope that for once the Missouri River isn't flooded all summer so I can actually do some catfishing on it and see the dikes!

Btw, you have a sweet looking rig riverrunner!


----------



## johnnyclack (Mar 7, 2012)

I am not sure I support placing a dam on the Meremac; I claim ignorance of the Meremac River, the only river I recall from my stay in Missouri is the Big Piney in the Ozarks  

Most of Oregon dams serve one of two purposes (1) Farm irrigation (2) Hydro electric generation. The side benefit is the reservoirs provide for some incredible trout fishing….

In the Northwest where salmon spawning habitat has been impacted we have been removing dams, and surprising fish runs are showing marketable improvement :wink:


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 7, 2012)

Seth, thank you for the compliments...looking forward to a fun summer with the new rig! Your boat is quite nice as well sir! Do you ever do the poker runs on the Gasconade? I think I will be doing the Boating for Buddies run for sure this year.

Brian J,
I do realize the circumstances that would come with the Meramec Basin Project and the loss of the river that is there now. We would, however, have a large LAKE instead to enjoy, plus it would have generated a good source for Hyrdo Electricity and would come in rather handy right now as the area is facing some pretty significant electricity rates (especially local municipalities). You must speak to the earlier generations in regards to this project, as I think most people in their 30s and younger would now support such a project. Yes, we would have lost some of our historic sites (caves & state parks) and that would be a shame, however, the increase in the local economy due to the new attraction would have been crazy. The problem is too much money from the greater St. Louis area was already invested at the Lake of the Ozarks and this is what really shut the project down, as the Lake of the Ozarks would have went bust due to the closer proximity of the Meramec Basin. 

Anywho...not extactly what I intended to get into with the topic of this thread, but interesting conversation none the less!


----------



## Seth (Mar 7, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> Seth, thank you for the compliments...looking forward to a fun summer with the new rig! Your boat is quite nice as well sir! Do you ever do the poker runs on the Gasconade? I think I will be doing the Boating for Buddies run for sure this year.



I've done the Boating for Buddies poker run the past two years. It's a good time for sure! I plan on doing it again this year as well.


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 7, 2012)

Seth, 
Good to hear, I have heard that it is a great time. Do you guys usually run into much water patrol action on the Gasconade? Just curious as I haven't run it. Sounds like they usually have a pretty large turn out for the Boating for Buddies, and we are looking forward to it!


----------



## gotmuddy (Mar 7, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> Seth, thank you for the compliments...looking forward to a fun summer with the new rig! Your boat is quite nice as well sir! Do you ever do the poker runs on the Gasconade? I think I will be doing the Boating for Buddies run for sure this year.
> 
> Brian J,
> I do realize the circumstances that would come with the Meramec Basin Project and the loss of the river that is there now. We would, however, have a large LAKE instead to enjoy, plus it would have generated a good source for Hyrdo Electricity and would come in rather handy right now as the area is facing some pretty significant electricity rates (especially local municipalities). You must speak to the earlier generations in regards to this project, as I think most people in their 30s and younger would now support such a project. Yes, we would have lost some of our historic sites (caves & state parks) and that would be a shame, however, the increase in the local economy due to the new attraction would have been crazy. The problem is too much money from the greater St. Louis area was already invested at the Lake of the Ozarks and this is what really shut the project down, as the Lake of the Ozarks would have went bust due to the closer proximity of the Meramec Basin.
> ...



if you ask anyone who has actually been on a river if they want to bury it under 100ft of water everyone will say no. Lakes are pretty, but nowhere near as pretty as the land they cover up.


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 7, 2012)

> if you ask anyone who has actually been on a river if they want to bury it under 100ft of water everyone will say no. Lakes are pretty, but nowhere near as pretty as the land they cover up.



I have to disagree here (especially on this instance). While the land is beautiful and so is the river, there are PLENTY of local rivers here within a short drive, plus the river that would be below the dam. Also, the local river that would have been affected by this project is so shallow at times in certain places that even a canoe has to be picked up and walked distances late in the summer. A lake would have provided a normal flow of water, plus hydroelectricity and large tourism dollars. It was all about the money already invested in other venues close by that kept it from happening. Now you ask me the same thing about the Gasconade, Osage, Current, or Black rivers and I will agree 100% that they are too perfect to be dammed up. The Meramec though needs a good dredge or pool it up!


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Mar 7, 2012)

Why would anyone want to turn a nice river into a lake? I don't see how it would help tourism any. "Lets go see the hydro electric plant" :roll: 
There are plenty of rivers around but some people like parts of river. Wouldn't you be mad if someone ups and says you can't go here anymore because we're putting in a dam or some other reason. Good chance we'll be dealing with this on the Current river due to the NPS Management Plan. You can't go here because the canoe bring in more revinue then the boaters (more to it then that,but). Sorry if I'm ranting and I don't meen any hard feeling by it, it just upsets me to here some say something like it just one river there's plenty of other.


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lil' blue, 
I think you are missunderstanding what I am saying. In the event that the Meramec Basin Project had succeeded EVERYONE would be able to boat, fish, etc. on the lake. The Meramec river would still exist above and below said lake and really would not be much difference of a drive than where we go to put in on the river right now. I think only people who truely run the Meramec will have an understanding to what I am saying about this particualr instance. The Meramec has become so lodged with gravel and rocks/boulders and trees over the years that there are times of the year that the river is flat useless (I dont' care how light/small/shallow your boat is). If you don't see how it would help tourism then you must not frequent the Lake of the Ozarks to see how a place where there was absolutely NOTHING turned into MAJOR revenue and tourism. With the close proximity to the interstate, the Meramec River Basin project would have been a slam dunk. The other issue we face (as you do) is the floater traffic. Sometimes the river can get so chalked full of canoes, rafts, and anything else that can be rigged up to float and hold beer, that haivng a boat is USELESS and forget fishing! Anyway, I am not an advocate for daming up the beautiful rivers & streams in Missouri so lets not paint that picture, I do see that this particular project and instance was an exception to the status quo. Anywho...onward ho!


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah I see your point with bringing in people now. I'm just not a lake guy, wouldn't own a boat if that's where I had to go.
Back to the subject at hand, Spring hasn't made it yet and I figure it will bring some rain with it so I doubt it will be too bad shallow. Could be wrong though. The Current was in real good shape during the polar bear run.


----------



## Seth (Mar 7, 2012)

Just curious, but if this Maramec River Basin thing had passed, what would have happened to Maramec Springs? I think I understand what you are talking about when you say it would affect the boatable part of the river much, just the super shallow section. Maramec Springs would be at the upper end of this section right?

As for water patrol at the poker run, they haven't caused any trouble the two years I have went. I see him there every year though but everybody has been pretty civil and just had a great time so there wasn't any need for action on his part. You can't miss him either because he is running around in a really nice River Pro. :wink:


----------



## fender66 (Mar 7, 2012)

Outside of early spring, and very late fall....I stay away from Lake of the Ozarks. I can't stand that much water traffic. Then again....this really has nothing to do with the Original Post so never mind.


----------



## 405z06 (Mar 8, 2012)

Seth said:


> Just curious, but if this Maramec River Basin thing had passed, what would have happened to Maramec Springs?



It would not have reached that far upstream.


----------



## riverrunner5891 (Mar 8, 2012)

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:


----------



## Brian J (Mar 8, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2012)

riverrunner5891 said:


> 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&amp;MFISH (Mar 14, 2012)

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 (Mar 14, 2012)

S&MFISH said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2012)

S&MFISH said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2012)

> 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&amp;MFISH (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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.


----------

