Looking for proof damming increased natural height of Lake Winnipesaukee.

Boardwalk Bluesboy · 07-20-2015, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApS

This site seems to be very comprehensive, disclosing that the Lake Winnipesaukee water level had been raised from 5 to 12 feet. (Which is consistent with what I'd heard from my Dad, and some other longtime residents).

http://www.weirsbeach.com/topten/reason9frame.html

At the original (low) level, the range of boats on the lake would have to have been very small. Rocks Ahead!

BTW: Is this a legal matter?

.

Here's an updated link to the WeirsBeach.com page referenced above. Scroll all the way down to see a map of the lake showing the original shoreline "...before THE INVADING COLONISTS DAMMED THE FALLS".

Onshore · 07-21-2015, 10:03 AM

If you want to PM me your email address I will scan and email you copies of testimony I have from proceedings in the late 40's early 50's on this issue. They indicate that while Paugus Bay might have been raised the Lake itself was not raised by damming. The channel was dredged to allow the old mill companies to draw the lake down further than it naturally could have been. More drawdown capacity meant more hydropower for the mills. As the mills became less of an economic power and tourism became more of one the deep drawdowns became an issue and in the 40's the legislature stepped in and passed a law limiting the level to which the mill could lower the lake during the summer.

Orion · 07-21-2015, 10:19 AM

That makes much more sense, Shore Things. The claim of 5-12' lower in the earlier article definitely conflicts with the description and existence of a natural waterfall at the Weirs and the later need for dredging of the channel.

ApS · 07-23-2015, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boardwalk Bluesboy

Here's an updated link to the WeirsBeach.com page referenced above. Scroll all the way down to see a map of the lake showing the original shoreline "...before THE INVADING COLONISTS DAMMED THE FALLS".

Another thread here on the subject:

Raised, apparently, two hundred-plus years ago.

That might explain the present day shoreline's slow, but continuous "rain" of falling trees from relatively steeper shores.

Two hundred years of rocks and boulders being moved against the shoreline by centuries of thick ice—a relatively short time of geological history.

07-21-2015, 10:19 AM	#3
Orion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: MA Posts: 914 Thanks: 598 Thanked 193 Times in 91 Posts	Makes sense That makes much more sense, Shore Things. The claim of 5-12' lower in the earlier article definitely conflicts with the description and existence of a natural waterfall at the Weirs and the later need for dredging of the channel.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Boardwalk Bluesboy For This Useful Post:
Orion (07-21-2015), Rattlesnake Gal (07-22-2015), trfour (07-22-2015)

07-21-2015, 10:03 AM	#2
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 505 Thanks: 12 Thanked 428 Times in 147 Posts	If you want to PM me your email address I will scan and email you copies of testimony I have from proceedings in the late 40's early 50's on this issue. They indicate that while Paugus Bay might have been raised the Lake itself was not raised by damming. The channel was dredged to allow the old mill companies to draw the lake down further than it naturally could have been. More drawdown capacity meant more hydropower for the mills. As the mills became less of an economic power and tourism became more of one the deep drawdowns became an issue and in the 40's the legislature stepped in and passed a law limiting the level to which the mill could lower the lake during the summer.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
Diana (07-24-2015), jeffatsquam (07-22-2015), Lakegeezer (07-25-2015), Orion (07-21-2015)