May 2018 Lake Levels and Flow Rates

It's summertime so there's rarely anything interesting for the charts. A minor exception this year is that we started the month well below the expected average but managed to get levels normalized by Memorial weekend to kick things off.

New Wake Restrictions Awaiting Governor's Signature

June 4th, 2018 Update: This bill was one of the 77 signed by the outgoing Governor on Friday June 1st. 

I've been holding off on a post about the new "Wake restrictions" bill that passed this year and is reportedly awaiting the Governor's signature.  I've been waiting because things are not exactly going to plan in Missouri politics of late. While the Missouri House and Senate have settled on legislation, there's the little problem of actually signing them into law.  Protocol follows that first, the Speaker of the House, and Senate Pro Tem must sign these bills before sending them to the Governor. As of yesterday they had not, but this is not completely unusual for this time of year. Typically the leaders of both houses sign bills at the end of May as a formality before going to the governor for final approval.  Is there anything going on in Missouri politics that might throw a wrench in the usual process? No matter the debacle going on with the Missouri leadership these days, or the Governor's ultimate fate, the likelihood that these bill will get signed means it's time to take a look at the HB2116, which could dramatically affect boating on the Lake of the Ozarks.

What started as House Bill 1591 had ended up passing as HB 2116 which was originally an attempt to change what type of vessels can be exempted from railing requirements for passengers riding on the gunwale (upper edge of the side of a boat).  Basically it exempts sailboats and jet driven vessels (read:PWC's) from railing requirements, which is good since PWC's have no railings. The language from HB1591 was added to HB2116 in order to improve the odds of passing.

Assuming it is signed into law, what does it really mean?

HB2116 replaces the language in Missouri Revised Statutes sections 306.100, 306.125 and 306.126 with new language regarding watercraft in Missouri. Note - A statute is a basically a law, or policy.

There are primarily three changes to the statutes. The first being the aforementioned railing change. Secondly, it changes the penalty for the lack of proper Personal Flotation Devices and creating a wake within 100 feet of a floating structure (dock).

Section 306.100:  I'll avoid the exact language of the first change because it's fairly straightforward. If you're caught without proper Coast Guard approved PFD's (life jackets) in your boat, you're going to get a $25 fine no matter the size of the boat. This seems like a very small penalty for a serious safety issue, but the current penalty of a misdemeanor has been considered too onerous to enforce.  The thinking here is that a small fine will make the rule more enforceable (and certainly won't hurt the coffers of the Water Patrol - wink wink), and you can rest assured, that there will be safety campaigns aplenty on the water this year. There will little mercy for non-compliance since Water Patrol has been looking for this type of change to the law for a long time. Check to be sure you have *all* the required safety equipment for your boat. Furthermore.

Section 306.125:  The bill would maintain the 100 foot distance no-wake restriction from all docks but the penalty would be a $25 fine. There was a proposed 300 foot restriction but that was revised back to 100 feet. Again, a relatively small fine, given the potential damage to property such wakes can make, but one that theoretically makes the rule more enforceable. What's more interesting is that the fine can go to the boat owner, and not just the operator.

"...if the operator cannot be identified, the owner of the watercraft shall be subject to such penalty."

Aside from the obvious, I think this implies that if I take a picture of your boat making a wake within 100 feet of my dock, and I can capture your boat number or port registered name in the image,  you, the boat owner, get the ticket. Of course, the homeowner would have to file a complaint with the Water Patrol, but that is easy enough, and one wonders if some sort of online complaint process might be created. We'll see if I'm right in the coming months as folks will invariably violate the law, and homeowners will invariably document it.

The fines for both PFDs and no-wake infractions are just that, citations that do not require court costs.  Pay the fine, and your done.

But now we get to the real meat and potatoes of HB2116 regarding boat wakes. Section 306.125 continues on to expand which coves can be designated as completely no-wake, and what class of vessel is subject to the rule.

The department of public safety shall promulgate all necessary rules and regulations for the  implementation and administration of a no wake cove for class 3 vessels in a cove with its main juncture less than 800 feet, measured from shore to shore, at the main channel.

A class III vessel is any boat 40 feet or larger in length, which means smaller boats would not be subject to this rule should the majority of homeowners in the cove choose to have it designated as no-wake. I actually think this is a fair rule and one both boat owners and homeowners can support. But let's take a look at just how many coves might be affected.

We've been here before when trying to restrict wakes, but the first attempt was to restrict all coves with a juncture to the main channel of less than 1250 feet, regardless of homeowner sentiment, and for vessels of any size. This would have effectively rendered the entire lake a no-wake zone with the exception of the main channel since there are very few coves with a mouth over 1250' on the lake.  Thankfully this idea went nowhere, but allowing coves of 800 feet or less the option to be no-wake is a game changer, at least for big boats. How many coves are 800 feet or smaller at juncture is a question I leave open(for now), but my estimation is that it's probably the majority of them. It will take time for 75% of the homeowners in any cove to band together to make theirs no-wake zones, but I think it is likely if large boat owners continue to kick up wakes in their coves like they have been for the past few years. It may take a few years, but ultimately, for 40+ foot boats, the main channel will become their only option to run at speed.

The end result of this process, could be less damage to docks and structure within coves, but the unintended consequence will be a main channel that is even rougher than it is today.  For those homeowners and condominiums with docks on the main channel, the challenge of keeping them is only going to get worse. It is also likely we'll see an increase in barrier protections along the main channel which will further constrict vessel operating areas. And what do we do with coves whose mouth is exposed to the main channel? One can easily see a time when breaker barriers will be in front of every cove.

The other possibility is the proliferation of boats 40 feet or longer will plummet. This scenario is something the Marine Dealers Association is keenly aware of and concerned about.

Will this work? Who knows, but it was inevitable that Missouri legislators would get involved and do something.  Time will tell.

Lake Levels Stay Near Year Lows Despite the Rains

As I look out on the lake every morning I'm still a little surprised as to how low the level remains for for this time of year.  By my record keeping, the five year moving average lake level for this date (indicated in orange in the chart), March 28th is 655.36 feet, more than a foot higher than it is today.  So what gives?

Obviously the threat of flooding is on Ameren's mind and from the chart below, which is an incomplete graph for this month, they are adjusting flow (in green) through the dam in direct response to rising lake levels. It's a clear attempt to keep lake levels where they are in what appears to be a purely reactionary response to the rains as they come. Ongoing repairs to the dam may be the prime mover here since there's really no other reason to keep levels this low now.

Lake Draw Down 2018 - Are We There Yet? Final Update

March 15th -. I could easily be jumping the gun here, but I'm going  to go out on a limb and say we hit the draw down peak yesterday around 9am with a low of 654.30.  With discharge flow dropping below 4,000cfs it appears Ameren is content to let whatever rain occurs in the next 72 hours to accumulate and mild temperatures means there's no real demand for power generation. With all that in mind, and given we are nearly two weeks past the average peak low date, I'm pretty confident lake levels will begin the slow and steady rise toward spring numbers.

Below is the 9 year chart of lake levels for the period January-April. Yes, I know It's only March 15th and things could change, but I was kind of anxious to get this post done. No, that's no glitch in the data on the far right. The lake rose over four feet in about 36 hours last year.

Update = I've got a jump on the chart for March here

The chart, with nine years of data it's getting difficult to keep neat. Here's how to read it. The current levels for this year are in red, while the nine year average is in bold green.  The previous years are in various shades of grey starting with black for last year fading with each successive year further back in time.

March 22nd update below - yep, I called it. Lake levels are rising from the low of 654.3 on 3/14.

March 27th update below - Nope. I didn't call it.  Lake levels have dropped since the last update to it's lowest level of the year, 653.91 at 8am this morning. It's come up slightly since then but I won't venture to think we've hit the low.  I swear, sometimes I think Ameren reads this blog and adjusts levels just to prove me wrong.  ;-) As you can see, we're just about to match the latest date for reaching low level in the past 9 years which happened March 31st, 2011.

Final Update: Given the low levels late in the year for 2018 I decided just to wait until May 1st before a final update. The maximum drawdown level for 2018 came on March 27th at 653.91. A very typical peak low level.  Nine year data average for date and level is now March 11th, at an average level of 654.82.

Below is a simple graph of just 9 year hourly levels average. (= Green graph above)

February 2018 Lake Levels and Flow Rates

Ameren announced in early February that the low level draw down would probably occur on February 19th.  Looking at the chart above would seem to confirm they hit their target at just under 655', but I wouldn't count on the draw down being over  just yet. As you can see the recent rains elevated the lake by nearly a foot and half and power generation (green spikes) has already begun bringing levels back down. Typically early March (see the orange 5 year average line) is when the lowest levels are reached and the spring rains haven't begun in earnest so it is possible they will draw the lake back down toward the 655' mark.

The Final Word - U.S.Coast Guard Authority and Jurisdiction On the Lake of the Ozarks

For years now I have taken the position both privately and publicly that the U.S. Coast Guard's authority on the Lake of the Ozarks is very limited. Actually, I've basically said the Coast Guard had no authority when it came to law enforcement over the issue of jurisdiction. Does the U.S.Coast Guard have jurisdiction on the Lake of the Ozarks? If so what is their authority as a law enforcement agency on the lake? I've done my best to look at the rules and regulations to figure out for myself the answer to these questions, and concluded that the Coast Guard did not have authority since the Lake of the Ozarks is not considered a "navigable" waterway according to an Eighth Circuit Court ruling in 1989. However, I've never been completely confident in my position and since my goal here is to help provide accurate information regarding the lake and boating, I felt compelled to get it right. Also, it has been clear over time that I am very much in the minority in the opinion that the Coast Guard has limited powers of authority on the lake. So I decided to ask the people who would know, the United States Coast Guard.

I've recently had a discussion via email with a very nice LTjg with the Coast Guard's Public Affairs Office to get a clear understanding of their authority on the Lake of the Ozarks and can now report that my often stated opinion of the Coast Guard's lack of authority has been...

Wrong. (smelling salts please).

In fact, according to the Coast Guard, they have both "authority and jurisdiction" on the Lake of the Ozarks. Jurisdiction, as defined by Commandant Authority, is "the government's power to exercise legal authority over it's persons, vessels, and territory."

The Public Affairs Office specifically sited the Code of Federal Regulations Title 33 sub-part 2.36 as the source of their jurisdiction. Title 33 painstakingly defines "Waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for which the Coast Guard has authority and jurisdiction over. Relevant to the Lake of the Ozarks, and any lake within the continental United States is section 2.36.

§?2.36 Navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters.
           (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters mean, except where Congress has designated them not to be navigable waters of the United States:
                   (1) Territorial seas of the United States;
                   (2) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and
                   (3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that:
(i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in   connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage, or
(ii) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce.

            (b) Navigable waters of the United States and navigable waters, as used in sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1322, mean:
                   (1) Navigable waters of the United States as defined in paragraph (a) of this section and all waters within the United States tributary thereto; and
                   (2) Other waters over which the Federal Government may exercise Constitutional authority.

As with any such document, there's a bit more legalize there for this old puddle pirate's liking but let's see if we can't break this down a bit and figure out how the Lake of the Ozarks fits into this definition. The formatting above is a little difficult to follow but here is the the relevant part.

Part (a) section 3(i), highlight in red is the heart of the matter. "Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage,"

This was the source of my confusion, thinking that since the Lake of the Ozarks was never used for commerce that it did not fall under section 3(i). At one time, long before Bagnell Dam was even an idea, the Osage River had indeed been used for commerce. There's a fascinating history actually, but in short the Osage River was never much more than a means of moving timber for a time and never successfully commercialized like the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers for the transportation of goods and materials. It was the Osage River's lack of success as a transportation river that gave rise to the idea of just damming it up for use as a hydroelectric source. So while the Lake of the Ozarks is currently NOT used for interstate of foreign commerce, the key portion of the description is "...have been used" and "notwithstanding, natural or man-made obstructions that require portage," even though the lake did not exist at the time of relevant description. At least that was the basis of my argument that the Coast Guard lacked authority.

Suffice to say that the Coast Guard's position of authority and jurisdiction is based on a very tenuous link to the past. Their point is that the Osage River had been used for commerce. My point is the Lake of the Ozarks was never used commercially.  In order to agree with the Coast Guard, one would have to agree that the Lake is really an extension of the Osage River to fall into this category. So while the argument can be made the Lake is an extension of the Osage River, the claim that in turn it makes the Lake subject to Coast Guard authority based on past usage a bit of a stretch, I believe it would ultimately come to a court decision to make or break the Coast Guard's assessment that the authority as defined is clearly there. But, for the purposes of  public information I will have to concede that yes, the U.S. Coast Guard does have jurisdiction and authority on the Lake of the Ozarks, if only because the Commandant says so.

But who cares? Right?  I mean that was a lot of discussion and effort over such a trivial matter wasn't it? Well, maybe not.  Consider that you may want to think twice about drinking and operating your vessel now that you know there's a law enforcement agency on the water that can literally make a federal case out of it.

Or,  more to the point.

You might also consider what the Coast Guard's authority and jurisdiction might mean if you are in possession of a federally controlled substance on your vessel, say, marijuana for instance? On November 6th 2018 Missouri voters approved a state constitution amendment to allow the use of cannibis for medical purposes. State laws notwithstanding, whether legalized or not, the Coast Guard has the authority to enforce federal law and under federal law marijuana is still illegal. I know what happened to vessels we came across hauling marijuana in my time on a cutter patrolling the Gulf of Mexico. Care to guess what might happen to your shiny boat should that Coast Guard small boat patrol catch you with contraband in Party Cove? Of course, search and seizure of your vessel is a possibility with local and state law enforcement as well, but I can assure you, it's a definite possibility when it comes to the feds. In fact, every boat you see with a name on the stern and port of call underneath is registered with the U.S. Coast Guard and technically a part of the fleet. What few people know is that in order to name their boat, and avoid registering it with the state and thus avoid (some) of the sales tax obligation to the state of Missouri) what they are doing is registering it with the federal government as part of the reserve fleet, namely the Coast Guard auxiliary. It can therefore, albeit under specific circumstances, be commandeered for their purposes and the Coast Guard takes a dim view of contraband being on boats in their fleet. Does this mean the Coast Guard will confiscate your vessel if you are searched and contraband is found? I wouldn't think so, but it certainly means they can.  Given some of these boats on the lake are worth millions of dollars, I for one wouldn't want to put it to the test should recreational marijuana be allowed at some point in the future. I've never heard of such a thing happening in states that have passed recreational marijuana use, but the USCG Public Affairs Office indicated it was within their authority. You can bet such an occurrence would end up it federal court, and that's not cheap.

So here it is, my final words on the subject, whether I agree or not: The Coast Guard is charged with enforcing safety and federal law, and now you know they believe they have the full authority and jurisdiction to do so on the Lake of the Ozarks.

Flow Rate Facts for 2017

Bagnell Dam, on average passed through about 12,500cfs of water every hour in 2017. That's about 93,400 gallons every second, again on average. The graph below breaks down the percentage of time operated at specific flow rate ranges.

The total amount of water passing through Bagnell Dam for 2017 was just under 3 TRILLION gallons.

The maximum flow rate was 86,432cfs on April 30th. That's nearly an Olympic size pool every second!

For power generation it is assumed that total generation operation time is a combination of typical, maximum, and flood rates, or 41%.