Lake is low

Great pics Bob, but sad to see it's low. Nothing compared to 10 years ago.

I believe we had above average rainfall last year so it should be higher. One possible reason is that CNA is not releasing as much water from the Lerma River. That is a political issue.

Another reason is that Guadalajara is taking far more water than other years.

There was a time, quite a while back, where you could walk all the way to Scorpion Island.

The Ferry Boat Folks might halfta trade the Boat in for a couple o ponies....

Sorry John but last year was below normal/average:
[img][/img]

Depressing to see the Lake that low!

A few years ago we took some friends to Scorpion Island and enjoyed some snacks and suds at one of the dilapidated restaurants. They were doing a pretty good business with the weekend tourists.

CheenaGringo wrote:Sorry John but last year was below normal/average:
[img][/img]

Depressing to see the Lake that low!

I believe if you had the statistics for more than just the last 5 good years, maybe 15 years, John might be correct. The Lake level has been pretty high as of late.

johninajijic wrote:

Another reason is that Guadalajara is taking far more water than other years.

Gracias por el agua John.
Chris in GDL

CG - Good info. I guess I was thinking that because we had a Tromba in the mountains above LAS that we got above average rainfall.

Damn shame to see the Lake that low.

CanuckBob wrote:

Parker wrote:There was a time, quite a while back, where you could walk all the way to Scorpion Island.

Does that explain the abandoned restaurant and bars on that island?

Don’t know.

viajero wrote:

johninajijic wrote:

Another reason is that Guadalajara is taking far more water than other years.

Gracias por el agua John.
Chris in GDL

Your welcome. If they fixed the pipes, like they do in the US that transport the water you wouldn't have over a 50% loss of water.

johninajijic wrote:

viajero wrote:

johninajijic wrote:

Another reason is that Guadalajara is taking far more water than other years.

Gracias por el agua John.
Chris in GDL

Your welcome. If they fixed the pipes, like they do in the US that transport the water you wouldn't have over a 50% loss of water.

Ouch.

Parker: "I believe if you had the statistics for more than just the last 5 good years, maybe 15 years, John might be correct. The Lake level has been pretty high as of late."

Another piece of brilliant logic out of AmyLee! Either you could have provided such figures or simply admitted that these are the only accurate figures available since there was never a weather station at Lake Chapala prior to this.

IF: A frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt all the time!

[img][/img]

CheenaGringo wrote:

Parker wrote; "I believe if you had the statistics for more than just the last 5 good years, maybe 15 years, John might be correct. The Lake level has been pretty high as of late."

Another piece of brilliant logic out of AmyLee! Either you could have provided such figures or simply admitted that these are the only accurate figures available since there was never a weather station at Lake Chapala prior to this.

Most everyone in this area agrees that the Lake has been the highest it’s been in years. Why do you have such a problem with that? And I believe many would probably agree your little statistics chart is probably off more than a little bit. It just doesn’t cover enough time plus it’s only about the last 5 years. I believe you’re pissed because I pointed it out. So be it.

Parker - Do you put forth immense effort at playing the "dense role"? Not sure it is worth the effort but maybe you might understand clarification?

When our friend, Steve was doing the necessary research to set up the weather station, he expended a great deal of effort to try and establish some sort of reliable average for rainfall in previous years. Since such information wasn't available, he took some available numbers and came up with a "guesstimate" to use for his top line averages. John's original comment was: "I believe we had above average rainfall last year so it should be higher." Thus he brought the discussion into rainfall and that is what I addressed.

Now if you wish to drag the actual Lake level into the equation, here is a chart documenting the Lake level back to 1901:

[img][/img]
Source: http://www.ceajalisco.gob.mx/sia/niveles/niveles.html

Since we have been coming to the area since 1997/1998 - I am acutely aware of the rise and fall of Lake Chapala!

My only reason as using the lake level as a barometer is that all other affects to the Lake, such as drain-offs would cause a negative in the Lake level requiring much more rain fall. Can’t debate your graft because I just can’t see it, I have my computer set a 150% and it doesn’t go any larger. I did go to your link.

Actually, according to most articles, the lake is at it's lowest in five years. Last year Jalisco, primarily in the northern part, experienced a drought. I read an article last week in one of the papers that said that one of the main damns that feeds into the basin to fill the lake is only 20% full or was when the article was written. I'll try to find it. But I'm really not very good at using the google or whatever translator, so when I do post, someone else will have to do the translating, ok?

p.s. a lot of this goes right over my head, but I think I'm reading it right...(I don't mean the Spanish, I read that just fine, just the numbers etc. in terms of how the lake levels are measured etc.)

http://jalisco.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/06214c1b1ed1865a57be68f73417510c

okay this is in english re the lowest in five years:
http://duncantucker.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/authorities-prepared-for-summer-droughts/


the unam site, gives some positives and negatives, but they seem to post daily:
http://www.agua.unam.mx/noticias/2012/nacionales/not_nac_julio.html

Mexico is having it's worst drought in 70 years.

It has been lower and it has been higher. Not a big deal. chico

Chico wrote:It has been lower and it has been higher. Not a big deal. chico

Chico, read the articles and listen to what Cane above has said...it is true. No big deal? I only know what I read (a lot) and wouldn't agree with your statement at all.

http://ceajalisco.gob.mx/chapala.html

Look here and see that the lake is a bit over 1 meter lower than the last two years.

mielicita wrote:

Chico wrote:It has been lower and it has been higher. Not a big deal. chico

Chico, read the articles and listen to what Cane above has said...it is true. No big deal? I only know what I read (a lot) and wouldn't agree with your statement at all.

What are you saying, "avoid the rush and panic now?"