60 years ago, the Rooney’s family
cottage stood 30 feet from the edge of Lake George near the outlet of English
Brook. Today, that same cottage stands 280 feet from the shoreline, but the
house never moved; only the land grew. To get to water more than one foot deep,
you need to walk another 270 feet out into the lake. Without the English
Brook’s delta, that area would be more than 30 feet deep. The English Brook
delta, and the delta’s of other Lake George tributaries, have grown at
unprecedented rates over the past few decades. At the outlet of Finkle Brook,
landowners have docks that exceed 140 feet in length. On Hague Brook town
beach, you have to walk the length of a football field to reach waist-deep
water. The question is whether these enormous deltas are natural features of
the lake, or if their growth has been accelerated from human practices.
While sediment accumulations known
as deltas naturally occur at the mouths of tributaries, the alarming growth of the Lake
George deltas over the past 50 years is the work of more than just nature. The
construction of the Adirondack Northway in the 1960s, the washout of the Bolton
Landfill in 1966, and the 28,000 tons of sand applied to roads in the
wintertime are only a few of the causes of Lake George’s enlarged deltas that
can be attributed to human activity. The debate of the origin of the deltas
culminated in the Environmental Impact Statement in 2003, titled “Lake George
Deltas Sediment Management/Shoreline Restoration Project”. The document settles
the argument once and for all, showing that upland development, highway sand
spreading activities, land clearing, and logging, in combination with
inadequate erosion and sedimentation controls, are the causes of the enlarged
deltas.
Now, the people of Lake George are
disagreeing over what must be done about the deltas. Many people believe the
deltas should be dredged; dredging has occurred on Lake George in the past, and
the deltas create boating hazards, inhibit boat docking, and cause aesthetic
declines. These people believe that dredging will improve the water quality and
the recreational quality of the Lake. The con side of the argument, however,
believes that the costly dredging of the deltas will take away money that
should be allocated to tackling the problem at its source, not dredging for a
short-term benefit. These people argue for action upstream, such as stricter
land-use laws, steps to prevent erosion, and improvements in stormwater
control. I think I side with the argument against dredging, because it is only
a band-aid to the issue and, since it only removes course-grained sediment that
has settled at the bottom, it will not improve water quality in the lake. I
believe that more stormwater control initiatives and steps to prevent erosion
upstream would be a better option for Lake George.
Source:
It is so interesting that erosion is an issue even in the Adirondacks. Recently, I watched a film called Shored Up about the effects of climate change on coasts in the US. Barrier islands in particular, are faced with severe problems with sea level rise and erosion of sand from beaches and shorelines. Groins and beach restoration have been used to prevent some change, but they are only a temporary and very costly solution. A similar discussion is occurring in these places as the discussion at Lake George. More effort and money should be put into long-term planning to prevent further damage not just weakly keeping problems at bay. When there is an easy, less complicated solution such as groins or dredging, how do we make people see that the long-term solution will be more beneficial in the long run?
ReplyDelete