Willamette a study in time...

[Hogmaster]

What a difference a few weeks can make, eh?

Remember this shot? December 8th, 2002...

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/352909341.jpg

Here is a shot from this afternoon. January 1st, 2003.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/0950160.jpg

It is running pretty good. But to give this real perspective, it is running just under 19' right now. Bank full is 25' and flood stage is 27'. You can see the volume has to increase exponentially for it to get that high as the river is wide.

But here is the real perspective. On Feb 9th, 1996, the river crested at 46 feet! We live on a bluff above our "bottom land" There is a gentle slope down to where the water is today. Probably about 6 verticle feet of slope over a 75 foot stretch of bottom land.

Mrs. Hogmaster is standing at the bottom of the stairs in this shot - again, the river right now is well behind where I am taking the picture.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/3502170.jpg

We didn't live here in 96', but the folks we bought the house from watched the river come up this staircase at the rate of a tread per hour! Got just below the second step to the top. You can imagine what Clackamette was like - like gone!!!

When everyone does those drought induced rain dances, I do a rain shuffle!!

:cheers:

[1pump]

I went down to Clackamette in Feb '96. There was a foot of water in that McDonald's they had just built there. The little back road into the OC shopping center could have easily been used for a boat ramp.
I remember stories about the '64 flood. One of which was that Willamette Falls disappeared and the entire river was just one huge lake.
(I was too young too remember much)
I drove up to the bluff during the '96 flood but the falls were still there, sort of. The white water that replaced them looked like some serious class V action. Even the noise from the water was impressive. :shocked:
I took quite a few pictures but I think my ex has 'em. :depressed:

[ 01-01-2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[Hogmaster]

Yes, in 64 the water came over the top. That was before the dams were put in for flood control. Had they not been there it has been estimated that the 96 flood would have crested another 6 feet higher and downtown Portland would have been seriously obliterated.

In 96 Detroit reservior filled in 72 hours from bone dry.

[jet]

Your pictures are great!

It is really cool to see the difference. Keep on posting when there is some changes, it will help us to know what is going on. Remember '96 when all the house boats were floating down the river loose, wow what a year.

We actually will be seeing better fishing due to all the floods when the smolts were flushed down the system. Good things come from bad.

Jet~~~

[KingFisher85]

Hog, there is something wrong with both them pictures. Neither one has a rod in the water. What's with that?

[Hogmaster]

Too busy workin' on my rats nest, Mikey!

:grin: :shocked: :grin:

Actually, hardly worth it today unless you are working for Hershey's!

[KingFisher85]

Do you ever plunk out of your back window at all Hog?

[Hogmaster]

Shhhhh! Nope, never!! :grin:

Actually, because of lonesome bottom extending out so far in shallow fashion, combined with big boulders, a lack of current and brush in high water, it isn't conducive for it.

When it is low enough to fish the fish aren't there. But I can easily see if fish are biting off the bank at Clackamette or in boats, which can drive a fisherman nuts when he is having to go to work! :shocked:

[1pump]

Hog, your comments about the upstream dams is interesting. I remember some government hydrologists in '96 saying the '64 flood was worse because the valley wasn't as heavily developed. In '96 there was more asphalt, concrete, storm drains, dikes, etc to force more water into the Willamette before it could spread out and dissipate. This wasn't the case in '64, and the water got even higher. I also heard that '96 was a 35-year flood and '64 was a 100-year flood.
All I know was that there was a lot of freakin' water!! :shocked: