Talk:Smith Mountain Lake

	Lakes portal Smith Mountain Lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peak water level?

I would like to find out what the maximum recorded water level at SML is. I've done some googling, but haven't found it. My old boss said the highest he can remember was 12 feet above full pond. I've seen it as high as a 3 feet above.

Sdblair 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, the highest the lake level can possibly be is whatever altitude the height of the spillway is, right? (Not that I pretend to know what that specific number is, so I can't say if the article has it right or wrong). Wahkeenah 17:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if the spillway had unlimited capacity. During periods of excessive rainfall, the lake can be inundated with water beyond the spillway capacity. Even if they could open up the gates to keep the water level constant, that would cause worse flooding in Leesville lake since it has significantly less capacity (a two foot drop in SML results in a 13 foot rise in Leesville lake). Sdblair 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed, then, is some verifiable info on how high the lake can rise. For example, if the Roanoke goes 10 feet over normal height, that might translate to just a few inches added to the lake, due to its massive surface area compared with the upstream portion of the river. Wahkeenah 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer: The maximum recorded water level at SML was 799.79 feet on April 27, 1978, according to AEP's website (http://www.aep.com/environmental/recreation/hydro/smithmtn.htm). That's 4.79 feet above "full pond." The spillways at the dam are at 802.0 feet ASL. Bitshftr 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of false info in this article..first..who wrote this? The dam produces pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Water flows through the dam turbines into Leesville Lake during the day (high demand time) to produce supplemental electricity. Water is then pumped from Leesville lake back into Smith Mountain Lake at night (low demand time). The dam is operated by Appalachian Power, part of American Electric Power. The resulting tidelike levels from the pumpback operation decrease stagnant mosquito larva breeding pools and the lake is relatively free of mosquitos.

There are a lot of mosquitos here in the summer months. And then there is the Visa Yacht Club. That club was not around in the early 90's The marina is Bernards Landing.This info can be seen at the end of the movie"what about bob" credits. Body Camp is not at the lake. Body Camp is off route 24 and that in turn is like 10 miles from the lake. Flood proof? NO! In the summer of 2004 all the docks at the lake were under water.Many residences lost land due to that flood, even rip rapping did not protect some home owners.

Well I'm not sure who you are, since you didn't sign your comment, but it depends on your definition of the word "flood." The spillways at the dam are at 802.0 feet ASL, so the lake level cannot exceed that altitude. Granted, most docks were under water during the event of the fall of 2004, but everyone who buys a lakefront lot gets a survey that shows where the 800 foot and 802 foot contours are, so they know where the maximum possible water line is. Bitshftr 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the lowest it's ever been? (i mean after it reached full pond so post 1970s) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMLBen (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer: The minimum recorded water level at SML (after initially reaching full pond in 1966) was 787.60 feet on January 23, 1970, according to AEP's website (http://www.aep.com/environmental/recreation/hydro/smithmtn.htm). That's 7.4 feet below "full pond." It has also been down to just over 788 feet several times since then. Bitshftr 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial saturation diving system

Is the section Commercial saturation diving system properly placed? Perhaps Events should come first. This section is not properly sourced, but I found it interesting. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Format

After reading this article, I feel that this article is more of an advertisement article rather than an encyclopedia article. The Shoreline Management, Marinas with Public Services, Fishing Guides, Sailing Schools, Commercial saturation diving system and Events sections should be removed. They are unjustly under the History section and the "jist" of these sections can be included under Recreational Access which can be renamed "Recreation". The intro is also too long and a section about the surrounding state park can be included, if not a new article. By seeing some of the editors of this page, I believe they may be employees associated with Smith Mountain Lake. If so, you have a nice website that is already linked to this page. If someone doesn't have any sustainable objections, I will make the changes soon.

I will create a separate article for the Smith Mountain Dam along with expanding this article too.

Please see Lake Mead as an example of a lake/reservoir article with good standards. --Sanorton (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]