...they were even considering, at one point, to take some preventative measures to slow down the erosion process by putting in some kind of protectant on the rock (such as maybe a cement mixture). The main reasons for doing that was to prevent another collapse, to keep the Falls the Falls, and not into a rapidly descending rapids. The last reason was, of course, for tourism sakes... they built the walk-ways and observation decks as close to the edge of the falls as possible (not to mention the under-the-falls experiences), so by preventing further erosion... the current setup would last for generations to come.
I think the idea was shot down by the conservatives... because then the falls wouldn't be so "au natural" (even though it isn't now since only about 40% of the water actually flows over the Falls to help erosion & they use the other so-much percent for the electricity).
Isn't the rate of erosion hideously slow, something like an inch a year? That being the case, it will be centuries before the current tunnels and platforms will be rendered obsolete- likely long after they are deemed no longer sound for people to use. As much as I'd like to see the current Falls preserved, isn't the idea of the Falls to change over time? That's the way it's supposed to be, and it's probably not a good idea to mess with that.
Besides, I'd be more worried about the Canadian/Horseshoe Falls moving further back, not the American Falls.
During summer days, it's at its highest point for tourists & such. They slow the flow at night, however... and they slow it down even more during the winter. If it was at 100%, erosion would occur a lot more quickly, and the mass amount of water going over would be even more intense.
You must be logged in to post