Yep, I believe it does. Arkansas also has Lake Ouachita, Greers Ferry Lake, and parts of Table Rock and Beaver lakes.
All are sizable, but at no point when I am near the shore, can I not see the other side. Big water, to me, means you can’t see the other side.
A reasonable defintion of “big water,” I’d say. I’ll yield to that distinction, and remove my proximity to Percy Priest from contention. That puts me nearest the Gulf, I suspect. Close to 400 miles, probably.
I think you’ll need a more official ruling on rivers to get anywhere close to what you’re looking for.
If we allow that the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Columbia and Snake rivers are “big water” thats going to pair down the distances by quite alot in the western half of the country. If we exclude rivers altogether (based on the “see the other side” corallary), then it’s a entirely different question.
if we are excluding rivers, i live in omaha, nebraska. it is at least a two day drive to see salt water, and eight or ten hours to see the nearest great lake.
At the time I wrote the OP I felt that “big water” was a subjective term, and that each person had a notion of what qualified for consideration. Given that wherever I did read or hear about the proportion of USA citizens living near the coasts, and knowing that there are a large number whose claim to “living near the water” would not include those very large “can’t see across them” types, I was curious to what extent people (SDMB types) felt they lived close enough to “big water.”
Where would we find the “official ruling” do you think?
I think “can’t see across it” is the a good rule-of-thumb benchmark (mixing metaphors like there’s no tomorrow).
It’s your thread, so make up a rule. Duh…
I would count a river as big water if it’s more than a mile wide by natural means at the closest point to the Doper, and/or a navigable waterway. As an example, the Wabash River north of Terre Haute, IN is too narrow and not navigable to be considered big water; south of TH it’s big
Navigable rivers aren’t a good measure. Defining these is going to vary widely - do they need to be navigable be ocean-going ships, or by flat-bottom barges? Certainly I know of plenty of navigable rivers which are definitely Small Water!
Hmm. Seems I am actually about 17 miles from Lake Michigan, closer to Cal-Sag Canal, and only 4-5 miles from the Thorn Creek Basin.
I grew up with Butterfield Creek running through my backyard. Does that count?
WhyNot --I didn’t know that you lived in the area! That’s great–maybe someday I’ll get to meet Whybaby and Whykid etc. (for some reason, I have you out in California in my head).
I doubt anyone in the Midwest would qualify as distant from a big body of water–we are lucky in that we have lots o’ water-including underground.
Perhaps I am not understanding the OP-but what is the significance of NOT living near water?
I just did a little checking on widths of rivers and it appears that a mile across is a BIG river. The Ohio for instance just makes it, and if the Tennessee, which I consider a big river, gets to be a mile wide, it’s only that wide for a short distance. (I say this without travelling the river all that much, and only crossing it at several places by car – across bridges.)
The Mississippi seems to have a miximum width of like 4 miles, so I can surely see that it qualifies. But I don’t have a good feel for the cutoff point for smaller rivers.
Again, I think the issue of “big water” is subjective. If people really do need to live near the really big water, they live on (or very near) an ocean or a Great Lake. Otherwise, they select places near “big rivers” or (to their own way of thinking) “big lakes.”
I do suspect that there are a significant number of people who don’t select their places to live based on nearness to “big water.” And I guess those are the ones I’m most curious about in this thread.
I accept that the issue may be too vague for good discussion.
I don’t know the OP’s motives, but I am fascinated by the idea of being landlocked. Because I would hate it. I’ve grown up within a short distance of the sea (and nobody in Britian can be distant from it!) I can’t imagine living in a place where I don’t have that comforting place within reach.
My motives are primarily curiosity of the very issue you describe. I enjoy being at the shore and watching the waves crashing in. But only for short spans of time. I suspect that if I did live near the coast I’d get used to that aspect of my environment in a matter of a few weeks at most. Then it would be like living anywhere else.
I have as much affinity for the mountains. An ideal location would be mountains near the sea. Camden Maine is close to that ideal, as are other Maine coast towns. But it’s cold too much in Maine, or else I’d consider moving there.
I suspect many people live where they do for other reasons than being near scenic beauty. For me, living near “big water” would qualify for being near “scenic beauty” unless one were employed by some outfit that depended on the sea directly. So this thread was just to get a feel for how others relate to the “big water” aspect of their existence, and for those who don’t regard it as a big deal just how happy they are at being far away from it.
I had a very strange experience about 7 years ago. We were driving to Utah and stopped in this tiny town in Nebraska. It was quite odd–we drove thru miles of cornfield (we didn’t want to just get off the Interstate–I think we needed diapers, so we needed a town and a real grocery store). This corn (and I come from a corn state) was TALL. NE is flat and we couldn’t see over the corn. We were on top of the town before we knew and we made our purchases and left.
But all the time we were there, I kept thinking–this town is surrounded by fields and fields of corn/soy/wheat. There is no near horizon–it stretches to forever(or seemed to, anyway). It was incredibly claustrophobic. I have lived in Iowa, but Iowa is rolling hills (and corn).
It was disconcerting and disturbing. I am used to New England, Florida, and Chicago–all coastal in one way or another. Even when I lived in Colorado–the mountains provided a finite horizon.
Anyway, I know what you are saying and have felt it myself. I’ll stick with Chicago.
Sorry, but sorta related question.
How big is a big lake (never mind the Great ones). How many acres–5, 50, 500? How many acres in a mile (for a lake)? Can you see across a 5 acre lake? a 50 acre one?
Sorry to hijack, but I cannot get a handle on the sizes of the lakes here (except the Great ones).
Interesting. While there’s certainly beauty to the coast here, it’s not ‘scenic’. And more importantly, it’s not the primary thing that attracts me. It’s something that eleanorrigby touched on - horizons, limits, distances. The North Sea to me is a very forbidding place, a barrier, but barriers also define something as being ‘within’. And if you’re within that place, it’s comforting.
Something that’s occurred to me - although it’s the closest sea to me, I’ve never been on the North Sea on a boat, ever. Strange!
What we call a river in Colorado, is a creek to people back east.
I have running water in my yard that’s about a foot across. Runs year round so I consider it a spring/stream. It keeps a small pond full (about as big as two hot tubs). That would be a mud puddle back east.
I’d continue with my theme of subjectivity for what makes for “big water” being in the eye/mind of the observer. The lower limit of “big water” for me would be something I’d avoid trying to swim across. If the current were strong enough, or if there were treacherous things in the water, a much smaller width would satisfy me as being “too big.” Otherwise something on the order of a few hundred yards across would start looking big.
For that matter, I’m not sure when a pond gets big enough to be a lake. Or when a lake gets big enough to be a sea. I think I’ve seen the Great Lakes referred to as “inland seas” somewhere, and the Caspian Sea described as a big lake.
Not much help, am I?
640 acres in a sq mile. That’s commonly called a section in surveying. 5280 feet per side. Easy to see a mile, in all but the worst conditions.
Remember, a mile is a distance, where an acre is the size of a planar shape. It can be any shape. No one uses the term Sq acres(though I guess you could).
One acre is 43560 sq feet. Roughly 220ft x 220ft. 40 acres is 1320ft x 1320ft. A square mile is 640 acres.
Dillon Reservoir http://www.denverwater.org/recreation/dillon.html (the closest ‘boatable’ lake near me) is 3,200 acres. And except for the inlets, is easy to see across.
I live two blocks from the Humber River and about a thirty-minute walk from Lake Ontario. I guess I’m out. 
My mother, on the other hand, was born in Saskatchewan, spending parts of her childhood in Weyburn and Regina. Not much water, and it’s really really flat.
I am about 75 miles from Lake Erie and probably about the same (probably a little less) from whatever rivers run through Pittsburgh.
I really don’t think the Mahoning river counts as any sort of major body of water. I don’t know of any other major bodies of water that are close, but I could well be wrong.
