Finally there is a crack in the wall that has prevented the Corps from Cooperating with us on better control of lake levels. In the next month or two the Corps will issue an EA permitting them to change the drought control plan as drought conditions warrant. For years we have pleaded for such a change based on experience in actual drought conditions but for years the Corps has insisted they could not do that. They continually claimed they needed a phase 2 study before they could make such a change.
There should be a request for public comments when this EA is announced. Please send in your comments when they are called for. We will publish email and mailing addresses as soon as the request for comments goes out.
The main thing needed is a change in basis for release rates away from what everyone wishes for downstream to what Nature makes available in rain. In other words the Corps needs to acknowledge that neither us nor the Corps can create water and if we use more than rain provides we are destroying our lakes. Save Our Lakes Now proposal for several years has been to drop release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during the drought of record anytime the lakes drop 2ft from full pool. This rate is 3600cfs. If the drought is short lived the lakes will refill quickly and releases can be returned to normal. But if the drought is like the one of record in 2008 the lakes could fluctuate on the order of 8ft but the drop should not be catastrophic like the one in 2008. The tendency of the Corps in the past has been too timid to drop to 3600 cfs. Instead they use 4,000 or 3800 cfs. These sound like a nice compromise until you realize that each 100cfs equals one foot of level in a years time. So 4,000 cfs leads to 4ft more drop than 3600 cfs over the period of one year. In our opinion they should be looking at ways to go even below 3600 when possible such as 3100 cfs during winter months and complete stoppage of releases when the river below Thurmond dam is swollen from heavy rains.
One other concern Save Our Lakes Now has is the blind faith the Corps seems to have in studies. Either innocently or intentionally they listen to unrealistic claims of groups who have a negative bias against maintaining reasonable release rates. We recommend that the Corps allow groups such as Save Our Lakes Now who strongly support recreational concerns to be involved in interpreting studies to determine optimum release rates.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
STUDIES NOT NEEDED TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN
For what seems like an eternity we have been led to believe that a phase 2 study is needed before the drought plan can be changed. Sounds very similar to the thinking that just trashed the oil pipeline from Canada. What is needed instead is strong logical leadership that provides good balance between all the different responsibilities the Corps has regarding the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin. The problem with a study is how it is interpreted. As with the oil pipeline, studies were not the answer. Logic or lack thereof led to the decisions that were made for the pipeline.
Logic for the Lakes says it is foolish to try to send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain. This is true since neither the Corps nor any of the rest of us can create water. Mother nature has 100% control over how much water is available. Once that is recognized the rest becomes a simple decision on what period of time you want to balance releases with rainfall. Day to day balancing would mean the lakes remain totally full and whatever comes in from rain daily is sent downstream. Annual balancing means looking at how much water comes in over a years time and matching it.
Selfish desire to keep the lakes totally full with no consideration for the folks downstream would go with the first option and keep the lakes totally full. To a certain extent this could be justified since the river would behave exactly the way it has since time began and experience droughts and floods as a natural event. On the other hand balancing the lakes on an annual basis is much fairer to downstream interests. This approach totally eliminates both drought and flooding in the sense of what the river used to experience.
These facts are all that is needed to come to a logical decision on how to manage the lakes. Desire on the part of anyone downstream for more water is like asking for more money than you have in the bank. It simply will not work. Besides destroying the lake by releasing more water than is available destroys power production, recreation, and eventually water quality, water supply, and all the other issues the Corps is responsible for.
Studies have a place. But it is not in the decision process for drought control. Rather they are great to decipher what different rainfall conditions do to the system. For example saying that you want more water held in the lakes than comes down from rain would lead to horrendous flooding upstream of the dams. Studies of what the impact is on the environment around the lakes is not needed to tell us that such a plan will not work. The same is true in balancing flows based on what is happening downstream.
Logic for the Lakes says it is foolish to try to send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain. This is true since neither the Corps nor any of the rest of us can create water. Mother nature has 100% control over how much water is available. Once that is recognized the rest becomes a simple decision on what period of time you want to balance releases with rainfall. Day to day balancing would mean the lakes remain totally full and whatever comes in from rain daily is sent downstream. Annual balancing means looking at how much water comes in over a years time and matching it.
Selfish desire to keep the lakes totally full with no consideration for the folks downstream would go with the first option and keep the lakes totally full. To a certain extent this could be justified since the river would behave exactly the way it has since time began and experience droughts and floods as a natural event. On the other hand balancing the lakes on an annual basis is much fairer to downstream interests. This approach totally eliminates both drought and flooding in the sense of what the river used to experience.
These facts are all that is needed to come to a logical decision on how to manage the lakes. Desire on the part of anyone downstream for more water is like asking for more money than you have in the bank. It simply will not work. Besides destroying the lake by releasing more water than is available destroys power production, recreation, and eventually water quality, water supply, and all the other issues the Corps is responsible for.
Studies have a place. But it is not in the decision process for drought control. Rather they are great to decipher what different rainfall conditions do to the system. For example saying that you want more water held in the lakes than comes down from rain would lead to horrendous flooding upstream of the dams. Studies of what the impact is on the environment around the lakes is not needed to tell us that such a plan will not work. The same is true in balancing flows based on what is happening downstream.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
STATUS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW EFFORTS
When trying to fight city hall you often feel nothing will ever come of your efforts. This is doubly true when you are up against federal regulations, environmental concerns, claims of selfishly wanting lake level at the expense of everyone downstream, and entrenched practices of the Corps of Engineers. But we are making progress. It's been slower than we would like but the ice is melting and real progress could well be just around the corner. The Corps is even planning a near term change to the drought plan using an EA which is what we have been pleading for for several years.
A year or so back our proposals for improved drought plans were met with numerous road blocks:
1) SEPA would never permit due to contracts on power production
2) Short Nosed Sturgeon spawning grounds would be destroyed
3) Dissolved Oxygen in the harbor would be impacted
4) Many of the industrial concerns downstream would suffer severe harm
5) The lakes would not be experiencing their fair share of problems during a drought
6) The economic effects of low lake levels are insignificant
7) Wildlife and Fisheries in Athens would never permit such a change
8) Congress would never permit such changes
9) Money from the states was needed to fund a phase 2 study
One by one each has been eliminated. None of these were valid reasons to not change our drought plan. Basically we became a fact finding organization and literally met with the groups the Corps claimed were preventing them from adopting our proposals. It turns out in the final analysis that the Corps can make such changes at their discretion provided an Environmental Assessment is made.
It has taken many hours of sitting down with the various parties involved to get their reasoning on the table. And it has taken publicizing our plight. Several newspapers, Austin Rhodes, our blogs etc. have finally penetrated the protective fog that once surrounded Corps decisions. We even put up a billboard and held a protest demonstration at Thurmond Dam. In the past 3 months we have visited Jeff Duncan, and Jim DeMint and continued communication with Paul Broun for assistance from our national Congressmen and Senators and Shane Massey for help at the State Senate level. We are presently visiting the various County Councils around the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin and plans are in progress to meet with the Governors of both GA and SC.
All this takes time and money. Up till now only a few people have been responsible for the work and funding. Save Our Lakes Now is seeking a larger working base to make things happen more quickly and to make sure we never slip back into the horrible lake levels experienced in past droughts. If you can help with your time, money, or both please come join our effort. Details are available at www.saveourlakesnow.org
A year or so back our proposals for improved drought plans were met with numerous road blocks:
1) SEPA would never permit due to contracts on power production
2) Short Nosed Sturgeon spawning grounds would be destroyed
3) Dissolved Oxygen in the harbor would be impacted
4) Many of the industrial concerns downstream would suffer severe harm
5) The lakes would not be experiencing their fair share of problems during a drought
6) The economic effects of low lake levels are insignificant
7) Wildlife and Fisheries in Athens would never permit such a change
8) Congress would never permit such changes
9) Money from the states was needed to fund a phase 2 study
One by one each has been eliminated. None of these were valid reasons to not change our drought plan. Basically we became a fact finding organization and literally met with the groups the Corps claimed were preventing them from adopting our proposals. It turns out in the final analysis that the Corps can make such changes at their discretion provided an Environmental Assessment is made.
It has taken many hours of sitting down with the various parties involved to get their reasoning on the table. And it has taken publicizing our plight. Several newspapers, Austin Rhodes, our blogs etc. have finally penetrated the protective fog that once surrounded Corps decisions. We even put up a billboard and held a protest demonstration at Thurmond Dam. In the past 3 months we have visited Jeff Duncan, and Jim DeMint and continued communication with Paul Broun for assistance from our national Congressmen and Senators and Shane Massey for help at the State Senate level. We are presently visiting the various County Councils around the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin and plans are in progress to meet with the Governors of both GA and SC.
All this takes time and money. Up till now only a few people have been responsible for the work and funding. Save Our Lakes Now is seeking a larger working base to make things happen more quickly and to make sure we never slip back into the horrible lake levels experienced in past droughts. If you can help with your time, money, or both please come join our effort. Details are available at www.saveourlakesnow.org
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
BACKGROUND ON SAVE OUR LAKES NOW
Many people who are just now learning about Save Our Lakes Now are probably wondering just who we are and whether we are "fair and balanced" to quote Fox News. Here of course the fair and balanced is concerning water on both sides of the dam.
The best analogy of who we are is to compare us to the Tea Party. Basically we are in the role of disrupting a failed system in which the governing bodies have become fixed in their ways and where their ways do not work. Historically disruption of the status quo has always been unwelcome to those in control. Like the Tea Party we are attracting a lot of support because we have a much needed answer to an old problem. Contrary to some criticism we are being very careful to consider both sides of the dam and our recommendations are based on sound engineering principles.
If you agree with us that the failed drought plan of the Corps needs to be changed, join us at Thurmond Dam on Saturday Nov 5th at 10 to 2. Between now and then give some thought to what you would like to tell your congressman about this and what you would like to have the Corps do differently. Write these thoughts in the form of letters and bring them to the protest rally. We'll get all the letters together and send them to the appropriate congressman and to the Corps. Matter of fact if you would like to air your thoughts with everyone else, bring a copy to be posted on our bulletin board at the headquarters' tent at the rally.
If you would like more information on the drought problem take a look at our website www.saveourlakesnow.org or attend our webinar this Sunday at 2:00 - 2:15 pm. You can register for the webinar using the following link.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/871649990
The best analogy of who we are is to compare us to the Tea Party. Basically we are in the role of disrupting a failed system in which the governing bodies have become fixed in their ways and where their ways do not work. Historically disruption of the status quo has always been unwelcome to those in control. Like the Tea Party we are attracting a lot of support because we have a much needed answer to an old problem. Contrary to some criticism we are being very careful to consider both sides of the dam and our recommendations are based on sound engineering principles.
If you agree with us that the failed drought plan of the Corps needs to be changed, join us at Thurmond Dam on Saturday Nov 5th at 10 to 2. Between now and then give some thought to what you would like to tell your congressman about this and what you would like to have the Corps do differently. Write these thoughts in the form of letters and bring them to the protest rally. We'll get all the letters together and send them to the appropriate congressman and to the Corps. Matter of fact if you would like to air your thoughts with everyone else, bring a copy to be posted on our bulletin board at the headquarters' tent at the rally.
If you would like more information on the drought problem take a look at our website www.saveourlakesnow.org or attend our webinar this Sunday at 2:00 - 2:15 pm. You can register for the webinar using the following link.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/871649990
Saturday, October 15, 2011
PROTEST MARCH AT THURMOND DAM ON NOV. 5TH
SAVE OUR LAKES NOW PROTEST MARCH ANNOUNCEMENT
Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.
Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.
For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.
The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.
Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.
Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.
For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.
The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
It has suddenly become popular to demand lower release rates from the Corps. All the people who thought Save Our Lakes Now was being too demanding a year back when we pleaded for lower release rates now suddenly are pleading for the corps to cut back. But it is too late now. The level you see in the lake now comes from what happened over the past year not what you did last month and certainly not from what you do now. The rule of thumb is the lake will change 1 ft in a years time for each 100cfs change in release rates. We pleaded with the Corps and all Lake interests to drop flows to 3600 about a year ago. Even did a spot on Channel 6 News. Some even criticized us for this saying we were being too argumentative. Had the Corps dropped to 3600 when we asked the lake would be full now.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
WHY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW IS UPSET WITH THE WAY OUR LAKES ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED
To the average bystander the whole deal with the Corps, the drought, and low lake levels is confusing. After all we are in a drought; why shouldn't the lake be low. Besides doesn't the Corps have a lot of things to worry about in a drought other than lake levels.
But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.
Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.
Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.
The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.
But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.
Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.
Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.
The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
