SANTA MAY LEAVE GENERAL SEMONITE A LUMP OF COAL

General Semonite gave an excellent impression when he spoke to the Lake Hartwell Association in Anderson a month back. Everything he said and the way in which he handled himself with the audience indicated he was going to be great to work with and responsive to our needs. Hopeful that we will be able to communicate with the General on Drought Control for the Savannah River Basin we sent an email to him on December 13th about a very important policy matter. To date we have not received a reply. If this is an indication of the kind of cooperation we can expect from the Corps for the future we will have to ask Santa to set aside a lump of coal for the General.

A copy of our email to the general follows:

To: General Semonite
From: Save Our Lakes Now

At the Anderson meeting with the Lake Hartwell Association you stated that local economics was not a legitimate basis for managing the lakes because it was not one of the responsibilities specified by congress. This is in direct conflct with a precedent set by the Corps in '93 during a law suit over their control of Missouri lakes in a major drought. I have attached a copy of the GAO testimony given to the Senate on this subject that year. The pertinent testimony is highlighted in yellow.

Unless there is something we are missing here, this would add tremendous weight to our recommendation that Lake Thurmond releases be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lake is below 328'. Our recommendations are justifiable from simply keeping the lakes full enough to avoid endangering downstream needs. But increasing economic considerations to the same level as flood control, etc. mandates a plan such as ours to avoid dropping the lakes more than 8 ft in a major drought. Local economics are devastated anytime the lakes drop more than this.

With this email we renew our request for an immediate correction to the drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin to reflect the new knowledge gathered in the last drought. Namely the knowledge referred to is 1) that the average rain input during the worst droughts of record is 3600cfs, 2) that release rates of 3600cfs did not present any major problems for downstream stakeholders over a period in excess of 12 consecutive months and 3) that lake levels would not drop more than 8' during the worst drought on record if our plan were followed.

ANALYSIS OF CORPS ANSWER ON MANAGING LAKE THURMOND

FOLLOWING IS A LETTER FROM THE CORPS ANSWERING ONE OF OUR PEOPLE ABOUT OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGING THE DROUGHT PLAN. IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE. FOLLOWING THIS LETTER I OFFER MY ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE ARE NOT CONNECTING WITH THE CORPS. MY ANSWER IS NUMBERED. THE NUMBER FOR EACH COMMENT CORRESPONDS TO THE RESPECTIVE PARAGRAPH IN THE CORPS RESPONSE.

"It's my job to manage the entire Savannah River Basin as one system. The
decisions I make with my water managers affect Hartwell, Thurmond, Augusta,
the Savannah River Site, Plant Vogtle, and many others who depend on the
river for their livelihood and well being. The city of Savannah gets 50% of
it's drinking water from the river, as do a number of municipalities
downstream. I don't take this responsibility lightly nor do I make decisions
without careful consideration, consultation, and analysis.

The reservoir has multiple purposes: flood damage reduction; hydropower
generation; water supply for residents/commercial uses throughout the basin;
water quality for environmental stewardship throughout the basin; and
recreation throughout the basin: the lakes were not built solely for lake
residents.

I suspect that when you moved here someone probably gave you the expectation
that the lake is always full. That is not the case. Even in non-drought
years, lake levels are designed to fluctuate as much as four feet. This can
be a huge inconvenience to someone who has a dock in a shallow water cove. I
receive lots of complaints from home buyers who were told the lake is always
full. I cannot control what home sellers say.

Cities, businesses, and utilities draw from the reservoirs and the river to
provide drinking water and support industry-which in turn creates jobs. The
states oversee and permit withdraws from the water system. We do not. I talk
regularly with SC and GA resource agencies on water management in order to
gauge needs of upstream and downstream users. In addition to GA and SC, the
reduction in water leaving the reservoirs requires the concurrence of the
federal resource agencies who are also charged with enforcing numerous
federal laws related to water.

The real answer to our issues is rain, and while I control many aspects of
water management, rain is beyond my control. As you know, right now rain
continues to raise reservoir levels.

I understand that many people would like the Corps to operate its reservoir
projects differently; I receive many requests to have the reservoirs full
all
the time. But as I explained, I have procedures to protect both people and
the environment. I think it's interesting that I also receive many e-mails
thanking me for how we managed the lakes during the drought. You didn't
mention it, but you do realize that for almost two years we reduced releases
BELOW what was specified in the drought plan, solely to the benefit of lake
users. I also ordered the dams shut off for a total of 80 days to save
water.
The groups that encourage these blanket e-mails somehow forgot to mention
that.

Also, we announced last week that we would be keeping Thurmond at 2' below
seasonal full pool when we do the repairs. The folks who send out these
e-mails to you somehow forgot to mention that as well. I cannot control what
they say, but I can answer your questions any time you have them. We put at
much info on our web site as is humanly possible, and I'd encourage you to
refer to it any time you need an update."

Thanks,


COL Edward J. Kertis
Commander, Savannah District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
912-652-5226

1&2) WE ALL AGREE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS. OUR PROPOSALS ALSO CONSIDER ALL STAKEHOLDERS WHETHER THEY ARE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES. WHERE WE WOULD DIFFER WITH THE COPRS IS THEY SEEM TO BE INFERRING THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING EVERYONE WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

3) WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARAGRAPH. FIRST THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO FLUCTUATE IN LEVEL IS MISLEADING. THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO HOLD WATER. HOW THE LEVEL FLUCTUATES IS UP TO THE WAY THE CORPS BALANCES LAKE OUTPUT (RELEASES) WITH INPUT (WATER FROM RAINFALL). THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE SUGGESTING THE CORPS BE MORE SENSIBLE WITH THE WAY THEY BALANCE OUTPUT WITH INPUT. WITH THE CURRENT DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE LAKES WOULD HAVE DROPPED BELOW THE POINT WHERE PREDICTABLE FLOWS COULD BE MAITAINED. THEY HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DROUGHT PLAN AND STILL ALMOST LOST CONTROL OF THE LAKES. WITH OUR PROPOSAL OUTPUT AND INPUT WOULD BE BALANCED AND THE SWING IN LAKE LEVEL DURING THE WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD WOULD BE LESS THAN 10' RATHER THAN THE 16' EXPERIENCED WITH THE CORPS PLAN AND THE LAKE WOULD BE WITHIN 2' OF FULL POOL MOST OF THE TIME.

A SECOND PROBLEM WITH THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE CORPS IS BASICALLY ACCUSING LOCAL REAL ESTATE PEOPLE OF LYING ABOUT LAKE LEVEL. IT IS UNDERSTANDIBLE THAT REAL ESTATE SALESMEN WOULD NOT WANT TO TELL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS HOW FOOLISHLY THE CORPS IS MANAGING LAKE LEVEL. I WOULD THINK THE CORPS WOULD APPRECIATE THIS. THE MAIN IDEA HERE IS IF THE COPRS WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES EVERYONE, BOTH UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM, WOULD BE BETTER OFF. AND THE PROBLEMS WITH DOCKS ETC. MENTIONED IN THE CORPS LETTER WOULD BE KEPT TO AN ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM.

4)WE AGREE THAT ALL THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND WE SUBMIT THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS A BETTER BALANCE FOR ALL CONCERNED THAN THE CURRENT DROUGHT PROTECTION PLAN IN USE BY THE CORPS.

5)THE AMOUNT OF RAIN IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE WAY THE RAIN INPUT IS MANAGED IS.

6)THIS PARAGRAPH IS VERY MISLEADING. FIRST OFF THEY DID NOT REDUCE FLOWS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LAKE RESIDENTS. THEY REDUCED FLOWS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PREDICTABLE FLOWS FOR THE RIVER. WE HAVE GIVEN CREDIT TO THE CORPS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO HELP AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THESE EFFORTS. THEY SIMPLY DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE AS WITNESSED BY THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMIES OF LAKE COMMUNITIES. THE CORPS SHOULD REALIZE WE CAN NOT THANK THEM FOR DESTROYING OUR LAKES AND OUR ECONOMIES WHEN THEY ARE REFUSING TO MAKE CHANGES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE.

7)THIS PARAGRAPH DEMEANS US AND IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. THE ONLY REASON THE CORPS IS FINALLY BACKING OFF TO ONLY A 2' DROP FOR REPAIRS IS OUR INSISTENCE THAT THEY DO SO. IF WE HAD NOT SENT ALL THE LETTERS AND EMAILS REQUESTING THIS THEY WOULD HAVE DROPPED LAKE THURMOND 4' FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.

I hope this is received in the way it is intended. We are not in a techincal or engineering problem with managing the lakes. We are being done in by political problems that can be solved once the Corps decides to listen.

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

We are witnessing an unbelievable demonstration of mismanagement of the Savannah River Basin. Not only is the Corps ignoring the impact of their actions on the economics of communities surrounding Lake Thurmond, they are also ignoring their charge to prevent flooding and the economic losses that result from flooding. Lake Thurmond has been devastated by dropping the lake level 6' in less than 2 weeks with no real reason to do so. This unbelievable waste of precious water and lake level can never be recovered. And there is nothing that required this be done in this time period. Not only has Lake Thurmond been devastated but Savannah is under a flood watch and stakeholders along the Savannah River South of the dam have been pleading to no avail for the Corps to stop these massive releases.

I have given you my assessment of what is happening. Below I present a chronology of events so you can decide for yourself what is happening.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
10/29/09 - We went to a meeting of the Lake Hartwell Association in Anderson where General Semonite who heads Corps operations in the Southeast gave a talk on the status of the Savannah River Basin. We were all exuberant over the fact that the Lakes were finally recovering from the recent drought. Lake Thurmond had reached 328.56 ft msl (less than 2' from full pool) and was continuing to rise. At that meeting our hopes for beginning the long road to restoring confidence in Lake Level management were destroyed. General Semonite announced that they were going to drop Lake Thurmond 4'. The reasons given were 1) that they needed a 4' margin for safety for workers repairing the dam and 2) that the rule curve specifies a 4'drop in lake level during the winter anyway. The General also noted that the economics of the local communities around the lakes were not his responsibility.

10/30/09 - Save Our Lakes Now made a plea to the Corps to reconsider. We asked that the margin for safety be reevaluated to see if 2' would work instead of 4'. And we asked that the Corps reconsider the rule curve in light of the fact that there are 3 lakes now whereas the rule curve was put in place when Lake Thurmond was the only lake on the Savannah River. Save Our Lakes Now noted that the economics of the local communities around the lakes are a major concern for us and we do not agree that damages to the local economics by the actions of the Corps are excuseable. Such damages done knowingly are the responsibility of the Corps just as damages done by one's car are the responsibility of the owner of the car.

11/14/09 - Thanks to tropical storm Ida Lake Thurmond peaked at 332.47 ft msl (2.47' above full pool). The Corps immediately initiated releases in excess of 25,000cfs. The Corps reportedly was holding internal meetings to decide what levels to go to on Lake Thurmond. Shortly thereafter the Corps announced by way of press releases that a 2' drop from full pool will probably provide adequate safety for the dam repairs. The press releases however noted that they would still be dropping 4' to meet the rule curve for winter operations.

11/27/09 - In less than 2 weeks the Corps literally threw away over 6' of Lake Level ignoring our plea for changing the rule curve to preserve the economics of communities around Lake Thurmond. They use the excuse of being afraid of too much water in the lake from spring rains. This excuse is horribly weak however when you see the flooding that is occuring south of Lake Thurmond from these releases. Savannah is under flood warnings and stake holders downstream of the dam are screaming at the Corps to cease the massive releases.

SUMMARIZING:
These actions are not what you would expect from a professional engineering organization. Save Our Lakes Now is convinced that the management of the Corps is not only unreasonble but dangerous. It is unreasonable to throw away all this water just after a major drought and it is dangerous to do so with all the flooding being caused downstream. Additionally the Corps is being very irresponsible. They may not be charged with the economics of the lake surroundings but they are charged with flood control and its economics and they are ignoring both at the expense of all stakeholders along the Savannah River Basin South of Lake Russell.

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Just as we are finally nearing full pool in Lake Thurmond the Corps has announced that they need to drop the lake 4 feet to permit repairs to the Dam. These repairs are being done with stimulus money. This brings to a head the issues we've been talking about for over a year.


We've been pleading for a drought control plan that specifies release rates of 3600 cfs (3100 during the months of October to February) any time Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. And we've been asking the Corps to end the practice of dropping the lake level 4' for the winter.


The reasoning behind the release rate of 3600 (3100 during October to February) is to match the annual rain input during the worst drought of record. This would limit the swing in Lake Level over the year during a drought to less than 8' which avoids destroying upstream viability. So far as downstream affects, this release rate has been demonstrated to be acceptable for all downstream stakeholders. Furthermore this protects downstream interests from the catastrophic consequences of Lake Thurmond dropping to the bottom of it's conservation pool . Once the lake hits this level there is no longer a pool to operate from and river flows would vary with daily rainfalls.

The Corps is claiming they need to drop 4' for the safety of the personnel doing the repairs to the dam. Save Our Lakes members with experience in this area feel that the Corps should be able to modify their equipment to allow the work to be done safely with a 2' or less drop in level.

The Corps is assuming they need to continue the practice of dropping the lakes 4' in the winter to protect against flooding downstream if we get heavy winter rains. We've asked that they reassess this because we feel this amount of drop is not necessary to protect against downstream flooding because of numerous changes since the 4' rule curve was put into use.

The biggest challenge for upstream lake interests trying to get the Corps to make changes in the way they manage lake levels is there is no mechanism in place for proposing changes. And the Corps claims economic affects upstream of the dams are not their responsibility. We are totally at their mercy if they chose not to listen to our suggestions. The biggest thing in our favor is the number of people involved who have an interest in the lakes. A meeting of Save Our Lakes Now is planned for 7:00pm on Monday 10/16 at the Lincolnton Court House. By that time we should know whether the Corps is willing to modify their plans. If not we need to pull everone together to get the benefit of a large number of people speaking with one voice

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING POOR JUDGEMENT

The Savannah River is swollen from all the recent rains. Downstream interests are certainly not hurting for more water in the river. Upstream interests on the other hand are holding their breath waiting for the lakes to finally reach full pool for the first time in years. So why is the Corps suddenly increasing release rates through Thurmond Dam from the 3600 cfs lake residents have been pleading for to 4200 cfs that does no one any good.


It would have been good if the Corps had continued the 3600 cfs release rate until the lakes were totally full. Going up to 4200 cfs raises doubts in the minds of upstream interests about the Corps'. Upstream interests suffered tremendous devastation to economies and recreation that could have been prevented. All the Corps has to do to prevent a recurrence of this devastation is adopt our recommendation of 3600 cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool until the lakes are completely full. Increasing releases to 4200 cfs before the lakes refill is like telling lake residents to take a hike.



I had high hopes for future relations with the Corps. This uncalled for increase in release rates raises serious doubts about getting the cooperation we need.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CORPS DROUGHT PLAN

The current drought plan is backwards from the way the real world operates. The Corps is worrying about and specifying how much water needs to be released downstream with out looking at how much water is available. This is like managing your finances from the stand point of what you want rather than what you can afford. Eventually you will bankrupt your finances or in the case of a lake deplete all the useable water out of the lake.

The difference in what we are recommending is to look at the amount of water available and specify release rates that won't deplete the lakes of useable water. Our recommendation comes from two observations:
1) the amount of water entering the lakes from rain during the worst droughts on record is the same as the amount the Corps has been releasing for the past 18 or so months (3600cfs).
2) the release rate the Corps has been using for the past 18 or so months has not caused any problems downstream
The benefits of following our recommendation would be to avoid the destruction experienced in past droughts to upstream economies and recreation and to guard against reaching the bottom of the conservation pool for the lakes where predictable release rates could no longer be maintained downstream.

It should be obvious to anyone looking at the lakes that there are two concerns that should govern release rates. One is the effect on downstream stakeholders and the second is the effect on upstream stakeholders. The Corps does lip service to protecting upstream interests but in reality only accepts responsibility for downstream effects. So far as instructions to the corps by congress they were formally instructed to protect upstream recreational interests but upstream economies were not mentioned. Our recommendations take care of all downstream concerns and all upstream concerns including upstream economics. As a result our drought control plan is superior to the current corps drought plan.

Based on a review of all comments to the Corps about their drought control plan upstream stakeholders are very disatisfied with the way the Corps is managing the lakes while the only downstream group unhappy is Fish and Wildlife. They expressed all kinds of possible problems while not mentioning any real problem. We wonder why then the Corps is scrambling to increase release rates rather than sticking with a much better plan that is working? Could it be they fear the Fish and Wildlife commission?

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS

The good news is the Corps has agreed to change their drought management plan on a trial basis to reduce flows from Lake Thurmond to 3100cfs during the months of October to February. The bad news is they don't plan to do this unless Lake Thurmond reaches 14 ft below full pool.

We had requested this flow be adopted anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool during the months of October to February. Waiting until the lake is 14' low is like the proverbial "closing the barn doors after the cows are gone". Basically upstream economic issues and recreational interests are destroyed whenever Lake Thurmond drops more than 10ft.

On the plus side the Corps' argument for using 3100cfs mirrors what we've been saying from our review of information gathered from a freedom of information act request. When we requested all comments from downstream interests concerning the affects of 3100cfs we found that no one had a problem with that release rate. The Corps arguments for adopting 3100cfs on a trial basis supports our conclusions. Furthermore the Corps admits that there should be no significant affect on environmental issues.

The only omission from the Corps' argument is the affects on economic and recreational interests upstream when Lake Thurmond levels fall more than 10'. They use the words economic and recreation issues but fail to address these concerns. So it would appear we are closer now than ever to getting the Corps to recognize the wisdom of our requests for 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) whenever Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. All we need now is to get them to recognize economic and recreation issues upstream and they will be forced to come to the same conclusions we have about how best to manage our lakes.

The Corps is requesting public comments on their proposal for 3100cfs before noon on October 30th. Please flood their desks with the fact that they need to consider the impact of waiting beyond 2' below full before implementing 3100cfs during October to February. The addresses to use are: email address - william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil, fax number - (912) 652-5787, And mailing address - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Planning Unit, Attn: William Bailey, PO Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.

CORPS IS REFUSING TO GIVE CREDIT TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Recent emails from Col. Kertis reveal that the Corps is refusing to accept our proposals as legitimate ways to improve management of the Lakes. Col. Kertis is even defending himself against our requests as if we are falsely acusing him of something he is not guilty of. What seems to be getting lost between our communications is that our proposals represent what is good for downstream stakeholders as well as upstream stakeholders.

In his last two email responses the Colonel claims that the Corps is doing what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents. This indicates that what we are requesting would not be in the best interests of all stakeholders. Furthermore in his last email he even mentions that he receives all kinds of unrealistic requests from all over the basin. This would seem to imply he feels our requests fall in the same category. Such accusations are simply not true. The proposals presented by Save Our Lakes Now represent what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents.

The proposal from Save Our Lakes Now is as sound as balancing a bank account so you don't go bankrupt. The recommended release rate of 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) is based on the annual rainfall during the worst droughts of record. It is also the flow that was demonstrated to meet everyone's needs downstream when the Corps had to minimize flows during the last drought. This minimizes disruption to upstream economies and recreation during a drought, keeps adequate water flowing in the river for downstream and avoids dropping lake levels to the point that releases to the river can no longer be controlled.

The Colonel's claim to managing the lakes for the benefit of all stakeholders is an exageration of what happened during the last drought. Upstream economies and recreational interests were destroyed when the lakes dropped more than 10ft from normal fill levels. And downstream interests came dangerously close to losing controlled river flows because the lakes almost reached the bottom of their conservaion pools. If the Corps had not abandoned their drought guidelines, the drought could have devastated downstream interests by decreasing river flows to the daily inputs from rain. Mismangement would be a more accurate description of what happened in the last drought. Unfortunately, unless the Corps listens and adopts our proposals this could well happen again and this time it could go all the way to devastating downstream interests.

WHO'S AT THE CONTROLS

If you look at the Corps' behavior on our drought control plan it becomes obvious they are reacting to some outside force rather than using common sense and doing what is right. In my opinion the ultimate cause for the Corps' refusal to change the plan and adopt our recommendations is the heavy hand of the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. When we requested through the Freedom of Information Act all correspondence requesting more than 3600cfs from Lake Thurmond, no one had a problem except this organization. Their letters showed total lack of logic. They demanded certain minimum flows from Lake Thurmond without regard for the fact that this flow rate might exhaust the capability to maintain predictable flows from the dam. And of course such a demand totally ignores the impact of such flows on the lake levels and economic/recreational aspects of the lakes.

Logic demands that releases from the Lakes take into account the amount of water coming in from rain and the impacts on both sides of the dam from releases versus rain inputs. But the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letters show no concern for this balance; they look only at river flows. Following their dictates often destroys the interests of stakeholders around the lakes. It also puts downstream interests in danger of not being able to maintain acceptable river flows when the lakes reach the bottom of their conservation pool. If we were to mirror their behavior we would show no concern for what happens below the dam and demand the lakes stay at full pool regardless of what this does to dam releases. Obviously everyone would be aghast at us if we acted that way. So why are we not aghast at the behavior of the Department of the Interior.

Our plight is very similar to that of the farmers in California who no longer have farms because the environmental protection agency demands their water be diverted to protect the Smelt fish which is becoming extinct. Hannity of Fox News recently did a special showing the plight of the california farmers. We need for him to do the same here. Please send emails and letters to Hannity and see if he will take up our cause along with that of the California farmers being destroyed by protecting Smelt.

FINALLY

I looked at the Corps charts for Lake Thurmond Friday and was very surprised to see that the Corps has finally dropped release rates back to 3600cfs. I don't know whether this means we are winning the battle over release rates or something else is afoot. But finally the ridiculous waste of lake level has stopped. Lake Thurmond is a foot lower right now than it would have been had the Corps not increased release rates to 4000cfs.

If you are talking to or sending email to the Corps or your Congressman or State Government officials about the lake please make sure you let them know we are very pleased to see release rates that are sensible. To finally end this madness and mismanagement of the Lakes we now need a formal drought control plan that specifies 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. The main reason a formal written plan is needed is so we can restore confidence in the lakes and end the destruction of the economy of the lake communities. Without this in writing people will naturally be afraid that the Corps will repeat past history and the economy will suffer the consequences.

NO ONE NEEDS 4000CFS FROM THURMOND

We asked for a copy of all requests for going to 4000cfs. There were no such requests from any businesses or public interests along the Savannah River. The only requests were from government entities with "sky is falling" type thinking. None of these govenment agencies knows a way to make water with a dam so their imagined concerns go away when you tell them we will pass on everything that comes in from mother nature. And our porposal for 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2' low does just that. All that is needed here is for these agencies to be a little patient and let the lakes refill. From that point on the releases from Lake Thurmond would no longer be restricted. The Corps can go to any rate they wish until the level drops more than 2'.

We need for our congressmen and state governments to demand responsible behavior in controlling lake releases. Releasing more water than comes in from mother nature is irresponsible. And dropping lake levels to the point that it destroys the economics of communities around the lakes is also irresponsible. Responsible behavior demands that the Corps base their release rates on the amount of water available from rain. The benefit of daming water to form a reservoir like Lake Thurmond is to average river flows over a years time to avoid both floods and greatly diminished river flows. The mistake made by the Corps and "sky is falling" type government agencies who advise the Corps is they try to put more water downstream than is provided by mother nature. This leads to costly drops in lake levels and endangers all downstream interests by raising the possibility of destroying the lakes.

We need to continue demanding that the Corps return to 3600cfs until the lakes refill.

CORPS STILL ISN'T GETTTING THE MESSAGE

Colonel Kertis was honored at a picnic in Lincolnton last week because of a number of things he did in 2008 to help with the drought. He stopped all flows from Thurmond dam at one point when the river downstream was swollen from rain. Later he stopped all releases from Lake Hartwell for several weeks to rebalance the lakes. And he has maintained release rates below those required by the drought plan. However the Corps is still falling short of managing the lakes in the manner needed. The communities around the lakes still suffer huge economic losses because of lost confidence in the way the lakes are managed. And the communities along the Savannah River are still at risk of losing the river flows they need should the drought continue or return.

Colonel Kertis demonstrated his lack of understanding of our needs in several statements. At one point he defended continuing releases of 4000cfs vs 3600cfs by stating that this only represents 4" a month or a foot of level over the summer months. This is indicative of the kind of thinking that has led to depleting the lakes to the bottom of the conservation pool in the past. These incidences also happened only 4" a month extended over a couple of years time (24 months times 4" a month leads to 8' loss in level which in turn leads to 16' loss when you drop the lakes 4 ft in the fall and don't reduce flows until the lakes drop to trigger level 2).

Further Colonel Kertis justified holding the lakes at 4,000cfs by indicating pressure from downstream interests to increase flows. It would be far better if he told downstream interests to be patient and let him refill the lakes before increasing flows. Once the lakes are full they can have any release rate they wish.

Colonel Kertis promised copies of letters and/or names and addresses of those who are insisting on higher flows. That was Tuesday and to date we have not received these. If we do not receive these by the middle of next week we will request this information under the freedom of information act.

To sum up, please continue to ask your congressmen and the Corps "Why not go to 3600cfs now?"

HAPPENING NOW

Things are heating up. We've updated the Save Our Lakes Now website (www.saveourlakesnow.org) to reflect where we are now in trying to get the mess with lake levels straightened out. On that site there is a breaking news link that will let everyone know what is going on right now. If you haven't already, be sure to go to that site and sign the petition and get familiar with the site. It wil become more and more important as we work to get our recommended change to the drought plan implemented.

So far as the Corps is concerned they are blindly following the old plan and refusing to go to 3600cfs at this time. We understand that they do not plan to return to 3600cfs unti the lake drops to 324' (1.5ft lower than the level today). Please call your congressman and Col Kertis of the Corps and ask them "why not go to 3600cfs now". If enough people do this we can hopefully get the Corps to stop holding off on this change.

We now have the ear of WJBF Channel 6 and they plan a 30 minute program discussing this whole issue. Save Our Lakes Now has been invited to express their side of the argument and Col Kertis of the Corps and his superior officer have been invited to attend as well.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF OUR FOCUS

Following is a one paragraph statement that sums up the lake level problem. Feel free to copy and/or use this to explain the situation we face to anyone who may be able to help with our cause:

When people hear about problems with the drought control plan for Lake Thurmond they automatically assume higher lake levels for recreation would deny the people along the Savannah River the water they need for drinking water, environmental concerns, industry, etc. But this simply is not true. The Corps' Drought Plan is destructive to both upstream and downstream interests. Thurmond Dam simply pools the water from rain so that it can be released uniformly over the year giving the river predictable water flows. The Dam can't make water. So if you release more water than is available from rains you can destroy the ability to release a uniform amount of water to the river. The Corps' Drought Plan does just that. They released more water during the last drought than was available from rain thereby dropping lake levels almost to the bottom of the conservation pool. At that level uniform releases are no longer possible. In other words the Corps' Drought Plan could easily get us to the point where drinking water, environmental, and industrial needs, etc along the river can not be met. Save Our Lakes Now is proposing that the Corps use a flow rate of 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2ft. This flow would meet the needs of both upstream and downstream interests. It matches the amount of water that came in from rain during the worst drought on record which means the lakes would stay full and 3600cfs was used for over a year without any problems downstream of the dam.

PEOPLE SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND

The main problem we are having with trying to sell everyone on our proposed change to the drought plan is people hear what we are saying but do not understand what they are hearing. Brad Means (the News Anchor on channel 6) demonstrated what I mean on the channel 6 news at 5 this evening. In introducing the comments we made about what the Corps is doing wrong he gave a very incorrect lead-in. Paraphrasing, he said the battle for lake water continues with the people upstream wanting more water for recreation and the people downstream wanting more water for drinking water etc. implying that both can't have what they want.

What we want is what is best for downstream users as well as for us. By keeping the lakes full we protect everyone downstream from losing the water necessary to meet their needs along the river while at the same time protecting our interests around the lake. Everyone thinks if we keep the lakes full it will deprive downstream users but just the opposite is true. To illustrate let's look at what happens if the Corps lets Lake Thurmond drop more than 16':

1) Flows through the dam will only match what comes in from rain. So when there is no rain for weeks as in the past drought the flow through the dam will drop to zero.

2) The Augusta Canal would no longer be able to draw water from the river at predictable rates because that would leave the shoals too dry. Canal flows would drop to nothing whenever rainfall is less than 1500cfs because the environmentalists want a minimum of 1500cfs across the shoals.

3) Flows across the shoals would no longer be at least 1500cfs because there would be days when no rain falls and no water can be released from the dam.

4) All industry and cities along the Savannah would have to redo their water take off from the River and the amount of water available to them would vary to as little as zero when there is no rain over a long period of time.

5) There would be no minimum water flows for any fish species; endangered or not. They would have to take what ever falls by rain.

6) Salt water incursion would be left to the to and fro of rain or no rain because outflow from the dam could no longer be controlled at a specific level. Outflow from the dam would be zero for days when it is dry and then surge as rain occurs.

What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the only way downstream users can be protected and have guaranteed quantities of water is to keep the lakes full. They think lake interests are just being greedy and want to keep all the water for themselves. What the people downstream fail to comprehend is the fact that release rates of 3600cfs not only will keep the lakes full but it will also meet all downstream needs. This is not pie in the skie hopeful thinking. This has been demonstrated by operating Lake Thurmond at a release rate of 3600cfs for over a year.

REVIEW OF 3100CFS COMMENTS ILLUMINATING

The Corps of Engineers requested comments from all lake stake holders before they ran a test of 3100cfs from Thurmond in November - February, 2008. Since we are requesting adopting 3600cfs as a standard release anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' or more below fill level, we thought it would be enlightening to look at what everybody claimed might be wrong with 3100cfs.

Based on information supplied by the Corps of Engineers everyone should be fine with a release rate of 3600cfs. The manufacturing and power generating facilities along the Savannah River all indicated they might have to make some modifications to their water intake facilities at 3100cfs but that they had no problems with 3600cfs. This included International Paper, SRS, Georgia Power and Georgia Pacific. The city of Augusta public utilities indicated no problems with 3600 and as we now know they are set up to take water out of the river instead of the canal if they encounter a problem.

The only people that had a real quarrel with 3100cfs were the mill and others associated with the Augusta Canal and the environmental organizations such as the NOAA who were concerned that 3100 "MIGHT" endanger some fish species. But again even these organizations were not having a problem with 3600cfs.

So far as the Augusta Canal, there is a very simple solution to their concerns. The environmentalists insist on 1500cfs across the shoals. The shoals flow is whatever is left over after you subtract the flow to the canal from the releases from Lake Thurmond. If you simply control the flow through the shoals at 1500cfs whenever the releases from Thurmond are reduced to 3600cfs and let the rest go through the canal you satisfy the environmentatlists and the canal will be fine. Matter of fact it could be argued that the flow through Thurmond could even be reduced to 3100 and the canal would still be fine but we don't need to argue this point since we only want to go down to 3600cfs when the Lake level is down.

As for the Mill in the canal that generates electricity from canal flows, there is no way to justify destroying real estate values, businesses and recreation associated with Lake Thurmond for the meager savings the Mill realizes from generating power from the canal. But here again the argument is mute because at 3600cfs even the mill can do their thing.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS GUILTY OF GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND

The Corps of Engineers is guilty of gross mismanagement of Lake Thurmond. Let me enumerate the evidence:

o First the Corps is a professional Engineering organization and thereby owes the public who are paying their salaries professional behavior. Because of their level of expertise they can be held accountable for making decisions that are consistent with good engineering practices. Just as Doctors can be held accountable for their procedures and decisions, the Corps is accountable for following failed procedures and making poor decisions. They have been offered a very basic solution to the lake problem but rather than evaluate the recommended solution using the engineering judgment they are capable of, they hide behind ridiculous excuses.

o Second the Corps has been fully informed of the disasters caused by their inappropriate control of Lake Thurmond Lake levels. They have been shown that the cost of the drastic drop in lake levels in 2006,7, and 8 totaled in excess of a billion dollars to upstream businesses and property values. Instead of recognizing the magnitude of the costs which would justify immediate corrective measures they pretend they need studies to determine the magnitude of the losses. As a professional engineering organization they should not be permitted to act ignorant of the huge losses they've caused. Furthermore the loss in confidence that has occured regarding the Lakes will require a huge publicity effort coupled with immediate correction of the drought control plan to turn these losses around. None of these can start because the Corps pleads ignorance and lack of capability. A competent engineering firm would not be so impotent.

o Third the losses experienced upstream are minor compared to the potential losses that would have occured if Lake Thurmond hit the level where the river would no longer have flows of 3600cfs or greater. If Lake Thurmond had dropped a few more feet as it would have if the drought had continued, releases could have dropped to as low as 500cfs which would be a disaster for everyone depending on the Savannah River. Ignoring this and refusing to correct the situation is criminal. Yet the Corps blindly continues with their outdated drought plan pretending that only the upstream interests are at risk and ignoring the potential for a future disaster downstream. Instead of informing downstream interests how close they came to disaster, the corps is childishly adjusting flows willy nilly because "someone" feels they need higher flows than 3600cfs.

When asked if they understand the argument Col. Edward Kertis responded with "we got it". He even claimed that he was tired of seeing the argument saying sarcastically that he heard it all 75 times we said it . When asked why he insists on ignoring our requests he throws up fictitious arguments about how he is worried about DO (dissolved oxygen) or side tracks the issue referring to past studies costing millions that he says need to be finished (that he knows aren't going to be done because of a lack of funding). He knows full well these studies can not do any better than the actual live test of 3600cfs run for over a year with no deleterious effects. Besides, based on the magnitude of the problems and the fact that people are hurting around the lakes from lost confidence in them staying up in level, the very least that the Corps should do is initiate temporary changes correcting the problem until further study can be done. Instead the Corps refuses to make the requested changes leaving the area unable to rid itself of a bad taste that is retarding a comeback and future growth while at the same time risking future disaster.

MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND CONFUSION ARE SETTING IN ON DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN

The reason the Corps insists on ignoring the proposal for a new drought management plan from LHA et al is not clear. But now that the lakes are nearing full and the time since we were in a severe drought grows longer, misunderstandings and confusion are dimming the passions for correcting the problems with the existing drought plan for Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. The Corps has raised concerns about dissolved oxygen and the DNR has raised concerns about the welfare of fish and wildlife. And well intentioned but misguided stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin are listening to these concerns and accepting them as reasons not to correct the problem.

What is getting lost in the shuffle is the fact that following the proposed new drought plan is the best solution for all these problems. Using 3600cfs as a release limit anytime Thurmond is 2ft below full avoids the near disasters experienced several times in the past with the current plan. Whether we are talking dissolved oxygen, the welfare of fish and wildlife, or some other well intentioned concern, keeping the lakes full over a full year's cycle is the best way to keep these problems at bay. Those arguing the other way fail to remember the fact that if you put out more water than comes in from rain over the year you drain the lakes and could end up with no way to control any of these concerns. They also are failing to give credit to the fact that in 2008 we ran a full 12 month demonstration of the acceptability of 3600cfs downstream. Furthermore if a problem is discovered with 3600cfs it needs to be solved by some manner that does not run the risk of draining the lakes dry. For example there are many ways to improve dissolved oxygen that do not involve increasing lake releases. One way is to decrease the amount of water going into the Augusta Canal so that you get higher flows across the shoals which aireate the river.

CORPS' REFUSAL TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN LEAVES SAVANNAH RIVER INTERESTS IN JEAOPORDY

To the casual observer Lake Thurmond is just about full, rains are plentiful, and drought problems are no more. But to the long term resident of the lakes the crisis has not passed. We've been here numerous times before. A new drought can happen and destroy the lakes beyond repair before you realize what is happening. Lake Thurmond drops 16ft and Lake Hartwell drops even further after 2 years of drought. We've come up with a new drought control plan which would correct this problem forever but for some unexplained reason the Corps is stubbornly refusing to adopt the recommended changes.

What is even more disturbing is that downstream interests don't have a clue to the impending doom they face. Downstream the picture is blurred because all they see is how much water is flowing down the river. And naturally they begin to demand higher water flows from the Corps during a drought. Instead of explaining the fact that such flows may cause the lakes to dry up the Corps does a political balancing act and increases water flows through the dam to quiet these demands. This further exascerbates the situation and puts the lake in still higher jeopardy of going dry. Such inept management of the lakes in the last drought put us within just a few months of levels that would have literally dried up the Savannah River. The river would have dropped to flows as small as 500cfs which would shut down industry along the Savannah, dry up drinking water supplies for downstream cities like Augusta, and destroy environmental interests.

The new drought plan was developed by upstream interests and prevents the lakes dropping more than 8ft from full regardless of how long the drought lasts. Furthermore the main benefit would be to downstream interests because it avoids the armageddon situation that would occur if the lakes actually go dry. The plan guarantees at least 3600cfs downstream throughout a drought which was demonstrated in the last drought as workable for all downstream interests.
The Corps either misunderstands the plan or is playing politics because they insist this plan would be good for upstream interests but not for downstream and try to pit upstream against downstream which is totally inappropriate. As already stated, downstream interests benefit more than anyone else using this approach. Continuing with the current plan puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing the Savannah River because there is no water to supply it.

If you have input to downstream interests such as industry officials or city mayors, etc. please help us get the word out on this. We have asked the Corps repeatedly to convene a meeting of both upstream and downstream interests to discuss these options. But the Corps is refusing to do so.

COLONEL KERTIS NO LONGER OUR HERO

Colonel Edward Kertis established a new level of communication with lake concerns as the lakes almost went dry. This gave hope that finally we could reason with the Corps. Recent developments however show clearly he is no friend of lake interests; either downstream or upstream. For some reason he refuses to listen to reason. With the lakes about to refill the Corps is recklessly ignoring the lessons of the recent drought and they have increased the releases from Thurmond Dam to 3800cfs and plan another increase to 4000cfs shortly.

We learned in the recent drought that downstream interests are in extreme danger of losing the water flows they need for industry, water supplies, and environmental interests with the current drought plan. If the current rains stop and the drought returns, the flows the Corps is initiating could destroy the lakes in no time.

The Corps simply needs to let the lakes refill completely before initiating higher flows. Then putting in place a new drought plan based on the lessons of the previous drought, the lakes would remain full even in a drought. This plan would eliminate the possibility of a crisis downstream. The Colonel has been fully informed of all this. Why then is he ignoring the lessons of the past and jeopordizing everyone along the Savannah River with reckless operation of the dams.

CONTROLLING LAKE LEVELS MADE SIMPLE

The details of controlling lake levels to suit both downstream and upstream users of the lake can appear complicated. But it is really quite simple. To illustrate let me use the analogy of maintaining a bank account to take care of a charity. Assume that the charity needs $3,600/month to meet it's needs. Let's further assume that the only contributor to this charity is putting an average of $3,600/month into the account.

Given this scenario, if the charity takes out more than $3,600/mo the bank account will eventually go dry and the charity will no longer be able to meet it's needs. But if the charity takes out only $3,600/mo the bank account will remain solvent and the charity will be able to meet it's needs.

The downstream users along the Savannah River below the Thurmond Dam are like the charity. The upstream users are like the person contributing to the charity. They are contributing by allowing water to flow through the dam according to the Corps' drought plan. If the Corps limits the water through the dam to the average amount coming in each month it is to the benefit of the downstream users. It is not true that such controls are only for the benefit of the people around the lake. Such measures protect those downstream from a catastrophic failure with the lakes going dry and the Corps no longer being able to supply their needs.

It turns out that a flow rate of 3,600cfs through the dam equals the monthly average of rain coming into the lake during the recent drought which is the worst drought we have experienced since the dam was built. And we have fully demonstrated that a flow of 3,600cfs meets the needs of everyone downstream such as Augusta for water quality, industry along the river, and environmental concerns. Hence all we are asking is for the Corps to change their drought plan such that we no longer send more than 3600cfs downstream anytime the lakes drop by as much as 2ft. The reason for starting at 2ft below full is that month to month variations can allow the lake to drop 6ft so starting at 2ft below full limits the total drop to an acceptable 8ft.

The only other concerns I have heard from the Corps are lost power generation and the need for occasional high flows down the river to flush pockets of pollutants in a fashion similar to flooding from a rain. So far as power generation, we've talked with representatives of SEPA and they tell us that Lake Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid and any loss in power production at Thurmond can be made up by increased production within this grid at lakes not suffering the same drought. Besides, purchase of power outside this grid if needed is not nearly as expensive as the costs that are encountered whenever the lakes drop more than 10 feet. So far as occasional high flows down the river, 3600cfs is an average and can include much higher flows from time to time as long as the overall monthly or weekly average is 3600. Such spikes in flow can even be matched with times when it rains to give extremely high flows in the river.

Other measures to minimize day to day fluctuations are desirable but the restriction of 3,600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft takes care of the major problems of past droughts. For example operators at the dam have detailed information showing when rains swell streams below the dam. This information could be used when the lake is down to increase water retention above the dam when 3,600cfs is no longer needed downstream. And testing lower flows such as 3100cfs could also help minimize level fluctuations during droughts. And rethinking water diversion rates for the Augusta Canal could also help at times of droughts. But all these complicate the issue and can be ignored until the drought plan is modified.

It is extremely important that the Corps discontinue the past drought plan which has failed numerous times and adopt this recommendation as soon as possible. Unless and until they do the lack of confidence in having suitable lake levels is destroying prospects for future business and real estate activities around the lakes, and recreational events such as national fishing tournaments. This lack of confidence is devastating the economics attributed to the lakes for cities like Lincolnton, McCormick, and Anderson.

Lost Confidence in Lake Management Continues to Cause Huge Monetary Losses to Lake Interests

We have a major victory in understanding how to manage Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell to avoid the crises suffered in several recent droughts. Anyone following the situation now knows that simpy changing the drought plan so that discharges from Thurmond are reduced to 3600cfs anytime the lake drops 2ft until the lake is again full should eliminate any future crises during drought conditions. And further if we explore even lower flows such as 3100cfs to make recovery happen quicker we should be able to maintain the lakes at full or near full condition all the time. And simple logic points out that these measures benefit interests below the dam as much or more as they do lake interests.

However until we make this into a formal change in operation of the lakes the huge loss in confidence in Corps management of Lake Thurmond and Hartwell is destroying the economic recovery of the area around these lakes. Real Estate will not move in this area until people have confidence that their investments won't be trashed by the next drought. The many fishing tournaments and other recreational endeavors around the lake also suffer from people going elsewhere to make sure their needs are being met. And the businesses that feed off the fact that the area is attractive as a place to have a recreational home or for retirement aren't going to come back until they too have confidence that the past problems with lake levels aren't going to return.

In view of the fact that the losses in lake interests was in the billions of dollars and further considering the fact that we came close to not being able to sustain river flows adequate to meet downstream needs which would have devastated industry, water quality, and environmental concerns, we can not afford to ignore the need to change the drought plan. I initially thought the Corps recognized and agreed to these concerns and assumed they were going to make the needed changes. Now however the Corps has become totally silent on these issues. This leaves us with a major question as to their intentions and the area continues to suffer from lost confidence in these lakes due to recent drought experience. Further there have been clandestined suggestions that the Corps plans to return to 4200cfs the first of June.

Please. We can't afford to put off the needed change in drought plan. This area has suffered tremendously and the only way it can begin a comeback is for the Corps to formally correct the drought plan and publicize everywhere possible that these problems are history. If the Corps won't do this voluntarily we desperately need the assistance of our Congressmen.

Who Will Step Forward and Save Our Lakes

We are at a cross roads on saving the Savannah River Basin from future droughts. We came up with a petition to lower the flows to 3100cfs as a stop gap measure when the lakes were down 15 feet and still dropping. We also stirred up a hornet's nest of interest on the part of congressman and governors in the affected area with everyone realizing something needed to be done. We even stumbled onto a solution that works for both sides of the dam.

Based on Corps data if you drop to a discharge of 3600cfs when Lake Thurmond drops 2ft below full and hold that until it refills you never lose the lakes even in the worst case drought that just ended. This solution is not just to keep the lakes useable for lake interests. More importantly it protects the downstream businesses, cities, and environmental concerns from the devastation that would have occurred if the lakes had actually gone dry.

Now since the lakes are about to refill we are losing the momentum we had gathered toward coming up with a permanent solution. Unless someone steps forward and changes the drought management plan we could repeat the problems of the past several years when another drought appears. The change needed is simple but we need someone in a position of power to step forward and make it happen. For example Col. Kertis with the Corps or one of our congressman or either of the two governors involved could make this happen by calling a meeting of everyone involved and putting the proposed change to the drought plan to a vote. I would suggest a second petition but resistance to this is high since one has just been completed and there would still have to be a meeting of the principle parties involved to actually make a change to the plan. Let's all pray and make phone calls, write letters, and send emails to encourage someone to step forward and get this done.

CORPS NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

I am thankful for Gresham Barrett's help on the lake situation but the $2million study he has proposed could easily be avoided if the Corps would just use their engineering skills and do the study on their own. All the data that is needed for a massive improvement in our drought plan is fully available from the excellent records the Corps has kept since the lakes were built. For example it is easy to look at what lake levels would have done in the past if we had changed the drought plan such that the flows are reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake drops more than 2 ft in level. And the data is there to determine what would have happened in the past in terms of flood conditions if this model were followed. Besides, the Corps could do such a study in days and eliminate the extensive time delays involved if we mount a major independant study.

There is one place where further study would be beneficial. That would be for each downstream interest to look at what their lower limits really are should the Corps want to reduce flows to less than 3600cfs on a temporary basis for some future level management situation. But as a taxpayer I don't see the need for government to fund such studies. The paper plants and nuclear power plants could fund such work from their normal operating expenses. And the cities downstream and environmental interests could also fund their own studies to give them a basis for comment should lower flows be proposed. Regardless, the current 3600cfs year round should make for satisfactory operation until further information and future needs are evaluated.

In short in my opinion we are ready now to adopt a new drought plan that initiates reduced flows as soon as the lakes drop 2ft rather than using the current drought plan trigger levels. And 3600cfs should suffice until further study can be done. We do not need a government study to initiate such a change. We simply need leadership from the Corps. Everyone will readily accept such a proposal if the Corps puts their knowledge and influence behind it. I believe we have an excellent leader in Col. Kertis and I am hopeful that he will continue to show excellent leadership qualities and make this happen. If he does he will be following the lead of many other excellent leaders who simply "do the right thing".

LAKE'S RISING BUT PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE UNLESS DROUGHT PLAN IS REVISED IMMEDIATELY

Lake Thurmond is 5.5ft from normal fill and more rain is on the way so we are looking good from the stand point of mother Nature. But unless we change the drought plan immediately we will be right back into a major problem before the summer is over. We need for interested congressional leaders, our two state Governors, the Corps of Engineers, the NOAA, downstream water users, and lake interests to come together and formulate a new drought plan before it is too late. The plan should provide for keeping the lakes full by matching releases with the average rainfall coming in each year and the lakes should never be allowed to drop more than 2ft before initiating the drought plan so that we don't lose control of the levels. The plan should also provide for studies to determine real release limits based on both the needs and flexibilities of downstream users and environmental concerns. We should never again be put in a position of possibly destroying the lakes during a drought because of not knowing actual river flow rate parameters.

What is at stake is not just the lake becoming unsightly. We are talking serious consequences both upstream and downstream. Most people do not realize that the river is as threatened as the lake when the lake drops to the levels of the past drought. Once the lake drops below 312' river flows will no longer be predictable. Instead of downstream users being able to count on the 3600cfs used in drought control, river flows could easily drop to levels of 500cfs which would be disastrous to downstream users.

Up stream the real losses experienced so far of billions of dollars in property values and business interests are peanuts compared to the losses that will be experienced if we lose confidence in the lake remaining full. Recreation interests will disappear and find other places to go. The lure as an attractive place as a lake residence and retirement community will be gone along with all the people living in the area for these reasons. And businesses connected with the lake will be gone forever.

So far as fish and wild life, whether endangered or otherwise, they would experience drastic and possibly life threatening changes in both the Savannah River and the lakes. To allow this now that we are back to full lakes and know how to avoid it should be taken as a direct violation of all environmental protection laws directed at protecting fish and wildlife in the Savannah River Basin. The NOAA for one should demand that such measures be adopted before the lakes can return to the drought deprived condition of the past few years.

HELP US GET DROUGHT PLAN UPDATED

Using the Corps of Engineer's elevation and discharge data for Lake Thurmond I calculated the lake levels we would have experienced through 2008 if the drought plan recommended in my previous blog post had been followed. The resulting lake levels follow:

Jan 328' ---------- Aug 324.8' -------- Mar 328'
Feb 328.6' -------- Sep 324'
Mar 330.1' --------Oct 322.9'
Apr 330'---------- Nov 322.3'
May 329.8'-------- Dec 324.4
Jun 328.5' ---------Jan 324.8'
Jul 326.8' ----------Feb 324'

As stated in my previous blog post this proposed drought plan solves both the upstream and the downstream problems we've experienced in recent droughts. But before we can solve these problems someone needs to act to implement this plan. And at present the powers that be are silent.

Please help by contacting your congressman and the Corps of Engineers to see if they understand this proposal and whether they agree that it would work. Once we get enough of the right people to understand how it works, implementation should be relatively easy since it helps all parties both upstream and downstream. Matter of fact downstream interests actually benefit more than upstream interests since it would eliminate all threats of having to reduce flows to levels that cause problems with the environment, business interests, navigation, or water quality. This appears to be a win win situation for everbody.

Simpified View of Problem

I feel the lake level problem caused by our current drought situation is not nearly as complicated as it once appeared. Basically the problem stems from an inadequate lake level management plan. The lake is dropped 6 ft in the fall and there are no reductions in flow rates through the dam until the lake is too far below normal for any hope of quick recovery. Instead of this set up the lake should be kept at full level in the fall and flow rates should be reduced to the lowest flow rate possible anytime the level drops more than 2 ft. This way we would never lose the lake in the first place. This would be to the advantage of both lake interests and everyone downstream because the threat posed recently by the possibility of the lake drying up is unacceptable to both parties. Keeping the lake full not only satisfies recreation and business needs around the lake but it also guarantees that downstream needs can be met.

So far as what the lowest possible flow rate is, we know that 3600cfs works so the flows could be reduced to at least that point . And based on data going back to when Thurmond was built the lowest average inflow rate for any year was never less than 3600cfs so that should at least match outflow with inflow. In order to have more flexible control over lake level however it is still desirable to evaluate lower flows to establish what the lowest possible flow rate really is.

Problems with past thinking by the Corps and NOAA:
1) There has been no provision for dropping lake levels and the destruction caused to property values, business incomes related to the lakes, and recreation. These should be factored in and balanced against all the other costs and concerns caused by a drought.

2) Power production should not be at the expense of lake interests. Since Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid, lost power here should be made up by increased production elsewhere in the grid. And if that is not possible power production still should not be at the expense of lake interests. It is not right to rob one segment of the population to benefit another.

3) Effects of low flow rates through the dam on downstream interests need to be quantified. Rather than go by antiquated agreements each downstream user should be required to analyse minimum flow rates they can live with and asked to quantify what would be required to live with lower flow rates should they become necessary. For example The city of Augusta can live with much lower flow rates than 3600cfs by moving their take up point for drinking water. Similar changes may be possible for the nuclear power plants and manufacturing plants along the Savannah. At present it is assumed that we can't go below 3600cfs but no one has established this as the lowest possible level and no one has been asked what it would take to go lower.

4) Environmental groups argue that we need to put more water downstream than is provided from rain. As long as we don't hold up what comes down from rain there should be no environmental argument since their argument by definition is to avoid tampering by man that harms mother nature. In fact, since the lake can be used to smooth out flows to monthly or even annual averages we are already benefiting the environment by avoiding excessively low flows such as when there is no rain for months. This of course handles arguments such as protecting short nosed sturgeon and salt water incursion at the coast. By keeping the lakes full we are actually helping these causes by avoiding the crises that would occur environmentally should the lakes dry up.

5) Operations such as the Augusta Canal should be reviewed and redone to avoid affecting release requirements from the dam. Currently the canal uses 1500cfs which is drawn off upstream of the shoals and at times this sets the release requirements so that the shoals do not dry up. The canal can be operated with much less than 1500 cfs. Zero flow would even be possible. This and other similar situations along the Savannah River should be revised.

Basically what I am suggesting is that NOAA back up to reasonable requests and that the Corps quantify flow rate requirements and cost effects for both downstream and upstream interests. Simply ignoring lake interests and requiring more water be released than is coming in from rain is no longer accetable based on the disastrous experiences of the current drought. Everyone needs to recognize that keeping the lakes full is in the best interests of all concerned since to do otherwise can lead to unaccepatble consequences not only upstream but downstream as well.

SHORT TERM CONCERNS

We have three unresolved concerns for the short term;
1) Gresham Barrett has requested that the Corps return to 3100cfs for the months of April and May. Since the Sturgeon spawning season has passed and the weather is not that hot yet this seems to be within the realm of satisfying all the real and imagined ill effects of 3100cfs on downstream interests. Hence we are hopeful that the Corps will continue their positive efforts toward relieving the drought situation around our lakes.

2) The outdated drought plan that we are laboring under specifies that the flow rates be stepped up as Lake Thurmond reaches 2ft above each trigger level. We need to get the Corps to agree to leave flow rates as low as possible (currently 3600cfs) until the lakes refill. Delaying recovery of our lakes is a real cost of billions of dollars while returning to higher flow rates has no equivalent monetary benefit. And since there are no demonstrable crises downstream with current flow rates, deliberately continuing these losses to lake interests would be foolhardy.

3) The Augusta Canal decreases the flexibility of the Corps in reducing flow rates from the dam when run off from rain swells the river downstream of the shoals. About 1500cfs in river flow is diverted from the shoals to feed the canal. These flows have been needed in the past because Augusta has been getting their drinking water from the canal. Since the city of Augusta has demonstrated the ability to obtain drinking water straight from the river instead of the canal and since the canal would continue to be the attraction it is to Augusta as a slow moving pool, the Corps needs to rethink the way the canal is run before it is restarted. The canal needs to be viewed as a threat to the environmental health of the shoals and the usage should be designed to minimize that threat without requiring such huge flows through the dam.

Long term solutions are needed after the lakes recover. But these three short term considerations will help to make the recovery happen more quickly.

WE OWE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OUR THANKS

Col. Ed Kertis set a precedent and demonstrated flexibility in helping us with the drought situation. He has stopped flows through the dam while the river and streams below the dam are swollen from runoff from the recent rains. And in addition the increase to 4,000cfs specified in the drought plan for 316ft appears to be in abeyance for the time being. Changes like this in combination with the recent rain event have caused the lake level at thurmond to literally jump 4ft to date with further increases possible while run off from the rain continues.

One or two more rain events like this past weekend along with help from the Corps to minimize losses through the dam could get Thurmond back to the normal fill level of 330ft. If we can then get the powers that be to agree to a modification to the drought plan similar to my last blog posting we could finally get our lakes back to the great attraction they used to be. Once modifications are in place we should be able to restore confidence in the stability of the lakes so that businesses, tourism, and real estate values can recover.

If you get a chance please let the Corps know we appreciate their efforts. Changes like those implemented by Col. Kertis are totally unprecendented.

What I Recommend Now and For the Future

As with any project we are learning as we go. We now realize that Col. Kertis who is the commander for the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for Lakes Thurmond, Russell, and Hartwell can not or will not make changes to the drought plan on his own. It really matters little which is the case. The important thing is we have to look elsewhere if we are going to save our lakes.

It seems to me that before we try somewhere else to get changes, we need to think through what changes we want. From the outset I have said that as long as you put more water through the dam than comes down from rain you are doomed to fail. In other words this by definition will drain the lakes over a period of time. As soon as we recommend that we limit water through the dam to what comes in from rain the naysayers imagine the river drying up. And they pull out dozens of reasons this won't work talking about endangered species, water quality, and any of a number of other considerations. Immediately you come to an impasse.

If you suggest a flow of 3100cfs instead of the 3600cfs that is our current flow through the dam, everyone imagines that this would only be token improvement and no one is willing to fight that hard to secure this flow level. I think most of the anti 3100 sentiment think that downstream would probably be OK but they also see the gain from 3100 too small to be worth all the effort.
The myriad imagined problems downstream seem too huge and the gain at 3100 too small to fight for.

Just recently however the Corps gave us some numbers on the Austin Rhodes show that indicate that the flow in from rain during this drought is about equal to 3100cfs. In other words if we had gone to 3100 cfs when Lake Thurmond reached 328 ft (2 feet below normal fill) the lakes would still be full. This now changes the arguments. If the lakes were still full everyone whether they are downstream of the dam or upstream would benefit. It would have eliminated the current fear that the lakes may dry up completely which would reek havoc downstream as well as around the lake. This end warrants hard core investigation of what 3100 does downstream if anything. This end warrants investigation into how to live with 3100 downstream to prevent the crisis we now are faced with.

So, in view of this new information my recommendation for the future would be to use 3100cfs based on this worst drought situation. And we should initiate the 3100cfs flow as soon as the lake drops 2 ft. This should be Continued until the lake refills.

My recommendation for now would be to go to 3100cfs now and determine from this what changes are needed downstream if any to permit continued operation at 3100 cfs.

PROPOSED SOLUTION TO LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

I know most of you are looking at ways to solve the problems at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. While you have your thinking caps on let me step outside the box and propose a solution to this problem that gets us out of the problem quickly and keeps us there. At first glance this will sound wild eyed and crazy but It seems to me that the following would work:

1) Shut down Russell and drain it into Thurmond to get the lakes back up as far as possible. Leave Russell down until Thurmond refills.

2) Determine release rate requirements from rainfall averages rather than downstream needs. Any downstream needs that exceed this rate need to be corrected from downstream engineering rather than increasing water releases. Decrease release rates to the average in from rain past 30 days and modify each 2 weeks if any particular month falls way outside the average.

3) Look at further decreases below average rainfall to refill both Thurmond and Hartwell

4) Once the lakes refill assume ESA is met as long as releases = lowest monthlly average rainfall of past 12 months.

5) Look at building artificial gravel beds if further protection of Sturgeon is desired rather than try to flood existing beds with flows above that available from rain.

6) Look at leaving Russell down or if it is restarted rethink the fish carnage being experienced with reverse pumping. A NOAA official is quoted as admitting the reverse pumping at Russell will destroy the sport fishing on Thurmond. The court hearings on this should be revisited with input from the court findings out west where back pumping was ruled out because of the devastation it caused for the fish population at that lake.

Right now we are letting the tail wag the dog. The Corps looks at all the downstream issues anyone wants to bring up and literally solves the problem by pouring water on it. Doing it this way the lakes end up destroyed and we all end up with a disaster. If instead the Corps used the basis I describe above the lakes would never be destroyed and all downstream interests would be getting the maximum benefit provided by God that you can get from the lakes without destroying them.

PROMISING NEW DEVELOPMENT

It seems we may have broken the ice with the NOAA. A new face on the scene is Robert Dawson of the NOAA. He has initiated contact with a number of people who wrote Mary Glackin and has indicated everything is on the table with respect to flows through the dam. Following is an email just sent to Mr. Dawson. If we can get everyone to understand the laws of Physics at work here we may be able to finally come to a workable solution. But the solution will be unpleasant downstream no matter how we do it because of the mismanagement that has preceded the start of correcting the problem. No matter how you cut it the only way to refill the lakes is to send downstream less water than comes in from rain which is not going to be appreciated.

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

I still see the overview as follows; we are trying to do one better than mother nature and it has got us into an impossible scenario. Ultimately we can not give the sturgeon more than God gives us or we drain the lakes. It doesn't matter who is at the controls or what has happened in the past. This is an irrefutable truth.

Again the best example I can offer to look at the legal side of complying with the ESA is that the act never intended for man to add to mother nature. Rather the intention of the ESA is to get "man made" out of the picture and make sure we don't interfere with mother nature. Otherwise the people with endangered mice in their fields would be required to improve on mother nature and give the rats assistance with food etc. Such would be obviously ridiculous. And when the eagles were endangered no one was asked to assist mother nature; only get out of the way from mother nature and not intefere with man made effects to their habitat.

What makes this so hard for everyone to see is that water appears to be an easy solution to the situation. The problem as we are finding is that the water is not limitless. Anytime we exceed what God has provided the Sturgeon we dig a hole we can't climb out of.If you want to do something man made, put gravel in the river at a point where even in a drought it will be underwater so the Sturgeon have a place to spawn. Gravel we can do. Water we can't.

Thanks for listening. Would it be possible for you to get together with a representative group of lake interests to discuss this further? If so I recommend we do so quickly as the COE is pouring our water out much faster than God is replacing it and the longer it continues the worse the solution will be for all concerned.

Jerry Clontz, Author of blog

Let's see what comes of our new found ear at the NOAA. With the congressional help promised at the meeting in Lincolnton Tuesday night and this development I am very hopeful that we can finally find a way to resolve our dilemna.

THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF THE LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

There are all kinds of wild claims flying around about why our lakes are being destroyed and what needs to be done to solve the problem. But if you look at what the Corps is saying and what is really needed it isn’t that complicated.

The Corps insists the lakes are down because we are in an extended drought. But this is not the case. Lake Murray has gone through the same drought and is at full level. Hence the reason the lakes are low is not the drought but the way the Corps is handling water releases. Fact is if the Corps had decreased releases from Lake Thurmond when the drought started and lake levels began to go down the lake would still be full.

The Corps insists that although the lakes are drying up they have to release 3600cfs because of the Short Nosed Sturgeon which are an endangered species. The law governing endangered species does not require that more water be provided than normally is available from Mother Nature. Rather the law requires that man do nothing to the environment that would further endanger the species in question. If the water in from rainfall is passed on (rain in = water out) the intent of this law is fully met. And since the Corps has screwed things up so badly we need a further provision saying that we will pass on what comes in by rain up to but not exceeding a flow where sturgeon spawning is not affected so the lakes can refill.

The Corps claims they aren’t capable of monitoring flows from streams downstream of the dam to give credit to flows needed from the dam. In view of the billions of dollars being lost by upstream interests such reasoning by the Corps is inexcusable. They need to make every effort to minimize flows through the dam including factoring in the affect of the Augusta Canal being down. Furthermore the Corps should hold off on restarting the canal or rethink its usage until the lakes refill.

The Corps mentions a need to provide power generation. But here common sense says power generation cannot be justified when it is causing destruction of real estate values and businesses around the lakes. There are 10 lakes in the grid that Thurmond is part of. Power can be generated from other lakes in this grid to make up for any deficits at Thurmond.

The Corps mentions water quality needs. But here again common sense is needed. The city of Augusta can redo their water pick up point. There is no way you can justify the billions in losses to residents and businesses around the lakes as long as other means are available to solve the problem.

And there are numerous other similar problems the Corps throws into the discussions that in no way justify the loss of billions to residents and businesses around the lakes. Each can be handled a better way than to destroy real estate values and businesses around the lakes. Besides, while the upstream interests have been losing billions of dollars, downstream users have spent nothing to protect against the effects of the drought.

Long range laws need to be changed so that residents and businesses around the lakes get at least equal consideration when deciding on water management. At present their losses aren’t even considered and they are not even represented in the meetings where Corps operating plans are discussed. But until that can happen we need to cut way back on water releases and start refilling the lakes. Continuing to let the Corps drain our lakes unchecked will put us at minimum pools in both Thurmond and Hartwell sometime in the near future. When that happens the Corps drought plan calls for reducing flows through the dams to what comes in from rain; the same situation downstream I call for now but with much further destruction of lake interests.

At present the Corps refuses to listen to reason. Because of their lack of cooperation we need one of four things to happen or our lakes are doomed.
1) Congressional intervention in the next couple of months rather than years off
or
2) Excessive pressure on the Corps from publicity in local and/or national news
or
3) Appeals to higher levels of Corps management than Colonel Ed Kertis
or
4) A law suit to force the Corps to reduce flows

COST OF MISMANAGING LAKE LEVELS IS STAGGERING

In previous blogs and emails I mentioned that the cost of mismanaging our lakes was hundreds of millions. Col. Ed Kertis challenged me in an email to document that number. As a result I applied simple logic and math to obvious costs that are related directly to lake level rather than the depressed economics being experienced nation wide. The results are discussed below and show the cost to be in the billions of dollars.

A big contributor to obvious losses is the decrease in lake front value from deteriorating lake front access, views, and esthetics. In a recent reevaluation of property values by the McCormick County Assessor the assessor added $100,000 to every lake front property as a reasonable value of lake front access, views, and esthetics. Simply halving that value because of the horrible condition of our lake front properties generates a loss of $225 million on Lake Thurmond where there are 4,500 lake front properties. I had no data on the number of lake front properties at Lake Hartwell but assuming it is similar to Lake Thurmond raises this loss to a conservative figure of $450 million. Conservative because the real loss on lake front value is probably a great deal larger and these figures do not account for the overall loss in attractiveness of these areas for any real estate purchase regardless of whether you are talking lake front or not.

I also had data on one major development on Lake Thurmond that has been tabled indefinitely because of the unpredictable levels at the lake. This project would have cost $35 million. Again I think it is safe to assume a similar loss at Lake Hartwell. Doubling this gives a conservative estimate of $70 million in lost developments around these two lakes. Conservative because it represents what only one business owner had planned. Surely there would be more projects of similar costs if a survey were made of all planned developments that are now tabled.

And finally I had data from studies made a few years ago by the Lake Hartwell Association and the Corps as to how much money is brought into Lake Hartwell from visitors and water related business. These show a loss of about $150 million in general incomes from lake visitation etc. (excluding real estate losses) at Lake Hartwell when the lake drops more than 8 ft. Doubling this to include Lake Thurmond gives a conservative figure of $300 million. Conservative because it does not include the impact on lake related jobs in the area.

Adding these together gives a total loss of $820 million and this does not include the overall impact on real estate values in the general area. Obviously fewer people will be attracted to real estate in a lake area when the lakes are no longer attractions. In other words it is safe to say that the economic impact of low lake levels is in excess of a $billion with an additional impact from lost jobs because of depressed lake related industries such as dock building, construction, restaurants, etc.

CATEGORY/ TOTAL COST

lost lake front premium $450,000,000

tabled projects $70,000,000

decreased lake business $300,000,000

total not including real estate $820,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
if real estate included >>$1,000,000,000

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

It seems we have identified the ultimate boss on water flows at Lake Thurmond; at least for the current scenario. Hopefully that can be changed with legislation in the future but until it is we need for everyone to:
1) sign the petition put out by "Save Our Lakes Now". If you don't know where to find one, go to www.saveourlakesnow.com.
2) write mary.glackin@noaa.gov explaining why she needs to back off the throttle on lake releases and at the very least return the flows to 3100cfs. It was the decision of the NOAA to increase flows from 3100cfs back to 3600cfs. If the flows are held at this level for much longer we are doomed for this summer.

If you want first hand knowledge of what is happening come to the meeting in Lincolnton on Tuesday Feb 17th. Hopefully by then we will know whether the NOAA will honor our requests for lower flows.

Beyond this it would seem that we are going to have to either get concrete help from our political leaders or initiate a law suit to stop the destruction of our lakes. If you wonder how much the cost of all this madness is to the area, a conservative estimate of what it has done to property values, business losses, and damages around the lakes is over a billion dollars.

Help is on the Way on Lake Releases

It seems I spoke too soon about Gresham Barrett and the way he is helping with our lake problems. Turns out he is doing a lot to correct the situation both now and even more importantly in the future. Following is a link to a letter he recently put out on the subject http://barrett.houseenews.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100031749.111749.338&gen=1.

And moves are afoot to set up legislation for control of SC Lakes thanks to Mike Massey who is associated with Lake Hartwell property owners association.

Additionally legal options are being explored to see what else might be done to bring about immediate corrections to the gross mismanagement practices of the Corps of Engineers.

In defense of the Corps there are many excuses that can be used to explain their mismanagement of the Lakes:
1) their list of priorities does not even mention recreation, business, or property values around the lakes. Instead the list mentions power production, water quality, protection of Fish and Wildlife.
2) they have many bosses who try to dictate how to handle Lake releases.
3) the drought managment plan they are following is inadequate.
But that is what leadersip is all about. If they wanted to do the right thing they have all the help they would need from politicians and state governing bodies such as the DNR. Common sense shows something needs to be done because of the vast monetary losses being experienced around the lakes. Excuses are not what is needed right now. Strong leadership using common sense and a determination to do what is right is what is needed. Hopefully this is now on the horizon from all the things beginning to come to a head with the control of Lake releases.

LEADERSHIP DESPERATELY NEEDED TO END LAKE PROBLEM

I spent quite some time on the phone with a representative of Gresham Barrett's office who is following the lake problem. I became quite agitated and lost my cool as the discussion continued. Afterwards I tried to analyse why I had lost my cool. It then became ovious why this problem continues with the lakes. Our leaders are not personally suffering the consequences of the devastation occurring with the lakes and because of this they don't have the passion and drive needed to solve the problem.

The conversation went something like "the Corps can't do what is right because the wildlife and environmental groups dictate what has to be done with river flows". "Nothing can be done about it because of the ways the laws are written". My personal reaction was that we are in a crisis situation and simply to follow the dictates of one group who is obviously being totally unreasonable is ridiculous. Obviously Mr Barrett's representative did not agree with this thinking but that is because they are not personally involved. If someone was shutting down Mr. Barrett's office or destroying the value of his residential property he would be more inclined to agree with my thinking.

What is needed is someone in the Corps or political leadership who will take it on themselves to order reduced flows at the Thurmond dam and force a showdown with the environmental group that is currently dictating the flows. The environmental arguments would not hold water (excuse the pun) in a legal show down. For example we have had much above the suggested flows in the river because of water not accounted for below the dam. The dam flows could have been shut off completely for a month or so and the river still have plenty of water but no one in a leadership position was interested enough to force this to happen. Furthermore there is no law or reasoning that can require more water downstream than what comes in from rain for environmental concerns since environmental concerns are limited to eliminating man's impact on nature. Besides there is no law that will stand that is proved to be robing a large segment of the population of their wealth and their livelihood. Other laws governing people's rights exist which can be used to force compromise in the courts.

Now that the lakes are low we need to hold back every drop we can above some mutually agreed to COMPROMISE (as against a dictate from one side of the argument) until they refill but once they are full again we should hold discharges to what comes in from rain anytime the lake levels start to fall. Concerns downstream that require more than can be expected from rain need to redesign their set ups accordingly so that they don't suffer during a drought. Until we find leadership that has these goals our lakes are destined to fail. These lakes are far too valuable an asset to continue to allow such stupidity to occur.

CORP'S PUBLICITY GROSSLY MISLEADING

When asked about Sturgeon and how their livelihood is affecting lake level controls the Corps gave grossly misleading information. They quoted the fish and wildlife coordination act and reaffirmed how they are controlling the lakes based on many complex issues.

Following is a quote from what was just sent down about protecting Sturgeon:
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides the basic authority for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires Federal agencies involved with water resource development projects to first consult with the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife resources, and provide for measures to mitigate these impacts.

First off please note that this is not what is happening. Fish and Wildlife resources are not receiving EQUAL consideration with lake real estate and business interests. They are instead receiving much more consideration than real estate and business interests. As an example the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies are consulted on these matters whereas lake real estate and business interests are not consulted. We desperately need for this to be aired in the public arena so the Corps is forced to include lake interests in their discussions with groups like the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies.

We need help from the local news media; TV, radio and newspaper. National news would be even better. If you have the ear of any of these please get them to at least read our blog site and talk to people like Tommy Lee who owns several marinas and knows first hand how the Corps is messing with business around the lake. Additionally increased public attention to this matter would force our political leaders to get real estate and business interests included in discussions of how to manage Lake levels.

As an example there is no good reason why land and business owners around Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell should be losing hundreds of Millions or possibly Billions of dollars in real estate and business interests without having any voice in how the water releases are handled. As pointed out in a recent blog post a large part of these very real losses are due to mismanagement of river flows at the Augusta Canal. If the canal which is about to be shut down for several months had no river flow the releases from Thurmond Dam could be reduced from 3100cfs to about 1500cfs.

Furthermore it is not reasonable to ask lake interests to be losing this kind of money simply because environmentalists think Sturgeon may need more flow than this to spawn. First off there is no reason to try to improve on mother nature when looking at fish spawning. As long as rain in = water to river the environmental impact of the dam is zero. Second off it is not fair to ask one segment of the population to spend this kind of money without even having a voice in the matter. There are other ways to accomodate Sturgeon spawning besides draining lakes Thurmond and Hartwell which would not unjustly affect only the residents and businesses around the lakes.

PRIORITIES FOR WATER USAGE ALL WRONG

The state of SC needs to get the priorities for water usage along the Savannah River changed. At present a dog's breakfast of rules and regulations has the whole lake situation in total chaos. For example the current rules require that the dam releases exceed 3100cfs supposedly so that river needs downstream of Augusta are met. But in reality the only reason for 3100cfs is so the shoals don't get "too dry" for "environmental concerns".

The streams along the river are rain swollen and give way more than the desired 3100cfs by themselves but because of the requirement for minimum flows at the shoals the Corps can not count any water coming in from downstream of the shoals. All this became apparent from looking at what happens when the Augusta Canal is shut down for repairs. Once the canal is down all the realeases that are needed from the dam are 1500cfs to satisfy the "environmental concerns" at the shoals because the inflows from all the streams below the shoals will satisfy the 3100cfs desired below the shoals. Furthermore if inflows from streams between the dam and the shoals are factored in you don't even need 1500cfs from the dam to meet all the screwed up rules.

Since there are so many people (especially the "environmental concerns") involved in specifying the rules there is such confusion about flows required that it takes a genius to figure it all out. And since the Corps is timid about upsetting anyone downstream and the people upstream aren't complaining we end up with lakes going dry for stupid reasons.

Let's try a simple change in priorities and look at how simple it all gets:
1) Establish 5 ft below normal fill as the lake bottom and only allow water in from rain to pass through the dams after that point.
2) Do not try to interfere with nature when it comes to environmental concerns. You can not redesign the Earth. It was designed better than man ever could. The only man made interference with mother nature should be flood control. So far as species dyeing off in a drought, salt water incursions, low flow across the shoals, and all the other environmental concerns the dam should not be used to redo nature or to take away from nature. This is accomplished once you let rain in = water out and should end the discussion about environmental concerns.
3) Give downstream interests a reasonable period of time to redesign for future droughts before fully implementing the new lake bottoms.
4) Until this reasonable period of time passes, give the dam credit for all downstream inflows in figuring minimum releases needed. As far as the shoals are concerned balance this against whether or not to reopen the Augusta Canal and not against flows at the dam.

Why this set of priorities? All you have to do is drive to the lakes and look at the devastation around the shores to realize that this destruction is not warranted by flow across the shoals or the other myriad rules and reasons given for unreasonable release requirements from the dams.