Tuesday, January 20, 2009

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.

Friday, January 9, 2009

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.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

GOVERNOR SANFORD HIDING HEAD IN THE SAND

Based on a conversation with a representative of Governor Sanford's Office this morning the Governor pleas impotence on the lake level problems at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell. Based on his actions on many other matters I can't accept the idea that he is unable to help. The conversation ranged from how the matter was a federal concern to how so many concerns downstream had been expressed in meetings where the Governor was represented.

Since when is a state governor unable to do something when thousands of his constituents are being robbed of their livelihood and/or assets. I've seen Governor Sanford do marvelous things with respect to other SC matters. I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to do a lot to help if he put his political might behind our problem.

Additionally, the Governor could insist that lake interests be included in meetings related to drought control measures. Barring us from these meetings is leaving us with a situation similar to taxation without representation. And we all know that is just wrong.

Please let the Governor know that we need his help and that we expect him to do the "right thing".

Monday, January 5, 2009

CORPS REFUSES TO LISTEN TO LAKE INTERESTS

The Corps' typical response to lake interests about the current drought situation is to state emphatically that everything that can be done is being done. They do this with a big smile on their face but their true attitude is obvious when they turn their back on the devastation occuring upstream of the dams. If they were trying to help lake interests they would at least allow input from us. But the truth is they allow input from everyone but us. They tell us how we must sacrifice our lake interests to protect others downstream who are affected by low river flows. They do not tell the interests downstream how they must sacrifice to limit the destruction occuring upstream. And more importantly we are never permitted to argue our cause at the bargaining table where ridiculous arguments are heard from environmentalists, and other interests.

Looking back at letters to the editor I wrote in 2002 and 3 it became obvious that the Corps is not listening to lake interests. The Colonel in charge in 2003 was trying to find ways to improve the upstream situation and was preparing to experiment with lower discharge rates. Then all of a sudden all the plans to try lower flows were dropped because environmental concerns told the Corps this MIGHT cause problems with wild life and salt water incursion at the coast. I asked myself then and ask it again now why in heaven's name do you let POSSIBLE problems trump the real destruction occuring upstream of the dams.

Besides, as I've noted in previous posts, environmentalists should have no argument with what is going on unless we send less water downstream than would be provided were there no dam. Environmental concerns by definition go away when man's input is removed and that is what you would have if the conditions are those that would occur before construction of the dam. In other words if water in from rain = water through the dam you eliminate man's input and return to an environmentalists dream.

In order for lake interests to get a voice we either need for our politicians to come to our aid or we need the news media to bring about public sentiment for the plight of lake interests upstream of the dams. The news media and politicians alike apparently have not thought through just how tremendous an economic value to Augusta, Anderson, and neighboring communities the lakes would be if allowed to remain full rather than see-saw up and down in level. In reality the whole area is suffering a tremendous loss but only the people and businesses around the lake are close enough to the problem to care.

Law suits are not a pleasant thing and I would prefer to never go there but it looks to me like there is no other way to get the Corps to pay attention and protect lake interests. And something needs to be done quickly because the drought will probably continue and do irreparable damage to our beautiful lakes. If the true cost to the lakes and surrounding communities were tabulated the Corps would have no difficulty justifying the cost of downstream interests making provisions for the lakes to stay full. Just the lost moneys from real estate and business losses around the lakes are staggering. But these are nothing in comparison to the losses to the whole area which includes Augusta, Anderson and their surroundings when you look at what could have been if the lakes remained full. All you have to do is look at Lexington near Columbia and the Lake Wylie and Lake Norman areas near Charlotte to see what could happen because people are naturally drawn to beautiful lake areas.