Sunday, February 15, 2009

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

No comments: