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.