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.