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.