Friday, February 27, 2009

What I Recommend Now and For the Future

As with any project we are learning as we go. We now realize that Col. Kertis who is the commander for the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for Lakes Thurmond, Russell, and Hartwell can not or will not make changes to the drought plan on his own. It really matters little which is the case. The important thing is we have to look elsewhere if we are going to save our lakes.

It seems to me that before we try somewhere else to get changes, we need to think through what changes we want. From the outset I have said that as long as you put more water through the dam than comes down from rain you are doomed to fail. In other words this by definition will drain the lakes over a period of time. As soon as we recommend that we limit water through the dam to what comes in from rain the naysayers imagine the river drying up. And they pull out dozens of reasons this won't work talking about endangered species, water quality, and any of a number of other considerations. Immediately you come to an impasse.

If you suggest a flow of 3100cfs instead of the 3600cfs that is our current flow through the dam, everyone imagines that this would only be token improvement and no one is willing to fight that hard to secure this flow level. I think most of the anti 3100 sentiment think that downstream would probably be OK but they also see the gain from 3100 too small to be worth all the effort.
The myriad imagined problems downstream seem too huge and the gain at 3100 too small to fight for.

Just recently however the Corps gave us some numbers on the Austin Rhodes show that indicate that the flow in from rain during this drought is about equal to 3100cfs. In other words if we had gone to 3100 cfs when Lake Thurmond reached 328 ft (2 feet below normal fill) the lakes would still be full. This now changes the arguments. If the lakes were still full everyone whether they are downstream of the dam or upstream would benefit. It would have eliminated the current fear that the lakes may dry up completely which would reek havoc downstream as well as around the lake. This end warrants hard core investigation of what 3100 does downstream if anything. This end warrants investigation into how to live with 3100 downstream to prevent the crisis we now are faced with.

So, in view of this new information my recommendation for the future would be to use 3100cfs based on this worst drought situation. And we should initiate the 3100cfs flow as soon as the lake drops 2 ft. This should be Continued until the lake refills.

My recommendation for now would be to go to 3100cfs now and determine from this what changes are needed downstream if any to permit continued operation at 3100 cfs.

Friday, February 20, 2009

PROPOSED SOLUTION TO LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

I know most of you are looking at ways to solve the problems at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. While you have your thinking caps on let me step outside the box and propose a solution to this problem that gets us out of the problem quickly and keeps us there. At first glance this will sound wild eyed and crazy but It seems to me that the following would work:

1) Shut down Russell and drain it into Thurmond to get the lakes back up as far as possible. Leave Russell down until Thurmond refills.

2) Determine release rate requirements from rainfall averages rather than downstream needs. Any downstream needs that exceed this rate need to be corrected from downstream engineering rather than increasing water releases. Decrease release rates to the average in from rain past 30 days and modify each 2 weeks if any particular month falls way outside the average.

3) Look at further decreases below average rainfall to refill both Thurmond and Hartwell

4) Once the lakes refill assume ESA is met as long as releases = lowest monthlly average rainfall of past 12 months.

5) Look at building artificial gravel beds if further protection of Sturgeon is desired rather than try to flood existing beds with flows above that available from rain.

6) Look at leaving Russell down or if it is restarted rethink the fish carnage being experienced with reverse pumping. A NOAA official is quoted as admitting the reverse pumping at Russell will destroy the sport fishing on Thurmond. The court hearings on this should be revisited with input from the court findings out west where back pumping was ruled out because of the devastation it caused for the fish population at that lake.

Right now we are letting the tail wag the dog. The Corps looks at all the downstream issues anyone wants to bring up and literally solves the problem by pouring water on it. Doing it this way the lakes end up destroyed and we all end up with a disaster. If instead the Corps used the basis I describe above the lakes would never be destroyed and all downstream interests would be getting the maximum benefit provided by God that you can get from the lakes without destroying them.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

PROMISING NEW DEVELOPMENT

It seems we may have broken the ice with the NOAA. A new face on the scene is Robert Dawson of the NOAA. He has initiated contact with a number of people who wrote Mary Glackin and has indicated everything is on the table with respect to flows through the dam. Following is an email just sent to Mr. Dawson. If we can get everyone to understand the laws of Physics at work here we may be able to finally come to a workable solution. But the solution will be unpleasant downstream no matter how we do it because of the mismanagement that has preceded the start of correcting the problem. No matter how you cut it the only way to refill the lakes is to send downstream less water than comes in from rain which is not going to be appreciated.

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

I still see the overview as follows; we are trying to do one better than mother nature and it has got us into an impossible scenario. Ultimately we can not give the sturgeon more than God gives us or we drain the lakes. It doesn't matter who is at the controls or what has happened in the past. This is an irrefutable truth.

Again the best example I can offer to look at the legal side of complying with the ESA is that the act never intended for man to add to mother nature. Rather the intention of the ESA is to get "man made" out of the picture and make sure we don't interfere with mother nature. Otherwise the people with endangered mice in their fields would be required to improve on mother nature and give the rats assistance with food etc. Such would be obviously ridiculous. And when the eagles were endangered no one was asked to assist mother nature; only get out of the way from mother nature and not intefere with man made effects to their habitat.

What makes this so hard for everyone to see is that water appears to be an easy solution to the situation. The problem as we are finding is that the water is not limitless. Anytime we exceed what God has provided the Sturgeon we dig a hole we can't climb out of.If you want to do something man made, put gravel in the river at a point where even in a drought it will be underwater so the Sturgeon have a place to spawn. Gravel we can do. Water we can't.

Thanks for listening. Would it be possible for you to get together with a representative group of lake interests to discuss this further? If so I recommend we do so quickly as the COE is pouring our water out much faster than God is replacing it and the longer it continues the worse the solution will be for all concerned.

Jerry Clontz, Author of blog

Let's see what comes of our new found ear at the NOAA. With the congressional help promised at the meeting in Lincolnton Tuesday night and this development I am very hopeful that we can finally find a way to resolve our dilemna.

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

Saturday, February 14, 2009

COST OF MISMANAGING LAKE LEVELS IS STAGGERING

In previous blogs and emails I mentioned that the cost of mismanaging our lakes was hundreds of millions. Col. Ed Kertis challenged me in an email to document that number. As a result I applied simple logic and math to obvious costs that are related directly to lake level rather than the depressed economics being experienced nation wide. The results are discussed below and show the cost to be in the billions of dollars.

A big contributor to obvious losses is the decrease in lake front value from deteriorating lake front access, views, and esthetics. In a recent reevaluation of property values by the McCormick County Assessor the assessor added $100,000 to every lake front property as a reasonable value of lake front access, views, and esthetics. Simply halving that value because of the horrible condition of our lake front properties generates a loss of $225 million on Lake Thurmond where there are 4,500 lake front properties. I had no data on the number of lake front properties at Lake Hartwell but assuming it is similar to Lake Thurmond raises this loss to a conservative figure of $450 million. Conservative because the real loss on lake front value is probably a great deal larger and these figures do not account for the overall loss in attractiveness of these areas for any real estate purchase regardless of whether you are talking lake front or not.

I also had data on one major development on Lake Thurmond that has been tabled indefinitely because of the unpredictable levels at the lake. This project would have cost $35 million. Again I think it is safe to assume a similar loss at Lake Hartwell. Doubling this gives a conservative estimate of $70 million in lost developments around these two lakes. Conservative because it represents what only one business owner had planned. Surely there would be more projects of similar costs if a survey were made of all planned developments that are now tabled.

And finally I had data from studies made a few years ago by the Lake Hartwell Association and the Corps as to how much money is brought into Lake Hartwell from visitors and water related business. These show a loss of about $150 million in general incomes from lake visitation etc. (excluding real estate losses) at Lake Hartwell when the lake drops more than 8 ft. Doubling this to include Lake Thurmond gives a conservative figure of $300 million. Conservative because it does not include the impact on lake related jobs in the area.

Adding these together gives a total loss of $820 million and this does not include the overall impact on real estate values in the general area. Obviously fewer people will be attracted to real estate in a lake area when the lakes are no longer attractions. In other words it is safe to say that the economic impact of low lake levels is in excess of a $billion with an additional impact from lost jobs because of depressed lake related industries such as dock building, construction, restaurants, etc.

CATEGORY/ TOTAL COST

lost lake front premium $450,000,000

tabled projects $70,000,000

decreased lake business $300,000,000

total not including real estate $820,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
if real estate included >>$1,000,000,000

Sunday, February 8, 2009

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

It seems we have identified the ultimate boss on water flows at Lake Thurmond; at least for the current scenario. Hopefully that can be changed with legislation in the future but until it is we need for everyone to:
1) sign the petition put out by "Save Our Lakes Now". If you don't know where to find one, go to www.saveourlakesnow.com.
2) write mary.glackin@noaa.gov explaining why she needs to back off the throttle on lake releases and at the very least return the flows to 3100cfs. It was the decision of the NOAA to increase flows from 3100cfs back to 3600cfs. If the flows are held at this level for much longer we are doomed for this summer.

If you want first hand knowledge of what is happening come to the meeting in Lincolnton on Tuesday Feb 17th. Hopefully by then we will know whether the NOAA will honor our requests for lower flows.

Beyond this it would seem that we are going to have to either get concrete help from our political leaders or initiate a law suit to stop the destruction of our lakes. If you wonder how much the cost of all this madness is to the area, a conservative estimate of what it has done to property values, business losses, and damages around the lakes is over a billion dollars.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Help is on the Way on Lake Releases

It seems I spoke too soon about Gresham Barrett and the way he is helping with our lake problems. Turns out he is doing a lot to correct the situation both now and even more importantly in the future. Following is a link to a letter he recently put out on the subject http://barrett.houseenews.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100031749.111749.338&gen=1.

And moves are afoot to set up legislation for control of SC Lakes thanks to Mike Massey who is associated with Lake Hartwell property owners association.

Additionally legal options are being explored to see what else might be done to bring about immediate corrections to the gross mismanagement practices of the Corps of Engineers.

In defense of the Corps there are many excuses that can be used to explain their mismanagement of the Lakes:
1) their list of priorities does not even mention recreation, business, or property values around the lakes. Instead the list mentions power production, water quality, protection of Fish and Wildlife.
2) they have many bosses who try to dictate how to handle Lake releases.
3) the drought managment plan they are following is inadequate.
But that is what leadersip is all about. If they wanted to do the right thing they have all the help they would need from politicians and state governing bodies such as the DNR. Common sense shows something needs to be done because of the vast monetary losses being experienced around the lakes. Excuses are not what is needed right now. Strong leadership using common sense and a determination to do what is right is what is needed. Hopefully this is now on the horizon from all the things beginning to come to a head with the control of Lake releases.

Monday, February 2, 2009

LEADERSHIP DESPERATELY NEEDED TO END LAKE PROBLEM

I spent quite some time on the phone with a representative of Gresham Barrett's office who is following the lake problem. I became quite agitated and lost my cool as the discussion continued. Afterwards I tried to analyse why I had lost my cool. It then became ovious why this problem continues with the lakes. Our leaders are not personally suffering the consequences of the devastation occurring with the lakes and because of this they don't have the passion and drive needed to solve the problem.

The conversation went something like "the Corps can't do what is right because the wildlife and environmental groups dictate what has to be done with river flows". "Nothing can be done about it because of the ways the laws are written". My personal reaction was that we are in a crisis situation and simply to follow the dictates of one group who is obviously being totally unreasonable is ridiculous. Obviously Mr Barrett's representative did not agree with this thinking but that is because they are not personally involved. If someone was shutting down Mr. Barrett's office or destroying the value of his residential property he would be more inclined to agree with my thinking.

What is needed is someone in the Corps or political leadership who will take it on themselves to order reduced flows at the Thurmond dam and force a showdown with the environmental group that is currently dictating the flows. The environmental arguments would not hold water (excuse the pun) in a legal show down. For example we have had much above the suggested flows in the river because of water not accounted for below the dam. The dam flows could have been shut off completely for a month or so and the river still have plenty of water but no one in a leadership position was interested enough to force this to happen. Furthermore there is no law or reasoning that can require more water downstream than what comes in from rain for environmental concerns since environmental concerns are limited to eliminating man's impact on nature. Besides there is no law that will stand that is proved to be robing a large segment of the population of their wealth and their livelihood. Other laws governing people's rights exist which can be used to force compromise in the courts.

Now that the lakes are low we need to hold back every drop we can above some mutually agreed to COMPROMISE (as against a dictate from one side of the argument) until they refill but once they are full again we should hold discharges to what comes in from rain anytime the lake levels start to fall. Concerns downstream that require more than can be expected from rain need to redesign their set ups accordingly so that they don't suffer during a drought. Until we find leadership that has these goals our lakes are destined to fail. These lakes are far too valuable an asset to continue to allow such stupidity to occur.