Monday, October 26, 2009

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING POOR JUDGEMENT

The Savannah River is swollen from all the recent rains. Downstream interests are certainly not hurting for more water in the river. Upstream interests on the other hand are holding their breath waiting for the lakes to finally reach full pool for the first time in years. So why is the Corps suddenly increasing release rates through Thurmond Dam from the 3600 cfs lake residents have been pleading for to 4200 cfs that does no one any good.


It would have been good if the Corps had continued the 3600 cfs release rate until the lakes were totally full. Going up to 4200 cfs raises doubts in the minds of upstream interests about the Corps'. Upstream interests suffered tremendous devastation to economies and recreation that could have been prevented. All the Corps has to do to prevent a recurrence of this devastation is adopt our recommendation of 3600 cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool until the lakes are completely full. Increasing releases to 4200 cfs before the lakes refill is like telling lake residents to take a hike.



I had high hopes for future relations with the Corps. This uncalled for increase in release rates raises serious doubts about getting the cooperation we need.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CORPS DROUGHT PLAN

The current drought plan is backwards from the way the real world operates. The Corps is worrying about and specifying how much water needs to be released downstream with out looking at how much water is available. This is like managing your finances from the stand point of what you want rather than what you can afford. Eventually you will bankrupt your finances or in the case of a lake deplete all the useable water out of the lake.

The difference in what we are recommending is to look at the amount of water available and specify release rates that won't deplete the lakes of useable water. Our recommendation comes from two observations:
1) the amount of water entering the lakes from rain during the worst droughts on record is the same as the amount the Corps has been releasing for the past 18 or so months (3600cfs).
2) the release rate the Corps has been using for the past 18 or so months has not caused any problems downstream
The benefits of following our recommendation would be to avoid the destruction experienced in past droughts to upstream economies and recreation and to guard against reaching the bottom of the conservation pool for the lakes where predictable release rates could no longer be maintained downstream.

It should be obvious to anyone looking at the lakes that there are two concerns that should govern release rates. One is the effect on downstream stakeholders and the second is the effect on upstream stakeholders. The Corps does lip service to protecting upstream interests but in reality only accepts responsibility for downstream effects. So far as instructions to the corps by congress they were formally instructed to protect upstream recreational interests but upstream economies were not mentioned. Our recommendations take care of all downstream concerns and all upstream concerns including upstream economics. As a result our drought control plan is superior to the current corps drought plan.

Based on a review of all comments to the Corps about their drought control plan upstream stakeholders are very disatisfied with the way the Corps is managing the lakes while the only downstream group unhappy is Fish and Wildlife. They expressed all kinds of possible problems while not mentioning any real problem. We wonder why then the Corps is scrambling to increase release rates rather than sticking with a much better plan that is working? Could it be they fear the Fish and Wildlife commission?

Monday, October 5, 2009

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS

The good news is the Corps has agreed to change their drought management plan on a trial basis to reduce flows from Lake Thurmond to 3100cfs during the months of October to February. The bad news is they don't plan to do this unless Lake Thurmond reaches 14 ft below full pool.

We had requested this flow be adopted anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool during the months of October to February. Waiting until the lake is 14' low is like the proverbial "closing the barn doors after the cows are gone". Basically upstream economic issues and recreational interests are destroyed whenever Lake Thurmond drops more than 10ft.

On the plus side the Corps' argument for using 3100cfs mirrors what we've been saying from our review of information gathered from a freedom of information act request. When we requested all comments from downstream interests concerning the affects of 3100cfs we found that no one had a problem with that release rate. The Corps arguments for adopting 3100cfs on a trial basis supports our conclusions. Furthermore the Corps admits that there should be no significant affect on environmental issues.

The only omission from the Corps' argument is the affects on economic and recreational interests upstream when Lake Thurmond levels fall more than 10'. They use the words economic and recreation issues but fail to address these concerns. So it would appear we are closer now than ever to getting the Corps to recognize the wisdom of our requests for 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) whenever Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. All we need now is to get them to recognize economic and recreation issues upstream and they will be forced to come to the same conclusions we have about how best to manage our lakes.

The Corps is requesting public comments on their proposal for 3100cfs before noon on October 30th. Please flood their desks with the fact that they need to consider the impact of waiting beyond 2' below full before implementing 3100cfs during October to February. The addresses to use are: email address - william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil, fax number - (912) 652-5787, And mailing address - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Planning Unit, Attn: William Bailey, PO Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

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.