Saturday, December 18, 2010

PROGRESS ON IMPROVING DROUGHT PLAN HAS COME TO A STOP

Several months ago a new commander took control of the Savannah River Basin. That and setting up the Savannah River Basin Advisory Commission (SRBAC) gave hope that we might finally be making progress in the way lake levels are managed during droughts. After years of trying to get the Corps to stop releasing more water than that supplied by nature, two way communication was actually happening. In meetings around the state the Corps acknowledged that they had full latitude to change release rates to match annual input from rain. They even spoke about decreasing releases still further when the river below Thurmond Dam is swollen from rains. Now all of these measures have come to a stop. Now instead of open and honest expression of what needs to change everyone seems to have reverted to a politically correct type position. Whether it is discussions at the SRBAC or talking to the Corps
we are back to the old story of "the corps can't deviate from the written drought plan without a huge amount of study, temporary approvals of everybody, etc. etc.". In other words we have returned to square one and all our "breakthroughs" have been shoved under the table. The timing was coincident with but not necessarilly caused by the ridiculous claims of the Clemson Economic Study claiming the major drought of 2008 had very little impact on the economics of the region.

Claims of a need for further study make no sense. All the flows involved with the recommended changes to the drought plan have been fully tested with no ill effects and as noted above the Corps has even told us that they have full latitude for such a change. At the very least it makes more sense to use a plan that works on a temporary basis until everyone can approve the plan formally. It makes no sense to continue using a plan (even on a temporary basis)that has failed repeatedly and almost caused us to lose the whole basin.

The logic behind the changes we are recommending the Corps use is simple. Hold release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during a drought anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' from full pool. Past modeling of the Savannah River Basin showed that such a measure would keep the lake levels from dropping more than about 6 ft. The timing of starting these release rates is important because the lake can drop 6' from the point where the releases are reduced. Currently the Corps has allowed Lake Thurmond to drop 6 to 7 feet without dropping the release rate to the level recommended. A drop of another 6 ft would put us in the same territory as 2008 when we were down over 15'.

We know from what the Tea Party did that we can get this right if enough people get behind it. Unless something changes quickly we will be seeking the help of all stakeholders around the lakes. When the time comes please help us with emails and phone calls to your congressmen, the Corps, and your representatives on the SRBAC. Also, we only have a limited list to notify of this so when we contact you please make sure to inform everyone you know who has an interest in how our lakes are being run so we can increase our numbers. You should hear further from us in early January as to what we need to do.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

HANDOUT PREPARED FOR SRBAC 12/8 MTG IN BEAUFORT

This handout was prepared for and discussed at the 12/8 meeting of the Savannah River Basin Council in Beaufort, sc on 12/8. It summarizes our feelings on the flawed economic impact study recently done by Clemson University. I think you will find it to be a concise answer to their findings which we feel drew an incorrect conclusion about the impact of droughts on the economy of the lakes of the Savannah River Basin which include Lake Thurmond.

CONCERNS ABOUT CLEMSON ECONOMIC STUDY


1. No one who experienced the devastation to docks and shorelines in 2008 will agree that the economic impact was minor. Neither will those who depend on the lakes for their work such as marina owners, dock builders, lake side developers, etc.
2. It is not surprising that people who live in the 6 county area because of their commute to work or proximity to family suffered no impact from the drought. This is like saying no one in Columbia or Rock Hill were impacted by what happened on Lake Hartwell. The only impact is going to be on people who are in the area because of the lake. So far as I can tell there was no attempt to measure the size of this group or to look at the impact incurred by them. In my opinion the study should have been aimed at lake stakeholders and the impact on them rather than the general population.
3. The study assumes a rapid return to normal lake levels with a corresponding return to normal lake property values, etc. The major economic impact is not short term. Instead the major economic impact is loss of confidence in lake level control long term. People who move to the area because they are attracted to the lakes will stop coming, property values will suffer permanent damage on a large scale, and developments depending on the attraction of the lakes will cease. From a personal perspective I know of huge developments that are now abandoned or put on hold around Lake Thurmond because of lost confidence in lake level control.

If the purpose of the study was to determine how hardy the economy of 6 SC counties was during 2006-8 it was a success. But if the study was to look at the economic impact of low lake levels it failed to measure the variables necessary to draw a conclusion. In order to study the economic impact of low lake levels one needs to first identify the community affected by lake levels, second the impact of short term low lake levels on that community and third and most important the long term impact of low lake levels on that community. I can assure you from just looking at the magnitude of impact from lost real estate values the economic impact is not small.