Many people who are just now learning about Save Our Lakes Now are probably wondering just who we are and whether we are "fair and balanced" to quote Fox News. Here of course the fair and balanced is concerning water on both sides of the dam.
The best analogy of who we are is to compare us to the Tea Party. Basically we are in the role of disrupting a failed system in which the governing bodies have become fixed in their ways and where their ways do not work. Historically disruption of the status quo has always been unwelcome to those in control. Like the Tea Party we are attracting a lot of support because we have a much needed answer to an old problem. Contrary to some criticism we are being very careful to consider both sides of the dam and our recommendations are based on sound engineering principles.
If you agree with us that the failed drought plan of the Corps needs to be changed, join us at Thurmond Dam on Saturday Nov 5th at 10 to 2. Between now and then give some thought to what you would like to tell your congressman about this and what you would like to have the Corps do differently. Write these thoughts in the form of letters and bring them to the protest rally. We'll get all the letters together and send them to the appropriate congressman and to the Corps. Matter of fact if you would like to air your thoughts with everyone else, bring a copy to be posted on our bulletin board at the headquarters' tent at the rally.
If you would like more information on the drought problem take a look at our website www.saveourlakesnow.org or attend our webinar this Sunday at 2:00 - 2:15 pm. You can register for the webinar using the following link.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/871649990
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
PROTEST MARCH AT THURMOND DAM ON NOV. 5TH
SAVE OUR LAKES NOW PROTEST MARCH ANNOUNCEMENT
Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.
Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.
For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.
The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.
Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.
Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.
For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.
The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
It has suddenly become popular to demand lower release rates from the Corps. All the people who thought Save Our Lakes Now was being too demanding a year back when we pleaded for lower release rates now suddenly are pleading for the corps to cut back. But it is too late now. The level you see in the lake now comes from what happened over the past year not what you did last month and certainly not from what you do now. The rule of thumb is the lake will change 1 ft in a years time for each 100cfs change in release rates. We pleaded with the Corps and all Lake interests to drop flows to 3600 about a year ago. Even did a spot on Channel 6 News. Some even criticized us for this saying we were being too argumentative. Had the Corps dropped to 3600 when we asked the lake would be full now.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
WHY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW IS UPSET WITH THE WAY OUR LAKES ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED
To the average bystander the whole deal with the Corps, the drought, and low lake levels is confusing. After all we are in a drought; why shouldn't the lake be low. Besides doesn't the Corps have a lot of things to worry about in a drought other than lake levels.
But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.
Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.
Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.
The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.
But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.
Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.
Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.
The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Further Studies are not the Answer to Our Drought Plan
I feel like the horseman who rode off in all directions at the same time. I have several problems with the proposal to do further studies before modifying the Corps drought Plan for the Savannah River Basin. We are headed in the wrong direction by doing a new study. Our problem is not data. Our problem is the logic behind what we are trying to do.
First the drought plan is an egineering problem; not a scientific study. Traditionally scientists are always looking for more and more data to get a "perfect" understanding of a problem and they spend endless amounts of time and money chasing the what ifs and maybes. Engineers on the other hand take the information at hand and make the best solution possible with that information until further improvement becomes possible from experience. We are taking the what if and maybe questions put forth by NOAA and other scientific institutions and doing endless studies in an effort to answer all the questions before making any changes to the Drought Plan. We should be looking at what we already know and making the best solutions now possible provided they are safe from an environmental standpoint. We can then modify and correct and make further changes as they are warranted.
Second, looking at the information already at hand we can make safe changes from an environmental stand point while correcting the unwarranted destruction to our lakes that keeps recuring with droughts. The Corps keeps overlooking the fact that we are already far safer than the environment experienced for thousands of years before the dams were built. From an environmental standpoint the dams not only protect against flooding but they also give a guaranteed artificial flow in the river that is well above what the river used to experience during droughts. From the standpoint of impacts on water quality and water supply operation at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months showed these were not a problem.
Third, every argument used by the Corps to stop a change to 3600cfs from Thurmond when the lakes start down has proved to be inconsequential. Dissolved oxygen is one and not only is the dissolved oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor not affected by dropping to 3600cfs but it is controlled almost exclusively by the huge inflows of ocean water from tidal action. A release rate of 3600cfs has also been shown to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon who survived thousands of years at much lower flows. Even Hydro Power is not a justifiable argument. The only benefit from continuing power production beyond the flows provided from rainfall is economic. And the economics of power costs is dwarfed by the economic losses of dropping lake levels more than 6-8'.
Finally, recreation which is one of the 7 responsibilities of the Corps in managing our lakes is being destroyed repeatedly by the current drought plan. Based on the drought of record, a reduction to 3600cfs at Thurmond when the lakes begin to fall would protect recreation and not harm the other 6 responsibilities.
In summary no study will give us enough information to answer all the maybes and what ifs that now trump logic in establishing a good drought plan. If we use an engineering approach (after all it is the US Army Corps of ENGINEERS) we already have enough information to vastly improve on the drought plan. And speaking as an engineer to all the scientists reading this, if there are scientific questions needing answer then instrument the river, etc. to get those answers after we change the plan. We can further improve on the plan as we get more experience using the recommended plan of 3600cfs any time the lake levels fall unexpectedly.
First the drought plan is an egineering problem; not a scientific study. Traditionally scientists are always looking for more and more data to get a "perfect" understanding of a problem and they spend endless amounts of time and money chasing the what ifs and maybes. Engineers on the other hand take the information at hand and make the best solution possible with that information until further improvement becomes possible from experience. We are taking the what if and maybe questions put forth by NOAA and other scientific institutions and doing endless studies in an effort to answer all the questions before making any changes to the Drought Plan. We should be looking at what we already know and making the best solutions now possible provided they are safe from an environmental standpoint. We can then modify and correct and make further changes as they are warranted.
Second, looking at the information already at hand we can make safe changes from an environmental stand point while correcting the unwarranted destruction to our lakes that keeps recuring with droughts. The Corps keeps overlooking the fact that we are already far safer than the environment experienced for thousands of years before the dams were built. From an environmental standpoint the dams not only protect against flooding but they also give a guaranteed artificial flow in the river that is well above what the river used to experience during droughts. From the standpoint of impacts on water quality and water supply operation at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months showed these were not a problem.
Third, every argument used by the Corps to stop a change to 3600cfs from Thurmond when the lakes start down has proved to be inconsequential. Dissolved oxygen is one and not only is the dissolved oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor not affected by dropping to 3600cfs but it is controlled almost exclusively by the huge inflows of ocean water from tidal action. A release rate of 3600cfs has also been shown to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon who survived thousands of years at much lower flows. Even Hydro Power is not a justifiable argument. The only benefit from continuing power production beyond the flows provided from rainfall is economic. And the economics of power costs is dwarfed by the economic losses of dropping lake levels more than 6-8'.
Finally, recreation which is one of the 7 responsibilities of the Corps in managing our lakes is being destroyed repeatedly by the current drought plan. Based on the drought of record, a reduction to 3600cfs at Thurmond when the lakes begin to fall would protect recreation and not harm the other 6 responsibilities.
In summary no study will give us enough information to answer all the maybes and what ifs that now trump logic in establishing a good drought plan. If we use an engineering approach (after all it is the US Army Corps of ENGINEERS) we already have enough information to vastly improve on the drought plan. And speaking as an engineer to all the scientists reading this, if there are scientific questions needing answer then instrument the river, etc. to get those answers after we change the plan. We can further improve on the plan as we get more experience using the recommended plan of 3600cfs any time the lake levels fall unexpectedly.
Monday, August 29, 2011
SURPRISE SURPRISE, CORPS PLAN NOT WORKING AGAIN
What we've been saying for some time is now obvious. The "management plan" in use by the US Army Corps of Engineers does not work and has not for many years now. There is a saying that accurately explains our situation. THE HEIGHT OF INSANITY IS TO CONTINUE DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXPECTING THE RESULTS TO CHANGE. If you have any input to the Corps please see if you can get them to listen to reason because our best efforts to get them to heed our warnings have failed up to now.
The Corps has failed to live up to one of the 7 responsibilities they have in managing Lake Thurmond. Once the lake drops 6' recreation is badly damaged. What is so disconcerting is that the Corps could have dropped release rates to 3600cfs back when the lake level started falling and we would be at full pool. The only responsibility that would be impacted by such a change is power production but this is more than offset by avoiding damage to the economy around the lake. The Corps insists that economics is not one of their responsibilities but such a claim is ludicrous. First the only defense for holding power production at the expense of lake level is the economics of buying more expensive power elsewhere. But if you compare the savings in power costs to the economic losses around the lake, increased power cost is dwarfed by eonomic losses. In other words it is my opinion that the responsibility concerning power production is strictly an economic one which defeats the Corps claim of no responsibility in that arena. There are other arguments why power production should not be put ahead of recreation and economic concerns:
Thurmond is a peaking power source. As such it is much better to have a full lake when high demand hits than to have the lake at a greatly reduced level and be unable to provide peaking power.
Hydro power is desirable because it is a renewable energy source. But if you are releasing more water to produce power than is coming to the basin from rain it is no longer a renewable energy source.
In summary if the Corps would make a simple change to their drought plan all the problems we repeatedly experience from severe droughts could be avoided and all responsibilities the Corps has would be met without any problems except for possible temporary reductions of power production. These temporary reductions in power reduction would cost far less than the economic damages done around Lake Thurmond with the current drought plan.
Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now
The Corps has failed to live up to one of the 7 responsibilities they have in managing Lake Thurmond. Once the lake drops 6' recreation is badly damaged. What is so disconcerting is that the Corps could have dropped release rates to 3600cfs back when the lake level started falling and we would be at full pool. The only responsibility that would be impacted by such a change is power production but this is more than offset by avoiding damage to the economy around the lake. The Corps insists that economics is not one of their responsibilities but such a claim is ludicrous. First the only defense for holding power production at the expense of lake level is the economics of buying more expensive power elsewhere. But if you compare the savings in power costs to the economic losses around the lake, increased power cost is dwarfed by eonomic losses. In other words it is my opinion that the responsibility concerning power production is strictly an economic one which defeats the Corps claim of no responsibility in that arena. There are other arguments why power production should not be put ahead of recreation and economic concerns:
Thurmond is a peaking power source. As such it is much better to have a full lake when high demand hits than to have the lake at a greatly reduced level and be unable to provide peaking power.
Hydro power is desirable because it is a renewable energy source. But if you are releasing more water to produce power than is coming to the basin from rain it is no longer a renewable energy source.
In summary if the Corps would make a simple change to their drought plan all the problems we repeatedly experience from severe droughts could be avoided and all responsibilities the Corps has would be met without any problems except for possible temporary reductions of power production. These temporary reductions in power reduction would cost far less than the economic damages done around Lake Thurmond with the current drought plan.
Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now
Monday, August 22, 2011
CORPS NEEDS MATH LESSON
Since July of 2010 the Corps has released an average of 5038 cfs from Lake Thurmond. During this same period Save Our Lakes Now has pleaded with the Corps to use a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake is below 328'. Most people do not realize but the difference between 5000cfs and 3600cfs over a years time is 14' of elevation. In other words all the Corps had to do was use 3600cfs intermittently over the past year and our lake would still be full.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Corps Claims "Just Following Orders"
The whole Savannah River Basin is in jeopardy and we have answers on how to correct this situation but the Corps is hiding behind the excuse that they do not make policy. As we all know "just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for acts that bring about destruction. We need congressional help or public exposure to get the Corps to listen to reason.
We have presented plans numerous times that prevent the destruction of recreation and economics when the lakes drop too low while at the same time protecting downstream interests by providing river flows that have been demonstrated to be acceptable. Rather than explore this approach the Corps spent huge amounts of time and money to develop a way to literally drain the lakes which would totally devastate the areas upstream of the dams.
Several things show the current approach in use by the Corps is not ligical:
1.rather than balance water releases with what is supplied by rain the Corps follows a release plan that bankrupts the system during droughts and runs the risk of destroying the whole Savannah River System
2.they literally throw fresh water to the ocean during severe droughts when fresh water becomes precious. .
3.they call hydropower a renewable power source but it is renewable only if you limit the water used to that which is supplied by rain.
4.they ignore demonstrated destruction of recreation and economics upstream of the dam in favor of possible imagined problems downstream.
Right now today the Corps is allowing the lakes to drop drastically and the levels will soon be destructive to recreation and economics. We have pleaded with them to drop release rates to 3600cfs which is acceptable downstream but they are holding them at 4200cfs. In a years time 4200 cfs puts Thurmond 6' lower than it would be at 3600cfs. The area went through a massive drought in 2008 which destroyed the economics of the region. This drought could be even more destructive because of its proximity to the one of 2008.
We have presented plans numerous times that prevent the destruction of recreation and economics when the lakes drop too low while at the same time protecting downstream interests by providing river flows that have been demonstrated to be acceptable. Rather than explore this approach the Corps spent huge amounts of time and money to develop a way to literally drain the lakes which would totally devastate the areas upstream of the dams.
Several things show the current approach in use by the Corps is not ligical:
1.rather than balance water releases with what is supplied by rain the Corps follows a release plan that bankrupts the system during droughts and runs the risk of destroying the whole Savannah River System
2.they literally throw fresh water to the ocean during severe droughts when fresh water becomes precious. .
3.they call hydropower a renewable power source but it is renewable only if you limit the water used to that which is supplied by rain.
4.they ignore demonstrated destruction of recreation and economics upstream of the dam in favor of possible imagined problems downstream.
Right now today the Corps is allowing the lakes to drop drastically and the levels will soon be destructive to recreation and economics. We have pleaded with them to drop release rates to 3600cfs which is acceptable downstream but they are holding them at 4200cfs. In a years time 4200 cfs puts Thurmond 6' lower than it would be at 3600cfs. The area went through a massive drought in 2008 which destroyed the economics of the region. This drought could be even more destructive because of its proximity to the one of 2008.
Monday, July 18, 2011
CORPS SHOWS INSANE PLAN TO LITERALLY DESTROY OUR LAKES
The Corps of Engineers has come out with a plan for managing the lakes of the Savannah River that would drain all three lakes rather than practice simple conservation measures in a severe drought. As with money if you continue to spend more than you make you will eventually go bankrupt. Managing the water in the lakes is a similar proposition. If you send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain you will eventually run the system dry. Water is one of if not the most valuable resource we have. Without it industries shut down, cities have to be abandoned because of lack of adequate drinking water, crops fail, etc., etc. It is therefore insane to put a plan in motion that would drain our lakes during a time of extreme water shortage leaving us with no water.
The Corps and Save Our Lakes Now agree on the essential variables concerning the flow rates needed in the Savannah River to meet downstream needs. We disagree on how to manage lake levels to maintain these flows. Save Our Lakes Now sees the primary controlling factor to be having enough water in the lakes to maintain the needed river flows. The Corps on the other hand makes no attempt to maintain lake levels until it is too late to prevent destroying recreation and economics of the lake and river flows are in jeopardy. Following the guidelines proposed by Save Our Lakes Now a drought like the one in 2008 would be of little consequence. Thurmond Lake would cycle from full to 8’ down and back to full. Following the guidelines by the Corps Thurmond Lake drops 16’ in a drought like the one in 2008 which destroys the lake from the stand point of recreation and economics and puts control of river flows in jeopardy. Minimum adequate river flows are maintained by both plans provided the drought is not more severe than the one of 2008.
Looking further to the possibility of a drought more severe than 2008 the Corps has acknowledged that their drought plan which stops releasing water from the dams when the lakes hit the bottom of their conservation pool could lead to no longer being able to provide minimum adequate river flows. Recognizing this the Corps has now come up with an insane proposal whereby they would literally drain the lakes. Carried to its extreme this would destroy any possibility of having adequate water for downstream needs.
Save Our Lakes Now proposes simple conservation measures to make sure we never run out of water in the lakes. If we encounter a drought more severe than the one in 2008 we recommend the Corps adjust release rates at the end of each year to match whatever the annual average rainfall is for that year. The dams give the benefit of averaging the drought flows over a full year which avoids the disastrous effects of not being able to control river flows. The Corps proposal risks losing the benefit gained from the dams which would mean total loss of control of both the lakes and the river.
The Corps and Save Our Lakes Now agree on the essential variables concerning the flow rates needed in the Savannah River to meet downstream needs. We disagree on how to manage lake levels to maintain these flows. Save Our Lakes Now sees the primary controlling factor to be having enough water in the lakes to maintain the needed river flows. The Corps on the other hand makes no attempt to maintain lake levels until it is too late to prevent destroying recreation and economics of the lake and river flows are in jeopardy. Following the guidelines proposed by Save Our Lakes Now a drought like the one in 2008 would be of little consequence. Thurmond Lake would cycle from full to 8’ down and back to full. Following the guidelines by the Corps Thurmond Lake drops 16’ in a drought like the one in 2008 which destroys the lake from the stand point of recreation and economics and puts control of river flows in jeopardy. Minimum adequate river flows are maintained by both plans provided the drought is not more severe than the one of 2008.
Looking further to the possibility of a drought more severe than 2008 the Corps has acknowledged that their drought plan which stops releasing water from the dams when the lakes hit the bottom of their conservation pool could lead to no longer being able to provide minimum adequate river flows. Recognizing this the Corps has now come up with an insane proposal whereby they would literally drain the lakes. Carried to its extreme this would destroy any possibility of having adequate water for downstream needs.
Save Our Lakes Now proposes simple conservation measures to make sure we never run out of water in the lakes. If we encounter a drought more severe than the one in 2008 we recommend the Corps adjust release rates at the end of each year to match whatever the annual average rainfall is for that year. The dams give the benefit of averaging the drought flows over a full year which avoids the disastrous effects of not being able to control river flows. The Corps proposal risks losing the benefit gained from the dams which would mean total loss of control of both the lakes and the river.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
NEED COMMENTS TO CORPS EA PROPOSAL
The Corps is requesting comments on a new EA to test 3600cfs (3100cfs in winter) release rates from Lake Thurmond. While we applaud the Corps on testing lower release rates for times of drought we disagree with their premiss that these rates be used only after the lake levels have dropped drastically. We feel the lake should be held at full pool until the release rates needed to keep it full drop below 3600cfs(3100cfs in winter). To read the EA go to http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/planning.html
The email address for comments prior to July 14 is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil
Keeping the lakes full except when flows less than this are required means that the river will get exactly the amount of water mother nature provides by rain. Since the drought of record had an annual rainfall rate of 3600cfs this would also mean we would not lose the lakes even in the drought of record regardless of how long the drought lasts. In other words the lakes would remain as full as possible and the river flows would be what mother nature provides without the ravages of severe drought or flooding.
Sending more water downstream than is coming in from rain is like spending more money than you are making. In either case you will eventually bankrupt the system and everyone will suffer.
The email address for comments prior to July 14 is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil
Keeping the lakes full except when flows less than this are required means that the river will get exactly the amount of water mother nature provides by rain. Since the drought of record had an annual rainfall rate of 3600cfs this would also mean we would not lose the lakes even in the drought of record regardless of how long the drought lasts. In other words the lakes would remain as full as possible and the river flows would be what mother nature provides without the ravages of severe drought or flooding.
Sending more water downstream than is coming in from rain is like spending more money than you are making. In either case you will eventually bankrupt the system and everyone will suffer.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY
Save Our Lakes Now has a different outlook on managing Lake Thurmond than the corps and many other groups. So that our arguments can be better understood I am comparing our thinking to theirs. You can then choose which approach you agree with the most. You each have friends that are not on our mailing list that will agree with our views. Please let them know we are here for them.
Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.
The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.
I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.
We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.
Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.
Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.
As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.
Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.
The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.
I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.
We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.
Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.
Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.
As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON IDEAL DROUGHT PLAN
The previous post presented our proposal for the ideal drought management plan. Basically the plan is to maintain a constant level on Lake Thurmond until rain inputs cause the release rate to drop below 3600cfs. At this point hold release rates at 3600 cfs until rain fall permits operation at full pool with a release rate in excess of 3600 cfs.
Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.
2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.
Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.
2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Drought Management Plan for Lake Thurmond
For the purposes of this post I am presenting my idea of the ideal drought plan for Lake Thurmond . Treating the operation of the dam as a standard engineering problem it really is quite simple.
1) Keep lake levels at full pool to within a few tenths of a foot as long as there is enough rain to do so. This capability has been demonstrated by years of balancing Lake Hartwell vs Lake Thurmond.
2) When release rates drop to 3600cfs allow the lake level to fall until rainfall permits maintaining a full pool again.
3) As part of maintaining lake levels as close to full pool as possible river flows following a rain event should be monitored to allow dropping below 3600cfs when possible.
The philosophy behind this plan is that all parameters the Corps is charged with for the Savannah River Basin can be maintained as long as there is plenty of water in the lake to give acceptable river flows. In the past lake levels have been permitted to drop with low rain fall. The trigger points for reducing releases from Lake Thurmond Dam were too low and the release rates called for allowed the lake to continue dropping too long. Had the drought of 2008 continued a little longer we could have lost the whole basin. This is simply unacceptable.
The biggest objections I have run into to date with this proposal is whether 3600cfs is adequate for downstream needs. I picked this figure for the following reasons:
1) no downstream stakeholders had any problems from a 3600cfs release rate that continued for over 12 consecutive. That being true why not use 3600 unless some problem rears its head or until more detailed studies can be completed.
2) the industrial release limits along the Savannah River are based on 3600cfs.
3) 3600 appears to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon.
4) detailed analyses of oxygen demand along the Savannah since 1977 show that reducing releases to 3600 in 2008 had no deleterious affect on oxygen level at Clyo which means no effect on the harbor either.
Downstream stakeholders will probably interpret this plan as selfish interests by lake stakeholders. In reality though this is the only way to protect downstream interests from being devastated should lake levels drop so low that adequate river flows can no longer be maintained. Looking at the parameters the Corps has been charged with (flood control, hydro power, navigation, recreation, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, economics) this is the only way to meet all these. With the current drought plan recreation and economics are destroyed quickly in a drought. All the other parameters are lost if you ever reach the bottom of the conservation pool.
Some will argue that hydropower is lost but SEPA has repeatedly assured us and the Corps that they want the lakes to be as full as possible. From their perspective they can reduce power production and spread the burden on others without any major problems. What would devaste SEPA would be lake levels so low they can no longer produce power.
This plan will work equally well if we decide some higher release rate has to be maintained. Simply insert that release rate into the equation and the rest remains unchanged.
Monday, February 7, 2011
REASONS TO NOT REDUCE THURMOND RELEASES BASED ON DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH
If you've followed my blog for any time you realize we are not making exaggerated claims for better management of Lake Levels at Lake Thurmond. Our basic reasoning is that the Corps can not create water and until they are able to do so lake releases should match lake input from rain or you run the risk of destroying the lake. Our recommendation is to balance input with output by reducing releases to the average annual input that occured in the drought of record in 2008 anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' below full pool. Using this approach reduced flows last only for a minimum amount of time since the lake refills quickly. Furthermore the river flows that occur at this release rate were demonstrated during the drought of 2008 to be acceptable for downstream stakeholders.
Since this meets the needs of both the people downstream and the ones around the lakes and since it avoids the armageddon effects that occur if you drain the lake below the conservation pool, you'd think a reasonable person would agree to our suggestions. Not so with the Corps and government environmental interests.
The Corps talks about percentage of storage that has to be dedicated to different things as if they can create water out of thin air. If you release all the water percentages no longer count. And if you release more water than nature provides from rain this will eventually occur.
Environmental concerns have been grossly exaggerated by both the Corps and government environmental agencies. For example mention has been made that short nosed sturgeon spawning in the Augusta Shoals MIGHT be impacted by low flows. But sturgeon can not reach the shoals because of the lock and dam. Concern has been expressed about needing sufficient flows to keep dissolved oxygen in limits and to push back against Atlantic tidewaters to protect drinking water against salt intake. In talking with representatives of the Savannah Water Department they state neither salt water intrusion nor dissolved oxygen are a problem now or in the past and logic dictates that the Savannah River is helpless in fighting back Atlantic tides. Environmental interests claim there is too little data to know for sure that this fish or that mussel etc. etc. might be impacted. They fail to consider that artificial river flows averaged out to avoid major fluctuations are far superior to what fish and wildlife had to survive when there was no dam. Still other imaginary concerns voiced by some environmentalists have been lack of high flows affecting sturgeon in the river and the tiger lilly in the shoals. Studies in 2004 indicate that cold water temperatures from high flows drive sturgeon away and recent studies by Augusta University show high flows are destructive to the tiger lilly in the Shoals.
Many demands by environmental groups show a total lack of logic. Claims have been made for much higher flows to benefit waste dilution and/or fish and wildlife. Wanting more water does not make it magically appear. Somehow we've got to get across that you only have so much water based on how much nature provides. If you release more to the ocean than you get from nature you will destroy the whole system and all the fish and wildlife and other environmental concerns along with it. The concern by environmetal groups that we are somehow hoarding the water for use in the lakes is unfounded. We send every drop mother nature provides downstream. We don't keep a single drop.
Since this meets the needs of both the people downstream and the ones around the lakes and since it avoids the armageddon effects that occur if you drain the lake below the conservation pool, you'd think a reasonable person would agree to our suggestions. Not so with the Corps and government environmental interests.
The Corps talks about percentage of storage that has to be dedicated to different things as if they can create water out of thin air. If you release all the water percentages no longer count. And if you release more water than nature provides from rain this will eventually occur.
Environmental concerns have been grossly exaggerated by both the Corps and government environmental agencies. For example mention has been made that short nosed sturgeon spawning in the Augusta Shoals MIGHT be impacted by low flows. But sturgeon can not reach the shoals because of the lock and dam. Concern has been expressed about needing sufficient flows to keep dissolved oxygen in limits and to push back against Atlantic tidewaters to protect drinking water against salt intake. In talking with representatives of the Savannah Water Department they state neither salt water intrusion nor dissolved oxygen are a problem now or in the past and logic dictates that the Savannah River is helpless in fighting back Atlantic tides. Environmental interests claim there is too little data to know for sure that this fish or that mussel etc. etc. might be impacted. They fail to consider that artificial river flows averaged out to avoid major fluctuations are far superior to what fish and wildlife had to survive when there was no dam. Still other imaginary concerns voiced by some environmentalists have been lack of high flows affecting sturgeon in the river and the tiger lilly in the shoals. Studies in 2004 indicate that cold water temperatures from high flows drive sturgeon away and recent studies by Augusta University show high flows are destructive to the tiger lilly in the Shoals.
Many demands by environmental groups show a total lack of logic. Claims have been made for much higher flows to benefit waste dilution and/or fish and wildlife. Wanting more water does not make it magically appear. Somehow we've got to get across that you only have so much water based on how much nature provides. If you release more to the ocean than you get from nature you will destroy the whole system and all the fish and wildlife and other environmental concerns along with it. The concern by environmetal groups that we are somehow hoarding the water for use in the lakes is unfounded. We send every drop mother nature provides downstream. We don't keep a single drop.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
TIME FOR ACTION HAS COME
The Corps has made it clear that they do not intend to get away from the current drought plan which has almost destroyed the Savannah River Basin several times. Basically the problem is they bankrupt the system by "spending" more water than nature provides during a drought. We've asked the Corps by who's authority they are sending more water to the ocean than is provided by mother nature. We've not gotten a response. We feel certain there is no such authorization.
If you look at the five lakes other than the Savannah River Basin in this drought footprint, they are all within 2ft of full pool. Our lakes are down over 6ft. Even Lake Lanier is within 2ft of full. Hence the drought is not the reason our lakes are low. Rather it is the Corps' management of water releases from Thurmond Dam.
If you talk to the Corps they will explain that the sturgeon need so much water, the city of Augusta needs so much, there is dissolved oxygen to consider, etc. etc. What they fail to mention is that these needs can only be met as long as we have lakes with water in them. If we exhaust these lakes none of these needs can be met. What they also fail to mention is that we ran a 14 month test in which releases were held to that coming in from rain and everyone's needs downstream were met including the sturgeon.
We also learned recently that the Corps has a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell first, then Thurmond, etc.) if a drought lasts long enough to make it impossible to make the releases specified in their current plan. It makes a lot more sense to match the rain fall over a years time and never come to such an Armageddon type situation.
A new advisory council was set up recently for input to the SC DNR and DHEC by a representative group of stakeholders that represent all Savannah River Basin interests from the mountains to the sea. I have submitted a request to this group to consider the current drought plan at their next meeting and formulate a recommendation on how the current drought plan should be modified.
In view of what a few people in the Tea Party were able to accomplish in the last election, we can get this changed. If the newly formed SRBAC can not help we can simply raise our voices until we are heard. You will be hearing more on this in the near future.
If you look at the five lakes other than the Savannah River Basin in this drought footprint, they are all within 2ft of full pool. Our lakes are down over 6ft. Even Lake Lanier is within 2ft of full. Hence the drought is not the reason our lakes are low. Rather it is the Corps' management of water releases from Thurmond Dam.
If you talk to the Corps they will explain that the sturgeon need so much water, the city of Augusta needs so much, there is dissolved oxygen to consider, etc. etc. What they fail to mention is that these needs can only be met as long as we have lakes with water in them. If we exhaust these lakes none of these needs can be met. What they also fail to mention is that we ran a 14 month test in which releases were held to that coming in from rain and everyone's needs downstream were met including the sturgeon.
We also learned recently that the Corps has a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell first, then Thurmond, etc.) if a drought lasts long enough to make it impossible to make the releases specified in their current plan. It makes a lot more sense to match the rain fall over a years time and never come to such an Armageddon type situation.
A new advisory council was set up recently for input to the SC DNR and DHEC by a representative group of stakeholders that represent all Savannah River Basin interests from the mountains to the sea. I have submitted a request to this group to consider the current drought plan at their next meeting and formulate a recommendation on how the current drought plan should be modified.
In view of what a few people in the Tea Party were able to accomplish in the last election, we can get this changed. If the newly formed SRBAC can not help we can simply raise our voices until we are heard. You will be hearing more on this in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)