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.
No comments:
Post a Comment