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.
No comments:
Post a Comment