Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Finally 3100 but this is not the answer

The Corps is proudly announcing that they plan to go to 3100cfs release rate out of Thurmond shortly when the lake hits 14' below full pool. This is fine compared to any other options we have now but this is a real miscarriage of their responsibilities if you look at what they have allowed to happen.  In order to keep our lakes at reasonable levels the Corps needs to drop release rates to 3600 cfs (3100 in winter months) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool.  Instead the Corps is waiting until the lakes are down over 14' and virtually destroyed before they do this.

The argument the Corps keeps giving is that people downstream would be hurt unnecessarily if the rates were decreased before now.  Not true.  Not one single stakeholder on the river had problems with operation at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008-9.  The only people who complained were environmental groups expressing concern that problems MIGHT occur at this low a flow to the river. 

There are a number of very strong arguments to counter holding flows up because they MIGHT be a problem. 
  1. If a REAL problem occurs the release rates can be increased when that happens
  2. Nature only provides 3600cfs input averaged over a year so anything higher than that is man trying to one up Nature. Man just isn't that smart.  Smoothing out flooding and the severity of the driest parts of droughts makes sense but trying to generate water out of thin air does not.
  3. Water is one of our most precious commodities.  It ranks right up there with air.  Deliberately throwing fresh water away by releasing more to the ocean than nature does is criminal and needs to stop.
These challenges are taken care of by simply dropping releases to 3600cfs (3100 in winter months) whenever the lakes are down 2'.  No more water is going to the ocean than nature requires.  No one is harmed downstream based on past experience.  And true balance between the lakes and the river is achieved (i.e. neither the river nor the lakes are getting more water than the other).

Sunday, October 21, 2012

COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN WITH CORPS

Recently we sent an email to Col. Hall who is commander of Corps of Engineer's operations for the Savannah River Basin.  We asked for a list of any downstream stakeholders who suffered harm from operating at 3600cfs during the drought of 2008-9.  His answer, which follows, indicates a major disconnect in communications between Lake Stakeholders and the Corps.  My response to his letter is an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding.

EMAIL FROM COL. HALL
Jerry, An example during this period is the City of Savannah Utility Department which experienced increased water treatment costs.  Recommend you reconsider your stance towards federal and state environmental agencies.  VR COL Hall
Col. Hall,

SAVE OUR LAKES NOW RESPONSE TO COL. HALL'S EMAIL
Perhaps you misunderstand our stance.  We have nothing against the environmental agencies.  We recognize it is their job to advise you of possible consequences.  Every engineer who has ever been involved with a hazardous system such as when I worked at SRP understands this relationship well.  Our concern is lack of engineering judgment which is often required to thread the needles you frequently find yourself involved with.  We do not understand why the Corps does not take the best information at hand and strike out on a logical path that can be reversed or changed should unforeseen circumstances crop up.  In our conversations with Fish and Wildlife, Bud Badr when he was over SC DNR, the current person in charge of GA DNR (I don't remember his name), etc. etc. they have all indicated they are advisory only and recognize you have full authority to vary from the letter of their advice as you see fit.

We feel it is your responsibility,  not theirs, to balance the whole system.  We see total lack of consideration when it comes to recreation which is one of your charges and we see no concern for the wanton destruction that is going on for lake stakeholders. As we see it, the way the system is being operated  is totally out of balance.  And we see no representation for lake stakeholders in the meetings where release rates are decided.  Since many downstream groups are represented we wonder how this can be considered balance.

Simple measures such as holding releases to what nature provides over the course of a year is fully defensible and logical yet there has been no attempt to do so even though there is over a year's actual operation data that indicates this to be an acceptable release rate.  And stopping releases from Thurmond when the streams below the dam are flooded from heavy rains is fully defensible yet again there has been no attempt to do so.  We are not asking for wild or illogical changes and all our suggestions are aimed at balancing the basin; not starving the river to satisfy lake concerns.  For these reasons we find it hard to  understand the Corps' reluctance to adopt these suggestions. 

By the way we talked to supervision with the Savannah Utility Department during the middle of the 2008-9 drought and they said they had no problems from reduced flows.  And I seriously doubt the increased water treatment costs were anything like the hundreds of millions of dollars lost by lake stake holders in real estate values, money lost by providers of recreation, etc.

I apologize for sounding argumentative.  But if it were your income, your property, your future that was being devastated by the repeated droughts of late I suspect you would feel the same way we do and I suspect your patience with the authority controlling these matters would be worn thin as ours is.

Thanks for your time,

Jerry Clontz, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

Thursday, October 18, 2012

QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWER AT CORPS MEETINGS NEXT WEEK


Following are a number of questions Save Our Lakes Now would love to see answered at the Corps meetings  next week in McCormick and Anderson;

 

1.       Several years ago the lake groups recommended you go to 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2’ below full pool.  Why have you not adopted this seeing that it would mean 5’ or more water in the lakes right now?

 

2.       Please give the name of any stakeholder downstream of Thurmond Dam that suffered harm from over 12 months operation at 3600cfs in 2008-9.  We are not asking about government agencies that thought more would be good.  We are asking for actual stakeholders such as SRP, industries on the river in Augusta, water supplies for cities downstream, etc.

 

3.       We now have more than twice the storage volume in the lakes for spring rains that we had before Hartwell and Russell were built.  Why do you not end this stupidity of dropping the lakes 4’ in the fall and winter?  Logic says 2’ should be plenty based on the increased storage volumes now vs when the 4’ rule curve was set up.

 

4.       In 2009 you held release rates at 3600 until the lakes refilled.  Why for heaven’s sake do you plan to increase releases to 4,000, 4200, etc as the lakes refill this time?

 

5.       Why do you not allow lake stakeholders a seat at the table where release rates are discussed and approved?  You mention that you are being forced by environmental groups and/or DNR to hold certain release rates.  They claim otherwise.  We have been told repeatedly that they are advisory groups only.  If nothing else we would like to have a witness to these discussions.

 

6.       You insist that economics cannot be discussed when talking about environmental issues.  This excuse is used to justify the wanton destruction to the economy around the lakes.  How then can you justify deepening the harbor for economic reasons when you know it will result in environmental damages such as increased salt intrusion, effects on wildlife and fish habitats, etc.?  Sounds to us like, if you can argue that way for the harbor the same should be true concerning economics around the lakes.

 

7.       As we understand it Congress added recreation to your responsibilities on  the lakes in 1980.  How then can you totally avoid recreation in your discussions about release rates?  By recreation we do not mean  just being able to boat or fish, we mean the whole infrastructure of campgrounds, launching ramps, marinas, restaurants on the lake, etc. that make recreation possible on the lakes.

 

8.       Why not have a citizens group from the various basin interests involved in the decision process for drought plans and general operation criteria for the Savannah River Basin?  Such a group could be appointed by our congressmen or state governments to make sure all interests are represented. Such a group should reflect the extreme dissatisfaction people around the lakes have for the way things are being operated now.  We do not need a yes group simply reporting how wise the Corps is in their decisions.  We need a group that makes sure all interests are heard and involved in the decision process.

 

 

Monday, October 1, 2012

THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE



·         The Corps of Engineers is proud about using waterless toilets at the Thurmond Dam to conserve fresh water.  Each toilet is estimated to save 40,000 gals of water per year.  At the same time the Corps chooses to use a release rate of 3800cfs instead of 3600cfs for very weak reasons.  The extra 200cfs destroys more fresh water in 30 seconds than is saved by a waterless toilet in a year.  Does this make sense in view of how precious fresh water is to all of us?

 

·         Environmentalists strive to get back to nature by avoiding interference by man.  Yet it is the environmentalists who insist that the Corps of Engineers maintain an artificial man made river flowing at least 3800cfs below the Thurmond Dam.  Does this make sense when nature allowed fluctuations to as low as 500cfs for eons before the dams were constructed? 

 

·         The Corps of Engineers claims to be balancing the Savannah River Basin during droughts so as to give equal protection to both lake stakeholders and those downstream of Thurmond Dam.  In reality no stakeholders below Thurmond Dam suffer during droughts while lake stakeholders are losing hundreds of millions of dollars and the lakes are virtually being destroyed.  Does this make sense to claim balance when groups upstream are impacted much worse than those downstream?

 

·         The Corps of Engineers claims to be doing all they can to protect the lakes in a drought.  Yet they refuse to follow recommended release rates that would keep the lakes at acceptable levels even though such changes have been demonstrated to be acceptable downstream.  At the same time with the lakes starving for water the Corps refuses to hold back on releases when the river downstream of Thurmond Dam is swollen to flood stage from heavy rains.  Does this make sense to claim protection when known protective measures are not being used?

 

·         Severe droughts like the one we are in right now have a very negative impact on marinas causing huge losses in incomes.  This makes it extremely difficult for marinas to continue operation.  At such times you would expect the Corps to relax regulations that have negative impacts on profits.  Instead the Corps insists on enforcing questionable rules that could destroy the very marinas that provide recreation on our lakes.  Does it make sense when it could easily be avoided?

 

·         The Corps claims to be following orders from Congress and listening to all the groups connected with the Savannah River System that have a stake in drought control.  But requests by our Congressmen go unheeded using the excuse that one or another group would object.  And no lake interests are represented in the drought control meetings.  Does this make sense?

Monday, September 24, 2012

BEST NUMBER ON LAKE LEVEL IF 3600 HAD BEEN USED THROUGHOUT THIS DROUGHT

I calculated where the lake would be if we had gone to 3600cfs immediately when Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell dropped 2ft.  My number came out to be 3 ft below full pool instead of 12ft .  I asked for verification of this number by the Corps and they came up with a figure of 9ft.  Both these, 3 ft or 9ft are far better than the 12 ft experienced but it was bothersome that we did not agree better.  After further discussion and tweaking the numbers we both can agree that the lakes would be at least 5 to 6 ft higher than they are now had the drought plan recommended to Ed Kertis when he was the Colonel over this basin been adopted. So far as further fine tuning to eliminate the discrepancy between us and the corps the difference is not big enough to warrant that.  Perhaps in the future we can consult with one of the firms who do modeling for Duke Power or the state of Georgia to get an objective and unbiased result that everyone can agree to.

Meanwhile there is a misconception between those concerned about downstream and us.  The common thinking of downstream interests is that we just want full lakes regardless of the cost.  If that were the case we would simply recommend that the lakes be kept full all the time which would mean the river would return to the flows it used to experience before the dams were built. What we are really trying to achieve is balance.  The Corps claims they are balancing the lakes but they are not.  The only way you can achieve balance is to match inflows from mother nature with releases to the river.  Otherwise either the folks downstream or the folks above the dams are not receiving their fair share of the water.  We are suggesting this be done on a yearly average basis so as to avoid unreasonably low river flows or flooding.  And again we are not asking for any flows outside those experienced and found to not be harmful over large periods of time.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

QUESTIONS FOR THE EMPTY CHAIR


In our last blog we talked to the empty chair about what would have happened if the Corps had followed the drought plan recommended to Ed Kertis years ago.  In this blog we would like to ask the empty chair a few questions.

With all the campgrounds,  marinas and other infrastructure that exist for recreation failing and property values around the lakes tanking, surely you agree that lake interests and recreation would be far better off if the lakes were only 3-5ft down instead of 12ft.  Since a plan is in place that would make that possible, does this not represent failure on the part of the Corps to protect recreation as instructed by Congress in the 80’s?

Based on the experiences gained in 2008 please name one downstream stakeholder that would have been hurt had we used 3600cfs as our basic release rate since August 2010 instead of all the various rates actually used.  We recognize that the various environmental groups can come up with possible problems (analogous to Henny Penny and the sky is falling type thinking) but is it not true that none of these actually became a problem in the drought of 2008? Would not the environmental groups agree that even they would be better off now if the lakes were not so low?

Based on the way the lakes are used for power generation is it not true that SEPA would prefer keeping the lakes as full as possible so they can have peaking power capability in high demand days?  Is it also not true that there are numerous lakes supplying power to SEPA and limited power from the Savannah River System is easily offset by increasing power from the other lakes?

We know you meet routinely with downstream interests about operation of the lakes during major droughts such as the one we are currently experiencing.  Why do you not have representatives that represent lake interests from the perspective discussed above at your meetings?  We do not see how you can hope to have true balance the way you claim without such representation.

 In summary, since downstream groups would not be harmed by changing to our recommended drought plan and since lake interests are being greatly damaged by failure to do so, why not bite the bullet, suck it up, and simply take the leadership role needed to straighten this mess out?

Monday, September 17, 2012

SPEAKING TO THE CORPS' EMPTY CHAIR

Someone at the Army Corps of Engineers is the decision maker for the Savannah River Basin.  This blog is directed at the empty chair normally occupied by that person.

Sir you need to come to grips with the fact that the Savannah River Basin has evolved to a much different rainfall situation since the turn of the century.  It is time to recognize that fact and make large enough changes to the way water is balanced through the system to prevent the destruction of lake interests.  Our calculations show that the drought plan recommended by the various lake organizations when Ed Kertis was here would have corrected our current situation.  Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell would be within 3 foot of full pool instead of 12 foot down. And the various downstream responsibilities assigned the Corps would be in balance. Instead the lakes look horrible, recreation has been greatly impacted, and all this is without any real benefits downstream.

We know that the environmental arguments against reduced releases from Lake Thurmond sound good.  We understand that the reasoning is well intentioned.  But as you know the road to destruction is paved with good intentions.  We ask that you take charge and balance the system using the engineering data and lessons learned in the drought of 2008 instead of waiting on further studies.  Future studies are fine but they should not be used as an excuse to delay achieving balance between all the various interests you are in charge of.  We already know how to achieve a good balance for all lake parameters by holding releases to the amount of water nature supplies averaged over the year.  We've got to adhear to the limits placed on the system by the amount of rain provided by nature rather than compromising with the well intentioned requests from the various environmental groups.

We are totally dependant on you.   No one else is in a position to do this.  So far as fears from the environmental groups that problems could occur with these changes, you are in a position to drive home the fact that the changes can be reversed at any time should a real problem (not an imagined problem) be encountered.

I know you think we are being unreasonable and should just calm down and leave all this to the scientists and engineers associated with maintaining the Savannah River Basin.  But sir our scientists and engineers looking at the same data do not agree with the way you are operating the Savannah River Basin.  If we were destroying your homes and communities the way you are destroying ours you would be upset as well.

Monday, September 10, 2012

CORPS REFUSES TO FOLLOW GOOD ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

When our president or our congressmen or our senators fail to do the job we have hired them to do everyone recognizes criticism is appropriate.  Yet in commenting on the actions of the Corps managing the Savannah River Basin we frequently receive comments like "you are not showing proper respect for the office".  And we also hear that since the Corps follows scientific principles they are obviously more qualified than we are to dictate how the system should be run.  At one time Col. Ed Kertis even told me we need to leave this up to the scientists. 

Let me qualify comments you will see in this blog in light of this kind of thinking.  The Corps is hired by congress and therefore us to do a good job managing the Savannah River Basin.  If they are doing a poor job they should receive criticism from the people who have hired them.  Further there are many engineers and scientists outside the Corps who are in a position to make judgments on how well the Corps is doing.  Save Our Lakes Now is careful to adhere strictly to sound engineering and scientific thinking and for the most part we use the Corps' own data to analyze how well our lakes are being managed.

The Corps has been charged by Congress to manage our lakes according to good principles for about 6 different areas of concern:
  • Flood control
  • Power production (following SEPA guidelines)
  • Water quality
  • Navigation
  • Fish and Wildlife
  • Recreation
We seriously question the soundness of the corps' judgment in a number of areas.  First they are too cautious when it comes to flood control, power production, water quality and fish and wildlife and second they are far too lax when it comes to recreation. Additionally the Corps claims they are not responsible for economic concerns but simple common sense says they do not have the right to wantonly destroy the economy of the areas around the lakes.  Literally the only reason they get away with ignoring the economic impact of their decisions is the exorbitant cost that would be involved in fighting them in court.

The measures it would take to protect recreation and the economy of the areas around the lakes have been fully demonstrated from the standpoint of both good engineering practice and scientific principle.  These measures would do no harm to the other areas the Corps is responsible for.  Yet the Corps adamantly refuses to adopt these measures.  In discussions with the Corps they have blamed Fish and Wildlife out of Athens and the GA DNR as not permitting them to make such changes.  However both these groups act only in an advisory capacity to the Corps. 

Speaking strictly from an economic viewpoint what right does the Army Corps of Engineers have to reign utter destruction down on the communities that are impacted by lake levels.  Speaking strictly from the stand point of Recreation what right does the Corps have to simply ignore this responsibility placed on them by the Congress of the United States 25 years ago.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

HELP FROM OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS

We have met with our Congressmen and Senators a number of times to discuss how lake levels are impacting lake stakeholders.  Jeff Duncan has been particularly interested in our plight so we asked his office recently what they have been able to do to help us.  I was delighted to learn some of the things that our politicians in DC have done.  One specific example follows:

Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Joe Wilson (SC-2), Paul Broun (GA-10) and SC US Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham have all recommended that the Corps analyze and model a management approach that would maintain Lakes Hartwell and Thurmond elevations within 7-8 feet of the full pool guide curves for a minimum of three years for the current drought of record. They feel strongly that this would serve the dual purposes of minimizing the impact on the recreation and economics of the lakes for the states of GA and SC while reducing the possibility of exhausting the conservation pools thereby protecting downstream interests should the drought continue. This united stand by our key representatives is consistent with their belief of the importance of this endangered resource. Representatives Duncan and Broun are both on the congressional Natural Resource Committee which is a key Committee to initiate any significant federal changes in water management. Senator Graham serves on the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, and Budget committees. Senator DeMint is on the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation, Joint Economic, Banking Housing and Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations committees. Joe Wilson serves on the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Education and Workforce.

Their recommendation for maintaining lakes within 7-8ft of full pool would require 3600cfs anytime the  lakes drop 2ft which is what Save Our Lakes Now has been recommending all along.  The only change we would make if they were asking our opinion would be to drop the words "guide curves" so that it reads within 7-8ft of full pool, period. 

We would prefer that the Corps go ahead and implement the recommendation of holding lake levels within 7-8ft of full pool until the studies can be completed rather than wait for results from the study.  We base this on the fact that we have already operated at these release rates for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008 with no significant problems.  But it is very gratifying to see that our Congressmen and Senators are watching what the Corps is doing.  Had we followed this approach on the current drought we would be less than 7' below full pool in Hartwell and Thurmond instead of 10 to 11' down.

Other changes that we are recommending beyond these are: 1) drop to 3100cfs in the cooler months and 2) totally discontinue discharges from Thurmond anytime the Savannah River is swollen from rains.  These changes combined with 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool would probably keep us within 5' of full pool.
 


Monday, July 23, 2012

Answer to question "what politicians are helping"

Unfortunately the support we are getting is way too timid.  We need someone who will give a much more agressive approach to getting the Corps on track.  Jeff Duncan and Paul Broun are both aware of the problems but they are trying to solve the problem from a timid political approach.  The only way our problem is going to be solved is to tackle it from an engineering stand point.  Playing politics will never get us there because it involves too much compromise. From a strictly engineering standpoint you can be reasonable with the environmental concerns without destroying the lakes.  From a political standpoint you end up compromising with  unfounded fears from "sky is falling" environmentalists         and destroy the lakes.
It is a simple matter of how much water you can release without emptying the lake.  Trying to compromise with this is like trying to spend more money than you make; it never works. The only thing that works is to recognize how much you have to work with and stay inside those boundaries.  We've asked the Corps to back off to the amount of water that nature gives in rain over a years time (this figure is 3600cfs during a major drought).  The environmentalists ask for "more" because some poor critter that has survived for a million years with much less water in a drought might possibly be harmed.  The corps compromises by first waiting until the lake has dropped a bunch of feet before they acknowledge a drought is going on and then, instead of backing off to 3600, they go to 3800cfs.  This sounds good but every 100cfs equals one foot of lake level in a years time so 3800 drops us 2 ft more in a year than 3600cfs.  Any politician approaching this from a political stand point is not going to be able to break this cycle.  We need someone who will draw the line and stop this massive destruction of our lakes.  We have not been able to identify anyone on the political scene who will take such a stance.  When we do we will get behind them 100%.

Summing up where we are from an engineering stand point:

  • Anytime the lakes drop 2' the corps needs to immediately go to 3600cfs release rates until the lakes refill.  Instead the Corps has been waiting until they can prove we are in a drought.  What is being missed is the fact that normal releases can be resumed the minute the lakes refill making this change short lived if we are not truly in a drought.
  • The Corps needs to stop dropping lake levels 4ft (following what they call the rule curve) in the fall.  The original reason for this was to give the lakes enough reserve storage capacity so the lakes do not over fill in the winter/spring rains.  We now have twice the holding capacity as when this rule was set up and backing off to 2' should work as well as 4' did in the past. Recent discussions with the Corps indicate they do not plan to adopt this recommendation.
  • The purpose of further studies should be to fully define environmental and recreational impacts of various release rates including rates well below 3600cfs.  Such studies are not needed to make temporary changes to 3600cfs now while we are in the middle of a severe drought.
  • Until further studies can be completed the Corps needs to go ahead and use the information we gained in the drought of record in 2008 where we discovered that operation at 3600 cfs was satisfactory.   Although the Corps can make such changes on their own as demonstrated in 2008 they have chosen to wait until all environmental groups agree including those that are unrealistic in their demands. This approach always ends up with destruction of our lakes as is proven by what is happening right now. 

Sunday, July 22, 2012

WHERE WOULD LAKE LEVELS BE IF

If you ask anyone why our lakes are so low they will respond that it is because we are in a severe drought.  But that is not the whole story by any means.  Over a year ago Save Our Lakes Now recommended to the Corps that we drop release rates on Lake Thurmond to 3600 cfs or we would be looking at low lake levels in the near future.  We even did a quick spot on Channel 6 News with this warning.  Now, more than a year later I thought it would be interesting to look back and see where we would be now had the Corps followed our advice.

In May of last year when Lake Thurmond dropped below 328' the release rates would have been dropped to 3600cfs following our advice.  Instead the Corps averaged about 4800cfs until August and the lake dropped 3' to 325'.  Had they dropped to 3600 in May as we asked the lake would not have dropped.  It would have remained at 328ft.  The following months since August our recommendation was still 3600cfs.  The Corps compromised and went to 3800 cfs instead.  This difference in release rates over a years time results in a 2' drop in lake level. 

Summing up these differences Lake Thurmond would now be at 325' instead of 320 and Lake Hartwell would be at 655' instead of 650.  So is the drought the reason our lakes look like heck now?  As everyone familiar with our lakes knows a 5' drop is not that bad.  So the answer is no.  It is the way the lakes are being managed.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

WHO IS THE MORE REASONABLE CONCERNING DROUGHT MANAGEMENT



When you study how the Corps is managing the lakes during a drought and the controversies associated with their methodology you will find there are two distinct approaches that are being recommended. The first one which is the heavy hitter in the room is espoused by the environmentalists and the second is from the residents and stakeholders around the lakes. All the other interests, power producers, water suppliers, industries along the Savannah River, etc. are basically OK with the approaches of either of these groups as long as they are not too extreme.



To environmentalists interference by man with Mother Nature is bad. Many environmentalists would prefer there be no dams because by definition a dam is man interfering with nature. You would think the ultimate answer for this group would be to let the lakes simply overflow as it rains which would return the river below the dams to its original flows and keep the lakes full. This of course would be like manna from heaven for the residents and stakeholders around the lakes because the lakes would remain full even during a drought. But this would be devastating to the river in that flows would drop to practically nothing at times



Contradictory to this doctrine of avoiding man interfering with Mother Nature, now that the dams have been built these same environmental groups suddenly think man is wiser than Mother Nature. They want to manipulate the flows of the Savannah River. They are concerned about how much water flow is needed to keep all the critters that live in the river from suffering the ravages of drought. Residents and stakeholders around the lakes are sympathetic to these concerns but they want to keep releases from the dams reasonable so the lakes are not destroyed. Reasonable to them is to accept the fact that the river below the dams and all its critters have survived for over a million years without help from man. Release rates that do not destroy the lakes should be more than sufficient for critters that are used to much less at times of drought. At the very least if you do not balance water in from rain with water out from the dams on a daily basis, you should balance it over the course of a year.



Summarizing from the perspective of a Lake Resident and stakeholder, the current release rates are based on what someone behind a desk thinks the river critters need. Instead they should be based on what Nature provides in rain. Destroying the lakes benefits no one because eventually that leads to no control of river flows. It’s very similar to working a budget. The fact that you want something is not a good basis for managing your bank account. You have to always take into account how much money you have coming in versus how much you are spending or you go broke.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

A LOT MORE IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAN IS APPARENT

As any one following this blog realizes Save Our Lakes Now has spent many hours trying to get a better drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin.  There have been numerous meetings with congressmen, senators, state and local political leaders, Corps leadership, and members of the environmental bureacracy that engulfs the operating criteria for our lakes. Sometimes it seems we are by ourselves like a voice crying in the wilderness. Recently I was delighted to see similar efforts by the Lake Hartwell Association.  I am copying below a copy of recent correspondence sent by them so you can see that there is more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Herb and I are both representatives on the SRBAC (savannah river basin advisory council) which consists of representatives of about 25 different Savannah River Basin stakeholder groups.

The attached letter from LHA President Herb Burnham was addressed to Congressmen Paul C. Broun and Jeff Duncan concerning Savannah River Basin Management issues and concerns. The letter was also copied to our state governors, and elected officials and agency leaders at both the state and federal level.

COPY OF RECENT LETTER SENT BY LAKE HARTWELL ASSOCIATION
June 25, 2012

The Honorable Paul Broun
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC


The Honorable Jeff Duncan
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Representatives Broun and Duncan:

Subject: Savannah River Basin Management

As President of the Lake Hartwell Association, I am making the following requests on behalf of the thousands of voters and businesses that make up its membership. Based on feedback I am getting from them, during what should be the peak of our recreation season that is once again being diminished by drastically low lake levels, I am sure there are many thousands more who would join in.

We discussed these issues on April 4th in Representative Duncan's office in Anderson, and it was agreed that the following would be investigated and appropriate action taken in Washington. First, we discussed your taking a lead role in forming a bi-state (SC &GA) coalition, including senators and other congressmen representing Savannah River Basin (SRB) interests at the federal level. Second, you would investigate and take appropriate action to get the SRB Corps of Engineers substantial relief from the stringent rules, regulations and bureaucratic constraints they now must work within. Third, you would investigate and take steps necessary to ensure that funding for future studies, operational updates, and other actions that would improve lake level management, and the basin in general, would be made available by using some of the power generation revenues now being sent to the general fund in Washington.

The most recent Savannah River Basin Advisory Committee (SRBAC) quarterly meeting was held on June 19th, with an agenda focused on the current drought situation and its impact on the Savannah River Basin's lakes. It was well attended and informative, and further confirmed for me the importance of two issues that we discussed on April 4th.

First, the Corps' authority to use proven adaptive management techniques to help mitigate the impact of a drought is severely limited by the bureaucratic environment they must operate within. Once again this became evident when it was announced that a final decision on the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was drafted by the Corp last November and would have given the Corps the flexibility to decrease flows by 200 cfs this summer, if necessary, has again been delayed pending an "unnamed agency" response. LHA's response was due May 12th, 30 days after receipt. It seems that review times for the more than 100 agencies and stakeholders vary from 30 to 90 days depending on the different operating agreements with the Corps. Meanwhile, South Carolina and Georgia citizens whose businesses, jobs, home values, etc., depend on the lakes' levels during this peak of the recreational season , suffer severe economic losses while the bureaucracy keeps a partial solution tied up in "red tape" and paperwork.

Second, attendees were told that South Carolina's contribution needed to get phase 2 of the comprehensive study underway would be less than the $250K needed to match Georgia's. Hopefully, in-kind services will be available and acceptable to make up the difference. This is the study we discussed as being so very important because it addresses lessons learned from the recent drought of record of 2009. Given the drought conditions we have been experiencing for the last year, one would think it would have been high on the priority list for funding. No doubt, the loss of tax revenues to the state due to low water levels this year alone will far exceed $250K.

As mentioned above, another topic we discussed on April 4th was the possibility of keeping some of the power generation funds (that now go into the general fund in DC) in the basin to pay for future studies, plans, etc. that will help to ensure better management and maintenance of the basin. Total cost of the phase 2 study, for example, is estimated at $1 million, 1/60th of average annual power generation income.

We thank you for your support of SRB issues and ask that you give these matters your immediate attention and highest priority, and keep us informed on a regular basis. A federal delegation tour of businesses hardest hit by the low water conditions would be welcomed and very beneficial. Please advise if the Lake Hartwell Association can assist in making arrangements... or in any other way.

Sincerely,

Herb Burnham, President
Lake Hartwell Association



Friday, June 22, 2012

WHERE DID ALL THE RAIN GO

I know every lake stakeholder is wondering where the heck all that rain went.  For a while I was about to agree with the conspiracy theorists who are convinced the Corps is not telling us the truth about releases and lake levels, etc. Some even suggested there must be a hidden pipeline running to Atlanta and they are stealing all our water.  Turns out none of this is true.  The numbers the Corps is showing and the explanations they are giving for why we didn't get a huge jump in lake level with the recent rains appear to be correct. 

I've looked at this in a lot of detail since it rained and I have to say it looks like the water runoff got consumed by the dry ground and vegetation before making it to the basin.  Release rates were held at 3800 cfs and all stream indicators downstream (especially the levels at Clyo which is the last point in the system where stream measurements are taken before the harbor) show no unusual flow that would indicate higher release rates than the Corps shows.  We've been talking to climatologists to see if they agree with what the Corps is claiming about dry ground and vegetation and they do. And no matter how hard I look I can't find any evidence of a hidden water line to Atlanta. 

Climatologists that study rainfall and drought levels for the Savannah River Basin  claim it will take more than 9 inches of rain in one month to get the soil etc back to normal so that we get run off in a rain.  We desperately need a tropical system to park right over the basin and give us this kind of rain.

Meanwhile we continue to work on getting the drought control plan for the Savannah River System corrected so that future events won't be this devastating.  Following our recommended drought control plan our lakes would have several more feet of water in them than they do now.  Repeating what we've preached all along, we need a much more agressive approach to drought response than currently exists.  Our recommended approach remains unchanged;
  • We propose that release rates from Thurmond be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 in colder months) anytime Thurmond drops below 328ft.  The proposed plan by the Corps is to lower releases anytime the Broad River flows indicate we are in a drought. While this is a significant improvement it is not as agressive as our proposal because they wait longer to initiate flow reductions and their proposed reductions are 3800cfs instead of 3600.
  • Continue 3600cfs until the lakes refill.  The current plan by the Corps is to increase flows as the lake recovers making it more difficult to refill the lakes
  • Modify the rule curve so that we only drop the lakes 2' rather than 4' following the summer. The current Corps plan is to stay with a 4' drop at the end of summer.
The reasoning the Corps is offering for not adopting our more aggressive approach is they want to wait until a 2 or so year study can be completed.  Our reasoning is we did these changes for over 12 consecutive months in 2008-9 with no problems.  We are saying go with what we learned in 2008 unless or until some unexpected problem occurs.

It is frustrating to keep repeating our proposals.  It would be much easier to simply go along with the Corps' proposals.  But this repetition is necessary because the Corps, over time, continues to get further away from what we are recommending.  This is probably a matter of the Corps compromising with the various environmental agencies.  Unfortunately such compromising costs us many feet of lake level during droughts.  At one time they were agreeing with a 2' drop in the winter rather than a 4'drop.  And at one time they agreed to go to 3600cfs rather than 3800.  And at one time they agreed to hold the lower release rates until the lakes refill.  Now all that has changed.  The compromise to stay with a 4' drop in the winter costs us 2' at the start of a drought.  The compromise of 3800 instead of 3600 cfs costs us 2' a year in lake level. And the compromise on how the lakes are refilled will stretch out our misery unnecessarily following a drought.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Where we are on Lake Thurmond and Hartwell Levels: How we got here and How we can avoid in the future

It's been sometime since we discussed the essential elements of avoiding low lake levels in Lake Hartwell and Lake Thurmond. A lot of you have been with us from the start but there are many who are just now getting into the fray and there is a good bit of confusion over why we are seeing these huge drops in lake level. The purpose of this blog posting is to go back over the basic elements of the problem and how it can be improved.

First, many at Lake Hartwell wonder why all they hear about is release rates from Lake Thurmond. They naturally wonder why we aren't concerned about release rates from Lake Hartwell. The reason for this is that both Hartwell and Thurmond are kept in balance such that Hartwell drops 1ft for every 1ft drop in Thurmond. The only difference between Thurmond and Hartwell is that Thurmond is where the water is ultimately released and the release rates at Thurmond control the levels for both lakes.

Going back to basics, the thinking that the dams along the Savannah River do nothing but cause problems for people downstream is incorrect. Just the opposite is true. The dams in the Savannah River Basin actually have made major improvements for the river downstream of Lake Thurmond. First the dams prevent the destructive flooding that used to occur during periods of heavy rain. Second the dams have completely eliminated the severe droughts that used to occur in the river during times of drought. Before the dams were constructed river flows as low as 500cfs could occur in a severe drought. Now the river never experiences flows of less than 3600cfs even in the droughts of record.

Continuing with basics, the average amount of rain that comes into the basin upstream of Lake Thurmond during droughts of record is 3,600cfs. And the basis for pollution release limits along the river is 3,600cfs releases from Thurmond Dam. And during the drought of record in 2008 the releases from Lake Thurmond were held at 3600cfs for over 18 consecutive months with no reports of problems from downstream stakeholders. Hence Save Our Lakes Now and other lake stakeholder groups have recommended that the Corps drop immediately to a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft below full pool. Following this approach we should not experience drops of 16ft and more like we did in previous droughts of record. The Corps now is using a release rate of 3800cfs which sounds similar but the problem is they started way later than when the lakes were down 2ft and 3800cfs vs 3600cfs results in an additional 2ft drop each year.

In the past numerous excuses and or reasons have been used to justify refusal to go to 3600cfs at the start of a drought. Investigation into each one revealed that these reasons were not founded on good science. For the sake of brevity I will hold off on going into each and every one but let me give the example of power generation and oxygen levels in the harbor. Initially the Corps claimed their power contracts with SEPA prevented them curtailing releases to the rates we were recommending. Save Our Lake Now discussed this with officials from SEPA and discovered that they prefer the lakes be kept as full as possible because they depend on us for peaking power rather than long term total watts generated. The worst thing that could happen for them is to need peaking power and the lakes be so low it can not be provided. Failure to meet planned power totals are easily made up by rebalancing power from the other 7 lakes in our grid. And so far as dissolved oxygen in the harbor, fears that lowered releases from Thurmond might decrease already poor oxygen levels in the harbor are unfounded. The tide from the Atlantic Ocean is so much larger than our river flows that the oxygen levels in the harbor are determined by the ocean rather than our release rates.

Let me summarize what we would like the Corps to do. Following these recommendations we should never reach the levels we are at now regardless of how long a drought lasts. We ask that they respond to any unexplained drop of 2ft in lake levels with an immediate drop in release rates from Thurmond dam to 3600cfs. Further we recommend that during the winter months when that rate can be reduced further without detriment that the release rates be dropped to 3100cfs. And finally, when the river is swollen from heavy rains during periods of severe drought that releases from Thurmond Dam be reduced to zero as long as the river remains swollen.

Responses to incorrect thinking:
Wrong- lake stake holders are just selfish and want more than their share of the water.

Right- the Corps is sending more water downstream during a drought than nature is providing by rain hence river stake holders are receiving more than their fair share of the water.

Wrong- dropping release rates to 3600cfs too soon would result in people downstream suffering unecessarily.

Right- if release rates are dropped to 3600cfs because of a 2ft drop and we are not really in a drought the lakes will refill quickly and normal releases resumed.

Wrong- dropping release rates to 3600cfs is inconsiderate of environmental protection

Right- if the dams were kept full at all times the environment would experience exactly the same river flows it did before constructing the dams. 3600cfs already is a huge benefit to environmental protection by preventing the river from ever experiencing severe droughts again.

Wrong- flows in excess of 3600cfs should be used to keep the river as healthy as possible

Right- since we can not make water out of thin air, flows greater than we are receiving from rain could easily destroy the system. By averaging the rainfall over a years time we are already providing maximum possible benefits to the river.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Save Our Lakes Now Position on New Drought EA

The Corps of Engineers has issued an EA for comment concerning the drought control plan for Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. The new proposal represents a definite improvement over the past drought plan but falls well short of the drought plan proposed by Save Our Lakes Now and other lake groups over a year ago. Comments are requested prior to May 12th and we recommend all stakeholders around the lakes send in their personal comments. The way the Corps' proposal compares to the one proposed by Save Our Lakes Now and other lake groups over a year ago is summarized below.

Save Our Lakes Now proposed that release rates from Lake Thurmond be reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake levels drop 2ft below full pool. The basis for the 3600cfs figure is two fold. First it matches the annual rate of rainfall during the droughts of record which means the lakes would be able to withstand the drought of record regardless of how long it may go on. Second it matches the release rates demonstrated to be acceptable to all stakeholders downstream of Thurmond Dam during the drought of 2008.

The New Corps proposal waits until the lakes are down 4ft before starting reduced flows the same as in the past. The Corps proposal then decreases release rates 200cfs (compared to the current drought plan) at each trigger level. The different trigger levels are 4' below full pool, 6' below full pool and 14' below full pool. These rates, while a step in the right direction, only increase the resulting lake level 2ft in a year above the current drought plan (each 100 cfs in release rate represents 1ft of lake level in a year). For example we would have ended up in 2008 at 316' instead of 314'. While this is a definite improvement it is not nearly as good as holding the total drop to 8' the way our proposal does and it leaves us open to the possibility of totally destroying the lakes if the drought goes on longer than in 2008.

Additionally the EA proposes further reductions November through January of 200 cfs at trigger level 2 and 500 cfs at trigger level 3. The proposals from lake groups included a 500cfs drop below the 3600cfs release rate during winter months. So again while the Corps proposal is in the right direction it is not as good as what was proposed by the lake groups over a year ago.

One additonal proposal Save Our Lakes Now recommends for drought control is to completely stop releases from Thurmond dam anytime the river below the dams is swollen from rains during a drought.

The actual Corps publication on the proposed EA is at http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/reports.html .
Comments can be submitted via e-mail to:
CESAS-PD@usace.army.mil

The official comments from Save Our Lakes Now will be as follows:
We have reviewed the proposals in the draft EA on the Savannah River Basin Drought Plan and we see it as a definite improvement over the current drought plan. However we feel a more agressive approach should be used to maintain lake levels. We continue to recommend that the release rates from Thurmond Dam be reduced to 3600cfs whenever Lake Thurmond is below 328' until the lake refills. And we further recommend releases be reduced to 3100cfs during winter months anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. Furthermore we recommend releases from Thurmond Dam be completely stopped during a drought anytime the river is swollen from rains so as to maximize the rate the lakes regain normal levels.

Friday, April 13, 2012

NEW EA ON DROUGHT CONTROL COMING OUT

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL WAS SENT BY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW TO OUR CONGRESSIONAL AND GUBERNATORIAL CONTACTS CONCERNING THE UPCOMING EA BY THE CORPS ON IMPROVEMENTS TO DROUGHT CONTROL

As you are aware the Corps of Engineers is planning an EA on improving the drought plan for Lakes Hartwell and Thurmond. One thing everyone seems to have lost sight of is there is a direct relation between release rates and how low the lakes will go. Some say 4,000cfs at a certain trigger point, others say different rates but these figures represent political compromises rather than sound engineering decisions.

There are two very important numbers to keep in mind when looking at release rates:
The amount of water entering the Savannah River System in the drought of record was 3600cfs averaged over a full year and we seem to be hitting around that figure in all the droughts we are experiencing in the past few years
Every 100cfs change in release rate represents 1ft of lake level over a years time.
Basically every 100cfs above 3600 during a drought will cost us 1ft in lake level once we are in a drought. Hence going to 4,000cfs instead of 3600 means the lake will be 4 ft lower at the end of a year than it would be if we used 3600cfs once a drought starts.

We hope the Corps will use sound engineering principals instead of political compromises between the various agencies to control our lakes. We have talked with the various agencies including wildlife and fisheries and they all have assured us their imput is simply advisory and the real decision on flows rests with the Corps.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

WORD OF THANKS DUE OUR CONGRESSMEN

I was looking at congressman Paul Broun's website and discovered that he and congressman Jeff Duncan are helping with our plight on lake levels. We've talked with them in the past and they are very aware of the need for better lake level control. It was excellent to see them actively getting involved. The details on their visit to Lake Hartwell on April 4 are presented in the following web site;
http://broun.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=288932

Please let both of them know we appreciate their involvement and their help. The more our plight is visible to the public and the more we have help from congress and other public officials the quicker it will be solved. The Save Our Lakes Now website www.saveourlakesnow.com gives details on how to contact them or you can go to their respective web sites via googling their names and their sites will provide ways to contact each congressman.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Finally Real Progress

Finally there is a crack in the wall that has prevented the Corps from Cooperating with us on better control of lake levels. In the next month or two the Corps will issue an EA permitting them to change the drought control plan as drought conditions warrant. For years we have pleaded for such a change based on experience in actual drought conditions but for years the Corps has insisted they could not do that. They continually claimed they needed a phase 2 study before they could make such a change.

There should be a request for public comments when this EA is announced. Please send in your comments when they are called for. We will publish email and mailing addresses as soon as the request for comments goes out.

The main thing needed is a change in basis for release rates away from what everyone wishes for downstream to what Nature makes available in rain. In other words the Corps needs to acknowledge that neither us nor the Corps can create water and if we use more than rain provides we are destroying our lakes. Save Our Lakes Now proposal for several years has been to drop release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during the drought of record anytime the lakes drop 2ft from full pool. This rate is 3600cfs. If the drought is short lived the lakes will refill quickly and releases can be returned to normal. But if the drought is like the one of record in 2008 the lakes could fluctuate on the order of 8ft but the drop should not be catastrophic like the one in 2008. The tendency of the Corps in the past has been too timid to drop to 3600 cfs. Instead they use 4,000 or 3800 cfs. These sound like a nice compromise until you realize that each 100cfs equals one foot of level in a years time. So 4,000 cfs leads to 4ft more drop than 3600 cfs over the period of one year. In our opinion they should be looking at ways to go even below 3600 when possible such as 3100 cfs during winter months and complete stoppage of releases when the river below Thurmond dam is swollen from heavy rains.


One other concern Save Our Lakes Now has is the blind faith the Corps seems to have in studies. Either innocently or intentionally they listen to unrealistic claims of groups who have a negative bias against maintaining reasonable release rates. We recommend that the Corps allow groups such as Save Our Lakes Now who strongly support recreational concerns to be involved in interpreting studies to determine optimum release rates.

Monday, January 23, 2012

STUDIES NOT NEEDED TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN

For what seems like an eternity we have been led to believe that a phase 2 study is needed before the drought plan can be changed. Sounds very similar to the thinking that just trashed the oil pipeline from Canada. What is needed instead is strong logical leadership that provides good balance between all the different responsibilities the Corps has regarding the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin. The problem with a study is how it is interpreted. As with the oil pipeline, studies were not the answer. Logic or lack thereof led to the decisions that were made for the pipeline.

Logic for the Lakes says it is foolish to try to send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain. This is true since neither the Corps nor any of the rest of us can create water. Mother nature has 100% control over how much water is available. Once that is recognized the rest becomes a simple decision on what period of time you want to balance releases with rainfall. Day to day balancing would mean the lakes remain totally full and whatever comes in from rain daily is sent downstream. Annual balancing means looking at how much water comes in over a years time and matching it.

Selfish desire to keep the lakes totally full with no consideration for the folks downstream would go with the first option and keep the lakes totally full. To a certain extent this could be justified since the river would behave exactly the way it has since time began and experience droughts and floods as a natural event. On the other hand balancing the lakes on an annual basis is much fairer to downstream interests. This approach totally eliminates both drought and flooding in the sense of what the river used to experience.

These facts are all that is needed to come to a logical decision on how to manage the lakes. Desire on the part of anyone downstream for more water is like asking for more money than you have in the bank. It simply will not work. Besides destroying the lake by releasing more water than is available destroys power production, recreation, and eventually water quality, water supply, and all the other issues the Corps is responsible for.

Studies have a place. But it is not in the decision process for drought control. Rather they are great to decipher what different rainfall conditions do to the system. For example saying that you want more water held in the lakes than comes down from rain would lead to horrendous flooding upstream of the dams. Studies of what the impact is on the environment around the lakes is not needed to tell us that such a plan will not work. The same is true in balancing flows based on what is happening downstream.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

STATUS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW EFFORTS

When trying to fight city hall you often feel nothing will ever come of your efforts. This is doubly true when you are up against federal regulations, environmental concerns, claims of selfishly wanting lake level at the expense of everyone downstream, and entrenched practices of the Corps of Engineers. But we are making progress. It's been slower than we would like but the ice is melting and real progress could well be just around the corner. The Corps is even planning a near term change to the drought plan using an EA which is what we have been pleading for for several years.

A year or so back our proposals for improved drought plans were met with numerous road blocks:
1) SEPA would never permit due to contracts on power production
2) Short Nosed Sturgeon spawning grounds would be destroyed
3) Dissolved Oxygen in the harbor would be impacted
4) Many of the industrial concerns downstream would suffer severe harm
5) The lakes would not be experiencing their fair share of problems during a drought
6) The economic effects of low lake levels are insignificant
7) Wildlife and Fisheries in Athens would never permit such a change
8) Congress would never permit such changes
9) Money from the states was needed to fund a phase 2 study
One by one each has been eliminated. None of these were valid reasons to not change our drought plan. Basically we became a fact finding organization and literally met with the groups the Corps claimed were preventing them from adopting our proposals. It turns out in the final analysis that the Corps can make such changes at their discretion provided an Environmental Assessment is made.

It has taken many hours of sitting down with the various parties involved to get their reasoning on the table. And it has taken publicizing our plight. Several newspapers, Austin Rhodes, our blogs etc. have finally penetrated the protective fog that once surrounded Corps decisions. We even put up a billboard and held a protest demonstration at Thurmond Dam. In the past 3 months we have visited Jeff Duncan, and Jim DeMint and continued communication with Paul Broun for assistance from our national Congressmen and Senators and Shane Massey for help at the State Senate level. We are presently visiting the various County Councils around the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin and plans are in progress to meet with the Governors of both GA and SC.

All this takes time and money. Up till now only a few people have been responsible for the work and funding. Save Our Lakes Now is seeking a larger working base to make things happen more quickly and to make sure we never slip back into the horrible lake levels experienced in past droughts. If you can help with your time, money, or both please come join our effort. Details are available at www.saveourlakesnow.org