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?