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.