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