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

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.