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.

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?

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.

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.