Change in Blog Address

All future blogs concerning Lake Thurmond Levels will be at a new web site.  Go to www.saveourlakesnow.blogspot.com

YOUR VOTE IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS CAN IMPACT LAKE LEVELS

I met with Gary Gerrard who is running for Congress in Georgia’s 10^th district for about an hour on Thursday.  He is very interested in what he can do to help with our lake situation if elected.  He sees the recommendations being put forth by Save Our Lakes Now as sensible and wondered why the Corps is not doing anything with them.  We agreed that the basic problem for lake stakeholders is we have no meaningful representation at the Corps meetings where release rates, etc. are discussed.  We desperately need someone who has skin in the game from the stand point of recreation who will not be a yes man for the Corps.

 

We need to pass the word that our votes in upcoming congressional or senatorial races can make a big difference on how our lakes are managed.  The current representatives and Senators for some reason are staying at arm’s length from the battle.  The changes needed to correct our problems with lake levels are not complicated.  We already know how to eliminate the destruction to recreational infrastructure using what has been learned in recent droughts.  But our leaders sit quietly by while the Corps waits for further study to be done.  Even when the studies are complete we will not be any better off unless we can get representation in interpreting the study results.  We all know from problems with our government that the way something is interpreted depends on the mindset (eg. Democrat vs Republican) of the person doing the interpretation.  The same holds true with interpreting the results of lake studies.

 

I urge you to make sure the person you vote for in the upcoming elections is concerned about our lakes and willing to get into the fray over how our lakes are managed.  At the very least they need to insist that recreation ,the one Corps responsibility that is being ignored, be put into the equation of balancing the basin.  

CORPS HAS SOLUTION TO LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

The recent issue of Balancing the Basin offers a fantastic solution to our lake level problems that should be totally acceptable to all Savannah River Basin (SRB) interests.  It is really quite simple yet it answers the environmentalists desire to stay away from the ravages of a river in severe drought and fish and wildlife’s desire for more variation in river flows while taking care of the lake stakeholders desire to avoid the devastating low lake levels experienced in recent droughts.  The solution is to operate the lakes all the time the same way they do in flood stage. 

 As stated in the recent Balancing the Basin, the corps is currently varying flows as needed to maintain lake levels within an acceptable range.  This is standard operating procedure in flood stage.  If they simply use this same mode all the time with the added restriction of never dropping below 3600cfs (3100 in cold weather) all SRB interests should be taken care of.  The beauty of this approach is that it is within standard operating practice for the Corps and satisfies the various demands of all the different stakeholders.  If we combine this with dropping the lakes 2' in October rather than 4' (see previous blog), recreation would finally be protected the way it should be and the horrible loss in revenues and property values in droughts can become a thing of the past. 

 

To accomplish this we are going to have to get the operating plan for our lakes fixed now while the lakes are full rather than wait till the next drought happens.  That's going to be hard because everyone is excited now that the lakes are full.  Somehow we are going to have to get our political leaders like Jeff Duncan involved more aggressively.   And if you know a way to contact any of the candidates for Paul Broun’s office we need to make them aware as well.

THE NEXT BIG THING IN LAKE LEVELS

Everything looks great right now with all the rain and the lakes full.  But the way the Corps controls lake levels through the fall and winter months can wipe out all our gains in one season.  Right now the Corps management plan calls for a 4’ drop in lake levels in October, just like they have done for years.  The reason for this draw down is to provide room for heavy rains in the winter and spring.  When this was put into effect we only had one lake (Lake Thurmond) to catch the run off.  Now there are 3 lakes and a 2’ drop in level now equates to a 4’ drop  before Hartwell and Russell were added.  We have pleaded with the Corps for years to back off to only a 2’ drop in the Fall but up to now they have not agreed to such a change.

 

We need help from our congressman and all lake stakeholders to get the Corps to make this change.  Please contact your congressman and the Corps now about making this change in the way the lakes are operated before we get to October.  Unless we act now the lakes will be down 4’ come next January which puts us behind the eight ball when it comes to returning to full pool in 2014. Protecting recreation for next year begins this October.  What we do over the Fall and Winter months can make the difference between reasonable drops in lake level during a drought and the disastrous drops in lake levels we’ve experienced in recent years.

LAKE LEVEL CONTROL 101

The current situation we find ourselves in at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell provides an excellent example of how to balance the Savannah River Basin. 

 

What if we used the same method of control in flood stage that the Corps is using in drought stage.  If we did, release rates would be based totally on some feel good number for river flows. 

·         For example lets imagine that the NOAA asks that the river flows be held at 4,200cfs maximum until the lakes reach 5’ above full pool.  They could do so out of concern for critters in the river that will die because of high river flows and/or flooding downstream. 

·         If that were the basis the lakes could easily climb to levels that are hazardous from the standpoint of flooding and we would be in a massive problem both upstream and downstream.

This scenario is ridiculous and the Corps would quickly take the bull by the horns and explain to NOAA that meeting their request is simply not feasible.  That is what managers do.

 

Whether you are in a drought or in flood stage, the only reasonable method of control is to use lake levels as the basis for control rather than release rates. Holding lake levels to a maximum of 5’ above full pool in flood stage is no different than holding lake levels within 5’ of full pool in a drought.   The difference in what the Corps does in a drought is they control by release rates rather than holding lake level within a reasonable range.  Just as there is a maximum reasonable release rate based on downstream flooding there is a minimum reasonable release rate based on experiences downstream in past droughts.  Right now that lower limit is 3600cfs based on the experience gained in the drought of 2008.  In flood stage, everyone will agree that at 2’ above full pool lake levels should take precedence over release rates.  In drought stage the Corps needs to recognize 2’ below full pool is the point where lake levels take precedence over release rates. 

 

Lest anyone think lake levels are not a proper concern for the Corps, Congress added recreation and protecting fish and wildlife to the list of responsibilities in managing our lakes in 1988.  Recreation consists of the infrastructure required for recreation on the lakes not whether someone can fish a given spot on the lake or river.  That infrastructure includes the marinas, campgrounds, support businesses such as dock building, and all the real estate developed to provide access to the lakes. 

 

Looking at the full list of responsibilities the Corps has in managing our lakes, holding to reasonable minimums or maximums in release rates provides the protection needed for flood control, water supply/quality and fish and wildlife. Recreation is protected by keeping lake levels within 8 ft of full pool.  Power production is simply a goal the Corps has with SEPA.  Falling short of the power production goal from too low a release rate is simply an economic consideration.   Any deficiency in power production at the dams can be corrected by purchase of power off site.  The money involved in purchasing make up power is dwarfed by the destruction to the value of recreational infrastructure from excessive loss of lake level so recreation trumps power anytime the two are in competition.

 

Jerry Clontz, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

TEST OF CORPS' INTENTIONS TOWARD PROTECTING RECREATION HAS BEGUN

We wrote in our blog on May 25th, "TIME TO CORRECT DROUGHT PLAN IS NOW,  NOT AFTER THE LAKES HAVE DROPPED".  Apparently this fell on deaf ears because the current issue of Balancing the Basin indicates no intention of changing from past practices.  They project the lakes will drop 3.5 ft by mid August with no requirement to modify release rates until the lakes drop more than 4'.

As we've discussed many times a 4' drop in lake level before decreasing release rates causes destruction of recreation.  From that point the lake will drop more than 10' in a severe drought even if minimum release rates are initiated.  Following is a repeat of our recommendations for protecting recreation along with all the other concerns the Corps is supposed to be protecting for the Savannah River Basin.

1.  Maintain lake levels at full pool as long as this can be done without dropping release rates below 3600cfs.  In other words balance input and output in such a fashion that the lakes stay full rather than allowing the lakes to drop several feet before becoming concerned about lake levels.
2.  Once the lakes drop more than 2’ with a release rate of 3600cfs, maintain 3600cfs (3100 in winter months) until the lakes return to full pool.
3.  Anytime the lakes are down more than 2’ and the river is swollen from heavy rains, shut off flows from the dams until the river flows return to normal.  This will help minimize the amount of time reduced release rates are needed.

As noted before, all this would be a natural happening if the Corps followed the same logic Duke Power uses on Lake Keowee.  There the drought plan is based on never dropping the lakes more than 10' even in a severe drought.  They accomplish this by using the data gathered from the droughts of record to design their release rates.  Why we can't get the Corps to uphold their responsibility to protect recreation along with all their other concerns remains a mystery.

WHICH IS IT? DOES THE CORPS CONSIDER ECONOMICS IN SETTING RELEASE RATES OR NOT?

Repeatedly we have asked the Corps to decrease release rates because of the huge impact low lake levels have on the recreation infrastructure around the lakes.  By recreation infrastructure we mean real estate built for lake access and lake view, campgrounds, marinas, and all the many investments related to recreation around the lakes.  Each time the Corps has assured us they are not permitted to consider economics when determining release rates.

 

Now, in the most recent issue of balancing the basin, Billy Birdwell explains that the Corps is now able to hold a 3800cfs release rate because they have met their power quotas with SEPA.  The only reason power quotas are important is that power purchased to replace hydro power shortages costs more than hydropower produced by our lakes.  I may be confused but it seems to me that cost of power is nothing more than an economic consideration.  Surely I must be mistaken because the cost of monetary losses to recreational infrastructure from low lake levels dwarfs the added cost of power.  Matter of fact the total value of power produced on all three of our lakes is peanuts compared to the economic losses from low lake levels exceeding a drop of 10’.

 

What I see happening violates good engineering principles.  Good engineering means to use the information at hand to the full extent possible to perform a task such as managing our basins rather than wait for a perfect solution based on endless studies. The data from all the droughts of the past decade is more than sufficient to avoid drops in lake level in excess of 8-10’ while avoiding problems to downstream interests.  Instead the Corps makes endless excuses to avoid the changes needed.  While you can always learn more from further studies, there is no need to wait for these studies before making changes that will prevent the devastation we keep experiencing every time a drought occurs.  Save Our Lakes Now has outlined a sound approach to drought control in our previous blogs but to date there is no evidence that the Corps plans to incorporate these changes.

 

I ask again is Save Our Lakes Now the only organization concerned about this and other inconsistencies in the way the Corps is controlling our lakes.  Where are our congressmen and the other lake organizations when it comes to getting the Corps to optimize the drought plan for the Savannah River Basin.

LAST MINUTE REPRIEVE

Almost as if we caused it the projected release rates for Lake Thurmond have been throttled back to hold at 3800cfs on into June with the lake reaching almost full pool by June 7.  We don't know who is responsible but whoever it is, Col. Hall or someone else, we thank them.

WHO'S GONNA STOP THIS MADNESS

We need a champion to step forward and stop this madness of the Corps continually destroying recreation on our lakes.  The lake level is headed straight down and the Corps is increasing release rates.  The common sense thing to do would be for the Corps to hold off on increasing release rates and hold the lake levels as long as possible.   And we desperately need for the Corps to modify their drought plan along the lines of Save Our Lake’s proposals published on www.lakethurmondlevel.blogspot.com a few days ago. 

 

None of these is happening.  Why am I the only one upset about this?  Why are our congressmen not coming to our aide?  Why are the other lake groups silent on this?  Where are our champions who are going to get this madness stopped?

 

Jerry Clontz, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

THE TIME TO CORRECT DROUGHT PLAN IS NOW, NOT AFTER THE LAKES HAVE DROPPED

It is obvious that our current drought plans do not provide true balance for the Savannah River Basin.  Simple logic says the act of sending more water downstream than nature provides in rain is unbalanced.  And recent history shows repeated destruction to the recreational infrastructure around the lakes (marinas, campgrounds, houses built for recreation at the lake, dock builders, restaurants along the lake, etc.; not whether you can fish a given spot) with no similar destruction to downstream interests. 

 

Right now before the lakes begin to drop is a crucial time for achieving true balance of all the needs of the Savannah River Basin.  If you wait until the lakes begin to drop before you start corrections you lose balance.  First and foremost true balance requires that you factor in all the engineering knowledge you have about the system.  Following is a list of what we know from operations in past droughts:

 

·         The amount of rain over a year in the droughts between the year 2000 and 2010 was equivalent to 3600cfs inflow to Lake Thurmond.  Hence, in a drought matching those, you have to decrease releases to 3600cfs or you will lose continuity of lake levels.

·         Surveys of downstream interests in the drought of 2008 (all stakeholders were asked to comment on whether they could survive releases as low as 3100cfs) showed no significant impact from 3600cfs.  The only derogatory comments about 3600cfs came from NOAA and those comments were simply statements of concern over what might happen.  Since flows can be increased immediately if any of the possible concerns become real, there is no need to destroy recreation over something that might happen.

·         Recreation infrastructure is severely impacted when lake levels drop more than 10’.  Based on the droughts between 2000 and 2010, reducing releases to 3600cfs at the onset of a drought will prevent lake level drops of more than 10’.

·         The Army Corps of Engineers can control lake levels to within a fraction of a foot on a month to month basis using their hydrology models and knowledge and data on rain inputs.

·         Fears of low river flows impacting dissolved oxygen levels in the Savannah Harbor are unfounded.  Both measurements of dissolved oxygen at Clyo and the fact that ocean tides are 10x the input from the river say that dropping releases to 3600cfs is not harmful.

·         The critters in the river survived for thousands of years before the dams were built with river flows in severe droughts as low as 500cfs.  Additionally there are no endangered species threatened by releases of 3600cfs. 

·         The most important criteria for power production from our dams is peaking power.  As long as the lakes have plenty of water to permit power production during peak demand the other power needs for SEPA can be satisfied by purchases which are insignificant in cost compared to the cost to the recreational infrastructure when lake levels drop drastically.

·         Instrumentation at the dams shows the status of downstream flows permitting the Corps to safely stop releases when the river is flooded from rains.

·         Concern about unnecessary reduction in flows when we are not truly in a drought is unfounded.  Such reduction in flows will cause the lakes to refill quickly if we are not in a drought.

·         The time the river is at reduced flows will be minimized if we drop release rates at the beginning of a drought.  This is because it takes less time to refill the lakes when they contain more water at the end of the drought.

 

Factoring all these together yields a good engineering basis for developing a drought plan to protect all the various needs of the Savannah River Basin. This plan is different from the one currently in use by the Corps of Engineers because it corrects for low lake levels on day 1 of a drought rather than waiting until the lakes have already dropped several feet.  It should protect all aspects of the Savannah River Basin including the vast recreational infrastructure around the lakes.

 

1)      Maintain lake levels at full pool as long as this can be done without dropping release rates below 3600cfs.  In other words balance input and output in such a fashion that the lakes stay full rather than allowing the lakes to drop several feet before becoming concerned about lake levels.

2)      Once the lakes drop more than 2’ with a release rate of 3600cfs, maintain 3600cfs (3100 in winter months) until the lakes return to full pool.

3)      Anytime the lakes are down more than 2’ and the river is swollen from heavy rains, shut off flows from the dams until the river flows return to normal.  This will help minimize the amount of time reduced release rates are needed.

 

There is one further concern that needs to be addressed.  In the past the lakes were dropped 4’ after labor day. The reasoning is to provide better flood protection with heavy rains.  This was set up when Lake Thurmond was the only lake catching the runoff from the Savannah River Basin.  We now also have Lake Hartwell and Russell.  With the combination of all 3 lakes, 2’ drop should give the same protection as the 4’ drop used originally for Lake Thurmond.  Hence we recommend the Corps change the drop used after Labor Day  to  2’ instead of 4’.  During the months when the lakes are deliberately down 2’, releases should be 3600 anytime the level drops any significant amount.

ANSWER TO COLONEL'S ANSWER

The Corps has demonstrated time after time that they can balance lake levels to a high degree of accuracy.  In other words they have the engineering knowledge and models, etc. to permit them to do so.  Why then do they not follow the recommendations of Save Our Lakes Now which would keep the lakes within 8-10 ft of full pool while protecting downstream interests. Why have we destroyed the recreational infrastructure on the lakes 3 times in the past decade when we know how to prevent it. For example the Corps ignored the warnings of Save Our Lakes Now when the last drought started.  We pleaded for them to drop the release rate to 3600cfs but they argued that they did not want to cause any disruption to downstream flows until they were sure we were really in a drought.  We pointed out that if we were not in a true drought the lakes would refill quickly and normal releases could be resumed but they would not listen.

In his answer to one of our reader’s letters the Colonel claims immense difficulties with controlling the lakes in a drought.  However every reason given for the Corps not having latitude is now gone.  Yet they still refuse to adopt our proposals which simply achieve better balance by not sending more water to the ocean than nature provides averaged over the span of a year. 

For the record, our recommendation is to attempt to keep the lakes within 2’ of full pool by decreasing release rates to as low as 3600cfs.  Once the lakes drop more than 2’ below full pool using this approach, go to 3600cfs immediately until the lakes refill.  There are other ways refilling the lakes can be tweaked such as stopping all releases when the river below the dams is swollen from heavy rains and using 3100cfs rather than 3600 in cold months.  But first and foremost we need the release rates dropped to 3600 immediately when the lakes can no longer be held to within 2’ of full pool.

There is one other issue the corps failed to address in their answer.  We need for them to stop the practice of dropping the lakes 4’ in the winter months.  That was a provision in place to protect against flooding back when there was only one lake catching the runoff from winter and spring rains.  Now there are 3 lakes and a drop of 2’ provides the same margin of protection 4’ used to provide.

 

ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW FOR INTERIM DROUGHT PLAN UNTIL PLANNED STUDIES ARE COMPLETE

 

PROPOSAL IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING DATA FROM PREVIOUS DROUGHTS:

1.       Until 2012 the droughts of record had an average annual rainfall of 3600CFS.

2.       A release rate of 3600CFS has been demonstrated to have no significant environmental impact when used for more than 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008-9.

3.       Based on surveys in 2008-9 downstream water supplies and water quality were adequate during this same period of 3600CFS release rates.

4.       Up to 10ft drop in lake level is acceptable from the stand point of recreation interests but beyond that recreational infrastructure is severely damaged especially when drops in excess of 10ft occur repeatedly over a short span of years.

5.       Power production from the dams of the Savannah River Basin is primarily for peaking power. Consequently it is important from the stand point of power production that the lakes be maintained at as high a level as practical.

6.       The economic impact of low lake levels on power production is far less than the impact of low lake levels on the recreational infrastructure around the lakes especially when the impact on real estate constructed for the purpose of recreation around the lakes is factored in.

7.       The logic behind hydro power is to use existing water from rain as it falls by gravity to the oceans.  Trying to use more water than is provided by rain is illogical. Power production should be balanced against the amount of water available from rain.

8.       Dissolved oxygen levels in the Savannah harbor is controlled primarily from the inflow of water from ocean tides.  And data on dissolved oxygen levels at Clyo show no correlation with release rates from Thurmond down to 3600cfs.

9.       The Corps of Engineers can balance the lakes to within a few tenths of a foot using their current models and knowledge of the hydrology of the Savannah River Basin.

10.   The previous practice of dropping the lakes 4’ at the end of the summer season for flood control was based on having only Lake Thurmond.  Now that Hartwell and Russell collect half the runoff from the basin, a 2’ drop provides the same protection.

PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM DROUGHT PLAN:

Using the hydrology skills available to the Corps of Engineers, balance release rates down to and including 3600cfs to maintain the lakes at as nearly a constant level as practical.  Once the lakes cannot be maintained within 2ft of full pool, drop the release rates to 3600cfs and hold them at this level until the lakes refill.

Other indicators of drought conditions such as flows in the Broad River may be used to initiate low release rates but under no circumstance should the lakes be allowed to drop more than 2’ without initiating minimum release rates.

This proposal balances the whole system from the standpoint of all the corps responsibilities.  Flood control is unaffected.  Hydro power is balanced against the amount of water available.  Recreation is protected from the ravages experienced in recent droughts.  Water quality and supply should be acceptable based on surveys conducted in the drought of 2008-9 when 3600cfs was used for more than 12 consecutive months.  And Fish and Wildlife concerns are balanced against the water available without harming any endangered species.

On the note of impacts to wildlife, it is the opinion of Save Our Lakes Now that the lakes are already doing all that can be reasonably expected to protect against the ravages of droughts.  Prior to constructing Thurmond dam wildlife in the Savannah River was subjected to flows as low as 500cfs in severe droughts compared to the artificial river we have now that never goes below 3600CFS.

LAKES FINALLY FULL - NOW WHAT

If the Corps would only listen we could keep the lakes full and satisfy the needs of everyone downstream as well.   But to do that they have got to drop release rates to minimum acceptable (3600 cfs has been demonstrated to be safe repeatedly) the minute the lakes drop 2’ from full pool. Doing that if we are NOT in a drought the lakes will return to full quickly and normal release rates can be resumed. But more importantly if we are in a drought the lakes will stay within about 8’ of full and the amount of time the system has to be operated at reduced release rates will be minimized.  Following the current Drought Plan, which is what the Corps insists on doing, virtually guarantees a repeat of the 3 destructive drought events we’ve experienced over the past decade.

 

All lake stakeholders and all politicians interested in helping save the lakes are going to have to work together if we are going to get this mess corrected before another drought destroys our lakes.  One problem in doing this is the Corps’ arguments sound very convincing to anyone uneducated about how the lakes should be managed.  Let me suggest one approach for anyone not yet convinced about how the system should be managed.  Read both sides of the argument and ask a few questions from both those saying the Corps is screwing up and those who say the Corps is doing it right.  Our web site is the only one I know  that gives a comprehensive argument about how the lakes are being mismanaged.  It is www.lakethurmondlevel.blogspot.com.  The Corps has a publication called Balancing the Basin. Several other publications explain how the situation is too complicated for the average person to understand all the  things the Corps has to consider.   If you are on Lake Hartwell don’t be discouraged by the title for our blog (lake Thurmond level).  Keep in mind both Hartwell and Thurmond operate as one massive body of water and the release rates from Thurmond control what is happening to both lakes so this site is talking about both lakes, not just Thurmond.  

 

Repeating, unless we want to destroy our lakes again, the Corps has to change the current drought plan and reduce release rates to 3600cfs (matches average annual rainfall in previous droughts) any time lake levels drop 2’ below full summer pool.  The Corps is not going to make this change unless all lake stakeholders and all politicians that want to help us get behind the recommended changes.  If the Corps follows past behavior they will claim that state and federal agencies have their hands tied.  Based on our discussions with state and federal agencies this is a gross exaggeration.  The problem is the Corps is afraid of those who insist on sending more water downstream than nature provides but not afraid of us when we ask that releases match the amount of rain that comes in over the period of one year.

CORPS NOW USING BROAD RIVER FLOWS BUT DOES THAT HELP RECREATION

The latest issue of balancing the basin goes into great detail about how flows in the Broad River are now being used to help assess release rates along with Lake Levels.  While low flows in the Broad initiating lower release rates is an improvement for Recreation at the onset of a drought, the manner in which these are factored in shows very little concern for recreation.  For example the current return to near normal lake levels is a surprise to everybody.  The Corps was predicting a repeat of very low lake levels for this season yet they refused to hold releases at 3600cfs (3100 in colder months).  They even used the flows in the Broad River as an excuse to raise releases to 4,000cfs while they were still expecting a difficult summer.  From the standpoint of recreation, releases should be held to the minimum until full recovery occurs in order to prevent continued destruction to recreation if the drought continues.

 

It is important to distinguish between someone being able to fish a given spot from what we mean by destroying recreation.  When the word recreation is used here and in the responsibilities listed for the Corps it means the huge multi-million dollar infrastructure necessary for there to be recreation on the lake.  This includes marinas, shoreline access for the many people who have invested their savings into a place at the lake, overall attraction to the general public (once a lake gets a bad reputation people stop coming), etc. etc.  The amount of money destroyed with regard to recreation in a major drought is in the hundreds of millions of dollars far offsetting any financial gains from increased power production with higher release rates.

 

To illustrate let me list briefly what would happen if recreation were a major concern the way it should be:

·         Someone with a substantial amount of money involved in recreation would be present at all meetings where the Corps discusses release rates.  Currently  Fish and Wildlife, Georgia and South Carolina DNR, and  NOAA representatives are always present.  But the community providing the huge infrastructure for recreation is not represented.  Matter of fact requests for minutes of these meetings has even been denied recreational interests.

·         The drought management plan would be similar to the one Duke Power uses for Lake Keowee.  In a recent meeting of the SRBAC, Duke Power discussed how, at the insistence of the Corps, they now will allow Keowee to drop as much as 10’.  But they made it clear they have no intent of allowing it to drop any further destroying Lake Keowee from the standpoint of recreation.  The reason given was that they intend to be a good neighbor to all  the lake residents that have been there as long as Duke Power has.

·         The draw down at the end of the season would only be 2’ instead of 4’ recognizing we have twice the volume of lakes to catch winter runoffs.

·         At present worry over what MIGHT happen downstream trumps ACTUAL observed destruction to recreation.  If recreation were on the same footing the way it should be the Corps would be forced to use the best data available to balance recreation against downstream effects.  This is known as engineering.  Since the only people deciding the release rates are those that worry about possible effects downstream, recreation doesn’t stand a chance. 

 

Some of you may feel that Save Our Lakes Now is too negative about the way the Corps is operating the Savannah River Basin.  Please rest assured we will be the first to sing the Corps’ praises when they recognize and protect recreation in a manner similar to the way they treat downstream issues.  Let me leave you with one final thought.  If the Colonel responsible for the Savannah River Basin had his life savings tied up in a nice retirement home on Lake Thurmond, do you think things would be run differently?

 

AMAZING SIMILARITIES

Listening to a recent summary of where the Keystone Pipeline stands it struck me that there are many similarities between that situation and the way the EPA tries to control the Corps’ handling of the Savannah River Basin.  As you know the Keystone pipeline has been held up for years by demands from the EPA for more studies.  Experts in the field say the Keystone Pipeline is one of the best studied projects ever from the standpoint of environmental impact.  These studies have shown no significant impact on the environment from use of this pipeline.  Additionally the environmental impact of rail or truck transport is much worse than the pipeline. What is happening is not logical.

 

Sounds familiar doesn’t it. The EPA is being unrealistic and demanding more and more studies in both cases. In my opinion their demand for more study is simply a delaying tactic.  Just as they ignore the fact that ground transport of oil has a higher impact on the environment, they ignore the vast amount of information showing that releases which would protect recreation are acceptable downstream.  In both cases the EPA ignores the vast amount of information already available from previous studies. 

 

Looking at basics, the Corps is much more comfortable following EPA wishes than fighting the EPA and protecting recreation the way they should.  The only way this can change short of clipping the EPA’s wings is to make the Corps more comfortable protecting recreation than following the illogical demands of the EPA.  Until congress forces the EPA to be reasonable, the only effective tools we have are political pressure, law suits, and publicity.  We cannot afford the massive expense that would be entailed in a law suit.  And political pressure depends to a large extent on how much positive publicity our  politicians can expect from their efforts.  This then leaves publicity as our only practical means of changing the way the Corps is managing our basin. 

 

Recognizing this, Save Our Lakes Now constantly publicizes how our lakes are being mismanaged.  Without such publicity the Corps would have no need to defend any of their tactics and recreation would be damaged even more than at present.  For example the 3600cfs that the Corps is constantly haggling over came from recommendations made by Save Our Lakes Now several years ago. We were the ones to realize that the amount of rain during our droughts of record averaged 3600cfs annually.  Furthermore high publicity draws the attention of our politicians.  It would be political suicide to ignore heavy demands from a large portion of their constituency. 

 

RESPONSE TO BALANCING THE BASIN VIDEO ABOUT NEED FOR STUDIES

Stan Simpson is a great guy and nothing we say here should be taken as a criticism of him.  He works for the Corps and is bound by their guidelines.  It is those guidelines that we are taking exception to.

 

In the recent video from Balancing the Basin Stan Simpson explains how release rates from Lake Thurmond can affect the Savannah River System.  He is correct in that there are a lot of things we don’t know in detail about these affects.  However the jump from there to the assumption that the Corps is correctly using the knowledge they do have is misleading.  The fact is the Corps has tons of information they do know but refuse to  use.  And based on talking to the heads of GA and SC DNR they are not to blame for the Corps’ refusal to control lake levels within reason. 

Like Stan I also am an engineer.  Let’s take a look at a few examples of poor engineering practices by the Corps:

·       When Lake Thurmond was the only lake collecting runoff from all rains above Augusta, the Corps dropped its level 4’ during the winter to avoid flooding during the high runoff periods as you come out of the winter months.  Now there are 3 lakes to collect this run off so a 2’ drop would provide the same protection that 4’ used to.  Regardless of our pleas to change to 2’ so the lakes don’t start out a drought so low, the Corps adamantly refuses to make this change.  The result is we enter a drought 4’ below full pool instead of 2’.

·       There are hundreds of millions of dollars lost every major drought by the huge recreation infrastructure around the lakes.  Although congress has tasked the Corps with being responsible for recreation they ignore this wanton destruction in the drought control measures they use.  Furthermore they demonstrate either a total disdain for lake interests or an unimaginable degree of poor thinking by equating the fact that some fishermen find it hard to fish low spots in the river at low release rates with recreation infrastructure losses on the lakes during major droughts.

·         A lot has been learned in past droughts that is not being applied to managing the system.  For example 3600cfs release rates were experienced for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008.  No serious problems were encountered downstream.  The Corps even acknowledges this fact in their worst case scenarios for drought protection stating that 3600cfs gives no serious impact to the environment.  In spite of this the Corps waits until our lakes are destroyed from a recreation stand point before they initiate 3600cfs releases.  And even now when the lakes are still down they refuse to hold 3600 cfs to let the lakes refill. 

·         Nature, in spite of its ravages from time to time, does a good job of providing for all the little critters that live in or near our rivers and lakes.  Nowhere on Earth does nature provide a constant flow rate for rivers.  It is pure idiocy from an engineering stand point to try to keep a major river like the Savannah at rates desired by man instead of those dictated by nature.  The dams smooth out the ravages of flooding and drought but to try to generate an artificial river of the size of the Savannah that never goes below  4,000cfs makes no sense.

·         The basic engineering principle the Corps is using is badly flawed.  The Corps insists on releasing more water from the lakes than nature provides.  As anyone who has ever kept up with a bank account for any period of time knows, such a practice will bankrupt the system.  We cannot make water out of thin air.  Consequently you have to match the water nature provides or you destroy the lakes.  Yet the Corps insists on following an antiquated drought plan that fully ignores the amount of water coming into the system.

 

There is probably more that could be said but these examples should make the point.

 

An Engineer uses existing scientific information to come up with a workable system.  A scientist on the other hand is always looking into further detail trying to eliminate any unknowns about a system.  If designing the first plane had been left up to scientists we would still not have air travel because there are so many questions that can only be answered by flying.  While further study by scientists will help understand the Savannah River System better, it is to no avail if we don’t use the knowledge gained to engineer the best system possible as we go.  We already know how to keep the lakes within 10’ of full pool (recreation can survive up to a 10’ drop) and we already know such measures will not do damage downstream.  So it is time to stop waiting for more study and apply what is already known.  Current Corps practices are causing hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction to our recreation infrastructure by failing to follow good engineering principles.  It’s time for that to stop.

 

RESPONSE TO 4/11/13 BALANCING THE BASIN ARTICLE ABOUT EFFECTS OF HARBOR DEEPENING

The article from Billy Birdwell on deepening the harbor and its impact on releases from Lake Thurmond (and therefore Hartwell as well) is inaccurate and misleading.  I doubt it is a deliberate attempt to misinform but regardless, it shows a dangerous lack of understanding of the variables involved.  Competent engineering demands a full grasp of what impacts the basins and the harbor.  That is not demonstrated here.

 

First off, Lake Thurmond Releases have no significant impact on the oxygen levels in the harbor.  The tides bring in 10 times the water that comes in from the river and thereby the ocean, not the river, controls the oxygen levels in the harbor.  Besides, detailed analyses of oxygen content of the Savannah River at Clyo (last sampling point before the harbor) shows releases from Lake Thurmond have no significant impact on the amount of oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor.  As a result Mr. Bailey’s article draws the correct conclusion but for the wrong reasons.

 

Secondly, the promise of no impact on release rates may not be true.  Concurrent with deepening the harbor the Corps plans to put in a multi-million dollar fish ladder around the Augusta lock and dam so sturgeon can spawn in the Augusta Shoals (a location they have not been able to reach since the 1930’s).  This inserts a new controlling factor for lake releases.  Once the sturgeon are in the shoals, minimum release rates will be dictated by how much flow there is in the shoals.  Again Mr. Bailey’s article shows a serious lack of knowledge of the system.

RESPONSE TO COL HALL'S VIDEO ON BTB

Col Hall has a very good stage presence.  In his recent video on balancing the basin he appears very level headed, calm, and intelligent in the reasoning he offers about how the Corps manages the Savannah River Basin.  However we feel that the logic presented is flawed. Some of the challenges we have with his logic are:

1.       You don’t have to wait to reduce flows.  Common sense based on past history says unless you reduce flows immediately you run a high risk of destroying recreation (huge infrastructure—not someone having trouble with a fishing hole). 

2.       The reduction needed is not some hypothetical value pulled out of thin air by environmentalists.  Instead you have to match mother nature’s inputs or here again you run a high risk of destroying recreation.

3.       Downstream interests will not suffer any more from reducing flows immediately on losing 2ft of lake level.  The flows that balance what nature is providing have been shown time and time again to suffice for downstream needs.  Besides, the number of hours river flows have to be reduced is actually shorter if you go immediately to minimum flows.

4.       Downstream has as much to lose as upstream if you destroy the lakes.  In other words releasing more than nature is providing runs a real risk of destroying the lakes and the ability to control river flows.

Its unfortunate that we need to share our comments in this manner.  It is not that we have no respect for Col. Hall and his offce.  We would much prefer to discuss these thoughts at the meetings where release rates are decided.  But Recreation interests like Save Our Lakes Now are not invited to these meetings leaving us little other choice if we are to make our views known.

ANSWER TO LAST BALANCING THE BASIN ARTICLE FROM CORPS

I hate to be crude but this article misses the point completely.  Until we learn how to make water out of thin air the only control that makes sense is to limit outflows to inflows so you do not destroy the system that both upstream and downstream want.  For example, let’s say to do all the things this author wants takes 20,000cfs out of Thurmond dam.  We can all see that won’t work because the lakes would run dry in no time.  Why can’t these guys see that you have to live within the confines of what nature is providing.

 

Selfish upstream interests would call for keeping the dams totally full and just let what comes in from rain each day overflow.  Following this approach the river would sometimes have flows of only 500cfs during droughts.  Basically the river would revert to the way it was before the dams were built.

 

Selfish downstream interests would call for 10,000 cfs or so regardless of lake levels.  Following this approach the river would eventually drop to 500cfs in a drought because we would no longer have any lakes to feed the system.

 

Unselfish, logical interests look at the fact that either of the above approaches destroy the system.  Following this approach you limit releases to what comes in from rain but you average this over a year so as to avoid the ravages of drought while keeping the system intact.  Save Our Lakes Now recommendation of 3600cfs (3100 in the winter) anytime the lakes drop 2’ from full summer pool levels is just such an approach.

 

Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

BALANCING THE BASIN IS MISLEADING TITLE

 

The Corps of Engineers now has a blog of its own entitled “Balancing the Basin”.  The title is very misleading because in reality the Corps is not balancing our basin.  True balance would mean balance between all the various responsibilities the Corps is assigned by Congress and balance between lake interests and river interests.  The Corps claims the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now to use 3600cfs (3100 in winter) release rate anytime the lakes drop more than 2 ft is out of balance in favor of lake interests and unfair to river interests.  In reality it is the Corps’ drought plan that is out of balance, not the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now.

If Save Our Lakes Now wanted to have the Savannah River System run in favor of lake interests we would simply ask the Corps to let the lakes overflow as rainfall occurs.  This would allow river flows to return to their natural state prior to building the dams.  From the way the Corps describes our proposal you would think we are selfishly trying to keep the lakes full without any regard for what is happening in the river.  In reality our proposal balances lake and river interests while theirs is totally out of balance.  By releasing only 3600cfs when the lakes are 2’ or more below full pool we avoid the severe droughts along the river that occur when you match daily rainfall.  Additionally you keep the lakes at reasonable levels because you are matching releases with annual rainfall.  This approach is much like balancing your budget.  You don’t have to balance income with expenses daily but if you spend more over the span of a year than you make you are on the road to bankruptcy just as the Corps is on the road to destroying the beautiful Savannah River Basin .

In the latest issue of “Balancing the Basin” the corps mentions that fishermen sometimes are unable to fish In some oxbows of the river because of low river levels.  I can only assume they are trying to claim recreation below the dams is destroyed by too low a release rate.  When Save Our Lakes Now mentions recreation being destroyed on the lakes we are not talking about a fisherman not being able to reach a given fishing spot.  We are talking about the huge infrastructure for recreation that is about to be bankrupted.  Already parks are closing, real estate purchases by people wanting to be at the lake for recreation have been destroyed, and people are leaving our lakes in favor of more stable lakes elsewhere.

The next time you see something from the Corps explaining how Congress has tied their hands because of various responsibilities try one further test as to whether they are really balancing things.  They will give double talk about all kinds of environmental concerns (double talk because the concerns are all maybe, might, sky is falling type concerns) look for any concern about recreation which is one of the responsibilities Congress has given the Corps relative to our lakes.  Unlike the maybe and might concerns of environmental issues the fact that the recreational infrastructure for our lakes is being destroyed is real: TOO REAL.

The next time the Corps mentions balancing the basin I hope you will think twice about what they are really saying.  And the next time the Corps points to the proposals of Save Our Lakes Now as being totally unbalanced I hope you will understand that that claim is simply not true.

RELEASE RATES: WHO SETS THEM AND WHY

Some people are begging for 3600cfs, the corps claims 3800cfs is as low as they can go, and the actual release rates are currently 4,000cfs.  Why all the fuss and what difference does it make.

First, looking at what these do to lake level, every 100cfs is 1ft of lake level over a year’s time.  So 3600cfs instead of 4,000 cfs will give us 4ft more water in our lakes a year from now.  This means if you are providing recreational services at the lake or if you have a house sitting on the side of the lake you definitely want as much water as possible which means your vote would be for 3600cfs.  That is if you had a vote.  But you do not.  The Corps refuses representation from lake interests when they decide release rates. 

Second looking at what nature provides in rain, 3600cfs matches the input from rain over a year’s time in the previous droughts of record.  Hence using 3600 while a drought is in progress prevents sending more water downstream than you are getting from rain.  That means if you are looking at the release rates from the stand point of simply balancing out what nature provides you would vote for 3600cfs.  But here again you do not get a vote because that is not part of the considerations when the Corps decides release rates.

Third, looking at past history 3600cfs was demonstrated to do no harm in the drought of 2008 when the lakes were operated for over 12 consecutive months at 3600cfs.  The Corps even did a survey of all stakeholders in 2009 asking if anyone expected to have a problem if they went still lower in releases to 3100cfs.  We had to do a Freedom of Information Act request to get the results but we found that in the hundreds of responses from businesses and townships downstream of the lakes no one had a problem at 3600 and they even anticipated 3100 would be OK.  The only negative response was from an environmental group that speculated there might be a problem at 3100.  So if all these stakeholders were given a vote on release rates they would be fine at 3600cfs.  But again they don’t get a vote. 

So who makes these decisions and on what basis.  The corps meets with environmentalists to the exclusion of everyone else and they discuss what would be best.  From the environmentalists’ stand point the more water in the river the better.  This is true even if that causes the lakes to be totally destroyed.  This is counter to what Mother Nature does with all natural rivers but never mind that because apparently man is wiser than nature.  Where else do you find an artificial river that never drops below 3800 or 4000cfs in flow? Never mind that this is poor management in that you are spending more water than you have and therefore destroy the lakes.  It’s like our government spending more money than they have. Both the environmentalists and the government argue that they have such good causes.  Good cause or no, when the water or the money is gone you are finished.  Why then does the Corps follow these ridiculous rules?  It is because these are the only people who get to vote on release rates.

I thought you might want to know who keeps destroying our lakes and why.  And by the way, the studies you’ve heard about that are supposed to help get a better drought plan.  Guess who will be deciding what the results of these studies mean.  You guessed it.  It will be the same ones who think they are wiser than us and keep destroying our lakes.  And for anyone who still thinks 4000 cfs is best, what is good about destroying fresh water by pouring it into saltwater.  That is exactly what you are doing anytime you put more water through the dam than is coming into the lake from rain.   

LAKE INTERESTS ABANDONED BY THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The Corps of Engineers is totally ignoring recreation and foolishly destroying our lakes.  They just went up to 4,000cfs release rates from Thurmond with the lake over 10’ below full pool.  Not only that but they have stopped balancing Hartwell and Thurmond the way they are supposed to.  Thurmond is a full 4’ below Hartwell relative to full pool.  And our congressmen are doing nothing to help us.

 

The Corps has become totally non responsive to reason.  They write explanations but the explanations they write are word play and make no logical sense.  The fish and wildlife in the Savannah River and the water quality and supply are fine at 3600cfs.  The South Eastern Power Association has stated repeatedly that they want the lakes as full as possible so they have peaking power capability and they have 8 different lakes to draw power from so they are fine at 3600cfs. So it makes no sense at all to increase releases with our lakes so low.  It’s almost as if the Corps deliberately wants to destroy the recreational infrastructure so they no longer have to worry about it.  If someone else did the destruction the Corps is doing to your lake place and the reputation of the lake you have chosen for recreation we would immediately see them as criminal or guilty of criminal neglect.

 

Adding to the confusion is why is Jeff Duncan and Paul Broun and your state political leaders ignoring this.  Jeff Duncan demonstrated in his questioning of Hillary Clinton the ability to bring about accountability.  Where is that fire in the belly when it comes to protecting his constituents from the Corps.  Paul wants to be a senator yet he is ignoring a major injustice occurring right under his feet.      

 

 

MAKING A POINT FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONCERNING LAKE RELEASES

There is one thing the people demanding higher release rates at the beginning of a drought fail to realize.  Had we dropped releases to 3600cfs (3100 in cold months) at the start of the drought, the lakes would be just about full now and the end of reduced rates would be insight.  Instead we have a long slog ahead for mandatory low release rates and we are literally sweating out what may happen if we go into a dry Spring and Summer.   Further this continual refusal to reduce releases at the start of a drought has destroyed the reputation of our lakes from the standpoint of recreation and is well on its way to destroying our recreation infrastructure.  We have already reached the point where no bank in their right mind will loan money for anything to do with our lakes.

 

Lowering release rates at the start of a drought does not harm what happens downstream.  The water to the river will be the same either way.  Since man cannot make water out of thin air, mother nature is in full control of how much water we are going to have for the duration of a drought.  All man can do is manage wisely or unwisely the water nature provides.  The difference in responding immediately at the beginning of a drought is you keep the lakes as full as possible which fulfills the Corps’ responsibility for protecting the recreation infrastructure and you maintain a lot better control of the system whereby you still have water left for any unforeseen emergencies upstream or downstream.   So far as all the critters downstream they would have been unharmed by 3600cfs at the beginning of the drought the same way they are unharmed by these release rates now.

 

What we need is strong leadership by the Corps to drive these points home when the environmental groups worry about starting low release rates too soon.  The environmental groups are advisory only.  The Corps is where the buck stops.  Until that occurs we need for our congressman and Senators or State Governments to take a strong interest and get things turned the right way.