RECREATION IS GLOWING OMISSION FROM CORPS MEETINGS

The Corps has many things they are responsible for in managing the Savannah River Basin and these all should come into play in drought planning.  Environmental interests are the ones most often quoted as the reason release rates and lake levels are managed the way they are in a drought.  Recreation is mentioned only in passing.  When pressed the typical corps response is one of two things.  Either recreation such as water skiing and boating are just not that important compared to environmental concerns or the folks below the dams like to ski and boat as well as the people around the lakes.

These responses show very little comprehension of what is meant by recreation. The responsibility to protect and provide for recreation has very little to do with whether someone can go water skiing or boating.  What is really at stake is the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure that is heavily damaged every time the lakes drop more than 10ft.  Marinas, boat ramps, camp grounds, lake side real estate, restaurants, etc. etc. is what is meant by recreation.  Continued devastating drops in lake levels such as over the past decade are destroying this infrastructure.  First to go will be all the homes built on the lakes for weekend get aways and vacations.  Then you will see the restaurants and similar supporting facilities go. Then the marinas will disappear, camp grounds will be shut down, boat ramps will get in dis repair and slowly but surely recreation will disappear from our lakes. All this is a direct contradiction to the Corps’ responsibility to balance recreation against all the other concerns.

Compare for a moment the difference between managing for just environmental concerns and looking at the whole picture including recreation.  For tens of thousands of years the river was uninterrupted by dams and fish and wildlife and all the other environmental concerns survived just fine. About all the benefit man can provide is to take the wild ravages of floods and extreme droughts out of the picture.  Providing an artificial river that never drops below 3800cfs at the river’s inlet is taking it to an extreme.  Allowing the river to be more of a river and managing the lakes so that they are not destroyed makes a lot more sense.

All you have to do is look at the meetings to discuss drought planning and you see a glaring omission to balancing the lakes.  Where are the recreation stakeholders? People involved in actually providing the infrastructure for recreation who can properly represent these interests.  We need to hear that recreation interests must agree to such a change instead of just environmental interests.  Until recreational interests are represented we will not achieve true balance on managing the lakes. As long as there is no representation from recreation interests even costly studies will not yield balance because of the way the results are interpreted.

TWO YEARS LATER

Two years ago when the lakes dropped 2’ in level unexpectedly, we filled the air ways with warnings that the lakes could easily be in store for another horrendous drought.  We pleaded with the Corps to reduce releases to the river to the amount of water coming in from rain in the two droughts of record.  We explained that this release rate had been used successfully for a period of more than 12 months in 2008-9 with no significant harm downstream.  We also explained that if we were not in a major drought the lakes would refill quickly and normal releases could be resumed.  Further we explained that if any major problems were encountered downstream releases could be increased as needed.

The Corps countered our pleas with explanations that they did not want downstream interests to suffer unnecessarily from reduced flows and they wanted to follow the current drought plan which does not react until the lakes are down 6’ to make sure we really are in a drought before reducing flows.  Additionally, although Corps documents clearly state that there is no significant environmental impact from the flows we requested, they insisted on waiting for further studies before making changes to the drought plan.  Two years later these studies are just now getting underway and results are at least another 2 years away.

The next time you hear how irrational and alarmist Save Our Lakes Now is please look at the facts.  If the Corps had listened your lakes would be 8’ or so higher than they are now.  If they had listened no harm would have been suffered downstream exactly the same way no harm is now being experienced using the very flows we requested.  And if they had listened downstream interests would face much less time at reduced flows to refill the lakes because the amount of water to refill the lakes would be much less.

Claims that the Corps knows best and we should shut up and let them do their job are misguided.  Our lakes have been destroyed repeatedly over the past decade because the Corps is using antiquated procedures and is failing to act on the basis of information we have gained from these events.  Good management involves making decisions and taking risks based on good logic, not hiding your head in the sand and refusing to change harmful practices.