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?