To the casual observer Lake Thurmond is just about full, rains are plentiful, and drought problems are no more. But to the long term resident of the lakes the crisis has not passed. We've been here numerous times before. A new drought can happen and destroy the lakes beyond repair before you realize what is happening. Lake Thurmond drops 16ft and Lake Hartwell drops even further after 2 years of drought. We've come up with a new drought control plan which would correct this problem forever but for some unexplained reason the Corps is stubbornly refusing to adopt the recommended changes.
What is even more disturbing is that downstream interests don't have a clue to the impending doom they face. Downstream the picture is blurred because all they see is how much water is flowing down the river. And naturally they begin to demand higher water flows from the Corps during a drought. Instead of explaining the fact that such flows may cause the lakes to dry up the Corps does a political balancing act and increases water flows through the dam to quiet these demands. This further exascerbates the situation and puts the lake in still higher jeopardy of going dry. Such inept management of the lakes in the last drought put us within just a few months of levels that would have literally dried up the Savannah River. The river would have dropped to flows as small as 500cfs which would shut down industry along the Savannah, dry up drinking water supplies for downstream cities like Augusta, and destroy environmental interests.
The new drought plan was developed by upstream interests and prevents the lakes dropping more than 8ft from full regardless of how long the drought lasts. Furthermore the main benefit would be to downstream interests because it avoids the armageddon situation that would occur if the lakes actually go dry. The plan guarantees at least 3600cfs downstream throughout a drought which was demonstrated in the last drought as workable for all downstream interests.
The Corps either misunderstands the plan or is playing politics because they insist this plan would be good for upstream interests but not for downstream and try to pit upstream against downstream which is totally inappropriate. As already stated, downstream interests benefit more than anyone else using this approach. Continuing with the current plan puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing the Savannah River because there is no water to supply it.
If you have input to downstream interests such as industry officials or city mayors, etc. please help us get the word out on this. We have asked the Corps repeatedly to convene a meeting of both upstream and downstream interests to discuss these options. But the Corps is refusing to do so.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
COLONEL KERTIS NO LONGER OUR HERO
Colonel Edward Kertis established a new level of communication with lake concerns as the lakes almost went dry. This gave hope that finally we could reason with the Corps. Recent developments however show clearly he is no friend of lake interests; either downstream or upstream. For some reason he refuses to listen to reason. With the lakes about to refill the Corps is recklessly ignoring the lessons of the recent drought and they have increased the releases from Thurmond Dam to 3800cfs and plan another increase to 4000cfs shortly.
We learned in the recent drought that downstream interests are in extreme danger of losing the water flows they need for industry, water supplies, and environmental interests with the current drought plan. If the current rains stop and the drought returns, the flows the Corps is initiating could destroy the lakes in no time.
The Corps simply needs to let the lakes refill completely before initiating higher flows. Then putting in place a new drought plan based on the lessons of the previous drought, the lakes would remain full even in a drought. This plan would eliminate the possibility of a crisis downstream. The Colonel has been fully informed of all this. Why then is he ignoring the lessons of the past and jeopordizing everyone along the Savannah River with reckless operation of the dams.
We learned in the recent drought that downstream interests are in extreme danger of losing the water flows they need for industry, water supplies, and environmental interests with the current drought plan. If the current rains stop and the drought returns, the flows the Corps is initiating could destroy the lakes in no time.
The Corps simply needs to let the lakes refill completely before initiating higher flows. Then putting in place a new drought plan based on the lessons of the previous drought, the lakes would remain full even in a drought. This plan would eliminate the possibility of a crisis downstream. The Colonel has been fully informed of all this. Why then is he ignoring the lessons of the past and jeopordizing everyone along the Savannah River with reckless operation of the dams.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
CONTROLLING LAKE LEVELS MADE SIMPLE
The details of controlling lake levels to suit both downstream and upstream users of the lake can appear complicated. But it is really quite simple. To illustrate let me use the analogy of maintaining a bank account to take care of a charity. Assume that the charity needs $3,600/month to meet it's needs. Let's further assume that the only contributor to this charity is putting an average of $3,600/month into the account.
Given this scenario, if the charity takes out more than $3,600/mo the bank account will eventually go dry and the charity will no longer be able to meet it's needs. But if the charity takes out only $3,600/mo the bank account will remain solvent and the charity will be able to meet it's needs.
The downstream users along the Savannah River below the Thurmond Dam are like the charity. The upstream users are like the person contributing to the charity. They are contributing by allowing water to flow through the dam according to the Corps' drought plan. If the Corps limits the water through the dam to the average amount coming in each month it is to the benefit of the downstream users. It is not true that such controls are only for the benefit of the people around the lake. Such measures protect those downstream from a catastrophic failure with the lakes going dry and the Corps no longer being able to supply their needs.
It turns out that a flow rate of 3,600cfs through the dam equals the monthly average of rain coming into the lake during the recent drought which is the worst drought we have experienced since the dam was built. And we have fully demonstrated that a flow of 3,600cfs meets the needs of everyone downstream such as Augusta for water quality, industry along the river, and environmental concerns. Hence all we are asking is for the Corps to change their drought plan such that we no longer send more than 3600cfs downstream anytime the lakes drop by as much as 2ft. The reason for starting at 2ft below full is that month to month variations can allow the lake to drop 6ft so starting at 2ft below full limits the total drop to an acceptable 8ft.
The only other concerns I have heard from the Corps are lost power generation and the need for occasional high flows down the river to flush pockets of pollutants in a fashion similar to flooding from a rain. So far as power generation, we've talked with representatives of SEPA and they tell us that Lake Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid and any loss in power production at Thurmond can be made up by increased production within this grid at lakes not suffering the same drought. Besides, purchase of power outside this grid if needed is not nearly as expensive as the costs that are encountered whenever the lakes drop more than 10 feet. So far as occasional high flows down the river, 3600cfs is an average and can include much higher flows from time to time as long as the overall monthly or weekly average is 3600. Such spikes in flow can even be matched with times when it rains to give extremely high flows in the river.
Other measures to minimize day to day fluctuations are desirable but the restriction of 3,600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft takes care of the major problems of past droughts. For example operators at the dam have detailed information showing when rains swell streams below the dam. This information could be used when the lake is down to increase water retention above the dam when 3,600cfs is no longer needed downstream. And testing lower flows such as 3100cfs could also help minimize level fluctuations during droughts. And rethinking water diversion rates for the Augusta Canal could also help at times of droughts. But all these complicate the issue and can be ignored until the drought plan is modified.
It is extremely important that the Corps discontinue the past drought plan which has failed numerous times and adopt this recommendation as soon as possible. Unless and until they do the lack of confidence in having suitable lake levels is destroying prospects for future business and real estate activities around the lakes, and recreational events such as national fishing tournaments. This lack of confidence is devastating the economics attributed to the lakes for cities like Lincolnton, McCormick, and Anderson.
Given this scenario, if the charity takes out more than $3,600/mo the bank account will eventually go dry and the charity will no longer be able to meet it's needs. But if the charity takes out only $3,600/mo the bank account will remain solvent and the charity will be able to meet it's needs.
The downstream users along the Savannah River below the Thurmond Dam are like the charity. The upstream users are like the person contributing to the charity. They are contributing by allowing water to flow through the dam according to the Corps' drought plan. If the Corps limits the water through the dam to the average amount coming in each month it is to the benefit of the downstream users. It is not true that such controls are only for the benefit of the people around the lake. Such measures protect those downstream from a catastrophic failure with the lakes going dry and the Corps no longer being able to supply their needs.
It turns out that a flow rate of 3,600cfs through the dam equals the monthly average of rain coming into the lake during the recent drought which is the worst drought we have experienced since the dam was built. And we have fully demonstrated that a flow of 3,600cfs meets the needs of everyone downstream such as Augusta for water quality, industry along the river, and environmental concerns. Hence all we are asking is for the Corps to change their drought plan such that we no longer send more than 3600cfs downstream anytime the lakes drop by as much as 2ft. The reason for starting at 2ft below full is that month to month variations can allow the lake to drop 6ft so starting at 2ft below full limits the total drop to an acceptable 8ft.
The only other concerns I have heard from the Corps are lost power generation and the need for occasional high flows down the river to flush pockets of pollutants in a fashion similar to flooding from a rain. So far as power generation, we've talked with representatives of SEPA and they tell us that Lake Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid and any loss in power production at Thurmond can be made up by increased production within this grid at lakes not suffering the same drought. Besides, purchase of power outside this grid if needed is not nearly as expensive as the costs that are encountered whenever the lakes drop more than 10 feet. So far as occasional high flows down the river, 3600cfs is an average and can include much higher flows from time to time as long as the overall monthly or weekly average is 3600. Such spikes in flow can even be matched with times when it rains to give extremely high flows in the river.
Other measures to minimize day to day fluctuations are desirable but the restriction of 3,600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft takes care of the major problems of past droughts. For example operators at the dam have detailed information showing when rains swell streams below the dam. This information could be used when the lake is down to increase water retention above the dam when 3,600cfs is no longer needed downstream. And testing lower flows such as 3100cfs could also help minimize level fluctuations during droughts. And rethinking water diversion rates for the Augusta Canal could also help at times of droughts. But all these complicate the issue and can be ignored until the drought plan is modified.
It is extremely important that the Corps discontinue the past drought plan which has failed numerous times and adopt this recommendation as soon as possible. Unless and until they do the lack of confidence in having suitable lake levels is destroying prospects for future business and real estate activities around the lakes, and recreational events such as national fishing tournaments. This lack of confidence is devastating the economics attributed to the lakes for cities like Lincolnton, McCormick, and Anderson.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Lost Confidence in Lake Management Continues to Cause Huge Monetary Losses to Lake Interests
We have a major victory in understanding how to manage Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell to avoid the crises suffered in several recent droughts. Anyone following the situation now knows that simpy changing the drought plan so that discharges from Thurmond are reduced to 3600cfs anytime the lake drops 2ft until the lake is again full should eliminate any future crises during drought conditions. And further if we explore even lower flows such as 3100cfs to make recovery happen quicker we should be able to maintain the lakes at full or near full condition all the time. And simple logic points out that these measures benefit interests below the dam as much or more as they do lake interests.
However until we make this into a formal change in operation of the lakes the huge loss in confidence in Corps management of Lake Thurmond and Hartwell is destroying the economic recovery of the area around these lakes. Real Estate will not move in this area until people have confidence that their investments won't be trashed by the next drought. The many fishing tournaments and other recreational endeavors around the lake also suffer from people going elsewhere to make sure their needs are being met. And the businesses that feed off the fact that the area is attractive as a place to have a recreational home or for retirement aren't going to come back until they too have confidence that the past problems with lake levels aren't going to return.
In view of the fact that the losses in lake interests was in the billions of dollars and further considering the fact that we came close to not being able to sustain river flows adequate to meet downstream needs which would have devastated industry, water quality, and environmental concerns, we can not afford to ignore the need to change the drought plan. I initially thought the Corps recognized and agreed to these concerns and assumed they were going to make the needed changes. Now however the Corps has become totally silent on these issues. This leaves us with a major question as to their intentions and the area continues to suffer from lost confidence in these lakes due to recent drought experience. Further there have been clandestined suggestions that the Corps plans to return to 4200cfs the first of June.
Please. We can't afford to put off the needed change in drought plan. This area has suffered tremendously and the only way it can begin a comeback is for the Corps to formally correct the drought plan and publicize everywhere possible that these problems are history. If the Corps won't do this voluntarily we desperately need the assistance of our Congressmen.
However until we make this into a formal change in operation of the lakes the huge loss in confidence in Corps management of Lake Thurmond and Hartwell is destroying the economic recovery of the area around these lakes. Real Estate will not move in this area until people have confidence that their investments won't be trashed by the next drought. The many fishing tournaments and other recreational endeavors around the lake also suffer from people going elsewhere to make sure their needs are being met. And the businesses that feed off the fact that the area is attractive as a place to have a recreational home or for retirement aren't going to come back until they too have confidence that the past problems with lake levels aren't going to return.
In view of the fact that the losses in lake interests was in the billions of dollars and further considering the fact that we came close to not being able to sustain river flows adequate to meet downstream needs which would have devastated industry, water quality, and environmental concerns, we can not afford to ignore the need to change the drought plan. I initially thought the Corps recognized and agreed to these concerns and assumed they were going to make the needed changes. Now however the Corps has become totally silent on these issues. This leaves us with a major question as to their intentions and the area continues to suffer from lost confidence in these lakes due to recent drought experience. Further there have been clandestined suggestions that the Corps plans to return to 4200cfs the first of June.
Please. We can't afford to put off the needed change in drought plan. This area has suffered tremendously and the only way it can begin a comeback is for the Corps to formally correct the drought plan and publicize everywhere possible that these problems are history. If the Corps won't do this voluntarily we desperately need the assistance of our Congressmen.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Who Will Step Forward and Save Our Lakes
We are at a cross roads on saving the Savannah River Basin from future droughts. We came up with a petition to lower the flows to 3100cfs as a stop gap measure when the lakes were down 15 feet and still dropping. We also stirred up a hornet's nest of interest on the part of congressman and governors in the affected area with everyone realizing something needed to be done. We even stumbled onto a solution that works for both sides of the dam.
Based on Corps data if you drop to a discharge of 3600cfs when Lake Thurmond drops 2ft below full and hold that until it refills you never lose the lakes even in the worst case drought that just ended. This solution is not just to keep the lakes useable for lake interests. More importantly it protects the downstream businesses, cities, and environmental concerns from the devastation that would have occurred if the lakes had actually gone dry.
Now since the lakes are about to refill we are losing the momentum we had gathered toward coming up with a permanent solution. Unless someone steps forward and changes the drought management plan we could repeat the problems of the past several years when another drought appears. The change needed is simple but we need someone in a position of power to step forward and make it happen. For example Col. Kertis with the Corps or one of our congressman or either of the two governors involved could make this happen by calling a meeting of everyone involved and putting the proposed change to the drought plan to a vote. I would suggest a second petition but resistance to this is high since one has just been completed and there would still have to be a meeting of the principle parties involved to actually make a change to the plan. Let's all pray and make phone calls, write letters, and send emails to encourage someone to step forward and get this done.
Based on Corps data if you drop to a discharge of 3600cfs when Lake Thurmond drops 2ft below full and hold that until it refills you never lose the lakes even in the worst case drought that just ended. This solution is not just to keep the lakes useable for lake interests. More importantly it protects the downstream businesses, cities, and environmental concerns from the devastation that would have occurred if the lakes had actually gone dry.
Now since the lakes are about to refill we are losing the momentum we had gathered toward coming up with a permanent solution. Unless someone steps forward and changes the drought management plan we could repeat the problems of the past several years when another drought appears. The change needed is simple but we need someone in a position of power to step forward and make it happen. For example Col. Kertis with the Corps or one of our congressman or either of the two governors involved could make this happen by calling a meeting of everyone involved and putting the proposed change to the drought plan to a vote. I would suggest a second petition but resistance to this is high since one has just been completed and there would still have to be a meeting of the principle parties involved to actually make a change to the plan. Let's all pray and make phone calls, write letters, and send emails to encourage someone to step forward and get this done.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
CORPS NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING
I am thankful for Gresham Barrett's help on the lake situation but the $2million study he has proposed could easily be avoided if the Corps would just use their engineering skills and do the study on their own. All the data that is needed for a massive improvement in our drought plan is fully available from the excellent records the Corps has kept since the lakes were built. For example it is easy to look at what lake levels would have done in the past if we had changed the drought plan such that the flows are reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake drops more than 2 ft in level. And the data is there to determine what would have happened in the past in terms of flood conditions if this model were followed. Besides, the Corps could do such a study in days and eliminate the extensive time delays involved if we mount a major independant study.
There is one place where further study would be beneficial. That would be for each downstream interest to look at what their lower limits really are should the Corps want to reduce flows to less than 3600cfs on a temporary basis for some future level management situation. But as a taxpayer I don't see the need for government to fund such studies. The paper plants and nuclear power plants could fund such work from their normal operating expenses. And the cities downstream and environmental interests could also fund their own studies to give them a basis for comment should lower flows be proposed. Regardless, the current 3600cfs year round should make for satisfactory operation until further information and future needs are evaluated.
In short in my opinion we are ready now to adopt a new drought plan that initiates reduced flows as soon as the lakes drop 2ft rather than using the current drought plan trigger levels. And 3600cfs should suffice until further study can be done. We do not need a government study to initiate such a change. We simply need leadership from the Corps. Everyone will readily accept such a proposal if the Corps puts their knowledge and influence behind it. I believe we have an excellent leader in Col. Kertis and I am hopeful that he will continue to show excellent leadership qualities and make this happen. If he does he will be following the lead of many other excellent leaders who simply "do the right thing".
There is one place where further study would be beneficial. That would be for each downstream interest to look at what their lower limits really are should the Corps want to reduce flows to less than 3600cfs on a temporary basis for some future level management situation. But as a taxpayer I don't see the need for government to fund such studies. The paper plants and nuclear power plants could fund such work from their normal operating expenses. And the cities downstream and environmental interests could also fund their own studies to give them a basis for comment should lower flows be proposed. Regardless, the current 3600cfs year round should make for satisfactory operation until further information and future needs are evaluated.
In short in my opinion we are ready now to adopt a new drought plan that initiates reduced flows as soon as the lakes drop 2ft rather than using the current drought plan trigger levels. And 3600cfs should suffice until further study can be done. We do not need a government study to initiate such a change. We simply need leadership from the Corps. Everyone will readily accept such a proposal if the Corps puts their knowledge and influence behind it. I believe we have an excellent leader in Col. Kertis and I am hopeful that he will continue to show excellent leadership qualities and make this happen. If he does he will be following the lead of many other excellent leaders who simply "do the right thing".
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
LAKE'S RISING BUT PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE UNLESS DROUGHT PLAN IS REVISED IMMEDIATELY
Lake Thurmond is 5.5ft from normal fill and more rain is on the way so we are looking good from the stand point of mother Nature. But unless we change the drought plan immediately we will be right back into a major problem before the summer is over. We need for interested congressional leaders, our two state Governors, the Corps of Engineers, the NOAA, downstream water users, and lake interests to come together and formulate a new drought plan before it is too late. The plan should provide for keeping the lakes full by matching releases with the average rainfall coming in each year and the lakes should never be allowed to drop more than 2ft before initiating the drought plan so that we don't lose control of the levels. The plan should also provide for studies to determine real release limits based on both the needs and flexibilities of downstream users and environmental concerns. We should never again be put in a position of possibly destroying the lakes during a drought because of not knowing actual river flow rate parameters.
What is at stake is not just the lake becoming unsightly. We are talking serious consequences both upstream and downstream. Most people do not realize that the river is as threatened as the lake when the lake drops to the levels of the past drought. Once the lake drops below 312' river flows will no longer be predictable. Instead of downstream users being able to count on the 3600cfs used in drought control, river flows could easily drop to levels of 500cfs which would be disastrous to downstream users.
Up stream the real losses experienced so far of billions of dollars in property values and business interests are peanuts compared to the losses that will be experienced if we lose confidence in the lake remaining full. Recreation interests will disappear and find other places to go. The lure as an attractive place as a lake residence and retirement community will be gone along with all the people living in the area for these reasons. And businesses connected with the lake will be gone forever.
So far as fish and wild life, whether endangered or otherwise, they would experience drastic and possibly life threatening changes in both the Savannah River and the lakes. To allow this now that we are back to full lakes and know how to avoid it should be taken as a direct violation of all environmental protection laws directed at protecting fish and wildlife in the Savannah River Basin. The NOAA for one should demand that such measures be adopted before the lakes can return to the drought deprived condition of the past few years.
What is at stake is not just the lake becoming unsightly. We are talking serious consequences both upstream and downstream. Most people do not realize that the river is as threatened as the lake when the lake drops to the levels of the past drought. Once the lake drops below 312' river flows will no longer be predictable. Instead of downstream users being able to count on the 3600cfs used in drought control, river flows could easily drop to levels of 500cfs which would be disastrous to downstream users.
Up stream the real losses experienced so far of billions of dollars in property values and business interests are peanuts compared to the losses that will be experienced if we lose confidence in the lake remaining full. Recreation interests will disappear and find other places to go. The lure as an attractive place as a lake residence and retirement community will be gone along with all the people living in the area for these reasons. And businesses connected with the lake will be gone forever.
So far as fish and wild life, whether endangered or otherwise, they would experience drastic and possibly life threatening changes in both the Savannah River and the lakes. To allow this now that we are back to full lakes and know how to avoid it should be taken as a direct violation of all environmental protection laws directed at protecting fish and wildlife in the Savannah River Basin. The NOAA for one should demand that such measures be adopted before the lakes can return to the drought deprived condition of the past few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)