The Corps of Engineers has come out with a plan for managing the lakes of the Savannah River that would drain all three lakes rather than practice simple conservation measures in a severe drought. As with money if you continue to spend more than you make you will eventually go bankrupt. Managing the water in the lakes is a similar proposition. If you send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain you will eventually run the system dry. Water is one of if not the most valuable resource we have. Without it industries shut down, cities have to be abandoned because of lack of adequate drinking water, crops fail, etc., etc. It is therefore insane to put a plan in motion that would drain our lakes during a time of extreme water shortage leaving us with no water.
The Corps and Save Our Lakes Now agree on the essential variables concerning the flow rates needed in the Savannah River to meet downstream needs. We disagree on how to manage lake levels to maintain these flows. Save Our Lakes Now sees the primary controlling factor to be having enough water in the lakes to maintain the needed river flows. The Corps on the other hand makes no attempt to maintain lake levels until it is too late to prevent destroying recreation and economics of the lake and river flows are in jeopardy. Following the guidelines proposed by Save Our Lakes Now a drought like the one in 2008 would be of little consequence. Thurmond Lake would cycle from full to 8’ down and back to full. Following the guidelines by the Corps Thurmond Lake drops 16’ in a drought like the one in 2008 which destroys the lake from the stand point of recreation and economics and puts control of river flows in jeopardy. Minimum adequate river flows are maintained by both plans provided the drought is not more severe than the one of 2008.
Looking further to the possibility of a drought more severe than 2008 the Corps has acknowledged that their drought plan which stops releasing water from the dams when the lakes hit the bottom of their conservation pool could lead to no longer being able to provide minimum adequate river flows. Recognizing this the Corps has now come up with an insane proposal whereby they would literally drain the lakes. Carried to its extreme this would destroy any possibility of having adequate water for downstream needs.
Save Our Lakes Now proposes simple conservation measures to make sure we never run out of water in the lakes. If we encounter a drought more severe than the one in 2008 we recommend the Corps adjust release rates at the end of each year to match whatever the annual average rainfall is for that year. The dams give the benefit of averaging the drought flows over a full year which avoids the disastrous effects of not being able to control river flows. The Corps proposal risks losing the benefit gained from the dams which would mean total loss of control of both the lakes and the river.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
NEED COMMENTS TO CORPS EA PROPOSAL
The Corps is requesting comments on a new EA to test 3600cfs (3100cfs in winter) release rates from Lake Thurmond. While we applaud the Corps on testing lower release rates for times of drought we disagree with their premiss that these rates be used only after the lake levels have dropped drastically. We feel the lake should be held at full pool until the release rates needed to keep it full drop below 3600cfs(3100cfs in winter). To read the EA go to http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/planning.html
The email address for comments prior to July 14 is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil
Keeping the lakes full except when flows less than this are required means that the river will get exactly the amount of water mother nature provides by rain. Since the drought of record had an annual rainfall rate of 3600cfs this would also mean we would not lose the lakes even in the drought of record regardless of how long the drought lasts. In other words the lakes would remain as full as possible and the river flows would be what mother nature provides without the ravages of severe drought or flooding.
Sending more water downstream than is coming in from rain is like spending more money than you are making. In either case you will eventually bankrupt the system and everyone will suffer.
The email address for comments prior to July 14 is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil
Keeping the lakes full except when flows less than this are required means that the river will get exactly the amount of water mother nature provides by rain. Since the drought of record had an annual rainfall rate of 3600cfs this would also mean we would not lose the lakes even in the drought of record regardless of how long the drought lasts. In other words the lakes would remain as full as possible and the river flows would be what mother nature provides without the ravages of severe drought or flooding.
Sending more water downstream than is coming in from rain is like spending more money than you are making. In either case you will eventually bankrupt the system and everyone will suffer.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY
Save Our Lakes Now has a different outlook on managing Lake Thurmond than the corps and many other groups. So that our arguments can be better understood I am comparing our thinking to theirs. You can then choose which approach you agree with the most. You each have friends that are not on our mailing list that will agree with our views. Please let them know we are here for them.
Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.
The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.
I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.
We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.
Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.
Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.
As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.
Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.
The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.
I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.
We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.
Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.
Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.
As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON IDEAL DROUGHT PLAN
The previous post presented our proposal for the ideal drought management plan. Basically the plan is to maintain a constant level on Lake Thurmond until rain inputs cause the release rate to drop below 3600cfs. At this point hold release rates at 3600 cfs until rain fall permits operation at full pool with a release rate in excess of 3600 cfs.
Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.
2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.
Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.
2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Drought Management Plan for Lake Thurmond
For the purposes of this post I am presenting my idea of the ideal drought plan for Lake Thurmond . Treating the operation of the dam as a standard engineering problem it really is quite simple.
1) Keep lake levels at full pool to within a few tenths of a foot as long as there is enough rain to do so. This capability has been demonstrated by years of balancing Lake Hartwell vs Lake Thurmond.
2) When release rates drop to 3600cfs allow the lake level to fall until rainfall permits maintaining a full pool again.
3) As part of maintaining lake levels as close to full pool as possible river flows following a rain event should be monitored to allow dropping below 3600cfs when possible.
The philosophy behind this plan is that all parameters the Corps is charged with for the Savannah River Basin can be maintained as long as there is plenty of water in the lake to give acceptable river flows. In the past lake levels have been permitted to drop with low rain fall. The trigger points for reducing releases from Lake Thurmond Dam were too low and the release rates called for allowed the lake to continue dropping too long. Had the drought of 2008 continued a little longer we could have lost the whole basin. This is simply unacceptable.
The biggest objections I have run into to date with this proposal is whether 3600cfs is adequate for downstream needs. I picked this figure for the following reasons:
1) no downstream stakeholders had any problems from a 3600cfs release rate that continued for over 12 consecutive. That being true why not use 3600 unless some problem rears its head or until more detailed studies can be completed.
2) the industrial release limits along the Savannah River are based on 3600cfs.
3) 3600 appears to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon.
4) detailed analyses of oxygen demand along the Savannah since 1977 show that reducing releases to 3600 in 2008 had no deleterious affect on oxygen level at Clyo which means no effect on the harbor either.
Downstream stakeholders will probably interpret this plan as selfish interests by lake stakeholders. In reality though this is the only way to protect downstream interests from being devastated should lake levels drop so low that adequate river flows can no longer be maintained. Looking at the parameters the Corps has been charged with (flood control, hydro power, navigation, recreation, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, economics) this is the only way to meet all these. With the current drought plan recreation and economics are destroyed quickly in a drought. All the other parameters are lost if you ever reach the bottom of the conservation pool.
Some will argue that hydropower is lost but SEPA has repeatedly assured us and the Corps that they want the lakes to be as full as possible. From their perspective they can reduce power production and spread the burden on others without any major problems. What would devaste SEPA would be lake levels so low they can no longer produce power.
This plan will work equally well if we decide some higher release rate has to be maintained. Simply insert that release rate into the equation and the rest remains unchanged.
Monday, February 7, 2011
REASONS TO NOT REDUCE THURMOND RELEASES BASED ON DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH
If you've followed my blog for any time you realize we are not making exaggerated claims for better management of Lake Levels at Lake Thurmond. Our basic reasoning is that the Corps can not create water and until they are able to do so lake releases should match lake input from rain or you run the risk of destroying the lake. Our recommendation is to balance input with output by reducing releases to the average annual input that occured in the drought of record in 2008 anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' below full pool. Using this approach reduced flows last only for a minimum amount of time since the lake refills quickly. Furthermore the river flows that occur at this release rate were demonstrated during the drought of 2008 to be acceptable for downstream stakeholders.
Since this meets the needs of both the people downstream and the ones around the lakes and since it avoids the armageddon effects that occur if you drain the lake below the conservation pool, you'd think a reasonable person would agree to our suggestions. Not so with the Corps and government environmental interests.
The Corps talks about percentage of storage that has to be dedicated to different things as if they can create water out of thin air. If you release all the water percentages no longer count. And if you release more water than nature provides from rain this will eventually occur.
Environmental concerns have been grossly exaggerated by both the Corps and government environmental agencies. For example mention has been made that short nosed sturgeon spawning in the Augusta Shoals MIGHT be impacted by low flows. But sturgeon can not reach the shoals because of the lock and dam. Concern has been expressed about needing sufficient flows to keep dissolved oxygen in limits and to push back against Atlantic tidewaters to protect drinking water against salt intake. In talking with representatives of the Savannah Water Department they state neither salt water intrusion nor dissolved oxygen are a problem now or in the past and logic dictates that the Savannah River is helpless in fighting back Atlantic tides. Environmental interests claim there is too little data to know for sure that this fish or that mussel etc. etc. might be impacted. They fail to consider that artificial river flows averaged out to avoid major fluctuations are far superior to what fish and wildlife had to survive when there was no dam. Still other imaginary concerns voiced by some environmentalists have been lack of high flows affecting sturgeon in the river and the tiger lilly in the shoals. Studies in 2004 indicate that cold water temperatures from high flows drive sturgeon away and recent studies by Augusta University show high flows are destructive to the tiger lilly in the Shoals.
Many demands by environmental groups show a total lack of logic. Claims have been made for much higher flows to benefit waste dilution and/or fish and wildlife. Wanting more water does not make it magically appear. Somehow we've got to get across that you only have so much water based on how much nature provides. If you release more to the ocean than you get from nature you will destroy the whole system and all the fish and wildlife and other environmental concerns along with it. The concern by environmetal groups that we are somehow hoarding the water for use in the lakes is unfounded. We send every drop mother nature provides downstream. We don't keep a single drop.
Since this meets the needs of both the people downstream and the ones around the lakes and since it avoids the armageddon effects that occur if you drain the lake below the conservation pool, you'd think a reasonable person would agree to our suggestions. Not so with the Corps and government environmental interests.
The Corps talks about percentage of storage that has to be dedicated to different things as if they can create water out of thin air. If you release all the water percentages no longer count. And if you release more water than nature provides from rain this will eventually occur.
Environmental concerns have been grossly exaggerated by both the Corps and government environmental agencies. For example mention has been made that short nosed sturgeon spawning in the Augusta Shoals MIGHT be impacted by low flows. But sturgeon can not reach the shoals because of the lock and dam. Concern has been expressed about needing sufficient flows to keep dissolved oxygen in limits and to push back against Atlantic tidewaters to protect drinking water against salt intake. In talking with representatives of the Savannah Water Department they state neither salt water intrusion nor dissolved oxygen are a problem now or in the past and logic dictates that the Savannah River is helpless in fighting back Atlantic tides. Environmental interests claim there is too little data to know for sure that this fish or that mussel etc. etc. might be impacted. They fail to consider that artificial river flows averaged out to avoid major fluctuations are far superior to what fish and wildlife had to survive when there was no dam. Still other imaginary concerns voiced by some environmentalists have been lack of high flows affecting sturgeon in the river and the tiger lilly in the shoals. Studies in 2004 indicate that cold water temperatures from high flows drive sturgeon away and recent studies by Augusta University show high flows are destructive to the tiger lilly in the Shoals.
Many demands by environmental groups show a total lack of logic. Claims have been made for much higher flows to benefit waste dilution and/or fish and wildlife. Wanting more water does not make it magically appear. Somehow we've got to get across that you only have so much water based on how much nature provides. If you release more to the ocean than you get from nature you will destroy the whole system and all the fish and wildlife and other environmental concerns along with it. The concern by environmetal groups that we are somehow hoarding the water for use in the lakes is unfounded. We send every drop mother nature provides downstream. We don't keep a single drop.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
TIME FOR ACTION HAS COME
The Corps has made it clear that they do not intend to get away from the current drought plan which has almost destroyed the Savannah River Basin several times. Basically the problem is they bankrupt the system by "spending" more water than nature provides during a drought. We've asked the Corps by who's authority they are sending more water to the ocean than is provided by mother nature. We've not gotten a response. We feel certain there is no such authorization.
If you look at the five lakes other than the Savannah River Basin in this drought footprint, they are all within 2ft of full pool. Our lakes are down over 6ft. Even Lake Lanier is within 2ft of full. Hence the drought is not the reason our lakes are low. Rather it is the Corps' management of water releases from Thurmond Dam.
If you talk to the Corps they will explain that the sturgeon need so much water, the city of Augusta needs so much, there is dissolved oxygen to consider, etc. etc. What they fail to mention is that these needs can only be met as long as we have lakes with water in them. If we exhaust these lakes none of these needs can be met. What they also fail to mention is that we ran a 14 month test in which releases were held to that coming in from rain and everyone's needs downstream were met including the sturgeon.
We also learned recently that the Corps has a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell first, then Thurmond, etc.) if a drought lasts long enough to make it impossible to make the releases specified in their current plan. It makes a lot more sense to match the rain fall over a years time and never come to such an Armageddon type situation.
A new advisory council was set up recently for input to the SC DNR and DHEC by a representative group of stakeholders that represent all Savannah River Basin interests from the mountains to the sea. I have submitted a request to this group to consider the current drought plan at their next meeting and formulate a recommendation on how the current drought plan should be modified.
In view of what a few people in the Tea Party were able to accomplish in the last election, we can get this changed. If the newly formed SRBAC can not help we can simply raise our voices until we are heard. You will be hearing more on this in the near future.
If you look at the five lakes other than the Savannah River Basin in this drought footprint, they are all within 2ft of full pool. Our lakes are down over 6ft. Even Lake Lanier is within 2ft of full. Hence the drought is not the reason our lakes are low. Rather it is the Corps' management of water releases from Thurmond Dam.
If you talk to the Corps they will explain that the sturgeon need so much water, the city of Augusta needs so much, there is dissolved oxygen to consider, etc. etc. What they fail to mention is that these needs can only be met as long as we have lakes with water in them. If we exhaust these lakes none of these needs can be met. What they also fail to mention is that we ran a 14 month test in which releases were held to that coming in from rain and everyone's needs downstream were met including the sturgeon.
We also learned recently that the Corps has a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell first, then Thurmond, etc.) if a drought lasts long enough to make it impossible to make the releases specified in their current plan. It makes a lot more sense to match the rain fall over a years time and never come to such an Armageddon type situation.
A new advisory council was set up recently for input to the SC DNR and DHEC by a representative group of stakeholders that represent all Savannah River Basin interests from the mountains to the sea. I have submitted a request to this group to consider the current drought plan at their next meeting and formulate a recommendation on how the current drought plan should be modified.
In view of what a few people in the Tea Party were able to accomplish in the last election, we can get this changed. If the newly formed SRBAC can not help we can simply raise our voices until we are heard. You will be hearing more on this in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)