To the average bystander the whole deal with the Corps, the drought, and low lake levels is confusing. After all we are in a drought; why shouldn't the lake be low. Besides doesn't the Corps have a lot of things to worry about in a drought other than lake levels.
But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.
Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.
Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.
The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Further Studies are not the Answer to Our Drought Plan
I feel like the horseman who rode off in all directions at the same time. I have several problems with the proposal to do further studies before modifying the Corps drought Plan for the Savannah River Basin. We are headed in the wrong direction by doing a new study. Our problem is not data. Our problem is the logic behind what we are trying to do.
First the drought plan is an egineering problem; not a scientific study. Traditionally scientists are always looking for more and more data to get a "perfect" understanding of a problem and they spend endless amounts of time and money chasing the what ifs and maybes. Engineers on the other hand take the information at hand and make the best solution possible with that information until further improvement becomes possible from experience. We are taking the what if and maybe questions put forth by NOAA and other scientific institutions and doing endless studies in an effort to answer all the questions before making any changes to the Drought Plan. We should be looking at what we already know and making the best solutions now possible provided they are safe from an environmental standpoint. We can then modify and correct and make further changes as they are warranted.
Second, looking at the information already at hand we can make safe changes from an environmental stand point while correcting the unwarranted destruction to our lakes that keeps recuring with droughts. The Corps keeps overlooking the fact that we are already far safer than the environment experienced for thousands of years before the dams were built. From an environmental standpoint the dams not only protect against flooding but they also give a guaranteed artificial flow in the river that is well above what the river used to experience during droughts. From the standpoint of impacts on water quality and water supply operation at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months showed these were not a problem.
Third, every argument used by the Corps to stop a change to 3600cfs from Thurmond when the lakes start down has proved to be inconsequential. Dissolved oxygen is one and not only is the dissolved oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor not affected by dropping to 3600cfs but it is controlled almost exclusively by the huge inflows of ocean water from tidal action. A release rate of 3600cfs has also been shown to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon who survived thousands of years at much lower flows. Even Hydro Power is not a justifiable argument. The only benefit from continuing power production beyond the flows provided from rainfall is economic. And the economics of power costs is dwarfed by the economic losses of dropping lake levels more than 6-8'.
Finally, recreation which is one of the 7 responsibilities of the Corps in managing our lakes is being destroyed repeatedly by the current drought plan. Based on the drought of record, a reduction to 3600cfs at Thurmond when the lakes begin to fall would protect recreation and not harm the other 6 responsibilities.
In summary no study will give us enough information to answer all the maybes and what ifs that now trump logic in establishing a good drought plan. If we use an engineering approach (after all it is the US Army Corps of ENGINEERS) we already have enough information to vastly improve on the drought plan. And speaking as an engineer to all the scientists reading this, if there are scientific questions needing answer then instrument the river, etc. to get those answers after we change the plan. We can further improve on the plan as we get more experience using the recommended plan of 3600cfs any time the lake levels fall unexpectedly.
First the drought plan is an egineering problem; not a scientific study. Traditionally scientists are always looking for more and more data to get a "perfect" understanding of a problem and they spend endless amounts of time and money chasing the what ifs and maybes. Engineers on the other hand take the information at hand and make the best solution possible with that information until further improvement becomes possible from experience. We are taking the what if and maybe questions put forth by NOAA and other scientific institutions and doing endless studies in an effort to answer all the questions before making any changes to the Drought Plan. We should be looking at what we already know and making the best solutions now possible provided they are safe from an environmental standpoint. We can then modify and correct and make further changes as they are warranted.
Second, looking at the information already at hand we can make safe changes from an environmental stand point while correcting the unwarranted destruction to our lakes that keeps recuring with droughts. The Corps keeps overlooking the fact that we are already far safer than the environment experienced for thousands of years before the dams were built. From an environmental standpoint the dams not only protect against flooding but they also give a guaranteed artificial flow in the river that is well above what the river used to experience during droughts. From the standpoint of impacts on water quality and water supply operation at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months showed these were not a problem.
Third, every argument used by the Corps to stop a change to 3600cfs from Thurmond when the lakes start down has proved to be inconsequential. Dissolved oxygen is one and not only is the dissolved oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor not affected by dropping to 3600cfs but it is controlled almost exclusively by the huge inflows of ocean water from tidal action. A release rate of 3600cfs has also been shown to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon who survived thousands of years at much lower flows. Even Hydro Power is not a justifiable argument. The only benefit from continuing power production beyond the flows provided from rainfall is economic. And the economics of power costs is dwarfed by the economic losses of dropping lake levels more than 6-8'.
Finally, recreation which is one of the 7 responsibilities of the Corps in managing our lakes is being destroyed repeatedly by the current drought plan. Based on the drought of record, a reduction to 3600cfs at Thurmond when the lakes begin to fall would protect recreation and not harm the other 6 responsibilities.
In summary no study will give us enough information to answer all the maybes and what ifs that now trump logic in establishing a good drought plan. If we use an engineering approach (after all it is the US Army Corps of ENGINEERS) we already have enough information to vastly improve on the drought plan. And speaking as an engineer to all the scientists reading this, if there are scientific questions needing answer then instrument the river, etc. to get those answers after we change the plan. We can further improve on the plan as we get more experience using the recommended plan of 3600cfs any time the lake levels fall unexpectedly.
Monday, August 29, 2011
SURPRISE SURPRISE, CORPS PLAN NOT WORKING AGAIN
What we've been saying for some time is now obvious. The "management plan" in use by the US Army Corps of Engineers does not work and has not for many years now. There is a saying that accurately explains our situation. THE HEIGHT OF INSANITY IS TO CONTINUE DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXPECTING THE RESULTS TO CHANGE. If you have any input to the Corps please see if you can get them to listen to reason because our best efforts to get them to heed our warnings have failed up to now.
The Corps has failed to live up to one of the 7 responsibilities they have in managing Lake Thurmond. Once the lake drops 6' recreation is badly damaged. What is so disconcerting is that the Corps could have dropped release rates to 3600cfs back when the lake level started falling and we would be at full pool. The only responsibility that would be impacted by such a change is power production but this is more than offset by avoiding damage to the economy around the lake. The Corps insists that economics is not one of their responsibilities but such a claim is ludicrous. First the only defense for holding power production at the expense of lake level is the economics of buying more expensive power elsewhere. But if you compare the savings in power costs to the economic losses around the lake, increased power cost is dwarfed by eonomic losses. In other words it is my opinion that the responsibility concerning power production is strictly an economic one which defeats the Corps claim of no responsibility in that arena. There are other arguments why power production should not be put ahead of recreation and economic concerns:
Thurmond is a peaking power source. As such it is much better to have a full lake when high demand hits than to have the lake at a greatly reduced level and be unable to provide peaking power.
Hydro power is desirable because it is a renewable energy source. But if you are releasing more water to produce power than is coming to the basin from rain it is no longer a renewable energy source.
In summary if the Corps would make a simple change to their drought plan all the problems we repeatedly experience from severe droughts could be avoided and all responsibilities the Corps has would be met without any problems except for possible temporary reductions of power production. These temporary reductions in power reduction would cost far less than the economic damages done around Lake Thurmond with the current drought plan.
Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now
The Corps has failed to live up to one of the 7 responsibilities they have in managing Lake Thurmond. Once the lake drops 6' recreation is badly damaged. What is so disconcerting is that the Corps could have dropped release rates to 3600cfs back when the lake level started falling and we would be at full pool. The only responsibility that would be impacted by such a change is power production but this is more than offset by avoiding damage to the economy around the lake. The Corps insists that economics is not one of their responsibilities but such a claim is ludicrous. First the only defense for holding power production at the expense of lake level is the economics of buying more expensive power elsewhere. But if you compare the savings in power costs to the economic losses around the lake, increased power cost is dwarfed by eonomic losses. In other words it is my opinion that the responsibility concerning power production is strictly an economic one which defeats the Corps claim of no responsibility in that arena. There are other arguments why power production should not be put ahead of recreation and economic concerns:
Thurmond is a peaking power source. As such it is much better to have a full lake when high demand hits than to have the lake at a greatly reduced level and be unable to provide peaking power.
Hydro power is desirable because it is a renewable energy source. But if you are releasing more water to produce power than is coming to the basin from rain it is no longer a renewable energy source.
In summary if the Corps would make a simple change to their drought plan all the problems we repeatedly experience from severe droughts could be avoided and all responsibilities the Corps has would be met without any problems except for possible temporary reductions of power production. These temporary reductions in power reduction would cost far less than the economic damages done around Lake Thurmond with the current drought plan.
Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now
Monday, August 22, 2011
CORPS NEEDS MATH LESSON
Since July of 2010 the Corps has released an average of 5038 cfs from Lake Thurmond. During this same period Save Our Lakes Now has pleaded with the Corps to use a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake is below 328'. Most people do not realize but the difference between 5000cfs and 3600cfs over a years time is 14' of elevation. In other words all the Corps had to do was use 3600cfs intermittently over the past year and our lake would still be full.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Corps Claims "Just Following Orders"
The whole Savannah River Basin is in jeopardy and we have answers on how to correct this situation but the Corps is hiding behind the excuse that they do not make policy. As we all know "just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for acts that bring about destruction. We need congressional help or public exposure to get the Corps to listen to reason.
We have presented plans numerous times that prevent the destruction of recreation and economics when the lakes drop too low while at the same time protecting downstream interests by providing river flows that have been demonstrated to be acceptable. Rather than explore this approach the Corps spent huge amounts of time and money to develop a way to literally drain the lakes which would totally devastate the areas upstream of the dams.
Several things show the current approach in use by the Corps is not ligical:
1.rather than balance water releases with what is supplied by rain the Corps follows a release plan that bankrupts the system during droughts and runs the risk of destroying the whole Savannah River System
2.they literally throw fresh water to the ocean during severe droughts when fresh water becomes precious. .
3.they call hydropower a renewable power source but it is renewable only if you limit the water used to that which is supplied by rain.
4.they ignore demonstrated destruction of recreation and economics upstream of the dam in favor of possible imagined problems downstream.
Right now today the Corps is allowing the lakes to drop drastically and the levels will soon be destructive to recreation and economics. We have pleaded with them to drop release rates to 3600cfs which is acceptable downstream but they are holding them at 4200cfs. In a years time 4200 cfs puts Thurmond 6' lower than it would be at 3600cfs. The area went through a massive drought in 2008 which destroyed the economics of the region. This drought could be even more destructive because of its proximity to the one of 2008.
We have presented plans numerous times that prevent the destruction of recreation and economics when the lakes drop too low while at the same time protecting downstream interests by providing river flows that have been demonstrated to be acceptable. Rather than explore this approach the Corps spent huge amounts of time and money to develop a way to literally drain the lakes which would totally devastate the areas upstream of the dams.
Several things show the current approach in use by the Corps is not ligical:
1.rather than balance water releases with what is supplied by rain the Corps follows a release plan that bankrupts the system during droughts and runs the risk of destroying the whole Savannah River System
2.they literally throw fresh water to the ocean during severe droughts when fresh water becomes precious. .
3.they call hydropower a renewable power source but it is renewable only if you limit the water used to that which is supplied by rain.
4.they ignore demonstrated destruction of recreation and economics upstream of the dam in favor of possible imagined problems downstream.
Right now today the Corps is allowing the lakes to drop drastically and the levels will soon be destructive to recreation and economics. We have pleaded with them to drop release rates to 3600cfs which is acceptable downstream but they are holding them at 4200cfs. In a years time 4200 cfs puts Thurmond 6' lower than it would be at 3600cfs. The area went through a massive drought in 2008 which destroyed the economics of the region. This drought could be even more destructive because of its proximity to the one of 2008.
Monday, July 18, 2011
CORPS SHOWS INSANE PLAN TO LITERALLY DESTROY OUR LAKES
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)