RESPONSE TO COL HALL'S VIDEO ON BTB

Col Hall has a very good stage presence.  In his recent video on balancing the basin he appears very level headed, calm, and intelligent in the reasoning he offers about how the Corps manages the Savannah River Basin.  However we feel that the logic presented is flawed. Some of the challenges we have with his logic are:

1.       You don’t have to wait to reduce flows.  Common sense based on past history says unless you reduce flows immediately you run a high risk of destroying recreation (huge infrastructure—not someone having trouble with a fishing hole). 

2.       The reduction needed is not some hypothetical value pulled out of thin air by environmentalists.  Instead you have to match mother nature’s inputs or here again you run a high risk of destroying recreation.

3.       Downstream interests will not suffer any more from reducing flows immediately on losing 2ft of lake level.  The flows that balance what nature is providing have been shown time and time again to suffice for downstream needs.  Besides, the number of hours river flows have to be reduced is actually shorter if you go immediately to minimum flows.

4.       Downstream has as much to lose as upstream if you destroy the lakes.  In other words releasing more than nature is providing runs a real risk of destroying the lakes and the ability to control river flows.

Its unfortunate that we need to share our comments in this manner.  It is not that we have no respect for Col. Hall and his offce.  We would much prefer to discuss these thoughts at the meetings where release rates are decided.  But Recreation interests like Save Our Lakes Now are not invited to these meetings leaving us little other choice if we are to make our views known.

ANSWER TO LAST BALANCING THE BASIN ARTICLE FROM CORPS

I hate to be crude but this article misses the point completely.  Until we learn how to make water out of thin air the only control that makes sense is to limit outflows to inflows so you do not destroy the system that both upstream and downstream want.  For example, let’s say to do all the things this author wants takes 20,000cfs out of Thurmond dam.  We can all see that won’t work because the lakes would run dry in no time.  Why can’t these guys see that you have to live within the confines of what nature is providing.

 

Selfish upstream interests would call for keeping the dams totally full and just let what comes in from rain each day overflow.  Following this approach the river would sometimes have flows of only 500cfs during droughts.  Basically the river would revert to the way it was before the dams were built.

 

Selfish downstream interests would call for 10,000 cfs or so regardless of lake levels.  Following this approach the river would eventually drop to 500cfs in a drought because we would no longer have any lakes to feed the system.

 

Unselfish, logical interests look at the fact that either of the above approaches destroy the system.  Following this approach you limit releases to what comes in from rain but you average this over a year so as to avoid the ravages of drought while keeping the system intact.  Save Our Lakes Now recommendation of 3600cfs (3100 in the winter) anytime the lakes drop 2’ from full summer pool levels is just such an approach.

 

Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

BALANCING THE BASIN IS MISLEADING TITLE

 

The Corps of Engineers now has a blog of its own entitled “Balancing the Basin”.  The title is very misleading because in reality the Corps is not balancing our basin.  True balance would mean balance between all the various responsibilities the Corps is assigned by Congress and balance between lake interests and river interests.  The Corps claims the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now to use 3600cfs (3100 in winter) release rate anytime the lakes drop more than 2 ft is out of balance in favor of lake interests and unfair to river interests.  In reality it is the Corps’ drought plan that is out of balance, not the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now.

If Save Our Lakes Now wanted to have the Savannah River System run in favor of lake interests we would simply ask the Corps to let the lakes overflow as rainfall occurs.  This would allow river flows to return to their natural state prior to building the dams.  From the way the Corps describes our proposal you would think we are selfishly trying to keep the lakes full without any regard for what is happening in the river.  In reality our proposal balances lake and river interests while theirs is totally out of balance.  By releasing only 3600cfs when the lakes are 2’ or more below full pool we avoid the severe droughts along the river that occur when you match daily rainfall.  Additionally you keep the lakes at reasonable levels because you are matching releases with annual rainfall.  This approach is much like balancing your budget.  You don’t have to balance income with expenses daily but if you spend more over the span of a year than you make you are on the road to bankruptcy just as the Corps is on the road to destroying the beautiful Savannah River Basin .

In the latest issue of “Balancing the Basin” the corps mentions that fishermen sometimes are unable to fish In some oxbows of the river because of low river levels.  I can only assume they are trying to claim recreation below the dams is destroyed by too low a release rate.  When Save Our Lakes Now mentions recreation being destroyed on the lakes we are not talking about a fisherman not being able to reach a given fishing spot.  We are talking about the huge infrastructure for recreation that is about to be bankrupted.  Already parks are closing, real estate purchases by people wanting to be at the lake for recreation have been destroyed, and people are leaving our lakes in favor of more stable lakes elsewhere.

The next time you see something from the Corps explaining how Congress has tied their hands because of various responsibilities try one further test as to whether they are really balancing things.  They will give double talk about all kinds of environmental concerns (double talk because the concerns are all maybe, might, sky is falling type concerns) look for any concern about recreation which is one of the responsibilities Congress has given the Corps relative to our lakes.  Unlike the maybe and might concerns of environmental issues the fact that the recreational infrastructure for our lakes is being destroyed is real: TOO REAL.

The next time the Corps mentions balancing the basin I hope you will think twice about what they are really saying.  And the next time the Corps points to the proposals of Save Our Lakes Now as being totally unbalanced I hope you will understand that that claim is simply not true.