We have entered into a serious drought situation and Lake Thurmond level is dropping like a rock. The Corps is sending mixed signals on how they plan to manage Lake Thurmond release rates. At first it appeared that they were modifying the old drought plan by going to 3800 cfs releases from Lake Thurmond. Now it looks like the Corps has reverted back to the old drought plan because they have increased releases from Lake Thurmond to 4200 cfs.
There are problems with the old drought plan both upstream and downstream of Thurmond Dam. Upstream it will cause serious economic losses in just a few months time. For example during the last drought the marinas located near McCormick, SC and Lincolnton, GA were suffering monetary losses in excess of 30% and real estate values around the Savannah River Basin Lakes were virtually destroyed. Downstream it could destroy the ability to control river flows in a few years time. At the end of the last drought we were within 2' of losing control over river flows.
All stakeholders around the lakes are on the verge of significant economic losses. You may want to let the Corps know your concerns now before lake levels get totally out of hand the way they have in the past several droughts.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
THE CORPS IS DOING IT AGAIN
The Corps of Engineers shows again that they have no intention of maintaining lake levels and release rates at values that satisfy all stake holders in the Savannah River Basin. We have demonstrated repeatedly that release rates of 3600 cfs from Lake Thurmond is adequate for downstream stakeholders especially when it is for a short term. We have also demonstrated that the economics of uspstream stakeholders can be protected by decreasing releases from Lake Thurmond to 3600 cfs anytime the lake is 2' below full pool. Regardless the Corps is using releases of about twice that level with Lake Hartwell 2' below full pool and Lake Thurmond approaching 3' below full pool.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Summation of What We've Learned About Controlling Lake Levels During a Drought
I thought it would be beneficial to put what we've learned in one place so anyone trying to catch up to date will have one site where they can get the facts quickly. Our findings are based on Corps of Engineers data during one of the worst droughts of record and the comments solicited by the Corps from all lake and downstream stakeholders as the drought progressed. This information was gathered during the drought of 2008 with releases from Thurmond held to 3,600 cfs for the full 12 months of that year.
First and most important the data show that the average rainfall over a 12month period of time during the droughts of worst record is 3,600cfs. Because of this release rates from Thurmond of 3600cfs will keep the lake in balance over the course of a year. Lake Thurmond will drop in level during the dry months but return to full pool during the periods of higher rainfall. If we had started the year with the lake at 328ft the minimum level would have been in excess of 322ft and the economic disaster to lake interests would have been avoided. Not only would this benefit lake interest economics but avoiding drastic drops in lake level protects against losing predictable river flows. Based on this we have requested that the Corps modify the drought plan as follows:
o To minimize the overall drop in lake level during times of drought initiate a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake drops below 328'.
o Maintain the 3600cfs flow rate until the lake returns to full pool (330').
o During the cooler weather months of October through March, we recommend a release rate of 3100cfs to further minimize level fluctuations.
Second we learned that there are additional knobs that can be turned during a drought to further minimize level fluctuations.
o Flow and stream level information is available to the dam operators. If stream flows to the river were used as the criteria on what releases are needed from the dam there were many times in 2008 when dam releases could have been throttled below 3600cfs without any harm downstream.
o Environmental interests currently require a minimum flow across the rapids at Augusta and this flow is the difference between what is released from the dam and what flows through the Augusta Canal. Hence lower flows through the Augusta Canal would permit lower release rates at the dam anytime the rapids are the pinch point in flow needed.
If these findings would be incorporated into the Corps' drought management plan we could eliminate future economic disasters like those that have occured repeatedly since 1985 during Savannah River Basin droughts. The Corps states that they are not responsible for economics but this is in direct contradiction to 1993 court decisions arising from major droughts along the Missouri River. Furthermore the recommended changes to the drought plan offer as much benefit to downstream interests as they do to lake interests. At one point in the drought of 2008 we almost lost the ability to manage release rates. We came close to reaching levels where the drought plan calls for releases equal to what is coming in from rain. Such release rates could be as low as 500cfs which would be very destructive downstream of Thurmond Dam.
Further improvements beyond those from our recommendations above could come from developing models of the Savannah River Basin which predict lake levels, river flows, etc. from all the variables mother nature can throw at us. I understand that such a model may already exist. One study that would be illuminating would be to look at what happens if you keep Lake Hartwell full at times of drought. At first glance this looks bad because Thurmond levels would drop faster due to less input. But it may well be that more rapid refilling of Thurmond when rains occur could offset this negative.
What is desperately needed is input to the Corps' on drought management from lake interests. Comments such as "we can't factor in economics" should no longer be tolerated. At present the Corps has no legitimate representation of lake interests in their decision making meetings. They quote what the NOAA, DNR, DHEC etc. want but they do not incorporate inputs from lake interests such as Save Our Lakes Now which is a 501c3 non profit organization representing Lake Thurmond interests or the Lake Hartwell Association which represents Lake Hartwell interests. What would also be excellent is to incorporate the model of the Savannah Basin assuming it exists into decision making. Excuses such as we need more study are out of line. Throwing money at a problem that can already be solved is not what we need.
First and most important the data show that the average rainfall over a 12month period of time during the droughts of worst record is 3,600cfs. Because of this release rates from Thurmond of 3600cfs will keep the lake in balance over the course of a year. Lake Thurmond will drop in level during the dry months but return to full pool during the periods of higher rainfall. If we had started the year with the lake at 328ft the minimum level would have been in excess of 322ft and the economic disaster to lake interests would have been avoided. Not only would this benefit lake interest economics but avoiding drastic drops in lake level protects against losing predictable river flows. Based on this we have requested that the Corps modify the drought plan as follows:
o To minimize the overall drop in lake level during times of drought initiate a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake drops below 328'.
o Maintain the 3600cfs flow rate until the lake returns to full pool (330').
o During the cooler weather months of October through March, we recommend a release rate of 3100cfs to further minimize level fluctuations.
Second we learned that there are additional knobs that can be turned during a drought to further minimize level fluctuations.
o Flow and stream level information is available to the dam operators. If stream flows to the river were used as the criteria on what releases are needed from the dam there were many times in 2008 when dam releases could have been throttled below 3600cfs without any harm downstream.
o Environmental interests currently require a minimum flow across the rapids at Augusta and this flow is the difference between what is released from the dam and what flows through the Augusta Canal. Hence lower flows through the Augusta Canal would permit lower release rates at the dam anytime the rapids are the pinch point in flow needed.
If these findings would be incorporated into the Corps' drought management plan we could eliminate future economic disasters like those that have occured repeatedly since 1985 during Savannah River Basin droughts. The Corps states that they are not responsible for economics but this is in direct contradiction to 1993 court decisions arising from major droughts along the Missouri River. Furthermore the recommended changes to the drought plan offer as much benefit to downstream interests as they do to lake interests. At one point in the drought of 2008 we almost lost the ability to manage release rates. We came close to reaching levels where the drought plan calls for releases equal to what is coming in from rain. Such release rates could be as low as 500cfs which would be very destructive downstream of Thurmond Dam.
Further improvements beyond those from our recommendations above could come from developing models of the Savannah River Basin which predict lake levels, river flows, etc. from all the variables mother nature can throw at us. I understand that such a model may already exist. One study that would be illuminating would be to look at what happens if you keep Lake Hartwell full at times of drought. At first glance this looks bad because Thurmond levels would drop faster due to less input. But it may well be that more rapid refilling of Thurmond when rains occur could offset this negative.
What is desperately needed is input to the Corps' on drought management from lake interests. Comments such as "we can't factor in economics" should no longer be tolerated. At present the Corps has no legitimate representation of lake interests in their decision making meetings. They quote what the NOAA, DNR, DHEC etc. want but they do not incorporate inputs from lake interests such as Save Our Lakes Now which is a 501c3 non profit organization representing Lake Thurmond interests or the Lake Hartwell Association which represents Lake Hartwell interests. What would also be excellent is to incorporate the model of the Savannah Basin assuming it exists into decision making. Excuses such as we need more study are out of line. Throwing money at a problem that can already be solved is not what we need.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
UPCOMING ELECTIONS PRESENT AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO GET LAKE PROBLEMS CORRECTED
From now until November we have an excellent opportunity to find out which politicians will help in our plight with gaining control over our lakes. All of us who suffered the consequences of the Corps' mismanagement of the Savannah River Basin should insist that each candidate express their views on this subject.
As the author of this blog I offer this blog site as a way to communicate their views on the lakes to the public. And I feel sure the various lake organizations such as Save Our Lakes Now and the Lake Hartwell Association would be happy to offer their sources of communication to political candidates who would like to make their views known.
In my opinion we need to vote out of office all incumbents who have not helped us in the past. We also need to make every effort to find and promote candidates who share our views. And most importantly we need to look for candidates who will not be afraid to enter the fray and help us get control over what the Corps does with our lakes.
As the author of this blog I offer this blog site as a way to communicate their views on the lakes to the public. And I feel sure the various lake organizations such as Save Our Lakes Now and the Lake Hartwell Association would be happy to offer their sources of communication to political candidates who would like to make their views known.
In my opinion we need to vote out of office all incumbents who have not helped us in the past. We also need to make every effort to find and promote candidates who share our views. And most importantly we need to look for candidates who will not be afraid to enter the fray and help us get control over what the Corps does with our lakes.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
FINALLY A GLIMMER OF HOPE FOR MANAGING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN PROPERLY
Finally there is a glimmer of hope for forcing the Corps to manage the Savannah River Basin properly. SC DHEC and DNR are in the process of putting together a formal body of Savannah River Basin Stakeholders. This body should give stakeholders a voice that the Corps has to respond to. At present we can shout and holler all we want but unless the Corps wants to listen they can simply ignore what we say. At the formation meeting for this group it was refreshing to hear SC DNR ackowledge that the problems with lake level are not the amount of water coming into the basin but rather mismanagement of that water.
I've been following the drought problems on the Savannah River Basin for years. Looking at the droughts of the past 20 years it has become evident that there is plenty of water in the Savannah even during a drought to supply all stakeholders both upstream and downstream of Lake Thurmond. It has become equally evident that the drastic drops in lake level during the droughts is due to mismanagement by the Corps and totally uneccesary from the stand point of meeting any real downstream needs. Not only does mismanagement by the Corps cause havoc to the economics of lake communities but it also puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing control of river flows.
Unfortunately the Corps adamantly refuses to acknowledge these facts. Furthermore they insist that economics and recreation can not be factored into their decisions on lake level management. We pointed out that the Corps was forced to consider economics and recreation in a Federal Court decision in 1993. This was done in emails in early December. To date the corps has refused to even discuss the matter.
In a nutshell our problem is lack of cooperation from the Corps. The problem is solved from the standpoint of coming up with a procedure that would work. But the Corps has tucked their head in a shell like a turtle and stubbornly refuses to even discuss the matter.
I've been following the drought problems on the Savannah River Basin for years. Looking at the droughts of the past 20 years it has become evident that there is plenty of water in the Savannah even during a drought to supply all stakeholders both upstream and downstream of Lake Thurmond. It has become equally evident that the drastic drops in lake level during the droughts is due to mismanagement by the Corps and totally uneccesary from the stand point of meeting any real downstream needs. Not only does mismanagement by the Corps cause havoc to the economics of lake communities but it also puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing control of river flows.
Unfortunately the Corps adamantly refuses to acknowledge these facts. Furthermore they insist that economics and recreation can not be factored into their decisions on lake level management. We pointed out that the Corps was forced to consider economics and recreation in a Federal Court decision in 1993. This was done in emails in early December. To date the corps has refused to even discuss the matter.
In a nutshell our problem is lack of cooperation from the Corps. The problem is solved from the standpoint of coming up with a procedure that would work. But the Corps has tucked their head in a shell like a turtle and stubbornly refuses to even discuss the matter.
Monday, December 21, 2009
SANTA MAY LEAVE GENERAL SEMONITE A LUMP OF COAL
General Semonite gave an excellent impression when he spoke to the Lake Hartwell Association in Anderson a month back. Everything he said and the way in which he handled himself with the audience indicated he was going to be great to work with and responsive to our needs. Hopeful that we will be able to communicate with the General on Drought Control for the Savannah River Basin we sent an email to him on December 13th about a very important policy matter. To date we have not received a reply. If this is an indication of the kind of cooperation we can expect from the Corps for the future we will have to ask Santa to set aside a lump of coal for the General.
A copy of our email to the general follows:
To: General Semonite
From: Save Our Lakes Now
At the Anderson meeting with the Lake Hartwell Association you stated that local economics was not a legitimate basis for managing the lakes because it was not one of the responsibilities specified by congress. This is in direct conflct with a precedent set by the Corps in '93 during a law suit over their control of Missouri lakes in a major drought. I have attached a copy of the GAO testimony given to the Senate on this subject that year. The pertinent testimony is highlighted in yellow.
Unless there is something we are missing here, this would add tremendous weight to our recommendation that Lake Thurmond releases be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lake is below 328'. Our recommendations are justifiable from simply keeping the lakes full enough to avoid endangering downstream needs. But increasing economic considerations to the same level as flood control, etc. mandates a plan such as ours to avoid dropping the lakes more than 8 ft in a major drought. Local economics are devastated anytime the lakes drop more than this.
With this email we renew our request for an immediate correction to the drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin to reflect the new knowledge gathered in the last drought. Namely the knowledge referred to is 1) that the average rain input during the worst droughts of record is 3600cfs, 2) that release rates of 3600cfs did not present any major problems for downstream stakeholders over a period in excess of 12 consecutive months and 3) that lake levels would not drop more than 8' during the worst drought on record if our plan were followed.
A copy of our email to the general follows:
To: General Semonite
From: Save Our Lakes Now
At the Anderson meeting with the Lake Hartwell Association you stated that local economics was not a legitimate basis for managing the lakes because it was not one of the responsibilities specified by congress. This is in direct conflct with a precedent set by the Corps in '93 during a law suit over their control of Missouri lakes in a major drought. I have attached a copy of the GAO testimony given to the Senate on this subject that year. The pertinent testimony is highlighted in yellow.
Unless there is something we are missing here, this would add tremendous weight to our recommendation that Lake Thurmond releases be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lake is below 328'. Our recommendations are justifiable from simply keeping the lakes full enough to avoid endangering downstream needs. But increasing economic considerations to the same level as flood control, etc. mandates a plan such as ours to avoid dropping the lakes more than 8 ft in a major drought. Local economics are devastated anytime the lakes drop more than this.
With this email we renew our request for an immediate correction to the drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin to reflect the new knowledge gathered in the last drought. Namely the knowledge referred to is 1) that the average rain input during the worst droughts of record is 3600cfs, 2) that release rates of 3600cfs did not present any major problems for downstream stakeholders over a period in excess of 12 consecutive months and 3) that lake levels would not drop more than 8' during the worst drought on record if our plan were followed.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
ANALYSIS OF CORPS ANSWER ON MANAGING LAKE THURMOND
FOLLOWING IS A LETTER FROM THE CORPS ANSWERING ONE OF OUR PEOPLE ABOUT OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGING THE DROUGHT PLAN. IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE. FOLLOWING THIS LETTER I OFFER MY ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE ARE NOT CONNECTING WITH THE CORPS. MY ANSWER IS NUMBERED. THE NUMBER FOR EACH COMMENT CORRESPONDS TO THE RESPECTIVE PARAGRAPH IN THE CORPS RESPONSE.
"It's my job to manage the entire Savannah River Basin as one system. The
decisions I make with my water managers affect Hartwell, Thurmond, Augusta,
the Savannah River Site, Plant Vogtle, and many others who depend on the
river for their livelihood and well being. The city of Savannah gets 50% of
it's drinking water from the river, as do a number of municipalities
downstream. I don't take this responsibility lightly nor do I make decisions
without careful consideration, consultation, and analysis.
The reservoir has multiple purposes: flood damage reduction; hydropower
generation; water supply for residents/commercial uses throughout the basin;
water quality for environmental stewardship throughout the basin; and
recreation throughout the basin: the lakes were not built solely for lake
residents.
I suspect that when you moved here someone probably gave you the expectation
that the lake is always full. That is not the case. Even in non-drought
years, lake levels are designed to fluctuate as much as four feet. This can
be a huge inconvenience to someone who has a dock in a shallow water cove. I
receive lots of complaints from home buyers who were told the lake is always
full. I cannot control what home sellers say.
Cities, businesses, and utilities draw from the reservoirs and the river to
provide drinking water and support industry-which in turn creates jobs. The
states oversee and permit withdraws from the water system. We do not. I talk
regularly with SC and GA resource agencies on water management in order to
gauge needs of upstream and downstream users. In addition to GA and SC, the
reduction in water leaving the reservoirs requires the concurrence of the
federal resource agencies who are also charged with enforcing numerous
federal laws related to water.
The real answer to our issues is rain, and while I control many aspects of
water management, rain is beyond my control. As you know, right now rain
continues to raise reservoir levels.
I understand that many people would like the Corps to operate its reservoir
projects differently; I receive many requests to have the reservoirs full
all
the time. But as I explained, I have procedures to protect both people and
the environment. I think it's interesting that I also receive many e-mails
thanking me for how we managed the lakes during the drought. You didn't
mention it, but you do realize that for almost two years we reduced releases
BELOW what was specified in the drought plan, solely to the benefit of lake
users. I also ordered the dams shut off for a total of 80 days to save
water.
The groups that encourage these blanket e-mails somehow forgot to mention
that.
Also, we announced last week that we would be keeping Thurmond at 2' below
seasonal full pool when we do the repairs. The folks who send out these
e-mails to you somehow forgot to mention that as well. I cannot control what
they say, but I can answer your questions any time you have them. We put at
much info on our web site as is humanly possible, and I'd encourage you to
refer to it any time you need an update."
Thanks,
COL Edward J. Kertis
Commander, Savannah District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
912-652-5226
1&2) WE ALL AGREE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS. OUR PROPOSALS ALSO CONSIDER ALL STAKEHOLDERS WHETHER THEY ARE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES. WHERE WE WOULD DIFFER WITH THE COPRS IS THEY SEEM TO BE INFERRING THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING EVERYONE WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
3) WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARAGRAPH. FIRST THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO FLUCTUATE IN LEVEL IS MISLEADING. THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO HOLD WATER. HOW THE LEVEL FLUCTUATES IS UP TO THE WAY THE CORPS BALANCES LAKE OUTPUT (RELEASES) WITH INPUT (WATER FROM RAINFALL). THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE SUGGESTING THE CORPS BE MORE SENSIBLE WITH THE WAY THEY BALANCE OUTPUT WITH INPUT. WITH THE CURRENT DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE LAKES WOULD HAVE DROPPED BELOW THE POINT WHERE PREDICTABLE FLOWS COULD BE MAITAINED. THEY HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DROUGHT PLAN AND STILL ALMOST LOST CONTROL OF THE LAKES. WITH OUR PROPOSAL OUTPUT AND INPUT WOULD BE BALANCED AND THE SWING IN LAKE LEVEL DURING THE WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD WOULD BE LESS THAN 10' RATHER THAN THE 16' EXPERIENCED WITH THE CORPS PLAN AND THE LAKE WOULD BE WITHIN 2' OF FULL POOL MOST OF THE TIME.
A SECOND PROBLEM WITH THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE CORPS IS BASICALLY ACCUSING LOCAL REAL ESTATE PEOPLE OF LYING ABOUT LAKE LEVEL. IT IS UNDERSTANDIBLE THAT REAL ESTATE SALESMEN WOULD NOT WANT TO TELL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS HOW FOOLISHLY THE CORPS IS MANAGING LAKE LEVEL. I WOULD THINK THE CORPS WOULD APPRECIATE THIS. THE MAIN IDEA HERE IS IF THE COPRS WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES EVERYONE, BOTH UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM, WOULD BE BETTER OFF. AND THE PROBLEMS WITH DOCKS ETC. MENTIONED IN THE CORPS LETTER WOULD BE KEPT TO AN ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM.
4)WE AGREE THAT ALL THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND WE SUBMIT THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS A BETTER BALANCE FOR ALL CONCERNED THAN THE CURRENT DROUGHT PROTECTION PLAN IN USE BY THE CORPS.
5)THE AMOUNT OF RAIN IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE WAY THE RAIN INPUT IS MANAGED IS.
6)THIS PARAGRAPH IS VERY MISLEADING. FIRST OFF THEY DID NOT REDUCE FLOWS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LAKE RESIDENTS. THEY REDUCED FLOWS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PREDICTABLE FLOWS FOR THE RIVER. WE HAVE GIVEN CREDIT TO THE CORPS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO HELP AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THESE EFFORTS. THEY SIMPLY DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE AS WITNESSED BY THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMIES OF LAKE COMMUNITIES. THE CORPS SHOULD REALIZE WE CAN NOT THANK THEM FOR DESTROYING OUR LAKES AND OUR ECONOMIES WHEN THEY ARE REFUSING TO MAKE CHANGES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE.
7)THIS PARAGRAPH DEMEANS US AND IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. THE ONLY REASON THE CORPS IS FINALLY BACKING OFF TO ONLY A 2' DROP FOR REPAIRS IS OUR INSISTENCE THAT THEY DO SO. IF WE HAD NOT SENT ALL THE LETTERS AND EMAILS REQUESTING THIS THEY WOULD HAVE DROPPED LAKE THURMOND 4' FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.
I hope this is received in the way it is intended. We are not in a techincal or engineering problem with managing the lakes. We are being done in by political problems that can be solved once the Corps decides to listen.
"It's my job to manage the entire Savannah River Basin as one system. The
decisions I make with my water managers affect Hartwell, Thurmond, Augusta,
the Savannah River Site, Plant Vogtle, and many others who depend on the
river for their livelihood and well being. The city of Savannah gets 50% of
it's drinking water from the river, as do a number of municipalities
downstream. I don't take this responsibility lightly nor do I make decisions
without careful consideration, consultation, and analysis.
The reservoir has multiple purposes: flood damage reduction; hydropower
generation; water supply for residents/commercial uses throughout the basin;
water quality for environmental stewardship throughout the basin; and
recreation throughout the basin: the lakes were not built solely for lake
residents.
I suspect that when you moved here someone probably gave you the expectation
that the lake is always full. That is not the case. Even in non-drought
years, lake levels are designed to fluctuate as much as four feet. This can
be a huge inconvenience to someone who has a dock in a shallow water cove. I
receive lots of complaints from home buyers who were told the lake is always
full. I cannot control what home sellers say.
Cities, businesses, and utilities draw from the reservoirs and the river to
provide drinking water and support industry-which in turn creates jobs. The
states oversee and permit withdraws from the water system. We do not. I talk
regularly with SC and GA resource agencies on water management in order to
gauge needs of upstream and downstream users. In addition to GA and SC, the
reduction in water leaving the reservoirs requires the concurrence of the
federal resource agencies who are also charged with enforcing numerous
federal laws related to water.
The real answer to our issues is rain, and while I control many aspects of
water management, rain is beyond my control. As you know, right now rain
continues to raise reservoir levels.
I understand that many people would like the Corps to operate its reservoir
projects differently; I receive many requests to have the reservoirs full
all
the time. But as I explained, I have procedures to protect both people and
the environment. I think it's interesting that I also receive many e-mails
thanking me for how we managed the lakes during the drought. You didn't
mention it, but you do realize that for almost two years we reduced releases
BELOW what was specified in the drought plan, solely to the benefit of lake
users. I also ordered the dams shut off for a total of 80 days to save
water.
The groups that encourage these blanket e-mails somehow forgot to mention
that.
Also, we announced last week that we would be keeping Thurmond at 2' below
seasonal full pool when we do the repairs. The folks who send out these
e-mails to you somehow forgot to mention that as well. I cannot control what
they say, but I can answer your questions any time you have them. We put at
much info on our web site as is humanly possible, and I'd encourage you to
refer to it any time you need an update."
Thanks,
COL Edward J. Kertis
Commander, Savannah District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
912-652-5226
1&2) WE ALL AGREE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS. OUR PROPOSALS ALSO CONSIDER ALL STAKEHOLDERS WHETHER THEY ARE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES. WHERE WE WOULD DIFFER WITH THE COPRS IS THEY SEEM TO BE INFERRING THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING EVERYONE WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
3) WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARAGRAPH. FIRST THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO FLUCTUATE IN LEVEL IS MISLEADING. THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO HOLD WATER. HOW THE LEVEL FLUCTUATES IS UP TO THE WAY THE CORPS BALANCES LAKE OUTPUT (RELEASES) WITH INPUT (WATER FROM RAINFALL). THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE SUGGESTING THE CORPS BE MORE SENSIBLE WITH THE WAY THEY BALANCE OUTPUT WITH INPUT. WITH THE CURRENT DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE LAKES WOULD HAVE DROPPED BELOW THE POINT WHERE PREDICTABLE FLOWS COULD BE MAITAINED. THEY HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DROUGHT PLAN AND STILL ALMOST LOST CONTROL OF THE LAKES. WITH OUR PROPOSAL OUTPUT AND INPUT WOULD BE BALANCED AND THE SWING IN LAKE LEVEL DURING THE WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD WOULD BE LESS THAN 10' RATHER THAN THE 16' EXPERIENCED WITH THE CORPS PLAN AND THE LAKE WOULD BE WITHIN 2' OF FULL POOL MOST OF THE TIME.
A SECOND PROBLEM WITH THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE CORPS IS BASICALLY ACCUSING LOCAL REAL ESTATE PEOPLE OF LYING ABOUT LAKE LEVEL. IT IS UNDERSTANDIBLE THAT REAL ESTATE SALESMEN WOULD NOT WANT TO TELL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS HOW FOOLISHLY THE CORPS IS MANAGING LAKE LEVEL. I WOULD THINK THE CORPS WOULD APPRECIATE THIS. THE MAIN IDEA HERE IS IF THE COPRS WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES EVERYONE, BOTH UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM, WOULD BE BETTER OFF. AND THE PROBLEMS WITH DOCKS ETC. MENTIONED IN THE CORPS LETTER WOULD BE KEPT TO AN ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM.
4)WE AGREE THAT ALL THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND WE SUBMIT THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS A BETTER BALANCE FOR ALL CONCERNED THAN THE CURRENT DROUGHT PROTECTION PLAN IN USE BY THE CORPS.
5)THE AMOUNT OF RAIN IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE WAY THE RAIN INPUT IS MANAGED IS.
6)THIS PARAGRAPH IS VERY MISLEADING. FIRST OFF THEY DID NOT REDUCE FLOWS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LAKE RESIDENTS. THEY REDUCED FLOWS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PREDICTABLE FLOWS FOR THE RIVER. WE HAVE GIVEN CREDIT TO THE CORPS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO HELP AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THESE EFFORTS. THEY SIMPLY DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE AS WITNESSED BY THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMIES OF LAKE COMMUNITIES. THE CORPS SHOULD REALIZE WE CAN NOT THANK THEM FOR DESTROYING OUR LAKES AND OUR ECONOMIES WHEN THEY ARE REFUSING TO MAKE CHANGES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE.
7)THIS PARAGRAPH DEMEANS US AND IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. THE ONLY REASON THE CORPS IS FINALLY BACKING OFF TO ONLY A 2' DROP FOR REPAIRS IS OUR INSISTENCE THAT THEY DO SO. IF WE HAD NOT SENT ALL THE LETTERS AND EMAILS REQUESTING THIS THEY WOULD HAVE DROPPED LAKE THURMOND 4' FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.
I hope this is received in the way it is intended. We are not in a techincal or engineering problem with managing the lakes. We are being done in by political problems that can be solved once the Corps decides to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)