Several months ago a new commander took control of the Savannah River Basin. That and setting up the Savannah River Basin Advisory Commission (SRBAC) gave hope that we might finally be making progress in the way lake levels are managed during droughts. After years of trying to get the Corps to stop releasing more water than that supplied by nature, two way communication was actually happening. In meetings around the state the Corps acknowledged that they had full latitude to change release rates to match annual input from rain. They even spoke about decreasing releases still further when the river below Thurmond Dam is swollen from rains. Now all of these measures have come to a stop. Now instead of open and honest expression of what needs to change everyone seems to have reverted to a politically correct type position. Whether it is discussions at the SRBAC or talking to the Corps
we are back to the old story of "the corps can't deviate from the written drought plan without a huge amount of study, temporary approvals of everybody, etc. etc.". In other words we have returned to square one and all our "breakthroughs" have been shoved under the table. The timing was coincident with but not necessarilly caused by the ridiculous claims of the Clemson Economic Study claiming the major drought of 2008 had very little impact on the economics of the region.
Claims of a need for further study make no sense. All the flows involved with the recommended changes to the drought plan have been fully tested with no ill effects and as noted above the Corps has even told us that they have full latitude for such a change. At the very least it makes more sense to use a plan that works on a temporary basis until everyone can approve the plan formally. It makes no sense to continue using a plan (even on a temporary basis)that has failed repeatedly and almost caused us to lose the whole basin.
The logic behind the changes we are recommending the Corps use is simple. Hold release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during a drought anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' from full pool. Past modeling of the Savannah River Basin showed that such a measure would keep the lake levels from dropping more than about 6 ft. The timing of starting these release rates is important because the lake can drop 6' from the point where the releases are reduced. Currently the Corps has allowed Lake Thurmond to drop 6 to 7 feet without dropping the release rate to the level recommended. A drop of another 6 ft would put us in the same territory as 2008 when we were down over 15'.
We know from what the Tea Party did that we can get this right if enough people get behind it. Unless something changes quickly we will be seeking the help of all stakeholders around the lakes. When the time comes please help us with emails and phone calls to your congressmen, the Corps, and your representatives on the SRBAC. Also, we only have a limited list to notify of this so when we contact you please make sure to inform everyone you know who has an interest in how our lakes are being run so we can increase our numbers. You should hear further from us in early January as to what we need to do.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
HANDOUT PREPARED FOR SRBAC 12/8 MTG IN BEAUFORT
This handout was prepared for and discussed at the 12/8 meeting of the Savannah River Basin Council in Beaufort, sc on 12/8. It summarizes our feelings on the flawed economic impact study recently done by Clemson University. I think you will find it to be a concise answer to their findings which we feel drew an incorrect conclusion about the impact of droughts on the economy of the lakes of the Savannah River Basin which include Lake Thurmond.
CONCERNS ABOUT CLEMSON ECONOMIC STUDY
1. No one who experienced the devastation to docks and shorelines in 2008 will agree that the economic impact was minor. Neither will those who depend on the lakes for their work such as marina owners, dock builders, lake side developers, etc.
2. It is not surprising that people who live in the 6 county area because of their commute to work or proximity to family suffered no impact from the drought. This is like saying no one in Columbia or Rock Hill were impacted by what happened on Lake Hartwell. The only impact is going to be on people who are in the area because of the lake. So far as I can tell there was no attempt to measure the size of this group or to look at the impact incurred by them. In my opinion the study should have been aimed at lake stakeholders and the impact on them rather than the general population.
3. The study assumes a rapid return to normal lake levels with a corresponding return to normal lake property values, etc. The major economic impact is not short term. Instead the major economic impact is loss of confidence in lake level control long term. People who move to the area because they are attracted to the lakes will stop coming, property values will suffer permanent damage on a large scale, and developments depending on the attraction of the lakes will cease. From a personal perspective I know of huge developments that are now abandoned or put on hold around Lake Thurmond because of lost confidence in lake level control.
If the purpose of the study was to determine how hardy the economy of 6 SC counties was during 2006-8 it was a success. But if the study was to look at the economic impact of low lake levels it failed to measure the variables necessary to draw a conclusion. In order to study the economic impact of low lake levels one needs to first identify the community affected by lake levels, second the impact of short term low lake levels on that community and third and most important the long term impact of low lake levels on that community. I can assure you from just looking at the magnitude of impact from lost real estate values the economic impact is not small.
CONCERNS ABOUT CLEMSON ECONOMIC STUDY
1. No one who experienced the devastation to docks and shorelines in 2008 will agree that the economic impact was minor. Neither will those who depend on the lakes for their work such as marina owners, dock builders, lake side developers, etc.
2. It is not surprising that people who live in the 6 county area because of their commute to work or proximity to family suffered no impact from the drought. This is like saying no one in Columbia or Rock Hill were impacted by what happened on Lake Hartwell. The only impact is going to be on people who are in the area because of the lake. So far as I can tell there was no attempt to measure the size of this group or to look at the impact incurred by them. In my opinion the study should have been aimed at lake stakeholders and the impact on them rather than the general population.
3. The study assumes a rapid return to normal lake levels with a corresponding return to normal lake property values, etc. The major economic impact is not short term. Instead the major economic impact is loss of confidence in lake level control long term. People who move to the area because they are attracted to the lakes will stop coming, property values will suffer permanent damage on a large scale, and developments depending on the attraction of the lakes will cease. From a personal perspective I know of huge developments that are now abandoned or put on hold around Lake Thurmond because of lost confidence in lake level control.
If the purpose of the study was to determine how hardy the economy of 6 SC counties was during 2006-8 it was a success. But if the study was to look at the economic impact of low lake levels it failed to measure the variables necessary to draw a conclusion. In order to study the economic impact of low lake levels one needs to first identify the community affected by lake levels, second the impact of short term low lake levels on that community and third and most important the long term impact of low lake levels on that community. I can assure you from just looking at the magnitude of impact from lost real estate values the economic impact is not small.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
HISTORY OF CORPS MISMANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND
Stakeholders around Lake Thurmond and the other lakes of the Savannah River Basin are being given the short end of the stick by the Corps. In previous droughts while our lake was being destroyed aesthically by drastic drops in level we pleaded with the Corps for a better approach to managing lake levels. I guess we sounded like a bunch of spoiled brats demanding their way. And to a certain extent we were selfishly seeking better level control for our own interests.
The Corps spoke out authoritatively about how they had to live up to certain demands by congress and were helpless to accomadate our requests. It even sounded like they were right because power generation, dissolved oxygen levels, spider lilly extinction, endangering the short nosed sturgeon, etc. etc. all sounded very plausible.
Then we started delving into each of these concerns ourselves to see if anything had been overlooked that might permit better level control. As we did we found out that there is plenty of water to meet all these demands. Rainfall, even during the worst drought on record, was enough to take care of all the Corps concerns if they would simply adjust the amount of water released annually from the dam to the amount that comes down from rain over a years time. We then proposed the Corps do just that and decrease flow from the dam to match annual rainfall rates anytime the lake is down 2 ft. This simple measure would prevent the lake from dropping more than 8 ft from full pool and if they would drop flows a little more during the cold months we could keep the lake from dropping more than 4 or 5 ft. This is where the recommndation for releases of 3,600cfs (3,100 during colder months) anytime the lakes are down more than 2 ft came from.
The Corps has turned a deaf ear to our recommendations. And they have no way to justify their position. None of the reasons for not decreasing flows are justifiable. Rather than manage the level better the Corps has chosen to maintain a river flow higher than that provided by nature. In doing so the Corps is creating an unanatural situation below the dam that could eventually destroy our whole system. If the drought goes on long enough it could mean we are no longer able to provide adequate water for Augusta and other users downstream. So this is not just a selfish concern for our interests.
No where in the stated responsibilities of the Corps is a river flow above that provided from nature justifiable. The original bases for operation of Lake Thurmond were:
1) flood control
2) hydro power
3) navigation
Later the following were added:
4) recreation
5) water quality
6) water supply
7) fish and wildlife
And in 1993 a federal court ruled that the Corps also needs to consider impact on local economics equal to these other concerns.
Maintaining an artificial river flow in excess of what mother nature provides is not required to meet any of these needs. Matter of fact operation at reduced release rates equivalent to the annual rainfall during the worst drought on record was demonstrated to meet all 8 concerns. For example fear of damaging the tiger lilly (a fish and wildlife concern) was in error. It turns out that artificial flows from the dam were damaging the tiger lilly by washing pollen off the stems prematurely and preventing natural propagation. Another example, damaging the short nosed sturgeon was found to be of no concern with the flow rates proposed. Hydro power is actually benefitted by keeping the lakes as full as possible (The South Eastern Power Association was quoted as saying they would rather reduce flows to keep the lake level high than to maintain higher flows and let the lakes drop lower. Water quality and supply are not a problem at the rates we recommended, and so on it goes. What is damaged by maintaining high artificial flows to the river the way the Corps insists is recreation and economics and the whole system is put in jeopardy of failure if the drought persists long enough.
When we discuss these items with the Corps they bring in any number of imagined problems that need to be addressed such as dissolved oxygen content of the water. But when they are proposing a project of their own that might actually drop oxygen contents (such as dredging Savannah Harbor) they simply put in artificial airation to correct the problem. And as for their excuse that they can't make changes without congresses approval, Corps management has repeatedly stated recently that they have full latitude to change flow rates if they so choose.
We are growing very tired of the lack of response from the Corps to our pleas. We need for everyone to get involved by writing the Corps and your congressman to let them know we've had enough. It's time for them to listen and quit throwing our water away to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Corps spoke out authoritatively about how they had to live up to certain demands by congress and were helpless to accomadate our requests. It even sounded like they were right because power generation, dissolved oxygen levels, spider lilly extinction, endangering the short nosed sturgeon, etc. etc. all sounded very plausible.
Then we started delving into each of these concerns ourselves to see if anything had been overlooked that might permit better level control. As we did we found out that there is plenty of water to meet all these demands. Rainfall, even during the worst drought on record, was enough to take care of all the Corps concerns if they would simply adjust the amount of water released annually from the dam to the amount that comes down from rain over a years time. We then proposed the Corps do just that and decrease flow from the dam to match annual rainfall rates anytime the lake is down 2 ft. This simple measure would prevent the lake from dropping more than 8 ft from full pool and if they would drop flows a little more during the cold months we could keep the lake from dropping more than 4 or 5 ft. This is where the recommndation for releases of 3,600cfs (3,100 during colder months) anytime the lakes are down more than 2 ft came from.
The Corps has turned a deaf ear to our recommendations. And they have no way to justify their position. None of the reasons for not decreasing flows are justifiable. Rather than manage the level better the Corps has chosen to maintain a river flow higher than that provided by nature. In doing so the Corps is creating an unanatural situation below the dam that could eventually destroy our whole system. If the drought goes on long enough it could mean we are no longer able to provide adequate water for Augusta and other users downstream. So this is not just a selfish concern for our interests.
No where in the stated responsibilities of the Corps is a river flow above that provided from nature justifiable. The original bases for operation of Lake Thurmond were:
1) flood control
2) hydro power
3) navigation
Later the following were added:
4) recreation
5) water quality
6) water supply
7) fish and wildlife
And in 1993 a federal court ruled that the Corps also needs to consider impact on local economics equal to these other concerns.
Maintaining an artificial river flow in excess of what mother nature provides is not required to meet any of these needs. Matter of fact operation at reduced release rates equivalent to the annual rainfall during the worst drought on record was demonstrated to meet all 8 concerns. For example fear of damaging the tiger lilly (a fish and wildlife concern) was in error. It turns out that artificial flows from the dam were damaging the tiger lilly by washing pollen off the stems prematurely and preventing natural propagation. Another example, damaging the short nosed sturgeon was found to be of no concern with the flow rates proposed. Hydro power is actually benefitted by keeping the lakes as full as possible (The South Eastern Power Association was quoted as saying they would rather reduce flows to keep the lake level high than to maintain higher flows and let the lakes drop lower. Water quality and supply are not a problem at the rates we recommended, and so on it goes. What is damaged by maintaining high artificial flows to the river the way the Corps insists is recreation and economics and the whole system is put in jeopardy of failure if the drought persists long enough.
When we discuss these items with the Corps they bring in any number of imagined problems that need to be addressed such as dissolved oxygen content of the water. But when they are proposing a project of their own that might actually drop oxygen contents (such as dredging Savannah Harbor) they simply put in artificial airation to correct the problem. And as for their excuse that they can't make changes without congresses approval, Corps management has repeatedly stated recently that they have full latitude to change flow rates if they so choose.
We are growing very tired of the lack of response from the Corps to our pleas. We need for everyone to get involved by writing the Corps and your congressman to let them know we've had enough. It's time for them to listen and quit throwing our water away to the Atlantic Ocean.
Monday, November 15, 2010
CORPS RESPONSE IN QUESTION
There are two very disturbing developments with the Corps and Control of Lake Level. First the Corps appears to have signed off on a badly flawed economic study that concluded there was only very minor impact on the economy around Lake Hartwell from the last drought. And second, with the lake dropping like a rock just like it did leading up to the last major drought the Corps is refusing to reduce release rates and close off flows from the dam when the river is swollen from rain. Such measures would help greatly with our lake levels and avoid another approach to armageddon the way we did in 2008. This is after the Corps admitted publicly that they could go to lower release rates and stop unnecesary releases at their discression.
Many leaders from the local business community have become quite concerned as well as the leadership of Save Our Lakes Now and we are reaching out to Corps leadership and our congressman for help. A letter sent today to our congressman in email form is copied below.
COPY OF LETTER SENT VIA EMAIL TO STAFF OF BROUN AND DEMINT:
Please, we need your help. The Corps of Engineers apparently is accepting an accounting report from Clemson University that is badly flawed. The study was done to determine the magnitude of economic harm caused by drastic losses in lake level during the drought of 2008. Instead of looking at economic effects of the drought such as decreased real estate values around the lake, this study looked primarily at total retail occurring in the 6 county area surrounding Lake Hartwell. This proved only that the occupants around the lake did not pack up and leave during the drought. And of course the drought, by destroying property values, made it impossible for property owners around the lake to leave. Instead they stayed and their grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases remained unchanged making it look like there was no effect on the economy.
One major economic impact of lake levels is its effect on both current real estate values for lake properties and future growth from people moving into the area to enjoy the lakes. Another major loss is future developments side tracked because of fear about problems with lake levels. Marina incomes, etc. will be small in comparison. And grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases for the 6 counties around Lake Hartwell is not a valid measure of economic impact of droughts.
We understand that a similar study is in progress for Lake Thurmond. A study of sales in the counties around Lake Thurmond will in no way represent the impact of droughts on this area. Real estate values for homes on the lake (there are over 4,000 properties on the lake shoreline) dropped at least $500million dollars from the drought. This is in addition to the effects of the poor economy nationwide. And there are numerous developments valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot proceed until confidence is restored in lake level control. Matter of fact huge developments that could have had a large impact on the area were cancelled in the past with fear over lake level problems given as the reason.
It is too early to know for sure but all signs point to the Corps becoming non responsive to the needs of stakeholders around the lakes. With the lake dropping rapidly the Corps is refusing to reduce release rates below those called for in the drought plan that destroyed us in 2008. This is after they have admitted they have the lattitude to decrease flows based on the experience gained in the last major drought. We were hopeful initially because they were talking about dropping releases to 3600 and 3100cfs as the weather grew cooler and they were even toying with the idea of closing off flows at the dam when the river below the dam is swollen from rains. But all that seems to have come to a halt and now the Corps is giving its blessings to the flawed economic study mentioned above.
Many leaders from the local business community have become quite concerned as well as the leadership of Save Our Lakes Now and we are reaching out to Corps leadership and our congressman for help. A letter sent today to our congressman in email form is copied below.
COPY OF LETTER SENT VIA EMAIL TO STAFF OF BROUN AND DEMINT:
Please, we need your help. The Corps of Engineers apparently is accepting an accounting report from Clemson University that is badly flawed. The study was done to determine the magnitude of economic harm caused by drastic losses in lake level during the drought of 2008. Instead of looking at economic effects of the drought such as decreased real estate values around the lake, this study looked primarily at total retail occurring in the 6 county area surrounding Lake Hartwell. This proved only that the occupants around the lake did not pack up and leave during the drought. And of course the drought, by destroying property values, made it impossible for property owners around the lake to leave. Instead they stayed and their grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases remained unchanged making it look like there was no effect on the economy.
One major economic impact of lake levels is its effect on both current real estate values for lake properties and future growth from people moving into the area to enjoy the lakes. Another major loss is future developments side tracked because of fear about problems with lake levels. Marina incomes, etc. will be small in comparison. And grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases for the 6 counties around Lake Hartwell is not a valid measure of economic impact of droughts.
We understand that a similar study is in progress for Lake Thurmond. A study of sales in the counties around Lake Thurmond will in no way represent the impact of droughts on this area. Real estate values for homes on the lake (there are over 4,000 properties on the lake shoreline) dropped at least $500million dollars from the drought. This is in addition to the effects of the poor economy nationwide. And there are numerous developments valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot proceed until confidence is restored in lake level control. Matter of fact huge developments that could have had a large impact on the area were cancelled in the past with fear over lake level problems given as the reason.
It is too early to know for sure but all signs point to the Corps becoming non responsive to the needs of stakeholders around the lakes. With the lake dropping rapidly the Corps is refusing to reduce release rates below those called for in the drought plan that destroyed us in 2008. This is after they have admitted they have the lattitude to decrease flows based on the experience gained in the last major drought. We were hopeful initially because they were talking about dropping releases to 3600 and 3100cfs as the weather grew cooler and they were even toying with the idea of closing off flows at the dam when the river below the dam is swollen from rains. But all that seems to have come to a halt and now the Corps is giving its blessings to the flawed economic study mentioned above.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Recent Meetings With New Corps Commander
I had the priviledge of being at meetings with the new Corps Commander on Monday evening at the LHA meeting in Anderson, Tuesday morning at a meeting for stakeholders interested in economics, and again Wednesday morning at a meeting for Marina owners. Colonel Hall brings a refreshing approach to managing the lakes and is making it obvious that he plans to be very proactive in saving as much lake water as possible when we are in drought conditions. He acknowledged repeatedly that everyone benefits when we keep the lakes as full as possible,
While we cannot expect everyone to see everything exactly the same, it was very encouraging to see Colonel Hall consider all stakeholder inputs. It is apparent he does not plan to make decisions based on closed door sessions with just a few special interest groups. The Corps is already using reduced flows from the dams below those called for in the old drought plan and they plan to factor in downstream flows so that we don't release any more water than is ablsolutely necessary (eg. when the river is swolen from rains downstream of the dam they plan to close off releases).
I am very optimistic about the future of our lakes.
While we cannot expect everyone to see everything exactly the same, it was very encouraging to see Colonel Hall consider all stakeholder inputs. It is apparent he does not plan to make decisions based on closed door sessions with just a few special interest groups. The Corps is already using reduced flows from the dams below those called for in the old drought plan and they plan to factor in downstream flows so that we don't release any more water than is ablsolutely necessary (eg. when the river is swolen from rains downstream of the dam they plan to close off releases).
I am very optimistic about the future of our lakes.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
MORE THOUGHTS ON ECONOMICS OF LAKE LEVEL
In my last blog I pointed out numerous examples of how low lake levels have a huge dollar value especially when you look at real estate values. But even larger costs are incurred if you look at the impact on future growth. Analyzing the lake area as a stagnant entity misses the fact that future growth could swamp anything we can see now. For example look at areas like the Massanutten Ski Resort in Virginia. They struggled for years and years before finally attracting vacationers from the Washington DC area. Now the tourism there literally swamps anything imagined 10 years ago. Any impact study has to look at what happens to future growth to give a realistic picture of how lake level variations affect the economy.
An analogy to how low lake levels affect our current local economy would be to look at how an unplanned land fill would affect a real estate development during a poor economy. First the unplanned land fill would cause all the nearby property to drop in value. If the economy is bad at the same time the impact on local sales such as gas station volumes, grocery store sales, etc. would be very small. With a poor economy and decreased land values due to the land fill, the occupants of the community would be caught in a vice and be unable to leave the area. Hence gas sales, grocery sales, etc. would not be affected that much. But if you look at what is lost in terms of future growth of the community it is enormous because no one would want to buy or build in such an undesirable area.
A similar thing is happening right now for the local communities around Thurmond. The poor lake level control we've encountered in recent droughts are just as distasteful as an unplanned land fill would be to a real estate development. As in the example above measurements of current impact will not be major because everyone is hanging on for dear life. If we have another poor level performance we may finally see major impacts because many businesses around the lake can not endure another slow down. But neither of these can compare to the impact on future development. What hotel would seriously consider coming here. And numerous developments that would have a major impact on the area will have a hard time getting started once the economy improves because of the distastfullness of poor level control.
An analogy to how low lake levels affect our current local economy would be to look at how an unplanned land fill would affect a real estate development during a poor economy. First the unplanned land fill would cause all the nearby property to drop in value. If the economy is bad at the same time the impact on local sales such as gas station volumes, grocery store sales, etc. would be very small. With a poor economy and decreased land values due to the land fill, the occupants of the community would be caught in a vice and be unable to leave the area. Hence gas sales, grocery sales, etc. would not be affected that much. But if you look at what is lost in terms of future growth of the community it is enormous because no one would want to buy or build in such an undesirable area.
A similar thing is happening right now for the local communities around Thurmond. The poor lake level control we've encountered in recent droughts are just as distasteful as an unplanned land fill would be to a real estate development. As in the example above measurements of current impact will not be major because everyone is hanging on for dear life. If we have another poor level performance we may finally see major impacts because many businesses around the lake can not endure another slow down. But neither of these can compare to the impact on future development. What hotel would seriously consider coming here. And numerous developments that would have a major impact on the area will have a hard time getting started once the economy improves because of the distastfullness of poor level control.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Anderson Independant Mail Article Alarming
The Anderson Independant Mail Newspaper in Anderson came out with an article on the 13th that basically said droughts have small affect on economies. No one in their right mind could look at the thousands of homes lining Hartwell and Thurmond and think the price small. If the author were to talk to the dock builders that went out of business and marinas that lost BIG and the fishing enthusiasts that had to watch tournaments turned away and the weekenders/vacationers who no longer had use of the lake he would find a lot of people do not agree with any such conclusion. I guess what the people studying the problem are really saying is it did not affect their job or their economy. Sorry we couldn't arrange for them to fully participate in the losses.
I have heard that Duke Power is about to complete a similar study on Lake Thurmond. If so I would question the validity of their study without seeing it because I find they have not even talked with Marina owners. I hope the people responsible for this study realize that their actions will have a direct affect on jobs, tourism, and local economies around the Lakes. As with the findings that are rumored for the Lake Hartwell study I personally have to question anyone who claims that droughts have only a small effect economically. Just looking at real estate, anyone who understands lake shore real estate would agree droughts like the one of 2008 decrease lot values by at least $100,000. There are over 4,000 such lots around Thurmond which by itself represents a loss of almost half a billion dollars. Looking past that and saying the loses are small is down right irresponsible and not appreciated by Lake Stakeholders who personally are suffering such losses.
I have heard that Duke Power is about to complete a similar study on Lake Thurmond. If so I would question the validity of their study without seeing it because I find they have not even talked with Marina owners. I hope the people responsible for this study realize that their actions will have a direct affect on jobs, tourism, and local economies around the Lakes. As with the findings that are rumored for the Lake Hartwell study I personally have to question anyone who claims that droughts have only a small effect economically. Just looking at real estate, anyone who understands lake shore real estate would agree droughts like the one of 2008 decrease lot values by at least $100,000. There are over 4,000 such lots around Thurmond which by itself represents a loss of almost half a billion dollars. Looking past that and saying the loses are small is down right irresponsible and not appreciated by Lake Stakeholders who personally are suffering such losses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)