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.

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.

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.

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 OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

Save Our Lakes Now has a different outlook on managing Lake Thurmond than the corps and many other groups. So that our arguments can be better understood I am comparing our thinking to theirs. You can then choose which approach you agree with the most. You each have friends that are not on our mailing list that will agree with our views. Please let them know we are here for them.

Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.

The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.

I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.

We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.

Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.

Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.

As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON IDEAL DROUGHT PLAN

The previous post presented our proposal for the ideal drought management plan. Basically the plan is to maintain a constant level on Lake Thurmond until rain inputs cause the release rate to drop below 3600cfs. At this point hold release rates at 3600 cfs until rain fall permits operation at full pool with a release rate in excess of 3600 cfs.

Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.

2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.

Drought Management Plan for Lake Thurmond

For the purposes of this post I am presenting my idea of the ideal drought plan for Lake Thurmond . Treating the operation of the dam as a standard engineering problem it really is quite simple.

1) Keep lake levels at full pool to within a few tenths of a foot as long as there is enough rain to do so. This capability has been demonstrated by years of balancing Lake Hartwell vs Lake Thurmond.

2) When release rates drop to 3600cfs allow the lake level to fall until rainfall permits maintaining a full pool again.

3) As part of maintaining lake levels as close to full pool as possible river flows following a rain event should be monitored to allow dropping below 3600cfs when possible.

The philosophy behind this plan is that all parameters the Corps is charged with for the Savannah River Basin can be maintained as long as there is plenty of water in the lake to give acceptable river flows. In the past lake levels have been permitted to drop with low rain fall. The trigger points for reducing releases from Lake Thurmond Dam were too low and the release rates called for allowed the lake to continue dropping too long. Had the drought of 2008 continued a little longer we could have lost the whole basin. This is simply unacceptable.

The biggest objections I have run into to date with this proposal is whether 3600cfs is adequate for downstream needs. I picked this figure for the following reasons:

1) no downstream stakeholders had any problems from a 3600cfs release rate that continued for over 12 consecutive. That being true why not use 3600 unless some problem rears its head or until more detailed studies can be completed.

2) the industrial release limits along the Savannah River are based on 3600cfs.

3) 3600 appears to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon.

4) detailed analyses of oxygen demand along the Savannah since 1977 show that reducing releases to 3600 in 2008 had no deleterious affect on oxygen level at Clyo which means no effect on the harbor either.

Downstream stakeholders will probably interpret this plan as selfish interests by lake stakeholders. In reality though this is the only way to protect downstream interests from being devastated should lake levels drop so low that adequate river flows can no longer be maintained. Looking at the parameters the Corps has been charged with (flood control, hydro power, navigation, recreation, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, economics) this is the only way to meet all these. With the current drought plan recreation and economics are destroyed quickly in a drought. All the other parameters are lost if you ever reach the bottom of the conservation pool.

Some will argue that hydropower is lost but SEPA has repeatedly assured us and the Corps that they want the lakes to be as full as possible. From their perspective they can reduce power production and spread the burden on others without any major problems. What would devaste SEPA would be lake levels so low they can no longer produce power.

This plan will work equally well if we decide some higher release rate has to be maintained. Simply insert that release rate into the equation and the rest remains unchanged.