SAVE OUR LAKES NOW PROTEST MARCH ANNOUNCEMENT
Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.
Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.
For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.
The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
It has suddenly become popular to demand lower release rates from the Corps. All the people who thought Save Our Lakes Now was being too demanding a year back when we pleaded for lower release rates now suddenly are pleading for the corps to cut back. But it is too late now. The level you see in the lake now comes from what happened over the past year not what you did last month and certainly not from what you do now. The rule of thumb is the lake will change 1 ft in a years time for each 100cfs change in release rates. We pleaded with the Corps and all Lake interests to drop flows to 3600 about a year ago. Even did a spot on Channel 6 News. Some even criticized us for this saying we were being too argumentative. Had the Corps dropped to 3600 when we asked the lake would be full now.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.
Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.
We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
WHY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW IS UPSET WITH THE WAY OUR LAKES ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)