Where we are on Lake Thurmond and Hartwell Levels: How we got here and How we can avoid in the future

It's been sometime since we discussed the essential elements of avoiding low lake levels in Lake Hartwell and Lake Thurmond. A lot of you have been with us from the start but there are many who are just now getting into the fray and there is a good bit of confusion over why we are seeing these huge drops in lake level. The purpose of this blog posting is to go back over the basic elements of the problem and how it can be improved.

First, many at Lake Hartwell wonder why all they hear about is release rates from Lake Thurmond. They naturally wonder why we aren't concerned about release rates from Lake Hartwell. The reason for this is that both Hartwell and Thurmond are kept in balance such that Hartwell drops 1ft for every 1ft drop in Thurmond. The only difference between Thurmond and Hartwell is that Thurmond is where the water is ultimately released and the release rates at Thurmond control the levels for both lakes.

Going back to basics, the thinking that the dams along the Savannah River do nothing but cause problems for people downstream is incorrect. Just the opposite is true. The dams in the Savannah River Basin actually have made major improvements for the river downstream of Lake Thurmond. First the dams prevent the destructive flooding that used to occur during periods of heavy rain. Second the dams have completely eliminated the severe droughts that used to occur in the river during times of drought. Before the dams were constructed river flows as low as 500cfs could occur in a severe drought. Now the river never experiences flows of less than 3600cfs even in the droughts of record.

Continuing with basics, the average amount of rain that comes into the basin upstream of Lake Thurmond during droughts of record is 3,600cfs. And the basis for pollution release limits along the river is 3,600cfs releases from Thurmond Dam. And during the drought of record in 2008 the releases from Lake Thurmond were held at 3600cfs for over 18 consecutive months with no reports of problems from downstream stakeholders. Hence Save Our Lakes Now and other lake stakeholder groups have recommended that the Corps drop immediately to a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft below full pool. Following this approach we should not experience drops of 16ft and more like we did in previous droughts of record. The Corps now is using a release rate of 3800cfs which sounds similar but the problem is they started way later than when the lakes were down 2ft and 3800cfs vs 3600cfs results in an additional 2ft drop each year.

In the past numerous excuses and or reasons have been used to justify refusal to go to 3600cfs at the start of a drought. Investigation into each one revealed that these reasons were not founded on good science. For the sake of brevity I will hold off on going into each and every one but let me give the example of power generation and oxygen levels in the harbor. Initially the Corps claimed their power contracts with SEPA prevented them curtailing releases to the rates we were recommending. Save Our Lake Now discussed this with officials from SEPA and discovered that they prefer the lakes be kept as full as possible because they depend on us for peaking power rather than long term total watts generated. The worst thing that could happen for them is to need peaking power and the lakes be so low it can not be provided. Failure to meet planned power totals are easily made up by rebalancing power from the other 7 lakes in our grid. And so far as dissolved oxygen in the harbor, fears that lowered releases from Thurmond might decrease already poor oxygen levels in the harbor are unfounded. The tide from the Atlantic Ocean is so much larger than our river flows that the oxygen levels in the harbor are determined by the ocean rather than our release rates.

Let me summarize what we would like the Corps to do. Following these recommendations we should never reach the levels we are at now regardless of how long a drought lasts. We ask that they respond to any unexplained drop of 2ft in lake levels with an immediate drop in release rates from Thurmond dam to 3600cfs. Further we recommend that during the winter months when that rate can be reduced further without detriment that the release rates be dropped to 3100cfs. And finally, when the river is swollen from heavy rains during periods of severe drought that releases from Thurmond Dam be reduced to zero as long as the river remains swollen.

Responses to incorrect thinking:
Wrong- lake stake holders are just selfish and want more than their share of the water.

Right- the Corps is sending more water downstream during a drought than nature is providing by rain hence river stake holders are receiving more than their fair share of the water.

Wrong- dropping release rates to 3600cfs too soon would result in people downstream suffering unecessarily.

Right- if release rates are dropped to 3600cfs because of a 2ft drop and we are not really in a drought the lakes will refill quickly and normal releases resumed.

Wrong- dropping release rates to 3600cfs is inconsiderate of environmental protection

Right- if the dams were kept full at all times the environment would experience exactly the same river flows it did before constructing the dams. 3600cfs already is a huge benefit to environmental protection by preventing the river from ever experiencing severe droughts again.

Wrong- flows in excess of 3600cfs should be used to keep the river as healthy as possible

Right- since we can not make water out of thin air, flows greater than we are receiving from rain could easily destroy the system. By averaging the rainfall over a years time we are already providing maximum possible benefits to the river.

Save Our Lakes Now Position on New Drought EA

The Corps of Engineers has issued an EA for comment concerning the drought control plan for Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. The new proposal represents a definite improvement over the past drought plan but falls well short of the drought plan proposed by Save Our Lakes Now and other lake groups over a year ago. Comments are requested prior to May 12th and we recommend all stakeholders around the lakes send in their personal comments. The way the Corps' proposal compares to the one proposed by Save Our Lakes Now and other lake groups over a year ago is summarized below.

Save Our Lakes Now proposed that release rates from Lake Thurmond be reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake levels drop 2ft below full pool. The basis for the 3600cfs figure is two fold. First it matches the annual rate of rainfall during the droughts of record which means the lakes would be able to withstand the drought of record regardless of how long it may go on. Second it matches the release rates demonstrated to be acceptable to all stakeholders downstream of Thurmond Dam during the drought of 2008.

The New Corps proposal waits until the lakes are down 4ft before starting reduced flows the same as in the past. The Corps proposal then decreases release rates 200cfs (compared to the current drought plan) at each trigger level. The different trigger levels are 4' below full pool, 6' below full pool and 14' below full pool. These rates, while a step in the right direction, only increase the resulting lake level 2ft in a year above the current drought plan (each 100 cfs in release rate represents 1ft of lake level in a year). For example we would have ended up in 2008 at 316' instead of 314'. While this is a definite improvement it is not nearly as good as holding the total drop to 8' the way our proposal does and it leaves us open to the possibility of totally destroying the lakes if the drought goes on longer than in 2008.

Additionally the EA proposes further reductions November through January of 200 cfs at trigger level 2 and 500 cfs at trigger level 3. The proposals from lake groups included a 500cfs drop below the 3600cfs release rate during winter months. So again while the Corps proposal is in the right direction it is not as good as what was proposed by the lake groups over a year ago.

One additonal proposal Save Our Lakes Now recommends for drought control is to completely stop releases from Thurmond dam anytime the river below the dams is swollen from rains during a drought.

The actual Corps publication on the proposed EA is at http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/reports.html .
Comments can be submitted via e-mail to:
CESAS-PD@usace.army.mil

The official comments from Save Our Lakes Now will be as follows:
We have reviewed the proposals in the draft EA on the Savannah River Basin Drought Plan and we see it as a definite improvement over the current drought plan. However we feel a more agressive approach should be used to maintain lake levels. We continue to recommend that the release rates from Thurmond Dam be reduced to 3600cfs whenever Lake Thurmond is below 328' until the lake refills. And we further recommend releases be reduced to 3100cfs during winter months anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. Furthermore we recommend releases from Thurmond Dam be completely stopped during a drought anytime the river is swollen from rains so as to maximize the rate the lakes regain normal levels.

NEW EA ON DROUGHT CONTROL COMING OUT

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL WAS SENT BY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW TO OUR CONGRESSIONAL AND GUBERNATORIAL CONTACTS CONCERNING THE UPCOMING EA BY THE CORPS ON IMPROVEMENTS TO DROUGHT CONTROL

As you are aware the Corps of Engineers is planning an EA on improving the drought plan for Lakes Hartwell and Thurmond. One thing everyone seems to have lost sight of is there is a direct relation between release rates and how low the lakes will go. Some say 4,000cfs at a certain trigger point, others say different rates but these figures represent political compromises rather than sound engineering decisions.

There are two very important numbers to keep in mind when looking at release rates:
The amount of water entering the Savannah River System in the drought of record was 3600cfs averaged over a full year and we seem to be hitting around that figure in all the droughts we are experiencing in the past few years
Every 100cfs change in release rate represents 1ft of lake level over a years time.
Basically every 100cfs above 3600 during a drought will cost us 1ft in lake level once we are in a drought. Hence going to 4,000cfs instead of 3600 means the lake will be 4 ft lower at the end of a year than it would be if we used 3600cfs once a drought starts.

We hope the Corps will use sound engineering principals instead of political compromises between the various agencies to control our lakes. We have talked with the various agencies including wildlife and fisheries and they all have assured us their imput is simply advisory and the real decision on flows rests with the Corps.

WORD OF THANKS DUE OUR CONGRESSMEN

I was looking at congressman Paul Broun's website and discovered that he and congressman Jeff Duncan are helping with our plight on lake levels. We've talked with them in the past and they are very aware of the need for better lake level control. It was excellent to see them actively getting involved. The details on their visit to Lake Hartwell on April 4 are presented in the following web site;
http://broun.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=288932

Please let both of them know we appreciate their involvement and their help. The more our plight is visible to the public and the more we have help from congress and other public officials the quicker it will be solved. The Save Our Lakes Now website www.saveourlakesnow.com gives details on how to contact them or you can go to their respective web sites via googling their names and their sites will provide ways to contact each congressman.

Finally Real Progress

Finally there is a crack in the wall that has prevented the Corps from Cooperating with us on better control of lake levels. In the next month or two the Corps will issue an EA permitting them to change the drought control plan as drought conditions warrant. For years we have pleaded for such a change based on experience in actual drought conditions but for years the Corps has insisted they could not do that. They continually claimed they needed a phase 2 study before they could make such a change.

There should be a request for public comments when this EA is announced. Please send in your comments when they are called for. We will publish email and mailing addresses as soon as the request for comments goes out.

The main thing needed is a change in basis for release rates away from what everyone wishes for downstream to what Nature makes available in rain. In other words the Corps needs to acknowledge that neither us nor the Corps can create water and if we use more than rain provides we are destroying our lakes. Save Our Lakes Now proposal for several years has been to drop release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during the drought of record anytime the lakes drop 2ft from full pool. This rate is 3600cfs. If the drought is short lived the lakes will refill quickly and releases can be returned to normal. But if the drought is like the one of record in 2008 the lakes could fluctuate on the order of 8ft but the drop should not be catastrophic like the one in 2008. The tendency of the Corps in the past has been too timid to drop to 3600 cfs. Instead they use 4,000 or 3800 cfs. These sound like a nice compromise until you realize that each 100cfs equals one foot of level in a years time. So 4,000 cfs leads to 4ft more drop than 3600 cfs over the period of one year. In our opinion they should be looking at ways to go even below 3600 when possible such as 3100 cfs during winter months and complete stoppage of releases when the river below Thurmond dam is swollen from heavy rains.


One other concern Save Our Lakes Now has is the blind faith the Corps seems to have in studies. Either innocently or intentionally they listen to unrealistic claims of groups who have a negative bias against maintaining reasonable release rates. We recommend that the Corps allow groups such as Save Our Lakes Now who strongly support recreational concerns to be involved in interpreting studies to determine optimum release rates.

STUDIES NOT NEEDED TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN

For what seems like an eternity we have been led to believe that a phase 2 study is needed before the drought plan can be changed. Sounds very similar to the thinking that just trashed the oil pipeline from Canada. What is needed instead is strong logical leadership that provides good balance between all the different responsibilities the Corps has regarding the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin. The problem with a study is how it is interpreted. As with the oil pipeline, studies were not the answer. Logic or lack thereof led to the decisions that were made for the pipeline.

Logic for the Lakes says it is foolish to try to send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain. This is true since neither the Corps nor any of the rest of us can create water. Mother nature has 100% control over how much water is available. Once that is recognized the rest becomes a simple decision on what period of time you want to balance releases with rainfall. Day to day balancing would mean the lakes remain totally full and whatever comes in from rain daily is sent downstream. Annual balancing means looking at how much water comes in over a years time and matching it.

Selfish desire to keep the lakes totally full with no consideration for the folks downstream would go with the first option and keep the lakes totally full. To a certain extent this could be justified since the river would behave exactly the way it has since time began and experience droughts and floods as a natural event. On the other hand balancing the lakes on an annual basis is much fairer to downstream interests. This approach totally eliminates both drought and flooding in the sense of what the river used to experience.

These facts are all that is needed to come to a logical decision on how to manage the lakes. Desire on the part of anyone downstream for more water is like asking for more money than you have in the bank. It simply will not work. Besides destroying the lake by releasing more water than is available destroys power production, recreation, and eventually water quality, water supply, and all the other issues the Corps is responsible for.

Studies have a place. But it is not in the decision process for drought control. Rather they are great to decipher what different rainfall conditions do to the system. For example saying that you want more water held in the lakes than comes down from rain would lead to horrendous flooding upstream of the dams. Studies of what the impact is on the environment around the lakes is not needed to tell us that such a plan will not work. The same is true in balancing flows based on what is happening downstream.

STATUS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW EFFORTS

When trying to fight city hall you often feel nothing will ever come of your efforts. This is doubly true when you are up against federal regulations, environmental concerns, claims of selfishly wanting lake level at the expense of everyone downstream, and entrenched practices of the Corps of Engineers. But we are making progress. It's been slower than we would like but the ice is melting and real progress could well be just around the corner. The Corps is even planning a near term change to the drought plan using an EA which is what we have been pleading for for several years.

A year or so back our proposals for improved drought plans were met with numerous road blocks:
1) SEPA would never permit due to contracts on power production
2) Short Nosed Sturgeon spawning grounds would be destroyed
3) Dissolved Oxygen in the harbor would be impacted
4) Many of the industrial concerns downstream would suffer severe harm
5) The lakes would not be experiencing their fair share of problems during a drought
6) The economic effects of low lake levels are insignificant
7) Wildlife and Fisheries in Athens would never permit such a change
8) Congress would never permit such changes
9) Money from the states was needed to fund a phase 2 study
One by one each has been eliminated. None of these were valid reasons to not change our drought plan. Basically we became a fact finding organization and literally met with the groups the Corps claimed were preventing them from adopting our proposals. It turns out in the final analysis that the Corps can make such changes at their discretion provided an Environmental Assessment is made.

It has taken many hours of sitting down with the various parties involved to get their reasoning on the table. And it has taken publicizing our plight. Several newspapers, Austin Rhodes, our blogs etc. have finally penetrated the protective fog that once surrounded Corps decisions. We even put up a billboard and held a protest demonstration at Thurmond Dam. In the past 3 months we have visited Jeff Duncan, and Jim DeMint and continued communication with Paul Broun for assistance from our national Congressmen and Senators and Shane Massey for help at the State Senate level. We are presently visiting the various County Councils around the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin and plans are in progress to meet with the Governors of both GA and SC.

All this takes time and money. Up till now only a few people have been responsible for the work and funding. Save Our Lakes Now is seeking a larger working base to make things happen more quickly and to make sure we never slip back into the horrible lake levels experienced in past droughts. If you can help with your time, money, or both please come join our effort. Details are available at www.saveourlakesnow.org