Saturday, July 7, 2012
WHO IS THE MORE REASONABLE CONCERNING DROUGHT MANAGEMENT
When you study how the Corps is managing the lakes during a drought and the controversies associated with their methodology you will find there are two distinct approaches that are being recommended. The first one which is the heavy hitter in the room is espoused by the environmentalists and the second is from the residents and stakeholders around the lakes. All the other interests, power producers, water suppliers, industries along the Savannah River, etc. are basically OK with the approaches of either of these groups as long as they are not too extreme.
To environmentalists interference by man with Mother Nature is bad. Many environmentalists would prefer there be no dams because by definition a dam is man interfering with nature. You would think the ultimate answer for this group would be to let the lakes simply overflow as it rains which would return the river below the dams to its original flows and keep the lakes full. This of course would be like manna from heaven for the residents and stakeholders around the lakes because the lakes would remain full even during a drought. But this would be devastating to the river in that flows would drop to practically nothing at times
Contradictory to this doctrine of avoiding man interfering with Mother Nature, now that the dams have been built these same environmental groups suddenly think man is wiser than Mother Nature. They want to manipulate the flows of the Savannah River. They are concerned about how much water flow is needed to keep all the critters that live in the river from suffering the ravages of drought. Residents and stakeholders around the lakes are sympathetic to these concerns but they want to keep releases from the dams reasonable so the lakes are not destroyed. Reasonable to them is to accept the fact that the river below the dams and all its critters have survived for over a million years without help from man. Release rates that do not destroy the lakes should be more than sufficient for critters that are used to much less at times of drought. At the very least if you do not balance water in from rain with water out from the dams on a daily basis, you should balance it over the course of a year.
Summarizing from the perspective of a Lake Resident and stakeholder, the current release rates are based on what someone behind a desk thinks the river critters need. Instead they should be based on what Nature provides in rain. Destroying the lakes benefits no one because eventually that leads to no control of river flows. It’s very similar to working a budget. The fact that you want something is not a good basis for managing your bank account. You have to always take into account how much money you have coming in versus how much you are spending or you go broke.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
A LOT MORE IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAN IS APPARENT
As any one following this blog realizes Save Our Lakes Now has spent many hours trying to get a better drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin. There have been numerous meetings with congressmen, senators, state and local political leaders, Corps leadership, and members of the environmental bureacracy that engulfs the operating criteria for our lakes. Sometimes it seems we are by ourselves like a voice crying in the wilderness. Recently I was delighted to see similar efforts by the Lake Hartwell Association. I am copying below a copy of recent correspondence sent by them so you can see that there is more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Herb and I are both representatives on the SRBAC (savannah river basin advisory council) which consists of representatives of about 25 different Savannah River Basin stakeholder groups.
The attached letter from LHA President Herb Burnham was addressed to Congressmen Paul C. Broun and Jeff Duncan concerning Savannah River Basin Management issues and concerns. The letter was also copied to our state governors, and elected officials and agency leaders at both the state and federal level.
COPY OF RECENT LETTER SENT BY LAKE HARTWELL ASSOCIATION
June 25, 2012
The Honorable Paul Broun
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC
The Honorable Jeff Duncan
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Dear Representatives Broun and Duncan:
Subject: Savannah River Basin Management
As President of the Lake Hartwell Association, I am making the following requests on behalf of the thousands of voters and businesses that make up its membership. Based on feedback I am getting from them, during what should be the peak of our recreation season that is once again being diminished by drastically low lake levels, I am sure there are many thousands more who would join in.
We discussed these issues on April 4th in Representative Duncan's office in Anderson, and it was agreed that the following would be investigated and appropriate action taken in Washington. First, we discussed your taking a lead role in forming a bi-state (SC &GA) coalition, including senators and other congressmen representing Savannah River Basin (SRB) interests at the federal level. Second, you would investigate and take appropriate action to get the SRB Corps of Engineers substantial relief from the stringent rules, regulations and bureaucratic constraints they now must work within. Third, you would investigate and take steps necessary to ensure that funding for future studies, operational updates, and other actions that would improve lake level management, and the basin in general, would be made available by using some of the power generation revenues now being sent to the general fund in Washington.
The most recent Savannah River Basin Advisory Committee (SRBAC) quarterly meeting was held on June 19th, with an agenda focused on the current drought situation and its impact on the Savannah River Basin's lakes. It was well attended and informative, and further confirmed for me the importance of two issues that we discussed on April 4th.
First, the Corps' authority to use proven adaptive management techniques to help mitigate the impact of a drought is severely limited by the bureaucratic environment they must operate within. Once again this became evident when it was announced that a final decision on the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was drafted by the Corp last November and would have given the Corps the flexibility to decrease flows by 200 cfs this summer, if necessary, has again been delayed pending an "unnamed agency" response. LHA's response was due May 12th, 30 days after receipt. It seems that review times for the more than 100 agencies and stakeholders vary from 30 to 90 days depending on the different operating agreements with the Corps. Meanwhile, South Carolina and Georgia citizens whose businesses, jobs, home values, etc., depend on the lakes' levels during this peak of the recreational season , suffer severe economic losses while the bureaucracy keeps a partial solution tied up in "red tape" and paperwork.
Second, attendees were told that South Carolina's contribution needed to get phase 2 of the comprehensive study underway would be less than the $250K needed to match Georgia's. Hopefully, in-kind services will be available and acceptable to make up the difference. This is the study we discussed as being so very important because it addresses lessons learned from the recent drought of record of 2009. Given the drought conditions we have been experiencing for the last year, one would think it would have been high on the priority list for funding. No doubt, the loss of tax revenues to the state due to low water levels this year alone will far exceed $250K.
As mentioned above, another topic we discussed on April 4th was the possibility of keeping some of the power generation funds (that now go into the general fund in DC) in the basin to pay for future studies, plans, etc. that will help to ensure better management and maintenance of the basin. Total cost of the phase 2 study, for example, is estimated at $1 million, 1/60th of average annual power generation income.
We thank you for your support of SRB issues and ask that you give these matters your immediate attention and highest priority, and keep us informed on a regular basis. A federal delegation tour of businesses hardest hit by the low water conditions would be welcomed and very beneficial. Please advise if the Lake Hartwell Association can assist in making arrangements... or in any other way.
Sincerely,
Herb Burnham, President
Lake Hartwell Association
The attached letter from LHA President Herb Burnham was addressed to Congressmen Paul C. Broun and Jeff Duncan concerning Savannah River Basin Management issues and concerns. The letter was also copied to our state governors, and elected officials and agency leaders at both the state and federal level.
COPY OF RECENT LETTER SENT BY LAKE HARTWELL ASSOCIATION
June 25, 2012
The Honorable Paul Broun
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC
The Honorable Jeff Duncan
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Dear Representatives Broun and Duncan:
Subject: Savannah River Basin Management
As President of the Lake Hartwell Association, I am making the following requests on behalf of the thousands of voters and businesses that make up its membership. Based on feedback I am getting from them, during what should be the peak of our recreation season that is once again being diminished by drastically low lake levels, I am sure there are many thousands more who would join in.
We discussed these issues on April 4th in Representative Duncan's office in Anderson, and it was agreed that the following would be investigated and appropriate action taken in Washington. First, we discussed your taking a lead role in forming a bi-state (SC &GA) coalition, including senators and other congressmen representing Savannah River Basin (SRB) interests at the federal level. Second, you would investigate and take appropriate action to get the SRB Corps of Engineers substantial relief from the stringent rules, regulations and bureaucratic constraints they now must work within. Third, you would investigate and take steps necessary to ensure that funding for future studies, operational updates, and other actions that would improve lake level management, and the basin in general, would be made available by using some of the power generation revenues now being sent to the general fund in Washington.
The most recent Savannah River Basin Advisory Committee (SRBAC) quarterly meeting was held on June 19th, with an agenda focused on the current drought situation and its impact on the Savannah River Basin's lakes. It was well attended and informative, and further confirmed for me the importance of two issues that we discussed on April 4th.
First, the Corps' authority to use proven adaptive management techniques to help mitigate the impact of a drought is severely limited by the bureaucratic environment they must operate within. Once again this became evident when it was announced that a final decision on the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was drafted by the Corp last November and would have given the Corps the flexibility to decrease flows by 200 cfs this summer, if necessary, has again been delayed pending an "unnamed agency" response. LHA's response was due May 12th, 30 days after receipt. It seems that review times for the more than 100 agencies and stakeholders vary from 30 to 90 days depending on the different operating agreements with the Corps. Meanwhile, South Carolina and Georgia citizens whose businesses, jobs, home values, etc., depend on the lakes' levels during this peak of the recreational season , suffer severe economic losses while the bureaucracy keeps a partial solution tied up in "red tape" and paperwork.
Second, attendees were told that South Carolina's contribution needed to get phase 2 of the comprehensive study underway would be less than the $250K needed to match Georgia's. Hopefully, in-kind services will be available and acceptable to make up the difference. This is the study we discussed as being so very important because it addresses lessons learned from the recent drought of record of 2009. Given the drought conditions we have been experiencing for the last year, one would think it would have been high on the priority list for funding. No doubt, the loss of tax revenues to the state due to low water levels this year alone will far exceed $250K.
As mentioned above, another topic we discussed on April 4th was the possibility of keeping some of the power generation funds (that now go into the general fund in DC) in the basin to pay for future studies, plans, etc. that will help to ensure better management and maintenance of the basin. Total cost of the phase 2 study, for example, is estimated at $1 million, 1/60th of average annual power generation income.
We thank you for your support of SRB issues and ask that you give these matters your immediate attention and highest priority, and keep us informed on a regular basis. A federal delegation tour of businesses hardest hit by the low water conditions would be welcomed and very beneficial. Please advise if the Lake Hartwell Association can assist in making arrangements... or in any other way.
Sincerely,
Herb Burnham, President
Lake Hartwell Association
Friday, June 22, 2012
WHERE DID ALL THE RAIN GO
I know every lake stakeholder is wondering where the heck all that rain went. For a while I was about to agree with the conspiracy theorists who are convinced the Corps is not telling us the truth about releases and lake levels, etc. Some even suggested there must be a hidden pipeline running to Atlanta and they are stealing all our water. Turns out none of this is true. The numbers the Corps is showing and the explanations they are giving for why we didn't get a huge jump in lake level with the recent rains appear to be correct.
I've looked at this in a lot of detail since it rained and I have to say it looks like the water runoff got consumed by the dry ground and vegetation before making it to the basin. Release rates were held at 3800 cfs and all stream indicators downstream (especially the levels at Clyo which is the last point in the system where stream measurements are taken before the harbor) show no unusual flow that would indicate higher release rates than the Corps shows. We've been talking to climatologists to see if they agree with what the Corps is claiming about dry ground and vegetation and they do. And no matter how hard I look I can't find any evidence of a hidden water line to Atlanta.
Climatologists that study rainfall and drought levels for the Savannah River Basin claim it will take more than 9 inches of rain in one month to get the soil etc back to normal so that we get run off in a rain. We desperately need a tropical system to park right over the basin and give us this kind of rain.
Meanwhile we continue to work on getting the drought control plan for the Savannah River System corrected so that future events won't be this devastating. Following our recommended drought control plan our lakes would have several more feet of water in them than they do now. Repeating what we've preached all along, we need a much more agressive approach to drought response than currently exists. Our recommended approach remains unchanged;
It is frustrating to keep repeating our proposals. It would be much easier to simply go along with the Corps' proposals. But this repetition is necessary because the Corps, over time, continues to get further away from what we are recommending. This is probably a matter of the Corps compromising with the various environmental agencies. Unfortunately such compromising costs us many feet of lake level during droughts. At one time they were agreeing with a 2' drop in the winter rather than a 4'drop. And at one time they agreed to go to 3600cfs rather than 3800. And at one time they agreed to hold the lower release rates until the lakes refill. Now all that has changed. The compromise to stay with a 4' drop in the winter costs us 2' at the start of a drought. The compromise of 3800 instead of 3600 cfs costs us 2' a year in lake level. And the compromise on how the lakes are refilled will stretch out our misery unnecessarily following a drought.
I've looked at this in a lot of detail since it rained and I have to say it looks like the water runoff got consumed by the dry ground and vegetation before making it to the basin. Release rates were held at 3800 cfs and all stream indicators downstream (especially the levels at Clyo which is the last point in the system where stream measurements are taken before the harbor) show no unusual flow that would indicate higher release rates than the Corps shows. We've been talking to climatologists to see if they agree with what the Corps is claiming about dry ground and vegetation and they do. And no matter how hard I look I can't find any evidence of a hidden water line to Atlanta.
Climatologists that study rainfall and drought levels for the Savannah River Basin claim it will take more than 9 inches of rain in one month to get the soil etc back to normal so that we get run off in a rain. We desperately need a tropical system to park right over the basin and give us this kind of rain.
Meanwhile we continue to work on getting the drought control plan for the Savannah River System corrected so that future events won't be this devastating. Following our recommended drought control plan our lakes would have several more feet of water in them than they do now. Repeating what we've preached all along, we need a much more agressive approach to drought response than currently exists. Our recommended approach remains unchanged;
- We propose that release rates from Thurmond be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 in colder months) anytime Thurmond drops below 328ft. The proposed plan by the Corps is to lower releases anytime the Broad River flows indicate we are in a drought. While this is a significant improvement it is not as agressive as our proposal because they wait longer to initiate flow reductions and their proposed reductions are 3800cfs instead of 3600.
- Continue 3600cfs until the lakes refill. The current plan by the Corps is to increase flows as the lake recovers making it more difficult to refill the lakes
- Modify the rule curve so that we only drop the lakes 2' rather than 4' following the summer. The current Corps plan is to stay with a 4' drop at the end of summer.
It is frustrating to keep repeating our proposals. It would be much easier to simply go along with the Corps' proposals. But this repetition is necessary because the Corps, over time, continues to get further away from what we are recommending. This is probably a matter of the Corps compromising with the various environmental agencies. Unfortunately such compromising costs us many feet of lake level during droughts. At one time they were agreeing with a 2' drop in the winter rather than a 4'drop. And at one time they agreed to go to 3600cfs rather than 3800. And at one time they agreed to hold the lower release rates until the lakes refill. Now all that has changed. The compromise to stay with a 4' drop in the winter costs us 2' at the start of a drought. The compromise of 3800 instead of 3600 cfs costs us 2' a year in lake level. And the compromise on how the lakes are refilled will stretch out our misery unnecessarily following a drought.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, April 13, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)