BEST NUMBER ON LAKE LEVEL IF 3600 HAD BEEN USED THROUGHOUT THIS DROUGHT

I calculated where the lake would be if we had gone to 3600cfs immediately when Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell dropped 2ft.  My number came out to be 3 ft below full pool instead of 12ft .  I asked for verification of this number by the Corps and they came up with a figure of 9ft.  Both these, 3 ft or 9ft are far better than the 12 ft experienced but it was bothersome that we did not agree better.  After further discussion and tweaking the numbers we both can agree that the lakes would be at least 5 to 6 ft higher than they are now had the drought plan recommended to Ed Kertis when he was the Colonel over this basin been adopted. So far as further fine tuning to eliminate the discrepancy between us and the corps the difference is not big enough to warrant that.  Perhaps in the future we can consult with one of the firms who do modeling for Duke Power or the state of Georgia to get an objective and unbiased result that everyone can agree to.

Meanwhile there is a misconception between those concerned about downstream and us.  The common thinking of downstream interests is that we just want full lakes regardless of the cost.  If that were the case we would simply recommend that the lakes be kept full all the time which would mean the river would return to the flows it used to experience before the dams were built. What we are really trying to achieve is balance.  The Corps claims they are balancing the lakes but they are not.  The only way you can achieve balance is to match inflows from mother nature with releases to the river.  Otherwise either the folks downstream or the folks above the dams are not receiving their fair share of the water.  We are suggesting this be done on a yearly average basis so as to avoid unreasonably low river flows or flooding.  And again we are not asking for any flows outside those experienced and found to not be harmful over large periods of time.

QUESTIONS FOR THE EMPTY CHAIR

In our last blog we talked to the empty chair about what would have happened if the Corps had followed the drought plan recommended to Ed Kertis years ago.  In this blog we would like to ask the empty chair a few questions.

With all the campgrounds,  marinas and other infrastructure that exist for recreation failing and property values around the lakes tanking, surely you agree that lake interests and recreation would be far better off if the lakes were only 3-5ft down instead of 12ft.  Since a plan is in place that would make that possible, does this not represent failure on the part of the Corps to protect recreation as instructed by Congress in the 80’s?

Based on the experiences gained in 2008 please name one downstream stakeholder that would have been hurt had we used 3600cfs as our basic release rate since August 2010 instead of all the various rates actually used.  We recognize that the various environmental groups can come up with possible problems (analogous to Henny Penny and the sky is falling type thinking) but is it not true that none of these actually became a problem in the drought of 2008? Would not the environmental groups agree that even they would be better off now if the lakes were not so low?

Based on the way the lakes are used for power generation is it not true that SEPA would prefer keeping the lakes as full as possible so they can have peaking power capability in high demand days?  Is it also not true that there are numerous lakes supplying power to SEPA and limited power from the Savannah River System is easily offset by increasing power from the other lakes?

We know you meet routinely with downstream interests about operation of the lakes during major droughts such as the one we are currently experiencing.  Why do you not have representatives that represent lake interests from the perspective discussed above at your meetings?  We do not see how you can hope to have true balance the way you claim without such representation.

 In summary, since downstream groups would not be harmed by changing to our recommended drought plan and since lake interests are being greatly damaged by failure to do so, why not bite the bullet, suck it up, and simply take the leadership role needed to straighten this mess out?

SPEAKING TO THE CORPS' EMPTY CHAIR

Someone at the Army Corps of Engineers is the decision maker for the Savannah River Basin.  This blog is directed at the empty chair normally occupied by that person.

Sir you need to come to grips with the fact that the Savannah River Basin has evolved to a much different rainfall situation since the turn of the century.  It is time to recognize that fact and make large enough changes to the way water is balanced through the system to prevent the destruction of lake interests.  Our calculations show that the drought plan recommended by the various lake organizations when Ed Kertis was here would have corrected our current situation.  Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell would be within 3 foot of full pool instead of 12 foot down. And the various downstream responsibilities assigned the Corps would be in balance. Instead the lakes look horrible, recreation has been greatly impacted, and all this is without any real benefits downstream.

We know that the environmental arguments against reduced releases from Lake Thurmond sound good.  We understand that the reasoning is well intentioned.  But as you know the road to destruction is paved with good intentions.  We ask that you take charge and balance the system using the engineering data and lessons learned in the drought of 2008 instead of waiting on further studies.  Future studies are fine but they should not be used as an excuse to delay achieving balance between all the various interests you are in charge of.  We already know how to achieve a good balance for all lake parameters by holding releases to the amount of water nature supplies averaged over the year.  We've got to adhear to the limits placed on the system by the amount of rain provided by nature rather than compromising with the well intentioned requests from the various environmental groups.

We are totally dependant on you.   No one else is in a position to do this.  So far as fears from the environmental groups that problems could occur with these changes, you are in a position to drive home the fact that the changes can be reversed at any time should a real problem (not an imagined problem) be encountered.

I know you think we are being unreasonable and should just calm down and leave all this to the scientists and engineers associated with maintaining the Savannah River Basin.  But sir our scientists and engineers looking at the same data do not agree with the way you are operating the Savannah River Basin.  If we were destroying your homes and communities the way you are destroying ours you would be upset as well.

CORPS REFUSES TO FOLLOW GOOD ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

When our president or our congressmen or our senators fail to do the job we have hired them to do everyone recognizes criticism is appropriate.  Yet in commenting on the actions of the Corps managing the Savannah River Basin we frequently receive comments like "you are not showing proper respect for the office".  And we also hear that since the Corps follows scientific principles they are obviously more qualified than we are to dictate how the system should be run.  At one time Col. Ed Kertis even told me we need to leave this up to the scientists. 

Let me qualify comments you will see in this blog in light of this kind of thinking.  The Corps is hired by congress and therefore us to do a good job managing the Savannah River Basin.  If they are doing a poor job they should receive criticism from the people who have hired them.  Further there are many engineers and scientists outside the Corps who are in a position to make judgments on how well the Corps is doing.  Save Our Lakes Now is careful to adhere strictly to sound engineering and scientific thinking and for the most part we use the Corps' own data to analyze how well our lakes are being managed.

The Corps has been charged by Congress to manage our lakes according to good principles for about 6 different areas of concern:

• Flood control
• Power production (following SEPA guidelines)
• Water quality
• Navigation
• Fish and Wildlife
• Recreation

We seriously question the soundness of the corps' judgment in a number of areas.  First they are too cautious when it comes to flood control, power production, water quality and fish and wildlife and second they are far too lax when it comes to recreation. Additionally the Corps claims they are not responsible for economic concerns but simple common sense says they do not have the right to wantonly destroy the economy of the areas around the lakes.  Literally the only reason they get away with ignoring the economic impact of their decisions is the exorbitant cost that would be involved in fighting them in court.

The measures it would take to protect recreation and the economy of the areas around the lakes have been fully demonstrated from the standpoint of both good engineering practice and scientific principle.  These measures would do no harm to the other areas the Corps is responsible for.  Yet the Corps adamantly refuses to adopt these measures.  In discussions with the Corps they have blamed Fish and Wildlife out of Athens and the GA DNR as not permitting them to make such changes.  However both these groups act only in an advisory capacity to the Corps. 

Speaking strictly from an economic viewpoint what right does the Army Corps of Engineers have to reign utter destruction down on the communities that are impacted by lake levels.  Speaking strictly from the stand point of Recreation what right does the Corps have to simply ignore this responsibility placed on them by the Congress of the United States 25 years ago.

HELP FROM OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS

We have met with our Congressmen and Senators a number of times to discuss how lake levels are impacting lake stakeholders.  Jeff Duncan has been particularly interested in our plight so we asked his office recently what they have been able to do to help us.  I was delighted to learn some of the things that our politicians in DC have done.  One specific example follows:

Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Joe Wilson (SC-2), Paul Broun (GA-10) and SC US Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham have all recommended that the Corps analyze and model a management approach that would maintain Lakes Hartwell and Thurmond elevations within 7-8 feet of the full pool guide curves for a minimum of three years for the current drought of record. They feel strongly that this would serve the dual purposes of minimizing the impact on the recreation and economics of the lakes for the states of GA and SC while reducing the possibility of exhausting the conservation pools thereby protecting downstream interests should the drought continue. This united stand by our key representatives is consistent with their belief of the importance of this endangered resource. Representatives Duncan and Broun are both on the congressional Natural Resource Committee which is a key Committee to initiate any significant federal changes in water management. Senator Graham serves on the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, and Budget committees. Senator DeMint is on the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation, Joint Economic, Banking Housing and Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations committees. Joe Wilson serves on the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Education and Workforce.

Their recommendation for maintaining lakes within 7-8ft of full pool would require 3600cfs anytime the  lakes drop 2ft which is what Save Our Lakes Now has been recommending all along.  The only change we would make if they were asking our opinion would be to drop the words "guide curves" so that it reads within 7-8ft of full pool, period. 

We would prefer that the Corps go ahead and implement the recommendation of holding lake levels within 7-8ft of full pool until the studies can be completed rather than wait for results from the study.  We base this on the fact that we have already operated at these release rates for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008 with no significant problems.  But it is very gratifying to see that our Congressmen and Senators are watching what the Corps is doing.  Had we followed this approach on the current drought we would be less than 7' below full pool in Hartwell and Thurmond instead of 10 to 11' down.

Other changes that we are recommending beyond these are: 1) drop to 3100cfs in the cooler months and 2) totally discontinue discharges from Thurmond anytime the Savannah River is swollen from rains.  These changes combined with 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool would probably keep us within 5' of full pool.
 

Answer to question "what politicians are helping"

Unfortunately the support we are getting is way too timid.  We need someone who will give a much more agressive approach to getting the Corps on track.  Jeff Duncan and Paul Broun are both aware of the problems but they are trying to solve the problem from a timid political approach.  The only way our problem is going to be solved is to tackle it from an engineering stand point.  Playing politics will never get us there because it involves too much compromise. From a strictly engineering standpoint you can be reasonable with the environmental concerns without destroying the lakes.  From a political standpoint you end up compromising with  unfounded fears from "sky is falling" environmentalists         and destroy the lakes.
It is a simple matter of how much water you can release without emptying the lake.  Trying to compromise with this is like trying to spend more money than you make; it never works. The only thing that works is to recognize how much you have to work with and stay inside those boundaries.  We've asked the Corps to back off to the amount of water that nature gives in rain over a years time (this figure is 3600cfs during a major drought).  The environmentalists ask for "more" because some poor critter that has survived for a million years with much less water in a drought might possibly be harmed.  The corps compromises by first waiting until the lake has dropped a bunch of feet before they acknowledge a drought is going on and then, instead of backing off to 3600, they go to 3800cfs.  This sounds good but every 100cfs equals one foot of lake level in a years time so 3800 drops us 2 ft more in a year than 3600cfs.  Any politician approaching this from a political stand point is not going to be able to break this cycle.  We need someone who will draw the line and stop this massive destruction of our lakes.  We have not been able to identify anyone on the political scene who will take such a stance.  When we do we will get behind them 100%.

Summing up where we are from an engineering stand point:

• Anytime the lakes drop 2' the corps needs to immediately go to 3600cfs release rates until the lakes refill.  Instead the Corps has been waiting until they can prove we are in a drought.  What is being missed is the fact that normal releases can be resumed the minute the lakes refill making this change short lived if we are not truly in a drought.
  
• The Corps needs to stop dropping lake levels 4ft (following what they call the rule curve) in the fall.  The original reason for this was to give the lakes enough reserve storage capacity so the lakes do not over fill in the winter/spring rains.  We now have twice the holding capacity as when this rule was set up and backing off to 2' should work as well as 4' did in the past. Recent discussions with the Corps indicate they do not plan to adopt this recommendation.
• The purpose of further studies should be to fully define environmental and recreational impacts of various release rates including rates well below 3600cfs.  Such studies are not needed to make temporary changes to 3600cfs now while we are in the middle of a severe drought.
  
• Until further studies can be completed the Corps needs to go ahead and use the information we gained in the drought of record in 2008 where we discovered that operation at 3600 cfs was satisfactory.   Although the Corps can make such changes on their own as demonstrated in 2008 they have chosen to wait until all environmental groups agree including those that are unrealistic in their demands. This approach always ends up with destruction of our lakes as is proven by what is happening right now. 

WHERE WOULD LAKE LEVELS BE IF

If you ask anyone why our lakes are so low they will respond that it is because we are in a severe drought.  But that is not the whole story by any means.  Over a year ago Save Our Lakes Now recommended to the Corps that we drop release rates on Lake Thurmond to 3600 cfs or we would be looking at low lake levels in the near future.  We even did a quick spot on Channel 6 News with this warning.  Now, more than a year later I thought it would be interesting to look back and see where we would be now had the Corps followed our advice.

In May of last year when Lake Thurmond dropped below 328' the release rates would have been dropped to 3600cfs following our advice.  Instead the Corps averaged about 4800cfs until August and the lake dropped 3' to 325'.  Had they dropped to 3600 in May as we asked the lake would not have dropped.  It would have remained at 328ft.  The following months since August our recommendation was still 3600cfs.  The Corps compromised and went to 3800 cfs instead.  This difference in release rates over a years time results in a 2' drop in lake level. 

Summing up these differences Lake Thurmond would now be at 325' instead of 320 and Lake Hartwell would be at 655' instead of 650.  So is the drought the reason our lakes look like heck now?  As everyone familiar with our lakes knows a 5' drop is not that bad.  So the answer is no.  It is the way the lakes are being managed.