Based on a conversation with a representative of Governor Sanford's Office this morning the Governor pleas impotence on the lake level problems at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell. Based on his actions on many other matters I can't accept the idea that he is unable to help. The conversation ranged from how the matter was a federal concern to how so many concerns downstream had been expressed in meetings where the Governor was represented.
Since when is a state governor unable to do something when thousands of his constituents are being robbed of their livelihood and/or assets. I've seen Governor Sanford do marvelous things with respect to other SC matters. I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to do a lot to help if he put his political might behind our problem.
Additionally, the Governor could insist that lake interests be included in meetings related to drought control measures. Barring us from these meetings is leaving us with a situation similar to taxation without representation. And we all know that is just wrong.
Please let the Governor know that we need his help and that we expect him to do the "right thing".
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
CORPS REFUSES TO LISTEN TO LAKE INTERESTS
The Corps' typical response to lake interests about the current drought situation is to state emphatically that everything that can be done is being done. They do this with a big smile on their face but their true attitude is obvious when they turn their back on the devastation occuring upstream of the dams. If they were trying to help lake interests they would at least allow input from us. But the truth is they allow input from everyone but us. They tell us how we must sacrifice our lake interests to protect others downstream who are affected by low river flows. They do not tell the interests downstream how they must sacrifice to limit the destruction occuring upstream. And more importantly we are never permitted to argue our cause at the bargaining table where ridiculous arguments are heard from environmentalists, and other interests.
Looking back at letters to the editor I wrote in 2002 and 3 it became obvious that the Corps is not listening to lake interests. The Colonel in charge in 2003 was trying to find ways to improve the upstream situation and was preparing to experiment with lower discharge rates. Then all of a sudden all the plans to try lower flows were dropped because environmental concerns told the Corps this MIGHT cause problems with wild life and salt water incursion at the coast. I asked myself then and ask it again now why in heaven's name do you let POSSIBLE problems trump the real destruction occuring upstream of the dams.
Besides, as I've noted in previous posts, environmentalists should have no argument with what is going on unless we send less water downstream than would be provided were there no dam. Environmental concerns by definition go away when man's input is removed and that is what you would have if the conditions are those that would occur before construction of the dam. In other words if water in from rain = water through the dam you eliminate man's input and return to an environmentalists dream.
In order for lake interests to get a voice we either need for our politicians to come to our aid or we need the news media to bring about public sentiment for the plight of lake interests upstream of the dams. The news media and politicians alike apparently have not thought through just how tremendous an economic value to Augusta, Anderson, and neighboring communities the lakes would be if allowed to remain full rather than see-saw up and down in level. In reality the whole area is suffering a tremendous loss but only the people and businesses around the lake are close enough to the problem to care.
Law suits are not a pleasant thing and I would prefer to never go there but it looks to me like there is no other way to get the Corps to pay attention and protect lake interests. And something needs to be done quickly because the drought will probably continue and do irreparable damage to our beautiful lakes. If the true cost to the lakes and surrounding communities were tabulated the Corps would have no difficulty justifying the cost of downstream interests making provisions for the lakes to stay full. Just the lost moneys from real estate and business losses around the lakes are staggering. But these are nothing in comparison to the losses to the whole area which includes Augusta, Anderson and their surroundings when you look at what could have been if the lakes remained full. All you have to do is look at Lexington near Columbia and the Lake Wylie and Lake Norman areas near Charlotte to see what could happen because people are naturally drawn to beautiful lake areas.
Looking back at letters to the editor I wrote in 2002 and 3 it became obvious that the Corps is not listening to lake interests. The Colonel in charge in 2003 was trying to find ways to improve the upstream situation and was preparing to experiment with lower discharge rates. Then all of a sudden all the plans to try lower flows were dropped because environmental concerns told the Corps this MIGHT cause problems with wild life and salt water incursion at the coast. I asked myself then and ask it again now why in heaven's name do you let POSSIBLE problems trump the real destruction occuring upstream of the dams.
Besides, as I've noted in previous posts, environmentalists should have no argument with what is going on unless we send less water downstream than would be provided were there no dam. Environmental concerns by definition go away when man's input is removed and that is what you would have if the conditions are those that would occur before construction of the dam. In other words if water in from rain = water through the dam you eliminate man's input and return to an environmentalists dream.
In order for lake interests to get a voice we either need for our politicians to come to our aid or we need the news media to bring about public sentiment for the plight of lake interests upstream of the dams. The news media and politicians alike apparently have not thought through just how tremendous an economic value to Augusta, Anderson, and neighboring communities the lakes would be if allowed to remain full rather than see-saw up and down in level. In reality the whole area is suffering a tremendous loss but only the people and businesses around the lake are close enough to the problem to care.
Law suits are not a pleasant thing and I would prefer to never go there but it looks to me like there is no other way to get the Corps to pay attention and protect lake interests. And something needs to be done quickly because the drought will probably continue and do irreparable damage to our beautiful lakes. If the true cost to the lakes and surrounding communities were tabulated the Corps would have no difficulty justifying the cost of downstream interests making provisions for the lakes to stay full. Just the lost moneys from real estate and business losses around the lakes are staggering. But these are nothing in comparison to the losses to the whole area which includes Augusta, Anderson and their surroundings when you look at what could have been if the lakes remained full. All you have to do is look at Lexington near Columbia and the Lake Wylie and Lake Norman areas near Charlotte to see what could happen because people are naturally drawn to beautiful lake areas.
Monday, December 29, 2008
New Year's Resolution
We've been ignored, used and abused by the Corps long enough. And as the abuse continues we see Lake Thurmond drop a foot with rainfall well above normal. Many think the Corps should have used the increased water flows at the locks below the dams from rain swollen streams to decrease the required 3100cfs releases at the dam. While I agree that this is certainly the least that could be done I feel we need to go far beyond this and revamp the whole drought control set up to prevent the Lakes from going below the level where lake interests are destroyed. Lake Murray has undergone the same drought as Lake Thurmond but it is at normal levels because Lake Murray does not have release requirements to solve downstream problems. Downstream problems below Lake Thurmond need to be solved by engineering solutions instead of just throwing very costly lake water at them. The costs from destroyed Lake interests is way too high and should no longer be treated as acceptable in solving downstream problems.
My resolution for the new year is to join with a large number of people who feel the same way so that the Corps has no choice but to hear us. If the numbers of people and amount of money represented is large enough, law suits can be used anytime the Corps ignores us the way they are now. Furthermore we need to insist on assistance from our political leaders if they wish to remain in office. Everyone knows it is wrong to destroy one man's property in order to build up another's, especially when the man who is on the losing side has no vote on the issue. I suspect the people involved with problems downstream would not intentionally destroy lake interests as a way to solve their problems. But that is exactly what is happening. And our political leaders are remaining silent.
With enough reasonable people and money behind this the Corps and our political leaders will have no choice but to revamp the current ridiculous drought control plan. It looks like the time has come for this action and I applaud the measures currently being pursued. As with any cause the fight may not be easy but since our cause is just we have the distinct advantage. Remember, evil prevails only when good men remain silent. If we cease our silence the destruction of our hard earned lake interests will surely come to a stop.
My resolution for the new year is to join with a large number of people who feel the same way so that the Corps has no choice but to hear us. If the numbers of people and amount of money represented is large enough, law suits can be used anytime the Corps ignores us the way they are now. Furthermore we need to insist on assistance from our political leaders if they wish to remain in office. Everyone knows it is wrong to destroy one man's property in order to build up another's, especially when the man who is on the losing side has no vote on the issue. I suspect the people involved with problems downstream would not intentionally destroy lake interests as a way to solve their problems. But that is exactly what is happening. And our political leaders are remaining silent.
With enough reasonable people and money behind this the Corps and our political leaders will have no choice but to revamp the current ridiculous drought control plan. It looks like the time has come for this action and I applaud the measures currently being pursued. As with any cause the fight may not be easy but since our cause is just we have the distinct advantage. Remember, evil prevails only when good men remain silent. If we cease our silence the destruction of our hard earned lake interests will surely come to a stop.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
IF CORPS WON'T COOPERATE, WHAT NEXT
It is becoming obvious that the Corps is not going to do their job and study the various options to come up with a reasonable solution to the problems along the Savannah River during a drought. All the Corps is doing at present is acting as technicians collecting water flow data. What is desperately needed is a study of costs to correct drought problems via downstream engineering options versus the costs of destroying lake interests when levels drop more than 5 ft.
Since the Corps is not doing their job as engineers to determine optiomum solutions, why not hire an outside engineering firm to do an objective study of the problem. Our congressmen should be able to do this. Since the problem is nationwide wherever the Corps controls lakes, a national study may well be warranted. If such a study is initiated some of the ground rules should be:
1) never let lake levels drop more than 5 ft unless and until the losses to lake interests are balanced against the cost to engineer solutions downstream.
2) environmental concerns should revert to conditions prior to building the dams at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell since these concerns are defined as eliminating man's impact on mother nature. In other words passing down the amount of water coming in from rain meets those conditions and their is no reason from the stand point of environmental concerns to pass on more water than comes from natural rain fall during a major drought.
3) all parties with concerns such as diluting wastes, avoiding massive fish kills from low oxygen levels, obtaining drinkable water, etc. should be asked to determine the cost to engineer a solution with only the water coming downstream from natural rainfall during a drought. These costs can then be used to determine an optimum balance between lake interest losses from depleting the lakes and engineering other solutions downstream.
4) the true cost to generate power when the lakes are depleted by more than 5 ft should include the massive losses to lake interests from destroying the lakes. If so power generaton when the lakes are depleted more than 5ft would be uneconomical and Power generation would only be permitted when it does not require further depletion of lake level.
5) no one should be asked to suffer major financial expense without full justification by weighing all reasonable engineering solutions. Hence the firm or commission doing such a study should be required to justify their conclusions with all concerned parties. And their findings need to be discussed openly with representatives from all concerned parties at reasonable check points time wise while the study progresses.
We need to urge our congressmen to initiate an independant engineering study of lake level controls and we need to do so quickly. With the current Corps leadership we could literally lose our lakes in the next few years. Please do not forget that the Colonel currently in charge stated at the meeting in McCormick recently that the lakes may go back to original creek beds if the drought continues. We need to act together and act quickly. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could become horrible memories if we don't.
Since the Corps is not doing their job as engineers to determine optiomum solutions, why not hire an outside engineering firm to do an objective study of the problem. Our congressmen should be able to do this. Since the problem is nationwide wherever the Corps controls lakes, a national study may well be warranted. If such a study is initiated some of the ground rules should be:
1) never let lake levels drop more than 5 ft unless and until the losses to lake interests are balanced against the cost to engineer solutions downstream.
2) environmental concerns should revert to conditions prior to building the dams at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell since these concerns are defined as eliminating man's impact on mother nature. In other words passing down the amount of water coming in from rain meets those conditions and their is no reason from the stand point of environmental concerns to pass on more water than comes from natural rain fall during a major drought.
3) all parties with concerns such as diluting wastes, avoiding massive fish kills from low oxygen levels, obtaining drinkable water, etc. should be asked to determine the cost to engineer a solution with only the water coming downstream from natural rainfall during a drought. These costs can then be used to determine an optimum balance between lake interest losses from depleting the lakes and engineering other solutions downstream.
4) the true cost to generate power when the lakes are depleted by more than 5 ft should include the massive losses to lake interests from destroying the lakes. If so power generaton when the lakes are depleted more than 5ft would be uneconomical and Power generation would only be permitted when it does not require further depletion of lake level.
5) no one should be asked to suffer major financial expense without full justification by weighing all reasonable engineering solutions. Hence the firm or commission doing such a study should be required to justify their conclusions with all concerned parties. And their findings need to be discussed openly with representatives from all concerned parties at reasonable check points time wise while the study progresses.
We need to urge our congressmen to initiate an independant engineering study of lake level controls and we need to do so quickly. With the current Corps leadership we could literally lose our lakes in the next few years. Please do not forget that the Colonel currently in charge stated at the meeting in McCormick recently that the lakes may go back to original creek beds if the drought continues. We need to act together and act quickly. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could become horrible memories if we don't.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Engineering Options for Lake Level Control
The Corps of Engineers is by definition an engineering organization. As such they should be sued for professional incompetence on Lake Level Control for the Savannah River. I am a Chemical Engineer and I'm used to looking at problems similar to the Lake Level problem at Lake Thurmond. In any such problem you look at all the options to find the optimum solution. The Corps has looked at only the option of following the antiquated flow rates which are totally inadequate for today's drought situation. Just for kicks let me list a few of the more obvious engineering options for this situation:
1) Destroy Lake Russell before you mess with either Thurmond or Hartwell. The business and real estate interests for this lake are inconsequential compared to Thurmond and Hartwell. And the business of "can't go below a certain level" can be corrected by opening the dam.
2) Discontinue power generation on Lake Thurmond as soon as the lake drops more than 2 ft below normal and go immediately to minimum demonstrated flows measured at the locks closest to Augusta.
3) Determine on a case by case basis the cost to engineer a way to operate downstream factories, waste treatment facilities, and water uptakes for drinking and cooling, versus river flows. At present we are just throwing costly lake volume downstream with no justification for doing so. Not weighing the cost in lost real estate and business values against the downstream corrective costs is totally incompetent from an engineering stand point.
4) Look at what it would take to make permanent downstream changes so that future droughts would not require destruction of our lakes. If looked at long term (so that future growth with constant levels at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell is factored in) real estate values and business values around the lakes should far outweigh the occasional cost to engineer drought proofing downstream.
As for the environmental concerns I've addressed these numerous times throughout this blog. As long as the amount of water in from rainfall is passed downstream the environmentalists do not have a leg to stand on. Anything beyond that would be man made interference with mother nature which is what environmental concerns are all about.
One last thing. The Corps insists that their hands are tied because they can only follow the edicts of the politicians. We proved with the Nuremberg trials that this excuse doesn't hold water. The Corps by virtue of being an engineering unit should present the engineering arguments associated with Lake Level control. The politicians who are split depending on which side of the dam they are on would then have a basis for discussion among themselves and the public would have a basis for judging how well the politicians are doing. In my professional opinion the Corps is guilty of gross negligence and should be sued for same.
1) Destroy Lake Russell before you mess with either Thurmond or Hartwell. The business and real estate interests for this lake are inconsequential compared to Thurmond and Hartwell. And the business of "can't go below a certain level" can be corrected by opening the dam.
2) Discontinue power generation on Lake Thurmond as soon as the lake drops more than 2 ft below normal and go immediately to minimum demonstrated flows measured at the locks closest to Augusta.
3) Determine on a case by case basis the cost to engineer a way to operate downstream factories, waste treatment facilities, and water uptakes for drinking and cooling, versus river flows. At present we are just throwing costly lake volume downstream with no justification for doing so. Not weighing the cost in lost real estate and business values against the downstream corrective costs is totally incompetent from an engineering stand point.
4) Look at what it would take to make permanent downstream changes so that future droughts would not require destruction of our lakes. If looked at long term (so that future growth with constant levels at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell is factored in) real estate values and business values around the lakes should far outweigh the occasional cost to engineer drought proofing downstream.
As for the environmental concerns I've addressed these numerous times throughout this blog. As long as the amount of water in from rainfall is passed downstream the environmentalists do not have a leg to stand on. Anything beyond that would be man made interference with mother nature which is what environmental concerns are all about.
One last thing. The Corps insists that their hands are tied because they can only follow the edicts of the politicians. We proved with the Nuremberg trials that this excuse doesn't hold water. The Corps by virtue of being an engineering unit should present the engineering arguments associated with Lake Level control. The politicians who are split depending on which side of the dam they are on would then have a basis for discussion among themselves and the public would have a basis for judging how well the politicians are doing. In my professional opinion the Corps is guilty of gross negligence and should be sued for same.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
We Have the Strong Hand in Level Dispute
If you look at the dynamics in play with both our politicians and the Corps, we as residents and businesses around Lake Thurmond have the upper hand. The sources of power are money and votes. If the question of what to do is opened for discussion we fair well on both points. Our problem is the question is not open for discussion. Hence the politicians' fear of business interests and city government interests downstream win out as long as our interests remain silent.
From an economic standpoint our position is strong. Looking just at real estate values of residences that draw their value from having beautiful lake views and lake access the figure is staggering. Being conservative every lot on the Lakes has at least $200,000 in added value. How many lots border the affected lakes in Clark Hill, McCormick, Lincolnton, Thomson, Clemson, Anderson, and the areas north of Lake Hartwell. If it's 1,000 properties, the added value would be in excess of $200 million. And this does not take into account businesses affected by the Lakes or recreational values. Right now by their own admission the Corps is ready to totally destroy all this by allowing the Lakes to return to original creek beds if the drought continues. This is economic foolishness. The businesses affected downstream will spend far less than what we stand to lose in engineering solutions to operate with only the flows generated by rainfall during droughts. And the engineering costs for cities downstream to obtain acceptable drinking water and handle their wastes during droughts should be much lower than the costs we are experiencing as the lakes are being destroyed.
From a political standpoint our position is equally strong. How many votes do the paper companies and the nuclear power companies have. And how many votes do the environmentalists have. Compare these to the votes of all the residents and businesses located around Lake Thurmond, Lake Hartwell, and Lakes upstream of Hartwell. If we all vote together we could have a huge impact on the futures of our congressmen both state and federal. Right now we are a sleeping giant and the politicians are ignoring us. We need to wake up to our potential. No congressman should be permitted to hold office who refuses to help with our plight. Any who oppose our interests should be unanimously opposed by us. Who would our politicians listen to then?
One of the first things we need to do is organize so we can speak in unison. We may already have in place two groups that could unite and pull this off. But at present the goals are not clear and agreement on what to do hasn't been established. Once a group is in place we need to ask each politician in our domain what they intend to do to protect our interests. I've seen them at meetings held by the Corps and I've heard them express concern but I have not heard one proposal yet on how to stop this nonsense. In my opinion we should not accept less than a proposal to establish bottoms for Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell of no more than 5 ft below normal fill. And we should insist on reviews by our congressmen of what would be required downstream to implement such a ruling. At present no one is even looking at what the costs would be to implement such a policy. My guess is it would be very doable and the costs would be less than those currently being experienced by interests around the Lakes.
From an economic standpoint our position is strong. Looking just at real estate values of residences that draw their value from having beautiful lake views and lake access the figure is staggering. Being conservative every lot on the Lakes has at least $200,000 in added value. How many lots border the affected lakes in Clark Hill, McCormick, Lincolnton, Thomson, Clemson, Anderson, and the areas north of Lake Hartwell. If it's 1,000 properties, the added value would be in excess of $200 million. And this does not take into account businesses affected by the Lakes or recreational values. Right now by their own admission the Corps is ready to totally destroy all this by allowing the Lakes to return to original creek beds if the drought continues. This is economic foolishness. The businesses affected downstream will spend far less than what we stand to lose in engineering solutions to operate with only the flows generated by rainfall during droughts. And the engineering costs for cities downstream to obtain acceptable drinking water and handle their wastes during droughts should be much lower than the costs we are experiencing as the lakes are being destroyed.
From a political standpoint our position is equally strong. How many votes do the paper companies and the nuclear power companies have. And how many votes do the environmentalists have. Compare these to the votes of all the residents and businesses located around Lake Thurmond, Lake Hartwell, and Lakes upstream of Hartwell. If we all vote together we could have a huge impact on the futures of our congressmen both state and federal. Right now we are a sleeping giant and the politicians are ignoring us. We need to wake up to our potential. No congressman should be permitted to hold office who refuses to help with our plight. Any who oppose our interests should be unanimously opposed by us. Who would our politicians listen to then?
One of the first things we need to do is organize so we can speak in unison. We may already have in place two groups that could unite and pull this off. But at present the goals are not clear and agreement on what to do hasn't been established. Once a group is in place we need to ask each politician in our domain what they intend to do to protect our interests. I've seen them at meetings held by the Corps and I've heard them express concern but I have not heard one proposal yet on how to stop this nonsense. In my opinion we should not accept less than a proposal to establish bottoms for Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell of no more than 5 ft below normal fill. And we should insist on reviews by our congressmen of what would be required downstream to implement such a ruling. At present no one is even looking at what the costs would be to implement such a policy. My guess is it would be very doable and the costs would be less than those currently being experienced by interests around the Lakes.
Lake Levels up 2ft But No Thanks to Corps or Politicians
I understand that the Corps has ordered a temporary stop to releases from Lake Thurmond while rain run-off swells streams below the dam. That's great but it's not enough. The lake jumped up over 2ft with the recent much needed rains but we are still way too low for viability of interests around the lake. And although the Corps has finally done something right they don't deserve our gratitude. It's like a thief has temporarily stopped stealing your money. Gratitude is not what comes to mind.
Instead of thanking the Corps and our local politicians for recent actions, we need to demand further action from both to get the lake level corrected permanently. What is happening is comparable to the taxation without representation that precipitated the American Revolution. No where have we been represented in determining how to manage lake levels. In the future those of us with lake interests need to demand that any politician running for office in this area state their position on lake level controls. Did Shane Massey or Gresham Barrett or either of our state senators ever state a position on lake level management? And even more to the point are any of these guys doing anything concrete to change things for the better?
If we don't act now by getting involved with petitions stating changes that would help and talking to our politicians about future permanent solutions we may lose our beautiful (until the recent drought) lakes. This would be a shame. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could be a very important asset to the CSRA and the Anderson/Clemson areas. But not until the people with lake interests can be assured that the level control problem has been solved. At present most of the people that used to come to Lake Thurmond have shifted to the coast and other bodies of water for investments and recreation. I assume similar affects are being felt in the Anderson/Clemson areas. It would be criminal to allow this to continue.
Instead of thanking the Corps and our local politicians for recent actions, we need to demand further action from both to get the lake level corrected permanently. What is happening is comparable to the taxation without representation that precipitated the American Revolution. No where have we been represented in determining how to manage lake levels. In the future those of us with lake interests need to demand that any politician running for office in this area state their position on lake level controls. Did Shane Massey or Gresham Barrett or either of our state senators ever state a position on lake level management? And even more to the point are any of these guys doing anything concrete to change things for the better?
If we don't act now by getting involved with petitions stating changes that would help and talking to our politicians about future permanent solutions we may lose our beautiful (until the recent drought) lakes. This would be a shame. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could be a very important asset to the CSRA and the Anderson/Clemson areas. But not until the people with lake interests can be assured that the level control problem has been solved. At present most of the people that used to come to Lake Thurmond have shifted to the coast and other bodies of water for investments and recreation. I assume similar affects are being felt in the Anderson/Clemson areas. It would be criminal to allow this to continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)