Who Will Step Forward and Save Our Lakes

We are at a cross roads on saving the Savannah River Basin from future droughts. We came up with a petition to lower the flows to 3100cfs as a stop gap measure when the lakes were down 15 feet and still dropping. We also stirred up a hornet's nest of interest on the part of congressman and governors in the affected area with everyone realizing something needed to be done. We even stumbled onto a solution that works for both sides of the dam.

Based on Corps data if you drop to a discharge of 3600cfs when Lake Thurmond drops 2ft below full and hold that until it refills you never lose the lakes even in the worst case drought that just ended. This solution is not just to keep the lakes useable for lake interests. More importantly it protects the downstream businesses, cities, and environmental concerns from the devastation that would have occurred if the lakes had actually gone dry.

Now since the lakes are about to refill we are losing the momentum we had gathered toward coming up with a permanent solution. Unless someone steps forward and changes the drought management plan we could repeat the problems of the past several years when another drought appears. The change needed is simple but we need someone in a position of power to step forward and make it happen. For example Col. Kertis with the Corps or one of our congressman or either of the two governors involved could make this happen by calling a meeting of everyone involved and putting the proposed change to the drought plan to a vote. I would suggest a second petition but resistance to this is high since one has just been completed and there would still have to be a meeting of the principle parties involved to actually make a change to the plan. Let's all pray and make phone calls, write letters, and send emails to encourage someone to step forward and get this done.

CORPS NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

I am thankful for Gresham Barrett's help on the lake situation but the $2million study he has proposed could easily be avoided if the Corps would just use their engineering skills and do the study on their own. All the data that is needed for a massive improvement in our drought plan is fully available from the excellent records the Corps has kept since the lakes were built. For example it is easy to look at what lake levels would have done in the past if we had changed the drought plan such that the flows are reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake drops more than 2 ft in level. And the data is there to determine what would have happened in the past in terms of flood conditions if this model were followed. Besides, the Corps could do such a study in days and eliminate the extensive time delays involved if we mount a major independant study.

There is one place where further study would be beneficial. That would be for each downstream interest to look at what their lower limits really are should the Corps want to reduce flows to less than 3600cfs on a temporary basis for some future level management situation. But as a taxpayer I don't see the need for government to fund such studies. The paper plants and nuclear power plants could fund such work from their normal operating expenses. And the cities downstream and environmental interests could also fund their own studies to give them a basis for comment should lower flows be proposed. Regardless, the current 3600cfs year round should make for satisfactory operation until further information and future needs are evaluated.

In short in my opinion we are ready now to adopt a new drought plan that initiates reduced flows as soon as the lakes drop 2ft rather than using the current drought plan trigger levels. And 3600cfs should suffice until further study can be done. We do not need a government study to initiate such a change. We simply need leadership from the Corps. Everyone will readily accept such a proposal if the Corps puts their knowledge and influence behind it. I believe we have an excellent leader in Col. Kertis and I am hopeful that he will continue to show excellent leadership qualities and make this happen. If he does he will be following the lead of many other excellent leaders who simply "do the right thing".

LAKE'S RISING BUT PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE UNLESS DROUGHT PLAN IS REVISED IMMEDIATELY

Lake Thurmond is 5.5ft from normal fill and more rain is on the way so we are looking good from the stand point of mother Nature. But unless we change the drought plan immediately we will be right back into a major problem before the summer is over. We need for interested congressional leaders, our two state Governors, the Corps of Engineers, the NOAA, downstream water users, and lake interests to come together and formulate a new drought plan before it is too late. The plan should provide for keeping the lakes full by matching releases with the average rainfall coming in each year and the lakes should never be allowed to drop more than 2ft before initiating the drought plan so that we don't lose control of the levels. The plan should also provide for studies to determine real release limits based on both the needs and flexibilities of downstream users and environmental concerns. We should never again be put in a position of possibly destroying the lakes during a drought because of not knowing actual river flow rate parameters.

What is at stake is not just the lake becoming unsightly. We are talking serious consequences both upstream and downstream. Most people do not realize that the river is as threatened as the lake when the lake drops to the levels of the past drought. Once the lake drops below 312' river flows will no longer be predictable. Instead of downstream users being able to count on the 3600cfs used in drought control, river flows could easily drop to levels of 500cfs which would be disastrous to downstream users.

Up stream the real losses experienced so far of billions of dollars in property values and business interests are peanuts compared to the losses that will be experienced if we lose confidence in the lake remaining full. Recreation interests will disappear and find other places to go. The lure as an attractive place as a lake residence and retirement community will be gone along with all the people living in the area for these reasons. And businesses connected with the lake will be gone forever.

So far as fish and wild life, whether endangered or otherwise, they would experience drastic and possibly life threatening changes in both the Savannah River and the lakes. To allow this now that we are back to full lakes and know how to avoid it should be taken as a direct violation of all environmental protection laws directed at protecting fish and wildlife in the Savannah River Basin. The NOAA for one should demand that such measures be adopted before the lakes can return to the drought deprived condition of the past few years.

HELP US GET DROUGHT PLAN UPDATED

Using the Corps of Engineer's elevation and discharge data for Lake Thurmond I calculated the lake levels we would have experienced through 2008 if the drought plan recommended in my previous blog post had been followed. The resulting lake levels follow:

Jan 328' ---------- Aug 324.8' -------- Mar 328'
Feb 328.6' -------- Sep 324'
Mar 330.1' --------Oct 322.9'
Apr 330'---------- Nov 322.3'
May 329.8'-------- Dec 324.4
Jun 328.5' ---------Jan 324.8'
Jul 326.8' ----------Feb 324'

As stated in my previous blog post this proposed drought plan solves both the upstream and the downstream problems we've experienced in recent droughts. But before we can solve these problems someone needs to act to implement this plan. And at present the powers that be are silent.

Please help by contacting your congressman and the Corps of Engineers to see if they understand this proposal and whether they agree that it would work. Once we get enough of the right people to understand how it works, implementation should be relatively easy since it helps all parties both upstream and downstream. Matter of fact downstream interests actually benefit more than upstream interests since it would eliminate all threats of having to reduce flows to levels that cause problems with the environment, business interests, navigation, or water quality. This appears to be a win win situation for everbody.

Simpified View of Problem

I feel the lake level problem caused by our current drought situation is not nearly as complicated as it once appeared. Basically the problem stems from an inadequate lake level management plan. The lake is dropped 6 ft in the fall and there are no reductions in flow rates through the dam until the lake is too far below normal for any hope of quick recovery. Instead of this set up the lake should be kept at full level in the fall and flow rates should be reduced to the lowest flow rate possible anytime the level drops more than 2 ft. This way we would never lose the lake in the first place. This would be to the advantage of both lake interests and everyone downstream because the threat posed recently by the possibility of the lake drying up is unacceptable to both parties. Keeping the lake full not only satisfies recreation and business needs around the lake but it also guarantees that downstream needs can be met.

So far as what the lowest possible flow rate is, we know that 3600cfs works so the flows could be reduced to at least that point . And based on data going back to when Thurmond was built the lowest average inflow rate for any year was never less than 3600cfs so that should at least match outflow with inflow. In order to have more flexible control over lake level however it is still desirable to evaluate lower flows to establish what the lowest possible flow rate really is.

Problems with past thinking by the Corps and NOAA:
1) There has been no provision for dropping lake levels and the destruction caused to property values, business incomes related to the lakes, and recreation. These should be factored in and balanced against all the other costs and concerns caused by a drought.

2) Power production should not be at the expense of lake interests. Since Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid, lost power here should be made up by increased production elsewhere in the grid. And if that is not possible power production still should not be at the expense of lake interests. It is not right to rob one segment of the population to benefit another.

3) Effects of low flow rates through the dam on downstream interests need to be quantified. Rather than go by antiquated agreements each downstream user should be required to analyse minimum flow rates they can live with and asked to quantify what would be required to live with lower flow rates should they become necessary. For example The city of Augusta can live with much lower flow rates than 3600cfs by moving their take up point for drinking water. Similar changes may be possible for the nuclear power plants and manufacturing plants along the Savannah. At present it is assumed that we can't go below 3600cfs but no one has established this as the lowest possible level and no one has been asked what it would take to go lower.

4) Environmental groups argue that we need to put more water downstream than is provided from rain. As long as we don't hold up what comes down from rain there should be no environmental argument since their argument by definition is to avoid tampering by man that harms mother nature. In fact, since the lake can be used to smooth out flows to monthly or even annual averages we are already benefiting the environment by avoiding excessively low flows such as when there is no rain for months. This of course handles arguments such as protecting short nosed sturgeon and salt water incursion at the coast. By keeping the lakes full we are actually helping these causes by avoiding the crises that would occur environmentally should the lakes dry up.

5) Operations such as the Augusta Canal should be reviewed and redone to avoid affecting release requirements from the dam. Currently the canal uses 1500cfs which is drawn off upstream of the shoals and at times this sets the release requirements so that the shoals do not dry up. The canal can be operated with much less than 1500 cfs. Zero flow would even be possible. This and other similar situations along the Savannah River should be revised.

Basically what I am suggesting is that NOAA back up to reasonable requests and that the Corps quantify flow rate requirements and cost effects for both downstream and upstream interests. Simply ignoring lake interests and requiring more water be released than is coming in from rain is no longer accetable based on the disastrous experiences of the current drought. Everyone needs to recognize that keeping the lakes full is in the best interests of all concerned since to do otherwise can lead to unaccepatble consequences not only upstream but downstream as well.

SHORT TERM CONCERNS

We have three unresolved concerns for the short term;
1) Gresham Barrett has requested that the Corps return to 3100cfs for the months of April and May. Since the Sturgeon spawning season has passed and the weather is not that hot yet this seems to be within the realm of satisfying all the real and imagined ill effects of 3100cfs on downstream interests. Hence we are hopeful that the Corps will continue their positive efforts toward relieving the drought situation around our lakes.

2) The outdated drought plan that we are laboring under specifies that the flow rates be stepped up as Lake Thurmond reaches 2ft above each trigger level. We need to get the Corps to agree to leave flow rates as low as possible (currently 3600cfs) until the lakes refill. Delaying recovery of our lakes is a real cost of billions of dollars while returning to higher flow rates has no equivalent monetary benefit. And since there are no demonstrable crises downstream with current flow rates, deliberately continuing these losses to lake interests would be foolhardy.

3) The Augusta Canal decreases the flexibility of the Corps in reducing flow rates from the dam when run off from rain swells the river downstream of the shoals. About 1500cfs in river flow is diverted from the shoals to feed the canal. These flows have been needed in the past because Augusta has been getting their drinking water from the canal. Since the city of Augusta has demonstrated the ability to obtain drinking water straight from the river instead of the canal and since the canal would continue to be the attraction it is to Augusta as a slow moving pool, the Corps needs to rethink the way the canal is run before it is restarted. The canal needs to be viewed as a threat to the environmental health of the shoals and the usage should be designed to minimize that threat without requiring such huge flows through the dam.

Long term solutions are needed after the lakes recover. But these three short term considerations will help to make the recovery happen more quickly.

WE OWE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OUR THANKS

Col. Ed Kertis set a precedent and demonstrated flexibility in helping us with the drought situation. He has stopped flows through the dam while the river and streams below the dam are swollen from runoff from the recent rains. And in addition the increase to 4,000cfs specified in the drought plan for 316ft appears to be in abeyance for the time being. Changes like this in combination with the recent rain event have caused the lake level at thurmond to literally jump 4ft to date with further increases possible while run off from the rain continues.

One or two more rain events like this past weekend along with help from the Corps to minimize losses through the dam could get Thurmond back to the normal fill level of 330ft. If we can then get the powers that be to agree to a modification to the drought plan similar to my last blog posting we could finally get our lakes back to the great attraction they used to be. Once modifications are in place we should be able to restore confidence in the stability of the lakes so that businesses, tourism, and real estate values can recover.

If you get a chance please let the Corps know we appreciate their efforts. Changes like those implemented by Col. Kertis are totally unprecendented.