The Savannah River is swollen from all the recent rains. Downstream interests are certainly not hurting for more water in the river. Upstream interests on the other hand are holding their breath waiting for the lakes to finally reach full pool for the first time in years. So why is the Corps suddenly increasing release rates through Thurmond Dam from the 3600 cfs lake residents have been pleading for to 4200 cfs that does no one any good.
It would have been good if the Corps had continued the 3600 cfs release rate until the lakes were totally full. Going up to 4200 cfs raises doubts in the minds of upstream interests about the Corps'. Upstream interests suffered tremendous devastation to economies and recreation that could have been prevented. All the Corps has to do to prevent a recurrence of this devastation is adopt our recommendation of 3600 cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool until the lakes are completely full. Increasing releases to 4200 cfs before the lakes refill is like telling lake residents to take a hike.
I had high hopes for future relations with the Corps. This uncalled for increase in release rates raises serious doubts about getting the cooperation we need.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
WHAT IS WRONG WITH CORPS DROUGHT PLAN
The current drought plan is backwards from the way the real world operates. The Corps is worrying about and specifying how much water needs to be released downstream with out looking at how much water is available. This is like managing your finances from the stand point of what you want rather than what you can afford. Eventually you will bankrupt your finances or in the case of a lake deplete all the useable water out of the lake.
The difference in what we are recommending is to look at the amount of water available and specify release rates that won't deplete the lakes of useable water. Our recommendation comes from two observations:
1) the amount of water entering the lakes from rain during the worst droughts on record is the same as the amount the Corps has been releasing for the past 18 or so months (3600cfs).
2) the release rate the Corps has been using for the past 18 or so months has not caused any problems downstream
The benefits of following our recommendation would be to avoid the destruction experienced in past droughts to upstream economies and recreation and to guard against reaching the bottom of the conservation pool for the lakes where predictable release rates could no longer be maintained downstream.
It should be obvious to anyone looking at the lakes that there are two concerns that should govern release rates. One is the effect on downstream stakeholders and the second is the effect on upstream stakeholders. The Corps does lip service to protecting upstream interests but in reality only accepts responsibility for downstream effects. So far as instructions to the corps by congress they were formally instructed to protect upstream recreational interests but upstream economies were not mentioned. Our recommendations take care of all downstream concerns and all upstream concerns including upstream economics. As a result our drought control plan is superior to the current corps drought plan.
Based on a review of all comments to the Corps about their drought control plan upstream stakeholders are very disatisfied with the way the Corps is managing the lakes while the only downstream group unhappy is Fish and Wildlife. They expressed all kinds of possible problems while not mentioning any real problem. We wonder why then the Corps is scrambling to increase release rates rather than sticking with a much better plan that is working? Could it be they fear the Fish and Wildlife commission?
The difference in what we are recommending is to look at the amount of water available and specify release rates that won't deplete the lakes of useable water. Our recommendation comes from two observations:
1) the amount of water entering the lakes from rain during the worst droughts on record is the same as the amount the Corps has been releasing for the past 18 or so months (3600cfs).
2) the release rate the Corps has been using for the past 18 or so months has not caused any problems downstream
The benefits of following our recommendation would be to avoid the destruction experienced in past droughts to upstream economies and recreation and to guard against reaching the bottom of the conservation pool for the lakes where predictable release rates could no longer be maintained downstream.
It should be obvious to anyone looking at the lakes that there are two concerns that should govern release rates. One is the effect on downstream stakeholders and the second is the effect on upstream stakeholders. The Corps does lip service to protecting upstream interests but in reality only accepts responsibility for downstream effects. So far as instructions to the corps by congress they were formally instructed to protect upstream recreational interests but upstream economies were not mentioned. Our recommendations take care of all downstream concerns and all upstream concerns including upstream economics. As a result our drought control plan is superior to the current corps drought plan.
Based on a review of all comments to the Corps about their drought control plan upstream stakeholders are very disatisfied with the way the Corps is managing the lakes while the only downstream group unhappy is Fish and Wildlife. They expressed all kinds of possible problems while not mentioning any real problem. We wonder why then the Corps is scrambling to increase release rates rather than sticking with a much better plan that is working? Could it be they fear the Fish and Wildlife commission?
Monday, October 5, 2009
GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS
The good news is the Corps has agreed to change their drought management plan on a trial basis to reduce flows from Lake Thurmond to 3100cfs during the months of October to February. The bad news is they don't plan to do this unless Lake Thurmond reaches 14 ft below full pool.
We had requested this flow be adopted anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool during the months of October to February. Waiting until the lake is 14' low is like the proverbial "closing the barn doors after the cows are gone". Basically upstream economic issues and recreational interests are destroyed whenever Lake Thurmond drops more than 10ft.
On the plus side the Corps' argument for using 3100cfs mirrors what we've been saying from our review of information gathered from a freedom of information act request. When we requested all comments from downstream interests concerning the affects of 3100cfs we found that no one had a problem with that release rate. The Corps arguments for adopting 3100cfs on a trial basis supports our conclusions. Furthermore the Corps admits that there should be no significant affect on environmental issues.
The only omission from the Corps' argument is the affects on economic and recreational interests upstream when Lake Thurmond levels fall more than 10'. They use the words economic and recreation issues but fail to address these concerns. So it would appear we are closer now than ever to getting the Corps to recognize the wisdom of our requests for 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) whenever Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. All we need now is to get them to recognize economic and recreation issues upstream and they will be forced to come to the same conclusions we have about how best to manage our lakes.
The Corps is requesting public comments on their proposal for 3100cfs before noon on October 30th. Please flood their desks with the fact that they need to consider the impact of waiting beyond 2' below full before implementing 3100cfs during October to February. The addresses to use are: email address - william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil, fax number - (912) 652-5787, And mailing address - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Planning Unit, Attn: William Bailey, PO Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.
We had requested this flow be adopted anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool during the months of October to February. Waiting until the lake is 14' low is like the proverbial "closing the barn doors after the cows are gone". Basically upstream economic issues and recreational interests are destroyed whenever Lake Thurmond drops more than 10ft.
On the plus side the Corps' argument for using 3100cfs mirrors what we've been saying from our review of information gathered from a freedom of information act request. When we requested all comments from downstream interests concerning the affects of 3100cfs we found that no one had a problem with that release rate. The Corps arguments for adopting 3100cfs on a trial basis supports our conclusions. Furthermore the Corps admits that there should be no significant affect on environmental issues.
The only omission from the Corps' argument is the affects on economic and recreational interests upstream when Lake Thurmond levels fall more than 10'. They use the words economic and recreation issues but fail to address these concerns. So it would appear we are closer now than ever to getting the Corps to recognize the wisdom of our requests for 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) whenever Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. All we need now is to get them to recognize economic and recreation issues upstream and they will be forced to come to the same conclusions we have about how best to manage our lakes.
The Corps is requesting public comments on their proposal for 3100cfs before noon on October 30th. Please flood their desks with the fact that they need to consider the impact of waiting beyond 2' below full before implementing 3100cfs during October to February. The addresses to use are: email address - william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil, fax number - (912) 652-5787, And mailing address - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Planning Unit, Attn: William Bailey, PO Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
CORPS IS REFUSING TO GIVE CREDIT TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Recent emails from Col. Kertis reveal that the Corps is refusing to accept our proposals as legitimate ways to improve management of the Lakes. Col. Kertis is even defending himself against our requests as if we are falsely acusing him of something he is not guilty of. What seems to be getting lost between our communications is that our proposals represent what is good for downstream stakeholders as well as upstream stakeholders.
In his last two email responses the Colonel claims that the Corps is doing what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents. This indicates that what we are requesting would not be in the best interests of all stakeholders. Furthermore in his last email he even mentions that he receives all kinds of unrealistic requests from all over the basin. This would seem to imply he feels our requests fall in the same category. Such accusations are simply not true. The proposals presented by Save Our Lakes Now represent what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents.
The proposal from Save Our Lakes Now is as sound as balancing a bank account so you don't go bankrupt. The recommended release rate of 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) is based on the annual rainfall during the worst droughts of record. It is also the flow that was demonstrated to meet everyone's needs downstream when the Corps had to minimize flows during the last drought. This minimizes disruption to upstream economies and recreation during a drought, keeps adequate water flowing in the river for downstream and avoids dropping lake levels to the point that releases to the river can no longer be controlled.
The Colonel's claim to managing the lakes for the benefit of all stakeholders is an exageration of what happened during the last drought. Upstream economies and recreational interests were destroyed when the lakes dropped more than 10ft from normal fill levels. And downstream interests came dangerously close to losing controlled river flows because the lakes almost reached the bottom of their conservaion pools. If the Corps had not abandoned their drought guidelines, the drought could have devastated downstream interests by decreasing river flows to the daily inputs from rain. Mismangement would be a more accurate description of what happened in the last drought. Unfortunately, unless the Corps listens and adopts our proposals this could well happen again and this time it could go all the way to devastating downstream interests.
In his last two email responses the Colonel claims that the Corps is doing what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents. This indicates that what we are requesting would not be in the best interests of all stakeholders. Furthermore in his last email he even mentions that he receives all kinds of unrealistic requests from all over the basin. This would seem to imply he feels our requests fall in the same category. Such accusations are simply not true. The proposals presented by Save Our Lakes Now represent what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents.
The proposal from Save Our Lakes Now is as sound as balancing a bank account so you don't go bankrupt. The recommended release rate of 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) is based on the annual rainfall during the worst droughts of record. It is also the flow that was demonstrated to meet everyone's needs downstream when the Corps had to minimize flows during the last drought. This minimizes disruption to upstream economies and recreation during a drought, keeps adequate water flowing in the river for downstream and avoids dropping lake levels to the point that releases to the river can no longer be controlled.
The Colonel's claim to managing the lakes for the benefit of all stakeholders is an exageration of what happened during the last drought. Upstream economies and recreational interests were destroyed when the lakes dropped more than 10ft from normal fill levels. And downstream interests came dangerously close to losing controlled river flows because the lakes almost reached the bottom of their conservaion pools. If the Corps had not abandoned their drought guidelines, the drought could have devastated downstream interests by decreasing river flows to the daily inputs from rain. Mismangement would be a more accurate description of what happened in the last drought. Unfortunately, unless the Corps listens and adopts our proposals this could well happen again and this time it could go all the way to devastating downstream interests.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
WHO'S AT THE CONTROLS
If you look at the Corps' behavior on our drought control plan it becomes obvious they are reacting to some outside force rather than using common sense and doing what is right. In my opinion the ultimate cause for the Corps' refusal to change the plan and adopt our recommendations is the heavy hand of the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. When we requested through the Freedom of Information Act all correspondence requesting more than 3600cfs from Lake Thurmond, no one had a problem except this organization. Their letters showed total lack of logic. They demanded certain minimum flows from Lake Thurmond without regard for the fact that this flow rate might exhaust the capability to maintain predictable flows from the dam. And of course such a demand totally ignores the impact of such flows on the lake levels and economic/recreational aspects of the lakes.
Logic demands that releases from the Lakes take into account the amount of water coming in from rain and the impacts on both sides of the dam from releases versus rain inputs. But the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letters show no concern for this balance; they look only at river flows. Following their dictates often destroys the interests of stakeholders around the lakes. It also puts downstream interests in danger of not being able to maintain acceptable river flows when the lakes reach the bottom of their conservation pool. If we were to mirror their behavior we would show no concern for what happens below the dam and demand the lakes stay at full pool regardless of what this does to dam releases. Obviously everyone would be aghast at us if we acted that way. So why are we not aghast at the behavior of the Department of the Interior.
Our plight is very similar to that of the farmers in California who no longer have farms because the environmental protection agency demands their water be diverted to protect the Smelt fish which is becoming extinct. Hannity of Fox News recently did a special showing the plight of the california farmers. We need for him to do the same here. Please send emails and letters to Hannity and see if he will take up our cause along with that of the California farmers being destroyed by protecting Smelt.
Logic demands that releases from the Lakes take into account the amount of water coming in from rain and the impacts on both sides of the dam from releases versus rain inputs. But the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letters show no concern for this balance; they look only at river flows. Following their dictates often destroys the interests of stakeholders around the lakes. It also puts downstream interests in danger of not being able to maintain acceptable river flows when the lakes reach the bottom of their conservation pool. If we were to mirror their behavior we would show no concern for what happens below the dam and demand the lakes stay at full pool regardless of what this does to dam releases. Obviously everyone would be aghast at us if we acted that way. So why are we not aghast at the behavior of the Department of the Interior.
Our plight is very similar to that of the farmers in California who no longer have farms because the environmental protection agency demands their water be diverted to protect the Smelt fish which is becoming extinct. Hannity of Fox News recently did a special showing the plight of the california farmers. We need for him to do the same here. Please send emails and letters to Hannity and see if he will take up our cause along with that of the California farmers being destroyed by protecting Smelt.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
FINALLY
I looked at the Corps charts for Lake Thurmond Friday and was very surprised to see that the Corps has finally dropped release rates back to 3600cfs. I don't know whether this means we are winning the battle over release rates or something else is afoot. But finally the ridiculous waste of lake level has stopped. Lake Thurmond is a foot lower right now than it would have been had the Corps not increased release rates to 4000cfs.
If you are talking to or sending email to the Corps or your Congressman or State Government officials about the lake please make sure you let them know we are very pleased to see release rates that are sensible. To finally end this madness and mismanagement of the Lakes we now need a formal drought control plan that specifies 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. The main reason a formal written plan is needed is so we can restore confidence in the lakes and end the destruction of the economy of the lake communities. Without this in writing people will naturally be afraid that the Corps will repeat past history and the economy will suffer the consequences.
If you are talking to or sending email to the Corps or your Congressman or State Government officials about the lake please make sure you let them know we are very pleased to see release rates that are sensible. To finally end this madness and mismanagement of the Lakes we now need a formal drought control plan that specifies 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. The main reason a formal written plan is needed is so we can restore confidence in the lakes and end the destruction of the economy of the lake communities. Without this in writing people will naturally be afraid that the Corps will repeat past history and the economy will suffer the consequences.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
NO ONE NEEDS 4000CFS FROM THURMOND
We asked for a copy of all requests for going to 4000cfs. There were no such requests from any businesses or public interests along the Savannah River. The only requests were from government entities with "sky is falling" type thinking. None of these govenment agencies knows a way to make water with a dam so their imagined concerns go away when you tell them we will pass on everything that comes in from mother nature. And our porposal for 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2' low does just that. All that is needed here is for these agencies to be a little patient and let the lakes refill. From that point on the releases from Lake Thurmond would no longer be restricted. The Corps can go to any rate they wish until the level drops more than 2'.
We need for our congressmen and state governments to demand responsible behavior in controlling lake releases. Releasing more water than comes in from mother nature is irresponsible. And dropping lake levels to the point that it destroys the economics of communities around the lakes is also irresponsible. Responsible behavior demands that the Corps base their release rates on the amount of water available from rain. The benefit of daming water to form a reservoir like Lake Thurmond is to average river flows over a years time to avoid both floods and greatly diminished river flows. The mistake made by the Corps and "sky is falling" type government agencies who advise the Corps is they try to put more water downstream than is provided by mother nature. This leads to costly drops in lake levels and endangers all downstream interests by raising the possibility of destroying the lakes.
We need to continue demanding that the Corps return to 3600cfs until the lakes refill.
We need for our congressmen and state governments to demand responsible behavior in controlling lake releases. Releasing more water than comes in from mother nature is irresponsible. And dropping lake levels to the point that it destroys the economics of communities around the lakes is also irresponsible. Responsible behavior demands that the Corps base their release rates on the amount of water available from rain. The benefit of daming water to form a reservoir like Lake Thurmond is to average river flows over a years time to avoid both floods and greatly diminished river flows. The mistake made by the Corps and "sky is falling" type government agencies who advise the Corps is they try to put more water downstream than is provided by mother nature. This leads to costly drops in lake levels and endangers all downstream interests by raising the possibility of destroying the lakes.
We need to continue demanding that the Corps return to 3600cfs until the lakes refill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)