RECREATION IS GLOWING OMISSION FROM CORPS MEETINGS

The Corps has many things they are responsible for in managing the Savannah River Basin and these all should come into play in drought planning.  Environmental interests are the ones most often quoted as the reason release rates and lake levels are managed the way they are in a drought.  Recreation is mentioned only in passing.  When pressed the typical corps response is one of two things.  Either recreation such as water skiing and boating are just not that important compared to environmental concerns or the folks below the dams like to ski and boat as well as the people around the lakes.

These responses show very little comprehension of what is meant by recreation. The responsibility to protect and provide for recreation has very little to do with whether someone can go water skiing or boating.  What is really at stake is the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure that is heavily damaged every time the lakes drop more than 10ft.  Marinas, boat ramps, camp grounds, lake side real estate, restaurants, etc. etc. is what is meant by recreation.  Continued devastating drops in lake levels such as over the past decade are destroying this infrastructure.  First to go will be all the homes built on the lakes for weekend get aways and vacations.  Then you will see the restaurants and similar supporting facilities go. Then the marinas will disappear, camp grounds will be shut down, boat ramps will get in dis repair and slowly but surely recreation will disappear from our lakes. All this is a direct contradiction to the Corps’ responsibility to balance recreation against all the other concerns.

Compare for a moment the difference between managing for just environmental concerns and looking at the whole picture including recreation.  For tens of thousands of years the river was uninterrupted by dams and fish and wildlife and all the other environmental concerns survived just fine. About all the benefit man can provide is to take the wild ravages of floods and extreme droughts out of the picture.  Providing an artificial river that never drops below 3800cfs at the river’s inlet is taking it to an extreme.  Allowing the river to be more of a river and managing the lakes so that they are not destroyed makes a lot more sense.

All you have to do is look at the meetings to discuss drought planning and you see a glaring omission to balancing the lakes.  Where are the recreation stakeholders? People involved in actually providing the infrastructure for recreation who can properly represent these interests.  We need to hear that recreation interests must agree to such a change instead of just environmental interests.  Until recreational interests are represented we will not achieve true balance on managing the lakes. As long as there is no representation from recreation interests even costly studies will not yield balance because of the way the results are interpreted.

TWO YEARS LATER

Two years ago when the lakes dropped 2’ in level unexpectedly, we filled the air ways with warnings that the lakes could easily be in store for another horrendous drought.  We pleaded with the Corps to reduce releases to the river to the amount of water coming in from rain in the two droughts of record.  We explained that this release rate had been used successfully for a period of more than 12 months in 2008-9 with no significant harm downstream.  We also explained that if we were not in a major drought the lakes would refill quickly and normal releases could be resumed.  Further we explained that if any major problems were encountered downstream releases could be increased as needed.

The Corps countered our pleas with explanations that they did not want downstream interests to suffer unnecessarily from reduced flows and they wanted to follow the current drought plan which does not react until the lakes are down 6’ to make sure we really are in a drought before reducing flows.  Additionally, although Corps documents clearly state that there is no significant environmental impact from the flows we requested, they insisted on waiting for further studies before making changes to the drought plan.  Two years later these studies are just now getting underway and results are at least another 2 years away.

The next time you hear how irrational and alarmist Save Our Lakes Now is please look at the facts.  If the Corps had listened your lakes would be 8’ or so higher than they are now.  If they had listened no harm would have been suffered downstream exactly the same way no harm is now being experienced using the very flows we requested.  And if they had listened downstream interests would face much less time at reduced flows to refill the lakes because the amount of water to refill the lakes would be much less.

Claims that the Corps knows best and we should shut up and let them do their job are misguided.  Our lakes have been destroyed repeatedly over the past decade because the Corps is using antiquated procedures and is failing to act on the basis of information we have gained from these events.  Good management involves making decisions and taking risks based on good logic, not hiding your head in the sand and refusing to change harmful practices.

Finally 3100 but this is not the answer

The Corps is proudly announcing that they plan to go to 3100cfs release rate out of Thurmond shortly when the lake hits 14' below full pool. This is fine compared to any other options we have now but this is a real miscarriage of their responsibilities if you look at what they have allowed to happen.  In order to keep our lakes at reasonable levels the Corps needs to drop release rates to 3600 cfs (3100 in winter months) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool.  Instead the Corps is waiting until the lakes are down over 14' and virtually destroyed before they do this.

The argument the Corps keeps giving is that people downstream would be hurt unnecessarily if the rates were decreased before now.  Not true.  Not one single stakeholder on the river had problems with operation at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008-9.  The only people who complained were environmental groups expressing concern that problems MIGHT occur at this low a flow to the river. 

There are a number of very strong arguments to counter holding flows up because they MIGHT be a problem. 

1. If a REAL problem occurs the release rates can be increased when that happens
2. Nature only provides 3600cfs input averaged over a year so anything higher than that is man trying to one up Nature. Man just isn't that smart.  Smoothing out flooding and the severity of the driest parts of droughts makes sense but trying to generate water out of thin air does not.
3. Water is one of our most precious commodities.  It ranks right up there with air.  Deliberately throwing fresh water away by releasing more to the ocean than nature does is criminal and needs to stop.

These challenges are taken care of by simply dropping releases to 3600cfs (3100 in winter months) whenever the lakes are down 2'.  No more water is going to the ocean than nature requires.  No one is harmed downstream based on past experience.  And true balance between the lakes and the river is achieved (i.e. neither the river nor the lakes are getting more water than the other).

COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN WITH CORPS

Recently we sent an email to Col. Hall who is commander of Corps of Engineer's operations for the Savannah River Basin.  We asked for a list of any downstream stakeholders who suffered harm from operating at 3600cfs during the drought of 2008-9.  His answer, which follows, indicates a major disconnect in communications between Lake Stakeholders and the Corps.  My response to his letter is an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding.

EMAIL FROM COL. HALL
Jerry, An example during this period is the City of Savannah Utility Department which experienced increased water treatment costs.  Recommend you reconsider your stance towards federal and state environmental agencies.  VR COL Hall

Col. Hall,

SAVE OUR LAKES NOW RESPONSE TO COL. HALL'S EMAIL

Perhaps you misunderstand our stance.  We have nothing against the environmental agencies.  We recognize it is their job to advise you of possible consequences.  Every engineer who has ever been involved with a hazardous system such as when I worked at SRP understands this relationship well.  Our concern is lack of engineering judgment which is often required to thread the needles you frequently find yourself involved with.  We do not understand why the Corps does not take the best information at hand and strike out on a logical path that can be reversed or changed should unforeseen circumstances crop up.  In our conversations with Fish and Wildlife, Bud Badr when he was over SC DNR, the current person in charge of GA DNR (I don't remember his name), etc. etc. they have all indicated they are advisory only and recognize you have full authority to vary from the letter of their advice as you see fit.

We feel it is your responsibility,  not theirs, to balance the whole system.  We see total lack of consideration when it comes to recreation which is one of your charges and we see no concern for the wanton destruction that is going on for lake stakeholders. As we see it, the way the system is being operated  is totally out of balance.  And we see no representation for lake stakeholders in the meetings where release rates are decided.  Since many downstream groups are represented we wonder how this can be considered balance.

Simple measures such as holding releases to what nature provides over the course of a year is fully defensible and logical yet there has been no attempt to do so even though there is over a year's actual operation data that indicates this to be an acceptable release rate.  And stopping releases from Thurmond when the streams below the dam are flooded from heavy rains is fully defensible yet again there has been no attempt to do so.  We are not asking for wild or illogical changes and all our suggestions are aimed at balancing the basin; not starving the river to satisfy lake concerns.  For these reasons we find it hard to  understand the Corps' reluctance to adopt these suggestions. 

By the way we talked to supervision with the Savannah Utility Department during the middle of the 2008-9 drought and they said they had no problems from reduced flows.  And I seriously doubt the increased water treatment costs were anything like the hundreds of millions of dollars lost by lake stake holders in real estate values, money lost by providers of recreation, etc.

I apologize for sounding argumentative.  But if it were your income, your property, your future that was being devastated by the repeated droughts of late I suspect you would feel the same way we do and I suspect your patience with the authority controlling these matters would be worn thin as ours is.

Thanks for your time,

Jerry Clontz, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWER AT CORPS MEETINGS NEXT WEEK

Following are a number of questions Save Our Lakes Now would love to see answered at the Corps meetings  next week in McCormick and Anderson;

 

1.       Several years ago the lake groups recommended you go to 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2’ below full pool.  Why have you not adopted this seeing that it would mean 5’ or more water in the lakes right now?

 

2.       Please give the name of any stakeholder downstream of Thurmond Dam that suffered harm from over 12 months operation at 3600cfs in 2008-9.  We are not asking about government agencies that thought more would be good.  We are asking for actual stakeholders such as SRP, industries on the river in Augusta, water supplies for cities downstream, etc.

 

3.       We now have more than twice the storage volume in the lakes for spring rains that we had before Hartwell and Russell were built.  Why do you not end this stupidity of dropping the lakes 4’ in the fall and winter?  Logic says 2’ should be plenty based on the increased storage volumes now vs when the 4’ rule curve was set up.

 

4.       In 2009 you held release rates at 3600 until the lakes refilled.  Why for heaven’s sake do you plan to increase releases to 4,000, 4200, etc as the lakes refill this time?

 

5.       Why do you not allow lake stakeholders a seat at the table where release rates are discussed and approved?  You mention that you are being forced by environmental groups and/or DNR to hold certain release rates.  They claim otherwise.  We have been told repeatedly that they are advisory groups only.  If nothing else we would like to have a witness to these discussions.

 

6.       You insist that economics cannot be discussed when talking about environmental issues.  This excuse is used to justify the wanton destruction to the economy around the lakes.  How then can you justify deepening the harbor for economic reasons when you know it will result in environmental damages such as increased salt intrusion, effects on wildlife and fish habitats, etc.?  Sounds to us like, if you can argue that way for the harbor the same should be true concerning economics around the lakes.

 

7.       As we understand it Congress added recreation to your responsibilities on  the lakes in 1980.  How then can you totally avoid recreation in your discussions about release rates?  By recreation we do not mean  just being able to boat or fish, we mean the whole infrastructure of campgrounds, launching ramps, marinas, restaurants on the lake, etc. that make recreation possible on the lakes.

 

8.       Why not have a citizens group from the various basin interests involved in the decision process for drought plans and general operation criteria for the Savannah River Basin?  Such a group could be appointed by our congressmen or state governments to make sure all interests are represented. Such a group should reflect the extreme dissatisfaction people around the lakes have for the way things are being operated now.  We do not need a yes group simply reporting how wise the Corps is in their decisions.  We need a group that makes sure all interests are heard and involved in the decision process.

 

 

THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE

·         The Corps of Engineers is proud about using waterless toilets at the Thurmond Dam to conserve fresh water.  Each toilet is estimated to save 40,000 gals of water per year.  At the same time the Corps chooses to use a release rate of 3800cfs instead of 3600cfs for very weak reasons.  The extra 200cfs destroys more fresh water in 30 seconds than is saved by a waterless toilet in a year.  Does this make sense in view of how precious fresh water is to all of us?

 

·         Environmentalists strive to get back to nature by avoiding interference by man.  Yet it is the environmentalists who insist that the Corps of Engineers maintain an artificial man made river flowing at least 3800cfs below the Thurmond Dam.  Does this make sense when nature allowed fluctuations to as low as 500cfs for eons before the dams were constructed? 

 

·         The Corps of Engineers claims to be balancing the Savannah River Basin during droughts so as to give equal protection to both lake stakeholders and those downstream of Thurmond Dam.  In reality no stakeholders below Thurmond Dam suffer during droughts while lake stakeholders are losing hundreds of millions of dollars and the lakes are virtually being destroyed.  Does this make sense to claim balance when groups upstream are impacted much worse than those downstream?

 

·         The Corps of Engineers claims to be doing all they can to protect the lakes in a drought.  Yet they refuse to follow recommended release rates that would keep the lakes at acceptable levels even though such changes have been demonstrated to be acceptable downstream.  At the same time with the lakes starving for water the Corps refuses to hold back on releases when the river downstream of Thurmond Dam is swollen to flood stage from heavy rains.  Does this make sense to claim protection when known protective measures are not being used?

 

·         Severe droughts like the one we are in right now have a very negative impact on marinas causing huge losses in incomes.  This makes it extremely difficult for marinas to continue operation.  At such times you would expect the Corps to relax regulations that have negative impacts on profits.  Instead the Corps insists on enforcing questionable rules that could destroy the very marinas that provide recreation on our lakes.  Does it make sense when it could easily be avoided?

 

·         The Corps claims to be following orders from Congress and listening to all the groups connected with the Savannah River System that have a stake in drought control.  But requests by our Congressmen go unheeded using the excuse that one or another group would object.  And no lake interests are represented in the drought control meetings.  Does this make sense?

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.