RESPONSE TO COL HALL'S VIDEO ON BTB

Col Hall has a very good stage presence.  In his recent video on balancing the basin he appears very level headed, calm, and intelligent in the reasoning he offers about how the Corps manages the Savannah River Basin.  However we feel that the logic presented is flawed. Some of the challenges we have with his logic are:

1.       You don’t have to wait to reduce flows.  Common sense based on past history says unless you reduce flows immediately you run a high risk of destroying recreation (huge infrastructure—not someone having trouble with a fishing hole). 

2.       The reduction needed is not some hypothetical value pulled out of thin air by environmentalists.  Instead you have to match mother nature’s inputs or here again you run a high risk of destroying recreation.

3.       Downstream interests will not suffer any more from reducing flows immediately on losing 2ft of lake level.  The flows that balance what nature is providing have been shown time and time again to suffice for downstream needs.  Besides, the number of hours river flows have to be reduced is actually shorter if you go immediately to minimum flows.

4.       Downstream has as much to lose as upstream if you destroy the lakes.  In other words releasing more than nature is providing runs a real risk of destroying the lakes and the ability to control river flows.

Its unfortunate that we need to share our comments in this manner.  It is not that we have no respect for Col. Hall and his offce.  We would much prefer to discuss these thoughts at the meetings where release rates are decided.  But Recreation interests like Save Our Lakes Now are not invited to these meetings leaving us little other choice if we are to make our views known.

ANSWER TO LAST BALANCING THE BASIN ARTICLE FROM CORPS

I hate to be crude but this article misses the point completely.  Until we learn how to make water out of thin air the only control that makes sense is to limit outflows to inflows so you do not destroy the system that both upstream and downstream want.  For example, let’s say to do all the things this author wants takes 20,000cfs out of Thurmond dam.  We can all see that won’t work because the lakes would run dry in no time.  Why can’t these guys see that you have to live within the confines of what nature is providing.

 

Selfish upstream interests would call for keeping the dams totally full and just let what comes in from rain each day overflow.  Following this approach the river would sometimes have flows of only 500cfs during droughts.  Basically the river would revert to the way it was before the dams were built.

 

Selfish downstream interests would call for 10,000 cfs or so regardless of lake levels.  Following this approach the river would eventually drop to 500cfs in a drought because we would no longer have any lakes to feed the system.

 

Unselfish, logical interests look at the fact that either of the above approaches destroy the system.  Following this approach you limit releases to what comes in from rain but you average this over a year so as to avoid the ravages of drought while keeping the system intact.  Save Our Lakes Now recommendation of 3600cfs (3100 in the winter) anytime the lakes drop 2’ from full summer pool levels is just such an approach.

 

Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

BALANCING THE BASIN IS MISLEADING TITLE

 

The Corps of Engineers now has a blog of its own entitled “Balancing the Basin”.  The title is very misleading because in reality the Corps is not balancing our basin.  True balance would mean balance between all the various responsibilities the Corps is assigned by Congress and balance between lake interests and river interests.  The Corps claims the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now to use 3600cfs (3100 in winter) release rate anytime the lakes drop more than 2 ft is out of balance in favor of lake interests and unfair to river interests.  In reality it is the Corps’ drought plan that is out of balance, not the proposal by Save Our Lakes Now.

If Save Our Lakes Now wanted to have the Savannah River System run in favor of lake interests we would simply ask the Corps to let the lakes overflow as rainfall occurs.  This would allow river flows to return to their natural state prior to building the dams.  From the way the Corps describes our proposal you would think we are selfishly trying to keep the lakes full without any regard for what is happening in the river.  In reality our proposal balances lake and river interests while theirs is totally out of balance.  By releasing only 3600cfs when the lakes are 2’ or more below full pool we avoid the severe droughts along the river that occur when you match daily rainfall.  Additionally you keep the lakes at reasonable levels because you are matching releases with annual rainfall.  This approach is much like balancing your budget.  You don’t have to balance income with expenses daily but if you spend more over the span of a year than you make you are on the road to bankruptcy just as the Corps is on the road to destroying the beautiful Savannah River Basin .

In the latest issue of “Balancing the Basin” the corps mentions that fishermen sometimes are unable to fish In some oxbows of the river because of low river levels.  I can only assume they are trying to claim recreation below the dams is destroyed by too low a release rate.  When Save Our Lakes Now mentions recreation being destroyed on the lakes we are not talking about a fisherman not being able to reach a given fishing spot.  We are talking about the huge infrastructure for recreation that is about to be bankrupted.  Already parks are closing, real estate purchases by people wanting to be at the lake for recreation have been destroyed, and people are leaving our lakes in favor of more stable lakes elsewhere.

The next time you see something from the Corps explaining how Congress has tied their hands because of various responsibilities try one further test as to whether they are really balancing things.  They will give double talk about all kinds of environmental concerns (double talk because the concerns are all maybe, might, sky is falling type concerns) look for any concern about recreation which is one of the responsibilities Congress has given the Corps relative to our lakes.  Unlike the maybe and might concerns of environmental issues the fact that the recreational infrastructure for our lakes is being destroyed is real: TOO REAL.

The next time the Corps mentions balancing the basin I hope you will think twice about what they are really saying.  And the next time the Corps points to the proposals of Save Our Lakes Now as being totally unbalanced I hope you will understand that that claim is simply not true.

RELEASE RATES: WHO SETS THEM AND WHY

Some people are begging for 3600cfs, the corps claims 3800cfs is as low as they can go, and the actual release rates are currently 4,000cfs.  Why all the fuss and what difference does it make.

First, looking at what these do to lake level, every 100cfs is 1ft of lake level over a year’s time.  So 3600cfs instead of 4,000 cfs will give us 4ft more water in our lakes a year from now.  This means if you are providing recreational services at the lake or if you have a house sitting on the side of the lake you definitely want as much water as possible which means your vote would be for 3600cfs.  That is if you had a vote.  But you do not.  The Corps refuses representation from lake interests when they decide release rates. 

Second looking at what nature provides in rain, 3600cfs matches the input from rain over a year’s time in the previous droughts of record.  Hence using 3600 while a drought is in progress prevents sending more water downstream than you are getting from rain.  That means if you are looking at the release rates from the stand point of simply balancing out what nature provides you would vote for 3600cfs.  But here again you do not get a vote because that is not part of the considerations when the Corps decides release rates.

Third, looking at past history 3600cfs was demonstrated to do no harm in the drought of 2008 when the lakes were operated for over 12 consecutive months at 3600cfs.  The Corps even did a survey of all stakeholders in 2009 asking if anyone expected to have a problem if they went still lower in releases to 3100cfs.  We had to do a Freedom of Information Act request to get the results but we found that in the hundreds of responses from businesses and townships downstream of the lakes no one had a problem at 3600 and they even anticipated 3100 would be OK.  The only negative response was from an environmental group that speculated there might be a problem at 3100.  So if all these stakeholders were given a vote on release rates they would be fine at 3600cfs.  But again they don’t get a vote. 

So who makes these decisions and on what basis.  The corps meets with environmentalists to the exclusion of everyone else and they discuss what would be best.  From the environmentalists’ stand point the more water in the river the better.  This is true even if that causes the lakes to be totally destroyed.  This is counter to what Mother Nature does with all natural rivers but never mind that because apparently man is wiser than nature.  Where else do you find an artificial river that never drops below 3800 or 4000cfs in flow? Never mind that this is poor management in that you are spending more water than you have and therefore destroy the lakes.  It’s like our government spending more money than they have. Both the environmentalists and the government argue that they have such good causes.  Good cause or no, when the water or the money is gone you are finished.  Why then does the Corps follow these ridiculous rules?  It is because these are the only people who get to vote on release rates.

I thought you might want to know who keeps destroying our lakes and why.  And by the way, the studies you’ve heard about that are supposed to help get a better drought plan.  Guess who will be deciding what the results of these studies mean.  You guessed it.  It will be the same ones who think they are wiser than us and keep destroying our lakes.  And for anyone who still thinks 4000 cfs is best, what is good about destroying fresh water by pouring it into saltwater.  That is exactly what you are doing anytime you put more water through the dam than is coming into the lake from rain.   

LAKE INTERESTS ABANDONED BY THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The Corps of Engineers is totally ignoring recreation and foolishly destroying our lakes.  They just went up to 4,000cfs release rates from Thurmond with the lake over 10’ below full pool.  Not only that but they have stopped balancing Hartwell and Thurmond the way they are supposed to.  Thurmond is a full 4’ below Hartwell relative to full pool.  And our congressmen are doing nothing to help us.

 

The Corps has become totally non responsive to reason.  They write explanations but the explanations they write are word play and make no logical sense.  The fish and wildlife in the Savannah River and the water quality and supply are fine at 3600cfs.  The South Eastern Power Association has stated repeatedly that they want the lakes as full as possible so they have peaking power capability and they have 8 different lakes to draw power from so they are fine at 3600cfs. So it makes no sense at all to increase releases with our lakes so low.  It’s almost as if the Corps deliberately wants to destroy the recreational infrastructure so they no longer have to worry about it.  If someone else did the destruction the Corps is doing to your lake place and the reputation of the lake you have chosen for recreation we would immediately see them as criminal or guilty of criminal neglect.

 

Adding to the confusion is why is Jeff Duncan and Paul Broun and your state political leaders ignoring this.  Jeff Duncan demonstrated in his questioning of Hillary Clinton the ability to bring about accountability.  Where is that fire in the belly when it comes to protecting his constituents from the Corps.  Paul wants to be a senator yet he is ignoring a major injustice occurring right under his feet.      

 

 

MAKING A POINT FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONCERNING LAKE RELEASES

There is one thing the people demanding higher release rates at the beginning of a drought fail to realize.  Had we dropped releases to 3600cfs (3100 in cold months) at the start of the drought, the lakes would be just about full now and the end of reduced rates would be insight.  Instead we have a long slog ahead for mandatory low release rates and we are literally sweating out what may happen if we go into a dry Spring and Summer.   Further this continual refusal to reduce releases at the start of a drought has destroyed the reputation of our lakes from the standpoint of recreation and is well on its way to destroying our recreation infrastructure.  We have already reached the point where no bank in their right mind will loan money for anything to do with our lakes.

 

Lowering release rates at the start of a drought does not harm what happens downstream.  The water to the river will be the same either way.  Since man cannot make water out of thin air, mother nature is in full control of how much water we are going to have for the duration of a drought.  All man can do is manage wisely or unwisely the water nature provides.  The difference in responding immediately at the beginning of a drought is you keep the lakes as full as possible which fulfills the Corps’ responsibility for protecting the recreation infrastructure and you maintain a lot better control of the system whereby you still have water left for any unforeseen emergencies upstream or downstream.   So far as all the critters downstream they would have been unharmed by 3600cfs at the beginning of the drought the same way they are unharmed by these release rates now.

 

What we need is strong leadership by the Corps to drive these points home when the environmental groups worry about starting low release rates too soon.  The environmental groups are advisory only.  The Corps is where the buck stops.  Until that occurs we need for our congressman and Senators or State Governments to take a strong interest and get things turned the right way. 

 

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.