AMAZING SIMILARITIES

Listening to a recent summary of where the Keystone Pipeline stands it struck me that there are many similarities between that situation and the way the EPA tries to control the Corps’ handling of the Savannah River Basin.  As you know the Keystone pipeline has been held up for years by demands from the EPA for more studies.  Experts in the field say the Keystone Pipeline is one of the best studied projects ever from the standpoint of environmental impact.  These studies have shown no significant impact on the environment from use of this pipeline.  Additionally the environmental impact of rail or truck transport is much worse than the pipeline. What is happening is not logical.

 

Sounds familiar doesn’t it. The EPA is being unrealistic and demanding more and more studies in both cases. In my opinion their demand for more study is simply a delaying tactic.  Just as they ignore the fact that ground transport of oil has a higher impact on the environment, they ignore the vast amount of information showing that releases which would protect recreation are acceptable downstream.  In both cases the EPA ignores the vast amount of information already available from previous studies. 

 

Looking at basics, the Corps is much more comfortable following EPA wishes than fighting the EPA and protecting recreation the way they should.  The only way this can change short of clipping the EPA’s wings is to make the Corps more comfortable protecting recreation than following the illogical demands of the EPA.  Until congress forces the EPA to be reasonable, the only effective tools we have are political pressure, law suits, and publicity.  We cannot afford the massive expense that would be entailed in a law suit.  And political pressure depends to a large extent on how much positive publicity our  politicians can expect from their efforts.  This then leaves publicity as our only practical means of changing the way the Corps is managing our basin. 

 

Recognizing this, Save Our Lakes Now constantly publicizes how our lakes are being mismanaged.  Without such publicity the Corps would have no need to defend any of their tactics and recreation would be damaged even more than at present.  For example the 3600cfs that the Corps is constantly haggling over came from recommendations made by Save Our Lakes Now several years ago. We were the ones to realize that the amount of rain during our droughts of record averaged 3600cfs annually.  Furthermore high publicity draws the attention of our politicians.  It would be political suicide to ignore heavy demands from a large portion of their constituency. 

 

RESPONSE TO BALANCING THE BASIN VIDEO ABOUT NEED FOR STUDIES

Stan Simpson is a great guy and nothing we say here should be taken as a criticism of him.  He works for the Corps and is bound by their guidelines.  It is those guidelines that we are taking exception to.

 

In the recent video from Balancing the Basin Stan Simpson explains how release rates from Lake Thurmond can affect the Savannah River System.  He is correct in that there are a lot of things we don’t know in detail about these affects.  However the jump from there to the assumption that the Corps is correctly using the knowledge they do have is misleading.  The fact is the Corps has tons of information they do know but refuse to  use.  And based on talking to the heads of GA and SC DNR they are not to blame for the Corps’ refusal to control lake levels within reason. 

Like Stan I also am an engineer.  Let’s take a look at a few examples of poor engineering practices by the Corps:

·       When Lake Thurmond was the only lake collecting runoff from all rains above Augusta, the Corps dropped its level 4’ during the winter to avoid flooding during the high runoff periods as you come out of the winter months.  Now there are 3 lakes to collect this run off so a 2’ drop would provide the same protection that 4’ used to.  Regardless of our pleas to change to 2’ so the lakes don’t start out a drought so low, the Corps adamantly refuses to make this change.  The result is we enter a drought 4’ below full pool instead of 2’.

·       There are hundreds of millions of dollars lost every major drought by the huge recreation infrastructure around the lakes.  Although congress has tasked the Corps with being responsible for recreation they ignore this wanton destruction in the drought control measures they use.  Furthermore they demonstrate either a total disdain for lake interests or an unimaginable degree of poor thinking by equating the fact that some fishermen find it hard to fish low spots in the river at low release rates with recreation infrastructure losses on the lakes during major droughts.

·         A lot has been learned in past droughts that is not being applied to managing the system.  For example 3600cfs release rates were experienced for over 12 consecutive months in the drought of 2008.  No serious problems were encountered downstream.  The Corps even acknowledges this fact in their worst case scenarios for drought protection stating that 3600cfs gives no serious impact to the environment.  In spite of this the Corps waits until our lakes are destroyed from a recreation stand point before they initiate 3600cfs releases.  And even now when the lakes are still down they refuse to hold 3600 cfs to let the lakes refill. 

·         Nature, in spite of its ravages from time to time, does a good job of providing for all the little critters that live in or near our rivers and lakes.  Nowhere on Earth does nature provide a constant flow rate for rivers.  It is pure idiocy from an engineering stand point to try to keep a major river like the Savannah at rates desired by man instead of those dictated by nature.  The dams smooth out the ravages of flooding and drought but to try to generate an artificial river of the size of the Savannah that never goes below  4,000cfs makes no sense.

·         The basic engineering principle the Corps is using is badly flawed.  The Corps insists on releasing more water from the lakes than nature provides.  As anyone who has ever kept up with a bank account for any period of time knows, such a practice will bankrupt the system.  We cannot make water out of thin air.  Consequently you have to match the water nature provides or you destroy the lakes.  Yet the Corps insists on following an antiquated drought plan that fully ignores the amount of water coming into the system.

 

There is probably more that could be said but these examples should make the point.

 

An Engineer uses existing scientific information to come up with a workable system.  A scientist on the other hand is always looking into further detail trying to eliminate any unknowns about a system.  If designing the first plane had been left up to scientists we would still not have air travel because there are so many questions that can only be answered by flying.  While further study by scientists will help understand the Savannah River System better, it is to no avail if we don’t use the knowledge gained to engineer the best system possible as we go.  We already know how to keep the lakes within 10’ of full pool (recreation can survive up to a 10’ drop) and we already know such measures will not do damage downstream.  So it is time to stop waiting for more study and apply what is already known.  Current Corps practices are causing hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction to our recreation infrastructure by failing to follow good engineering principles.  It’s time for that to stop.

 

RESPONSE TO 4/11/13 BALANCING THE BASIN ARTICLE ABOUT EFFECTS OF HARBOR DEEPENING

The article from Billy Birdwell on deepening the harbor and its impact on releases from Lake Thurmond (and therefore Hartwell as well) is inaccurate and misleading.  I doubt it is a deliberate attempt to misinform but regardless, it shows a dangerous lack of understanding of the variables involved.  Competent engineering demands a full grasp of what impacts the basins and the harbor.  That is not demonstrated here.

 

First off, Lake Thurmond Releases have no significant impact on the oxygen levels in the harbor.  The tides bring in 10 times the water that comes in from the river and thereby the ocean, not the river, controls the oxygen levels in the harbor.  Besides, detailed analyses of oxygen content of the Savannah River at Clyo (last sampling point before the harbor) shows releases from Lake Thurmond have no significant impact on the amount of oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor.  As a result Mr. Bailey’s article draws the correct conclusion but for the wrong reasons.

 

Secondly, the promise of no impact on release rates may not be true.  Concurrent with deepening the harbor the Corps plans to put in a multi-million dollar fish ladder around the Augusta lock and dam so sturgeon can spawn in the Augusta Shoals (a location they have not been able to reach since the 1930’s).  This inserts a new controlling factor for lake releases.  Once the sturgeon are in the shoals, minimum release rates will be dictated by how much flow there is in the shoals.  Again Mr. Bailey’s article shows a serious lack of knowledge of the system.

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.