Monday, December 29, 2008

New Year's Resolution

We've been ignored, used and abused by the Corps long enough. And as the abuse continues we see Lake Thurmond drop a foot with rainfall well above normal. Many think the Corps should have used the increased water flows at the locks below the dams from rain swollen streams to decrease the required 3100cfs releases at the dam. While I agree that this is certainly the least that could be done I feel we need to go far beyond this and revamp the whole drought control set up to prevent the Lakes from going below the level where lake interests are destroyed. Lake Murray has undergone the same drought as Lake Thurmond but it is at normal levels because Lake Murray does not have release requirements to solve downstream problems. Downstream problems below Lake Thurmond need to be solved by engineering solutions instead of just throwing very costly lake water at them. The costs from destroyed Lake interests is way too high and should no longer be treated as acceptable in solving downstream problems.

My resolution for the new year is to join with a large number of people who feel the same way so that the Corps has no choice but to hear us. If the numbers of people and amount of money represented is large enough, law suits can be used anytime the Corps ignores us the way they are now. Furthermore we need to insist on assistance from our political leaders if they wish to remain in office. Everyone knows it is wrong to destroy one man's property in order to build up another's, especially when the man who is on the losing side has no vote on the issue. I suspect the people involved with problems downstream would not intentionally destroy lake interests as a way to solve their problems. But that is exactly what is happening. And our political leaders are remaining silent.

With enough reasonable people and money behind this the Corps and our political leaders will have no choice but to revamp the current ridiculous drought control plan. It looks like the time has come for this action and I applaud the measures currently being pursued. As with any cause the fight may not be easy but since our cause is just we have the distinct advantage. Remember, evil prevails only when good men remain silent. If we cease our silence the destruction of our hard earned lake interests will surely come to a stop.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

IF CORPS WON'T COOPERATE, WHAT NEXT

It is becoming obvious that the Corps is not going to do their job and study the various options to come up with a reasonable solution to the problems along the Savannah River during a drought. All the Corps is doing at present is acting as technicians collecting water flow data. What is desperately needed is a study of costs to correct drought problems via downstream engineering options versus the costs of destroying lake interests when levels drop more than 5 ft.

Since the Corps is not doing their job as engineers to determine optiomum solutions, why not hire an outside engineering firm to do an objective study of the problem. Our congressmen should be able to do this. Since the problem is nationwide wherever the Corps controls lakes, a national study may well be warranted. If such a study is initiated some of the ground rules should be:

1) never let lake levels drop more than 5 ft unless and until the losses to lake interests are balanced against the cost to engineer solutions downstream.

2) environmental concerns should revert to conditions prior to building the dams at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell since these concerns are defined as eliminating man's impact on mother nature. In other words passing down the amount of water coming in from rain meets those conditions and their is no reason from the stand point of environmental concerns to pass on more water than comes from natural rain fall during a major drought.

3) all parties with concerns such as diluting wastes, avoiding massive fish kills from low oxygen levels, obtaining drinkable water, etc. should be asked to determine the cost to engineer a solution with only the water coming downstream from natural rainfall during a drought. These costs can then be used to determine an optimum balance between lake interest losses from depleting the lakes and engineering other solutions downstream.

4) the true cost to generate power when the lakes are depleted by more than 5 ft should include the massive losses to lake interests from destroying the lakes. If so power generaton when the lakes are depleted more than 5ft would be uneconomical and Power generation would only be permitted when it does not require further depletion of lake level.

5) no one should be asked to suffer major financial expense without full justification by weighing all reasonable engineering solutions. Hence the firm or commission doing such a study should be required to justify their conclusions with all concerned parties. And their findings need to be discussed openly with representatives from all concerned parties at reasonable check points time wise while the study progresses.

We need to urge our congressmen to initiate an independant engineering study of lake level controls and we need to do so quickly. With the current Corps leadership we could literally lose our lakes in the next few years. Please do not forget that the Colonel currently in charge stated at the meeting in McCormick recently that the lakes may go back to original creek beds if the drought continues. We need to act together and act quickly. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could become horrible memories if we don't.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Engineering Options for Lake Level Control

The Corps of Engineers is by definition an engineering organization. As such they should be sued for professional incompetence on Lake Level Control for the Savannah River. I am a Chemical Engineer and I'm used to looking at problems similar to the Lake Level problem at Lake Thurmond. In any such problem you look at all the options to find the optimum solution. The Corps has looked at only the option of following the antiquated flow rates which are totally inadequate for today's drought situation. Just for kicks let me list a few of the more obvious engineering options for this situation:

1) Destroy Lake Russell before you mess with either Thurmond or Hartwell. The business and real estate interests for this lake are inconsequential compared to Thurmond and Hartwell. And the business of "can't go below a certain level" can be corrected by opening the dam.
2) Discontinue power generation on Lake Thurmond as soon as the lake drops more than 2 ft below normal and go immediately to minimum demonstrated flows measured at the locks closest to Augusta.
3) Determine on a case by case basis the cost to engineer a way to operate downstream factories, waste treatment facilities, and water uptakes for drinking and cooling, versus river flows. At present we are just throwing costly lake volume downstream with no justification for doing so. Not weighing the cost in lost real estate and business values against the downstream corrective costs is totally incompetent from an engineering stand point.
4) Look at what it would take to make permanent downstream changes so that future droughts would not require destruction of our lakes. If looked at long term (so that future growth with constant levels at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell is factored in) real estate values and business values around the lakes should far outweigh the occasional cost to engineer drought proofing downstream.

As for the environmental concerns I've addressed these numerous times throughout this blog. As long as the amount of water in from rainfall is passed downstream the environmentalists do not have a leg to stand on. Anything beyond that would be man made interference with mother nature which is what environmental concerns are all about.

One last thing. The Corps insists that their hands are tied because they can only follow the edicts of the politicians. We proved with the Nuremberg trials that this excuse doesn't hold water. The Corps by virtue of being an engineering unit should present the engineering arguments associated with Lake Level control. The politicians who are split depending on which side of the dam they are on would then have a basis for discussion among themselves and the public would have a basis for judging how well the politicians are doing. In my professional opinion the Corps is guilty of gross negligence and should be sued for same.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

We Have the Strong Hand in Level Dispute

If you look at the dynamics in play with both our politicians and the Corps, we as residents and businesses around Lake Thurmond have the upper hand. The sources of power are money and votes. If the question of what to do is opened for discussion we fair well on both points. Our problem is the question is not open for discussion. Hence the politicians' fear of business interests and city government interests downstream win out as long as our interests remain silent.

From an economic standpoint our position is strong. Looking just at real estate values of residences that draw their value from having beautiful lake views and lake access the figure is staggering. Being conservative every lot on the Lakes has at least $200,000 in added value. How many lots border the affected lakes in Clark Hill, McCormick, Lincolnton, Thomson, Clemson, Anderson, and the areas north of Lake Hartwell. If it's 1,000 properties, the added value would be in excess of $200 million. And this does not take into account businesses affected by the Lakes or recreational values. Right now by their own admission the Corps is ready to totally destroy all this by allowing the Lakes to return to original creek beds if the drought continues. This is economic foolishness. The businesses affected downstream will spend far less than what we stand to lose in engineering solutions to operate with only the flows generated by rainfall during droughts. And the engineering costs for cities downstream to obtain acceptable drinking water and handle their wastes during droughts should be much lower than the costs we are experiencing as the lakes are being destroyed.

From a political standpoint our position is equally strong. How many votes do the paper companies and the nuclear power companies have. And how many votes do the environmentalists have. Compare these to the votes of all the residents and businesses located around Lake Thurmond, Lake Hartwell, and Lakes upstream of Hartwell. If we all vote together we could have a huge impact on the futures of our congressmen both state and federal. Right now we are a sleeping giant and the politicians are ignoring us. We need to wake up to our potential. No congressman should be permitted to hold office who refuses to help with our plight. Any who oppose our interests should be unanimously opposed by us. Who would our politicians listen to then?

One of the first things we need to do is organize so we can speak in unison. We may already have in place two groups that could unite and pull this off. But at present the goals are not clear and agreement on what to do hasn't been established. Once a group is in place we need to ask each politician in our domain what they intend to do to protect our interests. I've seen them at meetings held by the Corps and I've heard them express concern but I have not heard one proposal yet on how to stop this nonsense. In my opinion we should not accept less than a proposal to establish bottoms for Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell of no more than 5 ft below normal fill. And we should insist on reviews by our congressmen of what would be required downstream to implement such a ruling. At present no one is even looking at what the costs would be to implement such a policy. My guess is it would be very doable and the costs would be less than those currently being experienced by interests around the Lakes.

Lake Levels up 2ft But No Thanks to Corps or Politicians

I understand that the Corps has ordered a temporary stop to releases from Lake Thurmond while rain run-off swells streams below the dam. That's great but it's not enough. The lake jumped up over 2ft with the recent much needed rains but we are still way too low for viability of interests around the lake. And although the Corps has finally done something right they don't deserve our gratitude. It's like a thief has temporarily stopped stealing your money. Gratitude is not what comes to mind.

Instead of thanking the Corps and our local politicians for recent actions, we need to demand further action from both to get the lake level corrected permanently. What is happening is comparable to the taxation without representation that precipitated the American Revolution. No where have we been represented in determining how to manage lake levels. In the future those of us with lake interests need to demand that any politician running for office in this area state their position on lake level controls. Did Shane Massey or Gresham Barrett or either of our state senators ever state a position on lake level management? And even more to the point are any of these guys doing anything concrete to change things for the better?

If we don't act now by getting involved with petitions stating changes that would help and talking to our politicians about future permanent solutions we may lose our beautiful (until the recent drought) lakes. This would be a shame. Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell could be a very important asset to the CSRA and the Anderson/Clemson areas. But not until the people with lake interests can be assured that the level control problem has been solved. At present most of the people that used to come to Lake Thurmond have shifted to the coast and other bodies of water for investments and recreation. I assume similar affects are being felt in the Anderson/Clemson areas. It would be criminal to allow this to continue.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

QUESTIONS FOR CORPS ON LAKE THURMOND

The following questions would be very illuminating if directed to the Corps and our political leaders who set guidelines for level control at Lake Thurmond.

1) How much money has been spent by downstream concerns due to reduced river flows from Lake Thurmond.

2) What would it cost for Augusta to reroute their drinking water intakes so they tapped into purer water (the extreme here would be to run a line all the way to the dam).

5) What would it cost the paper companies and other companies with similar waste effluents to clean up their waste so that minimum water flows matching only incoming rainfall during a drought would be sufficient for their needs.

6) The nuclear power plants downstream should have plans in place for operation at reduced river flows. SRP for example used Par Pond for reactor cooling and was not susceptable to low river flows. What additional costs would be involved to operate with only the water coming in from rainfall during a drought.

7) What did the coast line interests do prior to building the dam to prevent salt water incursions and wild life problems. What would it cost for them to build locks etc to prevent these problems in the future if we only send downstream the water coming in from rainfall during a drought.

8) What is a good estimate for the cost in real estate, business, and recreational interests around Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell when levels are allowed to drop more than 5ft below normal fill. The enlightening thing about this question would be to see if they have an answer.

If we start a petition to ask these questions would you be willing to sign it?

Monday, December 8, 2008

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON LOGIC OF CORPS' GUIDELINES

The logic currently being followed demands failure whether you are managing lake levels, finances, church budgets or any venture where the income is limited. As it is now we send 3100cfs downstream regardless of our rainfall. Since we can't make water but rather depend on rainfall for this input we are guaranteed to fail unless the rainfall returns to pre drought levels. And there is no guarantee that previous rainfall levels will return. This serves no one. Rather it destroys now or in the future all interests connected with the lake.

It should be a given that no one should be asked to spend their money for someones elses interests. Yet the residents and businesses around the lake have involuntarily spent millions in real estate, business, and recreational incomes/values to avoid downstream interests from having to spend money to protect them from low water flows.

Admittedly the cost to factories to decrease waste effluents and the cost to others to make up for low river flows may be large, but I doubt these costs would be any larger than the cost of lost real estate values, lost business connected with the lake, and lost recreational incomes. But once these measures are in place droughts will no longer be a threat and everyone in the area will benefit from having a lake that remains at a useable level even at times of a drought.

The other concerns of salt water incursions and effects on wildlife should be dependant on mother nature and not man. These concerns by definition are best served when man's influence is factored out. And a policy that sends downstream the water available from natural rain falls would do just that.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Current Level Controls Border on Insane

The corps states that they are balancing all interests with their level control rules for Lake Thurmond. But lake interests are destroyed once the lake is 5 ft below normal fill hence they are not taking care of lake interests. They are only taking care of downstream interests. Lake Murray and similar lakes are controlled with out concern for downstream interests and these lakes are full even though they have suffered the same drought that has destroyed Lake Thurmond.

If you apply basic logic to this picture you get vastly different answers than the ones the Corps is coming up with:

1) Logically hydropower generation when in a major drought makes no sense because once the lake is destroyed you won't have any further capability to generate hydropower

2) Logically if you are going to protect lake interests you will stop dropping the lake level once it reaches some reasonable level such as 5ft below normal fill.

3) Logically all the water that needs to go through the dam once the lake reaches this lower limit is the water that comes in from natural rain fall. In other words the interests downstream are no worse off than before the dam was built.

4) Logically conservationists can not argue that the water from natural rainfall is insufficient. This would be contradictory to their very existence which is basically to eliminate man's impact on nature. If the Corps releases all the water that comes in from natural rainfall the conservationists then have the same thing they would have if the dam were never built with the benefit of eliminating destructive floods.

The reason we are not following logical rules is the Corps is being led by fully political considerations. This is partly true because the Corps is not doing their job and letting the politicians know how the lakes should be controlled from an engineering rather than political concerns. It is further true because the Corps and the politicians guiding the Corps hear only from the downstream interests. Those of us who have lake interests have got to speak up on this and draw help from politicians who depend on us for their existence. We could also pick up help from national attention from people like Bill O'Reilly but we have to pull together before we can get this kind of help.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Signing Petition / Appealing property tax / Get the word out

The web site being constructed for the petition on Lake Thurmond Discharges is www.saveourlakesnow.org. It should be up and running shortly. You can see and sign the petition now at Lincolnton Marine.

If you live in SC and wish to appeal your property taxes the procedure is: write a letter to the county Assessor's Office (133 S Mine Sgt., Room 201 County Courthouse, Mccormick, SC 29835 and request an application for review of appraisal or assessment. Once you receive the forms, you have 30 days from the date on the form to appeal.

We still need more support by everyone sending in their email address if they wish to help in the effort to bring about change to the way the lakes are being handled and by getting the word out to everyone you know who may be interested in these efforts.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Things You Can Do to Help on Lake Levels

If you are interested in joining with your friends around lake Thurmond in improving the Corps' handling of lake levels there are several things that can be done right now:
1) Stop by Lincolnton Marine and sign the petition for reducing discharge flows from the dam

2) Email the author of this blog site with either your agreement with the thinking of this blog or your thoughts if they differ. The email address is clontz_jerry@bellsouth.net. I will add your email address to a master list of people interested in our lake. If you do not wish to be on this list all you have to do is indicate this in your email and I won't put you on the master list.

Others ideas will be presented in this blog as they are obvious.

It's going to take us working together to make things happen. The organizations in existence right now have proved to be ineffective by virtue of the way the lakes are being destroyed with no outcry from the people being affected. Our congressmen and state government can bring about change but they need our backing to move forward. Right now all they have is the knowledge that the people and businesses downstream will yell loudly if we reduce the flows. As the old saying goes "the squeaking wheel gets the grease".

I will try to air all views that could change the current thinking by the Corps. For example if the Corps insists on keeping the flows at 3100cfs why not measure the flow at the locks downstream of the dam so we get the benefit of stream flows coming in downstream of the dam. At present when it's raining these flows are ignored and we are putting a lot more water through the dam than is needed to maintain 3100cfs downstream. Another example is why not challenge the property taxes that are high because we have property on the lake. The point is we need to get our politicians attention if we expect them to help.