Wednesday, October 31, 2012

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).

Sunday, October 21, 2012

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

 

Thursday, October 18, 2012

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.

 

 

Monday, October 1, 2012

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?