lakethurmondlevel

STUDIES NOT NEEDED TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN

2012-01-23T11:29:00.000-08:00

For what seems like an eternity we have been led to believe that a phase 2 study is needed before the drought plan can be changed. Sounds very similar to the thinking that just trashed the oil pipeline from Canada. What is needed instead is strong logical leadership that provides good balance between all the different responsibilities the Corps has regarding the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin. The problem with a study is how it is interpreted. As with the oil pipeline, studies were not the answer. Logic or lack thereof led to the decisions that were made for the pipeline.

Logic for the Lakes says it is foolish to try to send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain. This is true since neither the Corps nor any of the rest of us can create water. Mother nature has 100% control over how much water is available. Once that is recognized the rest becomes a simple decision on what period of time you want to balance releases with rainfall. Day to day balancing would mean the lakes remain totally full and whatever comes in from rain daily is sent downstream. Annual balancing means looking at how much water comes in over a years time and matching it.

Selfish desire to keep the lakes totally full with no consideration for the folks downstream would go with the first option and keep the lakes totally full. To a certain extent this could be justified since the river would behave exactly the way it has since time began and experience droughts and floods as a natural event. On the other hand balancing the lakes on an annual basis is much fairer to downstream interests. This approach totally eliminates both drought and flooding in the sense of what the river used to experience.

These facts are all that is needed to come to a logical decision on how to manage the lakes. Desire on the part of anyone downstream for more water is like asking for more money than you have in the bank. It simply will not work. Besides destroying the lake by releasing more water than is available destroys power production, recreation, and eventually water quality, water supply, and all the other issues the Corps is responsible for.

Studies have a place. But it is not in the decision process for drought control. Rather they are great to decipher what different rainfall conditions do to the system. For example saying that you want more water held in the lakes than comes down from rain would lead to horrendous flooding upstream of the dams. Studies of what the impact is on the environment around the lakes is not needed to tell us that such a plan will not work. The same is true in balancing flows based on what is happening downstream.

STATUS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW EFFORTS

2012-01-15T09:08:00.000-08:00

When trying to fight city hall you often feel nothing will ever come of your efforts. This is doubly true when you are up against federal regulations, environmental concerns, claims of selfishly wanting lake level at the expense of everyone downstream, and entrenched practices of the Corps of Engineers. But we are making progress. It's been slower than we would like but the ice is melting and real progress could well be just around the corner. The Corps is even planning a near term change to the drought plan using an EA which is what we have been pleading for for several years.

A year or so back our proposals for improved drought plans were met with numerous road blocks:
1) SEPA would never permit due to contracts on power production
2) Short Nosed Sturgeon spawning grounds would be destroyed
3) Dissolved Oxygen in the harbor would be impacted
4) Many of the industrial concerns downstream would suffer severe harm
5) The lakes would not be experiencing their fair share of problems during a drought
6) The economic effects of low lake levels are insignificant
7) Wildlife and Fisheries in Athens would never permit such a change
8) Congress would never permit such changes
9) Money from the states was needed to fund a phase 2 study
One by one each has been eliminated. None of these were valid reasons to not change our drought plan. Basically we became a fact finding organization and literally met with the groups the Corps claimed were preventing them from adopting our proposals. It turns out in the final analysis that the Corps can make such changes at their discretion provided an Environmental Assessment is made.

It has taken many hours of sitting down with the various parties involved to get their reasoning on the table. And it has taken publicizing our plight. Several newspapers, Austin Rhodes, our blogs etc. have finally penetrated the protective fog that once surrounded Corps decisions. We even put up a billboard and held a protest demonstration at Thurmond Dam. In the past 3 months we have visited Jeff Duncan, and Jim DeMint and continued communication with Paul Broun for assistance from our national Congressmen and Senators and Shane Massey for help at the State Senate level. We are presently visiting the various County Councils around the Lakes of the Savannah River Basin and plans are in progress to meet with the Governors of both GA and SC.

All this takes time and money. Up till now only a few people have been responsible for the work and funding. Save Our Lakes Now is seeking a larger working base to make things happen more quickly and to make sure we never slip back into the horrible lake levels experienced in past droughts. If you can help with your time, money, or both please come join our effort. Details are available at www.saveourlakesnow.org

BACKGROUND ON SAVE OUR LAKES NOW

2011-10-25T06:23:00.000-07:00

Many people who are just now learning about Save Our Lakes Now are probably wondering just who we are and whether we are "fair and balanced" to quote Fox News. Here of course the fair and balanced is concerning water on both sides of the dam.

The best analogy of who we are is to compare us to the Tea Party. Basically we are in the role of disrupting a failed system in which the governing bodies have become fixed in their ways and where their ways do not work. Historically disruption of the status quo has always been unwelcome to those in control. Like the Tea Party we are attracting a lot of support because we have a much needed answer to an old problem. Contrary to some criticism we are being very careful to consider both sides of the dam and our recommendations are based on sound engineering principles.

If you agree with us that the failed drought plan of the Corps needs to be changed, join us at Thurmond Dam on Saturday Nov 5th at 10 to 2. Between now and then give some thought to what you would like to tell your congressman about this and what you would like to have the Corps do differently. Write these thoughts in the form of letters and bring them to the protest rally. We'll get all the letters together and send them to the appropriate congressman and to the Corps. Matter of fact if you would like to air your thoughts with everyone else, bring a copy to be posted on our bulletin board at the headquarters' tent at the rally.

If you would like more information on the drought problem take a look at our website www.saveourlakesnow.org or attend our webinar this Sunday at 2:00 - 2:15 pm. You can register for the webinar using the following link.
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/871649990

PROTEST MARCH AT THURMOND DAM ON NOV. 5TH

2011-10-15T06:52:00.001-07:00

SAVE OUR LAKES NOW PROTEST MARCH ANNOUNCEMENT

Lakes are down. The Corps keeps blaming the weather but had they listened when the lakes started down the lakes would be full now. No one downstream needs the amount of water the Corps insists on releasing, not even for power generation. They keep releasing more water than we get from rain. It ends up wasted in the ocean. If they only released what is available from rain, averaged over a year’s time, everyone downstream would be fine and we would be too. Just ask the Corps what industry, water supplier, endangered species, or any other stakeholder is demanding this much water. We’ve asked repeatedly and they can’t name one.

Look for our billboards, and flyers and join us at the dam from 10 to 2 Saturday Nov 5th. We will have tent headquarters set up at junction of HWY 28 & 221 and at Pollard’s Corner. Pitch in by getting the word out, coming to the dam on the 5th and joining Save Our Lakes Now (sign up page is on our web site). Together we can make a difference. The Corps is taking us for granted but with enough publicity we can bring that to a halt. Up to now publicity has been limited because only few have been involved but we can do a lot more with large numbers.

For more information look over our web site and join our webinars at 2:00pm each Sunday before the march. Webinar invitations will be sent by separate email. Attendance is limited so sign up quick.

The web address for Save Our Lakes Now is www.saveourlakesnow.org. Save Our Lakes Now is a 501C3 non-profit organization. It's express purpose has been to establish a working drought plan for the Savannah River Basin. What they are finding is that the Corps is simply doing what we all try to do; follow the path of least resistance. EPA groups constantly make unreasonable demands on the Corps. Until we make ourselves heard as loudly as the splinter EPA organizations the Corps will continue to ignore us. Save Our Lakes Now is on a membership drive to gather enough money to get the Corps' attention by way of publicity such as bill boards, tv and newspaper ads, communication with our politicians, etc.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

2011-09-20T19:29:00.000-07:00

It has suddenly become popular to demand lower release rates from the Corps. All the people who thought Save Our Lakes Now was being too demanding a year back when we pleaded for lower release rates now suddenly are pleading for the corps to cut back. But it is too late now. The level you see in the lake now comes from what happened over the past year not what you did last month and certainly not from what you do now. The rule of thumb is the lake will change 1 ft in a years time for each 100cfs change in release rates. We pleaded with the Corps and all Lake interests to drop flows to 3600 about a year ago. Even did a spot on Channel 6 News. Some even criticized us for this saying we were being too argumentative. Had the Corps dropped to 3600 when we asked the lake would be full now.

In 2008 the lake dropped another 8ft after the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs. So unless we get rain we are looking at levels as low as 314' even if the Corps answers the pleas.

Many think the Corps is managing all the variables they are responsible for fairly to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is they give top priority to every variable the environmental groups are concerned about but totally ignore recreation which is supposed to have an equal priority. The Corps basically is afraid of any criticism from the environmental groups but have no fear of the reaction of lake stakeholders. In fact there is enough water to satisfy the REAL needs of all groups. In 2008 when we operated at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months there were no stakeholders downstream of the dam complaining. The environmental groups on the other hand were screaming with any number of imaginary problems. The Corps went to 3600 then only because they were afraid of draining the lakes to the point that they would not be able to maintain flows to the river. Now the Corps is playing with a plan where they can completely destroy the lakes if necessary to keep flows up in the river so heaven help us in the future.

We are going to need help from heavy hitters to get this corrected. The environmental groups have unbelievable power with no oversight. We need a big huge tea party from lake dwellers and congressional help. Congress sets the overall rules for operation of the lakes and is in a position to demand that recreation have the same priority as the other responsibilities. If we had a voice around the decision table where the corps decides on flow deviations, etc. it would help because there is really no reason to treat recreation at a lesser priority as long as no harm is coming downstream. The only problems with 3600 cfs are what-ifs and maybes. These can be addressed with temporary changes and active sampling for any thing that may occur.

WHY SAVE OUR LAKES NOW IS UPSET WITH THE WAY OUR LAKES ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED

2011-09-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

To the average bystander the whole deal with the Corps, the drought, and low lake levels is confusing. After all we are in a drought; why shouldn't the lake be low. Besides doesn't the Corps have a lot of things to worry about in a drought other than lake levels.

But when you look at the fine print you see a different picture. The Corps has 7 basic responsibilities concerning management of the lakes.
1) Flood Control
2) Hydro Power
3) Navigation in the river
4) Water Quality
5) Water Supply
6) Fish & Wildlife
7) Recreation
Save Our Lakes Now adds an 8th concern, economics. But the Corps will assure you they are not charged with any responsibility for the economic impacts of low lake levels. In a drought 1,3, 4, 5, and 6 are always at the top of the list and always protected fully during droughts. Item 2, hydro-power is always a consideration and protected to the full extent possible. Item 7, Recreation, is the red-headed step child and sacrificed quickly in a drought.

What makes this a bitter pill to swallow is that the corps knows how to protect recreation without harming any other item except hydro-power. And although the Corps insists they are not responsible for economics, the only justification for sacrificing lake level for power production is the economics involved when the power companies have to buy supplemental power instead of producing power using the dams. Herein lies a major contradiction. The economic losses to lake stakeholders from low lake levels is far greater than the money saved by producing hydro-power rather than buy supplemental power. In other words the Corps is assuming a responsibility for economics by default and in doing so should go with the better economic position which would be to protect lake level at the expense of hydro-power production.

Additional confusion comes into the picture with concerns such as dissolved oxygen, impact on spawning of the endangered short nosed sturgeon, and the impact on downstream water users such as downstream industries and ciities. Here again all these concerns can be met even if the lake releases are reduced enough to keep from destroying recreation and economics around the lakes.

Another argument often heard is "OK but we need to do a major study to make sure all this works before we make any changes". Save Our Lakes Now recommends a slightly different approach. They recommend a temporary solution until further studies can be completed. The temporary solution would be going to 3600cfs releases anytime the lakes are 2' low until they refill which normally would only be a matter of a few months. They base this recommendation on the fact that when we operated at 3600cfs for over 12 consecutive months during the drought of 2008 no problems were encountered. They are not against further studies. Rather they are saying until these studies can be completed (studies are estimated to take several years to complete)change temporarily from a plan that does not work to a plan that has worked in the past. Should some problem arise (real, not imagined, because often times what-ifs and maybes are used to justify termination of low release rates) make further changes as needed. It is our feeling that recreation and economics should be treated at the same level of concern as all the other considerations and that is not true at the moment.

The most damaging argument against what Save Our Lakes Now is recommending is that changes might do severe damage to the river and man should not interfere lest he do damage to mother nature. However, when you analyse what the lakes are doing for the river this falls apart. Before the dams were built the river experienced the ravages of severe drought and/or major floods. With the recommended temporary changes the river has an artificial flow of at least 3600cfs compared to as low as 500cfs during severe droughts without the lakes. And of course the dams prevent major floods. The recommended temporary changes in release rates during droughts actually protect against the ravages of nature by keeping the lakes full of water.

Further Studies are not the Answer to Our Drought Plan

2011-09-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

I feel like the horseman who rode off in all directions at the same time. I have several problems with the proposal to do further studies before modifying the Corps drought Plan for the Savannah River Basin. We are headed in the wrong direction by doing a new study. Our problem is not data. Our problem is the logic behind what we are trying to do.

First the drought plan is an egineering problem; not a scientific study. Traditionally scientists are always looking for more and more data to get a "perfect" understanding of a problem and they spend endless amounts of time and money chasing the what ifs and maybes. Engineers on the other hand take the information at hand and make the best solution possible with that information until further improvement becomes possible from experience. We are taking the what if and maybe questions put forth by NOAA and other scientific institutions and doing endless studies in an effort to answer all the questions before making any changes to the Drought Plan. We should be looking at what we already know and making the best solutions now possible provided they are safe from an environmental standpoint. We can then modify and correct and make further changes as they are warranted.

Second, looking at the information already at hand we can make safe changes from an environmental stand point while correcting the unwarranted destruction to our lakes that keeps recuring with droughts. The Corps keeps overlooking the fact that we are already far safer than the environment experienced for thousands of years before the dams were built. From an environmental standpoint the dams not only protect against flooding but they also give a guaranteed artificial flow in the river that is well above what the river used to experience during droughts. From the standpoint of impacts on water quality and water supply operation at 3600cfs for 12 consecutive months showed these were not a problem.

Third, every argument used by the Corps to stop a change to 3600cfs from Thurmond when the lakes start down has proved to be inconsequential. Dissolved oxygen is one and not only is the dissolved oxygen in the river as it enters the harbor not affected by dropping to 3600cfs but it is controlled almost exclusively by the huge inflows of ocean water from tidal action. A release rate of 3600cfs has also been shown to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon who survived thousands of years at much lower flows. Even Hydro Power is not a justifiable argument. The only benefit from continuing power production beyond the flows provided from rainfall is economic. And the economics of power costs is dwarfed by the economic losses of dropping lake levels more than 6-8'.

Finally, recreation which is one of the 7 responsibilities of the Corps in managing our lakes is being destroyed repeatedly by the current drought plan. Based on the drought of record, a reduction to 3600cfs at Thurmond when the lakes begin to fall would protect recreation and not harm the other 6 responsibilities.

In summary no study will give us enough information to answer all the maybes and what ifs that now trump logic in establishing a good drought plan. If we use an engineering approach (after all it is the US Army Corps of ENGINEERS) we already have enough information to vastly improve on the drought plan. And speaking as an engineer to all the scientists reading this, if there are scientific questions needing answer then instrument the river, etc. to get those answers after we change the plan. We can further improve on the plan as we get more experience using the recommended plan of 3600cfs any time the lake levels fall unexpectedly.

SURPRISE SURPRISE, CORPS PLAN NOT WORKING AGAIN

2011-08-29T18:49:00.000-07:00

What we've been saying for some time is now obvious. The "management plan" in use by the US Army Corps of Engineers does not work and has not for many years now. There is a saying that accurately explains our situation. THE HEIGHT OF INSANITY IS TO CONTINUE DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXPECTING THE RESULTS TO CHANGE. If you have any input to the Corps please see if you can get them to listen to reason because our best efforts to get them to heed our warnings have failed up to now.

The Corps has failed to live up to one of the 7 responsibilities they have in managing Lake Thurmond. Once the lake drops 6' recreation is badly damaged. What is so disconcerting is that the Corps could have dropped release rates to 3600cfs back when the lake level started falling and we would be at full pool. The only responsibility that would be impacted by such a change is power production but this is more than offset by avoiding damage to the economy around the lake. The Corps insists that economics is not one of their responsibilities but such a claim is ludicrous. First the only defense for holding power production at the expense of lake level is the economics of buying more expensive power elsewhere. But if you compare the savings in power costs to the economic losses around the lake, increased power cost is dwarfed by eonomic losses. In other words it is my opinion that the responsibility concerning power production is strictly an economic one which defeats the Corps claim of no responsibility in that arena. There are other arguments why power production should not be put ahead of recreation and economic concerns:
Thurmond is a peaking power source. As such it is much better to have a full lake when high demand hits than to have the lake at a greatly reduced level and be unable to provide peaking power.
Hydro power is desirable because it is a renewable energy source. But if you are releasing more water to produce power than is coming to the basin from rain it is no longer a renewable energy source.
In summary if the Corps would make a simple change to their drought plan all the problems we repeatedly experience from severe droughts could be avoided and all responsibilities the Corps has would be met without any problems except for possible temporary reductions of power production. These temporary reductions in power reduction would cost far less than the economic damages done around Lake Thurmond with the current drought plan.

Jerry Clontz, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

CORPS NEEDS MATH LESSON

2011-08-22T16:58:00.000-07:00

Since July of 2010 the Corps has released an average of 5038 cfs from Lake Thurmond. During this same period Save Our Lakes Now has pleaded with the Corps to use a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake is below 328'. Most people do not realize but the difference between 5000cfs and 3600cfs over a years time is 14' of elevation. In other words all the Corps had to do was use 3600cfs intermittently over the past year and our lake would still be full.

Corps Claims "Just Following Orders"

2011-08-17T19:14:00.000-07:00

The whole Savannah River Basin is in jeopardy and we have answers on how to correct this situation but the Corps is hiding behind the excuse that they do not make policy. As we all know "just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for acts that bring about destruction. We need congressional help or public exposure to get the Corps to listen to reason.

We have presented plans numerous times that prevent the destruction of recreation and economics when the lakes drop too low while at the same time protecting downstream interests by providing river flows that have been demonstrated to be acceptable. Rather than explore this approach the Corps spent huge amounts of time and money to develop a way to literally drain the lakes which would totally devastate the areas upstream of the dams.

Several things show the current approach in use by the Corps is not ligical:
1.rather than balance water releases with what is supplied by rain the Corps follows a release plan that bankrupts the system during droughts and runs the risk of destroying the whole Savannah River System
2.they literally throw fresh water to the ocean during severe droughts when fresh water becomes precious. .
3.they call hydropower a renewable power source but it is renewable only if you limit the water used to that which is supplied by rain.
4.they ignore demonstrated destruction of recreation and economics upstream of the dam in favor of possible imagined problems downstream.

Right now today the Corps is allowing the lakes to drop drastically and the levels will soon be destructive to recreation and economics. We have pleaded with them to drop release rates to 3600cfs which is acceptable downstream but they are holding them at 4200cfs. In a years time 4200 cfs puts Thurmond 6' lower than it would be at 3600cfs. The area went through a massive drought in 2008 which destroyed the economics of the region. This drought could be even more destructive because of its proximity to the one of 2008.

CORPS SHOWS INSANE PLAN TO LITERALLY DESTROY OUR LAKES

2011-07-18T07:17:00.000-07:00

The Corps of Engineers has come out with a plan for managing the lakes of the Savannah River that would drain all three lakes rather than practice simple conservation measures in a severe drought. As with money if you continue to spend more than you make you will eventually go bankrupt. Managing the water in the lakes is a similar proposition. If you send more water downstream to the ocean than comes in from rain you will eventually run the system dry. Water is one of if not the most valuable resource we have. Without it industries shut down, cities have to be abandoned because of lack of adequate drinking water, crops fail, etc., etc. It is therefore insane to put a plan in motion that would drain our lakes during a time of extreme water shortage leaving us with no water.

The Corps and Save Our Lakes Now agree on the essential variables concerning the flow rates needed in the Savannah River to meet downstream needs. We disagree on how to manage lake levels to maintain these flows. Save Our Lakes Now sees the primary controlling factor to be having enough water in the lakes to maintain the needed river flows. The Corps on the other hand makes no attempt to maintain lake levels until it is too late to prevent destroying recreation and economics of the lake and river flows are in jeopardy. Following the guidelines proposed by Save Our Lakes Now a drought like the one in 2008 would be of little consequence. Thurmond Lake would cycle from full to 8’ down and back to full. Following the guidelines by the Corps Thurmond Lake drops 16’ in a drought like the one in 2008 which destroys the lake from the stand point of recreation and economics and puts control of river flows in jeopardy. Minimum adequate river flows are maintained by both plans provided the drought is not more severe than the one of 2008.

Looking further to the possibility of a drought more severe than 2008 the Corps has acknowledged that their drought plan which stops releasing water from the dams when the lakes hit the bottom of their conservation pool could lead to no longer being able to provide minimum adequate river flows. Recognizing this the Corps has now come up with an insane proposal whereby they would literally drain the lakes. Carried to its extreme this would destroy any possibility of having adequate water for downstream needs.

Save Our Lakes Now proposes simple conservation measures to make sure we never run out of water in the lakes. If we encounter a drought more severe than the one in 2008 we recommend the Corps adjust release rates at the end of each year to match whatever the annual average rainfall is for that year. The dams give the benefit of averaging the drought flows over a full year which avoids the disastrous effects of not being able to control river flows. The Corps proposal risks losing the benefit gained from the dams which would mean total loss of control of both the lakes and the river.

NEED COMMENTS TO CORPS EA PROPOSAL

2011-06-18T08:44:00.000-07:00

The Corps is requesting comments on a new EA to test 3600cfs (3100cfs in winter) release rates from Lake Thurmond. While we applaud the Corps on testing lower release rates for times of drought we disagree with their premiss that these rates be used only after the lake levels have dropped drastically. We feel the lake should be held at full pool until the release rates needed to keep it full drop below 3600cfs(3100cfs in winter). To read the EA go to http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/planning.html

The email address for comments prior to July 14 is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil

Keeping the lakes full except when flows less than this are required means that the river will get exactly the amount of water mother nature provides by rain. Since the drought of record had an annual rainfall rate of 3600cfs this would also mean we would not lose the lakes even in the drought of record regardless of how long the drought lasts. In other words the lakes would remain as full as possible and the river flows would be what mother nature provides without the ravages of severe drought or flooding.

Sending more water downstream than is coming in from rain is like spending more money than you are making. In either case you will eventually bankrupt the system and everyone will suffer.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

2011-05-14T19:35:00.000-07:00

Save Our Lakes Now has a different outlook on managing Lake Thurmond than the corps and many other groups. So that our arguments can be better understood I am comparing our thinking to theirs. You can then choose which approach you agree with the most. You each have friends that are not on our mailing list that will agree with our views. Please let them know we are here for them.

Many may question why we recently complained about the level of Lake Thurmond when it is only 8" below the target level while repairs are in progress to the dam. We recently did a press release and emails addressing this as unwise. The reason is you can not get the water back once it has been sent to the ocean. And although 8" doesn't sound like much it takes a long time to make up for that even when you try. Hence we were simply asking the Corps "why have such high release rates now when we are preparing for worse times in the summer". Their current release rate of 4800cfs is wasteful and amounts to throwing away valuable water.

The Corps is initiating a two or so year study to better define the impact of release rates etc on the basin. Many point to this and say just be patient. Our concern is what if we get into another drought like the one in 2008 while we are waiting for the Corps to complete the study. We feel the Corps should go ahead and incorporate the things we have found work better than the current drought plan. For example why not reduce releases to 3600 any time the lake drops unexpectedly rather than continue to throw water away at release rates way in excess of what comes in from rain in a drought. In 2008 we got copies of all complaints from stakeholders downstream while the release rates were reduced to 3600cfs to try and hold the lake. No one downstream had a problem with these rates. Corps data show that the rate at which rain was adding water to Lake Thurmond during the 2008 drought was 3600cfs annual average.

I hear frequently that the corps is not the only group that determines water levels. In reality this is not true. The Corps manages the lake based on laws and inputs from stakeholders. But as managers they have the latitude to recommend changes when current practices are problematic. Additionally the Corps has admitted repeatedly that they have the latitude to change release rates to 3600cfs when they see it is wise to do so.

We hear constantly that drought control is a complex issue. We do not agree. It is as simple as balancing your expenses with your income. Just because someone wants more water does not mean it is available. It is unreasonable to expect us to release more water than we have for things such as a tightening of contamination limits. That would be like saying we are going to control automobile emissions by putting more air in the sky. No. You reduce contamination levels by restricting emissions not by releasing more water than you have. Eventually you will destroy the whole system and you will then have no control of water quality or anything else related to river flows. Duke Power's relicensing should in no way force us to destroy our lakes. Quite the contrary. Their relicensing should demand they meet the limitations of the system. The Augusta shoals are again limited by what nature provides from rain. In all these cases and others frequently mentioned our argument is simply that we can not manufacture water no matter how good the cause may be. We can only manage the water we are given.

Our proposal is really quite simple. Release the same amount of water that we receive by rain unless release rates drop below 3600cfs which was demonstrated to be acceptable in the drought of 2008. No one downstream experienced problems with this release rate which continued for over 12 consecutive months in 2008. And since this matches the rate of rainfall averaged over a year during the drought of record it keeps us from losing the lakes. If you look at all the responsibilities of the Corps they are all satisfied using this approach. If you release more than what comes in from rain you first destroy recreation and economics around the lakes and eventually you destroy all the other concerns by no longer being able to release enough water to the river to meet downstream needs.

Our concern is that continued mismanagement can easily destroy what we have. The combination of a poor economy and the drought of 2008 have left us in a weakened condition. Another mismanaged drought like the one of 2008 could be devastating. We may not have the time needed for lengthy studies and patience is not necessarily appropriate. We have been entrusted with a fantastic asset in Thurmond North. It is too valuable to risk losing it.

As a final note, this approach sends the same amount of water downstream that mother nature provides taking man out of the equation. The only time man gets involved is when 3600cfs no longer maintains a full pool or when flooding downstream is imminent. In other words we only change from what the environment would enjoy with no dams when a severe drought or destructive flooding would result. The river returns to what it has been for thousands of years and Short Nosed Sturgeon and other endangered species would no longer be threatened by man's interference.

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON IDEAL DROUGHT PLAN

2011-04-24T21:17:00.000-07:00

The previous post presented our proposal for the ideal drought management plan. Basically the plan is to maintain a constant level on Lake Thurmond until rain inputs cause the release rate to drop below 3600cfs. At this point hold release rates at 3600 cfs until rain fall permits operation at full pool with a release rate in excess of 3600 cfs.

Since publishing that post several other positives to this approach have become evident:
1) this would return the Savannah River below Thurmond Dam to the flows it used to have prior to the dams with the exception of avoiding the ravages of floods and droughts.

2)3600 cfs is the flow equivalent to the average annual rainfall during the droughts of record. At that release rate we should not lose the lakes regardless of how long the drought continues. Any higher flows could empty the conservation pool of Lake Thurmond and destroy the basin if a drought goes on long enough. Basically the reasoning is you can not spend more than you have coming in without going bankrupt.

Drought Management Plan for Lake Thurmond

2011-04-19T16:09:00.000-07:00

For the purposes of this post I am presenting my idea of the ideal drought plan for Lake Thurmond . Treating the operation of the dam as a standard engineering problem it really is quite simple.

1) Keep lake levels at full pool to within a few tenths of a foot as long as there is enough rain to do so. This capability has been demonstrated by years of balancing Lake Hartwell vs Lake Thurmond.

2) When release rates drop to 3600cfs allow the lake level to fall until rainfall permits maintaining a full pool again.

3) As part of maintaining lake levels as close to full pool as possible river flows following a rain event should be monitored to allow dropping below 3600cfs when possible.

The philosophy behind this plan is that all parameters the Corps is charged with for the Savannah River Basin can be maintained as long as there is plenty of water in the lake to give acceptable river flows. In the past lake levels have been permitted to drop with low rain fall. The trigger points for reducing releases from Lake Thurmond Dam were too low and the release rates called for allowed the lake to continue dropping too long. Had the drought of 2008 continued a little longer we could have lost the whole basin. This is simply unacceptable.

The biggest objections I have run into to date with this proposal is whether 3600cfs is adequate for downstream needs. I picked this figure for the following reasons:

1) no downstream stakeholders had any problems from a 3600cfs release rate that continued for over 12 consecutive. That being true why not use 3600 unless some problem rears its head or until more detailed studies can be completed.

2) the industrial release limits along the Savannah River are based on 3600cfs.

3) 3600 appears to be adequate for the Short Nosed Sturgeon.

4) detailed analyses of oxygen demand along the Savannah since 1977 show that reducing releases to 3600 in 2008 had no deleterious affect on oxygen level at Clyo which means no effect on the harbor either.

Downstream stakeholders will probably interpret this plan as selfish interests by lake stakeholders. In reality though this is the only way to protect downstream interests from being devastated should lake levels drop so low that adequate river flows can no longer be maintained. Looking at the parameters the Corps has been charged with (flood control, hydro power, navigation, recreation, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, economics) this is the only way to meet all these. With the current drought plan recreation and economics are destroyed quickly in a drought. All the other parameters are lost if you ever reach the bottom of the conservation pool.

Some will argue that hydropower is lost but SEPA has repeatedly assured us and the Corps that they want the lakes to be as full as possible. From their perspective they can reduce power production and spread the burden on others without any major problems. What would devaste SEPA would be lake levels so low they can no longer produce power.

This plan will work equally well if we decide some higher release rate has to be maintained. Simply insert that release rate into the equation and the rest remains unchanged.

REASONS TO NOT REDUCE THURMOND RELEASES BASED ON DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH

2011-02-07T11:02:00.000-08:00

If you've followed my blog for any time you realize we are not making exaggerated claims for better management of Lake Levels at Lake Thurmond. Our basic reasoning is that the Corps can not create water and until they are able to do so lake releases should match lake input from rain or you run the risk of destroying the lake. Our recommendation is to balance input with output by reducing releases to the average annual input that occured in the drought of record in 2008 anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' below full pool. Using this approach reduced flows last only for a minimum amount of time since the lake refills quickly. Furthermore the river flows that occur at this release rate were demonstrated during the drought of 2008 to be acceptable for downstream stakeholders.

Since this meets the needs of both the people downstream and the ones around the lakes and since it avoids the armageddon effects that occur if you drain the lake below the conservation pool, you'd think a reasonable person would agree to our suggestions. Not so with the Corps and government environmental interests.

The Corps talks about percentage of storage that has to be dedicated to different things as if they can create water out of thin air. If you release all the water percentages no longer count. And if you release more water than nature provides from rain this will eventually occur.

Environmental concerns have been grossly exaggerated by both the Corps and government environmental agencies. For example mention has been made that short nosed sturgeon spawning in the Augusta Shoals MIGHT be impacted by low flows. But sturgeon can not reach the shoals because of the lock and dam. Concern has been expressed about needing sufficient flows to keep dissolved oxygen in limits and to push back against Atlantic tidewaters to protect drinking water against salt intake. In talking with representatives of the Savannah Water Department they state neither salt water intrusion nor dissolved oxygen are a problem now or in the past and logic dictates that the Savannah River is helpless in fighting back Atlantic tides. Environmental interests claim there is too little data to know for sure that this fish or that mussel etc. etc. might be impacted. They fail to consider that artificial river flows averaged out to avoid major fluctuations are far superior to what fish and wildlife had to survive when there was no dam. Still other imaginary concerns voiced by some environmentalists have been lack of high flows affecting sturgeon in the river and the tiger lilly in the shoals. Studies in 2004 indicate that cold water temperatures from high flows drive sturgeon away and recent studies by Augusta University show high flows are destructive to the tiger lilly in the Shoals.

Many demands by environmental groups show a total lack of logic. Claims have been made for much higher flows to benefit waste dilution and/or fish and wildlife. Wanting more water does not make it magically appear. Somehow we've got to get across that you only have so much water based on how much nature provides. If you release more to the ocean than you get from nature you will destroy the whole system and all the fish and wildlife and other environmental concerns along with it. The concern by environmetal groups that we are somehow hoarding the water for use in the lakes is unfounded. We send every drop mother nature provides downstream. We don't keep a single drop.

TIME FOR ACTION HAS COME

2011-01-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

The Corps has made it clear that they do not intend to get away from the current drought plan which has almost destroyed the Savannah River Basin several times. Basically the problem is they bankrupt the system by "spending" more water than nature provides during a drought. We've asked the Corps by who's authority they are sending more water to the ocean than is provided by mother nature. We've not gotten a response. We feel certain there is no such authorization.

If you look at the five lakes other than the Savannah River Basin in this drought footprint, they are all within 2ft of full pool. Our lakes are down over 6ft. Even Lake Lanier is within 2ft of full. Hence the drought is not the reason our lakes are low. Rather it is the Corps' management of water releases from Thurmond Dam.

If you talk to the Corps they will explain that the sturgeon need so much water, the city of Augusta needs so much, there is dissolved oxygen to consider, etc. etc. What they fail to mention is that these needs can only be met as long as we have lakes with water in them. If we exhaust these lakes none of these needs can be met. What they also fail to mention is that we ran a 14 month test in which releases were held to that coming in from rain and everyone's needs downstream were met including the sturgeon.

We also learned recently that the Corps has a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell first, then Thurmond, etc.) if a drought lasts long enough to make it impossible to make the releases specified in their current plan. It makes a lot more sense to match the rain fall over a years time and never come to such an Armageddon type situation.

A new advisory council was set up recently for input to the SC DNR and DHEC by a representative group of stakeholders that represent all Savannah River Basin interests from the mountains to the sea. I have submitted a request to this group to consider the current drought plan at their next meeting and formulate a recommendation on how the current drought plan should be modified.

In view of what a few people in the Tea Party were able to accomplish in the last election, we can get this changed. If the newly formed SRBAC can not help we can simply raise our voices until we are heard. You will be hearing more on this in the near future.

PROGRESS ON IMPROVING DROUGHT PLAN HAS COME TO A STOP

2010-12-18T09:47:00.000-08:00

Several months ago a new commander took control of the Savannah River Basin. That and setting up the Savannah River Basin Advisory Commission (SRBAC) gave hope that we might finally be making progress in the way lake levels are managed during droughts. After years of trying to get the Corps to stop releasing more water than that supplied by nature, two way communication was actually happening. In meetings around the state the Corps acknowledged that they had full latitude to change release rates to match annual input from rain. They even spoke about decreasing releases still further when the river below Thurmond Dam is swollen from rains. Now all of these measures have come to a stop. Now instead of open and honest expression of what needs to change everyone seems to have reverted to a politically correct type position. Whether it is discussions at the SRBAC or talking to the Corps
we are back to the old story of "the corps can't deviate from the written drought plan without a huge amount of study, temporary approvals of everybody, etc. etc.". In other words we have returned to square one and all our "breakthroughs" have been shoved under the table. The timing was coincident with but not necessarilly caused by the ridiculous claims of the Clemson Economic Study claiming the major drought of 2008 had very little impact on the economics of the region.

Claims of a need for further study make no sense. All the flows involved with the recommended changes to the drought plan have been fully tested with no ill effects and as noted above the Corps has even told us that they have full latitude for such a change. At the very least it makes more sense to use a plan that works on a temporary basis until everyone can approve the plan formally. It makes no sense to continue using a plan (even on a temporary basis)that has failed repeatedly and almost caused us to lose the whole basin.

The logic behind the changes we are recommending the Corps use is simple. Hold release rates to the annual rate of rainfall during a drought anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2' from full pool. Past modeling of the Savannah River Basin showed that such a measure would keep the lake levels from dropping more than about 6 ft. The timing of starting these release rates is important because the lake can drop 6' from the point where the releases are reduced. Currently the Corps has allowed Lake Thurmond to drop 6 to 7 feet without dropping the release rate to the level recommended. A drop of another 6 ft would put us in the same territory as 2008 when we were down over 15'.

We know from what the Tea Party did that we can get this right if enough people get behind it. Unless something changes quickly we will be seeking the help of all stakeholders around the lakes. When the time comes please help us with emails and phone calls to your congressmen, the Corps, and your representatives on the SRBAC. Also, we only have a limited list to notify of this so when we contact you please make sure to inform everyone you know who has an interest in how our lakes are being run so we can increase our numbers. You should hear further from us in early January as to what we need to do.

HANDOUT PREPARED FOR SRBAC 12/8 MTG IN BEAUFORT

2010-12-07T20:49:00.000-08:00

This handout was prepared for and discussed at the 12/8 meeting of the Savannah River Basin Council in Beaufort, sc on 12/8. It summarizes our feelings on the flawed economic impact study recently done by Clemson University. I think you will find it to be a concise answer to their findings which we feel drew an incorrect conclusion about the impact of droughts on the economy of the lakes of the Savannah River Basin which include Lake Thurmond.

CONCERNS ABOUT CLEMSON ECONOMIC STUDY

1. No one who experienced the devastation to docks and shorelines in 2008 will agree that the economic impact was minor. Neither will those who depend on the lakes for their work such as marina owners, dock builders, lake side developers, etc.
2. It is not surprising that people who live in the 6 county area because of their commute to work or proximity to family suffered no impact from the drought. This is like saying no one in Columbia or Rock Hill were impacted by what happened on Lake Hartwell. The only impact is going to be on people who are in the area because of the lake. So far as I can tell there was no attempt to measure the size of this group or to look at the impact incurred by them. In my opinion the study should have been aimed at lake stakeholders and the impact on them rather than the general population.
3. The study assumes a rapid return to normal lake levels with a corresponding return to normal lake property values, etc. The major economic impact is not short term. Instead the major economic impact is loss of confidence in lake level control long term. People who move to the area because they are attracted to the lakes will stop coming, property values will suffer permanent damage on a large scale, and developments depending on the attraction of the lakes will cease. From a personal perspective I know of huge developments that are now abandoned or put on hold around Lake Thurmond because of lost confidence in lake level control.

If the purpose of the study was to determine how hardy the economy of 6 SC counties was during 2006-8 it was a success. But if the study was to look at the economic impact of low lake levels it failed to measure the variables necessary to draw a conclusion. In order to study the economic impact of low lake levels one needs to first identify the community affected by lake levels, second the impact of short term low lake levels on that community and third and most important the long term impact of low lake levels on that community. I can assure you from just looking at the magnitude of impact from lost real estate values the economic impact is not small.

HISTORY OF CORPS MISMANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND

2010-11-21T15:37:00.000-08:00

Stakeholders around Lake Thurmond and the other lakes of the Savannah River Basin are being given the short end of the stick by the Corps. In previous droughts while our lake was being destroyed aesthically by drastic drops in level we pleaded with the Corps for a better approach to managing lake levels. I guess we sounded like a bunch of spoiled brats demanding their way. And to a certain extent we were selfishly seeking better level control for our own interests.

The Corps spoke out authoritatively about how they had to live up to certain demands by congress and were helpless to accomadate our requests. It even sounded like they were right because power generation, dissolved oxygen levels, spider lilly extinction, endangering the short nosed sturgeon, etc. etc. all sounded very plausible.

Then we started delving into each of these concerns ourselves to see if anything had been overlooked that might permit better level control. As we did we found out that there is plenty of water to meet all these demands. Rainfall, even during the worst drought on record, was enough to take care of all the Corps concerns if they would simply adjust the amount of water released annually from the dam to the amount that comes down from rain over a years time. We then proposed the Corps do just that and decrease flow from the dam to match annual rainfall rates anytime the lake is down 2 ft. This simple measure would prevent the lake from dropping more than 8 ft from full pool and if they would drop flows a little more during the cold months we could keep the lake from dropping more than 4 or 5 ft. This is where the recommndation for releases of 3,600cfs (3,100 during colder months) anytime the lakes are down more than 2 ft came from.

The Corps has turned a deaf ear to our recommendations. And they have no way to justify their position. None of the reasons for not decreasing flows are justifiable. Rather than manage the level better the Corps has chosen to maintain a river flow higher than that provided by nature. In doing so the Corps is creating an unanatural situation below the dam that could eventually destroy our whole system. If the drought goes on long enough it could mean we are no longer able to provide adequate water for Augusta and other users downstream. So this is not just a selfish concern for our interests.

No where in the stated responsibilities of the Corps is a river flow above that provided from nature justifiable. The original bases for operation of Lake Thurmond were:
1) flood control
2) hydro power
3) navigation

Later the following were added:
4) recreation
5) water quality
6) water supply
7) fish and wildlife

And in 1993 a federal court ruled that the Corps also needs to consider impact on local economics equal to these other concerns.

Maintaining an artificial river flow in excess of what mother nature provides is not required to meet any of these needs. Matter of fact operation at reduced release rates equivalent to the annual rainfall during the worst drought on record was demonstrated to meet all 8 concerns. For example fear of damaging the tiger lilly (a fish and wildlife concern) was in error. It turns out that artificial flows from the dam were damaging the tiger lilly by washing pollen off the stems prematurely and preventing natural propagation. Another example, damaging the short nosed sturgeon was found to be of no concern with the flow rates proposed. Hydro power is actually benefitted by keeping the lakes as full as possible (The South Eastern Power Association was quoted as saying they would rather reduce flows to keep the lake level high than to maintain higher flows and let the lakes drop lower. Water quality and supply are not a problem at the rates we recommended, and so on it goes. What is damaged by maintaining high artificial flows to the river the way the Corps insists is recreation and economics and the whole system is put in jeopardy of failure if the drought persists long enough.

When we discuss these items with the Corps they bring in any number of imagined problems that need to be addressed such as dissolved oxygen content of the water. But when they are proposing a project of their own that might actually drop oxygen contents (such as dredging Savannah Harbor) they simply put in artificial airation to correct the problem. And as for their excuse that they can't make changes without congresses approval, Corps management has repeatedly stated recently that they have full latitude to change flow rates if they so choose.

We are growing very tired of the lack of response from the Corps to our pleas. We need for everyone to get involved by writing the Corps and your congressman to let them know we've had enough. It's time for them to listen and quit throwing our water away to the Atlantic Ocean.

CORPS RESPONSE IN QUESTION

2010-11-15T17:13:00.000-08:00

There are two very disturbing developments with the Corps and Control of Lake Level. First the Corps appears to have signed off on a badly flawed economic study that concluded there was only very minor impact on the economy around Lake Hartwell from the last drought. And second, with the lake dropping like a rock just like it did leading up to the last major drought the Corps is refusing to reduce release rates and close off flows from the dam when the river is swollen from rain. Such measures would help greatly with our lake levels and avoid another approach to armageddon the way we did in 2008. This is after the Corps admitted publicly that they could go to lower release rates and stop unnecesary releases at their discression.

Many leaders from the local business community have become quite concerned as well as the leadership of Save Our Lakes Now and we are reaching out to Corps leadership and our congressman for help. A letter sent today to our congressman in email form is copied below.

COPY OF LETTER SENT VIA EMAIL TO STAFF OF BROUN AND DEMINT:
Please, we need your help. The Corps of Engineers apparently is accepting an accounting report from Clemson University that is badly flawed. The study was done to determine the magnitude of economic harm caused by drastic losses in lake level during the drought of 2008. Instead of looking at economic effects of the drought such as decreased real estate values around the lake, this study looked primarily at total retail occurring in the 6 county area surrounding Lake Hartwell. This proved only that the occupants around the lake did not pack up and leave during the drought. And of course the drought, by destroying property values, made it impossible for property owners around the lake to leave. Instead they stayed and their grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases remained unchanged making it look like there was no effect on the economy.

One major economic impact of lake levels is its effect on both current real estate values for lake properties and future growth from people moving into the area to enjoy the lakes. Another major loss is future developments side tracked because of fear about problems with lake levels. Marina incomes, etc. will be small in comparison. And grocery, car, movies, gas, etc. purchases for the 6 counties around Lake Hartwell is not a valid measure of economic impact of droughts.

We understand that a similar study is in progress for Lake Thurmond. A study of sales in the counties around Lake Thurmond will in no way represent the impact of droughts on this area. Real estate values for homes on the lake (there are over 4,000 properties on the lake shoreline) dropped at least $500million dollars from the drought. This is in addition to the effects of the poor economy nationwide. And there are numerous developments valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot proceed until confidence is restored in lake level control. Matter of fact huge developments that could have had a large impact on the area were cancelled in the past with fear over lake level problems given as the reason.

It is too early to know for sure but all signs point to the Corps becoming non responsive to the needs of stakeholders around the lakes. With the lake dropping rapidly the Corps is refusing to reduce release rates below those called for in the drought plan that destroyed us in 2008. This is after they have admitted they have the lattitude to decrease flows based on the experience gained in the last major drought. We were hopeful initially because they were talking about dropping releases to 3600 and 3100cfs as the weather grew cooler and they were even toying with the idea of closing off flows at the dam when the river below the dam is swollen from rains. But all that seems to have come to a halt and now the Corps is giving its blessings to the flawed economic study mentioned above.

Recent Meetings With New Corps Commander

2010-10-27T20:12:00.000-07:00

I had the priviledge of being at meetings with the new Corps Commander on Monday evening at the LHA meeting in Anderson, Tuesday morning at a meeting for stakeholders interested in economics, and again Wednesday morning at a meeting for Marina owners. Colonel Hall brings a refreshing approach to managing the lakes and is making it obvious that he plans to be very proactive in saving as much lake water as possible when we are in drought conditions. He acknowledged repeatedly that everyone benefits when we keep the lakes as full as possible,

While we cannot expect everyone to see everything exactly the same, it was very encouraging to see Colonel Hall consider all stakeholder inputs. It is apparent he does not plan to make decisions based on closed door sessions with just a few special interest groups. The Corps is already using reduced flows from the dams below those called for in the old drought plan and they plan to factor in downstream flows so that we don't release any more water than is ablsolutely necessary (eg. when the river is swolen from rains downstream of the dam they plan to close off releases).

I am very optimistic about the future of our lakes.

MORE THOUGHTS ON ECONOMICS OF LAKE LEVEL

2010-10-23T17:31:00.000-07:00

In my last blog I pointed out numerous examples of how low lake levels have a huge dollar value especially when you look at real estate values. But even larger costs are incurred if you look at the impact on future growth. Analyzing the lake area as a stagnant entity misses the fact that future growth could swamp anything we can see now. For example look at areas like the Massanutten Ski Resort in Virginia. They struggled for years and years before finally attracting vacationers from the Washington DC area. Now the tourism there literally swamps anything imagined 10 years ago. Any impact study has to look at what happens to future growth to give a realistic picture of how lake level variations affect the economy.

An analogy to how low lake levels affect our current local economy would be to look at how an unplanned land fill would affect a real estate development during a poor economy. First the unplanned land fill would cause all the nearby property to drop in value. If the economy is bad at the same time the impact on local sales such as gas station volumes, grocery store sales, etc. would be very small. With a poor economy and decreased land values due to the land fill, the occupants of the community would be caught in a vice and be unable to leave the area. Hence gas sales, grocery sales, etc. would not be affected that much. But if you look at what is lost in terms of future growth of the community it is enormous because no one would want to buy or build in such an undesirable area.

A similar thing is happening right now for the local communities around Thurmond. The poor lake level control we've encountered in recent droughts are just as distasteful as an unplanned land fill would be to a real estate development. As in the example above measurements of current impact will not be major because everyone is hanging on for dear life. If we have another poor level performance we may finally see major impacts because many businesses around the lake can not endure another slow down. But neither of these can compare to the impact on future development. What hotel would seriously consider coming here. And numerous developments that would have a major impact on the area will have a hard time getting started once the economy improves because of the distastfullness of poor level control.

Anderson Independant Mail Article Alarming

2010-09-17T10:51:00.000-07:00

The Anderson Independant Mail Newspaper in Anderson came out with an article on the 13th that basically said droughts have small affect on economies. No one in their right mind could look at the thousands of homes lining Hartwell and Thurmond and think the price small. If the author were to talk to the dock builders that went out of business and marinas that lost BIG and the fishing enthusiasts that had to watch tournaments turned away and the weekenders/vacationers who no longer had use of the lake he would find a lot of people do not agree with any such conclusion. I guess what the people studying the problem are really saying is it did not affect their job or their economy. Sorry we couldn't arrange for them to fully participate in the losses.

I have heard that Duke Power is about to complete a similar study on Lake Thurmond. If so I would question the validity of their study without seeing it because I find they have not even talked with Marina owners. I hope the people responsible for this study realize that their actions will have a direct affect on jobs, tourism, and local economies around the Lakes. As with the findings that are rumored for the Lake Hartwell study I personally have to question anyone who claims that droughts have only a small effect economically. Just looking at real estate, anyone who understands lake shore real estate would agree droughts like the one of 2008 decrease lot values by at least $100,000. There are over 4,000 such lots around Thurmond which by itself represents a loss of almost half a billion dollars. Looking past that and saying the loses are small is down right irresponsible and not appreciated by Lake Stakeholders who personally are suffering such losses.

MIXED SIGNALS ON CORPS PLANS FOR LAKE THURMOND

2010-09-06T06:24:00.000-07:00

We have entered into a serious drought situation and Lake Thurmond level is dropping like a rock. The Corps is sending mixed signals on how they plan to manage Lake Thurmond release rates. At first it appeared that they were modifying the old drought plan by going to 3800 cfs releases from Lake Thurmond. Now it looks like the Corps has reverted back to the old drought plan because they have increased releases from Lake Thurmond to 4200 cfs.

There are problems with the old drought plan both upstream and downstream of Thurmond Dam. Upstream it will cause serious economic losses in just a few months time. For example during the last drought the marinas located near McCormick, SC and Lincolnton, GA were suffering monetary losses in excess of 30% and real estate values around the Savannah River Basin Lakes were virtually destroyed. Downstream it could destroy the ability to control river flows in a few years time. At the end of the last drought we were within 2' of losing control over river flows.

All stakeholders around the lakes are on the verge of significant economic losses. You may want to let the Corps know your concerns now before lake levels get totally out of hand the way they have in the past several droughts.

THE CORPS IS DOING IT AGAIN

2010-08-07T20:51:00.000-07:00

The Corps of Engineers shows again that they have no intention of maintaining lake levels and release rates at values that satisfy all stake holders in the Savannah River Basin. We have demonstrated repeatedly that release rates of 3600 cfs from Lake Thurmond is adequate for downstream stakeholders especially when it is for a short term. We have also demonstrated that the economics of uspstream stakeholders can be protected by decreasing releases from Lake Thurmond to 3600 cfs anytime the lake is 2' below full pool. Regardless the Corps is using releases of about twice that level with Lake Hartwell 2' below full pool and Lake Thurmond approaching 3' below full pool.

Summation of What We've Learned About Controlling Lake Levels During a Drought

2010-05-06T16:54:00.000-07:00

I thought it would be beneficial to put what we've learned in one place so anyone trying to catch up to date will have one site where they can get the facts quickly. Our findings are based on Corps of Engineers data during one of the worst droughts of record and the comments solicited by the Corps from all lake and downstream stakeholders as the drought progressed. This information was gathered during the drought of 2008 with releases from Thurmond held to 3,600 cfs for the full 12 months of that year.

First and most important the data show that the average rainfall over a 12month period of time during the droughts of worst record is 3,600cfs. Because of this release rates from Thurmond of 3600cfs will keep the lake in balance over the course of a year. Lake Thurmond will drop in level during the dry months but return to full pool during the periods of higher rainfall. If we had started the year with the lake at 328ft the minimum level would have been in excess of 322ft and the economic disaster to lake interests would have been avoided. Not only would this benefit lake interest economics but avoiding drastic drops in lake level protects against losing predictable river flows. Based on this we have requested that the Corps modify the drought plan as follows:
o To minimize the overall drop in lake level during times of drought initiate a release rate of 3600cfs anytime the lake drops below 328'.
o Maintain the 3600cfs flow rate until the lake returns to full pool (330').
o During the cooler weather months of October through March, we recommend a release rate of 3100cfs to further minimize level fluctuations.

Second we learned that there are additional knobs that can be turned during a drought to further minimize level fluctuations.
o Flow and stream level information is available to the dam operators. If stream flows to the river were used as the criteria on what releases are needed from the dam there were many times in 2008 when dam releases could have been throttled below 3600cfs without any harm downstream.
o Environmental interests currently require a minimum flow across the rapids at Augusta and this flow is the difference between what is released from the dam and what flows through the Augusta Canal. Hence lower flows through the Augusta Canal would permit lower release rates at the dam anytime the rapids are the pinch point in flow needed.

If these findings would be incorporated into the Corps' drought management plan we could eliminate future economic disasters like those that have occured repeatedly since 1985 during Savannah River Basin droughts. The Corps states that they are not responsible for economics but this is in direct contradiction to 1993 court decisions arising from major droughts along the Missouri River. Furthermore the recommended changes to the drought plan offer as much benefit to downstream interests as they do to lake interests. At one point in the drought of 2008 we almost lost the ability to manage release rates. We came close to reaching levels where the drought plan calls for releases equal to what is coming in from rain. Such release rates could be as low as 500cfs which would be very destructive downstream of Thurmond Dam.

Further improvements beyond those from our recommendations above could come from developing models of the Savannah River Basin which predict lake levels, river flows, etc. from all the variables mother nature can throw at us. I understand that such a model may already exist. One study that would be illuminating would be to look at what happens if you keep Lake Hartwell full at times of drought. At first glance this looks bad because Thurmond levels would drop faster due to less input. But it may well be that more rapid refilling of Thurmond when rains occur could offset this negative.

What is desperately needed is input to the Corps' on drought management from lake interests. Comments such as "we can't factor in economics" should no longer be tolerated. At present the Corps has no legitimate representation of lake interests in their decision making meetings. They quote what the NOAA, DNR, DHEC etc. want but they do not incorporate inputs from lake interests such as Save Our Lakes Now which is a 501c3 non profit organization representing Lake Thurmond interests or the Lake Hartwell Association which represents Lake Hartwell interests. What would also be excellent is to incorporate the model of the Savannah Basin assuming it exists into decision making. Excuses such as we need more study are out of line. Throwing money at a problem that can already be solved is not what we need.

UPCOMING ELECTIONS PRESENT AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO GET LAKE PROBLEMS CORRECTED

2010-03-20T14:01:00.000-07:00

From now until November we have an excellent opportunity to find out which politicians will help in our plight with gaining control over our lakes. All of us who suffered the consequences of the Corps' mismanagement of the Savannah River Basin should insist that each candidate express their views on this subject.

As the author of this blog I offer this blog site as a way to communicate their views on the lakes to the public. And I feel sure the various lake organizations such as Save Our Lakes Now and the Lake Hartwell Association would be happy to offer their sources of communication to political candidates who would like to make their views known.

In my opinion we need to vote out of office all incumbents who have not helped us in the past. We also need to make every effort to find and promote candidates who share our views. And most importantly we need to look for candidates who will not be afraid to enter the fray and help us get control over what the Corps does with our lakes.

FINALLY A GLIMMER OF HOPE FOR MANAGING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN PROPERLY

2010-01-23T15:52:00.000-08:00

Finally there is a glimmer of hope for forcing the Corps to manage the Savannah River Basin properly. SC DHEC and DNR are in the process of putting together a formal body of Savannah River Basin Stakeholders. This body should give stakeholders a voice that the Corps has to respond to. At present we can shout and holler all we want but unless the Corps wants to listen they can simply ignore what we say. At the formation meeting for this group it was refreshing to hear SC DNR ackowledge that the problems with lake level are not the amount of water coming into the basin but rather mismanagement of that water.

I've been following the drought problems on the Savannah River Basin for years. Looking at the droughts of the past 20 years it has become evident that there is plenty of water in the Savannah even during a drought to supply all stakeholders both upstream and downstream of Lake Thurmond. It has become equally evident that the drastic drops in lake level during the droughts is due to mismanagement by the Corps and totally uneccesary from the stand point of meeting any real downstream needs. Not only does mismanagement by the Corps cause havoc to the economics of lake communities but it also puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing control of river flows.

Unfortunately the Corps adamantly refuses to acknowledge these facts. Furthermore they insist that economics and recreation can not be factored into their decisions on lake level management. We pointed out that the Corps was forced to consider economics and recreation in a Federal Court decision in 1993. This was done in emails in early December. To date the corps has refused to even discuss the matter.

In a nutshell our problem is lack of cooperation from the Corps. The problem is solved from the standpoint of coming up with a procedure that would work. But the Corps has tucked their head in a shell like a turtle and stubbornly refuses to even discuss the matter.

SANTA MAY LEAVE GENERAL SEMONITE A LUMP OF COAL

2009-12-21T17:14:00.000-08:00

General Semonite gave an excellent impression when he spoke to the Lake Hartwell Association in Anderson a month back. Everything he said and the way in which he handled himself with the audience indicated he was going to be great to work with and responsive to our needs. Hopeful that we will be able to communicate with the General on Drought Control for the Savannah River Basin we sent an email to him on December 13th about a very important policy matter. To date we have not received a reply. If this is an indication of the kind of cooperation we can expect from the Corps for the future we will have to ask Santa to set aside a lump of coal for the General.

A copy of our email to the general follows:

To: General Semonite
From: Save Our Lakes Now

At the Anderson meeting with the Lake Hartwell Association you stated that local economics was not a legitimate basis for managing the lakes because it was not one of the responsibilities specified by congress. This is in direct conflct with a precedent set by the Corps in '93 during a law suit over their control of Missouri lakes in a major drought. I have attached a copy of the GAO testimony given to the Senate on this subject that year. The pertinent testimony is highlighted in yellow.

Unless there is something we are missing here, this would add tremendous weight to our recommendation that Lake Thurmond releases be reduced to 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lake is below 328'. Our recommendations are justifiable from simply keeping the lakes full enough to avoid endangering downstream needs. But increasing economic considerations to the same level as flood control, etc. mandates a plan such as ours to avoid dropping the lakes more than 8 ft in a major drought. Local economics are devastated anytime the lakes drop more than this.

With this email we renew our request for an immediate correction to the drought management plan for the Savannah River Basin to reflect the new knowledge gathered in the last drought. Namely the knowledge referred to is 1) that the average rain input during the worst droughts of record is 3600cfs, 2) that release rates of 3600cfs did not present any major problems for downstream stakeholders over a period in excess of 12 consecutive months and 3) that lake levels would not drop more than 8' during the worst drought on record if our plan were followed.

ANALYSIS OF CORPS ANSWER ON MANAGING LAKE THURMOND

2009-12-06T08:38:00.000-08:00

FOLLOWING IS A LETTER FROM THE CORPS ANSWERING ONE OF OUR PEOPLE ABOUT OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGING THE DROUGHT PLAN. IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE. FOLLOWING THIS LETTER I OFFER MY ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE ARE NOT CONNECTING WITH THE CORPS. MY ANSWER IS NUMBERED. THE NUMBER FOR EACH COMMENT CORRESPONDS TO THE RESPECTIVE PARAGRAPH IN THE CORPS RESPONSE.

"It's my job to manage the entire Savannah River Basin as one system. The
decisions I make with my water managers affect Hartwell, Thurmond, Augusta,
the Savannah River Site, Plant Vogtle, and many others who depend on the
river for their livelihood and well being. The city of Savannah gets 50% of
it's drinking water from the river, as do a number of municipalities
downstream. I don't take this responsibility lightly nor do I make decisions
without careful consideration, consultation, and analysis.

The reservoir has multiple purposes: flood damage reduction; hydropower
generation; water supply for residents/commercial uses throughout the basin;
water quality for environmental stewardship throughout the basin; and
recreation throughout the basin: the lakes were not built solely for lake
residents.

I suspect that when you moved here someone probably gave you the expectation
that the lake is always full. That is not the case. Even in non-drought
years, lake levels are designed to fluctuate as much as four feet. This can
be a huge inconvenience to someone who has a dock in a shallow water cove. I
receive lots of complaints from home buyers who were told the lake is always
full. I cannot control what home sellers say.

Cities, businesses, and utilities draw from the reservoirs and the river to
provide drinking water and support industry-which in turn creates jobs. The
states oversee and permit withdraws from the water system. We do not. I talk
regularly with SC and GA resource agencies on water management in order to
gauge needs of upstream and downstream users. In addition to GA and SC, the
reduction in water leaving the reservoirs requires the concurrence of the
federal resource agencies who are also charged with enforcing numerous
federal laws related to water.

The real answer to our issues is rain, and while I control many aspects of
water management, rain is beyond my control. As you know, right now rain
continues to raise reservoir levels.

I understand that many people would like the Corps to operate its reservoir
projects differently; I receive many requests to have the reservoirs full
all
the time. But as I explained, I have procedures to protect both people and
the environment. I think it's interesting that I also receive many e-mails
thanking me for how we managed the lakes during the drought. You didn't
mention it, but you do realize that for almost two years we reduced releases
BELOW what was specified in the drought plan, solely to the benefit of lake
users. I also ordered the dams shut off for a total of 80 days to save
water.
The groups that encourage these blanket e-mails somehow forgot to mention
that.

Also, we announced last week that we would be keeping Thurmond at 2' below
seasonal full pool when we do the repairs. The folks who send out these
e-mails to you somehow forgot to mention that as well. I cannot control what
they say, but I can answer your questions any time you have them. We put at
much info on our web site as is humanly possible, and I'd encourage you to
refer to it any time you need an update."

Thanks,

COL Edward J. Kertis
Commander, Savannah District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
912-652-5226

1&2) WE ALL AGREE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS. OUR PROPOSALS ALSO CONSIDER ALL STAKEHOLDERS WHETHER THEY ARE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES. WHERE WE WOULD DIFFER WITH THE COPRS IS THEY SEEM TO BE INFERRING THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING EVERYONE WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

3) WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARAGRAPH. FIRST THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO FLUCTUATE IN LEVEL IS MISLEADING. THE LAKES WERE DESIGNED TO HOLD WATER. HOW THE LEVEL FLUCTUATES IS UP TO THE WAY THE CORPS BALANCES LAKE OUTPUT (RELEASES) WITH INPUT (WATER FROM RAINFALL). THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE SUGGESTING THE CORPS BE MORE SENSIBLE WITH THE WAY THEY BALANCE OUTPUT WITH INPUT. WITH THE CURRENT DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE LAKES WOULD HAVE DROPPED BELOW THE POINT WHERE PREDICTABLE FLOWS COULD BE MAITAINED. THEY HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DROUGHT PLAN AND STILL ALMOST LOST CONTROL OF THE LAKES. WITH OUR PROPOSAL OUTPUT AND INPUT WOULD BE BALANCED AND THE SWING IN LAKE LEVEL DURING THE WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD WOULD BE LESS THAN 10' RATHER THAN THE 16' EXPERIENCED WITH THE CORPS PLAN AND THE LAKE WOULD BE WITHIN 2' OF FULL POOL MOST OF THE TIME.

A SECOND PROBLEM WITH THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE CORPS IS BASICALLY ACCUSING LOCAL REAL ESTATE PEOPLE OF LYING ABOUT LAKE LEVEL. IT IS UNDERSTANDIBLE THAT REAL ESTATE SALESMEN WOULD NOT WANT TO TELL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS HOW FOOLISHLY THE CORPS IS MANAGING LAKE LEVEL. I WOULD THINK THE CORPS WOULD APPRECIATE THIS. THE MAIN IDEA HERE IS IF THE COPRS WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES EVERYONE, BOTH UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM, WOULD BE BETTER OFF. AND THE PROBLEMS WITH DOCKS ETC. MENTIONED IN THE CORPS LETTER WOULD BE KEPT TO AN ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM.

4)WE AGREE THAT ALL THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND WE SUBMIT THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS A BETTER BALANCE FOR ALL CONCERNED THAN THE CURRENT DROUGHT PROTECTION PLAN IN USE BY THE CORPS.

5)THE AMOUNT OF RAIN IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE WAY THE RAIN INPUT IS MANAGED IS.

6)THIS PARAGRAPH IS VERY MISLEADING. FIRST OFF THEY DID NOT REDUCE FLOWS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LAKE RESIDENTS. THEY REDUCED FLOWS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PREDICTABLE FLOWS FOR THE RIVER. WE HAVE GIVEN CREDIT TO THE CORPS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO HELP AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THESE EFFORTS. THEY SIMPLY DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE AS WITNESSED BY THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMIES OF LAKE COMMUNITIES. THE CORPS SHOULD REALIZE WE CAN NOT THANK THEM FOR DESTROYING OUR LAKES AND OUR ECONOMIES WHEN THEY ARE REFUSING TO MAKE CHANGES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE.

7)THIS PARAGRAPH DEMEANS US AND IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. THE ONLY REASON THE CORPS IS FINALLY BACKING OFF TO ONLY A 2' DROP FOR REPAIRS IS OUR INSISTENCE THAT THEY DO SO. IF WE HAD NOT SENT ALL THE LETTERS AND EMAILS REQUESTING THIS THEY WOULD HAVE DROPPED LAKE THURMOND 4' FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.

I hope this is received in the way it is intended. We are not in a techincal or engineering problem with managing the lakes. We are being done in by political problems that can be solved once the Corps decides to listen.

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

2009-11-27T09:08:00.000-08:00

We are witnessing an unbelievable demonstration of mismanagement of the Savannah River Basin. Not only is the Corps ignoring the impact of their actions on the economics of communities surrounding Lake Thurmond, they are also ignoring their charge to prevent flooding and the economic losses that result from flooding. Lake Thurmond has been devastated by dropping the lake level 6' in less than 2 weeks with no real reason to do so. This unbelievable waste of precious water and lake level can never be recovered. And there is nothing that required this be done in this time period. Not only has Lake Thurmond been devastated but Savannah is under a flood watch and stakeholders along the Savannah River South of the dam have been pleading to no avail for the Corps to stop these massive releases.

I have given you my assessment of what is happening. Below I present a chronology of events so you can decide for yourself what is happening.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
10/29/09 - We went to a meeting of the Lake Hartwell Association in Anderson where General Semonite who heads Corps operations in the Southeast gave a talk on the status of the Savannah River Basin. We were all exuberant over the fact that the Lakes were finally recovering from the recent drought. Lake Thurmond had reached 328.56 ft msl (less than 2' from full pool) and was continuing to rise. At that meeting our hopes for beginning the long road to restoring confidence in Lake Level management were destroyed. General Semonite announced that they were going to drop Lake Thurmond 4'. The reasons given were 1) that they needed a 4' margin for safety for workers repairing the dam and 2) that the rule curve specifies a 4'drop in lake level during the winter anyway. The General also noted that the economics of the local communities around the lakes were not his responsibility.

10/30/09 - Save Our Lakes Now made a plea to the Corps to reconsider. We asked that the margin for safety be reevaluated to see if 2' would work instead of 4'. And we asked that the Corps reconsider the rule curve in light of the fact that there are 3 lakes now whereas the rule curve was put in place when Lake Thurmond was the only lake on the Savannah River. Save Our Lakes Now noted that the economics of the local communities around the lakes are a major concern for us and we do not agree that damages to the local economics by the actions of the Corps are excuseable. Such damages done knowingly are the responsibility of the Corps just as damages done by one's car are the responsibility of the owner of the car.

11/14/09 - Thanks to tropical storm Ida Lake Thurmond peaked at 332.47 ft msl (2.47' above full pool). The Corps immediately initiated releases in excess of 25,000cfs. The Corps reportedly was holding internal meetings to decide what levels to go to on Lake Thurmond. Shortly thereafter the Corps announced by way of press releases that a 2' drop from full pool will probably provide adequate safety for the dam repairs. The press releases however noted that they would still be dropping 4' to meet the rule curve for winter operations.

11/27/09 - In less than 2 weeks the Corps literally threw away over 6' of Lake Level ignoring our plea for changing the rule curve to preserve the economics of communities around Lake Thurmond. They use the excuse of being afraid of too much water in the lake from spring rains. This excuse is horribly weak however when you see the flooding that is occuring south of Lake Thurmond from these releases. Savannah is under flood warnings and stake holders downstream of the dam are screaming at the Corps to cease the massive releases.

SUMMARIZING:
These actions are not what you would expect from a professional engineering organization. Save Our Lakes Now is convinced that the management of the Corps is not only unreasonble but dangerous. It is unreasonable to throw away all this water just after a major drought and it is dangerous to do so with all the flooding being caused downstream. Additionally the Corps is being very irresponsible. They may not be charged with the economics of the lake surroundings but they are charged with flood control and its economics and they are ignoring both at the expense of all stakeholders along the Savannah River Basin South of Lake Russell.

HERE WE GO AGAIN

2009-11-08T19:06:00.000-08:00

Just as we are finally nearing full pool in Lake Thurmond the Corps has announced that they need to drop the lake 4 feet to permit repairs to the Dam. These repairs are being done with stimulus money. This brings to a head the issues we've been talking about for over a year.

We've been pleading for a drought control plan that specifies release rates of 3600 cfs (3100 during the months of October to February) any time Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. And we've been asking the Corps to end the practice of dropping the lake level 4' for the winter.

The reasoning behind the release rate of 3600 (3100 during October to February) is to match the annual rain input during the worst drought of record. This would limit the swing in Lake Level over the year during a drought to less than 8' which avoids destroying upstream viability. So far as downstream affects, this release rate has been demonstrated to be acceptable for all downstream stakeholders. Furthermore this protects downstream interests from the catastrophic consequences of Lake Thurmond dropping to the bottom of it's conservation pool . Once the lake hits this level there is no longer a pool to operate from and river flows would vary with daily rainfalls.

The Corps is claiming they need to drop 4' for the safety of the personnel doing the repairs to the dam. Save Our Lakes members with experience in this area feel that the Corps should be able to modify their equipment to allow the work to be done safely with a 2' or less drop in level.

The Corps is assuming they need to continue the practice of dropping the lakes 4' in the winter to protect against flooding downstream if we get heavy winter rains. We've asked that they reassess this because we feel this amount of drop is not necessary to protect against downstream flooding because of numerous changes since the 4' rule curve was put into use.

The biggest challenge for upstream lake interests trying to get the Corps to make changes in the way they manage lake levels is there is no mechanism in place for proposing changes. And the Corps claims economic affects upstream of the dams are not their responsibility. We are totally at their mercy if they chose not to listen to our suggestions. The biggest thing in our favor is the number of people involved who have an interest in the lakes. A meeting of Save Our Lakes Now is planned for 7:00pm on Monday 10/16 at the Lincolnton Court House. By that time we should know whether the Corps is willing to modify their plans. If not we need to pull everone together to get the benefit of a large number of people speaking with one voice

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING POOR JUDGEMENT

2009-10-26T16:05:00.000-07:00

The Savannah River is swollen from all the recent rains. Downstream interests are certainly not hurting for more water in the river. Upstream interests on the other hand are holding their breath waiting for the lakes to finally reach full pool for the first time in years. So why is the Corps suddenly increasing release rates through Thurmond Dam from the 3600 cfs lake residents have been pleading for to 4200 cfs that does no one any good.

It would have been good if the Corps had continued the 3600 cfs release rate until the lakes were totally full. Going up to 4200 cfs raises doubts in the minds of upstream interests about the Corps'. Upstream interests suffered tremendous devastation to economies and recreation that could have been prevented. All the Corps has to do to prevent a recurrence of this devastation is adopt our recommendation of 3600 cfs (3100 during October to February) anytime the lakes are 2' below full pool until the lakes are completely full. Increasing releases to 4200 cfs before the lakes refill is like telling lake residents to take a hike.

I had high hopes for future relations with the Corps. This uncalled for increase in release rates raises serious doubts about getting the cooperation we need.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CORPS DROUGHT PLAN

2009-10-17T07:15:00.000-07:00

The current drought plan is backwards from the way the real world operates. The Corps is worrying about and specifying how much water needs to be released downstream with out looking at how much water is available. This is like managing your finances from the stand point of what you want rather than what you can afford. Eventually you will bankrupt your finances or in the case of a lake deplete all the useable water out of the lake.

The difference in what we are recommending is to look at the amount of water available and specify release rates that won't deplete the lakes of useable water. Our recommendation comes from two observations:
1) the amount of water entering the lakes from rain during the worst droughts on record is the same as the amount the Corps has been releasing for the past 18 or so months (3600cfs).
2) the release rate the Corps has been using for the past 18 or so months has not caused any problems downstream
The benefits of following our recommendation would be to avoid the destruction experienced in past droughts to upstream economies and recreation and to guard against reaching the bottom of the conservation pool for the lakes where predictable release rates could no longer be maintained downstream.

It should be obvious to anyone looking at the lakes that there are two concerns that should govern release rates. One is the effect on downstream stakeholders and the second is the effect on upstream stakeholders. The Corps does lip service to protecting upstream interests but in reality only accepts responsibility for downstream effects. So far as instructions to the corps by congress they were formally instructed to protect upstream recreational interests but upstream economies were not mentioned. Our recommendations take care of all downstream concerns and all upstream concerns including upstream economics. As a result our drought control plan is superior to the current corps drought plan.

Based on a review of all comments to the Corps about their drought control plan upstream stakeholders are very disatisfied with the way the Corps is managing the lakes while the only downstream group unhappy is Fish and Wildlife. They expressed all kinds of possible problems while not mentioning any real problem. We wonder why then the Corps is scrambling to increase release rates rather than sticking with a much better plan that is working? Could it be they fear the Fish and Wildlife commission?

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS

2009-10-05T19:25:00.000-07:00

The good news is the Corps has agreed to change their drought management plan on a trial basis to reduce flows from Lake Thurmond to 3100cfs during the months of October to February. The bad news is they don't plan to do this unless Lake Thurmond reaches 14 ft below full pool.

We had requested this flow be adopted anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool during the months of October to February. Waiting until the lake is 14' low is like the proverbial "closing the barn doors after the cows are gone". Basically upstream economic issues and recreational interests are destroyed whenever Lake Thurmond drops more than 10ft.

On the plus side the Corps' argument for using 3100cfs mirrors what we've been saying from our review of information gathered from a freedom of information act request. When we requested all comments from downstream interests concerning the affects of 3100cfs we found that no one had a problem with that release rate. The Corps arguments for adopting 3100cfs on a trial basis supports our conclusions. Furthermore the Corps admits that there should be no significant affect on environmental issues.

The only omission from the Corps' argument is the affects on economic and recreational interests upstream when Lake Thurmond levels fall more than 10'. They use the words economic and recreation issues but fail to address these concerns. So it would appear we are closer now than ever to getting the Corps to recognize the wisdom of our requests for 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) whenever Lake Thurmond is 2' below full pool. All we need now is to get them to recognize economic and recreation issues upstream and they will be forced to come to the same conclusions we have about how best to manage our lakes.

The Corps is requesting public comments on their proposal for 3100cfs before noon on October 30th. Please flood their desks with the fact that they need to consider the impact of waiting beyond 2' below full before implementing 3100cfs during October to February. The addresses to use are: email address - william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil, fax number - (912) 652-5787, And mailing address - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Planning Unit, Attn: William Bailey, PO Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.

CORPS IS REFUSING TO GIVE CREDIT TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

2009-10-04T08:41:00.000-07:00

Recent emails from Col. Kertis reveal that the Corps is refusing to accept our proposals as legitimate ways to improve management of the Lakes. Col. Kertis is even defending himself against our requests as if we are falsely acusing him of something he is not guilty of. What seems to be getting lost between our communications is that our proposals represent what is good for downstream stakeholders as well as upstream stakeholders.

In his last two email responses the Colonel claims that the Corps is doing what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents. This indicates that what we are requesting would not be in the best interests of all stakeholders. Furthermore in his last email he even mentions that he receives all kinds of unrealistic requests from all over the basin. This would seem to imply he feels our requests fall in the same category. Such accusations are simply not true. The proposals presented by Save Our Lakes Now represent what is best for the ENTIRE basin and not just Lake Thurmond residents.

The proposal from Save Our Lakes Now is as sound as balancing a bank account so you don't go bankrupt. The recommended release rate of 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) is based on the annual rainfall during the worst droughts of record. It is also the flow that was demonstrated to meet everyone's needs downstream when the Corps had to minimize flows during the last drought. This minimizes disruption to upstream economies and recreation during a drought, keeps adequate water flowing in the river for downstream and avoids dropping lake levels to the point that releases to the river can no longer be controlled.

The Colonel's claim to managing the lakes for the benefit of all stakeholders is an exageration of what happened during the last drought. Upstream economies and recreational interests were destroyed when the lakes dropped more than 10ft from normal fill levels. And downstream interests came dangerously close to losing controlled river flows because the lakes almost reached the bottom of their conservaion pools. If the Corps had not abandoned their drought guidelines, the drought could have devastated downstream interests by decreasing river flows to the daily inputs from rain. Mismangement would be a more accurate description of what happened in the last drought. Unfortunately, unless the Corps listens and adopts our proposals this could well happen again and this time it could go all the way to devastating downstream interests.

WHO'S AT THE CONTROLS

2009-09-23T07:37:00.000-07:00

If you look at the Corps' behavior on our drought control plan it becomes obvious they are reacting to some outside force rather than using common sense and doing what is right. In my opinion the ultimate cause for the Corps' refusal to change the plan and adopt our recommendations is the heavy hand of the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. When we requested through the Freedom of Information Act all correspondence requesting more than 3600cfs from Lake Thurmond, no one had a problem except this organization. Their letters showed total lack of logic. They demanded certain minimum flows from Lake Thurmond without regard for the fact that this flow rate might exhaust the capability to maintain predictable flows from the dam. And of course such a demand totally ignores the impact of such flows on the lake levels and economic/recreational aspects of the lakes.

Logic demands that releases from the Lakes take into account the amount of water coming in from rain and the impacts on both sides of the dam from releases versus rain inputs. But the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letters show no concern for this balance; they look only at river flows. Following their dictates often destroys the interests of stakeholders around the lakes. It also puts downstream interests in danger of not being able to maintain acceptable river flows when the lakes reach the bottom of their conservation pool. If we were to mirror their behavior we would show no concern for what happens below the dam and demand the lakes stay at full pool regardless of what this does to dam releases. Obviously everyone would be aghast at us if we acted that way. So why are we not aghast at the behavior of the Department of the Interior.

Our plight is very similar to that of the farmers in California who no longer have farms because the environmental protection agency demands their water be diverted to protect the Smelt fish which is becoming extinct. Hannity of Fox News recently did a special showing the plight of the california farmers. We need for him to do the same here. Please send emails and letters to Hannity and see if he will take up our cause along with that of the California farmers being destroyed by protecting Smelt.

FINALLY

2009-08-30T08:05:00.001-07:00

I looked at the Corps charts for Lake Thurmond Friday and was very surprised to see that the Corps has finally dropped release rates back to 3600cfs. I don't know whether this means we are winning the battle over release rates or something else is afoot. But finally the ridiculous waste of lake level has stopped. Lake Thurmond is a foot lower right now than it would have been had the Corps not increased release rates to 4000cfs.

If you are talking to or sending email to the Corps or your Congressman or State Government officials about the lake please make sure you let them know we are very pleased to see release rates that are sensible. To finally end this madness and mismanagement of the Lakes we now need a formal drought control plan that specifies 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond is below 328'. The main reason a formal written plan is needed is so we can restore confidence in the lakes and end the destruction of the economy of the lake communities. Without this in writing people will naturally be afraid that the Corps will repeat past history and the economy will suffer the consequences.

NO ONE NEEDS 4000CFS FROM THURMOND

2009-08-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

We asked for a copy of all requests for going to 4000cfs. There were no such requests from any businesses or public interests along the Savannah River. The only requests were from government entities with "sky is falling" type thinking. None of these govenment agencies knows a way to make water with a dam so their imagined concerns go away when you tell them we will pass on everything that comes in from mother nature. And our porposal for 3600cfs anytime the lakes are 2' low does just that. All that is needed here is for these agencies to be a little patient and let the lakes refill. From that point on the releases from Lake Thurmond would no longer be restricted. The Corps can go to any rate they wish until the level drops more than 2'.

We need for our congressmen and state governments to demand responsible behavior in controlling lake releases. Releasing more water than comes in from mother nature is irresponsible. And dropping lake levels to the point that it destroys the economics of communities around the lakes is also irresponsible. Responsible behavior demands that the Corps base their release rates on the amount of water available from rain. The benefit of daming water to form a reservoir like Lake Thurmond is to average river flows over a years time to avoid both floods and greatly diminished river flows. The mistake made by the Corps and "sky is falling" type government agencies who advise the Corps is they try to put more water downstream than is provided by mother nature. This leads to costly drops in lake levels and endangers all downstream interests by raising the possibility of destroying the lakes.

We need to continue demanding that the Corps return to 3600cfs until the lakes refill.

CORPS STILL ISN'T GETTTING THE MESSAGE

2009-08-09T16:33:00.000-07:00

Colonel Kertis was honored at a picnic in Lincolnton last week because of a number of things he did in 2008 to help with the drought. He stopped all flows from Thurmond dam at one point when the river downstream was swollen from rain. Later he stopped all releases from Lake Hartwell for several weeks to rebalance the lakes. And he has maintained release rates below those required by the drought plan. However the Corps is still falling short of managing the lakes in the manner needed. The communities around the lakes still suffer huge economic losses because of lost confidence in the way the lakes are managed. And the communities along the Savannah River are still at risk of losing the river flows they need should the drought continue or return.

Colonel Kertis demonstrated his lack of understanding of our needs in several statements. At one point he defended continuing releases of 4000cfs vs 3600cfs by stating that this only represents 4" a month or a foot of level over the summer months. This is indicative of the kind of thinking that has led to depleting the lakes to the bottom of the conservation pool in the past. These incidences also happened only 4" a month extended over a couple of years time (24 months times 4" a month leads to 8' loss in level which in turn leads to 16' loss when you drop the lakes 4 ft in the fall and don't reduce flows until the lakes drop to trigger level 2).

Further Colonel Kertis justified holding the lakes at 4,000cfs by indicating pressure from downstream interests to increase flows. It would be far better if he told downstream interests to be patient and let him refill the lakes before increasing flows. Once the lakes are full they can have any release rate they wish.

Colonel Kertis promised copies of letters and/or names and addresses of those who are insisting on higher flows. That was Tuesday and to date we have not received these. If we do not receive these by the middle of next week we will request this information under the freedom of information act.

To sum up, please continue to ask your congressmen and the Corps "Why not go to 3600cfs now?"

HAPPENING NOW

2009-07-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

Things are heating up. We've updated the Save Our Lakes Now website (www.saveourlakesnow.org) to reflect where we are now in trying to get the mess with lake levels straightened out. On that site there is a breaking news link that will let everyone know what is going on right now. If you haven't already, be sure to go to that site and sign the petition and get familiar with the site. It wil become more and more important as we work to get our recommended change to the drought plan implemented.

So far as the Corps is concerned they are blindly following the old plan and refusing to go to 3600cfs at this time. We understand that they do not plan to return to 3600cfs unti the lake drops to 324' (1.5ft lower than the level today). Please call your congressman and Col Kertis of the Corps and ask them "why not go to 3600cfs now". If enough people do this we can hopefully get the Corps to stop holding off on this change.

We now have the ear of WJBF Channel 6 and they plan a 30 minute program discussing this whole issue. Save Our Lakes Now has been invited to express their side of the argument and Col Kertis of the Corps and his superior officer have been invited to attend as well.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF OUR FOCUS

2009-07-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

Following is a one paragraph statement that sums up the lake level problem. Feel free to copy and/or use this to explain the situation we face to anyone who may be able to help with our cause:

When people hear about problems with the drought control plan for Lake Thurmond they automatically assume higher lake levels for recreation would deny the people along the Savannah River the water they need for drinking water, environmental concerns, industry, etc. But this simply is not true. The Corps' Drought Plan is destructive to both upstream and downstream interests. Thurmond Dam simply pools the water from rain so that it can be released uniformly over the year giving the river predictable water flows. The Dam can't make water. So if you release more water than is available from rains you can destroy the ability to release a uniform amount of water to the river. The Corps' Drought Plan does just that. They released more water during the last drought than was available from rain thereby dropping lake levels almost to the bottom of the conservation pool. At that level uniform releases are no longer possible. In other words the Corps' Drought Plan could easily get us to the point where drinking water, environmental, and industrial needs, etc along the river can not be met. Save Our Lakes Now is proposing that the Corps use a flow rate of 3600cfs anytime Lake Thurmond drops 2ft. This flow would meet the needs of both upstream and downstream interests. It matches the amount of water that came in from rain during the worst drought on record which means the lakes would stay full and 3600cfs was used for over a year without any problems downstream of the dam.

PEOPLE SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND

2009-07-10T21:35:00.000-07:00

The main problem we are having with trying to sell everyone on our proposed change to the drought plan is people hear what we are saying but do not understand what they are hearing. Brad Means (the News Anchor on channel 6) demonstrated what I mean on the channel 6 news at 5 this evening. In introducing the comments we made about what the Corps is doing wrong he gave a very incorrect lead-in. Paraphrasing, he said the battle for lake water continues with the people upstream wanting more water for recreation and the people downstream wanting more water for drinking water etc. implying that both can't have what they want.

What we want is what is best for downstream users as well as for us. By keeping the lakes full we protect everyone downstream from losing the water necessary to meet their needs along the river while at the same time protecting our interests around the lake. Everyone thinks if we keep the lakes full it will deprive downstream users but just the opposite is true. To illustrate let's look at what happens if the Corps lets Lake Thurmond drop more than 16':

1) Flows through the dam will only match what comes in from rain. So when there is no rain for weeks as in the past drought the flow through the dam will drop to zero.

2) The Augusta Canal would no longer be able to draw water from the river at predictable rates because that would leave the shoals too dry. Canal flows would drop to nothing whenever rainfall is less than 1500cfs because the environmentalists want a minimum of 1500cfs across the shoals.

3) Flows across the shoals would no longer be at least 1500cfs because there would be days when no rain falls and no water can be released from the dam.

4) All industry and cities along the Savannah would have to redo their water take off from the River and the amount of water available to them would vary to as little as zero when there is no rain over a long period of time.

5) There would be no minimum water flows for any fish species; endangered or not. They would have to take what ever falls by rain.

6) Salt water incursion would be left to the to and fro of rain or no rain because outflow from the dam could no longer be controlled at a specific level. Outflow from the dam would be zero for days when it is dry and then surge as rain occurs.

What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the only way downstream users can be protected and have guaranteed quantities of water is to keep the lakes full. They think lake interests are just being greedy and want to keep all the water for themselves. What the people downstream fail to comprehend is the fact that release rates of 3600cfs not only will keep the lakes full but it will also meet all downstream needs. This is not pie in the skie hopeful thinking. This has been demonstrated by operating Lake Thurmond at a release rate of 3600cfs for over a year.

REVIEW OF 3100CFS COMMENTS ILLUMINATING

2009-06-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

The Corps of Engineers requested comments from all lake stake holders before they ran a test of 3100cfs from Thurmond in November - February, 2008. Since we are requesting adopting 3600cfs as a standard release anytime Lake Thurmond is 2' or more below fill level, we thought it would be enlightening to look at what everybody claimed might be wrong with 3100cfs.

Based on information supplied by the Corps of Engineers everyone should be fine with a release rate of 3600cfs. The manufacturing and power generating facilities along the Savannah River all indicated they might have to make some modifications to their water intake facilities at 3100cfs but that they had no problems with 3600cfs. This included International Paper, SRS, Georgia Power and Georgia Pacific. The city of Augusta public utilities indicated no problems with 3600 and as we now know they are set up to take water out of the river instead of the canal if they encounter a problem.

The only people that had a real quarrel with 3100cfs were the mill and others associated with the Augusta Canal and the environmental organizations such as the NOAA who were concerned that 3100 "MIGHT" endanger some fish species. But again even these organizations were not having a problem with 3600cfs.

So far as the Augusta Canal, there is a very simple solution to their concerns. The environmentalists insist on 1500cfs across the shoals. The shoals flow is whatever is left over after you subtract the flow to the canal from the releases from Lake Thurmond. If you simply control the flow through the shoals at 1500cfs whenever the releases from Thurmond are reduced to 3600cfs and let the rest go through the canal you satisfy the environmentatlists and the canal will be fine. Matter of fact it could be argued that the flow through Thurmond could even be reduced to 3100 and the canal would still be fine but we don't need to argue this point since we only want to go down to 3600cfs when the Lake level is down.

As for the Mill in the canal that generates electricity from canal flows, there is no way to justify destroying real estate values, businesses and recreation associated with Lake Thurmond for the meager savings the Mill realizes from generating power from the canal. But here again the argument is mute because at 3600cfs even the mill can do their thing.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS GUILTY OF GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND

2009-06-20T19:51:00.000-07:00

The Corps of Engineers is guilty of gross mismanagement of Lake Thurmond. Let me enumerate the evidence:

o First the Corps is a professional Engineering organization and thereby owes the public who are paying their salaries professional behavior. Because of their level of expertise they can be held accountable for making decisions that are consistent with good engineering practices. Just as Doctors can be held accountable for their procedures and decisions, the Corps is accountable for following failed procedures and making poor decisions. They have been offered a very basic solution to the lake problem but rather than evaluate the recommended solution using the engineering judgment they are capable of, they hide behind ridiculous excuses.

o Second the Corps has been fully informed of the disasters caused by their inappropriate control of Lake Thurmond Lake levels. They have been shown that the cost of the drastic drop in lake levels in 2006,7, and 8 totaled in excess of a billion dollars to upstream businesses and property values. Instead of recognizing the magnitude of the costs which would justify immediate corrective measures they pretend they need studies to determine the magnitude of the losses. As a professional engineering organization they should not be permitted to act ignorant of the huge losses they've caused. Furthermore the loss in confidence that has occured regarding the Lakes will require a huge publicity effort coupled with immediate correction of the drought control plan to turn these losses around. None of these can start because the Corps pleads ignorance and lack of capability. A competent engineering firm would not be so impotent.

o Third the losses experienced upstream are minor compared to the potential losses that would have occured if Lake Thurmond hit the level where the river would no longer have flows of 3600cfs or greater. If Lake Thurmond had dropped a few more feet as it would have if the drought had continued, releases could have dropped to as low as 500cfs which would be a disaster for everyone depending on the Savannah River. Ignoring this and refusing to correct the situation is criminal. Yet the Corps blindly continues with their outdated drought plan pretending that only the upstream interests are at risk and ignoring the potential for a future disaster downstream. Instead of informing downstream interests how close they came to disaster, the corps is childishly adjusting flows willy nilly because "someone" feels they need higher flows than 3600cfs.

When asked if they understand the argument Col. Edward Kertis responded with "we got it". He even claimed that he was tired of seeing the argument saying sarcastically that he heard it all 75 times we said it . When asked why he insists on ignoring our requests he throws up fictitious arguments about how he is worried about DO (dissolved oxygen) or side tracks the issue referring to past studies costing millions that he says need to be finished (that he knows aren't going to be done because of a lack of funding). He knows full well these studies can not do any better than the actual live test of 3600cfs run for over a year with no deleterious effects. Besides, based on the magnitude of the problems and the fact that people are hurting around the lakes from lost confidence in them staying up in level, the very least that the Corps should do is initiate temporary changes correcting the problem until further study can be done. Instead the Corps refuses to make the requested changes leaving the area unable to rid itself of a bad taste that is retarding a comeback and future growth while at the same time risking future disaster.

MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND CONFUSION ARE SETTING IN ON DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN

2009-06-13T10:00:00.000-07:00

The reason the Corps insists on ignoring the proposal for a new drought management plan from LHA et al is not clear. But now that the lakes are nearing full and the time since we were in a severe drought grows longer, misunderstandings and confusion are dimming the passions for correcting the problems with the existing drought plan for Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. The Corps has raised concerns about dissolved oxygen and the DNR has raised concerns about the welfare of fish and wildlife. And well intentioned but misguided stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin are listening to these concerns and accepting them as reasons not to correct the problem.

What is getting lost in the shuffle is the fact that following the proposed new drought plan is the best solution for all these problems. Using 3600cfs as a release limit anytime Thurmond is 2ft below full avoids the near disasters experienced several times in the past with the current plan. Whether we are talking dissolved oxygen, the welfare of fish and wildlife, or some other well intentioned concern, keeping the lakes full over a full year's cycle is the best way to keep these problems at bay. Those arguing the other way fail to remember the fact that if you put out more water than comes in from rain over the year you drain the lakes and could end up with no way to control any of these concerns. They also are failing to give credit to the fact that in 2008 we ran a full 12 month demonstration of the acceptability of 3600cfs downstream. Furthermore if a problem is discovered with 3600cfs it needs to be solved by some manner that does not run the risk of draining the lakes dry. For example there are many ways to improve dissolved oxygen that do not involve increasing lake releases. One way is to decrease the amount of water going into the Augusta Canal so that you get higher flows across the shoals which aireate the river.

CORPS' REFUSAL TO CHANGE DROUGHT PLAN LEAVES SAVANNAH RIVER INTERESTS IN JEAOPORDY

2009-05-30T06:41:00.000-07:00

To the casual observer Lake Thurmond is just about full, rains are plentiful, and drought problems are no more. But to the long term resident of the lakes the crisis has not passed. We've been here numerous times before. A new drought can happen and destroy the lakes beyond repair before you realize what is happening. Lake Thurmond drops 16ft and Lake Hartwell drops even further after 2 years of drought. We've come up with a new drought control plan which would correct this problem forever but for some unexplained reason the Corps is stubbornly refusing to adopt the recommended changes.

What is even more disturbing is that downstream interests don't have a clue to the impending doom they face. Downstream the picture is blurred because all they see is how much water is flowing down the river. And naturally they begin to demand higher water flows from the Corps during a drought. Instead of explaining the fact that such flows may cause the lakes to dry up the Corps does a political balancing act and increases water flows through the dam to quiet these demands. This further exascerbates the situation and puts the lake in still higher jeopardy of going dry. Such inept management of the lakes in the last drought put us within just a few months of levels that would have literally dried up the Savannah River. The river would have dropped to flows as small as 500cfs which would shut down industry along the Savannah, dry up drinking water supplies for downstream cities like Augusta, and destroy environmental interests.

The new drought plan was developed by upstream interests and prevents the lakes dropping more than 8ft from full regardless of how long the drought lasts. Furthermore the main benefit would be to downstream interests because it avoids the armageddon situation that would occur if the lakes actually go dry. The plan guarantees at least 3600cfs downstream throughout a drought which was demonstrated in the last drought as workable for all downstream interests.
The Corps either misunderstands the plan or is playing politics because they insist this plan would be good for upstream interests but not for downstream and try to pit upstream against downstream which is totally inappropriate. As already stated, downstream interests benefit more than anyone else using this approach. Continuing with the current plan puts downstream interests in jeopardy of losing the Savannah River because there is no water to supply it.

If you have input to downstream interests such as industry officials or city mayors, etc. please help us get the word out on this. We have asked the Corps repeatedly to convene a meeting of both upstream and downstream interests to discuss these options. But the Corps is refusing to do so.

COLONEL KERTIS NO LONGER OUR HERO

2009-05-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

Colonel Edward Kertis established a new level of communication with lake concerns as the lakes almost went dry. This gave hope that finally we could reason with the Corps. Recent developments however show clearly he is no friend of lake interests; either downstream or upstream. For some reason he refuses to listen to reason. With the lakes about to refill the Corps is recklessly ignoring the lessons of the recent drought and they have increased the releases from Thurmond Dam to 3800cfs and plan another increase to 4000cfs shortly.

We learned in the recent drought that downstream interests are in extreme danger of losing the water flows they need for industry, water supplies, and environmental interests with the current drought plan. If the current rains stop and the drought returns, the flows the Corps is initiating could destroy the lakes in no time.

The Corps simply needs to let the lakes refill completely before initiating higher flows. Then putting in place a new drought plan based on the lessons of the previous drought, the lakes would remain full even in a drought. This plan would eliminate the possibility of a crisis downstream. The Colonel has been fully informed of all this. Why then is he ignoring the lessons of the past and jeopordizing everyone along the Savannah River with reckless operation of the dams.

CONTROLLING LAKE LEVELS MADE SIMPLE

2009-05-09T19:46:00.000-07:00

The details of controlling lake levels to suit both downstream and upstream users of the lake can appear complicated. But it is really quite simple. To illustrate let me use the analogy of maintaining a bank account to take care of a charity. Assume that the charity needs $3,600/month to meet it's needs. Let's further assume that the only contributor to this charity is putting an average of $3,600/month into the account.

Given this scenario, if the charity takes out more than $3,600/mo the bank account will eventually go dry and the charity will no longer be able to meet it's needs. But if the charity takes out only $3,600/mo the bank account will remain solvent and the charity will be able to meet it's needs.

The downstream users along the Savannah River below the Thurmond Dam are like the charity. The upstream users are like the person contributing to the charity. They are contributing by allowing water to flow through the dam according to the Corps' drought plan. If the Corps limits the water through the dam to the average amount coming in each month it is to the benefit of the downstream users. It is not true that such controls are only for the benefit of the people around the lake. Such measures protect those downstream from a catastrophic failure with the lakes going dry and the Corps no longer being able to supply their needs.

It turns out that a flow rate of 3,600cfs through the dam equals the monthly average of rain coming into the lake during the recent drought which is the worst drought we have experienced since the dam was built. And we have fully demonstrated that a flow of 3,600cfs meets the needs of everyone downstream such as Augusta for water quality, industry along the river, and environmental concerns. Hence all we are asking is for the Corps to change their drought plan such that we no longer send more than 3600cfs downstream anytime the lakes drop by as much as 2ft. The reason for starting at 2ft below full is that month to month variations can allow the lake to drop 6ft so starting at 2ft below full limits the total drop to an acceptable 8ft.

The only other concerns I have heard from the Corps are lost power generation and the need for occasional high flows down the river to flush pockets of pollutants in a fashion similar to flooding from a rain. So far as power generation, we've talked with representatives of SEPA and they tell us that Lake Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid and any loss in power production at Thurmond can be made up by increased production within this grid at lakes not suffering the same drought. Besides, purchase of power outside this grid if needed is not nearly as expensive as the costs that are encountered whenever the lakes drop more than 10 feet. So far as occasional high flows down the river, 3600cfs is an average and can include much higher flows from time to time as long as the overall monthly or weekly average is 3600. Such spikes in flow can even be matched with times when it rains to give extremely high flows in the river.

Other measures to minimize day to day fluctuations are desirable but the restriction of 3,600cfs anytime the lakes drop 2ft takes care of the major problems of past droughts. For example operators at the dam have detailed information showing when rains swell streams below the dam. This information could be used when the lake is down to increase water retention above the dam when 3,600cfs is no longer needed downstream. And testing lower flows such as 3100cfs could also help minimize level fluctuations during droughts. And rethinking water diversion rates for the Augusta Canal could also help at times of droughts. But all these complicate the issue and can be ignored until the drought plan is modified.

It is extremely important that the Corps discontinue the past drought plan which has failed numerous times and adopt this recommendation as soon as possible. Unless and until they do the lack of confidence in having suitable lake levels is destroying prospects for future business and real estate activities around the lakes, and recreational events such as national fishing tournaments. This lack of confidence is devastating the economics attributed to the lakes for cities like Lincolnton, McCormick, and Anderson.

Lost Confidence in Lake Management Continues to Cause Huge Monetary Losses to Lake Interests

2009-05-01T18:05:00.000-07:00

We have a major victory in understanding how to manage Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell to avoid the crises suffered in several recent droughts. Anyone following the situation now knows that simpy changing the drought plan so that discharges from Thurmond are reduced to 3600cfs anytime the lake drops 2ft until the lake is again full should eliminate any future crises during drought conditions. And further if we explore even lower flows such as 3100cfs to make recovery happen quicker we should be able to maintain the lakes at full or near full condition all the time. And simple logic points out that these measures benefit interests below the dam as much or more as they do lake interests.

However until we make this into a formal change in operation of the lakes the huge loss in confidence in Corps management of Lake Thurmond and Hartwell is destroying the economic recovery of the area around these lakes. Real Estate will not move in this area until people have confidence that their investments won't be trashed by the next drought. The many fishing tournaments and other recreational endeavors around the lake also suffer from people going elsewhere to make sure their needs are being met. And the businesses that feed off the fact that the area is attractive as a place to have a recreational home or for retirement aren't going to come back until they too have confidence that the past problems with lake levels aren't going to return.

In view of the fact that the losses in lake interests was in the billions of dollars and further considering the fact that we came close to not being able to sustain river flows adequate to meet downstream needs which would have devastated industry, water quality, and environmental concerns, we can not afford to ignore the need to change the drought plan. I initially thought the Corps recognized and agreed to these concerns and assumed they were going to make the needed changes. Now however the Corps has become totally silent on these issues. This leaves us with a major question as to their intentions and the area continues to suffer from lost confidence in these lakes due to recent drought experience. Further there have been clandestined suggestions that the Corps plans to return to 4200cfs the first of June.

Please. We can't afford to put off the needed change in drought plan. This area has suffered tremendously and the only way it can begin a comeback is for the Corps to formally correct the drought plan and publicize everywhere possible that these problems are history. If the Corps won't do this voluntarily we desperately need the assistance of our Congressmen.

Who Will Step Forward and Save Our Lakes

2009-04-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

We are at a cross roads on saving the Savannah River Basin from future droughts. We came up with a petition to lower the flows to 3100cfs as a stop gap measure when the lakes were down 15 feet and still dropping. We also stirred up a hornet's nest of interest on the part of congressman and governors in the affected area with everyone realizing something needed to be done. We even stumbled onto a solution that works for both sides of the dam.

Based on Corps data if you drop to a discharge of 3600cfs when Lake Thurmond drops 2ft below full and hold that until it refills you never lose the lakes even in the worst case drought that just ended. This solution is not just to keep the lakes useable for lake interests. More importantly it protects the downstream businesses, cities, and environmental concerns from the devastation that would have occurred if the lakes had actually gone dry.

Now since the lakes are about to refill we are losing the momentum we had gathered toward coming up with a permanent solution. Unless someone steps forward and changes the drought management plan we could repeat the problems of the past several years when another drought appears. The change needed is simple but we need someone in a position of power to step forward and make it happen. For example Col. Kertis with the Corps or one of our congressman or either of the two governors involved could make this happen by calling a meeting of everyone involved and putting the proposed change to the drought plan to a vote. I would suggest a second petition but resistance to this is high since one has just been completed and there would still have to be a meeting of the principle parties involved to actually make a change to the plan. Let's all pray and make phone calls, write letters, and send emails to encourage someone to step forward and get this done.

CORPS NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

2009-04-15T20:16:00.000-07:00

I am thankful for Gresham Barrett's help on the lake situation but the $2million study he has proposed could easily be avoided if the Corps would just use their engineering skills and do the study on their own. All the data that is needed for a massive improvement in our drought plan is fully available from the excellent records the Corps has kept since the lakes were built. For example it is easy to look at what lake levels would have done in the past if we had changed the drought plan such that the flows are reduced to 3600cfs whenever the lake drops more than 2 ft in level. And the data is there to determine what would have happened in the past in terms of flood conditions if this model were followed. Besides, the Corps could do such a study in days and eliminate the extensive time delays involved if we mount a major independant study.

There is one place where further study would be beneficial. That would be for each downstream interest to look at what their lower limits really are should the Corps want to reduce flows to less than 3600cfs on a temporary basis for some future level management situation. But as a taxpayer I don't see the need for government to fund such studies. The paper plants and nuclear power plants could fund such work from their normal operating expenses. And the cities downstream and environmental interests could also fund their own studies to give them a basis for comment should lower flows be proposed. Regardless, the current 3600cfs year round should make for satisfactory operation until further information and future needs are evaluated.

In short in my opinion we are ready now to adopt a new drought plan that initiates reduced flows as soon as the lakes drop 2ft rather than using the current drought plan trigger levels. And 3600cfs should suffice until further study can be done. We do not need a government study to initiate such a change. We simply need leadership from the Corps. Everyone will readily accept such a proposal if the Corps puts their knowledge and influence behind it. I believe we have an excellent leader in Col. Kertis and I am hopeful that he will continue to show excellent leadership qualities and make this happen. If he does he will be following the lead of many other excellent leaders who simply "do the right thing".

LAKE'S RISING BUT PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE UNLESS DROUGHT PLAN IS REVISED IMMEDIATELY

2009-04-01T16:32:00.000-07:00

Lake Thurmond is 5.5ft from normal fill and more rain is on the way so we are looking good from the stand point of mother Nature. But unless we change the drought plan immediately we will be right back into a major problem before the summer is over. We need for interested congressional leaders, our two state Governors, the Corps of Engineers, the NOAA, downstream water users, and lake interests to come together and formulate a new drought plan before it is too late. The plan should provide for keeping the lakes full by matching releases with the average rainfall coming in each year and the lakes should never be allowed to drop more than 2ft before initiating the drought plan so that we don't lose control of the levels. The plan should also provide for studies to determine real release limits based on both the needs and flexibilities of downstream users and environmental concerns. We should never again be put in a position of possibly destroying the lakes during a drought because of not knowing actual river flow rate parameters.

What is at stake is not just the lake becoming unsightly. We are talking serious consequences both upstream and downstream. Most people do not realize that the river is as threatened as the lake when the lake drops to the levels of the past drought. Once the lake drops below 312' river flows will no longer be predictable. Instead of downstream users being able to count on the 3600cfs used in drought control, river flows could easily drop to levels of 500cfs which would be disastrous to downstream users.

Up stream the real losses experienced so far of billions of dollars in property values and business interests are peanuts compared to the losses that will be experienced if we lose confidence in the lake remaining full. Recreation interests will disappear and find other places to go. The lure as an attractive place as a lake residence and retirement community will be gone along with all the people living in the area for these reasons. And businesses connected with the lake will be gone forever.

So far as fish and wild life, whether endangered or otherwise, they would experience drastic and possibly life threatening changes in both the Savannah River and the lakes. To allow this now that we are back to full lakes and know how to avoid it should be taken as a direct violation of all environmental protection laws directed at protecting fish and wildlife in the Savannah River Basin. The NOAA for one should demand that such measures be adopted before the lakes can return to the drought deprived condition of the past few years.

HELP US GET DROUGHT PLAN UPDATED

2009-03-21T08:56:00.000-07:00

Using the Corps of Engineer's elevation and discharge data for Lake Thurmond I calculated the lake levels we would have experienced through 2008 if the drought plan recommended in my previous blog post had been followed. The resulting lake levels follow:

Jan 328' ---------- Aug 324.8' -------- Mar 328'
Feb 328.6' -------- Sep 324'
Mar 330.1' --------Oct 322.9'
Apr 330'---------- Nov 322.3'
May 329.8'-------- Dec 324.4
Jun 328.5' ---------Jan 324.8'
Jul 326.8' ----------Feb 324'

As stated in my previous blog post this proposed drought plan solves both the upstream and the downstream problems we've experienced in recent droughts. But before we can solve these problems someone needs to act to implement this plan. And at present the powers that be are silent.

Please help by contacting your congressman and the Corps of Engineers to see if they understand this proposal and whether they agree that it would work. Once we get enough of the right people to understand how it works, implementation should be relatively easy since it helps all parties both upstream and downstream. Matter of fact downstream interests actually benefit more than upstream interests since it would eliminate all threats of having to reduce flows to levels that cause problems with the environment, business interests, navigation, or water quality. This appears to be a win win situation for everbody.

Simpified View of Problem

2009-03-14T14:52:00.000-07:00

I feel the lake level problem caused by our current drought situation is not nearly as complicated as it once appeared. Basically the problem stems from an inadequate lake level management plan. The lake is dropped 6 ft in the fall and there are no reductions in flow rates through the dam until the lake is too far below normal for any hope of quick recovery. Instead of this set up the lake should be kept at full level in the fall and flow rates should be reduced to the lowest flow rate possible anytime the level drops more than 2 ft. This way we would never lose the lake in the first place. This would be to the advantage of both lake interests and everyone downstream because the threat posed recently by the possibility of the lake drying up is unacceptable to both parties. Keeping the lake full not only satisfies recreation and business needs around the lake but it also guarantees that downstream needs can be met.

So far as what the lowest possible flow rate is, we know that 3600cfs works so the flows could be reduced to at least that point . And based on data going back to when Thurmond was built the lowest average inflow rate for any year was never less than 3600cfs so that should at least match outflow with inflow. In order to have more flexible control over lake level however it is still desirable to evaluate lower flows to establish what the lowest possible flow rate really is.

Problems with past thinking by the Corps and NOAA:
1) There has been no provision for dropping lake levels and the destruction caused to property values, business incomes related to the lakes, and recreation. These should be factored in and balanced against all the other costs and concerns caused by a drought.

2) Power production should not be at the expense of lake interests. Since Thurmond is part of a 10 lake grid, lost power here should be made up by increased production elsewhere in the grid. And if that is not possible power production still should not be at the expense of lake interests. It is not right to rob one segment of the population to benefit another.

3) Effects of low flow rates through the dam on downstream interests need to be quantified. Rather than go by antiquated agreements each downstream user should be required to analyse minimum flow rates they can live with and asked to quantify what would be required to live with lower flow rates should they become necessary. For example The city of Augusta can live with much lower flow rates than 3600cfs by moving their take up point for drinking water. Similar changes may be possible for the nuclear power plants and manufacturing plants along the Savannah. At present it is assumed that we can't go below 3600cfs but no one has established this as the lowest possible level and no one has been asked what it would take to go lower.

4) Environmental groups argue that we need to put more water downstream than is provided from rain. As long as we don't hold up what comes down from rain there should be no environmental argument since their argument by definition is to avoid tampering by man that harms mother nature. In fact, since the lake can be used to smooth out flows to monthly or even annual averages we are already benefiting the environment by avoiding excessively low flows such as when there is no rain for months. This of course handles arguments such as protecting short nosed sturgeon and salt water incursion at the coast. By keeping the lakes full we are actually helping these causes by avoiding the crises that would occur environmentally should the lakes dry up.

5) Operations such as the Augusta Canal should be reviewed and redone to avoid affecting release requirements from the dam. Currently the canal uses 1500cfs which is drawn off upstream of the shoals and at times this sets the release requirements so that the shoals do not dry up. The canal can be operated with much less than 1500 cfs. Zero flow would even be possible. This and other similar situations along the Savannah River should be revised.

Basically what I am suggesting is that NOAA back up to reasonable requests and that the Corps quantify flow rate requirements and cost effects for both downstream and upstream interests. Simply ignoring lake interests and requiring more water be released than is coming in from rain is no longer accetable based on the disastrous experiences of the current drought. Everyone needs to recognize that keeping the lakes full is in the best interests of all concerned since to do otherwise can lead to unaccepatble consequences not only upstream but downstream as well.

SHORT TERM CONCERNS

2009-03-09T03:22:00.000-07:00

We have three unresolved concerns for the short term;
1) Gresham Barrett has requested that the Corps return to 3100cfs for the months of April and May. Since the Sturgeon spawning season has passed and the weather is not that hot yet this seems to be within the realm of satisfying all the real and imagined ill effects of 3100cfs on downstream interests. Hence we are hopeful that the Corps will continue their positive efforts toward relieving the drought situation around our lakes.

2) The outdated drought plan that we are laboring under specifies that the flow rates be stepped up as Lake Thurmond reaches 2ft above each trigger level. We need to get the Corps to agree to leave flow rates as low as possible (currently 3600cfs) until the lakes refill. Delaying recovery of our lakes is a real cost of billions of dollars while returning to higher flow rates has no equivalent monetary benefit. And since there are no demonstrable crises downstream with current flow rates, deliberately continuing these losses to lake interests would be foolhardy.

3) The Augusta Canal decreases the flexibility of the Corps in reducing flow rates from the dam when run off from rain swells the river downstream of the shoals. About 1500cfs in river flow is diverted from the shoals to feed the canal. These flows have been needed in the past because Augusta has been getting their drinking water from the canal. Since the city of Augusta has demonstrated the ability to obtain drinking water straight from the river instead of the canal and since the canal would continue to be the attraction it is to Augusta as a slow moving pool, the Corps needs to rethink the way the canal is run before it is restarted. The canal needs to be viewed as a threat to the environmental health of the shoals and the usage should be designed to minimize that threat without requiring such huge flows through the dam.

Long term solutions are needed after the lakes recover. But these three short term considerations will help to make the recovery happen more quickly.

WE OWE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OUR THANKS

2009-03-02T20:56:00.000-08:00

Col. Ed Kertis set a precedent and demonstrated flexibility in helping us with the drought situation. He has stopped flows through the dam while the river and streams below the dam are swollen from runoff from the recent rains. And in addition the increase to 4,000cfs specified in the drought plan for 316ft appears to be in abeyance for the time being. Changes like this in combination with the recent rain event have caused the lake level at thurmond to literally jump 4ft to date with further increases possible while run off from the rain continues.

One or two more rain events like this past weekend along with help from the Corps to minimize losses through the dam could get Thurmond back to the normal fill level of 330ft. If we can then get the powers that be to agree to a modification to the drought plan similar to my last blog posting we could finally get our lakes back to the great attraction they used to be. Once modifications are in place we should be able to restore confidence in the stability of the lakes so that businesses, tourism, and real estate values can recover.

If you get a chance please let the Corps know we appreciate their efforts. Changes like those implemented by Col. Kertis are totally unprecendented.

What I Recommend Now and For the Future

2009-02-27T17:50:00.000-08:00

As with any project we are learning as we go. We now realize that Col. Kertis who is the commander for the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for Lakes Thurmond, Russell, and Hartwell can not or will not make changes to the drought plan on his own. It really matters little which is the case. The important thing is we have to look elsewhere if we are going to save our lakes.

It seems to me that before we try somewhere else to get changes, we need to think through what changes we want. From the outset I have said that as long as you put more water through the dam than comes down from rain you are doomed to fail. In other words this by definition will drain the lakes over a period of time. As soon as we recommend that we limit water through the dam to what comes in from rain the naysayers imagine the river drying up. And they pull out dozens of reasons this won't work talking about endangered species, water quality, and any of a number of other considerations. Immediately you come to an impasse.

If you suggest a flow of 3100cfs instead of the 3600cfs that is our current flow through the dam, everyone imagines that this would only be token improvement and no one is willing to fight that hard to secure this flow level. I think most of the anti 3100 sentiment think that downstream would probably be OK but they also see the gain from 3100 too small to be worth all the effort.
The myriad imagined problems downstream seem too huge and the gain at 3100 too small to fight for.

Just recently however the Corps gave us some numbers on the Austin Rhodes show that indicate that the flow in from rain during this drought is about equal to 3100cfs. In other words if we had gone to 3100 cfs when Lake Thurmond reached 328 ft (2 feet below normal fill) the lakes would still be full. This now changes the arguments. If the lakes were still full everyone whether they are downstream of the dam or upstream would benefit. It would have eliminated the current fear that the lakes may dry up completely which would reek havoc downstream as well as around the lake. This end warrants hard core investigation of what 3100 does downstream if anything. This end warrants investigation into how to live with 3100 downstream to prevent the crisis we now are faced with.

So, in view of this new information my recommendation for the future would be to use 3100cfs based on this worst drought situation. And we should initiate the 3100cfs flow as soon as the lake drops 2 ft. This should be Continued until the lake refills.

My recommendation for now would be to go to 3100cfs now and determine from this what changes are needed downstream if any to permit continued operation at 3100 cfs.

PROPOSED SOLUTION TO LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

2009-02-20T14:40:00.000-08:00

I know most of you are looking at ways to solve the problems at Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell. While you have your thinking caps on let me step outside the box and propose a solution to this problem that gets us out of the problem quickly and keeps us there. At first glance this will sound wild eyed and crazy but It seems to me that the following would work:

1) Shut down Russell and drain it into Thurmond to get the lakes back up as far as possible. Leave Russell down until Thurmond refills.

2) Determine release rate requirements from rainfall averages rather than downstream needs. Any downstream needs that exceed this rate need to be corrected from downstream engineering rather than increasing water releases. Decrease release rates to the average in from rain past 30 days and modify each 2 weeks if any particular month falls way outside the average.

3) Look at further decreases below average rainfall to refill both Thurmond and Hartwell

4) Once the lakes refill assume ESA is met as long as releases = lowest monthlly average rainfall of past 12 months.

5) Look at building artificial gravel beds if further protection of Sturgeon is desired rather than try to flood existing beds with flows above that available from rain.

6) Look at leaving Russell down or if it is restarted rethink the fish carnage being experienced with reverse pumping. A NOAA official is quoted as admitting the reverse pumping at Russell will destroy the sport fishing on Thurmond. The court hearings on this should be revisited with input from the court findings out west where back pumping was ruled out because of the devastation it caused for the fish population at that lake.

Right now we are letting the tail wag the dog. The Corps looks at all the downstream issues anyone wants to bring up and literally solves the problem by pouring water on it. Doing it this way the lakes end up destroyed and we all end up with a disaster. If instead the Corps used the basis I describe above the lakes would never be destroyed and all downstream interests would be getting the maximum benefit provided by God that you can get from the lakes without destroying them.

PROMISING NEW DEVELOPMENT

2009-02-19T17:06:00.000-08:00

It seems we may have broken the ice with the NOAA. A new face on the scene is Robert Dawson of the NOAA. He has initiated contact with a number of people who wrote Mary Glackin and has indicated everything is on the table with respect to flows through the dam. Following is an email just sent to Mr. Dawson. If we can get everyone to understand the laws of Physics at work here we may be able to finally come to a workable solution. But the solution will be unpleasant downstream no matter how we do it because of the mismanagement that has preceded the start of correcting the problem. No matter how you cut it the only way to refill the lakes is to send downstream less water than comes in from rain which is not going to be appreciated.

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

I still see the overview as follows; we are trying to do one better than mother nature and it has got us into an impossible scenario. Ultimately we can not give the sturgeon more than God gives us or we drain the lakes. It doesn't matter who is at the controls or what has happened in the past. This is an irrefutable truth.

Again the best example I can offer to look at the legal side of complying with the ESA is that the act never intended for man to add to mother nature. Rather the intention of the ESA is to get "man made" out of the picture and make sure we don't interfere with mother nature. Otherwise the people with endangered mice in their fields would be required to improve on mother nature and give the rats assistance with food etc. Such would be obviously ridiculous. And when the eagles were endangered no one was asked to assist mother nature; only get out of the way from mother nature and not intefere with man made effects to their habitat.

What makes this so hard for everyone to see is that water appears to be an easy solution to the situation. The problem as we are finding is that the water is not limitless. Anytime we exceed what God has provided the Sturgeon we dig a hole we can't climb out of.If you want to do something man made, put gravel in the river at a point where even in a drought it will be underwater so the Sturgeon have a place to spawn. Gravel we can do. Water we can't.

Thanks for listening. Would it be possible for you to get together with a representative group of lake interests to discuss this further? If so I recommend we do so quickly as the COE is pouring our water out much faster than God is replacing it and the longer it continues the worse the solution will be for all concerned.

Jerry Clontz, Author of blog

Let's see what comes of our new found ear at the NOAA. With the congressional help promised at the meeting in Lincolnton Tuesday night and this development I am very hopeful that we can finally find a way to resolve our dilemna.

THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF THE LAKE LEVEL PROBLEM

2009-02-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

There are all kinds of wild claims flying around about why our lakes are being destroyed and what needs to be done to solve the problem. But if you look at what the Corps is saying and what is really needed it isn’t that complicated.

The Corps insists the lakes are down because we are in an extended drought. But this is not the case. Lake Murray has gone through the same drought and is at full level. Hence the reason the lakes are low is not the drought but the way the Corps is handling water releases. Fact is if the Corps had decreased releases from Lake Thurmond when the drought started and lake levels began to go down the lake would still be full.

The Corps insists that although the lakes are drying up they have to release 3600cfs because of the Short Nosed Sturgeon which are an endangered species. The law governing endangered species does not require that more water be provided than normally is available from Mother Nature. Rather the law requires that man do nothing to the environment that would further endanger the species in question. If the water in from rainfall is passed on (rain in = water out) the intent of this law is fully met. And since the Corps has screwed things up so badly we need a further provision saying that we will pass on what comes in by rain up to but not exceeding a flow where sturgeon spawning is not affected so the lakes can refill.

The Corps claims they aren’t capable of monitoring flows from streams downstream of the dam to give credit to flows needed from the dam. In view of the billions of dollars being lost by upstream interests such reasoning by the Corps is inexcusable. They need to make every effort to minimize flows through the dam including factoring in the affect of the Augusta Canal being down. Furthermore the Corps should hold off on restarting the canal or rethink its usage until the lakes refill.

The Corps mentions a need to provide power generation. But here common sense says power generation cannot be justified when it is causing destruction of real estate values and businesses around the lakes. There are 10 lakes in the grid that Thurmond is part of. Power can be generated from other lakes in this grid to make up for any deficits at Thurmond.

The Corps mentions water quality needs. But here again common sense is needed. The city of Augusta can redo their water pick up point. There is no way you can justify the billions in losses to residents and businesses around the lakes as long as other means are available to solve the problem.

And there are numerous other similar problems the Corps throws into the discussions that in no way justify the loss of billions to residents and businesses around the lakes. Each can be handled a better way than to destroy real estate values and businesses around the lakes. Besides, while the upstream interests have been losing billions of dollars, downstream users have spent nothing to protect against the effects of the drought.

Long range laws need to be changed so that residents and businesses around the lakes get at least equal consideration when deciding on water management. At present their losses aren’t even considered and they are not even represented in the meetings where Corps operating plans are discussed. But until that can happen we need to cut way back on water releases and start refilling the lakes. Continuing to let the Corps drain our lakes unchecked will put us at minimum pools in both Thurmond and Hartwell sometime in the near future. When that happens the Corps drought plan calls for reducing flows through the dams to what comes in from rain; the same situation downstream I call for now but with much further destruction of lake interests.

At present the Corps refuses to listen to reason. Because of their lack of cooperation we need one of four things to happen or our lakes are doomed.
1) Congressional intervention in the next couple of months rather than years off
or
2) Excessive pressure on the Corps from publicity in local and/or national news
or
3) Appeals to higher levels of Corps management than Colonel Ed Kertis
or
4) A law suit to force the Corps to reduce flows

COST OF MISMANAGING LAKE LEVELS IS STAGGERING

2009-02-14T07:22:00.000-08:00

In previous blogs and emails I mentioned that the cost of mismanaging our lakes was hundreds of millions. Col. Ed Kertis challenged me in an email to document that number. As a result I applied simple logic and math to obvious costs that are related directly to lake level rather than the depressed economics being experienced nation wide. The results are discussed below and show the cost to be in the billions of dollars.

A big contributor to obvious losses is the decrease in lake front value from deteriorating lake front access, views, and esthetics. In a recent reevaluation of property values by the McCormick County Assessor the assessor added $100,000 to every lake front property as a reasonable value of lake front access, views, and esthetics. Simply halving that value because of the horrible condition of our lake front properties generates a loss of $225 million on Lake Thurmond where there are 4,500 lake front properties. I had no data on the number of lake front properties at Lake Hartwell but assuming it is similar to Lake Thurmond raises this loss to a conservative figure of $450 million. Conservative because the real loss on lake front value is probably a great deal larger and these figures do not account for the overall loss in attractiveness of these areas for any real estate purchase regardless of whether you are talking lake front or not.

I also had data on one major development on Lake Thurmond that has been tabled indefinitely because of the unpredictable levels at the lake. This project would have cost $35 million. Again I think it is safe to assume a similar loss at Lake Hartwell. Doubling this gives a conservative estimate of $70 million in lost developments around these two lakes. Conservative because it represents what only one business owner had planned. Surely there would be more projects of similar costs if a survey were made of all planned developments that are now tabled.

And finally I had data from studies made a few years ago by the Lake Hartwell Association and the Corps as to how much money is brought into Lake Hartwell from visitors and water related business. These show a loss of about $150 million in general incomes from lake visitation etc. (excluding real estate losses) at Lake Hartwell when the lake drops more than 8 ft. Doubling this to include Lake Thurmond gives a conservative figure of $300 million. Conservative because it does not include the impact on lake related jobs in the area.

Adding these together gives a total loss of $820 million and this does not include the overall impact on real estate values in the general area. Obviously fewer people will be attracted to real estate in a lake area when the lakes are no longer attractions. In other words it is safe to say that the economic impact of low lake levels is in excess of a $billion with an additional impact from lost jobs because of depressed lake related industries such as dock building, construction, restaurants, etc.

CATEGORY/ TOTAL COST

lost lake front premium $450,000,000

tabled projects $70,000,000

decreased lake business $300,000,000

total not including real estate $820,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
if real estate included >>$1,000,000,000

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

2009-02-08T09:32:00.000-08:00

It seems we have identified the ultimate boss on water flows at Lake Thurmond; at least for the current scenario. Hopefully that can be changed with legislation in the future but until it is we need for everyone to:
1) sign the petition put out by "Save Our Lakes Now". If you don't know where to find one, go to www.saveourlakesnow.com.
2) write mary.glackin@noaa.gov explaining why she needs to back off the throttle on lake releases and at the very least return the flows to 3100cfs. It was the decision of the NOAA to increase flows from 3100cfs back to 3600cfs. If the flows are held at this level for much longer we are doomed for this summer.

If you want first hand knowledge of what is happening come to the meeting in Lincolnton on Tuesday Feb 17th. Hopefully by then we will know whether the NOAA will honor our requests for lower flows.

Beyond this it would seem that we are going to have to either get concrete help from our political leaders or initiate a law suit to stop the destruction of our lakes. If you wonder how much the cost of all this madness is to the area, a conservative estimate of what it has done to property values, business losses, and damages around the lakes is over a billion dollars.

Help is on the Way on Lake Releases

2009-02-06T07:24:00.000-08:00

It seems I spoke too soon about Gresham Barrett and the way he is helping with our lake problems. Turns out he is doing a lot to correct the situation both now and even more importantly in the future. Following is a link to a letter he recently put out on the subject http://barrett.houseenews.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100031749.111749.338&gen=1.

And moves are afoot to set up legislation for control of SC Lakes thanks to Mike Massey who is associated with Lake Hartwell property owners association.

Additionally legal options are being explored to see what else might be done to bring about immediate corrections to the gross mismanagement practices of the Corps of Engineers.

In defense of the Corps there are many excuses that can be used to explain their mismanagement of the Lakes:
1) their list of priorities does not even mention recreation, business, or property values around the lakes. Instead the list mentions power production, water quality, protection of Fish and Wildlife.
2) they have many bosses who try to dictate how to handle Lake releases.
3) the drought managment plan they are following is inadequate.
But that is what leadersip is all about. If they wanted to do the right thing they have all the help they would need from politicians and state governing bodies such as the DNR. Common sense shows something needs to be done because of the vast monetary losses being experienced around the lakes. Excuses are not what is needed right now. Strong leadership using common sense and a determination to do what is right is what is needed. Hopefully this is now on the horizon from all the things beginning to come to a head with the control of Lake releases.

LEADERSHIP DESPERATELY NEEDED TO END LAKE PROBLEM

2009-02-02T20:17:00.000-08:00

I spent quite some time on the phone with a representative of Gresham Barrett's office who is following the lake problem. I became quite agitated and lost my cool as the discussion continued. Afterwards I tried to analyse why I had lost my cool. It then became ovious why this problem continues with the lakes. Our leaders are not personally suffering the consequences of the devastation occurring with the lakes and because of this they don't have the passion and drive needed to solve the problem.

The conversation went something like "the Corps can't do what is right because the wildlife and environmental groups dictate what has to be done with river flows". "Nothing can be done about it because of the ways the laws are written". My personal reaction was that we are in a crisis situation and simply to follow the dictates of one group who is obviously being totally unreasonable is ridiculous. Obviously Mr Barrett's representative did not agree with this thinking but that is because they are not personally involved. If someone was shutting down Mr. Barrett's office or destroying the value of his residential property he would be more inclined to agree with my thinking.

What is needed is someone in the Corps or political leadership who will take it on themselves to order reduced flows at the Thurmond dam and force a showdown with the environmental group that is currently dictating the flows. The environmental arguments would not hold water (excuse the pun) in a legal show down. For example we have had much above the suggested flows in the river because of water not accounted for below the dam. The dam flows could have been shut off completely for a month or so and the river still have plenty of water but no one in a leadership position was interested enough to force this to happen. Furthermore there is no law or reasoning that can require more water downstream than what comes in from rain for environmental concerns since environmental concerns are limited to eliminating man's impact on nature. Besides there is no law that will stand that is proved to be robing a large segment of the population of their wealth and their livelihood. Other laws governing people's rights exist which can be used to force compromise in the courts.

Now that the lakes are low we need to hold back every drop we can above some mutually agreed to COMPROMISE (as against a dictate from one side of the argument) until they refill but once they are full again we should hold discharges to what comes in from rain anytime the lake levels start to fall. Concerns downstream that require more than can be expected from rain need to redesign their set ups accordingly so that they don't suffer during a drought. Until we find leadership that has these goals our lakes are destined to fail. These lakes are far too valuable an asset to continue to allow such stupidity to occur.

CORP'S PUBLICITY GROSSLY MISLEADING

2009-01-20T18:36:00.000-08:00

When asked about Sturgeon and how their livelihood is affecting lake level controls the Corps gave grossly misleading information. They quoted the fish and wildlife coordination act and reaffirmed how they are controlling the lakes based on many complex issues.

Following is a quote from what was just sent down about protecting Sturgeon:
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides the basic authority for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires Federal agencies involved with water resource development projects to first consult with the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife resources, and provide for measures to mitigate these impacts.

First off please note that this is not what is happening. Fish and Wildlife resources are not receiving EQUAL consideration with lake real estate and business interests. They are instead receiving much more consideration than real estate and business interests. As an example the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies are consulted on these matters whereas lake real estate and business interests are not consulted. We desperately need for this to be aired in the public arena so the Corps is forced to include lake interests in their discussions with groups like the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies.

We need help from the local news media; TV, radio and newspaper. National news would be even better. If you have the ear of any of these please get them to at least read our blog site and talk to people like Tommy Lee who owns several marinas and knows first hand how the Corps is messing with business around the lake. Additionally increased public attention to this matter would force our political leaders to get real estate and business interests included in discussions of how to manage Lake levels.

As an example there is no good reason why land and business owners around Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell should be losing hundreds of Millions or possibly Billions of dollars in real estate and business interests without having any voice in how the water releases are handled. As pointed out in a recent blog post a large part of these very real losses are due to mismanagement of river flows at the Augusta Canal. If the canal which is about to be shut down for several months had no river flow the releases from Thurmond Dam could be reduced from 3100cfs to about 1500cfs.

Furthermore it is not reasonable to ask lake interests to be losing this kind of money simply because environmentalists think Sturgeon may need more flow than this to spawn. First off there is no reason to try to improve on mother nature when looking at fish spawning. As long as rain in = water to river the environmental impact of the dam is zero. Second off it is not fair to ask one segment of the population to spend this kind of money without even having a voice in the matter. There are other ways to accomodate Sturgeon spawning besides draining lakes Thurmond and Hartwell which would not unjustly affect only the residents and businesses around the lakes.

PRIORITIES FOR WATER USAGE ALL WRONG

2009-01-09T05:38:00.000-08:00

The state of SC needs to get the priorities for water usage along the Savannah River changed. At present a dog's breakfast of rules and regulations has the whole lake situation in total chaos. For example the current rules require that the dam releases exceed 3100cfs supposedly so that river needs downstream of Augusta are met. But in reality the only reason for 3100cfs is so the shoals don't get "too dry" for "environmental concerns".

The streams along the river are rain swollen and give way more than the desired 3100cfs by themselves but because of the requirement for minimum flows at the shoals the Corps can not count any water coming in from downstream of the shoals. All this became apparent from looking at what happens when the Augusta Canal is shut down for repairs. Once the canal is down all the realeases that are needed from the dam are 1500cfs to satisfy the "environmental concerns" at the shoals because the inflows from all the streams below the shoals will satisfy the 3100cfs desired below the shoals. Furthermore if inflows from streams between the dam and the shoals are factored in you don't even need 1500cfs from the dam to meet all the screwed up rules.

Since there are so many people (especially the "environmental concerns") involved in specifying the rules there is such confusion about flows required that it takes a genius to figure it all out. And since the Corps is timid about upsetting anyone downstream and the people upstream aren't complaining we end up with lakes going dry for stupid reasons.

Let's try a simple change in priorities and look at how simple it all gets:
1) Establish 5 ft below normal fill as the lake bottom and only allow water in from rain to pass through the dams after that point.
2) Do not try to interfere with nature when it comes to environmental concerns. You can not redesign the Earth. It was designed better than man ever could. The only man made interference with mother nature should be flood control. So far as species dyeing off in a drought, salt water incursions, low flow across the shoals, and all the other environmental concerns the dam should not be used to redo nature or to take away from nature. This is accomplished once you let rain in = water out and should end the discussion about environmental concerns.
3) Give downstream interests a reasonable period of time to redesign for future droughts before fully implementing the new lake bottoms.
4) Until this reasonable period of time passes, give the dam credit for all downstream inflows in figuring minimum releases needed. As far as the shoals are concerned balance this against whether or not to reopen the Augusta Canal and not against flows at the dam.

Why this set of priorities? All you have to do is drive to the lakes and look at the devastation around the shores to realize that this destruction is not warranted by flow across the shoals or the other myriad rules and reasons given for unreasonable release requirements from the dams.

GOVERNOR SANFORD HIDING HEAD IN THE SAND

2009-01-06T07:45:00.000-08:00

Based on a conversation with a representative of Governor Sanford's Office this morning the Governor pleas impotence on the lake level problems at Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell. Based on his actions on many other matters I can't accept the idea that he is unable to help. The conversation ranged from how the matter was a federal concern to how so many concerns downstream had been expressed in meetings where the Governor was represented.

Since when is a state governor unable to do something when thousands of his constituents are being robbed of their livelihood and/or assets. I've seen Governor Sanford do marvelous things with respect to other SC matters. I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to do a lot to help if he put his political might behind our problem.

Additionally, the Governor could insist that lake interests be included in meetings related to drought control measures. Barring us from these meetings is leaving us with a situation similar to taxation without representation. And we all know that is just wrong.

Please let the Governor know that we need his help and that we expect him to do the "right thing".

CORPS REFUSES TO LISTEN TO LAKE INTERESTS

2009-01-05T11:05:00.000-08:00

The Corps' typical response to lake interests about the current drought situation is to state emphatically that everything that can be done is being done. They do this with a big smile on their face but their true attitude is obvious when they turn their back on the devastation occuring upstream of the dams. If they were trying to help lake interests they would at least allow input from us. But the truth is they allow input from everyone but us. They tell us how we must sacrifice our lake interests to protect others downstream who are affected by low river flows. They do not tell the interests downstream how they must sacrifice to limit the destruction occuring upstream. And more importantly we are never permitted to argue our cause at the bargaining table where ridiculous arguments are heard from environmentalists, and other interests.

Looking back at letters to the editor I wrote in 2002 and 3 it became obvious that the Corps is not listening to lake interests. The Colonel in charge in 2003 was trying to find ways to improve the upstream situation and was preparing to experiment with lower discharge rates. Then all of a sudden all the plans to try lower flows were dropped because environmental concerns told the Corps this MIGHT cause problems with wild life and salt water incursion at the coast. I asked myself then and ask it again now why in heaven's name do you let POSSIBLE problems trump the real destruction occuring upstream of the dams.

Besides, as I've noted in previous posts, environmentalists should have no argument with what is going on unless we send less water downstream than would be provided were there no dam. Environmental concerns by definition go away when man's input is removed and that is what you would have if the conditions are those that would occur before construction of the dam. In other words if water in from rain = water through the dam you eliminate man's input and return to an environmentalists dream.

In order for lake interests to get a voice we either need for our politicians to come to our aid or we need the news media to bring about public sentiment for the plight of lake interests upstream of the dams. The news media and politicians alike apparently have not thought through just how tremendous an economic value to Augusta, Anderson, and neighboring communities the lakes would be if allowed to remain full rather than see-saw up and down in level. In reality the whole area is suffering a tremendous loss but only the people and businesses around the lake are close enough to the problem to care.

Law suits are not a pleasant thing and I would prefer to never go there but it looks to me like there is no other way to get the Corps to pay attention and protect lake interests. And something needs to be done quickly because the drought will probably continue and do irreparable damage to our beautiful lakes. If the true cost to the lakes and surrounding communities were tabulated the Corps would have no difficulty justifying the cost of downstream interests making provisions for the lakes to stay full. Just the lost moneys from real estate and business losses around the lakes are staggering. But these are nothing in comparison to the losses to the whole area which includes Augusta, Anderson and their surroundings when you look at what could have been if the lakes remained full. All you have to do is look at Lexington near Columbia and the Lake Wylie and Lake Norman areas near Charlotte to see what could happen because people are naturally drawn to beautiful lake areas.

New Year's Resolution

2008-12-29T18:32:00.000-08:00

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.

IF CORPS WON'T COOPERATE, WHAT NEXT

2008-12-21T18:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Engineering Options for Lake Level Control

2008-12-15T17:10:00.000-08:00

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.

We Have the Strong Hand in Level Dispute

2008-12-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-13T08:16:00.000-08:00

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.

QUESTIONS FOR CORPS ON LAKE THURMOND

2008-12-11T03:53:00.000-08:00

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?

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON LOGIC OF CORPS' GUIDELINES

2008-12-08T13:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Current Level Controls Border on Insane

2008-12-07T18:33:00.000-08:00

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.

Signing Petition / Appealing property tax / Get the word out

2008-12-04T20:13:00.000-08:00

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.

Things You Can Do to Help on Lake Levels

2008-12-03T17:39:00.000-08:00

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.

Call to Arms on Lake Thurmond Water Releases

2008-11-29T17:14:00.000-08:00

The Army Corps of Engineers claims they are following guidelines laid down by congress and the states for controlling water discharges from Lake Thurmond. Those guidelines supposedly protect real estate values, business interests, and recreational interests around the lake as well as the many concerns downstream where minimum flows are needed for water quality, salt water incursions, protecting certain wildlife from extinction, etc. However all one has to do is look at the tens of millions of dollars lost in interests around the lake and compare this to the zero dollar losses from downstream concerns to realize the Corps is only doing lip service to lake interests.
If we continue to say nothing there is no reason for any of this to change. The only way this is going to change is for us to make our displeasure known to our congressmen and state governors. And we are going to have to be assertive or they will simply ignore us. Put yourself in the shoes of the congressmen for example. They know the minute the businesses downstream have to spend money to dilute or decrease their waste releases they will be very assertive. The same is true for water quality, extinction concerns, salt water incursions, etc. In other words we are the less painful option when it comes to who to displease.
On the other hand we have the biggest clout. We can through the news media make the world aware of our displeasure and we can refuse to vote for incumbents who won't help our cause. Additionally we can make the Corps' life miserable from pushing our rights. They are being totally negligent when they allow marked navigational ways to become hazardous from submerged trees and other obstacles. And they need to be spelling out all the options for correcting the various problems rather than simply try to solve everything with water releases. For example they can list for congressional concern and guidance many other options that are obvious to them as engineers but uncomfortable to discuss as long as we are quiet.
Additionally to create concerns beyond ours those of us who live on the lake in McCormick can as a group demand a review of our property taxes at the state level. This in view of the fact that the lake is no longer useable and the inflated property values due to the lake are no longer valid.