A CHEMICAL ENGINEER LOOKS AT MANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND

Managing complex water systems from raw sewage to waters heavily contaminated with nuclear waste is routine for Chemical Engineers.  Both the many years of education they receive on such matters and their experience from decades of handling these issues in real life fully equip them for handling something as mundane as managing the Savannah River system.  We have interviewed one of the Chemical Engineers in our group who is very familiar with the Savannah River Basin about how he feels the basin should be managed, especially with respect to release rates and level control during major droughts.

His first step was to list the various issues that the Corps has to deal with along these lines and prioritize each consideration.  Here is his list of priorities:

1. Fresh water is one of the most valuable commodities on earth and maximizing the amount of fresh water in the system at all times should be top priority
2. Quality of water for human consumption comes second
3. Environmental concerns come next
4. Economic impact on the lakes and surrounding communities comes next
5. Impact on the various production facilities along the river that use water to dilute their waste comes next
6. Impact on power production comes next
7. Impact on oxygen levels in the harbor comes next

And so on with any other concerns people have along the basin.

Looking at priority one, this demands the lakes be kept as full as possible because all the water released from the lakes becomes salt water as it reaches the harbor. This then dictates that release rates should be reduced as much as possible during a drought to preserve the fresh water in the system.

 Looking at priority two, past experience has shown water quality to be satisfactory with release rates as low as 3600cfs from Thurmond.  Hence in the event of a drought it is recommended the release rate from Thurmond be dropped to at least 3600cfs when lake levels start dropping to maintain as much fresh water in the system as possible.

Environmental concerns are a little less obvious.  Depending on who is dictating what the concerns should be and how reasonable they are this can vary over a very wide range.  Again, it has been demonstrated that even the most extreme environmental concerns can be met with release rates as low as 3600cfs when the lake levels start dropping.  And here again priority 1 dictates that this should be done.

Economic impact on the lakes and surrounding communities becomes severe when the lakes drop more than 8’ from full pool.  Experience from the droughts over the last decade show the lake levels will not drop more than 8’ if release rates are dropped to 3600cfs when the lake levels start down.

Economic impact on downstream commercial operations is a sleeping giant.  As every chemical engineer knows the quantity of waste being released is a function of how much you want to clean the water before it is released to the river.  Any challenges here should be met with tighter release limits, not increased river flows.  Hence here again 3600cfs makes sense.  Even lower release rates are possible if tighter controls are set on production releases.

The impact on power production is almost not worth our consideration.  To destroy good fresh water just to save a few cents off our power bills is foolhardy.  Besides it can be argued that this is purely an economic consideration since power can be obtained elsewhere when we are in a drought.  As an economic concern, the cost to the recreational infrastructure around the lakes from low lake levels far exceeds any savings in power costs.

Impact on oxygen levels in the harbor is no match for priority one.  First the water from Thurmond dam is pristine as it comes from the dam having gone through the vast settling basin our lakes present.  Second the water from Thurmond dam is fully oxygenated (100% saturated with oxygen) after it crosses the rapids north of Augusta.  Besides the only impact flows from Thurmond dam have on oxygen levels is the fact that they dilute production wastes. And as noted previously this is best controlled by the release standards for the various production facilities along the river.  And one other factor making our release rates inconsequential to the oxygen levels in the harbor is that the tide contributes 10 times the water to the harbor that the river does.  Hence oxygen levels in the harbor are controlled primarily by the ocean rather than the river.

 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

WHAT IF LAKE STAKEHOLDERS WERE INVOLVED IN CORPS DECISIONS ON OPERATING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

As I've mentioned numerous times we desperately need Lake Stakeholders who have significant skin in the game representing us at Corps meetings where lake level control, release rates, overall drought plans and routine operations, are discussed.  Take for example the Corps' recent announcement that they may keep Hartwell at full pool through the winter while drawing Thurmond down 4' for flood control.  Someone who has no substantial stake in the lakes is not going to be able to represent us fairly. 

At first glance you would expect Lake Thurmond stakeholders to be up in arms.  But looking at this from a purely selfish viewpoint, this is not necessarily a bad thing for Lake Thurmond.  Here is where a lake stakeholder could make a difference.  Someone knowledgeable of Lake Thurmond would recognize the following:

• Level changes of 4' or less, while not desirable, do no significant damage to the recreation infrastructure.
• If the Corps includes a proviso not to drop Thurmond more than 4' without bringing the lakes into balance, having Hartwell at full pool would help prevent the drastic loss in control that occurs when you come into a dry summer with both lakes 4' below full pool. 
• With the proviso above, having Hartwell at full pool actually gives a buffer should we encounter a dry spell coming out of the winter.  

In other words, what at first glance is a horrible decision for folks around Lake Thurmond could actually prove to be a plus.  Naturally everyone just assumes that people around Lake Thurmond would prefer both lakes to be dropped only 2'.  But that could be a problem if the rainfall is unbalanced and Thurmond gets more than its share of rain. Hence it is far better to hold Hartwell at full pool than be forced to drop both lakes 4'.

This is just one example of how lake stakeholders can add input the environmentalists and other interests cannot.  Another example is the practice of shutting down releases from Russell over the weekends during the summer.  This practice causes a significant drop in Lake Thurmond levels which are enough to beach the houseboats pulled along shore on weekends trying to enjoy a cove somewhere.  A stakeholder from Lake Thurmond would vote for releases to be continued on the weekends.  If they have to be stopped for a couple of days each week, mid week would be a much better time than the weekend.

These are just a few of the less obvious inputs lake stakeholders could add to Corps meetings involving the lakes.  It is important that the person or persons representing lake stakeholders have significant skin in the game concerning our recreational infrastructure.  They need to understand what lake levels do to real estate values, businesses connected with the lakes, recreation in general and the economic impact of all the people who come here each year for recreation. All these issues are part of the recreation infrastructure; not just whether you can water ski or fish at a given spot.

Although they may be great people, it is unfair to expect environmentalists and persons of similar backgrounds to represent recreation interests fairly.

CORPS PRIORITY FOR RECREATION IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT LAKE STAKEHOLDERS

The latest issue of Balancing the Basin gives a sobering summation of what the Corps plans to do this year regarding drought protection.  Unfortunately they plan to continue following the drought plan that has failed us so miserably for the past decade.  This would be understandable if we had no answers on how to maintain lake levels without doing damage to the other concerns the Corps has.  But we do have those answers.  The impact of lake levels on our huge infrastructure for recreation is essentially being ignored.

There are several questions that illuminate the failure by the Corps to protect recreation the way they were directed by Congress:

1. Does the Corps have the capability of maintaining lake levels within a few tenths of a foot over the span of a month?
2. Isn't it true that we have demonstrated that 3600cfs release rates can be safely tolerated downstream of Lake Thurmond?
3. Isn't it true that poor lake level control does immense damage to the recreational infrastructure around the lakes?
4. Why then does the Corps not minimize the drop in lake levels when we enter drought conditions?

The Corps repeatedly quotes environmental authorities in support of releasing water at rates that cause us to lose control of lake level.  But they never quote authorities representing recreational concerns.  The reason is we have no voice in Corps drought planning.  What is desperately needed is representation at drought planning sessions from authorities on recreational concerns.  Said authority needs to have a significant stake in the recreational infrastructure around our lakes and be answerable to the concerns of lake stakeholders. At present the closest thing we have to such representation is a few spokesmen who explain the Corps' thinking on various issues.  This would be like the environmental authorities explaining to the public why the Corps is not listening to their input.

Although it has not yet brought about the desired response, our best option to bring about change is to continue insisting that the Corps control lake levels in a drought the way they do in flood conditions.  Letters, emails, etc. to the Corps and your congressmen do keep this issue at the forefront.  That fact is evidenced by the Corps continuing to make excuses for poor control of lake level in Balancing the Basin articles. 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

VERY DISAPPOINTED IN NEW COLONEL

I was very hopeful that Colonel Tickner would take what we've learned from recent droughts and massive rains and improve the way our lakes are managed.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that changes are desperately needed.  But to our disappointment the Corps is stubbornly refusing to make the changes needed.  Instead they hold to the drought plan that has caused so much devastation to our recreational infrastructure over the past decade.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the changes needed for vast improvement are simple and would be easy to do.  We've mentioned these before but since the Corps doesn't seem to be listening let me repeat what they are:

• Limit the winter draw down to 2' instead of 4'
• Follow the same approach used in flood control of adjusting flows as necessary to keep lake level drops to a minimum.
• Since we know that environmental and water quality needs are met at 3600cfs, do not hesitate to drop release rates to 3600 as needed to hold lake level.

All that is needed to keep away from the devastating damage to recreation of the past decade is to prevent lake levels from dropping more than 8'.  The measures outlined would have accomplished this over the past decade and would serve as a major improvement to our drought plan.

This is a two sided problem.  I've listed what the Corps needs to do.  But there are two sides to this equation.  We need to make sure during the upcoming elections that we put some people in office that will get lake stakeholders a significant voice in how the lakes are managed.  For example Gary Gerrard has indicated his willingness to help.  Be sure you support him and others like him.

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

RESPONSE TO RECENT BALANCING THE BASIN CONCERNING WINTER DRAWDOWN

I was delighted to read in the latest issue of Balancing the Basin how the Corps is addressing our request for a 2' drawdown this winter.  It is obvious they are listening to some of the concerns being expressed by Lake Stakeholders concerning the drought plan.  That is definitely a step in the right direction and it is greatly appreciated.  However we still have a long way to go before we are going to get proper balance in the decision process concerning our drought plan.  For example, concerning the 2' drawdown, they could just as easily gone the other way and used a 2' drawdown now with a future study to determine if an increase in flood storage capacity over what was used in the past might be warranted.  Personally I doubt seriously if there has been so much change since the 4' rule was put in place that we now need the equivalent of 8'.  But I am not part of the decision process.

The problem lies in who is making the decisions and who is interpreting the data. For example if the British parliament had been the group making all the decisions for the American colonies we would still be under British rule.  Our founding fathers expressed the same concern we have here.  They were concerned about taxation without representation.  We are concerned with management of our lakes without lake stakeholders having proper representation.  Had lake stakeholders been involved in this decision there would be at least two major differences in the way it is being handled.

1. we would not have waited so long before doing something whether it be a study or change the drawdown.  The request to go to a 2' draw down was made over a year ago.  Why are we just now getting around to a study?
2. we would have brought to the table the logic that not going to 2' is like changing the old plan to 8' with the obvious suggestion that we hold at the equivalent of the original 4' drawdown until a study is completed.

We need someone who can get us representation at the decision table and that representation needs to be a person or persons with a significant stake in the recreational infrastructure around our lakes.  A yes man who is excited to be involved with Corps meetings is not what we need.  We also need congressional help that would insist on such a set up. 

Following is a copy of an email Jerry Clontz recently received from Gary Gerrard who is running for congress from the 10th district in Georgia.  He sounds like someone who could finally make this happen.  Regardless of whether you live in the Georgia 10th district or not you should look at possibly helping Gary with a contribution so we can finally get someone in office who will help us get this mess fixed.

Email sent to Jerry Clontz from Gary Gerrard on 10/9/13

In response to your question about what I would do if elected to Congress for your membership, I would be as unaccepting of deliberate misinformation and stalling on your issues as I was on the Corps' attempt to prevent my campaign event at the Soap Creek Marina.  I would insist on being heard and getting timely, responsive and thoughtful answers to how the lake is managed.  The Corps is required by statute to include consideration of your interests in managing the lakes, and I would insist that the Corps do so.

jon clerry spokesman for save our lakes now

 

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

In the latest Balancing the Basin Colonel Tickner addresses the issue of winter drawdowns.  He, I'm sure, is genuine in his effort to do what is right.  While it is obvious the NOAA has been heard from, it is equally obvious there was no representation from Lake Stakeholders in this decision. Had Lake Stakeholders (ones who are actively involved in the huge Recreation Infrastructure around our lakes) been involved, there would have been a much different dialogue.

I do not doubt that Colonel Tickner has the best of intentions but the road to failure is paved with good intentions.  What is missing from the discussion is that following the existing guide lines has led to horrible consequences 3 times in the past 10 years. Also missing is consideration for the fact that we now have 3 lakes collecting winter runoff instead of just Lake Thurmond such that a 2' drawdown now is virtually identical to the 4' set in the original guidelines.

Another disturbing undertone in the message from Colonel Tickner is his plan to make no changes in the drought plan which has failed us miserably.  We understand the logic of doing more studies to understand the system better.  But we also recognize that the Corps needs to factor in the lessons of the past 3 droughts and improve on release rates as well as back off on the drawdown.  While studies are needed to truly optimize the system, existing experience is more than sufficient to permit numerous changes that would better protect our recreational infrastructure.

All I can say is we need for all Lake Stakeholders to continue to bombard your congressmen and the Corps with a request to recognize the increased lake storage capacity for run off and decrease the draw down accordingly.  And we need to demand that experience learned from recent droughts be applied to make improvements to our drought plan. 

Jon Clerry, Spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

DOWN TO THE WIRE

We are fast approaching the time the Corps plans to drop our lakes more than 2' for the winter.  The 10 week projections show Lake Thurmond more than 2' down as of November 16.  If you want our lakes to be full next spring and summer we cannot afford for the Corps to follow the current guide curve which calls for the lakes to drop 4' over the winter.

The corps can and has argued that they need extensive studies before they can determine how low they take release rates.  But the amount they drop the lakes over the winter has nothing to do with all this.  The 4' basis used in the past was set up based on having just Lake Thurmond to collect the higher rainfalls that occur in Winter and Spring.  We now have 3 lakes instead of just Lake Thurmond and 2' now is the same safety valve 4' used to give when all we had was Lake Thurmond.  Additionally, the100yr rain event that occurred this summer showed the lakes would not have exceeded full pool if we had started 2' below full pool.

I have heard that the Colonel has agreed to look into this in the fall.  It would not be a bad idea to go ahead now and make your thoughts known to the Colonel, your congressional representatives, and your governor (both Governors have expressed great interest in keeping our lakes full).  Waiting until November to see what the Corps does is too late to save next Spring and Summer. 

Incidentally, Gary Gerard who is a candidate for Paul Broun's vacated seat has expressed interest in helping us solve our dilemma with the Corps.  He will be at Soap Creek Marina for a meet and greet at the restaurant building, Thursday September 26 between 5 and 6:30.  Aside from meeting Mark, this would be a good time for you to find out how serious he is about helping us with the Corps and make sure he knows your concerns. 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

DECISION TIME IS JUST A MONTH AWAY FOR CORPS

Speaking personally, I put my retirement money into real estate and development investments connected with the lakes of the Savannah River Basin.  Due to the poor lake level control over the past decade those investments are worth less than half what I put into them.  I feel sure I am typical of what has happened to a lot of lake stakeholders.  Many would say these losses were unavoidable due to droughts.  In fact they are due to the Corps’ failure to protect the recreation infrastructure around the lakes.  As my predecessor pointed out many times, the term recreation in the list of responsibilities the Corps has for our lakes is not a few individuals fishing or enjoying water sports.  Rather it is the infrastructure worth hundreds of millions around our lakes connected with recreation. I am talking about real estate purchased for access and enjoyment of the lake, marinas, campgrounds, marine supplies, restaurants on the lake and the many similar investments that affect recreation on our lakes.

Poor lake level control did not come from lack of rain.  It came from mismanaging the rain that was available. The current situation where the Corps is keeping the lakes within a few feet of full pool demonstrates that good management of lake levels is possible.   If the same methods were employed during drought conditions that are being used in flood conditions, the lakes could be held to within 8ft of full pool without violating any of the limits placed on release rates from the list of other concerns the Corps is responsible for.  This degree of level variation, while not totally desirable, is acceptable in that recreation is not seriously harmed until the lakes drop more than 10ft.  Literally the changes required to the current drought plan would be:

·         Rather than drop the lakes 4’ in the fall, limit the decrease to 2’.  The 4’ limit came from the time when Thurmond was the only lake and that space was needed for heavy rains in the winter and spring. There are now 3 lakes and 2’provides the same margin of safety that 4’ used to provide.

·         Limit the minimum release rate from Lake Thurmond to 3,600 cfs (3,000 in the colder months) to protect environmental and water quality/supply concerns.

Power production is not listed as a concern for two reasons.  First, SEPA has indicated on numerous occasions that the main power concern for our lakes is the ability to provide peaking power.  Second, any short fall in total power production can be offset by purchases from other production areas.  If you look at the added cost of power purchased elsewhere, it is peanuts compared to the monetary value of damages to recreation when the lakes drop more than 10’.

We will know shortly whether the Corps plans to protect recreation the same way they do their other concerns.  If they do they will hold the drop in lake levels in the fall to only 2’.  And further they will give recreation a voice in their meetings to decide release rates.  Said voice needs to be someone with a substantial stake in the recreation infrastructure.

CORPS IS DEMONSTRATING SOLUTION TO OUR LAKE LEVEL PROBLEMS

If you read the recent balancing the basin publications, one major difference stands out from the way the Corps has been operating the lakes.  Now the Corps states emphatically that release rates will be changed as necessary to maintain proper lake levels.  This is in stark contrast to the statements the Corps has been using during the droughts that plagued us over the past 10 years.

What I hear the Corps saying during a drought is they have no latitude on release rates.  They have to hold to a drought plan that allows the lakes to drop over 10ft before they get serious about trying to hold lake levels. I find it inconceivable that they have full latitude when the lakes are high and none when the lakes are low.

When I look at the list of items the Corps is responsible for concerning the Savannah River Basin it seems to me that all of them can be satisfied without the lakes dropping more than 8 to 10ft in a drought matching the one that occurred in 2008. If the Corps will use the same logic in a drought they are currently using in flood conditions while at the same time following the limits on flow rates dictated by environmental concerns, they should be able to hold levels within 8ft of full pool while satisfying all their responsibilities. All the changes required have been adequately demonstrated to be safe from the experience gained in recent droughts and the current flood situation.

At the risk of being too technical all the Corps would need to do is vary release rates to hold lake levels within 5 foot above full pool / 8 foot below full pool as necessary without exceeding the following limits:

1. To stay within demonstrated safe range for minimum down stream flows observe a limit of 3600cfs from Thurmond during drought conditions.  This release rate has been demonstrated repeatedly during recent droughts with no unacceptable environmental impact.
2. To avoid downstream flooding, drop the lake levels as practiced now in October but only drop the lakes 2' instead of 4'.  The recent flooding situation demonstrated that a 2' drop is sufficient in a 100yr rain event.

The current drought plan does not protect recreation during droughts.  The reason is the Corps makes no effort to maintain lake levels until recreation is being destroyed during droughts.  The primary difference in what I am recommending and what has been done in the past is to simply hold lake levels in droughts the same as during flood conditions.