What Save Our Lakes Now is All About

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

With the new year rapidly approaching and with a new Georgia Congressman representing the Lake area about to take office, it seems a good time to restate what Save Our Lakes Now is all about.  At first glance we are a bunch of lake stakeholders selfishly wanting the lakes to stay full during droughts regardless of cost to other interests.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

From a lake stakeholder point of view it would seem perfectly fair to simply keep the lakes full and let the overflow, whatever occurs from rain, take care of the river.  After all that is the way mother nature operated our basin before Lake Thurmond was built.  Instead Save Our Lakes Now is looking at how best to balance the basin so that all interests are protected equally at times of drought. 

The corps of engineers claims that they are maintaining balance but they are not.  In a recent comment and rebuttal from a member of Save Our Lakes Now and a representative of the Corps on the Corps publication entitled "Balancing the Basin", the true thinking of the corps became obvious.  At one point the representative from the corps proudly proclaimed that they make no changes if any of the environmental or state agencies have any reservation about what they are about to do.  What he either failed to realize or chose to ignore is that Lake Stakeholders (best defined as recreational infrastructure around the lake such as homes built to enjoy the lake, marinas, campgrounds, businesses connected with or impacted by lake traffic, etc.) are totally ignored when they are pleading for reason in lake level control. 

The recommendation from Save Our Lakes Now is simply to maintain the lakes at full pool as long as the minimum required release rate to protect downstream interests is met.  The purpose is not to selfishly keep the lakes at full pool.  The purpose is to avoid hitting a drought with the lakes already low in level.  Many think you don't need to worry about release rates or lake levels until you are in a serious drought.  But if you let the lakes drop in level and then hit a severe drought the drops in lake levels are disastrous and have come close to destroying the lakes in the past.  This recommendation is based on years of experience on release rates that have no adverse environmental impact.  Even corps documents and EAs show that the release rate we recommend has no detrimental impact on the environment.

The problem Save Our Lakes Now is encountering is that all of the various groups impacted by droughts are represented in drought management planning except the Recreational infrastructure.  Congress in the '80s made recreation one of the requirements for managing the lakes.  But there are no "QUALIFIED"  representatives of the recreational infrastructure involved in Corps planning and actions at times of drought.  This leads to the recreational infrastructure being left out when the corps seeks approval on day to day operation and in interpreting test results and future planning for handling major droughts.  An example is the study the Corps is now conducting at our request to look at how much storage capacity is needed to protect against heavy rains in the fall and winter when runoff is high.  The Corps has reluctantly stated they will do this study but they are careful to point out that regardless of what the study shows they have no plans to change the winter draw down. 

Lack of representation is also important on studies of drought planning now in progress by the Corps.  Any one with experience in interpreting test results such as this knows that data do not interpret themselves.  They are interpreted with bias from the perspective of the individuals doing the interpretation unavoidably present.

RECENT COMMUNICATION WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS

A member of Save Our Lakes Now has made several attempts to get the Corps to change their drought management plan to prevent the repeated destruction to our lakes over the past decade.  So that our readers can see the kind of comments we are making to the corps I am copying here our response to the current issue of balancing the basin and a letter we recently wrote to Colonel Tickner.

COMMENT SENT TODAY ON BALANCING THE BASIN:
Save Our Lakes Now has talked to state leaders repeatedly in the past and they have never indicated that they want the lakes to drop drastically in droughts.  Why not let the head of each of these organizations post their views. I wouldn't ask for this except that Col. Tickner is clearly trying to indicate that they are the reason he refuses to adapt to past lessons in drought management. 

So far as balancing the basin, putting the whole system at risk by throwing the limited water from rain into the ocean is not balance.

EMAIL SENT TO COLONEL TICKNER RECENTLY:
(Note the email is based on a thank you note sent to Colonel Hall years ago)

Colonel Tickner,

Following is an email we sent Col. Hall in 2012 while he was trying to improve the drought plan.  These are still items we feel would greatly improve our drought protection and provide better balance to the basin.  As you will notice Col. Hall made several changes to improve things.  But even these improvements seem to have been discontinued.  We are at a total loss as to why you feel you have no latitude as an engineer to improve matters based on experience gained in the past decade and we definitely do not understand how you can justify saving pennies on power production while destroying fortunes in recreational infrastructure. 

 
All the recommendations presented represent sound engineering logic; why are you not incorporating these into the way you manage our basin.  Surely you are not proud that we are in the same predicament concerning drought protection that occurred in the last 3 major droughts.


THANKS FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW (email sent several years ago to colonel hall)

 There are still several issues with drought management that we differ on but we noted with appreciation a number of items you have changed that we once had disagreement on. 

 Thanks for planning the following changes:

·       Going to 3100 during winter months below 316’ instead of 3600

·       Holding low flows until the lakes refill.  You plan 3800, we would prefer 3600, but at least you are staying below  4,000 and up flows.

·       Allowing the lakes to refill to full pool instead of stopping at rule curve levels

 
We hope you would also consider:

·       Initiating drought control flows anytime the lakes drop more than 2’ as well as looking at Broad River flows

·       Re doing the rule curve to a maximum of 2’ buffer (justifiable from increases in holding volumes of Russell and Hartwell)

·       Terminating releases from Thurmond when we are in drought conditions and the river is swollen from recent rains

·       Using 3600 (3100 in cooler months) for drought conditions rather than 3800.

·       Dropping to 3600 immediately in drought conditions versus staged decreases.

·       Including lake stakeholders in meetings where drought releases are decided

 

We feel these changes are justifiable awaiting further data from future studies in that they can be reversed at any time should the need arise. 

 

 

AGREEMENTS WITH CORPS ARE INEFFECTIVE

We've been pleading with the Corps to provide protection to Recreation for the lakes of  the Savannah River Basin since the turn of the century.  It is time our leaders in congress and the various organizations that represent lake stakeholders recognize that they are dealing with an organization that has no intent on responding to our requests.  Although obvious measures exist that would prevent drastic loss in lake level, the Corps is adamant in refusing to change our drought plan. It is time we recognize the Corps is not friendly to our needs and they are not going to respond to simple requests for improving the drought plan.

For Example:

• We've asked for earlier reaction to losses in lake level but the Corps blindly allows our lakes to drop when there is no environmental or economic justification for their actions. 
• We've asked that the Corps recognize that the money saved by blindly following power production quotas is not justifiable when you look at the money lost to the recreational infrastructure from drastic drops in lake levels.  But the Corps refuses to react to common sense arguments.
• We've exposed all the misleading arguments used in the past to justify no change to the drought plan but to no avail.  They simply continue to hold to failed practices realizing they don't have to justify such behavior.

Making this short and sweet. It is no surprise that our lakes are now down over 5'.  We warned the Corps repeatedly that unless they changed what they were doing we would repeat the errors of the past. But the Corps refuses to protect our recreational infrastructure. It is not as if they didn't know what their actions would cause.  Said another way, logical discussion of the situation simply doesn't work.  It is time our leaders put their foot down and demand the changes we all know are needed.

ANSWER TO QUESTION OF WHY CORPS IS NOT COOPERATING ON LAKE LEVELS

In the previous blog we pointed out that the Corps is failing to use good engineering principles to protect recreation.  Numerous questions have come in asking why we feel they are not protecting recreation.To make a long story short, there are two overlying conflicts at fault.

First the Corps insists on meeting power generation quotas even though it makes no economic sense.  The total value of the power produced from our lakes is far less than the cost to our recreational infrastructure when the lakes drop 10' or more.  Additionally South East Power Association (SEPA) has stated that we are part of 8 systems and any power deficit here can easily be met by pulling from the other lakes in these systems.  This being true the savings from straining our lake level reserves is peanuts in comparison to the loss in Recreation dollars.

Second the Corps insists on dropping our lakes 4' for winter draw down.  The figure of 4' was put in place when there was only Lake Thurmond.  Its purpose is to prevent the excessive run offs during the winter from flooding the basin.  Now that we have 3 lakes (Thurmond, Russell, and Hartwell) that same protection can be accomplished with a 2' draw down.  This extra 2' can mean a lot if we get into a severe drought. 

The combination of using good economical practices (protecting recreation over power quotas) and using a 2' draw down in the winter vs 4' can easily keep the lakes from dropping more than 10'.  While a 10' drop is undesirable, it is not catastrophic to recreation.  Once you drop more than 10' all recreational infrastructure is severely damaged from an economical standpoint.

The common excuse of waiting for results from a major study of the system is weak.  All measures described above are based on factual data obtained over the past few decades.  We don't need scientific studies to tell whether these would make good engineering sense.  The studies the Corps are conducting now can fine tune all this and maybe make it possible to even avoid a 10' drop in major droughts.  But even that will depend on applying good engineering judgment to the results of the study which the Corps continually refuses to do.  So, we have little reason to expect any benefits to recreation from these very expensive studies.  In our opinion they amount to stalling tactics and an excuse to apply even more EPA logic to our system.  If you are familiar with the EPA you will recognize such measures are frequently detrimental rather than beneficial.

IN CASE YOU ARE WONDERING ABOUT LAKE LEVELS

If you look at the release rates and elevations for Hartwell and Thurmond you will see the Corps is following their posted drought plan exactly.  If they had no engineering skills one would say they are doing a good job of following procedure.  But these guys have demonstrated time and time again that they have great engineering skill by maintaining lake levels to within 6" of the target elevation.  For literally months back when the fish were spawning they never deviated more than 6" from target even with all kinds of variations in rainfall and weather conditions.

My point.  The Corps knows that following this procedure leads to drastic drops in lake levels. It has put the whole system at peril and led to emergency measures 3 times in the last decade.  Knowing this, Save Our Lakes Now has to conclude the corps is failing in their mission and not doing a good job.  In view of their engineering skills and in view of their responsibilities they have failed to manage our lakes properly.

Pray for lots of rain this winter.  We certainly cannot depend on the Corps to protect us from another recreational disaster.  Literally hundreds of millions of dollars related to our recreational infrastructure will be lost again if we enter next spring in drought conditions.  It is a shame none of that money comes out of the pockets of the Corps of Engineers.  If it did I think it is safe to say they would make drastic changes to the way they are managing our lakes.

IS THE CORPS IGNORANT OR ARROGANT CONCERNING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

Congratulations to the Corps.  Our lakes are down 4' and it is only September.  You have succeeded in getting lake levels to the point where a drought like the one in 2008 will destroy the lakes again.  You have done this under the guise of power production quotas.  In doing so you will be guilty of throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in recreational infrastructure to make less than 10 million dollars in power cost savings.  If it were your dollars you would not do this.  But it is our dollars (the people who have invested in the recreation infrastructure around the lakes) so you simply ignore the potential danger you have set in motion.

There are a number of ways to solve this dilemma.  One would be to give lake stakeholders an equal voice at the table where release rates are decided.  Another would be to require the Colonel and his staff to have their homes on Lake Thurmond or Lake Hartwell.  Even better would be to have them invest their life savings in recreational endeavors on the lakes.

Where are our governors on this?  Where are our congressmen and senators?  Congress dictated in the '80s that recreation be treated the same as the other responsibilities of the Corps.  During the last decade recreation was the only Corps responsibility to be destroyed and that happened 3 times.  Water quality, water supply, fish & wildlife protection, and flood control all survived.  The only other responsibility, Hydro Power production, is simply an economic consideration since SEPA can make up for power lost here without difficulty.  Wonder why the Corps says they refuse to let economics determine how they manage the lakes?  Sorry but that is simply not true. Power production is pure economics.

NEED YOUR HELP TO OBTAIN PUBLICITY AVENUES

Somehow we need to get more publicity about the way the Corps is mismanaging our lakes.  If you have access to any of our political leaders or any radio or TV personalities that can help, please let us know.  We've tried all our resources and to date no takers.  Can you imagine what a figure like Rush Limbaugh could do for our cause.  And likewise any powerful political leader (governor, congressman, senator, etc) could bring about major change. Save Our Lakes Now leadership would be happy to meet with any such interested person or persons if that would help them understand our plight.

It is now obvious the Corps has no intention of managing our lakes in a manner that protects against devastating loss in lake level when droughts occur.  When we point out the losses to the recreational infrastructure (eg. businesses that provide recreation at the lake and all the houses built around the lakes primarily for the purpose of recreation) they seem to be deaf to what we are saying.  Further they offer ridiculous arguments such as power production schedules and being unfair to downstream stakeholders. The total value of the power created by our dams is miniscule in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost by the recreational infrastructure.  And so far as being fair to downstream stakeholders we pass on every drop of water nature gives us and we have no problem passing on more than supplied within reason such as the 3600cfs (3100 in cold weather) which has been demonstrated to be safe based on recent droughts. 

To put things in perspective, the corps yells that drought is causing the destruction.  But that is simply not true.  What is causing the destruction is putting more water downstream than is coming into the system from rain. Such behavior by the Corps in other water systems around the nation has virtually destroyed magnificent lakes such as Lake Mead out West.  This behavior has led to millions of people out West being in danger of having no fresh water and could easily do the same thing here.  Rather than lake stakeholders doing damage to downstream, wasting water by putting more in the ocean than is necessary is what is doing the damage.

CORPS STUBBORNLY REFUSES TO PROTECT OUR LAKES AGAINST DROUGHT

We were hopeful that the new Colonel would listen to reason and get away from the drought plan that has destroyed our lakes repeatedly over the past decade.  Real Estate values around the lakes and the Recreational infrastructure are in desperate need of a change that would end this madness.

Since the Corps refuses to redo the drought plan, we would like to offer one that gives better balance to the various responsibilities of the Corps. First let me give the underlying bases for this approach:

• Power production is important but basically it comes down to an economic consideration.  Any time we do not produce enough power here to satisfy the power demand, it can be purchased off the grid.  The expense of buying it elsewhere is nothing compared to the money lost in real estate and recreational infrastructure when lake levels drop drastically.
• Fish and Wildlife and water supply and water quality are important but they can only be managed properly when there is adequate water in the lakes. Further, we have demonstrated repeatedly (and it is even stated in Corps documents) that these are adequately managed when release rates are at 3600cfs or higher. 
• Recreation is another responsibility of the Corps. It is destroyed anytime the lakes drop drastically.  Not only is the destruction at the time the lakes are down but we continue to suffer from a bad reputation for at least 3 years following destruction of lake levels during a drought.
• Fresh water, although it is not directly listed under the Corps responsibilities, should be recognized by the Corps as something we must protect by wasting as little as possible.  The Corps shows some understanding of this principle in water saving devices at their offices but somehow they fail to recognize that even 100cfs more than necessary in lake releases does more damage than all their conservation measures put together.
• The Corps has demonstrated that they can control lake levels to within about 6" whenever they so desire.

Applying a little logic and common sense to these facts leads to a far superior drought plan than is currently being followed.  If the lakes are held within 6" of full pool as long as they don't have to reduce release rates below 3600cfs, the basin would truly be in balance.  Even in a severe drought the loss in lake level should not be enough to be destructive.  One added factor would be to minimize the winter draw down so we don't enter a drought more than 2' below full level.

If this were the mode of operation the definition of whether we are in a drought would be simple.  It would be anytime full pool can not be maintained using release rates of 3600cfs. Downstream would now be more like what nature intended with levels and flow rates that are determined by nature rather than man.  Blame would no longer be directed at the Corps.  It would finally be directed where it should be; at nature.

We can understand that the Corps feels they are simply following orders.  But history has shown repeatedly that "DOING WHAT IS RIGHT" is far superior to blindly following orders.

MAJOR TROUBLE AHEAD IF FISH LADDER CONSTRUCTED

As indicated in the recent Balancing the Basin the Corps is planning to construct (at a cost of  millions of dollars) a fish ladder that will put our lakes in extreme jeopardy.  The reasoning is that deepening the Savannah harbor will decrease the spawning area for short nosed sturgeon. Their plan sounds innocent enough.  They want to allow the sturgeon access to the Savannah River upstream of the lock and dam just South of Augusta. 

If the sturgeon start spawning in the rapids north of Augusta, as they most certainly would, the release rates from Thurmond Dam would suddenly be controlled by flow rates through the rapids.  This is so preposterous it is hard to believe anyone would even consider such a measure.  But it shows once again that the Corps is not doing their job in protecting our lakes.  It appears that they would just as soon destroy the lakes as not.

SOLN has registered numerous complaints about this plan but they have fallen on deaf ears.  Please contact your governor, your congressman, and your senator and insist that they stop this madness.  You probably should make your concerns known to Col. Tickner as well although based on past experience this may be a futile effort.

Part of this plan is for the corps to train the sturgeon to climb the fish ladder around the lock and dam.  This smacks of the idiocy of similar measures out West where the Corps actually trucks Salmon past dams so they can spawn.  Our contention is the sturgeon are not limited to the Savannah River.  They have been shown to spawn at other locations.

A side note, the next idiocy will be to try to use river flows to prevent the salt migration that most assuredly will occur.  It doesn't matter that the river compared to the ocean tides entering the harbor is like a garden hose flowing into the river. 

RECENT BALANCING THE BASIN VERY ILLUMINATING

The July 8 Balancing the Basin purports to explain the Corps' thinking when it comes to determining outflows from Lake Thurmond which in turn dictates the level of both Thurmond and Hartwell.  The initial reasoning offers the thought that normal is not full pool.  Rather normal is what the average levels have been over the years.

I have a huge problem with this concept.  Normal or average led to devastating loss of lake level 3 times in the last decade.  To call this acceptable is ludicrous.  Why would we want to repeat those conditions where recreation was destroyed and the Corps was placed in a dire situation where they had little to no control over their various other responsibilities. 

It is obvious to me as an engineer why the Corps lost control of the lakes.  It should be equally obvious to the Corps but for some reason they continue to go headlong into situations where the lakes can not recover should a drought occur.  We have been pleading with the Corps to hold lake levels as near as possible to full pool until the fall and winter by reducing release rates from Thurmond to as low as 3600cfs when needed. The Corps has shown they can hold lake levels to within 6" of their targeted level except in extreme conditions such as rainfall that yields less than 3600cfs inflow.  The reason for choosing 3600cfs as the low point is we have demonstrated repeatedly in past droughts that this flow does not significantly impact the environment or water supply needs.

It can be argued that higher flows to the river are better but that's like the argument that you want to buy more than your income will allow.  It feels good for awhile but becomes totally destructive to all concerned whether upstream or downstream when levels drop more than 10ft.

Additionally we have pleaded with the Corps for several years to reduce the fall/winter drawdown to 2' instead of 4'.  This again is so we enter any drought, should one occur, at as full a lake level as possible.  The reason for choosing 2' is that volume of water, counting all 3 lakes, has been demonstrated since Thurmond was first built to handle the heavy fall and winter runoffs.  A 2' change now with 3 lakes involved is the same as the 4' drop used prior to building Hartwell and Russell.

The explanation for what determines release rates while the lakes are within 4' of full was inflow volumes, hydropower, and environmental and municipal demands.  What is missing is the observation that none of these can be managed well when the lakes drop drastically.  The reason this occurred in recent droughts is we entered the drought with lake levels already down 4' and even then we did not decrease release rates enough to counter the drought. And there is also no mention of the fact that recreation (another of the Corps' responsibilities) was virtually destroyed from recent droughts. 

The discussion in the article also goes into some detail about power needs.  Ironically the Corps refuses to acknowledge economic impact of low lake levels on real estate and the recreational infrastructure around the lakes.  But when power generation is discussed it is purely an economic discussion because there is more than adequate power available elsewhere on the grid.  The total value of power generated from our lakes is no match for the losses to real estate and recreation when lake levels drop more than 10ft.

CORPS PROJECTIONS SHOW RETURN TO RELEASE RATES THAT CAN DESTROY BASIN

As most of you know lake stakeholders are not represented at the Corps meetings where release rates are decided. In our opinion lake stakeholders should be represented at these meetings by someone they elect or by someone who has a large investment in the recreational infrastructure around the lakes. Currently we have a few people the Corps uses to explain to us why they are doing things the way they are.  But what is needed is someone the Corps has to listen to when it comes to lake interests in balancing the basin.

The current projections for Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell show the lakes dropping over the next few months when the levels could be maintained safely by controlling release rates.  Release rates for Thurmond which are the controlling factor for levels on all three lakes are projected at 6500cfs immediately which is well above the amount of water being supplied by Nature. This sets us up for another drastic drop in lake levels if a drought hits.  Since we have no voice at the Corps meetings I thought it might be interesting to run through what our input would be if we were present. 

1. In our opinion release rates need to be set to maintain full lakes unless that rate falls below the 3600cfs demonstrated to have no significant negative impact downstream of Thurmond Dam.  We demonstrated in the three major droughts of the last decade that dropping the lakes when there was no drought caused us to lose control when a drought did occur. Allowing the lakes to drop 4ft and more when the level could be maintained safely causes severe damage from low lake levels when a drought does occur.
2. Environmentally this makes sense because nature is controlling things until release rates less than 3600cfs are required and we avoid the environmental nightmare of dropping the lakes so low that emergency measures and  low flows are required for excessive periods of time. 
3. From a conservation standpoint this makes sense because we don't waste any more fresh water than is absolutely necessary.  Higher release rates destroy much more fresh water than is saved by all the water conservation measures in use today in the Savannah River Basin.
4. If power production quotas is the reason for increased flows, the total money saved from producing power from our lakes rather than from off the grid is peanuts compared to the costs to real estate and recreational infrastructure from low lake levels. Besides, our primary purpose in terms of power production is for peaking power.  With the drastically low lake levels caused by irresponsible lake level control, peaking power capability is endangered.
5. From the stand point of recreational infrastructure and real estate losses it goes without saying that responsible lake level control in the manner used for the past several months is literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  And more importantly, once drastically low lake levels occur, it takes 3 or so years for recreation and real estate to recover.  We have only just begun to recoup from the last drought as evidenced by extreme hardships for everyone involved in recreation or who owns lake property.

For the past few months the Corps has shown us how easily they can maintain lake levels.  It's time for us to demand that they continue to do so.

CORPS CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE EXCELLENT CONTROL OF LAKE LEVEL

Looking at release rates I was surprised to see that they are at levels previously reserved for emergency conditions.  I grow hopeful that Col. Tickner is factoring in recreation in managing the Savannah River Basin.   Following previous practices our lakes would be dropping like a rock right now.  But instead the levels are being maintained within 6" of full pool.

It seems to Save Our Lakes Now that this is an excellent way to control the basin:

• River flows are varying the way nature intended rather than being held artificially constant.
• Environmental concerns are protected as long as releases are in excess of the 3600cfs demonstrated to have no substantial environmental impact downstream
• Water quality and water supply needs are also being met at release rates in excess of 3600cfs.
• Destruction of precious fresh water by releasing it to the ocean is being kept to a minimum.
• The dollar value gained by power production is being kept in line with the dollar value lost from decreased real estate values and destruction to recreational infrastructure around the lakes.

Please let Col. Tickner know our thoughts here.  We owe him a tremendous vote of thanks if he is responsible for these improvements.  If the changes are coincidental and not intended, maybe making him aware of our thoughts will help make these changes permanent.

REVISITING THE PROPOSAL FOR 2' WINTER DRAW DOWNS INSTEAD OF 4'

As I'm sure most of you are aware the corps continues to do a sterling job of maintaining lake levels. 
We certainly commend them on this and hope they will not hesitate to go to minimum release rates to hold level as much as possible if we get into another drought.  On a different note, there was an interesting post on Balancing the Basin by Billy Birdwell that could serve as a great argument to go to a 2' drawdown rather than a 4' drawdown in the winters. Quoting from Billy's post

"Our water managers don’t rely solely on computer models or theories, but on decades of working in this basin under a wide range of conditions. They’ve seen floods, droughts, heat waves, ice storms, tropical storms, and years of other weather.

Our water managers are scientist-engineers and draw on the latest scientific methods as well as years of real-world observations to accomplish all their missions in the most efficient way possible. Although they don’t have ‘crystal balls’ to consult, they actually have something better – science tempered with experience and insight."
~Billy Birdwell, Corporate Communications Office

So far as years of real-world observations, from the time Thurmond was built until Hartwell came on the scene a 4' drawdown was used in the winter. The total area rain runoff comes from remains unchanged.  It is the whole basin from the mountains to the Thurmond Dam.  The difference now is that we have both Hartwell and Russell collecting that runoff in addition to Thurmond.  Using that science tempered with experience Billy talks about, a 2' drawdown now should be equivalent to the 4' drawdown used before Hartwell was built.  In other words the amount of runoff remains unchanged but the amount of space to collect that runoff is now twice what it used to be.

HERE WE GO AGAIN ??????

The latest Balancing the Basin which posted a day or two ago indicates we may be destined for more lake level issues.  If I understand what Stan Simpson (a hydrologist for the Savannah District) is saying, the Corps does not plan on holding lake levels the way they have been over the past month or so.  Stan mentions that increased evaporation and uptake by vegetation normally cause the lake to drop as much as 4ft in the summer.  What he does not say is whether the Corps will vary releases down to 3600cfs as necessary to minimize the amount the lakes drop in level.

He mentions power needs but that is not a reason to ignore lake level control for several reasons:

• We are a peaking power supplier rather than continuous power which means long sustained power generation is not the objective. Peaking power demands we have capacity for surges when demands are high.  When the lakes are allowed to drop over 10ft the ability to provide peaking power becomes very limited.
• Meeting a quota for overall generation is essentially an economic issue.  The economics of decreased real estate values and damage to the recreation infrastructure from low lake levels is far greater than the total value of the power generated by our lakes.  According to SEPA we are only one of 8 systems they get power from and they can easily make up for any short falls from us with make up power from the other systems.
• We have come very close to literally destroying our lakes several times.  Should that occur our lakes would no longer be a viable source of power not to mention what happens to all the other aspects of managing the Savannah River Basin.  In short, the Corps rather than the weather would be responsible for a catastrophic failure of the whole system because of their refusal to change the current drought plan.

The corps has demonstrated they are capable of controlling lake levels to very close tolerances.  The problem is the current drought plan does nothing to control lake level.  The lakes have to drop 4ft before any control over release rates is initiated.  And the response to such a drop is much less than has been demonstrated to be feasible. The lakes have to drop 15ft before emergency level control is initiated and by that time destruction of the lakes, one at a time, is imminent.

Lake level control has been outstanding since Colonel Tickner took the reins. Hopefully that will continue.  But the recent posting of Balancing the Basin leaves some doubt as to how the Corps may respond to a drought should one occur.  Please don't hesitate to let Colonel Tickner know how much we appreciate current lake level control and how important it is for him to continue this approach to managing the basin.

HOLD YOUR BREATH.. CURRENT PROJECTIONS LOOK LIKE A BREAK THROUGH

Looking at the current projections for releases from Lake Thurmond and levels for all three lakes I could not believe my eyes.  The Corps plans releases of only 3800cfs from Thurmond through the middle of may and lake levels are all right at full pool.  In the past under similar conditions we saw much higher release rates.  If this means what I think it means the current Corps commander deserves a great big thank you.

MOST RECENT RELEASE OF "BALANCING THE BASIN" SHOWS CORPS INTENTIONS

The most recent release of balancing the basin goes into great detail about how lake levels are managed.  If this truly represents the thinking of the Savannah River Basin Corps' leadership, they fully intend to continue the same drought plan that generated so much destruction in the last decade. In my mind there is no justification for such a refusal to change.  You can claim all kinds of maybe situations that could arrive from change.  But these pale in light of the definite destruction that occurs with no change.

We have accomplished one major feat so far with the efforts of Save Our Lakes Now.  There used to be 10 gross distortions of the truth used to justify the old drought plan.  These never come up any more because one by one we showed the fallacies of these different claims.  For example the dissolved oxygen in the harbor is not affected by release rates.  This is shown by oxygen measurements at Clio upstream of the harbor and the fact that ocean tides overwhelm the impact of inflow from the river.  Another is the fact that any argument about power generation involves straight economics and the destruction to real estate values and the infrastructure for recreation around the lakes is far greater than any money saved from power generation.

We need representation at the meetings where release rates are discussed and we need a congressman that takes no double talk concerning  lake level control .  All the expensive studies that are in place are fine if you want more data.  But you don't need any additional data to understand that our current drought plan is badly flawed.  The data from the past decade combined with good engineering judgment are more than adequate to come up with vast improvements to the drought plan.

YES VIRGINIA, THE CORPS CAN CONTROL LAKE LEVEL

Over the past couple of months the Corps has demonstrated how they can hold lake levels within 6".  But that was because they wanted to in order to help fish spawning.  Our problem is they don't appear to want to hold the level for recreation purposes.

We know, and the Corps has stated in repeated analyses of the impact of release rates, that as long as the release rate out of Thurmond is equal to or greater than 3600 cfs there is no significant environmental impact downstream.  Congress stipulated 30 some years ago that recreation should be protected along with all the other concerns of the Savannah River Basin.  And by recreation they were talking about the huge infrastructure that is associated with lake access and use by the public.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to combine those two pieces of information and justify keeping the lakes full by reducing release rates to as low as 3600cfs to maintain the level.  There will be times when 3600cfs will allow the lake levels to drop more than 6" but not to the catastrophic levels experienced repeatedly over the past decade.

All the arguments against this have one major flaw.  The current drought plan asks that we release more water than nature supplies by rain.  One would think the simple desire to preserve as much fresh water as possible would defeat any such argument.  The Corps knows we should conserve water as much as possible.  They demonstrate this with their water saving hypocrisy in their offices such as waterless urinals.  Release rates of just a few hundred cfs above 3,600 dwarf the amount of water being saved with the best of water saving tactics.  No city downstream with control over watering lawns or using waterless urinals like the ones in use by the Corps can begin to make up for the waste we repeatedly see when the Corps refuses to drop release rates to a minimum during a drought.

In the humble opinion of this author, man is not smart enough to do a better job than nature does. We can take out the ravages of severe flooding and even severe drought but trying to run nature like a piece of machinery is futile. A prime example of what I am saying is to look out West at Lake Powel which has been literally destroyed by continually releasing more water than nature provides.  The situation out there is so bad they are even trucking salmon to the ocean which is another example of the futility of trying to out smart nature.

SOLUTION TO LAKE LEVEL PROBLEMS

Ultimately the Colonel in control of the Savannah River Basin is the best person to correct our lake level problems.  If he decides to protect recreation at the same level he handles the other responsibilities Congress has given the Corps for managing our lakes, he can control lake levels well inside +/- 5ft by decreasing flows to as little as 3600cfs anytime the lakes drop more than a foot.  As stated repeatedly in Corps documents concerning release rates from Lake Thurmond, 3600cfs has no significant environmental impact on the river below the lakes.  Colonel Tickner may well do just that.  Time will tell.  He has maintained excellent level control so far but we won't know for sure until we hit a real dry spell similar to the droughts experienced repeatedly over the past decade.

If you wonder whether that kind of level control is unreasonable, look at what the Corps is doing right now.  They are maintaining lake levels to within +/- 6 inches for a couple of months while fish spawning is in progress.

But what if the Colonel ignores recreation the way we have seen in the past.  Then we need a congressman with a willingness to bring this to a stop.  Looking at the congressional race in Georgia there are two gentlemen who could make a real difference.  One is Gary Gerrard who is a no nonsense lawyer.  He has told us that if elected he will make sure lake stakeholders get representation at the meetings where lake levels and release rates are decided by the Corps.  The other is Stephen Simpson who goes even further than that.  He understands the mechanics involved and agrees with our suggested solution to the problem.  Furthermore Stephen has powerful contacts in the army who would be more than willing to help with our problem.  Whether you live in SC or GA do what you can to support one or the other of these.  It would be a shame to have one of the other candidates win because non of them has expressed any concern for or knowledge about our lake problems.

HORRIBLE IMPLICATONS FOR LAKE STAKEHOLDERS

The recent Balancing the Basin from the Corps discusses how deepening the Savannah Harbor may affect salinity levels in the lower reaches of the Savannah River.  This write up includes a very ominous statement from the perspective of Lake Stake Holders.  The statement involved is:

"This monitoring network will allow the Corps to make frequent assessments of river conditions and provide valuable, real-time data they can use to make adaptive management decisions. - See more at: http://balancingthebasin.armylive.dodlive.mil/2014/01/22/riverquality/#more-1392"

At first glance this is innocuous.  But on further inspection the adaptive management decisions mentioned would almost certainly involve release rates from the lakes.  If the Corps tries to dilute the incoming tides from the ocean with water from the Savannah River we will most certainly destroy the recreational infrastructure around the lakes. From an engineering perspective using river flows to dilute the ocean is as futile as using a garden hose to dilute the river. Unfortunately the decisions made in the past on lake releases seldom represent good engineering practice.

As we've stated many times before, balance to the basin can not be expected without strong representation of Lake Stakeholder interests at Corps meetings where release rates are discussed.  If all you have at these meetings is groups trying to dilute salt water from tidal inflows with river water, the adaptive management decisions will always be to release more water from the lakes even if it destroys lake stakeholder interests.

WE JUST COMPLETED MAJOR TEST OF RULE CURVE

The massive rains occurring with Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell down 2' should make it possible to decide on future drawdowns during the winter.  The perspective will vary depending on whether you are a lake stakeholder or environmentalist or stake holder along the lower Savannah River.  At present there are no lake stakeholders involved in the meetings where decisions of this nature are made. Hence decisions are not balanced with respect to lake stakeholder needs. So the purpose of this blog will be to present things from the perspective of the Lake Stakeholder.

In the past the Corps has used a 4' draw down in the winter.  This is not a problem if you come out of the winter with good Spring rainfalls.  However based on the past decade this has been a major problem. Starting out a dry season with the lakes already down 4' has led to severe damage to the recreation infrastructure of both Thurmond and Hartwell.  Two changes are needed if we are to avoid such disasters in the future.  First the draw down needs to be 2' rather than 4' and second the Corps needs to immediately reduce flows anytime lake levels begin to drop. 

From the standpoint of Recreational Infrastructure, a drop of up to 8' in a major drought is acceptable.  But drops in excess of 8' are very destructive.  Keeping the lakes within 2' of full pool during the winter and reducing release rates to maintain level as soon as the lakes start to drop would prevent dropping more than 8' even in the worst drought experienced in the last decade. 

Following is a quick review of how this approach affects the different stakeholders:

• Environmental concerns can be met as long as you do not drop the release rate below 3600cfs.  Holding release rates higher than this simply extends the time the river is in drought condition coming out of the drought which has caused extended problems from an environmental standpoint in the major droughts of the past decade. 
• River stakeholder concerns involve excessive flows under flood conditions and too little flow when recovering from a drought.  The proposal for 2' draw down during the winter should simply swing the balance toward higher flows and less time in a drought whenever we are in a major drought.  Water quality and water supply should be acceptable as long as release rates remain at or above 3,600cfs from Thurmond.

I am not listing how these affect lake stakeholders to emphasize the fact that they are not represented at the meetings where these matters are discussed and decisions on release rates are made.  Until we get representation from someone with a substantial stake in recreation at the Corps meetings where these decisions are made we cannot expect the decisions to be balanced.