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.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
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.
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.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)