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.
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.
