CORPS SUCCESSFUL ON ALL ISSUES EXCEPT RECREATION

I am taking the liberty to copy a recent comment on Balancing the Basin which illuminates the failure of the Corps when it comes to protecting Recreation (meaning the recreational infrastructure around our lakes).  Some editing has been applied for the sake of clarity.

COMMENT POSTED ON MOST RECENT ISSUE OF BALANCING THE BASIN:
The Corps is doing great with all but one of the responsibilities assigned them by congress.

• Power production may not always meet quota but you get as close as possible.
• Water quality and water supply have been demonstrated to be satisfactory with spans in excess of a year at 3600cfs. 
• We have a 3 lake basin but the holding power of the last 2 have been ignored regarding flood holding capacity which gives ample flood protection.
• Protection of environmental concerns is covered well by maintaining releases above 3600cfs.
• Additionally the corps has looked past the worst case scenarios and designed a plan of which basin to destroy first and second and so on when we exceed the drought of record that put us to the bottom of the conservation pool for both Thurmond and Hartwell.

But the Corps, in doing such a superb job on all these concerns has essentially ignored the recreational infrastructure of our basin. These practices have gone to the point of destroying real estate values for homes built on the lake for recreational purposes and discouraged would be developers that would provide still more recreational access to the lakes.  The Corps has stated repeatedly that they respond immediately to any stakeholder objections to the way they are operating the basin.  This is certainly not true for recreation.

TITLE ENGINEER IN CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISLEADING

As an engineer from industry I have been totally taken back by the corps' refusal to incorporate the vast amounts of information gained over the past 15 years  to improve recreation.  With the experience gained over the last 15 years there is more than sufficient data to permit improving recreation by changes to the drought plan without doing harm to the environment or water supplies.

The title of Engineer as used in industry implies constantly using  the best data available to maximize growth of the businesses they are associated with. Growth for the Savannah River Basin is tied to it's recreational infrastructure.  Because of repeated drops in lake level in excess of 14', recreational money, whether parks and campgrounds, the various concessionaires who provide access to the lakes, or real estate built for the purpose of enjoying the recreational aspects of the basin, is going elsewhere. If this were for only a year or two one could reason that more data is needed.  But this has been going on for over 10 years and the Corps is making none of the changes that are obviously safe. Instead they insist on waiting years more to get more data before changing the drought plan. From what I've seen the fact that we haven't already made changes we know to be safe is a bad omen for what they will do after the studies are complete.

I have deliberately left the argument of SEPA power needs out of this discussion because it is such a weak reason that it deserves no consideration:

• The actual increase in cost of power to the consumer is minor when it has to be obtained from other lakes and power sources. 
• Even if the increased cost of power were substantial there is no way to justify obtaining that money by destroying the real estate values of all the people with houses around the lakes.
• SEPA has stated repeatedly that they want the lakes as full as possible because our power is primarily peaking power that comes on line during peak power consumption. That is endangered greatly when we let the lakes drop 14'

CORPS ACTIONS AND WORDS EXPOSE FAILURE TO RESPECT RECREATION

Look at recent publications by the Corps and they show extreme concern for flooding.  This is one of the seven basin issues the corps is charged with protecting.  For example the most recent Balancing the Basin expresses high levels of concern and advance planning because the weather services are predicting high rain levels in the next few months due to unusual warming in the Pacific Ocean.

Look at publications over the past decade and you will see high levels of concern for Hydro Power, Water Quality, Water Supply, and Fish & Wildlife.  Navigation, rightly so, is no longer a major concern and it is seldom spoken of.  The only responsibility the Corps repeatedly ignores is Recreation.

Note that for each of the concerns other than recreation the Corps uses the best information available to guide their actions.  For example nowhere do they propose studies prior to making changes to protect against flooding.

Although the Corps knows full well how to avoid catastrophic drops in lake level they insist they cannot use this information without waiting years for studies.  We have at least 3 times in the past 10 or so years where release rates of 3600cfs proved sufficient for months on end.  The Corps even claims no impact on the environment from this release rate in their published plan for operation should a drought exceed the capacity of the conservation pools for Thurmond and Hartwell. Dropping to this release rate anytime lake levels cannot be maintained at full pool from available rains would go a long way toward protecting the recreational infrastructure at times of drought.

When you look at Corps publications explaining how they maintain all their other responsibilities you see statements to the effect that they seek approval from all the various entities representing hydro power, water quality, water supply, and fish & wildlife.  Not only do they fail to respond to any cries from the recreational infrastructure, the one group excluded from evaluating all their studies is recreation.

When pressed the Corps pleads ignorance concerning how much damage lake levels do to the recreational infrastructure.  They even made feeble attempts to show no financial damage from lake levels more than 10ft below full pool.  Simple logic tells anyone with common sense that low lake levels have a huge financial impact on recreation.  Take for example the numerous retirement communities around our lakes.  If you were retiring and looking for a great place to enjoy your retirement would you go to a lake where your boat dock will be frequently on dry land?  The same logic can be applied to investments in any part of the recreational infrastructure.  And not surprisingly a quick look at the financial health of these shows massive damages from poor drought controls.

Unfortunately our congressmen who could force major improvements for recreation are buying the fallacious claim by the Corps that major studies are needed before they can improve things.  We do not propose blindly changing things just to improve recreation.  We are pleading for the Corps to use the knowledge they have already gained from recent droughts to minimize damages to the recreational infrastructure by droughts.  Still further improvements may be possible from studies but use of existing knowledge is needed to protect recreation until those studies can be completed.

TEST RESULTS IN BUT CONCLUSIONS DEPEND ON WHO INTERPRETS THEM

We just had a major rain event and the lakes only rose 3ft.  That says under similar circumstances, had the lakes been down 2ft, the lakes would have ended up only 1ft above full pool.  This type of real life. full scale test gives beautiful data for deciding how much draw down should be used each winter for our basin.  But the conclusions that are drawn from such a test depend on who is interpreting the results.

If we look at the results from the perspective of downstream environmental interests or in terms of safety factors for water supply and water quality one could conclude the more draw down the better regardless of the results of this test.  If on the other hand you look at the results from the perspective of impact on recreational infrastructure which includes real estate around the lakes you would conclude that 2' draw down looks adequate.

In short our problem is not in having enough data.  Our problem is in whether true balance is provided between lake and downstream interests.  For the past decade the Corps has been vociferous on downstream needs, power quotas, etc. etc.  Repeatedly we are told that if any agency representing downstream interests balks at any action the corps may wish to take that action is abandoned.  We also have heard repeatedly that power production quotas must be met if at all possible.  During this same period of time, although lake interests have been screaming for less drop in lake levels, the corps has made no effort to accommodate those interests. And it has become glaringly obvious that lake interests are not represented when it comes to drought plan decisions.

Another facet of the same problem is the Corps uses the excuse that they need congressional approval for this or that change.  This could be solved by our congressmen helping the corps with their interpretation of the rules.  But our congressmen remain silent on the issue.  Apparently they have more important issues to contend with. Or maybe this is another example of why people have grown totally dissatisfied with the way congress is handling our problems.

WHERE ARE OUR LAKE ADVOCATES???????????

The new colonel stated he is an advocate for lake interests.  Our congressman in both SC and GA claim to be advocates as well.  But we are on the verge of another disaster for lake levels and all that entails. The Corps is doggedly following the plan that has reeked disastrous results for our recreational infrastructure repeatedly over the past 10 to 15 years.  And our congressmen sit idly by while we go into this madness once more. 

Apparently the thinking is we are not in trouble until the lakes drop 10ft or more.  It is true that actual destruction to our recreational infrastructure doesn't occur till then.  But once you drop more than 2' and continue with releases from Thurmond above 3600cfs a drop of over 10ft will occur repeatedly in our current weather pattern.  NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION.  NOT AFTER THE LAKES ARE DOWN APPROACHING 10FT BELOW FULL POOL. Matter of fact action to prevent disastrous lake levels has to occur well before the lakes drop to the levels we are at now.

ITS NOT NICE TO CRITICIZE THE CORPS BUT

We are witnessing a new example of the Corps' total disrespect for the recreational infrastructure of the Savannah River Basin.   Everyone knows that before the Corps can use release rates below normal they feel compelled to get the approval of all downstream stakeholders. Hence in drought conditions the corps seeks approval from all the various stakeholders that might be impacted by low river flows before making such changes.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Corps apparently is concerned about projections for heavier than normal rains this fall and winter.  As a result they are using ridiculous release rates in excess of 5,000cfs in the middle of drought conditions. Why are they not now seeking the approval of all stakeholders that might be impacted by low lake levels.  For example as a lake stakeholder I would like to know what the maximum safe release rate is and would it not be possible to hold off on dropping levels now by using higher release rates earlier in a heavy rain event. 

The main concern from the standpoint of lake stakeholders is what if the projections for heavier than normal rains is incorrect.  What if drought conditions persist. Insanity is doing the same thing that has caused destructive lake levels repeatedly in the past and expecting different results.

CORPS PLANNING FOR POSSIBLE FLOOD LEVELS SHOWS IT CAN BE DONE

In the recent release of Balancing the Basin the Corps goes into great detail about how they really have to stay on their toes or the up coming El Ninio could cause flooding problems.  If the corps would apply the same concern for avoiding the damaging effects of drought we would no longer have disastrous drops in lake levels that destroy the recreational infrastructure for our lakes. 

Actually, protecting against a drought is much simpler than protecting against flooding.  We have years of experience from recent droughts that show a release rate from Lake Thurmond of 3600cfs (3100 in cold months) is not harmful to the environment.  The studies now in progress may show even lower is tolerable.  Never the less we know 3600cfs can be tolerated.  So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that all the Corps needs to do to provide drought protection is decrease release rates as needed to hold lake level until the rate required has dropped to 3600cfs.  At that point hold release rates at 3600cfs until the lakes refill.  In this manner the corps could totally avoid decreases in excess of 10' below full pool during a drought.  That kind of drop, while troublesome, does not spell disaster the way dropping more than 10' does.

The only argument the Corps has presented against this approach is power production quotas. This is like saying you want to destroy millions of dollars in recreational infrastructure and billions of gallons of fresh water simply because you don't want to miss a quota that is worthless compared to these concerns.  In my opinion hydrologic power should be treated the same as wind and solar. All three are renewable power sources.  But unlike wind and solar, the corps is going beyond renewable and using more water than nature is providing in rain. 

New Commander Promises to be Advocate for the Lakes

In a recent news release Col. Marvin Griffin was quoted as saying he plans to be an advocate for the lakes. We read a little deeper to see exactly what was meant in that statement. Unfortunately the word advocate as used by the Colonel differs greatly from the definition a lake stakeholder might have.

To me, as a lake stakeholder, the word advocate would mean to protect the lakes using the best information currently available to avoid future disastrous (to the recreational infrastructure) draw downs of the lakes when droughts occur.  However as used by the Colonel the word advocate means to continue operation as usual ignoring what we've learned from the past several droughts and wait on the results of further studies.

To me as a lake stakeholder the word advocate would mean to give lake stakeholders a voice in interpreting the results of the studies being conducted to define operating guidelines for the future.  However it would appear the Colonel plans to continue leaving the future of the lakes to non stakeholders.  There is a term I've heard since childhood that defines this approach.  It is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

I could go further into what our recommendations would be for someone truly wishing to be an advocate for the lakes.  But all one has to do is look at the past six months of blogs by Save Our Lakes Now.  The logic and reasoning are sound but for some reason the Corps continues to ignore our suggestions.

DROUGHT PLAN IS EXTREMELY WASTEFUL OF FRESH WATER

Tom Selleck was recently fined thousands of dollars because he purchased one truck load of fresh water for his farm in California. Can you imagine what the fine would be if anyone looked at the amount of fresh water the Corps is destroying by releasing it to the ocean. In the eyes of the Corps the lakes are only down 2ft and they are just following orders.  In the eyes of a conservationist they have destroyed over 50billion gals of water by dropping the lakes of the Savannah River basin 2ft.

As long as we have plenty of rain this kind of waste can be easily rectified by refilling the lakes.  But if a drought occurs this is actual waste and there is no way to get the water back. It is now in the ocean and irretrievable. 

As we all know there are other terrible consequences to the recreation and recreational infrastructure when the lakes drop over 10'.  But in this discussion, in view of what is happening in California where similar release plans are in use by the Corps, throwing away fresh water when we don't have to is not good.

I recognize that the corps is only following orders. They have the approved drought plan which permits the release levels currently in use.  And they have power quotas to fill. In talking to the corps they have said many times their hands are tied and if we want things to change we will have to talk to congress and convince them a change is needed. I think everyone would agree however that the corps is in the best position to discuss this with congress. If he were fined for the water he has wasted I think the Colonel would make things change rather quickly. Studies keep being used as an excuse for not making changes now.  But existing experience from recent droughts already shows that reducing releases to 3600cfs is not harmful and that would probably eliminate all the wasted fresh water so far.

HERE WE GO WITH THE CORPS USING TAINTED LOGIC CONCERNING OUR RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE

Looking at the projections for releases from Lake Thurmond one first gets the impression that the corps is doing a great job at balancing the lakes and projected lake levels aren't THAT BAD.  But let's rethink this.  The only reason for releases that are greater than the water nature is providing by rain is power production. Nothing else is at risk. Hydrologic power production is a great thing because it uses renewable energy the same way solar power and wind power do. But, and this is a major but, water is not renewable when you use more than nature is providing. A prime example is what happened out West with major cities in trouble on their water supply.

Aside from power production the other thing that can get you in trouble is unrealistic environmental concerns which are not a problem for our basin at this time.

Save Our lakes Now would like to see the Corps rethink their drought management plan.  We propose that first off power quotas be overruled by whether those levels of production will require more water to be released than nature is providing from rain. We recognize this has a paper cost to it but in reality the actual increase in cost to power users is far less than the dollar cost of destroying the recreational infrastructure (campgrounds, marinas, businesses connected with the lakes, real estate values for homes on the lake, etc.) around our lakes.  Second we propose that lake levels be maintained at full pool as long as that can be done with the minimum release rate demonstrated to be safe to the environment over the last 15 years (3600cfs in hot months and 3100cfs in cold months).

There are numerous reasons we can cite as to why we think this is a better approach than currently being used by the Corps.  But just the preservation of fresh water should be sufficient to support our argument.  Fresh water is more valuable than gold.  Just ask the people in California who are struggling to get by because the rivers and lakes there were allowed to drop to drastic levels using unrealistic thinking about protecting the environment and wasteful releases of water to the sea (most people don't stop and think but the water released from our dams is being destroyed as fresh water because it is going directly to the sea).

CURRENT RELEASE PRACTICES DOCUMENT THAT OUR PROPOSALS WORK

Save Our Lakes Now has pleaded for a drought plan that keeps the lakes as full as possible.  The way releases have been handled recently demonstrate that this approach is feasible.  Basically all we have been saying is hold lake levels at full pool as long as release rates do not drop below the minimum value (3600cfs) that has been demonstrated to be safe during the past decade.  We do not need to wait until further studies of drought management have been done to justify this approach.  With regard to release rates the purpose of  studies is to determine more precisely what the lowest acceptable release rate is for the future.

The beauty of this approach is:

• flows in the river basically match what nature has been doing for eons with the exception that the extremes of nature which can have devastating effects are avoided (eg. no flows below 3600 cfs which we know we can live with).
• lake levels should remain within 10ft of full pool even in extreme conditions.  And a drop of 10ft, while undesirable from an esthetic stand point, do not destroy the recreational infrastructure for the lakes.
• fresh water which is truly more valuable than gold (eg. look at what is happening in California) is preserved to the maximum extent possible.

While power production quotas may be missed for the Savannah River Basin, power at basically the same price will still be available from the power grid.  One way to look at power production is that hydropower is a renewable source of energy like wind and solar. As such hydropower should only be expected when nature provides adequate rain.  As with wind and solar, when nature doesn't cooperate you need to look to other sources of power production rather than destroy precious fresh water.

COMMON MISCONCEPTION ABOUT LAKE LEVELS VS LAKE INTERESTS

Looking back over numerous conversations back and forth on the comments section of Balancing the Basin it appears there may be a major misunderstanding about what Save Our Lakes Now is suggesting concerning drought management.  Our suggestion is to hold lake levels constant as long as release rates can be maintained at 3600cfs or higher.  Once 3600cfs is reached, our suggestion is to continue 3600cfs for the duration of the drought to minimize the total impact on lake interests.

Looking more closely at the objections to this there seems to be an underlying argument from naysayers that this will only help a little in terms of minimum levels reached.  What seems to be misunderstood is we are only asking for a little help. Following this strategy until the drought is over the drop in lake level should be less than 10'.  While a drop of 10' is not desirable, it is not disastrous.  Launching ramps are still useable, marina problems are minimal, recreation is still possible, and impact on property values is tolerable. 

Again, we feel lake interests are not adequately consulted on drought measures.  We are not asking to destroy downstream interests.  We are simply suggesting a better compromise between the various options available.  The primary challenge to this approach is it would impact power quotas more. We feel strongly that the value of fresh water saved and recreational dollars salvaged far outweigh the impact on power costs to the consumer.  Power quotas need to be weighed against real costs to recreation and not just followed blindly.

THIS COULD HAPPEN HERE

Jerry Clontz sent a copy of this article from Michael Reagan about what is happening to the water out West.  One irony we note is the powers that be have not yet realized that release rates from the reservoirs have a major effect here.  This could well be prophetic about the SRB unless we do a better job of balancing releases against rain fall. 


California is running out of water. The Bible, in Matthew 5:45, says the rain falls on the just and the unjust and the same goes for the drought. According to Jay Famiglietti, a senior water scientist at NASA: “NASA data reveal that total water storage in California has been in steady decline since at least 2002, when satellite-based monitoring began, although groundwater depletion has been going on since the early 20th century.”

And last winter’s “rainy season” didn’t help much either. January was the driest since people started collecting raindrops in 1895. Famiglietti adds that all the water currently stored in the state — “snow, river, and reservoir water, water in soils and groundwater combined — was 34 million acre-feet below normal in 2014. That loss is nearly 1.5 times the capacity of Lake Mead, America's largest reservoir.”

Since farmers can’t depend on the clouds for crop moisture, they’ve increased groundwater pumping and as a result in the Central Valley land is literally sinking, in some areas by as much as a foot. You may be thinking that’s planning ahead; when it finally starts to rain, farmer Jones will have a lake. But that’s not how it works. And no one is predicting rain.

In his Los Angeles Times piece, Famiglietti wisely resists the temptation to blame the drought on global warming, which made him much more credible in my book. His first recommendation is to begin mandatory water rationing throughout the state. After that he loses me.

Famiglietti wants to add to the state’s bureaucracy by creating “regional groundwater sustainability agencies” that will adopt plans. Then he wants a task force to “brainstorm” long-term water management strategies.

Then we really part company. His final recommendation is: “Finally, the public must take ownership of this issue. This crisis belongs to all of us — not just to a handful of decision-makers.” This is completely wrong. California is a democracy and for the past 40 years elected officials have done zero planning for long-term drought and have not built a new dam or reservoir since 2000.

I’m certainly willing to do my part and ration my use of water until the rain comes again. But I have no intention of accepting responsibility for the inaction and inability to set priorities demonstrated by state water authorities and elected officials.

CORPS UNINTENTIONALLY FOLLOWING OUR RECOMMENDED DROUGHT PLAN

The spawning season is upon us and the corps is reducing releases from Thurmond to as little as 3800cfs to hold lake levels within 1/2 foot in level variation.  This demonstrates the feasibility of what we have been saying all along in terms of how to protect the recreational infrastructure around the lakes.

It is ironic that the corps does not feel protecting recreation is as important as protecting fish spawning.  The only variable that is impacted by protecting recreation in the same manner as fish and wildlife protection during the spawning season is power  production. This to us is a horrible flaw in the way our basin is being managed.  Following are a few examples of why we feel power production needs to take a back seat to all the other things the corps is charged with protecting.

• Everyone understands and accepts that wind power and solar power are dependent on nature.  The same is true of hydro power. Any attempt to generate more power than nature permits from rain is destructive.  Doing so is like spending more money than you make.  It will eventually lead to bankruptcy.
• Fresh water is an extremely valuable entity.  Once you have too little to supply the water needed by downstream users it is too late to correct the situation. Cities out west already understand this because of poor management of water resources. They realize fresh water is more valuable than gold.  Yet here the corps seems to ignore this fact and throws water willy nilly to the sea using the excuse of reduced power costs.
• Recreation is not just inconveniencing fishermen or decreasing the attractiveness of corps campgrounds.  Recreation includes all the infrastructure such as marinas and lake side real estate.  It not only involves existing infrastructure but also future developments like Tan Tara on Lake of the Ozarks where people can get away for a vacation at the lake.  Any number of hotels looking for a site to build have gone elsewhere because of our wild fluctuations in lake level.

What makes more sense is to limit power contracts to what is available from nature without dropping lake levels.  Once you do that recreation and all the other responsibilities the corps has can be satisfied using the same approach the corps is currently using to protect spawning.

PROPOSED DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

We are coming into the Spring and Summer of 2015 with full lakes and the prospect of a fantastic setting for recreational activities throughout the basin.  Additionally there is a vibrant new feeling in the air for the future of real estate and business connected with recreational activity on the lakes.  New development money is flowing into both Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell. And as these develop the same thing will happen in succession for Lake Russell.  At present, because of the lack of a rational drought plan for the basin, the future success of these developments hinges to a large degree on how much rain nature has in store for our area.  This does not have to be. 

Following is a very conservative drought plan based on actual data and experience published by the Corps.  All concerns expressed by the various parties connected with managing the basin are met with this plan.  Further studies in progress may demonstrate that even further deviations from the current drought plan would be acceptable.  But the plan as presented does not require further study to prove it will work and provide good balance to all aspects of managing the basin.

Our proposed plan is:

·       Minimum release rates, until current studies show even lower rates are possible, should be maintained at 3,600cfs from Thurmond Dam

·       Maintain the same degree of flood storage space in late fall and early winter that was demonstrated to be adequate when only Thurmond was in place.  Since 4’ below full pool was adequate before Hartwell and Russell were built, 2’ is now equivalent storage due to the added space provided by Hartwell and Russell. 

·       Observing these limits for release rates and storage space, use the same degree of control demonstrated during last year’s spawning season to hold lake levels within a few inches of full pool.

 

There have been numerous claims purporting that our suggested drought plan would do damage to various aspects of the basin the corps is charged with protecting.  These arguments are overly protective.  We can show that they are baseless using simple logic and the vast amount of information gathered over the past 15 years of operation of Lake Thurmond.  For example:

·       Nature is an excellent manager of wild life, both flora and fauna.  Variation in river flows is actually beneficial compared to trying to hold the river at a constant level.  The exceptions to this are the extremes of severe drought and floods.  Keeping release rates to the river from Thurmond at or above 3600cfs protects against severe drought and lowering the lakes 2’ in late fall and early winter is adequate to protect against severe flooding.

·       Water quality from the stand point of drinking water supplies has repeatedly been acceptable with extended operation at 3600cfs.

·       Water quality from the stand point of dissolved oxygen (DO) is worst as you reach the lower stretches of the river.  DO measured at CLYO, which is the closest sampling point to the harbor, shows that release rates of 3600cfs do not significantly affect DO.  As far as the harbor is concerned, inflows from ocean tides are on the order of 10X the flows from the river.  Hence DO in the harbor is controlled by the ocean rather than the river.

·       Water Supply proved adequate during extended operation at 3600cfs in the past.

·       Hydro Power is like all other forms of renewable energy.  The quantity of power will vary with weather conditions.  Hence trying to maintain release rates in excess of what weather provides is counter to the very nature of renewable power sources.

·       The economics of Hydro Power do not justify destroying lake levels to hold up power production.  First SEPA has 8 basins they draw from and seldom are all in drought at the same time.  Hence low power from our area can easily be made up from increased power production from the other areas.  Besides, the monetary losses to recreational concerns (includes all the homes built on the lakes for the purpose of recreation) when lake levels fall 10’ or more, far exceeds the gains in power production costs.

If you are talking to your congressmen or corps management, do not hesitate to quote our thinking on drought management for the Savannah River Basin.  Should you find they don’t agree with our thinking, invite them to publish their arguments the same way we have so everyone can see the two sides to this argument.

LAKE LEVELS LOOKING GOOD FOR THIS SPRING

In spite of poor practices in managing the Savannah River Basin it looks like we are in for a great year with lake levels at full pool.  Normally congratulations would be due to the group managing the Basin but none are due the corps.  Their management technique is analogous to a driver running every stop sign with no thought about the potential for a wreck. Eventually wrecks are unavoidable and the severity can be devastating.

All one has to do to see the validity of this analogy is to look at the devastating droughts that have occurred over the last 12 or so years.  Although the recreation infrastructure was virtually destroyed each time the corps has adamantly refused to use the lessons gained to modify the drought plan. 

Although our tax dollars help pay their salaries we cannot find a way to change their reckless behavior. We can only hope that they will decide to provide balance to all stakeholders some time in the future.  Some of the other river basins in the South East are managed in a manner that protects recreation along with all other interests.  We can only hope that some day we will find a commander who will help bring that kind of balance to our basin.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)