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.
