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.