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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Saturday, August 15, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)