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.