WHAT GOOD LAKE MANAGEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE

Up to now we have simply quoted back to the Corps of Engineers what their own guidelines say for protecting recreation interests with a more reasonable drought plan.  Now that a new administration is taking charge let's take a quick look at real protection for Lakes Thurmond, Hartwell, and Russell. The basis for said protection is ending the horrific waste of fresh water and maintaining the lakes as full as possible.  At present the Corps is going at this backwards and we come close to destroying our lakes every few years as droughts occur.

To end this repeated destruction let's try a different approach:

• Tighten or eliminate the discharge of harmful pollutants to the Savannah River from all the plants below Augusta, GA. Instead of simply pumping pollutants produced by these plants directly to the river, use basic Chemical and Civil Engineering to get the levels to the point that the water is still useable downstream even during extreme droughts. As an example modern day sewage plants release potable water through such measures.
• Use the same guidelines for hydro power generation that are used for wind and solar.  Said power should be dependent on rain supply.
• Store water as necessary and modify take off points from the Savannah River for cities downstream to ensure adequate water supply in severe droughts.
• Stop trying to artificially improve on nature with controlled river flows that exceed rain inputs. Benefit to people should be the basis (eg. flood control) rather than trying to protect some plant or animal even when such protection is damaging to the public.

Using this approach would allow us to keep our lakes basically full at all times and prevent the damaging effects of ridiculous EPA or power production guidelines. Not only would this approach benefit the Savannah River Basin but it would eliminate the horrible disasters being experienced with lakes out West.

WHERE ARE OUR POLITCIANS NOW THAT THE LAKES ARE DOWN AGAIN

Apparently our politicians who vociferously protested the low lake levels a couple of years ago are not aware that this is happening again.  Perhaps they are too tied up with the upcoming elections. I suggest we all contact them and make them aware that the Corps has once again refused to decrease release rates in time to help avoid drastic drops in lake levels.  They need to hear how bad the levels are.  They need to hear that all the excuses the Corps used to use as to why they could not decrease release rates sooner have been debunked. At one time the Corps used to try to confuse the politicians with 10 excuses.  One by one we have shown these don't hold water (pun intended).

CHALLENGE TO CORPS CONCERNING LAKE LEVELS

FOLLOWING IS A COMMENT PLACED ON THE RECENT BALANCING THE BASIN.  IT IS PERTINENT TO THE PROBLEMATIC DROUGHT PLAN THE CORPS INSISTS ON USING AND MIRRORS THE THOUGHTS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW:

The Corps with their work following hurricane Matthew has once again demonstrated their capability to do the job well.  If they would now address the yo yo lake levels that keep destroying the reputation of the SRB from the stand point of recreation they could again claim a great victory.  All the impediments are now out of the way.  Past experience from droughts have demonstrated that 3600cfs is safe to downstream interests and SEPA admits they do not need the corps to hit the arbitrary power quotas which are based on normal rainfall.  Now all the Corps needs to do is take charge and decrease release rates to 3600cfs (lower may be possible after the drought study is complete) anytime the lakes can not be maintained at full pool. We look forward to that time.

CORPS CLAIM ABOUT HAVING TO MEET SEPA QUOTAS IS NOT TRUE

Common knowledge from multiple sources have assured us that SEPA can live with whatever  gallons per second is forecasted by USACE.  In the past we have had excuses of environmental impact, dissolved oxygen levels in the harbor, industrial needs for water, etc. etc. causing the Corps to follow the current drought plan.  One by one we have eliminated these excuses by talking to the experts on these subjects and as a result the only excuse the Corps now has for not dropping to 3600cfs when the lakes start down is power quotas with SEPA.

We knew from the past that top management from SEPA told colonel Kertis when he was commander of the SRB that they preferred the lakes remain as full as possible so they could call on us for peaking power at times of large demand.  We know that because we were sitting in the room with Colonel Kertis when he called SEPA.  We never anticipated then that the corps would finally end up with power quotas as their only excuse or we would have done more with that statement when Kertis was here.  Since the corps is now blaming their refusal to reduce release rates to 3600cfs when the lakes start down on power quotas, we did further research on SEPA's needs. We now have found that SEPA can live with whatever release rates the Corps needs to use.

As you all know recreation is one of the issues congress has told the Corps they need to protect.  Anyone knowledgeable about our lakes knows that recreation includes all the homes built on the banks of the lakes, concessionaires such as the marinas who give access to the lakes, and the ability for the population at large to come here to enjoy all the various water sports.  We need to demand that the corps finally do their job and protect recreation.  When they use SEPA as their excuse we now know that is not a valid reason to keep destroying our lakes.

TIME FOR ACTION ON DROUGHT PLAN

In the past after the lakes were down more than 10 ft we've seen both Governors and all our congressmen do photo ops at the lakes and call for the Corps to be more reasonable in their management of the lakes.  At that time the Corps had so many excuses for not changing the drought plan that they created an impenetrable fog of excuses and our politicians were convinced to wait for results of a major study before any changes could be made.

Since that time we have eliminated all the excuses except meeting power quotas. Basically the Corps is justifying destroying billions of gallons of fresh water and destroying the recreational infrastructure of our lakes because they "WANT TO" meet their power quotas.  But if you look closely at what is involved that makes no sense. 

• SEPA depends on our lakes for peaking power, not daily quotas. 
• When you look at the impact on our recreational infrastructure from the horrible reputation we have due to poor lake level control it is far greater than any potential savings to the customer base of SEPA. 
• Simple logic says it is foolish to destroy any more fresh water (it all ends up in the ocean as salt water) than you really need to.
• All other forms of renewable energy are limited to the laws of nature.  When the sun doesn't shine solar power falls short.  When there is no wind, wind power falls short.  It only makes sense that hydropower should be treated the same because we have no way to produce water other than from rain.

In my opinion it is time for our politicians to wake up and come to our rescue.  Please contact your congressman and your governor to let them know we need help now before the lakes are destroyed once again by foolish management practices. Technically what needs to happen now is for the Corps to immediately fall back to 3600cfs release rate any time the lakes fall below full pool.  That release rate has been stated by the corps to have no significant environmental impact based on the many times we've actually operated at that level in past droughts. Hopefully the studies in progress will permit even lower release rates as long as we don't lock ourselves in due to power quotas.

COMMENTS RECENTLY POSTED ON BALANCING THE BASIN

For those of you who are not reading the balancing the basin posts by the Corps, you may find a comment just submitted by Jerry Clontz to the latest posting of interest:

Jerry Clontz ·

University of Virginia

What justification does the Corps use for releasing more than 3600cfs from Thurmond with the lakes down and not enough rain to match releases? If power quotas are the only justification, how can you justify the destruction of billions of gallons of fresh water and the massive financial losses incurred by the recreational infrastructure as we continue to have a reputation of poor lake level control? Assuming you quote financial losses that would occur from missing your power quotas, please give the actual increase in power cost SEPA would expect had we held back to 3600cfs releases.

CURRENT STUDY WILL BE NO BENEFIT TO RECREATION UNLESS THE CORPS RETHINKS POWER PRODUCTION QUOTAS.

As long as the Corps holds to their current thinking on meeting power production quotas there is no hope of avoiding devastating damage to recreation from droughts regardless of how the current drought control studies play out.  This becomes obvious when you look at the refusal by the corps to drop releases to 3600cfs because of its impact on power production. We already know from repeated operation of months on end that the system will tolerate 3600cfs but the Corps refuses to drop releases to 3600cfs at the outset of a drought. Their reasoning is this would prevent them from meeting their power quotas. Hence even if the current studies show less than 3600cfs can be tolerated by the environment, Corps power quotas will prevent us benefiting from this information.

The basic problem is insistence on using more water than nature provides to produce power.  Wind and solar are both limited to what nature provides.  We need to do the same with hydropower to prevent wasting valuable reserves of fresh water and destruction to our recreational infrastructure.  Somehow we need to get congress and/or the corps thinking the same way. Simply limiting power production to the amount of water provided by rain would go a long way toward protecting our recreational infrastructure and it would prevent the horrendous waste of fresh water reserves that happens currently.

CORPS DROUGHT PLAN MATHMATICALLY ILLOGICAL

Save Our Lakes Now has repeatedly pleaded with the Corps to drop release rates to 3600cfs when lake levels can no longer be held at full pool.  The Corps adamantly refuses to do so and we repeatedly dive into devastating drops in lake levels that destroy the recreational infrastructure of our lakes.  When pressed on why they refuse, the rational comes down to meeting power quotas.  The Corps has stated repeatedly that there is no detrimental environmental impact from reducing releases to 3600 which leaves power production as the only variable they are protecting.

When you look at the logic of refusing to drop to 3600cfs at the beginning of a drought rather than wait until the lakes are already down more than 4', it really doesn't make sense.  The reason often given is they don't want the river to have to sustain release rates as low as 3600cfs any longer than necessary and they want to generate as much power as possible.  But they are actually extending the length of time at 3600 because the lakes end up much lower in level at the end of the drought which means it takes longer for them to refill.

It is obvious the current drought plan is a failure.  It is also obvious we can go to 3600cfs much quicker than the plan calls for.  Why then does the Corps insist on continuing to follow a failed plan. It has been suggested that the Corps has to follow the water manual.  But surely the Corps would have no problem convincing the powers that be to modify the plan based on what we've learned over the past 15 years.

SUMMARY OF DISCONNECT WITH THE CORPS

The corps keeps mentioning that they follow the water manual exactly.  And in the most recent BALANCING THE BASIN they mention that they are evaluating a number of plans for improving the drought plan.  To the casual observer our insistence on changes in the way they operate appear unjustified.

But, we have over 15 years of experience with numerous droughts and there is a lot of knowledge that was gained from those.  For example we know for a fact that the system can withstand release rates from Thurmond Dam of only 3600cfs because we have operated for many months at that release rate. What Save Our Lakes Now is saying is why not take the information we have already learned and apply it now. Why wait for the completion of further studies before incorporating what we have already learned.

So our recommendation is once the lakes cannot be held at full pool due to drought conditions we should go to 3600cfs release rate from Thurmond and adjust flows from Hartwell in a fashion that keeps both lakes in balance.  Based on the experience gained in many droughts this should keep the lakes within 8 to 10 ft of full pool even with the worst droughts we've experienced. SEPA who insists that Thurmond hydropower is primarily for peaking power would be protected against losing that ability.  Water quality and supply and fish and wildlife can survive this release rate. And the recreational infrastructure can basically handle drops of 8 to 10 ft in lake level. The time at 3600 should be better this way in a severe drought since the time to recover to full pool is decreased to a minimum.

Those of you who read Balancing the Basin may want to ask in a comment why the corps refuses to use what they have already learned and protect the recreational infrastructure.  Don't be surprised if they answer with double talk because the Corps simply does not feel they are responsible for protecting the recreational infrastructure. They seem to think it is simply whether fishermen can fish and whether boaters can put their boats in the water.  They ignore the many people who have made huge investments in building homes along the lake for the purposes of recreation and they ignore the marinas, dock builders, etc. who are an integral part of the recreational infrastructure.

CORPS VS COMMENTS ON BALANCING BASIN INTERESTING

Recent comments and the back and forth with the Corps on their posting, Balancing the Basin, are illuminating. 
Comment:
When fish and wildlife or water quality or water supply are threatened the Corps takes immediate steps to protect them. But when lake levels drop precipitously and the recreational infrastructure is threatened the Corps makes no effort to protect recreation.

Response:
The Corps responded that the comment was erroneous because they never make any changes from the guidelines in their water manual.

Just addressing that one back and forth we can see the Corps blindly follows the water manual regardless of what it may do to recreation. "I was just following orders" is an old and very lame excuse.  To an objective bystander the obvious thing to do is to get the orders changed if they are doing damages to someone.  Apparently it has never occurred to the Corps that all they would have to do is discuss changes they see are needed with Congress and the manual could be changed.

LEOPARD HAS FINALLY SHONE HIS SPOTS

We watched and watched to see if our new Colonel was truly a lake advocate as he claimed coming in.  Now it is obvious he is not.  Since early in June our release rates have been ridiculous when you consider the inflows.  The amount of fresh water being thrown away is unforgiveable.  Further we see no justification for such releases other than possibly meeting SEPA quotas.

This writer sees power production quotas that cause releases in excess of inflows as unjustifiable. First there are many other lakes that are not in drought conditions where SEPA can obtain hydro power.  And second any savings in power costs obtained in this manner come at the expense of our recreational infrastructure.  Just the financial impact on real estate values exceeds any money that may be saved in this manner. How can one justify cost savings to SEPA at the cost of the many people who own homes around the lakes. 

The Corps claims incorrectly that lake levels do not impact real estate.  Rather than look at the impact on lake side real estate they did a study that looked at the impact on whole counties.  Additionally their studies did not take into account the lag time involved for real estate values to recover from a drought when these occur repeatedly over a 10 year time period.

APPARENTLY I SPOKE TOO SOON

It appears Colonel Griffin is not the Lake Advocate we were hoping for.  The release rates from Thurmond are being increased to 4800cfs with the lakes starting to drop significantly.  Why anyone feels that is necessary is beyond my comprehension:

• there's not a river anywhere that doesn't have widely varying flows so amount of water to the river is not a valid reason
• increasing the release rates to 4800cfs does nothing for dissolved oxygen to Augusta or in the harbor
• fish and wildlife do just fine at 3600cfs
• water supply to cities downstream is OK at 3600 cfs based on past experience
• water quality was never a problem at 3600 cfs in the past
• navigation and flood control are not effected

Based on these observations the only responsibility assigned the corps that may benefit is power production.  But that is a non plus situation when you realize that SEPA can get power at the same cost from other lakes in the grid or at slightly elevated cost from other sources.  Besides it is ridiculous to save a few pennies on power at the expense of huge costs to the people who built homes along side the lake for the purpose of recreation.  It's just not fair for one group to suffer great losses for minor gains to another group.

Perhaps the greatest rationale against increasing releases to 1,200 cfs above the rates demonstrated to be safe in the past is the huge waste of fresh water.  Everywhere else people seem to think conserving fresh water is extremely important.  I've even seen waterless urinals (gee I think that was at the Corps headquarters at the Thurmond dam) designed to cut down on waste of fresh water. There are no urinals that can compare to the huge waste represented by 1,200cfs which equals 103,680,000 cubic foot a day. Ask the people of California what they think about this.  Similar behavior by groups like the Savannah District Corps is what caused their recent water crisis.

FINALLY

The new Colonel with the Corps of Engineers announced when he came on board that he was a lake advocate.  Apparently he really is. We have experienced unprecedented release rates of 3800cfs from Lake Thurmond (3600 or 3800 cfs release rate, depending on who you talk to, is minimum demonstrated to have no significant environmental impact) for 9 days now and our lakes are within a foot of full pool even though we are experiencing a drought. I personally would like to thank Colonel Marvin Griffin for making this happen.  I did a little research and found his email address.  It is sas.cesas-de@usace.army.mil.

The Savannah River Basin with its 3 lakes has always been an excellent spot for recreational interests.  But the repeated droughts since the turn of the century has taken a huge toll on our reputation.  It may take 2 to 3 years to recover but finally we have someone in Savannah who understands and appears to be willing to make this happen.

New Colonel Is Breaking With Past Practices

We have been watching with the hope that our new Colonel is truly a lake advocate. In the past when our lakes started down there was no attempt to protect recreation until the lakes dropped 4ft. Monday, although the lakes are within a foot of full pool, the Corps is dropping release rates from Lake Thurmond to very near the minimum demonstrated to be acceptable downstream (3800cfs vs 3600cfs).  This is a much appreciated change from past practices where release rates remained unchanged until the lakes dropped 4' and even then release rates from Lake Thurmond were only dropped to 4200cfs.

Up to now we suspected the Corps might be changing to protecting recreation with better level control but there was no way to know for sure because the lakes are always held at a near constant level during spawning season.  As I understand it spawning season is over yet we continue to see an effort to hold our lake levels as high as possible.

I personally would like to thank the Corps hoping this is a true read of their intentions. The sky is the limit as to what this can mean for the growth of this area in a couple of years once the public impression of our lakes improves.

WE ARE ABOUT TO SEE WHAT THE COLONEL MEANS BY LAKE ADVOCATE

We have now entered into the months where recreation really matters.  Our new Colonel has indicated he is a lake advocate and we are about to see what he means by that.  First we assume that means recreation will become a protected entity just as water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, flood control, and hydro power are.  All of these are responsibilities given to the Corps for running our lake system but in the past recreation has been basically ignored.

When lake levels drop more than 10ft it virtually destroys recreation and the recreational infrastructure.  The reasons are simple.  Vacationers go to other lakes when they see a history of levels this low.  As with anything, when you get burned a few times you avoid that fire.  As a result existing concessionaires who allow access to the lakes go out of business or stop expanding and any further concessionaires who may be looking at providing recreation at our lakes go elsewhere. Additionally the homes built beside the lake become unattractive and real estate values plummet.

When Save Our Lakes Now started looking into how to reverse this situation, we were given a bunch of excuses as to why the Corps could not decrease release rates below guide curve levels.

• first the short nosed sturgeon was endangered and we could not possibly drop below guide curve release rates because they might not find spawning grounds. 
• Then some kind of lily in the Augusta rapids was being eaten by deer when too much rock was exposed. 
• Then we were assured that water quality would become unsatisfactory
• Then we were assured water supply would be too low
• Then we were assured that oxygen supply in the harbor would drop below acceptable levels
• Then we were told the Corps' hands were tied by the various groups such as fish and wildlife who would not allow the corps to drop release rates below guide curve levels.
• We were told SEPA (South Eastern Power Association) insisted on holding to the guide curve release rates.

One by one we have eliminated these excuses but through last year the Corps has refused to change from the published guide curves which were destroying recreation repeatedly.  Without going into great detail we have eliminated all these excuses.  If anyone desires I will be glad to do into detail in a follow up blog but to cover them all would take several pages of explanation which is beyond what we want to do with this blog.

Our picture of what a true lake advocate would do is to drop release rates to 3600cfs, which has been demonstrated time and time again to not have an adverse impact on the environment or water supply etc., anytime the lakes drop below full pool.  Doing so, all the various concerns of the Corps would be met and the lakes should stay within 10ft of full pool thus protecting recreation.  The one remaining issue expressed by the Corps is they would not be able to meet their quotas for power supply.  From talking to SEPA we are part of a much bigger system and seldom are all the lakes in the system in drought so they could make up our lost power from hydropower obtained elsewhere.  Besides, the increased cost of power to the consumer if it comes from somewhere other than hydropower is peanuts compared to the losses to our recreational infrastructure and lack of development of neighboring communities. 

THANKS DUE TO CORPS I THINK?????

Save Our Lakes Now represents the interests of lake stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin.  In that capacity we would like to complement the new Colonel for not dropping the lakes 4' as they normally do in the winter months.  In the past the corps has prided themselves in honoring all pleas for protecting the various stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin.  But this was with one notable exception. All pleas, even screams for mercy from lake stakeholders, never brought about any modification to Corps plans.

This year we pleaded that the Corps reevaluate their need to drop the lakes 4' for cold weather months when runoff from rains can cause large increases in lake level relative to warm weather months.  We pointed out that a 2' drop now was the same as a 4' drop before Lake Hartwell.  But we were met with a lackluster response of "we may look into that but don't expect any changes to the rule curve".

Without any fanfare the lakes were held at 2' below full pool.  We can only hope this means we finally have an advocate in Savannah. 

This year, with one further change, we can begin to come out of a horrible reputation in the recreation community.  That change would be to hold lake levels at full pool as long as release rates are greater than or equal to 3600cfs.  This change would stay within release rates demonstrated to be tolerable downstream and, according to many experts in the field of environmental protection and fish and wildlife, the variation in flows would more closely approximate nature without her damaging extremes. 

One of the Corps assignments from congress is to protect the recreational infrastructure.  That has been largely ignored up to now.  In a couple of years the change in winter lake levels and holding the lakes as close to full pool as possible should let the recreational infrastructure blossom into a thing of beauty.  Real estate values of homes built on the lake, businesses associated with recreation and the overall attraction of this area from the standpoint of recreation will improve exponentially as confidence in our lakes from the standpoint of recreation returns.  All one has to do is look at what happens in other water recreation areas such as The Grand Stand along the coast of South Carolina or the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri to see what can happen.

LAKE ADVOCATE?

I watch lake levels daily.  Numerous times since the turn of the century we have entered drought conditions coming out of the winter with the lakes down 4'.  The lakes were down 4' because the guide curve for lake levels was being followed religiously as if change from that guide would be a mortal sin.  With that as a starting point and following the drought protection plan currently in use, the recreational infrastructure for the lakes of the Savannah River System were virtually destroyed as the lakes dropped more than 10' below normal fill repeatedly.  The destruction was obvious at all our Campgrounds, marinas, homes built along the lakes, and numerous lake driven businesses.  Claims that this destruction was necessary to protect fish and wildlife, endangered species, the cost of power for SEPA, water quality, water supply were greatly overstated.  And cries from lake advocates for a more reasonable approach to drought control were ignored.

One of the first measures lake advocates have pleaded for was to minimize the drop in lake levels over the winter months.  Lake advocates pointed out that the flood storage capacity of our system was now twice what it was when the guide curve was put in place.  It seemed no one was listening.  Now we have a glimmer of hope that someone may actually be listening because the lake levels have been held to only a 2' drop instead of the 4' drop specified in the guide curve.  If that be true we are truly grateful to whoever is responsible.

For the record our other pleas are similarly rational.  We ask that once lake levels can no longer be maintained at full pool the release rate from Thurmond be dropped to 3600cfs instead of the current drought plan values which have repeatedly destroyed our lake levels.  All one has to do to recognize this as a reasonable request is to look at the fact that these measures match what nature has demonstrated to be adequate plus a huge safety factor.  Before the dams, river flows often dropped to 1500cfs or lower and the system survived.  During recent droughts 3600cfs has been repeatedly shown to be safe to the system.  Fish and wildlife, water quality, water supply, etc. all survive just fine.  And the cost of power incurred is minor compared to the cost involved in destroying our recreational infrastructure.

There is a group out of NC that is heavily involved in managing lake releases there.  And what they have found is occasional low release rates similar to our 3600cfs are actually beneficial to environmental concerns.  This group was silenced when they offered to help with our basin and our current guidelines stubbornly held to even though they repeatedly have destroyed our system.  Any attempts to use more reasonable drought guidelines have been held at bay by insisting that we ignore what we already know to be safe and wait years for the results of experimental testing.  These tests are far less reliable than the full system experiences gained since 2002.  Assuming we finally have someone listening we are hopeful that some of the other measures we've been recommending will finally be incorporated. 

DROUGHT PROTECTION FOR RECREATION IS NO MORE DIFFICULT THAN FLOOD PROTECTION

The past several weeks the Corps has demonstrated their expertise at level control for our lakes.  Through their skill serious flooding and expensive damages downstream of our lakes was avoided. 
If the same expertise were applied to drought protection for the recreational infrastructure (which is a responsibility assigned to the Corps by congress just as flood protection is), damages could be kept to a minimum.  What Save Our Lakes Now has been pleading for since the first major drought this century is for the corps to use their skills in minimizing drops in lake level during a drought the same way they minimize increases in lake level during periods of excessive rains.

What many hear is that we want the corps to ignore what is happening downstream in a drought and hold the lakes full.  That is not at all what we are saying.  Just as the Corps recognizes an increase of 5' above full pool is manageable without damages downstream we recognize that a drop in lake level of less than 10' below full pool is manageable without destroying the recreational infrastructure for the lakes. 

During flood conditions lake level becomes the controlling factor such that all changes are designed to stay within 5' of full pool.  During drought conditions lake level is only a secondary concern.  Instead of trying to stay above a 10' drop below full pool, the drought plan becomes a complicated series of release rate adjustments aimed at minimizing the appearance of a drought downstream and further complicated with power generation quotas that basically save pennies on the price of power supplied by SEPA at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals owning homes around the lake and millions of dollars to the overall recreation infrastructure of the basin. So far as water quality, water supply, and environmental concerns, past experience shows they can be satisfied as long as release rates are held at least at 3600cfs.  We know that from the survey done by the Corps following the 2008 drought of record when the Corps surveyed all stakeholders to see if a further drop to 3100cfs would be a problem.  The responses from downstream interests (eg. water supply for Savannah, Fish and Wildlife, industries below Augusta including SRP and Plant Vogel) came back that they were not experiencing any insurmountable problems at 3600 and further reductions in flow should be acceptable.  So all we ask is for the Corps to hold the lakes at full pool until release rates drop below 3600cfs, then hold at 3600cfs until the lakes return to full pool.

The studies being done are not needed to know that 3600cfs is safe.  That has been demonstrated repeatedly in several droughts since the turn of the century.  The purpose of these studies should be to determine if even further reductions to release rates during a drought are practical.

So far as whether to drop the lakes 2' or 4' for the winter, we simply ask that the corps use the same level of concern for drought conditions that they do for flood conditions.  The recent rains should have given them more than sufficient data to figure which to use.  And rather than simply say more is better which is true for flood protection, use good engineering judgment that gives balance between drought planning and flood protection.  For example we now have excellent proof that a major warming in the South Pacific like what is happening now impacts us so that 2' might work normally but 4' is needed under these conditions.  Another way of saying the same thing is please apply your skills as much as possible to keep the lakes from dropping more than 10'.

If you are wondering what damages are happening to the recreational infrastructure (which Congress made a responsibility of the Corps in 1983) with drops of 10 ft below full pool:

• low lake levels make houses around the lake lose value.  We sat in on a preliminary report by Clemson where the data on housing prices showed a drop of over 50% in the value of a house next to the lake when the lake dropped more than 10ft.  Unfortunately this was edited out of the preliminary report. 
• A noted major hotel chain wanted to locate on Lake Thurmond.  When they witnessed the huge drops that occur to lake levels during droughts they moved on to another lake in Georgia.
• Concessionaires at the lakes such as marinas, campgrounds, boat rentals, etc. lose millions of dollars.

If drops greater than 10ft were rare (maybe one every 50 years or so), losses in housing values would be temporary as would the impact on the rest of the recreational infrastructure.  But when they occur frequently as they are now these damages become permanent.

IN OTHER WORDS WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS NOT COMPLICATED.  WE SIMPLY ARE ASKING THE CORPS TO USE LAKE LEVELS AS A GUIDE DURING DROUGHTS THE SAME WAY THEY DO DURING FLOODING.