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.
