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.