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.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Thursday, July 21, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, July 15, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)