LETTER TO PRESIDENT BY MEMBER OF SOLN

Not sure whether this will ever see the light of day in view of all that the president has on his plate, but one of our members recently sent this email to the president concerning the way the Corps is managing our lakes.

The Corps of Engineers for the Savannah River Basin is holding back progress for the miles and miles of lake side properties and communities along the Savannah River which runs between Georgia and South Carolina from the blue ridge Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean.  We at Save Our Lakes Now are in a position to document this statement and answer any questions concerning this accusation.  I personally am a Chemical Engineer from UVA and fully qualified to discuss why the Corps is failing to manage our lakes in a fashion consistent with Making America Great Again. As with Hillary and coal mining they are determined to hold back growth of this area for irrational reasons similar to the abuse of power practiced by the EPA.
I am a business owner and own a number of properties along Clarks Hill Lake (also known as Lake Thurmond) and have been destroyed from a business perspective by the overreach and irrational rules put in place by the Corps.  Literally this area should be booming in a fashion similar to the Grand Strand of South Carolina but instead has been going backwards financially for over 25 years due to the ridiculous manner in which the Corps is managing the lakes.  We have offered fair and balanced answers to the question of how to manage the lakes in a fashion that gives maximum benefit to both the areas around the lakes and the stakeholders along the river below the lakes.  But the Corps refuses to listen.  Furthermore our congressmen Jeff Duncan and Jodi Hice have proven totally ineffective in helping with this matter.  This is due to too few voters along the lakes and an unwillingness to get involved and fight the Corps. 
One quick scenario on what is happening: Our lakes are constantly down 10 feet and more which destroys real estate and business interests while the other lakes in this area which are managed by power companies are seldom down more than a foot or two.  In addition to the destruction of real estate and business interests the Corps' insistence on releasing more water than is provided by rain is wasting billions of gallons of fresh water on a daily basis in that every drop of water released from the lakes goes directly to the ocean where it becomes totally unusable.

LET'S SCORE THE CORPS

LAKE THURMOND WAS BUILT IN 1954 AND THE OTHER TWO LAKES FOLLOWED OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.  THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WAS ASSIGNED TO MANAGE THESE LAKES BY CONGRESS.  THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE:
                                                    FULL LAKE                         DROUGHT          - 10 FT 
                                                  
       RESPONSIBILITY                     

1. HYDRO POWER                      A                                           C                          D
2. FLOOD CONTROL                  A                                           A                          A
3. NAVIGATION                         NA                                        NA                       NA
4. WATER QUALITY                  A                                            A                          F
5. WATER SUPPLY                     A                                            A                          F
6. FISH & WILDLIFE                   A                                            A                         F
7. RECREATION                          A                                            C                          F

ADDING ONE MORE THAT SHOULD BE THERE:

      8. FRESH WATER SUPPLY        A                                             F                         0

I'VE TAKEN THE LIBERTY TO GIVE MY IDEA OF HOW WELL THE CORPS IS DOING ON EACH OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.  

AS LONG AS THE LAKES ARE FULL THE CORPS SCORES GOOD GRADES.  ONCE THE LAKES DROP DUE TO DROUGHT EVERYTHING EXCEPT RECREATION AND FRESH WATER SUPPLY CONTINUES TO BE SATISFACTORY.  RECREATION DOES NOT GET A FAILING GRADE UNTIL THE LAKES DROP MORE THAN 10FT. FRESH WATER SUPPLY DROPS TO AN F ANYTIME THE LAKES ARE RELEASING MORE WATER THAN IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF DOWNSTREAM NEEDS (EG 3600CFS IS A GOOD START BUT WASTE RELEASES TO THE RIVER NEED TO BE MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS PRACTICAL IN ORDER TO DROP MINIMUM FLOWS EVEN FURTHER).

CONTRARY TO WHAT MOST WOULD THINK THEY SHOULD GET HORRIBLE GRADES ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT FLOOD CONTROL BECAUSE OF THE HIGH RISK SITUATION THIS REPRESENTS.  ALTHOUGH 3600 CFS MEETS MOST NEEDS DOWNSTREAM CONTINUED DROPS BEYOND 10' DOWN PUTS EVERYTHING EXCEPT FLOOD CONTROL AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS. HYDRO POWER BECAUSE SEPA DEPENDS ON US PRIMARILY FOR PEAKING POWER AND NEARLY DESTROYED LAKES MAKE A POOR SOURCE OF PEAKING POWER.  WATER QUALITY AND WATER SUPPLY ETC. HAVE NOW MOVED TO A VERY DANGEROUS STATUS WHEREBY THE CORPS MAY NEED TO CHOSE BETWEEN TOTALLY DESTROYING THE LAKES ONE AT A TIME OR NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPLY DOWNSTREAM NEEDS.

EVERYBODY BUT THE CORPS RECOGNIZES THAT THEY GET AN F ON RECREATION ANYTIME THEY ARE RELEASING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM NEEDED DOWNSTREAM WITH THE LAKES BELOW FULL POOL.  THE CORPS USES THE LAME EXCUSE THAT RECREATION IS ONLY PARK ATTENDANCE AND RAMP CLOSURES.  BUT AS THE REST OF THE WORLD RECOGNIZES RECREATION HAS TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS REAL ESTATE, BUSINESS HEALTH OF LAKE SIDE BUSINESSES,  AND THE OVER ALL ATTRACTION OF THIS AREA AS A PLACE FOR RECREATION.  WITH THE BEAUTY OF OUR LAKES THE WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE GROWING BUT THE HORRIBLE REPUTATION WE HAVE SINCE THE DROUGHT OF 2002 DISCOURAGES GROWTH AND HAS BANKRUPTED MANY BUSINESS TIED TO RECREATION THAT SHOULD BE FLOURISHING.

REGARDING FRESH WATER, JUST LOOK AT HOW DNR PANICS ANYTIME AN AQUIFER STARTS DROPPING IN LEVEL.  IT IS BEYOND ME HOW THESE SAME PEOPLE SAY NOTHING WHEN LAKE LEVELS ARE WASTED ON FOOLISH RELEASE RATES.

ON A SIDE NOTE LET ME MENTION FLOOD CONTROL.  THE CORPS HAS NOW DECIDED THE EMPTIER THE LAKES ARE THE BETTER IN CASE WE SHOULD GET HEAVY RAINS.  WHEN THE LAKES CONSISTED ONLY OF LAKE THURMOND A  4'F BUFFER WAS PUT INTO THE GUIDE CURVE FOR THE LAKES WHEREBY THE LAKES ARE DROPPED 4' IN THE FALL AND WINTER IN PREPARATION FOR HIGH WATER RUN OFF.  NOW WITH 3 LAKES TO COLLECT THE SAME RAIN WATER RUN OFF FOR THE BASIN, A 2' BUFFER SHOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION.  BUT IN SPITE OF PLEAS FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW THE CORPS REFUSES TO DROP BACK TO A 2' DRAWDOWN.  THEY GIVE THE REASON THAT THERE MAY BE MORE RUN OFF NOW THAN IN THE PAST.  HOW CAN THAT BE TRUE WHEN THE BASIN SIZE HAS NOT CHANGED AND IF ANYTHING, WE ARE NOW MORE PRONE TO DROUGHTS.  GO FIGURE!

ESSENCE OF OUR PROBLEM

FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM A RECENT EMAIL BETWEEN SOME MEMBERS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW.  WE AGREE!

The argument has become one that has no bearing on logic.  The Colonel is simply thumbing his nose at us saying he will do what he damn well pleases and no one is going to stop him.  That works for running an army but it stinks to heaven when you are impacting civilian concerns.  it is going to take someone willing to put the Corps in their place to get this corrected.  Trump is the kind of person who could and would do it but he is too far removed at present to get involved.  What we need is a congressman or senator who will get Trump's backing and put an end to this mess. SOLN can help by keeping the light on the problem but we have been unable to find a congressman to fight this fight.  Jeff Duncan is far too weak on this subject.  Maybe Jody Hice will take this on.  If not we need to elect someone who will in 2018.

ONLY WAY TO SUMMARIZE OUR CURRENT HANDLING OF THE LAKES IS INCOMPETENCE

If you listen to the Corps on how they are managing our lake levels the statements sound logical.  But when you get to the basics they are not logical at all:  First the Corps hangs to 3600cfs as some religious standard for the lowest release rates they should consider.  Secondly, after making the argument that 3600 is some kind of safe standard they refuse to drop releases to that level to prevent drastic drops in lake level.  AND NOW, IN THE MIDDLE OF A CRISIS ON LAKE LEVELS THE CORPS IS RELEASING AT A RATE OF 4000 OR HIGHER CFS.  None of this makes sense.

I'll be brief but let me point out a few reasons why the Corps is failing in properly managing our lakes.

• Did you ever think why they came to 3600cfs as a standard for the lowest possible safe release rate?  In the 80's the Corps asked the Savannah River Plant (SRP) what the lowest release rate they could handle with their reactors running.  SRP replied that they would be OK as long as they had at least 3600cfs to the river. That was back when they were running nuclear reactors.  These reactors have been shut down completely for decades.  SO MUCH FOR THAT STANDARD.
• The Corps recognized that operation at 3600cfs had no negative environmental impact when they published their plan for what to do if the lakes hit bottom and they had to destroy them one by one for water supply downstream. YET THEY ACT AS IF THEY SHOULD NOT GO TO 3600 EXCEPT IN EXTREME CONDITIONS.  EXTREME BEING DEFINED AS AFTER THE LAKE LEVELS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND THE REPUTATION OF OUR LAKES FROM THE STAND POINT OF RECREATION HAS BEEN BADLY TARNISHED, FUTURE GROWTH FOR OUR AREA HAS BEEN DRASTICALLY IMPAIRED, AND BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF FRESH WATER HAS BEEN THROWN TO THE SEA. RIGHT NOW WHEN THEY SHOULD BE AT MINIMUM RELEASE RATES THEY ARE USING 4,000 CFS AND HIGHER RATHER THAN THE 3600 WE ALL KNOW WORKS.
• SEPA has 8 basins they receive hydro power from and their management has told us repeatedly that they can make up our losses by getting power from the other basins when we are in severe drought. Additionally they have explained repeatedly that they need us for peaking power more so than a routine source of power so they can prevent black outs during extreme usage. This of course becomes drastically impaired with extreme drops in lake level such as has occurred repeatedly since 2000 with the current drought plan.  In spite of these facts the Corps claims they have to hold release rates above what we feel is sane to meet power quotas.

The way the Corps is currently operating our lakes makes no sense when you look at these facts. The reason I say incompetence is that their actions are destroying our recreational infrastructure, our real estate values, and the economic growth for the area around the lakes.  If they had a good reason for doing so you would have to give the Corps a pass on this.  But none of this can be justified when you look at the facts.

Recently the web sites where you can look at projected lake levels and actual release rates have been inaccessible.  For those of you who like to look at these you can use the following web address:

http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/declarations.cfm

IS CORPS DROUGHT PLAN ETHICAL?

I keep hearing about having to meet power quotas as the final, last excuse for the poor lake level control from our drought plan.  When we started looking into all the reasons the Corps offered to justify poor lake level control there were about 10 excuses being stated as reasons.  One by one we have eliminated those and we are finally down to power quotas.  LOOKING JUST AT POWER QUOTAS TO JUSTIFY POOR LEVEL CONTROL, IS THEIR REASONING ETHICAL?

Here is my thinking.  Hydro Power, Wind Power, and Solar Power are all inexpensive sources of power and they all three have the advantage of being renewable sources of power.  If you are using wind power and there is no wind you have to resort to makeup power.  If you are using solar power and there is no sun the same is true.  The same should be true of hydro power.  Instead what the Corps does when there is too little rain is continue unsupportable release rates and destroy the recreational infrastructure of the lakes.

Talking with SEPA managers in the past we have been told the power from the other 7 basins in their system is adequate to make up for losses from our lakes during a drought.  But even assuming that is not true and they have to buy make up power on the open market, how does that justify destroying my real estate values or those of all the other people living around the lakes.  How does that justify holding this impoverished area back from the fantastic growth potential of a great location for recreation. We could be like the Grand Strand on the East Coast instead of a lack luster recreational site.

My upbringing tells me it is wrong to steal from one group to pay another. Isn't that what is going on here? Isn't the current thinking of the Corps where they justify destroying lake levels at the expense of all lake stakeholders to meet power quotas unethical?

COPY OF COMMENTS RECENTLY POSTED ON BALANCING THE BASIN

The corps publishes a blog called Balancing the Basin and offers a place for comments from readers.  Following is a recent comment offered by one of our members that seems very appropriate for the current comment period on the new Drought Plan.

COPY OF RECENT COMMENT SUBMITTED TO BALANCING THE BASIN:

I'm not sure where the post came from but i was asked recently by one of our members (Save Our Lakes Now) about two comments apparently made by the corps. One stated the increased cost of power when SEPA has to buy it and the other stated that 3600 anytime the lakes are down increases the potential for flooding downstream.

Regarding the increased cost of power, SEPA has 7 basins other than the Savannah River Basin to pull power from. That is at the same cost as power generated by our basin. In other words there is no additional cost for power.

Regarding the propensity for more flooding downstream if you keep the lakes more full that is an irrational statement. Obviously more water in the lakes means there is more water in the lakes. That is what we want. What is needed is good flood control not arbitrary reliance on having a drought before you have heavy rains.

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DROUGHT PLAN

note-- the deadline for comments on the new drought plan was noon today but the Corps did not discuss this with the SRBAC which Save Our Lakes Now is a participant until yesterday.  If you feel strongly and want to make comments I suggest you go ahead and send them in now.  The Corps will be subject to much criticism is a lot of late comments are ignored.  The email address for comments is CESASPD@USACE.ARMY.MIL.

The proposed Corps plan drops releases sooner than the current plan which is a move in the right direction but they are basing their decisions on incorrect assumptions.  Here are three that shout that there are problems with their reasoning:

1. They base their conclusions about the impact on recreation on a faulty Clemson study which indicated little to no effect on economic factors.  The study is badly flawed because you cannot gauge the impact of poor level control when you are in the middle of poor level control.  Real estate values, etc. depend on reputation of a given location.  Our reputation sucks from 2002 forward therefore no measurement during that time period means anything. Additionally, when pressed, the Corps looks only at how many boat ramps and swim areas are impacted rather than real estate values that lake stakeholders are concerned with.
2. The Corps claims that power production quotas have to be met if possible and hold our release rates well above what they should be trying to meet those.  SEPA has 8 basins they get hydropower from.  Anytime we are in drought they can get their power at the same cost elsewhere in the 8 basin system.  In other words power should not even be part of the discussion when it comes to drought control.
3. Finally, if an aquifer were dropping 5ft, 10ft, etc. DNR would be hysterical and wanting to limit water usage of anyone causing that loss.  Here we have the Corps getting a free reign and causing this kind of loss of fresh water with impunity.  The Corps needs to be required to justify wasting fresh water rather than have that a non entity in their discussions.

 

COMMENT JUST ENTERED ON BALANCING THE BASIN CONCERNING DROUGHT

One of our Save Our Lakes Now people just sent in a very informative comment to the latest "Balancing the Basin Release". It is repeated in full below:

This all sounds nice and technical but there is a much simpler reason the lakes aren't more full and possibly fully recovered.  It is simply the refusal by the Corps to conserve as much fresh water as possible during a drought by dropping releases to the minimum demonstrated to have no significant environmental impact.

IN THE CORPS OWN WORDS IN THEIR PLAN FOR WHAT TO DO IF THE LAKES HIT THE BOTTOM OF THEIR CONSERVATION POOL, "3600 CFS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES".  BASICALLY LAKE LEVELS HAVE NO PRIORITY COMPARED TO POWER QUOTAS (WHICH ARE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE SEPA CAN GET THE SAME TYPE POWER ELSEWHERE IN THEIR 8 BASIN SYSTEM ANYTIME WE ARE IN A DROUGHT) AND A KINDERGARTEN TYPE APPROACH TO BEING FAIR TO EVERYONE MEANING THEY WANT TO "TREAT THE RIVER STAKEHOLDERS FAIR COMPARED TO LAKE STAKEHOLDERS".

CONSERVATION OF FRESH WATER IS NOT A KINDERGARTEN GAME.  THROWING AWAY FRESH WATER (EVERYTHING RELEASED FROM THURMOND BECOMES SALT WATER AND IS NO LONGER OF USE TO ANYONE) IS CRIMINAL AND COULD LEAD TO VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WHO DEPEND ON THE RIVER FOR THEIR FRESH WATER SUPPLY. THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE WOULD BE CONSIDERED INCOMPETENT IN ANY BUSINESS VENTURE I KNOW OF. 

QUICK ANALYSIS OF CORPS CHANGES TO DROUGHT PLAN

The Corps has just announced with great excitement changes they plan to make to the drought plan.  Matter of fact they are having a big meeting to discuss this with the public tomorrow night in Toccoa, GA.  The excitement comes from the fact that they are raising the levels where release rates are decreased during droughts.  While this is a move in the right direction their reasoning is based on flawed assumptions and basically amounts to nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

They claim to be balancing the economic impact on hydropower against that of recreation. There are two major problems with their reasoning. First their is no economic impact on hydropower from droughts.  According to the South Eastern Power Association (SEPA) it doesn't matter to them where they are obtaining power from within the 8 reservoir systems they draw hydropower from.  When we are in drought most of the others are not and our loss in production can easily be made up from the others. Second the economic impact on recreation is based on badly flawed data. The Corps tried to measure the economic impact of low lake levels but did so during a time of repeated low lake levels that have destroyed our reputation on level control.  That is like trying to measure the impact on the dollar value of a car from a bad ding when the car is already full of dings. You can only get a true measure when you look at a time when the car is in like new condition.
.
Simply looking at the waste of fresh water when you send more water to the river (and hence the ocean) than is available from rain says we need to reduce releases to the minimum possible anytime the lakes cannot be held to full pool due to drought.  Just 100cfs released unnecessarily amounts to about 60million gallons of water being thrown away daily. This tells me that we need to go to the minimum demonstrated safe release rate of 3600cfs as soon as the lakes can no longer be held to full pool due to a drought.  And we need to look at whether even lower release rates would be acceptable.  For the benefit of those who feel dropping all the way to 3600cfs is too much, stop and think of what the river used to be like during droughts before the dams were built.  This is not denying the river water. Rather it is guaranteeing adequate water even in times of severe drought.

CURRENT DROUGHT CONTROL BY CORPS TOTALLY ILLOGICAL

Over the past 15 years the rationale for the Corps continuing our horrible drought control plan is that they have to treat all stakeholders fairly.  Initially there were over 10 excuses and erroneous reasons for not changing the plan but they have all been debunked.  Now the defense against changing the  plan and responding more quickly to drought conditions by way of reduced releases is the need to be fair to river stakeholders. This is the only claim remaining that has even a sound of validity. While it may be OK in telling kindergarteners to share, we are talking about something that is far too valuable for such an argument.

Let's take selfish interests completely out of the picture and relook at this. We are talking one lake of over 270,000 acres and another at least half that large.  Dropping these lakes any more than is absolutely necessary is criminal when you look at the amount of fresh water involved. Every drop of water released beyond that coming down from rain is a horrible and dangerous practice. Basically what Save Our Lakes Now is saying is any time the lakes drop below full pool (too little rain coming in to hold lake level) we need to reduce releases to the absolute minimum that has been demonstrated to work downstream. 3600cfs has been demonstrated to work repeatedly in recent droughts and the Corps even stated that there is no significant environmental impact from lowering release rates to this level (statement was made to justify no TA needed for their Armageddon plan for destroying the lakes one by one in a drought that exceeds our conservation pool provisions).  Hence, until better data showing even less works, we need to immediately go to 3600cfs when the lakes can no longer be maintained at full pool.

Limiting my arguments to pro river stakeholder interests, anything above the minimum tolerable release rate puts them in danger of literally losing their fresh water supplies. It's fine to argue about wanting more water running in the river as long as the lakes have water.  But if that ends, river stakeholders are the ones that will be destroyed. It's sort of like balancing your bank account.  It's nice to spend a little more money than the minimum needed right up to the time you go bankrupt.  Unfortunately following that, their is no further discussion.

POOR CONTROL ADDS UP OVER TIME

Just like a carpenters level, lake level is an accurate measure of where we are in a drought.  But the Corps insists on ignoring that and using weird bases for release rates such as inflows from the Broad River.  Something along the lines of when inflows from the Broad are less than 10% of normal they respond with certain release rates.  Excuse my French but using this instead of lake level is the height of stupidity. When the lakes cannot be held at full pool we are in a drought or the effects of a drought and release rates need to be held to a minimum until the lakes refill.

The corps was guilty for years of using misleading information to justify their poor performance with drought management.  Over the last 10 years we got rid of all those erroneous claims one by one.  But now we are left with downright stubborn refusal to use common logic to minimize the damage to lake levels from droughts.  Insisting on release rates of 4,000 and 3800 versus 3600 while in the middle of a drought has cost over a foot of lake level in the current drought.  Refusing to restrict flows to 3600 immediately when lake levels can no longer be held at full pool has cost many more feet of lake level.  And refusal to stop releases when the river downstream is flooding has cost still more loss of level.

If the Colonel were judged for his handling of Recreation during droughts in the same manner as a CEO handling profits during difficult times he would have been fired for incompetence years ago.

MORE EXCERPTS FORM OFFICIAL CORPS DROUGHT PLAN

Yesterday I published several quotes from the official corps drought plan showing several issues we have been misled about. Following is one more quote from the drought plan that is commonly not known and the results of a formal request for comments by the Corps during the drought of 2008.

The following quote from page 10 of the 1989 drought plan shows where 3600cfs came from:

QUOTE FROM PAGE 10 OF ORIGINAL DROUGHT PLAN--- " THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT HAS THREE OPERATING NUCLEAR REACTORS AND USES WATER (APPROXIMATELY 945 CFS) FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER FOR COOLING.  A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE WATER IS RETURNED TO THE RIVER AFTER COOLING.  LOW FLOW TESTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 1980-81 DROUGHT ESTABLISHED 3600 CFS AS THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE FLOW FOR A ONE REACTOR OPERATION.  DUE TO CHANGES IN THEIR OPERATIONS, THE SRP NOW HAS A MINIMUM DESIRED FLOW OF 4880 CFS TO ENSURE A THREE-REACTOR OPERATION AND 4130CFS FOR A TWO REACTOR OPERATION."

So 3600cfs came from SRP needs when they were operating nuclear reactors.  None of these reactors has been active since the late 1900's.  Matter of fact there is no plan to ever operate those reactors again. Humm?  what does that do to our accepted standard of 3600cfs?

The responses to a query the Corps made for comments from all stakeholders during the drought of 2008 were also illuminating.  The Corps sent out a request to all stakeholders and the public in general for comments as to whether dropping from 3600cfs to 3100cfs would present any problems for anyone. After several months we noted total quiet from the Corps on the results of that inquiry so we sent in a freedom of information request to the Corps. There were over 250 responses from all kinds of stakeholders.  All the responses indicated they were having no problems at 3600cfs and anticipated no problems if the flows were reduced further to 3100cfs. All that is except the NOAA who said it "MIGHT" be problematic to fish and wildlife and water quality. In other words, in the middle of a major drought, 3600cfs was stated to be acceptable and even lower was expected to be acceptable as well.

The full gist of this and the previous blog is to point out that "what the Corps says" is not a reliable basis for understanding their operation of the Savannah River Basin. As with any of us you can expect their remarks to be spun in the direction most favorable to what they want to do. Unfortunately what they tell us is often very misleading.  If you want to test this, ask them why they continue releases from a drought starved Lake Thurmond when the river below the dam is flooding from heavy rains.

WHAT DOES THE OFFICIAL DROUGHT PLAN SAY ABOUT DROUGHT CONTROL FOR OUR LAKES

Corps representatives repeatedly try to claim that Save Our Lakes Now statements are untrue.  This is especially true when one of our group makes comments to their Balancing the Basin Publications.  I thought it might be beneficial to highlight a few of these issues and show what the official Corps Drought Plan has to say.  Following are a few illuminating excerpts from the official Drought Contingency Plan published by the Corps in 1989. I will give a few more on the next blog posting.

Have you heard the Corps say they can't make any changes to the plan? 

• QUOTING FROM PAGE 2 OF THE PLAN:"THIS IS A DYNAMIC PLAN, SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS WARRANTED BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.  AMONG THE ITEMS THAT MAY BE CAUSE FOR RECONSIDRATION ARE: ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT DROUGHT, FURTHER STUDIES OF SALINITY INTRUSION IN SAVANNAH HARBOR, CHANGING WATER SUPPY NEEDS, IMPROVEMENTS TO WATER INTAKES AND THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OPERATIONAL PLAN A THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT"

First this implies that change based on what you learn from previous droughts is to be expected.  But with 4 plus major droughts since that time the Corps has refused to make any changes based on what they learned. Admittedly they have suggested studies but such studies can never provide the kind of quality information actual droughts of the whole basin can.

Have you heard the Corps say they can't reduce flows because of power quotas?

• QUOTING FROM PAGE 9 OF THE PLAN:"HYDROPOWER OPERATIONS:"ALL POWER PRODUCED AT FEDERAL PROJECTS (EXCEPT TVA AND ST. STEPHENS) IN THE STATES OF GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, FLORIDA, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALABAMA IS MARKETED BY THE SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION (SEPA). SEPA COMBINES THE THREE SAVANNAH DISTRICT PROJECTS WITH THE SEVEN PROJECTS IN THE MOBILE DISTRICT TO FORM THE GEORGIA-ALABAMA SYSTEM. HYDROPOWER MAY BE SUPPLIED BY ANY COMBINATION OF PROJECTS WITHIN THE TEN-PLANT SYSTEM.  THE THREE SAVANNAH DISTRICT PROJECTS PRODUCED.------"

Save Our Lakes Now has repeatedly pleaded with the corps to back off power generation quotas when the lakes start into drought only to have the corps claim that would mess up SEPA.  In fact SEPA can draw from the other seven projects anytime we are in a drought and quotas can be ignored without damage to the system.

CORPS CLAIMS TO DISCUSS CHANGES FROM DROUGHT PLAN WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS???

I recently heard a rumor that Lake Hartwell was being dropped sacrificially so Thurmond would have more water for the upcoming national fishing tournament.  So I took a look at the Corps declarations on what the lake levels should be and then current data on where they actually are. The declarations page says Hartwell should be at 652.7 and Thurmond at 322.7 which would be a perfect balance. However the actual level at Anderson is 652.1 and at Plum Branch is 322.7.  Surely the Corps consulted with Lake Hartwell stakeholders before allowing this deviation from true balance??

CORPS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS IMPORTANT TO FUTURE LAKE LEVEL CONTROL

As part of the harbor expansion in Savannah the Corps proposed that a fish ladder be put in around the Augusta Lock and Dam so short nosed sturgeon can get to the rapids north of Augusta for spawning.  If built, this would be the first time the sturgeon have been able to get north of the lock and dam since 1937.  One glaring problem with this is that releases from Thurmond Dam determine water levels and flows through the rapids which will have an impact on spawning.  Given the fact that Fish and Wildlife have a direct line to the Corps on operation of the Savannah River Basin this will most likely be very problematic on setting release rates from Thurmond Dam.  To the point, lake levels will become a secondary consideration to flows through the rapids and be negatively impacted by the installation of the fish ladder.  Jerry Clontz who represents Save Our Lakes Now on the Savannah River Basin Advisory Council sent in the comment copied below. The easiest way to submit comments is via email.  The address is cesas-pd@usace.army.mil.

 Jerry Clontz ·

University of Virginia

All lake stakeholders should be up in arms about the fish passage. What the Corps is trying to do is allow short nosed sturgeon up and past the lock and dam so they can spawn in the river near Thurmond Dam. This will suddenly become the controlling factor for releases from the dam in order to optimize spawning conditions. It makes no sense to destroy recreation with further restrictions on level control at the lakes when you consider that these fish have not been able to get past the lock and dam since the lock and dam were built.

CORPS SHOWING TOTAL DISREGARD FOR RECREATION

On the one hand the Corps talks about the reason they can only drop to 3800cfs releases from Thurmond, rather than lower, is to maintain certain minimum conditions for the river below Thurmond.  But when rains swell the rivers they increase releases from 3800 to 4,000 cfs explaining that the Broad River is at higher flows to the lakes. This when our lakes are down 10ft and in peril of dropping even further.  WHICH IS IT?  FLOWS IN THE BROAD RIVER OR RIVER FLOWS BELOW THURMOND. WHEN THEY SHOULD BE DECREASING RELEASES OR EVEN SHUTTING THEM DOWN, THEY ARE INCREASING THEM.  ONE THING FOR SURE IS RECREATION IS NOT A CONSIDERATION. Hopefully one of our congressmen or governors will wake up to the fact that the Corps is not protecting recreation the way they should and force more rational behavior by the Corps.

CORPS ARROGANCE AND INCOMPETANCE IS ON DISPLAY RE: RECREATION

I can see no rationale for the current corps actions regarding releases from Lake Thurmond. With the lakes down over 8ft and poor prospects for recovery going into the summer season the Corps is using release rates in excess of 3800cfs from Thurmond. Further, although flows at Clyo increased to twice normal from recent rains, the Corps made no effort to reduce releases from Thurmond accordingly.  This behavior demonstrates a total lack of concern for Recreation which is a primary responsibility of the Corps.

All other interests such as fish and wildlife, water quality and supply, flood control, and power production have a way to communicate with the Corps. Recreation interests are totally ignored. If these other interests were ignored in the same fashion as recreation the Colonel would be removed for incompetence.  It is amazing to me that has not happened from the many years of failed protection of Recreation.

WHY DOES THE CORPS CONTINUE RELEASES FROM THURMOND WITH THE RIVER FLOODING DOWNSTREAM

A quick calculation looking at the area of our lake in acres and the rate at which the Corps is releasing water from Lake Thurmond shows that stopping current releases (averaging 3800cfs) adds a little over 1" in lake level every day.  This may not sound like much but if done for a week it adds roughly a foot increase in level. 

I'm sure the Corps is aware of these numbers.  Why then do they continue ridiculous releases of our precious fresh water adding to the flooding downstream.  This is totally shameful on at least three measures:

• these releases add to the damages caused by flooding downstream
• they add to the damages from low lake levels caused by the drought
• and last but not least this fresh water is headed for the ocean where it becomes salt water.

I used to think the Corps had no way to know what is happening downstream of the dam but a tour of the Lake Thurmond Dam shows this is not true.  They have full instrumentation of river flows and creek inflows.  More than enough data for any good engineer to safely control releases.

If you get a chance, ask the Corps why they are adding to the flooding and the drought at the same time and throwing away billions of gallons of fresh water. If you talk to your congressman or governor ask them why they continue to let the Corps do this.

WHY DOES OUR LAKE LEVEL DILEMMA CONTINUE

Thurmond and Hartwell should be famous Recreation Spots with tremendous growth potential.  But the horrible lake level control during droughts has and is destroying our reputation which in turn is destroying recreation along our lakes.

The Corps has done two studies of what poor lake level control does to our economics.  But both were badly flawed.  The first study was so highly restricted in what variables to measure that they measured the economic variations of surrounding counties rather than what was happening to communities along the lakes. Both the first and second study were badly flawed because they only looked at variations inside the period of a horrible reputation. The true measure would be to look at where our recreational infrastructure could be with great level control.  That of course is impossible to measure from inside the time of poor level controls.

Congress in the 80's added recreation to the mix of things the Corps is responsible for on our lakes.  Any fool should recognize that protecting recreation can only be accomplished by protecting the infrastructure needed for recreation to occur. The major cause of our dilemma is THE CORPS REFUSES TO PROTECT THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF RECREATION AND OUR CONGRESSMEN REFUSE TO CORRECT THEM. For example the Corps when questioned often explains that fishing is fine and therefore recreation is fine.  All anyone needs to do to understand what I mean is look at the Grand Strand on the coast of SC. Try telling them they would be a famous recreation areas without all the infrastructure such as real estate and hotels and motels involved in accommodating the public.  Try telling them that a bad reputation such as poor lake level control has no impact on that infrastructure.

CONTACT NUMBERS FOR CONGRESSMEN ASSOCIATED WITH OUR LAKES

I have received numerous requests for the names and contact info for the three congressmen associated with the Savannah River Basin.  They are:

Rick Allen in Augusta Ga.
     Washington DC office 202-225-2823
      Augusta GA office 706-228-1980

Jody Hice in Thomson GA
      Washington DC office 202-225-4101
      Thomson GA office 770-207-1776

Jeff Duncan in Anderson SC
      Washington DC office 202-225-5301
      Anderson SC office 864-224-7401


We have dealt with Jeff Duncan repeatedly but to no effect.  We met with Jody Hice only once but we have never heard any further from him.  Rick Allen is the newest member of congress and we have never met with him on the subject of the lakes.

Donald Trump has demonstrated that he has no patience for the Corps and correctly blames the Corps for the water shortages in California.  I feel he would champion our cause if we could get our concerns to him but in view of all he has on his plate right now that may take years to come about.

THREE CONGRESSMEN AND ONE CORPS COLONEL HAVE US HUNG OUT TO DRY

We are 10ft below full pool during the wet season.  Short of a miracle our lakes will be destroyed again with horrendous lake levels this summer.  The cost to recreation interests is unforgivable.  The Corps of Engineers is demonstrating incompetency in protecting recreation which is a mandate from congress issued over 30 years ago. Our congressmen are supposed to be working for us, not the corps, yet every time this situation arises they listen to the corps and not us thus permitting incompetency.

Based on past experience the Corps snows our congressmen with double talk when they discuss options to fix the problem.  First the corps makes the false claim that real estate around the shores of our lakes has nothing to do with recreation.  Ditto for the economic health of marinas, docs sitting on dry land, campgrounds no longer attractive, boat  ramps inaccessible, marina profits. Add that to the fact that no self respecting hotel, motel, or restaurant wants to build on our lakes due to a history of poor level control. The corps' claim that these have nothing to do with recreation is like saying airports have nothing to do with airplanes.

Meetings between our congressmen and the corps without Save Our Lakes Now represented are a waste of time because only one side of the argument is represented.  Save Our Lakes Now has been involved with this problem since 2007 and many of its members even longer than that.  We are responsible for getting rid of tons of ridiculous excuses the Corps has used in the past in refusing to address this problem. We would be more than happy to sit in on any discussions between our congressmen and the Corps to make sure both sides of the argument are known.

To illustrate some of the incompetence exhibited by the Corps, look at how the Corps repeatedly abuses both flood control and lake levels at the same time when the river is swollen downstream from rains and they continue releasing water from drought starved lakes. As engineers the Corps should be able to balance releases with rainfall downstream to prevent flooding downstream while allowing low lake levels caused by a drought to improve. Inability or refusal to do so puts their competence as engineers in question.

LONG AND THE SHORT OF OUR OPTIONS ON LAKE LEVELS

Ten years ago the Corps had all kinds of excuses why they had to hold to the drought plan that keeps destroying our lake levels.  Now, after we have debunked each of these excuses and after repeated droughts involving years of safe operation at 3600cfs release rate, we still get no relief.  BASICALLY, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS CLEARLY INDICATED RECREATION AS ONE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, THE CORPS IGNORES RECREATION.  

Give them a problem with power generation, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife, or flood control and they have a plan in place to make changes in release rates or lake levels to protect these. Give them a problem with real estate along the shores of our lakes, docks, marinas, campgrounds, etc and they will assure you these are not their responsibility.  In their minds recreation has nothing to do with these. This is like saying wings have nothing to do with flying an airplane. Unless and until we get them to accept these items as recreation the Corps will have an excuse to ignore us during a drought.

WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING WE KNOW TO GET THE CORPS TO BE REASONABLE WITH RELEASE RATES DURING DROUGHTS AND PROTECT RECREATION.  BUT THEY SIMPLY IGNORE US.  THE BEST OPTION I KNOW OF IS TO SOMEHOW GET OUR CONGRESSMEN TO UNDERSTAND THIS SCENARIO.  UNTIL THEY DO THE CORPS SIMPLY SNOWS THEM EACH TIME THEY LOOK INTO OUR PROBLEM.  FIRST THE CORPS INSISTS THEY NEED A MAJOR STUDY TO DETERMINE SAFE RELEASE RATES. IN REALITY THEY ALEADY KNOW ENOUGH FROM YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TO PROTECT RECREATION BY CHANGING RELEASE RATES.  THEN THE CORPS DOES DOUBLE TALK ABOUT REAL ESTATE ETC. HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH RECREATION.

Corps Incompetent Regarding Protecting Recreation

Hate to be blunt and argumentative but the Corps is simply not protecting recreation on the three lakes of the Savannah River Basin. I could blame the commander but this has been true for all the Colonels as far back as I can remember. Recreation is an obligation assigned the Corps by congress over 25 years ago. It includes homes built around the shore line, boat docks for people living at the lake, marinas for people living elsewhere who want to leave their boats here , boat ramps for temporary access, restaurants accessible by water, and campgrounds, motels and hotels for people coming for a short or extended getaway.  Ask the corps what recreation is and they will deny all these. Basically, so far as recreation is concerned, the Corps of Engineers has proved to be totally incompetent.

The Corps is also guilty of doing damage to both downstream and lake stakeholders at the same time. Any time the Savannah River is swollen from heavy rains below lake Thurmond and the lakes are in drought condition the Corps should be decreasing or stopping releases until the river returns to normal flows. Rather than decreasing or stopping releases at these times the Corps demonstrates it's incompetence and continues the current release rate. This not only floods people downstream but it also drops lake levels unnecessarily thereby multiplying the damages to recreation caused by drought.

For anyone who may doubt this analysis simply look at all the droughts since 2000 and ask yourself what are the criteria used by the Corps to decide release rates during a drought.  You will find hydro power, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, and flood control as concerns voiced by the corps to justify their release rates and winter drawdown.  You will not find any instance where release rates or drawdown were modified to protect recreation.

Comment Directed against Corps in recent Balancing the Basin

As a stakeholder in the SRB i disagree with your statement that you are prevented by law from holding a release rate of 3600cfs without a TA. When the Corps drew up the plan to destroy the lakes one at a time (Russell, followed by Thurmond, followed by Hartwell) in the evernt of a drought that goes past the conservation pool limitations, you specified you would use a release rate of 3600cfs throughout which you declared to have no significant environmental impact and therefore no TA was required for this addendum to the plan.
As a stakeholder i recognize you have no intention of protecting recreation which is a responsibility given the Corps by Congress back around 1985. First you deny consideration of the primary factors in recreation namely all the homes around the lakes and campgrounds and marinas. By denying those you also prevent any other sources of recreation such as hotels etc. by making our reputation so bad no such business would ever consider an investment here. Second you use every excuse in the book (power generation was used this past summer) to justify your release rates. Strict adherence to the drought plan is in play at the moment. Years past the corps claimed all kinds of stakeholders such as Fish and Wildlife and SC DNR refused you permission to decrease rates but in each case as we asked these stakeholders they denied any such restriction being placed on you by them. Years past you claimed dissolved oxygen in the harbor was a controlling factor but when we researched that we found the ocean tides control DO rather than river inflows. In business and industry such behaviour would be designated as incompetent if due to ignorance or dishonest if deliberate attempts to mislead lake stakeholders. Neither is complimentary of the Corps and both represent a need to make a huge change in the way the basin is being operated.
The very title of Engineer tells me that you are not restricted to following a written procedure without question. That title indicates you should be advising Congress of what changes are needed rather than waiting for instructions from Congress.

PERTINENT COMMENT ON BALANCING THE BASIN

If you read the comments on Balancing The Basin you have already seen this.  If not you may be interested in an exchange from a member of Save Our Lakes Now with the Corps. This comes after numerous back and forth comments between one member of Save Our Lakes Now and the Corps:


First and foremost you have abandoned protecting recreation (meaning the full
infrastructure that provides for recreation on our lakes) when you allow the lakes to drop 10 ft or 8 ft and make no effort to get the lakes back to normal fill levels. Second, you or someone has changed the trigger levels shown on your site to conform with what you are now saying which is dishonest. Third, trying to use flow rates in the broad river to tell you whether the basin is in drought is absurd. Lake levels give a very accurate picture of where we are in a drought and are far more reliable. It is my hope that Save Our Lakes NOw will continue to bring your demonstrated refusal to protect Recreation to the attention of our politicians until we get relief from your lack of respect for lake interests.

CORPS IGNORING RECREATION CONCERNS

The Corps has just increased release rates from Thurmond from 3600cfs to 4000cfs which is way beyond what is called for in the drought plan.  This is destructive to the Recreational Infrastructure of our lakes and is indicative of the fact that the Corps has no desire to protect Recreation interests.

In the past when we've pleaded for the Corps to decrease release rates during severe droughts we've been told  that the Corps  cannot deviate from the guidelines of the current drought plan.  Now they are proving this to be a lie. With the lakes in severe drought conditions the Corps is adding to that damage by increasing release rates to the river from the 3600cfs called for in the drought plan to 4000cfs.

Currently Lake Interests have no voice with the Corps. We desperately need assistance from our congressmen or governors to get the Corps to listen to reason.  If you agree that this needs to change make your thoughts known to congress and your state governor.  Talking to the Corps appears to be a waste of time.  They show no intention of listening to recreational concerns.

COPY OF PERTINENT COMMENT TO CORPS POST ON FACE BOOK

The following comment was offered recently on the corps post of Balancing the Basin.

The climatologists seem to be working hard.  But what about the engineers who are supposed to protect recreation along with a number of other responsibilities?  The current drought plan has destroyed recreation repeatedly since 2002 and the engineers with the corps have yet to utilize the experience gained from those failures to optimize the drought plan. The studies mentioned repeatedly cannot add anything to the experience gained from repeated lengthy operation at 3600 cfs regarding effects of operating at this release level. From an engineering standpoint there is ample data for modifying the drought plan safely.  Examples of modifications needed are stop releases above 3600cfs when lake lavels cannot be maintained at full pool and stop releases to the river when rains below Thurmond dam are supplying adeqate water for downstream interests. With the expertise the corp hydrologists have i feel sure even further improvements can be made without doing damage downstream.  (posted by Jerry Clontz on 1/27)

QUICK TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER CORPS IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING RECREATION

There is a quick question you can ask to find out whether the Corps is interested in protecting recreation.  This same question needs to be asked of your congressman to see if he is even trying to help. The river below Thurmond dam has been swollen numerous times from recent rain events.  The Corps has full capability to keep up with river flows and/or levels. 

Here is my question.  How many times has the Corps stopped releases from Thurmond to let the lakes recover from horrible lake levels caused by the recent drought. The answer, the Corps made no attempt to protect us and simply continued unnecessary releases that could have made a huge difference had they been stopped.

I don't know why the Corps doesn't try to protect the recreational infrastructure but it is obvious they have no desire to do so.  I don't know why our congressmen aren't insisting the Corps use the information gathered from the repeated droughts this century to improve our situation.  If  I ask them by myself nothing will change.  The tea party made huge changes by insisting on change at every congressional town hall and similar meetings.  We need to do the same.

LETTER FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW TO SHANE MASSEY, MAJORITY LEADER OF SC SENATE

Shane,

I recognize there are many issues you are burdened with but I can think of none that is more important to your constituency than getting the Corps management of Lake Thurmond straightened out.  Save Our Lakes Now has finally killed all the lies and excuses the Corps used to use as to why they follow the current drought plan.  We are now down to one excuse they use to destroy our lakes every couple of years.  They claim they have to meet their power quotas which is not true.  We’ve talked to top officials with SEPA who insist we keep their names confidential for obvious reasons and they assure us that any time we reduce Lake Thurmond releases to 3600cfs they are fine because they have many sources for power to their grid at basically the same price to the end user. To a large extent the rural communities you are associated with are starving because of the failure of the Corps to maintain reasonable control of lake levels. Instead of the explosive growth normally associated with recreational areas there is absolutely no growth occurring for the communities around Lake Thurmond.

We need to stop fooling around with the Corps and demand that they reduce releases from Thurmond to 3600cfs anytime they are unable to hold the lakes at full pool  We also need to talk to DNR about decreasing waste releases from the Augusta factories and businesses along the Savannah so we can drop even lower in release rates.  What the DNR and the Corps are not telling you is that water users such as Savannah have ways to live with release rates even lower than 3600cfs. They already plan to build a reservoir at Savannah for reasons other than water supply which would permit living with lower release quantities from the standpoint of water supply at times of drought. And lower release limits for the plants along the Savannah would permit release rates even lower than 3600cfs from the standpoint of water quality.  I am a Chemical Engineer and fully familiar with reducing waste levels for chemical processes. Basically we were always able to reduce effluent wastes when asked to do so.

You may feel this is outside your authority. But I feel certain demands from the state of SC for changes to the drought plan for the Savannah River Basin would get the attention of congress.  This is especially true right now as the new administration takes office.

Jerry Clontz

Save Our Lakes Now

803-648-9864

CORPS SHOWING TOTAL DISRESPECT FOR RECREATION

If we assume the job of the Corps is truly engineering rather than operators blindly following a written procedure, we have to assume the Corps is failing totally in their management of the Savannah River Basin.  The damages they are doing with lake levels is comparable to the way the EPA shut down coal mining.  Only difference is the methodology of the EPA with coal has some saving grace if you are a environmental or global warming addict whereas there is no saving grace for the way the Corps keeps destroying our basin.

For the sake of brevity I will site just a few glaring engineering omissions.

1. right now the rivers below Thurmond dam are swelled from recent rains. Contradictory to good engineering practice the corps continues to release 3600cfs rather than shut down releases for a while to allow the lakes to recover.
2. previously when the lakes started down below full pool the corps held to elevated release rates rather than conserving lake levels by dropping releases to the minimum demonstrated to be safe for downstream interests.
3. in their planning for the future with the harbor expansion the corps totally ignored the fact that the Augusta lock and dam needs repair to avoid severe damages upstream.  Rather than concern themselves with recreational and Augusta interests they did extensive planning for building a fish ladder.

These omissions by engineers in the business world would be subject to law suit and the engineers involved would be reprimanded severely and probably lose their jobs. We need to hold the Corps to the same level of professional performance or eliminate the word engineer in their title and appoint engineers to oversee the work of the Corps.

NOTE: If you would like email notification each time a new blog is published you can get on our mailing list by sending a request to the following email address:  redfiremedia@aol.com