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.