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.