NEED YOUR HELP TO OBTAIN PUBLICITY AVENUES

Somehow we need to get more publicity about the way the Corps is mismanaging our lakes.  If you have access to any of our political leaders or any radio or TV personalities that can help, please let us know.  We've tried all our resources and to date no takers.  Can you imagine what a figure like Rush Limbaugh could do for our cause.  And likewise any powerful political leader (governor, congressman, senator, etc) could bring about major change. Save Our Lakes Now leadership would be happy to meet with any such interested person or persons if that would help them understand our plight.

It is now obvious the Corps has no intention of managing our lakes in a manner that protects against devastating loss in lake level when droughts occur.  When we point out the losses to the recreational infrastructure (eg. businesses that provide recreation at the lake and all the houses built around the lakes primarily for the purpose of recreation) they seem to be deaf to what we are saying.  Further they offer ridiculous arguments such as power production schedules and being unfair to downstream stakeholders. The total value of the power created by our dams is miniscule in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost by the recreational infrastructure.  And so far as being fair to downstream stakeholders we pass on every drop of water nature gives us and we have no problem passing on more than supplied within reason such as the 3600cfs (3100 in cold weather) which has been demonstrated to be safe based on recent droughts. 

To put things in perspective, the corps yells that drought is causing the destruction.  But that is simply not true.  What is causing the destruction is putting more water downstream than is coming into the system from rain. Such behavior by the Corps in other water systems around the nation has virtually destroyed magnificent lakes such as Lake Mead out West.  This behavior has led to millions of people out West being in danger of having no fresh water and could easily do the same thing here.  Rather than lake stakeholders doing damage to downstream, wasting water by putting more in the ocean than is necessary is what is doing the damage.

CORPS STUBBORNLY REFUSES TO PROTECT OUR LAKES AGAINST DROUGHT

We were hopeful that the new Colonel would listen to reason and get away from the drought plan that has destroyed our lakes repeatedly over the past decade.  Real Estate values around the lakes and the Recreational infrastructure are in desperate need of a change that would end this madness.

Since the Corps refuses to redo the drought plan, we would like to offer one that gives better balance to the various responsibilities of the Corps. First let me give the underlying bases for this approach:

• Power production is important but basically it comes down to an economic consideration.  Any time we do not produce enough power here to satisfy the power demand, it can be purchased off the grid.  The expense of buying it elsewhere is nothing compared to the money lost in real estate and recreational infrastructure when lake levels drop drastically.
• Fish and Wildlife and water supply and water quality are important but they can only be managed properly when there is adequate water in the lakes. Further, we have demonstrated repeatedly (and it is even stated in Corps documents) that these are adequately managed when release rates are at 3600cfs or higher. 
• Recreation is another responsibility of the Corps. It is destroyed anytime the lakes drop drastically.  Not only is the destruction at the time the lakes are down but we continue to suffer from a bad reputation for at least 3 years following destruction of lake levels during a drought.
• Fresh water, although it is not directly listed under the Corps responsibilities, should be recognized by the Corps as something we must protect by wasting as little as possible.  The Corps shows some understanding of this principle in water saving devices at their offices but somehow they fail to recognize that even 100cfs more than necessary in lake releases does more damage than all their conservation measures put together.
• The Corps has demonstrated that they can control lake levels to within about 6" whenever they so desire.

Applying a little logic and common sense to these facts leads to a far superior drought plan than is currently being followed.  If the lakes are held within 6" of full pool as long as they don't have to reduce release rates below 3600cfs, the basin would truly be in balance.  Even in a severe drought the loss in lake level should not be enough to be destructive.  One added factor would be to minimize the winter draw down so we don't enter a drought more than 2' below full level.

If this were the mode of operation the definition of whether we are in a drought would be simple.  It would be anytime full pool can not be maintained using release rates of 3600cfs. Downstream would now be more like what nature intended with levels and flow rates that are determined by nature rather than man.  Blame would no longer be directed at the Corps.  It would finally be directed where it should be; at nature.

We can understand that the Corps feels they are simply following orders.  But history has shown repeatedly that "DOING WHAT IS RIGHT" is far superior to blindly following orders.

MAJOR TROUBLE AHEAD IF FISH LADDER CONSTRUCTED

As indicated in the recent Balancing the Basin the Corps is planning to construct (at a cost of  millions of dollars) a fish ladder that will put our lakes in extreme jeopardy.  The reasoning is that deepening the Savannah harbor will decrease the spawning area for short nosed sturgeon. Their plan sounds innocent enough.  They want to allow the sturgeon access to the Savannah River upstream of the lock and dam just South of Augusta. 

If the sturgeon start spawning in the rapids north of Augusta, as they most certainly would, the release rates from Thurmond Dam would suddenly be controlled by flow rates through the rapids.  This is so preposterous it is hard to believe anyone would even consider such a measure.  But it shows once again that the Corps is not doing their job in protecting our lakes.  It appears that they would just as soon destroy the lakes as not.

SOLN has registered numerous complaints about this plan but they have fallen on deaf ears.  Please contact your governor, your congressman, and your senator and insist that they stop this madness.  You probably should make your concerns known to Col. Tickner as well although based on past experience this may be a futile effort.

Part of this plan is for the corps to train the sturgeon to climb the fish ladder around the lock and dam.  This smacks of the idiocy of similar measures out West where the Corps actually trucks Salmon past dams so they can spawn.  Our contention is the sturgeon are not limited to the Savannah River.  They have been shown to spawn at other locations.

A side note, the next idiocy will be to try to use river flows to prevent the salt migration that most assuredly will occur.  It doesn't matter that the river compared to the ocean tides entering the harbor is like a garden hose flowing into the river. 

RECENT BALANCING THE BASIN VERY ILLUMINATING

The July 8 Balancing the Basin purports to explain the Corps' thinking when it comes to determining outflows from Lake Thurmond which in turn dictates the level of both Thurmond and Hartwell.  The initial reasoning offers the thought that normal is not full pool.  Rather normal is what the average levels have been over the years.

I have a huge problem with this concept.  Normal or average led to devastating loss of lake level 3 times in the last decade.  To call this acceptable is ludicrous.  Why would we want to repeat those conditions where recreation was destroyed and the Corps was placed in a dire situation where they had little to no control over their various other responsibilities. 

It is obvious to me as an engineer why the Corps lost control of the lakes.  It should be equally obvious to the Corps but for some reason they continue to go headlong into situations where the lakes can not recover should a drought occur.  We have been pleading with the Corps to hold lake levels as near as possible to full pool until the fall and winter by reducing release rates from Thurmond to as low as 3600cfs when needed. The Corps has shown they can hold lake levels to within 6" of their targeted level except in extreme conditions such as rainfall that yields less than 3600cfs inflow.  The reason for choosing 3600cfs as the low point is we have demonstrated repeatedly in past droughts that this flow does not significantly impact the environment or water supply needs.

It can be argued that higher flows to the river are better but that's like the argument that you want to buy more than your income will allow.  It feels good for awhile but becomes totally destructive to all concerned whether upstream or downstream when levels drop more than 10ft.

Additionally we have pleaded with the Corps for several years to reduce the fall/winter drawdown to 2' instead of 4'.  This again is so we enter any drought, should one occur, at as full a lake level as possible.  The reason for choosing 2' is that volume of water, counting all 3 lakes, has been demonstrated since Thurmond was first built to handle the heavy fall and winter runoffs.  A 2' change now with 3 lakes involved is the same as the 4' drop used prior to building Hartwell and Russell.

The explanation for what determines release rates while the lakes are within 4' of full was inflow volumes, hydropower, and environmental and municipal demands.  What is missing is the observation that none of these can be managed well when the lakes drop drastically.  The reason this occurred in recent droughts is we entered the drought with lake levels already down 4' and even then we did not decrease release rates enough to counter the drought. And there is also no mention of the fact that recreation (another of the Corps' responsibilities) was virtually destroyed from recent droughts. 

The discussion in the article also goes into some detail about power needs.  Ironically the Corps refuses to acknowledge economic impact of low lake levels on real estate and the recreational infrastructure around the lakes.  But when power generation is discussed it is purely an economic discussion because there is more than adequate power available elsewhere on the grid.  The total value of power generated from our lakes is no match for the losses to real estate and recreation when lake levels drop more than 10ft.

CORPS PROJECTIONS SHOW RETURN TO RELEASE RATES THAT CAN DESTROY BASIN

As most of you know lake stakeholders are not represented at the Corps meetings where release rates are decided. In our opinion lake stakeholders should be represented at these meetings by someone they elect or by someone who has a large investment in the recreational infrastructure around the lakes. Currently we have a few people the Corps uses to explain to us why they are doing things the way they are.  But what is needed is someone the Corps has to listen to when it comes to lake interests in balancing the basin.

The current projections for Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell show the lakes dropping over the next few months when the levels could be maintained safely by controlling release rates.  Release rates for Thurmond which are the controlling factor for levels on all three lakes are projected at 6500cfs immediately which is well above the amount of water being supplied by Nature. This sets us up for another drastic drop in lake levels if a drought hits.  Since we have no voice at the Corps meetings I thought it might be interesting to run through what our input would be if we were present. 

1. In our opinion release rates need to be set to maintain full lakes unless that rate falls below the 3600cfs demonstrated to have no significant negative impact downstream of Thurmond Dam.  We demonstrated in the three major droughts of the last decade that dropping the lakes when there was no drought caused us to lose control when a drought did occur. Allowing the lakes to drop 4ft and more when the level could be maintained safely causes severe damage from low lake levels when a drought does occur.
2. Environmentally this makes sense because nature is controlling things until release rates less than 3600cfs are required and we avoid the environmental nightmare of dropping the lakes so low that emergency measures and  low flows are required for excessive periods of time. 
3. From a conservation standpoint this makes sense because we don't waste any more fresh water than is absolutely necessary.  Higher release rates destroy much more fresh water than is saved by all the water conservation measures in use today in the Savannah River Basin.
4. If power production quotas is the reason for increased flows, the total money saved from producing power from our lakes rather than from off the grid is peanuts compared to the costs to real estate and recreational infrastructure from low lake levels. Besides, our primary purpose in terms of power production is for peaking power.  With the drastically low lake levels caused by irresponsible lake level control, peaking power capability is endangered.
5. From the stand point of recreational infrastructure and real estate losses it goes without saying that responsible lake level control in the manner used for the past several months is literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  And more importantly, once drastically low lake levels occur, it takes 3 or so years for recreation and real estate to recover.  We have only just begun to recoup from the last drought as evidenced by extreme hardships for everyone involved in recreation or who owns lake property.

For the past few months the Corps has shown us how easily they can maintain lake levels.  It's time for us to demand that they continue to do so.

CORPS CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE EXCELLENT CONTROL OF LAKE LEVEL

Looking at release rates I was surprised to see that they are at levels previously reserved for emergency conditions.  I grow hopeful that Col. Tickner is factoring in recreation in managing the Savannah River Basin.   Following previous practices our lakes would be dropping like a rock right now.  But instead the levels are being maintained within 6" of full pool.

It seems to Save Our Lakes Now that this is an excellent way to control the basin:

• River flows are varying the way nature intended rather than being held artificially constant.
• Environmental concerns are protected as long as releases are in excess of the 3600cfs demonstrated to have no substantial environmental impact downstream
• Water quality and water supply needs are also being met at release rates in excess of 3600cfs.
• Destruction of precious fresh water by releasing it to the ocean is being kept to a minimum.
• The dollar value gained by power production is being kept in line with the dollar value lost from decreased real estate values and destruction to recreational infrastructure around the lakes.

Please let Col. Tickner know our thoughts here.  We owe him a tremendous vote of thanks if he is responsible for these improvements.  If the changes are coincidental and not intended, maybe making him aware of our thoughts will help make these changes permanent.

REVISITING THE PROPOSAL FOR 2' WINTER DRAW DOWNS INSTEAD OF 4'

As I'm sure most of you are aware the corps continues to do a sterling job of maintaining lake levels. 
We certainly commend them on this and hope they will not hesitate to go to minimum release rates to hold level as much as possible if we get into another drought.  On a different note, there was an interesting post on Balancing the Basin by Billy Birdwell that could serve as a great argument to go to a 2' drawdown rather than a 4' drawdown in the winters. Quoting from Billy's post

"Our water managers don’t rely solely on computer models or theories, but on decades of working in this basin under a wide range of conditions. They’ve seen floods, droughts, heat waves, ice storms, tropical storms, and years of other weather.

Our water managers are scientist-engineers and draw on the latest scientific methods as well as years of real-world observations to accomplish all their missions in the most efficient way possible. Although they don’t have ‘crystal balls’ to consult, they actually have something better – science tempered with experience and insight."
~Billy Birdwell, Corporate Communications Office

So far as years of real-world observations, from the time Thurmond was built until Hartwell came on the scene a 4' drawdown was used in the winter. The total area rain runoff comes from remains unchanged.  It is the whole basin from the mountains to the Thurmond Dam.  The difference now is that we have both Hartwell and Russell collecting that runoff in addition to Thurmond.  Using that science tempered with experience Billy talks about, a 2' drawdown now should be equivalent to the 4' drawdown used before Hartwell was built.  In other words the amount of runoff remains unchanged but the amount of space to collect that runoff is now twice what it used to be.