HORRIBLE IMPLICATONS FOR LAKE STAKEHOLDERS

The recent Balancing the Basin from the Corps discusses how deepening the Savannah Harbor may affect salinity levels in the lower reaches of the Savannah River.  This write up includes a very ominous statement from the perspective of Lake Stake Holders.  The statement involved is:

"This monitoring network will allow the Corps to make frequent assessments of river conditions and provide valuable, real-time data they can use to make adaptive management decisions. - See more at: http://balancingthebasin.armylive.dodlive.mil/2014/01/22/riverquality/#more-1392"

At first glance this is innocuous.  But on further inspection the adaptive management decisions mentioned would almost certainly involve release rates from the lakes.  If the Corps tries to dilute the incoming tides from the ocean with water from the Savannah River we will most certainly destroy the recreational infrastructure around the lakes. From an engineering perspective using river flows to dilute the ocean is as futile as using a garden hose to dilute the river. Unfortunately the decisions made in the past on lake releases seldom represent good engineering practice.

As we've stated many times before, balance to the basin can not be expected without strong representation of Lake Stakeholder interests at Corps meetings where release rates are discussed.  If all you have at these meetings is groups trying to dilute salt water from tidal inflows with river water, the adaptive management decisions will always be to release more water from the lakes even if it destroys lake stakeholder interests.

WE JUST COMPLETED MAJOR TEST OF RULE CURVE

The massive rains occurring with Lakes Thurmond and Hartwell down 2' should make it possible to decide on future drawdowns during the winter.  The perspective will vary depending on whether you are a lake stakeholder or environmentalist or stake holder along the lower Savannah River.  At present there are no lake stakeholders involved in the meetings where decisions of this nature are made. Hence decisions are not balanced with respect to lake stakeholder needs. So the purpose of this blog will be to present things from the perspective of the Lake Stakeholder.

In the past the Corps has used a 4' draw down in the winter.  This is not a problem if you come out of the winter with good Spring rainfalls.  However based on the past decade this has been a major problem. Starting out a dry season with the lakes already down 4' has led to severe damage to the recreation infrastructure of both Thurmond and Hartwell.  Two changes are needed if we are to avoid such disasters in the future.  First the draw down needs to be 2' rather than 4' and second the Corps needs to immediately reduce flows anytime lake levels begin to drop. 

From the standpoint of Recreational Infrastructure, a drop of up to 8' in a major drought is acceptable.  But drops in excess of 8' are very destructive.  Keeping the lakes within 2' of full pool during the winter and reducing release rates to maintain level as soon as the lakes start to drop would prevent dropping more than 8' even in the worst drought experienced in the last decade. 

Following is a quick review of how this approach affects the different stakeholders:

• Environmental concerns can be met as long as you do not drop the release rate below 3600cfs.  Holding release rates higher than this simply extends the time the river is in drought condition coming out of the drought which has caused extended problems from an environmental standpoint in the major droughts of the past decade. 
• River stakeholder concerns involve excessive flows under flood conditions and too little flow when recovering from a drought.  The proposal for 2' draw down during the winter should simply swing the balance toward higher flows and less time in a drought whenever we are in a major drought.  Water quality and water supply should be acceptable as long as release rates remain at or above 3,600cfs from Thurmond.

I am not listing how these affect lake stakeholders to emphasize the fact that they are not represented at the meetings where these matters are discussed and decisions on release rates are made.  Until we get representation from someone with a substantial stake in recreation at the Corps meetings where these decisions are made we cannot expect the decisions to be balanced.

A CHEMICAL ENGINEER LOOKS AT MANAGEMENT OF LAKE THURMOND

Managing complex water systems from raw sewage to waters heavily contaminated with nuclear waste is routine for Chemical Engineers.  Both the many years of education they receive on such matters and their experience from decades of handling these issues in real life fully equip them for handling something as mundane as managing the Savannah River system.  We have interviewed one of the Chemical Engineers in our group who is very familiar with the Savannah River Basin about how he feels the basin should be managed, especially with respect to release rates and level control during major droughts.

His first step was to list the various issues that the Corps has to deal with along these lines and prioritize each consideration.  Here is his list of priorities:

1. Fresh water is one of the most valuable commodities on earth and maximizing the amount of fresh water in the system at all times should be top priority
2. Quality of water for human consumption comes second
3. Environmental concerns come next
4. Economic impact on the lakes and surrounding communities comes next
5. Impact on the various production facilities along the river that use water to dilute their waste comes next
6. Impact on power production comes next
7. Impact on oxygen levels in the harbor comes next

And so on with any other concerns people have along the basin.

Looking at priority one, this demands the lakes be kept as full as possible because all the water released from the lakes becomes salt water as it reaches the harbor. This then dictates that release rates should be reduced as much as possible during a drought to preserve the fresh water in the system.

 Looking at priority two, past experience has shown water quality to be satisfactory with release rates as low as 3600cfs from Thurmond.  Hence in the event of a drought it is recommended the release rate from Thurmond be dropped to at least 3600cfs when lake levels start dropping to maintain as much fresh water in the system as possible.

Environmental concerns are a little less obvious.  Depending on who is dictating what the concerns should be and how reasonable they are this can vary over a very wide range.  Again, it has been demonstrated that even the most extreme environmental concerns can be met with release rates as low as 3600cfs when the lake levels start dropping.  And here again priority 1 dictates that this should be done.

Economic impact on the lakes and surrounding communities becomes severe when the lakes drop more than 8’ from full pool.  Experience from the droughts over the last decade show the lake levels will not drop more than 8’ if release rates are dropped to 3600cfs when the lake levels start down.

Economic impact on downstream commercial operations is a sleeping giant.  As every chemical engineer knows the quantity of waste being released is a function of how much you want to clean the water before it is released to the river.  Any challenges here should be met with tighter release limits, not increased river flows.  Hence here again 3600cfs makes sense.  Even lower release rates are possible if tighter controls are set on production releases.

The impact on power production is almost not worth our consideration.  To destroy good fresh water just to save a few cents off our power bills is foolhardy.  Besides it can be argued that this is purely an economic consideration since power can be obtained elsewhere when we are in a drought.  As an economic concern, the cost to the recreational infrastructure around the lakes from low lake levels far exceeds any savings in power costs.

Impact on oxygen levels in the harbor is no match for priority one.  First the water from Thurmond dam is pristine as it comes from the dam having gone through the vast settling basin our lakes present.  Second the water from Thurmond dam is fully oxygenated (100% saturated with oxygen) after it crosses the rapids north of Augusta.  Besides the only impact flows from Thurmond dam have on oxygen levels is the fact that they dilute production wastes. And as noted previously this is best controlled by the release standards for the various production facilities along the river.  And one other factor making our release rates inconsequential to the oxygen levels in the harbor is that the tide contributes 10 times the water to the harbor that the river does.  Hence oxygen levels in the harbor are controlled primarily by the ocean rather than the river.

 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

 

WHAT IF LAKE STAKEHOLDERS WERE INVOLVED IN CORPS DECISIONS ON OPERATING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

As I've mentioned numerous times we desperately need Lake Stakeholders who have significant skin in the game representing us at Corps meetings where lake level control, release rates, overall drought plans and routine operations, are discussed.  Take for example the Corps' recent announcement that they may keep Hartwell at full pool through the winter while drawing Thurmond down 4' for flood control.  Someone who has no substantial stake in the lakes is not going to be able to represent us fairly. 

At first glance you would expect Lake Thurmond stakeholders to be up in arms.  But looking at this from a purely selfish viewpoint, this is not necessarily a bad thing for Lake Thurmond.  Here is where a lake stakeholder could make a difference.  Someone knowledgeable of Lake Thurmond would recognize the following:

• Level changes of 4' or less, while not desirable, do no significant damage to the recreation infrastructure.
• If the Corps includes a proviso not to drop Thurmond more than 4' without bringing the lakes into balance, having Hartwell at full pool would help prevent the drastic loss in control that occurs when you come into a dry summer with both lakes 4' below full pool. 
• With the proviso above, having Hartwell at full pool actually gives a buffer should we encounter a dry spell coming out of the winter.  

In other words, what at first glance is a horrible decision for folks around Lake Thurmond could actually prove to be a plus.  Naturally everyone just assumes that people around Lake Thurmond would prefer both lakes to be dropped only 2'.  But that could be a problem if the rainfall is unbalanced and Thurmond gets more than its share of rain. Hence it is far better to hold Hartwell at full pool than be forced to drop both lakes 4'.

This is just one example of how lake stakeholders can add input the environmentalists and other interests cannot.  Another example is the practice of shutting down releases from Russell over the weekends during the summer.  This practice causes a significant drop in Lake Thurmond levels which are enough to beach the houseboats pulled along shore on weekends trying to enjoy a cove somewhere.  A stakeholder from Lake Thurmond would vote for releases to be continued on the weekends.  If they have to be stopped for a couple of days each week, mid week would be a much better time than the weekend.

These are just a few of the less obvious inputs lake stakeholders could add to Corps meetings involving the lakes.  It is important that the person or persons representing lake stakeholders have significant skin in the game concerning our recreational infrastructure.  They need to understand what lake levels do to real estate values, businesses connected with the lakes, recreation in general and the economic impact of all the people who come here each year for recreation. All these issues are part of the recreation infrastructure; not just whether you can water ski or fish at a given spot.

Although they may be great people, it is unfair to expect environmentalists and persons of similar backgrounds to represent recreation interests fairly.

CORPS PRIORITY FOR RECREATION IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT LAKE STAKEHOLDERS

The latest issue of Balancing the Basin gives a sobering summation of what the Corps plans to do this year regarding drought protection.  Unfortunately they plan to continue following the drought plan that has failed us so miserably for the past decade.  This would be understandable if we had no answers on how to maintain lake levels without doing damage to the other concerns the Corps has.  But we do have those answers.  The impact of lake levels on our huge infrastructure for recreation is essentially being ignored.

There are several questions that illuminate the failure by the Corps to protect recreation the way they were directed by Congress:

1. Does the Corps have the capability of maintaining lake levels within a few tenths of a foot over the span of a month?
2. Isn't it true that we have demonstrated that 3600cfs release rates can be safely tolerated downstream of Lake Thurmond?
3. Isn't it true that poor lake level control does immense damage to the recreational infrastructure around the lakes?
4. Why then does the Corps not minimize the drop in lake levels when we enter drought conditions?

The Corps repeatedly quotes environmental authorities in support of releasing water at rates that cause us to lose control of lake level.  But they never quote authorities representing recreational concerns.  The reason is we have no voice in Corps drought planning.  What is desperately needed is representation at drought planning sessions from authorities on recreational concerns.  Said authority needs to have a significant stake in the recreational infrastructure around our lakes and be answerable to the concerns of lake stakeholders. At present the closest thing we have to such representation is a few spokesmen who explain the Corps' thinking on various issues.  This would be like the environmental authorities explaining to the public why the Corps is not listening to their input.

Although it has not yet brought about the desired response, our best option to bring about change is to continue insisting that the Corps control lake levels in a drought the way they do in flood conditions.  Letters, emails, etc. to the Corps and your congressmen do keep this issue at the forefront.  That fact is evidenced by the Corps continuing to make excuses for poor control of lake level in Balancing the Basin articles. 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

VERY DISAPPOINTED IN NEW COLONEL

I was very hopeful that Colonel Tickner would take what we've learned from recent droughts and massive rains and improve the way our lakes are managed.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that changes are desperately needed.  But to our disappointment the Corps is stubbornly refusing to make the changes needed.  Instead they hold to the drought plan that has caused so much devastation to our recreational infrastructure over the past decade.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the changes needed for vast improvement are simple and would be easy to do.  We've mentioned these before but since the Corps doesn't seem to be listening let me repeat what they are:

• Limit the winter draw down to 2' instead of 4'
• Follow the same approach used in flood control of adjusting flows as necessary to keep lake level drops to a minimum.
• Since we know that environmental and water quality needs are met at 3600cfs, do not hesitate to drop release rates to 3600 as needed to hold lake level.

All that is needed to keep away from the devastating damage to recreation of the past decade is to prevent lake levels from dropping more than 8'.  The measures outlined would have accomplished this over the past decade and would serve as a major improvement to our drought plan.

This is a two sided problem.  I've listed what the Corps needs to do.  But there are two sides to this equation.  We need to make sure during the upcoming elections that we put some people in office that will get lake stakeholders a significant voice in how the lakes are managed.  For example Gary Gerrard has indicated his willingness to help.  Be sure you support him and others like him.

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

RESPONSE TO RECENT BALANCING THE BASIN CONCERNING WINTER DRAWDOWN

I was delighted to read in the latest issue of Balancing the Basin how the Corps is addressing our request for a 2' drawdown this winter.  It is obvious they are listening to some of the concerns being expressed by Lake Stakeholders concerning the drought plan.  That is definitely a step in the right direction and it is greatly appreciated.  However we still have a long way to go before we are going to get proper balance in the decision process concerning our drought plan.  For example, concerning the 2' drawdown, they could just as easily gone the other way and used a 2' drawdown now with a future study to determine if an increase in flood storage capacity over what was used in the past might be warranted.  Personally I doubt seriously if there has been so much change since the 4' rule was put in place that we now need the equivalent of 8'.  But I am not part of the decision process.

The problem lies in who is making the decisions and who is interpreting the data. For example if the British parliament had been the group making all the decisions for the American colonies we would still be under British rule.  Our founding fathers expressed the same concern we have here.  They were concerned about taxation without representation.  We are concerned with management of our lakes without lake stakeholders having proper representation.  Had lake stakeholders been involved in this decision there would be at least two major differences in the way it is being handled.

1. we would not have waited so long before doing something whether it be a study or change the drawdown.  The request to go to a 2' draw down was made over a year ago.  Why are we just now getting around to a study?
2. we would have brought to the table the logic that not going to 2' is like changing the old plan to 8' with the obvious suggestion that we hold at the equivalent of the original 4' drawdown until a study is completed.

We need someone who can get us representation at the decision table and that representation needs to be a person or persons with a significant stake in the recreational infrastructure around our lakes.  A yes man who is excited to be involved with Corps meetings is not what we need.  We also need congressional help that would insist on such a set up. 

Following is a copy of an email Jerry Clontz recently received from Gary Gerrard who is running for congress from the 10th district in Georgia.  He sounds like someone who could finally make this happen.  Regardless of whether you live in the Georgia 10th district or not you should look at possibly helping Gary with a contribution so we can finally get someone in office who will help us get this mess fixed.

Email sent to Jerry Clontz from Gary Gerrard on 10/9/13

In response to your question about what I would do if elected to Congress for your membership, I would be as unaccepting of deliberate misinformation and stalling on your issues as I was on the Corps' attempt to prevent my campaign event at the Soap Creek Marina.  I would insist on being heard and getting timely, responsive and thoughtful answers to how the lake is managed.  The Corps is required by statute to include consideration of your interests in managing the lakes, and I would insist that the Corps do so.

jon clerry spokesman for save our lakes now