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.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Thursday, June 15, 2017
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
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.
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.
Monday, May 1, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
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?
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 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.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
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??
Friday, April 28, 2017
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)