DOWN TO THE WIRE

We are fast approaching the time the Corps plans to drop our lakes more than 2' for the winter.  The 10 week projections show Lake Thurmond more than 2' down as of November 16.  If you want our lakes to be full next spring and summer we cannot afford for the Corps to follow the current guide curve which calls for the lakes to drop 4' over the winter.

The corps can and has argued that they need extensive studies before they can determine how low they take release rates.  But the amount they drop the lakes over the winter has nothing to do with all this.  The 4' basis used in the past was set up based on having just Lake Thurmond to collect the higher rainfalls that occur in Winter and Spring.  We now have 3 lakes instead of just Lake Thurmond and 2' now is the same safety valve 4' used to give when all we had was Lake Thurmond.  Additionally, the100yr rain event that occurred this summer showed the lakes would not have exceeded full pool if we had started 2' below full pool.

I have heard that the Colonel has agreed to look into this in the fall.  It would not be a bad idea to go ahead now and make your thoughts known to the Colonel, your congressional representatives, and your governor (both Governors have expressed great interest in keeping our lakes full).  Waiting until November to see what the Corps does is too late to save next Spring and Summer. 

Incidentally, Gary Gerard who is a candidate for Paul Broun's vacated seat has expressed interest in helping us solve our dilemma with the Corps.  He will be at Soap Creek Marina for a meet and greet at the restaurant building, Thursday September 26 between 5 and 6:30.  Aside from meeting Mark, this would be a good time for you to find out how serious he is about helping us with the Corps and make sure he knows your concerns. 

Jon Clerry, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now

DECISION TIME IS JUST A MONTH AWAY FOR CORPS

Speaking personally, I put my retirement money into real estate and development investments connected with the lakes of the Savannah River Basin.  Due to the poor lake level control over the past decade those investments are worth less than half what I put into them.  I feel sure I am typical of what has happened to a lot of lake stakeholders.  Many would say these losses were unavoidable due to droughts.  In fact they are due to the Corps’ failure to protect the recreation infrastructure around the lakes.  As my predecessor pointed out many times, the term recreation in the list of responsibilities the Corps has for our lakes is not a few individuals fishing or enjoying water sports.  Rather it is the infrastructure worth hundreds of millions around our lakes connected with recreation. I am talking about real estate purchased for access and enjoyment of the lake, marinas, campgrounds, marine supplies, restaurants on the lake and the many similar investments that affect recreation on our lakes.

Poor lake level control did not come from lack of rain.  It came from mismanaging the rain that was available. The current situation where the Corps is keeping the lakes within a few feet of full pool demonstrates that good management of lake levels is possible.   If the same methods were employed during drought conditions that are being used in flood conditions, the lakes could be held to within 8ft of full pool without violating any of the limits placed on release rates from the list of other concerns the Corps is responsible for.  This degree of level variation, while not totally desirable, is acceptable in that recreation is not seriously harmed until the lakes drop more than 10ft.  Literally the changes required to the current drought plan would be:

·         Rather than drop the lakes 4’ in the fall, limit the decrease to 2’.  The 4’ limit came from the time when Thurmond was the only lake and that space was needed for heavy rains in the winter and spring. There are now 3 lakes and 2’provides the same margin of safety that 4’ used to provide.

·         Limit the minimum release rate from Lake Thurmond to 3,600 cfs (3,000 in the colder months) to protect environmental and water quality/supply concerns.

Power production is not listed as a concern for two reasons.  First, SEPA has indicated on numerous occasions that the main power concern for our lakes is the ability to provide peaking power.  Second, any short fall in total power production can be offset by purchases from other production areas.  If you look at the added cost of power purchased elsewhere, it is peanuts compared to the monetary value of damages to recreation when the lakes drop more than 10’.

We will know shortly whether the Corps plans to protect recreation the same way they do their other concerns.  If they do they will hold the drop in lake levels in the fall to only 2’.  And further they will give recreation a voice in their meetings to decide release rates.  Said voice needs to be someone with a substantial stake in the recreation infrastructure.