DROUGHT PLAN IS EXTREMELY WASTEFUL OF FRESH WATER

Tom Selleck was recently fined thousands of dollars because he purchased one truck load of fresh water for his farm in California. Can you imagine what the fine would be if anyone looked at the amount of fresh water the Corps is destroying by releasing it to the ocean. In the eyes of the Corps the lakes are only down 2ft and they are just following orders.  In the eyes of a conservationist they have destroyed over 50billion gals of water by dropping the lakes of the Savannah River basin 2ft.

As long as we have plenty of rain this kind of waste can be easily rectified by refilling the lakes.  But if a drought occurs this is actual waste and there is no way to get the water back. It is now in the ocean and irretrievable. 

As we all know there are other terrible consequences to the recreation and recreational infrastructure when the lakes drop over 10'.  But in this discussion, in view of what is happening in California where similar release plans are in use by the Corps, throwing away fresh water when we don't have to is not good.

I recognize that the corps is only following orders. They have the approved drought plan which permits the release levels currently in use.  And they have power quotas to fill. In talking to the corps they have said many times their hands are tied and if we want things to change we will have to talk to congress and convince them a change is needed. I think everyone would agree however that the corps is in the best position to discuss this with congress. If he were fined for the water he has wasted I think the Colonel would make things change rather quickly. Studies keep being used as an excuse for not making changes now.  But existing experience from recent droughts already shows that reducing releases to 3600cfs is not harmful and that would probably eliminate all the wasted fresh water so far.

HERE WE GO WITH THE CORPS USING TAINTED LOGIC CONCERNING OUR RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE

Looking at the projections for releases from Lake Thurmond one first gets the impression that the corps is doing a great job at balancing the lakes and projected lake levels aren't THAT BAD.  But let's rethink this.  The only reason for releases that are greater than the water nature is providing by rain is power production. Nothing else is at risk. Hydrologic power production is a great thing because it uses renewable energy the same way solar power and wind power do. But, and this is a major but, water is not renewable when you use more than nature is providing. A prime example is what happened out West with major cities in trouble on their water supply.

Aside from power production the other thing that can get you in trouble is unrealistic environmental concerns which are not a problem for our basin at this time.

Save Our lakes Now would like to see the Corps rethink their drought management plan.  We propose that first off power quotas be overruled by whether those levels of production will require more water to be released than nature is providing from rain. We recognize this has a paper cost to it but in reality the actual increase in cost to power users is far less than the dollar cost of destroying the recreational infrastructure (campgrounds, marinas, businesses connected with the lakes, real estate values for homes on the lake, etc.) around our lakes.  Second we propose that lake levels be maintained at full pool as long as that can be done with the minimum release rate demonstrated to be safe to the environment over the last 15 years (3600cfs in hot months and 3100cfs in cold months).

There are numerous reasons we can cite as to why we think this is a better approach than currently being used by the Corps.  But just the preservation of fresh water should be sufficient to support our argument.  Fresh water is more valuable than gold.  Just ask the people in California who are struggling to get by because the rivers and lakes there were allowed to drop to drastic levels using unrealistic thinking about protecting the environment and wasteful releases of water to the sea (most people don't stop and think but the water released from our dams is being destroyed as fresh water because it is going directly to the sea).

CURRENT RELEASE PRACTICES DOCUMENT THAT OUR PROPOSALS WORK

Save Our Lakes Now has pleaded for a drought plan that keeps the lakes as full as possible.  The way releases have been handled recently demonstrate that this approach is feasible.  Basically all we have been saying is hold lake levels at full pool as long as release rates do not drop below the minimum value (3600cfs) that has been demonstrated to be safe during the past decade.  We do not need to wait until further studies of drought management have been done to justify this approach.  With regard to release rates the purpose of  studies is to determine more precisely what the lowest acceptable release rate is for the future.

The beauty of this approach is:

• flows in the river basically match what nature has been doing for eons with the exception that the extremes of nature which can have devastating effects are avoided (eg. no flows below 3600 cfs which we know we can live with).
• lake levels should remain within 10ft of full pool even in extreme conditions.  And a drop of 10ft, while undesirable from an esthetic stand point, do not destroy the recreational infrastructure for the lakes.
• fresh water which is truly more valuable than gold (eg. look at what is happening in California) is preserved to the maximum extent possible.

While power production quotas may be missed for the Savannah River Basin, power at basically the same price will still be available from the power grid.  One way to look at power production is that hydropower is a renewable source of energy like wind and solar. As such hydropower should only be expected when nature provides adequate rain.  As with wind and solar, when nature doesn't cooperate you need to look to other sources of power production rather than destroy precious fresh water.

COMMON MISCONCEPTION ABOUT LAKE LEVELS VS LAKE INTERESTS

Looking back over numerous conversations back and forth on the comments section of Balancing the Basin it appears there may be a major misunderstanding about what Save Our Lakes Now is suggesting concerning drought management.  Our suggestion is to hold lake levels constant as long as release rates can be maintained at 3600cfs or higher.  Once 3600cfs is reached, our suggestion is to continue 3600cfs for the duration of the drought to minimize the total impact on lake interests.

Looking more closely at the objections to this there seems to be an underlying argument from naysayers that this will only help a little in terms of minimum levels reached.  What seems to be misunderstood is we are only asking for a little help. Following this strategy until the drought is over the drop in lake level should be less than 10'.  While a drop of 10' is not desirable, it is not disastrous.  Launching ramps are still useable, marina problems are minimal, recreation is still possible, and impact on property values is tolerable. 

Again, we feel lake interests are not adequately consulted on drought measures.  We are not asking to destroy downstream interests.  We are simply suggesting a better compromise between the various options available.  The primary challenge to this approach is it would impact power quotas more. We feel strongly that the value of fresh water saved and recreational dollars salvaged far outweigh the impact on power costs to the consumer.  Power quotas need to be weighed against real costs to recreation and not just followed blindly.

THIS COULD HAPPEN HERE

Jerry Clontz sent a copy of this article from Michael Reagan about what is happening to the water out West.  One irony we note is the powers that be have not yet realized that release rates from the reservoirs have a major effect here.  This could well be prophetic about the SRB unless we do a better job of balancing releases against rain fall. 


California is running out of water. The Bible, in Matthew 5:45, says the rain falls on the just and the unjust and the same goes for the drought. According to Jay Famiglietti, a senior water scientist at NASA: “NASA data reveal that total water storage in California has been in steady decline since at least 2002, when satellite-based monitoring began, although groundwater depletion has been going on since the early 20th century.”

And last winter’s “rainy season” didn’t help much either. January was the driest since people started collecting raindrops in 1895. Famiglietti adds that all the water currently stored in the state — “snow, river, and reservoir water, water in soils and groundwater combined — was 34 million acre-feet below normal in 2014. That loss is nearly 1.5 times the capacity of Lake Mead, America's largest reservoir.”

Since farmers can’t depend on the clouds for crop moisture, they’ve increased groundwater pumping and as a result in the Central Valley land is literally sinking, in some areas by as much as a foot. You may be thinking that’s planning ahead; when it finally starts to rain, farmer Jones will have a lake. But that’s not how it works. And no one is predicting rain.

In his Los Angeles Times piece, Famiglietti wisely resists the temptation to blame the drought on global warming, which made him much more credible in my book. His first recommendation is to begin mandatory water rationing throughout the state. After that he loses me.

Famiglietti wants to add to the state’s bureaucracy by creating “regional groundwater sustainability agencies” that will adopt plans. Then he wants a task force to “brainstorm” long-term water management strategies.

Then we really part company. His final recommendation is: “Finally, the public must take ownership of this issue. This crisis belongs to all of us — not just to a handful of decision-makers.” This is completely wrong. California is a democracy and for the past 40 years elected officials have done zero planning for long-term drought and have not built a new dam or reservoir since 2000.

I’m certainly willing to do my part and ration my use of water until the rain comes again. But I have no intention of accepting responsibility for the inaction and inability to set priorities demonstrated by state water authorities and elected officials.

CORPS UNINTENTIONALLY FOLLOWING OUR RECOMMENDED DROUGHT PLAN

The spawning season is upon us and the corps is reducing releases from Thurmond to as little as 3800cfs to hold lake levels within 1/2 foot in level variation.  This demonstrates the feasibility of what we have been saying all along in terms of how to protect the recreational infrastructure around the lakes.

It is ironic that the corps does not feel protecting recreation is as important as protecting fish spawning.  The only variable that is impacted by protecting recreation in the same manner as fish and wildlife protection during the spawning season is power  production. This to us is a horrible flaw in the way our basin is being managed.  Following are a few examples of why we feel power production needs to take a back seat to all the other things the corps is charged with protecting.

• Everyone understands and accepts that wind power and solar power are dependent on nature.  The same is true of hydro power. Any attempt to generate more power than nature permits from rain is destructive.  Doing so is like spending more money than you make.  It will eventually lead to bankruptcy.
• Fresh water is an extremely valuable entity.  Once you have too little to supply the water needed by downstream users it is too late to correct the situation. Cities out west already understand this because of poor management of water resources. They realize fresh water is more valuable than gold.  Yet here the corps seems to ignore this fact and throws water willy nilly to the sea using the excuse of reduced power costs.
• Recreation is not just inconveniencing fishermen or decreasing the attractiveness of corps campgrounds.  Recreation includes all the infrastructure such as marinas and lake side real estate.  It not only involves existing infrastructure but also future developments like Tan Tara on Lake of the Ozarks where people can get away for a vacation at the lake.  Any number of hotels looking for a site to build have gone elsewhere because of our wild fluctuations in lake level.

What makes more sense is to limit power contracts to what is available from nature without dropping lake levels.  Once you do that recreation and all the other responsibilities the corps has can be satisfied using the same approach the corps is currently using to protect spawning.

PROPOSED DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

We are coming into the Spring and Summer of 2015 with full lakes and the prospect of a fantastic setting for recreational activities throughout the basin.  Additionally there is a vibrant new feeling in the air for the future of real estate and business connected with recreational activity on the lakes.  New development money is flowing into both Lake Thurmond and Lake Hartwell. And as these develop the same thing will happen in succession for Lake Russell.  At present, because of the lack of a rational drought plan for the basin, the future success of these developments hinges to a large degree on how much rain nature has in store for our area.  This does not have to be. 

Following is a very conservative drought plan based on actual data and experience published by the Corps.  All concerns expressed by the various parties connected with managing the basin are met with this plan.  Further studies in progress may demonstrate that even further deviations from the current drought plan would be acceptable.  But the plan as presented does not require further study to prove it will work and provide good balance to all aspects of managing the basin.

Our proposed plan is:

·       Minimum release rates, until current studies show even lower rates are possible, should be maintained at 3,600cfs from Thurmond Dam

·       Maintain the same degree of flood storage space in late fall and early winter that was demonstrated to be adequate when only Thurmond was in place.  Since 4’ below full pool was adequate before Hartwell and Russell were built, 2’ is now equivalent storage due to the added space provided by Hartwell and Russell. 

·       Observing these limits for release rates and storage space, use the same degree of control demonstrated during last year’s spawning season to hold lake levels within a few inches of full pool.

 

There have been numerous claims purporting that our suggested drought plan would do damage to various aspects of the basin the corps is charged with protecting.  These arguments are overly protective.  We can show that they are baseless using simple logic and the vast amount of information gathered over the past 15 years of operation of Lake Thurmond.  For example:

·       Nature is an excellent manager of wild life, both flora and fauna.  Variation in river flows is actually beneficial compared to trying to hold the river at a constant level.  The exceptions to this are the extremes of severe drought and floods.  Keeping release rates to the river from Thurmond at or above 3600cfs protects against severe drought and lowering the lakes 2’ in late fall and early winter is adequate to protect against severe flooding.

·       Water quality from the stand point of drinking water supplies has repeatedly been acceptable with extended operation at 3600cfs.

·       Water quality from the stand point of dissolved oxygen (DO) is worst as you reach the lower stretches of the river.  DO measured at CLYO, which is the closest sampling point to the harbor, shows that release rates of 3600cfs do not significantly affect DO.  As far as the harbor is concerned, inflows from ocean tides are on the order of 10X the flows from the river.  Hence DO in the harbor is controlled by the ocean rather than the river.

·       Water Supply proved adequate during extended operation at 3600cfs in the past.

·       Hydro Power is like all other forms of renewable energy.  The quantity of power will vary with weather conditions.  Hence trying to maintain release rates in excess of what weather provides is counter to the very nature of renewable power sources.

·       The economics of Hydro Power do not justify destroying lake levels to hold up power production.  First SEPA has 8 basins they draw from and seldom are all in drought at the same time.  Hence low power from our area can easily be made up from increased power production from the other areas.  Besides, the monetary losses to recreational concerns (includes all the homes built on the lakes for the purpose of recreation) when lake levels fall 10’ or more, far exceeds the gains in power production costs.

If you are talking to your congressmen or corps management, do not hesitate to quote our thinking on drought management for the Savannah River Basin.  Should you find they don’t agree with our thinking, invite them to publish their arguments the same way we have so everyone can see the two sides to this argument.