WHERE ARE OUR LAKE ADVOCATES???????????

The new colonel stated he is an advocate for lake interests.  Our congressman in both SC and GA claim to be advocates as well.  But we are on the verge of another disaster for lake levels and all that entails. The Corps is doggedly following the plan that has reeked disastrous results for our recreational infrastructure repeatedly over the past 10 to 15 years.  And our congressmen sit idly by while we go into this madness once more. 

Apparently the thinking is we are not in trouble until the lakes drop 10ft or more.  It is true that actual destruction to our recreational infrastructure doesn't occur till then.  But once you drop more than 2' and continue with releases from Thurmond above 3600cfs a drop of over 10ft will occur repeatedly in our current weather pattern.  NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION.  NOT AFTER THE LAKES ARE DOWN APPROACHING 10FT BELOW FULL POOL. Matter of fact action to prevent disastrous lake levels has to occur well before the lakes drop to the levels we are at now.

ITS NOT NICE TO CRITICIZE THE CORPS BUT

We are witnessing a new example of the Corps' total disrespect for the recreational infrastructure of the Savannah River Basin.   Everyone knows that before the Corps can use release rates below normal they feel compelled to get the approval of all downstream stakeholders. Hence in drought conditions the corps seeks approval from all the various stakeholders that might be impacted by low river flows before making such changes.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Corps apparently is concerned about projections for heavier than normal rains this fall and winter.  As a result they are using ridiculous release rates in excess of 5,000cfs in the middle of drought conditions. Why are they not now seeking the approval of all stakeholders that might be impacted by low lake levels.  For example as a lake stakeholder I would like to know what the maximum safe release rate is and would it not be possible to hold off on dropping levels now by using higher release rates earlier in a heavy rain event. 

The main concern from the standpoint of lake stakeholders is what if the projections for heavier than normal rains is incorrect.  What if drought conditions persist. Insanity is doing the same thing that has caused destructive lake levels repeatedly in the past and expecting different results.

CORPS PLANNING FOR POSSIBLE FLOOD LEVELS SHOWS IT CAN BE DONE

In the recent release of Balancing the Basin the Corps goes into great detail about how they really have to stay on their toes or the up coming El Ninio could cause flooding problems.  If the corps would apply the same concern for avoiding the damaging effects of drought we would no longer have disastrous drops in lake levels that destroy the recreational infrastructure for our lakes. 

Actually, protecting against a drought is much simpler than protecting against flooding.  We have years of experience from recent droughts that show a release rate from Lake Thurmond of 3600cfs (3100 in cold months) is not harmful to the environment.  The studies now in progress may show even lower is tolerable.  Never the less we know 3600cfs can be tolerated.  So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that all the Corps needs to do to provide drought protection is decrease release rates as needed to hold lake level until the rate required has dropped to 3600cfs.  At that point hold release rates at 3600cfs until the lakes refill.  In this manner the corps could totally avoid decreases in excess of 10' below full pool during a drought.  That kind of drop, while troublesome, does not spell disaster the way dropping more than 10' does.

The only argument the Corps has presented against this approach is power production quotas. This is like saying you want to destroy millions of dollars in recreational infrastructure and billions of gallons of fresh water simply because you don't want to miss a quota that is worthless compared to these concerns.  In my opinion hydrologic power should be treated the same as wind and solar. All three are renewable power sources.  But unlike wind and solar, the corps is going beyond renewable and using more water than nature is providing in rain. 

New Commander Promises to be Advocate for the Lakes

In a recent news release Col. Marvin Griffin was quoted as saying he plans to be an advocate for the lakes. We read a little deeper to see exactly what was meant in that statement. Unfortunately the word advocate as used by the Colonel differs greatly from the definition a lake stakeholder might have.

To me, as a lake stakeholder, the word advocate would mean to protect the lakes using the best information currently available to avoid future disastrous (to the recreational infrastructure) draw downs of the lakes when droughts occur.  However as used by the Colonel the word advocate means to continue operation as usual ignoring what we've learned from the past several droughts and wait on the results of further studies.

To me as a lake stakeholder the word advocate would mean to give lake stakeholders a voice in interpreting the results of the studies being conducted to define operating guidelines for the future.  However it would appear the Colonel plans to continue leaving the future of the lakes to non stakeholders.  There is a term I've heard since childhood that defines this approach.  It is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

I could go further into what our recommendations would be for someone truly wishing to be an advocate for the lakes.  But all one has to do is look at the past six months of blogs by Save Our Lakes Now.  The logic and reasoning are sound but for some reason the Corps continues to ignore our suggestions.

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.