We watched and watched to see if our new Colonel was truly a lake advocate as he claimed coming in. Now it is obvious he is not. Since early in June our release rates have been ridiculous when you consider the inflows. The amount of fresh water being thrown away is unforgiveable. Further we see no justification for such releases other than possibly meeting SEPA quotas.
This writer sees power production quotas that cause releases in excess of inflows as unjustifiable. First there are many other lakes that are not in drought conditions where SEPA can obtain hydro power. And second any savings in power costs obtained in this manner come at the expense of our recreational infrastructure. Just the financial impact on real estate values exceeds any money that may be saved in this manner. How can one justify cost savings to SEPA at the cost of the many people who own homes around the lakes.
The Corps claims incorrectly that lake levels do not impact real estate. Rather than look at the impact on lake side real estate they did a study that looked at the impact on whole counties. Additionally their studies did not take into account the lag time involved for real estate values to recover from a drought when these occur repeatedly over a 10 year time period.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
APPARENTLY I SPOKE TOO SOON
It appears Colonel Griffin is not the Lake Advocate we were hoping for. The release rates from Thurmond are being increased to 4800cfs with the lakes starting to drop significantly. Why anyone feels that is necessary is beyond my comprehension:
- there's not a river anywhere that doesn't have widely varying flows so amount of water to the river is not a valid reason
- increasing the release rates to 4800cfs does nothing for dissolved oxygen to Augusta or in the harbor
- fish and wildlife do just fine at 3600cfs
- water supply to cities downstream is OK at 3600 cfs based on past experience
- water quality was never a problem at 3600 cfs in the past
- navigation and flood control are not effected
Based on these observations the only responsibility assigned the corps that may benefit is power production. But that is a non plus situation when you realize that SEPA can get power at the same cost from other lakes in the grid or at slightly elevated cost from other sources. Besides it is ridiculous to save a few pennies on power at the expense of huge costs to the people who built homes along side the lake for the purpose of recreation. It's just not fair for one group to suffer great losses for minor gains to another group.
Perhaps the greatest rationale against increasing releases to 1,200 cfs above the rates demonstrated to be safe in the past is the huge waste of fresh water. Everywhere else people seem to think conserving fresh water is extremely important. I've even seen waterless urinals (gee I think that was at the Corps headquarters at the Thurmond dam) designed to cut down on waste of fresh water. There are no urinals that can compare to the huge waste represented by 1,200cfs which equals 103,680,000 cubic foot a day. Ask the people of California what they think about this. Similar behavior by groups like the Savannah District Corps is what caused their recent water crisis.
Monday, June 13, 2016
FINALLY
The new Colonel with the Corps of Engineers announced when he came on board that he was a lake advocate. Apparently he really is. We have experienced unprecedented release rates of 3800cfs from Lake Thurmond (3600 or 3800 cfs release rate, depending on who you talk to, is minimum demonstrated to have no significant environmental impact) for 9 days now and our lakes are within a foot of full pool even though we are experiencing a drought. I personally would like to thank Colonel Marvin Griffin for making this happen. I did a little research and found his email address. It is sas.cesas-de@usace.army.mil.
The Savannah River Basin with its 3 lakes has always been an excellent spot for recreational interests. But the repeated droughts since the turn of the century has taken a huge toll on our reputation. It may take 2 to 3 years to recover but finally we have someone in Savannah who understands and appears to be willing to make this happen.
The Savannah River Basin with its 3 lakes has always been an excellent spot for recreational interests. But the repeated droughts since the turn of the century has taken a huge toll on our reputation. It may take 2 to 3 years to recover but finally we have someone in Savannah who understands and appears to be willing to make this happen.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
New Colonel Is Breaking With Past Practices
We have been watching with the hope that our new Colonel is truly a lake advocate. In the past when our lakes started down there was no attempt to protect recreation until the lakes dropped 4ft. Monday, although the lakes are within a foot of full pool, the Corps is dropping release rates from Lake Thurmond to very near the minimum demonstrated to be acceptable downstream (3800cfs vs 3600cfs). This is a much appreciated change from past practices where release rates remained unchanged until the lakes dropped 4' and even then release rates from Lake Thurmond were only dropped to 4200cfs.
Up to now we suspected the Corps might be changing to protecting recreation with better level control but there was no way to know for sure because the lakes are always held at a near constant level during spawning season. As I understand it spawning season is over yet we continue to see an effort to hold our lake levels as high as possible.
I personally would like to thank the Corps hoping this is a true read of their intentions. The sky is the limit as to what this can mean for the growth of this area in a couple of years once the public impression of our lakes improves.
Up to now we suspected the Corps might be changing to protecting recreation with better level control but there was no way to know for sure because the lakes are always held at a near constant level during spawning season. As I understand it spawning season is over yet we continue to see an effort to hold our lake levels as high as possible.
I personally would like to thank the Corps hoping this is a true read of their intentions. The sky is the limit as to what this can mean for the growth of this area in a couple of years once the public impression of our lakes improves.
Friday, April 22, 2016
WE ARE ABOUT TO SEE WHAT THE COLONEL MEANS BY LAKE ADVOCATE
We have now entered into the months where recreation really matters. Our new Colonel has indicated he is a lake advocate and we are about to see what he means by that. First we assume that means recreation will become a protected entity just as water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife, flood control, and hydro power are. All of these are responsibilities given to the Corps for running our lake system but in the past recreation has been basically ignored.
When lake levels drop more than 10ft it virtually destroys recreation and the recreational infrastructure. The reasons are simple. Vacationers go to other lakes when they see a history of levels this low. As with anything, when you get burned a few times you avoid that fire. As a result existing concessionaires who allow access to the lakes go out of business or stop expanding and any further concessionaires who may be looking at providing recreation at our lakes go elsewhere. Additionally the homes built beside the lake become unattractive and real estate values plummet.
When Save Our Lakes Now started looking into how to reverse this situation, we were given a bunch of excuses as to why the Corps could not decrease release rates below guide curve levels.
When lake levels drop more than 10ft it virtually destroys recreation and the recreational infrastructure. The reasons are simple. Vacationers go to other lakes when they see a history of levels this low. As with anything, when you get burned a few times you avoid that fire. As a result existing concessionaires who allow access to the lakes go out of business or stop expanding and any further concessionaires who may be looking at providing recreation at our lakes go elsewhere. Additionally the homes built beside the lake become unattractive and real estate values plummet.
When Save Our Lakes Now started looking into how to reverse this situation, we were given a bunch of excuses as to why the Corps could not decrease release rates below guide curve levels.
- first the short nosed sturgeon was endangered and we could not possibly drop below guide curve release rates because they might not find spawning grounds.
- Then some kind of lily in the Augusta rapids was being eaten by deer when too much rock was exposed.
- Then we were assured that water quality would become unsatisfactory
- Then we were assured water supply would be too low
- Then we were assured that oxygen supply in the harbor would drop below acceptable levels
- Then we were told the Corps' hands were tied by the various groups such as fish and wildlife who would not allow the corps to drop release rates below guide curve levels.
- We were told SEPA (South Eastern Power Association) insisted on holding to the guide curve release rates.
One by one we have eliminated these excuses but through last year the Corps has refused to change from the published guide curves which were destroying recreation repeatedly. Without going into great detail we have eliminated all these excuses. If anyone desires I will be glad to do into detail in a follow up blog but to cover them all would take several pages of explanation which is beyond what we want to do with this blog.
Our picture of what a true lake advocate would do is to drop release rates to 3600cfs, which has been demonstrated time and time again to not have an adverse impact on the environment or water supply etc., anytime the lakes drop below full pool. Doing so, all the various concerns of the Corps would be met and the lakes should stay within 10ft of full pool thus protecting recreation. The one remaining issue expressed by the Corps is they would not be able to meet their quotas for power supply. From talking to SEPA we are part of a much bigger system and seldom are all the lakes in the system in drought so they could make up our lost power from hydropower obtained elsewhere. Besides, the increased cost of power to the consumer if it comes from somewhere other than hydropower is peanuts compared to the losses to our recreational infrastructure and lack of development of neighboring communities.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
THANKS DUE TO CORPS I THINK?????
Save Our Lakes Now represents the interests of lake stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin. In that capacity we would like to complement the new Colonel for not dropping the lakes 4' as they normally do in the winter months. In the past the corps has prided themselves in honoring all pleas for protecting the various stakeholders of the Savannah River Basin. But this was with one notable exception. All pleas, even screams for mercy from lake stakeholders, never brought about any modification to Corps plans.
This year we pleaded that the Corps reevaluate their need to drop the lakes 4' for cold weather months when runoff from rains can cause large increases in lake level relative to warm weather months. We pointed out that a 2' drop now was the same as a 4' drop before Lake Hartwell. But we were met with a lackluster response of "we may look into that but don't expect any changes to the rule curve".
Without any fanfare the lakes were held at 2' below full pool. We can only hope this means we finally have an advocate in Savannah.
This year, with one further change, we can begin to come out of a horrible reputation in the recreation community. That change would be to hold lake levels at full pool as long as release rates are greater than or equal to 3600cfs. This change would stay within release rates demonstrated to be tolerable downstream and, according to many experts in the field of environmental protection and fish and wildlife, the variation in flows would more closely approximate nature without her damaging extremes.
One of the Corps assignments from congress is to protect the recreational infrastructure. That has been largely ignored up to now. In a couple of years the change in winter lake levels and holding the lakes as close to full pool as possible should let the recreational infrastructure blossom into a thing of beauty. Real estate values of homes built on the lake, businesses associated with recreation and the overall attraction of this area from the standpoint of recreation will improve exponentially as confidence in our lakes from the standpoint of recreation returns. All one has to do is look at what happens in other water recreation areas such as The Grand Stand along the coast of South Carolina or the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri to see what can happen.
This year we pleaded that the Corps reevaluate their need to drop the lakes 4' for cold weather months when runoff from rains can cause large increases in lake level relative to warm weather months. We pointed out that a 2' drop now was the same as a 4' drop before Lake Hartwell. But we were met with a lackluster response of "we may look into that but don't expect any changes to the rule curve".
Without any fanfare the lakes were held at 2' below full pool. We can only hope this means we finally have an advocate in Savannah.
This year, with one further change, we can begin to come out of a horrible reputation in the recreation community. That change would be to hold lake levels at full pool as long as release rates are greater than or equal to 3600cfs. This change would stay within release rates demonstrated to be tolerable downstream and, according to many experts in the field of environmental protection and fish and wildlife, the variation in flows would more closely approximate nature without her damaging extremes.
One of the Corps assignments from congress is to protect the recreational infrastructure. That has been largely ignored up to now. In a couple of years the change in winter lake levels and holding the lakes as close to full pool as possible should let the recreational infrastructure blossom into a thing of beauty. Real estate values of homes built on the lake, businesses associated with recreation and the overall attraction of this area from the standpoint of recreation will improve exponentially as confidence in our lakes from the standpoint of recreation returns. All one has to do is look at what happens in other water recreation areas such as The Grand Stand along the coast of South Carolina or the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri to see what can happen.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
LAKE ADVOCATE?
I watch lake levels daily. Numerous times since the turn of the century we have entered drought conditions coming out of the winter with the lakes down 4'. The lakes were down 4' because the guide curve for lake levels was being followed religiously as if change from that guide would be a mortal sin. With that as a starting point and following the drought protection plan currently in use, the recreational infrastructure for the lakes of the Savannah River System were virtually destroyed as the lakes dropped more than 10' below normal fill repeatedly. The destruction was obvious at all our Campgrounds, marinas, homes built along the lakes, and numerous lake driven businesses. Claims that this destruction was necessary to protect fish and wildlife, endangered species, the cost of power for SEPA, water quality, water supply were greatly overstated. And cries from lake advocates for a more reasonable approach to drought control were ignored.
One of the first measures lake advocates have pleaded for was to minimize the drop in lake levels over the winter months. Lake advocates pointed out that the flood storage capacity of our system was now twice what it was when the guide curve was put in place. It seemed no one was listening. Now we have a glimmer of hope that someone may actually be listening because the lake levels have been held to only a 2' drop instead of the 4' drop specified in the guide curve. If that be true we are truly grateful to whoever is responsible.
For the record our other pleas are similarly rational. We ask that once lake levels can no longer be maintained at full pool the release rate from Thurmond be dropped to 3600cfs instead of the current drought plan values which have repeatedly destroyed our lake levels. All one has to do to recognize this as a reasonable request is to look at the fact that these measures match what nature has demonstrated to be adequate plus a huge safety factor. Before the dams, river flows often dropped to 1500cfs or lower and the system survived. During recent droughts 3600cfs has been repeatedly shown to be safe to the system. Fish and wildlife, water quality, water supply, etc. all survive just fine. And the cost of power incurred is minor compared to the cost involved in destroying our recreational infrastructure.
There is a group out of NC that is heavily involved in managing lake releases there. And what they have found is occasional low release rates similar to our 3600cfs are actually beneficial to environmental concerns. This group was silenced when they offered to help with our basin and our current guidelines stubbornly held to even though they repeatedly have destroyed our system. Any attempts to use more reasonable drought guidelines have been held at bay by insisting that we ignore what we already know to be safe and wait years for the results of experimental testing. These tests are far less reliable than the full system experiences gained since 2002. Assuming we finally have someone listening we are hopeful that some of the other measures we've been recommending will finally be incorporated.
One of the first measures lake advocates have pleaded for was to minimize the drop in lake levels over the winter months. Lake advocates pointed out that the flood storage capacity of our system was now twice what it was when the guide curve was put in place. It seemed no one was listening. Now we have a glimmer of hope that someone may actually be listening because the lake levels have been held to only a 2' drop instead of the 4' drop specified in the guide curve. If that be true we are truly grateful to whoever is responsible.
For the record our other pleas are similarly rational. We ask that once lake levels can no longer be maintained at full pool the release rate from Thurmond be dropped to 3600cfs instead of the current drought plan values which have repeatedly destroyed our lake levels. All one has to do to recognize this as a reasonable request is to look at the fact that these measures match what nature has demonstrated to be adequate plus a huge safety factor. Before the dams, river flows often dropped to 1500cfs or lower and the system survived. During recent droughts 3600cfs has been repeatedly shown to be safe to the system. Fish and wildlife, water quality, water supply, etc. all survive just fine. And the cost of power incurred is minor compared to the cost involved in destroying our recreational infrastructure.
There is a group out of NC that is heavily involved in managing lake releases there. And what they have found is occasional low release rates similar to our 3600cfs are actually beneficial to environmental concerns. This group was silenced when they offered to help with our basin and our current guidelines stubbornly held to even though they repeatedly have destroyed our system. Any attempts to use more reasonable drought guidelines have been held at bay by insisting that we ignore what we already know to be safe and wait years for the results of experimental testing. These tests are far less reliable than the full system experiences gained since 2002. Assuming we finally have someone listening we are hopeful that some of the other measures we've been recommending will finally be incorporated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)