LET'S SCORE THE CORPS

LAKE THURMOND WAS BUILT IN 1954 AND THE OTHER TWO LAKES FOLLOWED OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.  THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WAS ASSIGNED TO MANAGE THESE LAKES BY CONGRESS.  THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE:
                                                    FULL LAKE                         DROUGHT          - 10 FT 
                                                  
       RESPONSIBILITY                     

1. HYDRO POWER                      A                                           C                          D
2. FLOOD CONTROL                  A                                           A                          A
3. NAVIGATION                         NA                                        NA                       NA
4. WATER QUALITY                  A                                            A                          F
5. WATER SUPPLY                     A                                            A                          F
6. FISH & WILDLIFE                   A                                            A                         F
7. RECREATION                          A                                            C                          F

ADDING ONE MORE THAT SHOULD BE THERE:

      8. FRESH WATER SUPPLY        A                                             F                         0

I'VE TAKEN THE LIBERTY TO GIVE MY IDEA OF HOW WELL THE CORPS IS DOING ON EACH OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.  

AS LONG AS THE LAKES ARE FULL THE CORPS SCORES GOOD GRADES.  ONCE THE LAKES DROP DUE TO DROUGHT EVERYTHING EXCEPT RECREATION AND FRESH WATER SUPPLY CONTINUES TO BE SATISFACTORY.  RECREATION DOES NOT GET A FAILING GRADE UNTIL THE LAKES DROP MORE THAN 10FT. FRESH WATER SUPPLY DROPS TO AN F ANYTIME THE LAKES ARE RELEASING MORE WATER THAN IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF DOWNSTREAM NEEDS (EG 3600CFS IS A GOOD START BUT WASTE RELEASES TO THE RIVER NEED TO BE MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS PRACTICAL IN ORDER TO DROP MINIMUM FLOWS EVEN FURTHER).

CONTRARY TO WHAT MOST WOULD THINK THEY SHOULD GET HORRIBLE GRADES ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT FLOOD CONTROL BECAUSE OF THE HIGH RISK SITUATION THIS REPRESENTS.  ALTHOUGH 3600 CFS MEETS MOST NEEDS DOWNSTREAM CONTINUED DROPS BEYOND 10' DOWN PUTS EVERYTHING EXCEPT FLOOD CONTROL AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS. HYDRO POWER BECAUSE SEPA DEPENDS ON US PRIMARILY FOR PEAKING POWER AND NEARLY DESTROYED LAKES MAKE A POOR SOURCE OF PEAKING POWER.  WATER QUALITY AND WATER SUPPLY ETC. HAVE NOW MOVED TO A VERY DANGEROUS STATUS WHEREBY THE CORPS MAY NEED TO CHOSE BETWEEN TOTALLY DESTROYING THE LAKES ONE AT A TIME OR NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPLY DOWNSTREAM NEEDS.

EVERYBODY BUT THE CORPS RECOGNIZES THAT THEY GET AN F ON RECREATION ANYTIME THEY ARE RELEASING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM NEEDED DOWNSTREAM WITH THE LAKES BELOW FULL POOL.  THE CORPS USES THE LAME EXCUSE THAT RECREATION IS ONLY PARK ATTENDANCE AND RAMP CLOSURES.  BUT AS THE REST OF THE WORLD RECOGNIZES RECREATION HAS TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS REAL ESTATE, BUSINESS HEALTH OF LAKE SIDE BUSINESSES,  AND THE OVER ALL ATTRACTION OF THIS AREA AS A PLACE FOR RECREATION.  WITH THE BEAUTY OF OUR LAKES THE WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE GROWING BUT THE HORRIBLE REPUTATION WE HAVE SINCE THE DROUGHT OF 2002 DISCOURAGES GROWTH AND HAS BANKRUPTED MANY BUSINESS TIED TO RECREATION THAT SHOULD BE FLOURISHING.

REGARDING FRESH WATER, JUST LOOK AT HOW DNR PANICS ANYTIME AN AQUIFER STARTS DROPPING IN LEVEL.  IT IS BEYOND ME HOW THESE SAME PEOPLE SAY NOTHING WHEN LAKE LEVELS ARE WASTED ON FOOLISH RELEASE RATES.

ON A SIDE NOTE LET ME MENTION FLOOD CONTROL.  THE CORPS HAS NOW DECIDED THE EMPTIER THE LAKES ARE THE BETTER IN CASE WE SHOULD GET HEAVY RAINS.  WHEN THE LAKES CONSISTED ONLY OF LAKE THURMOND A  4'F BUFFER WAS PUT INTO THE GUIDE CURVE FOR THE LAKES WHEREBY THE LAKES ARE DROPPED 4' IN THE FALL AND WINTER IN PREPARATION FOR HIGH WATER RUN OFF.  NOW WITH 3 LAKES TO COLLECT THE SAME RAIN WATER RUN OFF FOR THE BASIN, A 2' BUFFER SHOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION.  BUT IN SPITE OF PLEAS FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW THE CORPS REFUSES TO DROP BACK TO A 2' DRAWDOWN.  THEY GIVE THE REASON THAT THERE MAY BE MORE RUN OFF NOW THAN IN THE PAST.  HOW CAN THAT BE TRUE WHEN THE BASIN SIZE HAS NOT CHANGED AND IF ANYTHING, WE ARE NOW MORE PRONE TO DROUGHTS.  GO FIGURE!

ESSENCE OF OUR PROBLEM

FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM A RECENT EMAIL BETWEEN SOME MEMBERS OF SAVE OUR LAKES NOW.  WE AGREE!

The argument has become one that has no bearing on logic.  The Colonel is simply thumbing his nose at us saying he will do what he damn well pleases and no one is going to stop him.  That works for running an army but it stinks to heaven when you are impacting civilian concerns.  it is going to take someone willing to put the Corps in their place to get this corrected.  Trump is the kind of person who could and would do it but he is too far removed at present to get involved.  What we need is a congressman or senator who will get Trump's backing and put an end to this mess. SOLN can help by keeping the light on the problem but we have been unable to find a congressman to fight this fight.  Jeff Duncan is far too weak on this subject.  Maybe Jody Hice will take this on.  If not we need to elect someone who will in 2018.

ONLY WAY TO SUMMARIZE OUR CURRENT HANDLING OF THE LAKES IS INCOMPETENCE

If you listen to the Corps on how they are managing our lake levels the statements sound logical.  But when you get to the basics they are not logical at all:  First the Corps hangs to 3600cfs as some religious standard for the lowest release rates they should consider.  Secondly, after making the argument that 3600 is some kind of safe standard they refuse to drop releases to that level to prevent drastic drops in lake level.  AND NOW, IN THE MIDDLE OF A CRISIS ON LAKE LEVELS THE CORPS IS RELEASING AT A RATE OF 4000 OR HIGHER CFS.  None of this makes sense.

I'll be brief but let me point out a few reasons why the Corps is failing in properly managing our lakes.

• Did you ever think why they came to 3600cfs as a standard for the lowest possible safe release rate?  In the 80's the Corps asked the Savannah River Plant (SRP) what the lowest release rate they could handle with their reactors running.  SRP replied that they would be OK as long as they had at least 3600cfs to the river. That was back when they were running nuclear reactors.  These reactors have been shut down completely for decades.  SO MUCH FOR THAT STANDARD.
• The Corps recognized that operation at 3600cfs had no negative environmental impact when they published their plan for what to do if the lakes hit bottom and they had to destroy them one by one for water supply downstream. YET THEY ACT AS IF THEY SHOULD NOT GO TO 3600 EXCEPT IN EXTREME CONDITIONS.  EXTREME BEING DEFINED AS AFTER THE LAKE LEVELS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND THE REPUTATION OF OUR LAKES FROM THE STAND POINT OF RECREATION HAS BEEN BADLY TARNISHED, FUTURE GROWTH FOR OUR AREA HAS BEEN DRASTICALLY IMPAIRED, AND BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF FRESH WATER HAS BEEN THROWN TO THE SEA. RIGHT NOW WHEN THEY SHOULD BE AT MINIMUM RELEASE RATES THEY ARE USING 4,000 CFS AND HIGHER RATHER THAN THE 3600 WE ALL KNOW WORKS.
• SEPA has 8 basins they receive hydro power from and their management has told us repeatedly that they can make up our losses by getting power from the other basins when we are in severe drought. Additionally they have explained repeatedly that they need us for peaking power more so than a routine source of power so they can prevent black outs during extreme usage. This of course becomes drastically impaired with extreme drops in lake level such as has occurred repeatedly since 2000 with the current drought plan.  In spite of these facts the Corps claims they have to hold release rates above what we feel is sane to meet power quotas.

The way the Corps is currently operating our lakes makes no sense when you look at these facts. The reason I say incompetence is that their actions are destroying our recreational infrastructure, our real estate values, and the economic growth for the area around the lakes.  If they had a good reason for doing so you would have to give the Corps a pass on this.  But none of this can be justified when you look at the facts.

Recently the web sites where you can look at projected lake levels and actual release rates have been inaccessible.  For those of you who like to look at these you can use the following web address:

http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/declarations.cfm

IS CORPS DROUGHT PLAN ETHICAL?

I keep hearing about having to meet power quotas as the final, last excuse for the poor lake level control from our drought plan.  When we started looking into all the reasons the Corps offered to justify poor lake level control there were about 10 excuses being stated as reasons.  One by one we have eliminated those and we are finally down to power quotas.  LOOKING JUST AT POWER QUOTAS TO JUSTIFY POOR LEVEL CONTROL, IS THEIR REASONING ETHICAL?

Here is my thinking.  Hydro Power, Wind Power, and Solar Power are all inexpensive sources of power and they all three have the advantage of being renewable sources of power.  If you are using wind power and there is no wind you have to resort to makeup power.  If you are using solar power and there is no sun the same is true.  The same should be true of hydro power.  Instead what the Corps does when there is too little rain is continue unsupportable release rates and destroy the recreational infrastructure of the lakes.

Talking with SEPA managers in the past we have been told the power from the other 7 basins in their system is adequate to make up for losses from our lakes during a drought.  But even assuming that is not true and they have to buy make up power on the open market, how does that justify destroying my real estate values or those of all the other people living around the lakes.  How does that justify holding this impoverished area back from the fantastic growth potential of a great location for recreation. We could be like the Grand Strand on the East Coast instead of a lack luster recreational site.

My upbringing tells me it is wrong to steal from one group to pay another. Isn't that what is going on here? Isn't the current thinking of the Corps where they justify destroying lake levels at the expense of all lake stakeholders to meet power quotas unethical?

COPY OF COMMENTS RECENTLY POSTED ON BALANCING THE BASIN

The corps publishes a blog called Balancing the Basin and offers a place for comments from readers.  Following is a recent comment offered by one of our members that seems very appropriate for the current comment period on the new Drought Plan.

COPY OF RECENT COMMENT SUBMITTED TO BALANCING THE BASIN:

I'm not sure where the post came from but i was asked recently by one of our members (Save Our Lakes Now) about two comments apparently made by the corps. One stated the increased cost of power when SEPA has to buy it and the other stated that 3600 anytime the lakes are down increases the potential for flooding downstream.

Regarding the increased cost of power, SEPA has 7 basins other than the Savannah River Basin to pull power from. That is at the same cost as power generated by our basin. In other words there is no additional cost for power.

Regarding the propensity for more flooding downstream if you keep the lakes more full that is an irrational statement. Obviously more water in the lakes means there is more water in the lakes. That is what we want. What is needed is good flood control not arbitrary reliance on having a drought before you have heavy rains.

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DROUGHT PLAN

note-- the deadline for comments on the new drought plan was noon today but the Corps did not discuss this with the SRBAC which Save Our Lakes Now is a participant until yesterday.  If you feel strongly and want to make comments I suggest you go ahead and send them in now.  The Corps will be subject to much criticism is a lot of late comments are ignored.  The email address for comments is CESASPD@USACE.ARMY.MIL.

The proposed Corps plan drops releases sooner than the current plan which is a move in the right direction but they are basing their decisions on incorrect assumptions.  Here are three that shout that there are problems with their reasoning:

1. They base their conclusions about the impact on recreation on a faulty Clemson study which indicated little to no effect on economic factors.  The study is badly flawed because you cannot gauge the impact of poor level control when you are in the middle of poor level control.  Real estate values, etc. depend on reputation of a given location.  Our reputation sucks from 2002 forward therefore no measurement during that time period means anything. Additionally, when pressed, the Corps looks only at how many boat ramps and swim areas are impacted rather than real estate values that lake stakeholders are concerned with.
2. The Corps claims that power production quotas have to be met if possible and hold our release rates well above what they should be trying to meet those.  SEPA has 8 basins they get hydropower from.  Anytime we are in drought they can get their power at the same cost elsewhere in the 8 basin system.  In other words power should not even be part of the discussion when it comes to drought control.
3. Finally, if an aquifer were dropping 5ft, 10ft, etc. DNR would be hysterical and wanting to limit water usage of anyone causing that loss.  Here we have the Corps getting a free reign and causing this kind of loss of fresh water with impunity.  The Corps needs to be required to justify wasting fresh water rather than have that a non entity in their discussions.

 

COMMENT JUST ENTERED ON BALANCING THE BASIN CONCERNING DROUGHT

One of our Save Our Lakes Now people just sent in a very informative comment to the latest "Balancing the Basin Release". It is repeated in full below:

This all sounds nice and technical but there is a much simpler reason the lakes aren't more full and possibly fully recovered.  It is simply the refusal by the Corps to conserve as much fresh water as possible during a drought by dropping releases to the minimum demonstrated to have no significant environmental impact.

IN THE CORPS OWN WORDS IN THEIR PLAN FOR WHAT TO DO IF THE LAKES HIT THE BOTTOM OF THEIR CONSERVATION POOL, "3600 CFS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOWNSTREAM OF THE LAKES".  BASICALLY LAKE LEVELS HAVE NO PRIORITY COMPARED TO POWER QUOTAS (WHICH ARE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE SEPA CAN GET THE SAME TYPE POWER ELSEWHERE IN THEIR 8 BASIN SYSTEM ANYTIME WE ARE IN A DROUGHT) AND A KINDERGARTEN TYPE APPROACH TO BEING FAIR TO EVERYONE MEANING THEY WANT TO "TREAT THE RIVER STAKEHOLDERS FAIR COMPARED TO LAKE STAKEHOLDERS".

CONSERVATION OF FRESH WATER IS NOT A KINDERGARTEN GAME.  THROWING AWAY FRESH WATER (EVERYTHING RELEASED FROM THURMOND BECOMES SALT WATER AND IS NO LONGER OF USE TO ANYONE) IS CRIMINAL AND COULD LEAD TO VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WHO DEPEND ON THE RIVER FOR THEIR FRESH WATER SUPPLY. THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE WOULD BE CONSIDERED INCOMPETENT IN ANY BUSINESS VENTURE I KNOW OF.