COMPROMISE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD GREATLY IMPROVE PLANNED DROUGHT PLAN

There are two parts of the proposed drought plan that are problematic:

1. the new proposal still incorporates dropping the lakes 4' for the winter. The reason given is to provide adequate flood protection for spring rains.
2. the new proposal doesn't drop Thurmond releases to the minimum (3600cfs) until the lakes are down 2' first.  Again the reason given is this provides slightly more flood protection than dropping to 3600cfs immediately.

Viewing this from the stand point of lake stake holders, we want the least possible drop in lake level during a drought so as to protect recreation infrastructure, real estate values, and attractiveness of our lakes for future growth. The same is true for dropping lake levels for the winter.

Viewing this from the stand point of the corps they want to improve drought performance but they also want to make sure they don't decrease flood protection at the same time.

Both can be accomplished if we change full pool to 2' below current levels (328 for Thurmond and 658 for Hartwell). This would mean the lakes would only be lowered 2' during the winter. This would also mean we could drop Thurmond release rates to 3600cfs when the lakes start down instead of waiting without affecting flood protection.  In other words the lakes would finally get a reputation of excellent level control even during droughts. Whether the normal level is 2' below current values is not as important as keeping the level from changing and impacting docks, lake access, shore line appearance, dock placement, etc.

COMMENTS TO CORPS ABOUT FISH PASSAGE AT AUGUSTA LOCK AND DAM LOCATION

Jerry Clontz who is one of our members sent the following email as a comment to the corps on the fish passage design basis. As stated in our last blog SOLN is concerned that the current design basis may lead to future problems with drought control .  Here is the comment.

comment on design of fish passage at augusta lock

 and dam location on savannah river

We noted from a recent release of balancing the basin that the pool will drop at Augusta/North
 Augusta for flows below 5,000cfs after the fish passage is built.

We are concerned that this situation will pit the cities against Lake interests and complicate future

 drought protection releases.

Why not look at the minimum flows that occur at this location during droughts of record (creeks plus

 thurmond = ???) and design the passage such that the pool at augusta will hold level at that flow

 through the passage?

If you wish to send comments to the corps, the address is CESAS-PD.SAS@USACE

.ARMY.MIL

Inbox

x

CORPS ABOUT TO DESTROY OUR LAKES

Sorry for the alarming heading but it is true.  Most people apparently have not realized yet the implications of the fish passage as currently designed.  The corps in their balancing the basin recently stated that the pool level at Augusta will drop anytime release rates from Thurmond dam drop below 5,000cfs. This is a bad design basis.  The fish passage should be designed such that the pool level at Augusta remains constant to release rates below 3000cfs.

Here is what a 5,000cfs basis means:

• Lake stakeholders will be in direct conflict with Augusta / North Augusta interests.  If we try to drop the release rates from Thurmond below 5,000cfs to avoid destroying the lakes during a major drought (we have had about 5 such droughts since the year 2000) it will destroy the pool level for the river flowing past Augusta and North Augusta.  That in turn will do both physical damage to the sides of the river and economic damage to Augusta and North Augusta. The Corps would simply sit idly by and let us fight it out.
• If the cities win the lakes will be destroyed.
• If lake interests win the corps will jump into the battle claiming that the poor sturgeon who have not been north of the Augusta lock and dam for almost a century must be permitted passage by maintaining release rates of 5000cfs or so.

This borders on criminal negligence by the Corps who spent over $2 million during the past several years to come up with a plan demanding 3600cfs releases from Thurmond during severe droughts.

Plans for Fish Passage for Lock and Dam replacement could spell disaster for lake levels during droughts

Following is a comment on "Balancing the Basin" site by one of our members.

"The numbers given in this explanation indicate drastic problems for lake level control. At present release rates from Thurmond of 3600cfs or higher are acceptable downstream.  Release rates higher than 3600cs during droughts cause drastic drops in lake levels. The design basis for this project should be based on 3600cfs or less, not 5,000cfs and higher.  The Corps knows these numbers well.  All lake stake holders need to demand a more rational design basis which includes protection against negatively impacting lake levels during drought conditions."

Save Our Lakes Now agrees with these comments and recommends a totally different design basis for the fish passage.  What the Corps is proposing now with the fish passage being put in replacing the current Augusta Lock and Dam could exacerbate lake level problems during droughts to intolerable extremes. The current design proposal shows a 2ft drop in river level along the shores of Augusta and North Augusta with release rates from Thurmond of 5,000cfs.  Apparently release rates from Thurmond dam below 5,000cfs would drop the river at Augusta and North Augusta to unacceptable levels with the fish passage.  The corps knows full well 5,000cfs release rates from Thurmond dam during droughts can literally destroy our lakes.  This design basis is unacceptable and we need to insist on a more rational design basis that protects both lake levels and river levels at Augusta during the worst droughts of record.

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO DROUGHT CONTROL NOT ENOUGH

It's easy to get complacent about drought control when we are getting all the water we need this year to keep the lakes full.  And the Corps, with a lot of hoopla has promised major improvement in their drought control plan making our concern over drought control low.  But  more tweaking to what the Corps is planning for drought control  is needed.

When evaluating which plan to use based on all the studies done over the past couple of years, the Corps used a series of criteria where they simply looked at which plan gave the most positive changes for about 10 criteria they were looking at.  For example they looked at flood control, dissolved oxygen in the river and harbor, what would make the fish the happiest, etc.  Two plans won out.  One was the one Save Our Lakes Now has been proposing for years and the other a slight modification to that plan where they do not start reduced flows until the lakes are down about 2'. The differences were miniscule between these two plans for the criteria used. Unfortunately two major criteria which would have changed the outcome were not evaluated.  One is how much fresh water is thrown to the ocean before starting minimum releases and the other is which plan gives the best economic affect.

If the Corps considers amount of fresh water being thrown away (we are looking at billions of gals of fresh water a day) and/or the impact of low lake levels on economics of the lake community our proposed plan would win hands down.  Our plan compared to the one they favor would add 2' to lake levels compared to the plan the corps is adopting during a heavy drought. This is because our plan reduces flows to the minimum as soon as the lakes start down whereas the plan the corps is currently planning on using doesn't  reduce to minimum flows until the lakes drop 2'.

For some reason our congressmen and senators have chosen to stay out of the Corps plans for future drought plans. Any one of our senators or congressmen could demand that amount of fresh water being thrown to the sea and economics be considered. If that were to happen the corps would have to go with our plan which keeps the lades 2' higher in a severe drought.  That plus the improvements already in the corps plans would vastly improve our lake levels I .

If you have personal contact with any of our senators or congressmen please encourage them to get into this enough to at least learn what the arguments are. The best plan will not win out unless they help.

Another Appropriate Comment to Balancing the Basin You May be Interested in.

posted by one of our members on todays balancing the basin concerning the fish passage.

The continued refusal by the Corps to consider economic and recreation issues is a prime example of what happens with over regulation.  I know the Trump administration would change this because they are trying country wide to get rid of ridiculous regulations that are hurting communities like ours.  We need to wake up our congressmen and get them to work on this.

RECENT COMMENT ON BALANCING THE BASIN IS EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF OUR DILEMMA

The following was submitted as a comment to balancing the basin by one of our members:

Dropping lake levels for this reason is not a problem for businesses and residential areas around Thurmond.  Our problem is not a 1ft drop.  Our problem is the drought control plan.  And unfortunately, even after spending millions of dollars for studies to optimize drought control, refusal by the Corps to include how much fresh water is being thrown away during droughts and the impact of lake levels on the reputation of the lakes for recreation (which has destroyed economics of the lake areas) is preventing adoption of the truly optimum drought control plan.  The optimum plan when these are factored in is to drop releases from Thurmond to 3600cfs anytime the lakes cannot be held to full pool.