RECENT COMMUNICATION WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS

A member of Save Our Lakes Now has made several attempts to get the Corps to change their drought management plan to prevent the repeated destruction to our lakes over the past decade.  So that our readers can see the kind of comments we are making to the corps I am copying here our response to the current issue of balancing the basin and a letter we recently wrote to Colonel Tickner.

COMMENT SENT TODAY ON BALANCING THE BASIN:
Save Our Lakes Now has talked to state leaders repeatedly in the past and they have never indicated that they want the lakes to drop drastically in droughts.  Why not let the head of each of these organizations post their views. I wouldn't ask for this except that Col. Tickner is clearly trying to indicate that they are the reason he refuses to adapt to past lessons in drought management. 

So far as balancing the basin, putting the whole system at risk by throwing the limited water from rain into the ocean is not balance.

EMAIL SENT TO COLONEL TICKNER RECENTLY:
(Note the email is based on a thank you note sent to Colonel Hall years ago)

Colonel Tickner,

Following is an email we sent Col. Hall in 2012 while he was trying to improve the drought plan.  These are still items we feel would greatly improve our drought protection and provide better balance to the basin.  As you will notice Col. Hall made several changes to improve things.  But even these improvements seem to have been discontinued.  We are at a total loss as to why you feel you have no latitude as an engineer to improve matters based on experience gained in the past decade and we definitely do not understand how you can justify saving pennies on power production while destroying fortunes in recreational infrastructure. 

 
All the recommendations presented represent sound engineering logic; why are you not incorporating these into the way you manage our basin.  Surely you are not proud that we are in the same predicament concerning drought protection that occurred in the last 3 major droughts.


THANKS FROM SAVE OUR LAKES NOW (email sent several years ago to colonel hall)

 There are still several issues with drought management that we differ on but we noted with appreciation a number of items you have changed that we once had disagreement on. 

 Thanks for planning the following changes:

·       Going to 3100 during winter months below 316’ instead of 3600

·       Holding low flows until the lakes refill.  You plan 3800, we would prefer 3600, but at least you are staying below  4,000 and up flows.

·       Allowing the lakes to refill to full pool instead of stopping at rule curve levels

 
We hope you would also consider:

·       Initiating drought control flows anytime the lakes drop more than 2’ as well as looking at Broad River flows

·       Re doing the rule curve to a maximum of 2’ buffer (justifiable from increases in holding volumes of Russell and Hartwell)

·       Terminating releases from Thurmond when we are in drought conditions and the river is swollen from recent rains

·       Using 3600 (3100 in cooler months) for drought conditions rather than 3800.

·       Dropping to 3600 immediately in drought conditions versus staged decreases.

·       Including lake stakeholders in meetings where drought releases are decided

 

We feel these changes are justifiable awaiting further data from future studies in that they can be reversed at any time should the need arise. 

 

 

AGREEMENTS WITH CORPS ARE INEFFECTIVE

We've been pleading with the Corps to provide protection to Recreation for the lakes of  the Savannah River Basin since the turn of the century.  It is time our leaders in congress and the various organizations that represent lake stakeholders recognize that they are dealing with an organization that has no intent on responding to our requests.  Although obvious measures exist that would prevent drastic loss in lake level, the Corps is adamant in refusing to change our drought plan. It is time we recognize the Corps is not friendly to our needs and they are not going to respond to simple requests for improving the drought plan.

For Example:

• We've asked for earlier reaction to losses in lake level but the Corps blindly allows our lakes to drop when there is no environmental or economic justification for their actions. 
• We've asked that the Corps recognize that the money saved by blindly following power production quotas is not justifiable when you look at the money lost to the recreational infrastructure from drastic drops in lake levels.  But the Corps refuses to react to common sense arguments.
• We've exposed all the misleading arguments used in the past to justify no change to the drought plan but to no avail.  They simply continue to hold to failed practices realizing they don't have to justify such behavior.

Making this short and sweet. It is no surprise that our lakes are now down over 5'.  We warned the Corps repeatedly that unless they changed what they were doing we would repeat the errors of the past. But the Corps refuses to protect our recreational infrastructure. It is not as if they didn't know what their actions would cause.  Said another way, logical discussion of the situation simply doesn't work.  It is time our leaders put their foot down and demand the changes we all know are needed.

ANSWER TO QUESTION OF WHY CORPS IS NOT COOPERATING ON LAKE LEVELS

In the previous blog we pointed out that the Corps is failing to use good engineering principles to protect recreation.  Numerous questions have come in asking why we feel they are not protecting recreation.To make a long story short, there are two overlying conflicts at fault.

First the Corps insists on meeting power generation quotas even though it makes no economic sense.  The total value of the power produced from our lakes is far less than the cost to our recreational infrastructure when the lakes drop 10' or more.  Additionally South East Power Association (SEPA) has stated that we are part of 8 systems and any power deficit here can easily be met by pulling from the other lakes in these systems.  This being true the savings from straining our lake level reserves is peanuts in comparison to the loss in Recreation dollars.

Second the Corps insists on dropping our lakes 4' for winter draw down.  The figure of 4' was put in place when there was only Lake Thurmond.  Its purpose is to prevent the excessive run offs during the winter from flooding the basin.  Now that we have 3 lakes (Thurmond, Russell, and Hartwell) that same protection can be accomplished with a 2' draw down.  This extra 2' can mean a lot if we get into a severe drought. 

The combination of using good economical practices (protecting recreation over power quotas) and using a 2' draw down in the winter vs 4' can easily keep the lakes from dropping more than 10'.  While a 10' drop is undesirable, it is not catastrophic to recreation.  Once you drop more than 10' all recreational infrastructure is severely damaged from an economical standpoint.

The common excuse of waiting for results from a major study of the system is weak.  All measures described above are based on factual data obtained over the past few decades.  We don't need scientific studies to tell whether these would make good engineering sense.  The studies the Corps are conducting now can fine tune all this and maybe make it possible to even avoid a 10' drop in major droughts.  But even that will depend on applying good engineering judgment to the results of the study which the Corps continually refuses to do.  So, we have little reason to expect any benefits to recreation from these very expensive studies.  In our opinion they amount to stalling tactics and an excuse to apply even more EPA logic to our system.  If you are familiar with the EPA you will recognize such measures are frequently detrimental rather than beneficial.

IN CASE YOU ARE WONDERING ABOUT LAKE LEVELS

If you look at the release rates and elevations for Hartwell and Thurmond you will see the Corps is following their posted drought plan exactly.  If they had no engineering skills one would say they are doing a good job of following procedure.  But these guys have demonstrated time and time again that they have great engineering skill by maintaining lake levels to within 6" of the target elevation.  For literally months back when the fish were spawning they never deviated more than 6" from target even with all kinds of variations in rainfall and weather conditions.

My point.  The Corps knows that following this procedure leads to drastic drops in lake levels. It has put the whole system at peril and led to emergency measures 3 times in the last decade.  Knowing this, Save Our Lakes Now has to conclude the corps is failing in their mission and not doing a good job.  In view of their engineering skills and in view of their responsibilities they have failed to manage our lakes properly.

Pray for lots of rain this winter.  We certainly cannot depend on the Corps to protect us from another recreational disaster.  Literally hundreds of millions of dollars related to our recreational infrastructure will be lost again if we enter next spring in drought conditions.  It is a shame none of that money comes out of the pockets of the Corps of Engineers.  If it did I think it is safe to say they would make drastic changes to the way they are managing our lakes.

IS THE CORPS IGNORANT OR ARROGANT CONCERNING THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN

Congratulations to the Corps.  Our lakes are down 4' and it is only September.  You have succeeded in getting lake levels to the point where a drought like the one in 2008 will destroy the lakes again.  You have done this under the guise of power production quotas.  In doing so you will be guilty of throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in recreational infrastructure to make less than 10 million dollars in power cost savings.  If it were your dollars you would not do this.  But it is our dollars (the people who have invested in the recreation infrastructure around the lakes) so you simply ignore the potential danger you have set in motion.

There are a number of ways to solve this dilemma.  One would be to give lake stakeholders an equal voice at the table where release rates are decided.  Another would be to require the Colonel and his staff to have their homes on Lake Thurmond or Lake Hartwell.  Even better would be to have them invest their life savings in recreational endeavors on the lakes.

Where are our governors on this?  Where are our congressmen and senators?  Congress dictated in the '80s that recreation be treated the same as the other responsibilities of the Corps.  During the last decade recreation was the only Corps responsibility to be destroyed and that happened 3 times.  Water quality, water supply, fish & wildlife protection, and flood control all survived.  The only other responsibility, Hydro Power production, is simply an economic consideration since SEPA can make up for power lost here without difficulty.  Wonder why the Corps says they refuse to let economics determine how they manage the lakes?  Sorry but that is simply not true. Power production is pure economics.

NEED YOUR HELP TO OBTAIN PUBLICITY AVENUES

Somehow we need to get more publicity about the way the Corps is mismanaging our lakes.  If you have access to any of our political leaders or any radio or TV personalities that can help, please let us know.  We've tried all our resources and to date no takers.  Can you imagine what a figure like Rush Limbaugh could do for our cause.  And likewise any powerful political leader (governor, congressman, senator, etc) could bring about major change. Save Our Lakes Now leadership would be happy to meet with any such interested person or persons if that would help them understand our plight.

It is now obvious the Corps has no intention of managing our lakes in a manner that protects against devastating loss in lake level when droughts occur.  When we point out the losses to the recreational infrastructure (eg. businesses that provide recreation at the lake and all the houses built around the lakes primarily for the purpose of recreation) they seem to be deaf to what we are saying.  Further they offer ridiculous arguments such as power production schedules and being unfair to downstream stakeholders. The total value of the power created by our dams is miniscule in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost by the recreational infrastructure.  And so far as being fair to downstream stakeholders we pass on every drop of water nature gives us and we have no problem passing on more than supplied within reason such as the 3600cfs (3100 in cold weather) which has been demonstrated to be safe based on recent droughts. 

To put things in perspective, the corps yells that drought is causing the destruction.  But that is simply not true.  What is causing the destruction is putting more water downstream than is coming into the system from rain. Such behavior by the Corps in other water systems around the nation has virtually destroyed magnificent lakes such as Lake Mead out West.  This behavior has led to millions of people out West being in danger of having no fresh water and could easily do the same thing here.  Rather than lake stakeholders doing damage to downstream, wasting water by putting more in the ocean than is necessary is what is doing the damage.

CORPS STUBBORNLY REFUSES TO PROTECT OUR LAKES AGAINST DROUGHT

We were hopeful that the new Colonel would listen to reason and get away from the drought plan that has destroyed our lakes repeatedly over the past decade.  Real Estate values around the lakes and the Recreational infrastructure are in desperate need of a change that would end this madness.

Since the Corps refuses to redo the drought plan, we would like to offer one that gives better balance to the various responsibilities of the Corps. First let me give the underlying bases for this approach:

• Power production is important but basically it comes down to an economic consideration.  Any time we do not produce enough power here to satisfy the power demand, it can be purchased off the grid.  The expense of buying it elsewhere is nothing compared to the money lost in real estate and recreational infrastructure when lake levels drop drastically.
• Fish and Wildlife and water supply and water quality are important but they can only be managed properly when there is adequate water in the lakes. Further, we have demonstrated repeatedly (and it is even stated in Corps documents) that these are adequately managed when release rates are at 3600cfs or higher. 
• Recreation is another responsibility of the Corps. It is destroyed anytime the lakes drop drastically.  Not only is the destruction at the time the lakes are down but we continue to suffer from a bad reputation for at least 3 years following destruction of lake levels during a drought.
• Fresh water, although it is not directly listed under the Corps responsibilities, should be recognized by the Corps as something we must protect by wasting as little as possible.  The Corps shows some understanding of this principle in water saving devices at their offices but somehow they fail to recognize that even 100cfs more than necessary in lake releases does more damage than all their conservation measures put together.
• The Corps has demonstrated that they can control lake levels to within about 6" whenever they so desire.

Applying a little logic and common sense to these facts leads to a far superior drought plan than is currently being followed.  If the lakes are held within 6" of full pool as long as they don't have to reduce release rates below 3600cfs, the basin would truly be in balance.  Even in a severe drought the loss in lake level should not be enough to be destructive.  One added factor would be to minimize the winter draw down so we don't enter a drought more than 2' below full level.

If this were the mode of operation the definition of whether we are in a drought would be simple.  It would be anytime full pool can not be maintained using release rates of 3600cfs. Downstream would now be more like what nature intended with levels and flow rates that are determined by nature rather than man.  Blame would no longer be directed at the Corps.  It would finally be directed where it should be; at nature.

We can understand that the Corps feels they are simply following orders.  But history has shown repeatedly that "DOING WHAT IS RIGHT" is far superior to blindly following orders.