CORPS ACTIONS AND WORDS EXPOSE FAILURE TO RESPECT RECREATION

Look at recent publications by the Corps and they show extreme concern for flooding.  This is one of the seven basin issues the corps is charged with protecting.  For example the most recent Balancing the Basin expresses high levels of concern and advance planning because the weather services are predicting high rain levels in the next few months due to unusual warming in the Pacific Ocean.

Look at publications over the past decade and you will see high levels of concern for Hydro Power, Water Quality, Water Supply, and Fish & Wildlife.  Navigation, rightly so, is no longer a major concern and it is seldom spoken of.  The only responsibility the Corps repeatedly ignores is Recreation.

Note that for each of the concerns other than recreation the Corps uses the best information available to guide their actions.  For example nowhere do they propose studies prior to making changes to protect against flooding.

Although the Corps knows full well how to avoid catastrophic drops in lake level they insist they cannot use this information without waiting years for studies.  We have at least 3 times in the past 10 or so years where release rates of 3600cfs proved sufficient for months on end.  The Corps even claims no impact on the environment from this release rate in their published plan for operation should a drought exceed the capacity of the conservation pools for Thurmond and Hartwell. Dropping to this release rate anytime lake levels cannot be maintained at full pool from available rains would go a long way toward protecting the recreational infrastructure at times of drought.

When you look at Corps publications explaining how they maintain all their other responsibilities you see statements to the effect that they seek approval from all the various entities representing hydro power, water quality, water supply, and fish & wildlife.  Not only do they fail to respond to any cries from the recreational infrastructure, the one group excluded from evaluating all their studies is recreation.

When pressed the Corps pleads ignorance concerning how much damage lake levels do to the recreational infrastructure.  They even made feeble attempts to show no financial damage from lake levels more than 10ft below full pool.  Simple logic tells anyone with common sense that low lake levels have a huge financial impact on recreation.  Take for example the numerous retirement communities around our lakes.  If you were retiring and looking for a great place to enjoy your retirement would you go to a lake where your boat dock will be frequently on dry land?  The same logic can be applied to investments in any part of the recreational infrastructure.  And not surprisingly a quick look at the financial health of these shows massive damages from poor drought controls.

Unfortunately our congressmen who could force major improvements for recreation are buying the fallacious claim by the Corps that major studies are needed before they can improve things.  We do not propose blindly changing things just to improve recreation.  We are pleading for the Corps to use the knowledge they have already gained from recent droughts to minimize damages to the recreational infrastructure by droughts.  Still further improvements may be possible from studies but use of existing knowledge is needed to protect recreation until those studies can be completed.

TEST RESULTS IN BUT CONCLUSIONS DEPEND ON WHO INTERPRETS THEM

We just had a major rain event and the lakes only rose 3ft.  That says under similar circumstances, had the lakes been down 2ft, the lakes would have ended up only 1ft above full pool.  This type of real life. full scale test gives beautiful data for deciding how much draw down should be used each winter for our basin.  But the conclusions that are drawn from such a test depend on who is interpreting the results.

If we look at the results from the perspective of downstream environmental interests or in terms of safety factors for water supply and water quality one could conclude the more draw down the better regardless of the results of this test.  If on the other hand you look at the results from the perspective of impact on recreational infrastructure which includes real estate around the lakes you would conclude that 2' draw down looks adequate.

In short our problem is not in having enough data.  Our problem is in whether true balance is provided between lake and downstream interests.  For the past decade the Corps has been vociferous on downstream needs, power quotas, etc. etc.  Repeatedly we are told that if any agency representing downstream interests balks at any action the corps may wish to take that action is abandoned.  We also have heard repeatedly that power production quotas must be met if at all possible.  During this same period of time, although lake interests have been screaming for less drop in lake levels, the corps has made no effort to accommodate those interests. And it has become glaringly obvious that lake interests are not represented when it comes to drought plan decisions.

Another facet of the same problem is the Corps uses the excuse that they need congressional approval for this or that change.  This could be solved by our congressmen helping the corps with their interpretation of the rules.  But our congressmen remain silent on the issue.  Apparently they have more important issues to contend with. Or maybe this is another example of why people have grown totally dissatisfied with the way congress is handling our problems.

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.