Don't misread drought plan

Some of the online comments posted after the recent letter on the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is mismanaging the lakes (“Corps not keeping lakes full,” Oct. 18) indicated that some people downstream of the dam misunderstand the drought plan proposed by lake stakeholders.


These proposals are as beneficial to the river as they are to the lakes. The reason is that the lakes are like a huge bank account that supplies water instead of money. If you take out more than you put in, both the lakes and river suffer from a bankrupted system.

Can you imagine what a dried-up river would do to industry, water quality, water supply, fish and wildlife? If you destroy the lakes, the river would dry up next.

As an example of the misunderstandings, one comment mentioned there is recreation on both sides of the dam, indicating that improved recreation for the lakes would be unfair to river recreation concerns.

Quite the contrary. The proposals by groups such as Save Our Lakes Now protect both sides of the dam and return fairness to the system. Not only would recreation be acceptable to both sides of the dam, but based on 12 consecutive months of operation in 2008, these release rates would be acceptable for all river stakeholders.

Save Our Lakes Now recognizes that no drought plan is acceptable unless it works for both sides of the dam.

Tommy A. Lee


Corps not keeping lakes full


Tue, 11/21/2017 - 23:53

Letter: Virus must be quarantined

Tue, 11/21/2017 - 23:53

Letter: Urgent: Press your rights

Tue, 11/21/2017 - 23:53

Editorial: Bottom Line

Tue, 11/21/2017 - 23:53

Editorial: ‘Fair-weather feminists’