Lake management plan must change

Thanx Jim for your OPINION. Is there room to think about the other uses for the lake other than recreation and power. If those minimum flows were not maintained, tens of thousands of jobs would be permanetly lost downstream. Or the water would be so polluted so as not to harbor any life at all. Think of those reprecussions and others before you make "The Corps" the guilty party.

Don't forget that Votgle will need increased flow for river navigation and production for the two new reactors. All of the lakes along the Savannah are well below full pool except Russell, which has pumpback capabilities. Most of the lakes that are near full pool do not have the downstream industrial or environmental water requirements as the Savannah. I can see concerns over drinking water supplies, but in this case recreation needs to take a back seat to the other concerns mentioned as well as power production (I'm sure we all would like to use our A/Cs this summer).

The President spoke recently about water levels and the costs and effects of having less drinkable water and water for recreation. Even with the ongoing problems with water levels, some people continue to deny global warming & climate change, but the issue of water is getting very serious. Any changes by the Corps to lake management must address climate change and employ a global warming strategy with contingency plans for water shortages. Without including those factors, the residents that depend on Lake Thurmond are being set up for future failure.

The greenies hate anything that promotes the economy. The EPA is their biggest hammer to break any effort to support the economy. Keep the lake low, be p.c.

Another case of mis- information, like mankind is causing global warming. Al Gore is getting rich promoting this.
Keep the lake at full pool, the corps do not need to generate power only to sell it back to REA at a much reduced rate..
Proper management of the lake can keep the level full and the river and all the eco systems down stream safe.
Ga. power maintains the back waters on the Chattahoochee river and they do a better job than the corps.

As Colonel Kertis, the District Commander, has repeatedly said, your view of how much water Thurmond should hold back depends on where you are. I assure you there are more below Thurmond Dam: private landowners, the Augusta Canal, sportsmen, cities using it for drinking water and sewage treatment, industry, nuclear power reactors and the shell fish industry around Savannah that depend on adequate river flows than there are those simply concerned about the lake and not aware of the river needs. Of course, we all want a full lake, but the problem lies in North GA and SC. Look at a NOAA map and notice the severe drought designation over the river watershed there. Col. Kertis said, this is the drought of our lifetime. There is no easy solution, friends.

Clarks Hill was built for two reasons, flood control and power generation. The recreation and resort property economic benefit were an added benefit. The Corps must follow the original mission for which the lake was built unless Congress changes that mission. Stopping or greatly reducing the water released from the lake is not an option, since ALL downstream users including the city of Augusta rely on the Savannah River for their source of water. We are in a drought, the lake is down, get over it.

PT:You are undoubtedly one of the most ignorant people I have ever encountered.The flow is used downstream for industry. That helps the economy, duh. Sorry that less than an acre at the lake no longer sells for $297,000 (an actual price posted- no house, just the lot). They were trying to rip people off in the first place.

I encourage everyone to go spend a day at the lake. Walk the forty yards from the shoreline to the water and enjoy the georgia red clay/mud that stains everything including your skin.Maybe I'll go to richardsons lake next time or just take a dip in the tub.

Actually clarks hill was made for three reason power, navigation, and flood control. Hartwell was made for power control as well and there lake was in a droubt this past summer and now there water levels are over 200 feet deeper than clarks hill... think we are getting the bad end on this deal. corps need to tighten up and figure something out. people don't buy lake front property to watch the trees grow out of the water. it could be a great place for family and friends to get away. which to me is something alot of people are missing in there life...think a little less in environment and more in family values.

and really if you have a nice lake to go to and a place you would enjoy camping not much need for a/c's i wouldn't think .

I don't think the Corps of Engineers' mission includes a line item for "maintaining a vibrant economic engine for the CSRA" or one for "maintaining maximum property values for lake-front property owners."

yea atleast not for clarks hill atleast i can agree with that

The lake is slowly approaching normal levels. The lake is at 321.11 ft now. Normal pool is 327.62 ft. If the depth goes above 323.56, (about 2 ft more) we will be in level 2 management which requires 4000 cfs release from the dam instead of the current 3800 cfs.

Well Jim,
Reason Clark Hill was built was PRIMARILY FLOOD CONTROL NOT FOR RECREATION, ETC. & even today some folks in response to Johnny Edwards article on the Corps mandated $624,000 study of the Augusta Levee that runs from the heagates of the Augusta Canal to Bush Field are also saying, TEAR DOWN THAT LEVEE. Well, to ALL OF YOU OF LIKE OPINION, I would request that you review my 3 posts on Johnny Edwards article @ about 11 AM and think about your critism of the Corps. Govts are temporay in the great scheme of things compared to nature.

I think we should drain the lake, build expensive new homes in its place ... then flood it again. What waste of money, you say? No more than the stimulus package!! Thanks Obama!!

I don't thin kyou all get it at all, if this lake is to be used as flood control, why would you want it at full pool anyway? I go to the lake every week end and I can tell you right now, that the water being down hasn't affected me one bit. Anywhere you have a body of water including the ocean, water lines are going to fluctuate. I don't think any property up at the lake is worth any less from the falling water. If it is, more so the sour economy. I know if I could afford to buy a plot up there I would weather the water was down or not. Consider the lake a battery, when the water is high it is fully charged. There will always be periods of draw down and recharging. The only drawback to the low water levels is you now have to pay attention when navigating or you could end up in a normally submerged tree. That can happen anywhere on any river or lake. The draw down is actually going to be great for fishing. The grasses and small trees that grown on the exposed banks stabilize erosion and attract and feed fish when the water returns.

Is this the same Jim Davis from WJBF news from years ago?

Wow- Some strong comments to a letter I thought sounded reasonable. Years ago the lakes' authorized purposes were amended by Congress to include items such as recreation, The lakes have spawned much-needed economic development in the Clarks Hill and Hartwell Lakes areas. The point that I think has been missed is that the current Corps Drought Control Plan doesn't start nearly early enough, or strongly enough. I am not suggesting cutting off downstream water interests, but rather not releasing more water during a drought than is needed to meet those needs. Under the current plan, releases in the first half of '07 were @5000cfs. The only justification for this I can think of is SEPA hydropower. Producing power we don't need with water we don't have makes as much sense as the levee after Thurmond Dam was built. I think that the DCP should be changed so we don't keep harming an important economic engine. I rode by Lake Hartwell's Portman Marina last week and could not believe my eyes- And No, no, no, never, never, never, is not helpful on this issue.