After a rapid refilling during spring and early summer, Thurmond Lake is beginning to fall -- and could drop four more feet by November, according to Army Corps of Engineers projections.
The reservoir, which plummeted to near record low levels during last year's drought, had risen steadily since the beginning of the year. It's high point occurred June 20, when the pool level was 327.10 feet above sea level. A full pool is 330.
Since then, it has dropped, as it typically does during the late summer and fall. On Wednesday, its pool was 323.6. Forecasts indicate it will fall to 320 by late autumn.
The corps, which operates the project under a drought management plan, continues to release less water than the plan specifies as part of an effort to prevent a recurrence of the lingering impacts of last year's low water.
The drought plan allows the corps to release 4,000 cubic feet per second of water through the dam once levels fall below 324 -- as they did recently. Releases are being held to 3,600 cubic feet per second, said corps spokesman Billy Birdwell.
"We're still working under a deviation permit approved more than a year ago in efforts to conserve water in the lakes," he said, adding that a new environmental assessment is under preparation in case an extension is needed.
The low point for 2008 occurred Nov. 10, when the level fell to 313.68 -- the third-lowest level recorded since detailed record-keeping began in 1962.
Reach Rob Pavey at 868-1222, ext. 119 or rob.pavey@augustachronicle.com.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Wow, less rain means less water in the managed lake. Thanks for the tip.
And Georgia Power is still considering building two new nuclear reactors that would use up 35 million gallons of river water per day?! We should worry about heavy, detrimental impacts like that rather than Atlanta stealing water from the river.
My goodness....3600 cubic feet/sec =646,316,689.928 gallons per day, not including inflows from rocky creek, little river, reys creek, crawford creek, and so on. So Ga power is going to take 35 out of 700 and put back maybe 20 million gallons. I think we'll be alright. GEEZ
It does not hurt the lake when the levels drop, it does hurt the river. It's better to have water flowing then a low river and a stagnant lake.
The corps do not need to run its generators for so long.
They practically give the electricity away to REA for a mere pittance. Now that summer is coming to an end I am sure the lake levels will drop needlessly. We need better control of the lake levels than the Corps can supply. When Strom Thurmond or Charlie Norwood was alive we didn't see this drop.
Its just another example of poor Govt control of our assets.
ONLY THE TRUTH - I'm sure your arithmetic will be a comfort to people. The existing nuclear plants on the river are already using millions of gallons a day and the proposed new plants will increase that consumption. Creek flows become minimal or just dry up in a drought. Days of waste are ending and water shortages are looming. Even your county has a plan to conserve. Ask folks in Atlanta.
Grasshopper makes a good point from my perspective. Not only is the river hurt, but salt water intrustion occurs on the coast.
I am all for Green Energy, except its not economically feasible at this time. Nuclear energy is the cleanest form, much better than a coal plant. Acid rain doesn't come from nuclear energy. CA green policies are a failure. Until green energy is economically feasible we must chose what has the least impact on our environment.
Riverman, people complain about the lower lake levels. Don't understand that this program caused the fish kills, of stripers and hybrids at the lake this year.
Grasshopper - The government spent a horrific sum of money over the last half-century for necular weapons and the commerical nuclear business sprang from that splurg. But the business may not be as cheap as you think. What do you think the cost is going to be for keeping nuclear waste for ten thousand years? You guess is as just as good as any other because they're all wild guesses. Will a green energy kilowatt cost more than a nuclear kilowatt? Probably yes in the beginning but increased investment and manufacturing will sharply drop the cost. And we avoid the expense of keeping waste for ten thousand years.