In the past the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has fought residents around Thurmond Lake who want to reduce releases to keep from destroying economics and recreation around the lake. Corps arguments ranged from how releases less than 3,600 cubic feet per second would cause havoc, to downstream interests, to the expected serious harm to endangered species below the dam. Work by some local lake groups have shown that these claims are seriously exaggerated.
Now the Corps has issued an environmental assessment stating that there are no foreseeable problems with releases this low and lower. So you'd think the Corps would now agree with lake groups recommending that they adopt a new drought-protection plan in which releases are automatically reduced to 3,600 cfs anytime the lakes are 2 feet below full pool. Such a measure would keep the lakes full enough to protect economies and recreation around the lake.
Instead the Corps now refuses to adopt these low release rates until the lakes drop 14 feet below full pool. This large a drop in level completely destroys economic and recreation interests around the lake.
The Corps has requested public comment on their plan before Oct. 30. The e-mail address they give for comment is: william.g.bailey@usace.army.mil.
Jerry Clontz
Aiken, S.C.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Understand it is not only for the concern of the fish that those of us on the river below the dam, especially in the coves, want the water release to continue as it has been. When it is cut back, the river dries out in places. Also, the flow of fresh water onto the coast is necessary for shellfish around Savannah. In any case, it appears the rains have filled the lake up again. Our once in a lifetime drought may be over and that should make us all happy.
Waiting for the lake level to drop to 14 feet below full pool before implementing lower releases is lunacy. They should be MANAGING the lake level, not merely reacting to it. One simple solution is to shut the gates completely when it is raining because the rainfall can supply the 3,600 cfs downstream with the gates shut off.
Little Lamb, it depends on where the rain is. If the rain is way downstream and you close the gate, the portion from the dam to the rain will be dry. I live between Stevens Creek (the first dam after Thurmond) and Thurmond Dams and actually, I have no problems with closing the gates when the river is full there due to rain. But fair is fair, if we are going to use Stevens Creek Dam as the measuring place, when it is low, MORE water should be released from Thurmond Dam.
People need water to live, and that was the whole reason behind the dam. They need to protect the interests of many, not the rich land owners that live on the lake. Recreation on the lake versus drinking water. There isn't even a debate on this.
One other point, keeping the lake 2 ft below FULL POOL is dangerous. What if we have very heavy rain such as we have flirted with recently? The lake could easily overflow and prevent its utilization for flood control...which is the primary purpose for which it was built. Below is a link to the lake levels and discharge reductions. http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/home/indexDU.htm
Well, well, here comes another selfish, whining advocate for real estate interests at Clarks Hill Lake (can't quite force myself to say "Thurmond," as that name has a criminal association.). The heck with the ecological and sociological damage that is done downstream by restricting flows when the lake level drops a mere two feet. Clontz is worried about protecting the "economic and recreational" benefits of those property owners. Who cares about the horrendous down-river consequences of such self-centered hubris? I surely hope the Corps of Engineers has the fortitude to stand against the real estate snakes, and do what makes sense based on engineering, science, and societal needs.
The Knave - Amen and well written too!
Some of y'all don't seem to get it that 3600cfs meets downstream needs and that 3100cfs last winter did also. The proposal Mr. Klontz is referring to makes good sense- when there is less water going in, there should be less going out, while still meeting downstream needs. The lakes were a mess again last year and folks downstream hardly knew that there was a terrible record drought going on. Releases need to be reduced starting at minus two feet. The Corps needs to balance interests, and reducing releases does just that.
TheFish, I call your attention to the comments above. The river was affected dramatically. Coves dried up. The river can tolerate up and down levels as it did before the dam, but when the high levels are artificially withheld for long periods it is damaged by growth taking over portions of what used to be coves. 3600 cfs does not meet the needs in summer months. What I do find possibly of value to both sides is the idea of measuring the depth at Stevens Creek and adjusting the outflow from Thurmond Dam, either down or UP, to keep it at the prescribed level. This could help the lake during periods of rain and the river during dry periods.
Everyone - The basic messasge here, after looking at all the reader comments and having seen what has happened over the last ten years (or more) is there is not a good coalition of people, stakeholders, businesses, water managers and others who truly understand the river (lake and all). The Corps is managing based on old data, old rules and old technology. Some comments above are by people who think they know the lower river but really do not truly understand that the basin is a SYSTEM - not individual sections of water. The same for the lakes areas. We need to really get together and work towards a new basin study with stakeholder involvement at all points. Let's stop guessing at the problem and get real data reviewed by stakeholders to understand and review the problem for a resolution we can all work with.