Following is a copy of our letter sent to the Corps to comment on their EA for 3100cfs when Lake Thurmond is at trigger point 3. Hundreds have responded to our request to send comment letters to the Corps. If you have not done so yet please send in one of your own. We need the Corps to understand that we are not happy with this EA.
October 14, 2009
US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District, Savannah Planning UnitATTN: Mr. William BaileyP.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Dear Mr. Bailey,
This letter is in response to your request for comment on the EA permitting releases from Lake Thurmond of 3600cfs(3100 during colder months) when Lake Thurmond is below 316’. We acknowledge and wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that these release rates should have no significant detrimental effect on downstream stakeholders. And from the perspective of both downstream and upstream stakeholders the closer Lake Thurmond is to full pool the better. Downstream stakeholders are protected from the devastation that would occur if we reached the bottom of the conservation pool and could no longer maintain predictable river flows. And upstream stakeholders are protected against the devastating effects of low lake levels on economies and recreation.
However we recommend you not wait until Lake Thurmond drops below 316’. At this point upstream stakeholders will already be suffering destruction of economic and recreation interests and downstream stakeholders will only have a 4’ buffer in lake level before adequate river flows can no longer be maintained. Instead we recommend you drop release rates to 3600cfs (3100 during October to February) any time Lake Thurmond drops below 328’ and remain at this release rate until the lake returns to 330’.
Please note that the minimum river flows are the same in both our proposal and the Corps proposal. The only difference is the trigger point. This difference avoids the destruction to upstream interests that occurred during the drought of 2008 and minimizes the likelihood of reaching the bottom of the conservation pool where downstream interests would incur unacceptably low river flows.
We note with concern your failure to protect the economies and recreational interests of upstream stakeholders in your proposal. You mention both but fail totally to address either in your proposal. We recognize that only recreation is written into your formal description of responsibilities. But intentionally ignoring what you are doing to the economic concerns of communities around the lakes is inexcusable.
Yours Truly,
Jerry Clontz, spokesman for Save Our Lakes Now
Cc: Col. Kertis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment