Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
|
I received an invitation from the Corps of Engineers to give a presentation at an ACF River Basin Public Meeting in Columbus on December 5, 2002. Due to illness I was unable to attend, but I did fax the information to Colonel Keyser on December 4. Following are the Corps of Engineers invitation and my response letter.
Ronald
E. Seder Colonel
Robert B. Keyser, District Engineer Dear Colonel Keyser, Thank you for your
invitation to present quantified information at the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Public Meeting on December 5th
in Columbus. I have had every
intention of attending the meeting and making a presentation, however, I am
now temporarily ill and suspect I will not be able to attend the meeting
tomorrow evening. Therefore, I am
sending you this letter to address the subject. I have been involved in
learning about Lake Lanier, and working for its preservation for fourteen
years. I publish some Lake Lanier
information on my website at http://ronseder.home.mindsprong.com,
which deals with the importance of Lake Lanier as a recreational lake. Lake
Lanier Recreational Value According to Corps of
Engineers reports, Lake Lanier enjoys 7 to 8 million visitors per year. A “Marine Trade
Association of Metropolitan Atlanta” report, “Lake Sidney C. Lanier A
Study Of The Economic Impact Of Recreation”, dated September 2001, shows
recreation on Lake Lanier to be the dominant portion of a $5.5 billion
recreational contribution to the economy.
A letter at the beginning of the report, signed by Kit Dunlap,
President/CEO of the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce says “The economic
impact is over $5 billion annually…recreation a predominant part of that
number”. The UGA
“DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA” (commonly
referred to as the Lake Lanier Clean Lakes Study) (on the web at http://www.cviog.uga.edu/projects/lanier/),
referring to Lake Lanier recreation, says on page 6-2 “Recreation is the
biggest revenue producer on the lake, generating $2 billion per year (McCafferty, 1995).” Lake Levels are
significant to the amount of recreation on Lake Lanier and consequently to the
Lake’s recreational economic contribution.
The Corps of Engineers, “Water Allocation for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin” (on the web at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/pd/actacfeis/acf-draft.htm),
in the Volume 2 Appendices, Table F-5-32 on page F-5-34, shows Lake Lanier
boater trips at a Lake level of 1065’ msl to be only 51% of the boater trips
at 1071’ msl. The table also
shows boater trips at a Lake level of 1055’ to be only 13% of the boater
trips at a Lake level of 1071. The Lake Lanier
recreational benefits are huge compared to the economics of Lake Lanier water
released for power generation or navigation, which significantly lowers Lake
Lanier levels. Lake
Lanier Large Volume vs. Small Watershed Lake Lanier is considered
to be the majority of the water storage volume on the ACF River system, and in
fact that is true if taking the Lake down to 1035’ msl (36 feet below full
summer pool) is considered to be realistic.
However, considering lowering Lake Lanier to a level of 1035’ msl is
not at all practical. First,
lowering the Lake to that level would devastate Lake Lanier recreation and its
economic contribution. Second, if
the Lake were taken down to that level the water supply insurance provided by
the Lake would be depleted, and timely Lake refilling would not be possible in
most years. Lake Lanier has a very
small watershed for the volume of the Lake, and because of that and the
drought the lake has not been at the top of its Conservation Pool since June
of 1998. West Point Lake and
lakes below it have not suffered nearly as much low lake hardship.
During the same period of time since June of 1998 West Point Lake has
been at or above its conservation pool level much of the time. The Corps of Engineers
water releases from Lanier and West Point significantly influence the lake
levels, but one of the big reasons for the full lake difference between Lake
Lanier and West Point Lake, since the drought started in 1998, is that West
Point Lake and the reservoirs below it have relatively much larger watersheds
to refill them than does Lanier. Referring
to Table 4-5 on Page 4-48 of the Corps of Engineers September 1998 EIS
“Water Allocation for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River
Basin” (on the web at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/pd/actacfeis/acf-draft.htm), it can be seen that
Lake Lanier has a watershed of 1040 square miles versus West Point Lake’s
watershed of 3,440 square miles, and West Point is a much smaller lake than
Lanier. Therefore an inch of rain
on the West Point watershed will raise the West Point Lake level very much
more than an inch of rain on the Lake Lanier watershed will raise the Lake
Lanier water level. As a point of
comparison it is interesting to note that the Apalachicola River has a
watershed of 19,600 square miles to contribute runoff to its flows. I have concluded from the
Tri-States ACF technical work that managing Lake Lanier to a lowest level of
1035’ msl rather than 1055’ msl, while managing the system so Lake Lanier
would eventually refill, would make a difference of only about 150 cfs in the
flows of the Apalachicola River. That
would be a flow of 150 cfs on top of a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs in the
Apalachicola River. I do not
think that Apalachicola flow difference would cause any measurable difference
in Apalachicola River benefits, but the 20’ lower Lake Lanier would
devastate Lake Lanier recreation and its economic benefit. Atlanta
Metropolitan Area Water Supplies Probably the greatest
worth of Lake Lanier is as assurance of a continuous water supply for the
Atlanta Metropolitan Area. The
economic success of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area positively influences the
economic success of all of Georgia, and continuing that economic health
requires a dependable water supply. In
some respects the drought we have experienced since 1998 is the worst drought
of our area since Lake Lanier was first filled, but it surely is not the worst
drought this area will ever suffer. Since
we cannot predict droughts it is important to manage Lake Lanier as though
there is always a drought just around the corner, so that when the drought
does occur there are adequate Lake Lanier water to handle the drought.
That means that Lake Lanier should be kept relatively full during
normal years and the reservoir releases managed accordingly. Summary The Lake Lanier
recreational quality-of-life (7 to 8 million annual visits) and economic ($5.5
billion) benefits, as well as assurance of a dependable Metropolitan Atlanta
water supply, require high Lake Lanier levels, which depend on nature’s gift
of rain and wise Corps of Engineers management of Lake Lanier water releases. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
REPLY TO Plan
Formulation Branch SUBJECT:
Dear
ACF Stakeholder,
I have scheduled a public meeting for the night of
The Corps, in exercising its discretionary
authority in operating the ACF reservoir system, attempts to balance the water
needs of multiple purposes within the basin. The purposes for which the Corps
reservoirs operate include those originally authorized as well as those that
have come about as a result of subsequent Federal legislation. Enclosure 1
contains a map of the Corps reservoirs within the
As you know, the spokesperson
representing your user group or stakeholder interest, present at the meeting
quantified information concerning the essential water needs of your
stakeholder group in order to assist the Corps in making reservoir management
decisions in the fully
met. Yet, the Corps has the responsibility to operate reservoirs in a balanced
manner to maximize the benefits of the authorized purposes. Accordingly, your
quantitative information will assist me in making better decisions in the
overall best interest of the public we serve.
I look forward to receiving your information at
the meeting. If you have any questions concerning this meeting, please feel
free to call Mr. Keith Graham at (251) 694-3882 or e-mail john.k.graham@sam.usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Keyser
Lake
From meetings I have attended, and people
I have talked with during the past year, I had the impression that releases of
Part of my normal daily routine includes
checking the Corps of Engineers website, http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/acfframe.htm,
to review information about the previous day’s Because of the rapid The information supplied by Colonel Keyser
shows that the average Following are my letter and Colonel Keyser’s reply.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Water
Management Section Mr.
Ronald E. Seder Dear
Mr. Seder,
Thank you for taking the opportunity to write me in regards to the
operation of
As you are probably aware, the entire southeast region is facing one of
the most difficult droughts that this region has experienced in decades. This
summer has been particularly dry with several months of record-setting low
levels of inflow to the lakes and the entire basin. Records were set for the
lowest inflows into Lanier,
Your letter asked for information regarding the releases made from
Buford Dam as it relates to the minimum flow requirements at Peachtree Creek
and whether they exceeded the 750 cfs requirements. The records of the
releases at Buford show that we have made releases ranging from a weekly
average of approximately 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in early August up
to the daily discharges of 2300 cfs on September 12. The increase in the
releases were made to support the increased requirements for the Atlanta area
due to the extreme dry conditions in that reach of the river system and to
support the minimum flow needs on the lower ACF system. The decision to
increase the discharges were made by my water management staff based on their
assessment of the conditions and needs in the entire basin. This
decision-making process also incorporated the weekly coordination between the
Atlanta Regional Commission and Georgia Power Company personnel in determining
the flow needs for the
One of the responsibilities of all Federal agencies is to undertake
actions in a manner to protect and enhance the recovery of endangered and
threatened species. Water management agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers must also consult with State fish and wildlife agencies to assure
that impacts to fish and wildlife are minimized. In addition, fish and
wildlife conservation is an authorized project purpose for the reservoir
projects in the ACF basin.
As stated earlier, because conditions became extremely dry in the
entire basin and the lower lakes were beginning to exhaust their storage, it
became necessary to support the 5000 cfs minimum flow requirement on the
The 5000 cfs flow is identified in the existing water control plan as
the minimum flow required to support industrial water supply needs on the
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that flows less than 5000
cfs would result in an adverse impact to Federally-protected mussels on the
Apalachicola River, and has requested the Mobile District to initiate Section
7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act if a waiver from the
minimum flows in the water control plans is pursued. This consultation would
determine the extent of impact on the mussels and whether the continued
existence of the mussels would be jeopardized; and would determine those
reasonable and prudent measures necessary to protect the species. We are
initiating studies to assist in evaluating the impact of reduced flows on
mussels and mussel habitat, in the event a waiver from the water control plan
is determined necessary due to continued drought conditions in the basin. We
are also continuing to consult with the Federal and State fish and wildlife
agencies during these extended drought conditions to minimize the impacts
associated with the balancing of all uses of the waters in the basin.
Due to the recent rainfall in the basin as a result of Tropical Storms
Hannah and Isidore, the discharges from Buford Dam have been reduced to
approximately 1000 cfs per day. This is a level that is adequate to meet only
the
I have enclosed the river readings on a floppy disk as requested for
the gage on the
I hope that I have answered your question more definitively and if you
have additional follow-up questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at
(251) 690-2511.
Sincerely,
Robert
B. Keyser Enclosure
Ronald
E. Seder Colonel
Robert B. Keyser, District Engineer Dear Colonel Keyser, I have been involved in
promoting the preservation of I am writing because Lake
Lanier levels are already 10.5 feet below full pool, Lake Lanier levels are
declining rapidly (1.1 feet in September through the 11th), Lake
Lanier levels are now one foot lower than last year at this time (also a very
tough draught year) and because Buford Dam water releases appear to be much
greater lately than is required to satisfy the 750 cfs minimum flow at
Peachtree Creek. I ask for direct
quantitative answers. I raised
the Buford Dam release question in According to the Corps of
Engineers website, Buford Dam releases since September 3rd have
been mostly running between 1700 cfs and 2300 cfs.
Please provide me with the daily May I look forward to an
early reply? Thank you in advance for
your attention to my request. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
This was presented at the Lake Lanier Association General Membership Meeting of May 28, 2002. LAKE
LANIER LEVELS CURRENT AND FUTURE Lake Lanier levels are important to all of us who enjoy
the aesthetic and recreational benefits of the Lake. Lake Lanier receives approximately eight million visits per
year and has a recreation economic impact of $5.5 billion. High
Lake levels have a significant positive impact on the desirability of the
Lake, the visits to the Lake and the recreation economy the Lake produces. Lake levels are influenced by several things, including
the amount of water coming to the lake from rain on its watershed, Buford Dam
peak power generation releases, water supply withdrawals from the Lake and the
Chattahoochee River, releases for minimum river flows and releases for
downriver navigation. With the
exception of rain, man controls most of these Lake level impacts. Recent Lake Levels We are still experiencing a four-year drought; therefore
the Lake has not had as much water input (rain runoff from the Lake’s
watershed) as normal. The Lake
has not been full since June 1998. The
Lake level today is 1065.8 msl, and that is the highest it has been since June
2000. However, that current Lake level is still 5.2 feet below full pool and
4.5 feet below the average Lake level for this time of the year.
If The Corps of Engineers had not significantly reduced Buford Dam
releases for navigation, hydropower generation and other purposes, for the
past year or so, the Lake level today would be very much lower. For normal Lake levels to return we need more rain, and
we need the Corps of Engineers’ continued judicious management of Buford Dam
releases. Tri-States Negotiations
As you know, the negotiations (Tri-States) among Alabama,
Florida and Georgia deal with future allocations of the waters of the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system. An agreement among the three States would establish the rules
for future Buford Dam releases and profoundly influence future Lake Lanier
levels. The Tri-State negotiations have really been going on
since 1989, and there have been millions of dollars spent in comprehensive
studies of the ACF river system water uses, needs and values. The Lake Lanier Association (LLA) has been active and has
provided valuable input to deliberations since the 1989 start. In 1997 the three States agreed that they would produce a
formula for the allocation of ACF waters, by the end of 1998.
That deadline was not met and it was extended.
There have been many deadline extensions since then, with the latest
deadline now being June 17, 2002. We do not know if there will be an agreement, or if there
will be another deadline extension, or if the three States will abandon the
talks? If the States discontinue
their negotiations, the most popular predictions are that the issue will
eventually end up in the United States Supreme Court, with decisions resulting
many years hence. We were encouraged in May, last year, when it looked like
an agreement was near, but the Florida proposal causing that optimism was
subsequently withdrawn by Florida in early summer. We were encouraged again in January of this year when the
three States reached an agreement in principle, but Georgia and Florida were
not in agreement in a subsequent March 18th meeting. In the March 18th meeting, Florida refused to
extend the deadline again, which meant that at midnight of that day the
negotiations would officially end. However,
Georgia and Alabama signed an extension agreement and left it with Florida
just in case Florida changed its position. Florida did sign the extension
agreement before midnight, which produced the current deadline of June 17,
2002. The latest proposals are based on a philosophy of keeping
more water in Lake Lanier as though a drought is always just around the
corner, because droughts cannot be predicted. The latest proposals, when computer model simulated against
historic climatic conditions, show higher Lake Lanier levels than were
actually experienced, and the lowest simulated Lake level is higher than the
lowest actually experienced. The
LLA has a couple concerns with the latest proposals and has suggested changes,
with which the Georgia negotiators seem to agree. Recently, the Corps of Engineers challenged Georgia on
its water use numbers, and therefore on its year 2030 water use projections.
Work is in process now to try to reconcile what appears to be a
difference between the State of Georgia numbers and Corps of Engineers
numbers. If there really is new
news here, there could be significant implications future for Lake Lanier
levels. That is the current status. We now look forward to the next Tri-States meeting on June 12 in Montgomery. Needless to say, your Lake Lanier Association will continue its active participation in the ongoing negotiations and assessments to help bring them to a satisfactory Lake Lanier conclusion.
Following is a letter I wrote to the Corps of Engineers about Lake Levels during the summer of 2001, and the response to it from the Corps of Engineers. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY September
12, 2001 REPLY
TO Water Management Section Mr. Ron Seder Dear Mr. Seder: This
letter is in response to your letter of August 13, 2001, regarding the
management of Lake Lanier during the months of July and August 2001. In your
letter, you expressed concern about how Lanier has been operated, given the
considerable amount of rainfall that has occurred in the area, and about the
variation and the amount of water released from Buford Dam. The
releases from Buford Dam since last fall have been based on the water supply
and water quality needs for the metro Atlanta area. The Corps is just one
participant in managing the Chattahoochee River for metro Atlanta water supply
needs. Twice weekly, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) staff polls
utilities for their withdrawal estimates and assesses river inflows.
Preliminary estimates of needed Lanier releases and releases from Georgia
Power Company’s Morgan Fails Dam are provided to us and Georgia Power.
Subsequently, our water managers monitor downstream conditions and
modify the Lanier release to prevent Morgan Falls from depleting or exceeding
its storage capacity. Our
close monitoring of the river has allowed us to take advantage of the
rainfalls you mention in your letter. We were able to curtail our releases
from the dam when the rainfalls below the dam helped to meet the water demands
of the Atlanta area. For the periods of July 4-6, July 25-26, July 31-Aug 1
and Aug 13-14, the Corps reduced releases from Buford Dam in response to the
rainfall in the Atlanta area. This
river management system has allowed us to save a tremendous amount of water in
Lanier when operating solely for water supply/water quality. However, it is
not perfect. Utilities may change their withdrawals from the estimates they
have provided. Rains may occur which substantially fulfill water demands after
Lanier water has already been released or scheduled. The mechanism for
estimating the Morgan Falls release has been crude and probably a significant
source of error. (We are glad to note that Georgia Power, in conjunction with
the U.S. Geological Survey, is making improvement in flow measuring which
should greatly assist in refining flow management in the river.) The
outflows from Buford for the period July 8 through August 11 were greater than
the 750 cfs flow required at Peachtree Creek. This is because the outflow has
to provide enough water to meet the water demands for the metro Atlanta area
in addition to meeting the 750 cfs continuous flow requirement at Peachtree
Creek. Because
conditions have been generally wet downstream, we expect to continue to
operate Lanier substantially for water supply and water quality alone over the
next several months. I appreciate your concerns about the need to maintain
Lanier’s level, and the Corps of Engineers is fully committed to operating
the lake and the entire river system in a manner that will equitably serve all
the users within the river basin. If I can be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (251) 690-2511. Sincerely, John
W. Bailey
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. August 13, 2001
Dear Colonel Keyser, We have had a considerable amount of rain on the Lake
Lanier watershed for the past couple months which has allowed Lake Lanier’s
level to remain between 1062’ and 1063’ msl but still about 6’ below the
average lake level for this time of the year. As you know, Lake Lanier has not been full since June of
1998. Although there are some
signs that the three-year drought may be ending we cannot be sure of that.
We face the possibility that the drought could continue and further
diminish Lake Lanier levels, jeopardizing much of Georgia’s water supply and
the $2 Billion annual Lake Lanier recreational economic benefit. For some time I have been reviewing the materials posted
on the Corps of Engineers website. I
notice that Lake Lanier’s daily average outflows were about 675 cfs from
June 1 through July 7, and about 1115 cfs from July 8 through August 11.
That is an average daily difference of about 440 cfs. If the daily average outflows had also been 675 cfs
instead of 1115 cfs during the July 8 through August 11 period the Lake would
be almost one foot higher today. And,
of course, if that difference were to be continued for many more months it
could amount to a lake level difference of several feet. It appears that the July 8 through August 11 daily
average outflows are greater than are required to provide the 750 cfs minimum
flow at Peachtree Creek. Would you please explain why the July 8 through August 11
outflows were as high as they were, as well as telling us what we can expect
in lake level management actions for the next several months? Thank you. Sincerely,
LAKE
LANIER LEVELS The
discussion of Lake Lanier levels, whether the current condition, or future
lake levels that may be determined by a settlement of the Tri-States
negotiations, requires some preliminary knowledge.
Let’s start by building a knowledge foundation. Lake
Lanier is part of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River System (ACF)
that stretches from North Georgia to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Chattahoochee River, originating in the North Georgia mountains,
and the Flint River originating in the Atlanta area, flow south until they
join at the Florida border to become the Apalachicola River that flows through
the panhandle of Florida to the Gulf of Mexico. During
normal times the flows from the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers are
approximately the same at the point they come together to form the
Apalachicola River. So, if the
Apalachicola flows at 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), about 5,000 cfs is
supplied from the Chattahoochee and 5,000 cfs is supplied from the Flint. Several
reservoirs have been built on the Chattahoochee River to store water for many
purposes, thereby allowing saving water during wet times and releasing
reservoir water during dry times to support the requirements put on the river
system. Some
of the main uses for water taken from the reservoirs are: electric power
generation; provide river depth downstream for navigation (float barges);
irrigation (mostly in the Flint River area); input to water supplies and to
provide minimum river flows to assimilate waste discharges. There
are four major water storage reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River, Lanier,
West Point, George and Seminole. Lanier
contains about 65% of the total reservoir storage on the Chattahoochee River
system; therefore Lanier must supply much of the water to augment river flows
for dry weather uses. The
total watershed of the ACF is about 20,000 square miles, and the runoff from
those 20,000 square miles provides the water to the ACF river system.
When there is an abundance of rain the runoff from the watershed
provides more than enough water in the river system, and some of that excess
water is saved in the reservoirs. When
there is a lack of rain and the rivers are receiving much less runoff from the
watershed, water is released from the reservoirs to supplement the smaller
runoff to provide greater river flows. Because
the Lake Lanier watershed of 1040 square miles is only about 5% of the total
ACF watershed, and because Lanier is a large portion of the total storage on
the river system, we see significant fluctuations in Lake Lanier levels.
In other words, there is a huge reliance on water from 5% of the
watershed to satisfy the dry weather uses on the other 95% of the watershed.
Because of its relatively small watershed, Lake Lanier is slow to
refill. By comparison, the much
smaller Lake Allatoona (25% the capacity of Lake Lanier) has a watershed about
the same size as Lanier, and therefore fills much faster for the same amount
of rainfall. During
a normal summer, the dryer part of the year, the Lake Lanier level will be
taken down several feet because of Buford Dam releases to generate peak power
and augment river flows for the other purposes However,
which purpose gets how much water during the dry times is a judgment call that
can be changed depending on political, environmental and economic influences. That
is the crux of the Tri-States (Florida, Alabama and Georgia) ACF water
distribution negotiations. The
most difficult agreements to reach deal with how to use the reservoir water
during dry years. How important
is it to release huge quantities of water to generate peak power?
How important is it to release huge quantities of water to provide the
downriver depth for barge navigation? How
important is it to use more of the water for water supplies? How important is
it to use huge quantities of water for irrigation? How important is it to
provide a 5,000 cubic feet per second minimum flow in the Apalachicola River?
How important is it to keep reservoirs relatively full as a protection
against a long duration drought that cannot be predicted?
How important is it to keep water in the reservoirs to support
reservoir recreation and the economic benefits it produces.
The answers to all of these questions have a profound impact on Lake
Lanier dry weather levels. The
Lake Lanier full pool level in the summer is considered to be 1071 feet above
sea level. In
the Tri-States negotiations Alabama and Florida want dry weather river flows
that would take Lake Lanier down 20 feet lower than was experienced during
1986 to 1988, the worst drought we have had since the lake was filled in 1958.
Of course that would ruin Lake Lanier’s aesthetics and recreation, as
well as deplete any further drought insurance to satisfy water uses during an
extended drought, especially water supplies.
Taking Lake Lanier to those low levels does not make sense because the
harm caused would be much greater than the benefits realized. The
Tri-States negotiations have their origin in 1989 and there is still great
disagreement among the states. The
current deadline for an agreement among the three states is the end of 2000.
That is the fourth deadline, after three others were not met.
It would be nice if the three states could reach a logical and fair
agreement, but Florida and Alabama politics may prevent that, which would most
likely result in the courts finally making the decisions.
That may not be such a good idea either because it looks like the law
is not very definitive in this area, and that makes the outcome of court
activities less predictable than we would desire. That
then brings us to our present lake level.
We are currently in a two-year drought (some say three year).
Normally the lake fills every year, but because of the drought Lake
Lanier has not been full since June of 1998.
That means less water to satisfy dry weather demands and to provide
high lake levels, and one can see that the lake can go lower and lower during
successive years of drought demands. How
low will Lake Lanier go before its starts to refill?
The main refill period for the lake is from January to May.
Will there be enough rain to fill the lake next year?
We are told that normal rains will provide about 15 feet of Lake Lanier
water. During an August meeting,
the Corps of Engineers said the lake could go as low as 1046.8 feet above sea
level by year-end. If that
happened normal rains would then only raise the lake level to about 1062 feet
above sea level before the lake level is again taken down to satisfy dry
weather demands. One
of the things contributing to the lower Lake Lanier level this year is the
billions of gallons of water released from lakes George and Seminole for barge
navigation in the April/May time period.
Those releases significantly lowered lakes George and Seminole, from
which the continuing drought did not allow them to recover, so more water had
to later be released from Lakes West Point and Lanier to satisfy the
traditional 5,000 cfs minimum flows in the Apalachicola River.
There were only 10 barges that used the river system as a result of the
April/May downriver releases, which is a terrible waste of precious water
resources. The April/May
navigation release was clearly a mistake.
Because benefits derived from navigation releases are much less than
the benefits of keeping water in the reservoirs, reservoir releases for
navigation should be stopped altogether. On
August 15, 2000 the Corps of Engineers held a meeting, attended by about 100
people, including Lake Lanier Association representatives, to propose that the
releases from Lake Lanier be reduced to allow higher lake levels for more
insurance against a potential continuing drought.
The Corps’ proposal would have allowed the flows in the Apalachicola
River to be reduced below the traditional minimum of 5,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs). As has been said,
the Corps was predicting that the lake could go down to about 1047 feet above
sea level by the end of the year. Their
August proposal to reduce lake releases would have made the possible year end
low point more in the 1050 ballpark. Florida
opposed the Corps’ plan to reduce the 5,000 cfs Apalachicola River minimum
flows. But, the real reason the
Corps was unable to implement its proposal was that it was found that the
5,000 cfs Apalachicola River flows were already stressing two endangered
mussel species. That finding
kicked in the Endangered Species Act, which prevented the Corps from
implementing its reduced reservoir release plan. We
have had some rain since the August 15 Corps of Engineers meeting in Columbus.
At that time Lake Lanier’s level was 1061.6.
As this is written on October 8, 2000 Lake Lanier is at 1058.4, or 3.2
feet lower than August 15. If the
lake continues to lower at the same rate it did between August 15 and October
8 we can expect a year-end lake level close to 1053.
That low lake level is unacceptable because of its impact on
recreation, the $2 billion annual economic benefit Lake Lanier recreation
produces during normal years, and the insurance of having adequate water for
our water supplies next year if the drought continues. Well
that is our situation. If the
drought continues, by the end of this year we will have Lake Lanier levels
lower than they ever have been. And,
if the drought continues into 2001 our water supplies will be in serious
trouble, and the aesthetics and recreation on the lake will be enormously
diminished. We
also have a real possibility that a settlement of the Tri-States water issues
could result in permanently lower lake levels. What
can be done? Your Lake Lanier
Association (LLA) is represented on the Governor’s Advisory Council for the
Tri-States Water Issues, and we make sure your point of view and your
interests are articulated. The
LLA participates in meetings dealing with considerations of what to do about
current Lake Lanier releases, and again we make sure your point of view and
your interests are articulated. But,
we are up against significant political and financial power representing those
interests that want more water released from Lake Lanier.
And, because of their organized political and financial strength, those
interests have a lot of influence over Lake Lanier releases.
Therefore, we all must do a better job of influencing Lake Lanier
decisions through our contacts with political and other leaders, and our
contributions to the Lake Lanier Association Foundation.
We simply need more people involved to do a better job of getting our
Lake Lanier interests adequately considered in the decision making process. We
would all like to see a brighter picture as we look to the future of Lake
Lanier, but that picture will only be brighter if we all fight for what is
right for the lake. If a lot more
of us do participate in the lake saving struggle we will be able to then look
forward to a future Lake Lanier that is still a jewel in North Georgia.
|
