Lake elevations

[96 CHAMP]

15 minutes ago, skeeter said:

http://www.ky3.com/content/news/TRAFFIC-ALERT-Why-it-may-be-days-before-I-44-reopens-near-Lebanon-420914213.html

Amazing isn't it??

[rps]

5 hours ago, cheesemaster said:

That's the same concern they should have in the dry months (summer) when the pool level is reduced with no anticipated rain until spring again.

I will not understand the logic unless some hard facts are presented. 

I have been friends with Larry Yadon, the attorney for the power transmission part of the White River Corps of Engineers unit, for years. From him I have learned a bit of the operations workings. It is never so easy that a single declaration can make sense of things. I will share what I have learned in hopes most of you understand the complexity involved. If any who understand more than I do see an error, please feel free to jump in a correct me. If Larry reads this (I doubt it) I hope he forgives any errors.

The operations are limited by several factors. First, and foremost, Congress directed an operations priority when they funded the building of the dams and when they fund the maintenance and operations budget. The first priority on the list is flood control. The second is power generation. Recreation and fishing and conservation are not even on the list.

The next factor is that flood control includes more than the properties directly below the dam. Their computations include the value of cotton and rice crops far down stream in the Arkansas delta. The value of those crops is many tens of millions of dollars.

A third factor is that Congress expects and requires the power generation to create an income stream to support the maintenance and upkeep of the dams and amortize the original expenditure.

To deal with this set of expectations, the dam operations people enter contracts with the electric cooperatives to provide income streams. The contracts provide that when the flood pool is between two numbers, for example 910 and 925 feet on Table Rock (those are example numbers and not the real contract numbers), the electric companies shall control the discharge from the lakes, both as to volume and as to time of day. That contract power has limits. The Corps may over-ride the electric when flood control factors require. In addition the Corps may intervene when facing other factors such as drowning searches and also for minimum flow purposes.

The electric generation group knows power generated in the summer, when demand for air conditioning is high, is worth considerably more in dollars than generation in the winter. Therefore, they want to conserve water for summer generation. Thus, when the rains of several weeks ago jumped Table Rock from 910 to 918, no urgent move to make room for Spring rain happened.

This arrangement also explains the Corps desire to use "rain on the ground" for planning rather than anticipatory modeling - the latter gets in the way of their money making contract. When that factor combines with the traditional mind set that the cotton and rice farmer crops must be protected, you can begin to see the pattern for the behavior over the last three floods.

Can this and will this change? Yes, it could. However that change would require a Congressional change to the priorities set by law. Given the current make up of the Congress and executive branch, I would suggest you do not hold your breath.

[rps]

BTW, on the way home from school. I stopped at the Holiday Island Marina. Picture tell more than words. At 934+ the lake covers the ramp and the parking lot and a ferry service becomes necessary to reach the boats. Note how Colin has the toon tied to the potties building. The ramp is so far under you can only find it by diving.

[dblades]

55 minutes ago, cheesemaster said:

 I have always understood it to be a winter pool of 917. If that's not correct my bad. 

I thought they raised power pool to 917 when they finish working at Moonshine Beach. It looks like the power pool varies by season now.

http://www.swl-wc.usace.army.mil/pages/data/tabular/htm/tabrock.htm

[Jerry Rapp]

Vernon, MOPanfisher, and RPS summed things up very good.  I did the same as Vernon in the St. Louis District.  There will always be a lot of "experts" on any subject.  But those three folks have said a lot of good words about something that I have actually experienced.

[vernon]

1 hour ago, MOPanfisher said:

Vernon, thanks for giving some explanation, I have mostly stayed out of it this time.  You are correct in that the "plan" is the driving force by regulation and has some impact even into lawsuits.  As long as the approved plan is being followed the COE has some legal protections, begin to go outside of the plan and it causes damage upstream or downstream suddenly there are possible legal ramifications.  There is also a point where the protection of the dam itself becomes priority number 1, in reality it is always the primary concern, however in most situations it isn't a concern.  Predicted rainfall regardless of how accurate it turns out to be is something that plays into planning for what could happen but isn't something that is used in current operations.  It makes a big difference how and where the rain falls, over the whole drainage basin, over part of it, the intensity and duration etc.  The lake is currently doing exactly what it was designed to do and more, the current is somewhere around 120% of its rated flood storage. (Taken from Phil info) Honestly I am surprised they haven't increased releases to the 2015 levels or more.

No, thank you.

[Terrierman]

37 minutes ago, rps said:

I have been friends with Larry Yadon, the attorney for the power transmission part of the White River Corps of Engineers unit, for years. From him I have learned a bit of the operations workings. It is never so easy that a single declaration can make sense of things. I will share what I have learned in hopes most of you understand the complexity involved. If any who understand more than I do see an error, please feel free to jump in a correct me. If Larry reads this (I doubt it) I hope he forgives any errors.

The operations are limited by several factors. First, and foremost, Congress directed an operations priority when they funded the building of the dams and when they fund the maintenance and operations budget. The first priority on the list is flood control. The second is power generation. Recreation and fishing and conservation are not even on the list.

The next factor is that flood control includes more than the properties directly below the dam. They computations include the value of cotton and rice crops far down stream in the Arkansas delta. The value of those crops is many tens of millions of dollars.

A third factor is that Congress expects and requires the power generation to create an income stream to support the maintenance and upkeep of the dams and amortize the original expenditure.

To deal with this set of expectations, the dam operations people enter contracts with the electric cooperatives to provide income streams. The contracts provide that when the flood pool is between two numbers, for example 910 and 925 feet on Table Rock (those are example numbers and not the real contract numbers), the electric companies shall control the discharge from the lakes, both as to volume and as to time of day. That contract power has limits. The Corps may over-ride the electric when flood control factors require. In addition the Corps may intervene when facing an other factors such as drowning searches and also for minimum flow purposes.

The electric generation group knows power generated in the summer, when demand for air conditioning is high, is worth considerably more in dollars than generation in the winter. Therefore, they want to conserve water for summer generation. Thus, when the rains of several weeks ago jumped Table Rock from 910 to 918, no urgent move to make room for Spring rain happened.

This arrangement also explains the Corps desire to use "rain on the ground" for planning rather than anticipatory modeling - the latter gets in the way of their money making contract. When that factor combines with the traditional mind set that the cotton and rice farmer crops must be protected, you can begin to see the pattern for the behavior over the last three floods.

Can this and will this change? Yes, it could. However that change would require a Congressional change to the priorities set by law. Given the current make up of the Congress and executive branch, I would suggest you do not hold your breath.

Two comments: 

1.  I never cancelled work on a forecast. 

2.  I take exception to your estimate of tens of millions of dollars worth of crops downstream.  Think hundreds of millions.

[vernon]

43 minutes ago, rps said:

I have been friends with Larry Yadon, the attorney for the power transmission part of the White River Corps of Engineers unit, for years. From him I have learned a bit of the operations workings. It is never so easy that a single declaration can make sense of things. I will share what I have learned in hopes most of you understand the complexity involved. If any who understand more than I do see an error, please feel free to jump in a correct me. If Larry reads this (I doubt it) I hope he forgives any errors.

The operations are limited by several factors. First, and foremost, Congress directed an operations priority when they funded the building of the dams and when they fund the maintenance and operations budget. The first priority on the list is flood control. The second is power generation. Recreation and fishing and conservation are not even on the list.

The next factor is that flood control includes more than the properties directly below the dam. Their computations include the value of cotton and rice crops far down stream in the Arkansas delta. The value of those crops is many tens of millions of dollars.

A third factor is that Congress expects and requires the power generation to create an income stream to support the maintenance and upkeep of the dams and amortize the original expenditure.

To deal with this set of expectations, the dam operations people enter contracts with the electric cooperatives to provide income streams. The contracts provide that when the flood pool is between two numbers, for example 910 and 925 feet on Table Rock (those are example numbers and not the real contract numbers), the electric companies shall control the discharge from the lakes, both as to volume and as to time of day. That contract power has limits. The Corps may over-ride the electric when flood control factors require. In addition the Corps may intervene when facing other factors such as drowning searches and also for minimum flow purposes.

The electric generation group knows power generated in the summer, when demand for air conditioning is high, is worth considerably more in dollars than generation in the winter. Therefore, they want to conserve water for summer generation. Thus, when the rains of several weeks ago jumped Table Rock from 910 to 918, no urgent move to make room for Spring rain happened.

This arrangement also explains the Corps desire to use "rain on the ground" for planning rather than anticipatory modeling - the latter gets in the way of their money making contract. When that factor combines with the traditional mind set that the cotton and rice farmer crops must be protected, you can begin to see the pattern for the behavior over the last three floods.

Can this and will this change? Yes, it could. However that change would require a Congressional change to the priorities set by law. Given the current make up of the Congress and executive branch, I would suggest you do not hold your breath.

A much more eloquently stated example of much of what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

Thank you for the much needed and additional clarity.

[vernon]

I will never forget the first time that I sat in on one of the USACE Office of Emergency Management briefings during a major flood event on an occasion that one or more State Representatives were present. 

When the realtime briefings were concluded the reps asked a few rather vague questions and then congratulated and thanked us for the great job we had done under daunting circumstances.  They said  that there was nothing that we could have done better or differently and to keep up the good work.

Then they exited the briefing room and walked about fifty feet to where the news media had been waiting for them.  They immediately began to berate the irresponsible and unexplainable actions of the COE and said that they were calling for "a total and complete investigation" as to why so many of their constituents had been needlessly harmed by the actions of the COE.

I was incredulous and asked one of higher up guys just what the heck (not the word I used) was going on.  He replied that "angry voters are more likely to vote than happy ones". 

Again, please don't blame the COE for doing what they're legally mandated to do.

 

[vernon]

35 minutes ago, Jerry Rapp said:

Vernon, MOPanfisher, and RPS summed things up very good.  I did the same as Vernon in the St. Louis District.  There will always be a lot of "experts" on any subject.  But those three folks have said a lot of good words about something that I have actually experienced.

Thanks Jerry.