Cristobal Moisture

[Terrierman]

31 minutes ago, Phil Lilley said:

I'd like to hear more from Steve.  I respect his insight, esp being on that side of the WR region.

As for me, I think they need to revisit the Power Pool levels.

The Corps is playing russian roulette with business, lives and property below these dams, seeing the "trend" is now more and more wet seasons.  If it is a true trend that is predictable - and they have predicted this wet year way back last year - then why not adjust those levels?  And so what if they're off... low lake levels?  What does that hurt?

I understand pre releasing water before the storm hits.  That's not my beef.  It's where the lakes are way before this starts... on that January date.

I believe it takes an act of Congress.  I would not hold my breath that this congress can do anything like this which actually makes sense.  The Democrats will be all over the Republicans and the Republicans will be all over the Democrats and Mitch McConnell will sit on anything the House of Representatives sends to the Senate.  Our country is as close to broken as it needs to get.  NOTHING gets done anymore in DC.  Other than posturing.  There's plenty of that.

[Quillback]

Yes, reading what the Corps says, they are bound to that Newport gauge per order of Congress.  They can't change that, except they have some leeway when there's potential flooding.  I think the only way things can be changed is to get a coalition of people and businesses together that support change to the operating procedures and lean on your local congressman.  

[mojorig]

I found the following information from this link:

How was the water control plan developed? When were the last changes made? back to top
This plan has a lengthy history. In 1942, the Basis of Design for Definite Project Report was developed, which included the original studies for the method of operation for Bull Shoals and Norfork. This report helped establish the size of the flood and conservation pools in each lake. In 1952, the Plan of Flood Regulation for Bull Shoals and Norfork Reservoirs was developed. This reports described the proposed plan of regulation for Bull Shoals and Norfork. In 1954, the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation of the White River Basin was first developed. This described the operating criteria for Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Greers Ferry. In 1963, the Reservoir Regulation Manual for Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, and Norfork Reservoirs was developed. This was revised in 1966. In 1993, the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation for White River Basin was developed. No changes to the Water Control Plan were made, only basin conditions were updated. The economic analysis showed that changing the allocation of storage for purposes other than flood control, hydropower, or water supply was not economically justified. In 1998, after years of additional study, a revision to the water control plan was made that lowered the regulating stages on the White River.

Why not lower lake levels in the winter to prepare for spring rains? back to top
While lowering lake levels in the winter to prepare for spring rains does in effect increase the size of the flood pool, at the same time it takes away from hydropower and water supply storage. The Corps does not have legal authority to do this. The current allocation of storage for flood damage reduction was approved by Congress. Changing that allocation would require Congressional action.

Also, that is a very risky suggestion because there is no way to forecast long-range how much or how little rain will fall. If the Corps artificially lowered lake levels in the winter and spring rains did not come, a shortage of water to generate electricity, meet the needs of water utilities or provide viable recreation opportunities could ensue. The water supply and power users pay for that storage. If the drought progressed, instead of recovering, lake levels could continue to drop and cause an extreme water shortage.

How can the Operating Plan be changed to improve conditions for me? back to top
Proposed changes to the operating plan would require authorization and funding by Congress to study the impacts. All user groups would have input on changes they desire, even though each change to benefit one group would have a negative impact on another group or groups. These impacts would need to be communicated to all stakeholders in the basin and a new plan developed and coordinated before it could be implemented. In the end, substantial changes in operations are unlikely because of the substantial impacts they would cause, and there is no way to predict the outcome of less significant changes (who wins, who loses).

[Devan S.]

7 minutes ago, mojorig said:

I found the following information from this link:

How was the water control plan developed? When were the last changes made? back to top
This plan has a lengthy history. In 1942, the Basis of Design for Definite Project Report was developed, which included the original studies for the method of operation for Bull Shoals and Norfork. This report helped establish the size of the flood and conservation pools in each lake. In 1952, the Plan of Flood Regulation for Bull Shoals and Norfork Reservoirs was developed. This reports described the proposed plan of regulation for Bull Shoals and Norfork. In 1954, the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation of the White River Basin was first developed. This described the operating criteria for Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Greers Ferry. In 1963, the Reservoir Regulation Manual for Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, and Norfork Reservoirs was developed. This was revised in 1966. In 1993, the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation for White River Basin was developed. No changes to the Water Control Plan were made, only basin conditions were updated. The economic analysis showed that changing the allocation of storage for purposes other than flood control, hydropower, or water supply was not economically justified. In 1998, after years of additional study, a revision to the water control plan was made that lowered the regulating stages on the White River.

 

Is there any details on the change in '98 that lowered regulating stages?
 

[mojorig]

I'm unaware of how lowering the Newport Gauge from 14 feet to 12 feet impacted the stages for the reservoirs. That would be interesting to see. I'll comb over Google to see if I can find something.

[Devan S.]

Was the change in 1998 just from 14ft to 12ft or was it more significant?

[MickinMO]

Lot of old models and data used. A lot more runoff in the basin with NWA, Springfield, and Branson development. Feds were using data from the 1960s to price mortgages in the 2000s and helped lead to the meltdown. 

[mojorig]

1 hour ago, Devan S. said:

Was the change in 1998 just from 14ft to 12ft or was it more significant?

That is the only adjustment that I'm aware of in 1998.

[gotmuddy]

Typical government problem.  Why in the hell would congress have any know-how into what levels the lakes should be at??  All last fall they should have been dumping water.  

 

[Devan S.]

I would like to remind you all that BS and TRL were both @ or within 1 ft. of their "Normal" levels on March 14th, 2020. Beaver lake was dumping quite a bit of water at that time and they were passing that water through all the dams directly to the White river. Beaver was about 5 ft high at that time. Rain happened I believe the 15th or 16th of March and immediately raised all the lake levels and began us on the trajectory we are on today. In fact, the rain that fell also increased the White river stage which curtailed releases. Looking at the White River Newport Gage we have bumped along right at regulating stage the whole time since mid-March. 

Any claim to water dumping from any lake prior to March 14, 2020 would do absolutely nothing to remedy the high lake levels today as the counter was about as close to reset to zero as your going to get. 

 

There are only 2 things that would have solved the problem faced immediately right now. Lowering normal power pool(which would have to be significant) or increasing regulation stages at Newport.