|
Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
210 Hillcrest Drive or Rt.1 Box 1069
Anacoco, LA 71403 Hemphill,Tx.75948
February 26, 2003
Honorable Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE Mail Code HL-11.2
Washington, D.C. 20426
Subject: Water Level - Toledo Bend Reservoir (P-2305)
Reference: FERC Letter Dated December 30, 2002, Subject Requests For Changes To Reservoir Operations
Dear Secretary Salas:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary decision reached by your staff. We respectfully request that you review and reverse their decision for the reasons outlined in this letter and that you order the Sabine River Authorities of Louisiana and Texas to change the operation of the reservoir to that guide outlined in Simulation #6 of the Brown and Root Operating Guide Re-Evaluation Study of July 1998, or a substitute guide that is acceptable.
The major gains to the public, including owners of lake front property, that result from operating the project by following a Simulation #6 based operating guide, is the assurance of much better lake access during times of reduced inflow and the availability of a greater amount of water for purposes other than power generation. All of the other goals currently attained by following the present guide would also be attained. Your staff has so stated in their report in numerous instances, although in the end this is not the primary conclusion they reached.
Certainly your staff is not limited to Simulation # 6 as the sole solution to the lake level issue. We would suggest they look at alternatives such as changing the Peaking Period to the five-month period April– August, rather than the present May - September. They could require that all power produced during the Peaking Period be accounted for as Prime Power, not just that power produced when the reservoir is below 172’ msl. They could also order that Peaking Power be produced in equal quantities in each of the five months of the Peaking Period, rather than continuing to allow 85% of the Peaking Power to be produced in the three driest months of the year.
Here are the other major problems of the preliminary report.
Problem #1: Water Safety Decreases Proportionally As Lake Level Drops Below 168’ MSL
Water safety becomes a more acute issue as the lake level drops below 168’ msl because more and more timber is exposed when the water level drops. Your document states that when the reservoir was constructed timber extending above 157’ msl was cleared. Further, it states that a 1,000 foot-wide lane within the main reservoir channel and 500 foot-wide access lanes in tributary channels, public boat launches, and around public recreation areas were created. Most of this clearing was not accomplished due to rapid rise of water and the early filling of the reservoir.
When the lake level drops to 168’ msl and below, more stumps come closer to the surface of the water. Quite simply, Secretary Salas, the Reservoir Recreation Plan was not adhered to and this presents a serious safety problem for boaters when the lake level is low. If boaters can’t see the stumps just below the water line, they present a real threat to life and property. We have placed this problem in position number one since this must be our primary concern, as it surely must be yours as well.
Problem #2: Tax Payers Being Short Changed
Your staff has given little, if any, weight to the fact that Louisiana taxpayers who funded half the project cost intended the reservoir to be used for water conservation; for power generation; for recreation; and for economic development as stated in the legislation that established the Louisiana SRA. Power generation was intended to repay the bonds, not to be the controlling factor for the use of the reservoir. Texas taxpayers, who funded the other half of the project cost, intended the reservoir to be used primarily for water conservation and for power generation to repay the construction bonds.
Problem #3: Lakeshore Residents Must Either Abandon Use of Their Facilities or Pay Additional Dredging Costs
As the lake level drops below 168, more and more of those who originally built facilities on the lake must either make do without these facilities or make additional investments to dredge boat ways from their properties to the low level water even if the costs are exorbitant. Homeowners built their facilities assuming historical lake levels would continue. However, since 1986 these lake levels have declined even though the inflow, except in 1996, was equivalent or higher than years prior to 1986. The reason for the lake decline is that the SRAs have allowed or required the power companies to generate more electrical power. The SRAs have been paid based upon kilowatts produced, rather than the fixed payment originally agreed to prior to 1986. The SRA of Texas receives approximately 20% and Louisiana SRA receives about 67% of their total annual revenue from power production.
If your staff had examined the legislation and viewed the situation from the standpoint of the people who paid for the project, perhaps their attitude would have been more appropriate. Those who bought their property and built their facilities based upon historical lake level data should never have been given the callous answer that they would just have to make do without their boat ramps, etc. at levels below 168’ msl or make additional investments to dredge to the lower water even if the costs are exorbitant.
Problem # 4: Wrong Conclusions Drawn from Property and Sales Tax Information
The SRA has refuted the Alliance’s contention that current reservoir levels adversely affect the local economy when sales tax revenue is used as the yardstick. While it is true that overall tax collections have increased since 1995, the majority of that increase may be attributable to economic development projects not dependent upon water access and the fact that people who retired and moved to this area believed they could pursue their recreational interests. They came, they invested their money, and they are now frustrated by the annual low water problem, a problem that many had no idea to expect.
Further, the SRA states that new residential property construction and property value assessments for local wards have increased from about $12 million in 1990 to about $50 million in 2001. This data is accurate, but it is only a part of the story. What was not stated is that some if not all property in Sabine Parish has been reassessed at least once in the last six years. Since most lake properties are second homes, owners in Louisiana pay the full cost of the assessment because they are not entitled to the State’s generous $75,000 homestead exemption for a second home. Reassessment alone may account for a sizable portion of the growth in tax dollars in Sabine Parish. Furthermore, the SRA data does not reflect that in the past five years the retirement of the first wave of “baby boomers” has begun. Many of these owners purchased property in deep water areas years ago when the lake level was more advantageous for recreation and are only now building their retirement homes. People who are now purchasing building sites must contend with sites that are inaccessible for recreation when the lake drops below 168’ msl. In the future, building can be expected to slow significantly on these sites unless the problem of the lake level is resolved.
The retirees who moved here are a source of new income to the parishes/counties in which they live and shop. This new money turns over many times to help the local economy. Retirees for the most part do not burden the school system or other services, yet they pay tax because of the property they own and sales tax on the goods they purchase. If the area has grown in spite of the lake level issue, you only have to use good common sense to see how much faster the region would be growing if the operation of the lake were such that greater access was possible all year, every year. {These retirees and camp owners are concerned about what they perceive to be bad lake management that causes greater economic damage to lake users, property owners, businesses and the towns and communities around the lake than would be suffered by the SRAs and utilities with Simulation # 6 in effect}
Additionally, prior to 1996 the SRA of Louisiana helped finance improvements of some Sabine Parish roads. The community became involved and voted taxes to establish water systems. When systems (such as the South Toledo Bend Waterworks District) came on line in the southern end of the parish, immediate growth began. Because of these two economic development programs, more people built homes or placed mobile homes on their property. Thus, property values and property taxes paid increased in Sabine Parish.
The Cypress Bend project is an economic development project almost entirely funded by Louisiana tax dollars and SRA self generated funds, which are also state revenue. [About $28 million of the cost of Cypress Bend is state money while approximately $4 million is private investment.] Had the entire project been dependent upon private investment, the area where it is located would still be forestland. The increase in hotel/motel tax in Sabine Parish can be attributed largely to the upgrading of at least one major commercial marina and the opening of the Cypress Bend Resort Hotel and Convention Center.
The following graph demonstrates the revenue generated from Hotel/Motel Taxes from 1995 – 2002. You will note that the tax revenue was practically flat in the years prior to 1999. There was an increase in hotel/motel tax collected in 1997 the last year the lake level stayed above 168’ msl. In 1998 when the lake level dropped to what was then an all time low of 163.77’ msl, there was a decline in that tax revenue. Cypress Bend Hotel opened for business in March 1999 and the Convention Center became operational in May 2000. You can see the correlation to the increase in tax revenue. Cypress Bend draws most of its customers because of the convention center and the golf course. The success of Cypress Bend is not as dependent on the lake level as are other facilities in the area.
-- Original letter contains a graph here --
The Flooding Issue
We have always known and accepted that Toledo Bend was not conceived, intended, designed, built, nor can it be operated for flood control and still meet the intended purposes of the reservoir. We have always recognized and accepted that the upper level of Toledo Bend was very difficult, if not impossible, to fully control. Rainfall when the reservoir is at or near pool, and the capability of releasing water through the powerhouse and the spillway, combined with the capacity of the river below the dam create restrictions that prevent total flood control. To regularly stop routine power generation at 168’ msl will not significantly, if at all, increase the possibility of flooding below the dam. As we all know, given the right rain event, flooding could occur regardless of the reservoir level at the beginning of the event. In all recorded cases of flooding below the dam the reservoir level was higher than 168’ msl at the beginning of the rain event.
Toledo Bend was created for the purposes of Water Conservation, Power Generation, Recreation and Aid to Navigation, not just water conservation and power generation as stated by your staff. Neither of these purposes was designated as the dominant purpose for the reservoir.
Other Areas of Disagreement/Contention
Attached are more specific comments, referenced to sections of your preliminary report.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Kelly
Co-Chairman
Enclosure 1. Specific Comments – Lake Level
The following address specific comments and statements in the December 30, 2002, report filed by the FERC staff.
The FERC staff writes:
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
“In late 1995 and in 1996 the project reservoir experienced low reservoir levels.
Subsequently, the SRA retained Brown & Root (B&R), a consultant, to evaluate the
operating guide for the project and the feasibility of potential changes to the operation of
the project to increase reservoir levels. B&R examined eight scenarios (simulations) of
project operations based on historic operating data from May 1969 through December
1997. The study did not address the economic impact of the scenarios on the power
companies or their customers nor the impact on downstream uses (i.e. recreation,
irrigation, municipal water supply). B&R completed its study in July 1998. In the study,
B&R noted that the project is operated for power production, water conservation and to
some extent recreation and that project operations also consider dam safety, the
obligations of the power sales agreement, upstream and downstream flooding, and the
protection of the shoreline and shoreline facilities. Further, B&R concluded that the
current project operating guide is not deficient and that professional judgement is an
important component of project operations.”
Response:
What the staff does not state is that the 1998 Brown & Root Study states on page 4-2, Conclusions: Is quoted as follows:
“Increasing the Reservoir level in the Spring (current Guide Rule) and including a May
through September bench for power production that is higher than the current 162.2 feet
(Simulations 6 and 8) appears to provide a good balance between power production and
Reservoir level. This reflects the professional judgement that is part of current operation
during dry periods. The risk in adopting this as a standard operation is that, during dry
periods, it may not be possible to achieve full pool in May or June, resulting in minimized
power production.” (Emphasis added).
Further your staff seems to think that the Lake Level has been an issue only since 1995. That is far from accurate. The problem with lake level and the operation of the reservoir has been a point of contention since the 1970s when the SRA decided to not keep the lake at a high level for various reasons. Articles that illustrate this point have copied from local newspapers into MSWord format are attached in enclosure 2. Has the operation of the reservoir hurt business along the lake? You bet it has! In 1978 there were 56 Marinas operating on the Louisiana side of Toledo Bend. Today the number varies from approximately 35 to 40!
FERC Staff States on Page 4 Preliminary Analysis:
“SRA operates the project for power production, water conservation and to some
extent recreation. In operating the project, SRA also considers dam safety, the
obligations of the power sales agreement, upstream and downstream flooding, water
supply, and the protection of the shoreline and shoreline facilities. Under the terms of
the current project license, project reservoir levels may vary during the year from a
normal maximum pool level of 172 feet msl to a minimum pool level of 162.2 feet msl.
Typically, the reservoir is at its highest during the winter and early springs months and,
beginning in May, SRA gradually draws the reservoir to reach its lowest level in the fall.”
Response:
The Federal Power Commission may have licensed the dam primarily for power generation, with recreation as a secondary benefit, but the people of Louisiana, who funded half of the cost of the project, intended the reservoir to be for water conservation, power generation, recreation and economic development. (See Article14 Section 45, Louisiana Constitution of 1921, added by acts 1960, No. 646, adopted Nov 8, 1960.) Power generation was intended to repay the bonds, not to be the controlling factor for the use of the reservoir. The people of Texas funded the reservoir primarily as a water conservation project, with power generation as a major benefit that provided the ability to repay the construction bonds.
We have proven, using the studies conducted by the Sabine River Authorities as well as other data received from the Sabine River Authorities, that it is possible to stop routine power generation when the level of the reservoir is drawn to 168’ msl and still meet all of the other purposes for which the reservoir was created and improve the recreational use of the reservoir. The 1998 Brown & Root Study demonstrated that even following the present operating guide to the strictest interpretation, the goal of 65,700 MWH would not have been met in every year of operation.
The FERC confirmed in their letter of November 23, 1999, that neither the Power Sales Agreement nor the project license constitute a bar to changing the Operating Guide. This fact has been further confirmed in an Opinion by the Louisiana Attorney General and by a legal study prepared by the law firm Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P. at the request of the Sabine River Authority of Louisiana.
Further, the Board of Commissioners, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana is on public record in support of changing the Operating Guide to that outlined in Simulation #6.
FERC Staff, on Page 5 of the Preliminary Analysis, makes the following comparisons:
Percentage and No. of Days Below Stated Elevation
Reservoir Elev. (Ft. msl) Historic Operations Simulation No. 6
168 2,135 (21%) 3,575(35.4%)
167 1,131 (11%) 557 (0.5%)
166 660 (6.5%) 1 (.009%)
165 50 (.05%) 0 (0%)
“Comparing the number of days the reservoir was below certain elevations for both
historic operations and simulation No. 6 during the 28-year study period shows that
simulation No. 6 results in more days below 168 feet msl than historic operations.
However, Simulation No. 6 does provide fewer days below 167 feet msl, 166 feet msl,
and 165 feet msl.
During B&R's study period, historic reservoir elevations varied from a low of
164.77 feet msl in 1987 to a high of 173.73 feet msl in 1989. The mean reservoir level
during this period was 169.64 feet msl. Turning to simulation No. 6, in general, this
operation would require the SRA to keep the project's minimum reservoir elevation at
168 feet msl, including during periods of prime power production (May through
September). During B&R's 1969-1997 study period, simulation No. 6 had a minimum
reservoir level of 165.99 feet in 1996 and a maximum reservoir level of 172.76 feet msl
on several occasions. The mean reservoir level for this period is 169.32 feet msl.”
Response:
While your staff may consider it acceptable for the reservoir to be taken down to a level that makes it virtually impossible to access in dry years, we who use Toledo Bend do not. We want to use the lake year-round every year.
As previously stated in our letter of April 30, 2000, the lake elevations have declined since 1986 and the inflow, except in 1996, was equivalent or higher than prior years. In spite of the higher inflow we have experienced lower water levels. These charts were derived from information received directly from the SRA and are again included for your convenience.
-- Original letter contains a graph here --
FERC Staff States on Page 8 of the Preliminary Analysis:
“Our review of the original site development drawings included in the project’s
recreation plans, suggest that the boat launching ramps for several of SRA’s recreation
sites were designed to be usable at elevations well below 168 feet msl. Information
provided by the SRA indicates that the boat launching facilities at its fifteen sites in
Texas are usable at elevations as low as 160.50 to 165.17 feet msl, depending upon the
specific site and that 24 of 29 commercial boating facilities in Texas are usable at
elevations as low as 162.87 to 166.05 feet msl, depending upon the specific site. In
addition, other information provided by the SRA indicates that the boat launching
facilities at its six sites in Louisiana are fully usable at elevations as low as 164 feet msl.”
Response:
While we have not conducted an on-site review of all of the boat ramps for which the FERC staff reviewed drawings, it is our contention that while the Texas SRA ramps may meet the specifications in the drawings and some commercial ramps in Texas and Louisiana may be usable, we would certainly argue as to the availability of all six SRA sites in Louisiana at an elevation of 164 feet msl. The SRA of Louisiana has had to dredge its sites on an emergency basis during the last two major low water events and even then had to close some of the sites to the public, to make repairs before they were usable. I would challenge the FERC staff, when making their next recreational inspection to verify the data and drawings that your staff reviewed. If you will review pictures that we submitted with previous filings, you will see some of the ramps and can determine their usability.
FERC Staff States on page 12 of the Preliminary Analysis:
“Analysis of lake level data for the past 25 years indicates a general trend of rising
water surface elevation over the spring spawning period as the reservoir is refilled.
Further, when rapidly fluctuating or decreasing water levels do occur in the March 1 to
May 31 time period, it is usually the result of the need to generate and/or spill water so as
not to exceed the normal maximum reservoir elevation limit of 172 feet msl. In this
regard, the proposed 168-foot minimum reservoir pool (i.e., Simulation 6 operation) may
actually, in some instances, result in more frequent drawdowns during the spawning
season than historically and currently occur. This is because, as mentioned above,
additional generation and/or spillage may be needed to keep the reservoir from
overfilling.”
Response:
We find it hard to believe that the FERC would state that Simulation # 6 may actually result in more frequent drawdowns during the spawn season. The only time there is a difference in minimum lake levels for power generation, when comparing the present operation and Simulation # 6, is during the Peaking Period. At all other times the level for secondary power generation is the same, except in the last half of April, when a lake elevation above 171’ msl is required for secondary power generation. Even under present operations and as has been demonstrated on six separate occasions, if the reservoir is at 168’ msl on September 30th the operating guide continues to be followed with generation allowed only when the level exceeds at least 168’ msl from Oct 1 through May 1.
FERC Staff writes on page 19 of the Preliminary Analysis:
“As noted above, the study shows adopting simulation No. 6 would have resulted
in an additional 252.05 MM kW-hr of total simulated generation over historic operations
(a 3.6% gain). Despite the above findings, our review of the study suggests that the way
B&R simulated power production may not be accurate. Specifically, we note that the
mean reservoir elevation for historic operations is higher than shown for simulation No.
6 during the 28-year study period. Presumably, this higher mean reservoir elevation
would translate into higher (not lower) total generation during the 28-year period.
Unlike actual historic operations, where actual data on generation is available, an
analyst needs to make many assumptions to calculate generation when simulating
operation. Often these simulations do not properly take into account the actual variations
in generation output that would normally occur at a project due to variable turbine
efficiencies associated with both machinery (turbine and generator) and varying
hydrologic conditions (such as tailwater). Given this, we believe that the simulated
power production benefits of simulation No. 6 is overestimated and that historic
operations would result in a slightly greater total energy production.”
Response:
To further justify their preliminary decision to rule against our request your staff discounted the validity of the 1998 Brown & Root Operating Guide Re-Evaluation Study, based upon the fact that actual operations of the reservoir resulted in a mean sea level .32’ greater than that achieved by Simulation # 6. That fact is the only justification cited to discount a study conducted by professional engineers, who have been serving as the engineers on this project for many years and whose reports are accepted by the FERC when evaluating the safety of the dam. We believe the study is valid and that Simulation # 6 provides a viable alternative to the present reservoir operations. Simulation # 6 is capable of better achieving the operating goals established for Toledo Bend than current operations. The only drawback is that during dry years less power would be produced during the Peaking Period.
If the study is to be criticized, we believe that it should come from the fact that the study did not show the power that would have been produced in the years that the simulations indicated the Peaking Power goal of 168’ msl would not have been met. Had that data been demonstrated it would have allowed for a better comparison between the simulation and the power that has actually been produced. Further, it would have given a better estimate of the possible impact upon the power companies. An impact we believe would be negligible.
Attachment 2. Newspaper Articles 1970s:
Louisiana SRA Okays Higher Toledo Water Level
The Sabine Index 01/23/1978
The Sabine River Authority of Louisiana Friday adapted a resolution aimed at returning the water level of Toledo Lake to the normal 172 ft. elevation as quickly as possible until May 1, according to State Sen. Bryan Poston. He said eight of the 11 SRA members agreed to the action and three could not be reached.
Jerry Dyson, chairman of the SRA, said the resolution will now be submitted to the joint operations board of Louisiana and Texas for final approval.
The action came after the Operations and Legal Affairs Committee of the La. SRA okayed the resolution following two and one-half hour meeting Thursday afternoon. Sen. Poston chairs the sub-committee. The meeting was held at the request of the Louisiana Toledo Lake Association. Col. Ted Brunson, president, and Cliff Ammons represented the Lake Associated at the meeting. The resolution offered by committee member Claude Leach and Second by Pete Abington of Many specified the following conditions:
1) Current down stream requirements be met.
2) SRA is totake into consideration upstream flow and take action necessary so the lake will not exceed the 172 ft. mark.
3) The new policy to remain in until May 1 during which time the joint operating board will recommend new operating curves.
4) That public hearings be held before a new permanent policy is adapted.
The previous policy said that both power generators at the lake could be turned on if the water level exceeded 168 feet in January, 169 feet in February, 169.5 feet in March, 170 feet in April and 172 feet in May, according to Barton Rumsey, engineer for the SRA in Louisiana.
SRA officials said that policy was adapted for construction purposes to prevent erosion on the Texas side of the lake. An SRA engineer said the construction was being done to avoid a pending law suit.
However a law suit is also pending on the Louisiana side for letting out too much water.
The water level at Toledo Bend reached a record low of 165.90 feet Nov 27, keeping over 40 of 56 marina operators in Louisiana from launching watercraft. At least 20 of those marina operators have threatened to file suit against the SRA because of the low water levels hampering business.
The level Jan. was 166.91 ft. Marina operators say they can function comfortably at 169 feet.
“We have a talking and working relationship with the Toledo Bend Association, and we think it will help tremendously in our future communications,” Dyson said. Dyson said the SRA will make efforts to keep the public better informed about the developments of the SRA.
At the beginning of the Thursday afternoon meeting, Dyson said the session was a continuation of a meeting between him and Brunson and Ammons the previous week in Baton Rouge. “We’ve heard about your problems and we are acutely aware of them,” he added. “There has been a lack of communications in the past few years that has helped create the problem. We’ve got to change. We’ve got to talk.”
Col. Brunson addressed the committee, going over the matters as viewed by the lake association. These matters have been carried in previous issues of the INDEX
Brunson said, “We have the public support. We intend to keep the public informed until our objectives are gained. It is not logical to have to have allowed this situation (the low level). Everyone has erosion. (The last statement in reference to the seawall being built on the Texas side).”
Leach, who also serves as a representative from Vernon Parish, brought several other matters for the committee to ponder. He pointed out that a nuclear reactor power plant is going to be constructed in Texas and this will affect the elevation of Toledo Lake as will the water allocations to various cities along the lake.
Lake Association applauds governor’s pledge
Gov. Edwin Edwards’ news release stating that the lake would not be drawn down over three feet this summer unless an emergency arises was applauded at the meeting of the Toledo Lake on Monday night, July 10.
A motion was passed expressing appreciation for his efforts and the efforts of area legislators and Sabine River Authority members for their interest and help in getting the temporary relief in the water level problem.
Satae Rep. Claude (Buddy) Leach, now a candidate for U.S. Congressman, was present at the meeting and gave a report on how and what was done to bring about the temporary solution. Rep. Leach is also a member of the Sabine River Authority and has been one of the outspoken critics of the way the SRA has personnel has managed the Toledo Project. Rep. Leach was given a standing ovation for his effort to help the association’s cause.
Gerald Dyson, engineer and Chairman of the SRA, was sent a special letter of invitation to attend athe meeting, requesting inexpensive bouy markers be placed on the lake. A letter from Dyson was read at the meeting. It stated that he was unable to attend the meeting and that he would present the bouy resolution to the next authority meeting but that the agenda was so full that it probably wouldn’t be discussed.
Rep Leach heard the reading of the letter and assured the group that regardless how full the agenda is, the bouy resolutions will be discussed.
Another highlight of the meeting was the presentation to Rep. Leach the first one of 2,000 bumper stickers being distributed by the Lake Association. The sticker reads “Keep the water up”. The rest of the stickers were distributed among the members. The stickers were donated by Charles Jett of Jett Printing Co.
Sam Fretta of Leesville was present at the meeting and related that he had carried Sen. Bryan A. Poston of Hornbeck on the lake Sunday, to show him the moss problem developing on the lake.
John Dean of Pendelton Bridge Marina objected to the complete eradication of the moss on the grounds that the moss beds were the best fishing spots.
A representative of the United States Coast Guard was present, and he suggested that a permanent Coast Guard Unit be stationed on Toledo. He was met with a cool reception from Lake Association members. Different members objected on the grounds that local game wardens, sheriff’s deputies and the Louisiana State Police were doing a good job patrolling the lake and were more courteous to the tourist than the Coast Guard. Lake association members also pointed out that Coast Guard regulations just added confusion on the lake. As it is now, Louisiana and Texas have different regulations, and the Coast Guard, still others. At the present time the Coast Guard visits the lake about one weekend every six weeks.
Ammons replies to Sharp’s article
The Sabine Index 07/24/1978
[ EDITOR’S NOTE : Cliff Ammons, representative of the Louisiana Toledo Lake Association, this week issued a reply to an article by Marshall Sharp Jr. which appeared in the May issue of “Bayou State Sportsman” published in Baton Rouge. The article was reprinted in last weeks INDEX].
An answer, by Cliff Ammons, to Mr Marshall Sharp, Jr.’s questions—SRA, Bad Guys? SRA out of Park Business?
Mr. Sharp was correct in recognizing the serious problem created by lowering the water in Toledo Lake over 6 ft. below normal pool level where 40 of the 56 marinas on the Louisiana side of Toledo Lake could not launch a boat and seriously affected their business, as well as a majority of other business in the area as well. However, his statement “at the same time marina owners are hollering about the low level of the lake, many private camp owners, including this writer, have been complaining about high water level in the winter and early spring months.” This leaves a false impression. Now, just how many of you camp owners are complaining about high water as compared to the camp and land owners who are complaining about the low water? These people find their boats bucked, boat houses dry, unable to launch their boats, docks high and dry, mud flats and their camps hundreds of feet further from the shoreline. Would Mr. Sharp concede that for every one land owner complaining about low water and that excludes the marina operators? If there is any doubt in his mind, lets make a survey of all land owners and he will be convinced that the difference is even greater. Therefore Mr. Sharp, if Toledo Bend is a Peoples Project as it was from its inception, let’s respond to the vast majority instead to a few who are in your condition.
Another paragraph from Mr. Sharps article deserves comment, “many of the land owners, marina operators and individuals purchased land around the lake without first investigating how much fluctuation in the water level would occur. Quite a few people purchased sites that had little change in elevation (flat land). These people were in trouble from the beginning, as soon as the water level dropped a few feet, they could not even see the water. Some of this was due to ignorance or lack of information about reservoirs and silver-tongued salesmen who painted pretty pictures but did not tell the whole story.” Has Mr. Sharp been the victim of one of those silver-tongued salesmen or the other thing he mentioned.? The salesmen failed to tell Mr. Sharp the high water level of Toledo Lake is 175 ft. elevation and he is screaming bloody murder about high water when it reached only 173.6 twice in ten years.
Now, in contrast to the thousands of people who purchased land in protected coves and on the upper reaches of the lake, they chose to do this rather than purchase land like Mr. Sharp that is subject to erosion. They were told the lake could be expected to be full or at 172 ft. 30 percent of the time and that if at all possible it would not be drawn down below 169 ft. as so stated in the power sales contract. The SRA did not allow the lake to fill during the past winter, even though rainfall was ample. They allocated water for generation in January when there was absolutely no obligation to do so.
Why the lake was not allowed to fill is a very interesting story. In July last year, a Mr. George Clark, a beer distributor from Beaumont, Texas, who owns some property similar to Mr. Sharp’s, that war eroding badly next to the dam on Texas side, allegedly to have threatened a law suit against SRA and promised to put up $50,000 worth of material if SRA would build him a sea wall or bulk head The lake needed to be lowered to do this work so the SRA adopted a temporary change in the operating guide curve which is no more than a statement that the lake level will be lowered to below 168 ft. in September and not allowed to fill until after January. This was the fifth time that the operating curves have been changed from the beginning of the operation of Toledo Bend project by majority special interest. Each time it was changed, the water level was lowered.
How can Mr. Clarks erosion problem be solved with public money at the expense of all the marinas who could not even launch a boat, camp owners with beached boats and dry dock as well as all the loss of business to almost every establishment in the Toledo Bend area? Is the story to fantastic to believe? Come see for yourselves. Pictures have been published showing the draglines and dozers working. Concrete pads have since been bull dozed up on the bank and only a couple of hundred feet of the proposed 3,000 ft. of the seawall is in place for your inspection. It seem the project has been scrapped or temporarily suspended. In the beginning, the engineers estimated the seawall would take two years to build.
What does the SRA employees tell you about the change in the operating curve to help Mr. Clark? “It did not change anything because dry weather caused the water to drop anyway.” This was immaterial because the point is if there had been ample rainfall, they were still going to draw down to do the work. When the rains did come, they did not let the lake fill and that is the reason the summer started with the lake 1 ft. below pool level. Unanswered questions: Are they going to draw it down this year to continue the work? How much money has been collected from Mr. Clark for the material already used? How much SRA money has been spent on the project? Can Mr. Sharp and the rest of us get SRA to build us some bulkheads as they are for Mr. Clark?
More interesting facts are that the La. SRA voted unanimously in January this year to let the lake fill immediately to normal pool level as rainfall permitted and to suspend all operating curve changes. This was referred to the joint operating board, composed of Mr. Dyson, Mr. Rumsey and Sen. Poston for Louisiana and three counterparts from Texas. The matter was referred to the Consulting Engineers who built the dam for advice before making a decision. After about 30 days, the Consulting Engineers made their recommendation to return to the original operating guide with a few modifications. Mr. Dyson and the joint board returned the recommendation to the Consulting Engineers under some questionable circumstances and requested the engineers make a further study costing $100,000. The recommendation that the SRA return to the original guideline has been ignored and the guide lines are still in effect that will prevent the lake filling only during the month of April. Everyone agrees that if you want a drink of water, you put your cup under the faucet while the water is running, not after the faucet is cut off. Likewise, Toledo Lake can only be filled while the rains are coming and the river is flowing.
NOW, Mr. Sharp says, “I think you will agree that the black hat should not be placed on the SRA.” Maybe not, but who is going to respond to the majority of the peoples’ needs. A hat looking white to Mr. Sharp is at best a little soiled in the opinion of the majority of the people interested in Toledo.
Toledo’s low waterline:
Mother Nature’s fault ?
By Jimmy Hyams
The Times / Natchitoches Breau 12/22/1977
(Editor’s note: The following is the first of a two part series dealing with the steadily dropping waterline on lower Toledo Bend and the marina operators who are trying to raise it so they can get back to business.)
Many—Twenty-one marina operators don’t believe its Mother Nature’s fault. Officials from the Sabine River Authority say it is.
And at least 40 of the 56 marina operators along the Louisiana side of Toledo Bend have been left high dry and fuming over resent low water levels that prevent launchings.
“Rain is the biggest factor for the water level being low,” says Barton Rumsey, area engineer for the SRA in Louisiana. “And we can’t control Mother Nature.”
Still, 21 private marina operators, led by E.K. “Red” Odom of Logansport, may file suit within the
next few weeks against the SRA of Louisiana, according to their attorney , Graves Thomas of
Shreveport. Thomas said the suit will seek an injunction to “relieve “excessive discharge of water
down stream and excess discharge for hydroelectric generation” to power plants. He claims a
Louisiana statue specifies one of the SRA’s duties is to prevent wasting water.
If the injunction is not granted, Thomas said the plaintiffs will ask for a re-evaluation of the 172 normal pool designation. He feels that the actual normal level is lower and landowners should be entitled to more land along the lake based on a lower normal level.
No monetary damages will be sought.
Last May, the same 21 marina operators filed suit in federal court in Shreveport, claiming $345,000 in damages. However, Judge Tom Stagg said the charges were not of “constitutional dimensions” and must be heard in state courts.
SRA officials claim they discharge water due to contractual agreement with the three power plants for power generation and downstream flow along Sabine River to Ruliff and immediately below the dam. The power companies include Gulf States Utilities of Beaumont, Texas, Central Louisiana Electric Company of Alexandria and Louisiana Power and Light.
Rumsey says he personally doesn’t think the suit has any merit.
Causes of low level
What causes the low water levels at Toledo Bend besides rain? SRA officials agree that the power plant agreements are one reason. Normal evaporation during hot summer months is another. Rule curve guidelines passed by the six-member joint operating SRA board are still more. And this year, construction of a shoreline to prevent erosion could be a factor.
The joint operating board consist of Sen. Byron Posten, Roy Aguillard and Rumsey from Louisiana and E.A. Meeks , John Butts and J.W. Simmons from Texas. Their guidelines must be approved by each states 12-member SRA board. Rumsey says the joint board has changed the guide lines four times since 1972 attempting to satisfy the majority of the people affected by the 10-year-old Toledo Bend.
The latest modification was a temporary change on July 28, 1977. It said that if the water level goes over 168 feet between Oct. 1 and Jan. 31, generators would begin operating at full capacity. That would virtually assure that the level would get no higher than 168 feet until after Feb. 1 regardless of rainfall. Such a level would keep the majority of the Louisiana and Texas marinas from being able to launch watercrafts.
Joe Love, division manager of the Sabine River Authority of Texas, said, “the operating guidelines can cause as much a difference in the water level as rain.”
Love said the temporary change was due to construction along the shoreline property on the Texas side belonging to George Clark, a beer distributor. Clark threatened to file suit against the SRA if the erosion continued to chop away at his land, Love said.
Texas engineer Maynard Nelson said the SRA agreed to construct bulkheads at the 172-foot normal pool level to cut off the erosion if Clark would agree to purchase the materials which would cost some $50,000, said Nelson.
“We’re avoiding a lawsuit,” said Nelson of the construction work. He added that only land within the
construction area—defined by Rumsey as land originally used in construction of the dam, spillways and power plants could get the SRA’s help. He said other landowners requesting the SRA’s help would have to furnish the supplies and “wait in line.”
Which brings up the question of the purpose of Toledo Bend. Does the SRA have the right to attempt to keep the level down and the marinas out of business? Should the power plants be given first
consideration concerning operating guidelines due to the contract? At what level is the economy of Toledo Bend, most lucrative?
Tail wagging the dog
Cliff Ammons a state representative from 1960-1964 who introduced the Toledo Bend Bill, said the
bend was built for economic development of the area. The development includes water supply, hydro- electric power and recreation, but not necessarily in that order.
“I don’t like it when the tail (power plants) start wagging the dog (Toledo Bend), especially when
power plants have second call on the water,” Ammons said.
But love said the power companies have a full-fledged right to the water due to the contract.
Love also pointed out that the power plants helped fund almost half of the $65 million Toledo Bend
Project.
The power companies contract signed at the lakes inception for 40-years, allows them to draw water from the bend until the level reaches 9.8 feet below the normal 172-foot level, Love says. Power plant spokesmen told Love they hope the lake does not fluctuate more than three to six feet below the normal pool level each year.
Drops of over 3 feet, though, would consistently cause launching problems for the marinas along the lake Most marinas, the owners say, could function comfortably with not more than a 3 foot drop.
Ammons said he was unaware of the four operating guideline changes over the past five years. He expressed concern over the loss of business by the marinas and said he was confident a solution satisfying the power plants, the SRA and the marina owners could be reached without a court battle.
“It appears the authority will try to adapt guidelines based on the views of the people involved in this project,” Ammons said. “And the power plants have been cooperative and reasonable since the Toledo Bend project was initiated in 1968.
“We’ve got the publics support in trying to keep the water level higher,” he continued. “It’s a peoples project and that’s the way we’d like to keep it.”
Marina operators dismiss the lack of rainfall this year as the major reason for the lower water level. They base their belief on a chart released by the SRA. The chart indicates that when there was less rainfall in 1971 (42.65 inches) than this year (43.64 through November), the water level decreased less than 2 feet in 1971, yet over 6 feet in 1977. In 1975, with a rainfall of 74.31 inches, the level dropped 5.5 feet.
Why the difference?
“The chart can be misleading,” says Love. The water level fluctuation all depends on when it rained, where it rained, the amount of rain, and what the water level was at the time of rain.”
Suggestions to get the water level back to the 172-foot level as quickly as possible after the power plants’ peak season ends Sept 30, were questioned by Love, who said that might cause flooding down- stream.
But Ammons argued that engineer reports show even a flood the magnitude of Sabine’s greatest flood since 1900 would not raise the water level of the 181,000-acre body over the 173.5 feet. And although he sympathizes with the downstream landowners, Ammons said that Toledo Bend is not a flood control body of water.
Love said, however, that the SRA “can assist and alleviate in flooding.”
Ammons and many marina operators question how much the SRA has attempted to help the commercial businesses at Toledo Bend.
Tomorrow, marina operator’s questions concerning the SRA and what power plant officials have to say about the problem will be examined.
|
