As we expected, the original post last week generated significant attention here on the blog and through email directed to our office. Five issues seemed to stand out which I will address.
Q: “When the Savannah District banned submersible pumps I spent significant funds to comply. Now I must mostly abandon the use of the pump. Why did you make us change if you planned to end their use?”
We ended the use of submersible pumps in March 2011 following reports of significant safety issues. We took the steps to remove submersible pumps immediately because we wanted to prevent any more incidents – safety first. Irrigation did not pose human safety issues so more deliberate consideration ensued.
When we ended submersible pump use the discussion on the legality of irrigation was only just beginning. Ending irrigation followed years of debate within the Corps’ legal and operational communities.
Q: “Why did you announce these changes between Christmas and New Year’s Day? Were you just trying to sneak them out without us noticing?”
Our division headquarters finalized the decision to end irrigation licenses just before the holidays. Our operations managers, the people who work with owners day-to-day, began immediately preparing letters to license holders explaining the changes. In order to give as much notice as we could, we issued the news release announcing the changes before they became effective, albeit, only by days.
Q: “Local water authorities pull water from the reservoirs and sell it. People use the water to irrigate their lawns and gardens. What is the difference between that use and my pulling water directly from the same source for the same purpose?”
This is purely a matter of authority. Congress authorized the use of the reservoirs to store state-owned water for use by local established entities. Cities, counties and water districts have water storage contracts with the Corps of Engineers which allow them to pull water from the reservoirs. Once the water leaves the reservoir under one of these storage contracts, the Corps no longer controls the water. How customers use the water from their local authorities is a local issue.
Without specific permission from Congress to provide water for irrigation, even in seemingly miniscule amounts, the Corps would violate its authority. We manage the reservoirs and store water for the purposes Congress has set. We can’t operate in ways that exceed what Congress authorized. These water supply contracts require the local authority to pay the Corps for the water since the withdrawal is a “loss to the system” for the remaining purposes, such as hydropower and navigation. Once we came to the conclusion we had long exceeded this authority, we had to take steps to make it right.
Q: “Why did you have to make it so sudden? Why not grandfather in those who had held licenses until they transferred the property? I only had a few days’ notice – in winter – to seal my shoreline irrigation lines!”
Corps officials in the South Atlantic Division did not come to this decision lightly. The recent conflicts over consumptive water usage and the so-called tri-state water wars brought many issues to light.
Officials throughout the region searched for a process in which to permit or license this activity in a manner that would be consistent with legal authorities. After several years of fruitless searching for a process that would continue shoreline irrigation, we finally determined we had no legal means to do so. Making the change is necessary to comply with federal law.
While we considered the grandfathering issue, we realized this would simply continue a practice we were not authorized to have started in the first place. Instead, we set the implementation to be at the end of each home owner’s license.
In other words, until your license expires you may continue to use the license. We simply can’t renew it. We made this clear in our news release and in letters to license holders, even if some newspaper stories failed to mention it.
Q: “Why didn’t you ask for public input like you do for other changes?”
We saw this as a legal issue dealing with interpretation of law. The public’s input can’t immediately change our lack of authority. Once we determined we were outside legal authority, there really was no other choice. We can’t simply ignore law.
Sad situation, as often with government. How is it that you can gate and lock public property from the public, yet can’t allow this microscopic water use that means so much to so many on the lake shores? I don’t water grass or irrigate with a single drop of lake water, but my wife does water her flower beds, and I have ran piping to make it convenient for her. Just another “freedom” taken away, with no good reason. While Congress may not have “allowed” it, did they specifically forbid it? I doubt it, this is just another Corps way of control. Government does not give, it only takes away. The right is always there, unless taken away. No problem if something is causing safety or health issues that can be shown, but this is nothing like that. Congress did not disallow this use, but the Corps is.
If Congress did not specifically “prohibit” the use of water for irrigation, then this might be a valid argument. Recently, I contacted the Georgia State Attorney General’s Office concerning several questions about the gun laws. Is this or that legal? Instead of answering all my questions, I was told that the laws are not written to include every action that is legal. They are written to specifically include every action that is a violation and punishable by law. If the actions I were inquiring about were not specifically listed as prohibited, then the law assumes they are legal. I’ve never read the federal laws concerning our water issue, so I don’t know if they are written and interpreted the same as state laws. If anyone has a link to the laws, I would like to read them.
You say the internal debate on this issue has been going on for about 5 years. What efforts have you made to work with lawmakers to determine if you could rectify this problem through them? (I will assume that you will respond and let us know what you have done, if you have done anything at all.)
As we speak, numbers of citizens are working with federal lawmakers as well with state lawmakers in GA and SC to fix our problem with the Corps. If citizens had been given some reasonable notice if this change in policy we could likely have had this legal concern of yours cleared up before it became a problem. By the way, it’s baffling to imagine that at some point during the five years of debate, you did not consider working with us.
Regardless, by refusing to communicate, you have turned “your concern” into “our problem”. You have done a lot more by failing us here… If you had communicated: You might have gained our respect. What were you thinking? You might be seen as being citizen oriented. Did it not occur to any of you that there were real people out there who expect the government to work FOR them? You might be seen as being cooperative with the local voters. Did you not think that this would look like you had no care about people? We would have appreciated advanced warning – at least that. We would have had the ability to consider that collectively spending millions of dollars on new irrigation equipment might be foolish.
I am optimistic that we private citizens can get a solution from legislators. It will likely take some time and a lot of work. As you know, government is slow to make decisions. Again, too bad you did’t allow us the courtesy of that time.
In the interim, perhaps a delay in this problem would be worth your consideration. Before we all bring out our irrigation companies and pay to re-plumb our systems to use lake water that’s been processed; why don’t you simply stay your decision until such time as we are able to determine the viability of a legislative solution? Why don’t you go an additional step and offer to work WITH the citizens on putting a legislative solution in place? We would welcome your help. It might go a ways toward improving your tarnished image.
This lack of communication is the type of representation that causes distrust and strife for the average American. The Corps for a long time has selectively flexed its authority card just because they think they can. We pay our state and federal taxes to help fund the Federal and state agencies to assist us with the pursuit of the American dream and these restrictions that seem small in nature are just another example of good government going bad. I have lived on Lake Hartwell for over 20 years and in my entire time of doing so the restrictions keep coming and coming from regeneration restrictions to painting concrete to low light pollution to submersible pumps to non submersible pups to now now pumping…..Really????…. Never have I had the Corps allowed more and more flexibility for the property owners that surround the lake. If these rationales continue , it won’t be long before the Corps says we can’t use the lake at all because swimming or boating is dangerous and its just to risky to let the public use the lake. It amazes me how the Corps rationalize that they are doing what’s best for the lake and the people that use it or live around it, when they do more damage to the lake than anyone. They are constantly mismanaging the water levels allowing for excess silt to accumulate on the floor of the lake. This shallows thew whole lake and causes excess erosion and poorer water quality! I now think it is time to contact our Federal reps. and allow the sale of the lake back to the the people that use it. The Corps have outlived their useful life and are now part of the problem and not the solution!!! You all probably don’t live on the lake and you probably don’t even use the lake so why should you all even think you can manage it. My rationale for saying this is that no one that uses it or lives on it would ever make some of the crazy decisions you all make…. Misuse of power and authority is what I would call this and I think most would agree that a vast majority of the Corps employees should be removed and replaced with people that have sensitivity training and willingness to work with the people they are supposed to serve! This quite honestly borderlines on Bullying! Which of course is against the law! I encourage all to contact their representatives in this election year to voice your disenchantment with this latest abuse of power. “By the People For The People”
I can’t imagine Congress saying, OK, lets allow them to wash their boats and docks, but not water gardens. All OK with the dirty, soapy, chemically altered water going right back into the lake? But, not a garden? Basically, if it is not SPECIFICALLY not allowed, it should be fine. And, there is no reason to not allow the use of water for any good and safe purpose by the adjacent landowners. This is clearly another Corps power move, not Congress one bit.
I’ll add that if it was above board, there would have been public knowledge and input from the beginning, not done in secret. The Corps is suppose to serve the public, not hide behind closed doors to make decisions.
I have sent the following message to Jeff Duncan, our Congressman for Oconee County, SC:
January 14,
2016
FROM:
Steven D.
Dickinson
207 Stone
River Drive
Fair Play, SC
29643
TO:
The Honorable
Jeff Duncan
US House of
Representatives
South
Carolina – 3rd District
Dear
Congressman Duncan,
I am writing as a taxpayer and homeowner of a Fair Play, South Carolina property on the shoreline of Lake Hartwell to solicit your action to reverse a recent ruling by
the Army Corps of Engineers abruptly prohibiting the use of lake water for the
irrigation of shoreline lawns and landscaping.
Notice of this surprise ban came quietly over the Christmas holidays by way of a message from the Corps to property owners and holders of Shoreline Use Permits. No
rational reason was given except some vague statement claiming that the Corps
had suddenly inferred that it had no specifically stated authority to permit
irrigation – despite the fact that they have been issuing permits and
collecting fees for decades.
There is simply no basis for this sudden ban. Engineers consulted by the Lake Hartwell
Homeowners Association have made assurances that irrigation with lake water by
the 2,666 Lake Hartwell homeowners holding legal pump permits has virtually no
impact on lake levels or the environment – no matter what the drought
conditions.
We Hartwell property owners have gone to considerable effort and expense over the years to comply with the Corps’ regulations for irrigation systems. My own system is in
place to protect more than $20,000 of landscaping plants. A few years ago,
another sudden change in the regulations required me to replace my previously
approved submersible pump with a totally new on-dock system. This cost about
$2,000. This, of course, does not take into account the significant
expense for installing the entire irrigation system itself, which now, according
to the new regulation, must be disconnected and abandoned.
The Army Corps has passed the buck to Congress, stating that they have just now awakened to fact that their Congressionally authorized power does not specifically
include (nor does it deny) the authority to grant irrigation permits for the
Corps-managed lakes in Southeastern South Carolina, including Hartwell.
We know that Lake Hartwell, which is the largest of these lakes, is owned
jointly by the states of Georgia and South Carolina, and managed by the Army
Corps of Engineers. We assume a revision or reversal of this ban would
require agreement by all three entities.
We ask that your office intervene on the behalf of thousands of affected taxpayers and
property owners – to whom the Corps clearly feels no accountability – to
take any necessary action to clarify the authority given the Army Corps of
Engineers and reverse this useless and punitive restriction.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dickinson
Excellent write up! The Corps has made their decision. This Is the most productive course of action the stake holders can pursue in our efforts to restore the irrigation permits.