Providing comments now easier: reader engagement no longer limited to Facebook

Readers may have noticed a change in our comment section. On Friday we returned to our original comment plug-in for posts. This is good news because now anyone can provide remarks – no social media account needed! Readers may comment as guest, or use a medium of their choice.

In March 2016 we announced the vendor we were using for guest comments was suspended until the Defense Media Activity, which administers our blog, could work out issues with the DoD-wide contract.

After several weeks went by without resolution, we announced in May 2016 our intent to use a Facebook plugin as an intermediate solution to allow readers to continue engagement with us. The Facebook plug-in required users to have a Facebook account – a significant limitation since many people don’t use Facebook.

An unavoidable side effect of our transition back to normal is that all the comments posted using the Facebook plugin (since May 2016) dropped from the posts. Most of them remain accessible on our Facebook page, and readers can still contribute to those discussions. They just no longer appear on this site.

We apologize for the inconvenience. We believe the comment plugin installed now gives better service. And, for those who prefer it, the option to use the Facebook tool exists in our current arrangement.

Thanks for reading!

~Russell Wicke
Corporate Communications

About US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District oversees a multi-million dollar military construction program at 11 Army and Air Force installations in Georgia and North Carolina. We also manage water resources across the Coastal Georgia region, including maintenance dredging of the Savannah and Brunswick harbors; operation of three hydroelectric dams and reservoirs along the upper Savannah River; and administration of an extensive stream and wetland permitting and mitigation program within the state of Georgia. Follow us on Twitter @SavannahCorps and on Facebook.com/SavannahCorps
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jerry Clontz

    I’m not sure where the post came from but i was asked recently by one of our members (Save Our Lakes Now) about two comments apparently made by the corps. One stated the increased cost of power when SEPA has to buy it and the other stated that 3600 anytime the lakes are down increases the potential for flooding downstream.

    Regarding the increased cost of power, SEPA has 7 basins other than the Savannah River Basin to pull power from. That is at the same cost as power generated by our basin. In other words there is no additional cost for power.

    Regarding the propensity for more flooding downstream if you keep the lakes more full that is an irrational statement. Obviously more water in the lakes means there is more water in the lakes. That is what we want. What is needed is good flood control not arbitrary reliance on having a drought before you have heavy rains.

    • Ferris

      Jerry Clontz: The alliteration of Jon (Clontz) Clerry (Jerry) makes a great a pen name!
      Seriously, after years on this blog you cannot find the link? Try this:

    • Thanks for commenting Jerry. You are correct – SEPA has other systems to pull from in the southeast. However, the other seven systems combined together have less than half the installed capacity of the SRB system. This means the SRB system is by far SEPA’s dominant hydropower producer in the southeast. When you consider that, along with the fact that the other seven reservoirs share a comparable drought environment, it’s understandable that SEPA cannot depend fully on the other systems to carry their own obligations *in addition to* SRB obligations.

      If it were that easy, SEPA would certainly make the business decision to substitute generation in other places, instead of spending more than half a million dollars a week buying replacement energy on the open market. I hope this helps. ~Russell Wicke

      • Jerry Clontz

        assuming the cost quote on what it costs to buy power elsewhere is accurate, it pales in comparison to the loss in real estate values (homes built as part of the recreational structure of the SRB) caused by our poor reputation in lake level control. Add to that the cost to marinas and other recreation providers and the money lost on power is nothing. Additionally why do you think it fair for the burden of power cost for the south east to be placed on lake property owners. This is hysterical when you stop and look at what is being said by the Corps about destroying the lakes so they can meet power quotas.
        By the way, SEPA has told us in the past that they tpically have no problem getting power from elsewhere in their system when we are in drought.

        • Ferris

          Jerry Clontz: Your decade old “SEPA has told us in the past” cannot be trusted when you bogusly misquote a USACE document right in front of you! Below is your quote on the Facebook page of the topic linked below, and excerpts from pages 1 and 90-91 of the 2011 DL4 EA document (my underlines).

          Your history of endlessly disproven hyperbole and bogus claims renders everything you say untrustworthy without verifiable references. Regarding SEPA, Russell just communicated with them! In addition, your comparison of lake property value losses with destruction of lives and homes downstream is truly hysterical.

          As a side note, your history of disproven claims and extensive use of capital letters reminds me of the old Korean proverb:
          “An Empty Cart Makes The Most Noise.”

  • Ferris

    – Posted documents on this thread show the deception of the blue underlined portion of the statement below.
    – Posted documents, quotes, and a link on the Jul 7 thread show the inaccuracy of the yellow highlight and the meaninglessness of the intended belittling “KINDERGARTEN” statements.
    – This post exposes hyperbole and disproves both orange highlights.

    The dark orange highlight displays a lack of knowledge since 57% of HRT storage remains available for minimum downstream releases at the bottom of Conservation Storage, which the drought plan avoids reaching. In other words, if the drought plan fails to stop lake levels from reaching the bottom of conservation storage, resources downstream have consumed only 43% of available storage.

    6.1 million Acre-Ft: HRT Total Storage at Full Pool
    3.5 million Acre-Ft: HRT Inactive Storage at Bottom of Conservation Storage
    57%: Inactive Storage Portion of Total Storage (3.5/6.1 => 57%)

    The light orange highlight ignores the downstream benefit of Thurmond minimum drought releases that supply essential flows for 240 river miles of users from the dam to the Atlantic. These flows also provide a majority of the essential base flows that help protect the Estuary value.

    2017 Draft EA Appendix E Pages 11-13
    “The estuary once supported approximately 12,000 acres of freshwater tidal marsh. These marshes are notable for their high plant diversity, productivity, and provision of critical migratory and wintering habitat for waterfowl and wetland birds. A series of harbor deepening projects in 1937, 1958, 1975, and 1994 have increased the estuary depth from 12-15 to 42 feet, and have drawn the freshwater-saltwater interface upstream from RM7 to RM21. Sea level has also risen approximately 3 feet since Savannah was settled in 1733. Approximately 8000 acres of freshwater marsh have been converted to brackish and salt marsh with lower diversity and habitat values. A large portion of the remainder exists within the Savannah River National Wildlife Refuge.”

    Estuary resource provision includes critical nursery and overwintering location for federally endangered shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, habitat for striped bass and American shad, critical nursery for juvenile king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, bluefish, groupers, red drum, black drum, southern kingfish, shrimp, and Atlantic menhaden, and fisheries for oysters and blue crab.

    “Freshwater input from the river to the estuary is the key determinant to how these resources are distributed, and whether appropriate conditions are available for breeding, maturation, overwintering, and predator and disease avoidance. Freshwater pulses provide sediment and nutrients for marsh growth and accretion, provide turbidity that protects juvenile fish from predation, and control oyster disease. Appropriate base flows maintain the salinity distributions that dictate the natural resource values present in the estuary.”