An Idaho view of the Southern Water Wars
|
Why are states in the Deep South arguing over river water? Afterall, residents of Alabama and Georgia, and Florida are blessed with plenty of rainfall, about 60 inches annually. By comparison, much of the West receives a foot or less each year. In addition, each state has several comparatively high volume rivers and of course, an abundance of humidity. So why have Alabama, Georgia and Florida spent millions of dollars for legal and consulting fees with the hope of reaching an agreement over water sharing? The problem has its origins in northern Georgia. This is where the headwaters of the Chattahoochee River originate. The Chattahoochee River serves as the primary source of drinking water for three million people in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The other source of water for the remaining one million people is the two rivers that come together to form the Coosa River. Throughout our nation's history, most major cities were created near the mouth of a major river. New York, Baltimore, Washington D.C. and New Orleans chronicle this pattern. Atlanta is near the headwaters of its water sources, not the end. Combine this with no access to an underground aquifer and you have a recipe for a water crisis. For access to fresh water, the Atlanta area is a bad place to put four million people. Why is an agreement difficult to reach? One of the largest problems is that the three states have been negotiating from an all-or-nothing point of view. Interests in the Lake Lanier area are not flexible with their reservoir level demands. The Atlanta Regional Council wants as much water as they believe they may need to fuel future growth in the Atlanta area. Florida is hoping for a 'natural flow' to protect the Apalachicola estuary, while Alabama does not want an increase in interbasin transfer of water from the Coosa River Basin. If each state would be willing to make some modifications to their needs, and uses of the river water, an agreement could be reached that does not significantly impact the rivers in any state for generations. The problem is this kind of an agreement would require some sacrifices. The most expensive sacrifices would fall on the Atlanta area residents in the form of limited ability to water yards and increased water bills that reflect the need for greater cleaning of the water that is returned to the Chattahoochee. In a word, the root of the controversy is money. What will happen? Currently, governors of the three states are discussing allocation formulas for the water in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) basins. The deadline to reach a decision has been extended twice, most recently to December 20. I wouldn't bet on an agreement before January. Throughout the negotiations of the failed ACT and ACF compacts, each state played to win while showing little willingness to compromise. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide water allocation with the likely scenario that a state or organization will sue a state or federal agency. In the early 1990s, the state of Alabama sued the Corps of Engineers in hopes of preventing the creation of a reservoir along the Tallapoosa River. The lawsuit was suspended when the states began compact negotiations. A few years ago, after the compacts expired, new lawsuits were filed by the state of Florida. Even with an edict from the Supreme Court, there will likely be some mechanism to make adjustments to the water flow in case of an extreme drought or natural disaster. Arguments over water flow will likely be with us for many more years. One thing is for certain, the ways we have grown accustom to using water will change. James Newman is a political scientiest at the University of Idaho who works on water issues. |
|
|
