The acf basin

The ACF Basin

• The ACF Basin

• The ACT Basin

• Interests of the States

• History of Litigation

• Views on Water Supply Rule

Upper Chattahoochee River

• Upper Chattahoochee River

• Buford Dam / Lake Lanier
• Tiny headwaters
• 2/3 of ACF storage capacity

• Middle Chattahoochee River

• Storage: West Point and Walter F. George
• ROR: Andrews and Woodruff

• Apalachicola River

• Flint River (uncontrolled)

Upper Chattahoochee River

• Upper Chattahoochee River

• ATLANTA AREA

• Middle Chattahoochee River

• Columbus, Georgia
• 3 major plants
• Historically, navigation to Columbus and Bainbridge

• Apalachicola River

• Oysters, shrimp, etc.
• Endangered fish & mussels

Water generally abundant

• Water generally abundant

• In times of drought:

• Corps must meet minimum flow at Florida line for species (5,000 cfs)
• BUT no flow target in Mid-Chatt
• Flow levels during droughts have endangered withdrawals in Mid-Chatt
• Exacerbated to the extent flows from relatively large Flint watershed help meet Apalachicola targets

Headwaters

• Headwaters

• Carters (Coosawattee River)
• Allatoona (Etowah River)
• Both with storage

• Coosa River

• 7 Alabama Power dams

• Tallapoosa River

• 4 Alabama Power dams

• Alabama River

• R.F. Henry, Millers Ferry, & Claiborne (ROR)

Headwaters

• Headwaters

• ATLANTA AREA

• Coosa River

• Water quality and quantity issues at the state line

• Alabama River

• Historically, navigation to Montgomery
• Pulp & paper plants
• Corps and Alabama Power coordinate flows for AL River

(North) Georgia:

• (North) Georgia:

• Economic growth of Atlanta and other settlements
• Groundwater not plentiful
• Surface water resources are limited

Alabama (and southwestern Georgia):

• Alabama (and southwestern Georgia):

• Current and future economic growth
• Water quality
• Restore navigation

Florida:

• Florida:

• Support for oysters and fisheries
• Environmental issues and water quality

• No “project sponsors” in ACF or ACT

• No compact or regional body

Water withdrawal law:

• Water withdrawal law:

• Georgia—generally, permit required for > 100,000 gallons daily average
• Generally riparian otherwise, plus drought planning
• Alabama—generally riparian, plus drought planning

• Just to provide a sense of the amount of litigation in the tri-state water wars…

• …(some of these cases have been consolidated)

Alabama v. Corps (ACF & ACT)

• Alabama v. Corps (ACF & ACT)

• No. 1:90-cv-01331 (N.D. Ala. 1990)
• Challenging the proposed reallocation of water supply storage

• Se. Fed. Power Customers (SeFPC) v. Corps (ACF)

• No. 1:00-cv-02975 (D.D.C. 2000)
• Challenging the proposed reallocation of water supply storage

Georgia v. Corps (ACF)

• Georgia v. Corps (ACF)

• No. 1:06-cv-01473 (N.D. Ga. 2006)
• Challenging the Interim Operation Plan (IOP) (implementing ESA requirements)

• Florida v. USFWS (ACF)

• 4:06-cv-00410 (N.D. Ga. 2006)
• Challenging Biological Opinion for IOP

City of Columbus v. Corps (ACF)

• City of Columbus v. Corps (ACF)

• No. 4:07-cv-00125 (M.D. Ga. 2007)
• Challenging Corps operations, failure to conduct NEPA analysis

• City of Apalachicola v. Corps (ACF)

• No. 4:08-cv-00023 (N.D. Fla. 2008)
• Challenging Biological Opinion for IOP

Florida v. Georgia (ACF)

• Florida v. Georgia (ACF)

• No. 142 (U.S.S.C. filed 2013)
• FL seeking equitable apportionment of water & cap on GA consumption - AL not a party

• Alabama v. Corps (ACF)

• No. 1:17-cv-00607 (D.D.C. filed 2017)
• Challenging the environmental analysis for Water Control Manual (WCM) and water supply assessment

Georgia v. Corps, (ACT)

• Georgia v. Corps, (ACT)

• No. 1:14-cv-03593 (N.D. Ga. filed 2014)
• Plaintiffs also include Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)* and Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (CCMWA)
• NWC Member
• Challenging the ACT WCM; also a FOIA claim

CCMWA v. Corps (ACT)

• CCMWA v. Corps (ACT)

• No. 1:17-cv-00400 (N.D. Ga. filed 2017)
• Challenging the Corps’ storage accounting system at Allatoona Lake

• Here’s a guess of the positions of upstream and downstream interests

• Just my speculation – comment deadline still outstanding (Nov. 16, 2017)

Upstream:

• Upstream:

• Change current policy

• Credit return flows and “made” water

Upstream:

• Upstream:

• Recognize primacy of states to allocate water

Upstream:

• Upstream:

• Flexible withdrawal policies

Upstream:

• Upstream:

• Pursue the rule

• Pricing issues

• “Equalize” federal customer considerations

• If I have seemed skeptical that NWC could adopt consensus positions on big issues…

• …I hope this helps explain why.