Presentation on theme: "Chapter 14: Water Use Conflicts"— Presentation transcript:
1 Chapter 14: Water Use Conflicts Reasons for Water Use ConflictsCase StudiesCaliforniaTexas PanhandleMiddle EastAlabama and Florida vs. GeorgiaTragedy of the Commons
2 Reasons for Water Use Conflicts Population GrowthDemand for water increased 900% in 1900sInadequate drinking water (quality / quantity)Growth in urban centers, takes rural waterWater Consumption GrowthMore lawns, pools, washing machines, dishwashers, showers, toiletsIndustrial and agricultural water use
4 Water Conflicts47% of all land in river basins are within multiple countriesFew political boundaries are drawn along watershed linesUpstream water users tend to hoard their waterDownstream users get less water, of poorer quality
6 Good News - Bad News Good News: Bad News: Increased water efficiencies Better water treatmentMore international coordinationBad News:Breakup of empires, such as Soviet UnionClimate changeEthnic conflicts
7 Water ConflictsPacific Institute (a nonprofit organization) maintains a Water Conflict Chronology
21 Arizona-California Water War For eight months in 1934, a contingent of National Guard troops occupied the Parker Dam site on the Colorado River and made preparations to repel a possible invasion from the west.The battle was settled when the U. S. Supreme Court issued an injunction prohibiting Arizona from interfering with the construction of the dam. The dam was completed in 1938.
22 Where’s the Next Water?Given that the water from California and the surrounding states has all been spoken for...Where should Southern California go next?a. Mexico d. Canadab. Pacific Northwest e. Alaskac. South Pole
27 Texas Panhandle Groundwater pumping from the Ogallala By 1990, 25% of the water was goneRemaining water was too expensive1,000,000 acres of farmland abandonedPassed Senate Bill #1 in 1997 during a droughtEstablished regional planning groupsDevelop long-range plansCreate Water Availability Models
28 Texas “Law of Capture” Allows users to pump as much as they can T. Boone Pickens developed a plan to pump 200,000 Acre-Feet in the Panhandle of Texas and ship it to the thirsty citiesThe cost to deliver to San Antonio is about $2.5 billion
32 Texas Groundwater Districts Texas now has 83 Groundwater DistrictsNo statewide systemDistricts vary in how they are organizedRarely deal with groundwater and surface water in an integrated fashion59 of districts are single-countyMany are so small they don’t have resources to carry out missionSome districts have no source of fundingS. Collier Regional Institutions for Managing Water Resources.Georgia Southern University
35 Middle East Israeli (Jewish) - Palestinian (Muslim) Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea are fallingHeavy salinization of waterIsrael restricts water use by ArabsTurkey is building large dams upstreamSyria and Iraq water supplies are being cut offEgypt is worried about upstream usesSudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.
43 Two Separate Disputes ACT (Alabama - Georgia) Alabama Coosa Tallapoosa ACF (Alabama - Florida - Georgia)ApalachicolaChattahoocheeFlintAlmost all of the conflict has occurred in ACF
44 ACF IssuesGeorgiaWants water for growth, both supply and wastewater dilution capacityThinks since it s the upstream state should have first rightsAlabamaWants growth and hydropowerDoesn’t think it should be penalized for being downstreamFloridaWants to protect Apalachicola Bay (oysters) and endangered river species (mussels and sturgeon)
45 Stakeholders Homeowner groups Power Companies Cities and Counties Want to protect their land value and their environmentPower CompaniesWant to protect their investmentsCities and CountiesWant to be able to growEnvironmentalistsWant to protect aquatic habitatsFarmersWant water to irrigate
46 Florida vs. GeorgiaFarmers in Flint River basin pump water from Floridan aquifer and from Flint River and tributaries to irrigateThis reduces flow in the Flint, but the effect of groundwater withdrawals is poorly understoondFlint River Drought Protection Act passed by GA legislature in 2000 established fund to pay farmers not to irrigate in a drought yearImplemented in 2001 and 2002
48 Florida vs. GeorgiaIn separate case FL sued US Fish & Wildlife Service over Endangered Species Act in 2006COE operates four major dams along the ACFOperations threaten Gulf sturgeon and rare mussel speciesReduced the area of flowing streams required for the endangered fat threeridge, the threatened purple bankclimber, and other mussels.Critical spawning areas for Gulf sturgeon also have been left dry at timesFL says it doesn't advocate removing the damsBut it does demand that the Corps end its authorization of water use from reservoirs by upstream cities, including AtlantaCase is Phase II of Magnuson court case
49 Florida vs. GeorgiaInterim operating plan is being used to control discharge from Jim Woodruff dam at FL-GA lineUSFWS estimated in 2006 that mussels would survive with a minimum flow of 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)This flow was set many years ago by Corps of Engineers for reasons other than musselsRecords dating back to 1929 show that river never fell below this level even in a droughtPlant Scholz (next slide)To maintain 5,000 cfs at GA-FL line Corps of Engineers must release about 1,500 cfs from Lake Lanier
50 Florida vs. GeorgiaPart of the reason for maintaining 5,000 cfs is Plant Scholz, a coal-fired power plant just below FL-GA line that requires cooling waterAt lower flows water uptake is difficultUses 130 million gpd to cool steamServes 19,000 customers and is critical to maintaining electrical grid in local area
51 Lake Lanier Phase I Magnuson decision July 2009 Paul A. Magnuson, US District Court JudgeLawsuit filed by Alabama in 1990FL soon joined lawsuitDid not address endangered species aspect of conflict with Florida (that is Phase II)Issue is:Does Atlanta have the right to withdraw water from Lake Lanier under the federal law that authorized building the reservoir?
52 Magnuson DecisionCongress authorized COE to build Buford dam in 1945/46 and construction finished in 1960Federal Water Supply Act requires:“Modifications of a reservoir project heretofore authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed to include storage [for water supply] which would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which would involve major structural or operational changes shall be made only upon the approval of Congress . . .
53 Magnuson DecisionRecord clearly shows that original authorization did not include water supplyPurpose of Lake Lanier was flood control, hydropower generation, and improved navigationIn 1980’s, COE internal operating documents show a shift to ensuring water supply for Atlanta as a goalIn 1989, draft Water Control Guidelines called for reallocating 22% of conservation storage to water supply for AtlantaCOE decided this did not require Congressional authorization
54 Magnuson DecisionTo avoid long legal battle, in 1997 legislatures in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida passed separately laws to establish ACT and ACF CompactsCreated 2 water commissions to find a solutionFederal commissioner oversaw compactsAgreed that if the commissions could not reach agreement within a given time period they would be dissolvedTime period extended several timesNegotiations collapsed in 2003
55 Post-Searchlight, Bainbridge GA Post, Cherokee Co AL, 2001
56 Magnuson Decision IIn 2000, GA requested approval from COE for further increase in withdrawal from Lake Lanier for Gwinnet Co and downstream of Buford Dam for AtlantaRepresented 34% of conservation storage in Lake LanierCOE denied requestJudge Magnuson ruled that FL and AL were correct in July 2009Reallocation of water to ensure water supply to Atlanta was a major change and therefore required Congressional approvalGave Atlanta 3 years to resolve conflict or cease withdrawing
57 Magnuson Decision IIIn recent court decision on Phase II Judge Magnuson ruled that Florida’s case is mootBecause of his earlier ruling on Phase I Georgia and COE have 3 years to get approval from Congress for a new operating plan for Lake LanierUntil the new operating plan is developed the effect on endangered species is unknown
58 Tragedy of the CommonsWhy do we fight over water (and other natural resources)?Tragedy of the Commons used to explain human perspective that leads to resource mismanagement and conflict
59 Tragedy of the Commons Taken from Gary W. Harding What is the Commons? members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htmGarrett Hardin, Science 162:1243, 1968What is the Commons?The "commons" is any resource which is shared by a group of people. Such things as the air we breath and the water we drink come from commons.In many parts of the world; new land for farming and grazing land for stock, fish from the sea, and wood for fuel and housing are treated as commons.
61 CommonsFourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely aligned collection of villages, each with a common pasture for villagers to graze horses, cattle and sheepEach household attempted to gain wealth by putting as many animals on the commons as it could affordAs the village grew in size and more and more animals were placed on the commons, overgrazing ruined the pastureNo stock could be supported on the commons thereafterAs a consequence of population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons, village after village collapsed
62 Logic of the CommonsEach household has the right to take resources from and put wastes into the commons.To accumulate wealth, each household believes that it can acquire one unit of resources or dump one unit of waste while distributing one unit of cost across all of the households with whom the commons is shared.The gain to the household appears large and the cost very small.Some households accumulate wealth more rapidly than others and this, in turn, gives them the means to access an even larger share of the commons.
63 Fallacy of the CommonsAll households are attempting to do the same thing.Thus, on average, one unit of gain for a household actually produces a net one unit of cost for each household.However, selfish households accumulate wealth from the commons by acquiring more than their fair share of the resources and paying less than their fair share of the total costs.Ultimately, as population grows and greed runs rampant, the commons collapses and ends in "the tragedy of the commons"
64 Commons other than Land How could anyone own rain, wind, and the open ocean?Population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons has virtually destroyed the worlds ocean fisheries and the Amazon rain forest.Huge tracts of land have succumbed to desertification.Crowding overwhelms Yosemite National Park and the freeways and parking facilities in our big cities.The accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is precipitating significant global warming which will produce climate changeA significant loss of biodiversity is underway; some call it a mass-extinction event.
65 Possible Solutions: Privatization: Common lands were parceled up into small tracts, each owned by a household.If a household destroyed its own plot, it was its own fault.However, as population grew, each new generation of households was left with a smaller portion of the original.There was still the opportunity for some households to accumulate wealth by acquiring land from others.Thus, private ownership did nothing to control greed - it merely shifted it to a new arena.The number of landless households grew rapidly, each one descending deeper and deeper into abject poverty.
66 Possible Solutions Government regulation: Allocation of natural resources based on the Public Trust DoctrineUser fees in order to provide economic incentives for conservation.Limitations on wasteful and abusive practices that harm public welfare.
67 Reminder!Project presentations start Monday after Thanksgiving break (Nov 29)Papers are due Nov 29Limit your presentation to no more than 10 slides.You can use Powerpoint, Word, or anything you want.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.