1. Water Supply Context: Alabama, Florida and Georgia
National Waterways Conference
September 27, 2017
Steven Burns
(205)

2. The ACF Basin
The ACT Basin
Interests of the States
History of Litigation
Views on Water Supply Rule

3. The ACF Basin

4. 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)

5. Upper Chattahoochee River Middle 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

6. 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

7. The ACT Basin

8. Headwaters Coosa River Tallapoosa River Alabama River
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)

9. Headwaters Coosa River Alabama River ATLANTA AREA
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

10. Interests of the States

11. Interests of the States
(North) Georgia:
Economic growth of Atlanta and other settlements
Groundwater not plentiful
Surface water resources are limited

12. Interests of the States
Alabama (and southwestern Georgia):
Current and future economic growth
Water quality
Restore navigation

13. Interests of the States
Florida:
Support for oysters and fisheries
Environmental issues and water quality

14. Interests of the States
No “project sponsors” in ACF or ACT
No compact or regional body

15. Interests of the States
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

16. History of Litigation

17. History of Litigation
Just to provide a sense of the amount of litigation in the tri-state water wars…
…(some of these cases have been consolidated)

18. History of Litigation Past Cases Alabama v. Corps (ACF & ACT)
No. 1:90-cv (N.D. Ala. 1990)
Challenging the proposed reallocation of water supply storage
Se. Fed. Power Customers (SeFPC) v. Corps (ACF)
No. 1:00-cv (D.D.C. 2000)
Georgia v. Corps (ACF)
No. 2:01-cv (N.D. Ga. 2001)
Challenging denial of a water reallocation request at Lake Lanier
Alabama v. Corps (ACF)
Nos , (11th Cir. 2005)
Challenge relating to SeFPC settlement agreement

19. History of Litigation Past Cases Georgia v. Corps (ACF)
No. 1:06-cv (N.D. Ga. 2006)
Challenging the Interim Operation Plan (IOP) (implementing ESA requirements)
Florida v. USFWS (ACF)
4:06-cv (N.D. Ga. 2006)
Challenging Biological Opinion for IOP
SeFPC v. Geren (ACF)
Nos , (D.C. Cir. 2006)
Appeal responding to AL & FL challenges to district court settlement agreement
In Re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation (ACF)
MDL No (M.D. Fla. 2007)
Consolidation of all pending ACF cases (eventually including Columbus and Apalachicola cases as well)

20. History of Litigation Past Cases City of Columbus v. Corps (ACF)
No. 4:07-cv (M.D. Ga. 2007)
Challenging Corps operations, failure to conduct NEPA analysis
City of Apalachicola v. Corps (ACF)
No. 4:08-cv (N.D. Fla. 2008)
Challenging Biological Opinion for IOP
In Re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation (ACF)
No (11th Cir. 2009)
Appeal of MDL case

21. History of Litigation Current Cases 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 (D.D.C. filed 2017)
Challenging the environmental analysis for Water Control Manual (WCM) and water supply assessment
National Wildlife Federation v. Corps (ACF)
No. 1:17-cv (D.D.C. filed 2017)
Also challenging WCM

22. History of Litigation Current Cases Georgia v. Corps, (ACT)
No. 1:14-cv (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
Alabama v. Corps (ACT)
No. 1:15-cv (D.D.C. filed 2015)
Plaintiffs also include the Mobile and Montgomery Water Works
Challenging the ACT WCM
Alabama Power Co.* v. Corps (ACT)
NWC Member
No. Case 1:15-cv (D.D.C filed 2015)

23. History of Litigation Current Cases CCMWA v. Corps (ACT)
No. 1:17-cv (N.D. Ga. filed 2017)
Challenging the Corps’ storage accounting system at Allatoona Lake

24. Views on Water Supply Rule

25. Views on Water Supply Rule
Here’s a guess of the positions of upstream and downstream interests
Just my speculation – comment deadline still outstanding (Nov. 16, 2017)

26. Views on Water Supply Rule
Return Flows
Upstream:
Change current policy
Credit return flows and “made” water
Downstream:
Keep current policy
Suspicious of crediting if it results in net increase in withdrawals

27. Views on Water Supply Rule
Federalism
Upstream:
Recognize primacy of states to allocate water
Downstream:
Federal law determines operation of federal reservoirs

28. Views on Water Supply Rule
Water Supply Act Authorizations
Upstream:
Flexible withdrawal policies
Downstream:
Objective withdrawal limits

29. Views on Water Supply Rule
Other Priority Issues
Upstream:
Pursue the rule
Pricing issues
“Equalize” federal customer considerations
Downstream:
Don’t pursue the rule
Environment & water quality
Contract enforcement
Protect federal customers

30. Views on Water Supply Rule
If I have seemed skeptical that NWC could adopt consensus positions on big issues… …I hope this helps explain why.