1. Interbasin Transfers of Water Alabama Water Resources Conference 2012 Dargan “Scott” Cole, Sr. Hall Booth Smith & Slover, P.C. 191 Peachtree Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Email: DSCole@hbss.net Phone: 404-954-6924

2. Definition of Interbasin Transfer The withdrawal or diversion of water from one river basin, followed by use and/or return of some or all of that water to a second river basin.

3. Potential benefits of an IBT The increased ability to meet growing: –Residential demands –Agricultural demands –Hydropower demands –Commercial and industrial demands –Demand for assimilative capacity –Flood control demands

4. Potential impacts of an IBT Potential changes to: –Natural flow regimes –Assimilative capacity –Aquatic habitat –Riparian habitat –Recreational benefits –Ability to satisfy future water supply demands: Residential Commercial and Industrial Agricultural

6. Existing Interbasin Transfers

8. Boston IBT from the Connecticut River Basin

11. Responses to the increased use of interbasin transfers Litigation Restriction Prohibition

12. Litigation New Jersey v. New York –283 U.S. 336 (1931) –Delaware River Connecticut v. Massachusetts –282 U.S. 660 (1931) –Connecticut River South Carolina v. North Carolina –Docket No. 138, Orig.(2010) –Catawba River

13. Restriction Many states, including most in the southeast, have recognized the need to manage and control interbasin transfers. These include: –Arkansas (ACA §15-22-304), –Florida (Consumptive Use Permits, FL Stat. §373.219; IBT of Groundwater, FL Stat. §373.2295), –Georgia (OCGA §12-5-31), –North Carolina (General Statute G.S. §143-215.22I), –South Carolina (Title 49, Chapter 21), and –Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §69-7-201 et seq.). Water Management Issues in Alabama (August 1, 2012)

14. Signed into law October 3, 2008 Prohibits new IBTs except: –Communities that lie partially with the basin –Diversions between sub- watersheds within the Great Lakes Watershed –Communities outside the basin but in a county that lies partially within the basin Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact

15. Types of IBTs Intra-CityIntra-City Intra-CountyIntra-County RegionalRegional Large long-rangeLarge long-range

16. Intra-City IBTs

17. Intra-County IBTs

18. Regional IBTs

19. Long Range IBTs

20. Alabama Interbasin Transfers

23. Alabama-Coosa- Tallapoosa Basin (ACT) –Georgia –Alabama Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint Basin (ACF) –Georgia –Alabama –Florida

25. Alabama IBTs In 2005 legislation was passed that prohibited the transfer of water from the Tennessee River Basin within Marshall County under certain conditions. H.B. 709, 2005 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2005) Nearly identical bills passed for Jackson, Madison, Morgan, Lawrence, Limestone, Colbert, and Lauderdale in the following years, thereby banning interbasin transfers in all 8 counties that the Tennessee River flows through in Alabama.

26. Water management Issue in Alabama (August 1, 2012) Interbasin Transfer Considerations: A number of IBTs currently exist in Alabama and have existed for many years. Specific numbers are not known since there is no monitoring or reporting requirement. The exact number would also depend on the size of the basin defined. There is limited case law directly addressing the subject of interbasin transfers in Alabama. However, in a letter dated April 29, 2004, vetoing the Marshall County IBT local legislation (HB596), the legal advisor to former Governor Riley asserted the illegality of some IBTs under existing Alabama law. IBTs can be problematic in that they contribute to unsustainable growth (e.g. Atlanta) as greater quantities of water from outside watersheds are required for expanded consumption and future demands. IBTs can create permanent and significant detrimental impacts to water quantity and water quality. Many states, including most in the southeast, have recognized the need to manage and control interbasin transfers.

28. Assumed Water Transfer Destination Point of Withdrawal Assumed Transfer (2030) (mgd) North Georgia and Atlanta Chickamauga264 Blount County– Birmingham, Alabama Guntersville180 Northeast MississippiPickwick17 TVA’s 2004 EIS: Section D9 Inter-Basin Transfers—A Sensitivity Analysis

29. 108mgd 600mgd 180mgd 264mgd 126mgd

30. American Farmland Trust

33. Conclusions IBTs are a long-time, widespread water management resource. With the emphasis on developing regional resources, including agricultural and commercial opportunities, IBTs will continue to have a place in water management policy. But, due to the potential impacts to the donor basin, in the near-term IBTs will continue to generate discussion, controversy and litigation. Alabama has the ability to take advantage of long-range, high volume existing and proposed IBTs have the potential to benefit south Alabama’s agricultural communities.