You’re right - we are never going to agree so I’m done with you also. And you are also right that Georgia and Atlanta draw water from Lanier. That’s because most of the groundwater / rainwater in the north georgia area ends up in Lanier. The north Georgia area is a net donor of water - not a net recipient. We have no water that flows into this area from upstream other than some possible groundwater tables that are shared with Tennessee and North Carolina.

No rivers flow in - two rivers flow out but you think we are hogging water??????? I think you must have an agenda that is keeping you from being rational.

(1) How much water do Atlanta and its suburbs actually remove from the river?

This should be expressed as amount withdrawn minus amount returned via water processing plants, etc.

I know that the Cobb County/Marietta Water Authority returns a significant amount of water (10-15 million gallons per day) directly back to Lake Allatoona, for example, after it has been used and processed/purified.

(2) What percentage of the water being released from Lake Lanier is actually stopped from doing downstream due to activities in Atlanta?

That would show the real impact that Atlanta is having. It’s quite possible that Atlanta and its suburbs are actually having a minimal impact on the reservoir compared to the total outflow.

It’s clear that any discussion with you is a waste of time.

North Georgia is not receiving water from the federal government. The federal government is taking water from north Georgia. I think you are backward in your thinking about who is supplying water to whom.

The lake is low because there is a drought. All of the lakes are low in the entire region. They all play by the same rules.

As I said, Georgia’s, Alabama, and Florida each play a significant roll in establishing the minimum flow rate.

Quit thinking the federal government and other states should supply your municipal water.

You need to understand all of the factors involved. Atlanta is the only city with such a limited water supply. They have known this a long time.

Buy this book, and lend it!

“We think of water “belonging,” like land, to particular territories: Minnesota and Sweden have lots of lakes; Southern California and Mauritania have few. But that’s a fallacy, like saying your left leg “has” two pints of blood. If the blood didn’t circulate through the rest of your body, the leg would die–-and so might you. The water in Sweden has to circulate through the planet’s hydrological cycle just as surely, or large patches of the planet will die. It’s as risky for nations to own water in a way that severely disrupts its flow as it would be for a leg to prevent blood from returning to the heart.”

And in a more relevant passage:

“On the most visible level, the problem is simply that major rivers flow across state or national borders, and heavy withdrawals by the upstream jurisdiction can mean shortages downstream. If Ethiopia takes too much from the Nile, Egypt is deprived. If Las Vegas takes too much from the Colorado River, the Colorado Delta is deprived. And, in fact, it is deprived–it is now dry as desert.”

-ST

I have never said that Georgia owns lake Lanier. Georgia should have a very considerable say in it’s use though considering it is Georgia’s watershed that feeds Lanier.

Florida and to a lesser extent Alabama have been fighting against making any reductions in their share. When do you propose that they start trying to save the resourse that we all share?

Lanier is a finite resourse and I naturally side with those who are trying to conserve it.

~Ben