Will the Tennessee River solve our problems?
The Tennessee River is once again begin discussed as a possible solution to our water problem. The river moves a massive amount of water through Chattanooga — roughly 34,300 cfs, which is about 17 times greater than the amount being released through Buford Dam.
The problem, of course, is politics. Tennessee understandably doesn’t want to part with their water. However, Atlanta might be able to offer a few things in exchange for some water.
First, Chattanooga is concerned that Atlanta might want to build a second airport in the northern part of the state. If we ruled out that possibility it might help. The second exchange might involve building a high-speed rail line from Atlanta to Chattanooga. $8 million has been put aside to study the possibility of building that rail line, which would eliminate the need for a second airport.
It could cost about $5 billion to pump water from Chattanooga (and another $10 billion to pump the used water back, which some people think should be done). The article doesn’t mention how long it would take to build the pipes to handle that, but I’d have to think it would take a few years. If anyone has a good answer for that, please post in the comments below. If we’re talking about a couple of years to get this done, it becomes more of a long-term solution than a short-term fix and we’re still in big trouble in a few months.
Of course, none of this would matter if our cheap governor in the early 1800’s hadn’t caused the state line to be placed a mile too far south. 
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 am
Gwinnett county is just getting started on a return linr to Lake Lanier or at least in the planning stages for it and they are projecting that it would be finished and operational as I recall sometime in 2009. So you have to figure that it would take at least that long as a minimum and most likely longer. And thats after numerous stage agency’s in Tennessee, Alabama and the TVA approve such a project. If this were to happen, we are not looking at something that would be in place before at least 2010 and thats if everything were to go right.
The TVA’s position on the issue:
http://www.tva.gov/river/watersupply/faq.htm
Article from the Tennessee point of view:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/content.aspx?articleid=24494&zoneid=271
Current Tennessee Law
http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/101/pub/pc854.pdf
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
This may be the best long term solution. Obviously we would have to offer Tennessee something. I suspect if we throw enough money at something Tenessee wants we could find a deal that would appease them. Rail line or something else.
Alabama has opposed this idea in the past though also. Why? Because Alabama is downstream on the Tennessee river. You might think it would please Alabama if Atlanta were taking water from the Tennessee river, because there would be more water flowing downstream in the chatahoochee for Alabama power plants, etc. Apparently not. So I guess we have to bribe Alabama also if we don’t want them to obstruct this idea.
And what about Florida? They would benefit from this also. Will Florida pick up some of the cost? Hah - I doubt it. They demand their fair share of water while it’s free - even if Atlantans die of thirst. Would they kick in a couple of billion dollars to help insure water flow for the basin though?
And the federal government - If the damn mussels are so important to them that they would risk collapse of a major city then maybe they can just build the pipeline whether anyone likes it or not.
The truth is that Alabama, Florida, and the Federal government all have interest in this water. None have enough interest to spend billions of dollars to get a little more water here. But they all seem totally willing to sacrifice Atlanta though to keep their water flowing where they want it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 am
Any new major pipeline for water would take several years to get done. Property along the route would have to be purchased or agreement made to dig a trench across properties for the pipeline and pump stations constructed along its route too. This type of thing needs to be started ASAP, but short term needs for water in Georgia it cannot benefit at this moment. The continued excessive release of water from Lake Lanier, and other reservoirs, for power plant needs in Alabama & Florida must be cut-back by at least 50%. Otherwise Lanier will be bone dry by mid or late summer next year.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 am
I lived next to the tennessee state capitol for three years and knew many state employees. I followed the politics up there and it is a different world compared to atlanta. It is mostly rural there and the lawmakers represent mostly rural people who i believe would be “anti-development, anti-atlanta.” Nashville is the biggest city and it is smaller than the buckhead/lenox business district.
I would say it is very very unlikely that they will let “atlanta” tap into their water and even if they did, the other states would keep it tied up in the courts for years.
This talk about “well give us water or we will build an airport that will take your business” is totally irresponsible and did irreversable damage.
The mayor of chattanooga has no power whatsoever so you are wasting time even talking to him.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 am
Also, let me add that if things got to an incredible crisis (no water for years/major recession/depression etc) then congress would probably step in and order a national grid of water pipelines.
Looking on a 50-100 year time span that appears to be the only real solution.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 am
Dream on. The Federal government doesn’t have the money for anything remotely like that. Yes, Atlanta’s essential for business, blah blah. But if oil, shipping and seafood needs in Southeastern Louisiana weren’t enough to get Uncle Sam on the ball there (and the billions everyone thinks have been sent down there haven’t), what makes you think exceptions will be made for Atlanta, except for maybe the airport? A Democratic administration? Maybe. But don’t count on it, not with the ongoing expenses of Iraq (which won’t end if Hillary wins, certainly) and a nation facing a housing mortgage crisis-induced recesssion. The Dems will still have to work with Republicans and Dems. from rural or more conservative areas that will be happy to put Atlanta residents into the category of “undeserving” and lacking in personal responsibility.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 am
“No Says”, the drought is affecting the entire southeast. This is not about atlanta but about tenneessee, alabama, georgia, south carlonia, north carlonia and florida. There is a lot of voters in that region. Do you think that the congress would let several states go without water year after year. Do you think that the real estate developers who control the politicians would quit developing? Do you think these states would stop growth because of no water? No, they want solutions so they can keep collecting money and taxes.
If we want a real long term soulution, you need to look at 50-100 years out when cities like atlanta have 10 million people in it. It appears a national grid of water lines is the only solution, unless you have a beter suggestion like praying for rain or having 100,000 trucks per day deliver water to a distribution point.
We can build national highway systems, national power grids, national telephone networks, so i am sure we can build a national water distribution system. The only other option is going without water.
Since when has “not having the money” ever stopped the government from doing anything.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
As Peter Gleick notes in his interview posted on this site, by and large, we will have to learn to get more out of our existing infrastructure in the future. Smarter use, reclamation techniques, conservation and other methods are the best solutions. A nationwide grid is not feasible. Interstate water compacts across the nation have rigid allocation claims on nearly all major river systems, and each amounts to a federal law, hotly debated and tightly controlled.
Studying the history of the Tri-State Water Wars, it is painfully obvious how difficult it would be to achieve an inter-basin transfer from the Tennessee River. GA/AL/FL had been in negotiations over their shared basins for 14 years until they gave up in 2003. If these states can’t even agree on allocations for the water that they *already* share, the political obstacles to drawing from a distant river system will make this scheme fairly impossible. Tennessee has specific laws on the books since 2000 to protect their river from this very scenario.
Also, all other stakeholders that share that basin will be up in arms (North Carolina, Alabama). With the entire region in a drought, this is a conversation that is not likely to be taken seriously by anyone right now. Atlanta would likely be required to pump water back to TN in any case, which would be a monumental feat and would consume enormous amounts of water-consuming energy to operate. Those willing to speculate have remarked such a project could take 20 years to complete.
Water scarcity is a new condition for the southeast, but it is a terminal one. Interstate water compacts like the Delaware River Basin Compact, where water is managed cooperatively between states, holds the only real promise for a sustainable, equitable arrangement for the ACF and ACT systems. It is imperative that negotiations between the Tri-states resume, with an urgency to sort this out in the near future. Atlanta will inevitably have to cap its runaway growth, which has been at the center of the debate since it was first raised in 1988.
The most telling aspect of this whole story is that our state leaders *are* very concerned about the water shortage.
-st
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Atlanta’s Mayor and Chamber of Commerce have to face the reality that growth has exceeded available water resources for the city. Still thinking the area can double in population is ridiculous. The building boom for Atlanta is over and in fact due to water shortages the population density will be forced
to move to other locations with more water available. Alabama and Florida should not have built thirsty power plants on Chattahoochee River system. Nobody in the federal, state, or city governments even bothered to do basic math to see that water demands far exceed availability.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Perhaps not so much Atlanta but the surrounding counties that make up metro Atlanta. Case in point, if you were to drive down most any of the major roads in Norcross you would see large numbers of new strip malls , with at least 75% empty storefronts. As soon as they finish one they move down the street or over to the other side and start another one without any consideration to filling the first one. Or go over by Gwinnett Place Mall where you can find more empty stores than full. at least two major centers right next to the Mall itself is at 95% empty. Why? Because some fool developers over at Simon Properties decided that we had a need for 3 major shopping malls within a 7 mile stretch of I-85. And all this vacant space is still drawing power which amounts to using up water that could be used elsewhere. Do we really need to have a Target, a Wal-Mart, a Starbucks, a Kroger and a Publix every 3 miles in each direction?
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
wspurlock > in European countries such as Germany urban sprawl is prohibited. If a developer wants to do a new housing project, then he must demolish an old one and construct new in same location. Look at all the blighted areas in the United States. Endless sprawl must come to an end.
Atlanta has allowed out-of-control development, but so has Norcross and other Georgia cities too. Strange that city planners never consider water availability before issuing construction permits.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Before the drought the watershed for Lake Lanier poured about 2 to 3 billion gallons into the lake daily. Now it is down to approx. 400 million gallons daily, but ACE continues to release water from Buford Dam like a drunken sailor.
If the drought evolves into a climate change for Georgia, then the current watershed flow into the lake could be permanent. Atlanta needs 500+ million gallons a day and add up all the other water needs downstream into Alabama and Florida. Obvious that demand far exceeds water availability now.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“‘No Says,’ the drought is affecting the entire southeast. This is not about atlanta but about tenneessee, alabama, georgia, south carlonia, north carlonia and florida. There is a lot of voters in that region.”
It has the potential to become that, yes. But right now the metro area most in trouble is Atlanta. Alabama and Florida are complaining about Atlanta, not the other way around. Cities in NC are the only ones in a comparable heap of short-term trouble.
My comment about Congress not having the money still stands in regard to long-term solutions, though. Our spending has been out of control for a while at the national level. And our spending might be constrained by outside forces (e.g., international holders of US debt).
I don’t see the solution being a giant engineering project that would take, oh, 20-25 years to complete regardless. (Look at Southeast Louisiana, again. Do you realize the amount of time it takes Congress to approve major engineering projects, after administrative studies, etc.? Major levee improvements will not be completed until 2011 or something. Imagine how long it would take to complete a region-wide or national engineering behemoth of the type proposed earlier.) Some people will simply be forced to move, cities and suburbs will be forced to restrict development. The ones that survive will probably have some sort of regional supra-government. Advanced water management techniques developed and used in agriculture will be applied to cities. Interstate solutions will probably be forced by federal pre-emption or something, but otherwise the chances of Congress spending a couple of trillion to build a national or regional mega-system are virtually nil.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Question not really related to this topic,
Why do reservoirs in the area level off during the weekend? Do release time cease during the weekend? Especially Allatoona. Thanks
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Yeah, releases are cut back by as much as 50 % on the weekends. If you want to see a brief history of the release times at Lanier from Buford Dam there is a page in the Wiki that I update every morning.
http://atlantawatershortage.com/wiki/index.php/Scheduled_Daily_Release
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Been watching the Atlanta weather radar loop tonight and the next front is weakening as it approaches the city. Most of the rain seems to be gliding across the extreme northern part of the state, so looks like just a few light showers after midnight.
The storm fronts this fall are very indicative of severe drought continuing into next summer. If spring rains are weak too, then Georgia is screwed big-time.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Interesting tidbit I found on the power plants in Florida: “Southern Company, the parent of Gulf Power, which operates the Crist, Lansing Smith and Scholz power plants in Florida’s panhandle, ranked 2nd nationally among utilities with the highest mercury emissions.” (New Report Finds Jacksonville Power Plant Is Biggest Mercury Polluter in Florida. 9/8/2005. From http://www.environmentalflorida.org/newsroom/clean-air-news/clean-a... )
So the old Scholz Generating Plant, below lake Seminole/Woodruff Dam, that Lake Lanier feeds down the Chattahoochee River is spewing out mercury into Apalachicola Bay. Means the mussels are contaminated with mercury and the oysters too in the bay. Coal-fired plants in particular discharge mercury with their water outflows. Seems nobody wants us Georgians to know about this, nor Floridians too.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
http://www.evironmentflorida.org/newsroom/clean-air-news/clean-a...
Corrected link above.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Try
http://www.environmentflorida.org/newsroom/clean-air-news/clean-air-news/new-report-finds-jacksonville-power-plant-is-biggest-mercury-polluter-in-florida
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 am
GT > thanks the link I posted was incomplete.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Well I recorded less than .10 of rain in Stone Mountain, near Atlanta. The city’s pollution retards the rainfall and obvious to anybody who watches the radar as storm fronts approach Atlanta. They break apart and after passing the city reform.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 am
Congress can end all the state-by-state squabbles. Federal law always overrules state laws and they technically could vote to establish a massive pipeline from the mississippi river. Getting the votes is another story. Yes it would be a massive project but what other long-term solutions are available?
They could run the line underneth existing power grid lines which usually end up next to a river anyway.
There needs to be a long term solution…people need to look out 20-50-100 years, not to next spring. I’m sure this will become evident when atlanta runs out of water.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Federal Law always overrules state law? The major point of the constitution is that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Paul - in this case Federal law does override because it is an interstate issue - not intrastate. Generally I would agree otherwise.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Yes, I don’t quibble with that. I just was “federal law ALWAYS overrules state law” and warning sirens went off
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 am
In all of the interstate water compacts to date, the feds have merely served as mediators or co-creators of the allocation agreements. Congress’ official stance has always been to let the States work things out, as only they can fairly judge their needs and allocate their water equitably.
See this excerpt from an excellent GAO paper from July 2003: “FRESHWATER SUPPLY: States’ Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages” (www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-514)
“The federal government has authority to manage water resources, but it recognizes the states’ authority to allocate and use water within their jurisdictions. . . . Federal laws often require federal agencies engaged in water resource management activities to defer to state laws or cooperate with state officials in implementing federal laws. . . . The Water Supply Act of 1958 recognizes nonfederal interests in water supply development. The act states:
‘It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes…’”
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama will have to work this out somehow. Countless other states have found ways to agree on this resource over the last century. It’s time for them to do the same. Intransigent self-interest has stalled the negotiations for 18 years — perhaps a mutual disaster is what it takes to make people work together.
-st
December 4th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Informative post ST, but in a practical way the federal government is and will be heavily involved. It is already controls releases from Lanier - which is really the main point of dispute.
Assume for a moment that Georgia had enough of the out of control releases and built a dam below Lanier to serve Atlanta metro. How long before Georgia and Alabama drug us into federal court?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Atlanta has actually had designs to build a second major dam/reservoir, this one on the Tallapoosa (ACT) for some time now — as you predict, this has been stymied by vehement resistance from Alabama. Prior to the Water Wars, ACE’s releases caused little controversy; however, as Atlanta’s thirst grew, the dispute arose and has remained entrenched in litigation since 1989. After the breakdown of formal negotiations in 2003, several lawsuits have cropped up between the States and ACE, and these are ongoing and conflicting.
The ACE is operating according to an Interim Operations Plan, which requires them to fulfill their requisite duties under federal law. Any agreement the states come to would need to reflect federal statutes regardless.
I don’t see how any forward action can be taken without cooperation and negotiation resumes, this time with a humbled approach in light of our mutual dependency on the basin.
-st
December 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I would also add that the main point of dispute has traditionally been Atlanta’s excessive and growing demands for ACF water. The Wars began when Atlanta applied to the ACE for a permit to double their withdrawals in 1988. This remains the source of acrimony for the downstream stakeholders, along with concerns of pollution from Atlanta’s use.
Suggested models for a Chattahoochee River Basin Compact between the states could follow the Delaware River Basin Compact, wherein a cooperative management entity is created, with a committee helmed by reps chosen by each governor, along with a federal rep. This arrangement would also allow for a mediation process for future disputes, so that the states could avoid costly and lengthy federal court battles to make changes as needed. In many such flexible, administrative compacts (predominantly among the northeastern states) the federal role is merely advisory. There have lately been concerns that the federal reps have been too laissez-faire in their involvement with these compacts. The states have every ability to independently manage, monitor, and evolve their use of ACT/ACF water without federal assistance. All this requires is a basin-community approach to the problem.
-st
December 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Again, a well thought out and intelligent post ST. I do find some difference with your laying of blame on Atlanta.
For instance do you know that 60% of the water going into the Apalachicola river originates below Atlanta. If the basin is shared, why doesn’t north Georgia have a claim on a share of that water? It sounds like a “what’s yours is ours, and what’s mine is mine” point of view from downstream.
Do you know that downstream releases are double what they were during the last drought? That’s why the lake is dropping so fast and it has nothing to do with Atlanta.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Are you figuring in that 60% the waters merging into the Apalachicola from the Flint? Also, can you link to a source that shows a double in downstream releases since the previous drought? I’d like to research some more on this. Since Lanier contains the lion’s share of storage for the entire basin, it is depended on most heavily in drought times to supply all needs downstream. But if 60% of the water that passes through Lake Seminole originates *below* Atlanta, doesn’t that mean that *less* outflow would be required from Lanier?
I’m forming my opinions on this situation as I go, solely from studying the myriad aspects to the issue. The most informative and compelling sources I’ve found so far are those that follow the history of interstate water compacts in the US, and outline the Southeast’s 18 year battle over ACF/ACT water. I’m currently reading a book called “Interstate Water Allocation in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.” From this, I’ve learned that the initial contention to cause this dispute was over Atlanta pushing to double their allocation from the ACE, in 1988. I’ve also learned that the only way for this situation to be equitably remedied is through a cooperative, interstate effort to allocate the two basins among its diverse users.
As delineated in this book, here are some important factors in the ACF dispute that stand out from other interstate water controversies:
“The major urban area Atlanta is in the headwaters, not the mouth. . . .
Because of much earlier litigation, the entire main stem of the Chattahoochee River lies in Georgia, and Alabama businesses must get permits from Georgia to discharge into the river.
Florida has put forth considerable funds and energy during the past twenty-five years in an effort to conserve and protect the Apalachicola Bay estuary.
Although there are federal reservoirs in the watershed, the ratio of storage to flow is relatively small and, consequently, the capacity of the reservoir system to augment the flow regime is limited relative to other large basins. And all of the federal storage reservoirs are on one stem of the river system, the Chattahoochee.”
These are really powerful facts to consider. It seems that the ACF system-at-large is simply unable to continue to allow increased demands from its various stakeholders, especially as droughts intensify. Yet the modernizing push for further “growth,” unchecked and developing without concerns of available water, is straining the inadequate ACF reservoir system beyond its capacities to serve all needs.
Certainly it could be that all stakeholders are increasing their demands on the system over time. Alabama would like to anticipate available water supply for future growth, to attract industry and new residents. Georgia farmers will surely require augmented flows to satisfy irrigation needs over time, especially in light of global warming trends which increase evaporation. From what I can tell, Florida’s ecological/economic concerns with the health of the Apalachicola Bay estuary shouldn’t require drastic increases in flow, although I would imagine slightly higher demands may be required over time.
Atlanta, however, is experiencing massive population growth that dwarfs all other municipalities in the basin, and this isn’t showing signs of slowing. It seems most probable that this level of growth, if satisfied unabated, threatens the future supply for more slow-to-develop or relatively static stakeholders downstream. That’s to say nothing of “present” supply being compromised, which is occurring already. And Atlanta, of course, wants to ensure even more water remain available for its continued development. This is the background for the debate between the various users of this overtaxed, drought-stricken river basin. Without taking sides, it is clear that this is a complex issue that can only be resolved through cooperation and a depoliticized awareness of the basin as a cohesive system that requires careful and fair management to benefit all.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:27 am
ST > I fully agree with your last post. Atlanta cannot continue its out-of-control endless growth cycle. There should be one or two reservoirs constructed on the Flint River, below Atlanta, but I bet Florida would make a stink claiming the water stolen from flowing into Lake Seminole.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
ST -
Way too many points for me to address, but no I am not talking about the Flint river. I am talking about all the creeks and tributaries that deposit into the river system below Atlanta. Only 5% of the total watershed area of the ACF basin is above Atlanta. If Atlanta were to claim a good bit of that 5% of the basin I don’t see that it would be such an extreme irresponsible act.
Sorry, I don’t have a reference handy for either fact - they are information I ran across and retained. If you find different figures I would be interested in digging deeper to reconcile the numbers. I will give you a reference for the watershed figure I referenced above though -
http://www.lakelanier.org/is_qn_lake_lanier_water_quantity.php
December 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I would also point out that irrigation / agricultural use of water is growing much faster than public use. Granted most of that use is from groundwater instead of surface water - still it is very significant and growing quicker than Atlanta’s use. It’s just not as politically correct to fault farmers as it is to fault Atlantans.
While I would prioritize farm needs above suburban lawn watering, I would put it far below public use for drinking / showering / sewage / firefighting, etc.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Rich — I do see the point you’re making. Reflecting on this, I think the major problem overall is poor distribution of surplus water, and inadequate capacity under compounding demands.
As many have noted, there is a relatively small ratio of storage to flow in the ACF basin. There just isn’t enough capacity in the existing federal reservoirs to meet all needs. Another factor complicating this is that, as quoted above, the major urban area (Atlanta) lies at the river’s headwaters, where flows are generally lower. Now add to this the facts that Lanier holds the majority of storage capacity for the entire basin, that it is positioned at the headwaters of the system, and is only recharged by 5% of the total watershed.
All of these factors combined point to a generally insufficient and poorly distributed arrangement for surplus water to serve all downstream users. As Lanier is a federal reservoir (and at least for the moment, federally-operated) it is being managed for the benefit of all stakeholders — irregardless of its proximity to Atlanta. Perhaps it would have been wise for the ACE to have concurrently built another similarly-sized reservoir further to the south, to distribute the surplus across the region. I wonder if it’s too late for such a project to be possible…
-st
December 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Dalton Georgia is 50 miles SOUTH of Chattanooga and already gets several million gallons a day directly from the Tennessee river. All Atlanta would have to do is make a connection near Dalton and it would cut over half the distance of running a pipeline. Tennessee American would simply have to increase the flow.
Having said that, I would be opposed a wholesale transfer. The idea of giving some water to bring Atlanta’s water level to a safe level might be acceptable but unless there are strict guidelines, the taste of Tennessee river water would be like a drunk going back to the bottle. Trying to quench the unbridled growth in Atlanta is not possible.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I can’t find any disagreement ST.
Dan - I doubt the pipelines running into Dalton have the capacity to carry anywhere near the water Atlanta needs. Hypothetically though, if Atlanta could get the water it needed from the Tenessee River without causing pain to any communities downstream why would Atlanta’s growth need to be stopped? The reason I ask is I see a lot of anger at Atlanta’s “unbridled growth”. I can understand that view from downstream stakeholders but I’m seeing a lot of people who are angry about Atlanta’s growth who don’t seem to have a dog in this fight. I’ve never really heard anger directed toward a city because of population growth before and don’t understand where it comes from.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The problem is Atlanta knew of their limited resources but chose not to do anything about it until it became a crisis. It’s called planning. I can easily imagine after getting the water they want from the TVA the federal government coming in and taking water given to them and sending it own down to save mussels in Florida. In other words, where does responsibility come into play? Why weren’t reservoirs built? The sad fact is Atlanta was built on a piece of geography that won’t support the population base.
I believe the Tennessee River option should be only for bringing Atlanta’s drinking water up to a safe level. To simply let them have water from other areas without attempting to solve their own problems is simply not right.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:22 am
The problem with growth in the case of Atlanta is its endless, far-flung suburban sprawl, lack of functional public transportation or pedestrian culture, overburdened highways and sewers, and corporate-focused attitude towards development. This is all in my own humble opinion.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Dan and all the others who have such 20/20 hindsight -
The water situation is one that has been on the minds of some planners and policy geeks for quite some time. Otherwise, the area has made it through previous droughts without any real scare or crisis. Some watering restrictions and agriculture issues, but nothing like the current crisis.
You could lay all sorts of blame if the area saw a drought every few years and each one got a little worse than the last. In this case, the situation has gone critical in a span of four months. I have heard this called a 100 year drought, but actually I think it is worse than that. It is a 100 year drought compounded by draining the reservoir at an unsustainable rate. The two issues compounding each other makes the problem more like a 1000 year drought if we were only considering nature. I doubt many communities are practicing that kind of foresight.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
[...] the growing fight for access to the Tennessee River is going right through Dade, because it is the Georgia county that is closest to the [...]