I can’t find the same link that went into the details of the pending federal lawsuit by Al and Fl.

Essentially, the major decision in federal court is due early next year over the ACE decision to increase Atlanta’s share of Lanier by 10%. I thought everyone knew about this pending ruling?

Anyway, the judge was hammering the ACE for this because it was the first time the ACE did this without congressional approval. Although, Georgia thinks if it loses this case, it will go to congress and get the increased 10% anyway.

I hope the three states can reach an agreement soon.

It’s a shame it’s gotten to this point.

But seriously - yes Atlanta does have a problem with their water & sewer infrastructure. They are in the process of a massive multi billion dollar overhaul. They started the process maybe five years ago and we have discussed it in this forum before. So yes there is a problem and it is being addressed. I would consider it very relevant if Atlanta wasn’t going to extraordinary measures to fix it already. Could the process be faster? Possibly. I can’t say when the estimated completion date is, nor if your figures are a couple of years old when the process was in earlier stages.

And I read your link. It summarizes a good bit of legal arguments - none of which have been decided by the courts. I’m not sure what you wanted me to read there.

I’m not sure why it’s such a challenge for some of you to look at both sides of the issue, without making personal attacks.

RichS, I dind’t make that up. You can google the water wars and learn for yourself that the ACE 1990 allocation of 10% to Atlanta should have been approved by congress. I also said Georgia would “probably’ lose, because this is what I have read by experts. Then Georgia will have to take it to congress.

here is one link right off the top, there are many others. sorry i don’t have time to do all your research for you.

http://www.alabamarivers.org/current-work/water-wars/water-wars-background

Once again you personal attacks don’t provide any useful information. You are an inhospitable individual, and if my post bother you that much, then don’t read them.

People are here to discuss the issues not me. You may devalue my post but other may appreciate a balanced approach, and can make decisions for themselves, based on both sides of the issue.

The best models currently in practice for management of a multi-state river basin involves a co-operated “regulatory commission” including representatives of each state, plus a federal representative. The federal role, in this case, is advisory and functions to ensure the decisions of the board comply with federal statutes.
The benefits of a regulatory commission are several (here I’m paraphrasing from an important book on the subject, “Interstate Water Allocation”):

Benefits: Regulatory powers –

- Ability to require long-term conservation
- Mediation to reconcile water-use disputes
- In times of drought: commission takes over operation of major reservoirs and can ban nonessential use
- The commission’s staff serves as extension of state agencies; experts from engineering to PR help states in their missions.

**Federal involvement across compacts has shown to be undependable and various in policy – no uniform national policy towards interstate water**

-st

As I understand it, the research has already been done, as part of the 10-year “comprehensive study” conducted by the Corps and the tri-states at the beginning of the Water Wars. This was the “unique experiment in information as negotiation” that was meant to preclude lengthy litigation in the courts. Projections for demand were made all the way out to the year 2050. Yet the states basically ignored the research they’d devoted themselves to for a decade, and gave up on negotiating. Hence, the continued stalemate.

It’s important to realize that interstate water allocations have succeeded in fairly apportioning the resource among other states in the past. We need look no further than the Delaware River Basin compact for an impressive example of equitable water sharing in action. Water scarcity is a new problem for the southeast, but it has been experienced and solved by other regions of the US through interstate compacts for a long time. The Tri-States are being extremely selfish, shortsighted, and obdurate in their attitude towards fair negotiations, and this will be their undoing.

It’s also important to understand that abandoning this decision to the “courts” eventually means the Supreme Court, as this will be where the final allocation decision would end up if not handled by the states themselves. Congress is the only other entity that can forge such contracts, aside from the Supreme Court. This is not an eventuality that any of the states desire, nor does the Court wish to deal with it. It’s too complex and regional an issue to hand off to some arbitrary, uninvolved “decider.” And any further complaints, which there would most surely be, would wind up right back at the Justices’ table. A very poor, but perhaps inevitable, solution to this problem.

-st

“Georgia has already flip flopped and is now embracing conservation because this will be part of the agreement between the three states.”

You’re making me puke just a little inside my mouth. Just a tiny bit.

First isn’t that what you have been crying about? Then you are pissy when you get it? Second - remember we have been under some level of watering restrictions for years. Even when the lake was full and it was raining constantly.

Actually aren’t we the ones giving them water? There is a difference between us giving them less and them giving us something. Georgia gets ZERO water from Alabama or Florida. It’s a cute rhetorical trick to say that we are asking them to “give Georgia” more water. Sorry, it doesn’t fly with me.