Federal appellate court rules against Georgia on water ruling
Georgia was looking to get an agreement to reallocate some of Lake Lanier’s water from hydropower downstream to water supply for the metro area. Today, a federal appellate court shot it down.
The change would have given Georgia rights to 65% more water from Lake Lanier, bringing their total to around 25% of the total storage capacity of the lake. Alabama and Florida fought hard against it, saying “the change would constitute a major operational change, which requires Congressional approval under the Water Supply Act.”
George Sherk, a water law expert, wasn’t kind to Atlanta either — “The logical response for metro Atlanta right now is no new building permits unless the applicant can demonstrate a long-term water supply. But pigs will fly before Atlanta does that.”
Congress could potentially intervene on behalf of Georgia, but Mr. Sherk thinks that is unlikely to happen. There are a few other routes that the state could take now (appeals, hearings, etc), but it’s unclear what action will be taken next.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:27 am
This is a very frustrating ruling, although I do understand why the court found this agreement unenforceable. Bureaucratic procedure trumps common sense in this case.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Mr. Sherk is completely right. Stop the ridiculous building. This is great news for those of us in Metro Atlanta who want a better quality of life. It took me almost an hour to get from Buckhead to my home in Morningside last week.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:17 am
“Barmeyer, the attorney representing metro governments, said the decision finally makes clear that a fundamental question will have to be litigated: whether providing drinking water to metro Atlanta was one of Lanier’s original purposes. The three states are currently locked in court action in the U.S. District Court in Middle District of Florida over longer-term allocations of water.”
The answer, of course, is “No.”!
Finally, reason prevails in this ruling.
Yipee!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Here’s the article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/06water.html
Here’s an excerpt, where Governor Riley states the obvious:
Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama hailed the decision as “the most consequential legal ruling in the 18-year history of the water war, and one of the most important in the history of the State of Alabama.”
He said the ruling “invalidates the massive water grab that Georgia tried to pull off.”
Alabama and Florida, which depend on water from Lake Lanier for power generation, industry, recreation and commercial fishing, argued Georgia had no legal right to the reservoir, which was ORIGINALLY BUILT FOR HYDROPOWER.
It was unclear late Tuesday whether Georgia would appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. Calls to Gov. Sonny Perdue’s office seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Though the fast-growing Atlanta area relies on the reservoir, the other states have argued that Georgia has done little water planning over the decades and HAS NOT TIED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TO WATER RESOURCES.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
It’s really no big surprise. Georgia was never going to win this particular battle in the water war. It would have gone no differently for Alabama or Florida if they’d tried to broker a deal themselves either. It’s an issue all three states have to come together on; the longer any one state pushes it’s issues ahead of the other two, the longer nothing will be accomplished.
It was disheartening to read that if no deal comes up by Feb 15th, the longer term solution is more legal wrangling. This is exactly what I feared would happen when I started watching all this unfold though.
Good to see the lake is still rising (and hello again from my long hiatus).
February 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The problem with rkolter’s statement is that Alabama and Florida have a legal right to the water. Georgia does not. So, Alabama and Florida are not going to “come together” with Georgia. The governors are not going to hold hands and sing kumbaya. So, there will be legal wrangling, and our tax dollars will be squandered and Alabama and Florida will win.
Congress could solve it, but would not likely solve it in favor of Georgia, as Florida has way more political clout.
It’s a great win for Alabama and Florida.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Carol - Good call on the political clout. From the article:
“You only need eight states to win the presidency. Florida’s one of them. Georgia isn’t. Florida’s political clout dwarfs Georgia’s.”
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“Georgia has no legal right” to water in Lanier yet Al and Fla do??Ironic.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Southsidenative,
I didn’t say that “Georgia has not legal right to water in Lanier.”
I said that AL and FL have a legal right to the water (that they are receiving now). Georgia does not have a legal right to 25% of the total they were wanting. They can’t strike a deal with the Corps of Engineers without congressional approval. It’s illegal.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Carol, you said, “The problem with rkolter’s statement is that Alabama and Florida have a legal right to the water. Georgia does not. So, Alabama and Florida are not going to “come together” with Georgia.”
In fact, all three states have legal right to the water. You accurately say that Georgia doesn’t have the legal right to strike a deal with the Corps of Engineers. My point was that neither does Alabama or Florida.
You’re right though - Alabama and Florida right now are in the position of power - they have to do nothing to continue to receive the water they are getting downstream, while Georgia has to fight to keep water in Lanier.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
the longer term solution is more legal wrangling.
How would you prefer that people handle their disagreements? Pistols at dawn?
February 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The funny thing is the watershed for this river basin is almost entirely in the state of GA. So Florida and Alabama seem to have a greater right to rain that falls on Georgia dirt than Georgians do.
Something that you may not know about Alabama is their legal standing is questionable because the Alabama border is actually the western bank of the river - not the center. So much like Georgia can’t tap the Tenessee river because our border is a mile away, Alabama may be in the same situation but only by feet instead of a mile.
Not that anyone wants to deny Alabama use of water - just that they may be arguing about water that they don’t have a legal right to at all.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
This was the right decision by the appeals court. AL and FL have a legal right to their share of the water. The reservoir was created and paid for by the feds 60 years ago and the dam was for hydroelectric power. Lanier was never meant to be Metro Atlanta’s sole source of drinking water. Why Perdue thinks GA can claim more than its share of Lanier to feed Metro Atlanta’s uncontrolled growth is hard to understand. If Metro Atlanta doesn’t have the infrastructure to support its growth, then it needs to control its growth. Period. No one is going to die of thirst. People will just quit moving here, developers will quit developing, businesses won’t locate here, and Atlanta will become a much more manageable city. Great news!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Ok Carol - What is Georgia’s share then and why? 1/3? 1/10th? Please enlighten me - what is our share??????
February 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
This from the article:
The way I read the decision is that the appellate court said that the corps of engineers would exceed its authority in making such a massive change to the a reservoir that congress funded and falls under this water supply act (which I haven’t read up on, but will do so). The rain may fall in Georgia, but the dam and the water behind it belongs to congress. Maybe it’s time for Georgians to start electing congresspeople with a little more breadth of scope? My congressman doesn’t seem to give a hoot about anything that isn’t civil rights related, I know, I look at his voting record. Ted Stevens seemed to do wonders for Alaska, he got congress to spend huge piles of money to build bridges to nowhere. Surely some more effective candidates could do something productive, if only garnering some “pork” for another reservoir. The Georgians seem unable to do this for themselves as the last planned reservoir was killed because it was “pork” too.
P.S. Mickey, is it convenient/possible to add a preview button for comments? Sorry, I make a lot of mistakes. Thanks!
February 7th, 2008 at 12:16 am
I’m sure Georgia will take this to Congress like they should have in the first place.
IMO, this was nothing more than ACE exceeding it’s authority. If they had given more water to AL or FL the decision would have been the same.
Hopefully we will learn more science and facts than politics.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:59 am
RichS,
At the least, 0%, which was the amount allocated when the dam was built. This is from the appeals court decision a couple of days ago:
“But the appropriate baseline for measuring the impact of the
Agreement’s reallocation of water storage is zero, which was the
amount allocated to storage space for water supply when the lake
began operation.”
At the very most, 13.9%, which was the status quo in 2002, when the Office of the Army General Counsel rejected Georgia’s request for greater allocation of Lanier for drinking water purposes.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
So Carol if only 13.9% of the water in Georgia belongs to Georgia, then 86.1% belongs to Florida and Alabama? When rain falls in Florida and Alabama how much of it belongs to GA? Obviously zero. Doesn’t seem very fair does it? What’s ours is theirs and what’s theirs is theirs.
And I have heard a lot about the “original use” of the dam. That sort of thing changes all the time. What something was used for fifty years ago shouldn’t dictate what it gets used for today.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
RichS, you don’t seem to have a good grasp of this issue. When rain falls in FL and AL, I don’t believe any of it belongs to GA.
I suppose if a dam were built in FL by the feds and if water flowed upstream :), then maybe GA would be entitled to some of FL’s water. But that scenario is just as ridiculous as your above comments :).
February 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The only way GA’s Congressmen/women will demand action is if they think the water issue may threaten the fountain at the King Center.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:18 am
RichS and Carol,
I think the problem here is that RichS is using logic to make his points, and Carol is using her burning desire to see Atlanta shrivel up and become an average, unimportant southern city, to cloud her view of this issue.
That’s why you two don’t see eye to eye on this. Just my opinion from reading both of your posts.
I’m sorry Carol, but the facts do not support your claims. We shouldn’t stop growing simply because you don’t like all the growth, or because you believe the growth is causing the water shortage. As documented throughout this website, growth did not get us into this water shortage.
However, I will submit that growth is a KEY issue that needs to be addressed moving forward in our statewide water plan.
But the key issue at play in this drama is political power.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Craig,
The facts I quote are from the appeals court decision.
So, RichS and I don’t see eye to eye because I am actually providing facts. You guys just want more and more water that does not legally belong to Georgia.
Sorry, guys, the law is on the side of AL and FL.
Here is what you guys aren’t getting: the REASON that Georgia wants the extra water from Lanier is because METRO ATLANTA is running out of drinking water. So for you to say that growth is not causing the problem is completely fatuous. FL and AL are not asking for more drinking water, GA is! Because METRO ATLANTA needs it for drinking water.
What part of this are you two not getting?
Seems like everyone else (except a few people on this list) gets it.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Wow Carol - way to frame an argument. “FL and AL are not asking for more drinking water”. No, they are asking for more water for keeping fish wet, and power plants operating.
Where we disagree Carol is that I believe Georgia has a significant claim to the water. You could say the water is shared by three states so 1/3 of it belongs to Georgia. Or you could say that 80% of the watershed is in Georgia so 80% of it belongs to Georgia. Either of those would have some logical basis.
You think somewhere between 0-13.9% of the water belongs to Georgia. I see no rational basis for that. Neither do I find it rational that you moved here from Alabama and are complaining about population growth. You are as much a part of the problem as anyone. Please move back to your beloved Alabama and quit being a hypocrite.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:08 am
RichS - Carol’s argument is this: The federal government (COE) built Lake Lanier dam to create a reservoir that was funded and chartered to provide power generation for Georgia, Alabama, and Florida NOT drinking water for any state and that minimum flows are mandated federally to protect the environment. Therefore, per the original charter, Georgia (Atlanta) is not “legally” entitled to utilize Lake Lanier as a drinking water reservoir.
Logic, on the other hand, is on the side of Georgia (the water originates in the state AND the reservoir is located in the state). Georgia probably will be allowed to use some of Lake Lanier’s storage capacity for uses other than power generation but only if agreements can be worked out between all affected parties. Logic aside, this issue will have to be resolved in the courts between parties with competing interests.
Finally, I do hope that we all agree that water is not an infinite resource and that all parties must realize this and strive for wise use and conservation.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Is it illegal for residents of metro Atlantans to drink water that has been stored in Lake Lanier?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
One idea that has not been brought out is the Alabama and Florida do not “keep” any of the water that flows down from Georgia. All the water just flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Lake Lanier was created to collect the water and send it down the rivers to produce electic power. Electricity is first produced in Georgia, then Alabama and finally Florida. Everybody wins. If there were some states below Florida they would get the water, but since there are none it just flows into the Gulf. All of us seafood lovers benefit from that, in that the northern Florida beaches are some of the richest fishing waters in the world because of the rich flow of minerals coming down from the rivers.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Carol,
When the entire metro Atlanta residential usage is less than 4% of the water released from Lanier daily, how can you say that Atlanta’s growth is what’s causing THIS shortage?
The shortage is clearly caused by poor water management. The Corps’ operational manuals haven’t been updated since the dam was built in the 50s. A lot has changed in all THREE states since that time, so to say that we should stick to the original charter is ridiculous.
The situation needs to be re-evaluated based on current data and needs in all 3 states. However, you have a political mess, because everyone wants the water. Our politicians need to get the job done for us, and so far it’s business as usual for them.
Rich has the most logical argument on this post. The majority of the watershed and the entire reservoir is in GA, so logically speaking, GA should have first dibs on this water reservoir, at least a fair share. That’s what should happen when this is all worked out. We’ll have to see what actually happens.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Georgia does not own the water in Lake Lanier. Period. It was created when the feds built the dam. What part of this do you not get?
AL and FL are not asking for re-allocation. GA is. GA is because it needs more water to supply to Metro Atlanta’s ever-expanding population. So, yes, Metro Atlanta’s ever-expanding population is the problem, because that’s who needs the extra water.
Somehow, you think you know better than the appeals court that decided this. Have you even read the argument? I have.
Your argument is incredibly sophomoric. Basically, you’re saying “lake lanier is in GA, so we get the water.” That argument is not even worth responding to.