Chattanooga sending some water to Atlanta - but not much
I thought this was kind of funny:
The (Chattanooga) mayor has officially proclaimed Feb. 27, 2008, as “Give our Georgia Friends a Drink Day.” The proclamation comes as a result of the Georgia Legislature passing a joint resolution that seeks to pursue reestablishing the boundary between Georgia and Tennessee.
The truck load of bottled water along with the proclamation will be delivered to the Georgia Legislature Wednesday morning.
“Please know that we are willing to help our neighbors to the south with this complimentary truck load of water,” said Mayor Littlefield. “And along with this water, we want to send Georgia legislators a message that focusing on conservation efforts would be much more productive than an ill-conceived land and water grab.”
Ouch. Gotta give them points for creativity, though!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I just cant find the humor in that.
There was a town called Orme,TN which actually ran out of water awhile back,so I dont know why theyre so quick to sneer.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I got a kick out of the bill, here’s my favorite line:
February 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I was waiting to post this link:
http://www.profsurv.com/archive.php?article=1215&issue=86
February 28th, 2008 at 12:57 am
SouthSide,
I saw that story about Orme, too. They never know when they might need our help, so I think they’re being really short-sighted not wanting to give us any water from the TN river. It’s a neighborly thing to do, and it’s not like it’s truly costing them anything.
And Tennesee whiskey is pretty good, but real bourbon comes from Kentucky.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:21 am
It’s the “neighborly thing to do”??!!
Gee, why can’t TN just agree to change its border? I mean, it’s just so simple. They’re just so mean (stomps foot and extends lower lip in a pout).
Craig, you have got to be kidding, right? What narcissistic BS. Unbelievable.
Here’s the latest from AP regarding the breakdown in negotiations among FL, GA and AL. AL Governor Riley and FL are so right about this.
**”I don’t think they have the same degree of needs that Georgia has,” Perdue said, according to the AP. He was referring to water shortages in Georgia.
Riley’s response was equally telling.
According to the AP, Riley said, “The suggestion by Gov. Perdue that the water supply problems of Atlanta are more critical than the needs of the people of Alabama and Florida is . . . disappointing. . . . Until Georgia accepts that its needs are no more critical than those of its downstream neighbors, the prospects for a negotiated solution are indeed dim.”
For 18 years, the three states have fought over Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River, and Alabama and Georgia have fought over Lake Allatoona and the Coosa River. Georgia wants to hold more water in the federal reservoirs to serve the drinking water needs of metro Atlantans and other Georgians.
Alabama and Florida say Georgia has done a poor job of planning for growth and that withdrawing more water from the reservoirs and rivers will take water away from their needs.**
February 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Is there a reason why all the states cannot build more reservoirs of their own? Obviously the lack of rain is a problem that more lakes won’t fix,but still,why don’t FL,AL and GA have larger water supplies since they know the population is bound to increase? They’ve known for years the population was increasing,so why isn’t this mandated along with any planned growth? It would seem like a good idea(and a selling point)to include new lakes and ponds as part of new subdivisions,office parks and shopping areas to begin with.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Some of the metro water authorities are building (and have attempted to build in the past) more reservoirs, but interests downstream have made such action difficult over the past 20 years.
It seems like Georgia is continually challenged legally by various downstream interests when it wants to do something to change the status quo, and then is castigated by those same folks when a drought comes and there isn’t enough buffering capacity to maintain downstream flow.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I should clarify — by “metro” I mean “metro Atlanta”.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I dont necessarily think the land-grab attempt was logical or feasible,however there is still no humanity in mocking a serious issue.It is ironic that we have to send water elsewhere yet when we need it what happens?And I dont get why AL and FLA have any right to block GAs right to build resoivoirs.Nobody stopped FLA from building 22(thats right,TWENTY-TWO)desal plants in different parts of the state.
Carol,given your nasty attitude toward GA,is there even a reason why you live here?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
My attitude isn’t nasty; however, I don’t let my own self-interest get in the way of logic and the law. Atlanta is the problem, not GA. I loved Atlanta when I moved here 17 years ago, and still love it, but it’s gotten increasingly unmanageable. Traffic is horrendous. There has been no planning for growth or attempts to restrict uncontrolled development.
Atlanta is a swollen beast. Atlanta is like the fat guy sitting next to you on the plane, munching on a huge bag of cheetos, expecting you to give up half of your seat to accomodate him and his gluttony and greed.
My philosophy is starve the beast.
And, by the way, no is going to die of thirst, folks.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Also, if you don’t think what Chattanooga did was very funny, you have no sense of humor! It was great!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
While we’re talking about inconsiderate, it was more than a little inconsiderate of the Georgia state legislature to decide they needed to move a boundary that had stood for 175 years. Your catch more flies with honey than vinegar: if they wanted to get some neighborly compassion out of TN, maybe they should have had a little humility instead of threatening. They got exactly what they deserve for attempting such a stupid idea.As for reservoirs… the planned reservoirs in the state of Georgia have been blocked by downstream interests, or canceled by our Governor because they were “pork”. If Atlanta were a rational and well-planned municipality, this would have meant that growth would have been throttled until future water supplies could have been secured. As evidenced by our State Legislature’s and Governor’s clumsy attempts at fixing this mess have shown, this is not a rational and well-planned municipality.On second thought, maybe the GA state government is seeing the light after all:
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Andrew,
I’m curious. Do you know on what basis Alabama and Florida were able to thwart the building of reservoirs in the past? They must have had some rational basis to have won the battle for so long.
Also, which Governor(s) cancelled reservoirs because they were pork?
Thanks for your post. I agree completely.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Andrew - regarding your position about moving a boundary that has stood for 175 years, I initially agreed with that position. But apparently that boundary was in question within the first few years. According to the link that JohnC posted, it was even disputed by the same surveyer that originally placed the marker there.
The boundary has actually been disputed for 170 years. Maybe it is time for a court to decide the dispute. One other point about that - It is being called a “land grab”. No ownership of land will be changed. Tennessee does not own that land nor will Georgia own it if the boundary changes. The term land grab is just inflammitory rhetoric.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
People crowding into Atl from all over the lower 48 is the CAUSE of all that traffic and congestion that you so dislike.And they shouldnt complain about a place they chose to move to once its no longer the paradise they fled to.You can always go home.I dont remember the last time I met a fellow native-born Atlantan.If you dont like the crowding in Atl,STOP MOVING HERE AND CROWDING IT!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I think what Tennessee did was humorous because from a practical perspective, moving the Georgia state line is never going to make a difference.
First, the move will be contested. So assuming Georgia agrees to move, and knowing Tennessee will argue against it, the fight will go back and forth in various courts until it makes it to the Supreme Court. All this fighting will, even if every little thing goes right, take a full year. That’s best case. We’re talking lawyers here though, so two to three is a more reasonable best case.
Second, assuming Georgia wins, you now have to change the laws regarding the transfer of water between basins. Right now it’s illegal to take water out of the Tennessee basin and transfer it like what Georgia needs.
Third, you have to fight everyone who has a legitimate claim to the downstream water just like the fight against Alabama and Georgia.
Fourth, you have to build a reseveroir.
Fifth, you have to FILL the reseveroir.
So you’re talking a 10-15 year plan, minimum. Probably a 20 year plan. Good for the long term - worth looking into. But anyone selling this as a solution to the current drought is sadly mistaken.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
… fight against Alabama and Florida, that should read, in the third point. It’s silly for Georgia to fight with Georgia over Georgia’s water rights.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
rkolter - much of what you say is true but you say - Right now it’s illegal to take water out of the Tennessee basin and transfer it like what Georgia needs.
Are you referring to Tennessee law or federal law? Only federal law would apply, and I can’t see why an inner basin transfer would be against federal law.
Also regarding a reservoir, I don’t think we would have to build one. We would really only be diverting a small portion of the river. The only reason to build a reservoir is if it is believed that the flow of the river would be low enough at some point that we couldn’t get the water we need. It’s like a rainy day fund (in reverse - lol). It might not be a bad idea because we could siphon water when there is plenty of flow and leave the flow of the river untouched when there isn’t, but I wouldn’t say it’s a necessity.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Assuming the border moved,
The piece of the Tennessee that became part of Georgia would not be suddenly available for tapping. It would be illegal to do so without first knowing who would control it - that’s general law.
Once the issue of control is done, you have to do an ecological survey of some kind - it would also be illegal to move forward without one, thanks to the US Fish and Wildlife service, which would want both to know what damage introducing the water and waterborne critters from the Tennessee, and what damage might occur downstream of the intake point due to reduced water.
Now, you have to deal with the ACE, who have to operate within their legal parameters, and who control the basin that the water would be flowing into.
There isn’t a specific law that says, “You can’t shunt water from A to B” but there are lots and lots of laws that in one way or another hold up the possibility of stoppng you from moving the water.
You’re right about not necessarily needing a reseveroir, but a reseveroir is exactly what Georgia needs; especially one from such a well fed river as the Tennessee instead of the very weakly fed rivers you folks have now.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
If Atlanta is up hill then returning water wouldn’t be a problem.
Why has everyone been saying ATlanta is down hill from TN River?
What is it up or down?
February 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Carol, Atlanta’s usage (either net or gross) is a very small percentage of the total, and it isn’t Atlanta’s requirements for water that are draining Lake Lanier as fast as it’s currently being drained.
Power generation is the main user, almost all of it downstream from Atlanta or its surrounding communities, as is the federal mandate to maintain the water level in the bay at the mouth of the river.
Even if Atlanta didn’t exist, the interests downstream would have the same problem they do now.
The presence of Atlanta in the equation makes for some great rhetoric and its residents and govenments make easy targets, but attacking them does not address the core issue: Users downstream from Atlanta are using far more water than Lake Lanier can possibly provide during a drought.
It’s that simple.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
It’s not that simple, Prootwadl. Georgia is the one asking for re-allocation of the water. Not FL or AL. The reason is because Metro Atlanta needs more drinking water.
Users downstream use far more water because that is the REASON the dam and lake Lanier were created.
Using Lake Lanier for drinking water for Metro Atlanta was secondary. Atlanta’s lucky to get what it gets from Lanier. Atlanta didn’t plan for its uncontrolled growth. See Andrew’s comments above. He’s exactly right.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Carol - it is a matter of perspective. You say “Georgia is the one asking for re-allocation of the water.” I say Florida and Alabama are asking for water that is currently in Georgia. Funny how you always take the anti-Georgia perspective.
You also say “that is the REASON the dam and lake Lanier were created.”
I would be interested in any references that you can come up with (other than arguments by Florida and Alabama that Georgia refutes). I have searched the internet and not found much in the way of credible sources dating back to the original building of the lake.
I will say that hydropower generation was clearly one of the original purposes. Remember - hydropower is generated at the dam. Downstream power generation is different and I have no reason to believe that it was an original purpose.
Oh and Rkolter….. General Law????? Is that something you just made up? lol.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
John - Atlanta is at a higher elevation than Chatanooga which is a pretty close mark to where the water would come from, so I think the people who think Atlanta is downhill are just confused because we are accustomed to rivers running from north to south so it seems like water should naturally flow from Chatanooga to Atlanta. Gravity however says otherwise. So yes it would be relatively easy to return the water to the Tennessee river. There would have to be a second pipe but no pumping required and the right of way would already be in place.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
1802 Articles of Agreement and Cession clearly said that GA state line crossed the TN river.
The survey was disputed soon after that. The TN river has a reservoir that was created called the Nickajack lake and Nickajack dam so that the river is now back over in GA.
Yes, federal laws would apply to the TN river to both GA and TN.
By the way the Fish and Wildlife do not write the laws either. The laws are there to protect natural resources.
If you don’t like the laws you can always move to some third world country, and drink the same water that you dump your raw sewage in to.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This is a link to Nickajack lake. Note it only took two days for the lake to fill! As opposed to a year or two for Lanier.
I don’t think Atlanta could put a dent in the TN river.
http://www.tennesseelakeinfo.com/nickajacklake/
February 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Could someone other than me please explain to RichS why the dam and Lake Lanier were built? He does not seem to understand the obvious. I’ve explained it numerous times to him. He just doesn’t seem to get it. It’s well-documented that the feds built the dam for hydroelectric power.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Wow John - major disconnect again. Sometimes you seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us. Maybe hitting the bottle already???
What I said was Tenessee law wouldn’t apply to Georgia. Federal law of course would. General law (as opposed to state or local law) - I think that’s just something that sprung from the fertile brain of rkolter.
I don’t believe there is any federal law that prohibits iner-basin transfers. We are already doing inter-basin transfers so are we already breaking some law? I don’t think we have any argument between us here John, but if you would like to argue with me, please read my posts sober.
Carol - see above comments as they seem to apply to you also……
HYDROELECTRIC as I explained above is the power generated at the dam. No one disputes that was an original use. Downstream power plants are NOT GENERATING HYDROELECTRIC POWER. As far as what other uses Lanier was built for, please forgive me if I would like a more definitive reference than the self-rightous proclamation of CAROL.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Rich,honey, you are being stupid.
The Feds own the dam and the lake. They paid for it and they have the legal right to decide what to do with it. They decide how to allocate the water. So far, they have decided that Georgia is not legally entitled to more of Lake Lanier for drinking water purposes. The court agreed in just the latest appeals court decision that Georgia could not get anymore water allocated for Metro Atlanta. Georgia DOES NOT own the dam or the lake, and they never did, so they don’t get to decide. The flows are decided by the feds and water is released for power, for navigation, for the environment, for fish, etc. The FEDS are the deciders, not Georgia. Get used to it. That’s just the way it is.
This is the last time I explain it to you.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“The two purposes for which Buford Dam (Lake Lanier) was authorized were flood control and hydroelectric generation. These were the only two
purposes to which project costs were allocated.”
–quoted from http://www.uga.edu/water/GWRC/Papers/SherkJ%20Corps%20Conundrum.pdf
However, the aforementioned paper also specifies other acts which apply to Buford Dam. It’s not simple.
“With regard to the ACF River Basin, the Corps is obligated to attempt to reconcile the statutory purposes contained in the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1945 and 1946, the Water Supply Act of 1958 and the Flood Control Act of 1962. This mandate would require the Corps to operate Buford Dam (Lake Lanier) for hydroelectric and flood control purposes (as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1945 and 1946) and for water supply purposes (as authorized by the Water Supply Act of 1958) in a manner that would not result in adverse impacts on the authorized purposes of West Point Dam (West Point Lake): (1) hydroelectric power,
(2) flood control, (3) fish and wildlife recreation, (4) general recreation and (5) navigation.”
Read the whole paper for all details.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:38 am
RichS, it appears we cross posted.
I didn’t read your last post responding to my question about elevation, so thanks for answering that. The AJC reported that it was downhill, then this last article from TN said it was uphill?
Although, I’m the only one here who is on topic, as all of my post are about the TN river, while the rest of you are arguing about Lanier. I have nothing to new add about Lanier.
Why would you assume I don’t understand federal laws regarding IBT?
Did you know IBT are against GA state law?
One good thing about Atlanta taking its water from Lanier is that it can easily return it.
I wonder when Atlanta is going to get rid of so many septic systems?
My house where I live now originally had a septic tank, but about 20 years ago the entire area went with city water and sewage that is treated.
Anway, I don’t want to get off topic here. All of my post have been about the TN river and I provided some useful links. Sorry, if they were taken out of context by cross posting.
.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
by the way RichS, I still can’t figure out why you thought I was even talking to you?
It sure doesn’t take much for you to start acting like a troll, does it?
Like I said, you can’t really blame Tennessee for not wanting to deal with selfish people like yourself. It’s best to keep people like you at arms length.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am
I found the proclamation funny. But maybe it’s easier for me since I’m not in Georgia. But it does seem likes it’s the nicest “no” they could give.
Of course giving Georgia access to the Tennessee River would cost them something. Besides the actual water, they would be constantly fighting to stop Georgia from taking more and more water over the years. If they agree to give Georgia water rights they sign up for litigation for as long as that river exists. And if some situation arose where the river level dropped, Georgia would still be entitled to their share. Why would Tennessee ever voluntarily agree to that?
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
RichS - the ACE has documentation on their website that indicates the primary purposes of Buford Dam and of Lake Lanier were to provide power generation and flood control. Providing water to Atlanta wasn’t on that list anywhere.
It’s not unreasonable to request that the primary purpose of Lake Lanier be changed. But you seem to always want to just go ahead and do things, which is a very cavalier attitude.
And yes, by the way. General Law. You cannot, as a matter of law, claim land for your own purposes when the ownership of that land is contested. The land that sits in Tennessee right now is owned by someone. If it moved to Georgia because the state boundry changed, it would still be owned by someone.
It wouldn’t be a simple case of, “We moved the border, now it’s OURS. Tough crap anyone else, we’re digging a trench to Lanier!”
That’d sure be cool though. I bet you’d get grassroots support from a lot of people if you did that. Very “American Spirit” like.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
All of those who keep claiming that water that falls in Georgia ought to belong in Georgia need to realize that the law is against you. According to this, in 1983 the Supreme Court ruled that:
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Andrew -
“Second, no state has inherent priority, absolute or presumptive, over another state in the use of water from an interstate stream.”
So that means Florida and Alabama can’t preclude Atlanta from reasonable use of the water flowing down the Chatahoochee right? Seems clear to me. We aren’t trying to preclude them from using the water that flows to them any way they like. They are the ones trying to preclude us.
Rkolter - “The land that sits in Tennessee right now is owned by someone. If it moved to Georgia because the state boundry changed, it would still be owned by someone.”
You are right about the land. It would not change ownership, but I can’t imagine there is any instance in the United States where a river crosses into a state that the residents of that state are not allowed to draw water from the river. How much water they are allowed to draw could be an issue for courts to decide if there was a challenge but I can’t imagine if the river crossed into Georgia that we would not be able to draw any water.
The only “land” Georgia might need to claim ownership of would be enough to run a pipeline. Most of that would be along existing roads that are already government owned. Probably a few acres would be claimed for the pipeline under imminent domain for which this is a valid use.
JohnC - Ok you call me a troll. I was having polite discourse with you (I don’t even think we are on different sides here ) until you said “If you don’t like the laws you can always move to some third world country, and drink the same water that you dump your raw sewage in to.” If that wasn’t directed at me please tell me who it was directed toward. I was the one saying Tennessee law wouldn’t apply to Georgia.
Carol - Oh, nevermind. You’re so bitter, angry, and disconnected that it’s no use trying to talk to you.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
RichS
“So that means Florida and Alabama can’t preclude Atlanta from reasonable use of the water flowing down the Chatahoochee right? Seems clear to me. We aren’t trying to preclude them from using the water that flows to them any way they like. They are the ones trying to preclude us.”
That isn’t what it means. It means that Georgia simply can’t say that they’ll take more water without regard to Alabama and Florida. And that Alabama and Florida couldn’t simply decide they need more water without regard to Georgia. One state is not more important than any other no matter whether they are upstream or downstream.
Atlanta isn’t arguing to use their share of the water differently, they are trying to have a larger share of the water. So Florida and Alabama aren’t precluding Georiga from how they use their share, but from increasing their share.
Think of it this way, suppose Georgia gets the border redrawn and gains access to the Tennessee River. Georgia also wins in court and is allowed to start drawing a certain amount of water from the river daily. Now Tennessee decides to damn the river further upstream and limit water downstream. Tennessee decided to start withdrawing larger amounts of water from behind the dam for whatever purpose they want. Tennessee would not be allowed to do that because Georgia would have a right to their share of the water behind the dam. Tennessee could not simply prioritize themselves above Georgia’s right to the water even though the water originally came from Tennessee.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
RichS - I think we’re in agreement on the legality of the land then. It wouldn’t be, as I said at first, so much a case of deciding who owned the land, but instead still a lengthy case of obtaining the land for this use. Just moving the border wouldn’t make the land available.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You are wrong Beth. Atlanta is not asking to “use” more water. It is simply asking to keep more of the water that is already stored here instead of releasing it downstream. What we want is basically to keep the lake full while those downstream want to deplete the lake. Why should their desire to drain the lake be given higher priority than our desire to keep water in it?
Please understand that besides somehow diverting the river, there is nothing Tennessee could do to stop the water from flowing for any extended time, nor could Georgia stop the flow of the Chatahoochee. Using that sort of example is not useful because oversimplifies and is not only not happening, but it is not even plausible.
And I will finally point out that federal law is not as clear as some people think. Federal law does give a priority to upstream users when they are using the water reasonably. Regionally, water is generally managed differently in this area of the country but federal law prevails. There are good arguments for both sides, but generally a downstream user can’t tell an upstream user how to use the water any more than an upstream user can tell a downstream one how to use the water that flows past them.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
RichS, your first point about water partitioning is horribly confused and are trying to twist the intent of the law to your satisfaction. It is written that way PRECISELY to prevent states like Georgia from claiming whatever water they wish and letting the downstream users make do with the leavings. That’s the entire point of it. A better argument you could make is that Atlanta has a more of a right to the water because there is a demonstrably larger monetary damage that will result in case the water is not given. This might have legs against Florida because often environmental damage is very difficult to attach a specific cost to (but there most certainly is a cost, make no mistake). I wouldn’t know about Alabama, the power industry has a pretty powerful lobby. In any case, the recent appellate court decision is against Georgia, as has been every other court case as far as I can tell, and it will probably be awhile before it ends up on the Supreme Court. I do like number point number three up there however, so what has Georgia done to augment the water supply? Florida has built 120 very costly desalination plants.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Andrew - please understand the problems associated with bringing desal water into Atlanta. Not only a couple of hundred miles of pipeline, plus the cost of desal, plus the pumping required to move that water nearly 1000 feet uphill. Florida is doing nothing on that scale. Nor is it being done anywhere in the world.
Consider this - Assume the water is equally valuable to Georgia as it is to Florida. Why doesn’t Florida desal water and pump it into the Apalachicola river? It would cost Florida much less to do that than it will cost Georgia to pump the same desalinized water to Atlanta with the same ultimate effect.
The truth is that however much Florida claims otherwise, they don’t really need the water in the same way Atlanta does. They want it enough to see Atlanta wither into a dust bowl, but not enough to spend billions of dollars on a solution.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
While oversimplifications abound, this is a pretty fair and reasonably unbiased summary of the law as prepared by Florida State University.
http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/131/10_ruhl.pdf
just because Georgia is upstream of Florida, it has no inherent right to
deplete the flow of water to Florida, to take priority over Florida in use of the ACF waters, or use interstate waters within its boundaries however it
sees fit. Yet, while these principles may sound good for Florida’s interests, there is more to it. First, the Court has set a high standard of injury as a
prerequisite to seeking relief in the form of a claim to the right to more water from an interstate stream.
The complaining state must show clear and convincing evidence of a substantial injury to its interests as a result of another state’s use of the
resource.9 Particularly in the East, where the Riparian Rights system dominates state water law, this burden places states interested in water
conservation at a disadvantage to states interested in rapid development of water resources (Abrams 2002). Florida, for example, is interested in leaving water in the ACF to promote ecological resources,
while Georgia seeks ever more water for its urban and agricultural sectors. It is difficult for a state in Florida’s position, under the conventional burden of proof, to pinpoint the nature and magnitude of
injury needed to open the Court’s door. If that hurdle is passed, the Court applies a rather open-ended doctrine known as “equitable apportionment” to resolve the dispute. As summarized in Nebraska v. Wyoming,10 the
51 UCOWR Water Wars JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION factors that go into this mix include, but are not
limited to:
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
RichS
“You are wrong Beth. Atlanta is not asking to “use” more water. It is simply asking to keep more of the water that is already stored here instead of releasing it downstream.”
Wrong. Atlanta is asking for more of the lake water. It was part of the deal Georgia made with the Corps that was recently overturned by the courts because it exceeds the jurisdiction that the Corps and Georgia have over the water in the lake. Keeping the water IS taking it from others because it isn’t your water to keep. Atlanta wants to keep more so that it will be there to keep providing Atlanta with water.
It’s not as if Atlanta wanted more water in the lake but wasn’t going to touch it.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“Keeping the water IS taking it”
No - keeping is keeping. Taking is taking. (I could double check dictionary.com, but I feel pretty sure about this…..)
Atlanta wants to KEEP
Florida and Alabama want to TAKE.
Unless you use the strange logic where keeping is taking and taking is keeping. I’m giving myself a headache here just thinking about it.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Beth, it’s pointless to argue with RichS about this. You are right, of course, as are Andrew and most of the other posters. Rich just doesn’t seem to get it. It’s not complicated and the rest of us understand who owns the water in the lake, but RichS doesn’t. Even an 8-year-old could understand.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Carol - your understanding is simplistic enough that an eight year old could follow it. However the situation is complicated enough that there have been some 20 years of court battles and I would venture to guess tens of thousands of pages of legal arguments on both sides. Maybe you should deepen your understanding instead of screeching at those of us who see a very complex issue in which Georgia has both some pretty strong legal and moral standing.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I saw the first post about Orme mtn running out of water.It was true but below them are many many fresh water springs that flow year round.We can drill on top of a mtn and hit good water most of the time. Orme will be ok they have paid Ala to run a line up there. Neighbors.
My problem with Georgia is their legal tactics. We have adverse possesion and have maintained and openly used this land that was poorly surveyed.I have talked with many people in Tennessee and Georgia being on the border. I know the land they are speaking of and seen almost every sq mile of it.Here is the gist of what I am hearing in Tennessee. I think it rings kinda true if events continue.
We the people of Tennessee will never let Georgia pry the first drop of water from our River.It is the Tennessee river not the Georgia river. We will fight and it will be like a war between the states. Everyone knows Tennessee is a proud state and not a sneaky gluttonous fat Government . Georgia has lost its roots and identity to to what it once was.Now the gluttony and poor planning calls for underhanded tactics.Shame !
They should have at least offered the General (you know history the train) back after they stole it at the beginning of negotiations. Instead they go in our face with lawyers and politicians.
Not only that we are having a good ole boy bass tournament this weekend if the water gets down. To much rain has made our banks over flow.All the bass being caught are in the azelias.
The sad thing is Tennessee might have worked something out if it had of started negotiations correctly.
Good luck Georgia. We do not need you to be honest and really do not care. I forget how many lifes we lost trying to stop the north from burning down Atlanta in the civil war.Maybe you guys need a fresh start again but we(the volunteers) will not be there to help this time. How do you say it in Georgia? Adios Amigo !
March 12th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I see a lot of hatred in your post TN. Unfortunately I’m sure a lot of people share your feelings.
The fact that the name of the river is Tennessee doesn’t mean you own it. Georgia could make a much stronger claim to own the Chatahoochee since about 90% of it is on Georgia soil and the water that flows through it is about 90% rain that fell on Georgia dirt.
But our downstream neigbors feel that they have more right to that water than we do. Maybe your problem should be with them. If they weren’t strangling us from use of the Chatahoochee then no one from Georgia would need the Tenessee.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Carol,
I thought that my original post on this thread (for which you blasted me) was clearly tongue in cheek. Obviously, you didn’t take it that way.
The “neighborly thing to do” comment and the crack about Tennessee whiskey not being “real” bourbon… I thought that was clearly tongue in cheek.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. There is obviously a lot of ill feelings on Tennessee’s part toward GA, and their taunting of GA in this crisis really isn’t funny. But there are those folks such as yourself that take joy in others’ misery.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I imagine this will go to the courts now that Tennesee has refused to form a water commision to awknowledge Georgias claim. I really feel no hatred towards the citizens of Georgia only the flawed government that is supposed to serve the peach state. Its so hard to beleive that the city was built without a sufficient water shed and allowed to expand.
We also do not impede the water to our neighbors downstream. That would be very foolish.
There is a solution for Georgia. They have just not figured it out yet….
Been awhile and am thinking this thread is done?