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.

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.

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 !

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.

“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.

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:

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.