We’ve improved to “extreme drought” status
For the first time since July, 2007, Georgia has moved from “exceptional” to “extreme” drought status. While, it’s certainly an improvement, state climatologist David Stooksbury says “If this were a hospital patient, this would be like going from grave to critical”.
As you probably know, Lake Lanier is still way below normal. It’s about 15 feet below its normal summer level, which equates to about 362 billion gallons low.
For the math on that number (please correct me if I’m wrong):
- Full pool is 2,554,000 acre-feet of water
- Lanier is currently holding around 1,443,000 acre-feet of water
- That means its down by 1,111,000 acre-feet
- There are 325,851.429 gallons per acre-foot, which means:
- 1,111,000 acre-feet = 362,020,937,619 gallons
That’s quite a lot of water. The lake has been going up for the last few months, but it tends to plateau near the end of March and then start to drop. It’ll be interesting to see what happens this summer. Will we hit the magic 1035′ level (even if it’s not as bad as we thought)? Lower than that? What do you think?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Thank you for continuing to update this site, while it seems much of Atlanta has moved on! I appreciate the time and energy you have put into it to keep us informed. I know more about lake lanier, water levels, dead pools, and the usace than I ever thought I would! Just using the math provided, I came to the conclusion that it would take the full force of Niagara Falls 8.5 days to refill lake lanier to ‘full pool’ status. (4 million cubic feet per minute flow rate/7.48 gallons in a cubic foot/need roughly 363 billion gallons.) That is a huge defecit that will take years to replenish…
March 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
- In the body text, 6 million cu/ft/min during high flow.
- In the body text, 4 million cu/ft/min during normal flow.
- In the right sidebar, 202,000 cu/ft/sec (12 million cu/ft/min) on “average”.
The difference between 4 million and 12 million is quite a bit. However, even 12 million cu/ft/min would take a couple of days to refill the lake. In any case, it’s a very interesting comparison. Thanks for posting it!
March 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hydrologists do it on waterbeds.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
There’s a reason to always get a second source if you look up stuff in the Wikipedia. Two other sources state 212,000 cubic feet per second. But it depends on where you measure, as we’ve found during this drought. That 212,000 is the average out of the Niagara River at Queenston.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am
My guess: we hit dead pool but not rock bottom (well, in this case, mud bottom). Let’s hope there’s a big hurricane that comes this way right at the beginning of the season. I’m not sure, but will having the watering restrictions in place at the start of the year this time help? Let’s hope so.
I noticed in the article the guy says soil moisture is down as well. Look for more wild- and forest-fires this summer.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
My purely speculative guess is that we will breech the 1030’s, but not by much, and stay above dead pool.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
2 plans that should immediately be made into law, for gradual implementation.
First , ban the sale or installation of “top loading washers”. People can keep their current top-loader as long as they wish. But when Ol’ Betsy chugs her last lug, it will not be possible to replace her with another top loader.
Second , enact legislation whereby all new construction (commercial and residential) will be required to build water-catchment systems on the site of construction, or under that sight. With currently existing structures (whether residential or commercial) , whenever the roof over that structure has to be replaced, a water catchment system must be installed as part of that overall “roof job”.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
That’s a little drastic Paul. What am I going to do with a roof cachement system? Take showers in rainwater??? I don’t water my lawn - so it isn’t going to get used for that. If you want a roof catchment system, you pay for it. Don’t ask me to pay for something that would have zero value.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Andrew & Rkolter - I think both of your predictions are a little toward the pessimistic side. I would either hope we get a decent amount of rain this summer or the lake is managed better either by the Corps of Engineers or by dictates from the Feds (either court system, congress, or executive - since they are all involved).
Average loss is only about seven feet during the year. No one knows how much rain we will get, but groundwater is not in great shape which probably means lower than average inflow rate, however the COE should be managing the lake to try to refill it, and we have watering restrictions still in place which would mean less loss than average all else being equal.
So there are way too many unknowns to make any predictions, but a fair guess might be that 2008 ends up at a similar level as 2007.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Seven feet from 1071 might be the same as 10 feet (or 15, or 20, who knows) from our current level.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Last year we went down 15 ft from June thru Dec.,so if the summer is dry as last year and the ACE exerts the same policy this year(and lets hope neither will be the case)we could possibly hit 1041 or so in winter ‘08,still 6 ft above dead pool.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Good point Mickey. I didn’t take that into account. Hopefully we get plenty of rain though and reality proves better than any of our predictions.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I looked into this last fall somewhat and the difficulty is that Atlanta is sitting pretty much on bedrock (mostly gneiss for those who are interested). Unlike the sandy plain to the south and east, there’s not much pore space, only what is in fractures in the rock, so there’s not much groundwater. Also the Floridan aquifer, the name of the one to the southeast, is already oversubscribed due to agricultural and probably some municipal use also. On the coast they have problems with salt water intrusion.
Regarding catchment systems: Interestingly, Georgia Tech has been putting these in its new buildings for some time. Last summer they were still able to water their grass using this water. I thought that was remarkably forward thinking on their part. (Of course, regarding our earlier discussion, every gallon they catch is prevented from getting back to the watershed.)
March 28th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Andrew - regarding my earlier statement about groundwater I wasn’t trying to imply that there is a large supply of groundwater that we can tap. I was talking about groundwater that finds it’s way into the ACF. For instance we still had inflow into Lanier even last year when it hadn’t rained for 30+ days.
I haven’t really seen a lot of discussion about it, but I certainly believe that healthy groundwater supplies are also important to the health of the ACF.
And catchment systems are perfectly fine if you feel a need to water your lawn or have some other use for the water. But if you are going to make a law that says every house must have one, I guess you should also make a law that everyone has to water their lawn twice a month with that water. Otherwise, just as Andrew says, the stored water is prevented from getting back into the watershed - with actually a negative impact (though minute).
March 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Mickey wrote, “Seven feet from 1071 might be the same as 10 feet (or 15, or 20, who knows) from our current level.”
Actually, Mickey, there is no need to speculate. In point of fact a 7 foot Lanier drawdown from 1071 ft represents, in equal volume, an 8.65 ft drawdown from the current level of 1056.4 ft.
– DSO –
March 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
March 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I visited Bermuda recently and all the homes had the same roof. They were white (formerly limewash, which treated the water as it swirled down) and routed into the basement or outdoor cistern, where the water is treated with charcoal, I believe (http://www.thebermudaroof.com/). Residents can then use their rainwater. There’s a link to an episode of “This Old House” which explains it even better.
They live on an island, so water is precious, and this Fremen-like water conservation seems like a no-brainer for us.
I’m also curious as to which contributes more to the drought - residential water use or residential electricity usage. We’ve done squat to conservce electricity compared to what we’re being asked to do in terms of conserving water.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Looks like we have a train of showers training through the lanier watershed this morning. They may last most of the day, just to the North of Gainsville. With luck they may slowly drift a little more to the south.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
DSO - Mickey hates the truth about the drought, it reduces his Google Adsense revenues.
RichS - it’s RAINING, it’s POURING, CL AIN’T snoring!
BGAAAAAWWWWKKKKK!!
March 29th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Dipship - that’s GAINESVILLE not GAINSVILLE
BGAAAWWWKKKK!
March 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Go back and read some of the earliest posts from the Atlanta Water “Shortage” blog - we should have run out of water by now!
BGGAAAAAWWWWKKKK!!!!!!
THE LAKE IS FALLING THE LAKE IS FALLING
March 29th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Mickey, It’s a simple calculation using USACE lake capacity data tables. Those tables are on the first sheet of this USACE excel spreadsheet, http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/h2ovolum.xls
The tables list capacity (volume) in Day Second Feet vs. surface level in feet. It should be noted that USACE uses linear interpolation to generate the 0.1 foot incremental table data between each whole foot of surface level.
– DSO –
March 30th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
How much of Lake Laniers lowered water levels is due to the lack of rain and how much is due to “manipulation”, which is probably the wrong word, by the Corps of Engineers and our ongoing battle with our neighboring states?
March 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
While it’s easy to say that, and it certainly appears to be the case, it would be tough to measure. Lake Lanier is short by 360 billion gallons. How can you split that up and allocate a certain amount to “LACK OF RAIN” and a certain amount to “DOWNSTREAM INTERESTS”? Those are the two major causes, but I don’t know how you can accurately calculate it.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:54 am
Once again, the forecast this week is for above average rainfall.
Go about your lives, love your children and your spouse, lend me some sugar - I AM YOUR NEIGHBOR!
BGAAAAAAWWWKKKKK
March 31st, 2008 at 5:01 am
Mickey, Charlie, and all,
Perhaps a look at some recent Lanier history would be instructive. Georgia experienced a four year drought in the years 1999 to 2002 inclusive. In May of 2000, Lanier’s level peeked at 1068.4 ft, 2.6 ft short of the target 1071 ft summer pool. In June of 2000, with no relief from the drought in sight and while inflows were averaging a paltry 450 cfs, the USACE undertook a three month program of elevated outflows averaging nearly 2000 cfs. Naturally, when outflows exceed inflows the lake level falls, and by the end of August, 2000, the lake was down to 1059.7 ft. During the remainder of 2000, outflows were trimmed to an average of 1028 cfs while inflows averaged only 535 cfs; the normal fall rains never materialized. By the close of 2000 the lake was down to what was then a record low of 1056.0 ft.
It was clear at this point that if the drought continued unabated in 2001, and if the USACE repeated the large summer outflows of 2000, the lake level would drop to unprecedented lows in 2001. Reality was clashing with USACE policy and something had to give. Of course, given Mother Nature’s intractability, it was USACE policy that gave, and outflows were trimmed substantially in 2001 and 2002 to averages of 851 cfs and 822 cfs respectively. This policy shift resulted in calendar year lake level gains in 2001 and 2002 of 2.9 ft and 9.7 ft respectively, and by March of 2003 the lake had exceeded its target summer pool level of 1071 ft. It should be noted that the large gain in 2002 was also due to substantial fall and winter rains, which, by the way, marked the end of the four year drought.
The salient point in all this, and this can not be stressed enough, is that despite the alleged water requirements of downstream power plants in Alabama and Florida, and despite the over-the-top verbal rhetoric, political machinations, and legal wrangling of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and his Attorney General, Lanier outflows can be reduced substantially during periods of drought. It should also be noted that even the reduced outflows of 2001 and 2002 greatly exceeded the water requirements of the Metro Atlanta water districts that draw from sources downstream from Lanier. In short, don’t blame Atlanta for Lanier’s low levels. Instead, blame the ridiculously large water demands of downstream power plants in Alabama and Florida – demands, it should be noted, that are virtually unsustainable in periods of extended severe drought.
Now, fast forward to January 1, 2007 when the southeast USA was again in the throes of another drought. If the USACE had adopted in year 2007 the reduced outflows it adopted in year 2002 then Lanier would have actually closed year 2007 with a gain of approximately 1 ft instead of the loss of 11.8 ft that actually occurred. Continuing the scenario, the lake level today would be just a few feet below full summer pool of 1071 ft.
Mismanagement? Unfair interstate allocation? Those questions will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court and Congress.
– DSO –
March 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am
[...] check of the great blog, Atlanta Water Shortage, gives us an update on the drought status of the region. Sounds like its still very necessary to conserve water. Who knows how long this lifted ban [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
DSO, one thing that is ultimately missing from it is why the power plants have priority over keeping lake level high. Lake Lanier was not built in order to supply Atlanta with water, it was built for flood control and to supply power plants in AL and FL with water. I’m not saying Atlanta shouldn’t have priority, but this is my understanding of the rational behind ACE’s actions. GA has tried and tried to get Atlanta bumped up in the list of people who have priority for that water but thus far they have failed. Metro Atlanta has had runaway growth for decades now, and the state and local agencies have done precious little or had very little success in expanding its access to drinking water. So you say don’t blame Atlanta, but a classic real-estate scam is to build houses with no access to water, it’s illegal in most civilized places. If metro Atlanta had had more responsible zoning or spent more on infrastructure to support the growth, perhaps we wouldn’t be as concerned about the Lake level because the water needs of the city would be less, or because the city had a more dependable source of drinking water.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Andrew - I have several disagreements with you but let’s start with your statement “Lake Lanier was not built in order to supply Atlanta with water, it was built for flood control and to supply power plants in AL and FL with water. ”
I have never seen any indication that one of the original purposes of Lake Lanier was to supply downstream power plants. I believe you are confusing hydropower generated at buford dam which was undoubtedly an original purpose with cooling downstream power plants which wasn’t.
Actually contrary to your statement, Atlanta’s water supply was at least mentioned as a justification for building Lanier and I don’t believe downstream power plants were. There was no money budgeted for Atlanta’s water supply, so it doesn’t hold the same legal weight as flood control or hydropower.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Chasing your own tail is overrated - it’s going to rain ALL WEEK
(chasing tails is underrated!)
BGAAAAAWKWKWKWKWKWK
March 31st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Accuweather is calling for about a half inch all totaled and I got about .3 inch last week. We need about an inch a week this time of year just to be normal. Yes the drought is improving. No, Lanier isn’t refilling to anywhere near where it should be.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:20 am
Andrew S., Richs, and all,
Andrew S. wrote,
Actually, Andrew, you are wrong on two counts. Firstly, supplying water to non-hydroelectric power plants either in-state or in other states was not among the purposes enumerated in the River and Harbor Acts of 1945 and 1946, which established the project purposes for the construction of the USACE facilities on the ACF. Secondly, when Congress authorized the creation of Lake Lanier, it relied on a USACE study that cited the follwoing six specific benefits of the project,
a) Savings to the public in transportation charges.
b) Value of hydroelectric power developed.
c) Value as a facility for national defense.
d) Increased commercial value of riparian lands.
e) Recreational value.
f) Value as a source of industrial and municipal water supply.
-
– DSO –
April 1st, 2008 at 3:50 am
In an earlier post I analyzed what would have happened to Lanier’s levels in 2007 if the USACE had adopted the same low drought-time outflows it adopted in 2002. The result was that Lanier would have closed the year with a gain of approximately 1 ft instead of the loss of 11.8 ft that actually occurred, and today the lake would be just a few feet below full summer pool of 1071 ft.
Now let’s examine what would happen this year (2008) if both the inflows and the outflows of last year were repeated from today (4/1/08) to the end of 2008. Under such a scenario, the lake level would bottom out at 1035.4 ft on 12/26/08. Merry Christmas!
And, no, this is no April fool’s joke.
– DSO –
April 1st, 2008 at 5:26 am
Just 6 months ago people here were saying we’d be out of water by now, and there would be a mass exodus from metro Atlanta.
IT AIN’T HAPPENING FOLKS.
I DID MY CHICKEN LITTLE RAIN DANCE, LO AND BEHOLD, IT RAINED!
(AND OH YEAH, SONNY PRAYED)
BGAAAAAAAAWWWKKKKKKKKKK!
April 1st, 2008 at 8:41 am
I finally found a disagreement with you DSO. Andrew is wrong on more than two counts. Ok, part of it isn’t exactly wrong - just strange in a twilight zone kind of way.
“a classic real-estate scam is to build houses with no access to water, it’s illegal in most civilized places.”
Maybe his meds were wearing off.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
RichS wrote,
Rich,
The idea was this: Andrew was wrong on two counts in the bit I quoted.
Andrew is correct, however, that Metro Atlanta should have been building more reservoirs. The ironic thing is that Alabama doesn’t want Georgia to build more reservoirs!
Consider this. Seventeen years ago Georgia considered a plan to build 15 regional reservoirs in the state. The first reservoir was to be built in Haralson County near the Alabama border. That reservoir became the basis of Alabama’s first Federal lawsuit against Georgia.
That lawsuit was the opening salvo in what would become a protracted regional water war. Even today, Alabama continues to file lawsuits to stop Georgia from building new reservoirs. And once a reservoir is built, Alabama files lawsuits in an attempt to prevent the filling of the reservoir.
Latest case in point: Hickory Log Creek Reservoir in Cherokee County. Alabama filed a Federal lawsuit in 2007 (specifically, they amended an existing lawsuit) in an attempt to prevent the filling of the new reservoir. Says Alabama Attorney General Troy King, “Alabama will not stand by and let the insatiable water demands of Atlanta trump the vital downstream interests in our state.”
In a nutshell, this is Alabama’s position,
1) Alabama has first rights to ACT and ACF basin water.
2) Georgia should not be permitted to build additional reservoirs in the ACT and ACF basins.
3) Extant reservoirs in the ACT and ACF basins, including lakes Lanier and Allatoona, should be operated and managed by the USACE to the exclusive benefit of Alabama.
– DSO –
April 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Here’s my source. It says right here in the article:
Yes okay, technically my statement was false in that “incidental use of municipal drinking water” was allowed, but its priority was after hydroelectricity generation (DSO, you listed municipal drinking water as f, below even recreation). However, considering the Appellate court did not side with Georgia, then forgive me if I’m skeptical of your suggestion that the ACE is going to get sued for mismanagement or that downstream power suppliers don’t take precedence over Atlanta.
And RIchS, my source for the zoning laws is the AJC.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Oh… and I suppose I’d better correct myself again: the ACE might get sued but my guess is they won’t be sued successfully. Given the state of Georgia’s idea of good water policy is to try and move the border with TN, I wouldn’t want to underestimate what they’ll try.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 am
DSO, on what basis is Alabama filing these lawsuits? And why do they keep winning? It seems there must be some validity to these lawsuits, or they wouldn’t have been so successful in keeping the reservoirs from being built.
I have never been able to find an answer to these questions.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 am
Andrew - in your quote above, “The lake’s original and authorized purposes were to provide hydroelectricity and flood control.”
As I have mentioned many times on this forum - hydroelectricity is not what they are producing in the Alabama and Florida power plants. Alabama and Florida are not arguing for hydroelectricity nor flood control.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Andrew S wrote,
Andrew,
1) Your cited article’s use of the phrase “incidental use” is entirely arbitrary and is not supported by the studies, reports, and Congressional Acts upon which the creation of Lake Lanier was based.
Instead of railing with baseless hyperbole about Atlanta’s “insatiable water demands”, Alabama Governor Bob Riley would do well to take measures to trim his own state’s demands on ACT and ACF water – demands that far exceed those of Metro Atlanta.
2) Your suggestion that the USACE list of Lanier benefits that I cited was in some form of hierarchical order is not only foolishly presumptive, it’s just plain wrong.
3) The Appellate Court decision you cite was based on legal technicalities unrelated to the larger issues involved. Those larger issues remain, and will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court and/or Congress.
4) Cooling water for downstream power plants was not a purpose for which Lanier was authorized or built.
5) The massive 2007 Lanier drawdown was not due to Metro Atlanta’s water use. Rather, it was due to the greatly disproportionate demands of downstream power plants in Alabama and Florida.
6) Alabama’s and Florida’s demands for downstream flows, which require massive discharges and large summertime drawdowns from ACT and ACF reservoirs during times of drought, greatly exceed the flows required by Georgia. This contradicts Federal law which mandates equal use of shared interstate water resources.
7) Florida has over 1000 miles of ocean coastline affording an abundant source of cooling water for power plants. In this era of dramatic climate shift and dwindling fresh water resources, it is beyond absurd that an aging coal-fired power plant 3 miles south of the GA-FL boarder, producing a paltry 92 MW of power, should be apportioned 5000 cfs of vital fresh water flow from Georgia’s basins in times of drought. The plant should be shut down.
9) If the drought continues this year unabated, USACE’s Lanier discharges will change, and they will change because reality will trump USACE policy just as it did in 2001 and 2002. Perhaps it is time, at long last, to bring both reality and fairness under existing Federal law back to USACE Lanier policy rather than waiting for Mother Nature to periodically force the issue.
– DSO –
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 am
The funky blogging software turned my point 8 into a sunglassed smiley. How quaint. I’ll have to remember that, cuz it looks kinda cool.
– DSO –
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
DSO, the appellate court decision that you so flippantly dismiss (#2 in your post above) was based on interpreting the original charter for the dam and lake. Per that court decision, Atlanta is allocated anywhere from 0%-13.9%. No more.
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, Metro Atlanta could get up to 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.
It is GEORGIA that’s asking for re-allocation and asking to change the percentage that it gets. AL and FL are not asking for re-allocation. Georgia is asking for re-allocation because they need it for drinking water for Atlanta. So, yes, Atlanta’s population is what’s driving this water war.
Could someone please answer my question about Alabama has been successful so far in fighting the building of reservoirs in Georgia?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Correction: the appeals court decision was about two months ago. Not two days ago.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
I see several typos in my post above, so I’m just going to post again the whole thing.
DSO, the appellate court decision that you so flippantly dismiss (#3 in your post above) was based on interpreting the original charter for the dam and lake. Per that court decision, Atlanta is allocated anywhere from 0%-13.9%. No more.
This is from the appeals court decision a couple of months 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, Metro Atlanta could get up to 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.
It is GEORGIA that’s asking for re-allocation and asking to change the percentage that it gets. AL and FL are not asking for re-allocation. Georgia is asking for re-allocation because they need it for drinking water for Metro Atlanta. So, yes, Atlanta’s population is what’s driving this water war.
Could someone please answer my question about why Alabama has been successful so far in fighting the building of reservoirs in Georgia?
April 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Carol wrote, “The appellate court decision that you so flippantly dismiss (#3 in your post above) was based on interpreting the original charter for the dam and lake. Per that court decision, Atlanta is allocated anywhere from 0%-13.9%. No more.”
Sorry, but you are wrong on both counts. Firstly, the decision was not based on “interpreting the original charter for the dam and lake.” Indeed, the court specifically spoke to this in II, 1, footnote 2, which was further amplified in the concurring opinion of Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Secondly, nothing in the decision caps Atlanta’s allocation at 13.9%. The decision merely recognizes that 13.9% was the de facto allocation when the agreement was reached in 2002.
Carol wrote, “At the very most, Metro Atlanta could get up to 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.”
Let’s be clear, the decision is this and this alone: The reallocation agreement of 2002 between USACE and Georgia water supply providers, reallocating 22% of Lanier capacity to Georgia, constituted a major reallocation under the Water Supply Act (WSA) and therefore required Congressional authorization. The decision does not set a limit on the amount of water that Georgia or Atlanta will ultimately be allocated. Indeed the issue is not even addressed.
As for your second point, yes it is true that in 2002 the Office of the Army General Counsel (OAGC) rejected Georgia’s request for reallocation. However, that request was for a reallocation to 35% of Lanier capacity for local use. The request was rejected because OAGC determined that such a reallocation would constitute a major operational change under WSA and would therefore require Congressional approval.
Carol wrote, “It is GEORGIA that’s asking for re-allocation and asking to change the percentage that it gets. AL and FL are not asking for re-allocation. Georgia is asking for re-allocation because they need it for drinking water for Metro Atlanta. So, yes, Atlanta’s population is what’s driving this water war.”
No, the populations and commercial interests of all three states are driving the water war. Alabama and Florida are not seeking reallocation for one simple reason: current allocations are wildly disproportionate in their favor. Indeed, to turn the tables, it could well be argued that current allocations for Alabama and Florida are illegal under WSA and are contrary to the purpose for which Lanier was authorized and built. For example, the current large allocations for downstream non-hydro plants are contrary Lanier’s original purpose and are arguably illegal under WSA because they reflect major operational changes that were never approved by Congress. Additionally, large Lanier outflows to accommodate “endangered” coastal mussels are arguably a misapplication of the Endangered Species Act. The ESA dose not require extraordinary artificial environmental manipulation to save endangered species, yet that is exactly what large Lanier outflows in times of drought represent. Indeed, any extant coastal mussel populations in the affected regions may well have died off quite naturally in the droughts of the last two decades if not for Lanier.
– DSO —
April 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Correction to my previous post. Last paragraph. sentence beginning “The ESA does not…”, should be changed to: The ESA dose not mandate the application of extraordinary artificial environmental manipulation to save endangered species, yet that is exactly what large Lanier outflows in times of drought represent.
– DSO –