– DSO –

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 —

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?

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?

– DSO –

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.

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.
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.
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.
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 –

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.