Sharing Water in Alabama, Georgia and Florida: An Update on the Tri-State Water Wars

Tammy L. Shaw, J.D.

Introduction
Unlike the western regions of the nation, the southeastern United States has historically enjoyed plentiful water resources. However, changing climatic conditions worldwide has plunged the southeast into first stage drought conditions, with some areas suffering from severe drought conditions. Across much of this region, streams, rivers and lakes, in recent years, have been at the lowest levels ever recorded. This condition has continued to worsen since the late 1980’s as the southeast experiences mild winters, very hot summers, and below average rainfall. The persistency of the drought conditions, coupled with increases in water use by industries and growing populations has resulted in a controversy over water quantity and allocation between several southeastern states.

In 1997, the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida agreed to form two interstate water compacts, the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Compact (ACT) and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Compact (ACF), to hammer out agreements on how water resources, shared by the states, should be allocated between the three states. The dispute over surface water usage, commonly referred to as the “tri-state water wars”, began in 1990 when the city of Atlanta, after assessing its projected population growth and future water needs, sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to create new reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River, the Flint River, and the Coosa River that would hold back an additional 529 million gallons of water a day to be stored in Lake Sidney Lanier, Atlanta’s major source of drinking water. Atlanta’s long-term plan included an increase in withdrawals of 50% from the Chattahoochee and the Flint by the year 2010.

Tri-State Dispute
This proposal and announcement by the Corps set off a dispute between Atlanta and its downstream neighbors, Alabama and Florida. Alabama viewed the plan as a threat to its own water supply, possibly stunting industrial and population growth in the state and resulting in degraded water quality due to the decrease in water flow. Alabama argued that the downstream flow already brings with it Atlanta’s pollution and that a decrease in the water flow would mean that the pollutants would be even less diluted. Florida joined the dispute contending that the plan to siphon off more water from the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers would deplete the flow into Florida’s Apalachicola Bay and would critically injure the state’s $70 million oyster industry.
Unable to convince Georgia to halt its plans, Alabama filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent the Corps from implementing the siphoning plan. Florida later joined the suit. In 1992, the lawsuit was suspended pending a comprehensive study of the future water needs of the three states. The study addressed four broad issues: water resources demands, water resources availability, flood and drought management, and interstate coordination strategies. The early results of the study led the states to construct two interstate water compacts that would allow the states to analyze the study findings and divide the water resources accordingly.

Interstate Compacts
The Compacts encompass two separate river systems. The ACT originates in north Georgia and southern Tennessee where the Coosa and Tallapoosa flow into northeast Alabama, meandering southward to join the Alabama and the Tombigbee rivers, eventually emptying into Mobile Bay. The ACF also originates in the hills of north Georgia, flows through metropolitan Atlanta and winds south along the Alabama-Georgia border, joining the Flint River and emptying into Florida’s Apalachicola Bay. The core of the Compacts created a Compact Commission, made up of the governors from each state and one federal official, who share the responsibility for negotiating an equitable apportionment of the surface water resources in each basin. The Compacts also established a series of deadlines for reaching the allocation agreements with the initial deadline set for January 1, 1999. However, the time-lines in each compact have been extended many times, with the most recent extension ending in June of 2001. A settlement was expected on June 22, but fell through at the last minute. Negotiators are scheduled to meet again on July 30, 2001.

Allocation Negotiations
Negotiations between the three states are ongoing with each state submitting proposed allocation formulas for each of the two basin compacts. The parties agree that this is a complex issue and point out that they are covering new ground in establishing mechanisms for managing shared water resources between the three states. The ACT and ACF compacts are only the second and third such agreements existing between states east of the Mississippi River and the basin areas involved are much larger than the ones usually dealt with in the western United States.

At a recent meeting in Atlanta, negotiators from each state expressed optimism that they are close to reaching allocation agreements and are certain that the lessons learned from this process will benefit other states in managing water resources. The basin-wide study and the ongoing analysis and negotiations have resulted in more reliable methods for predicting growth and development in the region and an understanding of the importance of assessing water needs before scarcity issues arise. The agreements underscore the importance of sound science and accurate information in regional decision-making, and it is the intent that the ACT and the ACF compacts will result in better long-term management and conservation tools for sharing water resources in the southeast.

In what is considered by many as the “worst case scenario”, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide this matter if the three states are unable to reach a complete agreement. All parties acknowledge that resorting to a lawsuit is likely not in the best interest of any of the states involved and recognize that reaching a complete and comprehensive agreement is imperative.
For more information visit the web site of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of Water Resources:
http://www.adeca.state.al.us/AOWR/compacts/index-compacts.htm