ACT/ACF
TRI-STATE WATER BASIN COMPACTS
(A project of JSU's EPIC)
December 1999
BACKGROUND
The Compact Commissioners include
the Governors of each State and two Federal
Commissioners - Mr. Lindsey Thomas, CEO of the Georgia
Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Pete Conroy (Alternate
Commissioner), Director of JSU's EPIC. Both were
appointed by the President of the United States as
non-voting members. Under the ACF River Basin Compact,
the three State Commissioners must negotiate and agree
on a proposed allocation formula and present the
formula to the Federal Commissioners for concurrence
before the allocation formula can be implemented.
Under the ACT River Basin Compact, the two State
Commissioners (AL and GA) must do the same.
The compacts were signed by the
President in the Fall of 1997 and they were
implemented on the first day of 1998. Following,
are articles written by Commissioner Pete Conroy
(appointed on January 28, 1999) that describe the
compacts and their current status. For more
information please contact us here at JSU's EPIC.
ANNISTON STAR
GUEST EDITORIAL #1
by Pete Conroy
August 30, 1998
Keep your gold and keep your silver
because now it's time to fight for water! Ninety-seven
percent of the world’s water is saltwater and only
three percent is fresh. Two percent of that is locked
up in glaciers and polar ice caps. That leaves only
one percent that is useable. As the population
of the southeastern United States continues to grow,
our fraction of that one percent is becoming more and
more precious. So, if you like showers, flush toilets,
boating, swimming, fishing, diverse wildlife and yes,
even drinking water, its time to read on and prepare
for the impact of the tristate "water war".
The following article is a summary
of the ACT and ACF Interstate Water Compacts and the
complicated Environmental Impact Studies (EISs) that
will affect them. So, to start off simply, what is the
ACT and ACF? They are the watersheds which form two
different drainage areas or basins. To the west there
is the Alabama River, Coosa River and Tallapoosa River
which form the ACT River Basin. To the east there is
the Apalachicola River, Chattahoochee River and the
Flint River which form the ACF River basin. At issue
is an agreement or "compact" that were
reached between the federal government and the state
governments of Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Its
purpose: to settle an old debate over who has rights
to use and impact the river water flowing from Georgia
into Alabama and Florida. The ACT and ACF Water
Compact is the result of well-accepted state and
federal legislation that established a Commission
charged with the task of developing a mutually
agreeable water allocation formula by December 31st,
1998. The Commission is made up of each state’s
Governor and a Federal Commissioner, selected by the
White House, who represents the many federal agencies
involved. Each Commissioner has "Alternate
Commissioners" who attend the meetings and work
hard to represent their respective state. An Alternate
Federal Commissioner has not yet been named.
The compact was signed by the
President in the Fall of 1997 and it was implemented
on the first day of 1998. From that time, the
commission has one year to agree on an allocation
formula. Now, after spending the first eight months
getting positioned and establishing ground rules,
there are only four months to go and, in ways, the
actual negotiation has just begun. It was only a few
weeks ago when the Georgia team presented the first
water allocation proposals for the ACF and ACT. Last
Tuesday, the Alabama team unveiled their ACT counter
proposal, known as the Alabama "strawman" to
an Anniston City Meeting Center audience filled with
"stakeholders", all eager to hear and
provide input to the new strategy. With much
excitement, Alabama is now preparing for the September
1st showdown meeting in Montgomery where Alabama
formally present their proposal to the State of
Georgia. In the meanwhile, the next ACF meeting is
tentatively scheduled to be held in Florida on
September 8th.
Finding a water allocation consensus
isn’t easy. Especially when there are so many of us
using the water and wanting it for so many different,
and sometimes conflicting reasons. There are those
that own homes on river or lake fronts who don’t
want to live with devalued property, shallow water and
muddy banks. There are municipal and industrial
(M&I) leaders who require water for consumption in
their cities and for their businesses. There are an
extraordinary number of plant and animal species that
require clean water throughout the natural cycles of
flood and drought. There are navigational needs,
electrical power generation needs, recreational needs
and other environmental needs.
The significance of this compact can
not be underestimated. Not only will it determine the
tristate distribution of southeastern water over the
next fifty years, but also, it will set a precedence
as to how other states will resolve their water
conflicts. The decision will have an impact worth
billions of dollars to each of the three states. The
impact will not only effect water quantity, but also
quality. For example, if less water is allocated to
flow from Georgia and across the state line into
Alabama, pollution will not be as diluted. This will
cause regulators to tighten water pollution permits
and in turn, this will cause municipal and industrial
pollution dischargers and ultimately consumers to
spend more money. A lot more money. Increased
pollution will increase the cost of treating drinking
water drawn for the lakes and rivers. The allocation
of water will impact everyone.
So now, to make things even more
confusing, how does this Environmental Impact Study
fit into all of this? As you may know, anytime there
is a project that might have a major impact on the
environment, the federal government may be require
that an EA (Environmental Assessment), or for bigger
deals, an EIS, be completed to assess the predicted
affect on the environment. This tristate water
deal is really, really big and so a full EIS is being
written for each basin. They are being written by a
contractor for the US Army Corps of Engineers. Each
EIS will be critically important as they will serve as
the basis for the Federal Commissioner’s concurrence
or approval of the final allocation formulas. Also, if
the three states cannot agree on an allocation
formula, the decision will be made by federal judges
who, by law, must use the EIS as an essential guide
for a final ruling.
Because the tristate water agreement
could have an enormous affect on the flow of both
river basins, there is more than ever to address in a
single EIS. In fact, many are saying that this EIS is
one of the most complicated ever. Some are saying that
it is being written too fast and without enough public
input. Indeed, the language of the compact dictates
that a draft of this EIS be published and distributed
by October 1998. Because this would make it impossible
for the EIS to include the final and agreed upon
allocation formulas, others are saying that the EIS
should just be postponed. In any case, the EIS process
needs our concentration just as much as the water
allocation process.
Both the negotiation process and the
Environmental Impact Statement process are probably
the important activities being conducted in the
Southeastern United States. As the future of Alabama,
Georgia and Florida hangs in the balance, this process
deserves the best minds and the most attention
possible.
ANNISTON STAR
GUEST EDITORIAL #2
by Commissioner Pete Conroy
November 7, 1999
If you have been one of the people
following the water compacts, you may have noticed
that Sunday, October 31st has come and gone without
much notice. So what was the significance of last
Sunday? It was a self-imposed deadline by which time
Alabama, Georgia and (in the case of the ACF) Florida
had discussed a desire to reach negotiated settlements
that would essentially share the surface waters of the
ACT and ACF river basins. Because of a required
sixty-day (two month) public review and comment
period, the October 31st deadline would have allowed
them time to finalize the agreements by the other
self-imposed deadline of December 31st. They didn't
make it.
They did not reach a settlement last
week, and truthfully, I'm not surprised. The issues
that they are dealing with are among the most tangled
ever considered. The compacts are complicated
technically, politically and legally. There are dozens
of interests at stake. There are unfounded fears and
real fears. There is arrogance and there is paranoia.
And after nearly two years of compact discussions and
nearly ten years of consideration, there is now a
growing sense of exhaustion.
I am a believer in the compacts. I
want to see the states reach an agreement. I want them
to avoid the complicated legal battles that could go
on and on, costing tax payers millions of dollars per
year for possibly decades yet to come. I want to see
the states engaged in a perpetual dialogue allowing
for real compromise and real partnership building.
Like most everyone, I just want to see the process
work, but that's not my job. Instead, my job is much
easier. In fact, I may have the easiest job in the
whole process. President Clinton appointed me to serve
as the Alternate Federal Commissioner so my role is to
essentially back up the other White House appointee,
Commissioner Lindsay Thomas. If there is a negotiated
settlement, it will be our job to concur or non concur
with the agreement based on over a dozen federal laws.
If an agreed upon allocation formula causes the
violation of federal law, Commissioner Thomas must non
concur. There would then be an opportunity for the
states to adjust the formula back into compliance. If
an allocation formula is in compliance, then he may
concur, setting the process in motion.
Since the October 31st deadline was
missed, December 31st is now the target for an
agreement and, somewhat informally, the states have
discussed extending the compacts for just the 60 day
public comment period.
After attending countless meetings
with stake holders, interest groups, negotiators,
federal agencies, congressional interests, the
committees and commissions it seems that negotiated
settlements may be further away than December 31st. At
other times there appears to be hope. Regardless, for
those who have followed the compacts and for those who
have not, the next few months may be the most
interesting ones to watch. If the compacts fail,
whether you are a Governor, appointed negotiator, or
casual observer your opportunity for involvement will
end. Then it's up to the lawyers and the courts. So to
all involved and all to be affected by the flow of
these waters, stay engaged for as long as it is
possible. No less than the economic and environmental
health of our Tri-state region is at stake.
Related Links:
THE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & INFORMATION CENTER
Jacksonville State University
-
Jacksonville, Alabama
 Tri-state
settlement on water between Florida, Georgia &
Alabama - - Efforts to reach a
tri-state settlement on water sharing appear to be
headed for failure, President Clinton's appointee to
the process said. Negotiators from Georgia, Alabama
and Florida have been trying for almost two years to
craft a regional water-management plan to divide up
the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
river basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa river
basin. The headwaters of both systems are in
Georgia, and they pass through the explosive growth
area of metro Atlanta...
TOP
|
