Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.US“Soon it’s gonna rain …” — NOT!
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The most frustrating thing about a drought like this one is the waiting.
You know it has to end … someday. You know the rain will come back … someday. You just don’t know when someday is going to come.
So you wait, because there’s not much you can do to hurry a drought along.
Lawsuits can be like that too. The states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, are embroiled in a tangle of lawsuits over the water resources shared among the states. Someday, a final resolution of those suits could clear the way for sane management of Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River and wipe away uncertainties concerning Atlanta’s future water supplies.
Someday, but not today or tomorrow, of course. Because once judges and lawyers get involved, there’s not much to be done to hurry things along. You just have to …
Wait.
But in this case, we do have other options. Our dispute with our neighboring states is a human problem, not a meteorological phenomenon. And as a human problem, it has a human solution. We just have to find it.
But so far, I don’t see that happening. Negotiations have failed, mediation has failed, and leaders in Congress and at the state level appear to have resigned themselves to muddling through this mess, leaving our situation unsettled for who knows how long.
Nobody seems to have a vision of where we want to be in another three years, along with a clear plan for getting there. The only proposal on the table at the moment is that loopy idea of the Georgia Legislature to slice us off a piece of water-rich Tennessee. At a time when Georgia is trying to cast itself as a voice of reason and compromise in the water wars, that’s more than a little off message.
In Florida, however, Democrats U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson at least have the germ of an idea. They have introduced legislation in Congress calling for a $1.2 million study of the Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system by the National Research Council. Florida officials apparently believe such a study would validate their claims that the water consumption of metro Atlanta is doing serious damage to downstream users.
However, at least some metro Atlanta officials also like the idea of an NRC study, because they believe it would validate their own claim that Florida’s problems are being caused by the drought, not by growth in metro Atlanta or excessive water consumption.
“We have always asserted that there is ample water available to meet the needs of all of the basin users if we base decisions on facts rather than political posturing,” says Chick Krautler, director of the Atlanta Regional Commission. “… A balanced inquiry that develops a comprehensive, shared fact base amongst all stakeholders is the first step toward decisions we all can live with.”
This all sounds intriguing: We have two parties that are very far apart in their understandings of the issues dividing them, with each side so confident in the virtue of its position that it is eager to have an outside body of experts come along to validate its opinion.
Sounds like we have a deal. As Krautler says, that may indeed be a “first step toward decisions we all can live with.”
In their legislation, Nelson and Boyd ask the National Research Council to “conduct a comprehensive study of the water management, needs and conservation” of the ACF basin, requesting that it report its findings within two years.
Georgia’s congressional delegation ought to sign onto that bill as co-sponsors and get it passed into law as quickly as possible. In two years — we hope — the current drought will have ended, easing some of the heightened passions now blocking honest discussion. By then, an objective, conclusive scientific report could also give politicians in Georgia, Alabama and Florida the cover they might think they need to make compromises.
Let’s stop waiting and do something.
Services »
Comments
By Dennis
June 30, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
It puzzles me each time you do it. Each time that you write about the drought, Lanier and water wars, you produce a non-emotional, non-agendized, logical and objectively practical article.
The puzzle is why this is the only subject you can give that treatment.
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 30, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
To DENNIS:
One possibility is that I approach other subjects the exact same way, but on those subjects you already have conclusions and emotions and agendas of your own that conflict with mine, and thus color your reaction.*
Just a possibility…. I admit there are others.
*I should add that while I do TRY to approach all subjects that way, I’m not claiming to always succeed.
By hillbilly ragger
June 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
But Jay, “emotions and agendas?”
We conservatives are MANLY! We don’t mix emotions with politics! Why, our well-staked positions on such topics as abortion, gun control, and the death penalty are all about facts, and not about what makes us all choked up inside!
How dare you assert otherwise. Why, I’m going to go tell Mommy on you.
/winger
Yep, they’re an emotional lot, all right. In the last thread, “Observer” was so hyped up on this whole “drilling our way to energy independence” that he claimed the US’ oil reserves were greater than those of the Saudis!
Yeah, Observer, I’m going to go on calling you out on this. Man up and admit you fell prey to stupid right-wing talking points. We can’t drill our way to energy independence. We just don’t have as much oil in the ground as those folks we aren’t so friendly with. Fact’s a fact, bro. Deal.
By Taxpayer
June 30, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Well. Personally, I think that Mr. Bookman has not formulated a strong enough opinion on this topic to be able to “come across” as a “[insert adjectives here] liberal” to those with such preconceived notions. That’s just my opinion though.
By newkid
June 30, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Historically we’ve attempted to resolve interstate water conflicts through elected officials, attorneys, and water managers with more or less modest involvement of other ‘interests’ through various stakeholder processes. The elected officials have consistently and expectedly exhibited a silo-ed approach; the involved water managers track this silo approach as they’re employed through agencies ‘controlled’ by elected officials; and the attorneys expectedly demonstrate the most interest in that which is most likely to feather their nests (and why not?).
In none of these three major combatants have we found a consistent voice for a resoltuion of the issues based upon the reality that states in the southeast - now much more than in 1992 when the conflict began in earnest - represent a single economic entity to whose benefit it is to work toward a solution that is in the best economic interest of the entire region. Perhaps the best positioned entities to advance this perspective are organizations representing the collective business interests of the southeast U.S. (e.g., state and regional chambers of commerce) in conjunction with state and interstate conservation entities. Clearly these entities cannot ‘lead’ the process, indeed the issues require a political solution; but leadership does not almost require one’s presence at the negotiating table.
What has been remarkable is how absent the interstate business community has been in consistently and effectively pushing the elected officials toward a balanced solution that recognizes that the economic future of the interstate region is best served by cooperatively working to produce an agreement that is both economically productive for the region and environmentally sustainable for the region’s resources. We’re mired in 20th century politics while being surrounded by 21st century realities. If the 6 states of the southeast can cooperate to jointly pursue business arrangements with several Canadian provinces (as they did in a jointly held conference in Savannah during the latter part of the week of June 15th), then this same sense of joint interest must begin to reflect itself in our joint interstate management of natural resources.
And not only is this influence and leadership not present on water issues, it is also absent on air quality management issues that affect the southeast US; not consistently there on economic development issues affecting the southeast US; and largely not there on transportation issues affecting our southest US region.
After almost 20 years (depending upon how one counts) of this particular interstate water issue, we must clearly see that this is an issue (perhaps like several others)that cannot be effectively resolved using yesterday’s paradigms.
Sorry for the long post, but this is one about which I could go on for days.
By Jay's brother
June 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
My dearest brother, Dennis wrote that this piece was nonagendized, logical, and objective(which amazingly I agree with); to which you replied that this is how you approach EVERY topic. Now I know that in the ivory tower fantasyland that you perch yourself on in your office, you think of us minions as mindless gnomes who can easily be easily swayed by the written word, but please, you are an OPINION writer—by definition you have an agenda/bias/slants…You have even said so in previous posts. Being objective is not part of your soul. Please, this is insulting
By demwit
June 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
YEs, I too have noticed that Jay always seems to write non-emotional, non-agendized, logical and objectively practical articles. Especially when covering subjects like, Bush, republicans, liberals, religion, military service, public schools, civil rights, etc, etc, etc….
By DamItAll
June 30, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
I’ve been thinking about putting a little dam across the branch that flows through my property. After all, it is on my property. I should be able to dam it, right. I was telling my neighbors about my idea and they liked it so much that they said that they were going to dam the branch too. On top of that, they said that they were going to spread the word to their neighbors. Now that little old branch is going to have hundreds or thousands of dams on it. They may as well just get it over with and dam it all to…well, you get my drift.
By Dennis
June 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Jay; Of course my biases and agendas are different from yours.
That is clearly what makes yours incorrect and subject to criticism.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
June 30, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
It’s true the drought isn’t man made but over development intensifies its effect. This isn’t the first drought and it surely won’t be the last. The fact remains this is a very large population for a small watershed.
By Taxpayer
June 30, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
To heck with all this talk about taking water from Tennessee. We need to be digging a big ditch out to the Mississippi. Now there’s some water. I’ll bet they won’t even miss whatever we take. Heck. Their water even comes pre-mixed with pesticides and fertilizer so it’s all set for garden use as-is. I’ll bet it even has the EPA seal of approval.
By rightytighty
June 30, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Real journalists don’t write their own conclusions, emotions and/or agendas. They just report the facts and let the people decide their own conclusions, emotions and/or agendas. Hopefully someday, we will have “a sane management” style for the rest of you guys too.
Hey I know…, how about if we only allow southern born residents to remain in Georgia? That would dramatically reduce both our water and liberal problems!!
By Longboarder
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
rightytighty, you are ALMOST correct about “real journalists”. Change “Journalist” to “Reporter” and I agree 100%. But Jay writes on the editorial page, which is the proper place for a journalist to state opinions. Jay and I are diametrically opposed politically, and he really gets my blood boiling sometimes, but I agree with him on the water issue. Especially about getting the bill passed right away. As soon as we get enough rain to refill Lake Lanier, the public and the politicians will forget all about the very real water problems we face. Then when we have another drought, we will likely be in worse shape than we are currently.
By Jay's brother
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
The problem with my brother Jay and his comrades is that he so fervently believes in his convictions, in his mind he IS being objective. Whereas liberals paint conservatives as small minded religious zealots driven by the superstitions of the Bible, Jay actually believes in his man-centered view of the world and that his positions on abortion “rights”, the “right to vote”, the “right to healthcare”, the LACK of right to bear arms, the right to gay marriage ARE INDEED OBJECTIVE positions. They also believe that NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN have no liberal bias while Fox has an extreme right-wing bias. The fact is folks, please don’t listen to these tools (left or right). Find out the facts and come to your own decision—Jay and his colleagues fear this greatly b/c it will expose their irrelevance.