In water war, science is on our side

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a proud organization with roots deep in this nation’s history. But in the ongoing water war among Georgia, Alabama and Florida, the proud Corps cowers like a whipped, beaten dog.

I guess that’s understandable. Corps officials who operate the dams in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system try to please a multitude of masters. They have to obey laws that are unclear and contradictory; they have to deal with senators, congressmen, governors and local officials from three states, all telling them to do very different things; and they have to try to figure out what science and logic tell them to do, on the off chance that science and logic might someday get a voice in the matter.

JAY BOOKMAN
MY OPINION

• E-mail Bookman

Recent columns:

• Fourth of July's about freedom that is earned 
• Familiar Georgia may melt away 
• Slowly, green shoots of optimism appear 
• Inciting fears in hard times dangerous 
• Georgia Senate endorses radical idea 
• 'Socialist' charge has lost its power to sting 
• Legislature, we've got your number 

In the meantime, the Corps’ preferred approach has been to do as little as possible, in hopes that approach will generate the least anger.

For example, the Corps is now updating its “water control plans” for the ACF basin and for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basin, which includes Lake Allatoona. Those plans will dictate how the agency runs its dams, and Florida, Georgia and Alabama are watching closely, each insistent that its interests take priority.

As a result, the corps is likely to change little or nothing in dam operations, despite that fact that Lake Lanier is now four feet lower than this time last year, when a sense of crisis filled the air. (While the drought has eased in some areas, it remains intense in the headwaters of the Chattahoochee basin, the watershed that feeds Lanier.)

In effect, the corps is playing a dangerous game, protecting its bureaucratic hide even if it increases the risk of serious water shortages that would affect not just metro Atlanta but downstream users as well.

That lack of control frustrates state and metro leaders, and that frustration has in turn produced a crazy idea or two, such as trying to move our longstanding boundary with Tennessee to get access to the bountiful Tennessee River. Other officials believe that the best approach is to build new dams under state rather than federal control.

The appeal of dam-building is obvious. You can visualize hundreds of millions of gallons of water, ready when you need it. You can see that water, drink that water, touch that water. A dam is a big dramatic response to a big dramatic problem.

Sometimes, though, it’s smarter to take a lot of smaller-scale responses, such as mandating use of efficient plumbing fixtures and charging a lot more for water above a basic use level.

Such humble policies can be a hard sell, in part because of simple human nature: The water you save through efficiency and conservation is harder to imagine than water stored behind a massive dam. The concept that you “create” two gallons of water every time you flush a modern low-flow toilet, with that two gallons multiplied many times over day after day, is hard to grasp.

Yet conservation is a far more immediate and concrete source of water than a dam. Plans for a reservoir can go awry at any point in the process — in permitting, land acquisition, finances, construction, court cases, etc. And if you clear all those hurdles and build a reservoir, you still need rainfall to fill it.

In contrast, conservation is guaranteed. Every flush, another two gallons. Georgia and metro Atlanta also need to rethink their basic strategy. This “water war” is being fought on three fronts: legal, political and scientific. Legally, our chances of victory seem mixed given federal law. Politically, Alabama and Florida have power in Congress that would be difficult for Georgia to overcome.

Our best hope lies with science. Two members of Congress from Florida have floated the idea of a major study of the ACF basin by the National Research Council. Campaigning in Florida, Barack Obama recently endorsed that approach, a step that some interpreted as taking Florida’s side.

Actually, he was taking Georgia’s side. Our interests would be far better served by a decision reached through science and fact than through raw political power or court rulings. Our state’s congressional delegation ought to embrace Florida’s idea and push it into law quickly.