Secrecy poisons water debate

By Gil Rogers

A federal judge recently granted a request by Georgia, Florida and Alabama to issue a secrecy order covering negotiations over the tristate water wars. This is a bad idea that ought to provoke a public uprising in all three states.

First, the water is not owned by the states. In fact, the water is not owned by anyone. It is a public resource that the states have the right to manage in the public interest. The state governments are water stewards on the public’s behalf and governments are accountable to the citizens they serve. Bringing government activities into the sunshine is the way we, as American taxpayers, can see how our money is being spent and decisions made.

Under established principles of U.S. law, states have certain rights to take actions on behalf of and in the interest of their citizens, so perhaps the states have the technical legal right to negotiate secretly among themselves to resolve the tristate water disputes.

But secrecy is not good policy in a democracy. In fact, it is terrible policy to allow a small group of politicians to make closed-door deals on management of our region’s most important environmental, recreational and economic resource. What could be less suited for secret deals?

The secrecy agreement is much worse than reported by news agencies. Not only does it allow states to negotiate in secret, it allows the states to bring into the negotiations only a select group of the powerful and privileged few who have private interests at stake — including utilities, big agri-business, manufacturing and other big money industries — and cloak their involvement in secrecy to the exclusion of public citizens who have a critical stake in the outcome of the negotiations.

Towns, fishermen, farmers and everyday concerned citizens and their families who rely on this water have just as much stake in the outcome of the negotiations as big special interests whom the states cherry-pick to be privy to any secret deal-making.

The waters of the Chattahoochee, Flint and Apalachicola Rivers are used by millions of people for a host of different things, from drinking water to electricity to shellfish harvesting.

No one subset of these interests should be allowed to hold sway over other equally important interests or the public interest.

Even if the states have a legal right to do this, it is bad policy and could affect public buy-in on any deal that may be reached. It also could result in further protraction of litigation, which is not the best way to solve our water challenges.

The litigation among the three states is entering its 20th year. Everyone should be hopeful that the ongoing negotiations will come to a good, balanced resolution and that the interstate waters will be shared in a way that allows for continued economic growth while protecting natural systems and healthy stream flows for all citizens.

The states are right to take measures to promote efficiency and forward momentum in the negotiating process. But it needs to be an open process.

Our waterways are critical community resources, not trade secrets.

Gil Rogers is senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.