The so-called “Water Wars” among Georgia, Florida and Alabama have been a miserable, wasteful experience. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent in lawsuits to resolve how to meet water needs across an area that stretches from above Lake Lanier to Apalachicola Bay. After all that time and all that money, we are no closer to a resolution today than we were in 1990, when the first lawsuit was filed.
It’s time to consider a new approach, one that is based on regional cooperation rather than regional litigation.
For the last six years, I have been privileged to work with the ACF Stakeholders and alongside 55 other dedicated individuals who possess a deep knowledge of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and how its water sustains many different uses.
Each of us represents frontline water users. Our group includes water planners from the Atlanta Regional Commission sitting across the table from Riverkeepers and oystermen from the Apalachicola Bay. Our group includes power company executives, farmers, manufacturers, recreational interests, scientists and officials from communities throughout the Basin. Stakeholder interests from Georgia, Florida and Alabama were all represented.
We have developed a Sustainable Water Management Plan that lights a path toward equitably sharing the water in this river basin. You can read the full Plan and all of its recommendations on the ACF Stakeholders website. acfstakeholders.org/swmp/
Stated simply, we need to do a better job of managing the water we have and preparing for the next drought.
We need to conserve more water, even as we acknowledge the progress that has been made, especially in the Atlanta region. We need to store more water in our reservoirs when we have it, so that it’s available during droughts.
We need to take care of the Apalachicola Bay, just as we would any industry. The Bay is an important environmental habitat, an economic engine for Florida’s Panhandle and represents a way of life for the people who live there.
We need better drought management plans that rely on a common set of definitions, triggers and actions that proactively adjust for drier conditions, rather than waiting for the situation to become dire.
And finally, we need a forum for collaboration among the states where they can study water management issues and build consensus around the best ways to share the water that we all depend on. Our plan recommends a formal transboundary water management institution to serve as that forum. This body has the potential to facilitate future water management plans as the facts and the science become clearer.
This plan is the result of years of study, listening, discussion and debate, supported by facts, science and expert modelling. It contains compromises because that is the only way a limited water supply can be shared.
Most importantly, 56 different stakeholder organizations from all three states have agreed that they can live with this plan and that it is a workable plan that meets our needs in times of drought. It is far better than the status quo and, if applied, it is the basis for lasting regional cooperation.
About the Author
