“This controversy has lasted a very long time.”
— From the U.S. Court of Appeals water decision
The latest legal ruling in the tri-state water wars gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers one year to figure out its part of the squabble over water flows from Lake Lanier. Three federal judges believe that is sufficient time to decide the complex matter. In our view, it should also be more than long enough for the three states to reach agreement among themselves.
The legal wrangling over Lake Lanier’s water has crept through multiple courtrooms since 1990. The dispute won’t be resolved anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean Alabama, Florida and Georgia should not work harder to settle how our water is allocated.
Time and resources are being wasted each day that teams from the three states are not meeting in earnest attempts to reach a deal. In this instance, no news is most likely not good news. Given the secrecy surrounding negotiations, it’s not possible to gauge whether significant progress has been made. It’s a smart bet, though, that we’re probably still a long ways off from a negotiated end to the dispute.
The appeals court did deliver good news for the Atlanta metro. The ruling in late June by a panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals washed aside U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson’s 2009 finding that use of Lake Lanier for water supply in the Atlanta region had not been adequately authorized.
That portion of the appellate court’s 95-page order led to collective relief among water-watchers in metro Atlanta even as Alabama threatened to appeal. Our region and Georgia had faced a July 2012 deadline to reach agreement with Florida and Alabama or see water use rolled back to 1970s levels.
Judge Magnuson’s water deadline put Georgia at a competitive disadvantage. Removing for now the threat of turning off much of Atlanta’s water should spur Alabama and Florida to settle, since the metro area is now on a more-equal footing with them. Alabama’s lack of a statewide water management plan may also help our negotiating cause.
The appellate court ruling set a hard deadline and points the corps toward reaching a relatively quick decision on parceling out Lanier’s water. Given that the plan for who gets how much may be nearly a year away, it remains important that the three states — or even two, if need be — continue trying to reach a water-sharing deal.
Reaching a truce would be good for our respective economies. It would reassure those who are working to safeguard and even jump-start job-producing growth within each jurisdiction. That alone should provide a real incentive for more-productive talks.
Given the appellate decision, it’s encouraging that Georgia’s hand now seems considerably stronger in the poker game that is water negotiations and litigation.
Atlanta’s, and Georgia’s, leadership in conservation efforts should help our cause too, as the corps begins its work and as negotiations hopefully move along. We must continue our efforts to use water as efficiently as is practicable.
This state should also keep looking at new sources of water that can be developed in a cost-effective manner. The tantalizing prospect of gaining water from the Tennessee River, with that state’s permission, is worthy of talks with our neighbor to the north. Cooperating, rather than litigating, should yield the best results for all concerned.
The prospect of yet another drought in the Southeast underscores the importance of quickly concluding the long-running water lawsuits and enacting the best-possible methods of using and conserving the water supply that helps sustain three states.
Andre Jackson, for the Editorial Board.
Atlanta Forward: We look at major issues Atlanta must address in order to move forward as the economy recovers.
Look for the designation “Atlanta Forward,” which will identify these discussions.
