|
<br />February 2003
<br />
<br />ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT
<br />
<br />219
<br />
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />acquired much of the river's broad floodplain and man..
<br />ages it for conservation purposes. The Apala~hicoLa
<br />Bay is cOllsidered to be one of the mQst productive
<br />estuaries in North Anlerica and is valued for its oysters.
<br />shrimp) blue crabs, and fish species includlllg striped
<br />bass, sturgeon, grouper. drum} and flounder. .
<br />The water resources of the ACF basin were sub-
<br />stantially developed in the 20th century for huni.an
<br />usesf Sixteen dams were built on the Chattahoochee
<br />and Flint Rivel's~ Five of these dan1s are federalproje,cts
<br />operated by the Anny Corps of Engineers for hydro-
<br />electric power, navigation, recl~eation) fish and wildlife,
<br />water supply, and flot?d COl1trol. cSurface and ground-
<br />water withdrawals are made for municipal and indus-
<br />trial (M and I). water supply and for irdgated agricul-
<br />ture. Dram.atic increases in water use have resulted
<br />from ex.trelne p.opulation growth in the metropolitan
<br />Atlanta areal a mid-century population of 500000 grew
<br />to >4 million (4 X 106) by 2000, and increased reliance
<br />on irrigatiol'1 for agriculture in southwest Georgia.
<br />From 1910 to 1990 surface water wi thdra wals in-
<br />_ creased by 29% and groundwater withqraw~ls,. pri..
<br />marily for agriculture, increased by 2400/a (ACOE
<br />1998) .
<br />To address the Atlanta region's growing water needs,
<br />the state of Georgia asked the Corps to reallocate water
<br />storage ill the upstream fedeta! reservoir (Lake Lanier)
<br />from hydro-power gelleratioll .purposes to provision .of
<br />water supp[y~ to which the Corps consented. In 1990,
<br />Alabama'5 concern about the potential downstream im-
<br />pa~ts of this reallocation led them to file a lawsuit
<br />against the Corps. When Florida and Georgia filed to
<br />intervene in the suit, the states nlade all important de-
<br />cision to seek a nego,tiated settlement that would avoid
<br />litigation. Il11portantly, they agreed that water alloca-
<br />tion in the whole ACF basin should be negotiated rather
<br />than to argue about the use of any single reservoir.
<br />_ They agreed to conduot a COlnprehensive Study to pro-
<br />vide factual infornlatiol1 on water availability, forecast
<br />water needst and explore options to meet them. Con-
<br />tinued discussions between the states led to the signing
<br />of the interstate Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint.
<br />Rive'r.'BasLn Compact in 1997.
<br />The compact provides a .framework for the states,
<br />with the approval of the federa~ government, 'L to de-
<br />velop a watel' allocation fotn:lu.~a for equita~Jy appor-
<br />tioning ,the surface waters ~fthe ACF Basin among the
<br />states whiJe protec.ting the, \Vater quality, ecology and
<br />biodiversity of the ACE1' (U.S. Congress 1997). The
<br />compact formed an ACF Commission nlade up of the
<br />governors of the three states and. a federal commis-
<br />sioner appointed by the Pl-esident of the United States.
<br />Once the three governors agree upon an allocation for-
<br />mula~. the federal commissioner n1ust concur Ot~ not con-
<br />Ctu'~ based 011 compliance with federal laws. Negotia-
<br />tions over the water allocation forlnttla began in 1998
<br />and continue as 0 f April 2002. This compact is the first
<br />ill the Uwater dch'~ southeastenl United,States. It rep-
<br />
<br />resel1ts an historical opportunity to establish a prece-
<br />dent for the future of water managen1e1'l.t in the eastern
<br />United States and to coordinate l~iver basin rnal1agen1eut .
<br />nnlong the three states.
<br />Discussions during the water allocation negotiations
<br />i-eve~led the interests of each of the states. Simply stat-
<br />ed, Georgia's prbnary concerns are to secure adequate
<br />water supply for M and I and agricultural uses such
<br />that ~cC!non'1ic growth is not constrainedj and maintain
<br />high resel.voir levels for recreational use. Alabama lJl:i-
<br />Inarily wishes to protect sufficient quantity 'and quality
<br />of water for wate r supply and waste assimilation in the
<br />mid-Chattahoochee, and Florida desires to sustain a
<br />flow .regilne that will mai11tain the biological diversity
<br />and productivity of the Apalachicola River and Bay.
<br />Other stakeholders reinforced these 'values, and added
<br />hydrppower, navigation, maintenance of stable lake
<br />levelsj recreation, endangered, sport, and commerciaL
<br />specfes, and water quality protection to the list of con.
<br />cerns.
<br />While negotiations continue as of this writing, we
<br />have used the states~ proposals of January 2002 as the
<br />basis for our case study assessment Many of the key
<br />elelnents of our .franlework for ecolo~ically sust~in_ab1e
<br />wate.r.ll1anagclnent are -addressed by these pr6po.saIs.
<br />In particulart we focus on the Flo1'ida proposal, WhlCh
<br />.we feel best addresses Ollr key elelnents.
<br />
<br />o rncrnm ' 1]0 crnO[]]]] corn
<br />
<br />S~veral studies were conducted as part of the COll1-
<br />pl'el'\ensive Study to develop a better understanding of
<br />relationships between flow levels and habitat condi--.
<br />tions in the 1\CF b~sin (Chal1toll 1997, ~l:eeman ~i ~L .
<br />1997, Huang and Jones 1997, Iverson eta!. 1997,1~ewis
<br />19970,0, Light et aL 1998). Subsequent to these stud-
<br />it~s~ ~wo fedel.al agencies reviewed historical records of.
<br />river flow and native species surveys to devefop a set
<br />of 'tinstreamc flow g~ideliI:les't (Ta"le, 1) (USFWS and
<br />USEP A 1999). These gui delines address intra - and in-
<br />terannual flow' variability by setting threshold limits
<br />for ~the mont:hly on.e..day min~mumt a~nual low-flow
<br />duratio,n, annual one-day maximum, and annual 'high-
<br />floW duration that must be met in aU yearsJ in ,three
<br />o\lt'of fO\lr years or 'in two out of four years; and as a
<br />1.ange ~f values for the monthly average flows. Nl.l-
<br />metical vaLues for the specified parameters have been
<br />de~ned for specific locations on each of the three rivers.
<br />In essence) these guidelines rep~esent an initial ar...
<br />ticvlation of ecosystenl flow requirements to support
<br />bio_~iversity in .the basin and have enabled federal en-
<br />virontnental agencies and others to assess the possible
<br />impac t of any proposed water allocation formula on
<br />the' ecological integrity of the ACF basin. The guide..
<br />lin~s 'fo'eus on a slnaU subset of ecologically relevant
<br />hydrologi.c para1netel:s that couLd be substantially af-
<br />fected by water c 111anagel11ent in the ACF basin, and
<br />thus have been useful in drawing attention to some ~(ey
<br />hy~h.o)ogic paralueters i:n. the negotiations. However,
<br />
|