Georgia lost its upper hand in the tri-state water wars in February when a federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., placed the state on an equal playing field with Florida and Alabama. The court invalidated a 2003 agreement between Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which provided that 25 percent of the water in Lake Lanier would be managed as water supply for the metro Atlanta area, ruling that such a realignment of the purposes of Lake Lanier literally requires an Act of Congress.

For nearly two decades, Georgia, Alabama and Florida have been feuding over water rights in two river basins: the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) river basins. Georgia wants to have enough water to allow the state to continue its exponential growth, while Alabama and Florida — and other downstream users in Georgia — want to keep enough water flowing to ensure their own well-being.

Critics in all three states blame Georgia for not adequately planning for the impact of the state’s growth on water issues. It is apparent that Georgia has not tied growth and development to its water resources. Instead, the state seemed content to rely on the water within Lake Lanier — water which is now less obtainable — to supply the five million people in metro Atlanta, projected to grow to six or seven million by 2030.

“A volatile time is before us,” said Georgia’s Director of the Environmental Protection Division Carol Couch during a recent speech.

Meanwhile, under a law passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 2004, the State Water Council, chaired by Dr. Couch, had been preparing Georgia’s first State Water Plan. The process had good beginnings, involving stakeholders and inviting comments from around the state. One of the principal benefits of the initial drafts of the Plan was that for the first time it would require planning according to where the water comes from — that is, plans would be prepared for each of Georgia’s river basins. However, late in 2007, the Plan was revised to require planning according to politically drawn existing economic districts, which have little to do with river basins. The Plan was presented to the General Assembly as required by law for approval, and the legislature hastily approved the Plan on January 14, 2008.

The Plan is now touted by state officials as an exemplary step by Georgia to do something its neighbors have not done — adopt a statewide water plan. But does the Plan accomplish actual results to deal with the water crisis? The answer is that the Plan is really no more than a plan to plan: it calls for three years of assessments to measure Georgia’s water supply and demand, and creates regional water planning districts and councils that will draft water plans for each area.

A few weeks later, Georgia legislators adopted resolutions to further address the water situation. Their solution? To move the Georgia state line slightly north. The lawmakers argue that an 1818 survey erroneously placed the border 1.1 miles farther south than what Congress had established. Why bother? Because the new line would place the Georgia state line directly in a bend in the Tennessee River, allowing the state to suck billions of gallons of water out of the river for use in Atlanta.

Unsurprisingly, Tennessee was not amused.

But neither are Georgians. The water situation is no laughing matter and residents are facing the most severe drought in decades. Will the Statewide Water Plan be enough to support sustainable urban growth and a fair distribution of our most vital resource?

Maybe … but not until much work is done. Unfortunately, Georgia missed a golden opportunity to include in the State Plan provisions that would have had an immediate impact on conservation of our scarce water resources, and therefore on allowing wiser use of those resources.

Georgia missed a golden opportunity to include in the State Plan provisions that would have had an immediate impact on conservation of our scarce water resources.

Room for Improvement

In order to be truly effective, the state must take a proactive stance and require certain minimum standards and requirements of its residents.

The current water plan is essentially a plan to have a plan, not an actual solution to the crisis. It is littered with colorful language and lofty aspirations. And while the document encourages the state to analyze current water use and formulate strategies, it does not contain any specific, enforceable requirements to address current problems. Further, its goals will not be implemented for years — and that presupposes the plan is fully funded by the legislature.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of the Plan is that it places the bulk of the responsibility for water management on 11 regional water planning districts. Yet, these districts are drawn principally according to “service areas” established by the state Department of Community Affairs, only loosely based on actual watersheds.

Drawing the boundaries based on political lines creates nothing short of a recipe for disaster. In many cases, several water planning districts will be competing for the same water. Instead of establishing planning according to the natural distribution of water supplies — river basins — the Plan again subjects water resource planning to political and economic considerations. Unless a more cooperative attitude toward water sharing arises, the Plan will result in numerous mini “water wars,” increasing political controversy rather than solving water problems. The better policy would be to organize the districts based completely on river basins. Such a plan would reduce conflicts and ensure a common goal among the members of each planning council.

By far the largest water planning district is the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. But, that district already has a plan, and its 16-county metropolitan Atlanta region is exempt from the requirements of the State Plan. Thus, planning districts that must draw water from the same bodies utilized in the metro area will be faced with a fait accompli — the already existing Metro Water Plan, which controls either the headwaters or an impounded lake for four of the five rivers that flow within its counties.

Also curious, the Metro District is the only district the State Water Plan permits to grow: if a county shares a boundary with a county currently within the district, that county can join the Metro Water District. This could lead to the Metro District taking control of additional rivers.

Addressing Water Conservation

Additionally, actual water conservation measures are absent from the State Water Plan. The Plan recognizes that water reuse and water conservation are “effective and efficient” methods and encourages the state Environmental Protection Division to take water conservation measures into consideration in its permitting decisions. There is no reason for the State Water Plan to ignore the urgent need to more efficiently use water now. That omission postpones for many years the proven benefits of conservation measures that range from simple and inexpensive to more elaborate and costly.

In 2006, an independent study of the Metro District water plan was conducted by The Pacific Institute, a leading center for assessing water conservation and efficiency potential in the country. The study found that even the Metro District plan, which requires the most far-reaching water conservation measures in the state, leaves significant untapped potential for reducing water use by not incorporating methods proven effective in other areas of the country. The Institute found that if the Atlanta Plan adopted all the available conservation efficiency measures, then recycling and reuse efforts could be expanded to meet future demand and reduce the need to develop new supply sources. The study found that adoption of 19 water conservation measures having positive cost-benefit results (i.e., benefits exceed the costs) — 10 measures included in the Metro District plan and nine not included in the Plan — would reduce metro Atlanta water demand in 2030 by an additional 132 million gallons a day, almost 20 percent of current water demand. The conservation measures include such steps as conservation pricing (increased rates with increased usage), retrofits of older buildings with water-saving toilets and appliances, and rain-sensor shutoffs for irrigation systems, all of which were to be implemented under the Metro District Plan. The State Water Plan ignored this “low-hanging fruit.” That omission postpones for years any benefit the Water Plan will have for the state’s water resources.

In Georgia, there are more than 70,000 miles of streams, 400,000 acres of lakes and 4,500,000 acres of freshwater wetlands. Water, while not limitless, is readily available. If the State Water Plan were modified to include adequate implementation of cost-effective conservation and reuse measures, the state could then legitimately make the claim that it is correcting current wasteful water practices. Real action then would likely lead to our neighbors being more amenable to a negotiated solution to the 20-year-old Water War.

An abbreviated version of this article appeared in the Atlanta Business Chronicle on March 28, 2008.