15
At the Headwaters of Sustainable Water Management in Georgia Gil Rogers Southern Environmental Law Center July 26, 2012

Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

At the Headwaters of

Sustainable Water

Management in Georgia Gil Rogers

Southern Environmental Law Center

July 26, 2012

Page 2: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Tri-State Water Wars – history and

current status

• State of Georgia’s water management

Overview

Page 3: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

Tri-State Water Wars

Page 4: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Litigation began in 1990 when Alabama sued the Army

Corps of Engineers

• Georgia, Florida, various local governments,

hydropower customers and Alabama Power all got

involved.

• At issue is Corps’ management of ACF and ACT

systems, and whether Lakes Allatoona and Lanier can

be used for water supply by metro Atlanta.

• District Court said “no” to second question in 2009,

overturned by 11th Circuit in 2011; Supreme Court

declined to hear an appeal in June 2012.

Tri-State Water Wars

Page 5: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in controversies

between states

• Alabama and Florida will have to show direct

interest and negative impacts for Supreme Court to

accept case

• If the Supreme Court agrees and accepts case,

Georgia has to show benefits of its water use outweigh

harm to FL and AL

• Standard that GA will have to meet is clear and

convincing evidence

Legal Option for Future Interstate

Litigation: Supreme Court Litigation

Page 6: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Question the Supreme Court would answer is:

How well is each state managing its water

resources? Who has their house in order?

• Corps will be revising its water control manuals

over the next year: more fodder for litigation.

• Other statutes in play include Clean Water Act,

National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered

Species Act

Future Interstate Litigation

Page 7: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

South Carolina v. North Carolina –

recently in U.S. Supreme Court

Transfer proposed between Catawba and Yadkin Basins

Page 8: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12
Page 9: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Water withdrawals over 100,000

gallons per day require a permit from

EPD – “regulated riparian” system

• 2008 State Water Plan

• 2010 Water Stewardship Act

• 2011 Interbasin Transfer Rules

Water Management in Georgia

Page 10: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Created in 2001 pursuant to the

Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District Act.

• 15 county area

• No interbasin transfers into the District.

Page 11: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12
Page 12: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

Source: Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan, September 2003

Page 13: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• 2011 rulemaking for interbasin transfer

water withdrawal permits

• List of 22 factors to be considered

when evaluating proposals

• Factors include economic costs, water

quality impacts, interstate impacts, and

cumulative impacts

Interbasin Transfers in Georgia

Page 14: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

• Water resources and population centers

are separated in Georgia.

• Must evaluate growth areas and

patterns in order to insure sustainable

future.

• Energy sources and their water

use/discharge practices are important

pieces of the puzzle.

Conclusions

Page 15: Gbr ge panel 07 26-12

Questions?

[email protected] or (404)521-9900