ANNISTON STAR
GUEST EDITORIAL #1
by Pete Conroy
August 30, 1998

    Keep your gold and keep your silver because now it's time to fight for water! Ninety-seven percent of the world’s water is saltwater and only three percent is fresh. Two percent of that is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. That leaves only one percent that is useable.  As the population of the southeastern United States continues to grow, our fraction of that one percent is becoming more and more precious. So, if you like showers, flush toilets, boating, swimming, fishing, diverse wildlife and yes, even drinking water, its time to read on and prepare for the impact of the tristate "water war".

        The following article is a summary of the ACT and ACF Interstate Water Compacts and the complicated Environmental Impact Studies (EISs) that will affect them. So, to start off simply, what is the ACT and ACF? They are the watersheds which form two different drainage areas or basins. To the west there is the Alabama River, Coosa River and Tallapoosa River which form the ACT River Basin. To the east there is the Apalachicola River, Chattahoochee River and the Flint River which form the ACF River basin. At issue is an agreement or "compact" that were reached between the federal government and the state governments of Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Its purpose: to settle an old debate over who has rights to use and impact the river water flowing from Georgia into Alabama and Florida. The ACT and ACF Water Compact is the result of well-accepted state and federal legislation that established a Commission charged with the task of developing a mutually agreeable water allocation formula by December 31st, 1998. The Commission is made up of each state’s Governor and a Federal Commissioner, selected by the White House, who represents the many federal agencies involved. Each Commissioner has "Alternate Commissioners" who attend the meetings and work hard to represent their respective state. An Alternate Federal Commissioner has not yet been named.
 The compact was signed by the President in the Fall of 1997 and it was implemented on the first day of 1998. From that time, the commission has one year to agree on an allocation formula. Now, after spending the first eight months getting positioned and establishing ground rules, there are only four months to go and, in ways, the actual negotiation has just begun. It was only a few weeks ago when the Georgia team presented the first water allocation proposals for the ACF and ACT. Last Tuesday, the Alabama team unveiled their ACT counter proposal, known as the Alabama "strawman" to an Anniston City Meeting Center audience filled with "stakeholders", all eager to hear and provide input to the new strategy. With much excitement, Alabama is now preparing for the September 1st showdown meeting in Montgomery where Alabama formally present their proposal to the State of Georgia. In the meanwhile, the next ACF meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held in Florida on September 8th.

        Finding a water allocation consensus isn’t easy. Especially when there are so many of us using the water and wanting it for so many different, and sometimes conflicting reasons. There are those that own homes on river or lake fronts who don’t want to live with devalued property, shallow water and muddy banks. There are municipal and industrial (M&I) leaders who require water for consumption in their cities and for their businesses. There are an extraordinary number of plant and animal species that require clean water throughout the natural cycles of flood and drought. There are navigational needs, electrical power generation needs, recreational needs and other environmental needs.

        The significance of this compact can not be underestimated. Not only will it determine the tristate distribution of southeastern water over the next fifty years, but also, it will set a precedence as to how other states will resolve their water conflicts. The decision will have an impact worth billions of dollars to each of the three states. The impact will not only effect water quantity, but also quality. For example, if less water is allocated to flow from Georgia and across the state line into Alabama, pollution will not be as diluted. This will cause regulators to tighten water pollution permits and in turn, this will cause municipal and industrial pollution dischargers and ultimately consumers to spend more money. A lot more money. Increased pollution will increase the cost of treating drinking water drawn for the lakes and rivers. The allocation of water will impact everyone.

        So now, to make things even more confusing, how does this Environmental Impact Study fit into all of this? As you may know, anytime there is a project that might have a major impact on the environment, the federal government may be require that an EA (Environmental Assessment), or for bigger deals, an EIS, be completed to assess the predicted affect on the environment.  This tristate water deal is really, really big and so a full EIS is being written for each basin. They are being written by a contractor for the US Army Corps of Engineers. Each EIS will be critically important as they will serve as the basis for the Federal Commissioner’s concurrence or approval of the final allocation formulas. Also, if the three states cannot agree on an allocation formula, the decision will be made by federal judges who, by law, must use the EIS as an essential guide for a final ruling.

        Because the tristate water agreement could have an enormous affect on the flow of both river basins, there is more than ever to address in a single EIS. In fact, many are saying that this EIS is one of the most complicated ever. Some are saying that it is being written too fast and without enough public input. Indeed, the language of the compact dictates that a draft of this EIS be published and distributed by October 1998. Because this would make it impossible for the EIS to include the final and agreed upon allocation formulas, others are saying that the EIS should just be postponed. In any case, the EIS process needs our concentration just as much as the water allocation process.

        Both the negotiation process and the Environmental Impact Statement process are probably the important activities being conducted in the Southeastern United States. As the future of Alabama, Georgia and Florida hangs in the balance, this process deserves the best minds and the most attention possible.

ANNISTON STAR
GUEST EDITORIAL #2
by Commissioner Pete Conroy
November 7, 1999

    If you have been one of the people following the water compacts, you may have noticed that Sunday, October 31st has come and gone without much notice. So what was the significance of last Sunday? It was a self-imposed deadline by which time Alabama, Georgia and (in the case of the ACF) Florida had discussed a desire to reach negotiated settlements that would essentially share the surface waters of the ACT and ACF river basins. Because of a required sixty-day (two month) public review and comment period, the October 31st deadline would have allowed them time to finalize the agreements by the other self-imposed deadline of December 31st. They didn't make it.

    They did not reach a settlement last week, and truthfully, I'm not surprised. The issues that they are dealing with are among the most tangled ever considered. The compacts are complicated technically, politically and legally. There are dozens of interests at stake. There are unfounded fears and real fears. There is arrogance and there is paranoia. And after nearly two years of compact discussions and nearly ten years of consideration, there is now a growing sense of exhaustion.

    I am a believer in the compacts. I want to see the states reach an agreement. I want them to avoid the complicated legal battles that could go on and on, costing tax payers millions of dollars per year for possibly decades yet to come. I want to see the states engaged in a perpetual dialogue allowing for real compromise and real partnership building. Like most everyone, I just want to see the process work, but that's not my job. Instead, my job is much easier. In fact, I may have the easiest job in the whole process. President Clinton appointed me to serve as the Alternate Federal Commissioner so my role is to essentially
back up the other White House appointee, Commissioner Lindsay Thomas. If there is a negotiated settlement, it will be our job to concur or non concur with the agreement based on over a dozen federal laws. If an agreed upon allocation formula causes the violation of federal law, Commissioner Thomas must non concur. There would then be an opportunity for the states to adjust the formula back into compliance. If an allocation formula is in compliance, then he may concur, setting the process in motion.

    Since the October 31st deadline was missed, December 31st is now the target for an agreement and, somewhat informally, the states have discussed extending the compacts for just the 60 day public comment period.

    After attending countless meetings with stake holders, interest groups, negotiators, federal agencies, congressional interests, the committees and commissions it seems that negotiated settlements may be further away than December 31st. At other times there appears to be hope. Regardless, for those who have followed the compacts and for those who have not, the next few months may be the most interesting ones to watch. If the compacts fail, whether you are a Governor, appointed negotiator, or casual observer your opportunity for involvement will end. Then it's up to the lawyers and the courts. So to all involved and all to be affected by the flow of these waters, stay engaged for as long as it is possible. No less than the economic and environmental health of our Tri-state region is at stake.