Water Use Conflict Resolution. Copyright 2009 Gary A. Robbins. All rights reserved

Transcription

1 Water Use Conflict Resolution Copyright 2009 Gary A. Robbins. All rights reserved

2 Water Use Conflicts Review of major water use conflicts Causes How they have been resolved

3 Historical From biblical times (see Genesis ) water conflicts have been documented Conflicts center on who has the right to water or how much water can one use (for consumption or irrigation or herds of animals) Conflicts generally arise when there are water shortages, drought, pollution, and wildlife impacts As populations grow and the economics of water changes conflicts will only increase WHO states 1/6 of world population ( 1.1 billion) does not have adequate water supply

4 Consumption vs Irrigation Recall most water is used for irrigation, as populations grow the demand for irrigation water for food production increases The conflict between irrigation water and water for consumption in cities is increasing as populations of cities increases esp. in the developing world ( India and China) Also in US: Atlanta, Las Vegas, Denver

5 International Conflicts 214 river basins are multinational 2 billion people depend on international cooperation to share water supplies snd maintain water quality

6 Economic Pressures Bottling companies are buying water supplies around the world Water has evolved from a human right to a commodity Drinking water from a bottle has become the norm rather than from the tap in many places in the world Tap vs bottle

7 Types of conflicts Wars Personal confrontation ( water rage ) Litigation Changes to allocation law

8 Taming conflicts Conservation ( esp. in irrigation) new technologies for desalination recycling use of waste water reducing pollution improved water infrastructure in the developing world ( wells, sanitation, water treatment) Establish political (national and international) treaties

9 Texas Panhandle (ground water conflict) Panhandle Gently rolling to rough and dissected. The High Plains region, together with the Rolling Plains, comprise the southern end of the Great Plains of the central United States. Soils vary from coarse sands along outwash terraces adjacent to streams, to tight clays and shales. Soil reaction is neutral to slightly alkaline. Caliche generally underlies these surface soils at depths of two to five feet.

10

11 Most water derived from Ogallala Aquifer Water being mined Texas Water Law: Rule of Capture You own land you have right to pump as much water as you like, irrespective of impacts to neighbors Conflicts: Water companies drying up private wells Water rights being bought by private sector to sell to cities Cities have bought water rights in areas to ship water back to cities Aquifer depletion impact amounts and costs for irrigation

12 Attempts at Conflict Resolution 1997 state law required formation of regional planning groups to develop longterm use plans 2001 state law authorized creation of ground water conservation districts to regulate water withdrawals and approve export fees on water shipped out of a district

13 Panhandle Established Panhandle Water District 6,309 square miles Over 4,400 irrigation wells (1,873 of which are active) 185 municipal or public supply wells 251 wells for industrial use, and oil and gas secondary recovery (water flood) operations 922 wells are registered, non-permitted water supplies for household and livestock consumption. Adopted Rules ( water use, permitting, conflict resolution) In Panhandle set 1 Acre-ft/acre-yr as maximum allowable r%20sheet%20included%20for%20web.pdf

14 Alabama and Florida vs. Georgia (surface water conflict) At the center of the conflict is the Chattahoochee River, which runs from Georgia, along the Alabama border, to the Florida state line, where it merges with the Flint River to form the Apalachicola. It was Atlanta's growth that sparked the water war. As Atlanta boomed, Alabama officials worried that the upstream city would hamper their state's growth by taking too much water out of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin and a second basin they share, the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa. The Chattahoochee River provides drinking water to more than 2 million people in the Atlanta area and disperses treated waste. Alabama sued to limit Georgia's use of the water. It was joined by Florida, which feared that Georgia's water needs would deplete the freshwater flow of the Apalachicola into Apalachicola Bay, home of Florida's shellfish industry.

15 Population Growth Political leaders in places such as the Carolinas and Tennessee are taking a much more serious approach toward the allocation and availability of water than they did as recently as five years ago, says Tim Gangaware, associate director of the Tennessee Water Resources Center. And the reason, many agree, is the region's breakneck growth. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina each grew at a faster rate than the national average of 13.1% during the 1990s. Georgia grew 26.4%; Florida, 23.5%; North Carolina, 21.4%; Tennessee, 16.7%; and South Carolina, 15.1%. Alabama grew 10.1%. As more people crowd into these states and developers build more subdivisions and malls, the need for more water has increased. Water use by those five states and Florida doubled from 1970 to

16 Lake Lanier Chattahoochee River Atlanta

17 History of the conflict A series of severe droughts during the 1980s and record breaking population growth in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia caused concern over water supply In 1997, after litigation, studies, and an interim negotiated agreement, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia entered into two interstate compacts for the specific purpose of negotiating a long-term allocation of surface water resources. After three years still no final agreement ACT and ACF river systems -- A series of federal reservoirs operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) provide flood control, navigation support, hydroelectric power generation, water supply, and recreation on both river systems. It was recognized in 1970s that Atlanta;s growth would outstrip supply. Federal water studies began. In response to the Corps' recommendation calling for reallocation of water from Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta, the State of Alabama filed a lawsuit on June 28,

18 Lawsuit The first count challenged the reallocation as a violation of common-law water rights, alleging that the PAC would vest Georgia interests with expanded water rights at the expense of downstream interests (Vest, p. 692). The first count also alleged that the Corps had breached its duty to operate the ACF River Basin system in a neutral manner by favoring Georgia interests. The remaining four counts of the suit alleged that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to consider fully the environmental impacts of the proposed reallocation (Vest, p. 692). The complaint asked for an injunction to prevent the Corps from implementing the proposed reallocation or entering into any water supply contracts, and requested a judicial declaration that the Corps failed to comply with the provisions of the NEPA requiring development of an Environmental Impact Statement. In August, 1990, the state of Florida petitioned to intervene in the lawsuit, as did the state of Georgia; the Alabama Wildlife Federation; the Cities of Montgomery and Gadsden, Alabama; and the City of Cartersville, Georgia.

19 Interim settlement On August 30, 1990, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Corps negotiated a Joint Stay of Proceedings to be entered into by Alabama and the Corps. The court granted the stay on September 19, 1990, to allow the parties to reach a settlement without further litigation. In January 1992, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Corps entered into an agreement calling for a "process for cooperative management and development of regional water resources" (Erhardt, p. 202). 5 The agreement required a three-year comprehensive study of local water resources. In the meantime, the Corps would withdraw its 1989 proposals to reallocate water from Lake Lanier, while Alabama, in turn, would request that its lawsuit against the Corps be placed on an inactive docket. The action defused the immediate danger of lengthy litigation, and created an opportunity for all parties involved to make constructive input.

20 Water Resource Study The resulting Comprehensive Water Resource Study costing $27 million has since been referred to as "an unprecedented effort to develop the data necessary to fully address the water resource issues in the ACT and ACF" (Moore, p. 7). The study addresses four broad topics: water resource demands, water resource availability, flood and drought management strategies, and coordination mechanisms. The goal has been to produce the technical and strategic information required to develop a basin-wide management plan for water resources.

21 Compacts In early 1997, Alabama and Georgia entered into the ACT Compact, and Alabama, Florida, and Georgia entered into the ACF Compact. On November 20, 1997, President Clinton signed the legislation that provided Congressional approval of the compacts. 6 The essence of the ACT and ACF compacts is the agreement to negotiate an "equitable apportionment" of the surface waters in each basin (Moore, p. 7). Neither compact contains an allocation itself; rather, the compacts establish a Compact Commission for each basin, which can approve an allocation formula for the next 50 years The compact commission created a negotiating committee to negotiate and recommend an allocation formula to the commission for approval. The negotiators from each state have met approximately monthly since February The compact established a deadline of January 1, 1999, for reaching agreement on an allocation formula (Moore, p. 8). However, the compact also permits the states to extend the deadline for up to one year, and in December 1998, with no agreement in sight, the states agreed to the maximum extension, giving themselves until January 1, 2000, to reach agreement. Meanwhile, the commissioners have voted another one-year extension of the deadline for completing the negotiations, and have contemplated engaging the services of a professional mediating team.

22 Compacts Collapse The states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, which had compacted to develop an allocation formula for the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basin, failed to arrive at a mutually acceptable allocation formula by the August 31, 2003 deadline. The missed deadline terminated the compact. (above) - Following the expiration of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Compact on August 31, 2003, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and the Army Corps of Engineers, among others, have been engaged in litigation in three federal district courts and now in the 11th Circuit and D.C. Circuit over the Corps operation of federal reservoirs in the ACF River Basin. The following is a brief summary of the status of this litigation. In the 11th Circuit, Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. 2:01-CV-0026-RWS, Georgia has asked Florida and Alabama whether they will support Georgia's proposed "motion to consolidate appeals" from the Georgia court's abatement order and the Alabama court's preliminary injunction; Gwinnet County has moved to abate the Alabama litigation pending appeal. In Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. CV 90-BE-1331-E (N.D. Ala.), Judge Karon Bowdre entered an order lifting her stay of those aspects of the Alabama litigation still under her jurisdiction pending appeal, set a January 7 deadline for plaintiffs to file motions to amend the complaint, and set a February 21 deadline for responsive pleadings. Florida sent the Corps and other federal agencies a 60-day notice letter under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), indicating its intention to commence an action pursuant to the ESA. Finally, in the D.C. Circuit, Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Case No , the Florida and Alabama joint reply brief is due December 23. Oral argument in this case is scheduled

23 2008/2009

24 Mideast Water Wars Main source of surface water in region is Jordon River Allocation conflict involves Lebanon, Syria, Jordon, Israel and Palestine Ground water aquifers Allocation conflict between Israel and Palestine

25 Water bodies

26 Mideast (International Water Conflict)

27 Water Related Conflict History f

28 Shipping Water Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value, Marshal Ferdinand Foch ( ), French military strategist, 1911

29 Shipping Water Arid west rought.html?_r=1&em&ex= &e n=49d7552a2ee6638a&ei=5087%0a&oref =slogin By Ship