Full Version: Water Rights in Georgia
By now, everyone has heard about the epic drought that has gripped the Southeast region of the United States. From the pictures on the news, it appears that some of the lakes in Georgia are literally about to dry up within 3 months.
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
There is no simple answer to this question. Water laws vary tremendously from state to state, what research I was able to do on the question convinced me that Georgia water policies are a real mess. An example:
Link
That's from a few years ago, before the extraordinary drought hit the region.
Here's the best answer I can find to the seemingly simple question "Who owns the water in Georgia?"
Link (PDF file)
Georgia follows the "Reasonable Use" law. You have the right to use the water under your land, but not to waste it.
But what about "public waters"? That depends, it seems. Some are owned by the state goverment, and some are owned by the Federal government. In theory, both are managing a public resource which is owned (if by anybody) to the people as a whole. The Feds have to be involved, to some extent, due to disputes between bordering states.
Link
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
The failure to come up with a real water policy years ago, as shown in the quote above, seems to be a factor in the current crisis. The current drought is so severe that I'm not sure that anybody could have really prepared for it. I live on the outskirts of the area which has been hardest hit, and it's no joke. I have well water in my home, and we can't use our whirlpool bath or our washing machine without running out of water for a day or so. Lots of folks have it much worse than I do, and are having to haul in water from wherever they can find it.
Another important factor, as noted above, is the enormous demand for water by the giant city of Atlanta and its metropolitan area. This makes the problem much worse for Georgia than it does for its neighbors.
There is no simple answer to this question. Water laws vary tremendously from state to state, what research I was able to do on the question convinced me that Georgia water policies are a real mess. An example:
Link
QUOTE
It was supposed to be popular - a new water bill for Georgia that had farmers and environmental officials saying years of study had resulted in the state's first comprehensive water plan.
Farmers were OK with the idea of meters on farms. Conservationists liked the movement toward science-based management of water on a state level. The state Environmental Protection Division helped craft the plan and liked it, too.
So why did the bill fail?
In the closing moments of the Legislature, the House rejected the water bill, even after approving it once before. The Senate wouldn't take it up again. The water bill sunk for at least a year.
The unexpected finish showed water officials how tough it's going to be to manage a resource that's so ubiquitous most people don't think about it.
Farmers were OK with the idea of meters on farms. Conservationists liked the movement toward science-based management of water on a state level. The state Environmental Protection Division helped craft the plan and liked it, too.
So why did the bill fail?
In the closing moments of the Legislature, the House rejected the water bill, even after approving it once before. The Senate wouldn't take it up again. The water bill sunk for at least a year.
The unexpected finish showed water officials how tough it's going to be to manage a resource that's so ubiquitous most people don't think about it.
That's from a few years ago, before the extraordinary drought hit the region.
Here's the best answer I can find to the seemingly simple question "Who owns the water in Georgia?"
Link (PDF file)
Georgia follows the "Reasonable Use" law. You have the right to use the water under your land, but not to waste it.
But what about "public waters"? That depends, it seems. Some are owned by the state goverment, and some are owned by the Federal government. In theory, both are managing a public resource which is owned (if by anybody) to the people as a whole. The Feds have to be involved, to some extent, due to disputes between bordering states.
Link
QUOTE
The current record setting drought in Georgia and Alabama, which was not helped much by the most recent rainfall, nor did the rain put a damper on the feud over the waters of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin, including Allatoona and Carters lakes in northwest Georgia.
Allatoona, which provides drinking water for Cobb County and other northwest metro Atlanta communities, has dropped 6 1/2 feet since the beginning of August, and is now more than 11 feet below full.
Alabama officials are worried dredging on the Alabama River, which gets some of its water from Allatoona, will have to stop if water levels get too low.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns and operates the federal reservoir, began releasing additional water from the lake in late July after Alabama complained of not receiving enough to mitigate effects from the historic drought.
Last week, the Corp told representatives from both states that they are considering a reduction in the amount of water released from Allatoona Lake by the end of this month, which is a move opposed by Alabama.
Alabama officials opinion is that metro Atlanta is getting more than its fair share of water, as reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Allatoona, which provides drinking water for Cobb County and other northwest metro Atlanta communities, has dropped 6 1/2 feet since the beginning of August, and is now more than 11 feet below full.
Alabama officials are worried dredging on the Alabama River, which gets some of its water from Allatoona, will have to stop if water levels get too low.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns and operates the federal reservoir, began releasing additional water from the lake in late July after Alabama complained of not receiving enough to mitigate effects from the historic drought.
Last week, the Corp told representatives from both states that they are considering a reduction in the amount of water released from Allatoona Lake by the end of this month, which is a move opposed by Alabama.
Alabama officials opinion is that metro Atlanta is getting more than its fair share of water, as reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
The failure to come up with a real water policy years ago, as shown in the quote above, seems to be a factor in the current crisis. The current drought is so severe that I'm not sure that anybody could have really prepared for it. I live on the outskirts of the area which has been hardest hit, and it's no joke. I have well water in my home, and we can't use our whirlpool bath or our washing machine without running out of water for a day or so. Lots of folks have it much worse than I do, and are having to haul in water from wherever they can find it.
Another important factor, as noted above, is the enormous demand for water by the giant city of Atlanta and its metropolitan area. This makes the problem much worse for Georgia than it does for its neighbors.
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Oct 20 2007, 06:48 PM) 
By now, everyone has heard about the epic drought that has gripped the Southeast region of the United States. From the pictures on the news, it appears that some of the lakes in Georgia are literally about to dry up within 3 months.
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
To clarify- one of the big "monkey wrenches" in this equation is two protected fish- one being this one:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/s...osesturgeon.htm
it's not a clam!
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Nobody owns water, any more than anybody "owns" air. What is up for discussion here are the ownership of water rights - a subtle but necessary distinction.
To answer this question, I'd go back to the building of the reservoirs that are running dry. If they were built by the Georgian state government, then the water rights should go to Georgia and the Federal Government should find some other water to conserve endangered fish. If they were built by the Feds, the Georgians should go thirsty (or more likely just not shower six times per day, leave the car dirty on Sunday morning, and stop watering the lawn) - maybe if this happens long enough they'll be able to gather enough enthusiasm to build some more reservoirs.
And if they were built by a private company, the competing claimaints should bid for the rights to use the water. If it costs, more, maybe those people that are out of pocket will realise it's time they woke up and starting shelling out for infrastructure to service the boom economy that the South has been revelling in since the invention of affordable air conditioning.
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
Clearly not, otherwise this situation would not have arisen.
Ultimately, the long-term resolution rests on an analysis of where the water is going.
Is it leaking away in antiquated water mains? If so, the water companies should pay to repair, replace and upgrade them.
Is it being used by booming housing and industrial development? If so, the developers should pay to fix the problem (probably by building more reservoirs).
Is there a change in the rainfall pattern? Not much you can do to change that, but you can - through taxation and legislation - change the way water is used to stretch out lower resources rather better. That will help in the short term, until a major public works programme is initiated to divert water from areas where rainfall is high and/or rising to those where it is low or falling (not such a strange idea - we do it today with electricity, and the Romans were doing the same with water 2000 years ago).
Such a large scale investment would probably have to be funded federally, so the feds would have ultimate sanction over similar water usage spats in the 22nd century.
Of course, this large scale program would mean more taxes. Diddums. You get what you pay for, and it's not like anyone can opt out of using water. That said, if you have water on your own land (a well or a spring, say), you have first dibs on using it, so there'd be no need for you to pay the extra tax. Hypothecation is the name of the game.
Nobody owns water, any more than anybody "owns" air. What is up for discussion here are the ownership of water rights - a subtle but necessary distinction.
To answer this question, I'd go back to the building of the reservoirs that are running dry. If they were built by the Georgian state government, then the water rights should go to Georgia and the Federal Government should find some other water to conserve endangered fish. If they were built by the Feds, the Georgians should go thirsty (or more likely just not shower six times per day, leave the car dirty on Sunday morning, and stop watering the lawn) - maybe if this happens long enough they'll be able to gather enough enthusiasm to build some more reservoirs.
And if they were built by a private company, the competing claimaints should bid for the rights to use the water. If it costs, more, maybe those people that are out of pocket will realise it's time they woke up and starting shelling out for infrastructure to service the boom economy that the South has been revelling in since the invention of affordable air conditioning.
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
Clearly not, otherwise this situation would not have arisen.
Ultimately, the long-term resolution rests on an analysis of where the water is going.
Is it leaking away in antiquated water mains? If so, the water companies should pay to repair, replace and upgrade them.
Is it being used by booming housing and industrial development? If so, the developers should pay to fix the problem (probably by building more reservoirs).
Is there a change in the rainfall pattern? Not much you can do to change that, but you can - through taxation and legislation - change the way water is used to stretch out lower resources rather better. That will help in the short term, until a major public works programme is initiated to divert water from areas where rainfall is high and/or rising to those where it is low or falling (not such a strange idea - we do it today with electricity, and the Romans were doing the same with water 2000 years ago).
Such a large scale investment would probably have to be funded federally, so the feds would have ultimate sanction over similar water usage spats in the 22nd century.
Of course, this large scale program would mean more taxes. Diddums. You get what you pay for, and it's not like anyone can opt out of using water. That said, if you have water on your own land (a well or a spring, say), you have first dibs on using it, so there'd be no need for you to pay the extra tax. Hypothecation is the name of the game.
This to me is mind boggling. Georgia Seeks Water Disaster Declaration was the headline in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.
Lake Lanier a 38,000 acre resevoir that supplies more than 3 million residents is less than 3 months depletion.
The Govenor Sonny Perdue said the state has not found a contingency plan in case the reservoirs run dry. "The backup plan is to conserve & use our water wisely", he said.
My Questions here is
1. Why was there not something done before this? Could they not see this coming?
2.Less than 80 days? No plan but to conserve wisely?
3. If it does run dry which it may then what? How do you get water to 3 million people?.
Yeah it is a disaster about to happen. I cannot believe the State of Georgia decided to wait till there was less than 3 months to finally realize OMG we have a problem.
Lake Lanier a 38,000 acre resevoir that supplies more than 3 million residents is less than 3 months depletion.
The Govenor Sonny Perdue said the state has not found a contingency plan in case the reservoirs run dry. "The backup plan is to conserve & use our water wisely", he said.
My Questions here is
1. Why was there not something done before this? Could they not see this coming?
2.Less than 80 days? No plan but to conserve wisely?
3. If it does run dry which it may then what? How do you get water to 3 million people?.
Yeah it is a disaster about to happen. I cannot believe the State of Georgia decided to wait till there was less than 3 months to finally realize OMG we have a problem.
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Oct 20 2007, 10:48 PM)
By now, everyone has heard about the epic drought that has gripped the Southeast region of the United States. From the pictures on the news, it appears that some of the lakes in Georgia are literally about to dry up within 3 months.
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
To complicate the situation even worse, the Army Corps of Engineering has been siphoning off billions of gallons from Georgia's lakes to protect some clams in other parts of the Southeast. But the people of Georgia on the other hand depend on the resevoirs for drinking water.
So the question is,
Who really owns the water, the people of Georgia or the Federal Government?
Have the officials in Georgia done enough to prepare for a drought ahead of time?
Interesting. I have not heard about this drought until now, being that Colorado is just coming off a very long drought, and that has taken the headlines around here.
Every drop of water in Colorado is owned by someone, and much of it is not owned by Coloradans. That's been the situation since this place became a territory. For those in wetter climates, (I grew up in Minnesota, no water issues there) the concept of owned water rights may seem strange, but here it's a major political situation.
Don't know why Georgia ignored this developing problem. The state certainly has alternative ways of obtaining more water, and the first that comes to mind is desalination plants on the coast. Hey, as the oceans rise, there's no danger of taking too much out! Cool.
Desalination is an old and proved technology.
Another is to sink wells into aquifers. That's a short-term solution that Colorado uses. About two-thirds of my little town's water comes from wells, the other third piped in from a reservoir. As a result, it ain't cheap. I maintain some flower gardens in the summer but no sod, being as we live in the middle of a forest near a mountain top. We don't do hot tubs and keep the showers to a minimum.
So conservation -- plant drought-resistant sod and gardens -- up here xerescaping is popular, and the landscaping for that can be very attractive. It really does no good to get resentful about the water consumption of urban communities. On a per-person basis, it's probably lower than the suburbs with lots of lawns. Having talked with a dealer in sod, our brilliant biologists have developed deep-root blue grass that looks good and doesn't need nearly as much water as the regular strain. It's not as good as xerescaping though, but does offer a variety. I see some of the upscale places around here use a few square yards of sod among the tall plants and rocks. Pretty cool, can be trimmed with a little electric mower.
Anyhow, Colorado water depends on the winter snowpack. We have no other alternative, being land-locked and the headwaters of several rivers (Colorado and Arkansas to name the major two, maybe Missouri, not sure). Earthship houses have gained popularity here -- with cistern systems to collect rain and snow falls, solar for electricity, greenhouses for growing your own
vegetation. Vegetables, you know? Herbs too, I suppose.It is remarkable though that the SE US is having a drought. It's news to me and don't think I've ever heard of that happening before. Maybe this is why it's taken everyone by surprise.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.