[Senate Hearing 109-730]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-730
FIELD HEARING TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
OPERATION OF THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT AND ALABAMA-COOSA-
TALLAPOOSA RIVER
BASINS ON GEORGIA'S AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 24, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-435 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
Martha Scott Poindexter, Majority Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Majority Chief Counsel
Vernie Hubert, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Field Hearing to Consider the Effect of the Corps of Engineers'
Operation of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basins on Georgia's Agricultural
Community...................................................... 1
----------
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 1
Isakson, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Georgia.................. 3
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVES
Bishop, Hon. Sanford D. Jr., a U.S. Representative from Georgia.. 4
Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a U.S. Representative from Georgia... 6
Panel I
Perdue, Hon. Sonny, Governor of Atlanta, Georgia................. 7
Panel II
Schroedel, Joseph, Brigadier General, South Atlantic Division
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia...... 12
Panel III
Gaymon, Mike, President and CEO, Columbus Georgia Chamber of
Commerce, Columbus, Georgia.................................... 29
Singletary, Steven, Vice Chairman, Georgia Soil & Water
Conservation Commission, Blakely, Georgia...................... 33
Timmerberg, Dick, Executive Director, West Point Lake Coalition,
LaGrange, Georgia.............................................. 31
Webb, Jimmy, Flint River Water Council, Leary, Georgia........... 35
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Linder, Hon. John............................................ 48
Perdue, Hon. Sonny........................................... 50
Gaymon, Mike................................................. 59
Schroedel, Joseph............................................ 61
Singletary, Steven........................................... 66
Timmerberg, Dick (with attachments).......................... 68
Webb, Jimmy.................................................. 89
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Columbus Water Works, prepared statement..................... 91
The Middle Chattahoochee Water Coalition, prepared statement. 94
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc., prepared
statement.................................................. 96
O.W. McGowan, Co-Chairman, West Point Lake Coalition,
prepared statement......................................... 99
Jack Struble, West Point Lake Coalition, prepared statement.. 100
Eucle Vickery, Secretary, West Point Lake Coalition, prepared
statement.................................................. 101
FIELD HEARING TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
OPERATION OF THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT AND ALABAMA-COOSA-
TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASINS ON GEORGIA'S AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY.
----------
October 24, 2006
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Columbus, Georgia
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. at the
RiverCenter, 900 Broadway, Columbus, Georgia, Honorable Saxby
Chambliss, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
The Chairman. This hearing has come to order.
And I want to thank everyone for coming today to discuss a
critically important issue, Georgia's water resources. I'd
particularly like to start by thanking Steve Sweet, in
particular, the technical director of the RiverCenter. What a
gorgeous facility. This is my first time in this auditorium,
and this is really something special. And I know the folks here
in Muscogee County, particularly, know they have something
special here.
I'd like to thank Steve and all of his staff. They've been
a tremendous help in coordinating all the logistics for us.
It's because of Steve's hard work in making this hearing
possible that we're able to meet in this wonderful facility.
So, again, to Steve and all of the staff here, we thank you
very much.
I'm also pleased to have my friends and colleagues from
Georgia's Congressional Delegation join us today. We invited
all of the Delegation to come. Senator Isakson and I had one of
these hearings previously in Gainesville, which he chaired, and
we had Nathan Deal there with us that day. Today, I'm very
pleased to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Isakson
here again. We also have Congressman Westmoreland here,
Congressman Sanford Bishop, and I know that Congressman Phil
Gingrey is on the way. So, gentlemen, thank you all for being
here.
These river systems that cross Congressional Districts
affect many citizens in our state, so I'm particularly pleased
that these folks could join us. Congressman Linder wanted to
join us but was unable to rearrange his schedule; however, he
has a written statement he would like to submit for the record,
and his statement will be made a part of the record in the
appropriate place.
As I said, in August of this year, Senator Isakson and I,
along with Congressman Deal, held a hearing in Gainesville very
similar to the one that we're holding today. At that hearing,
we heard from homeowners, economic development officials, and
local government officials regarding their needs from the
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River Basins.
Well, that hearing, folks, was mainly on the issues
relative to Lake Lanier. We promised all the folks here in this
part of the state that we would be holding a hearing downstream
as well because you have a stake in this matter that is just as
strictly important as the folks upstream. We're looking forward
to hearing directly from you about the various needs you have
for these lakes and rivers.
This hearing offers a unique opportunity because you're
going to hear from the Corps of Engineers regarding their
operation of these systems and why things may not be exactly as
each one of us would like for them to be.
I'm eager to hear today from Governor Perdue about the
progress he's made with Governors Riley and Bush from Alabama
and Florida and getting the three governors to agree on new
water allocations between the three states that rely on the ACT
and the ACF River systems. We all heard a great deal about the
Tristate Water Wars, and we all know that there are very
complex issues involved. Although we're a long way from a
resolution, the fact that these governors are talking face-to-
face and not via court papers is a good sign.
And let me just say that Senator Isakson and I have had to
have a number of meetings with the Corps of Engineers as well
as the Secretary of the Army and Governor Perdue relative to
moving forward with some discussion towards a resolution, and
were it not for the leadership of Governor Perdue, we would not
be where we are in that process today. Both before the Federal
Court that was positive decision from Georgia's perspective
came down the early part of this year as well as after that
court decision, he has been trying to make progress on this
issue. I want to thank him for his leadership and I look
forward to hearing from you today.
Also, I'm eager to hear from Brigadier General Joe
Schroedel, who is the new Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division. I hope General Schroedel
can tell us today about the progress they made in updating the
water control manuals and shed some light to our folks as to
why the systems are currently being operated the way they are.
Now, let me just say that Senator Isakson and I had the
opportunity to visit with General Schroedel before this meeting
this morning, and I'm impressed. We finally, folks, have
somebody who not only will have a vision as to what we need to
do but is willing to make some of the hard enough decisions and
move this issue forward. I'm impressed with the comments that
he's already made relative to movement, and I look forward to
his statements a little later on.
Finally, on our third panel, we'll hear from Dick
Timmerberg from the West Point Lake Coalition, Mike Gaymon with
Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Steve Singletary with
Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and Jimmy Webb
with the Flint River Water Council. These gentlemen will
represent a variety of interests from recreation to economic
development to conservation and agriculture interests in
Georgia's water resources.
Although we do not have a witness here today to speak of
it, I want to make sure that I make note of the fact that we
have two important ports in Georgia--one in Bainbridge and one
right here in Columbus--that are also impacted by the operation
of the ACT and the ACF River systems.
I visited with folks in Bainbridge the other day, and I
talked numerous times with folks here in Columbus relative to
the issues that are involved with both of those ports, and rest
assured that we have the best interest of those ports in mind
as we go through this process, I want to make sure that
everybody knows that we are keenly aware of the important role
that these ports play in commerce and navigation needs and of
the considerable impact they have on the west and southwest
parts of our state. A number of industries and jobs that can be
supported by these river systems. It's important that all of
the needs from these systems are noted as we assess not only
modern day uses but modern day needs.
Because our witness panel today is limited, I want to be
sure that folks know that the official record for this hearing
will remain open for five business days and that any--I
emphasize that; any interested party may submit written
testimony to be included in the record. I want to thank all of
our witnesses for being with us today, and I look forward to
their testimony.
At this time, I'd like to first turn to my colleague, my
good friend, and one of the great leaders of the United States
Senate, Senator Isakson, for any comments he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ISAKSON
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Chambliss, and thank you Chairman, will be conducting this
hearing today.
I'm pleased to join you for the second time. We started
this, as he said, in Gainesville at the Riverside Academy and
had a hearing in the month of August, which General Walsh, who
has been the southeastern commander, testified, and we had
great participation. I know we'll have great participation with
that today.
I welcome the Governor, who has just stepped in, and after
all of the things the Senator said, had it not been for his
leadership in engaging Governor Riley in Alabama in the
beginning, civil discussions on future use of the ACF-ACT
basins, we would be in a quagmire today. And his leadership has
shown--proven he and Riley are talking, and that's one of the
fundamental foundations to ultimately have a successful
conclusion.
I'm very pleased that Congressman Westmoreland, Congressman
Gingrey, and Congressman Bishop are joining us today because
these issues are important to the entire Congressional
Delegation.
General Schroedel, I have to tell you; I had some prepared
remarks about the issues, and it was after talking to you for
20 minutes, you're my kind of guy. And I think everybody here
is going to be really pleased to hear what General Schroedel,
who has come to take over this committee. He has a can-do
attitude. He listens. He wants to know what's on people's minds
and emulates the deliverer. That's exactly what we've needed.
There are three things I'm going to be looking for from the
General and from the Corps because there are three important
ingredients, I think, to put this real problem behind us and
resolve it for the long-term best interest of the three states
and all of the people of Georgia.
Number one, we have an assurance from General Walsh and
from Secretary Harvey of the Army that beginning in January of
2007, the Corps will begin what has been postponed for years,
and that is a new water control plan. It is absolutely
essential that a 50-year-old water control plan be updated to
reflect the State of Georgia and its population of almost 10
million people and the needs and diversity of all of the
Chattahoochee River basin.
Secondly, an acknowledgement that the Interim Operational
Plan, in which we currently are working, is an operational plan
that's basically a de-facto water control plan based on the
environmental species issue. And it's very important that all
the issues that affect the basin and the water supply be
addressed in a comprehensive water control plan.
Lastly, there are conflicting interests; environmental
interests, business interests, stewardship for the environment,
recreation, all the things that water engages. I do not believe
that these interests are mutually exclusive. I think they can
be inclusive. And I know from reading General Schroedel's
testimony with regard to the various priorities of the use of
water, he takes from--he takes a very priority approach to see
to it that all the concerns are equally invested and equally
studied and equally addressed.
Lastly, I hope the General will address the requests of the
folks around West Point Lake in terms of the winter pool level
increasing two feet. I know the Corps was asked to look at the
possibility of doing that, raising the winter pool from 628 to
630, and I know the people from West Point Lake and LaGrange
would be happy to hear a response from the General with regard
to that issue.
But, lastly, I want to reaffirm what I said before. I want
to thank my colleagues for joining me for this important issue,
thank Saxby for chairing and our Governor for his leadership,
and I want to welcome General Schroedel to Georgia and to the
southeast. We look forward to his enlightened leadership on
this critical issue for us.
The Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Bishop.
STATEMENT OF HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.
Mr. Bishop. Good morning, and thank you very much. I'd like
to thank you, Senators Chambliss and Isakson, for holding this
very important hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers Operation
of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa River Basins on Georgia's Agricultural Community.
I want to certainly welcome all the community and my
colleagues, especially to the Second Congressional District.
You are located in the Second Congressional District, and this
is indeed God's country.
I also want to take an opportunity to welcome the Governor
to the Second Congressional District of Columbus to this
hearing and thank him for the great work that he is doing in
the interest of the water for the people of the State of
Georgia.
And, certainly, we want to welcome General Schroedel. We
welcome you and look forward to a wonderful working
relationship, which we have had before on many projects that
are of mutual interest.
Today, we'll consider an important issue that are reasons
for our economic, agricultural, and recreational quality of
life; our water usage from and the levels of our river basins.
As it's well-known, recently, the Corps of Engineers mistakenly
released tens of billions of gallons of water from Lake Lanier
to, just a possible, drought and conditions in Florida
endangering the Gulf sturgeon and some species of protected
mussels in our neighboring states. Now, this action, which was
undertaken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, prompted a
lawsuit against the Corps over how our water resources are
managed.
At issue are the levels of which our four water bodies are
set; Lake Lanier, West Point, Walter F. George, and Lake
Seminole all on the Chattahoochee River. Recently, the Corps
received some warnings by Governor Perdue and the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division that Lanier is too low. Now,
the water is--should be up to 537 million gallons of water
daily to more than 3 billion left to Atlanta. As a result of
the mistaken release, the state has activated a regional
document sponsored by the state's mitigation protecting
responsibly to manage our precious water resources.
Now, the Corps has the responsibility to provide for and to
the management of our water needs. The Congress has oversight
over the Corps of which is what this hearing is all about.
Our natural resources are precious. We have a
responsibility to be good stewards in our individual
capacities. So while we love our mussels and sturgeon, our
human needs must take precedence here. And with solid planning
and water management, notwithstanding as far as the Interim
Operations Plan to manage the ACF basin and protecting
endangered species, we ought to be able to balance these needs
without the needs of more water than is necessary for our
reservoir.
I share the deep concern of my colleagues in Congress and
in the State of Georgia including Governor Perdue as the Corps'
apparent mismanagement of these important resources, and I'm
also deeply concerned that the Corps has been unresponsive to
the concerns raised by the Governor, leaving us with no
alternatives but to seek legal action to protect the resources.
The fact is that the Corps implemented that Interim
Operations Plan, but without the public not being on notice, it
was undertaken without studying for effects, including the
devastating effect of the low levels they're having on
recreational boating, fishing, and of course, the local
counties as well as the eventual agricultural usage.
While we have taken the Corps to task, I must hasten to
commend and thank the Corps for its more recent cooperation on
issues with Lake Seminole, Tybee Creek project, the dam project
right here in Columbus, and the establishment of a community
council to work with the Corps and the communities in the Lake
Seminole and Lake Walter F. George areas to improve relations
and customer service there on both those bodies.
As a member of Congress, I am very, concerned about the
impact, but I look forward to this important hearing addressing
these important issues so that we can arrive at a responsible
and sustainable water management plan with good cooperation
with the Corps and all of the communities that are affected by
these very, very important water basins.
The Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Westmoreland.
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
Ms. Westmoreland. Thank you, Senator Chambliss, and thank
you for having us here. And thanks to Senator Isakson and my
friend Sanford Bishop and Governor Perdue for being here also.
General Schroedel, this is a problem that seems to have
been created by us tying our hands to do common-sense things,
and I'm glad to hear from hearing these Senators that you seem
to be a common-sense kind of guy.
We have to understand that when the Corps implemented a
plan for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system that
that plan was never completed, and West Point Lake is probably
taking on more responsibility for water needs than it should
have because there was a system of lakes that were actually
never built.
When this lake was built, it brought about great economic
recreational water storage ability to the whole system. And,
General, we're going to look to you to tell us what we need to
do to untie your hands to do the right thing for this entire
region. The City of Columbus, the City of LaGrange; Phoenix
City, Alabama; West Point, Georgia; cities depend on the flow
of water. We have businesses on both sides of the river that
need to make sure they have an appropriate flow.
The lake level at West Point is very important to this
whole region as far as the economics that it provides, and so
we're looking forward to your leadership in letting us know how
we can help you solve this situation.
And, Governor, I want to thank you for your leadership
with--of the governance in trying to resolve this without
lawyers. And you and I have talked about this before, and we
understand that a common-sense approach, a gentleman's
agreement between people, is much more effective than the
costly and lengthy court battles that come out of this.
So, Senator, I look forward to hearing all of the panels
and getting some answers to our questions. Thank you.
The Chairman. Great. Thank you. And I understand
Congressman Gingrey is on the way, and we'll certainly give him
an opportunity to make some comments, but obviously, we've now
been joined by Governor Sonny Perdue.
Governor, welcome. We enjoyed very much your presentation
in Gainesville, which I alluded to earlier. As I told the
audience in my opening comments, and Senator Isakson reiterated
them that without your leadership and moving this ball down the
court, we simply wouldn't be where we are today.
I want to make sure that everybody understands as far as
the leadership from the highest level in all three states, you
have been the one to really be up front and to try to make sure
that we come to a good common-sense resolution that is
ultimately a benefit to all three states. It's a very complex
issue.
We thank you for taking the time out of what I know is a
somewhat busy schedule that you have over the next couple of
weeks here. We appreciate you being here today, and we look
forward to your comments, Governor.
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA
Governor Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After hearing all
of your opening comments, we'd probably all be better served
with a hard-laying hand for me and concluding my remarks, but
you probably suspect I won't do that.
But thank you all and thank the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry for allowing and conducting this
hearing today on this very important issue. I'd like to thank
the Chairman of that Committee, Saxby Chambliss, as well as
Senator Isakson and the hometown boy, Sanford Bishop,
Congressman, thank you, and Congressman Westmoreland, as well
as your interest in this whole river basin area. I know it
affects your districts as well as it does all of Georgia, and I
thank you all for giving us the opportunity to talk about this.
I want to begin by really just reiterating things that we
all know; simple things. But water is a life resource. It's a
fundamental part of our lives. And I don't want to be
condescending in that, but sometimes we forget how viable it
is. It's easy to forget how completely we depend upon it. Human
survival is dependent on water, and water's been ranked by
experts as only second to oxygen as essential for life. And
it's not only essential for drinking, but it's critical to our
economy, including our number-one industry in Georgia, and that
is agriculture.
We've worked hard in Georgia to ensure that our uses of
this precious resource are reasonable, that we are currently in
the process of adopting a statewide water plan just here in
this region. We've opened the Environmental Protection Division
office in Tifton to improve local and state coordination on
water use.
EPD has just implemented the use of our new geographic
information system technology into its process for evaluating
applications for agricultural irrigation permits. The Soil &
Water Conservation Authority is helping to put a water meter on
every pump in the Flint River basin so that we can have the
best quality data on agricultural water use for managing our
water supply.
We want to be good stewards because it's that important. We
believe that Georgia's doing its part in--to responsibly
utilize and manage our precious water resources that we share
with our two sister states. So you can understand our
exasperation when the United States Corps of Engineers fails to
do its part to properly manage this critical resource in the
ACT and in the ACF River basins.
Waters arising and flowing in Georgia are waters of the
State of Georgia. And the federal reservoirs constructed on
them should be operated by the Corps to meet the vital needs of
Georgia citizens, including water supply, waste assimilation,
recreation and navigation, and to support, yes, the biological
needs of a wide variety of species throughout the river basin.
In March of this year, the Corps announced a new reservoir
management plan for the ACF basin reservoirs called the Interim
Operations Plan. Now, it wouldn't be appropriate if we didn't
use an acronym for that, but IOP was intended to support the
needs of the endangered Gulf sturgeon during its spring spawn
and the needs of two species of protected mussels in the
summer.
While the intention of the IOP may be good, the State of
Georgia is concerned that it mandates the release of far more
water than is necessary for the protection of these species and
depletes the water storage upon which people and wildlife,
including those protected species at issue, depend.
Unfortunately, under former leadership, the Corps had largely
dismissed Georgia's concerns in those areas.
On May 5th, 2006, Dr. Carol Couch, our director of
Georgia's Environmental Protection Division, wrote a letter to
the Corps including hydrologic data showing that the Corps'
continued operations to draw down the federal reservoirs in the
ACF basin to their lowest level in 50 years and could
effectively empty them if continued. On June the 1st, 2006, Dr.
Couch sent a letter to the Corps and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service requesting specific changes to the IOP.
On June the 2nd, 2006, I wrote the Secretary of the Army,
Frances Harvey, sharing Georgia's concern that, quote, Unless
the Corps changes its operating protocols, the reservoirs and
lakes in the system will be drawn down to their lowest level in
recorded history. Also, on June the 2nd, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a
letter to Colonel Peter Taylor and the Fish & Wildlife Service
with an attached memorandum providing additional results of the
simulation of the IOP using data and information received from
the Corps.
On June the 6th, 2006, I personally met with former
Commander Michael Walsh and Colonel Taylor again expressing in
person those concerns. By June 9th, 2006, the state received no
material responses from the Corps in response to our letters of
concern.
Thus, on June the 9th, 2006, Dr. Couch wrote the Corps
another letter demanding specific revisions for the IOP. On
June the 12th, 2006, the Corps responded by letter to Dr.
Couch's June 1st and June 2nd letters. The Corps challenged
what it believed to be certain assumptions underlying Georgia's
simulations of the IOP but did not provide data to allow
Georgia to assess the validity of the Corps' assertions or to
fully evaluate the discrepancy between the Corps' and Georgia's
models.
The Corps repeatedly put off responding to our June 9th
letter that demanded changes to the IOP. After several requests
for more time, the Corps finally stated that it would not
respond to the June 9th letter because of unidentified, quote,
Concerns raised by other parties to the litigation. In fact,
the Corps did not respond to Dr. Couch's June 9th letter until
June 21, 2006.
In the midst of all this, the Corps has admitted to
releasing more than 22 billion gallons of water from Lake
Lanier by mistake; at a time when the region was approaching
what is traditionally the dryest time of the year. By this
mistake, they essentially created a man-made drought on top of
a natural drought. The 22 and a half billion gallons of water
the Corps mistakenly released corresponds to 6.3 percent of
Lake Lanier's conservation storage capacity or 22 and a half of
West Point's capacity or 28.2 of Walter F. George's storage
conservation pool.
The unfortunate actions by the Corps and the repeated lack
of response to our concerns left Georgia with no alternative
but to take legal action to protect our water resources. As
you're aware, the State of Georgia filed a complaint in the
Northern District of Georgia to stop the Corps' continued
operation according to the Interim Operations Plan. This case
is still pending.
Litigation is never how I choose to deal with issues, as
Congressman Westmoreland stated. And as I explained earlier, we
tried to impress our concerns upon the Corps; however, the
Corps' leadership was largely non-responsive. The threat to the
State of Georgia months later was not subsided.
The IOP that the Corps continues to operate under does not
allow our reservoirs to refill and recover the lost stored
water. Common sense tells you you cannot manage a system of
reservoirs if you never store your water.
The Corps' Interim Operations Plan was adopted without any
prior notice, without any public participation, without
analysis of its impact on authorized purposes for which the
federal reservoirs were constructed, without consideration of
its impact on the water supply security for the millions of
people who rely on the Chattahoochee reservoir system for water
supply, without consider of its long-term sustainability or its
long-term impact on federally protected species, and without
consideration of alternatives. The result is an unbalanced plan
that poses a severe risk of substantial harm to the State of
Georgia.
In fact, the Interim Operations Plan is essentially a
water-control plan; a water-control plan that was adopted
without any public comment or notice and taking only one factor
into consideration; that is, endangered species.
Now, Georgia has long advocated that the Corps should
update its master control plan for both the ACF and the ACT
basins, which has not been done in over 50 years. As a result,
the Corps is operating these complex systems without reliable
and predictable operating rules tailored to current demands and
conditions within the basin. Indeed, the Corps' own regulations
provide that water control plans should be updated periodically
in light of changing demands and other conditions. And I don't
think there's any question that in the last 50 years the ACF
and ACT basins in our region of all three states have changed
dramatically.
The Federal Government itself has recognized the need for
current plans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is
investing millions of dollars in updating floodplain maps. This
is in response to growth in Georgia and Alabama that has
altered the flood characteristics of watersheds. The Corps
needs to incorporate these altered flood characteristics into
updated operation manuals to ensure the protection of life and
property in both states.
Further, inefficient, inaccurate, or unpredictable
operation of the ACF and ACT systems results in growing
uncertainty about the supply of water for more than half the
Georgia citizens and facilities such as the Farley nuclear
plant in Alabama and other power plants and industries. The
water control plans should also be updated as part of
implementing the 2003 settlement reached by the Corps, the
State of Georgia, and other parties that would help ensure a
constant water supply over the next decade.
The failure of the Corps to update the water control plan
is also affecting a stated purpose of lakes in the basin, and
that is recreation. West Point officials have repeatedly asked
the Corps to raise the level of the lake by two feet in the
winter when the water is plentiful to accommodate recreational
and fishing needs that have a significant impact on the
region's economy. The Corps officials have said that they have
to adhere to the elevation levels of the IOP. So it seems that
the Corps only has the authority to change the--its operation
when it wants to do so.
So what does all this mean? The Corps is providing flows
for the endangered sturgeon and mussels under an IOP. It was
developed without studying its full effects and without
properly updating the Corps' grossly outdated water control
plan. The Corps' performance under the IOP this year
demonstrates that it is not a sustainable plan.
The ACF system lost more than 381,338 acre feet of storage
during the period from March 1 to October 20, 2006, when the
IOP has been implemented. This corresponds to 23 percent of the
entire system storage at summer pool levels. The loss of system
storage is the largest among historical drought years of 1986,
1988, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2006.
The system now just has 63 percent of conservation storage
left, which is worse than at the same time in 1999. That means
if the current drought continues and turns out to be as severe
and prolonged as the previous one or even worse, and if the
Corps does not take measures to actively conserve water in the
reservoirs, system storage will be depleted to levels never
seen before.
Earlier this year, the Corps submitted the IOP to the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service for consultation pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. On September 5, 2006, the Fish &
Wildlife Service issued its Biological Opinion regarding the
Corps' operation and its effect on threatened species in the
Apalachicola River.
In the Biological Opinion, the Fish & Wildlife Service
found the flows provided under the IOP would be sufficient to
allow the threatened and endangered species to survive, but the
Biological Opinion failed to recognize that the IOP does not
allow the federal reservoirs to refill as they should, and
thus, in a multi-year drought, those reservoirs could be
drained completely with potentially devastating results and
effect to human needs and the needs of a very same species that
the IOP is designed to protect. The Biological Opinion,
therefore, is seriously flawed, shortsighted, and
unfortunately, it looks like you must have to go back to the
Corps to challenge it.
At the same time, Governor Riley and I are doing our best
to put aside any disagreement between our states and reach an
agreement on the management and operations of the ACT water
basin. If we find common ground there, it is my hope that we
would also reach consensus on the management of the ACT basin.
Of course, in the end, the only way any agreement would be
successful is if the Corps will manage the basin accordingly.
I met with Governor Riley twice regarding the ACT River
basin, and we're committed to a resolution. We may need to ask
for your help, Congress, in securing the Corps' consent when
the time comes.
I hope there's an opportunity for the Corps to direct this
course under Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel. Now, in order
to get the Corps' operations back on track, I believe it's
going to take real leadership on his part. And I look forward
to personally sitting down with General Schroedel in the near
future to discuss these important matters.
In closing, I would like to say that I cannot believe
Congress passed an Endangered Species Act with the intention of
providing substantially more protection for the species than
for human beings. The Corps can provide for both the needs of
these endangered species and the needs of humans upstream if it
operates wisely and is guided by sound science and good
planning.
For example, I do not believe Congress intended that the
Corps provide those species with more water than they would
have received even that the natural environment would provide;
particularly when it comes at great costs upstream.
It is time, as Congressman Westmoreland said, for common
sense to prevail on this issue. That is what we want from the
Corps when asking that they update the 50-year-old water
control plan. That is what we seek through our request to stop
the release of water greater than nature would provide.
Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to voice
Georgia's concern. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Perdue can be found on
page 50 in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. Governor, thank you very much for those very
informative, very straightforward comments relative to numerous
issues we have in consideration relative to our tristate water
issues here in Georgia. And thanks again for your leadership.
And let me just say; I think everybody on this panel would
agree that we've been trying to make changes in the Endangered
Species Act for some time now. We can put some common-sense
provisions in place, and unfortunately, when we try to take
common sense to Washington, we find a road block at the city
limits. And we're going to continue that fight trying to make
sure that we make some provisions in the ESA to hopefully take
care of situations like this, which is very directly.
I want to point out; simply need to be put in place, and
there needs to be more common sense. And thinking about the way
we're protecting the environment and now the needs of the
individuals throughout the country with that species which we
all treasure so much.
Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your
continued leadership.
Governor Perdue. Thank you.
The Chairman. Now, I would like to ask Brigadier General
Joseph Schroedel, South Atlantic Division Commander, United
States Army, Corps of Engineers, I'd like for you to come
forward.
General Schroedel, we know that you have only been on the
job for a couple months now. And as Senator Isakson and I were
discussing this with you, the fact that you are new, gives you
a very unique perspective on the issues that we have as well as
the ability to hopefully lead us down the road trying to solve
some of these issues.
I can't help but comment that when we had our meeting in
Gainesville, General Walsh was still occupying your position as
the South Atlantic Division Commander. Today, he is serving our
country in Iraq. We wished him well back then. We obviously
still hope he and all of his comrades who are in Iraq the very
best, and they're in our prayers every day.
We thank you for your great service to the United States of
America. Because you wear the uniform, you're a hero of ours.
And I don't have to tell you that it goes without saying and
without knowing who all's in the audience that because of the
location of Fort Benning here, there is a tremendous
appreciation to the United States Army in this part of our
state.
So we thank you for being here, and we look forward to your
comments.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL, DIVISION
COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
General Schroedel. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the Congress, great citizens of
this local community in the State of Georgia, and the great
South, having just gotten here, as the Chairman said, about two
months ago, I'll tell you, my wife and I are ecstatic to be a
part of the South; friendly people who we call true Americans.
And it's just great to be here. And I also appreciate the
expectations I think that you've already raised with folks from
our initial meeting. I'll do everything I can to live up to
that and more.
I'd like to make some opening comments, and what I'll do,
if I can, is I'd like to read a few of the--part of the opening
statement. I want to save as much time as I can for discussion.
The first thing I'd say is I'm here to listen. We are all in
this together. This is a very complex problem. And the first
question that I ask anybody is: What are your priorities and
what are your objectives? And then our obligation is to figure
out a way within our authorities and our capabilities to meet
all of those demands.
I'd also like to thank, if I can, everyone in this audience
for your support to the United States Army and for all the men
and women in uniform and civilians. I'll tell you; out of my
4,000 employees in the division, about 80 right now are
civilians, volunteers who are serving in harm's way in combat,
serving the needs of our nation. And I'd like to thank all of
you for your support. That's important.
And for me personally, my son is deploying to Afghanistan
today, so my personal commitment to you is I am here and not
seeing him off. And I think it's an important statement to you
that this is important to me, and I'm here to listen to what
has to be said so I can execute my duties to the fullest extent
that I can.
And I'd also like to publicly respond, if I can, to one
comment the Governor made. And if, in fact, our organization
has not been responsive, I will publicly apologize for that.
That will not be tolerated under my command. If someone asks a
question, you're going to get an answer, and it better be
quick.
I'd also like to say that the Corps does commit to a policy
of openness. Nothing that we do is secret, and everything that
we do should be a matter of public record. We have websites.
And it's a matter of education; make sure people know where to
get the information. I will enforce and reinforce that. And, in
fact, we let people know how to participate and help us serve
you.
Again, I ask that my full statement be submitted to the
record. And let me go on with my opening statement so I could
save some time for discussion and listening and see what we can
do to help solve this problem.
I'd like to also maybe start by responding to Congressman
Westmoreland's question; sort of respond to your question of
how can you help untie our hands. I think one of the bottom
lines for us is that we've got to get past the feud between the
three states. We have to have political peace behind us, and
let us get on--as we committed the 2nd of January, let's get on
with getting those manuals done so we can have a collaborative
process that gets everybody involved in figuring out the right
way to manage the system. I think we'll find many of the
components of how we're managing it today will probably remain
in place. But, nonetheless, 50 years is way too long, and we
just need the political process to get past so we can get on
with the work, and we're ready to go.
So let me go on with a little bit of my statement, if I
can. The ACT River system of projects--and by the way, let me
back up for a second. I've only been here a couple of months,
and I've been working hard to learn everything I can about this
system. My boss has said this is my priority for the region. I
still have a lot to learn. I've got some of my experts in the
audience with me. I am not going to pretend to be the expert
today. I can tell you I've asked a lot of tough questions, so I
know a little bit, and I'll share as much as I can here today.
The ACT River system projects consist of multi-purpose
projects providing for flood control, hydropower, navigation,
water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife
conservation; all the above. The system has five Corps projects
and 10 Alabama Power Company dams, and the Corps projects
consist of two major storage projects, Allatoona and Carters,
here in the State of Georgia at the upper end of the basin.
The basin, as everyone knows, is experiencing some dry
conditions as are other basins within the southeast. I will
tell you I was shocked to come here from the southwest where I
commanded a division for three and a half years, and shocked to
find that there were no natural reservoirs here. That was a
shock to me. I'll just pass that on to you.
The two uppermost projects, Allatoona and Carters, are
experiencing inflows that average 10 to 50 percent less than
normal. But only minimum flows are currently being released
from Carters, and Allatoona is only generating power two hours
a day. I'll also add that we have allocated no water in
navigation since about the year 2000.
The ACF River system of projects also consists of multi-
purpose projects, all for the same purposes that I just
mentioned. The Federal projects in the system begin, as I think
most people know, with Lake Sidney Lanier at the headwaters,
West Point Lake here, Lake Walter F. George, George W. Andrews,
and Lake Seminole at the lower end of the basin. And there are
also several other lakes and hydropower facilities operated by
private and public utilities along the system.
Now, under normal circumstances--and this is one point that
I'd like to make sure you all understand. Under normal
circumstances, we operate the reservoirs to meet the purposes
in accordance with not the IOP but draft water management
plans. Our most recent attempt to revise all the manuals that
were developed in the 1980s; the IOP is a specific manual which
addresses only the endangered species south of Woodruff. It
does not--does not apply to the entire system.
What we did in the 1980s is establish certain zones of
water levels, which trigger actions within those zones as
different levels are reached. Now, this management has proven
to be successful in the past under varying water conditions,
drought or no drought. And what these zones do, basically, is
that it allows us to balance the competing demands at each
reservoir, and at the same time, synchronize what we're doing
with the water all along the system between the reservoirs.
So if we're at Level 2 or between Level 2, let's say at
Lanier, we want to be at that level at all of the systems. That
doesn't mean a certain level; it means be within the band for
that particular reservoir that would meet all of the needs to
the best extent that we can accomplish that at that site.
Obviously during a drought, that causes special problems,
so we've modeled the reservoir levels for this year using the
assumptions of the 2000 drought as a basis. Now, based on that
assumption, we expected West Point Lake to reach its lowest
point at the mid winter. I think, as most people know, we have
all the lakes down in the winter to provide for flood
protection and then bring them back up in the spring. We expect
that by January, at most, a decline of perhaps another two
feet; maybe a little bit more, but right now, as a matter of
fact, the lake went up today.
I will tell you also we have to look at what the weather
experts say. They're predicting a small El Nino, which
typically brings higher than normal rains in the southeast. So
we had to take that into account from our calculation of risks.
Regardless, the Corps will continue to operate with the current
management plan. We'll do our best to meet the needs.
Let me address the winter pool level, if I can, for a
second. West Point Lake was authorized with five purposes;
recreation, hydropower, flood control, navigation, fish and
wildlife conservation. And we make every effort to meet all of
these needs and authorize purposes to the fullest extent
possible with the available water. A request to raise the
winter pool level from the current conservation level of 628 to
630 was disapproved after an extensive evaluation of risks. And
in this case, we had to balance flood risks against recreation.
Let me explain how operational decisions are influenced by
a variety of factors. Operation of Corps reservoirs take into
account current and predicted future conditions, as I said. For
instance, in a drought, conserving water for human and
industrial consumption becomes a higher priority, and I think
we'd all agree with that. I'm sure some folks in this area
remember well the flood of 2003 when the rain fell pretty
heavily between here and Lanier, and it caused quite a stir, as
I am told.
Some other uses, such as recreation and hydropower, may
temporarily become a lower priority. Likewise, in times when
the risk of flooding becomes greater, flood control operations
rise in priority. So these dams that we've established within
our current manuals help us balance those needs and judge
risks. The winter pool level at West Point was originally
authorized at 625, and then we raised it to 628 in the 1980s
with these draft manuals.
To make an informed decision--and this is a point I'd like
to make. To make an informed decision on increasing the winter
pool level, a study must be done--and by the way, I'm not a fan
of long drawn-out studies. I like to get her done. But I'd like
to see us do a study quickly to quantify--which hasn't been
done at this point; quantify the increased risk to downstream
citizens, flood risk.
At the same time, you know, let's quantify what the trade-
offs are with respect to costs to mitigate the risks, the
social benefits, socioeconomic benefits, of recreation. I don't
know. Perhaps there aren't as many people living south of the
lake as used to be. There are a lot of factors we should take
into account.
But I personally am in favor of a study quickly. Let's get
to the answer, and let's make a decision. It's within our
authority to raise the level, but let's do what we need to do
to be as certain as we can about what risks we're taking. So I
just want to make sure that I make that point to everybody in
this local community, though I would like to do that as quickly
as we can.
On the Endangered Species Act, just a couple of quick
comments. Again, the Interim Operating Plan is focused strictly
on the endangered species list. That's the mussels that you've
heard about and the Gulf sturgeon.
We've been in consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service
since the year 2000, so about six years. It was only this
year--about the time I got here--or actually, before I got
here--that we entered into a formal consultation with the Fish
& Wildlife Service. They've now issued their Biological
Opinion.
And the key piece for me--this is one of the questions I
asked. One of the questions I asked was: How much were we
releasing prior to this IOP? And it amounts to about 5,000
cubic feet per second. So the IOP basically embraced what we
were already releasing as a normal flow--outflow, not just for
endangered species. So the overall impact on lake-level
reservoirs is really minimal, from what I can tell so far, with
respect to this IOP.
The BIOP basically sets parameters for the flow. I won't
get into the details. Naturally, they might before I get into
any of it, but I can tell you that it's a very complicated set
of adjustments that are made that may require some of the
release of storage; again, depending on how low the flows go.
And, again, I don't want to cover those details right here.
During drought conditions--and I guess the bottom line is:
During drought conditions, not all project purposes can be met.
I think we all understand that. You have competing demands;
you've got to set priorities somewhere. And only minimum basin
inflows would be released in support of endangered species. So
I think we've got a balance there.
We've also simulated West Point Lake and Walter F. George
Lake levels for both with and without the IOP. Now, this is an
important point for me. The modeling shows that as of 1
October, the current lake levels would be approximately one
foot higher without the implementation of the IOP for this
Biological Opinion. It should also be noted that during less
extreme conditions, the impacts of the IOP BIOP would be
negligible on lake levels at West Point.
Let me conclude by saying that the ACF River system
currently exists in a couple of environments that make all
decisions a challenge. And I will tell you I don't mind hard
decisions. I don't mind being in a rock and a hard place.
The first clearly is the drought, and it looks like it's
moderating a little bit. Matter of fact, we just raised--we
picked up six inches this past weekend with the rain we had.
But the second one, which I would ask for help from--the
Congress' help from, or the Governor, you know, is the
disagreement that currently exists between the states over
water allocation and the best management of the system.
Now, I will tell you; I think everybody wants to see that,
and I frankly think that's going to happen. And we're in a dry
run, as I said earlier, and trying to get our manuals going so
we can get everybody working together and solve this issue as
quickly as we can.
I don't have all the answers, but the Corps remains ready
to support, ready to serve you, ready to serve your needs,
ready to provide the technical expertise, which I've already
spent a lot of time with our folks, and I'm very comfortable in
their abilities, and we're here to provide all the assistance
we can to make the right things happen.
So, again, the commitment that I'll make is I'm honored to
be here. Great to be a part of the South. We'll remain
responsive. I want to listen. I want to hear what your concerns
are. I want to know what your objectives are. I want to make
sure that we're communicating with you so you know what we're
thinking and how we're trying to balance the competing needs.
I frankly think the Corps is in a great position as an
independent entity to oversee a system, which is essentially an
interstate system, and help make sure that all of those needs
are met to the best of our ability to serve the needs of the
American people who are served by that system or both the
systems.
Sir, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Schroedel can be found
on page 61 in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. General, thank you very much for your
comments. And let me say, that with your son deploying to
Afghanistan today, just know that you and your family are in
our prayers, and we hope that you'll give your son an extra hug
around the neck from all of us the next time you do see him and
tell him how much we appreciate his dedication to protecting
all Americans and making sure that freedom and security are
maintained in this country.
We've been joined by Congressman Phil Gingrey. So I want to
make sure he has the opportunity to not only ask questions but
make an opening statement.
And, Congressman Gingrey, just so you'll know, what we're
going to do is to go down the line, and we're going to let
everybody ask questions. When it comes your turn, you'll have
all the time you want to make any sort of statement plus ask
your questions. So we'll keep you in the mix there.
General, it was my understanding that there has not been a
new water control plan for the ACF system for really all of the
50 years that it's been in existence. However, in your
statement, you referenced the draft water management plans
developed in the late 1980s.
Do you operate the system pursuant to these draft
management plans, and do they therefore have the force and
effect of a management plan, or do you operate the system based
on the Interim Operations Plan, which was created after the
State of Florida filed their Endangered Species Act claims
earlier this year?
General Schroedel. Sir, we operate the entire system on the
basis of those draft 1980 manuals, which decline to depict
their level of the bands that I talked about into zones, which
were created in conjunction with state folks to help determine
between the signs and the calculation. How do we balance all of
those needs at varying levels at each of our reservoirs?
So the short answer is: We use those manuals. And the IOP
is augment to that only for that portion south of Woodruff to
address the water being released from there or beyond that
point for the endangered species for the mussels.
But, again, 5,000 CFS flow, which is in that Biological
Opinion, is historically about what we saw into flow in there.
The Chairman. Now, it's my understanding that the IOP dealt
in part with trying to protect the mussels and sturgeons during
their spawning season. Is that going to be a continual IOP, or
is that then modified depending on the season for spawning?
General Schroedel. Sir, to be honest with you, I'm not
really sure. But what I would expect to happen is if we can
move on with the master manual--with revising the manuals, that
we should incorporate into those manuals the appropriate steps
to address the endangered species and not have a myriad of
different manuals that perhaps conflict or cause confusion
regarding what's the management plan. I think we need one
management plan.
The Chairman. Well, let's talk about the updating of those
manuals.
What the entire Delegation here wants to see is the
updating of those manuals because these lakes were built in the
1950's, and basically, they're operating under the same water
plans pursuant to the water manuals that were in place when
these lakes were constructed.
We have been assured by the Secretary of the Army in a
meeting face-to-face with Senator Isakson and I had that the
manuals would begin being updated on January 2nd, 2007. Leading
up to that, there would be some preliminary work being done,
which is, I understand, in place now, in preparation for the
updating of those manuals.
Can you tell us whether or not that schedule of beginning
the updating process is going to take place on January 2nd?
General Schroedel. Sir, I've reviewed the testimony and the
bidding, and my understanding is that we have committed, and I
will reaffirm the commitment to begin that work. I will also
note--like to point out that I'm being told at the same time
that funding to carry that effort out as quickly as we need to
is not adequate.
The Chairman. Now is the time for us to address that issue.
I assure you it's being addressed at our level.
General Schroedel. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. And we're not going to let it be held up for
that reason.
There are various interests in our state which makes Georga
a little bit unique and different from our two bordering states
involved in this issue. We have issues in north Georgia, for
example, with Lake Lanier being the water source for the city
of Atlanta as well as of some other surrounding communities for
it being a discharge area for some of the counties surrounding
metropolitan Atlanta that are different than those you find as
you move downstream.
Downstream, not only do we have the same recreational water
supply issues as north Georgia relative to the lakes in this
part of the state, but there are important agricultural
interests and interests in transporting goods in commerce down
the rivers to the Gulf. Those issues are unique here versus the
issues that are prevalent in the metro Atlanta area.
So as you go through this process, I want to make sure that
the Corps thoroughly understands that there are different and,
in some instances, competing issues that need to be addressed
and that we need to strike the right balance when it comes to
making sure that Atlanta has the water supply it needs to
operate its drinking water system.
But at the same time, we've got to make sure that folks
down on this end of the rivers and the reservoirs that they use
here are provided with the necessary levels to allow them to
continue the recreation, the drinking water that they need, and
also provide the flow in the rivers to allow for the commercial
operation of our ports here.
I was curious when you said that previous actions on the
levels at the lakes have been successful. We're going to hear
from some property owners a little bit later, and I'll be
interested to hear what they have to say about how successful
they think the operation from a level standpoint is.
And I'll note with interest that Dick Timmerberg is going
to point this out to us a little bit later on with some
photographs. These photographs show docks that are obviously
docks that have been out of water not for a few days, a few
weeks, but months, maybe even years. There's good-standing
trash going under and upward to these docks.
So the assertion that our levels have been successful over
the years is going to be an issue, which I'm sure will be
addressed a little later. And when you say you're going to
listen--and I appreciate that--I hope you'll listen very
closely to what our witnesses have to say about those levels.
Various stakeholders in the ACF system have very specific
requests of the Corps in terms of their management of the
systems. For instance, the West Point Lake Coalition would like
to raise the winter pool of West Point Lake. Why can't you
simply just raise that level? Give us an explanation so that
these folks can understand why the Corps can't just arbitrarily
go out and raise the level of West Point Lake.
General Schroedel. Sir, without the word ``arbitrarily,''
I'd say that it is within our authority to make the decision to
raise the level. And as I indicated earlier, we did raise the
level once in conjunction with the 1980s revision from 625,
which was the level that was determined to be appropriate for
providing the proper flood capacity. So we've already raised it
three feet.
And we can; however, at this point, we're not willing to do
so because we believe the risk of flood damage downstream is
higher this year, given what we know about predicted rainfalls,
given what we know about the hydrology, given what we know
about the system, we're not willing to make that decision to
accept that risk. We think it's too high.
However, what we need to take a look at, as I mentioned,
are two things. One, we need to take a look at what's
downstream these days and what risk mitigation measures are
there. One suggestion that's come out of the community is: You
know, if we have enough advanced notice, we can pre-evacuate.
I'm personally not a fan of pre-evacuation. I think Katrina
taught us that the infrastructure of this country is built for
the economy; not for evacuation. You can't evacuate people fast
enough. However, if there are local plans that say, ``Wait a
minute. We're only talking about 300 people, and given two-
hours notice, we feel comfortable we can get them out of
there,'' those are plans and dialogues that we haven't been
able to have.
We also have not quantified--and there was another study
done that I'm aware of that took a look at this issue, but that
study did not quantify the flood risks, nor did it quantify
what the real trade-offs were in terms of real recreation
benefits.
I took a look--again, I'm gathering information trying to
learn as fast as I can, and I took a look at the visitation of
West Point Lake just yesterday when I visited, and I can tell
you, of the 3.2 million visitors per year, looking at the last
three years, I looked at the visitation between November,
December, January, and February, those four months account for
17 percent of visitation on an annual basis.
So the vast majority of visitation occurs in the summer
months when the flood--when the pools are up. Don't have to
worry about flood mitigation and--but, again, this is just--
this is a superficial piece of information that I noted. But
from my initial look at, you know, where are we, and what are
we basing the risk on? I think we need more information, and
that's why I would endorse a quick study.
I'm going to meet with some local folks later on today. I
want to talk to them about some other authorities. You know,
there are two or three agreements, and there are other means by
which using perhaps some local resources and our resources, we
can put together a quick study and try and determine the
answers to these questions about flood risk and trade-offs on
the recreation piece.
So, sir, we can. I would like to move out--I have a history
from my last command of authorizing a deviations in the west
where we track down rivers and the disappearance of rivers over
seasons. And we were raising Prado Dam as an example. We did a
study; raised it about four feet. And not for recreation;
there's no recreation out on Prado Dam above Gainesville.
Instead, what is at risk is the water supply. You know, water
is gold out west.
So I personally am inclined in that direction from my
history and what I've done in command in other areas, but I
want to make sure we've got the right collaborative study done
quickly that would--it would make sure we're doing this in a--
with a good understanding of the risks.
The Chairman. Well, I'll leave it to others to delve into
that a little more, but I think it's safe to say that from an
upstream standpoint over the last couple of years,
particularly, there hadn't been any need to worry about
flooding downstream.
General Schroedel. Sir, I'd like to point that I also find
very interesting about this system; Lake Lanier holds--and I
find this very fascinating. Lake Lanier holds 60 percent of the
storage on the system, but it is served by only 5 percent of
the watershed. West Point Lake provides 20 percent--make sure I
got my numbers right here. I thought this was very fascinating.
West Point holds 20 percent of the storage, but yet is served
by 14 percent of the watershed.
And that was why we had the situation we did in 2003 when
we have a rain south of Lanier; you've got a bigger watershed,
bigger area that's feeding the lake, and you can--you can
impound the water much more quickly than you can ever, ever
impound the water at Lanier.
So I guess a little dynamics along the system like that
could feed into our risk situations, and we need to think about
that.
The Chairman. There is one last area I want to cover with
you. In June of this year, we learned that due to a calibration
error, the Corps of Engineers incorrectly released an extra 22
billion gallons of water from Lake Lanier. In our hearing in
Gainesville, General Walsh told us in order to prevent such a
calibration error in the future, a redundant system was put in
place on Lake Lanier.
First of all, would you comment on that calibration error,
and have similar redundant systems been put in place downstream
at West Point Lake, Walter F. George, and Seminole Lake?
General Schroedel. Sir, absolutely. I can tell you; if
anything about the Corps, we are a learning organization, and
when we make a mistake, we learn and we respond quickly. And I
can tell you; yesterday, I personally saw three different
redundant systems that are measured every day and tracked to
make sure that all three are in sync and that we know exactly
what the level of that lake is; to the hundredth of a foot, I
might add.
But yes, sir, that's in place. And I put my hands on them,
so I know what they look like and if they work.
The Chairman. Okay.
General Schroedel. And I've done the same on all of the
other systems.
The Chairman. Are they working?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
You told us before the hearing and then into your
testimony, you said your first order of business when you get a
new command is to ask the stakeholders what are their
priorities.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. Just so the record reflects it--and you've
already addressed it--our number-one priority is implementing
the water control plans on January 2nd of next year. And to
that end, you made a reference, which was well-noted by all of
us up here, that there may be some shortage of funding to be
able to do it as rapidly as you would like to do it. That falls
under our responsibility.
Do you happen to know how much money you need for '07 and
'08 to do the water control plan?
General Schroedel. Sir, I honestly don't know. But I can
get you that answer quickly.
Senator Isakson. Well, I would appreciate it, and I know
all of the other members here would appreciate your writing us
and giving us the information on what it would take to complete
that plan within the time frame that it's completable, which I
understand is somewhere less than 24 months, but more than 12.
That way, we can go to bat for that funding in Washington D.C.
And I know Saxby--and I agreed with what Saxby said; we'll get
that done, but we need to know----
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson.----how much as quickly as possible.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. On that vain, secondly, with regard to the
winter pool in West Point, in your testimony, you said: To make
an informed decision on increasing the winter pool level, a
study must be done which quantifies the risk--increased rate of
downstream--risks to downstream citizens, the annual cost of
increased flooding, the cost to mitigate the flood risk,
socioeconomic benefits of high winter pool for recreation and
other purposes, and any impacts on benefits of fish and
wildlife.
Will you initiate such a study?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. And if you have considered that you--if
you would, how much is that going to cost?
General Schroedel. Well, sir, that's what I'm going to talk
to the local folks today about. And if, in fact, there is a
requirement for funding on our side, then we can let you know
that. Again, I don't know the exact details of that till I meet
with the local folks and our folks this afternoon to discuss
that point.
Senator Isakson. Well, I know you acknowledge in your
testimony that you were aware that the local study was done and
accepted the fact that it may very well be correct, but there
were certain things within the priorities under law that you
have to consider the warning risk in that.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. And I assume maybe you can take the best
of information from that study and then add to it those other
things like fish and wildlife.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. Absolutely. That's my intent.
Senator Isakson. Is there any similarity between here and
the South Pacific Division you commanded before coming here as
far as water?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir, there is. I guess my first
impression was I was shocked to find out that there were water
wars in the southeast. And I was further shocked to find out
that there are no natural reservoirs in the southeast and--and,
again, my initial impression here is that our problem is a
simple--I'll say simple--is a complex matter but made simpler,
I think, by two things; storage and management of that storage.
And I'd be the first to stand up and say I think we need
some sort of an interstate, if you will, system commission like
the Delaware River system or something, in which the Federal
Government and others play a role in, and here's why: To
respond again to some comments that the Chairman made, we do--
we the Corps and all of us need to be very aware of not only
the differences between needs up at the headwaters and needs at
the tailwaters and differences of those balances, but I think
not only do we need manuals here, I think we need a dynamic
process and a dynamic system that, once we put manuals in
place, we don't wait another 50 years--you know, I'd like our
grandchildren and great-grandchildren--and we owe it to future
Americans to have a process in place that will ensure that we
don't have this happen again.
We can't have 50 years go between change in how we do
business. Developmental pressures. Mother Nature, by the way,
has a role. She's changing things. I think in addition to the
manuals right now, we need to come up with a dynamic process.
Call it Interstate Commission; I don't care what it is.
Something that will allow us to update this process
continuously because it's dynamic, and it changes year-to-year;
drought, no drought, developmental pressures, it doesn't
matter.
So I think in addition to the manuals, we need a process
that will allow us to make this whole thing dynamic and not let
this happen ever again.
Senator Isakson. To that end, we are in a--this is the 16th
year of the absence of tristate water contract, and for 15 and
a half years of those 16 years, three states have been in
court. And during all that period of time, the inability for us
to finally get an interstate water contract agreement was, in
large measure, because we didn't have a water control plan.
So I just want----
General Schroedel. Wow.
Senator Isakson. I just--the point's been made to us that
without the water control plan, we'll never really get a final
tristate contract because only after you know how the watershed
is going to be managed and the environmental factors it'll
change, the states will have reached that agreement.
So that's--when you hear us talk so often about when are
you going to start and when are you going to finish and how
much is it going to cost, all along 16 years--my 16 years, last
16 years in the State Government and Federal Government, that
has been the ultimate thing that allowed people the ability to
agree to disagree because they didn't have that plan.
So just for a matter of evidence--not a question, just an
editorial comment--that's why the Corps' quick implementation
of that plan is so essential to all of us.
General Schroedel. Great, sir.
Senator Isakson. Thank you----
General Schroedel. That's good to know.
Senator Isakson.----Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Congressman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
General, we appreciate your openness and your flexibility
in trying to deal with some of these very challenging issues.
You were talking about formulating some dynamic way of dealing
with these challenges so that we don't have to wait so that you
can get me that input that was--that's responsive to the
current conditions.
We had a very, very heated--and I've had several heated
town hall meetings with representatives of the Corps down
around the Lake Seminole area, and there's some concern around
the Lake Walter F. George area about the implementation of the
Corps, of directives, about the management, about the
interpretation of the rules and regulations, some--many
interpretations of which change depended upon who the
character--the supervisor is in the area.
Although, residents may have been living on Lake Seminole
for 20, 25 years and had residences there. Now, all of a
sudden, the new person comes in and says, well, you've got a
one-foot overhang or your dock is one foot too large. And these
conditions have been in existence for 20 years in many
instances, and they're told that they now have to remove or
have to alter their home.
And there are all kinds of problems that have--that were
expressed and has a great deal of tension, which I found myself
as a referee between the 150, 200 residents at that angry
meeting and your representatives. And I must commend Colonel
Taylor and--for his leadership and Colonel Helgar from Mobile--
I mean, from Savannah, who were willing to sit in to have an
attitude such as you've exhibited here today.
But out of all of that, we were able to suggest, and
Colonel Taylor was able to agree to implement and has, in fact,
begun implementation of community councils so that residents of
areas that have been impacted by the Corps policies can have
regular meetings with the Corps so that the Corps can get
feedback on how the regulations are being applied and
implemented, how the interpretations are affecting the
residents where there are concerns about maintenance.
For example, the hydrilla problem is a real problem and has
been a real problem in the Lake Seminole area, and to some
extent now in the Lake Walter F. George area. All of these
areas have a great deal of tension, and if you had regular
community councils that met on a regular basis that dealt with
these issues before they came to a crisis.
And I have to commend Colonel Taylor who said with
tremendous authority as the district commander to implement
them and did it, and it has made my life a lot easier in
responding to the kind of admissions of angry residents who
want the Congressmen to do something about the Corps.
So I was hoping that you could, all along the ACT and the
ACF, if you could consider establishing some of these community
councils where stakeholders get to interact on a regular basis
with the Corps personnel so that some of the problems that
we're talking about now don't come up as surprises when there's
a crisis, and we can deal with them on a regular basis and
keeping it from becoming a major issue.
General Schroedel. Sir, that makes too much sense. I've
considered it, it's done. As soon as I get back, that will be
the standard for my entire division; not just the State of
Georgia. That's a great idea. Thank you.
I don't like to waste time thinking about things either.
The Chairman. Senator Westmoreland.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I noticed that you've got--listed flood control,
hydropower, navigation, water supply, water quality,
recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and I read where
those change the articles.
Just looking at the overall priority, where would you put
the fish and wildlife?
General Schroedel. Where will I personally put it?
Mr. Bishop. Yeah. In what rank?
General Schroedel. I would do everything I could to make
sure I complied with the law first. As we all know, it is a
law, and we have to comply with the law so we try to work very
closely with the services.
But I will tell you, I always ask the question: When are we
going to put human beings on the endangered species list? So
we've got to have a balance.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
General Schroedel. Balance is appropriate.
Mr. Bishop. Well, my point is: They seem to be driving the
train right now.
General Schroedel. Sir, at least from my initial look, I
don't find that to be the case, honestly.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Good.
General Schroedel. Given the flows, historical flows, as I
mentioned earlier, and given the impacts with or without--and I
will tell you; we did some very strong arm wrestling with the
Service on that Biological Opinion, and we were fairly
satisfied that we weren't going to do--having the train driven
by endangered species.
So I'm very comfortable personally with what I've learned
about the collaboration, coordination, and, you know, making
sure we didn't go too far one way. So at this point, my initial
impression is that I think we're probably okay. But I'm not
satisfied yet.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Now, you talked about down river results,
as far as collecting all of those. Do you know when West Point
was impounded? When the water was impounded?
General Schroedel. Sir, I know the--I found this
fascinating. I know the lake was dedicated the same month and
year that I began my service with this nation as a commissioned
officer; June of '75.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
General Schroedel. So I'll never forget it.
Mr. Bishop. And so there's been a lot of development in the
last 30 years or so downstream?
General Schroedel. Right.
Mr. Bishop. And when that lake was impounded, we knew what
it was impounded for, at least what the law said. And so
anybody that has built downstream from there now that have put
their self in danger of a flood is their problem and not the
people's problem on West Point Lake, is it--would that be a
true statement?
General Schroedel. Sir, I mean, you can say that. I'm not
sure I would. But I mean----
Mr. Bishop. Well, somebody allowed----
General Schroedel. I think----
Mr. Bishop. Somebody allowed them to build in harm's way
based on the facts that were there in 1975; is that not true?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. I mean, I can tell you from my
previous experience, especially out west watching people in
development pressures, forest people are then choosing on their
own some buildable flood zones--despite flood insurance,
despite FEMA warnings, despite all the other warnings. In the
end, when the flood comes, there's still people, and they're
still standing there looking for help, and we wind up helping
them anyway. It's a very interesting challenge personally.
Mr. Bishop. I don't disagree with you. I understand. But my
point is that I don't think the people that are living around
that lake should be responsible for bad behavior on somebody
else's part.
General Schroedel. I agree.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask you another question.
Are you aware that people from LaGrange and Troup County
and West Point Lake had a meeting with Mr. Woodly in
Washington?
General Schroedel. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Myself and Congressman Gingrey and
representatives from the Senator's office were in that meeting.
Colonel Taylor was in the meeting also.
And at that meeting, one of the things that we asked for is
that before any decision was being made about the 630 level,
that Troup, LaGrange's, West Point's engineers and--had
prepared a study of great expense to them that the Corps
study--people that did it and the people that did their study
can sit down and compare notes, so to speak.
We were told that meeting would occur. It never occurred.
And the Corps came down with their decision not to raise the
lake level. So we have not been given cooperation. And, like I
said, Colonel Taylor was in the meeting, but Mr. Woodly, which
I understand is the Secretary of Civil Works for the Army in
Washington--so I don't know if we need to go any higher than
that or not, but, General, we're going to count on you to check
on that, if you would, and find out why that meeting didn't
take place.
General Schroedel. Sir, I will do that this afternoon
because I'll be meeting with, I think, some of those same folks
today, so I will pursue that today.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. If we could.
And, you know, I also notice that you had on here that--I
guess, that these lake levels were based on predictions of
weather--weather patterns, and that's good to base it on
historical patterns and predictions. I think there was a
prediction that this year there would be five major hurricanes
hit the United States, and I don't think--I don't think we've
had one yet. So sometimes predictions are wrong, but facts are
facts.
And I think it was either in '93 or '95, during the summer,
full lake level at West Point, we had about 11 inches of rain.
Now, I think the lake got at that time to 641. No flooding
occurred. And that was at a full lake level. And that was at a
time where there was no prediction of that type of rain, no
historical basis, I don't guess, for that type of rain. But
that rain happened. Like you said, Mother Nature is
unpredictable. But even though that rain happened at a time
that it had never been predicted, not usual, at a lake at full
level, no flooding.
So I wish you would consider some of those facts----
General Schroedel. Sir, I will.
Mr. Bishop.----when you look at that is that predictions
are good, history is good, but sometimes facts tend to do
better.
I'm glad to see that you're going to meet with the people
of West Point because, as Congressman Bishop said--I think his
recommendation is a good one, and I was glad to see that you
went along with it because people--because of bad predictions
and bad decisions--have suffered great property loss, value,
and just the rights that were given to have private property,
the right to enjoy it.
And then Senator Chambliss showed in those pictures, and I
hope and I'm sure that you'll get a copy of the complete album.
General Schroedel. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. You'll see where that--where people's property
are, as 628 left them. In the--and reality of it is, I think
the 630 level would be great, but I think the 633 level would
be even better. So don't just take the 630 and try to run with
it. If we wind up getting it any higher than that, we would.
And, General, I want to thank you, and I'm looking forward
to working with you and getting some type of resolve to this
problem because I think everybody in this panel, I know, wants
some resolve to it.
And we're looking for some leadership from the Corps. You
know, the Corps just can't be the passive kind of, well, fish
and wildlife saying this, the courts are saying this. You need
to stand up and be the leader that you are, and I know you
will.
So thank you for coming into the battle zone here and
taking the income, but I look forward to working with you in
the future.
General Schroedel. Sir, likewise. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Representative Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, let me
apologize for being a little bit late and missing an
opportunity to make an opening statement. I would like to ask
Mr. Chairman unanimous consent to submit my written remark for
the record.
Senator Isakson. Without objection.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very appreciative of having the opportunity to be here
as part of the panel in this agricultural position to sit in
the Agricultural Committee Field Hearing in Columbus, Georgia,
with my colleagues.
And, General, what I want you to understand, I think
probably everything has already been said, but all of us that
have not had the opportunity to say it, so I'm not going to
repeat what I can predict I think my colleagues--well,
Congressmen Bishop and Westmoreland, in particular, the three
of us, as you know, currently all represent this part of the
state.
But here on this--on this day, you've got a third, fully
one-third, General, of the Congressional Delegation of the
State of Georgia representing nine and a half million people.
You've got both of our United States Senators and three of our
Congressmen in a bipartisan fashion. And some of us had to get
up real early in the morning to get here from Moultrie,
Georgia, and Cobb County, and that just could kind of indicate
to you how important these issues are.
And I was really pleased when you, as a second panel, took
your seat, and I saw you roll up those sleeves and kind of
reminded me of General Schwartzkopf in Desert Storm, and you've
got that take-charge look, and you told us that in a previous
command you've not hesitated to deviate from the book when it
seemed appropriate when common sense prevailed, and that's the
kind of thinking that we like.
And we are asking from you in regard to this particular
issue--I realize with the next panel, you're going to hear from
folks on this issue of this winter pool level at West Point
Lake, and, of course, you're going to hear from our farm
community, and as Chairman Chambliss has some great
responsibility of chairing that committee in the Senate, there
are many on the issues that will be discussed, and I understand
that.
But this one particular issue is hugely important;
particularly to the three members of the House and, obviously,
to our Senators as well. And, you know, you talked about
predictions and El Nino and all that stuff--I can hardly
pronounce that, and I'm a Georgia Tech engineer and graduate
from Medical College of Georgia, but I'm going to tell you
something; I do understand actual versus predicted, and that's
what Congressman Westmoreland was just talking about.
You're going to hear from this next panel, and they're
going to let you know a little bit about actual and the damage
that some of these rigid rules and regulations inflict on a
local community because somebody's worried about the sturgeon
and I don't know what--the snail-guard or mussels we're really
talking about, but I think the most endangered species that
we're concerned about is homo-sapiens and the people that live
in this community and the economic impact and the recreational
issues.
And we're just asking for some common sense. And so,
basically, I--you know, you--I think you've already said it in
regard to the study. We've heard a lot about earmarks during
this 109th Congress, and people have been backing up on
earmarks. I guarantee you one thing; you'll get an earmark that
all of the members of Congress and Senate that this statement
will support proudly put their name to it on both sides of the
aisle because--you know, we've done the study locally. We've
paid the expenses of doing that, and there is absolutely,
General, no excuse for not moving forward and doing this in a
timely fashion because this thing has just drug on far too
long.
Now, I don't think I came up with a question at all in this
speech that I gave, but I wavered my opening statement, so I'll
sort of include that, Mr. Chairman, in my time. But if you can
respond to those thoughts, I would appreciate it because I get
the impression that you're the guy, the brigadier general,
where the buck should stop at your desk and not necessarily a
civilian assistant, assistant secretary of the Department of
Defense, who I don't think is qualified to make the decisions
as well as you are.
So we're looking toward you, and we're hoping for a good
answer. And I'll yield back my time and listen to your
response.
General Schroedel. Sir, I can say that, first of all, I'm
not afraid to make decisions. If they're within my authority,
I'll make them. And in response to me making the decision and
the buck stopping with me, I couldn't agree with you more.
And if I could share, perhaps, on another battlefront that
I'm facing here within this region--now, my region covers from
Mississippi all the way to Virginia--in another simple project
called The Everglades. The norm has been that the folks had to
go to Washington to get answers. And I've already waited on
that situation. I was glad to hear from the sponsors when they
called me back, and said, ``You know, it's nice to know we
don't have to go to Washington anymore.'' So I will just offer
that to you as evidence at least in the last few weeks of my
inclination, which is exactly to do what you've said.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you. You're back with The Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, General, we've laid the challenge out
there, and we look forward to working with you. There are a lot
of stakeholders here who have significant interest in all of
the issues from the end of the Apalachicola as it goes into the
Gulf all the way north of Atlanta. And we're excited about the
fact that you're here. And, frankly, for the first time from my
perspective in the 12 years that I've been working on this, you
have more inclination to make decisions and to get something
done than anybody that we've talked to before. So we're glad
you're here.
And, again, when you communicate with your son, tell him
how much we appreciate his service to our country. And we look
forward to staying in touch with you. Thank you for taking the
time to be with us, sir.
General Schroedel. Thanks. If I can make one final request,
if I can, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Sure.
General Schroedel. You and all the people here saying that
I've established in this region is deeds not words. I've got to
say to judge me by my deeds, not my words. Thank you.
The Chairman. We'll set this hearing for a year from now,
and then we'll give you a grade. How about that?
General Schroedel. Sir, I'd love it. That's great.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General.
I would now like to ask our third panel, which consists of:
Mr. Dick Timmerberg, the executive director of West Point Lake
Coalition in LaGrange; Mr. Mike Gaymon, president and CEO of
Columbus Georgia Chamber of Commerce here in Columbus; Mr.
Steve Singletary, vice chairman of Georgia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission from Blakely; and Mr. Jimmy Webb of
Flint River Water Council. Jimmy resides in Leary.
Please come forward and take your places.
Gentlemen, thank you all very much for taking the time to
come out and share some thoughts with us today, and we look
forward to your opening comments.
I would encourage you to stay within a three- to five-
minute range. This light system we have up here is a little bit
funky today because the yellow light doesn't work. The green
light means that you've spoken for four, and you're in your
four-minute period. There will then be a blank for that last
minute, but when the red light comes on, it means your five
minutes is up, and we'd like for you to wind up. All of your
written statements will be taken in the records. So everything
that wasn't included will be included.
And, Mike, what we'll do is start with you. And, Dick,
we'll go right down the row as far as opening statements in
order. Mike, welcome. We'll, of course, hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF MIKE GAYMON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COLUMBUS GEORGIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
Mr. Gaymon. Thank you, sir.
Dear Committee Members, it is an honor to have you here in
the RiverCenter, which is one of our super regional assets.
This facility came about due to a public-private partnership
resulting in over $100 million being raised to endow the arts.
And many--in fact, many of the things in our region are due to
this partnership where the public sectors work with the private
sectors to find a win-win, which is what we hope could finally
happen with the Water Wars, a public-private partnership for
water.
Columbus was a planned city. Being on the most northern
location for river traffic, its very beginning is due to the
Chattahoochee River. Today, we're more aware and sensitive to
the importance of the river than we have ever been. Just as the
20-plus mills that used to depend upon the river for its power,
we depend upon it even more for drinking, some of our water
recreation, and certainly, for business needs. When you come
back next year, you'll see the 2.5-mile whitewater course in
our central business district. We think this is just another
example that while--we say we have rediscovered The Hooch.
In 1992, our city was faced with a major problem of
Combined Sewer Overflow. Once a plan was developed and
carefully explained to the citizens, they voted to tax
themselves to a tune of over 600--$60 million to fix the
problem. Combined with local funds, over $80 million was spent
on the $100 million problem. Today, Columbus does not have a
CSO problem. In fact, we used the opportunity to construct a
15-mile riverwalk, which is actually a nice covering for a
gigantic CSO sewer collection system along the river.
We hold this up as an example of having the political will
to fix a long-term problem through an innovative and bold
effort to make it better than it was. In fact, thanks to some
financial help from the Congress in 1995, we were able to build
a Combined Sewer National Demonstration Project, which was one
of the first in the nation that's now being held up as an
international model for dealing with treatment of wastewater
solids. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm bragging about these
accomplishments, but instead, I'm trying to illustrate the
point that we can be good stewards; not to have to break the
bank, but it takes a commitment, and it takes partners who are
willing to find solutions; not just identify problems.
Unfortunately, some cities in our state and our nation have
chosen to pay fines or to try a patchwork approach instead of
being responsible and accountable to take care of their own
problems. However, in spite of what we've done to fix our CSO,
it helps us and it helps the people downstream as well.
Wouldn't it be appropriate or even make sense to require
everyone using the rivers to do the same? Simply using average
annual stream flows is questionable as to the adequacy. That
may be like the man who stuck his head in an oven and his feet
in the freezer, and on the average, he ought to be okay.
During these periods, the cost of treatment before a
discharge occurs could be many times over what it could be and
should be if minimum flows are met and maintained year-round.
Frankly, we support growth and development. We're glad that
other areas of our state and our region are growing, but we
don't think it should be at the expense of others. There are
other parts of our state in addition to Lake Lanier and
Apalachicola who are just as interested in protecting the
environment while ensuring that the future of our citizens in
regard to having ample water to sustain their quality of life
are enhanced.
For example, more septic tanks that are put in operation in
our state causes the flow and return to our rivers to be
impacted. Shouldn't cities and counties with policies, or maybe
the lack of, of uses versus minimum returns simply be ignored
regardless of the impact of people downstream? It probably
sounds too simple to ever work. Maybe that's part of the
problem. We've made it too complicated.
Imagine--or some might say hallucinate--with me for a
moment. What would happen if every user were required to do the
following two things? Put back at least 90 percent of what's
withdrawn on an annual basis back into the rivers and return
what's put back cleaner than when it was withdrawn. If every
user had to adhere to these two items, everyone upstream and
downstream the rivers would have plenty of water to drink and
play on, while still ensuring environmental issues were also
taken care of. This would not pit one city against another city
or another state against another state. Instead, each would be
forced to adhere to the two rules that everyone withdrawing and
discharging would operate and live by. If it were that easy,
perhaps it would have been fixed a long time ago. But does
anyone here think it's ever going to get any easier?
We applaud your interest in this area. We thank you for
coming to Columbus to--for this hearing, and we look forward to
the leadership in what we think is one of the most vital
aspects of our future; sustainable water standards.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaymon can be found on page
59 in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. Thank you Mike, Dick.
STATEMENT OF DICK TIMMERBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST POINT
LAKE COALITION, LaGRANGE, GEORGIA
Mr. Timmerberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of
Congress, guests, Brigadier General Schroedel, nice to meet
you.
Before I actually start, we did submit the pictures, which
the Chairman referred to earlier. And, General, we would take
issue on how successful that plan is, as much as I hate to say
it. But when you see those pictures later, I think you will
concur with us that it has not been real successful.
I would like to emphasize up front, though, that we have an
excellent working relationship locally with the Corps at the
West Point Lake project and tremendous respect for their
commitment and dedication to the lake. We've partnered with
them on numerous projects; life jacket loaning programs, annual
lake cleanup, solar buoy lights, to name a few. Regrettably, we
do not have the same level of respect for the management
practices employed by the Mobile District. And while I'm going
to emphasize the management practice, there are a lot of fine
people and we have some excellent relationships with Mobile,
but we do challenge the management practices that are employed.
The Congress of the United States authorized West Point
Lake in 1962 for five purposes: Hydropower; fish and wildlife
recreation, i.e., sport fishing and wildlife; general
recreation; navigation; and flood control. I would like to
briefly address only two of these since the mussel and sturgeon
and endangered species have been addressed previously.
Regarding recreation, West Point Lake is the first Corps of
Engineers lake in the country to be specifically authorized by
Congress as a demonstration recreation project. I want to
repeat that; a demonstration recreation project. Yet,
recreation is the one authorized purpose most consistently
ignored and undervalued by the Mobile District.
In the District's own documents, specifically, Appendix X--
F, Section 5, on recreation, they state the first and second
recreation impact levels at 633.5 and 632 MSL respectively
versus a full pool of 635. In a local West Point Lake document,
the recreation impact levels are listed at 632.5 and 629.
Obviously, there should only be one set of numbers.
Realistically, we believe the more accurate numbers are
somewhere in between.
Consequently, on the 28th of November in '05, we submitted
a recommendation based on current conditions that said these
numbers should be 632.5 for the first level and a minimum of
630 for the second. Mobile never responded to that
recommendation. Recreation impact levels are critical because
they equate to economic impact levels. West Point Lake is
conservatively estimated to have an annual economic impact of
225 to $250 million on its neighboring communities. These
numbers do not include the economic potential that the lake was
maintained at a safe, stable winter pool level of a minimum of
630.
General, you referred to the 17 percent visitation. I
wouldn't visit the lake right now, and I live within position
of 10. Our position is if it was a safe level, people would
visit the lake all year-round because we have the climate to
support that visitation. And actually, when we looked at the
study, there would be about a 24 to $28 million economic impact
because of the increased visitation.
Basic historical data; winter flooding is not and has not
been the issue. The flood of record, as Congressman
Westmoreland stated, occurred in May of '03 when the lake was
at full pool. We had 11 to 15 inches of rain unforecasted, and
due to a great job by the Corps, the lake went up six feet, but
there was no flooding or certainly no major flooding.
We contend Mobile should provide the public a safe winter
lake level at a minimum 630 to enjoy the authorized purpose of
recreation 12 months a year. A 628 level is an unsafe surface.
There have been numerous boating accidents resulting in huge
repair bills and personal injuries, and we believe it's just a
matter of time before one or more people are killed due to the
unsafe lake level.
Additionally, the fluctuating lake levels caused tremendous
soil erosion and sedimentation due to a vast number of exposed
areas with shoreline; 5,249 acres to be exact in the 628 level
are 20 percent of the surface area of the lake. Water storage
capacity is being reduced daily, water turbidity is increased,
and treatment costs to provide clean, safe drinking water are
likewise escalating.
Finally, the economic value of the lake is grossly
underutilized. Since its authorization, sport fishing and
wildlife, along with general recreation, has increased
exponentially in value and now dwarf the other authorized
purposes. Our communities are suffering economic losses due to
unsafe and unsatisfactory winter lake levels below 630.
Furthermore, our ability to recruit industry and jobs suffers
tremendously when we have to keep people away from an
unrealistically low lake.
Conversely, a stable and dependable West Point Lake would
be a recruiting magnet. We don't even know the economic
potential of West Point Lake due to current and past management
practices. However, a drive around Lake Lanier proves the
economic potential is phenomenal if the management practices
provide us the opportunity to realize it.
Georgia's population continues to grow, and there will be
continuing increasing demands. The Mobile District practice
needs to provide fair and equitable distribution of water the
low state over. One major part of the solution to meet these
increasing demands is to increase actual storage, not storage
potential; more and more storage water. Take advantage of
winter rains to increase storage is a win-win for all parties.
Higher lake levels for recreation, higher lake levels for
hydropower, and more water available for downstream needs.
We respectfully ask that our Senators join with our
Representatives and other members of Congress and insist that
the Corps follow your Congressional authorizations. In lieu of
this and assuming the Mobile District can and will continue to
ignore Congress' directives, we ask that our Senators and
Representatives introduce and pass legislation which mandated a
minimum 630 winter lake level.
The communities and stakeholders around West Point Lake
have needlessly suffered too much economic harm already. We've
been dealing with this issue for over six years; six years when
the majority of rational people agree this is the right thing
to do, and the science supports it.
We sincerely appreciate your time and this opportunity and
ask your support to finally bring this issue to a positive
resolution prioritizing the most valuable authorized purposes
of recreation and maximizing the economic potential of West
Point Lake for the community and the individual lakefront
stakeholders.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Timmerberg can be found on
page 68 in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. Thank you Dick, Steve.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SINGLETARY, VICE CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA SOIL &
WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, BLAKELY, GEORGIA
Mr. Singletary. Good morning. My name is Steve Singletary.
I'm a southwest Georgia farmer, supervisor with the Flint River
Soil & Water Conservation District, and vice chairman of the
Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission. I'm pleased to be
here today not only representing Georgia Soil & Water
Commission but the Flint River District, which is directly
impacted by the results of this hearing because of areas that
we cover.
For 60 years, this Conservation District has played an
important role in making local leaders make decisions regarding
the use of natural resources. The 40 districts across the state
are an active partner in the delivery of federal, state, and
local conservation policies and programs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for holding
this hearing today in Columbus and for including conservation
issues on the agenda. I fully understand much of today should
be focused on the Corps of Engineers' operation of local river
basins; however, I'm pleased that you and the Committee
understand the value and importance of ag water conservation.
Conservation programs have grown over the last decade to
now represent significant funding and meaningful technical
assistance to farmers and irrigators. This commitment allows
farmers to not only protect our soil and water but to be better
neighbors and citizens. Row crop producers in southwest Georgia
have benefited from irrigation management cost share and
incentives promoted by current conservation programs resulting
in better management of land and water. While we get other
support from commodity programs, the conservation tools, both
technical and financial, have helped avoid regulations and
promote more profitability in an ever-changing farming
environment.
I know my time is limited here. I don't want to leave you
with several thoughts regarding water conservation programs
that the Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission offers to
assist producers. The first program I would like to mention is
the Ag Water Conservation Initiative Irrigation Reservoir
Incentive Program, better known as the Pond Program. This
program provides cost share assistance to land owners to help
offset the cost of either renovating or--an existing pond or
constructing a new impoundment. This containment structure
catches off-season water that would be lost and provide a
source to augment surface and ground water supplies. Key
partner in this program is the Natural Resource Conservation
Service who provides technical assistance to ensure that
construction is completed in a sound manner.
The Commissions Mobile Irrigation Lab provides a service of
evaluating uniformity of water distribution under pivot civic--
center pivot irrigation systems. As systems age, water
distribution may change. In many cases, irrigation is scheduled
when a portion of the field is stressed by hot and dry
conditions, and if water is not applied uniformly, this portion
of the field may need to be irrigated and the rest of the field
doesn't require water.
A Mobile Irrigation Lab audits--Mobile Audit Lab quantifies
how uniform water is supplied. Results of this field test
include a graph showing the uniformity of the pivot system at
pivot and proceeding down the system toward the end, an
accurate application chart from a verified--from a field speed
and water flow test and a detailed report showing leaks and
needed repairs. If uniformity results are poor, cost share
assistance is offered to the producer to retrofit the nozzle
package to improve the water application uniformity.
Through the use of GPS technology and aerial imagery, this
program has helped identify off-site water applications from an
end-gun and will provide cost share assistance to equip the
systems with an end-gun shutoff device when water is thrown on
the public roadways or irrigation is applied to more than one
acre of non-productive land.
The Commission is also implementing the first statewide
effort to measure ag water use. House Bill 579 passed by the
General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor Perdue,
mandates that the Commission oversee the purchase,
installation, maintenance, and collection of data from meters
on all Environmental Protection Division permitted to ag
withdraws. This program inventories pump sites using GPS
technology to record their location and causes a meter to be
installed on these sites. Annual water use data is obtained and
along with irrigation water is applied--area that irrigation
water is applied to and the cropping history from these sites.
The Commission works with irrigators to improve their
understanding of how this state supposed state sponsored on-
the-farm management tool can assist them in improving
irrigation efficiency and help identify pumping problems. A
state-sponsored interactive website will be produced to provide
producers with an opportunity to review personal water use and/
or provide comments on changes to irrigation systems for their
cropping history.
The last program I'd like to highlight is the Irrigator Pro
Ag Water Conservation Incentive Program. Through this
corporation--cooperative effort with the National Peanut
Research Lab, producers are given an incentive to use a
computerized irrigation scheduling tool. For the crops of corn,
cotton, and peanuts, irrigators can track crop water uses and
target irrigation events to match these needs.
Commission's goal of these conservation programs is simple.
It is to supply producers with tools and knowledge that they
need to use water wisely and efficiently. The Pond Program
provides additional water. The Irrigation Lab ensures it's
applied uniformly. The metering programs measures what's used.
And the Irrigator Pro matches what is applied to the needs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Singletary can be found on
page 66 in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. Thank you Steve, Jimmy.
STATEMENT OF JIMMY WEBB, FLINT RIVER WATER COUNCIL, LEARY,
GEORGIA
Mr. Webb. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, Congressman
Westmoreland, Congressman Bishop, and Congressman Gingrey who's
gone, it's my honor to be here before you today.
Steve and I are tied pretty tight together as farmers
locally. A lot of the ideas that he just discussed with you
were born with the Water Council, and the Soil & Water
Commission have carried them on.
I offer my testimony from the perspective of dependence.
Certainly, my livelihood, and to a great extent, the livelihood
of all of my southwest Georgia neighbors, is dependent on our
natural resources for irrigation. I'm a fourth-generation
Calhoun County farmer whose operation consists of 2,500 acres
of peanuts, cotton, and corn. We began irrigating--not me, my
forefathers--in 1971 and continued to invest in irrigation
hardware and infrastructure until our entire row crop operation
could benefit from supplemental irrigation.
Over the last 35 years, we've also made great strides in
areas of water conservation. We practice conservation tillage
on most of our acreage, have replaced old inefficient systems
with uniform low-pressure pivots and made use of the latest in
irrigation scheduling research to ensure the most efficient use
of our water resources as possible. Furthermore, given the cost
of energy, pumping unnecessary amounts of water is one practice
that would guarantee the fourth generation would never be able
to pass down to the farmer of the fifth generation. For the
Webbs and most of the farmers in southwest Georgia, irrigation
is not a luxury. It's a business necessity that drives the
largest sector or our regional and state economy.
I understand the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the
Corps of Engineers' operation of the ACF River basins and their
efforts and the effects on Georgia's agriculture. To date, the
high-profile actions recently taken by the Corps on the
Chattahoochee River have not directly affected my operation
given my location in the Flint River basin. However, every
action and decision concerning management of the ACF is of
interest to me for one very simple reason; I suspect that
Florida does not care if their minimum flow demands in the
Apalachicola are met with water from the Chattahoochee or the
Flint Rivers.
Up to this point, ACF discussions have focused mainly on
the Chattahoochee, but it is possible, if not probable, that in
the near future, an attempt to squeeze more water from the
Flint Basin could be made in order to meet some target flow.
The biggest loser if such a scenario would play out would no
doubt be Georgia agriculture.
The lower Flint contains the greatest concentration of
irrigated acreage in the state. These row and forage crops
translate into roughly $700 million in Farmgate value and
contribute significantly to the $5.8 million in direct and
indirect output from agriculture and related businesses in this
small corner of Georgia.
I can personally attest to the ripple effect caused by
irrigated production through my partial ownership of a cotton
gin and a peanut-buying point. Without the investment in
irrigation technology by southwest Georgians, three of the
first seven years in this century, including 2006, would have
ended in complete disaster not just for producers, but for an
economy that depends on our ability to access our water
resources. Unfortunately, farmers as a group have not been as
proactive as perhaps we should have been when it comes to
discussions on water plan and policy.
As a charter member of the Flint River Regional Water
Council and an appointee to the Basin Advisory Committee for
the Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and
Conservation Plan, I consider myself fairly well-versed in
water policy issues. It is with this knowledge that I can fully
appreciate the complex and difficult process of equitable water
allocation among competing uses.
At the same time, it's my experience as a farmer that
realizes the greatest potential threat to our way of life is
uncertainty regarding access to water. Serious questions with
serious concerns loom over both the inter and intrastate water
concerns facing Georgia.
Questions such as: What kind of impacts are possible with
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife now designating all of southwest
Georgia critical habitat for several endangered mussel species?
I want to add one thing to that from what Congressman
Westmoreland and Congressman Gingrey said. If this is imposed,
at what point would I be considered an endangered species? I do
wonder a lot of times if those endangered species are driving
the train.
Does my state-issued irrigation permit effectively negate
my right to reasonable use as a riparian? If I'm forced to
reduce my water use, what basis will be used if our permits are
not tied to any withdrawal amount? The bottom line is: We as
irrigators must have clarity in our rights to access in times
of water scarcity, whether naturally occurring or imposed by
some government regulation.
Production agriculture in 2006 is a venture filled with
great risk but also some reward. One risk that we as producers
cannot endure would be the arbitrary interruption, for whatever
reason, of our ability to irrigate. We must remain at the table
as the decisions are made in the near future will have lasting
consequences.
I appreciate the Committee's recognition of the importance
of agriculture and my opportunity to share some of my concerns
with you. And I'd be happy to ask answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webb can be found on page 89
in the appendix.]]
The Chairman. Well, thank all of you for your excellent
testimony. And, again, let me just say that your entire
statement will be put in the record.
Mike, I'm going to start with you. What effect does an
adequate supply of water have upon the economic development of
Columbus and Muscogee County?
Mr. Gaymon. Well, Senator, as you know, we have a regional
economic development organization known as The Valley
Partnership, which covers six counties and three overseas, and
it has significant part. I mean, without water, obviously,
there will be no growth. And as you know, this part of Georgia
needs all the help it can get.
As I said, we are for growth and development of other
parts, but we don't think it ought to be at our expense. So
water is critical. We must have water for drinking. We also
must have water, obviously, for discharge back into the river.
I mean, it's a major part of the very reason why we're here,
and I think our future is absolutely tied to it.
The Chairman. We are very pleased that the conclusion of
the last base closure round to see that Fort Benning was going
to be gaining about 10,000 soldiers over the next several
years, and we're going to see the movement of the armor school
from Fort Knox down here as well as some other assets to Fort
Benning.
While all of that is well and good, it's going to bring not
just 10,000 soldiers; it's going to bring their families, it's
going to bring lots of civilians in addition to that. It's
going to bring a lot of government contractors into Columbus.
From a water supply standpoint, are we prepared to meet the
needs at Fort Benning and the ancillary folks that it's going
to bring into our area?
Mr. Gaymon. Capacity-wise, Columbus Waterworks has excess
capacity of water and sewer, but obviously, our challenge is
for this region, and that's why we've got to make sure that we
continue to make sure that we provide the water and sewer needs
for this region.
Right now, it's a question as to whether we'd be able to be
able to provide water and sewage in the outlining areas if each
county and each area decided to do its own thing, so to speak.
So we think that regionally is the way we have to do with that
the water and sewer.
When you're talking about 33,000 people moving to this
region--you participated in the Kia announcement. I know
several of you were there. What's about to happen at Fort
Benning is three times the size of Kia. That is tremendous. And
we've got to make sure that we have ample water and sewer
available for this growth that is going to happen; not what
might happen; we know it will happen, so we've got to make sure
we're ready. And that's why we're applauding this hearing, and
we thank you for taking the proactive stance because the future
of our region depends upon it.
The Chairman. Lastly, we know that water flow is critical
to the utilization of the port in Columbus. How important from
an economic standpoint is the Port of Columbus to this area?
Mr. Gaymon. It's lost some of its importance, Senator, over
the years. Obviously, if you can't commit to whether you're
going to be able to have enough water for the draw to bring
barges up, it's chicken and the egg. You won't have barge
traffic if you can't commit that there'll be water to float
those barges. And without any uncertainty, knowing whether you
will or whether you won't, obviously, the barge traffic is not
nearly as it used to be simply because of reliability.
You know, you can't tell folks that you can ship up and
ship down. Obviously, you'd be questionable as to whether you
can put a barge on the river and nobody really knows, I think,
as to those small windows of opportunity for shipping
equipment.
The Chairman. Dick, when you talk about achieving minimal
winter water levels, in order to achieve that, is it necessary
to draw down more water from upstream or keep more water from
flowing downstream to accomplish this or both of the above or
neither of the above?
Mr. Timmerberg. Basically, we like to refer to it as free
water because it's the late fall and winter rains. And no one--
at least now in the Tristate Water Wars--is competing for that.
I think we all understand now with the IOP that that 5,000 is
historically what's been done. So the flows have been augmented
above that because of the appearance to the rural curve at the
reservoir. So when water's coming in, we can easily store that
water.
Last winter, had we, in fact, stored it, the drought still
would have happened, but would the results have been this
severe and as early? No, they wouldn't have; not with another
two feet of water, which again is approximately about 42,000
acre feet of water that would have been available had we just
stored it when we had the opportunity.
The Chairman. So from your historical perspective, once we
reach an adequate level from a wintertime standpoint, it can be
controlled with the normal inflow and outflow again that you've
seen historically without lowering the level?
Mr. Timmerberg. Correct.
The Chairman. Steve, what role does your organization play
during drought years when the rainfall is scarce and more
producers need to depend on irrigation? And secondly, earlier
this year, there were folks around the state who were under
water restrictions due to drought conditions; do agriculture
producers have to abade the water restrictions?
Mr. Singletary. What's that last part?
The Chairman. Do agriculture producers have to abide by
these water restrictions?
Mr. Singletary. No, sir. They don't have to abide by the
water restrictions; however, they do use some of the tools that
have been provided, such as the Irrigator Pro computer model
that work to reduce the amount of water they can use by
matching the actual needs of the crops to water instead of
producing--put the number of what he needs to do. We have
instruments in the field that take measurements to tell us when
the crop actually needs the water, so that produces it.
With the programs to retrofit irrigation systems, we're
increasing the efficiency or uniformity and getting better use
of the water we're using; therefore, being able to use less
because we're doing a better job of applying what we need. With
the meters, it allows us to know what we are using and do a
better job of doing that management at the time.
The Chairman. Jimmy, you mentioned in your testimony that
your farm consists of 2,500 acres of irrigated commodities.
What's your source for that irrigation?
Mr. Webb I am a surface water irrigator, and that's
probably why this is so important to me.
In the Chattahoochee region here, they have about 70,000
acres of irrigated land. In my county alone, we have 37,000
acres of irrigated land. The majority of my county is irrigated
by surface water. That surface water eventually ends up in Lake
Seminole and ends up in Florida. That's why it's very important
to me.
As a surface water irrigator, we have become very efficient
by using the programs that Steve was talking about. A lot of--I
think a lot of the public perspective is that, a lot of times,
we pump unnecessarily. With these programs that we have, the
computer models, we pump only when necessary and only when we
absolutely have to.
And it's made--believe it or not, it has made my yields go
up because I was watering a lot of times on my own at the wrong
time, and it would hurt my crop. And now, with these programs,
I'm much more efficient with the water and making a better
yield.
The Chairman. What's been the economic impact of the
expanded use of irrigation by agriculture producers over the
last decade?
Mr. Webb. I couldn't tell you the answer to that one.
The Chairman. Well, I don't mean in dollars, but if you had
not had the asset of an irrigation system on your farm versus
having the farm all dry, again, what's done from an economic
impact on southwest Georgia?
Mr. Webb I think I would be out of business, especially for
the first few years of this century. What it has done is
stabilized our income. We know that we're going to have a crop
every year. We're going to have some type of production.
Stability in your income, stability in your economy, stability
in your tax base of southwest Georgia.
The Chairman. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Timmerberg, I want to take a couple of
your points and try and amplify them, if I can.
Number one, I thought the General's comment with regard to
17 percent of the usage of visitation took place during the
four winter months; I think you hit the nail on the head when
you said because of the low pool, that reduces the visitations.
It's not reflective of the lack of use because the climate here
is temperate, with fishing and many other forms of recreation
are year-round.
To that end, as I understand it, when the lake was
originally authorized, it was authorized at 625 feet. That was
raised in the 1980s when they did the amended plan to 628. And
in 2003, the Corps, on its own, raised the winter pool to 630
and then subsequently reduced it. Do you know why it was raised
to 630 in 2002 and then why it was reduced?
Mr. Timmerberg. Yes. We made a recommendation of the
district engineer at that time based on the economic harm as
well as the economic potential of having the lake at a safe
winter level pool of 630, and the district engineer at that
time granted a one-year waiver both in '02, '03, and '04. And
we've even looked back at that as a three-year test run, and
obviously, there were no serious repercussions from that 630
lake level.
In '05, the district engineer stated that he was returning
to the broad--and rural curves and that the lake would be
managed according to those curves.
Senator Isakson. I understand in the three-year test, it
demonstrated no difficulties?
Mr. Timmerberg. Correct. And if I can, Senator, just a very
recent example. Saturday--when we talked about winter
visitation--there was a bass tournament Saturday out of
Highland Marina & Resort; charity tournament that benefit
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. It had been advertised for
six months heavily in the Atlanta area. Anybody that was here
Saturday was at Fall Chamber of Commerce Day. It couldn't have
been better. Seven boats showed up for that tournament, after
six months of advertising. Because, again, in my opinion,
people cannot rely on a safe lake level.
Senator Isakson. Mike, I want to just commend Columbus and
Muscogee County. Your water authority people, waste water
people, have visited me on numerous occasions that what you all
implemented in '96 and have executed is nothing short of
breaking the Pine sewer outfall as well as your water
management.
And your recommendations about returning 90 percent of what
you use back in the watershed is exactly the type of thinking
we need in municipal and county government because every time
we put water in the septic tank, we're taking it out of the
watershed, so to speak, and every time we're treating it, we
can put it back in the watershed, and then it's a higher
problem when it's taken out.
Those management practices of what Columbus is doing is
extremely admirable. And I just want you to know that. It's
well-noted by all of us in Congress.
Mr. Gaymon. Thank you, sir. And our Columbus Waterworks,
they are in the leading edge, but we're just looking for
partners. We're not asking you to do it for us. We're just
saying, ``Work it with us, and we'll find a way to make it
work,'' and I think that's exactly what we're trying to do.
Senator Isakson. Now, Jimmy, I've got a question for you.
And this is not my origination, so I'm asking it on behalf of
the staff sitting here behind me, so if I mix up the
terminology, you just blame me.
Since 2006 has been a very dry year, has there been a
noticeable difference in crop yields with your use of
conservation tillage versus condition?
Mr. Webb Yes, sir. The biggest difference was the fact that
in my conservation and tillage is irrigating. We've been
pleasantly surprised at what our yields are under irrigation. A
lot of the dry-land people in our area have destroyed their
crops. They did not make any crop at all. And the irrigation
has made a tremendous difference.
And the conservation and tillage, what it does is the water
will stay there longer. It doesn't evaporate as quickly. So,
therefore, it's helped us stretch our waters out. And with
these tools we have, we don't have to come back as quick as we
used to by using conservation tillage.
Senator Isakson. And isn't it fair to say--particularly
looking back over the last 10 years--that had it not been for
irrigation, the ag industry basically in this part of Georgia
would have been wiped out given the weather patterns?
Mr. Webb Yes, sir. I thought about one other thing to
answer Chairman Chambliss' question is: In the last 10 years,
you see less and less dry-land farms and more and more are
going to irrigation. The dry-land farms have been planted in
the CRP programs and has turned them into recreational tracks
that--under a type land, and it's--it's no longer being used
for production agriculture; mostly just all irrigating now.
Senator Isakson. Notwithstanding the higher cost of
petroleum and spilled, and something you've just almost got to
deal with staying there?
Mr. Webb Yes, sir. You have to. If you want to produce a
crop, you have to have some water.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Congressman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I'd like to thank the panel for your
comments. I think they all will be extremely helpful in
instructing to us and to the Corps.
With respect to Mr. Webb and Mr. Singletary, I don't have
questions for you. We are very, very intimately involved in the
agriculture and the water needs there, but I just want to take
this opportunity to commend you for your organizations'
perseverance and your insight in being able to address the bad
rap that has been put on south Georgia agriculture for pumping
out all of the water and not allowing that water to flow down
into Florida and being part of the problem for the shortage of
water. I think that the practices that you've utilized and the
research with the quantifying ag needs and actually quantifying
ag usage and fine-tuning the irrigation process, I want to
congratulate you on being able to improve your yields with
that.
I think it has made a big difference, and it also gives us
ammunition in Congress when we have to deal with the people who
are not commended with how much or how little irrigation you
have to do and the impact it has on water control. And I want
to commend you for what you've done to help educate us and
educate--and give us the tools that we need to be able to
protect that usage.
With respect to Mr. Gaymon, I want to just ask you if you
could sort of just emphasize with regard to economic
development how important the water flow is on the
Chattahoochee-Apalachicola River way with regard to the
development plans that you have here in the Columbus area from
here south, particularly with regard to what is planned with
the Infantry Museum or Armor Museum, the marina plans and how
increased water flow, raising the water levels, such as the
lake, and allowing the water levels to increase as it comes
down downstream; how that would affect the government plans for
the marina, the Infantry Museum, and all of these communities
right down--right in the Chattahoochee River way?
And also, I want to comment that--there were comments made
about the barge traffic, the Port of Columbus. But we do have
another port south of Columbus, and that's the Port of
Bainbridge, which is also in my Congressional District, which
is probably in more need of navigable water than in--than
perhaps we need here in Columbus.
So I do want the General to be cognizant of the fact that
Bainbridge is a port and, of course, that could be a tremendous
economic impact there if that water flow was consistent of the
barge traffic there.
But if you have a comment on the economic government plans,
I'd appreciate that.
Mr. Gaymon. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman.
We think there's ample water, but not--as I understand, we
think there's a sufficient supply of water to be able to take
care of our current and future needs, but not at all costs.
You know, when flows get down very low, it's not just the
number of water that we need for drinking; it's also what
happens with being able to treat it before you discharge back
into the river, which ends up costing everyone a lot more money
than perhaps it would have if certain flows were maintained.
It's a big political issue. We understand that. I mean, you
guys, that's why you're there. And you're there to fix it, if
you will, working with a lot of folks. But our future is
dependent upon being able to have an adequate supply of water.
We will put back into the river; clean the water that we take
out. We will be good stewards. I think we've shown to be good
stewards. We have permits to withdraw over 90 million. We
withdraw some around 60 million.
So we're being good stewards, but we're looking out 10
years from now, 15 years from now, when this region grows--and
we think it certainly will. Senator Chambliss has already
mentioned the growth with Fort Benning, and with Kia at West
Point and so forth.
So we think that it's important what we do today to take
care of our future. Our future is tied to that river. Without
the river, we will not be a city. And without this city being
the hub of this region, I'm not sure what we'd become. I don't
think it would be anything any of us would be proud of. So it's
absolutely essential.
But we think there's an ample supply. It's a matter of just
maintaining that ample supply so that we'll be good stewards,
and we want everybody upstream and we want everybody downstream
to be good stewards as well. Don't punish us because another
area is growing. You know, let us be good stewards like we want
everyone else to be good stewards.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
The Chairman. Congressman Westmoreland.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And, Mike, let me say that from all
of us, no flack from any other city can, but Columbus is a
great example of how public-private partnerships work. I think
this facility, your CSO plan where you voted to tax yourself to
do that is a important thing that I think we have to consider
that you are trying to do what you said; put that water back in
cleaner and to be a good steward of the water, unlike some of
the cities that--maybe north of us up around the Atlanta area.
But it's kind of what Senator Chambliss said would--do you
have any dollar amount of what the impact is on that flow?
Keeping that flow right because of the mills, because of the
recreation, because of your draw in the dependency, I guess, on
that river valley partnership?
Mr. Gaymon. I'll give you one quick number. We mentioned
Fort Benning. The Columbus Waterworks now has a contract to
provide water and sewer at Fort Benning. If they can't provide
that, we're talking about over $3.2 billion in new growth and
development that is in this city.
But we're talking about our very livelihood. I mean, if
we're not able to provide water to Talbot County, to
Chattahoochee County, to this region, we think those counties
are going to continue to be very, very rural, and they need
jobs. I mean, they deserve an opportunity for jobs as well, and
we think our best hope for that is to make sure the water and
sewer for this region can be taken care of; not just today, but
we're talking about years from now, and we've got to protect
it.
And it's not that we don't think it should be at an
expense. We want Atlanta to grow. Thank goodness it remains
growing. But we won't be able to grow, and this region deserves
the opportunity to grow as well, and if adequate supplies of
water are not in the river, we have no choice. We will not be
able to reach our potential, and that's where we think the
biggest challenge lies.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I want to ask you a question. I don't
mean to put you on the spot. But just as a common-sense thing,
do you think that you would have a better chance of keeping
that river flow constant if you had more water upstream or less
water upstream?
Mr. Gaymon. I think, certainly, the more water that's
upstream that is coming down gives all of us an opportunity to
grow and develop. And that's why we're applauding you guys for
being here and saying we're going to be good stewards. That's
what we want. We don't think it ought to be we grow and you
don't; tag, you're out. I mean, I don't think that's being good
stewards of the God-given natural resource that we all must
protect.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I think it's good the comments you made
about the barge traffic because if we keep that river flowing
consistent, then we have a better opportunity of keeping that
consistency where it needs to be if we have more reserve
upstream to keep it.
Mr. Timmerberg, to your knowledge--and here, we're going to
get back to, General, some facts, maybe, rather than
predictions. Do you know of a winter flood event that has
happened since West Point Lake had been impounded?
Mr. Timmerberg. Since the lake became impounded, no, I do
not know of a significant winter flood event. Saying if the
flood event occurred in May of '03, and that's when the lake
was at full pool, to begin with.
And, again, you're talking about common sense, sir, and so
at 635 and the flood of record went up six feet from 635 to
641; no significant downstream flooding. At 630 winter pool, if
that same flood of record hit, we would only be one foot over
what would be normal full pool. Common sense and science, as
mentioned, we provided a study to try and facilitate the
process, and it's glad to hear the General stating they would
be willing to look at that again.
Mr. Bishop. Well, Dick, I think science is a word we don't
use enough of. We're in this weather and predictions and
history and use science.
But, Mr. Webb and Mr. Singletary, I just have a request for
you all. Thank you for what you do. If you ever see any Georgia
farmer who needs to be on the Endangered Species Act, would you
let members of this panel know because it's bad enough to have
a country that's dependent on farm oil, and we certainly,
certainly cannot afford to be dependent on farm flu. So I would
ask and request that of you.
Mr. Webb Yes sir.
Mr. Singletary. Be glad to.
The Chairman. I think if we look at the recent poll
numbers, members of Congress are on the Endangered Species Act.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking your time out of
what we know again are busy schedules to come here today to
give us very valuable input. We appreciate the opportunity to
dialogue with you.
General Schroedel, thank you again for your attendance and
for your willingness to jump into this with both feet early on.
We look forward to you working with us as well as these
gentlemen and others.
And let me say to our audience out there, we thank you for
taking time to come. As Senator Isakson and I have both
mentioned, we had a hearing in Gainesville. We had a huge
audience up there, and we had a lot of participation. And
without you being here to express your opinions, to hear what's
going on here, we would not know what the real needs of this
area are. So to each and every one of you, I thank you for
being here.
As I mentioned before you will have the opportunity to have
your own personal input if you do not feel like your views were
expressed here today. If you're interested in providing a
written statement, the record is going to remain open for five
business days. If you will please visit the Agriculture
Committee's website at www.agriculture.senate.gov, you can get
additional details, or you can see any of these staff folks who
are sitting behind us here to get that website address.
Again, to the folks here at the RiverCenter, thank you for
hosting us in a magnificent facility. And for those of you who
haven't heard, we want to see this auditorium filled and Mike
Gaymon does a song and dance on Friday night. It's a terrific
facility, Mike. Columbus is extremely fortunate to have this
type of facility.
Thank you all very much for being here. This hearing is now
concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
October 24, 2006
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]