[Senate Hearing 109-1070]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1070
OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OF THE ACT AND ACF
RIVER BASINS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
__________
AUGUST 8, 2006--GAINESVILLE, GA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-639 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
(202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio Joseph I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
AUGUST 8, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia.... 3
Deal, Hon. Nathan, U.S. Representative from the State of Georgia. 5
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 1
WITNESSES
Conway, Jack, chairman, Forsyth County Board of Commissioners,
Forsyth County, GA............................................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Dunlap, Kit, president/CEO, Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce..... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Joseph, Jackie, president, The Lake Lanier Association, Inc...... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 204
Perdue, Sonny, Governor, State of Georgia........................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Walsh, Brigadier General Michael J., Commander, South Atlantic
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 64
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Annual Report, 2005, Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
District, Protecting Water Resources: Elements of Success.....115-146
Brochure, Do It Yourself Household Water Assessment.............. 147
Charts:
ACF Projects and Drainage Basins............................. 68
ACT Projects and Drainage Basins............................. 69
Lanier Elevations in Past Drought Years and in 2006.......... 59
U.S. Drought Monitor, July 25, 2006.......................... 66
Letters from:
Bowen, Julian, chairman, Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners, April 22, 1997.............................. 75
Bush, Jeb, Governor, State of Florida, August 4, 2006........ 315
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, U.S. Senator from the State of
Georgia:
April 29, 2005........................................... 305
October 12, 2005.........................................98,313
December 14, 2005........................................ 307
Conway, Jack, chairman, Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners:
November 25, 2003........................................ 81
September 23, 2005....................................... 95
February 1, 2006......................................... 102
Couch, Carol A., director, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources:
May 5, 2006.............................................. 36
May 17, 2006............................................. 42
June 1, 2006............................................. 46
June 9, 2006............................................. 53
Deal, Hon. Nathan, U.S. House of Representatives, 9th
District of Georgia, May 12, 1997.......................... 77
Franklin, Shirley, Mayor, City of Atlanta, April 7, 2006..... 286
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia:
April 29, 2005........................................... 305
June 28, 2005............................................ 310
October 12, 2005.........................................98,313
December 14, 2005........................................ 307
Keyser, Colonel Robert B., District Engineer, Army Corps of
Engineers, May 10, 2004.................................... 84
Perdue, Sonny, Governor, State of Georgia, June 2, 2006...... 50
Perkins, Tim, director, Water and Sewer, June 29, 2004....... 111
Reheis, Harold F., director, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, March 28, 1997.................................. 74
Seder, Ronald E., chairman, Forsyth Bounty Board of
Commissioners, June 24, 1996............................... 109
Taylor, Colonel Peter F., District Commander, Army Corps of
Engineers:
May 15, 2006............................................. 39
May 19, 2006............................................. 44
June 12, 2006............................................ 55
June 21, 2006............................................ 56
Vogel, Colonel William S., District Engineer, Army Corps of
Engineers:
March 15, 1996........................................... 72
May 28, 1997............................................. 78
Woodley, John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works):
April 26, 2005........................................... 312
June 15, 2005............................................ 311
June 30, 2005............................................ 308
January 30, 2006......................................... 100
Zeng, Wei, May 5, 2006....................................... 60
Paper, University of Florida, Extension, Institute of Food and
Agriculture Sciences: Water Wars: Water Allocation Law and the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin...................288-304
Statement, Castille, Colleen M., secretary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.......................................219-285
Study, Lake Sidney Lanier, Economic Impact of Recreation.........153-203
OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OF THE ACT AND ACF
RIVER BASINS
----------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Gainesville, GA.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m.,
Riverside Military Academy, 2001 Riverside Drive, Gainesville,
GA, Hon. Johnny Isakson presiding.
Present: Senators Isakson and Chambliss.
Also present: Representative Deal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. We will call this hearing to order. A
couple of members of the media are in the audience.
Member of the Media. I have a photographer, or I have one
coming, and wanted to know if they could have access to the
stage for the purpose of photographing the testimony.
Senator Isakson. That is all right if they come up from
these steps and veer right and there is a side thing here where
they can slip back where they won't block anybody and they can
take all the pictures that they want to.
Second, for the benefit of the Governor and colleagues,
Senator Chambliss, Congressman Deal, microphones are not self-
actuated. So you turn them on and off when you want to speak.
That way, we won't pick up or interfere with each other.
I want to particularly thank Colonel Guy Gardener,
Riverside Academy, he is standing right over here. You all give
him a big round of applause. This is a magnificent facility. We
appreciate the opportunity to have this here.
There is an old adage, behind every good man is a good
woman, and I also want to thank Kate Maine.
For the purposes of the audience, this is a hearing of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
I will make an opening statement of about 5 minutes
followed by Senator Chambliss, who is next, and Congressman
Deal. We'll go straight from there to the testimony of the
government.
We have three distinguished panels this morning. We look
forward to your participation and thank the panelists in
advance for coming.
I welcome the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers management of
the ACT and ACF River Basins, as well as the actions, their
actions, as I said to you earlier.
We have a very distinguished group of witnesses to discuss
the topic at greater length, Forsyth, Dawson, Gwinnett, and,
really all of the counties in Georgia, certainly, in the ACF
Basin.
Today we are conducting a congressional oversight of the
corps, following their announcement in June of this year that
the lake at the Buford Dam, the place in December 2005, was not
properly calibrated, bringing it nearly 2 feet or over a half a
meter higher than the actual level.
Because of this, billions of gallons of water were released
unnecessarily. I have heard from many of my constituents, and I
should say our constituents from this area, of the numerous
calls they had made to the board, trying to alert them to what
was obviously the declining water level.
I am looking forward to getting answers from General Walsh
as to why this happened and what steps they are taking toward
preventing it from happening again. I am also looking forward
to hearing the answers on the related ACT/ACF River Basin
issues.
I stand by my belief that if the corps would go forward
with the updated water control management of the two river
basin systems, an update that is long overdue, many of these
problems will be solved.
In fact, currently the interoperational plan that was
placed because the environmental species complaint, which was,
in part, acting as an interim operational plan, but interim
water control plan, it has been decades since the water control
plan has been redone. It is--time is of the essence and I will
see to it that it gets done.
It is the fundamental foundation and an ultimate tristate
water compact and an insurance for the people of our State and
the States of Alabama and Florida as to the way in which the
river will be managed.
I want to particularly welcome Governor Sonny Perdue to the
committee today. Governor Perdue has been a leader in our State
on water issues and offers a unique perspective as the chief
executive of Georgia.
His testimony, which I have already read, will provide you
a unique insight into how long and how hard the State, in
concert with Congressman Deal, Senator Chambliss and myself and
the other members have been working to bring about a resolution
to this problem.
I want to personally acknowledge and thank the Governor for
his diligent, diligent effort on behalf of all those in the
State of Georgia with access to their water.
With that said, I'm going to cut the rest of my statement
short, because hearing from those who are here to give
testimony today are the ones we really want to hear from, but I
have a few procedural motions that I need to make.
First, given Governor Perdue's unique perspective and the
fact that he has taken his time from a busy schedule to be
here, I'm going to give him 15 minutes for his testimony, and
all the rest of us will have 5 minutes.
Second, I want the record to reflect that I'm bringing
Senator Chambliss and Congressman Deal to serve as panelists on
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works field
hearing today.
We look forward to the questions from all the members, we
look forward to the answers we will receive from the corps, and
we look forward to the participation of local residents here.
It's now my pleasure to turn the microphone over to Senator
Chambliss.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Chambliss. Well, thank you very much, Senator, and
I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today with so
many folks who have come out to talk about an issue that is
very emotional and very sensitive and, needless to say,
extremely important to all of us for any number of reasons.
First of all, I want to extend, again, our thanks to the
Army Corps for hosting this outstanding facility here. I almost
feel like I am in the military here when I walked out. What a
great facility you have here.
Again, I want to thank all of you for coming out today to
discuss this extremely important issue of Georgia's water
resources.
There's not been an issue, and more now that I've been
around Atlanta, as to the State's low levels of Georgia lakes.
The purpose of today's hearing is to let our constituents
hear firsthand for those responsible for operating the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, fine men and
women of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as to why the lake
levels are as low as they currently are and why they simply
can't refill them as many of us would like.
The dog days of summer have traditionally been a time when
our families try to beat the heat in any number of ways--
swimming and boating, keeping hydrated, or staying inside with
the air conditioner cranked up.
Although there are a variety of ways that you will keep
cool throughout the summer's sweltering days, they are all
connected by one common thing, and that is the necessity for
water.
Georgia's water resources are a precious commodity for
allowing municipal drinking supply, to give us electricity for
commerce, for irrigating crops and to sustain what had been at
that time, as well as for recreation.
So when folks notice a significant drop in the lake levels,
that impedes their recreation plans or when they are informed
that there are restrictions placed on their domestic use of
water, like watering lawns or washing cars, and all to avoid
drinking supply, they are likely concerned.
Benjamin Franklin once noted when the well is dry, we know
the word for water. I think our recent experiences with Lake
Lanier have proven to be true although we didn't have to watch
Lake Lanier drain completely in order to learn the lesson.
The fact of the matter is that, the ACF River System is the
life blood of the economy and the environment, and that's a
major part of the Southeast; but right now, the system is out
of balance.
It is important that the operation of this river system
balance economic and environmental interest, balance water
quality and supply and environmental needs, and balance the
very needs among Georgia, Florida, and Alabama so that fair
decisions can be made about competing to get that drinking
water in the upper Basin, agriculture and economic development
in the middle Basin and important species in the lower Basin.
I think this hearing today is very timely. We want to
provide an opportunity, for those of you who rely on Lake
Lanier for any number of reasons, to have the opportunity to
hear directly from the Corps of Engineers about the management
of Lake Lanier.
It also provides us the opportunity to hear from you, the
State Board Members, as to the important interests at stake in
the proper management of this vital resource.
I am eager to hear today from General Walsh with the Army
Corps of Engineers, because the corps is responsible for
operating a number of different reservoirs across the river
systems.
Normally, they conduct their operations under a water
control plan, a plan that identifies the objectives for
managing the system such as navigation, water supply, and
recreation.
The water control plan instructs the management of the flow
of the river system for different identifying needs of that
system.
For instance, an updated water control manual would advise
the corps as to whether or not Lake Lanier can store a greater
amount of water supply for counties in the metro Atlanta area,
or whether such higher storage in Lake Lanier is detrimental to
the entire ACF system.
There's not been an updated water control plan in the ACF
in more than 50 years. That is really hard to believe. I
believe the lack of a master control plan of the ACF plan is
the root of a number of problems we have experienced with the
operation of this system.
I think it is the main reason there is so much imbalance
with respect to the allocation of water during times of surplus
and during times of drought.
I think what all the State oversees is fairness,
consistency and transparency in the operation of this system.
What we don't want to see is one State using an individual
law or regulation to gain an advantage over another State
resulting in a temporary gain of that State.
Unfortunately, although the Corps of Engineers is mandated
by statute and by regulation and maintaining of the water
control manuals due to the ongoing litigation between Georgia,
Florida and Alabama over water resources, they have not done
so.
In January 2006, as a result of the corps approving, the
legal impediments to control the legal control manuals for the
ACT and the ACF Basins were eliminated with the settlement of
that court case.
After months passed and the process of updating manuals had
not started, Senator Isakson and I sat down with the Secretary
of the Army, Francis Harvey, and he informed us that the Corps
of Engineers will start the process of updating the control
manuals no later than January 2, 2007.
I applaud his leadership in setting a firm date in moving
forward with this process, because I do believe it's the right
thing to do and the responsible thing to do. We need to assess
all the right needs for the ACF system and then we can figure
out an appropriate level of water needed to meet all of those
needs.
The main question I hope that will be answered today is, we
see Lake Lanier is lower than it should be. Why can't we simply
refill the lake?
I think it would be helpful for General Walsh to put into
context the recent operations of Lake Lanier. For instance, I
know the corps is currently under a court order to release
certain level amounts of water.
However, I also note that the corps accidentally released
an extra 22 billion gallons of water.
It is not only important for all the folks here to get an
estimation from the record from the corps as to how that extra
22 billion gallons of water was released, but to also come away
with an understanding of why they were releasing water in the
first place.
Where restrictions lie in the corps from doing things is
important to smart management of the ACF river system, like
updating the water control plan or simply raising our lake
levels.
I have here today a letter dated August 7, from the Hon.
Shirley Franklin, the Mayor of Atlanta which, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to insert into the record.
[The referenced document follows on page 286.]
Senator Isakson. Without objection.
Senator Chambliss. What this letter says is, it reinforces
that government officials and community leaders over a wide
geographic area are indeed with this issue and are actively
seeking solutions, and we truly are.
She makes an excellent point that the interim operations
plan is not a sustainable solution, and that we must move
forward and find a long-term solution for operating the river
system.
Last, I just want to say to our first witness today,
Governor Perdue, were it not for you and your persistence in
trying to call your colleagues from Alabama and Florida
together, we simply wouldn't be at the point where we even are
today.
These folks are not satisfied and we are not satisfied with
where we are. But I want you all to understand that were it not
for Governor Perdue for being as insistent as he has been, with
not only the Corps of Engineers, but with the two Governors,
which is where this issue ultimately has got to be resolved,
that we simply wouldn't be where we are.
The other two Governors, frankly, relied on filing lawsuits
as opposed to sitting down at the table and trying to resolve
this.
Thank goodness we have prevailed in these lawsuits, but the
leadership of Governor Perdue is critically important.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to the
testimony, and I look forward to hearing from our constituents
on this matter today.
Senator Isakson. Congressman Deal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Deal. Thank you.
It's an honor to be here. Thank you for holding this
hearing here in Gainesville in my congressional district and
thank you also to Senator Chambliss also for being here on this
panel today and thank you for inviting me to stay as well.
I also would commend Colonel Gardner and the staff here at
Riverside Military Academy for their hospitality and for
allowing us to be the hosts of this meeting at this very
gorgeous facility, something that I think our community is
tremendously proud of. I know that you are as well, Colonel
Gardner.
I too would like to thank Governor Perdue for being here
today.
I do believe that it is his leadership and persistence on
this issue, that it will become more clear as we hear his
testimony, that it has been a real stabilizing force and an
incentive for us to remove some of the impediments that have
been there in the past, and hopefully reach a conclusion.
Needless to say, Lake Lanier is important to this part of
Georgia. It is estimated that it has about a $5 billion
economic impact on our community and our State as a whole.
High water levels for Lake Lanier, in our opinion, are not
inconsistent with adequate water usage downstream. In fact, we
think it may, in fact, compliment that as well.
So this is a comprehensive hearing. It is nice to have the
opportunity and public forum to hear from the Corps of
Engineers as to the issues that they are confronted with.
Hopefully, if there are legislative issues that need to be
addressed, at this time I will be advised of those in the
process of this hearing today.
Needless to say, this is the time of year when, as Senator
Chambliss pointed out, the lake is a vital recreational
resource for many people in our State. With water levels as
they are now, it is certainly a problem, to say the least.
I want to thank all of those who have come to participate
in this hearing and to listen to the testimony. I think it is
important that everyone involved in the process know the
magnitude of the interest of the people as a whole in this
issue.
Thank you again for allowing me to be a part of this panel
and welcome to Gainesville and to Hall County.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
It is now time for me to introduce our first panel.
Governor Sonny Perdue, the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Governor, you have been given the exception of having 15
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Perdue. Good morning.
I would like to begin by thanking the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works today chaired by Senator Johnny
Isakson.
I would also like to thank Senator Saxby Chambliss and
Congressman Nathan Deal for their presence, their interest and
their leadership on this issue in the first of hearings in
Washington for pursuing the solutions to this dilemma.
The issue of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers management of
the ACT and ACF river basins is both timely and significant.
The rivers that make up these Basins are among the State of
Georgia's most precious natural resources.
Waters rising 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 support a wide variety of needs
of the biological needs of a wide variety of species.
In March of this year, the corps announced a new reservoir
management plan for the ACF Basin including Lake Lanier,
reservoir, called the Interim Operations Plan (IOP).
The 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 far more
water than is necessary for the protection of these species and
depletes the water storage upon which people and wildlife,
including the protected species at issue, depend.
Unfortunately, the corps has largely dismissed Georgia's
concerns.
I'd like to give you a time now. On May 5, 2006, Dr. Carol
Couch, director of Georgia's Environmental Protection Division,
wrote a letter for the corps enclosing hydrologic data showing
the corps' continued operations could draw down the Federal
reservoirs in the ACF Basin in their lowest level in 50 years
that could effectively empty them.
On June 1, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to the corps and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requesting specific
changes to the IOP.
On June 2, 2006, I wrote to the Secretary of the Army,
Frances Harvey, sharing Georgia's concern that, ``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 2, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to Colonel
Peter Taylor and to the Fish and 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 6, 2006, I personally met in my office with General
Michael Walsh and Colonel Taylor to face-to-face express the
concerns that we have expressed in writing.
By June 9, 2006, the State received no material responses
from the corps in response to its communication. Thus, on June
9, 2006, Dr. Couch wrote the corps another letter demanding
specific revisions to the IOP.
On June 12, 2006, the corps responded by letter to Dr.
Couch's June 1 and June 2 letters. The corps challenged what it
believed to be certain of the assumptions underlying Georgia's
simulations of the IOP, but did not provide data to allow
Georgia to assess the validity of the corps' assertion or to
fully evaluate the discrepancies between the corps' and
Georgia's models.
The corps repeatedly put off responding to our June 9, 2006
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 9, 2006 letter because of unidentified
``concerns raised by the other parties to the litigation.''
In fact, the corps did not respond to Dr. Couch's June 9
letter until June 21, 2006.
In the midst of all this, the corps 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 known as the driest time of the year. By this
mistake, they essentially created the effects of a ``manmade''
drought on top of a natural drought.
The 22.5 billion gallons of water that the corps mistakenly
released corresponds to 6.3 percent of Lake Lanier's
conservation capacity, 22.5 percent at West Point's
conservation capacity and 28.2 percent of Walter F. George's
(Lake Eufaula) storage conservation.
This year, 2006 is 1 of only 2 years in Lake Lanier's
history when the lake levels fell, the period of January
through May, which is normally the time of refill, even in
drought years. The other year when this occurred was in 1986.
Submitted with my testimony, there is a chart that shows
the drop in Lake Lanier levels compared to lake levels
experienced in the drought of 1999 to 2001.
As you will see, this chart shows that Lake Lanier was able
to rise in elevation for the same period, January 1 to June 1,
even during the 1991 to 2001 drought, the most severe drought
in the history for the ACF Basin.
I think that should be 1999 to 2001. For example, Lake
Lanier began in 2006 more than 5 feet higher than it had begun
in 1999. But the lake levels now are more than 2\1/2\ feet
lower than it was on August 3, 1999.
For example, on January 1, 2006, Lanier elevation was 13
feet higher than the January 1, 2001 level, yet last night's
elevation was less than 1\1/2\ feet higher than at the same
time in 2001.
This unprecedented loss of storage with the perspective of
what happened in the past droughts, is clearly the result of an
Interim Operations Plan (which was not part of past reservoir
operations), in particularly the magnitude of flow it calls for
during the spawning season, March through May.
The unfortunate actions by the corps' repeated lack of
response to our concerns left Georgia with no alternative but
to take legal action to protect our water resources.
As you are aware, the State of Georgia filed complaint in
the Northern District of Georgia to stop the corps' continued
operating, according to the Interim Operations Plan. This case
is pending.
Litigation is never how I choose to deal with issues. As I
explained earlier, we tried repeatedly to impress our concerns
upon the corps. The corps, we determined was fairly, largely
nonresponsive. The threat of the State of Georgia is urgent and
the situation demands immediate action.
We have challenged the IOP because the corps must allow the
lakes to refill and recover the lost stored water.
Common sense tells us that you cannot manage a system of
reservoirs if you never store any water. The corps' Interim
Operations Plan was adopted without any prior notice, without
any public participation, without analysis of impact on
authorized purpose 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
consideration 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 imposes a severe risk
of substantial harm to the State of Georgia and its residents.
In fact, the Interim Operations Plan is essentially a water
control plan. A water control plan that was adopted by and
taken only one factor in consideration, endangered species.
Georgia has long advocated that the corps should update its
master control plan for both the ACF and ACT Basins, which have
been noted, have not been done in over 50 years.
As a result, the corps is operating its complex systems
without reliable or predictable operating rules tailored and
current demands and conditions within the Basins.
Indeed, the corps' own regulations provide that water
control plans should be updated periodically in light of
changing demands and other conditions.
I don't think there is any question of over the last 50
years, the ACF and ACT Basins in Georgia have changed
dramatically.
The Federal Government itself recognized the need for
current plans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
is investing millions of dollars in updating the 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
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 of
Georgia's citizens and for facilities such as the Farley
Nuclear Plant and other powerplants.
The water control plans also should be updated as part of
implementing the 2003 settlement reached by the corps, Georgia,
and other parties that will help ensure that metropolitan North
Georgia's water needs for the next decade will be met.
The failure of the corps to update the water control plan
is also affecting a stated purpose of lakes in the Basin,
recreation. West Point officials have asked the corps to raise
the level of the lake by 2 feet in the winter when water is
plentiful to accommodate recreational needs that have a
significant impact on the region's economy. But the corps
officials have said that they have to adhere to elevation
levels in the IOP.
What does all this mean? The corps is providing flows for
endangered sturgeon and mussels under an IOP that was developed
without studying its full effects and without properly updating
the corps' grossly outdated water control plans.
The corps' performance under the IOP this year demonstrates
that it is not a sustainable plan. With a continuation of this
dry year, Lake Lanier, Lake Eufaula, West Point and Seminole
will all drop to levels that will put at risk water supply,
water quality, endangered species and other wildlife, and will
be devastating to recreational boating and fishing that support
the local economies.
In closing, I would like to say that I cannot believe that
Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with the intention
of providing substantially more protection for the species than
for human beings.
The corps can provide both the needs for the 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 that Congress intended that
the corps provide the species with more water than even the
natural environment would support, particularly when it comes
at such a great cost upstream.
Even at a flow of 5,000 cubic feet per second, which the
corps IOP calls for, and under which we operate today, mussels
are getting more water now than they would if no dam is built
and no reservoirs created.
It is a time, gentlemen, for common sense to prevail on
this issue. That is what we are asking for from the corps when
they update the 50-year-old water control plans. That is what
we seek through our request to stop the release of water
greater than nature would provide.
That is the approach that I want to take when I sit down
with my colleagues and neighbors to the west, Governor Riley on
August 14.
Once again, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to
provide this information and this testimony and thank you very
much for your time today.
Senator Isakson. Obviously, Governor, you did well. I want
to thank you for the detailed presentation and all the letters
from you and Mr. Couch to the corps as well as all the letters
from the corps to you as well as the charts that is testimony
to and will be made a part of this permanent record.
On behalf of Senator Chambliss and Congressman Deal and
myself, thank you for your valuable time. I appreciate it.
Mr. Perdue. Thank you all.
Senator Isakson. Now it is my pleasure to ask Brigadier
General Michael J. Walsh, the Commander of the South Atlantic
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to come forward
for your testimony.
General, we want to welcome you to this hearing today and
thank you for your participation; and we look forward to your
testimony of about 5 minutes and we will do questions and
answers after, with your permission.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH, COMMANDER,
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I would like to thank you for my
invitation to attend.
Members of Congress and distinguished guests, I am
Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh, Division Commander, South
Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement
before you today concerning the corps' operations and
management of the Alabama-Coosa Tallapoosa River Basin
encompassing parts of Georgia, and Alabama and the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins encompassing
parts of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers practices the principle of openness.
We strive to maintain transparency in all of our
operations, providing all of our publics with as much data as
possible via our Internet, sharing of information with State
and Federal agencies, and through the media concerning our
operations and management of this system.
I would like to divide my statement into three parts.
Normal management, support for the Endangered Species Act and
the gauge calibration error at Lake Lanier.
Normal management for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River
projects is multipurpose providing for flood control,
hydropower navigation, water quality, recreation and fish and
wildlife conservation.
The system has five corps projects and 10 Alabama Power
Company dams. The corps projects consist of two major storage
projects, Allatoona and Carters in Georgia at the upper end of
the Basin and three run-of-the-river projects at the lower end
of the Basin in Alabama.
The Alabama Power projects are located on the Coosa and
Tallapoosa Rivers and are operated in conjunction with the
corps' projects and provide a minimum 7-day average flow in the
system. The corps has flood control oversight of the Alabama
Power projects.
The ACT Basin has experienced the same drought conditions
as have other places in the Southeast. The two upper most
projects, Allatoona and Carters are experiencing inflows
averaging 30 percent of normal. Allatoona is currently 6.5 feet
below normal summer pool and Carters is 10 feet below normal.
Releases from Allatoona are being kept to a minimum with
only 2 hours of hydropower generation a day, plus a continuous
240 cubic feet per second release for water quality purposes.
Carters, which is a pump back hydropower generating
system--is operating in the pump back mode only.
At the lower end of the system, the Alabama River, depths
are at 6 feet below project depth in support of navigation.
The only releases occurring at the corps projects are
minimum flows coming from the upstream Alabama Power projects
and the Alabama River situation, due to the drought, has caused
one major industry to modify its water intakes to remain
operational. Now the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers
project (ACF) is also a multipurpose project providing flood
control, hydropower, navigation, water supply, water quality,
recreation, fish and wildlife conservation.
The Federal projects on the Basin system begin with Lake
Sidney Lanier at the headwaters--West Point Lake, Lake Walter
F. George, George W. Andrews, and Lake Seminole at the lower
end of the Basin.
There are several lakes with hydropower facilities operated
by private and public utilities along the system as well.
Under normal circumstances, the corps operates and manages
these reservoirs to meet all project purposes in accordance
with the draft water management plans developed in the 1980s.
These plans established zones of water levels that trigger
actions when these levels are reached.
This management has proven to be successful in meeting all
those project's purposes.
It is primarily when drought hits the system that issues
begin to arise. The corps continues to operate and manage the
system based on the above-mentioned plan.
This calls for balancing the various reservoirs with
available water to keep them in the same action zones. These
zones have been developed to meet as many project purposes as
possible with dwindling water availability during a drought.
As conditions worsen during times of drought, some project
purposes become a higher priority. These priorities include
water supply, water quality, hydropower and fish and wildlife
conservation.
Fortunately, we are often able to simultaneously meet
several of these needs with one action. For example, water
released for water quality can also be run through a generator
to produce hydropower.
Like many of these systems operated and managed in the
Southeast, along with most in the Nation, this river basin
system is in a drought.
The National Weather Service Drought Monitor shows North
Georgia is in a moderate drought, and as you move southward, it
is characterized as a severe drought.
We operate and manage this Basin as a system; when the
lower Basin receives less inflow, we must augment flows from
stored water to maintain balance.
The next part is the Endangered Species Act. The corps and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been in consultation
since 2000, the year 2000, concerning various mussel species,
and more recently, the Gulf Sturgeon, which all fall under the
protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Together, we have developed an interim operations plan to
provide adequate water from the system to protect and enhance
the habitat of these species. During normal conditions, these
needs have been met through routine operations and maintenance.
As we have encountered--as we have entered the drought
period, management for those species has become more difficult.
From March through late June, our water flow regimes have
been in accordance with our Interim Operations Plan (IOP), that
is subject to the Formal Section 7 Consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
As part of the litigation actions, the Court ordered
specific flows in the late June and early July time period.
The States and other parties to the litigation actions, the
Court ordered specific flows again in late June and early July.
The States and other parties to the litigation then agreed
to a flow regime that took us through late July.
Today, we are once again operating in accordance with our
Interim Operations Plan, the IOP. The formal consultation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the IOP is ongoing. The
biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as
a result of the formal consultation process, is due to me on
September 5, 2006.
Last, on the gauge calibration error, on the June 16 of
this year, we discovered that we had a gauge calibration error
at Lake Lanier. The error led us to release additional water
that would not normally have been released during that time
frame.
In December 2005, during a routine maintenance of that
gauge, it was discovered that certain components had been worn.
New parts were ordered and installed, to include a device
called a selsyn. A selsyn device is an encoder that reads the
mechanical data provided by the float via the pulley. It
converts the mechanical data to electronic data which is then
sent to the powerhouse that is indicating the lake levels.
As part of the installation, a scaling factor had to be
programmed into the selsyn, and as we put that factor in, we
called the manufacturer who recommended the scaling factor.
Unfortunately, we were not clear in our communications with
the manufacturer in that we did not replace the pulley that is
attached to the selsyn. The manufacturer had assumed that we
replaced both the selsyn and the pulleys and provided a scaling
factor for both systems.
The result was that we inputted a scaling factor that was
not appropriate for the existing pulley with the new selsyn.
Between the time of installation and mid-April of this
year, levels at Lake Lanier remained relatively stable and no
error was detected during those time periods. Beginning in mid-
April, we started to make water releases for downstream needs
in accordance with the IOP.
The calibration error led us to believe we had a higher
pool level than actually existed, indicating a greater inflow
into the lake than was actually occurring. We were operating
under the IOP, which required us to essentially release 100
percent of Basin inflows to mimic a run of the river flow for
the entire Basin.
As the gauge data was incorrect, we were releasing more
water than was actually entering the lake by approximately half
an inch per day. Consistent with our policy of openness about
our operations, we informed congressional interests,
stakeholders and the general public as soon as we learned of
this problem.
We have corrected the gauge error and have confirmed the
accuracy of all of our gauges, not only on this system, but on
all the systems in the Southeast that are under my
jurisdiction.
In addition, we have installed redundant systems, redundant
gauges on all the projects, again, in my area of responsibility
and have updated procedures to verify their accuracy.
In summary, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to
update you on the management of the ACF River project and I
want to assure you the corps is committed to working with all
stakeholders in the Basin to provide the best management and
operations for the lake.
I am hopeful the current mediation process that is taking
place among the three States and the Army will produce a
framework to bring mutual protection and balance to this
precious resource.
Senator Isakson. General Walsh, thank you very much for
your testimony and your service to our country.
I will start the questioning and then go to Senator
Chambliss, then return to Congressman Deal and then we will
spend 5 minutes on questions. Whoever wants to talk, be sure
and do it as well.
I want to thank Nathan Deal for the outstanding job that he
did on the 49 States in the House, about 6 weeks ago when he
stopped and attempted to amend the budget and undo the water
control plan.
I want to thank Senator Chambliss for his honorable
intention to do the same thing on the actions that we have on
the Senate floor.
I mentioned that so General Walsh knows that I know he has
been somewhat of a proverbial ping-pong ball.
However, I think we are in a climate where we are willing
to do what we can for reaching some realistic agreements.
To that end, Senator Chambliss and I have talked to
Secretary Harvey in my office, and I am interested in knowing
about the water control plan. Secretary Harvey informed Senator
Chambliss and myself that we have a January 2 target date to
begin the water control plan, and I want to know if that is
still on target and still on date.
General Walsh. Yes, sir, we are still on target with the
plan to start January 2.
Senator Isakson. Do you think that the statement that
Governor Perdue made that the Interim Operations would be
accurate for a water control plan, would that be an accurate
statement?
General Walsh. No, sir.
Senator Isakson. Then would you tell us why you don't think
that would be an accurate statement.
General Walsh. The water control plan that we put together
at the IOP is down at Walter F. George, which is at one
particular project. It does affect the entire drainage system,
but it is one particular project.
The water control manual that Secretary Harvey is talking
about is something that will control the whole basin.
Senator Isakson. But it would be true that if you had a
plan for that particular lake downstream that maintain levels
that it would affect the upstream levels of the river, would it
not?
General Walsh. That's correct, it would.
Senator Isakson. The reason is, I just want to make the
point for the audiences' benefit, and I think we have a very
knowledgeable audience here--but in the absence of updating the
water control plan, we're going to continue to have our hands
tied and not have the best data that we need to make the right
decisions; would that be correct?
General Walsh. That's correct. We do need to update the
water control manuals.
Senator Isakson. In your statement, you said you divide
your speech into three parts, and the first was normal
management. You described your job as managing multipurposes
for the waters in the lake.
In abnormal times, and I think we are in a moderate drought
now and in a severe drought for testimony, are those multiple
purposes prioritized in terms.
General Walsh. They are prioritized, as I mentioned in my
presentation to the water supply and the water quality, and
different species, Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
Senator Isakson. Water supply and water quality is as
tremendously important to the human nature and human beings
and, of course, the environmental species as referred in the
Act of Congress passed for the protection of the environment of
the species; is that correct?
General Walsh. That's correct, sir.
Senator Isakson. I believe there are currently four pending
permit applications for this area. Is that correct?
General Walsh. I believe so. That's correct.
Senator Isakson. Would you give me a statement as to the
status of those.
General Walsh. Well, there are four requests, one is from
Forsyth County requesting a pipe line easement to withdraw
water out of Lake Lanier. We have transmitted that request to
the mediation crew, to the people from the three States, and
the Army to review that particular request.
Right now, Forsyth County does not have a water withdrawal
permit for Lake Lanier. The city of Cumming also has an
easement to take additional water out of Lake Lanier, and we
passed that also to the mediation team to see how we can work
from that perspective.
Gwinnett County does have a waste water treatment outfall
and diffuser at Lake Lanier. Again, that one is being--I
believe that one, they are continuing to see if they can get a
Georgia permit.
At the conclusion of that, if they do get the permit, they
will be looking at going through the regulatory requirements of
404 and section 10.
The last item was the city of Gainesville is looking to
replace and upgrade the waste water treatment pipeline and the
outfall diffuser again at Lake Lanier, and that is going
through a document review as well.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much. My time is up, and I
want to end it by letting the audience know that the General is
going to Iraq, I believe, next month, is that correct?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. We wish you the best and we thank you for
your time. We hope you will inform your successor of the
importance of the Lake Lanier and Chattahoochee Water Basin in
regards to water control.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. I just got back from Iraq, as a matter
of fact, last week or so and you can go over there.
Senator Isakson. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. That reminds me of the fact that the
Army Corps of Engineers is just as much a part of winning the
war on water control as what we have for Fort Stewart.
You have given us that reminder here today, but let me just
say that this statement made in the speech and the fact that 22
billion gallons of water were released, if that kind of mistake
had been made on the battlefield, it would cost American lives.
That is how serious, I think in terms of this issue, it is.
There was simply no excuse for that and I hope appropriate
actions have been taken as if it were a battlefield situation--
any comments you want to make?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. As soon as we noted the error, as
I mentioned in my statement, we contacted all the public
interests, the Governor's office, certainly the Senators and
Congressmen in the area of the corps.
From there, I was concerned that we did not have redundant
systems on Lake Lanier water levels, and I was quite concerned
with why we didn't have redundant systems on such a precious
resource.
I found out all my facilities in the Southeast, we didn't
have redundant systems. So I ordered redundant systems on each
one of our lakes.
Senator Chambliss. So going forward, what can we anticipate
if something like this ever happened again? What will happen to
the system?
General Walsh. Well, I think at Lake Lanier, we now have
three systems in place, one the selsyn system that has now been
recalibrated, we have the requirement for the ``lowboard'' to
do a hand check to drop the float line down the pipe, that is
twice a week.
They have also put a scaling device, a measuring device
outside Buford Dam so that the public, as they drive by, can
look at it themselves.
Senator Chambliss. Now everybody who is in the audience
today and all of us here have seen what has happened to the
level of Lake Lanier over the last several months.
We also know that there has been at times some rainfall
that has occurred, but the level of the lake continues to go
down. I hope there are reasons that cause that.
But why can't we just stop the flow out of Lake Lanier
today, because of this mistake that has been made, until it
builds back up at 2 feet, that was inadvertently let out of the
lake by mistake.
What's the key thing to do?
General Walsh. So the other requirements that are needed at
Lake Lanier and downstream, we need to meet those requirements
for water quality as well as for species.
Senator Chambliss. Well, you had said that the issue is not
as commonplace or not as serious as Lake George, Lake Lanier
and Lake Sidney. Why can't you make up for that mistake in some
manner in Lake Lanier?
General Walsh. I would like to say I'd be able to do that,
but at this point, the way we are right now in the drought, we
need to look at the system as a management system and make sure
we are putting all the lakes in the same zones.
As I mentioned in my comments, we do manage the lakes in
zones and we try to keep all three lakes in Zone 3 right now.
Senator Chambliss. As I understand it, and the way it was
explained to us is that, we have a need for process, which is
the first stage of moving to update the manual; that is
underway; is that correct?
General Walsh. No, sir. We will start the process for
updating the water control manuals on January 2.
Senator Chambliss. But it was my understanding that a month
ago when you started the initial steps underneath the process,
that is separate from updating the water control manual.
General Walsh. We have started a process in accordance with
the court order for us to move forward with the settlement
agreement.
Senator Chambliss. Now, the water control manuals will give
us the timeline; when that will be completed?
General Walsh. It will take 2 years for us to finish,
December 2008.
Senator Chambliss. Are there any impediments that might
stand in the way of the Army Corps of Engineers of completing
this process during that period of time?
General Walsh. At this point, it is just assurance that we
have appropriated funds to move forward.
Senator Chambliss. So there are no other legal impediments
that might----
General Walsh. At this point, we have completed all the
legal actions, but I was informed yesterday that Florida has
started another legal action yesterday on the Interim Operating
Plan.
So as of right now, there is nothing that will prevent us
from moving forward on January 2.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Isakson. Congressman Deal.
Mr. Deal. Gentlemen, I do want to thank you for your
service from the past, present and future. I say that because
some of my questions may not seem like I appreciate you, but I
do.
First of all, what is the calibration error of 22 billion
gallons translating to in terms of the lake level in Lake
Lanier?
General Walsh. It is 1.950.
Mr. Deal. I heard you give the lake levels for Carters Lake
and Lake Allatoona, which are part of the ACT Basin. I did not
hear you give the remaining lake levels in Alabama. Can you
tell us how far below normal pool they are?
Rather than having you look for it, if you can't find it,
would you supply that to us? In general, do you know whether
the lake levels are appropriately below the lake levels like we
have here?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. I will present that for the
record, but yes.
Mr. Deal. All right. Let's talk about the lake levels then
within the ACF. Lanier is what is now below level?
General Walsh. It is about 7 feet.
Mr. Deal. Seven feet. What about West Point?
General Walsh. I don't have that with me.
Mr. Deal. What about Seminole?
General Walsh. I don't believe I have that.
Mr. Deal. What about Lake Seminole?
General Walsh. Let me just say that all of these are on our
Web site, I looked at them yesterday. It does tell you exactly
what they are.
Mr. Deal. Again in your testimony, you started out by
saying, and you used the words transparency and openness in
your process.
Yet as I understand it, the Interim Operating Plan was
adopted without any external input in the process; am I
correct?
General Walsh. We had been working in our operating plan
since 2000 and have been gathering data on the endangered
species in Florida and sharing that with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and others.
So the Interim Operating Plan was an upgraded plan and it
had been upgraded since then.
Mr. Deal. So we consulted the endangered species folks, but
we didn't consult the people, such as the Governor of Georgia.
Is that what you are saying?
General Walsh. The Interim Operating Plan is the way we had
been operating since year 2000, so I'm not sure where you're
going.
Mr. Deal. Did the IOP take into consideration the
possibility of drought?
General Walsh. Yes.
Mr. Deal. To what extent, what did you anticipate the IOP
would be, the drought situation would be here in Georgia for
this time of year?
General Walsh. When the water flow--when the inflows get
into our lake into a certain level in that it doesn't bring
enough water in, we reduce the amount of flows that leave the
Walter F. George based on inflows.
Whatever comes into the Basin gets released from the Basin
until we get to the area of 5,000 cubic feet per second, and
that's where we stay for the endangered species.
So we do take into account the drought including up to the
5,000 cubic feet.
Mr. Deal. But 5,000 cubic feet per minute is more than
mother nature would provide right now including endangered
species, is it not?
General Walsh. That's correct, there is less water coming
into the Basin now than the 5,000 cubic feet per second. The
additional water is coming from that water that is stored in
the Basin.
Mr. Deal. That is Lake Lanier.
General Walsh. Lake Lanier, West Point and Walter F.
George.
Mr. Deal. The court order levels you mentioned, are they
Court ordered levels above 5,000 or below that and how do they
reconcile with that figure?
General Walsh. The court originally ordered us to release
more than 5,000 cubic feet per second and about 6,000 cubic
feet per second.
When we went back to see the judge after that time period
had expired, they couldn't agree what a new release would be
and the judge fell back on our original operating plan of 5,000
cubic feet per second.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Isakson. In light of the fact that I will give
Congressman Deal an extra 2 minutes, this is his district and
his lake.
Mr. Deal. Thank you. You know, just common sense, as the
Governor said in his opening statement, has to play a part in
all of this.
The levels that we are now experiencing, based on the
Governor's testimony, using the correlation of the drought from
1999 to 2000, where we were in the true drought period for a
sustained period during that time.
General Walsh. There have been five droughts as of this
date, five droughts that Lake Lanier has been at its level.
Mr. Deal. But we had a more severe drought situation, as
the Governor pointed out during that 1999 to 2001 time frame,
and yet, we did not experience the same drops in lake level. I
don't think the calibration error accounts for all of that
difference.
What is the other difference if we had gotten more water
during this current period of time than we did in the drought
period of time, 1999 to 2001, what accounts for the difference?
General Walsh. I don't know the answer to that, but it is
about 2 feet due to the error, probably another 2 feet for
conservation of endangered species. The additional 3 feet, I'm
not sure I know the answer to that.
Mr. Deal. Well, the presume necessity for endangered
species, and I say presumed because your IOP is a presumed
level of 5,000 cubic feet, was that, based just on an
assumption that that is what they had to have.
You know, not to be totally facetious, but we have a grand
aquarium here in Atlanta, GA, and if those 12 sturgeon need
some water, we can find a place to put them there.
The 5,000 cubic was based on a scientific analysis of what
the mussels and the sturgeon need; is that where it came from?
General Walsh. We were using the best scientific data that
was available.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's continue.
Senator Isakson. Let's just follow up.
Senator Chambliss. Talking about these mussels, you said
something when I went on the lake. I walked out of my backyard
yesterday and there were a bunch of mussels laying around.
Now, the point I wanted to make is, there are folks in this
part of the Basin or this part of the region that have concerns
about species also that may be endangered.
At one point in time, we were down to a 113-day supply of
water. Thank goodness the Lord came in and gave us a little bit
of wine and some cheese with it.
Is there any plan to look for species problems in other
parts of the Basin or if somebody finds the sturgeons laying
out there and it creates a problem during the middle of this,
it is kind of interesting, but we happen to be in a lawsuit and
we have to refill Lake Lanier and all of a sudden Florida has
found these sturgeons down there, is there a plan that looks
for species----
General Walsh. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service keeps an
eye on endangered species to work with and in support of those.
Senator Chambliss. Last, I want to go back to this, but I
want these folks to understand exactly this process that we are
going through.
There are actually two different processes, as I understand
it. One of the main processes has to do with the settlement of
the lawsuit of the State of Georgia. That is the process that
is underway right now; is that correct?
General Walsh. That's correct.
Senator Chambliss. Now, that process is separate from the
unique process that will be done and part of the updated water
bans; is that right?
General Walsh. That's right.
Senator Chambliss. These two, you said it would take an
approximate 2-year period of time. Is there any way, in the
appropriation of funding, that we can speed up that process as
far as a 2-year plan to----
General Walsh. I think the 2-year plan is an aggressive
plan with whatever funding that we have lined up before.
As you may recall, we have been working this process for
the past 15 years through the contacts and other processes, so
I think 2 years is a fairly aggressive approach.
Senator Chambliss. During that period of time, the
potential to have Lake Lanier back to a level that is a
reasonable level for recreation, as well as for other purposes.
This is done through one of two ways, if the Lord sends us
enough water, but also, if the States of Alabama, Georgia and
Florida come to an agreement on all of the issues relative to
the drawn out water from the ACT ACL, that agreement could also
provide the method by which Lake Lanier will rise up to a more
reasonable level; is that correct?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. If the three Governors agree on
water allocations----
Senator Chambliss. You are here representing the corps and
you are a brave man to be here. You may have a need for it
here. We appreciate the work that you do.
We don't always agree with you and that is what makes us a
great country that we are. This is and you know it is a very
sensitive and very emotional issue, like Senator Isakson said,
and I know that you will impress on your successor--not just
the folks here today, but to all the folks in Florida, in
Georgia and Alabama--it is important that we get it right.
Thank you very much.
Senator Isakson. General, I have one last question here.
The question I asked you regarding the four permits, for
Dawson, Forsyth, city of Gainesville and Gwinnett, did I
understand you to say that the corps had signed off on them and
submitted them to mediators for their sign-off, or shall we
submit them to the mediators and then you deal with them?
General Walsh. We have not signed off, we just submitted it
to the mediators for litigation.
Senator Isakson. Is there a timeline or a deadline for them
to respond to you?
General Walsh. No, sir. It is a mediation process, the
judge will determine how much time that is.
Senator Isakson. We sure appreciate you being here, and
best of luck to you and God bless.
General Walsh. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Let me now call our next group of people--
Jack Conway, Kit Dunlap and Jackie Joseph.
The lights you see in these little boxes, the green light
means that you have 5 minutes; the yellow light means you have
1 minute left; and the red light means you are supposed to
stop, because it has already timed out.
With that said, Mr. Conway.
STATEMENT OF JACK CONWAY, CHAIRMAN, FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, FORSYTH COUNTY, GA
Mr. Conway. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
be here, Senator Chambliss, Representative Deal.
On behalf of Forsyth County, the Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners, and all Forsyth County citizens, I want to thank
this honorable committee for providing me this opportunity to
testify regarding Forsyth County's experience and interaction
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its management of the
ACT and ACF River Basins, specifically, Lake Lanier.
At the outset, I must respectfully advise that Forsyth
County's experience with the corps and its management and
stewardship over Lake Lanier has been at best frustrating and
at worst exasperating.
Forsyth County has been, and remains, discouraged and
disappointed by the endless layers of bureaucracy, politics,
and all the red tape that seem to control the corps, and that
makes it almost impossible to receive a straight or even
consistent answer to even the most mundane of questions.
Throughout my tenure as chairman, one of my chief goals has
been to ensure that Forsyth County has sufficient water
availability to satisfy both the present and long-term demands
of its citizens.
That effort has necessarily generated multiple discussions,
meetings, correspondence and telephone calls with corps
personnel.
The only consistency theme that has permeated these
repeated encounters with corps' personnel is that the county's
overtures and initiatives are systematically rebuffed.
Although the county's request to the corps for its own
water intake began in the mid-1970s and was renewed in earnest
in the mid-1990s, due to time constraints, I will relate only
my personal experiences beginning in 2003 to demonstrate the
county's inability to obtain cooperation with the corps.
While the county was and remains mindful that the so-called
``water wars'' had been ongoing and that this litigation has
impacted the corps' discretion in issuing water withdrawals,
the corps' interpretation of the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement
between Georgia, Florida and Alabama, has been a moving target.
On November 23, 2003, I wrote Colonel Robert Keyser at the
corps requesting permission to begin construction of a second
order intake into Lake Lanier. I emphasized that the county was
not seeking any additional water allocation, but simply
requested an approval to construct the vitally needed water
intake structure.
On May 10, 2004, Colonel Keyser rejected my request,
stating that Forsyth County did not have a ``holdover water
supply contract.''
Colonel Keyser also noted that an injunction entered into
by the District Court in Alabama further bound its hands.
On March 25, 2005, the corps tendered a ``Notice of
Proposed Actions'' to the Alabama Federal District Court
stating that Forsyth County's request for an easement into Lake
Lanier cannot be considered because approval would require a
new withdrawal contract and is therefore enjoined.
On April 11, 2005, I attended a meeting with Congressman
Nathan Deal and corps officials.
At that meeting, I requested that the Corp consider
granting an intake easement to the city of Cumming, with
Forsyth County possibly funding the construction costs.
Approximately 6 weeks later, in a telephone conversation
with Colonel Taylor, I was advised that all ``holdover''
contracts had expired, and an intake easement into the city of
Cumming was not possible.
On September 19, 2005, the injunction that served as the
latest basis by the corps for not cooperating with Forsyth
County was lifted.
On September 23, 2005, I again wrote the corps requesting
simply an easement across corps property for purposes of
commencing construction of a water intake into Lake Lanier.
On October 13, 2005, Georgia's Senatorial delegation
delivered correspondence to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army, John Woodley, clarifying their understanding that the
corps would get to work on the various requests for Gwinnett,
Cherokee, and Forsyth counties.
Secretary Woodley responded to you on January 30 that he
did intend to begin taking all necessary Federal action.
On February 1, 2006, I again delivered correspondence to
the corps requesting that the corps immediately ``make good''
on its commitment to begin taking action on Forsyth County's
easement request.
In a telephone conversation following that letter, corps
officials declared that in spite of the assurances provided to
our Senatorial delegation, the corps refused to grant Forsyth
County an easement because the county did not have a
``holdover'' water storage contract.
In the spring 2006, the corps advised that the city of
Cumming should make a request for an intake and that the city
and county could then enter into an intergovernmental agreement
regarding intake operation.
When asked whether the corps would place its proposal in
writing, the corps advised it would not.
The latest word from the corps on why Forsyth County's
vital water interests could not be addressed is because the
comprehensive study of the ACT/ACF is ongoing.
Ironically, it was some 10 years ago when this
comprehensive study was used by the corps as the basis for
denying the county's request at that time. Here we have come
full circle again.
I believe that commitments made to our Senatorial
delegation have not been honored, and that the corps has placed
the water needs of Florida and Alabama over the needs of the
Georgia citizens. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Conway.
Mr. Conway. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Ms. Dunlap.
STATEMENT OF KIT DUNLAP, PRESIDENT/CEO, GREATER HALL CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Ms. Dunlap. Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, Congressman
Deal, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss some
water issues that are facing North Georgia and our entire
State.
I am here wearing two hats. I currently serve as president
and CEO of the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce here in the
State of Georgia and have a strong interest in the economic
issues associated with Lake Lanier and the entire ACF Basin.
I am also here as chairman of the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District, which is a 16-county metro
Atlanta planning agency that was created by the General
Assembly 5 years ago to develop regional water plans.
How appropriate we are here today to talk about water or
lack of water. We are currently in a drought, have extremely
high temperatures affecting our water and Lake Lanier. We are
also dealing with the tristate water wars, our critters
downstream, and a costly water gauge error by the Corps of
Engineers.
Lake Lanier is 7 feet below full pool. Today we are at
1063.9. Full pool is 1071. Traditionally, our driest month is
October.
My comments today will focus on three areas, the economic
impact of Lake Lanier, as already stated is over $5 billion
annually.
This was in a 2001 study done by the Marine Trade
Association of Metro Atlanta.
It is 5 years old, and it was done at the end of a 4-year
drought season. Today those values would be much, much higher,
and I pledge to you I think I can get my study done in about 6
months and give you a new one.
Recreation is the dominant part of that figure. Lake Lanier
is the most visited Corps of Engineers lake in the Southeastern
United States with a variety of tourism and recreation
activities.
The portion of the ACF Basin within the Metropolitan
Atlanta area accounts for over two-thirds of the basin
population, and nearly half of the population of the State of
Georgia.
It generates a significant majority of the total personal
income in the ACF Basin and roughly one-half of the personal
income in the State of Georgia.
The role of regional water planning--with a finite water
supply and a population of over 4 million and growing, the need
to carefully and cooperatively manage and protect Metropolitan
Atlanta rivers and streams is a top priority.
In September 2003, the Water District adopted three long-
term water management plans, of which you have a copy of our
annual report which is submitted for the record.
[The referenced document follows on page 115.]
Of these, the water supply and water conservation
management plan calls for a future of intensive water demand
management and an aggressive water conservation program.
When I was asked to serve as chair of the Water District,
many of my colleagues in Hall County questioned my decision to
go down to Atlanta to talk about water, talk about our water.
Yet it was important for all of the players, every county,
every basin, to be at the table. There were certainly
differences of opinion during this planning process.
But the plans were created in all 16 counties and 95 cities
in the district of moving to put together the plans for water
conservation.
We are in a sense ``regulating ourselves'' and working
together. We learned a lot through the first planning process
but yet had a long way to go. We applaud Georgia EPD's efforts
on the new State Water Plan and the district is involved in
that.
We certainly realize that other parts of the State have
different water needs and different interests. We want to
continue our work with our upstream and downstream neighbors
and further our outreach programs.
The district is presently involved in lots of conservation
efforts, conservation pricing, water system, leak and
reduction, the district use of a household assessment, which
you have a copy of, and was submitted to the record.
[The referenced document follows on page 147.]
We have a strong education program through the media and
through our schools.
Aggressive water conservation is critical to the region's
future.
We are developing new programs such as retrofit programs
for old, inefficient fixtures and pre-rinse spray valves.
The third part, the impact of water supply on the
Apalachicola River--the total net diversion from the ACF Basin
for water supply for the Atlanta metropolitan area ranges
between 250 and 300 cubic feet per second.
This is an average daily net diversion from the ACF Basin
from all 16 counties within the metropolitan water district.
Most of this water is taken from Lake Lanier, a small amount
comes from the Flint River.
To put this figure in comparison, agricultural withdrawals
in South Georgia, Senator Chambliss, have a much larger impact
on the surface water resources in the Flint River Basin.
According to recent testimony by the corps, this impact is
estimated to be between 600 and 700 cubic feet per second
during the summer months.
Because there is no large reservoir in the Flint River,
withdrawals from this part of the Basin have a ``real time''
impact on stream flow.
Agricultural demands are highest during the summer when
stream flows are the lowest. Therefore, such demands have a
disproportionate impact on stream flow.
Evaporation also has a significant impact as we know today.
In conclusion, we all need to be prepared to come to the
table and actively seek solutions to water supply limitations.
All of our varied interests do not need to be fighting each
other.
We need to be working together--Metro Atlanta, Lake Lanier
Association, other advocacy groups, Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and average citizens to clean up and
conserve our water.
There is plenty of water if it is managed correctly. Thank
you.
Senator Isakson. Ms. Joseph.
STATEMENT OF JACKIE JOSPEH, PRESIDENT, THE LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Ms. Joseph. Thank you, Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss
and Representative Deal, we appreciate the opportunity.
Senator Chambliss called me in late June and asked me about
the possibility of a meeting to take place today. So, I thought
of that effort because I knew our membership would be extremely
interested in this type of opportunity which you were offering
to us.
The mention of the Lake Lanier Association is dedicated to
a cleaner Lake Lanier to enhance the economic development for
the entire State of Georgia.
Established in 1966 with 4,000 members, 1,700 memberships,
which include recreational use, businesses, water usage, and
dock owners and residents who just enjoy the peace and
tranquility of this wonderful lake water.
We do have many solid programs. We have shore sweep, which
is a lake clean up. The community has 1,200 people participate
in that which, of course, is inclusive of scout troops. That is
one of our big activities where we take 20,000 tons of garbage
to be picked up and we hope to--we don't like to have to pick
up the trash but we do.
We have the Adopt-A-Lake program, which is very active. We
go out and we monitor certain areas of the lake. We participate
in this and we are collecting the data to determine baseline,
so we know exactly what is happening in this sphere, which is
basically an advocacy group for Lake Lanier.
We feel that it is the finest Natural Resource in the State
of Georgia, created, of course, by legislation and Senate and
Congress back in the late 1940s. Property was bought, 640 miles
of shoreline, 8,500 private docks, 10,000 boats, 10 marinas and
8 million visitors annually.
We are the drinking water source for 4-plus-million
Georgians, with the--billion dollar economy. Sixty-six percent
of the AFC stored water storage in Lake Lanier and 5 to 7
percent of the AFC watershed.
Of course, we have a lot of issues. The issues are the
municipalities are calling for sewage discharge into Lake
Lanier and calls for for up to 200 million gallons by the year
2025, as Ms. Dunlap alluded to, that the Metropolitan Georgia's
Planning Commission District came up with.
The support of the Lake Lanier Association denied sewage
discharge permits as it relates particularly to the quality
standards of Lake Lanier from the standpoint of Gwinnett
County. The sewage discharges are necessary for sustained
Georgia growth.
However, we do feel and we are very adamant in this
particular subject, that sewer discharge must be as clean as
possible through the treatment processes that are used by the
counties and/or municipalities that are asking for those
particular discharges.
Gwinnett County has agreed with the Lake Lanier Association
to make the discharge very clean indeed. Georgia EPD has not
issued a program, it was applied in the summer 2005, which we
negotiated with Gwinnett County satisfactorily.
The EPD should issue Gwinnett sewage discharge permits. The
EPD should direct that all future Lake Lanier sewage discharges
must be at least as clean and deep as the Gwinnett permit
requests.
Georgia should ensure that the water management plans
specifically addresses cleanliness and sewage discharges, and
reuse strategies which have not been discussed in the Basin
Advisory Committee meetings, which I attended three or four,
and we have yet to address this issue and we feel that is, in
fact, a serious issue that needs to be brought to the corps'
attention.
The AFC must be managed as a system in a prudent manner.
Low lake levels are very dangerous to boaters, swimmers and the
economy. Reservoirs are significant investments, and should be
managed accordingly.
A balance between endangered species and human requirements
must be effective.
First of all, if we are talking about humans versus
species, and I think you have addressed that accurately and we
all feel the same way, and I think our membership would
certainly agree with that.
The water flows at the Florida line for mussels and
sturgeons should not be artificially inflated to a level
greater than the natural water flows without reservoirs unless
excess water flow capabilities exist.
Economic value of water must be evaluated before release
decisions are implemented. As an example, Lake Lanier is in
contribution to Georgia versus a very small oyster industry in
Florida.
Establish a fair level of support for the endangered
species, but not to the detriment of drinking water and safety.
Mussels should not trump people.
Implement solid reinforced management of the AFC System,
rather than overreacting to specific requests. Prevalidate all
water release decisions with onsite visual inspections.
Set a lower limit for Lake Lanier (example 1060) and do not
go below that limit. Consider raising full pool at Lake Lanier
to 1,073 feet. This would be like adding 25 billion gallons to
the reservoir to the system.
Consider closer management of the Flint River, particularly
the withdrawal and permitting processes. Lake Lanier is the
most valuable national resource in Georgia, certainly the most.
Lake Lanier must be kept clean and full for the economic
vitality and growth of Georgia and prudent management of the
system is essential for Georgia's objectives.
We appreciate your opportunity and thank you for allowing
us to speak to you today.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Ms. Joseph.
We will take 5 minutes each on questions. Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Conway, I want to thank you. You mentioned the permit that
Forsyth County has had for the corps, for roughly, I think 10
years; is that correct?
Mr. Conway. Actually, it goes back about 25 years, Senator.
Senator Isakson. The reason that I asked General Walsh the
question about the four outstanding permits is one is in your--
--
Mr. Conway. That's correct.
Senator Isakson. In defense of Mr. Walsh, this
communication you referred to was the communication between
Secretary Woodley, Senator Chambliss and myself, which we have
a copy which we will submit and make a part of the record.
But in that, I just want the record to reflect that in that
letter, responding to Senator Chambliss and myself, Secretary
Woodley didn't just implement it. He flat out stated it's for
the procedure process.
He is the superior to General Walsh, so I don't recall,
General Walsh, what his answer was, but I knew on when I asked
that question, on many occasions, you and I have had, as well
as others, we have had outstanding permits for a long, long
period of time.
Do you have an additional comment on that process?
Mr. Conway. No, I just--I think it is unusual that the
corps can release billions of gallons of water in a matter of
days or even hours, yet when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
directed to the corps to vacate the order of the Alabama judge,
that even after all of our correspondence, that the corps took
the position that there may be an appeal so nothing could be
done. It is incredible.
The perception seems to be that for the last 25 years,
whatever Forsyth County has asked, the answer is always no.
It's just a matter of what question you put before them and
what region----
Senator Isakson. What is a ``holdover water storage
contract''?
Mr. Conway. The water storage contracts are what the
withdrawer pays for the amount of water they take out. When we
went and asked for a water withdrawal permit, I think it was
back in the 1970s that the water contract first came up because
they said we didn't have a water contract.
Then I think in the 1900s, it was denied that there was--
well, what happened, when it got to be 2000, and I think it was
around 2001 or 2002, that the compacts--these are called ``the
compacts,'' the water compacts, they were running out. What the
corps did, they didn't renew any of those contracts.
So what they did was, when we asked for a permit for the
water withdrawal, they said you don't have a holdover water
contract, so that was created as a reason for saying we
couldn't have it because we didn't have a storage contract.
So they said that they were holdover contracts and then
they said again, just recently it came up that the water
contracts were all let go so that nobody had a water contract.
Yet when the judge's order was vacated and Woodley got involved
in it, it came up again that said, you don't have a holdover
water contract again.
So it came full circle to where you had it, it was the
reason that the city only had a holdover water contract and we
didn't, and then they said they had all expired.
Then the next time they came back, they said, well, there
is holdover water contracts again. So it is a moving target.
Senator Isakson. Ms. Joseph?
Ms. Joseph. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. During the period of time of the
unfortunate 1.9 additional feet of 22 billion gallons of water
was being released, our office received a number of phone calls
from people concerned about the lake levels. I assume the Corps
of Engineers received a lot of phone calls, too.
From your standpoint, how is the communication between the
citizens, and in particular the citizens and the Corps of
Engineers?
Ms. Joseph. We did have a number of responses of people who
called and we referred them to the corps office, because we
really did not have an answer at that particular point in time,
except to tell them to call the corps.
Senator Isakson. Has that access been pretty easy in your
case----
Ms. Joseph. Yes, I would say the corps was responsive in at
least answering the questions.
I don't think at that particular point in time that people
were saying they had observed by the dock, by whatever markers
they may have at that particular location saying that they were
well aware that there was a significant difference.
First of all, I would like to say that we did call, and I
did speak to this lovely lady and I spoke to other folks and I
spoke briefly with Jonathan Nathus, who is the resource
manager, and they said it is obvious that the water is going
down and I don't know at that point if they had an answer or
they certainly would have told us.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dunlap, I will talk to you in your hat as chamber--you
cited in your testimony, and so did Ms. Joseph, the tremendous
economic value of Lake Lanier's resources and what it does for
the economy.
Do you know of any examples where businesses or companies
considering coming into this area didn't because of the water
problems?
Ms. Dunlap. No, sir, at this time, I do not.
Senator Isakson. Has that question come up?
Ms. Dunlap. Obviously, it would come up. I think it came up
during the 4-year period of 1999 through 2001. You know, as we
continued the dry period, we worked on that residential
housing, and it has to do with companies and the wonderful
resource of 38,000 acres and seeing a lot of red mud with the
water of Lake Lanier so very low.
Senator Isakson. I want to commend all three of you and
your testimony in particular. I am sorry the slide show didn't
work as well as it was intended, because the handouts are
beautiful, and I appreciate the comprehensive nature of
Association Corps.
Without objection, this will become part of the permanent
record.
Ms. Dunlap. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson. Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Do you have the potential for severe
water crisis in your county and what can cure that crisis if
that is the case.
Mr. Conway. We did have a water crisis that we had to do a
reverse 911. Several weeks ago, our water levels got
dangerously low to the point where we were concerned about
health issues. We've had a firefighting issue with it, and our
tanks got that low.
We have a usage problem in our county that we have gotten
under control now, but the supply that we need and why we need
the second intake is that the present intake we have is in a
fairly shallow area.
At times in a drought like now, the water quality is not
very good and it takes quite a bit of effort to treat it. We
cannot physically pull out of that intake our present
allocation for withdrawal from the lake. It is for both the
city and the county because we both draw out of the same lakes.
Senator Chambliss. Ms. Joseph, you talked about your
relationship with the corps.
Do you primarily speak with one voice for your membership
or has everybody on their own contacted the corps? I want to
know if everyone is getting the same answer.
Ms. Joseph. Senator, typically what we will do is, we have
an executive director and she is in the office and takes care
of all the issues and the calls and works out other numbers
too. But typically she would, I don't think experience is the
word for it, but accept the calls coming in.
In some instances, there are issues with the corps, not
just water issues that our organization would be able to
answer, but if we don't, we refer it to the corps.
Issues that are fairly common, we can usually handle that,
and we act as a screening situation for them.
When it comes to little issues like, why can't I have a
dock here and things like that, normal issues that new
residents particularly have. We do refer to the corps on a
regular basis.
I spoke with Mr. Davis yesterday regarding this meeting and
other issues, so we do communicate frequently. Of course, I
really don't know about the water issue, how many calls he's
received. I don't know. I have no idea. I know we've had a
number of calls.
Senator Chambliss. Ms. Dunlap, what about your relationship
with the corps, have you found the same that they have been
receptive to the water issues?
Ms. Dunlap. Senator Chambliss, I have lived on this lake--
well, I won't say how many years, but I came to live in Hall
County in the 1960s and have been here ever since.
I have a very good relationship with the Corps of Engineers
and the local management. Irwin Topper, who was here for many
years and then his successor have been open and receptive to
the public and the Chamber of Commerce.
Jonathan Davis being very new on the job, his first day on
the job was a meeting with some of you all, and I certainly get
questions answered when I call him. I speak for the Chamber of
Commerce, as well as the Water District.
In fact, Colonel Pete Taylor made a report to the Water
District last year. But I will say sometimes when you get out
of our area on some other areas as permitting reservoirs and
other issues, it is kind of hard to tell where it goes. Whether
it is Mobile, whether it is Savannah, and it is hard to get a
straight answer.
Senator Chambliss. I think it would be a good idea if we
can get a copy of that 2001 Trade Association Study and attach
it to the record.
Ms. Dunlap. We have. I believe 25 copies were sent to
Senator Isakson's office on Friday.
Senator Chambliss. Very good.
Ms. Joseph, for the record, let's talk about some effects
of the lower water levels this summer on the lake; and in
particular, recreation is a critical part of the decisionmaking
process, but also from the safety standpoint.
Can you tell us what issues we are facing right now at the
lake?
Ms. Joseph. I would suggest, Senator, that significantly
people who are not as familiar with the lake as some of the
people who may live on the lake who know what some of the
hazards would be involved, a separate issue would be brought
there. I would think that some have been. There are, but then I
don't know how widespread it is.
For example, if you had a marker indicating that there is a
lower area, it may be a sand bar, or it could be a rock, a
facility there, it can be located there, and it can spread out
over a period--I mean, over a distance, but I'm not familiar
with the process.
I would think that many people that navigate the lake who
are residents who do it frequently are very much attuned to
where these danger spots would be. But I would think that maybe
additional markers because we don't know because when it goes
low.
I didn't really know that that particular--I thought it was
just the bar itself. It may run 50 or 60 feet out, it may be
before an inch of rock. Some of those are exposed now that we
hadn't seen recently. There are disadvantages to that, yes.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Congressman Deal.
Mr. Deal. Let me, first of all, thank all the panel
members. You all represent points of view that need to be
heard, and I appreciate the corps being here for the purpose of
hearing that.
Mr. Conway, I want to personally and publicly thank you for
being an aggressive leader on this issue. You have represented
your constituents well.
You have been an outstanding spokesman on the problems that
exist. Perhaps some of the problems that should have been
avoided and can be avoided. I would just like to amplify on the
illustration that you gave earlier.
In your answer, you are not really for that you would like
to have a larger withdrawal or a permit altogether on behalf of
the county, but the current withdrawal apparatus with the
piping in such shallow water, it is impossible to currently
withdraw the level that you are already, that you and the city
of Cumming are already authorized to withdraw; do I understand
that correctly?
Mr. Conway. That's correct.
Mr. Deal. That is the reason for your request for the
secondary easement for purposes of additional water outtake
pipe. Not for new water, but just to be able to take advantage
of the authorized permit level that has previously been
granted. Is that correct?
Mr. Conway. That's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Deal. I have said this to the corps, and I'll say it
again, it seems that once these legal impediments have been
removed, and I think that most of them have now maybe been
removed, that seems like a reasonable request.
I would hope you would give priority to that consideration
because this is not the withdrawal amount, it is just taking
what has been already been authorized by the corps.
Two, just to re-emphasize the point, tell us where you are
in terms of population of growth in Forsyth County.
Mr. Conway. Congressman, first of all, thank you for the
kind words. I appreciate that. Not too many people know how
much I have done on water over the last few years, but I think
that you guys have seen me a number of times and you know that
I have a passion for this and it is something that is very
important to our county.
Our county has topped the 140,000 citizen mark. This past
year, we have grown by about 8,500 residents. It looks like we
will continue to grow at that pace for at least the next
several years because there is that much growth.
Mr. Deal. You have consistently within the decade been
either the fastest growing within the top 10 fastest growing
counties in the United States. Is that not right?
Mr. Conway. Yes, sir, Congressman. However, this past year,
we're dropped down to 14.
Mr. Deal. Oh, not enough water.
Mr. Conway, I want to thank you too because we've all had a
close working relationship with your Association and appreciate
the efficacy that that Association puts forward.
I would like to touch upon the one, the point in your
presentation about the possibility of raising the pool level of
Lake Lanier by an additional 2 feet, which I think the
calculation is that would be an additional 25 billion gallons
of storage.
You hear all sorts of arguments about the effects of
raising or even lowering, in some cases, pool elevation level.
One of the concerns I have had, and it becomes very obvious
in some of these periods when the level drops precipitously, is
that this constant ebb and flow has a huge erosion factor
associated with that, does it not?
Ms. Joseph. Yes, it does have an erosion factor. But in our
opinion, in talking also I might insert this, that I have
spoken with several people. I have spoken also with residents,
individuals--and the feeling is it would not be, other than the
erosion issue, it would not be an impact on anyone's--either
dock or anyone's residence, that they wouldn't feel that there
was any problem with that.
They would like to see that versus actually having the
water where it is today. In other words, another important
factor, but I don't think it would--is what I would ascertain
from discussions with people.
Mr. Deal. My recollection is that several years ago when we
got very close to thinking we had the greatest amount of three
States, that the raising of Lake Lanier's pool level by 2
additional feet was a part of that.
It was almost to the point of being finalized at one point,
but the signatures weren't forthcoming. But I didn't think it
is a significant part of hopefully, any new proposed water
plant for the lake.
Could I ask one very quick question, if I may, I know my
time is up.
Senator Isakson. Sure.
Mr. Deal. Ms. Dunlap, thank you for what you do. I know
your group has been very active in trying to promote
conservation alluded to in the handouts that are here.
Could you, rather quickly, tell us what you have done,
because I don't know if people who are not from this area just
think we are trying to get greedy with the water. I think they
need to know that we are doing this and continuing to promote
conservation practices. Would you refer to some of them?
Ms. Dunlap. Thank you, Congressman Deal. Our plans were
adopted in 2003, which is a very short time ago. But since
then, we have put in place policies for 16 counties to regulate
water supply, storm water, waste water management.
We are dealing with, like I say, almost a hundred
municipalities that in some way adopted these measurements.
Certainly water conservation is a part of it. Our education
process, educating the public, elected officials the need for
water conservation----
We have put in place--of course, the basic premise of our
whole water district plan is to return water to its source and
construct new reservoirs.
So I would say the adoption of our three plans by these
municipal governments have greatly affected water conservation
positively. We have a long way to go, but I think we have come
a long way in conservation.
But we need to all be working together. I would say this,
that unless we have a strong management plan or our greatest
resource, then it is hard for us to work our plan.
Mr. Deal. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. I want to thank our panelists. Let's give
them a round of applause.
Senator Chambliss. Let me just make a quick comment.
We do have an ongoing dialogue, obviously, Nathan lives
here. All three of these folks have been terrific in staying in
touch with our office even on the smallest of issues.
We can't tell you how much we appreciate that because, if
we don't know what is going on, it's difficult for us to react.
So they represent you folks well. So all three of you,
thank you for what you do for us.
Senator Isakson. It is about 10 minutes to noon, so we all
get out a little bit early--let's see if anybody has any
questions for the three of us.
If anybody has one, raise your hand; if you don't, we will
adjourn the hearing.
Yes, sir. State your name and where you reside and speak
loudly.
Mr. Sloan. My name is Michael Sloan, and I live in Forsyth
County.
Congressman Deal, several months ago, I believe you wrote a
letter to Colonel Taylor in reference to the issue at Bethel
Park and why that park had not been offered to Forsyth County
in accordance with Federal regulations.
As far as the residents of the county know, at this time,
there has been no response from the corps to your request.
Additionally, the county sought a freedom of information
request from the corps for them to present their documentation
that they hadn't got offered that park formally to Forsyth
County.
Do you have any information on that?
Senator Isakson. Before you answer--in keeping with the
rules of the Senate, I will officially adjourn this meeting to
questions and answers which may be about other issues so it
doesn't become a part of the permanent record. So for technical
purposes, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Sonny Perdue, Governor, State of Georgia
I would like to thank the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee for conducting this field hearing today on this very
important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Saxby Chambliss,
Senator Johnny Isakson and Congressman Nathan Deal for their leadership
on this issue.
The issue of the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
management of the ACT and ACF river Basins is both timely and
significant. The rivers that make up these basins are among the State
of Georgia's most precious natural resources. 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
vital needs of Georgia's citizens, including water supply, waste
assimilation, recreation and navigation, and support of the biological
needs of a wide variety of species.
In March of this year, the Corps announced a new reservoir
management plan for the ACF Basin reservoirs called the Interim
Operations Plan (the IOP). The 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 the protected species at issue--depend.
Unfortunately, the Corps has largely dismissed Georgia's concerns.
On May 5, 2006, Dr. Carol Couch, Director of Georgia's
Environmental Protection Division, wrote a letter to the Corps
enclosing hydrologic data showing that the Corps' continued operations
could draw down the federal reservoirs in the ACF Basin to their lowest
level in 50 years and could effectively empty them.
On June 1, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to the Corps and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requesting specific changes to
the IOP.
On June 2, 2006, I wrote Secretary of the Army Frances
Harvey sharing Georgia's concern that ``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 2, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to Colonel
Peter Taylor and FWS with an attached memorandum providing additional
results of the simulation of the IOP using data and information
received from the Corps.
On June 6, 2006, I personally met with General Michael
Walsh and Colonel Taylor again expressing these concerns.
By June 9, 2006, the State had received no material
responses from the Corps in response to its letters. Thus, on June 9,
2006, Dr. Couch wrote the Corps another letter demanding specific
revisions to the IOP.
On June 12, 2006, the Corps responded by letter to Dr.
Couch's June 1 and June 2 letters. The Corps challenged what it
believed to be certain of the 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
discrepancies between the Corps' and Georgia's models.
The Corps repeatedly put off responding to our June 9,
2006 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 9, 2006 letter because of unidentified ``concerns raised by
the other parties to the litigation.'' In fact, the Corps did not
respond to Dr. Couch's June 9 letter until June 21, 2006.
In the midst of all of this, the Corps 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 driest time
of the year. By this mistake, they essentially created a ``man made''
drought on top of a natural drought.
The 22.5 billion gallons of water that the Corps mistakenly
released corresponds to 6.3 percent of Lake Lanier's conservation, 22.5
percent of West Point's, and 28.2 percent of Walter F. George's (Lake
Eufaula) storage conservation.
This year, 2006 is 1 of only 2 years in Lake Lanier's history when
the lake fell during the period of January through May, which is
normally a time of refill, even in drought years. The other year when
this occurred was during the drought of 1986. Submitted with my
testimony is a chart that shows the drop in Lake Lanier levels this
year compared to lake levels experienced during the drought of 1999-
2001. This chart shows:
Lake Lanier was able to rise in elevation for the same
period (January 1 to June 1) even during the 1991-2001 drought, the
most severe drought in history for the ACF Basin.
For example, Lanier began 2006 more than 5 feet higher
than it began 1999, but the Lake is now more than two and a half feet
lower than it was on August 3, 1999.
For example, on January 1, 2006 Lanier elevation was 13
feet higher than the January 1, 2001 level, yet last night's elevation
was less than one and a half feet higher than at the same time in 2001.
This unprecedented loss of storage, with the perspective
of what happened in the past droughts, is clearly the result of the IOP
(which was not a part of the past reservoir operations), in particular
the magnitude of flow it calls for during the spawning season (March
through May).
The unfortunate actions by the Corps and the Corps' repeated lack
of response to our concerns left Georgia with no alternative but to
take legal action to protect our water resources. As you are 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 pending.
Litigation is never how I choose to deal with issues. As I
explained earlier, we have tried to impress our concerns upon the
Corps. The Corps has been largely non-responsive. The threat to the
State of Georgia is urgent and the situation demands immediate action.
We have challenged the IOP because the Corps must allow the lakes
to refill and recover the lost stored water. Common sense tells us that
you cannot manage a system of reservoirs if you never store any 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 consideration 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--endangered
species. Georgia has long advocated that the Corps should update its
master control plan for both the ACF and ACT basins--which it has not
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 Basins. Indeed,
the Corps' own regulations provide that water control plans should be
updated periodically in light of changing demands and other conditions.
And there is no question that over the last 50 years the ACF and ACT
Basins in Georgia have changed dramatically.
The Federal Government itself recognized the need for current
plans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is investing
millions of dollars in updating floodplain maps. This is a 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
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 of Georgia's citizens and for facilities such
as the Farley Nuclear Plant and other powerplants. The water control
plans also should be updated as part of implementing the 2003
settlement reached by the Corps, Georgia, and other parties that will
help ensure that metropolitan north Georgia's water needs for the next
decade will be met.
The failure of the Corps to update the water control plan is also
affecting a stated purpose of lakes in the basin--recreation. West
Point officials have asked the Corps to raise the level of the lake by
two feet in the winter when water is plentiful to accommodate
recreational needs that have a significant impact on the region's
economy. But Corps officials have said that they have to adhere to the
elevation levels in the IOP.
What does all of this mean? The Corps is providing flows for
endangered sturgeon and mussels under an IOP that was developed without
studying its full effects and without properly updating the Corps'
grossly outdated water control plans. The Corps' performance under the
IOP this year demonstrates that it is not a sustainable plan. With a
continuation of this dry year, Lake Lanier, Lake Eufaula (Walter F.
George), West Point and Seminole will all drop to levels that will put
at risk water supply, water quality, endangered species and other
wildlife, and will be devastating to recreational boating and fishing
that support the local economies.
In closing I would like to say that I cannot believe Congress
passed the 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 the 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 that
Congress intended that the Corps provide the species with more water
than even the natural environment would support, particularly when it
comes at such a great cost upstream. Even at a flow of 5000 cubic feet
per second, which the Corps IOP calls for, and under which we operate
today, mussels are getting more water now than they would if no dam had
been built and no reservoirs created.
It is time for common sense to prevail on this issue. That is what
we want from the Corps when asking that they update 50-year-old water
control plans. That is what we seek through our request to stop the
release of water greater than nature would provide. And that's the
approach I will take when I sit down with Governor Riley on August
14th.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh, Commander, South
Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
introduction
Members of Congress and distinguished guests, I am Brigadier
General Michael J. Walsh, Division Commander, South Atlantic Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
this statement before you today concerning the Corps operations and
management of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin encompassing
parts of Georgia and Alabama and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River Basin encompassing parts of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers practices the principle of openness. We
strive to maintain transparency in our operations providing all our
publics with as much data as possible via our Web site, sharing of
information with state and Federal agencies, and through the media
concerning our operations and management of this system.
I would like to divide my statement into three parts: normal
management, support for the endangered species act, and the gauge
calibration error at Lake Lanier.
normal management
The Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Rivers project is a multipurpose
project providing for flood control, hydropower, navigation, water
supply, water quality, recreation and fish and wildlife conservation.
The system has 5 Corps projects and 10 Alabama Power Company dams. The
Corps projects consist of two major storage projects, Allatoona and
Carters in Georgia at the upper end of the basin and three run-of-the-
river projects at the lower end of the basin in Alabama. The Alabama
Power Projects are located on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers and are
operated in conjunction with Corps projects to provide a minimum 7-day
average flow in the system. The Corps has flood control oversight of
the Alabama Power Projects.
The ACT basin is experiencing the same drought conditions as other
river basins in the Southeast. The two upper most projects, Allatoona
and Carters are experiencing inflows averaging 30 percent of normal.
Allatoona is currently 6.5-feet below normal summer pool and Carters is
10 feet below normal. Releases from Allatoona are being kept to a
minimum with only two hours of hydropower generation a day plus a
continuous 240 cubic feet per second release for water quality
purposes. Carters, which is a pump back hydropower generating system,
is operating in the pump back mode only.
At the lower end of the system in the Alabama River, depths are 6-
feet below project depth to support navigation. The only releases
occurring at the projects are the minimum flows coming from the
upstream Alabama Power Projects. The Alabama River situation, due to
the drought, has caused one major industry to modify its water intake
to remain operational.
The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers project is also a
multipurpose project providing for flood control, hydropower,
navigation, water supply, water quality, recreation and fish and
wildlife conservation. The Federal projects on the basin system begin
with Lake Sidney Lanier at the headwaters, West Point Lake, Lake Walter
F. George, George W. Andrews, and Lake Seminole at the lower end of the
basin. There are several lakes with hydropower facilities operated by
private and public utilities along the system as well.
Under normal circumstances the Corps operates and manages these
reservoirs to meet all project purposes in accordance with the draft
water management plans developed in the late 1980s. These plans
establish certain zones of water levels that trigger actions when these
levels are reached. This management has proven to be successful in
meeting project purposes.
It is primarily when drought hits the system that issues begin to
arise. The Corps continues to operate and manage the system based on
the above mentioned plan. This calls for balancing the various
reservoirs with available water to keep them in the same action zones.
These zones have been developed to meet as many project purposes as
possible with dwindling water availability during a drought.
As conditions worsen during times of drought, some project purposes
become a higher priority. These priorities include water supply, water
quality, hydropower and fish and wildlife conservation. Fortunately, we
are often able to simultaneously meet several of these needs with one
action. For example, water released for water quality can also be run
through a generator to produce hydropower.
Like many of the systems operated and managed in the Southeast,
along with most of the Nation, this river basin system is in a drought.
The National Weather Service Drought Monitor shows North Georgia is in
a moderate drought and as you move southward it is characterized as a
severe drought. We operate and manage this basin as a system; when the
lower basin receives less inflow, we must augment flows from stored
water to maintain balance.
endangered species act
The Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been in
consultation since 2000 concerning various mussel species and, more
recently, the Gulf Sturgeon, which all fall under the protection of the
Endangered Species Act. Together we have developed an interim
operations plan to provide adequate water from the system to protect
and enhance the habitat of these species. During normal conditions,
these needs have been met through routine operation and management.
As we entered the drought period, management for these species has
become more difficult. From March through late June, our flow regimes
have been in accordance with the Interim Operations Plan (IOP) that is
the subject of Formal Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. As part of the litigation actions, the Court ordered
specific flows in late June through early July. The States and other
parties to the litigation actions, the Court ordered specific flows in
late June through early July. The States and other parties to the
litigation then agreed to a flow regime that took us through late July.
Today we are once again operating in accordance with the IOP. The
formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the IOP
is on-going. The Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as a result of the formal consultation process is due September
5, 2006.
gauge calibration error
On June 16 of this year we discovered we had a gauge calibration
error at Lake Sidney Lanier. This error led us to release additional
water that would not normally have been released during that timeframe.
In December 2005 during routine maintenance of the gauge, it was
discovered that certain components were worn. New parts were ordered
and installed, to include a device called a selsyn. A selsyn is an
encoder that reads the mechanical data provided by the float via the
pulley. It converts the mechanical data to electronic data which is
sent to the powerhouse indicating the lake level. As part of the
installation, a scaling factor had to be programmed into the selsyn and
we input the factor recommended by the manufacturer. Unfortunately we
were not clear in our communications with the manufacturer in that we
had not replaced the pulley attached to the selsyn. The manufacturer
assumed both the selsyn and the pulley were new, and provided a scaling
factor for a complete new system. The result was that we inputted a
scaling factor that was not appropriate for the existing pulley
attached to the new selsyn.
Between the time of installation and mid-April of this year, levels
at Lake Lanier remained relatively stable and no error was detected.
Beginning in mid-April we began making water releases for downstream
needs in accordance with the IOP. The calibration error led us to
believe we had a higher pool level than actually existed, indicating a
greater inflow into the lake than was actually occurring. We were
operating under the IOP, which required us to essentially release one
hundred percent of basin inflows to mimic a run of the river flow for
the entire basin. As the gauge data were not correct, we were releasing
more water than was actually entering the lake by approximately one
half inch per day. Consistent with our policy of openness about our
operations, we informed congressional interests, stakeholders and the
general public as soon as we learned of this problem.
We have corrected the gauge error and we have confirmed the
accuracy of all our gauges on the system. In addition we have installed
redundant gauges at all projects and updated procedures to verify their
accuracy.
summary
Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the management of
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers project. I assure you the
Corps is committed to working with all stakeholders in the basin to
provide the best management and operation of our lakes. I am hopeful
the current mediation process that is taking place among the three
states and the Army will produce a framework to bring mutual protection
and balance to this precious resource.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Jack Conway, Chairman, Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners, Forsyth County, GA
On behalf of Forsyth County, the Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners, and all Forsyth County citizens, I want to thank this
honorable committee for providing me this opportunity to testify
regarding Forsyth County's experience and interaction with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and its management of the ACT and ACF River
Basins, specifically Lake Lanier.
At the outset, I must respectfully advise that Forsyth County's
experience with the Corps and its management and stewardship over Lake
Lanier has been at best frustrating and at worst exasperating. Forsyth
County has been, and remains, discouraged and disappointed by the
endless layers of bureaucracy, politics, and red-tape that seem to
control the Corps, and that make it almost impossible to receive a
straight, or even consistent, answer to even the most mundane of
questions.
To make matters worse, the Corps seems to go to great lengths to
fashion new and innovative reasons for rejecting any and all proposals
by Forsyth County on methods by which the County can initiate
construction of vital, redundant infrastructure for water withdrawal
from Lake Lanier. This, in spite of the fact that over 21 square miles
of Lake Lanier sits within the jurisdictional boundaries of Forsyth
County. There is more than a little irony in the fact that Forsyth
County sits upon one of the largest fresh water bodies in the
Southeast, yet is only one pump failure away from a health crisis due
to lack of water availability.
Throughout my tenure as Chairman of the Forsyth County Board of
Commissioners, one of my chief goals has been to ensure that Forsyth
County has sufficient water available to satisfy both the present and
long-term demands of its citizens. That effort has necessarily
generated multiple discussions, meetings, correspondence and telephone
calls with Corps' personnel. The only consistent theme that has
permeated these repeated encounters with Corps' personnel is that the
County's overtures and initiatives are systematically rebuffed. The
reasons for the rejection appear to change on a daily basis and also
vary depending upon which Corps' official responds.
Although the County's request to the Corps for its own water intake
begin in the mid-1970s, I will begin my chronology in 1996 to
demonstrate Forsyth County's inability to obtain any cooperation
whatsoever by the Corps on the water issue. While the County was, and
remains, mindful that the so called ``water wars'' have been ongoing,
and that this litigation has impacted the Corps' discretion in issuing
water withdrawals, the Corps' interpretation of the 1992 Memorandum of
Agreement between Georgia, Florida and Alabama, has been a moving
target.
In 1996, in response to a request by Forsyth County for
its own water withdrawal permit, the Corps said ``no.'' The reason for
this ``no'' was because the Corps was in the process of a
``Comprehensive Study'' that was set for completion in September 30,
1996. (Exhibit ``A'')
On March 28, 1997, then Director of the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources, Harold Reheis, wrote the Corps recommending that
the County and City of Cumming each be deemed ``current users'' under
the 1992 MOA. (Exhibit ``B'')
On April 22, 1997, in conjunction with Mr. Reheis'
request, Forsyth County again requested approval of an additional water
supply withdrawal from Lake Lanier. (Exhibit ``C'') On May 12, 1997,
Congressman Nathan Deal also made the same request on behalf of the
County. The Corps' ``no'' came just a month later. (Exhibit ``D'') On
May 28, 1997, the Corps responded that although Forsyth County may be
an ``existing user'' as defined by the Memorandum of Agreement between
Florida, Georgia and Alabama, the Corps still could not issue a
withdrawal permit to Forsyth County because Forsyth County did not
``withdraw directly'' from Lake Lanier. (Exhibit ``E'')
On December 23, 1999, the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources issued separate water withdrawal permits to the City of
Cumming and Forsyth County for water withdrawal from Lake Lanier.
(Exhibit ``F'')
On November 23, 2003, I wrote Colonel Robert Keyser at the
Corps of Engineers requesting permission to begin construction of a
second water intake into Lake Lanier to overcome the pressing issues of
(1) Inadequate Withdrawal Capacity, (2) Improving Water Quality
Withdrawn From the Lake, and (3) Safeguarding Water System Security. I
emphasized in my letter that the County was not seeking an additional
water allocation, but was simply requesting approval by the Corps to
construct a vitally needed water intake structure. (Exhibit ``G'')
On May 10, 2004, Colonel Keyser rejected my request
stating that Forsyth County did not have a ``holdover water supply
contract'' as anticipated by the 1992 MOA and therefore was not an
``existing user'' of Lake Lanier. (Exhibit ``H'') Interestingly, the
phrase ``hold over water supply contract'' is found nowhere in the 1992
MOA, and the Corps' interpretation of the MOA is at odds with the MOA's
expansive definition of those entities that are considered ``existing
users'' of the lake.
Colonel Keyser also noted that an injunction entered into
by the district court in Alabama, further bound his hands in
cooperating with Forsyth County.
On March 25, 2005, the Corps tendered a ``Notice of
Proposed Actions'' to the Alabama Federal District Court stating that
Forsyth County's request for an easement into Lake Lanier could not be
undertaken because ``approval would require a new withdrawal contact
and is therefore enjoined.'' (Exhibit ``I'') The Corps' position is,
again, wholly unsupported by the 1992 MOA.
On April 11, 2005, I attended a meeting with Congressman
Nathan Deal and Corps' officials at the Congressman's request. At that
meeting, I requested that the Corps consider granting an intake
easement to the City of Cumming, with Forsyth County possibly funding
the construction costs. Approximately 6 weeks later, in a telephone
conversation with Colonel Taylor, I was advised that all ``holdover''
contracts had expired, including the contract between the Corps and the
City of Cumming. Consequently, not even the City of Cumming could get a
secondary intake easement.
On September 19, 2005 the injunction that served as the
latest basis by the Corps for not cooperating with Forsyth County, was
lifted. On September 23, 2005, I again wrote the Corps requesting
simply an easement across Corps property for purposes of commencing
construction of a water intake into Lake Lanier. My correspondence
emphasized that Forsyth County was not seeking any additional
withdrawals, but merely needed to get started on this multi-year
project to ensure the health and safety of Forsyth County citizens.
(Exhibit ``J'')
On October 13, 2005, Georgia's Senatorial delegation
delivered correspondence to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
John Woodley, clarifying their understanding that the Corps would get
to work on the various requests of Gwinnett, Cherokee and Forsyth
counties. (Exhibit ``K'') Secretary Woodley responded on January 30,
2006 that he did intend to begin taking all necessary federal action.
(Exhibit ``L'')
On February 1, 2006, I again delivered correspondence to
the Corps requesting that the Corps immediately ``make good'' on its
commitment to begin taking action on Forsyth County's request for an
easement. (Exhibit ``M'')
In telephone conversations following that letter, Corps
officials declared that in spite of the assurances provided to our
Senatorial delegation, the Corps refused to grant Forsyth County an
easement because the County did not have a ``hold over'' storage
contract.
In spring 2006, the Corps advised Forsyth County that the
City of Cumming should make a request for an intake easement, and that
the City and County could then enter into an intergovernmental
agreement for purposes of construction, operation, maintenance and
distribution of water. When asked whether the Corps would place its
proposal in ``writing,'' the Corps advised that they would not.
The latest word from the Corps on why Forsyth County's
vital water interests cannot be addressed is because, once again, the
Comprehensive Study of the ACT/ACF is ongoing.
Exhibits ``N'' and ``O'' are copies of Forsyth County's
formal requests to the Corps of Engineers for an independent water
withdrawal.
Here we are, some 10 years after the Corps used the ``Comprehensive
Study'' as a basis for denying Forsyth County relief, it is again
serving as a basis for denial. The Corps' rationale for denying Forsyth
County relief has come full circle.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has seemingly gone out of its way
to deny Forsyth County its own water allocation, an easement across
Corps property for a redundant intake, and even refused to provide
written confirmation that a request by the City of Cumming for an
intake easement would be granted.
I believe that commitments made to our Senatorial delegation have
not been honored, and that the Corps has placed the water needs of
Florida and Alabama over the needs of Georgia citizens.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Kit Dunlap, President/CEO, Greater Hall
Chamber of Commerce
Members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to discuss some of the water issues that we're dealing with here in
North Georgia. As you may know, I'm here today wearing two hats. I
currently serve as President and CEO of the Greater Hall Chamber of
Commerce and have a strong interest in the economic issues associated
with Lake Lanier and the entire ACF Basin. I'm also here today as
Chairman of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
which is a 16-county water planning agency that was created by the
General Assembly five years ago to develop regional water plans.
My comments today will focus on three areas: (1) the economic
impacts of Lake Lanier and the ACF Basin, (2) the critical importance
of the ACF Basin and the role of regional water planning, and (3) the
Impact of Water Supply on River Flows on the Apalachicola River.
the economic impact of lake lanier and the acf system
The economic impact of Lake Lanier is over $5 billion annually as
shown in the 2001 study by the Marine Trade Association of Metro
Atlanta. Recreation is a predominant part of this figure. Lake Lanier
is the most visited Corps of Engineers lake in the Southeastern United
States with a variety of tourism and recreation activities.
More broadly, the portion of the ACF basin within the metropolitan
Atlanta area accounts for over two-thirds of the basin population and
nearly half of the population of the State of Georgia. It generates a
significant majority of the total personal income in the ACF basin and
roughly one-half of the personal income of the State.
Any action that would harm the economy of metropolitan Atlanta
would reduce the per capita wealth and income of the ACF basin and the
State as a whole.
the role of regional water planning
With a finite water supply and a population of over four million
and growing, the need to carefully and cooperatively manage and protect
metropolitan Atlanta's rivers and streams has become a priority. In
September 2003, the District adopted three long-term water management
plans. Of these, the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management
Plan (Plan), calls for a future of intensive water demand management
and an aggressive water conservation program.
When I was asked to serve as chairman of the District, many of my
colleagues in Hall County questioned my decision to go down to Atlanta
to talk about water. Yet it was important for all players--every
county, every basin--to be at the table.
There were certainly differences of opinion during the planning
process, but the plans were created and all 16 counties and 95 cities
in the District are moving to put the plans into action. We are in a
sense ``regulating ourselves'' and working toward the same water
protection goals.
We learned a lot from our first planning process and are pleased to
see water resources planning gaining precedence at the state level as
well. We applaud Georgia EPD's efforts on the new State Water Plan and
the District is pleased to be participating in the state planning
process.
We also certainly realize that other parts of the state have
different water needs and interests. We want to continue to work with
our upstream and downstream neighbors and further our outreach efforts
beyond the District's borders.
With regard to the ACF basin specifically, the District has made
great strides towards meeting the Plan's water conservation goals.
Currently, over 85 percent of the District's population is billed with
a conservation pricing structure. The District has also trained local
governments in water system leak reduction and repair, conducting
commercial and residential water audits. Over 9,000 household water
assessment brochures have been distributed since the spring of 2006.
The District's educational program consists of commercials for
television and radio, a television special, billboards, public
workshops, essay contests and a variety of educational material such as
brochures. In 2005, over 600 commercials were aired, 42 workshops were
held with an average of 30-40 participants and over 1,000 middle school
students participated in a water conservation and quality essay
contest.
Aggressive water conservation is critical to the region's future.
The District will continue to work with and support implementation of
the Plan's water conservation measures. The District is working with
local governments to implement new programs such as retrofit programs
for old, inefficient fixtures and pre-rinse spray valves.
the impact of water supply on the apalachicola river
The total net diversion from the ACF Basin for water supply for the
Atlanta metropolitan area ranges between 250 and 300 cubic feet per
second (cfs). This is the average daily net diversion from the ACF
Basin for all counties within the Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District. Most of this water is taken from Lake Lanier. A
small amount comes from the Flint River.
To put this figure in comparison, agricultural withdrawals in South
Georgia have a much larger impact on the surface water resources in the
Flint River Basin. According to testimony recently offered by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, this impact is estimated to be between 600 and
700 cfs during the summer months.
Because there are no large reservoirs in the Flint River,
withdrawals from this part of the basin have a ``real time'' impact on
stream flow. Agricultural demands are highest during the summer, when
stream flows are lowest. Therefore such demands have a disproportionate
impact on stream flow.
Evaporation also has a significant impact. According to the recent
testimony of the Corps official, the impact from evaporation from all
of the Corps reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River totals approximately
200 cfs a day.
conclusion
As we have all gathered in this room today, we all need to be
prepared to come to the table and actively seek solutions to water
supply limitations.
All of our various interests do not need to be fighting each other.
We need to be working together (metro Atlanta, Lake Lanier Association,
other advocacy groups, the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and average citizens) to conserve and clean up the
water we share.
Since the District's plans were adopted in late 2003, the momentum
to protect water resources in metropolitan north Georgia has continued
to build. The District and its local partners are beginning to see
results as local communities expand their efforts to conserve water,
safeguard public health and protect rivers and streams.
Thank you for your attention, I'll be happy to answer any
additional questions of the committee.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Jackie Joseph, President, The Lake Lanier Association,
Inc.
Contents
association introduction
lake lanier resource
clean water issues
full lake issues
summary
Lake Lanier Association
introduction
mission
Dedicated to a Clean and Full Lake Lanier to Enhance its Economic
Value to Georgia
Established in 1966
4,000 Members (1,700 Memberships) Homeowners, Businesses, Water
Users, Dock Owners, Recreation Users
Active Board of Directors
Many Solid Programs._Shore Sweep (Lake Clean up); Adopt a Lake
(Lake Monitoring); Advocacy
lake lanier facts
Finest Natural Resource in Georgia
Created 1958-1960
39,000 Acres of Water
640 Miles of Shoreline
8,500 Private Docks
10,000 Boats at 10 Marinas
8 Million Annual Visitors
Drinking Water for 4+Million Georgians
$5 Billion Annual Economic Contribution
66 percent of the ACF Water Storage
5-7 percent of the ACF Watershed
issues ``keeping the lake clean''
Municipalities Calling for Sewage Discharges Into Lanier (MNGWPD
Calls for 200+ MGD in 2025)
Georgia Courts Have Supported the LLA and Denied EPD Sewage
Discharge Permits
Sewage Discharges are Necessary for Sustained Georgia Growth.
However the Sewage Discharge Must be as Clean as Possible Through
Treatment Processes
Gwinnett County has Agreed with the LLA to Make Their Discharge
Very Clean and Deep (Keeps Pollution at the Bottom)
Georgia EPD has not Issued the Gwinnett Permit that was Applied for
in the summer of 2005
suggestions for keeping the lake clean
EPD Should Issue the Gwinnett Sewage Discharge Permit
EPD Should Direct that all Future Lake Lanier Sewage Discharges
Must be at Least as Clean and Deep as the Gwinnett Permit Request
Georgia Should Insure that the ``Water Management Plan''
Specifically Addresses Cleanliness of Sewage Discharges and Reuse
Strategies Which Have not Been Discussed in the Basin Advisory
Committee Meetings
issue: keeping the lake full
The ACF Must be Managed as a System in a Prudent Manner
Low Lake Levels are Very Dangerous to Boaters, Swimmers and the
Economy
Reservoirs are Significant Investments, and Should be Managed
Accordingly
A Balance Between Endangered Species and Human Requirements Must be
Effected. The Loudest Voice Should not Always Prevail
Water Flows at the Florida Line for Mussels and Sturgeon Should not
be Artifically Inflated to a Level Greater than the Natural Water
Flows, Without Reservoirs, Unless Excess Water Flow Capability Exists
Economic Value of Water Must be Evaluated Before Release Decisions
are Implemented. Economic Impact of Lake Lanier is in Excess of $5
Billion Annually as Determined by a Study Done by the Marine Trade
Association of Metro Atlanta. (Example: Lake Lanier Contribution to
Georgia Versus a Very Small Oyster Industry in Florida)
suggestions keeping the lake full
Establish a Fair Level of Support for the Endangered Species, But
not to the Detriment of Drinking Water and Safety. Mussels Should not
Trump People
Implement Solid Reinforced Management of the ACF System, Rather
than Over Reacting to Specific Requests
Pre Validate All Water Release Decisions with Onsite Visual
Inspections
Set a Lower Limit for Lake Lanier (Example 1060) and do not go
Below that Minimum.
Consider Raising Full Pool at Lanier to 1073 FT. This Would be
Like Adding a 25 Billion Gallon Reservoir to the System.
Consider Closer Management of the Flint River, Particularly the
Withdrawal and Permitting Process
summary
Lake Lanier is the Most Valuable Natural Resource in Georgia.
Lanier Must be Kept Clean and Full for the Economic Vitality and
Growth of Georgia
Prudent Management of the System is Essential for the Success of
Georgia's Objectives
Note: [Lake Lanier Community Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1; August/
September 2006 is retained in committee's file.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]