[Senate Hearing 113-750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-750
EFFECTS OF WATER FLOWS ON APALACHICOLA BAY: SHORT AND LONG TERM
PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 13, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-796 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 13, 2013.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 3
Witnesses
Hon. Steve Southerland II, U.S. Representative, Second
Congressional District, Florida................................ 6
Letter dated May 13, 2013 to Hon. Bill Shuster and Hon. Nick
J. Rahall II from Members of Congress: Steve Southerland
II, Corrine Brown, John L. Mica, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Gus M. Bilirakis, Vern Buchanan,
Dennis A. Ross, C. W. Bill Young, Ander Crenshaw, Jeff
Miller, Mario Diaz-Balart, Alcee L. Hastings and Thomas J.
Rooney..................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Emily Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic And
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Colonel Jon J. Chytka, Commander, Mobile District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army..................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Jonathan P. Steverson, Executive Director, Northwest Florida
Water Management District...................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Dan Tonsmeire, Executive Director and Riverkeeper, Apalachicola
Riverkeeper.................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Shannon Hartsfield, President, Franklin County Seafood Workers
Association, and Founding Member, SMARRT....................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Ricky Banks, Vice President, Franklin County Seafood Workers
Association.................................................... 48
Karl E. Havens, Director, Florida Sea Grant College Program,
Professor, School of Forest Resources And Conservation,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Appendix
Comments submitted for the record................................ 67
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Colonel Jon J. Chytka.......................................... 161
EFFECTS OF WATER FLOWS ON
APALACHICOLA BAY: SHORT AND LONG TERM PERSPECTIVES
----------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Apalachicola, FL.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m., in
the Franklin County Courthouse Annex Building, 34 Forbes
Street, Apalachicola, Florida, Hon. Bill Nelson, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. This hearing of the Senate Commerce
Committee will come to order.
We want to thank everybody for being here. And we have a
number of elected officials here. We want to thank you for your
presence. We want to thank Apalachicola and Franklin County for
your hospitality.
And we have been looking forward to this. Senator Rubio and
I collaborate almost every day that we are in session in
Washington. And one of the topics, of course, that we have
frequently talked about is the plight of the folks here in the
Apalachicola Bay area and the desperate need for that water to
flow south on the Chattahoochee and the Flint Rivers that then
comes into the Apalachicola.
I want to thank Senator Rubio for first requesting this
hearing today. The two of us have a very good personal and
professional relationship, and it is an example of how
bipartisanship ought to work between two Senators from one
state. Sometimes you would be surprised at some of the Senators
from the same state that don't necessarily get along. And,
fortunately, in the case of Florida, it is a very good working
relationship.
And we are here today to get the ideas of three panels on
what is the problem with Apalachicola Bay, the technical
reasons, the technical fixes, and all of the economic issues
and the personal issues that are surrounding this problem.
Our oystermen, their families, all those who depend on a
healthy bay are now depending on us. And for over two decades,
we have fought our neighbors to the north over the freshwater
that flows south from the Chattahoochee into Apalachicola River
and into this bay. And court decisions, some have gone our way,
others have not. And now we have NOAA that is lending a hand.
And, as you know, just yesterday, the Secretary of
Commerce--and I just got off the phone with her a few minutes
ago--she determined that a fishery resource disaster occurred
for the oyster stocks along the west coast of Florida,
primarily in the Apalachicola Bay area.
And she declared that--this is Secretary Pritzker--because
of three factors: number one, a drought throughout the
southeastern U.S. that has led to below-average river flows;
number two, reduced downstream river flow from man-made dams
along the rivers; and, number three, increased salinity in the
bay that not only stresses the oyster populations but allows
the persistent occurrence of oyster predators, such as stone
crab and oyster drills.
And this collapse has had a tremendous impact on folks
living here. Over 2,000 jobs are related to harvesting or the
processing of oysters on Florida's Gulf Coast. And while
Federal and state agencies are working together to help those
fishermen that have been affected, the primary cause of the
disaster, a lack of freshwater, still remains.
The river and the bay here in Apalachicola are the true
economic engines of this region. And without more freshwater,
this region's economy could find itself in jeopardy, to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Think of all the commercial fishing in the Gulf. Many of
those fish spawn and grow right here in the bay. In good years,
roughly 90 percent of the oysters harvested in Florida and
nearly 10 percent of all oysters produced in this country came
from right here in this bay.
And despite the state Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, which said it expects the decline in revenue and
pounds of oysters to continue, Senator Rubio and I are here
because we think the bay can recover. It has done so in the
past; there is no reason that it can't do it in the future.
And so now that the Federal fishery disaster has been
declared, Congress needs to get it funded as soon as possible.
And this will help us bring some much-needed funds to the area
and help support a long-term recovery effort here.
But we still need to find a way to get more freshwater down
to the bay. One opinion is an administrative approach that
could be implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers, and we are
going to hear from them today. In essence, the Corps would
simply update its master operating document known as the Water
Control Manual, and they would update it for a series of five
locks and dams along the ACF system.
Another option would be for Congress to pass legislation
that would require the Army Corps to manage the ACF,
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, system in a way that
guarantees sufficient freshwater flows into the bay. Well, we
tried to do this. Senator Rubio and I tried to do this by
amending the Water Resources Development Act when it was being
considered in the Senate, but the Senators from Georgia
initiated their prerogative and they threatened to filibuster
the entire bill over that provision.
And the third option would require the Governors of all
three states--Georgia, Alabama, and Florida--to come together
and agree on how much water each state would get. This
discussion has been going on for years, ever since Bob Graham
was Governor. And the three Governors get together, and the
Alabama and the Florida Governors agree, but the Georgia
Governor won't agree because of all the water that they are
holding back up there in the dammed part of the Chattahoochee
River known as Lake Lanier.
Such an agreement between the three Governors would be made
in the form of an interstate water compact, which Congress
would then ratify.
So, regardless of how we do it--and, at this point, before
hearing the testimony, I can tell you that it looks like the
administrative route, with the Corps doing that updated water
plan, that looks like the most viable to me at this point. But
I want to hear what the witnesses will share.
But regardless of how we do it, when it comes to the
management of the ACF system, Florida obviously has got to be
treated fairly. And just because we are geographically located
at the bottom of the river doesn't mean our interests belong at
the bottom of anyone's list.
The current water policies are not working, and especially
they are not working for Florida. And it is time we quit
playing this state politics and the Atlanta-area politics, and
we have to start finding some solutions. And so Senator Rubio
and I are going to hear all the facts and the evidence that led
to the disaster and what is being done to solve it.
And now I want to turn, for his opening statement, to my
colleague and my friend, Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And thank you, as
well, for working in such a cooperative way.
I want to thank all of you for being a part of this here
today.
I want you to know these hearings matter, because they
allow us to create the congressional record that justifies the
actions we want to take. But the other reason why it matters is
because sometimes we talk about these issues and we lose the
human side of it, the real people who are being impacted by it,
the families who are not just losing a family tradition, they
are losing their family livelihood, what they have done for
generations.
And so when we talk about these issues sometimes in terms
of science or in terms of numbers or even in terms of dollars,
we forget the human lives and the people that are being
impacted by it and the communities that depend on it. And so
that is why we are so glad to be here today, I wish under
better circumstances, because it allows us to put the real face
of real people on this problem and go back to our colleagues
and make an even more passionate argument on behalf of why
action is necessary.
I want to thank you, Senator Nelson, for not just being a
great partner in this endeavor and others but for being here
today and for hosting this with me.
And I want to thank, as I said, everyone who has attended
here today. And I really want to thank particularly the Board
of County Commissioners and their staff, as well as the clerk,
Marcia Johnson, and her staff, for their assistance in securing
this location and helping us in advance to put together today's
hearing.
I especially want to thank all the witnesses that are here
with us today, and in particular Congressman Southerland, who
we will hear from in a moment. There is no more passionate
advocate on behalf of each of you than him, and he has done a
phenomenal job to be a voice. And we are going to hear from him
in a moment.
So thank you for your time being here with us today and
your participation and your partnership in this, as well.
The water wars between our states, between Alabama and
Georgia, have been decades in the making. By the way, I think
the ultimate revenge is just to beat them in Jacksonville at
the game in November, but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. We need to do that every year, I guess.
But with many years of litigation, one failed tri-state
compact, and continuing opposition from any congressional or
state fix by the Georgia delegation, the frustration felt by
this community, by myself, by Senator Nelson, by Congressman
Southerland, by Governor Scott, and the entire Florida
community is barely measured by the number of folks attending
here today.
I would just say that, as a community whose way of life and
livelihood is directly and negatively affected by policy
decisions made seemingly beyond your control, your resilience
and your dedication to finding a solution is inspirational and
admirable. I appreciate your assistance, I appreciate you
attending this hearing so that we can continue to highlight and
to stress to our colleagues the importance of this issue.
So here is the goal of today's hearing. We have two primary
goals. The first is we want to continue to build the
Congressional Record that we will be able to go back and use to
justify our continued efforts to congressionally direct the
Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize the freshwater flows into
the Apalachicola Bay. This is particularly important now in the
context of trying to secure funding after the Secretary of
Commerce's declaration yesterday.
As you may know, this summer, during the--Senator Nelson
alluded to this--during the Senate debate on the Water
Resources Development Act, several amendments were offered to
help address this water-flow issue. In fact, the legislation
passed by the Committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee, included a provision that was supported by myself,
Senator Nelson, and the Senators from Alabama, Senator Sessions
and Senator Shelby. There was included in that bill language
that would have immediately prevented the state of Georgia from
continuing to withdraw water from the top of the basin at Lake
Lanier.
While I recognize that the language did not directly
address water management of the entire basin, it was our hope
that, by cutting Georgia off at the source and by changing the
status quo we have today, we would be able to compel the state
to finally come to the table and to work with our Governor and
the Governor of Alabama to negotiate that tri-state compact.
The issue is so important to me that I made and will
continue to make any legislative solution to address this water
flow as my number-one priority when we continue to debate that
bill in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Georgia delegation felt
equally as strong. And due to their opposition, the language
was ultimately removed on the floor of the Senate, as Senator
Nelson previously outlined. And then any efforts that we made
thereafter to reinsert the language or to insert alternative
language to address the water-flow issues in the region, they
were blocked.
Now, I wish that Chairwoman Boxer was here today or any
other member of the U.S. Senate had taken the time to visit
Franklin County. But they will read this record, and they will
hear about this meeting. Because I think when they do, they
will think twice about their decision to accommodate the
Georgia delegation at the expense of the hardworking men and
women of this county and this community.
[Applause.]
Senator Rubio. Anyone who is in this meeting today, no
matter what state you are from, would recognize that a solution
is required. And it is not just required today, it is not
required tomorrow, it was required yesterday, it was required
several years ago, predating my service in the Senate. And we
simply cannot continue to wait.
And so the first purpose of this meeting is to provide the
public, the country, the Senate, the House, and the president
of the United States with firsthand knowledge of why we
continue to fight for freshwater flows into Apalachicola Bay.
I feel the second purpose of this hearing is equally
important. The hearing is entitled, ``The Effects of Water
Flows in Apalachicola Bay: Short- and Long-Term Perspectives.''
Today I, along with Senator Nelson, would also like to examine
the other tools that we have in our toolbox at our disposal as
we work to solve the water-flow issue and mitigate the economic
damage that has already been incurred by Franklin County and
its community.
I am thankful that Colonel Chytka is here, only 2 weeks
into his new command post, and he took the time to join us here
today. The Army Corps is working to draft a Water Operations
Manual for the entire ACF Basin. And I believe that it is our
responsibility to ensure the Colonel is aware of exactly what
is at stake here in Florida as he begins his assessment of
exactly how the basin should be managed.
While I strongly disagree with the Corps' interpretation of
the law, that Georgia has the congressional authority to
continue to withdraw additional water, I am hopeful that we can
work together with the Army Corps in the interim to create a
management system that appropriately accounts for the
freshwater flows necessary for the ecosystem and for the
fisheries in the bay.
Additionally, recognizing the need to mitigate the economic
and ecological damage already done, I am thankful that the
National Marine Fisheries Service is attending here today to
highlight the disaster declaration from the Department of
Commerce, as requested by Governor Scott and supported by the
entire Florida delegation in the region.
I was pleased to hear that the department yesterday has
indeed declared a fishery disaster. I have the letter right
here that they issued to our offices yesterday. And I remain
committed to working to secure the Federal funding that we are
going to need now so that it is sent to Franklin County as soon
as possible. And I know that Senator Nelson is equally
committed, as is Congressman Southerland.
And, finally, I am thankful that our third panel, all
distinguished members of this community, are here to provide
testimony to further support our efforts both in the short term
and the long term and at the state and Federal level to find a
solution to this issue once and for all.
The bottom line is the people of Franklin County cannot
continue to wait any longer, and it is our responsibility, it
is our job to take advantage of every tool that we have at our
disposal in Congress to act, to address this issue, to make
sure that it is addressed once and for all.
With that, thank you so much for having us here today. And
we look forward to your testimony and to learning more about
this and informing the public and our colleagues as a result of
your testimony.
Senator Nelson. And on a going-forward basis, Senator Rubio
has mentioned that now that the disaster declaration is there,
we have to get it funded. And, as you know, that hasn't been an
easy task on appropriations on anything. So we will be looking
at every possible source of funding.
Perhaps once the judge in Federal court in New Orleans
decides on the fine on BP and the money starts to flow through
the RESTORE Act, then perhaps that would be another source of
funding. But that is one of the first orders of business that
we are going to have to approach now that the declaration is
already in effect.
Now, the way we have organized the Senate Commerce
Committee hearing is we have three panels. We first ask the
Congressman from the Second District, the resident Congressman
who knows all of these issues very well, to testify.
The second panel will be other government witnesses. We
have NOAA represented by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
We have the Corps of Engineers. We have the Northwest Florida
Water Management District.
And then we will go to the third panel, and we will hear
from the Executive Director of the Apalachicola Riverkeeper and
also the Franklin County Seafood Workers Association, as well
as the Florida Sea Grant College Program and the Professor of
the School of Forest Resources and Conservation from the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University
of Florida.
And so those are the three panels.
And to kick us off, Congressman, we are honored to have
you. Thank you for representing this area. Thank you for
carrying the torch in the House of Representatives. And as
Senator Rubio said, the funding is not going to be easy, but we
are going to have to find it.
Congressman, if you would share with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SOUTHERLAND II,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, FLORIDA
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And, Senator
Rubio, I thank you as well. What a great service to this area,
to highlight this issue that both of you have been working on
for an awful long time. And so thank you very much.
I do have some prepared remarks that I would like to share
very briefly, and then finally just share some comments from my
heart. And then I will get on to the other panels that we have.
But, Senator Nelson, Senator Rubio, I do want to thank you
for holding this timely hearing on the impact of low water
flows from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, the ACF, river
system on the Apalachicola Bay. As the member of Congress
representing the City of Apalachicola, I have seen firsthand
the devastating impact of reduced downstream flows on this
community's ecosystem, environment, and economy.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to
Governor Scott, who has been an incredible leader and tireless
advocate in our collective efforts to revive Apalachicola Bay's
collapse as well as to save this national treasure.
Historically, Apalachicola Bay has provided more than 90
percent of Florida's oyster harvest and nearly 10 percent of
the Nation's oyster supply, serving as a major economic driver
for our state. The low flows from the ACF system have decimated
the local oyster industry and, by extension, Apalachicola and
the surrounding north Florida region that depend on this
industry's success.
In May 2013, I authored a letter on behalf of the Florida
congressional delegation to House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member
Rahall expressing our concerns regarding the present situation
in the Apalachicola Bay.
We understand that the Army Corps of Engineers is diverting
limited and precious freshwater to the metro Atlanta area,
reducing flows down the ACF river system, and thereby
preventing an adequate water supply from reaching the
Apalachicola River Basin and Bay in the Florida panhandle.
Florida's House delegation recognizes the need for swift
and decisive action to preserve Apalachicola Bay's oyster
industry as well as its economy. And we have requested that a
legislative solution be included in the House Water Resources
Development Act, the WRDA bill.
Additionally, I have joined you, Senator Nelson, and you,
Senator Rubio, as well as other representatives, Miller and
Nugent, in September 2012 requesting that the Department of
Commerce issue a fisheries disaster declaration for Florida's
oyster-harvesting areas in the Gulf of Mexico.
In furtherance of this request, I am pleased to see that
that recent report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission concluded what we have long known: that
the rapid and unprecedented commercial oyster fishery failure
on Florida's Gulf Coast was the result of upstream consumption
and water management policies which exacerbated the impact of
severe drought conditions. These factors are outside the
fishery manager's control.
National Marine Fisheries Service's disaster relief funds
would allow for the further development of critical research
into the causes of the bay's collapse as well as provide
important relief to the impacted industries. Consequently, I am
very pleased to learn yesterday that the Secretary of Commerce
has determined that a fishery resource disaster has occurred
along Florida's Gulf Coast.
What is more, the Corps' forthcoming updated Water Control
Manual for the ACF river system is of great interest. Over 20
years of increasingly contentious litigation has been unable to
provide for an adequate solution to these so-called water wars,
one that allocated Florida its fair share of the resource.
Therefore, I am particularly interested in hearing directly
from the Corps on its proposals and updates and expect that
they will take into account the pressing and dire nature of the
situation here in Apalachicola when considering changes to its
draft water control plan for Lake Lanier and the entire ACF
system.
Finally, Florida has proactively engaged in a wide variety
of responsible conservation measures aimed at achieving more
efficient management of our limited water supply. It is past
time that Georgia began to engage in similar conservation
measures.
[Applause.]
Mr. Southerland. I would urge the Corps to mandate that
Georgia implement such practices in their draft water control
plan.
I am hopeful that this important hearing will increase
congressional awareness regarding the plight of the hardworking
Floridians, many of whom are present here today, who have long
made their living on these waters, whose jobs and livelihoods
are now in jeopardy.
I know that I made reference in my prepared comments
regarding the May 13 letter that I would ask if we could
incorporate into the congressional record.
Senator Nelson. Without objection.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you very much.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC, May 13, 2013
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Ranking Member,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall:
As the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure drafts
a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), we urge you to address an
issue of tremendous economic and environmental consequence to the State
of Florida.
We believe that the Army Corps of Engineers is overstepping its
authority by reallocating water from Georgia's Lake Lanier to Atlanta's
metropolitan area without proper Congressional oversight. By diverting
this limited resource, the Corps is reducing the freshwater flow down
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River System and, thereby,
preventing an adequate water supply from reaching the Apalachicola
River Basin and Bay in the Florida panhandle.
Historically, Apalachicola Bay has provided more than 90 percent of
Florida's oysters harvest and nearly 10 percent of the Nation's oyster
supply, serving as a major economic driver for the state. The low flows
from the ACF system have decimated the local oyster fishery and, by
extension, Apalachicola and the surrounding North Florida region that
depend upon the industry's success.
We are hopeful that you will work closely with our delegation,
specifically the six Florida members of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, to ensure that a legislative solution is included
in the Water Resources Development Act. We thank you for your
consideration and look forward to working with you on this critically
important issue for our state and region.
Sincerely,
Steve Southerland II (FL-02)
Member of Congress
John L. Mica (FL-07)
Member of Congress
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Member of Congress
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Member of Congress
Gus M. Bilirakis (FL-12)
Member of Congress
Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
Member of Congress
Dennis A. Ross (FL-15)
Member of Congress
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Member of Congress
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Member of Congress
Theodore E. Deutch (FL-21)
Member of Congress
Trey Radel (FL-19)
Member of Congress
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Member of Congress
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Member of Congress
Corrine Brown (FL-05)
Member of Congress
C.W. Bill Young (FL-13)
Member of Congress
Ander Crenshaw (FL-04)
Member of Congress
Jeff Miller (FL-01)
Member of Congress
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Member of Congress
Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20)
Member of Congress
Thomas J. Rooney (FL-17)
Member of Congress
Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24)
Member of Congress
Richard B. Nugent (FL-11)
Member of Congress
Ted S. Yoho (FL-03)
Member of Congress)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Member of Congress
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Member of Congress
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Member of Congress
Mr. Southerland. I do also want to state for those in
attendance today that this letter had unanimous support by the
Florida delegation in the House of Representatives. All 27
members, Republican and Democrat, signed on to this letter. So
there is great agreement by our state and I know by the two of
you gentlemen representing us in the Senate to solve this issue
in a way that is fair but also truly gets to the heart of the
issue.
So thank you for allowing me to incorporate that into the
Congressional Record.
And, finally, before I conclude my comments, I want to say
some things from the heart. I want to speak off the page here.
It is a tremendous honor to represent a district that my
family has lived in for 200 years. We are not fly-by-night
here. The people that are sitting behind me are dear, dear to
me. It is an honor to have the two of you here to hear their
plight.
You know; this is not new to you. Both of you have been
working on this issue for a long time. But you learn more of
the issue when you come here. Because, Senator Rubio, as you
mentioned a few moments ago, this is not just about oysters,
this is about people. And we are not just growing oysters here;
we have a responsibility of growing families.
And what we are seeing here, the devastation, the injustice
of this issue, it is not just about oysters. It is affecting
families. It is affecting children. As a former Chairman of the
Early Learning Coalition of Northwest Florida, I know
firsthand, for 5 years in Franklin County, understanding the
challenges of the hardworking men and women here that are doing
everything they can to provide a brighter future for their
children.
We need this subject to be highlighted. And you have done
yeoman's work in the Senate to bring this attention to people
outside of our region.
You are right, Senator Nelson, we have to find the funding.
It is imperative that we find the funding to do the responsible
thing. Now, that means that we have to make hard choices. I
have found in Washington, D.C., in the short 30 months that I
have been there, that is not always popular.
But I will say this: This is long overdue. And your
presence here today, it will just continue to shed greater
light on the problem.
And we have dear friends north of the state line. Our dear
colleagues from Georgia, they are representing their folks. I
understand that. But as I travel over to Lake Lanier and I see
what they are doing with their water and I come down here and I
see what we are not doing with ours, I would say it is time for
Florida to get its fair shake.
And so I just want to say to you how much I appreciate you
being here.
I also want to say that over the last 30 days I have
learned to come to appreciate what this county is doing, their
county commission, their county staff. They are working
incredibly hard.
I want to thank the seafood industry and what they are
doing. They are on the same page. They understand that if they
do not have more freshwater flowing down that river, that they
can't grow the families and they cannot build to the heritage
and to the legacy that is the standard here in Apalachicola and
Franklin County.
This is about real people. And today, this hearing, I hope
that the panels that we hear, that they give you information,
they provide you data, good data, they talk about the things
that we might not hear if we don't hear from them. But with
that good data, it takes courage for us to do the right thing
in Washington, D.C.
So with those comments being said, again, I am humbled to
be here, and it is a great honor to have you here.
And, with that, I would yield back any remaining time that
I might have. And thank you again for the opportunity to share
my thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Southerland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Steve Southerland II (FL-2)
Senators Rubio and Nelson, I want to thank you for holding this
timely hearing on the impact of low freshwater flows from the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River System on Apalachicola
Bay. As the Member of Congress representing the City of Apalachicola, I
have seen firsthand the devastating impact of reduced downstream flows
on this community's ecosystem, environment, and economy.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to Governor
Scott--who has been an incredible leader and tireless advocate in our
collective efforts to revive Apalachicola's collapsed Bay and save this
national treasure.
Historically, Apalachicola Bay has provided more than 90 percent of
Florida's oyster harvest and nearly 10 percent of the Nation's oyster
supply, serving as a major economic driver for the state. The low flows
from the ACF system have decimated the local oyster industry, and, by
extension, Apalachicola and the surrounding North Florida region that
depend on the industry's success.
In May 2013, I authored a letter on behalf of the Florida
Congressional delegation to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall expressing our
concerns regarding the present situation in Apalachicola Bay. We
understand that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is diverting
limited and precious freshwater to the metro-Atlanta area, reducing
flows down the ACF River System and, thereby, preventing an adequate
water supply from reaching the Apalachicola River Basin and Bay in the
Florida panhandle. Florida's House delegation recognizes the need for
swift and decisive action to preserve Apalachicola Bay's oyster
industry, and we have requested that a legislative solution be included
in the House Water Resources Development Act.
Additionally, I joined with Senators Rubio and Nelson, as well as
Representatives Miller and Nugent, in September 2012, requesting that
the Department of Commerce issue a fisheries disaster declaration for
Florida's oyster harvesting areas in the Gulf of Mexico. In furtherance
of this request, I was pleased to see that a recent report by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission concluded what we
have long known, that ``the rapid and unprecedented commercial oyster
fishery failure on Florida's Gulf Coast was the result of upstream
consumption and water management policies . . . which exacerbated the
impact of severe drought conditions. . . . These factors are outside of
the fishery manager's control.'' Recognizing that National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) disaster relief funds would allow for the
further development of critical research into the causes of the Bay's
collapse, as well as provide important relief to the impacted
industries, I look forward to hearing from representatives of NMFS as
to the status of our request.
What's more, the Corps' forthcoming updated Water Control Manual
for the ACF River system is of great interest. Over twenty years of
increasingly contentious litigation has been unable to provide for an
adequate solution to these so-called ``water wars''--one that allocated
Florida its fair share of the resource. Therefore, I am particularly
interested in hearing directly from the Corps on its proposed updates
and expect that they will take into account the pressing and dire
nature of the situation here in Apalachicola when considering changes
to its draft water control plan for Lake Lanier and the entire ACF
system.
Finally, Florida has proactively engaged in a wide variety of
responsible conservation measures aimed at achieving more efficient
management of our limited water supply. It is past time that Georgia
begin to engage in similar conservation measures, and I would urge the
Corps to mandate that Georgia implement such practices in their draft
water control plan.
I am hopeful that this important hearing will increase
Congressional awareness regarding the plight of the hardworking
Floridians, many of whom are present here today, who have long made
their living on these waters--and whose jobs and livelihoods are now in
jeopardy.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my views on this
matter. I look forward to working with Florida's Congressional
delegation, Senators, and all relevant parties to find a long-term
solution to this issue that is respectful of the unique ecosystem,
environment, and way of life in this treasured North Florida community.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Congressman. We appreciate it
very much. We are enjoying your hospitality here in
Apalachicola, along with the hospitality that is so evident
from everyone.
Senator Rubio and I do not have any questions for you. You
have covered it.
So I would like to ask the second panel if you would come
up, please.
While they are being seated, we will hear from Ms. Emily
Menashes. She is Acting Director of the Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is a
part of NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, all of which is a part of the Department of
Commerce.
And then we will hear from Colonel Jon Chytka. He is the
Mobile District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
then hear from Mr. Jon Steverson, the Executive Director of the
Northwest Florida Water Management District.
And we will take them in that order.
Now, we have a Mr. Taylor here. You are with the Colonel?
Colonel Taylor. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. OK. Good.
All right, let's start with Mrs. Menashes.
What we will do is we will put your written testimony in
the record of the Committee, and what I would like you to do is
to summarize your comments in about five minutes, if you would.
STATEMENT OF EMILY MENASHES, ACTING DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ms. Menashes. Certainly.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rubio. My
name is Emily Menashes. I am the Acting Director of the Office
of Sustainable Fisheries for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the fisheries disaster determination process and the status
of the request by the state of Florida to declare a commercial
fishery failure for Florida's oyster-harvesting areas in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Before I begin, I would like to add one point that was not
included in my written testimony. As you know, in the fall of
2012, Governor Scott asked then-Acting Secretary Rebecca Blank
to declare a commercial fishery failure for Florida's oyster
industry. His request stated that oyster populations on
Apalachicola Bay's primary oyster-producing reefs were in poor
condition and named excessive drought conditions in the bay and
elsewhere in the Florida panhandle as the primary cause of the
decline.
Last week, the state provided us with the additional
information and analysis we needed to determine whether the
situation in the bay qualifies as a fishery disaster. Based on
this information, yesterday Secretary Pritzker determined that
a fishery resource disaster did occur, which resulted in a
commercial fishery failure for the oyster fishery of the west
coast of Florida, especially in the Apalachicola Bay area.
The information provided by the state indicates real and
projected declines in oyster landings and revenues that meet
the economic thresholds necessary to warrant a disaster
determination.
The basis for this determination is the following three
factors: one, a drought throughout the southeastern U.S. that
has led to below-average river flows; two, reduced downstream
river flow from man-made dams along these rivers; and, three,
increased salinities in the bays that not only stressed the
oyster populations but allowed a persistent occurrence of
oyster predators, such as stone crab and oyster drills.
I know that this has been a long process and understand
that there has been significant impact on the local economy. We
worked closely with Florida to assess the relevant data, and
thanks to this productive exchange, we were able to move
quickly and make this determination within days of receiving
the necessary information from the state.
The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act to make
fisheries disaster determinations. Fisheries are an essential
part of coastal economies. They provide jobs for fishermen,
fish processors, and related maritime support industries.
However, fisheries are subject to a number of factors that
can cause sudden and unexpected losses, leading to serious
economic impact for fishermen and their communities. These
include hurricanes, oil spills, harmful algal blooms, and other
causes, both natural and man-made, that result in a commercial
fishery to fail.
Under both statutes, the Secretary may provide disaster
assistance for a wide range of activities, including direct
assistance to fishermen, restoration for research purposes,
retraining, among other activities. Under both statutes, a
request for a disaster determination is typically made by the
Governor of a state.
And, in general, the process for conducting a determination
is that an eligible entity requests the disaster determination
from the Secretary of Commerce. Following receipt of that
information, the Fisheries Service conducts an evaluation of
the information provided. The secretary will make a
determination based on this evaluation. Congress may decide to
appropriate funds for fishery disaster relief. And then if
Congress appropriates funds, we would work with the affected
entities to distribute them.
Three requirements must be met in order for the Secretary
to make a positive fishery disaster determination. One, there
must be a fishery resource disaster. Two, the cause for the
disaster must be an allowable cause. And, three, there must be
economic impact stemming from the disaster that leads to a
commercial fishery failure.
We review the best scientific information available to
evaluate each requirement has been met and actively coordinate
with the affected state or community to consider information
and supporting data. If the request does not contain all of the
data required to make a determination, we work with the
affected state or community to obtain needed information.
There is no standing fund for fishery disaster relief.
However, if Congress appropriates funds for a disaster, we work
with the state to develop a spending plan to address the needs.
The Secretary may provide assistance in the form of a grant,
cooperative agreement, loan, or contract, following
congressional guidance, statutory authority, and the
appropriate administrative process.
NOAA will continue to work closely with Florida on this
issue. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our disaster
determination process and the request from the state of
Florida. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Menashes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily Menashes, Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Effects of
Water Flows on Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long Term Perspectives. My
name is Emily Menashes and I am the Acting Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS
is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through
science-based conservation and management.
The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act to issue fisheries disaster
declarations, which enable Congress to provide fisheries disaster
assistance to affected States. In this testimony, I will outline the
process for issuing a disaster declaration under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and the NMFS Disaster
Assistance Policy. Last, I will highlight the status of the pending
request for fisheries disaster assistance by the State of Florida to
declare a commercial fishery failure for Florida's oyster harvesting
areas in the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA Fisheries Disaster Assistance Authorities and Process
Fisheries are an essential part of coastal economies. They provide
jobs for fishermen, fish processers, and related maritime support
industries. Many coastal communities are economically dependent on
fisheries. Because fisheries depend on the productivity of the
environment, there are natural variations in the amount of fish caught
each year, and in the revenue generated by the fishery. However,
fisheries are also subject to a number of factors that can cause sudden
and unexpected losses, leading to serious economic impact for fishers
and their communities. These factors include hurricanes and typhoons
that can destroy fishing grounds and fishing infrastructure, oil
spills, harmful algal blooms, and others, both natural and man-made,
such as overfishing, that cause a commercial fishery to incur harm or
fail.
A fishery disaster refers to a commercial fishery failure, a
catastrophic regional fishery disaster, significant harm incurred, or a
serious disruption affecting future production due to a fishery
resource disaster arising from natural or undetermined causes, or,
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, man-made causes beyond the control of
fishery managers to mitigate through conservation and management
measures. Two statutes, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Sections 312(a) and
315, and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, Sections 308(b) and
308(d), provide the authority and requirements for fishery disaster
determinations.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Sections 312(a) and 315, the
Secretary may provide disaster assistance for assessing the economic
and social effects of a commercial fishery failure, for activities to
restore the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future, and for
assisting fishing communities. In order to receive assistance under
Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a positive Magnuson-Stevens
Act 312(a) determination is also needed. Under the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act, Section 308(b), the Secretary may provide assistance to
restore the fishery affected by the disaster. Also, under the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, Section 308(d), the Secretary may
provide disaster assistance to persons and projects to alleviate harm
incurred as a result of a fishery resource disaster.
Under both statutes, a request for a fishery disaster determination
is generally made by the Governor of a State, or by an elected or duly
appointed representative on an affected fishing community, although the
Secretary of Commerce may also initiate a review at his or her own
discretion. In general, the process for conducting a fishery disaster
determination is:
An eligible entity requests a fishery disaster determination
from the Secretary of Commerce.
NMFS conducts an evaluation to determine whether the
circumstances are consistent with relevant statutes and whether
a qualifying fishery disaster occurred.
The Secretary makes a determination based on the evaluation
and notifies the requester of the determination.
Congress may appropriate funds for fishery disaster relief.
If Congress appropriates funds, NMFS works with the affected
entities to distribute the funds consistent with the statutory
requirements and conditions of the appropriation.
Three requirements must be met in order for the Secretary to make a
positive fishery disaster determination:
1. There must be a fishery resource disaster as defined by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.
2. The cause for the fishery resource disaster must be an allowable
cause under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.
3. There must be economic impact stemming from the fishery resource
disaster that supports a determination of a commercial fishery
failure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 312(a) and the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(b), a serious disruption
affecting future production due to a fishery resource under the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(b) or harm incurred under
the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(d).
For all three requirements, NMFS will review the best scientific
information available to evaluate if the requirements have been met and
will coordinate with the affected State or community to consider
information and supporting data that the State or community provides.
To address the first requirement, whether a fishery resource
disaster occurred, NMFS evaluates whether there is a sudden,
unexpected, large decrease in fish stock biomass or other change that
results in significant loss of access to the fishery resource, which
could include loss of fishing vessels and gear, for a substantial
period of time.
For the second requirement, NMFS evaluates whether there is an
allowable cause under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act. Under Section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
allowable causes are natural causes, undetermined causes, or man-made
causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate through
conservation and management measures. Regulatory or judicial actions do
not constitute ``man-made'' causes, except where imposed to protect
human health or the marine environment. Additionally, under Section
312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the contribution of overfishing to
a fishery resource disaster or subsequent commercial fishery failure
must be considered in the context of the governing statutory
requirements and other factors contributing to the disaster or fishery
failure. There is a presumption against a finding of a fishery resource
disaster when overfishing is occurring in a fishery. However, the fact
that overfishing occurred or is occurring does not preclude a
determination that a fishery disaster occurred, if other factors are
more central to the disaster.
Under Section 308(b) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the
allowable causes are natural or undetermined causes. Under the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, Section 308(d), the Secretary must
determine that harm was incurred as a direct result of a fishery
resource disaster arising from a hurricane or other natural disaster.
For the third requirement, particularly in the case of whether a
commercial fishery failure has occurred, NMFS evaluates whether the
commerce in or revenues from the fishery materially decreased or
markedly weakened due to a fishery resource disaster, such that those
engaged in the fishery suffered severe economic hardship. The types of
economic, social, and cultural information that NMFS considers when
determining whether there was a commercial fishery failure occurred
include:
Fishery characteristics (size and value; number of
participants; environmental, economic and sociocultural
behaviors; whether jobs are full-or part-time; and landings
data).
Percent decline in landings, economic impact, revenues, or
net revenues by vessel category, port, etc. This should
represent the proportion of the affected fishery resource
compared to the commercial fishery as a whole (not just for the
affected fishery resource).
Number of participants involved by vessel category, port,
etc.
Length of time the resource (or access to it) will be
restricted.
Documented decline in the resource.
Other relevant information.
The NMFS Disaster Assistance Policy identifies thresholds to
determine if there was a commercial fishery failure, based on the loss
of 12-month revenue compared to average annual revenue in the most
recent 5-year period:
Revenue losses greater than 80 percent will result in a
determination of a commercial fishery failure.
Revenue losses between 35 percent and 80 percent will be
evaluated further (e.g., to determine if economic impacts are
severe).
Revenue losses less than 35 percent will not be eligible for
determination of a commercial fishery failure, except where the
Secretary determines there are special and unique circumstances
that may justify considering and using a lower threshold in
making the determination.
Often the request for a fishery disaster determination does not
contain all the data required to make an immediate determination, and
in those cases NMFS will work with the affected State or community to
obtain the data, which often takes some time. Thus, the more
information an initial request includes regarding a potential disaster,
the better able NMFS is to respond quickly to a request.
The Secretary will notify the requester of the final determination
of whether a fishery disaster has occurred. Under both the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, if Congress
appropriates funds for a fishery disaster, the Secretary may provide
disaster assistance in the form of a grant, cooperative agreement,
loan, or contract, following Congressional guidance and the appropriate
administrative processes.
Florida Oyster Disaster Assistance Request
In letters dated September 6, 2012, and November 7, 2012, Governor
Rick Scott of Florida asked Acting U.S. Department of Commerce
Secretary Rebecca Blank to declare a commercial fishery failure for
Florida's oyster harvesting areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Those letters
stated that oyster populations on Apalachicola Bay's primary oyster
producing reefs were in poor condition and identified the lack of
freshwater flow from the Apalachicola River and associated increases in
water salinity as the primary cause of the decline. The Governor
provided a report from Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services and indicated that additional landings and revenue data were
forthcoming.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission followed up
with draft documentation in April 2013. NMFS reviewed the draft
documentation in the context of our Disaster Assistance Policy and
provided the Commission comments and questions on April 23, 2013. The
Commission indicated it would provide a revised report in early May
2013, but is still working to finalize the report. NMFS' Southeast
Region is in close communication with Commission leadership about the
status of the report. We have been advised the report is complete,
undergoing interagency review within the state, and will be delivered
to us shortly.
Also in late April 2013, Florida Sea Grant released a report
entitled Apalachicola Bay: Oyster Situation Report, which contains
relevant data for the disaster assistance request. The report
summarizes efforts conducted through the University of Florida Oyster
Recovery Team, in collaboration with various stakeholders, to describe
conditions in Apalachicola Bay prior to and after the collapse of the
oyster fishery. The report characterizes conditions in the Bay, reviews
possible causes for the fishery collapse, and outlines a plan for
future monitoring, research and fishery management.
Conclusion
NOAA will continue to work closely with the State on this issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss NMFS' disaster determination
process and the request from the State of Florida to declare a
commercial fishery failure for Florida's oyster harvesting areas in the
Gulf of Mexico. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Ms. Menashes.
Colonel Chytka? Likewise, your statement will be entered
into the record, and if you would share with us for about five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL JON J. CHYTKA, COMMANDER,
MOBILE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Colonel Chytka. Mr. Chairman and Senator Rubio, I am
Colonel Jon Chytka, Commander of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, Mobile District. And I am honored to testify
before you today on the status of the Corps' water management
in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system.
I assumed command, as Senator Rubio mentioned, on 1 August
2013, and I am aware of the importance of this system to
Congress, to the states, and various stakeholders in the ACF
Basin.
The ACF Basin originates in northeast Georgia, crosses the
Georgia-Alabama border into central Alabama, and follows the
state line south until it terminates in Apalachicola Bay. There
are 5 Federal reservoirs and 10 non-Federal reservoirs in the
ACF Basin.
The Corps' Mobile District is currently updating the
system-wide Master Water Control Manual for the ACF river
system through an open and deliberative process that includes
preparation of an environmental impact statement for the system
and solicitation and consideration of comments from the public
and all interested stakeholders.
The purpose of revising the manual is to develop and
implement updated system-wide operational schemes for the
Federal projects in the basin in accordance with their
authorized purposes, in light of the current conditions and
applicable law.
Water control manuals assist Federal water managers in
operating individual and multiple interdependent Corps
reservoirs on the same river system consistent with applicable
law. Generally, a water control manual includes technical,
hydrologic, geographic, demographic, policy, and other
information.
The Corps uses these manuals to inform and guide its
decisions on the management of the waters in our reservoirs,
which typically involve different operating regimes for times
of high water, low water, and normal conditions. The manuals
contain water control plans for each of the reservoirs in the
basin and specify how the various reservoirs will be operated
as a system.
As part of our update process, the Corps is preparing an
EIS for the Federal system and solicited and will consider
comments from the public and interested stakeholders.
These actions will result in updated plans and manuals for
the system and are consistent with applicable law and take into
account the changes in the basin's hydrology and demands from
years of growth and development, new and rehabilitated
structural features, legal requirements, and environmental
issues.
In June 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit held that municipal and industrial water
supply for the City of Atlanta, Georgia, is an authorized
purpose of the Lake Lanier project under the River and Harbor
Act of 1946 and remanded the matter to the Corps to determine
the extent of its legal authority to accommodate the state of
Georgia's request in 2000 for additional water supply
withdrawals at and below Lake Lanier.
The ACF Water Control Manual update and EIS are being
prepared in accordance with the Corps regulations and NEPA, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable
laws. As a part of our effort, the Corps will consult with
other Federal agencies as required, including consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The draft water control manuals and EIS will be released
for public review and comment in accordance with NEPA and
requirements of Corps regulations. Similarly, the draft water
control manuals and EIS will undergo quality control and
quality assurance reviews, which include the agency technical
review and the independent, external peer review.
In summary, the purpose, again, of the ACF manual update is
to improve the information and guidance that the Corps uses to
operate the Federal dams within the basin in accordance with
applicable law. We operate these dams for the congressionally
authorized purposes as a system and will continue to do so.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Senator Rubio,
this concludes my oral testimony. I look forward to continuing
to work with the Committee on these very important issues,
answering any questions you may have.
As you recognized, Senator Nelson, I brought the deputy for
the Programs and Project Management Division within the Mobile
District, Mr. Pete Taylor, to assist in answering the
questions, because in my 12 days I have learned a lot but there
is probably a lot more that I probably missed.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Chytka follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Jon J. Chytka, Commander, Mobile
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am Colonel Jon Chytka, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Mobile District and am honored to testify before you today on
the status of the Corps' Water Management in the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River system. I assumed command of Mobile
District on August 1, 2013 and am aware of the importance of this
system to the Congress, the States, and the various stakeholders in the
ACF basin.
The Corps' Mobile District is currently updating the system-wide
Master Water Control Manual for the ACF River system through an open
and deliberative process that includes preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the system, and solicitation and
consideration of comments from the public and all interested
stakeholders. The original system-wide Water Control Manual for the ACF
was completed in 1958. Between 1990 and 2012, the Corps was involved in
litigation that included challenges to the Corps' operation of Federal
reservoirs in the system, against a background of disagreement among
the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia regarding the allocation of
waters within the basin. During the pendency of that litigation, the
states agreed to a Compact that was approved by Congress in 1997, and
which contemplated the states agreeing to formulas for apportioning the
surface waters of the basin. The Corps would have endeavored to update
its operations, to the extent authorized by law, to implement such an
agreement. After the states failed to reach agreement and the Compact
expired, the Secretary of the Army directed the Corps to proceed with
updating the Federal water control manual for the ACF system. The
litigation concluded in 2012 without resolving the states' underlying
disputes regarding the allocation of waters among the states, and
without specific direction from the courts as to how the Corps should
operate the ACF system.
The purpose of revising the manual is to develop and implement
updated, system-wide operational schemes for the Federal projects in
the basin in accordance with their authorized purposes, in light of
current conditions and applicable law. Water control manuals assist
Federal water managers in operating individual and multiple,
interdependent Corps reservoirs on the same river system consistent
with applicable law. Generally, a water control manual includes
technical, hydrologic, geographic, demographic, policy, and other
information. The Corps uses these manuals to inform and guide its
decisions on the management of the waters in our reservoirs, which
typically involve different operating regimes for times of high water,
low water, and normal conditions. The manuals contain water control
plans for each of the reservoirs in the basin system and specify how
the various reservoirs will be operated as a system. The manuals also
contain drought plans and zones to assist Federal water managers in
knowing when to reduce or increase reservoir releases, and how to
ensure the safety of dams during extreme conditions such as floods.
As part of the update process, the Corps is preparing an EIS for
the Federal system, and solicited and will consider comments from the
public and interested stakeholders. These actions will result in
updated plans and manuals for the system that are consistent with
applicable law and take into account changes in basin hydrology and
demands from years of growth and development, new/rehabilitated
structural features, legal requirements, and environmental issues.
The ACF basin (Figure 1) originates in northeast Georgia, crosses
the Georgia-Alabama border into central Alabama, and follows the state
line south until it terminates at Apalachicola Bay, Florida. The basin
covers 50 counties in Georgia, 10 counties in Alabama, and 8 counties
in Florida, extending a distance of approximately 385 miles; the basin
drains 19,600 square miles.
There are five Federal reservoirs and ten non-federal reservoirs in
the ACF system. At the headwaters of the system north of Atlanta are
Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier. Moving downstream, the remaining
Federal reservoirs in the ACF system are West Point Lake Dam and West
Point Lake; W.F. George Lock and Dam and W.F. George Lake; Lake George
A. Andrews Lock and Dam and George A. Andrews Lake; and Jim Woodruff
Lock and Dam and Lake Seminole, 108 miles upstream of Apalachicola Bay.
In June 2011 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit held that municipal and industrial water supply for the City of
Atlanta, Georgia, is an authorized purpose of the Lake Lanier project
under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946, and remanded the matter to
the Corps to determine the extent of its legal authority to accommodate
the state of Georgia's request in 2000 for additional water supply
withdrawals at and below Lake Lanier. The citation is: In Re: MDL-1824
Tri-State Water Rights Litigation, 644 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2011). In
response to that decision, the United States filed a legal opinion of
the Chief Counsel of the Corps with the Eleventh Circuit on June 25,
2012, regarding the authority of the Corps to accommodate water supply
withdrawals at and below Lake Sidney Lanier under the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1946, Public Law No. 84-841 (July 30, 1956), and the
Water Supply Act of 1958.
On October 12, 2012, the Corps published a notice soliciting public
comment on revising the scope of the EIS for the ACF water control
manual update in light of these developments. The Corps published a
revised, Final Updated Scoping Report in March 2013, providing notice
that the Corps is evaluating additional water supply alternatives
within the scope of the ACF water control manual update and EIS,
including Georgia's updated request for water supply. The Corps has not
yet decided on a proposed mode of ACF system operations. The proposed
operations will be identified in the draft water control manuals and
EIS. Those documents will be made available for public comment before
any final decision is made on how the system should be operated.
The ACF Water Control Manual update and EIS are being prepared in
accordance with Corps regulations, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and all applicable law. As part of this effort, the Corps will
consult with other Federal agencies as required, including consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration of impacts to
threatened and endangered species. The draft water control manuals and
EIS will be released for public review and comment in accordance with
NEPA and requirements in Corps regulations. Similarly, the draft water
control manuals and EIS will undergo quality control/quality assurance
reviews to include agency technical review and independent external
peer review.
The Corps is currently in the technical analysis stage of the ACF
manual update. We expect to reach the next major milestone in this
process about two years from now, when we file a draft EIS with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and release the draft water
control manual and draft EIS for public review and comment.
In summary, the purpose of the ACF manual update is to improve the
information and guidance that the Corps uses to operate the Federal
dams within the basin in accordance with applicable law. We operate
these dams for the Congressionally authorized purposes as a system, and
will continue to do so. The updates will take into account changes in
basin hydrology and demands from years of growth and development, new/
rehabilitated structural features, legal requirements, and
environmental issues. Throughout this process, the Corps encourages the
active participation of all stakeholders, and the Corps will carefully
consider all comments received.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my
testimony. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on
these very important issues and answering any questions you may have.
Figure 1. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Nelson. We understand that, Colonel.
Mr. Taylor, did you want to add anything right now?
Colonel Taylor. No, sir. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. OK. When we get into the questions, we want
to get past the process and we want to get into some of the
solutions.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. So we will get to you there.
And now we want to hear from Mr. Jon Steverson, Executive
Director of the Northwest Florida Water Management District.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN P. STEVERSON,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Steverson. Thank you, Chairman Nelson, Senator Rubio,
and Representative Southerland. Thank you for holding this
important hearing about the effects of water flows on
Apalachicola Bay and the people here who depend on this system.
I am Jon Steverson, Executive Director of the Northwest
Florida Water Management District. And as one of five water
management districts in the state, we are responsible for
managing and protecting the groundwater and surface-water
resources within this region. Under the leadership of Governor
Scott, the district works closely with other state and local
agencies to safeguard this historically vibrant and
economically important system.
I am here today to provide a brief overview on the
Apalachicola River and Bay, the ongoing injury to each, and the
important environmental and economic impacts.
The Colonel has already described the size of the system
and the 20,000 square miles where it meets the Florida line,
but I would just like to emphasize that once it hits the
Florida line, it runs unimpeded, no reservoirs, no dams, for
106 miles into this bay.
The river's floodplain ecosystem is the largest in Florida.
It is rated among the top 10 biodiversity hotspots in the
United States. And I reference numerous official designations
in my written testimony that signify the importance of the
system.
I say all that to say this: It is a big deal. And we
recognize that down here, and obviously you do, too, since you
are here today, and we appreciate that.
This complex and diverse ecosystem developed and flourished
under unimpaired, natural flows from the Chattahoochee and
Flint Rivers. These historic flows created and sustained river
channel habitat, they maintained suitable salinity levels, and
provided essential nutrients to the bay.
The river is the main source of freshwater inflow to the
bay and is the lifeblood of this extraordinarily dynamic
system. The health and productivity of the bay is strongly
influenced by the amount, the timing, and the duration of those
freshwater inflows. It is vital that we restore, maintain, or
at least mimic this historic flow pattern. Otherwise, this
ecosystem and the way of life enjoyed by so many in this room
will be lost.
And, unfortunately, Florida cannot control the volume of
water entering the state. The lack of water flowing in the
river and ultimately to the bay is a direct result of upstream
consumption and the Corps' reservoir operations.
Since the 1970s, Georgia's consumption has significantly
increased, so much so that it now uses more than 90 percent of
the water withdrawn from the system. By comparison, Florida
uses about 2.5 percent. The metro Atlanta area alone uses three
times the amount of water for public supply than all 16
counties and municipalities of the Florida panhandle combined.
But it is not just Atlanta. We see this dominating use even
when comparing agricultural withdrawals among the states. I
included this one graphic in my testimony because it so clearly
paints the picture of Georgia's approach to this whole
situation. When you see the figure, Georgia had nearly 7,200
center pivot irrigation systems in the basin, pumping hundreds
of millions of gallons a day. The number of center pivots in
southwest Georgia has continued to increase to an estimated
9,200, compared to the 239 such systems in Florida.
And there has been a little finger-pointing lately, saying,
Florida, if you really care, you would do like we did, and we,
Georgia, instituted a moratorium, no more center pivots. But,
Senator Rubio, I know every now and then you just have to have
a sip of water. And that would be kind of like you and I
deciding to----
Senator Rubio. Right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Steverson. --split this pitcher and you drink 90
percent of the pitcher and leave me the backwash and say, ``You
know what, Steverson? I think you ought not take the rest,
because then we are going to be out of water.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Steverson. It is just not workable.
But even though we are only a drop in the bucket, we are
still minimizing our consumption by implementing a series of
conservation measures. We are employing the use of mobile
irrigation labs. We are working with farmers to accomplish
center pivot retrofits with low-flow nozzles. We are
incentivizing sod-based crop rotation. Florida is doing its
part. And all of these programs combined are expected to save
nearly 9 million gallons per day of water used within the
Florida portion of the basin.
And not only are we reducing the quantity of what we use,
we are working to improve the water quality of what we
contribute to the river and bay. During the upcoming fiscal
year, the district has committed $4.7 million to protecting and
restoring this region. Two-point-five of that was proposed by
Governor Scott and approved by the Florida legislature to be
spent on projects right here in the city of Apalachicola for
storm-water improvement of the quality of water flowing to the
bay.
But despite our best efforts, flows have been lower and low
flows have occurred more frequently and for longer durations
than any other time in recorded history. In fact, last year set
a record for the least amount of water delivered to the bay
since recordkeeping first began in 1923. However, this was not
the year with the least amount of rainfall. In 2012, the bay
experienced unprecedented damage to its oyster resource as a
result of prolonged low-flow conditions.
Now, the Corps operates Buford Dam in Lake Lanier, along
with other dams and reservoirs, as an integral part of the ACF
system. But since the 1970s, the Corps has entered numerous
contracts with Georgia water suppliers to permit withdrawals
from the system for municipal and industrial uses. In 1989, the
Corps essentially began prioritizing reservoir operations in
their draft water control plans for this ever-increasing water
supply demand.
These demands have been absorbed not from reservoir storage
but entirely from downstream river flows. In other words, every
acre-foot of water that Georgia wants is taken directly from
the flows that would otherwise reach our bay. These practices
continue to occur despite empirical evidence that such
operations are devastating the bay and its oyster population.
It is clear that the Apalachicola River needs more flow in
order to help the bay recover from these devastating impacts we
saw in 2012. The Corps can no longer assume that all needs can
be met without proactively insisting on upstream conservation.
Revision of their draft water control plan offers an
opportunity to restructure the Corps' priority system to assign
greater weight to downstream needs and strive to mimic historic
flow patterns.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know I am running over, but if I could
make one more point, I would really appreciate it.
Senator Nelson. Please.
Mr. Steverson. I am sure you already knew or you now
appreciate the number of local residents who make their living
from the fishing industry here in some form or fashion. And
oysters and other local seafood are the linchpin of this
region's economic infrastructure. You have talked about the 90
percent of Florida's oysters coming from right here. It also
yielded Florida's third-largest shrimp harvest, and it
supported an active recreational and commercial fishing
industry.
I want to be able--it is going to take a little time. I
have been in this issue for over a decade but more directly
responsible for a year now, and it is going to take a little
time. But in 4 years from now, I want to be able to look in Mr.
Hartsfield's eyes over there--you are going to hear from him
later--and know that we made an impact, that we made a
difference in their lives.
And the bay's ability to continue providing these services
is now uncertain. Let's change that.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steverson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan P. Steverson,, Executive Director,
Northwest Florida Water Management District
Senator Nelson, Senator Rubio and Representative Southerland, I am
Jon Steverson, Executive Director of the Northwest Florida Water
Management District. As one of five water management districts in
Florida, the Northwest District is responsible for managing and
protecting groundwater and surface water resources for both the
citizens and natural resources of this region, including the
Apalachicola River and Bay.
Under the leadership of Governor Scott, the District continues to
work in close coordination with other state and local agencies to
provide technical support and expertise to ensure the protection of the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (also known as ACF) River System.
I would first like to thank you for holding this important hearing
about the effects of water flows on Apalachicola River and Bay system.
On behalf of the District and the many partners we work with to protect
this important water body, I am here today to provide a brief overview
on the Apalachicola River and Bay, the ongoing injury to each, and the
important economic and environmental impacts.
Introduction and Summary
This testimony is intended to provide the Committee with
information on the effect of reduced freshwater inflows into the
Apalachicola River and Bay systems in Florida. These fragile systems
support a unique, historically vibrant and economically important
culture that relies first and foremost on the health of its fisheries,
particularly the Eastern oyster. The Apalachicola region and its
economy continue to be damaged by ever increasing consumptive uses in
Georgia, which were too easily allowed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' previous water management decisions. We believe Georgia
needs to responsibly reduce and manage its continuously growing
consumption of water, and also that the Corps should ensure that
Georgia engages in meaningful conservation when updating its master
control manual for the ACF system.
Background on the Resource
To provide a little background, the ACF River Basin covers about
20,000 square miles, most of which is located in Georgia. The
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers both originate in north Georgia, flow
south and join in Lake Seminole at the Florida-Georgia line to form the
Apalachicola River, which runs unimpeded for 106 miles into the bay.
The Apalachicola River's floodplain ecosystem is the largest in Florida
and includes over 200 miles of off-channel floodplain, sloughs and
streams. Its nontidal floodplain forest exceeds 82,000 acres and is
rated among the top 10 biodiversity ``hot spots'' in the United States.
Hundreds of thousands of acres adjacent to the river and bay have been
acquired by federal, state, local and private entities to protect this
unique environment.
Apalachicola Bay has been one of the most productive estuarine
systems in the northern hemisphere and an exceptionally important
nursery area for the Gulf of Mexico. Because of its uniqueness, several
designations have been granted, signifying the importance of the
system. In 1969, the Florida Governor and Cabinet designated 80,000
acres of sovereignty submerged lands as the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic
Preserve, and designated the river as an Outstanding Florida Water in
1983. The Apalachicola Bay is also home to the Apalachicola National
Estuarine Research Reserve, which is one of only 27 sites so designated
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It
encompasses more than 193,000 acres of land and water and is the
largest of all such reserves in the country.
The complex and diverse ecosystem of the Apalachicola River Basin
and Bay developed and flourished under unimpaired, natural flows from
the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers. These historic flows created and
sustained river channel habitat, interconnected floodplain channels,
maintained an appropriate salinity level, and provided essential
nutrients to the bay.
The City of Apalachicola and broader Franklin County support many
commercial seafood harvesters, processors and dealers whose work
contributes substantially to the productivity of the region. The vast
majority of local residents make their living from the fishing
industry, directly or indirectly. Oysters and other local seafood are
the lynchpin of the region's economic infrastructure. Historically,
Apalachicola Bay provided approximately 90 percent of Florida's oyster
harvest (and 10 percent of the national harvest), supported an active
recreational and commercial fishing industry, served as an important
nursery area for many marine species, and yielded Florida its third
largest shrimp harvest. The bay's ability to continue providing these
services is now uncertain.
The river and bay ecosystem, as well as the men and women of this
region, depend on timely freshwater flows to remain healthy and
productive. The Apalachicola River is the main source of freshwater
inflow to the bay. That freshwater flow regulates salinity in the bay
in a way that maintains the biological integrity of a variety of
sensitive species and habitats that are both ecologically and
economically important. Equally significant is the fact that the
Apalachicola River discharges nutrient-rich water into the bay, which
provides the building blocks of the bay's food web.
In these ways, the river is the lifeblood of this extraordinarily
productive estuarine system, which sustains oyster harvesting,
shrimping, crabbing and fishing. The health and productivity of the bay
is strongly influenced by the amount, timing, and duration of the
freshwater inflow from the Apalachicola River. It is vital that we
restore and maintain this historic flow pattern. Otherwise, this
ecosystem and this way of life for generations of Floridians will be
lost.
Adverse Impacts
Unfortunately, Florida cannot control the volume of water entering
the State. The region's destiny is subject to upstream influences that
have undermined the foundation of the area. The amount of water flowing
in the river and ultimately to Apalachicola Bay is a direct result of
Georgia's consumption upstream on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers
and the Corps' reservoir operations on the Chattahoochee.
Since the 1970s, Georgia's consumption has significantly increased;
so much such that it now uses more than 90 percent of the water
withdrawn from the system. By comparison, Florida uses about 2.5
percent. The metro Atlanta area alone uses three times the amount of
water for public supply than all 16 counties and municipalities of the
Florida Panhandle combined.
Georgia's continuously growing consumption expands beyond the metro
Atlanta area. Another example of this dominating use can be seen by
comparing the agricultural withdrawals among the states. As shown in
the attached figure (Fig. 1), in 2005, Georgia had nearly 7,200 center
pivot irrigation systems, pumping hundreds of million gallons of day,
on fields in the lower Flint and Chattahoochee basins. The number of
center pivots in Southwest Georgia has continued to increase to an
estimated 9,200 today, compared to 239 such systems in the Florida
portion of the system.
Even though Florida's consumption in the basin is only a tiny
portion of what is used upstream, we are still minimizing our use by
implementing a series of conservation measures. This includes working
with farmers within the basin to retrofit agricultural irrigation
systems for more efficient delivery, as well as introducing incentives
for sod-based crop rotation. This year the District will receive State
Appropriations to provide additional retrofits within the basin which,
combined with programs already in place, is expected to save nearly 9
million gallons per day of water used within the Basin.
At the same time we continue to reduce our already small
consumption within the basin, Florida also continues to work to improve
the water quality within the river and bay. During the upcoming Fiscal
Year, the District has committed $4.7 million to protecting and
restoring the Apalachicola River and Bay, including $3 million in
funding proposed by Governor Scott and approved by the Florida
Legislature. This includes $2.5 million in cooperative funding
assistance to the City of Apalachicola to provide stormwater treatment
and improve the quality of water flowing into the river and bay.
Despite our best efforts, Apalachicola River flows have been lower
and low flows have occurred more frequently and for longer durations
than any other time in recorded history. The problem has grown more
dire during the last 10 years, and is creating long-lasting impacts to
the river and bay. In 2012, Florida experienced widespread damage to
its oyster resource as a result of two years of prolonged low-flow
conditions. In fact, last year set a record for the least amount of
water delivered to the bay since record-keeping first began in 1923,
although this was not the year with the least amount of rainfall. The
corresponding reduction in freshwater inflow raised salinity levels in
the bay well above tolerable thresholds, and the continued lack of
inflow precluded any opportunity to reduce salinity levels. It is well
documented that elevated salinity levels lead to increased oyster
mortality through disease and predation.
State agencies and local fisherman have documented a severe decline
in the oyster harvests. Drastic declines in all age classes of oysters
suggest that a collapse of the fishery has indeed occurred. The latest
state agency reports reveal that oyster production estimates on
commercially important oyster reefs are the lowest in the past 20
years. The data suggests that many of the reefs have too few oysters to
support commercial harvesting, devastating the livelihoods of the men
and women who make their living harvesting, processing or selling
oysters on Florida's Gulf Coast.
As a result, Governor Rick Scott requested the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Commerce declare a commercial fishery failure for
Florida's oyster harvesting areas in the Gulf of Mexico, pursuant to
Section 312 (a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and
Conservation Act.
Moving Forward
The Corps operates Buford Dam and Lake Lanier, along with the other
downstream dams and reservoirs, as an integral part of the ACF system.
Since the 1970s, the Corps has entered numerous contracts with Georgia
water suppliers to permit withdrawals from the system for municipal and
industrial uses. In 1989, pursuant to the Draft Water Control Plan, the
Corps essentially began prioritizing reservoir operations to support
this water supply demand, which has increased dramatically over time.
Under the Corps' present operating schedule, each new demand placed on
the system upstream is absorbed, not from reservoir storage, but
entirely from downstream river flows. In other words, every acre-foot
of water that Georgia wants is taken directly from flows that would
otherwise reach Alabama and Florida. These practices have deprived
downstream interests of basic river flow needs, despite the empirical
evidence that such operations are devastating Apalachicola Bay and its
oyster population.
It is clear that the Apalachicola River needs more flow to help
recover from the devastating oyster mortality that occurred in the bay
in 2012, as well as the massive die-offs of endangered mussels, decline
in fisheries, and drying of the floodplain forest that have occurred in
recent years. The Corps can no longer assume that all needs can be met
without proactively insisting on upstream conservation. At a minimum,
the Corps should mandate that Georgia develop strict conservation
measures as a condition to entertaining any further withdrawals from
the ACF system. The Corps' current efforts to revise their Draft Water
Control Plan offers an opportunity to restructure the priority system
they use in existing operations to assign greater weight to downstream
needs and strive to mimic historic flow patterns.
Thank you for the chance to talk to you today about one of
Florida's most precious resources, the Apalachicola River and Bay.
Figure 1--Center Pivot Irrigation Systems in the ACF Basin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Steverson.
Senator Rubio, your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Let me start with Ms. Menashes.
I just wanted to get your sense of, once a disaster is
declared, how is the amount of money necessary to mitigate it,
how is that determined? What is the process for that?
Ms. Menashes. We generally work with the state or the
affected communities, primarily through the state, to identify
the resources that they would need to address the issue. The
report from the state did identify revenue impacts; however,
that is only one part of what the requester may be looking for
to support both addressing social and economic impacts as well
as addressing the underlying cause of the disaster.
Disaster funds have been used for a wide variety of
activities in the past: direct assistance to fishermen, to
fishing communities, but also things like oyster restoration,
research, monitoring, and those kinds of activities. So we
would really turn to the state to work with the state on
identifying the activities that are important for them to
address the issue.
Senator Rubio. Again, so the funding is ultimately designed
to mitigate in the short term the damage being done, but it
doesn't take away the need to find a long-term solution to the
problem.
Ms. Menashes. Correct.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Steverson, I was hoping you could
elaborate a little bit more, give you a little bit more time to
talk about the actions that you are taking to help mitigate the
low flows into the bay. Is there any more we can be doing as a
state with regards to that?
Mr. Steverson. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
And I think on the--because we only control south of the
line. Like I said, we are working with the farmers in that
basin. And the agricultural basin is a very fertile, productive
piece of ground. But we are doing center pivot retrofits. We
are using mobile irrigation labs to help these guys actually
determine, I can get by with only this much water. And not only
does it save the water supply, it saves the farmers money, as
well, on their pumping costs.
We have very, very little withdrawal from the river at all.
And like I said, it flows unimpeded--no reservoirs, no dams,
you know, the way God made it--down. And I don't know what the
people of Florida can do to change, but I know what the people
of Georgia can do to implement some upstream conservation and
do the measures that we are working hard on down here. And I
think it is just so often an afterthought, and, you know, the
people of Georgia can do a little bit less with their water.
If those low flows are--we are getting low flows, but if
their water is low up there, that means they can't ride their
favorite jet ski into their favorite little cove or they can't
tie off their boat to the dock. For here, it means these guys
can't make a living. And so we have got to focus on that
upstream conservation.
[Applause.]
Senator Rubio. Taking off on that, Colonel Chytka, my
understanding is that navigation is one of the authorized uses
within the basin. Can you speak to how you plan to emphasize
navigation in the operational manual and what, if any, impacts
this emphasis is going to have on the bay?
Colonel Chytka. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Yes, navigation is an authorized purpose for the ACF
system. Currently, we are in the process of drafting
alternatives as a part of our Water Control Manual update.
Since navigation is that authorized purpose, we will attempt in
some level to support navigation within the limits of the
available water and the ability for us to dredge the system.
Currently, we don't have that ability to dredge, so currently
the navigational support that we will provide will be during
the nature's normal, what it provides for high flows.
As for the impacts on the navigational operations, that
hasn't been determined because it is a part of the process. And
I know you didn't want to hear that, Senator Nelson, but it is
what we have to look at as a part of that impact.
Senator Rubio. About the environmental impact statement
that you are going to be conducting, are you required to take
into account the impacts that any water management is going to
have on the oyster fisheries in the bay?
Colonel Chytka. It hasn't been determined exactly what that
analysis will bring. As the NEPA process, there are a number of
stakeholders that put information in, and we have gotten a lot
of comments in our scoping period from Franklin County, and we
are considering that in that process. If any analysis is out
there, the best science, we will be putting that into the NEPA
process and the EIS.
Senator Rubio. Do you know how much more water Georgia has
requested? And when you consider that request, how do you
account for the impact that any additional withdrawal is going
to have on the entire water system?
Colonel Chytka. In January of 2013, Georgia did have a
water supply request. That request included two things: a
direct withdrawal from Lake Lanier for 297 million gallons per
day and downstream withdrawals for the Chattahoochee River,
located in the City of Atlanta, for 408 million gallons per
day.
The way we are including that, we are using our modeling
techniques. And as a part of the EIS process, we will determine
and evaluate those impacts on the entire ACF.
Senator Rubio. Well, as you work on the operation manual,
do you plan to emphasize water conservation?
Colonel Chytka. Water conservation is a key principle for
how we manage and operate the reservoir, the dam system, the
Federal projects. So for us, yes. But we do not have the
authorities to impose conservation on Florida, Alabama, or
Georgia. It is not in our authorities.
Senator Rubio. Well, my last question is, why does the
process of drafting an environmental impact statement take so
long? And are there any plans to expedite that?
Colonel Chytka. Different projects--NEPA, the Natural
Environmental Protection Act, the environmental impact
statement for that varies, the timeline varies based on the
project, the purpose, and oftentimes takes many years.
In this specific case, the ACF's EIS has been delayed, and
you all know better than me how much litigation has been going
on. But that was delayed for that litigation. And then on top
of that, there were decisions--since we follow the law, there
were decisions made in the interpretation of that law on how we
needed to look at that law and interpret that law.
With that, we went back--so we started the process in 2008.
We did a rescoping in 2009. We did another rescoping based on
the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the laws in 2012. That
gave the opportunity to the public and stakeholders to provide
additional comments, of which we have a lot. We have 3,621
comments from over 900 entities, so we have a lot of comments.
All of that went into our scoping report, which we published in
March of 2013.
So that is the timeline. We are looking at doing a draft
EIS. Summer of 2015, we will have that for the public review by
that time, and we will collect the comments again. And then we
will go out for our final--we are looking at doing our final
EIS early 2016.
And with all of that--that is a lot of stuff, but the
reason that we don't think we can expedite it is because of the
technical complexities. And there are more complexities in
technical. But that is the real reason we don't think we can
expedite it.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Colonel, anything that needs to be
expedited can be expedited. And let's just----
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. Hold the response.
You are at a disadvantage here because you are right here
just 13 days on the job. You have Mr. Pete Taylor with you.
And I want you to know that I have talked to the generals
not only at the Atlanta Corps office but also all the way up,
the commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And
we got a good ruling at the Federal district court level, and
then when it went up to the Court of Appeals, they seemingly
reversed that. But what they did was send it back to the Corps
to do this update of the water manual.
Now, it is clear what is happening. And we have had the
testimony here. That chart is very clear. But there have also
been the water management practices by Georgia as compared to
Florida. We passed in 1972 the Water Management Districts Act
in Florida, and ever since there has been regulation of
consumption of water; 1972, in the state of Florida, the
legislature passed that.
A lot of Georgia's consumption has not been regulated, and
whether it is now, I simply don't know. And as you testified,
the Corps under the law has to look to the regulation by the
states of water consumption.
But when it becomes a matter of water flowing in a waterway
that is basically being dammed up, then it is a different
issue. And that is what you all can address administratively in
this Water Control Manual that you are updating.
So, for example, in the update, do you take into
consideration the lost income to the commercial fishermen as
well as the lost income to the recreational industry?
Colonel Chytka. I will start, and I will let Pete add on to
it.
In the process, we consider anything that people provide us
during those periods--the draft EIS, the scoping--that is
provided to us. We consider it, and we address it.
With that being said, when we operate the actual ACF
system, there are congressional authorized purposes. And those
are the things that we have to balance in a prudent way in
order to make the system function as it was designed.
Pete, do you want to add?
Colonel Taylor. Sir, I would echo what Colonel Chytka said,
that we will develop our operations based on the authorized
purposes that we have for the project. Apalachicola Bay is not
part of the Federal project and it is not one of our authorized
purposes, so we won't develop an operation to accommodate the
bay specifically. But, clearly, we recognize that releases from
our projects flow into the bay and have an impact on the bay.
Senator Nelson. Do you consider lost income of anybody else
along the river system?
Colonel Taylor. Sir, to the extent that our operations
impact something, then we have to consider that in our
environmental impact statement.
Senator Nelson. So the answer is ``yes''?
Colonel Taylor. Sir, I can't give you a definite ``yes'' or
``no.'' It depends on if our----
[Laughter.]
Colonel Taylor. If our operations create an impact, then we
have to discuss it in our EIS.
Senator Nelson. Let me ask you this. In your updating of
the manual, do you assess the freshwater flows that are needed
to maintain a healthy fish and wildlife population down the
river?
Colonel Taylor. Again, Senator, as a part of the ACF, fish
and wildlife is a part of the authorized purpose. The way we
work is we work in consult with Fish and Wildlife specifically
on threatened, endangered species. And so we have flows that
are required from us in order to meet those requirements.
Again, it is about following the law. And that is what we
have to do to fulfill that statute.
Senator Nelson. So you would consider the Endangered
Species Act?
Colonel Taylor. Yes, Senator.
Colonel Chytka. Senator, yes. Fish and wildlife is an
authorized purpose for the ACF project. And we work to
accomplish that through our coordination and consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service, both through the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act as well as the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
Senator Nelson. Would oysters in Apalachicola be considered
an endangered species?
Colonel Chytka. Sir, to my knowledge, they are not
endangered species, as listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Senator Nelson. How about some of the fish up the
Apalachicola?
Colonel Chytka. Sir, currently we have operations from our
lowest project on the system, the Jim Woodruff Dam, for the
protection of threatened/endangered species and habitat. And
there are three species of mussel and the gulf sturgeon that we
specifically have to release the water to protect them.
Senator Nelson. And when you said the mussels, does that
include the endangered species that I think of as a kind of
snail in the Apalachicola?
Colonel Chytka. Yes, sir. Yes, Senator.
Senator Nelson. So give us an example, then, where you say
that you have to consider that, then the fact that there is
less freshwater flowing south, what do you do about that if
this species is threatened?
Colonel Chytka. Sir, we have been through several rounds of
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop
procedures to protect threatened/endangered species in our
habitat. Those consultations have resulted in minimum flows
that we have to meet on the Apalachicola River.
Those flows vary depending on the time of year and how much
water is coming into the system and how rapidly the river rises
and falls, et cetera. There are many times during the year,
particularly during droughts, when we don't receive sufficient
inflows, basin inflow to the system, to meet those
requirements.
And so what happens is we call upon the system, we use our
storage from the system to meet those minimum flows. So those
flows are higher than what would have been there were it not
for our releases.
Senator Nelson. Would those times of drought mandate that
you start releasing water at Lake Lanier so that you have
greater flows downstream?
Colonel Chytka. Sir, we operate the entire ACF system, all
those projects, as a system.
Lake Lanier contains probably 60-plus percent of all the
stores in the system. It is a large reservoir with a very small
watershed that fills it. So when we do need to make releases,
as I just described, yes, it would typically start at Lanier
and then work its way through the system down to Jim Woodruff
Dam, then the Apalachicola.
Senator Nelson. When you have the unanimous elected
officials, both Federal and State, of two states that are
requesting of you to update this Water Control Manual so that
adequate flows are flowing south, what is it going to take for
you all to get it done quickly and to take into consideration
the need of water flowing south?
Colonel Chytka. Senator, as we are going through the Water
Control Manual process, including the EIS, we really have to
look at the law and what the purposes of the project were
intended to do. And there are some locations that Peter has
already mentioned that we have mandatory requirements for
release.
With that being said, there are multiple benefits to
release for multiple purposes. But the Corps of Engineers, we
have to follow the law. And so we will, in consultation with
our other agencies, during this EIS process, take a lot of
different considerations and comments in effect as well as from
our public and from our stakeholders.
But in that whole process--and then I will let Pete add to
it--we are going to be following the law. So if there is no
requirement for a flow based on the purpose of the project and
if it is not within the boundaries of the ACF system, you know,
we will be considering it, but we have to go back to what the
law permits us.
Colonel Taylor. Senator, what I would add to Colonel
Chytka's statement is that, he mentioned earlier how
technically complex this is and how much input we received. We
have received proposals from many different entities from
throughout the basin on not only what they would like to see,
how they would like us to operate.
And we have received proposals from Florida and from the
Fish and Wildlife Service that I know our team is looking at
that do include more flows than currently occur. And we are
looking and considering those as part of this process.
Senator Nelson. Colonel, again, you are at a disadvantage
because you are here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. As a matter of fact, what--and I am going
to try to find out why they sent you. Why didn't they send the
generals that I have been talking to?
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. I don't want to put you on the hot seat,
but I want you to take this message back: that this is the kind
of stuff that we have been hearing for years as we have been
trying to solve this problem.
And, please, if you all will not react on this, but I want
the Corps of Engineers at the Mobile, Alabama, office level to
understand how serious this matter is.
And you will hear the testimony in the third panel--and I
am making the assumption that you all are going to stay to
hear----
Colonel Chytka. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson.--the third panel--that this is a dire
situation which has been going on for years. And I mentioned
that it has been going on since Governor Bob Graham was
Governor, back in 1978 to 1986. And it still hasn't been
resolved.
And then when you get it exacerbated, as you all have
testified, as the Congressman has testified, in times of
drought and they are sucking more water out of the water table
that would be going into the Flint River that flows in and
joins the Chattahoochee to make the Apalachicola, then it is
turning it into really a difficult situation that has to be
corrected.
And we thought we were on the way when we had the Federal
district court decision. Then it goes up to the Court of
Appeals in Atlanta, and that gets reversed and is basically
kicked back to you.
Now, if it is going to get solved, you all are going to
have to do it, or else we have to amend the law. But you
understand what we have to deal with, with the ability of the
Georgia delegation to filibuster.
Now, let me get to you, Ms. Menashes. You described the
process. I talked to Secretary Pritzker this morning. Do you
have any idea of a dollar figure on the disaster declaration?
Ms. Menashes. I don't have that information. I do have
estimates from the report that Florida submitted to us, where
they talked about the estimates in the first----
Senator Nelson. And what is that?
Ms. Menashes. I believe it was--well, it was a 44 percent
revenue decline from the recent historical average. I know that
the revenue for the fishery over all 3 years is generally
around $7 million.
But as I mentioned before, the funding that would be
appropriated for a disaster relief can go to those direct
revenue impacts, but it is also authorized under the
legislation to deal with some of the underlying causes and some
wider impacts to the communities and other activities that the
state may want to do to address the issue.
And so I don't have that information about the cost of
other activities the state may want to do that they would be
authorized to spend under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.
Senator Nelson. Do you remember what the state request was
in dollar figures?
Ms. Menashes. I don't off the top of my head, I am sorry.
Senator Nelson. Do you, Mr. Steverson? Do you know?
Mr. Steverson. No, sir, I am sorry.
Senator Nelson. What is the eligibility for the use of
funds? For example, an economic loss to a number of these
fishermen, is that a permitted use?
Ms. Menashes. Yes. In general, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
talks about funding going to assessing economic and social
effects, activities to restore and prevent the failure in the
future, so addressing some of the underlying cause, and also
assistance to fishermen and fishing communities.
So it is a very broad set of activities that could be
funded. And we see variation among different disasters about
how those funds are used and what the requester thinks is a
priority for funding.
Senator Nelson. Would that include economic development of
the area?
Ms. Menashes. Yes, economic development has been funded.
Community assessment, community impact activities have been
funded in the past.
Senator Nelson. And it would certainly include re-
establishing the oyster-harvesting areas?
Ms. Menashes. Yes. We often see funding going to
restoration activities and similar types of efforts.
Senator Nelson. Now, this declaration is not just limited
to the Apalachicola Bay?
Ms. Menashes. Correct. It is the west coast of Florida. The
primary impacts that were documented in Florida's report are in
Apalachicola Bay. That is where the majority of the oyster
fishing occurs. But, no, the disaster extends to the west coast
of Florida or in the Gulf.
Senator Rubio. Yes, I guess the----
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio.--only point I would make, and I don't think
you would disagree, nor would you, Senator Nelson, is I think
it is fantastic if we could find funding to help people who are
suffering to, you know, overcome the short--and midterm burdens
and what all that means, but ultimately they want to stay in
this business. I mean, this is a business. They want to do
this. It is what their families have done; it is what the
community is grounded on.
And at the end of the day, unless we fix this water
problem, this funding isn't going to solve that. I mean, the
point I want to drive is, I don't want anybody to fall into the
trap of believing that the money that we are going to gather
here, if we are able to put it together, solves the problem.
Because there is a nature in politics and in Washington to say,
oh, we got some money for it, it is done, we can move on.
That is going to help people that are hurting to survive,
but in order to maintain themselves and get ahead, ultimately
this water issue has to be solved irrespective of what happens.
I hope the money comes, and we are going to work hard to make
that happen. But beyond that, what I want to make clear is it
is not enough; we can't stop there.
And I think that is important. I just don't want a lot of
celebration only on the relief side of it and the front end and
then forgetting that we still have this major--the long-term
issue remains the water flow issue. And this doesn't
necessarily solve that.
Ms. Menashes. Correct.
Senator Nelson. Ms. Menashes, does this include disaster
relief for other fish populations that are fished in the area?
Ms. Menashes. This determination is focused on the oyster
fishery. That is what the state requested, and that was what we
analyzed. Certainly, if there was additional information and
the state wanted to broaden that request, we could look at
whether some of those other fisheries would be included.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Steverson, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Steverson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We hear the Corps
talk a lot about, ``We want to operate the way the system is
designed.'' And I guess my issue with that is it was designed
either by our Creator or Mother Nature or spontaneous
combustion, whatever you choose to believe, to deliver
freshwater down to this gulf and this bay and create that
vibrant ecosystem that lived there.
And we talk about, ``Well, we want Georgia to do
conservation, but the law doesn't allow us to enforce Georgia
to do conservation.'' But I believe, and they can correct me if
I am wrong, it is either a policy or a rule, when they mention
basin inflows. We want to see the true basin inflow.
Right now, my understanding is the Corps measures the
amount after they already take out the withdrawals from
Georgia. So Georgia is getting its piece first before we even
look at what we are releasing and sending on down. We want a
calculation of true basin inflows to give us the amount that is
actually hitting the system and send that down to us first.
Senator Rubio. Just so I understand, so----
[Applause.]
Senator Rubio.--the best way to describe it in layman terms
to our colleagues is what we want is basically to take a count
of the volume and then basically have a system of fairness that
would apportion it across the states that use it. What we have
now is Georgia gets the first cut and we basically get whatever
is left over.
Mr. Steverson. Right. So the good Lord giveth, and Georgia
and the Corps taketh away. And that gives the system----
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Steverson. We need that.
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio, any further questions?
Senator Rubio. No.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Colonel, we are not picking on you. And we want you to know
we appreciate your service. And if you are like a lot of the
other Colonels in the Army Corps, you not only have served
stateside but you have probably served in Iraq and/or
Afghanistan, as well. And we want you to know how much we
appreciate that.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. Now, I want you and Mr. Taylor to take back
the message. First of all, the two Senators here who have been
working on this for a very long time, we continue to get the
same kind of answer, and it doesn't solve the problem. We have
a problem, and it is in desperate need of a solution.
If you say that the law absolutely prohibits you, then why
didn't the court say that? The Corps sent it back to the local
district court and said to the Corps of Engineers, ``Update the
Water Manual. You have flexibility.''
And so we are going to insist, because you can't let this
situation continue, we are going to insist that you do. Now,
the easy way to do it is administratively as you all are
updating the water manual.
So, again, all of you in public service, you are public
servants we appreciate very much.
Senator Rubio, if you don't have any further questions,
then I will dismiss you all and ask for the third panel to
please come up.
Mr. Hartsfield, I owe you an apology. You were listed on
the official agenda as ``Ms. Shannon Hartsfield.'' Is your
first name Shannon?
Mr. Hartsfield. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Well, that is probably not the first time--
--
Mr. Hartsfield. No, sir.
Senator Nelson.--that that has been referred to.
All right, on panel three--and Senator Rubio will be right
back--we have Mr. Dan Tonsmeire. He is Executive Director and
Riverkeeper of the Apalachicola River. We have Mr. Shannon
Hartsfield, President of Franklin County Seafood Workers. And
then we have Dr. Karl Havens, Director of the Florida Sea Grant
College Program. And he is a Professor, School of Forest
Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Services, IFAS, at the University of Florida.
We are glad to have you.
And who is the gentleman with you, Mr. Tonsmeire?
Mr. Banks. I am with the Franklin County Seafood Workers
Association. I am the Vice President, Ricky Banks.
Senator Nelson. And so you are assisting Mr. Hartsfield?
Mr. Banks. I am assisting the Seafood Workers and Shannon.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Do we have him on the schedule?
Staff. We do not, but Mr. Bank's testimony will be
reflected in the hearing record.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Would you introduce yourself?
Mr. Banks. Ricky Banks, Vice President of the Franklin
County Seafood Workers Association.
Senator Nelson. OK, we will show the agenda so amended.
So we will hear first from, in the order that I mentioned,
Mr. Dan Tonsmeire.
All right, your written statement will be issued in the
record, and if you will summarize your remarks in about 5
minutes so we can get into questions.
Mr. Tonsmeire?
STATEMENT OF DAN TONSMEIRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND RIVERKEEPER,
APALACHICOLA RIVERKEEPER
Mr. Tonsmeire. Thank you, Senators.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper appreciates the opportunity to
offer our views on the importance of Commerce enacting
legislation to require the Corps of Engineers to manage the ACF
system to ensure that Apalachicola River and Bay receive the
freshwater flows needed to support healthy populations of fish
and wildlife in a vibrant resource-based economy.
Apalachicola Bay is one of the most productive estuaries in
the Northern Hemisphere. The river flows that nourish the bay
also provide 35 percent of the freshwater flows to the eastern
Gulf of Mexico and is a driver of the productivity of the
fisheries over 250 miles out into the gulf.
Analysis of a 2011 NOAA report on the value of gulf
fisheries found that commercial and recreational wild-caught
fisheries create $5.6 billion in sales revenues and support
55,000 jobs in west Florida. Because of these characteristics
and high value, the bay has international, national, and state
designations that are intended to highlight and protect its
unique and special place in our nation and state.
The collapse that will be described by Dr. Havens last
summer heralds the beginning of the end of this last great bay
and national treasure. During the past 30 years, Florida has
suffered a 30 to 40 percent decline in the spring and summer
flows during dry and drought times.
At the most critical time of year for reproduction and
productivity of the Apalachicola River floodplain and bay, the
Corps' management and the needs of upstream users are taking a
heavy toll on the volume and timing of flows to the
Apalachicola.
Over the past 30 years of litigation and state
negotiations, an entire generation of fishermen have seen their
livelihoods dwindle to unsustainable levels at the same time
upstream users have reaped the benefits of the waters of the
ACF system.
During this 30 years, great efforts by Florida's
congressional delegation attempted to restore Florida's right
to our water, a right that has been lost when Congress gave the
Corps of Engineers authority to manage the ACF system to
benefit upstream states without consideration of Floridians.
As the Colonel stated, after three scoping opportunities
for the current Water Control Manual EIS and repeated comments
from stakeholders and congressional delegates, the Corps
continues to state that the ongoing update will essentially
validate the current operating plan, which provides minimum
flow target releases to the Apalachicola for endangered
species.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper, the SMARRT group, National
Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and many
others see only one way to change the Corps' dynamic: Congress
must require in very specific terms that the Corps of Engineers
manage the ACF projects to ensure that Florida receives the
water it so desperately needs to sustain the river and bay.
The freshwater flows provision in S. 601, developed and
filed by you, Senator Nelson, would provide clear direction and
ensure that the best available science is used to determine the
amount, timing, and duration of the needed flows. The
freshwater flows provision was not adopted by the Senate
committee, in part because it was not supported by committee
member Senator Sessions of Alabama. Additional language was
developed to help address his concerns by providing benefits to
users on the Chattahoochee River and ensuring that the Corps
does not impose an unfair burden on Alabama. That revised
language is attached at the end of my testimony.
While Alabama offered no opposition to this revised
language, they also were not willing to support it. Instead,
Alabama opted to focus on legislation that would stop the Corps
from giving favorable treatment to Georgia. Their proposed
language would not change the status quo for Florida and would
not require the Corps to send more water to Florida.
All three states have been driven by litigation for so long
it appears to be impossible for them to think outside the
litigation box. After 30 years of disagreement and failed
attempts, it is clear to us that the states are not prepared to
enter into and/or are not seriously considering entering into
meaningful compact negotiations.
Working in the collaborative dimension offers opportunity
for forward movement and resolution, but it is apparent that
the playing field must be leveled by Congress to induce the
states to negotiate in good faith and create the possibility
that negotiations or compact discussions could be productive in
achieving the equitable sharing of water.
The most important aspect of the freshwater flows language
is it restored the rights of Floridians to water that their
very survival depends on. Our future lies in Representative
Southerland overcoming the politics and including the
freshwater flows language in the House WRDA bill and in our
entire Florida delegation working to ensure its passage into
law.
Our community cannot wait for yet another WRDA, another
Water Control Manual, or another lawsuit. We desperately need
Congress to take this action now, not after our fisheries,
economy, and way of life are destroyed, like the once-vital
estuaries of the Chesapeake, the Delaware, San Francisco, and
Florida bays, and so many others before us. Time is of the
essence. Please, Senators, save this last great bay and its
people.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonsmeire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Tonsmeire, Executive Director and
Riverkeeper, Apalachicola Riverkeeper
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Effects of Water
Flows on Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long Term Perspectives. I would
also like to thank Senators Nelson and Rubio for holding this vitally
important field hearing. Apalachicola Riverkeeper greatly appreciates
the opportunity to offer our views on the importance of freshwater
flows to the health of the Apalachicola River and Bay and the
importance of Congress enacting legislation to require the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to manage the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint (ACF) river system to ensure that the river and bay receive the
freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and reestablish a
thriving ecosystem, healthy populations of fish and wildlife, and a
vibrant resource-based economy.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper is a 501c3 non-profit organization founded
in 1998. Our mission is to provide stewardship and advocacy for the
protection of the Apalachicola River and Bay, its tributaries and
watersheds, in order to improve and maintain its environmental
integrity, and to preserve the natural, scenic, recreational, and
commercial fishing character of these waterways. Thousands of people
including oyster harvesters, seafood workers, shrimpers, crabbers, and
other commercial fishers of the region and state depend upon the health
of the Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay and the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico for their livelihoods.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper calls on Congress to act now to prevent
the demise of the Apalachicola River and Bay and to prevent the loss of
the incredibly important role that this system plays in maintaining a
thriving Eastern Gulf of Mexico, regional seafood and tourism
industries that are essential for our local, regional, and statewide
economy. To do this we urge Congress to act now to require the Corps to
manage the ACF projects to ensure that the river, floodplain, and bay
receive the freshwater flows needed to sustain a healthy functioning
natural system and fisheries that are key to a vibrant economy. The
Water Resources Development Act currently being considered by Congress
and Water Control Manual update by the Corps of Engineers offer a rare
and critically important opportunity for enacting such language. We
strongly urge you to ensure that the freshwater flows provision
discussed in this testimony is included in any final Water Resources
Development Act that becomes law.
Significance of Apalachicola Bay
Apalachicola Bay is one of the most productive estuaries in the
Northern Hemisphere. Historically it has supported oysters, shrimp,
crabs, grouper, snapper, redfish, and multitudes of baitfish escaping
to the Gulf. It is home to one of the last of Florida's renowned
commercial fishing communities which cannot be replicated. It is
nourished by flows from the Apalachicola River and Floodplain, which
have the highest documented biological diversity of any river system in
North America. It provides 35 percent of the freshwater flow to the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico and is one of the primary drivers of
productivity of the fisheries in the Eastern Gulf. Dr. Felicia Coleman
of the FSU Marine Lab has clearly drawn the linkages of fisheries
productivity in the Eastern Gulf to flows from the ACF Basin in the
context of a Green River flowing over 250 miles out into the Gulf from
Apalachicola Bay. Her findings were based in part on the research
contained in the report: Morey, S.L., Dukhovskoy, D.S., and M.A.
Bourassa. ``Connectivity of the Apalachicola River flow variability and
the physical and bio-optical oceanic properties of the northern West
Florida Shelf.'' Continental Shelf Research 29 (2009) 1264-1275. The
point is driven home further in the attached letter from Representative
Kathy Castor to the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
The attached analysis of the 2011 NOAA report: (http://
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/feus/2011/FEUS%202011-
Revised.pdf) finds that the Commercial and Recreational ``Wild Caught''
Fisheries to West Florida create $5.6 billion in sales revenues and
support 55,000 jobs.
Because of these characteristics and high value, the Bay has
international, national, and state designations that are intended to
highlight and protect its unique and special place in our Nation and
state. These designations include:
United Nations UNESCO Man in the Biosphere Reserve
National Estuarine Research Reserve
Outstanding National and Florida Water
State Aquatic Preserve
Highest Priority Water on NWFWMD Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Program
Class II Shellfish Harvesting Area
The collapse of the Bay last summer heralds the beginning of the
end of this Last Great Bay and National Treasure. The scientific
reports concluded that the primary cause of the problems is a result of
lack of freshwater flows.
WRDA Language
Over the past 30 years as litigation and state negotiations have
gone on and on, an entire generation of fishermen have seen their
livelihoods dwindle to unsustainable levels. Their nets and tongs come
up with less and less than the hauls pulled in by their fathers'
families and grandfathers' families before them. At the same time,
upstream users have reaped the benefits of the waters of ACF system. As
the devastating impacts to the Floodplain and Bay have grown, so have
our calls for help to stop the steady loss of freshwater flows to the
largest and most abundant river and bay in Florida. Time is not on our
side and the increasing loss of flows to our River and Bay must be
reversed.
During development of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2007, Senator Nelson and Congressman Alan Boyd attempted to address the
lack of attention the Corps of Engineers paid to our River and Bay. I
have 15 letters Senator Nelson and Representative Boyd sent regarding
the ACF issue. During his first election campaign, now-President Obama
said ``Rather than continue to waste time and money on further
litigation, it was time for national leadership on this issue so we
resolve it fairly once and for all.'' Despite these efforts, the Corps
has not changed its management to recognize the needs of our River and
Bay.
WRDA 2007 did not include language that addressed Florida's needs.
Shortly after passage of WRDA 2007, Apalachicola Riverkeeper, National
Wildlife Federation, and Florida Wildlife Federation again reached out
to Senator Nelson for help in restoring Florida's right to water, a
right that had been lost when Congress gave the Corps of Engineers
authority to manage the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint system to
benefit upstream states at the expense of Floridians.
In response, Senator Nelson developed legislation that would
require the Corps to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
projects in a manner that ensures the maintenance of freshwater flows
needed to support and reestablish thriving and resilient fisheries in
the Apalachicola River and Bay, and to support and sustain a vibrant
economy. The language would ensure that Floridians receive the water we
need to sustain our economy, our way of life, and our natural
resources. The Freshwater Flows legislation is strongly supported by
the Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Seafood Management Assistance Resource
and Recovery Team (SMARRT) (see attached letters), National Wildlife
Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and many others.
Senator Nelson then introduced this Freshwater Flows language as an
amendment in Committee to S.601, the Water Resources Development Act of
2013. A copy of this amendment is attached. Apalachicola Riverkeeper
and many others in the conservation and fishing community are deeply
grateful to Senator Nelson for developing and filing this critical
amendment.
That amendment was carefully crafted to ensure that it does not
constitute an earmark. As a technical matter, the Freshwater Flows
language is not an earmark because it: (1) does not increase the
budgetary impact of managing the ACF; (2) does not authorize funding
for a new activity; (3) does not require the Corps to carry out an
activity that it is not already required to do (e.g. undertake a new
study, construct a new project, construct a new project element); and
(4) is justifiable as a technical modification to an existing
authorization. The Freshwater Flows language is also not an earmark
because it reaches across state lines and will produce tremendous
regional and national economic benefits, including those derived from a
healthy fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The Freshwater Flows provision
will also save millions of dollars that would otherwise go to
litigation and will initiate a collaborative process with stakeholder
input to resolve these long standing water allocation issues.
Unfortunately, the Freshwater Flows provision was not adopted by
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in part because it
was not supported by Committee member Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
Additional language has been developed that would help address concerns
raised by Alabama, provide benefits to users in the middle and lower
Chattahoochee River, and ensure that the Corps of Engineers does not
impose an unfair burden on Alabama if the Freshwater Flows language is
enacted into law. A copy of this revised language is attached at the
end of these comments.
While Alabama offered no opposition to this revised language they
also were not willing to support it. Instead Alabama has opted to focus
on legislation that would amend the Water Supply Act in an effort to
stop the Corps from giving favorable treatment to Georgia. That
legislation would amend the Water Supply Act to require congressional
approval before the Corps grants additional allocations to Georgia for
water supply from Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier. While the proposed
changes to the Water Supply Act might provide some degree of protection
to Alabama, the proposed changes do little, if anything, to help
Florida. The proposed changes would not change the status quo--which is
starving Florida of the water it needs--and would not require the Corps
to send more water to Florida.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper has also reached out to other key
stakeholders including Alabama and Georgia Power Companies. Neither has
officially responded but discussions indicated that they would not
likely oppose the Freshwater Flows language because the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license they operate under does not
provide them license to determine the equity of downstream user needs.
Their concerns would address how the releases from Lake Lanier might be
changed to impact the arrival of flows at their facility to meet peak
power demands as the timing of flows is critical to their operations.
Impacts to Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay
Dr. Robert Livingston (Livingston, R.L. 2008. ``Importance of River
Flow to the Apalachicola River-Bay System.'') and others have related
the importance of Freshwater Flows to Apalachicola Bay. Greg Munson,
the Deputy Director of Water Policy in Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection, recently testified to Congress about the
vital importance of freshwater flows to the Apalachicola River and Bay:
``The River and Bay ecosystem, and thus, the men and women of
this region, are entirely dependent on timely freshwater flows
to remain healthy and productive. The Apalachicola River is the
main source of freshwater inflow to the Bay. That freshwater
inflow regulates salinity in the Bay in a way that maintains
the biological integrity of sensitive oyster habitats. Equally
important is the fact that the Apalachicola River discharges
nutrient-rich water into the Bay, which provides the building
blocks of the Bay's food chain. In these ways, the River is the
lifeblood of this extraordinarily productive estuarine system,
which sustains oyster harvesting, shrimping, crabbing, and
fishing. Therefore, the productivity of the Bay is strongly
influenced by the amount, timing, and duration of the
freshwater inflow from the Apalachicola River. It is important
to restore historic flow patterns. Otherwise, the ecosystem
and, indeed, the very way of life for generations of Floridians
will be devastated.
Unfortunately, Florida cannot control the volume of water
entering the State. Its destiny is subject to upstream
influences that are working to undermine the foundation of the
region. The amount of water flowing in the River and ultimately
to Apalachicola Bay is a function of Georgia's consumption on
the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Corps reservoir
operations on the Chattahoochee. Since the 1970s, Georgia
consumption has grown substantially on both systems and the
Corps implemented its ``Draft'' Water Control Plan to
prioritize municipal and industrial water supply operations
elevating them above all other uses in 1989.
As a consequence, Apalachicola River flows have been lower and
low flows have occurred more frequently and for longer
durations than at any time in recorded history. The problem has
been most acute in the last 10 years, and is creating long-
lasting impacts to the River and Bay. In 2012, Florida
experienced widespread damage to its oyster resource resulting
from two years of prolonged low-flow conditions. Indeed, last
year set a record for the least amount of water delivered to
the Bay since records were started in 1923, although this was
not the year with the least rainfall. The corresponding
reduction in freshwater inflow elevated salinity levels in the
Bay well beyond tolerable thresholds, and the continued lack of
inflow precluded any opportunity to mitigate salinity levels.
It is well documented that elevated salinity leads to increased
incidence of oyster mortality through disease and predation.
State agencies and local fisherman have documented a severe
decline in the oyster harvests. Drastic declines in all age
classifications of oysters suggest that a collapse of the
fishery has occurred. In the latest state agency reports, the
oyster production estimates on commercially important oyster
reefs are the lowest estimates in the past 20 years. The data
suggests that many of the stocks are not sufficiently abundant
to support commercial harvesting, devastating the livelihoods
of the men and women who make their living directly harvesting
oysters or processing oysters on Florida's Gulf Coast.
It is clear that the Apalachicola River needs more flow to help
recover from the devastating oyster mortality in the Bay that
occurred in 2012, as well as the previous massive die-offs of
endangered mussels, decline in fisheries, and drying of the
floodplain forest that has occurred in recent years.''
(July 22, 2013 Testimony of Greg Munson, Deputy Secretary of
Florida Department of Environmental Protection on ``Oversight of Army
Corps of Engineers Water Management in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint River (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River
Systems'' before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.)
During the past 30 years Florida has suffered from a 30 to 40
percent decline in Spring and Summer flows during dry and drought
times. At the most critical time of year for reproduction and
productivity of the Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay, the Corps'
management and needs of upstream users are taking an especially heavy
toll on the volume and timing of flows to the Apalachicola. While some
of that change is due to changes in rainfall patterns, management of
flows by the Corps of Engineers is a critical factor as demonstrated by
a comparison of the comparable mid 1950s drought flows with those of
2007 and 2012. (See attached Palmer Drought Severity Index figures for
Drought comparisons). Flows during the most recent drought were over 30
percent less than the severe drought of 1950s and only 1/3 that of the
average flow for the entire period of record. See flows based on USGS
records below.
1922-2012 Annual Average Flow 21,400 CFS
1955 Annual Average Flow 11,200 CFS
2007 Annual Average Flow 9,700 CFS
2012 Annual Average Flow 7,600 CFS
Corps Operations and Management
Except for providing a 5,000 CFS minimum flow level, the Corps now
holds reservoir levels high without consideration of the needs of
Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay. The Corps' interpretation of its
Congressional authorization for managing the ACF and its resistance to
even assessing the needs of Florida have contributed significantly to
the Corps' refusal to provide Florida with the water it needs.
Indeed, even after three Scoping opportunities for the current
Water Control Manual EIS--where many comments urged the Corps to
fundamentally reevaluate its operations to account for the needs of the
Apalachicola River and Bay--the Corps of Engineers continues to state
that the ongoing update will essentially validate the current operating
plan. That plan, the Revised Interim Operations Plan, does not include
any consideration of flows needed to sustain the Apalachicola River
Floodplain and Bay. The plan's sole objective for maintaining fish and
wildlife populations is tied to the minimal flows needed to satisfy the
Federal Endangered Species Act. The plan does this by establishing
minimal flow target releases to the Apalachicola from Jim Woodruff Dam
needed to keep the three federally listed mussels and the federally
listed Gulf sturgeon alive.
Some of the Corps' top leaders, including General Schroedel, Major
General Semonite, and Colonels Keyser, Jorns and Roemhildt have
expressed concerns about the management of the ACF projects and the
need to consider Apalachicola needs. At a 2009 meeting of the National
Academy of Sciences, General Schroedel stated that the ACF Basin was
already over-allocated and that there was not enough water in the ACF
Basin to meet all demands. Despite their individual recognitions of the
problems we face on the Apalachicola, Florida's needs remain
unaddressed.
Apalachicola Riverkeeper, SMARRT, and many in the conservation
community see only one way to change this dynamic: Congress must
require--in very specific terms--that the Corps of Engineers manage the
ACF projects to ensure that Florida receives the water it so
desperately needs. The Freshwater Flows provision developed by Senator
Nelson would provide this clear direction and ensure that the best
available science is used to determine the amount, timing, and duration
of the needed flows.
States' Rights and Approaches
All three states have been driven by litigation for so long it
appears to be impossible for them to think outside the ``litigation
box''. During the recent Senate Committee Hearing on ACF that Senator
Sessions held, the ``ifs and buts'' given by the 3 states made clear
that an interstate water compact will not be reached in time to save
the Apalachicola Bay and the jobs that depend on it. After 30 years of
disagreement, and the failed attempts of the late 1990s and early
2000s, it is clear to us that the states are not prepared to enter
into--and are not seriously considering entering into--meaningful
compact negotiations. Even if the states were so inclined, each state
uses different data, different models, and their technical advisors
provide their policy makers with different answers as to what impacts
will result from different management practices and flow regimes. There
is no wonder they cannot reach an agreement on sharing water.
Working in a collaborative dimension offers opportunity for forward
movement and resolution, but it is apparent that the playing field must
be leveled by Congress to induce the States to negotiate in good faith.
With this legislation, that level playing field will be created and the
possibility that negotiations or compact discussions could be
productive in achieving equitable sharing of water.
Georgia has long claimed that it is not the cause of the low flow
problems facing Apalachicola River and Bay. During the recent drought
Georgia's Governor Deal declined to institute more aggressive water
conservation measures, telling Florida's Governor Scott that Georgia
had a mandate from the Courts to meet his water needs. Furthermore,
increases in consumptive water use for agricultural irrigation have
been significantly increased in recent years despite drawdown of the
Floridian aquifer.
While we strongly dispute Georgia's position and believe that
stronger conservation measures in Georgia would benefit all three
states, it is clear that the allocations for water supply from Lake
Lanier are just one part of the problem facing Florida. There are many
other activities that are driving the low flows reaching the
Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay. For example, on a hot summer day
the net evaporation from the 5 Federal Reservoirs in the ACF system
exceeds the water use by Atlanta and agricultural irrigation is as much
as 2-3 times municipal and industrial use.
The diagram below, prepared by the State of Florida using data
being used by the Corps of Engineers, shows the impact on river flows
from all uses in the ACF basin. As this diagram makes clear, addressing
water supply allocations from Lake Lanier is just one part of the
solution. We need a management perspective that will consider
operations of all reservoirs, and water uses in the ACF basin.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As discussed above, Alabama is currently focused on legislative
language that will not address this full suite of activities, and will
not address Florida's needs.
For years, Florida's focus has been on litigation surrounding water
supply withdrawals from Lake Lanier which likewise will not address the
full suite of activities affecting low flow levels in the Apalachicola
River and Bay. The litigation has cost millions of dollars of Florida
funds and appears to have prevented the state from taking additional
steps forward in resolving the water crisis that is devastating
Apalachicola River Floodplain and Bay. Even while we know the Georgia
agricultural use is having impacts, our own Northwest Florida Water
Management District continues to issue agricultural irrigation well
permits in the Apalachicola Basin, albeit small compared to Georgia's
use.
While our Governor has made significant gestures to help the
community and focus attention on the Bay's collapse, stakeholders have
not been included in strategy decisions and our recommendations and
advice have not been heeded. The six counties along the Apalachicola
portion of the basin have formed the Riparian County Stakeholder
Coalition to work together to help resolve the issue with our upstream
neighbors to undertake a River and Bay Assessment to better understand
the needs of the Floodplain and Bay.
Conclusion
The most important aspect of the Freshwater Flows language is that
it restores the rights of Floridians to water that their very survival
depends on, not just water from Lake Lanier, but from all portions of
the basin from the top to the bottom.
It is our understanding that current draft language in the House
version of WRDA does not include the Freshwater Flows language. Without
this language our citizens will be off work as you now see them here
today, not to attend a Hearing, but due to a lack of jobs and business,
due to a lack of fresh seafood, and the permanent loss of our position
as seafood port renowned as a distributor of the best oysters and
seafood worldwide.
Our future lies in Representative Southerland overcoming the
politics and including the Freshwater Flows language in the House WRDA
bill; and in our entire Florida delegation working to ensure its
passage into law. Our community cannot wait for yet another WRDA,
another Water Control Manual, or another lawsuit. We desperately need
Congress to take this action now, not after our fisheries, economy and
way of life that are destroyed like the Chesapeake, Delaware, San
Francisco, Florida Bays and so many others before us. Time is of the
Essence.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Tonsmeire.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. Mr. Hartsfield?
STATEMENT OF SHANNON HARTSFIELD, PRESIDENT,
FRANKLIN COUNTY SEAFOOD WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
AND FOUNDING MEMBER, SMARRT
Mr. Hartsfield. We have always faced hurricanes, tropical
storms, too much freshwater, always too much freshwater. We
have never faced lack of freshwater. Since 2000, we have
dwindled down, and our bay has suffered greatly.
We have jumped on every bandwagon there is to try to get
some kind of hope of freshwater. And after hearing everything I
have heard and going to all these meetings I go to, I just
don't see any hope in the near future. We don't have a near
future in the seafood industry. We are facing this today. We
don't have 6 more months, another year to go. We do not have
that. This is not going to sustain itself.
And we need to find a way to get traffic back up that river
where the Corps has to recognize it and give us back
freshwater. There is no other way around it without getting
that traffic, commercial traffic, back up to that river. We
need to open that river back up and get us some flow down here.
That is the only way. There are opportunities coming. We see it
coming. We just got to figure out how to support it and get it
on through.
And this is the first time ever out of all this disaster
that Franklin County has experienced, and the commercial
industry, that we have had any recognition, and we appreciate
it greatly. And that said, this is the first time ever that we
had any help coming in, that we have ever seen it. And it is a
learning process, and it is appreciated greatly.
But with that said, we still have to have something to
sustain. There is a lot of stuff being put forth that is out
there that needs support. I know you all know the DEO is the
next one. This last grant we have had, this grant we got from
the disaster, was greatly needed, but that is just a drop in
the hat compared of restoring this bay and keeping this small
town survive.
You know, I mean, there are guys that try not to use the
help, because we have never had it before, never, ever. And
they see that they got to have it to stay here and survive.
Without it, it is disastrous.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartsfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shannon Hartsfield, President, Franklin County
Seafood Workers Association, and Founding Member, SMARRT
``The legal history of the water flows into Apalachicola Bay''
As a commercial fisherman who has over 30 years of experience on
Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf region, I have worked in every sector of
the industry except for the recent clamming aquaculture leases in
Alligator Harbor. In 2011 I started to rebuild the Franklin County
Seafood Workers Association as the newly elected President. With that I
became the representative for the organization on the Apalachicola
Chattahoochee Flint Stakeholders, where I learned how the Corp of
Engineers allocates how much water is released below the Jim Woodruff
Dam. In 2000, we began to notice the impacts of lower flows. Since then
in 2007, we felt the first significant effects of the lack of
freshwater and the abundance of predators in the bay. Prior to the last
drought, the Corp reduced the freshwater flows resulting in the
collapse of the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay.
``The impacts these flows have had on the surrounding community and
ecosystems''
The impact on the community from the failure of the seafood
industry is the economic loss caused by the loss of income from seafood
harvesters which has a ripple effect throughout the community. The lack
of available jobs in our county leaves no safety net for those who once
made their living solely on the bay. The impact of the $1.4 million
dollars pumped into the economy from the NEG shelling grant created new
as well as sustained many existing jobs. With 1,800 saltwater product
licenses in a county with 11,000 people it is not hard to do the math.
Sixteen percent of our population has directly felt the negative
financial impact of the fisheries failure. Add to that our dealers, our
restaurants, grocery stores, and others that have experienced reduced
sales due to the lack of income of those who rely on the bay for a
living and you can see the problem probably impacts one third of our
community members. Reduction of water flows has magnified the lack of
product from Apalachicola Bay, reducing personal income and eliminating
re-investment in the industry. Currently, people have had to leave
their homes to find work, they have had to accept outside help to
survive and many have had to find any way they can to make a living.
The ecosystem has suffered because the bay has a higher salinity
rate, which increases the devastation caused by predators. Also with
higher salinity, oyster growth is stunted. The natural flow of the
river, with the proper fluctuation brings the nutrients that are needed
for the bay to function. The reduced flows have kept the nutrients from
reaching the bay where they are needed. We understand that this
reduction in flow of the river has also affected the tupelo forest in
Wewahitchka, greatly depressing the honey industry there.
``Thoughts on the State and Federal efforts to address the impacts of
those flows''
I do not see any results from the political or legal processes that
we have experienced. I would ask leaders to compromise on the wording
required to get legislation passed and support minimum flows that will
allow the bay to survive. In the process I think we are actually
receiving less water over the last 13 years.
As a response to the oyster crisis that began in September, we are
pleased with the support that the Gulf Coast Workforce Board has given
with the state and Federal funding. The seafood industry appreciates
the grants that have funded bay restoration (putting shell back in the
bay to provide the foundation for new spat) and the employment of the
displaced seafood workers.
``Any short-and long-term solutions local, state and Federal lawmakers
should consider to balance water management priorities
appropriately''
Support the efforts of the ACF Stakeholders as they work to find
solutions to the equitable sharing of water resources in the basin.
Pass legislation which fairly distributes water along the ACF
system.
It seems that our government gives a lot of support to our farmers
and those who provide food for Americans. We would like to have that
same level of support for our seafood harvesting industry. We know that
American seafood is far safer to eat than those being imported from
other countries. We hope that you will protect it.
Prepared on this day, 9th day of August, 2013 as my sworn testimony
and respectfully submitted,
Shannon Hartsfield,
President,
Franklin County Seafood Workers Association,
Founding Member,
SMARRT.
Also, I represent the seafood industry on ACF Stakeholders
Mr. Hartsfield. And if I could take this opportunity,
because Ricky is a good--he is a real good guy, been here all
of his life. I am fourth generation; he is fourth generation. I
want to give this opportunity for him to have my last few
minutes, if it is all right with you.
Senator Nelson. Certainly.
Mr. Banks?
STATEMENT OF RICKY BANKS, VICE PRESIDENT, FRANKLIN COUNTY
SEAFOOD WORKERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Banks. I would just like to start out by saying my
grandfather was an oysterman, my great-grandfather was an
oysterman, my dad was, I am, and my sons have done it with me.
What we have here is a system that is being run by man that
was created by God. At one time, there wasn't anything wrong
with it. But when man steps in, he has a way of messing things
up, as we can all see.
Well, we, the seafood workers, have worked together with
our local county commissioners, our fish and wildlife, our
Division of Aquaculture to keep our estuary pristine and nice,
not only thriving but also beautiful, only to see that it is
being destroyed by a lack of flow.
We have done our part down here. We can't do anything else.
Somebody has to step up and do something for us. We are used to
doing it on our own, but we have come to something we have no
control over.
What people need to realize, Atlanta you just said has how
much in Lake Lanier? They hold 60 percent of the water. Well, I
would almost bet you there are kids being born in Atlanta
today. How much are they going to need tomorrow? When is it
enough? I mean, when is Atlanta going to--I mean, they are
going to keep having babies, they are going to keep needing
more and more water.
But we need our share, you know. You have an ecosystem that
thrives on it. It is the vein, it is like an artery to this
bay. And when you cut the flow off, it dies. And if it dies,
you have a community here that this is all we know.
I, right now, I am doing another job. I went in this
morning and told them I am leaving. You know why? Because it is
not what I love. I love this area, and my family is raised up
on it.
And this bay is going to come back someway. We are not
giving up. We thank you for your help, but this Army Corps of
Engineers got to come up with something.
[Applause.]
Mr. Banks. They are in control. They can sit here and skate
around the questions all day long, but they are in control of
the situation. And they can go back to their office today and
draw up something to say, hey, we are going to give it to them,
you know?
Let Atlanta stop watering their grass a little bit. Don't
give their dog a five-gallon bucket of water that he going to
set there and let mosquitoes nest in; give him a little bowl,
you know. Let them conserve a little bit and let us have our
fair share instead of what they don't want.
You know when we are going to get our water? When it is
running down their streets and they don't want no more, they
will open that dam up and kill our bay again.
Thank you, sir.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Banks.
Colonel and Mr. Taylor, I think you all understand now, and
we appreciate you being here so that you can understand the
passion and the historical livelihoods that have come off of
this bay.
And, Ms. Menashes, we want you to know how much we
appreciate the Secretary of Commerce issuing the disaster
declaration. But as it has been stated here very eloquently by
these two, that is just a drop in the bucket, that what we have
to do is get down the road and solve the problem.
OK, Dr. Havens.
Mr. Havens. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Tell us from IFAS's standpoint, what do you
think?
STATEMENT OF KARL E. HAVENS, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA SEA GRANT
COLLEGE PROGRAM, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
Mr. Havens. Senators Nelson and Rubio, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to talk today about the river flow and about
the ecosystem health in Apalachicola Bay and especially what
happened during the last 2 years.
The Apalachicola is a huge river. This is a bigger river,
historically, than the Colorado River out west. That is how big
this river is. It used to be the 13th largest flowing rivers in
the United States.
Now, there have been periods of low flow during droughts,
but there has never been a period as low as in the last 2
years. As one of the earlier speakers mentioned, they have been
keeping records for 89 years of river flow, and the river fell
below that historical record, so it was unprecedented.
And what happens in the bay when the river flows, then it
is really important, because that freshwater dilutes the salt
that is in the bay and it creates an environment called an
estuary, which is very good for growth of things like oysters.
Oysters thrive in an intermediate salinity that occurs in
an estuary. They grow on bars, and they grow very healthy. But
other things like crabs and conchs and sponges and oyster
drills that feed on oysters, they don't like that intermediate
salinity, so they have to stay out in the Gulf of Mexico, and
everything is good.
Now, when you reduce the river flow, you change things a
lot. The bay suddenly becomes favorable to all of those
parasites and predators and things that like to feed on
oysters. They move in from the Gulf of Mexico, and the oysters
are harmed.
At the University of Florida, we studied the response to
low river flows that happened during the last 2 years in a
project that started in September in cooperation with Florida
state agencies and the Seafood Workers Association. We looked
at all of the existing data, and there were reams of data that
have been collected over the years by the agencies, and they
worked very hard with us to put that information together to
tell a story.
And we also went out and collected our own data, again, in
cooperation with the Seafood Workers Association. We didn't
hire technicians; we had these folks take us out because they
know the bay way better than any of us do and helped us do our
sampling.
When the river flow is low, salinity increased to a level
in those years that was just like out in the Gulf of Mexico,
and predators and parasites were very abundant in the samples
that we collected. We found that the oysters were heavily
infested with boring clams, sponges, and worms, and we also
have found that there was a high rate of internal parasites in
the oysters compared to normal. Basically, what had been a
place for oysters to thrive became a place for oysters to die.
The data we examined indicated a very sudden collapse in
the oyster population. It didn't happen gradually; it happened
very quickly, and it happened in August 2012.
We have a population dynamics model of oysters that we
developed at the University of Florida to try to figure out
what caused the collapse. And our data shows very clearly that
it wasn't caused by over-harvesting and it wasn't caused by
contamination by the oil spill or dispersant. It was either
disease or it was an onset of a high density of predators or
some other natural factor where the population just basically
collapsed after it couldn't take it after 2 years of such high
salinity.
So what do we do, looking into the future? And there are a
couple things.
You know, one is that we need to have good monitoring of
the population in the bay. It is especially important right now
to know what is going on out there so that we don't have a
situation develop of over-harvesting. That didn't happen when
they were healthy, but there are not a lot of oysters left out
there right now. We need to let them recover.
Second, we know that the bay needs a restoration project.
Of all the things right now that you could do for the bay now
that the river is flowing again, there is a need for an
increased amount of substrate for oysters to grow on. We have
been working with these folks on that. On the order of about
1,000 acres of reef habitat needs to be restored.
We have done modeling on this, and what we have found is
that if nothing is done, even with normal river flows, it could
take up to 10 years for the oyster populations to recover. But
we could cut that down to 2 to 3 years by doing a large
restoration project.
So this river-flow thing is interesting, and one of the
things that has been discussed is how to operate structures.
Another is getting a handle on where people are taking water.
And I think a very important tool that needs to be put into
place is to have a basin model, like they do in south Florida,
where you can determine how much water is being taken by the
various users. And you can run scenarios, and you can look at
what would happen if you cut off the use to a certain level by
different users, and then find out what is practical to do. If
there are things that people can do that are practical and
reasonable, people could get together and find the solution, I
think, to the problem.
And in terms of the bay, let me just provide some final
comments. We do need long-term monitoring of the oyster
population in the bay. There has been really good monitoring by
the state that needs to continue. And we need to get a handle
on how fishing pressure, river flow, and the reef habitat
structure interact with each other. Because those three things
put together determine how healthy these oysters are. And going
into the future, to have it be sustainable, we need that better
understanding of that.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Havens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karl E. Havens, Director, Florida Sea Grant
College Program and Professor, School of Forest Resources and
Conservation, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences
Senators Rubio and Nelson, thank you for the opportunity to provide
information about water flow in the Apalachicola River and health of
the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem.
Let me first discuss the history of water flows into the bay.
At one time, the Apalachicola was one of the largest rivers in the
United States, with flows greater than the Colorado River. In the
river's history there have been periods of low flow, coinciding with
regional droughts. Sometimes these events have lasted for a year or
two. Most recently, in 2011 and 2012, the river basin was the driest
place in the United States. The low rainfall coincided with river flows
dropping to the lowest levels ever recorded in the 89 years of record
keeping by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Now I will discuss impacts the recent low river flow on the bay.
When river water enters into the bay, it dilutes the salt content
to a lower level than occurs in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Oysters in the bay thrive, and grow in large colonies called ``bars.''
Certain other animals, including crabs, conchs, clams, worms and
sponges--which eat or damage oysters--are kept at lower levels when
there is good river flow. When river flow is greatly reduced,
conditions in the bay become favorable to these things that eat and
parasitize oysters, and oysters are harmed.
We studied the response to low river flow in a research project
undertaken by my colleagues at the University of Florida, working with
scientists from several Florida agencies and the Seafood Workers
Association. We looked at existing data and did considerable new
sampling of oysters, other animals, and water quality in the bay.
When the river flows were low, salinities increased to levels
similar to those found in the Gulf, and both predators and parasites of
oysters were abundant. Oysters were heavily infested with boring clams,
sponges and worms and they had a high level of internal parasites. What
previously had been a place for oysters to thrive became a place for
them to die.
The data we examined indicated a sudden crash in the oyster
population in August 2012. A University of Florida oyster model
indicated that the crash was due to high mortality of juvenile oysters.
Our data analysis and modeling provided no evidence that over-
harvesting was a cause of the decline, and we found no evidence of
contamination by oil or dispersant. We don't know the proximal cause of
the sudden decline in oysters, but it is reasonable to link it to a
disease, predators or some other factor related to the long period of
low river inflow and high salinity.
How might we help oysters be more resilient to future low flow events?
First, it is critical that long-term oyster population monitoring
be done in a manner that provides guidance regarding the amount of
oysters that can be harvested in any given year. This is especially
important right now, when the population is greatly reduced and at
greater risk of over-harvesting.
Second, there is a need to restore degraded oyster reefs in the
bay. If nothing is done, our University of Florida oyster model
indicates that it could take over 10 years for recovery--yet with 1,000
acres of reef restoration, recovery time could be as short as 3 years,
assuming that fishing pressure is controlled so that those restored
reefs can develop robust oyster populations.
What is a logical path towards solving the river flow problem?
In my opinion, the first step must be getting a clear understanding
about how human uses of water contribute to the low river flow. There
is great need for a hydrologic model of the basin that includes
rainfall, evaporation, reservoir operations and all of the consumptive
uses of water by people. One of the first things that I would do is run
that model to compare two scenarios--the last two years with and
without human withdrawals of water. If there is little difference,
there may be little opportunity to ``fix'' the problem. On the other
hand, if the difference in river flow is 10 or 20 percent (or more),
there could be a solution, and the next step would be to find where the
water is being used and what kinds of conservation measures are
practical.
Finally, let me provide some comments on research and monitoring.
There is a critical need for good long-term monitoring of oyster
population size, health and levels of predators and parasites--so if a
drought happens again, we can more effectively identify the cause of an
oyster response.
There also is a need for research to guide how restoration projects
are done in the bay, so that if money is spent, it is done in a cost
effective manner and has a good outcome.
Finally, there is a need to understand how fishing pressure, river
flow and habitat quality interact to determine the sustainability of
the oyster population in Apalachicola Bay. These factors are
intertwined, and knowing how they are related is critical to
sustainably managing the resource.
Thank you.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Nelson. OK.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Dr. Havens, so just to summarize your testimony in a
sequence of how we would want ideally for things to work, you
want to get the flow back; that is obviously the most critical
element of it. Simultaneous to that, you need to begin and ramp
up these restoration projects.
Can that happen before--in essence, you can't really fully
do the restorations that you have talked about unless the flow
is happening? Or are those some of those things that you can
start to do already?
Mr. Havens. So we could start right away doing restoration
projects. In fact, these guys have been doing some of it
already.
Senator Rubio. The reason why I ask is that might be one of
the things we want to include in any sort of funding vis-a-vis
the emergency declaration.
Mr. Havens. Right. So oysters are interesting because when
they are harvested, you are taking the oysters and you are
taking the substrate that they grow on. And so----
Senator Rubio. You have to replenish.
Mr. Havens. And so the more of that substrate that is out
there when the time of year comes when larvae oysters are in
the water, the more place there is for them to settle and the
faster the population----
Senator Rubio. But that is something we could use emergency
funding for? And would that be----
Mr. Havens. Absolutely.
Senator Rubio. Yes.
Mr. Havens. That is, I think, right now the highest
priority.
Senator Rubio. And then so, when it comes to the flow, are
human withdrawals the only thing that are impacting the
ecology? I mean, are there other factors other than this flow
issue that we should be concerned about as well?
Mr. Havens. So on the flow issue--so I am not a
hydrologist, so then we are getting outside of my area----
Senator Rubio. Neither am I.
Mr. Havens.--of expertise. And so I can't sit here and say
I know what part of that low flow is due to climate change
versus human withdrawals.
Senator Rubio. No, no. Is the flow the only issue impacting
the ecology? Are there other issues, other than the flow, that
are impacting the ecology of the estuary?
Mr. Havens. The two big things seem to be flow and the
substrate quality. There are areas of reef that have been
decimated by tropical storms. There are areas where you guys go
out and the bottom is flat where there used to be a reef, and
no larvae are going to settle there no matter how many are in
the water. Those are the two big issues right now.
Senator Rubio. Hence the restoration stuff we just talked
about.
Mr. Havens. Right. And then, you know, when you restore a
reef, giving enough time for it to become healthy again before
you start harvesting oysters off it.
Senator Rubio. OK.
You talked about models for a second. Do you have models or
are there models that exist that could document what the water
flows were with and without the human withdrawals that you
discussed?
Mr. Havens. I don't know, but that is a very logical
starting point, right? You would have a model of the basin, and
you would say what was it really like and what would it have
been like----
Senator Rubio. You could go back 50 years and see what it
looked----
Mr. Havens. Yes.
Senator Rubio. Do we have models that show where----
Mr. Havens. I am not aware that a model like I described
exists.
Senator Rubio. OK.
Mr. Havens. But it could.
Senator Rubio. You were shaking your head ``yes,'' Mr.
Tonsmeire. Are you saying you can do that, or do you have that?
Mr. Tonsmeire. Yes, sir. Actually, the Corps has a model, I
think it is called the ResSim model. And there is also a group
of stakeholders in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin
that have also put together a similar approach to look at where
is all the water going, what are the flows that will remain in
the system based on changes in operations or changes in use in
the basin. So, yes, sir, they do exist.
Senator Rubio. And then for Mr. Hartsfield and Mr. Banks,
we have heard a lot about the technical aspects of it, the
water flow, the ecology, estuary, all these sorts of things.
But what is really helpful to us is the human side of this, the
people side of it. You know, statistics are important and we
got to look at them, but what really compels people to action,
particularly our colleagues that aren't from here, is the human
side of it. So I think you are part of a broader narrative in
this country.
You know, we are a nation that has never envied the people
who have made it. We look at people who have made a lot of
money and we congratulate them and we look at them as a source
of inspiration, ``Maybe one day we can do that.'' But they can
generally take care of themselves.
We obviously will always have had people that are
struggling in this country, and, you know, we feel bad for
that, and that is why we have a safety net program, not as a
way of life, but to help people to get back on their feet.
What seems increasingly to be lost in America is everybody
else. You know, the hardworking people that, you know, take on
a second job because they don't want to depend on anybody or on
the government, people who have always paid their mortgage on
time even if it has been a struggle, people who have done
everything they can to give their kids a better life, what we
have always known as the great American middle class, which I
think your industry is so representative of.
And I just wanted to hear a little bit more about the
stories of the people. Because a lot of the things that are
hurting our middle class across our country, in addition to
some government policies, is the change in the nature of our
economy, the globalism, and all these sorts of things. But
this, what is happening here, is very specific to a concrete
manmade action, to something that people and governments have
allowed to happen that is directly impacting people and which
we know the answer for.
I want some of the human stories behind this of the people
who have done this for a living for years. This is how they
have raised their family. It is not just a cultural tradition,
it is not just a family tradition, it is their livelihood,
which they take pride in. You get paid to do something that you
love. With this, you don't just help raise your families but
you help build the community.
What is happening now? I mean, are people leaving? What
does it look like for people in the real world? What are they
doing? I mean, how are they dealing with this, and how much
longer can they hold on? Because I really think on the record
our colleagues need to hear those stories.
Mr. Hartsfield. Well, just to give you an idea, since just
deciding to participate in the shelling program we have been
doing, we had 239, I think, at the last number, and out of that
we have lost, like, the number is right around 60 that has
actually moved away to find work elsewhere.
Senator Rubio. Two hundred and thirty-nine participants----
Mr. Hartsfield. Participants, correct.
Senator Rubio.--of which 60 have already left.
Mr. Hartsfield. And around about 60 has left.
Senator Rubio. Left the industry or left the county?
Mr. Hartsfield. They come back to the county as much as
they can, but they have gone elsewhere to work. And then they
are doing shutdowns, they are doing millwork----
Senator Rubio. Whatever they can find.
Mr. Hartsfield.--whatever they can find, you know,
elsewhere. And I don't know what all those jobs are. But, I
mean, I know that some are going to Louisiana, Texas, all over
the county--I mean states, finding other jobs to do for a short
period of time, where they can come back.
Senator Nelson. Is that just since last August that 60 have
left?
Mr. Hartsfield. Yes, sir. That is just the numbers that we
have participating in our program. You know, there are lot of
guys that are still diehard that are struggling to try to make
it. And they are not making it, you know. And you are looking
at just the oystermen, but it filters on down. You know, you
got----
Senator Rubio. Yes, I am sorry, that was my next question,
so I am glad you are touching on it. So we start at the
oystermen. Can you describe what that chain looks like all the
way down the line?
Mr. Hartsfield. Well, you got your catchers, you got your
wholesalers, I mean your processors. And then from there you
got your truck drivers, you got your shuckers, you got half-
shell bars, restaurants. I mean, it goes on, you know. It goes
from the state of Florida up to Georgia, all the way to New
York City. You know, our oysters go everywhere, you know. And
it puts a struggle all the way down that chain.
So, you know, it is hard to explain something without, you
know, being out there in the reality of it. You know, that is
like with our shelling program. DACS, the Division of
Aquaculture, has been doing a program for over 20 years of
shelling this bay. We, as seafood workers, always tried to get
them to come to our natural bottom and to shell, but their
barges was too big. They could not get on top of our natural
bottoms. So they just went somewhere and decided they were
going to make a new bar. Never happened. Twenty years of it.
Maybe one or two areas actually, in 20 years, that we caught
oysters off of.
You know, we are after putting shells back on our natural
bottom to restore those. There are historical bars; they will
come back. They have always come back. Tropical storms have
destroyed them; they have come back.
This process will speed that process up, you know. And I
know that there is a lot of stuff now going into aquaculture.
We are not against aquaculture. It is just that we have done
that, we have been there. It is not going to work. But we know
a hatchery would work here. I mean, the struggles we are having
right now with a hatchery, to speed that process up would be,
you know, great. And that is just finding the money to do it.
But it would help us a lot.
Mr. Banks. I can give you an example of people leaving. My
brother is gone. Right now he is in Arkansas today doing a job.
He has oystered his whole life up until 2 months ago. My
brother, my brother-in-law, both of them are together. My uncle
is out there with them.
And not only do people not understand that it is our
livelihood, but it is breaking our families up. You know, we
are a tight-knit community. You want to walk outside of this
door, everywhere I go everybody knows me, you know. And
everybody knows everybody. And it hurts when you have family
members that has been as tied as we are that have to leave to
go make a living because somebody decided to block a waterway
up that feeds our livelihood, you know.
Man made this disaster; man can fix this disaster. Man
needs to do his job. I can tell you, nobody here can understand
it unless they crawl on that boat and they make a living doing
it.
Every day, every day, I have been doing it. I started
oystering with my dad. I was probably 5 years old sitting there
coloring. Never did I know it would turn out to be this. You
know, when I was kid doing it, it was just something to do with
my dad, you know. I didn't even realize then I was helping him.
My boys do it now to help me. I realize what it was now, you
know.
But it is a livelihood, it is a lifestyle. And it is being
destroyed because somebody wants to take more than their fair
share and somebody don't want to do their job. And they are
here with us today, and I hope they are paying attention
because they can do something. Just like he said, they can open
them waterways to traffic. If that is what it takes to get us
water down here, put some traffic in the river, you know. We
got to have some water so we can keep our bay.
And the lady here, she said I think that they could round
up $7 million. That is great. But I want the taxpayers to know
just a couple months ago we sent our president to Africa with
the sum of $110 million. But we can't save this community with
$7 million? Come on. We can send him on a vacation for $110
million, but we can't save an ecosystem in a community, a
livelihood, a lifestyle? We are allowing it to die, and
everybody is sitting back sleeping while it happens.
Thank you again.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. Mr. Hartsfield----
Mr. Banks. Sorry, I am passionate.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson.--tell me, you said that several failed
attempts were made by which department to seed the beds?
Mr. Hartsfield. The Department of Aquaculture, what we call
DACS. They have had a program that they have done for years.
And we have even moved to what we call relaying, which is
moving oysters from one area to the next, which is out of a bad
area to a good area, because of the water conditions.
But with this little bit of money we just got, we are
finishing up on a 6-month program. We are working on--we worked
on Cat Point, which we might have touched 35 to 40 percent of
it, maybe. And we are working on East Hole right now that, by
the end of the program, we might get close to half, because it
is a smaller bar than our Cat Point bar. But our Cat Point bar
runs into--I mean, it is hard to explain our bars. They are
huge.
But we have put 7,400 cubic yards of clutch material out in
these areas. We are documenting them. They are all, you know,
these areas. So we have already started in a small point. I
mean, maybe 2 percent of our bay is getting restored right now
with this little first grant we have.
Hopefully, with more studies with the University of
Florida, they are stepping in and trying to help us learn and
do projects that make sense.
I mean, there are all kinds of projects we have seen just
since--we have been in this bay all our life. We laugh at them.
We already know that is not going to work. Just aquaculture,
farming oysters, we know it is not going to sustain a living.
There is no way in one month you are going to harvest enough
off of a leased area to sustain you for a year. There is no
way. We know that. It has already been tried, you know.
But with the right management of this bay--we have already
started. We got a SMARRT group. It is the Seafood Management
Restore--my mind has gone blank--Seafood Management Assistance
Resource and Recovery Team that has somebody in each basin of
our seafood industry--crabbers, shrimpers, oystermen, dealers,
associations--to look at these particular areas, not one person
looking at the whole entire bay. You got somebody representing
the whole ecosystem. With this committee, with the right kind
of management of this bay, we can help this bay come back
quicker.
But we are not going to help this bay do anything, back to
the same subject, without this freshwater. But we are making
the steps, this county is making the steps to make a
difference. But it is all going to be nothing without
freshwater.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Havens, tell us what is the role of
IFAS with regard to these programs that Mr. Hartsfield is
talking about. And which agency do you interface with to help
them in replenishing the beds?
Mr. Havens. Right. So mostly what we have been working on
are things that can be done within the bay, because we don't
have control over the water flow right now. But there are
things that can be done to help the oysters recover. And these
guys are on the right track, that if we establish a robust
community of oysters out there, they will be more resilient to
the next time the low-water-flow event comes and they will get
the production going back up again.
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is one of
the agencies, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission is another agency. Those are the primary two that we
have been working with. Also, the Florida DEP and the Northwest
Florida Water Management District. So there are really four
agencies that we have been working with.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Let me ask you, Mr. Tonsmeire, as the Corps starts to
update the Water Control Manual on the question of flow, can
any tools such as the Endangered Species Act, be utilized to
resolve this problem?
Mr. Tonsmeire. It will not resolve the problem in the bay
here.
And maybe this sounds odd coming from me, but I have had
the privilege of working with three colonels and two generals
over my time at Apalachicola Riverkeeper and introducing them
to Apalachicola River and Bay, and I find them to be the
highest-quality individuals and people and the best-
intentioned. But what they were saying to you today is, we are
required by law to follow the law. And that is their
interpretation, is their version of meeting the law is to
supply water for the endangered species.
What General Schroedel, two generals back, said before a
National Academies of Science testimony was, there is not
enough water to meet all the uses in the ACF system. So
individually I believe that, but, you know, as officers and
servicemen, they do not disobey the law. They follow the law.
And whoever is telling them that is the law, I will disagree
with them, but essentially they are following their orders, and
they are not going to change from that.
And I think until the Congress changes the law so it is
ultimately clear to them that they have to meet these flows
down here, they are not going to--there is not the tool in the
bag for them to do that right now.
Senator Nelson. Let me ask you about, have we had any
respected outside entity, such as the National Academies of
Science, that has gotten into this in helping with the
interpretation of the existing law?
Mr. Tonsmeire. The National Academies of Science did hold
two meetings in Washington to discuss the issue, and that is
where General Schroedel made his comments. But the
interpretation of the law has been slugged out in the courts.
And it is what it is, and the Corps has their position on it.
Senator Nelson. So, in your opinion, there is no wiggle
room for the Corps as they develop the water control policy?
Mr. Tonsmeire. If there is one thing they are, it is
consistent. And that has been their message for the 30 years I
have been working in this, is that they are not authorized to
provide flows to Apalachicola River and Bay. They have their
authorized purposes of the basin. They meet those. The
Endangered Species Act requires them to provide flows for
endangered species. That is their interpretation of fish and
wildlife authorization. And that is their story, and they have
stuck to it.
Senator Nelson. I know you are not a lawyer. Do you have
any opinion with regard to the lower court, the district court
judge's ruling that gave that flexibility?
Mr. Tonsmeire. Well, I think he was a very smart man, of
course. But the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, there are other ways to interpret what the Corps'
authority and what their responsibilities are. But for whatever
reason, they have chosen that.
I think Judge Magnuson, I think, if you are referring to,
he clearly made it evident that he felt water supply was not
one of their authorized purposes. And that has been reversed.
So I don't----
Senator Nelson. And what is it in the existing law that
they think suggests that the upstream water supply takes
primacy over the water supply for downriver users? What do you
think of that interpretation?
Mr. Tonsmeire. I think that Pete Taylor sort of answered
the question when he said, you know, we interpret the fish and
wildlife authorization as us needing to abide by the Endangered
Species Act.
Senator Nelson. Only that?
Mr. Tonsmeire. That is--is that right, Pete?
Colonel Taylor. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
Endangered Species Act are our main fish and wildlife purposes.
Mr. Tonsmeire. OK.
So if you look in the manual in how they determine what
they release to us, it is based on a biological opinion from
the Fish and Wildlife Service on what the minimum flow releases
are to provide for those endangered species--three mussels and
a sturgeon.
Senator Nelson. And that is it?
Mr. Tonsmeire. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Dr. Havens, do you have any comment?
Mr. Havens. No. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Yes, just one last question.
Mr. Tonsmeire, I understand that when we were debating the
Water Resources Development Act in the Senate, you began a
dialogue with some of the water managers in Alabama. Is that
correct?
Mr. Tonsmeire. Yes, sir.
Senator Rubio. And can you just describe the progress that
was made there or the nature of it?
Mr. Tonsmeire. Well, mostly we talked with Brian Atkins
from the--he is the director of the Alabama Water Resources
Department.
And, essentially, the state of Alabama had their track of
the best thing for them was to control the Corps' operations in
Lake Lanier, because they felt like what the Corps was doing up
there was essentially doing what we think, is they are taking
the water away that could benefit Alabama. That is both in the
ACT Basin and the ACF Basin. There are large Corps reservoirs
in the tops of both of those basins. Both of them affect
Alabama.
Their interests were best served by them getting control of
the Corps' operations to make sure that they don't provide
benefits to Georgia without considering what was going on in
Alabama. They didn't want to switch onto a different track that
would maybe divert the attention away from what they needed. So
they were not willing to support the freshwater flows language.
Other stakeholders that we spoke with understand that
Mobile Bay is actually having somewhat similar impacts from
Corps operations as Apalachicola Bay. They are just not nearly
as dramatic as what is going on here. Their white shrimp
harvest and spawning has been reduced significantly in that
bay. Their oyster harvest is significantly reduced. But they
have more oil wells over there in their bay, and we kind of
like our oysters here. So I know that they have also problems
on the rivers below some of the Corps dams in Alabama, where
the rivers have fish kills because of high DO because of low
releases.
It is not that--I don't think that I can make any
statements for them other than they were stuck on their track
and didn't want to change. I don't know that they will oppose
the language that Senator Nelson drafted. I never got a clear
statement on that.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Havens--and this will be about the
final question unless, Senator Rubio, you have some additional
ones.
But the problem is not just the holding back of the water
at Lake Lanier and that flow south, although that is the major
problem. The problem also is illustrated by that map and that
chart of all the water consumption that is being sucked out of
the ground that would otherwise flow into the basin, either
into the Flint and/or the Chattahoochee. And with that chart,
we were shown just how prolific all of that water consumption
is. That, of course, is a great agricultural area in southwest
Georgia that is running right along the Flint there and over to
the Chattahoochee.
So that is all governed by state of Georgia law, water
consumption. And yet, what it is doing is it is affecting an
adjacent state--two states. How do you think we ought to
approach that?
Mr. Havens. Well, yes, so we talk about Atlanta, but there
is a huge amount of water that is being withdrawn out of that
Flint River Basin by those agricultural operations.
Florida has addressed it through implementing ways to
conserve water with irrigation systems. I don't think it has
been done to that extent in Georgia. They don't know the
process. Because then you have to start talking with an
agricultural engineer. I mean, there may be a way to do it that
doesn't affect their crop yield, that really doesn't affect
their bottom line, and it is a win-win for everyone.
And it has been done other places. I worked in south
Florida for a long time, and it has been done in big
agriculture areas like the EAA. And there are ways to conserve
the use of water and still have a good crop yield and still
have water going to natural areas. So it isn't inconceivable
that that could be done.
Senator Nelson. The fact that recently we have seen an
enormous amount of rainfall in that part of the southeastern
United States, are we going to see any relief of the water that
is coming through the Flint coming down here into the
Apalachicola?
Mr. Havens. I think we will have to see what the weather is
like over the next couple of years and the water withdrawals to
really know. It is going to take several years of good flow
conditions for the oyster population to recover.
There are two interesting things nobody mentioned, but if
you have ever looked at the river flow history, it goes up and
down. It looks like the teeth of a saw. And in the wet season
when we get a lot of rain, it is really high. And that is
important because that pushes all of those predators and things
back out into the Gulf of Mexico.
And in the dry season, it looks lower but there are little
bumps in it, and that is important, too, because it keeps the
system in what we call disequilibrium. And last year it was a
flat line. And a flat line is really good for predators and
things because it is very predictable. And they get in there
and the conditions are just always good for them and they don't
get those little blips.
And that is probably the part that would be easiest to
influence by some flow of water down the river. Maybe you can't
simulate by adding water from reservoirs a wet season pulse,
but that dry season thing might be something that could be
influenced.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Tonsmeire, does this exceptional amount
of water consumption in the Flint Basin, does that suggest that
the state of Florida should be considering a lawsuit, how one
state's water consumption is affecting another state's economic
and environmental interests?
Mr. Tonsmeire. I believe there is the case for that,
Senator. That is probably one of the next lawsuits on the
horizon if we can't resolve this. That is a direct challenge in
the original action in the Supreme Court.
And I think there is no question that we can show the harm
that we are suffering in Florida, but it is a long, drawn-out
process, and these guys are not going to survive that. I think
if there is a way Congress can deal with it in short order, it
would be best.
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio and I want to thank all of you for coming. We
want to thank each of the panels. We want to thank the
Congressman who led off in the first panel.
The Committee record will remain open for 10 business days
for Senators to submit questions and for any member of the
public to submit testimony for the record.
And we want you to know how much we appreciate everybody
showing their interest today.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
As solicited at the conclusion of the live hearing on August 13 in
Apalachicola,
Florida, the following comments are submitted ``for the
record'', subject as above:
I am David McLain, a U.S. citizen voting in Franklin County,
Florida. I have been closely involved in the water management dispute
between Florida, Alabama, and Georgia for over 15 years in a variety of
roles, paid and, lately, as volunteer and community advocate.
First, I thank our two Florida Senators, Sen. Nelson and Sen.
Rubio, for their sponsorship and informed leadership of today's Field
Hearing of this Senate Committee. As all who were present will testify,
the meeting spaces were jammed to overflowing with concerned citizens
whose very lives and futures are dependent on subsequent actions taken
by our Federal Government. As a water management dispute of over 22
years of failed negotiation, mitigation, and litigation directly
involving three states, an equitable allocation of the freshwater flows
of the ACF Basin will not be resolved without active Federal
intervention in this interstate ``water war''.
Second, it is entirely too easy to blame the Federally recognized
catastrophic failure of the Apalachicola fishery on the volume of
freshwater flows downstream during recent drought conditions. Drought
is undeniably an unfortunate recurring event in Nature. But I must
assert as forcefully as I can--the severity and duration of any drought
are due to the actions of Man, or Man's failure to act. Significant and
mandatory restrictions on water consumption, plus aggressive repair of
water-handling infrastructure, and implementation of restrictions on
permitting of water use are critical management actions during any
drought.
Finally, I would argue it does little good to vilify the Corps of
Engineers, the farmers of the Flint Basin, or the citizens of Atlanta
while we seek a rational resolution of this shared problem. I might
even go so far as to say, we will never reach a sustainable solution
for adequate freshwater flows to a healthy and productive Apalachicola
Bay until we help Atlanta and the south Georgia stakeholders find a
mutually acceptable solution to meeting their water needs. A Basin-wide
agreement has been reached in similar circumstances--such as the
Delaware Basin Regional Authority. Shared gain or shared pain.
PS: The most ``Endangered Species'' in our Apalachicola River and
Bay is a two-legged variety . . . our 4th generation Apalachicola
Oysterman.
David McLain,
Governing Board Member,
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders.
______
The flow running down the Apalachicola River has impacted our
organization's philanthropy coming out of Franklin County, Florida. The
economic impact to businesses and individuals who support our mission
has shown a sharp decline.
Dan Samborn,
CEO,
Capital Area Chapter Red Cross.
______
There is no way that any one or two states should have the legal
right to control a river running through their state, into another
state. This is one thing I believe that should be under the Federal
Government. I am not a big fan of Federal control, but in this case,
there is no other answer. It's time that the politicians in Atlanta
give up washing their cars and watering their lawns, and do what's
right. . . .
Gary Shannon
______
Please accept this as my comment on the public hearing held August
13, 2013, in Apalachicola, Florida. I have lived here all my life (I am
now 51 years old). I have seen the shift in the balance of freshwater
and salt water in the Apalachicola Bay. The Bay is now much saltier. I
have seen the devastating impact on the Bay, the Apalachicola River,
and our economy. Please help us save the River and the Bay, and our
seafood industry. Thank you!
J. Gordon Shuler,
Esquire,
Law Office of J. Gordon Shuler, P.A.
______
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the Executive Director of the Carrabelle Area Chamber of
Commerce. I attended the hearing on August 13th in Apalachicola about
the water flow in the Apalachicola River. It is critical for the
Apalachicola Bay to get enough freshwater so that our oysters and our
marshes, where our sea life begins and is nurtured to live. We have not
received an adequate flow of freshwater for this to maintain our sea
life. Our main industry is the seafood industry and it has become a
critical situation for our people. Our seafood industry is a
generational one and if the Bay does not get the right amount of fresh
flow, then the Bay will die. This industry has a trickle down effect,
from our restaurants and all shops that depend on our tourism due to
our beautiful Bay. There is no other place in our country that has the
eco-system that we have with our Bay and Estuaries, they are priceless
and need to be protected and fed.
Please help us same our Bay and the lives that depend on it.
Thank you,
Suzanne Zimmerman,
Executive Director,
Carrabelle Area Chamber of Commerce.
______
I personally believe as a restaurant owner on SGI the oysters are
being over harvested and rules/regulations on size are not being
properly enforced. We are constantly buying oysters and paying premium
prices and getting junk. Here lately the bay has been closed several
times because of too much fresh rainwater as well as the Apalachicola
River flooding.
Mike Cannon,
The Beach Pit Restaurant, Inc.
______
Funny how all this is happening during a year of heavy
precipitation which has all the reservoirs filled to the bring along
the entire ACF basin and a recurring flood stage warning on the
Apalachicola River. I was on the courthouse steps yesterday to see the
ludicrous signage mandating that water be released from the Dams
upstream. The well intentioned but hugely misinformed persons present
at this protest don't really get the big picture at all. These are
changing times and the high cost of fuel combined with cheap foreign
imports and years of overharvesting are as much the cause of collapse
of the seafood industry as any water flow concern. The reality is that
it is unreasonable to choke off the drinking water supply to the many
millions of people upstream to save a few thousand jobs in Franklin
County. As a sixth generation resident of Apalachicola whose many years
in the ``real'' world have included military service, eight years with
the international accounting and consulting firm Ernst & Young, an
entrepreneur who grew a technology company from a spare bedroom
operation to a healthcare technology firm with gross revenue of nearly
$20 million which was purchased by Bank of America, and now retired
back in Apalachicola, I see the need for innovation and a new economic
model based on maritime heritage and educational tourism. Is this
situation so much different than the collapse of the seafood industries
in the Northeast? NO. . . Instead of wasting time and money propping
up economic models that are no longer viable, it is time bring
investment in visionary new models and help train our citizens to make
the transitions that so many others have been made. My great great
Grandfather Samuel Floyd came here in 1842 during the time that
Apalachicola was a international port made rich by the export of cotton
from plantations upstream. Through time the area has seen many
industries come and go including cypress lumber mills that dominated
the waterfront, naval stores industries that flourished by creating
many extracts from pine rosin before the advent of petroleum products,
sponge harvesting and others. Government was not here to prop up those
industries during transition. Instead entrepreneurs lead the way to
change as best they could. The statewide net ban which devastated my
grandfather's business . . . and so another way of life saw a sunset.
It is time for leadership at all levels to invest in new ideas and
economies rather than pander to the well intentioned but misinformed.
My father was the director of Information and Education for the
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission where I came to be aware of
our natural systems and wildlife. I have lived for 23 years on Lake
Lanier and now live back home in Apalachicola. That gives me another
perspective not shared by many. I have sponsored the award winning NPR
documentary at http://www.wuft.org/projects/rivers/intro.html. Upon
retirement, I founded the Apalachicola Maritime Museum www.AMMFL.org
where we are in the midst of reviving wooden boat building with a
program recognized by the Florida Department of Education where we have
been invited to present at the state conference in Orlando in October.
We are bringing commercial paddlewheel travel back to the river with
the first commercial transportation provided since 1927. We are opening
a 120 acre campus in Chattahoochee FL where the traditional riverboat
landing exists.
If every you would like to discuss this I would be enthusiastic
about the opportunity to share visions for the future.
Respectfully,
George Kirvin Floyd
______
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is starving the Apalachicola River
and Bay of the freshwater they need to survive. Congress created this
problem by giving the Army Corps a free hand to manage the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint system to benefit upstream states at
the expense of Floridians and the River, Floodplain and Bay. Only
Congress can fix this problem.
I call on Congress to act now to pass legislation requiring the
Army Corps to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system
to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the
freshwater flows needed to support, restore, and reestablish healthy
populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource conservation
based economy that relies on a healthy natural system.
Lesley Cox,
Certified Green Guide.
______
I feel this is an excellent opportunity for every community which
shares the watershed that Impacts Apalachicola Bay. There are great
examples of wetland restoration via WRP, CRP, EQUIP that should be
fully funded and additional allocations made. Also as an organic farmer
for over 30 years and an advocate for clean water I also know that
these farming, gardening and lawn care techniques sequester carbon,
filter storm drain runoff, mitigate the runoff off nitrogen fertilizers
which create Dead Zones. We know that educating and informing the
public as to their role and contribution to clean water, healthy food
and safe lawns in their communities they in turn contribute to the
health of a clean and thriving bay. This great bay should be protected
under every means possible. The health of the waters and the strength
of the economy and local culture depend upon urgent and impressive
measures.
There must also be more done to stop sewage runoff into this bay.
Under no circumstances should there be efforts to attract more tourists
to the area without first attracting and retaining those who come here
about the importance of their own stewardship. We have too many now,
local and visitors who feel entitled to behave how they so choose. This
is an opportunity to make Franklin County as well as Wakulla, Gulf and
our neighboring counties and states to the north to become the
``greenest'' in the country. Let's show the Nation that we really care
about the future and are going to pull out all the stops to make that
happen. Schools could also play a huge roll in this endeavor. This area
is so fragile and attempting to invite more people here is a huge
mistake. We need Eco warriors as our guests not consumers only.
Visitors and residents can and should become the voice for the Nation
as to how together we can create a vibrant watershed shared by many,
not just a select few that enhances the economy while making the
environment and its inhabitants the top priority.
Please take advantage of all the existing resources to adopt non
polluting, more conserving and over use of our precious water. Every
home and business should have rain catchment and mitigation plans
Implemented.
Thank you for your efforts. If there is anything I can do to help
with these efforts I would be honored to help.
God Bless America and God Bless Apalachicola Bay
Lorna Donaldson
______
Help!
We really need some freshwater down here and hope you'all can make
that happen.
It seems like a no-brainer but somehow has stumped even the most
intelligent folks.
Please help our water flow into the Apalachicola Bay as it should,
this is hurting our pristine area, the wildlife, the oysters and our
businesses.
Please, please, please do the right thing.
Thank you so much for your assistance with this crucial matter.
Dixie Partington
______
Water is life. Every plant and animal on this planet needs water to
survive. When natural conditions deprive an ecosystem of the water it
needs, that is unfortunate but understandable. When a state deprives an
ecosystem of the water it needs to survive, so that the citizens of
that state can have greener lawns and cleaner cars, that is deplorable
and avoidable. We, the citizens of Florida, are not asking Georgians to
deprive themselves of the water they need for their life, their
livelihoods, and the life of their ecosystems--We are only asking that
they not deprive Florida of its cherished ecosystems by wasting water
on the pursuit of vanity.
Thank you,
Erik C Johnson,
Bristol, Florida.
______
Dear Florida Congress,
Not only did my grandfather drive up to Apalachicola regularly to
savor fresh oysters in the 1920s and all his life, I, too, fell in love
with Gulf County when I was a graduate student at Florida State. My
husband and I vacation in Indian Pass and Port St. Joe several times
annually to enjoy this perfect place which has already been dealt a
blow by the Gulf spill. I urge you to proceed with a course of action
that will preserve both the oyster habitat and the way of life for
these people. Humans can adapt to water reallocation; oysters cannot.
That we understand what is happening here and can still do something to
reverse it is nothing short of wonderful. Please go to heroic lengths
for the sake of this beautiful Florida coastal gem.
Sincerely,
Lara Moody McGlohorn.
______
I recently visited Apalachicola as part of the Natural Resources
Leadership Institute which is focusing on water issues throughout the
State of Florida. I was incredibly moved by the close-knit community
there and how real the oyster situation is there. Residents are
struggling to survive on their long-found culture and heritage. They
have done all they can as a county to fight these water wars and they
take pride in the Bay, but they continue to suffer from actions further
north. The Bay has several recognitions all the way up to the
international level. If we cannot protect a Bay which have proven to be
a vital source of life for both people and animals, where are we to
find hope in the future? We experienced similar water wars here in
Pinellas County which led to the creation of Tampa Bay Water who helps
to control the distribution of this critical resource. I ask that you
take this situation extremely seriously and to heart and our people are
being affected right now. This is real.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue.
Lara Miller
______
To whom it may concern,
I wanted to take a moment and send an e-mail and voice my concerns
regarding the current water issue in Apalachicola Bay. I'm quite sure
that you are aware of the current situation that is taking place there.
This is a very unique ecosystem and a vital part of life for not
only mankind but nature as well. Many families, and not just those in
that particular area would be affected by the loss of the oyster
industry. The fisherman are a start but it goes deeper than that. The
truck drivers that transport the harvest, restauranteurs and many more
would suffer if there were no more oysters.
Furthermore, this estuary provides habitat for many aquatic species
as juveniles before they reach maturity and continue their life cycle
in deeper waters. Grouper, being a staple in many restaurants and food
supply chains and a sought after species in the sport fishing/tourism
arena call this area home in its early stages of life. Other fish
including mullet, which create numerous employment opportunities also
reside here. Crab and many other forms of shellfish and crustaceans
rely upon this nutrient rich area as well.
There are also benefits to be reaped during hurricane season from
having these oyster beds in Apalachicola Bay in that the structure of
the beds slows storm surge associated with these tropical systems.
If something is not done to stop the current trend and the crisis
that is taking place, it will certainly be devastating on many levels.
I urge you to take a moment to think and do what is necessary, not to
mention the right thing to do, to save this important environment.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Clinton M. Dyer
______
If minimum flow standards are not implemented by the ACOE, then it
is only a matter of time before drought conditions spur Atlanta to
hoard all the water that the river has to give. This will cause the bay
to suffer a catastrophic degradation of its estuarine capabilities.
When that happens the bay dies, the town dies, and the country loses
one of its great ecological treasures.
Edward Michaels
______
Dear Sara,
I wonder what our priorities are when we come so close to allowing
the total destruction of indeed the last great bay? I understand the
economics of the situation clearly: Atlanta wants, no demands, more
water to fuel its sprawl and like greedy children intent on having more
than our fair share, we are so myopic in our greed that we turn a blind
eye to others who have a vested interest in this resource, water. There
has got to be another way to achieve Atlanta's need to continue growing
(though I don't see that need and I live here) and the more important
endeavor (in my eyes) of ensuring sufficient water flow to the
Apalachicola basin.
Because if we continue strangling this area by not restoring the
flow to the rivers that feed it we aren't just killing the bay and all
its flora and fauna but we are murdering the lives and the livelihoods
of those who rely on this beautiful national treasure for work and
play.
I have been going to the ``Forgotten Coast'' and ``Appalach'' ever
since I was a young girl. My Daddy owned a large fishing boat we kept
at the marina there.
Nothing is better than driving in 98 from Port St Joe to
Apalachicola. A stop at Boss Oyster is a must, or the Gibson Inn, going
over the St George Island Bridge and seeing the oystermen tonging the
oysters up as they have done exactly the same way their daddy's and
granddaddy's many times removed have done. Or fishing off the dock with
my family while on vacation. We always catch something in the bay.
But continue to strangle this national treasure then all the
economic benefits from tourism, fishing, scalloping, boating, eating
fresh seafood at The HUT in Eastpoint, Florida . . . well guess what?
That will all be gone..not to come back any time soon. Can we as a
nation afford that? You may think it is just one bay, but it's
not..It's a way of life for many of us whether we live there or not.
So in this argument over water rights we as Georgians must bear in
mind that growth is good to a point but what about the greater good for
our region and our nation? Is our growth as a city more important than
ensuring that the Apalachicola area remains a healthy and vibrant part
of our Southeast USA economy? No we don't need more fake lawns to water
here in Atlanta nor another parking lot for a business office.. Our
time is now and in that time we indeed need to ``Save the Appalach!!''
With warmest regards,
Becky Lang
______
As a former resident of Georgia for over 20 years and a current
resident of Franklin County, Florida, I am well acquainted with the
water issues that have been deliberated for longer than anyone really
wants to recall. I am sure you are well aware of the issues as well.
The Atlanta population is sprawling with little effort to impose
any control and without serious effort to develop alternative water
resources. I am sure you recall that Atlanta only committed to
rebuilding its polluting sewer system in the last several years after
numerous suits from the Federal Government, preferring to continue to
dump raw sewage into the Chattahoochee River for decades and pay fines
than to take responsible steps to correct the problem. Against this
kind of environmental indifference, the problems of one of the least
populous and poorest counties in Florida stands little chance of
notice. As you are also well aware, because of its role in the
development of numerous species of water life, the fate of Apalachicola
Bay will influence communities and commerce far beyond the boundaries
of Franklin County and even the State of Florida. It would seem that in
this time of increased recognition of the importance of environmental
sensitivity, saving the Apalachicola Bay would be a national priority.
Please work to insure adequate water flow in the Flint-
Chattahoochee-Apalachicola river basin for the benefit of a way of an
industry, a way of life, and in great measure, the Gulf of Mexico.
Sincerely,
Francis and Sylvia Giknis
______
Hello,
We are concerned citizens. We love Apalachicola Bay. We love the
hardworking citizens of Franklin County.
Please don't let the bay be destroyed.
My family and I live in Deltona, Florida. We travel to Apalachicola
Bay to enjoy the fishing and gather oysters when we can.
Please help find a way to restore the flow of freshwater downstream
into the bay. The chokehold that our neighbors in Georgia have on this
valuable resource is killing the bay.
Thank you and God bless.
Robert and Betty Daniels
______
Dear Senator Gibson [sic]--please keep the water flow to this Great
Basin. Our livelihood depends on it. Also don't you love clams, shrimp
and oysters? Where will we get them from? Our other sources have
radioactivity.
Basically yours,
Kentucky Parkis
______
I'm a full-time resident of St. George Island and have owned my
home since 2000 but have been visiting SGI since the mid-1980s. There
has been significant changes in this time. I live on the water on St.
George Sound and am extremely concerned about our river, bay and
estuary systems. In addition to the problems we're experiencing with
the oysters, I have noticed a significant decline in the number of blue
crabs in the bay. There's no telling how much the lack of freshwater
has affected the shrimp, grouper, and other treasured seafood
populations.
My husband and I used to catch upwards of 70 blue crabs a week in
crab traps off our dock. These last 2 to 3 years, we're lucky to catch
2 to 3 crabs a week. Just a couple of weeks ago, we put out 3 traps for
3 days and only caught 1 crab. This appalling, concerning and not
right.
In addition to our experience with the lack of blue crabs, our
oyster industry is suffering terribly. Seeing our oystermen and women
working the bay is one of the things we treasure and attracted us to
SGI. There is no valid reason this should be put in jeopardy. Florida
has taken responsibility for actions to preserve water. It is only fair
and right that Georgia and especially, Atlanta, be required to
implement water saving measures. They have unbridled growth which is
negatively affecting others who are downstream in Georgia, Alabama and
Florida. This needs to be immediately stopped. For what reasons are
they allowed to continue this practice???!!!
Please mandate that the Corp of Engineers administratively resolve
the problem of freshwater flow from Lake Lanier by changing their
manual to resolve the water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Gail M. Riegelmayer
______
The town of Apalachicola, sitting as it does on the river and bay
from which it takes its name, is a near-miracle of preservation of
Florida as it used to be. It is often cited as a model for New Urbanist
developments such as Seaside. It's continuing existence as a healthy,
balanced community is dependent on the continuing health of the
Apalachicola River and Bay. It is ironic that the health of
Apalachicola is being sacrificed to the profit of Atlanta, itself often
cited as an example of the worst excesses of poorly conceived urbanism.
Please assure the health of the river and of the bay and preserve
Apalachicola.
Arthur Mazyck
______
Dear Senate Committee:
As a lifelong resident of Florida, it pains me to see what has been
happening to the freshwater supply for the Apalachicola River and the
economic problems that have occurred for the seafood industry and for
the hardworking people of Apalachicola and nearby communities.
I think it is important to this country that we maintain our rivers
and bays to be productive for citizens and for the economy. This bay is
essential to the lives of so many people.
Please make every effort to insure that adequate freshwater flows
into the river from Georgia and that the bay is sustained in a way that
will help the communities. The fishing economy is important not only
there, but for what it does for people all over the United States with
products that are part of the food that America eats.
We cannot afford for this natural resource to be crippled.
There must be a way to share.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Abrams
______
To whom it may concern,
It is real simple. Save Apalachicola Bay! People travel around the
world and come to this area and love it because it is a one of a kind
place. We have something unique in this area unlike anywhere else. We
have fresh and salt water habitats that are closely tied to one
another. Changing this balance and allowing the Apalachicola Bay to
``die'' will destroy not only the environment but the way of living in
this area. I ``hog'' my own oysters for my family and my children love
the experience of going out in the bay and picking our very own oysters
and taking them home. We do not have to pick our own oysters but we do
it for the experience. Everyone should be given the opportunity of
being out on a cool winter morning standing on an oyster bar and
enjoying the sights and sounds of nature. To coin a popular saying
``it's priceless.''
This last winter I went to several oyster bars and was saddened to
see little to no new growth on these bars. Actually, they looked dead.
I know this has to be devastating to the industry as a whole and will
undoubtedly change the way of life people from here expect and deserve.
We cannot control every aspect of our destiny but our way of life is
being challenged and we have had no say in this matter--that is not
right and we respectfully ask that we be allowed to take more control
of our waterways!
How many places in the world can you get a bucket of oysters, go
100 yards away, and catch a monster Black Drum--not many places.
Help restore and retain the environment we love!
Thank you,
Ron Baumgardner
______
Federal law mandates that when a river flows between two or more
states, each state has a right to an equal share of the water.
Additionally, other laws such as the Endangered Species Act require
that water be available for threatened or endangered species that live
in or around Chattahoochee River and Apalachicola Bay.
If Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers do not act to
enforce the Federal law to share equally the southern water flow from
the Chattahoochee River, which runs through three states, they possibly
will be causing the extinction of the Apalachicola Bay oyster.
The Apalachicola Bay oyster, the seafood industry, and working
families that depend on the oyster for their livelihood, indeed, are
threatened or endangered by Buford Dam's and Lake Lanier's manmade
disruption/overuse of the Chattahoochee River's southerly flow through
south Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to Apalachicola Bay. The
Apalachicola Bay oyster NEEDS the normal flow of freshwater not only to
thrive, but to survive! Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson said it right in
2007 when he stood before his state's General Assembly saying, ``The
health, safety and welfare of people are threatened. They are
threatened by an act this Congress passed that had no intention to
threaten them.''
Congress, please act to avert this disaster. The Federal ``equal
share'' law and the Endangered Species Act are there for you to
enforce. Please Save the Last Great Bay!
Thank you,
Patricia A. Vest
______
The Apalachicola Bay is one of America's greatest natural
resources. It's very survival, and that of the thriving American
communities who live there, depends on adequate water flows from the 3-
state ACF river system.
Currently, too much water use in Georgia has reduced flows to
Florida excessively. This is a difficult issue and requires careful
mediation between the 3 states, at both governmental and civil society
levels.
Congress should:
encourage and support a negotiated interstate solution.
instruct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage, with
technical input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on
behalf of all of the ecological services and values of
Apalachicola Bay.
Thank you.
Robert Buschbacher, PhD
______
Why do I think the Apalachicola river and bay is worth saving?
Because we all need to believe people can still work together to do the
right thing. It could be a story to be told for generations, of how
something so very wonderful and magical as this estuary was saved from
the brink of destruction. Please be a part of saving one of the few
last best natural places on earth.
Caroline Weiler,
citizen of Apalachicola.
______
Dear Lawmakers, Please do all you can to save the Apalachicola
River and Bay. This area is beautiful, historic, and recreational. It
also serves the tourist and seafood industry. The best oysters in the
world come from here. I've lived in this area for 45 years. Please
don't let this major source of tourism, recreation, seafood, and jobs
disappear. The locals have done their part; now please do yours.
Thanks.
Janis Courson
______
Hello:
I am appealing to Congress to take steps to save the Apalachicola
River and bay and to ensure the livelihood of thousands of people in
Franklin County. I have had the privilege of visiting the river and bay
since I was a boy. As an adult, I have kayaked the entire Apalachicola
River twice and I have taken multi-day kayaking trips along the bay
inside the barrier islands of St. Vincent, Cape St. George and St.
George, so I feel I know the system well. I have seen a steady decline
in both water levels and seafood production and fear that this system
may end up like the once mighty Chesapeake Bay unless strong action is
taken soon. The Army Corps of Engineers must be mandated to allow
enough water into the Chattahoochee/Apalachicola system to sustain a
viable oyster industry in the bay, as well as to support the many other
life forms that depend on the proper balance of fresh and salt water.
We cannot afford to wait. Please act now!
Doug Alderson
______
My wife and I owned homes on Lake Lanier in Gainesville, GA and
Dawsonville, GA over a span of 16 years, and lived in Atlanta for 27
and 33 years respectively. We have owned a home on St. George Island
since 2002, and until last year a bay front lot on St. George Island.
Atlanta, the state of Georgia, and the Corps of Engineers need to
equitably share the water from the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers with
Florida so that one of the most productive fisheries in North America,
and poorest counties in Florida, can be perpetuated for the good of
people throughout Florida and elsewhere.
Having spent most of my life in Atlanta and the Panhandle of
Florida I can assure you that from my perspective, and that of many
others, Florida is deserving of it's equitable share of freshwater
flowing into the Apalachicola Bay versus the excesses of water usage by
the state of Georgia.
Assist us in obtaining what is right and necessary to sustain our
fisheries, the citizens of Franklin County, and others.
Thanks for your consideration and assistance.
Mark Hillis
______
Senate Commerce Committee members:
I live near the Apalachicola Bay, over in next county over
(Wakulla). The Apalachicola River and Bay system is truly a unique,
beautiful, and ecologically important ecosystem, which supports a wide
variety of nature-based activities. I have personally fished and
kayaked throughout the Bay, in addition to enjoyed the many beaches,
and it is no doubt one of the best places in Florida, probably the
entire Southeast. As a former fisheries scientist for the State of
Florida, I have firsthand knowledge and experience of the true bounties
that are produced in that Bay. I have pulled many sampling nets through
its waters, and have spent many hours on fishing docks sampling fish
caught by recreational anglers and commercial fishermen. It is ironic
that many of the out of state residents that I have 'interviewed' on
the docks originate in the greater Atlanta area. And I have been in
Atlanta grocery stores where fish caught off Apalachicola are sold. The
world in not disconnected. We are all in it together. We all have to
take care off each other's backyards, not just our own. We send men and
women to Congress to help solve cross-regional problems and issues in a
bipartisan manner. We expect nothing less. We are counting on you to
help save the Apalachicola River and Bay.
The Apalachicola system is much more than just the primary species
that receives the most media attention: the oyster. While the current
fate of the oyster population and fishery is truly unfortunate, it
completely preventable and hopefully reversible. However, oysters are
but the sentinel species for the health of the Bay. But the
Apalachicola is one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems this
side of the equator. The vast array of species, plants and animals,
need ample freshwater mixing with the seawater flowing through the
system. Nutrients mixed with the freshwater from the Apalachicola River
no doubt reach offshore to the multiple and economically important
species during the right time of the year to provide sustenance for new
larvae. People and businesses in and around Apalachicola rely on many
species, too many to list in total, for their livelihoods that are
connected to the flow of the River. Some of the more economically
important species include blue crab, gag grouper, red snapper,
menhaden, mullet, spotted seatrout and redfish (red drum).
Thus, restoring and sustaining ample freshwater flow into the Bay
not only can help ensure the longevity and productivity of the oyster
fishery and population, but will provide assurance that the Bay system
at large will survive. I am sure there is some compromise or solution
that is available for the people and ecosystems at both ends of the
River. Please do all you can to SOLVE the issue as Congress was
designed by our Founders to do!
Thank you very much,
Chad Hanson
______
Dear Ms. Gibson and Mr. Houton,
I write to you as part of the public record for the Congressional
Field Hearing recently held by U.S. Senators Nelson and Rubio in
Apalachicola, FL. The dispute over the allocation of water has grown
more intensive through the years as metropolitan Atlanta, GA has
continued to increase in population and, as a consequence, has
continued to increase its consumption of water until today we are at a
point of crisis for Florida, but not for Georgia. Since the affected
states have been unable to arrive at a formula for allocating water
flows that would be equitable for all parities, this dispute is the
proper subject for resolution by Congress.
In the long run, Atlanta's consumption of a disproportionate amount
of a limited resource, such as freshwater, is simply not sustainable.
Someday, even Atlanta will need to face the limits of its resource
base and find ways of supporting growth through the decrease in the per
capita consumption of water. However, the fear is that Atlanta will not
make the necessary resource allocation decisions until it is too late
for the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem and economic base that depends on
this ecosystem.
Therefore, I urge Congress to instruct the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to establish an allocation formula that will ensure
freshwater flows to sustain Apalachicola Bay, its fisheries and the
economic base of the area. This action will have the added benefit of
forcing metro Atlanta to face up now to its finite resource base
(water). The time for action at the Federal level is now.
Thank you,
Walker Banning
______
My husband and I owned homes on Lake Lanier in Gainesville, GA and
Dawsonville, GA since 1986. We lived in Atlanta for 33 and 27 years
respectively. We have owned a home on St. George Island since 2002, and
until last year a bay front lot on St. George Island.
Atlanta, the state of Georgia, and the Corps of Engineers need to
equitably share the water from the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers with
Florida so that one of the most productive fisheries in North America,
and poorest counties in Florida, can be perpetuated for the good of
people throughout Florida and elsewhere.
I have spent my entire adult life in Atlanta and the Panhandle of
Florida. I join many others in our belief that Florida is deserving of
it's equitable share of freshwater flowing into the Apalachicola Bay
versus the excesses of water usage by the state of Georgia.
Please assist us in obtaining what is right and necessary to
sustain our fisheries, and the livelihoods of citizens of Franklin
County and others dependent on the waters that must be shared.
Thanks for your consideration and assistance.
Nancy C. Hillis
______
To whom it may concern:
Please accept my request for action regarding Apalachicola Bay. My
family vacations in the area frequently--it is truly a special place
with such history--Florida history--that should be remembered and
honored for years to come. The oyster beds are in great danger and
action is needed to save the environment, the industry and the
community. I encourage you to investigate all possibilities.
Thank you,
Emily Forrester,
Pensacola, FL.
______
Sara and Sean:
I wasn't able to attend the hearing in Apalachicola last week, but
I wanted to write and share my support for the efforts of Senator Rubio
to address the issue. The water flows of the Chattahoochee, Flint,
Apalachicola River system have been an issue for over twenty years. If
the Atlanta area had addressed its long term water needs years ago, we
would not be facing the destruction of our bay. Now, the survival of
the oyster industry and the estuary is at stake. Please convey to the
Commerce Committee my thanks for their efforts to solve the issue.
Rick
Charles Richard Watson, LLC
Century 21 Collins Realty, Inc.
______
No more Oysters ???
The water resources of our country require your utmost attention
and priority!
Prioritizing funding and implementing all measures that will insure
the recovery and return to health of Apalachicola Bay must be your most
important job!
Abusing vital water resources like the Apalachicola Bar and the
gulf of Mexico for the sake of recreational water use and misuse is
unacceptable.
Estuaries form a transition zone between river environments and
maritime environments and are subject to both marine influences, such
as tides, waves, and the influx of saline water; and riverine
influences, such as flows of freshwater and sediment. The inflows of
both sea water and freshwater provide high levels of nutrients in both
the water column and sediment, making estuaries among the most
productive natural habitats in the world.
Apalachicola Bay and Franklin county's livelihood cannot be left to
die!
Instruct the Army Corps of Engineers to establish freshwater flows
that will sustain the Bay.
Cre Woodard
______
Apalachicola Bay has been preserved over the years, and so far, by
people who understand nature at its best.
Please do your part to save this bit of fishery, oyster and rural
culture by insuring the river has the water it needs.
This area is precious beyond words or money.
Linda Smith
______
Please do all you can to get more water to Apalach bay.
Rick Hanby
______
Sara Gibson
I am urging Congress to instruct the Army Corps of Engineers to
please please establish freshwater flows that will sustain the Bay!
Otherwise we are in grave danger of life altering drastically in
our whole community here!
Thank you so much for your help in this urgent need!
Sincerely,
Julie O'Malley
______
As a long-time homeowner and resident on St. George Island, I want
to urge--nay, implore--the U.S. Senate to restore adequate water flow
to the Apalachicola River and Bay. The consequences of inadequate
freshwater on marine and human well-being in this region are heart-
breaking: sharks swimming up the high-salinity river to attack
freshwater species while oystermen succumb to destruction of their
culture as well as income. Once the sea life and sea culture have been
destroyed, they will be gone forever, diversity sacrificed to yet more
monotonous suburban development upstream. An article in Scientific
American compared the unregulated development in Atlanta to a
metastasizing tumor, and I hope that the cancerous growth does not kill
all that lies in its downstream path. We need a diversity of healthy
species and cultures. Please save ours.
Sincerely,
Ada Long
______
I am writing to urge Congress to instruct the Army Corp of
Engineers to protect freshwater flow to the Apalachicola Bay.
As a nation we must over come the boundaries of states and work to
ensure the preservation of wet lands and water systems
to sustain us all. Not only is the oyster industry in danger as
well as associated livelihoods but the inestimable value of this body
of water which borders the southern shores of our Nation.
As our elected representatives I urge your stewardship and forward
thinking in saving this great bay for future generations of Americans.
Clarissa Mickle
______
Dear U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
I live at the top of the Apalachicola River in Chattahoochee,
Florida. Our little city sits just below the Jim Woodruff Dam that
creates Lake Seminole. I moved here because of the natural areas that
can be explored, and once here started volunteer stewardship of our
city park on the Apalachicola River. For six years I have led volunteer
workdays to remove invasive exotic species from the rare slope forest
community as well as the floodplain along the river.
The lowered river level and less frequent inundation of the
floodplain resulting from the dam, historic navigation channel
maintenance, unnatural flow management practices, and upstream water
withdrawals have, I believe, altered the floodplain community in a
detrimental way. The floodplain is dry too much of the year so upland
species have moved in. For instance, naturalized sabal palms (Sabal
palmetto) that normally occur near the coast where water levels are
relatively stable and the state-endangered lanceleaf trillium (Trillium
lancifolium) that normally grows on slopes now are common in the
floodplain. But what really concerns me is the infusion of species not
native to the United States and highly invasive into the floodplain.
Species such as Nandina (Nandina domestica), coral ardesia (Ardesia
crenata), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) and privets (Ligustrum
spp.) have overwhelmed the floodplain, which would not be the case if
flood waters inundated the area more often and for longer duration. The
city has been able to knock the exotic plants back with grant funding
and volunteer sweat, but these plants continue to be a problem and seed
source for us on adjoining private property that our grant funds don't
allow us to treat.
Changes to the river and the flow regime have impacted not just the
oysters in Apalachicola Bay, but riparian areas and human communities
all along the river. There are potential economic impacts, such as to
the honey business that depends on our native tupelo (Nyssa spp.) trees
whose decline has been documented from changes in river management.
Botanists from around the world know of the high biodiversity of the
Apalachicola region and even in Chattahoochee we get visitors from
England and Australia who have travelled specifically to see our
unusual plants. The same can be said for almost any taxa group--
invertebrates, reptiles, salamanders, etc. Science tourism may suffer
if our natural communities decline.
Thank you for doing all you can to return a pattern of more natural
flows and a higher volume of water to the Apalachicola River,
floodplain, and bay.
Respectfully submitted,
Leigh Brooks
______
THE APALACHICOLA RIVER SYSTEM
A CLOSER LOOK
With so much attention being focused on the Apalachicola River and
Bay and considering the political game that commercial traffic has
always been at play on this issue, the following history calls out to
be told.
Before all the old timers who remember a much different river
system have passed on and the sources of years of degradation have been
suppressed or unacknowledged, let these words remain. For to celebrate
the system as a unique and wonderful treasure is akin to placing a
crown on a once beautiful and innocent princess after she has been
repeatedly raped and tortured and now facing the possibility of
continued abuse.
Had you not know her before; you might be forgiven for not
recognizing her pain. You wouldn't see the bends that were cut from her
body; you might not know that the wide and shallow body was once deep
and narrow. The sand bars that you take to be normal, isn't. They are
dredged spoil sites. There are 140 of these sites in addition to 28
dike fields, some of which tend to redirect the flow of water and
straighten the river. And across from every one is an eroded bank. Many
are on point bars some of which direct the force of the water to the
neck of a bend on the opposite bank, thereby severing the bend in time.
The practice of mechanically cutting bends from the river was stopped
years ago but like the old saying goes, ``there is more than one way to
skin a cat.''
Dredged spoil was first piped onto the floodplain, then on the
banks of the river and going from bad to worse, the 140 spoil sites
were allowed by DEP to be placed within the banks of the river and in
open water sites. During the past 70 years, in excess of one-half
million cubic yards of spoil was dredged annually from the river and
not removed from the system. Much of the spoil was dredged repeatedly
as it was washed off the spoil sites during the high water season and
back into the main channel. Repeated dredging changes course river sand
into silt which is a greater concern as it is more dense and acts as a
better seal, changing the composition of the bottom of the river,
creeks, sloughs and even large areas of the floodplain. Native plant
species are negatively affected by the sand and silt which affects the
land animals habitat. A fairly recent study stated that forty percent
of the tupelo trees had perished due to the drying of the floodplain
and the change in soil composition. The Apalachicola River System
contained the most diverse plant and animal species in the Nation. Off
river lakes and ponds have filled with sand and silt due to dredging.
The mouths of all sloughs are plugged. The veins that carried life to
this vast floodplain for thousands of years are blocked. The
tributaries and distributary's present forty years ago and on which
rookeries of Ibis and Heron nested in the spring are no more. The
mouths of many of the sloughs are no longer visible from the river as
they have filled and now support trees and other vegetation. Spoil
sites are located adjacent to or just upstream of the majority of all
sloughs, assuring that sediment will erode into them. Also assuring
that more water will remain in the river. For commercial barge traffic?
There have been many studies done on the river (so easy to ride in
a boat) but of the swamps and floodplain, only what can be determined
from aerial survey. We contacted the Apalachicola Research Reserve and
only a few pages exist. These areas are so diverse and full of wonder
and not a little mystery.
Prior to the floodplain being degraded, otter and alligator dens
were located well off the river where they lived during the seasonal
low water. The big turtle inhabited water holes around old tussocks.
Areas where people seldom went. Where every tree exhibited it's own
personality and in the spring, a chorus of insects and land animals let
their voices be heard. A basket half full of crawfish could be caught
in half a day. The abundance of crawfish was never acknowledged even
though documentation was turned over to the agency charged to protect.
The crawfish are an important part of the food chain for many land and
aquatic animals. This year, after three years of being forced to stay
underground due to the absence of seasonal high water, very few
survived to come fourth when water did arrive.
Through out the years, the politicians, the Corps of Engineers, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other agencies seem
to have been playing a macabre game concerning the Apalachicola River
System at which the System has continued to loose. DEP stopped the COE
from disposing dredged spoil in the floodplain but allowed them to
deposit it on the banks of the river. Later it was decided that the
most environmentally sound way was to deposit it within the river banks
and in open water sites which only increased the speed of filling in of
sloughs from far out in the floodplain to the mouth at the river.
Across from the spoil sites, the opposite bank erodes. At some spoil
sites the spoil site has caught up more sediment to the point that the
site has enlarged in width to reach the middle of the channel. A boat
trip down the river from Blountstown to the mouth of the Chipola River
when the river gage at Blountstown is at five feet or below will reveal
some the major damage suffered by the system. In a 1986 study conducted
by the Florida Fish and Wildlife, it is stated that dredging practices
have created twenty-five miles of sand banks that game fish do not
inhabit.
For years DEP permits issued to the COE contained requirements such
as the opening of Point-Poll-Away, Corley Slough and bends to be
reconnected. A play was made at opening Corley Slough but the prior
placement of Sand Mountain beside the mouth of the slough insured that
it would continue to be blocked. A very large amount of spoil was also
placed in the mouth of Virginia Cut.
For a period of eleven years, spoil was allowed to be piled in
large quantities along the river then pushed back into the river with
bulldozers. This was called ``mechanical Redistribution.'' The practice
was no longer allowed in the 1999 permit.
As more spoil was dredged, more had to be dredged to ensure a
channel for the few barges going to or from Alabama and Georgia. A few
barges operated from one and one-half mile below the dam at
Chattahoochee and back through the dam to upstream points. Yet the
remaining 105 miles of the river was ``maintained'' that accommodated
very few barges annually during the last 20 years that maintenance was
conducted. Also of concern was the cargo hauled which included
fertilizer, jet fuel, and other farm chemicals (not identified).
Loaded barges have an 8-9 foot draft. Stranding on sand shoals was
fairly frequent and the tugboat operator would have call to the dam for
a release of more water. Barges, while trying to maneuver around a bend
would crash into the bank several times in order to make the turn. The
cost of shipping on the Apalachicola River has been determined to be
the highest in the Nation.
DEP is now on the verge of issuing the COE a permit for snagging
the river and at the same time a Water Quality Permit and an
Environmental Resource Permit. The water quality permit was denied in
2005, which effectively prevented the COE from maintenance work on the
river. The reasons given in the denial have not been resolved to date.
The COE is already mandated by Congress to maintain a 9 by 100 foot
navigation channel (should have been de-authorized years ago) and by
issuance of these three permits; it will all begin once more. The
reason given by the COE in it's request for permit is that ``emergency
parts or equipment may be needed up stream that could not be moved
another way.'' We are living in the year 2013, not 1713.
The practice of ``Snagging'' the river, which was done annually
just prior to dredging, is destructive in many ways. The bottom of the
food chain is the microscopic organisms that live on the snags. Snags
are protection areas for juvenile fish, create shade which cools the
water in the summer, they slow the flow of the water, some are
inhabited by fish that are territorial, they serve as sunning spots for
turtles and alligators and as fishing platforms for water birds. Many
rivers across the nation, including the Chipola River have never been
snagged and recreational boaters continue to use them.
Restoration projects conducted by the COE and a few by other
resource agencies have seemed to be another part of the game. Many
millions of taxpayer dollars have funded ill-conceived and reckless
``restoration'' projects on this river and only one a partial success.
Many have caused further harm to the system in part by the failure to
understand how the system worked. An example is the fact that a swollen
river will cause tributaries to act as distributary's until the
floodplain has filled and the water in river and floodplain is
equalized. When the water level in the river recedes, distributary's
will act as tributaries until the water in the floodplain has emptied.
A good example of this is Battle Bend at river mile 26.
Battle Bend, measuring one mile, was mechanically severed from the
river in the 1960s. Spoil was repeatedly placed in the upstream mouth
in an effort to prevent water from the river entering the bend. An
adjacent upstream spoil site was extended across the upper mouth and in
a final effort, a borrow pit was dug and an earthen berm placed across
the inside mouth.
In 2008, a restoration project was started by another agency at
Battle Bend whose stated purpose was to increase fish habitat by
dredging a nine-foot deep and two hundred feet long wide and one
thousand feet long at the lower mouth of the bend. First came the
engineering and then a study to determine where the sand came from that
had continued to accumulate at the mouth of the bend, the COE had
dredged spoil from the mouth several times over the years but it just
as quickly filled in. When the project was completed except for the
plug at the mouth, which was the last to be removed, the contractor
left the area. When questioned, the head of the project stated that the
contractor had ``inadvertently'' left the plug at the mouth but was
going to come back and remove it. They might possibly have realized
that it was that old swollen river syndrome again and that river water
was entering the bend and exiting sloughs inside the bend and on into
the floodplain and in the process the heavy load of sediment in the
river water created the plug at the mouth of the bend and would
continue to even with the dredged channel that had just been dug. The
plug still remains with a stand of willows growing on it. At this time
the project was identified as Phase one and Phase two came into being
that was to be the creation of two inlet channels at the upper mouth in
the belief that water would enter, flow through the bend and prevent
the plug forming in the lower mouth. Phase two was completed and water
from the river did flow into the channels but failed to enter the bend
as sediment that had been placed at the upper mouth to stop the water
entering had filled the upper one-third of length of the bend beginning
near the ends of the inlet channels. River water now flows into the two
inlet channels at the upper mouth but is diverted into the floodplain
by the spoil that exist further inside the bend. The flow runs on to
the mud flat that runs parallel to the river from Florida River south
to Brushy Creek. This project cost taxpayers in excess of two million
dollars, failed to achieve it's stated purpose and caused more harm,
which harm could increase in the future.
Water that has been arbitrarily withheld upstream from the
Apalachicola River (and much of it wasted) resulting in harm to the
River, floodplain and Apalachicola Bay is no greater environmental
crime than to allow the COE back in the system. As for Restoration
Projects; the only way the system can heal is if it is left alone to
heal itself. Any effort made by people would have to be periodically
maintained. A slough mouth that is opened today would need reopening in
another three or four years. The overload of sediment in the system
will be a problem for some time. After so many years of abuse, it will
take many years to heal.
Two projects that might feasible be accomplished without further
harm and to help the system is to make a serious attempt to reconnect
Battle Bend to the river by excavating the spoil in the upper one-third
section and block the water from entering the cut section. The second
is to develop some measure to prevent the increasing amount of water
from entering the Cut-Off at river mile 41\1/2\ . The spoil site on the
opposite bank, measuring a mile has directed the flow of water to the
mouth of the Cut-Off that over time has widen and the quantity and
force of the water has eroded the banks on the Cut-Off to the point
that houses and two roads are endangered. There are major sand shoals
just down stream on the Apalachicola River from the Cut-Off, which
tends to prevent the unimpeded flow of water in the river and helps to
increase the flow into the Cut-Off.
If the Apalachicola River System is important to you, be aware of
its history and the very real possibility that abuse (from what ever
source) of the system could very well begin again and you might be able
to prevent it.
Marilyn Blackwell
______
Dear Senators,
As tourists from Gainesville, Florida, we have made several
delightful and memorable visits to Apalachicola and surrounding
environs. We visited the town, stayed in bed and breakfasts, and
browsed the museum. We kayaked with the Riverkeeper one windy (and
sunburned) afternoon on the bay where the river flows into it, ate a
delicious oyster dinner, and learned about the oyster industry and its
ongoing plight.
There is no better spokesman for the river than Dan Tonsmeire, but
his job has been a difficult one. The stress suffered by the bay was
evident long before the BP oil spill. Alabama and Georgia, and Atlanta
in particular, drain the river of vital water long before it reaches
Florida. Our state has had far too small a voice in determining the
fate of the region downriver, as cities and agriculture grow and place
an ever greater burden on the river. It is time now to support the
industries served by Apalachicola River and Bay, and the beautiful
environment itself throughout that region.
Please help maintain the flow of our river and the health of the
Florida environment and industries. This is a cause worth fighting for!
Jeffrey P. Shapiro, Ph.D.
______
Here's what Georgians want Floridians to know: In the past ten
years our water usage has actually dropped by 14-18 percent even though
our population has increased. You can check that fact with PolitiFact.
We have instituted so many water conservation measures that the water
utilities have had to increase their rates just to make budget. We have
some of the highest water rates in the country. Again, you can check
that statistic on PolitiiFact. My average monthly water bill runs $130.
Meanwhile, we do not see the people of Florida and Alabama instituting
any water saving measures. On a recent trip to north Florida I saw many
people watering their lawns. It's true that people in Atlanta once did
that too, but you NEVER see it anymore. It became illegal back in 2007
and has been strictly monitored since 2009. Ever since it became legal
again, with strict rules, people won't do it because it is too
expensive and the fines for forgetting the rules are too high. Here is
another fact for you from the USGS. Florida is the 4th biggest user of
water in the country. Alabama comes in at 14th and Georgia at 29th.
Alabama, with a population that is half of Georgia's uses almost twice
as much water each day. Florida uses almost 4 times as much water as
Georgia. People either fail to realize, or choose to ignore, the fact
that over 80 percent of metro Atlanta is on sewer. That means we
withdraw the water from the system, use it, clean it, and then put it
back into the system. During droughts we cannot even use gray water
(water from washing dishes, clothes or from the tub) to water our
outside plants and gardens because the devotion to getting water back
into the river is so crucial. (Plus, you could get a $1,000 fine for
doing that) The real ``culprits'' of water use in the Chattahoochee/
Flint basin are the farmers and power plants. The water they withdraw
is lost through evaporation and doesn't go back into the river. We are
not sure why the people of Florida choose to ignore these facts. We
drive your local economy through tourism and then you repay the favor
by wanting to prevent us from using the water that falls as rain on our
streets and boils forth from the springs in our backyards. There is
something wrong with that.
Mary Jane Gordon
______
Our livelihood is just as dependent upon the health of Apalachicola
Bay as if we were commercial fishermen. As adventure tour guides and
artists, we rely on people that come here from all over the world to
visit our unique and incredibly rich estuarine habitat. It is what
attracted us to this area over 23 years ago and what keeps us here
today. For many years we have told our guests, ``Yes, Apalachicola Bay
is very healthy but also very fragile.'' Now Apalachicola Bay is in
dire straits and soon we can no longer boast health due to the
imbalance of freshwater coming down the Apalachicola River. I don't
carry crackers and hot sauce on my tours and hog oysters at sunset
anymore; now I say, ``We are hopeful that the health of Apalachicola
Bay and the Gulf Of Mexico is as important to our leaders as it is to
you and me!''. This crisis is now in your hands and on your watch.
Please choose wisely for the sake of our shared generations to come.
David Harbaugh and Beth Appleton
______
I am David McLain, a U.S. citizen voting in Franklin County,
Florida. I have been closely involved in the water management dispute
between Florida, Alabama, and Georgia for over 15 years in a variety of
roles, paid and, lately, as volunteer and community advocate.
First, I thank our two Florida Senators, Sen. Nelson and Sen.
Rubio, for their sponsorship and informed leadership of today's Field
Hearing of this Senate Committee. As all who were present will testify,
the meeting spaces were jammed to overflowing with concerned citizens
whose very lives and futures are dependent on subsequent actions taken
by our Federal Government. As a water management dispute of over 22
years of failed negotiation, mitigation, and litigation directly
involving three states, an equitable allocation of the freshwater flows
of the ACF Basin will not be resolved without active Federal
intervention in this interstate ``water war''.
Second, it is entirely too easy to blame the Federally recognized
catastrophic failure of the Apalachicola fishery on the volume of
freshwater flows downstream during recent drought conditions. Drought
is undeniably an unfortunate recurring event in Nature. But I must
assert as forcefully as I can--the severity and duration of any drought
are due to the actions of Man, or Man's failure to act. Significant and
mandatory restrictions on water consumption, plus aggressive repair of
water-handling infrastructure, and implementation of restrictions on
permitting of water use are critical management actions during any
drought.
Finally, I would argue it does little good to vilify the Corps of
Engineers, the farmers of the Flint Basin, or the citizens of Atlanta
while we seek a rational resolution of this shared problem. I might
even go so far as to say, we will never reach a sustainable solution
for adequate freshwater flows to a healthy and productive Apalachicola
Bay until we help Atlanta and the south Georgia stakeholders find a
mutually acceptable solution to meeting their water needs. A Basin-wide
agreement has been reached in similar circumstances--such as the
Delaware Basin Regional Authority. Shared gain or shared pain.
PS: The most ``Endangered Species'' in our Apalachicola River and
Bay is a two-legged variety. . . . .our 4th generation Apalachicola
Oysterman.
Please add to my submission for the record (see e-mail below) due
to subsequent actions reported in the Tallahassee newspaper this
morning (8/14):
Florida's Governor Scott announced his intent to file an original
action suit against Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court in September of
this year. He obviously did not hear the urgent plea by the seafood
workers representatives that time to correct deficient freshwater flows
is almost gone. An original action before the Supreme Court is YEARS
away from resolution, even if Florida's suit is eventually upheld.
Significant testimony at the Field Hearing yesterday pointed to the
official finding by the U.S. Department of Commerce of a ``fishery
collapse'' in Apalachicola Bay. A point of no return, the ``tipping
point'' beyond which recovery of the Bay may be impossible is months,
not years, away. Without assured freshwater flows the health and
productivity of the Bay will not be restored. No amount of BP oil spill
fines money can restore our Bay absent freshwater flows.
Gov. Scott's return to the 20+ years of failed litigation is hard
to understand. An original action before the Supreme Court will
undoubtedly delay and defer promising alternatives such as a
discretionary ruling by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in a revised Water
Control Plan, or any possibility of an amended Water Resources
Development Act passing out of the U.S. House in the near-term.
Meanwhile the clock is ticking and continuation of the catastrophic,
unprecedented low freshwater flows is all but assured.
Our only hope, in the face of this action by the state of Florida,
is that our Federal elected officials will assert rightful jurisdiction
over this interstate water allocation dispute and pass Federal
legislation to ensure an equitable allocation of the waters of the ACF
Basin.
David McLain,
Franklin County Florida Representative.
______
Please reestablish a freshwater flow to The Appalachicola Bay! This
is one of the most ecologically diverse bays left. We need this area as
part of our food chain, as without it we will eventually be greatly
affected as humans. The tourism and fishing industry has also been
drastically affected. Without freshwater, the ocean by surrounding
islands is not as clear--our family used to go here yearly but we don't
as much now due to the water clarity. This is a vital area that
deserves to and must be protected. Establish the freshwater flow and
use restrictions in Atlanta and other cities to make them responsible
for the water they use and not just waste it! The people of the
forgotten coast and millions of others across the country are begging
for you to help!
Kristina Ilgner Lamons
______
The Apalachicola Bay Chamber and its 400+ members urge Congress to
act on our behalf. For decades the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
starved the Apalachicola River and Bay of the freshwater that it needs
to survive. The Corps has kept water flows at level to ensure that
users at the top of the system in Georgia get the majority of the
water. This is now killing Apalachicola Bay and the Apalachicola
national estuary, one of the last great estuaries in the world. Florida
has conserved this resource and should be rewarded not punished.
Almost a decade ago the U.S. Army Corps determined 8,000 cfs would
keep the three endangered species alive in the river system. We
protested that this would be detrimental to our ecosystem and our
economy. That has now occurred. This man-made drought is killing our
bay and our economy. The Apalachicola River and Bay is the life blood
of our economy and the economies for towns up and down the system in
Florida. It is the economic artery that connects us to the world and
sustains our livelihoods. We have been responsible stewards of the
system and deserve an equal share of the resource we allow to flow
unimpeded.
Congress must act now to pass legislation requiring the U.S. Army
Corps to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system to
ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the
freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and reestablish healthy
populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource conservation
based economy that relies on a healthy natural system. Please act on
our behalf.
Anita Grove,
Executive Director,
Apalachicola Bay Chamber of Commerce.
______
It seems we human beings are intent on destroying our life
sustaining ecosystems and so far, the present on going destruction
of Apalachicola Bay is a good example of that.
Please help stop this destruction--this one is in your hands--you
can do it!!! For our children do it, for their children do it!!!
You know well the extreme negative consequences of letting the
Apalachicola Bay die. It's not just about oysters and the people who
make their living directly on the Bay.
Be smart, be brave, save the ``Bay''!!!!!
All the best,
Fred & Mary Vogt
______
Dear Ms. Gibson and Mr. Houton:
My wife and I are residents of Franklin County. We would like to
offer our public comment concerning the Save the Apalachicola Bay
congressional field meeting held last week.
Neither my wife or I are directly employed in the local fishing
industry, but many people in the local community are so employed and
the fishing industry is crucially important to both the community and
the county here. The oyster fishery in particular, outside of the
harvest and sale of oysters, provides important economic benefit by
being a major local draw for tourism in the area. Apalachicola Bay-
tonged oysters, harvested ``the old-fashioned-way'' make our community
a target destination for both American and international tourists
alike.
As important as the local economy here is to us, presumably those
people arguing for the ever increasing siphoning of water off the upper
tributaries of the Apalachicola River in South Georgia, would argue
that in terms of economy, their economies are much larger, employ more
people, and they have more voters, so therefore, why should a
comparatively small community in Franklin County, Florida have any say
whatsoever about the issue, nor for that matter, why should downstream
areas receive any water at all from the Apalachicola, especially seeing
as good agricultural freshwater is being wasted going into the sea.
Stating this is rather harsh view of reality. But in terms of money and
people, Georgia clearly has Franklin and neighboring counties beat.
Presumably this harsh reality is why the Apalachicola water wars yet
still rage today, unresolved after so many years. There is however a
bigger issue.
Sometimes our area is labeled the forgotten coast (as these
lingering water wars might seem to attest), but some of us here prefer
the name the wilderness coast. We are entirely surrounded here by
contiguous Federal and state protected lands including: St Vincent's
Island National Wildlife Refuge, Julian Bruce St George Island State
Park, Tate's Hell State Forest, St Marks National Wildlife Refuge; the
Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and Apalachicola
National Forest. The combined areas of these contiguous protected lands
is well over 1MM acres. If these lands happened to be so designated,
they would comprise the 5th largest National Park outside of Alaska.
The only thing our area is not protected for is sustained water flow
from the Apalachicola River.
In the western states, the once mighty Colorado River has been
similarly diverted and siphoned off to satisfy the ever increasing
water demands of commercial agriculture in Arizona and California and
the metropolitan areas surrounding Los Angeles. Except in rare years of
heavy Colorado snowpack, water from the Colorado River now never
reaches the ocean. We ask Congress--is the eventual and ultimate fate
of the Apalachicola River to be that of the Colorado? The Apalachicola
is not a small river. It is the second largest watercourse on the U.S.
Gulf Coast next to the Mississippi and it comprises largest drainage
area in the U.S. southeast. And yet, owing to ever increasing upstream
siphoning, the Apalachicola river may eventually, without action by
Congress, one day no longer make it to the sea.
Is this something Congress would, by its inaction, actually allow
to happen? Would Congress similarly allow the draining of waters from a
National Park? The analogies are clear. Congress' inattention to the
ever increasing diversion and siphoning of the Apalachicola River water
to satisfy metropolitan and commercial agricultural interests in the
State of Georgia is akin to Congress permitting Everglades National
Park to be drained in order to supply metropolitan and agricultural
areas around Miami, or the draining of the Yellowstone River from that
park, or for that matter, the additional diversion of the Colorado
drying up the Grand Canyon. Clearly this is a fate for the Apalachicola
River that Congress should not want to deliver to future generations.
Action is needed.
We respectfully request that Congress act decisively on this
matter.
Dr. James and Susan Mott
______
I support the Army Corp sustaining river flow in the entire system
flowing into the Apalachicola River. Commerce on and because of river
flow is vital to the economy of Florida.
Debbie McKnight, RN
______
Please enact positive legislation to save/protect the waterways of
the Apalach. It must survive and thrive. Thanks for listening.
Susan B. Emrich,
Chief Operating Officer.
______
To whom it may concern,
The Apalachicola River systems is one of our nations precious
resources. Please fund the renewal of management of the dam system on
the river. The economic impact on those who depend on the downstream
water flows is devastating those citizen who rely on this ecosystem for
their livelihood.
Thank you,
John
John C. Devlin, PMP
______
Please let the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation hearing record know that the Bay County community needs
the freshwater to continue flowing along this river system. This
supports the ecosystem that drives so many different industries in our
region. Commercial and recreation fishing provides jobs and tourism
dollars to the community we serve. Those jobs and dollars are
reinvested in our community and support the folks who live in our
community.
Jeremy Hinton, CPA,
SVP, Chief Financial Officer.
______
INNOVATIONS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Please do what's best for our Apalachicola Bay/River and require
the Army Corps of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint river system to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain,
and Bay receive the freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and
re-establish healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant
resource conservation based economy that relies on a healthy natural
system.
David Southall,
President/CEO.
______
INNOVATIONS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the
Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay.
Please act now to pass legislation requiring the Army Corps of
Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system
to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the
freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and re-establish
healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource
conservation based economy that relies on a healthy natural system.
Respectfully,
Jason Whitaker,
Panama City, FL.
______
Please pass legislation requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to
operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system to ensure
that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receives the
freshwater flow they need to support, restore, and re-establish healthy
populations of fish and wildlife!
The lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the
Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay.
Our Northwest Florida region is dependent upon natural resources
such as the Apalachicola Bay/River for the ever precious oyster
industry. The negative effect on this region's economy is certain to be
catastrophic to our fishermen/oystermen, our restaurants and ultimately
this region and the State of Florida's number one industry, tourism.
Thank you,
Tiffany Despard, CPA, MBA
Carr, Riggs & Ingram, LLC.
______
Our Northwest Florida region is dependent upon natural resources
such as the Apalachicola Bay/River for the ever precious oyster
industry. Lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused
the Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy river, floodplain and bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay.
I am calling on Congress to act now to pass legislation requiring
the Army Corps of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint river system to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain,
and Bay receive the freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and
re-establish healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant
resource conservation-based economy that relies on a healthy natural
system.
Pamn Henderson,
Commissioner,
City of Callaway, Florida.
______
This is a real issue that impacts real people right now. It is not
one to debated, researched, publicized and played too. All that has
been done and resulted in lost jobs, broken families and deteriorating
natural resources. Please be the leaders we so desperately need and
resolve this problem now!
The problem is not really complicated, though it involves many and
has far reaching impact, it is really simple. Establish reasonable
water flow, protect that standard for the future and then stand back
and watch the local parties move forward within that framework.
Rick Pettis,
Planning Director, AICP
David H. Melvin, Inc. Consulting Engineers.
______
Ms. Gibson,
Given recent declarations and notifications regarding the above
referenced river system, we offer the following comments.
The current crisis in the ACF river system--the call for legal
action, not discussion--is portrayed in some quarters as if the State
of Florida escalated a 25-year conversation into a battle. We contend,
as professionals who have worked in natural resources throughout the
southeastern United States and have witnessed a number of ``wicked
problems,'' that the State of Georgia and metropolitan Atlanta are the
aggressors here and escalate the conflict on a daily basis by the
solicitation of residents, new businesses, and other water consuming
entities.
We see Congress as one of the governmental keepers of a civilized
society, one in a collection of elected and appointed bodies
responsible throughout the Nation and the individual states for setting
policies to regulate and manage natural resources. Sometimes, in a case
where human use and need for such resources cross state lines, the
situation begs for a national level solution taken by a Congress that
aims to resolve--not politicize--such conflict. Certainly the time has
passed for the regional solutions for the use of the Apalachicola River
system, at least as proffered by state governments time and again since
the mid-1980.
At face value, it appears that the problem focuses on how to divide
the water between the people and businesses in Atlanta and the people
and businesses downstream in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. We suggest
that the issue is one of expectations--can a metropolis expect to
continue unabated growth and have unlimited access to the public water
supply under the generally accepted principles of reasonable use in
Eastern Water Law; must all downstream users continually adjust direct
and indirect dependencies on water to the limitations imposed by
upstream cities? This is not a voter driven issue; this is a resource
management issue that must be balanced for the entire river system.
Sincerely,
Linda Lampl
Tom Herbert
______
Good Morning--
Our oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations in the bays of our
area (Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, etc.) have been devastated due to a
lack of freshwater. This has cost the economy in our area to be on the
decline, much higher than other regions, because there are so many
families who depend on the rivers and bays for their livelihood. It has
affected the recreational fishing industry, which is well-known
throughout the eastern part of our country, to be negatively impacted.
Apalachicola oysters are known throughout the country for their
outstanding taste and the quantity available but this is on the decline
due to the negative flow of freshwater into our bays and rivers.
I am asking Congress to pass legislation to require the Army Corps
of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
System to ensure these rivers and floodplain receive the freshwater
flows needed to support and re-establish healthy populations of fish
and wildlife as well as help the economies in these areas to once again
prosper due to a healthy natural system for years to come.
Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail.
Sandra Hirth,
Assistant to the City Manager,
City of Callaway, Florida.
______
Dear Ms. Gibson,
This has been an ongoing issue for better than a decade, if not
almost two decades. It seems that in two decades, Atlanta could have
built a new reservoir and could then allow more water to be released
into the watershed. The Federal Government has always had issues with
protecting the environment. I have had several projects, that were
halted or postponed due to the protection of (just they easy ones I
remember):
Harper Beauty (a flower)
the Panama City Crayfish
the st. andrews beach mouse
the perdido key beach mouse
a bald eagle
indigo snake
ground owl
gopher tortoise
As we are seeing along our gulf coast not only will some of our
wildlife suffer, but the lives of its residents are now beginning to
suffer. Instead of making our citizens reliant on handouts from the
government (food stamps, welfare or other means to replace the pay for
those that live along the coast), it would seem it is in the best
interest for the Federal Government to step in and mandate a larger
release of freshwater from the areas around the watersheds that flow to
the Apalachicola basin and to the gulf. If the government would step in
and act as a parent to the three states (Alabama, Georgia and Florida),
maybe some of this would get solved before:
people lose their means of making a living
plants and animals whose habitat requires freshwater become
endangered or extinct
Sincerely,
Arthur Hooks
______
Please get our Senitors and Congressmen to plead our case for Core
of Engineers to open up our freshwater supply and flow to grow marine
life. Thank you. We are counting on them.
Ken Sandel
______
Dear Ms. Gibson:
I add my name to the list of those who have deep concern about our
river, our cities, our region and the way the United States protects
our most precious natural resource: our waters. Our ``water war'' as
some have named it, is small in comparison to what ``wars'' will be
waged in the future as this resource is squandered. I believe that the
steps needed to save the Apalachicola should model how our country
plans to protect our waters in the future. It about far more than the
oyster or even other marine life-although the ripple effect is huge. It
is about small communities survival when big city wants something they
have and need. Can Atlanta not dig deep in to the granite and access an
aquifer there? Is the cost of that so much that they can destroy other
areas for their needs? Are folks along this coast going to be able to
point to our very own government and say, ``They did not care about our
way of life, our homes and our livelihoods?''
I did not grow up here, I moved here because this was a beautiful
and pristine place. People visit here to escape the big cities like
Atlanta. Life is good here. Please consider the minority in this
struggle for existence. The oyster industry is getting the focus but it
far bigger than the lowly oyster. At least it is to me and mine.
Sincerely,
Denise Butler,
Agent,
The Butler Agency.
______
Hello and good day !!!
You have heard all the different testimonies on why this is so
important--not only for now--but for the future generations. . . . What
are we leaving for them?
Portion taken from our neighboring county to the west--Panama City
area
``Our Northwest Florida region is dependent upon natural resources
such as the Apalachicola Bay/River for the ever precious oyster
industry. The negative effect on this regions economy is certain to be
catastrophic to our fishermen/oystermen, our restaurants and ultimately
this region and the State of Florida 's number one industry, tourism.
Apalachicola Bay/River should be viewed by all as a manufacturing
facility. It produces a sustainable product that is well known and is
shipped nationwide.
Lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the
Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay. Bay County--Chamber of
Commerce
I'm sure you have several (hopefully hundreds) of similar
responses. I saw this and liked it. Only copied a portion of their
memo.
Very well stated even though they have their own resources--but
reading the last line above--we have one of the LAST pristine estuaries
in the U.S.--most of the rest are polluted--we efforts to restore--
let's not wait till that happens the Apalachicola River and basin.
In the circle of life--we (mankind) are the ones that can make a
difference--nature tries it's best--and we are destroying nature.
Thanks to all that are supportive and trying to make this happen.
I'm an environmentalist first--local homeowner--retired from
Atlanta (they need to fix their problems and not use our water--that
causes us problems) and a local Realtor . . . this does affect our
business--which is tourism, fishing, etc, then people wanting to turn a
vacation into a lifetime . . . buying property . . . See the circle ??
Thanks for your time,
CA:)
Cheryl Ann Griffin,
Realtor.
______
As a Franklin County resident, I am thankful that Senators Nelson
and Rubio expressed their concern for the natural and human resources
in Franklin County by attending the Congressional Field Hearing on
August 13. It is critical that the natural system and the unusual human
community that has been developed on the shores of the Apalachicola Bay
be protected. I understand the difficulty in moving political processes
to insure the continued integrity of the Apalachicola River and Bay. We
must find a way to maintain our needed freshwater flow from upstream
users and decision makers.
Our future in Franklin County rests with your ability to provide
adequate legislation to protect the flows necessary for the life of
this river and estuary. This will require Congressional action and
authorization for the Army Corps of Engineers to manage the river
without detriment to Florida. We have been good stewards of this area
and we hope you will be good stewards of this national treasure. Please
do whatever it takes to insure adequate freshwater in the Apalachicola
River and Bay.
Very sincerely yours,
Patti McCartney,
Saint George Island, FL.
______
Please help to require the Army Corps of Engineers to operate the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system to ensure that the
Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the freshwater flows
they need to support, restore, and re-establish healthy populations of
fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource conservation based economy
that relies on a healthy natural system.
Pamela Osborne, RN, BSN. MSM
Clinical Supervisor,
Bay Correctional Facility.
______
Ms. Gibson,
I am concerned about the Apalachicola basin. We have been fighting
the water issue for years and to no avail. The fishing/oyster industry
is vital to our country and cannot be ignored. Just letting the upper
entities drain all the water they want is not a solution. They do have
other options, the river does not. The Army Corps must be given the
authority to operate the river with adequate freshwater to the
Apalachicola basin.
Thanks you for your time. I look forward to seeing a positive move.
Vic Jones,
Manager, Coal Feed Systems,
Merrick Industries.
______
Apalachicola oysters are some of the finest in the world, but they
are in danger of being wiped out because water naturally intended to
reach Apalachicola Bay is being diverted for residential use. Please
stop this travesty. Once the ecosystem is destroyed it will be too
late. Please act now while there is still time to save this pristine
and unique environment.
Patsy Roberson
D. Stephen Foster, CPA, PA
______
Stop restricting the flow of the river into Florida, it is damaging
our eco system and out lively hoods.
John Dunaway
______
I am very concerned about our oyster population in the state of
Florida. Please do your part to keep freshwater flowing into
Apalachicola Bay. We need our oysters, shrimp, crabs and fish
populations to stay self-sustainable. We do not need to begin a multi-
million dollar program when we can save our bays now! We can prevent
this: http://nynjbaykeeper.org/resources-programs/oyster-restoration-
program/
Thank you,
Jenna Leigh Burger
Restaurateur, former Vice-Chair of the Greater Fort Walton Beach
Chamber of Commerce, former Vice-Chair of the City of Fort Walton
Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, current Junior League of the
Emerald Coast Historian
______
Lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the
Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay.
Please act now to pass legislation requiring the Army Corps of
Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system
to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the
freshwater flows we need to support, restore, and re-establish healthy
populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource conservation
based economy that relies on a healthy natural system.
Thank you for your support of this important issue.
Carol Roberts
______
I encourage the passage of legislation requiring the Army Corps of
Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system
to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the
freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and re-establish
healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource
conservation based economy that relies on a healthy natural system.
Thank you for your time,
Jennifer
Jennifer Conoley,
Economic Development Representative,
Gulf Power Company.
______
While we cannot control Mother Nature, we can certainly control the
equitable allocation and flow of waters into the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint river system.
Action is needed now to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to
operate and better manage the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river
system. Dead oysters beds and unemployed fishermen in Gulf-Franklin
Counties on the Gulf of Mexico are proof that current policies--or the
lack thereof--are not working. We are calling upon Rep. Steve
Southerland and our Florida delegation to spearhead efforts to ensure
that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay receive the freshwater
flows they need to support, restore, and re-establish healthy
populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant resource conservation-
based economy that relies on a healthy natural system.
Jamie Shepard,
Democratic Candidate for
Florida House of Representatives, District 6.
______
Lack of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the
Bay's oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse,
devastating the regional economy and causing untold harm to the many
people who rely on a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their
livelihoods and way of life. The lack of freshwater also negatively
affects the gulf's recreational fishing industry as many species are
birthed in estuaries like Apalachicola Bay.
Call on Congress to act now to pass legislation requiring the Army
Corps of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
river system to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay
receive the freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and re-
establish healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant
resource conservation based economy that relies on a healthy natural
system. Submit your comments by e-mailing the following:
Annie Jordan,
Office Manager.
______
Dear Senator Gibson [sic]: please consider the following
documentation in your decision making process and help save the
Apalachicola River that so many people and so much wildlife depend on
for survival.
Thank you,
Barbara Rutherford-Dorris ,
Cape San Blas, Florida.
______
Greetings.
It is my honor to serve as chairman of the Panama City Beach
Chamber of Commerce. I am sending this e-mail in support of the
Apalachicola Bay/River fishermen and businesses and in support of Gov.
Scott's decision to take action against the state of Georgia over their
consistent abuse of Northwest Florida water rights.
I am also a local resturant owner who regularly purchases oyster
from the hard working families on the Apalachicola Bay/River. I have
seen the steady decline in the quantity and quality of the product that
has been delivered from the Apalachicola Bay/River. I encourage Gov.
Scott to take any and all action to protect our valuable God given
resource.
Thank you.
Derrick Bennett
______
I would ask that you please endorse the Army Corp of Engineers to
operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system to protect
our waters and the oyster/seafood industry. You attention to this
matter would be greatly appreciated.
Vicki R Paul LPN
Bay correctional Facility
Medical Department
______
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I grew up enjoying the Apalachicola River system. I remember when
the water flow was abundate and never thought we would encounter the
current problems of today. I can remember as a small boy watching the
barge traffic engaged in commerce traveling up and down the River.
Unfortunately, the Corp stopped maintaining the channel and commerce on
the River has stopped and the Bay system has suffered great damage to a
once great eco-system. Today in some places on the upper part of the
River, small boats encounter problems from running aground. Larger
boats and barges are out of the questions. What a shame that a great
natural resource has been forsaken for misplaced priorities to upstream
interest. Consideration needs to be given for all to enjoy this
``Jewel''. Please take action to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to
resume the operation of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river
system to ensure that the Aplachicola, Floodplain and Bay receive the
freshwater flows needed to restore this area.
Sincerely,
Wallace C. French
______
Please take necessary Congressional action to allow, and indeed
require, the Army Corps of Engineers to supply a seasonally-
appropriate, dependable and sufficient flow of freshwater from the
Flint-Chattahoochee-Apalachicola river system to Apalachicola Bay. As
was brought out in testimony at the hearing, the health of the bay and
estuary requires a natural flow of freshwater--not just for oysters in
the Bay, though that is important, but for the whole estuary ecosystem
that supports fisheries and natural communities throughout the Gulf of
Mexico. We can think of the oyster population as a sort of ``canary in
the mine''--if oysters cannot thrive, then the ecosystem services that
the whole river/estuary/bay system supplies are in danger. The Atlanta
metropolitan area can certainly do much more to use water from the
system economically than it is doing now.
Richard S. Hopkins
______
It is impossible for individual states to manage interstate
resources without impacting the commerce of other states. The
interstate waters of the Apalachicola River and its tributaries must be
managed by an entitiy that represents the interests of all the states
othewise the state of Georgia will manage the resources of the river
without any consideration to the rights of citizens in Florida and
Alabama. Control of the Apalachicola River resources clearly must be
managed by a Federal entity.
Joseph Schuster,
President and Soil Scientist.
______
I have seen the decrease in river levels for the past several years
due to upstream useage of water from the Chattahoochee-Apalachicola
River. This has affected recreation use of the River itself. Also, lack
of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola Bay has caused the Bay's
oyster, shrimp, crab and fish populations to collapse, devastating the
regional economy and causing untold harm to the many people who rely on
a healthy River, Floodplain and Bay for their livelihoods and way of
life. The lack of freshwater also negatively affects the gulf's
recreational fishing industry as many species are birthed in estuaries
like Apalachicola Bay.
Congress must act now to pass legislation requiring the Army Corps
of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river
system to ensure that the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay
receive the freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and re-
establish healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the vibrant
resource conservation based economy that relies on a healthy natural
system.
W Gregory French
______
August 22, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Nelson, Rubio and Honorable Committee Members,
Thank you for coming to Apalachicola last week. Also, I sincerely
thank you for choosing to serve our county in your elected leadership
capacity.
It is without exaggeration that I am writing to tell you that
Apalachicola Bayand its once-thriving communities are on the brink of
total economic and ecological collapse. Jobs are vanishing. House are
being foreclosed on. Families are suffering and children are living
with relatives while fathers have left to find work elsewhere. These
families do not comprehend how our government can give us idle excuses
while a real environmental collapse is happening before our eyes. There
is simply no time for time for more talking.
Regrettably, I am skeptical of real action by this Congress. It
seem little gets done but excessive talking coupled with political
party finger pointing. Please, please prove me wrong. I am seeking
action, real action by elected officials. Fast action. The governors
have let us down. They have not solved the Florida-Alabama-Georgia
water struggles. Lawsuits take decades. Additionally, the citizens of
the three states are inclined to share, but the special interest groups
are controlling the people's water. I have slowly grown disenchanted
with our leaders over this issue.
As a former small business owner of kayak eco-toursim/outfitter, I
can confidentially tell you that a healthy river and bay equates to
jobs. But, I will defer to the strong testimony from the generations of
commercial fisherman to explain that to members. We are all seeking
efficient action This will require true risk-taking measures and
steadfast leadership on your part.
Please contact me if further detail is needed.
Respectfully,
Georgia Ackerman
______
My Distinguished Colleagues, Senators, and Congress,
I could not let this opportunity pass by without expressing my
passion for the Apalachicola Bay; most of you know me as a long time
advocate for the bay, the seafood workers and the industry as I was the
former Secretary/Spokesperson for the seafood workers, and a
representative of the seafood industry from 2005 through 2009.
What many of you may not know or understand is why. My late
husband; Vince Raffield was himself a seafood worker when we met, and
for almost thirty five years I was married into one of the first
families of seafood who's heritage, culture and traditions have
included being some of the largest landings both commercial and charter
in Bay, Gulf and Franklin Counties. He was of a fourth generation
seafood worker, and very proud of his heritage. When we moved back to
Franklin County, over ten years ago we knew he was terminally ill and
this is where he wanted to live his remaining days.
His love and respect for the bay and the people who work it never
ceased, and he was determined to bring attention to the plight of the
seafood workers and the industry which he held so close to his heart.
Unable to work the bay any longer and barely able to speak he asked
that I relay his feelings, his concerns and be his voice in an effort
to bring attention to what he saw as the beginning of an end to a vital
seafood industry and decades of culture, heritage and traditions which
would be lost by the wayside. Little did I know at the time, that not
only would I do it for him, for my love for him, but I would resonate
with that same passion with every fiber of my being for my own love and
concern for the bay and the men and women who work it.
Whether in my writing, public speaking or general conversation;
that love has never ceased, the concern remains as well as the passion
to defend it, protect it and voice the genuine concerns and love for
the bay, the people who work it and the industry which struggles to
survive still today.
I beseech you on behalf of myself, my community, our industry, our
workers, and in remembrance of my late husband; don't allow this
injustice to continue. While many enjoy themselves recreationally,
others here struggle just to put food on their tables and a roof over
their heads and are paying the price for the luxury of that recreation.
Species are dying, at risk of being extinct, marine life, aquatic
foliage, and the ecosystem itself hangs in the balance on one side
while greed and politics controls the other. What cost should be paid
and by whom? When in fact the need of the many clearly should out way
the greed of a few, we are being robbed of the vital nutrients and
sediments that it takes to make the ``World Famous Apalachicola
Oyster'' and to continue to have a sustainable seafood industry in one
of the most precious jewels of Florida, Apalachicola and it is about
time that changed.
Without your help it could mean the end of our industry, culture,
heritage and traditions. Please support us and help us to continue to
be sustainable and pass this on to future generations. Ask for the
release of that water flow and ask those that are responsible to try to
understand how they would feel if they were in our shoes?
When history is recorded on this will it paint a picture of
compassion, working together for a balance of equality or will it paint
a dismal picture of the end of an era and the beginning of the end for
the ecosystems, environment, and economy tipped by politics and greed.
I beg of you to please help save our bay, our future and restore our
faith that justice will prevail.
Respectfully,
Linda Raffield
______
Please recognize that the diversion of river water for lawns and
sport in Georgia is killing aquatic life and consequently destroying
industry and livelihood in Florida.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Padgett
______
Dear members of the committee,
In light of the legislation you will be considering that will
greatly affect the management of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
river system, I am writing to you as a resident of nearby Tallahassee,
Florida to present my experiences of and perspectives on Apalachicola
Bay and the surrounding area. I thank you for taking the time to read
this and hope you will consider the views expressed when deciding on
the legislation.
I moved to Tallahassee one year ago and was immediately amazed by
the beauty of the surrounding area, including Apalachicola Bay. I have
been fortunate enough to enjoy much the area has to offer from kayaking
on the Apalachicola river, eating local seafood, spending the night in
one of the old hotels in Apalachicola and swimming at St George Island.
As an oceanographer, I know that such a spectacular variety of
ecosystems and large biodiversity can only come from a delicate balance
of environmental conditions. The oysters that live in Apalachicola Bay,
for example, depend on clean water with a specific salinity to survive.
This balance is one I know very well, having grown up with a view of
the mouth of the Thames Estuary in the UK. In this area, oysters were
big business. However, between 1940-1970 water quality degraded as the
river became increasingly polluted. The oyster beds, that had been
farmed since Roman times, declined and the towns that depended on the
oysters suffered huge loss. As I grew up during the 1980s and 1990s
things slowly turned around. Pollution was reduced and eventually the
oysters came back. Today even seals have been spotted in the estuary, a
sure sign the fish are plentiful and the water clean. Some rejuvenation
of the commerce and life of the towns affected has been possible but
they are still not what they once were and will most likely never be
again. This kind of story is all too common, whether it is due to
pollution, over-fishing or over consumption of water. It would be
devastating and demonstrate a huge amount of ignorance and lack of
learning on our part if this were to happen to the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint river system.
Water is unquestionably our most precious resource. Good management
and effective distribution of water is key, not only to our lives today
but also for the generations that follow us. As well as our need to
consume it directly, water provides us with further resources such as
food and energy and a habitat that both supports us and keeps us in
good health both physically and mentally.
I urge you to consider these points when making your deliberations
and hope that you will help prevent consumption driven decisions and
short term easy options from destroying both livelihoods and the
environment that sustains us.
Yours faithfully,
Hannah Hiester
______
I am writing to express my concerns about the future of the
Apalachicola River and Bay unless Congress takes action now to increase
and stabilize the freshwater flows into Apalachicola Bay from the
Apalachicola River. The Apalachicola River and Bay ecosystem is a
national resource that provides jobs for thousands of people who
harvest and process oysters and other seafood. This oyster industry is
in grave danger under present water flow management practices,
primarily because of too much water used or held back by upstream
states. This needs to change.
The oyster industry is a key economic driver of the Apalachicola
Bay area and supplies some 90 percent of Florida's oysters. In addition
local seafood is a key part of what draws tourists to this region. We
are not Florida residents, but usually spend two months of each year in
the Apalachicola area. Local seafood is one of the primary reasons we
come to this area. The other is to enjoy the natural resources of the
area including the Apalachicola River and its surrounding watershed. A
healthy Apalachicola River is critical to the future of the tourist
industry as well as the seafood industry. Many more thousands of jobs
and the prosperity of the entire Big Bend region of the Florida Gulf
are at stake here.
Years and years of inter-state bickering and neglect have led to
the present dire situation. Action be Congress is needed and needed
immediately.
Randall Downing
______
Dear Ms. Gibson and Mr. Houton:
We would like to have our comments included in the U.S. Senate
record on the importance of freshwater flows for the Apalachicola River
and Bay.
We live in Tallahassee, though are no strangers to the Apalachicola
as we have boated on the river and its bay for many years (houseboat,
sailboat, motor boat and canoe). It is a majestic and powerful river,
its waters and surrounding lands supporting large numbers of
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as the people who fish its
waters. A whole oyster industry is dependent on sufficient freshwater
flow from farther north. But you know all this.
We believe that the freshwater needs of the ecology of the river
and bay are just as important as the water needs of the City of
Atlanta. Both should be considered. Certainly there need to be limits
to growth based on the availability of water. Certainly there need to
be widespread water conservation practices implemented throughout the
watershed such as low flush toilets in every hotel and home, limits to
lawn watering, water reuse on farms and so on.
The bottom line is that we must restore the flow of freshwater to
the Apalachicola River and Bay. It is important.
Sincerely,
Donna Legare and Jody Walthall
______
Dear Ms, Gibson,
As a native Georgian but now a resident of Florida, I request that
action needs to be take by Congress to increase the water flow into the
Apalachicola Bay. I have been coming to this area of Florida since 1976
and have valued the beauty and seafood abundance of the Last Great Bay.
I lived for a decade in Atlanta and have noted firsthand how my native
state capital uses its water supply from the Chattahoochee River.
Indeed, Atlanta has never met a developer it did not like. I understand
there are water needs in Georgia, but due consideration must be given
to those downstream who also have needs for that water. The restriction
of the water flow to South Georgia and the Apalachicola Bay is
strangling the life out of the those communities downstream from
Atlanta. The current ruling of the courts will result in the death of
the seafood industry and a way of life in the Bay. I plead for action
before the it is too late.
Respectfully,
Michael Cumpton,
St. Augustine, Florida.
______
Dear Senator Gibson [sic],
Preserving the ecosystem of the Apalachicola River is critical for
our survival. We must find a way to compromise with all parties that
wish to use our precious and diminishing resources. It is unacceptable
to let an entire habitat that many use for their livelihood be
destroyed.
Have you played Jenga. Removing one critical piece causes the whole
tower to collapse. Don't be responsible for the suffering of our
children and our children's children. The Apalachicola and its human
and other inhabitants NEED freshwater.
Sincerely,
Rachel Kelley
______
Dear Mr. Houton and Ms. Gibson,
As you may be aware the Apalachicola Bay is one of the last places
in the U.S. that wild, rather than farmed oysters are available. This
bay is an invaluable natural resource for many reasons, oysters being
just one. A large amount of the wild caught fish from the Gulf of
Mexico begin life in the brackish water of the great estuary. These
fisheries account for large numbers of jobs as well as important tax
revenue for Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and the U.S. Government.
This bay is being strangled by a lack of freshwater coming down the
Apalachicola River. The head waters of this river are north of Atlanta,
Georgia. The Atlanta region has been able to tap into Lake Lanier and
the Chattahoochee River as a water source. Lake Lanier was not built as
a water source for Atlanta, this is a matter of public record.
As one who lives in the Atlanta metro area I see tremendous water
wastage almost daily. The metro region just gives lip service to water
conservation, and makes no serious efforts to conserve water.
These two competing interests do not have to be at odds.
Apalachicola Bay needs can be met, as well as those of Atlanta metro,
if serious and substantive conservation efforts are invoked soon.
Please do not let the expansionist goals of North Georgia
politicians destroy one of the last great estuaries in the United
States.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jonathan Goodson
______
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I own and have operated Water Street Seafood for 26 years in
Apalachicola, FL. Water Street Seafood processes and distributes
oysters, shrimp, crabs and fish harvested from Apalachicola Bay and the
Gulf of Mexico. Water Street Seafood employs about 50 people and buys
from over 100 fishermen. All of these jobs are dependant on the health
of Apalachicola Bay. Because of the lack of freshwater from the
Apalachicola River, our oyster production has dropped over 75 percent,
crab production has dropped 90 percent, shrimp and fish have dropped
over 50 percent.
I have also owned The Blue Parrot Restaurant on St. George Island,
FL for the past 17 years. The Blue Parrot employs over 70 people during
the summer season. The Blue Parrot is known for its fresh local
seafood. The visitors who come to Franklin County come here to enjoy
all the activities Apalachicola Bay offers. Without all the
recreational activities related to the bay and its biodiversity, the
visitors would not come here. Most of the jobs in our tourism industry
would be lost.
The lack of water flow from the Apalachicola River will eventually
destroy Apalachicola Bay and all the jobs which depend on a healthy
bay. We desperately need all our Florida politicians to do everything
possible to insure that Apalachicola Bay gets the river flow it needs.
The state of Georgia must be required to create and follow very serious
water conservation laws which will be in the best interest of all
Americans. The United States Senate and Congress must act to create the
required laws directing the Army Corps of Engineers to make
Apalachicola Bay one of the top priorities in the management of water
flow in the Apalachicola River.
Mankind is destoying the Earth one river, one bay at a time.
However, we have the power and ability to preserve the Earth.
Apalachicola Bay is a very unique and special ecosystem which can only
be found one or two other place on this planet. Please do eveything
possible to save the Apalachicola Bay.
Berst Regards,
Steven C. Rash,
President,
Water Street Seafood, Inc.
______
Dear Respected Senators,
While my home is in Wilmette, Il. My wife, Lydia and I own 2
Vacation Rentals in Gulf County, Fl. and land in Franklin County, Fl.
We pay our fair share of real estate taxes and Revenue taxes from our
weekly rentals. We have been in the area since 1998 and absolutely love
the ``Forgotten Coast'' as it is referred to often. The natural beauty
and pristine nature balance is truly one of the most beautiful area in
all of the U.S. ``Old Florida'' is alive and well down here.
There is absolutely no way we can let the Apalach Ecosystem become
endangered any more than it already is!!!!!! We have to let the water
from Georgia come down and protect this beautiful gem. The statistics
of oyster density has gone down by 75!!!!! Please help and prevent this
potential ECO disaster from happening. Not to mention the potential
further disintegration of the Oyster production industry and all the
``Unintended Consequences'' that would bring.
Save the Apalachicola River and Bay!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you!!!!
Peter J. and Lydia A. Burns
______
This is a plea for Congress to act on behalf of the Florida
citizens who live in Franklin County and elsewhere to protect the
Apalachicola River and Bay. The Corps of Engineers needs to be directed
to provide freshwater flows necessary to save Apalachicola Bay and the
seafood industry here which is so vital to our economy.
Marcia M. Johnson
Clerk of Circuit Court, Franklin County.
______
The health of the Apalachicola Bay and the livelihood of the
citizens that live in Franklin County, Florida are at risk. This is not
something that might occur, rather it is happening now and has been for
the last several years. The restricted water flows into the
Apalachicola River and therefore the Bay have caused a major change in
the ecology of the region. The primary industry in Franklin county is
oyster harvesting. Oysters require a delicate balance of both salt and
freshwater to thrive and grow. The town needs Oysters to continue to
thrive and grow. Neither are getting what they need.
Congress has an opportunity to take action and make a difference.
The Governors of Florida, Georgia and Alabama have been ineffective in
collaboratively resolving the issue. Rather, they are drawn to opposite
corners by special interests. The result has been a stalemate, inaction
and continued loss of jobs and a unique American way of life.
Please take action to support increased water flows into the
Apalachicola River. Thank you for your consideration.
Rick Zelznak
______
I am writing to have my voice heard regarding the need for
freshwater in the Apalachicola River and subsequently, the Bay. The
idea that Georgia has the right to ``own'' the water that has been kept
captive and is being overused by that state is ludicrous.
Not only is a way of life and the oyster industry at stake, but the
environmental balance of this entire area of North Florida.
Water levels must be restored to the Apalachicola River.
Sincerely,
Carla Marie Reid
______
The time has come to consider filling in the man-made Bob Sykes
Cut! This huge breach of what was once a barrier island (St. George) in
1953 results in two tidal salt water flushes and two freshwater
syphonings out of the bay each day. This is not natural and was never
intended. It is the root of the oyster production problem.
Yes, we have gotten away with this ill conceived shortcut to the
gulf for decades. But like all tamperings with nature, unintended
consequences usually occur, later than you think and greater than you
anticipate. Such is the case with today's dieing oyster industry!
There is no argument that water flows are substantially down due to
long-term reduced rain fall in North Georgia. Also, Atlanta's increased
consumption of water is greater than ever before. However, suing
Georgia will have no affect on the weather or the growth of the city's
population. An alternative approach is required which is immediate,
affordable, and calculated to produce no adverse impact on government
relations between states or negatively impact the ecology of the oyster
beds.
If the cut were refilled, it is my contention that there would be
sufficient freshwater flooding the oyster beds to sustain profitable
harvests, even with the reduced river flow. Let the scientist, rather
than the politicians, evaluate and settle the merits of the issue. Then
have the politicians act to effect the closing of the cut. In fact, the
cut would only require a modest loose-rock dam across it. Then just let
nature fill it in with sand as it will in due time since all dredging
will have cease.
I challenge you to accept my cost-effective hypothesis and at least
study the oyster problem from a water salinity perspective rather than
a legal challenge to our neighboring state. Thank you very much for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lee Avirett
______
The lack of freshwater flow down the Apalachicola River has now
reached crisis stage. This is a disaster not only for the oystermen of
the bay but all the people who enjoy the healthy food from the Gulf of
Mexico. The estuary supports 90 percent of the sea life at some stage
of their development.
As a native-born Floridian, I beg you to not waste this opportunity
to save an American Treasure for my grandsons and those that come after
them. We have already lost too much of natural Florida as I knew it as
a child. The sea life may well be the canary in the mine for this
planet.
Dona Carbone
______
Congress needs to instruct the Army Corp of Engineers to establish
freshwater flows that will sustain the Apalachicola Bay.
Economically, the livelihoods the oystermen and fisherman depend on
the Bay continuing to produce the bounty it is capable of producing.
Furthermore a damaged estuary will not support the robust tourism
industry that depends on this vibrant ecosystem. The livelihoods of
many other local residents now depend on continuing to attract visitors
looking to experience what is fast becoming a vanishing wonder of
nature.
I am sure that the inland residents of Georgia also feel that
upstream water extraction is also crucial to their economic livelihood.
The difference is that that the Bay is a treasure of biological
diversity of flora and fauna that deserves protection as a regional if
not national importance. As a part of the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System, the Federal Government has already recognized the
importance of this bay.
Now Congress needs to take the necessary steps to protect it.
Edward Schroering
______
I want the Senate Commerce Committee to urge the Obama
administration to direct the Corp or Engineers to revise the Water
Control Manual for the Apalachicola Chattahocheee Flint Rivers (ACF)
system to restore necessary water flows for the Apalachicola River to
protect endangered fish and wildlife and Apalachicola Bay. The
Declaration of Fisheries Disaster for the bay and its oyster population
further justifes the restoration of historic river flows necessary to
provide adequate freshwater for the Bay. The State of Florida has been
robbed of water long enough. The reversal of Judge Magneson's brilliant
and correct opinion--that the COE's violated the law by allowing water
for consumption and boating in Atlanta at the expense of the
Apalachicola River and Bay--is a travesty of justice. As a former
General Counsel for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, I know first hand the damage done to endangered mussels and
oysters and to the small businesses that depend on the oyster harvest.
I thank Senators Nelson and Rubio for conducting the hearing in
Apalachicola.
James Antista
______
I was born in Apalachicola in 1948 and my father was a boat builder
there. I've spent a great deal of my life appreciating and enjoying the
Apalachicola River and its ecosystem, its culture, and its people and
realize that this may be our last chance to take a stand and do the
right thing for the future of this area. The Apalachicola River is one
of the most beautiful and sensitive areas in our country. It
desperately needs your help. The water flow that originates in Georgia
has been diminishing for years and this has a profound effect on the
area. Floridians are asking for a fair share of that water to preserve
a national treasure. Please help. We all need to be doing everything we
can to protect and save what's left of our wildlife for generations to
come. Clean water is at the core of our survival. The time is now and
you can make a difference. Thank you very much for caring and realizing
the importance of this issue.
Wanda Phares,
Tallahassee, Florida.
______
Good evening,
I regularly kayak the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers
system. Mismanagement of the rivers system affects the flora and fauna
that other non-consumptive recreationists and I wish to see. Non-
consumptive recreationists provide another economic boost to the
communities around the rivers, one that is threatened by current
management practices.
Please, keep water levels such that they sustain the rivers. We
Floridians matter.
I am calling on Congress to pass legislation requiring the Army
Corps of Engineers to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
Rivers system to ensure that the rivers receive the freshwater flows
they need to support healthy populations of fish and wildlife and the
vibrant resource-based economy that relies on a healthy, natural
system.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Slack
______
I do hope that all of this is seriously taken. The lively hood of
the residence of Franklin County is dependent on Apalachicola Bay. We
are all connected in some way. If it is harvesting oysters, developing
tourism, or try to live in a vibrant economy that we don't see people
eking out a living. The River and Bay are life of Franklin County.
I live on East Bay, I own an Art Gallery on St George Island, I
served on Northwest Water Management District Governing Board for 12
years and I am on the board of the Apalachicola Riverkeepers. I see
firsthand the devastation that occurs when we do not get the freshwater
that we need to replenish the bay and keep it healthy.
This is not a political plight of who is right and who is wrong. It
is about the life of our God Given treasure called the Apalachicola
River and Bay. It must not be a political pawn as it is now being used
as.
I do hope and encourage Congress to act accordingly to save our
River and Bay.
Thank you for listening, we all wait in hopes that the right
decisions will be made in this critical moment.
Blessing,
Joyce Estes,
Sea Oats Gallery.
______
The locals of the northwest FL in the region of the Apalachicola
Bay are asking your help as members of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the upcoming hearing to
support the continuing legislation to protect our water rights and save
our bay, oyster industry and restore the precious balance of salinity
and the health of the Bay.
Sincerely,
Diane Cofer,
Realtor,
Panama City, FL.
______
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Atlanta, GA, August 23, 2013
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Submission to Record of Committee Hearing on ``Effects of Water
Flows on Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long Term
Perspectives,'' August 13, 2013
Dear Members of the Committee:
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
held a field hearing in Apalachicola, Florida, on August 13, 2013, on
the topic ``Effects of Water Flows on Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long
Term Perspectives.'' Although there was a great deal of discussion at
the hearing about Georgia's water use in the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the Committee did not invite
anyone on behalf of the State of Georgia or its water users to speak at
the hearing. The Committee did, however, provide that the record of the
hearing would remain open for ten days for any member of the public to
submit written information that they desired to be included in the
record. Accordingly, I make the timely submittal of this letter and the
attached analysis for you to include in the record.
The data refute the assertion that Georgia's water use is causing
or contributing to the reported decline in the Apalachicola Bay oyster
population. Recent decades have seen droughts of increasing frequency
and severity. These droughts are natural phenomena that stress the
environment throughout the ACF Basin. Stream flows have accordingly
declined in recent decades as a result of reduced natural inflow and
other factors unrelated to consumptive water use in the State of
Georgia or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ACF reservoirs. In fact,
contrary to what some have erroneously suggested, flows in the
Apalachicola River have been higher during recent droughts than they
would have been in a state of nature, because the Corps releases large
amounts of water stored in reservoirs in Georgia to augment the flow in
the Apalachicola River. Moreover, salinity in the Apalachicola Bay
generally, and specifically at the most productive oyster beds, is
highly variable and not affected in any material way by variations in
the flow of the Apalachicola River of a degree equivalent to the amount
of Georgia's water use. Among other things, the saltwater inflow from
the man-made Sikes Cut has a much greater impact on salinity at the
oyster beds.
As even the Governor of Florida, the University of Florida, and
others have noted, the decline in the oyster population in the
Apalachicola Bay appears to be related to poor management of the oyster
habitat in Florida. Oyster harvesting reached record-high levels in the
2011-2012 time period, with the predictable result that the oyster
population experienced a substantial reduction. It would appear that
the State of Florida should direct its resources at restoring the
affected substrate and more tightly controlling harvesting.
particularly of sub-legal oysters, rather than making unjustified
claims against Georgia.
I trust that you will find the attached analysis informative.
Please let me know if you have questions or desire additional
information.
Sincerely,
Judson H. Turner,
Director,
Environmental Protection Division,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Enclosure
______
Attachment
Statement by the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
The Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (EPD) is the primary agency responsible for the
management of water resources in Georgia. EPD ensures that adequate
water supplies and water quality are maintained through permits issued
to local governments, industry, farmers and subdivisions for surface
water and groundwater withdrawals, and through the permitting of
treated wastewater discharges. EPD ensures that Georgia's public water
systems are operating properly to supply safe drinking water to
citizens, works to control nonpoint sources of pollution, including
erosion and sedimentation, and regulates storm water discharges. EPD
also conducts water quality monitoring and modeling of Georgia's
waterways.
Analysis
EPD has reviewed the Oyster Resource Assessment Report issued in
August 2012 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Aquiculture; the April 24, 2013 Apalachicola Bay
Oyster Situation Report; the 2012-2013 Florida Gulf Coast Oyster
Disaster Report published by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission in May 2013; and testimony filed by various parties for the
August 13, 2013 field hearing conducted by the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation in Apalachicola, Florida. A
number of these documents assert erroneously that consumptive use of
water by the State of Georgia is the cause of the decline in the
Apalachicola Bay oyster fishery. These assertions are flatly incorrect
and ignore the facts showing that drought and fishery mismanagement are
the most likely causes of the decline in the oyster fishery, not
Georgia's reasonable use of the water resources within its borders.
Below, EPD corrects some of the key errors in the above-mentioned
reports and testimony, and demonstrates that (1) Georgia's water
consumption is reasonable; (2) this use has little, if any, impact on
conditions in the Apalachicola Bay; and (3) the steep decline oyster
populations coincided with record overharvesting and mismanagement of
oyster populations in Apalachicola Bay.
The Decline in Flows into the Apalachicola Bay is a Natural Phenomenon
Experienced Throughout the Southeast
Florida asserts that stream flow in the Apalachicola River has been
lower during recent droughts than in previous droughts, and that
Georgia's water consumption is the reason. The facts do not support
this assertion. To the contrary, stream flows have been declining
throughout the ACF River Basin and other basins in Northwest Florida
feeding into the Gulf of Mexico for reasons that have nothing to do
with water consumption in the State of Georgia. The trend of decreasing
Apalachicola River flows has been seen in other rivers throughout the
region. The following two figures show this trend in the Apalachicola
River and Florida's Choctawhatchee River, which does not flow through
Georgia.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The same trends holds for other tributaries to gulf bays. The
figure below shows seven gages, including the two shown above; the
flows have been normalized by drainage area so the trends can been seen
on a single plot. As can be seen, stream flows show a general declining
trend over the period from 1972 to the present. Moreover, as discussed
in greater detail below, this trend is entirely unrelated to water use
in the State of Georgia.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In fact, this downward trend is even more pronounced in the Florida
drainage area of the ACF Basin. The figure below shows the Apalachicola
River flows at the Florida state line (USGS Chattahoochee, FL Gage) and
the incremental flow entering the Apalachicola River between the
Chattahoochee, FL Gage and the Sumatra Gage further downstream.\1\ The
flows again are normalized by drainage area for comparison. The decline
in the incremental flow in the Florida portion of the Apalachicola
River drainage obviously is not caused by Georgia's water use or the
Corps' reservoir operations. This decline, like the decline in the
inflow within the basin in Georgia, is attributable mainly to natural
hydrological changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources: 1978-2012, USGS gage 02359170; 1972-1978 (not
available from USGS), Corps of Engineers records provided with ACF
ResSim model (ACFHEC_10.dss file).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As seen below, similar trends are observed in ``reference'' stream
gages such as the Suwanee River (White Springs, FL) Gage, identified by
the USGS as representing a natural or least-disturbed condition. Thus,
these trends appear to include a climatic component, as the observed
declines in stream flow are occurring without regard to consumptive
withdrawals within these basins.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Natural Unimpaired Flows (Without Human Influence) Have Been Lower In
Recent Droughts Than In Previous Droughts
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's May 2013
Disaster Report includes a graph (Figure 2, on p. 37 of the Disaster
Report) suggesting that upstream consumption and the Corps' management
have produced ``significantly lower flows.'' The FFWCC graph is
misleading and FFWCC's assertion is false. As a matter of fact, the
cause of the increase in low flow days is a change in the natural,
unimpaired flow.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Unimpaired flows are historically observed flows with human
influences removed. Human influences considered in derivation of
unimpaired flows include flow regulation by and net evaporation from
large reservoirs, and water withdrawals and wastewater returns by
municipal, industrial, thermal power, and agricultural water uses.
Groundwater pumping is also considered to the extent surface water
flows are reduced. The use of unimpaired flows, as opposed to
historical observed flows, allows resource assessments to be founded on
the ``natural'' hydrology of the stream network. This approach enables
consistent, unbiased evaluation of the impact of past, present, and
future water regulation and consumption activities on stream networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The green bars below show the unimpaired flow \3\ available to
support flows over 6,000 cfs for the same period presented in FFWCC's
graph. The lower the green bar, the less water was available in nature,
and the more days below 6,000 cfs (blue bar). As can be seen, the
increase in the number of days below 6,000 cfs has corresponded with a
sharp reduction in the unimpaired flow. In fact, the 2008-2012 period
was the only period during which the mean unimpaired flow was less than
6,000 cfs. It is therefore not surprising that this period would have
the greatest number of days with flows below 6,000 cfs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Corps of Engineers' unimpaired flow data set was used for
the available period (1939-2008). Chattahoochee, FL Gage data was used
from 1925-1938, and values were calculated using the Corps' methodology
for 2009-2012.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Florida Overstates Georgia's Consumptive Use
As explained above, flows in the Apalachicola River have been
decreasing overall in recent years for reasons unrelated to upstream
consumptive use. Nevertheless, some in Florida continue to assert that
water use in the Atlanta region is a significant factor in this
decline. This is simply not the case.
Consumptive water use within Metropolitan North Georgia represents
only small fraction of the flow in the Apalachicola River downstream in
Florida. Indeed, since 2000, Metropolitan North Georgia's total
municipal and industrial consumptive use in the ACF Basin \4\ has been
equivalent to only 0.5 to 3 percent of the average annual flow at the
Sumatra, FL Gage.\5\ Note that Metro Atlanta's use has been decreasing
since 2000, as shown in Figure 8. The below figures include Metro
Atlanta's municipal and industrial consumption from both the
Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Source: 2000-2009, Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
District, Water Metrics Report, 2011 (water Table 3-4, wastewater
Tables 4-3, 4-5); 2010-2011, PROVISIONAL DATA calculated from data
provided by the State of GA EPD.
\5\ USGS gage 02359170, average annual flow (calendar year).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Much of the information concerning the scale and impact of upstream
water consumption presented to the Committee is inaccurate and
substantially overstates evaporation and consumptive use in the ACF
Basin. For example, Dan Tonsmeire of Apalachicola Riverkeeper stated
that total average evaporation and consumption from May to September
2007 was 3,365 cfs. Mr. Tonsmeire's estimate is based, in part, on
evaporation numbers derived from a draft report to the ACF Stakeholders
Group; these numbers were revised in the final report. Mr. Tonsmeire's
numbers have not been peer-reviewed and are incorrect.
Mr. Tonsmeire also overstated consumptive water use by a large
margin. The recorded 2007 annual average municipal and industrial water
use in Georgia was 399 cfs. This included 283 cfs for the Metro Atlanta
area (including Metro consumption from the Flint Basin). For the period
May through September, the average municipal and industrial water use
in Georgia was 567 cfs, including approximately 420 cfs for the Metro
Atlanta area (including the Flint). When we add an annual average of 54
cfs and a May through September average of 79 cfs of consumptive water
use in Alabama, the annual average non-agricultural water consumption
was only 453 cfs, and the May through September average water
consumption was 646 cfs. These are much less than the 525 cfs (2007
average) and 735 cfs (May through September) presented by Mr.
Tonsmeire.
Minimum Flows in the Apalachicola River During Recent Droughts Have
Been Higher Than They Would Have Been in a State of Nature
As discussed above, the State of Florida and Mr. Tonsmeire assert
that upstream consumptive use and reservoir management practices of the
Corps of Engineers are almost solely to blame for reduced flows in the
Apalachicola River. Though not pointing exclusively to upstream
consumption, Karl E. Havens, Director of the Florida Sea Grant College
Program, offered testimony that the cause of the ``sudden crash in the
oyster population in August 2012'' was some factor ``related to the
long period of low river inflow and high salinity.'' Havens suggested
that ``one of the first things'' he would do is run a computer model
with scenarios of ``the last two years with and without human
withdrawals of water.'' (Emphasis in original.) Havens suggested that
if ``there is little difference,'' addressing the inflow might not be a
solution to fixing the program, but that if the ``difference in river
flow is 10 or 20 percent (or more), there could be a solution.''
As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, Metro Atlanta's
consumptive use is far less than 10 percent of the average flow or even
low flow at the state line. Moreover, actual flows in the Apalachicola
River were even higher than they would have been in an unimpaired
scenario, or in a scenario where there is no consumption and the Corps
operates the Federal reservoirs in ``run-of-river'' mode, without any
storage of water or flow augmentation.
This unaltered flow regime is known as the unimpaired flow.
Comparison of the actual flows entering the Apalachicola River at the
Florida state line and unimpaired flows computed by the Corps of
Engineers demonstrates that, during periods of low flow, actual minimum
flows (the lowest flows that occurred) in the Apalachicola River were
significantly higher for extended periods of time than they would have
been in a state of nature.
The figure below compares the 2007 observed flow at the
Chattahoochee, Florida Gage with the Corps' unimpaired flow for that
period. The combined effects of management actions and return flows
back into the system actually INCREASED the flow across the Florida
line into the Apalachicola River during the May-November drought period
in 2007. From May through November of 2007, observed minimum flows in
the Apalachicola River were higher, and often much higher, than what
nature alone would have provided.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Another way to see how actual flow in the Apalachicola River flow
was better than unimpaired flow is to place all the numbers in the
context of the total flow in the basin. The following bar charts
present a comparison of the total flow in the Apalachicola River to the
unimpaired flow for May-November 2007 and the entire year of 2007,
using data from the USGS gage at Chattahoochee, FL, and the Corps'
Unimpaired Flow Data Set.
As can be seen:
Florida received only slightly less (7 percent) water than
the entire natural flow of the Apalachicola River for the
entire year. In other words, despite the fact that 74 percent
of the ACF Basin is in Georgia, Florida received 93 percent of
the flow during one of the worst droughts in the hydrologic
record.
More importantly, Florida actually received more water than
the entire natural flow of the river for the May to November
drought period, when flows tend to be the lowest. Thus, during
the record-breaking drought period of 2007, the impact of all
water use in the basin upstream of Florida on the average flow
was eliminated by the river management about which Florida
complains.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Corps maintains at least 5,000 cfs at almost all times at the
Chattahoochee, FL Gage, and provides additional augmentation at certain
times when natural flows are above 5,000 cfs. In the below graph, the
number of days in which the unimpaired (natural) flow would have been
below 5,000 cfs is compared to the number of days in which the actual
flow fell below 5,000 cfs. The dramatic reduction (327 reduced to 59)
in the number of days when flow fell below 5,000 cfs is the direct
result of Corps management and return flows from upstream users. The
extraordinary benefit Florida receives, in terms of maintaining minimum
flows, is abundantly clear.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As Dr. Havens suggested, it is possible to use a hydrologic model
to compare the flows that would have occurred both with, and without,
upstream withdrawals and the effects of reservoir operations. This
modeling, which Florida has notably declined to provide, demonstrates
the benefits of the Corps' reservoir operations and the minimal effect
of upstream consumption.
The figure below compares two scenarios. The green line represents
present conditions and includes existing water withdrawals within the
State of Georgia and the existing operational plans for the Corps' ACF
reservoirs. The purple line shows the flows that would have occurred
without any upstream withdrawals within the State of Georgia and the
Corps' ACF reservoirs operated in a ``run-of-river'' mode where the
Corps neither stores water nor releases water from storage. As can be
seen, the entirety of Georgia's water withdrawals make little if any
difference to downstream flows. Moreover, the upstream reservoirs
substantially supplement flows during the periods of greatest scarcity.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Georgia's Water Consumption Has Negligible, if Any, Impact on Salinity
in Apalachicola Bay
The overriding premise of the testimony presented to the Committee
at the hearing is that upstream withdrawals within Georgia have caused
reductions in freshwater inflows to Apalachicola Bay, and that these
reductions have caused oyster populations to decline as a result of
substantial increases in Bay salinities. Again, this is false. Even if
Georgia's upstream water consumption in the ACF Basin did not occur,
there still would be little to no reduction in salinity in Apalachicola
Bay.
Salinity in Apalachicola Bay is highly variable due to numerous
factors, including tides, wind, and freshwater inflow (both from the
Apalachicola River and local sources). A time series plot of daily
average salinity concentrations for the bay at two of the larger oyster
beds--Cat Point and Dry Bar--in 2002 (based on data collected by the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)) and the
corresponding flows in the Apalachicola River at the Sumatra Gage (USGS
02359170) illustrates this.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Because of the many factors that affect salinity, flow in the
Apalachicola River is only loosely correlated with salinities at the
main oyster beds in Apalachicola Bay. The following figures compare
observed salinity in Apalachicola Bay and flow in the Apalachicola
River at the Sumatra Gage. Salinity data again are from NERRS for Cat
Point and Dry Bar, and the flows are in the Apalachicola River at the
Sumatra Gage. Days with flow of 10,000 cfs or less, and 20,000 cfs or
less, were selected to represent two ranges of flow in the Apalachicola
River. At both sites, significant variation in salinity concentration
is apparent at each level of flow, indicating the influence of factors
other than Apalachicola River flow on salinity concentration at the
oyster beds.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Using regressions based on the data above, the predicted effect on
salinity of a reduction in flow corresponding to 160 mgd of upstream
consumptive use--the projected year 2045 municipal and industrial
consumptive of Metro Atlanta--is shown in the below bar charts.
Consumptive use of this magnitude--even assuming it resulted in a 1/1
reduction in the flow in the Apalachicola River during a low flow
period (flow ranging from 4,500 to 7,000 cfs), which it would not,
under the Corps' current reservoir operations, would increase the
number of days with salinity above 24 ppt by less than 3 percent, while
the number of days with salinities above 20 ppt would increase by less
than 1 percent.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Moreover, even assuming higher levels of consumption within the
entire ACF Basin, the impact on salinity is negligible. Regression
models were used to estimate bay salinity concentration distributions
under other flow scenarios where observed river low was increased each
day by 200, 500, or 1,000 cfs.
The distributions of salinity concentrations for each of the flow
scenarios is summarized with a ``box and whisker'' plot as shown below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The ``box'' represents the median, 75th and 25th percentiles of
salinity concentrations, and the ``whiskers'' represent the minimum and
maximum concentration. For each of the flow scenarios, a day was
included if the observed flow was on the specified range of 10,000 cfs
and below, or 20,000 cfs and below. The flow scenarios, however,
include flows that may be above the range if they occurred on a day
that the observed flow was within the range.
Increased flow, represented by the flow scenarios, is shown in the
figures below to have little effect on the distribution of salinity in
the Apalachicola Bay.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sikes Cut Has a Greater Effect on Salinity
Research has shown that salinity throughout Apalachicola Bay and at
oyster bar locations in particular is affected by the flow of salt
water through artificial inlets like Sikes Cut. The Corps created Sikes
Cut as a navigation channel in the 1950s to shorten travel time for
boats leaving and entering Apalachicola Bay. Modeling work by Jones et
al., (1994) indicates that Sikes Cut impacts salinity throughout
Apalachicola Bay and can impact the salinity at Cat Point oyster bar,
for example, by 2-4 ppt.\6\ If this is so, the influence of Sikes Cut
on salinity is two times or more greater than the influence of all
upstream consumptive uses combined. In addition, Sikes Cut provides an
entry path for marine oyster predators directly to the heart of the
oyster beds in Apalachicola Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, Jones, W.K., Galperin, B., Weisberg, R.H. and Wu, T.S.,
Influence of Sikes Cut on Apalachicola Bay, FL; a Preliminary Analysis
from a Three-Dimensional Perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There Is No Correlation Between Flows and Oyster Landings
In light of the foregoing, it should come as no surprise that there
has been no correlation between the amount of water flowing in the
Apalachicola River in a given year or consecutive years, and oyster
landings in those years or following years.
The figure below provides oyster landing data for the Florida Gulf
Coast as shown in Florida's 2013 Disaster Report and as compiled by
NOAA Fisheries. It shows that there is no correlation between river
flow and annual oyster landings.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Current Decline in Landings and Population Appears to Be Caused by
Overharvesting
From NOAA monthly landing data and the discontinuous monthly
landing data provided by the FFWCC May 2013 Disaster Report, it is very
clear that the general level of oyster harvest in the most recent 6
years has been unprecedentedly high. The level of monthly harvest
starting around October 2011 and lasting well into 2012 in particular
was higher than any seen before. As later graphs will show, this
record-breaking level of harvest was then followed by the steep decline
of the oyster population at major oyster bars. Despite the fact that
the predicted population began to decline in 2010 following several
years of higher-than historical harvests, Florida allowed harvesting to
increase to unprecedented levels.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The below graphs show the monthly quantities of oyster landings
(NOAA data) plotted with estimates of the remaining oyster population
at the Dry Bar and Cat Point oyster bars, based on 2013 Florida
Disaster Report data. This data shows that despite the fact that the
predicted population began to decline in 2010 following several years
of higher-than historical harvests, harvesting activity increased,
hitting an all-time peak between late 2011 and early 2012.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The above charts appear to show that the current decline in oyster
landings is directly related to the unprecedentedly high levels of
oyster harvesting in the years from 2007 to 2012. As Governor Scott of
Florida himself acknowledged in his September 6, 2012 letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce seeking a commercial fishery declaration
for Florida's oyster harvesting areas in the Gulf of Mexico,
``Harvesting pressures and practices were altered to increase fishing
effort, as measured in reported trips, due to the closure of oyster
harvesting in contiguous states during 2010. This led to overharvesting
of illegal and sub-legal oysters further damaging an already stressed
population.''
Similarly, the April 24, 2013 Apalachicola Bay Oyster Situation
Report, published by the University of Florida, Florida Sea Grant, and
others points to ``a historically high level of oyster harvesting'' as
a cause of the declining oyster population, stating further that
``oyster harvesting trips reported by fishermen reached the highest
levels observed since the mid-1980s.'' The Report states,
``Additionally, fishermen raised concerns about large harvests of sub-
legal (less than 3 inch) oysters over the same time period,'' and
concludes that ``oyster demand, prices, and fishing effort, combined
with insufficient fishery management enforcement and adjudication, led
to a large portion of the oysters being harvested.'' The Report
mentions upstream water consumption in Georgia and Alabama as a
possible contributor, but it makes no effort to show any decline in
flow or increased salinity related to that consumption.
The concurrence of the dramatic rise in oyster harvesting with the
decline in the available oyster population is illustrated in the below
the figures, derived from data reported in the August 2012 Oyster
Resource Assessment Report, compared with the estimated oyster
populations at the Dry Bar and Cat Point oyster beds.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Georgia's Water Use is Reasonable
The underlying premise behind much of the information and testimony
provided by the State of Florida is that withdrawals in the Metro
Atlanta Area are unreasonable and have harmed Florida's interests. As
shown above, there is no impact to Florida from Metro Atlanta's
consumption. This should not be a surprise, because Metro Atlanta's
municipal and industrial water use is about 1 percent of the water
flowing from Georgia into the Apalachicola River in an average year.
During extreme drought, the percentage depletion of the annual water
budget is somewhat higher, but it is never much higher than 2-3
percent.
As a result of the aggressive conservation measures described
below, water use within the Metro Atlanta Area has declined
substantially over the past decade, even as population increased. Per
capita usage for the Metro Atlanta Area compares very favorably to peer
communities nationwide, and it is much lower than in other communities
in Alabama and Florida. According to a report by the firm CH2MHill
based on information provided by state agencies, in 2006, the per
capita use rate for Atlanta was 128 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
For Tampa, Florida, the use rate was 148 gpcd; for Mobile, Alabama, was
159 gpcd; for Montgomery, Alabama, was 162 gpcd; for Birmingham,
Alabama, was 167 gpcd; and for Tallahassee, Florida, was 176 gpcd.
The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, which is
comprised of 15 counties, 92 cities, and 56 water supply systems, has
developed comprehensive long-term plans for water supply and
conservation, wastewater management, and watershed management for metro
Atlanta. The plans are implemented by local water systems and local
governments and are enforced by the State of Georgia through water
permits and through eligibility for grants and loans.
Water conservation is an important element of the Metro Water
District's Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan. The water
conservation measures in the Plan are the most aggressive in Georgia
and among the most aggressive in the United States. The water
conservation measures in the Metro Water District Plan include: (1)
conservation pricing; (2) replace older, inefficient plumbing fixtures;
(3) pre-rinse spray valve retrofit education; (4) rain sensor shut-offs
on new irrigation systems; (5) sub-unit meters in new multi-family
buildings; (6) assess water losses with IWA/AWWA water audit
methodology and develop programs to reduce systems water loss; (7)
residential water audits; (8) low-flow retrofit kits for residential;
(9) commercial water audits; (10) education and public awareness
activities; (11) high-efficiency toilets and urinals in government
buildings; (12) new car washes to recycle water; (13) expedited water
loss reduction; (14) multi-family high-efficiency toilet (HET) rebates;
(15) meters with point of use leak detection; (16) private fire lines
to be metered; (17) maintain a water conservation program; (18) water
waste policy or ordinance; and (19) HET plumbing fixtures in new
construction consistent with state legislation.
The Metro Water District has made water conservation a priority,
and local water systems have shown a strong record of implementation of
water conservation measures. In annual progress surveys, the District
has found: that tiered water conservation rates are in place throughout
the metro area; that water systems serving 96 percent of the population
offer toilet rebates, and over 76,872 older toilets have been replaced
since 2008; that the larger systems have implemented programs to reduce
system water losses, and, in 2010, over 10,000 leaks were repaired; and
98 percent of the population of the metro area is targeted with
educational and outreach programs by local governments.
In 2010, the Georgia Water Stewardship Act was passed by the
Georgia General Assembly and signed by Governor Sonny Perdue. The Water
Stewardship Act amplified and supplemented the 19 water conservation
policies and programs identified in the Metro Water District's Water
Supply and Water Conservation Plan. Among the Act's provisions that
supplement the Metro Water District's demand management initiatives
are: (1) requiring state government agencies to examine their programs,
practices, and rules to identify opportunities to provide for voluntary
water conservation; (2) requiring local governments to include water
conservation measures in local comprehensive plans; (3) incentives for
public water systems to use full cost accounting; and (4) technical
assistance to local governments and public water systems for water loss
abatement activities.
In the area of agriculture, Georgia and its farmers are taking
concrete steps to improve water efficiency. Working in conjunction with
Federal cost-share programs, Georgia is implementing installation of
low-pressure conversions of pivots (retrofits), soil moisture
monitoring to support advanced irrigation scheduling, strip till,
micro-irrigation systems, and irrigation water management plans. In
2011, it was estimated that a combination of Federal cost share and
private sector funds had supported work with over 1,000 farmers in the
basin to implement water conservation practices, such as installing
100,000 more efficient nozzles on 250,000 acres that collectively
conserve up to 15 billion gallons of water in a dry year. Farmers in
the basin and the State of Georgia have also invested in metering of
agricultural water withdrawals for two purposes: (1) to improve our
ability to manage the basin's water resources and (2) to provide an on-
farm management tool for individual growers. To date, nearly 12,000
meters have been installed statewide with just over 5,000 installed in
the Lower Flint Basin. Information from these meters allows individual
growers to monitor and adjust their water use over the course of a
growing season. These are but a few of the many measures that Georgia
is taking to responsibly steward the use of the water resources of the
Chattahoochee and Flint Basins for one of the Nation's most productive
agricultural regions.
These conservation measures are a major reason why Georgia's per
capita use rates have fallen in recent years. According to the
September 2012 Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard by the
Alliance for Water Efficiency and the Environmental Law Institute, only
five states (four of which are west of the Mississippi River) received
a better grade than did Georgia for their laws and policies promoting
water efficiency and conservation. Alabama and Florida received lower
grades than Georgia.
______
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Lake Lanier Association, Inc.
Gainesville, GA, August 21, 2013
Senator William Nelson and Senator Marco Rubio,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Attn: Jeff Lewis, Majority Staff and Kelly Pennington, Minority Staff
Dear Senators Nelson and Rubio:
The Lake Lanier Association, a 3,400 member organization has been
an advocate for the health and safety of Lake Lanier for over 45 years.
We have been a significant voice in the water wars between the states
of Georgia, Florida and Alabama for the past 20 years. Additionally, we
have been an active participant with the ACF Stakeholders (ACFS)
organization since its inception in 2008. Our commitment to that
organization is based on the belief that a technical understanding of
the ACF basin is critical to making water policy decisions regarding
the equitable sharing of water.
It is with significant concern that we observed the special Senate
hearing last week and the announcement by Florida Governor Scott that
Florida will initiate another law suit to try and take more water from
Georgia to support the Apalachicola Bay. We feel that several facts
represented in the referenced meeting were provided in error. North
Georgia and Atlanta have been unjustly vilified by statements reported
from the meeting.
Attached is a report that identifies many of the issues that were
not described during the Senate meeting. Specifically:
1. There are many contributors to the problems of the oyster
industry; many of them the responsibility of the state of
Florida.
2. If Atlanta did not exist and therefore did not use any water, the
resulting increase in water flow into the Apalachicola Bay
would be minimal (not even a 2 percent increase).
3. The recent drought of 2007-2008 was devastating to most
stakeholders on the ACF system, not just the oyster industry.
4. North Georgia has implemented many effective conservation
strategies over the past 8 years that have resulted in a per
capita water usage reduction of approximately 20 percent.
5. Numerous Georgia municipalities, corporations, and organizations
have been working towards a solution to the problems of the
Apalachicola Bay and the entire ACF system. As an example, the
ACF Stakeholders group is developing computer models that will
assist in the management of the water flowing through the
system.
We hope that the facts described in the attached report will
provide a needed balance to the data presented at the senate meeting.
Respectfully submitted
Val Perry,
President.
Wilton Rooks,
Executive Vice President.
______
Attachment
Report from the Lake Lanier Association, Inc.
The Lake Lanier area knows first-hand the devastating impact that
prolonged drought periods can have on economic factors. During the
drought of 2006--2008 when Lake Lanier reached its lowest recorded
point in its 50 year history, the lake economy lost over a 1,000 jobs
and suffered a $90 million loss in economic productivity. That was 30
percent of the annual contribution of the lake to the north metro
Atlanta economy. So it is not without a level of empathy that we view
the oyster industry collapse in 2012. However, we urge the review of
all of the factors that have resulted in the collapse before a ``rush
to judgment'' on the causes.
As Dr. Carl Havens of the University of Florida based Oyster
Recovery Task Force reported at the hearing, the accumulative impact of
multiple years of drought is a major factor in the collapse of the
oyster industry. During the devastating drought of 2006-2008, 50
percent of the water above the conservation level in the Federal
reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River, including Lake Lanier, was
discharged into the Apalachicola River in order to meet the minimum
required flow of 5,000 cfs. That amounted to over 200 billion gallons
of water over the 2 year time period. Except for the fact that it
started raining in January 2008, even more would have been discharged
with the inevitable collapse of the entire reservoir system with an
impact on the health clover 5 million people in the Georgia part of the
ACF Basin. There are no provisions in the operation of the Corps of
Engineers reservoirs to avoid such a catastrophic occurrence.
Apalachicola would have been in even worse shape if there were no water
left to discharge.
The conclusion has to be drawn from this event that the reservoirs
served their purpose and that there was ``shared pain'' among all of
the water users in the basin.
The recurring droughts since 2008 have only further illustrated the
need to store water when it is available in the reservoirs so that they
can serve their intended purpose in the basin during severe droughts.
Unfortunately NOAA is not able to predict the severity of a drought
with sufficient clarity in order for the Corps to store even more water
when it is available in anticipation of a severe drought. The result is
that millions of gallons of water that could be stored are discharged
from the reservoirs during conditions that do not require such
discharges to meet the downstream user's requirements, including the
Apalachicola Bay.
Oyster Collapse Causes
In addition to the drought, Dr. Havens and Mr. Shannon Hatsfield
referred to the poor oyster bed re-shelling project performed by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) over the
last several years. Further, even Governor Scott in his public
statement regarding the intended lawsuit to be filed by Florida against
Georgia referred to the over harvesting in the bay subsequent to the BP
oil spill as a contributing factor as did the oyster community in
Apalachicola.
All of these factors that contributed to the collapse of the oyster
economy in the bay are well documented in the work of the Oyster
Recovery Task Force.
Atlanta's Consumptive Use of Water
There is also well documented data available now that metro
Atlanta's consumptive use of water (withdrawals minus returns) amounts
to less than 1 percent of the total flow of the ACF Basin during an
average year and only 2 percent-3 percent during even the worst
droughts. Too often only the withdrawals are quoted are ``gross
withdrawals'', which disregards the estimated 70 percent in reclaimed
water that metro Atlanta returns to the both the Chattahoochee and
Flint Basins. In reality, our inability to track ``lost'' water leads
to even an over estimation of the net consumption.
Water that is supposedly ``consumed'' in the past will eventually
find its way back into the surface water system since Atlanta is built
on granite and has no significant ground water storage. So we have
water re-entering the surface water system today that was counted as
consumed some months or years ago through septic tank discharges and
leaks in water utility pipes. Water does not disappear. It simply finds
different paths to flow to its ultimate destiny; rivers and then to the
oceans. The only water really unrecoverable over time to the ACF Basin,
and ultimately to Apalachicola, consists of the inter-basin transfers
of water to the Atlantic Ocean and that absorbed by plants in the
transpiration process and through evaporation. And of course, even the
evaporation returns to the surface water systems in the form of rain
but sometimes in different water basins.
The uncertainties associated with much of the interaction of
precipitation with surface water and ground water systems leads to
engineering assumptions of the most conservative nature since it is
difficult and un-wise to establish water policy based on un-verifiable
data. For example, water withdrawn from water utilities by homes and
then discharged into septic tanks is considered 100 percent consumed.
We know that is not accurate. We just don't know what the correct
amount is for a short time return estimate. That the ``grass is always
greener over the septic tank'' certainly attests to some amount of that
water being caught up in transpiration. But a significant, but unknown,
amount flows through the ground and eventually into surface water
systems. And of course, the geology of the area impacts the time for
migration of the water, leading to even further uncertainties.
While it is convenient to identify a ``bogey-man'' as the main
causative element in a complex environment, the hard data just does not
support the conclusion that metro Atlanta deserves that label. There
has been analysis done that suggests that if Atlanta did not exist,
there would be even less water flowing into the ACF basin since there
would be even greater transpiration of water into vegetation. A major
city's impervious surface does have the benefit of rapidly flowing
precipitation back to surface waters. We don't suggest that as a long
term viable ``solution'' for the 20,000 square miles on the ACE
watershed, just pointing out that this is a complex issue and does not
succumb to sound-bite explanations often preferred by the media.
Atlanta's Conservation Efforts
At the hearing, much was said regarding Atlanta's efforts--or lack
thereof--at conservation of water. Those perceptions just do not match
reality. Since its beginning by the state legislation in 2001, the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, has established
tough conservation practices for 91 municipalities and 15 counties,
which coincidentally is the largest metro area water planning district
in the United States. These practices have led to results such as:
Metro Atlanta's total water consumption has dropped by
approximately 15 percent over the same years that its
population has increased by over three-quarters of a million
people.
Metro Atlanta's water consumption tiered water rate plan is
among the highest in the Nation thereby encouraging voluntary
conservation by home owners and businesses.
Atlanta's per capita water withdrawal demand has dropped
from around 170 gallons per day per person (gpdcd) in 2000 to
an estimated 145 gpdcd currently and a projected 135 gpdcd in
2035. With the exception of Seattle Washington and Portland
Oregon, this is lower than any other major municipal area in
the United States. Even this does not take into consideration
the amount of water returned to the ACF Basin but is the basis
for comparison among other municipalities.
To further illustrate the ongoing conservation program for Atlanta,
the following is taken from the MNGWPD Water Supply and Water
Conservation Management Plan dated May 2009 as amended:
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Water conservation is a critical element in meeting the water supply
needs within the Metro Water District. When fully implemented,
these water conservation measures will reduce the Metro Water
District's water demand by the end of the planning period. Much
progress related to water conservation has been achieved since the
adoption of the 2003 Water Supply and Water Conservation Management
Plan, The Metro Water District's plan has been instrumental in
making water conservation a priority in north Georgia. The Metro
Water District is the only major metropolitan area in the country
with more than 100 jurisdictions that is implementing such a
comprehensive long-term water conservation program that is required
and enforced. Tiered water conservation rates have been put in
place throughout the Metro Water District. All of the largest water
systems have implemented programs to reduce system water loss.
Toilet rebate programs are in place and ahead of schedule. The
water conservation measures in this Plan update include and go
beyond the measures in the 2003 Plan. This update includes:
The 10 water conservation measures from the 2003 plan
Conservation pricing
Replace older, inefficient plumbing fixtures
Pre-rinse spray valve retrofit education program
Rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation
systems
Sub-meters in new multi-family buildings
Assess and reduce water system leakage
Conduct residential water audits
Distribute low-flow retrofit kits to residential users
Conduct commercial water audits
Implement education and public awareness plan
3 of those 10 water conservation measures are strengthened
Irrigation meter pricing at 200 percent of the first
tier rate
1.28 gpf toilet rebate program only by 2014
Minimum local education requirements and optional
toolbox of examples is provided.
2 new water conservation measures are added
Install 1.28 gpf toilets and low flow urinals in
government buildings
Require new car washes to recycle water.
New measures adopted since 2009: *expedited water loss reduction;
*multi-family high-efficiency toilet (HET) rebates; *meters with point
of use leak detection; *private fire lines to be metered; *maintain a
water conservation program; water waste policy or ordinance; and HET
plumbing fixtures in new construction consistent with state
legislation.
Measures denoted (*) are for implementation only by the water systems
that receive their water supply directly from Lake Lanier or the
Chattahoochee River.
Apalachicola Bay Salinity
The work of the University of Florida based Oyster Recovery Task
Force and the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve to focus
on salinity data in the Apalachicola Bay has established a wealth of
knowledge regarding the productivity of oysters. But in spite of all of
the collected data and empirical evidence as to what conditions are
optimum for oyster productivity, there are still many questions. There
are several bay salinity models that have been developed and run to
correlate freshwater flow with salinity in the bay. These models
include other factors such as temperature, wind, and tidal conditions
that determine the salinity profile in the bay at any given time. Fresh
water flow is obviously an important factor and might be the only
factor than can be influenced by man. However, much greater analysis
must be done to better understand the duration and volume of freshwater
that is optimum for oysters.
Oysters have survived for millennia under widely varying hydrologic
conditions. For time periods before our own data collection began, tree
ring data shows clear periods of greatly reduced freshwater flow in the
ACF Basin that predate virtually any anthropogenic influences in the
basin. Yet oysters have survived during those time periods. At the
hearing there was considerable discussion about ``man creating the
problem'' so ``man can solve the problem''. While a useful sound-bite
to illustrate an emotional point, it misses the point. Today, the
criterion is not just the survivability of oysters but their
survivability at a sustained level to produce a specific economic
result. At the hearing, the majority of the talk by all parties was
economic related. This is clearly not an environmentally driven issue,
but is an economy driven issue.
Economic Realities
All economies suffer during droughts. How the ``pain'' gets
proportionally shared will always be a challenge to assess. But it
should be clear that during the periods of drought that we have had
since 2000 and the projected periods of increasing drought frequencies
and duration, all water users have to learn to adjust to that reality.
Some economic plans might not be viable given the projected future.
Past Decisions
In the name of economic development, several decisions in the past
now confront Apalachicola Bay with some unintended consequence:
The decision was made to cut a path, known as Sikes Cut,
through St. Georges Island so that fishing boats and shrimpers
would not have to travel so far to gain access to open waters
in the Gulf. This has led to another source of salt water
penetration directly into the bay, thereby changing the
salinity regime in the bay. Questions exist as to how much
influence Sikes Cut has had on bay salinity. That can be
determined through appropriate modeling efforts now underway.
But oystermen have reported that it does have an effect. If we
want to get back to what nature intended as emphasized by the
speakers at the hearing, then Sikes Cut should be closed.
There have been artificial oyster beds put into Apalachicola
Bay to increase oyster productivity. These are not ``as nature
intended''. They are man-made. Should the criterion for bay
health and productivity include the oyster harvest gathered
from these artificial beds? How much more freshwater flow is
required to support these artificial beds?
There is a canal that is effectively an inter-basin transfer
from the Apalachicola River system to Port St. Joe, Florida.
Originally it was to support the paper mill industry, but now
targeted to provide freshwater flow for economic development
purposes in Port St. Joe. While a small amount currently, it
nonetheless represents a diversion of freshwater from the bay
that has to be made up by increased freshwater flows from the
Georgia portions of the ACF Basin. The future plans for that
diversion is now known.
Outside of the bay, Florida has modified the Apalachicola
River significantly so as to allow for a navigation economy
that could not be sustained without alterations. The dredging
of the river, straightening of the ox-bows, annual dredging of
the Chipola Cutoff are some of the alterations that have taken
place. According to a USGS report in 2006 by Helen Light, the
entrenchment that has occurred in the river has resulted in a
50 percent increase in freshwater flow to reach the floodplain
alongside the river. While seemingly unrelated to the oyster
productivity in the Bay, it nonetheless serves as an example of
alterations to the natural systems that have been performed by
Florida over the years, to their own detriment; all in the name
of economic development.
WRDA Modifications
Florida and Alabama's effort to insert a ``poison pill'' in the
Water Resource Development Act in the Senate by reducing the allowable
water supply allocation by 2/3 was clearly an effort to cripple the
Atlanta economy. This would have resulted in water withdrawals even
lower than is currently withdrawn by Atlanta and with no allowance for
returns. Atlanta's only recourse would have been to invest billions in
new water storage resources. The theory seems to be that if Atlanta
can't grow then maybe Alabama and Florida cities can grow. Hardly a
basis for establishing a desire to work together to solve the water
conflict. Georgia Senators were derided for using approved Senate
procedures to block the action that would have impacted not only the
ACF Basin but any water utility withdrawing water from Federal projects
for water supply purposes throughout the United States.
Summary
We hope that the take-away points from this report are clear:
1. If metro Atlanta did not exist, Apalachicola Bay would have only
a few hundred cubic feet per second flow increase which is
insignificant compared to even the 5,000 cfs minimum required
flow during droughts and certainly when compared to the nominal
annual average flow of 20,000 cfs and more.
2. ``Something'' caused a sudden collapse of the oyster population
in August-September of 2012. Research is needed to determine
what happened in such a short time period.
3. Through the ACF Stakeholders organization, Georgia and metro
Atlanta governments, companies, organizations and individuals
have a clear and unambiguous track record of working to assist
Apalachicola Bay. But it cannot do so under the threat of
either Congressional or legal action that will cripple the
Atlanta economy.
4. Our water policy decisions by state and Federal officials at all
levels needs to be based on sound technical understandings
rather than emotional outpourings.
Respectfully submitted,
Lake Lanier Association, Inc.
______
RESOLUTION
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRANKLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners are
pleased to a host a United States Senate Commerce Committee hearing on
``The Effects of Water Flows on the Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long
Term Perspective''; and
WHEREAS, the hearing will take place in Apalachicola on August 13,
2013; and
WHEREAS, the Apalachicola Bay's oyster industry, an industry that
produces 90 percent of the oysters in Florida and 10 percent of the
Nation's oysters, is on the verge of collapse because of the lack of
freshwater coming into the Bay from the River; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2013 the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission released a report on status of the oyster
industry that states, ``The cause of the oyster decline is a lack of
freshwater flow . . .''; and
WHEREAS, the report also states in its Executive Summary, ``The
rapid and unprecedented commercial oyster fishery failure on Florida's
Gulf coast was the result of upstream consumption and water management
policies in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins''; and
WHEREAS, there has been over 20 years of litigation between the
states of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama over water flows in a river
system that is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for which
the result has been no additional water allocated to protect the oyster
industry; and
WHEREAS, the entire economy of Franklin County and the region is
affected by the productivity of the Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Franklin County Commission recognizes that the United
States Congress has the power and authority to direct the U.S. Corps of
Engineers to include the needs of the oyster industry when water
allocation decisions are made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Franklin County Board of
County Commissioners hereby declares, in recognition of the Senate
Committee hearing. on August 13, 2013 that this day be declared as
``Stand up for the Apalachicola River and Bay Day'' and the Board
hereby implores the U.S. Senate and Congress to protect the
Apalachicola Bay and its oyster and seafood industry, and tourism based
industry, by directing the U.S. Corps of Engineers to restore flows to
the Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay.''
Approved this 6th day of August, 2013.
Cheryl Sanders,
Chairman,
Franklin County Board of
County Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Marcia M. Johnson, Clerk
______
Florida Conservation Coalition
Hon. Bill Nelson,
716 Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nelson,
The Florida Conservation Coalition is very appreciative of your
interest in the challenges facing the Apalachicola River system, and
taking the time to come to Apalachicola and hear Florida's points of
view first-hand. The Coalition consists of 55 conservation
organizations throughout Florida and several thousand individuals
dedicated to conserving and protecting Florida's natural resources.
The Apalachicola River and Bay System is more than one of the most
productive oyster, blue crab, and seafood regions in the Country; it is
also a way of life and a living for its people. Florida has worked for
more than four decades to keep the River and Bay healthy and protect
these treasures. The state and Federal Government have invested tens of
millions of dollars in acquiring nearly a million acres of land in the
River floodplain, watershed, and Bay. Tens of millions of dollars have
been spent to install and upgrade wastewater treatment systems along
the River and Bay. Florida has rejected proposals to build dams and
required dredging and de-snagging operations in the River be improved
or curtailed. Florida has honored the River as a priceless and
irreplaceable natural asset, the foundation of the economy of several
counties, and an important part of our culture.
Too little water has flowed down the River for too long now the
River and Bay System is approaching the point of no return. We have
tried to resolve the issue of river flow necessary to sustain a healthy
river with a tri-state pact and lawsuits. We have done all we know to
do. Now, we are running out of options.
The people of the River and Bay area and throughout Florida are
tired and distressed, as is our precious River and Bay. It serves no
good purpose to point fingers at the Federal Government or to lay blame
on Georgia and Alabama. Each entity is doing the best it can within its
means. Each would like to see the conflict resolved.
The states and Corps have tried to find a solution, but so far have
not. In such interstate conflicts, It is appropriate and necessary for
Congress to step forward and act. That is what we are asking.
We strongly support your amendment, as it offers a reasonable
approach to resolving this longstanding conflict and hope for restoring
and sustaining a healthy Apalachicola River and Bay System.
Sincerely,
Bob Graham,
Chairman.
Nathaniel Reed--Vice Chairman
Com. Lee Constantine--Vice Chairman
Charles Pattison--1000 Friends of Florida
Eric Draper--Audubon Florida
Andrew McElwaine--Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Manley Fuller--Florida Wildlife Federation
Deirdre Macnab--League of Women Voters of Florida
Craig Diamond--Sierra Club
Lisa Rinaman--St. Johns Riverkeeper
Gary Kuhl
Roy Rogers
Auley Rowell
Vicki Tschinkel
Sonny Vergara
Estus Whitfield
Respond to: Estus Whitfield, 3444 Lakeshore Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32312
______
Tallahassee, FL, August 19, 2013
Hon. Marco Rubio,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nelson:
I am a fifth generation Tallahassean, and grew up not really
knowing what a privilege it was to have our beautiful coastline, and to
be able to spend summers at the beach. It was a privilege we took for
granted. The water was clean and the seafood plentiful. We fished and
swam and skied and as far as we knew it had always been like that, and
it would always be there for us, our children and our grandchildren.
Recently I drove to Apalach for the day, and when I got to the
bridge, I could not believe what I was seeing . . . sand bars, grass
out of the water and boats unable to navigate from the river out into
the gull It was horrid!
A few years ago there was an article in the National Geographic
which pointed out the importance of this areas waters. The Geographic
stated this was one of the largest ``unspoiled estuaries'' left in the
country. It went on the point our how important it was for the fishes
from the Atlantic and Pacific, and how many different species come to
this bay to spawn. Without this estuary we severely reduce the fish in
our oceans.
Our oysters need a perfect mix of salt and fresh, and the
Apalachicola Bay has provided that for years. It's known as one of the
best oysters in the world. Go anywhere and compare. They are
outstanding! Men have harvested oysters in this bay for generations.
It's a way of life that's been handed down from one generation to the
next, and though it's a tough job, they want to do it.
Cities are out of control. They allow the building of homes,
factories, shopping centers and whatever they want without being able
to support the needs of those buildings from their own resources.
That's unacceptable. They cannot and should not be allowed to continue
to steal the river water. It they can't support their growth, then it's
time to stop.
Please fight for the Apalachicola River water. Please do not let
this bay die!
Sincerely,
Joe Nell Sager
______
Tallahassee, FL, August 18, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
As a citizen who believes that stewardship of our natural resources
is the single most important responsibility of our government, I
respectfully implore the Congress to enact legislation that will
balance the needs of ail stakeholders in the watershed of the
Apalachicola River. As it stands now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
believes the law compels them to manage the water flow in the current
manner, which is detrimental to legitimate interest along the
Apalachicola. Unless Congress acts to change the law, the entire
ecosystem and the livelihood of many people will be in peril.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Smith
______
National Wildlife Federation
Reston, VA, August 14, 2013
Hon. Jay Rockefeller,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Marco Rubio,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Restoring Freshwater Flows to the Apalachicola River and
Apalachicola Bay
Dear Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, Senator Nelson and
Senator Rubio:
On behalf of our more than four million members and supporters, the
National Wildlife Federation thanks the Committee for calling attention
to the dire plight of the Apalachicola River and Bay and calls on
Congress to take action this year to prevent further destruction of
Florida's environment and economy. We urge Congress to enact
legislation requiring the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river
system to be managed so that the Apalachicola River and Bay will
receive the freshwater flows they need to support, restore, and
reestablish a thriving ecosystem, healthy populations of fish and
wildlife, and a vibrant resource-based economy.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is the Nation's largest
conservation education and advocacy organization. NWF has more than
four million members and supporters and conservation affiliate
organizations in forty-eight states and territories. NWF has a long
history of working to protect the Nation's inland and coastal waters
and the fish and wildlife that depend on those vital resources.
For decades, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has managed the ACF
river system in a way that keeps vital freshwater flows from reaching
the Apalachicola River and Bay. Continuation of this status quo is
neither sustainable nor acceptable. As Florida's Deputy Secretary of
the Department of Environmental Protection recently told the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, if we do not restore historic
flow patterns to the Apalachicola River, ``the ecosystem and, indeed,
the very way of life for generations of Floridians will be
devastated.''
The Apalachicola River is the lifeblood of the extraordinarily
productive Apalachicola Bay, and the Bay is strongly influenced by the
amount, timing, and duration of freshwater flowing from the
Apalachicola River. Lack of freshwater flows have led to the collapse
of the Bay's rich oyster population, pushing oyster production on
commercially important reefs to their lowest levels in 20 years with
many reefs no longer able to support commercial harvesting. This
collapse has resulted in a devastating loss of income for the region,
compelling Florida's Governor Scott to seek a Federal declaration of a
fishery resource disaster to help alleviate the economic hardship. Lack
of sufficient freshwater flows have endangered the Apalachicola River
as well, leading to the loss of millions of trees in the river's
floodplain and harming tourism, recreation, and businesses that rely on
a healthy Apalachicola River.
The economic implications are significant. The commercial and
recreational fishing industries that rely on a healthy Apalachicola
River and Bay contribute almost $400 million to the regional economy
and directly support 85 percent of the local population. Sufficient
freshwater flows are essential for maintaining the salinity regimes
needed to sustain an economically viable oyster harvest from the
Apalachicola Bay, and for sustaining many other commercially viable
fisheries. Sufficient freshwater flows are also critical for
maintaining the estimated $5 billion in free services provided to
Floridians by the River and Bay, including clean water, flood
protection, and fish and wildlife habitat.
It is clear that Congress must take action if the situation is to
change. Decades of costly litigation and negotiations among the states
have not resolved the problem. Repeated calls to the Army Corps to
account for the needs of Florida when managing the ACF have gone
unanswered. Instead, the ACF continues to be managed to benefit
upstream users at the expense of Florida's economy and environment, and
the ecological health of the Apalachicola River and Bay continues to
decline.
Immediate action is needed to change this untenable situation.
While a number of legislative solutions have been offered, the only
solution that will change the status quo and solve the crisis facing
the Apalachicola River and Bay before it is too late is legislation
developed by Senator Nelson that would require the Corps to manage the
ACF system to ensure that the Apalachicola River and Bay receive
sufficient freshwater flows to maintain clean water, thriving
commercial and recreational fisheries, and a healthy resource-based
economy.
The National Wildlife Federation calls on the Committee and
Congress to ensure that this Freshwater Flows provision is enacted into
law this Congress, either through inclusion in any final Water
Resources Development Act that may be signed into law or as part of
another legislative vehicle. We look forward to working with you on
this important effort.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger,
President and CEO.
cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
The Honorable Steve Southerland
______
Franklin's Promise Coalition
Apalachicola, FL, August 12, 2013
Dear Sirs,
With great respect we pose these questions. Will anyone ``win'' in
this battle over resources? Are those parties who are so determined to
be ``winners'' distracted by the fight and unable to remember the goal?
Could it be that we need to move beyond ``winning'' and find comfort in
not losing the things that simply cannot be replaced?
Franklin County, Florida is the center of a region that has
balanced economic survival and the protection of natural resources for
over one hundred years. Recent history is proving that water is quickly
becoming the most prized resource across this great country. The
decisions that lie in our lawmakers' hands, your hands, will shape the
future of the Southeast, the Gulf of Mexico, and most intimately the
people who earn their livelihood from the Apalachicola Bay and River.
Franklin's Promise Coalition is the alliance of all sectors of the
community which work together to improve the quality of life for
residents in the adversely affected region. The Coalition and it
partners serve as advocates for the community and it provides a forum
for collaborating with service providers, churches, institutions,
government and volunteers for: improving access to quality services and
eliminating disparities of service; streamlining and preventing the
duplication/fragmentation of services; identifying unmet needs and
determining strategies to meet those needs: and educating individuals
on challenges, resources and opportunities. The Coalition is the front
line for services which help people and families whose lives are
negatively impacted by the reduced water flow and collapse of the
seafood industry.
This past year. we witnessed the collapse of the seafood industry
here in Apalachicola Bay. Hundreds of displaced seafood workers and the
collateral businesses which count on the seafood industry to survive
continue to struggle in the five county rural region that surrounds the
Bay. In the last nine months, local and state political leaders, state
agencies, non-profit organizations, churches and volunteers have
supported the affected people of the region with job skill development
initiatives, bay restoration projects, and empowerment programs that
cushioned the economic blow. But those funding streams have come to an
end and the region is in dire need of investment. While the battle over
water makes the headlines, please do not let the impacts of the reduced
water flows and the complicated socio-economic challenges leave the
region in deeper economic despair.
There have been success stories that are lost in the big dispute.
While one in every four Franklin County residents (and one in every
three children) live in poverty by Federal standards, our records show
that almost 60 percent of the regions households are struggling with
sustainability. But one person--one family at a time, change is taking
place and over six hundred people have participated in job skill
development initiatives, restoration projects and micro-business
development which were products of efforts by the Gulf Coast Workforce
Board, The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Catholic
Charities of Northwest Florida and many other businesses, churches,
private donors and community volunteers. At the beginning of the
collapse, the displaced seafood workers themselves proclaimed they did
not want a ``Hand-Out'', they needed a ``Hand-Up''. The Coalition and
our partners took that inspiration, received support from Volunteer
Florida, and developed ``A-Hand-Up Volunteer Assistance Program''. To
date 52 displaced seafood workers have volunteered over 1,155 hours to
help the community as their contribution to solve the problems
resulting from the oyster collapse, that is a total value of over
$25,000 of honest volunteer work. A-Hand-Up has assisted 112 households
and 484 people with utility, housing, medical and food expenses thanks
to private donors. The Coalition supports engagement and empowerment of
the affected population and does not support entitlements.
Almost a year into the crisis, the immediate outlook is bleak. The
area requires economic investment and emergency job creation to engage
the displaced workers until the restoration projects can be completed
and have an effect on the productivity of the seafood industry. We
respectfully request support for the following projects and are willing
to be active agents in any initiative which will reduce the impact of
the bay collapse.
Immediately, steward the approval and funding for a National
Emergency Grant (NEG) through the Department of Labor to create
jobs for the region and to support job skill development and
economic diversification in the workplace.
Encourage the most expeditious approval of funding to
respond to the ``Fisheries Failure'' designation through the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Support the Long Term Restoration Proposal soon to be
submitted for Franklin, Gulf And Wakulla Counties by the Gulf
Coast Workforce Board in partnership with local governments,
the University of Florida and multiple community organizations.
The adaptive restoration project will determine and implement
``Best practices'' to complete a 5 year restoration plan.
Ensure the Army Corp of Engineers is accountable for
measurable progress in the fair and equitable distribution of
water resources for the entire ACF river basin.
Recognize and support the ongoing work of the Apalachicola
Chattahoochee Flint Stakeholders (ACFs) as they engage a broad
range of interests from the entire basin on their active 56
member Board of Directors. Assist with implementation and
acceptance of the Board's Management Plan and Inflow Stream/
River Assessment for equitable water distribution that is fair
to all stakeholders.
Champion the work of non-profit organizations like our
Coalition, and its partners, as well as encourage the private
sector to support community based initiatives which keep the
affected people involved in the solutions to the issues at
hand. The Coalition members pledge to work collaboratively with
State and Federal agencies in their work to reduce the negative
impacts of the situation on the families in the region.
We acknowledge the difficulty and the complexity of sharing limited
resources and the decisions our leaders are asked to make. We request
one thing, that when it is time to make decisions that have significant
economic, humanitarian and environmental impact, remove special
interests and divisive political influence.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of August, 2013.
Joe Taylor,
Executive Director,
Franklin's Promise Coalition.
______
FCSWA--Franklin County Seafood Workers Association
Eastpoint, FL, August 12. 2013
Dear Sirs,
As the representatives for over 600 seafood workers who make their
living off of Apalachicola Bay, we request your steadfast support for
projects which will restore the Bay and employ the displaced seafood
harvesters. This last ``Shelling'' project was very successful,
although it was a small percentage of what needs to be accomplished.
The format of the program required participants to earn 80 percent of
their income directly from the Bay. It allowed families to sustain
their livelihoods for the last 6 months. We would like this type of
program to continue.
Sadly, this funding has been exhausted and there is a substantial
amount of work that is needed for the Bay to recover. Also it is a
horrible economic situation, we must replace the income that is lost
because of the oyster crisis. The seafood workers want to be employed
on bay restoration projects and are ready to work hard to ensure the
Bay recovers.
Please support and expedite the National Emergency Grant that will
soon be submitted by the Gulf Coast Workforce Board to create jobs and
restore our Bay. On September 1st we will return to our winter bars and
they are depleted. There will be nothing for our seafood workers to
earn money. There are few, if any, other jobs that will fill this huge
financial gap.
We cannot place enough importance on this issue. If you should need
additional information you may contact me, FCSWA President, Shannon
Hartsfield.
Sincerely,
Shannon Hartsfield,
President, FCSWA President.
______
ACF Stakeholders
Working together to share a common resource
For those living in the verdant Southeastern US, water once seemed
ever-abundant--until significant population growth over the past three
decades combined with an extended drought has brought the region to
crisis water levels. Recent drought brought water issues in the
Southeast into the national spotlight. However, the regional debate
over water sharing began many years earlier in 1989, when the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers was sued for allowing Lake Lanier to supply water to
Atlanta area municipalities. The suit claimed that the withdrawals were
made without regard to downstream interests, and that the federally-
managed reservoir was built for the purposes of flood control,
hydropower and navigation--not water supply. For over 20 years, the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin case has been tied
up in the courts, with little headway.
Seeing the need for a water sharing solution, a diverse group of
people in the ACF Basin was inspired by the question, How can the
people who live, work and utilize the water resources of the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin work together to share a common
resource? Stakeholder forums held throughout the basin confirmed a very
real desire to collaborate. With litigation and politics unable to
resolve the issues, a grassroots effort was launched by individuals and
groups most affected by the situation--the stakeholders themselves. In
March 2009, volunteers representing all four regions of the ACF Basin
became the founding Steering Committee of ACF Stakeholders, Inc.
(ACFS). Today, the 56 member ACFS Governing Board, work groups and sub-
basin caucuses are engaged in a collaborative effort to produce a
Sustainable Water Management Plan. ACFS has raised over $1.3 million in
private funds, engaged technical consultants for analyses of current
water demands and returns, instream flows, current conditions modeling,
an assessment of Apalachicola Bay and evaluation of water management
alternatives; and its members have submitted consensus comments during
the scoping process for USACE revisions to the Water Control Manual for
the basin. The Stakeholders have already achieved consensus acceptance
of key background materials with the goal of developing a draft Plan by
early 2014.
From the beginning, the charter members knew that the organization
had to include representation from all interest groups if it was to
realize the potential for real compromise. Incorporated as a 501(c)3
nonprofit organization in September 2009, ACFS is a diverse group of
cities, counties, industries, businesses, fishermen, farmers,
historidcultural, environmental, conservation and recreation groups
from all three states--working together for the first time to achieve a
common goal. Their mission is to achieve equitable water-sharing
solutions among stakeholders that balance economic, ecological, and
social values, while ensuring sustainability for current and future
generations.
______
CITY OF APALACHICOLA
RESOLUTION 2013-08
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF APALACHICOLA DECLARING
AUGUST 13, 2013, AS ``SAVE THE APALACHICOLA RIVER AND BAY DAY''
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commissioners of the Historic City of
Apalachicola have constantly exhibited their effort on behalf of the
people of Apalachicola and the surrounding areas to preserve and defend
the freshwater flow down the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint
River system to Apalachicola and Apalachicola Bay by every possible
measure including the filing and prosecution of ``Water Wars''
litigation along with the State of Florida against the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and takers of the freshwater flow upstream that deprive
Apalachicola Bay and Apalachicola of its God created and given life
source and have reduced it to its present critical condition; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of
Apalachicola are committed to continue this effort by every possible
method and measure and to STAND UP FOR THE APALACHICOLA as our people
have done and had to do for centuries and make note that there are
Apalachicola citizens still alive today who personally heard and relied
upon the promises of the Corps of Engineers that the reservoir and dam
system to be created upstream with Federal monies through Acts of
Congress on the ACF River System were solely for flood control,
navigation and water power generation none of which would eliminate or
reduce freshwater flow down the Apalachicola to Apalachicola Bay and
recall the statement of Mayor Hartsfield of Atlanta as Georgia refused
to contribute money to the project as they did not need nor wanted
water storage behind the dam, that ``Atlanta is not so situated as a
number of the Cities out West in our Country, where there is a dearth
of water, as we are blessed with so many sources right here in
Georgia'', and Atlanta had ``Plenty of Water''; and,
WHEREAS, as Congress created and Federal monies paid for the dam
and reservoirs on the ACF System and provided language that was
intended to restrict the removal of freshwater from the reservoirs'
water storage for purposes not specified by Congress in the Acts and
the Acts of Congress and their restrictions have been repeatedly
violated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the benefit of the
Atlanta Area and to the detriment and impending death of the
Apalachicola River and Bay Estuary; and,
WHEREAS, United States Senators from Florida Honorable Marco Rubio
and Honorable Bill Nelson will hold a congressional field hearing to
examine the lack of freshwater flow down to Apalachicola Bay as a
result of the actions of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Atlanta
area interests before the U.S. Congressional Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation in Apalachicola, Florida on Tuesday, August
13, 2013 and we recognize Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson as one of
our own warriors in this struggle to continue the existence of
Apalachicola Bay and the intent of Congress not to allow the use and
depletion of water storage on the ACF System for purposes and to the
extent not allowed, not provided for, not paid for and not even wanted,
that in the amounts presently being taken destroy the River System,
Apalachicola River and Bay and the City of Apalachicola and make it
appear that ``Might makes Right'' when it comes to the ACF River
System;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the people of the City of
Apalachicola through the Mayor and City Commissioners that we do and
will forever continue to STAND UP FOR THE APALACHICOLA; we welcome
Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Bill Nelson as our champions and
welcome the Congressional Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation to the City of Apalachicola, and we respectfully request
your assistance to take action to enforce the intent of and promises
made as a part of the enactment of Acts of Congress that created the
reservoirs and dams on the ACF River System not deprive the
Apalachicola River and Bay of the life serving freshwater supply that
flows down its arteries into one of the world's most amazing and
productive estuaries named Apalachicola Bay.
ADOPTED, this 6th day of August, 2013 by the City Commission of the
City of Apalachicola, Florida by unanimous vote.
FOR THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF APALACHICOLA, FLORIDA
Van W. Johns, Sr.,
Mayor.
ATTEST:
Lee H. Mathes, City Clerk
______
University of Florida--IFAS
North Florida Research and Research Center
Quincy, FL, August 28, 2013
MEMO:
TO: Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Marco Rubio
Representative Steve Southerland
FROM: Nicholas Comerford, Director, UF/IFAS NFREC
RE: Input following the Apalachicola Hearings
After listening to the hearings held in Apalachicola, Florida on
flow issues in the Apalachicola River watershed, I wanted to alert you
that the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Science, North Florida Research and Education Center (UF/IFAS NFREC)
has been actively working on agricultural practices and technologies
that would substantially reduce irrigation needs while maintaining the
economic viability of farms. Sod-based rotation, a cropping system
developed by NFREC, has the potential to reduce water use by over 50
percent. We are also collaborating with the University of Georgia on a
proposal to the National Science Foundation on implementing irrigation
water saving practices in the Flint basin and on using existing surface
and groundwater models to understand the implications of such savings
on the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint watershed. If you wish
to get more detailed information on our efforts please contact James
Marois ([email protected]) or David Wright ([email protected]).
The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Institution
______
August 23, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
I write today to urge you to include the Freshwater Flows Language
in the Water Resources Development Act. Your action will help save our
precious Apalachicola River, Floodplain, and Bay.
I discovered this unique and important area of Florida over twenty
five years ago. It was love at first sight! I returned many times over
the years to visit, explore, and educate myself about the area. I am
now privileged to live here in Apalachicola and am heartbroken at the
current condition of our Bay.
I lived the first fifty-plus years of my life in Georgia and was
blessed with a father who instilled in me a strong love and respect for
our natural world. As I like to say, he taught me about conservation
before conservation was cool! My adult years were spent in several
locations in north Georgia, including the area around Lake Lanier.
I tell you this to say that I've lived and heard Georgia's side of
the so-called Water Wars while also living and hearing Florida's side
of this continuing struggle to maintain adequate freshwater flows for
the Apalachicola River.
The recent Senate Committee Field Hearing held here in Apalachicola
provided you with the results of numerous scientific studies and data
regarding the economic impact of this bay on our region, state, and
nation. I see no need to repeat these statistics to you in this letter.
What I DO feel a need to do is ask for your help! We are depending
on Congress to do the right thing and the right thing here is to
include the Freshwater Flows provision in the Water Resources
Development Act.
Decades of litigation and negation between Florida, Georgia, and
Alabama have yielded no results to insure that the Bay receives the
freshwater flow needed to maintain its productivity. In short, our
upstream neighbors are continuing to benefit at our expense. Their
increased water consumption equals less freshwater for the Bay.
Atlanta's unbridled growth and lack of attention to serious water
conservation practices combined with current agricultural irrigation
practices have resulted in flow patterns that are killing our bay.
I am sitting on my front porch as I write this letter and a
neighbor just stopped by. He comes from a long line of shrimpers and
commercial fishermen. Now in his eighties, Mr. Louie still takes his
small boat up the river to fish on a regular basis. When I told him
what I was typing on the computer, he asked that I tell you that I'm
writing this letter for him and countless others who made and continue
to make their living on the water. Mr. Louie, too, hopes that you will
do the right thing and SAVE OUR BAY!
Sincerely,
Susan Macken,
Apalachicola, FL.
______
August 23, 2013
To: Members of Congress
Subject: Health of the Apalachicola River Basin and Bay
As a concerned citizen, I ask you, the members of Congress, to
listen to the voice of reason concerning the health of the Apalachicola
River and Bay. If a flow of freshwater is not maintained in the
Apalachicola the river and bay, it will be irreparably damaged. Once
man has created the damage it cannot be repaired.
A loss of the natural resource would be devastating not only to
those in south Florida but to the rest of the Nation. Apalachicola Bay
and the associated estuary is the fishery supplying a large portion of
the Gulf of Mexico with bait fish for larger species as well as
desirable food fish that are found throughout the Gulf region. The
impact of insufficient freshwater has already been documented as to the
effect on the oyster population and industry.
I ask that politics be put aside in this issue and ensure adequate
sustained freshwater is supplied to the Apalachicola. It is the right
and logical thing to do in maintaining this unique resource.
Thank you,
David Rheel,
Carrabelle, FL.
______
Tallahassee, FL, August 22, 2013
Representative Steve Southerland,
Florida Congressional District 2,
Tallahassee, FL.
Dear Representative Southerland:
I am a native of Apalachicola, having been born there in 1915 and
having lived there much of my life. I have written, spoken and painted
about the life and culture of this little coastal town surrounded by
the richness of nature.
I am deeply concerned for the survival and protection of the
Apalachicola River and its environment. Please push to preserve this
unique living treasure of great natural beauty and biological
diversity. We need this river, not only to keep our communities alive
and thriving today, but also as the heritage for future generations.
In the past few years, we have faced terrible onslaughts to our
waterways from the BP oil spill and related pollution in the Gulf.
Droughts, pollution and overfishing have also already taken a great
toll on the resilience of the ecosystem. We cannot sit and watch as the
life is drained out of this vital natural resource!
The Water Resources Development Act must contain the Freshwater
Flows language that will require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
provide the flows necessary for the health and productivity of the
Apalachicola River and Bay.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my request. I would
like to know your thoughts and plan for action in this crisis.
Sincerely,
Vivian Marshall Sherlock.
______
20 August 2013
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I really appreciate the impossible situation that politicians face
every day. The LOVE of money is absolutely, the root of all evil on
this small blue sphere we all call home. The exchange of goods and
services amongst ourselves, as Americans, is the largest part of what
we understand to be our ``Economy''. The word makes sense to most of us
as economy of effort as we ALL labour to balance our checkbooks while
bringing about a better world for our children and their children.
Since we all have different ways of doing that, we task our government
to regulate the equity and prove their commitment to reassure the
people that no one will be left out of the solutions. Like I said . . .
politicians face impossible jobs.
The world seems out of balance sometimes as we must adjust our
thinking to understand that the corporations that profit from our oil-
based power infrastructure are forced by everyone on planet earth to
make a deal with the devil in trading our necessity of life, ``water'',
for oil and natural gas.
One we need, the other we just want.
Yours truly,
Linda M. Epler,
B.S. Biology.
Crawfordville, FL.
______
Mathews-Webster Consulting
Tallahassee, FL, August 14, 2013
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis,
Counsel,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr Lewis:
Thank you for your interest in these comments on the oyster
disaster declared August 12 for the Florida Gulf Coast fishery. As you
may recall, we discussed the importance of Wakulla County, which
neighbors Franklin County and Apalachicola Bay, to Florida's oyster
industry. These comments stress the critical importance of Wakulla
oystering to restoration and sustainability.
These comments are submitted on behalf of Panacea Waterfronts
Florida Partnership and CSA Ocean Sciences, as well as many individuals
and families employed in the oyster fishery.
Panacea Waterfronts is a not-for-profit civic organization based in
the small Gulf front community of Panacea, with a long history of
involvement in the oyster industry.
CSA Ocean Sciences is a Stuart, FL-based environmental consulting
firm that is partnering with Panacea Waterfronts on projects to help
restore Wakulla's severely depleted oyster industry. My firm, MW
Consulting, represents both Panacea Waterfronts and CSA. A copy of an
oyster restoration proposal submitted for National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation and RESTORE Federal Council funding is attached as an
appendix to this document and provides important information on key
subjects addressed in these comments.
Overview
Properly deployed, oyster transfers, backed by a sound science
component, can help restore the region's oyster reefs, create an
ongoing sustainable harvest, and put underemployed and unemployed
oystermen and women back to productive work. Wakulla County is ideally
situated for oyster transfers. The cost of a three-year program is
approximately $2 million, including substantial scientific monitoring.
Importance of Wakulla Oystering
Wakulla County is the second-largest producer of oysters in
Florida, after Franklin County. As county oyster production is measured
where the oysters are landed--brought ashore--and most Wakulla oysters
are landed in Franklin County, the actual production for Wakulla is
certainly higher than landings would indicate.
Throughout the year, oystermen and women routinely move between
Wakulla and Franklin county waters. The two areas are closely linked.
Over the past several years as Franklin County suffered from the
loss of freshwater flow, this linkage severely impacted Wakulla County,
as oystermen and women harvested Wakulla waters more intensely. Coupled
with the ``Great Recession''--which led many out-of-work people to take
up oystering--Wakulla oyster reefs are currently severely depleted,
some say by as much as 75 percent.
During the hearing, speakers talked of the significant decline in
the number of oyster boats working in Franklin County. The same is true
in Wakulla, where many local oyster families--some third and fourth
generation--are facing foreclosure due to declines in income. Without
doubt, oystering is a greater portion of Franklin's livelihood than
Wakulla's. But, as Wakulla has three times the population of Franklin,
a smaller portion still means the number of people in harm's way in
Wakulla County is very high--and tragic.
However, the most severe problem facing Wakulla is the lack of
resource management. While Franklin County is extensively researched
and monitored, authorities know next to nothing about Wakulla oysters.
For example, there is little data on the size, quality, and
productivity of oyster reefs. There are no ongoing restoration projects
(the last restoration project, a small annual oyster transfer program,
ended earlier this month). And, there is very little enforcement;
poaching from prohibited and conditionally closed areas is believed to
occur at an alarming level.
Wakulla Opportunity
Fresh water flow has long been identified as the most significant
problem facing Apalachicola Bay. Wakulla County's freshwater flow is
from a separate watershed that originates in South Georgia (well below
thirsty Atlanta). Wakulla also has numerous freshwater springs and sea
wells as well as rivers. Water purity, not flow, is the greater concern
in Wakulla.
In order to ensure health and safety, large portions of Wakulla
oyster areas are either harvest prohibited or conditionally closed (see
maps in Appendix A).
Oysters from conditionally closed areas can be transferred--also
called ``relaying''--to conditionally open waters. In about two weeks,
oysters transferred into clean water will self-clean--and become safe
to eat.
Last week (August 5, 2013), the final NOAA-funded Wakulla oyster
relay took place. Supervisors from Florida's Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Division of Aquaculture, reported ``tens of
thousands of bushels'' of legal-sized oysters in conditionally closed
waters that could be transferred to open water (see brief report,
Appendix B).
Once transferred, oysters can be harvested for sale within a matter
of weeks. Transfers also help expand existing oyster beds, and can help
build new reefs. Key to the success of a transfer is a sound foundation
of extensive scientific evaluation and monitoring of the resource that
will translate into effective management and enforcement.
Transfer is not often used in Franklin, where sizable conditionally
closed areas do not exist. Franklin heavily relies on shelling, which
is an effective strategy to rebuild reefs and create new beds, but
oysters take 18 months or more to grow to harvestable size.
Cost: Benefits
Appendix A details a cost of approximately $2 million to conduct
three years of science monitoring and oyster transfers in Wakulla
County. Economic estimates show that Wakulla County oyster revenue
could increase by 1/3 with a transfer program in place. In addition to
mitigating harm to the depleted resource, the transfer project has the
potential to establish ongoing sustainable oyster harvests, where the
need for additional government financial assistance is reduced or even
eliminated.
Shelling and relays are both viable strategies that should be
vigorously deployed. As numerous speakers stated during the
Apalachicola hearing, shelling there is inextricably linked to water
flow issues. Transfers in Wakulla County will not be negatively
impacted by water flow issues. Thus, while shelling is an important
long-term strategy, transfers in areas like Wakulla County can provide
short-term stimulus and long term benefits. Moreover, a strong Wakulla
transfer program provides relief to the resource as Franklin's industry
rebuilds.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Please let me know if we can provide further information.
Sincerely,
Steven Webster,
President,
Mathews-Webster Consulting.
______
APPENDIX A: Panacea Waterfronts oyster restoration project proposal
Areas in grey (below) are section language from the DEP on-line
submission form
Project Name:
COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION OF WAKULLA OYSTER REEF ENVIRONMENTS:
BUILDING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, CREATING JOBS AND PRESERVING OUR
COASTAL HERITAGE
We propose to restore and rehabilitate Gulf of Mexico oyster reefs
in the Ochlockonee and Wakulla Rivers watersheds, harmed in part by
response to the Macondo (Deepwater Horizon) spill, to reach a 200 bag
per acre, per year production rate within five years. Increased
production in this area will benefit complementing restoration efforts
in the adjacent Apalachicola watershed, helping to remedy harm to
natural resources (habitats, species) where there has been injury to,
or destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of those resources resulting
from the oil spill, as well as other factors. Oysters in these
watersheds are severely depleted and suffering from the absence of
science-based resource management plans. According to the Florida
Department of Consumer Services Division of Aquaculture, data analyses
and observations on the major reef complexes in the area show
substantial losses of oyster populations, with severe declines in
oyster densities, standing stocks and production estimates since 2010
(see Oyster Resource Assessment Report, August 2012).
This project will mitigate harm by providing environmental and
economic benefit for the coastal community through replenishment of
wild oyster beds and creation of new reefs. We project an estimated
annual return of $1 million (1/3 greater than current landings) by
sustainably harvesting oysters under our science-based best management
practices.
Contact Information (Include at least one name, phone number, e-mail
address, and organization name if applicable):
Panacea Waterfronts Florida Partnership
Dickson, Walt
P.O. Box 212
Panacea, Florida 32346
Panacea Waterfronts Florida Partnership
Ronald Fred Crum
1321 Coastal Highway
Panacea, Florida 32346
CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.
Fonseca, Mark
8502 SW Kansas Avenue
Stuart, Florida 34997
(772) 219-3000
MW Consulting
Webster, Steven
122 S Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(850) 391-7674
Project Location (Include a map, if possible, and the city, county,
longitude/latitude, and watershed):
See Figures 1 and 2.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Wakulla County and Apalachee Bay; close up showing the
extensive, anastomosing oyster bars.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. Maps show classified oyster waters off Wakulla County.
Areas that are conditionally restricted and potentially those
prohibited areas (orange diamonds and red stripes) provide
opportunities during the closed summer season to transfer oysters to
viable habitats for reef rehabilitation and, ultimately, harvest and an
improved fishery.
Project Description (Describe all aspects of the project):
Here we propose to utilize National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF) funds to fuse existing knowledge and planning recommendations as
well as new approaches and partnerships to create a science-based
oyster transfer and habitat enhancement program. This program mitigates
harm to the northern Gulf of Mexico oyster resource fueled in part by
response to the Macondo spill, by restoring and enhancing degraded
existing oyster reefs and the creation of new oyster reefs in Wakulla
County.
Wakulla County is the second-largest oyster-producing county in
Florida, after neighboring Franklin County, and oystermen and women in
Wakulla and Franklin typically harvest oysters from both counties
(pers. corn., Ronald Fred Crum, 2013).
Figures from 2012 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
trip ticket tallies show just fewer than 10,000 bushels harvested in
Wakulla. That number is significantly under reported, as many oysters
harvested in Wakulla are landed in Franklin (Apalachicola) and counted
toward that County's total. Recreational oystering and, of course,
poaching, remove an unknown portion of the local resource.
Oystering in Florida, as well as other Gulf Coast states, was
significantly harmed by the Macondo spill. As the Sarasota Herald-
Tribune reported in August 7, 2010, ``In the weeks after the Gulf oil
spill, when things looked bleak . . . people harvested everything they
could.''
The intense pressure on area oysters, compounded by the complete
closure of Louisiana oyster beds, led to what the University of Florida
concluded is an ``historic collapse'' of oystering in 2012 (see
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Situation Report, April 24, 2013).
The Transocean and BP criminal settlement agreements state:
NFWF shall use the money it receives from the defendant
pursuant to this Order for the following purposes and subject
to the following conditions:
a. To remedy harm and eliminate or reduce the risk of future
harm to Gulf Coast natural resources, NFWF shall use
approximately half of the payments to conduct or fund projects
to remedy harm to resources where there has been injury to, or
destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of those resources
resulting from the Macondo oil spill.
By conducting a systematic survey of County waters, we will provide
a scientifically valid inventory and assessment of degraded habitats
and selection of recipient habitats for enhancement and the potential
for construction of new oyster reefs. This inventory will include not
only georeferenced bathymetry and bottom composition, but status of the
oyster reef (e.g., size classes and abundance). Such an inventory is
badly needed; FFWRI does not have any monitoring in place (S.Geiger,
pers corn.) and the currently mapped oyster habitat (Figure 3) does not
describe readily visible habitat well (Figure 1).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3. Current delineation of producing oyster beds in Wakulla
County (black polygons); note the discrepancy of this map with the
observable oyster reefs in Figure 1 (inset rectangle = approximate view
of Figure 1). Taken from VanderKooy (2012).
We will integrate our inventory and site selection process with a
transfer program, including coordination with the State program, to
increase the effectiveness of oyster harvest in a sustainable manner
and the possibility of new sites for reef creation. Moreover, our
inventory will include the performance of these areas before, during,
and after the oyster transfer and any reef creation process. Most
important is that this project is designed to use the local, working
watermen and women as partners not only in the selection of sites,
transfer, and construction of any new oyster reefs, but also in the
execution and management of the transfer effort. This creates jobs and
buy-in to the science-guided framework of best management practices.
There is a demonstrated need for a science-based, County-wide
inventory and best management practice guidance at the scale of the
individual water bodies in the Bay. Oyster harvest has increased in
Wakulla County since 2005, but there are indications of a declining
fishery with pounds landed reaching an asymptote as a function of trips
with catch per unit effort declining in recent years (Figures 4 and 5)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4. Wakulla County pounds of oysters landed vs. trips.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 5. Wakulla County catch unit effort (pounds of oysters per
trip) over time; note dramatic decline in last 4 years.
Stressors governing the abundance and health of the oyster resource
include habitat destruction (e.g., sedimentation), physical disruption
(e.g., dredging), alteration of hydrologic regimes (e.g., freshwater
diversion, impoundment, and channelization), pollution burdens,
disease, predation (especially from the oyster drill, Stramonita
haemastoma), and harm from overharvesting. Combined, these stressors
have resulted in long-term population losses (VanderKooy, 2012). As a
result, a combination of transfer efforts, habitat restoration, and,
most importantly, a science-based approach to guiding harvest decisions
supported by accurate geographic information regarding the resource are
all needed to sustain the fishery and its associated economy.
Oyster relay or transfer projects will be one element utilized to
support the Wakulla Oyster Fisherman and Women (WOFMW) and enhance the
wild oyster resources. A sustainable portion of oysters located within
beds in areas closed to harvest due to water quality impacts will be
relocated by WOFMW. By transferring oysters from conditionally closed
to open areas, existing wild beds can be replenished. One of the early
tasks to be completed will be to assess the number and size of viable
oyster reef habitats within closed areas and estimate the amount and
size \1\ of oysters (pounds or bushels) available for transfer. The
second assessment should involve determining the extent of available
wild habitat that exists in the open oyster areas. The study team will
additionally determine if the proposed size and methodologies of
transfer and harvest needed will fully replenish (and make sustainable)
Wakulla beds without further major transfers. With this information
compiled and with direction from the WOFMW, the study team would
determine the most advantageous transfer process and methodology to
maximize investment returns (oysters harvested) on the NFWF Act
funding. When oyster resources are assessed and managed properly, an
effective and well-managed transfer program should significantly
increase the number of open beds available to Wakulla fisherman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relay contracts issued by the Florida Division of Aquaculture
allow oysters of ``any size'' to be transferred. The protocols for this
project will focus on larger oysters--2.75'' or greater--using tonging
retrieval methods. It is projected that a higher number of transferred
oysters will be harvestable in the near-term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the goal of this proposal is to mitigate harm to the resource
by creating an up-to-date inventory of oyster habitat and its
biological status to guide a sustainable transfer and wild harvest
program. Moreover, NFWF presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
revive a struggling environment, resource, and industry. Improving and
expanding oyster reefs in Wakulla County will contribute to NFWF's
objective to eliminate or reduce the risk of future harm to the
resource in Florida and across the Northern Gulf of Mexico. This
project will enhance community resilience in a small county that
otherwise cannot marshal the resources to achieve these goals. By
developing localized, geographically accurate, and science-based best
management practices, we can ensure that the wild oyster beds are not
over harvested, providing many WOFMW generations with viable fisheries
that preserves an important aspect of the community's culture.
Effective management of oyster resources and measuring the
mitigation of harm requires an understanding of how many oysters occur
within each defined management unit, the locations of those resources,
and recruitment and mortality rates within each unit. Considering the
fundamental importance of effectively modeling population status and
suitability for harvest, there remains a surprising dearth of
information regarding the stock status of oysters in the Gulf of Mexico
(VanderKooy, 2012). This proposal would directly address this
shortcoming and additionally provide a basis for subsequent application
of production models that are currently under development by the Gulf
State Marine Fishery Commission. These models hold the promise to
accurately forecast oyster resources in response to stressors that
influence life history stages of Wakulla oysters, providing an
objective means to guide harvest and management strategies. For
example, the Constant Abundance Surplus Production (CASP) model
requires a data time series of population abundance, annual recruitment
(i.e., spat set), stage-specific mortality rates, fishery harvest, and
the impact of fishing on both cultch abundance and the mortality of
pre-recruit life stages. The data requirements of this model and the
Sustainable Oyster Shell stock (SOS) model are relatively low for an
assessment model.
Project Summary
Background
Oyster reefs in Wakulla County are severely depleted, harmed
particularly by over-harvesting in response to the Macondo
spill.
Bushels collected per trip have decreased, resulting in
economic hardship to the local community.
Rehabilitation of existing reefs and the creation of new
reef habitat is desired to mitigate harm.
Effective oyster reef management and restoration rests on
having accurate geographic information regarding the
distribution and status of existing reefs as well as potential
new reef sites; success also will be aided by marking,
monitoring, and reasonable enforcement.
Oyster transfer provides near-term economic benefits.
Oyster transfer activities need optimization to contribute
to a sustainable harvest that includes naturally occurring,
non-transferred oysters.
Oyster transfer can be of value to and work in tandem with
other recovery strategies, such as hatchery-enhanced
recruitment or engineering-improved circulation patterns (these
are not proposed here, but could integrate well with other
projects such as A vision for sustainable farming of oysters
along Florida's Forgotten Coast [Rudloe et al., year]).
Objectives
Develop a geographically accurate and up-to-date inventory
of oyster reefs and associated habitats; use these data to
guide management actions (e.g., rehabilitation methods and
priorities, site selection for both rehabilitated and new reef
creation).
Rehabilitate existing oyster reefs and create new reefs to
reach a sustainable 200 bag acre -1 year
-1 production rate within 5 years.
Provide local employment through the transfer and the
subsequent harvesting and management of replenished wild oyster
beds and new reefs.
Approach
Compile all available geographic data layers and assemble
Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets with accumulative
layers depicting and representing the resources that are
positively and negatively impacted by the proposed oyster
transfer project and mosaic seagrass and oyster reef marine
environments.
Perform remote-sensed and ground-truthed survey of oyster
reefs and their status (oyster size classes and abundance) in
Wakulla County, stratified by closed, prohibited and open areas
in the following areas:
Ochlockonee Bay,
Zone 2 (near shore central Wakulla),
Zone 3 (off shore central Wakulla), and
Apalachee Bay (in front of St Marks).
Develop oyster reef rehabilitation, transfer, and creation
site selection criteria.
Promulgate reef mitigation and creation protocols.
Using the GIS database, refine the prioritized list of
rehabilitation sites and creation sites.
Refine definition of transfer donor and recipient sites.
Define locations for new reef creation and enhancement
(water flow modification).
Integrate submerged aquatic vegetation in reef design to
control erosion, enhance ecosystem services, mitigate water
quality, and provide acid buffering.
Coordinate and implement methods to enhance and facilitate
oyster reef remediation and creation:
Transfer Process--Controlled harvest and deployment,
Circulation Modifications--Changes in water quality
(temperature, salinity, water clarity), and
Recruitment Enhancement Areas--Assess contribution of
natural vs. hatchery-provided recruitment.
Quantify the effectiveness of the rehabilitation, creation,
and transfer efforts through scientifically defensible
monitoring studies.
Work with all stakeholders, including especially commercial
harvesters, to develop best management practice rules.
Outcomes
Mitigating harm by creating a sustainable oyster harvest
fishery increasing annual landing revenue from approximately
$2.8 million/year (FWC landing report) to $3.8 million/year or
greater.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The projected increase in revenue is based on a conservative
estimate that up to 50 percent of transferred oysters will be harvested
in a given year. No additional income is projected based on oysters
harvested from existing beds as they are replenished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly improved monitoring and assessment programs.
Sustainable local jobs (maintaining oyster harvesting,
processing, and marketing).
Improved resiliency of the social and ecological framework
of Wakulla County.
Enhanced water quality through oyster filtration.
Increased nursery habitats for other commercially important
Gulf of Mexico finfish.
Funding
Identify appropriate entry points for support under NFWF.
Identify other opportunities, such as the Coastal and Marine
Habitat Restoration Project grant.
Coordinate project with the existing Florida Division of
Aquaculture relay program.
Estimated Project Costs (Describe the estimated costs of the project,
including any assumptions for contingency and ongoing operations/
maintenance. Identify other secured funding sources such as matching
funds, in-kind contributions or state/federal dollars. In addition, if
possible, complete and submit the Cost Appendix Sheet associated with
this Form):
Project costs will arise from initial inventory and ground-
truthing, site familiarization, site marking and maintenance, flow
modification, permitting, active restoration, purchase of monitoring
and statistical analysis, economic analysis, and reporting. These costs
include a mix of capital expenditures (e.g., imagery acquisition,
software maintenance, sediment fill, application costs, buoy and ground
tackle, and typical expendables for field operations), subcontracts
(e.g., marine services for buoying and sediment filling), and labor
with associated overhead. Total cost over the 5-year life of the
project: $2,032,750.
Other Funding (Indicate if the project is submitted for any potential
funding or if it may be used to leverage additional funding, if so
please describe the funding source [e.g. State/Federal Grants]):
This project is also currently being submitted for funding through
the FDEP website ([email protected]). However, we
intend to coordinate closely with the State's oyster relay program,
which provides monies for fishermen to relocate oysters of any size
from non-harvesting areas to open areas. Through this coordination, we
will provide that program the benefit of our survey and assessment data
to enhance their site selection process.
Technical Feasibility (Describe the technologies involved and any
relevant past experience or proven success with similar projects):
All aspects of this project utilize established procedures (i.e.,
GIS and remote sensing techniques, oyster transfer program, science-
based and statistically valid monitoring). Modification of oyster bars
to promote water quality is technically feasible, but its link to an
outcome of enhanced oyster production remains experimental and would be
the subject of complementary proposals.
Environmental Benefits (Describe the nature, magnitude, and timing of
any environmental benefits attributable to the project. If possible,
describe potential environmental performance measures [e.g., pollutant
reduction]. Please address any potential environmental impacts
associated with implementing or maintaining the project [e.g,. loss of
a habitat or conversion of habitat from one type to another during
implementation]):
The environmental benefits of increased oyster populations have
several immediate and long-term benefits. Oyster reefs have long been
known for their key role as a keystone species and as bioengineers of
many coastal ecosystems; they are recognized as Essential Fish Habitat
by the Federal Government. Moreover, increased numbers of living
oysters provide proportional increases in water column filtration (by
the living oysters) and improve water quality. Increased living oyster
populations build and maintain reef habitat, which is a foundation
habitat for a wide variety of other ecologically and economically
valuable organisms both in the short and long term. Living oyster reefs
also maintain the long-term physical stability of the water masses,
regulating exchange, temperature, salinity, and geochemical processes
fundamental to healthy ecosystem functions. Integration of submerged
aquatic vegetations (SAV) with oyster reefs provides a continuum of
habitat function and increases ecological diversity and productivity as
well as buffering water column pH to mitigate any potential
acidification associated with climate change. Finally, healthy oyster
reefs provide an important mechanism for carbon sequestration and,
thus, buffering of climate change.
Economic and Social Benefits (Describe the economic and social benefits
including those related to the project's improved ecosystem services
and any estimates on jobs created or preserved):
There was substantial harm to the oyster fishery arising in
significant part from response to the Macondo spill. There are many
economic and social benefits of maintaining a healthy oyster fishery.
First, maintaining a healthy oyster fishery in an area such as Wakulla
County where oyster fishing has been a central theme in the fabric of
the community directly supports the cultural heritage of the region.
Economically viable households, supported by a healthy fishery also
have cascade effects through the community, supporting family structure
and promoting social justice through elevated standards of living.
Direct job creation also results from this project. Significant
resources will be expended through local, qualified marine contractors
in the monitoring and ground-truthing surveys, transfer of oysters,
creation of enhanced circulation, hiring of vessels, monitoring
support, and the harvesting of transferred oysters. We anticipate
transferring up to of 90,000 bushels of oysters annually at a cost of
$250,000/year, employing an estimated 100 individuals during the summer
months when harvest is closed. Once transferred and oysters have self-
cleansed, harvest of just 50 percent of these oysters (at current rates
of $30 per bushel) would provide $1.35 million of revenue to
fishermen beginning within weeks of completion of the transfer. In
addition to these economic cascades, we anticipate a short-term (1 to 2
year) influx of $2 million to the local economy and a sustained
incremental return of $1 million per annum by sustainably harvesting
oysters under the science-based best management practices.
Community Resilience (Describe if the project assists Florida's ability
to anticipate, withstand, or recover from hazards or threats [e.g.
hurricane preparedness, establishing living shorelines]):
Improving the biological integrity of an ecosystem engineer (Jones
et al., 1994) such as the Wakulla oyster reefs provides substantial
protection of shoreline and shore-side infrastructure from both waves
and storm surge. Maintaining the heritage of oyster harvest provides
economic resilience for the community. The value of the reefs is
recognized at all levels of government. The existing authorization from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the
smaller (22,000 bushels) annual transfers since 2006 was created to
restore oyster reefs damaged by hurricanes in 2005 (Florida Dept of
Agriculture Contract # 018625). Oysters also provide significant carbon
sequestration, fixing CO2 into calcium carbonate.
Conflicts or Complements to Existing Efforts (Describe any ongoing
activities in the project implementation area, if the project is part
of another plan, and why the project does or does not interfere with
that work Please consider how the project may complement existing
local, regional, and state efforts/plans/objectives):
This effort will complement the nominal oyster relay program that
has taken place in most years since 2005 in Dixie, Levy, Wakulla, and
Franklin Counties. WOFWM is familiar with the process, as are the
regulatory agencies. What separates this project from past efforts--
besides the larger scope--is the significant science component, which
will guide restoration efforts and policy for years to come. While this
project stands on its own merits, there are additional programs under
consideration that complement the Wakulla relay. Neighboring Franklin
County is proposing a $30+ million oyster shelling project. The Florida
Legislature has established the Wakulla Environmental Institute, which
plans to offer an A.S. degree in Aquaculture, working in collaboration
with this project and with the well-known Gulf Specimen Marine Lab,
which is based in Wakulla County.
Oyster restoration is a priority concern across the Florida
Panhandle, and the Gulf, as the number of requests for funding
throughout the region clearly indicates. The Northwest Florida Water
Management District has reached out to counties throughout its area of
service to collect and submit ``on the shelf' proposals as a part of
this process. As of March 13, 2013, 14 oyster restoration projects have
been submitted through the NWFWMD, cities, counties, and other
entities. One proposal submitted via NWFWMD (Wk-7), is on behalf of
Wakulla County's Board of County Commissioners, and is an unbudgeted
proposal initially submitted for NRDA funding. The goals of that
project neatly dovetail with this proposal.
This project also provides excellent collaborative opportunities
with other local entities such as the Wakulla Environmental Institute,
wherein use of hatchery-derived oyster could be used to test
augmentation effectiveness in the County. Also, given the georeferenced
bathymetry data developed through this proposal, the opportunity to
consider hydraulic engineering options to enhance flow and reduce
pollution loads on sheltered beds becomes feasible. Finally, this
proposal would directly address the recognized dearth of oyster
population information needed to effectively manage the resource
(VanderKooy, 2012) and would provide data to assess population modeling
and management efforts (e.g., the CASP and SOS models).
Complies with Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Laws/Regulations
(Describe any concerns or potential conflicts):
The project will require permits to deploy oyster culture in order
to enhance existing reefs, build new oyster habitat, or rehabilitate
non-functioning reef habitat in addition to those permits and contracts
for oyster transfers. Agencies and applicants are well-versed in this
matter, and no complications are foreseen. This action will require
close cooperation and permits granted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and
Wakulla County. The project team will also coordinate closely with and
request comments and letters of support from Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWCC), NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFW), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In addition,
we will also coordinate with the Division of Aquaculture in the Florida
Department of Agriculture. We will follow established guidelines for
the selection and approval of oyster deployment. In instances where
scientific inquiry benefits from testing new procedures, we will engage
regulatory officials in pre-application meetings and other steps to
facilitate expeditious permitting. We also will conduct outreach and
coordination with the Department of Law Enforcement of the FWCC, which
is charged with enforcement of all laws and protection of all resources
in State waterways. Effective monitoring of transfers and subsequent
enforcement during harvest is a key step toward reef recovery.
Readiness for Implementation (Describe if the project has had any
design or permitting work started or completed [attach permits or
design work]. Please address any issues that may delay start or finish
of the project):
This project is ready for immediate launch. The team has fully
prepared and active GIS capabilities; there is a strong local
infrastructure of support; watermen and their families are engaged; and
vessels are ready. Oyster transfer is well established and awaiting the
enhanced, science-based guidance of this project.
Public Acceptance (Describe any known or potential public approval or
opposition to the project):
We expect this to be widely embraced as the degradation of the
oyster reef system is commonly recognized and science-based solutions
considered long overdue. We also note that the informed public believes
that past oyster relays were a ``summer jobs program'' for WOFMW and
did little to replenish or restore the resource. Thus, this science-
based approach has won widespread support and enthusiasm as it will
base policy and practice on sound science. Ironically, one criticism of
the program is--that it could remove too many ``coon'' oysters
(underdeveloped clusters of oysters that are often out of the water
during low tide) which could lower spat counts and reduce water
filtration unacceptably. In fact--and as the critic learned--``coons''
were the target of past relays, which allowed ``hogging'' as a
collection method. In ``hogging,'' oysters are collected by hand,
meaning the top layers, most often the ``coons,'' are picked and often
do not survive the relay or do not adapt to their new location before
reaching maturity. In the proposed transfer, larger oysters from deeper
in the water will be tongued. These oysters are closer to, or already
at, legal 3-in. or greater size, and can be more successfully
transferred and harvested. Thus, the single criticism we have heard is
an issue not caused by, but in fact is resolved by, this proposal.
Information you wish to provide (Please include any maps, designs,
drawings, photos, or background resources that may assist in completely
and accurately understanding the project):
See previous sections and:
Jones, C.G, Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem
engineers. OIKOS 69:373-386.
VanderKooy, S. (editor). 2012. The Oyster Fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan--2012 Revision.
Publication No. 202, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean
Springs, Mississippi.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
APPENDIX B: Oyster Transfer Report
August 5, 2013
The annual Wakulla oyster relay began today in Ochlockonee Bay
waters, the boundary between Franklin and Wakulla Counties.
The relay is funded by a NOAA grant stemming from tropical storm
damage several years ago and is administered by the Florida Dept of
Agriculture (FDACS) Division of Aquaculture. The grant expires this
year. This is the last relay.
Relays take place during summer months, when most Florida oyster
beds are closed and oystermen (and women) are either underemployed or
even unemployed. Oyster boats move oysters from conditionally closed
zones to conditionally open waters, where cleaner water, in two weeks'
time, cleanses the oysters and they become legally harvestable--and
eatable.
22 boats took part this morning; they were on the water by eight
and finished by 12:30. Each boat can make five trips from the source
(Gulf-side of the US98 bridge across the Bay) to the relay dumping
site, which was only about a mile away, closer to the Gulf. Each boat
can earn $525 for the day, gross, or $3 per full basket, limit S full
baskets per trip. The local Wakulla Fisherman's Association, which
sponsors the relay, keeps 50 cents of each $3. With approximately
$60,000 in funding, DACS expects the relay to take four days to finish.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The photo at left shows some boats in the distance near the bridge,
tonging oysters. The markers in the foreground indicate the start of
the dump site. The markers were placed by oystermen. The dump site is
about eight acres in size.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I was out on the water on a DACS boat, where Joe Shields from the
Division of Aquaculture's Apalachicola office would give each boat
loaded with baskets of oysters a ticket, and tell them where to dump.
Joe states that DACS is closely monitoring the size of oysters--nothing
less than two inches--as well as how they are harvested. Only tonging
is allowed this year.
The oysters I saw brought up and later dumped were of good size,
and the baskets contained a minimum of--if any--detritus. In previous
years, just about anything that could fit in a basket was moved, and
just about any container of any size would qualify as a ``basket''.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Clark Nichols, who helped mark this year's field, is piloting this
boat as it dumps its load into the location indicated by Joe Shields.
Clark is holding up a fairly typical oyster--clearly pleased with its
size.
Shields states that the survival rate for relayed oysters is 100
percent. He noted that original plans to relay from sites further east
were changed in favor of Ochlockonee Bay because the original site's
oysters were both depleted and stressed out. However, he emphasized
there is an abundance of oysters in conditionally closed waters--
thousands and thousands of bushels, he said--which is a key to our
proposal.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Once the oysters are dumped, the ticket is signed by another DACS
boat. When the relay is completed and the association tallies the take,
DACS pays the association, which then pays the oystermen (and women).
In Joe's opinion, this year's relay looks to be a success. Many of
the principles we've been espousing in our oyster restoration proposal
are being used: clearly defining harvest areas, ensuring right-sized
oysters are being moved and baskets full of oysters and nothing else;
and dumped in specified areas.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
All the oystermen (and women) with whom I spoke stated that while
the relay process itself is much better managed, the need for a real
inventory of the local resource--key to our proposal--is vital. Now
that there is no further funding for relays, our proposal probably
could not come at a better time.
Matthew Hodges, pictured here on land after completing his five
trips for the day, is the president of Wakulla Fisherman's Association.
I've spoken at length with Matt; he has 1,100 GPS coordinates for
Wakulla harvest and dump sites already charted. He is one of the many
local oystermen (and women) whose knowledge will be key to our success.
One very interesting comment Matt made was that, today, Wakulla's
oyster resource can handle 30 boats on a sustainable basis. Today, of
the 22 boats out there, at least half came from neighboring Franklin; a
few from Cedar Key; and just a handful from Wakulla.
Conclusion
I am no expert, as this was my first time on the water during a
relay. What I saw looked well-run and organized--and I heard several
comments that oyster boats that were not following orders were quickly
set to rights. But, the best execution can mean little if it is not
based on sound planning, and the lack of information about Wakulla
oyster resources is a need that needs filling.
(Submitted by Steven Webster, President, MW Consulting)
______
Senators and Congressmen and women of the United States of America,
I understand humans need water . . . oysters should take second
place . . . but who needs to water the grass at the Quiktrip? This is
not about just saving oysters. This is about saving an economy. Would
you trade the jobs of hundreds of oystermen for green grass at a
Quiktrip in Atlanta.? I live in Atlanta and I say NO!
The United States of America has become very comfortable with
outsourcing our clothing, our information technology, and certainly all
of our manufacturing to India, China and other parts of the world. For
good reason! Who can resist a Tommy Hilfiger shirt for $9.99? Sweet!,
And what's the worst that can happen? If it falls apart you are out
less than your lunch money. Or of course you could always wear it with
only one sleeve.
Now imagine redefining the word FRESH. FRESH SEAFOOD could mean
buying all of your seafood from Thailand or China. You don't have to
imagine. Today much of the seafood for sale in a typical grocery has
traveled all the way around the world to get to your table. Are you
comfortable with the prospect that the company selling that food will
take those same short cuts with the quality of your food? What's the
worst that could happen? Actually, it is currently happening. Seafood
farmers growing shrimp in Thailand have lost their harvest due to
disease. I refuse to buy that type of product based on the lack of
health controls and unnatural way it is farmed.
Now think about the people that used to harvest the seafood in this
case in Apalachicola Bay. Put them on welfare . . . put them on
Medicaid . . . make more of the U.S. population poverty-stricken. Worth
it? Think about that green grass at the Quik Trip.
Save American Jobs. Help our citizens help themselves.
Keep our food safe.
Save our Bay . . . Apalachicola Bay. A natural resource of the
UNITED STATES.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Price and family,
Suwanee, Georgia.
______
August 18, 2013
The Honorable Senator Sara Gibson
The Honorable Senator Sean Houton
United States Senate
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Gibson and Houton [sic]:
I am a Founder and former Board Chairman of the Apalachicola
Riverkeeper environmental organization and was the Riverkeeper for a
number of years. Even at that time, back in the 1990s, we knew of the
damage to the Apalachicola River and Bay ecosystem resulting from the
reduced flow of freshwater derived from the Chattahoochee and Flint
river systems in Georgia and Alabama. We vigorously let our thoughts be
known but achieved only years of promises as the ``water wars''
continued. We watched in despair as oyster houses closed and men and
women struggled to make a living from the Bay as their families had
done for years.
Apalachicola oysters are famed for their quality and enjoyed
throughout the nation, but they require the mix of fresh and salt water
to grow. Please don't let this wonderful national resource disappear
from an area deemed an Outstanding National Water Body. Support an
equable system of distribution of our water to ensure the continuation
of the oyster and seafood industry in Florida Please require the Army
Corps of Engineers to establish freshwater flows that will sustain
Apalachicola Bay. Thank you for enclosing my communication in our
appeal.
Sincerely,
William B. Hartley,
Retired Apalachicola Riverkeeper,
Hernando, FL.
cc: Dan Tonsmier, Riverkeeper
Apalachicola Riverkeeper
______
The locals of the northwest FL in the region of the Apalachicola
Bay are asking your help as members of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the upcoming hearing to
support the continuing legislation to protect our water rights and save
our bay, oyster industry and restore the precious balance of salinity
and the health of the Bay.
Sincerely,
Diane Cofer,
Realtor,
Panama City, FL 32401
______
Apalachicola River--Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition
Greenwood, FL, August 13, 2013
Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio:
Thank you for this opportunity to speak and submit these comments
for the public record. My name is Chad Taylor and I am the Coordinator
of and here on behalf of the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition of
the Apalachicola River Basin, RCSC. It is entirely appropriate we again
make these comments offered also in the Florida Senate hearing on this
same matter in January of this year!
In 2007, after almost two decades of litigation and negotiation on
water allocation, also known as the Water War, the six Boards of County
Commissioners from the counties bordering the Apalachicola River in
Florida, Jackson, Gadsden, Calhoun, Liberty, Gulf and Franklin each by
resolution came together to address the water allocation issues in the
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River basin, ACF. The result is
the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition, RCSC. It was evident to
these commissioners and the citizens, the stakeholders living in the
basin, time was and is not on Florida's side and as the years past the
conditions in the Apalachicola River, Floodplain and Bay continued to
decline. Here we are now six years later, and after twenty-four years
of litigation and negotiation the conditions continue to decline and
perhaps today are now worse than ever.
We are here today, again, to ask you to assist us in securing the
flows in the ACF Basin necessary to sustain the health and productivity
of the Apalachicola River, Floodplain and Bay in these four ways:
We need a unified Florida response to this crisis, now,
federal, state, local government, basin stakeholders all
working together to solve the problem
We believe it will be helpful to form an Apalachicola River
Basin Legislative Caucus for the State of Florida House and
Senate members to work with our Federal and State partners and
agencies and the basin stakeholders
We need the data and assessment tools to answer the question
for everyone, including Georgia and Alabama, ``how much water
does Florida require'' to sustain the Apalachicola River,
Floodplain, Bay and Eastern Gulf of Mexico
We need funding support so our state agencies, our first
rate scientists and policy folks, AND the Riparian County
Stakeholder Coalition, and others, like the University of
Florida, working the problems can insure our very best possible
outcome
In the first five years, among many successes, the RCSC includes
the formation of the ACF Stakeholders Inc., ACFS. As founding members,
the RCSC sees a collaborative, negotiated settlement as our best way
forward. A diverse group of individuals, corporations, and non-profit
organizations throughout Alabama, Florida and Georgia, ACFS represents
all the interests within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin.
Our mission is to change the operation and management of the ACF Basin
to achieve equitable solutions among stakeholders that balance
economic, ecological, and social values, viable solutions that ensure
that the entire ACF basin is a sustainable resource for current and
future generations. To that end we have raised 1.3 million dollars in
private funding and in the first quarter of 2014 will have for
consideration by all the ACF basin stakeholders an ACF basin wide
Sustainable Water Management Plan that includes an In-stream Flow
Assessment of the three rivers and the bay and a study of possible
Transboundary Water Management Institutional Options to implement the
plan. Please see www.acfstake
holders.org.
In closing, and on behalf of the residents of our six riparian
counties of the Apalachicola River Basin, represented by our six Boards
of County Commissioners and the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition,
please take to heart and to action these four requests;
Support a unified Florida response to this crisis on the
Apalachicola River
Consider forming an Apalachicola River Basin Legislative
Caucus
Help us answer the question, ``how much water does Florida
require''
Support our need for funding so we attain the very best
possible outcome
Thank you for this opportunity to come before you on this important
issue so we can work together to sustain the health and productivity of
the ACF basin and the Apalachicola River, Floodplain and Bay, that,
like the Everglades, is an American Treasure!
Respectfully yours,
C. Chadwick Taylor,
RCSC Coordinator.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Colonel Jon J. Chytka
Question 1. What impact will the control manual have on nonfederal
dams?
Answer. The Corps of Engineers (Corps) will consider the non-
federal dams in our analysis; however the Corps does not have manuals
for these dams and most are operated pursuant to their own licenses
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In terms of the
impact the Corps' proposed operation might have on the non-federal
dams, we are currently in the process of formulating alternatives and
then would need to see what the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
analysis determines before determining the impact.
Question 2. How much water has Georgia requested and, when
considering that request, how do you account for the impact of any
additional withdrawal on the entire system?
Answer. In January 2013, Georgia submitted a water supply request
for direct withdrawals from Lake Lanier of 297 million gallons per day
(mgd) and downstream withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River at the
City of Atlanta of 408 mgd. The Corps will use modeling and the EIS
process to evaluate the impact of that request on the ACF system.
[all]