Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Tri-State Negotiation

- Chen-I Lin, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts Univiersity

Abstract

Water allocation among three competing needs - urban water supply, irrigation needs, and ecological productivities of the coastal estuary - is key issue for this conflict. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) basin is shared by the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Within ACF, urban development and agricultural development (economic considerations (C)) within Georgia has increased amount of water withdraw from the Chattahoochee River and from groundwater storage within the Flint River Basin. Fishing industries (C) within Florida perceived the reduced in-stream flow (Q) as negatively affecting the productivities of coastal fishery in the Apalachicola Bay and challenged the 1989 U.S. Corps. of Engineers' proposal to further increase withdraw of water in its operation of the storage reservoir, Lake Lanier (G). Here we find water dispute arise as the existing guidelines for water allocation (G-Q) can no longer adequately address rapid social changes and environmental degradation. To arrive at an inter-state agreement over water allocation, new dispute resolution mechanisms in water governance were introduced - a process of tri-state negotiation to achieve inter-state compact of water allocation, collaborative fact finding, and share vision modelling. Nevertheless, no agreement was reached at the end of the tri-state negotiation in 2004 due to continuing disputes over methods of data collection, data interpretation, and impact assessments.

Questions Answered and Lessons Learned

The key questions that are addressed in this case study are: 1) What are the key drivers behind the water allocation dispute in the ACF Basin? 2) Why had share vision planning and collaborative fact finding failed in helping stakeholders reaching an agreement in the ACF Tri-State Negotiation? Here we find conflict arises as existing water management policies cannot effectively respond to social changes (urban and agricultural development) and address environmental degradation (decline in fishery productivity). Share vision planning, collaborative fact finding, and negotiation were attempted to resolve the dispute outside of court from 1992 to 2004. No agreement was reached. One of the key weaknesses to the process is inadequate stakeholder involvement in identifying areas of scientific disputes and defining the scope and methods of the collaborative fact finding from the very beginning. The ACF water allocation dispute illustrates that effective dispute resolution mechanisms and stakeholder participation process are essential for water governance to have the flexibility in responding to social and environmental changes.

1. Issue(s), stakeholders and relevant NSS variables for this case study.

In the water allocation conflict within the ACF Basin that started in 1989 and remained unresolved, three major stakeholders of different economic sectors contested over water quantity (Q) to meet competing objectives, urban water supply for the City of Atlanta (Q-C), agricultural irrigation in the State of Georgia (Q-C), and ecological productivities and integrity of flood plain habitats and of the coastal estuary in the Apalachicola Bay (Q-EC). The key questions are 1) how past water management practices (G) and societal changes (C and V) have contributed towards the present water conflict (addressed in Section 3), 2) what management practices have been adopted to resolve the conflicts and how effective they are (addressed in Section 5), 3) how watershed management should or could adopt to changing societal context and to environmental changes (posed to simulate interactive discussion in Section 5).

2. Description of the Setting

3. Problem Definition

How have past water management practices and changing societal context contributed to the present conflict?

In the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. Corps of Engineers constructed a series of reservoirs along the Chattahoochee River, originally to augment river flow for the purpose of navigation during dry seasons. At the same time, U.S. Corps of Engineers was also given the federal mandate in its operation of reservoirs to meet multiple objectives, provision of water supply, flood prevention, navigation, and recreation [11]. In contrast to Chattahoochee River, no major engineering modifications have been completed along the Flint River. However, the use of water from Flint River and its strongly connected Upper Floridan aquifer is mostly for agricultural irrigation [30].

From 1950s to 1980s, the population in the City of Atlanta tripled. In 1989, acting according to its original federal mandate, the Corps of Engineers proposed to increase the diversion of water from Lake Lanier for meeting the water supply need of Atlanta. However, compared to the social context in the 1950s and 1960s, water management had become more complex with new environmental laws, legislations, and newer governmental agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The States of Alabama and Florida opposed the proposal, arguing that a decrease in downstream river discharge would adversely affect the downstream navigation, hydro-electricity generation, and fishery productivity in the Apalachicola Bay. On the legal ground of the Environmental Protection Act, the States of Alabama and Florida were able to file a law suit against the U.S. Corps of Engineers for not complying with the environmental impact assessment requirements. The water allocation conflict among the three states has not yet been successfully resolved to date.

4. Variable Identification

The on-going water allocation water conflict within the ACF basin centers around allocation of available water quantity (Q) during drought among competing economic sectors (C: urban economic development, agricultural industry, and fishing industry) located in different geographical locations. The conflict arose from social changes that increase demand for water supply as well as create environmental stress (through a combination of reduced in-stream flow and pollution) on ecological systems, including urban development that was enabled by past management practices (G) (infrastructural development allowing greater withdraw of water for urban development), agricultural development within Georgia. At the same time, the environmental legislations such as the Environmental Protection Act and the establishments of new governmental institutions (G) such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services also further complicate the social context of water resources management. Conflicts arose as existing management practices (G) are ineffective in responding to social and environmental changes.

The legal deadlock gave rise to experimentations with alternative water management practices. The three states decided to resolve the conflict through political negotiation based on the experiences of the inter-state river basin compact such as the Delaware River Basin Compact. In preparation for the tri-state negotiations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated a collaborative fact finding process from 1990 to 1997 to assess water needs of different stakeholders, which resulted in a "comprehensive study" of the ACF water resources. In the process, the U.S. Army also introduced share vision modeling as part of the negotiation [11, 30]. Nevertheless, after pro-longed political negotiation that lasted until 2004, the negotiation broke down with no agreement. The State of Georgia supported allocation rule based on minimal flows and no limitations over water supply for Atlanta. The State of Alabama favored reservoir operation that would ensure navigation. The State of Florida proposed restoration of natural flow regime and adaptive management to protect the Apalachicola fisheries.

Despite of the attempt at collaborative fact finding, stakeholders continued to disagree on multiple issues such as what methods should be used for estimating irrigation demand, how data should be interpreted and presented. Trust was eroded as each State decided unilateral changing their data input to the negotiation process by using different methods of data collection. The disagreement especially hinged on the scientific uncertainty and complexity over how the downstream ecological systems would respond to changes in the river flow regimes, including differences in methods and models used to assess future water demand, and environmental impacts [30].

5. Summary and Key Questions Addressed

The key questions that are addressed in this case study are: 1) What are the key drivers behind the water allocation dispute in the ACF Basin? 2) Why had share vision planning and collaborative fact finding failed in getting stakeholders to reach an agreement in the ACF Tri-State Negotiation? Here we find conflict arises as existing water management policies cannot effectively respond to social changes (urban and agricultural development) and address environmental degradation (decline in fishery productivity). Share vision planning, collaborative fact finding, and negotiation were attempted to resolve the dispute outside of court from 1992 to 2004. No agreement was reached. One of the key weaknesses to the process is inadequate stakeholder involvement in identifying areas of scientific disputes and defining the scope and methods of the collaborative fact finding from the very beginning. The ACF water allocation dispute illustrates that effective dispute resolution mechanisms and stakeholder participation process are essential for water governance to have the flexibility in responding to social and environmental changes.

The case study may be relevant to stakeholders with the following list of broader questions:

• What social and environmental changes drive and sustain public disputes over water management?

• What dispute resolution mechanisms have been tried? How effective are they? What factors account for their success or failure?