[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING: DROUGHT-RELATED ISSUES
IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
(110-106)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-492 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York
Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana
Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Begos, Kevin, Executive Director, Franklin County Oyster and
Seafood Industry Taskforce and Riparian County Stakeholder
Coalition...................................................... 10
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 5
Burch, Tim, Board Member, Georgia Peanut Commission.............. 10
Feldt, J. John, Hydrologist-in-Charge, National Weather Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 30
Hamilton, Sam D., Regional Director, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior............... 30
Hunter, Robert J., Commissioner of the Department of Watershed
Management, City of Atlanta.................................... 10
Johnson, Jr., Hon. Henry C., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia........................................... 8
Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia........................................................ 4
Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph, Commander, South Atlantic
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................... 30
Weaver, Jess D., Regional Executive, Southeast Area, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.................. 30
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Boyd, Hon. Allen, of Florida..................................... 44
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 47
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 48
Everett, Hon. Terry, of Alabama.................................. 50
Johnson, Jr., Hon. Henry C., of Georgia.......................... 57
Lewis, Hon. John, of Georgia..................................... 59
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 61
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Begos, Kevin..................................................... 63
Burch, Tim....................................................... 68
Feldt, John...................................................... 73
Hamilton, Sam D.................................................. 80
Hunter, Robert J................................................. 92
Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph.............................. 202
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, report on water resources programs in Atlanta 22
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Apalachicola Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition, David McLain,
Coordinator, written statement................................. 210
Water Resources Coalition, written statement..................... 213
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING: DROUGHT-
RELATED ISSUES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order
and immediately apologize for being late.
Today, we will be holding a hearing on Comprehensive
Watershed Management and Planning and the Drought-Related
Issues in the Southeastern United States.
As many of you know, the Chairman is unable to attend this
morning's hearing because he is undergoing a medical procedure.
I would like to ask, therefore, for unanimous consent that his
statement along with that of any other Members of the Committee
be entered into the record.
Ms. Johnson. It is a Committee practice not to ask
questions to the Members, and I request unanimous consent that
Congressman Westmoreland can sit in the Committee.
I, first, want to also welcome Mr. Boozman who is the new
Ranking Member. I am delighted to have him; he is from
Arkansas. I have worked with Mr. Boozman on numerous occasions,
and I look forward to a productive relationship on this
Committee.
I would like to also acknowledge Congressmen John Lewis and
Hank Johnson as well as other Members of the Georgia
Congressional delegation for requesting the Subcommittee to
hold this hearing on the southeastern drought. This group is
all too aware of the scarcity of water that grips that region
and, ultimately, the country and of the need to resuscitate a
dialogue to resolve the ongoing disputes over water resources
between Georgia, Florida and Alabama.
Congressman Allen Boyd of Florida will also provide
testimony today on the impacts of the ongoing water dispute in
his district.
So, thank you all for being here and holding this hearing
on drought issues in the southeast and the need for proactive
water resources management.
I want to emphasize that the road to an equitable solution
lies not in the courts but at the negotiating table. I would
encourage the governors of Georgia, Florida and Alabama to
return to their talks and, once and for all, resolve the water
disputes that are impacting the region so dearly.
I was planning to have said this to the governors myself
but, to our surprise, they did not come. I think all three of
them declined the invitation to testify at this hearing. Given
that the Tristate Drought Agreement negotiations recently
collapsed, I am very disappointed that the governors would
neither appear themselves or send any member of their staff to
testify today.
Alabama, Florida and Georgia have been fighting each other
and the Federal Government in the courts since 1990 with the
collapse of talks that had been facilitated by the U.S.
Department of Interior. It, unfortunately, seems that the
rivers will run even drier as this drought continues, and
unending litigation will flow on and on.
While they did not show up today, an ACF compact can be
reached if the governors of these three states demonstrate the
commitment to arrive at an equitable arrangement_but first they
must show up. Effective water resources management in the
southeast requires an effective partnership between the Federal
and State governments. In periods of drought, this is even more
the case.
The Federal Government can provide a host of services to
the States. These range from management of facilities to
drought forecast and technical assistance to facilitating
negotiations as Interior Secretary Kempthorne did earlier this
year.
However, for this partnership to be effective and for these
services to be utilized, the States must embrace them.
Similarly, for Federal services and expertise to be useful for
the States, the Federal Government must encourage negotiations
and offer services before a drought takes place. Otherwise, we
will just end up behind the curve, setting ourselves up for
more fights in the courts.
This point is underscored by the fact that river basins
across the southeast are under stress as a result of ongoing
drought. The Catawba and Broad River Basins in North and South
Carolina, the Neuse River Basin in North Carolina, and basins
throughout the Tennessee Valley are experiencing drought
conditions. All of these require steadfast and determined work
by the States and Federal agencies working in concert with one
another.
Along these lines, this Subcommittee looks forward to the
future when it will explore new watershed approaches and
strategies to water quality protection and water resource
management.
I welcome our witnesses here today, and I now yield to Mr.
Boozman for his opening statement.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
certainly look forward to working with you and your staff and
appreciate your leadership.
While I appreciate the Subcommittee holding a hearing on
this very important issue, I hope that today the Committee will
focus on solutions to the problem rather than just describing
the ongoing controversy in one watershed.
Congress begins the hard work of tackling one of the most
important and difficult environmental and economic issues
facing our Nation, ensuring we have an adequate supply of clean
water. We need water for our homes, farms and factories. Water
also supports navigation, generates power and sustains our
environment. Communities cannot grow or even exist without
adequate water.
As we enter the 21st Century, demands for water are growing
and are outstripping supplies in many areas, both in the west
and east, leading to disputes over water supply and allocation.
The drought of 2007 in the east has made it clear that while
water may be abundant in many areas, it is not limitless and
even our Nation's most water-rich regions can run dry.
Between 1990 and 2000, water use in Georgia increased 30
percent, and officials are still grappling with how to provide
for a projected doubling of demand over the next 30 years.
The drought has had real-life consequences as well.
According the Metro Atlanta Landscape and Turf Association,
almost 14,000 in landscaping-related industries have lost their
jobs in Georgia alone.
Policy makers can no longer ignore this issue. We need to
start planning for the future and help start that planning
process by looking at our Nation's available water supply and
the projected demand for water in the future.
One way to begin is for this Committee to favorably report
H.R. 135, the 21st Century Water Commission Act as written by
our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Linder. We have passed this
legislation in overwhelming fashion in each of the last two
Congresses, and we should do it again in the 110th Congress.
Another thing we can do is have a hearing to look for ways
we might be able to expand or adapt existing Federal services
in a way that would encourage States and regions to engage in
long-term water management planning. The State of Texas is
widely recognized as having one of the best water planning
approaches in the Nation, yet we are not hearing from them
today. Let's hear from their experience and see what we can
learn.
In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority recently
updated their reservoir operations manual and has proven to be
very effective in addressing drought in the Tennessee Valley.
Let's hear from them and other Federal agencies to see what we
can learn.
Ultimately, States have the primary role in addressing
water supply issues, but Congress needs to begin laying the
groundwork to ensure we are fulfilling our obligations by
requiring the Federal Government to operate in a coordinated
and efficient manner to guarantee an adequate and safe water
supply for the 21st Century.
While I wish we were discussing solutions and I hope we
will discuss solutions today, I really look forward to hearing
from our witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Are there any opening statements?
Okay, we will go right to our witnesses.
We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses on our first panel this morning. First, we have
Congressman John Lewis of the 5th District of Georgia. Next, we
have Congressman Allen Boyd, the 2nd District of Florida. Our
final witness on the first panel is Congressman Hank Johnson
from Georgia's 4th District.
Your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask
that the witnesses try to limit their testimony to five minutes
oral summary of their written statements as a courtesy to other
witnesses.
We will continue to proceed in the order in which the
witnesses are listed on the call.
Congressman Lewis.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my
good friends and colleagues, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
Member Boozman, for agreeing to hold this important hearing.
Georgia is in crisis, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to tell
you how much I appreciate your Subcommittee's attention to this
important matter. Georgia is going through a harsh drought. The
lack of water has hurt the environment, hurt the local economy
and disrupted the lives of Georgia citizens.
I will continue to work with leaders in Atlanta, across
Georgia, throughout the southeast and in Washington to protect
our vital water supply. Water is the most essential resource
that we have. Water is necessary to survive. If you don't have
water, you don't have much of anything.
What we have with today's hearing is an opportunity, an
opportunity to share on record and in the public's eye how our
water is actually being distributed, why reserves in Lake
Lanier continue to be depleted and where negotiations between
Alabama, Florida and Georgia went wrong.
I am very disappointed that the governors from these three
States declined your invitation to appear here today and
explain and discuss how, after 5 months of negotiations,
discussions were allowed to collapse. The States play such a
key role in these issue, and the fact they would choose not to
come here today and take part in this dialogue is upsetting.
Today, we lay out for the public to see what is really
going on and how our most precious resource is being allocated.
We have called the Federal agencies who manage our water here
today to testify, to explain to us how water reserves have
fallen to such a dangerous level.
Yet, we also have invited them here to ask the questions:
Are the resources of your agencies being utilized by the
States? Are State, local and Federal agencies and officials
working together to the fullest extent possible? And, finally
to ask them, what needs to change?
One area where change is long overdue concerns the outdated
water control manuals that govern water released from Georgia's
key reservoirs. These manuals are not meeting the needs of
Georgia's citizens. It is unacceptable that such important
plans are over 40 years old. Finally, after all of these years,
the Army Corps has begun the process of updating these
important manuals for both the ACF and the ACT river basins.
Unfortunately, this process will take at least three years
to complete, allowing for another three years of mismanagement.
This three years timetable does not even take into account the
politically motivated, obstructionist language in the Energy
and Water Appropriations Bill which prohibits the updated
manuals from being implemented.
The time is now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We
need these changes.
It is clear that our water policy is flawed. Our water
policy is reactive. Water is too precious a resource not to
have a long-term plan. Water management issues must be agreed
upon before we face the type of crisis we are in today.
The implementation of the new manuals by the Army Corps is
a key component, but not enough. This will only change how the
Army Corps manages their own projects.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, we need to
take a step back. We need to see our water issues in the larger
picture. We need a comprehensive watershed management study of
the entire southeastern United States.
I plan to introduce legislation that would do just that.
The current piece-meal approach to watershed management does
not work. Later today, I will introduce legislation that will
direct the Army Corps of Engineers to study and develop
recommendations to address current and future water needs in
the southeastern United States.
It is important to look at the water demands of Georgia, of
Florida, of Alabama as individual States from the perspectives
of the individual stakeholders, but this narrow-minded
perspective is not enough. Water transcends State borders and
political boundaries.
We need to stop trying to find winners and losers and do
what is right, what is necessary to work together. I hope this
hearing serves as a new beginning in open and productive
negotiations that bring everyone together to meet the long-term
needs of the entire southeastern United States.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for bringing us here together and holding this
hearing.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I now welcome Congressman Allen Boyd from Florida's 2nd
District and thank you for testifying today.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Boyd. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for convening
this hearing on this most important topic.
I apologize for my voice, but that can't be helped. Maybe
some good water will help fix it.
I listened very carefully to both of your opening comments,
and I want to say that both of you are right on. Long-term
planning is the only solution to this very severe problem that
we have. We don't necessarily have to plan for stormy times,
but we do have to plan for droughts, and your comments in your
opening statements were right on.
For almost 20 years, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
water sharing disagreements have presented numerous challenges
to the local, State and Federal officials. In order for us to
responsibly address this issue, we must look at the bigger
picture and tackle both short-term and, as you described, long-
term problems.
My testimony before the Subcommittee today will focus on
the need for the States to plan for their own water needs which
Georgia has just only now begun.
I have been involved in the Apalachicola River Basin issues
along the Florida coast for all of my 19 years in public life.
I have worked closely with the water management districts of
Florida, especially as they began to focus on regional water
supply needs in the late 1970s when water supply issues in the
western panhandle were very severe as a result of the 1977
drought.
When Florida chose to focus on these water issues over 30
years ago, the Florida legislature created five water
management districts by a State constitutional amendment.
Actually, they were created in the constitution, and they were
given broad statutory authority by the State legislature.
We chose to do five regional districts rather than having
one State czar, if you will. That way, we thought we could
maintain better working relations and more local control.
These water management districts were given ad valorem
taxing authority in the constitution as well as their statutory
authority which includes programs such as land acquisition,
regulation, construction, land management and water resource
preservation. Again, these water management districts have been
constitutionally authorized for over 30 years.
I commend the Florida model, Madam Chair, to my friends
from Georgia, from the north, as many other States have looked
at our model as a very good workable model.
In 1982, we completed the first regional water supply
development plan.
In the late 1990s, the Florida legislature amended the
Florida Water Resources Act, directing the State's five water
management districts to comprehensively assess the adequacy of
water supplies over a 20-year planning period.
Let me say that again. In the 1990s, the Florida
legislature directed the State's five water management
districts to comprehensively assess adequacy of water supplies
over a 20-year planning period and to develop regional water
supply plans for these areas, identified as either having or
being likely to develop future water supply problems.
In response, the Florida water management districts
established seven water supply planning regions and completed
the first district-wide water supply assessments in 1998.
In 2003, the demand projections from the assessments were
updated through 2025. So, again, even after the turn of this
century, we have updated those assessments through 2025.
Based on the results of the assessments, the Water District
Governing Board determined that water supply demands were not
sustainable in three west Florida counties--Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa and Walton--because of high concentrations of
development taking place in those areas.
The Board directed staff to develop a regional water supply
plan to include water resource development and water supply
development components. This plan was first developed in 2001
and updated in 2006.
Thus, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Boozman, for the past
35 years, Florida has followed a long-term Statewide management
strategy, while some of our friends to the north have allowed
for unbridled development with little to no thought of its
increased water needs. This second plan works well until you
have a drought, but when you have a drought, all that goes out
the window.
On the ACF water sharing issue, I have been an advocate for
Florida to receive our fair share of water. By the same token,
I believe the solution to the water problems in the ACF Basin
should be solved by the three States.
I agree with John Lewis. Alabama, Florida and Georgia have
to get together and solve this problem. They need appropriate
oversight by the Federal Government.
I believe that the three States should use a transparent
process to include the following points: Number one, use
independent and local experts to determine the water flows, at
the river and the Apalachicola Bay, needed to maintain their
productivity.
Number two, set limits on water use within the tristate
basin. For example, cap the water use to ensure that the river
flow requirements can be met.
Three, assess the water conservation potential among all
users in the basin--agricultural, municipal and industrial--and
determine the most cost-effective investments and who will pay
for them.
And, fourthly, embody these agreements in a durable,
tristate compact with strong enforcement mechanisms.
Madam Chair, fundamental inequities that currently exist
between the States also need to be corrected. Let me give you
an example.
In Florida, if you go to apply for a building permit, you
have to demonstrate that sustainable fresh water already exists
to support that new usage for that building permit. Georgia
does not require this as part of its new development process.
This is the long-term planning part that I am talking about.
The recent ruling in the D.C. Court of Appeals that
overturned an award of 750 million gallons per day for Atlanta
needs to find immediate implementation in actions by the Corps
of Engineers to modify the current Exceptional Drought
Operations Plan and release the increased amount of water
downstream.
If Georgia seeks to get municipal and industrial water
supply added as a Congressionally authorized use for the waters
in Lake Lanier, then there should be another Congressionally
authorized use added for the protection and preservation of the
health, ecology and productivity of the Apalachicola River,
flood plain and estuary.
I also believe that Congress should have close oversight
over the Corps of Engineers' development of an updated water
control plan for the ACF system, including a comprehensive
scope for the environmental impact assessment.
Madam Chair, I am very excited to have members of the
Apalachicola River Riparian County Stakeholders Coalition in
Washington, D.C. for your important hearing.
Kevin Begos, who is the Executive Director of the Franklin
County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce and a member of the
Stakeholders Coalition, will testify before your Committee.
Kevin is on the front lines of the water sharing issue, and I
am confident that he will be a strong voice to speak for our
interests before the Subcommittee.
Kevin will be joined by other members of the Coalition
including Dave McLain of the Apalachicola Riverkeepers,
Commissioner Smokey Parrish with the Franklin County Commission
and Chad Taylor representing Jackson County on the Riparian
Coalition. Their combined expertise and insight on this issue
will be invaluable.
Madam Chair, thank you again for holding this hearing, and
I look forward to working productively with you and my friends
from Alabama and Georgia to find long-term good solutions.
Thank you much.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Now we will hear from Congressman Johnson.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HENRY C. JOHNSON, JR., A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman,
thank you for holding this hearing on Comprehensive Watershed
Management and Planning: Drought-Related Issues in the
Southeastern United States. I look forward to the testimony of
the distinguished panel of witnesses, and I thank you for your
efforts.
Thank you also for the opportunity to address the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment on such an
important issue for my State and my district.
As you know, Georgia and much of the southeast is in the
third year of what many are calling the worst drought in
recorded history. The drought has arrived at a particularly
poor time as the manuals directing how the water in the ACT and
ACF river basins is managed have not been updated in decades.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, charged with the
difficult task of managing these two systems in normal years,
was initially forced to manage this extraordinary drought
without a plan and is now operating under an Exceptional
Drought Operations Plan which will expire in the coming months.
Meanwhile, the governors of Georgia, Alabama and Florida,
failing to reach an agreement on long-term water use
allocation, the people of Georgia and the entire region are
becoming increasingly frustrated.
It is clear, Madam Chair, that the complete failure to
properly manage these river basins over the years has led
directly to the situation we are currently in. It is deplorable
that Federal agencies and elected leaders have been unable to
work together to ensure that millions of people across the
southeast have adequate access to water for drinking, power
generation, fishing and recreation.
Unfortunately, these are the facts and there was no plan in
place to deal with this drought when it arrived, further
exacerbating the situation.
Georgians now face very strict restrictions on water use,
and municipal water systems across the State are required to
reduce their consumption by 10 percent or face steep fines
which will then be passed on to already strapped ratepayers.
Like my colleagues from the region, I am concerned about
the impact that failure to reach a long-term agreement will
have on the economy of the southeast. Many small businesses,
already squeezed by high gas prices, are now further squeezed
by the water restrictions. Many larger businesses may decide
not to locate in Georgia, and the millions of people who are
expected to move to the region may choose instead to relocate
elsewhere.
Faced with dramatic increases in their water bills and
increasingly strict restrictions on how they can use their
water, the people back home want a plan for managing this
crisis and a plan for preventing another similar crisis.
Federal agencies and elected officials must continue to
work toward both a long-term allocation of water as well as a
short-term plan for managing this drought. It is unacceptable
that negotiations have broken down while the people of this
region grow increasingly worried.
I, however, am very proud of the citizens of Georgia as
they have shown a remarkable ability to come together and
adapt. Georgians have met and, in many cases, exceeded the
governor's mandated 10 percent reduction in water use. This is
a remarkable achievement for a State and a metropolitan area
that is rapidly growing, and it shows the commitment to
conservation that Georgians are making.
This drought has awakened many people to the fact that
Atlanta has a very tenuous supply of water. Conservation must
be an integral part of an agreement on water allocation, yet
the region must also consider options for increasing the amount
of storage capacity in order to accommodate the projected
growth.
I am hopeful that as a result of this hearing and others,
the continued involvement of the Secretary of the Interior as
well as the Congressional delegations from Georgia, Alabama and
Florida, that a workable solution will soon be reached.
Once again, I applaud the efforts of the Chairwoman and the
Members of this Subcommittee, and I thank you for the
opportunity to be present here today.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Congressman Johnson, and
I thank all of the members of this first panel. You may now be
excused, and we will go with the second panel.
Thank you very much for your valuable participation this
morning.
Our second panel of witnesses consists of Mr. Robert
Hunter, Commissioner for the City of Atlanta's Department of
Watershed Management, Mr. Kevin Begos testifying on behalf of
both the Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce as well
as the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition, and our final
witness is Mr. Tim Burch, a board member from the Georgia
Peanut Commission.
Your statements will be placed in the record, and we ask
that you try to limit your testimony to about five minutes as a
courtesy to other witnesses. Again, we will proceed in the
order in which the witnesses are listed on the call.
So, Mr. Hunter, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HUNTER, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CITY OF ATLANTA; KEVIN BEGOS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRANKLIN COUNTY OYSTER AND SEAFOOD INDUSTRY
TASKFORCE AND RIPARIAN COUNTY STAKEHOLDER COALITION; TIM BURCH,
BOARD MEMBER, GEORGIA PEANUT COMMISSION
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing and
allowing me to testify.
I am here in my capacity as the Commissioner of the
Department of Watershed Management for the City of Atlanta with
responsibilities for the drinking water, wastewater and
stormwater systems in serving over 1.2 million people daily. I
also represent the water supply providers for Metro Atlanta's
five million people.
The southeastern United States is currently experiencing a
drought of record proportions. Unfortunately, the effects of
these drought conditions on the Federal reservoirs and those
who depend upon them have been exacerbated by management
decisions driven by litigation rather than sound science or
effective resource management.
What is needed is cooperative, responsible stewardship of
the region's water resources for all users. The implementation
of science-based sustainable operating plans for the southeast
region's reservoirs is the essential first step in moving to a
future of sound regional water resource management.
We know that such a plan is possible because the water
supply providers of the Metro Atlanta area have done the
research and developed an alternative plan that is better for
all users including protected species and recreation. That is
what I would like to discuss today.
We have all seen the media coverage of last year's
exceptional drought and water crisis and, while we are now in
the last month of our rainy season, it is important to note
that we are already two and a half inches short of rainfall
this year. The drought continues.
Knowing that we set records for low water levels last year,
it is sobering to note that Lake Lanier water levels are
currently almost 13 feet lower than this time last year. If
drought conditions persist this summer as predicted, the result
could be devastating for the entire ACF Basin. The need for
action is immediate.
What are the causes of these dangerous water levels? First
of all, we are in a record drought. All users should expect
significant impacts and all users should be taking appropriate
conservation measures.
More importantly, it is the management plan implemented by
the Corps that has turned a natural disaster into a crisis. The
operating plan that caused this crisis is the interim operating
plan for the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, the IOP adopted in
March, 2006. This operating plan is not sustainable because it
requires large releases from reservoir storage to meet
artificially high minimum flows at the Florida line without
ever allowing the reservoirs to refill, in particular Lake
Lanier.
This unsustainable plan nearly emptied the Federal
reservoirs and throughout the system in a crisis in 2007. From
May to November, 2007, the water delivered from the Federal
reservoirs in the Chattahoochee River to the Apalachicola River
amounted to 220 percent of the river's natural unimpaired flow.
What is not the problem is that there isn't enough water.
The problem is how we manage the water and especially the
reservoir system.
Some basic facts on water use in the ACF:
Metro Atlanta, annual net consumptive use is only 1 percent
of the total volume at the Georgia-Florida State line in normal
years and less 2 percent during drought years; 4.5 million
people; 72 percent of the basin population use less than 2
percent of the water.
Comparison to other users: Flint River irrigation, the
annual average is 165 percent of the Metro Atlanta use. Peak
use is 313 percent for irrigation. The evaporation from
reservoirs is 83 percent, and the Port St. Joe diversion from
the Apalachicola Basin is 50 percent of the Metro Atlanta use.
Protected species requirements for discharge are 20 times
that of Metro Atlanta's consumption and the spring sturgeon
release is 72 times the volume.
All these uses are significant and important, but all users
need to be part of the solution and take appropriate
conservation measures.
A few quick notes on conservation in the Metro area: The
North Metro Atlanta Water District has strict conservation in
the plan for the Metropolitan North Georgia area. We have a
virtual ban on outdoor water use.
An example from the City of Atlanta, in 2004, we committed
almost $1 billion towards water system improvements. We had
tiered conservation pricing.
Since that time, we have replaced 55 miles of old pipes
with new main. We are moving from design to construction of
almost $325 million in new water mains. We are repairing more
than 800 leaks per month to our water distribution system which
saved 55 million gallons of water in 2005.
And, you can grow and conserve water. Between the years
2000 and 2006, the City of Atlanta added 9 percent more water
customers but was able to reduce total water consumption by 5.2
percent through water conservation and tightening up our
system.
What is the solution? First of all, the Corps must also
conserve. The amount of water that can be saved through
conservation pales in comparison to the amount that is
continuing to be wasted through improper reservoir operation.
It is literally a drop in the bucket.
From the standpoint of Corps operations, the Corps needs to
conserve storage to the maximum extent possible. First of all,
the Corps needs to stop over-releases. The Corps, in recent
weeks, has been making excess releases from Lake Lanier on the
order of 400 to 500 cubic feet per second per day for no
purpose. The amount of water that is being wasted each day is
roughly twice the total amount of water the entire Metropolitan
Atlanta area consumes in a day.
The Corps also needs to grant Georgia's request to reduce
the flow target at Peachtree Creek by 200 cfs. That is a water
quality issue during the winter, not a water quantity issue.
Not reducing this flow simply wastes water in Lake Lanier that
we are very likely to need by late summer for all the users in
the system.
Finally, the Corps reservoir operations must change. We
recommend that the Corps adopt a three-step recovery plan for
Lake Lanier. The first step is to adopt an emergency recovery
plan. To weather the current prices, the Exceptional Drought
Operations Plan must be extended and modified to allow all
reservoirs to refill.
The second step is to replace the IOP with a better, more
sensible plan to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of 2006
and 2007.
And, a third step for the longer term is to adopt a
comprehensive water control plan for the ACF Basin that is
based on facts and sound science.
The City of Atlanta and the other metro area water supply
providers strongly support the Corps' current initiative to
update water control plans for the ACF Basin. We know this can
be done because we have already found a way to do it. On
January 10th, 2007, the water supply providers submitted a
proposal to the Corps which we call the Maximum Sustainable
Release Rule.
Our proposal is attached as Exhibit C, and a summary
explanation is attached as Exhibit D to my testimony.
Our analysis shows that the alternative we propose could be
better for all parties including the endangered species that
inhabit the Apalachicola River.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Hunter, if you could just wrap up.
Mr. Hunter. Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to
provide testimony on this important issue.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I want the record to show that Congressman Bishop from
Georgia is entering his testimony into the record. He is
scheduled for two other places at the same time, which is not
unusual around here.
I would like to welcome now, Mr. Kevin Begos, testifying on
behalf of the Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce as
well as the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition.
You may proceed.
Mr. Begos. Madam Chair and Committee Members, we would like
to thank you all for this opportunity to testify on this issue
of great importance to the people, economy and environment of
north Florida, and we also thank Congressman Boyd for his
support.
I am speaking on behalf of nearly 2,000 people who work in
the Franklin County seafood industry and for the people who
live and work in the six-county region bordering the
Apalachicola River.
Last May, a period of extremely low flows on the
Apalachicola River began and stayed that way for nearly six
months, the longest recorded period of low flows since
recordkeeping began in the early 1920s. As the river vanished,
people and businesses began to suffer.
The electric turbines that help supply the cities of
Chattahoochee and Quincy fell silent, and electric bills began
to spike. In the swamps, the Tupelo honey trees that help make
the world's sweetest honey delivered just half their normal
bounty to beekeepers.
Then the lush aquatic grasses that normally cover the upper
parts of Apalachicola Bay bean to die off, leaving nothing but
barren sand and mud bottoms. The blue crabs disappeared, and
fishermen pulled up pots mostly in vain.
The summer progressed and soon the effects of the low flows
could be seen everywhere. The white shrimp catches crashed to
historic lows, and entire oyster bars died off from the
combined stress of lack of fresh water and a huge wave of
predators that came in from the Gulf. Even the color of the
water in the bay changed.
The entire ecosystem was impacted, and at this time we
still don't know the full extent of the damage because the
drought is not over.
Madam Chair, this is not a case of people versus mussels.
It is about finding a way for all the vital needs along the
river to be fairly balanced, from cities to farms to seafood
producers to the environment.
The seafood industry drives our economy in Franklin County,
and many of our neighbors upstream rely on the Apalachicola
River. The bay is one of the most productive estuaries in the
northern hemisphere, a nursery for species from all over the
Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen,
beekeepers, the timber industry and the tourism industry all
benefit from and depend on this natural chain.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
designated 246,000 acres of the lower river and bay as a
National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the United Nations has
also designated it as an International Biosphere Reserve which
draws visitors from all over the world.
Here are some details of what a lack of fresh water can do
to the system:
For generations, shrimp fishing has been a cornerstone of
our economy. Yet, in 2007, the white shrimp harvest crashed by
about 90 percent, and the brown shrimp harvest declined by 65
percent according to preliminary figures. Boats fell into
disrepair and even sank at the dock, and shrimp houses fell
silent too, depriving workers of paychecks.
The blue crab catch from the bay in 2007 declined by about
70 percent from the previous year, and the flounder catch
declined by about 30 percent. Even with different life cycles
and feeding habits, all suffered.
Our oyster fishery was hit when entire oyster bars died off
during late summer and others failed to produce as they had in
the past. So, virtually, our whole fleet of oystermen focused
on one area of the bay, threatening to wipe it out.
Though ample rainfall over the last three months has eased
the pressure, any tristate agreement that fails to take the
needs of the entire ecosystem into account could doom our
river, bay and way of life by locking in low flows every year.
Oysters play a key role in maintaining our water quality
since they are filter feeders. If our oyster beds die off, we
will head toward the same situation as Chesapeake Bay, where
State and Federal authorities have spent vast sums trying to
repair the damage done to nature.
We say it makes moral and economic sense to protect what we
have rather than to destroy and rebuild. Since the late 1960s,
hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, mostly by the
State of Florida to put approximately 261,000 acres in
Apalachicola River and Bay drainage basin into public
ownership.
Madam Chair, two closing points, much has been written and
said about the disputes between these three States, but in fact
the people of north Florida have much in common with our
neighbors in Georgia and Alabama. There are deep family,
cultural, economic and environmental ties. These river systems
belong to us all, not to one.
So we say, let's try to work together in a fair and open
way to find a balanced solution based on science that meets
your needs as well as ours. But to do that, the Federal
Government and the States need to move away from closed door
negotiations and start a transparent process with all
interested parties including Congress.
One final point, Madam Chair, some have suggested that
these water disputes are simply a matter of big versus small,
hinting that those areas with fewer people and less power must
lose out. That would set a disastrous precedent not only for
our region but for the entire Country.
If some say that big must always win, that sets the stage
for every minority to lose. That is not the American way.
I will close with a nod to the sentiment about small places
that Daniel Webster first expressed to the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1818, which is still true today. The cities of Apalachicola,
Wewahitchka, Blountstown and Chattahoochee are small, yet there
are those that love them.
The people and environment of north Florida deserve to be
treated as equals, and we thank you and this Committee for
giving us that opportunity.
And, finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say that we had
some updated statistics since I submitted written testimony,
and we would like your consent to include those in the written
record.
Ms. Johnson. With no objection.
Thank you very much.
The Committee now will hear testimony from Mr. Burch.
Mr. Burch. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is Tim Burch. I am a native of Baker County,
Georgia, which is located in the southwest part of the State.
We are part of the Flint River Basin.
I have farmed with my brother and father all of my life and
live on my grandparents' farm. I grow peanuts, cotton and raise
beef cattle.
I have served on the Georgia Farm Bureau advisory
committees and have been a delegate to the National Cotton
Council. I currently serve as Executive Board Member of the
Georgia Peanut Commission, and I am also an elected Baker
County Commissioner, serving since 1993.
The extended drought in the southeast has dramatically
impacted agriculture. Irrigation systems, which have become a
necessity to produce crops, continue to expand at great expense
to the operating costs of our businesses.
Increases in energy costs have made our drought problem
worse. There is no indication that energy costs will diminish
in the 2008 crop year.
Drought loses in Georgia during 2007 were approximately
$800 million according to the Center for Agribusiness and
Economic Development at the University of Georgia. Those losses
came primarily from hay, pasture, cotton, peanuts and corn. The
greatest losses were in pasture, approximately $265 million.
The Center estimates that the 2007 drought had a total
economic output impact of 1.3 billion in losses. Output losses
are the total sales that are lost to the Georgia economy due to
these direct losses reported for each commodity.
My home county of Baker was one of the more severe drought
counties in the State. Total peanut losses were four to eight
million dollars. Cotton losses were six to eleven million
dollars. Total losses in Baker County were estimated by the
Center to be between 10 and 20 million dollars.
This is a lot of money to take out of the economy of a
small, sparsely populated rural county. Please note that Baker
County has no manufacturing and only a few retailers and
agriculture.
The water issues in Georgia have been much debated for many
years. There are clear concerns for both urban and rural areas.
There are two key areas I would like to emphasize this
morning for agriculture. First, individual producers recognize
the importance water as a shared natural resource. Second,
collectively, Georgia producers have participated in planning
initiatives for water resources in our State and will continue
to do so.
With regard to production agriculture, farmers are applying
new water conservation methods such as conservation tillage and
technologies for irrigation, such as the precision application
of water. This latter method is so critical to improving water
use efficiency.
The Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District
recently testified before the House Agricultural Appropriations
Subcommittee. The hearing focused on rural broadband issues.
This may not appear on its face to be a concern that
impacts water conservation, but new technologies advanced by
the University of Georgia allow for more irrigation efficiency
using internet technologies. Without broadband, this new water
conservation efficiency technology is of little value to
Georgia producers.
In addition to helping our rural kids compete with urban
school systems, broadband technology will assist farmers in
water conservation. Whether you produce cotton, corn or peanuts
in the southeast, irrigation will continue to expand or farmers
will not be in business.
We have to utilize the most efficient water conservation
technologies possible to assure that we are not wasting this
precious resource. Expanding rural broadband is a critical
piece to this process.
The Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a new
conservation rotation program. If this program survives the
Farm Bill conference, we believe it will add to water
stewardship. The program provides incentives to farmers to
practice better crop rotation.
Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District estimates
that since 2001 agricultural producers have saved over 13
billion gallons of water due to groundwater conservation
practices. These savings were due to irrigation water
management, conservation tillage, irrigation reservoirs,
moisture monitoring and variable rate irrigation.
With reference to our collective efforts in Georgia to
resolve the water management issue, Georgia Farm Bureau
Federation has taken the lead representing Georgia farmers in
the State water plan development. Georgia farmers have
supported augmenting our water supplies through all reasonable
means including more reservoirs of various types, aquifer
storage and recovery and desalination.
The water plan has now passed the State legislature and
become law. It establishes a framework for moving forward on
Georgia's water issues. Georgia producers will continue to
participate as the plan evolves.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We have very
serious water issues in our State and the southeast.
As one segment of Georgia's economy, we are striving to use
the best technologies and conservation practices available to
protect our water resources. We are actively involved in the
State water management planning.
We encourage the Congress to provide as many tools as
possible to help southeastern producers use the best available
process for conserving water.
Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Burch, and we will
now hear questions from the Subcommittee for the second panel.
I will begin by asking Mr. Hunter. Mr. Begos observed in
his testimony that Florida links growth to water usage by
requiring building permit applicants to demonstrate that there
are sufficient water resources to support the proposed
construction. What steps has the City of Atlanta taken to
similarly ensure that the city's growth does not outstrip the
water supplies?
Mr. Hunter. I would answer with both a City of Atlanta and
Atlanta Metro response to that question, Madam Chair.
The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District has
been very active for the past several years in terms of our
water supply plan and our water conservation plan in
conjunction with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
Only water withdrawal permits for the water utilities that
are part of that plan--that includes not only the supply side
but the water conservation requirements--are allowed. So, from
a macro standpoint for the entire 5 million population region,
we have an established control procedure in a plan tied into
permitting.
On the local level for the City of Atlanta, as I indicated,
we have not only increased our population by 9 percent but
decreased our consumption by over 5 percent through a very
active program of capital investment, replacing 55 miles of
water main, repairing over 800 leaks a month, of how we manage
our water and how we conserve that water.
We also have a million dollar program set up for retrofit
rebates on plumbing fixture changes. We have a very aggressive
water conservation plan and long-term planning so that we stay
within the confines of our permitted capacity.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Begos, what role do you think that Congress should play
in ensuring that the economy and way of life of the north
Florida oyster industry is maintained while ensuring that there
is sufficient water for upstream users in Alabama and Georgia?
Mr. Begos. Madam Chairwoman, we think it is partially just
to give us opportunities to speak like this. As you noted, the
governors of the three States did not appear here. We felt a
little bit shut out from the process recently too.
We think a more open process and also what Mr. Boozman
referred to of providing some technical information and
assistance to the States, and also to the Corps of Engineers
and the States so that they can have economic impact studies of
Apalachicola Bay. We believe there needs to be a new look at
the whole economic impact of the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem and
that should be integrated into water control manuals.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Now let me ask this to Mr. Burch. Do you think that the new
Georgia water management plan, recently enacted by the Georgia
legislature, is an effective system to reduce water consumption
and fairly distribute the cost of drought throughout the State
and region?
Mr. Burch. Madam Chair, I certainly hope that it is a good
starting point.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the whole panel, we have been hearing a lot about
comprehensive watershed planning, and my understanding is
perhaps that we will go into that further this year. What role
should the Corps of Engineers play in that as far as
comprehensive watershed planning?
Mr. Hunter, where do you see their role?
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Boozman, I believe the Corps of Engineers
has a central role to the comprehensive planning. This is not
only a Federal and State but a local issue, and I would share
my colleague's sentiments, his statements that local water
providers and local users must have a seat at the table.
The Corps, though, manages the projects along with the
power companies in both the ACF and ACT. They control the water
plans, the control plans for the projects.
It is essential that they take that role. It is essential
that it be a thorough, comprehensive evaluation and look at how
to maximize the benefits to all the users, and the work that we
have done on our modeling indicates that that is not only
possible but readily implementable.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Begos. We believe the Corps does have a central role,
but I would say there is also room for other agencies such as
NOAA to provide technical support, perhaps National Marine
Fisheries Service from our perspective and, most importantly,
not just independent experts but even local experts in our case
who have knowledge of our specific issues.
Of course, I would say the same for my colleagues here,
that they should have the right to bring in their independent
experts and their local experts for their needs, so we can
really have a comprehensive body of data, looking at the whole
basin from Lake Lanier all the way down to Apalachicola Bay.
Mr. Burch. I certainly feel that the Corps has the lead
role.
It is terribly important that they take into account all of
the water supply issues in the State. Different basins have
annual water recharge. We have been under a water restriction
in the past in my area on irrigation, a moratorium on well-
drilling, and it has been determined that our aquifer recharges
on an annual basis.
So it does need to be looked at independently. We have got
to have representation when negotiations take place.
Mr. Boozman. Some suggest that the Federal agencies can
play a key role in helping municipalities switch to
desalinization, other technologies. Other than funding, what
role can the Federal Government play in that respect?
Mr. Hunter. Desalinization, internationally, is a viable
technology. We have some countries that are completely
reversing the flow of their water from east to west, going to
west to east, looking at desalinization as the source and water
reuse.
In the United States, desalinization is primarily a coastal
technology. It is growing in popularity.
Applications in the ACF Basin don't necessarily involve
what is often discussed, which is the big pipeline to Lake
Lanier. Atlanta is 250 miles to Savannah and over 300 miles to
the Gulf of Mexico. It is a viable technology in terms of
providing water closer to the source, whether that is
Apalachicola Bay, whether that is the Apalachicola River or
whether that is south Georgia in terms of agriculture.
Certainly, something that could be a Federal role on a
regional basis like that is a support of infrastructure
funding.
Mr. Boozman. As Atlanta grows, again in looking at
alternatives to the lake, what are the impediments as far as
building another reservoir or whatever? I am sure that you all
have explored that.
Mr. Hunter. Well, the metro area has explored a number of
reservoirs and, of course, there are several hurdles to
overcome there, one of which would be the permitting. Another
one would be the substantial cost. Land prices and population
have changed a bit in the north Georgia mountain areas since
the early fifties.
Another aspect, though, that is going on is smaller
reservoirs. For example, the City of Atlanta recently purchased
a granite quarry which will provide us almost 2 billion gallons
of offline storage and will help us extend our water use by
managing it, being able to take in flows during high flow
periods and save those for summer months. That will extend our
water use, our water permit viability by over 15 years.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
the panel for coming here this morning.
You know this is a wakeup call or more than a wakeup call
to the eastern part of the Country.
We have seen a lot of these things you are talking about in
California for many decades now. For example, the San Joaquin
River runs through my district. It used to be a navigable
river.
Now it is a dry riverbed, and that degraded ecosystem has
basically shut down livelihood. People that made a living on
the river are now long gone.
There are also conflicts between the populated areas that
want the water and the rural areas that have the water. I don't
want to point fingers, but certain parts of the State have been
known to take water from other regions of the Country, and we
have to make sure that when we go down that path that we do it
carefully and in a way that takes care of both needs.
We can't take water for granted, and we need a rationale
and flexible--flexible--approach. We need to capture more fresh
water when there is a large flow without adversely impacting
natural systems.
What sort of alternatives are there to reservoirs in the
Georgia area that would be useful? I mean, in California, we
can recharge groundwater in ways, but I don't if that is viable
in Georgia.
Mr. Hunter. No, sir. There are a few distinct differences
between the situation in north Georgia and most of the
California major water projects.
For one, only 5 percent of the drainage basin is above Lake
Lanier or a little bit more than 1,000 square miles to recharge
that lake. That is why even if we get a normal rainfall pattern
now, it will probably take three to four years to fill Lake
Lanier under current operating plans.
The other issue is that we essentially have a thin layer of
red Georgia clay over solid granite. I am constructing some
very large eight mile long tunnels in Atlanta as part of our
Corps project now, and we are boring through solid granite.
There are very minor groundwater resources, none sufficient
to use to run a large municipal water system.
So what we have as a water resource is a small drainage
basin, 100 percent surface water that is controlled by the
Corps projects.
Mr. McNerney. That is what bothers me.
We want to look for the way the Fed can help, but the needs
are so different depending on what region of the Country you
are in, I am, therefore, afraid that mandates would be
counterproductive. Do you have any suggestions on how we could
build a Federal involvement that would be beneficial across the
Nation?
Mr. Hunter. Well, certainly, Representative Linder's plan,
in terms of the studying and active involvement of multiple
groups at all levels in formulating the plan, will be a large
help.
In the case of Georgia, we certainly are using the
experiences and using the knowledge of the western United
States as they have gone through that process and the
negotiations of the Colorado River and other areas of the west.
Perhaps the greatest immediate resource is the sharing of that
knowledge as we try to solve this problem that is growing
throughout the eastern United States.
Mr. McNerney. Well, it is clear that the problem is not
going to get better by itself. So I look forward to working
with the panel and Members of the Committee to finding rational
solutions to this and a flexible way to move forward.
I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Congressman Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you for calling this very important hearing.
I am sorry that a very large school group ran late, and I
didn't get to hear the testimony.
This problem of the drought in our region has become so
serious that there has even been talk in the Georgia
legislature about movement of the Georgia-Tennessee border, and
there have been a lot of jokes about this proposal, but this is
a pretty serious problem.
The Knoxville News Sentinel published an editorial just a
couple of days ago, and they wrote this. They said: ``The
effects of drought are well documented. The Tennessee Valley
Authority reported a loss of $17 million in the first quarter
of the 2008 year, and the drought is one of the main reasons.
In November, reports revealed the reservoirs in Atlanta were
close enough to the bottom that dirtier water that contained
more bacteria was going to need more expensive purification.''
The Sentinel said now is the time to take a serious look at
our water resources and how they are managed, and I think this
hearing is an important part of that.
On the other hand, over the years, we have had many studies
that are on the shelves, and I think people would prefer that
we have less studying and more action on some of these
problems. We have heard testimony about duplication or various
agencies--local, State and Federal--going sometimes in
different directions.
But about four years ago, we had T. Boone Pickens, the
great entrepreneur, in here, who made just an unbelievable
fortune off of oil, and he is out buying up water rights in
Texas because as one article said in the New York Times. It
said water is going to be the oil of the 21st Century, and
there are even predictions that there will be wars fought over
water in some parts of the world. So this is something that we
can't overemphasize the seriousness of what we are dealing
with.
The problem, it seems to me, I read in the National Journal
about three weeks ago that two-thirds of the counties in this
Nation are losing population, and that surprises many people,
but all over the Country the small towns and rural areas are
losing population or barely holding on.
People say they want land around them, but they really do
not. They still want to be near the malls and the restaurants
and the movie theaters.
I represent Knoxville and the surrounding area and the
tremendous growth in Tennessee is in a circle around Nashville
and in a circle around Knoxville, and I am very familiar with
the growth that has occurred in and around the Atlanta area.
I don't know what the answers are, what all the answers
are, but I will tell you that in most of the rapidly developing
countries around the world, they do these infrastructure
projects in about a third of the time that we do them in.
We take 10 years to study a problem before we really act on
it. In fact, this is not water, but the newest runway at the
Atlanta Airport took 14 years from conception to completion
mainly because all the environmental rules and regulations and
red tape. It took only 99 days of actual construction.
What we are going to have to do, we are going to have to
put more emphasis on water projects, in my opinion, where this
rapid development is going on, and we are going to have to do a
lot fewer studies and a lot more actually taking action or
doing some projects where the need is the greatest.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Mr. Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank you and the Committee for allowing me to be here.
Mr. Hunter, I want you to go back and congratulate Mayor
Franklin on the job that she has done in trying to get
Atlanta's water and sewer systems on the right track. I served
in the Georgia legislature for 12 years. It was always easy to
kick Atlanta and try to fine them and other things for their
water situation, but Mayor Franklin has stepped up to the plate
in spending money.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit this pamphlet to the Committee and put it in the record
that gives testimony and some facts and statistics to back up
what Atlanta has done to help solve some of these water
problems that they have had in the past.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Begos, I used to go visit Bay City
Lodge and Mr. Jimmy Muscala quite a bit down there, and I have
fished in Apalachicola Bay on many occasions and have eaten
some of those great oysters down there.
Is it true too that a lot of times there is more fresh
water in the bay than there needs to be?
Mr. Begos. Congressman, that is sometimes true. We are
sometimes frustrated by having too much water coming down the
system that would shut down oyster harvest for a period of days
or weeks. There is a potential solution, long-term, of looking
at the whole thing at certain times when you could hold more
water upstream.
Mr. Westmoreland. I was just talking to a friend that was
down there fishing, and he said they were catching a
shellcracker almost out to the cut. So that is an indication
that there is probably more fresh water down there during these
times of heavy rains than have been.
You also mentioned about Blountstown. I have been down the
river before also, stopped at Blountstown, and I know they get
a lot of economic development from that river traffic.
Do you know anything about that silting up in that area
where it is harder to get boat traffic down and what is
stopping the dredging of that area, if anything, and does it
need to be dredged?
Mr. Begos. Congressman, that is not really my area of
expertise. I am more of the Apalachicola Bay area. So I would
defer on that.
Mr. Westmoreland. I will ask Mr. Burch this same question.
Do you think it would help if there was some type of controls
put on the Flint River?
Right now, the Flint River is basically unbridled and, if
they get a large amount of rain and they are still releasing
the 5,000 cfs on Lanier, it causes too much fresh water to get
into that bay. Have you thought about any type of flood control
or any kind of mechanism on the Flint that would help that
situation?
Mr. Begos. On that too I would defer to the final panel and
to the experts, the hydrologists and marinologists for that. My
area of expertise is not the Flint or its basin.
Mr. Westmoreland. But you have had problems with too much
as well as not enough?
Mr. Begos. Sure. Droughts and floods are a natural part of
the cycle. We are just looking for a fair long-term agreement
that doesn't peg us at a such a low level that we are stuck
just there.
Mr. Westmoreland. I am with you, but if we could keep that
flow constant, using both the management of the Flint and the
Chattahoochee, I think that would be a better solution.
Mr. Begos. Congressman, we are not asking for a constant
flow. We are asking for more something that approximates the
natural variations.
Mr. Westmoreland. Do you know what the natural flow of the
Flint or the Chattahoochee were, the natural flow before
anything was ever on it? Do you have any idea what that natural
flow was?
Mr. Begos. I would defer to biologists and hydrologists on
that.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, you might want to look at that
because it is pretty interesting, what those natural flows are.
Mr. Burch, just real quickly, I know that you live in
Newton, Georgia. Was it in 1994 that your town was under water?
Mr. Burch. Nineteen ninety-four and then again in 1998, the
historic downtown was flooded, yes, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. I am going to have some questions for the
other panel too about the impoundments on the Flint, but do you
think any impoundments on the Flint other than the two small
that are on there now would help maybe with your city not being
put under water in some of these flood situations and also help
the ability for agriculture?
Let me make one other point quickly, Madam Chair. As far as
agriculture and use of water in Georgia, I think this water
plan has done a real good job of working with agriculture and
making sure that they don't deplete the water resources.
Mr. Burch. A dam certainly would have been a great benefit
in 1994 and 1998. I am no expert, but I do know that our
aquifer is limestone, and we don't know how much water is
flowing underneath into Florida. So I don't know how much water
we could hold back due to our substructure.
Mr. Westmoreland. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Let me thank the witnesses. There are no
further questions.
Before we proceed, I will ask unanimous consent to submit
the report that Mr. Westmoreland offered to go into the record.
Any objections?
Hearing none, so ordered.
Ms. Johnson. I want to thank the witnesses for being here,
and I appreciate their valuable participation.
The third panel of witnesses consist of representatives
from a number of key Federal agencies. Testifying first is Mr.
Jess Weaver. Mr. Weaver is a Regional Executive for the
Southeast Area of the United States Geological Survey.
Next, we will hear the important testimony of Brigadier
General Joseph Schroedel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
South Atlantic Division, and his testimony will be followed by
that of Mr. Sam Hamilton from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Mr. Hamilton is a Regional Director of the Southeast
Region.
The final witness on our third panel is Mr. John Feldt. Mr.
Feldt is the Hydrologist-in-Charge for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service,
Southeast River Forecast Center.
I thank you for being here, and you may proceed in the
order that you are listed.
TESTIMONY OF JESS D. WEAVER, REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, SOUTHEAST
AREA, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL, COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC
DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; SAM D. HAMILTON,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; J. JOHN FELDT,
HYDROLOGIST-IN-CHARGE, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Weaver. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Department of the Interior regarding the current
drought in the southeast.
I am Jess Weaver, Regional Executive for the Southeast Area
of the U.S. Geological Survey. The mission of the U.S.
Geological Survey is to assess the quantity and quality of the
Earth's resources and to provide information to assist resource
managers and policy makers at the Federal, State and local
levels in making sound decisions.
As part of that mission, in the ACF and ACT Basins, the
USGS monitors continuous stream flow at 158 stations, providing
the data in real time. In addition, the USGS measures
continuous groundwater levels at 77 well sites, collects water
quality samples at more than 80 sites and prepares water use
data reports.
The USGS works in partnership with 12 Federal, 10 State and
60 local government agencies in the ACF and ACT Basins, and
part of the 12 Federal include the agencies of the members of
the panel sitting to my left.
The ACF Basin covers 19,600 square miles extending from the
Blue Ridge Mountains with free-flowing trout streams to the
ecologically-rich Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The
basin includes parts of Georgia, Alabama and Florida and
includes the Chattahoochee, Flint and Apalachicola Rivers.
Located at the headwaters of the ACF system, Lake Lanier
comprises 62.5 percent of the storage in the system but only 6
percent of the drainage area. Because of its huge storage
capacity and relatively small drainage area, it takes longer to
refill Lake Lanier than it does other lakes in the system.
There are numerous competing demands for the waters of the
ACF Basin which provide water supply for about 60 percent of
the population of Georgia and about 8 percent of the population
of Alabama and about 1 percent of the population of Florida.
The groundwaters of the ACF irrigate more than 780,000
acres of farmland. The lower ACF rivers are home to one
threatened fish species and two threatened and four endangered
mussels.
The rivers of the ACF are the source for about 59 public
water suppliers, about 41 industrial plants including about 7
thermal electric plants that each withdraw more than 100,000
gallons per day. Additionally, there are more than 80
groundwater withdrawal permits in the ACF Basin for public
supply and industrial use.
The system also provides flood control, navigation and
recreation benefits. At the mouth of the ACF Basin,
Apalachicola Bay represents a significant oyster and shrimp
fishery.
The greatest changes in basin hydrology in the past decades
have been driven by increased public supply demands associated
with the Atlanta region and increased agricultural withdrawals
in the southern portion of the basin. During droughts, Lake
Lanier is the storage of last resort to meet minimum flow
requirements throughout the system. Another complicating factor
is the effect on stream flow from groundwater withdrawals used
for irrigation in the lower ACF Basin.
The cumulative influence of these withdrawals can change
the direction of groundwater flow. Streams that would normally
gain water from surrounding aquifers during low flow begin to
lose water to these aquifers. These dynamics have been
simulated as part of a recently completed study conducted by
the USGS.
In the ACT Basin, the Alabama, Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers
flow southwestward from northwest Georgia to southwest Alabama,
draining approximately 22,800 square miles into Mobile Bay.
There are five Federal projects within the basin and eleven
non-Federal Alabama power projects. Federal projects compose 22
percent of the total water storage in the basin. The waters of
the ACT are used to irrigate about 28,000 acres of farmland.
The rivers of the ACT are the source for about 218
industrial and public permitted water suppliers, 155 in
Alabama, 63 in Georgia. These permits are required for users to
withdraw more than 100,000 gallons per day. Additionally, there
are numerous groundwater withdrawal permits in the ACT Basin
for public supply and industrial use.
The flood control, navigation and recreation benefits of
the rivers and reservoirs in this basin provide enormous
intrinsic and economic values.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement,
Madam Chairwoman, and I will be happy to answer any questions
that the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver.
Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel.
General Schroedel. Thank you, Madam Chair, first for the
opportunity to testify here today, but I would also like to
take this opportunity to thank all the Members of Congress for
your support of our great Army which is engaged in a real war
in far off lands to include 800 or so civilian volunteers from
the United States Army Corps of Engineers and my own son with
the Third Special Forces in Afghanistan on his third combat
tour. Thank you very much for your support.
Now the Corps generally constructs and operates
multipurpose water resource projects and manages those projects
as a system within a watershed irrespective of political
boundaries. Project purposes can include flood damage
reduction, production of hydropower, recreation, navigation,
water supply, water quality, irrigation, and fish and wildlife
conservation.
Our day to day operation of our multipurpose projects seeks
to balance these competing purposes. During a drought, that
competition for limited water resources is magnified. To better
manage these systems during this drought, we have focused on
adapting to the uncertainties of the drought and managing the
risks associated with those uncertainties.
My division area encompasses operations on 13 of the 18
major watersheds from Virginia to Mississippi. We have four
districts involved in managing those watersheds, and there are
two important things that we have done to help manage the
drought in a flexible and adaptive manner.
First, our district water managers have been diligent in
adjusting operating and drought plans to manage the limited
water resources during this drought.
When conditions became so severe that our approved plans no
longer support the system in accordance with our Corps
regulations, the district water managers sought approval for
temporary deviations from me, and I can tell you we have
approved many deviations throughout the region. We can talk
more about that later.
The second critical thing we have done, which I would like
to emphasize today, is that our district water managers
routinely engage Federal, State and local agencies, industry
and other concerned stakeholders, striving for both continual
communication and complete transparency.
Intensive communication is absolutely key during a drought
for two reasons: one, to ensure that we, the Corps, understand
the concerns of all of those involved in using our water
resources and, second, to ensure that we notify the public in
advance of management decisions which we intend to make. Our
management of the ACT and ACF Basins, I believe, is very
instructive in this sense.
The ACT and ACF River Basins include Federal multipurpose
projects. Under normal rainfall conditions, the Corps manages
these systems to meet all authorized project purposes in
accordance with draft water control manuals and plans that were
developed in the late 1980s.
When drought conditions develop, however, and water
supplies dwindle, the Corps begins to lose its ability to meet
all of the authorized project purposes all of the time. So we
are faced with tough choices.
On the ACT and ACF, we have faced considerable challenges
in balancing project needs. Again, the key is communication.
Last year, the Mobile District and the South Atlantic Division
and my staff initiated, for the first time ever, weekly drought
calls, conference calls on the ACT and biweekly drought calls
on the ACF.
These conference calls included all interested parties
including environmental groups, industry, State and local
agencies, Congressional staff and the media, complete
transparency.
These calls, which are very well attended--we are talking
60 or better people every week--provide an update on basin
conditions and describe the Corps management actions, both
current and anticipated. They have been valuable venues for
promoting two-way information sharing and, because they are
direct linked through agencies, Congressional staff and
stakeholders provide information to the Corps.
I would add that we leverage every means available, TV,
newspapers and others, to ensure that we sustain a healthy
dialogue with and our responsiveness to the public we serve.
We also believe that it is vitally important that Federal
agencies act as a cohesive and integrated Federal team, given
the complexity of the issues that span multiple State and local
governments. I am pleased to report to you today that we are a
very cohesive team. These members sitting in this panel and
many others talk to each other all the time.
Our coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service, for
example, has been extremely successfully. Our team approach to
the ESA consultation has allowed both the Corps and the Fish
and Wildlife Service to reduce review times to a duration no
one would ever have imagined.
We personally rely on the NOAA for not only near-term
weather forecasts but also long-term forecasts to help manage
the risks I mentioned earlier.
We rely on the USGS and their gauges to get accurate and
timely data on stream flow, and we use their gauges and their
information on our lakes. That is something that we have worked
hard to do.
We are also working hard with the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Energy in anticipation of
possibly having to exercise our authorities under Public Law
8499, should the crisis call for those actions. These are just
a few examples.
Water resources challenges are here to stay, and I would
like to address, for just a second, Mr. Boozman's point earlier
about solutions and not problems.
Two actions which we are taking today to help shape the
future are, first, as most of you know, we have begun our
efforts to update our water control manuals and, second, I
would like to give a few seconds on another initiative which we
began about a year ago, which we believe may help.
Our current water control plans are the most important
management tool that water managers have. We have now begun the
process on both the ACT and ACF. Notice of intent has been
filed in the Federal Register, and the process will be about a
two to three-year, very open, public process and in complete
compliance with NEPA.
The second action which we have taken, almost a year ago, I
introduced a concept which we call the Southeast Regional Water
Resource Council. It is somewhat mirrored after the Western
States Water Council, which would be a State-led forum to
develop a regional vision for integrated solutions to water
resource challenges in the southeast.
My intent was to establish a process whereby the Corps and
other Federal partners could ensure our programs and priorities
are in concert with States' needs and priorities across the
region and to foster a more collaborative and consistent effort
for development and use of water resources in the region. This
would also help us define Federal and State responsibilities.
We are now in the process of sharing this concept with the
States, the Southern Governors Association, other Federal
partners and stakeholders. Working regionally with the States
on water issues in the southeast represents a new way of doing
business, but we have found that States and stakeholders are
receptive to exploring the regional water council concept
further.
Madam Chair and Committee Members, the south is a national
resource. We need to turn the challenges of this drought into
an opportunity to shape the future for all of the citizens of
this great section of our Country.
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
again the opportunity to testify, and I thank you again for
your support for our magnificent Army. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. We will now hear testimony from Mr. Sam
Hamilton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Hamilton. Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the Department of the Interior.
I am Sam Hamilton, Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Southeast Region, a ten-State region that
includes the Caribbean. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the
principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting
and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and habitats for the
American people.
As you have heard already, we are in a record drought,
entering the third year. This had a profound effect not only on
the economies of the southeast but also the environment.
I want to briefly focus on some key basins, but before I do
that I want to mention a few items related to the Fish and
Wildlife values in this part of the world. Rivers and streams
are really the circulatory system of our Nation. They provide a
variety of services: clean drinking water, recreational
opportunities, transportation, hydropower and food.
The southeast is blessed with the highest biodiversity,
aquatic biodiversity, in North America. But, again, it
represents the most imperiled group of species in the United
States. Two-thirds of the Nation's freshwater mussels are at
risk of extinction. One in ten may have already vanished
forever. Forty percent of the fish in these river systems are
at risk.
So rivers and streams are not only valuable for the economy
to the southeast, but overall they are an indicator of the
health of the environment, and it really became magnified in
the drought that we are facing today.
The ACF, as you have heard a lot about, drew a lot of
public attention, an unfortunate mischaracterization of mussels
versus people.
This is really a classic example of people versus people,
upstream and downstream, States versus States, a 20-year
discussion, that has been underway. Some view it as a water
war.
We work very closely with the Army Corps of Engineers. In
my 30 years of working for the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, we have never worked more closely with the Corps on an
issue like this.
The Department's role is to ensure that there is a balanced
approach so that threatened and endangered species, in
particular, are not jeopardized as we are charged by Congress.
We work very closely with Federal agencies and States, the
EPA, USGS, NOAA, and we began consulting on the ACF in the
1990s as some of these species were listed. We worked very
closely even dating back to the 1980s with the Corps on the ACF
system.
We have done a few items to be proactive when it comes to
conservation and other planning in the ACF Basin. We provided
funding for some agricultural retrofitting to conserve water,
streamlined protocols for reservoir reviews, assisted in the
development of water supply protocols, and we have passed to
the State of Georgia $130,000 for habitat conservation planning
for endangered species.
The need for this became all too apparent as we entered the
drought of 2007.
Working with the Army Corps of Engineers and other
agencies, we evaluated the interim operating plan of 2006 and
wrote a non-jeopardy biological opinion for endangered mussels
and the Gulf sturgeon.
In 2007, the drought worsened and working very closely in a
team approach with the Army Corps and others, an emergency
drought plan was developed, and we consulted in record time on
that. Typically, we have 135-day consultations under the
Endangered Species Act. We did this one in 15 days, recognizing
the emergency situation that we were facing.
As you well know and as you have mentioned, Secretary
Kempthorne has led an ongoing discussion with the governors in
the three States in an attempt to work through these issues,
and we spent a considerable amount of time working in that
arena.
On June 1, we expect to update our biological opinion,
working with the Army Corps as they revise the plans that they
have in place to deal with the current hydrology that is out
there.
The drought not only affects the ACF, it affects the ACT
system which starts in Georgia and flows to Mobile Bay. We work
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Alabama Power,
the Corps and the State of Alabama and on the Duck River we are
working very closely with TVA in Tennessee.
The drought is very pronounced in south Florida, we are
working with the Army Corps and the State of Florida on Lake
Okeechobee and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
The final area is South Carolina and North Carolina which
are facing devastating droughts in that part of the world as
the City of Raleigh struggles with its water supplies, and we
are working very closely with them.
The Department of the Interior has been very active on
water issues since the eighties with expertise and resources.
There has been unprecedented collaboration between the Federal
agencies to try and deal with these issues.
These record droughts are occurring, it appears, more
frequently, and the increasing demands on the water that are
there are pretty well documented. How we choose to deal with
these finite resources in the future is going to be critical to
the future not only of the economies of this part of the world
but certainly the environment, and they go hand in hand.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to speak
today, and I will answer questions at the appropriate time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. We
appreciate it.
Finally, now we will hear testimony from Mr. John Feldt,
the Hydrologist from NOAA, National Weather Service Southeast
River Forecast Center.
Mr. Feldt. Well, good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to present NOAA's
role in coordinating and providing climate and drought
information to Federal agencies and States.
I am the Hydrologist-in-Charge of NOAA's National Weather
Service Southeast River Forecast Center. I have been directly
involved in forecasting either weather or water for the
National Weather Service for over 30 years now.
Today, I will discuss the recent and ongoing severe drought
in the southeast. I will then focus briefly on the new National
Integrated Drought Information System or NIDIS.
In the most general sense, drought refers to a period of
time when precipitation levels are abnormally low, affecting
human activity and the environment. Primary effects of drought
may include water shortages and crop, livestock and wildlife
losses. Droughts may also cause secondary effects on areas such
as tourism, commodity markets, transportation, wildfires,
insect epidemics, soil erosion and hydropower.
Drought is normal. It is a recurrent feature of climate and
occurs almost everywhere, although its features vary from
region to region.
As you know, the southeast region of the United States has
been in the midst of an exceptional drought for a little over
two years now. Just about every day, people ask me, when is
this drought going to end?
While we do not know how much longer this particular
drought in the southeast will last, there are two things that I
personally look at quite closely. Number one is the average
length of exceptional drought, and the second factor is the
prevailing climate signal.
In the past, exceptional droughts have typically lasted
between two and three years. However, it is important to know
that a few droughts have lasted nearly four years.
In addition, over the past year, NOAA has been monitoring a
La Nina episode which is an unusual cooling of ocean
temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. A La Nina episode
typically results in dry weather across the southeast U.S.,
especially from the central part of Georgia and Alabama on
further south into Florida.
Climate models now show a trend out of this La Nina event
into neutral conditions either late this spring or this summer.
The recent U.S. seasonal drought outlook for February through
May predicts some improvement in the southeast drought
condition.
NOAA's National Weather Service has been providing
information to key decision-makers in support of drought
management activities since the onset of the drought. The
National Weather Service weather forecast offices have been
attending local and State drought management meetings and
providing hydrometeorological support and forecast information.
My office, the Southeast River Forecast Center, has been
front and center in providing ongoing hydrometeorological
support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the USGS and
numerous other Federal, State and local decision-makers.
My office has also developed several new tools that provide
critical information and direct support of drought operations
for State, Federal Government agencies, the media and the
private sector.
These include a product called the Critical Water Watch and
the Southeast RFC Journal which are issued on a weekly to
biweekly basis to convey technical information relating to
critical water supply users. We also issue a weekly Water
Resources Outlook which is a 15-minute multimedia presentation
where NOAA meteorologists and hydrologists provide expertise
and forecast information directly to key decision-makers.
These are just a few of the many examples of the work that
NOAA does both locally and regionally to provide climate and
drought information.
I would now like to very briefly focus on a new tool that
is in development and helping the Nation better prepare for and
respond to the effects of drought, the National Integrated
Drought Information System or NIDIS.
NIDIS is envisioned to be a dynamic and accessible drought
risk information system. The explicit goal of NIDIS is to
enable society to respond to periods of short-term and
sustained drought through improved monitoring, prediction, risk
assessment and communication.
Over the next five years, NIDIS will build on the successes
of the tools and products provided by NOAA to close the gap
between what is currently available and what is needed for
proactive drought risk reduction. Just one example would be
that municipalities and State agencies will have improved
drought information and forecasts when allocating both domestic
and industrial water usage.
Water resource managers will have access to more
information when balancing irrigation water rights with the
needs of wildlife, and farmers will be better positioned to
make decisions on what crops to plant and when to plant them.
While NOAA is the lead agency for NIDIS, NOAA works with
numerous Federal agencies, emergency managers and planners,
State climatologists and State and local governments to obtain
and use drought information.
Several efforts are underway to improve drought early
warning systems. These include coordinating interagency drought
monitoring and forecasting. NIDIS also provides a framework for
coordinating the research agenda among participating agencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss drought conditions
in the southeast and NOAA's role in coordinating and providing
climate and drought information to Federal agencies and States.
I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members
of the Committee may have.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We will proceed now with questions.
General Schroedel, you said in your testimony that the
Corps' near-term strategy for addressing the drought is
updating water control plans. What specific changes to the
plans are needed and what will be the biggest difference
between the updated plans and the current plans?
General Schroedel. Yes, ma'am. The biggest need, after
several decades of not being updated, is the first step, which
is a basin-wide EIS. The hydrology has changed, the ecosystems
have changed, and the demands on the water have changed. The
entire situation has changed.
So it is important that we start with a basin-wide EIS,
gather all the facts in a very open and public process. That
will enable us then as a part of that process to generate
suitable alternative operations approaches to then balance
those competing needs, as I mentioned.
So I would say that the basin-wide EIS is the critical
first step just to get a good handle on what is really going
on.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
This question is for Mr. Hamilton. You mentioned that there
are many competing uses for water in the ACF Basin, including
irrigation, public water supplies, industrial uses and for
endangered species. How much water is currently available for
endangered species and how much is needed to be sufficiently
protective?
Mr. Hamilton. The endangered species in the Apalachicola
system are three listed mussels and the Gulf sturgeon.
We have consulted with the Army Corps in the last year and
looked at the required flows for those species. What we found
was that the historic numbers that we had looked at, 5,000 cfs,
had only been reached one or two times in the history of
recorded time in the Apalachicola.
Recognizing that we were in an exceptional drought and
using the full flexibility that we had in the Endangered
Species Act, we consulted and wrote an opinion that enabled the
Corps to drop those flows to 4,500 cfs, which is a 10 percent
reduction at unprecedented levels.
What we don't know right now is, if you continue to do that
over an extended period of time, will that jeopardize the
future existence of that species?
We also wrote an opinion looking at the Gulf sturgeon,
using the higher spring flows like today, when you have flows
exceeding forty and fifty thousand cfs hitting the Apalachicola
Bay. I believe our numbers that we were identifying range
between 11,000 and 16,000 cfs for spawning flows for the Gulf
sturgeon.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Let me just ask each of you to comment. There is a water
shortage around the world, not just in the southeast U.S. Do
you know whether or not this has been an understood and
accepted thing in the planning of these three States together?
Mr. Weaver. Personally, I do not know if they have accepted
that fact in their planning.
General Schroedel. Ma'am, I would just offer that given how
rapidly Georgia, for example, just passed their water plan and
the same actions are being taken by all three governors and
other governors around the south, I frankly think everyone has
recognized that this is a huge problem we have to deal with
now.
My personal opinion is that there is probably a lot of
water out there we are not capturing. Maybe that is what we
need to take a look at.
So I think they all recognize that.
Mr. Hamilton. I would have to agree. I think you see it in
the discussions we have had. You have seen it in the plans that
all three States have enacted, very much recognizing that these
droughts are occurring frequently and with increased demand. So
you are seeing more and more discussion on conservation
measures and actually implementing some.
Mr. Feldt. Madam Chair, I think that is out of my area of
expertise, so I would like to defer on that question.
But I would like to point out that it is interesting just
recently, just last week in our office, we were actually
looking at some flooding over parts of the southeast at the
same time as we are working drought. So water can be very
complicated. Sometimes you can have very close to one area in
extreme drought, other areas could have floods.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I am going to now recognize Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am curious as to what we have really learned from this.
You can't really plan. I guess you can, but it is very
difficult for an entity like this that just hasn't happened in
a long, long time as far as the severity of the drought.
Mr. Feldt, they try and forecast the weather and things. An
example of that would be did you feel like your forecasts were
good and then did you all use them? Did you change anything
and, really, do we have the ability to do that with the current
structure?
You mentioned, General Schroedel, that you are implementing
a rewrite of the plans and all that stuff, but the reality is
that is probably going to take years. Do we have the ability?
Even though we are in a crisis situation, are we still using
old plans based on the knowledge, hopefully, that we have
learned for the last year or two?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. I would tell you that the
process of managing the systems is a very dynamic process. It
is a day to day, hour by hour process of our experts, many of
whom have been doing this for three or four decades, processing
and assimilating all the information they can to make timely
decisions, and we are very flexible in how we do that. This
isn't a cookbook solution to managing these reservoirs, not
even in the least.
A good example would be we were prepared in the October
time frame to reduce the flows out of Lake Allatoona, just as
an example, the right thing to do based on how we normally
manage and what our manuals say. We were about to go below zone
one into zone two, which normally our operations guys would
direct. Cut the flow from two hours of power to one hour of
power.
Then, as a result of realizing that there are other needs
downstream and the forecast that we got from NOAA that said,
wait a minute, the 100 degree temperatures in September are
going to sustain themselves into October, which was rare.
We said, wait a minute, for cooling purposes and water
quality purposes, we cannot reduce the flow out of Allatoona at
that point because we have another concern, which we got the
heads-up again from NOAA that tipped us off, and then we
adjusted. So we actually made that decision about two weeks
later than we normally would based on that information.
Mr. Boozman. So that is something you have learned. A
couple years ago, you wouldn't have done that, perhaps.
General Schroedel. I am not sure I would say that.
Mr. Boozman. Hopefully, you are a little bit, and I don't
mean this bad, but a little more conservative in the water use.
General Schroedel. Perhaps.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Hunter mentioned the discharges. He was
concerned about the discharges now that are going on. Can you
tell us why you are doing that or if that is under the old
manual?
General Schroedel. No, sir. Again, that is a part of the
dynamic balancing process. We treat the entire system as a
system.
A very important point with respect to the water supply
needs, if you will, of Atlanta and water quality needs of
Atlanta is that water is not drawn out of Lake Lanier. It is
drawn out of the rivers south of Buford Dam, which means it is
necessary to release water from Lake Lanier through the dam to
satisfy both the water supply needs of Atlanta and the water
quality needs as measured at Peachtree Creek.
We are about to exercise our authority in line with
Congressionally authorized legislation for Buford that says we
can reduce the water quality flow requirement from 750 cfs at
Peachtree Creek to 650 cfs. So we are about to reduce the flow
for water quality by about 100 cfs. Then that is the limit,
based on the legislation, that we could go to.
The remainder of the flow, you combine intervening flow,
the rain that hits and flows into the river south of Buford and
between Peachtree Creek, and then we figure out on a day to day
basis--actually it is on a weekly basis--how much water needs
to be released out of Lanier to make up the difference to
supply those needs south of Lanier.
Some of the concerns that we are well aware of, Georgia
Trout Hatchery which requires 538 cfs, which is south of Buford
again and then the water quality piece in Atlanta. Those are
the only reasons right now water is being released from Lanier,
to satisfy those needs.
Mr. Boozman. Is that transparent where people can actually
know what is going on?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir, absolutely. That is something
that we have celebrated quite a bit.
With these drought calls that we conduct every week on the
ACT and biweekly on the ACF, we inform all of those people who
call in on those calls, what decisions we are about to make,
what flows, what adjustments we are making to the system, and
then we explain to them why. Then everyone who is on the call
has a chance to chime in with their concerns.
Then, of course, we make sure that we do not violate the
FACA laws in terms of participation in Federal decision-making.
So we are very deliberate in how we run that process, but we
have learned more.
Also, we have a web site. I am just reminded. We have a
very detailed web site that we maintain every day. So,
absolutely transparent, yes, sir.
Mr. Boozman. Let me just ask one other thing, and then we
have some questions we would like to submit for you that you
can fiddle with at your leisure for all of you.
General Schroedel. Sure. Okay.
Mr. Boozman. Does the Corps need any Congressional guidance
or authority to better manage the reservoir system with the
contemporary needs?
The contemporary needs being that we have a situation now
with Atlanta being on board. Certainly, I don't think anybody
could envision an area of that large a population 20 years ago
or 30 years ago, whenever all these things came about, longer
than that.
If so, do you need Congressional guidance or do you need
more authority?
General Schroedel. Sir, at this point, I think our general
opinion is that we do not need any additional guidance or
authority. It is pretty well laid out.
Mr. Boozman. Is there anything we need to be doing?
General Schroedel. Sir, at this point, I do not believe so.
Mr. Boozman. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
General, let me ask, how could more water be captured for
the ACF system?
General Schroedel. Madam Chair, one option might be
additional storage. Of course, when I say storage, there are
options above ground, below ground, and you have already heard
a little bit about the geology that underlies the region, which
makes it very difficult for an aquifer recharge, for example.
I am reminded that the 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act
authorized three flood control projects on the Flint River.
Today, there are, I believe, three dams on the Flint River or
two that I know of, Crisp County Dam and Albany Dam which are
very small and do not provide any flood protection.
But then again, I am reminded that WRDA 1986 de-authorized
those projects. Those would be the only way that I could think
of that you could actually flexibility in the management of the
ACF as a system. Today, we have no control over the Flint
system.
We talked about 5,000 cfs at the Chattahoochee gauge.
Today, we are releasing 30,000 cfs, and it may not be the right
amount at the right time, but that is basically all that I can
see that we could do.
Ms. Johnson. You mentioned lowering the flow rate at
Peachtree Creek. Does that mean that the water quality
downstream would be affected?
General Schroedel. No, ma'am. We would not be able to do
that. We went through the proper NEPA work to do that, so the
FONSI will be signed and then completing the NEPA work.
So, no, ma'am, not at all. We would not do that.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, ma'am.
General Schroedel, you made the comment about the Flint
impoundments. So that is something that Congress could do is to
look at why, in 1986, the WRDA Bill cut those two impoundments
out because I think you agree with me from just what you have
said, that we need to do some type of study on that again, a
feasibility study to see where we are at.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. I would say if the States saw
that as something that would be essential, then that would be a
good action to take.
Mr. Westmoreland. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hamilton, do you know what the natural flows of the
Chattahoochee and the Flint were?
Mr. Hamilton. I don't have those figures offhand. When you
say natural, I am assuming that is pre-dam.
Mr. Westmoreland. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. The figures that I am aware of are post-dam
that range from 178,000 cfs in the springtime to lows of about
5,000 on the most part, so a wide-ranging amount of water.
But maybe USGS might have some information on the historic
flows.
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Weaver, do you have any information
on what the normal pre-dam flow was?
Mr. Weaver. We actually published a report in about 1995
which listed the pre and post-dam flows, which I could provide
to the Committee. We looked at the period from 1929 to 1957 and
from about 1957 to 1970 and 1970 to 1993.
Mr. Westmoreland. I think that would be interesting to get
those.
Mr. Hamilton, let me ask you a question. Do you think the
sturgeon and the mussel would do better in a natural
environment that they had than this man-made environment that
we are creating today with the flows?
Mr. Hamilton. That is a complex question. Obviously, they
did well before all the pressures on the water systems that we
have out there, and it is not just water supply. It is water
quality, habitat throughout their range.
Those species require high flows and low flows, and have
all been affected in various ways, so populations have
dramatically declined over time. There are those that are
endangered and on the verge of extinction and those that are
threatened and on the verge of becoming endangered.
So I would say obviously they would do better.
Mr. Westmoreland. But, normally, species do better in their
normal environment than a created environment.
Mr. Hamilton. Correct.
Mr. Westmoreland. I have so many questions.
General Schroedel, the Corps, how does it related to the
FERC agreements because of the power plants up and down the
Chattahoochee?
How does the Corps and the FERC line up as far as FERC
guaranteeing a certain amount of flow through an area and the
Corps actually managing the river? How does that work?
General Schroedel. Sir, it works in a couple of different
ways.
If I could use the Alabama Power reservoirs on the ATC as
an example, they are currently up for relicensing. In the
process of that relicensing, as the Alabama Power projects go
through the NEPA process and go through that whole licensing
process, they will consult with the Corps to determine what
sort of flows are required in the aggregate from those projects
to meet a navigation requirement, south of Montgomery in this
case of 4,640 cfs. Then FERC, in this case, will generally
memorialize those flows into their licensing process.
Mr. Westmoreland. I guess what my question is who has the
authority to regulate the flows, the FERC or the Corps?
General Schroedel. It is the FERC.
Mr. Westmoreland. FERC?
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. Okay.
General Schroedel. They lay that out as part of the
licensing process.
Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. So they can require the Corps to up
their flow?
General Schroedel. They require the Alabama Power.
Mr. Westmoreland. That is what I wanted to hear, okay.
General Schroedel. Then also through the Fish and Wildlife
Service for endangered species, for example, at Jordan Dam,
that would be done.
Mr. Westmoreland. So if the flow is not meeting what FERC
promised or what was in their permit, then they need to
increase the flow out of their lakes to make up for that?
General Schroedel. There is a way to enforce that, yes,
sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. Okay. Now the last thing is Chairwoman
Johnson asked about the updating of the manuals, and you
mentioned two decades. If I remember correctly, the last manual
that was approved and went through the full process of being
approved was in 1957.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir. We have been operating with a
1989 draft.
Mr. Westmoreland. Fifty years.
General Schroedel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. So, Madam Chairwoman, I am going to say
that there is something that Congress can do.
When you have had the growth up-river and in that basin and
let me also point out that the Chattahoochee and the Flint, for
some people who don't understand, originate in Georgia. The
Chattahoochee originates above Helen. The Flint originates just
a little bit south of Atlanta.
These manuals have not been updated in 50 years and, Madam
Chair, let me say this too, that there are Senators over in the
other body that are trying to prevent them from being updated
today. That is a disgrace. That is something we need to stop,
and that is something we need to work towards to make sure that
the Corps has everything, every tool in their arsenal to come
up with an updated water plan.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
We have no further questioners, and so I declare that the
hearing has concluded.
Thank you so very much for being here.
I look forward to the governors and all getting together
and coming up with a good plan and solving the problem.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]