Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
|
Scrolling down will show an approximate chronology of some of the ACF Tri-States activity. ACF AGREEMENT LOWEST During a June 2, 2003 meeting Georgia Governor Perdue had with Georgia ACF (Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System) stakeholders, a concept for an ACF agreement with Alabama and Florida was presented that showed a projected low Lake Lanier level of 1050.9’ msl (20.1 feet below the full Lake level of 1071’ msl). The State says Lanier would reach the low 1050.9’ msl
only small percentage of the time. However,
there will be other low The Lowest Lake Lanier level ever was 1052.7’ msl on
December 23, 1981. But, because of
the learning experience of that low level the Corps of Engineers has not taken
the The worst drought on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River System since Lanier did not reach its full level for 4.6 years (June 30,
1998 through February 8, 2003). During
that drought Lanier recreation was severely impacted by Lanier did not go below 1055.6’ msl for the period of that worst drought. During the 1998 to 2003 and the 1991 through 2002 periods Lanier was below 1057’ msl 94 days. That is only 5.2% of the days of the drought of 1998 through 2002 and only 2.1% of the days for the period of 1991 through 2002. I have been unable to obtain a graph of projected Low Lake Lanier levels during the drought significantly
reduced the economic benefit of the I think the recent drought experience demonstrates that Lanier should not be planned to go below 1056’ msl during the worst drought.
TRI-STATES, JULY 25, 2003 There are some interesting and somewhat discouraging
comments I saw in two newspaper articles today. First, a Forsyth
County News article, “State
lawmaker argues against lower lake levels” talks quite a bit about a
letter State Representative Jack Murphy wrote to Governor Perdue asking that
Lake Lanier not go down below 1056’ msl.
The article also mentions a similar letter from Congressman Deal to the
Governor. The following is a quote from the article: ‘Perdue, the
governor of Florida and the governor of Alabama signed a memorandum of
understanding Tuesday, taking the process further than it has gone in 12 years,
said Dan McLagan, spokesman for Perdue. “But we really
don’t know what level will be set yet, or if a level will even be set [for
Lake Lanier],” he said. “We just know that
the preliminary agreement allows enough water for continuing development in
Georgia,” he said. “Alabama and
Florida have developmental and environmental concerns.
All states have environmental concerns.” “We will do our
best to understand the concerns of others about Lake Lanier – and do our best
to preserve it,” he said’ The Governor’s spokesman comments do not give me a warm
feeling that the Governor is really trying to treat Lanier fairly.
I think the quote makes Lake Lanier levels sound like an afterthought
without much real concern by the Governor’s spokesman. Second, a Bainbridge
Post-Searchlight article, “Governors
adopt memo on water”, talks about the terms of an agreement among the
three states. Following is a paragraph from the article. ‘Florida’s
Environmental Protection Secretary David Struhs says there are still “areas
where we have not made agreement.” One
of those seems to be that Florida seeks assurance that drought condition flows
in the Apalachicola be maintained, if necessary, by water from “the Flint
River and/or Lake Lanier.”’ As I see it, this article says Lake Lanier’s future may
get even worse. The Flint River is
free flowing without significant storage, therefore any additional flow
augmentation of the Apalachicola River will come from the Chattahoochee leg of
the total system, which would cause more Lake lowering releases from Lanier. The article also talks about others on the ACF River System hiring professionals to protect their interests.
TRI-STATES, JULY 21, 2003 The Governors of Alabama,
Florida and Georgia met again, this time in Columbus, Georgia, on July 21, 2003.
Concepts for and ACF Tri-States agreement presented by Georgia for the
most part were accepted by Alabama and Florida.
There were some adjustments to be made for a final agreement among the
three States, but it appeared that would be done without much difficulty. There were no predictions of
resultant Lake Lanier Levels offered, but the last official prediction I saw
showed a case where Lake Lanier could be drawn down to 1051’ msl (20 feet
below full pool). There were four individual
audience Lake Lanier presentations, including mine (displayed next below), that
were made to the three States within the obviously very short one minute time
period allowed by Georgia. As a result of what we saw
in the July 21 meeting, and prior, I conclude that Lake Lanier levels, and
consequently Lake recreation, are being treated unfairly.
There are worst case minimums set for numerous conditions on the ACF
River System, but no minimum Lake Lanier Level has been established.
Also, with no lowest Lake
Lanier level commitment, if things turn out worse than the thirty year
prediction in the plan, even lower Lake Lanier levels will be the result,
further impacting recreation and its resultant economic contribution. As I see it now, these proposed concepts for a Tri-States ACF agreement are bad for, and disproportionately impact, Lake Lanier.
ACF COMMISSION PRESENTATION, At the outset, I would like
to make the point that I think an agreement to a lowest Lake Lanier level of
1056’ msl (15’ below the full level) demonstrates that the Lake Lanier
community has been a team player in the ACF considerations.
However, lately there has been talk of taking I believe at times, in the
ACF considerations, the size of There are 25,000 boats
moored on the lake and dry stored around the There are 10 public marinas
and 6 club marinas containing slips for about 10,000 boats. There are more than 8,000,
mostly covered, private boat docks on the There are approximately
10,000 homes on the This is big business that
employees thousands of people. People
to build homes, people to build boats, people to build boat docks, people to
service and feed those who participate in Lowering The Corps of Engineers
reports that at The comprehensive study
predicted that at At 1051 about 4,000 marina
boat slips and 3,000 private boat docks are unusable. And, of course, Low Lake
Lanier levels would significantly reduce the value of the investment thousands
of families have made in their homes on Gentleman, the facts are
that a Thank you.
As of July 24, 2003 I have received no response to the following letter. Ronald
E. Seder The Honorable Sonny Perdue Dear Governor Perdue, I am writing to you again to
provide additional information to hopefully help you conclude that there should
be no Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Tri-States agreement unless the
agreement’s intent is to keep Lake Lanier’s level above 1056’ msl during
the worst drought. The next Tri-States
Governor’s meeting is now scheduled in Columbus on July 21 to discuss current
concepts for the ACF water allocation formula.
Because there has been a stated intent to soon bring the three States to
an agreement, I think it is important for you to have as much information as
possible now on which to make the Georgia decision. After the June 2nd
meeting you had with Georgia Stakeholders I wrote an article that was published
in the Forsyth Herald newspaper, in which I laid out reasons for not allowing
Lake Lanier to go below 1056’ msl. The
article is enclosed with this letter for your review. Lake Lanier receives between
7 and 8 million visitors annually, and Lake Lanier recreation produces an
economic contribution of about $5 billion.
While those numbers are very significant, and show Lake Lanier recreation
to be one of the most important considerations for ACF waters, understanding
some of the Lake Lanier impacts within those numbers is also revealing.
The Corps of Engineers
information displayed in the above table shows great loss of Lake surface area
(10.4 square miles) at Lake level 1056’ msl, and a much larger loss of Lake
surface area (13.9 square miles) at Lake level 1051’ msl. The table also shows 96
unavailable (9 available) boat launching ramp lanes at level 1056, which is a
tremendous reduction in available facilities, but there are no boat launching
ramp lanes available at level 1051’ msl. The Corps of Engineers PLAN
FOR LOW WATER LEVELS DURING RECREATION SEASON LAKE SIDNEY LANIER (copy
enclosed) shows for Lake level 1060’ msl that 4,000 (50%) private boat docks
are significantly affected, 30% of the community boat dock slips are unusable
and 920 (10%) of the Marina/Clubs slips are unusable.
The Corps of Engineers does not have this information for Lake Levels
1056 or 1951, but my educated guess, based on sketchy information, would be that
at Lake level 1051’ msl 3,000 to 4,000 Marina/Club slips would be unusable and
thousands more private boat docks would be significantly affected with perhaps
3,000 totally unusable. The Corps of Engineers
Environmental Impact Statement, Water
Allocation for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, APPENDICES
VOLUME 2 (page F-5-34 enclosed), published in 1998, shows Lake Lanier boater
trips for various Lake levels. It
displays boater trips at Lake level 1056’ msl to be only 16% (182,721) of the
boater trips at Lake level 1071’ msl (1,135,554). The same publication shows the boater trips at Lake level
1051’ msl to be essentially zero. In addition to the numerous
commercial establishments on the shores of Lake Lanier, there are approximately
10,000 homes that abut the Lake. These
homes represent large investments by the owners, and the impact of a very low
Lake Lanier could significantly reduce the value of those investments. A drought low Lake Lanier
level of 1056 imposes great hardships on those whose quality of life and
financial well-being rely on Lake recreation and aesthetics.
My judgment, which I believe is supported by the facts, is that a Lake
Lanier level below 1056 causes Lake Lanier interests to carry a disproportionate
share of the drought burden and should not be allowed by a Tri-States agreement. Governor Perdue, there is a
lot for you to consider in reaching an equitable ACF agreement for Georgia.
I hope this information adds value to your decision process.
Thank you for your consideration of my input presented here and in past
communications. Sincerely yours, Ronald E. Seder
The following article was submitted to the Forsyth Herald for publication. SHOULD THERE BE
LOWER LAKE
LANIER LEVELS? I am a member of several
BACKGROUND I became involved in the
Tri-State (Georgia, Alabama, Florida) considerations of how to allocate the
waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River System in 1989 when
the Army Corps of Engineers, at the urging of the Atlanta Regional Commission
and the State of Georgia, proposed a reallocation of Lake Lanier waters to allot
more water to water supplies for the growing metropolitan Atlanta area. I objected to the 1989 proposed
ACF reallocation because it promised to take In 1992 the Governors of the
three States and the Corps of Engineers produced an agreement, in which the
Corps of Engineers agreed to withdraw its proposed reallocation of Lake Lanier
waters, Alabama and Florida agreed to delay their lawsuit, and the three States
agreed to conduct a comprehensive study of the ACF River System to aid in
determining how to best allocate its waters. Results of the subsequent
comprehensive study were published by the Corps of Engineers in September 1998. In 1997 the three States agreed
that they would produce a water allocation formula.
The initial agreement had a year end 1998 deadline with a provision that
allowed the deadline to be extended by the unanimous agreement of the three
States. The deadline has been
extended many times and the most recent deadline is During the past 14 years a lot
of work has been accomplished and a lot of politics have come into play.
My observation is that there have been some successful attempts to ignore
the facts for the sake of politics. Over time numerous proposals
have been offered by each State. Actual For some time now, There is a general feeling that
eventually the absence of an agreement will result in the issue being litigated,
causing the courts to decide the ACF water allocation.
The issue going to the courts does not appear to be popular with any of
the States because predicting the outcome is difficult.
It seems that water laws and precedent setting court decisions for our
part of the RECENT
ACTIVITY
Governor Perdue and the Georgia
ACF negotiators shared the current Other conditions significant to
producing the low Lake Lanier level are; satisfying the Florida demanded minimum
flows for the Apalachicola River, satisfying predetermined minimum Chattahoochee
River flows at Columbus, satisfying predetermined minimum Chattahoochee River
flows at Peachtree Creek in Atlanta, and a water allotment for much more
agricultural irrigation in South Georgia than has ever been used. Unlike many other requirements,
there has been no minimum (lowest) ASSESSMENT I believe a low It was explained in the June 2nd
meeting that the 1051’ Further alleviation of dry
period ACF conditions can be accomplished by changing reservoir management rules
to release less water for peak hydropower generation, and for downriver barge
navigation. Satisfying both of those
water uses requires huge quantities of water to be released from the reservoirs.
As currently envisioned, an ACF
agreement among the three States would be for a period of 30 to 50 years.
Projections of conditions that far into the future are at best very
inaccurate, and different actual conditions could cause a lower
As of July 24, 2003 I have received no response to the following two letters. Ronald
E. Seder
Harold F. Reheis Dear Harold, I am writing to you to
explore some of the points made in the ACF Stakeholders meeting on June 2. As you know, I believe that
a The two prior proposals of
May 2001 and January 2002, which almost produced agreement among the three
States, did not take the You said during last
Monday’s meeting that the 1051’ msl resulted from getting information for
years 1994 to 2001 which changed the projected low Lake Lanier level, but Page
26 of your September 2002 Governor’s Advisory Council PowerPoint presentation
showed 1051’ msl with and without the 1994 to 2001 information, so it appears
that your Monday answer may be inconsistent with the September presentation. Your June 2 presentation
showed a low You said during the Monday
meeting that The 1051’ msl low Harold, I suggest that the
operating rule curves for the reservoirs be reexamined and changed to better
satisfy reservoir level and river flow requirements. Changing the reservoir operating rule curves may produce less
peak power generation (but not total power generation) and reduce specific
navigation discharges. I continue
to be convinced that that is a positive trade-off because the power generation
produces relatively small revenues for the Federal Government, and past
evaluations have shown navigation to be a financial loser. I would appreciate a timely
answer to this letter. Sincerely yours,
Copy: The
Honorable Sonny Perdue, Governor of
Ronald
E. Seder
The Honorable Sonny Perdue Dear Governor Perdue, I am writing to follow up on
a point you made last Monday evening in the ACF Stakeholder Meeting. You indicated that my
concern about a low The focus of the ACF
considerations for the past 12 years has been on the dry periods of time, also a
small percentage. If we could
depend on average rainfall every year these ACF discussions probably would not
have been necessary. But,
consideration of periods of rain shortage have forced concentration on how to
best allocate the ACF waters to accommodate the demands placed on them. I think that considering a
low I believe much higher low My understanding is that
Buford Dam peak power generation produces annual revenues of about $3 million
for the federal government. That $3
million is very small compared to the economic benefits from other uses of the
water, and the federal government may even realize the same $3 million revenue
(because of rate calculation methodologies) if the power is only generated as
the result of Buford Dam releases for other reasons. The power would not be generated at the peak power demand
time most valuable to the electric power industry, but the tradeoff for other
benefits appears to be more than justified. Past analyses of ACF
navigation shows it to be an economic loser, therefore reducing navigation water
releases and applying the saved water to other more valuable uses is a
significant economic benefit. Governor Perdue, I am
encouraged by your goal of producing a good and equitable ACF water sharing
agreement. However, I am convinced
that goal is better served by not allowing Sincerely yours, Ronald E. Seder
During its May 21, 2003 meeting the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance Council voted overwhelmingly to produce the following resolution
Whereas,
the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance Council was established by the 2000
Georgia General Assembly (HB 1562); and Whereas,
for over a decade discussions have been ongoing between Florida, Georgia and
Alabama to mutually determine how to allocate the waters of the ACF River
System; and Whereas,
the Lake Lanier full pool level is considered to be 1070’ or 1071’ msl,
depending on the time of the year; and Whereas,
in September 2002 Georgia projected a potential Tri-State ACF agreement
including a lowest Lake Lanier level of 1051’ msl, and further the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection acknowledged this level during the
Alabama, Florida and Georgia Governors, Dothan,
Alabama meeting on April 21, 2003; and Whereas,
because Lake Lanier’s watershed of
1040 square miles, is relatively small, refilling Lake Lanier requires considerably
more time and rainfall than other
reservoirs located within the ACF watershed (during the most recent
drought, Lanier did not achieve its full level from June 30, 1998 to February 8,
2003, while other ACF reservoirs
were refilled several times); and Whereas,
Lake Lanier’s lowest historical level of
1053’ msl was reached in
December 1981, and as a result of that experience the US Corps of Engineers has
not allowed Lake Lanier to go
that low in subsequent worse drought years;
and Whereas,
Lake Lanier’s low level was 1056’ msl during the 1998 through 2003 drought;
and Whereas,
Lake Lanier receives more than 7
million visitors each year, and Lake Lanier
business and recreation contributes $5 billion to the economy of
the State, which is severely impacted by lower Lake Lanier levels; and Whereas,
the Lake Lanier Watershed contains only 5.3% of the total ACF Watershed, which
is comprised of 19,600 square miles, so that lowering Lake Lanier by a very
significant 10 to 20 feet may augment the Apalachicola River flows by only 3%;
and Whereas,
the Lake Lanier business and recreation economic benefit is much greater than
that of Buford Dam peak hydropower generation; down river flow augmentation to
support commercial navigation,
and optimizing the mixture of fresh and saline water to maximize production of
Apalachicola Bay Oysters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance Council respectfully recommends that Lake Lanier should never be allowed to go below a level of 1056’ msl.
A LAKE LANIER PERSPECTIVE OF THE
TRI-STATES ACF WATER NEGOTIATIONS INTRODUCTION The Tri-States (Alabama,
Florida, Georgia) negotiations over water allocations from the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System (ACF) have been on-going for many
years. They really started in 1989 when the Corps of Engineers
(COE), with the encouragement of the Atlanta Regional Commission and the State
of Georgia, proposed a reallocation of Lake Lanier water to satisfy the growing
water supply needs of Metropolitan Atlanta. Lake Lanier is used directly
for water supplies, hydropower generation, flood control and recreation.
Releases of Lake Lanier water through Buford Dam augment flows of the
Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers during dry times for more water supply
withdrawals, recreation, dilution of pollutants, down river barge navigation,
agriculture irrigation, maintaining preestablished minimum river flows, and to
help balance ecosystems. The biggest challenge to
managing ACF waters comes during drought periods. If average rainfall would occur according to average
historical patterns, managing the ACF waters would not be much of an issue.
So, the focus has been on how to best distribute the water during dry
times. The waters of the
Chattahoochee and Chestatee Rivers originate in north Georgia and flow into Lake
Lanier, also in north Georgia. The
Lake Lanier waters discharged through Buford Dam join waters draining off the
entire ACF watershed below Buford Dam to discharge into the Apalachicola Bay in
the Gulf of Mexico. There are
several reservoirs Between Buford Dam and the Apalachicola Bay, including West
Point Lake, Lake George and Lake Seminole.
The flow of the Chattahoochee joins the Flint River (which originates in
the Atlanta area) to form Lake Seminole at the Georgia/Florida line.
Water is released from Lake Seminole through Jim Woodruff Dam to become
the Apalachicola River. During wetter seasons water
is stored in the reservoirs’ conservation storage to be released and used
during dryer seasons and low rainfall years. OFFICIAL AND
USABLE LAKE LANIER STORAGE ARE NOT THE SAME Lake Lanier is reported to
have 60% of the total Reservoir conservation storage on the ACF, therefore Lake
Lanier is expected to provide much of the river flow augmentation during dry
times. Although, on the drawing
board, Lanier has 60% of the ACF conservation storage, it is not practical to
consider all of the storage as usable during dry times because of the benefits
provided by relatively high Lake Lanier levels, drawing the Lake down to the
bottom of its conservation storage would be devastating to the area, Lake Lanier
has a comparatively small watershed to refill it, there must be high enough Lake
Lanier levels to provide adequate water supply assurance for the worst drought
yet to be experienced. First,
Lake Lanier receives 7 to 8 million visits annually, and Lake recreation
produces a $ 5 billion economic benefit. That
economic benefit relies on high Lake levels.
The Lake is less attractive and less desirable as Lake levels decline.
An Environmental Impact Statement produced by the COE in 1998 shows that
Lake Lanier boater trips at a Lake level of 1065’ msl are only 51% of the
boater trips at the full Lake level of 1071’, and the boater trips at a Lake
level of 1055 are only 13% of the boater trips at the 1071’ level. Second,
the bottom of the Lake Lanier conservation storage is officially considered to
be 36 feet (1035’ msl) below the top of the conservation storage (1071’
msl). Dropping Lake Lanier 35 feet
would effectively destroy Lake Lanier as it is now known, and it would be
devastating to the area. The lowest
historical level of Lake Lanier was during a drought when the Lake was drawn
down to a level of 1052.7’ msl on December 23, 1981. The bottom of the conservation pool is almost 18 feet lower
than that lowest historical Lake level. Because
of growth and increased Lake use, relatively high Lake Lanier levels are much
more important now than in 1981, and because of that importance, Lake Lanier has
not since been lowered to its historical lowest level, even in periods of worse
droughts. Third,
Lake Lanier has a relatively small watershed for the size of the Lake and it is
a miniscule proportion of the total ACF watershed. The Lake Lanier watershed is 5.3% (1040 square miles) of the
total ACF watershed (19,600 square miles).
So, on average, as we consider the flow of the Apalachicola River into
the Gulf of Mexico, only about 5% of the water originates on the Lake Lanier
Watershed. And because 5% of the
watershed, through Lake Lanier, is expected to supplement the water from the
remainder of the ACF watershed, its impact on drought river flows is very
limited. When Lake Lanier water is
being released to supplement river flows below the Lake, it must be done with
knowledge that the Lake has to be refilled again for its next use.
Lake Lanier does not fill nearly as fast as other reservoirs on the ACF
watershed because of its relatively small watershed.
During the drought from 1998 to 2003 Lake Lanier did not reach its full
pool level from June 30, 1998 to February 8, 2003.
But, as an example, during that same period West Point Lake was refilled
to its full pool level many times. West
Point Lake levels were not drawn down nearly as much as Lake Lanier during that
period and West Point is a smaller Lake with a much larger watershed to refill
it. As the Tri-States ACF
discussions have proceeded over the years, it has become apparent that dry time
large releases from Lanier have minimal beneficial impact on the flows in the
Apalachicola River. It appears that
during a drought, Lake Lanier augmentation makes only about a 3% difference in
Apalachicola River minimum flows. That
3% difference with Lake Lanier augmentation requires 10 to 20 feet lower Lake
Lanier levels. The small percentage
Apalachicola River flow change would make it difficult to see any practical
difference in the Apalachicola River benefits, while there would be huge
negative impacts to the quality of life and the recreational economic
contributions provided by a fuller Lake Lanier. Fourth,
lowering Lake Lanier levels reduces water supply insurance for dry times.
We have not yet experienced the worst drought.
Surely, Lake Lanier must be kept at a level to provide for water supplies
during worse droughts yet to come, or other disasters. RELATIVE WORTH OF
LAKE LANIER WATER USES Establishing the relative
worth of Lake Lanier water is difficult, but the COE 1998 Environmental Impact
Statement, and years of consideration of the issues, have helped. Flood
Control The need to provide adequate
flood control storage is obvious. Water
Supplies Providing basic drinking
water is a must, but the use of water supply water beyond basic drinking water
produces great economic benefits, which gives water supplies one of the highest
priorities. Of Course, realistic
water conservation practices, and benefit evaluation of high water users, is
needed to realize adequate trade-off considerations with other uses of the
water. Recreation There is recreational
activity on all of the ACF River System. The
largest proportion of that recreational activity occurs on Lake Lanier. The Lake Lanier quality of
life and recreation economic contribution, produced by relatively high Lake
levels, makes recreation a high priority use of Lake Lanier water.
Lake Lanier receives 7 to 8 million visits per year and produces a
recreational economic contribution of about $5 billion. Hydropower Hydropower generation
requires very large releases of Lake Lanier water. Hydropower is currently considered a very high priority use
of Lake Lanier water, but its economic value is quite small compared to water
supplies and Lake Lanier recreation. Lake
Lanier is a handy peak power supplement to electric power needs, but its
contribution to peak power needs is miniscule, and it can easily be replaced
with other very practical and available peak power sources.
The major benefit of Lake Lanier hydropower is the low price of the
power. Buford Dam hydropower is
cheap, having much of its cost based on decades old investments, and free rain.
So, money is really the consideration of whether or not to use Lake
Lanier water for power generation, and because Lake Lanier was built with public
funds it seems logical that water devoted to peak hydropower generation should
be diverted to other more beneficial uses.
Of course, the water released at Buford dam for other uses would still go
through the generators and generate electric power, but it would not necessarily
be generated at the most cost effective peak power use time. Navigation Providing down river barge
navigation depths requires a lot of water to be released from the ACF
Reservoirs. Those Reservoir water
releases can, and have, caused significant lowering of Lake Lanier’s level.
In addition, dredging in the Apalachicola river is also necessary to
provide the navigation channel. The
costs to support the small amount of river navigation are not at all justified
by the economic returns from that navigation.
An analysis of the material about navigation presented in the COE 1998
Environmental Impact Study shows navigation to be a financial loser. Apalachicola
Bay Oysters What is frequently referred
to the “world famous” Apalachicola Bay Oysters are most productive with a
mixture of sea water and fresh water from the Apalachicola River, although how
much of each, and when it is required, is not well determined.
It has been reported that the annual revenue from the sale of the oysters
is about $1.5 million, which the people in the area estimate to be a $20 million
benefit to the economy. Although
there are some people whose way of life includes the income from the oysters,
the amount of that economic benefit is very small when compared to the benefits
of water supplies or Lake Lanier recreation. Agriculture
Irrigation Agriculture irrigation is considered to be a high priority use of ACF waters. Much of the irrigation
considered in the Tri-States discussions refers to water from the Flint River
and the aquifers in the area. There
is a very strong relationship between river water and aquifer water, in that
water taken directly from the Flint River or from aquifers reduces the flow in
the Flint River. During a dry growing season
the daily use of water for irrigation can be more than three times greater than
the water withdrawals for all of Metropolitan Atlanta’s water supplies. One of the purposes of the
water releases from Lake Seminole is to satisfy predetermined Apalachicola River
minimum flow requirements. Because
the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers both flow into Lake Seminole, Flint River
flows have a direct impact on Chattahoochee River flow requirements.
Less Flint River flow into Lake Seminole increases the demand on the
Chattahoochee River to assure the Apalachicola River minimum flows. CONCLUSION The considerations reviewed
here present convincing evidence for retaining enough water in Lake Lanier to
keep Lake Lanier levels relatively high.
POTENTIAL FUTURE LOWER LAKE LEVELS EXPOSED During a Governor's Advisory Council Meeting on September 23, 2002, new possible future low Lake Lanier levels were identified. My assessment is that those newly identified low Lake Levels are unnecessary, and totally unacceptable to those interested in Lake Lanier aesthetics and recreation. The following letter is a communication of my dissatisfaction with the newly identified low Lake levels. As of July 24, 2003 I have received no response
to the following letter. Ronald
E. Seder G.
Robert Kerr Harold
F. Reheis Dear Bob
and Harold, During
the last Governor’s Advisory Council Meeting, your presentation showed a
minimum Lake Lanier level, from the Stella Model results for Georgia’s March
2002 ACF proposal, to be 1051.4 ft. msl. That
is the first time that I ever saw results showing the minimum Lake Lanier level
at anything less than 1055-1056 msl. The same 1051.4 was shown for both the 1939-1993 and the
1939-2001 unimpaired flows. I have a
couple concerns. First, why did
1051.4 suddenly appear? Second,
1056 ft. msl is already an extremely low Lake Level that tremendously damages
the recreation on Lake Lanier, and the Lake’s $5.5 billion contribution to our
economy. I, and I
think almost all people who participate in Lake Lanier recreation, strongly
disagree with ever allowing the Lake to go below 1056 ft. msl, even in the worst
drought situation. In fact, I think
most people believe that there is no justified reason to allow the Lake to go as
low as 1056 ft msl, and there is a lot of merit in that point of view. I
strongly suggest that the Georgia proposal be altered to never allow the Lake
Lanier level to come anywhere close to a disastrously low 1051.4 ft. msl. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
TRI-STATE AGREEMENT DEADLINE EXTENDED AGAIN UNTIL JANUARY 31, 2003 TRI-STATE WATER TALKS
CONTINUE It was announced during a Tri-State ACF Commission meeting
in Tallahassee on Monday, March 18, 2002 that Florida and Georgia had not
reached agreement. Florida refused
to extend the Tri-State ACF water negotiations.
However, before the end of the day Florida reversed its position and
agreed to a 90-day extension of the talks. Florida said its main issue was that Georgia would not
commit to return (treated wastewater), to the ACF system, 58% of the water drawn
from the system for Metropolitan water Supplies.
Georgia said it had committed to quantified river flows at the
Georgia/Florida line but would not commit to both river flows and a percentage
of wastewater return to the ACF system. During
the Monday meeting Alabama and Georgia signed a 90-day extension agreement, but
Florida said it would not sign because of irreconcilable differences with
Georgia. However, Florida did agree later on the 18th, before the 11:59 PM deadline, to extend the talks for another 90 days.
Alabama, Florida and Georgia have been negotiation for several years trying to reach an agreement about how to manage the waters in Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River system. Decisions about how to manage the ACF are tremendously important to future Lake Lanier levels. There was a Tri-State ACF Commission meeting on January 15, 2002. Georgia had sent out another proposal to which Florida responded with their own proposal, making some changes to the Georgia proposal. In the January 15 meeting the three States had a breakthrough and reached an agreement in principle based on the Florida proposal. Following is the LLA response to the proposals. LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION,
INC. January
30, 2002 G. Robert
Kerr Harold F.
Reheis Dear Bob
and Harold: The
Florida ACF proposal, accepted in principle by Georgia, with a few exceptions
looks satisfactory to us because of the Lake Lanier levels you say it will
produce. I have
received from your staff model 220 runs “Daily Elevation at Lake Lanier” and
“Exceedance Curve of Elevation at Lake Lanier” graphs, representing
simulated historical Lake Lanier levels produced by the Florida proposal.
Those graphs show that with this agreement historical Lake Lanier levels
would have been significantly higher than actual historical Lake levels. However,
there are a few things in the proposal that are bothersome to us.
We ask for some changes for the final agreement that we do not think
materially effect the agreement, but if ignored could be material to future Lake
Lanier levels, water quality and the availability of Lake water for water
supplies. Treated
Sewage Returned to Lake Lanier Florida’s
proposal in the first paragraph of Subsection 2.2 A says: “The Corps of
Engineers (COE) shall operate Buford Dam and Lake Lanier to allow water supply
withdrawals from Lake Lanier and from the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam
and above USGS Gaging Station #02338000 totaling up to 705 MGD (1,091 CFS) on an
average annual basis so long as total annual average net returns at USGS Gaging
Station #02338000 do not go below 58% of the total annual average net
withdrawals.” As we
interpret it, the language allows nothing less than 58% return even if Georgia
directly reuses more of its wastewater for both potable and non-potable needs,
rather than returning it to the system.
More direct reuse will reduce system withdrawal requirements.
We suggest that a net withdrawal (withdrawals minus returns) limit would
be a better objective because it would allow Georgia more flexibility in
satisfying both water quality and water quantity requirements for the next 50
years. As you
know, the LLA and others are currently engaged in a legal action directed at
invalidating the permitted Gwinnett County 40 MGD treated sewage discharge into
Lake Lanier. The
lawsuit is now in the State Administrative Law Court with the Honorable Judge
Jessie R. Altman presiding. A
limnologist expert witness, “Dr. Jack Jones, testified that the permitted
Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge will pollute the Lake, degrading Lake
water quality and violating at least one Lake Lanier water quality standard
(there is more about Dr. Jones testimony in the attached article).
We think it would be wise for Georgia to recognize the possibility of the
LLA and others winning the lawsuit.
Assuming the lawsuit is won, the options of using “gray water”
instead of drinking water for more applicable requirements, and recycling
wastewater directly or recycling wastewater through a dedicated blend pond into
the water supply treatment plant, become even more logical solutions for the
growing wastewater of Gwinnett County and others.
Increased wastewater reuse would allow the same water supply need to be
satisfied by withdrawing less water from Lake Lanier, but because the wastewater
is reused instead of returning it to the system, the 58% return requirement may
not be satisfied. Raising
the Full Level of Lake Lanier In
Subsection 2.3 A the Florida proposal says: “The COE shall increase the top of
the conservation pool of Lake Walter F. George and shall consider increasing the
top of the conservation pool of West Point Lake”.
However, increasing the top of the conservation pool on Lake Lanier is
not addressed in the Florida proposal.
As you know, your Lake Lanier level assessment relies on raising the top
of the Lake Lanier conservation pool to 1071/1072.
We suggest that the new top of the Lake Lanier conservation pool, and the
appropriate “Conservation Storage Level and Guide Curves” (as attached to
the January 11, 2002 Georgia proposal), be included in the final agreement.
Because some reservoir operation rules in the Florida and Georgia
proposals rely on the specific determination of the various operating zones of
the reservoirs, it is important to have reservoir operating zones quantitatively
identified by elevation in the final agreement.
If the operating zones are not defined in the agreement, the Lake level
results intended could be changed by subsequently redefining the operating
zones. Additional
Buford Dam Releases Subsection
2.2 D of the Florida proposal says: “the ACF Commissioner for the State of
Georgia may require the COE to make additional releases from Buford Dam provided
that such additional releases shall not cause the COE to fail to meet the water
supply needs specified in Paragraph A of Subsection 2.2 of this Agreement nor
cause a violation of the flow requirements specified in Paragraph C of
Subsection 2.2 of this Agreement.”
This is bothersome to us because it legitimatizes post agreement
additional Lake Lanier lowering Buford Dam releases. It
looks to us as if we can have a three state agreement, largely satisfying
legitimate Lake Lanier level requirements, which Georgia could unilaterally
change. Therefore,
those most effected by Lake Lanier levels could convince themselves now that
this is a satisfactory Lake level agreement, because of your Lake level
assessments based on the agreement, only to have Lake levels lowered after the
agreement has been accepted.
We suggest that there be more stringent conditions built into the
agreement for making Buford Dam release changes after the three States sign the
agreement. Conclusion We
believe we are close to having an agreement that we could wholeheartedly
support. But,
the points presented here are serious impediments to that support, at this time,
because they could reduce Lake Levels from those produced by the rest of the
agreement. We
ask that you review our observations here and give us your assessment. Sincerely, Ronald
E. Seder
THE PERMITTED GWINNETT COUNTY 40 MGD
TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE WILL POLLUTE LAKE LANIER
During November 2000, the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) issued a permit to Gwinnett County to discharge 40
million gallons per day (mgd) of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. The Lake Lanier Association is convinced that the
deterioration of Lake Lanier water quality and the impairment of current and
legitimate lake uses should not be tolerated, and that this current permit
allowing Gwinnett County to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage in the Lake
should be reversed. The LLA tried,
while the Lake Lanier water quality standards were being determined, and while
the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit was being considered, to
negotiate satisfactory results to protect Lake Lanier.
The LLA was unable to successfully negotiate with the EPD or Gwinnett
County to have appropriate Lake protection alterations made to the Lake
standards or the sewer permit, and the sewer discharge permit was issued.
After exhausting all other alternatives, legal action was the only option
left for the protection of Lake Lanier. The public has been told by Gwinnett County and the EPD that the permitted 40 mgd discharge will not pollute or otherwise harm the lake. That is not correct. The permitted sewer discharge will pollute Lake Lanier. The permit allows the treated sewage discharge to contain much larger concentrations of pollutants, including phosphorus, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand and mercury, than the Lake Lanier water into which it is to be released. Legal
Action The Lake Lanier
Association, Inc. (LLA) is convinced that the preservation of Lake Lanier water
quality requires the repeal of this Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit. In December 2000,
the LLA, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club,
Terence D. Hughey and Save Our Communities Now, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against
EPD for issuing the permit. Gwinnett
County sided with the EPD and is taking the lead in defending the permit. The lawsuit is now in the State Administrative Law Court with the Honorable Judge Jessie R. Altman presiding. Dr. Jack Jones, Lake
And Reservoir Expert Testimony Expert testimony during the trial by Dr. Jack Jones showed
that the permitted 40 mgd treated sewage discharge will pollute a
portion of Lake Lanier. Dr. Jack Jones is a Professor of Limnology (the scientific study of life and phenomena of fresh water, especially lakes and ponds) and chair of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School of Natural Resources at the University of Missouri. Dr. Jones is an internationally experienced and respected limnologist who teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in limnology, does research in reservoir limnology and has authored approximately 75 peer reviewed articles in his field of study. Phosphorus, Algae and
Chlorophyll Pollution During his court testimony on November 15, 2001, Dr. Jones
explained that the permitted sewer discharge allows a phosphorus concentration
several times greater than the phosphorus concentration of the lake water into
which the treated sewage is to be discharged.
The permitted phosphorus allowed in this treated sewage will add about
eight (8) tons of phosphorus to the lake each year. Dr. Jones further explained that the temperature of the
treated sewage discharge, compared to the water temperature at different depths
of the lake during the warmer months of the year, will cause the discharge to
form a “sewage sandwich” at a depth in its portion of the lake that will
promote algae growth, and cause the Lake Lanier chlorophyll standard to be
violated. During the cooler months
of the year when the lake surface water is cold, the treated sewage will rise to
the surface like a sewage icing. Dr. Jones testified, “it (Lake Lanier in the proximity of
the sewer discharge) is going to look like a different lake.”
When Dr. Jones was asked, “will the algae blooms interfere with
swimming” Dr. Jones stated that “algal blooms can cause dermatitis.
People are hesitant to swim in water that is turbid with algae.
Algae degrades the aesthetics. They
degrade real estate values.” Dr.
Jones also explained that the Lake below the area of the algae blooms “will
have lower oxygen and so it will limit the habitat, particularly for the deep
floor fishermen, the bass, white crappie, etc.” Dr. Jones testified, “You will have algae on the beaches, you will have algae in the center of the lake. People will boat into that area of the lake and they will just see green, it will be turbid”. Offset Gwinnett County
Sewer Discharge Phosphorus Increases By Reductions Elsewhere? With a hint of a possible attempt to counteract the
increased phosphorus added to the lake by the Gwinnett County sewer discharge,
EPD has said that reducing phosphorus discharges in one part of the lake will
allow larger phosphorus discharges in another part of the lake (e.g. the
Gwinnett County 40 mgd discharge). Dr.
Jones explained that reductions of phosphorus in another part of the lake would
not reduce the water pollution caused by the Gwinnett County treated sewage
discharge into its area of the lake. Undoubtedly there are portions of the lake that should have phosphorus concentrations lowered, but accomplishing that would not counteract increased pollution in the Gwinnett County discharge portion of the lake. Fecal Coliform As An
Indicator Of Public Health Safety? Dr Jones also testified about the Fecal Coliform permitted
in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. The LLA, during the formation of the
Lake Lanier water quality standards in 1999, suggested using E. coli instead of
fecal coliform as a measure of public health safety for swimming in the lake.
However, the EPD chose the customary fecal coliform measurement for the
lake standards and for the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. The Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit
allows a monthly fecal coliform count of 23, as determined by a geometric mean
of several lake water samples taken during a month. Most of us do not know much about the geometric mean
calculation and our eyes gloss over when someone tries to explain it, so you
will be spared an explanation attempt here.
But, some of the potential negative consequences of using the geometric
mean, included in Dr. Jones’ testimony, are important for us to consider.
Dr. Jones explained that the geometric mean allows individual samples of
lake water to have very high fecal coliform counts.
The monthly 23 fecal coliform count allowed by the permit could be
satisfied with 7 days of 230,000 and 23 days of 2, or 9 days at 23,000, or 12
days at 2,300 or 17 days at 230. Certainly, no one should want to swim in waters with fecal coliform counts of 230,000, 23,000, 2,300 or 230. Obviously, the geometric mean calculation is not an adequate indicator of public health safety on any given day. Mercury Now let’s look at the results of Dr. Jones’ testimony regarding mercury discharges into Lake Lanier. Gwinnett County’s permit contains no limit for mercury. Dr. Jones testified that mercury accumulates in fish tissue. Currently there are fish eating advisories for certain species of fish in Lake Lanier because of the amount of mercury in their tissues. Dr. Jones testified that if there is any mercury in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge it will add to the accumulation of mercury in fish. Summary Dr. Jones’ testimony makes it clear that the permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge into Lake Lanier will pollute Lake Lanier water. The permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge allows pollutants that will impair current and legitimate uses of the Lake, particularly in the treated sewage discharge area of the lake, including bodily contact with the water.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. June 21, 2001 G. Robert Kerr Harold F. Reheis Dear Bob and Harold: We
have reviewed the Tri-States material presented to us in the Governor’s
Advisory Council meeting on May 18, 2001, and the proposal Florida subsequently
put on the web on May 25th. I
have also reviewed some of your computer model outputs with Dave Hawkins of the
EPD on June 19th. The
material presented at the Governor’s Advisory Council meeting, compared to
past proposals and actual history, is encouraging to us. The model output showed that the parameters anticipated in
the next Florida proposal would have caused Lake Lanier levels to always be
higher than history with the lowest lake level in the worst historical drought
to be 1056’ msl. While
the material presented at the Governor’s Advisory Council was very encouraging
to us, subsequent study and review have raised a few concerns, for which we ask
your focus and consideration. First,
the lowest Lake Lanier levels during dry times are very dependant on the 750 CFS
minimum Chattahoochee River flows at Peachtree Creek, therefore, releases 100 to
150 CFS in excess of the 750 CFS could lower the lowest Lake Level from 1056’
msl to 1050’ msl or lower. A low
lake level of 1050 would be unacceptable to the Lake Lanier Association, Lake
Lanier recreational users and the $2+ Billion annual recreational economic
benefit generated by a Lake Lanier with adequate lake levels. We
suspect that the Corps of Engineers (COE) does not have very precise measures
for the Chattahoochee flows at Peachtree Creek, and because the requirement is
for a minimum daily average of 750 CFS the COE may be inclined to release more
than the 750 CFS just to be sure that they are satisfying the minimum.
Have you had any discussions with the COE about this?
Can the COE be quite precise on the 750 CFS minimum release? Also,
the Florida proposal says in section 2.2 A1 that the 750 CFS minimum release may
be increased: “if determined by the State of Georgia to be necessary for water
quality purposes, 850 CFS during the months of June and September and 950 CFS
during the months of July and August”. From
your model runs it appears that releases at those levels would cause the lowest
lake level to be much less than 1056’ msl.
Is the State of Georgia going to stick with the 750 CFS minimum release,
or will Georgia require larger releases? In
addition, there is a requirement for greater releases under certain
circumstances that might cause the lowest level of Lake Lanier to be about a
foot lower than presented in the May 18th meeting.
The Florida proposal says in section 2.2 A2 that additional Buford Dam
releases will be made “to help refill West Point Lake or Walter F. George
Lake”…………..”For the purpose of meeting the flow
requirements”………..”during the months of June, July, August or
September in any one calendar year, the COE shall make a release or releases
from Buford Dam in excess of the releases made to meet a Peachtree Creek flow
requirement of 750 CFS”. According
to the Florida proposal the additional releases can be made at a Lake Lanier
level as low as 1060’ msl. Second,
the Florida Proposal depends on raising the full pool level of Lake Lanier from
1070’/1071’ msl to 1071’/1072’ msl.
We agree with raising the upper level of the lake, but if for some reason
this change is withdrawn from the proposal, and everything else remained the
same, the lowest lake levels would be lower, making a damaging low lake level
even more damaging. Last,
the Florida proposal says in section 1.2(g) that the Tri-State agreement will
not go into effect until “no action, suit or proceeding remains pending before
any court or administrative body in which relief is sought to restrain or
prohibit the COE from meeting its obligations under this Agreement”.
Therefore, it appears to me that the electric power interests suit
against the COE, or any other suit, could hold up implementation of the
agreement for a long time. Am I interpreting this correctly? Could someone with a lawsuit hold up implementation of this
agreement for several years? Bob
and Harold, before closing this letter, I want to emphasize the Lake Lanier
Association’s appreciation for your efforts in bringing us to where we are
currently in the Tri-State negotiations. The
results you presented in the May 18th Governor’s Advisory Council
meeting are acceptable to us. But
there are exposures in the Florida proposal that could appreciably lower the
lowest simulated lake levels, and that would be unacceptable to the Lake Lanier
Association. Please
reply and give us your views on the points we have raised in this letter. Sincerely, Ron
Seder Following is an excerpt from my presentation to the LLA Membership Meeting on June 15, 2001. As the result of some additional investigation and study of the Florida May 25th proposal, we found some areas that we felt needed additional attention, and consequently we are not quite as optimistic as we were on the night of June 15. The LLA sent the above letter to the Georgia negotiators on June 21, 2001 It was expected that Florida would present its proposal in the June 22nd Tri-States meeting, but that was cancelled the day before the meeting with the expectation of it being rescheduled in about three weeks. "Next,
Let’s talk about the Tri-States negotiations
that have
been going on, really since 1989 when the Corps of Engineers, with the urging of
Georgia and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), proposed a reallocation of
Lake Lanier waters to give more water to the water supplies of the growing
Metropolitan Atlanta region. As I
think you know, there have been a lot of negotiations among Alabama, Florida and
Georgia since the 1989 Lake Lanier reallocation proposal. Propositions
by both Alabama and Florida, would have taken the lake down to 1035’ msl,
36’ below the full pool level. My
view is that there were a lot of politics exercised during the negotiations and
facts were not adequately considered. At
times it seemed that there was little hope for an agreement among the three
states. If no agreement among the
three states is achieved the Supreme Court of the United States will probably
make the final decisions. However,
with the assistance of a mediator, the three states resolved most of their
differences, and today I am guardedly optimistic that the states will come to an
agreement that is fair to our lake level interests. I
attended a Georgia Governor’s Advisory Council meeting on May 18th
where the Georgia negotiators presented what they expected to be a new Florida
proposal on May 25th. The
consequences of that expected proposal, for Lake Lanier levels, appeared to be
positive. Computer
historical simulations of that expected proposal, using the year 2030 water
supply demands, showed that the lake levels would have been higher than actual
history, with the lowest drought lake level at about 1056’ msl rather than the
low of 1052.7’ msl that actually occurred. There is a meeting scheduled for the three states on June 22, 2001. I hope after attending that meeting that I will be able to report to you that the three states have reached an agreement that gives Lake Lanier levels fair consideration, and positive results."
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. January 2, 2001 Harold F. Reheis Dear Bob and Harold: I am writing concerning the Georgia offer to Alabama and
Florida to settle the ACF water allocation issue. I understand that in an emergency meeting Florida agreed to
extend the deadline until May 1, 2001. I
am not thrilled by that because Florida will be looking for even more
concessions from the Georgia proposal that has already given away too much of
Lake Lanier during drought conditions. As I have been advised by Harold, the 2030 offer you advanced
to Alabama in the December 18, 2000 meeting would, using later year demands,
lower the lake to 1047’ msl (computer simulation of the 1986 to 1988 time
period), with the hope that by that time the Corps might be able to be more
precise in its reservoir releases to perhaps produce a low point of 1053’ msl. I am sure you realize that a Lake Lanier level of 1047 or
1053 are both totally unacceptable from a Lake Lanier recreation standpoint and
the economic contribution it makes to the Georgia economy.
The lake now is at 1056’ and the low lake levels through this past
summer have had a significant impact on the lake recreational use, and those
depending on it for their employment and financial well being.
If the lake goes into the busiest recreational season at continued low
levels, recreation will be even more reduced and significant financial hardship
will be imposed on many. As you know the study report “Lake Sidney C. Lanier A Study
Of The Economic Impact Of Recreation”, done a few years ago for the Marine
Trade Association of Atlanta, shows an annual Lake Lanier recreational economic
benefit of $2 billion. The Comprehensive Study conducted for these Tri-State
negotiations show significantly reduced recreational activity at lower Lake
Levels. The September 1998 Corps of
Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement, “Water Allocation for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin” shows huge reductions in
Lake Lanier Boater Trips (Appendices Volume 2, Table F-5-32 an page F-5-34).
The study shows that the lake at 1065” produces only 51% of the boater
trips that occur at a lake level of 1071”, and the lake at 1055’ produces
only 13% of the boater trips that occur at the lake level of 1071’. The same Corps of Engineers Report shows navigation to be a
huge financial loser, and regardless of the claims in the proposed agreement
that water would not be released from Lanier for navigation, lower river
reservoir releases for navigation in a dry year would eventually cause increased
releases from Lanier to support downriver flow requirements. Although the “world famous” Apalachicola Bay oysters have
been used very successfully to convince a naive public that more water is needed
in the Apalachicola River, the oyster harvest only produces revenues of $1.5
million in a good year. That is
very small compared to the benefit of keeping more water in Lake Lanier.
Also, I have not yet seen any science that proves how much fresh water is
required at various times of the year to maximize the oyster harvest and how
that impacts annual revenues. Some in the environmental community insist that rivers should
receive natural flows. Of course,
the river system has not had natural flows since the first dam was built.
If the river system did have natural flows the extremes from high to low
flows would be much greater than they are today with the dams on the river
system, and that would probably be much more devastating to animal and plant
life than the controlled flows allowed by the dams. I notice that the recent Georgia proposal contains a minimum
flow by month in the Apalachicola River with only the month of August as low as
5,000 cfs. These minimum flows are
much greater than previous proposals that had the minimum flows at 4500 cfs for
several months. I see no harm or
other river justification for significantly lowering Lake Lanier to provide
higher flows. Professionals have
told me that, using computer simulation against history, a low Lake Lanier level
of 1055’ instead of 1065’ produces an Apalachicola river flow difference of
less than 100 cfs. I do not believe
that a 2% flow difference in the Apalachicola River makes any real difference to
anyone. We also are told that a reduction in peak power generation at
Buford Dam because of less water released just for peak power generation will
increase electric bills. Again, I
have yet to see a quantification of this, but the comment is being used very
effectively to sway the opinion of an uneducated public.
I believe the impact on electric rates would be insignificant.
Work I did eleven years ago, when the reallocation of Lanier was proposed
by the Corps of Engineers, showed the impact on average to be less than a penny
on a $170 power bill in Georgia. It appears to us that benefit facts produced by millions of
dollars in the comprehensive studies are largely being ignored.
Some people downriver will continue to ignore the facts if they can get
away with it because the facts do not support their demands.
The facts do support keeping more water in Lake Lanier.
I urge you to get these facts on the table and use them to force a fairer
agreement. It appears that politics
have much more influence on the positions of Alabama and Florida than the facts.
Their combined political strength is probably greater than Georgia’s,
and therefore Georgia will have give up more than it should to reach an
agreement based on politics. We
believe that Georgia must ensure that the facts are more important in reaching a
decision, even if that means taking the disagreement to court. I know you have a very difficult assignment in trying to
reach an agreement with Alabama and Florida.
Georgia needs more water now. Alabama
and Florida do not. The lack of
urgency on the part of Alabama and Florida gives them an advantage in seeking an
agreement with Georgia. Alabama and
Florida can afford to delay to try to get a more advantageous agreement to them
that is unfair to Georgia. I think
that is where we are now. We
believe that the recent offer Georgia has made to Alabama and Florida does give
those states more water during dry times than a fair agreement would produce. The Lake Lanier Association believes that the low Lake Lanier
levels produced in dry years by the proposed agreement to be unwise and
factually unjustified. We urge you
to correct this situation before a final agreement is reached.
Would Alabama have agreed to the ACT water allocation formula if Lake
Martin levels were similarly impacted? We would appreciate your response to this letter.
Thank you. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
The following paper was presented to the Tri-States negotiators and the newly appointed mediator on November 20, 2000. LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. PAPER PREPARED
FOR THE TRI-STATES AND MEDIATOR MEETING IN TALLAHASSEE ON NOVEMBER 20, 2000 Let me start by giving an overview of what we think is important to the decisions regarding how to allocate the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin. The challenge of water management on the ACF is to provide adequate drinking water supplies for the worst drought imaginable, and apportion water for other uses to provide the greatest total benefit. The total ACF watershed is
19,600 square miles. The Lake
Lanier watershed is 1040 square miles, or about 5% of the total ACF watershed.
Lake Lanier contains 60% of the storage on the ACF river system.
Therefore, the ACF basin is relying on 5% of its watershed to provide
most of the dry weather water supplement to the river system.
And, because of its small watershed, depleted Lake Lanier storage takes a
lot of time and rain to refill it. To really provide the 60%
storage on the ACF system, Lanier levels would have to be lowered 36 feet from
its full level of 1071 ft msl and that would cause huge quality of life and
economic repercussions in north Georgia. Therefore,
it is not at all practical to consider the top 36 feet of a full Lake Lanier as
usable storage. Computer model historical
simulations show that the Georgia Tri-States ACF water allocation proposal would
have taken Lake Lanier down to a level of 1055 during historical driest times,
which is about the lowest level actually experienced during the worst drought
(1986-1988) since the lake was filled. Alabama
and Florida proposals run on the same computer model would take the lake down to
1035. It appears that the
additional 20 feet of lake would only add 150 cfs to the drought minimum flow of
the Apalachicola River. Eliminating
continued drought insurance and Lake Lanier recreation by Lowering the lake an
additional 20 feet is not at all justified by adding 150 cfs to a proposed
minimum Apalachicola River flow of 4500 cfs. There were millions of dollars
spent to do a comprehensive study of the uses and benefits of ACF water.
Many of the results were published in a September 1998 Army Corps of
Engineers draft Environmental Impact Statement document, titled “Water
Allocation for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin.
It seems that the Alabama and Florida ACF proposals largely ignore the
findings of that multimillion-dollar comprehensive study. Also, it appears to us that
Florida and Alabama have less motivation than Georgia to come to a fair and
timely ACF water allocation agreement. Unlike
Alabama and Florida, Georgia has experienced tremendous growth in the ACF basin.
Georgia has an urgent need for the agreement, but Alabama and Florida do
not, and can afford to slow the process, perhaps hoping to get better than a
fair agreement from Georgia. The comprehensive study results show navigation on the ACF to be a financial burden that certainly does not justify the significant channel dredging and large reservoir releases required to support it. Peak power generation also
requires large reservoir releases, and we believe many of those releases are not
justified if they are primarily for power generation.
The water has greater utility when used for other purposes.
Of course, generating electric power with water released for other
purposes is the right thing to do. The comprehensive study also
shows that lower Lake Lanier levels significantly reduce recreational use of the
lake. For example, the study shows
that boater trips at a lake level of 1065 are 50% of what they are at a full
lake level of 1071. And, the study
shows that boater trips at a lake level of 1055 are only 13% of what they are at
the 1071 level. The comprehensive
study applied to a study commissioned by the Marine Trade Association of
Metropolitan Atlanta (MTAMA) in 1994, which showed the annual economic impact of
Lake Lanier recreation to be $2 Billion, indicates the significance of Lake
Lanier levels to the economy of northeast Georgia. We do not want to indicate that arriving at the allocation decisions is a simple task, but it is not complicated enough to require ten years. Perhaps political situations are so strong that a fair ACF agreement among the three states is impossible, but we hope not. We urge the three states to exercise the facts and produce a fair and objective conclusion.
LLA Meeting 2/29/00 The current discussions about how to split up the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system, of which Lake Lanier is a part, were really initiated in 1989. The Corps of Engineers proposed a reallocation of Lake Lanier waters to give Metropolitan Atlanta more of the lake’s water to satisfy its growing population demand. That proposal started a flurry of controversies. The LLA was not satisfied because the proposed reallocation would have taken Lake Lanier down to levels lower than ever experienced. Downstream folks were not pleased because they were concerned that it would decrease the flows in their rivers. Alabama sued the Corps and Florida joined the lawsuit. In 1992 the three states signed a Memorandum of agreement that contained three actions.
Since that time $20+ million have been spent on the comprehensive study. In 1997 the Governors of the three states agreed to produce a water allocation formula by the end of 1998. That date was not met so it was extended to the end of 1999. That date was not met so it was extended to the first of May 2000. If the first of May is really the deadline for everything to be done the agreement would have to be reached by the end of February, and that does not appear probable. Will there be an agreement? I don’t know. If there is no agreement there will likely be an ultimate Supreme Court decision, and that could take many years. Let me emphasize that the real time pressure is on Georgia. Georgia continues its fast paced growth, which produces a continuing increased use of water. Therefore, Georgia feels a time pressure to reach an agreement. Alabama and Florida are not growing much in these river basins, so they don’t feel the pressure of time to reach an accord. That, in my opinion, puts Georgia at a disadvantage in getting a fair agreement with the other states. I hope this disadvantage for Georgia doesn’t cause Georgia to make wrong compromises. What does this all mean to Lake Lanier? Georgia made a proposal a long time ago that was based on a philosophy of keeping as much water in the lake as possible as insurance against a drought. The thought was that we never know when a drought will occur; therefore the lake should be managed as though a drought is just around the corner so the reserves are in the reservoir when they are needed during a dry period. That proposal would have produced, on average, lake levels higher than history and low drought lake levels about the same as had been experienced during past droughts. Alabama and Florida have been pecking away at that proposal ever since, and Georgia has yielded on some points. Lake Lanier levels have been under constant attack to produce larger flows in the rivers below Buford Dam. Past proposals by both Alabama and Florida, simulated against history, would have frequently taken Lake Lanier to the bottom of its conservation pool at 1035 msl, 36 feet below the full pool of 1071 msl. Florida is still insisting on significant flows in the Apalachicola River that could take the lake down to 1035 msl. Georgia’s official position is that the lake will not go below 1055 msl, but some expert views of Georgia’s proposal conclude that, if implemented as it has been modified, it might lower the lake to 1045 msl or lower (10+ feet lower than experienced during the 1986 to 1989 drought period). It appears that Florida and Alabama are still not close to an agreement with Georgia, but who knows what the pressure of a deadline might bring, especially if this most recent deadline is real. The lake levels are still under significant pressure and we must stay on top of this activity to protect the lake.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. Presentation to the Tri-States I am Ron Seder, a Vice President of the Lake Lanier Association. I rise to speak about the water storage in Lake Lanier versus the flows in the Apalachicola River. Let me first point out that I have requested that some modeling be done to prove or disprove the validity what I am about to say to you. Normally I would wait for the modeling before making my statement, but the ACF negotiation deadline draws near, and I want to be sure that our input is considered before any final decision. It looks to us like some are determined to deplete Lake Lanier just to allow minor flow increases in the Apalachicola River, without having an adequate appreciation for the benefit trade-offs. My premise is that Lake Lanier levels can be significantly drawn down with only a minor change in the drought flows of the Apalachicola River. In talking to some of the professionals it looks like 20 vertical feet of lake level may only add about125 cfs to the flows of the Apalachicola River during drought conditions. A 20-foot annual average difference in the lake level (e.g. 1065 vs 1045) would be devastating to the Lake Lanier $2 billion economy. One can get an indication of the huge Lake Lanier area impact by analyzing the lake level versus lake visit information supplied in the Corps of Engineers ACF report. We believe the 20-foot Lake Lanier level difference is not a wise trade-off for a 125 cfs flow difference in the Apalachicola River. We think it would be very difficult for the Apalachicola River area to perceive a difference between a minimum river flow of 4375 cfs instead of 4500 cfs. So, a major negative impact to the benefits of Lake Lanier, as a lake, would result in a minor difference to the Apalachicola River area. Why is that? As you know, the Lake Lanier watershed is only 5.3 % of the total ACF watershed, which means that only about 5% of the total water generated by the ACF watershed comes from the Lake Lanier watershed. Lake Lanier contains about 61% of the conservation storage in the ACF system, and using all of that storage would require lowering lake levels by 36 feet. So when there is a drought, Lake Lanier is being asked to make up for the rainfall shortage on the other 95% of the watershed. Because the Lake Lanier watershed is so small it takes a long time to refill the lake. Therefore, there just is not enough rapidly refilled Lake Lanier storage to make a significant difference to the Apalachicola River flows during a drought. In addition to providing disaster drought insurance, I believe the other benefits to the Lake Lanier area by keeping more water in the lake far outweigh the impacts of a 3% difference in Apalachicola River flows. The Lake Lanier Association would appreciate some more concentration on this point. Sincerely, Ron Seder
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. February 5, 1998 Harold F. Reheis Dear Harold: I appreciated your invitation to present a Lake Lanier
Perspective to the last meeting of Governor’s Advisory Council. Unfortunately the
late change of the date for the meeting and questionable flying weather on the day of the
meeting prevented my attendance. I understand that we will have the opportunity to
present the Lake Lanier Perspective at the next meeting, and we welcome that. However,
that meeting is currently scheduled for April and the time for decision making is getting
short. A lot of things could happen before the April meeting, therefore, I think it is
important to write and share our Lake Lanier Perspective now. What I intend to do here is review a little history and
present an overview of our considerations for Lake Lanier water. I believe we must be
candid with one another to get the issues on the table. In that spirit I will be candid,
not in an accusing way but rather in a factual way as we see it. About eight years ago the Corps of Engineers issued a
proposed reallocation of Lake Lanier waters. During dry years that reallocation would have
taken Lake Lanier down to unprecedented low levels. The reallocation proposal hugely
understated the Lake Lanier generated economy. It indicated that recreation would be only
modestly impacted by those low lake levels, and the resultant economic impact would be
small. An earlier study showed the annual Lake generated
economy to be $400 million, which severely degraded as lake levels declined. A more recent
study shows the lake generated economy to be about $2 billion. Our analysis also showed that the power generation
losses to be caused by the proposed reallocation were significantly overstated in the
reallocation proposal. The overstatement of the power generation losses was important
because those losses were part of the economic tradeoff considerations of the reallocation
proposal. Because of the significant errors we found in the
reallocation proposal we presented our findings to several audiences, including the
Governor’s Advisory Council in its early days. We believe Lake Lanier recreation interests were
significantly underrepresented during the creation of the reallocation proposal. We could
not really identify anyone that was adequately representing recreation during the
reallocation formulation. Municipal and Industrial water supply needs were well
represented during the reallocation formulation by the ARC and State government. In fact
we felt the ARC, and some State officials were pushing so hard to get the proposed
reallocation approved that they were not interested in hearing facts that did not support
that effort. Early on we had trouble getting our presentation to the decision makers in
State government. Power generation was well represented during the
reallocation formulation by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and Oglethorpe
Power. Navigation was well represented during the reallocation
formulation by the State Port Authority and the Tri-Rivers Authority. Of course, there were others in disagreement with the
proposed reallocation, both inside and outside Georgia. As a result, the proper allocation
of water in the river systems is still being determined. Power generation and navigation interests have at times
both claimed owner rights to Lake Lanier waters because they were both were referred to as
reasons for Buford Dam in the original Congressional actions. The original official
reasons for Buford Dam were flood control, power generation and navigation. However, the world has changed a lot in the 50 years
since Congress approved the Buford Dam project. At that time the enormous growth that has
occurred in North Georgia was not envisioned. Most now know about the tremendous Atlanta
Metro growth, but many do not fully appreciate that the northward expansion of the Atlanta
metro area is encompassing Lake Lanier. Not just on the shores of Lake Lanier, but also
around and away from the shores of Lake. Gwinnett County is now about 500,000 people,
Forsyth County’s population has about doubled since the 1990 census and South Hall
County is experiencing a rapid influx of people. How many decades will it be before Lake
Lanier is completely engulfed by the suburbanization of Metropolitan Atlanta? Power generation for rural electrification was a big
deal 50 years ago. Today, commercial power is virtually available to everyone and it is
competitive with government subsidized power generation. River navigation was much more important 50 years ago.
Today, there is a network of interstate highways that is very dependable for the
transportation of goods and services. Land transportation is probably less costly if all
private and government expenditures required for river transportation are considered. Today, Lake Lanier is under pressure on many fronts.
Lake levels are pressured by all who want to take water from Lake Lanier. Lake water
quality is under pressure from increased development runoff and the desire to use Lake
Lanier for large sewer discharges. Those pressures are a serious threat to the quality and
quantity of recreation on Lake Lanier with potentially huge negative impacts to the area's
economy. The Lake is a tremendous recreational and quality of
life resource for Georgia, particularly for those in close proximity to the lake,
including all of Metropolitan Atlanta. What is that worth today? We conclude that, to
realize reasonable recreational quality of life and economic benefits, the lake level
should managed to stay above a level of 1066 m.s.l during normal years and managed to
never go below 1060 m.s.l during dry years. As we consider the allocation of the waters in our
river system the average year is not the problem. Our 50 inch annual rainfall provides
enough water to satisfy most during those years. The challenge is the dry years. The tough
job is determining how, during dry years, to manage and ration the water to provide the
best utility among all the interests. We believe water supplies should be the first
consideration. After appropriate conservation there must be enough water for human needs
and to support Georgia’s industrial economy. Beyond providing water to support a minimal
Chattahoochee River flow, power generation and navigation are by far the largest users of
Lake Lanier waters. We believe that the release of water just to generate power does not
provide the best utility of the water stored in Lake Lanier. However, It is sensible to
generate power from water released for other purposes. And, because of the possibility of
a reallocation of water releases away from power generation, we believe the decision to
now make large Buford Dam generator investments should be reconsidered. Another reason given for continuing the power
generation as a high priority for huge Buford Dam releases is that power generation
revenues have not yet paid off the Lake Lanier debt. I have also been told that revenues
have been allocated to pay the highest interest debt first, of various generation projects
in the system, regardless of age of debt or source of the revenue. Although that approach
sounds like good business it distorts the financial status of Buford Dam. However, whether
or not legitimate debt is outstanding, government can decide to pay for the debt from
taxes if that makes the most sense. We also believe the release of water just to provide a
river depth downstream to support barge traffic is not the best utility of Lake Lanier
water. That conclusion includes releases of Lake Lanier water to replenish downstream
lakes used to provide barge navigation. To summarize: the importance of Lake Lanier as a
recreational facility and the importance of the lake level to that recreational benefit is
enormously greater than presented in the 1989 proposed reallocation; after appropriate
conservation water supplies should be given high priority to Lake Lanier’s water
storage; releases of Lake Lanier waters for the purpose of only generating power and/or
only to provide a depth of channel for river navigation are not the best use of Lake
Lanier’s water. Let us all continue to move forward toward the end of
our efforts. The time has come for us to have the necessary serious debate leading to new
water allocation decisions. Sincerely,
Ronald E. Seder
|
On June 2nd I saw a
Georgia
proposal for the reallocation of Lake
The Honorable Sonny Perdue
became the Georgia Governor this year.