Note to readers: This is part IV of a series about the conflict for the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have been fighting over their allotments of ACF water since 1990. I suggest you begin with Parts I, II, and III of my Apalachicola River series in which I provide context for understanding the April 1st, 2021 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Georgia.
It’s been 50 years since state and federal authorities began studying and debating how to divvy up the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) rivers’ water among the three states that share it—Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Since then, 26 separate governors representing over 150 years of gubernatorial leadership have failed to work out a cooperative framework for sharing the waters of the ACF. Nor has there been leadership from the many corporations and utilities who depend on the ACF and have enormous influence on elections and governance.
In truth, the best planning ever done for managing the ACF arose from a small band of citizens dismayed with the ongoing failure by the powers-that-be to enact a sensible solution. The group formed in 2008, nearly two decades after litigation among the states began. Convinced that state leaders were incapable or unwilling to cooperate on developing a basin-wide management plan, the group built a grassroots alliance to develop strategies for sharing the ACF’s waters. They named themselves the ACF Stakeholders.
The group strategically divided the basin into four regions—Upper Chattahoochee River, Middle and Lower Chattahoochee River, Flint River, and Apalachicola River. Within each region they recruited leaders from a diverse range of interest groups to collaborate on designing a management plan for the ACF that everyone could support. Importantly, the ACF Stakeholders decided to govern themselves through consensus. This meant that everyone had to agree on proposed solutions.
The organization now represents 14 stakeholder interests including recreation, water supply, water quality, seafood industry, industry and manufacturing, thermoelectric power, hydroelectric power, navigation, farm and urban agriculture, local government, historic and cultural, environmental and conservation, and business and economic development. The diversity of stakeholders and a commitment to consensus made progress challenging, but their shared commitments to cooperation and sustainability were a source of inspiration and power:
“ACF Stakeholders, Inc. (ACFS) urges the citizens of this Basin to focus on that which unites, rather than divides, us. We can and must act with common purpose to manage our shared water resources sustainably.” (SWMP, 2015)
Knowing their work must be based on good science, ACF Stakeholders partnered with universities and federal agencies, and secured funding to hire scientists to fill in the gaps about what was known about the basin. They group also studied successful transboundary water management institutions from elsewhere in the U.S. and around the world.
After six years of work, the ACF Stakeholders published the Sustainable Water Management Plan for the ACF Basin. The plan has recommendations for improving ACF management immediately, and lays out a path for the research and cooperation needed to complete a more comprehensive plan. Cooperation and science are foundational to the plan:
“Water efficiency and conservation measures, creative alternatives to water control operations, predictive drought management, investment in scientific knowledge for future decisions, and transboundary coordination and cooperation offer real ways to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in this Basin” (SWMP, 2015)
The ACF Stakeholder group had done what the state governments of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida failed to do for 25 years. However, the plan could only be implemented if adopted by the three states. And when the plan was published in 2015, Florida and Georgia were in legal fisticuffs in a lawsuit before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) (Florida v. Georgia). With both states expecting to win, the lawsuit killed all incentive for the states to cooperate.
According to Brad Moore, a member of the ACF Stakeholders’ Executive Board, “When… we tried to carry forward some of our recommendations, we ran into a lot of closed doors. Lawyers didn’t want us to come forward with solutions, they wanted to be solved [sic] in the Supreme Court.”
Fast forward to today, several months after SCOTUS ruled in favor of Georgia. Many are hoping the pause in litigation creates an opportunity for cooperation. The governors of all three states are Republican, so partisanship shouldn’t be an issue. And none of them were governor when Florida instigated the most recent litigation.
I asked Gil Rogers, director of the Georgia Office of the Southern Environmental Law Center, about whether the SCOTUS decision may have changed the prospects for a cooperative agreement.
“Yes, that Sustainable Water Management Plan is a great model. It will require Georgia to come to the table in good faith and not take the Supreme Court decision as an absolute “win”, which it is not. Georgia actually has a lot to lose because of intrastate pressures on the ACF system, so this ought to be a wake-up call for all three Republican governors to come together and adopt to the recommendations agreed upon by the ACF Stakeholders.”
Brad Moore with the ACF Stakeholders is also optimistic “Now that this supreme courts case is done, we feel like the door is reopened. We are looking forward to getting things moving again.”
The three states share a new and powerful incentive to cooperate. It is more evident now than ever before that the southeastern climate is changing rapidly. Dry years and droughts (and also excessively wet years) are increasing in frequency and severity. Hot summer weather is lasting longer. Rising temperatures are causing soil water and surface water to evaporate into the atmosphere faster than before, even where rainfall is increasing. For these reasons scientists predict that river flows will decline across the Southeast this century if human-caused climate change continues at the current pace. Ditto for the landscape’s capacity to recharge its aquifers. This promises trouble for the people and ecosystems dependent on the ACF, especially during dry years and droughts. We need an ACF management plan, and we need it now.
Fortunately, one of the conclusions of the Sustainable Water Management Plan is that with cooperation among the three states and the US Army Corps of Engineers (the federal agency that controls most of the waterflow in the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola rivers), there should be enough water to meet the needs of stakeholders, even during droughts. To that end, the plan provides a set of recommendations and guidelines for preparing for drought and allocating water during droughts.
What would the ACF be like in the future if we were to manage it cooperatively and sustainably?
- As recommended by the ACF Stakeholders, the three states would form a transboundary water management institution to oversee water use in the basin. Cooperation, compromise, consensus, and mutual concern would replace the hostility fostered by endless litigation.
- The states would work closely with the federal agencies whose efforts are so important to the watershed’s health. And the three states and the federal government would ensure there is enough funding for the science needed for sustainable watershed management.
- Alabama would (finally!) adopt a comprehensive water plan and would be fully engaged in cooperative efforts to manage waters shared with its neighbors. Georgia and Florida would strengthen their water plans by adopting the best practices of sustainability and resilience.
- Communities from Atlanta to Apalachicola would have enough water during droughts due to better management of water stored and flowing in the ACF basin.
- Cities of the basin would incentivize the adoption of water-saving practices in homes, businesses, and factories. Many would adopt the practices that the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Management District developed by 2017.
- Droughts would be much less of a threat to farmers and ranchers in the ACF basin. They would use water-efficient practices and technologies such as drought-tolerant crop varieties, water efficient irrigation technologies, and conservation tillage.
- Apalachicola’s oyster fishery would thrive due to regulations and practices putting sustainable harvesting first. Improved freshwater flows to the coast would help the fishery rebound from its all-time lows in the early 2020s. Those employed in the area’s seafood industry could worry less about their livelihood because their upstream neighbors would have their back during the next drought.
- Creeks and rivers of the basin would flow with an abundance of clean water during the dry periods. River and swamp ecosystems would recover. Plant and animal species whose populations once struggled would thrive.
- Lakeside communities and the recreation industry would enjoy a more secure and predictable future. During droughts, declines in lake water quality and quantity would be minimal.
- And most importantly, the children of the 2020’s and those that came later will not inherit the ugly mess of social and environmental problems that previous generations had created and perpetuated.
These are tantalizing peeks of a future we could have if our leadership—especially in government and the private sector—put people before profits, listened to scientists, renounced tribalism and casteism, and prioritized long-term security and prosperity over the next election cycle or quarterly report.
The mismanagement of our rivers—and the covid-19 epidemic, the social justice movement, and the escalating climate crisis—dramatically showcase ways our uniquely American blend of democracy and capitalism is dysfunctional.
When governments and the free market fail to provide for society’s needs, the citizenry must step in and make change happen. The work of the ACF Stakeholders group shows how citizens with diverse backgrounds, political affiliations, and interests can come together and begin building a better future for us all.
Fixing the ACF basin won’t be easy. Nor will it be easy to fix the many other problems plaguing us. That’s why you and I must join with others in our communities make good things happen. It is the right thing to do. We’ll be better off than we are today. And our survival depends on it.
* * *
Special thanks to Gil Rogers with the Southern Environmental Law Center for sharing with me his thoughts on the SCOTUS judgement. Thanks also to the Alabama Rivers Alliance for their Water Is Life webinar series.
How to Help
Recommend this blog and the ACF series to others who might be interested.
Join the ACF Stakeholders! If you are person, organization, or business wanting to support the work of the ACF Stakeholders, then join the coalition. Members must either reside in the ACF basin or reside in communities receiving water transferred from the ACF basin.
Donate! Anyone can donate to the ACF Stakeholders group to support their work.
If you live in Alabama, Georgia, or Florida, write your elected representatives and ask them to read the ACF Stakeholder’s executive summary of their Sustainable Water Management Plan. Urge them to initiate a dialog with their colleagues and counterparts in the other two states about the ideas in the plan. Find your representatives here.
Learn More
Read the ACF Stakeholder’s Sustainable Water Management Plan for the ACF Basin
Learn more about the ACF Stakeholder group and subscribe to their newsletter.
Watch these Water Is Life webinars from the Alabama Rivers Alliance:
“On the Chattahoochee River with Chattahoochee Riverkeeper and ACFS (Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders)” June 30, 2020. Interview with Brad Moore, from the Executive Board of the ACF Stakeholders, Inc. group and Dr. Chris Manganiello, Policy Director of the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper
“The Water Wars with Georgia Ackerman (Apalachicola Riverkeeper), Brad Moore (ACF Stakeholders) and Gil Rogers (SELC)” April 27, 2021.