AquaPedia Case Study Database - User contributions [en]

Georgia Water Stewardship Act

2013-02-26T09:18:38Z

Lkuhl01: Created page with "[http://Georgia%20Water%20Stewardship%20Act http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/Water/SB370%20rpt%20review%20Final.pdf]"

{{Agreement
|Included Resource=
|Included Riparian=
|Water Projects Included in Agreement=
|Related Initiatives=
|Projects Influenced by Agreement=
|Previous Agreement=
|External Links={{External Link
|Link Text=Water Stewardship Act Final Report on State Agency Activities
|Link Address=http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/Water/SB370%20rpt%20review%20Final.pdf
|Link Description=Practices, Programs, Policies, Rules, and Regulations to Encourage Voluntary Water Conservation and
Enhance the State’s Water Supply Final Report on StateAgencyActivities
}}
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}
[http://Georgia%20Water%20Stewardship%20Act http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/Water/SB370%20rpt%20review%20Final.pdf]

Flint River Watershed Coalition

2013-02-26T09:17:07Z

Lkuhl01: Created page with "[http://Flint%20River%20Watershed%20Coalition http://flintriver.org/blog/]"

{{Water Project
|Is built=organizational
|Purpose=coordinate on matters related to a resource or group of resources, provide education or outreach, other advisory structure
|Project Type=
|Project In Riparian=
|Project in Basin=Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
|Project on River=
|Capacity Rating=
|Storage Capacity=
|Reservoir=
|Desal Production Capacity=
|Treatment Capacity=
|Start Date=1997
|Data References=<ref> From their website, [http://www.flintriver.org] accessed February 2013 </ref>
|Associated Water Project=
|External Links={{External Link
|Link Text=Flint River Watershed Coalition
|Link Address=http://www.flintriver.org
|Link Description=From their "about" page: "The Flint River Watershed Coalition was formed in the fall of 1997 and is a collaboration between educational institutions, local government, local business, environmental groups, and concerned citizens who feel strongly that the Flint River and its tributaries are a vital resource we all need to protect. The FRWC was incorporated as a non-profit 501c3 organization in August of 1998."
}}
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}
[http://Flint%20River%20Watershed%20Coalition http://flintriver.org/blog/]

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-26T09:16:14Z

Lkuhl01:

{{Case Study
|Geolocation=33.6686111, -84.4397222
|Population=6.7
|Area=21,900
|Climate=Dry-summer; temperate
|Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, agricultural- confined livestock operations
|Water Use=Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Fisheries - wild
|Water Feature={{Link Water Feature
|Water Feature=Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
}}
|Riparian={{Link Riparian
|Riparian=United States of America
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Georgia (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Alabama
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Florida
}}
|Water Project={{Link Water Project
|Water Project=Flint River Watershed Coalition
}}
|Agreement={{Link Agreement
|Agreement=Flint River Basin Plan
}}{{Link Agreement
|Agreement=Georgia Water Stewardship Act
}}
|REP Framework=The ACF (Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint River) Basin is one of the most contentious watersheds in the world. The basin’s waters originate in northern Georgia, travel through eastern Alabama and flow out through the Florida panhandle into the Apalachicola Bay. Atlanta, the region’s economic hub, is located upstream and is one of the basin’s predominantusers of water. Southern Georgia and Alabama are heavily agricultural, and demand significant
amounts of water for irrigation. Downstream, the basin’s waters play a key role in Florida’s fisheries and the ecological health of the Apalachicola Bay. The failure to reconcile these competing interests and uses for water has made water management in the basin highly contentious, a problem that is further complicated by water quality issues associated with insufficient wastewater treatment and agricultural runoff throughout the basin.

Conflict over water in the ACF has been studied extensively by academics and practitioners, and numerous proposals for how to improve management of the basin and reduce conflict have been made. Proposed approaches for addressing the basin’s conflict can be summarized as focusing on: 1) institutional arrangements between states, 2) dam operating policies, and 3) water consumption in Atlanta. Institutional arrangements have attempted to develop cooperative management committees in the hope that, through negotiation, the parties involved in the conflict could come to agreement. These arrangements have taken various forms, including at Tri-State Compact, which was—as mandated by the Supreme Court in 1997—supported by a mediation process. A joint-fact finding process has also been undertaken. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has attempted to meet competing water uses through the dam operating policies. The Chattahoochee River has 13 dams, and the timing of the releases from these dams influence the available water throughout the basin. The third major approach has been to target water consumption in Atlanta. As a rapidly developing industrial center, Atlanta’s water consumption has risen significantly over the past several decades, causing concern among other stakeholders. Because Atlanta is located in the upper portion of the watershed, the logic is that if Atlanta reduces its consumption, more water will be available for downstream uses. Unfortunately, to date, none of these approaches have successfully resolved the conflict.

In 1990 Alabama sued the Army Corps of Engineers for management of Lake Lanier, and the case has been a source of ongoing litigation ever since. Given that the case has been involved in litigation for over 20 years and repeated attempts to resolve the conflict have failed,<ref name="ARC 2012">Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). (2012, February 15). Tri-State Wars. http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/tri-state-water-wars</ref> it appears that new approaches for resolving this conflict are needed. This need is intensified by the fact that climate change may lead to more frequent and more severe droughts and water shortages in the basin, which is likely to further exacerbate conflict if tense relations in the ACF aren’t addressed.

=== The Role of the USACE ===

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates 5 multi-purpose reservoir projects in the ACF. These are congressionally authorized projects, and a major purpose of the USACE’s management of these reservoirs is to balance the lake levels within the system as to ensure water for hydropower operations and navigation purposes.<ref name="USACE-web-1"> USACE Mobile District Websites “ACF - Project Background” accessed October 2013 http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/PlanningEnvironmental/ACFMasterWaterControlManualUpdate/ACFProjectBackground.aspx</ref> The original Master Water Control Manual (WCM) for USACE’s reservoir operations in the ACF was published in 1958. Water Control Operations Manuals for each reservoir have received updates since then. However, a 1989 draft update to the WCM which included releases for addressing Georgia’s water supply request for Metro Atlanta was the initial spark leading to a decade of contentious litigation involving the three states and USACE.

A major question in the litigation for the ACF basin was ''does the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have the authority to operate the Lake Lanier/Buford Dam to accommodate metro-Atlanta’s water supply requests?'' A 2009 court decision expressed that water supply is not a purpose of USACE’s reservoir management, however this was overturned in 2011.

As part of the ongoing effort to develop a new Master Water Control Manual, the USACE has been preparing updated documents to inform reservoir operations in the basins. This includes studies such as a technical assessment for system modelling, a hydropower operations study, and a basin-wide environmental impact statement (forthcoming). An updated Master Water Control Manual is expected within a few years. <ref name=USACE-web-1 /><ref name="USACE-web-2"> USACE Mobile District Websites “ACF - FAQ” accessed October 2013 http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/PlanningEnvironmental/ACFMasterWaterControlManualUpdate/ACFFAQ.aspx</ref>

The USACE’s role is limited by the scope of their operations. They can effectively control flows (water quantity) downstream of storage projects (Lake Lanier/Buford, Water F. George, West Point) and manage the lakes to maintain and certain range of water levels. While this controls how water moves within the river system, it doesn’t address the quantity or quality of return flows from non-consumptive uses or other withdrawals outside of their authority.

=== Water for Energy Production ===

Thermoelectric power generation is the largest water source for water withdrawal in the basin; however most of this water is returned to the source. Over 88% of water withdrawals for power generation are used for once-through cooling. <ref name="Marella2011">Marella, R., & Fanning, J. (2011). Water Withdrawals, Wastewater Discharge, and Water Consumption in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, 2005, and Water-Use Trends, 1970–2005. pubs.usgs.gov. Reston, Virginia. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5130/</ref>.

=== Public Water Supply ===

Public supply accounts for 30% of total water withdrawals in the basin (609 Mgal/d for ground and surface sources). Of the 545 Mgal/d surface water withdrawals for public supply in 2005, approximately 68% of withdrawals served Metro Atlanta counties, with almost 60% of withdrawals attributed to three counties (Fulton, Gwinnett, DeKalb). Complicating matters, of the 4.317 million Metro Atlanta residents served by public water supply withdrawals from the ACF , about one-fourth lived outside of the basin. In 2005, municipal wastewater returns totaled 413 Mgal/d, suggesting that a significant portion of basin withdrawals eventually returned to the basin. <ref name="Marella2011" />

=== Agriculture ===
Basin wide, 18% of water withdrawals in 2005 were for agricultural irrigation. Between 1970 and 2005, the acreage of irrigated crops increased significantly.<ref name="Marella2011" /> The majority of water withdrawals for agriculture are from groundwater sources. Good quantitative of how ground and surface water sources interact within the basin is currently being produced as part the United States Geological Survey SGS Water Census and WaterSMART program.<Ref name="USGS Progress">Alley, W.M., Evenson, E.J., Barber, N.L., Bruce, B.W., Dennehy, K.F., Freeman, M.C., Freeman, W.O., Fischer, J.M., Hughes, W.B., Kennen, J.G., Kiang, J.E., Maloney, K.O., Musgrove, MaryLynn, Ralston, Barbara, Tessler, Steven, and Verdin J.P., 2013, Progress toward establishing a national assessment of water availability and use: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1384, 34 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1384 </ref>

Along the Flint River in Georgia, agriculture is an economic driver and agriculture is responsible for the majority of the basin's water use. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources acknowledges that agriculture "is the economic engine of southwest Georgia, and water is the basis of successful agriculture."<ref name="GA DNR EPD 2006">Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. (2006) Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. March 20, 2006. online: http://www1.gadnr.org/frbp/Assets/Documents/Plan22.pdf</ref> It is the most heavily irrigated area in the basin: in the lower Flint over 90% of the water used is for agriculture.<ref name="GA DNR EPD 2006"/> Flint River Basin water management is largely centered on providing sufficient and consistent flows for agricultural uses, with less attention to water conservation, efficiency measures, or concern for other water uses throughout the larger ACF Basin.

The Flint River is one of Georgia’s largest agricultural production areas, with revenue contributions estimated at $5.8 billion in 2006, 34% of the regional economy.<ref name="Couch 2006"> Couch, C., & McDowell, R. J. (2006). Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection. </ref> Cotton is the major commodity produced. Pecans require water throughout most the year, and vegetables and corn have seasonal spikes in the spring. Cotton and peanuts have peak water rdemand in the summer months, which places them in direct competition with other basin demands that also peak during this time (fisheries and recreational uses).

=== Reservoir Operations Impacting Recreation and Property Owners ===

Waterfront property owners and businesses that rely on lake recreation activities are concerned with water levels not only to maintain levels that are conducive to recreation activities and maintain the aesthetic qualities of reservoirs but also because low or inconsistent lake levels can impact shoreline erosion and the impact longevity of built structures (such as docks).<ref name="USACE March 2013"/>

=== Environmental Flows ===

While minimum flows to sustain the Apalachicola Bay oyster fishery have received significant media attention,<ref name=NYT> Alvarez, L. June 2 2013. A Fight Over Water, and to Save a Way of Life New York Times (Page A9, New York Edition) accessed online September 2013:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/us/thirst-for-fresh-water-threatens-apalachicola-bay-fisheries.html </ref> there are other species in the basin that have specific water quality and quanity requirements.

==Timeline of Water Conflict in the ACF Basin==

{{{!}} class="wikitable" style="width: 95%;"
{{!}}-
! scope="col" width="12%" {{!}} Start
! scope="col" width="70%" {{!}} Event Description
! scope="col" width="12%" {{!}} End (if Applicable)
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1952 {{!}}{{!}} The opening of Lake Seminole and Jim Woodruff Dam on the Apalachicola River, 107 miles north of the mouth of the bay. The stated purposes for this dam/reservoir included hydroelectric power generation, navigation, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife conservation Dates indicate construction + opening.<ref name="USACE March 2013"> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (March 2013) Final Updated Scoping Report Environmental Impact Statement Update of the Water Control Manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia online
http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Portals/46/docs/planning_environmental/acf/docs/1ACF%20Scoping%20Report_Mar2013.pdf </ref> {{!}}{{!}} 1957
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1956 {{!}}{{!}} USACE completes Buford Dam on the Chattahoochee River, creating Lake Lanier. Originally developed for flood management, hydropower, and navigation, the purpose of the lake was modified through P.L. No. 84-841 (70 Stat. 725) in 1956 authorizing storage for Gwinnett County's water supply <ref name="USACE March 2013"/> {{!}}{{!}} 1957
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1962 {{!}}{{!}} West Point Lake and Dam (USACE managed) are authorized (Chatahoochee River, along AL-GA border) for "flood risk management, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife conservation" on the Chattahoochee river, along the AL-GA Border<ref name="USACE March 2013"/> {{!}}{{!}} 1975
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1963 {{!}}{{!}} George W. Andrews Lock and Dam are created as a navigation project, 154 miles north of Appalachicola bay<ref name="USACE March 2013"/> {{!}}{{!}} 1963
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1963{{!}}{{!}} Walter F. George Lake, also known as Lake Eufaula, is authorized the on Chattahoochee, 183 miles north of Apalachicola Bay. It's stated purposes included hydroelectric power generation, navigation, recreation, water quality and fish and wildlife conservation.<ref name="USACE March 2013"/> {{!}}{{!}} 1963
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1970 {{!}}{{!}} Rapid population growth in Atlanta’s metropolitan area caused increasing water demand (region’s water withdrawal grew from 289 mgd in 1980 to 606 mgd in 2000) {{!}}{{!}} ongoing<ref name="Atlanta Business Chronicle 2012">"Couret, J. Aug 9, 2012 ARC: Metro Atlanta population hits 4.17 million" ''Atlanta Business Chronicle'' http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2012/08/09/arc-metro-atlanta-population-hits.html?page=all </ref>
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1989 {{!}}{{!}} USACE issue a draft report recommending reallocation of 529 mgd of water from Lake Lanier to meet Atlanta’s water need through 2010 {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1990{{!}}{{!}}Alabama and Florida file suit to stop USACE from reallocating water on the basis that the diversions failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Later, Georgia joined the lawsuit as a fourth party to assert its sovereign right to control its water resources. {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1990 (September) {{!}}{{!}} Three states and the Corps agreed to pursue a negotiated solution, and the Alabama case was stayed.<ref name="Florida DEP 2009"> Florida DEP 2009 "Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System (ACF) Timeline of Action As of July 27, 2009" Accessed online October 2013: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/acf/timeline.htm</ref> {{!}}{{!}} 1957
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1991 {{!}}{{!}} Three states signed an agreement to undertake information-gathering in advance of negotiations and later joined as equal partners in the negotiations. Technical consultants and advisors were agreed upon, a financial pool was created, and officials from all four parties administered these funds. {{!}}{{!}} 1992
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1993 (March) {{!}}{{!}} The three states sign an agreement to undertake information-gathering in advance of negotiations and later joined as equal partners in the negotiations. Technical consultants and advisors were agreed upon, a financial pool was created, and officials from all four parties administered these funds. {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1997 (November 20) {{!}}{{!}} ACF River Basin Compact is formalized. The comission consisted of a member representing each state (appointed by the governor) and a non-voting federalrepresentative, appointed by the President {{!}}{{!}} 1957
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1998 {{!}}{{!}} Distrust amongst the parties slowed initial progress. 1998 gubernatorial elections caused additional slow down as new administrations set priorities. Deadline for the negotiations were extended multiple times. Georgia was the holdout as they would not agree to an specific minimum flow conditions. The federal representative recommended they find a mediator. {{!}}{{!}} 2000 (August)
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2000 (November) {{!}}{{!}} Compact Negotiations continue, and deadlines are extended, but no decision is reached. {{!}}{{!}} 2003 (August)
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2000 (December) {{!}}{{!}}Southeastern Federal Power Customers (SeFPC), a group of power distributors in metropolitan Atlanta, filed suit against the Corps for allocating more water to Atlanta than was authorized under the Water Supply Act. Under the settlement agreement, the Corps promised to provide metropolitan Atlanta with at least twenty years of interim water supply storage. Atlanta agreed to compensate SeFPC for these allocations. A Settlement was reached in January 2003, and approved by D.C. Federal Court in February 2004. The Settlement Agreement included a proposal for the USACE to enter into interim water storage contracts at Lake Lanier for several municipalities and local governments, with the potential for the interim water storage contracts to roll over to permanent reallocation storage contracts in the future.{{!}}{{!}} 2003-2004
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2003 {{!}}{{!}} Alabama and Florida reactivate previous litigation and file new litigation to prevent USACE from implementing any changes in reservoir operations {{!}}{{!}} 2005
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2003 {{!}}{{!}} Alabama and Florida, unaware of the deal with SeFPC, expressed outrage over the “secret settlement” and filed to have the settlement agreement overturned. They threatened to pull out of negotiations. Injunction granted and then lifted in 2005 {{!}}{{!}} 2005
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2006 (March) {{!}}{{!}} Court-ordered mediation between parties is initiated {{!}}{{!}} 2007 (March)
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2007 (November) {{!}}{{!}}The "governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia met with executive branch leaders (Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ], Chief of Engineers) to discuss strategies for developing solutions to the decades-long water wars among the three states. The resulting discussions focused primarily on the ACF system and the need for the states to agree on a drought water-management plan. The mutually agreed-upon deadline was March 1, 2008. The parties did not reach an agreement, and negotiations ended on the agreed deadline."<ref name="USACE March 2013"/> {{!}}{{!}} 2007 (March)
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2009 {{!}}{{!}} Federal Judge Paul Magnuson rules that water supply was never an official purpose of Lake Lanier and metro-Atlanta cannot access additional water withdrawals. Sets summer 2012 deadline for the states to come to agreement on water use. {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2009 {{!}}{{!}} ACF Stakeholders incorporated to "seek sustainable water management solution" {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2011 (June) {{!}}{{!}}2009 Court decision is overturned by 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, granting USACE the authority to grant Georgia's request for increased withdrawals from Lake Lanier. U.S. Court of Appeals reverses MDL District Court Order {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2012 {{!}}{{!}} Oyster Fishery Collapse in Apalachicola Bay. Researchers have linked this to diminished freshwater flow into the bay. Some portion of diminished flow was due to drought in the basin. {{!}}{{!}} 2013
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2012 (October) {{!}}{{!}} USACE published intent to revise EIS scope to "consider a broader range of water supply alternatives, include both current levels of water supply withdrawals and increased withdrawals from Lae Lanier and Downstream at Atlanta."{{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2013 (October 1) {{!}}{{!}} Florida files a lawsuit against Georgia, seeking ensured steady water supply to support the environmental flows required to support bay ecosystems {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2013 (October 7) {{!}}{{!}} ACF Stakeholders press release calls on Florida Governor to "delay any further legal action or pursuit of current lawsuit" and announces that they will be releasing the results of a sustainable water plan that has been in development since 2010. {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2014 {{!}}{{!}} USACE expects to publish the Final EIS and Record of Decision in late 2014 {{!}}{{!}}
{{!}}}
|Issues={{Issue
|Issue=Maintaining water supply for agriculture and irrigation
|Issue Description=Variables:
1. Water quantity (water supply)
2. Assets (agricultural industry, regional economy)
3. Governance (agricultural policies and permitting systems)

Stakeholders:
1. Farmers and livestock operators (industry)
2. State of Georgia (territorial government)
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Industry/Corporate Interest
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Ensuring sufficient water for upstream municipal and industrial uses
|Issue Description=Variables:
1. Water quantity (water supply)
2. Assets (agricultural industry, regional economy)
3. Governance (agricultural policies and permitting systems)

Stakeholders:
1. City of Atlanta (local government)
2. Atlanta Regional Council (intergovernmental coordination agency)
3. State of Georgia (territorial government)
4. US Army Corp of Engineers (national government)
5. residents of Atlanta (community)
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Maintaining ecological health and sustaining fisheries in Florida’s Apalachicola Bay
|Issue Description=Variables:
1. Water quantity (water supply)
2. Assets (urban development and economic activity)
3. Governance (water management and storage policies/plans)

Stakeholders:
1. Fisherman (industry)
2. State of Florida (territorial government)
3. US Department of the Interior (national government)
4. US Environmental Protection Agency (national government)
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Industry/Corporate Interest
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Inter-state political tension
|Issue Description=Variables:
1. Ecosystem (fishery and bay ecosystem health)
2. Water quality (quality of water in streams and entering bay)
3. Governance (compliance with environmental protection policies and mandates)

Stakeholders:
1. State of Georgia (territorial government)
2. State of Alabama (territorial government)
3. State of Florida (territorial government
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Ecosystems; Governance
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government
}}
|Key Questions={{Key Question
|Subject=Balancing Industries & Sectors
|Key Question - Dams=
|Key Question - Urban=
|Key Question - Transboundary=
|Key Question - Desalination=
|Key Question - Influence=
|Key Question - Industries=What role can agricultural subsidies play in finding solutions to complex water management problems?
|Key Question Description=1. Do agricultural subsidies influence water use in the Flint River Basin?
Our analysis shows that agricultural subsidies play a key role in influencing what crops farmers grow, thereby directly affecting water use in the basin.

2. Can agricultural subsidies potentially be used to improve water management and reduce conflict in the ACF basin?
This analysis suggests that altering national subsidies for certain crops could significantly reduce agricultural water requirements in the Flint, thereby freeing up water for other uses in the ACF and potentially reducing conflict.

3. Can agricultural policy and management—particularly subsidies—promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins?
The case of the Flint River Basin suggests that agricultural policies and management strategies, such as direct subsidies to farmers, can be used to reduce water demand and potentially promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins.

See [[ASI:Agricultural Subsidies | the article Agricultural Subsidies]] for more information on agricultural subsidies within the Flint River Basin
}}{{Key Question
|Subject=Influence Leadership and Power
|Key Question - Dams=
|Key Question - Urban=
|Key Question - Transboundary=
|Key Question - Desalination=
|Key Question - Influence=How do national policies influence water use at the local level?
|Key Question - Industries=
|Key Question Description=This case study indicates that national policies, such as government subsidies for certain crops, can significantly influence water use at the local level. By altering subsidies to encourage farmers to grow more water-efficient crops, national policy could potentially support more sustainable water use. However, it is important to keep in mind that changing government agricultural subsidies will have many other social and economic effects that must be considered.
}}
|Summary=Water management in the ACF has long been a highly contentious issue. Conflict over water in the ACF is largely driven by three competing demands: water for urban and industrial uses (water quantity, assets, and governance) in upstream Atlanta, agricultural water needs (water quantity and assets) in southern Georgia, and water for ecological and
fisheries needs (ecosystems, water quantity, water quality) in Florida’s Apalachicola Bay. While conflict in the ACF has received significant attention, the potential of improved agricultural policy and management to create water savings in the Basin has received surprisingly little attention. This analysis addresses the following questions: 1) Do agricultural subsidies influence water use in the Flint River Basin and can direct subsidies be used to potentially reduce conflict
over water in the ACF Basin? 2) Can agricultural policy and management promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins? The case finds that agricultural subsidies play an important role in farmer choice about which crops to grow, thereby indirectly influencing water use. For this reason, altering agricultural subsidies and encouraging farmers to grow more water efficient crops can greatly improve water use in the ACF and other water-stressed basins. In water-stressed basins with significant agricultural activity, attention should be paid to the role of local and national agricultural policies—including crop subsidies—in driving water use. Particularly as climate change exacerbates water tensions, opportunities to increase the efficiency of water use needs to be seriously considered.
|Topic Tags=
|External Links=
|Case Review=
{{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=Yes
|Expand Section=Yes
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}} }}

Flint River Basin Plan

2013-02-26T09:11:42Z

Lkuhl01: Created page with "[http://www.gadnr.org/frbp/index.html Flint River Basin Plan]"

{{Agreement
|Agreement Type=non-binding, sub-national
|Included Resource={{Link Water Feature
|Water Feature=Flint River
}}{{Link Water Feature
|Water Feature=Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
}}
|Included Riparian={{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Georgia (U.S.)
}}
|Water Projects Included in Agreement=
|Related Initiatives=
|Projects Influenced by Agreement=
|Previous Agreement=
|External Links={{External Link
|Link Text=Flint River Basin Plan
|Link Address=http://www.gadnr.org/frbp/index.html
|Link Description=Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan Published March 20, 2006 Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division
}}
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-26T09:10:14Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-12T09:01:13Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-12T08:49:23Z

Lkuhl01:

ASI:Agricultural Subsidies

2013-02-12T08:43:38Z

Lkuhl01:

{{ASI
|First Contributor=L. Kuhl
|Reflection Text=Agricultural production has received far less attention than other water uses in the ACF, and agricultural management has been largely overlooked as a source of potential means of addressing the basin’s water issues. This is surprising, given that agriculture is generally a relatively inefficient user of water and may offer significant “low-hanging fruit” for water savings. Since agriculture is a dominant user of water in the ACF and the primary use of water in the Flint River sub-basin,<ref name="GA DNR EPD 2006">Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. (2006) Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. March 20, 2006. </ref> attention should be paid to how agricultural policies and management can be used to improve water management in the basin.

Can agricultural policies, mainly rethinking subsidies, encourage water savings in the Flint River Basin, thereby helping to address basin-wide conflict in the ACF? Agriculture in the Flint River Basin is heavily subsidized. If direct subsidies heavily influence farmer decisions about which crops to grow, the question of what impact this has on Flint River Basin water use must be considered. Additionally, it seems likely that redirecting government subsidies could potentially improve agricultural water use in the Flint and elsewhere by encouraging farmers to grow less water intensive crops. Changes in subsidies could create incentives to grow different crops, thereby using water more effectively, increasing the resilience of the basin, and reducing the potential for conflict.

=== Agriculture in the Flint ===

The Flint River Basin, part of the greater ACF Basin, is located in southern Georgia. It is the most heavily irrigated area in the basin; where in the lower Flint over 90% of the water used is for agriculture.<ref name="GA DNR EPD 2006">Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. (2006) Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. March 20, 2006. </ref>
Flint River Basin water management is largely centered on providing sufficient and consistent flows for agricultural uses, with relatively little attention to water conservation, efficiency measures, or concern for other water uses throughout the larger ACF Basin.

The Flint River is one of Georgia’s largest agricultural production areas, with revenue contributions estimated at $5.8 billion in 2006, 34% of the regional economy.<ref name="Couch 2006"> Couch, C., & McDowell, R. J. (2006). Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection. </ref> Cotton is the major commodity produced. Pecans require water throughout most the year, and vegetables and corn have seasonal spikes in the spring. Cotton and peanuts have peak demand in the summer months, which places them in direct competition with other basin demands that also peak during this time (fisheries and recreational uses).

In 2008-09, subsidized commodities show basin-wide losses, a reflection of a simplification made to include only direct payment subsidies in this analysis.<ref name="UGA 2009">University of Georgia (2009). 2009 Georgia Farm Gate Value Report. Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. </ref> <ref name="USDA 2009b">USDA. (2009b, October 9). Farm Program Acres Data Download. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from USDA Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/baseacres/Download.aspx </ref><ref name="USDA 2009c">USDA. (2009c). Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2008 Summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.</ref> Since capital costs are so high for commodities, farmers will continue to produce such crops even in years following a loss, as long as profits can be expected in the future. As confirmed by economic reports, 2008-09 was an especially difficult year for pecans;<ref name="CNN 2011">CNNMoney. (2011, November 9). Pecan prices set to pop 22%. CNNMoney, p. 1.</ref> however, the price of pecans was expected to be 57% higher in 2012, a sign of how sensitive the market is to external forces (in this case demand from China).

=== Agricultural Subsidies ===

The United States pays $10 billion to $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers per year, 90% of which goes to 5 crops (wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton).<ref name="Edwards 2009">Edwards C. (2009). Agricultural Subsidies. Cato Institute. Available at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sites/default/files/agriculture-subsidies_0.pdf </ref> In addition to this, $5 billion is spent per year on indirect subsidies. Indirect subsidies include crop insurance, marketing support, statistical services, and research and development. In 2007, the last year for which an agricultural census is available for Georgia, a total of $224,523,000 in government payments was paid to farmers in Georgia. Considering that total farm income from the same year was $211,673,000,<ref name="USDA 2009a">USDA. (2009a). Agricultural Prices 2008 Summary. United States Dept of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. </ref> it is clear that government payments are essential to the agricultural industry. Based on these data, it appears that agriculture in Georgia is not viable without government support.

There are numerous types of agricultural subsidies. The major types of subsidies are described below.

==== Subsidy Types ====

*Direct payments: Based on a historical measure of a farm’s acreage used for production. It is not based on current production of prices
*Marketing Loans: Guarantees minimum prices for crops by creating and floor and reducing price variability
*Countercyclical Payments: Provides larger payments when market prices are lower
*Conservation Subsidies: Offered on a per acre basis to farmers for conservation purposes. Farmers are incentivized not to farm and to grow cover crops instead
*Insurance (Yield and Revenue): Provided to private insurance companies to lower rates for farmers. Crops with higher premiums due to greater risk are more highly subsidized.
*Disaster Aid: Offered whenever a state of disaster has been declared
*Export Subsidies: Intended to help US farmers compete with products from other countries with subsidies
*Agricultural Research and Statistical Services: Government-sponsored research and statistical services provide better information to farmers

==== Pros and Cons of Agricultural Subsidies ====

Agricultural policy is one of the most contentious areas of policy-making, both domestically and internationally, which may explain why agriculture has been relatively under-addressed in the ACF conflict. Most developed countries subsidize agricultural production, and it is one of the few sectors where barriers to trade have not been relaxed. Although agricultural subsidies are a key issue in negotiations for the World Trade Organization, they continue to be excluded from the WTO agreements. Apart from the strong agricultural lobby, there are multiple legitimate reasons to subsidize agriculture. One rationale is that farmers take on personal risks in order to feed the nation, and because they are providing a social good (food), some of this risk should be distributed through society. Another argument is that although every business venture has risk, weather is a less predictable type of business risk, and therefore deserves to be subsidized. A third rationale is that subsidies have regional not just individual benefits, benefiting society<ref name="Adler 2012">Adler, RW. 2012 Balancing Compassion and Risk in Climate Adaptation: U.S. Water, Drought and Agricultural Law Florida Law Review 64: 201-267.</ref>. In spite of these legitimate reasons to utilize subsidies as a policy tool to incentive agricultural production, current subsidies are critiqued for several reasons. One argument is that they create a negative feedback loop, perpetuating the system of subsidy support. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down commodity prices, which in turn, necessitates additional subsidies.<ref name="Edwards 2009"/> Another major critique is that US agricultural subsidies negatively impact food prices and farmer welfare throughout the world. The causal logic for this is the following: non-specific commodity transfers increase production overall by increasing farmer wealth and subsequent agricultural investment. By increasing farmer production, US exports increase and world prices decline because there is greater supply than demand.<ref name="Young 2000">Young CE and Westcott PC (2000). How Decoupled Is U.S. Agricultural Support for Major Crops? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 762–767</ref> Other subsidy programs (such as direct crop subsidies) which are linked to the production of specific crops not only increase the total land in production and quantity of crops produced, but they also distort the mix of crops that are grown<ref name="Young 2000"/>. It is this issue that we address in this analysis.

==== Farmer Decision-Making and the Impact of Subsidies ====

When considering the impact that subsidies have on farmer decision-making, it is helpful to look at microeconomic models of decision-making. In its most simple form, production decisions by farmers can be thought of as a decision based on the level of government payments and the expected marketplace returns of production. Because expected marketplace returns are significantly lower than the costs of production, the decision to produce (and what to produce) is heavily influenced by the level of government payments.<ref name="Young 2000"/>

For land-constrained farmers, the model leads to an expectation of crop-switching in response to the level of government payments and expected marketplace returns. For farmers with additional land, the expectation is an expansion in cropland for those crops that are highly subsidized.<ref name="Young 2000"/> Direct payments represent the largest category of subsidies. The advantage of this type of payment is that since its not based on current production or prices, there is less economic distortion. The problem, however, is that it means that subsidies can go to people who are not currently farming.<ref name="Edwards 2009"/>

Subsidies increase the farmer’s ability to get loans, because the subsidies represented a guaranteed source of income. In addition to being able to get loans, the guaranteed income may make farmers more willing to make riskier investments.<ref name="Young 2000"/> Because farmers tend to be risk averse, mechanisms that reduce risk may allow farmers to make better investment decisions, leading to improved productivity or efficiency. However, if the subsidies mask risk and allow farmers to make decisions that discount risk, they may invest in riskier decisions than would be ideal. To the extent that subsidies include premium payments or include loans, they can provide incentives to reduce drought vulnerability<ref name="Adler 2012" />.

In addition to direct payments, government programs that reduce risk can change farmer expectations and decision-making. For example, if a farmer expects that future payments will be based on current payments, they may keep production high in order to ensure future payments, even if they are not interested in producing now.<ref name="Young 2000"/> Another example is subsidized insurance. Although insurance is offered through private insurance companies, the government reduces the risk for the private insurers, allowing them to offer lower premiums to farmers. The amount of subsidies for the premiums are directly linked to the level of risk associated with a crop (ie, the higher the risk, the higher the subsidy).<ref name="Young 2000"/> In this way, insurance subsidies reduce the risk experienced by farmers. Between 1991 and 2000 farmers paid $7.8 billion in insurance premiums and received payouts worth $14.7 billion, a net benefit of $6.9 billion.<ref name="Young 2001">Young CE, Vandeveer ML, and Schnepf RD. (2001) Production and Price Impacts of U.S. Crop Insurance Programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 1196–1203</ref> Young et al. (2001) modeled the impact of removing the federal crop insurance on crop decisions. They found that removing the insurance subsidies led to an increase in corn by 29,000 acres, and an increase in cotton of 59,000 acres, as farmers shift away from riskier crops. We do not look at the impact of crop insurance on decision-making in our analysis, but the literature suggests that this is an additional policy that could contribute to farmer decision-making and water use in the Flint.

<hr/>

Agricultural subsidies are not the only way to manage water use in the Flint River. In fact, it is not the most direct approach, although it may be the most effective. More direct approaches could include water permitting and drought management policy. However, there is awareness that the current tools used to manage water in the Flint are insufficient. Alternative options suggested by Cummings et al.<ref name="cummings2001">Cummings, Ronald G., Norton, Nancy A. and Norton, Virgil J. Enhancing In-stream Flows In The Flint River Basin: Does Georgia Have Sufficient Policy Tools? Water Policy Working Paper #2001-002, September 2001.</ref> include purchasing/leasing of permits (rather than granting them for free), instituting a water tax, shifting surface water use to ground water use, building small, off-main-stream reservoirs, and increased water use efficiency. While these policy options may help address the specific interest of the paper (enhancing in-stream flows), it is unclear that they are appropriate from a systemic perspective. Shifting to a greater reliance on groundwater in an area expected to be increasingly impacted by droughts does not appear to be a wise direction to move in, and does not address the underlying causes of the problem.

The effectiveness of economic incentives for water conservation inherent in permit pricing and water taxes must be considered in light of the economic gains from agriculture, and here again, the role of subsidies is important. It is difficult for price instruments to work in environments in which the market is heavily skewed because farmers will not respond to the price signals as intended by the policy. Surprisingly, in light of the low efficiency of agricultural water consumption, Cummings et al.<ref name="cummings2001"/> suggest that increased water use efficiency has only moderate potential to increase in-stream flows.

Following a major drought from 1998-2003, the state realized that current drought management was insufficient. The Georgia General Assembly passed the Flint River Drought Protection Act, which paid farmers to reduce pumping during extreme drought. This compensation plan was designed to reduce the tensions that developed between ecological and agricultural water needs.<ref name="Watson and Scarborough">Watson, Reed and Scarborough, Brandon. Flint River Basin Irrigation: Wireless Water for Biodiversity. PERC Case Studies. 2010. Available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/resources.library.page.php?page_id=8241&section=library&eod=1</ref> While effective in reducing water withdrawals, the plan is very costly, both from an economic standpoint for the state, which is paying farmers, and from an efficiency standpoint, in that agricultural production must be reduced.

In a new approach, the Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District and the USDA are working with the Nature Conservancy to help farmers adopt new technologies and growing practices that reduce the reliance on groundwater withdrawals. The program has three components. First, it works to redesign the current irrigation system to make it more efficient. Beginning in the 70s, farmers adopted a pivot irrigation system, which was relatively inefficient at delivering water to the root systems of plants. By retrofitting the existing nozzles with low-pressure nozzles, more of the water reaches the plants. The second component is conservation tillage practices to increase soil moisture and reduce erosion during rain events. The third component is variable rate irrigation. The system uses soil moisture monitors and a wireless broadband network to collect information on irrigated acreage, which farmers can use to selectively irrigate the land that needs it, instead of applying water uniformly across the fields.<ref name="Watson and Scarborough"/>

These types of technological and behavioral innovations can help to reduce pressure on scarce resources and relieve tensions between different stakeholders to the water conflict. Whether they will be sufficient to address the water use issues in the Flint Basin is unclear, but pilot projects such as that conducted by the Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District, USDA and Nature Conservancy are essential for exploring the potential that these innovations may have. So far, the results look promising. Since the program began in 2003, farmers using variable rate irrigation have saved more than 10 billion gallons of water, and irrigation costs have fallen 15-30%. This example also demonstrates that non-traditional actors can play an important role in changing the incentives for stakeholders. Environmental groups helped pay for the costs of retrofitting equipment in order to reduce the water needed by farmers. This ended up being significantly cheaper than alternative plans to buy water (or the rights to water) from farmers during drought periods, and had the added benefit that farmers were able to increase production at lower costs with less time spent monitoring irrigation.

While technology can’t save us from unsustainable water use patterns or ensure that the impacts of climate change won’t be damaging to both ecosystems and economies, it is clear that solutions will require a combination of policy tools, including promotion of technological innovation and adoption by water users. Economic incentives, particularly large incentives such as agricultural subsidies, are also crucial to ensure that management decisions are implemented, but the wrong economic incentives can create additional problems by obscuring the market for water, as we observe with agricultural subsidies.

This case study suggests that agricultural policy and management, particularly in the Flint, offer a promising source of water efficiency and conservation in the ACF; while improved agricultural policy and management will not solve the ACF’s problems, they may allow for considerable water savings, which can help resolve existing conflict in the basin. The analysis suggests that altering government subsidies for certain crops could greatly impact water use in the Flint, potentially freeing up water for other uses. While altering agricultural subsidies will have considerable social and economic implications that need to be considered, greater attention should be paid to the potential of subsidies to provide a mechanism for reducing agricultural water demand in the Flint River Basin, the ACF, and elsewhere.

Two of the most important learnings from this case study and analysis are:
#We need to look at water management in a basin or region as a whole, and seek to identify any potential levers that may help us achieve more sustainable water management. Agriculture has received far too little attention in the ACF, and greater focus needs to be directed at using agricultural policy to improve the basin’s water management.
# Policies and decisions at all scales need to be considered in pursuing more sustainable water use. As this case demonstrates, decisions at the national level about agricultural subsidies heavily affect water use and management in the Flint River Basin, thereby impacting the entire ACF.

'''Additional Sources'''

Cummings, Ronald G., Norton, Nancy A. and Norton, Virgil J. Enhancing In-stream Flows In The Flint River Basin: Does Georgia Have Sufficient Policy Tools? Water Policy Working Paper #2001-002, September 2001.

Hook, J. (2010, April). Agricultural Irrigation Water Demand. Retrieved April 1-30, 2012, from National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory: http://www.nespal.org/SIRP/waterinfo/State/

USGS. (2009). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. Reston: US Geological Survey.</ref>

Watson, Reed and Scarborough, Brandon. Flint River Basin Irrigation: Wireless Water for Biodiversity. PERC Case Studies. 2010. Available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/resources.library.page.php?page_id=8241&section=library&eod=1
|Reflection Text Summary=Agricultural production has received far less attention than other water uses in the ACF, and agricultural management has been largely overlooked as a source of potential means of addressing the basin’s water issues. This is surprising, given that agriculture is generally a relatively inefficient user of water and may offer significant “low-hanging fruit” for water savings. Since agriculture is a dominant user of water in the ACF and the primary use of water in the Flint River sub-basin (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2006), attention should be paid to how agricultural policies and management can be used to improve water management in the basin. Can agricultural policies, mainly rethinking subsidies, encourage water savings in the Flint River Basin, thereby helping to address basin-wide conflict in the ACF?
|Case Study=Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
|ASI Keyword={{Add Keyword
|ASI Keyword=agricultural subsidies
}}
|User=Lkuhl01
}}

ASI:Agricultural Subsidies

2013-02-12T08:42:38Z

Lkuhl01:

ASI:Agricultural Subsidies

2013-02-12T08:41:53Z

Lkuhl01: Created page with "{{ASI |Contributors= |Reflection Text=Agricultural production has received far less attention than other water uses in the ACF, and agricultural management has been largely ov..."

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-12T08:33:39Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-12T08:31:24Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-12T08:30:14Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-11T16:59:19Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-11T16:57:47Z

Lkuhl01:

Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

2013-02-11T16:55:29Z

Lkuhl01: Created page with "{{Case Study |Population=6.7 |Area=21,900 |Climate=Dry-summer; temperate |Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, agricultural- confined livestock operations |Water Use=A..."