U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–435 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–730

FIELD HEARING TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ OPERATION OF

THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT

AND ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA RIVER

BASINS ON GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OCTOBER 24, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Field Hearing to Consider the Effect of the Corps of Engineers’ Operation 

of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa 

River Basins on Georgia’s Agricultural Community. ........................................ 1

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 1

Isakson, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Georgia ................................................ 3

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVES 

Bishop, Hon. Sanford D. Jr., a U.S. Representative from Georgia ...................... 4

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a U.S. Representative from Georgia ................... 6

Panel I 

Perdue, Hon. Sonny, Governor of Atlanta, Georgia .............................................. 7

Panel II 

Schroedel, Joseph, Brigadier General, South Atlantic Division Commander, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia .............................................. 12

Panel III 

Gaymon, Mike, President and CEO, Columbus Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Georgia ................................................................................... 29

Singletary, Steven, Vice Chairman, Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission, Blakely, Georgia .................................................................................... 33

Timmerberg, Dick, Executive Director, West Point Lake Coalition, LaGrange, 

Georgia .................................................................................................................. 31

Webb, Jimmy, Flint River Water Council, Leary, Georgia .................................. 35

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Linder, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 48

Perdue, Hon. Sonny .......................................................................................... 50

Gaymon, Mike ................................................................................................... 59

Schroedel, Joseph ............................................................................................. 61

Singletary, Steven ............................................................................................ 66

Timmerberg, Dick (with attachments) ............................................................ 68

Webb, Jimmy .................................................................................................... 89

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Columbus Water Works, prepared statement ................................................ 91

The Middle Chattahoochee Water Coalition, prepared statement ............... 94

Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc., prepared statement ............. 96

Page

IV

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued

O.W. McGowan, Co-Chairman, West Point Lake Coalition, prepared 

statement ....................................................................................................... 99

Jack Struble, West Point Lake Coalition, prepared statement .................... 100

Eucle Vickery, Secretary, West Point Lake Coalition, prepared statement 101

(1)

FIELD HEARING TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT 

OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ OPERATION 

OF THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEEFLINT AND ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA 

RIVER BASINS ON GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY. 

October 24, 2006

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Columbus, Georgia 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. at the 

RiverCenter, 900 Broadway, Columbus, Georgia, Honorable Saxby 

Chambliss, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing has come to order. 

And I want to thank everyone for coming today to discuss a critically important issue, Georgia’s water resources. I’d particularly 

like to start by thanking Steve Sweet, in particular, the technical 

director of the RiverCenter. What a gorgeous facility. This is my 

first time in this auditorium, and this is really something special. 

And I know the folks here in Muscogee County, particularly, know 

they have something special here. 

I’d like to thank Steve and all of his staff. They’ve been a tremendous help in coordinating all the logistics for us. It’s because 

of Steve’s hard work in making this hearing possible that we’re 

able to meet in this wonderful facility. So, again, to Steve and all 

of the staff here, we thank you very much. 

I’m also pleased to have my friends and colleagues from Georgia’s Congressional Delegation join us today. We invited all of the 

Delegation to come. Senator Isakson and I had one of these hearings previously in Gainesville, which he chaired, and we had Nathan Deal there with us that day. Today, I’m very pleased to have 

my good friend and colleague, Senator Isakson here again. We also 

have Congressman Westmoreland here, Congressman Sanford 

Bishop, and I know that Congressman Phil Gingrey is on the way. 

So, gentlemen, thank you all for being here. 

These river systems that cross Congressional Districts affect 

many citizens in our state, so I’m particularly pleased that these 

folks could join us. Congressman Linder wanted to join us but was 

2

unable to rearrange his schedule; however, he has a written statement he would like to submit for the record, and his statement will 

be made a part of the record in the appropriate place. 

As I said, in August of this year, Senator Isakson and I, along 

with Congressman Deal, held a hearing in Gainesville very similar 

to the one that we’re holding today. At that hearing, we heard from 

homeowners, economic development officials, and local government 

officials regarding their needs from the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa 

and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins. 

Well, that hearing, folks, was mainly on the issues relative to 

Lake Lanier. We promised all the folks here in this part of the 

state that we would be holding a hearing downstream as well because you have a stake in this matter that is just as strictly important as the folks upstream. We’re looking forward to hearing directly from you about the various needs you have for these lakes 

and rivers. 

This hearing offers a unique opportunity because you’re going to 

hear from the Corps of Engineers regarding their operation of these 

systems and why things may not be exactly as each one of us 

would like for them to be. 

I’m eager to hear today from Governor Perdue about the progress 

he’s made with Governors Riley and Bush from Alabama and Florida and getting the three governors to agree on new water allocations between the three states that rely on the ACT and the ACF 

River systems. We all heard a great deal about the Tristate Water 

Wars, and we all know that there are very complex issues involved. 

Although we’re a long way from a resolution, the fact that these 

governors are talking face-to-face and not via court papers is a good 

sign. 

And let me just say that Senator Isakson and I have had to have 

a number of meetings with the Corps of Engineers as well as the 

Secretary of the Army and Governor Perdue relative to moving forward with some discussion towards a resolution, and were it not 

for the leadership of Governor Perdue, we would not be where we 

are in that process today. Both before the Federal Court that was 

positive decision from Georgia’s perspective came down the early 

part of this year as well as after that court decision, he has been 

trying to make progress on this issue. I want to thank him for his 

leadership and I look forward to hearing from you today. 

Also, I’m eager to hear from Brigadier General Joe Schroedel, 

who is the new Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

South Atlantic Division. I hope General Schroedel can tell us today 

about the progress they made in updating the water control manuals and shed some light to our folks as to why the systems are currently being operated the way they are. 

Now, let me just say that Senator Isakson and I had the opportunity to visit with General Schroedel before this meeting this 

morning, and I’m impressed. We finally, folks, have somebody who 

not only will have a vision as to what we need to do but is willing 

to make some of the hard enough decisions and move this issue forward. I’m impressed with the comments that he’s already made relative to movement, and I look forward to his statements a little 

later on. 

3

Finally, on our third panel, we’ll hear from Dick Timmerberg 

from the West Point Lake Coalition, Mike Gaymon with Greater 

Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Steve Singletary with Georgia 

Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and Jimmy Webb with the 

Flint River Water Council. These gentlemen will represent a variety of interests from recreation to economic development to conservation and agriculture interests in Georgia’s water resources. 

Although we do not have a witness here today to speak of it, I 

want to make sure that I make note of the fact that we have two 

important ports in Georgia—one in Bainbridge and one right here 

in Columbus—that are also impacted by the operation of the ACT 

and the ACF River systems. 

I visited with folks in Bainbridge the other day, and I talked numerous times with folks here in Columbus relative to the issues 

that are involved with both of those ports, and rest assured that 

we have the best interest of those ports in mind as we go through 

this process, I want to make sure that everybody knows that we 

are keenly aware of the important role that these ports play in 

commerce and navigation needs and of the considerable impact 

they have on the west and southwest parts of our state. A number 

of industries and jobs that can be supported by these river systems. 

It’s important that all of the needs from these systems are noted 

as we assess not only modern day uses but modern day needs. 

Because our witness panel today is limited, I want to be sure 

that folks know that the official record for this hearing will remain 

open for five business days and that any—I emphasize that; any 

interested party may submit written testimony to be included in 

the record. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us 

today, and I look forward to their testimony. 

At this time, I’d like to first turn to my colleague, my good friend, 

and one of the great leaders of the United States Senate, Senator 

Isakson, for any comments he wishes to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ISAKSON 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you very much, Senator 

Chambliss, and thank you Chairman, will be conducting this hearing today. 

I’m pleased to join you for the second time. We started this, as 

he said, in Gainesville at the Riverside Academy and had a hearing 

in the month of August, which General Walsh, who has been the 

southeastern commander, testified, and we had great participation. 

I know we’ll have great participation with that today. 

I welcome the Governor, who has just stepped in, and after all 

of the things the Senator said, had it not been for his leadership 

in engaging Governor Riley in Alabama in the beginning, civil discussions on future use of the ACF-ACT basins, we would be in a 

quagmire today. And his leadership has shown—proven he and 

Riley are talking, and that’s one of the fundamental foundations to 

ultimately have a successful conclusion. 

I’m very pleased that Congressman Westmoreland, Congressman 

Gingrey, and Congressman Bishop are joining us today because 

these issues are important to the entire Congressional Delegation. 

General Schroedel, I have to tell you; I had some prepared remarks about the issues, and it was after talking to you for 20 minVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 Jan 25, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\31435.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
4

utes, you’re my kind of guy. And I think everybody here is going 

to be really pleased to hear what General Schroedel, who has come 

to take over this committee. He has a can-do attitude. He listens. 

He wants to know what’s on people’s minds and emulates the deliverer. That’s exactly what we’ve needed. 

There are three things I’m going to be looking for from the General and from the Corps because there are three important ingredients, I think, to put this real problem behind us and resolve it for 

the long-term best interest of the three states and all of the people 

of Georgia. 

Number one, we have an assurance from General Walsh and 

from Secretary Harvey of the Army that beginning in January of 

2007, the Corps will begin what has been postponed for years, and 

that is a new water control plan. It is absolutely essential that a 

50-year-old water control plan be updated to reflect the State of 

Georgia and its population of almost 10 million people and the 

needs and diversity of all of the Chattahoochee River basin. 

Secondly, an acknowledgement that the Interim Operational 

Plan, in which we currently are working, is an operational plan 

that’s basically a de-facto water control plan based on the environmental species issue. And it’s very important that all the issues 

that affect the basin and the water supply be addressed in a comprehensive water control plan. 

Lastly, there are conflicting interests; environmental interests, 

business interests, stewardship for the environment, recreation, all 

the things that water engages. I do not believe that these interests 

are mutually exclusive. I think they can be inclusive. And I know 

from reading General Schroedel’s testimony with regard to the various priorities of the use of water, he takes from—he takes a very 

priority approach to see to it that all the concerns are equally invested and equally studied and equally addressed. 

Lastly, I hope the General will address the requests of the folks 

around West Point Lake in terms of the winter pool level increasing two feet. I know the Corps was asked to look at the possibility 

of doing that, raising the winter pool from 628 to 630, and I know 

the people from West Point Lake and LaGrange would be happy to 

hear a response from the General with regard to that issue. 

But, lastly, I want to reaffirm what I said before. I want to thank 

my colleagues for joining me for this important issue, thank Saxby 

for chairing and our Governor for his leadership, and I want to welcome General Schroedel to Georgia and to the southeast. We look 

forward to his enlightened leadership on this critical issue for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Congressman Bishop. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good morning, and thank you very much. I’d like to 

thank you, Senators Chambliss and Isakson, for holding this very 

important hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers Operation of 

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa River Basins on Georgia’s Agricultural Community. 

I want to certainly welcome all the community and my colleagues, especially to the Second Congressional District. You are located in the Second Congressional District, and this is indeed God’s 

country. 

5

I also want to take an opportunity to welcome the Governor to 

the Second Congressional District of Columbus to this hearing and 

thank him for the great work that he is doing in the interest of the 

water for the people of the State of Georgia. 

And, certainly, we want to welcome General Schroedel. We welcome you and look forward to a wonderful working relationship, 

which we have had before on many projects that are of mutual interest. 

Today, we’ll consider an important issue that are reasons for our 

economic, agricultural, and recreational quality of life; our water 

usage from and the levels of our river basins. As it’s well-known, 

recently, the Corps of Engineers mistakenly released tens of billions of gallons of water from Lake Lanier to, just a possible, 

drought and conditions in Florida endangering the Gulf sturgeon 

and some species of protected mussels in our neighboring states. 

Now, this action, which was undertaken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, prompted a lawsuit against the Corps over how 

our water resources are managed. 

At issue are the levels of which our four water bodies are set; 

Lake Lanier, West Point, Walter F. George, and Lake Seminole all 

on the Chattahoochee River. Recently, the Corps received some 

warnings by Governor Perdue and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division that Lanier is too low. Now, the water is—should 

be up to 537 million gallons of water daily to more than 3 billion 

left to Atlanta. As a result of the mistaken release, the state has 

activated a regional document sponsored by the state’s mitigation 

protecting responsibly to manage our precious water resources. 

Now, the Corps has the responsibility to provide for and to the 

management of our water needs. The Congress has oversight over 

the Corps of which is what this hearing is all about. 

Our natural resources are precious. We have a responsibility to 

be good stewards in our individual capacities. So while we love our 

mussels and sturgeon, our human needs must take precedence 

here. And with solid planning and water management, notwithstanding as far as the Interim Operations Plan to manage the ACF 

basin and protecting endangered species, we ought to be able to 

balance these needs without the needs of more water than is necessary for our reservoir. 

I share the deep concern of my colleagues in Congress and in the 

State of Georgia including Governor Perdue as the Corps’ apparent 

mismanagement of these important resources, and I’m also deeply 

concerned that the Corps has been unresponsive to the concerns 

raised by the Governor, leaving us with no alternatives but to seek 

legal action to protect the resources. 

The fact is that the Corps implemented that Interim Operations 

Plan, but without the public not being on notice, it was undertaken 

without studying for effects, including the devastating effect of the 

low levels they’re having on recreational boating, fishing, and of 

course, the local counties as well as the eventual agricultural 

usage. 

While we have taken the Corps to task, I must hasten to commend and thank the Corps for its more recent cooperation on 

issues with Lake Seminole, Tybee Creek project, the dam project 

right here in Columbus, and the establishment of a community 

6

council to work with the Corps and the communities in the Lake 

Seminole and Lake Walter F. George areas to improve relations 

and customer service there on both those bodies. 

As a member of Congress, I am very, concerned about the impact, but I look forward to this important hearing addressing these 

important issues so that we can arrive at a responsible and sustainable water management plan with good cooperation with the 

Corps and all of the communities that are affected by these very, 

very important water basins. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Congressman Westmoreland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND 

Ms. Westmoreland. Thank you, Senator Chambliss, and thank 

you for having us here. And thanks to Senator Isakson and my 

friend Sanford Bishop and Governor Perdue for being here also. 

General Schroedel, this is a problem that seems to have been created by us tying our hands to do common-sense things, and I’m 

glad to hear from hearing these Senators that you seem to be a 

common-sense kind of guy. 

We have to understand that when the Corps implemented a plan 

for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system that that 

plan was never completed, and West Point Lake is probably taking 

on more responsibility for water needs than it should have because 

there was a system of lakes that were actually never built. 

When this lake was built, it brought about great economic recreational water storage ability to the whole system. And, General, 

we’re going to look to you to tell us what we need to do to untie 

your hands to do the right thing for this entire region. The City of 

Columbus, the City of LaGrange; Phoenix City, Alabama; West 

Point, Georgia; cities depend on the flow of water. We have businesses on both sides of the river that need to make sure they have 

an appropriate flow. 

The lake level at West Point is very important to this whole region as far as the economics that it provides, and so we’re looking 

forward to your leadership in letting us know how we can help you 

solve this situation. 

And, Governor, I want to thank you for your leadership with—

of the governance in trying to resolve this without lawyers. And 

you and I have talked about this before, and we understand that 

a common-sense approach, a gentleman’s agreement between people, is much more effective than the costly and lengthy court battles that come out of this. 

So, Senator, I look forward to hearing all of the panels and getting some answers to our questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you. And I understand Congressman Gingrey is on the way, and we’ll certainly give him an opportunity to make some comments, but obviously, we’ve now been 

joined by Governor Sonny Perdue. 

Governor, welcome. We enjoyed very much your presentation in 

Gainesville, which I alluded to earlier. As I told the audience in my 

opening comments, and Senator Isakson reiterated them that without your leadership and moving this ball down the court, we simply 

wouldn’t be where we are today. 

7

I want to make sure that everybody understands as far as the 

leadership from the highest level in all three states, you have been 

the one to really be up front and to try to make sure that we come 

to a good common-sense resolution that is ultimately a benefit to 

all three states. It’s a very complex issue. 

We thank you for taking the time out of what I know is a somewhat busy schedule that you have over the next couple of weeks 

here. We appreciate you being here today, and we look forward to 

your comments, Governor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF 

GEORGIA 

Governor PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After hearing all 

of your opening comments, we’d probably all be better served with 

a hard-laying hand for me and concluding my remarks, but you 

probably suspect I won’t do that. 

But thank you all and thank the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for allowing and conducting this hearing today 

on this very important issue. I’d like to thank the Chairman of that 

Committee, Saxby Chambliss, as well as Senator Isakson and the 

hometown boy, Sanford Bishop, Congressman, thank you, and Congressman Westmoreland, as well as your interest in this whole 

river basin area. I know it affects your districts as well as it does 

all of Georgia, and I thank you all for giving us the opportunity to 

talk about this. 

I want to begin by really just reiterating things that we all know; 

simple things. But water is a life resource. It’s a fundamental part 

of our lives. And I don’t want to be condescending in that, but 

sometimes we forget how viable it is. It’s easy to forget how completely we depend upon it. Human survival is dependent on water, 

and water’s been ranked by experts as only second to oxygen as essential for life. And it’s not only essential for drinking, but it’s critical to our economy, including our number-one industry in Georgia, 

and that is agriculture. 

We’ve worked hard in Georgia to ensure that our uses of this 

precious resource are reasonable, that we are currently in the process of adopting a statewide water plan just here in this region. 

We’ve opened the Environmental Protection Division office in 

Tifton to improve local and state coordination on water use. 

EPD has just implemented the use of our new geographic information system technology into its process for evaluating applications for agricultural irrigation permits. The Soil & Water Conservation Authority is helping to put a water meter on every pump 

in the Flint River basin so that we can have the best quality data 

on agricultural water use for managing our water supply. 

We want to be good stewards because it’s that important. We believe that Georgia’s doing its part in—to responsibly utilize and 

manage our precious water resources that we share with our two 

sister states. So you can understand our exasperation when the 

United States Corps of Engineers fails to do its part to properly 

manage this critical resource in the ACT and in the ACF River basins. 

Waters arising and flowing in Georgia are waters of the State of 

Georgia. And the federal reservoirs constructed on them should be 

8

operated by the Corps to meet the vital needs of Georgia citizens, 

including water supply, waste assimilation, recreation and navigation, and to support, yes, the biological needs of a wide variety of 

species throughout the river basin. 

In March of this year, the Corps announced a new reservoir management plan for the ACF basin reservoirs called the Interim Operations Plan. Now, it wouldn’t be appropriate if we didn’t use an acronym for that, but IOP was intended to support the needs of the 

endangered Gulf sturgeon during its spring spawn and the needs 

of two species of protected mussels in the summer. 

While the intention of the IOP may be good, the State of Georgia 

is concerned that it mandates the release of far more water than 

is necessary for the protection of these species and depletes the 

water storage upon which people and wildlife, including those protected species at issue, depend. Unfortunately, under former leadership, the Corps had largely dismissed Georgia’s concerns in those 

areas. 

On May 5th, 2006, Dr. Carol Couch, our director of Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division, wrote a letter to the Corps including hydrologic data showing that the Corps’ continued operations 

to draw down the federal reservoirs in the ACF basin to their lowest level in 50 years and could effectively empty them if continued. 

On June the 1st, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to the Corps and 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service requesting specific changes to the 

IOP. 

On June the 2nd, 2006, I wrote the Secretary of the Army, 

Frances Harvey, sharing Georgia’s concern that, quote, Unless the 

Corps changes its operating protocols, the reservoirs and lakes in 

the system will be drawn down to their lowest level in recorded history. Also, on June the 2nd, 2006, Dr. Couch sent a letter to Colonel Peter Taylor and the Fish & Wildlife Service with an attached 

memorandum providing additional results of the simulation of the 

IOP using data and information received from the Corps. 

On June the 6th, 2006, I personally met with former Commander 

Michael Walsh and Colonel Taylor again expressing in person those 

concerns. By June 9th, 2006, the state received no material responses from the Corps in response to our letters of concern. 

Thus, on June the 9th, 2006, Dr. Couch wrote the Corps another 

letter demanding specific revisions for the IOP. On June the 12th, 

2006, the Corps responded by letter to Dr. Couch’s June 1st and 

June 2nd letters. The Corps challenged what it believed to be certain assumptions underlying Georgia’s simulations of the IOP but 

did not provide data to allow Georgia to assess the validity of the 

Corps’ assertions or to fully evaluate the discrepancy between the 

Corps’ and Georgia’s models. 

The Corps repeatedly put off responding to our June 9th letter 

that demanded changes to the IOP. After several requests for more 

time, the Corps finally stated that it would not respond to the June 

9th letter because of unidentified, quote, Concerns raised by other 

parties to the litigation. In fact, the Corps did not respond to Dr. 

Couch’s June 9th letter until June 21, 2006. 

In the midst of all this, the Corps has admitted to releasing more 

than 22 billion gallons of water from Lake Lanier by mistake; at 

a time when the region was approaching what is traditionally the 

9

dryest time of the year. By this mistake, they essentially created 

a man-made drought on top of a natural drought. The 22 and a 

half billion gallons of water the Corps mistakenly released corresponds to 6.3 percent of Lake Lanier’s conservation storage capacity or 22 and a half of West Point’s capacity or 28.2 of Walter 

F. George’s storage conservation pool. 

The unfortunate actions by the Corps and the repeated lack of 

response to our concerns left Georgia with no alternative but to 

take legal action to protect our water resources. As you’re aware, 

the State of Georgia filed a complaint in the Northern District of 

Georgia to stop the Corps’ continued operation according to the Interim Operations Plan. This case is still pending. 

Litigation is never how I choose to deal with issues, as Congressman Westmoreland stated. And as I explained earlier, we tried to 

impress our concerns upon the Corps; however, the Corps’ leadership was largely non-responsive. The threat to the State of Georgia 

months later was not subsided. 

The IOP that the Corps continues to operate under does not 

allow our reservoirs to refill and recover the lost stored water. 

Common sense tells you you cannot manage a system of reservoirs 

if you never store your water. 

The Corps’ Interim Operations Plan was adopted without any 

prior notice, without any public participation, without analysis of 

its impact on authorized purposes for which the federal reservoirs 

were constructed, without consideration of its impact on the water 

supply security for the millions of people who rely on the Chattahoochee reservoir system for water supply, without consider of its 

long-term sustainability or its long-term impact on federally protected species, and without consideration of alternatives. The result 

is an unbalanced plan that poses a severe risk of substantial harm 

to the State of Georgia. 

In fact, the Interim Operations Plan is essentially a water-control plan; a water-control plan that was adopted without any public 

comment or notice and taking only one factor into consideration; 

that is, endangered species. 

Now, Georgia has long advocated that the Corps should update 

its master control plan for both the ACF and the ACT basins, 

which has not been done in over 50 years. As a result, the Corps 

is operating these complex systems without reliable and predictable 

operating rules tailored to current demands and conditions within 

the basin. Indeed, the Corps’ own regulations provide that water 

control plans should be updated periodically in light of changing 

demands and other conditions. And I don’t think there’s any question that in the last 50 years the ACF and ACT basins in our region of all three states have changed dramatically. 

The Federal Government itself has recognized the need for current plans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is investing millions of dollars in updating floodplain maps. This is in response to growth in Georgia and Alabama that has altered the 

flood characteristics of watersheds. The Corps needs to incorporate 

these altered flood characteristics into updated operation manuals 

to ensure the protection of life and property in both states. 

Further, inefficient, inaccurate, or unpredictable operation of the 

ACF and ACT systems results in growing uncertainty about the 

10

supply of water for more than half the Georgia citizens and facilities such as the Farley nuclear plant in Alabama and other power 

plants and industries. The water control plans should also be updated as part of implementing the 2003 settlement reached by the 

Corps, the State of Georgia, and other parties that would help ensure a constant water supply over the next decade. 

The failure of the Corps to update the water control plan is also 

affecting a stated purpose of lakes in the basin, and that is recreation. West Point officials have repeatedly asked the Corps to raise 

the level of the lake by two feet in the winter when the water is 

plentiful to accommodate recreational and fishing needs that have 

a significant impact on the region’s economy. The Corps officials 

have said that they have to adhere to the elevation levels of the 

IOP. So it seems that the Corps only has the authority to change 

the—its operation when it wants to do so. 

So what does all this mean? The Corps is providing flows for the 

endangered sturgeon and mussels under an IOP. It was developed 

without studying its full effects and without properly updating the 

Corps’ grossly outdated water control plan. The Corps’ performance 

under the IOP this year demonstrates that it is not a sustainable 

plan. 

The ACF system lost more than 381,338 acre feet of storage during the period from March 1 to October 20, 2006, when the IOP has 

been implemented. This corresponds to 23 percent of the entire system storage at summer pool levels. The loss of system storage is 

the largest among historical drought years of 1986, 1988, 1999, 

2000, 2001, and 2006. 

The system now just has 63 percent of conservation storage left, 

which is worse than at the same time in 1999. That means if the 

current drought continues and turns out to be as severe and prolonged as the previous one or even worse, and if the Corps does not 

take measures to actively conserve water in the reservoirs, system 

storage will be depleted to levels never seen before. 

Earlier this year, the Corps submitted the IOP to the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service for consultation pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act. On September 5, 2006, the Fish & Wildlife Service 

issued its Biological Opinion regarding the Corps’ operation and its 

effect on threatened species in the Apalachicola River. 

In the Biological Opinion, the Fish & Wildlife Service found the 

flows provided under the IOP would be sufficient to allow the 

threatened and endangered species to survive, but the Biological 

Opinion failed to recognize that the IOP does not allow the federal 

reservoirs to refill as they should, and thus, in a multi-year 

drought, those reservoirs could be drained completely with potentially devastating results and effect to human needs and the needs 

of a very same species that the IOP is designed to protect. The Biological Opinion, therefore, is seriously flawed, shortsighted, and unfortunately, it looks like you must have to go back to the Corps to 

challenge it. 

At the same time, Governor Riley and I are doing our best to put 

aside any disagreement between our states and reach an agreement on the management and operations of the ACT water basin. 

If we find common ground there, it is my hope that we would also 

reach consensus on the management of the ACT basin. Of course, 

11

in the end, the only way any agreement would be successful is if 

the Corps will manage the basin accordingly. 

I met with Governor Riley twice regarding the ACT River basin, 

and we’re committed to a resolution. We may need to ask for your 

help, Congress, in securing the Corps’ consent when the time 

comes. 

I hope there’s an opportunity for the Corps to direct this course 

under Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel. Now, in order to get the 

Corps’ operations back on track, I believe it’s going to take real 

leadership on his part. And I look forward to personally sitting 

down with General Schroedel in the near future to discuss these 

important matters. 

In closing, I would like to say that I cannot believe Congress 

passed an Endangered Species Act with the intention of providing 

substantially more protection for the species than for human 

beings. The Corps can provide for both the needs of these endangered species and the needs of humans upstream if it operates 

wisely and is guided by sound science and good planning. 

For example, I do not believe Congress intended that the Corps 

provide those species with more water than they would have received even that the natural environment would provide; particularly when it comes at great costs upstream. 

It is time, as Congressman Westmoreland said, for common sense 

to prevail on this issue. That is what we want from the Corps when 

asking that they update the 50-year-old water control plan. That 

is what we seek through our request to stop the release of water 

greater than nature would provide. 

Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to voice Georgia’s 

concern. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Perdue can be found on 

page 50 in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, thank you very much for those very informative, very straightforward comments relative to numerous 

issues we have in consideration relative to our tristate water issues 

here in Georgia. And thanks again for your leadership. 

And let me just say; I think everybody on this panel would agree 

that we’ve been trying to make changes in the Endangered Species 

Act for some time now. We can put some common-sense provisions 

in place, and unfortunately, when we try to take common sense to 

Washington, we find a road block at the city limits. And we’re 

going to continue that fight trying to make sure that we make 

some provisions in the ESA to hopefully take care of situations like 

this, which is very directly. 

I want to point out; simply need to be put in place, and there 

needs to be more common sense. And thinking about the way we’re 

protecting the environment and now the needs of the individuals 

throughout the country with that species which we all treasure so 

much. 

Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your continued leadership. 

Governor PERDUE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I would like to ask Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel, South Atlantic Division Commander, United States 

Army, Corps of Engineers, I’d like for you to come forward. 

12

General Schroedel, we know that you have only been on the job 

for a couple months now. And as Senator Isakson and I were discussing this with you, the fact that you are new, gives you a very 

unique perspective on the issues that we have as well as the ability 

to hopefully lead us down the road trying to solve some of these 

issues. 

I can’t help but comment that when we had our meeting in 

Gainesville, General Walsh was still occupying your position as the 

South Atlantic Division Commander. Today, he is serving our country in Iraq. We wished him well back then. We obviously still hope 

he and all of his comrades who are in Iraq the very best, and 

they’re in our prayers every day. 

We thank you for your great service to the United States of 

America. Because you wear the uniform, you’re a hero of ours. And 

I don’t have to tell you that it goes without saying and without 

knowing who all’s in the audience that because of the location of 

Fort Benning here, there is a tremendous appreciation to the 

United States Army in this part of our state. 

So we thank you for being here, and we look forward to your 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL, 

DIVISION COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General SCHROEDEL. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Distinguished members of the Congress, great citizens of this 

local community in the State of Georgia, and the great South, having just gotten here, as the Chairman said, about two months ago, 

I’ll tell you, my wife and I are ecstatic to be a part of the South; 

friendly people who we call true Americans. 

And it’s just great to be here. And I also appreciate the expectations I think that you’ve already raised with folks from our initial 

meeting. I’ll do everything I can to live up to that and more. 

I’d like to make some opening comments, and what I’ll do, if I 

can, is I’d like to read a few of the—part of the opening statement. 

I want to save as much time as I can for discussion. The first thing 

I’d say is I’m here to listen. We are all in this together. This is a 

very complex problem. And the first question that I ask anybody 

is: What are your priorities and what are your objectives? And then 

our obligation is to figure out a way within our authorities and our 

capabilities to meet all of those demands. 

I’d also like to thank, if I can, everyone in this audience for your 

support to the United States Army and for all the men and women 

in uniform and civilians. I’ll tell you; out of my 4,000 employees in 

the division, about 80 right now are civilians, volunteers who are 

serving in harm’s way in combat, serving the needs of our nation. 

And I’d like to thank all of you for your support. That’s important. 

And for me personally, my son is deploying to Afghanistan today, 

so my personal commitment to you is I am here and not seeing him 

off. And I think it’s an important statement to you that this is important to me, and I’m here to listen to what has to be said so I 

can execute my duties to the fullest extent that I can. 

And I’d also like to publicly respond, if I can, to one comment the 

Governor made. And if, in fact, our organization has not been reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 Jan 25, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\31435.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
13

sponsive, I will publicly apologize for that. That will not be tolerated under my command. If someone asks a question, you’re going 

to get an answer, and it better be quick. 

I’d also like to say that the Corps does commit to a policy of 

openness. Nothing that we do is secret, and everything that we do 

should be a matter of public record. We have websites. And it’s a 

matter of education; make sure people know where to get the information. I will enforce and reinforce that. And, in fact, we let people 

know how to participate and help us serve you. 

Again, I ask that my full statement be submitted to the record. 

And let me go on with my opening statement so I could save some 

time for discussion and listening and see what we can do to help 

solve this problem. 

I’d like to also maybe start by responding to Congressman Westmoreland’s question; sort of respond to your question of how can 

you help untie our hands. I think one of the bottom lines for us is 

that we’ve got to get past the feud between the three states. We 

have to have political peace behind us, and let us get on—as we 

committed the 2nd of January, let’s get on with getting those 

manuals done so we can have a collaborative process that gets everybody involved in figuring out the right way to manage the system. I think we’ll find many of the components of how we’re managing it today will probably remain in place. But, nonetheless, 50 

years is way too long, and we just need the political process to get 

past so we can get on with the work, and we’re ready to go. 

So let me go on with a little bit of my statement, if I can. The 

ACT River system of projects—and by the way, let me back up for 

a second. I’ve only been here a couple of months, and I’ve been 

working hard to learn everything I can about this system. My boss 

has said this is my priority for the region. I still have a lot to learn. 

I’ve got some of my experts in the audience with me. I am not 

going to pretend to be the expert today. I can tell you I’ve asked 

a lot of tough questions, so I know a little bit, and I’ll share as 

much as I can here today. 

The ACT River system projects consist of multi-purpose projects 

providing for flood control, hydropower, navigation, water supply, 

water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation; all the 

above. The system has five Corps projects and 10 Alabama Power 

Company dams, and the Corps projects consist of two major storage 

projects, Allatoona and Carters, here in the State of Georgia at the 

upper end of the basin. 

The basin, as everyone knows, is experiencing some dry conditions as are other basins within the southeast. I will tell you I was 

shocked to come here from the southwest where I commanded a division for three and a half years, and shocked to find that there 

were no natural reservoirs here. That was a shock to me. I’ll just 

pass that on to you. 

The two uppermost projects, Allatoona and Carters, are experiencing inflows that average 10 to 50 percent less than normal. But 

only minimum flows are currently being released from Carters, and 

Allatoona is only generating power two hours a day. I’ll also add 

that we have allocated no water in navigation since about the year 

2000. 

14

The ACF River system of projects also consists of multi-purpose 

projects, all for the same purposes that I just mentioned. The Federal projects in the system begin, as I think most people know, 

with Lake Sidney Lanier at the headwaters, West Point Lake here, 

Lake Walter F. George, George W. Andrews, and Lake Seminole at 

the lower end of the basin. And there are also several other lakes 

and hydropower facilities operated by private and public utilities 

along the system. 

Now, under normal circumstances—and this is one point that I’d 

like to make sure you all understand. Under normal circumstances, 

we operate the reservoirs to meet the purposes in accordance with 

not the IOP but draft water management plans. Our most recent 

attempt to revise all the manuals that were developed in the 1980s; 

the IOP is a specific manual which addresses only the endangered 

species south of Woodruff. It does not—does not apply to the entire 

system. 

What we did in the 1980s is establish certain zones of water levels, which trigger actions within those zones as different levels are 

reached. Now, this management has proven to be successful in the 

past under varying water conditions, drought or no drought. And 

what these zones do, basically, is that it allows us to balance the 

competing demands at each reservoir, and at the same time, synchronize what we’re doing with the water all along the system between the reservoirs. 

So if we’re at Level 2 or between Level 2, let’s say at Lanier, we 

want to be at that level at all of the systems. That doesn’t mean 

a certain level; it means be within the band for that particular reservoir that would meet all of the needs to the best extent that we 

can accomplish that at that site. 

Obviously during a drought, that causes special problems, so 

we’ve modeled the reservoir levels for this year using the assumptions of the 2000 drought as a basis. Now, based on that assumption, we expected West Point Lake to reach its lowest point at the 

mid winter. I think, as most people know, we have all the lakes 

down in the winter to provide for flood protection and then bring 

them back up in the spring. We expect that by January, at most, 

a decline of perhaps another two feet; maybe a little bit more, but 

right now, as a matter of fact, the lake went up today. 

I will tell you also we have to look at what the weather experts 

say. They’re predicting a small El Nino, which typically brings 

higher than normal rains in the southeast. So we had to take that 

into account from our calculation of risks. Regardless, the Corps 

will continue to operate with the current management plan. We’ll 

do our best to meet the needs. 

Let me address the winter pool level, if I can, for a second. West 

Point Lake was authorized with five purposes; recreation, hydropower, flood control, navigation, fish and wildlife conservation. And 

we make every effort to meet all of these needs and authorize purposes to the fullest extent possible with the available water. A request to raise the winter pool level from the current conservation 

level of 628 to 630 was disapproved after an extensive evaluation 

of risks. And in this case, we had to balance flood risks against 

recreation. 

15

Let me explain how operational decisions are influenced by a variety of factors. Operation of Corps reservoirs take into account current and predicted future conditions, as I said. For instance, in a 

drought, conserving water for human and industrial consumption 

becomes a higher priority, and I think we’d all agree with that. I’m 

sure some folks in this area remember well the flood of 2003 when 

the rain fell pretty heavily between here and Lanier, and it caused 

quite a stir, as I am told. 

Some other uses, such as recreation and hydropower, may temporarily become a lower priority. Likewise, in times when the risk of 

flooding becomes greater, flood control operations rise in priority. 

So these dams that we’ve established within our current manuals 

help us balance those needs and judge risks. The winter pool level 

at West Point was originally authorized at 625, and then we raised 

it to 628 in the 1980s with these draft manuals. 

To make an informed decision—and this is a point I’d like to 

make. To make an informed decision on increasing the winter pool 

level, a study must be done—and by the way, I’m not a fan of long 

drawn-out studies. I like to get her done. But I’d like to see us do 

a study quickly to quantify—which hasn’t been done at this point; 

quantify the increased risk to downstream citizens, flood risk. 

At the same time, you know, let’s quantify what the trade-offs 

are with respect to costs to mitigate the risks, the social benefits, 

socioeconomic benefits, of recreation. I don’t know. Perhaps there 

aren’t as many people living south of the lake as used to be. There 

are a lot of factors we should take into account. 

But I personally am in favor of a study quickly. Let’s get to the 

answer, and let’s make a decision. It’s within our authority to raise 

the level, but let’s do what we need to do to be as certain as we 

can about what risks we’re taking. So I just want to make sure 

that I make that point to everybody in this local community, 

though I would like to do that as quickly as we can. 

On the Endangered Species Act, just a couple of quick comments. 

Again, the Interim Operating Plan is focused strictly on the endangered species list. That’s the mussels that you’ve heard about and 

the Gulf sturgeon. 

We’ve been in consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service since 

the year 2000, so about six years. It was only this year—about the 

time I got here—or actually, before I got here—that we entered 

into a formal consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service. They’ve 

now issued their Biological Opinion. 

And the key piece for me—this is one of the questions I asked. 

One of the questions I asked was: How much were we releasing 

prior to this IOP? And it amounts to about 5,000 cubic feet per second. So the IOP basically embraced what we were already releasing as a normal flow—outflow, not just for endangered species. So 

the overall impact on lake-level reservoirs is really minimal, from 

what I can tell so far, with respect to this IOP. 

The BIOP basically sets parameters for the flow. I won’t get into 

the details. Naturally, they might before I get into any of it, but 

I can tell you that it’s a very complicated set of adjustments that 

are made that may require some of the release of storage; again, 

depending on how low the flows go. And, again, I don’t want to 

cover those details right here. 

16

During drought conditions—and I guess the bottom line is: During drought conditions, not all project purposes can be met. I think 

we all understand that. You have competing demands; you’ve got 

to set priorities somewhere. And only minimum basin inflows 

would be released in support of endangered species. So I think 

we’ve got a balance there. 

We’ve also simulated West Point Lake and Walter F. George 

Lake levels for both with and without the IOP. Now, this is an important point for me. The modeling shows that as of 1 October, the 

current lake levels would be approximately one foot higher without 

the implementation of the IOP for this Biological Opinion. It should 

also be noted that during less extreme conditions, the impacts of 

the IOP BIOP would be negligible on lake levels at West Point. 

Let me conclude by saying that the ACF River system currently 

exists in a couple of environments that make all decisions a challenge. And I will tell you I don’t mind hard decisions. I don’t mind 

being in a rock and a hard place. 

The first clearly is the drought, and it looks like it’s moderating 

a little bit. Matter of fact, we just raised—we picked up six inches 

this past weekend with the rain we had. But the second one, which 

I would ask for help from—the Congress’ help from, or the Governor, you know, is the disagreement that currently exists between 

the states over water allocation and the best management of the 

system. 

Now, I will tell you; I think everybody wants to see that, and I 

frankly think that’s going to happen. And we’re in a dry run, as 

I said earlier, and trying to get our manuals going so we can get 

everybody working together and solve this issue as quickly as we 

can. 

I don’t have all the answers, but the Corps remains ready to support, ready to serve you, ready to serve your needs, ready to provide the technical expertise, which I’ve already spent a lot of time 

with our folks, and I’m very comfortable in their abilities, and we’re 

here to provide all the assistance we can to make the right things 

happen. 

So, again, the commitment that I’ll make is I’m honored to be 

here. Great to be a part of the South. We’ll remain responsive. I 

want to listen. I want to hear what your concerns are. I want to 

know what your objectives are. I want to make sure that we’re 

communicating with you so you know what we’re thinking and how 

we’re trying to balance the competing needs. 

I frankly think the Corps is in a great position as an independent 

entity to oversee a system, which is essentially an interstate system, and help make sure that all of those needs are met to the best 

of our ability to serve the needs of the American people who are 

served by that system or both the systems. 

Sir, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Schroedel can be found on 

page 61 in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. General, thank you very much for your comments. And let me say, that with your son deploying to Afghanistan today, just know that you and your family are in our prayers, 

and we hope that you’ll give your son an extra hug around the neck 

from all of us the next time you do see him and tell him how much 

17

we appreciate his dedication to protecting all Americans and making sure that freedom and security are maintained in this country. 

We’ve been joined by Congressman Phil Gingrey. So I want to 

make sure he has the opportunity to not only ask questions but 

make an opening statement. 

And, Congressman Gingrey, just so you’ll know, what we’re going 

to do is to go down the line, and we’re going to let everybody ask 

questions. When it comes your turn, you’ll have all the time you 

want to make any sort of statement plus ask your questions. So 

we’ll keep you in the mix there. 

General, it was my understanding that there has not been a new 

water control plan for the ACF system for really all of the 50 years 

that it’s been in existence. However, in your statement, you referenced the draft water management plans developed in the late 

1980s. 

Do you operate the system pursuant to these draft management 

plans, and do they therefore have the force and effect of a management plan, or do you operate the system based on the Interim Operations Plan, which was created after the State of Florida filed 

their Endangered Species Act claims earlier this year? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, we operate the entire system on the 

basis of those draft 1980 manuals, which decline to depict their 

level of the bands that I talked about into zones, which were created in conjunction with state folks to help determine between the 

signs and the calculation. How do we balance all of those needs at 

varying levels at each of our reservoirs? 

So the short answer is: We use those manuals. And the IOP is 

augment to that only for that portion south of Woodruff to address 

the water being released from there or beyond that point for the 

endangered species for the mussels. 

But, again, 5,000 CFS flow, which is in that Biological Opinion, 

is historically about what we saw into flow in there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, it’s my understanding that the IOP dealt 

in part with trying to protect the mussels and sturgeons during 

their spawning season. Is that going to be a continual IOP, or is 

that then modified depending on the season for spawning? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, to be honest with you, I’m not really 

sure. But what I would expect to happen is if we can move on with 

the master manual—with revising the manuals, that we should incorporate into those manuals the appropriate steps to address the 

endangered species and not have a myriad of different manuals 

that perhaps conflict or cause confusion regarding what’s the management plan. I think we need one management plan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let’s talk about the updating of those 

manuals. 

What the entire Delegation here wants to see is the updating of 

those manuals because these lakes were built in the 1950’s, and basically, they’re operating under the same water plans pursuant to 

the water manuals that were in place when these lakes were constructed. 

We have been assured by the Secretary of the Army in a meeting 

face-to-face with Senator Isakson and I had that the manuals 

would begin being updated on January 2nd, 2007. Leading up to 

that, there would be some preliminary work being done, which is, 

18

I understand, in place now, in preparation for the updating of those 

manuals. 

Can you tell us whether or not that schedule of beginning the updating process is going to take place on January 2nd? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I’ve reviewed the testimony and the 

bidding, and my understanding is that we have committed, and I 

will reaffirm the commitment to begin that work. I will also note—

like to point out that I’m being told at the same time that funding 

to carry that effort out as quickly as we need to is not adequate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now is the time for us to address that issue. I 

assure you it’s being addressed at our level. 

General SCHROEDEL. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we’re not going to let it be held up for that 

reason. 

There are various interests in our state which makes Georga a 

little bit unique and different from our two bordering states involved in this issue. We have issues in north Georgia, for example, 

with Lake Lanier being the water source for the city of Atlanta as 

well as of some other surrounding communities for it being a discharge area for some of the counties surrounding metropolitan Atlanta that are different than those you find as you move downstream. 

Downstream, not only do we have the same recreational water 

supply issues as north Georgia relative to the lakes in this part of 

the state, but there are important agricultural interests and interests in transporting goods in commerce down the rivers to the Gulf. 

Those issues are unique here versus the issues that are prevalent 

in the metro Atlanta area. 

So as you go through this process, I want to make sure that the 

Corps thoroughly understands that there are different and, in some 

instances, competing issues that need to be addressed and that we 

need to strike the right balance when it comes to making sure that 

Atlanta has the water supply it needs to operate its drinking water 

system. 

But at the same time, we’ve got to make sure that folks down 

on this end of the rivers and the reservoirs that they use here are 

provided with the necessary levels to allow them to continue the 

recreation, the drinking water that they need, and also provide the 

flow in the rivers to allow for the commercial operation of our ports 

here. 

I was curious when you said that previous actions on the levels 

at the lakes have been successful. We’re going to hear from some 

property owners a little bit later, and I’ll be interested to hear what 

they have to say about how successful they think the operation 

from a level standpoint is. 

And I’ll note with interest that Dick Timmerberg is going to 

point this out to us a little bit later on with some photographs. 

These photographs show docks that are obviously docks that have 

been out of water not for a few days, a few weeks, but months, 

maybe even years. There’s good-standing trash going under and upward to these docks. 

So the assertion that our levels have been successful over the 

years is going to be an issue, which I’m sure will be addressed a 

little later. And when you say you’re going to listen—and I appreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 Jan 25, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\31435.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
19

ciate that—I hope you’ll listen very closely to what our witnesses 

have to say about those levels. 

Various stakeholders in the ACF system have very specific requests of the Corps in terms of their management of the systems. 

For instance, the West Point Lake Coalition would like to raise the 

winter pool of West Point Lake. Why can’t you simply just raise 

that level? Give us an explanation so that these folks can understand why the Corps can’t just arbitrarily go out and raise the level 

of West Point Lake. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, without the word ‘‘arbitrarily,’’ I’d say 

that it is within our authority to make the decision to raise the 

level. And as I indicated earlier, we did raise the level once in conjunction with the 1980s revision from 625, which was the level that 

was determined to be appropriate for providing the proper flood capacity. So we’ve already raised it three feet. 

And we can; however, at this point, we’re not willing to do so because we believe the risk of flood damage downstream is higher 

this year, given what we know about predicted rainfalls, given 

what we know about the hydrology, given what we know about the 

system, we’re not willing to make that decision to accept that risk. 

We think it’s too high. 

However, what we need to take a look at, as I mentioned, are 

two things. One, we need to take a look at what’s downstream 

these days and what risk mitigation measures are there. One suggestion that’s come out of the community is: You know, if we have 

enough advanced notice, we can pre-evacuate. 

I’m personally not a fan of pre-evacuation. I think Katrina 

taught us that the infrastructure of this country is built for the 

economy; not for evacuation. You can’t evacuate people fast enough. 

However, if there are local plans that say, ‘‘Wait a minute. We’re 

only talking about 300 people, and given two-hours notice, we feel 

comfortable we can get them out of there,’’ those are plans and dialogues that we haven’t been able to have. 

We also have not quantified—and there was another study done 

that I’m aware of that took a look at this issue, but that study did 

not quantify the flood risks, nor did it quantify what the real tradeoffs were in terms of real recreation benefits. 

I took a look—again, I’m gathering information trying to learn as 

fast as I can, and I took a look at the visitation of West Point Lake 

just yesterday when I visited, and I can tell you, of the 3.2 million 

visitors per year, looking at the last three years, I looked at the visitation between November, December, January, and February, 

those four months account for 17 percent of visitation on an annual 

basis. 

So the vast majority of visitation occurs in the summer months 

when the flood—when the pools are up. Don’t have to worry about 

flood mitigation and—but, again, this is just—this is a superficial 

piece of information that I noted. But from my initial look at, you 

know, where are we, and what are we basing the risk on? I think 

we need more information, and that’s why I would endorse a quick 

study. 

I’m going to meet with some local folks later on today. I want to 

talk to them about some other authorities. You know, there are two 

or three agreements, and there are other means by which using 

20

perhaps some local resources and our resources, we can put together a quick study and try and determine the answers to these 

questions about flood risk and trade-offs on the recreation piece. 

So, sir, we can. I would like to move out—I have a history from 

my last command of authorizing a deviations in the west where we 

track down rivers and the disappearance of rivers over seasons. 

And we were raising Prado Dam as an example. We did a study; 

raised it about four feet. And not for recreation; there’s no recreation out on Prado Dam above Gainesville. Instead, what is at risk 

is the water supply. You know, water is gold out west. 

So I personally am inclined in that direction from my history and 

what I’ve done in command in other areas, but I want to make sure 

we’ve got the right collaborative study done quickly that would—

it would make sure we’re doing this in a—with a good understanding of the risks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’ll leave it to others to delve into that a 

little more, but I think it’s safe to say that from an upstream 

standpoint over the last couple of years, particularly, there hadn’t 

been any need to worry about flooding downstream. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I’d like to point that I also find very interesting about this system; Lake Lanier holds—and I find this 

very fascinating. Lake Lanier holds 60 percent of the storage on 

the system, but it is served by only 5 percent of the watershed. 

West Point Lake provides 20 percent—make sure I got my numbers 

right here. I thought this was very fascinating. West Point holds 

20 percent of the storage, but yet is served by 14 percent of the watershed. 

And that was why we had the situation we did in 2003 when we 

have a rain south of Lanier; you’ve got a bigger watershed, bigger 

area that’s feeding the lake, and you can—you can impound the 

water much more quickly than you can ever, ever impound the 

water at Lanier. 

So I guess a little dynamics along the system like that could feed 

into our risk situations, and we need to think about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is one last area I want to cover with you. 

In June of this year, we learned that due to a calibration error, the 

Corps of Engineers incorrectly released an extra 22 billion gallons 

of water from Lake Lanier. In our hearing in Gainesville, General 

Walsh told us in order to prevent such a calibration error in the 

future, a redundant system was put in place on Lake Lanier. 

First of all, would you comment on that calibration error, and 

have similar redundant systems been put in place downstream at 

West Point Lake, Walter F. George, and Seminole Lake? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, absolutely. I can tell you; if anything 

about the Corps, we are a learning organization, and when we 

make a mistake, we learn and we respond quickly. And I can tell 

you; yesterday, I personally saw three different redundant systems 

that are measured every day and tracked to make sure that all 

three are in sync and that we know exactly what the level of that 

lake is; to the hundredth of a foot, I might add. 

But yes, sir, that’s in place. And I put my hands on them, so I 

know what they look like and if they work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

21

General SCHROEDEL. And I’ve done the same on all of the other 

systems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are they working? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

You told us before the hearing and then into your testimony, you 

said your first order of business when you get a new command is 

to ask the stakeholders what are their priorities. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Just so the record reflects it—and you’ve already addressed it—our number-one priority is implementing the 

water control plans on January 2nd of next year. And to that end, 

you made a reference, which was well-noted by all of us up here, 

that there may be some shortage of funding to be able to do it as 

rapidly as you would like to do it. That falls under our responsibility. 

Do you happen to know how much money you need for ’07 and 

’08 to do the water control plan? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I honestly don’t know. But I can get 

you that answer quickly. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I would appreciate it, and I know all of 

the other members here would appreciate your writing us and giving us the information on what it would take to complete that plan 

within the time frame that it’s completable, which I understand is 

somewhere less than 24 months, but more than 12. That way, we 

can go to bat for that funding in Washington D.C. And I know 

Saxby—and I agreed with what Saxby said; we’ll get that done, but 

we need to know——

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON.——how much as quickly as possible. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. On that vain, secondly, with regard to the winter pool in West Point, in your testimony, you said: To make an informed decision on increasing the winter pool level, a study must 

be done which quantifies the risk—increased rate of downstream—

risks to downstream citizens, the annual cost of increased flooding, 

the cost to mitigate the flood risk, socioeconomic benefits of high 

winter pool for recreation and other purposes, and any impacts on 

benefits of fish and wildlife. 

Will you initiate such a study? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. And if you have considered that you—if you 

would, how much is that going to cost? 

General SCHROEDEL. Well, sir, that’s what I’m going to talk to 

the local folks today about. And if, in fact, there is a requirement 

for funding on our side, then we can let you know that. Again, I 

don’t know the exact details of that till I meet with the local folks 

and our folks this afternoon to discuss that point. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I know you acknowledge in your testimony that you were aware that the local study was done and accepted the fact that it may very well be correct, but there were certain things within the priorities under law that you have to consider the warning risk in that. 

22

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. And I assume maybe you can take the best of 

information from that study and then add to it those other things 

like fish and wildlife. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. Absolutely. That’s my intent. 

Senator ISAKSON. Is there any similarity between here and the 

South Pacific Division you commanded before coming here as far 

as water? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, there is. I guess my first impression was I was shocked to find out that there were water wars in 

the southeast. And I was further shocked to find out that there are 

no natural reservoirs in the southeast and—and, again, my initial 

impression here is that our problem is a simple—I’ll say simple—

is a complex matter but made simpler, I think, by two things; storage and management of that storage. 

And I’d be the first to stand up and say I think we need some 

sort of an interstate, if you will, system commission like the Delaware River system or something, in which the Federal Government 

and others play a role in, and here’s why: To respond again to some 

comments that the Chairman made, we do—we the Corps and all 

of us need to be very aware of not only the differences between 

needs up at the headwaters and needs at the tailwaters and differences of those balances, but I think not only do we need manuals here, I think we need a dynamic process and a dynamic system 

that, once we put manuals in place, we don’t wait another 50 

years—you know, I’d like our grandchildren and great-grandchildren—and we owe it to future Americans to have a process in 

place that will ensure that we don’t have this happen again. 

We can’t have 50 years go between change in how we do business. Developmental pressures. Mother Nature, by the way, has a 

role. She’s changing things. I think in addition to the manuals 

right now, we need to come up with a dynamic process. Call it 

Interstate Commission; I don’t care what it is. Something that will 

allow us to update this process continuously because it’s dynamic, 

and it changes year-to-year; drought, no drought, developmental 

pressures, it doesn’t matter. 

So I think in addition to the manuals, we need a process that 

will allow us to make this whole thing dynamic and not let this 

happen ever again. 

Senator ISAKSON. To that end, we are in a—this is the 16th year 

of the absence of tristate water contract, and for 15 and a half 

years of those 16 years, three states have been in court. And during all that period of time, the inability for us to finally get an 

interstate water contract agreement was, in large measure, because 

we didn’t have a water control plan. 

So I just want——

General SCHROEDEL. Wow. 

Senator ISAKSON. I just—the point’s been made to us that without the water control plan, we’ll never really get a final tristate 

contract because only after you know how the watershed is going 

to be managed and the environmental factors it’ll change, the 

states will have reached that agreement. 

So that’s—when you hear us talk so often about when are you 

going to start and when are you going to finish and how much is 

23

it going to cost, all along 16 years—my 16 years, last 16 years in 

the State Government and Federal Government, that has been the 

ultimate thing that allowed people the ability to agree to disagree 

because they didn’t have that plan. 

So just for a matter of evidence—not a question, just an editorial 

comment—that’s why the Corps’ quick implementation of that plan 

is so essential to all of us. 

General SCHROEDEL. Great, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you——

General SCHROEDEL. That’s good to know. 

Senator ISAKSON.——Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

General, we appreciate your openness and your flexibility in trying to deal with some of these very challenging issues. You were 

talking about formulating some dynamic way of dealing with these 

challenges so that we don’t have to wait so that you can get me 

that input that was—that’s responsive to the current conditions. 

We had a very, very heated—and I’ve had several heated town 

hall meetings with representatives of the Corps down around the 

Lake Seminole area, and there’s some concern around the Lake 

Walter F. George area about the implementation of the Corps, of 

directives, about the management, about the interpretation of the 

rules and regulations, some—many interpretations of which change 

depended upon who the character—the supervisor is in the area. 

Although, residents may have been living on Lake Seminole for 

20, 25 years and had residences there. Now, all of a sudden, the 

new person comes in and says, well, you’ve got a one-foot overhang 

or your dock is one foot too large. And these conditions have been 

in existence for 20 years in many instances, and they’re told that 

they now have to remove or have to alter their home. 

And there are all kinds of problems that have—that were expressed and has a great deal of tension, which I found myself as 

a referee between the 150, 200 residents at that angry meeting and 

your representatives. And I must commend Colonel Taylor and—for 

his leadership and Colonel Helgar from Mobile—I mean, from Savannah, who were willing to sit in to have an attitude such as 

you’ve exhibited here today. 

But out of all of that, we were able to suggest, and Colonel Taylor was able to agree to implement and has, in fact, begun implementation of community councils so that residents of areas that 

have been impacted by the Corps policies can have regular meetings with the Corps so that the Corps can get feedback on how the 

regulations are being applied and implemented, how the interpretations are affecting the residents where there are concerns about 

maintenance. 

For example, the hydrilla problem is a real problem and has been 

a real problem in the Lake Seminole area, and to some extent now 

in the Lake Walter F. George area. All of these areas have a great 

deal of tension, and if you had regular community councils that 

met on a regular basis that dealt with these issues before they 

came to a crisis. 

And I have to commend Colonel Taylor who said with tremendous authority as the district commander to implement them and 

24

did it, and it has made my life a lot easier in responding to the 

kind of admissions of angry residents who want the Congressmen 

to do something about the Corps. 

So I was hoping that you could, all along the ACT and the ACF, 

if you could consider establishing some of these community councils 

where stakeholders get to interact on a regular basis with the 

Corps personnel so that some of the problems that we’re talking 

about now don’t come up as surprises when there’s a crisis, and we 

can deal with them on a regular basis and keeping it from becoming a major issue. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, that makes too much sense. I’ve considered it, it’s done. As soon as I get back, that will be the standard 

for my entire division; not just the State of Georgia. That’s a great 

idea. Thank you. 

I don’t like to waste time thinking about things either. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Westmoreland. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I noticed that you’ve got—listed flood control, hydropower, navigation, water supply, water quality, recreation, fish and 

wildlife conservation, and I read where those change the articles. 

Just looking at the overall priority, where would you put the fish 

and wildlife? 

General SCHROEDEL. Where will I personally put it? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yeah. In what rank? 

General SCHROEDEL. I would do everything I could to make sure 

I complied with the law first. As we all know, it is a law, and we 

have to comply with the law so we try to work very closely with 

the services. 

But I will tell you, I always ask the question: When are we going 

to put human beings on the endangered species list? So we’ve got 

to have a balance. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

General SCHROEDEL. Balance is appropriate. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, my point is: They seem to be driving the train 

right now. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, at least from my initial look, I don’t 

find that to be the case, honestly. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Good. 

General SCHROEDEL. Given the flows, historical flows, as I mentioned earlier, and given the impacts with or without—and I will 

tell you; we did some very strong arm wrestling with the Service 

on that Biological Opinion, and we were fairly satisfied that we 

weren’t going to do—having the train driven by endangered species. 

So I’m very comfortable personally with what I’ve learned about 

the collaboration, coordination, and, you know, making sure we 

didn’t go too far one way. So at this point, my initial impression 

is that I think we’re probably okay. But I’m not satisfied yet. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Now, you talked about down river results, as 

far as collecting all of those. Do you know when West Point was 

impounded? When the water was impounded? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I know the—I found this fascinating. I 

know the lake was dedicated the same month and year that I 

25

began my service with this nation as a commissioned officer; June 

of ’75. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

General SCHROEDEL. So I’ll never forget it. 

Mr. BISHOP. And so there’s been a lot of development in the last 

30 years or so downstream? 

General SCHROEDEL. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. And when that lake was impounded, we knew what 

it was impounded for, at least what the law said. And so anybody 

that has built downstream from there now that have put their self 

in danger of a flood is their problem and not the people’s problem 

on West Point Lake, is it—would that be a true statement? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I mean, you can say that. I’m not sure 

I would. But I mean——

Mr. BISHOP. Well, somebody allowed——

General SCHROEDEL. I think——

Mr. BISHOP. Somebody allowed them to build in harm’s way 

based on the facts that were there in 1975; is that not true? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. I mean, I can tell you from my previous experience, especially out west watching people in development pressures, forest people are then choosing on their own some 

buildable flood zones—despite flood insurance, despite FEMA 

warnings, despite all the other warnings. In the end, when the 

flood comes, there’s still people, and they’re still standing there 

looking for help, and we wind up helping them anyway. It’s a very 

interesting challenge personally. 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t disagree with you. I understand. But my 

point is that I don’t think the people that are living around that 

lake should be responsible for bad behavior on somebody else’s 

part. 

General SCHROEDEL. I agree. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask you another question. 

Are you aware that people from LaGrange and Troup County 

and West Point Lake had a meeting with Mr. Woodly in Washington? 

General SCHROEDEL. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Myself and Congressman Gingrey and representatives from the Senator’s office were in that meeting. Colonel Taylor 

was in the meeting also. 

And at that meeting, one of the things that we asked for is that 

before any decision was being made about the 630 level, that 

Troup, LaGrange’s, West Point’s engineers and—had prepared a 

study of great expense to them that the Corps study—people that 

did it and the people that did their study can sit down and compare 

notes, so to speak. 

We were told that meeting would occur. It never occurred. And 

the Corps came down with their decision not to raise the lake level. 

So we have not been given cooperation. And, like I said, Colonel 

Taylor was in the meeting, but Mr. Woodly, which I understand is 

the Secretary of Civil Works for the Army in Washington—so I 

don’t know if we need to go any higher than that or not, but, General, we’re going to count on you to check on that, if you would, 

and find out why that meeting didn’t take place. 

26

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I will do that this afternoon because I’ll 

be meeting with, I think, some of those same folks today, so I will 

pursue that today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. If we could. 

And, you know, I also notice that you had on here that—I guess, 

that these lake levels were based on predictions of weather—

weather patterns, and that’s good to base it on historical patterns 

and predictions. I think there was a prediction that this year there 

would be five major hurricanes hit the United States, and I don’t 

think—I don’t think we’ve had one yet. So sometimes predictions 

are wrong, but facts are facts. 

And I think it was either in ’93 or ’95, during the summer, full 

lake level at West Point, we had about 11 inches of rain. Now, I 

think the lake got at that time to 641. No flooding occurred. And 

that was at a full lake level. And that was at a time where there 

was no prediction of that type of rain, no historical basis, I don’t 

guess, for that type of rain. But that rain happened. Like you said, 

Mother Nature is unpredictable. But even though that rain happened at a time that it had never been predicted, not usual, at a 

lake at full level, no flooding. 

So I wish you would consider some of those facts——

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I will. 

Mr. BISHOP.——when you look at that is that predictions are 

good, history is good, but sometimes facts tend to do better. 

I’m glad to see that you’re going to meet with the people of West 

Point because, as Congressman Bishop said—I think his recommendation is a good one, and I was glad to see that you went 

along with it because people—because of bad predictions and bad 

decisions—have suffered great property loss, value, and just the 

rights that were given to have private property, the right to enjoy 

it. 

And then Senator Chambliss showed in those pictures, and I 

hope and I’m sure that you’ll get a copy of the complete album. 

General SCHROEDEL. Okay. 

Mr. BISHOP. You’ll see where that—where people’s property are, 

as 628 left them. In the—and reality of it is, I think the 630 level 

would be great, but I think the 633 level would be even better. So 

don’t just take the 630 and try to run with it. If we wind up getting 

it any higher than that, we would. 

And, General, I want to thank you, and I’m looking forward to 

working with you and getting some type of resolve to this problem 

because I think everybody in this panel, I know, wants some resolve to it. 

And we’re looking for some leadership from the Corps. You know, 

the Corps just can’t be the passive kind of, well, fish and wildlife 

saying this, the courts are saying this. You need to stand up and 

be the leader that you are, and I know you will. 

So thank you for coming into the battle zone here and taking the 

income, but I look forward to working with you in the future. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, likewise. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Representative Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, let me 

apologize for being a little bit late and missing an opportunity to 

27

make an opening statement. I would like to ask Mr. Chairman 

unanimous consent to submit my written remark for the record. 

Senator ISAKSON. Without objection. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m very appreciative of having the opportunity to be here as part 

of the panel in this agricultural position to sit in the Agricultural 

Committee Field Hearing in Columbus, Georgia, with my colleagues. 

And, General, what I want you to understand, I think probably 

everything has already been said, but all of us that have not had 

the opportunity to say it, so I’m not going to repeat what I can predict I think my colleagues—well, Congressmen Bishop and Westmoreland, in particular, the three of us, as you know, currently all 

represent this part of the state. 

But here on this—on this day, you’ve got a third, fully one-third, 

General, of the Congressional Delegation of the State of Georgia 

representing nine and a half million people. You’ve got both of our 

United States Senators and three of our Congressmen in a bipartisan fashion. And some of us had to get up real early in the morning to get here from Moultrie, Georgia, and Cobb County, and that 

just could kind of indicate to you how important these issues are. 

And I was really pleased when you, as a second panel, took your 

seat, and I saw you roll up those sleeves and kind of reminded me 

of General Schwartzkopf in Desert Storm, and you’ve got that takecharge look, and you told us that in a previous command you’ve not 

hesitated to deviate from the book when it seemed appropriate 

when common sense prevailed, and that’s the kind of thinking that 

we like. 

And we are asking from you in regard to this particular issue—

I realize with the next panel, you’re going to hear from folks on 

this issue of this winter pool level at West Point Lake, and, of 

course, you’re going to hear from our farm community, and as 

Chairman Chambliss has some great responsibility of chairing that 

committee in the Senate, there are many on the issues that will be 

discussed, and I understand that. 

But this one particular issue is hugely important; particularly to 

the three members of the House and, obviously, to our Senators as 

well. And, you know, you talked about predictions and El Nino and 

all that stuff—I can hardly pronounce that, and I’m a Georgia Tech 

engineer and graduate from Medical College of Georgia, but I’m 

going to tell you something; I do understand actual versus predicted, and that’s what Congressman Westmoreland was just talking about. 

You’re going to hear from this next panel, and they’re going to 

let you know a little bit about actual and the damage that some 

of these rigid rules and regulations inflict on a local community because somebody’s worried about the sturgeon and I don’t know 

what—the snail-guard or mussels we’re really talking about, but I 

think the most endangered species that we’re concerned about is 

homo-sapiens and the people that live in this community and the 

economic impact and the recreational issues. 

And we’re just asking for some common sense. And so, basically, 

I—you know, you—I think you’ve already said it in regard to the 

study. We’ve heard a lot about earmarks during this 109th ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 Jan 25, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\31435.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
28

gress, and people have been backing up on earmarks. I guarantee 

you one thing; you’ll get an earmark that all of the members of 

Congress and Senate that this statement will support proudly put 

their name to it on both sides of the aisle because—you know, 

we’ve done the study locally. We’ve paid the expenses of doing that, 

and there is absolutely, General, no excuse for not moving forward 

and doing this in a timely fashion because this thing has just drug 

on far too long. 

Now, I don’t think I came up with a question at all in this speech 

that I gave, but I wavered my opening statement, so I’ll sort of include that, Mr. Chairman, in my time. But if you can respond to 

those thoughts, I would appreciate it because I get the impression 

that you’re the guy, the brigadier general, where the buck should 

stop at your desk and not necessarily a civilian assistant, assistant 

secretary of the Department of Defense, who I don’t think is qualified to make the decisions as well as you are. 

So we’re looking toward you, and we’re hoping for a good answer. 

And I’ll yield back my time and listen to your response. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I can say that, first of all, I’m not 

afraid to make decisions. If they’re within my authority, I’ll make 

them. And in response to me making the decision and the buck 

stopping with me, I couldn’t agree with you more. 

And if I could share, perhaps, on another battlefront that I’m facing here within this region—now, my region covers from Mississippi all the way to Virginia—in another simple project called 

The Everglades. The norm has been that the folks had to go to 

Washington to get answers. And I’ve already waited on that situation. I was glad to hear from the sponsors when they called me 

back, and said, ‘‘You know, it’s nice to know we don’t have to go 

to Washington anymore.’’ So I will just offer that to you as evidence 

at least in the last few weeks of my inclination, which is exactly 

to do what you’ve said. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. You’re back with The Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, General, we’ve laid the challenge out there, 

and we look forward to working with you. There are a lot of stakeholders here who have significant interest in all of the issues from 

the end of the Apalachicola as it goes into the Gulf all the way 

north of Atlanta. And we’re excited about the fact that you’re here. 

And, frankly, for the first time from my perspective in the 12 years 

that I’ve been working on this, you have more inclination to make 

decisions and to get something done than anybody that we’ve 

talked to before. So we’re glad you’re here. 

And, again, when you communicate with your son, tell him how 

much we appreciate his service to our country. And we look forward to staying in touch with you. Thank you for taking the time 

to be with us, sir. 

General SCHROEDEL. Thanks. If I can make one final request, if 

I can, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

General SCHROEDEL. You and all the people here saying that I’ve 

established in this region is deeds not words. I’ve got to say to 

judge me by my deeds, not my words. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll set this hearing for a year from now, and 

then we’ll give you a grade. How about that? 

29

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I’d love it. That’s great. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General. 

I would now like to ask our third panel, which consists of: Mr. 

Dick Timmerberg, the executive director of West Point Lake Coalition in LaGrange; Mr. Mike Gaymon, president and CEO of Columbus Georgia Chamber of Commerce here in Columbus; Mr. Steve 

Singletary, vice chairman of Georgia Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission from Blakely; and Mr. Jimmy Webb of Flint River 

Water Council. Jimmy resides in Leary. 

Please come forward and take your places. 

Gentlemen, thank you all very much for taking the time to come 

out and share some thoughts with us today, and we look forward 

to your opening comments. 

I would encourage you to stay within a three- to five-minute 

range. This light system we have up here is a little bit funky today 

because the yellow light doesn’t work. The green light means that 

you’ve spoken for four, and you’re in your four-minute period. 

There will then be a blank for that last minute, but when the red 

light comes on, it means your five minutes is up, and we’d like for 

you to wind up. All of your written statements will be taken in the 

records. So everything that wasn’t included will be included. 

And, Mike, what we’ll do is start with you. And, Dick, we’ll go 

right down the row as far as opening statements in order. Mike, 

welcome. We’ll, of course, hear from you now. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE GAYMON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COLUMBUS GEORGIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 

Mr. GAYMON. Thank you, sir. 

Dear Committee Members, it is an honor to have you here in the 

RiverCenter, which is one of our super regional assets. This facility 

came about due to a public-private partnership resulting in over 

$100 million being raised to endow the arts. And many—in fact, 

many of the things in our region are due to this partnership where 

the public sectors work with the private sectors to find a win-win, 

which is what we hope could finally happen with the Water Wars, 

a public-private partnership for water. 

Columbus was a planned city. Being on the most northern location for river traffic, its very beginning is due to the Chattahoochee 

River. Today, we’re more aware and sensitive to the importance of 

the river than we have ever been. Just as the 20-plus mills that 

used to depend upon the river for its power, we depend upon it 

even more for drinking, some of our water recreation, and certainly, for business needs. When you come back next year, you’ll 

see the 2.5-mile whitewater course in our central business district. 

We think this is just another example that while—we say we have 

rediscovered The Hooch. 

In 1992, our city was faced with a major problem of Combined 

Sewer Overflow. Once a plan was developed and carefully explained to the citizens, they voted to tax themselves to a tune of 

over 600—$60 million to fix the problem. Combined with local 

funds, over $80 million was spent on the $100 million problem. 

Today, Columbus does not have a CSO problem. In fact, we used 

the opportunity to construct a 15-mile riverwalk, which is actually 

30

a nice covering for a gigantic CSO sewer collection system along 

the river. 

We hold this up as an example of having the political will to fix 

a long-term problem through an innovative and bold effort to make 

it better than it was. In fact, thanks to some financial help from 

the Congress in 1995, we were able to build a Combined Sewer National Demonstration Project, which was one of the first in the nation that’s now being held up as an international model for dealing 

with treatment of wastewater solids. I hope it doesn’t appear that 

I’m bragging about these accomplishments, but instead, I’m trying 

to illustrate the point that we can be good stewards; not to have 

to break the bank, but it takes a commitment, and it takes partners who are willing to find solutions; not just identify problems. 

Unfortunately, some cities in our state and our nation have chosen to pay fines or to try a patchwork approach instead of being 

responsible and accountable to take care of their own problems. 

However, in spite of what we’ve done to fix our CSO, it helps us 

and it helps the people downstream as well. Wouldn’t it be appropriate or even make sense to require everyone using the rivers to 

do the same? Simply using average annual stream flows is questionable as to the adequacy. That may be like the man who stuck 

his head in an oven and his feet in the freezer, and on the average, 

he ought to be okay. 

During these periods, the cost of treatment before a discharge occurs could be many times over what it could be and should be if 

minimum flows are met and maintained year-round. Frankly, we 

support growth and development. We’re glad that other areas of 

our state and our region are growing, but we don’t think it should 

be at the expense of others. There are other parts of our state in 

addition to Lake Lanier and Apalachicola who are just as interested in protecting the environment while ensuring that the future 

of our citizens in regard to having ample water to sustain their 

quality of life are enhanced. 

For example, more septic tanks that are put in operation in our 

state causes the flow and return to our rivers to be impacted. 

Shouldn’t cities and counties with policies, or maybe the lack of, of 

uses versus minimum returns simply be ignored regardless of the 

impact of people downstream? It probably sounds too simple to ever 

work. Maybe that’s part of the problem. We’ve made it too complicated. 

Imagine—or some might say hallucinate—with me for a moment. 

What would happen if every user were required to do the following 

two things? Put back at least 90 percent of what’s withdrawn on 

an annual basis back into the rivers and return what’s put back 

cleaner than when it was withdrawn. If every user had to adhere 

to these two items, everyone upstream and downstream the rivers 

would have plenty of water to drink and play on, while still ensuring environmental issues were also taken care of. This would not 

pit one city against another city or another state against another 

state. Instead, each would be forced to adhere to the two rules that 

everyone withdrawing and discharging would operate and live by. 

If it were that easy, perhaps it would have been fixed a long time 

ago. But does anyone here think it’s ever going to get any easier? 

31

We applaud your interest in this area. We thank you for coming 

to Columbus to—for this hearing, and we look forward to the leadership in what we think is one of the most vital aspects of our future; sustainable water standards. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaymon can be found on page 

59 in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mike, Dick. 

STATEMENT OF DICK TIMMERBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WEST POINT LAKE COALITION, LaGRANGE, GEORGIA 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of Congress, guests, Brigadier General Schroedel, nice to meet you. 

Before I actually start, we did submit the pictures, which the 

Chairman referred to earlier. And, General, we would take issue on 

how successful that plan is, as much as I hate to say it. But when 

you see those pictures later, I think you will concur with us that 

it has not been real successful. 

I would like to emphasize up front, though, that we have an excellent working relationship locally with the Corps at the West 

Point Lake project and tremendous respect for their commitment 

and dedication to the lake. We’ve partnered with them on numerous projects; life jacket loaning programs, annual lake cleanup, 

solar buoy lights, to name a few. Regrettably, we do not have the 

same level of respect for the management practices employed by 

the Mobile District. And while I’m going to emphasize the management practice, there are a lot of fine people and we have some excellent relationships with Mobile, but we do challenge the management practices that are employed. 

The Congress of the United States authorized West Point Lake 

in 1962 for five purposes: Hydropower; fish and wildlife recreation, 

i.e., sport fishing and wildlife; general recreation; navigation; and 

flood control. I would like to briefly address only two of these since 

the mussel and sturgeon and endangered species have been addressed previously. 

Regarding recreation, West Point Lake is the first Corps of Engineers lake in the country to be specifically authorized by Congress 

as a demonstration recreation project. I want to repeat that; a demonstration recreation project. Yet, recreation is the one authorized 

purpose most consistently ignored and undervalued by the Mobile 

District. 

In the District’s own documents, specifically, Appendix X—F, 

Section 5, on recreation, they state the first and second recreation 

impact levels at 633.5 and 632 MSL respectively versus a full pool 

of 635. In a local West Point Lake document, the recreation impact 

levels are listed at 632.5 and 629. Obviously, there should only be 

one set of numbers. Realistically, we believe the more accurate 

numbers are somewhere in between. 

Consequently, on the 28th of November in ’05, we submitted a 

recommendation based on current conditions that said these numbers should be 632.5 for the first level and a minimum of 630 for 

the second. Mobile never responded to that recommendation. Recreation impact levels are critical because they equate to economic impact levels. West Point Lake is conservatively estimated to have an 

32

annual economic impact of 225 to $250 million on its neighboring 

communities. These numbers do not include the economic potential 

that the lake was maintained at a safe, stable winter pool level of 

a minimum of 630. 

General, you referred to the 17 percent visitation. I wouldn’t visit 

the lake right now, and I live within position of 10. Our position 

is if it was a safe level, people would visit the lake all year-round 

because we have the climate to support that visitation. And actually, when we looked at the study, there would be about a 24 to 

$28 million economic impact because of the increased visitation. 

Basic historical data; winter flooding is not and has not been the 

issue. The flood of record, as Congressman Westmoreland stated, 

occurred in May of ’03 when the lake was at full pool. We had 11 

to 15 inches of rain unforecasted, and due to a great job by the 

Corps, the lake went up six feet, but there was no flooding or certainly no major flooding. 

We contend Mobile should provide the public a safe winter lake 

level at a minimum 630 to enjoy the authorized purpose of recreation 12 months a year. A 628 level is an unsafe surface. There 

have been numerous boating accidents resulting in huge repair 

bills and personal injuries, and we believe it’s just a matter of time 

before one or more people are killed due to the unsafe lake level. 

Additionally, the fluctuating lake levels caused tremendous soil 

erosion and sedimentation due to a vast number of exposed areas 

with shoreline; 5,249 acres to be exact in the 628 level are 20 percent of the surface area of the lake. Water storage capacity is being 

reduced daily, water turbidity is increased, and treatment costs to 

provide clean, safe drinking water are likewise escalating. 

Finally, the economic value of the lake is grossly underutilized. 

Since its authorization, sport fishing and wildlife, along with general recreation, has increased exponentially in value and now 

dwarf the other authorized purposes. Our communities are suffering economic losses due to unsafe and unsatisfactory winter lake 

levels below 630. Furthermore, our ability to recruit industry and 

jobs suffers tremendously when we have to keep people away from 

an unrealistically low lake. 

Conversely, a stable and dependable West Point Lake would be 

a recruiting magnet. We don’t even know the economic potential of 

West Point Lake due to current and past management practices. 

However, a drive around Lake Lanier proves the economic potential is phenomenal if the management practices provide us the opportunity to realize it. 

Georgia’s population continues to grow, and there will be continuing increasing demands. The Mobile District practice needs to 

provide fair and equitable distribution of water the low state over. 

One major part of the solution to meet these increasing demands 

is to increase actual storage, not storage potential; more and more 

storage water. Take advantage of winter rains to increase storage 

is a win-win for all parties. Higher lake levels for recreation, higher 

lake levels for hydropower, and more water available for downstream needs. 

We respectfully ask that our Senators join with our Representatives and other members of Congress and insist that the Corps follow your Congressional authorizations. In lieu of this and assuming 

33

the Mobile District can and will continue to ignore Congress’ directives, we ask that our Senators and Representatives introduce and 

pass legislation which mandated a minimum 630 winter lake level. 

The communities and stakeholders around West Point Lake have 

needlessly suffered too much economic harm already. We’ve been 

dealing with this issue for over six years; six years when the majority of rational people agree this is the right thing to do, and the 

science supports it. 

We sincerely appreciate your time and this opportunity and ask 

your support to finally bring this issue to a positive resolution 

prioritizing the most valuable authorized purposes of recreation 

and maximizing the economic potential of West Point Lake for the 

community and the individual lakefront stakeholders. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Timmerberg can be found on 

page 68 in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Dick, Steve. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SINGLETARY, VICE CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, BLAKELY, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Good morning. My name is Steve Singletary. 

I’m a southwest Georgia farmer, supervisor with the Flint River 

Soil & Water Conservation District, and vice chairman of the Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission. I’m pleased to be here 

today not only representing Georgia Soil & Water Commission but 

the Flint River District, which is directly impacted by the results 

of this hearing because of areas that we cover. 

For 60 years, this Conservation District has played an important 

role in making local leaders make decisions regarding the use of 

natural resources. The 40 districts across the state are an active 

partner in the delivery of federal, state, and local conservation policies and programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for holding this 

hearing today in Columbus and for including conservation issues 

on the agenda. I fully understand much of today should be focused 

on the Corps of Engineers’ operation of local river basins; however, 

I’m pleased that you and the Committee understand the value and 

importance of ag water conservation. 

Conservation programs have grown over the last decade to now 

represent significant funding and meaningful technical assistance 

to farmers and irrigators. This commitment allows farmers to not 

only protect our soil and water but to be better neighbors and citizens. Row crop producers in southwest Georgia have benefited from 

irrigation management cost share and incentives promoted by current conservation programs resulting in better management of land 

and water. While we get other support from commodity programs, 

the conservation tools, both technical and financial, have helped 

avoid regulations and promote more profitability in an ever-changing farming environment. 

I know my time is limited here. I don’t want to leave you with 

several thoughts regarding water conservation programs that the 

Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission offers to assist 

producers. The first program I would like to mention is the Ag 

34

Water Conservation Initiative Irrigation Reservoir Incentive Program, better known as the Pond Program. This program provides 

cost share assistance to land owners to help offset the cost of either 

renovating or—an existing pond or constructing a new impoundment. This containment structure catches off-season water that 

would be lost and provide a source to augment surface and ground 

water supplies. Key partner in this program is the Natural Resource Conservation Service who provides technical assistance to 

ensure that construction is completed in a sound manner. 

The Commissions Mobile Irrigation Lab provides a service of 

evaluating uniformity of water distribution under pivot civic—center pivot irrigation systems. As systems age, water distribution 

may change. In many cases, irrigation is scheduled when a portion 

of the field is stressed by hot and dry conditions, and if water is 

not applied uniformly, this portion of the field may need to be irrigated and the rest of the field doesn’t require water. 

A Mobile Irrigation Lab audits—Mobile Audit Lab quantifies how 

uniform water is supplied. Results of this field test include a graph 

showing the uniformity of the pivot system at pivot and proceeding 

down the system toward the end, an accurate application chart 

from a verified—from a field speed and water flow test and a detailed report showing leaks and needed repairs. If uniformity results are poor, cost share assistance is offered to the producer to 

retrofit the nozzle package to improve the water application uniformity. 

Through the use of GPS technology and aerial imagery, this program has helped identify off-site water applications from an endgun and will provide cost share assistance to equip the systems 

with an end-gun shutoff device when water is thrown on the public 

roadways or irrigation is applied to more than one acre of non-productive land. 

The Commission is also implementing the first statewide effort 

to measure ag water use. House Bill 579 passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor Perdue, mandates that 

the Commission oversee the purchase, installation, maintenance, 

and collection of data from meters on all Environmental Protection 

Division permitted to ag withdraws. This program inventories 

pump sites using GPS technology to record their location and 

causes a meter to be installed on these sites. Annual water use 

data is obtained and along with irrigation water is applied—area 

that irrigation water is applied to and the cropping history from 

these sites. 

The Commission works with irrigators to improve their understanding of how this state supposed state sponsored on-the-farm 

management tool can assist them in improving irrigation efficiency 

and help identify pumping problems. A state-sponsored interactive 

website will be produced to provide producers with an opportunity 

to review personal water use and/or provide comments on changes 

to irrigation systems for their cropping history. 

The last program I’d like to highlight is the Irrigator Pro Ag 

Water Conservation Incentive Program. Through this corporation—

cooperative effort with the National Peanut Research Lab, producers are given an incentive to use a computerized irrigation 

scheduling tool. For the crops of corn, cotton, and peanuts, 

35

irrigators can track crop water uses and target irrigation events to 

match these needs. 

Commission’s goal of these conservation programs is simple. It is 

to supply producers with tools and knowledge that they need to use 

water wisely and efficiently. The Pond Program provides additional 

water. The Irrigation Lab ensures it’s applied uniformly. The metering programs measures what’s used. And the Irrigator Pro 

matches what is applied to the needs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singletary can be found on page 

66 in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Steve, Jimmy. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY WEBB, FLINT RIVER WATER COUNCIL, 

LEARY, GEORGIA 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, Congressman Westmoreland, Congressman Bishop, and Congressman Gingrey who’s 

gone, it’s my honor to be here before you today. 

Steve and I are tied pretty tight together as farmers locally. A 

lot of the ideas that he just discussed with you were born with the 

Water Council, and the Soil & Water Commission have carried 

them on. 

I offer my testimony from the perspective of dependence. Certainly, my livelihood, and to a great extent, the livelihood of all of 

my southwest Georgia neighbors, is dependent on our natural resources for irrigation. I’m a fourth-generation Calhoun County 

farmer whose operation consists of 2,500 acres of peanuts, cotton, 

and corn. We began irrigating—not me, my forefathers—in 1971 

and continued to invest in irrigation hardware and infrastructure 

until our entire row crop operation could benefit from supplemental 

irrigation. 

Over the last 35 years, we’ve also made great strides in areas of 

water conservation. We practice conservation tillage on most of our 

acreage, have replaced old inefficient systems with uniform lowpressure pivots and made use of the latest in irrigation scheduling 

research to ensure the most efficient use of our water resources as 

possible. Furthermore, given the cost of energy, pumping unnecessary amounts of water is one practice that would guarantee the 

fourth generation would never be able to pass down to the farmer 

of the fifth generation. For the Webbs and most of the farmers in 

southwest Georgia, irrigation is not a luxury. It’s a business necessity that drives the largest sector or our regional and state economy. 

I understand the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Corps 

of Engineers’ operation of the ACF River basins and their efforts 

and the effects on Georgia’s agriculture. To date, the high-profile 

actions recently taken by the Corps on the Chattahoochee River 

have not directly affected my operation given my location in the 

Flint River basin. However, every action and decision concerning 

management of the ACF is of interest to me for one very simple 

reason; I suspect that Florida does not care if their minimum flow 

demands in the Apalachicola are met with water from the Chattahoochee or the Flint Rivers. 

36

Up to this point, ACF discussions have focused mainly on the 

Chattahoochee, but it is possible, if not probable, that in the near 

future, an attempt to squeeze more water from the Flint Basin 

could be made in order to meet some target flow. The biggest loser 

if such a scenario would play out would no doubt be Georgia agriculture. 

The lower Flint contains the greatest concentration of irrigated 

acreage in the state. These row and forage crops translate into 

roughly $700 million in Farmgate value and contribute significantly to the $5.8 million in direct and indirect output from agriculture and related businesses in this small corner of Georgia. 

I can personally attest to the ripple effect caused by irrigated 

production through my partial ownership of a cotton gin and a peanut-buying point. Without the investment in irrigation technology 

by southwest Georgians, three of the first seven years in this century, including 2006, would have ended in complete disaster not 

just for producers, but for an economy that depends on our ability 

to access our water resources. Unfortunately, farmers as a group 

have not been as proactive as perhaps we should have been when 

it comes to discussions on water plan and policy. 

As a charter member of the Flint River Regional Water Council 

and an appointee to the Basin Advisory Committee for the Flint 

River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan, 

I consider myself fairly well-versed in water policy issues. It is with 

this knowledge that I can fully appreciate the complex and difficult 

process of equitable water allocation among competing uses. 

At the same time, it’s my experience as a farmer that realizes 

the greatest potential threat to our way of life is uncertainty regarding access to water. Serious questions with serious concerns 

loom over both the inter and intrastate water concerns facing Georgia. 

Questions such as: What kind of impacts are possible with the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife now designating all of southwest Georgia critical habitat for several endangered mussel species? I want to add 

one thing to that from what Congressman Westmoreland and Congressman Gingrey said. If this is imposed, at what point would I 

be considered an endangered species? I do wonder a lot of times if 

those endangered species are driving the train. 

Does my state-issued irrigation permit effectively negate my 

right to reasonable use as a riparian? If I’m forced to reduce my 

water use, what basis will be used if our permits are not tied to 

any withdrawal amount? The bottom line is: We as irrigators must 

have clarity in our rights to access in times of water scarcity, 

whether naturally occurring or imposed by some government regulation. 

Production agriculture in 2006 is a venture filled with great risk 

but also some reward. One risk that we as producers cannot endure 

would be the arbitrary interruption, for whatever reason, of our 

ability to irrigate. We must remain at the table as the decisions are 

made in the near future will have lasting consequences. 

I appreciate the Committee’s recognition of the importance of agriculture and my opportunity to share some of my concerns with 

you. And I’d be happy to ask answer any questions you may have. 

37

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webb can be found on page 89 

in the appendix.]] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank all of you for your excellent testimony. And, again, let me just say that your entire statement will 

be put in the record. 

Mike, I’m going to start with you. What effect does an adequate 

supply of water have upon the economic development of Columbus 

and Muscogee County? 

Mr. GAYMON. Well, Senator, as you know, we have a regional 

economic development organization known as The Valley Partnership, which covers six counties and three overseas, and it has significant part. I mean, without water, obviously, there will be no 

growth. And as you know, this part of Georgia needs all the help 

it can get. 

As I said, we are for growth and development of other parts, but 

we don’t think it ought to be at our expense. So water is critical. 

We must have water for drinking. We also must have water, obviously, for discharge back into the river. I mean, it’s a major part 

of the very reason why we’re here, and I think our future is absolutely tied to it. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are very pleased that the conclusion of the 

last base closure round to see that Fort Benning was going to be 

gaining about 10,000 soldiers over the next several years, and we’re 

going to see the movement of the armor school from Fort Knox 

down here as well as some other assets to Fort Benning. 

While all of that is well and good, it’s going to bring not just 

10,000 soldiers; it’s going to bring their families, it’s going to bring 

lots of civilians in addition to that. It’s going to bring a lot of government contractors into Columbus. 

From a water supply standpoint, are we prepared to meet the 

needs at Fort Benning and the ancillary folks that it’s going to 

bring into our area? 

Mr. GAYMON. Capacity-wise, Columbus Waterworks has excess 

capacity of water and sewer, but obviously, our challenge is for this 

region, and that’s why we’ve got to make sure that we continue to 

make sure that we provide the water and sewer needs for this region. 

Right now, it’s a question as to whether we’d be able to be able 

to provide water and sewage in the outlining areas if each county 

and each area decided to do its own thing, so to speak. So we think 

that regionally is the way we have to do with that the water and 

sewer. 

When you’re talking about 33,000 people moving to this region—

you participated in the Kia announcement. I know several of you 

were there. What’s about to happen at Fort Benning is three times 

the size of Kia. That is tremendous. And we’ve got to make sure 

that we have ample water and sewer available for this growth that 

is going to happen; not what might happen; we know it will happen, so we’ve got to make sure we’re ready. And that’s why we’re 

applauding this hearing, and we thank you for taking the proactive 

stance because the future of our region depends upon it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lastly, we know that water flow is critical to the 

utilization of the port in Columbus. How important from an economic standpoint is the Port of Columbus to this area? 

38

Mr. GAYMON. It’s lost some of its importance, Senator, over the 

years. Obviously, if you can’t commit to whether you’re going to be 

able to have enough water for the draw to bring barges up, it’s 

chicken and the egg. You won’t have barge traffic if you can’t commit that there’ll be water to float those barges. And without any 

uncertainty, knowing whether you will or whether you won’t, obviously, the barge traffic is not nearly as it used to be simply because 

of reliability. 

You know, you can’t tell folks that you can ship up and ship 

down. Obviously, you’d be questionable as to whether you can put 

a barge on the river and nobody really knows, I think, as to those 

small windows of opportunity for shipping equipment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dick, when you talk about achieving minimal 

winter water levels, in order to achieve that, is it necessary to draw 

down more water from upstream or keep more water from flowing 

downstream to accomplish this or both of the above or neither of 

the above? 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Basically, we like to refer to it as free water 

because it’s the late fall and winter rains. And no one—at least 

now in the Tristate Water Wars—is competing for that. I think we 

all understand now with the IOP that that 5,000 is historically 

what’s been done. So the flows have been augmented above that because of the appearance to the rural curve at the reservoir. So 

when water’s coming in, we can easily store that water. 

Last winter, had we, in fact, stored it, the drought still would 

have happened, but would the results have been this severe and as 

early? No, they wouldn’t have; not with another two feet of water, 

which again is approximately about 42,000 acre feet of water that 

would have been available had we just stored it when we had the 

opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. So from your historical perspective, once we 

reach an adequate level from a wintertime standpoint, it can be 

controlled with the normal inflow and outflow again that you’ve 

seen historically without lowering the level? 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Steve, what role does your organization play during drought years when the rainfall is scarce and more producers 

need to depend on irrigation? And secondly, earlier this year, there 

were folks around the state who were under water restrictions due 

to drought conditions; do agriculture producers have to abade the 

water restrictions? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. What’s that last part? 

The CHAIRMAN. Do agriculture producers have to abide by these 

water restrictions? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. No, sir. They don’t have to abide by the water 

restrictions; however, they do use some of the tools that have been 

provided, such as the Irrigator Pro computer model that work to 

reduce the amount of water they can use by matching the actual 

needs of the crops to water instead of producing—put the number 

of what he needs to do. We have instruments in the field that take 

measurements to tell us when the crop actually needs the water, 

so that produces it. 

With the programs to retrofit irrigation systems, we’re increasing 

the efficiency or uniformity and getting better use of the water 

39

we’re using; therefore, being able to use less because we’re doing 

a better job of applying what we need. With the meters, it allows 

us to know what we are using and do a better job of doing that 

management at the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jimmy, you mentioned in your testimony that 

your farm consists of 2,500 acres of irrigated commodities. What’s 

your source for that irrigation? 

Mr. Webb I am a surface water irrigator, and that’s probably 

why this is so important to me. 

In the Chattahoochee region here, they have about 70,000 acres 

of irrigated land. In my county alone, we have 37,000 acres of irrigated land. The majority of my county is irrigated by surface 

water. That surface water eventually ends up in Lake Seminole 

and ends up in Florida. That’s why it’s very important to me. 

As a surface water irrigator, we have become very efficient by 

using the programs that Steve was talking about. A lot of—I think 

a lot of the public perspective is that, a lot of times, we pump unnecessarily. With these programs that we have, the computer models, we pump only when necessary and only when we absolutely 

have to. 

And it’s made—believe it or not, it has made my yields go up because I was watering a lot of times on my own at the wrong time, 

and it would hurt my crop. And now, with these programs, I’m 

much more efficient with the water and making a better yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. What’s been the economic impact of the expanded use of irrigation by agriculture producers over the last decade? 

Mr. WEBB. I couldn’t tell you the answer to that one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don’t mean in dollars, but if you had not 

had the asset of an irrigation system on your farm versus having 

the farm all dry, again, what’s done from an economic impact on 

southwest Georgia? 

Mr. Webb I think I would be out of business, especially for the 

first few years of this century. What it has done is stabilized our 

income. We know that we’re going to have a crop every year. We’re 

going to have some type of production. Stability in your income, 

stability in your economy, stability in your tax base of southwest 

Georgia. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mr. Timmerberg, I want to take a couple of 

your points and try and amplify them, if I can. 

Number one, I thought the General’s comment with regard to 17 

percent of the usage of visitation took place during the four winter 

months; I think you hit the nail on the head when you said because 

of the low pool, that reduces the visitations. It’s not reflective of the 

lack of use because the climate here is temperate, with fishing and 

many other forms of recreation are year-round. 

To that end, as I understand it, when the lake was originally authorized, it was authorized at 625 feet. That was raised in the 

1980s when they did the amended plan to 628. And in 2003, the 

Corps, on its own, raised the winter pool to 630 and then subsequently reduced it. Do you know why it was raised to 630 in 2002 

and then why it was reduced? 

40

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Yes. We made a recommendation of the district engineer at that time based on the economic harm as well as 

the economic potential of having the lake at a safe winter level pool 

of 630, and the district engineer at that time granted a one-year 

waiver both in ’02, ’03, and ’04. And we’ve even looked back at that 

as a three-year test run, and obviously, there were no serious repercussions from that 630 lake level. 

In ’05, the district engineer stated that he was returning to the 

broad—and rural curves and that the lake would be managed according to those curves. 

Senator ISAKSON. I understand in the three-year test, it demonstrated no difficulties? 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Correct. And if I can, Senator, just a very recent example. Saturday—when we talked about winter visitation—

there was a bass tournament Saturday out of Highland Marina & 

Resort; charity tournament that benefit Children’s Healthcare of 

Atlanta. It had been advertised for six months heavily in the Atlanta area. Anybody that was here Saturday was at Fall Chamber 

of Commerce Day. It couldn’t have been better. Seven boats showed 

up for that tournament, after six months of advertising. Because, 

again, in my opinion, people cannot rely on a safe lake level. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mike, I want to just commend Columbus and 

Muscogee County. Your water authority people, waste water people, have visited me on numerous occasions that what you all implemented in ’96 and have executed is nothing short of breaking 

the Pine sewer outfall as well as your water management. 

And your recommendations about returning 90 percent of what 

you use back in the watershed is exactly the type of thinking we 

need in municipal and county government because every time we 

put water in the septic tank, we’re taking it out of the watershed, 

so to speak, and every time we’re treating it, we can put it back 

in the watershed, and then it’s a higher problem when it’s taken 

out. 

Those management practices of what Columbus is doing is extremely admirable. And I just want you to know that. It’s wellnoted by all of us in Congress. 

Mr. GAYMON. Thank you, sir. And our Columbus Waterworks, 

they are in the leading edge, but we’re just looking for partners. 

We’re not asking you to do it for us. We’re just saying, ‘‘Work it 

with us, and we’ll find a way to make it work,’’ and I think that’s 

exactly what we’re trying to do. 

Senator ISAKSON. Now, Jimmy, I’ve got a question for you. And 

this is not my origination, so I’m asking it on behalf of the staff 

sitting here behind me, so if I mix up the terminology, you just 

blame me. 

Since 2006 has been a very dry year, has there been a noticeable 

difference in crop yields with your use of conservation tillage 

versus condition? 

Mr. Webb Yes, sir. The biggest difference was the fact that in my 

conservation and tillage is irrigating. We’ve been pleasantly surprised at what our yields are under irrigation. A lot of the dry-land 

people in our area have destroyed their crops. They did not make 

any crop at all. And the irrigation has made a tremendous difference. 

41

And the conservation and tillage, what it does is the water will 

stay there longer. It doesn’t evaporate as quickly. So, therefore, it’s 

helped us stretch our waters out. And with these tools we have, we 

don’t have to come back as quick as we used to by using conservation tillage. 

Senator ISAKSON. And isn’t it fair to say—particularly looking 

back over the last 10 years—that had it not been for irrigation, the 

ag industry basically in this part of Georgia would have been wiped 

out given the weather patterns? 

Mr. Webb Yes, sir. I thought about one other thing to answer 

Chairman Chambliss’ question is: In the last 10 years, you see less 

and less dry-land farms and more and more are going to irrigation. 

The dry-land farms have been planted in the CRP programs and 

has turned them into recreational tracks that—under a type land, 

and it’s—it’s no longer being used for production agriculture; mostly just all irrigating now. 

Senator ISAKSON. Notwithstanding the higher cost of petroleum 

and spilled, and something you’ve just almost got to deal with staying there? 

Mr. Webb Yes, sir. You have to. If you want to produce a crop, 

you have to have some water. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I’d like to thank the panel for your comments. I think they all will be extremely helpful in instructing to 

us and to the Corps. 

With respect to Mr. Webb and Mr. Singletary, I don’t have questions for you. We are very, very intimately involved in the agriculture and the water needs there, but I just want to take this opportunity to commend you for your organizations’ perseverance and 

your insight in being able to address the bad rap that has been put 

on south Georgia agriculture for pumping out all of the water and 

not allowing that water to flow down into Florida and being part 

of the problem for the shortage of water. I think that the practices 

that you’ve utilized and the research with the quantifying ag needs 

and actually quantifying ag usage and fine-tuning the irrigation 

process, I want to congratulate you on being able to improve your 

yields with that. 

I think it has made a big difference, and it also gives us ammunition in Congress when we have to deal with the people who are not 

commended with how much or how little irrigation you have to do 

and the impact it has on water control. And I want to commend 

you for what you’ve done to help educate us and educate—and give 

us the tools that we need to be able to protect that usage. 

With respect to Mr. Gaymon, I want to just ask you if you could 

sort of just emphasize with regard to economic development how 

important the water flow is on the Chattahoochee-Apalachicola 

River way with regard to the development plans that you have 

here in the Columbus area from here south, particularly with regard to what is planned with the Infantry Museum or Armor Museum, the marina plans and how increased water flow, raising the 

water levels, such as the lake, and allowing the water levels to increase as it comes down downstream; how that would affect the 

government plans for the marina, the Infantry Museum, and all of 

42

these communities right down—right in the Chattahoochee River 

way? 

And also, I want to comment that—there were comments made 

about the barge traffic, the Port of Columbus. But we do have another port south of Columbus, and that’s the Port of Bainbridge, 

which is also in my Congressional District, which is probably in 

more need of navigable water than in—than perhaps we need here 

in Columbus. 

So I do want the General to be cognizant of the fact that Bainbridge is a port and, of course, that could be a tremendous economic impact there if that water flow was consistent of the barge 

traffic there. 

But if you have a comment on the economic government plans, 

I’d appreciate that. 

Mr. GAYMON. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. 

We think there’s ample water, but not—as I understand, we 

think there’s a sufficient supply of water to be able to take care of 

our current and future needs, but not at all costs. 

You know, when flows get down very low, it’s not just the number of water that we need for drinking; it’s also what happens with 

being able to treat it before you discharge back into the river, 

which ends up costing everyone a lot more money than perhaps it 

would have if certain flows were maintained. 

It’s a big political issue. We understand that. I mean, you guys, 

that’s why you’re there. And you’re there to fix it, if you will, working with a lot of folks. But our future is dependent upon being able 

to have an adequate supply of water. We will put back into the 

river; clean the water that we take out. We will be good stewards. 

I think we’ve shown to be good stewards. We have permits to withdraw over 90 million. We withdraw some around 60 million. 

So we’re being good stewards, but we’re looking out 10 years 

from now, 15 years from now, when this region grows—and we 

think it certainly will. Senator Chambliss has already mentioned 

the growth with Fort Benning, and with Kia at West Point and so 

forth. 

So we think that it’s important what we do today to take care 

of our future. Our future is tied to that river. Without the river, 

we will not be a city. And without this city being the hub of this 

region, I’m not sure what we’d become. I don’t think it would be 

anything any of us would be proud of. So it’s absolutely essential. 

But we think there’s an ample supply. It’s a matter of just maintaining that ample supply so that we’ll be good stewards, and we 

want everybody upstream and we want everybody downstream to 

be good stewards as well. Don’t punish us because another area is 

growing. You know, let us be good stewards like we want everyone 

else to be good stewards. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Westmoreland. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And, Mike, let me say that from all of 

us, no flack from any other city can, but Columbus is a great example of how public-private partnerships work. I think this facility, 

your CSO plan where you voted to tax yourself to do that is a important thing that I think we have to consider that you are trying 

to do what you said; put that water back in cleaner and to be a 

43

good steward of the water, unlike some of the cities that—maybe 

north of us up around the Atlanta area. 

But it’s kind of what Senator Chambliss said would—do you have 

any dollar amount of what the impact is on that flow? Keeping that 

flow right because of the mills, because of the recreation, because 

of your draw in the dependency, I guess, on that river valley partnership? 

Mr. GAYMON. I’ll give you one quick number. We mentioned Fort 

Benning. The Columbus Waterworks now has a contract to provide 

water and sewer at Fort Benning. If they can’t provide that, we’re 

talking about over $3.2 billion in new growth and development that 

is in this city. 

But we’re talking about our very livelihood. I mean, if we’re not 

able to provide water to Talbot County, to Chattahoochee County, 

to this region, we think those counties are going to continue to be 

very, very rural, and they need jobs. I mean, they deserve an opportunity for jobs as well, and we think our best hope for that is 

to make sure the water and sewer for this region can be taken care 

of; not just today, but we’re talking about years from now, and 

we’ve got to protect it. 

And it’s not that we don’t think it should be at an expense. We 

want Atlanta to grow. Thank goodness it remains growing. But we 

won’t be able to grow, and this region deserves the opportunity to 

grow as well, and if adequate supplies of water are not in the river, 

we have no choice. We will not be able to reach our potential, and 

that’s where we think the biggest challenge lies. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I want to ask you a question. I don’t mean to 

put you on the spot. But just as a common-sense thing, do you 

think that you would have a better chance of keeping that river 

flow constant if you had more water upstream or less water upstream? 

Mr. GAYMON. I think, certainly, the more water that’s upstream 

that is coming down gives all of us an opportunity to grow and develop. And that’s why we’re applauding you guys for being here 

and saying we’re going to be good stewards. That’s what we want. 

We don’t think it ought to be we grow and you don’t; tag, you’re 

out. I mean, I don’t think that’s being good stewards of the Godgiven natural resource that we all must protect. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I think it’s good the comments you made about 

the barge traffic because if we keep that river flowing consistent, 

then we have a better opportunity of keeping that consistency 

where it needs to be if we have more reserve upstream to keep it. 

Mr. Timmerberg, to your knowledge—and here, we’re going to 

get back to, General, some facts, maybe, rather than predictions. 

Do you know of a winter flood event that has happened since West 

Point Lake had been impounded? 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Since the lake became impounded, no, I do not 

know of a significant winter flood event. Saying if the flood event 

occurred in May of ’03, and that’s when the lake was at full pool, 

to begin with. 

And, again, you’re talking about common sense, sir, and so at 

635 and the flood of record went up six feet from 635 to 641; no 

significant downstream flooding. At 630 winter pool, if that same 

flood of record hit, we would only be one foot over what would be 

44

normal full pool. Common sense and science, as mentioned, we provided a study to try and facilitate the process, and it’s glad to hear 

the General stating they would be willing to look at that again. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, Dick, I think science is a word we don’t use 

enough of. We’re in this weather and predictions and history and 

use science. 

But, Mr. Webb and Mr. Singletary, I just have a request for you 

all. Thank you for what you do. If you ever see any Georgia farmer 

who needs to be on the Endangered Species Act, would you let 

members of this panel know because it’s bad enough to have a 

country that’s dependent on farm oil, and we certainly, certainly 

cannot afford to be dependent on farm flu. So I would ask and request that of you. 

Mr. Webb Yes sir. 

Mr. SINGLETARY. Be glad to. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think if we look at the recent poll numbers, 

members of Congress are on the Endangered Species Act. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking your time out of 

what we know again are busy schedules to come here today to give 

us very valuable input. We appreciate the opportunity to dialogue 

with you. 

General Schroedel, thank you again for your attendance and for 

your willingness to jump into this with both feet early on. We look 

forward to you working with us as well as these gentlemen and 

others. 

And let me say to our audience out there, we thank you for taking time to come. As Senator Isakson and I have both mentioned, 

we had a hearing in Gainesville. We had a huge audience up there, 

and we had a lot of participation. And without you being here to 

express your opinions, to hear what’s going on here, we would not 

know what the real needs of this area are. So to each and every 

one of you, I thank you for being here. 

As I mentioned before you will have the opportunity to have your 

own personal input if you do not feel like your views were expressed here today. If you’re interested in providing a written 

statement, the record is going to remain open for five business 

days. If you will please visit the Agriculture Committee’s website 

at www.agriculture.senate.gov, you can get additional details, or 

you can see any of these staff folks who are sitting behind us here 

to get that website address. 

Again, to the folks here at the RiverCenter, thank you for 

hosting us in a magnificent facility. And for those of you who 

haven’t heard, we want to see this auditorium filled and Mike 

Gaymon does a song and dance on Friday night. It’s a terrific facility, Mike. Columbus is extremely fortunate to have this type of facility. 

Thank you all very much for being here. This hearing is now concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X

OCTOBER 24, 2006

46


31435.001
47


31435.002
48


31435.003
49


31435.004
50


31435.005
51


31435.006
52


31435.007
53


31435.008
54


31435.009
55


31435.010
56


31435.011
57


31435.012
58


31435.013
59


31435.014
60


31435.015
61


31435.016
62


31435.017
63


31435.018
64


31435.019
65


31435.020
66


31435.021
67


31435.022
68


31435.023
69


31435.024
70


31435.025
71


31435.026
72


31435.027
73


31435.028
74


31435.029
75


31435.030
76


31435.031
77


31435.032
78


31435.033
79


31435.034
80


31435.035
81


31435.036
82


31435.037
83


31435.038
84


31435.039
85


31435.040
86


31435.041
87


31435.042
88


31435.043
89


31435.044
90


31435.045
91


31435.046
92


31435.047
93


31435.048
94


31435.049
95


31435.050
96


31435.051
97


31435.052
98


31435.053
99


31435.054
100


31435.055
101

Æ