S. HRG. 113–745 

OVERSIGHT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE APALACHICOLACHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT (ACF) AND THE ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA (ACT) RIVER 

SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 22, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT (ACF) AND THE ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA (ACT) RIVER SYSTEM 

OVERSIGHT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE APALACHICOLAVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Jan 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95876.TXT VERN
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–876 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–745 

OVERSIGHT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE APALACHICOLACHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT (ACF) AND THE ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA (ACT) RIVER 

SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 22, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 22, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 1 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, U.S. Senator from the State of, prepared statement .......... 199 

Southerland, Hon. Steve II, U.S. Representative from the State of Florida, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 200 

WITNESSES 

Jackson, Brigadier General Donald E. Jr., Commander, South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 15 

Atkins, J. Brian, Division Director, Alabama Office of Water Resources ........... 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Turner, Judson H., Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources ........................................................................... 172 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 175 

Munson, Gregory M., Deputy Secretary, Water Policy and Ecosystem Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection .................................... 187 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 189 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

ACF Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 202 

Letters: 

Department of the Army, Moble District Corps ............................................. 234 

To Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall in reference to the 

Water Resources Develpoment Act (WRDA), dated May 13, 2013 ........... 237 

To Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall in reference to the 

Water Resources Develpoment Act (WRDA), dated June 3, 2013 ............ 240 

To Secretary Darcy in reference to the Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA) .. 242 

Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary Civil Works .... 244 

State of Alabama, Officer of the Govenor ....................................................... 245 

Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director .................... 296 

Rick Scott, Governor of Florida ....................................................................... 307 

Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary Civil Works .... 309 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works) ......... 312 

Manufacture Alabama! ..................................................................................... 318 

Alabama Pulp & Paper Council ...................................................................... 320 

Apalach-Colo River Keeper .............................................................................. 322 

Business Council of Alabama .......................................................................... 326 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management ................................. 328 

Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. ................................... 344 

Georgia Department of National Resources Environmental Protection Division .............................................................................................................. 359 

Water Contingency Planning Task Force ....................................................... 375 

Cobb County-Marietta & Water Authority ..................................................... 417 

The Wall Street Journal; In Latest War Between the States, Georgia Says 

Tennessee Is All Wet ........................................................................................... 428 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT (ACF) AND 

THE ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA (ACT) 

RIVER SYSTEM 

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions (co-chairman of the 

committee) presiding. Present: Senators Sessions and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Good afternoon. 

Welcome to today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing entitled, Oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers 

Water Management in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and 

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Systems. Today, the Committee 

will hear from both Federal and State officials about the status of 

the Corps’ efforts in the ACF and the ACT basins and impacts of 

those decisions. 

I see my colleagues, Senators Isakson and Chambliss, who have 

been very alert to these issues. We have discussed it at length over 

a period of years. They have been very articulate in advocating for 

Georgia’s position on this. Gentlemen, it is great to have you. I 

would be willing to have an opening statement from you. You have 

indicated you would like to submit statements for the record and 

I would be glad to receive them. That is your choice. 

Thank you for attending. Indeed, as we have all discussed over 

a period of years, we really need a compact between the three 

States involved and that has been difficult to achieve to date. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Isakson and Chambliss follow:] 

2 


95876.406
3 


95876.407
4 

Senator SESSIONS. The first panel will include Brigadier General 

Donald E. Jackson, Jr., Commander, South Atlantic Division, 

headquartered in Atlanta, Army Corps of Engineers and Hon. JoEllen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works. 

General Jackson and Secretary Darcy, thank you both for taking 

time out of your schedules to be here. General Jackson, congratulations on your recent promotion to Brigadier General. 

The second panel consists of State officials from three States that 

comprise the ACF and ACT basins, J. Brian Atkins, Division Director, Alabama Office of Water Resources; Judson H. Turner, Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources; and Gregory M. Munson, Deputy Secretary for 

Water Policy and Ecosystem Restoration, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Given my interest in the hearing, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Vitter have graciously invited me to serve as Co-Chairman. We expect sparse attendance today as the Majority Leader 

has not scheduled any votes today, so many of our members will 

not be returning from the weekend in their States. 

During consideration of the WRDA bill, there were many conversations and activities in this Committee and outside about concerns with the status of operations at Lake Lanier in the ACT system and Lake Allatoona in the ACT system. These challenging 

issues have been facing Alabama, Georgia and Florida for decades. 

As Atlanta continues to consume increasing amounts of water 

from these shared and limited water resources, it is imperative 

that all stakeholders have a full understanding of the actions the 

Corps of Engineers has taken or plans to take in the years ahead 

in the region. Officials from all three States will give testimony 

about the impact of the Corps’ actions on their constituents, industries and ecological resources. 

I intend to ask Secretary Darcy and General Jackson questions 

to understand their plans for the ACF and the ACT basins and ask 

whether and how those plans follow the law, including the Water 

Supply Act of 1958. 

Ultimately, a reasonable resolution of this matter should come 

through an InterState Water Compact agreed to by Governors. For 

that to happen, I believe the Corps must implement existing law 

and not take sides in discussions. 

A primary focus of the hearing will be concerns about the Army 

Corps decisions at Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona under the 

Water Supply Act of 1958. This important law ‘‘declared it to be the 

policy of Congress to recognize the primary responsibility of the 

States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial and other purposes.’ 

Section B of the Act authorized the Corps of Engineers to allocate a portion of Federal reservoirs for municipal and industrial 

water supply. In subsection (d) of the Act, however, Congress imposed a requirement that Congress approve any such allocation 

that would ‘‘seriously affect the purposes for which the project was 

authorized, surveyed, planned or constructed or which would involve major structural or operational changes.’ 

Lake Lanier in the ACF and Lake Allatoona in the ACT impound 

rivers that otherwise flow downstream to communities in Alabama, 

5 

Florida and other parts of Georgia. These communities depend 

upon that steady flow of fresh water for their livelihoods and environmental quality. Even though the reservoirs were not built for 

Atlanta’s water supply purposes, the Atlanta area municipalities 

have made increasing use of those two reservoirs for that purpose, 

local municipal and industrial water supply. 

Just this year, the State of Georgia asked the Corps for a 280 

percent increase in their contractually authorized storage allocation 

for Atlanta’s water supply withdrawals from Lake Allatoona, almost three times more than their current allocation. In addition, 

this year Georgia has renewed its request for water storage at 

Lake Lanier, seeking as much as 30 percent of Lake Lanier’s storage for direct withdrawals for Atlanta’s water supply, where there 

is no current contract in place. This issue has raised questions from 

Florida, Apalachicola Bay and other areas. 

How will the Corps handle these requests? That is an enormously important question for the entire ACF and ACT basins. 

Clearly, these significant demands from one area have a severe impact on downstream communities. 

I would like to thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Vitter for suggesting this hearing and their efforts on the issue. 

They desire that all of us work together where possible to reach 

common agreement. On May 16, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Vitter sent an important letter to Secretary Darcy correctly calling for an InterState Water Compact to address the ongoing water dispute in the region. They also correctly urged the 

Corps to serve as a neutral facilitator of a negotiated solution. 

Regrettably, in my view, the Corps has too often sided with Atlanta by accommodating massive water withdrawals to the detriment of my constituents in Alabama, as well as communities in 

Florida and other parts of Georgia. Towns like Eufaula, Columbus, 

LaGrange, Dothan, Gadsden, Montgomery, and Apalachicola, are 

all impacted. 

Around the time of the May 16 letter, Chairman Boxer committed to me that this Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 

Corps of Engineers, would hold a hearing on this topic. She has 

kept her word by allowing this hearing to occur today. I would say 

this is one of the few opportunities we have had, and the people 

in the region have had, to have witnesses from the Corps discuss 

these issues openly. 

My understanding is that General Jackson will offer an opening 

statement on behalf of the Army Corps and General Jackson will 

primarily respond to questions about technical issues and Secretary 

Darcy will respond to broader policy issues. 

Senator SESSIONS. Before we begin, I would like you to agree, if 

you would, to respond in writing within 30 days to a set of limited 

questions for the record that I would plan to submit following today’s hearing. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. General Jackson. 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. General Jackson, you can begin your opening 

statement. We thank you. 

6 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL DONALD E. JACKSON, 

JR., COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General JACKSON. Senator Sessions, as you mentioned, I am 

Brigadier General Donald Jackson, Commander of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division. I am honored to testify 

before you today on the status of the Corps Water Management in 

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF, and the AlabamaCoosa-Tallapoosa, ACT, river systems. 

The ACF basin originates in northeast Georgia, crosses the Georgia-Alabama border into central Alabama and follows the State line 

south until it terminates in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. There are 

five Federal reservoirs and ten non-Federal reservoirs in the ACF 

system. 

The ACT basin originates just north of the Tennessee-Georgia 

border extending to central north Georgia, crosses the Georgia-Alabama State line into north Alabama and continues across central 

and south Alabama before terminating in Mobile Bay. There are 

five Federal reservoirs and 11 non-Federal projects owned by Alabama Power Company in the ACT system. 

Corps’ Mobile District is currently updating the basin-wide Master Water Control Manuals for the ACT and the ACT River systems through an open and deliberative process that includes preparation of an environmental impact statement for each system and 

solicitation and consideration of comments from the public and all 

interested stakeholders. 

The purpose of revising the manuals is to develop and implement 

updated, basin-wide operational schemes for the Federal projects in 

the two basins in accordance of their authorized purposes, in light 

of current conditions and applicable law. 

Water control manuals assist Federal water managers in operating individual and multiple interdependent Corps reservoirs on 

the same river system consistent with applicable law. Generally, a 

water control manual will include technical, hydrologic, geographic, 

demographic, policy and other information. 

The Corps uses these manuals to inform and guide its decisions 

on the management of waters in our reservoirs, which typically involve different operating regimes for times of high water, low water 

and normal conditions. The manuals contain water control plans 

for each of the reservoirs in the basin systems and specify how the 

various reservoirs will be operated as a system. 

As part of the update process, the Corps is preparing an EIS for 

each of the two Federal systems and is soliciting and considering 

comments from the public and interested stakeholders. These actions will result in updated plans and manuals for both systems 

that are consistent with applicable law and take into account 

changes in basin hydrology and demands from years of growth and 

development, new/rehabilitated structural features, legal requirements and environmental issues. 

In June 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that municipal and industrial water supply for 

the city of Atlanta, Georgia is an authorized purpose of the Lake 

Lanier project under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946 and remanded the matter to the Corps to determine the extent of its legal 

7 

authority to accommodate the State of Georgia’s request in 2000 for 

additional water supply withdrawals at and below Lake Lanier. 

On October 12, 2012, the Corps published a notice soliciting public comment on revising the scope of the EIS for the ACF water 

control manual update in light of these developments. The Corps 

published a revised Final Updated Scoping Report in March 2013, 

providing notice that the Corps is evaluating additional water supply alternatives within the scope of the ACF water control manual 

updated and EIS, including Georgia’s updated request for water 

supply. 

The Corps has not yet decided on a proposed mode of ACF system operations. The proposed operations will be identified in the 

draft water control manuals and EIS. These documents will be 

made available for public comment before any final decision is 

made on how the system should be operated. 

The ACF Water Control Manual update and the EIS are being 

prepared in accordance with Corps regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act and all applicable law. As part of this effort, 

the Corps will consult with other Federal agencies as required, including consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The draft water control manuals and EIS will be released for 

public review and comment in accordance with NEPA and requirements in the Corps regulations. Similarly, the draft water control 

manuals and EIS will undergo quality control/quality assurance reviews to include agency technical review and independent external 

peer review. 

The Corps is currently in the technical analysis stage of the ACF 

manual update. We expect to reach the next major milestone in the 

process about 2 years from now, when we file a draft EIS with the 

Environmental Protection Agency and release the draft water control manual and draft EIS for public review and comment. 

The ACT Water Control Manual update and EIS are also being 

prepared in accordance with applicable law. The draft water control 

manual and EIS were released for public review and comment on 

March 1, 2013. The Corps is currently evaluating the public review 

and independent external peer review comments it received on 

these draft documents. 

The draft Water Control Manual and EIS for the ACT reflect the 

existing water supply storage at Lake Allatoona pursuant to contracts entered under the Water Supply Act of 1958. Those contracts 

remain valid and the operations we are considering in the water 

control manual update process assume that withdrawals will continue as contemplated under these contracts. 

In summary, the purpose of both the ACF and the ACT manual 

updates is to improve the information and guidance that the Corps 

uses to operate the Federal dams in these basins in accordance 

with applicable law. We operate the dams in each basin as a system and will continue to do so. 

The updates will take into account changes in basin hydrology 

and demands from years of growth and development, new/rehabilitated structural features, legal requirements and environmental 

issues. Throughout this process, the Corps encourages the active 

participation of all stakeholders, and the Corps will carefully consider all comments received. 

8 

Senator Sessions and members of the Committee, this concludes 

my testimony. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on these very important issues and answering any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of General Jackson follows:] 

9 


95876.001
10 


95876.002
11 


95876.003
12 


95876.004
13 


95876.005
14 


95876.006
15 


95876.007
16 


95876.008
17 


95876.009
18 


95876.010
19 


95876.011
20 


95876.012
21 


95876.013
22 


95876.014
23 


95876.015
24 


95876.016
25 


95876.017
26 


95876.018
27 


95876.019
28 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, General Jackson. 

Secretary Darcy. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I do not have a prepared statement but I 

am happy to be here to support General Jackson and answer any 

questions you have about the update for the manuals. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let’s look at a few of the fundamentals. You 

cite, General Jackson, that you assume the contracts remain in 

force. I believe you indicated that the flow from Lake Allatoona 

would continue. Is that correct? 

General JACKSON. The water control manual update for the ACT 

only recognizes existing contracts in effect today and do not reflect 

any increased requests for water withdrawals by the State of Georgia out of Lake Allatoona. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you saying that the established amount is 

the amount in that contract or the amount actually being withdrawn now? 

General JACKSON. Sir, we recognize the amount that is in the 

contract. 

Senator SESSIONS. The way this historically arose I have discovered is that Congress was concerned about being in a position of 

financing water supply projects for cities, counties and areas. The 

policy was clear that Congress would not pay for developing peoples’ water systems. In cities like Birmingham, they pay for their 

own. 

This is a chart that shows a quote from Mayor Hartsfield, the famous Atlanta Mayor, back in 1948 about these projects and whether or not he would contribute and whether or not he wanted it to 

be done so that Atlanta could participate in getting water from it. 

He said, ‘‘The city of Atlanta has many sources of potential water 

supply in north Georgia. Certainly in view of other possible sources 

of Atlanta’s future water, we should not be asked to contribute 

funds to a dam which the Army engineers have said is vitally necessary for navigation and flood control on the balance of the river.’ 

It would seem to me, General Jackson, that Atlanta’s Mayor at 

the time said they would choose not to participate in this and did 

not desire any water from the system. Is that the way you would 

understand that quote? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I apologize. I am not familiar with that 

quote. I do not have a response for that. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is pretty obvious to me you need to be 

thinking about it as you go through this process. 

Gerald Ford was a Member of Congress about this time. He was 

a frugal man and he raised this question at the hearing: ‘‘Is it not 

conceivable in the future that the city of Atlanta will make demands on the Corps for certain water at certain times because of 

the needs of Atlanta when at the same time, it will be for the best 

interests of the overall picture, power, navigation, flood control, to 

retain the water in the reservoir?’ Are you familiar with that question? 

General JACKSON. No, sir, I am not. 

Senator SESSIONS. Colonel Potter replied, ‘‘We would have to 

come back, I believe, to Congress to alter the authorization of that 

project were it a major diversion of the water. We take a very dim 

29 

view of changing a project to the subsequent needs without Congress having a hand in it.’ 

That sounds like pretty good policy, does it not? If Congress authorizes a dam for a series of purposes, the Corps of Engineers does 

not have the authority to alter that purpose, does it? 

General JACKSON. That is correct, sir. We follow the authorized 

purpose of our projects as directed by Congress and the authorizing 

legislation. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is what we are talking about. We have 

some concern about that with regard to Allatoona Reservoir. First, 

let me ask, you support, I suppose the goal, I think most of us do, 

that there be a compact between the Governors? That is what 

Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter said in their letter to 

you. I think most of us advocate that. Is it your belief that is the 

best way to fix the problem? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator, that has been the longstanding view of 

the Army, that a compact between the three impacted States would 

be the best resolution for this issue. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to Cobb County and the Lake 

Allatoona Reservoir, there is a contract, is there not, executed in 

1963 that allows, in effect, 4.6 percent of the reservoir to be utilized for water resources for Cobb County? 

General JACKSON. Senator, there is a contract in place. I am not 

familiar with the exact numbers of the withdrawal but there is a 

contract in place. 

Senator SESSIONS. You need to know that. It was allocated just 

over 13,000 acre feet in that contract, is that correct? Do you know? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I apologize. I am not familiar with the 

exact numbers of the withdrawal amount. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is about what it is as I read it. Now they 

are proposing a new contract of 14 percent, three times that 

amount. Are you aware of that? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I am aware of a request submitted to Ms. 

Darcy by Governor Deal for increased water withdrawals at Lake 

Allatoona. 

Senator SESSIONS. Those increased withdrawals could effectively 

amount to reallocating the purposes of that by the reservoir from 

its original constructed purpose by the Federal Government, could 

it not? 

General JACKSON. Sir, we are in the process right now, as I mentioned before, of completing the water control manual for the ACT 

system based on the authorized purposes as currently outlined and 

taking only into account those storage agreements currently in effect. That is what we have agreed to do and that is how we are 

proceeding with the water control manual update. 

Senator SESSIONS. Fill me in on that a little bit. You are redoing 

your manuals consistently with the contract that is in place, is that 

what you’re saying? 

General JACKSON. That is correct, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be the 4.6 percent of the reservoir 

or whatever is in that contract? 

General JACKSON. Yes, Senator, whatever is reflected in the current contract. 

30 

Senator SESSIONS. Secretary Darcy, are you aware that periodically over the years Congress has altered these kinds of contracts 

through explicit legislative action if they were to be changed? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, it would take an act of Congress in order to 

change the project purpose. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know if our Governors can reach an agreement, I am sure that our Senators would reach an agreement. We 

could pass such legislation necessary to fix the disputes that we 

have. 

Are you aware, General Jackson, that Cobb County is drawing 

far more water today from that reservoir than is allowed under the 

contract? 

General JACKSON. Sir, we monitor withdrawals from Lake 

Allatoona in support of the water supply contracts on a routine 

basis. We expect all users who are abiding by the water supply contracts to follow those water supply contracts. When we find out 

they are exceeded, we notify the individuals in writing and let 

them know they have exceeded their water supply contracts. We 

continue to monitor that and work with the Department of Justice 

for any adjudication that needs to occur. 

Senator SESSIONS. You acknowledge that according to Corps policy, the amount of water taken out by Cobb County far exceeds the 

contract amount? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I am aware that they have been exceeded 

in the past but I am aware currently they are within the terms of 

their contract. 

Senator SESSIONS. You believe they are within the terms of the 

contract? 

General JACKSON. That is my understanding at present, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you counting return flow downstream or 

not in that evaluation? 

General JACKSON. We don’t attribute return flows giving them 

credit for the portion of the contract they have. We do monitor return flows but only as general basin inflows inside a water-controlled basin. The folks of Cobb County do not get credit for return 

flows into Lake Allatoona as a result of their contract. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is my understanding of Corps policy nationwide. 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is an important question. 

We have a pretty big difference of opinion. I hope you are correct 

in saying Cobb County is operating consistently at their contract 

level, but I have been informed they are well above the contract 

level. I was informed that during the 2007 drought, by the Corps’ 

own calculation, Cobb County was using three times more storage 

place for water at Lake Allatoona than the contract allowed. It was 

allocated just over 13,000 acre feet and it was using over 39,000 

acre feet. At 39,000 acre feet, that is 14 percent of the Lake’s conservation pool and the Corps had to cut back on hydropower generation to protect that supply. Are you aware of that? 

General JACKSON. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, I am aware of 

previous infractions and we have notified the contract holder in 

writing of its excedences and we continue to monitor on a daily 

31 

basis what is taken in and out of the lake as a result of those contracts. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you acknowledge that at a time of 

drought, as occurred in 2007, exceeding substantially the amount 

of withdrawals would be particularly problematic for downstream 

individuals depending on that water flow? 

General JACKSON. I would agree that in periods of drought, there 

is significant impact up and down the basin to all users. Any 

excedences would certainly cause additional problems for users 

downstream. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would agree. If you make an operational 

change in that water supply flow with Allatoona, it would be require congressional approval, would you agree? 

General JACKSON. As laid out for us in the Water Supply Act of 

1958, any operational change we make as part of our water control 

manual update would remain, at this time, under the delegated 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers, assuming it does not include 

a major structural change, a major change in operation or a significant impact to the operational purposes for any of the authorized 

purposes for that reservoir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you repeat that? I am not sure I fully 

got that. Will you repeat what you said? I am not sure I fully understood that. 

General JACKSON. You asked me about a reallocation of water? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

General JACKSON. What I referred to is in the water control manual update we are currently doing, I am not sure. If you could rephrase the question, I want to make sure I answer your question 

correctly. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am not sure I can do that. Actually, I was 

asking you if there was a major operational change in water withdrawal by Cobb County or anyone else would it require congressional approval? The Corps of Engineers is not empowered to make 

those kinds of policy decisions. 

General JACKSON. Any major changes or effects that fundamentally depart from the congressional intent of that particular project 

would require congressional authorization. 

Senator SESSIONS. The Water Supply Act says, among other 

things, that Congress must approve a major operational change, I 

believe is the phrase. 

I am informed that Cobb County, by its own admission, has exceeded for decades the contractual amount of water storage and 

they basically claim that their return of the water counts and 

therefore, they are entitled to do it and intend to keep on doing it. 

This has been going on for quite a long time, decades, and the 

Corps had done nothing about it. This is causing some unease 

downstream. That is our problem. Do you dispute that they have 

drawn more than the Corps policy allows consistently? 

General JACKSON. All I can do is refer to my previous comment. 

I have been made aware of previous excedences which we have addressed in written correspondence with Cobb County. 

Senator SESSIONS. When you get back to Atlanta, you should be 

able to ascertain these amounts of flows and withdrawals. Would 

32 

you submit a report to us setting forth how much has been withdrawn from that reservoir since the contract was in force? 

General JACKSON. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. One of the things that concerns us is when it 

appears contracts are not being enforced, the Corps may be overlooking its deep fundamental responsibility to deal with the multiState problem that has impacts throughout the region. Therefore, 

a Corps agreement with one city, county or State has to reflect the 

impact it would have on the other areas of the State. 

Really, that is why Congress maintained and kept for itself final 

authority to amend the congressionally passed purpose of these reservoirs. If it is changed, Congress would change it and it would 

represent a national decision, not a local decision. Do you think 

that is sound policy? 

General JACKSON. I believe as spelled out in the Water Supply 

Act of 1958, that is sound policy. 

Senator SESSIONS. The environmental impact statement, if you 

change the manuals, the flow rate and the withdrawal rate, an environmental impact statement is required? 

General JACKSON. Yes, Senator, it is. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have been informed that you intend to use 

the contractual amount as the authorized amount when you do the 

environmental impact statement, but if the historical flow coming 

out of there is greater and that withdrawal rate is going to be approved in the future, wouldn’t you have to do an environmental impact statement on the larger flow rather than the contract flow? 

General JACKSON. I am assuming you are talking about the ACT 

Water Manual update? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

General JACKSON. We are basing our water control manual update on what is in the contracted amount. 

Senator SESSIONS. What if you take out more than that? Are you 

telling me you’re going to stay at that contract amount? 

General JACKSON. Senator, yes, I am. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask you about the modified fall releases under the proposed Lake Allatoona manual. The Corps’ decision or effort to alter the elevation levels in the Lake from October 

1 through November 15 of each year, would simply extend a recreation system at Lake Allatoona, but fall is the dry time of the year 

and can have a big impact downstream. 

In other words, you maintain high levels of the Lake from October through mid November through retaining water, not allowing 

it to flow as you have before and that could have a significant impact downstream during the fall season which is traditionally dry. 

If it follows a dry summer, it can be particularly problematic. 

Why would you want to change that and reduce the flow downstream at that time of the year? 

General JACKSON. I am not intimately familiar with all the details of that. I would have to refer those to my technical experts 

and reply in writing to the Committee. 

Senator SESSIONS. This would be very important to us because 

there is a good deal of concern on that. It seems to me it would 

violate the common sense objective that the point of a reservoir is 

33 

to store water so it is available for release when there is a shortage 

of water downstream. 

Lake Lanier, in light of the unequivocal congressional testimony 

by the Corps officers in the 1950’s and the passage of the 1956 Act, 

the Act actually amended the flow to 10 million gallons per day by 

congressional action. 

I am concerned and wouldn’t it be consistent with that previous 

precedent that Congress would be called upon to approve or not, 

Lake Lanier allowing withdrawal of 170 million gallons a day in 

water. Wouldn’t Congress need to be involved in approval of that? 

General JACKSON. I am not quite sure I understand your question. Could you please repeat the question? 

Senator SESSIONS. In 1956 after the lakes had been built, there 

was a desire to get more water from Lake Lanier. Congress approved 10 million gallons per day in withdrawal from the lake. 

Now it appears we are talking about 170 million gallons per day. 

Wouldn’t that take congressional approval for such a large increase? 

General JACKSON. It is my understanding Congress has delegated to us authority to make certain changes administratively 

without additional legislation as long as it does not require or cannot involve a major structural change, major operational change or 

seriously affect any of the authorized project purposes. 

Senator SESSIONS. In 1956, you apparently felt it was necessary 

to get approval for 10 million gallons per day. It seems to me if you 

jumped that to 170 million gallons per day, you for sure ought to 

get congressional approval. Would you agree? 

General JACKSON. I can only follow my interpretation and understanding of the authority we have under the Water Supply Act of 

1958. That is the process we are following now as we take a look 

at Lake Lanier and the ACF system. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to Lake Lanier, we have the 

Eleventh Circuit opinion. It has been cited as a victory for the 

Georgia position and I suppose it is in some ways but also, in a 

footnote, it was quite clear that it only allows more releases of 

water from Lake Lanier if there is a withdrawal of water downstream for Atlanta or the other areas in the metropolitan area. Is 

that the way you understand the decision? 

General JACKSON. My understanding of the decision was that it 

authorized water supply as an authorized purpose for Lake Lanier. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is an overstatement of it, I think, and 

you need to know this. You need to go back and have your lawyers 

look at it because it explicitly did not approve direct withdrawals 

of water from the reservoir. It indicated that water could be released from the reservoir to flow downstream if it was needed 

downstream to be captured for water supply in the region. Do you 

understand it that way? 

General JACKSON. I will have to refer to my lawyers to make 

sure that I do understand it correctly. 

Senator SESSIONS. You should talk to your lawyers and make 

sure your lawyers are thinking correctly too, because a bit of his 

memorandum I think goes beyond what the opinion said. 

I would offer for the record some analysis we did of the memo 

by Mr. Stockdale, the Chief Counsel for the Corps. We questioned 

34 

some of the opinions in his memorandum. Without objection, it will 

be accepted. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

35 


95876.197
36 


95876.198
37 


95876.199
38 


95876.200
39 


95876.201
40 


95876.202
41 


95876.203
42 


95876.204
43 


95876.205
44 


95876.206
45 


95876.207
46 


95876.208
47 


95876.209
48 


95876.210
49 


95876.211
50 


95876.212
51 


95876.213
52 


95876.214
53 


95876.215
54 


95876.216
55 


95876.217
56 


95876.218
57 


95876.219
58 


95876.220
59 


95876.221
60 


95876.222
61 


95876.223
62 


95876.224
63 


95876.225
64 


95876.226
65 


95876.227
66 


95876.228
67 


95876.229
68 


95876.230
69 

Senator SESSIONS. The downstream areas, Florida and Alabama 

particularly, have been concerned about a possible bias of the 

Corps toward Atlanta on these water issues over quite a long time. 

It is causing a number of problems. 

Will you agree to take a close look at the letter submitted by 

Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter and the comments 

filed by the Alabama and Florida stakeholders and not favor any 

one State but follow the law as plainly written? 

General JACKSON. We follow all of the authorized purposes for 

the system and all the applicable laws that are appropriate. We do 

consider all comments and work collaboratively up and down the 

system as we work to make decisions on our operations manuals 

as they are being developed. 

We will, in fact, consider all comments as I mentioned in my 

statement from members of the public and stakeholders in regard 

to these issues. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am asking a little more than that. I am saying will you ensure that you follow the recommendations of Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter and not favor any one 

State but follow the law? 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir, we will follow the law. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you agree that it is not permissible 

under the law to take the water first and then get a legal authority 

later? 

General JACKSON. We follow the authorized purposes and what 

is represented to us in law. That is how we will work our alternatives for water that would be withdrawn to meet any requests 

or project purposes. 

Senator SESSIONS. One of the questions suggested from Florida 

is this. Does the Corps agree with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s assessment that projected increases in Georgia’s consumptive 

uses will increase the frequency and duration of low flows in Florida’s Apalachicola River? 

General JACKSON. I am not quite sure I understand. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you agree with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s assessment that the increases in Georgia’s consumptive uses 

of water, withdrawal of water, will increase the frequency and duration of low flows in Florida’s Apalachicola River? 

General JACKSON. Senator, I have not seen that Fish and Wildlife Service opinion. 

Senator SESSIONS. You can get back with us on that, but I would 

note that is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s opinion. It seems pretty 

obvious. 

Has the Corps determined the maximum amount of water that 

Georgia can consume without affecting the downstream? 

General JACKSON. No, Senator, we have not. That is part of what 

we will be doing in our water control manual. 

Senator SESSIONS. How will you do that? What kind of testimony 

or evaluation will occur to determine the impact downstream? 

General JACKSON. We will do a complete environmental impact 

study as part of our water control manual update process. We will 

take in information from all affected parties up and down the 

water basin. That will be the basis for what we use to develop our 

70 

alternatives for consideration for our water control manual operational updates. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to withdrawals from Lake Lanier 

and Lake Allatoona, Georgia is violating your contract or otherwise 

having favorable benefits, do you understand how that can undermine the ability of the Governors of Florida and Alabama to negotiate with the Governor of Georgia? 

In other words, if the Governor of Georgia is able to obtain the 

kind of withdrawal rights he or she would want, they have little 

incentive, wouldn’t you agree, to negotiate some sort of permanent 

agreement with Florida and Alabama? 

General JACKSON. I will attempt to answer that, Senator. We expect any water supply user who has a contract to follow the guidelines set forth in their contract. I don’t think I am the right person 

to determine whether or not Governors could or wouldn’t get together to discuss what actions they might take in the future. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would sum it up this way. It is hard to have 

negotiations if we are looking the other way on the withdrawal 

rates from those two lakes and the Corps of Engineers is allowing 

Georgia to get a flow larger than they would otherwise be entitled 

to. It is difficult to have negotiations with Florida and Alabama because otherwise they have gotten what they wanted. 

I think you should think about that. Maybe Secretary Darcy, you 

could comment on that but it is a very real thing. That was explained to me previously as one of the impediments to being able 

to get an agreement among the States. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think because of our ongoing look at the 

water control manuals and the fact they will not be completed, one 

of them will not be completed even for public comment until 2 

years from now that within those 2 years hopefully the States will 

be able to come to some agreement because there will not be any 

finality to any kind of withdrawals between now and then. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

I have a statement for the record from Senator Vitter, the Ranking Member. I also have a letter from Governor Scott of Florida 

who has been a very strong advocate on this issue and takes it very 

seriously. The same is true for Congressman Steve Sutherland of 

Florida. They have both been strong about this issue and are deeply concerned. I would offer statements from both of them for the 

record. 

I would also ask consent to enter the statement from Senator 

Nelson. He also has been very aggressive on this issue and has discussed legislation and other actions that might occur. I know Senator Nelson is deeply engaged in it. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

71 


95876.402
72 


95876.403
73 


95876.404
74 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Rubio, I understand, is having field 

hearings in Florida about this subject. He feels strongly about it. 

I would share with you that it is a matter that is very important. 

You are in a very difficult position. I would urge you to make up 

your mind and just follow the law as it is. I appreciate what I think 

you are saying, General Jackson, that you are going to comply with 

the contract because I don’t see how we could have a contract with 

Cobb County and allow it to be systematically violated substantially over a long period of time and then somehow reach an accord 

with them that Alabama could accept and that is the level of withdrawals that are going to be allowed. 

Senator Boozman, thank you for joining us on a Monday afternoon. There are not many in town but we are glad you are here 

at your post. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

We appreciate having you all here and appreciate working with 

you. 

General Jackson was in Little Rock and I had the opportunity to 

work with him very, very closely. He did an outstanding job there 

and I know he has done an outstanding job at his present post. 

It is always good to see you, Secretary Darcy. We do appreciate 

your hard work. 

When you talk to the future, water is always No. 1 or two. Energy and water are the two things that are the drivers. I think this 

problem, and it really is a problem and not an easy problem at all, 

but certainly illustrates how important these things are. 

We appreciate your having the hearing and shedding further 

light, Senator. Thank you all. 

Senator SESSIONS. As an Alabamian, I think I speak for all Alabamians and the Governor that we understand north Georgia 

needs water and we can work this out. We have gotten close a couple of times to reaching an agreement. 

Then one side or the other wins some lawsuit, the momentum 

seems to switch and they harden their position. No agreement is 

reached and usually some lawsuit turns the other way before long. 

We continue without an agreement. I hope that you will help us 

facilitate neutrally an agreement. 

I would offer for the record an index of organizations and persons 

who filed comments on the ACF master manual process, including 

the Alabama Office of Water Resources, Apalachicola Bay Chamber 

of Commerce, Apalachicola River Keepers and also a document provided by the ACF Stakeholders Group, a diverse group of cities, 

counties, industries, businesses, fishermen, farmers, environmental, conservation, recreational groups from all three States 

working together to achieve a common goal. 

We also have written comments of the Coosa Alabama Improvement Association submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers Mobile 

District and written comments recently submitted to the Army 

Corps by other organizations in Alabama concerned about the ACT 

master manual. You will have a lot of documents to read. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

75 


95876.378
76 


95876.379
77 


95876.380
78 


95876.381
79 


95876.382
80 


95876.383
81 


95876.384
82 


95876.385
83 


95876.386
84 


95876.387
85 


95876.388
86 


95876.389
87 

Senator SESSIONS. Is there anything else you would like to share 

before we move to the next panel? 

Ms. DARCY. No, but thank you, Senator, for this hearing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you all and I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. 

We will now have the second panel: J. Brian Atkins, Division Director, Alabama Office of Water Resources; Judson H. Turner, Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources. 

You are a Bradley Arant attorney, Mr. Turner, previously? 

Mr. TURNER. Previously, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. I will have to be careful asking you any questions. 

We also have Mr. Gregory Munson, Deputy Secretary, Water Policy and Ecosystem Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Gentlemen, if you would share your comments with us at this 

time, we would be pleased to receive them. 

STATEMENT OF J. BRIAN ATKINS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, 

ALABAMA OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. ATKINS. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Sessions and members of the Committee, the State of 

Alabama believes it is vital for Congress to retain its authority 

under the Water Supply Act of 1958 to approve any substantial reallocation of Federal reservoirs for local water supply uses. 

Alabama is keenly interested in this issue because it is downstream from major Federal reservoirs in the Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa River Basin, also known as the ACT River Basin, and 

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, also known as 

the ACF Basin. 

Increasing use of those reservoirs to serve local water supply 

needs in the Atlanta leads to lower downstream flows in both basins. Those lower flows inflict substantial environmental and economic damage on Alabama communities and Alabama citizens. 

Lake Allatoona in the ACT Basin and Lake Lanier in the ACF 

Basin were both constructed in north Georgia in the middle part 

of the 20th Century for three primary purposes: flood control, hydropower generation and downstream navigation support. These 

purposes are legislatively mandated in the bills authorizing construction of the reservoirs. 

As the Atlanta metropolitan area has grown, water supply providers in that region have failed or refused to construct their own 

water supply reservoirs and thus avoided expending hundreds of 

millions of dollars in construction costs. Instead, providers in the 

Atlanta metropolitan area have made massive withdrawals from 

the Federal reservoirs and the Corps has allowed these withdrawals. 

In doing so, the Corps has bypassed the required congressional 

approval. In the Water Supply Act of 1958, Congress expressly recognized that the obligation to meet water supply needs rests primarily with the State and local governments. While Congress in 

that Act contemplated some limited use of Federal reservoirs for 

water supply, Congress expressly reserved the right to approve any 

88 

water supply usage that would involve major operational changes 

or cause serious effects to the authorized project purposes. 

Rather than go through the appropriate congressional process to 

seek permission for water supply usage at Lake Allatoona and 

Lake Lanier, Atlanta area interests have simply taken water without any legal authority to do so. It has been a take first, seek permission later mindset and much to the dismay of Alabama, the 

Corps of Engineers has been complicit in this improper water grab 

by taking no steps to curtail the unauthorized use of Federal resources. 

It is even worse than that. Not only has the Corps failed to prevent the massive and illegal water supply uses of these two Federal 

reservoirs, but the Corps also has taken steps to curtail operation 

of the projects for their congressionally authorized purposes in 

order to protect Georgia’s water supply usage at the expense or the 

downstream States, Alabama and Florida. 

Furthermore, the Corps has given a pass to Atlanta’s contractual 

violation of the water storage agreements and permitted excess 

water storage in violation of its agreements and of the Water Supply Act. The results of this course of conduct have imposed serious 

costs and harm on downstream communities which were most severe during the 2007 drought. 

Water quality in Alabama lakes and river segments deteriorated 

badly. Local Alabama water supply providers had to incur huge 

costs to treat the degraded water in order for it to be fit for public 

consumption. Levels of Alabama reservoirs dropped sharply inflicting major economic damage on Alabama’s recreation industry. 

Numerous industrial plants were threatened with shut down because it became more and more difficult for those companies to 

meet their environmental permit requirements as a result of the 

degraded water in the rivers. The electric grid in Alabama was also 

threatened due to those types of environmental permit issues. 

What is happening is crystal clear. Georgia wants Alabama to 

take less water than it has always received historically so that Atlanta may take more water in order that Atlanta may expand at 

the expense of downstream communities and without regard to the 

ecological effect. 

If Alabama simply wants to maintain its historical usages and 

flows, then it will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on 

infrastructure so Atlanta does not have to pay for its own development. 

Congress clearly understands that many Federal reservoirs sit in 

basins that cover multiple States. The need for congressional approval of significant water supply uses of Federal reservoirs is vital 

to ensure that a proper balance is struck. 

Upstream communities should not be allowed to disrupt settled 

usages and expectations of downstream communities through unauthorized and improper usage of Federal reservoirs built with 

Federal taxpayer dollars. 

Senator Sessions, members of the Committee, the Corps and Atlanta have ignored the plain language of the Water Supply Act that 

would have required congressional approval for the water grab that 

has taken place. Alabama urges this Committee to strengthen the 

language of the Water Supply Act so that Congress’ proper role in 

89 

controlling local water supply uses of Federal reservoirs is maintained. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkins follows:] 

90 


95876.020
91 


95876.021
92 


95876.022
93 


95876.023
94 


95876.024
95 


95876.025
96 


95876.026
97 


95876.027
98 


95876.028
99 


95876.029
100 


95876.030
101 


95876.031
102 


95876.032
103 


95876.033
104 


95876.034
105 


95876.035
106 


95876.036
107 


95876.037
108 


95876.038
109 


95876.039
110 


95876.040
111 


95876.041
112 


95876.413
113 


95876.042
114 


95876.043
115 


95876.044
116 


95876.045
117 


95876.046
118 


95876.047
119 


95876.048
120 


95876.049
121 


95876.050
122 


95876.051
123 


95876.052
124 


95876.053
125 


95876.054
126 


95876.055
127 


95876.056
128 


95876.057
129 


95876.058
130 


95876.059
131 


95876.060
132 


95876.061
133 


95876.062
134 


95876.063
135 


95876.064
136 


95876.065
137 


95876.066
138 


95876.067
139 


95876.068
140 


95876.069
141 


95876.070
142 


95876.071
143 


95876.072
144 


95876.073
145 


95876.074
146 


95876.075
147 


95876.076
148 


95876.077
149 


95876.078
150 


95876.079
151 


95876.080
152 


95876.081
153 


95876.082
154 


95876.083
155 


95876.084
156 


95876.085
157 


95876.086
158 


95876.087
159 


95876.088
160 


95876.089
161 


95876.090
162 


95876.091
163 


95876.092
164 


95876.093
165 


95876.094
166 


95876.095
167 


95876.096
168 


95876.097
169 


95876.098
170 


95876.099
171 


95876.100
172 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Turner? 

STATEMENT OF JUDSON H. TURNER, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. TURNER. Good afternoon, Senator Sessions and members of 

the Committee. My name is Jud Turner and I am the Director of 

the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources. 

Georgia EPD is the State agency responsible for managing the 

State’s surface waters and groundwater. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share Georgia’s perspectives on 

the Corps of Engineers’ management of the Federal reservoirs in 

the ACF and ACT basins. I have submitted written testimony that 

I ask to be submitted for the record. I will not read that testimony 

in full but make a few broad points from it. 

Senator SESSIONS. We will make it a part of the record. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, sir. 

There are two principal reasons I believe we are at this juncture 

with respect to the interState river basins at issue. First, for much 

of the last 23 years, Senator Sessions, you referenced this, the 

Corps has been involved and often thwarted in finalizing new 

water control manuals for the ACF and ACT basins as required by 

law. 

Second, recent multi-year droughts that were longer and more 

severe than any we have seen before have increased the scrutiny 

and concern of stakeholders in all three States. Had the Corps been 

able to update the water control manuals before now, it might have 

better managed the reservoirs to the benefit of all users, upstream 

and down. 

We might also have answers to some of the questions that Alabama and Florida have raised in their testimony today. Instead, 

often paralyzed by litigation and political pressure, and unaided by 

environmental and economic studies that would have accompanied 

properly developed plans, the Corps has operated on an ad hoc and 

trial and error basis. 

Each State has had its complaints regarding the Corps’ operation 

of these reservoirs. This paralysis has blocked the development of 

complete, up to date plans, and has not served any State well. 

Whether one is talking about the ACT or the ACF basins, the perception among stakeholders in downstream States, as evidenced by 

testimony today submitted by representatives from Florida and 

Alabama, the belief is the Corps and water users in Georgia are 

responsible when stream flows fall. 

The Corps, as this narrative goes, should release more water and 

all the problems would be solved. While I can empathize that people are hurt by drought, we too feel this pain in Georgia, the facts 

simply do not support that Georgia or the Corps are to blame for 

these effects. 

Per capita water consumption in the metropolitan Atlanta area 

is less than per capita water use in Montgomery, in Mobile, in Birmingham and in Tallahassee. The metropolitan Atlanta’s total consumption of water from Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River 

173 

in 2011 was a net 171 cfs. That is less than 1 percent of the average flow in the Apalachicola River at the State line in a normal 

year and less than 2 percent of that flow in a drought year. 

In the ACT Basin, the metro Atlanta water consumption is 

around 1.2 of the average flow at the Coosa River at the State line 

and around one-half of 1 percent if you measured the flow at the 

Alabama River. 

The facts are that metro Atlanta’s use has almost no effect at all 

on the flow into Alabama and Florida. 

The downstream perceptions about the effects of the Corps operations are similarly misplaced. Take the stream flow in the Apalachicola River. That is an instance where the Corps operations 

have helped, not hurt, Florida. During the last two drought cycles, 

natural inflow into the ACF Basin has fallen to approximately 50 

percent of normal levels. The Corps provided a great deal of augmentation from storage to mitigate the effect, but it can only do so 

much. 

Had the Corps drained all the conservation storage in the ACF 

Basin over the course of the drought to provide the maximum possible flow augmentation, it would have only replaced 4 percent of 

the natural 50 percent drop in the natural basin inflow. 

The Corps has operated the Federal reservoirs in Georgia to a 

State line flow target at Jim Woodruff Dam that was much above 

the amount of water entering the basin. For recent drought years 

in particular, take 2006, 2007, 2011 and 2012, the augmentation 

numbers are staggering. 

From 2006 through 2007, the Corps used 850,000 acre feet of 

storage drawn down to meet the State line flow requirement at 

Woodruff. That target was often 5,000 cfs when natural inflow was 

3,000 csf or lower for extended periods of time. Often, this is 2,000 

cfs of augmentation coming out of these Federal reservoirs hour 

after hour, day after day during the droughts. In 2011, the Corps 

drew approximately 700,000 acre feet from storage and in 2012, 

570,000 acre feet. When it comes to the effects of drought, these 

reservoirs unequivocally help, not hurt. 

There are similar misconceptions about the ACT. Unlike the Federal reservoirs in the ACF, those in the ACT Basin, Allatoona and 

Carters, encompass only a small portion, 17 percent, of the total 

basin storage. The rest is in reservoirs in Alabama. Similar to Lanier, however, draining the reservoirs in Georgia will not solve the 

problems of drought. 

The 2006 and 2008 is instructive, State line flow from Georgia 

supported heavily by augmentation releases by Allatoona made up 

80 to 90 percent of the flow target at Montgomery. Yet, as I noted, 

those reservoirs were only 17 percent of the storage. 

In reality, the downstream states and those downstream communities within Georgia, for that matter, have greatly benefited from 

the existence of these Federal reservoirs and the Corps’ operation 

of them. 

We find ourselves in this dialog because Florida and Alabama 

naturally, in times of drought, would like more water. As I have 

mentioned, the Corps cannot eliminate all the effects of drought; it 

can, however, improve its operations to more optimally meet the 

needs of all stakeholders. 

174 

Federal law provides the proper mechanism for the Corps to take 

up this balancing act and prepare that environmental impact statement that takes into account current and future operations and demands and to look at environmental, economic and socioeconomic 

effects of operating different scenarios and then use those studies 

to develop the plan. 

Once the water control manuals have been finalized with the attendant EIS work and NEPA analysis, you will have significant 

data and significant stakeholder impact. At that time, any aggrieved State can pursue whatever remedies it may have at law. 

There is no need for Congress to add to the regulatory framework 

or work to block what the courts have ruled to be legally required 

and badly needed. 

Whether you are a citizen of Alabama, Florida or Georgia, the 

best route to a long term, balanced solution is for the process and 

legal frameworks to be followed as the court has required by law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:] 

175 


95876.101
176 


95876.102
177 


95876.103
178 


95876.104
179 


95876.105
180 


95876.106
181 


95876.107
182 


95876.108
183 


95876.109
184 


95876.110
185 


95876.111
186 


95876.112
187 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Munson from Florida. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. MUNSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

WATER POLICY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Mr. MUNSON. Thank you, Chairman Sessions and members of 

the Committee. I am Greg Munson, Deputy Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I am responsible for 

water policy and ecosystem restoration, including the Apalachicola 

River and Bay for the State of Florida. 

I have submitted testimony for the record and would ask that it 

be included. I will only hit the high points of that testimony here 

today. 

Senator SESSIONS. It will be included and made a part of the 

record, without objection. 

Mr. MUNSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you for convening this important hearing about water management for the ACF and ACT 

river systems. 

My testimony is given to provide Florida’s perspective on the effect of reduced freshwater inflows into the Apalachicola River and 

Bay and the injury to this important economic and environmental 

region in the State and the country. 

The Apalachicola River’s flood plain ecosystem is the largest in 

Florida and the Apalachicola Bay is one of the most productive estuarine systems in the northern hemisphere. Hundreds of thousands of acres at the cost of millions of dollars have been acquired 

by Federal, State, local and private entities to protect this unique 

environment. 

Oysters and other local seafood are the lynchpin of the Apalachicola region’s social and economic structure. Apalachicola Bay provides about 90 percent of Florida’s oyster harvest and 10 percent 

of the national oyster harvest. It gives Florida the third largest 

shrimp harvest as well. The river is the life blood of this extraordinarily productive estuarine system and the productivity of the 

Bay is strongly influenced by the amount, timing and duration of 

the fresh water inflow from the Apalachicola River. 

The amount of water flowing into the river, and ultimately to the 

Bay, is a function of Georgia’s consumption on the Chattahoochee 

and Flint Rivers and the Corps reservoir operations on the Chattahoochee. Since the 1970’s, Georgia consumption has grown substantially in both systems and the Corps implemented its ‘‘draft’ 

Water Control Plan to prioritize municipal and industrial water 

supply operations elevating them above other uses in 1989. 

As a consequence, Apalachicola River flows have been lower and 

low flows have occurred more frequently and for longer durations 

than at any time in recorded history. In 2012, Florida experienced 

widespread damage to its oyster resources resulting from this prolonged low flow condition. 

Flows in 2012 were at their lowest since records were kept beginning in 1923 but this is not the year with the lowest rainfall. Oyster production estimates are the lowest in the past 20 years. In 

fact, the data suggests that many of the stocks are not sufficiently 

abundant to support commercial harvesting, devastating the liveliVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Jan 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95876.TXT VERN
188 

hoods of the men and women who make their living directly harvesting or processing oysters. 

As a result, Governor Scott requested that the Secretary of the 

Department of Commerce declare a commercial fishery failure for 

Florida’s oyster harvesting areas. 

Under the Corps’ operations of Buford Dam and Lake Lanier the 

Corps has entered numerous contracts with Georgia water suppliers to permit withdrawals for municipal and industrial uses. In 

1989, the Corps began prioritizing operations to support this water 

supply demand which has increased dramatically. 

Under the Corps’ operating schedule, each new demand placed 

on the system upstream is absorbed, not from reservoir storage, 

but entirely from downstream river flows. In other words, every 

acre foot of water Georgia wants is taken directly from flows that 

would otherwise reach Alabama and Florida. 

These practices have deprived downstream interests of basic 

river flow needs, despite the empirical evidence that such operations are devastating Apalachicola Bay and its oyster population. 

It is clear that the Apalachicola River needs more flow to help recover from the devastating oyster mortality in the Bay that occurred in 2012, as well as the previous massive die-offs of endangered mussels, decline in fisheries and drying of the floodplain forest that has occurred in recent years. 

The Corps’ plan to develop a master manual presents an opportunity to restructure its present priority system as reflected in the 

existing Draft Water Control Manual and assign greater weight to 

downstream needs. The Corps can no longer assume that all needs 

can be met without proactively insisting on upstream conservation. 

At a minimum, the Corps should mandate that Georgia develop 

strict conservation measures as a condition to entertaining any further withdrawals from the ACF system. 

Thank you for the chance to talk to you today about one of Florida’s most precious resources, the Apalachicola River and Bay. If 

you are ever able to visit Apalachicola, Florida, we would always 

be happy to host you and give you the oysters that are still left in 

the Bay so you can understand how unique that environment is to 

Florida and Floridians. 

I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Munson follows:] 

189 


95876.113
190 


95876.114
191 


95876.115
192 


95876.116
193 


95876.117
194 


95876.118
195 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Munson. 

They do pretty well competing with Bon Secour oysters from Alabama. I have been there and have fished in the Bay. 

Mr. Atkins, Alabama does not want to stop all withdrawal of 

water from Georgia. What do you want and would you articulate 

for us what you think a proper solution to this water problem is? 

Mr. ATKINS. No, Alabama does not want to turn off the tap for 

all drinking water usage at Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona. So 

long as Alabama gets its historical amounts in terms of the amount 

of water that it has always had flowing in its rivers, then Atlanta 

simply can drink as much as it wants. 

However, that is going to result in lower elevations at the two 

reservoirs, but Georgia cannot realistically expect to increase its 

drinking water usage and maintain those reservoir elevation levels 

in the two reservoirs. 

The only way for both those things to happen would be if downstream flows are cut back and Alabama just cannot accept that. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the Corps of Engineers, are 

there things they can do to help the States reach an accord, without going into detail because there have been ongoing discussions 

between the States for a number of years? Has resolution of the 

matter by agreement been hampered by some of the Corps’ actions, 

in your opinion? 

Mr. ATKINS. I would say yes in answer to that. The issue with 

the Corps is that the Corps must follow the law. That means they 

need to follow the law as established by the Water Supply Act by 

seeking congressional approval for the major water supply uses and 

Federal reservoirs. 

Second, they need to enforce limits of the storage contracts, the 

contracts that allocate the storage space in the reservoir for water 

supply. Once they do that, if they will stay out of the way, then 

I think that will create an opportunity for the States to be able to 

get together. Otherwise, as it stands now, there is no incentive for 

Georgia to try to make a deal because the Corps is basically providing everything they want. 

By the Corps getting out of the way, letting the States have the 

opportunity to talk to each other and negotiate in good faith, I 

think that would be the best chance for that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have talked to Governor Bentley about it. I 

know he cares about this issue deeply and he is a good and decent 

man. I believe he is willing to make an agreement but it has to be 

one that he can justify to the long term interests of the people of 

Alabama. It has just been difficult. 

Mr. Turner, after Judge Magnuson’s ruling in 2009, it appeared 

there was a setback for the Georgia interests. Atlanta interests did 

a study showing that in little more than a decade, Atlanta could 

get by without water supply usage from Lake Lanier if it spent 

maybe $2 billion on infrastructure and took other actions. 

At more than $272 billion a year, Atlanta has the tenth largest 

GDP among all U.S. cities, for which I congratulate you. It is a fabulous city. The city plans to build a billion dollar football stadium 

for the Falcons; why shouldn’t Atlanta spend some more of its 

money on infrastructure rather than ask downstream communities 

196 

to deal with severe impacts of low water that could cause them to 

have to spend more money as a result? 

Mr. TURNER. Senator, I take from your question when you refer 

to Atlanta, you mean the metro Atlanta region. We are spending 

and will spend and have spent significant State resources. Cobb 

County, one of the municipalities with an issue with respect to 

their withdrawal contract from Allatoona, spent $100 million with 

the city of Canton on the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir trying to 

provide for that additional storage that could benefit, frankly, all 

of us downstream and upstream. 

Governor Deal, when he came in having lived this issue for years 

as a Congressman from the Lake Lanier area, understood this 

clearly. Georgia is well on the way to appropriating the $300 million he pledged under the Governor’s Water Supply Program to 

bring on strategically additional storage so that we can share that 

in times of drought and catch it in times like right now when there 

is plenty. 

Those things are happening, have happened and will continue to 

happen with vigor. I think I know the study you referenced and we 

certainly viewed it differently than you did. I think replacement of 

Lanier, when you consider environment impacts and what it means 

when you have a very large main stem reservoir that we don’t 

build anymore in this Country, to take that amount of storage and 

act like you are going to make none of it available for water supply 

would have been a travesty, a waste of the resource and I am glad 

we are not in that boat anymore and that we are talking about 

what is the right way to balance these authorized legal purposes 

for these Federal reservoirs. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree. I don’t think it would be necessary to 

go to zero but I do think there are alternatives as that study 

showed. 

Senator Boozman, thank you for attending and for your good 

work on all these issues. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed the testimony. 

Thank you for being here. It has been very helpful. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Munson, a former Governor of Georgia described the dispute over the ACF Basin as involving people versus 

a few mussels. Is that what this is about? What does Florida want 

fundamentally? 

Mr. MUNSON. No, sir, it is not about just a few mussels, not that 

I want to give away even a few of the endangered mussels. It is 

about a lot more than some endangered mussels. It is really about 

a way of life in Franklin County, Florida and the people who have 

spent generations there farming oysters and engaging in other 

forms of commercial fishing. 

Basically, they are being asked to bear the brunt of the growth 

of Atlanta and other upstream interests in Georgia, meanwhile 

watching their way of life get taken apart. It is not about a few 

mussels; it is about a whole way of life in a very rural county, 

Franklin County, Florida. 

All we really seek is an equitable share of the waters of the ACF 

system. We don’t want to take everything, but there is a unique 

way of life being driven to extinction in Apalachicola. We would 

197 

start with commitment from the Corps that it will not entertain 

anymore requests from the State of Georgia for water supply contracts unless and until it sees some verifiable commitments to 

water conservation measures from that State. 

Even that, of course, will not do it. There are many things Georgia will need to undertake on its own besides what the Army Corps 

can accomplish by itself, but that would be a very good start. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Turner suggested that water supply use 

in north Georgia is a drop in the bucket compared to flows into 

Apalachicola. How would you respond to that concern? 

Mr. MUNSON. I was not familiar with Mr. Turner’s numbers. I 

was struck a little like the oak tree telling the maple tree to be 

happy in our shade. I think that is what I took from it. 

In fact, I think the comparison is meaningless. The truth is that 

the depletions throughout Georgia, including Atlanta and the rest 

of Georgia, take over half the total basin inflow of the ACF river 

system in times of drought. That is really the dry period, I should 

say, not necessarily just drought. That is the time period on which 

we are most focused. 

To look outside that timeframe doesn’t shed a lot of light on the 

system. When there is plenty of water in the system, there is plenty for everyone. It is during the dry periods that Florida needs that 

equitable share. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Atkins, with regard to augmentation, that 

was the purpose of the reservoirs, was it not? You don’t get as 

much augmentation if the water has been drawn out to be consumed as you could get if it were not drawn, it seems to me. Would 

you comment on that? 

Mr. ATKINS. The purpose of reservoirs, generally, is to store 

water during times of the year when you have high flows, store 

that water and generally at the drier times of the year, lower flow 

periods, you release that water to help provide flows downstream. 

Senator, may I ask permission to submit for the record the 

Corps’ 2007 letter to Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority about 

their contract excedence? I forgot to mention that earlier. 

Senator SESSIONS. Can you share the key point of that? 

Mr. ATKINS. It is the Corps’ letter they wrote in late 2007 recognizing the excedences from the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority storage contract and the results of their analyses. They acknowledged that there were excedences as far as what they had 

withdrawn in relation to the contract. 

You mentioned earlier the contract being 13,000 acre feet. The 

excedence had been up to 39,000 acre feet. We would like to introduce that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would be glad to accept that and we will 

make it a part of the record, without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Munson, as an official in the State of 

Florida, can you tell the Committee that Florida is serious about 

working in good faith toward achieving an interState compact? 

Mr. MUNSON. Florida would be interested in doing that. Obviously that requires some engagement by the other parties as well. 

Although we have taken a number of efforts at it over the years, 

no such compact has been readily available. I don’t believe that is 

198 

going to change but of course, we would always be happy to have 

a negotiated compact as a result. 

Senator SESSIONS. Don’t you think that would be the preferable 

way to solve this dispute, if it could be achieved? 

Mr. MUNSON. If it could be fair to the people of Florida, then absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Turner, is Georgia prepared to work with 

the other States to achieve a mutually agreeable solution to this 

difficult problem? 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir. Governor Deal has been clear on that point 

since he has been in office. I would even say where there is a will 

there is a way. We do not live in the arid west. We do get times 

like now which are plenty and we are open to those conversations 

and will get to work on them. I am instructed to participate in that 

way from Governor Deal. 

I do not think it ought to stop the work the Corps is, by law, obligated to do under these water control manual updates. Therefore, 

that should progress, irrespective of what continues to happen between the State conversations. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Atkins, would you believe Governor Bentley is committed to trying to reach an agreement that could solve 

this problem permanently? 

Mr. ATKINS. Absolutely, Senator. Again, I think the biggest obstacle is the Corps of Engineers as far as their actions and their 

role in this. If they would simply stay out of this, if they will follow 

the law according to the Water Supply Act and enforce the storage 

contracts, I think that will definitely help things. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank all of you for your testimony. You have 

to know that maybe other Senators do not feel the problems of Alabama, Georgia and Florida as the Senators from these three States 

do but it is a very real situation. 

Senators Chambliss and Isakson, thank you for your attendance 

and thank you for being engaged in this and being knowledgeable 

about it. We have been able to work together and I hope we can 

continue to do that. 

We will have 2 weeks for all members to submit questions for the 

record. I have exhibits I have offered dealing with the history of 

these reservoirs and the impact of policies since then. I also have 

congressional correspondence about the ACF and the ACT issues of 

which we received a good bit. 

Senators Chambliss or Isakson, is there anything you would like 

to add before we finish? I thank you for your attendance. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much for a fair hearing 

today, Senator Sessions. I do have our joint statement that we will 

submit to you for the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. We will make it a part of the record, without 

objection. 

If there is nothing further to come before the Committee, we are 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

199 


95876.405
200 


95876.408
201 


95876.409
202 


95876.119
203 


95876.120
204 


95876.121
205 


95876.122
206 


95876.123
207 


95876.124
208 


95876.125
209 


95876.126
210 


95876.127
211 


95876.128
212 


95876.129
213 


95876.130
214 


95876.131
215 


95876.132
216 


95876.133
217 


95876.134
218 


95876.135
219 


95876.136
220 


95876.137
221 


95876.138
222 


95876.139
223 


95876.140
224 


95876.141
225 


95876.142
226 


95876.143
227 


95876.144
228 


95876.145
229 


95876.146
230 


95876.147
231 


95876.148
232 


95876.149
233 


95876.150
234 


95876.151
235 


95876.152
236 


95876.153
237 


95876.154
238 


95876.155
239 


95876.156
240 


95876.157
241 


95876.158
242 


95876.159
243 


95876.160
244 


95876.161
245 


95876.162
246 


95876.163
247 


95876.164
248 


95876.165
249 


95876.166
250 


95876.167
251 


95876.168
252 


95876.169
253 


95876.170
254 


95876.171
255 


95876.172
256 


95876.173
257 


95876.174
258 


95876.175
259 


95876.176
260 


95876.177
261 


95876.178
262 


95876.179
263 


95876.180
264 


95876.181
265 


95876.182
266 


95876.183
267 


95876.184
268 


95876.185
269 


95876.186
270 


95876.187
271 


95876.188
272 


95876.189
273 


95876.190
274 


95876.191
275 


95876.192
276 


95876.193
277 


95876.194
278 


95876.195
279 


95876.196
280 


95876.231
281 


95876.232
282 


95876.233
283 


95876.234
284 


95876.235
285 


95876.236
286 


95876.237
287 


95876.238
288 


95876.239
289 


95876.240
290 


95876.241
291 


95876.242
292 


95876.243
293 


95876.244
294 


95876.245
295 


95876.246
296 


95876.247
297 


95876.248
298 


95876.249
299 


95876.250
300 


95876.251
301 


95876.252
302 


95876.253
303 


95876.254
304 


95876.255
305 


95876.256
306 


95876.257
307 


95876.258
308 


95876.259
309 


95876.260
310 


95876.261
311 


95876.262
312 


95876.263
313 


95876.264
314 


95876.265
315 


95876.266
316 


95876.267
317 


95876.268
318 


95876.269
319 


95876.270
320 


95876.271
321 


95876.272
322 


95876.273
323 


95876.274
324 


95876.275
325 


95876.276
326 


95876.277
327 


95876.278
328 


95876.279
329 


95876.280
330 


95876.281
331 


95876.282
332 


95876.283
333 


95876.284
334 


95876.285
335 


95876.286
336 


95876.287
337 


95876.288
338 


95876.289
339 


95876.290
340 


95876.291
341 


95876.292
342 


95876.293
343 


95876.294
344 


95876.295
345 


95876.296
346 


95876.297
347 


95876.298
348 


95876.299
349 


95876.300
350 


95876.301
351 


95876.302
352 


95876.303
353 


95876.304
354 


95876.305
355 


95876.306
356 


95876.307
357 


95876.308
358 


95876.309
359 


95876.310
360 


95876.311
361 


95876.312
362 


95876.313
363 


95876.314
364 


95876.315
365 


95876.316
366 


95876.317
367 


95876.318
368 


95876.319
369 


95876.320
370 


95876.321
371 


95876.322
372 


95876.323
373 


95876.324
374 


95876.325
375 


95876.326
376 


95876.327
377 


95876.328
378 


95876.329
379 


95876.330
380 


95876.331
381 


95876.332
382 


95876.333
383 


95876.334
384 


95876.335
385 


95876.336
386 


95876.337
387 


95876.338
388 


95876.339
389 


95876.340
390 


95876.341
391 


95876.342
392 


95876.343
393 


95876.344
394 


95876.345
395 


95876.346
396 


95876.347
397 


95876.348
398 


95876.349
399 


95876.350
400 


95876.351
401 


95876.352
402 


95876.353
403 


95876.354
404 


95876.355
405 


95876.356
406 


95876.357
407 


95876.358
408 


95876.359
409 


95876.360
410 


95876.361
411 


95876.362
412 


95876.363
413 


95876.364
414 


95876.365
415 


95876.366
416 


95876.367
417 


95876.390
418 


95876.391
419 


95876.392
420 


95876.393
421 


95876.394
422 


95876.395
423 


95876.396
424 


95876.397
425 


95876.398
426 


95876.399
427 


95876.400
428 


95876.368
429 


95876.369
430 


95876.370
431 


95876.371
432 


95876.372
433 


95876.373
434 


95876.374
435 


95876.375
436 


95876.376
437 

Æ 


95876.377