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

41–492 PDF 2008

COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING: 

DROUGHT-RELATED ISSUES IN THE 

SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

(110–106) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Begos, Kevin, Executive Director, Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Industry Taskforce and Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition .............................. 10 

Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ....... 5 

Burch, Tim, Board Member, Georgia Peanut Commission .................................. 10 

Feldt, J. John, Hydrologist-in-Charge, National Weather Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .... 30 

Hamilton, Sam D., Regional Director, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ............................................................. 30 

Hunter, Robert J., Commissioner of the Department of Watershed Management, City of Atlanta ........................................................................................... 10 

Johnson, Jr., Hon. Henry C., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia .............................................................................................................. 8 

Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 4 

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 30 

Weaver, Jess D., Regional Executive, Southeast Area, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 30 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Boyd, Hon. Allen, of Florida ................................................................................... 44 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 47 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 48 

Everett, Hon. Terry, of Alabama ............................................................................ 50 

Johnson, Jr., Hon. Henry C., of Georgia ................................................................ 57 

Lewis, Hon. John, of Georgia .................................................................................. 59 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 61 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Begos, Kevin ............................................................................................................. 63 

Burch, Tim ............................................................................................................... 68 

Feldt, John ............................................................................................................... 73 

Hamilton, Sam D. .................................................................................................... 80 

Hunter, Robert J. ..................................................................................................... 92 

Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph ..................................................................... 202 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia, report on water resources programs in Atlanta ............................. 22 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Apalachicola Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition, David McLain, Coordinator, written statement ..................................................................................... 210 

Water Resources Coalition, written statement ..................................................... 213 

vi 


41492.001
vii 


41492.002
viii 


41492.003
ix 


41492.004
x 


41492.005
xi 


41492.006
xii 


41492.007
xiii 


41492.008
xiv 


41492.009
xv 


41492.010
xvi 


41492.011
xvii 


41492.012
xviii 


41492.013
xix 


41492.014
xx 


41492.015
xxi 


41492.016
(1) 

HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED 

MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING: DROUGHTRELATED ISSUES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN 

UNITED STATES 

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order and 

immediately apologize for being late. 

Today, we will be holding a hearing on Comprehensive Watershed Management and Planning and the Drought-Related Issues in 

the Southeastern United States. 

As many of you know, the Chairman is unable to attend this 

morning’s hearing because he is undergoing a medical procedure. 

I would like to ask, therefore, for unanimous consent that his statement along with that of any other Members of the Committee be 

entered into the record. 

Ms. JOHNSON. It is a Committee practice not to ask questions to 

the Members, and I request unanimous consent that Congressman 

Westmoreland can sit in the Committee. 

I, first, want to also welcome Mr. Boozman who is the new Ranking Member. I am delighted to have him; he is from Arkansas. I 

have worked with Mr. Boozman on numerous occasions, and I look 

forward to a productive relationship on this Committee. 

I would like to also acknowledge Congressmen John Lewis and 

Hank Johnson as well as other Members of the Georgia Congressional delegation for requesting the Subcommittee to hold this 

hearing on the southeastern drought. This group is all too aware 

of the scarcity of water that grips that region and, ultimately, the 

country and of the need to resuscitate a dialogue to resolve the ongoing disputes over water resources between Georgia, Florida and 

Alabama. 

Congressman Allen Boyd of Florida will also provide testimony 

today on the impacts of the ongoing water dispute in his district. 

So, thank you all for being here and holding this hearing on 

drought issues in the southeast and the need for proactive water 

resources management. 

2 

I want to emphasize that the road to an equitable solution lies 

not in the courts but at the negotiating table. I would encourage 

the governors of Georgia, Florida and Alabama to return to their 

talks and, once and for all, resolve the water disputes that are impacting the region so dearly. 

I was planning to have said this to the governors myself but, to 

our surprise, they did not come. I think all three of them declined 

the invitation to testify at this hearing. Given that the Tristate 

Drought Agreement negotiations recently collapsed, I am very disappointed that the governors would neither appear themselves or 

send any member of their staff to testify today. 

Alabama, Florida and Georgia have been fighting each other and 

the Federal Government in the courts since 1990 with the collapse 

of talks that had been facilitated by the U.S. Department of Interior. It, unfortunately, seems that the rivers will run even drier as 

this drought continues, and unending litigation will flow on and on. 

While they did not show up today, an ACF compact can be 

reached if the governors of these three states demonstrate the commitment to arrive at an equitable arrangement—but first they 

must show up. Effective water resources management in the southeast requires an effective partnership between the Federal and 

State governments. In periods of drought, this is even more the 

case. 

The Federal Government can provide a host of services to the 

States. These range from management of facilities to drought forecast and technical assistance to facilitating negotiations as Interior 

Secretary Kempthorne did earlier this year. 

However, for this partnership to be effective and for these services to be utilized, the States must embrace them. Similarly, for 

Federal services and expertise to be useful for the States, the Federal Government must encourage negotiations and offer services 

before a drought takes place. Otherwise, we will just end up behind 

the curve, setting ourselves up for more fights in the courts. 

This point is underscored by the fact that river basins across the 

southeast are under stress as a result of ongoing drought. The Catawba and Broad River Basins in North and South Carolina, the 

Neuse River Basin in North Carolina, and basins throughout the 

Tennessee Valley are experiencing drought conditions. All of these 

require steadfast and determined work by the States and Federal 

agencies working in concert with one another. 

Along these lines, this Subcommittee looks forward to the future 

when it will explore new watershed approaches and strategies to 

water quality protection and water resource management. 

I welcome our witnesses here today, and I now yield to Mr. 

Boozman for his opening statement. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I certainly look forward to working with you and your staff and appreciate your leadership. 

While I appreciate the Subcommittee holding a hearing on this 

very important issue, I hope that today the Committee will focus 

on solutions to the problem rather than just describing the ongoing 

controversy in one watershed. 

Congress begins the hard work of tackling one of the most important and difficult environmental and economic issues facing our 

3 

Nation, ensuring we have an adequate supply of clean water. We 

need water for our homes, farms and factories. Water also supports 

navigation, generates power and sustains our environment. Communities cannot grow or even exist without adequate water. 

As we enter the 21st Century, demands for water are growing 

and are outstripping supplies in many areas, both in the west and 

east, leading to disputes over water supply and allocation. The 

drought of 2007 in the east has made it clear that while water may 

be abundant in many areas, it is not limitless and even our Nation’s most water-rich regions can run dry. 

Between 1990 and 2000, water use in Georgia increased 30 percent, and officials are still grappling with how to provide for a projected doubling of demand over the next 30 years. 

The drought has had real-life consequences as well. According 

the Metro Atlanta Landscape and Turf Association, almost 14,000 

in landscaping-related industries have lost their jobs in Georgia 

alone. 

Policy makers can no longer ignore this issue. We need to start 

planning for the future and help start that planning process by 

looking at our Nation’s available water supply and the projected 

demand for water in the future. 

One way to begin is for this Committee to favorably report H.R. 

135, the 21st Century Water Commission Act as written by our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Linder. We have passed this legislation 

in overwhelming fashion in each of the last two Congresses, and we 

should do it again in the 110th Congress. 

Another thing we can do is have a hearing to look for ways we 

might be able to expand or adapt existing Federal services in a way 

that would encourage States and regions to engage in long-term 

water management planning. The State of Texas is widely recognized as having one of the best water planning approaches in the 

Nation, yet we are not hearing from them today. Let’s hear from 

their experience and see what we can learn. 

In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority recently updated 

their reservoir operations manual and has proven to be very effective in addressing drought in the Tennessee Valley. Let’s hear from 

them and other Federal agencies to see what we can learn. 

Ultimately, States have the primary role in addressing water 

supply issues, but Congress needs to begin laying the groundwork 

to ensure we are fulfilling our obligations by requiring the Federal 

Government to operate in a coordinated and efficient manner to 

guarantee an adequate and safe water supply for the 21st Century. 

While I wish we were discussing solutions and I hope we will discuss solutions today, I really look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Are there any opening statements? 

Okay, we will go right to our witnesses. 

We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel of witnesses 

on our first panel this morning. First, we have Congressman John 

Lewis of the 5th District of Georgia. Next, we have Congressman 

Allen Boyd, the 2nd District of Florida. Our final witness on the 

4 

first panel is Congressman Hank Johnson from Georgia’s 4th District. 

Your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask that 

the witnesses try to limit their testimony to five minutes oral summary of their written statements as a courtesy to other witnesses. 

We will continue to proceed in the order in which the witnesses 

are listed on the call. 

Congressman Lewis. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. 

I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my good 

friends and colleagues, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member 

Boozman, for agreeing to hold this important hearing. 

Georgia is in crisis, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to tell you 

how much I appreciate your Subcommittee’s attention to this important matter. Georgia is going through a harsh drought. The lack 

of water has hurt the environment, hurt the local economy and disrupted the lives of Georgia citizens. 

I will continue to work with leaders in Atlanta, across Georgia, 

throughout the southeast and in Washington to protect our vital 

water supply. Water is the most essential resource that we have. 

Water is necessary to survive. If you don’t have water, you don’t 

have much of anything. 

What we have with today’s hearing is an opportunity, an opportunity to share on record and in the public’s eye how our water is 

actually being distributed, why reserves in Lake Lanier continue to 

be depleted and where negotiations between Alabama, Florida and 

Georgia went wrong. 

I am very disappointed that the governors from these three 

States declined your invitation to appear here today and explain 

and discuss how, after 5 months of negotiations, discussions were 

allowed to collapse. The States play such a key role in these issue, 

and the fact they would choose not to come here today and take 

part in this dialogue is upsetting. 

Today, we lay out for the public to see what is really going on 

and how our most precious resource is being allocated. We have 

called the Federal agencies who manage our water here today to 

testify, to explain to us how water reserves have fallen to such a 

dangerous level. 

Yet, we also have invited them here to ask the questions: Are the 

resources of your agencies being utilized by the States? Are State, 

local and Federal agencies and officials working together to the 

fullest extent possible? And, finally to ask them, what needs to 

change? 

One area where change is long overdue concerns the outdated 

water control manuals that govern water released from Georgia’s 

key reservoirs. These manuals are not meeting the needs of Georgia’s citizens. It is unacceptable that such important plans are over 

40 years old. Finally, after all of these years, the Army Corps has 

begun the process of updating these important manuals for both 

the ACF and the ACT river basins. 

5 

Unfortunately, this process will take at least three years to complete, allowing for another three years of mismanagement. This 

three years timetable does not even take into account the politically motivated, obstructionist language in the Energy and Water 

Appropriations Bill which prohibits the updated manuals from 

being implemented. 

The time is now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We need 

these changes. 

It is clear that our water policy is flawed. Our water policy is reactive. Water is too precious a resource not to have a long-term 

plan. Water management issues must be agreed upon before we 

face the type of crisis we are in today. 

The implementation of the new manuals by the Army Corps is 

a key component, but not enough. This will only change how the 

Army Corps manages their own projects. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, we need to 

take a step back. We need to see our water issues in the larger picture. We need a comprehensive watershed management study of 

the entire southeastern United States. 

I plan to introduce legislation that would do just that. The current piece-meal approach to watershed management does not work. 

Later today, I will introduce legislation that will direct the Army 

Corps of Engineers to study and develop recommendations to address current and future water needs in the southeastern United 

States. 

It is important to look at the water demands of Georgia, of Florida, of Alabama as individual States from the perspectives of the 

individual stakeholders, but this narrow-minded perspective is not 

enough. Water transcends State borders and political boundaries. 

We need to stop trying to find winners and losers and do what 

is right, what is necessary to work together. I hope this hearing 

serves as a new beginning in open and productive negotiations that 

bring everyone together to meet the long-term needs of the entire 

southeastern United States. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want 

to thank you for bringing us here together and holding this hearing. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I now welcome Congressman Allen Boyd from Florida’s 2nd District and thank you for testifying today. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. BOYD. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for convening 

this hearing on this most important topic. 

I apologize for my voice, but that can’t be helped. Maybe some 

good water will help fix it. 

I listened very carefully to both of your opening comments, and 

I want to say that both of you are right on. Long-term planning is 

the only solution to this very severe problem that we have. We 

don’t necessarily have to plan for stormy times, but we do have to 

plan for droughts, and your comments in your opening statements 

were right on. 

6 

For almost 20 years, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint water 

sharing disagreements have presented numerous challenges to the 

local, State and Federal officials. In order for us to responsibly address this issue, we must look at the bigger picture and tackle both 

short-term and, as you described, long-term problems. 

My testimony before the Subcommittee today will focus on the 

need for the States to plan for their own water needs which Georgia has just only now begun. 

I have been involved in the Apalachicola River Basin issues 

along the Florida coast for all of my 19 years in public life. I have 

worked closely with the water management districts of Florida, especially as they began to focus on regional water supply needs in 

the late 1970s when water supply issues in the western panhandle 

were very severe as a result of the 1977 drought. 

When Florida chose to focus on these water issues over 30 years 

ago, the Florida legislature created five water management districts by a State constitutional amendment. Actually, they were 

created in the constitution, and they were given broad statutory 

authority by the State legislature. 

We chose to do five regional districts rather than having one 

State czar, if you will. That way, we thought we could maintain 

better working relations and more local control. 

These water management districts were given ad valorem taxing 

authority in the constitution as well as their statutory authority 

which includes programs such as land acquisition, regulation, construction, land management and water resource preservation. 

Again, these water management districts have been constitutionally authorized for over 30 years. 

I commend the Florida model, Madam Chair, to my friends from 

Georgia, from the north, as many other States have looked at our 

model as a very good workable model. 

In 1982, we completed the first regional water supply development plan. 

In the late 1990s, the Florida legislature amended the Florida 

Water Resources Act, directing the State’s five water management 

districts to comprehensively assess the adequacy of water supplies 

over a 20-year planning period. 

Let me say that again. In the 1990s, the Florida legislature directed the State’s five water management districts to comprehensively assess adequacy of water supplies over a 20-year planning 

period and to develop regional water supply plans for these areas, 

identified as either having or being likely to develop future water 

supply problems. 

In response, the Florida water management districts established 

seven water supply planning regions and completed the first district-wide water supply assessments in 1998. 

In 2003, the demand projections from the assessments were updated through 2025. So, again, even after the turn of this century, 

we have updated those assessments through 2025. 

Based on the results of the assessments, the Water District Governing Board determined that water supply demands were not sustainable in three west Florida counties—Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and 

Walton—because of high concentrations of development taking 

place in those areas. 

7 

The Board directed staff to develop a regional water supply plan 

to include water resource development and water supply development components. This plan was first developed in 2001 and updated in 2006. 

Thus, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Boozman, for the past 

35 years, Florida has followed a long-term Statewide management 

strategy, while some of our friends to the north have allowed for 

unbridled development with little to no thought of its increased 

water needs. This second plan works well until you have a drought, 

but when you have a drought, all that goes out the window. 

On the ACF water sharing issue, I have been an advocate for 

Florida to receive our fair share of water. By the same token, I believe the solution to the water problems in the ACF Basin should 

be solved by the three States. 

I agree with John Lewis. Alabama, Florida and Georgia have to 

get together and solve this problem. They need appropriate oversight by the Federal Government. 

I believe that the three States should use a transparent process 

to include the following points: Number one, use independent and 

local experts to determine the water flows, at the river and the 

Apalachicola Bay, needed to maintain their productivity. 

Number two, set limits on water use within the tristate basin. 

For example, cap the water use to ensure that the river flow requirements can be met. 

Three, assess the water conservation potential among all users 

in the basin—agricultural, municipal and industrial—and determine the most cost-effective investments and who will pay for 

them. 

And, fourthly, embody these agreements in a durable, tristate 

compact with strong enforcement mechanisms. 

Madam Chair, fundamental inequities that currently exist between the States also need to be corrected. Let me give you an example. 

In Florida, if you go to apply for a building permit, you have to 

demonstrate that sustainable fresh water already exists to support 

that new usage for that building permit. Georgia does not require 

this as part of its new development process. This is the long-term 

planning part that I am talking about. 

The recent ruling in the D.C. Court of Appeals that overturned 

an award of 750 million gallons per day for Atlanta needs to find 

immediate implementation in actions by the Corps of Engineers to 

modify the current Exceptional Drought Operations Plan and release the increased amount of water downstream. 

If Georgia seeks to get municipal and industrial water supply 

added as a Congressionally authorized use for the waters in Lake 

Lanier, then there should be another Congressionally authorized 

use added for the protection and preservation of the health, ecology 

and productivity of the Apalachicola River, flood plain and estuary. 

I also believe that Congress should have close oversight over the 

Corps of Engineers’ development of an updated water control plan 

for the ACF system, including a comprehensive scope for the environmental impact assessment. 

8 

Madam Chair, I am very excited to have members of the Apalachicola River Riparian County Stakeholders Coalition in Washington, D.C. for your important hearing. 

Kevin Begos, who is the Executive Director of the Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce and a member of the Stakeholders 

Coalition, will testify before your Committee. Kevin is on the front 

lines of the water sharing issue, and I am confident that he will 

be a strong voice to speak for our interests before the Subcommittee. 

Kevin will be joined by other members of the Coalition including 

Dave McLain of the Apalachicola Riverkeepers, Commissioner 

Smokey Parrish with the Franklin County Commission and Chad 

Taylor representing Jackson County on the Riparian Coalition. 

Their combined expertise and insight on this issue will be invaluable. 

Madam Chair, thank you again for holding this hearing, and I 

look forward to working productively with you and my friends from 

Alabama and Georgia to find long-term good solutions. Thank you 

much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Now we will hear from Congressman Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HENRY C. JOHNSON, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

GEORGIA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chair Johnson, Ranking Member 

Boozman, thank you for holding this hearing on Comprehensive 

Watershed Management and Planning: Drought-Related Issues in 

the Southeastern United States. I look forward to the testimony of 

the distinguished panel of witnesses, and I thank you for your efforts. 

Thank you also for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and the Environment on such an important 

issue for my State and my district. 

As you know, Georgia and much of the southeast is in the third 

year of what many are calling the worst drought in recorded history. The drought has arrived at a particularly poor time as the 

manuals directing how the water in the ACT and ACF river basins 

is managed have not been updated in decades. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, charged with the difficult 

task of managing these two systems in normal years, was initially 

forced to manage this extraordinary drought without a plan and is 

now operating under an Exceptional Drought Operations Plan 

which will expire in the coming months. Meanwhile, the governors 

of Georgia, Alabama and Florida, failing to reach an agreement on 

long-term water use allocation, the people of Georgia and the entire 

region are becoming increasingly frustrated. 

It is clear, Madam Chair, that the complete failure to properly 

manage these river basins over the years has led directly to the situation we are currently in. It is deplorable that Federal agencies 

and elected leaders have been unable to work together to ensure 

that millions of people across the southeast have adequate access 

to water for drinking, power generation, fishing and recreation. 

9 

Unfortunately, these are the facts and there was no plan in place 

to deal with this drought when it arrived, further exacerbating the 

situation. 

Georgians now face very strict restrictions on water use, and municipal water systems across the State are required to reduce their 

consumption by 10 percent or face steep fines which will then be 

passed on to already strapped ratepayers. 

Like my colleagues from the region, I am concerned about the 

impact that failure to reach a long-term agreement will have on the 

economy of the southeast. Many small businesses, already squeezed 

by high gas prices, are now further squeezed by the water restrictions. Many larger businesses may decide not to locate in Georgia, 

and the millions of people who are expected to move to the region 

may choose instead to relocate elsewhere. 

Faced with dramatic increases in their water bills and increasingly strict restrictions on how they can use their water, the people 

back home want a plan for managing this crisis and a plan for preventing another similar crisis. 

Federal agencies and elected officials must continue to work toward both a long-term allocation of water as well as a short-term 

plan for managing this drought. It is unacceptable that negotiations have broken down while the people of this region grow increasingly worried. 

I, however, am very proud of the citizens of Georgia as they have 

shown a remarkable ability to come together and adapt. Georgians 

have met and, in many cases, exceeded the governor’s mandated 10 

percent reduction in water use. This is a remarkable achievement 

for a State and a metropolitan area that is rapidly growing, and 

it shows the commitment to conservation that Georgians are making. 

This drought has awakened many people to the fact that Atlanta 

has a very tenuous supply of water. Conservation must be an integral part of an agreement on water allocation, yet the region must 

also consider options for increasing the amount of storage capacity 

in order to accommodate the projected growth. 

I am hopeful that as a result of this hearing and others, the continued involvement of the Secretary of the Interior as well as the 

Congressional delegations from Georgia, Alabama and Florida, that 

a workable solution will soon be reached. 

Once again, I applaud the efforts of the Chairwoman and the 

Members of this Subcommittee, and I thank you for the opportunity to be present here today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Johnson, and 

I thank all of the members of this first panel. You may now be excused, and we will go with the second panel. 

Thank you very much for your valuable participation this morning. 

Our second panel of witnesses consists of Mr. Robert Hunter, 

Commissioner for the City of Atlanta’s Department of Watershed 

Management, Mr. Kevin Begos testifying on behalf of both the 

Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce as well as the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition, and our final witness is Mr. 

Tim Burch, a board member from the Georgia Peanut Commission. 

10 

Your statements will be placed in the record, and we ask that 

you try to limit your testimony to about five minutes as a courtesy 

to other witnesses. Again, we will proceed in the order in which the 

witnesses are listed on the call. 

So, Mr. Hunter, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HUNTER, COMMISSIONER OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CITY OF ATLANTA; KEVIN BEGOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRANKLIN 

COUNTY OYSTER AND SEAFOOD INDUSTRY TASKFORCE AND 

RIPARIAN COUNTY STAKEHOLDER COALITION; TIM BURCH, 

BOARD MEMBER, GEORGIA PEANUT COMMISSION 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing and allowing me 

to testify. 

I am here in my capacity as the Commissioner of the Department 

of Watershed Management for the City of Atlanta with responsibilities for the drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems 

in serving over 1.2 million people daily. I also represent the water 

supply providers for Metro Atlanta’s five million people. 

The southeastern United States is currently experiencing a 

drought of record proportions. Unfortunately, the effects of these 

drought conditions on the Federal reservoirs and those who depend 

upon them have been exacerbated by management decisions driven 

by litigation rather than sound science or effective resource management. 

What is needed is cooperative, responsible stewardship of the region’s water resources for all users. The implementation of sciencebased sustainable operating plans for the southeast region’s reservoirs is the essential first step in moving to a future of sound regional water resource management. 

We know that such a plan is possible because the water supply 

providers of the Metro Atlanta area have done the research and developed an alternative plan that is better for all users including 

protected species and recreation. That is what I would like to discuss today. 

We have all seen the media coverage of last year’s exceptional 

drought and water crisis and, while we are now in the last month 

of our rainy season, it is important to note that we are already two 

and a half inches short of rainfall this year. The drought continues. 

Knowing that we set records for low water levels last year, it is 

sobering to note that Lake Lanier water levels are currently almost 

13 feet lower than this time last year. If drought conditions persist 

this summer as predicted, the result could be devastating for the 

entire ACF Basin. The need for action is immediate. 

What are the causes of these dangerous water levels? First of all, 

we are in a record drought. All users should expect significant impacts and all users should be taking appropriate conservation 

measures. 

More importantly, it is the management plan implemented by 

the Corps that has turned a natural disaster into a crisis. The operating plan that caused this crisis is the interim operating plan 

for the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, the IOP adopted in March, 

2006. This operating plan is not sustainable because it requires 

11 

large releases from reservoir storage to meet artificially high minimum flows at the Florida line without ever allowing the reservoirs 

to refill, in particular Lake Lanier. 

This unsustainable plan nearly emptied the Federal reservoirs 

and throughout the system in a crisis in 2007. From May to November, 2007, the water delivered from the Federal reservoirs in 

the Chattahoochee River to the Apalachicola River amounted to 

220 percent of the river’s natural unimpaired flow. 

What is not the problem is that there isn’t enough water. The 

problem is how we manage the water and especially the reservoir 

system. 

Some basic facts on water use in the ACF: 

Metro Atlanta, annual net consumptive use is only 1 percent of 

the total volume at the Georgia-Florida State line in normal years 

and less 2 percent during drought years; 4.5 million people; 72 percent of the basin population use less than 2 percent of the water. 

Comparison to other users: Flint River irrigation, the annual average is 165 percent of the Metro Atlanta use. Peak use is 313 percent for irrigation. The evaporation from reservoirs is 83 percent, 

and the Port St. Joe diversion from the Apalachicola Basin is 50 

percent of the Metro Atlanta use. 

Protected species requirements for discharge are 20 times that of 

Metro Atlanta’s consumption and the spring sturgeon release is 72 

times the volume. 

All these uses are significant and important, but all users need 

to be part of the solution and take appropriate conservation measures. 

A few quick notes on conservation in the Metro area: The North 

Metro Atlanta Water District has strict conservation in the plan for 

the Metropolitan North Georgia area. We have a virtual ban on 

outdoor water use. 

An example from the City of Atlanta, in 2004, we committed almost $1 billion towards water system improvements. We had tiered 

conservation pricing. 

Since that time, we have replaced 55 miles of old pipes with new 

main. We are moving from design to construction of almost $325 

million in new water mains. We are repairing more than 800 leaks 

per month to our water distribution system which saved 55 million 

gallons of water in 2005. 

And, you can grow and conserve water. Between the years 2000 

and 2006, the City of Atlanta added 9 percent more water customers but was able to reduce total water consumption by 5.2 percent through water conservation and tightening up our system. 

What is the solution? First of all, the Corps must also conserve. 

The amount of water that can be saved through conservation pales 

in comparison to the amount that is continuing to be wasted 

through improper reservoir operation. It is literally a drop in the 

bucket. 

From the standpoint of Corps operations, the Corps needs to conserve storage to the maximum extent possible. First of all, the 

Corps needs to stop over-releases. The Corps, in recent weeks, has 

been making excess releases from Lake Lanier on the order of 400 

to 500 cubic feet per second per day for no purpose. The amount 

of water that is being wasted each day is roughly twice the total 

12 

amount of water the entire Metropolitan Atlanta area consumes in 

a day. 

The Corps also needs to grant Georgia’s request to reduce the 

flow target at Peachtree Creek by 200 cfs. That is a water quality 

issue during the winter, not a water quantity issue. Not reducing 

this flow simply wastes water in Lake Lanier that we are very likely to need by late summer for all the users in the system. 

Finally, the Corps reservoir operations must change. We recommend that the Corps adopt a three-step recovery plan for Lake 

Lanier. The first step is to adopt an emergency recovery plan. To 

weather the current prices, the Exceptional Drought Operations 

Plan must be extended and modified to allow all reservoirs to refill. 

The second step is to replace the IOP with a better, more sensible plan to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of 2006 and 

2007. 

And, a third step for the longer term is to adopt a comprehensive 

water control plan for the ACF Basin that is based on facts and 

sound science. 

The City of Atlanta and the other metro area water supply providers strongly support the Corps’ current initiative to update 

water control plans for the ACF Basin. We know this can be done 

because we have already found a way to do it. On January 10th, 

2007, the water supply providers submitted a proposal to the Corps 

which we call the Maximum Sustainable Release Rule. 

Our proposal is attached as Exhibit C, and a summary explanation is attached as Exhibit D to my testimony. 

Our analysis shows that the alternative we propose could be better for all parties including the endangered species that inhabit the 

Apalachicola River. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Hunter, if you could just wrap up. 

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to provide testimony on this important issue. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I want the record to show that Congressman Bishop from Georgia is entering his testimony into the record. He is scheduled for 

two other places at the same time, which is not unusual around 

here. 

I would like to welcome now, Mr. Kevin Begos, testifying on behalf of the Franklin County Oyster and Seafood Taskforce as well 

as the Riparian County Stakeholder Coalition. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. BEGOS. Madam Chair and Committee Members, we would 

like to thank you all for this opportunity to testify on this issue of 

great importance to the people, economy and environment of north 

Florida, and we also thank Congressman Boyd for his support. 

I am speaking on behalf of nearly 2,000 people who work in the 

Franklin County seafood industry and for the people who live and 

work in the six-county region bordering the Apalachicola River. 

Last May, a period of extremely low flows on the Apalachicola 

River began and stayed that way for nearly six months, the longest 

recorded period of low flows since recordkeeping began in the early 

1920s. As the river vanished, people and businesses began to suffer. 

13 

The electric turbines that help supply the cities of Chattahoochee 

and Quincy fell silent, and electric bills began to spike. In the 

swamps, the Tupelo honey trees that help make the world’s sweetest honey delivered just half their normal bounty to beekeepers. 

Then the lush aquatic grasses that normally cover the upper 

parts of Apalachicola Bay bean to die off, leaving nothing but barren sand and mud bottoms. The blue crabs disappeared, and fishermen pulled up pots mostly in vain. 

The summer progressed and soon the effects of the low flows 

could be seen everywhere. The white shrimp catches crashed to historic lows, and entire oyster bars died off from the combined stress 

of lack of fresh water and a huge wave of predators that came in 

from the Gulf. Even the color of the water in the bay changed. 

The entire ecosystem was impacted, and at this time we still 

don’t know the full extent of the damage because the drought is not 

over. 

Madam Chair, this is not a case of people versus mussels. It is 

about finding a way for all the vital needs along the river to be 

fairly balanced, from cities to farms to seafood producers to the environment. 

The seafood industry drives our economy in Franklin County, 

and many of our neighbors upstream rely on the Apalachicola 

River. The bay is one of the most productive estuaries in the northern hemisphere, a nursery for species from all over the Gulf of 

Mexico. Recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, beekeepers, 

the timber industry and the tourism industry all benefit from and 

depend on this natural chain. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has designated 246,000 acres of the lower river and bay as a National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the United Nations has also designated it as an International Biosphere Reserve which draws visitors from all over the world. 

Here are some details of what a lack of fresh water can do to the 

system: 

For generations, shrimp fishing has been a cornerstone of our 

economy. Yet, in 2007, the white shrimp harvest crashed by about 

90 percent, and the brown shrimp harvest declined by 65 percent 

according to preliminary figures. Boats fell into disrepair and even 

sank at the dock, and shrimp houses fell silent too, depriving workers of paychecks. 

The blue crab catch from the bay in 2007 declined by about 70 

percent from the previous year, and the flounder catch declined by 

about 30 percent. Even with different life cycles and feeding habits, 

all suffered. 

Our oyster fishery was hit when entire oyster bars died off during late summer and others failed to produce as they had in the 

past. So, virtually, our whole fleet of oystermen focused on one area 

of the bay, threatening to wipe it out. 

Though ample rainfall over the last three months has eased the 

pressure, any tristate agreement that fails to take the needs of the 

entire ecosystem into account could doom our river, bay and way 

of life by locking in low flows every year. 

Oysters play a key role in maintaining our water quality since 

they are filter feeders. If our oyster beds die off, we will head toVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41492 JASON
14 

ward the same situation as Chesapeake Bay, where State and Federal authorities have spent vast sums trying to repair the damage 

done to nature. 

We say it makes moral and economic sense to protect what we 

have rather than to destroy and rebuild. Since the late 1960s, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, mostly by the State 

of Florida to put approximately 261,000 acres in Apalachicola River 

and Bay drainage basin into public ownership. 

Madam Chair, two closing points, much has been written and 

said about the disputes between these three States, but in fact the 

people of north Florida have much in common with our neighbors 

in Georgia and Alabama. There are deep family, cultural, economic 

and environmental ties. These river systems belong to us all, not 

to one. 

So we say, let’s try to work together in a fair and open way to 

find a balanced solution based on science that meets your needs as 

well as ours. But to do that, the Federal Government and the 

States need to move away from closed door negotiations and start 

a transparent process with all interested parties including Congress. 

One final point, Madam Chair, some have suggested that these 

water disputes are simply a matter of big versus small, hinting 

that those areas with fewer people and less power must lose out. 

That would set a disastrous precedent not only for our region but 

for the entire Country. 

If some say that big must always win, that sets the stage for 

every minority to lose. That is not the American way. 

I will close with a nod to the sentiment about small places that 

Daniel Webster first expressed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1818, 

which is still true today. The cities of Apalachicola, Wewahitchka, 

Blountstown and Chattahoochee are small, yet there are those that 

love them. 

The people and environment of north Florida deserve to be treated as equals, and we thank you and this Committee for giving us 

that opportunity. 

And, finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say that we had some 

updated statistics since I submitted written testimony, and we 

would like your consent to include those in the written record. 

Ms. JOHNSON. With no objection. 

Thank you very much. 

The Committee now will hear testimony from Mr. Burch. 

Mr. BURCH. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

My name is Tim Burch. I am a native of Baker County, Georgia, 

which is located in the southwest part of the State. We are part 

of the Flint River Basin. 

I have farmed with my brother and father all of my life and live 

on my grandparents’ farm. I grow peanuts, cotton and raise beef 

cattle. 

I have served on the Georgia Farm Bureau advisory committees 

and have been a delegate to the National Cotton Council. I currently serve as Executive Board Member of the Georgia Peanut 

Commission, and I am also an elected Baker County Commissioner, 

serving since 1993. 

15 

The extended drought in the southeast has dramatically impacted agriculture. Irrigation systems, which have become a necessity to produce crops, continue to expand at great expense to the 

operating costs of our businesses. 

Increases in energy costs have made our drought problem worse. 

There is no indication that energy costs will diminish in the 2008 

crop year. 

Drought loses in Georgia during 2007 were approximately $800 

million according to the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development at the University of Georgia. Those losses came primarily from hay, pasture, cotton, peanuts and corn. The greatest 

losses were in pasture, approximately $265 million. 

The Center estimates that the 2007 drought had a total economic 

output impact of 1.3 billion in losses. Output losses are the total 

sales that are lost to the Georgia economy due to these direct losses 

reported for each commodity. 

My home county of Baker was one of the more severe drought 

counties in the State. Total peanut losses were four to eight million 

dollars. Cotton losses were six to eleven million dollars. Total losses 

in Baker County were estimated by the Center to be between 10 

and 20 million dollars. 

This is a lot of money to take out of the economy of a small, 

sparsely populated rural county. Please note that Baker County 

has no manufacturing and only a few retailers and agriculture. 

The water issues in Georgia have been much debated for many 

years. There are clear concerns for both urban and rural areas. 

There are two key areas I would like to emphasize this morning 

for agriculture. First, individual producers recognize the importance water as a shared natural resource. Second, collectively, 

Georgia producers have participated in planning initiatives for 

water resources in our State and will continue to do so. 

With regard to production agriculture, farmers are applying new 

water conservation methods such as conservation tillage and technologies for irrigation, such as the precision application of water. 

This latter method is so critical to improving water use efficiency. 

The Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District recently 

testified before the House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee. The hearing focused on rural broadband issues. 

This may not appear on its face to be a concern that impacts 

water conservation, but new technologies advanced by the University of Georgia allow for more irrigation efficiency using internet 

technologies. Without broadband, this new water conservation efficiency technology is of little value to Georgia producers. 

In addition to helping our rural kids compete with urban school 

systems, broadband technology will assist farmers in water conservation. Whether you produce cotton, corn or peanuts in the 

southeast, irrigation will continue to expand or farmers will not be 

in business. 

We have to utilize the most efficient water conservation technologies possible to assure that we are not wasting this precious resource. Expanding rural broadband is a critical piece to this process. 

The Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a new conservation rotation program. If this program survives the Farm Bill 

16 

conference, we believe it will add to water stewardship. The program provides incentives to farmers to practice better crop rotation. 

Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District estimates that 

since 2001 agricultural producers have saved over 13 billion gallons 

of water due to groundwater conservation practices. These savings 

were due to irrigation water management, conservation tillage, irrigation reservoirs, moisture monitoring and variable rate irrigation. 

With reference to our collective efforts in Georgia to resolve the 

water management issue, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation has 

taken the lead representing Georgia farmers in the State water 

plan development. Georgia farmers have supported augmenting our 

water supplies through all reasonable means including more reservoirs of various types, aquifer storage and recovery and desalination. 

The water plan has now passed the State legislature and become 

law. It establishes a framework for moving forward on Georgia’s 

water issues. Georgia producers will continue to participate as the 

plan evolves. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We have very serious water issues in our State and the southeast. 

As one segment of Georgia’s economy, we are striving to use the 

best technologies and conservation practices available to protect 

our water resources. We are actively involved in the State water 

management planning. 

We encourage the Congress to provide as many tools as possible 

to help southeastern producers use the best available process for 

conserving water. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Burch, and we will 

now hear questions from the Subcommittee for the second panel. 

I will begin by asking Mr. Hunter. Mr. Begos observed in his testimony that Florida links growth to water usage by requiring building permit applicants to demonstrate that there are sufficient 

water resources to support the proposed construction. What steps 

has the City of Atlanta taken to similarly ensure that the city’s 

growth does not outstrip the water supplies? 

Mr. HUNTER. I would answer with both a City of Atlanta and Atlanta Metro response to that question, Madam Chair. 

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District has 

been very active for the past several years in terms of our water 

supply plan and our water conservation plan in conjunction with 

the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. 

Only water withdrawal permits for the water utilities that are 

part of that plan—that includes not only the supply side but the 

water conservation requirements—are allowed. So, from a macro 

standpoint for the entire 5 million population region, we have an 

established control procedure in a plan tied into permitting. 

On the local level for the City of Atlanta, as I indicated, we have 

not only increased our population by 9 percent but decreased our 

consumption by over 5 percent through a very active program of 

capital investment, replacing 55 miles of water main, repairing 

over 800 leaks a month, of how we manage our water and how we 

conserve that water. 

17 

We also have a million dollar program set up for retrofit rebates 

on plumbing fixture changes. We have a very aggressive water conservation plan and long-term planning so that we stay within the 

confines of our permitted capacity. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Begos, what role do you think that Congress should play in 

ensuring that the economy and way of life of the north Florida oyster industry is maintained while ensuring that there is sufficient 

water for upstream users in Alabama and Georgia? 

Mr. BEGOS. Madam Chairwoman, we think it is partially just to 

give us opportunities to speak like this. As you noted, the governors of the three States did not appear here. We felt a little bit 

shut out from the process recently too. 

We think a more open process and also what Mr. Boozman referred to of providing some technical information and assistance to 

the States, and also to the Corps of Engineers and the States so 

that they can have economic impact studies of Apalachicola Bay. 

We believe there needs to be a new look at the whole economic impact of the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem and that should be integrated into water control manuals. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Now let me ask this to Mr. Burch. Do you think that the new 

Georgia water management plan, recently enacted by the Georgia 

legislature, is an effective system to reduce water consumption and 

fairly distribute the cost of drought throughout the State and region? 

Mr. BURCH. Madam Chair, I certainly hope that it is a good 

starting point. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

To the whole panel, we have been hearing a lot about comprehensive watershed planning, and my understanding is perhaps 

that we will go into that further this year. What role should the 

Corps of Engineers play in that as far as comprehensive watershed 

planning? 

Mr. Hunter, where do you see their role? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Boozman, I believe the Corps of Engineers has 

a central role to the comprehensive planning. This is not only a 

Federal and State but a local issue, and I would share my colleague’s sentiments, his statements that local water providers and 

local users must have a seat at the table. 

The Corps, though, manages the projects along with the power 

companies in both the ACF and ACT. They control the water plans, 

the control plans for the projects. 

It is essential that they take that role. It is essential that it be 

a thorough, comprehensive evaluation and look at how to maximize 

the benefits to all the users, and the work that we have done on 

our modeling indicates that that is not only possible but readily 

implementable. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. BEGOS. We believe the Corps does have a central role, but 

I would say there is also room for other agencies such as NOAA 

to provide technical support, perhaps National Marine Fisheries 

18 

Service from our perspective and, most importantly, not just independent experts but even local experts in our case who have knowledge of our specific issues. 

Of course, I would say the same for my colleagues here, that they 

should have the right to bring in their independent experts and 

their local experts for their needs, so we can really have a comprehensive body of data, looking at the whole basin from Lake Lanier all the way down to Apalachicola Bay. 

Mr. BURCH. I certainly feel that the Corps has the lead role. 

It is terribly important that they take into account all of the 

water supply issues in the State. Different basins have annual 

water recharge. We have been under a water restriction in the past 

in my area on irrigation, a moratorium on well-drilling, and it has 

been determined that our aquifer recharges on an annual basis. 

So it does need to be looked at independently. We have got to 

have representation when negotiations take place. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Some suggest that the Federal agencies can play 

a key role in helping municipalities switch to desalinization, other 

technologies. Other than funding, what role can the Federal Government play in that respect? 

Mr. HUNTER. Desalinization, internationally, is a viable technology. We have some countries that are completely reversing the 

flow of their water from east to west, going to west to east, looking 

at desalinization as the source and water reuse. 

In the United States, desalinization is primarily a coastal technology. It is growing in popularity. 

Applications in the ACF Basin don’t necessarily involve what is 

often discussed, which is the big pipeline to Lake Lanier. Atlanta 

is 250 miles to Savannah and over 300 miles to the Gulf of Mexico. 

It is a viable technology in terms of providing water closer to the 

source, whether that is Apalachicola Bay, whether that is the Apalachicola River or whether that is south Georgia in terms of agriculture. 

Certainly, something that could be a Federal role on a regional 

basis like that is a support of infrastructure funding. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. As Atlanta grows, again in looking at alternatives 

to the lake, what are the impediments as far as building another 

reservoir or whatever? I am sure that you all have explored that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, the metro area has explored a number of reservoirs and, of course, there are several hurdles to overcome there, 

one of which would be the permitting. Another one would be the 

substantial cost. Land prices and population have changed a bit in 

the north Georgia mountain areas since the early fifties. 

Another aspect, though, that is going on is smaller reservoirs. 

For example, the City of Atlanta recently purchased a granite 

quarry which will provide us almost 2 billion gallons of offline storage and will help us extend our water use by managing it, being 

able to take in flows during high flow periods and save those for 

summer months. That will extend our water use, our water permit 

viability by over 15 years. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McNerney. 

19 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

the panel for coming here this morning. 

You know this is a wakeup call or more than a wakeup call to 

the eastern part of the Country. 

We have seen a lot of these things you are talking about in California for many decades now. For example, the San Joaquin River 

runs through my district. It used to be a navigable river. 

Now it is a dry riverbed, and that degraded ecosystem has basically shut down livelihood. People that made a living on the river 

are now long gone. 

There are also conflicts between the populated areas that want 

the water and the rural areas that have the water. I don’t want 

to point fingers, but certain parts of the State have been known to 

take water from other regions of the Country, and we have to make 

sure that when we go down that path that we do it carefully and 

in a way that takes care of both needs. 

We can’t take water for granted, and we need a rationale and 

flexible—flexible—approach. We need to capture more fresh water 

when there is a large flow without adversely impacting natural systems. 

What sort of alternatives are there to reservoirs in the Georgia 

area that would be useful? I mean, in California, we can recharge 

groundwater in ways, but I don’t if that is viable in Georgia. 

Mr. HUNTER. No, sir. There are a few distinct differences between the situation in north Georgia and most of the California 

major water projects. 

For one, only 5 percent of the drainage basin is above Lake Lanier or a little bit more than 1,000 square miles to recharge that 

lake. That is why even if we get a normal rainfall pattern now, it 

will probably take three to four years to fill Lake Lanier under current operating plans. 

The other issue is that we essentially have a thin layer of red 

Georgia clay over solid granite. I am constructing some very large 

eight mile long tunnels in Atlanta as part of our Corps project now, 

and we are boring through solid granite. 

There are very minor groundwater resources, none sufficient to 

use to run a large municipal water system. 

So what we have as a water resource is a small drainage basin, 

100 percent surface water that is controlled by the Corps projects. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. That is what bothers me. 

We want to look for the way the Fed can help, but the needs are 

so different depending on what region of the Country you are in, 

I am, therefore, afraid that mandates would be counterproductive. 

Do you have any suggestions on how we could build a Federal involvement that would be beneficial across the Nation? 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, certainly, Representative Linder’s plan, in 

terms of the studying and active involvement of multiple groups at 

all levels in formulating the plan, will be a large help. 

In the case of Georgia, we certainly are using the experiences 

and using the knowledge of the western United States as they have 

gone through that process and the negotiations of the Colorado 

River and other areas of the west. Perhaps the greatest immediate 

resource is the sharing of that knowledge as we try to solve this 

problem that is growing throughout the eastern United States. 

20 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, it is clear that the problem is not going to 

get better by itself. So I look forward to working with the panel 

and Members of the Committee to finding rational solutions to this 

and a flexible way to move forward. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Congressman Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 

you for calling this very important hearing. 

I am sorry that a very large school group ran late, and I didn’t 

get to hear the testimony. 

This problem of the drought in our region has become so serious 

that there has even been talk in the Georgia legislature about 

movement of the Georgia-Tennessee border, and there have been a 

lot of jokes about this proposal, but this is a pretty serious problem. 

The Knoxville News Sentinel published an editorial just a couple 

of days ago, and they wrote this. They said: ‘‘The effects of drought 

are well documented. The Tennessee Valley Authority reported a 

loss of $17 million in the first quarter of the 2008 year, and the 

drought is one of the main reasons. In November, reports revealed 

the reservoirs in Atlanta were close enough to the bottom that 

dirtier water that contained more bacteria was going to need more 

expensive purification.’’ 

The Sentinel said now is the time to take a serious look at our 

water resources and how they are managed, and I think this hearing is an important part of that. 

On the other hand, over the years, we have had many studies 

that are on the shelves, and I think people would prefer that we 

have less studying and more action on some of these problems. We 

have heard testimony about duplication or various agencies—local, 

State and Federal—going sometimes in different directions. 

But about four years ago, we had T. Boone Pickens, the great entrepreneur, in here, who made just an unbelievable fortune off of 

oil, and he is out buying up water rights in Texas because as one 

article said in the New York Times. It said water is going to be the 

oil of the 21st Century, and there are even predictions that there 

will be wars fought over water in some parts of the world. So this 

is something that we can’t overemphasize the seriousness of what 

we are dealing with. 

The problem, it seems to me, I read in the National Journal 

about three weeks ago that two-thirds of the counties in this Nation are losing population, and that surprises many people, but all 

over the Country the small towns and rural areas are losing population or barely holding on. 

People say they want land around them, but they really do not. 

They still want to be near the malls and the restaurants and the 

movie theaters. 

I represent Knoxville and the surrounding area and the tremendous growth in Tennessee is in a circle around Nashville and in a 

circle around Knoxville, and I am very familiar with the growth 

that has occurred in and around the Atlanta area. 

I don’t know what the answers are, what all the answers are, but 

I will tell you that in most of the rapidly developing countries 

21 

around the world, they do these infrastructure projects in about a 

third of the time that we do them in. 

We take 10 years to study a problem before we really act on it. 

In fact, this is not water, but the newest runway at the Atlanta 

Airport took 14 years from conception to completion mainly because 

all the environmental rules and regulations and red tape. It took 

only 99 days of actual construction. 

What we are going to have to do, we are going to have to put 

more emphasis on water projects, in my opinion, where this rapid 

development is going on, and we are going to have to do a lot fewer 

studies and a lot more actually taking action or doing some projects 

where the need is the greatest. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Any other questions? 

Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 

thank you and the Committee for allowing me to be here. 

Mr. Hunter, I want you to go back and congratulate Mayor 

Franklin on the job that she has done in trying to get Atlanta’s 

water and sewer systems on the right track. I served in the Georgia legislature for 12 years. It was always easy to kick Atlanta and 

try to fine them and other things for their water situation, but 

Mayor Franklin has stepped up to the plate in spending money. 

Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit 

this pamphlet to the Committee and put it in the record that gives 

testimony and some facts and statistics to back up what Atlanta 

has done to help solve some of these water problems that they have 

had in the past. 

[Information follows:] 

22 


41492.022
23 


41492.017
24 


41492.018
25 


41492.019
26 


41492.020
27 


41492.021
28 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Begos, I used to go visit Bay City 

Lodge and Mr. Jimmy Muscala quite a bit down there, and I have 

fished in Apalachicola Bay on many occasions and have eaten some 

of those great oysters down there. 

Is it true too that a lot of times there is more fresh water in the 

bay than there needs to be? 

Mr. BEGOS. Congressman, that is sometimes true. We are sometimes frustrated by having too much water coming down the system that would shut down oyster harvest for a period of days or 

weeks. There is a potential solution, long-term, of looking at the 

whole thing at certain times when you could hold more water upstream. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I was just talking to a friend that was down 

there fishing, and he said they were catching a shellcracker almost 

out to the cut. So that is an indication that there is probably more 

fresh water down there during these times of heavy rains than 

have been. 

You also mentioned about Blountstown. I have been down the 

river before also, stopped at Blountstown, and I know they get a 

lot of economic development from that river traffic. 

Do you know anything about that silting up in that area where 

it is harder to get boat traffic down and what is stopping the dredging of that area, if anything, and does it need to be dredged? 

Mr. BEGOS. Congressman, that is not really my area of expertise. 

I am more of the Apalachicola Bay area. So I would defer on that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I will ask Mr. Burch this same question. Do 

you think it would help if there was some type of controls put on 

the Flint River? 

Right now, the Flint River is basically unbridled and, if they get 

a large amount of rain and they are still releasing the 5,000 cfs on 

Lanier, it causes too much fresh water to get into that bay. Have 

you thought about any type of flood control or any kind of mechanism on the Flint that would help that situation? 

Mr. BEGOS. On that too I would defer to the final panel and to 

the experts, the hydrologists and marinologists for that. My area 

of expertise is not the Flint or its basin. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But you have had problems with too much 

as well as not enough? 

Mr. BEGOS. Sure. Droughts and floods are a natural part of the 

cycle. We are just looking for a fair long-term agreement that 

doesn’t peg us at a such a low level that we are stuck just there. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am with you, but if we could keep that 

flow constant, using both the management of the Flint and the 

Chattahoochee, I think that would be a better solution. 

Mr. BEGOS. Congressman, we are not asking for a constant flow. 

We are asking for more something that approximates the natural 

variations. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you know what the natural flow of the 

Flint or the Chattahoochee were, the natural flow before anything 

was ever on it? Do you have any idea what that natural flow was? 

Mr. BEGOS. I would defer to biologists and hydrologists on that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, you might want to look at that because it is pretty interesting, what those natural flows are. 

29 

Mr. Burch, just real quickly, I know that you live in Newton, 

Georgia. Was it in 1994 that your town was under water? 

Mr. BURCH. Nineteen ninety-four and then again in 1998, the 

historic downtown was flooded, yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am going to have some questions for the 

other panel too about the impoundments on the Flint, but do you 

think any impoundments on the Flint other than the two small 

that are on there now would help maybe with your city not being 

put under water in some of these flood situations and also help the 

ability for agriculture? 

Let me make one other point quickly, Madam Chair. As far as 

agriculture and use of water in Georgia, I think this water plan 

has done a real good job of working with agriculture and making 

sure that they don’t deplete the water resources. 

Mr. BURCH. A dam certainly would have been a great benefit in 

1994 and 1998. I am no expert, but I do know that our aquifer is 

limestone, and we don’t know how much water is flowing underneath into Florida. So I don’t know how much water we could hold 

back due to our substructure. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Let me thank the witnesses. There are no further 

questions. 

Before we proceed, I will ask unanimous consent to submit the 

report that Mr. Westmoreland offered to go into the record. Any objections? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and 

I appreciate their valuable participation. 

The third panel of witnesses consist of representatives from a 

number of key Federal agencies. Testifying first is Mr. Jess Weaver. Mr. Weaver is a Regional Executive for the Southeast Area of 

the United States Geological Survey. 

Next, we will hear the important testimony of Brigadier General 

Joseph Schroedel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ South 

Atlantic Division, and his testimony will be followed by that of Mr. 

Sam Hamilton from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Hamilton is a Regional Director of the Southeast Region. 

The final witness on our third panel is Mr. John Feldt. Mr. Feldt 

is the Hydrologist-in-Charge for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service, Southeast River 

Forecast Center. 

I thank you for being here, and you may proceed in the order 

that you are listed. 

30 

TESTIMONY OF JESS D. WEAVER, REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, 

SOUTHEAST AREA, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR; BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH 

SCHROEDEL, COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; SAM D. HAMILTON, REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; J. JOHN FELDT, 

HYDROLOGIST-IN-CHARGE, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. WEAVER. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

Department of the Interior regarding the current drought in the 

southeast. 

I am Jess Weaver, Regional Executive for the Southeast Area of the U.S. Geological Survey. The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey is to assess the quantity and quality of the Earth’s resources 

and to provide information to assist resource managers and policy 

makers at the Federal, State and local levels in making sound decisions. 

As part of that mission, in the ACF and ACT Basins, the USGS 

monitors continuous stream flow at 158 stations, providing the 

data in real time. In addition, the USGS measures continuous 

groundwater levels at 77 well sites, collects water quality samples 

at more than 80 sites and prepares water use data reports. 

The USGS works in partnership with 12 Federal, 10 State and 

60 local government agencies in the ACF and ACT Basins, and 

part of the 12 Federal include the agencies of the members of the 

panel sitting to my left. 

The ACF Basin covers 19,600 square miles extending from the 

Blue Ridge Mountains with free-flowing trout streams to the ecologically-rich Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The basin 

includes parts of Georgia, Alabama and Florida and includes the 

Chattahoochee, Flint and Apalachicola Rivers. 

Located at the headwaters of the ACF system, Lake Lanier comprises 62.5 percent of the storage in the system but only 6 percent 

of the drainage area. Because of its huge storage capacity and relatively small drainage area, it takes longer to refill Lake Lanier 

than it does other lakes in the system. 

There are numerous competing demands for the waters of the 

ACF Basin which provide water supply for about 60 percent of the 

population of Georgia and about 8 percent of the population of Alabama and about 1 percent of the population of Florida. 

The groundwaters of the ACF irrigate more than 780,000 acres 

of farmland. The lower ACF rivers are home to one threatened fish 

species and two threatened and four endangered mussels. 

The rivers of the ACF are the source for about 59 public water 

suppliers, about 41 industrial plants including about 7 thermal 

electric plants that each withdraw more than 100,000 gallons per 

day. Additionally, there are more than 80 groundwater withdrawal 

permits in the ACF Basin for public supply and industrial use. 

The system also provides flood control, navigation and recreation 

benefits. At the mouth of the ACF Basin, Apalachicola Bay represents a significant oyster and shrimp fishery. 

31 

The greatest changes in basin hydrology in the past decades have 

been driven by increased public supply demands associated with 

the Atlanta region and increased agricultural withdrawals in the 

southern portion of the basin. During droughts, Lake Lanier is the 

storage of last resort to meet minimum flow requirements throughout the system. Another complicating factor is the effect on stream 

flow from groundwater withdrawals used for irrigation in the lower 

ACF Basin. 

The cumulative influence of these withdrawals can change the 

direction of groundwater flow. Streams that would normally gain 

water from surrounding aquifers during low flow begin to lose 

water to these aquifers. These dynamics have been simulated as 

part of a recently completed study conducted by the USGS. 

In the ACT Basin, the Alabama, Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers 

flow southwestward from northwest Georgia to southwest Alabama, 

draining approximately 22,800 square miles into Mobile Bay. 

There are five Federal projects within the basin and eleven nonFederal Alabama power projects. Federal projects compose 22 percent of the total water storage in the basin. The waters of the ACT 

are used to irrigate about 28,000 acres of farmland. 

The rivers of the ACT are the source for about 218 industrial and 

public permitted water suppliers, 155 in Alabama, 63 in Georgia. 

These permits are required for users to withdraw more than 

100,000 gallons per day. Additionally, there are numerous groundwater withdrawal permits in the ACT Basin for public supply and 

industrial use. 

The flood control, navigation and recreation benefits of the rivers 

and reservoirs in this basin provide enormous intrinsic and economic values. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement, Madam 

Chairwoman, and I will be happy to answer any questions that the 

Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver. 

Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel. 

General SCHROEDEL. Thank you, Madam Chair, first for the opportunity to testify here today, but I would also like to take this 

opportunity to thank all the Members of Congress for your support 

of our great Army which is engaged in a real war in far off lands 

to include 800 or so civilian volunteers from the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers and my own son with the Third Special 

Forces in Afghanistan on his third combat tour. Thank you very 

much for your support. 

Now the Corps generally constructs and operates multipurpose 

water resource projects and manages those projects as a system 

within a watershed irrespective of political boundaries. Project purposes can include flood damage reduction, production of hydropower, recreation, navigation, water supply, water quality, irrigation, and fish and wildlife conservation. 

Our day to day operation of our multipurpose projects seeks to 

balance these competing purposes. During a drought, that competition for limited water resources is magnified. To better manage 

these systems during this drought, we have focused on adapting to 

the uncertainties of the drought and managing the risks associated 

with those uncertainties. 

32 

My division area encompasses operations on 13 of the 18 major 

watersheds from Virginia to Mississippi. We have four districts involved in managing those watersheds, and there are two important 

things that we have done to help manage the drought in a flexible 

and adaptive manner. 

First, our district water managers have been diligent in adjusting operating and drought plans to manage the limited water resources during this drought. 

When conditions became so severe that our approved plans no 

longer support the system in accordance with our Corps regulations, the district water managers sought approval for temporary 

deviations from me, and I can tell you we have approved many deviations throughout the region. We can talk more about that later. 

The second critical thing we have done, which I would like to emphasize today, is that our district water managers routinely engage 

Federal, State and local agencies, industry and other concerned 

stakeholders, striving for both continual communication and complete transparency. 

Intensive communication is absolutely key during a drought for 

two reasons: one, to ensure that we, the Corps, understand the concerns of all of those involved in using our water resources and, second, to ensure that we notify the public in advance of management 

decisions which we intend to make. Our management of the ACT 

and ACF Basins, I believe, is very instructive in this sense. 

The ACT and ACF River Basins include Federal multipurpose 

projects. Under normal rainfall conditions, the Corps manages 

these systems to meet all authorized project purposes in accordance 

with draft water control manuals and plans that were developed in 

the late 1980s. 

When drought conditions develop, however, and water supplies 

dwindle, the Corps begins to lose its ability to meet all of the authorized project purposes all of the time. So we are faced with 

tough choices. 

On the ACT and ACF, we have faced considerable challenges in 

balancing project needs. Again, the key is communication. Last 

year, the Mobile District and the South Atlantic Division and my 

staff initiated, for the first time ever, weekly drought calls, conference calls on the ACT and biweekly drought calls on the ACF. 

These conference calls included all interested parties including 

environmental groups, industry, State and local agencies, Congressional staff and the media, complete transparency. 

These calls, which are very well attended—we are talking 60 or 

better people every week—provide an update on basin conditions 

and describe the Corps management actions, both current and anticipated. They have been valuable venues for promoting two-way 

information sharing and, because they are direct linked through 

agencies, Congressional staff and stakeholders provide information 

to the Corps. 

I would add that we leverage every means available, TV, newspapers and others, to ensure that we sustain a healthy dialogue 

with and our responsiveness to the public we serve. 

We also believe that it is vitally important that Federal agencies 

act as a cohesive and integrated Federal team, given the complexity of the issues that span multiple State and local governVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41492 JASON
33 

ments. I am pleased to report to you today that we are a very cohesive team. These members sitting in this panel and many others 

talk to each other all the time. 

Our coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, 

has been extremely successfully. Our team approach to the ESA 

consultation has allowed both the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to reduce review times to a duration no one would ever 

have imagined. 

We personally rely on the NOAA for not only near-term weather 

forecasts but also long-term forecasts to help manage the risks I 

mentioned earlier. 

We rely on the USGS and their gauges to get accurate and timely data on stream flow, and we use their gauges and their information on our lakes. That is something that we have worked hard to 

do. 

We are also working hard with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy in anticipation of possibly 

having to exercise our authorities under Public Law 8499, should 

the crisis call for those actions. These are just a few examples. 

Water resources challenges are here to stay, and I would like to 

address, for just a second, Mr. Boozman’s point earlier about solutions and not problems. 

Two actions which we are taking today to help shape the future 

are, first, as most of you know, we have begun our efforts to update 

our water control manuals and, second, I would like to give a few 

seconds on another initiative which we began about a year ago, 

which we believe may help. 

Our current water control plans are the most important management tool that water managers have. We have now begun the process on both the ACT and ACF. Notice of intent has been filed in 

the Federal Register, and the process will be about a two to threeyear, very open, public process and in complete compliance with 

NEPA. 

The second action which we have taken, almost a year ago, I introduced a concept which we call the Southeast Regional Water Resource Council. It is somewhat mirrored after the Western States 

Water Council, which would be a State-led forum to develop a regional vision for integrated solutions to water resource challenges 

in the southeast. 

My intent was to establish a process whereby the Corps and 

other Federal partners could ensure our programs and priorities 

are in concert with States’ needs and priorities across the region 

and to foster a more collaborative and consistent effort for development and use of water resources in the region. This would also 

help us define Federal and State responsibilities. 

We are now in the process of sharing this concept with the 

States, the Southern Governors Association, other Federal partners 

and stakeholders. Working regionally with the States on water 

issues in the southeast represents a new way of doing business, but 

we have found that States and stakeholders are receptive to exploring the regional water council concept further. 

Madam Chair and Committee Members, the south is a national 

resource. We need to turn the challenges of this drought into an 

34 

opportunity to shape the future for all of the citizens of this great 

section of our Country. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate 

again the opportunity to testify, and I thank you again for your 

support for our magnificent Army. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We will now hear testimony from Mr. Sam Hamilton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today on behalf 

of the Department of the Interior. 

I am Sam Hamilton, Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Region, a ten-State region that includes the 

Caribbean. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, 

wildlife and plants and habitats for the American people. 

As you have heard already, we are in a record drought, entering 

the third year. This had a profound effect not only on the economies of the southeast but also the environment. 

I want to briefly focus on some key basins, but before I do that 

I want to mention a few items related to the Fish and Wildlife values in this part of the world. Rivers and streams are really the circulatory system of our Nation. They provide a variety of services: 

clean drinking water, recreational opportunities, transportation, 

hydropower and food. 

The southeast is blessed with the highest biodiversity, aquatic 

biodiversity, in North America. But, again, it represents the most 

imperiled group of species in the United States. Two-thirds of the 

Nation’s freshwater mussels are at risk of extinction. One in ten 

may have already vanished forever. Forty percent of the fish in 

these river systems are at risk. 

So rivers and streams are not only valuable for the economy to 

the southeast, but overall they are an indicator of the health of the 

environment, and it really became magnified in the drought that 

we are facing today. 

The ACF, as you have heard a lot about, drew a lot of public attention, an unfortunate mischaracterization of mussels versus people. 

This is really a classic example of people versus people, upstream 

and downstream, States versus States, a 20-year discussion, that 

has been underway. Some view it as a water war. 

We work very closely with the Army Corps of Engineers. In my 

30 years of working for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, we have never worked more closely with the Corps on an issue 

like this. 

The Department’s role is to ensure that there is a balanced approach so that threatened and endangered species, in particular, 

are not jeopardized as we are charged by Congress. 

We work very closely with Federal agencies and States, the EPA, 

USGS, NOAA, and we began consulting on the ACF in the 1990s 

as some of these species were listed. We worked very closely even 

dating back to the 1980s with the Corps on the ACF system. 

We have done a few items to be proactive when it comes to conservation and other planning in the ACF Basin. We provided funding for some agricultural retrofitting to conserve water, streamVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41492 JASON
35 

lined protocols for reservoir reviews, assisted in the development of 

water supply protocols, and we have passed to the State of Georgia 

$130,000 for habitat conservation planning for endangered species. 

The need for this became all too apparent as we entered the 

drought of 2007. 

Working with the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies, 

we evaluated the interim operating plan of 2006 and wrote a nonjeopardy biological opinion for endangered mussels and the Gulf 

sturgeon. 

In 2007, the drought worsened and working very closely in a 

team approach with the Army Corps and others, an emergency 

drought plan was developed, and we consulted in record time on 

that. Typically, we have 135-day consultations under the Endangered Species Act. We did this one in 15 days, recognizing the 

emergency situation that we were facing. 

As you well know and as you have mentioned, Secretary Kempthorne has led an ongoing discussion with the governors in the 

three States in an attempt to work through these issues, and we 

spent a considerable amount of time working in that arena. 

On June 1, we expect to update our biological opinion, working 

with the Army Corps as they revise the plans that they have in 

place to deal with the current hydrology that is out there. 

The drought not only affects the ACF, it affects the ACT system 

which starts in Georgia and flows to Mobile Bay. We work with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Alabama Power, the Corps 

and the State of Alabama and on the Duck River we are working 

very closely with TVA in Tennessee. 

The drought is very pronounced in south Florida, we are working 

with the Army Corps and the State of Florida on Lake Okeechobee 

and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. 

The final area is South Carolina and North Carolina which are 

facing devastating droughts in that part of the world as the City 

of Raleigh struggles with its water supplies, and we are working 

very closely with them. 

The Department of the Interior has been very active on water 

issues since the eighties with expertise and resources. There has 

been unprecedented collaboration between the Federal agencies to 

try and deal with these issues. 

These record droughts are occurring, it appears, more frequently, 

and the increasing demands on the water that are there are pretty 

well documented. How we choose to deal with these finite resources 

in the future is going to be critical to the future not only of the 

economies of this part of the world but certainly the environment, 

and they go hand in hand. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today, and I will answer questions at the appropriate time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. We appreciate it. 

Finally, now we will hear testimony from Mr. John Feldt, the 

Hydrologist from NOAA, National Weather Service Southeast River 

Forecast Center. 

Mr. FELDT. Well, good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to present 

36 

NOAA’s role in coordinating and providing climate and drought information to Federal agencies and States. 

I am the Hydrologist-in-Charge of NOAA’s National Weather 

Service Southeast River Forecast Center. I have been directly involved in forecasting either weather or water for the National 

Weather Service for over 30 years now. 

Today, I will discuss the recent and ongoing severe drought in 

the southeast. I will then focus briefly on the new National Integrated Drought Information System or NIDIS. 

In the most general sense, drought refers to a period of time 

when precipitation levels are abnormally low, affecting human activity and the environment. Primary effects of drought may include 

water shortages and crop, livestock and wildlife losses. Droughts 

may also cause secondary effects on areas such as tourism, commodity markets, transportation, wildfires, insect epidemics, soil 

erosion and hydropower. 

Drought is normal. It is a recurrent feature of climate and occurs 

almost everywhere, although its features vary from region to region. 

As you know, the southeast region of the United States has been 

in the midst of an exceptional drought for a little over two years 

now. Just about every day, people ask me, when is this drought 

going to end? 

While we do not know how much longer this particular drought 

in the southeast will last, there are two things that I personally 

look at quite closely. Number one is the average length of exceptional drought, and the second factor is the prevailing climate signal. 

In the past, exceptional droughts have typically lasted between 

two and three years. However, it is important to know that a few 

droughts have lasted nearly four years. 

In addition, over the past year, NOAA has been monitoring a La 

Nin ̃ a episode which is an unusual cooling of ocean temperatures in 

the equatorial Pacific. A La Nin ̃ a episode typically results in dry 

weather across the southeast U.S., especially from the central part 

of Georgia and Alabama on further south into Florida. 

Climate models now show a trend out of this La Nin ̃ a event into 

neutral conditions either late this spring or this summer. The recent U.S. seasonal drought outlook for February through May predicts some improvement in the southeast drought condition. 

NOAA’s National Weather Service has been providing information to key decision-makers in support of drought management activities since the onset of the drought. The National Weather Service weather forecast offices have been attending local and State 

drought management meetings and providing hydrometeorological 

support and forecast information. 

My office, the Southeast River Forecast Center, has been front 

and center in providing ongoing hydrometeorological support to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the USGS and numerous other Federal, State and local decision-makers. 

My office has also developed several new tools that provide critical information and direct support of drought operations for State, 

Federal Government agencies, the media and the private sector. 

37 

These include a product called the Critical Water Watch and the 

Southeast RFC Journal which are issued on a weekly to biweekly 

basis to convey technical information relating to critical water supply users. We also issue a weekly Water Resources Outlook which 

is a 15-minute multimedia presentation where NOAA meteorologists and hydrologists provide expertise and forecast information 

directly to key decision-makers. 

These are just a few of the many examples of the work that 

NOAA does both locally and regionally to provide climate and 

drought information. 

I would now like to very briefly focus on a new tool that is in 

development and helping the Nation better prepare for and respond 

to the effects of drought, the National Integrated Drought Information System or NIDIS. 

NIDIS is envisioned to be a dynamic and accessible drought risk 

information system. The explicit goal of NIDIS is to enable society 

to respond to periods of short-term and sustained drought through 

improved monitoring, prediction, risk assessment and communication. 

Over the next five years, NIDIS will build on the successes of the 

tools and products provided by NOAA to close the gap between 

what is currently available and what is needed for proactive 

drought risk reduction. Just one example would be that municipalities and State agencies will have improved drought information 

and forecasts when allocating both domestic and industrial water 

usage. 

Water resource managers will have access to more information 

when balancing irrigation water rights with the needs of wildlife, 

and farmers will be better positioned to make decisions on what 

crops to plant and when to plant them. 

While NOAA is the lead agency for NIDIS, NOAA works with 

numerous Federal agencies, emergency managers and planners, 

State climatologists and State and local governments to obtain and 

use drought information. 

Several efforts are underway to improve drought early warning 

systems. These include coordinating interagency drought monitoring and forecasting. NIDIS also provides a framework for coordinating the research agenda among participating agencies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss drought conditions in 

the southeast and NOAA’s role in coordinating and providing climate and drought information to Federal agencies and States. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of 

the Committee may have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will proceed now with questions. 

General Schroedel, you said in your testimony that the Corps’ 

near-term strategy for addressing the drought is updating water 

control plans. What specific changes to the plans are needed and 

what will be the biggest difference between the updated plans and 

the current plans? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, ma’am. The biggest need, after several 

decades of not being updated, is the first step, which is a basinwide EIS. The hydrology has changed, the ecosystems have 

38 

changed, and the demands on the water have changed. The entire 

situation has changed. 

So it is important that we start with a basin-wide EIS, gather 

all the facts in a very open and public process. That will enable us 

then as a part of that process to generate suitable alternative operations approaches to then balance those competing needs, as I mentioned. 

So I would say that the basin-wide EIS is the critical first step 

just to get a good handle on what is really going on. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

This question is for Mr. Hamilton. You mentioned that there are 

many competing uses for water in the ACF Basin, including irrigation, public water supplies, industrial uses and for endangered species. How much water is currently available for endangered species 

and how much is needed to be sufficiently protective? 

Mr. HAMILTON. The endangered species in the Apalachicola system are three listed mussels and the Gulf sturgeon. 

We have consulted with the Army Corps in the last year and 

looked at the required flows for those species. What we found was 

that the historic numbers that we had looked at, 5,000 cfs, had 

only been reached one or two times in the history of recorded time 

in the Apalachicola. 

Recognizing that we were in an exceptional drought and using 

the full flexibility that we had in the Endangered Species Act, we 

consulted and wrote an opinion that enabled the Corps to drop 

those flows to 4,500 cfs, which is a 10 percent reduction at unprecedented levels. 

What we don’t know right now is, if you continue to do that over 

an extended period of time, will that jeopardize the future existence of that species? 

We also wrote an opinion looking at the Gulf sturgeon, using the 

higher spring flows like today, when you have flows exceeding forty 

and fifty thousand cfs hitting the Apalachicola Bay. I believe our 

numbers that we were identifying range between 11,000 and 

16,000 cfs for spawning flows for the Gulf sturgeon. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Let me just ask each of you to comment. There is a water shortage around the world, not just in the southeast U.S. Do you know 

whether or not this has been an understood and accepted thing in 

the planning of these three States together? 

Mr. WEAVER. Personally, I do not know if they have accepted 

that fact in their planning. 

General SCHROEDEL. Ma’am, I would just offer that given how 

rapidly Georgia, for example, just passed their water plan and the 

same actions are being taken by all three governors and other governors around the south, I frankly think everyone has recognized 

that this is a huge problem we have to deal with now. 

My personal opinion is that there is probably a lot of water out 

there we are not capturing. Maybe that is what we need to take 

a look at. 

So I think they all recognize that. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I would have to agree. I think you see it in the 

discussions we have had. You have seen it in the plans that all 

three States have enacted, very much recognizing that these 

39 

droughts are occurring frequently and with increased demand. So 

you are seeing more and more discussion on conservation measures 

and actually implementing some. 

Mr. FELDT. Madam Chair, I think that is out of my area of expertise, so I would like to defer on that question. 

But I would like to point out that it is interesting just recently, 

just last week in our office, we were actually looking at some flooding over parts of the southeast at the same time as we are working 

drought. So water can be very complicated. Sometimes you can 

have very close to one area in extreme drought, other areas could 

have floods. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I am going to now recognize Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am curious as to what we have really learned from this. You 

can’t really plan. I guess you can, but it is very difficult for an entity like this that just hasn’t happened in a long, long time as far 

as the severity of the drought. 

Mr. Feldt, they try and forecast the weather and things. An example of that would be did you feel like your forecasts were good 

and then did you all use them? Did you change anything and, really, do we have the ability to do that with the current structure? 

You mentioned, General Schroedel, that you are implementing a 

rewrite of the plans and all that stuff, but the reality is that is 

probably going to take years. Do we have the ability? Even though 

we are in a crisis situation, are we still using old plans based on 

the knowledge, hopefully, that we have learned for the last year or 

two? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. I would tell you that the process 

of managing the systems is a very dynamic process. It is a day to 

day, hour by hour process of our experts, many of whom have been 

doing this for three or four decades, processing and assimilating all 

the information they can to make timely decisions, and we are very 

flexible in how we do that. This isn’t a cookbook solution to managing these reservoirs, not even in the least. 

A good example would be we were prepared in the October time 

frame to reduce the flows out of Lake Allatoona, just as an example, the right thing to do based on how we normally manage and 

what our manuals say. We were about to go below zone one into 

zone two, which normally our operations guys would direct. Cut the 

flow from two hours of power to one hour of power. 

Then, as a result of realizing that there are other needs downstream and the forecast that we got from NOAA that said, wait a 

minute, the 100 degree temperatures in September are going to 

sustain themselves into October, which was rare. 

We said, wait a minute, for cooling purposes and water quality 

purposes, we cannot reduce the flow out of Allatoona at that point 

because we have another concern, which we got the heads-up again 

from NOAA that tipped us off, and then we adjusted. So we actually made that decision about two weeks later than we normally 

would based on that information. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So that is something you have learned. A couple 

years ago, you wouldn’t have done that, perhaps. 

General SCHROEDEL. I am not sure I would say that. 

40 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Hopefully, you are a little bit, and I don’t mean 

this bad, but a little more conservative in the water use. 

General SCHROEDEL. Perhaps. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Hunter mentioned the discharges. He was 

concerned about the discharges now that are going on. Can you tell 

us why you are doing that or if that is under the old manual? 

General SCHROEDEL. No, sir. Again, that is a part of the dynamic 

balancing process. We treat the entire system as a system. 

A very important point with respect to the water supply needs, 

if you will, of Atlanta and water quality needs of Atlanta is that 

water is not drawn out of Lake Lanier. It is drawn out of the rivers 

south of Buford Dam, which means it is necessary to release water 

from Lake Lanier through the dam to satisfy both the water supply 

needs of Atlanta and the water quality needs as measured at 

Peachtree Creek. 

We are about to exercise our authority in line with Congressionally authorized legislation for Buford that says we can reduce the 

water quality flow requirement from 750 cfs at Peachtree Creek to 

650 cfs. So we are about to reduce the flow for water quality by 

about 100 cfs. Then that is the limit, based on the legislation, that 

we could go to. 

The remainder of the flow, you combine intervening flow, the 

rain that hits and flows into the river south of Buford and between 

Peachtree Creek, and then we figure out on a day to day basis— 

actually it is on a weekly basis—how much water needs to be released out of Lanier to make up the difference to supply those 

needs south of Lanier. 

Some of the concerns that we are well aware of, Georgia Trout 

Hatchery which requires 538 cfs, which is south of Buford again 

and then the water quality piece in Atlanta. Those are the only 

reasons right now water is being released from Lanier, to satisfy 

those needs. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is that transparent where people can actually 

know what is going on? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, absolutely. That is something that 

we have celebrated quite a bit. 

With these drought calls that we conduct every week on the ACT 

and biweekly on the ACF, we inform all of those people who call 

in on those calls, what decisions we are about to make, what flows, 

what adjustments we are making to the system, and then we explain to them why. Then everyone who is on the call has a chance 

to chime in with their concerns. 

Then, of course, we make sure that we do not violate the FACA 

laws in terms of participation in Federal decision-making. So we 

are very deliberate in how we run that process, but we have 

learned more. 

Also, we have a web site. I am just reminded. We have a very 

detailed web site that we maintain every day. So, absolutely transparent, yes, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Let me just ask one other thing, and then we have 

some questions we would like to submit for you that you can fiddle 

with at your leisure for all of you. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sure. Okay. 

41 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Does the Corps need any Congressional guidance 

or authority to better manage the reservoir system with the contemporary needs? 

The contemporary needs being that we have a situation now with 

Atlanta being on board. Certainly, I don’t think anybody could envision an area of that large a population 20 years ago or 30 years 

ago, whenever all these things came about, longer than that. 

If so, do you need Congressional guidance or do you need more 

authority? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, at this point, I think our general opinion is that we do not need any additional guidance or authority. It 

is pretty well laid out. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is there anything we need to be doing? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, at this point, I do not believe so. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

General, let me ask, how could more water be captured for the 

ACF system? 

General SCHROEDEL. Madam Chair, one option might be additional storage. Of course, when I say storage, there are options 

above ground, below ground, and you have already heard a little 

bit about the geology that underlies the region, which makes it 

very difficult for an aquifer recharge, for example. 

I am reminded that the 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act authorized 

three flood control projects on the Flint River. Today, there are, I 

believe, three dams on the Flint River or two that I know of, Crisp 

County Dam and Albany Dam which are very small and do not provide any flood protection. 

But then again, I am reminded that WRDA 1986 de-authorized 

those projects. Those would be the only way that I could think of 

that you could actually flexibility in the management of the ACF 

as a system. Today, we have no control over the Flint system. 

We talked about 5,000 cfs at the Chattahoochee gauge. Today, we 

are releasing 30,000 cfs, and it may not be the right amount at the 

right time, but that is basically all that I can see that we could do. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You mentioned lowering the flow rate at Peachtree 

Creek. Does that mean that the water quality downstream would 

be affected? 

General SCHROEDEL. No, ma’am. We would not be able to do 

that. We went through the proper NEPA work to do that, so the 

FONSI will be signed and then completing the NEPA work. 

So, no, ma’am, not at all. We would not do that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, General. 

Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, ma’am. 

General Schroedel, you made the comment about the Flint impoundments. So that is something that Congress could do is to look 

at why, in 1986, the WRDA Bill cut those two impoundments out 

because I think you agree with me from just what you have said, 

that we need to do some type of study on that again, a feasibility 

study to see where we are at. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. I would say if the States saw that 

as something that would be essential, then that would be a good 

action to take. 

42 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton, do you know what the natural flows of the Chattahoochee and the Flint were? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I don’t have those figures offhand. When you say 

natural, I am assuming that is pre-dam. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes. 

Mr. HAMILTON. The figures that I am aware of are post-dam that 

range from 178,000 cfs in the springtime to lows of about 5,000 on 

the most part, so a wide-ranging amount of water. 

But maybe USGS might have some information on the historic 

flows. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Weaver, do you have any information 

on what the normal pre-dam flow was? 

Mr. WEAVER. We actually published a report in about 1995 which 

listed the pre and post-dam flows, which I could provide to the 

Committee. We looked at the period from 1929 to 1957 and from 

about 1957 to 1970 and 1970 to 1993. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I think that would be interesting to get 

those. 

Mr. Hamilton, let me ask you a question. Do you think the sturgeon and the mussel would do better in a natural environment that 

they had than this man-made environment that we are creating 

today with the flows? 

Mr. HAMILTON. That is a complex question. Obviously, they did 

well before all the pressures on the water systems that we have out 

there, and it is not just water supply. It is water quality, habitat 

throughout their range. 

Those species require high flows and low flows, and have all been 

affected in various ways, so populations have dramatically declined 

over time. There are those that are endangered and on the verge 

of extinction and those that are threatened and on the verge of becoming endangered. 

So I would say obviously they would do better. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But, normally, species do better in their 

normal environment than a created environment. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Correct. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I have so many questions. 

General Schroedel, the Corps, how does it related to the FERC 

agreements because of the power plants up and down the Chattahoochee? 

How does the Corps and the FERC line up as far as FERC guaranteeing a certain amount of flow through an area and the Corps 

actually managing the river? How does that work? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, it works in a couple of different ways. 

If I could use the Alabama Power reservoirs on the ATC as an 

example, they are currently up for relicensing. In the process of 

that relicensing, as the Alabama Power projects go through the 

NEPA process and go through that whole licensing process, they 

will consult with the Corps to determine what sort of flows are required in the aggregate from those projects to meet a navigation 

requirement, south of Montgomery in this case of 4,640 cfs. Then 

FERC, in this case, will generally memorialize those flows into 

their licensing process. 

43 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I guess what my question is who has the 

authority to regulate the flows, the FERC or the Corps? 

General SCHROEDEL. It is the FERC. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. FERC? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

General SCHROEDEL. They lay that out as part of the licensing 

process. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. So they can require the Corps to up 

their flow? 

General SCHROEDEL. They require the Alabama Power. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is what I wanted to hear, okay. 

General SCHROEDEL. Then also through the Fish and Wildlife 

Service for endangered species, for example, at Jordan Dam, that 

would be done. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So if the flow is not meeting what FERC 

promised or what was in their permit, then they need to increase 

the flow out of their lakes to make up for that? 

General SCHROEDEL. There is a way to enforce that, yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. Now the last thing is Chairwoman 

Johnson asked about the updating of the manuals, and you mentioned two decades. If I remember correctly, the last manual that 

was approved and went through the full process of being approved 

was in 1957. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. We have been operating with a 

1989 draft. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Fifty years. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So, Madam Chairwoman, I am going to say 

that there is something that Congress can do. 

When you have had the growth up-river and in that basin and 

let me also point out that the Chattahoochee and the Flint, for 

some people who don’t understand, originate in Georgia. The Chattahoochee originates above Helen. The Flint originates just a little 

bit south of Atlanta. 

These manuals have not been updated in 50 years and, Madam 

Chair, let me say this too, that there are Senators over in the other 

body that are trying to prevent them from being updated today. 

That is a disgrace. That is something we need to stop, and that is 

something we need to work towards to make sure that the Corps 

has everything, every tool in their arsenal to come up with an updated water plan. 

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

We have no further questioners, and so I declare that the hearing has concluded. 

Thank you so very much for being here. 

I look forward to the governors and all getting together and coming up with a good plan and solving the problem. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

44 


41492.023
45 


41492.024
46 


41492.025
47 


41492.026
48 


41492.027
49 


41492.028
50 


41492.029
51 


41492.030
52 


41492.031
53 


41492.032
54 


41492.033
55 


41492.034
56 


41492.035
57 


41492.036
58 


41492.037
59 


41492.038
60 


41492.039
61 


41492.040
62 


41492.041
63 


41492.042
64 


41492.043
65 


41492.044
66 


41492.045
67 


41492.046
68 


41492.047
69 


41492.048
70 


41492.049
71 


41492.050
72 


41492.051
73 


41492.052
74 


41492.053
75 


41492.054
76 


41492.055
77 


41492.056
78 


41492.057
79 


41492.058
80 


41492.059
81 


41492.060
82 


41492.061
83 


41492.062
84 


41492.063
85 


41492.064
86 


41492.065
87 


41492.066
88 


41492.067
89 


41492.068
90 


41492.069
91 


41492.070
92 


41492.071
93 


41492.072
94 


41492.073
95 


41492.074
96 


41492.075
97 


41492.076
98 


41492.077
99 


41492.078
100 


41492.079
101 


41492.080
102 


41492.081
103 


41492.082
104 


41492.083
105 


41492.084
106 


41492.085
107 


41492.086
108 


41492.087
109 


41492.088
110 


41492.089
111 


41492.090
112 


41492.091
113 


41492.092
114 


41492.093
115 


41492.094
116 


41492.095
117 


41492.096
118 


41492.097
119 


41492.098
120 


41492.099
121 


41492.100
122 


41492.101
123 


41492.102
124 


41492.103
125 


41492.104
126 


41492.105
127 


41492.106
128 


41492.107
129 


41492.108
130 


41492.109
131 


41492.110
132 


41492.111
133 


41492.112
134 


41492.113
135 


41492.114
136 


41492.115
137 


41492.116
138 


41492.117
139 


41492.118
140 


41492.119
141 


41492.120
142 


41492.121
143 


41492.122
144 


41492.123
145 


41492.124
146 


41492.125
147 


41492.126
148 


41492.127
149 


41492.128
150 


41492.129
151 


41492.130
152 


41492.131
153 


41492.132
154 


41492.133
155 


41492.134
156 


41492.135
157 


41492.136
158 


41492.137
159 


41492.138
160 


41492.139
161 


41492.140
162 


41492.141
163 


41492.142
164 


41492.143
165 


41492.144
166 


41492.145
167 


41492.146
168 


41492.147
169 


41492.148
170 


41492.149
171 


41492.150
172 


41492.151
173 


41492.152
174 


41492.153
175 


41492.154
176 


41492.155
177 


41492.156
178 


41492.157
179 


41492.158
180 


41492.159
181 


41492.160
182 


41492.161
183 


41492.162
184 


41492.163
185 


41492.164
186 


41492.165
187 


41492.166
188 


41492.167
189 


41492.168
190 


41492.169
191 


41492.170
192 


41492.171
193 


41492.172
194 


41492.173
195 


41492.174
196 


41492.175
197 


41492.176
198 


41492.177
199 


41492.178
200 


41492.179
201 


41492.180
202 


41492.181
203 


41492.182
204 


41492.183
205 


41492.184
206 


41492.185
207 


41492.186
208 


41492.187
209 


41492.188
210 


41492.189
211 


41492.190
212 


41492.191
213 


41492.192
214 


41492.193
215 


41492.194
216 


41492.195
217 


41492.196
218 


41492.197
219 


41492.198
220 

Æ 


41492.199