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

41–331 PDF 2008

FULL COMMITTEE FIELD HEARING

ON THE IMPACT OF THE 2006-2007

DROUGHT ON GEORGIA’S ECONOMY

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 25, 2008

Serial Number 110-80

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Minority Staff Director

STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES 

Subcommittee on Finance and Tax

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology

BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma

(II) 

Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade

CHARLES GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

Subcommittee on Urban and Rural Entrepreneurship

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page

Johnson, Hon. Hank ................................................................................................ 1

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn ...................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

PANEL I: 

Timmerberg, Mr. Dick, LaGrange, GA .................................................................. 3

Woodworth, Ms. Mary Kay, Executive Director, Metro Atlanta Landscape 

and Turf Association, Atlanta, GA ..................................................................... 6

Nichols, Mr. Robbie, Southern Harbor Marina, West Point, GA ......................... 9

PANEL II: 

Maltese, Mr. Joe, City of LaGrange, LaGrange, GA ............................................. 11

Stevens, Ms. Pat, Environmental Planning, The Department of Comprehensive Planning Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA .............................. 13

Crisp, Mr. Mark, PE, C.H. Guernsey & Co., Atlanta, GA .................................... 15

PANEL III: 

Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph, Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA ...................................................... 19

Hamilton, Mr. Sam, Regional Director Southeast Region, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA ............................................................................................ 22

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn ...................................................................................... 34

Timmerberg, Mr. Dick, LaGrange, GA .................................................................. 36

Woodworth, Ms. Mary Kay, Executive Director, Metro Atlanta Landscape 

and Turf Association, Atlanta, GA ..................................................................... 42

Nichols, Mr. Robbie, Southern Harbor Marina, West Point, GA ......................... 45

Maltese, Mr. Joe, City of LaGrange, LaGrange, GA ............................................. 51

Stevens, Ms. Pat, Environmental Planning, The Department of Comprehensive Planning Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA .............................. 126

Crisp, Mr. Mark, PE, C.H. Guernsey & Co., Atlanta, GA .................................... 199

Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph, Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA ...................................................... 226

Hamilton, Mr. Sam, Regional Director Southeast Region, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA ............................................................................................ 237

(V) 

(1)

FULL COMMITTEE FIELD HEARING ON 

THE IMPACT OF THE 2006-2007 

DROUGHT ON GEORGIA’S ECONOMY 

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:30 p.m., in the 

Callaway Center for International Business Development, West 

Georgia Technical College, 220 Fort Drive, LaGrange, Georgia, 

Hon. Hank Johnson presiding. 

Present: Representatives Johnson and Westmoreland. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to call this 

hearing to order. And I want to first take the opportunity to apologize to all of you all for being late here. I know that you all have 

busy schedules and I know that you all are here to hear from these 

fine panelists that we have. I look forward to hearing their comments. And so I want to also extend a thanks to Congressman 

Westmoreland and his staff for being very dutiful about bringing 

this panel to you today. My office has been pleased to work with 

his office to make this thing happen. 

Just a note about process. Since the Democrats are in control of 

Congress, that is why it had to be a Democratic Representative 

who would be here to I guess lead this meeting. I am a first term 

Congressman. Congressman Westmoreland has been on the Small 

Business Committee for many years and so it is a little odd. But 

this is the process. And so with that process in mind, that is why 

we have the setup that we have today. 

And so the fact that I was late, I am going to not continue with 

the remarks, the opening statements that I had prepared, but I do 

want to turn this meeting over to Congressman Westmoreland for 

his opening remarks and then we will hear from the panelists and 

any questions that we have, we will ask of these panelists. And 

then we will proceed to the panelists on the second panel and the 

third panel as well. 

So thank you for your attention and your attendance and I will 

now turn it to Congressman Westmoreland for his opening statement. 

2

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. WESTMORELAND 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can certainly see how important the highway funds are to west Georgia 

now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today and I would also like to thank all the witnesses for 

their participation. I know all of you have very busy schedules and 

feel honored that you would take the time to provide this Committee with your testimony. And I am sure that today’s testimony 

will prove to be very helpful. 

Georgia’s water crisis has been caused by a severe drought, by 

the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ mismanagement of river basins based 

on outdated science and population figures, and by water wars 

among Georgia, Alabama and Florida that have been ongoing for 

a number of years. The Corps, under an agreement reached in the 

1980s with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the State of Georgia and 

downstream users release 5000 cubic feet per second or CFs of 

water, up to 3.2 billion gallons a day, downstream into the states 

of Alabama and Florida. The figure was based on hydroelectric 

power plants’ needs as well as concern for endangered species in 

the river. But most importantly, this flow of water was based on 

a consistent schedule of rain. 

I, along with the entire Georgia delegation, have been very engaged in this serious ongoing issue. To this end, we introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3847, and in the 

U.S. Senate, S. 2165, to alleviate the current water crisis by allowing states suffering from droughts to be exempt temporarily from 

the Endangered Species Act, which in Georgia is threatening our 

low water supply by taking away large amounts of water from 

north and middle Georgia and sending it downstream to protect 

mussels and sturgeon. 

Specifically, the Corps is managing releases out of Lake Lanier 

and Lake Allatoona in a manner that is in the best interest of endangered mussels in Alabama and endangered sturgeon in Florida, 

instead of the best interests of the people of Georgia. Georgians 

rely on this water, not only for drinking, cooking, bathing and 

cleaning, but also for recreational purposes that creates jobs and 

grows the local economy. Furthermore, we have requested and the 

Corps has agreed to update the 20-year old water control plan for 

the Alabama Coosa-Tallapoosa and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basins that runs throughout Georgia, Alabama and 

Florida. 

The current releases of water from these two basins are based 

on science and population figures that do not reflect the tremendous growth and modern day needs of Georgia. We have also requested that the Corps start from scratch when compiling the plan 

manual for the ACF Basin and not use the Corps current flawed 

interim operating plan as a baseline for the new manual. It is imperative that we update the water control plan to reflect 21st century water demand and uses in Georgia, Alabama and Florida and 

to bring about a resolution among the states to see that the threat 

to our Georgia lakes is stopped. 

3

Recently, it was announced that there are changes planned regarding the Corps’ operation in Georgia that will allow us to put 

aside additional water during the unprecedented drought. The 

Corps, in consultation with Fish & Wildlife, announced that they 

had drafted an interim operating plan that reduced the minimum 

flow from Woodruff Dam at Lake Seminole to 4750 cubic feet, a five 

percent reduction. Subsequently, another ramp down to 4500 CFs 

will be authorized, a total of 10 percent reduction. Unless the federal reservoirs recover drastically due to improved conditions, these 

lower water flow levels will be implemented through June 1, 2008. 

The plan would also allow reservoirs such as West Point Lake to 

store additional in-flows above 5000 CFs. The Corps’ releases are 

designed to provide enough water flow for human use and to sustain these endangered species. I believe this is a small step in the 

right direction to deal with a problem that immediately confronts 

us. 

Mr. Chairman, in some way this drought has affected everyone 

assembled here today and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panels and to continue working with you and the rest 

of the Georgia delegation to address this important issue. 

And Mr. Chairman, with that, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the panelists.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman Westmoreland. 

We will now move to the testimony from panel one. Each witness 

will have five minutes for their remarks and their entire statements will be entered into the record. 

Our first witness is Mr. Dick Timmerberg of LaGrange, Georgia.

STATEMENT OF MR. DICK TIMMERBERG, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, WEST POINT LAKE COALITION

Mr. TIMMERBERG. Good afternoon, thank you, sir. 

My name is Dick Timmerberg and I am the Executive Director 

of the West Point Lake Coalition. I want to thank the House Committee on Small Business for the opportunity to testify here today 

regarding how the economy of west Georgia in general and small 

business in particular have been unfairly devastated by the 

drought of 2006-2007 and the rigid management practices of the 

Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

In the fall of 2006, $268,000 was contributed by businesses and 

individuals in west Georgia and east Alabama to study West Point 

Lake economically and environmentally. This fundraising success 

strongly demonstrates this area’s commitment to West Point Lake, 

its concerns for the future of the lake and its recognition of the economic value and importance of the lake. 

The firm of Basile, Baumann, Prost, Cole & Associates, a nationally recognized firm in the area of economic impacts and recreation, 

completed an economic study in December of 2007 and I am submitting a copy of this study as part of my testimony here today. 

Three alternative economic analyses were prepared. Full pool is 

635. Alternative one was low water levels at or below 630; alterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
4

native two, higher water levels in the range of 630 to 633 and alternative three was optimal water levels in the range of 633 to 635. 

The projected annual economic impact and value of West Point 

Lake at the above three alternatives, I have listed below. 

At alternative one, the lake is worth approximately $154 million 

a year to the local economy. Alternative two jumps up to almost $420 million, an increase of almost $266 million. 

And alternative three, optimal, it jumps to $710 million, which is a plus of almost $556 million versus alternative one. 

The lake was specifically authorized by Congress for five distinct 

purposes—recreation, sport fishing, wildlife development, hydropower, flood control and navigation. Corps of Engineers documents 

state that the initial recreation impact level on West Point Lake is 

632.5. Now, note that at no time in 2006, 2007 and the first two 

months of 2008, a total of 26 consecutive months, has the average 

monthly lake level at West Point Lake met or exceeded that initial 

recreation impact level. Speaking candidly, the Corps has not been 

held accountable for their management of West Point Lake as authorized by Congress. And their track record over the past 26 

months, which has caused severe economic consequences, demonstrates a disregard for recreation. 

The lost economic impact from West Point Lake from January 2006 through December of 2007 ranges between $800 million and 

$1.1 billion. Low lake levels severely affected visitation to the lake. 

For example, at an extremely conservative estimate of $100 spent 

per visitation, our community lost $10 million in 2007 versus 2006 

due to the decline in visitation alone. At the risk of stating the obvious, visitation to West Point Lake and tournaments decline significantly when there is not a dependable lake level, when the lake 

is unsafe, when people lose access to parks and swimming areas 

and when people lose access to the water itself. Equally obvious, 

when visitation declines significantly, the economic value of West 

Point Lake drops drastically and the negative economic impact increases substantially. 

Let me turn to a few specific examples of the devastating impact 

on small business. In the interest of time, I am just going to tell 

you that in businesses one to three—and these are all lake-related 

businesses—their revenues were down from a low of 30 percent to 

a high of 75 percent, with one individual on boat sales down 100 

percent because he had to give up his boat distributorship. 

Business four, during the six months between September 2007 

and February 2008, revenues were down $96,000 versus the same 

period last year. Had their average monthly growth rate of 10 to 

20 percent prior to the drought continued, lost revenues would 

have exceeded well over $100,000. To try to minimize the losses, 

they increased advertising by $15,000, repairs to damaged stock 

ran another $12,000, and $3000 in dredging expense was incurred 

in an attempt to keep the ramp open. Combined impact of 

$126,000, and this does not include the loss of three bass tournaments, approximately 550 boats or 1100 fishermen and women, 

plus the loss of at least 100 boats in their year end championship 

tournament due to the low lake levels and the severely limited access. 

5

Business five, bait and tackle sales were down a minimum of 48 

percent. This is a quote, ‘‘Every credit card I have is maxed out and 

every day I am losing money. I had to take an outside job to support my family and tread water long enough to hopefully somehow 

hold onto my store.’’

Business number six, and I quote, ‘‘When I bought this store five 

years ago, it was a dream come true, I finally owned my own business. The first three years were successful as we improved the 

building and expanded both our products and inventory. Over the 

past 24 months, due to the drought and the low water level, sales 

have declined an average of 20,000 per month and we lost our gas 

contract. In an effort to stop the bleeding, we added a kitchen and 

began selling biscuits and other breakfast items. Finally, I had to 

seek other full time employment and leave my wife and daughter 

alone in the store. The store is currently for sale. If it does not sell, 

we will lose it anyway.’’

So what do the above businesses have in common? All of them 

were successful until the drought and the ill-conceived interim operating plan hit, and low, unacceptable water levels dragged on for 

over two years. The small business men and women who are the 

backbone of our country are fast becoming the endangered species 

and no one is protecting them. 

While West Point Lake was drained, water was sent downstream 

to protect endangered mussels. We have quantified the economic 

impact to our community and to small business, but I have yet to 

see the economic benefit or value of the endangered mussels. Assuming for the moment that the mussel species are viable long 

term—and that is a huge question—why was action not taken to 

relocate the mussels to a hatchery or to re-establish them in a like 

stream or river? In fact, there never was a proactive solution. The 

response from the Corps and Fish & Wildlife was simply releasing 

water far in excess of what mother nature would have provided 

and with no consideration for the dire consequences to the small 

business man and woman. Apparently the use of common sense is 

also an endangered species. 

The federal reservoirs on the ACF—

[Applause.] 

Mr. TIMMERBERG. The federal reservoirs on the ACF system and 

the system itself should be managed in a fair and proportionately 

equal manner. The federal reservoirs should be managed for their 

authorized purposes, they should not be managed for unauthorized 

purposes. We support growth and want to see a strong and vibrant 

Atlanta metro area as the main economic engine for the state of 

Georgia. That said, that growth must be intelligent growth which 

is well-planned and recognizes the finite limited water supply in 

the Chattahoochee River and acknowledges the economic needs and 

the right to growth for downstream communities as well. 

What we will never support is the transfer of economic wealth 

from one community to another using water as currency. 

We respectfully ask that Congress hold the Corps of Engineers 

accountable to manage West Point Lake as it was authorized, so 

that the lake’s economic benefit can be realized. We ask Congress 

to uphold their promises made to this community when West Point 

Lake was planned. We ask that the new interim operating plan reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
6

flect and prioritize the authorized purposes versus the unauthorized needs, while recognizing the devastating economic harm done 

previously and minimizing the negative economic impacts in the future. 

Thanks once again for conducting this hearing in LaGrange and 

for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Timmerberg may be found in the 

Appendix on page 36.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Timmerberg. 

And ladies and gentlemen, I did not properly introduce Mr. 

Timmerberg, he is the Executive Director of the West Point Lake 

Coalition, a board member of the Middle Chattahoochee Water Coalition, a member of the West Point Lake Advisory Council, and at 

the request of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, he 

has served for two years on the Chattahoochee Basin Advisory 

Committee in Phase 1 of the Georgia Statewide Water Planning 

Process. 

So thank you for your testimony today, sir. 

Next, we will have Ms. Mary Kay Woodworth, who is the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Atlanta Landscape and Turf Association. Ms. Woodworth.

STATEMENT OF MS. MARY KAY WOODWORTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METRO ATLANTA LANDSCAPE AND TURF ASSOCIATION

Ms. WOODWORTH. Thank you, Representative Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You will have five minutes for your statement and 

your written statement will be included in the record. 

Ms. WOODWORTH. Thank you very much. 

Yes, I am with the Metro Atlanta Landscape and Turf Association and I do not want you to think Atlanta is a bad word down 

here, but more importantly I should tell you I am President of the 

Georgia Urban Agriculture Council. 

Georgia’s urban agriculture industry represents one of the largest and most successful industries in Georgia, with more than $8 

billion in annual sales, 7000 companies and more than 80,000 employees throughout the state. Urban agriculture is defined as all 

non-traditional agriculture and is the second largest industry in 

the state of Georgia, second to poultry. 

The industry includes retail garden centers, floriculturists, turf 

grass and sod growers, the nursery and horticulture industry, landscape architects, landscape installation and maintenance businesses, irrigation contractors, green wholesalers, florists and golf 

courses and their related businesses. 

Georgia’s EPD Drought Management Plan uses outdoor watering 

restrictions as the sole solution to address the drought conditions 

that have impacted Georgia. While commercial exemptions are contained in the plan, these exemptions can be further restricted locally. This action by local utilities and governments has had the efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
7

fect of imposing severe restrictions on businesses that rely on water 

in their operations. 

And in this case, in the last year and a half, these severe conditions were primarily imposed on a single industry—landscaping 

and horticulture. This is a problem that did not have to happen. 

This was not because of the drought. The problems we have had 

in our industry are because of the water restrictions that were resulting from the drought. 

The EPD Drought Management Plan rules and local government’s heightened restrictions were exacerbated by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ increased downstream releases from Lake Lanier in late summer of 2007. The increased releases resulted in 

Governor Perdue’s mandate to water providers to release withdrawals by 10 percent. This mandate, along with EPD’s Level 4 

Drought Declaration for 61 counties on September 28, 2007 had an 

immediate and dramatic devastating impact on the industry statewide. 

Due to the State’s actions and the additional whittling away of 

the exemptions by the local municipalities there was little to no fall 

planting season in Georgia and the financial impact was felt immediately. 

According to an industry and UGA survey that is dated February 

2008, there have been more than 35,000 layoffs statewide. Between 

June through December 2007, losses of over $262 million per 

month are directly attributed to drought and the ensuing water restrictions. And at this rate, an annual loss of $3.2 billion is predicted. Several prominent businesses, including Pike Family Nursery, have filed for bankruptcy, have been put to auction, closed 

temporarily or permanently or are reviewing their options. Most of 

this could have been avoided had the state developed a drought 

management plan that did not place the entire burden of water 

conservation and outdoor watering and usage on conservation 

alone. 

Georgia’s urban agriculture industry will continue to lose profits 

and employees if drought conditions remain over the state this 

year, according to the UGA survey. UGA’s Dr. Ellen Bauske reports that ‘‘In an industry with a median income of $800,000 per 

company, most companies won’t be able to sustain losses of that 

magnitude. We can expect more news of bankruptcies, business 

failures and liquidation of company assets if the situation continues.’’

Based on the survey, Bauske and her colleagues project devastating losses in the next few months and coming year. The calculated loss of $260 million per month can be contributed directly 

to the drought and the water restrictions that were imposed on the 

industry. If the current drought conditions continue, the report is 

that an annual loss of $3.2 billion will occur and an additional 

30,000 employees will be losing their jobs. 

The frustrating part of this for most of us in the industry, and 

just as you reported, these are small businesses. These are not national or international companies that can absorb the losses, they 

are mom and pop companies that have been in business for years. 

It is just frustrating and sad to see the companies, good companies, 

that have gone out of business through no fault of their own. 

8

Governor Perdue has stated that as outdoor water use is inconsequential to the state’s water picture. Dr. Carol Couch, the EPD 

Director, agrees: ‘‘We are not here because we consumed our way 

into this drought, as some would suggest.’’

Watering bans are little more than an attempt by water authorities to divert attention from the failure to adequately plan for inevitable drought events. Droughts should never be a surprise to 

water planners. They are a natural element in environmental life 

cycles and should be factored into all water management plans. If 

water is managed properly, a water crisis should be extremely rare. 

Using water restrictions and conservation alone ignore the root 

of the problem, rather than address the problem with a comprehensive plan that tackles the issues of water supply and use. EPD and 

the authority that is given to local governments to ban outdoor 

water use create the impression that they are effectively dealing 

with the larger issue. For most water authorities, this is the most 

visible action they can take in the public eye to communicate a 

water crisis, by cutting off the low hanging fruit, the visible water 

that is used outside. 

The urbanization and suburbanization of Georgia has been enormous, providing jobs, economic opportunities and stability for millions of Georgians, but it has also brought problems. Urbanization 

decreases water quality and increases use. About one-half of the 

land cleared or disturbed for development is covered by impervious 

surfaces such as roads, roofs and parking lots and that is a contributor to the current crisis. Urban agriculture is the best method for 

addressing these problems, while development continues. 

Healthy and properly maintained landscapes are critical to water 

management and storage in an urban environment. Lawns, ground 

covers, vegetation and even hardscapes are crucial to managing 

ground water. Urban agriculture is one of the few industries in 

Georgia that mitigates the environmental impact of development 

and creates a sustainable quality of life for people, wildlife and natural systems. 

When drought conditions persisted last spring, Georgians responded by conserving water. We were told that by saving water, 

we would be saving money as well. Recent news articles in the AJC 

report that local water authorities must not increase fees to make 

up for revenue lost from reductions in water sold to their customers 

during this drought period. 

The drought has cost Georgians billions of dollars in economic 

loss and now water conservation measures will cost us millions 

more because local water professionals failed to plan. 

Only in a government business plan can you have a decline in 

revenues and maintain or grow your overhead while not going out 

of business. These locally run bureaucracies now insult the citizens 

of Georgia by raising their fees. 

The urban agriculture industry is committed to being an active 

partner in Georgia through its crisis. We will continue to work with 

the state and local water authorities as they search for solutions 

to developing problems. But we must insist that the state address 

the lack of water infrastructure, including water storage needs, so 

it will not become necessary to address a future water crisis on the 

9

back of our industry. We hope that we have your support in our 

mission. 

Thank you again. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woodworth may be found in the 

Appendix on page 42.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Woodworth. 

And ladies and gentlemen, I also failed to properly introduce myself. I am Congressman Hank Johnson, I represent Georgia’s 

Fourth District, which is DeKalb County, about 80 percent of 

Rockdale County. Congressman Westmoreland represents the other 

20 percent and also represents part of Gwinnett County. 

So I want to at this time turn it over to Congressman Westmoreland, who will introduce our next panelist. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our next panelist is Robbie Nichols. He and his wife Lisa live on 

West Point Lake. Robbie’s been in the banking business, the real 

estate business and now he is in the marina business. He is the 

owner of Southern Harbor Marina where he and his wife both live. 

He has been involved in development around the lake and he has 

lived the real experience of these lake levels going up and down. 

So, Mr. Nichols, it is a pleasure that you are here and we look 

forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBBIE NICHOLS, SOUTHERN HARBOR 

MARINA

Mr. NICHOLS. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

to you on behalf of the marina and small business owners in west 

Georgia and east Alabama. 

Several of the purposes of West Point Lake authorized by Congress are sport fishing, wildlife development and public recreation. 

In my opinion, none of these purposes have been fulfilled. The 

water levels must be maintained in the lake so the public can use 

it safely. Let us not forget that Corps funding is based upon, to 

some degree, traffic count and visitation. 

I would like to thank those of you in Congress that have supported H.R. 4304, which allows our Corps of Engineers to retain 

revenues generated by public parks and campgrounds. However, no 

amount of public facilities can truly be justified when water levels 

have reached unsafe conditions for the boating public. 

From my own experience at the marina, revenues from January 

through July were 20 percent ahead of the previous year. Revenues 

for August were slightly lower, but I do not think anyone quite anticipated that Labor Day would be the end of our season. September through December 2007 store sales were 50 percent off, 

lodging revenues 35 percent, boat rentals 60 percent, and damages 

to those boats exceeded $5000. Our wet slip revenues were down 

only three percent due to the fact that I had a dozen boats stuck 

in the mud and many others that would have left if not for inaccessible ramps. As the water level decreased and dock flotation settled 

into the mud, the marina spent over $80,000 in dock extensions, 

10

electrical connections and additions to our sewer pumpout facilities. 

These were all out-of-pocket expenses. 

Another impact felt this fall was low tournament turnout and the 

cancellation of several large fishing tournaments, resulting in a 

negative economic impact to our community of well over a million 

dollars. 

The Governor of Georgia has announced a new ‘‘Go Fish Georgia’’ 

program. The program is intended to promote fishing and tourism 

and to bring people in from all over the southeast. The problem 

with ‘‘Go Fish Georgia’’ is that it just may be a card game we will 

be playing, the deck stacked against us by outdated operating 

plans and lake levels we cannot depend on. 

You have asked me to speak on my perspective and those of my 

business associates as to the economic impact of the drought. Well, 

I am here to say that it is the opinion of many that the drought 

is being used as an excuse for ineffective and outdated water control plans. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. NICHOLS. The West Point Lake Advisory Committee has 

been addressing the economic impact of lake fluctuations in West 

Point Lake, including the predicted drought conditions that we are 

now experiencing. This information was conveyed to state and federal agencies over a year ago. It was not until Atlanta was threatened with the possibility of running out of drinking water did our 

concerns become front page news. The Governor only then mandated a 10 percent reduction on all water use across the state. For 

those of us who live outside the doughnut, we do not have a problem with reducing water usage and trying to conserve more. But 

what we do not hear about are the restrictions in development and 

growth in Atlanta. So in a simple man’s math, it appears that our 

10 percent reduction is just allowing the growth in Atlanta to continue and not necessarily doing a whole lot to put the water back 

in our lake. Unlike Atlanta, all we have asked for is shared sacrifice. 

As to the growth, the state of Georgia has invested $500 million 

to bring an automobile plant to Georgia. Besides financial incentives, companies today value the quality of life offered to its employees. West Point Lake is a major factor in those decisions. In 

fact, one Kia executive new to our area asked ‘‘Is your lake broke?’’ 

And my only response was, ‘‘No, sir, our lake is not broke, but the 

system that controls it is.’’

[Applause.] 

As for the system I refer to, I am not sure who is in charge. The 

Corps of Engineers points the finger at Fish & Wildlife and they 

point the finger back. It appears to me what we have done is pass 

so many laws and created so many bureaucracies that common 

sense has become extinct. The system needs to be simplified, agencies need to work together so that there is accountability within the 

decision-making process. There needs to be flexibility to adapt to 

ever-changing conditions. 

In closing, I do not mind competition. I compete with the WalMarts, Bass Pro Shops and others who by their sheer size can sell 

for less than I can buy most goods for. The advantage I have is you 

cannot get there by boat. Do not take that away from us. 

11

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols may be found in the Appendix on page 45.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Now that I have got the gavel, I can swing it a 

little bit when you all clap a little bit too much. 

But listen, I want to thank this panel for your time, I want to 

thank you for your testimony. The Committee will likely follow up 

with written questions for the record. And we will now call upon 

our second panel. Thank you very much. 

[Applause.]

Mr. JOHNSON. And while the second panel is coming forward, I 

will say that Congressman Westmoreland’s staff has been working 

on this Small Business Committee field hearing for the last few 

months and it has been my pleasure to work with your staff in 

making this happen. And you also promised me that you would 

show me some great fishing holes when I came down here, but you 

are not dressed for that today. So we will have to make it a different time. And I look forward to coming back and learning more 

about this area of our state. 

Next, we have on our panel three individuals. The first is Mr. 

Joe Maltese. He is an assistant to the City Manager of LaGrange, 

Georgia and at this time, I will advise all of you that you have five 

minutes for your opening statements and your entire written statements will be entered into the record. 

So at this time, I will ask Mr. Maltese to begin his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOE MALTESE, ASSISTANT TO CITY 

MANAGER, LAGRANGE, GEORGIA

Mr. MALTESE. Thank you. Allow me to begin by thanking the 

Committee, its members and the Congressional staff that worked 

so hard to arrange for this hearing in LaGrange. It is an honor for 

this community to have this body here to listen to our concerns. 

Let me also note we have a great appreciation for those that 

serve in the United States Corps of Engineers. While we have disagreements with them from time to time over operations along the 

river, you must always know that we are proud of their service to 

this nation. We are also honored to have U.S. Fish & Wildlife representatives here today to participate in these hearings. However, 

we do not agree with or appreciate these agencies’ approach to 

managing the river system, especially West Point Lake. 

In 1962, the United States Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to build a reservoir above West Point, Georgia for five purposes—sport fishing and wildlife development, flood control, hydropower, general recreation and navigation. As the lake was built, 

the Corps immediately established and has historically utilized a 

system of very aggressive rule curves and action zones to guide 

their management of water elevations at West Point Lake. In doing 

so, the Corps set aside massive amounts of storage and attributed 

that space for other purposes and demands elsewhere on the river. 

This unused capacity left the lake empty for much of the year. Yes, 

12

we agree the Corps must provide for essential flood control, but 

they failed to utilize the full capabilities of the lake. 

Over the past two years, we have watched as the Corps systematically drained the entire basin during the onslaught of the worse 

drought we have ever seen. While there was a drought and the 

lakes would have been at somewhat lower levels, we believe West 

Point Lake would have remained at far more usable elevations 

with reasonable levels had the Corps not engaged in utilizing the 

damaging IOP to guide its operations. 

In the springtime when West Point Lake needed a recharge with 

nature’s rains, the Corps sent vast amounts of water southward 

downstream to the Gulf of Mexico, with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s blessing, and drained the lake so that sturgeon could spawn 

on the Apalachicola River at a time when the lakes desperately 

needed to refill. Remember, the sturgeon and mussel existed long 

before there were any federal lakes on the Chattahoochee and to 

presume they cannot exist after 50 years of a regulated system is, 

at best, highly questionable. 

The drought worsened, but the Corps continued to drain first 

Lake Walter F. George, then West Point Lake and finally Lake Lanier throughout the spring and summer. The Corps says they have 

always had a flow of 5000 cubic feet per second or greater from Jim 

Woodruff Lock and Dam onto the Apalachicola River. And I think 

we all know that mother nature does not offer guarantees in writing with a five followed by three zeroes at any given point on the 

river, especially when totally inflow into the ACF basin above that 

point is almost half that amount. So the Corps made up their guaranteed flows from federal lakes that were not designed or authorized to provide flows for thermo electric power plants or sturgeon 

or mussels. 

To make matters worse, instead of shutting the valve off immediately after meeting its flow demand for the Apalachicola, the 

Corps with Fish & Wildlife blessing again, extended the drawdown 

from lakes using a gradual ramp down rate that often lasted days. 

This was to protect mussels from being stranded on the banks. It 

would seem far more logical to turn the faucet off when you are 

done rather than draining the federal lakes. But the so-called IOP, 

interim operating plan, provided for a concept that we would scold 

our children for if we saw them using this practice at home. In the 

meantime, the three northern federal lakes continued to drain and 

disappeared while the drought worsened. 

Our frustration as a community is that the authorized uses for 

West Point Lake that would yield the most economic benefit and 

were associated with the highest level of expectation in our area, 

based on commitments made by the government, seem largely ignored. We see a Corps of Engineers overly concerned about flow 

needs for thermo electric power generation for Plant Scholz and 

Plant Farley, industrial needs and waste assimilation flows and 

fish and wildlife to our south on the river. We were never told this 

lake would be taken away and used for those needs. All we knew 

was that West Point Lake and Lake Lanier disappeared and Southern Company’s Georgia Power lakes on the river within ten miles 

of West Point remained full all summer long. 

13

When West Point Lake was filled and began operations in 1974, 

the citizens that rely on West Point Lake took the federal government at its word. Remember, West Point Lake was promised to the 

community as a recreational lake, yet the Corps decided to make 

West Point what they term ‘‘the workhorse of the basin’’. Somehow, 

this lake was taken away from us. We think we know where the 

water is going and who is getting it. We beg that our Congress intervene and assure that West Point Lake is returned to the hundreds of thousands of citizens and businesses in the growing west 

Georgia and east Alabama area and that a promise made for a recreational lake to the citizens of this area is fulfilled. Please see the 

Corps stops using West Point as a workhorse lake and that those 

responsible for the management of this lake return it to its authorized uses. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maltese may be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

[Applause.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Ms. Pat Stevens, who is the Chief of the Environmental Planning Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission. Ms. Stevens.

STATEMENT OF MS. PAT STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. 

I want to highlight four points in my testimony. 

One is that I think there is a major misunderstanding about the 

capabilities of headwater lakes in major river basins like this. 

Two is that the Corps obviously clearly exacerbated the impacts 

of our recent drought. 

Three, and my focus primarily is on the Lake Lanier area, the 

Atlanta area; Lake Lanier today is at it lowest point for any March 

25 that it has been at for the history of that lake since it started 

normal operations. And we are very concerned that if the past operations of the last two years resume this summer, we will be not 

only back where we were last summer, but it will be much, much 

worse. So we are very concerned about that. 

And fourth, we do want to voice support for the recent announcement by the Corps of Engineers to update their water control plan. 

So let me talk a little bit about the misunderstanding when it 

comes to headwater lakes. You can see by the map that is up there, 

the land area above Lake Lanier is only five percent of the entire 

land area in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin. And what 

that means is—it only controls, even though it is a large lake, it 

only controls nine percent of the flow in the whole basin. 

West Point Lake is similarly situated. It only controls 15 percent 

of the land area that drains into it. This means that most of the 

water that falls on the ground and flows to the state of Florida, 

cannot be controlled by these lakes. So when you try to take the 

water that is in these lakes, even though they are large lakes, 

there is not much water flowing through them. If you try to use 

these lakes to make up for a large river, 400 miles south, you can 

14

release that water for a short time but then you will drain the 

lakes and everybody will be out of water. We were on a path last 

year to do that. As the lower reservoirs were drained, the major releases for the Apalachicola River were from Lake Lanier. The flow 

at Lake Lanier is usually about 2000 cubic feet per second, the flow 

in the Apalachicola is somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 cubic feet 

per second. So 60 to 80 percent of all the water that was being delivered to the state of Florida was coming out of a lake that only 

controls nine percent of the flow. And you cannot do that for very 

long. And that is a big problem. 

Even though we have had low river levels, the Corps of Engineers’ operations have exacerbated the impact of the drought and 

we talked about that, the interim operations plan was developed 

under threat by the state of Florida against the Corps of Engineers 

over endangered species. It was developed without good science. 

During May through November 2007, 100 percent of all the water 

that flowed through the reservoirs in Georgia, was passed on to the 

state of Florida and 75 percent of all the water stored in these reservoirs was passed on to the state of Florida. In the face of 

drought, all that means is you are on a path to emptying the reservoirs. Lake Lanier, there are three million people that depend on 

that lake for water supply. We have heard a lot about the jobs that 

depend on West Point Lake. And so we need to make sure that 

does not happen again. 

The Corps recognized the danger that was coming. In November 

of 2007, they changed their operations, they adopted emergency 

drought operations and it really has helped the lower lakes recover, 

but Lake Lanier has not recovered. So our main concern is we cannot go back to that way of operating. The trigger that they have 

got in the emergency drought operations plan is for it to be withdrawn June 1. Without the recovery of Lake Lanier, if they go back 

to the old way of operating, they can drain the lower lakes again 

and then we will be so much worse off. So we ask that that not 

happen. 

Economic impacts. The level of Lake Lanier is related to economic impacts in the metro Atlanta area. Recreation is a big business around Lake Lanier. There are similar impacts up there that 

you have heard about at West Point Lake. The water systems have 

had to cut back their water usage. Just the major ones have $50 

million in losses that they are going to have to recover and raise 

rates because of. And we heard about the impact on the landscape 

and garden industry. That is a huge industry in metro Atlanta. 

There have been thousands and thousands of people laid off because of that. 

And finally, I would just like to say, we are ready to move forward. We support the Corps updating their water control plan. The 

group of water providers in the metro area have hired consultants 

to give other options for operating these systems. We think there 

are better ways to operate. 

We ask that the Corps do a three step plan. One is to continue 

these emergency drought operations until Lake Lanier recovers. 

Lake Lanier is in serious decline right now and so we are very concerned about that. 

15

And to not ever go back to the interim operations plan. Two, 

come up with a new temporary operations plan until the water control plans can be updated, because that will take years. We just 

cannot go back to the way the interim operations plan was. And 

so that is what we are asking and we stand ready to help with that 

effort in any way we can. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens may be found in the Appendix on page 126.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. Mark Crisp, who is managing consultant with C.H. Guernsey & Company, which is an engineering consultant firm engaged by the City of LaGrange and by 

the West Point Lake Coalition. 

Mr. Crisp.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK CRISP, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, 

C.H. GUERNSEY & COMPANY

Mr. CRISP. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Westmoreland. 

For many years, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River 

Basin has operated with minimal conflicts and relatively good 

availability of water through natural rainfall. However, during the 

last 20 to 25 years, our climatology has seen a significant change. 

For the greater part of the 20th century, our climatology experienced robust and extensive wet seasons during the months of December through April with additional contributions of rainfall during summer thunderstorms that occurred almost daily across much 

of the southeast, including Georgia. However, starting in the early 

1980s and continuing today, our climatology has shifted to a more 

arid condition. A critical and significant factor in the Corps’ operation of West Point Lake has been the extremely negative effect 

caused by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s biological opinion and 

the Corps’ interim operation plan initiated in the ACF Basin during the spring of 2006, during this drought period. 

During the time period from 1980 through the present, the ACF 

has experienced three major droughts. The drought of 1981, the 

droughts of 1986 through 1988 and the current drought that actually started in 1998 and continues today. Many climatologists and 

meteorologists claim that the current drought is a separate cycle 

from the one initiated in 1998. However, only a cursory level examination of rainfall data for this region for the period 1996 to 2007 

clearly indicates that we never escaped the vise of the drought 

started in 1998. 

At the same time as the onset of our current more arid weather 

cycle, the southeast and particularly metro Atlanta region, was experiencing unprecedented growth in population. The conflicts started to arise between Congressionally authorized purposes of the 

projects and those uses that were seen as beneficial. These conflicts 

generated the now infamous water wars that have been going on 

16

for the better part of two decades through at least two administrations in the affected state houses and continues today with little 

hope at the end of the tunnel. 

As early as 2002, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Corps 

of Engineers initiated informal discussions concerning several species of freshwater mussels and the Gulf sturgeon. Fish & Wildlife 

was in the process of declaring some of the mussels and the Gulf 

sturgeon as endangered, per the Endangered Species Act. The entrance of U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the ESA, Endangered Species 

Act, brought a whole new dynamic to the escalating water wars. 

With little to no well-defined objectives or performance matrices, 

the ESA has allowed Fish & Wildlife to dictate to the Corps how 

much water must be released downstream of the Jim Woodruff 

Dam during any seasonal period with little regard for upstream 

users. 

At this point, we now have major droughts, escalating water demands in the upper region of the ACF, competing use issues for 

reservoir storage other than Congressional authorized uses, three 

states competing for a share of the pie and Fish & Wildlife playing 

the nuclear option in the lower part of the basin. Unfortunately, 

West Point Lake sits squarely in the middle. 

Due to the political pressure to maintain reservoir elevations and 

support water supply at Lake Lanier, which is operated more as a 

backstop by the Corps to protect the system. Only if everything else 

fails will Lanier be looked at as a resource to meet downstream 

needs, even with the conservation storage that exceeds West Point 

Lake by nearly a million acre feet, nearly three and a half times 

what Lake West Point has in it. With West Point Lake in its location, it is an easy target for the Corps to use, as recently referred 

to by the Corps as the workhorse of the system. However, in this 

case, this workhorse is being turned into the mistreated sway-back 

nag due to over-use, rapid and repeated fluctuations in elevation 

and excessive drawdowns to support functions Congress never anticipated nor studies ever supported. 

The nuclear option played by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife that initiated the development of the biological opinion and the interim operating plan has created havoc with regards to the operation of 

West Point Lake during 2006 and 2007. Inasmuch as the plan 

called for the release of huge volumes of water into the Apalachicola River from Jim Woodruff project, the environmental assessment performed by the Corps did not effectively investigate the impacts it would have on upstream storage projects, particularly West 

Point Lake. 

The Corps and Fish & Wildlife’s zeal to accomplish some change 

during a period of extreme drought and intense negotiations between states typifies the current philosophy employed in the federal negotiations and failed compact discussions, let us find an answer and then we will develop the science to justify the answer. 

Unfortunately for the Corps and Fish & Wildlife, this drought 

turned into the drought of record and the extreme demands placed 

on West Point Lake drained it to its lowest elevation on record. So 

low that the Corps made the decision that it could not afford to 

draw West Point any further. Therefore, they had to turn to Lake 

Lanier in order to meet flow requirements of the IOP in the ApaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
17

lachicola River. This action subsequently drained Lake Lanier to 

an all time record low that now appears to be unrecoverable this 

spring. All for the sturgeons and mussels that to date no one can 

tell you quantitatively that the massive releases of 2006 and 2007 

has done any good to restore habitat or population. 

The Corps has claimed the IOP only accounted for 0.5 feet of the 

drawdown of West Point Lake during 2007. However, if you compare the operational results, such as reservoir elevations and releases, during the drought of 2007 and that of the drought period 

in 2000, it is easy to see that the Corps held the reservoir elevations much higher during previous droughts while meeting the 

downstream demands. 

The major change between that drought and this one was only 

four inches of rainfall less during this whole annual period of 2007 

and the implementation of the IOP. Therefore, the IOP did cause 

significant worse conditions than the 0.5 foot drawdown at West 

Point as alleged by the Corps. If the Corps had taken a more aggressive and conservative approach to water management, knowing 

we were in the midst of a multi-year drought of significance, West 

Point could have been sustained at levels well above 630 well into 

the summer of 2007. Lake Lanier could have been held higher and 

releases into the Apalachicola River downstream of Woodruff could 

have been sustained at levels greater than those that were naturally produced, but much less than the grossly exaggerated flows 

required by the IOP. 

Had the Corps been manning the rudder, tracking rainfall, tracking climactic conditions and reservoir response, the devastation 

caused by an ill-conceived plan such as the IOP would not have 

been exacerbated by the drought. Entering the summer of 2006, 

West Point Lake’s elevation was 631.3, nearly five feet below the 

summer pool. This equates to over one foot below the recreation 

impact level, where opportunities for recreation are severely impacted. I must remind you that recreation at West Point Lake was 

specifically and deliberately authorized by Congress and intended 

to be a significant part of the overall operational plan, not just an 

ancillary benefit to be available only when the Corps found it convenient. 

Beginning in May of 2007, West Point started a precipitous fall 

that did not end until the lake reached a near historic low in early 

winter at an elevation of 621.75. However, as also can be seen, the 

reservoirs at Lanier and West Point were managed very deliberately between two droughts. During 2007, Lanier was held much 

higher into the winter than in the corresponding 2000 drought, 

while West Point Lake was dropped to its near historic level. 

It is clear from Corps data that Lake Lanier elevation in 2007 

was maintained higher than 2007 even with somewhat lower rainfall and unfortunately Lake West Point was placed in the untenable position by the Corps, it was looked at as described by the 

Corps as the workhorse and drained. 

What could have been done? During 2007 in the midst of the 

worst drought, the basin in-flow during winter and early spring of 

2007 was producing flows in excess of the 5000 CFs minimum flow 

requirement. The Flint River by itself was producing 5000 CFs 

minimum flow. In some cases, basin inflow during that period exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
18

ceeded 35,000 CFs. However, due to the overly aggressive nature 

of the flow requirements of the IOP and the fact the Corps and 

Fish & Wildlife did not anticipate nor track the evolving drought, 

nearly all of the available water was flushed through the system 

as required by the IOP, without any regard for refilling of the reservoirs. 

In fact, if a more conservative approach had been taken, there 

would not have been such a rush to judgment about the loss of 

mussels due to stranding, the flows would have been less variable 

but still sufficient to support sturgeon. It is clear the IOP has been 

and continues to be a significantly detrimental tool employed by 

the Corps and Fish & Wildlife in the name of endangered species. 

The Corps performed a perfunctory environmental assessment 

and subsequently issued a premature finding of no significant impact. However, the Corps’ alternatives did not examine the impact 

of a severe drought, did not examine the effects of ramping, did not 

examine in detail the economic and social damage that the IOP 

would cause upstream, and did not examine other options available 

to sustain viable species communities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I again appreciate 

the Committee taking time to convene the field hearing and I stand 

available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crisp may be found in the Appendix on page 199.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Crisp. 

In the interest of time, we are going to proceed on to our third 

panel. We do appreciate the testimony of the persons on the second 

panel and you will probably receive questions from the Committee, 

written questions, for your response so that we can include those 

in the record. Thank you very much. 

[Applause.]

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, due to the limited amount 

of time that we have for these hearings today, and we are only able 

to hear from a limited number of the stakeholders that are affected 

by this drought and by how the Corps has managed the basin, for 

that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have written testimony from some of 

those affected stakeholders that I would like to submit for the 

record and I would also ask for unanimous consent to keep the 

record of this hearing open for five business days so that people can 

revise and extend their remarks based on what they have already 

heard and what they will continue to be hearing today from the 

General and Mr. Hamilton. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, without objection, so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. And we will now proceed with testimony from our 

third panel. Who we have here today is Brigadier General Joseph 

Schroedel, who is Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Atlantic Division based in Atlanta, Georgia. And 

also we have with us today Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, who is the ReVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 May 09, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\41331.TXT LEANN
19

gional Director, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Gentlemen, welcome today. You have five minutes for your testimony. Your written statements will be included in the record. 

Thank you very much for coming. 

We will start with General Schroedel.

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL, 

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

OF ENGINEERS

General SCHROEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Westmoreland. 

It was suggested today that I was a three and a half point underdog on an away game. I appreciate the warm welcome because 

America loves underdogs. So it is great to be here. 

[Laughter.] 

General SCHROEDEL. Members of the Committee, I am Brigadier 

General Joe Schroedel, Division Commander, as you have said, of 

the South Atlantic Division of the Corps. I oversee the management of 13 basins here in the southeast. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and to engage the concerned citizens of this great community on our precious water resources. I would also like to take a moment, if I can, 

to thank all of you as American citizens for your support for the 

ongoing war, and especially for support to our American military, 

my own son included who is in Afghanistan at the moment, and 

for the civilians, approximately 800 Corps of Engineers civilian volunteers who are deployed around the world also supporting this 

nation’s national objective. So I appreciate the support that you 

have given to your sons and daughters and husbands and wives 

who are supporting that effort. I think that is an important thing 

to do. 

[Applause.] 

General SCHROEDEL. Gentlemen, in my testimony today what I 

would like to do is emphasize just two simple points. The first is 

the Corps response to this record drought in order to demonstrate 

our flexibility and our lack of rigidity. And secondly, I would like 

to highlight, if I can, what is really more important than trying to 

agree on the past. And that is looking forward to the future as one 

team, one group of American citizens who are faced with an everchanging climate and we have got to know how to deal with that 

in a more responsive way. 

So I would like to highlight in that regard the importance of the 

public’s participation, each and every one of you here and those 

who are not here, to get the word out that the entire public has 

got to participate in the Corps’ updating of our manual. That is an 

open, public process and if you want the rule curves changed as we 

do, then you need to participate. That is my second point that I will 

cover a little bit today. So our future success depends on every citizen in this region. 

The Corps of Engineers generally constructs and operates multipurpose water resource projects and manages those projects within 

20

a watershed as a system, irrespective of political boundaries. The 

authorized purposes for the ACF and ACT systems are flood control, hydropower, navigation, water supply, water quality, recreation and fish and wildlife conservation. And we have got to balance all of those needs. Our day-to-day operation of our multi-purpose projects is guided by our water control manuals and seeks to 

balance those often competing purposes. 

During this drought, the competition for limited water resources 

has been magnified and our management of the system has adjusted to meet the harsh conditions that mother nature has presented us. For example, by the way, if we were mindlessly following our guide curves, West Point Lake would be seven feet 

lower than it is today. I think that is proof enough that we are not 

mindlessly, rigidly following some kind of 50 year old manual. We 

are not doing that. This lake is not even that old. 

So what have we done to help manage the conditions of the 

drought? Well, let me just list a few and I will cover a few of them 

in detail. 

First, I have authorized—and I have the authority—I have authorized deviations on virtually every lake under our control in the 

southeast. We have accepted greater risk by doing that, greater 

risk in terms of flood control capacity, but we have done that 

throughout the southeast to conserve water in our system. 

Second, you have heard a lot about the interim operation plan. 

And we suspended key features of that almost a year ago and we 

have been managing the system in a more flexible way, as I mentioned. We developed the exceptional drought operations plan, 

which you have heard a little bit about, which was intended to conserve more water in the system, and it has done that. Again, today 

West Point Lake is three feet higher than it normally should be at 

this point of the year and it is only two feet away from summer 

pool and it is not even April yet. So I think that demonstrates our 

flexibility. 

About a year ago, I personally went to—

[Laughter.] 

General SCHROEDEL. I will be glad to talk to you afterwards. 

About a year ago, I personally went to Governor Perdue and to 

Governor Riley and suggested that it looks like a major drought, 

that this drought was going to get worse, and suggested that we 

host a drought summit, we did that. And we have since conducted 

on the ACF biweekly teleconference calls that average 50 to 60 people wide open to the public, members of the Congressional staffs, 

yours included, participate. And I will tell you that the majority of 

the witnesses you have seen before you today also personally participate in those calls. It is important that everyone know about 

that because on those calls, we announce our impending decisions 

and adjustments to the system ahead of time in order to allow—

I am talking weeks in advance—in order to allow the public to comment on the decisions that we are about to make. We have had 

that going on now for almost a year on both the ACT and ACF. 

We have also done quite a bit of work to try to manage the hazards that have presented themselves here at West Point Lake. We 

have spent thousands of dollars helping to mitigate those hazards. 

We have also done a lot of engagement with the public. Somebody 

21

commented to me earlier today that it is a shame we have to have 

the members of Congress invite me here in order for me to show 

up. Well, I will tell you what, I will come down any time and I have 

asked all of my subordinate leaders to engage the community and 

I usually check that. But I would personally welcome the opportunity to come back and do a town hall with all of you and maybe 

we could take more time and dispel some of the other myths that 

are out there. I would love to do that. 

On the ACF, in September of 2006, we implemented the interim 

operating plan, which provided for target flows to support endangered species under differing hydrologic conditions. And by the 

way, during the recent negotiations between the three states, there 

was one true point of agreement that I think we got them all to 

agree to. They all hated the IOP. So that was a good thing. 

[Laughter and applause.] 

General SCHROEDEL. With the extreme conditions of the summer 

of 2007—and this drought hit hard and fast. If you look at the conditions in about July, you will find that we were on a fairly normal 

path, even with the drought. Let me tell you something that was 

very different that had never happened before and we had never 

experienced before, starting in about July and August, which 

changed the conditions dramatically. We had never experienced 

negative inflows into the system. USGS has stream gauges in every 

stream and believe it or not, there was more water leaving the system through evaporation than was actually coming into the system. 

That had never occurred before and that was why we hurried up 

and responded to try to change our system. 

The biological opinion under which we are operating expires 

June 1, 2008. We are currently revising our exceptional drought operations plan and IOP and then putting together a biological assessment which we will deliver to the Fish & Wildlife Service by 

mid-April for them to do a biological opinion by 1 June so we can 

adjust both the IOP and EDO. Cannot give you specifics right now, 

but I will tell you we have listened to the states, we have listened 

to the stakeholders. Everything I just said to you has been announced on those drought calls every other week when we hold 

those calls. So that is not new information, we have been working 

that for some time. 

As the situation stands, it would appear that we could be entering the spring and summer season with the lowest amount of storage ever on the ACF basin. Lake Lanier, as you heard, is about 15 

feet below the summer pool. West Point Lake will be at the summer pool very soon. So we feel that we have got the southern part 

of the system in pretty good shape. By the way, that is a function 

of where the rain is falling. 

As conditions deteriorated in the spring of 2007, as I mentioned, 

we conducted the drought summit and then began our drought 

calls to immediately engage the public, to listen to the public, and 

to be very wide open and transparent about the decisions we were 

about to make on the system. So in that regard, I would like to emphasize that open and continual communication between the Corps, 

between other federal agencies and you the public is imperative. 

We have got to know what you are thinking. 

22

Our coordination with federal agencies is also very important. 

Not only do we rely on our relationship with the Fish & Wildlife 

Service, but we also rely on the United States Geological Service. 

Just so you know, all of our lake level gauges, all of the stream 

gauges are not Corps gauges, they are USGS gauges. So we get 

independent measures of what is going on in the system that we 

use to manage the system. We also rely on NOAA for forecasts, 

both short term and long term forecasts. And I will tell you, nobody 

saw what happened in late summer last year coming. La Nina 

aside, nobody saw conditions of negative inflows ever being a reality. And it was and it hurt the system pretty quickly. 

Last comment that I would make is regarding the manuals. 

Water challenges are here to stay. And as I mentioned earlier, we 

need everybody to participate in that wide open process. 

I would like to make one other very strong point. As you all 

know, the states, these three states on these two systems did not 

come to an agreement on the allocation of water between the 

states. The water control manuals will not resolve that problem. 

That is a state right, that is a state issue and the water control 

manuals will not ever—not ever—resolve the allocation of water between states. That is a separate issue. We are just in the beginning 

of the process and I would invite each of you again to participate 

in that process and let us all get together and look forward and ensure that as climate changes, as economy changes, as the population changes, that we all figure out the ways out of these situations and not waste our time and our energy pointing fingers and 

trying to figure out who did what to get where we are. That is not 

what is important. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity for your support and I look 

forward to answering your questions. I also look forward to spending more time if I can with this community in addition to my District Commander who is responsible for this lake. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Brigadier General Schroedel may be 

found in the Appendix on page 226.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, General. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. And by the way, thank you, General, for serving 

your country as a man in uniform. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Next, Mr. Hamilton, Regional Director, Southeast 

Region, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Thank you for coming today, 

sir. You have five minutes for your testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the record.

STATEMENT MR. SAM D. HAMILTON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEAST REGION, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much. It is good to be here, I 

think. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAMILTON. And to be last. 

23

As you have heard, there is quite a bit of discussion about the 

role of mussels and endangered species. I hope to touch on that, 

but in five minutes, I cannot do it justice. But hopefully in the 

questions and answers we can cover some of that. 

I do represent the Department of Interior, I represent the United 

States Fish & Wildlife Service and I have done that for 30 years. 

The Southeast Region includes ten southeastern states and the 

Caribbean. 

The Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency that 

is responsible for conserving, protecting and ensuring that fish and 

wildlife resources are protected for your generation and for future 

generations. And part of that role and responsibility is the Endangered Species Act which was passed by Congress in 1973. 

As you have all heard, this drought is significant. It not only affects Georgia, it affects Alabama and Florida and all across the 

Southeast. We are very actively working with the Army Corps of 

Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority on a number of 

river basins dealing with some extremely sensitive issues. This 

drought has had a profound effect, as you all have heard and you 

have experienced, on the economy of the state of Georgia. If we 

were having this field hearing in the state of Florida, I expect they 

would feel the same way. And similarly in the state of Alabama 

with the ACF and ACT basins. 

Oftentimes people say what is the worth and why should you 

care about endangered species, you know, it is just a bunch of mussels. The southeastern rivers are the most diverse rivers in the 

United States, they always have been. The biodiversity that is 

found there is unequaled. That is why the reservoirs in the Southeast are the most productive. The rivers are really like a lifeline 

and the arteries of communities like this, but also all across the 

Southeast. Where I grew up in Mississippi, the Mississippi River 

is that very artery, it provides clean drinking water, recreational 

opportunities, navigation, fish and wildlife habitats and food for 

people. The Southeast is blessed in many regards in that respect. 

In addition to the biodiversity that we have, it is the most imperiled biodiversity in the United States. Two-thirds of the nation’s 

mussels are endangered. One in ten have already gone extinct and 

40 percent of the fish in the United States are threatened with extinction. So our rivers are important not only from an economic 

perspective but also from an environmental perspective. The health 

of the river is made up by the biodiversity that you find there. 

So we take our job very seriously and we understand the implications of what we do when we get into this. This issue, unfortunately, has been characterized as mussels versus people. And most 

of you know that this issue is not new and it has been around for 

20 years. You have heard about the water wars. We have spent the 

last five months negotiating and discussing with the three states 

and the governors on how to hopefully bring an end to that issue. 

Those discussions will likely continue into the future. We have 

worked very closely with the Army Corps as we entered into a 

drought and will continue to work with them as we understand 

conditions in Lake Lanier are very serious as summer approaches. 

We got into the 2007 interim operating plan under the eyes of 

the federal courts in the state of Florida in litigation that has 

24

clouded many of these discussions. And we continue to have litigation surrounding all of these discussions and the management of 

the ACF system. 

We realized working very closely with the Corps in 2007, the 

drought continued to worsen so the exceptional drought operation 

plan was put into effect and the storage of all high flows, when 

they come, are now allowed to be stored. We also agreed to drop 

the endangered species required flows by ten percent from 5,000 to 

4,500 CFs in a biological opinion. Recognizing the emergency situation or at least the seriousness of it, we did it in 15 days. The typical consultation period is four months. We did it in 15 days, the 

first time that has ever happened. 

We have a team of folks working with all the states right now 

looking at contingency planning on how to relocate mussels as well 

as bring them into captivity, which is highly speculative and oftentimes not very successful. Nevertheless, we look for flexibility and 

we are looking for ways to maintain the very rich biodiversity that 

is found in the Apalachicola system and the Chattahoochee system, 

recognizing the limitations that we have to face in the record 

drought. 

The 5,000 CFs that we hear talked about quite a bit historically 

only happened in the last 100 years, maybe a handful of times, if 

that. That is where 5,000 CFs comes into play. But we have authorized incidental take of endangered species through the biological opinion, for the Corps to go to 4,500 CFs. We will reissue a biological opinion based on a new plan when we get that some time 

in the next month or so. 

Secretary Kempthorne has invested quite a bit of time and effort 

trying to negotiate and work with the states on how to allocate 

these flows throughout the three state area, and continues to be 

committed to try to work through those issues with all the stakeholders and partners. 

In the end, I would say that the Fish & Wildlife Service is very 

sensitive to the competing needs and issues and very much recognizes the effect on all these reservoirs as well as on the Apalachicola system itself, one of the greatest estuaries left in the Gulf of 

Mexico and certainly in the eastern United States. And we continue to want to work very closely with the Corps and all of you 

as we work through this exceptional drought that we are dealing 

with. 

And I will reserve the balance of time for questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton may be found in the 

Appendix on page 237.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, we appreciate your appearance today to shed some light on your agency’s handling of this 

issue. 

Congressman Westmoreland has been concerned about the impact that this drought has had on Georgia’s economy, specifically 

this area of his district. And with that in mind, I think it is best 

for me to yield to Congressman Westmoreland for questions. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me say, General Schroedel, I want to thank you 

for being here today. I want to thank you for your openness. I think 

25

I met you about a year ago in Columbus and we were talking about 

this same subject. And General Schroedel told me then that he 

would be responsive to me in getting me any information that I requested, and he has been true to that. I normally write him—I 

think I have written him over 17 letters in the last year or so. And 

in about two weeks, we will get a response. And trust me, that is 

lightning fast for a government agency. So I do want to commend 

you and thank you for that. And I want to thank you for all that 

you have done for this area in the last year. I think we have seen 

some improvement and I think we have seen the dialogue open. I 

want to thank you for the years of service that you have given to 

this country. And now I am going to ask you some hard questions. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sounds great. Bring them on. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. General, this lake has got Congressional 

authorization and I am sure you are aware of that. One of those 

authorizations has been for recreation. And as you know, the recreation level is about 632.5. Over the past 30 months, I think we 

have actually had two months out of 30 that have been at that 

level for recreation. And as you heard today testimonies from these 

small business owners and from others the effect that it has had. 

Where does that Congressional authorization fit in with the Corps’ 

management of the lake and the basin? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, we often get asked the question, hey, 

can we prioritize those Congressionally authorized purposes. And 

we generally shy away from that because what we try to do is manage the lake levels in a way that we can provide some level of all 

of those Congressionally authorized purposes. And in terms of 

recreation, you know, some people would advocate that well, recreation is less important than flood control, for example. Well, maybe 

during certain times of the year, that may be true. But I think the 

way we would come down on that is we take what mother nature 

gives us, we manage it the best we can to meet all the purposes 

and if the lake is not full or does not meet the recreation level, at 

least there is some water in the lake and we need to figure out how 

to adjust how we use what is in there. 

I can tell you after being in this same level command in the west 

for three and a half years, where five inches of rain is what is experienced out there versus the average here of almost 50 inches of 

rain normally, what you will find in the lakes out west are three 

levels of ramps. They have actually built three levels of ramps in 

their lakes, depending on what mother nature gives them. So if it 

is a good year, we will use the top ramp, if it is a bad year, we 

will use the low ramp. 

So, sir, I would suggest that one of the things we need to think 

about hard as we face climate change and face more of these kinds 

of droughts and more severe droughts, we ought to think about 

maybe how we adjust our behavior to accommodate mother nature 

and use what she gives us. 

So we do not prioritize, we try to balance all of the competing 

needs and all of the Congressionally mandated purposes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is great and I think that we would 

love to see some of these boat ramps extended where we would 

have more than two ramps making the lake accessible. But also, 

26

this would have been some good thought for the Corps to remove 

some additional stumps that are out there in the lake. 

General SCHROEDEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Because when you get down below that 632, 

there are many foots of some of these motors laying out there. And 

I think Mr. Nichols testified to the damage of some of the boats 

that he leased due to the fact of the Corps leaving some trees out 

there that does not let us enjoy some of those levels. 

I had written you a letter I think in February of 2008 talking 

about the sensitivity studies and we have talked about, you know, 

or at least heard today about rule curves, engineering designs, 

modelings and other things. And I sent you a letter requesting 

these sensitivity studies that you had sent out to California. And 

you had written me back and said it was confidential information, 

that it was an agreement with the governors and the states. But 

that agreement is gone now and is there any way now that you 

might—and I am not going to try to put you on the spot and we 

will talk about it later, it is a hard question, I know. But we need 

to know what those are so we could get Mr. Crisp and some other 

people able to look at it. Not that we do not trust you, but there 

have been some studies done and some studies released about economic impact and use of these lakes where West Point really was 

not included in those studies. And so we want to feel like we are 

a part of it and at least we have something to kind of back up or 

affirm what you may say. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I will go back and look at it, but you 

know, the negotiations that we went through with the three governors and their delegations over the last four months or so, we all 

signed, including Sam here, a confidentiality agreement at the request of the governors and at this point, we are still told that any 

of the information and discussions that were a part of those deliberations are still—we are still under the confidentiality agreement. 

But I would tell you that those sensitivity analyses to which you 

refer, you would not get a whole lot out of it, I will just tell you 

that. It turned out not to be very significant. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That does not surprise me, for some reason. 

General SCHROEDEL. But I will go back and—

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand, but if you could just go back 

and look at it. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, I will, gotcha. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Since the agreement is not working. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, I will. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And here is the other thing. You know, in 

a meeting that me and you and Mr. Hamilton and others were at 

Senator Chambliss’ office I guess, you mentioned that the Corps 

had used West Point as the workhorse of that basin. And I understand. I do not know where that term came from, but is it not true 

that it was not—that basin, the ACF, was intended to be part of 

a three-legged stool. You had the Allatoona, the ACT and the ACF 

and then you had the Flint. 

General SCHROEDEL. Right. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And if you look at the map right behind 

you, and I know you are familiar with it, the Flint comes down 

through Bainbridge into Lake Seminole. And General, I am sure 

27

you have gone back too and seen in 1945 that there were three 

dams authorized for the Flint. 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That was de-authorized I believe in the 

WRDA bill or the water bill of 1982 or 1986, I cannot remember 

now. But it was de-authorized. But we have heard testimony today 

and I think both of you or at least some other people mentioned 

the water that comes in from the Flint, we really have no way to 

control that water. And we are looking for a fix, not a bandaid but 

a fix. And I think if we are ever going to get a fix, that we need 

to be looking at some ways that we can control that water on the 

Flint. 

General SCHROEDEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. What is the Corps’ feeling on that and if 

that was something that the Corps came up with in 1945—and I 

know you were not with the Corps in 1945—probably were not born 

in 1945, but in 1945, the Corps saw the necessity for this threelegged stool to manage this water and now we have only got two 

legs. 

Can you just address that for a moment? 

General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. I would tell you that my contention 

is we probably would not have any discussions about the ACF if 

we had those reservoirs on the Flint. For example, the 5000 CFs 

that we talk about at the Chattahoochee gauge to support the endangered species in Florida is really kind of the natural flow. And 

what you would find if you look at the records of what the flows 

actually are, since we cannot control what comes down the Flint, 

you will find many days of 26,000, 30,000 CFs flowing, not 5000. 

And the only reason it is that high is we cannot control it. 

The significance of the Flint to the Chattahoochee is pretty simple. If you cannot control what comes down the Flint and it turns 

out that water just flows right on out to the bay, and then you need 

to augment the flows at Chattahoochee, where are you going to get 

it. Well, we cannot control the Flint, so that is where we turn to 

the Chattahoochee and be it Lanier or whatever, we have got to 

rely on this system. 

And today, the situation we find ourselves in because of the way 

the rain fell, which basically the rain the last several months has 

ignored Lanier, Allatoona, Carters, Weiss, all of the headwater 

lakes of these systems have been ignored pretty much by the rain. 

So they are hurting. The rest of the system like West Point is pretty healthy. So what have we got to augment those flows? It is going 

to come out of where you have the water. So if we had the ability 

to control the water in the Flint, we would be in a much better 

shape to preserve water on the Chattahoochee leg. So you are absolutely right. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, thank you. And Congressman Deal 

and I are working on legislation right now to kind of renew those 

studies and we hope that the Corps will join us in that in maybe 

relating to some of the powers that be that we think it would be 

money well spent to do that study. And I am sure the people of Albany and down river that have been flooded out would certainly 

agree to that too. 

28

Mr. Hamilton, are you familiar with a study that was completed 

by the Corps relative to I think it is the Fat Threeridge Mussel 

that was prepared by Barry Payne of the U.S. Corps of Engineers? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I am not necessarily familiar with that study, but 

assume that some of the results have been factored into our biological opinion. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay, so you think that—because if you 

look at that report, it talks about maybe that there are more mussels, they are a little more abundant than what had originally been 

anticipated. And I think—and I am not sure if it is the same study 

or another one that goes into the fact that at a time I guess that 

one of these original studies was done, that there was not divers 

and equipment and boats and other things that were made available to do this study. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I think that is a good observation. You 

know, when dealing with endangered species, oftentimes there is a 

lack of information on the abundance and distribution of them. We 

have found some small populations up and down the Apalachicola 

as well as in a couple of other river basins. So we continue to get 

new information. The states of Florida and Georgia as well as a 

number of researchers are out working that river today. So we are 

getting new information and an update on that one. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay, because I think that was an August 

26, 2007 study where they looked at several different species of the 

mussels. 

Let me ask you another question. And I had asked you in Washington this same question and I think you referred me to one of the 

other gentlemen, but did you ever find out what the natural flows 

of the Chattahoochee and the Flint were? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I did dig into that. You know, when you talk to 

these hydrologists—

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am going to keep asking him until he answers. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes, sir. I will give you the answer, but I am not 

a hydrologist. There is a range of flows. You have median and medium flows and you have peak high flows and medium monthly 

flows. But the flows that I heard today dating back to I think the 

1920s—the U.S. Geological Survey are the folks that manage the 

gauges that General Schroedel talked about—the figures that I saw 

were around 5,000 CFs for the low flow. I think since there were 

impoundments, flows dipped below that just a couple of times. But 

pre-impoundment, up to 291,000 CFs was the figure that I was 

given today. So you have this wide range of high spring flows and 

winter flows dating back in the 1920s to 290,000 CFs all the way 

down to low flows of about 5,000 CFs. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I think that there are, at least from some 

of the people that I have heard from not only in Troup County but 

in Coweta County, there has actually been certain instances back 

in the 1920s and the 1930s where people have actually walked 

across the Chattahoochee River because of the drought. I had one 

family tell me that their family had actually planted a garden 

down in the river bed one summer to be able to water it, because 

the drought was so extensive. 

29

So, you know, these species have adapted to the most severe 

drought we can ever imagine that would come down, and that was 

during a natural flow of the river. And as the General talked 

about, we have got to learn to deal with climate change. But these 

are cycles that we have been going through, you know, since this 

place was created. 

The other question that I was going to ask of the Fish & Wildlife 

is—I think, is it June 1 that we go back to the old way of doing 

business? It is not? 

Mr. HAMILTON. No, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

Mr. HAMILTON. We issued a biological opinion based on this exceptional drought that would carry us through June 1. And since 

November, obviously we have been in discussions with the three 

states, collecting information and looking at how to modify the interim operating plan which nobody likes. And it did have unintended consequences, the exceptional drought plan, and looking at 

flows up and down the system. So we have gotten a lot of good information out of that. The Corps obviously has gotten a lot of good 

hydrologic information. They are working to take that information 

and they are going to update and modify the plans and do what 

is called a biological assessment. Our hope is that that will come 

to us sometime maybe in April. We intend to prepare a biological 

opinion reacting to what they give us by June 1, 2008. 

So I do not think anybody expects that we will fall back to the 

interim operating plan. That will not happen, I do not see that happening. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, if I could add to that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes. 

General SCHROEDEL. The current scheme, the exceptional 

drought operations procedures that we are using, the major difference between that and the old IOP is that 5000 is essentially the 

maximum that we are letting go at the Chattahoochee gauge. 

Under the IOP, what some people refer to that exacerbated the 

problem was the fact that above 5000—if the inflows into the basin 

reached 18,000 CFs, the old IOP said we let that go in addition to 

the 5000. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is what I am getting to. 

General SCHROEDEL. And everything above that, we let about a 

third of that go. What the EDO or the exceptional drought operation scheme says is we are not going to do that. It is 5000. But 

what the EDO also says is we can go below 5000, down to 4750. 

What we are in the throes of doing is adjusting the IOP also. 

But here is the key point. The way we manage making the decision to move to either a new IOP or the old IOP or something other 

than the exceptional drought scheme is what we call triggers. So 

what we do is we now have a composite entire basin storage rule 

curve that has four zones—zones 1, 2, 3, 4. And we track composite 

storage in all of the basins on the system. Today, the composite 

storage is in zone 4. The trigger—the trigger—that would cause us 

to come out of the exceptional drought operation is when the composite storage gets back into zone 2. We do not see that happening 

any time soon, in the next couple of years, which means right now, 

30

our expectation is we stay in the exceptional drought operation 

mode probably for the next couple of years, because the composite 

storage—we do not see that getting back there any time soon. 

So we have done it on an event and on a situation basis as opposed to, you know, some unscientific or non-specific kind of trigger. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, I take that as good news—I take that 

as good news because we are able to store some of that water that 

we have just been flushing out the Gulf. 

General SCHROEDEL. Absolutely; yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. General, my last question to you, you have 

been here for a year and I think we have made great progress. In 

your work with Sam, I mean you all are like twins, every time I 

go somewhere, I see you all together, so I know you are working 

very closely. But one of the problems that we have had with the 

Corps is change of command. And we are right now in the process 

of rewriting or updating these water manuals and, you know, we 

hear about places on the Missouri River or other places that it has 

taken eight years to update these manuals. And I am not saying 

whoever comes after you is not going to be as good a communicator 

as you have been, but how long—I mean honestly, how long do you 

think it is going to take to update these manuals and, you know, 

what kind of influence do you think you are going to have in the 

common sense approach that you have taken to some of this in getting these manuals updated in a speedy fashion? 

General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I appreciate you asking the question. 

First, in terms of me personally, I appreciate your comments and 

I thank you for those. 

My position is normally a two year command. I am going to stay 

for a third year, so I will be here at least through next summer. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Good deal. 

General SCHROEDEL. The other thing that we have done, we the 

Corps have done, and the Chief of Engineers has done, at the request of the Congress is we have put in place a gentleman by the 

name of Mr. Jerry Barnes, who is a long time Corps employee, a 

general officer equivalent, senior executive service retired. We 

brought him back and now his sole duty is to be the overseer of 

the manual process. He was told by the Secretary of the Army specifically that he answers to the Congress, he answers to the Chief 

of Engineers and he has the oversight. So we have put in place 

that long term continuity. 

So in the short run, we have already been given the go-ahead to 

do the manuals. We have already announced them in the Federal 

Register. The first step is a basin-wide EIS, that is an environmental impact statement. And this is where the public comes in. 

A part of that EIS process is developing alternative procedures for 

how we operate the system. We will take that input and develop 

alternatives and then ultimately come to a conclusion. 

So the direct answer to your question on how long it is going to 

take—and I am going to say this in a qualified way—and what we 

have seen in writing is that the Corps has said it takes two to 

three years. Well, that is two to three years, assuming nobody gets 

in our way and that the public participates. So there are lots of 

things that could happen that would slow us down, and I think 

31

most people know, or at least I hope you know that the Corps has 

tried to begin to update these manuals for the last 20 years and 

we get stopped every time we try. Our opinion right now is that 

the time is right because of the drought, because of the mandate 

of the people that you expect it, and through your elected members, 

you will ensure that it does happen. 

So in a positive, unimpeded environment, sir, we could probably 

get it done in two to three years. How long is it really going to 

take? Sir, your guess is as good as mine. I hope we can get it done 

in the amount of time that we think we can do it. But we are going 

to need the help of every citizen in the region and the Congress 

and everyone else in the industry, municipal water supply, whatever. We need everybody’s help to figure out the right way to manage these systems. So you all have an important role to play in 

helping us do that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right, ladies and gentlemen, out of respect for 

your time, I am going to not ask any questions and I will say that 

I am very impressed with the number of people that are here for 

this hearing and the fact that you hung around throughout the 

hearing. So I am very much impressed, and once again, I would 

like to thank Congressman Westmoreland for his efforts in putting 

together this hearing as well as the distinguished panelists who 

have appeared before us today. 

This hearing, ladies and gentlemen, has been an excellent opportunity for me to hear the perspectives of the panelists on this extraordinary situation and also to hear from those who reflect your 

concerns about it as well. I think that it has been very helpful for 

the federal agencies to hear the perspective of the small businesses 

that are suffering as a result of this drought, and I also think that 

the small businesses have benefitted by allowing the federal agencies to explain how they try to balance the varied and complicated 

needs of the ACT and ACF river systems. 

It is my sincere belief that with the continued involvement of everyone present here today, Congress, federal agencies and the governors of Georgia, Alabama and Florida, will arrive at an equitable 

solution to the tri-state water sharing issue and this is definitely 

in the interest of the public. 

The testimony that I have heard today has been extraordinarily 

helpful and I will continue to work towards a solution. 

Having given my closing remarks, I will now ask for closing remarks from Congressman Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank the General and Sam for being here. You know, we heard 

several people talk today about common sense and the lack of it. 

And there is nobody that has dogged the Corps and Fish & Wildlife 

more than me. I have talked bad about them a lot, some they deserved it and some they did not. But these two guys here—and I 

am going to take up for you—they try to put as much common 

sense behind the decisions that they make as they are allowed to 

by law. And I was not a big believer in that, but I have met with 

these gentlemen, this is probably the fourth time that we have sat 

down and talked and I can tell you that these two guys right here 

try to use as much common sense as they can. 

32

I want to thank you all for coming, you came into what could 

have been some hostile environment today, but I want to thank 

both of you for being here and taking your time. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses who came and took their 

time out to come and testify in front of us and let us hear it and 

let Congressman Johnson hear it, because when we go back to 

these delegation meetings that we have—and I want to tell you, 

you know, you hear the term bipartisan and there is not a lot of 

that in Washington, I can promise you, but truly bipartisan is the 

Georgia delegation with both the U.S. Senators, with Mr. Lewis 

and Hank and the Republicans. We have all worked together on 

this issue and some of the correspondence that we have had with 

both of these agencies. 

I want to thank all of you in attendance today for being here, to 

come out and to show the agencies, the General and Mr. Hamilton, 

the kind of concern that this has and to show Congressman Johnson that this is a concern. And all those pictures that were up 

there—and Mr. Hamilton, I think if you saw all those pictures, 

surely we have got some kind of endangered species somewhere 

that should be floating in that lake. And Mr. Nichols will give you 

a boat and we can get some volunteer divers to look for some of 

these things. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But we have got to have something endangered in that lake. But I want to thank all of you for being here 

and giving me your support and letting these people understand 

that what I have been telling them has been justified. 

I also want to thank the people here at West Georgia Technical 

College, who made all the arrangements and handled setup for today’s hearing. I want to thank all the staff. We cannot go anywhere 

without staff telling us what to do, and for them traveling to LaGrange from Washington, D.C. and all the preparation that they 

did for Hank and I in getting prepared for this hearing. 

And I also want to thank this gentleman sitting next to me, Congressman Hank Johnson. You know, one of the requirements, as he 

stated before, is that in being eligible to have a field hearing, you 

have to have somebody from the Majority party that is willing to 

come down and hold a hearing for you. And when I went to Hank, 

I mentioned it to him and he accepted immediately. He said yes, 

I will do that for you, because he understood and he had heard me 

talk in some of these delegation meetings about how we were suffering down here. And so when I asked him to participate, he never 

hesitated one minute, and said Lynn, I would be happy to do it. 

So I want to thank him for taking that time out and I want to 

apologize to him for getting caught in the road construction. But 

I do want to thank you for coming down here and chairing this 

very important hearing and I hope to return the favor to you one 

day, that I can go up and sit in on a field hearing that is important 

to your district as this hearing was for my district. 

But Mr. Chairman, that is all I have got. Again, thanks to everybody here and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Lynn. And I will tell you, it takes you 

to be in the Majority for you to have to come to my district to do 

what I did for you. 

33

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I do not think I want to see that happen any 

time soon. 

So I am going to ask unanimous consent that members of the 

Committee have five days to enter statements into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

34


41331.001
35


41331.002
36


41331.003
37


41331.004
38


41331.005
39


41331.006
40


41331.007
41


41331.008
42


41331.009
43


41331.010
44


41331.011
45


41331.012
46


41331.013
47


41331.014
48


41331.015
49


41331.016
50


41331.017
51


41331.018
52


41331.019
53


41331.020
54


41331.021
55


41331.022
56


41331.023
57


41331.024
58


41331.025
59


41331.026
60


41331.027
61


41331.028
62


41331.029
63


41331.030
64


41331.031
65


41331.032
66


41331.033
67


41331.034
68


41331.035
69


41331.036
70


41331.037
71


41331.038
72


41331.039
73


41331.040
74


41331.041
75


41331.042
76


41331.043
77


41331.044
78


41331.045
79


41331.046
80


41331.047
81


41331.048
82


41331.049
83


41331.050
84


41331.051
85


41331.052
86


41331.053
87


41331.054
88


41331.055
89


41331.056
90


41331.057
91


41331.058
92


41331.059
93


41331.060
94


41331.061
95


41331.062
96


41331.063
97


41331.064
98


41331.065
99


41331.066
100


41331.067
101


41331.068
102


41331.069
103


41331.070
104


41331.071
105


41331.072
106


41331.073
107


41331.074
108


41331.075
109


41331.076
110


41331.077
111


41331.078
112


41331.079
113


41331.080
114


41331.081
115


41331.082
116


41331.083
117


41331.084
118


41331.085
119


41331.086
120


41331.087
121


41331.088
122


41331.089
123


41331.090
124


41331.091
125


41331.092
126


41331.093
127


41331.094
128


41331.095
129


41331.096
130


41331.097
131


41331.098
132


41331.099
133


41331.100
134


41331.101
135


41331.102
136


41331.103
137


41331.104
138


41331.105
139


41331.106
140


41331.107
141


41331.108
142


41331.109
143


41331.110
144


41331.111
145


41331.112
146


41331.113
147


41331.114
148


41331.115
149


41331.116
150


41331.117
151


41331.118
152


41331.119
153


41331.120
154


41331.121
155


41331.122
156


41331.123
157


41331.124
158


41331.125
159


41331.126
160


41331.127
161


41331.128
162


41331.129
163


41331.130
164


41331.131
165


41331.132
166


41331.133
167


41331.134
168


41331.135
169


41331.136
170


41331.137
171


41331.138
172


41331.139
173


41331.140
174


41331.141
175


41331.142
176


41331.143
177


41331.144
178


41331.145
179


41331.146
180


41331.147
181


41331.148
182


41331.149
183


41331.150
184


41331.151
185


41331.152
186


41331.153
187


41331.154
188


41331.155
189


41331.156
190


41331.157
191


41331.158
192


41331.159
193


41331.160
194


41331.161
195


41331.162
196


41331.163
197


41331.164
198


41331.165
199


41331.166
200


41331.167
201


41331.168
202


41331.169
203


41331.170
204


41331.171
205


41331.172
206


41331.173
207


41331.174
208


41331.175
209


41331.176
210


41331.177
211


41331.178
212


41331.179
213


41331.180
214


41331.181
215


41331.182
216


41331.183
217


41331.184
218


41331.185
219


41331.186
220


41331.187
221


41331.188
222


41331.189
223


41331.190
224


41331.191
225


41331.192
226


41331.193
227


41331.194
228


41331.195
229


41331.196
230


41331.197
231


41331.198
232


41331.199
233


41331.200
234


41331.201
235


41331.202
236


41331.203
237


41331.204
238


41331.205
239


41331.206
240


41331.207
241


41331.208
242

Æ


41331.209