By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Corps says no to water supply in its manual
Future events, such as court ruling reversal, could change plans
Placeholder Image

Leaning on a July 2009 federal judge's ruling, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't plan to address water supply in Lake Lanier as part of its update of the water control manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.

A Sept. 3 letter from Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, says as much.

The corps plans to "implement updated manuals that conform to the district court's order when it goes into full effect in July 2012, assuming that the district court order is unaffected by the pending appeals," Darcy said in the three-page letter.

She sent the letter to several interested U.S. senators, including Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, both Georgia Republicans.

Darcy's letter refers to Judge Paul Magnuson's ruling that Lake Lanier was never intended as drinking source for area governments.

His decision also calls for turning off the tap in three years unless Georgia, Florida and Alabama - foes in a long-running battle over water in the basin - can work out their differences on the matter.

Georgia also has appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit.

"I remain hopeful that the three states will resolve their dispute," Darcy said.

"If the parties were to agree on a comprehensive resolution of the dispute, if Congress were to authorize storage for water supply as a purpose of the Buford project, or if the district court order is reversed on appeal, the Army could consider a broader range of alternative operating schemes."

The corps' response didn't sit well with Isakson and Chambliss, who had called for the corps to include the effects of current and future water supply withdrawals from Lake Lanier in the updated manual.

"I am extremely disappointed," Isakson said. "As Judge Magnuson said, and Sen. Chambliss and I agree with, there is no reason the corps should limit its analysis in the ACF Basin."

"A document that doesn't take into account current and future water supply withdrawals from Lake Lanier as well as other points in the system is useless."

The corps' military leadership "told us that they would run a dual track analysis that takes water supply withdrawals into account, because they anticipate withdrawals from Lanier in the future," Isakson said.

"It is unfortunate that the corps' senior civilian leadership does not agree."

Chambliss said, "I believe it is a waste of time and resources for the (corps) to update the water control manuals without including water supply from Lake Lanier.
Sen. Isakson and I will continue to pursue a strategy that meets the needs of Georgians."

The two senators had sent a July 27 letter to Darcy and
Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on the matter.

They referred to Magnuson's ruling six days earlier that said Florida had failed to prove that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored evidence when it decided how much water Georgia should release downstream of Jim Woodruff Dam to support Florida's endangered species.

In 2008, federal wildlife officials determined the corps' interim operations plan would not jeopardize the survival of threatened Gulf sturgeon and three freshwater mussel species.

Isakson and Chambliss quoted Magnuson's ruling in saying that an environmental impact statement "that does not at least consider the effects of current and future water supply withdrawals from Lake Lanier as well as other points in the ACF system is, for all intents and purposes, a useless document."

"We strongly believe that the corps can update the manual in a way that accommodates any solution resulting from ongoing negotiations between the governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia," the senators said.

0915LAKEDOC