Transcript 14: Water Use Conflicts

Chapter 14: Water Use Conflicts
• Reasons for Water Use Conflicts
• Case Studies
– California
– Texas Panhandle
– Middle East
– Alabama and Florida vs. Georgia
• Tragedy of the Commons
Reasons for Water Use Conflicts
• Population Growth
– Demand for water increased 900% in 1900s
– Inadequate drinking water (quality / quantity)
– Growth in urban centers, takes rural water
• Water Consumption Growth
– More lawns, pools, washing machines,
dishwashers, showers, toilets
– Industrial and agricultural water use
Water Conflicts
• 47% of all land in river basins are within
multiple countries
• Few political boundaries are drawn along
watershed lines
• Upstream water users tend to hoard their
water
• Downstream users get less water, of
poorer quality
Good News - Bad News
• Good News:
– Increased water efficiencies
– Better water treatment
– More international coordination
• Bad News:
– Breakup of empires, such as Soviet Union
– Climate change
– Ethnic conflicts
Water Conflicts
• Pacific Institute (a nonprofit organization)
maintains a Water Conflict Chronology
• http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/
California Water Conflicts
• Within California
– Northern vs. Southern
– Agriculture vs. Urban
– Coastal vs. Inland
• With Neighbors => Colorado River
– Upper Basin vs. Lower Basin
– vs. Arizona
– vs. Mexico
California Population
Northern California
Wind Gap Pumping Plant, Tehachapi Range north of LA
California Aqueduct
Owens Valley Aqueduct
Mono Lake
Lower Colorado River
Arizona-California Water War
• For eight months in 1934, a contingent of
National Guard troops occupied the Parker
Dam site on the Colorado River and made
preparations to repel a possible invasion
from the west.
• The battle was settled when the U. S.
Supreme Court issued an injunction
prohibiting Arizona from interfering with
the construction of the dam. The dam was
completed in 1938.
Where’s the Next Water?
• Given that the water from California and
the surrounding states has all been
spoken for...
• Where should Southern California go
next?
a. Mexico
b. Pacific Northwest
c. South Pole
d. Canada
e. Alaska
Any Other Great Ideas?
Towing Icebergs Maybe?
Texas Panhandle
•
•
•
•
•
Groundwater pumping from the Ogallala
By 1990, 25% of the water was gone
Remaining water was too expensive
1,000,000 acres of farmland abandoned
Passed Senate Bill #1 in 1997 during a
drought
– Established regional planning groups
– Develop long-range plans
– Create Water Availability Models
Texas “Law of Capture”
• Allows users to pump as much as they can
• T. Boone Pickens developed a plan to
pump 200,000 Acre-Feet in the Panhandle
of Texas and ship it to the thirsty cities
• The cost to deliver to San Antonio is about
$2.5 billion
Texas Groundwater Districts
•
•
•
•
Texas now has 83 Groundwater Districts
No statewide system
Districts vary in how they are organized
Rarely deal with groundwater and surface water
in an integrated fashion
• 59 of districts are single-county
• Many are so small they don’t have resources to
carry out mission
• Some districts have no source of funding
S. Collier. 2006. Regional Institutions for Managing Water Resources.
Georgia Southern University
Middle East
• Israeli (Jewish) - Palestinian (Muslim)
– Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea are falling
– Heavy salinization of water
– Israel restricts water use by Arabs
• Turkey is building large dams upstream
– Syria and Iraq water supplies are being cut off
• Egypt is worried about upstream uses
– Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.
Water Use
Alabama and Florida
vs. Georgia
Two Separate Disputes
• ACT (Alabama - Georgia)
– Alabama
– Coosa
– Tallapoosa
• ACF (Alabama - Florida - Georgia)
– Apalachicola
– Chattahoochee
– Flint
• Almost all of the conflict has occurred in ACF
ACF Issues
• Georgia
– Wants water for growth, both supply and wastewater
dilution capacity
– Thinks since it s the upstream state should have first
rights
• Alabama
– Wants growth and hydropower
– Doesn’t think it should be penalized for being
downstream
• Florida
– Wants to protect Apalachicola Bay (oysters) and
endangered river species (mussels and sturgeon)
Stakeholders
• Homeowner groups
– Want to protect their land value and their environment
• Power Companies
– Want to protect their investments
• Cities and Counties
– Want to be able to grow
• Environmentalists
– Want to protect aquatic habitats
• Farmers
– Want water to irrigate
Florida vs. Georgia
• Farmers in Flint River basin pump water from Floridan
aquifer and from Flint River and tributaries to irrigate
• This reduces flow in the Flint, but the effect of
groundwater withdrawals is poorly understoond
• Flint River Drought Protection Act passed by GA
legislature in 2000 established fund to pay farmers not to
irrigate in a drought year
• Implemented in 2001 and 2002
Florida vs. Georgia
• In separate case FL sued US Fish & Wildlife Service over
Endangered Species Act in 2006
• COE operates four major dams along the ACF
• Operations threaten Gulf sturgeon and rare mussel species
– Reduced the area of flowing streams required for the endangered fat threeridge,
the threatened purple bankclimber, and other mussels.
– Critical spawning areas for Gulf sturgeon also have been left dry at times
• FL says it doesn't advocate removing the dams
• But it does demand that the Corps end its authorization of water use
from reservoirs by upstream cities, including Atlanta
• Case is Phase II of Magnuson court case
Florida vs. Georgia
• Interim operating plan is being used to control discharge
from Jim Woodruff dam at FL-GA line
• USFWS estimated in 2006 that mussels would survive
with a minimum flow of 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
• This flow was set many years ago by Corps of Engineers
for reasons other than mussels
– Records dating back to 1929 show that river never fell below this
level even in a drought
– Plant Scholz (next slide)
• To maintain 5,000 cfs at GA-FL line Corps of Engineers
must release about 1,500 cfs from Lake Lanier
Florida vs. Georgia
• Part of the reason for maintaining 5,000 cfs is Plant Scholz, a coalfired power plant just below FL-GA line that requires cooling water
– At lower flows water uptake is difficult
– Uses 130 million gpd to cool steam
– Serves 19,000 customers and is critical to maintaining electrical grid in local area
Lake Lanier
• Phase I Magnuson decision July 2009
– Paul A. Magnuson, US District Court Judge
• Lawsuit filed by Alabama in 1990
– FL soon joined lawsuit
• Did not address endangered species aspect of
conflict with Florida (that is Phase II)
• Issue is:
– Does Atlanta have the right to withdraw water from
Lake Lanier under the federal law that authorized
building the reservoir?
Magnuson Decision
• Congress authorized COE to build Buford dam in
1945/46 and construction finished in 1960
• Federal Water Supply Act requires:
– “Modifications of a reservoir project heretofore
authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed to
include storage [for water supply] which would
seriously affect the purposes for which the project
was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or
which would involve major structural or operational
changes shall be made only upon the approval of
Congress . . .
Magnuson Decision
• Record clearly shows that original authorization did not
include water supply
• Purpose of Lake Lanier was flood control, hydropower
generation, and improved navigation
• In 1980’s, COE internal operating documents show a
shift to ensuring water supply for Atlanta as a goal
• In 1989, draft Water Control Guidelines called for
reallocating 22% of conservation storage to water supply
for Atlanta
• COE decided this did not require Congressional
authorization
Magnuson Decision
• To avoid long legal battle, in 1997 legislatures in
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida passed separately laws
to establish ACT and ACF Compacts
– Created 2 water commissions to find a solution
– Federal commissioner oversaw compacts
– Agreed that if the commissions could not reach agreement within
a given time period they would be dissolved
– Time period extended several times
– Negotiations collapsed in 2003
Post-Searchlight, Bainbridge GA
Post, Cherokee Co AL, 2001
Magnuson Decision I
• In 2000, GA requested approval from COE for further
increase in withdrawal from Lake Lanier for Gwinnet Co
and downstream of Buford Dam for Atlanta
– Represented 34% of conservation storage in Lake Lanier
– COE denied request
• Judge Magnuson ruled that FL and AL were correct in
July 2009
– Reallocation of water to ensure water supply to
Atlanta was a major change and therefore required
Congressional approval
• Gave Atlanta 3 years to resolve conflict or cease
withdrawing
Magnuson Decision II
• In recent court decision on Phase II Judge
Magnuson ruled that Florida’s case is
moot
– Because of his earlier ruling on Phase I Georgia and
COE have 3 years to get approval from Congress for
a new operating plan for Lake Lanier
– Until the new operating plan is developed the effect
on endangered species is unknown
Tragedy of the Commons
• Why do we fight over water (and other
natural resources)?
• Tragedy of the Commons used to explain
human perspective that leads to resource
mismanagement and conflict
Tragedy of the Commons
• Taken from Gary W. Harding
– members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm
– Garrett Hardin, Science 162:1243, 1968
• What is the Commons?
– The "commons" is any resource which is shared by a
group of people. Such things as the air we breath and
the water we drink come from commons.
– In many parts of the world; new land for farming and
grazing land for stock, fish from the sea, and wood for
fuel and housing are treated as commons.
Tragedy of the Commons
Commons
• Fourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely
aligned collection of villages, each with a common
pasture for villagers to graze horses, cattle and sheep
• Each household attempted to gain wealth by putting as
many animals on the commons as it could afford
• As the village grew in size and more and more animals
were placed on the commons, overgrazing ruined the
pasture
• No stock could be supported on the commons thereafter
• As a consequence of population growth, greed, and the
logic of the commons, village after village collapsed
Logic of the Commons
• Each household has the right to take resources from and
put wastes into the commons.
• To accumulate wealth, each household believes that it
can acquire one unit of resources or dump one unit of
waste while distributing one unit of cost across all of the
households with whom the commons is shared.
• The gain to the household appears large and the cost
very small.
• Some households accumulate wealth more rapidly than
others and this, in turn, gives them the means to access
an even larger share of the commons.
Fallacy of the Commons
• All households are attempting to do the same thing.
• Thus, on average, one unit of gain for a household
actually produces a net one unit of cost for each
household.
• However, selfish households accumulate wealth from the
commons by acquiring more than their fair share of the
resources and paying less than their fair share of the
total costs.
• Ultimately, as population grows and greed runs rampant,
the commons collapses and ends in "the tragedy of the
commons"
Commons other than Land
• How could anyone own rain, wind, and the open ocean?
• Population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons has virtually
destroyed the worlds ocean fisheries and the Amazon rain forest.
• Huge tracts of land have succumbed to desertification.
• Crowding overwhelms Yosemite National Park and the freeways
and parking facilities in our big cities.
• The accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is
precipitating significant global warming which will produce climate
change
• A significant loss of biodiversity is underway; some call it a massextinction event.
Possible Solutions:
• Privatization:
– Common lands were parceled up into small tracts, each owned
by a household.
– If a household destroyed its own plot, it was its own fault.
– However, as population grew, each new generation of
households was left with a smaller portion of the original.
– There was still the opportunity for some households to
accumulate wealth by acquiring land from others.
– Thus, private ownership did nothing to control greed - it merely
shifted it to a new arena.
– The number of landless households grew rapidly, each one
descending deeper and deeper into abject poverty.
Possible Solutions
• Government regulation:
– Allocation of natural resources based on the Public
Trust Doctrine
– User fees in order to provide economic incentives for
conservation.
– Limitations on wasteful and abusive practices that
harm public welfare.
Reminder!
• Project presentations start Monday after
Thanksgiving break (Nov 29)
• Papers are due Nov 29
• Limit your presentation to no more than 10
slides.
• You can use Powerpoint, Word, or
anything you want.