Competing Demands Among Water Uses in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
| Geolocation: | 33° 40' 7", -84° 26' 22.9999" |
|---|---|
| Total Population | 6.76,700,000 millionmillion |
| Total Area | 21,90021,900 km² 8,455.59 mi² km2 |
| Climate Descriptors | Dry-summer, temperate |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | agricultural- cropland and pasture, agricultural- confined livestock operations |
| Important Uses of Water | Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Fisheries - wild |
| Water Features: | Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin |
| Riparians: | United States of America, Georgia (U.S.), Alabama, Florida |
| Water Projects: | Flint River Watershed Coalition |
| Agreements: | Flint River Basin Plan, Georgia Water Stewardship Act |
Contents
Summary
Water management in the ACF has long been a highly contentious issue. Conflict over water in the ACF is largely driven by three competing demands: water for urban and industrial uses (water quantity, assets, and governance) in upstream Atlanta, agricultural water needs (water quantity and assets) in southern Georgia, and water for ecological and fisheries needs (ecosystems, water quantity, water quality) in Florida’s Apalachicola Bay. While conflict in the ACF has received significant attention, the potential of improved agricultural policy and management to create water savings in the Basin has received surprisingly little attention. This analysis addresses the following questions: 1) Do agricultural subsidies influence water use in the Flint River Basin and can direct subsidies be used to potentially reduce conflict over water in the ACF Basin? 2) Can agricultural policy and management promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins? The case finds that agricultural subsidies play an important role in farmer choice about which crops to grow, thereby indirectly influencing water use. For this reason, altering agricultural subsidies and encouraging farmers to grow more water efficient crops can greatly improve water use in the ACF and other water-stressed basins. In water-stressed basins with significant agricultural activity, attention should be paid to the role of local and national agricultural policies—including crop subsidies—in driving water use. Particularly as climate change exacerbates water tensions, opportunities to increase the efficiency of water use needs to be seriously considered.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
The ACF (Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint River) Basin is one of the most contentious watersheds in the world. The basin’s waters originate in northern Georgia, travel through eastern Alabama and flow out through the Florida panhandle into the Apalachicola Bay. Atlanta, the region’s economic hub, is located upstream and is one of the basin’s predominantusers of water. Southern Georgia and Alabama are heavily agricultural, and demand significant amounts of water for irrigation. Downstream, the basin’s waters play a key role in Florida’s fisheries and the ecological health of the Apalachicola Bay. The failure to reconcile these competing interests and uses for water has made water management in the basin highly contentious, a problem that is further complicated by water quality issues associated with insufficient wastewater treatment and agricultural runoff throughout the basin.
Conflict over water in the ACF has been studied extensively by academics and practitioners, and numerous proposals for how to improve management of the basin and reduce conflict have been made. Proposed approaches for addressing the basin’s conflict can be summarized as focusing on: 1) institutional arrangements between states, 2) dam operating policies, and 3) water consumption in Atlanta. Institutional arrangements have attempted to develop cooperative management committees in the hope that, through negotiation, the parties involved in the conflict could come to agreement. These arrangements have taken various forms, including at Tri-State Compact, which was—as mandated by the Supreme Court in 1997—supported by a mediation process. A joint-fact finding process has also been undertaken. The Army Corps of Engineers has attempted to meet competing water uses through the dam operating policies. The Chattahoochee River has 13 dams, and the timing of the releases from these dams influence the available water throughout the basin. The third major approach has been to target water consumption in Atlanta. As a rapidly developing industrial center, Atlanta’s water consumption has risen significantly over the past several decades, causing concern among other stakeholders. Because Atlanta is located in the upper portion of the watershed, the logic is that if Atlanta reduces its consumption, more water will be available for downstream uses. Unfortunately, to date, none of these approaches have successfully resolved the conflict.
In 1990 Alabama sued the Army Corps of Engineers for management of Lake Lanier, and the case has been a source of ongoing litigation ever since. Given that the case has been involved in litigation for over 20 years and repeated attempts to resolve the conflict have failed,[1] it appears that new approaches for resolving this conflict are needed. This need is intensified by the fact that climate change may lead to more frequent and more severe droughts and water shortages in the basin, which is likely to further exacerbate conflict if tense relations in the ACF aren’t addressed.
Agriculture in the Flint Basin
Along the Flint River in Georgia, agriculture is an economic driver and agriculture is responsible for the majority of water the basin's water use. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources acknowledges that agriculture "is the economic engine of southwest Georgia, and water is the basis of successful agriculture."[2] It is the most heavily irrigated area in the basin: in the lower Flint over 90% of the water used is for agriculture.[2] Flint River Basin water management is largely centered on providing sufficient and consistent flows for agricultural uses, with less attention to water conservation, efficiency measures, or concern for other water uses throughout the larger ACF Basin.
The Flint River is one of Georgia’s largest agricultural production areas, with revenue contributions estimated at $5.8 billion in 2006, 34% of the regional economy.[3] Cotton is the major commodity produced. Pecans require water throughout most the year, and vegetables and corn have seasonal spikes in the spring. Cotton and peanuts have peak water rdemand in the summer months, which places them in direct competition with other basin demands that also peak during this time (fisheries and recreational uses).
Issues and Stakeholders
Maintaining water supply for agriculture and irrigation
NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Industry/Corporate Interest
Variables: 1. Water quantity (water supply) 2. Assets (agricultural industry, regional economy) 3. Governance (agricultural policies and permitting systems)
Stakeholders: 1. Farmers and livestock operators (industry)
2. State of Georgia (territorial government)Ensuring sufficient water for upstream municipal and industrial uses
NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens
Variables: 1. Water quantity (water supply) 2. Assets (agricultural industry, regional economy) 3. Governance (agricultural policies and permitting systems)
Stakeholders: 1. City of Atlanta (local government) 2. Atlanta Regional Council (intergovernmental coordination agency) 3. State of Georgia (territorial government) 4. US Army Corp of Engineers (national government)
5. residents of Atlanta (community)Maintaining ecological health and sustaining fisheries in Florida’s Apalachicola Bay
NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Industry/Corporate Interest
Variables: 1. Water quantity (water supply) 2. Assets (urban development and economic activity) 3. Governance (water management and storage policies/plans)
Stakeholders: 1. Fisherman (industry) 2. State of Florida (territorial government) 3. US Department of the Interior (national government)
4. US Environmental Protection Agency (national government)Inter-state political tension
NSPD: Water Quantity, Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government
Variables: 1. Ecosystem (fishery and bay ecosystem health) 2. Water quality (quality of water in streams and entering bay) 3. Governance (compliance with environmental protection policies and mandates)
Stakeholders: 1. State of Georgia (territorial government) 2. State of Alabama (territorial government)
3. State of Florida (territorial government
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreASI:Agricultural Subsidies
Agricultural production has received far less attention than other water uses in the ACF, and agricultural management has been largely overlooked as a source of potential means of addressing the basin’s water issues. This is surprising, given that agriculture is generally a relatively inefficient user of water and may offer significant “low-hanging fruit” for water savings. Since agriculture is a dominant user of water in the ACF and the primary use of water in the Flint River sub-basin (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2006), attention should be paid to how agricultural policies and management can be used to improve water management in the basin. Can agricultural policies, mainly rethinking subsidies, encourage water savings in the Flint River Basin, thereby helping to address basin-wide conflict in the ACF?(read the full article... )
Contributed by: L. Kuhl (last edit: 28 October 2013)
Key Questions
Balancing Industries & Sectors: What role can agricultural subsidies play in finding solutions to complex water management problems?
1. Do agricultural subsidies influence water use in the Flint River Basin? Our analysis shows that agricultural subsidies play a key role in influencing what crops farmers grow, thereby directly affecting water use in the basin.
2. Can agricultural subsidies potentially be used to improve water management and reduce conflict in the ACF basin? This analysis suggests that altering national subsidies for certain crops could significantly reduce agricultural water requirements in the Flint, thereby freeing up water for other uses in the ACF and potentially reducing conflict.
3. Can agricultural policy and management—particularly subsidies—promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins? The case of the Flint River Basin suggests that agricultural policies and management strategies, such as direct subsidies to farmers, can be used to reduce water demand and potentially promote more sustainable water use in water-stressed basins.
See the article Agricultural Subsidies for more information on agricultural subsidies within the Flint River Basin
Influence Leadership and Power: How do national policies influence water use at the local level?
This case study indicates that national policies, such as government subsidies for certain crops, can significantly influence water use at the local level. By altering subsidies to encourage farmers to grow more water-efficient crops, national policy could potentially support more sustainable water use. However, it is important to keep in mind that changing government agricultural subsidies will have many other social and economic effects that must be considered.
- ^ Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). (2012, February 15). Tri-State Wars. http://www.atlantaregional.com/environment/tri-state-water-wars
- ^ 2.0 2.1 Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. (2006) Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. March 20, 2006. online: http://www1.gadnr.org/frbp/Assets/Documents/Plan22.pdf
- ^ Couch, C., & McDowell, R. J. (2006). Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection.
|External Links=
|Case Review=}}
