Further thoughts on Jekyll Island Redevelopment
Water, water everywhere
By Kate Wiltrout and Mary Landers - Savannah Morning News - August 25, 2002
It seems a simple enough concept: The
water in Georgia's rivers, lakes and aquifers belongs to the people of
the state and should be managed in the public's interest.
But that idea -- commonly referred to as
the 'public resource doctrine' -- isn't as obvious as it appears.
It's at the center of a sprawling debate
over water issues in Georgia -- a debate expected to dominate next
year's legislative session. How it's handled could have drastic,
long-term consequences, not only for the people of Georgia, but for the
environment, too.
"Going back to the Norman Code, certain
things are part of the common -- air and water," said John Sibley of The
Georgia Conservancy, referring to the 11th century basis of English
common law. "These things are utterly essential, and they have to be
shared."
Sibley is concerned that natural interests
would be losing interests in the marketplace.
"The value of natural systems will be
greatly diminished in the valuation process," he said.
Likewise, some legislators worry that the
coast would lose in a bidding war for water against Atlanta.
They argue that the time has arrived to
change the way the state determines who controls its water.
And while the state decides, others are
watching.
Cutting off Atlanta's straw
To state Sen. Eric Johnson, the simple
statement that water is a public resource could be a big weapon in
protecting coastal waters. Fast-growing Atlanta has an almost
unquenchable thirst, and Johnson fears the capital could siphon off
Savannah River water to the detriment of those living downstream.
He worries that our aquifer is at risk,
too. Already, coastal counties must limit their withdrawals from the
Floridan aquifer, one of the largest sources of fresh water in the
country, to protect it from saltwater intrusion.
"If the coast doesn't stand up for public
resource language, then we're going to find all of our water sucked up
by Atlanta," said Johnson, the Senate minority leader. "The public
resource (doctrine) protects our right to downstream water."
To Johnson, the legislature has the
responsibility to determine who owns the water. When ownership is
muddied, policies are muddled, he believes.
"Determining the ownership and who gets
the limited resource is ultimately what we have to do as policy makers,"
Johnson said. "Otherwise you get bans on the aquifer -- a sledgehammer
approach -- or everyone gets water and you're going to run out in 20
years."
In 2001, Johnson was one of six sponsors
of a Water Bill of Rights, asserting that water is a public resource
that the state should manage in the best interests of the people.
It died, Johnson said, partly because
industrial and commercial interests worried about their access to water.
But aquaculture -- from shrimping to sport-fishing -- depends on having
enough water flowing from the Savannah, Altamaha and Ogeechee rivers
into the marshes that cradle so much sea life.
Other local politicians and officials
aren't as concerned about the public resource issue -- yet. The state
study committee that's spent more than a year hashing out water issues
is likely to release its final report this week. The committee voted
earlier not to include a definitive statement about water ownership --
public or private -- leaving the current system in place and throwing
the issue into the legislature's lap.
Richmond Hill City Manager Mike Melton is
content to wait and see.
"My understanding of it is they're really
not going to change much of the law as it's now written," Melton said.
"We're pretty comfortable with the way the law is written right now."
But he does think the Environmental
Protection Division waffles in its management of the state's water.
"The EPD contradicts itself," Melton said.
"On one hand they say it's the state's water, but yet the state is
unwilling to for instance, tell the city of Savannah 'You have a permit
for too much water and you have to give some back.'"
Though Richmond Hill and Savannah have
battled over access to the Floridan aquifer -- with Savannah having
water to spare and Richmond Hill needing more -- neither government is
overly concerned about the ownership issue.
"I don't see it as being really that
critical," said Bob Scanlon, Savannah's environmental affairs officer.
"I think what we have is working."
What's a marsh worth?
Environmentalists do see water rights as
critical, though. They'll be lobbying lawmakers to include the statement
that water is a public resource because they fear the environment will
get short shrift otherwise.
"The economic benefits of in-stream flows
-- they're there and you can calculate them," said Sally Bethea,
executive director of the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. "But
typically in the marketplace they don't have a value that's as obvious
as 'I'll pay you this much for each gallon to ship it out of state.'"
David Kyler, executive director of the
Center for a Sustainable Coast, routinely points out the economic
benefits of our watery coastal environment.
Coastal Georgia generates about $2 billion
a year in tourism. Easily a quarter of that is in nature-based tourism,
he calculates. The commercial fishing and seafood processing industry
add another $500 million.
All told, that's more than $1 billion a
year of coastal Georgia's economy dependent on natural waterways. And
that doesn't take into account services like flood control and water
storage provided by marshes and aquifers.
So would all that be taken into account if
water were sold as a commodity?
The simple answer is no, Kyler said,
adding, "It never has been before."
And it would be tough to retrieve water's
status as a common resource if it were lost, said Neill Herring, a
lobbyist for the Sierra Club."Once it becomes a property right, the only
way to undo it is to buy the whole thing back," Herring said. "It
becomes a gold rush -- 'I get mine and the hell with you.' They'll be
nothing left for fish and wildlife."
Georgians hold their natural places dear
and many would recoil from the possibility of damaging them, Bethea
said, but money changes the equation.
"The thought of rivers becoming dry
ditches devoid of life is anathema to most people," she said. "The
problem is when you get the almighty dollar involved."
The South watches while Georgia decides
Outside Georgia's borders, observers are
anxious to see where the state takes its water policy and how it
addresses the rights issue.
Dodd Galbreath is a native of Vidalia who
serves as policy director of Tennessee's Department of Environment and
Conservation.
Since the 1970s, Galbreath said, Tennessee
law has specified that its waters are held in trust for the people of
Tennessee. That concept, he said, is the foundation of all Tennessee
water policy.
Things are different out West. Many
western states have a "first-come, first-serve" approach to managing
water.
In Texas, for instance, the water in
rivers, streams and lakes is considered state property. The government
allocates it based on the idea "reasonable" use.
But aquifer water is treated differently
under Texas law. Groundwater is considered the property of whoever owns
the land above it, and landowners can pump as much as they want --
regardless of how it impacts others.
It's one thing, Galbreath said, if Georgia
decides that water shouldn't be protected as public resource. But it's
another matter for policy makers to ignore the ownership issue and let
circumstances -- or lawsuits -- dictate the future.
"I think a lot of southern states are
looking at Georgia and saying 'Please don't mess this up,'" Galbreath
said. "The precedents we set for water policy in the South are either
going to be the mistakes the West has made, or the lessons learned from
the mistakes the West has made."
Reporter Kate Wiltrout can be reached at
912-652-0397 or katew@savannahnow.com. Reporter Mary Landers can be reached
at 912-652-0337 or landers@savannahnow.com.
|
