{
  "id": "RL34326",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34326",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 353434,
      "date": "2008-05-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:27:57.410427",
      "title": "Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Drought: Federal Water Management Issues",
      "summary": "Drought in the Southeast has brought congressional attention to an ongoing interstate conflict among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over water allocation in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system. Drawdown of Lake Lanier, the uppermost federal reservoir in the ACF basin, in fall 2007 to support minimum flows in the lower basin\u2019s Apalachicola River escalated the conflict. The Atlanta metropolitan area\u2019s municipal and industrial water users are concerned about drawdown of their principal (in some cases, their only) water supply. They question the justification for the minimum flow requirements. Lower basin stakeholders are concerned about sustaining river flows to meet their municipal, electricity, and ecosystem needs and are questioning the sufficiency of Georgia\u2019s municipal, industrial, and agricultural water conservation efforts.\nThe issue for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is how to manage federal reservoirs to equitably meet upper and lower basin multipurpose water needs, especially during drought. The challenge is complying with federal law (e.g., the Endangered Species Act (ESA)); minimizing harm to the river and Apalachicola Bay species, ecosystems, and oyster industry; and providing flows for hydropower and thermoelectric cooling, while also providing municipal and industrial water supply security. The Corps\u2019 challenge has increased as basin water demands have increased (e.g., water supply to support the growing Atlanta metro area, agriculture\u2019s increased reliance on irrigation, and ecosystem and species needs), creating conflicts between water in storage and flows for in-stream purposes. Is the ACF a harbinger of conflicts between ESA implementation and other water uses across the nation? Is the ACF a testing ground for both federal river management and resource allocation during drought in multi-state basins with riparian water laws? Legislation in the 110th Congress related to the ACF and southeast water supply issues includes H.R. 135, H.R. 2650, H.R. 3847, H.R. 5587, and S. 2165.\nACF drought management may set a precedent for drought responses on other rivers regulated by federal dams. In November 2007, the Corps began managing the ACF under an Exceptional Drought Operations (EDO) amendment to its previous operations plan (which consisted of a 2006 Interim Operations Plan (IOP) amending a draft 1989 comprehensive plan). The EDO lowered the minimum flow required in the Apalachicola River and allowed for greater reservoir refill before resuming normal operations, thus improving upper basin water supply security. Four species protected by the ESA depend on Apalachicola River flows. The EDO\u2019s immediate and long-term species impacts continue as subjects of study and debate. The EDO has not caused significant immediate harm to electricity generation or grid reliability. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) approved the EDO through June 1, 2008. On April 15, the Corps submitted to FWS a modification to the IOP; the Corps proposes that the modification be implemented starting June 1 until a new long-term ACF comprehensive plan is adopted. The Corps began revising its comprehensive plan during the 2007-2008 winter. With the failure of recent efforts by the Administration to broker a tri-state water allocation agreement by March 2008, the revision has gained additional significance for the future of ACF river management.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34326",
          "sha1": "57bab21cc1128e0d4c34ae7e3031f8d5b6bf2449",
          "filename": "files/20080501_RL34326_57bab21cc1128e0d4c34ae7e3031f8d5b6bf2449.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34326",
          "sha1": "29e1c48559952b439c896427a5806e2b3c1e1995",
          "filename": "files/20080501_RL34326_29e1c48559952b439c896427a5806e2b3c1e1995.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc809754/",
      "id": "RL34326_2008Feb08",
      "date": "2008-02-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Drought: Federal Water Management Issues",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080208_RL34326_209b7b00f09ff2fa963a6fe584dd53cb7f64b1a2.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080208_RL34326_209b7b00f09ff2fa963a6fe584dd53cb7f64b1a2.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}