1.  Who and what is the Georgia Water Coalition?  The Georgia Water Coalition is an alliance of 150 organizations committed to ensuring that water is managed fairly for all Georgians and protected for future generations. The coalition was formed in 2002 to bring together concerned citizens and groups from around the state.  The Georgia Water Coalition created a report outlining its recommendations for water management in Georgia. Click here to see our report (.pdf, 748 KB) or a full list of the Georgia Water Coalition partner organizations. 

2.  What does the Georgia Water Coalition want?  The Georgia Water Coalition believes that the surface and ground waters of the state must continue to be managed as a public resource, regulated by the state in the public interest and in a sustainable manner.  There are others who continue to say that the only way to efficiently allocate water is by marketing water withdrawal permits.  However, if markets decide who gets water permits, water will soon cease to flow downhill to serve people.  It will move uphill to where the money is.  The Georgia Water Coalition takes a more traditional view.  We believe that water is so essential to the common good that it should not be privately owned.  This belief is steeped in history, going back in Georgia to the days of Oglethorpe.  It is currently affirmed in Georgia law and it needs to stay that way.  The Georgia Water Coalition also advocates the creation and implementation of a comprehensive statewide water management plan, as mandated by House Bill 237, which was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in 2004.   

3.  What is a comprehensive statewide water management plan?  The comprehensive statewide water management plan proposed by the Georgia Water Coalition would consist of river basin and groundwater management plans integrated into a cohesive statewide plan.  The plan would manage state waters for the maximum benefit of citizens and local economies and would be created with input from residents of all parts of the state.  It should also respect natural river basin and aquifer boundaries and the safe yield of Georgia’s waterways (for more on safe yield, see Question # 7). 

4.  How should the comprehensive statewide water management plan be created?  The comprehensive statewide water management plan should be created from the bottom up, starting with involvement at the local and regional levels within each river basin in Georgia.  This will ensure a final water management plan that has the backing of local communities and citizens.  The state would guide local planning efforts by creating overarching policies on water management (e.g. interbasin transfer policies, permitting criteria, instream flow requirements, etc.).  These guidelines should provide some consistency for the regional planning processes across the state.  However, the plan should not be created solely by EPD in Atlanta.  Unfortunately, as of early 2005, the Governor and the General Assembly have not proposed sufficient funding to allow for local and regional planning.  We encourage you to contact your elected officials to ask them to make sure that the plan is fully funded. 

5.  When will the legislature decide on how Georgia will manage its water?  According to House Bill 237, the Environmental Protection Division must have a draft plan completed by July 2007.  The legislature must then approve the comprehensive statewide water management plan in 2008. 

6.  How will the comprehensive statewide water management plan be enforced?  The Georgia Water Coalition proposes that EPD make all water withdrawal permitting decisions in accordance with the comprehensive statewide water management plan.  We also propose that local governments be ineligible for state grants or loans for water supply projects that are contrary to the plan.  Local governments would be required to evaluate and implement conservation measures before increased water withdrawals are allowed.  We assume that enforcement of the statewide plan will be greatly facilitated if local citizens and governments are involved from the beginning with the plan’s creation (see Question 4).   

7.  How can the comprehensive statewide water management plan ensure the protection of natural systems?  The Georgia Water Coalition proposes requiring the development of “safe yields” for all of Georgia’s water resources.  Safe yield is the amount of water available for withdrawal from a stream without impairing the stream’s biological, chemical, and physical integrity.  In other words, it leaves the stream with the water necessary to keep the ecosystem functioning as it should.  River and stream habitats require different volumes of water flowing at different times of year, so that the plants and animals in the area receive the nutrients they need to survive.  Some organisms also use streams to transport them to food sources and sites to reproduce.  All of these natural processes are needed to maintain a healthy water supply that is readily available for people to use.  Natural systems provide this “social benefit” to us for the low price of our simply allowing them to function. 

8.  Why has water availability in Georgia become so critical in recent years? For many years, Georgia has been blessed with an abundant supply of water.  This heritage of plentiful, clean, flowing water has fueled growth and has made our state an attractive location for businesses and families.  However, we now face a new reality.  Increased water consumption, as well as an extended drought from 1998 until 2002, has made it clear that water is a finite resource.  Georgia is now at a crossroads. 

9.  What about all the recent rain?  If there is no longer a drought, then why is water management still such a big deal?  Continued population growth in and around Atlanta and other parts of Georgia are putting increasing stresses on our water supplies.  The Tri-State negotiations with Alabama and Florida have broken down.  Courts will now have to resolve the dispute between the three states, and this resolution will affect the distribution and availability of Georgia’s water.  Furthermore, the dangers inherent in water markets – water going to the highest bidder, communities and farmers losing their water supplies, other states being able to tap into Georgia’s water, etc. – will occur regardless of how much rain has fallen.  Although the recent rains have been beneficial in replenishing some of our thirsty waterways, we are still in need of a solid water management plan for the state.  

10. Why should Georgians be concerned about the way our water is managed?  A statewide plan is the only way to ensure that citizens, local governments, agriculture, and industry have adequate water to meet their future needs while also ensuring protection of our water resources.  If water is changed from being a public resource that we share in common to a privately held commodity, then the state is creating a situation whereby a small number of groups or individuals can retain and control rights to use a significant amount of water.  Such an approach can assign little or no value to water that is necessary for habitat or to the numerous free, natural services provided by aquifers and streams.  If we move towards a market-based approach to water management, both the environment and taxpayers will certainly suffer. 

11. How can I get involved with the Georgia Water Coalition?   Go here to download our participation statement.  Talk to your friends and co-workers about the Georgia Water Coalition, and encourage them to write letters and to sign our online petition. Speak to neighbors in your community, and get your community engaged on this important issue.  Above all, write, call and meet with your elected officials.  They are the ones who will be approving the comprehensive statewide water management plan in 2008, and they need to know how to do the right thing for Georgia’s waters.  Sustainable strategies must be used to protect natural systems and meet human and economic needs. 

12. How does Georgia currently manage its water resources?  Georgia manages its water under a regulated riparian system.  This means that anyone living next to a stream, or over an aquifer, has the right to the reasonable use of the water flowing over, adjacent to, or underneath his or her land.  For those users withdrawing over 100,000 gallons of water per day from surface or ground water sources, EPD is required to issue permits only after making sure that such large uses are reasonable and do not impair other uses.  One of the most important aspects of this system is that water use is tied to the land; you must have property along or above a water source to have the right to use the water.  See also Question 24, note 2 infra. 

13. What will happen to Georgia’s current system of water withdrawal permits under the Georgia Water Coalition’s recommendations?  Under the Coalition’s recommendations, the current system of water withdrawal permits will remain intact.  The only change will be to bring agricultural permits under the same standards as all other water users.[1]  Staying true to Georgia’s legal tradition, the Coalition supports keeping the state responsible for managing water comprehensively, addressing the needs of agriculture, business, public health and welfare, and the integrity of Georgia’s natural systems in an equitable fashion.  If a water source is fully allocated, the state should retain responsibility for making tough, albeit fair, decisions about allocation among competing users, utilizing public input and drawing from the comprehensive statewide water management plan.  

14. For a while, Atlanta privatized its water system.  Is this what the Georgia Water Coalition is fighting against?  No.  There is an important difference between privatizing the right to withdraw the water from a stream, which the Georgia Water Coalition is against, and a given water user privatizing the distribution of that water, which is what the City of Atlanta did.  The city chose to hire a private company, United Water, a subsidiary of French-based multinational Suez, to manage its water distribution system (Atlanta has since reclaimed responsibility for its own water management). The water this company distributed was still a public resource, with the treatment and distribution managed by a private company.  The Georgia Water Coalition does not oppose private management of public facilities as long as there is strict public oversight.  It must be noted, however, that the three multinational corporations (Suez, Vivendi Universal, and RWE/Thames Water) that often bid to manage water distribution systems are also active in efforts to privatize the water resource itself.  Such realities do raise concerns that the management of water distribution systems represents a possible “foot in the door” to privatization of the resource itself somewhere down the road.  

15. Isn’t water already a commodity?  What about bottled water?  When water is recognized as a public resource, a private water bottling company has to get permission from the state to withdraw it for the purpose of bottling and selling it, just like other manufacturers who use water in their consumer products.  If the state recognizes such water withdrawals as a reasonable use of the water resource, the water can be used for this purpose.  If not, it can’t.  Recognizing bottled water as a reasonable use does not make the water in the stream, or in the ground, a commodity.   

16. What uses are “reasonable” uses?  There is no absolute answer as to whether a given use is reasonable.  The doctrine of reasonable use means that you are allowed to withdraw water only to the extent that it doesn’t harm your downstream neighbor and leaves enough water for the natural system.  By nature, the word “reasonable” has some built-in flexibility; it varies over time and depends on the other stresses present on a given body of water.  The idea of reasonable use developed historically in the courts, with judges deciding whether a use was reasonable on a case-by-case basis.  Under the regulated riparian system in place in Georgia, the state determines whether large withdrawals of water are reasonable and administers permits accordingly; the courts still decide whether smaller water withdrawals are reasonable when disputes arise between users. 

17. I heard that if we state in law that water is a public resource then citizens will have a new right to sue.  Is this true?  No.  The aim of the Georgia Water Coalition is to reaffirm  and reinforce the legal system we have now in place.  To state in law that “water is a public resource” does not give environmentalists (or anyone else) a new right to sue.  We aren’t trying to deviate from Georgia’s current tradition of water law; we are trying to protect it from being changed.  By contrast, placing the water under a new system of market distribution is virtually guaranteed to encourage lawsuits because it creates new property interests and, as a result, new rights to sue.    

18. What does the public trust doctrine have to do with the Georgia Water Coalition’s proposal?  Nothing.  Public trust is a distinct legal doctrine and is not related to the Georgia Water Coalition’s position that water is a common resource.  We believe that effective water management that is fair to all users begins with the principle that water is a common resource.  From that basic principle flows the legal system of regulated riparian rights we currently have in place.  This is the traditional system of water management in Georgia, and the Georgia Water Coalition wants to keep it that way. 

19. If you aren’t trying to establish a new right to sue, what are you trying to accomplish?  Why is this such an important issue?  Increased water use, population growth and the certainty of more droughts in the future have made it clear that our water resources in Georgia are now, and will continue to be, in limited supply.  Proponents of water markets have advocated their use to determine who gets water and who does not.  This proposition has dramatic implications for Georgia’s future.  Such an approach would break with our current legal tradition that respects water as a shared resource.  Without a strong affirmation in law that water is a public resource that should be managed in the best interests of Georgia’s homes, businesses, farms, and communities, we risk sliding down the road to selling water to ever higher bidders.  It is speculated that decisions here in Georgia could have implications for other states in the Eastern United States as they face similar pressures to depart from their longstanding legal traditions, which respect water as a public resource, in favor of the marketable rights approach embraced by the Western United States, which has caused serious problems in that region of the country. 

What we need is a comprehensive statewide water management plan that will enable the state to continue to manage water fairly and equitably for all users and to make more informed decisions about how water should be allocated and reallocated. 

20. How could a market approach negatively impact our towns and communities?  Water markets would force small towns to bid on water every time they desire to expand, and they will not be able to compete against larger users with deeper pockets.  Under this scenario, the towns will either lose money trying to secure more water, or they will pass the higher cost of water onto their customers.  Here is how it would work: a permit holder who has the right to withdraw water for a pulp mill, or for crop irrigation, may decide that his current business is no longer viable, and he must determine what to do with its assets.  If, under the market system, the water withdrawal permit is treated as property, instead of as a mechanism for the environmental protection of the resource, it becomes another asset for disposal to the highest bidders (which will not be the small towns).  This would result in separating the right to use the water from the land lying next to the water source and allowing it to be sold elsewhere.  In the long run, this will end the tradition of riparian rights to water according to reasonable use, and it will create situations where Georgia communities alongside watercourses may not be able to use those sources to grow without paying significantly higher costs. 

21. Aren’t water markets a good way to stimulate economic development in Georgia?  Not in this case.  Water markets have too many negative side effects (see question 20) and may actually impede economic development.  These negative side effects will impact small businesses more than larger businesses that are better able to absorb the higher costs of water.  If a firm is considering locating in Georgia and is faced with the prospect of having to bid for water withdrawal rights, it may decide to locate elsewhere (either another part of Georgia where people cannot trade water withdrawal permits, or another state altogether) where it can get the water for free. 

22. What about the fact that water markets are in place in the West?  Shouldn’t we bring them to the East?  Absolutely not.  Water law in the West has developed under a completely different system, called prior appropriation, that is much more favorable to market transactions.  Prior appropriation means that a water user who is first in time gets an absolute right to the use of a water source.  Because water in the West is so scarce, markets were seen as a good way to put water to its highest and best use.  Anyone who has seen the condition of most of the watercourses in the West, or who has talked to officials there, knows better, though.  Markets have brought much more harm than good to Western communities.  By contrast, in the East (including Georgia), water law has developed according to riparian rights, meaning that someone who lives along a river or above an aquifer gets the right to a reasonable use of the water, so long as he or she does not harm downstream users or impair the overall quality of the natural system.  This system of water law relies on someone (the courts or the state) to determine, in light of all stresses in a watershed, whether a given use is reasonable.  Two people acting according to market forces cannot make such a determination.   

23. When a water source is fully allocated, if a market does not reallocate, or reassign, withdrawal permits, how will the state do it?  In other words, if water is recognized as a public resource, and the water resource is fully allocated, how do you decide who gets the water and who doesn’t?  A water source is “fully allocated” when, because of concerns about adequate flows or aquifer levels, EPD determines that it cannot issue any new withdrawal permits.  At this point, any reallocation should occur according to the comprehensive statewide water management plan, which we envision will have been developed by the people of each river basin.  Additionally, the law states in no uncertain terms that EPD has the ability to modify existing water withdrawal permits in order to accommodate new users (to spur economic growth, for instance), so long as it follows the doctrine of reasonable use. 

24. Would the state’s revocation or modification of a water withdrawal permit be considered a taking of private property requiring compensation?  What about the rejection of an application for a permit?  Since Georgia’s water resources are public and not private in nature, there is no one “owner” of a given water supply.  The state administers permits that give different riparian owners the right to use the water, but these permits do not convey any property right that would require compensation if modified or changed.  Water withdrawal in itself is not a property right; the property right consists of the added value that a stream gives to the land through which it flows, a right which water markets would sever from the riparian lands.  Subject to several conditions outlined in the current Surface Water Withdrawal Act, the state retains the discretion to revoke or deny permits based on its assessment of the water supply.[2]   

25. If we state in law that water is a public resource, can we also state in law that permits can be traded?  No.  Trading permits undermines the concept of water being owned in common by everyone, and it implies that the permits themselves carry a property right separate from the right to use the water.  Furthermore, in an area of the state covered by a permit moratorium, trading permits would enable some users to broker side deals among themselves and then cut in front of those who were next in line to receive the right to a reasonable use of the water.   

26. How does water permit trading differ from pollution credit trading under the Clean Air Act? 

These two ideas differ greatly.  First, the pollution credit trading program is simply one part of a larger Clean Air Act program designed to significantly reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants.  The first step in that program was to place a national cap on the total emissions of SO₂ and NOx, and that cap has now been lowered even further.  Next, power plants were given “allowances” that allowed them to emit a certain amount of pollutants under the cap.  If the plants were able to change their operations so they produced less pollution than their allowances allowed, they could then sell those excess allowances to other plants.  This trading system is based on a sophisticated monitoring system to ensure that actual reductions are being realized and that the allowances available are in fact real.  Finally, this entire system is subject to external limitations, as no one plant can emit in violation of the Clean Air Act or state law, regardless of how many allowances it purchases. 

Water permit trading as proposed in Georgia is fundamentally different.  First, the overall goal is not to reduce water usage or even change any water user’s behavior.  The entire basis of the pollution credit trading program is providing incentives for emitters to change their behavior to emit less and, thereby, benefit the environment.  Water permit trading as proposed would require no such change in behavior in order for permitees to realize a profit on their permits, because very few users actually use the amount of water they are permitted to use.  These permitees could sell their excess capacity for profit and not take any steps to conserve the resource.  Permit selling also would not benefit the environment, because water that is allocated but not used would likely start to be used, leaving less water in the rivers. 

Another difference between pollution credit trading and water permit trading is the national cap established in the air context.  Such a cap would be necessary for any water market system to work, and we don’t have enough information in Georgia to know the maximum amount that can be withdrawn from a river and still leave the river healthy.  We also don’t have in place the extensive monitoring system that exists in the air context, so we don’t know how much water is being used and how much is available to be re-allocated to other users.   

A final difference is that the Clean Air Act places limits on the amount of pollution that one plant can emit, regardless of the allowances the plant can afford to acquire.  Because of this, a plant will not be likely to acquire more allowances than it can use.  There is no such limit in the context of water, so there would exist an incentive for some to purchase as much water as they could, regardless of whether they could use it.  This hoarding would likely drive the price of water even higher. 

Other differences concern the nature of water and air.  Air does not exist in a defined geographic area like water does.  The cap on air emissions is a national cap, and it is irrelevant under the CAA where those emissions occur.  Water is different, however, and permits to withdraw water are not as fungible as air permits.  It makes a difference where water is withdrawn from a basin, because flows differ in different parts of the basin.  Therefore a permit to withdraw X amount that was issued to a user downstream may not be able to be used by an upstream user due to lower flows.   

Finally, Georgia has an extensive common law history associated with water withdrawals that does not exist in the air context.  Allowing permit trading would eviscerate this history, divorce the water from the land, and reduce the tax base and water availability in local communities.  None of these risks are present in the context of air pollution credit trading. 

27. If we state in law that water is a public resource, and I have a farm pond that is completely on my property, won’t this give folks an argument that they should have access to fish or swim in my pond?  No.  Stating in law that water is a public resource does not give someone a right to trespass on someone else’s private property.   This includes fishing and swimming in a pond or other body of water that is located entirely within private property.  

28. What does the current water-withdrawal law say about farm ponds?  The current law does not include farm ponds in its definition of “surface waters,” so long as they are contained entirely within a single person’s property.  Property owners with farm ponds therefore do not have to obtain a withdrawal permit to make use of such ponds.  The Georgia Water Coalition does not seek to change this law.   

29. If we state in law that water is a public resource, then won’t that mean that it will be disproportionately allocated to the areas with the highest populations---especially metro Atlanta?  No.  If the Georgia Water Coalition’s approach to water management is implemented, every river basin of Georgia will be part of the comprehensive statewide water management plan.  As mentioned above, the people of each river basin would have a voice in the development of this plan.  Ultimately, the people of each river basin decide the fate of their water resources.  However, if water is treated as a private commodity, water will go to where the money is.  That’s when water is likely to go to Atlanta or Tampa or any other buyer that is willing to pay the highest price for the water in question.   

30. If we state in law that water is a public resource, will residential consumers get priority over commercial and agricultural sectors in their water needs?  No.  See above.  All types of water uses – whether for residential, industrial, or agricultural purposes – will benefit from a comprehensive state water plan developed by the people in each river basin.  If water is treated as a private commodity, however, only those users able to pay the highest price for water will get their desired share of a limited water resource – and in most cases the small farmers and communities in the state will not be able to compete with larger agribusiness and industry interests.  Therefore, it is possible that growing municipalities that need more water to support this growth will have to buy it, passing this extra cost onto consumers.   

31. How will agricultural interests be treated under the Water Coalition’s proposal?  Agricultural withdrawals will continue, subject to the same metering, reporting and permitting conditions as all other water users in the state.  This will create a level playing field among all users.  The Georgia Water Coalition believes that agricultural users should monitor and report their withdrawals; it does not seek to disadvantage farmers and other agricultural users of water.  When all users, including agricultural users, monitor and report their withdrawals, Georgia will finally be in a position to maintain its water resources at the highest quality while preventing foreseeable shortages.   

32. Will the rules for groundwater use change?  Groundwater will continue to be subject to a permit system, as it is today under the Groundwater Use Act.  The Georgia Water Coalition’s report recognizes that groundwater and surface water are interrelated – less groundwater can mean less surface water, and vice versa.  The comprehensive statewide water management plan must take both aquifers and surface waters into account in an integrated way.  The Coalition believes that the moratorium on Aquifer Storage and Recovery (“ASR”) should continue indefinitely and that groundwater metering and reporting should be implemented.  The Coalition also thinks that the state should not issue new groundwater use permits, or modifications of existing permits, without examining comprehensively the impact on the state’s groundwater resources.   

33. I’ve seen the term “usufruct” in connection with the Georgia Water Coalition’s proposal.  What is a usufruct and why do we care?  A usufruct literally means a “right to use.”  The term originated in Roman law and was used to describe the right to use another’s property without damaging or diminishing that property.[3]  This word describes the rights that Georgians have to use the waters of the state.  Since the waters are a publicly owned resource, no single individual has a right to own the water outright as property, but rather has a right to make a reasonable use of the resource so that others can also make use of it. 

34. When it rains, our streams run red with mud due to lack of enforcement of existing water regulations.  Is the Georgia Water Coalition doing anything to improve this situation?  The Georgia Water Coalition’s report recommends an increase in enforcement of Georgia’s Erosion and Sedimentation laws and regulations.  Among other things, the Georgia Water Coalition supports funding for additional enforcement positions.  In the last two years, the legislature has not fully allocated fees for erosion and sedimentation permits to fund EPD enforcement positions, as required by House Bill 285, which passed in 2003.  We encourage the General Assembly to make sure that the fees are put to their intended uses. 

35. Why are vegetated buffers important?  Natural vegetated buffers protect water quality, filter storm water, provide flood control, prevent erosion, and serve as wildlife habitat.  Statewide requirements for maintaining buffers have been weakened over time, harming both the natural systems and the property owners and water users downstream of developments that encroach into the buffer.  This trend should be reversed, and we should provide more protection for our water resources through the use of vegetated buffers along streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. 

36. What’s wrong with building water supply reservoirs?  Why is the Georgia Water Coalition advocating that they be considered only as a last resort for water supply?  Many people view reservoirs as great recreation places.  Reservoirs can also provide drinking water as well as flood control.  However, reservoirs also upset the ecological balance of river systems by creating artificial barriers to natural water flow and movement of aquatic organisms.  These barriers result in increased siltation and often increased pollution downstream, since less water is available to dilute and flush out pollutant levels and to recharge groundwater supply aquifers.  Furthermore, reservoirs can actually waste water, since the increased surface area of lakes results in higher levels of evaporation, so that water leaves the river basin and does not return.  As an example, one study has found that the existence of Lake Lanier has increased water loss in its land area by 33 percent, an amount equal to the daily water supply for about 170,000 Georgia residents.[4]  Reservoirs also reduce the stream flow downstream of the dam or intake structure, resulting in a permanent state of drought flow on some rivers and creeks.  There is a particular risk of this until Georgia establishes a permanent instream flow policy that protects the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of our waterways.  For these reasons, the Georgia Water Coalition does not favor new reservoirs as a quick fix to the water-supply problem, but rather only as a last resort, after strategies such as conservation, the use of water already impounded but not used for supply, and water reuse have been exhausted.  In a time when some dams in the United States are actually coming down, Georgia should not be focused on building more reservoirs.   

37. What’s wrong with interbasin transfers?  Aren’t they a way to get water to people who need it without building reservoirs?  “Interbasin transfer” is a term that describes the removal of water from one river basin to be used and discharged into a different river basin.  The Georgia Water Coalition recommends that the state should grant new interbasin transfers only under extenuating circumstances, and only when the applicant is in full compliance with all state and regional water management plans, including requirements for water conservation.  Interbasin transfers disrupt the natural distribution of water into different river basins, starving the basin from which the water is taken and changing its natural chemical and biological makeup. They also pipe more water into the receiving basin than it is naturally able to accept, likewise changing its natural chemical and biological composition.  

38. What is the Georgia Water Coalition’s position on water conservation?  The Georgia Water Coalition recommends that the state aggressively implement water conservation as the state’s first and least expensive supply source.   The state and its agencies must become models for conservation and efficient use of its water supplies. 

39. What is a consumptive use?  A consumptive use is one in which the water used is not returned to a water body.  Consumptive uses include septic tanks and evaporative losses from applications like industrial cooling.  Consumptive uses should be discouraged. 

40. Does the Georgia Water Coalition’s believe that outdoor watering bans are an effective conservation measure?  No.  Watering bans occur when water conservation and efficiency planning fail.  Per person, Georgians use 10 percent more water than the national average.  Water conservation is more than watering bans and low-flow toilets.  We can do many things to use our water more efficiently that would result in less overall water usage, with no impact on quality of life.  A good example of this is implementing watering restrictions, such as only allowing watering to occur on specified days of the week, act to reduce our overall outdoor usage of waters.  Watering bans that prohibit all outdoor usage are one way to reduce water usage, but they are by no means the only way or even the most effective. 

41. Where do the tri-state water wars fit into all of this?  What about South Carolina?   The tri-state water compacts (officially known as the Interstate Water Compacts negotiations) would have established limits on the amount of water available to Georgia (and Alabama and Florida) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) basins.  The negotiations broke down, and both Compacts have been allowed to expire over the past two years.  The courts will now have to decide how the water in these basins will be allocated among the three states, and Georgia’s choice of water management systems will have implications for the upcoming legal battles.  On the other side of the state, Georgia has recently begun discussions with South Carolina over allocation of water in the Savannah River Basin.  We hope that these bi-state discussions will not devolve into protracted court battles and that the ultimate agreement respects the ecology of the river system.