Interbasin Transfers of Water

Alabama Water ResourcesConference 2012Dargan “Scott” Cole, Sr.

Hall Booth Smith & Slover, P.C.191 Peachtree Street, Suite 2900

Atlanta, Georgia 30303Email: DSCole@hbss.net Phone: 404-954-6924

Definition of Interbasin TransferDefinition of Interbasin Transfer

The withdrawal or diversion of water from one river basin, followed by use and/or return of some or all of that water to a second river

basin.

Potential benefits of an IBTPotential benefits of an IBT

• The increased ability to meet growing:– Residential demands– Agricultural demands– Hydropower demands– Commercial and industrial demands– Demand for assimilative capacity– Flood control demands

Potential impacts of an IBTPotential impacts of an IBT

• Potential changes to:– Natural flow regimes– Assimilative capacity– Aquatic habitat– Riparian habitat– Recreational benefits– Ability to satisfy future water supply demands:

• Residential• Commercial and Industrial• Agricultural

Existing Interbasin TransfersExisting Interbasin Transfers

Boston IBT from the Connecticut River Basin

http://coosa.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/interbasin-transfers-in-georgia.jpg

Responses to the increased use of interbasin transfers• Litigation

• Restriction

• Prohibition

Litigation

• New Jersey v. New York – 283 U.S. 336 (1931)– Delaware River

• Connecticut v. Massachusetts – 282 U.S. 660 (1931)– Connecticut River

• South Carolina v. North Carolina – Docket No. 138, Orig.(2010)– Catawba River

Restriction

• Many states, including most in the southeast, have recognized the need to manage and control interbasin transfers. These include: – Arkansas (ACA §15-22-304), – Florida (Consumptive Use Permits, FL Stat. §373.219;

IBT of Groundwater, FL Stat. §373.2295), – Georgia (OCGA §12-5-31), – North Carolina (General Statute G.S. §143-215.22I),– South Carolina (Title 49, Chapter 21), and – Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §69-7-201 et seq.).

Water Management Issues in Alabama (August 1, 2012)

• Signed into law October 3, 2008

• Prohibits new IBTs except:– Communities that lie partially

with the basin– Diversions between sub-

watersheds within the Great Lakes Watershed

– Communities outside the basin but in a county that lies partially within the basin

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact

Types of IBTsTypes of IBTs

• Intra-CityIntra-City

• Intra-CountyIntra-County

• RegionalRegional

• Large long-rangeLarge long-range

Intra-City IBTs

Intra-County IBTs

Regional IBTs

Long Range IBTs

Alabama Interbasin Transfers

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/SHC/stories/images/ClaiborneDamCOEphoto.jpg

• Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Basin (ACT)

– Georgia– Alabama

• Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin (ACF)

– Georgia– Alabama– Florida

Alabama IBTs

• In 2005 legislation was passed that prohibited the transfer of water from the Tennessee River Basin within Marshall County under certain conditions. H.B. 709, 2005 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2005)

• Nearly identical bills passed for Jackson, Madison, Morgan, Lawrence, Limestone, Colbert, and Lauderdale in the following years, thereby banning interbasin transfers in all 8 counties that the Tennessee River flows through in Alabama.

Water management Issue in Alabama (August 1, 2012)Interbasin Transfer Considerations:

• A number of IBTs currently exist in Alabama and have existed for many years. Specific numbers are not known since there is no monitoring or reporting requirement. The exact number would also depend on the size of the basin defined.

• There is limited case law directly addressing the subject of interbasin transfers inAlabama. However, in a letter dated April 29, 2004, vetoing the Marshall County IBTlocal legislation (HB596), the legal advisor to former Governor Riley asserted theillegality of some IBTs under existing Alabama law.

• IBTs can be problematic in that they contribute to unsustainable growth (e.g. Atlanta) as greater quantities of water from outside watersheds are required for expanded consumption and future demands.

• IBTs can create permanent and significant detrimental impacts to water quantity and water quality.

• Many states, including most in the southeast, have recognized the need to manage and control interbasin transfers.

Assumed Water

Transfer Destination

Point of

Withdrawal

Assumed Transfer

(2030) (mgd)

North Georgia and Atlanta

Chickamauga 264

Blount County–Birmingham, Alabama

Guntersville 180

Northeast Mississippi Pickwick 17

TVA’s 2004 EIS: Section D9Inter-Basin Transfers—A Sensitivity Analysis

108mgd

600mgd

180mgd

264mgd

126mgd

American Farmland Trust

Conclusions• IBTs are a long-time, widespread water management

resource.

• With the emphasis on developing regional resources, including agricultural and commercial opportunities, IBTs will continue to have a place in water management policy.

• But, due to the potential impacts to the donor basin, in the near-term IBTs will continue to generate discussion, controversy and litigation.

• Alabama has the ability to take advantage of long-range, high volume existing and proposed IBTs have the potential to benefit south Alabama’s agricultural communities.