Please update your links! Our new website url is http://masglp.olemiss.edu . This old website will soon cease to exist!

The Tri-State Water Wars: An Interview with Trey Glenn, Division Director of the Alabama Office of Water Resources

Amanda M. Beard, 3L

The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Compact (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Compact (ACT) were formed in 1997 by the states of Alabama, Georgia and Florida as a forum to reach an agreement on how the shared water resources of the three states should be allocated.1 Despite years of negotiation, an agreement on water allocation has yet to be reached, therefore earning the water allocation process the nickname of "Tri-State Water Wars." With the next negotiation deadline set for January 31, 2003, Water Log contacted Trey Glenn, the Division Director of the Alabama Office of Water Resources, to find out what to expect from the latest round of ACF negotiations.

Water Log: Could you please provide us with some information on your department?

Glenn: The Office of Water Resources (OWR) was established in 1993 under the Alabama Water Resources Act as a division within the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). ADECA is the primary planning and grants management agency for the State of Alabama and provides a natural fit for OWR. Through its legislative mandate, OWR is chartered with planning, coordination, development and management of Alabama's water resources, both ground and surface water in a manner that is in the best interest of the State of Alabama. The Act also specifically chartered OWR with the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the state any interstate water-related issues.

Water Log: What exactly is your department's role in the ACF Negotiations?

Glenn: OWR provides technical support and advice to the Governor and the Alabama Negotiating Team. We work closely with counterparts in the other states and the federal agencies to ensure close coordination on technical issues and modeling approaches. OWR will also be the agency in Alabama responsible for the monitoring of any agreement and complying with any reporting provisions that may be established.
Water Log: What is the real issue behind the ACF negotiations?

Glenn: There is not one single issue behind this negotiation; rather a multitude of legal and technical perspectives. Simply put, Alabama wants to ensure there is an equitable allocation of the surface waters of the ACF Basin.

Water Log: What has happened in the process so far?

Glenn: This process began with a lawsuit by the State of Alabama against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1990. Since that time there has been a formal comprehensive study conducted by the States of Alabama, Florida and Georgia and the Corps of Engineers to look at both water availability and water demands. That led to the agreement to pursue interstate compacts in both the ACT and ACF Basins. Those compacts, passed under an agreement to develop the allocation formulas for each, are still being negotiated under extensions to the original deadlines. The current deadline in the ACF Compact is January 31, 2003.

Water Log: Who else is involved in the negotiation process?

Glenn: Along with representatives from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the U.S. government, are a multitude of stakeholders including public and private groups, local and regional governmental organizations and individual citizens. There are processes by each individual state and the federal government to ensure that stakeholder inputs are encouraged. Negotiation meetings are heavily advertised and are all open to the public.

Water Log: Why have the ACF negotiations been so prolonged?

Glenn: As mentioned above, this process is complex because of numerous legal and technical issues. Those issues range from how to protect and preserve existing and projected water uses, to maintaining the ecosystems, protecting water quality, how to best operate a complex series of reservoirs, and ensuring adequate streamflows to the downstream states. This requires extensive technical analysis and baseline in-formation.

Water Log: What has been the major source of delay?

Glenn: There are a number of factors contributing to the length of this process. The complexity of the issues is probably the most significant. However, the technical analysis has required a great deal of close coordination. It has also taken time to establish the dialogue necessary to ensure that each state has articulated its position on various issues and to allow representatives of the federal government to express their views on various proposals.

Water Log: Why were the negotiations extended to January, 2003, a longer time period than the original 60-day time frame?

Glenn: In addition to the normal aspects of a complex negotiation, there are specific aspects relating to the updating of the unimpaired flow data set needed for the technical analysis and modeling issues involving specific reservoir operations and hydrologic assumptions. The longer extension should allow the time to complete the unimpaired flow data set and accomplish the modeling necessary to support the negotiations.

Water Log: What is Alabama's position in relation to that of the other two states?

Glenn: Alabama has been clear and forthright with our positions and objectives throughout the ACF negotiation. Those specific objectives in-clude: adequate flows at Phenix City, Alabama and Columbia, Ala-bama; protections for waste assimilation and water resource permitting in the middle reach of the Chat- tahoochee River; assurance that authorized project purposes for the Corps' projects (i.e. hydropower, flood control, navigation) will be preserved; protections of elevations at West Point Lake and Lake Eufaula; and, finally, ensuring that aspects of the agreement and implementation, including COE operations and updated water control plans, do not adversely impact the goals listed above.

Water Log: What is the Governor's office involvement in the ACF negotiations?

Glenn: Governor Don Siegelman is Alabama's ACF Commissioner and has been very involved in this process. He has assigned key staff members to monitor the day to day progress in the negotiations as well as coordinating closely with the Alabama negotiators working on his behalf.

Water Log: What does the current negotiation process entail? Is it simply three separate proposals or is it a true negotiation process? In other words, how will a compromise ever be reached?

Glenn: The beneficial aspect of this process is that each state has had the opportunity to better understand the perspectives on water resources of each neighboring state. This has helped the parties in working together to resolve the remaining issues. However, each state still has a responsibility to its stakeholders to ensure that its position is clearly articulated to the others. As time has passed, we have been able to resolve many differences through the use of technical tools to develop a common understanding of the basin hydrology and decision impacts and how those impacts can be managed to best meet the various state and stakeholder needs across the ACF Basin.

Water Log: As the negotiation process continues, what are Alabama's current concerns? Have they changed as the process has been prolonged?
Glenn: Alabama's concerns for a fair and equitable allocation of these waters have not changed. The length of this process has shown the complexity of water resource decisions but it has not changed that basic mandate. It has also helped in the development of refined technical tools that can be applied to other areas of the state. This will help as we in Alabama look to ensure that effective statewide water resources management policies and processes are in place to support the needs of our citizens and our state.

ENDNOTES
1. For a detailed look at the Water Wars debate, see Shaw, Sharing Water in Alabama, Georgia and Florida: An Update in the Tri-State Water Wars, 21:2 Water Log, 10-11 (2001).

University of Mississippi