Florida backs out of Georgia water pact

Following up on our previous report about drought conditions around the South and particularly the Atlanta area which now has only an estimated 80 day supply of water left, Florida has backed out of an agreement that would have let Georgia reduce discharges from Lake Lanier to increase Georgia's water supply.

The agreement, brokered between Georgia, Florida, and Alabama by Bush administration officials at a recent White House meeting, would have instructed the Corps of Engineers to reduce the flow going to Florida by 2.7 billion gallons per day, or 16% according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

The article quotes the head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as saying that reducing the Chattahoochee River flow would "cause irreparable harm to Gulf sturgeon and federally protected mussel populations" and "would not only precipitate a catastrophic collapse of the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay but also displace the entire economy of the Bay region."

The article also says the agreement was pending a Fish and Wildlife Services assessment of possible impact to marine life downstream. Florida did not wait for their report, which was due Thursday, before nixing the deal.

In a Reuters article, the Southern Environmental Law Center says framing the argument as "man v. mussels" is, well, a red herring:

The drought plaguing parts of at least seven U.S. states in the Southeast has to do with exploding demand in some of the fastest growing areas of the United States, breakneck urban development that has paved over acres of natural wetlands, and poor planning by local authorities.

"It's very misleading when the debate is framed as people versus mussels," said Gil Rogers, a staff attorney in Atlanta for the Southern Environmental Law Center.

What politicians in the Southeast need to do is to look at the way "we're growing and whether there is water to maintain the lifestyle we all want," Rogers said. "Our political leadership has blinkers on when it comes to anything that might get in the way of unrestricted development."

In related news, presidential candidates are reluctant to wade in to the water wars, for fear that pitting one region's interests against another's might poison the well.

The Associated Press asked the leading candidates to weigh in. The Giuliani, Thompson, and Edwards campaigns did not respond.

Clinton said she would oppose tapping the Great Lakes, and "would not overrule a state's lawful right to protect its water supplies." McCain would also protect the Great Lakes, and would focus on conservation and new storage projects. Romney said a recent Western water sharing agreement was a good example for other regions. Obama said the federal government should be a "fair dealer" and should create a national water use and conservation plan.

Richardson stepped on a land mine when he previously suggest that Wisconsin was "awash in water." He later backtracked saying he did not mean to imply that Great Lakes water should be pumped to other states, and that states should be "swapping ideas, not their water."

The AP article says:

Yet sidestepping the problem is a luxury that presidential candidates won't have forever, Duke University political scientist David Rohde said. Population is surging in the arid West, where water shortages are chronic, and in the Southeast, where the drought has prompted spats between neighboring states.

The government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of rising temperatures and evaporation rates, lack of rain, urban sprawl, waste and overuse.

Meanwhile, we're still praying for rain down here in the parched South. Literally.